After quick reading, can't say I agree with this author. Article contains a lot of broad statement presented as facts without any confirmations or without any mentions of disadvantages. For...
After quick reading, can't say I agree with this author. Article contains a lot of broad statement presented as facts without any confirmations or without any mentions of disadvantages.
For example:
Russian infantry face similar dangers, but with a few more escape routes. If they joined through volunteer units, they can leave when their contracts end. That's not true for their regular soldiers – mobilization laws keep them locked in indefinitely. Meanwhile, Ukrainian infantry have even fewer options – one year of combat duty stretches into two, then three, with no end in sight.
How exactly "keep them locked in indefinitely" is different from "one year of combat duty stretches into two, then three"? Also, how did author come up with idea that Ukraine infantry initially mobilized for only one year of duty? And there a lot of similar "a bit skewed" facts presented in article.
"Ukraine broken system practically impossible to fix", "Russia in a better position", "Ukraine serious command problem", "implemented solution (by Ukraine) creates chaos on the battlefield"... in every part of the article.
To be honest I only skimmed last part of article with solutions. Very conveniently each presented solution does not have any downsides.
Each presented solution requires more people, more time and more money. And honestly, I`m not sure that Ukraine have a lot of these resources.
Upd: I was wrong, disadvantages clearly mentioned in the end of article.
I don’t know what’s really going on in Ukraine and don’t have any reason to dismiss the claims in the article: maybe they’re true? If you have better information, feel free to share.
I don’t know what’s really going on in Ukraine and don’t have any reason to dismiss the claims in the article: maybe they’re true? If you have better information, feel free to share.
Sorry for a late answer, basically, my main issue with such articles is that situations and solutions in a real world practically never strictly black or white. There always some nuances that easy...
Sorry for a late answer, basically, my main issue with such articles is that situations and solutions in a real world practically never strictly black or white. There always some nuances that easy to omit if you want to create a specific picture.
After quick reading, can't say I agree with this author. Article contains a lot of broad statement presented as facts without any confirmations or without any mentions of disadvantages.
For example:
How exactly "keep them locked in indefinitely" is different from "one year of combat duty stretches into two, then three"? Also, how did author come up with idea that Ukraine infantry initially mobilized for only one year of duty? And there a lot of similar "a bit skewed" facts presented in article.
"Ukraine broken system practically impossible to fix", "Russia in a better position", "Ukraine serious command problem", "implemented solution (by Ukraine) creates chaos on the battlefield"... in every part of the article.
To be honest I only skimmed last part of article with solutions.
Very conveniently each presented solution does not have any downsides.Each presented solution requires more people, more time and more money. And honestly, I`m not sure that Ukraine have a lot of these resources.
Upd: I was wrong, disadvantages clearly mentioned in the end of article.
I don’t know what’s really going on in Ukraine and don’t have any reason to dismiss the claims in the article: maybe they’re true? If you have better information, feel free to share.
Sorry for a late answer, basically, my main issue with such articles is that situations and solutions in a real world practically never strictly black or white. There always some nuances that easy to omit if you want to create a specific picture.
Huh, that’s weird.
Looks like it's back again.