news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

three years without victory, don't blame putin! how terrible is the russian-ukrainian battlefield? 8 indian armies have been wiped out

the russian army has been criticized for its performance in the three-year conflict between russia and ukraine. for example, it underestimated the enemy and rushed forward in all directions in the early stage. as a result, after the failure of the direct attack on huanglong, it had to shrink the front line and carry out key attacks, relying on attrition warfare to gradually erode the ukrainian army's positions. if it were not for its strong comprehensive national strength, i am afraid putin would have really "capsized in the ditch". on the other hand, although the ukrainian army is not as strong as the russian army and continues to retreat in positional warfare, it can also seize the opportunity to fight a surprise battle such as the kharkov victory and force the russian army to withdraw from the right bank of the dnieper river. in terms of tactics and fighting style, it seems that the ukrainian army is "more worth watching".

so, did the russian army really fight badly? it depends on the perspective and who you are comparing it with. for example, if we look at it from the perspective of combat performance, the russian army's performance is not "bad". it has currently occupied four states in ukraine and is still advancing. according to russian officials, the russian army has destroyed more than 600 ukrainian fixed-wing aircraft, nearly 300 helicopters, 30,000 drones, more than 17,000 tanks, armored vehicles and more than 14,000 various artillery pieces. judging from these results and combat records, i'm afraid we can't say that the russian army's performance is very poor or very bad.