Is it because they're hard to take out or is it a strategic decision? I was initially thinking it must be a voluntary omission, some kind of psyop to get Ukrainians a false sense of security/superiority before Russia shows their actual hand. But as this goes on and it seems Russia's military is not as strong or tactical as expected* the more I just find it puzzling.
*A sentiment I get namely due to info from the thread below, my TLDR being Russia's army is green or only faced weak opposition, not intrinsically motivated and used to doing special ops not wars while Ukrainian's army is battle hardened (6x 60k served in Donbass) and defending their homes. To be noted, if true it doesn't make the situation less volatile - a losing and cornered paper tiger with access thermobaric weapons or tactical nukes seems most dangerous to me. Or not, but if it is I'm getting nervous we (West/NATO) removed them the option to retreat by obliterating their financial system.
0: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204
Not sure how easily accessible this is to the average citizen but it surely makes it hard to shut down the internet entirely.
I doubt the average citizen will be able to use them, as I'm sure the military uses will have first dibs.
One trouble with cutting internet etc. is Ukraine borders Poland which Russia can't easily touch due to NATO.
Oh ya, drones, awacs, satellites. Every step by every russian solider is recorded.
Whereas Russia has to track literally everyone? General mobilization means everyone is your enemy.
Then you have the simple reality that there is no doubt a very significant proxy war going on. Russia can't even admit to this or tell the troops because it would destroy their morale. Behind every bush is a navy seal... id shit my pants as well.
Are you saying there are U.S. military combat forces actively engaged on the ground inside Ukraine? I find this extremely difficult to believe. I could believe that there are a handful of U.S. intelligence advisors relaying satellite comms inside Ukrainian military HQ. It's also plausible that there are a small number of private contractors (ala Blackwater) on the ground in Ukraine.
Do you have any evidence to support active combat engagement of U.S. military forces?
> Behind every bush is a navy seal...
Which seems to imply U.S. military personnel engaging on the ground.
To be fair, most actual “proxy wars” (e.g., during the Cold War) have also involved covertly-inserted forces from whichever (including both, where that was the case) of the two superpowers wasn't overtly involved.
From what I saw their morale is pretty much destroyed already. It was probably never there to begin with except maybe special forces.
Even if you factor in Russian nationalism I doubt that many russian soldiers really believe their involvment in Ukraine helps their country.
If there are Americans engaged in Ukraine, this would imply that his nuclear deterrent is hollow, right?
It sounds good in a way, if nobody is prepared to blow up the world.
But if there is no assumption that anyone will, then where does escalation stop?
TikTok is world's biggest intel dragnet. On Twitter, I see a vid of the column from TikTak, and 1-2 hours after, of its destruction.
No military in the world has anything as powerful.
Apparently RT expected to announce the capture of Kyiv on the morning of the 26's. Every moment Kyiv holds is an indication by what scale Putin's party has miscalculated.
I‘m curious, like what for example?
Dare I say, Russia is losing this? The Russian troops are much trashier than expected and/or there's some serious proxy war going on right now. Zelensky is for sure being coached by some serious folks.
Today I saw a ton of russian propaganda that didn't even make any sense. It makes me think Russia was given some pretty serious false impressions about what they started.
When the aggressor starts talking peace after only a few days of complete failure... They screwed up pretty big and they know it.