7 ms·

The russian side expected to take the entire country in a matter of days. Now it's celebrating because it took Mariupol after two months of shelling some amateu

The russian side expected to take the entire country in a matter of days. Now it's celebrating because it took Mariupol after two months of shelling some amateurs in some caves, turning the entire world against them. Not exactly stellar performance.

alaricus 4y ago
Did they? Or was it Western perceptions of the Russian intentions? Ukraine is a huge country with 40 million people. One does not simply take over that in a few days.
- seanw444 4y ago
  One does, according to HN armchair tacticians.
  - NicoJuicy 4y ago
    That's not what is said. They are referencing to the "planned" articles that appeared on Russian state media days after the invasion. Additionally, Russia thought that they bribed enough politicians to willingly hand over the cities to them. The resistance was obviously more fierce than expected. This isn't about HN armchair whatever. This is known news if you're following the situation as many here do...
    - alaricus 4y ago
      > This is known news if you're following the situation if you are following the situation from Western media outlets. The West has a stake in this fight and the reporting is far from unbiased.
      - taskforcegemini 4y ago
- bsder 4y ago
  I think Russia did expect to take the country quickly but expected to do so mostly by suborning the leadership. Russia did get at least one Ukranian city surrendered to them, for example. I don't think Russia expected to have to genuinely take Ukraine militarily. They haven't had to do that in any prior invasions, and there wasn't much reason to believe that they'd have to do it here, either. The fact that Ukraine was WAY better prepared than back when Crimea was invaded, the fact that Zelenskyy turned out to have way more backbone than expected and the fact that Biden's staff played the intelligence game damn near perfectly (sharing it into the public so it could be verified really put doubters and sympathizers on the back foot) came together to make this an absolute mess for Putin.
  - alaricus 4y ago
    Resistence has been fierce in areas like Kiev where the majority is ethnic Ukrainian. But Russians made their large gains in the south where Russian culture and language is more widespread. For example Russians took Kherson without too much resistance. It's a city where almost half speak Russian as native language.
aa-jv 4y ago
>The russian side expected to take the entire country in a matter of days. Did it? How do you know? Wasn't all Russian media censored in the West?
- pjc50 4y ago
  Not before the war.
- jskzocorow 4y ago
  We're inferring their intentions from what we know they did. There could be different explanations to what happened, of course. Maybe they were planning to go drive towards Kiev, have the Ukrainians destroy their supply lines, and then retreat, in which case it's working exactly as planned.
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    "Inferring" is not the same as knowing and is as good as useless, propaganda-wise. You cannot overtly ignore/censor the position of 'the other side', while demanding that your subsequent inference about their intentions is canonical. Either you know what the other side is thinking, because they told you - or you simply don't. You've come to a conclusion that supports the propaganda you've been fed - but it could as easily be stated that Russias' move towards Kiev was a feint (not unheard of in Russian military doctrine) while it built up the resources needed to keep the battles going in the East. Which is what happened.
    - taffit 4y ago
      Sorry, but no: Calling the advance to Kyiv (fascist Russia clearly wanted to take the capital by storm), the slaughtering and war crimes in the suburbs and the hasty retreat with thousands of fallen Russian orcs a "feint" is Russian propaganda and way beyond reality. You can deny reality, still it happens. Reality doesn't care about fascist (paid?) propaganda. Back to the story: Many of the things that the former ambassador mentions are also confirmed by many of the non-Kreml-paid media. Interesting article, thank you!
mardifoufs 4y ago
I don't disagree, but that also does not indicate a defeat. Russia seems committed to the war, and while they have had a... questionable performance thus far, it really seems like they aren't exactly on the edge of a collapse. I would've agreed with you 3 months ago that russia would've needed a very very quick victory to avoid an economic collapse but right now, I don't see that having a huge effect anymore either. The internal situation is probably better for putin now than before the war and their economy has proven to be oddly resilient. Though time is still against them, because the ukrainian army gets better equipment and training by the day. Obviously the russians have not won, but the title is weird and reminds me of an opposite, almost equally uninformed, narrative that was common in the weeks before the war (ukraine will fall in days!). We have been hearing "imminent coup d'état/putin is hiding/ the military is about to mutiny" predictions daily since the beginning of the war, and I honestly don't see the point. If anything, it's super counterproductive (PR wise) to the ukrainian cause.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  Their threats of the use of nuclear arms turned out to be a bluff that has been called and two of their most important neighbors switched from neutral to allied with their enemies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- otagekki 4y ago
  If not for the massive aid and influx of weapons from NATO, It would have fallen in days. Ukrainian airforce got quickly overwhelmed in the first days of war and it was the shipment of NATO anti-aircraft missiles that allowed them to challenge Russian air supremacy.
  - vasac 4y ago
    NATO supplied them with Stingers which can be used only against low level flying airplanes. What keeps Russians from gaining air supremacy are numerous S-300 and Buk batteries that make flying Su-25 or Su-34 outside of Stinger range very dangerous so Russians almost don't fly that high at all.

alaricus 4y ago

Did they? Or was it Western perceptions of the Russian intentions? Ukraine is a huge country with 40 million people. One does not simply take over that in a few days.

seanw444 4y ago
One does, according to HN armchair tacticians.
- NicoJuicy 4y ago
  That's not what is said. They are referencing to the "planned" articles that appeared on Russian state media days after the invasion. Additionally, Russia thought that they bribed enough politicians to willingly hand over the cities to them. The resistance was obviously more fierce than expected. This isn't about HN armchair whatever. This is known news if you're following the situation as many here do...
  - alaricus 4y ago
    > This is known news if you're following the situation if you are following the situation from Western media outlets. The West has a stake in this fight and the reporting is far from unbiased.
    - taskforcegemini 4y ago
bsder 4y ago
I think Russia did expect to take the country quickly but expected to do so mostly by suborning the leadership. Russia did get at least one Ukranian city surrendered to them, for example. I don't think Russia expected to have to genuinely take Ukraine militarily. They haven't had to do that in any prior invasions, and there wasn't much reason to believe that they'd have to do it here, either. The fact that Ukraine was WAY better prepared than back when Crimea was invaded, the fact that Zelenskyy turned out to have way more backbone than expected and the fact that Biden's staff played the intelligence game damn near perfectly (sharing it into the public so it could be verified really put doubters and sympathizers on the back foot) came together to make this an absolute mess for Putin.
- alaricus 4y ago
  Resistence has been fierce in areas like Kiev where the majority is ethnic Ukrainian. But Russians made their large gains in the south where Russian culture and language is more widespread. For example Russians took Kherson without too much resistance. It's a city where almost half speak Russian as native language.

aa-jv 4y ago

>The russian side expected to take the entire country in a matter of days. Did it? How do you know? Wasn't all Russian media censored in the West?

pjc50 4y ago
Not before the war.
jskzocorow 4y ago
We're inferring their intentions from what we know they did. There could be different explanations to what happened, of course. Maybe they were planning to go drive towards Kiev, have the Ukrainians destroy their supply lines, and then retreat, in which case it's working exactly as planned.
- aa-jv 4y ago
  "Inferring" is not the same as knowing and is as good as useless, propaganda-wise. You cannot overtly ignore/censor the position of 'the other side', while demanding that your subsequent inference about their intentions is canonical. Either you know what the other side is thinking, because they told you - or you simply don't. You've come to a conclusion that supports the propaganda you've been fed - but it could as easily be stated that Russias' move towards Kiev was a feint (not unheard of in Russian military doctrine) while it built up the resources needed to keep the battles going in the East. Which is what happened.
  - taffit 4y ago
    Sorry, but no: Calling the advance to Kyiv (fascist Russia clearly wanted to take the capital by storm), the slaughtering and war crimes in the suburbs and the hasty retreat with thousands of fallen Russian orcs a "feint" is Russian propaganda and way beyond reality. You can deny reality, still it happens. Reality doesn't care about fascist (paid?) propaganda. Back to the story: Many of the things that the former ambassador mentions are also confirmed by many of the non-Kreml-paid media. Interesting article, thank you!

mardifoufs 4y ago

I don't disagree, but that also does not indicate a defeat. Russia seems committed to the war, and while they have had a... questionable performance thus far, it really seems like they aren't exactly on the edge of a collapse. I would've agreed with you 3 months ago that russia would've needed a very very quick victory to avoid an economic collapse but right now, I don't see that having a huge effect anymore either. The internal situation is probably better for putin now than before the war and their economy has proven to be oddly resilient. Though time is still against them, because the ukrainian army gets better equipment and training by the day. Obviously the russians have not won, but the title is weird and reminds me of an opposite, almost equally uninformed, narrative that was common in the weeks before the war (ukraine will fall in days!). We have been hearing "imminent coup d'état/putin is hiding/ the military is about to mutiny" predictions daily since the beginning of the war, and I honestly don't see the point. If anything, it's super counterproductive (PR wise) to the ukrainian cause.

tinus_hn 4y ago
Their threats of the use of nuclear arms turned out to be a bluff that has been called and two of their most important neighbors switched from neutral to allied with their enemies.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
otagekki 4y ago
If not for the massive aid and influx of weapons from NATO, It would have fallen in days. Ukrainian airforce got quickly overwhelmed in the first days of war and it was the shipment of NATO anti-aircraft missiles that allowed them to challenge Russian air supremacy.
- vasac 4y ago
  NATO supplied them with Stingers which can be used only against low level flying airplanes. What keeps Russians from gaining air supremacy are numerous S-300 and Buk batteries that make flying Su-25 or Su-34 outside of Stinger range very dangerous so Russians almost don't fly that high at all.