The start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (Part 1)
in War in Ukraine ·
GustiSok said:Not many people are going to believe that the Russians didn't prepare a solid tactical plan for this invasion, let alone that they're running out of missiles in just a few days. Then again, for some totally mystical reason, a lot of folks seem to think a successful military operation means zero casualties—as if high-quality gear can't be destroyed, or that you can just win a war in a matter of days. I suppose if you read in two seconds that Germany crushed Poland in 1939, but conveniently skip the part where it took them over a month to take half of a country much smaller than Ukraine—which was also being attacked from two sides—then in certain minds, wars are won overnight without a scratch. A Tiger Tank wasn't legendary because it was invincible; hundreds of them were destroyed. It was effective because it allowed operations to move forward and inflicted heavy losses on enemy armor. Success is measured statistically, not absolutely. As for whether the Russian invasion is a success? It's too early to say. What we do know for sure is that the Ukrainians aren't going to just roll over without a fight.
From what we can see, the Russians have definitely achieved their strategic goals so far:
They've effectively pushed Ukraine away from any consideration of joining NATO or even the EU for a long time.
The fighting is happening on Ukrainian soil.
The forces prepared for the assault—maybe around 150,000 to 170,000 soldiers—simply aren't enough to "conquer" a nation of this size. But clearly, that isn't the goal here.
The aim is to squeeze Kyiv, to pressure that comedian and his boxer buddy to back down and save their people and their country.
The goal is to get Ukraine—either this current administration or likely whoever follows—to sign an unconditional agreement to remain militarily neutral.
You don't actually need to "occupy" all of Ukraine to achieve any of that!
Secondly, nobody really has reliable intel from the ground right now, which, unlike American or Western interventions in places like Iraq or Syria, is a relatively new factor.
It would be naive to fall for the nonsense on our mainstream news outlets claiming the operation is failing just because it’s only day three.
Operations like this aren't planned to last only three or four weeks.
Even in Chechnya (the second war, which the Russians won), it didn't wrap up in five or six days...
The Russians probably haven't even deployed their second or third waves of assault forces yet.
Will they actually march into the center of Kyiv and hold it under siege? Honestly, who knows.
As for casualties, of course there are losses on both sides. This is a war, not a ballet recital!
A 2-3% loss rate in an offensive operation of this scale is practically expected—if you assume there are 150,000 Russian troops involved, you can do the math yourselves.
Back home, during Storm, we had over 120 dead. Just near Turin by Karlovac, we lost about 10 people to mortars during the first attempt at a breakthrough. And generally speaking, those 120 or so people were killed by an enemy that often wasn't even putting up a decisive defense! They were mostly retreating.
Now, try putting that into the context of this current offensive operation!