They had the advantage of Azovstal's extensive underground tunnel network.
The rest of the cities don't have that.
The rest of the cities don't have that.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
The NO1 problem that the Russians wants to solve since 24th of Feb is the Doneck fortifications ,that the Ukrainans use to shell the Russians in Donetsk.
This is the main and foremost objective of the war.
They dance around it, grind them bit by bit, and after finalising them they are free to choose another direction of attack. Like Liviv, Kiev, Odessa or whatever.
Most likelly they will throw a dice, and the dice will make the decision.
And what is the lesson ?
There is no escape, the survivors will be POV in good case, or face tribunal for war crimes ?
Apparently, the headcount so far is around 250-300 people out of the Azovstal grounds.
Also, Lviv has been constantly hit by cruise missiles for 17 straight minutes right now
Also, Lviv has been constantly hit by cruise missiles for 17 straight minutes right now
Next move => Odessa.
"
In 1794, the city of Odessa was founded by a decree of the . From 1819 to 1858, Odessa was a —a . During the , it was an important trading port and a .
"
Next move => Kharkiv Oblast
"
The oblast is the third most populous province of Ukraine, with a population of 2,857,751 in 2004, more than half (1.5 million) of whom live in the city of , the oblast's . While the Russian language is primarily spoken in the cities of Kharkiv oblast, elsewhere in the oblast most inhabitants speak .
"
My playing-the-guessing-game is on Odessa. After that Moldova. This is a more profitable route on Putin's balance sheet. And the Black See would be literally a Russian lake.
"
In 1794, the city of Odessa was founded by a decree of the . From 1819 to 1858, Odessa was a —a . During the , it was an important trading port and a .
"
Next move => Kharkiv Oblast
"
The oblast is the third most populous province of Ukraine, with a population of 2,857,751 in 2004, more than half (1.5 million) of whom live in the city of , the oblast's . While the Russian language is primarily spoken in the cities of Kharkiv oblast, elsewhere in the oblast most inhabitants speak .
"
My playing-the-guessing-game is on Odessa. After that Moldova. This is a more profitable route on Putin's balance sheet. And the Black See would be literally a Russian lake.
They'll have bunkers, tunnels, or some other hiding place.
Bottom line is that the Ukrainians won't surrender straight away and to take a city you'll have to destroy it like Mariupol.
To fix this you need to address the root of the problem.
I'm not sure Odessa will be next, unless Russia is prepared to destroy it as well. Though cutting Ukraine off from the coast may make it worth it.
To me the best option is another push into the west. Do to Kiev what happened in Mariupol. Unless Russia wants to drag this war on forever.
What is the incentive for Ukrainians to surrender before a city is attacked? The generals may as well hide in a bunker somewhere and force Russians to fight through the city until the soldiers are at your door. They will be POW and face tribunals in either case, you may as well tie up the enemy for 2 months.
Alot of the major cities have extensive subway systems.
I think that once the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas are destroyed or captured. The Ukraine will not have much of an army left with which to occupy anything. Those that are left will be utterly demoralised.
If Russia continues the offensive after the Donbas, my bet is that they will go for areas such as Kharkov and Dniepro before turning their attention to West Coastal Regions. My reasons for this is that the Ukrainian army East of the Dnieper will still be in disarray, their supply lines will be smashed and the Russians will have all their offensive forces in position to roll on. Further after they take these objectives they will have a further Eastern Axis from which to launch an offensive West of the Dnieper.
Other very experienced and knowledgeable people disagree with me on this and say that despite the obvious advantages of following my strategy, that the strategic value of Nicoleav and Odessa outweighs my considerations and will be the next target.
If Russia continues the offensive after the Donbas, my bet is that they will go for areas such as Kharkov and Dniepro before turning their attention to West Coastal Regions. My reasons for this is that the Ukrainian army East of the Dnieper will still be in disarray, their supply lines will be smashed and the Russians will have all their offensive forces in position to roll on. Further after they take these objectives they will have a further Eastern Axis from which to launch an offensive West of the Dnieper.
Other very experienced and knowledgeable people disagree with me on this and say that despite the obvious advantages of following my strategy, that the strategic value of Nicoleav and Odessa outweighs my considerations and will be the next target.
2 possibility IMO.
Russia controls the mouth of the Dnieper and there's a mismatch in Ukrainian manpower (central and east) and supplies (northwest on Polish border).
1. Southern offensive on Mykolaiv then Odessa would mean attacking on a relatively weaker front while Ukrainian forces are tied up in the east, and would force them to transport both supplies and manpower rather than have one or the other already present.
The immediate value would be cutting off any possibility of reinforcement from Romania through Moldova, elimination of even the possibility of counterattack on Kherson, and link up with Transnistria.
Long term, landlocking or near landlocking Ukraine would devastate their economy.
2. Central offensive up the Dnieper east bank towards Dniepro to fully consolidate Donbass and eliminate possibility of retaking Azov for Ukraine. This makes the Dnieper essentially unusable for Ukraine which is devastating.
The challenge here would be that Ukrainian manpower retreating through Donbass would be able to defend here and supplies shipped in from West Ukraine can be distributed to both central and east.
Do you really think that, with less than 200K deployed troops, the Russian army can hold onto those land along the Dnieper River? Well, I could go with that if (1) the Russian army does not have comm issues as speculated; (2) the Russian army can get replenished with enough long-range precision weapons; (3) the Russian army get better situation awareness. Otherwise, If the Russians continued with everything else being equal and I was the commander on the Ukraine side, I would move all-in on cutting off one chunk of the Russian forward deployment with everything US/NATO have thrown at me.