Ukraine attack not working as planned - scenarios?

Things changed. The west was sharing intel with the press, so it was all out there what Russia was doing. We were showing that what they were doing in the south was definitely not a training exercise. But, by the time Moscow realized that what they were doing wasn’t working it was too late to really build up what they would have needed in Belarus, especially since it’s evident that Putin was on a timetable with all of this all along. So, they went with plan B, which probably always had some components from Belarus coming in from the north to surround or at least interdict parts of Kyiv. It was just never going to be the major force they had logistically planned for and prepared for in the south.

I was thinking of the generals attempting a military coup, backed by the oligarchs. I agree that the troops themselves would only be pawns as they are now.

I’m no expert in Russia, but I’m pretty sure you don’t fight for 50 years to be on the Russian general staff and take being publicly humiliated lightly.

I’m not seeing a scenario in which a Russia run by the military is a significantly better option in the longer term, although it may address the immediate issue with Ukraine.

Putin (to generals): What have you idiots been doing?!! Pacing yourselves?!!

Plus when has that worked in the past? Did the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam or Russia’s own experience defending against the Nazis or in Afghanistan suffer from a lack of bombs by the attackers?

Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq actually make the point. The US was very sensitive to casualties, especially civilian casualties. I know most on this board don’t think so, but the US tried (and often failed) to use a lighter touch in these conflicts. And, at least wrt Afghanistan, that was a pretty justified conflict. This isn’t. And I think Russia has tried to do things, thus far, with an eye towards mitigating how bad all of this looks like on the world stage. Both for external consumption but also for internal consumption. After all, it’s not like most Russians have some burning hatred of Ukraine and Ukrainians. If Russia, clearly the aggressor in all of this, comes down with a heavy hammer and civilians start dying in huge numbers, I think this thing could quickly spin out of control for Russia and Putin.

JMHO and all. It’s what seems to most fit the facts as I’m seeing them so far, FWIW.

Far enough. But I’m also thinking about the Siege of Stalingrad where the Nazis had no such reservations about minimizing casualties. That did not seem to deter the Soviets from defending it or their homeland.

If Putin’s goal is to reunite Ukraine with Russia to rebuild the Soviet Union, I don’t think he can do it by annihilating it.

Which he can’t anyway as a practical matter (at least not without nuclear bombs, which is it’s own thing) . It’s a country the size of Texas with 44 million people. Even Russia doesn’t have infinite bombs and rockets.

What if his goal is to reunite parts of Ukraine with Russia?

He did that a week ago with a pen stroke.

The world has changed quite a bit from the 40’s…or even the 70’s. Plus, the Soviet Union was basically fighting for its life. It was a world war, so neither Hitler, Stalin, nor even Roosevelt was particularly sensitive to bad press. This isn’t a world war, and today not only does news travel much, much faster and is much, much more pervasive, but the attitudes of people are a lot more sensitive to extreme casualties.

Certainly, that is part of it. He wants to take at least parts of Ukraine for Russia’s use later on, and he can’t get that by destroying large parts of it. Also, once he starts down that path, no one but perhaps some of the most dedicated ethnic Russians are going to be happy or willing to be under the Russian’s thumb. It will spark huge amounts of backblast if he, say, bombs the crap out of Kyiv and then sends in the troops to mop things up. That sort of thing will have civilian deaths in the thousands…10’s of thousands or even possibly 100’s of thousands. For a lot of reasons, I think Russia has not wanted to go there. They may have to, but I think thus far they have tried to do this both on a budget and with as little death and destruction as they can.

He certainly can’t if he starts killing Ukrainian civilians in large numbers.

Exactly.

One hopeful outcome of this war would be if we could all stop using events in WWII as an analogy for every military action occurring in the 21st Century. It’s dawned on me in the last week that hardly any of those analogies are helpful. There’s a lot of that on this board and I’m as guilty of it as anybody else.

In some ways things can be compared, and a lot of the cutting analogies are to underscore how Putin et al are acting or saying things a lot like Hitler and his merry men did in the invasion of Russia (for the irony factor if nothing else). But, yeah, things are a lot different today, or even between today and, say, the Second Gulf War or the US lead invasion of Afghanistan. And that world was a lot different than things were in the Vietnam era or Korea, or, as you pointed out WWII.

Let’s see, Chechnya Mk II, Sri Lanka, anti ISIL operations.
The question isn’t about dropping more or less hinge, it’s having a realistic strategy. Which the Americans and Soviet’s famously didn’t in the examples you shared

I only raise the possibility. A change of leadership would allow Russia a face-saving way out, by putting all the blame on Putin. In the longer-term, considerable turmoil would hamper the country until the new leadership solidified. But, and this is speculation, a military that drew back from Ukraine is not likely to undo that by military action elsewhere in the near future. What it means internally for Russia is a different issue.

If the Russian State news (accidental) premature release of the letter proclaiming the “victory” in Ukraine is to be believed, Putin isn’t content with bits and pieces of Ukraine.

The “solution to the Ukraine problem” requires the whole of Ukraine (and Belarus) returning to the fold. Kyiv is part of the “foundation” of Russia, and reuniting with Ukraine is supposed to mark Russia’s “return to it’s place in the world”.

Imagine that, at present, he’s content with just getting parts of it, but acts like he has designs on getting all of it right now — and that, since he’d be willing to get all of it, he rolls the dice with a longshot attack that could get all of it — but always while figuring on making a big show of ostensibly compromising for parts of it at the negotiating table.

What would that look like?

good points … I’ll add that he now has a brick-ton more of problems compared to a week ago (all those embargos, currency in free-fall, his friends hating him now, and making sure his tea is “kosher” ;-)) …

I am just wondering … if he and his army gets cought up there for a long time without any clear advances, burning through $$$ and resources like crazy, will we see other russian states trying to seize the day and pushing for independence … as the “firetruck is busy on the other side of town” … If I were a chechen or georgian big wig, I’d start running a few scenarios …

That sort of thing will have civilian deaths in the thousands…10’s of thousands or even possibly 100’s of thousands. For a lot of reasons, I think Russia has not wanted to go there.

I think if the russians go full-bore-apeshit-crazy we are now at a stage where the “civilized world” (whoever that will be) - will declare all of ukraine a no-fly zone and have the morale-high-ground to down everything that bombs/missiles civilians in Kiev. I’d not be surprised we will see patriot systems there in short order, if nothing else for “humanitarian reasons”.

I also think we are already half-way into a proxy war, where europe gladly send the Ukraine all it needs to stay afloat, just to show putin his limits and put him in his place … I can nearly hear the germans /dutch /polish reasoning … better to shoot our 1000s of stingers/javelins into russian warmachinery en kiev today rather than in berlin or warshaw in 2025.

and - that IMHO is a GOOD THING! … strong signals for warlords, indeed!

I’ve been thinking this morning that this is exactly the only thing that could prod NATO or the USA into direct military intervention - humanitarian grounds.

They’re not willing to risk nuclear war just for geopolitics; i.e., to let Ukraine win. But if the situation turns into thousands of innocent Ukrainians being massacred every day, the political climate will shift so heavily in favor of intervention that Biden and other NATO-ers will be willing to take the risk.

Hasn’t he purged or at least ‘de-toothed’ a lot of those who he perceived as threats? How much of a regime change is it if he’s replaced with someone who was loyal & like him?