It’s not. I don’t even know where that idea came from.
Ehh, it’s floating around. I coulda sworn it’s been mentioned in this thread. I have seen it mentioned elsewhere on the board. I could quote it, but even that’s just really hearsay. Who knows what Russian doctrine is these days?
Yes, it probably was. I meant that I don’t know where the people suggesting that idea got it from. They were probably trying to think up some excuse for the Russians doing badly.
I agree. As far as theories about why they are doing so badly, it’s not that bad. In my mind, it’s slightly more plausible than the Russians being completely ineffective at logistics, slightly less plausible than corruption in their military and only yes-men in government being the explanation.
Or maybe the generals in charge of the “good” troops just said “nyet” (in so many words).
Elements of the large Russian column north of Kyiv have dispersed. This is likely to support a Russian attempt to encircle the city. It could also be an attempt by Russia to reduce its vulnerability to Ukrainian counter attacks, which have taken a significant toll on Russian forces.
I’d say the latter. The column was on the road, then for a week there was so much cloud cover that it wasn’t possible to see what they were doing. When the clouds lifted, the column had dispersed to the sides of the road. That seems only natural to avoid being sitting ducks, and to camp in the woods rather than sit for days in their vehicles
Hey, man, I don’t write the history books. Personally, I’m willing to use the Japan & China starting date but if you type “When did WWII start?” into a search engine September 1, 1939 is the usual result.
Put me down as thinking the Russo-Ukrainian war is going to eventually expand into WWIII but I really, really, really would be happy to be wrong on that.
I could agree with the above - that would be, to my mind, a European war even if nations from other places in the world got involved. But I don’t really get a say in what’s official or not.
Collateral has to be worth something. 
It’s been quite incredible how some of the largest online voices in alternative media who proclaim scepticism about US/western intelligence services are sharing Russian propaganda without holding it to the same level of scrutiny. Useful idiots indeed.
I can (just) imagine Putin giving Iran a nuclear weapon, but can in no way imagine Iran being stupid enough to use it on any US target. AFAIK, there is no love lost between Iran and Russia (other than an “enemy of my enemy” sort of way) - just as likely Iran would use it against Moscow.
Here’s an excellent and balanced article from the Kyiv Independent about the current situation in the Kyiv area.
It goes into detail and references reputable Western intelligence sources, such as the Institute for the Study of War in Washington and the British Defence Ministry, as well as other experts and think tanks, and of course Ukrainian sources.
This is the best article I’ve seen about the current situation.
There is no “official" definition of these things. There is only common use.
During the Cold War, it was assumed that any US / Soviet conflict would inevitably go nuclear and lead to the total destruction of everything.
As I wrote earlier, the two world wars so far have been “total wars” and a regional conflict between Nato and Russia which stays conventional just would not likely become a total war.
Of course, common sense and whatever headlines the cable news outlets push for increased views may not be the same.
I found this article to be interesting and I hope this person knows what they are talking about.
"I’ll stick my neck out and make several prognostications:
- Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. Russian planning was incompetent, based on a flawed assumption that Ukrainians were favorable to Russia and that their military would collapse immediately following an invasion. Russian soldiers were evidently carrying dress uniforms for their victory parade in Kyiv rather than extra ammo and rations. Putin at this point has committed the bulk of his entire military to this operation—there are no vast reserves of forces he can call up to add to the battle. Russian troops are stuck outside various Ukrainian cities where they face huge supply problems and constant Ukrainian attacks.
- The collapse of their position could be sudden and catastrophic, rather than happening slowly through a war of attrition. The army in the field will reach a point where it can neither be supplied nor withdrawn, and morale will vaporize. This is at least true in the north; the Russians are doing better in the south, but those positions would be hard to maintain if the north collapses."
More at the link.
At a guess, it is a relic of WWII and specifically the Russo-Finnish War of 1940. It is popularly ascribed that the Russians used ‘inexperienced’ troops for the initial attack on Finland, believing it to be a walkover, and it is a matter of historical record that the Finns repelled those attacks with heavy Russian losses, forcing the Soviets to bring in their ‘better’ troops to finally cause Finland to sue for peace.
About the only thing that is known is that Finland, like Ukraine, stoutly resisted the initial attacks but were finally overwhelmed…and later joined the Nazi’s (albeit at arm’s length) to try and grab back the territory Stalin had taken from them.
Wether or not history repeats itself (or at least the way we tell history repeats itself) is still to be determined.
I’ve seen this idea out there myself, and I think you’ve nailed the source exactly. I think we all got a bit of whiplash because of how quickly the Russian army went from “unstoppable behemoth” to “Keystone Kops with tanks”, and some of us are looking for some hidden reason to explain that sudden shift.
I think the obvious reason is the most likely: We were all wrong about Russia’s strength, including the Russians.
If someone gave Iran a few nukes, they would be ecstatic to have them, and not use them, because the threat alone gives Iran most of what it wants. You can bet your ass that Iran has spent years noticing that countries without nukes get treated like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Iran, while countries with nukes get treated like Pakistan.
And the treatment of North Korea pre- and post-nuke as well.
And now, Ukraine and Russia.
Having nukes changes everything, and Iran knows that to a certainty. Using nukes is what causes problems.
There’s a difference between using inexperienced troops because you’re cheap and think you can win an easy victory, and turning out to be wrong about that.
Most people I’ve seen postulating this theory seem to think it’s a grand strategy of some sort, and the Russians are just about to shout, “You fools! You fell for my ruse!” and deal a knock-out blow to Ukraine…somehow.
Shades of the collapse of the Berlin Wall. What was meant to be a minor change in travel requirements to ease traffic from east to west Germany by way of Czechoslovakia became a general easing and further, was implemented instantly by the guy announcing it only glancing at a note given him before the press conference he was giving.
Unfortunately, Francis Fukuyama is rather notorious for not usually knowing what he’s talking about. He’s one of those ivory-tower intellectuals who are very skilled at saying dumb things in a superficially smart way, which means he’s attracted a lay following while being marginalized in professional circles. Start with his much-derided early-90s book The End of History and work your way forward. In particular, in this essay, he seems to be relishing the opportunity to redeem his earlier thesis, long since dismissed.
Don’t get me wrong, I wish for his prophecy to hold up. I want the Russians humiliated, and I want the Ukrainians to mourn their losses and rebuild in freedom. I am simply rather skeptical and cynical about his self-serving rosy prediction.
Well shit.