NATO's eastward expansion was due to countries applying to join precisely because of previous Russian aggression and occupation. Can't say I blame them.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
NATO's eastward expansion was due to countries applying to join precisely because of previous Russian aggression and occupation. Can't say I blame them.
For the sake of argument, let's say the following map is actually what is happening. I know most of you will quibble - and may, in fact, be right - but for the moment, let's say it is true.
Consider this a thought experiment. Humor me, please. The group as a whole has done so pretty well.
It appears the Ukrainians are aiming for clearing out the Russian troops around Kharkov and then pushing to the east. The objective - to my not so humble opinion - would be to capture the rail lines to hamper Russian logistics. The first of these would appear to be Vovchansk, imo. The others seem logical to follow if you look at the rail lines.
This would accomplish two objectives. The first is to cut off supplies to the offensives coming south at Izyum. The second force the Russians to pull back from those same offensives to prevent those supply lines from being cut. That would relieve pressure being placed by those offensives. That would buy more time: allowing for more equipment to move forward to the frontlines and training of more troops on western equipment.
How successful could the Ukrainians be by pursuing a logistics based strategy? Could it forestall an armored assault when the fields finally dry? Do the Russians have sufficient forces to drive back the Ukrainians from both the Izyum side and along the very obvious axis of attack along the rail lines? Could the Russians be forced into another retreat like Kiev and, seemingly now, around Kharkov?
Now then, take a step back, how do we set some falsifiable test criteria? How would we tell one way or around if Ukrainian offensive to take the rail lines was actually happening?
Consider this a thought experiment. Humor me, please. The group as a whole has done so pretty well.
It appears the Ukrainians are aiming for clearing out the Russian troops around Kharkov and then pushing to the east. The objective - to my not so humble opinion - would be to capture the rail lines to hamper Russian logistics. The first of these would appear to be Vovchansk, imo. The others seem logical to follow if you look at the rail lines.
This would accomplish two objectives. The first is to cut off supplies to the offensives coming south at Izyum. The second force the Russians to pull back from those same offensives to prevent those supply lines from being cut. That would relieve pressure being placed by those offensives. That would buy more time: allowing for more equipment to move forward to the frontlines and training of more troops on western equipment.
How successful could the Ukrainians be by pursuing a logistics based strategy? Could it forestall an armored assault when the fields finally dry? Do the Russians have sufficient forces to drive back the Ukrainians from both the Izyum side and along the very obvious axis of attack along the rail lines? Could the Russians be forced into another retreat like Kiev and, seemingly now, around Kharkov?
Now then, take a step back, how do we set some falsifiable test criteria? How would we tell one way or around if Ukrainian offensive to take the rail lines was actually happening?
Why are you deflecting and avoiding the other part of your statement?
Where is your rebuttal of NATO not being an offensive war monger or are you trying to change the narrative.
edit: To further add. If the West didn’t launch the 2014 coup (leaked phone transcript before coup) then would Russia had made any moves? Either way this is getting off topic.
Last edited:
I dunno, there might be reasons why they would not want to announce it.
Or maybe I'm just wrong and it wasn't really something that had an impact on the decision of setting in motion this 'special military operation'.
Interesting theory. Doesn't that track go into Belarus? Why would Russian forces in Izyum be dependent on Belarus?
To get logistical lines you need to get past the enemy. Normally supply lines are targeted with air force, commandos, saboteurs. If a Ukrainian push was successful, Russians would just retreat along their supply lines.
You'll see pictures of Ukrainians standing on railway lines.
About the so called Kharkov advance. Lots of talk about these "massive" Ukrainian gains. I think it's more Anglo cope. The frontlines seem to be quite fluid with small gains and losses from both sides and no firm commitment. I think a few OSINT types posted it and it's started to trend. We'll see, but it would be weird to announce a major offensive on twitter before its happened.
If its true and Ukrainians are committing forces for an advance in that area I'd be worried for them. If I was a Russian general I'd want to pull Ukrainian forces as far away from cities as possible. If they don't have their human shields they get destroyed. Ukrainians still don't seem to have learnt how to dig trenches properly. Some of them I've seen are so shallow you'd have to lie in them to get any cover.
Speaking of supplies, here are some of the artillery the Ukraine has/will receive:
- 90 M777 howitzers and an unknown number of M142 HIMARS,
- 4 howitzers M777 with adjustable ammunition,
- an unknown number of AS-90 self-propelled artillery mounts,
– 12 CAESAR units
- up to 24 German self-propelled guns PzH 2000,
- up to 24 self-propelled guns M109A4BE,
- 20 self-propelled guns 2S1 "Gvozdika" and several MLRS BM-21 "Grad",
– 20+ self-propelled guns DANA and DANA M2, as well as several MLRS RM-70 ("Grad" on the Czech base),
– 18 Zuzana wheeled self-propelled guns,
- 9 Soviet howitzers D-30.
Even ignoring the 152/155mm issue, how is Ukraine supposed to support so many different platforms? Do NATO units not need spares? It sounds like a logistical nightmare.
- 90 M777 howitzers and an unknown number of M142 HIMARS,
- 4 howitzers M777 with adjustable ammunition,
- an unknown number of AS-90 self-propelled artillery mounts,
– 12 CAESAR units
- up to 24 German self-propelled guns PzH 2000,
- up to 24 self-propelled guns M109A4BE,
- 20 self-propelled guns 2S1 "Gvozdika" and several MLRS BM-21 "Grad",
– 20+ self-propelled guns DANA and DANA M2, as well as several MLRS RM-70 ("Grad" on the Czech base),
– 18 Zuzana wheeled self-propelled guns,
- 9 Soviet howitzers D-30.
Even ignoring the 152/155mm issue, how is Ukraine supposed to support so many different platforms? Do NATO units not need spares? It sounds like a logistical nightmare.
Ukrainian troops crossing the boarder as a front? Gee that sounds like a war!
A large Ukrainian incursion in to Russian territory might actually do Putin a favour. Gosh he might even try and spin it "See I told you they were going to invade!" Never under estimate the logic of a narcissist, especially when their back is against the wall!
A declaration of war would enable Putin to call up reserves. By reserves I mean trained soldiers who have left the armed forces. A quick glance on wikipedia indicate that could be up to 2 million personal based on an IISS publication. That number includes men up to 55 so in reality perhaps only 10% are fit for the front lines. Still a hundred thousand or more front line soldiers with a million or so extra support troops might make a difference.
Snipped this from Russian MoD briefing, looks interesting and at least for me, first full depiction of Russian ship engaging aerial target.
The ship itself maybe Grigorovich class, looking from the apparent vertical launch of the SAM's.
The ship itself maybe Grigorovich class, looking from the apparent vertical launch of the SAM's.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You only need spares if you can expect to use something for prolonged periods. Most of those artillery pieces are towed, and will likely get obliterated after their first few barrages by air strikes or counter battery fire.