h/t Rollory
From Russian troops in the field in Ukraine, now:
Top: current Russian Army issue first aid kit, med technology circa 1939.
Bottom: current Ukrainian forces issue kit, med technology circa 2019.
Draw your own conclusions on which one will work better. The Russian troops were apparently a tad bitter:
"This is what Putin and Shoigu have brought us to."
I bought a russian mre (the 24hr one) a few years ago and it had 1st aid supplies in with the food stuff. Antibiotic ountment, couple of bandages and a couple of aspirin.
ReplyDeleteThat kit above has less. It makes no sense. Its almost like Russia is playing a game, untrained troops, outdated vehicles, 30plus year old gubs and now ww2 surplus medical gear.
They have better gear why didnt the issue it?
Exile1981
I expect corruption plays a part. Think about it: you can spend X rubles to stockpile supplies to equip Y soldiers, or you can spend a fraction of that to equip the show'n'tell special ops types only, and the rest get WW2 surplus. That leaves a lot of spare money lying around for a smart cookie like you. And it's not as if those supplies are ever gonna be needed, right? Nobody'd be stupid enough to upset all the applecarts by starting a war when there's money to be raked off the top at every level of the system.
ReplyDeleteOf course the books show all the money was spent on what it was supposed to be and if anybody checks, why, you're shocked, shocked that there appears to be corruption in this institution.
In other news. add Major General Andrei Simonov to the list:
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1520479287995994112
There's one other thing I want to note. In a comment thread a few days back, somebody made a comment about WRSA, and Aesop replied that CA is "very even-handed", and cited as evidence regular links to this blog.
ReplyDeleteHaving looked at that place a few times since, I want to note that, no, he is nothing of the sort. He links to Aesop due to long-standing association and Aesop's previous regular commentary there (back when WRSA had comments) and a history of presenting Aesop's views favorably at a time when those views were more in line with CA's. No other commentator or analyst who is not on the pro-Russia/conspiratard train enjoys similar indulgence, because no other has the prior history of association. When he does cite Aesop it is entirely in reference to specific medical topics, and carefully avoiding any Aesopian commentary that might run counter to the primary editorial argument.
In short, Aesop getting linked there is not even-handedness; it is pure habit.
CA's linkage regarding the present war and international situation is currently almost entirely pro-Russian, hysterical, and credulously paranoid, with essentially no factual basis derived from measurable events in the theater of combat. He systematically cites over-the-top Russian propaganda like the Saker, the Qtard grifter Vox Day, or assorted other hysterical fearmongering dumbasses whose disingenuous obfuscation of relevant facts very nearly surpasses belief - and whose track record of past predictions, measured against subsequent verifiable events, is a consistent string of failure. Then there are the mouth-breathers who state in all seriousness that Russia never wanted Kiev anyway and that everything is totally going to plan, or that Ukraine intentionally provoked its own repeated invasion and dismemberment, or that the USA somehow masterminded Putin into ordering the tanks across the border on the USA's schedule. He only chooses sources providing almost undiluted Russian propaganda with a complete absence of concrete evidence from the actual battleground, sources that definitely avoid addressing any facts that might call the pro-Russia view into question. Meanwhile he has not once mentioned the likes of Trent Telenko or Phillips O'Brien or Kamil Galeev or Lt.Gen Mark Hertling - who, while certainly pro-Ukrainian, have been presenting and discussing extensive amounts of specific and detailed photographic and otherwise concrete evidence directly from the front lines and the facts on the ground. These are hardly the only such; there's a multitude of primary sources to examine if one wishes.
The problem with those primary sources is that they tend to paint a picture of the Russians getting their faces kicked in and it being done by Ukrainians of their own free will (and that said Ukrainian will has existed for a long time and certainly since before the Maidan events - I know my father has talked about working with some Ukrainians in the 1980s and he was surprised at the venom they displayed for Russians), with minimal involvement from the West other than equipment, and not much of that early on - and keep in mind the USA provided the Soviets AND the British with similar huge amounts of materiel prior to Pearl Harbor - and no great impact plus or minus on American domestic issues. Which is not at all the manner in which WRSA is presenting the matter via his choice of links. This is not even-handedness. It is cherry-picking to fit a predetermined conclusion. Rational thought does not enter into it.
Just go look at WRSA blogspot - it's still up - from years back. Compare the sober, careful, rational discussions and examinations of the problems and potential tactics and methods from back then, with today's WRSA and its frantic meme dumps and indulging of every possible conspiratard. The man has suffered a vertiginous collapse in his mental faculties.
As Mr. Trump would say: "Sad!"
To Anonymous @ 2:18 PM:
ReplyDeleteBecause the Russians (and USSR before them) simply don't give a f((( about the troops. They have won in the past by steamrollering over the opposition with huge amounts of manpower, artillery, tanks. Do they have better gear? Yes. But I'd guess it is issued to the elite units that are politically trustworthy. Plus...if they issue modern gear out of stores, that gear has to be replaces, and that costs money.
Rollory, CA of WRSA is long gone. What you have been reading since is just the feds.
ReplyDeleteThe Russian steamroller thing isn't an always thing. It didn't happen in 1905, nor in 1914-17. It didn't happen in 1941 or 42. It wasn't until the realization hit that the Nazis were going to work hard to kill all of them via starvation and tyranny worse than Stalin that they finally actually were willing and able to fight back.
ReplyDelete@Rollory,
ReplyDeleteCA gets to pick what he thinks is so.
I'm not worried:
1) Truth Will Come Out.
2) You Can't Stop the Signal.
3) Russia never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
@rollory
ReplyDeleteI've notice the same thing about WRSA. I also watch Salty Cracker. the usual reluctance to believe anything coming out of any government is gone when it comes to russian propaganda, and I find the sudden change to "believe all .RU" alarming.
if all you listen to are the cheerleaders, you never know the real score of the game. and way too many people who would give anything government a good dose of skepticism are swallowing this stuff whole.