The War in the Ukraine

Soldier30

Captain
Registered Member
Unique footage of an aerial battle between a Russian and Ukrainian drone controlled via fiber optic cable. The operator of the Russian FPV drone, spotting the Ukrainian drone, aimed his own drone at it and cut the fiber optic cable controlling the drone's propellers. The video was filmed in the South Dnipropetrovsk region. The Russian drone was piloted by a reconnaissance officer from the 37th Separate Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade of the "Vostok" military group, originally from Buryatia. The drone models are unknown.

 

Sinnavuuty

Captain
Registered Member
Pokrovsk on the brink of falling to Russia:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
But Ukraine said it's all a lie:
Ukraine’s military pushed back against Putin’s claim.

“There is no encirclement of Pokrovsk and Kupiansk right now,” proffered Lt. Andriy Kovalenko, head of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “They have a plan to encircle Pokrovsk, but currently, it is not being implemented.”

Kovalenko suggested that Putin’s encirclement claim is aimed at the United States, where the Trump administration is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in an effort to press the Russian leader to end the war.

“Putin has used the military component of lies from the very beginning to broadcast it to the USA,” Kovalenko asserted.
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
But Ukraine said it's all a lie:
To be fair, he is referring to an encirclement, not a breakthrough, and the Russians never performed a Battle of Stalingrad style encirclement. Even then, he is simultaneously technically wrong given how Russian drone basically sealed any entrance into the city. The infil and exfil processes are super dangerous.
 

Sinnavuuty

Captain
Registered Member
To be fair, he is referring to an encirclement, not a breakthrough, and the Russians never performed a Battle of Stalingrad style encirclement. Even then, he is simultaneously technically wrong given how Russian drone basically sealed any entrance into the city. The infil and exfil processes are super dangerous.
There is a theory, with supporting evidence, that the Russians, in particular, do not attempt to close sieges.

I tend to agree with this theory, as there have been many times when it makes no sense that the last effort was not made to physically close a siege, or was not possible.

The theory is that, for the same reason that the Germans and the US/UK learned in World War II, and dating back to Sun Tzu, the Russians know firsthand that it is very difficult to seal a siege, especially against attempts to break through and escape, requiring either a long "siege" to capture/kill those surrounded, or bloody attacks against "caged" enemies motivated to fight to the death because they have no choice.

It is easier, cheaper, and less risky to leave an escape route open and hit the enemy with fire as they escape through it. Especially in this war, when escapes are often made on foot, poorly organized, if at all, with the fugitives running a corridor of fire directed by drones the entire time.

Mariupol was the perfect example of why they wouldn't try again; they had to spend three months reducing a brigade-sized pocket with costly attacks and many supplies to capture a group of Ukrainian troops, many of whom were eventually released, versus overpowering them to kill them with open fire while escaping along an observable "road of death" situation.

Russian tactical and operational leadership seems to recognize that, if played correctly, they can exploit partial encirclements for significant territorial advances later, focusing on exploiting the lack of fallback positions and prepared defenses manned by newer troops.

Why capture a company or perhaps even a battalion of the AFU when, instead, they can penetrate what should be the next planned defensive line before it can be properly occupied?

Encircling a city is not easy. To begin with, all possible supply routes in and out need to be cut off. Then, perimeter defenses need to be established around the entire city, none of them too weak that a coordinated attack by the besieged cannot break through, meaning that each defensive strongpoint needs to be strong enough to deter an attack by a large group of forces.

And there can't be any gaps either, as the enemy's ability to simply enter and exit the city, or funnel supplies in and out, is also rather unproductive.

Meanwhile, there is always the possibility of an invasion as well, which requires outward-facing defenses, especially on supply lines facing the direction the front has moved (this is the direction from which enemy troops will attempt to invade).

By the way, some sources are already reporting that Syrsky promised Zelensky to unlock the units in Myrnohrad and regain control over the Pokrovsk crater.

Syrsky went to the eastern front and will personally lead the counterattacks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
There is a theory, with supporting evidence, that the Russians, in particular, do not attempt to close sieges.

I tend to agree with this theory, as there have been many times when it makes no sense that the last effort was not made to physically close a siege, or was not possible.

The theory is that, for the same reason that the Germans and the US/UK learned in World War II, and dating back to Sun Tzu, the Russians know firsthand that it is very difficult to seal a siege, especially against attempts to break through and escape, requiring either a long "siege" to capture/kill those surrounded, or bloody attacks against "caged" enemies motivated to fight to the death because they have no choice.

It is easier, cheaper, and less risky to leave an escape route open and hit the enemy with fire as they escape through it. Especially in this war, when escapes are often made on foot, poorly organized, if at all, with the fugitives running a corridor of fire directed by drones the entire time.

Mariupol was the perfect example of why they wouldn't try again; they had to spend three months reducing a brigade-sized pocket with costly attacks and many supplies to capture a group of Ukrainian troops, many of whom were eventually released, versus overpowering them to kill them with open fire while escaping along an observable "road of death" situation.

Russian tactical and operational leadership seems to recognize that, if played correctly, they can exploit partial encirclements for significant territorial advances later, focusing on exploiting the lack of fallback positions and prepared defenses manned by newer troops.

Why capture a company or perhaps even a battalion of the AFU when, instead, they can penetrate what should be the next planned defensive line before it can be properly occupied?

Encircling a city is not easy. To begin with, all possible supply routes in and out need to be cut off. Then, perimeter defenses need to be established around the entire city, none of them too weak that a coordinated attack by the besieged cannot break through, meaning that each defensive strongpoint needs to be strong enough to deter an attack by a large group of forces.

And there can't be any gaps either, as the enemy's ability to simply enter and exit the city, or funnel supplies in and out, is also rather unproductive.

Meanwhile, there is always the possibility of an invasion as well, which requires outward-facing defenses, especially on supply lines facing the direction the front has moved (this is the direction from which enemy troops will attempt to invade).
Agreed on all fronts. I would wager that Putin and the Ukrainians are fighting over this term, “encirclement“, due to how people perceive it, especially Trump. Whenever people think of encirclement, they think of the German Sixth Army in Stalingrad. Now, the reality on the ground is different, and common people don’t understand the nuances of a partial encirclement and etc. However, they don’t care to know anyway.
 

RedMetalSeadramon

Junior Member
Registered Member
There is a theory, with supporting evidence, that the Russians, in particular, do not attempt to close sieges.

I tend to agree with this theory, as there have been many times when it makes no sense that the last effort was not made to physically close a siege, or was not possible.

The theory is that, for the same reason that the Germans and the US/UK learned in World War II, and dating back to Sun Tzu, the Russians know firsthand that it is very difficult to seal a siege, especially against attempts to break through and escape, requiring either a long "siege" to capture/kill those surrounded, or bloody attacks against "caged" enemies motivated to fight to the death because they have no choice.

It is easier, cheaper, and less risky to leave an escape route open and hit the enemy with fire as they escape through it. Especially in this war, when escapes are often made on foot, poorly organized, if at all, with the fugitives running a corridor of fire directed by drones the entire time.

Mariupol was the perfect example of why they wouldn't try again; they had to spend three months reducing a brigade-sized pocket with costly attacks and many supplies to capture a group of Ukrainian troops, many of whom were eventually released, versus overpowering them to kill them with open fire while escaping along an observable "road of death" situation.

Russian tactical and operational leadership seems to recognize that, if played correctly, they can exploit partial encirclements for significant territorial advances later, focusing on exploiting the lack of fallback positions and prepared defenses manned by newer troops.

Why capture a company or perhaps even a battalion of the AFU when, instead, they can penetrate what should be the next planned defensive line before it can be properly occupied?

Encircling a city is not easy. To begin with, all possible supply routes in and out need to be cut off. Then, perimeter defenses need to be established around the entire city, none of them too weak that a coordinated attack by the besieged cannot break through, meaning that each defensive strongpoint needs to be strong enough to deter an attack by a large group of forces.

And there can't be any gaps either, as the enemy's ability to simply enter and exit the city, or funnel supplies in and out, is also rather unproductive.

Meanwhile, there is always the possibility of an invasion as well, which requires outward-facing defenses, especially on supply lines facing the direction the front has moved (this is the direction from which enemy troops will attempt to invade).

By the way, some sources are already reporting that Syrsky promised Zelensky to unlock the units in Myrnohrad and regain control over the Pokrovsk crater.

Syrsky went to the eastern front and will personally lead the counterattacks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
围师必阙,穷寇勿迫,此用兵之法也
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
There is a theory, with supporting evidence, that the Russians, in particular, do not attempt to close sieges.

I tend to agree with this theory, as there have been many times when it makes no sense that the last effort was not made to physically close a siege, or was not possible.

The theory is that, for the same reason that the Germans and the US/UK learned in World War II, and dating back to Sun Tzu, the Russians know firsthand that it is very difficult to seal a siege, especially against attempts to break through and escape, requiring either a long "siege" to capture/kill those surrounded, or bloody attacks against "caged" enemies motivated to fight to the death because they have no choice.

It is easier, cheaper, and less risky to leave an escape route open and hit the enemy with fire as they escape through it. Especially in this war, when escapes are often made on foot, poorly organized, if at all, with the fugitives running a corridor of fire directed by drones the entire time.

Mariupol was the perfect example of why they wouldn't try again; they had to spend three months reducing a brigade-sized pocket with costly attacks and many supplies to capture a group of Ukrainian troops, many of whom were eventually released, versus overpowering them to kill them with open fire while escaping along an observable "road of death" situation.

Russian tactical and operational leadership seems to recognize that, if played correctly, they can exploit partial encirclements for significant territorial advances later, focusing on exploiting the lack of fallback positions and prepared defenses manned by newer troops.

Why capture a company or perhaps even a battalion of the AFU when, instead, they can penetrate what should be the next planned defensive line before it can be properly occupied?

Encircling a city is not easy. To begin with, all possible supply routes in and out need to be cut off. Then, perimeter defenses need to be established around the entire city, none of them too weak that a coordinated attack by the besieged cannot break through, meaning that each defensive strongpoint needs to be strong enough to deter an attack by a large group of forces.

And there can't be any gaps either, as the enemy's ability to simply enter and exit the city, or funnel supplies in and out, is also rather unproductive.

Meanwhile, there is always the possibility of an invasion as well, which requires outward-facing defenses, especially on supply lines facing the direction the front has moved (this is the direction from which enemy troops will attempt to invade).

By the way, some sources are already reporting that Syrsky promised Zelensky to unlock the units in Myrnohrad and regain control over the Pokrovsk crater.

Syrsky went to the eastern front and will personally lead the counterattacks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.


Not only is this from Sun Tzu, but the Mongols applied this devastating effect upon the Kievan Rus. It's obvious that their descendants learned their lesson.

There's also another Mongol tactic that they applied on the Kievan Rus is that they allow the enemy to charge in. The Mongols retreat, and the opposing knights, sensing victory, charges in further deep and deeper until the Mongols suddenly rain their arrows upon them and counterattack deep at the enemy's rear. The knights suddenly find themselves trapped and encircled. As such Ukrainian counterattacks are always met with a Russian withdrawal, then as the Ukrainians head deeper, they face a rain of artillery fire and drone attacks, with the Russians counter attacking at the neck of the mini salient.

Another Sun Tzu principle is to never fight or hold ground with your back against a body of water, like a lake or a river, where the water reservoir cuts off your route of supply and retreat. Precisely why Surovikin withdrew the VDV from Kherson in 2022. Zelen Tsu violates this, and continuously holds on to positions backed by rivers and reservoirs, the latest being in Klyban Byk, already overrun; along the Yanchu river, which were overrun by the Far Eastern Express; and the forces that are trapped in the Kupyansk pocket, cut off physically by the Oskol River. The bridges have already been taken out by FABs and X-38ML missiles strikes, and any attempt to set pontoon bridges see them getting hit with more guided munitions like FABs and Krasnopols.
 

johncliu88

Junior Member
Registered Member
Surrendering or to lead the troops to counterattacks ? For the sake of life, it would be better to surrender. It’s a bloodbath after another.
100% agreed with you. In order to fight to the last man for the Ukraine force, surrendering will be the only way to survive. CTI (a TW media) said that Russian force already took over 75% of the city and there are still around 5000 Ukraine soldiers inside the bagged area with an opening around 1KM. If they escape from this path, the length of the path is around 5KM long, which is full of killer drones, mortar shells and etc. Any Ukraine vehicle dare to go through will be destroyed for sure.
 
Top