> of poorly trained, poorly led, technologically backward men who couldn't even take over a newly recreated poland. attacking is harder than defending. soviet union couldn't take whole finland either, but they still won wwii. two different things. and same with russia, takes long time to win in ukraine, but if the west invades russia, it looses. > germany was easily defeating russia in ukraine with far fewer men.  are you talking about wwi? that was different, motivations were different too. germany was also a historic ally of russia so a lot people just didn't want to fight because germany never attacked russia, russia attacked germany in wwi > all of russia's best land was either lost or devastated in ukraine, russia's well trained troops were dead, it's best officers dead or fled, that is a lie, many tsarist officers were involved in the civil war, including red army. quote from lenin himself > "you have heard about the series of the brilliant victories won by the red army. there are tens of thousands of old colonels and other officers in its ranks. if we had not taken them into service and made them work for us, we could not have created the army...only with their help was the red army able to win the victories that it did" in lenin's words, those officers were crucial for the red army. > lmao i like how you skipped over the part where the bolsheviks tried to ban money and it tanked the entire economy. some russian peasants were forced into cannibalism, that's how bad it got.  we are talking about 1917, when bolsheviks just got in power. the only problem russia had immediately after bolsheviks took over and declared peace
Slovenia