If it was Ukraine opposing Russia, this would have been over six months ago. Since it is another proxy war by Washington, DC, the stakes are much higher. We have been hearing for months that Russia will blow up the Kakhovka dam: Now that has become a possibility.
The USA and NATO are bankrupting both the USA and the EU with its wars of aggression. This may prove to be the straw that breaks them.
That this is a proxy war is obvious, which is why Russia seriously miscalculated by not devoting enough resources to end Ukraine before the US and its vassals could further flood that country with weapons, training, intelligence and money.
However, Putin was not operating in a diplomatic vacuum.
He had to manage things in a fashion that allowed Russia's allies to support him.
Big picture time.
I have come to believe that this was a series of very sensitive and tricky maneuvers, with the sequence of moves being carefully planned - and not only on the battlefield but diplomatically as well.
I believe it was very important for it to seem that every move made by Russia in this conflict was "forced" upon it.
Putin needed to be able to turn to China and India and say,
"What else can I do?
Look how crazy/corrupt/irrational these people are.
They are shelling civilians.
They are using human shields.
They are Nazis.
They won't listen to reason."
This allowed for the justifiable gradual increments in force and the ability to still maintain the diplomatic support of Russia's allies.
I am happy to acknowledge that perhaps miscalculations may have been made.
I don't think there was the expectation of collapse. Of a settlement maybe. Russians claimed they showed good will by retreating their troops around Kiev. See the peace talks in Turkiye, sabotaged ultimately by the USUK.
Again, assuming the truth in your assertions, that's a really dumb negotiation strategy, taking your foot off your enemy’s neck when you need them to reach agreement.
I do agree here with you, 100%. One knows that engaging with Ukrainians is a fool's errand unless they are beaten up completely. Minsk agreements are the template of behaviour.
To listen to western governments, Russia is malevolent savage and incompetent, all in a wall-to-wall a propaganda campaign not seen since Goebbels was alive and foaming at mouth. I doubt facts on the ground would change their minds much, one way or the other, as long as they were not directly affected.
I think their images and reputations with the members of the BRICS+ [soon to acquire further members who collectively will represent 50%+ of the world's populations] is very important to them - especially to distinguish themselves from the allegedly neo-colonialist "golden billion" crew.
Also, and I may be wrong, but I believe neither one of them really cares what the G7 baboons [and that is what they've shown themselves to be, sucking up to their globalist masters and flushing their respective populations down the toilet] think.
Russia has the resources that they need, and Russia seeks to make it as easy as possible for them to continue/increase trade.
Nothing China and Russia have done so far suggests this. And Russia is going to be savaged by The Golden Billion, no matter what is does, or doesn't do.
Russian leadership has to have a relative strong buy in from the population in order to be able to mobilize sufficient manpower and material resources. While the conflict with the US is life or death, the death is like in the 1990s to early 2000s, slow and dispiriting, not immediate, acute, like in WWII. So the population at large does not have this sense of imminent danger that requires the utmost effort and sacrifice. However, the reaction of the combined west, and the rabid behavior of Ukrainians and Poles and Balts, etc. have convinced the Russian population who they are dealing with in fact and that they cannot stay passive with so much animus under the surface against them. The combined west has done the recruitment for Putin. Now Russian need time to properly train and equip these 300,000 people. Now Russia will have superiority in troops on the battlefield. Let's see what happens in the next several weeks and months.
It was an operation started by necessity - the leadership itself was torn about doing it. Compare that with how the US prepared for the second Iraq War. You spot the difference?
That might be, but taking your statement as given, Russia still didn't manage sell such an existential war to its own population, and still can't sell a full mobilization.
Do you think that Europeans and the US would be able to sell to their population a full mobilization proposal against the combined Russia/China, because they are a threat to our democracy, our allies, and our values?
Maybe the guy in Vladivostok is saying that the ethnic Russians in Ukraine can very well emigrate to Russia, because there is lots of space and opportunities and need for bodies. The average Ivan doesn't see that the drawing on the wall for the Russian people and state, as conceived by the west, is a return to the 1990s...
I am talking here human behavior. I am saying, all considered and in comparison, Russian mobilization, or semi-mobilization, didn't turn out too bad.
I can't say that I disagree in the cautious approach Russian are talking in respect to protecting their soldiers' lives here. I expect that after all the training and prep work is done, in good Russian habits, we might see massive and concentrated offensives at various locales, with the build up not noticed. Same as the retreat from Kerson happened.
If you consider abandoning people who put their trust in you to the tender mercies of Ukraine and its Nazis, if you consider a lack of progress to be God results....
The election results are the proof that the last political legitimacy has been spent. What folded is any semblance of western governments serving the interests of the native europeans that founded them.
the proxy-war from the beginning days = NATO ./. RUS via proxy 404 has changed into a war, where 404 is the proxy FOR RUS to weaken the western military and financial and socio-cultural abilities.
And? None of this matters if Russia cannot control these acquisitions.
Fact is, Russia has made no significant advances since July, and has only retreated since then. Not to mention betrayed a lot of people in those territories who trusted Russia.
I wish I had something else to report, but facts is facts.
The massacre of civilians that takes place by the Nazis after withdrawals is horrific to me.
Would Russians engage in the slaughter of civilians if Ukraine withdrew from an area?
No, I don't think so.
Russia is not to blame for Ukrainian war crimes.
So I think one needs to remove that from the list of Russia's faults.
The Western world should condemn these things - but its media doesn't tell it to, so it doesn't.
I am not a military person, nor a military historian.
But we have been told by the general that this is a war of attrition - which I understand to mean the primary goal is the destruction of the other side's army.
This can involve the tactical ceding of territory temporarily as this is not the overall objective at this point.
None of us really like how this looks.
We don't even have to agree with it.
But at least we can understand it.
Some would wish to substitute their decision for that of the general [even given the uneven level of respective information and knowledge].
That's why Russia evacuated Kherson - I hope all civilians were given a chance to leave.
Russia has shown much constraint all along to avoid killing civilians.
Scott Ritter pointed out a scenario that distinguished the different ways two militaries would handle an apartment building that contained civilians [used as human shields] and also enemy soldiers and artillery [thus making the building a legitimate military target]:
Russians in Ukraine: send in soldiers to try and get the civilians out, leading to casualties and deaths of soldiers.
USA: shell the target, destroy it, and move on to the next one - not exposing soldiers to any risk.
I did not know this was how the rules are.
But Scott is a trained US Marine, in fact he was trained to fight Russians.
Well, you have your views, with plenty of facts to support them, and I can see that you are unlikely to change those views.
However, this attrition strategy is the one that was chosen given all of the political, diplomatic, supply, military constraints that the decision makers were dealing with at the time.
You choose to second guess that based on your information and how things have played out.
It's like 3rd and goal, and the quarterback runs the ball and gets thrown for 10 yards.
How many people in the stands are saying, "He should have passed!", "He should have handed it off to the running back!"
Everybody second guesses - and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Of course, everyone second guesses, when it is obvious that the strategy isn't working. It's another to insist that fourth and long is a desirable outcome and all part of a great big plan.
Russia started this operation with the army it had not with the army it wished to have or knew it was necessary to defend the well manned, well trained and well armed Ukrainian army.
Now it has the motivation and the support of the population to build that army. Let's see what will happen in the next few months.
I think the view from Kremlin wasn't that they were really itching for the operation, but that they really, really had to do it, bring cornered, and with Ukraine stepping up the activity to take Donbas (legislation passed in March 2021, troop concentration, increased shelling of Donbas in the first weeks of February 2022).
Doesn't matter who is opposing Russia. The question is what Russia proposes to do about it.
If it was Ukraine opposing Russia, this would have been over six months ago. Since it is another proxy war by Washington, DC, the stakes are much higher. We have been hearing for months that Russia will blow up the Kakhovka dam: Now that has become a possibility.
The USA and NATO are bankrupting both the USA and the EU with its wars of aggression. This may prove to be the straw that breaks them.
That this is a proxy war is obvious, which is why Russia seriously miscalculated by not devoting enough resources to end Ukraine before the US and its vassals could further flood that country with weapons, training, intelligence and money.
Yeah, I see your point.
One could definitely see it your way.
However, Putin was not operating in a diplomatic vacuum.
He had to manage things in a fashion that allowed Russia's allies to support him.
Big picture time.
I have come to believe that this was a series of very sensitive and tricky maneuvers, with the sequence of moves being carefully planned - and not only on the battlefield but diplomatically as well.
I believe it was very important for it to seem that every move made by Russia in this conflict was "forced" upon it.
Putin needed to be able to turn to China and India and say,
"What else can I do?
Look how crazy/corrupt/irrational these people are.
They are shelling civilians.
They are using human shields.
They are Nazis.
They won't listen to reason."
This allowed for the justifiable gradual increments in force and the ability to still maintain the diplomatic support of Russia's allies.
I am happy to acknowledge that perhaps miscalculations may have been made.
But overall, I give Putin top marks.
I doubt India or China care about the plight of civilians other than their own, or that are likely to end up as refugees in their lands.
A much simpler explanation- Russia expected Ukraine to fold like Afghanistan.
I think you meant to say that Russia expected Ukraine would not turn into an Afghanistan debacle...
No, they expected Ukraine to collapse the way the American puppet regime in Afghanistan rapidly collapsed.
This did not happen, for a variety of reasons.
I don't think there was the expectation of collapse. Of a settlement maybe. Russians claimed they showed good will by retreating their troops around Kiev. See the peace talks in Turkiye, sabotaged ultimately by the USUK.
Again, assuming the truth in your assertions, that's a really dumb negotiation strategy, taking your foot off your enemy’s neck when you need them to reach agreement.
"Put the gun down, and then we'll talk...."
I do agree here with you, 100%. One knows that engaging with Ukrainians is a fool's errand unless they are beaten up completely. Minsk agreements are the template of behaviour.
It is not the point whether China and India care about civilians.
The point is that they don't want to be seen supporting a country that is doing unjustified and unpopular things.
I doubt that they care about that either.
To listen to western governments, Russia is malevolent savage and incompetent, all in a wall-to-wall a propaganda campaign not seen since Goebbels was alive and foaming at mouth. I doubt facts on the ground would change their minds much, one way or the other, as long as they were not directly affected.
I respectfully disagree, my friend.
I think their images and reputations with the members of the BRICS+ [soon to acquire further members who collectively will represent 50%+ of the world's populations] is very important to them - especially to distinguish themselves from the allegedly neo-colonialist "golden billion" crew.
Also, and I may be wrong, but I believe neither one of them really cares what the G7 baboons [and that is what they've shown themselves to be, sucking up to their globalist masters and flushing their respective populations down the toilet] think.
Russia has the resources that they need, and Russia seeks to make it as easy as possible for them to continue/increase trade.
Nothing China and Russia have done so far suggests this. And Russia is going to be savaged by The Golden Billion, no matter what is does, or doesn't do.
Russian leadership has to have a relative strong buy in from the population in order to be able to mobilize sufficient manpower and material resources. While the conflict with the US is life or death, the death is like in the 1990s to early 2000s, slow and dispiriting, not immediate, acute, like in WWII. So the population at large does not have this sense of imminent danger that requires the utmost effort and sacrifice. However, the reaction of the combined west, and the rabid behavior of Ukrainians and Poles and Balts, etc. have convinced the Russian population who they are dealing with in fact and that they cannot stay passive with so much animus under the surface against them. The combined west has done the recruitment for Putin. Now Russian need time to properly train and equip these 300,000 people. Now Russia will have superiority in troops on the battlefield. Let's see what happens in the next several weeks and months.
So the argument is that Russia didn't do a good job selling the war at the outset?
It was an operation started by necessity - the leadership itself was torn about doing it. Compare that with how the US prepared for the second Iraq War. You spot the difference?
That might be, but taking your statement as given, Russia still didn't manage sell such an existential war to its own population, and still can't sell a full mobilization.
Do you think that Europeans and the US would be able to sell to their population a full mobilization proposal against the combined Russia/China, because they are a threat to our democracy, our allies, and our values?
Maybe the guy in Vladivostok is saying that the ethnic Russians in Ukraine can very well emigrate to Russia, because there is lots of space and opportunities and need for bodies. The average Ivan doesn't see that the drawing on the wall for the Russian people and state, as conceived by the west, is a return to the 1990s...
Irrelevant what the US/EU could or couldn't do.
It's not as if Russia gets a consolation prize because the odds are really long or something.
I am talking here human behavior. I am saying, all considered and in comparison, Russian mobilization, or semi-mobilization, didn't turn out too bad.
I can't say that I disagree in the cautious approach Russian are talking in respect to protecting their soldiers' lives here. I expect that after all the training and prep work is done, in good Russian habits, we might see massive and concentrated offensives at various locales, with the build up not noticed. Same as the retreat from Kerson happened.
If you consider abandoning people who put their trust in you to the tender mercies of Ukraine and its Nazis, if you consider a lack of progress to be God results....
I think it is more like this:
Some people can be told; some people have to be shown.
Kind of like what is going on in the USA.
If election results are anything to go by, the West is nowhere near folding. Kherson simply provides propaganda fodder for the pro war set.
I can wish things were otherwise, but they're not.
The election results are the proof that the last political legitimacy has been spent. What folded is any semblance of western governments serving the interests of the native europeans that founded them.
That's circular logic. Of course a with denies being a witch.
"The combined west has done the recruitment for Putin."
Agreed. Well put!
now the opposite is the reality!
the proxy-war from the beginning days = NATO ./. RUS via proxy 404 has changed into a war, where 404 is the proxy FOR RUS to weaken the western military and financial and socio-cultural abilities.
"If vietnam was fighting the US it would have been defeated in 2 weeks, clearly the fighting is being done by Russians.
Well, Russian federation got larger this year Sir....
And? None of this matters if Russia cannot control these acquisitions.
Fact is, Russia has made no significant advances since July, and has only retreated since then. Not to mention betrayed a lot of people in those territories who trusted Russia.
I wish I had something else to report, but facts is facts.
The massacre of civilians that takes place by the Nazis after withdrawals is horrific to me.
Would Russians engage in the slaughter of civilians if Ukraine withdrew from an area?
No, I don't think so.
Russia is not to blame for Ukrainian war crimes.
So I think one needs to remove that from the list of Russia's faults.
The Western world should condemn these things - but its media doesn't tell it to, so it doesn't.
I am not a military person, nor a military historian.
But we have been told by the general that this is a war of attrition - which I understand to mean the primary goal is the destruction of the other side's army.
This can involve the tactical ceding of territory temporarily as this is not the overall objective at this point.
None of us really like how this looks.
We don't even have to agree with it.
But at least we can understand it.
Some would wish to substitute their decision for that of the general [even given the uneven level of respective information and knowledge].
I wouldn't.
Russia is not to blame for Ukraine’s manifest war crimes, but that these war crimes would happen was entirely predictable.
And ceding territory without a fight doesn't attrite much of anything.
In making strategic decisions, Russia can't be held hostage by what bloodthirsty, vicious, barbaric Nazis might do.
Hard but true.
And from what I understand, it isn't about territory at this point.
I can see you don't agree with that and are not willing or able to change your opinion on that.
That's fine with me.
A lot of people will die, people who put their faith in Russia, as a proximate result of that indifference.
I am so very, very sad that this is true.
That's why Russia evacuated Kherson - I hope all civilians were given a chance to leave.
Russia has shown much constraint all along to avoid killing civilians.
Scott Ritter pointed out a scenario that distinguished the different ways two militaries would handle an apartment building that contained civilians [used as human shields] and also enemy soldiers and artillery [thus making the building a legitimate military target]:
Russians in Ukraine: send in soldiers to try and get the civilians out, leading to casualties and deaths of soldiers.
USA: shell the target, destroy it, and move on to the next one - not exposing soldiers to any risk.
I did not know this was how the rules are.
But Scott is a trained US Marine, in fact he was trained to fight Russians.
War is hell.
All of this and more could have been avoided, had Russia chosen a different strategy.
Well, you have your views, with plenty of facts to support them, and I can see that you are unlikely to change those views.
However, this attrition strategy is the one that was chosen given all of the political, diplomatic, supply, military constraints that the decision makers were dealing with at the time.
You choose to second guess that based on your information and how things have played out.
It's like 3rd and goal, and the quarterback runs the ball and gets thrown for 10 yards.
How many people in the stands are saying, "He should have passed!", "He should have handed it off to the running back!"
Everybody second guesses - and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Of course, everyone second guesses, when it is obvious that the strategy isn't working. It's another to insist that fourth and long is a desirable outcome and all part of a great big plan.
Russia started this operation with the army it had not with the army it wished to have or knew it was necessary to defend the well manned, well trained and well armed Ukrainian army.
Now it has the motivation and the support of the population to build that army. Let's see what will happen in the next few months.
Circular argument. If you want to start an op, you make sure you start with the army you need.
I think the view from Kremlin wasn't that they were really itching for the operation, but that they really, really had to do it, bring cornered, and with Ukraine stepping up the activity to take Donbas (legislation passed in March 2021, troop concentration, increased shelling of Donbas in the first weeks of February 2022).
So no, not a circular argument.
Of course, nobody was saying that in February.
What Russia needed and needs was not a different army, but numbers and will to drive to victory m
Not sure if you read Big Serge's analysis.
I said nothing about the specific decision to abandon Kherson, and everything about the conduct of the war in general.