Detailed analysis but analysis of something we all see coming as far as where Ukraine's next major offensive will be.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
Have we truly lost self respect on this forum that we are taking peter zeihan takes seriously?
Now the dust has settled with Kherson, there's a few important points
1. There was no evidence of a Ukrainian offensive against Kherson.
2. There is evidence (rumours) the Russians had been withdrawing from Kherson for weeks prior to the announced withdrawal.
It even appears to have caught the Ukrainians by surprise as they didn't seem to believe the Russians really were withdrawing initially.
Kherson should be much easier to defend compared to small settlements like Lyman, we know how long the Ukrainians held out in Mariupol.
Either the current situation for Russia is so bad that they didn't feel they defend the city or they are still operating on a policy of avoiding a large scale confrontation with Ukrainians. Neither one is a good for Russia right now.
1. There was no evidence of a Ukrainian offensive against Kherson.
2. There is evidence (rumours) the Russians had been withdrawing from Kherson for weeks prior to the announced withdrawal.
It even appears to have caught the Ukrainians by surprise as they didn't seem to believe the Russians really were withdrawing initially.
Kherson should be much easier to defend compared to small settlements like Lyman, we know how long the Ukrainians held out in Mariupol.
Either the current situation for Russia is so bad that they didn't feel they defend the city or they are still operating on a policy of avoiding a large scale confrontation with Ukrainians. Neither one is a good for Russia right now.
Russian troops have been avoiding decisive battle with Ukrainian troops since Mariupol. It doesn't seem like they want to fight to the death, they would rather just retreat for force preservation.
What happened to Mariupol in the end? Suicidal last stands are fine and dandy for Ukraine, they are unacceptable to Russia.
As I wrote previously, it's been clear since the start of this war that casualty minimization is one of Russia's red lines. It cannot suffer losses politically, that's one of the problems with a war planned in secret by a former intelligence officer - the population hasn't been prepared for it. The optimal way forward for Russia is:
1) Until it can raise a large mass of soldiers and accelerate materiel production, it should hunker down in the most defensible positions, of which Kherson was not one.
2) Continue and intensify the drone and missile campaign against critical infrastructure to dismantle the Ukrainian state.
3) Degrade the Ukrainian air defense network sufficiently for the VKS to establish air superiority over Ukraine. That will have enormous benefits from the highest strategic levels of warfare to the lowest tactical ones.
Last edited:
Sorry, it's easiest to put down everything on Putin, Shoigu and Gerasimov. And certainly, they do have more than their fair share of guilt for this debacle. But nether of them didn't lead forces in the field. Neither of them was responsible for absence of any tactics or basic training by the Russian forces, except if you consider "get lots of artillery and shoot everthing you have in general direction of enemy". No, the rot is much deeper, to the core of Russian military machine. Simply, Russian armed forces have apparently slept over at least last 50 years of development of military art and science. They didn't learn anything from Georgian experiance, and that was 15 years ago. Or if they did- they learnt the wrong things- that the enemy will simply surrender or escape when they see mighty Red Army.
And that tells you what?
Nobody wants to fight to the death in an expeditionary war just like Vietnam and Korea for the US.
If Russia's problems were because of its military being sh!t, how were they able to destroy Ukraine's energy infrastructure the day after the Crimean bridge was destroyed? Did they suddenly acquire the power overnight?
Everything you say may be relevant if Russia was fighting America, but not Ukraine. They are literally a third world country who's military was decimated even worse than Russia's post cold war.
It's great that you are aware of that. Then let me clarify what I meant: any western aircraft capable of carrying modern weapons, from F16 or F15 to Gripen or Typhoon, they have appropriate long-range BB missiles, that's why I mentioned the meteor.
Optimal, of course, would be the F15/F16 bundle, and a year ago there were mentions of Ukrainian pilots training in the USA on them. It takes experienced pilots a couple of months to get the hang of it.
For JDAMs and high-speed bombers * SDB , flying over the target is not necessary, and Ukrainian pilots perform regular approaches at 30÷50 km distance.
Last edited: