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 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.Russian telegram channels are portraying this as a "win". But I don't see it as such. Azov have shown the blueprint for defending all ethnic Russian cities in the east. Hide among civilians, and if the Russians come and put your city under siege, start massacring civilians to force them to assault and completely destroy the city. Then hide in a bunker for the whole war while the Ukrainian army gets killed above ground. If that happens this war is going to take a long time.
Carry on hiding in the bunker making videos talking about how brave you are. When your supplies run out, surrender. The only way they can salvage something from this is if they publically proclaim that Azov will face trials in DPR for their crimes. Which is not easy to do as there are Russian POWs.
Time to revisit the Kiev offensive in my opinion. Cities in the east need big garrisons to stop them from revolting, so it's not like they can be deployed elsewhere. Kiev and other west Ukrainian cities are poorly defended and the human shield strategy won't work.
They'll have bunkers, tunnels, or some other hiding place.They had the advantage of Azovstal's extensive underground tunnel network.
The rest of the cities don't have that.
To fix this you need to address the root of the problem.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.
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.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.
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.And what is the lesson ?
There is no escape, the survivors will be POV in good case, or face tribunal for war crimes ?
Alot of the major cities have extensive subway systems.They had the advantage of Azovstal's extensive underground tunnel network.
The rest of the cities don't have that.
2 possibility IMO.Russian telegram channels are portraying this as a "win". But I don't see it as such. Azov have shown the blueprint for defending all ethnic Russian cities in the east. Hide among civilians, and if the Russians come and put your city under siege, start massacring civilians to force them to assault and completely destroy the city. Then hide in a bunker for the whole war while the Ukrainian army gets killed above ground. If that happens this war is going to take a long time.
Carry on hiding in the bunker making videos talking about how brave you are. When your supplies run out, surrender. The only way they can salvage something from this is if they publically proclaim that Azov will face trials in DPR for their crimes. Which is not easy to do as there are Russian POWs.
Time to revisit the Kiev offensive in my opinion. Cities in the east need big garrisons to stop them from revolting, so it's not like they can be deployed elsewhere. Kiev and other west Ukrainian cities are poorly defended and the human shield strategy won't work.
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.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.