ALAMO wrote: ATLASCUB wrote:Taking over Kiev has taken way too long.
People who don't know the history, will eventually learn it's results on own skin.
Kiev today is a 2.8 mln giant aglomeration, divided by the huge by any standards Dnepr, and tons of smaller rivers, canals, lakes etc.
What makes it a PERFECT match to the Berlin in 1945.
Size is about same 2.8 mln, the difference is that you can't match the Sprewa in Berlin, that runs in settled canals via the city, in opposite to Dnepr.
Been there, saw both.
The direct Berlin operation, took functionally 3 weeks, with use of 2.3 mln of the Soviet&Polish soldiers involved, resulting almost 100k dead&300k wounded.
How many Berlin population died, is actually unknow till now, but the numbers varies around 120-200k.
So you are saying that Russkies are too slow now, and should speed up, yeah? 
Well yeah that's what I'm saying with regards to Kiev.
First off, Kiev is not Berlin. The "Ukranians" are not the Germans and Ukraine as a country wasn't completely mobilized in war footing for over 4 years, taking up
total war posture like Germany did well in advance of any move on Berlin itself. The threat to Berlin also didn't come so quick and so close (a short trip from Belarus). That is to say, Russia had the benefit of surprise, an overwhelming force grouping compared to the defenders at the onset, on top of time.
Second, modern day combat is completely different than in the 1940's. Self-explanatory.
Third, it was clear that Russia tried to take Kiev early on with the skirmishes at night in the city but failed to turn any discernible high value target (or institution) of consequence to the regime and its working operation. Which obviously tells you #1: that taking Kiev early and soon was an objective. #2: the plan underestimated the level of resistance, or the required force multiplier that would've made the plan work and #3: that the consequences of such failed approach has the direct result of prolonging the Kiev takeover, and by extension the conflict itself....complicating the conflict resolution and political end-game.
Now you can be one of two people:
You can be the guy that takes the results as they are and say to yourself that everything that could be done was done, and that everything is perfectly falling to place according to the master plan (whatever that plan is in your own brain because you certainly can't see it for yourself).
Or
You can be the person that uses his own brain, sees the events as they've unfolded and make some obvious observations as to what probably went wrong, and then draw conclusions as to why it went wrong. And obviously make the counter arguments of what perhaps should have been done. That doesn't necessarily mean you have all the answers or the right answers. It does mean however you have a brain of your own, and you don't accept failure, and the excuses for such, an infinite number of which exist as vast as human creativity itself to come up with them.
The statement stands. Kiev should have fallen by now. Taking a capital city is #1 priority target for all invasions ever. Capitals stand as the source of political resistance and as the symbol of regime power. Conquering capitals and destroying chain of command and leadership has an immense value in the overall success of an operation, speeding up collapse, leaving areas of resistance elsewhere as their own living, uncoordinated reality bubbles.
City siege, as currently postured is as old as medieval times and before then... Romans being the most popularized practitioners... and we know how long that takes to work itself out. If you're planning on playing a long occupation game then sure... siege is fine. Something tells me however, that's not the Kremlin's intent, nor should it be for all the obvious reasons. The job of the enemy is to continue to resist to improve their negotiating terms, the job of Russia's rivals is to continue to pour wood to the fire, make it as costly as possible, complicating the political solution as much as possible and help the defenders in any way shape or form short of direct military war with Russia itself.
It's very simple and it's what is happening. Textbook.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
