Firebird wrote:Maybe the summary from RT is of poor quality.
But this seems really weird.
The Donbass cauldron was set to be obliterated next week.
Mariupol this week.
Then Russia was free to advance across the whole East.
How can you deal with vermin like Nazis?
It was done several times before. They rearmed, got far stronger and far more dangerous.
The concept was that it needs deNazification, deAmericanisation, de-Ukrainian Fascist "nationalism".
RT was pretty scary reading if u ask me.
All those lives just for the Donbass, which could have been taken in 10 minutes a few years ago.
Infact all of Bandera-stan wouldn't have taken long.
What happens with the Nazis? Back to power? Russian language, media, human rights for HALF the population or more? None of this is mentioned!
Putin played "Gandhi" from 2014 to 2022. What happened? It all got far far worse.
Why should a single Ru troop leave?
I told all you guys already, it's clear the operation was a failure and the strategy has already been modified several times already. First time after the first 3 days, when the Russian military was allowed to engage properly. Then again after a few more days, when the advance was slowed down. And now again, by shifting troops to the Donbass.
-The most optimistic variant was to pressure Kiev into agreeing to Russian terms by simply invading with troops and taking an approach of increasing demands, creating pressure. This failed, the Kiev regime and its Western backers switched to total war mode and immediate negotiations went nowhere. The fundamental miscalculation was that the Ukraine was a solitary actor to force into concessions - when in fact it's just an extension of the West and has its full backing.
-The next most optimistic variant was to try and shake apart the Ukrainian elite, separate the military from the regime and so on - as Putin suggested to them. This also failed and due to similar reasons. The Ukrainian elite was sure they would win and total war propaganda was too strong.
-The next one after that was to capture some territory and shake apart Kiev that way. Agreements were made with elites in Kharkov, Kherson, Chernigov at a minimum, and it was also expected that other regions would join in. With the exception of Kherson, and Melitopol and Energodar in Zaporozhie - this all failed too. Probably the nationalist extremists and garrisons in all these places spooked the elites away, as well as the popular reaction in the Ukraine to the operation, and Biden's declaration of maximum sanctions on Russia with the expectation that Putin will be overthrown.
These are all political failures
There were also the ideological failures, of Putin threatening to take apart the Ukrainian state, and the next day saying that all he's there to do is denazificaiton and demilitarization, and that he doesn't plan to occupy the Ukraine.
This ambiguity about Russian objectives and desires has been there since 2014, when Russia directly annexed the Crimea, and in the DNR/LNR constant declarations about joining Russia.
These sorts of things are not compatible with just regime change, or reformatting the Ukrainian state, and in fact only serves to fuel Ukrainian nationalism
The economic failures were not critical, just the confiscated reserves. Which are huge, but arguably the collective West has caused itself far more damage in the months and years to come.
Geopolitically likewise, Russia won this, and the West has come together in its battle against Russia, but at the same time has become isolated from the rest of the world.
Underestimation of Ukrainian military resistance and propaganda about Russian military losses was the next failure, this rallied the population there around the flag, and gave a big morale boost to Ukrainian forces. Their own losses were hidden from them and Russia could do nothing about it, it had little power in the information war.
The Russian advance genuinely suffered considerable losses, and had to be slowed down to preserve manpower, shifting to gradual advances and positional battles over key points, taking out artillery and tanks from the air and with its own artillery, as well as rocketing Ukrainian military infrastructure from stand-off range. This been pretty successful from the standpoint of destroying the operational capabilities and equipment of the Ukrainian army and causing it huge losses in manpower. However, without taking more territory, mobilization of Ukrainian reserves continues, even if there is little to arm them with - and the morale of the Ukrainian army is not broken, nor has the Ukrainian state lost control over most of its population
So what remains? Just to kill more Ukrainian military and attempt to break them, and the civilian population? Further provoke a mass humanitarian crisis as the country has no fuel left; meaning no sowing season, no deliveries of essential goods, a paralyzed economy?