Attacked? But Comrade Kazan, was the "Special Military Operation" supposed to be one of "rescue" and liberation," and NOT an outright attack?
BTW, Comrade...
I want to re-emphasize some critical points:
1. Russia attacked Ukraine with a small force that was one-third the size of the defending Ukrainian force. Advantage Ukraine and yet, despite the fact that Russia was outnumbered, Russia steadily pushed Ukraine back, taking Mariupol, Kherson and Luhansk.
2. At no point did Russia declare any kind of timeline for accomplishing its stated mission of demilitarization and denazification.
3. The bulk of the fighting from the Russian side is being handled by the militias from the Donbas. Russia has committed only a small fraction of its troops.
4. Despite a massive influx of western military aid, Ukraine has been unable to force the Russians to retreat. Those who want to point to the current Ukrainian offensive as a stunning success are ignoring Ukraine’s massive losses in men and equipment during the past week.Capturing a couple of isolated, unihabited rural villages is not exactly a 21st Century version of Omar Bradley’s Operation Cobra, which was led by General Patton and broke out of hedge row country in Normandy.
In short, Ambassador Taylor and other unnamed U.S. officials (both active and retired) are insisting that the United States is no longer afraid of what Russia might do. Why? Because Russia is on the ropes and struggling to stay in the fight. This is a dangerous delusion.
###
Let me suggest an alternative explanation for Russia’s slow, methodical approach in Ukraine. Russia is committed to the demilitarization of Ukraine. Russia’s current campaign not only is destroying Ukraine’s army and the tanks, planes, helicopters and vehicles, but it also is forcing the United States and NATO to strip themselves of weapons that will not be quickly replaced in the near term. In other words, without risking a direct confrontation with NATO, Russia also is weakening NATO. And Putin does not have to turn Ukraine into a smoldering, nuclear wasteland with millions of dead Ukrainians. Seems like a reasonable approach to me.
The weakening of NATO also is being accelerated with economic weapons–i.e., cutting off the sale of gas and oil. Without gas and oil, Europe’s war industry is grinding to a halt. I do not know if this is part of the Russian plan for the Special Military Operation or just a happy serendipity that serves Russia’s interests. Regardless, the effect hurts NATO.
I do not pretend to know what plan Russia’s General Staff is following. What I do know is that none of the weapons supplied by the United States and NATO have changed the strategic goal of Russia to demilitarize Ukraine and eliminate a NATO threat on the western border. That means Russia’s ability to continue moving west is not eliminated and Ukraine’s prospects grow more bleak.
You don't understand.
Bugtussle in Kherson Oblast is a very crucial crossroads on that two-track dirt road in the open steppe.
Attacked? But Comrade Kazan, was the "Special Military Operation" supposed to be one of "rescue" and liberation," and NOT an outright attack?
BTW, Comrade...
Putin invaded with 175,000 troops and faced about 196,000 Ukrainians.
Not the 1:3 difference you falsely claim.
Putin declared it a special operation, indicating a few weeks.
The bulk of Putin’s offensive is by Russian troops, not dpr or lpr.
Ukrainians have got the Russians to retreat from north of Kyiv and now from the north east and south of the country.
Russia is weakened due to Putin’s ego