Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Why Russia Miscalculated in Ukraine: A Self-Inflicted Disaster in Three Acts" video.

  1. You don't understand Putin's strategic position, what he started with, in 1998, and what he did to right the ship. Putin slashed the military, and set his country's accounts in order. The current build-up has been many years in the planning and execution. Yes, he's authoritarian, but he's developed his nation's natural resources and built a strong industrial base, while countries in the West have systematically gutted theirs. He built up a huge lead in conventional munitions, and he put together a well-trained, but small army. Not quite big enough to be taken seriously, but big enough to slurp up some territory at one gulp, dig in, and dare UFA to come get them. I think there were some tactical surprises and drone warfare changed mechanized armor tactics (and value, frankly). But I think Russia achieved pretty much what it wanted, and put the onus on Ukrainian to push them out. There was much loss of life in Bakhmut, but the sheer expenditure of artillery to flatten every square meter in front of them is far beyond the capacity of NATO, let alone Ukraine on NATO's leavings, to match. The plain fact all the neocons seem to overlook is that western stockpiles are low, and western coffers are bare. Their biggest expense is interest on their debts. U$A and Russia are two totally self-sufficient nations that should stand together and make an example of fairness and square dealing, because we don't have to treat anybody bad to get by just fine.
    4
  2. I don't think you understand the goals or the strategy to achieve them. To me, it looked like a feint at Kiev, in order to make maximum gains with a force no one thought was big enough to execute an attack and conquer virtually all of the Donbass. War on civilians in Donbass had been going on for years. Kiev agreed to stop the bombing and ethnic cleansing, and then broke its word. Gaining territory wasn't the goal. Meat grinder was the goal. Russia has a huge advantage in ammunition and manpower. For most of the operation, they have spent the former without restraint, and tried to protect manpower more than territory. For the bulk of the $MO, I think military casualties have been far higher on the Ukrainian side, and virtually all the civilian casualties have been on the Ukrainian side, because all of the fighting has been outside of Russia. Russia didn't have to or want to conquer all of Ukraine. It just wanted to sit on it and bleed its war-fighting capacity to reduce the threat to its home territory. The use of $tormshadow to bomb locations in Crimea and Moscow only convinces Putin he must push the neutral zone farther West. Those spite bombings of rear targets only help unite Russians behind Putin, giving him more political backing, including volunteers for the war effort. You'd think the West would want to give assurances to Russia that it's not starting up its centennial invasion of Mother Russia. It was war in the West that brought about the Bolshevik Revolution. A century before, Napoleon made his try for the Russian throne, and all HE got was scorched earth. Anyway, Western Europe is acting crazy again, so yeah, Russia wants a buffer state to its west. I can totally understand Russia's actions, and I think half of Putin's authoritarianism is due to his nation being on a war footing against a hostile and quite frankly, feckless and amoral West.
    3