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.
So you think the attrition strategy is not working.
OK.
Let's have a look.
Have a very large number of Ukrainian soldiers been removed from the battlefield?
Yes.
Does the number of Ukrainian soldiers that have been removed from the battlefield greatly exceed, by a factor of 5x to 9x, the Russian losses?
Allegedly yes.
Have a very large number of items of Ukrainian materiel been destroyed/removed from use?
Allegedly yes.
Does the number of items of Ukrainian materiel losses greatly exceed the materiel losses of the Russians?
Apparently yes.
Have the Russians begun destroying, at will with almost no opposition, Ukraine's electric/water/sewage infrastructure to any great extent?
Apparently yes.
Have the Russians been destroying the Ukrainian Army's ability to effectively carry out the war?
I vote yes.
Has this attrition strategy also had the unforeseen effect [due to moronic policies of stripping national military inventories] of significantly demilitarizing NATO, the EU countries, the UK and to some limited extent even the USA, thereby reducing their conventional military capabilities against Russia?
So it seems.
Based on the above considerations, I would have to determine that, far from not working, the strategy is a roaring success.
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.
So you think the attrition strategy is not working.
OK.
Let's have a look.
Have a very large number of Ukrainian soldiers been removed from the battlefield?
Yes.
Does the number of Ukrainian soldiers that have been removed from the battlefield greatly exceed, by a factor of 5x to 9x, the Russian losses?
Allegedly yes.
Have a very large number of items of Ukrainian materiel been destroyed/removed from use?
Allegedly yes.
Does the number of items of Ukrainian materiel losses greatly exceed the materiel losses of the Russians?
Apparently yes.
Have the Russians begun destroying, at will with almost no opposition, Ukraine's electric/water/sewage infrastructure to any great extent?
Apparently yes.
Have the Russians been destroying the Ukrainian Army's ability to effectively carry out the war?
I vote yes.
Has this attrition strategy also had the unforeseen effect [due to moronic policies of stripping national military inventories] of significantly demilitarizing NATO, the EU countries, the UK and to some limited extent even the USA, thereby reducing their conventional military capabilities against Russia?
So it seems.
Based on the above considerations, I would have to determine that, far from not working, the strategy is a roaring success.
Even taking all that as true, the price is obvious worth it to Bankovskaya and its American masters.
Otherwise they would not press on their attacks in spite of the losses.