If we actually want Russia's people to be free of the authoritarian bullshit, then what is the "solution society" that they should progress towards? — Christoffer

Speaking of "being free of the authoritarian bullshit", in what ways are we inthe West "free of the authoritarian bullshit"?

Really, list the ways in which we are "free".

The issue not being surprised vs. not being surprised at the sanctions, it's being surprised by the extent of them, which is a different issue. — Manuel

But again, they took preparatory action such as make an alternative to Swift, isolate all sorts of industries, build a fleet of nuclear ice breakers to export gas out the Arctic, and most importantly make a "strong friendship" with China before invading.

Maybe Putin and the Kremlin did not predict the West would push sanctions and escalate arms shipments to the point of the EU locking itself into more expensive gas contracts and also put themselves in danger of an energy crisis that would cause an immediate recession (allowing US and China to take market share) ... because it's self-harm for a dubiously established ideological cause of which there's no guarantee home populations will care much of "it was the Russians!" as a reason for all domestic woes.

However, they clearly had a plan to deal with severe sanctions or they would not have created alternatives (such as banking) and secured essential supplies and trading relationships (such as China, India and Taiwan).

As for "the humanity" of Instagram existing Russia ... maybe the Kremlin doesn't actually like a large part of their population using an IT system controlled by a hostile power and is happy to see it go, which the shock and disruption of a war is the context to cut Russians cold turkey from these foreign controlled intelligence gathering systems ... which, we were just told today could be "weaponised".

I think China did know about Russia's plans concerning Ukraine, there's some evidence to back that up. Probably China did not expect the war to be this long, but that's irrelevant, so you're right here.

The other things mentioned, like alternatives to Swift, nationalizing foreign companies, etc., look to me to be more of a reaction than pre-planned. It's not as if they have many alternatives, they couldn't well not do anything.

Yeah, agreed, about these social media companies, don't really care if they get in trouble or lose money, they're pretty annoying and problematic, in many instances.

The other things mentioned, like alternatives to Swift, nationalizing foreign companies, etc., look to me to be more of a reaction than pre-planned. It's not as if they have many alternatives, they couldn't well not do anything. — Manuel

There simply did not exist any alternatives to SWIFT at all before Russia and China made 2 after 2014 and the first round of sanctions and American analysts and official continuously hyping up the SWIFT as the "nuclear option" when it came to sanctions.

Now, I'm not saying their plan is succeeding, just pointing out that if you take mitigatory action about a risk beforehand, it's not a surprise (even if you thought it was low probability).

It seems clear to me they've thought through the fundamental military, intelligence, economic and diplomatic issues. Not to say having a plan guarantees success, or that achieving their military goals was at a reasonable cost and so on.

However, the idea that people who state goals, achieve those goals, didn't even have a plan to do so, makes no sense. Anyone who's ever been involved in institutional planning has literally zero stories of things being achieved despite zero planning, and even counter productive bad planning, to do so.

As to the probability the Russians assigned to Ukraine simply capitulating, we simply don't know. But they clearly had a plan in place in the event that didn't happen.

And, critically, as there's these chaotic manoeuvres in the North, the Russian military simply rolls out of Crimea uncontested, and rolls through Sough Ukraine though Kershon achieving a strategically critical bridge head East of the Dnieper river and rolls all the way to Dombas and connects their land bridge.

If those were the objectives (which "land bridge" to Crimea was more-or-less a consensus, before the war, of analysts as the "maximum ambition" Russia may try to achieve militarily) focus on the North clearly helped achieve that.

Then weeks of artillery to break down the dug-in Dombas line, missile strikes on key targets, committing to one single large urban combat operation that is strategically and symbolically critical, observing the Ukrainian supply system under a false sense of security to then plan an efficient bombing campaign, is simply not a bad plan.

Likewise, offering minimal conditions (just making the status quo de jure) and then the Ukrainians rejecting that, makes it a far easier sell to the home audience.

Which is I think the major point of that policy, that the minimum conditions the Kremlin has specifically asked in public are genuinely supported by ordinary Russians (keeping Crimea, recognising Dombas independence, and neutrality). Now, certainly the Kremlin will take more if they can, but their main political objective is "support the troops" remains a strong sentiment.

Certainly they would have just taken Kiev if they could, I'm not saying they predicted this current situation in advance, only that they clearly hedged their bets and made sure to be able to explain the operations in the North as simply undertaken to support the core objectives in the South that ordinary Russians agree with (Crimea should have water, and Dombas independence).

However, being able to set the bar of achievement to whatever was accomplished post festum ... that's just startup 101.

You just read what the Forum's official Putin troll has said here: — ssu

*sigh*

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/673428

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/673458

I mean, yeah, countries will imagine certain scenarios if they go to war and will have a plan - or an outline of one and then proceed.

One such scenario is literally blowing the world up with nuclear war. Of course, this option is given low credibility due to its insanity, but it could still happen.

I'm not saying Russian elites were completely clueless or had no idea, but, I do think they very much over-estimated how easy this would be by a lot.

They will achieve some goals - given something of this size, it would be hard if they didn't. I too think they would probably ask for even more in negotiations and we'll see how that goes. But I find it hard to concieve that they would have done this as they are doing, if they knew for certain what the outcomes would be.

Including re-strengthening NATO, isolating Russia globally, etc.

However, I may be totally wrong, I'll admit.

If there isn't a secondary alternative with the same level of quality for the citizens, then why don't we start with western standards and together improve up from there? — Christoffer

Because it's not possible, it's pragmatically not possible. Because Western standards are destructive. They destroy nature, they destroy people.

It still needs to be answered in order to have an alternative for Russia if the authoritarian regime collapses and something else is built upon those ruins. — Christoffer

Are you actually worried about the Russian people?

Another example would be Putin's essay on Ukrainian "artificialness".

If Russia managed to takeover all of Ukraine uncontested, that essay is a basis to just annex all of Ukraine, or then half of it.

But if that doesn't happen, it can be interpreted as just the historical reasons leading to this sort of civil and regional crisis, that arbitrary line drawings (such as just "giving" Crimea to Ukraine) and Dombas being massively ethnic Russians, is just a why the tensions occurred and why Crimea should be Russian and Dombas should be independent.

At the same time, it also provides legal cover for "defending" what is in effect Russian soil, in addition to the purely propaganda value.

Point of these strategic and reasoning ambiguities that can be reinterpreted to fit whatever happens after the war, is that it's difficult to assume it's an accident, just being stupid and not hedging all sorts of risks that were clearly very real and have revealed themselves to be very real.

And the other point, is that delusional tyrannies don't talk and plan in this way, but rather make delusional regional, if not world, conquering speeches.

Now, that's not arguing it's a "good plan" just pointing out things clearly were at least thought out and there was and is a plan. But if people deny there's any plan, claim Putin is irrational, everything is an unmitigated disaster etc. and pointing out potential reasons for any decisions can be dismissed off hand, then the discussion can scarcely progress to the point of considering what plans Russia may have had or has and the chances of success.

Which is just lunacy, even if you consider Russia "the enemy" and "evil", indeed even more so, the idea evaluating your evil enemy's goals and chances of success is somehow helping the enemy rather than inviting defeat, is truly remarkable framework of reasoning.

Of course, so stating only begs the question, of how weak does a political system need to be that the mere acknowledgement of the enemy as even potentially rational pursuing some objective in a thought out way, is the name that cannot be named and risks being some sort of self fulfilling prophecy to even consider one's enemy has some coherent plan to attack you.

However, I may be totally wrong, I'll admit. — Manuel

You're not. Russia has committed a catastrophic blunder.

My mother-in-law told me I'd never really understand Chekhov because I'm not Russian. — jamalrob

You don't and you won't. I don't know what exactly it is, but I can tell whether someone has it or not.
There is a certain "quality of the spirit" that a person either has or doesn't have.

Although I find that in modern times, this particular "quality of the spirit" is a disadvantage.

No I don't. That is only my opinion. I agree, other people have other opinions, and they are free to express them, and I can then take issue with them, or not. — Wayfarer

No, you're not that modest. You speak with far more certainty.

Yeah, like I said: bollocks.

I'm not saying Russian elites were completely clueless or had no idea, but, I do think they very much over-estimated how easy this would be by a lot. — Manuel

It's certainly possible, I just don't see any concrete evidence. There's often focus on single lines of speeches or then that things were a surprise to junior officers who knew basically day before.

However, it's not like invading Iraq or Afghanistan who have literally zero intelligence capability in terms of spying on US planning, and things can be worked out in exhaustive detail and everyone know "their roll".

Ukraine has US backing and intelligence backing, that's a pretty massive asset. Indeed, over confidence would be planning it for months, not giving a shit who knows about it, and then just rolling in.

For, soldiers in peace time talk with their friends, who will be constantly asking "you think there will be a war" etc. and in the electronic age that's super easy to spy on. If you want the invasion to be a secret you can't have the rank and file telling their friends and family "something is going down", you want them to continue to be like "just normal bullshit". So your choices are to shut all that down and "get serious" in which to plan in secret but it's obviously not a secret, or then do what the Russians did and slowly build up so their own soldiers are none-the-wiser and then plan all the details in literally a handful of days, except maybe a few key things (like moving out of Crimea and taking Kershon).

So, the initial plan could be over confidence ... or could be extreme caution about US intelligence capabilities. A good plan is not so great if your opponent knows about it and is able to plan an even better plan. And, if the intelligence "environment" is such that the movement of 200 000 troops can literally be tracked on publicly available sat info, maybe the surprise shit show invasion and then learn by doing, is a good strategy.

Yes, there's losses, but there could have been more losses making a more detailed plan at every level that the CIA knows about and makes an even better counter plan with the Ukrainians. Worse, had the Ukrainians pinned down Russian forces in Crimea, maybe there's just as much losses but nothing to show for it; that's the nightmare scenario that generals would be worried about.

You just read what the Forum's official Putin troll has said here:

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, after years of EU and NATO expansion and constant Western interference in Russia and neighboring countries like Ukraine.
— Apollodorus

In any case, Russia cannot logically be expected to accept the Black Sea being turned into a NATO lake (controlled by NATO states Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and possibly Georgia).
— Apollodorus

And there would be a multitude of other references. Case closed. — ssu

Why do you disagree with this? I thought we already established the proxy war fought over the Ukraine since well before that? The strategic importance of Crimea and therefore the Black Sea seems obvious as well. Moscow being pincered by the baltic states and Ukraine in a sort of "C" around Belarus would be strategically worrying too.

That the US and NATO treat and have treated Russia as a de facto enemy for decades after the end of the cold War seems also obvious. Despite, I might add, support from Russia in most Western anti-terrorism ventures. So what makes this trolling or Putin worship?

Shall I find the Chomsky article that says all this more or less as well? Or is he a troll too?

We can only have so many different systems in place. Either everyone governs themselves, or everyone tries to govern the entire society, or a small group governs everyone, or people choose representatives to lead them, or someone leads everyone, or a machine or other being rules everyone. Or some combination between them. How do we give the most good for all within these systems — Christoffer

First, nothing forces us to chose one system at the expense of another. As you say, we can combine them. Take capitalism and socialism: they can be combined into any form of social-democracy. In this view, the values of socialism are combined with those of capitalism as a sort of ying yang. The same applies to political systems: they can mix up various elements of strong leadership vs broad representation and consultation. What is important to realize is that our values as human beings are varied, and any society must find ways to combine sometime competing values, such as freedom vs equality. So this is about a combination of philosophies, rather than committing once and for all to one political philosophy only. That is what I was highlighting when i spoke of the first generation and second generation human rights: any manner of synthesis and variation is possible.

It's probably not one size fit all, all the time.

The second point is that Russia right now lives under an oligarchic, cut-throat capitalist system bordering on organized crime, the worse form of capitalism on earth. So for them, if they want to reach a better balance, they should try and be more social, less capitalist, and more democratic.

Ah. Concrete evidence... yeah, that's a problem during a war, it is hard to know what's going on. Once this passes, we'll have the facts.

What you say about proximity and people talking to each other and all the rest, yes, this makes the whole situation even more strange. But then there are reports of many Russian soldiers entering Ukraine simply not knowing what they were doing there, approaching civilians and asking for directions and the like.

There are also reports - which again, taken with lots of salt - which say that Russia expected this thing to last about 2 weeks. Now, this may all be fake.

My problem is that a nation knowingly going to war with these kind of sanctions, does not fit into the "rational agent" idea, as in I don't think Putin would've been that irrational. After all, NATO now has a reason to exist, whereas it was struggling before.

But since I don't know the facts, I'll just have to wait.

Ukraine wanted to join NATO. It's in their constitution. Have a little decency, please.

democracy as, for all practical intents and purposes, an act of relying on an oracle. — baker

How ridiculous.

Yeah, losing face is probably the biggest problem now. They can't go home humiliated, or to state it another way, they will not. — Manuel

They will declare a glorious victory regardless of what happens. Remember, as far as Russian authorities are concerned, Russia did not even go to war with Ukraine. Russia is conducting a "special military operation," which is proceeding strictly according to the plan (whatever that plan may be). Anyone saying otherwise will be persecuted.

A large segment of Russian population is living in a world that has very little to do with reality. They believe what they are told on TV. Even people whose close relatives are right now dodging Russian bombs in besieged cities refuse to believe them. Others don't dare show their dissent. Those who do are arrested, fined, jailed, fired from their jobs, pressured to leave the country.

When you can flat-out deny or assert anything and get away with it, why should you be concerned with reality?

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

There are also reports - which again, taken with lots of salt - which say that Russia expected this thing to last about 2 weeks. Now, this may all be fake. — Manuel

This article was published on Russian state news agency RIA just days after the war started, then quickly pulled down. (The original can still be found on wayback machine and on Sputnik news site, and an English translation was published on a Pakistani site at about the same time.) Apparently, the article was prepared in anticipation of a quick conclusion of the "special operation" and distributed to friendly news organizations in advance. It is a delirious and nauseating celebration of Russian takeover in Ukraine that includes passages like this:

Returning Ukraine, that is, turning it back to Russia, would be more and more difficult with every decade – recoding*, de-Rus-sification of Russians and inciting Ukrainian Little Russians against Russians would gain momentum. Now this problem is gone – Ukraine has returned to Russia.

(My emphasis)

* The translation is rather poor. "Recoding" here means "brainwashing."

But if people deny there's any plan, claim Putin is irrational, everything is an unmitigated disaster etc. and pointing out potential reasons for any decisions can be dismissed off hand, then the discussion can scarcely progress to the point of considering what plans Russia may have had or has and the chances of success.

Which is just lunacy, even if you consider Russia "the enemy" and "evil", indeed even more so, the idea evaluating your evil enemy's goals and chances of success is somehow helping the enemy rather than inviting defeat, is truly remarkable framework of reasoning. — boethius

Yes, exactly, and I've been having trouble getting this point across as succinctly as above. Anyhow, regardless of whether anyone agrees with you, they have to acknowledge just through reading the last couple of pages of this discussion that you're doing significantly more analysis and putting much more thought into understanding the situation, particularly the military situation, than those who came here solely to give their unsubstantiated opinions--as if politics doesn't matter enough to do anything else. And, notably, none of the meat of what you've presented has been seriously challenged. Anyhow, I remain convinced that Russia has the upper hand, has a plan, and despite some problems and setbacks will achieve its major objectives. Not because it 'deserves' to, but because the evidence of its positioning suggests so, because it has the resources to continue to do so, because it's absolutely determined to do so, and there is no other party with a similar level of resources or determination that is willing to stop it. That's ultimately the basic caculus.

Ah. Concrete evidence... yeah, that's a problem during a war, it is hard to know what's going on. Once this passes, we'll have the facts. — Manuel

We're in agreement here. If people were making strong claims that this was all somehow "genius 4 D chess" by the Russians, I'd point out the flaws in that argument as well.

Clearly it's a big mess, and there's losses and victories and significantly so on both sides, but I think also clearly that Russians have thought things through pretty carefully (at least top level Kremlin point of view ... not the conscript who knows nothing point of view).

Not to say "they got it right" or will succeed, but I think there's enough preparatory action to conclude they certainly have thought about things. From the Kremlins point of view, losses are certainly regrettable (no general wants to see burnt out equipment and dead soldiers) ... however, we really don't know what they feel are acceptable losses to achieve what they set out to achieve.

Since the war there's this narrative of Russia blundering into a fiasco. However, before the war there was a narrative of Putin wanting to "leave his mark on history" ... one way or another, he clearly has now. There are clearly massive risks being taken on in basically every sphere of Russian society, government and international relations. However, there are massive gains to be had from a strategic point of view as well.

What you say about proximity and people talking to each other and all the rest, yes, this makes the whole situation even more strange. — Manuel

Military, especially involving conscripts, in peace time is very, very, information leaky thing. Once a total war starts, then it's possible to impose strict communications, organise D day and even trick the Nazi's into thinking something totally different.

But then there are reports of many Russian soldiers entering Ukraine simply not knowing what they were doing there, approaching civilians and asking for directions and the like. — Manuel

This would be the downside of the surprise invasion. Organising a smooth invasion involving over a hundred thousand people is a super complicated thing, lot's of moving parts, and takes a lot of time. However, if the enemy knows your plan, you aren't necessarily gaining anything by doing your homework in this kind of situation.

But, if you just sort of gather people together, even your own troops think it's all just for show and a bullshit exercise (which is a default assumption about nearly everything in the military), and then suddenly invade. The whole chain of command needs to create orders in literally a few days for everyone. And the invasion was on 4 fronts.

It's also totally normal that the lower rank you are the less you know. During my time as a conscript it was made pretty clear the less we conscripts know the better. Everyone's on a need to know basis, and for sure conscript needs to know basically zero. Indeed, if everything the conscript believes about the operation is actually false, that's even better as then it just confuses the enemy when they get captured.

Of course, some units won't encounter any resistance at all so they'll just keep going until they have no gas and are lost.

What was clear is that the basic idea of the initial invasion is mostly just "go" until resistance is encountered. The only planned major urban battles is for Kershon and Mariupol which both have obvious strategic advantages to take. In the case of Kershon, military analysts concluded it was clearly overrun by experienced urban combat soldiers in a well planned operation.

Otherwise, Russians just take towns and cities that offer no resistance and go around cities that do offer resistance.

The "battle" for Karkiev is going since day one, but there's never been any real attempt to enter the city, they just go back and forth on the outskirts, apply pressure, Ukrainians defend, Russians shell, repeat.

Even knowing the Russians don't really plan to enter other major cities doesn't really help, since if you move out too many troops to elsewhere then Russians will seize that opportunity.

Russians don't believe in GPS based warfare since their plan is to blow up the GPS satellites. Indeed, in a real WWIII scenario that stays conventional for some reason, likely the first thing Russia will do is deny space by blowing up enough satellites to cause the cascading exponential destruction of all satellites and also make even venturing out into space nearly impossible for decades.

And only certain people are given maps, and even then you can still get lost with a map.

Point is, low-rank soldiers having little information, even given explanations, is pretty normal. And clearly the war is super chaotic so there's going to be big mistakes made by local commanders.

My problem is that a nation knowingly going to war with these kind of sanctions, does not fit into the "rational agent" idea, as in I don't think Putin would've been that irrational. After all, NATO now has a reason to exist, whereas it was struggling before. — Manuel

Agreed, "bringing NATO together" is a negative consequence of the War. However, the war has also brought Russia and China closer together.

Russia doesn't really care about much about NATO unity as such, that's what the nuclear weapons are for.

Rather, in a rational interpretation of Russias actions, at least, Russia cares about the USA attacks on Russian interests.

Putin has basically talked about this non-stop for 2 decades. The West response was "yeah, well, what are you going to do."

Putin would then explain (diplomatically) it would eventually get violent, that's what he's going to do. And that's what he's done. Putin's concerns were dismissed before because Russia had few strategic options ... so Putin works on solving those strategic concerns and then does exactly what he's said he's going to do if the West keeps treating Russia as the enemy.

The sanctions hurt Russia, but they also hurt the West and make the existing inflation problem even worse: pressing into an open wound.

Even if the Ukrainians "fight well" and even if it's concluded they get some concessions for fighting well and good for them and the Russians had serious losses: Russia will rapidly recover and improve it's military capability and most other countries in its sphere of influence would rather avoid a war than fight the kind of war Ukrainians have fought and are fighting.

And, consider the consequences on Ukrainian society.

Millions of refugees may not return to Ukraine, and the longer the war drags on the less Ukrainians will go back. The West's sudden concern for Ukraine may suddenly "need to be realistic" when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine and fixing its war financing. True, the entire country is not Mariopul, but there's still a lot of rebuilding to do, lives to put back together.

Anyhow, I remain convinced that Russia has the upper hand, has a plan, and despite some problems and setbacks will achieve its major objectives. — Baden

And I still can’t understand why you say that, when there are so many indications to the contrary.

Of course you don't understand what's going on. You've done zero analysis and have not responded with a substantial argument of your own to anything your interlocutors, e.g., @boethius, have said. All you can do is throw a Vox article with a headline that agrees with you into the thread. 'Vox', that haven of military expertise. You realize that anybody can go and find a news article on the internet that supports his or her position on absolutely anything? If you want to contribute to the debate, why not quote someone else's analysis here and say why it's wrong? That's when your sources can come in if you're quoting facts from them to back up your opinion. You don't just outsource your opinion to a random journalist and expect to be taken seriously. At the very least tell us what they said you agree with and why. Again, if you started a religious or philosophical thread and someone responded with a Vox article and said that's why you're wrong, you'd be absolutely justified in ignoring that person. It's no different in this discussion. If you continue to give the impression of someone who has nothing of his own to contribute, you'll be believed.

Here you go. Start with this. Make an argument why this is wrong.

What convoluted explanation? ... it's a pretty usual military tactic to have some manoeuvres (even most) for the purposes of occupying as much of the opposing force as possible in order to then achieve your core objectives.

Yeah, Russians didn't take Kiev, while they secured a land bridge to Crimea, their core security interest.

Their other stated goals?

No Ukraine in NATO. Check.

"Demilitarise" which the President of Finland asked Putin what that meant, which he explained it was currently ongoing; i.e. degrade Ukrainian military capacity, which blowing up bases and equipment and so on accomplishes. Russia can far easier rebuild what it has lost (and still has plenty in reserve anyways) than Ukraine can. It's also been reported, seems by Ukrainian defence ministry, that basically their entire military industry has been blown up.

"De-nazify" basically means Azov battalion, which is in Mariupol anyways, which they need for their land bridge.

"Liberation of the Dombas," is advancing daily.

These are the stated military goals as stated and explained by both Putin and Russian generals.

These were also the core goals as explained by many Western experts before the war started, what Russia may have mobilized for.

It's not "convoluted" to point out they achieved those core goals ... which manoeuvres elsewhere in the country, in particular pressure on the capital, help achieve by spreading forces and supply lines thin (and making it easier to map and blowup said supply lines). — boethius

you'd be absolutely justified in ignoring that person. — Baden

You’d be absolutely justified in ignoring my posts.

That quoted passage is just rationalization in apparent support of Russia.

Sure. For logistical reasons, we would expect the Russians to try to make this a short war. That means take Kiev. If they don't, this war will rage on.

Nah. They wanted to take Kiev, but due to one part Ukrainian agile effectiveness and one part Russian sluggishness, they didnt. That's common sense. Doesn't mean Russia abides by common sense.

That quoted passage is just rationalization in apparent support of Russia. — Wayfarer

That's just a smear.

Here's just one point out of the many made:

It's also been reported, seems by Ukrainian defence ministry, that basically their entire military industry has been blown up. — boethius

Here's evidence for that point from the mouth of a Ukrainian presidential adviser.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/russia-has-destroyed-most-of-ukraines-defence-industry-ukrainian-presidential-adviser-382424

"Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine’s defence industry - Ukrainian presidential adviser"

"“They have practically destroyed our defence industry,” Arestovych said."

Here's confirmation from another source.

https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/04/01/russia-ukraines-defence-industry/

"According to Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych, Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine’s defence industry."

Explain to me how this is "just rationalization in apparent support for Russia"?

Sure. For logistical reasons, we would expect the Russians to try to make this a short war. That means take Kiev. If they don't, this war will rage on.

Nah. They wanted to take Kiev, but due to one part Ukrainian agile effectiveness and one part Russian sluggishness, they didnt. That's common sense. Doesn't mean Russia abides by common sense. — frank

What are you arguing against? I don't think there's anything in the quote or what I said that says the Russians wouldn't have liked to have taken Kyiv immediately if they could have done that.

You’d be absolutely justified in ignoring my posts. — Wayfarer

I'd be absolutely justified in saying you were trolling if you are deliberately trying to annoy posters here with vacuous low effort posts and smears concerning their intentions. But you can prove me wrong by doing some analysis on some of the points made above.

What are you arguing against? I don't think there's anything in the quote or what I said that says the Russians wouldn't have liked to have taken Kyiv immediately if they could have done that. — Baden

Sorry. I thought you were arguing that they're meeting their original goals. If they are, they're nuts.