The special military operation started with an assault on Kiev, the plan being to overthrow the governmental control quickly, control Kiev. — Punshhh

The plan went wrong and what we have now is the result of repeated failures by Russia to take control of Ukriane. — Punshhh

This is just a narrative, and it isn't actually supported by the facts as we know them, nor by military logic. Those facts have been repeated ad nauseam in this thread.

Not even the most lopsided interpretation of those facts and numbers will produce anything that comes close to supporting your view.

So why was a military Column marching on Kiev at the beginning of the invasion?

And if the plan was to bed down in bunkers in the Dombass, why did a column march on Kiev?

The Russian casualties are large, even if the numbers are disputed.

So why was a military Column marching on Kiev at the beginning of the invasion?

And if the plan was to bed down in bunkers in the Dombass, why did a column march on Kiev? — Punshhh

To put pressure on the Kiev government, and to create multiple threats that create ambiguity over the precise objectives of the operation.

The troop deployments, force posture, behavior and casualty figures around Kiev can in no way be interpreted to imply that a capture of Kiev was a principal goal of the operation.

The Russian troop count was much too low in relation to the defenders, their force posture and behavior completely stand-offish, and casaulty figures that are a fraction of those we see during other phases of the war, during which actual intense fighting took place. In short, there isn't an iota of evidence that implies an all-out offensive to overrun the capital. None. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

I recommend you use the search function to look up previous conversations that were had on this topic. It goes in depth, with sources and all.

This is a good example of media storytelling. It makes sense, it has kernels of truth to it, and it’s comforting — especially if one presupposes Putin is an evil (and foolish) man. But of course it isn’t accurate.

I would have probably believed all that myself 30 years ago, but listening to dissident voices on the subject has been enlightening. I suggest doing so carefully, if you haven’t already. It doesn’t have to be Sachs or Mearsheimer — although they’re very helpful. Compare the facts that they point out to what you’re hearing from other sources. It’ll be interesting. Especially about military and economic numbers.

has already gone over some of this— and it’s true that this has been gone over so many times it’s tiresome to retread.

The Russians have been clear about what they’ve wanted. You disregard that— fine. — Mikie

No, you disregard it. They annexed Crimea, they have annexed regions that in their entirety they don't even control. You disregard that - not fine. Putin has made quite clear his intentions, it started to be obvious four years ago before the attack happened. I then in my first post well before the attack happened stated that Putin had made very sinister remarks by questioning the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Russia has likewise been telegraphing this move in Ukraine for years. — Mikie

What move? What Putin and the Kremlin said before the attack was that Ukraine was an artificial state and it should naturally be part of Russia. That's what they have stated, which you either are ignorant about or willingly put aside. Because what Putin himself says and writes obviously seems not to matter to you. Well, what the leader of a state publicly declares does matter for me.

It doesn’t make sense to conquer Ukraine. First, they don’t have the military power to do so. — Mikie

@Mikie, read actually what Putin has said to be the reasons that Ukraine should be part of Russia prior to the attack. And for crying out loud, they attempting to conquer Ukraine. They thought they would have the power, because they thought that Ukraine wouldn't fight back as hard as it has. You simply cannot deny this reality.

It's not a matter of making sense. For you and me it doesn't make sense, but for Putin it makes perfect sense. And this isn't something debatable anymore as Russia has already fought the war for several years and already has annexed parts of Ukraine. So this talking about "it doesn't make sense" is totally irrelevant.

NATO expansion is now off the table. — Mikie

First of all, NATO enlarged because and only because of the Russian conventional attack on Ukraine February 2022. Would this Russian attack not have happened, Finland and Sweden would have never joined NATO.

Secondly, Ukraine's NATO membership was de facto off the table far earlier, just like EU membership of Turkey is way off. But NATO obviously wouldn't say it aloud.

Just the show of force on the Ukrainian border - the actual troop building for the conventional invasion - was enough to make Germany to promise that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO. Already Hungary and some other countries oppose Ukrainian membership, so it was off the table still before. NATO is an organization with rules for membership. Hence it's irrelevant if some President Bush makes promises to Ukraine, because president Bush or any president cannot decide that. And that's why Trump hates so much NATO (and many other US presidents have been disappointed in the organization).

To assume that Russia did this attack because it wanted to prevent NATO expansion is simply incorrect as it didn't have to attack Ukraine to stop this. And the real threat of NATO? Now there over 1000 kilometers of new NATO border that Russia has, hence the actual threat from NATO hasn't been the driving issue for the attack on Ukraine.

The myth of an evil Putin bent on conquering Eastern Europe and reestablishing the USSR is justification to absolve the US of their hand in this, and to continue the enormous amount of cash being thrown at this proxy war. — Mikie

Again, you seem not to understand at all how Russia works and what is it's agenda.

Ukraine it might attempt to conquer, but for Eastern Europe, the Baltics and Northern Europe, it want's it's sphere of influence enlarged. That's why it's primary strategic objectives are 1) the dissolution of the Trans-Atlantic alliance and 2) the dissulotion of the European Union. Without a strong NATO and EU, every European country is in great disadvantage towards Russia. But being part of NATO and EU, tiny states like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, basically having populations equvailent of Maine to Nebraska, can stand up against Russia.

So hopefully you can understand that Russians really mean it, when they say that Trump's policies are aligning with theirs when Trump is hostile towards the EU.

That’s exactly what matters. Notice that they’ve never said they wanted to conquer Ukraine and, unsurprisingly, never tried to. — Mikie

Sorry, but your living in your own delusional bubble. Perhaps start by looking what annexation means.

Here is Putin formally taking parts of Ukraine to Russia. Cause and effect should be clear.

I read the thread at the time. What you are suggesting is an alternative interpretation of what happened on the ground and what Putin’s motives were. Which is fine and it can be debated, I’m not looking to get into a discussion of those issue here. That will be for historians to argue over.
If Putin’s aim was to secure the Dombass, well he does seem to have managed that, but at what cost? And what of his grand ambitions, which he spoke about at length before the invasion?

I’m familiar with the arguments, from the sources you cite. We mustn’t lose site of what Putin is thinking and saying and the pattern of invasions and influence in former Russian colonies since the early 1990’s. And of course what the citizens of those countries say and wan’t, filtering out the Russian propaganda.

That's what they have stated, which you either are ignorant about or willingly put aside. Because what Putin himself says and writes obviously seems not to matter to you. Well, what the leader of a state publicly declares does matter for me. — ssu

Oh, does it? Or just the parts you want to hear and interpret as imperialism?

The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force. At the same time, we have been hearing an increasing number of statements coming from the West that there is no need any more to abide by the documents setting forth the outcomes of World War II, as signed by the totalitarian Soviet regime. How can we respond to that?

Do these words count, or should they be ignored?

Since you care so much about what they actually say, this should matter. The fact is that Putin has never claimed he wanted to conquer Ukraine, and thus there has never been a plan to do so, and thus you’ve never seen it done. He’s also made statements that establishing the old order is stupid, although an understandable sentiment.

Look at what has been said and, more importantly, been done (as well as the military reality on the ground) — and your narrative is made up of nothing more than fluff.

It doesn’t make sense to conquer Ukraine. First, they don’t have the military power to do so.
— Mikie
@Mikie, read actually what Putin has said to be the reasons that Ukraine should be part of Russia prior to the attack. And for crying out loud, they attempting to conquer Ukraine. They thought they would have the power, because they thought that Ukraine wouldn't fight back as hard as it has. You simply cannot deny this reality.

It's not a matter of making sense. For you and me it doesn't make sense, but for Putin it makes perfect sense. And this isn't something debatable anymore as Russia has already fought the war for several years and already has annexed parts of Ukraine. So this talking about "it doesn't make sense" is totally irrelevant. — ssu

Annexing parts of Ukraine and conquering Ukraine are different things. The latter makes no sense and hasn’t been attempted. Which is why you can give no evidence for it, verbally or militarily.

Do these words count, or should they be ignored? — Mikie

And how much do you know of the history of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic's?

How they were created by the Russian Intelligence Services in the way to instill instability after the Crimean invasion?

It's an old trick, that the Soviet Union used even on us Finns too in 1939. They created "the rightful government" of Finland called Finnish Democratic Republic and Stalin stated that would negotiate on with this government. And when the Red Army would have conquered Finland, likely this Democratic Republic would have woved to join the Soviet Union, just like Donetsk and Lugansk joined Russia. In modern times Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and Moldavia (Transnistria) have gotten the same treatment.

When one country wants to annex even parts of another that it has earlier recognize the independence of, it should be obvious who the attacker and the perpetrator is.

Annexing parts of Ukraine and conquering Ukraine are different things. The latter makes no sense and hasn’t been attempted. Which is why you can give no evidence for it, verbally or militarily. — Mikie

This is absolute nonsense. And Putin's idea that Ukraine should be part of Russia is in his famous text that you can find following this link: Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

Seems you have no understanding what you are saying or what it means actually when your country is invaded by another country that is willing to annex your land. The Russian stop if they cannot advance anymore. If the rule is either a puppet regime backed by Russian troops or part of Russia is totally trivial, because the end outcome is the same.

Only the demented Trump says totally what is on his mind when he says he wants Greenland. Putin follows the procedures that Russian Intelligence Services have used for over 100 years.

First of all, NATO enlarged because and only because of the Russian conventional attack on Ukraine February 2022. — ssu

Nato expanded greatly from 1992 onward. The fact They wanted to include Ukraine 20 years ago is a large part of this conflict.

So we have (1) Putin’s statements and the statements of officials before and after the invasion, and (2) military action. Neither support conquering Ukraine. You, however, point to (3) motives and intentions, about how “obvious” it all is. But you have no clue what you’re talking about. Think for a second. What happened in Afghanistan? Do you think Putin is unaware of this? Look at the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Look at the cultural distribution in Ukraine from West to East. Look at the language. Look at the number of troops used in February of 2022— do you think that was enough to conquer Ukraine? Etc.

The goal was never to conquer Ukraine. That’s ridiculous propaganda. The goal, unless a deal is reached, is to destroy most of Ukraine. Make it a complete mess. That’s so far been achieved— albeit with a great price paid. But it’s clear — after years of people like you telling everyone Ukraine was winning or about to win — that Russia has achieved its goals and that Ukraine has continuously lost territory. Given that reality, Russia will not accept anything less than what they’ve demanded for years. Much like Crimea, those eastern territories are now gone.

If the US didn’t continually attempt to turn Ukraine into a western “bulwark,” this wouldn’t have happened. That’s just the fact of the case. If China were running military drills in Mexico, and the US reacted, I’d likewise put most of the blame on China.

Do these words count, or should they be ignored?

Those words were spoken at the start of the invasion, the aim being to pacify any response. Along with threats of nuclear Armageddon to any nato forces who were going to help the Ukrainian army defend their territory. Just a few days previously the Russians emphatically denied they were not going to invade. What they say changes from day to day. And when interlocutors say, but you said something different previously. They laugh and say, ahh but it’s not an invasion, it’s a special military operation. And when the Nazi’s don’t seem to be there to fight back, the whole reason for the invasion. They say it’s little green men and laugh again. As I say, the Ukrainians have got the measure of Putin’s regime.

Do these words count, or should they be ignored?
— Mikie
And how much do you know of the history of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic's? — ssu

So you can’t answer that question, got it.

I’ll ask again: do those words count or not? I’m guessing the answer is no, they don’t count. Only the words that fit your narrative counts.

This is absolute nonsense. And Putin's idea that Ukraine should be part of Russia is in his famous text that you can find following this link: Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“ — ssu

Where does he say he wants to conquer Ukraine? Where? In fact, in conclusion he states:

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be
interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will
say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will
be – it is up to its citizens to decide.

More words that don’t count, right?

So far, 0 statements on conquering Ukraine from Putin (whose words you take seriously) and 0 evidence from military actions. Keep trying.

So we ignore their words and the military reality, and go with our favorite narrative based on preconceived notions. No thanks.

I agree with not taking what Putin says too seriously. I was responding to someone who claims they do—yet what they’re really doing is cherrypicking.

What I care about is looking at what makes sense to the Russians in terms of power. Bush said lots of stuff about invading Iraq— and some of it was true, but we easily ignored that. The main reason was oil. Putin has said lots of things about Ukraine (but never that he wanted to conquer it, btw) and some of the things he said were true, but we can ignore a lot of it too. What they don’t want is the US on their doorstep. And they, unlike Venezuela or some other country that can be easily bullied and overthrown on a whim by the US, actually have leverage to prevent this from happening. That’s what this is about. Not some stupid story about the evil imperialist who wants to conquer Europe.

In fact if you want to weaken Russia, you should be encouraging the conquering of Ukraine and Eastern Europe. It would be the stupidest thing that could do.

Look at the number of troops used in February of 2022— do you think that was enough to conquer Ukraine? — Mikie

If Putin attacked, it simply means that he was confident to achieve his goals. That should be obvious even to you. If Ukraine hadn't been able to recover the territory from the Kremlin-backed insurgents in the Donbas, so to Putin likely Ukraine looked like a push over. The US had retreated from Afghanistan in a humiliating way, so no worry of them responding angrily. And Putin had bragged on a phone to a German leader that he would have his tanks in hours in Kyiv. Evidently he had bad intel, which can be seen from the fact that he fired many of the FSB personnel responsible of Ukraine after the attack had gone awry.

Besides, look at the number of the "little green men" used in seizing Crimea? How many troops did Russia loose then? None. And you are simply likely bothering to read to the end what I say: if the objective was to put up a puppet regime that would control rump state, that is simply trivial.

Given that reality, Russia will not accept anything less than what they’ve demanded for years. Much like Crimea, those eastern territories are now gone. — Mikie

Yes. Putin wants far more than it's troops have capture. Ukrainians are still willing to defend their country. What is wrong with that?

And please just answer this simple question: If Putin wants territory of Ukraine, why are you repeatedly insisting about Putin not wanting Ukraine? It's like if someone is assaulting someone and beating the crap out the person, you claim that the assaulter isn't going to kill the person and never wants to kill the person, becuase why would the assaulter want that.

If the US didn’t continually attempt to turn Ukraine into a western “bulwark,” this wouldn’t have happened. That’s just the fact of the case. — Mikie

This shows your utter lack of the actual events in Ukraine and the Russian-Ukrainian relations. Period.

You really think that taking Crimea was about "the US attempting to turn Ukraine into a western bulwark"?

So you can’t answer that question, got it. — Mikie

@Mikie, you quote Putin's speech when he attacked Ukraine. So he didn't say directly there in that that Russia will conquer Ukraine, that's your argument for Russia not wanting to have Ukraine if Ukraine defenses would have collapsed.

Seriously? Is that your logic?

That's the poorest counterargument that I've heard of. I mean seriously, not all politicians are so perfectly transparent as Trump is who really utters totally, without any filter, just what is in his mind.

I think that this debate is totally not worth wile. But you go to believe the MAGA cult on this one...

Look at the number of troops used in February of 2022— do you think that was enough to conquer Ukraine?
— Mikie

If Putin attacked, it simply means that he was confident to achieve his goals. That should be obvious even to you. If Ukraine hadn't been able to recover the territory from the Kremlin-backed insurgents in the Donbas, so to Putin likely Ukraine looked like a push over. The US had retreated from Afghanistan in a humiliating way, so no worry of them responding angrily. And Putin had bragged on a phone to a German leader that he would have his tanks in hours in Kyiv. Evidently he had bad intel, which can be seen from the fact that he fired many of the FSB personnel responsible of Ukraine after the attack had gone awry. — ssu

I’m not sure why this is difficult, but conquering Ukraine and attacking Kiev is not the same thing. Kiev was attacked, yes. You take this as evidence that Putin wanted to conquer all of Ukraine, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I told you what I believe the goals were— to create chaos in Ukraine and make a mess of things. So attacking Kiev makes sense— even if it wasn’t a success.

And please just answer this simple question: If Putin wants territory of Ukraine, why are you repeatedly insisting about Putin not wanting Ukraine? — ssu

Because Ukraine isn’t a monolith. The areas Putin wants are culturally and politically different from the others — and conquering Ukraine world entail ALL of them being under Russian control. That isn’t the case now, and wasn’t the case then. It’s simply a myth. One that you’re gradually backing away from even in this conversation. Now you disregard Putin’s words and go from talking about conquering Ukraine to “wanting” some Ukrainian territory.

So he didn't say directly there in that that Russia will conquer Ukraine, that's your argument for Russia not wanting to have Ukraine if Ukraine defenses would have collapsed. — ssu

You’re the one who said you took his words seriously, not me:

Because what Putin himself says and writes obviously seems not to matter to you. Well, what the leader of a state publicly declares does matter for me. — ssu

So clearly that was nonsense. What you meant was: I take what Putin says seriously if it corresponds to what I want to believe. That’s not interesting to me.

I’m not sure why this is difficult, but conquering Ukraine and attacking Kiev is not the same thing. Kiev was attacked, yes. You take this as evidence that Putin wanted to conquer all of Ukraine, despite all evidence to the contrary. — Mikie

So the plan was to take only part of Ukraine? What were the Russians planning on doing when the non-annexed part of Ukraine violently objected to all that and America and Europe saw a golden opportunity to fund a Ukranian resistance movement?

So the plan was to take only part of Ukraine? What were the Russians planning on doing when the non-annexed part of Ukraine violently objected to all that and America and Europe saw a golden opportunity to fund a Ukranian resistance movement? — RogueAI

Since this is exactly what’s happened, I don’t think we need to guess. The Ukrainians have resisted, with considerable (and crucial) support from the US and Europe, and yet Russia has taken parts of Ukraine. That’s how things currently stand.

And as said several times, I believe the goal here was to pretty much sow chaos and wreck Ukraine.

Since this is exactly what’s happened, I don’t think we need to guess. The Ukrainians have resisted, with considerable (and crucial) support from the US and Europe, and yet Russia has taken parts of Ukraine. That’s how things currently stand. — Mikie

Yeah, that's how things shook out, but the Russians would have to be absolute morons to have planned things this way. They did not plan on suffering a million+ casualties for a chunk of Ukraine. That's just stupid.

Who said anything about them planning on losing a million soldiers?

I told you what I believe the goals were— to create chaos in Ukraine and make a mess of things. — Mikie

Ok, here you have to really prove your point, because "creating chaos in Ukraine" doesn't sound at all as something any intelligent entity would make. That simply is nonsensical.

There has to be an defined outcome beneficial to Russia. No sane military commander would accept an objective: "Oh, let's just go there and create chaos and mess things up." I mean WTF?

The simple question is "and then what?" could be ask. So the objective could be to A) install a Pro-Russian friendly regime in place of the Zelensky administration and, what has already happened, that B) annex the territories you want from Ukraine. As I've stated over and over, both end Ukrainian independence and both option A) or B) are worthy things to defend from happening for the Ukrainians.

That Pro-Russian leader could have been Victor Medvedchuk, who is a close friend of Vladimir Putin. How close can be seen from the fact that after the Ukrainian SBU arrested him, he was handed over to Russia in a prisoner-of-war exchange.

(In an alternative history, he might have been the replacement to Zelenskyi)


(But not so, and now this guy lives in Russia)

Because Ukraine isn’t a monolith. The areas Putin wants are culturally and politically different from the others — and conquering Ukraine world entail ALL of them being under Russian control. That isn’t the case now, and wasn’t the case then. — Mikie

Mikie, Ukraine was part of Russia. What on earth are you blabbering about?

What you meant was: I take what Putin says seriously if it corresponds to what I want to believe. That’s not interesting to me. — Mikie

Your just living in your own estranged echo-chamber. Putin has annexed parts of Ukraine. He wants more territory that isn't in his control. And he has broken peace agreements earlier, remember the Minsk agreements?

But for you those all events that have taken place are "myths".

So they planned on invading, taking a chunk of the country, and then how were they going to prevent a resistance movement forming from the remaining chunk of Ukraine funded by Europe and the U.S. ala N. Vietnam infiltrating S. Vietnam? And also what was Russia going to do when that remaining chunk of Ukraine inevitably drifted into NATO's orbit?

@Mikie has stated that:

I told you what I believe the goals were— to create chaos in Ukraine and make a mess of things. So attacking Kiev makes sense— even if it wasn’t a success. — Mikie

So you make sense of that. I think that Putin's actual warplan was something else. Because obviously this isn't the outcome that Putin had in mind.

It makes no sense. The obvious strategic move is to decapitate Ukraine and install a puppet.

There has to be an defined outcome beneficial to Russia. — ssu

There is: prevent the US from making Ukraine a western bulwark. No NATO explanation into Ukraine, no weapons and drills and military presence on their borders. The rest, in terms of wrecking Ukraine, is pretty obvious: the damage inflicted on Ukraine has been enormous, from their infrastructure and economic stability to general morale.

Mikie, Ukraine was part of Russia. What on earth are you blabbering about? — ssu

Comments like these are cringey, considering it’s you who looks foolish in this conversation, repeating tired and long-refuted propaganda and making ridiculous contradictory statements.

Try reading what was written before making childish remarks. The intention was never to conquer Ukraine— it wasn’t then, it isn’t now. The simple geography of Ukraine shows that — because Putin isn’t a moron. That you’re pretending I don’t understand Russian/Ukrainian history because you’ve misread a paragraph is embarrassing.

What you meant was: I take what Putin says seriously if it corresponds to what I want to believe. That’s not interesting to me.
— Mikie

Your just living in your own estranged echo-chamber. Putin has annexed parts of Ukraine. He wants more territory that isn't in his control. And he has broken peace agreements earlier, remember the Minsk agreements?

But for you those all events that have taken place are "myths". — ssu

So you’re avoiding it again. I’ll just repeat:

1. You said you take what Putin says seriously, and that you don’t have to see into his soul.
2. I quote Putin.
3. You then say what Putin said was not worth taking seriously.

I can quote the whole exchange again if you’d like. But again I ask: do you take what he says seriously or not?

So they planned on invading, taking a chunk of the country, and then how were they going to prevent a resistance movement forming from the remaining chunk of Ukraine funded by Europe and the U.S. ala N. Vietnam infiltrating S. Vietnam? And also what was Russia going to do when that remaining chunk of Ukraine inevitably drifted into NATO's orbit? — RogueAI

I really don’t understand what you’re asking here. Putin was pretty clear about his objectives. I don’t recall claiming anything about them planning for exactly what’s happened. How is that possible? If they could foresee the resistance in Kiev, I’m sure they would have shifted their strategy there, for example. No one has claimed they had a crystal ball.

It makes no sense. The obvious strategic move is to decapitate Ukraine and install a puppet. — RogueAI

It’s definitely obvious — in Western propaganda anyway.

Ramzy Mardini said it best:

Needless to say, Putin started an illegal and unjustified war. Yet, to enable a course correction toward a diplomatic solution, it’s the Western-based narrative about the war that requires a repudiation.

Take, for instance, the purported certainty in the West that Russia’s military sought to conquer a heavily populated and fervently nationalistic country nearly the size of Texas—and initially, intended to do so in a matter of days, no less. This belief is entirely baseless. In fact, even the U.S. military is incapable of pulling off such a feat in that little time. And yet, the falsehood, which formed the West’s perception of Russia’s intentions, remains unabated. So too is Washington’s incessant deflection of holding any responsibility for provoking the invasion, despite its ubiquitous and escalatory involvement in the precipitating crisis.


[…]

As for designs to upend and overturn the Ukrainian government, there’s no credible indication that foreign-imposed regime change was the pursued goal, let alone a political objective considered feasible by Russian leaders. What’s more, from a military perspective, neither the conditions in Ukraine nor Russia’s own capacity to overcome those obstacles supports the conventional wisdom of an intent to conquer it.

For instance, the reported estimates of Russia’s mobilization on the eve of war ranged from 100,000 to 190,000 personnel. Even at its peak deployment, it remains too small of a force to achieve conquest in Ukraine, let alone sustain a military occupation to safeguard a puppet regime in Kyiv. A modern country of 44 million, Ukraine is also the largest landmass after Russia on the European continent. In addition, its military was more recently upgraded—rebuilt, armed, and trained by NATO. With active military personnel at 200,000 and even a larger reserve force to boot, it can inflict tremendous costs, especially when under the belief they are fighting for the country’s survival. In the event of toppling the regime, the potential for a potent Ukrainian insurgency composed of military veterans is certain. Not only is nationalism a powerful political force in Ukraine—and anti-Russian in its ideological orientation—but it also borders multiple NATO states, which could lend support against a Russian occupying power.

To put it mildly, such conditions render a military occupation of Ukraine more arduous and taxing than the U.S. military experience in Iraq. In fact, this gap isn’t even close.

On top of the gargantuan military obstacles, their political counterpart also deems regime change an implausible goal. In fact, there’s no genuine sign Russia was even attempting to organize a political project to install in Ukraine in the first place. Moscow had neither tried to form an alternative government in exile nor was there any semblance of political opposition inside Ukraine ready to take the reins of governance. All the more, no part of the existing security apparatus of Ukraine, or any state institution for that matter, could realistically be co-opted in partnership with a Russian occupation. By itself, this nullifies the model of leadership decapitation alleged by U.S. and UK officials as Russia’s plan to install a puppet government. In Ukraine, any effort to impose regime change would require a purge and recreation of the state in its entirety.

That Pro-Russian leader could have been Victor Medvedchuk, who is a close friend of Vladimir Putin. How close can be seen from the fact that after the Ukrainian SBU arrested him, he was handed over to Russia in a prisoner-of-war exchange. — ssu

Yeah, the idea of a puppet regime or regime change is also nonsense. Covered long ago. You’re just reducing yourself to repeating what you’ve heard from the usual propaganda, so I’ll just copy and paste from 4 years ago:

These allegations, however, severely lacked details and, by all accounts, failed to meet basic thresholds of plausibility. Having trickled into the public discourse, the identification of elites purported to be Russia’s next handpicked puppet leader in Kyiv had risen to the level of comedic absurdity among the Ukrainian population. More significantly, the disclosures mimicked amateur and speculative guesswork. In fact, there was no trace or resemblance to a threat assessment that had undergone the traditional intelligence cycle. “Complete nonsense,” said a pro-Russian Ukrainian lawmaker. “A lot of the people who are named as members of this future government aren’t even on speaking terms with each other,” he continued. “It’s a random group of names.” The head of research at a Kyiv-based think tank believed it to be “poorly thought-out” and “absolutely absurd,” saying such a regime “will not be supported by Ukrainian society.”

Instead of busy plotting a coup, Yevhen Murayev, alleged by the U.K. to potentially lead this pro-Russian government, was on vacation with his family on a tropical island. ”At first,” he said, “I thought it was some kind of prank.” Oddly, Murayev was no longer an ally of Russia. Years prior, Moscow sanctioned him after a falling out with another conspirator alleged by the U.S., Viktor Medvedchuk, who since May 2021 had been under house arrest for treason as part of the government’s crackdown on the Russophone opposition. “It isn’t very logical,” said Murayev, “I’m banned from Russia. Not only that but money from my father’s firm there has been confiscated.” Unsurprisingly, his party failed to gain a single seat in parliament in the previous election. Alleged by U.S. officials, another candidate was Oleg Tsaryov—a former parliamentarian who described himself to be the “most hated man in Ukraine after Putin.” Tsaryov left Ukraine and politics altogether in 2015. “This is a pretty funny situation,” he said, “Look at me. I’m not even invited to speak on [Russian] state TV because I’m not important enough. I’m a sanatorium director in Yalta.” Truly, Tsaryov runs three wellness clinics on the Black Sea. A fourth candidate was Ukraine’s former premier, Mykola Azarov, who despite being forced to flee the country in 2014, was now 74 years old, no less. “How can I defend myself against the allegation when nobody has provided any evidence against me?,” he said in frustration, “I can’t even sue the British, because they phrased it very carefully. They haven’t directly accused me of being involved, just that some people may have been thinking of using me.”

The purpose of the U.S. and U.K. allegations, however, was not to reflect reliable intelligence. Otherwise, such publicization would’ve been prohibited to protect sources and methods, especially when lacking inroads into reading Russia’s intentions. Instead, the disclosures and leaks represented a disinformation operation to harden deterrence-by-denial. By preempting a plan’s mere possibility, they believed its implementation would become more complicated and drive up its costs. “Calling it (i.e. regime change) out takes away the element of surprise and also reduces the chances of Russia succeeding if they actually attempt it,” said a Western official in January 2022, speaking on condition of anonymity.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/course-correcting-toward-diplomacy-ukraine-crisis-204171

The Ukrainians have, by and large, favored the EU among given options in polls since 2004, though not always more than 50%; more than 50% have favored the EU since 2017.
NATO is a different matter; polls only went over 50% (less than 60%) in 2014, and over 80% in 2022; the reasons for these increases should be clear.
Ukraine had a relatively modest army until 2022/2023 (seemingly demilitarizing in 2013), and a relatively modest military budget until 2022; all that changed with the 2022 invasion.
Well, the Kremlin has other plans — other plans for Ukraine, regardless of their wishes.
As of 2022, NATO did not have nuclear weapons on Russia's doorstep (or Ukraine's); the converse cannot be said, and, in 2023, Putin's Russia deployed nuclear weapons in Belarus.

No, I don’t think so. — Mikie

Does that include cables and whatever else?
Do you deny the sad state of Belarus...? — Feb 6, 2026

I don’t want to be part of a pile on, so I’ll leave it at that for now. I’ll just say what I said to Tzeentch, yes Putin has secured most of the Donbas, but at what cost?

It makes no sense. The obvious strategic move is to decapitate Ukraine and install a puppet. — RogueAI

Exactly.

What you say was the most obvious objective. But some have this need to prove this is a "myth", that the real cause of Russia's attack was only a defensive move because of NATO enlargement. And once you've taken that stance that everything was because of the American military-industrial complex and the foreign policy blob, then this "critical" stance leaves you determined that Ukraine shouldn't be assisted and Trump should push Ukraine to surr... make peace with Russia.

Well, let's see how long there is a NATO, thanks to Trump.