- Aug 6, 2012
- 28,182
- 24,975
- 2,405
An informative article if you are interested in such matters (and we all should be).
Of most interest to me has been the replacement of Ukraines top general. It is interesting for a number of reasons, first, Zelensky was horribly incorrect in believing that Russia would not attack, but his general was not.
Here is the section I find most important:
The war in Ukraine has led to more than its share of arguments. In the run-up, the U.S. spent months warning skeptical allies that an invasion was imminent. This argument was mirrored inside Ukraine: Zaluzhny became convinced that the Russians were coming, and spent the weeks before the war urging a mobilization; Zelensky remained uncertain, and resisted the advice, worried that it would panic the population and give Russia an excuse to invade. There was widespread consensus that, in the event of an invasion, Russia would quickly win. General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told congressional leaders in early February of 2022 that the Russian military might take Kyiv in as little as seventy-two hours.
When this did not happen, in part because Zaluzhny repositioned some of his forces without authorization and moved or camouflaged the country’s military hardware, a new round of arguments broke out. Was Russia a paper tiger, or did it simply fight in the stupidest possible way? Was China also overrated? Was the tank dead (again)?
This is all curious as one wonders why Zelensky would undermine his general, the man who was right and who betrayed his orders (thankfully) to NOT be prepared for Russia.
Would America had done this to Patton? Germany to Rommell? Britain to Montgomery?
The worst type of leadership is one who will NOT listen to those who are on the front lines. It may be inconvenient to hear the Ukraine requires 500,000 more soldiers, but he is speaking from his vantage point of trying to win.
Of most interest to me has been the replacement of Ukraines top general. It is interesting for a number of reasons, first, Zelensky was horribly incorrect in believing that Russia would not attack, but his general was not.
Here is the section I find most important:
The war in Ukraine has led to more than its share of arguments. In the run-up, the U.S. spent months warning skeptical allies that an invasion was imminent. This argument was mirrored inside Ukraine: Zaluzhny became convinced that the Russians were coming, and spent the weeks before the war urging a mobilization; Zelensky remained uncertain, and resisted the advice, worried that it would panic the population and give Russia an excuse to invade. There was widespread consensus that, in the event of an invasion, Russia would quickly win. General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told congressional leaders in early February of 2022 that the Russian military might take Kyiv in as little as seventy-two hours.
When this did not happen, in part because Zaluzhny repositioned some of his forces without authorization and moved or camouflaged the country’s military hardware, a new round of arguments broke out. Was Russia a paper tiger, or did it simply fight in the stupidest possible way? Was China also overrated? Was the tank dead (again)?
This is all curious as one wonders why Zelensky would undermine his general, the man who was right and who betrayed his orders (thankfully) to NOT be prepared for Russia.
Would America had done this to Patton? Germany to Rommell? Britain to Montgomery?
The worst type of leadership is one who will NOT listen to those who are on the front lines. It may be inconvenient to hear the Ukraine requires 500,000 more soldiers, but he is speaking from his vantage point of trying to win.
Can Ukraine Still Win?
As Congress continues to delay aid and Volodymyr Zelensky replaces his top commander, military experts debate the possible outcomes.
www.newyorker.com