Posted on 12/19/2023 8:53:29 AM PST by MeganC
Russian language transcript at the link.
Synopsis: Pro-Russian political scientist Sergey Markov states that Russia was ill prepared for their war against Ukraine. The discussion gets very heated as it progresses.
I think so too. Putin went in thinking he could cut off Kiev immediately and end the war. He sent too few special forces and should have dropped inserted operatives beforehand, had them isolate areas for special forces to secure land from Belarus to Kiev, then done a bum-rush from Belarus.
It would have saved 500k Ukrainians.
Ya think?!
Russians historically have a high tolerance for prolonged conflicts and the history of Russian military conflicts follows a pattern.
1. Go to war ill-prepared.
2. Throw enough bodies at the conflict to stall until they become prepared.
3. Apply lessons learned to win the conflict.
4. Inflict atrocities on the loser because they are angry about how many of their own people were used as cannon fodder.
Ukraine is now in stage 3. They get to experience stage 4 because the western war pigs won’t allow a settled peace. But hey, they big guy gets his 10% and the Cold War nostalgists get to show Ruzzia who’s boss.
Criticize the war in Russia too much, and you get thrown - either INTO a jail cell, or OUT OF a window
that’s why you don’t see a lot of Russian protests ... yet ...
but wait till after Vlady’s next mobilization ...
If Kyiv fell, the government would have moved to Lviv. Then they'll fight a guerilla war and lose Kyiv in less than a year.
The fact that they didn't, leads to two possible conclusions. Either Putin was not fully committed to waging war on Ukraine, or Russia is incapable of waging a war on the scale that we were able to on the two invasions the U.S. executed on Iraq.
It still doesn't change the fact Russia has, by vast numbers, more resources than does Ukraine to protect itself. Russia has the tactical advantage of proximity to wage war than does any of Ukraine's allies, except Poland. Poland lacks the resources that Russia has. The rest of Ukraine's allies have long-distances to send military equipment to Ukraine's battlefield. That has dire impacts upon Ukraine's ability to effectively protect itself, as well as, create and deliver and effective counter-offensive.
When will you Zelenskyy/Ukraine cheerleaders acknowledge these salient facts which made our support of Ukraine military response, was ill-conceived as well? My guess is never. Because you people will never admit that you were wrong. You all also lack critical thinking skills, and react totally upon an emotional level. That too is something none of you will acknowledge.
That would also have woken Western Europe from its stupor on military power like a slap in the face. A slow victory benefits the Russians more than a zerg rush would have.
Seriously! How much more Russian blood and treasure should Putin continue to waste?
Due to corruption, a lot of it is because of their Soviet legacy
I tend to believe it is the collapse of the USSR which left Russia totally devasted on numerous levels, and the struggle to make the society whole again has not been been fully realized, even after 33 years. Making a society whole again is a real uphill battle. It may never be fully whole again. It has only reached its current state with lots of help from the U.S. which can't decide if it should be destroyed or restored.
I think there was disagreement before, but maybe not out in the open.
>A slow victory benefits the Russians more than a zerg rush would have.
I agree. NATO has had a lot of mobilized artillery, Bradleys, and Leopards destroyed by mines with very little progress. They’ve also expended much of their artillery supply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.