Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

LCR34

Junior Member
Registered Member
Or they showing only the videos that they want to show.

And generally, if the nationalis is the supported narrative, including in the military and palamilitary gourps, showing the support for Russia could ne up the civilians with bullets in they heads.

Check Odessa or Mariupol.
You can follow Spriter's Tweet, find the truth yourself, judge yourself.
 

FADH1791

Junior Member
Registered Member
In the early stages of this invasion, many, here (and elsewhere), were certain that the port of Odessa was a primary objective on the southern front. Now, well into the third week, not only has Odessa not been taken, but the ground forces that would have most likely advanced westward, towards Odessa, are, instead, advancing northward.

While acknowledging that a bridge along the main highway from Kherson to Odessa was blown by Ukranian forces two weeks ago, possibly making a direct route impassable, and that the advance northward might be to secure an alternate route, is it also plausible that Odessa was, in fact, not a primary objective on the southern front, but a secondary, or even tertiary, objective?
That seems to be the case. It seems the first stage is to cut off the Azov Sea from Kiev. After that is for Russian forces in the south to link up the DPR/LPR to encircle the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas. The reason is because the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas are the most experienced, most equipped, and toughest fighters. So encircling them in the Donbas pocket and ultimately destroy would be a devastating to Ukrainian morale. After that the next stage would be encircling Khariv fully. Odessa will be attacked eventually. Russian forces have amphibious units on the ready. The other aspect is that the beaches of Odessa are filled with land mines and the defenders are equipped with atgms/manpads. So attacking now would be messy. They will just bombed the city and the beaches to clear the areas before they send troops in.
 

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
Not needed when the main strategic objective is to prevent the country from being a staging ground for NATO missiles.
It would be a mistake to even attempt to take over the country. Russia can't do that without much much greater expenditure of resources and too detrimental a cost to Russia.
 

yongpengsuen

Junior Member
Registered Member
It would be a mistake to even attempt to take over the country. Russia can't do that without much much greater expenditure of resources and too detrimental a cost to Russia.

I think up to Dnipro river and also install new government in Kiev.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
In the early stages of this invasion, many, here (and elsewhere), were certain that the port of Odessa was a primary objective on the southern front. Now, well into the third week, not only has Odessa not been taken, but the ground forces that would have most likely advanced westward, towards Odessa, are, instead, advancing northward.

While acknowledging that a bridge along the main highway from Kherson to Odessa was blown by Ukranian forces two weeks ago, possibly making a direct route impassable, and that the advance northward might be to secure an alternate route, is it also plausible that Odessa was, in fact, not a primary objective on the southern front, but a secondary, or even tertiary, objective?
Ukrainian forces withdrew into the city, set up positions in civilian areas, and prevented civilians from escaping. They've been cut off from the rest of the country. There's been no significant counterattack from them for several days now.

I think Russia plans on keeping Odessa so will be happy to just put it under siege and pick away at the enemy until they surrender rather than to go in and destroy the city.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top