The blitzkreig assualt in the first days was meant to be a quick knock out blow to collapse the Kiev regime. Shock and Awe if you will. The intel was obviously flawed, especially in Kharkiv IMO. In the first days, there were reports of Russian generals being killed, the rumors that these were fractricidal, from within. because of corruption. However, the quick, overthrow victory was probably only hoped for, but not expected as the only outcome and other contingencies were planned.
However, it was the reaction of the collective west that actually turned this defeat / set-back into a stunning victory for Russia. Seizing foreign reserves, asset forfeitures, Russophobia, cancelling of all things Russian and massive sanctions, solidified a larger strategy Russia would need to complete its goals in the Ukraine, to divorce itself from the west, and establish complete national sovereignty for its future. Russia now has the unified strength to now take on the whole collective west if need be. The USA turned Russia from the bully, to the west as the lawless thug and bully of the whole of the Russian Federation. my .02 cents from the USA.
Thanks for the explanation. The failure of the Kiev campaign is one thing about this conflict I haven't been able to figure out that's been bugging me. I assumed it was an attempted quick knock-out punch that failed, but this makes a lot more sense.
Sure, I've read all across the internet people trying to explain the Kiev retreat as a sort of 4D chess move all along, "to pin Ukraine forces away from the Donbass" - not considering Russian's Northern pincer forces (the "V" troops right?), sorely needed in the East, were pinned as well.
So for my part I concluded it was kind of a blitz attack gone wrong: what with Ukrainian ambushes to the long queues of armour on the road to Kiev, the logistical impasses and all that. In the end Moscow made the tough decision to cut their losses and transfer all these V troops to the East, and that was about it.
Now Rolo's supposition here further supports this line of thinking, and has definitely the Occam's Razor by his side. It would further explain many things, like the famous scene of Putin dressing down the FSB chief, or the importance given to this Medvedchuk character paraded in chains by the Ukrainians, but who the Russians have tried multiple times to free through prisoner exchanges.
Although how exactly these pro-Russian agents would have achieved control of a city as big as Kiev from the inside remains to be explained. Kherson was easier because it lies in a secondary sector, and resistance there would have been obliterated anyway by Russian forces coming from neighbouring Crimea.
Ghostumel: The UkroNazis were waiting for the Russians at Ghostumel. There were obviously moles within the Russian ranks that severely compromised the early days.
Thanks Rolo! I think you're on to something I just can't quite tell what. The opening moves of the SMO sure were odd, and there is really no fully satisfactory explanation to it yet. It sure is an interesting hypothesis to assume that the "pro-russia" faction in Ukraine gave away their own followers to the highest bidder. It certainly would fit into the bigger picture of societal decay and individual degeneracy that anyone can observe in the Ukraine. And given this picture the hypothesis certainly makes sense. The only thing that is hard to believe is that after the massive faceplant that russian intelligence has inflicted onto itself in 2014, that anyone in the russian securtity services would make the exact same mistakes 8 years later. Also, would the western/Ukrainian side really parade Medvedchuk (what happened to Kiva?) around after they successfully paid him off to give up the resistance in the most timely manner. Everybody "in the know" would forever remember. Sergey Narishkyn btw is the head of the SVR, not the FSB (Bortnikow), but the dressdown may have been appropriate in any case. For me it's still a mystery, also in contrast with the apparently very effective operation in Kazakhstan in January. I have no alternative explanation though.
>Sergey Narishkyn btw is the head of the SVR, not the FSB (Bortnikow),
You're right. But while they are two organizations, there is significant overlap in the people who run the intelligence community and the difference is like between the sales and HR department of one company - it's more like a division of labor.
The SVR used to be totally under the umbrella KGB structure. During the USSR period, people in the West and East referred to all of these spooks as KGB, and didn't differentiate between GRU and GPU and KGB. The SVR director himself said that the intelligence organizations can be seen "as one evolving organization".
IF there is a significant difference in organizations then it's between the GRU (military intel) and SVR/FSB. Lots of former GRU people say interesting things - a similar phenomenon to Green Berets in America occasionally speaking sense and coming out on the side of patriots.
A lot of military analysts writing in Russia are former GRU.
I think Putin and the Russian govt never dreamed the NATO War Machine, Western govts, and the media go be so bat shit crazy as they are. I know I never did. Look at these men in dresses we have on our side. And the stupendous lies. The Russians are probably flabbergasted.
The blitzkreig assualt in the first days was meant to be a quick knock out blow to collapse the Kiev regime. Shock and Awe if you will. The intel was obviously flawed, especially in Kharkiv IMO. In the first days, there were reports of Russian generals being killed, the rumors that these were fractricidal, from within. because of corruption. However, the quick, overthrow victory was probably only hoped for, but not expected as the only outcome and other contingencies were planned.
However, it was the reaction of the collective west that actually turned this defeat / set-back into a stunning victory for Russia. Seizing foreign reserves, asset forfeitures, Russophobia, cancelling of all things Russian and massive sanctions, solidified a larger strategy Russia would need to complete its goals in the Ukraine, to divorce itself from the west, and establish complete national sovereignty for its future. Russia now has the unified strength to now take on the whole collective west if need be. The USA turned Russia from the bully, to the west as the lawless thug and bully of the whole of the Russian Federation. my .02 cents from the USA.
Thanks for the explanation. The failure of the Kiev campaign is one thing about this conflict I haven't been able to figure out that's been bugging me. I assumed it was an attempted quick knock-out punch that failed, but this makes a lot more sense.
Well there was no punch is the thing. They just showed up and then left.
Imagine a medieval army showing up to a castle without siege rams, towers, ladders and just chilling near the gates ready for battle.
You'd assume that they expect the gates to be opened, no?
Sure, I've read all across the internet people trying to explain the Kiev retreat as a sort of 4D chess move all along, "to pin Ukraine forces away from the Donbass" - not considering Russian's Northern pincer forces (the "V" troops right?), sorely needed in the East, were pinned as well.
So for my part I concluded it was kind of a blitz attack gone wrong: what with Ukrainian ambushes to the long queues of armour on the road to Kiev, the logistical impasses and all that. In the end Moscow made the tough decision to cut their losses and transfer all these V troops to the East, and that was about it.
Now Rolo's supposition here further supports this line of thinking, and has definitely the Occam's Razor by his side. It would further explain many things, like the famous scene of Putin dressing down the FSB chief, or the importance given to this Medvedchuk character paraded in chains by the Ukrainians, but who the Russians have tried multiple times to free through prisoner exchanges.
Although how exactly these pro-Russian agents would have achieved control of a city as big as Kiev from the inside remains to be explained. Kherson was easier because it lies in a secondary sector, and resistance there would have been obliterated anyway by Russian forces coming from neighbouring Crimea.
It seemed to me that the goal of the initial invasion was to force negotiations. This theory is the best alternative I have seen to that theory.
Meanwhile, watch the birth rate in Russia and the West. If the clot shot continues to suppress fertility, then all this geopolitics gets changed.
https://n.actionsack.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1540914383349395456#m
…aaaand Sweden joins the chat.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/swedens-birth-rate-dropping-precipitiously
Ghostumel: The UkroNazis were waiting for the Russians at Ghostumel. There were obviously moles within the Russian ranks that severely compromised the early days.
Thanks Rolo! I think you're on to something I just can't quite tell what. The opening moves of the SMO sure were odd, and there is really no fully satisfactory explanation to it yet. It sure is an interesting hypothesis to assume that the "pro-russia" faction in Ukraine gave away their own followers to the highest bidder. It certainly would fit into the bigger picture of societal decay and individual degeneracy that anyone can observe in the Ukraine. And given this picture the hypothesis certainly makes sense. The only thing that is hard to believe is that after the massive faceplant that russian intelligence has inflicted onto itself in 2014, that anyone in the russian securtity services would make the exact same mistakes 8 years later. Also, would the western/Ukrainian side really parade Medvedchuk (what happened to Kiva?) around after they successfully paid him off to give up the resistance in the most timely manner. Everybody "in the know" would forever remember. Sergey Narishkyn btw is the head of the SVR, not the FSB (Bortnikow), but the dressdown may have been appropriate in any case. For me it's still a mystery, also in contrast with the apparently very effective operation in Kazakhstan in January. I have no alternative explanation though.
>Sergey Narishkyn btw is the head of the SVR, not the FSB (Bortnikow),
You're right. But while they are two organizations, there is significant overlap in the people who run the intelligence community and the difference is like between the sales and HR department of one company - it's more like a division of labor.
The SVR used to be totally under the umbrella KGB structure. During the USSR period, people in the West and East referred to all of these spooks as KGB, and didn't differentiate between GRU and GPU and KGB. The SVR director himself said that the intelligence organizations can be seen "as one evolving organization".
IF there is a significant difference in organizations then it's between the GRU (military intel) and SVR/FSB. Lots of former GRU people say interesting things - a similar phenomenon to Green Berets in America occasionally speaking sense and coming out on the side of patriots.
A lot of military analysts writing in Russia are former GRU.
I think Putin and the Russian govt never dreamed the NATO War Machine, Western govts, and the media go be so bat shit crazy as they are. I know I never did. Look at these men in dresses we have on our side. And the stupendous lies. The Russians are probably flabbergasted.
Chutzpah is a powerful weapon.