Why has it taken so long? What about all the bridges on the Dnpier? Or concrete factories that would of been used to make fortifications? What about cutting of the gas supply that runs through Ukraine from Russia to Europe? Why not take out Zelensky? Why not recruit more men rather than scraping from the barrel with criminals and then perform a proper Blitzkrieg and perhaps open up a second front rather than relying on North Korea? That way actually less Slavs on both sides would die as if the enemy got truly enveloped then they would be forced to surrender. That is how you fight properly.
Thanks for that - it makes a lot of sense trying to explain what Putin and his regime think they are up to. But as you say a very bad strategy - particularly disastrous I would think if applied to a country's absolutely critical security interests (For Russia, I suppose Ukraine, Belarus definitely - Georgia, Kazakhstan probably too, where an uncompromising go all in right from start would be best to deter aggressors - avoiding perception of weakness or half heartedness at all costs. But even in peripheral interests it doesn't seem very smart -- gains would be minimal and if were any greater would just provoke retaliation, and each withdrawal would signal weakness - like the debacle in Syria.
Oh, and in case of Syria I was guessing there might have been a probable deal between Putin and Erdogan, on which Erdogan will of course renege as soon as it suits him.
Can't we all just get along?
Sincerely.,
RegretLeft
Valued contributor since 2022
Why has it taken so long? What about all the bridges on the Dnpier? Or concrete factories that would of been used to make fortifications? What about cutting of the gas supply that runs through Ukraine from Russia to Europe? Why not take out Zelensky? Why not recruit more men rather than scraping from the barrel with criminals and then perform a proper Blitzkrieg and perhaps open up a second front rather than relying on North Korea? That way actually less Slavs on both sides would die as if the enemy got truly enveloped then they would be forced to surrender. That is how you fight properly.
There is a method to it, it's just not a good one:
https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/a-comparative-guide-to-russias-use-of-force-measure-twice-invade-once/
Thanks Marko I love your work. And I'm a paid sub.
Thanks for that - it makes a lot of sense trying to explain what Putin and his regime think they are up to. But as you say a very bad strategy - particularly disastrous I would think if applied to a country's absolutely critical security interests (For Russia, I suppose Ukraine, Belarus definitely - Georgia, Kazakhstan probably too, where an uncompromising go all in right from start would be best to deter aggressors - avoiding perception of weakness or half heartedness at all costs. But even in peripheral interests it doesn't seem very smart -- gains would be minimal and if were any greater would just provoke retaliation, and each withdrawal would signal weakness - like the debacle in Syria.
Oh, and in case of Syria I was guessing there might have been a probable deal between Putin and Erdogan, on which Erdogan will of course renege as soon as it suits him.
Petit botox Put(a)in is writing the final chapters of Russian history, just like Gorby did before him with the USSR.
Is extinction the fate of the Russian ethnicity and Putin "the rat" their undertaker?
It sure looks like that.