They have a multitude of goals @frank. I don't think they'll achieve every goal and while winning a war in the first few days would be desirable for any invading force, it doesn't negate their other strategic objectives, obviously.

I also specifically said "

despite some problems and setbacks. — Baden

I don't think anyone here is claiming they haven't had problems and setbacks.

It's not unexpected. This army has no experience with this kind of war, and they have a dictator trying to micromanage instead of a war commander who could probably save lives on both sides.

I wouldn't trust war commanders any more than micromanaging dictators with saving lives. But I don't have clear evidence of Putin micromanaging, anyhow. If you do, send it on.

This, though, is evidence of Russian success.

"According to Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych, Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine’s defence industry." — Baden

Unfortunately, I don't expect a country whose defence industry has been destroyed to be able to put up a decent fight for much longer in the face of a much stronger enemy, regardless of how many arms we give them. It would be like expecting Mexico to be able to hold off the US.

All warfare is based on deception.

- Call of Duty (or maybe Sun Tzu. idk!)

I wouldn't trust war commanders any more than micromanaging dictators with saving lives. But I don't have clear evidence of Putin micromanaging, anyhow. If you do, send it on. — Baden

The US military is monitoring. They can't detect a war commander. That indicates that the Russian troops are being directed from Moscow. That would explain why they keep doing stupid things like pulling a vessel into an unsecured dock only to have it blown up by Ukraine.

Unfortunately, I don't expect a country whose defence industry has been destroyed to be able to put up a decent fight for much longer in the face of a much stronger enemy, regardless of how many arms we give them. It would be like expecting Mexico to be able to hold off the US. — Baden

So Russia will take Kiev soon? Or go home without doing that? I'm sure you can imagine what will happen if it's the latter.

Here's evidence for that point from the mouth of a Ukrainian presidential adviser. — Baden

So how is that good news, or even newsworthy, except as Russian propaganda?

As for Russian losses:

A NATO estimate concludes that between 7,000 and 15,000 Russians have been killed in action; total losses (including injuries, captures, and desertions) reach as high as 40,000. Seven Russian generals have been reported killed in the fighting. The military analysis site Oryx has documented massive materiel losses ranging from 362 destroyed tanks to 73 destroyed aircraft (including fixed-wing, unmanned, and helicopters).

Sure, Russia can always throw more conscripts and mercenaries and may ‘win’ in the sense of snuffing out Ukraine’s ability to fight back. But what is the cost? What if they capture Ukraine’s gas fields but then nobody buys the output?

So how is that good news, or even newsworthy, except as Russian propaganda? — Wayfarer

Why does the news have to be good? Why is it not newsworthy, seeing as it relates to Ukraine's ability to defend itself? And why do you think Ukrainian officials are spreading Russian propaganda?

The US military is monitoring. They can't detect a war commander. That indicates that the Russian troops are being directed from Moscow. That would explain why they keep doing stupid things like pulling a vessel into an unsecured dock only to have it blown up by Ukraine. — frank

Maybe you can send me your sources on this. I doubt that Putin has yet to master the concept of division of labour with regard to a military endeavour as serious as this.

Unfortunately, I don't expect a country whose defence industry has been destroyed to be able to put up a decent fight for much longer — Baden

That was being said on day one. it’s now week 6.

The argument that Ukraine’s has lost its ability to defend itself doesn’t square with the facts on the ground.

What Frank us referring to is an analysis in yesterday’s NY Times.

Why do you think you know more about the facts on the ground than Ukrainian officials? Are you in Ukraine now? Are you closer to the Ukrainian military than their own personnel? Please do tell.

Make a prediction, Baden. Where are we in a month's time? I predict Russia will have made little to no progress. What say you?

Eventually, I expect, Russia will officially get its security guarantees from Ukraine, some kind of autonomy for the disputed regions and some acceptance of Russian control over Crimea. There will be face-saving efforts to make this look not so bad for Ukraine, and whatever legal measures necessary, legislation, referenda etc will be pushed through. I hope this happens as soon as possible because the war is worse on Ukranian civilians than anyone else. But it could drag on far more than a month. I will be proven wrong if Russia withdraw without getting at least most of the above. (Of course, I hope I'm proven wrong and they withdraw in ignominy tomorrow, but that's just not realistic). I don't believe Russia wants to occupy Ukraine as a whole. It's not feasible or desirable, but they can certainly occupy the South and East for a very long time if necessary. Where I'm most unsure of the exact outcome is re the Donbas and whether it ends up a Russian puppet state or nominally still within the Ukraine.

OK, that's close to where my thoughts are. Appreciate the response!

So Russia will take Kiev soon? Or go home without doing that? I'm sure you can imagine what will happen if it's the latter. — frank

No, why would it be bad for them now not to take Kiev if they can get what they want without taking it? i.e. seriously degrade the Ukranian military, get the security guarantees they demanded before the war, enforce some kind of separation of the Donbass from the rest of Ukraine, get Ukraine to recognize the Crimea as Russian etc. Putin hasn't been telling Russians that Russia needs to 'take Kiev'. He's been spinning this as a liberation etc.

:up:

All warfare is based on deception.

- Call of Duty (or maybe Sun Tzu. idk!) — Outlander

I've been reading Sun Tzu lately. And it's a good line. Of course, the problem in this context is when you point out evidence that Ukraine aren't doing well, it's deception, but if you say it about Russia, it must be true. There seems to be an emotional need to protect the idea that Ukraine are somehow winning because they're the 'good guys'. I understand the emotion because I would like them to win too, whatever 'winning' means here, but I don't understand letting that emotion interfere with our analysis, especially as it's going to become patently clear in the end who comes out on top. Like, it's not as if we can just pretend we never said any of this stuff.

Oh, another result of the war will be lots of EU money and EU membership for Ukraine when it's over. I expect worried German and French diplomats are already dangling this carrot in front of Zelensky while pressuring him to make concessions, so they can get themselves out of the mess they've become embroiled in.

There's a lot to your interpretation, I think by and large, rather sensible. The problem we share here, is that we cannot enter Putin's mind and most info on him right now is extremely unreliable and subject to extremely fierce ideological impositions from the "West" and Russia too.

Now that they're in this, they're going to have to make the best of it, as in, get as much concessions as they can get and declare a victory. Sure, Russia is now more closely aligned with China, but Russia isn't a massive market for China at all - perhaps the Taiwan issue is also one reason China is being diplomatic. But that's speculation.

As it currently stands, Russia simply has more to lose than prior to this war, as I see it. But. But, once we get verified, good data, then we may say with more confidence, how much of this went as planned and how much of it was a surprise.




Sure, I saw that report too. Meaning I saw it reported on some of the podcasts I watched, it's rather shocking. But shouldn't be, it's very, very rare for war to go as planned. Way too many variables.

You are certainly correct about denying reality and being inside a propaganda bubble. But it can only last so long before it bursts. Then again, North Korea exists...

Either way, if this drags on for too long, Putin is just going to have to swallow "reality", however he chooses to interpret it.

What's going to be surprising to see is how Germany and the like will react after Putin is gone (if we are still alive), he's not going to stay in power forever.

Meanwhile our media is concentrating on the important stuff:

"Putin bathes in deer antler extract"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-russia-health-investigation-cancer-b2049297.html

No, why would it be bad for them now not to take Kiev if they can get what they want without taking it? — Baden

Joe Biden

But, once we get verified, good data, then we may say with more confidence, how much of this went as planned and how much of it was a surprise. — Manuel

Yes, I think I said before, regardless of whether they get what they were ostensibly asking for, it will probably require some serious studies to work out exactly what Russian intentions were and how much went fully as they planned or expected. It's at least sensible to keep somewhat of an open mind on the whole thing.

Joe Biden — frank

Are you painting again?

Are you painting again? — Baden

:lol: No, I just got off work and I'm stuffing my face.

:smile: :up:

Well, IF it was planned, then there's going to have to be some serious thinking about what a "rational actor" is supposed to be in international relations.

Not that it was entirely clear before this war, though getting your country kicked out of the financial system is not very sensible.

If they take Kiev and imprison Zelensky, I'm guessing they would make Ukraine a mini-Russia with maybe a few Ukrainian oligarchs beholden to Putin, and the rest Russian oligarchs who'll just gut Ukraine as they gutted Russia. Yes, Ukraine will hate Russia from now on and there will be terrorism, but nothing extraordinary. Probably.

If they leave with Zelensky still in power, those angry Ukrainians will have someone to rally around. The US will fund resistance in much the same way Iran funded various bullshit throughout the Middle East.

As long as Biden is the US president, Zelensky will have deep pockets to draw from. If Trump is elected, though, that would change, but I think the Ukrainians would still get bombs from somewhere.

It's my view that Putin will make a deal with Zelensky, get what he wanted before the war plus a little more and Zelensky will have to sell that to the Ukrainian people. If there can't be a deal then Ukrainians will continue to fight and maybe Putin will go for Kiev as a means to enforce his conditions. But, I do think by far the most likeliest outcome is a deal. And Ukraine is huge; Russia really would be stretching its resources very thin trying to occupy the whole country for any extended period of time. They achieve more with less effort simply occupying the South and East.

I hope you're right. :up:

No, I'm asking you about what so far appears to be your support of acting in bad faith. — baker

One can support invasion or acting in bad faith to prevent something worse from happening, I do not advocate either, just pointing out the options.

Hence, maybe the Russians learned from that and it's better to not kill the leader of the country you're invading so that there's possibility of legitimate peace terms. If you kill the recognised legitimate leader, you have have no one to negotiate with that both internal and external actors will largely recognise as legitimate. — boethius

What you say makes sense, however, there is analysis and there is cheer-leading. I am prepared to do both, however, with the information I have, some statements are unwarranted, but in that case you will be clearly able to see that I am cheer-leading.

I have written a post that describes what I know, and what we all know, but that is pretty much all there is. No - one has corrected me or added to that information.

There is much talk about how Russia is not Democratic. Democracy is not your friend. A democratic, capitalist Russia would have led us to WWIII in no time, and the link between Democracy and pacifism is not proven yet. The West is very lucky to have only one rabid capitalist imperialist superpower 1945 to the present, if there had been three we would have certainly had a tussle between Capitalist China and Capitalist Russia or the USSR and Capitalist America. Not for long. Come to think of it, Capitalist Europe may be an adversary of some sort.

That's quite a stretch and not relevant here. Taking these two territories "only', would have been much less deadlier than a full scale war. — Manuel

I agree, but from the view of military experts, whether they are capable of achieving objectives or not, taking those two territories may not have been workable.

Been tried before:

Fighting continued through the summer of 2014, and by August 2014, the Ukrainian "Anti-Terrorist Operation" was able to vastly shrink the territory under the control of the pro-Russian forces, and came close to regaining control of the Russo-Ukrainian border.[57] In response to the deteriorating situation in the Donbas, Russia abandoned what has been called its "hybrid war" approach, and began a conventional invasion of the region.[57][58] As a result of the Russian invasion, DPR and LPR insurgents regained much of the territory they had lost during the Ukrainian government's preceding military offensive.[59] Only this Russian intervention prevented an immediate Ukrainian resolution to the conflict.[60][61][62] — Wikipedia