Russia is trying to avoid a war with NATO, so they can't shoot down NATO AWACS and satellites which greatly enhance Ukrainian capabilities. Also there is no point in annexing rubble, so Russia was never going to do heavy bombardment anyway.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
we don't know that. NATO outside US had supply issues even in Libya in an air war against a country with <10 million population concentrated along a thin strip of coast right next to France. If the situation were reversed, with NATO invading Ukraine backed by Russian and Chinese supplies and ISR, I don't think they would actually do much better than Russia. This isn't idle speculation because that was the exact situation in Vietnam, and in They were then expelled out of Vietnam completely. The equivalent today for Russia would be losing 1/3 to 1/2 their entire air force, mass conscription enforced in Russia, and still being completely expelled from Crimea and Donbass.
In Desert Storm they allowed In Ukraine they were burning people even suspected of being ethnic Russian in Odessa.
The entire Iraqi air defense network architecture was French made and 100% understood by the US because the plans were sold by France to the US. In addition US had some luck where Iraq used some of the exact same equipment they faced in Vietnam 20 years earlier, but without terrain cover.
US had 10x higher population and 30x higher GDP than Iraq, while Russia only has 3x higher population and 8x higher GDP than Ukraine. Ukraine is comparatively more like Imperial Japan in WW2 relative to the US based on population size and GDP, and nobody thought Imperial Japan was a pushover.
Nobody supplied Iraq during Desert Storm and in fact, Iraq did not have a single safe border: it had hostile Israel to the west, hostile Iran to the east, hostile Turkey to the north, hostile Saudi Arabia to the south. This is in stark contrast to Ukraine which has a massive safe western border with Poland, Romania, Hungary and Moldova.
Last edited:
I'll use this as a reference point, but my response is directed to everyone discussing this issue:
I think you're all going in the wrong direction.
I'm going to propose an explanation that so far is speculative but resolves every single problem I had with this war in a logically consistent manner.
1. Russian military didn't fail:
I think you're all going in the wrong direction.
I'm going to propose an explanation that so far is speculative but resolves every single problem I had with this war in a logically consistent manner.
1. Russian military didn't fail:
- The "special military operation" is not cynical rhetoric. When Putin was speaking about "denazification" and "demilitarization" they were not empty rhetorical devices. They were justifications that would make sense in the intended context of the operation.
- The plan was to generate internal conflict and then use it as pretext to intervene militarily with a stabilizing force rather than an invasion army. The military forces amassed at Ukraine's border deliberately made no preparations for full-scale invasion to provide legitimacy to their mission as a stabilizing force
- The plan was to assassinate Zelensky and have a Russian-controlled faction of Ukrainian nationalists attempt a forcible takeover of government in Kiyv thus validating claims of potential genocide and requiring "denazification" and "demilitarization".
- Putin's speech was pre-recorded approximately 2-3 days before the invasion started.
- Russia's recognition of DPR and LPR which were in violation of Minsk agreement were intended as triggers for assassination following Zelensky's lack of forcible response. This way if Zelensky gave an order to perform some military operation in Donbas Russia would have a justification to invade and if he didn't nationalists could assassinate him as a traitor.
- After Zelensky's death a minimum of three factions would emerge as natural rivals that would refuse compromise: (1) the pro-Russian faction centered around Opposition Platform - For Life, (2) the NATO/EU faction centered around Proshenko and moderate nationalist organizations, (3) the radical nationalists led by Russian intelligence. Possibly more factions could emerge but those three are natural and pre-existing in the political system. There was no natural heir apparent in Zelensky's camp due to internal conflicts which culminated in November 2021 when Razumkov split from Servant of the People.
- As long as civilian government would be contested military and paramilitary formations would answer to their respective hierarchies and would declare for specific faction or stay out of fighting.
- Ukrainian (1) ground forces, (2) air assault forces and (3) national guard are three main structures which are politically separate from each other. National Guard specifically was under control of Arsen Avakov until his dismisal as minister of internal affairs in July 2021. Ground forces are the largest, least reformed and most fragmented with extensive networks of former contacts, especially due to reserve formations and territorial defense units. Air Assault Forces and Special Forces are newest and under greatest influence of NATO/US intelligence. These three could possibly come into direct confrontation as consequence of internal instability.
- Russian expectations were not that Ukraine wouldn't resist Russian invasion but that they would not join the fight against other Ukrainian forces and allow Russia to intervene as a peacekeeping force.
- In all proper analyses of the war Zelensky's decision to stay in Kiyv is being singled out as crucial to forming the mindset of civil resistance.
- Zelensky is not the personality type to behave heroically and his entire political career contradicts "war hero" persona that is being artificially created for propaganda.
- US' public insistence that Zelensky evacuates to Lviv serves as validation of Zelensky's "heroism" when he announces his decision to stay in Kiyv. The purpose was to prevent any challenge to existing civilian power structure which is necessary to prevent fragmentation of the military.
- Poroshenko and Klitschko who are both Zelensky's political rivals made public displays of patriotic unity and indirect support to Zelensky's administration which was contrary to the existing precedent of Ukrainian political culture and tradition, the events of 2014 and the ongoing conflict after 2019 elections.
- Russia invades with forces which are now being assessed as even smaller than initially thought. Heavily under-strength, often at 50% of TOE, the BTGs are being sent not as invasion but stabilization/peacekeeping units. They are intended to perform a policing operation. They are not supposed to fight the resisting regular Ukrainian military.
- Hostomel airfield is near the base of National Guard rapid reaction brigade. That unit is one of three NG mechanized units equipped with tanks and artillery with TOE similar to army mechanized units. It is a "Praetorian" unit guarding Kiyv and it would not be moved out of position under any circumstances. Any direct confrontation between this brigade and VDV light air assault units would be catastrophic for VDV (and it was). The only logical explanation for sending light VDV units to Hostomel was reasonable expectation that NG would not fight back.
- Another obstacle was Chernihiv where a tank brigade is stationed. This unit managed to stop Russian advance for days as the Russians drove straight at it. Why?
- The plan works in the South. On 24 Feb several key units guarding Crimea are taken off positions to an exercise which results in a rout in the first hours of invasion.
- Russian attack does not stop at Dnepr which is the natural barrier or at Mikolayiv but for some reason continues further north-west with insufficient support indicating that the initial plan never required consolidation of control before exploiting advantage as Russian doctrine requires.
- Russian doctrine doesn't envision long-distance infiltration ground maneuvers, even with VDV. There are no tactics prepared for such operation. What Russian army was doing was improvisation.
- American narrative before the invasion was devoid of any details other than the endless aggressive repetition of "Russia will invade". The purpose of this psy-op was to deny Russia the ability to frame their operation as a peacekeeping mission.
- It is unlikely that FSB leaked the plans of invasion to American intelligence because that could easily be a feint. Russians don't seem to know where the leak originated.
- It is more likely that the plan would be revealed by Ukrainian military units being contacted by Russian intelligence. This explains lack of detailed information about invasion plans because the only information those units would receive was "stay out of fight when things get ugly in Kiyv",
- It is also likely that the plan would be revealed by double agents inside the nationalist movement which was being used as puppets vs Zelensky.
- Russia must have known that US would use any excuse to exert pressure on Europe to sanction Russia. An unprovoked aggression against Ukraine would be the ideal excuse. Conversely a Russian intervention in an internal conflict would only serve to further undermine US-EU common front as sanctions would be seen as escalatory.
- The propaganda narratives about US pushing for war and Ukraine refusing to surrender are not coherent in current conditions but would make sense in stabilization scenario where Russian forces would not be viewed as invaders.
- Propaganda narratives outside of social media bots take time to prepare and must be staged in advance.
- Putin didn't stop the invasion because either he didn't know if Zelensky survived and/or
- in order for the operation to succeed he had to keep full secrecy on actual plan as to prevent leaks. This required him to force everyone to back him without knowing why - which weakened his position. The elites didn't want conflict and backed him out of fear which requires Putin to consistently show strength so they don't push back against him. This is the irrational part of politics that doesn't deal with calculation and profit motive but human sociobiology. My assumption is that Putin's position wasn't as strong as we thought after the pandemic and he couldn't afford to weaken it any more.
- Putin is nowhere near as powerful as people imagine. Nobody challenges him because nobody wants to be in his position to take responsibility and nobody wants to risk the first move to be stabbed in the back.
I think most people who specialize in Russia, acknowledge that the Russian military didn't "fail". As Rob Lee, Kofman, Dara, etc, all noted, this is not how the Russian military trains to fight. The first few weeks were bizarre and from Kofman's podcast, it's obvious that this wasn't a war in the first few weeks. It was a military/intelligence operation that relied heavily on Russia's intelligence services to pull off their part.
The catastrophic failure of this operation therefore isn't indicative that Russia's military was bad from the get go. Quite the contrary, the Russian military was forced to hold their punches and was knee-capped by their political establishment who were relying on an intelligence plan that catastrophically failed. The Russian military three months into the conflict is not the Russian military that started this conflict, and the Russian military today is just a different military period.
Had Russia gone into this war fully prepared, I think we would've had a completely different outcome.
+320,000 Chinese combat troops participated in the Vietnam War, so unless 320,000 NATO troops are operating Patriots Anti-Air missiles, engineering roles, supply/logistics in Ukrainian soil (like China did in North Vietnam), it's not an apt comparison to make between Ukraine and Vietnam. A substantial reason why Vietnam wasn't invaded by a land force across the 17th parallel was because of this nuclear superpower ally that has direct skin in the game...that doesn't exist in Ukraine situation.
That said, US has not fought a near peer or semi-competent in many decades, only primitives in caves that can't shoot back, so they would likely be rusty with slow start as well. But Russians were really overconfident with such a miniscule invasion force spread out over this vast frontline. US would still bomb everything to the ground to be sure, but Russians didn't do that for some reason.
That said, US has not fought a near peer or semi-competent in many decades, only primitives in caves that can't shoot back, so they would likely be rusty with slow start as well. But Russians were really overconfident with such a miniscule invasion force spread out over this vast frontline. US would still bomb everything to the ground to be sure, but Russians didn't do that for some reason.
The idea that Putin plans assassination of Zelensky seems extremely farfetched because even as a year has passed, there are essentially zero known operations with goals that are even close to that.
It is interesting to me that many American nationalists (and some others) seem to be operating under the assumption that Putin is an idiot in terms of mental capacity. That would have the unfortunate implication that the combined economical warfare of NATO was unable to stop a much smaller economy built by an actual honest to god retard, that is incapable of distinguishing basic facts in a ground war and lives in constant delusion.
If NATO really would run a draw with a mentally disabled man like that, then it would mean they truly are the most paper of tigers.
Instead, I would assume that NATO has a higher degree of competency, and so does Putin. Tabloid assertations that Putin expected Ukraine to surrender in 3 days and had no backup plans are not only disrespectful of Putin's intelligence, but disrespectful of the intelligence of all the officials in Washington, Warsaw and Berlin, who are stalemated with the system built by "the idiot".
When we assume rationality, the goals and methods of Russia become clear.
Russia initiated its invasion to prevent Ukraine from reunifying the LDPR after building up its army, seeing that the Minsk agreements were a sham, a statement supported both by Russian and NATO claims.
Russian troops did a whole song and dance for the world in the Kiev and Sumy regions, while that happened, they secured the land bridge and started fortifying the LDPR, ensuring that Ukrainian reunification will not happen for the foreseeable future.
As we see now in Bakhmut, if the Ukranians dig in, it will take extreme time for Russians to get them out using smaller forces. However, that did not happen for any settlement in the land bridge. Needless to say, if there was a Bakhmut in the land bridge, then Russia would have to fully mobilize in order to save Crimea, because they would otherwise be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
The Russian army is not very powerful, but it is rather aware of its own limitations. It has used sparing amounts of assets to sneak vast tracts of defensible ground from a numerically larger foe.
From there on, it's now down to positional battles and which side can grind the other down first.
For those expecting Russia to have blitzed Ukraine, that was simply not an option. Not only is the difference in numbers and stockpiles not large enough to make a blitz a forgone conclusion, but there is the constant threat of nato intervention.
Ground lost can be taken back, men lost won't grow back.
The US army once blitzed through North Korea in 2 months, only to promptly lose all their territorial gain and have divisions straight up annihilated in 1 month when China intervened.
If Russia followed the same template of taking vast swathes of Ukraine only to get bitch slapped by NATO PVA (and they would, because NATO has turned back every promise theyve made so far), Russia or at least the LDPR would not survive that.
However, if Russia depletes Ukraine of soldiers first, there will be no one to resist LDPR independence.
This also explains why US did the warnings they did. They did not want Russia to invade because doing so ruins the plan for Ukraine to use Minsk as a smokescreen to acquire unification capabilities. Washington tried to discourage it by saying "we know your next step", but evidently Russia did not care and went with it anyways.
It is interesting to me that many American nationalists (and some others) seem to be operating under the assumption that Putin is an idiot in terms of mental capacity. That would have the unfortunate implication that the combined economical warfare of NATO was unable to stop a much smaller economy built by an actual honest to god retard, that is incapable of distinguishing basic facts in a ground war and lives in constant delusion.
If NATO really would run a draw with a mentally disabled man like that, then it would mean they truly are the most paper of tigers.
Instead, I would assume that NATO has a higher degree of competency, and so does Putin. Tabloid assertations that Putin expected Ukraine to surrender in 3 days and had no backup plans are not only disrespectful of Putin's intelligence, but disrespectful of the intelligence of all the officials in Washington, Warsaw and Berlin, who are stalemated with the system built by "the idiot".
When we assume rationality, the goals and methods of Russia become clear.
Russia initiated its invasion to prevent Ukraine from reunifying the LDPR after building up its army, seeing that the Minsk agreements were a sham, a statement supported both by Russian and NATO claims.
Russian troops did a whole song and dance for the world in the Kiev and Sumy regions, while that happened, they secured the land bridge and started fortifying the LDPR, ensuring that Ukrainian reunification will not happen for the foreseeable future.
As we see now in Bakhmut, if the Ukranians dig in, it will take extreme time for Russians to get them out using smaller forces. However, that did not happen for any settlement in the land bridge. Needless to say, if there was a Bakhmut in the land bridge, then Russia would have to fully mobilize in order to save Crimea, because they would otherwise be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
The Russian army is not very powerful, but it is rather aware of its own limitations. It has used sparing amounts of assets to sneak vast tracts of defensible ground from a numerically larger foe.
From there on, it's now down to positional battles and which side can grind the other down first.
For those expecting Russia to have blitzed Ukraine, that was simply not an option. Not only is the difference in numbers and stockpiles not large enough to make a blitz a forgone conclusion, but there is the constant threat of nato intervention.
Ground lost can be taken back, men lost won't grow back.
The US army once blitzed through North Korea in 2 months, only to promptly lose all their territorial gain and have divisions straight up annihilated in 1 month when China intervened.
If Russia followed the same template of taking vast swathes of Ukraine only to get bitch slapped by NATO PVA (and they would, because NATO has turned back every promise theyve made so far), Russia or at least the LDPR would not survive that.
However, if Russia depletes Ukraine of soldiers first, there will be no one to resist LDPR independence.
This also explains why US did the warnings they did. They did not want Russia to invade because doing so ruins the plan for Ukraine to use Minsk as a smokescreen to acquire unification capabilities. Washington tried to discourage it by saying "we know your next step", but evidently Russia did not care and went with it anyways.
Last edited:
The political establishment is the biggest culprit by far, Putin still held onto of vain hopes of Slavic Brotherhood and vastly underestimated how indoctrinated the Ukranian Armed forces had become over the past 8 years.
Russian SMO is example of using hammer as scalpel.
Their military was not trained for this kind of operation and their plan mostly relied on hope that Ukraine was going to surrender very fast.
Which make them decide not to destroyed all important infrastructure like US invasion. Hell, they even leave barrack for a month before decide that was a legit target. They saw US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and though they could do the same, ignoring the fact that Iraqi army status by 2003 is in no shape to fight and got sanction to hell.
Have US tried the same plan in 2003 at Iraq but with Russian army as opposing force, the outcome would be even worse than SMO. Some story of US soldiers from 2003 invasion gonna make you wonder how many of them survive being that reckless.
Their military was not trained for this kind of operation and their plan mostly relied on hope that Ukraine was going to surrender very fast.
Which make them decide not to destroyed all important infrastructure like US invasion. Hell, they even leave barrack for a month before decide that was a legit target. They saw US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and though they could do the same, ignoring the fact that Iraqi army status by 2003 is in no shape to fight and got sanction to hell.
Have US tried the same plan in 2003 at Iraq but with Russian army as opposing force, the outcome would be even worse than SMO. Some story of US soldiers from 2003 invasion gonna make you wonder how many of them survive being that reckless.
These two events seem to be related.