This is a long one to do on mobile. Just to start
Fox/CNN/NPR/NYT/WaPo etc
Even if I had cable I wouldn't watch them, listen to them or read them.
Right, even before getting sanctioned to Iran/NK levels, they struggled fielding a modern army/air force/navy
Russia never intended on having a powerful airforce. They knew that they could not compete with NATO, hence why they spent their time on anti-air defense. The S-500 is quite awesome. Hell, Turkey got sanctioned for buying some S-400's since nothing else was better at the time.
Also for army, Russia tends to just throw bodies at the enemy and it seems to work. They have 3 million military now, one third active two third reserve. That's a lot of bodies.
Yeah, hypersonic seems mostly like vanity projects
No current tech can shoot down a descending hypersonic missile. It would take minutes to take out the entire US Pacific Fleet.
Some estimates i've heard is that about 1/4 of NATO equipment sent to neighbor country ends up in Russia either by sale, gift or siezure.
Yeah that's anon data, but take for example what US troops leave behind when retreating bases and fortified areas. 82 billion in Afganistan. Why wouldn't Ukraine leave the heavy stuff behind when running from certain death? They know they'll get more.
No current tech can shoot down a descending hypersonic missile. It would take minutes to take out the entire US Pacific Fleet.
Same is true for MIRVed ICBMs in quantities > 5 or so already. Toss in MIRVs, SLBM, and decoys and they are still practically invulnerable. Ok, they wouldn't use ICBMs for the carrier groups, but they would certainly take out Pearl Harbor etc that way and they have tons of ant-shipping missiles (that they happen to be burning through right now for land strikes on Ukraine since they're depleting all other guided munitoins, lol) that would take out the carriers at sea or force them so far offshore as to be irrelevant in the conflict. And it's inevitable that's how a major conflict between Russian and NATO would end up anyway, so whether a carrier group gets taken out by a 200kt nuke, forced from the theater, or destroyed at mach 8 from a hypersonic conventional missile becomes largely irrelevant.
Yeah that's anon data, but take for example what US troops leave behind when retreating bases and fortified areas. 82 billion in Afganistan. Why wouldn't Ukraine leave the heavy stuff behind when running from certain death?
Come on Jobes, do better than that. Don't just trust anonymous posts and telegram chatter and shitty quality photos of a 20 captured Javelin's stacked on top of hundreds of 7.62x39 spam cans. The only place for that kind of intelligence is when curated and combined like from Oryx. Unfortunately Oryx isn't updating anymore, but by last count Russia has lost and abandoned an absolute shit ton of equipment, so this once again looks like a weird projection from Russia in this claim. By my count, Russia is the clear winner of the "running from certain death" and abandoning equipment category. Funny enough, I've seen a lot of intel that Ukraine has actually increased their numbers of MBTs since the start of the conflict due to captures, while Russia's losses are truly massive. Russia really can't continue burning through equipment at this rate, even with their large, rotting inventories in Siberia of non-functioning and obsolete equipment.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
You've also got the analogy wrong if you think Ukraine is America's Afghanistan. Strangely NATO troops are not on the ground occupying a hostile foreign country getting shot at and killed. That's the Russian solders in this scenario. The closer comparison is this will be a repeat of the USSR's Afghanistan by getting bogged down in land they can't occupy and with a steady flow of arms for the insurgents. But really Afghanistan has almost nothing in comparison to the current conflict (objectives, especially geography, people, language, equipment, etc) so it's a dumb comparison anyway.
Kremlin propaganda logic assumes people are dumb and just go "hurr, America is a weak, declining empire that just left behind tons of equipment in Afghanistan 6 months ago. Ukrainian people secretly hate the West and have no motivation for independence and would gladly welcome us. They'll crumble just like Afghanistan did in 3 days and the US will be embarrassed again". So far I think we've conclusively seen if that wold view turned out to be true and based on reality. Time to reevaluate the credibility of that perspective and all other dubious claims made from that side.
Right, even before getting sanctioned to Iran/NK levels, they struggled fielding a modern army/air force/navy. One of the outcomes of this whole fiasco is Russia fades away in power and doesn't have enough money to rebuild a modern army or has to cut back to their expensive but largely excessive nuclear arsenal. Alternatively, China might bail them out or prop them up like NK. The Chinese are absolutely ruthless, opportunistic, and self-serving (basically like the Farengi), so they would certainly get their pound of flesh in that deal and make Russia their little bitch. They essentially become a useful club to wield or threaten against the west and keep the west distracted and as a huge buffer zone, but Russia is obviously reduced from a Great Power in such a relationship to a big mining colony. Either way, that's one hell of a price for "showing it to the West". Irrational and self-destructive behavior on Russia's part.
Yeah, hypersonic seems mostly like vanity projects. "Wow, we can destroy them in 15 minutes vs the 30 minutes of our existing missiles get there." Does this upset the strategic balance of power or grant significant, new military capabilities? Not really, at least not right now until you've brought the costs down and have it massively deployed. I'm sure generals in the field would take functioning supply lines, intelligence, combined arms, systems integrations, etc over hypersonic if given the choice. That sure makes for good PR though. I'm sure the MIC is dumping tons of resources into it either way, and maybe there will be important applications in 10 years.
Does that really seem plausible to you? Are there any legitimate sources or evidence backing such bold claims? Surely if something like that were happening at that scale it would be easily exposed and we'd see full trains of seized NATO gear, right? Russians would be parading the captured NATO gear around Red Square and rubbing it in our noses in front of the whole world or the UN in the same way there are captured Russian tanks sitting on expo in Warsaw and Berlin. How is Ukraine still defending itself and how is Russia advancing so slowly (or withdrawing in other areas) if there is such corruption and low morale at this scale? Or wait, other similar "rumors" I've seen said NATO itself has troops in Ukraine and is fighting, so which is it? I searched and found a 1 month old MSN fact checking article (lol I know) and some typical bitchute-tier videos claiming this but that's it.
Given that I'm not a mindless NPC viewer of CNN, I check out a variety of forums and sources from different ideological agendas. I've seen these vague claims and speculations but never with anything approaching a reputable source. It strikes me as both very unlikely prima facie but also fully in line with typical Russian propaganda claims intended to sow distrust and doubt but not really be believable. I've seen some photos of some captured Javelins (the kind of thing that happens to both sides in wars like this), but that's not what we're talking about here. The thought of Russia rearming itself with NATO gear would certainly be the plot twist of the century but it's obviously ridiculous. Please write these kind of bold claims down in a notebook and come back in 1 month to a year when there has been ample time to evaluate if they are true or just glownigger disinfo. I've found this approach exceptionally good, simple, and not time intensive for evaluating these kind of sources and assessing credibility (e.g. McAfee, Kim Dotcom, Qanon, Trump, ZeroHedge, Faucci). Let the written records and time do the work for you for free because certain groups like to flood you with bs and hope you'll get distracted by the next moving claim once the original looks false. Judge harshly the sources if they ended up peddling unsubstantiated nonsense with such tactics.
As a side note, I've noticed lots of similarities between Russian propaganda and social media talking points and with QAnon in terms of the style, tactics, and modes of operations (e.g. persecuted hero complex against the corrupt elite, a barrage of claims that get forgotten by followers a few weeks later, bizarre/illogical/improbable claims, self-contradicting lies in the claims, shady and untrustworthy individuals associated with the whole operation). I'm not a big believer in the status quo and big institutions like the New York Times when looking for truth but it's foolish to instead treat the other side with less skepticism. Food for thought when reading and evaluating claims. But if we're going to criticize the NYT for how it got Iraq wrong, etc, we need to also credibly evaluate the track record of forums like Voat, pol, or ZeroHedge. Those places are good for getting alternative viewpoints that the MSM doesn't cover, but it would be big cringe to take them as more credible just because they're reporting bold, interesting, or ideologically favorable rumors--especially if we reaching for everything that passes as a rumor or opinion there. Realistically the signal to noise ratio is outrageously bad there and we need to be just as discerning and skeptical (or even more) than when viewing Fox/CNN/NPR/NYT/WaPo etc.
In summary, I find these kind of Russian claims both highly implausible and having a really bad track record at both being true and for making predictions about the future.