a war where they're proportionally burning more nato equipment is still way more expensive than counterinsurgency. speaking of nato equipment losses---the US never was running low on weapons while occupying & anti-insurgency-ing two whole ass countries that hated their guts. Russia has spent far more in blood & materiel than it would be in a counterinsurgency campaign. and if annexed territories were legit pro-annexation then guerillas wouldn't have much support, no? i have no idea how doing a hot war with mobilization doesn't count as 'bogged down' but okay
if they just made a mad dash to Kiev
but they did go straight for Kiev at the beginning, not 'if'. you seem to imply this'd mean Russia occupying the whole country instead of just making Kiev surrender & give up the same territory they've gotten on the fastest timeline possible.
I really think Russia genuinely thought Ukraine would collapse instantly (even NATO did). I think it is entirely possible for a country to fuck up a war.
more expensive for NATO campaign >>>> the costs of rooting out some neonazi guerillas in novorossiya. im not saying the assessment is incorrect its just incontrovertibly more expensive than counterinsurgency. the US did an occupation of afghanistan for 20 damn years without ever mobilizing significant industrial or manpower resources. Russia's already had to expand its manpower.
and unless you're game for Russian casualty figures sub-10,000 & that this won't go up for a decade i can pretty confidently assert less would've been killed occupying & fighting guerillas
Putin ordered his generals to stop to the annoyance of his own generals
until we get internal docs this is speculation. the "stop order" during fall gelb was routinely called a meddling hitler political mistake until it was revealed how stretched supplies had gotten. we really don't know though & if its just Putin's personal fault, lmao, lol even.
you're completely talking past me at someone arguing that Russia wants/ed to occupy/annex the whole of Ukraine, and it was a choice between that protracted occupation & the present war of attrition
i'm saying the Russians earnestly pursued an objective of capturing Kiev and forcing a capitulation at the early stage of the war, that they did not want a drawn-out conflict. i don't think they were interested in occupying the whole Ukraine, they'd use an occupied Kiev to dictate a cession of Crimea et-al & force them to stay out of NATO. that's a fucking 'Special Military Operation', if it'd actually worked.
a war where they're proportionally burning more nato equipment is still way more expensive than counterinsurgency. speaking of nato equipment losses---the US never was running low on weapons while occupying & anti-insurgency-ing two whole ass countries that hated their guts. Russia has spent far more in blood & materiel than it would be in a counterinsurgency campaign. and if annexed territories were legit pro-annexation then guerillas wouldn't have much support, no? i have no idea how doing a hot war with mobilization doesn't count as 'bogged down' but okay
but they did go straight for Kiev at the beginning, not 'if'. you seem to imply this'd mean Russia occupying the whole country instead of just making Kiev surrender & give up the same territory they've gotten on the fastest timeline possible.
I really think Russia genuinely thought Ukraine would collapse instantly (even NATO did). I think it is entirely possible for a country to fuck up a war.
Keep in mind the US was fighting against shepherds in those two wars, not a whole-ass military with artillery and air assets.
well yeah, but OP is saying the Russians have chosen conventional warfare over irregular for reasons of cost
I assume artillery shells are cheaper to replace than troops are to train and replace
deleted by creator
more expensive for NATO campaign >>>> the costs of rooting out some neonazi guerillas in novorossiya. im not saying the assessment is incorrect its just incontrovertibly more expensive than counterinsurgency. the US did an occupation of afghanistan for 20 damn years without ever mobilizing significant industrial or manpower resources. Russia's already had to expand its manpower.
and unless you're game for Russian casualty figures sub-10,000 & that this won't go up for a decade i can pretty confidently assert less would've been killed occupying & fighting guerillas
until we get internal docs this is speculation. the "stop order" during fall gelb was routinely called a meddling hitler political mistake until it was revealed how stretched supplies had gotten. we really don't know though & if its just Putin's personal fault, lmao, lol even.
deleted by creator
you're completely talking past me at someone arguing that Russia wants/ed to occupy/annex the whole of Ukraine, and it was a choice between that protracted occupation & the present war of attrition
i'm saying the Russians earnestly pursued an objective of capturing Kiev and forcing a capitulation at the early stage of the war, that they did not want a drawn-out conflict. i don't think they were interested in occupying the whole Ukraine, they'd use an occupied Kiev to dictate a cession of Crimea et-al & force them to stay out of NATO. that's a fucking 'Special Military Operation', if it'd actually worked.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator