GustiSok said:Few people will actually believe that Russia didn't thoroughly prepare a tactical blueprint for this invasion—and even fewer will believe they're running low on missiles after just a few days. On the flip side, for some entirely mystical reason, many people seem to think a "successful" military operation implies zero casualties, that high-quality gear is somehow indestructible, and that wars are won in a matter of days. I suppose if you read in two seconds that Germany crushed Poland in 1939, but conveniently ignore the fact that it took them over a month to seize half the territory of a country much smaller than Ukraine—a country that was being attacked from two sides simultaneously—then you might conclude a war can be won overnight without losses. The Panzer VI (Tiger I) wasn't legendary because it was invincible—hundreds of them were destroyed. It was a good tank because it enabled operations and inflicted losses on enemy armor. Success is measured statistically, not absolutely. As for concluding whether the Russian invasion is a success? It's far too early to say. One thing is certain: the Ukrainians aren't going down without a fight.
Poland in 1939 wasn't the same as Poland in 2022; it was significantly larger.
Poland in 1939 covered 400k km², whereas Ukraine today covers 600k km².
Modern-day Poland is about 300k km².
Ukraine's capital is only 100km from the border; Warsaw was 200km from the East Prussian enclave and 400km from the main German border.
Your comparison falls short.
Hitler split France into northern and southern (Vichy) occupation zones.
That is essentially what Putin intended for Ukraine (just east vs. west).
Paris fell in three days, right after the Nazis finished with the Benelux region.
It's roughly 160 kilometers from the Somme to Paris.
And that was Putin's playbook.
Glory to Ukraine!