all 8 comments

[–]Site_rly_sux[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Kremlin's plan envisioned three uses for the Ukrainian nuclear power facilities once the invasion was underway.

First, Moscow planned for Ukrainian nuclear power facilities to function as bases for Russian troops and their equipment as well as ammunition depots. Russian officers were also to set up command-and-control posts within the premises of those nuclear facilities.

The second function the Kremlin envisioned for the nuclear facilities was to gain control over Ukraine's energy system. Nuclear power generates more than 60% of Ukraine's electricity. Thus, by controlling the nuclear facilities, Moscow would have influence over Ukraine's population and economy.

Finally, Moscow wanted to control the Ukrainian nuclear facilities so as to have "leverage for blackmailing" European countries. By threatening Europe with radiation pollution from potential accidents, the Kremlin hoped to deter direct or indirect foreign intervention

Moreover, to deal with any Ukrainian provinces that refused to cooperate with the proxy government Moscow was planning to install, the Russians planned to weaponize the captured nuclear power plants to cut off electricity to those regions.

Moscow's goal was the "denuclearization" of Ukraine through the capture and control of its nuclear power plants, along with the destruction of Ukraine's national identity and of Ukraine's military forces and defense industry, according to the RUSI report.

[–]iamonlyoneman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

invasion fell apart

(but russia is still holding the ground they wanted to take, and did take succesfully)

[–]Site_rly_sux[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You don't know what they wanted. You have absolutely no idea, so don't pretend. You don't know whether they wanted to take ground, or demilitarise, or capture biolabs, or start a new world order, or add "the Great" to Putin, or push back NATO, or find the gayropean black magician cyborgs, or denazify, or what. So don't pretend like you alone have some magical view into Putin's decrepid head.

If we could go back in time one year and ask Putin if he'd trade 400k dead+wounded plus russia's entire international standing for lysychansk and the land bridge, I don't think hed say yes...

Then, the third obnoxious thing about your comment, is that it flies in the face of the article you're commenting under, which shows they absolutely did have plans for the nuclear sites which they don't hold - ergo, a failed invasion

[–]iamonlyoneman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

they said what they wanted at the outset LOL go back to reddit

[–]Site_rly_sux[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Are you talking about Putin announcing a special operation to demilitarise and denazify? Because that has absolutely nothing to do with what you claimed earlier - you claimed that the land bridge was the goal of the operation. So maybe you should go back to Reddit, because you're not making any sense here

Edit - maybe by "they", you're referring to the russian interfax agency, who on February 24th published and then quickly deleted an article about how great it is for russia, Ukraine and belorus to finally be back in a union state together. But, if this is what you meant by by "they said what they wanted" - rebuilding the union state is not the same as capturing the land bridge, which is what you earlier claimed was the purpose of the operation

[–]_Okio_ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

is that it flies in the face of the article you're commenting under,

The article in question in a pro-NATO Anti-Russian propaganda hit-piece. Need say no more.
Incidentally, NATO losses thus far stand at ~ 213k personnel, Russian ~9-10k.

[–]Site_rly_sux[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How did you determine either of those incorrect statements? Let's go through your fact gathering skills because you've come to two wrong conclusions there. What evidence led you to decide those two things are true?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Site_rly_sux[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I think I can give a pretty good accounting of that number. Here are two governments' estimates of casualties which I used to inform my post.

    Now, please, I will really enjoy my morning a lot more if you show me which laughably incredible information source you used for 213k dead NATO personnel.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/more-than-100000-russian-military-casualties-ukraine-top-us-general-2022-11-10/

    https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-defense-chief-releases-numbers-putin-russia-war-losses-ukraine-2022-12

    In addition

    1. I probably see ten unique russians die on r/combatfootage or similar each day. What percent of Ork killings do you think make it to Reddit? Multiply deaths by, what, 100?

    2. Where is russia's prewar army of 300k if you truly believe they have only a handful of casualties? Why did they mobilise if they still had their prewar army?