3 ms·

> Its clear the Russians planned this as a "shock & awe" blitzkrieg > the Russians are not stupid these 2 points have been on my mind unrelated to your argume

> Its clear the Russians planned this as a "shock & awe" blitzkrieg > the Russians are not stupid these 2 points have been on my mind unrelated to your argument. I do not think they're stupid which is why I can't help to figure out why they botched this up. The whole thing looks like an unhinged ego trip of a single ruler that has grown increasingly isolated (maybe because of the pandemic), like Stalins final days. But Putin isn't Stalin. So either they failed on strategy, nobody was brave enough to question Gerasimov, or the bigger plan is yet to reveal itself. For now it's Occams razor I think.

Udo 5y ago
> these 2 points have been on my mind unrelated to your argument. Same here. Could the issue be morale? I heard isolated reports that the lower-rung soldiers appeared to have very low fighting morale, and apparently many had not believed that the invasion would actually go ahead. Allegedly, some hadn't been told they were actually doing an invasion. What if this problem exists from the top down? It only takes a few disillusioned generals so they fail to deploy 70% of their forces, and the troops that do make it to the battlegrounds are not being properly coordinated. The only other reason I can think of besides internal sabotage is that they're worried about the optics of a too brutal assault, but then again they have not really worried about optics in the past.
- tlogan 5y ago
  It seems to be morale. Here [1] is a click of Ukrainian asking Russian soldiers if they need tow back to Russia. My point is that Russians and Ukrainians people like each other: the problem is that Ukrainie does not have puppet like Lukashenko as a leader. [1] https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640?s=20&t=GhU58w7qiPhAUK0KINgdbQ https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640?s=2...
oceanplexian 5y ago
Am I the only one who thinks that while what’s going on is reprehensible and terrible, it does actually make a lot of strategic sense from Putin’s POV and he is not, in fact, an idiot? Ukraine is a pretty soft target and has great strategic value. After taking Crimea and installing favorable leaders in Belarus Russia was prepared to invade from all sides with no resistance (Which was probably planned years in advance). Europe is helplessly dependent on Russian gas, and won’t risk intervening. China is collaborating with them behind the scenes mitigating the West’s threats of sanctions. From my perspective I see a highly intelligent, strategic set of decisions made over a long period of time. Unfortunately it seems most people seem to be ignorant to the facts and analyzing the situation emotionally.
- almost_usual 5y ago
  It’s a stalled offensive front, it’s not strategic to waste time and resources. Russia is only exposing themselves more the longer this draws out.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > it does actually make a lot of strategic sense from Putin’s POV and he is not, in fact, an idiot? I don't believe he's an idiot and I'm sure he knew that he could take the Ukraine without much resistance from the West. It comes with significant drawbacks, however - the EU might not cease trading completely, but the sanctions still hit the economy hard and their own stock market tanked. The war is also really expensive and quite unpopular, both inside Russia and on the global stage. Finland and Sweden will also most likely join the NATO now, which, while geographically not that important, still makes him a tad more surrounded. Lastly, a destroyed Ukraine full of people hating him is really not that useful. It's a bit unexpected, but we also know now that the Ukraine is putting up quite fierce resistance and is not really a soft target. I was wrong about him invading at all, so my predictions about Russia might be wrong again, but I think invading was strategically a really bad move.
- woobar 5y ago
  Minor correction: Putin did not install any leaders in Belarus. Lukashenko became a president years before anyone heard of Putin (1994). Lukashenko has always maintained close relationship with Putin's Russia and would have supported such invasion in 2014. The price for such support for Russia would be much higher back then though.

Udo 5y ago

> these 2 points have been on my mind unrelated to your argument. Same here. Could the issue be morale? I heard isolated reports that the lower-rung soldiers appeared to have very low fighting morale, and apparently many had not believed that the invasion would actually go ahead. Allegedly, some hadn't been told they were actually doing an invasion. What if this problem exists from the top down? It only takes a few disillusioned generals so they fail to deploy 70% of their forces, and the troops that do make it to the battlegrounds are not being properly coordinated. The only other reason I can think of besides internal sabotage is that they're worried about the optics of a too brutal assault, but then again they have not really worried about optics in the past.

tlogan 5y ago
It seems to be morale. Here [1] is a click of Ukrainian asking Russian soldiers if they need tow back to Russia. My point is that Russians and Ukrainians people like each other: the problem is that Ukrainie does not have puppet like Lukashenko as a leader. [1] https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640?s=20&t=GhU58w7qiPhAUK0KINgdbQ https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640?s=2...

oceanplexian 5y ago

Am I the only one who thinks that while what’s going on is reprehensible and terrible, it does actually make a lot of strategic sense from Putin’s POV and he is not, in fact, an idiot? Ukraine is a pretty soft target and has great strategic value. After taking Crimea and installing favorable leaders in Belarus Russia was prepared to invade from all sides with no resistance (Which was probably planned years in advance). Europe is helplessly dependent on Russian gas, and won’t risk intervening. China is collaborating with them behind the scenes mitigating the West’s threats of sanctions. From my perspective I see a highly intelligent, strategic set of decisions made over a long period of time. Unfortunately it seems most people seem to be ignorant to the facts and analyzing the situation emotionally.

almost_usual 5y ago
It’s a stalled offensive front, it’s not strategic to waste time and resources. Russia is only exposing themselves more the longer this draws out.
Sebb767 5y ago
> it does actually make a lot of strategic sense from Putin’s POV and he is not, in fact, an idiot? I don't believe he's an idiot and I'm sure he knew that he could take the Ukraine without much resistance from the West. It comes with significant drawbacks, however - the EU might not cease trading completely, but the sanctions still hit the economy hard and their own stock market tanked. The war is also really expensive and quite unpopular, both inside Russia and on the global stage. Finland and Sweden will also most likely join the NATO now, which, while geographically not that important, still makes him a tad more surrounded. Lastly, a destroyed Ukraine full of people hating him is really not that useful. It's a bit unexpected, but we also know now that the Ukraine is putting up quite fierce resistance and is not really a soft target. I was wrong about him invading at all, so my predictions about Russia might be wrong again, but I think invading was strategically a really bad move.
woobar 5y ago
Minor correction: Putin did not install any leaders in Belarus. Lukashenko became a president years before anyone heard of Putin (1994). Lukashenko has always maintained close relationship with Putin's Russia and would have supported such invasion in 2014. The price for such support for Russia would be much higher back then though.