But without all that intel from US and NATO, including almost real-time satellite data and location of high value targets.
>> “We did not provide Ukraine with specific targeting information for the Moskva,”
"Don't look at LAT XXX LOG YYY, don't send drones there, don't have some missiles ready"
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/05/us-intelligenc...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/11/...
And your comparative is kind of unfair. I mean, the war is kind of stuck, with all the support from NATO. Imagine how it would go without external support.
It really bothers me being "that guy", because I have not special love for Putin and its band of kleptocrats, but come on, let's have a little of critical thinking. Or do you think that the USA support of Ukraine is for "defending freedom"?
Like you said, Russia hasn't mobilised, but they wouldn't start a war they thought they wouldn't win so the fact they haven't mobilised and invaded anyway shows poor intelligence and lack of judgement. The fact Russia didn't mobilise isn't evidence of Russia secretly been good actually, it's more evidence of incompetence.
And clearly Russia hasn't sent its entire military but since their military is much larger than Ukraine's they can pick the units and equipment most suitable for the mission, where Ukraine just has to use everything, regular military, reservists, paramilitaries, and in many cases volunteers with literally hours of training. So even if the numbers are similar the advantage would still be with Russia.
No matter how you try to paint it Russia had nearly every advantage yet still managed to largely stall in just three days and experience huge losses doing it. It is blindingly clear the Russian military is doing a very incompetent job and it takes some very motivated reasoning to begin to argue otherwise.
It's not just enough to call for critical thinking, you actually have to practice it.