Posted on 03/02/2022 3:00:48 PM PST by FreedomForce
If I may speculate here:
Is taking the country really the objective?
I think this is a remote objective. If this action nets you the whole country why wouldn't you take it. But I think all or part of the eastern provinces or at a minimum a land bridge to Crimea, is the main objective. Toward this goal you take as much of the country as you can and you give back some of it in peace talks.
Or to install a Russia-friendly government?
This would be a realistic goal if they capture Zelensky. Find a Ukrainian puppet. Let him or her negotiate the peace giving Russia the Eastern provinces. Then let the puppet deal with controlling the Ukrainian population.
Or is the goal to force Ukraine to become a non-aligned buffer state?
I don't think this is as suitable to Putin. But if Zelensky can sell it, it may save the Ukraine from further hurt. But I doubt Zelensky will go for it. Someone is feeding him bad intelligence that if he just holds out and lets his people suffer the Russians will cry uncle first due to the sanctions.
This, however, presupposes that Putin cares about Russian public opinion. I wouldn't put it past Putin to give his people a choice: Suffer, shut up and live in relative freedom OR be drafted with half going to Siberia and the other half to full time occupation of the Ukraine getting shot at occasionally by Ukrainian civilians.
Or to push Russia’s border further from Moscow?
As I have already stated this is the likely fall back goal. Take the eastern provinces in a peace deal. You have your land bridge to Crimea. You likely can continue to exert pressure on the rest of the Ukraine for many years to come.
“Putin is NOT crazy and the Russian invasion is NOT failing.”
“The Kremlin propaganda ministry approves of this message.”
I’m afraid FreedomForce will be proven correct. Reality has a way of slapping you upside the face.
As opposed to living in a TechnoFascist Dicktatership where Alex Majorjerkass or Chrystia "Slaveland" Freeland can freeze your bank account tomorrow if you look at them wrong...
I love Ted Cruz as a US Senator, but the DNC would have taken him apart like a Lego toy in 2016 [Ted digs blind chicks!].
They'd still take him apart easily today.
The Democrats have a very efficient national machine for "winning" elections. They have to, since they're only 40% of the voting public.
The reason the Pubbies don't have to work as hard as the slimy Dems is because the conservatives are allied with them.
They'll win their share of races by default.
full disclosure: I was in the Trump vanguard during the FR primary wars of 2016.
Teh Russians control the air and have far more troops available. They will bring in more and encircle Ukrainian troops in the East and South. They will force them to surrender and then resupply before driving on Kyiv. While they resupply, Russia and Belarus will try to negotiate a surrender
“They’ve still got about 15 days to go to match the American ‘lightning capture’ of Baghdad.
In Iraq during March/April 2003 there was no separate Air campaign, as both Air and Ground operations were conducted simultaneously. The start of operation Iraqi Freedom on March 20th, 2003 to the capture of Baghdad on April 9th, 2003 was 16 days, or two weeks and two days, not over three weeks as you implied.
“Didn’t roll through in a rout”
Ukraine has a land mass that is about 38% larger than Iraq, with a population that is about 3% larger than Iraq. The air distance from Belarus to the capitol of Kiev for the invading Russian forces is around 140 miles, as compared to the air distance from Kuwait to Baghdad which is 346 miles. The US and Coalition Forces totaled 177,194 for the initial invasion in March 2003 - consisting of around 130,000 US forces, 45,000 British, 2,000 Australian and 194 Polish commandos. The Russians are estimated to have around 190,000 troops deployed around Ukraine, not all committed in the initial assault.
dvwjr
The coalition also had a far superior army, compared to Russia. At the end of the day, for the coalition, 15 days were fine. Russia needed to just roll into the Ukraine and take over.
Putin will control the entire country east of that major river that runs from north to the south,that’s what he wants and he will get it,all this 24/7 coverage is just crap,the Ukrainians will be crushed,period end of story,coverage is for ratings,the only honest explanation was done on Tucker Carlsons show earlier this week with the former Army officer,he explained Putins objectives and how this will all shake out.
The rest of the coverage is crap
Smartest thing I’ve seen here- or anywhere.
Very few on these boards are getting accurate info from Ukraine.
I was on a Zoom call with dozens of Ukranians yesterday. The country is not being blown to bits. The refugees are mostly RICH people who have left and are staying in neighboring countries with friends.
Fox is the worst when it comes to painting an accurate picture of what is happening.
The military activity is mostly stopped as peace talks are ongoing.
Two years down the line and it doesn't seem that way. At least not yet
You continue to be wrong
Since you are responding to something written two years ago….I would agree with you now. I have been surprised at how poorly the Russians have performed.
At the time (2022) I thought the end result would be like an underdog in a baseball game taking it into extra innings—but losing in the end.
I never thought “the game” would last this long.
wildcard_red I really want to like your theory but I have to ask you to please explain how Russia ruled the Ukraine for over 300 years.
Afghanis of today probably don't hate the Russians - the country has very few people who were of age in 1989 when the Russians left
Ukrainians - here's 1. what I've heard from Ukrainians and 2. the historical data
for 1. Before 2014 all the Ukrainians I met didn't HATE Russians. They generally liked them but hated their government for trying to control Ukraine. That has only changed since 2023 and the massacres.
2. Historically the hatred for the Kremlin was:
a. in the 17th and 18th century when the Hetmanate felt that the Kremlin was curtailing their independence fraudulently.
b. This expanded heavily from 1870 onwards when there was intense Russification
c. This was exceptionally high in the 1930s to 1942
d. There was a sense of shared misery during the Soviet era
e. there was camaraderie during the Yeltsin era
f. Putin's statements from early 2000 about him not considering Ukraine a legitimate state rekindled fears of Muscowite expansion.
Exactly and it proves Sun-Tzu right: a long war benefits no-one, not the loser and not the winner
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.