5 ms·

They don't have to occupy the whole of Ukraine to do that, they only have to defeat Ukraine's military and destroy NATO's materiel on the battlefield. If they i

They don't have to occupy the whole of Ukraine to do that, they only have to defeat Ukraine's military and destroy NATO's materiel on the battlefield. If they intended to occupy the entire country they would need several million troops as well as legions of administrators ready to go, which would be visible. They most likely only plan to long-term occupy the parts of Ukraine where the majority of the population still living there supports them. The last thing that Russia wants is fighting a never ending insurgency in Lviv oblast.

int_19h 4y ago
The column that was rushing towards Kyiv consisted in large part of the Russian National Guard units - those are the guys whose primary purpose is to beat up people in opposition protests. And they had the anti-riot gear packed, as Ukrainians have found out when going through the wrecks. So, yes, they were absolutely planning to suppress civilian opposition to the occupation.
- anextio 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - GaggiX 4y ago
    I don't find it particularly convincing that you dismiss int_19h's evidence as mere propaganda, without further elaboration. I think it is easy to say now, after a year of war, that Russia could not have occupied Ukraine, but I think it is important to understand the prelude to war, 200.000 troops is not enough to occupy a country the size of Ukraine that will fight back, but it is more than enough for a country that would not, Ukraine had almost no army in 2014, and it still seems like yesterday, Russia under Putin has always won military conflicts: Chechnya, Georgia, and the fact that it took Crimea without hardly firing a shot, also the attitude that Russians have toward Ukrainians as sort of stupid cousins who need to be brought home, and after that the fact that Russia has a high level of corruption and Putin chooses his men well, the people he surrounds himself with have survived endless purges and power plays, so I would hardly see them responding (one of the reasons why I think democracies are stronger than public opinion seems to think). These are the reasons why it is clear to me that Russia tried to occupy Kiev and overthrow the government, the plan was not to get to the suburbs and then simply withdraw forces from the area, this is not how you "demilitarize and denazify" a country, the capital also is not far from the Belarusian border, then there is the evidence of int_19h.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Russia's generals are the people who are repeatedly ordering tanks to attack without infantry support with predictable results, the most recent of which we've seen under Vuhledar recently. Their incompetence is not a theory at this point, it's an empirically tested fact. And it's not just the West saying that - I'm following many of the separatist outlets on Telegram and such, and while they broadly support the war, they're dismayed at how it is being waged. Strelkov is perhaps most notable of the critics, which is rather telling giving his role in 2014, but there are many others. In any case, do you have other theories as to why Russia would send their National Guard with riot gear towards Kyiv during the first day of the war, if they didn't expect massive civilian resistance after toppling the government?

int_19h 4y ago

The column that was rushing towards Kyiv consisted in large part of the Russian National Guard units - those are the guys whose primary purpose is to beat up people in opposition protests. And they had the anti-riot gear packed, as Ukrainians have found out when going through the wrecks. So, yes, they were absolutely planning to suppress civilian opposition to the occupation.

anextio 4y ago
[flagged]
- GaggiX 4y ago
  I don't find it particularly convincing that you dismiss int_19h's evidence as mere propaganda, without further elaboration. I think it is easy to say now, after a year of war, that Russia could not have occupied Ukraine, but I think it is important to understand the prelude to war, 200.000 troops is not enough to occupy a country the size of Ukraine that will fight back, but it is more than enough for a country that would not, Ukraine had almost no army in 2014, and it still seems like yesterday, Russia under Putin has always won military conflicts: Chechnya, Georgia, and the fact that it took Crimea without hardly firing a shot, also the attitude that Russians have toward Ukrainians as sort of stupid cousins who need to be brought home, and after that the fact that Russia has a high level of corruption and Putin chooses his men well, the people he surrounds himself with have survived endless purges and power plays, so I would hardly see them responding (one of the reasons why I think democracies are stronger than public opinion seems to think). These are the reasons why it is clear to me that Russia tried to occupy Kiev and overthrow the government, the plan was not to get to the suburbs and then simply withdraw forces from the area, this is not how you "demilitarize and denazify" a country, the capital also is not far from the Belarusian border, then there is the evidence of int_19h.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Russia's generals are the people who are repeatedly ordering tanks to attack without infantry support with predictable results, the most recent of which we've seen under Vuhledar recently. Their incompetence is not a theory at this point, it's an empirically tested fact. And it's not just the West saying that - I'm following many of the separatist outlets on Telegram and such, and while they broadly support the war, they're dismayed at how it is being waged. Strelkov is perhaps most notable of the critics, which is rather telling giving his role in 2014, but there are many others. In any case, do you have other theories as to why Russia would send their National Guard with riot gear towards Kyiv during the first day of the war, if they didn't expect massive civilian resistance after toppling the government?