With the assumption that the airborne force can be then quite quickly be relieved by a ground force. Nobody thinks of making a landing deep in enemy territory and then just assume that they can be evacuated by air from the area if faced by a heavy counterattack.Sure they can. Airports are a classic target for airborne assaults. — Tzeentch
I entered the debate disputing some dumb comments about Putin only making a feint at Kyiv, having goals limited to a chunk of ethniic borderland, and having no desire to continue on if it had won quick success in Ukraine. — apokrisis
one can understand how oppressed he feels by US hegemony. But to push things as far as a war with a real chance of turning nuclear and creating Europe-wide disaster? — apokrisis
If Putin had sat tight and continued his low grade trouble making, would anyone have tried to topple him or sanction him? — apokrisis
If you then listen to Putin’s speeches, what comes through is the sense of humiliation and resentment. Something China also shares. Empires that feel it is their historical right to be empires, and also with bitter memories of how those empires kept getting formed and then broken up by outsiders. — apokrisis
To risk so much for so little is ridiculous. — apokrisis
And there is still a need for an accurate assessment to predict how this continues of unfold. — apokrisis
Nobody thinks of making a landing deep in enemy territory and then just assume that they can be evacuated by air from the area if faced by a heavy counterattack. — ssu
With the assumption that the airborne force can be then quite quickly be relieved by a ground force. — ssu
Nobody thinks of making a landing deep in enemy territory and then just assume that they can be evacuated by air ... — ssu
Why would I want to? Attempts at making such assessments properly are foolish at this point, and I wouldn't take them seriously unless they're backed up by serious research — Tzeentch
Don't assume much is risked, nor little gained. Putin's wealth is intact, he will be remembered by many as a daring hero of Russia even if he loses (including losing his presidency). The guillotines of the past are gathering dust. A lucrative chairmanship and probably a stunning book deal await the defeated Putin.
As to gains, Europe's a mess. The right wing are gaining ground in the chaos. Ukraine is bankrupt and he still has the most lucrative regions. — Isaac
If that is the case, doesn't that condition apply to your assessment that the attack on Kiev was only a feint? — Paine
On Jan. 12, Burns met in Kyiv with Zelensky and delivered a candid assessment. The intelligence picture had only become clearer that Russia intended to make a lightning strike on Kyiv and decapitate the central government. The United States had also discovered a key piece of battlefield planning: Russia would try to land its forces first at the airport in Hostomel, a suburb of the capital, where the runways could accommodate massive Russian transports carrying troops and weapons. The assault on Kyiv would begin there.
“If you discover the plans of somebody to attack a country and the plans appear to be completely bonkers, the chances are that you are going to react rationally and consider that it’s so bonkers, it’s not going to happen,” said Heisbourg, the French security expert.
“The Europeans overrated their understanding of Putin,” he said. “The Americans, I assume … rather than try to put themselves in Putin’s head, decided they were going to act on the basis of the data and not worry about whether it makes any sense or not.”
There had been many reasons to be mystified. U.S. intelligence showed that the Kremlin’s war plans were not making their way down to the battlefield commanders who would have to carry them out. Officers didn’t know their orders. Troops were showing up at the border not understanding they were heading into war. Some U.S. government analysts were bewildered by the lack of communication within the Russian military. Things were so screwy, the analysts thought, Russia’s plans might actually fail. But that remained a distinctly minority view.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/
RIA Novosti is now known as the Russian regime’s ally. On February 26th, at 8 AM Moscow time, it published a pre-written article to mark the end of the special operation in Ukraine. But due to Russian defeats in key areas on the Eastern borders, the article was deleted from the official website. Nevertheless, it is still available thanks to the WBM online archives.
Entitled “The advent of Russia and a new world” (Наступление России и нового мира), it declares that “Russia is restoring its historical fullness, gathering the Russian world — the Russian people — together, in their entirety, from Great Russians to Belarusians and Little Russians.” It continues by stating that “if we had abandoned this, if we had allowed the temporary division to take hold for centuries, then we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors but would also be cursed by our descendants for allowing the disintegration of the Russian land.” This imperial message is then completed with the following: “Vladimir Putin has assumed, without a drop of exaggeration, a historic responsibility by deciding not to leave the solution of the Ukrainian question to future generations.”
This article, published in error, demonstrates that Russia was planning to conquer Kyiv in two days, more or less.
https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/the-goebbels-method-ria-novosti-as-window-into-russian-propaganda/
Putin’s trajectory increasingly resembles that of Hitler. Both men came to power after their countries experienced imperial dismemberment and economic collapse. Both promised to revive their nation’s glory and enjoyed enormous popularity. Both militarized and pursued state capitalism. Both relied on the army and secret police. Both identified their nations with themselves. Both promoted reactionary ideologies that identified one nation — Jews for Hitler, Ukrainians for Putin — as the enemy. And both used their national minorities living in neighboring states as pretexts for expansion. Both were also consummate liars and had deranged personalities. In this scheme of things, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is equivalent to Hitler’s attack on Austria, Czechoslovakia or Poland. And we all know what happened afterward — a Vernichtungskrieg.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/14/lets-call-putin-fascist-autocrat-00016982
Time to put the sourceless disinformation to bed. — apokrisis
If that is the case, doesn't that condition apply to your assessment that the attack on Kiev was only a feint? — Paine
As a piece of military strategy, a feint draws forces from the true target. But the attack was sprung before movement of that kind changed the conditions on the ground. If you are going to deliver a sucker punch, you better make it work the first time. Do you have a vision of how things would have been different without this 'feint'? An historical parallel, perhaps? — Paine
Whether or not the various alternative narratives here have been sourced is easily checked, — Isaac
Because I cannot take you seriously.
— apokrisis
What an odd response to being asked what data one's views are based on.
I guess I'd be pretty reluctant to share my sources too, if all I had were newspaper articles and confirmation bias. — Tzeentch
Whether or not the various alternative narratives here have been sourced is easily checked,
— Isaac
I have indeed googled to see where your talking points might be sourced. Strangely nothing respectable is turning up. So I can only continue to say either pony up or expect to be treated dismissively. — apokrisis
Dmitry Peskov, when asked about the failed Russian northern invasion route, said: “Now, about the Kyiv and Chernobyl regions, so actually the troops were really withdrawn from these regions as an act of goodwill, between the two negotiation parties.
You think the idea of sourcing things is a talking point? — boethius
I have indeed googled to see where your talking points might be sourced. Strangely nothing respectable is turning up. So I can only continue to say either pony up or expect to be treated dismissively. — apokrisis
I commented on the odd reluctance of apologists to source their talking points. I might also remark on what seems to be a tactic of confusing the discussion with non sequiturs. — apokrisis
A lot of claims, but what verifiable data are they based on?
The nature of war is messy - Clausewitz called it friction. In giant operations like these things go wrong, and they go wrong all the time. Logistical congestion is the norm rather than the exception - in a situation where both sides are trying to kill and hamper each other there is never enough ammunition, fuel, troops, fire support, etc. You can't predict an enemy whose primary concern is to be unpredictable, etc. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.