Ehm, no.
This was in reply to your claim that 190,000 troops would translate into 283 BTGs.
The confusion lies primarily with you. — Tzeentch
Taking the land bridge would obviously still be of vital importance, because the negotiations failing was a clear possibility from the start. — Tzeentch
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Kyiv attack had not been part of the Feb 24 invasion.
In terms of strategy, what might reasonably have been expected for north-Ukrainian/Kyiv forces? Moved to defend the east? Half go east, half stay to defend if also to be attacked there (north/Kyiv)? Stay put? What difference (if any), would it have made to the south/eastern parts of the invasion? — jorndoe
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Kyiv attack had not been part of the Feb 24 invasion.
In terms of strategy, what might reasonably have been expected for north-Ukrainian/Kyiv forces? — jorndoe
I'm hypothesizing. — Tzeentch
How about the fact that troops committed to a war aren't just made up, even in Russia, from battalion tactical groups, the maneuver units? Maneuver units are the spearhead of the fighting force, but behind there is all other supporting elements and supply.Anyway, the 190,000 figure is provided by Mearsheimer as the upper limit of troops the Russians deployed at the start of the invasion. I don't think that number is actually being seriously disputed — Tzeentch
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Kyiv attack had not been part of the Feb 24 invasion.
In terms of strategy, what might reasonably have been expected for north-Ukrainian/Kyiv forces? — jorndoe
One hypothetical (as we are talking about hypotheticals now) would have been that Russia would only have attacked in Donbas and the war wouldn't have been about the de-nazification of Ukraine (regime change).This is quite hard to say (too many moving parts to make even an educated guess, in my view), but in a general sense if there had been no significant threat to Kiev, the Ukrainian defense would have been a lot denser, because there would have been less frontline to cover. This is generally seen as being in favor of the defender. — Tzeentch
My argument is that we have information showing 21,000 (numbers ranging between 15,000 - 30,000 depending on different reports) troops moved on Kiev. (and 190,000 troops maximum operating in Ukraine at the onset of the invasion). — Tzeentch
If you have information that only 20000-30000 troops were on the Kiev axis, please provide it. — Jabberwock
So now its hypotheticals. — ssu
[...] and anybody with the slightest understanding of how militaries work can see that this wasn't a feint. — ssu
Understanding that Ukraine put up a fight, understanding the pre-attack intel was horrifically wrong, and above all the attack being got stuck with lots of losses, Russia withdrew it's forces from the Kyiv operations area to reinforce other fronts as a) Ukraine won't follow them to Belarus. [...] , what happened was a withdrawal. — ssu
I already have. Direct communications by the Ukrainian General Staff.
If you had anything better you would have provided it by now, so all of this is just posturing. — Tzeentch
Possibly the international reaction might have been different as well - slicing off the pieces of Ukraine might be viewed differently than an 'all-out' war. — Jabberwock
Putin became convinced that they will be able to take Kiev and depose the authorities, so they tried, with catastrophic results. If they stuck to the plan, the campaign might go much better for Russians, even with the Ukrainian forces relieved from the north. — Jabberwock
No, you have not. The communications by the Ukrainian General Staff DOES NOT give the number of troops, only the number of BTGs. So you DO NOT have a source for your number. You conclude that it was 21000 troops based on your faulty assumptions. — Jabberwock
[...] and anybody with the slightest understanding of how militaries work can see that this wasn't a feint. — ssu
Wrong again.Simply untrue.
Mearsheimer considers the possibility in one of his lectures which I have already linked here. — Tzeentch
Tzeentch, you have to understand that when you give as reference or say that someone has the same thing in mind, you simply have to have the ability to produce a direct quote or a copy-paste quote that people can see that they really think so — ssu
If they had advanced into Ukraine from Belarus to establish defensive lines as they did in the east, that would have pinned the forces to the northern front more effectively than joy-riding tanks with no infantry support. — Paine
Forming a defensive line in the north would have also given away the fact that the Russians had no intention of taking Kiev, which would have severely decreased the strategic impact it might have had. — Tzeentch
If Russia had started moving towards Kiev in the conservative fashion it advanced upon Kherson, — Paine
Instead, the Russians attempted an incredibly risky airborne infantry move. — Paine
Leaving the reading of strategic intentions aside, stupid or not, the issue not touched upon in your analysis is that the airborne operation could have worked. — Paine
Your thesis does not make sense of what success might have led to. — Paine
Even if everything went the Russians' way, Kiev was way too heavily defended to be taken given the amount of troops the Russians deployed. Unless you have different information than me, I don't see any way the numbers could be interpreted to fit this idea. — Tzeentch
I don't see what's conservative about the way the Russians advanced into Kherson. They penetrated quite deeply, and seemed to have encountered very little resistance until they were counter-attacked. — Tzeentch
Even if everything went the Russians' way, Kiev was way too heavily defended to be taken given the amount of troops the Russians deployed. Unless you have different information than me, I don't see any way the numbers could be interpreted to fit this idea. — Tzeentch
Lame excuse. You simply use the quote key and it's easy...That's not the video I meant. By now I have dug up and shared these links so many times I can't be bothered to do so again, since none of you seem to take any of the contents to heart anyway. — Tzeentch
Ta-daa. — Tzeentch
So I'm not sure what you think you have proven. — Tzeentch
The plan was to take Kiev, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Odessa, possibly Dnipro. If it suceeded, there would be little to no resistance, as the entire government structure would collapse (with Lviv being the only remaining bigger center). Ukrainians would have no choice but to accept peace on very unfavorable terms, most likely with puppet Russian government installed. — Jabberwock
So Mearsheimer expressly disagrees with you that the northern offensive was just meant to distract Ukrainians while Russians take the south. — Jabberwock
The Russian military did not attempt to conquer all of Ukraine. That would have required a classic blitzkrieg strategy that aimed at quickly overrunning all of Ukraine with armored forces supported by tactical airpower.
That strategy was not feasible however, because there were only a 190,000 soldiers in Russia's invading army, which is far too small a force to vanquish and occupy Ukraine, which is not only the largest country between the Atlantic Ocean and Russia, but also has a population of over 40 million people.
You're not gonna conquer, occupy and absorb a country of that size with a 190,000 people. And you're not even gonna have enough troops to launch a classic blitzkrieg, which is essential to conquer the entire country.
Unsurprisingly the Russians pursued a limited aim strategy, which focused at either capturing or threatening Kiev, and conquering a large swathe of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine.
In short, Russia did not have the capability to subdue all of Ukraine, much less conquer other countries in Europe. — John J. Mearsheimer
Untrue. — Tzeentch
↪Jabberwock
also "threatening to capture Kiev" can still be compatible with the idea of forcing a regime change. It doesn't obviously mean that Russia was making a diversion. — neomac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.