- Joined
- Mar 11, 2020
All of this assumes what you think you know happened on day one actually happened. And given that almost all of the information we're seeing is coming from larping OSINT faggots or direct from the Ukraine government's psyops and propaganda arms, I have doubts on anyone's claims to know the current situation or the strategic thinking in the Kremlin.I dont know...on the first day 5 or 6 vehicles and a few hundred men tried to take kharkov...a city of millions of people.
I'm not sure if they were told the locals would rise up or if it's just bad planning. Nothing Russia did in the first days made sense...I'm inclined to believe they fucked up.
Were Russian operations near Kharkov an optimistic attempt to liberate the city with a handful of troops? Was it a scouting operation? Were people confusing Ukrainian units for Russian ones and misreporting an attack? Was the whole incident completely fabricated? That first 24 hours news cycle was wild man, and it's not like twitter idiots post a corrections section.
Not saying you're wrong, and we're all just speculating here. But bottom line is the evidence you're using to make strategic assumptions is not reliable. I mean, how many failed mass paratroop drops are we up to? 8? 12?
It's not unreasonable to think that the Russians were hoping for far less resistance than what they got, and that the Ukrainians are putting up a better fight than they expected. I also suspect the Russians are experiencing logistics issues slowing them down. It's also likely that their rules of engagement are loosening as they have to come to terms with resisting urban centers. However, even these tentative statements are based on garbage data.
None of us know what the Russians are actually doing on the ground. I suspect the *Russians* may not know what they're doing on the ground, lol.