Kyev seems about to be captured

[Buckeyes85]

My personal guess is that Putin has behind the scenes prioritized putting people who are loyal to him over people who are competent.

Great leaders, particularly those with great big brains do not do this.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Who said it was supposed to be defeated by now? It's just TV talking heads. Ukraine is a vast country with millions of people.

I'm sure Putin told his generals that. That's why Putin is now trying to use siege tactics on cities like Kiev, because the quick victory that he was expecting is not going to happen.

 

[ChickenTendies]

I agree. The only way I could possibly have seen that happening is they expected to Blitz Kyiv, capturing the Ukrainian government, and have them surrender ending organized military resistance.


I agree with this too. The point I was making was only that I believe the Russian military structure has a very "top down" decision making process; or at least more so than the American military is. For example, our logistics are bottom up. Unit commanders are responsible for requesting the resources they need, then those resources are sent to them. Russia's logistics are top down. High command decides how many resources will be needed for an operation then distributes those down.

True. Despite the Russian 2009 military reforms it is still very inefficient and inflexible.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

True. Despite the Russian 2009 military reforms it is still very inefficient and inflexible.

It still uses lots of conscripts rather than all volunteer force, so it would have a lot of people who don't want to be in the military

 

[Roadvirus]

Zelensky is trapped there. That 40 mile convoy is now surrounding the city (not finished but expected to within days). Russian forces are just 10 miles from Kyev's center where Zelensky is, and it seems Ukranians don't have enough to stop them.

Bull pucky. The Ukrainians wasted a huge chunk of the convoy near Brovary

 

[vanceen]

Whether the OP is factually correct or not, I think we have to face that Ukraine is eventually going to lose, Kiev will fall, and Zelensky will either flee or be captured.

I wish it wasn't true, but I fear it is. We ought to be getting our minds around how to deal with what the world will look like after that.

 

[Roadvirus]

Kyiv may fall. It won't be "within days". Weeks maybe. Not days.

Putzin will be lucky to be alive in "weeks"

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

Where are you getting this impression from? Surrounding the city is weeks away. Russia literally doesn't even have enough troops in the area yet to siege Kyiv as the troops from Khernihiv and Sumy were expected to meet up with the forces from Belarus.

Speaking of the 40 mile long convoy from Belarus:


Where did you get that Russian forces at just 10 miles from the city center? I haven't seen that anywhere.

Additionally, even once Kyiv is in a position where they can begin sieging it, that process will take months. Maybe as long as a year.

The letter Z is becoming a symbol of Russia's war in Ukraine. But what does it mean?

Messages featuring the letter "Z" have spread widely across social media since Russia's invasion of

www.wpr.org

Once Russian troops do roll into Kyiv the real fight begins. Ukraine has had lots of time to prep the battle field and I’ll go on record as predicting a Mogadishu squared slaughter of Russian troops.

 

[Craig234]

Bull pucky. The Ukrainians wasted a huge chunk of the convoy near Brovary

No, they destroyed a tiny part.

 

[Antiwar]

Whether the OP is factually correct or not, I think we have to face that Ukraine is eventually going to lose, Kiev will fall, and Zelensky will either flee or be captured.

I wish it wasn't true, but I fear it is. We ought to be getting our minds around how to deal with what the world will look like after that.

Do tell.

 

[Craig234]

As to your second point, source?

Sorry, don't remember what MSNBC report or CNN report mentioned it, but it wasn't especially strong, I think it was a random Ukranian citizen mentioning it IIRC.

I'm more inclined to believe experts on how long it takes tbh. There are always plenty of factors into play, and it is yet to be seen whether Ukrainian counterattacks can derail this effort.

MSNBC just reported the experts are estimating 7-10 days to surround Kyev and 4-6 weeks to take it after that.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Sorry, don't remember what MSNBC report or CNN report mentioned it, but it wasn't especially strong, I think it was a random Ukranian citizen mentioning it IIRC.



MSNBC just reported the experts are estimating 7-10 days to surround Kyev and 4-6 weeks to take it after that.

Is it the same experts that predicted Kyiv would fall in 72 hours

 

[Craig234]

Is it the same experts that predicted Kyiv would fall in 72 hours

No. But I guess your argument is, the experts are idiots so never listen.

 

[ChickenTendies]

I'm just saying take the "experts" with a grain of salt.

You should read the Institute of War's daily briefings on it though. They're actually a reputable think tank.

Institute for the Study of War

Russian ground forces attempting to encircle and take Kyiv began another pause to resupply and refit combat units on March 11 after failed attacks March 8-10. Russian forces also appear to be largely stalemated around Kharkiv. Russian advances from

www.understandingwar.org

 

[Craig234]

I'm just saying take the "experts" with a grain of salt.

Now you're trying to have it both ways. So they're idiots and don't listen to them if you want that, but don't say that if you don't. Your response to treat ANY expert like 'those who got it wrong on the initial invasion' was attacking listening to experts at all, but when I pointed that out, you wanted to backpedal it to 'sometimes' without justifying when to and not to. On the other hand, thanks for the suggested link you DO like.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Now you're trying to have it both ways. So they're idiots and don't listen to them if you want that, but don't say that if you don't. Your response to treat ANY expert like 'those who got it wrong on the initial invasion' was attacking listening to experts at all, but when I pointed that out, you wanted to backpedal it to 'sometimes' without justifying when to and not to. On the other hand, thanks for the suggested link you DO like.

That's not true. Both times I said to treat these "experts" with caution. I have no idea how you interpreted that. Don't talk to me unless you have a serious complaint.

 

[Craig234]

That's not true. Both times I said to treat these "experts" with caution. I have no idea how you interpreted that. Don't talk to me unless you have a serious complaint.

No, you didn't. Your first response simply said, are these the same experts who got the estimates so hugely wrong - which whether you meant it or not, was an argument saying 'oh, an expert said something? Then equate them to the experts who were very wrong and dismiss them'. The 'grain of salt' was a later response that's a backtracking to 'have it both ways'. I could say the same to you about a 'serious complaint' with better reason.

 

[ChickenTendies]

No, you didn't. Your first response simply said, are these the same experts who got the estimates so hugely wrong - which whether you meant it or not, was an argument saying 'oh, an expert said something? Then equate them to the experts who were very wrong and dismiss them'. The 'grain of salt' was a later response that's a backtracking to 'have it both ways'. I could say the same to you about a 'serious complaint' with better reason.

My first response was one of suspicion towards these so-called "experts" and its a perfectly viable one. I wasn't dismissing them, just questioning their analysis. That does not mean I'm just outright denying their prediction as reality, just placing doubt upon their explanation, based on my own analysis of the situation.

 

[Craig234]

My first response was one of suspicion towards these so-called "experts" and its a perfectly viable one. I wasn't dismissing them, just questioning their analysis. That does not mean I'm just outright denying their prediction as reality, just placing doubt upon their explanation, based on my own analysis of the situation.

OK, if you're simply making the point that not all the experts get it right, that's ok, but I think you said more than you meant. If you had just posted your recommended site to me as an opinion you agree with, and my whole response was 'are those the same experts who said Kyev would fall in 72 hours', how would you read that?

 

[uptower]

We have been getting a lot of Ukrainian propaganda suggesting the Ukrainians are winning or a stalemate. This is not the case. Russia has been slowly and methodically advancing. They have established bases around the northern half of Kiev. Zelenski will or already has relocated west, probably Lviv.

We’ve been getting accurate reports that Ukraine has done a good just of blunting Russia’s poorly planned and disorganised advance. Though numbers are likely inaccurate due to the fog of war they have inflicted heavy losses on Russian troops and equipment (consider that America rolled Iraq with a a fraction of those losses in the first days) and Russian morale is low.

While Russia is still big enough to “take” Ukraine, it may find holding onto it is harder, likewise integrating it into Russia or even setting up a puppet regime that anyone in the country will ever get behind. I thought they’d have it done by now; now it looks as if this will drag on for years.

The stalemate appears just around the corner. Ukraine may not be ‘winning’, but nor is Russia. If you go out of your way to pick a fight and you don’t win, then you’ve lost.

 

[Craig234]

We’ve been getting accurate reports that Ukraine has done a good just of blunting Russia’s poorly planned and disorganised advance. Though numbers are likely inaccurate due to the fog of war they have inflicted heavy losses on Russian troops and equipment (consider that America rolled Iraq with a a fraction of those losses in the first days) and Russian morale is low.

While Russia is still big enough to “take” Ukraine, it may find holding onto it is harder, likewise integrating it into Russia or even setting up a puppet regime that anyone in the country will ever get behind. I thought they’d have it done by now; now it looks as if this will drag on for years.

The stalemate appears just around the corner. Ukraine may not be ‘winning’, but nor is Russia. If you go out of your way to pick a fight and you don’t win, then you’ve lost.

To clarify again, I'm just talking about taking Kyev here, i.e. Zelensky being in danger. Not about the longer issue of 'occupying', which we all seem to agree Russia very likely can't do. The popular phrase is, 'Russia has already lost the war', but while that sounds good, it's hiding the harm they're going to do. A stalemate before they take Kyev seems unlikely; one after they do seems likely until Putin loses.

 

[ChickenTendies]

OK, if you're simply making the point that not all the experts get it right, that's ok, but I think you said more than you meant. If you had just posted your recommended site to me as an opinion you agree with, and my whole response was 'are those the same experts who said Kyev would fall in 72 hours', how would you read that?

Ok that's actually a good point. I just doubt its accuracy based on what I've seen and the combat strength arranged against them.

 

[ChickenTendies]

I just read the article and its an unnamed US official. I'll treat this as questionable information until the situation on the ground progresses, considering the previous analysis's misjudged the fall of Kabul and now Kyiv, leaving me with little reason to be confident in their "predictions".

 

[justoneman]

We’ve been getting accurate reports that Ukraine has done a good just of blunting Russia’s poorly planned and disorganised advance. Though numbers are likely inaccurate due to the fog of war they have inflicted heavy losses on Russian troops and equipment (consider that America rolled Iraq with a a fraction of those losses in the first days) and Russian morale is low.

While Russia is still big enough to “take” Ukraine, it may find holding onto it is harder, likewise integrating it into Russia or even setting up a puppet regime that anyone in the country will ever get behind. I thought they’d have it done by now; now it looks as if this will drag on for years.

The stalemate appears just around the corner. Ukraine may not be ‘winning’, but nor is Russia. If you go out of your way to pick a fight and you don’t win, then you’ve lost.

It is my guess that Putin has no intentions on holding Ukraine. I think he wants to take Kiev. oust Zelenski and install another leader. You say poorly planned, but it has only been just over two weeks. I fear Russia will take Kiev in another two weeks. Regardless of what happens elsewhere in the country he will have in effect gotten what he wanted at that point.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Zelensky is trapped there. That 40 mile convoy is now surrounding the city (not finished but expected to within days). Russian forces are just 10 miles from Kyev's center where Zelensky is, and it seems Ukranians don't have enough to stop them.

I'm wondering if these "Z" markings on Russia forces - the Russian alphabet doesn't have "Z" - might be related to Zelensky's name in English. I'm concerned about Russia capturing Kyev and Zelensky being in much danger soon. They haven't really set up something like who would be in charge next talking to the world from outside Ukraine or something. Will the world demand more direct war on Putin if that happens, risking nuclear war?

You were saying? Is Kyev still about to "fall"? --

Five weeks after Russian troops hurtled into the country in the hope of swiftly seizing the capital, installing a friendly government and subjugating Ukraine, the Russian military appears to be shrinking its goals to prioritize the east, redeploying forces that had been destined for the Kyiv region and attempting to organize reinforcements to compensate for the thousands of troops that have been killed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/02/russia-ukraine-east/