The plan did not start on time, which weas correctly cited in your post. That is not a contradiction, that is "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy".
#2, The Facebook post where the Russian documents are posted is https://www.facebook.com/100069073844828/posts/267699898875803/?d=n, which is by the Міністерство оборони України, https://www.facebook.com/MinistryofDefence.UA, the official Facebook page of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
The purported captured Russian invasion plans were posted on the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Facebook account.
#3. The 810th is under Operational Group East of the Ukrainian armed forces. They claim to have captured some documents, that were posted to the Ukrainian MOD Facebook page. Forbes put out a tweet that was not clearly written to link to their story.
That is all there is to this, and it is simple enough to figure this out by going through the links.
#4. Sebastien Roblin is too experienced a writer to make careless mistakes. His story links to the Facebook page with the documents, not Forbes's tweet on his story.
[Widget Jr #36] #14. From captured Russian documents during the first week, reported in Forbes and other news, the President of Belarus letting it slip, Russia planned for a fifteen day war. The goal was to capture Kyiv and key cities and expected the population to welcome them.
[woodpusher #44] Forbes attributed the alleged documents directly to the Facebook page of the "Ukranian's military's Operational Group East."The Forbes article directly contradicts the conclusion that the alleged documents published by the Ukranians on Facebook, if real, would mean that operations were to be completed by March 6.
[woodpusher #44 quoting Sebastien Roblin article]The Ukrainian military’s Operational Group East posted the alleged documents to their Facebook page on Wednesday, introduced as follows:
Thanks to the successful actions of one of the units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Russian occupiers are losing not only their equipment and manpower. In a panic, they are leaving behind secret documents.
[...]
Of course, the existence of changing daily call signs for a two-week stretch doesn’t confirm that combat operations were planned during that period when the documents were signed. Nor does the final date reading March 6 necessarily mean that any combat operations were expected to complete then—it may simply have been the end of a two-week planning cycle.
[quoting Sebastien Roblin article]The Ukrainian’s military’s Operational Group East has posted to its Facebook page what it says are invasion plans captured from Russia’s 810th Naval Infantry Brigade.
Of course, the veracity of the documents posted to Facebook cannot be confirmed.
[Widget Jr #45] #1. Forbes said the the documents show Russia planned for a fifteen day war and that the start of the invasion was delayed. February 20 to March 6 is 15 days.The plan did not start on time, which weas correctly cited in your post. That is not a contradiction, that is "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy".
The Forbes article contradicts the conclusion that the alleged documents published by the Ukranians on Facebook, if real, would mean that operations were to be completed by March 6.
Nothing in the Forbes article will support the claim at #36 that "Russia planned for a fifteen day war."
Nothing will support the claim at #14, "From captured Russian documents during the first week, reported in Forbes and other news...."
What the Forbes article actually reported was "Of course, the veracity of the documents posted to Facebook cannot be confirmed."
Alleged documents, whose veracity of course could not be confirmed, which do not confirm combat operations were planned during the period involved, and with the date of March 6 not necessarily meaning any combat operations were expected to complete then, pretty much guts the essence of the bullcrap that you tried to pass off, and continue to try to pass off, as fact.
[Widget Jr #45] #4. Sebastien Roblin is too experienced a writer to make careless mistakes.
Sebastien Roblin did not make careless mistakes, nor did I claim that he did.
You made mistakes. What you claimed is not supported by the Sebastien Roblin article. The veracity of the documents could not be verified, and if authentic, would not support the conclusions you purported as being supported by the article.