The War in the Ukraine

memfisa

Junior Member
Registered Member
Dont be an ideologue. I am no Russian fan but people tend to forget its Ukraine getting destroyed and not Russia. Dniper is a natural barrier, blow up the bridges then concentrate and take the whole east.

40% of Ukrainian power was destroyed okn a single attack, the Russians should have done that months ago. They were not regarding this as a real war initialky, they wanted to reduce civillian deaths and avoid destroying infrastructure then Zelensky escalated and refused to negotiate. We are only now seeing them taking things seriously, first is to solidify their positions in the East, instead of caving in to populism, it was a startegic move to go back east. Just common sense, then blow up the bridges which was what they did.

Mao said, take land lose men, in the end lose men and land. Keep men lose land, in the end take land and keep men.
Yes I actually agree whole heartedly. The position on the west Bank of that river was unjustly stupid to try and maintain as the status quo. Either spearhead from the north and crush the UKR defensive line and then move west to Niko and Odessa or pull back and use the river as a natural defensive barrier.

Instead they sat on that barrier and used it to complicate their own efforts in the south. Pull back across the river and focus elsewhere using this now very strong defensive barrier to your advantage, or push hard to the the west, which they didn't do either.

I have this image in my head of the Russian command sitting in a room looking at ipads on their table displaying images of some extremely complicated calculation of the code to the fabric of the universe, confused a bitting their nails asking each other whats next? Someone shouts how about a cruise missile maybe? They are incompetent and by being so incompetent they have let down the boys in the field risking their lives, down
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Cool antique detected but it had to be blown up. To be fair, the Russian Army also has D-20s in reserve.:

Destruction of a Ukrainian howitzer by a kamikaze drone

Footage of the destruction of a Ukrainian D-20 towed gun by a Russian kamikaze drone. Loitering ammunition accurately hit the howitzer along with the calculation, the fragments also touched a nearby truck.

The D-20 howitzer is an outdated Soviet model, withdrawn from service in most operating countries. By the beginning of hostilities, the Armed Forces of Ukraine had only a couple of dozen such guns in good condition, which were in storage.

The use of D-20 by Ukrainian formations indicates that even Western supplies of 155-mm guns are not able to cover all the enemy's needs for artillery.

Therefore, it is vitally important for the RF Armed Forces to continue active counter-battery combat using kamikaze drones and to knock out the maximum number of Ukrainian howitzers, depriving the Armed Forces of firepower.

We post all our videos on our
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and our
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Sinnavuuty

Captain
Registered Member
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.

This is very strong evidence that the time taken for the retreat to the other side of the Dnieper was not as long as is supposed and that the Russians no have logistical resources, perhaps because they relied on ferries for transport across the river.

As I have already said, the position on the right bank was by all means untenable in the way they were fighting.
 

sheogorath

Colonel
Registered Member
Three million Ukranians kidnapped to Russia were also not men of fighting age.
This is part of the reason why this war is happening, denying the will and the existance of a big part of the Ukranian population in the east. Totally impossible to believe a big chunk of your population wouldn't want anything to do with you after you ignored them during the 2014 coup and then proceeded to shell them for 8 years straight while calling them subhumans, apparently.

Also the whole "Russia kidnapped Ukranians" is the exact same wording used by the Ukranian government to refer to those who decided to move to Russia or Russian-controlled areas for one reason or another, so if you are going to start pushing propaganda, better stick to twitter.

Ukraine is not and will not run out of men of fighting age and Russia knows it.

Of course, all the dead soldier will respawn in Lviv. They are just in the 7th wave of mobilization with an even bigger age and profession/situation bracket just for fun.
 
Last edited:

RottenPanzer

Junior Member
Registered Member
I wonder what will Kadyrov say now about what happened, usually he would call out the generals but now he can't blame the generals for what happened because they are not the ones at fault. What happened was Putin's fault for holding back, will Kadyrov have the courage to criticize Putin? Highly unlikely that he will have the courage for that.
Kadyrov has commented on the withdrawal and he's pretty positive about it
This is very strong evidence that the time taken for the retreat to the other side of the Dnieper was not as long as is supposed and that the Russians no have logistical resources, perhaps because they relied on ferries for transport across the river.

As I have already said, the position on the right bank was by all means untenable in the way they were fighting.
It's only one such occasions of sporadic abandoned equipment and unlike the Kharkiv-Izyum retreat

And also what do you meant by the position of the "right bank" being untenable? Didn't the right bank is where most of the withdrawn units relocated to?
 

Sinnavuuty

Captain
Registered Member
And also what do you meant by the position of the "right bank" being untenable? Didn't the right bank is where most of the withdrawn units relocated to?
The right bank is the bank that is on the right side of the river's flow direction. The flow of the Dnieper River descends towards the Black Sea, it does not ascend towards the territory of Ukraine.
Ffg703gXoAEFyVG.jpg
Of course, all the dead soldier will respawn in Lviv. They are just in the 7th wave of mobilization with an even bigger age and profession/situation bracket just for fun.
9th wave of mobilization
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Just a quick bit of speculation from me for the more distant future.
Does Russia have a way back onto the West Bank of the Dnieper?
Yes, I think it does, but I would not choose Kherson.

First, they can cross the Dnieper in Belarus and come down from the North as did last February.
Secondly and far more usefully, they can cross at Zaphorisia and Dnipro.
To do this though, you will need to control a lot more of the Eastern bank north of Denipro and preferably all the territory East of the River.

A very quick look at the map will tell you why. Zaphorisia and Dnipro are everything that Kherson is not. Kherson opens into an ever winder arc of enemy territory that extends only into the Ukrainian heartland.
With Zaphorisia and Denipro, the situation is completely different. The river bends to make the territory on the West Bank a large natural cauldron, Artillery positioned on a long stretch on the East and South Banks of the Dnieper would cover a huge swathe of this territory which forms a fairly narrow arc, covered by enemy fire from three sides. This is totally different to Kherson.
By the time the Ukrainians were out of the killing zone the cauldron, the main Russian crossing points would be out of range of the Ukrainian missiles. The Russians could advance to such a line on the West bank and still only have a very short front line, with friendly forces controlling both flanks, again all of this is completely different to the situation in Kherson.

But this is not something to worry about in the short term. For this to work, control of virtually the entire East bank of Dnieper would be essential and this is just an illustration.

I think Putin’s plans and aims are more longer term.

At this point is abundantly clear that fundamental deficiencies in the Russian military means they cannot wage and win a low cost (manpower and equipment) war against Ukraine while it enjoys full NATO support. And WWII like victories bought with rivers of Russian blood would be politically untenable.

This is why the mobilisation isn’t really going to fundamentally change things on the battlefield as far as I can see. It will help to check the Ukrainian advances, but Russia will continue to suffer unacceptable levels of casualties going on the offensive, which is a price they are not willing or able to pay, and hence they are not going to be able to make major breakthroughs and advances even after all the mobilised are fully trained, equipped and deployed.

Hell, even from a purely defensive POV, it doesn’t look great for Russia, as Zelensky will happily march millions of Ukrainians to their deaths to Russian guns, but even with a 10-1 exchange rate, that’s a level of loss the Russian military and society cannot withstand.

The real root solutions to Russia’s problems are not available in the short term, and not while it is engaged in active combat in Ukraine.

But, should Russia unilaterally end its SMO and declare victory, that would fundamentally change two critical factors to Russia’s advantage.

Firstly, it would be impossible for NATO to continue even A fraction of the current level of support to Ukraine in their current economic states. Without that level of support, Ukraine fundamentally lacks the means to continue to make meaningful gains against Russia or inflect unacceptable casualties on the Russians, especially once the Russians start to get the mobilised deployed on the frontlines. Without NATO support, even a million man march against the Russians is just one giant Turkey shoot for the Russians.

Secondly, ending the SMO would give China enough of a fig-leaf to allow large scale military sales to Russia to plug all gaping holes in their current force structure. Although even that will probably be very covert with a lot of ‘joint ventures’ where Chinese systems are repackaged in Russian shells for political expediency for both sides.

The key thing to remember is that ending the SMO now would not be a true end to the conflict, merely a pause, much like 2014 was.

The west and Zelensky will never allow a real peace to happen with Russia still in control of so much Ukrainian territory and especially without a regime change in Moscow.

The level of national humiliation Russia will feel at having to stop short will hopefully give them the drive to do a proper military modernisation.

The west will continue to keep all the sanctions and state-approved discrimination against Russia and ordinary Russians, which should serve as a much needed wake up call to Russia society to the reality that they will never be tolerated so long as they remain a free and sovereign state instead of being reduced to America puppets and vassals as the EU had been.

Once Russian military modernisation has borne sufficient fruit, Putin could take up any one of the undoubtedly countless opportunities and pretexts Zelensky will shower Russia with for years to come with continued shelling of civilians and terrorist bombings against Russian targets to start part 3 of the War.
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Medvedev is just doing some casual propaganda. Anyone who seriously believes that Russia will take Kherson back is deluded.

So many posts about Ukrainian propaganda but here we have a Russian former president, former prime minister, and currently serving as Deputy Chairman of the Security Council who says such things lol

Just the L and move on
He's one of the vitriolic propagandist from Russian side for sure. Dmitry Medvedev is one of these zealots that if let loose, people would like to get Putin back. Getting back Kherson city or any parts of west Ukraine is an insane long shot. If an army of 200 000 would be buiding in Transnistria and another in Belarus, it could be a thing but it's not reality presently.
 
Last edited:

sheogorath

Colonel
Registered Member
or this, I can only repeat the Chinese people's comments:
If the Ukrainians can win only by relying on light infantry and a small number of armored troops and artillery when they lose the air control right, then our military construction over the past decades is meaningless. Why don't we directly distribute ATGM and MANPAD to all soldiers?

That has more do with Russia's own self-impossed limitations in ROE, men and equipment. Half-assed attempts wil llead to half-assed results.
 
Top