[Tenacious 1]

I remember seeing a graph at the beginning of this mess that showed Russia had way more of everything (jets, tanks, soldiers, etc) than Ukraine did. On paper it looked like Russia could just swoop in and take over rather quickly. But they haven’t. Why? Maybe their military capabilities aren’t as good as they want us to think. Maybe they are holding back so as to not have the casualties expected so they don’t look as bad on the world stage. I don’t know.

Exactly my sentiments. I discount about 50% of what I get from the media as hype/propaganda. BUT, there is no battleplan that says, let's gear up with a massive force and then tiptoe in and use a B.C. style castle siege strategy. I have been contemplating this and have begun to wonder if Russia's build up was a calculation that would intimidate Ukraine enough to "not fight"? Based on some things I've seen that seem plausible, the Russian soldiers and officers might not be committed to this objective. I don't know.

[pierrem15]

The fact is that Russia has only a few brigades of well trained and mechanized forces. And ever there the logistics and maintenance for extended operations seems lacking to say the least. The rest are poorly trained conscripts with crap equipment.

Ukraine is huge, especially given how long Russian armor can drive without fuel or a breakdown. The Ukrainians have also had a lot of training and preparation for another invasion, though not as much as they needed. They wait patiently for the Russians to enter a city, then whack them there instead of trying to defend too big of a perimeter, then do it again. Smart and making the Russians pay a high price, including destroying most of the infrastructure of any city they capture. The resulting humanitarian catastrophe is then Russia's burden, and if they conquer most of the country, it's an economic corpse.

The Ukrainians fought for years after 1945 against NKVD troops, and Putin doesn't have Stalin's resources.