They do, but one cannot deny that Russia is under severe pressure - otherwise Putin would have not made his announcement today. — Manuel
Of course Ukraine has lost plenty in the war, but at the moment they are looking better militarily than a few weeks ago. — Manuel
The size of the attack and the use of paratroops to seize a central airport doesn't logically sound as a diversionary attack or feint. — ssu
It goes totally against, actually the thing you mentioned, the Schwerpunkt-tactic. — ssu
And what then was then the effort that was called Kyiv convoy, a 64km long convoy stuck there to do what? — ssu
It wasn't a feint or diversion as the attacking forces were quite the same as the attacking forces attacking Kharkiv, which also wasn't taken. — ssu
I think you should give some credible arguments that this operation was a feint or just a diversion. — ssu
If I use the Occam's razor, [...] — ssu
There's simply too much anecdotal evidence of this, just like this brief encounter from the start of the war: — ssu
As I quoted earlier a highly regarded Western think tank, they didn't believe that Ukraine could repel an attack towards Kyiv from the Russian armed forces just few months before it was tried. — ssu
Kiev has almost 3 million inhabitants, Kharkiv has roughly 1.5 million, Odessa has 1 million, Dnipro has almost 1 million, Zaporizhia has 750,000, and even Mariupol has almost 500,000. If defended, these large urban areas could take considerable time and casualties to clear and occupy. In the First Chechen War, it took Russian forces from December 31, 1994, to February 9, 1995, to wrestle control of Grozny, then a city of less than 400,000, from a few thousand Chechen fighters. In the Second Chechen War, the siege of Grozny also took six weeks.
Therefore, the best course of action for Russian troops would be to bypass urban areas and mop them up later.
Kiev poses a similar challenge and, as the nation’s capital, possesses great symbolic value for whichever side holds it.
This will be the first time since World War II that Russia’s ground forces will face a modern mechanized opponent, and its air forces will face an opponent with a modern air force and air defense system. Consequently, Russian forces will likely face notable challenges in command, control, communications, and coordination.
Kiev and the Dnepr River crossings are at least 150 to 200 road miles from the Russian border, and its army will require at least several days of fighting to reach them.
As the operational depth in Ukraine is far greater than in the Baltics, a Russian invasion of Ukraine could be a longer affair than some anticipate due to the time and distance to bring up supplies.
In addition, Ukraine could potentially prevent Russia from seizing and holding all or most of its territory with U.S. and other international aid.
Yet, if the ONLY objective would have been to create that land bridge with Crimea and help the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, you wouldn't have had the 1st Guards Tank Army attacking Kharkiv.Aka. the operations in the North meant they were unable to defend the South, the obvious military objective of creating a land bridge to Crimea that military analysts pointed out the Kremlin would be very much wanting to accomplish. — boethius
Yet, if the ONLY objective would have been to create that land bridge with Crimea and help the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, you wouldn't have had the 1st Guards Tank Army attacking Kharkiv. — ssu
And that is why I fear this option. I wouldn't underestimate the impact of a genuine "mushroom cloud" in videos and photos somewhere in the Ukrainian countryside. People would simply think that it would mean an escalation to a nuclear holocaust. Which it doesn't: Ukraine has no WMD ability. It gave away it's nuclear deterrent, something that Mearsheimer himself called a huge mistake (and where I agree with Mearsheimer).Yeah, it's of no use except to scare or cause an accident that will perish us all. But from his perspective, what is he to do? Admitting defeat is never an option for a nuclear power, national pride is worse than religion here. — Manuel
I don't think we have here much of a disagreement.And, I would not disagree that the pressure on Kiev did not have as a first objective the capitulation of Kiev and accepting the offered peace terms, but clearly it's secondary objective was to then divert as much Ukrainian military potential to the North as possible in order to secure the land bridge and complete the siege of Mariupol. — boethius
Or instead, the FSB’s expensive network of political stooges were meant to ensure a swift and easy win. But - irony - corruption saw the money going into other pockets, Just as did the funds meant to keep the army’s tanks and trucks in serviceable shape.
Events have shown just how many miscalculations were involved in Putin’s “rational, well planned, limited aims” debacle.
But you can write your own history of the world. — apokrisis
I don't think we have here much of a disagreement. — ssu
It should be said that here Putin did follow what was reasonable in the military terms, but bad in political terms (as obviously the Ukrainians got a huge moral boosting victory). A more pigheaded politicians wouldn't have dared to disengage this way. — ssu
Ummm....assuming the forces are otherwise similar. Which they many times have not been.You're suggesting the FSB singlehandedly overturned military doctrine which is consistent both in NATO and Russia for decades that an offensive force to be successful needs to be at least 3 times larger than the defensive force to be successful more than half of the time and 5 times as large as a prepared, dug in defensive force. — Benkei
We have for a long time in our own preparedness taken into account this kind of situational development, in which Russia mobilizes society to be able to maintain its ability to wage war. There is still no immediate military threat to Finland. #FinnishDefenseForces
I'd think the response would to increase the military aid. Have no limits like now.The thing is if he does drop one, even a so called "mini nuke", I don't see how NATO will not respond. They'd have to. But then that creates a self-feeding loop. — Manuel
My worst fear is that if the now held areas are "acquired" to be part of Mother Russia, Putin will use tactical nukes to "Escalate to De-escalate" and then cow the West to urge Ukraine to stop the war immediately however badly it is going for Russia. — ssu
I think the prize should go to you by going so well along with the Kremlin line.This is a lovely piece of spin, it should get some sort of award... — Isaac
From July 1965 to December 1974, more than 6000 generals and officers and more than 4,500 soldiers were sent to Vietnam as specialists.
See here“Today our armed forces are operating across a front line that exceeds 1,000 km, opposing not only neo-Nazi formations but the entire military machine of the collective West. NATO is conducting reconnaissance across the south of Russia. Washington, London and Brussels are directly pushing Kyiv to move military action to our country. They are openly saying that Russia should be defeated on the battlefield by any means.
Nuclear blackmail has also been used. We are talking not only about the shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant – encouraged by the West – which threatens to cause a nuclear catastrophe but also about statements from senior representatives of NATO countries about the possibility and permissibility of using weapons of mass destruction against Russia: nuclear weapons. I would like to remind those who make such statements about Russia that our country also possesses various means of destruction, and in some cases, they are more modern than those of NATO countries. When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we, of course, will use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people.
This is not a bluff. And those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weather vane can turn and point towards them. Citizens of Russia can be convinced that our territorial independence and freedom will be provided, and I emphasize this one more time, with all means that we have at our disposal.”
I think the prize should go to you by going so well along with the Kremlin line. — ssu
You're suggesting the FSB singlehandedly overturned military doctrine which is consistent both in NATO and Russia for decades that an offensive force to be successful needs to be at least 3 times larger than the defensive force to be successful more than half of the time and 5 times as large as a prepared, dug in defensive force. — Benkei
They didn't actually leave. The "War on Terror" is still actually going on in Iraq. It just has been forgotten that some troops are still there.During that time, there were several insurgencies, civil war and the rise of IS when they left. That's your idea of an occupation? Just being around seems a low bar. To me that was just a continuous conflict. — Benkei
I think it is beyond discussion(or debate) that Russia has imperial aspirations about Ukrainian territory as it is holding referendums to join more of the occupied territories to Russia. Annexation of territories and saying that they are an integral part of Mother Russia says the obvious to anybody with some understanding about history and the objectives of the people behind such talk.But sure, if that qualifies as an occupation than Russia's aim was to occupy Ukraine and to then have an insurgency on their hands and unsuccessfully try whatever the Americans were also unsuccessful at. — Benkei
:clap: :up:My error here was in not realising there is a whole bunch of you Putin apologists pushing the crackpot idea that all the Russian set-backs have been part of a grand plan to achieve very minimal invasion goals. Every reverse is a feint followed by a tactical regrouping. — apokrisis
Actually, I genuinely hope that this (or similar) threads aren't going to be very long or as long as the COVID thread. Everybody understands what would make this thread go on for long... I myself have commented the Ukrainian on the Biden adminstration thread two months ago (starting here), so it's not something out of the blue. — ssu
You can be both critical and supportive of organizations or countries depending on the subject or issue.
I have no trouble of being critical against NATO and the US especially when it came to the war in Afghanistan... — ssu
I think it is beyond discussion(or debate) that Russia has imperial aspirations about Ukrainian territory as it is holding referendums to join more of the occupied territories to Russia. Annexation of territories and saying that they are an integral part of Mother Russia says the obvious to anybody with some understanding about history and the objectives of the people behind such talk.
9h — ssu
I’m merely pointing out the widely reported view that FSB corruption saw funds diverted from creating a network of stooges. That was one more proof that Putin runs a rotting kleptocracy rather than anything resembling a competent superpower. — apokrisis
My error here was in not realising there is a whole bunch of you Putin apologists pushing the crackpot idea that all the Russian set-backs have been part of a grand plan to achieve very minimal invasion goals. Every reverse is a feint followed by a tactical regrouping. — apokrisis
See here
People who believe Putin and that Russia has been attacked by Ukraine/NATO, well, are crazy. — ssu
ou had a whole shtick about Russian identity that was pure fiction. — Benkei
Your error is inferring arguments I'm not making. — Benkei
I provided sources. If you want to posture on the issue, then provide the sources that argue against these sources. Kindly put up or shut up — apokrisis
Where have I claimed that anything you might have said reached the level of an argument. I’ve said exactly the opposite.
Anyone who claims Putin’s war is going to plan is rather hard of understanding. It makes no sense on any level. The incompetence is plain to see. — apokrisis
If you said yourself that it's a lie, then isn't believing a lie crazy?Which is not what he's talking about. He's saying the West is pushing Ukraine to move military action into Russia (a bit unclear but I think he means Russia proper, excluding Ukrainian occupied land). Which is a lie. But the point he's making is that if that were to happen (the conflict moves until Russian soil), then he would authorise the use of nukes. It's literally in the text.
The interesting bit about the lie is that it actually opens the door that allows him to "lose" while maintaining face. — Benkei
Where have I argued this not to be the case? — Benkei
Crimea, Donetsk and Luhans are all occupied territories. Which Putin has said are part of Russia, basically. So that's my worry about him "defending Russian territory" with nukes.I think the crux in that quote is what he means with Russia. If he meant including Crimea and Donetsk then following that premise, I guess technically not a lie because we're supporting Ukraine to reclaim their territory* (we reject the premise of course but I want to tease out the exact meaning) and much more worrying than if he meant Russia without Ukrainian occupied territory. I was hopeful he meant the latter but could be worse obviously. — Benkei
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.