@ Packetcap,

I tend to agree with you about our military capabilities. How soon we forget that we were utterly unprepared to go into Iraq the first or and certainly the second time, and suffered tremendous casualties due to change in enemy tactics, especially use of IEDs. We used "modern" mechanized warfare (bust through and speed into the back of the enemy's defenses). All that we really did was bust through an open door, and allow our rear area units (softly protected) to get picked off. We conquered nothing by speeding through the desert, Basically walked into an ambush that lasted years.

The Russians seem to have learned that lesson. Better to slog through and take care of all business up front, instead of leaving enemy remnants behind in your rear to mop up and cause trouble later.

Plus, they are using the age-old concept of "shell shock" with massive arty bombardment, which is basically like putting brains in a blender. I knew vets from Vietnam who spoke of carpet bombing by B-52s. It wasn't the shrapnel that did the damage....it was the concussions from the blasts. That alone would knock down cement walls, even from a distance. This is also spoken of by returning mercs who got exposed to this type of fire. We in the west prefer smart bombs of course. And the last time mass arty was used against us in this fashion was probably WW2.

I would say this war is more like WW1 than WW2, complete with trench warfare and all. Just with a modern twist. The west mistook the slow speed of the Russians as failure, as our doctrine is speed at all costs. A common refrain is "who gets their first-est with the most-est wins". No doubt the Russians had their foibles (the enemy always gets a vote).....but their plan is unmistakably working. And they are only using a fraction of their military. I would not trust any analyst in the MSM as they are proven liars, as the results increasingly show. I am still waiting for the Russians to run out of ammo.