The War in the Ukraine

D

dingyibvs

Senior Member
KYli said:
Taking Bahkmut at best is just a psychological victory. On the other hand, taking south means cutting off the Russian land bridge and isolating Russian military in South front which is a strategical victory.

If Ukraine decided to abandon the attack on south front and focus on the Bahkmut, then the counter offensive is already failed.
Click to expand...
Wars are meant to achieve political objectives, not to win battles, inflict casualty, take territory. It just so happens that achieving political objectives often involves winning battles and such.

In this particular case, achieving a decisive military victory over Russia is IMO highly improbable. Propaganda victory is IMO what Ukraine needs to seek. This keeps Western support coming, which is critical as this is not an Ukraine vs Russia war at his point, this is a NATO vs Russia war. The moment NATO support wanes is the moment Ukraine loses.

To this end, I wonder if it's possible that Ukraine can yet refocus on Bakhmut. If they can retake it I'm sure you'll get endless snipes from Prigozhin as well about how he took Bakhmut and then the MOD lost it. That'll be enough headlines in the MSM to help sustain the war for quite a while longer.
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
dingyibvs said:
Wars are meant to achieve political objectives, not to win battles, inflict casualty, take territory. It just so happens that achieving political objectives often involves winning battles and such.

In this particular case, achieving a decisive military victory over Russia is IMO highly improbable. Propaganda victory is IMO what Ukraine needs to seek. This keeps Western support coming, which is critical as this is not an Ukraine vs Russia war at his point, this is a NATO vs Russia war. The moment NATO support wanes is the moment Ukraine loses.

To this end, I wonder if it's possible that Ukraine can yet refocus on Bakhmut. If they can retake it I'm sure you'll get endless snipes from Prigozhin as well about how he took Bakhmut and then the MOD lost it. That'll be enough headlines in the MSM to help sustain the war for quite a while longer.
Click to expand...
Political objectives at the beginning for NATO is to preserve Ukraine's independent and to repel the Russian military from seizing more territories. Those initial objectives were achieved after Russian withdraw its forces from Kiev, North, Northeast and retreat from South to focus on Donbas. After seizing more territories during Ukraine's offensive last year, the goal is no longer just to repel the Russian military from seizing more territories but lot more lofty of crushing the Russian military in a few strategically battles and forcing Russia to negotiate from a weak point.

NATO has been much more generous after seeing Ukraine's advance and retaking territories during last offensive. As we have witnessed more lethal weapons such as fighters, Tank, armor vehicles, and missiles for both defensive and offensive were given to Ukraine. Unless, there is a significant victories. I am doubtful that the NATO is willing to commit more resources to fight Russia.

So a strategic victories such as cutting off the land bridge could give Ukriane's a moral boost and much more supports from the NATO. If Ukraine is forced to refocus on Bakhmut, then such a propaganda and symbolic victory would greatly diminished the NATO's enthusiasticism and commitment. NATO probably would continue to supply weapons to Ukraine but the extent of helps might be significantly less. More importantly, NATO might want Ukraine to negotiate with Russia to end this conflict if a victory isn't insight anymore.
 
D

Deleted member 24525

Guest
Zichan said:
According to M. Koffman, while the Ukrainian offensive has undoubtedly started since a few days now, what we are seeing is not the main effort. He rests his claim on the fact that the units that could have been seen (naval infantry and regular mechanized infantry) are not part of the brigades Ukraine was specifically preparing for the offensive.
Click to expand...
How does he square that with the confirmed leopard kills? I thought those went exclusively to the offensive brigades.
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Aegis21 said:
Apparently they were modified in Poland to carry Storm Shadow missiles.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Never heard of this website though (and it seems Pro-RU), so take it with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

But modifying Ukrainian aircraft in Poland still does not make them Polish aircraft?!
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
KYli said:
Political objectives at the beginning for NATO is to preserve Ukraine's independent and to repel the Russian military from seizing more territories. Those initial objectives were achieved after Russian withdraw its forces from Kiev, North, Northeast and retreat from South to focus on Donbas. After seizing more territories during Ukraine's offensive last year, the goal is no longer just to repel the Russian military from seizing more territories but lot more lofty of crushing the Russian military in a few strategically battles and forcing Russia to negotiate from a weak point.
Click to expand...
Not really. If you read US think tank reports from way before the war, the objective was to create a quagmire for Russia to fall into. What happens to Ukraine as a nation is kind of irrelevant. If they can expand NATO then brilliant, but if Ukraine is in shambles while Russia is stuck expending massive resources on a counter insurgency campaign that is a success for the US as well.

For Russia they are preempting what would be a massive opposing force building up right on the soft underbelly of Russian Europe. And an hostile attempt to close off their access to the Black Sea region.
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
gelgoog said:
Not really. If you read US think tank reports from way before the war, the objective was to create a quagmire for Russia to fall into. What happens to Ukraine as a nation is kind of irrelevant. If they can expand NATO then brilliant, but if Ukraine is in shambles while Russia is stuck expending massive resources on a counter insurgency campaign that is a success for the US as well.

For Russia they are preempting what would be a massive opposing force building up right on the soft underbelly of Russian Europe. And an hostile attempt to close off their access to the Black Sea region.
Click to expand...
If Kiev has fallen, you think Ukraine has any fighting chance of military victory. NATO might not care about Ukraine but it needs Ukraine to hold significant territories so that Ukraine can recruit more personnel and have strategic depth to sustain a prolong war.

NATO is committed and emboldened now due to the fact that Ukrainians have denied the Russians a quick victory. It senses Russians are vulnerable and can be defeated. All those counteroffensive resources wouldn't be sent if NATO isn't emboldened by Russian lack of progress and weakness.

It is true that the NATO could accept a Russia that got stuck in counter insurgency but such scenario is not ideal and less desire than the situation right now as Ukrainians have demonstrated the capacity of fighting Russians in a direct war and keeping Russians from advancing and beating back Russians and retaking territories.

I foresee that if Ukraine couldn't breakthrough Russian defense in strategical areas or cut off Russian land bridge. Then NATO might ask Ukraine to negotiate with Russia for a cease fire. The Minsk Agreements have given NATO 8 years to train and indoctrinate Ukrainian soldiers and population. NATO doesn't need to bleed Russia in one off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top