The War in the Ukraine

gelgoog said:

Because they would rather fight the Ukrainian army outside their major cities? Bleeding white their actual combat power will make the rest of the operation much easier.

Click to expand...

This is right, although the bad side is that cities in the russian area are getting destroyed much more than on the other side. At the same time this makes logistics much favorable for Russia.

What is your view in the future operations? Do you think that at some point the AFU will be so depleted that Russian army will simple be able to advance taking cities one after another without fight?

So, there could be a point where we see the russians taking Kharkov or Nikolayev in a a matter of weeks of fight?

plawolf said:

The smartest thing the Ukrainians can do is pull back west of the Dnieper and use the river as a natural barrier to hold the Russians back. With the river as the main barrier, they can afford to maintain a minimal presence along the river while keeping the bulk of their forces further back in reserve to limit the effectiveness of Russia’s war of attrition, but close enough to rush forwards to resist and punish any Russian attempts to cross the river.

Click to expand...

I think the smartest thing Ukrainians can do is a surrender.

To retreat to the Dnieper to maintain the war would not solve their problems.
It would be a major victory for Russia in the world stage and in their prestige.

Also is a double sword. The natural barrier would work also for Russia. Russia could move majority of their troops to other theater and for example move to Kiev from the North.

Personally I don't see that Ukraine has any good movement. The regime will continue burning soldiers to delay Russian advance because is the only thing they can do (besides surrender). In the meanwhile they will continue destroying some valuable russian hardware here and there, some ships, planes, etc.
Will not change the strategic outcome of the war but still it represent some damage for Russia.

For the US this is comfortable, at this point they probably assume that Russia will emerge much more powerful than it was. So to make as damage as possible, force russia to spend money in reconstruction and so on is desirable for the US.
Ships that Russia need to rebuild in the Black Sea are ships that will not appear in other region. Money invested in rebuind ukraine is money that is not spend in fortify the artic or the Kurils and so on...

That is the only long term viable play for Ukraine to force a North-South Korean style ceasefire through frustration. But that is politically unacceptable to the Americans in an election year, so the Ukrainians will bleed themselves to oblivion and the Russians can just walk into all remaining Ukrainian cities after Ukrainian resisting collapses.

Click to expand...

I think Russia will never accept that kind of cease fire, specially if it implies to loose Odessa. The half million russians on traninistria republic would be doomed in such situation, and Russian ships would never be able to really have control on the Black Sea

Santamaria said:

What is your view in the future operations? Do you think that at some point the AFU will be so depleted that Russian army will simple be able to advance taking cities one after another without fight?

Click to expand...

I think Russia does not have enough manpower to actually invade the largest Ukrainian cities unless they manage to shorten the front quite a bit or move at least a huge chunk of it against more defensible positions. I guess they could always get more people. But it does not seem to be happening.

Not that it matters too much. The Russians will just continue grinding the Ukrainians down until they break. Then they will systematically attack Ukrainian positions until they establish a security buffer. What will happen afterwards depends on what the other side does. If they continue attacking Russian held areas then Russia could just turn the place into a free fire zone. Similar to how Israel treats Lebanon. This could continue in that way indefinitely.

Santamaria said:

So, there could be a point where we see the russians taking Kharkov or Nikolayev in a a matter of weeks of fight?

Click to expand...

Not without the Russians having a million man army.

Santamaria said:

I think the smartest thing Ukrainians can do is a surrender.

Click to expand...

The Ukrainians should have followed the Minsk Accords to begin with. I bet a lot of them still think they are coming out ahead. Like you said most of the destruction is happening in the East. But I doubt it will just stop there.

First, I doubt the Ukrainians would accept any large scale concessions. That would make the frontline sacrifices of however many hundreds of thousands of people pretty much meaningless, given the Kiev's "Not one step backwards" approach.

Second, even it they were willing to accept some sort of concessions, the Russians won't go for it. They have no reason to. They have gone through the initial struggles on the military and economic fronts, they've expanded their military, they've increased military production, they've gone through de-SWIFTization, they've diversified their economy towards different countries. Since they've already paid for the ticket, they might as well enjoy the ride, since they're winning.

The collective west, especially Germany, made fools of themselves early in the war, and made whatever "deal" might appear on the table completely worthless and untrustworthy. I said it early in the war, when all the big sanction packs started hitting Russia, that the western countries are just going to waste all their soft-power ammunition, and way down the line they won't have any cards to play, and guess what. Here we are, 2 years later, and all the EU/NATO can do is impose meaningless travel bans on some Russian politicians, who have probably never left country anyway. The west has no leverage on Russia, and even if they wanted to offer something in good faith, Russia won't buy it after Merkel spilled the beans on Minsk agreements being just a show to buy time to arm the Ukrainians.

As for what's going to happen after Avdeevka, I doubt Russians would want to take big cities block by block. Too high a cost for... Too high a cost. No reason to fight in Kharkov or Dnepropetrovsk, which they would then have to rebuild. They can just as well bleed the Ukrainians in the fields, hills and forests. Eventually something is bound to break on the Ukrainian side. Be it morale, political climate, western weapon support, or just lack of meat for the grinder.

I also doubt Dneper would prove to be much of a barrier with respect to stopping the Russians. The northern border with Belarus is still long enough for Russia to try something. If they marshall enough forces there, they will push through, regardless of how many concrete blocks Ukrainians drop along the border. And Kiev is close enough to that border. If Russians elect to be particularly cynical about it, they could just bombard Kiev the way Ukrainians did to Donetsk for almost a decade. And guess what, other than Kiev, the western portion of Ukraine has pretty much nothing going for it, so checking that one city will pretty much paralyze what's left of the country. GG.

Tootensky said:

First, I doubt the Ukrainians would accept any large scale concessions. That would make the frontline sacrifices of however many hundreds of thousands of people pretty much meaningless, given the Kiev's "Not one step backwards" approach.

Second, even it they were willing to accept some sort of concessions, the Russians won't go for it. They have no reason to. They have gone through the initial struggles on the military and economic fronts, they've expanded their military, they've increased military production, they've gone through de-SWIFTization, they've diversified their economy towards different countries. Since they've already paid for the ticket, they might as well enjoy the ride, since they're winning.

The collective west, especially Germany, made fools of themselves early in the war, and made whatever "deal" might appear on the table completely worthless and untrustworthy. I said it early in the war, when all the big sanction packs started hitting Russia, that the western countries are just going to waste all their soft-power ammunition, and way down the line they won't have any cards to play, and guess what. Here we are, 2 years later, and all the EU/NATO can do is impose meaningless travel bans on some Russian politicians, who have probably never left country anyway. The west has no leverage on Russia, and even if they wanted to offer something in good faith, Russia won't buy it after Merkel spilled the beans on Minsk agreements being just a show to buy time to arm the Ukrainians.

As for what's going to happen after Avdeevka, I doubt Russians would want to take big cities block by block. Too high a cost for... Too high a cost. No reason to fight in Kharkov or Dnepropetrovsk, which they would then have to rebuild. They can just as well bleed the Ukrainians in the fields, hills and forests. Eventually something is bound to break on the Ukrainian side. Be it morale, political climate, western weapon support, or just lack of meat for the grinder.

I also doubt Dneper would prove to be much of a barrier with respect to stopping the Russians. The northern border with Belarus is still long enough for Russia to try something. If they marshall enough forces there, they will push through, regardless of how many concrete blocks Ukrainians drop along the border. And Kiev is close enough to that border. If Russians elect to be particularly cynical about it, they could just bombard Kiev the way Ukrainians did to Donetsk for almost a decade. And guess what, other than Kiev, the western portion of Ukraine has pretty much nothing going for it, so checking that one city will pretty much paralyze what's left of the country. GG.

Click to expand...

good point, but i would say though dnepr wont stop the russians it definitely can stop ukraine. so it is still a pretty good natural barrier to build your borders along. i would not be surprised if russia plans on doing that. it does not have to fight for every inch. if ukr army is defeated in eastern ukraine at some point russia would be able to advance much quicker.

Official statement of retreat of the AFU from Avdiivka from the office of Syrsky.



"Syrsky announced the withdrawal of VSU units from the city
"Based on the operational environment that has developed around Avdeyevka, in order to avoid the environment and preserve the life and health of the servicemen, decided to withdraw our units from the city and move to defense on more advantageous borders.
We take measures to stabilize the situation and hold positions. The life of the servicemen is the highest value. Avdeyevka we will still return"

The city went down much faster than I thought. Developments were occuring at breakneck speed and Russians were gaining territory much faster than they were in Bakhmut.

Shot down Ukrainian Mi-8 in Rabotino area.


Hell in Avdiivka. Bombs and artillery strikes all over the city.


Avdiivka AFU warehouse taken out among targets.


Approaches in and out of the city subjected to heavy strikes.



Captured flag from the 110rd Brigade of the AFU.


Russian flag in the central park of Avdiivka.


Abandoned AFU tank gets drone bombed near Chasiv Yar.


Photo of destroyed Czech DANA 77 SPG confirmed in Avdiivka, as well as missing Czech merc.


FPV drones from the 5th Brigade strikes Ukrainian shelters in Georgievka.


Uragans of the 238th Brigade strikes at thermal power plant in Kurahovo, an important logistics and power supply center.

Why are so many dying for these small villages in Ukraine? What makes them so important over regional capitals?

Randomuser said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Why are so many dying for these small villages in Ukraine? What makes them so important over regional capitals?

Click to expand...

Ukrainian Festung strategy and also the Russians goal to silenced Artillery batteries that kept bombarding Donbass for the past 9 years

From what i know that is

Randomuser said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Why are so many dying for these small villages in Ukraine? What makes them so important over regional capitals?

Click to expand...

- Avdiivka is used by Ukraine as firebase to shelling Donetsk in order to bait Russian for direct assault. Losing this leverage will potentially free up Russian manpower for another front. They want to keep Russian busy there as long as possible. At least until new defensive line is established.

- Ukraine for US/EU is an investment for the collapse and weakening of Russia Federation. If they haven't got any result, then there are risk of fund dwindling. Having another city taken by Russia big or small is not a good look for them.

Randomuser said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Why are so many dying for these small villages in Ukraine? What makes them so important over regional capitals?

Click to expand...

If you check the map Adevka is only 10 kms of Donetsk city.
From there Ukraine has shelled Doneskt since 2014 because is within artillery range.
Now the closed city to Doneskt in Ukrainian hands will be Krsnigorivka that is already 20km and it does not seem so difficult to take as Avdeevka.

So Russia is close to put an end to the bombing that Donetsk suffered all this years. Now they still can suffer attacks with HIMARS or Storm Shadow but will by default smaller in numbers since this are more expensive and scarce systems.

Other reason for fighting in small cities is that small cities come before than big cities. There is no way to take Kramatorsk without taking Avdeevka

With Syrsky given the order to withdraw Russian progress into rest of the city is happening extremely quickly:

Flag raised over Avdeevka City Hall in middle of 9th district

Flag also raised over the coke plant


Coke plant is really quite a shock as it's outside the encirclement.