Permanently Deleted

  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    others have suggested that it was always a distraction to take divert Ukranian troops away from the east

    From what I've read this is the most likely scenario, probably combined with an opportunistic "well sure we'll take the capitol if it's easy/the government collapses."

    • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Putin was trying to force a compromise/negotiation. He was trying to cause panic and disarray in Ukraine so they would be forced to negotiate. It would have worked too if not for UK/US jumping in immediately to control negotiations and supply mercenaries and weaponry

    • MultigrainCerealista [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think it was a calculated risk, but it was “very high risk, very high reward”, ie it was almost certainly going to fail but if it did succeed then they would have won the war in week 2 instead of year 5 therefore, despite the high probability of failure, the risk-reward calculus still made it worthwhile.

      And then given the high probability of failure, the campaign doubled as a feint to draw forces away from the main thrust in the south.

      The idea it must be either a failed offensive or a feint is a bit false. It could also be a high risk gambit that in the expected event of failure became a planned feint.