Where the rebels push will probably depend on where they have sufficient popular support, or at least sufficient discontent with the Kiev government, so that there isn't much or any consolidation needed after the fighting, assuming they win and it's not scorched earth. I find it difficult to try to predict anything as there are too many major soft unknowns such as to what extent the rebels are in agreement and co-ordinate with Russia, to what extent the rebels depend on Russian aid for offensive action and the ability to hold territory after capturing it, which way is the wind blowing in terms of popular opinion in the rest of Ukraine both in potential contested areas and farther afield, and what is Russia's game plan at this point? There has been a lot of talk about either federalization or disintegration of today's Ukraine but based on what has been going on so far it appears to me that Russia is pursuing both, working with whatever extent of local discontent there is in various parts of Ukraine.
Ukraine Revolt/Civil War News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Jura The idiot
- Start date
Where the rebels push will probably depend on where they have sufficient popular support, or at least sufficient discontent with the Kiev government, so that there isn't much or any consolidation needed after the fighting, assuming they win and it's not scorched earth. I find it difficult to try to predict anything as there are too many major soft unknowns such as to what extent the rebels are in agreement and co-ordinate with Russia, to what extent the rebels depend on Russian aid for offensive action and the ability to hold territory after capturing it, which way is the wind blowing in terms of popular opinion in the rest of Ukraine both in potential contested areas and farther afield, and what is Russia's game plan at this point? There has been a lot of talk about either federalization or disintegration of today's Ukraine but based on what has been going on so far it appears to me that Russia is pursuing both, working with whatever extent of local discontent there is in various parts of Ukraine.
It is very interesting
Of itself Mariupol is not of critical strategic value to Novorossiya but it is of critical value to Russia as taking it would ensure the Sea of Azov as a Russian Lake. It is tempting though to see the move on Mariupol as evidence of the controlling influence that Putin exercises over the Novorossiyans, as they have no need of a port as all those that recognise them can be reached through Russia on land.
That was my initial reaction, but that was before dinner.
I have now eaten and it occurs to me that there is other reasons why Mariupol should be taken first.
1) The Southern Front saw most of the damage inflicted on the Pro Kiev forces and the early fall of Mariupol would not only be another major morale blow to the ATO, but also finish the work of neutralising the Southern Front in its entirety and make it cease to exist. This would simplify the front and communications to the South and liberate the whole of Southern Donetsk and make more forces available to use in the remaining Western and Northern fronts, including of course Debaltsevo.
2) It is a feint designed to draw away ATO forces from other sectors. This would highlight a NAF advantage, in so far that they are within a circumference and can move quickly and easily to any point within it, while the ATO have to move on longer lines to the outside of the circumference, which takes them longer and which draws them out further in transit, making them more vulnerable.
A series of feints could be used to keep ATO forces almost permanently on the wrong foot, out of position and in increased disorder
3) Caveat to the original point. Some independent republics that recognise DPR/LPR could send supplies and reinforcements directly across the Black Sea without transiting Russia.
Is it one or the above or a mixture of all? Is it keeping the sponsor happy directly (Russian Lake) and indirectly (Non Russian supply transit) and neutralising a front and capturing a large amount of countryside prior to starting the main attack to the North and West?
i agree with your second point, and to that end NAF must draw kiev's attention towards mariupol while it seeks to achieve a quick victory in the north, either to dislodge its enemy from schastye, or isolate them in debaltseve. either one of these i think will be easier to achieve but especially schastye because it is so close to russia. as for mariupol, a quick victory would certainly be nice but it is unfeasible at this point. it is a large, well entrenched city that is facing attack from only one direction. absent the element of surprise no sane commander should believe that it can be taken quickly. I see some parallels here with syria's operation northern wind, in which government forces boasted an imminent attack on aleppo while its effort was in fact concentrated on homs, an interim objective but an achievable one.
Interesting accent at 2:30 minute mark in Mariupol after the shelling. Is that a Russian invader? Remember the militia reported bodies of western soldiers in Kiev uniforms recovered from the airport terminal?
BTW, OSCE fingered the militia as being responsible for the shelling by saying the trajectories showed the strike came from the northeast and east.
BTW, OSCE fingered the militia as being responsible for the shelling by saying the trajectories showed the strike came from the northeast and east.
Last edited:
Very interesting video find by the Saker
TV crew interviewing in the aftermath of the Mariupol shelling find an American soldier serving in a Ukrainian uniform and not very happy at being approached....
Maybe we have found another reason why Mariupol is being made a priority target?
TV crew interviewing in the aftermath of the Mariupol shelling find an American soldier serving in a Ukrainian uniform and not very happy at being approached....
Maybe we have found another reason why Mariupol is being made a priority target?
This old post was way back in March 2014 in Donetsk even before the citizens rebelled and seized the city.
My question is why is a country's proxy and totally deniable army seen at critical times and place junctions?
Can these PMCs be held accountable for anything at all?
My question is why is a country's proxy and totally deniable army seen at critical times and place junctions?
Can these PMCs be held accountable for anything at all?
I think the first question you ask with regard a PMC is who is the client paying either the soldier or the soldiers employer?
I doubt the Kiev govt has the money to pay those US and Polish PMCs. Now please remember we are not suppose to point fingers without proof.
I wonder if those dead mercenaries were ever send home for burial.
I wonder if those dead mercenaries were ever send home for burial.