At this point, Putin has put Ukraine into a position where they have nothing to lose. There is a direct line from Stalin's atrocities, where millions of Ukrainians were starved to death and ethnic cleansing was employed, to Putin's atrocities today. There's no going back for Ukraine as long as there is any hope of defeating Putin.
This reads like the "feel good" stuff coming out of Western press these days. Still doesn't change the fact that Russians just successfully completed the siege of Mariupol.
The russian side expected to take the entire country in a matter of days. Now it's celebrating because it took Mariupol after two months of shelling some amateurs in some caves, turning the entire world against them. Not exactly stellar performance.
I don't disagree, but that also does not indicate a defeat. Russia seems committed to the war, and while they have had a... questionable performance thus far, it really seems like they aren't exactly on the edge of a collapse.
I would've agreed with you 3 months ago that russia would've needed a very very quick victory to avoid an economic collapse but right now, I don't see that having a huge effect anymore either. The internal situation is probably better for putin now than before the war and their economy has proven to be oddly resilient. Though time is still against them, because the ukrainian army gets better equipment and training by the day.
Obviously the russians have not won, but the title is weird and reminds me of an opposite, almost equally uninformed, narrative that was common in the weeks before the war (ukraine will fall in days!). We have been hearing "imminent coup d'état/putin is hiding/ the military is about to mutiny" predictions daily since the beginning of the war, and I honestly don't see the point. If anything, it's super counterproductive (PR wise) to the ukrainian cause.
If not for the massive aid and influx of weapons from NATO, It would have fallen in days. Ukrainian airforce got quickly overwhelmed in the first days of war and it was the shipment of NATO anti-aircraft missiles that allowed them to challenge Russian air supremacy.
NATO supplied them with Stingers which can be used only against low level flying airplanes. What keeps Russians from gaining air supremacy are numerous S-300 and Buk batteries that make flying Su-25 or Su-34 outside of Stinger range very dangerous so Russians almost don't fly that high at all.
> Ukrainian airforce got quickly overwhelmed in the first days of war
that's not strictly true. While russia has majority air superiority, they don't have complete superiority which prevents sorties from ukraine.
I think ukraine is fighting quite valiantly at the beginning, when the world expected them to lose. And the west probably was shocked at their actual performance (as well as the incompetence of the russian military). It was direct evidence that ukraine could at least hold out, which means the support and equipment from the west could have time to roll in.
Ukrainian air force is probably all destroyed by now. It's the Turkish drones that are still flying. They are easier to hide and don't need the same level of infrastructure that airplanes need.
I don't know if drones count as airforce or something else. It's just semantics.
Actually evidence shows up of more Ukrainian strike planes flying than before, mostly Su-25 and Su-24 caught on camera.
Also fighter force while heavily reduced was continuously flying sorties and helped deny air superiority to Russia, though due to numbers it wasn't as visible as the infamous SAM hits.
Their threats of the use of nuclear arms turned out to be a bluff that has been called and two of their most important neighbors switched from neutral to allied with their enemies.
They are referencing to the "planned" articles that appeared on Russian state media days after the invasion.
Additionally, Russia thought that they bribed enough politicians to willingly hand over the cities to them.
The resistance was obviously more fierce than expected. This isn't about HN armchair whatever. This is known news if you're following the situation as many here do...
I think Russia did expect to take the country quickly but expected to do so mostly by suborning the leadership. Russia did get at least one Ukranian city surrendered to them, for example.
I don't think Russia expected to have to genuinely take Ukraine militarily. They haven't had to do that in any prior invasions, and there wasn't much reason to believe that they'd have to do it here, either.
The fact that Ukraine was WAY better prepared than back when Crimea was invaded, the fact that Zelenskyy turned out to have way more backbone than expected and the fact that Biden's staff played the intelligence game damn near perfectly (sharing it into the public so it could be verified really put doubters and sympathizers on the back foot) came together to make this an absolute mess for Putin.
Resistence has been fierce in areas like Kiev where the majority is ethnic Ukrainian. But Russians made their large gains in the south where Russian culture and language is more widespread.
For example Russians took Kherson without too much resistance. It's a city where almost half speak Russian as native language.
We're inferring their intentions from what we know they did. There could be different explanations to what happened, of course. Maybe they were planning to go drive towards Kiev, have the Ukrainians destroy their supply lines, and then retreat, in which case it's working exactly as planned.
"Inferring" is not the same as knowing and is as good as useless, propaganda-wise. You cannot overtly ignore/censor the position of 'the other side', while demanding that your subsequent inference about their intentions is canonical.
Either you know what the other side is thinking, because they told you - or you simply don't.
You've come to a conclusion that supports the propaganda you've been fed - but it could as easily be stated that Russias' move towards Kiev was a feint (not unheard of in Russian military doctrine) while it built up the resources needed to keep the battles going in the East.
Sorry, but no: Calling the advance to Kyiv (fascist Russia clearly wanted to take the capital by storm), the slaughtering and war crimes in the suburbs and the hasty retreat with thousands of fallen Russian orcs a "feint" is Russian propaganda and way beyond reality.
You can deny reality, still it happens. Reality doesn't care about fascist (paid?) propaganda.
Back to the story: Many of the things that the former ambassador mentions are also confirmed by many of the non-Kreml-paid media. Interesting article, thank you!
Did they state as much in official state communications, or are you inventing this position on the basis of a prejudiced narrative?
Remember, you are only being allowed to see one side of this conflict by your states own information-control apparatus. To assume you know the truth in such conditions is fallacious.
> Remember, you are only being allowed to see one side of this conflict by your states own information-control apparatus. To assume you know the truth in such conditions is fallacious.
does hn look like state media to you? people on here have a tendency to choose their own sources of information. I tried some RT to see the russian side of things but it is an eerily written tabloid devoid of facts and information but full of storytelling and opinion pushing. The commenters are not bringing anything to the table either. If you have a better source, feel free to share.
That being said, considering what the kreml has published it is pretty obvious they wanted to take kyiv
> You've come to a conclusion that supports the propaganda you've been fed - but it could as easily be stated that Russias' move towards Kiev was a feint (not unheard of in Russian military doctrine) while it built up the resources needed to keep the battles going in the East.
What do you mean? It was a regular topic on Russian state tv shows (like the Solovyov one).
Now they changed to tune claiming they fight the best military in Europe.
I think a lot of the west was certain Ukraine goes to chaos and capitulation as well.
If you don't care what TV says then the logistical nightmare Russia is having is a good proof they didn't prepare to wage war for very long. They might be corrupt but not retarded.
Actually you are proving my point that the proclivity to infer - basically, make shit up - is contagious in conditions of mass censorship and hysteria.
If the Russian state has made official proclamations to support the theories being presented here, it should be quite easy to refer to them.
Anything else is just agitprop. You need to learn to recognize when you are actively participating in agitprop, clearly.
Television is not an official means of state communication. Whatever you are being told to think by talking heads on the idiot-box, the real truth of what the Russian state 'wants' exists in its decrees and orders. Got some of those to refer to? No? Then you are participating in agitprop, plain and simple.
After giving up the siege of Kyiv. And everywhere in the north of the country.
Going by https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1524358910190174208/pho... , what appears to have happened is that they've been successful in pushing out from regions they already control in the south and east, while losing badly in the attack from Belarus in the north. The Ukrainians are successfully pushing them back in a roughly clockwise direction. Kharkiv and Izium next.
What happens over the medium term depends on what Russia has in reserve that actually works, and what the West has in reserve that it's willing to ship to Ukraine. Then it comes to the question of replacement. How much can Russia manufacture without Western high-tech inputs?
I wouldn't rule out the ability of Western governments to send "little green men" of their own, beyond the current few tiktok tourists that have gone there on their own initiative.
