Are you suggesting that not a single Ukrainian participated in the corruption? Did I say Zelensky isn't the real deal? The fact that Zelensky chose to remain in Ukraine doesn't change the ending result of where we are today. Surely you are not suggesting that if Zelensky had chosen to accept the US offer this war would have never occurred. All heads of state live with the possibility of assassination attempts and their potential demise. This is nothing new. Even on this board people were calling for Putin's head on a platter yet both of these men remain in power. Either the security is unbelievable or people are not upset to the point to initiate such a change in leadership. On the subject of corruption. Who corrupted these people in the first place? First and foremost these people have to be willing and acceptable to acts of corruption. To suggest Russia is the only offending nation capable of corrupting governments is myopic. The US is just as complicit as is China, Russia and the UK or any other number of governments.
“Handful of troops” Again, you’re trying to rewrite what happened to support your narrative. I’m not talking about the special services squads that Russia sent in early on to assassinate Zelensky (those just signaled Russia’s intent). Russia moved to strike Kyiv in the first days of the war. I know a lot has gone on but a “handful” doesn’t come close to accurately describing a 40 mile-long military convoy that elements got as close as 5 miles from Kyiv until logistics stalled it out. Putin absolutely intended a quick strike to murder Zelensky and take control of the country. Multiple intel sources have revealed that Russia intended to take control of Ukraine in less than two weeks. Putin knew if he was successful that NATO wouldn’t do anything. Russia’s failure at that quick strike has allowed the western nations to support Ukraine and make Russia’s goals multitudes more difficult to achieve. I won’t pretend to know how this will end but you’re wrong to claim that Russia didn’t intend to take control of Kyiv. Their inadequacies to achieve their stated goals does not support your position.
I think you are largely correct in terms of short-term ability to wage war, although there are plenty of signs of substantial effect. But in terms of long-term disassociation for the world economy, there can be no doubt. Ukrainian war has caused tremendous damage to the Russian cause as an energy superpower, as reflected here. Sadly, business interests will largely overlook your atrocities, so long as you deliver. But when you actually play that card and disrupt the supply pipeline, and do so long enough that they make other arrangements, such that you been proved undependable, you have screwed yourself. And Putin have screwed the Russian economy
commercial aircraft parts from boeing and airbus required to keep their civilian air fleet flying should be some of the easiest things to track considering their nature and certifications required for each part. I can only imagine that theft and black market sales are increasing as the normal supply routes dried up. Likely a very profitable business if you know an oligarch or two
this. Europe is moving forwardd and Russian energy isn't part of the plan. Xi doesn't mind though, he just needs the war to end so he can tell Moscow what the terms will be
Of course they moved to strike Kyiv and they are currently striking Kyiv so I don't see your point. The build up of a military force on Ukraine's border made the intent clear well before Kyiv was struck. If the intent was to take Kyiv by your account they certainly could have. Yet they did not. Now pundits across the globe have offered their speculation as to why Russia did not advance on Kyiv when they most certainly could have. Everything from accounts of resistance to faulty equipment to faulty communications etc... The fact is I don't see any of that as a plausible excuse. Putin played his card and made it clear to the West what would certainly follow if a diplomatic solution did not come to fruition. Was it the right decision to make on Putin's part? Hind sight dictates probably not yet we do know there is still a sliver of hope that a resolution can be agreed to. That sliver of hope deteriorates with each passing day.
Ukraine’s great victory, the Battle of Kyiv, involved Russia withdrawing troops, from the area, when Boris Johnson scuttled negotiations.
The Russians went minimal troops because Putin was told they would be welcomed with open arms by grateful Ukrainians. This was because his intelligence services were afraid to give him bad news, so his entire calculation leading into the war was wrong. He thought a token force could take the country.
Where in his account did he say that the "certainly" could have taken Kiev? They invaded and tried. They failed. That is the occam's razor here. The problem with your theory here is that your argument is that Putin has chosen a trench war in Eastern Ukraine to a quick war, as you are arguing that he "certainly" could have taken Kiev, but, instead, has decided to choose a trench war. None of this is internally logical on your part. It is all obfuscation, looking for a reality you would prefer to exist (Russian dominance over Ukraine), but which doesn't. Russia could always just leave the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine. That would be a resolution. Let Ukrainians choose their own government. But that is just absurd, I know. Putin should get to decide who rules Ukrainians, right?
Some revisionist bullshit going on regarding the "taking of Kyiv". They didn't take it because their effort to do so failed, not because they "chose" not to.
They most certainly could not. You are now making fact free arguments in addition to your opinion. Fact free arguments can be dismissed at hand. In this matter I’ll ignore your post going forward.
I’m not done ... The glorious Kharkov counter-offensive occurred when Ukraine essentially punched through air, outran its artillery cover and then was chewed to pieces by Russian artillery.
Finally, the victory of Kherson entailed Russia deciding the city was not defensible, given its lack of troops, repositioning without casualties to a better position and letting the Ukrainian troops discover for themselves why holding the city wasn’t such a hot idea.
Russia ran into two problems when they tried to take Kiev: their own logistics ineptitude, and Ukraine's goal-line defense. Ukraine's back was against the wall, and they had to fight for Kiev or give up their country (or the winning touchdown). Never underestimate the power of a good goal line defense.
Yep, the russkies were just going to roll into Kyiv, Zelensky was going to be killed or captured (or run to another country), and Putin was going to install a stooge puppet gov't, then turn his sights on Moldova and the baltics.
"We've got thousands of pistol-waving soldiers on horseback, and all you have is a hundred of these so-called machine-gunners. HAHAHAHAHA!!! You have no chance! We're gonna win. By the way, what's a machine gun?" "You'll see." Sometimes having outdated technology dooms you even if you have ten times the numbers that your opponent has. Assuming that Ukraine can achieve the same kill ratio with western tanks that the U.S. did in Iraq, those 100 tanks will probably knock out up to 3300 Russian tanks. Maybe more, since the tanks that Russia has been reduced to using (from the 1960's) are less modern than the tanks that Saddam was fighting with.
