A failed invasion by whos metrics? If Russia planned to have to play a long game and use up old obsolete equipment to get massive resources in the end, is it still a failure? Or is it just a failure because the Call of Duty generation thinks battles are over after 15 minutes or 30 kills, whichever comes first?
The only way we’d know for sure if it’s a failed invasion is if we have the Russian plans before us, look at what’s been done and what was planned and what happens and then we could know for sure. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
The only way we’d know for sure if it’s a failed invasion is if we have the Russian plans before us, look at what’s been done and what was planned and what happens and then we could know for sure.
I would say close but no cigar. The Belarusian president outlining plans isn’t the same as a Russian general or prime minister(I think? Could be wrong on that positions title but tomato tomahto). If we had a Russian general being recorded and someone leaked the phone footage showing a blitzkrieg style plan, with say a 5-7 day invasion planned goal, and we see them struggling 2 months later, that would be a failure. A president from an allied but different nation showing some plans isn’t the same. That’s like seeing Trudeau authorize more tyranny and yelling “Look what Biden is up to!”
I think you're kind of ignoring the fact that Belarus is actively involved in the invasion of Ukraine, and this map (released at the start of March) pretty much parallels exactly what the troop movements came to be throughout March, until Russia started retreating. In keeping with your Trudeau-Biden analogy, it's more like Trudeau and Biden authorizing the same tyranny for all of North America, then Trudeau saying the plan for authorization.
It would be a little weird for two nations in a joint-invasion of a country to have different invasion maps, especially where the public one matches what happened in the invasion.
You’re right I am ignoring that fact. It doesn’t seem relevant. They may have been given these orders to follow or a generalized plan of attack but any military worth its salt has already looked at their own defences and figured out where an enemy attack is most likely and expected and thus plans accordingly. These plans don’t show a timeline, they don’t show strategy and they don’t show the conditions of the war as the Russian see them. It’s just troop movements and strategic locations to attack. Not the timeline (2-6 weeks for this quadrant, 4 for this one etc), doesn’t show what conditions the Russians consider success and failure (we lost 30000 men and thousands of obselete equipment pieces but gained billions in resources, win achieved! Vs we didn’t get to quadrant 4 by October, we’re going to lose too much once the snow falls this has been a prolonged failure etc). Knowing some planned troop movements which honestly could be war gamed out in the space of a lazy afternoon isn’t showing your whole plan to the world.
What are the Russians conditions for victory? What are their conditions for defeat? What is their best case and worst case time lines? These plans don’t show any of that so I still stand with my point that this isn’t showing the Russians “evil plans” have failed dismally. They have been taking steps to keep infrastructure in place so they can use it after, obviously quick steamrolling destruction be damned was never the original goal from the opening salvo here.
A failed invasion by whos metrics? If Russia planned to have to play a long game and use up old obsolete equipment to get massive resources in the end, is it still a failure? Or is it just a failure because the Call of Duty generation thinks battles are over after 15 minutes or 30 kills, whichever comes first? The only way we’d know for sure if it’s a failed invasion is if we have the Russian plans before us, look at what’s been done and what was planned and what happens and then we could know for sure. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
You mean like these plans?
I would say close but no cigar. The Belarusian president outlining plans isn’t the same as a Russian general or prime minister(I think? Could be wrong on that positions title but tomato tomahto). If we had a Russian general being recorded and someone leaked the phone footage showing a blitzkrieg style plan, with say a 5-7 day invasion planned goal, and we see them struggling 2 months later, that would be a failure. A president from an allied but different nation showing some plans isn’t the same. That’s like seeing Trudeau authorize more tyranny and yelling “Look what Biden is up to!”
I think you're kind of ignoring the fact that Belarus is actively involved in the invasion of Ukraine, and this map (released at the start of March) pretty much parallels exactly what the troop movements came to be throughout March, until Russia started retreating. In keeping with your Trudeau-Biden analogy, it's more like Trudeau and Biden authorizing the same tyranny for all of North America, then Trudeau saying the plan for authorization.
It would be a little weird for two nations in a joint-invasion of a country to have different invasion maps, especially where the public one matches what happened in the invasion.
You’re right I am ignoring that fact. It doesn’t seem relevant. They may have been given these orders to follow or a generalized plan of attack but any military worth its salt has already looked at their own defences and figured out where an enemy attack is most likely and expected and thus plans accordingly. These plans don’t show a timeline, they don’t show strategy and they don’t show the conditions of the war as the Russian see them. It’s just troop movements and strategic locations to attack. Not the timeline (2-6 weeks for this quadrant, 4 for this one etc), doesn’t show what conditions the Russians consider success and failure (we lost 30000 men and thousands of obselete equipment pieces but gained billions in resources, win achieved! Vs we didn’t get to quadrant 4 by October, we’re going to lose too much once the snow falls this has been a prolonged failure etc). Knowing some planned troop movements which honestly could be war gamed out in the space of a lazy afternoon isn’t showing your whole plan to the world. What are the Russians conditions for victory? What are their conditions for defeat? What is their best case and worst case time lines? These plans don’t show any of that so I still stand with my point that this isn’t showing the Russians “evil plans” have failed dismally. They have been taking steps to keep infrastructure in place so they can use it after, obviously quick steamrolling destruction be damned was never the original goal from the opening salvo here.