Let’s say, after heavy resistance, Kyiv capitulated in less than a week.
Does the Ukrainian military continue fighting anyways?
And how effective would people like Azov or even regular Partisan militias be without government support?
Could the Ukrainians still provide decent resistance if they were reduced to an insurgency by March 1, 2022
Curious because we’ve seen some partisans, like the Taliban, effectively outlast their occupier, while others such as the Iraqi insurgents never posed a serious threat.
Imagine Russians getting picked off one by one by Super Sus who vanishes into the sewers of Kiyv.
That'd be hilarious.
Would Russians be less willing to accept losses if they’re an occupation force instead of a conventional army?
>Iraqi insurgents never posed a serious threat
They killed thousands of NATO troops and currently rule Iraq, what are you talking about?
Anon, they were going to resettle and genocide the entire population, the frick are you even talking about?
This. Sad to say but that is the only way to occupy a country, being so absolutely brutal that there is no resistance. If you show leniency they will just exploit it like they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and Gaza.
What are YOU talking about? The only sandbox insurgents who currently rule their country are the Taliban.
>killed thousands
In the span of a decade. Which isn't much.
vet suicides have probably killed more over the same timespan
They would've surrendered alongside the government. If Kiev fell and Zelensky and co got captured then yes the war would've ended quickly like that. What your describing doesn't happen in white countries, at least not on the scale your describing
Why not though? Are they less determined fighters?
Because Ukraine is a relatively modern country where people cant just say frick it and take up arms. Stuff like this only works in places where a good chunk of the population live a lifestyle that their great 5x grandparents did.
A good way to look at this is to see what places Russia captured did in the first few months. Were there independent acts of resistance? Yes. Was it widespread and constant? Not even close. And thats with the actual war going on too so I can only imagine how much less this type of shit would be happening if it was all over. When you read about partisan warfare in Ukraine whats really happening is randoms calling or telegraming the AFU and saying where Russians are or whatever and this goes both ways too. Idk why if the war ended in 2 weeks people would suddenly decide to be more aggressive than they are today during the actual war like a lot of people here seem to believe.
It's hard to say with hypotheticals. If the Russian invasion didn't immediately fall flat on its face who knows what else would be different.
The motivation of holy/ethnic resistance are hard to predict and depend on a lot on characteristics of the occupation. Extrapolating how the occupation would operate based on the areas they did and do occupy is not always correct. Perhaps their policies would be different if they hadn't failed from the get go.
can I still say Black person? or will i be banned?
Most likely, the Ukrainian army was simply too large and strong, even if Kyiv was captured there is no guarantee that russia would be able to hold onto it. There would also be more insurgent activity the more west you go.
Simply a DMZ-type scenario with russia unable to push into western Ukraine even if they accept enormous casualties.
This is why Ziggers are fricking moronic, if they suddenly capture all of the territory of Ukraine the war doesn't magically end, that's when the hard part begins where IEDs blow up Russian military vehicles, molotov wienertails get thrown into cafes with Ziggers in them, snipers take out their soldiers, drone operators still continue to blow them up, etc.
If the population doesn't want you there, you're not going to succeed in your invasion/occupation of their territory. You can't liberate those who do not want to be liberated by you.
Plus even if they did try to target civilians to prevent them from sheltering insurgents I'm pretty sure Poland would just let insurgents dip back into Poland and operate from there, so they'd never have to worry about, say, long-term safety. Kind of like how France allowed Euskadi Ta Askatasuna to operate in the Basque parts of France because it fricked with Spain (it's also why ETA basically ended when Franco passed away; France stopped letting them operate in France and they were no longer able to run away to safe territory).
That's why they went for Bucha-style massacres from day 1. They didn't intend NATO-style "occupation" but rather a terror and killing campaign with police state regime afterwards.
Occupation of western Ukrainie would make the First Chechen War look like a smooth victory.
Regions that are currently occupied were seen as moderately pro-russian before the war while the western Ukrainie is pretty close to nazi-loving, TZD-obsessed Banderistan from the Russian propaganda.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_war_in_the_Baltic_states
Research the Forest Brothers of the USSR days. They fought cunningly and endured a long time using the terrain to their advantage, but they couldn't beat a large totalitarian state and eventually died out.
Wasn't that the initial plan? That's why the aid(s) train took so long to get going.
Yes