And you seem to assume that the Russian side never makes any mistake, and that "everything is going according to plan". — Olivier5
↪Tzeentch And you seem to assume that the Russian side never makes any mistake, and that "everything is going according to plan". So the reason you are "struggling to see where this idea comes from that Russia is losing" is simply that you assume that whatever happens is a desirable outcome for the Russians. — Olivier5
The reason you are "struggling to see where this idea comes from that Russia is losing" is simply that you subconsciously assume that whatever happens is a desirable outcome for the Russians. — Olivier5
How much troops did they need to annex Crimea? And the way Russia could interfere in Ukrainian politics before makes it easy to underestimate Ukrainian resolve.If they wanted to invade and occupy all of Ukraine, the troops they'd need to deploy to keep it under control would have to be several times what they've deployed now. — Tzeentch
LOL! :rofl:What you're implying is that all territory Russia at one point or another controlled they also meant to hold.
I think that's a highly questionable assumption. — Tzeentch
:up: :100:The reason you are "struggling to see where this idea comes from that Russia is losing" is simply that you subconsciously assume that whatever happens is a desirable outcome for the Russians. Rid yourself of this assumption, and you may start to read the message on the wall. — Olivier5
In February, Putin met with Xi in Beijing. Now, Xi will meet Putin somewhere in Central Asia just a month before Xi is poised to cement his place as the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong. — magritte
We understand your questions and concern about this. During today's meeting, we will of course explain our position, we will explain in detail our position on this issue, although we have talked about this before. — Putin to Xi
I know your stance on the conflict in Ukraine and the concerns you constantly express. We’ll do everything to end this as soon as possible. — Putin to Modi
How much troops did they need to annex Crimea? And the way Russia could interfere in Ukrainian politics before makes it easy to underestimate Ukrainian resolve. — ssu
Putin made quite easily same kind of mistakes like Hitler after the victories against Poland and France. — ssu
When you don't get it, you really don't get it.2. Russia's invasion of Ukraine can from a military-strategic viewpoint be compared to Hitler's invasion of Poland and France — Tzeentch
Russia modeled it's attack from the most successful military operation that the Soviet Union did post-WW2: Operation Danube. — ssu
Similarly Putin's earlier victories and the West's mute response made him confident the Ukrainians wouldn't be much of a match and he could pull off the invasion that he started on the 24th of February this year. That since 2014 when the war started, the Ukrainians basically wouldn't have done anything. — ssu
All I'm seeing from you and ↪Olivier5 is knee-jerk reactions whenever your flimsy ideas of how this war is going are challenged. Accusations of partisanship and "subconscious biases" - have either of you ever looked in a mirror? — Tzeentch
Learn what a strategic strike means in military terminology first.You're now claiming the Russians modelled their invasion of Ukraine after their invasion of Czechoslovakia - a conflict that took place over 50 years ago? Lets see some proof then. Or anything that resembles a reasoned argument. — Tzeentch
This just shows how ignorant you are.Invading a diplomatically isolated, unprepared Soviet republic and invading a western-backed, militarily prepared Ukraine? — Tzeentch
Perhaps not as an easy cake-walk as Crimea, but the view was that it was totally possible for the Russian military to take out Ukraine quickly. Your "and your dog" argument that everybody knew that Ukraine would be prepared is totally false, absolute bullshit.Everybody and their dog knew it wasn't going to be a repeat of 2014, and that the Ukrainians would be prepared. — Tzeentch
See Guerrilla tactics offer Ukraine’s best deterrent against Putin’s invasion forceDeterrence can be achieved by denial or punishment of the aggressor. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely Ukraine can deny Russian invasion forces at or near its border. Therefore, Ukraine’s best chance of deterring the Russians is to threaten to punish them once they cross the border.
Ukraine can raise the cost to Russia by preparing for a long war complete with significant guerrilla activity behind Russian lines. Russian leaders are acutely aware of the price Afghan guerrillas extracted for the occupation of their country. Preparation for this kind of war requires recruiting and training personnel as well as establishing weapons caches quickly. Such efforts are already underway and will likely intensify in the weeks ahead.
See CSIS report: Moscows continuing Ukrainian buildupRussian military forces—including elements of the 41st Combined Field Army and 144th Guards Motorized Rifle Division (see Figure 4)—would likely outmatch Ukrainian conventional forces and overrun Kiev in a matter of hours if they invaded.
Because you are inventing your own fabricated narrative that you then answer and not that what people actually say, I guess I shouldn't take you seriously either.You expect me to take your "they're a bunch of dummies" argument seriously — Tzeentch
inventing your own fabricated narrative that you then answer — ssu
I made it clear to you more than once that you are not worth my time. — SophistiCat
Learn what a strategic strike means in military terminology first. — ssu
The similarity with the occupation of Czechoslovakia and Crimea should be evident: Both were military operations where the opponent didn't fight back. Both achieved strategic surprise. Both events we even don't call wars, they were so successful. When you can achieve your objectives without even a shot fired, the military operation has really achieves it's goals. The tanks just appeared on the streets of Prague, just like the Russia paratroops appeared in Crimea, whom the Western media even didn't call out to be Russian, so totally dumbfounded was back then the Western media. The totally insane lie that these would be "Crimean volunteers" got the media confused and it fell into bothsidesing. — ssu
Czechoslovakia wasn't a Soviet Republic (like Ukraine was during the Soviet Union). And Ukraine in 2014 was totally unprepared for any military attack. There were no shots fired when Russia took over Crimea. The military was able to respond to the Donbas insurgency only far later. Ukraine was militarily prepared by the West. — ssu
Proof:
The US offered Zelenskyi to evacuate him. Why would they offer this, if they were certain that there would be a war fought for months? Before the attack the ability for Ukraine to defend itself from a Russian aggression was seen quite futile. — ssu
Why would they offer this, if they were certain that there would be a war fought for months? — ssu
Something like fighting a conventional war was obviously out of the question to the author above. — ssu
This is what the CSIS think tank thought of the chances of Ukraine in November of 2021, just months before the attack happened: — ssu
Does that mean you are indifferent to the outcome of the war? — Olivier5
No. What I was referring as proof was against the argument from @Tzeentch that:So your 'proof' that Russia intended to take Ukraine is that some analysts thought that Russia could beat Ukraine in a full invasion. — Isaac
Everybody and their dog knew it wasn't going to be a repeat of 2014, and that the Ukrainians would be prepared. — Tzeentch
Are you so absolutely clueless that you don't understand that this war started in 2014? That just for some time, it was called a frozen conflict, yet Russian forces where all the time involved in the Donbas?And what does any of this have to do with the invasion of Ukraine? — Tzeentch
What backpedaling?You're going to substantiate your claims, or will you hide behind snarky comments to hide you're backpeddling? — 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.