6 ms·

The "stumped" is not actually in the article. FTA: the issue is that Russia made a huge show of force at the start of the invasion but has apparently held back

The "stumped" is not actually in the article. FTA: the issue is that Russia made a huge show of force at the start of the invasion but has apparently held back from actually using much of it (by air or ground). This war could have been over the day it started if Russia had used maximal force, and the conservative approach their actually using maximizes risks and casualties. And that's what has the experts confused: they can't figure out why Russia is going with this strategy, given the overwhelming technological and numerical superiority of the invasion force and their apparent willingness to accept casualties as the cost of conquering Ukraine. It doesn't appear to be cost, because the invasion has "cost" Russia hundreds of billions. It doesn't appear to be casualties/morale, because Russia has suffered 500+ casualties in 3 days (its worst losses since Afghanistan), and is still invading. It doesn't appear to be doctrine, because their actions don't match what is known of Russian ground or air doctrine. And so experts are trying to figure out what calculus went into Russia's invasion planning (assuming there was a coherent strategy going in, which is not a given in the post-Trump world).

dymk 5y ago
It's not really fair to say it's not in the article - it's the title of the article.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  The author of the article does not choose the title, the editor does, based on what they think will draw more views/clicks.
  - dymk 5y ago
    I don't really care if it's the editor or the author - it's part of the article. Similarly, I don't care if it's served up over HTTP1 or HTTP2, it's irrelevant to the content of the document served up.
PaulHoule 5y ago
I think it's like this. Russia eventually wants to bombard Kiev with heavy weapons like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A52-4_Tornado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A52-4_Tornado which can use ammunition at an absolutely insane rate. It takes time to move this stuff into place and more time to take the ammunition in, set up resupply paths, etc. So Russia attacks Kiev with a small force with light weapons, some Spetsnaz, mostly to keep the fight away from the main body of the force which will strike hard when it is ready.
- baq 5y ago
  The problem with this take is Kyiv is more or less Russian Jerusalem. That’s one important difference from all other… special operations performed by Putin.
speeder 5y ago
I don't understand why people just don't believe Russia is being literal with their intentions. They said multiple times they don't want Ukraine, they just don't want NATO to be able to invade them by land. I'd you assume this is true, what they are doing make complete sense.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I don't understand why people just don't believe Russia is being literal with their intentions They are. You are just listening to the wrong articulation of their intentions. > They said multiple times they don't want Ukraine, They have said multiple times that they do want Ukraine, view it's separation from Russia as a crime against Russia and Russians committed by those in the past with control over Russia in the form of the Soviet Union, and Russian state media even released than silently deleted a premature victory announcement for the current invasion declaring the establishment of a new union state of all the Russias (Russia [Great Russia], Ukraine [Little Russia]< and Belarus.) Now, that's not what they emphasize to the international community, but they have been saying it.
  - causi 5y ago
    * Russian state media even released than silently deleted a premature victory announcement for the current invasion declaring the establishment of a new union state of all the Russias (Russia [Great Russia], Ukraine [Little Russia]< and Belarus.)* Do you have more information about this?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-state-news-published-an-article-saying-russia-defeated-ukraine-2022-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-state-news-published... > A Russian state-run news agency prematurely published an article that said Russia has taken back Ukraine. > "Ukraine has returned to Russia," said the article, which ran on RIA Novosti and has since been taken down. "The West sees the return of Russia to its historical borders in Europe."
helloworld11 5y ago
>And so experts are trying to figure out what calculus went into Russia's invasion planning (assuming there was a coherent strategy going in, which is not a given in the post-Trump world). Because there was a much greater absence of incoherent strategies by political and military leaders in the world prior to Trump being president of one specific country? No real fan of the man but the need to cram in a Trump-hate reference for nearly any context sometimes becomes absurd.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  Yeah, it's clearly the Trump Presidency that led to Operation Barbarossa.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    The difference is that Putin has previously accomplished himself as a competent military leader, and Hitler had not. Though you are right in that there are huge similarities between the two campaigns: in both cases, it appears that the executive leader ignored the advice of his military advisors to launch disastrous military campaigns that actually ended up hindering the non-military objectives behind those campaigns.
    - helloworld11 5y ago
      Agreed with the above comments about Putin definitively not having established himself as a competent military leader so far (and especially at the present time with this fiasco of a military invasion, again, so far). But that aside, my original comment, despite having been downvoted, doesn't seem at all off base: Why in the world even bother to mention Trump except out of pure kneejerk emotional need in the context of unsound military leadership on the world stage. Poor invasion planning certainly existed long before he became president of the U.S. and the current disaster essentially has nothing to do with him or his lack/presence of military leadership skills.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > The difference is that Putin has previously accomplished himself as a competent military leader, and Hitler had not What? Putin managed to force his vastly overwhelming forces on small countries with small and badly equipped armies like Chechnya, Syria, Georgia. And we don't know how much does he really do. Hitler presided over, and even helped with the planning of, one of the most brilliant campaigns against overwhelming forces ( the invasion of Benelux and France). His army had tremendous luck, the French were thoroughly incompetent and prepared for all the wrong things, but still, it was a massive military success which was at least partly due to Hitler. That's how he got it in his head he's a brilliant strategist, which really went to his head after the initial Soviet counterattack ( when his orders were successful), and the rest is history.
thriftwy 5y ago
There's a consideration that Russia wants to actually minimize civilian deaths, because unlike Syria, territories of Ukraine will never stop neighbouring Russia. Different pieces of doctrine may apply. But I'm not sure how it maps to observable absense of air force. Prolonging the conflict will obviously cause more civilian deaths and suffering.
- pixl97 5y ago
  It will be interesting to discover in the future if we find out a large number of things like planes were not available for the operation because their commanders ensured they were broken when the invasion occurred. Attacking the nation next door that speaks roughly your same language makes things like mutiny a larger risk.
ramesh31 5y ago
>It doesn't appear to be casualties/morale, because Russia has suffered 500+ casualties in 3 days (its worst losses since Afghanistan), and is still invading. Conservative western intelligence estimates actually have this number at over 2000 this morning (3/1) [0]. They are losing whole battalions by the day, and the real nasty urban warfare hasn't even begun. It's an absolute bloodbath that would never even conceivably be tolerated for a moment by any other modern military on earth. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/russia-ukraine-war-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
ethbr0 5y ago
> why Russia is going with this strategy Because this isn't the intended strategy, but rather then resultant strategy. Modern Russia seems to suffer from the same weaknesses as the USSR: garbage-in, garbage-out. If you staff an entire bureaucracy (including your military command structure) with Yes-Men, you get "Yes" responses. When the question is "Are we prepared for the invasion?" When the question is "Will we be able to supply our ground forces?" When the question is "Will we be able to achieve air superiority rapidly?" And because that's how hierarchies work, you believe the "Yes" you hear. And make your strategic plans on the basis of it being true. Consequently, Russia appears to have built an entire invasion plan on a not-insignificant number of lies about their own forces, as communicated by their own mid-level leadership. Imho, that explains things pretty simply and fully.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  Yes, that appears to be the growing consensus among experts. But the reason for the "confusion" (the "stumped" in the title) is that Russia has not historically operated this way under Putin (though it did operate this way under his predecessor). Basically, nothing is happening the way it has happened before (under Putin), and this appears to be a "new normal" (under Putin).
  - dharmab 5y ago
    One cause could be the replacement of Minister of Defence from Serdyukov (notable for his anticorruption policies) with Shoygu (alleged yes man)
- GVIrish 5y ago
  I think this could be a large part of it. Putin's Russia is rife with corruption and cronyism. Those two things can dramatically reduce the effectiveness of a military. To start with, the yes-men problem means significant bad news is often buried not dealt with. It also results in the people who are the best at bs'ing and political manuevering being the ones who rise in the ranks. Your officer corps ends up being filled with people who did not optimize for military competency. Indeed General Shogyu, the Russian Minister of Defense, actually doesn't have a military background. The corruption comes in with logisitical support. With significant levels of corruption you'll find that the amount of parts, munitions, fuel are not what you thought they were. Then you'll also probably have problems with the condition of the stuff you do have. All of those things damage morale, competency, readiness, you name it. So when you actually have to go to war, you might find drastic shortfalls in battlefield performance.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
If Russia did mass killings / carpet bombing / total war, it hands justification of the west for full counterattack and occupation of Ukraine. Putin assumed all of Ukraine would roll over like Crimea. He has underestimated the people of Ukraine. He attacked in winter assuming it would be over in two days. Now his already-low-morale forces face winter. I don't care if they are equipped and Russian and "used to war". This won't be WWI where you can build bunkers and hide in there. If you occupy a house, the local populace will email someone and you'll be a target of portable missile infantry. He doesn't seem to have a plan B. In theory, with good arms supply from the West (which is RIGHT OVER THE BORDER, this isn't Afghanistan that is 5000 miles away), the Ukrainian populace will get progressively better armed, more experienced (this is probably resulting in the training of a million or more Ukrainians to be effective soldiers), and more motivated. If I were the US/NATO, I would be training and equipping as many Ukrainians as want it, and there should be millions of willing soldiers. This is the opportunity to produce a very dangerous military power right across the border from Russia. You get to breathe down the neck of the Belarus puppet strongman. And it might destroy Putin's regime by weakening him. Putin also seems to have underestimated how much Ukraine hates him personally. I know no Ukrainians, but I suspect they are sick and tired of him threatening him and are spoiling for a fight. The danger to Putin is that the US could equip and train and season a millions-strong Ukrainian army that sees a very unmotivated Russian army, repulses them, and then counter invades Russia. Now that is unlikely given nuclear deterrent and the like, but it is within the realm of possibility, especially if elements of Russia's army hint they are amenable to regime change and will refuse to nuke.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > Putin also seems to have underestimated how much Ukraine hates him personally. I doubt it's personal. Russia has dominated Ukraine over the centuries. Stories of Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis in WWII are true enough; but at the time, Ukraine was ruled by Russia, which only a decade previously had imposed a famine on Ukraine that killed millions. Unsurprisingly, many Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators.
- empressplay 5y ago
  Modern nuclear war doesn’t work that way. Commanders are progressively passed the order to nuke the same target until someone does. That’s why there’s so many of them, it’s a numbers game. Also it’s not all or nothing, at the start it’s tit for tat and hope you aren’t either!

dymk 5y ago

It's not really fair to say it's not in the article - it's the title of the article.

gamblor956 5y ago
The author of the article does not choose the title, the editor does, based on what they think will draw more views/clicks.
- dymk 5y ago
  I don't really care if it's the editor or the author - it's part of the article. Similarly, I don't care if it's served up over HTTP1 or HTTP2, it's irrelevant to the content of the document served up.

PaulHoule 5y ago

I think it's like this. Russia eventually wants to bombard Kiev with heavy weapons like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A52-4_Tornado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A52-4_Tornado which can use ammunition at an absolutely insane rate. It takes time to move this stuff into place and more time to take the ammunition in, set up resupply paths, etc. So Russia attacks Kiev with a small force with light weapons, some Spetsnaz, mostly to keep the fight away from the main body of the force which will strike hard when it is ready.

baq 5y ago
The problem with this take is Kyiv is more or less Russian Jerusalem. That’s one important difference from all other… special operations performed by Putin.

speeder 5y ago

I don't understand why people just don't believe Russia is being literal with their intentions. They said multiple times they don't want Ukraine, they just don't want NATO to be able to invade them by land. I'd you assume this is true, what they are doing make complete sense.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I don't understand why people just don't believe Russia is being literal with their intentions They are. You are just listening to the wrong articulation of their intentions. > They said multiple times they don't want Ukraine, They have said multiple times that they do want Ukraine, view it's separation from Russia as a crime against Russia and Russians committed by those in the past with control over Russia in the form of the Soviet Union, and Russian state media even released than silently deleted a premature victory announcement for the current invasion declaring the establishment of a new union state of all the Russias (Russia [Great Russia], Ukraine [Little Russia]< and Belarus.) Now, that's not what they emphasize to the international community, but they have been saying it.
- causi 5y ago
  * Russian state media even released than silently deleted a premature victory announcement for the current invasion declaring the establishment of a new union state of all the Russias (Russia [Great Russia], Ukraine [Little Russia]< and Belarus.)* Do you have more information about this?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-state-news-published-an-article-saying-russia-defeated-ukraine-2022-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-state-news-published... > A Russian state-run news agency prematurely published an article that said Russia has taken back Ukraine. > "Ukraine has returned to Russia," said the article, which ran on RIA Novosti and has since been taken down. "The West sees the return of Russia to its historical borders in Europe."

helloworld11 5y ago

>And so experts are trying to figure out what calculus went into Russia's invasion planning (assuming there was a coherent strategy going in, which is not a given in the post-Trump world). Because there was a much greater absence of incoherent strategies by political and military leaders in the world prior to Trump being president of one specific country? No real fan of the man but the need to cram in a Trump-hate reference for nearly any context sometimes becomes absurd.

kaesar14 5y ago
Yeah, it's clearly the Trump Presidency that led to Operation Barbarossa.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  The difference is that Putin has previously accomplished himself as a competent military leader, and Hitler had not. Though you are right in that there are huge similarities between the two campaigns: in both cases, it appears that the executive leader ignored the advice of his military advisors to launch disastrous military campaigns that actually ended up hindering the non-military objectives behind those campaigns.
  - helloworld11 5y ago
    Agreed with the above comments about Putin definitively not having established himself as a competent military leader so far (and especially at the present time with this fiasco of a military invasion, again, so far). But that aside, my original comment, despite having been downvoted, doesn't seem at all off base: Why in the world even bother to mention Trump except out of pure kneejerk emotional need in the context of unsound military leadership on the world stage. Poor invasion planning certainly existed long before he became president of the U.S. and the current disaster essentially has nothing to do with him or his lack/presence of military leadership skills.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > The difference is that Putin has previously accomplished himself as a competent military leader, and Hitler had not What? Putin managed to force his vastly overwhelming forces on small countries with small and badly equipped armies like Chechnya, Syria, Georgia. And we don't know how much does he really do. Hitler presided over, and even helped with the planning of, one of the most brilliant campaigns against overwhelming forces ( the invasion of Benelux and France). His army had tremendous luck, the French were thoroughly incompetent and prepared for all the wrong things, but still, it was a massive military success which was at least partly due to Hitler. That's how he got it in his head he's a brilliant strategist, which really went to his head after the initial Soviet counterattack ( when his orders were successful), and the rest is history.

thriftwy 5y ago

There's a consideration that Russia wants to actually minimize civilian deaths, because unlike Syria, territories of Ukraine will never stop neighbouring Russia. Different pieces of doctrine may apply. But I'm not sure how it maps to observable absense of air force. Prolonging the conflict will obviously cause more civilian deaths and suffering.

pixl97 5y ago
It will be interesting to discover in the future if we find out a large number of things like planes were not available for the operation because their commanders ensured they were broken when the invasion occurred. Attacking the nation next door that speaks roughly your same language makes things like mutiny a larger risk.

ramesh31 5y ago

>It doesn't appear to be casualties/morale, because Russia has suffered 500+ casualties in 3 days (its worst losses since Afghanistan), and is still invading. Conservative western intelligence estimates actually have this number at over 2000 this morning (3/1) [0]. They are losing whole battalions by the day, and the real nasty urban warfare hasn't even begun. It's an absolute bloodbath that would never even conceivably be tolerated for a moment by any other modern military on earth. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/russia-ukraine-war-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/russia-ukrain...

ethbr0 5y ago

> why Russia is going with this strategy Because this isn't the intended strategy, but rather then resultant strategy. Modern Russia seems to suffer from the same weaknesses as the USSR: garbage-in, garbage-out. If you staff an entire bureaucracy (including your military command structure) with Yes-Men, you get "Yes" responses. When the question is "Are we prepared for the invasion?" When the question is "Will we be able to supply our ground forces?" When the question is "Will we be able to achieve air superiority rapidly?" And because that's how hierarchies work, you believe the "Yes" you hear. And make your strategic plans on the basis of it being true. Consequently, Russia appears to have built an entire invasion plan on a not-insignificant number of lies about their own forces, as communicated by their own mid-level leadership. Imho, that explains things pretty simply and fully.

gamblor956 5y ago
Yes, that appears to be the growing consensus among experts. But the reason for the "confusion" (the "stumped" in the title) is that Russia has not historically operated this way under Putin (though it did operate this way under his predecessor). Basically, nothing is happening the way it has happened before (under Putin), and this appears to be a "new normal" (under Putin).
- dharmab 5y ago
  One cause could be the replacement of Minister of Defence from Serdyukov (notable for his anticorruption policies) with Shoygu (alleged yes man)
GVIrish 5y ago
I think this could be a large part of it. Putin's Russia is rife with corruption and cronyism. Those two things can dramatically reduce the effectiveness of a military. To start with, the yes-men problem means significant bad news is often buried not dealt with. It also results in the people who are the best at bs'ing and political manuevering being the ones who rise in the ranks. Your officer corps ends up being filled with people who did not optimize for military competency. Indeed General Shogyu, the Russian Minister of Defense, actually doesn't have a military background. The corruption comes in with logisitical support. With significant levels of corruption you'll find that the amount of parts, munitions, fuel are not what you thought they were. Then you'll also probably have problems with the condition of the stuff you do have. All of those things damage morale, competency, readiness, you name it. So when you actually have to go to war, you might find drastic shortfalls in battlefield performance.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

If Russia did mass killings / carpet bombing / total war, it hands justification of the west for full counterattack and occupation of Ukraine. Putin assumed all of Ukraine would roll over like Crimea. He has underestimated the people of Ukraine. He attacked in winter assuming it would be over in two days. Now his already-low-morale forces face winter. I don't care if they are equipped and Russian and "used to war". This won't be WWI where you can build bunkers and hide in there. If you occupy a house, the local populace will email someone and you'll be a target of portable missile infantry. He doesn't seem to have a plan B. In theory, with good arms supply from the West (which is RIGHT OVER THE BORDER, this isn't Afghanistan that is 5000 miles away), the Ukrainian populace will get progressively better armed, more experienced (this is probably resulting in the training of a million or more Ukrainians to be effective soldiers), and more motivated. If I were the US/NATO, I would be training and equipping as many Ukrainians as want it, and there should be millions of willing soldiers. This is the opportunity to produce a very dangerous military power right across the border from Russia. You get to breathe down the neck of the Belarus puppet strongman. And it might destroy Putin's regime by weakening him. Putin also seems to have underestimated how much Ukraine hates him personally. I know no Ukrainians, but I suspect they are sick and tired of him threatening him and are spoiling for a fight. The danger to Putin is that the US could equip and train and season a millions-strong Ukrainian army that sees a very unmotivated Russian army, repulses them, and then counter invades Russia. Now that is unlikely given nuclear deterrent and the like, but it is within the realm of possibility, especially if elements of Russia's army hint they are amenable to regime change and will refuse to nuke.

denton-scratch 5y ago
> Putin also seems to have underestimated how much Ukraine hates him personally. I doubt it's personal. Russia has dominated Ukraine over the centuries. Stories of Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis in WWII are true enough; but at the time, Ukraine was ruled by Russia, which only a decade previously had imposed a famine on Ukraine that killed millions. Unsurprisingly, many Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators.
empressplay 5y ago
Modern nuclear war doesn’t work that way. Commanders are progressively passed the order to nuke the same target until someone does. That’s why there’s so many of them, it’s a numbers game. Also it’s not all or nothing, at the start it’s tit for tat and hope you aren’t either!