Not with landing paratroops on them. — ssu

Sure they can. Airports are a classic target for airborne assaults.

Sure they can. Airports are a classic target for airborne assaults. — Tzeentch

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.

Once an airborne detachment has occupied an area, it can basically hold on to that area until relieved. And that's basically it. Operation Mercury was the first, and the last, time when an air assault was planned to do basically everything.

Also, the purpose of taking the airport is to use it. Failure to secure it through combined forces is part and parcel to the failure of the whole operation as detailed in this comparison of Hostomel with the failure of Market Garden in WW2: An Airfield Too Far: Failures at Market Garden and Antonov Airfield

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

Why dumb? What events are so incompatible with that narrative as to render it dumb. Your alternative might be equally plausible. You might even render an argument that it's slightly more probable, in a limited sense. But absolutely nothing you've presented so far has been any where near the level of confidence to render alternative narratives "dumb".

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

I think this aspect can be understood as a game of "chicken" (if you're familiar with the game). The first person to back down loses. To play the game successfully one has to be willing to go too far. Anything less won't win. If one only goes as far as a rational actor would then one will only ever match, but not beat, one's opponent.

If Putin had sat tight and continued his low grade trouble making, would anyone have tried to topple him or sanction him? — apokrisis

Many thought so, yes. The 'westernisation' of Ukraine and the colour revolutions we're considered a potential threat to Putin's regime.

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

Yes, I agree with this aspect. Putin comes across as being frustrated at his being left out from the big boys table. A dangerous game for the US and Europe to have played.

To risk so much for so little is ridiculous. — apokrisis

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.

And there is still a need for an accurate assessment to predict how this continues of unfold. — apokrisis

Well yes, but that's best left in the hands of the strategists. What's up to us is who we lend our mandate to and how much we're willing to let them get away with unquestioned.

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

I see. So the proof that Russia made a massive tactical error is that they wouldn't be so stupid as to make a massive tactical error.

With the assumption that the airborne force can be then quite quickly be relieved by a ground force. — ssu

And they were relieved, weren't they?

Nobody thinks of making a landing deep in enemy territory and then just assume that they can be evacuated by air ... — ssu

That just so happens to be part of the job description of airborne troops.

But I fail to see your point. This airport was somehow the critical point in taking Kiev, proving the Russians intended to take Kiev by force?

Has been, is, costly for Putin's team.
I guess when you're a defending freedomfighter, the cost is sort of secondary.
Apparently there are skirmishes outside of Pavlivka (Donetsk Oblast). Russian supply route?
Didn't know the freedomfighters were that far south.
What's their strategy...? Or maybe just some locals with guided anti-tank missiles?

Not with landing paratroops on them. — ssu

Hah. It really is just that simple. :lol:

Keep hitting him with the facts. Watch it make no difference to the propaganda.

Why don't you respond to my comment, instead of clowning?

Why don't you respond to my comment, instead of clowning? — Tzeentch

Because I cannot take you seriously. You give me no reason to.

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

If that is the case, doesn't that condition apply to your assessment that the attack on Kiev was only a feint?

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?

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

Lucrative the land he currently holds may be but what’s the point of mining gold if the value of it is determined by the market? Furthermore, the current client base of this is what China ? India? … he has started to in fact Alienate more oil rich former soviet states. His incompetence on display for all to see, not all former Soviet’s have the same level of brainwashing going as Russia.

The other thing if the land you hold is lucrative but you can’t comercially exploit it because the machinery to do so is western means you’re essentially sitting on goldmine but eating gold is not what keeps your biology alive but real nourishment like the basics.

He can drink his oil once his inability to produce milk because he detonated a nuke is not only self/damaging and stupid but …a death wish indeed.

He will have signed his own death warrant then…and though guillotines are rusting novichok has a certain shelf life and like wine gets better with age

If that is the case, doesn't that condition apply to your assessment that the attack on Kiev was only a feint? — Paine

This account of what US intelligence knew and what the allies could believe about the looming invasion is fascinating.

It is clear that the US had detailed inside information. But it was hard to credit Putin would risk such an ambitious plan with such sketchy forces.

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/

To continue knocking down the talking points of Putin apologists, remember this?…

So Kyiv feint? Putin’s limited ambitions? Time to put the sourceless disinformation to bed.

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 is Hitler 2.0….someone had to say it :grin:

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

Talking of Goebbels...

It's fascinating how native the suite of propaganda techniques have become... Dehumanise your opposition, choose to repeat your position rather than engage counterarguments....

Whether or not the various alternative narratives here have been sourced is easily checked, but I wonder how few will do so, or rather just assume your assertion is true because it's repeated.

If that is the case, doesn't that condition apply to your assessment that the attack on Kiev was only a feint? — Paine

Mine is not an assessment. It's a speculation, and I've never pretended otherwise. The issue is several here do not seem to realize that all they have is speculations also, and pretend to have some authoritative sources on their side, which they do not.

But in a sense, yes, the same condition applies. Which is why I supported my views with arguments based the type of data and common military logic that anyone can verify. When I asked the opponents of my position to share what data their views are based on, I was met with silence.

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

In my view, the attack on Kiev likely served a different primary purpose - to show the West the Russians were serious about war in Ukraine, and give them a last chance to veer towards the Russians in regards to Ukraine's position in EU/NATO.

Of course, the Russians had no certainty this would work, and in the case the West did not back down, this attack could serve as the feint I mentioned.

Had the Russians made their intentions clear to march on the south without threatening Kiev, it stands to reason that resistance in the south would have been much higher.

Consider that the number of forces at the start of the invasion were roughly 200,000 Russians versus 250,000 Ukrainians - the Russians did not have anywhere near the 3:1 numerical advantage that is often considered a requirement for offensive military operations.

It was therefore vital that the Ukrainians were kept off balance.

I've also given several reasons why it is unlikely the Russians intended to occupy Kiev, the most important of which is that it would require an incredible investment of time and manpower, while Kiev is not of great strategic significance in the war.

The extent to which the attack on Kiev contributed to the relatively speedy advance in the south and the acquisition of the strategic territories that likely made up the Russians' initial wargoals is unknown. That would be a nice subject for research.

As for historical examples; the ground campaign of Desert Storm featured a feint on Kuwait as its primary tactical idea. The US forces pretended their intentions were to strike directly through the oil fields towards Kuwait, and the Iraqis concentrated their forces accordingly along the Kuwait-Saudi border.

Meanwhile, the US main force, VII Corps, crossed the Iraq-Saudi border instead, and wrapped up their entire flank.

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.

I guess I'd be pretty reluctant to share my sources too — Tzeentch

You are indeed very coy on your sources. Like others pushing the same talking points on this forum. :chin:

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.

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

You think the idea of sourcing things is a talking point?

Looking at this map, one might conclude that the Russians tried to encircle and take or destroy Kiev. We can only speculate of course, but for me, nothing could be further from the truth. What if the Russians only wanted to send a message?

Okay, they could have sent an email instead, but they were not sure it would be read. So they sent their best troops around Kiev to send their message.

The message was: Sergei, where did you put the 12 mm spanner?

We don't know what the Ukrainians answered, but it must have been something good, because the Russians then left the area.

Russian disinformation might like to call it a clever feint, but then there was this even sweeter lie….

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 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.

But here is a source that supports you guys. Marvel at the quality and credentials.

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

Yeah. Likewise, I also checked Google to see where your talking points might be sourced, but nothing respectable turned up either.

Funny how when one searches Google one always seems to find what one is expecting to find.

Yeah. Likewise, I also checked Google to see where your talking points might be sourced, but nothing respectable turned up either. — Isaac

More disinformation. You only have to check my posts to see the sources. :smile:

Uhuh. Likewise, you only have to check my posts to see the sources.

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

You clearly don't understand what sources are about.

Sources are about facts, not analysis or opinion and certainly not questions to other parties to a debate.

@Isaac has already explained this to you, but I'll explain it again with some examples.

First of all, even having a source when the other side does not, doesn't "win" an argument in any case. If someone on a corner of the internet is making wild claims about a situation no one else witnessed ... by definition there would be no contradictory source.

However, is it reasonable to accept any wild claim about events no one else witnessed? Obviously not, the first followup question to a sourced claim is "well, how credible is this source."

To make a long story short, in a war there are few credible sources. Every source of information could be propaganda or part of some deceptive campaign.

Indeed, one baseline of reliability commentators like to rely on is when both Ukraine and Russia are saying the same thing, seems bullet proof, but even then we must reserve skepticism as one side maybe simply saying what the other side wants to believe for the purpose of deception.

And pointing out that pretty much anything could be deceptive is not "apologetics" it's simply obvious.

Which is why the narrative of Russian incompetence is so essential to Western propaganda, as the only way to take everything Ukrainian Intelligence says, retired US generals, and the Western media at face value with zero criticism, or followup questions is to first believe Russia is irrational (as even taking the Western narrative at face value is replete with contradictions that are only resolvable if Putin, the Kremlin and the Russian military are irrational actors).

Or, as @Tzeentch has accurately described:

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

In other words, there is very little reliable information about any statistically relevant information. Pointing out some anecdotes of failure, morale problems, mistakes, logistical problem, etc. doesn't establish as much or more of the same problems on the Ukrainian side.

All that is established is that "shit happens".

Any honest analysis progresses in several stages, first considering the "undisputed facts" that all parties to the discussion do actually agree on and what to make of them.

For example, undisputed facts are:

1. Russia currently occupies nearly 20% of Ukraine and has successfully pacified these regions.
2. Russia has secured what Western analysts before the war pointed out would be a big strategic victory of creating a land bridge to Crimea and securing the water supply to Crimea.
3. Russian lines are not currently "in collapse" due to morale, logistics, mutiny, etc. as is claimed essentially everyday on my news feeds.
4. Ukraine recently launched a major offensive that recaptured area in the least relevant strategic location, that is now making very slow progress, while Russia also makes progress in other areas of the front.

So, whatever the "absolute competence" of the Russian military it is not so great to have lost all of their land gains since the start of the war, nor lose the strategically vital land-bridge to Crimea canal and Kherson. Indeed, this strategic heart of the whole operation is not currently even under threat.

There is also no reason that all your arguments that the Russian military is not a good meritocracy etc. do not also apply to Ukraine, or the US for that matter. Certainly the US has a lot more technology and equipment and bases around the world and spends much more money than Russia, doesn't make them more competent and less financially wasteful and corrupt ... and ... the war is actually with Ukraine and not the US.

Ukraine was actually ranked as more corrupt than Russia by some metrics before the war. Why wouldn't your analysis not also apply to Ukraine? Not to speak of all the authoritarians of one flavour or another throughout history that fought successful wars, and there being zero evidence that democracy, even "true democracy" without reproach or blemish, is some sort of magical super weapon on the battlefield.

Likewise, you only have to check my posts to see the sources. — Isaac

So show me a post where you gave a source after I requested it. Otherwise disinformation.

You clearly don't understand what sources are about. — boethius

I know they are more than some random dude on the internet. Even if it is opinion, I prefer it from someone with a name and credible credentials.