Russian war effort collapsing?

submitted by JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Criminal negligence and lack of seriousness from Putlet.

An entire oblast defended by a single battalion. Ukrainians assembled 7 brigades against it.

No mobilization done. Russian and allied contingent in Ukraine total a mere 160,000 whereas Ukraine despite the losses due to total mobilization has over 400,000 men.

Russians simply have too few troops to man the enormous frontlines.

Putlet meanwhile is watching the Vostock exercises where 50,000 Russian troops participated. These 50,000 troops could've been a god send in the real war instead of this play war.

Either Putlet is a senile boomer who's divorced from reality or there's some 4D chess. I lean towards the former.

These Sovietasaurus boomers stifle all light.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Didn't you say that the Russian government has been training and mobilising reserves for months now, preparing them for a future escalation? What happened to that?

I don't think Putin is stupid, but it definitely appears that he and the Russian ruling class are being very cautious, to the point where it may be counter-productive. If Russia had gone full force from the start, it is possible that the conflict may have already been over by now, before military aid, sanctions and Ukrainian recruitment could make much of a difference. Instead, it seems that even now they are waging a limited war and multiplying all of the costs of the conflict not only for themselves, but also for the rest of the world too.

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If Russia had gone full force from the start, it is possible that the conflict may have already been over by now, before military aid, sanctions and Ukrainian recruitment could make much of a difference.

It does look like Russia tried to wage a blitzkrieg against the Ukraine from the get go, despite them labeling it a 'special military operation.' They simply underestimated the Ukrainian will to resist, which was an obvious mistake in hindsight. The Ukrainians are fiercely Russophobic, and more to the point, they have been radicalised by 8 years of propaganda.

The Russians came close to capturing Kiev in the first month of fighting, but they simply didn't have enough troops to pull it off. They had more troops in south Ukraine than the north. If they had taken the capital, it would have been a major victory, and Zelensky would have been captured or forced to flee. Instead, the Russians were forced to withdraw from Kiev and abandon that part of the front.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's how it looks to me as well. It seems that they assumed the Ukrainian military-political apparatus would collapse quickly without much resistance, so they approached the conflict with the idea of using limited force and causing limited damage in order to make the post-war situation more stable and more profitable for themselves. Obviously, that wasn't a very good idea - state collapse is not something that just happens. If they wanted to win quickly, they should have used the maximum amount of force possible. Now they are probably in for another year or two of warfare - maybe longer, if they continue to not take things seriously, and even then, I don't think that Russia will necessarily win. As the war drags on, the Ukrainians will not only get more desperate, but also more competent, and then there are also the Western subsidies too. Frankly, at this point the weak link might actually be the West, rather than Ukraine itself - if the energy crisis can bring an end to Western support, Russia will probably win even without mobilising. That does not seem very likely, though.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Russia is factually more similar to an elective monarchy than a parliamentary Republic. With that in mind you should note that a war event is incredibly risky for such type of a government, which is probably the most unstable. I am not sure that Putin could afford a full blown war.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wait, for months you've been saying Russia is winning and now that's not the case?

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Putlet meanwhile is watching the Vostock exercises where 50,000 Russian troops participated. These 50,000 troops could've been a god send in the real war instead of this play war.

That was especially baffling. What the hell was Putin thinking? Even though not all of the troops involved in those exercises were Russian (there were personnel from several different nations involved), they could have had a significant impact if they had been deployed to the Ukraine. At the very least, the Russians could have squeezed the Ukrainians out of the few remaining contested areas.

But that brings us back to the larger question of what Putin has in mind for the endgame of this war? How does he plan to bring the war to an end without occupying the Ukraine and/or destroying its ZOG regime? This is a classic episode of a proxy war waged on Americas behalf; the Deep State isn't going to let the fighting stop. They are going to keep raising the stakes and escalating until Russia breaks, or they do.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/09/the-izium-withdrawal-a-catalyst-for-starting-in-earnest.html

This has some good explanations.