~
Remember at the start how Russia went deep within Ukraine, all the way up to Kiev in fact, 'uncontested'. They went in that deep without anywhere near the force structure to actually fight and hold. Ukraine/NATO was actually prepped and capable of fighting since they planned to 'do' the break-away provinces and had been setting up for it for years. The reason they did nothing was that it was a trap. Russia was, as I predicted at the time, to smart to fall for it.
I suspect that the Kursk thing is also a trap. Over and over since the SMO Ukraine has mostly been fighting a 'social media' war since they are increasingly unable to accomplish anything of substance on the battlefield. For several reasons they will jump at anything where they can achieve enough of a PR victory to impress the retard classes they will go all in even knowing that total failure and huge losses are the inevitable outcome. Krinky was a good example. The losses can get and do get effectively papered over with Western mainstream media PR.
I think that Russia sees this 'UA/NATO-can-be-baited' phenomenon fairly clearly and sets Ukraine up with fake 'wins' just to bait them in. Since an increasing fraction of the UA conscripts are just waiting for their chance to surrender to the Russians, the Kursk operation would necessarily require participation of the more solid and motivated troops and they are becoming increasingly rare. Would Russia accept the plunder of the Kursk region just for the opportunity to entrap the remaining solid troops? I don't know. It would be a very shrewd and effective move if they made that decision. For my part I'll wait and see, but will be evaluating to support of detract from this hypothesis.
Again, as I have hypothesized here countless times, the loss of territory and Slavic population stock from the Ukraine region is not a bug for the Zelenski and the people running him; it's a feature. Very possibly the deal for what Russia would get out of their efforts and playing their part was planned and agreed upon ahead of time, and they probably got a pretty good deal.
Remember at the start how Russia went deep within Ukraine, all the way up to Kiev in fact, 'uncontested'. They went in that deep without anywhere near the force structure to actually fight and hold. Ukraine/NATO was actually prepped and capable of fighting since they planned to 'do' the break-away provinces and had been setting up for it for years. The reason they did nothing was that it was a trap. Russia was, as I predicted at the time, to smart to fall for it.
I suspect that the Kursk thing is also a trap. Over and over since the SMO Ukraine has mostly been fighting a 'social media' war since they are increasingly unable to accomplish anything of substance on the battlefield. For several reasons they will jump at anything where they can achieve enough of a PR victory to impress the retard classes they will go all in even knowing that total failure and huge losses are the inevitable outcome. Krinky was a good example. The losses can get and do get effectively papered over with Western mainstream media PR.
I think that Russia sees this 'UA/NATO-can-be-baited' phenomenon fairly clearly and sets Ukraine up with fake 'wins' just to bait them in. Since an increasing fraction of the UA conscripts are just waiting for their chance to surrender to the Russians, the Kursk operation would necessarily require participation of the more solid and motivated troops and they are becoming increasingly rare. Would Russia accept the plunder of the Kursk region just for the opportunity to entrap the remaining solid troops? I don't know. It would be a very shrewd and effective move if they made that decision. For my part I'll wait and see, but will be evaluating to support of detract from this hypothesis.
Again, as I have hypothesized here countless times, the loss of territory and Slavic population stock from the Ukraine region is not a bug for the Zelenski and the people running him; it's a feature. Very possibly the deal for what Russia would get out of their efforts and playing their part was planned and agreed upon ahead of time, and they probably got a pretty good deal.
Theories apart, you cannot win to a big Soviet army with a smaller Soviet army playing the Soviet style of war. You need to use what makes you different from your enemy, namely more speed, better intelligence and make the war as asymmetric as possible. That is the Kursk offensive. Regardeless of Ukraine holding the whole territory or not, they are certainly holding the PoW and certainly creating a reputational problem for Putin and the Ruzzian army.
If you think of it, Ruzzia wants territory XYZ in Ukraine, their troops are there, their allocation of air power is there and the trench system is massively overconstructed in the east and the South. Now, why would it be better to have a chunk of Donbas or a chunk or Kursk and Belgorod?
It is practically the same, if you ask me probably Kursk is less destroyed. So, why not? Just capture as much Kursk as you can and later you can choose to trade it... or not.
We understand. An easier way to say it is, Ukraine is desperate. Russia isn't looking for more territory. If they were, they would simply take it. But Ukraine is making that option more attractive to Russia day by day.
