I really hope the idea that it was acceptable to drastically overestimate Russian capabilities 'to be on the safe side' is not an argument being made by anyone with credibility. Its a completely wrong-headed argument for a number of reasons.
If analysis is to have any value it has to strive for accuracy and aim to be as level-headed as possible. Its ok to be wrong and realize you were not accurate, but its a complete abrogation of professional responsibility to try and justify failure by saying the result was ok.
Secondly, drastically over-estimating Russian capabilities is not 'on the safe side'. Its actually really unsafe and has led to many Ukrainian and Russian deaths.
Because the idea of the Russian behemoth was so widespread, Ukraine was actually starved of support before Feb 24, on the assumption that nothing that Ukraine was given would make much of a difference in stopping the Russian steamroller.
Ukraine thus went into the war with deficient air power, limited anti-air, Soviet era artillery and pretty primitive AFV. Had Ukraine been given the kind of support it has now before Feb 24, the war might be over by now and tens of thousands of lives saved.
In a larger sense, the drastic over-estimation of Russia allowed Trumpists and German policy makers, for example, to argue for the appeasement of Putin overall. The Putin is a genius narrative, built on his supposedly brilliant manipulation of Russian strength, distorted thinking
Finally, it certainly would have led to some unnecessary military spending to prepare to fight a hugely overestimated Russia. We are talking many many billions.
So it is not 'safe' to have drastically overestimated Russia. It has cost many lives, wasted billions and distorted policy. I cant believe people would make that argument seriously.
Loading suggestions...