> But instead they dropped paratroopers and sent tanks straight to the capital of a European country with 45 million people.
One has to wonder how much of that difference in "geopolitical expectation" vs "strategic reality" comes down to military decisions around geography?
Geopolitically it would make sense for Russia to only go into the separatist regions and reinforce them, after all that's been their publicly stated goal since the beginning, such a "short-range invasion" into territories who are already mostly pro-Russian would have been a rather quick and done deal.
But from a military strategic perspective these areas might not be very good defensive positions long term, especially when the prospect is anything that involves masses of NATO forces. While just bit further West the Dnieper presents a very convenient geographical barrier, with Kyiv sitting right in the middle of it.
One has to wonder how much of that difference in "geopolitical expectation" vs "strategic reality" comes down to military decisions around geography?
Geopolitically it would make sense for Russia to only go into the separatist regions and reinforce them, after all that's been their publicly stated goal since the beginning, such a "short-range invasion" into territories who are already mostly pro-Russian would have been a rather quick and done deal.
But from a military strategic perspective these areas might not be very good defensive positions long term, especially when the prospect is anything that involves masses of NATO forces. While just bit further West the Dnieper presents a very convenient geographical barrier, with Kyiv sitting right in the middle of it.