4 ms·

He tried to invade and occupy the whole fucking country. Not just "the eastern part". He went for Kherson, he went for Odesa, he went for Kyiv. The fact that

He tried to invade and occupy the whole fucking country. Not just "the eastern part". He went for Kherson, he went for Odesa, he went for Kyiv. The fact that he failed doesn't diminish the fact that he tried. JM was just wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q&t=27m27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q&t=27m27s Putin gave his speech about wanting to be Peter the Great, how Ukrainians are just Russians who've been convinced otherwise by the evil West, and Russian state media went around praising Putin for "solving the Ukrainian question" (yikes, and yes that's a quote). None of that fits into JM's worldview. No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational, especially dictators. This ought to have been obvious after WWII.

pydry 3y ago
>The fact that he failed doesn't diminish the fact that he tried. The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force. (not that we can prove the military objectives of sending that force with any great certainty) >No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational Definitely not, but if you dont know a military objective for sure and from a list of 7 you pick the least rational, least likely one because reasons your doctrine is absolutely stupid. Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow. >JM was just wrong. No, JM absolutely nailed it. Every word of that YouTube video you linked to was prescient.
- dralley 3y ago
  >The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force. Lol. No. Explain the military purpose of sending riot police and parade uniforms? Explain the military purpose of getting 10,000 of his most capable special forces troops slaughtered in 3 days? Explain the 30 mile convoy? The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians, that they would welcome the overthrow of their government, etc. That he believed Russia was the 2nd most powerful military in the world, that Ukrainians would immediately surrender, that it would be easy. All of which is in fact backed up by intercepts and intelligence as well as the entire state narrative in the early war. >Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow. What? It's not the sole piece of evidence... You need to read the reports about what actually happened on the ground. JM did not "nail it", he was clueless. They've been planning this for a long time. They thought they had deeply infiltrated all levels of Ukrainian government with spies whom would be able to paralyze the response (and to be fair, in the South, they did). https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-Russo-Ukrainian-War-web-final.pdf.pdf https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-... https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202202-ukraine-web.pdf https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202202-ukraine-web.pd...
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    Let’s not forget that the Russian state media also accidentally posted an article on the victory of the war, which details pretty much everything you’ve said. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240.amp
  - pydry 3y ago
    >Lol. No. Explain the military purpose of sending riot police OMON are not just riot police and are routinely sent on Russian military expeditions (e.g. there are some in Syria). Theres some evidence that a few hundred of the invading force of 15,000 (cite: Wikipedia) were OMON. The question you apparently haven't asked yourself is "if their goal was occupation, why did they send a few hundred OMON troops rather than the hundred thousand they'd actually need?" >The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians The most likely explanation is that he was primarily gambling on a quick collapse of Ukrainian resistance and the ability to pull off a coup, before placing Opposition Platform for Life (who already had ~44 seats) in charge. The backup/secondary plan was likely to provide a distraction such that the southern and eastern forces could link up and secure Russia's main geopolitical achilles heel - the land bridge to crimea.
    - dralley 3y ago
      They didn't send a few hundred. They sent 60 thousand. Putin has been very consistent about his views of Ukraine. It makes perfect sense that he got it completely wrong. As I said, read the reports, you may find it interesting.
      - pydry 3y ago
        I think you got confused. The attack on Kiev had 16,000 troops total. It's unclear how many were OMON but it's clear that it was no more than a few hundred. In no way, shape or form does that justify presuming that this was an occupation force - with or without uniforms.
        3y ago

pydry 3y ago

>The fact that he failed doesn't diminish the fact that he tried. The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force. (not that we can prove the military objectives of sending that force with any great certainty) >No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational Definitely not, but if you dont know a military objective for sure and from a list of 7 you pick the least rational, least likely one because reasons your doctrine is absolutely stupid. Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow. >JM was just wrong. No, JM absolutely nailed it. Every word of that YouTube video you linked to was prescient.

dralley 3y ago
>The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force. Lol. No. Explain the military purpose of sending riot police and parade uniforms? Explain the military purpose of getting 10,000 of his most capable special forces troops slaughtered in 3 days? Explain the 30 mile convoy? The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians, that they would welcome the overthrow of their government, etc. That he believed Russia was the 2nd most powerful military in the world, that Ukrainians would immediately surrender, that it would be easy. All of which is in fact backed up by intercepts and intelligence as well as the entire state narrative in the early war. >Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow. What? It's not the sole piece of evidence... You need to read the reports about what actually happened on the ground. JM did not "nail it", he was clueless. They've been planning this for a long time. They thought they had deeply infiltrated all levels of Ukrainian government with spies whom would be able to paralyze the response (and to be fair, in the South, they did). https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-Russo-Ukrainian-War-web-final.pdf.pdf https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-... https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202202-ukraine-web.pdf https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202202-ukraine-web.pd...
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  Let’s not forget that the Russian state media also accidentally posted an article on the victory of the war, which details pretty much everything you’ve said. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240.amp
- pydry 3y ago
  >Lol. No. Explain the military purpose of sending riot police OMON are not just riot police and are routinely sent on Russian military expeditions (e.g. there are some in Syria). Theres some evidence that a few hundred of the invading force of 15,000 (cite: Wikipedia) were OMON. The question you apparently haven't asked yourself is "if their goal was occupation, why did they send a few hundred OMON troops rather than the hundred thousand they'd actually need?" >The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians The most likely explanation is that he was primarily gambling on a quick collapse of Ukrainian resistance and the ability to pull off a coup, before placing Opposition Platform for Life (who already had ~44 seats) in charge. The backup/secondary plan was likely to provide a distraction such that the southern and eastern forces could link up and secure Russia's main geopolitical achilles heel - the land bridge to crimea.
  - dralley 3y ago
    They didn't send a few hundred. They sent 60 thousand. Putin has been very consistent about his views of Ukraine. It makes perfect sense that he got it completely wrong. As I said, read the reports, you may find it interesting.
    - pydry 3y ago
      I think you got confused. The attack on Kiev had 16,000 troops total. It's unclear how many were OMON but it's clear that it was no more than a few hundred. In no way, shape or form does that justify presuming that this was an occupation force - with or without uniforms.
      - 3y ago