7 ms·
I don’t really think Russians were to take Kyiv at all. It all looked like a threatening operation which could have been effective if the Istanbul agreement wer
by at0mic22 4y ago
I don’t really think Russians were to take Kyiv at all. It all looked like a threatening operation which could have been effective if the Istanbul agreement were signed.
They are not fools, and taking Kyiv is an impossible task with the limited allocated resources for this campaign.
Besides that Russians clearly understand that they will succeed only in Russian-speaking regions, which they actually did.
Assuming Russians were running an occupation campaign in the first phase is very wrong. They did not put any own city administration anywhere, left big gaps and gray areas and did not fortify their positions.
It’s also good to ask yourself, why Russians never bombed government buildings (while they managed to successfully bomb pretty much everything in Kyiv). And more importantly: why Belarusian pocket army never took part, though being ready on the border. My guess is that if it were an occupation campaign in the first phase, Belarusians would start clearing cities on the back of Russians.
There are more questions, than answers, but it’s fairly clear that once Russians pass the fortified (in the last 8 years) Donetsk region, they will be able to move much faster. However I don’t think they will - there’s not much interest in occupying territories with no coal or gas, and with hostile population.
I am accepting bets, that once Kramatorsk story is over, they will take Odessa region, and will try to take Kharkiv.
The military support west is providing will not win this war. Like with artillery and tanks - you can have weapons, but teaching properly artillerists and tank teams takes half a year at least.
It’s not me being pro-Russian, but trying not to underestimate the enemy and not to take him as a fool. It’s a good practise to be overly pessimistic and assume worst-case scenarios. Especially considering that in the second phase not a single city was retaken by Ukrainians, but only lost
- MisterMower 4y agoI had heard that the Russian troops on the way to Kiev had anti-riot gear and very little ammunition. The impression I got was that Russia hoped to topple the entire Ukrainian government and install their own puppet government in a relatively bloodless campaign. We all know how that turned out.
- at0mic22 4y agoJust bomb it, no? They send perfectly targeted missiles to Yavrov thousands miles away, but never had a single shot over the government buildings? Wtf, Putin? It’s not that simple IMO I think the idea of first stage was: 1. Put the pressure 2. Sign a peace agreement And being honest, from todays perspective, it better should have been signed.
- MisterMower 4y agoNot if you intend to capture it intact.
- at0mic22 4y agoWhy would occupants want that? Real occupants for instance never cared about Saddams or Muammars life’s. Why would Putin want to see Zelensky alive if his goal was to overtake the government
- MisterMower 4y agoI’m talking about infrastructure. Capturing the city without blowing it to pieces is clearly preferable than destroying it to take it.
- attentive 4y agoOh, it was a very real plan. With hundreds of armored vehicles on the way, helicopters with elite russian forces landing in Hostomel airport, semi-surrounding Kyiv and so on. The plan largely depended on Ukraine not mounting effective defense and surrendering in shock. Ukraine has a very effective artillerie, which with west supplied arms gets even better. The problem is quantities, with russia having tons of old deadly junk to throw and west arms coming in too slow.
- at0mic22 4y agoYou might be partially right, Russian military bloggers state this version too. Like there were tons of money invested into bribing Ukrainian political forces but it was stolen on both sides. However, right before retreat Russians were not in a disasterous state at the borders of Kyiv. In fact they were slowly closing the circle around it. If the focus were there, and additional forces were applied, it could have succeeded. Russians had heavy losses during deployments, but once positions were taken it all stabilised for them, so it was not as disasterous as many say. It was not that Ukrainian forces pushed Russians back, but more like Russians regrouped. From what I see in the last weeks, Ukrainian artillery is not capable of achieving goals. It could have been different before, but now a lot of videos from Ukrainian brigades depict that artillery support is missing and they go to battles without any support.
- wrp 4y ago> I don’t really think Russians were to take Kyiv at all. This is a reasonable sounding theory and I've seen it elsewhere, particularly from French sources. I'm pretty sure it's wrong, though. This theory comes from looking at everything the Russians did at the start and trying to interpret it so that it all makes sense. The truth, I think, is simply that Russian planning was a disaster.
- at0mic22 4y agoAny military operations have multiple goals with different level of importance. I won’t argue that one of the points could be capturing Kyiv if lucky. Otherwise, putting pressure and distract military brigades while occupying Kherson and Mariuple were also on the list for sure. I assume military planning is made around probabilities and importance. If occupying Kyiv was the main goal, then we would have definitely seen Belarusian forces join the campaign, especially taking the fact they were less than 100 miles from Kyiv.