Let's get one thing straight: you can't say what is or isn't going to plan, we have no idea what the Russian plans are. Going faster woul mean more casualties, and territorial gains mean nothing by themselves, only if you translate that to a strategic advantage. You will otherwise just overstrech your supply routes, widen the front, so y…
Let's get one thing straight: you can't say what is or isn't going to plan, we have no idea what the Russian plans are. Going faster woul mean more casualties, and territorial gains mean nothing by themselves, only if you translate that to a strategic advantage. You will otherwise just overstrech your supply routes, widen the front, so you stretch you army thinner, opening yourself up to potential counterattacks. If Russia truly thought they needed to end this thing fast, they would have mobilised much faster, and not just partially. They would have gone full wartime economy before feb. 2022 or at around April, when it became clear Ukraine won'tever negotiate.
Also, in this conflict, there are many other considerations, other than the military aspect, like foreign relations. Remember the UN vote that decried the annexation of the 4 Oblasts? By number of countries, the majority voted in favor, but by percentage of world population, the majority abstained, which basically means they are sympathetic to Russia, or at least neutral. Getting China to not be against separatists declaring independence and joining another country via a referendum, considering they have many separatist regions of their own (Taiwan, wink, wink, nudge, nudge), is pretty remarkable.
Remember, Putin is a lawyer, and he thinks like a lawyer. If he goes in guns blazing, annihilating all power plants, communication hubs, etc., it's a much harder sell. This way (Russia mostly providing only artillery support for the DLPR forces to "liberate themselves". Also, by very incrementaly increasing the military pressure, they can also avoid potential NATO involvment, as NATO can't say: "in response to this major escalation, we have to intervene", because there is no major escalation, it's a slow grind. There are many reasons why the Russians are doing what they are doing. Just because you can't think of any, doesn't mean that there aren't.
I think this kind of thinking comes from many in the West having grown up in the 90s where all they've known is the USA conducting unopposed bombing campaigns for months followed by an obliteration of an enemy surrounded on all sides, logistics cut off and army substantially weakened. They believe in the idea that the US is an irresistible force and have no living memory of the US going up against a near-peer opponent - the last time that happened was the Korean War.
Yep, and also the US only wins shock and awe style warfare against weaker opponents (Lybia, Gulf war, Yugoslavia), every drawn-out conflict the US ever fought since basically after WW2 (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) was a disaster. So probably that's where the notion that long war = losing comes from.
Let's get one thing straight: you can't say what is or isn't going to plan, we have no idea what the Russian plans are. Going faster woul mean more casualties, and territorial gains mean nothing by themselves, only if you translate that to a strategic advantage. You will otherwise just overstrech your supply routes, widen the front, so you stretch you army thinner, opening yourself up to potential counterattacks. If Russia truly thought they needed to end this thing fast, they would have mobilised much faster, and not just partially. They would have gone full wartime economy before feb. 2022 or at around April, when it became clear Ukraine won'tever negotiate.
Also, in this conflict, there are many other considerations, other than the military aspect, like foreign relations. Remember the UN vote that decried the annexation of the 4 Oblasts? By number of countries, the majority voted in favor, but by percentage of world population, the majority abstained, which basically means they are sympathetic to Russia, or at least neutral. Getting China to not be against separatists declaring independence and joining another country via a referendum, considering they have many separatist regions of their own (Taiwan, wink, wink, nudge, nudge), is pretty remarkable.
Remember, Putin is a lawyer, and he thinks like a lawyer. If he goes in guns blazing, annihilating all power plants, communication hubs, etc., it's a much harder sell. This way (Russia mostly providing only artillery support for the DLPR forces to "liberate themselves". Also, by very incrementaly increasing the military pressure, they can also avoid potential NATO involvment, as NATO can't say: "in response to this major escalation, we have to intervene", because there is no major escalation, it's a slow grind. There are many reasons why the Russians are doing what they are doing. Just because you can't think of any, doesn't mean that there aren't.
I think this kind of thinking comes from many in the West having grown up in the 90s where all they've known is the USA conducting unopposed bombing campaigns for months followed by an obliteration of an enemy surrounded on all sides, logistics cut off and army substantially weakened. They believe in the idea that the US is an irresistible force and have no living memory of the US going up against a near-peer opponent - the last time that happened was the Korean War.
Yep, and also the US only wins shock and awe style warfare against weaker opponents (Lybia, Gulf war, Yugoslavia), every drawn-out conflict the US ever fought since basically after WW2 (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) was a disaster. So probably that's where the notion that long war = losing comes from.