I mean, to bring up "open borders" when you're suggesting people in Europe would welcome being invaded by a foreign power is incredibly ironic, no?
Not to mention that Putin's policy towards COVID has resulted in his country having the second highest death toll after the US, despite the US having twice of Russia's population.
What is "standard russian policy" ?
How much could Putin suck at PR if he has you convinced that Europe would like to be ruled by him?
I mean, to bring up "open borders" when you're suggesting people in Europe would welcome being invaded by a foreign power is incredibly ironic, no?
Not to mention that Putin's policy towards COVID has resulted in his country having the second highest death toll after the US, despite the US having twice of Russia's population.
What is "standard russian policy" ?
How much could Putin suck at PR if he has you convinced that Europe would like to be ruled by him?
The EU doesn't "work" without open borders. It seems like you're just trying to transpose your own American grievances.
I think that COVID restrictions saved lives, so I don't understand what objections you have with it. Now we could get into the nitty gritty with specifics until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't require sounding like a callous person by universally regarding them as negative.
I don't support "high taxes", I support closing tax loopholes and making sure that those that take advantage of the American workforce by not paying them anything approaching the actual value of their labor pay their fair share.
Russia has had restrictions and even partial lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The majority of people would be on the side of not being invaded and occupied by a foreign adversary. Especially one that is undemocratic and oppressive.
The EU doesn't "work" without open borders. It seems like you're just trying to transpose your own American grievances.
I think that COVID restrictions saved lives, so I don't understand what objections you have with it. Now we could get into the nitty gritty with specifics until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't require sounding like a callous person by universally regarding them as negative.
I don't support "high taxes", I support closing tax loopholes and making sure that those that take advantage of the American workforce by not paying them anything approaching the actual value of their labor pay their fair share.
Russia has had restrictions and even partial lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The majority of people would be on the side of not being invaded and occupied by a foreign adversary. Especially one that is undemocratic and oppressive.
So... there's a lot of talk about how the war did not quite turn out how Putin expected... But by all appearances russia is set to end this within weeks or less. Is there any real evidence that the war is actually not going essentially according to plan?
Ukraine can't/won't win so whether happens sooner or later doesn't matter all that much. But it seems Putin did make a few mistakes despite having prepared for this moment for years. And some things that seem like mistakes aren't mistakes, like the idea of him sending in older armor first. That's just practical. Don't use your shiny new tech in the beginning. Get some use out of the old stuff.
Concerning actual mistakes, there are reports of Russian tanks running out of gas, and vehicles suffering tire rot because the tires are so old and the older vehicles haven't been maintained well. Seems a lot of vehicles are having trouble with mud too.
So... there's a lot of talk about how the war did not quite turn out how Putin expected... But by all appearances russia is set to end this within weeks or less. Is there any real evidence that the war is actually not going essentially according to plan?
Who can really say what is in Putin's head and what his duma thought of how long this would take?
Not everything is the same as everything of course, but consider Iraq in 2003 for a rough comparison:
- Iraq population size (2003) - 23M
- Ukraine (present) - 44M
- Iraq landmass - 170,000 square miles
- Ukraine landmass - 233,000 square miles
- Iraq 2003 troop size - 375,000
- Ukraine troop size - 200,000-250,000 (active - reserves may or may not be able to tap another 100k)
- Invading force size (2003) - 467,000 total mil deployed as of April 2003 (about 200,000 'boots on the ground' from Western/coalition forces) + 70,000 kurds
- Russian invading force size - 100,000-190,000 estimate (80% had entered it was estimated 2 days ago IIRC)
2003 timeline: ~6 weeks to completion from boots on the ground to all major cities captured. And it took about 3 of those weeks for coalition forces to enter Baghdad.
Consider then that there are ofc other factors - geography, points of deployment, infrastructure, armaments, etc.
But if you're being completely objective with just those figures, it's hard not to see a takeaway.
- Russia is using (compared to the US' invasion of Iraq) a similar if not probably significantly-smaller force size (that ours) to invade a country that is about double in population and 33% larger landmass, but with a 66% smaller defensive military size for Ukraine (assuming you don't count the reserves available, but on par if you do), and seems to be on a much quicker timeline overall, but we'll of course have to see how that actually plays out.
A few other things to consider:
- Russia seems to have not sent their best equipment at their disposal, there is no reason to believe we withheld in Iraq
- Russia did not seem to have the same size of missile and air strikes to soften the country up as we did prior to boots on the ground, we totally dominated the skies with advanced aircraft and Russia for the most part isn't (doesn't have to), and our forces had the benefit of several days of missiles landing on hard targets while Russia did it all with less in one night.
So, there is clearly an anti-Russian bias in the media, for good reason, but a lot of that is huff and puff because no one can be objective and say anything positive about the invading devils. Of course they want to paint this as a big of a loss as they can, subjectively saying (with no hard data) this is taking much longer than the Russians thought it would or they they are disproportionately losing fighters compared to Ukraine (depending on who you believe this is an inversion of the truth).
If you just look at cold, hard numbers and compare a somewhat-similar Iraq 2003 invasion and our conventional battle time-frame of 6 weeks to "Mission Accomplished!" (of course actual occupation lasted much, much longer - as it would/will for Russia in Ukraine), then it APPEARS to me at least that the Russians are doing more with less, and quicker.
I'll wait for someone to say my takeaway is due to Putin personally offering me a year of all-you-can-eat borscht for shilling for him on a relatively-obscure manga forum with like 10 active people discussing world events (rather than discuss the actual figures) though.
There is a lot of Russian propaganda going around, but there is also a lot of the opposite, anti-Russian propaganda. It may be best to wait until the dust settles (hope it's not radioactive dust) before anyone can determine approximate fatalities on either side and how efficient they were or weren't.
Seems like it might matter to those dying in Ukraine.
2 alternate universes:
- option A is a Russian total, inevitable military victory that takes longer with more dead all around
- option B is a Russian military victory that is cut short because a peace agreement (acknowledging Russia's security concerns) is achieved
...
- option C is any universe where this spirals out of Ukraine into something bigger; escalation
Russia is all in. They have a hard line in the sand. If you want to avoid further deaths, if that's TRULY what you want, you have to bend the knee. Sometimes you just can't win.
Ukraine can't/won't win so whether happens sooner or later doesn't matter all that much. But it seems Putin did make a few mistakes despite having prepared for this moment for years. And some things that seem like mistakes aren't mistakes, like the idea of him sending in older armor first. That's just practical. Don't use your shiny new tech in the beginning. Get some use out of the old stuff.
Concerning actual mistakes, there are reports of Russian tanks running out of gas, and vehicles suffering tire rot because the tires are so old and the older vehicles haven't been maintained well. Seems a lot of vehicles are having trouble with mud too.
It's not like it's possible for something as inherently chaotic as a war to go without a hitch though. The only thing that kinda sound like they were beyond any reasonable expectation russia could have so far is the ukranian president still being alive and the reaction from EU to this. But looking at even the worst case scenarios for the russians here to me it looks like things are proceeding generally rather smoothly. While the actual goal of the war remains unclear. Annexing ukraine sounds more insane as russians destroy it. A puppet government sounds plausible but doomed to fail. A few articles suggested the goal could be to simply shred it to pieces.
As the West condemns Russia, President Vladimir Putin has vocal supporters in China, where the ruling Communist Party tells its people they are fellow targets of U.S.
apnews.com
Ukraine should remain a neutral buffer zone between the west and east... wat? Sure, ukranians will be left extremely neutral after russia is done shredding the place to pieces...
Not really my point though. Barring ukrainians supporting russias invasion it's hard to imagine the population there being neutral. What it comes down to is that russia is pretty much saying ukraine and its people are not only not allowed to join nato but also not allowed to drift closer economically or culturally to the EU... Which is insanity. And this to indulge putin's unhinged delusions...
So, to be clear, we've known for decades that is the best path to peace, particularly for Ukrainians which we supposedly care so much for, and instead have pointedly pursued a foreign policy there that is counterintuitive to peace, and that's not relevant?
Regardless, we certainly don't know what level of popular support is left, or will be left, after this plays out however it does. Even a neutral Ukraine (militarily) that has a large population that's not fans of Putin (already the reality before the invasion) is a win for Moscow.
Do you think dictators really care what the population thinks so long as it is manageable?
So, to be clear, we've known for decades that is the best path to peace, particularly for Ukrainians which we supposedly care so much for, and instead have pointedly pursued a foreign policy there that is counterintuitive to peace, and that's not relevant?
Regardless, we certainly don't know what level of popular support is left, or will be left, after this plays out however it does. Even a neutral Ukraine (militarily) that has a large population that's not fans of Putin (already the reality before the invasion) is a win for Moscow.
Do you think dictators really care what the population thinks so long as it is manageable?
As I said, not my point. And no, I don't think putin gives a shit about the population in ukraine. I don't even think putin gives a shit about russian lives either. He has been killing and imprisoning his political enemies, wherever they may be, for decades now. More on to your point, I don't see how russia having the entirety of the ukranian population permanently squeezed by the balls, prohibiting them from ever growing closer to the EU in any ways, whether it is culturally, economically or militarily, is conductive to peace. Assuming there even is an ukraine to speak of after this.
As I said, not my point. And no, I don't think putin gives a shit about the population in ukraine. I don't even think putin gives a shit about russian lives either. He has been killing and imprisoning his political enemies, wherever they may be, for decades now. More on to your point, I don't see how russia having the entirety of the ukranian population permanently squeezed by the balls, prohibiting them from ever growing closer to the EU in any ways, whether it is culturally, economically or militarily, is conductive to peace. Assuming there even is an ukraine to speak of after this.
Ah, so you're back to the country is 'dying' verbiage is it? Seriously, get a grip.
It might not sit well with you, or make any sense, but it makes sense to our power brokers. We know exactly how to provoke a response, how to keep the peace, and how not to in Ukraine. We chose our path and Moscow chose its path. None of this is very surprising the more I read about how much we expected such a response to acts perceived as aggressive or provocative.
