It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
Russians are employing this dastardly new technology called "mines" which no army on earth has encountered before, least of all those of the NATO members like France, Germany and the UK.
Curious. They claim NATO exists as self defense against a peer enemy, yet their strategies only work against small, relatively defenseless countries!
NATO is forcing completely absurd tactics and strategies on the Ukrainians that has cost tens of thousands of lives, and this is why we need to support Ukraine even more with more NATO training and wonderweapons!
The Ukrainians are much better trained than the Russians! It's just the fact that the Russians are cheating by having a MIC of their own
You see, we are experts at a tactical doctrine that has been optimized to brutally crush the forces of third world nations after a decade of sanctions. I think it's silly to expect us to be ready to face a foe with as many or more bombs than us, but this doctrine has led us to victory for decades.
I am now hearing that our strategy didn't even exactly work when recently applied in Afghanistan, or back in Vietnam, and Iraq is a coin toss as well, but what's important is that we're experts in it. For example, we successfully reduced Libya to a Mad Max style country in record time, and we're working on repeating that success in Ukraine.
And in the end, what really matters is we made a lot of value for the shareholders in the military industrial complex. 
I love soviet tactics, its literally finding out countering western overcomplicated and extremely expensive wunderwaffen with the cheapest shit
super advanced jets? outfly these 9 missiles that we can replace instantly
Long distance stealth bombers? Attach rocket boosters to a plane that scares the US for decades
Its hilarious 
Oh you're doing some weird thing where you amass all your force in one point in order to cause a breakthrough, which you then push as far as you can? We make deep battle lines and disrupt your logistical capabilities.
Oh you've got super fancy tanks? Have you heard of landmines?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64855760
There are no mines, it's all just shovels. The Ukrainian forces step on the shovels and get hit in the face. Russian shovel technology is too advanced for NATOists to overcome.
The russians don't have hypersonic missiles, they're just really good at throwing shovels super hard and super far and super fast
"My superior training assumes you punch yourself multiple times in the face."
NATO tactics assume air superiority.
I keep harping on this point again and again because I really cannot get across how fucking stupid it is: YOU DO NOT ASSUME AIR SUPREMACY OVER ANOTHER NATION'S AIRSPACE, YOU FUCKING INCOMPETENT IDIOTS. YOU CANNOT PROJECT AIR POWER 500 MILES DEEP INTO A NATION WITH A COMPREHENSIVE AIR DEFENSE NETWORK, RADARS, AND SAM SITES. YOUR STEALTH TECHNOLOGY IS NOT INVINCIBLE, AND YOUR SHITTY OVERPRICED BULLSHIT F-35 WILL GET SHOT DOWN AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND THIS IS WHY YOU REFUSE TO DEPLOY THEM ON ACTUAL FRONTLINES.
Then again, since NATO keeps doubling-down on this idea it just means they're more likely to get fucking annihilated anytime they fight a near-peer in conventional warfare, so critical support to the failson Wunderwaffen generals I guess?
The assumption is nonsense but completely consistent with NATO transforming itself from a force designed to fight a peer military to a glorified colonial gendarmarie following the collapse of the USSR. They drank their own Kool Aid about the end of history and are paying for it now.
I think it says a lot about the countries NATO has been fighting that something like "assume air superiority" isn't laughed out of the room. It's because they are mostly in the business of destroying third world nations and haven't fought wars nearly so much as campaigns to exterminate resistance.
I'm sorry but no amount of training on the Ukrainian side is going to make up for Russia producing 2.5 million shells a year, that's just the maths
I still want to know what level of brainworms would lead to them to smugly making a point, defeating that point extensively and then arriving to the conclusion that their point was absolutely correct. Its like their subconsciousness was trying to correct them mid post to no avail.
French aristocrat knights, c. 14th century: “how dare these English peasants shoot me with longbows!!! Where’s their chivalry!!!”
(Actual military history may vary)
"To teach them a lesson I will ride towards them, down this muddy hill while wearing sommuch armour I cannot stand up on my own. What could possibly go wrong?"
i know you're doing a bit, but only jousting armour was too heavy to stand in. would be hella shitty to be in full plate if you couldnt move 
One night I went down the youtube rabbit hole of dudes in full plate showing off their mobility. One dude even swam for a short time doing a sorta breast stroke thing.
"It's not fair because all of nato doctorine is based on fighting uprisings without existing state power or militaries"
If I'm remembering right that commentor went on to give a very optimistic prognosis for the counteroffensive. Arguing that because the first line of Russian defences near Robotyne had breached: Tokmak will be captured imminently, putting the entire Russian logistical network under threat and severing the land bridge to Crimea, which will then lead to the total collapse of Russian military power in southern Ukraine. It's a nice story but one completely divorced from the actual reality of the counteroffensive.
They're really putting themselves at risk by buying their own bullshit.
According to reddit libs only the first line is actual fighting conscripts then every line behind that is just to shoot retreating russians so once you break through the first line you can casually stroll to Moscow.
Gonna be really hard to explain why they haven't made any progress 6 months after "breaking the line" in the future.
Where’s the evidence that the Ukrainian soldiers have better training? Blind assumption that Western training is inherently superior?
Their reserve conscripts are no match for our army of forced volunteers!
It's because their training is higher quality, more extensive and better. It's just doing worse because they don't know how to fight the Russians, which they are trained better than they're just doing worse because the Russians are fighting in a way they're not trained to fight, they're trained to fight in a better way which is doing worse against the Russians because they're fighting differently which is worse than the way the Ukrainians are fighting which are doing worse because they're having issues with...
They say Russian POWs are complaining about lack of training, though they of course provide no source for this except for a general handwave of "plenty of interviewed." Others have posted a lot of different sources (with references!) which claim the Ukrainians are generally ill-equipped and barely-trained.
Their response? Ridiculous, the Russians can't be better trained than the Ukrainians because thebUkrainians are trained better than the Russians.
They say Russian POWs are complaining about lack of training, though they of course provide no source for this except for a general handwave of "plenty of interviewed." Others have posted a lot of different sources (with references!) which claim the Ukrainians are generally ill-equipped and barely-trained.
this is why you should never take much stock from what POWs say while in their enemy's custody. from neither Ukrainian nor Russian POWs. It's easy to be like "oh, but they should know! they're first-hand witnesses of what they're talking about!" and that can be true but there's no way of knowing if they've been threatened to say what they said, or if their words have been taken out of context, etc.
If a thousand POWs say nothing, but a single one says "Oh yeah, the Russian/Ukrainian Army actually is doing these horrific acts, I totes saw them doing it, they ordered me to do it, and uhh they're about to collapse!" then that singular opinion will be shouted from the rooftops and it will be generalized and taken as gospel by the opposing side. Propaganda is about emphasising certain facts or opinions over others, even if those certain facts or opinions are held by a tiny minority and are patently false.
Also there's an inverse survivorship bias going on here.
The least trained troops are going to be the most likely to be captured so what statements they make is going to be reflected by whatever the weaknesses happen to be that were contributing factors to them being captured.
They got overrun? Those who are captured are very likely to complain about lack of numbers and lack of support.
They were completely outmatched by better trained forces who used better tactics? Those who are captured are very likely going to complain about lack of training.
Their supply lines were interrupted? They're almost certainly going to complain about a lack of supply.
Never underestimate that those who are captured are probably going to be engaging in some degree of cope.
What you hear in the western narrative is largely shaped by all the strengths of the Ukrainian side and all the deficits of the Russian side (and these often get exaggerated and even universalised). But it's unusual to have much focus on the Ukrainian deficits and the Russian strengths.