You're being dishonest or you don't understand what you're reading.
"Russia will find them a determined, robust, and enduring army, whatever Putin chooses to do," said Glen Grant, a retired British Army artillery officer who served as an adviser to the Ukrainian military."
The Dutch were "robust and determined" in WW2 that doesn't mean anyone thought they would stop the Germans.
"There is little faith in the country that the president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and his administration, are as prepared, thoughtful, and robust as the army and population at large. Much will depend upon what sort of attack [Russian President Vladimir] Putin decides to follow. There is no appetite in the country for political surrender."
Yes, and the article said an all-out attack (Which Russia chose) would lead to a quick Russian victory.
There was "no appetite in the country for political surrender" in Holland during WW2. They did it it anyway because the appetite doesn't mean anything.
There were doubts about whether Ukraine could stop an invasion, not doubts that Ukraine would fight. Putin believed Ukraine would surrender, and he was disastrously wrong.
Yes, and the prevailing theory was that Ukraine would put up about as much of a fight as Georgia did in 2008. Putin was wrong. No one knew that before it happened.
You keep looking for the big-picture view to prove you were right all along. But most strategic geniuses on TV are airbags who only know a few general principles. If you stop getting lost in the geopolitical overview and start looking at facts on the ground, you'll see that the people who know Ukraine best have been right a lot more than they've been wrong.
Mark Milley was speaking for the US military which has the US intelligence system providing it information. While he may know as much as you claim to, he knows a lot.
And try to develop some intellectual humility. You're wedded to your own opinion, but if you open your eyes you'll see that there have been surprises all along.
LOL! I made a prediction based on the evidence I had and it turned out to be wrong. You claim you could see the future based on your extensive research that "Russia bad!" and think you're an expert. Everyone is wedded to their own opinion. That's why it's THEIR opinion. My opinion changes based on the facts. Your sticking with "RUSSA BAD!" and consuming nothing but western propaganda.
People dismissed Zelensky as a lightweight, but he's been fearless. People thought the Russian army would be overpowering, but it's been repeatedly exposed at every level. You have this preconceived notion that Ukraine can't learn to use advanced weapons effectively, but we keep seeing this not be true.
Zelensky is a comedian. People judged him based on his record. He has performed very well and no one saw it coming. His approval rating was in the toilet before the war.
Of course Ukraine can learn to use advanced weapons. But there's a big difference between an anti-air or anti-tank missile a child can learn to use in 10 minutes and weapon systems like F-16's and Abrams's tanks that take years for American crews to master. Ukraine doesn't have years. This war might be decided before Halloween. Ukrainians aren't going to learn to effectively use F-16's or Abrams tanks in a few months.
No one knows how this is going to end. Not you, not me, not anybody. We try to make the most informed possible judgment, but there are too many unknowns.
Which is why predictions are made based on what is known not simply "Russia bad! So I hope they lose!"
I know two things. First, Russia's hopes for a quick victory disappeared a year ago. Nothing it has done since has suggested it has the capability to deliver the knockout blow it once hoped for.
Russia showed up on parade expecting Ukraine not to fight. It failed. Then they regrouped and pulled back to a line they could defend and advance from and started the slow methodical attrition warfare they have always used. Russia isn't in any hurry. They can produce all of their own food and energy and ammunition. Everything else they can do without. Russians are good at suffering.
Second, the aid given by the U.S. and Western nations to Ukraine will make a huge difference to the outcome: how many more civilians die, whether abducted children get returned, how much of the country will be subject to pillage and looting, whether Ukraine's borders will be viable.
Ukraine's ability to resist is dependent wholly on their ability to provide warm bodies for the trenches. If they run out of bodies or lose the will to lose more bodies they lose. The amount of money and weapons they receive from countries that will not bleed with them means nothing if there aren't enough Ukrainians left to use them.
I've made my choice about what I want to happen, and you've made yours. The only thing I can't understand is how you can look yourself in the mirror.
I didn't want there to be a war.
I didn't want anyone to die.
I don't want Ukraine to be stuck under Russia's boot.
This is the difference between us. You think the world gives a sh*t what you want. I'm an adult so I understand that's not how the world works.
You are advocating for a policy which creates more death. I am advocating for a policy which would create less death.
I didn't start the war. I want it to end. You want it to continue and the idiots running NATO and the US agree with you so tens of thousands more will die and at the end of the day the outcome won't be much different than if Ukraine just rolled over in February of 2022.
