- Joined
- Jan 14, 2022
- Messages
- 9,886
- Reaction score
- 2,453
Something is very odd odd about Russia's attack of Ukraine. It is well acknowledged that much of the equipment is old. It is also noted that many of the troops are outlying region states, specifically Chechnya and Dagestan. Also noted is the lack of air support. Why is this?
I think Putin has planned it this way for a reason. The main force is held in reserve. I think Putin planned on all of the sanctions and the blocked banking.
All of the evidence points to an absolute faith in the invasion taking 2-3 days, thus the terrible supply line situation. Combine this with lack of vehicle maintenance and bad terrain and you’ve got yourself a disaster. As for “anticipating” the sanctions, there’s no reason to think this is true. By the way, the Russian stock exchange is down for the fourth day.
Do you admire Putin? Do you support his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine?There is no reason to think that Putin is an idiot. He is a successful politician in a system where they put weak politicians out quickly. He has to have expected that the western world would put sanctions against him, and what those sanctions would most likely be. So, I highly doubt that anything we have done in response to his invasion has been a surprise. To think differently would be underestimating him. One of the big questions is how well China is going to back up his play. There is a chance that China can help him out economically to enough of a degree that our sanctions are going to have minimal effect.
There is no reason to think that Putin hasn't already thought three steps ahead of us, and that things are actually going well for him.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but that seems a little too “Bond Villain Plot”-convoluted. Nor am I saying that I have any brilliant theories of my own for why such untrained and inferior troops were sent, I’m just saying that your theory seems to rely on an extremely narrow and specific set of reactions by his opponent to unfold.I think there might be something said that inferior troops and equipment were/are used in Ukraine by the Russians with the following purpose.
#1 Appear weak with the invasion to prompt NATO to react with direct support (i.e. combat troops, tanks, aircraft, etc.) to support Ukraine,
#2 Once NATO was directly engaged, then Putin could send large numbers of better trained and better equipped forces.
The justification would be based on NATOs escalation of a non-NATO event because Russia sent in "peacekeeping" forces.
WW
Stop with this crap. It's a discussion about events.Do you admire Putin? Do you support his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine?
Are you attempting to play mod in your thread?Stop with this crap. It's a discussion about events.
I am saying that this stupid attempt to pin support for Putin on others like that is not right and it stifles a frank discussion. You are the one attempting to shut someone's mouth.Are you attempting to play mod in your thread?
IMO, someone's opinion about Putin and the invasion is absolutely pertinent to the discussion. YMMV
There are stories of russians puncturing their own gas tanks. The commitment isn't there for many of them.All of the evidence points to an absolute faith in the invasion taking 2-3 days, thus the terrible supply line situation. Combine this with lack of vehicle maintenance and bad terrain and you’ve got yourself a disaster. As for “anticipating” the sanctions, there’s no reason to think this is true. By the way, the Russian stock exchange is down for the fourth day.
There are multiple reports that ~6000 Russian troops have died. Russia's economy is tanking. Brilliant plan so far.Something is very odd odd about Russia's attack of Ukraine. It is well acknowledged that much of the equipment is old. It is also noted that many of the troops are outlying region states, specifically Chechnya and Dagestan. Also noted is the lack of air support. Why is this?
I think Putin has planned it this way for a reason. The main force is held in reserve. I think Putin planned on all of the sanctions and the blocked banking.
Like many cons, he did but now he doesn't. Because the latter is more politically convenient. And he doesn't want to admit having made any change.Do you admire Putin? Do you support his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine?
Lots of stories. Yes. Angel of Kiev and all. Even what I posted, all of it, needs to be taken with a grain of salt.There are stories of russians puncturing their own gas tanks. The commitment isn't there for many of them.
Lame.Like many cons, he did but now he doesn't. Because the latter is more politically convenient. And he doesn't want to admit having made any change.
This doesn't make sense to me. What is gained over using the best to quickly overwhelm the the Ukranian military?I think there might be something said that inferior troops and equipment were/are used in Ukraine by the Russians with the following purpose.
#1 Appear weak with the invasion to prompt NATO to react with direct support (i.e. combat troops, tanks, aircraft, etc.) to support Ukraine,
#2 Once NATO was directly engaged, then Putin could send large numbers of better trained and better equipped forces.
The justification would be based on NATOs escalation of a non-NATO event because Russia sent in "peacekeeping" forces.
WW
Asking questions is attempting to shut someone's mouth? That makes no sense.I am saying that this stupid attempt to pin support for Putin on others like that is not right and it stifles a frank discussion. You are the one attempting to shut someone's mouth.
Speculate. Diversion could be one reason. Attack in Ukraine then use main forces somewhere else.This doesn't make sense to me. What is gained over using the best to quickly overwhelm the the Ukranian military?
Your evidence for this? Prior to this thread, @gino has made only one single post this year mentioning 'putin,' 'russia' or 'ukraine.' Seems like you might be attributing opinions to him purely because you have decided he is a "them" rather than an individual person.Like many cons, he did but now he doesn't. Because the latter is more politically convenient. And he doesn't want to admit having made any change.
Is it wrong with regards to your positions?Lame.
My post was not in reference to @gino nor anything @gino said. My bad. I mixed up gino's post with a justoneman post.Your evidence for this? Prior to this thread, @gino has made only one single post this year mentioning 'putin,' 'russia' or 'ukraine.' Seems like you might be attributing opinions to him purely because you have decided he is a "them" rather than an individual person.
This doesn't make sense to me. What is gained over using the best to quickly overwhelm the the Ukranian military?
I think Putin is keeping his best troops where he's at because he's afraid to get assassinated.Because that's not what I said.
I said Putin could possibly be using the "non-best" (conscript troops, older equipment, etc.) to invade Ukraine which is not a member of NATO. If NATO intervenes via direct combat, that could be justification (in Putin's eyes) and then escalate and throw in better troops and better equipment in massive numbers.
WW
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?