Quote (Lebanon961 @ Mar 19 2022 10:04pm)
Regime change was never their objective. In fact, the Russias flat out said they consider Zelinsky a legit president.
Russian goals were clearly stated:
1- Neutral disarmed Ukraine.
2- Crimea to Russian sovereignty.
3- Independence to separatist provinces.
Regime change isn't on that list, otherwise, they would not be negotiating with Zelinsky's regime.
I find that extraordinarily hard to believe given that most of their resources are/were dedicated to Kyiv. Why would you have a 3 axis attack on the capital from the start and devote a majority of your resources if regime change isn't your objective?
Quote (Goomshill @ Mar 20 2022 09:03am)
How many people need to die before they've reached that point?
If the west was going to intervene directly, they'd have a reason to hold out. We aren't, they don't. The outcome has been known since Joe Biden declared we would not intervene if and when Russia invaded, long before the invasion itself.
Afghanistan's fall is a great example of how relatively bloodless it can be when people in power accept inevitability and give up on being pawns for the west. We didn't watch in horror as the Taliban bombarded Kabul for weeks with heavy artillery while the holdouts fought to their bitter end. Everyone and their mother knew as soon as the US withdrew, the Taliban would take over, and so they let the Taliban take over. A war ended with bribes and pacts and diplomacy, not more IEDs and air strikes. Net result of the Afghanistan war was Taliban still in power, 175,000+ dead including 4000 americans, and 2.6 million refugees. Decades of conflict ended by flopping over and giving up without any more bloodshed. So in Ukraine, what's the point? What are we buying with the lives- of Ukrainians, not our own- that we're sacrificing?
Wat. This is really strange analysis coming from you. For someone who prides himself on dealing with nuance, I'm surprised that you're falling into this false dichotomy trap. In the current state, Russia is UNABLE to win the war. They've failed all of their objectives and it's nothing short of catastrophic for them. Now, Russia COULD win the war but it's going to cost to cost everyone A LOT.
Quote (ofthevoid @ Mar 20 2022 05:23am)
Best sources are ones which for the most part don’t have a side. The west has a side here and it’s pretty obvious in their reporting. It may be difficult to find but, middle eastern, Indian, & other Asian sources would probably be most impartial about reporting.
It depends what you mean by "western reporting." I would trust defense/intelligence experts who have connections on the ground. A neutral country like India isn't going to have the contacts or expertise to parse the information. Ukraine and Russia have reason to sugarcoat their performance. A country like the UK doesn't. Frankly, I've found outlets that pride themselves in political analysis to be extremely poor. Organizations like ISW, Twitter feeds from specific experts with Eastern European expertise, etc. have been key.
Quote (ofthevoid @ Mar 20 2022 06:14am)
If Russia was really targeting civilians on purpose and not accidentally then you would of seen hundreds of thousands of deaths of refugees fleeing. They could target and bomb border crossings and get thousands of civilian deaths instantly. People keep saying Russia is failing to take any major cities, without explaining why they’re failing. They’re failing because they weren’t willing to indiscriminately turn those cities into parking lots. Mariupol is different though. It’s the home of the nazi battalion Azov and it’s the scene where these far right groups committed atrocities between 2014 and now so they have no problem unleashing.
What’s happening now is something I talked about weeks ago. When one side is clearly the military superior typically wars end very fast without so much blood shed. We in the west encouraged Ukraine to dig in and fight back so that quick outcome is now off the table. As a result though we’re in for a long and deadly war with Ukrainian lives on the line.
You see patriotism and are cheering because Russia isn’t immediately achieving its goals, I see tens of thousands of deaths (mostly Ukrainians) and I’m saddened because there’s no scenario where the Russians geopolitical goals weren’t going to be achieved and all those people died for no reason.
What makes you say this and where are you getting this number? It seems to me that Russia is intentionally targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in certain areas. Will they bomb a border checkpoint near Poland? Absolutely not because that risks serious retaliation. But what if you kill a bunch of children in Kharkiv? Who is going to do anything about it? There's also the aspect that Russia needs to actually conserve ammo in a lot of areas. In the places that they don't, Russia has been pretty indiscriminate and they make Israel look like the Red Cross.
As for Russia's failure to take cities, the answer is simple. They don't have enough troops, tanks, ammo, missiles, etc. to execute. They don't have the supply lines set up to reinforce. War isn't the number of guns, troops, nukes, etc. It's the ability to USE those numbers and Russia has done a horrific job in that regard. I mean, have you ever heard of a war where this many flag officers have been killed this quickly? Maybe people are so used to American logistics that people take it for granted but it takes A LOT of time, effort, and money to execute these things cleanly.