just a loan; I expect it to be returned and not carelessly left somewhere in Mordor — boethius

Well yes, who'd be careless enough to flood a volatile region with small arms?

I never asserted anything of the sort. — SophistiCat

No, but you 'really' intended to assert it, that much was obvious from your posts up to that point (according to my armchair psychoanalysis of you from miles away).

So it's utterly right that we should spend the next dozen pages, at least, explaining in painstaking detail just how much you failed in supporting that assertion which I decided you definitely were trying to make.

These predictions were completely obvious — boethius

What predictions did you even make that turned true? That the Russian forces would easily surround Kyiv?

What predictions did you even make that turned true? That the Russian forces would easily surround Kyiv? — Olivier5

Feel free to quote what I actually say if you want to discuss what I actually say.

In practice, how would you go about establishing the fact that the Russians thought it would be a short and easy 'operation'? — Olivier5

Intelligence data, transcripts, emails, interviews with key personnel, political analysis...

How one would go about establishing a fact is not the same task as how one would go about determining if a fact had been established or not. The former requires empirical data, the latter I can do by proxy - if no experts really disagree I can safely assume it's been 'established' without my having to go through the process of establishing it myself.

I am sorry I started this. You have shown that are quite capable of holding both sides of this imaginary argument that you are having with yourself, so you don't need me here. I'll continue to ignore you as I did before.

Feel free to quote what I actually say if you want to discuss what I actually say. — boethius

They've sent a 40 km armor column to simply surround Kiev, creating the required pressure on leadership to sign the deal they want, who will say they Ukrainians fought with honour, blah blah blah, but the bloodshed must end and the page must be turned ... sad, sad, sad ... end of speech — boethius

And these criteria do not apply to "the Russians believed it would be a short and easy operation" because?

They've sent a 40 km armor column to simply surround Kiev, creating the required pressure on leadership to sign the deal they want, who will say they Ukrainians fought with honour, blah blah blah, but the bloodshed must end and the page must be turned ... sad, sad, sad ... end of speech — boethius

This is exactly what they did.

They "surrounded" Kiev and put pressure on leadership to get the deal they want.

The first weeks of the war were "Ukraine has a right to join NATO!" ... there's none of that talk anymore.

This is called "analysis": of what the purpose of the 40km convoy was, to get the deal they want.

The prediction in that statement is that the convoy was not intended for Urban combat in Kiev to try to take the capital ... which they didn't do.

If there is a peace deal along the lines of what Russia wants, then the analysis simply tracks how Russia accomplished that.

However, I make very clear in my exchanges with @ssu that things can fall apart for Russia any moment and that Ukraine may have some surprise in store and rout the Russians, or then revolution at home etc. Only, that I do not personally see how Ukraine can "win" against Russia.

I am sorry I started this. You have shown that are quite capable of holding both sides of this imaginary argument that you are having with yourself, so you don't need me here. I'll continue to ignore you as I did before. — SophistiCat

Sure, maybe if your position isn't clear and you refuse to formulate it succinctly, then for the sake of argument and the discussion moving forward, others need to formulate the closest thing.

They failed to surround Kyiv and could only shell its suburbs. They were stopped in their progression southward of Kyiv, and the Ukrainian leadership didn't flinch under pressure.

It is evidently because of this failure that they are now retreating from the area. They have lost hope to be able to achieve anything useful there.

Now they are going to try and hold on to the land bridge to Crimea against Ukrainian forces moving East and South. Let see how that goes.

They failed to surround Kyiv and could only shell its suburbs. — Olivier5

I use the word surround rather than encircle, and use the word "pressure" rather than siege for a reason.

If the goal is not to take Kiev, just tie-up troops, then the purpose is to simply occupy as many Ukrainians as possible rather than reach some specific location on the map, which becomes secondary.

If the other territorial objectives are achieved, or no longer require tying-up Ukrainians in Kiev, and withdrawal maybe part of a peace negotiation process ... then that is not "losing hope".

Now, if Russians retreat from around Kiev, and then also from Dombas and then also from Mariupol and then also from Crimea, then, definitely they've "lost hope".

Manoeuvres and strategic objectives are not the same thing.

If taking and occupying—and failing to deal with an insurgency in a giant city that every military analyst pointed out would be obvious—Kiev was not a strategic objective, then it is simply a manoeuvre for the purposes of accomplishing the strategic objectives that are elsewhere. So, the success of the manoeuvre must be judged on the success of strategic accomplishments elsewhere in the "war theatre" to evaluate the "performance".

Russians committed resources to manoeuvres around Kiev, but Ukraine also committed resources to defend Kiev, resources that were not deployed in the East. If Ukraine committed far more resources and time to defending Kiev than Russia did attacking it, then this is a net-positive in terms of optimising force deployment.

And "pressure" is a typical military term and it's a typical military manoeuvre to pressure one position to prevent those troops reinforcing the position of which the plan is to take.

Since a defender may not know which position is simply being pressured with hardly enough troops to take it, and which position there's a manoeuvre to take, it is obliged to defend both positions more-or-less equally (or then guess what the plan is or then abandon one position to commit to the other).

And I mention many times the whole point of a multi front war is to spread the enemy forces thin and I also point out that Russia could encircle the forces in the East in several different ways, and that it's no accident that they all seem equally likely as far as we can tell.

And these criteria do not apply to "the Russians believed it would be a short and easy operation" because? — Olivier5

Mainly on this occasion it's because there simply isn't any unbiased access to sufficient expert analysis of Russian intentions. Assuming you're continuing your analysis of my approach, you'll recall I specified...

check they have no glaringly obvious conflict of interest — Isaac

Any information which might be considered pro-Russian has been censored, all social media sites are enforcing active bans, search engines are de-ranking anything straying from the mainstream narrative, and it would be corporate suicide in that environment for any media outlet to be anything other than jingoistic flag-waivers. We live in a fully censored information environment (despite not actually being at war, apparently).

Notwithstanding the fact that you've failed to provide any expert support at all for your assertion - I'll extend you the charity to assume you read it somewhere - there simply isn't the time, nor the environment for any conclusion to have been sufficiently scrutinised to be labelled as fact.

What the Russians believed is besides the point. We can easily verify if they have met their objectives if a peace deal is signed (assuming it is signed in good faith) and the subsequent movements of their military, and the land they occupy temporarily. I do not think the Western media will go as far as to fabricate maps of areas of control. Crimea, for example is 'illegally occupied'. In any case I doubt the United Nations can rule on internal affairs - the referendum that independent polls have confirmed.

Fascinating video here discussing Ukraine's possible future. I hope it is not blocked.

https://rumble.com/vza74r-crosstalk-ukraines-future.html

As for Russia's future, having Putin step down and put in Medvedev seems to be an option, it makes Russia 'free of the bad guy' and restores its reputation somewhat. President Putin could even surrender to the ICJ, however, I misjudged him once when thinking he would not invade Ukraine, so I do not know. Maybe there is something in the view "this man cannot remain in power" just say the word and he is gone, America looks great again.

The EU, however, could serve as a foundation for world economic activity in a more peaceful way that actually solves problems (like environmental armageddon) with far higher mutual benefit to all parties involved. This is the US nightmare scenario and the reasons for treating Russia as an enemy to drive a wedge with the EU (and also reason for interfering in EU democratic processes since WWII). — boethius

I began to suspect this from the way the U.S. has been acting with regard to Ukraine and Russia, creating division between the two. As I read this, about and think about NATO, North America's Terrorist Organization, perhaps, with reference to Chomsky, as I read this I am become rather angry.

Why does America want to control the world like this and put down Europe, the centre of civilization with its culture and history and quiet spoken wine drinking populace (forgive me). Europe came up with the Airbus, the Rafale and the European space agency, and the Arienne launch system. This is terribly unfair competition. You may be aware of the F-104 Starfighter affair in the 1960s, where an American jet fighter was foisted on several European air forces.

Europe even produced America.

To protect the world from itself, the world must remain at all costs a dangerous place. — boethius

No offence but I find this disgusting.

I use the word surround rather than encircle — boethius

The other reason there's a pause is that Kiev has been nearly encircled, which means the affect of this will be tested diplomatically and also strategy rethought considering this strategic objective being achieved (consolidate, move forces around, decide and plan the next military operations). For example, Russia may decide Kiev is encircled "enough" and so dig in where they are now to focus on other objectives, or decide to storm the capital, or decide to fully encircle the capital. — boethius

Once Kiev is encircled the military, social and political dynamic will completely change.

Russians are going slowly by surely around Kiev, I would guess, precisely because that's where you may get a surprise counter offensive and your forces routed if you're not careful (as you say, no easy way to skedaddle if you have a 30km convoy on the highway, and a tactical retreat to regroup would be an embarrassment anyways). — boethius

:up:

Mainly on this occasion it's because there simply isn't any unbiased access to sufficient expert analysis of Russian intentions. Assuming you're continuing your analysis of my approach, you'll recall I specified...

check they have no glaringly obvious conflict of interest
— Isaac — Isaac

What conflict of interest do Russian soldiers have, when they call their family and say in essence: "Our officers told us it would be a matter of a few days, but we are in this hell for X weeks now"?

Any information which might be considered pro-Russian has been censored, all social media sites are enforcing active bans, — Isaac

This a rather paranoid picture you got there. How come the mage @boethius can still post on TPF then?

What conflict of interest do Russian soldiers have, when they call their family and say in essence: "Our officers told us it would be a matter of a few days, but we are in this hell for X weeks now"? — Olivier5

You're joking, right? You're surely not seriously asking me what conflict of interest an actual soldier fighting in the war might have?

Are they experts? Do they have insight into Putin's plans? Do they have a clear, unfiltered access to leadership? Were the soldiers surveyed, was there proper stratification to ensure the survey wasn't biased, were their stories corroborated, were their credentials checked? Did you hear their stories directly or a newspaper choose them? If the latter, did they reject any conflicting stories? Did they seek out any conflicting stories?

You've got a couple of soldier's reports and you're trying to present that as "established fact"?

This a rather paranoid picture you got there. How come the mage boethius can still post on TPF then? — Olivier5

It's not about presence of information, its about unfettered access to it. Are you denying those censorship policies exist? If not, then on what platform do you expect experts contradicting the mainstream narrative to publish?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that when @boethius says "I use the word surround rather than encircle", he possibly doesn't mean "I literally always use the word surround in place of the word encircle, and you will never find me using the latter". That would be a somewhat heterodox thing to say the least.

And yet he said it...

Are you denying those censorship policies exist? If not, then on what platform do you expect experts contradicting the mainstream narrative to publish? — Isaac

Not a single Russian POW, soldier, officer or official ever said otherwise at the time, ie the onset of the war. And dozens have reported the delusion was widespread...

Not a single Russian POW, soldier, officer or official ever said otherwise at the time — Olivier5

Out of how many?

dozens have reported the delusion was widespread — Olivier5

Doesn't answer any of my questions.

I use the word surround rather than encircle, and use the word "pressure" rather than siege for a reason. — boethius

Why completing the siege of Kiev will change things considerably is that Putin is not insisting on taking the city, and if Russian lines (once setup around the city) cannot be practically broken from the outside, pressure will be pretty high to accept Russia's conditions of surrender. — boethius

Okay, it can remain an established fact only for me, no problem.

I didn't say you must take side. — Olivier5

...

The choice ... is about which side to chose...

The choice for a poster here is somewhat similar.

...You must make a choice — Olivier5

The choice for other people, such as Europeans, Americans, Aseans, Africans or Oceanians, as organized politically through states, is about which side to chose, if any. — Olivier5

Next time, quote the whole sentence.

Next time, quote the whole sentence. — Olivier5

So we're equivocating about what 'side' means?

Of course we are.

The point I was trying to make is that we can easily pick up comments out of context and put you in a position to have to explain yourself. It's pointless.

If you want to know what @boethius meant, ask.

No, I just proved that you willingly distorted a quote of mine, and thus that you are a liar.

I know very well what @boethius meant, thank you.

No, I just proved that you willingly distorted a quote of mine — Olivier5

OK, if you seriously want to get into it. What do you mean by 'side'? What could choosing, a not-side possibly mean?