Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 29 2022 03:56am)
The distinction here is that they didn't try to unsuccessfully storm or siege the city. They backed away without a major engagement. They certainly tried to surround the city, to maneuver large amounts of forces and troops into position, but they just sat there and did not breach the city en masse, nor bombard it with their overwhelming artillery and mass missile strikes. The fighting that did happen was very sporadic and isolated, not even damaging any critical infrastructure. Perhaps capturing the city outright would require more troops than Russia fielded, maybe it would have been possible, I don't think we know, because it wasn't put to the test. But we know they could have flattened Kiev and turned it into a smoking ruin with just artillery or airstrikes, and that wouldn't take 500,000 troops to accomplish, and could be done with conventional weapons as we've seen in the other cities.
So to bring it back to the original point- was it some kind of strategic error, where they planned around a decapitation strike and the abrupt fall of the regime, and had no backup plan, and just reworked their whole strategy on the fly? Or was it a gambit, a low investment into the hope that they could take Ukraine without a fight, a bluff that they would not follow through if the Ukrainians stood their ground?
I suppose it depends on how you define "major engagement." The Russians lost a couple thousand in Kiev alone and a couple more thousand on the supporting axes in Sumy and Chernihiv. They lost just as many people in a month in that region as we did during the entire Iraq War. The amount of special forces that they lost is akin to dozens of "Black Hawk Down" scenarios. From my perspective, it's pretty catastrophic and major. Anyway, the reason they had to retreat is because they were defeated and stalled. They TRIED bringing in overwhelming artillery, mass missile strikes, etc. but Kyiv was one of the most well protected cities in the world (for obvious reasons). The Russians lost several aircraft while trying to attack Kyiv because they have solid air defense there. Yes, the Russians HAVE the artillery to flatten Kyiv but they couldn't get it in place and they couldn't protect it. The Russians couldn't provide air support or the troops. In Eastern Ukraine, the Russians established much stronger supply lines and have much better defenses for their artillery. The Russians can rely on air defenses in Russia to neuter any sort of Ukrainian air attack there.