In general the sheer lack of planning and unpreparedness on Russia's part prior to starting this war is incredible. There wasn't a single level-headed person in the government or military, who, even if they thought the war was a stupid idea to begin woth, would have at least suggested the country prepare for a large-scale invasion before starting it?
No wargaming or alternate plans in the event the rapid strike failed? The Allies felt confident in ultimate victory over Germany but they still rehearsed and planned out Operation Overlord for a year prior to launching it. And even then Eisenhower still wrote up an alternative speech in the event the landings failed.
Russia's handled this about as well as Iraq handled Iran, and we were arming the Iraqis!
The truly mind-boggling part is Russia DID have wargames in Belarus for the Blitzkreig invasion of Ukraine a few months before, which was taken as empty saber rattling. There were 3rd party observers, iirc Estonians, and the Russian performance in the wargames was hampered by (big shock) shit logistics especially for fuel.
This is why when the balloon went up, everyone's analysis was "If they are invading this soon after war games, CLEARLY that means they're applying the lessons learned." only to see that Russia applied zero lessons from the dress rehersal.
TBH so did everyone else. Ukraine was supposed to fall in 2 weeks. Even the USA assumed it would. Everything was geared towards an Afghanistan style insurgency. Not a full on Slav World War 1. The Russian Army could get away with alot of shit precisely because it had never, and ostensibly never would, get into a great power war with a peer power. If it actually got into a fight with the USA there would be nukes so in the end and deficiencies would never matter.
I sperged on this before, but Ukraine is a unique, never to be replicated situation. In nearly any other possible battlefield or opponents, Airpower would be in play and render WWI battles untenable. As it is, both sides are able to render the other's airpower to at best a supporting role.
Ukraine was the USSR's bastion against NATO, the CFE treaty actually calls out Ukraine specifically for limits on the number of troops/tanks that could be stationed there. In the event of war with NATO it was expected to get hit hard - airwings from Greece, Turkey and Med couldn't reach Moscow or northern supply routes. Russia could not match NATO airpower, so it was absolutely rotten with S300 systems. Those systems largely stayed with Ukraine, since Ukraine was very aligned with Russia still - if NATO decided to start wildin', even if Ukraine didn't come directly to Russia's aid, they'd defend their airspace and provide a bulwark. Which is why they were being provided with S400s.
Now, the S300 is a good SAM system, lets be clear. It is lethal against 3rd gen fighters, a threat to 4th gen, but was not designed to deal with the challenge of 5th generation fighters like the S400 is.
So if Ukraine had been attacked by NATO, their anti-air capabilities, while impressive, would have been depleted by ECM-toting 4th gen and 5th gen fighters.
Russia however, despite their Cope, has sucked ass at jets. The Mig-17 and Mig-21 are the only platforms could be considered peer to their American contemporaries, and its been down hill ever since. The Mig-29 eventually became alright, and the Su-27/31 families are fine platforms, but they are not Raptors and can barely keep up with F-16s. Russia has no 5th Generation fighter, and lack the airframes, pilot skill, and weapons. The fact Ukraine is getting fed AWACS data about everything Russia puts into the air definitely doesn't help matters either.
PTSD is one of those things that's been a lot longer than people think- IIRC one ancient chronicler mentions something along the lines of a greek (or macedonian I don't remember) hoplite who 'upon seeing his friend being killed next to him was struck blind'.
Many soldiers historically come back from wars effected in one way or another, but it of course was first widely bought to attention as 'Shell shock'- with the advent of modern war and constant shelling, it was like some of you up there have said, impossible to switch off, as death could come whistling from the sky at any moment.
[...]
This is KF though, so I don't really know if it's the right place to be worrying about human costs.
I read a PTSD study that made sense to be and to tl;dr the issue with modern PTSD is how safe & crowded civilian life is. The battlefield is just as deadly, but previously you could just die at any time -disease, criminals, industrial accidents - and there was nothing to be done. Even through WWII, there was a good chance you personally knew someone who was injured by farm machinery. You accepted your mortality, and there was always a background of danger.
Now, civilian life is so impossibly safe. You go from always on die at any moment to complete safety. There's no middle ground. And there are fewer options for living in a low-density getting used to not being shot at or bombed environment.
