Russia doesn't want to take areas it doesn't have popular support in. It just wants to do exactly what it did to Georgia, punish its opponents and annex the friendly bits.
Everyone's doom-mongering, but Russia has a clear strategy.
Russia's strategy thus far has been to walk around and ignore the east, and instead attack big cities like Kyiv or Kharkhiv.
Russia's biggest gains have been their amphibious assaults from the south / Crimea.
But all attacks from the north and east have been lackluster this far. And bypassing the fortified line means that Ukraine has the ability to attack those overextended units in the rear.
Russia seems like they are rushing this. I think a slower, more deliberate advance would help the Russians here, they really shouldn't be trying to take cities yet just 3 or 4 days into the conflict. The Russians should have tried for air superiority and strengthened supply lines for a more drawn out assault.
Of course, I don't know the Russian supply situation. It could be that these units know they don't have enough supplied for a drawn out battle and are rushing because they need a quick victory?
The other theory is that Russia is doing the Cannon fodder strategy, purposefully sacrificing weaker troops to the enemy to eat up Ukraine's ammunition (javalin missiles or whatnot).
Putin is invading a country that nearly unanimously opposes him with troops that thought that they were just there for an exercise and don't really want to invade their brother country.
Actually, the blue areas turned out a majority vote for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_Platform_%E2%80%94_...
There are definitely some pro Russian electoral districts.
Here is the map that shows the support for the pro Russian party.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/%D0%95%D...
There are very few districts, that have more than 50% support for the pro-Russian party. You also can't assume that the voters that voted for a pro Russian party want to be part of Russia and support the invasion.
"Plan A", this was not. That would have been motorized transport, which was effectively interdicted.
That North Vietnamese logistics was able to smuggle sufficient tonnage to supply even a limited insurgency in the South wasn't inevitable. And probably couldn't have been duplicated by most other military forces.
I know that the Shia majority did not support Saddam Hussein, but does this directly translate to them supporting a US invasion?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/da...
> Ukraine is not only bigger but some 50 percent more populous than Iraq, and the Iraqi population included many millions—Kurds, Christians, Yezidis, Shabak, and many of the Shia—who broadly supported the coalition forces throughout our time there. Only a minority of the Iraqi population comprised or supported the Sunni extremists and insurgents and Iranian-supported Shia militia. Though they did, to be sure, prove to be very formidable enemies.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/10...
> "Iraq, today, 10 years on from the war, from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, is not what the Iraqi people hoped for and expected. We hoped for an inclusive democracy, an Iraq that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbors," Salih said. "To be blunt, we are far from that."
> "But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein—the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/19/797722034/what-young-iraqis-w...
Or, I guess, the lessons of the Eastern Front of WW2.
They have learned a form of that lesson, which is why part of their domestic propaganda is about how “Ukraine” is fake country unjustly erected by Lenin and Stalin from Russian territory that has no justification to exist, but is naturally part of Russia, as well as that the current government of Ukraine is a Nazi regime. Putin wants the people fighting his war to see themselves as fighting in and for their homeland against NATO-backed Nazis intent on destroying Russia.
I guess Ukraine is far less alien to a Russian than Afghanistan was (or Afghanistan or Iraq were to an American), so it could plausibly work. Most (if not all) Ukrainians also speak Russian.
And your point explains his speech emphasising the Kievan Rus as the origin of the Russian people, and and the often fluid borders of Ukraine.
And of course, the Kievan Rus as the point of Christianization of the Russian peoples. And in something that feels like it comes from a Paradox grand strategy game, in 2018, the FSB was trying to prevent people from switching from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church controlled by the Moscow Patriarchate to the independent Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
Putin really is playing the long game of "Ukraine was Russia, all along!"
Why it that the thing you worry about? The Russians have demonstrated they'll blatantly lie to justify their actions, no connection to reality needed.
The only way to prove a war crime (like killing civilians), is documented evidence and/or testimony from fellow troops.
Hopefully there’s AI analysis of video too to make sure it’s not manipulated.
Would be nice if the West supplied Ukraine with all this technology before the war began in the 8 years prior - their airforce and Air defence are tiny and dated.
So far the rich nations of the west mostly left Ukraine to the wolves - supplying only short-ranged squad level weapons and dated equipment.
Ironically that train of thought is what is hampering Russia now, since their actions seem to communicate an expectation that they would have been able to just walk into Kyiv like they did for Crimea, and didn't expect the actual resistance of an army fighting for their home
Afghanistan was the USSR’s Vietnam, so I don't know why you'd say this isn’t Afghanistan in this context.
Any links?
Sometimes the only defense is to shoot back however you can
"Mr. Miroshnichenko [the head of international affairs for the Territorial Defense Force of Ukraine] turned aside any concerns over arming a civilian population in the capital’s streets, saying that each weapon’s serial number was attached to a passport."[0]
While your concern about training remains, they definitely recorded who got weapons. And also keep in mind that Ukraine, the entire time, had mandatory conscription of all males, where they definitely learned the basics of handling a firearm.
And plus, I am sorry, but there are certain situations when concern over proper training takes a backseat, and this feels like one of them.
0. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/25/world/russia-ukraine...
In this video he literally says that weapons are given without any documents whatsoever.
And regardless, that specific point isn't really a concern (to me personally) when it comes to literally having to defend livelihood of your family and the city against an invading force.
Realistically, in a conflict, anyone who cannot materially contribute to the conflict is a liability.
Every single military, the world over, is heavily trained to ignore civilian casualties.
As long as it's not a militarily significant asset, their training is to not care about it.
Handing out AK-47s increases the number of military assets. The cost doesn't show up on the military asset balance sheet.
This sounds extremely implausible.