The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Vivendi]

Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND, has intercepted radio transmissions from Russian military officers in which the killing of civilians in Bucha, was discussed.

Germany's weekly news magazine Der Spiegel revealed the intercepts suggest that these were neither random acts nor the actions of individual soldiers who got out of hand.

According to Der Spiegel, the BND showed the killings were discussed as if it was normal procedure, possibly to fear and terror among the civilian population.

It seems the Russian paramilitary group, Wagner, was also involved in the killings.

Ukraine says Russia attempting to obstruct war crimes probe — live updates | News | DW | 07.04.2022

 

[Vivendi]

Why sad ?

Ukraine: India condemns Bucha killings, backs probe - Times of India

India had earlier abstained from a vote on a resolution in the UN Human Rights Council seeking a commission of inquiry to look into violations committed during Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. China did not condemn the killings even as it described Bucha images as very disturbing.

m.timesofindia.com

Indian media condem the killing, however also stop put the blame on Russia. They emphasises on getting the truth by getting Independent Investigation. And India emphasises on Independent. It is different with Most Western mainstream media that already jumping the wagon on Ukraine accusation as wholle from begining.

That's independent position that India put. A possition that come from guys that sitting in the fence try to see both sides. Something that is not the possition of Both West and Russian mainstream media. Western mainstream media taking position on jumping with Ukraine band wagon from begining. Thus it is not an Independent possition, and already playing on the circle or propaganda and counter propaganda. In that situation, they are not much different in principe as Russian Mainstream media.

That's what I'm saying from begining of this war, and something you seems don't understand. Both have heavy bias. You may call outright lies to Russian maimstream media, but western mainstream media can not also be call as independent reliable sources of Information on this war. Thus for guys that want to see both sides angles just like my self, have to be carefull to see both media. Luckily there are others more independent media that I can look asside from both sides mainstream media.

However fell free to trust western mainstream media on this war. It's your choice.

Bias is one thing, outright lies is something else. I find it very odd that you you seem to neglect that difference. Indian media are also biased, in particular since India needs to retain a good relationship with Russia, their main source of weapons deliveries. However unlike Russian media, there are much less outright lies about this in Indian media, just bias.

You also did not comment on Al Jazeera, which I pointed out can hardly be seen as part of "Western media". It has it's own bias, still, the agreement in reporting between Al Jazeera and "Western media" is much bigger than the disagreements. Both are biased but often in different directions.

"Western media" reporting on potential war crimes committed by Ukrainian soldiers: Ukraine To Investigate Reports Of War Crimes Against Russian Troops (rferl.org)

 

[Ananda]

I find it very odd that you you seem to neglect that difference.

This is already getting into rabbit hole. No I understand perfectly what's the difference between lies and bias. That's why I can't take Both of them as reliable sources right away. Both of them for me has to be taken by grain of salt as big of sea of azov it self.

Seems you can't accept not all people in this world will take Western mainstream media as reliable sources, especially in this war. I already put many times, for me the moment I see Western 'mainstream' media taking Ukranian sources as gold standard, it makes me see them for this war not much different then Russian ones.

Yes some of them then retract (slightly) when later some of Ukranian claim turn out being confront with different reality in the ground (and don't bother to ask me for example because it's already many of that). However again and again they will keep Ukranian sources as gold and jumping to the Ukranian information war band wagon. I don't blame them as it is part of their bias in this war. Western mainstream media is just more 'smooth' in covering "bias" then Russian media or those whose more or less more sympathetic to Russia.

So, if you want to believe more with Western media that's your choice. I stay with my choice to keep information from both sides again as grain of salt as big of sea of azov it self. Especially in this war that full of propaganda on both side. The truth from both sides in time will be shown. I just wait until which claims shown more to reality in the ground later on.

 

[kefalo84]

Hello,

I hope I’m not breaking any rules or offending anybody.

I was wondering if anybody could give a tactical breakdown of what the next goals would be for the Russians? Which cities should they need to take, and what would they need to accomplish. I’ve been hearing reports of a massive Ukrainian army in danger of being encircled. This was before Kyiv, however.

Also. If you’re a Ukrainian general, how would or what would be the best way to ensure the Russians don’t accomplish their goals?

I’m looking for a military answer, please leave politics out of it.

Thank you!

 

[koxinga]

Bias is one thing, outright lies is something else.

@Vivendi What Ananda is saying is what you describe as "outright lies", he does not trust or believe that to be entirely true. And the reason is because he does not fully trust Western media.

@Ananda, we cannot operate in a environment where you distrust everything, or worse, take this assumption that all of white people's media (Russian or Ukrainian, UK, or US) are just exist to serve their agenda. There is a bit of post colonial fear here over these orang putih media. If you don't believe in anything source, then what do you believe in?

The fact that there are retractions in Western media shows that there is an acknowlegement of mistakes being made. Do you see the same in media sources from other sources? (ie. Russian?) So how can you penalise western media but give a pass to Russian or India or Gulf media? So if there are retractions, therefore we cannot trust them, it would up as a circular argument that nothing can be trusted.

There should be enough data to determine whether it is an outright lie, embelishment, regardless of the source of media. So far, the data (i.e., satellite imagery) is fairly consistent with the ground truth.

 

[Ananda]

There is a bit of post colonial fear here over these orang putih media. If you don't believe in anything source, then what do you believe in?

Let me put this on perspective. As Financial Market professional, I trust the "white people" media as you call it, regarding finance and market related. However not on their infomation in this war right away. In fact on their information on matter of politics perceptions. If pure matter of market, then I trust more on Western media. Western Market analysts assesment actually are more or less neutral. So this is not anything related to collonial fear.

you see the same in media sources from other sources? (ie. Russian?) So how can you penalise western media but give a pass to Russian or India or Gulf media?

Yes I do. It is our job in the trade to see all information from all angles and sides. Again read my post, on the matter of this war I'm penalising information on both sides as grain of salt. I take both side information to asses potential political disruption to the market, however I don't take both side information right away as what actually happen in the ground. I take both sides information as 'early sign' on what each sides political tendencies will be. No more no less.

So again, that's my choice to read both side information. I can tell you a lot of us in this profession on all sides (even Western ones) are doing like this personally. Blame it to our trade, quite significant of us in the market simply quite realistics but sceptical and cynics when looking to anything related to Politics (from all sides). Basically in reporting this war, the mainstream media from all sides already playing politics.

In the end the truth (whatever it is) will come out.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

@Vivendi What Ananda is saying is what you describe as "outright lies", he does not trust or believe that to be entirely true. And the reason is because he does not fully trust Western media.

@Ananda, we cannot operate in a environment where you distrust everything, or worse, take this assumption that all of white people's media (Russian or Ukrainian, UK, or US) are just exist to serve their agenda. There is a bit of post colonial fear here over these orang putih media. If you don't believe in anything source, then what do you believe in?

The fact that there are retractions in Western media shows that there is an acknowlegement of mistakes being made. Do you see the same in media sources from other sources? (ie. Russian?) So how can you penalise western media but give a pass to Russian or India or Gulf media? So if there are retractions, therefore we cannot trust them, it would up as a circular argument that nothing can be trusted.

There should be enough data to determine whether it is an outright lie, embelishment, regardless of the source of media. So far, the data (i.e., satellite imagery) is fairly consistent with the ground truth.

Regardless the country of origin of the news source, you have always keep in mind that it can be not true or partly true, someone can make mistakes on purpose or accidently.

As long as news is written by humans, there is always a chance that the article is not written in a neutral/objective way, or using double standards. Specially in this war it is very obvious.

The biggest problem for the Russians is that they are very bad in lying. They really have to improve their PR-skills, that's something Putin could learn from Zelensky.

 

[koxinga]

Let me put this on perspective. As Financial Market professional, I trust the "white people" media as you call it, regarding finance and market related. However not on their infomation in this war right away. In fact on their information on matter of politics perceptions. If pure matter of market, then I trust more on Western media. Western Market analysts assesment actually are more or less neutral. So this is not anything related to collonial fear.



Yes I do. It is our job in the trade to see all information from all angles and sides. Again read my post, on the matter of this war I'm penalising information on both sides as grain of salt. I take both side information to asses potential political disruption to the market, however I don't take both side information right away as what actually happen in the ground. I take both sides information as 'early sign' on what each sides political tendencies will be. No more no less.

So again, that's my choice to read both side information. I can tell you a lot of us in this profession on all sides (even Western ones) are doing like this personally. Blame it to our trade, quite significant of us in the market simply quite realistics but sceptical and cynics when looking to anything related to Politics (from all sides). Basically in reporting this war, the mainstream media from all sides already playing politics.

In the end the truth (whatever it is) will come out.

We are not questioning your decision to read and listen to both side of the medias.

But AFTER reading both sides of the media and considering all the "facts", "biases" what is YOUR conclusion on specific topics or questions?

Honestly I question your integrity because because you are consistently dodging direct questions by refusing to offer a conclusion citing the need to consider both sides because it is your professional habit.

And please, stop emphasising that you are big financial professional. Nobody cares and it is embarrassing that you feel a need to highlight this multiple times to make you sound credible or justify why you post the way you do.

You are not the only one with a fancy professional job. I've served in a uniform but my career now is a mgmt consultant, with a MBA advising foreign governments and companies for a decade. Does it matter? Nope. Never felt the need to talk about how it influence my posts until now. Lol.

Ok hope I don't get a ban here.

 

[Ananda]

Honestly I question your integrity because because you are consistently dodging direct questions by refusing to offer a conclusion citing the need to consider both sides because it is your professional habit.

Are you trying to get personal with me ? Fine have it your way. You question my integrities ? Do you know me ? I'm not dodging direct questions. You seems does not like with people that want to see both side information, and decided that both side information is questionable. Why I'm dodging the question ? I already answered it so many times. I'm questioning the integrities of both side information, on this war. You don't like that, that's your choice.

please, stop emphasising that you are big financial professional. Nobody cares and it is embarrassing that you feel a need to highlight this multiple times to make you sound credible or justify why you post the way you do.

Excuse me if you don't like it. I'm just emphasises that many in my trade share my believe on looking on the information, and why. Don't have anything in my mind try to get credibilities.

are not the only one with a fancy professional job. I've served in a uniform but my career now is a mgmt consultant, with a MBA advising foreign governments and companies for a decade. Does it matter? Nope. Never felt the need to talk about how it influence my posts until now

Well I also don't care what is your job. I put my background to shown why my thinking coming from. Just to shown why many people my trade are more cynicals to any political motives news. Definetely not for getting recognition especialy from you. You don't like the way I put my post, well its your choice. Why do i care ?

Again, I never dodge any direct questions, and I already speaking time from time why I taking the news on this war from both sides, as a grain of salt of sea of azov. Clearly you seems kind of guy that have quick judgemental, and I wonder to my self why I bother to answer you.

 

[pussertas]

Well done Ananda

 

[QEDdeq]

Hello,

I hope I’m not breaking any rules or offending anybody.

I was wondering if anybody could give a tactical breakdown of what the next goals would be for the Russians? Which cities should they need to take, and what would they need to accomplish. I’ve been hearing reports of a massive Ukrainian army in danger of being encircled. This was before Kyiv, however.

Also. If you’re a Ukrainian general, how would or what would be the best way to ensure the Russians don’t accomplish their goals?

I’m looking for a military answer, please leave politics out of it.

Thank you!

Here is my take on the objectives:

First they would probably look to secure their flank, in the direction of Kharkov Russians could do with taking Chuguev. However I don't know if they have enough resources for a secondary offensive toward that direction. In any case the Kharkov section was a massive failure for the Russian army in my view, they needed to secure and hold both Chuguev to the South and Akhtyrka to the North in order to keep the entire Kharkov sector in check.

Then the Northern pincer, from Izyum and Balakleya will probably split in two, one push South towards Slaviansk - this is meant to start putting pressure on the city, and a heavier push West towards Lozovaya (or Lozova in Ukrainian) and then South towards Pavlograd and the E50 road.

The Southern pincer will head North on one or multiple axis of advance. As far as I've seen so far the Russians prefer to advance on multiple axis at once, probably to try and test the various options before readjusting. But it also means diluting their forcesin various directions. I guess it depends how many units they will commit. But an obvious move is to head North from the area of Huliaipole towards Pavlograd, while secondary attacks would probably head towards Zaporozhya and towards Pokrovsk.

The Ukrainians will probably try to counter-attack from the general directions of Kharkov and Dnipro at the moment when Russians will be overextended or when they have intel of weak sectors in the Russian line.

Regarding tactics, I think Ukraine will employ the same tactics they used until now:

• defend inside urban areas and use terrain elsewhere to set-up ambushes in order to maximize the Russian losses
• look for efficient high impact strikes, where they coordinate an ambush in such a way that an entire column is blocked because the front and end vehicles get destroyed - follow-up with artillery and drone attacks when the column gets stuck.
• mount fast moving counter-strikes using jeeps and shock units (as they did previously in Kharkov and Kiev regions), use side roads to move on enemy supply points and artillery positions, move back fast in friendly territory. Having good intel about these week positions as well as the ways to reach them without bumping into strong Russian formations is crucial.
• mount some larger counterattacks on the flanks of the Russian advance using tanks and vehicles provided by NATO countries as well as reserves they might still have available in order to diverge Russian forces from their main attack areas.
• use suicide drones to strike high value targets, the command chain, communications, airfields, etc

The additional challenges they will face compared to phase 1 of the war in the Northern regions:

• The Russian supply lines might be somewhat safer in this theater while Ukrainian supply lines are longer and more exposed than in Kiev region.
• Russian may have more informants and levels of support among (parts of) the local population.
• Russian air and artillery numbers and attacks will likely be very high.
• Fuel is probably already a major issue for the Ukrainians with so many fuel depots and refineries destroyed by the Russians in recent weeks.
• Russians will have more numbers in this region and they will be more capable to secure the rear and flank areas

What Russians are expected to improve compared to their performance in the Northern regions:

• Dismount their infantry and scout on foot small villages and urban areas before moving armored units in.
• Swipe the forests left and right of the roads they move on, with infantry on foot. Secure and occupy small settlements, even those not located along the main roads.
• Limit to the maximum all operations outside anti-drone cover or else they will bleed a lot from those Switchblades
• Hit Ukrainian supply lines, rail, roads, bridges.
• Limit operations only to areas where proper coverage of the flanks, air and tactical coordination can be ensured. No ninja attack in all directions stuff as in February.

The additional challenges Russians are expected to face:

• the units they will bring from Mariupol will need rest and refit, similar with some units that will come from Belarus and Chernigov sector.
• the LNDR forces seem tight on manpower, I've seen recently photos where they use teenagers for artillery work.
• some units have low morale and they might still be in the mentality of sitting inside truck while moving all the way from A to B.
• weapon supplies from the West, in particular suicide drones can be a game-changer.

 

[OPSSG]

Ok hope I don't get a ban here.

Don’t worry, there is no intention to ban you; but kindly play the ball, not the man. Be critical of the arguments made, but avoid personal attacks, please.

 

[Vivendi]

I was wondering if anybody could give a tactical breakdown of what the next goals would be for the Russians? Which cities should they need to take, and what would they need to accomplish. I’ve been hearing reports of a massive Ukrainian army in danger of being encircled. This was before Kyiv, however.

Also. If you’re a Ukrainian general, how would or what would be the best way to ensure the Russians don’t accomplish their goals?

I’m looking for a military answer, please leave politics out of it.

Thank you!

This does not quite answer your questions but perhaps this it's still of interest (?): Wargaming a Long War: Ukraine Fights On - Modern War Institute (usma.edu)

This was published on April 4, so the wargame was conducted some time before that, don't know exactly when.

These people did a wargaming before the war started, which mapped very well with what actually happened in the early phase of the war: The Wargame Before the War: Russia Attacks Ukraine - War on the Rocks

 

[STURM]

Something to ponder on. We know that Russia did not expect the Ukrainians to put up such stiff and determined resistance; this explains why units went in unprepared [many buoys were under the impression.they would. be welcomed and where only told they were going in 48 hours prior]; why Russia limited the number of targets it hit, etc but now that things are obviously going ratshit why aren't the Russians deploying some of the capabilities they have but so appeared to have held back?

Repositioning of Russian Forces in Ukraine Creates Nightmare Scenario for Romania | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Russia’s repositioning to Ukraine’s south and east worries NATO Black Sea ally Romania, where U.S. F-16s are conducting NATO enhanced air policing.

www.airforcemag.com

The official observed that Russia has not closed Ukrainian skies or used its array of electronic warfare capabilities.

“You have a big question mark, where’s the rest?” the official posed.

The official suggested the possibility that Russia is keeping some of its most sophisticated capabilities “in reserve for a different purpose, for a different project, for a different operation that is supposed to come afterwards.”

A question we should also ask and one that's still too early days to be answered is how differently.the Russian military would have done things if the political lleadership.had not rmade the blunder of assuming that the Ukraniain military would fall apart?

 

[John Fedup]

Had the political leadership not made the assumption about Ukrainian resolve perhaps the Russian military would have provided a detailed plan that would have shown what was necessary and the likely costs that could have resulted in Putin deciding the invasion wasn’t worth the effort and cost. I guess the other consideration is how realistic was the military leadership’s assessment of logistics and readiness of its forces.

 

[Exonian]

Putin has to find some kind of 'victory', and complete control of the Donbas might be enough for him to sell to his support back home.

If the Russians do manage to entrench themselves across the Donbas they will be much harder to dislodge as Ukraine would not have the firepower (or be willing to destroy cities) to get them out.

The West has now become so heavily invested in the conflict, politically, financially, militarily, and emotionally (more so after Bucha), that I don't see how Western involvement can be scaled back but is rather likely to be escalated.
Sadly I feel it will be the side that starts to run out of competent infantry that will be keenest to negotiate.

 

[Borealis]

Putin has to find some kind of 'victory', and complete control of the Donbas might be enough for him to sell to his support back home.

If the Russians do manage to entrench themselves across the Donbas they will be much harder to dislodge as Ukraine would not have the firepower (or be willing to destroy cities) to get them out.

The West has now become so heavily invested in the conflict, politically, financially, militarily, and emotionally (more so after Bucha), that I don't see how Western involvement can be scaled back but is rather likely to be escalated.
Sadly I feel it will be the side that starts to run out of competent infantry that will be keenest to negotiate.

What I find most fascinating is people on this forum, news media, and quite frankly all over the internet have not paid any attention to what Putin and Russian military has said from the very start.

Practically everything we have been hearing in the western media is their own narrative, and primarily American narrative as to what Russia is doing. This is a narrative that was spun from the very beginning to create a picture of what Russia's goal is, while COMPELTELY ignoring what Lavrov, Putin, and the military has been saying from the onset.
If Western narrative is to be believed then they can paint what a loss or win is, essentially ignoring what Russia's main goals are.

1. American/British media created the narrative of a quick victory and 2 week time window to overtake all objectives. No such information was being distributed by the Russians.
2. American/British media spun the Overtake of Ukraine from the very beginning, no such plan was ever devised.
3. American/British media spun majority of the BS we have been hearing up until this point on a Macro level, and most of is what's making people base their opinion on the operation.
4. The media has painted this as a War, an all out war, but if we look at the numbers the Russians only contributed a small number of soldiers and armor to the operation. The media is falsely painting this conflict as Russia throwing everything it has at Ukraine when we know that is false. As it stands the Ukrainian Military outnumber Russian soldiers 4 to 1 if we go by the 250k active soldier count on the Ukrainian side in the region before the conflict started (could be more)
5. The Denazification campaign was largely painted as the CORE reason the Russians went it, when it clearly wasnt. While we know not all Ukranian elementals are part of the Azov battalion, there are many that are and that should be what reporting should have focused on. Elimination of the said battalion and their commanders is one of Russia's goals but not the reason they went in as many make it out to be.
6. In general the West sees Russia's objectives through the Soviet lens, and doesnt take Russias concerns into account before this whole thing started. West argues that Russia is aggressive while completely ignoring its own actions that began with the Georgia Conflict.

 

[T.C.P]

1. American/British media created the narrative of a quick victory and 2 week time window to overtake all objectives. No such information was being distributed by the Russians.

To be fair to the West, Russia's pathetic supply chain and logstics in the field showed they did not really prepare for a long intervention. While 'take Kyev' in 3 days was certainly Western porpaganda, but all things indicate that Russia did not really look beyond 2-3 weeks for the whole operation.

And Russia's goals were always vague, if they had just wanted to secure DNR/LNR territories and a land bridge to Crimea, then their first month of operations do not make sense. The amount of lives and equipment they lost in their poor attempt to encircle Kyev was terrible planning.

 

[cdxbow]

What I find most fascinating is people on this forum, news media, and quite frankly all over the internet have not paid any attention to what Putin and Russian military has said from the very start.

Practically everything we have been hearing in the western media is their own narrative, and primarily American narrative as to what Russia is doing. This is a narrative that was spun from the very beginning to create a picture of what Russia's goal is, while COMPELTELY ignoring what Lavrov, Putin, and the military has been saying from the onset.
If Western narrative is to be believed then they can paint what a loss or win is, essentially ignoring what Russia's main goals are.

1. American/British media created the narrative of a quick victory and 2 week time window to overtake all objectives. No such information was being distributed by the Russians.
2. American/British media spun the Overtake of Ukraine from the very beginning, no such plan was ever devised.
3. American/British media spun majority of the BS we have been hearing up until this point on a Macro level, and most of is what's making people base their opinion on the operation.
4. The media has painted this as a War, an all out war, but if we look at the numbers the Russians only contributed a small number of soldiers and armor to the operation. The media is falsely painting this conflict as Russia throwing everything it has at Ukraine when we know that is false. As it stands the Ukrainian Military outnumber Russian soldiers 4 to 1 if we go by the 250k active soldier count on the Ukrainian side in the region before the conflict started (could be more)
5. The Denazification campaign was largely painted as the CORE reason the Russians went it, when it clearly wasnt. While we know not all Ukranian elementals are part of the Azov battalion, there are many that are and that should be what reporting should have focused on. Elimination of the said battalion and their commanders is one of Russia's goals but not the reason they went in as many make it out to be.
6. In general the West sees Russia's objectives through the Soviet lens, and doesnt take Russias concerns into account before this whole thing started. West argues that Russia is aggressive while completely ignoring its own actions that began with the Georgia Conflict.

No, the media have not painted anything. It is a war. Full stop. Don't lie.
The only painting is by Mr Putin, and it's in Ukrainian blood.

 

[vonnoobie]

What I find most fascinating is people on this forum, news media, and quite frankly all over the internet have not paid any attention to what Putin and Russian military has said from the very start.

Practically everything we have been hearing in the western media is their own narrative, and primarily American narrative as to what Russia is doing. This is a narrative that was spun from the very beginning to create a picture of what Russia's goal is, while COMPELTELY ignoring what Lavrov, Putin, and the military has been saying from the onset.
If Western narrative is to be believed then they can paint what a loss or win is, essentially ignoring what Russia's main goals are.

1. American/British media created the narrative of a quick victory and 2 week time window to overtake all objectives. No such information was being distributed by the Russians.
2. American/British media spun the Overtake of Ukraine from the very beginning, no such plan was ever devised.
3. American/British media spun majority of the BS we have been hearing up until this point on a Macro level, and most of is what's making people base their opinion on the operation.
4. The media has painted this as a War, an all out war, but if we look at the numbers the Russians only contributed a small number of soldiers and armor to the operation. The media is falsely painting this conflict as Russia throwing everything it has at Ukraine when we know that is false. As it stands the Ukrainian Military outnumber Russian soldiers 4 to 1 if we go by the 250k active soldier count on the Ukrainian side in the region before the conflict started (could be more)
5. The Denazification campaign was largely painted as the CORE reason the Russians went it, when it clearly wasnt. While we know not all Ukranian elementals are part of the Azov battalion, there are many that are and that should be what reporting should have focused on. Elimination of the said battalion and their commanders is one of Russia's goals but not the reason they went in as many make it out to be.
6. In general the West sees Russia's objectives through the Soviet lens, and doesnt take Russias concerns into account before this whole thing started. West argues that Russia is aggressive while completely ignoring its own actions that began with the Georgia Conflict.

1. Based of intel and various expert opinion that 2 week time line was surmised, The Journo's didnt just pick a number out of a hat and every single one of them agree to use that same figure. As for the comment about the Russians well of course they wouldnt state how long they plan the operation to go for, Just a red light to the Ukranians "We almost got them, Hold a little more and we win brothers!"

2. There where several things put forward in the beginning and still today because quite simple Russia has gone in with no clear plan, By the time this war is over Russia will be out of letters to use to make up new plans. If the plan was to liberate LNR/DNR territories why push on Kiev? let alone all the other pushes. So trying to throw mud at the media when Russian command has no better understanding of the plan them selves.. Well do I really have to say anything?

3. And what BS is that. They are speculating and reporting what information comes in. So far Russia has given very little on what their goals are except to Denazify Ukraine and free LNR/DNR but between the actions and plans have been stumbling. They arent making up fake news, They are reporting on what they can see, Yes at times they report false news but they retract that for most of them in the west when they find out it was false.. So what BS?

4. Your numbers are way off considering Russia has commited 175,000 - 190,000 troops to it not counting I imagine the various RuAF units based within their borders running sorties into Ukraine while Ukraine for its ground and air mobile forces had circa 250,000

5. Ok so if that isnt the reason they went in then here is an idea tell us in clear words in your opinion what is the reason Russia launched an invasion of a sovereign nation?

6. And what actions did the West take in Georgia?