Scrutable

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:35 am

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:22 am I must have missed the bit where Putin made his timetable, objectives and budget public.

It was on Russian state media but it was deleted so I can understand how you missed it https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-inva ... d-12553977

Sorry what? We're assuming Russian state television is a reliable baseline? No, no thanks. No more so than official pronouncements from the MoD.

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:59 am

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:35 am

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:22 am I must have missed the bit where Putin made his timetable, objectives and budget public.

It was on Russian state media but it was deleted so I can understand how you missed it https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-inva ... d-12553977

Sorry what? We're assuming Russian state television is a reliable baseline? No, no thanks.

It’s not a reliable news source but the deleted article was a pretty good indicator of what was expected by the,, Putin’s cabal and many others. Remember it is Russian state television as you correctly say so their not known for their anti government hot takes.

It’s interesting to revisit Stop The War’s thoughts on the matter

https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/sta ... 57796?s=21

It’s ok everyone. Apparently all the video of cities being bombed is fake so there’s nothing to worry about
https://twitter.com/iameurmishvili/stat ... 94308?s=21

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:04 pm It’s not a reliable news source but the deleted article was a pretty good indicator of what was expected by the,, Putin’s cabal and many others. Remember it is Russian state television as you correctly say so their not known for their anti government hot takes.

It’s interesting to revisit Stop The War’s thoughts on the matter

https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/sta ... 57796?s=21

OK, now you need to convince me why a deleted article is A+ grade intel and not just an embarrassment by some excitable journo.

That Stop The War hot take is nailed in the first comment: it's just combat fanfic. Liberal trouser rubbing. We have made considerable gains against Oceana on the Southern Front.

Bellingcat and others are amazing but they're careful not to leap to conclusions about whether Russia is behind schedule or over budget.

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:04 pm It’s interesting to revisit Stop The War’s thoughts on the matter

https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/sta ... 57796?s=21

The original article is still up here...

TEN WAYS YOU CAN TELL IF RUSSIA HAS INVADED UKRAINE OR NOT
https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/ten- ... ne-or-not/

Is there a good antonym for "prophetic"? Double plus unprophetic?

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:12 pm It’s ok everyone. Apparently all the video of cities being bombed is fake so there’s nothing to worry about
https://twitter.com/iameurmishvili/stat ... 94308?s=21

But their deleted predictions of a victory within days should be trusted...

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:13 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:04 pm It’s not a reliable news source but the deleted article was a pretty good indicator of what was expected by the,, Putin’s cabal and many others. Remember it is Russian state television as you correctly say so their not known for their anti government hot takes.

It’s interesting to revisit Stop The War’s thoughts on the matter

https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/sta ... 57796?s=21

OK, now you need to convince me why a deleted article is A+ grade intel and not just an embarrassment by some excitable journo.

That Stop The War hot take is nailed in the first comment: it's just combat fanfic. Liberal trouser rubbing. We have made considerable gains against Oceana on the Southern Front.

Bellingcat and others are amazing but they're careful not to leap to conclusions about whether Russia is behind schedule or over budget.

Can you stop with the strawmen? It’s quite tedious. I have neither stated nor implied that the deleted article is “A grade intel” so please stop making stuff up.

I’d agree with most of what you say about the Stop The War thing apart from classifying them as liberals which would not be the best description of them that I can think of.

There's no strawman here, I asked why people here were so convinced the war should have been over quickly (and therefore Russia are doing really badly) and that's what you came up with.

I've also asked why people don't view the "Russia is doing badly" meme as obvious morale-boosting Western propaganda.

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:39 pm There's no strawman here, I asked why people here were so convinced the war should have been over quickly (and therefore Russia are doing really badly) and that's what you came up with.

I've also asked why people don't view the "Russia is doing badly" meme as obvious morale-boosting Western propaganda.

I thought you were asking for evidence that Putin thought that the war would be over quickly, which is a different question.

Having one of his propaganda arms release a statement congratulating him on his success in returning Ukraine to the bosom of Mother Russia a short time after Ukraine would have fallen if all the flashy attacks had paid off indicates that the intent was a quick victory and presenting the West with a fait accompli followed up by similarly disingenuous propaganda as in the aftermath of the seizure of the Crimea.

Speaking non-modly, I can see the merit of understanding relative technological capabilities and tactics to understand the course of the invasion. I don't view posts about weapons tech all that differently to posts about, say, spike proteins and vaccine development - they didn't detract from other discussions about the course of the pandemic, or minimise the tragedy, but complemented them.

On the other hand, we did have several threads.

jimbob wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:50 pm

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:39 pm There's no strawman here, I asked why people here were so convinced the war should have been over quickly (and therefore Russia are doing really badly) and that's what you came up with.

I've also asked why people don't view the "Russia is doing badly" meme as obvious morale-boosting Western propaganda.

I thought you were asking for evidence that Putin thought that the war would be over quickly, which is a different question.

Having one of his propaganda arms release a statement congratulating him on his success in returning Ukraine to the bosom of Mother Russia a short time after Ukraine would have fallen if all the flashy attacks had paid off indicates that the intent was a quick victory and presenting the West with a fait accompli followed up by similarly disingenuous propaganda as in the aftermath of the seizure of the Crimea.

Precisely this. That isn’t to say that the Ukrainians are not exaggerating Russian losses in the same way that Russians minimise them. It’s not to say that the Russians won’t eventually win. It’s not to say that the whole situation isn’t utterly tragic. But every indicator is that the Russian effort has been been far more costly and less successful than Putin would have hoped for even if he eventually achieves victory. I can’t really see how he could possibly have had the current situation as a desirable goal.

Your last two sentences - it's only been what, three weeks?? On what planet does someone conquer an enormous country made of mud in three weeks?

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:12 pm Your last two sentences - it's only been what, three weeks?? On what planet does someone conquer an enormous country made of mud in three weeks?

When people surrender because they are scared of the alternative

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:04 pmI can’t really see how he could possibly have had the current situation as a desirable goal.

That what Putin doesn’t want you to think is not true.

He’s that clever, you see. Not some syphilitic septuagenarian sitting on his own in a bunker confused, alone, isolated.

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:12 pm Your last two sentences - it's only been what, three weeks?? On what planet does someone conquer an enormous country made of mud in three weeks?

Not sure, but we’re talking about people who decided to drive 40 mile long convoys of poorly maintained vehicles down a road without adequate supply lines…

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:12 pm Your last two sentences - it's only been what, three weeks?? On what planet does someone conquer an enormous country made of mud in three weeks?

On planet Putin, where the Ukrainian army would melt away like the Afgan National Army did in the face of the Taleban and Russian soldiers were to be greeted by Ukrainians much as the Allies were in liberating France and such.

At least thats one suggestion... the big stonking lies the Russian Intelligence services came up with to avoid having to tell their crazy ass boss some bad news.

Where are these intelligence officials now? I read they'd been 'replaced' (or words to that effect)... which isn't the action that would be taken by Putin had this invasion gone as expected.

headshot wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:18 pm

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:12 pm Your last two sentences - it's only been what, three weeks?? On what planet does someone conquer an enormous country made of mud in three weeks?

Not sure, but we’re talking about people who decided to drive 40 mile long convoys of poorly maintained vehicles down a road without adequate supply lines…

what, the convoy that moved on a week ago?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60702464

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:12 pm Your last two sentences - it's only been what, three weeks?? On what planet does someone conquer an enormous country made of mud in three weeks?

This is pretty much the point lots of people been making on this thread and elsewhere. As stated repeatedly before and after the invasion, if Russia were to conquer Ukraine it would need a far larger force. It doesn’t even have the troops to control the bits that it has supposedly occupied over the last three weeks. The most plausible explanation for this state of affairs appears to be that they assumed it would be very easy and the invasion wouldn’t face serious opposition.

TopBadger wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:21 pm

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:12 pm Your last two sentences - it's only been what, three weeks?? On what planet does someone conquer an enormous country made of mud in three weeks?

On planet Putin, where the Ukrainian army would melt away like the Afgan National Army did in the face of the Taleban and Russian soldiers were to be greeted by Ukrainians much as the Allies were in liberating France and such.

At least thats one suggestion... the big stonking lies the Russian Intelligence services came up with to avoid having to tell their crazy ass boss some bad news.

Where are these intelligence officials now? I read they'd been 'replaced' (or words to that effect)... which isn't the action that would be taken by Putin had this invasion gone as expected.

OK, and this doesn't just apply to you: EOSTFU

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:22 pm

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:12 pm Your last two sentences - it's only been what, three weeks?? On what planet does someone conquer an enormous country made of mud in three weeks?

This is pretty much the point lots of people been making on this thread and elsewhere. As stated repeatedly before and after the invasion, if Russia were to conquer Ukraine it would need a far larger force. It doesn’t even have the troops to control the bits that it has supposedly occupied over the last three weeks. The most plausible explanation for this state of affairs appears to be that they assumed it would be very easy and the invasion wouldn’t face serious opposition.

Why is that the most plausible explanation? Russia is pretty expert in installing and running secret police, demolishing pockets of resistance, propaganda and targeted assassinations. Where is this "they need a bigger force" thing coming from?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I want to know why everyone, after only a couple of weeks, is so sure they're right. My instinct is that this was always going to rumble on for years and plenty of people in the Kremlin have thought about it.

I'd be interested to know how the present Russian tactics compare with those they used successfully in Crimea. How much less thinly spread were they, and how much better equipped?

Or was the main difference a lack of resistance?

For instance, Wikipedia tells me annexing Crimea took over a month, with 20-30k Russian troops (plus a lot of local support).

There's five times as many Russian troops in Ukraine right now, but Ukraine is more than five times bigger.

So it would be surprising if many Russian military types actually really genuinely thought they could take over the whole country in a week, no?

It seems a bit premature and cocky, to me, to assume this is all happening because Putin has gone mad.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:31 pm For instance, Wikipedia tells me annexing Crimea took over a month, with 20-30k Russian troops (plus a lot of local support).

There's five times as many Russian troops in Ukraine right now, but Ukraine is more than five times bigger.

So it would be surprising if many Russian military types actually really genuinely thought they could take over the whole country in a week, no?

It seems a bit premature and cocky, to me, to assume this is all happening because Putin has gone mad.

I don't think he's gone mad. But I do think he's possibly been misled about the capabilities of his military. And possibly the likelihood of local support.

It's easy to invade a country if those who would fight you, instead welcome you.

I'm enjoying Plodder's "all going to plan" theory.

Two Russian generals meeting up.

"My force executed my plans brilliantly. Landed at the airbase and was exterminated an hour early."

"Well done! My plan slipped a bit. The rapid charge into the mud was on schedule but the Ukrainian farmers were slow to start stealing our tanks."

"Your idea of inedible rations worked well, my forces wandered off to loot for food as planned."

"It was your concept of preventing our fuel getting to the front line that made the biggest difference."

"When I formulated my plan to get myself killed on day six I was doubtful. But clever use of a mobile on Ukraine's network got it done."

"I was four days late. Achieved the plan eventually by jumping up and down in front of snipers shouting I'm a Russian general please shoot me."

"Where are the demons? The torture session is late again. And these fires could be hotter."

"Hell's not very well planned. Nothing runs to schedule, unlike the Russian army."

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:26 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:22 pm

plodder wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:12 pm Your last two sentences - it's only been what, three weeks?? On what planet does someone conquer an enormous country made of mud in three weeks?

This is pretty much the point lots of people been making on this thread and elsewhere. As stated repeatedly before and after the invasion, if Russia were to conquer Ukraine it would need a far larger force. It doesn’t even have the troops to control the bits that it has supposedly occupied over the last three weeks. The most plausible explanation for this state of affairs appears to be that they assumed it would be very easy and the invasion wouldn’t face serious opposition.

Why is that the most plausible explanation? Russia is pretty expert in installing and running secret police, demolishing pockets of resistance, propaganda and targeted assassinations. Where is this "they need a bigger force" thing coming from?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I want to know why everyone, after only a couple of weeks, is so sure they're right. My instinct is that this was always going to rumble on for years and plenty of people in the Kremlin have thought about it.

I don’t think anyone has suggested that Putin thought all opposition in the country would be erased immediately. I think the prevailing theory was a quick surrender and installation of a puppet government with the eventual mopping up of resistance taking however long it takes.