Comments by "Freedom Crusader" (@freedomfighter22222) on "Why did experts fail to predict Russia's invasion of Ukraine?" video.

Because at the start they were still in denial and didn't think Russia could actually be that bad, after 2.5y most of them(except Mearsheimer) has gotten out of that denial, It also helps that a year ago Russia had just over 1m soldiers in the military, since then it has recruited 30k a month with the intention to grow their forces, latest estimates of their forces is about the same as a year ago. It would take a university degree in denial to keep saying that they think Russia only loses a couple thousand men a month. Bad analysts base everything on math, in the average war claimed enemy casualties is commonly about 3 times higher than actual casualties, so that HAS to be the case with this war as well... of course, any real expert would know that just blanket applying average to everything is moronic, that average includes conflicts were the casualties was claimed as 10 times higher and ones that had to be revised up after the war as claims had been lower than actual casualties. Same with how long the war would last, the vast majority of wars end in a couple weeks or months, so of course the Ukraine war would never take more time than that. Those dumb math assumptions are made with no regard for the factors available, people were still saying the war would be over any day now a month into the war when it was clear it wasn't going to end anytime soon. Now analysts and experts have finally started realising that the numbers they said were the most likely casualties for the first 2 years doesn't match the war we are seeing, if Russia had only lost 20-50k men in the first year they wouldn't have had a problem holding Kharkiv or Kherson, they must have lost far more men for the situation to get as bad as it got. It isn't possible for Russia to have more men, more material, better material and take much lower casualties than Ukraine while also losing the entire Northern front as well as Kharkiv and Kherson, that brain tumor of an analysis doesn't make any sense.
4
As someone from Northern Europe(considered western in your terms I assume), you were paranoid, Russia is not going to start marching into central Europe, Europe has a far larger military and is not at all in any kind of risk from a conventional attack by Russia. Not at all surprised Russia attacked Ukraine and not at all surprised Russia is failing so disastrously, because it doesn't have a large enough army to conquer and occupy a country with the population and size of Ukraine, then some people are paranoid Russia is a threat to an area with 10 times the size, population and even larger difference in economy? europe has spent 5 times more on its military than Russia has for the past 30 years(AT THE LOWEST), it has never had less than 50% more men in the military either, most of that time the differences were even larger. Europe isn't and never was in danger after the fall of the Soviet Union, only countries outside the EU/NATO are.
3
It is not hindsight at all to say a military plan that relies on the enemy to "give up" as soon as you show at the border is retarded, that was the entirety of the Russian plan and the only backup plan(that they hadn't considered but are going for now) is the only thing they can do, shut their eyes, put their hands over the ears and hope Ukraine and/or the West just doesn't want to anymore after a while.
2
Ok, but I would hardly use Mearsheimer as an example of an expert :P The only thing Mearsheimer is good at is being an example of someone that is wrong. Edit: ok, my bad, I wrote that before the follow up section that said the same thing about him :D
2
It is nice to have some comic relief in hour long debates though.
2
Well, I for one can say I made an accurate prediction of the invasion :D
2
You didn't need to "think" they were going to prepare enough, they weren't and that was public information, they had assembled a force smaller than the Ukrainian army. Why would you think any military follows their own doctrine? Very few militaries come close to performing to the same level as their doctrine dictates, Russia isn't and clearly wasn't one of those. Russia was obviously not a professional military as stated by anyone that ever witnessed any of their exercises or paid any attention to any war they were in. Seriously, you can not see the Russian effort in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria or Donbas and say it was rational to believe the Russian army would be conducting war according to their books or in a professional manner. It has been widely public information that the Russian military still acts as a 20th century military with a bit of new paint, saying otherwise is clear denial on the subject. Russia was obviously going to lose, saying the rational thing to believe is that the invaded country wouldn't resist is just trying to sidestep the issue of having been wrong, you would also have predicted Germany would beat the soviets and continued years after the war to say that was the logical thing to believe.
1