I can ignore you!Can you stop spamming your irrelevant opinions?
I can ignore you!Can you stop spamming your irrelevant opinions?
That all sounds real good!It is not "nowhere". It is for Kiev. To block it and later use it as blackmail in negotiations with Ukraine. Thing is sometimes politics necessity weight more than military tactic. People assume for some reason that objective of Russia are to take control of Ukraine, it is not. Stated goals are DNR/LNR borders, neutral status, demilitarization. I do think considering actions in Kherson and Melitopol(like establishing new administration, local police etc etc), ensuring control of largest NPP in Ukraine to establish power generation independence, that South would be split from Ukraine too, but that is it. There is very little reasons to take anything else.
So after establishing such control, you need to force Kiev to accept terms of negotiations. This is why push for Kiev that established presence from both sides of it, with reinforced supply lines to ensure possible long siege, have been done. It is a bargain chip to force Kiev to accept terms.
But, would Imperial Japan have allowed that 40km convoy to remain intact?the reality is that Ukraine's power relative to Russia is only a little weaker than Imperial Japan's power relative to the US.
Demographics UKR vs RUS 2022: 1/3 population. vs
Demographics JPN vs. USA 1940: 1/2 population. vs.
Economy UKR vs RUS 2022: 1/8 GDP. vs
1940: 1/5 GDP. 192 billion JPN vs 943 billion USA
This is a high intensity conventional war like Korea or Iran-Iraq. This is not a COIN operation. Russians did believe that Ukrainian morale was low and it'd be mostly mopping up a COIN operation but they were wrong.
Given the recovery from their mistakes, I'd say Russia isn't doing too badly when you think of them as fighting their version of Imperial Japan.
Make it clear what you believe that their o overall military strategic objective should be, please. Is it to just take the Donbass Region and the Sea of Azov Coast and surround troops in these regions that retreat to cities without actually taking any of them?The big mistake the Russians made was not having a coherent strategy!
If anyone looks at that map, a realistic one, and tells me that the Russian strategy is clear, I’ll call them a liar or a brilliant interpreter of abstract art. Was the plan to take Ukraine up to the Dnieper? LOL!!!
The didn’t have to take any cities, just control access. All they had to do was to neutralize military capabilities. If Ukrainian military units retreated into the cities, then let them stay there; mortars and artillery emplacements in urban spaces can be located and neutralized by CAS strikes.
As I said, the “reinforcements coming from the North” would have been easy pickin’s for any competent Air Force and artillery units. Requiring one’s adversary to move where and when you want them to is actually strategy 101.
All the “mistakes” you mentioned in tactics were subordinate to the fundamental mistake in strategy. The charges, no matter how badly executed, were to nowhere, in the first place!
But, go ahead and minimize Russian incompetence; that’s obviously their preferred MO. Better yet, go ‘head and volunteer! Everybody, here, is makin’ fun of the fools volunteering to fight for Ukraine; but ain’t nobody foolish enough to even consider volunteering to join Russia!
Slava Stupid!
Ok, so if the Ukrainian army is exposed and in a bad strategic position, then why are the Russians wasting any ordnance, at all, on civilian targets in cities?I do actually believe that the original plan was to rush to the Dnieper and the reason for that being is that they could not conceive that the Ukrainian army would do anything other than rush back and fortify its Western Bank.
I think that finding the Ukrainian army dug in on the Eastern Territories was a surprise and put them off balance, while they adjusted to the realities of the war that was being presented.
The reason that the Ukrainians did this, is IMHO, a politically motivated strategy, and reflects a Ukrainian government that is overwhelmingly from the light entertainment industry and which has put "sound bites over sound strategy" at every turn.
I believe that this decision not to concede an inch of territory has been a major strategic blunder for Kiev, which has left its army exposed in a bad strategic position and which is why most of it is now encircled in the East and facing active annihilation.
Ultimately, Kiev will still lose the territory, but it also and unnecessarily lose its army as well, which will massively undermine its ability to negotiate a peace with Moscow.
I think this reality is now dawning which is why Zelenskyy is desperate to get Putin to agree to immediate direct Peace Negotiations this morning.
From an earlier post:Make it clear what you believe that their o overall military strategic objective should be, please. Is it to just take the Donbass Region and the Sea of Azov Coast and surround troops in these regions that retreat to cities without actually taking any of them?
Do you believe that they should not have made any deep throat towards Kiev?
I am pointing out the mistakes and their hubris, and you are saying that I minimizing their incompetence. SMH... I have not even disagreed or commented with your take on their overall strategy, aside from stating that there are number of cities that must be taken.
If you have seen my previous posts, I have stated myself that Kharkov and Kiev need not be taken and doing so would be extremely costly...
As the Ukrainian army has fortified itself into those civilian areas, you have the answer to both those points.Ok, so if the Ukrainian army is exposed and in a bad strategic position, then why are the Russians wasting any ordnance, at all, on civilian targets in cities?
Another commentator and I have been waiting for the Tu-22M3s to come in and carpet-bomb these “exposed“ positions. Wouldn’t this be the most effective method at their disposal to clear their paths to whatever their ultimate geographic objectives are?
How can they be exposed if they’re fortified in civilian areas? I didn’t advocate carpet-bombing cities (I don’t think the Russian should be in the cities, at all) I was referring to the “exposed” armies that you, yourself represented. I might have been up all night, but I can still read and remember, now.As the Ukrainian army has fortified itself into those civilian areas, you have the answer to both those points.
This is a civil population that the Russians do not regard as hostile and in fact regards as kinsman. They came in with the stated aim of liberation, which would be hard to reconcile to acts of mass urban carpet bombing.
We are seeing strikes against weapons, ammunition and fuel dumps, plus of course C&C to degrade the combat ability of these Ukrainian forces as quickly as possible.
Mariupol is of course an obvious exception for equally obvious reasons.
This Russian expeditionary force is quite small considering the job it has undertaken. Less than 200,000 in total. They certainly have more men and equipment to call on if required and this would not degrade other frontiers defensive capabilities.
Why are the Ukrainian forces not leaving the cities? Do you remember the 2014/5 war in the Donbas? Do you remember the Ukrainian division that was tasked with sealing off the rebel areas from the Russian border? That force was obliterated as an effective combat unit, one night, out in the open, when the Russians fired smart anti armour munitions from its MLRS systems.
It was footage of this that made most of us here realise that a Ukrainian victory was very far from guaranteed (which is how it had been looking before hand).
I would say that three weeks in, the Russian commanders are not going to be overly disappointed with what they see.