|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On March 12 2022 03:12 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2022 02:51 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 02:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote:
The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time.
From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there. What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil. No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me. Russia has nuclear ICBMs and an economy smaller than Italy. Nobody wants to pick a fight and they have nothing worth fighting over. The Russian strategy you’re describing fails to explain why they attempted rapid encirclements and took such large losses on the attempt. If they meant for a slow inexorable advance then why all the aerial deployments, amphibious assaults, and armoured columns? Why the advances beyond supply lines? Why use and lose all these assets that have nothing to do with that strategy? I think it much more likely that they intended a rapid seizure of the capital, a decapitation of the Ukrainian government, and the creation of a puppet regime. To present the world with a fait accompli before it could react. That would be the smartest approach, without an organized national government resisting them there would be nobody to request western arms and nobody for the west to give them to. They just failed. I don't know about the numbers or who's actually winning and I try not to look for it. It's likely manipulated information wherever I look. But considering the amphibian attacks it seems likely it's a two headed offensive that aims at encirclement. Once Kiew is encircled the Russians can just control the supply flows. My local newspapers speak of humanitarian corridors being shot at and the like so it's not unlikely they already reached that point. You don't need corridors when your army is in control.
NATO could set up a humanitarian airbridge to Kiev. Putin may be mad, but shooting down a freight plane flying the US flag and filled with food and medicine would be a move of escalation even he would have to reconsider. In a recent report I read by the Atlantic Council, it'd be fairly effective in military terms, fairly unlikely to escalate the conflict, and a lifesaver in humanitarian terms: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/the-big-story/what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of-us-nato-military-options-in-ukraine-our-strategic-risk-calculator-has-answers/
Then again, the likelihood Russia is planning for a long drawn out war is still small. They wanted a blitzkrieg and they got a quagmire. it's more likely they carpet bomb Kiev into surrender than try a drawn out siege.
|
On March 12 2022 03:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 03:12 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2022 02:51 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 02:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote:
The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time.
From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there. What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil. No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me. Russia has nuclear ICBMs and an economy smaller than Italy. Nobody wants to pick a fight and they have nothing worth fighting over. The Russian strategy you’re describing fails to explain why they attempted rapid encirclements and took such large losses on the attempt. If they meant for a slow inexorable advance then why all the aerial deployments, amphibious assaults, and armoured columns? Why the advances beyond supply lines? Why use and lose all these assets that have nothing to do with that strategy? I think it much more likely that they intended a rapid seizure of the capital, a decapitation of the Ukrainian government, and the creation of a puppet regime. To present the world with a fait accompli before it could react. That would be the smartest approach, without an organized national government resisting them there would be nobody to request western arms and nobody for the west to give them to. They just failed. I don't know about the numbers or who's actually winning and I try not to look for it. It's likely manipulated information wherever I look. But considering the amphibian attacks it seems likely it's a two headed offensive that aims at encirclement. Once Kiew is encircled the Russians can just control the supply flows. My local newspapers speak of humanitarian corridors being shot at and the like so it's not unlikely they already reached that point. You don't need corridors when your army is in control. NATO could set up a humanitarian airbridge to Kiev. Putin may be mad, but shooting down a freight plane flying the US flag and filled with food and medicine would be a move of escalation even he would have to reconsider. In a recent report I read by the Atlantic Council, it'd be fairly effective in military terms, fairly unlikely to escalate the conflict, and a lifesaver in humanitarian terms: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/the-big-story/what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of-us-nato-military-options-in-ukraine-our-strategic-risk-calculator-has-answers/Then again, the likelihood Russia is planning for a long drawn out war is still small. They wanted a blitzkrieg and they got a quagmire. it's more likely they carpet bomb Kiev into surrender than try a drawn out siege.
Yeah they could but that's a declaration of war as no supply plane is going to fly unescorted unless it's automated and filled with fireworks.
What they could do is use drones as long as they are undetected, which seems unlikely.
|
On March 12 2022 02:00 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 01:05 Longshank wrote:
Somewhat connected to what's happening in Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland say that now is not the time to join NATO. As much as I would want us to join, it makes perfect sense but oboy are (some)people up in arms about it. It's the same one-dimensional thinking that you hear from people saying the West is just standing by letting the killings happen. I'd argue the opposite. The best moment to join NATO is now. Russia's invasion in Ukraine is going poorly and they don't have the resources for a second front. Yes it's escalatory but Russia can't stop it.
Russia is in no position to invade Finland for another decade or so, not even when disregarding the EU defense agreement. No matter what happens in Ukraine, Russia will be down on it's knees at so many levels. It's not really a threat right now.
What matters at this moment is reaching a peace in Ukraine and NATO will undoubtedly have a role to play in such deal in some capacity. NATO expanding towards Russia in the north just makes any negotiations more difficult.
|
On March 12 2022 03:33 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 03:26 Acrofales wrote:On March 12 2022 03:12 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2022 02:51 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 02:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote:
The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time.
From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there. What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil. No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me. Russia has nuclear ICBMs and an economy smaller than Italy. Nobody wants to pick a fight and they have nothing worth fighting over. The Russian strategy you’re describing fails to explain why they attempted rapid encirclements and took such large losses on the attempt. If they meant for a slow inexorable advance then why all the aerial deployments, amphibious assaults, and armoured columns? Why the advances beyond supply lines? Why use and lose all these assets that have nothing to do with that strategy? I think it much more likely that they intended a rapid seizure of the capital, a decapitation of the Ukrainian government, and the creation of a puppet regime. To present the world with a fait accompli before it could react. That would be the smartest approach, without an organized national government resisting them there would be nobody to request western arms and nobody for the west to give them to. They just failed. I don't know about the numbers or who's actually winning and I try not to look for it. It's likely manipulated information wherever I look. But considering the amphibian attacks it seems likely it's a two headed offensive that aims at encirclement. Once Kiew is encircled the Russians can just control the supply flows. My local newspapers speak of humanitarian corridors being shot at and the like so it's not unlikely they already reached that point. You don't need corridors when your army is in control. NATO could set up a humanitarian airbridge to Kiev. Putin may be mad, but shooting down a freight plane flying the US flag and filled with food and medicine would be a move of escalation even he would have to reconsider. In a recent report I read by the Atlantic Council, it'd be fairly effective in military terms, fairly unlikely to escalate the conflict, and a lifesaver in humanitarian terms: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/the-big-story/what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of-us-nato-military-options-in-ukraine-our-strategic-risk-calculator-has-answers/Then again, the likelihood Russia is planning for a long drawn out war is still small. They wanted a blitzkrieg and they got a quagmire. it's more likely they carpet bomb Kiev into surrender than try a drawn out siege. Yeah they could but that's a declaration of war as no supply plane is going to fly unescorted unless it's automated and filled with fireworks. What they could do is use drones as long as they are undetected, which seems unlikely.
I'm glad you know better than a few dozen generals, and other experts they surveyed about these ideas!
|
On March 12 2022 04:18 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 03:33 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 03:26 Acrofales wrote:On March 12 2022 03:12 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2022 02:51 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 02:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote:
The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time.
From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there. What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil. No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me. Russia has nuclear ICBMs and an economy smaller than Italy. Nobody wants to pick a fight and they have nothing worth fighting over. The Russian strategy you’re describing fails to explain why they attempted rapid encirclements and took such large losses on the attempt. If they meant for a slow inexorable advance then why all the aerial deployments, amphibious assaults, and armoured columns? Why the advances beyond supply lines? Why use and lose all these assets that have nothing to do with that strategy? I think it much more likely that they intended a rapid seizure of the capital, a decapitation of the Ukrainian government, and the creation of a puppet regime. To present the world with a fait accompli before it could react. That would be the smartest approach, without an organized national government resisting them there would be nobody to request western arms and nobody for the west to give them to. They just failed. I don't know about the numbers or who's actually winning and I try not to look for it. It's likely manipulated information wherever I look. But considering the amphibian attacks it seems likely it's a two headed offensive that aims at encirclement. Once Kiew is encircled the Russians can just control the supply flows. My local newspapers speak of humanitarian corridors being shot at and the like so it's not unlikely they already reached that point. You don't need corridors when your army is in control. NATO could set up a humanitarian airbridge to Kiev. Putin may be mad, but shooting down a freight plane flying the US flag and filled with food and medicine would be a move of escalation even he would have to reconsider. In a recent report I read by the Atlantic Council, it'd be fairly effective in military terms, fairly unlikely to escalate the conflict, and a lifesaver in humanitarian terms: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/the-big-story/what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of-us-nato-military-options-in-ukraine-our-strategic-risk-calculator-has-answers/Then again, the likelihood Russia is planning for a long drawn out war is still small. They wanted a blitzkrieg and they got a quagmire. it's more likely they carpet bomb Kiev into surrender than try a drawn out siege. Yeah they could but that's a declaration of war as no supply plane is going to fly unescorted unless it's automated and filled with fireworks. What they could do is use drones as long as they are undetected, which seems unlikely. I'm glad you know better than a few dozen generals, and other experts they surveyed about these ideas!
It's a gaming forum, not a professional discussion. Isn't the idea here that mostly unqualified people express their opinions out of a desire to communicate?
I'm in quarantine until tomorrow at least so I might be a nuisance for a bit more until I can meet up with my chumps
I guess the other commander that would be, acrofales, likes to send stuffed turkeys into enemy airspace. Alright.
|
On March 12 2022 03:33 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 03:26 Acrofales wrote:On March 12 2022 03:12 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2022 02:51 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 02:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote:
The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time.
From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there. What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil. No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me. Russia has nuclear ICBMs and an economy smaller than Italy. Nobody wants to pick a fight and they have nothing worth fighting over. The Russian strategy you’re describing fails to explain why they attempted rapid encirclements and took such large losses on the attempt. If they meant for a slow inexorable advance then why all the aerial deployments, amphibious assaults, and armoured columns? Why the advances beyond supply lines? Why use and lose all these assets that have nothing to do with that strategy? I think it much more likely that they intended a rapid seizure of the capital, a decapitation of the Ukrainian government, and the creation of a puppet regime. To present the world with a fait accompli before it could react. That would be the smartest approach, without an organized national government resisting them there would be nobody to request western arms and nobody for the west to give them to. They just failed. I don't know about the numbers or who's actually winning and I try not to look for it. It's likely manipulated information wherever I look. But considering the amphibian attacks it seems likely it's a two headed offensive that aims at encirclement. Once Kiew is encircled the Russians can just control the supply flows. My local newspapers speak of humanitarian corridors being shot at and the like so it's not unlikely they already reached that point. You don't need corridors when your army is in control. NATO could set up a humanitarian airbridge to Kiev. Putin may be mad, but shooting down a freight plane flying the US flag and filled with food and medicine would be a move of escalation even he would have to reconsider. In a recent report I read by the Atlantic Council, it'd be fairly effective in military terms, fairly unlikely to escalate the conflict, and a lifesaver in humanitarian terms: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/the-big-story/what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of-us-nato-military-options-in-ukraine-our-strategic-risk-calculator-has-answers/Then again, the likelihood Russia is planning for a long drawn out war is still small. They wanted a blitzkrieg and they got a quagmire. it's more likely they carpet bomb Kiev into surrender than try a drawn out siege. Yeah they could but that's a declaration of war as no supply plane is going to fly unescorted unless it's automated and filled with fireworks. What they could do is use drones as long as they are undetected, which seems unlikely. Why? You order 2 pilots to fly it to Kyiv and dare Russia to shoot it down. An escort would actively work against the idea of a humanitarian mission.
You think Russia is going to shoot down an unarmed US transport plane with no regard for the consequences?
|
On March 12 2022 04:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 03:33 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 03:26 Acrofales wrote:On March 12 2022 03:12 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2022 02:51 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 02:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote:
The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time.
From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there. What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil. No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me. Russia has nuclear ICBMs and an economy smaller than Italy. Nobody wants to pick a fight and they have nothing worth fighting over. The Russian strategy you’re describing fails to explain why they attempted rapid encirclements and took such large losses on the attempt. If they meant for a slow inexorable advance then why all the aerial deployments, amphibious assaults, and armoured columns? Why the advances beyond supply lines? Why use and lose all these assets that have nothing to do with that strategy? I think it much more likely that they intended a rapid seizure of the capital, a decapitation of the Ukrainian government, and the creation of a puppet regime. To present the world with a fait accompli before it could react. That would be the smartest approach, without an organized national government resisting them there would be nobody to request western arms and nobody for the west to give them to. They just failed. I don't know about the numbers or who's actually winning and I try not to look for it. It's likely manipulated information wherever I look. But considering the amphibian attacks it seems likely it's a two headed offensive that aims at encirclement. Once Kiew is encircled the Russians can just control the supply flows. My local newspapers speak of humanitarian corridors being shot at and the like so it's not unlikely they already reached that point. You don't need corridors when your army is in control. NATO could set up a humanitarian airbridge to Kiev. Putin may be mad, but shooting down a freight plane flying the US flag and filled with food and medicine would be a move of escalation even he would have to reconsider. In a recent report I read by the Atlantic Council, it'd be fairly effective in military terms, fairly unlikely to escalate the conflict, and a lifesaver in humanitarian terms: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/the-big-story/what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of-us-nato-military-options-in-ukraine-our-strategic-risk-calculator-has-answers/Then again, the likelihood Russia is planning for a long drawn out war is still small. They wanted a blitzkrieg and they got a quagmire. it's more likely they carpet bomb Kiev into surrender than try a drawn out siege. Yeah they could but that's a declaration of war as no supply plane is going to fly unescorted unless it's automated and filled with fireworks. What they could do is use drones as long as they are undetected, which seems unlikely. Why? You order 2 pilots to fly it to Kyiv and dare Russia to shoot it down. An escort would actively work against the idea of a humanitarian mission. You think Russia is going to shoot down an unarmed US transport plane with no regard for the consequences?
I misremembered the report, it actually discusses an airbridge to Lviv, not Kyiv. The former is obviously a lot safer.
|
|
|
In regard to flying something to Kiev (or anywhere close to the frontline) it's really risky. It is a war zone, a plane can be shot down by simple accident or can be shot down on purpose and Russians can claim it was shot accidentally. Lviv, of course, would be much safer but not really risk-free.
Also, I think some of You guys seriously underestimate Russian army.
1. Ukrainians had 245k standing army with a lot of battle hardened and experienced units (trough fighting in Donbas).
2. Add to that ~100k paramilitary.
3. Past eight years they have been modernizing their army.
4. They had advanced warning of invasion.
5. West is likely sharing a lot of intel with them and helping them in cyberwarfare and information war.
6. They have received a lot of military help and hardware.
7. They have superb morale.
8. Its winter.
If You compare this war to US & allies invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, then stop. It's not even close. It's a different type of war in fundamentally different circumstances.
Russian army is also sent to do, something it is not built to do. But they can learn from their mistakes and if this gets to bloody, they can stop restraining themselves. They are not carpet bombing yet, they are not using siege artillery in large quantities yet, they are spraying napalm all over cities or using tactical nukes.
Also, the Soviet Union taught us, that You can have a huge and fairly modern army and poor, struggling population at the same time. If Putin regime survives, we can end up with something like Soviet Union lite.
|
|
|
The only reason I can think of right now, is that in winter Europe needs Russian gas to heat our homes. Maybe some reason related to Russian internal politics? Dunno. I would gladly read some good article on this topic.
|
On March 12 2022 06:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 06:02 Silvanel wrote:
In regard to flying something to Kiev (or anywhere close to the frontline) it's really risky. It is a war zone, a plane can be shot down by simple accident or can be shot down on purpose and Russians can claim it was shot accidentally. Lviv, of course, would be much safer but not really risk-free.
Also, I think some of You guys seriously underestimate Russian army.
1. Ukrainians had 245k standing army with a lot of battle hardened and experienced units (trough fighting in Donbas).
2. Add to that ~100k paramilitary.
3. Past eight years they have been modernizing their army.
4. They had advanced warning of invasion.
5. West is likely sharing a lot of intel with them and helping them in cyberwarfare and information war.
6. They have received a lot of military help and hardware.
7. They have superb morale.
8. Its winter.
If You compare this war to US & allies invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, then stop. It's not even close. It's a different type of war in fundamentally different circumstances.
Russian army is also sent to do, something it is not built to do. But they can learn from their mistakes and if this gets to bloody, they can stop restraining themselves. They are not carpet bombing yet, they are not using siege artillery in large quantities yet, they are spraying napalm all over cities or using tactical nukes.
Also, the Soviet Union taught us, that You can have a huge and fairly modern army and poor, struggling population at the same time. If Putin regime survives, we can end up with something like Soviet Union lite. All of this is just more reasons why no one will attack them. I get why tge Russian goverment is pretending like this is some sort of defensive attack to stop invasion, but the rest of the world it should be clear that is just the excuse. Anyone know why they chose now instead of better weather? Hubris or is there some advantage over now instead of june?
The weather wouldn't be a problem if everything went according to keikaku and Kyiv was already taken.
As a professional armchair general I'd like to add that I always start my wars on the first of march in Crusader Kings because the snow starts vanishing somewhere around that time, and then there's plenty of time to siege enemy provinces without having to worry about the winter penalty.
|
On March 12 2022 03:35 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 02:00 RvB wrote:On March 12 2022 01:05 Longshank wrote:
Somewhat connected to what's happening in Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland say that now is not the time to join NATO. As much as I would want us to join, it makes perfect sense but oboy are (some)people up in arms about it. It's the same one-dimensional thinking that you hear from people saying the West is just standing by letting the killings happen. I'd argue the opposite. The best moment to join NATO is now. Russia's invasion in Ukraine is going poorly and they don't have the resources for a second front. Yes it's escalatory but Russia can't stop it. Russia is in no position to invade Finland for another decade or so, not even when disregarding the EU defense agreement. No matter what happens in Ukraine, Russia will be down on it's knees at so many levels. It's not really a threat right now.
I agree.
|
China would have been furious if Russia began its war before the Olympics or had it going during the Olympics. This was the soonest they could have done It to leverage the sanctions away with the winter.
I think it was pretty clear that they underestimated the morale of the Ukrainians and their ability to take out Zelensky and the capital. They lost a lot of Spetsnaz in the opening days for little noticeable gain. Karkhiv still standing is just completely unexplainable and that city is holding back the tide of hell like cadia.
|
United States43876 Posts
On March 12 2022 07:41 Sermokala wrote:
China would have been furious if Russia began its war before the Olympics or had it going during the Olympics. This was the soonest they could have done It to leverage the sanctions away with the winter.
I think it was pretty clear that they underestimated the morale of the Ukrainians and their ability to take out Zelensky and the capital. They lost a lot of Spetsnaz in the opening days for little noticeable gain. Karkhiv still standing is just completely unexplainable and that city is holding back the tide of hell like cadia.
I don't know how to tell you this but Cadia no longer stands. If it's any consolation the planet broke before the guard did.
|
Another Russian has been killed apparently.
|
I would suggest that people with their stances on eastern Europe (or eastern Europe -- like Finland or Sweden) countries get their facts straight before suggesting what we "should do".
|
On March 12 2022 08:55 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I would suggest that people with their stances on eastern Europe (or eastern Europe -- like Finland or Sweden) countries get their facts straight before suggesting what we "should do".
As it turns out, this is a discussion board and people will likely give their views on situations as they see them.
|
On March 12 2022 10:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 08:55 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I would suggest that people with their stances on eastern Europe (or eastern Europe -- like Finland or Sweden) countries get their facts straight before suggesting what we "should do". As it turns out, this is a discussion board and people will likely give their views on situations as they see them.
ah yes, they will. especially americans who have little or no to say as they have no idea what it is lika ACTUALLY here in Europe.
|
On March 12 2022 04:18 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 03:33 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 03:26 Acrofales wrote:On March 12 2022 03:12 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2022 02:51 Vivax wrote:On March 12 2022 02:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote:
The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time.
From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there. What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil. No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me. Russia has nuclear ICBMs and an economy smaller than Italy. Nobody wants to pick a fight and they have nothing worth fighting over. The Russian strategy you’re describing fails to explain why they attempted rapid encirclements and took such large losses on the attempt. If they meant for a slow inexorable advance then why all the aerial deployments, amphibious assaults, and armoured columns? Why the advances beyond supply lines? Why use and lose all these assets that have nothing to do with that strategy? I think it much more likely that they intended a rapid seizure of the capital, a decapitation of the Ukrainian government, and the creation of a puppet regime. To present the world with a fait accompli before it could react. That would be the smartest approach, without an organized national government resisting them there would be nobody to request western arms and nobody for the west to give them to. They just failed. I don't know about the numbers or who's actually winning and I try not to look for it. It's likely manipulated information wherever I look. But considering the amphibian attacks it seems likely it's a two headed offensive that aims at encirclement. Once Kiew is encircled the Russians can just control the supply flows. My local newspapers speak of humanitarian corridors being shot at and the like so it's not unlikely they already reached that point. You don't need corridors when your army is in control. NATO could set up a humanitarian airbridge to Kiev. Putin may be mad, but shooting down a freight plane flying the US flag and filled with food and medicine would be a move of escalation even he would have to reconsider. In a recent report I read by the Atlantic Council, it'd be fairly effective in military terms, fairly unlikely to escalate the conflict, and a lifesaver in humanitarian terms: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/the-big-story/what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of-us-nato-military-options-in-ukraine-our-strategic-risk-calculator-has-answers/Then again, the likelihood Russia is planning for a long drawn out war is still small. They wanted a blitzkrieg and they got a quagmire. it's more likely they carpet bomb Kiev into surrender than try a drawn out siege. Yeah they could but that's a declaration of war as no supply plane is going to fly unescorted unless it's automated and filled with fireworks. What they could do is use drones as long as they are undetected, which seems unlikely. I'm glad you know better than a few dozen generals, and other experts they surveyed about these ideas!
Do you mean Russian generals? Because if you do i think me or Vivax would outplay them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
