2 ms·

> Unexpectedly slow progress According to whom? TV news people? > unexpectedly high losses According to whom? Reddit armchair generals? > clearly not the or

> Unexpectedly slow progress According to whom? TV news people? > unexpectedly high losses According to whom? Reddit armchair generals? > clearly not the original goal According to whom? The Kremlin never stated goals outside the original 4 or so.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> According to whom? I mean, state media had a victory article ready to go (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240), and it's fairly clear they were hoping to capture or exile Zelensky and other officials in the first few days. > According to whom? Reddit armchair generals? As of May, they'd lost more troops than they lost in a decade of bloody war in Afghanistan. On the geopolitical front, it appears Putin also managed an own-goal by driving Finland and Sweden towards NATO membership. Even the most tortured propaganda doesn't manage to portray that as a goal of his. > According to whom? The Kremlin never stated goals outside the original 4 or so. The same Kremlin that said they didn't plan to invade Ukraine? (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-tells-u-s-no-ukraine-invasion-planned-tass-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-te...) Even their stated goals included Ukraine's demilitarization and "denazification". Hard to do that if you stop at the Donbas.
- cpursley 4y ago
  > editorial Yeah, no. Do we consider western editorials as official government positions? > As of May, they'd lost more troops than they lost in a decade of bloody war in Afghanistan. Completely meaningless. We're talking a real (kinda) near-peer war vs playing in the sandbox vs guys in sandals with AKs. It's disingenuous to compare the two, and you know it. Iraq is not even a proper comparison. You'll need to compare what's going on now with WWII combined arms battles. Maybe some of the Korean battles. > Even their stated goals included Ukraine's demilitarization and "denazification". Hard to do that if you stop at the Donbas. Fair enough point. Guess we'll see.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Do we consider western editorials as official government positions? If they're in state media, sure. Even our independent media is permitted to call it a war, though, not just a "special military operation". > We're talking a real near-peer war Sure. That it's near-peer is a surprise.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > We're talking a real near-peer war Ukraine wasn't supposed to be a a “near peer” for Russia. > You'll need to compare what's going on now with WWII combined arms battles. The question, really, is whether domestic public (and elite) opinion sees the costs like an outside existential threat like WWII or an external intervention of choice like Afghanistan.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> According to whom? I mean, state media had a victory article ready to go (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240), and it's fairly clear they were hoping to capture or exile Zelensky and other officials in the first few days. > According to whom? Reddit armchair generals? As of May, they'd lost more troops than they lost in a decade of bloody war in Afghanistan. On the geopolitical front, it appears Putin also managed an own-goal by driving Finland and Sweden towards NATO membership. Even the most tortured propaganda doesn't manage to portray that as a goal of his. > According to whom? The Kremlin never stated goals outside the original 4 or so. The same Kremlin that said they didn't plan to invade Ukraine? (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-tells-u-s-no-ukraine-invasion-planned-tass-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-te...) Even their stated goals included Ukraine's demilitarization and "denazification". Hard to do that if you stop at the Donbas.

cpursley 4y ago
> editorial Yeah, no. Do we consider western editorials as official government positions? > As of May, they'd lost more troops than they lost in a decade of bloody war in Afghanistan. Completely meaningless. We're talking a real (kinda) near-peer war vs playing in the sandbox vs guys in sandals with AKs. It's disingenuous to compare the two, and you know it. Iraq is not even a proper comparison. You'll need to compare what's going on now with WWII combined arms battles. Maybe some of the Korean battles. > Even their stated goals included Ukraine's demilitarization and "denazification". Hard to do that if you stop at the Donbas. Fair enough point. Guess we'll see.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Do we consider western editorials as official government positions? If they're in state media, sure. Even our independent media is permitted to call it a war, though, not just a "special military operation". > We're talking a real near-peer war Sure. That it's near-peer is a surprise.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > We're talking a real near-peer war Ukraine wasn't supposed to be a a “near peer” for Russia. > You'll need to compare what's going on now with WWII combined arms battles. The question, really, is whether domestic public (and elite) opinion sees the costs like an outside existential threat like WWII or an external intervention of choice like Afghanistan.