I'm assuming that low morale within the Russian ranks, and possibly even a hesitancy at command levels, is playing a major factor.
Unlike in, say, Iraq, it doesn't seem like there was any major effort to psych up the troops to go do their illegal war. The result seems to be that, far from feeling urraaaaaah about it, they are more than happy to find any excuse not to fight.
(It is however increasingly a myth that all/most Russian troops are conscripts. They've had a hybrid conscript/contract structure for years now, and it's been revised significantly again within the last decade)
I'm not calling any victors at this point, though. It took the US three weeks to take Baghdad, after all. Some people have been eager to say that the failure to take Kyiv in five days means the war is lost, and I just don't think that's remotely true. Or that taking Kyiv means the situation necessarily changes dramatically, anyway.
On the operational level, though, some stuff just doesn't make sense from my Western eyes. The real lack of attempt to secure air superiority, for instance. I know Russia probably has a shortage of precision weapons and might be concerned about their ability to replace them. But this aspect still puzzles me. My best guess is either they were concerned they'd take excessive losses, or they just simply absolutely lack the thinking/capability. Integration between the forces certainly isn't up to US levels, but this seems like barely even trying.
It also seems likely that even if/when the conventional phase of this war is over, many Ukrainians are now fully invested in defending their country, and a long insurgency could most definitely follow. It's a big country, it's well armed (and only getting more so), and you need morale to police an insurgency as well.
|