Lintuperhonen
New Member
I do not think this claim is very valid in the Ukrainian conflict. The Ukrainian army is used to the Ukrainian winter (It would be rather strange if they were not.) while the German army of 1941 could not function properly during the Russian winter due to their own much milder winters, whereas for the Finnish army winter fighting was business as usual.that would be quite significant if it is true. the siege of donetsk will be something like moscow. if DPR can fend off the Ukrainian army until winter, the additional strain on logistics as a result of cold weather might preclude any major offensive until early next year.
Another factor behind the German defeat at the gates of Moscow was the different rail gauge between Germany and the USSR (1435 mm compared to 1524 mm) which caused a severe shortage of rolling stock for the Germans in the East (Finland had the same gauge as the USSR so our forces had no such problem), which is certainly not the case for the Ukrainian units operating inside their own country.
A third advantage for the Soviets in the Battle of Moscow was their utilisation of fresh units drawn from Siberia which ensured them a numerical superiority, which certainly is not an option for the separatists as they have no meaningful reserve units, and even if they had, they would most probably still be outnumbered. That would of course change if the Russians started an all-out invasion of Ukraine, but it is quite possible they are not ready to risk a complete meltdown of their relationships with the West just to save their proxies.
Aditionally, attacking during winter also gives the advantage of frozen rivers and lakes, which makes tactical manoeuvring easier. Infantry can also move faster during winter than during summer if they ski.
but of course perpetuating the conflict in this manner without any effort at reconciliation will not sit well with the ukrainian public and even the european community. I think the rebels have the best chance if they focus on delaying ukrainian advance as much as possible, that means they should not be looking for any decisive battles.
Perpetuating the war in Eastern Ukraine is not advantageous to the separatists. When the Ukrainians manage to close the borders (that really is just a question of time if the Russians do not invade Ukraine, as the separatists are severely outnumbered), the separatists will be completely cut off from the rest of the world and as they have no ability of producing weapons or ammunition, they will eventually run out of them. If the Ukrainian army is able to confine the rebels to cities after taking the borders, the separatists will also be cut out of their food producing areas, after which they will be quickly starved.
Taking into consideration the current circumstances, it would seem to me that there are two sensible paths for the separatists. If they really are federalists like some claim, then a conditional surrender to the Ukrainian central government after the upcomming parliamentary elections would be sensible (amongst the conditions would be a new federal constitution and an official status of Standard or Southern Russian in Eastern Ukraine). If they intend to make Eastern Ukraine a part of Russia, they should and probably will fabricate a provocation which would lead to a full-blown Russian invasion of Ukraine, which would probably also end the existence of an independent Ukrainian state.
Last edited: