That’s like saying a thief will eventually learn from his mistakes after his hand got cut off as a punishment.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
That’s like saying a thief will eventually learn from his mistakes after his hand got cut off as a punishment.
Maybe if the mistake was getting caught....
No, it suggests Russia successfully held them at bay.
I've felt since the very beginning of this war that the Dnieper forms the natural boundary of the territory Russia will take. Since Kherson is on the wrong side of it, I don't feel this is too much of a setback - the far bigger problem was the collapse of the northern front and the loss of Kharkov. I think Russia needs to accomplish three objectives:
1) Begin another cycle of mobilization after the 300,000 are sent in and retake territory in the north and east.
2) Keep up attacks on critical infrastructure - completely dismantle the Ukrainian electricity grid, water supply, sanitation, etc.
3) Degrade Ukraine's air defenses sufficiently to allow the VKS air superiority over Ukraine so (2) can be accomplished much more effectively.
Only once these objectives are met can Russia begin to think about crossing the Dnieper.
That's completely the wrong way to look at it. Russia hasn't suffered any losses that aren't replaceable. Its territory is unharmed and it can continue to produce the armaments it requires. It can train and deploy many more than the 300,000 it's mobilizing.
I can't say I was not disappointed with the Russian retreat. Getting out of Western side of Dnipro of Kherson means for the next couple of years, the Russians will not be fighting on the West side of the Dnipro. The only way Russia will fight on the Western side of the Dnipro is if the Ukrainian military is completely dismantled to a point where they can't defend Western Ukraine even with the River in place. Politically, this is also quite costly as the Russians have announced the annexation of Kherson only to retreat from it.
Some here suspected a backroom deal with the U.S. It is plausible that this was the case, but if so, it is a tactical negotiation. Perhaps the Russians give up Western Ukraine in exchange for the U.S. reducing arms package we will be sending to Ukraine. I don't see a final political settlement just yet. The Russians have just completed their mobilization and will want to take more territories East of the Dnipro. Once Donbass is done, there will be nothing that will stop the Russians from pushing all the way to the Eastern bank of the Dnipro. The Ukrainian government will not be able to voluntarily give up all the territories from Donbass to the East bank of the Dnipro. It would be politically a suicide move. Given the lack of trust as the West had reneged on our past treaties, the Russians will want to get to a place where they have some natural defensive lines. This means pushing to the Eastern bank of the Dnipro and taking a couple of towns like Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro. With these two towns, it would be more difficult for the Ukrainians to attack the four newly formed provinces. Once that is done, if the Russians wanted to settle the matter, it would also make sense to take Kharkiv. At that point, the Russians will have a much shorter frontline to defend.
It might take a couple of years to accomplish the above. If the Ukrainians will continue to fight for every inch of territory, they could get to a situation where their entire forces are severely depleted. If that happens, then the Russians could move into Western side of the Dnipro and take Odesa, but strategically, it make more sense to keep moving up the Dnipro to take the entire Eastern Ukraine before taking Odesa. Once the Russians take all of Eastern Ukraine, and if they still have their military more or less intact, they can concentrate their forces and attack from Belarus, but that will be several years down the line.
I applaud the Russians for being able to make such politically painful decision to ensure that their military will be able to continue to have the advantage in fighting the Ukrainians. This will allow them to maintain a lopsided kill ratio for years to come as now the shoe is on the other foot. Ukrainians will have to supply a fight on the other side of the Dnipro. If the Russians bomb the bridges, situation could quickly become hopeless for the Ukrainian side. I don't expect the war to be over soon. We might be looking at a couple of years of fighting at least. It could be even longer than that.
Some here suspected a backroom deal with the U.S. It is plausible that this was the case, but if so, it is a tactical negotiation. Perhaps the Russians give up Western Ukraine in exchange for the U.S. reducing arms package we will be sending to Ukraine. I don't see a final political settlement just yet. The Russians have just completed their mobilization and will want to take more territories East of the Dnipro. Once Donbass is done, there will be nothing that will stop the Russians from pushing all the way to the Eastern bank of the Dnipro. The Ukrainian government will not be able to voluntarily give up all the territories from Donbass to the East bank of the Dnipro. It would be politically a suicide move. Given the lack of trust as the West had reneged on our past treaties, the Russians will want to get to a place where they have some natural defensive lines. This means pushing to the Eastern bank of the Dnipro and taking a couple of towns like Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro. With these two towns, it would be more difficult for the Ukrainians to attack the four newly formed provinces. Once that is done, if the Russians wanted to settle the matter, it would also make sense to take Kharkiv. At that point, the Russians will have a much shorter frontline to defend.
It might take a couple of years to accomplish the above. If the Ukrainians will continue to fight for every inch of territory, they could get to a situation where their entire forces are severely depleted. If that happens, then the Russians could move into Western side of the Dnipro and take Odesa, but strategically, it make more sense to keep moving up the Dnipro to take the entire Eastern Ukraine before taking Odesa. Once the Russians take all of Eastern Ukraine, and if they still have their military more or less intact, they can concentrate their forces and attack from Belarus, but that will be several years down the line.
I applaud the Russians for being able to make such politically painful decision to ensure that their military will be able to continue to have the advantage in fighting the Ukrainians. This will allow them to maintain a lopsided kill ratio for years to come as now the shoe is on the other foot. Ukrainians will have to supply a fight on the other side of the Dnipro. If the Russians bomb the bridges, situation could quickly become hopeless for the Ukrainian side. I don't expect the war to be over soon. We might be looking at a couple of years of fighting at least. It could be even longer than that.
Russians destroying equipment they couldn't withdraw. So much for being chased off by the Ukranians if they could take the time to destroy equipment.
Allegedly the Russians got their hands on a GMLRS's rocket. Not sure of what use is that other than maybe finding out how to spoof the GPS signals it uses
There has been mentions of Russia capturing several towns around Donetsk. Mayorsk, Opytne
Allegedly the Russians got their hands on a GMLRS's rocket. Not sure of what use is that other than maybe finding out how to spoof the GPS signals it uses
There has been mentions of Russia capturing several towns around Donetsk. Mayorsk, Opytne
100% and the way Russia is fighting this war is very similar to the U.S. in Vietnam: a lot of self-imposed restrictions, giving up strategic objectives in exchange for lower casualties, superior firepower but against an enemy that is more determined. U.S. didn't bomb North Vietnam near the Chinese border to avoid a Chinese intervention like Korea, but all the supplies were being shipping in from that border.
IMO the retreat from Kherson + mobilization are clearly signals that Russia is hunkering down for a multi-year war of attrition, rather than a focus on short term gains and capturing territory or any negotiations. IMO the way Russia is probably hoping to win now is outlast Ukraine over a multi-year period. If Ukrainian society collapses internally, it doesn't matter if they are holding on Kherson or not.
However, as cruel as it sounds, Russia would really need to make life in Ukraine unlivable to exert maximum pressure on Zelensky's government, and force him to push for larger aid packages, both economic and military. Ukraine as no economy, no MIC/factories producing lost equipment, and no additional bodies to mobilize, once aid is gone, its all over. Cities like Kiev, Odessa, Lviv, etc. can't be left untouched.
Interestingly, North Vietnam had a population of ~25 million during the Vietnam War and it seems despite the casualties, there was never a manpower issue. Though the amount of aid North Vietnam received was ridiculous, Mao almost gave the shirt of his back to support their war effort.
Because China sent so many laborers/engineers to make sure that their society could function with so many young males serving on the frontlines.
Banned Member: Arcanis
Sentence: one month
Reason: inflammatory attacks against other users
Sentence: one month
Reason: inflammatory attacks against other users
Every video I see of Krasnopol the last few days, shows a clean hit, then the guys every single time, get out and run away. Maybe launch two shells in succession to take out the personel as well? I know it sounds outlandish and crazy, but I had this really weird thought that when you fight a war you try to maximize the killing of your enemy manpower alongside their equipment? Or do I have this all wrong here. You preserve enemy manpower but break their toys?
Is there something that is different in the Russian psyche? Did anyone tell them they launched a war? Does their military know they are at war?
Maybe I'm just really really stupid but when I see the same thing happen twice, three times, I adapt to it and expect it is the norm until im proven its not. It just doesn't make sense to me
This is almost 2 weeks since Krasnopol has been raining down everywhere and still its the same story. Jesus Russia, I think your general Armageddon needs a civilian advisor to tell him the obvious that he doesn't see because it's too obvious
Is there something that is different in the Russian psyche? Did anyone tell them they launched a war? Does their military know they are at war?
Maybe I'm just really really stupid but when I see the same thing happen twice, three times, I adapt to it and expect it is the norm until im proven its not. It just doesn't make sense to me
This is almost 2 weeks since Krasnopol has been raining down everywhere and still its the same story. Jesus Russia, I think your general Armageddon needs a civilian advisor to tell him the obvious that he doesn't see because it's too obvious
Last edited: