why do conservatives keep parroting this same Russian talking point? It’s an excuse for piss poor planning and arrogance. But why spend so much energy carrying Russian water? This isn’t even debatable by honest serious people. The Russian plan was pretty clear and they obviously assumed it would be easier than it was. They had no way of knowing their forces would fail so badly in the field, especially in the air, and they had no way of knowing in advance they would be so thoroughly out generalled.
Ps the initial invasion force in desert storm was a coalition of about 200k against the fifth largest army in the world - one considered quite formidable in its day which included almost a million soldiers, 5000 tanks, over 4000 artillery and several hundred aircraft. So it’s not insane for Russia to think with superior training, equipment, and combined arms warfare that they could have taken the country in short order. They just failed badly.
It's already been explained to you ad naseum. It makes perfect sense if you truly believe the Ukrainians are largely going to throw down their arms and accept your rule. The 130K figure, which is just conjecture, was a limitation of logistics; it was all the Russian armed forces believed they could sustain in the field for the two months necessary to support combat operations. And even in this they were mistaken. The figure they could realistically support was a great deal fewer, as we have seen. Your Nazi analogy does not wash because the Nazis were not under the illusion that the Russians would meekly submit to their rule. It doesn't have to make to sense to you. It had to make sense to Putin, and it did. And it blew up in his face. All of the evidence from the captured plans, the interrogations, and the array of forces in late February supports the conclusions that the Russians were trying for the whole country. It doesn't fit your narrative, because you're still holding on to this fiction of Russia an unstoppable juggernaut that we just need to give in to for own safety. And a catastrophic defeat (which it was) in the early days of the war runs at cross purposes to your narrative. So you need to ask yourself, who are you trying to convince that the march of Kyiv was not as a big of a defeat as it was? If it's people on this website, then there's too much evidence to the contrary. The destruction of the veteran Russian airborne forces at Antonov Airport, for instance, was just too big to hide. If it's yourself you are trying to fool, I would recommend not wasting the time. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not we should support Ukraine defending itself against Russia and to what extent. But if you're argument is nested within the inevitability of Russian victory because Russia is just so damn good and can't be beaten, then you should try a different argument.
You would be wise to keep domestic politics out of this as much as possible and focus on the facts. Ukraine is only going to get more aid by keeping conservatives on board and getting more of them on board in the future. Alienating them has only worked to get more of them to go tribal and oppose Biden just to oppose Biden.
Back to updates. This is an interesting move to fire your defense minister after posturing as if you are about to "liberate" Kharkiv. If we fired a major military leader on the cusp of what ostensibly was supposed to be a decisive offensive, then people would likely question how well things are really going. Putin replaces Russian defense and security chiefs – POLITICO
Isn't that what you have been saying? Russia can't be beaten on the battlefield? That we have to get the Russian people to turn on their leaders? Why is the narrative changing now? Is it because as I've told you all along, you will never get the Russian people to overthrow the Putin regime over this thing in Ukraine? And now you are seeing that validated? Seems like it. And as for expecting Ukrainians to welcome the Russian soldiers as liberators, why would Moscow expect this after the Azov Battalion atrocities? Russia knew it had its hands full and the cost to administer all of Ukraine was too much. The goal has always been to keep Ukraine out of NATO hands. If Russia was that weak, so as to not be able to sustain an offensive on the capital for more than a few weeks, then surely Ukraine would have purged them from their territories in less than two years since? Especially with all the aid from the West?
The Russians are constantly making chess moves. They don't play checkers. You are looking at this as if it's a checkerboard. The same rules don't apply.
Sure I’d love too. Unfortunately domestic politics are pretty effing important to the outcome of the Ukraine war - and I’m not sure if you’ve noticed - maga doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine. Ignoring it or “keeping conservatives on board” isn’t going to change anything for that segment that is already clearly not on board.
War does not always go according to historical precedent. For one thing, changes in technology change the way wars are fought. After the U.S. Civil War, charging infantry into an dug-in enemy position went out of favor. Why? Something called the machine gun was invented. In some cases, technology replaces manpower. Even in this war, we are seeing the usage of drones and electronic warfare like never before. It is also possible that Russia underestimated Ukraine and assumed that with a show of force, many Ukrainian units would decide not to fight. Russia assumed its reputation would do most of its fighting for it. They took over Crimea without much of a fight--why should the rest of Ukraine be any different? And the war certainly started out that way, which led Russia to march on Kiev and nearly surround it. Their over-confidence left them open to a counter-attack from Ukraine, once Ukraine recovered from the initial shock of the invasion. As far as Russia's actions not making any sense, you have to realize that Putin is in charge. While a fairly bright intelligence guy who knows how to get inside of other Russian people's heads when he has to and knows the value of good propaganda, Putin knows little or nothing about warfare. He has zero military experience. As soon as some difficulties arose in the war, he started demanding positive results. When he didn't get them, he started making decisions for his military. And that's when things went south. Not unlike when LBJ started making decisions for Westmoreland in the Vietnam War (there is your precedent). LBJ was personally approving every bombing target in Vietnam. It is absolutely critical that your military leaders know what they are doing when they decide the direction of the war. And Putin did not know what he was doing.
Things are falling apart for Russia in Ukraine, as evidenced by Putin firing his Defense Minister, Shoigu. The reasons that Putin gave was that Shoigu was not open to innovation or advanced ideas. In other words, he was trying to fight World War II against Ukraine. The expected appearance of F-16's and more ammunition for Ukraine has made Putin desperate. Strangely enough, Putin plans to select a civilian for the top defense post. Maybe Shoigu was playing the war a little too closely to the Geneva Convention rules, with only daily violations of the conventions instead of hourly violations or continuous violations. If you recall, when Zelenskyy fired his top guy in the military, our propaganda peddlers assured us that it was because Ukraine was losing the war . . . badly. It's time for our comrades to admit that the shoe is on the other foot now, and Russia is losing the war . . . badly. Putin sacks Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Ukraine warns northern front has ‘significantly worsened’ as Russia claims capture of several villages
Hilarious, Okey-dokee. The Russian military, formerly the #2 military in the world, has been nothing but incompetent for over TWO YEARS now fighting a smaller opponent with out-dated military technology, and you think they are playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers. Seriously? Are you that gullible? How do you explain the incompetence?
Well, DUH! Ukraine has not received their weapons shipments or had time to get them to the front lines, thanks to traitorous Congressmen from a certain political party withholding aid for political reasons. That situation may be about to change.
Right, because the last $100 billion aid package led to such a successful counteroffensive. Maybe you should blame the refs after this one flops.
