6 ms·

I remember the BBC News telling viewers it would all be over in 6 weeks!

by moremetadata 4y ago

mmcclure 4y ago
The first section is titled "Predictions Are Hard."
annexrichmond 4y ago
“2 more weeks!” ™
melling 4y ago
Didn’t most people expect Russian to easily take Ukraine? They are several times bigger, larger military, etc.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  Yes they absolutely did. There were quite a few surprises. The resistance of the Ukrainian people, especially the leadership. The effectiveness of small shoulder mounted weapons in taking out armoured vehicles. The incredibly poor logistical capability of the Russian forces who thought they could just drive into Kiev without infantry support, or even bringing enough fuel. The way the Russian forces conducted themselves initially has led to the belief that they believed they'd have local support. Purge of their security people supports this idea too. Putin thought he'd paid for insurgency in Ukraine and instead had some uncommonly wealthy spies.
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - melling 4y ago
    Which stated intentions? They initially claimed they weren’t going into Ukraine.
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    putin literally said in his speech at the beginning that the goal is to overthrow "drug addict government". How could they do it without taking over country?
    - anextio 4y ago
      They don't have to occupy the whole of Ukraine to do that, they only have to defeat Ukraine's military and destroy NATO's materiel on the battlefield. If they intended to occupy the entire country they would need several million troops as well as legions of administrators ready to go, which would be visible. They most likely only plan to long-term occupy the parts of Ukraine where the majority of the population still living there supports them. The last thing that Russia wants is fighting a never ending insurgency in Lviv oblast.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        The column that was rushing towards Kyiv consisted in large part of the Russian National Guard units - those are the guys whose primary purpose is to beat up people in opposition protests. And they had the anti-riot gear packed, as Ukrainians have found out when going through the wrecks. So, yes, they were absolutely planning to suppress civilian opposition to the occupation.
        anextio 4y ago
        [flagged]
        GaggiX 4y ago
        I don't find it particularly convincing that you dismiss int_19h's evidence as mere propaganda, without further elaboration. I think it is easy to say now, after a year of war, that Russia could not have occupied Ukraine, but I think it is important to understand the prelude to war, 200.000 troops is not enough to occupy a country the size of Ukraine that will fight back, but it is more than enough for a country that would not, Ukraine had almost no army in 2014, and it still seems like yesterday, Russia under Putin has always won military conflicts: Chechnya, Georgia, and the fact that it took Crimea without hardly firing a shot, also the attitude that Russians have toward Ukrainians as sort of stupid cousins who need to be brought home, and after that the fact that Russia has a high level of corruption and Putin chooses his men well, the people he surrounds himself with have survived endless purges and power plays, so I would hardly see them responding (one of the reasons why I think democracies are stronger than public opinion seems to think). These are the reasons why it is clear to me that Russia tried to occupy Kiev and overthrow the government, the plan was not to get to the suburbs and then simply withdraw forces from the area, this is not how you "demilitarize and denazify" a country, the capital also is not far from the Belarusian border, then there is the evidence of int_19h.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    Putin's stated intentions, which were, and I quote "And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine". So even though they were stated clearly, they made little sense if you assume they aren't trying to take over Ukraine.
    - junofan 4y ago
      What do you mean? His speech [1] is really clear. I’m extremely disappointed in the reporting by the news here. [1]: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843
      - jen20 4y ago
        Clear is not the same as making sense. I can say the words "Dog Cat Microwave Book" and they would be clear, and make about as much sense as the idea of "denazifying" Ukraine.
      - notahacker 4y ago
        He's also been really clear on considering Ukraine to be a mistaken creation of the Soviet Union whose sovereignty is only possible if shared with Russia, and on formally integrating partially conquered regions into Russia, so I think we can probably disregard him being really clear about not wanting to occupy the country his armies are currently occupying large parts of and only acting in self defence...
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        His speech is not worth the paper it was written on. Calling out one obvious lie: "It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force." In September Russia "held" a "referendum" in occupied territories and immediately adjusted the Constitution to include the occupied territories.
        FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        > His speech is not worth the paper it was written on. Isn't that true for any politician? > Calling out one obvious lie: "It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force." Obvious lie? That's fortunate for your opinion. >In September Russia "held" a "referendum" in occupied territories and immediately adjusted the Constitution to include the occupied territories. Yes, not Ukraine, only the occupied territories. The fact that my original comment was flagged shows just how deep the U.S. has fallen for its own propaganda.
GaggiX 4y ago
Not many predicted that Ukraine would hold out so long, especially the Kremlin itself which believed that the most reasonable course of action at the time was to start the invasion even with such a small number of men.
- moremetadata 4y ago
  Well I remember Liz Truss saying British civilians would not be prosecuted if they went over there and fought. This is standard textbook SAS/SBS protocol, resign your commission for deniable ops, go off to conflict zone and fight. They also dont like tattoos for this reason, so if you are military and want to earn more money, dont get a tattoo, you might just as well get useful idiot tattooed on your forehead! The fact that NATO have been loading up the Ukrainian people with debt via forced if not compulsory purchases in all but name of military equipment tells me both sides will be winning out of this at the expense of the useful idiots going out to fight and the Ukrainian people. The businesses already sizing up their contracts when rebuilding Ukraine, the poorest country in the EU, starts in earnest, is going to be lucrative to say the least. You know that Putin is in on it by the seemingly random buildings being destroyed, I see demolition for new shopping centres, car parks and other civil amenities taking place when its reported and spun in the news. Didnt anyone learn anything from the Iraq war? Govt's especially the US spunking money everywhere like there was no tomorrow? How do you stimulate an economy? Got to war, and force change on people.
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    uh yeah, it's going to work out well for the Russian economy. > The businesses already sizing up their contracts when rebuilding Ukraine, the poorest country in the EU, starts in earnest, is going to be lucrative to say the least. Yes I'm sure that's true. The war has happened, the rebuild is going to happen. > You know that Putin is in on it by the seemingly random buildings being destroyed No. lol

I remember the BBC News telling viewers it would all be over in 6 weeks!

mmcclure 4y ago

The first section is titled "Predictions Are Hard."

annexrichmond 4y ago

“2 more weeks!” ™

melling 4y ago

Didn’t most people expect Russian to easily take Ukraine? They are several times bigger, larger military, etc.

jemmyw 4y ago
Yes they absolutely did. There were quite a few surprises. The resistance of the Ukrainian people, especially the leadership. The effectiveness of small shoulder mounted weapons in taking out armoured vehicles. The incredibly poor logistical capability of the Russian forces who thought they could just drive into Kiev without infantry support, or even bringing enough fuel. The way the Russian forces conducted themselves initially has led to the belief that they believed they'd have local support. Purge of their security people supports this idea too. Putin thought he'd paid for insurgency in Ukraine and instead had some uncommonly wealthy spies.
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
[flagged]
- melling 4y ago
  Which stated intentions? They initially claimed they weren’t going into Ukraine.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  putin literally said in his speech at the beginning that the goal is to overthrow "drug addict government". How could they do it without taking over country?
  - anextio 4y ago
    They don't have to occupy the whole of Ukraine to do that, they only have to defeat Ukraine's military and destroy NATO's materiel on the battlefield. If they intended to occupy the entire country they would need several million troops as well as legions of administrators ready to go, which would be visible. They most likely only plan to long-term occupy the parts of Ukraine where the majority of the population still living there supports them. The last thing that Russia wants is fighting a never ending insurgency in Lviv oblast.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      The column that was rushing towards Kyiv consisted in large part of the Russian National Guard units - those are the guys whose primary purpose is to beat up people in opposition protests. And they had the anti-riot gear packed, as Ukrainians have found out when going through the wrecks. So, yes, they were absolutely planning to suppress civilian opposition to the occupation.
      - anextio 4y ago
        [flagged]
        GaggiX 4y ago
        I don't find it particularly convincing that you dismiss int_19h's evidence as mere propaganda, without further elaboration. I think it is easy to say now, after a year of war, that Russia could not have occupied Ukraine, but I think it is important to understand the prelude to war, 200.000 troops is not enough to occupy a country the size of Ukraine that will fight back, but it is more than enough for a country that would not, Ukraine had almost no army in 2014, and it still seems like yesterday, Russia under Putin has always won military conflicts: Chechnya, Georgia, and the fact that it took Crimea without hardly firing a shot, also the attitude that Russians have toward Ukrainians as sort of stupid cousins who need to be brought home, and after that the fact that Russia has a high level of corruption and Putin chooses his men well, the people he surrounds himself with have survived endless purges and power plays, so I would hardly see them responding (one of the reasons why I think democracies are stronger than public opinion seems to think). These are the reasons why it is clear to me that Russia tried to occupy Kiev and overthrow the government, the plan was not to get to the suburbs and then simply withdraw forces from the area, this is not how you "demilitarize and denazify" a country, the capital also is not far from the Belarusian border, then there is the evidence of int_19h.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Putin's stated intentions, which were, and I quote "And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine". So even though they were stated clearly, they made little sense if you assume they aren't trying to take over Ukraine.
  - junofan 4y ago
    What do you mean? His speech [1] is really clear. I’m extremely disappointed in the reporting by the news here. [1]: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843
    - jen20 4y ago
      Clear is not the same as making sense. I can say the words "Dog Cat Microwave Book" and they would be clear, and make about as much sense as the idea of "denazifying" Ukraine.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      He's also been really clear on considering Ukraine to be a mistaken creation of the Soviet Union whose sovereignty is only possible if shared with Russia, and on formally integrating partially conquered regions into Russia, so I think we can probably disregard him being really clear about not wanting to occupy the country his armies are currently occupying large parts of and only acting in self defence...
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      His speech is not worth the paper it was written on. Calling out one obvious lie: "It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force." In September Russia "held" a "referendum" in occupied territories and immediately adjusted the Constitution to include the occupied territories.
      - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        > His speech is not worth the paper it was written on. Isn't that true for any politician? > Calling out one obvious lie: "It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force." Obvious lie? That's fortunate for your opinion. >In September Russia "held" a "referendum" in occupied territories and immediately adjusted the Constitution to include the occupied territories. Yes, not Ukraine, only the occupied territories. The fact that my original comment was flagged shows just how deep the U.S. has fallen for its own propaganda.

GaggiX 4y ago

Not many predicted that Ukraine would hold out so long, especially the Kremlin itself which believed that the most reasonable course of action at the time was to start the invasion even with such a small number of men.

moremetadata 4y ago
Well I remember Liz Truss saying British civilians would not be prosecuted if they went over there and fought. This is standard textbook SAS/SBS protocol, resign your commission for deniable ops, go off to conflict zone and fight. They also dont like tattoos for this reason, so if you are military and want to earn more money, dont get a tattoo, you might just as well get useful idiot tattooed on your forehead! The fact that NATO have been loading up the Ukrainian people with debt via forced if not compulsory purchases in all but name of military equipment tells me both sides will be winning out of this at the expense of the useful idiots going out to fight and the Ukrainian people. The businesses already sizing up their contracts when rebuilding Ukraine, the poorest country in the EU, starts in earnest, is going to be lucrative to say the least. You know that Putin is in on it by the seemingly random buildings being destroyed, I see demolition for new shopping centres, car parks and other civil amenities taking place when its reported and spun in the news. Didnt anyone learn anything from the Iraq war? Govt's especially the US spunking money everywhere like there was no tomorrow? How do you stimulate an economy? Got to war, and force change on people.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  uh yeah, it's going to work out well for the Russian economy. > The businesses already sizing up their contracts when rebuilding Ukraine, the poorest country in the EU, starts in earnest, is going to be lucrative to say the least. Yes I'm sure that's true. The war has happened, the rebuild is going to happen. > You know that Putin is in on it by the seemingly random buildings being destroyed No. lol