Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
I wouldn’t say screwed but it could become a costly victory. The Ukrainian military were smart in retreating to the cities. The know in the open field they are screwed against Russia missile, artillery and aerial bombardment so they retreated to densely populated cities and towns where they can bog down Russian forces in pitch urban battles. Mauripol is the scene of intense fighting so bigger cities like Khariv, Odessa etc will take weeks to clear. Russia is going to win but it’s going to be very costly. The Russian military establishment needs major purges because it looks like bad intelligence and also not listening to the DPR and LPR forces warning that Ukraine is stronger than everyone anticipated led to this. The thing with Russia is they got time. Time to sort out the logistical issues and time to mobilize more manpower and firepower. However from the start Russia should have used their full strength. From the start they should have bombed Ukraine for at least two weeks before sending ground troops in. That way they destroy Ukrainian aerial assets, airbases, military bases, air defense systems etc. We are entering 4 weeks in and they are just doing this now. For goodness sake we finally seen TOS-1 in use for the first time yesterday. Seriously you don’t fight a war half assed. Go all out or go home. The Russians are going to go all out now that they realized this will be a protracted war. The first week fiascos was a combination of underestimating the Ukrainian will to fight, logistical issues and Putin holding back his military.
What Russia should try to do is look at ways necessary for getting an off ramp with regards to ensuring its stated goals. Capturing the Donbass Region and the South, pressuring Kharkiv and Kyiv, and also entrenching its defences elsewhere and demonstrating that any counter offensives by Kyiv are futile, given Russian highly dominant air superiority. Russia can fairly easily resupply its forces, while the Ukrainians cannot do the same to mount major offensives. If Russia can also additionally destroy major logistics and infrastructure depots of Ukraine fairly easily, it will have much leverage.

All this talk about taking Kiev and ousting the the Zelensky Regime is ridiculous. That would take too many casualties, much more time, and will be much more costly in terms of material expenditures. Russia does not have that time on its hands.
 

Lnk111229

Junior Member
Registered Member
Another mercenary base attacked
MOSCOW, March 20 - RIA Novosti. The Aerospace Forces launched a missile attack on the training center of the Ukrainian Special Operation Forces near Zhytomyr, where foreign mercenaries were based. This was reported by the Russian Ministry of Defense.
“High-precision air-launched missiles struck at the training center for special operations forces of the Ukrainian armed forces, where foreign mercenaries who arrived in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, spokesman for the department, said .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Well well, so those veterans, ex-special force, killing machine, ace sniper can't do jack shit when being struck by missile? I always thought those Hollyweed level heroes can do some miracle shit: make missile malfunction, use super duper Barrett to snip missile, use bare hand to deflect missile turn around and strike those bad guys dare to attacked the heroes!
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is anyone familiar with this guy? Not quite sure what to make of him yet. He has been claiming from the beginning that the Russian's are going to achieve a rapid victory in Ukraine and when that turned out not to be the case, he accused Putin of being too soft on Ukraine! The guy commanded US forces in the Gulf War and compared the urban damage inflicted by Russian in the first week of the war as far less than that done by the US in both Iraq wars. I wonder if he still sticks to that observation now that we are in the 4th week of war, as he does voice concern the Russian's might not be able to avoid large scale destruction of Mariupol to defeat the entrenched Azov battalions determined to fight to death.

In his opinion, this could be over quickly if Putin would simply unleash the full firepower of the Russian armed forces ...

 
Last edited:

BlackWindMnt

Captain
Registered Member
Is anyone familiar with this guy? Not quite sure what to make of him yet. He has been claiming from the beginning that the Russian's are going to achieve a rapid victory in Ukraine and when that turned out not to be the case, he accused Putin of being too soft on Ukraine! The guy commanded US forces in the Gulf War and compared the urban damage inflicted by Russian in the first week of the war as far less than that done by the US in both Iraq wars. I wonder if he still sticks to that observation now that we are in the 4th week of war. In his opinion, this could be over quickly if Putin would simply unleash the full firepower of the Russian armed forces ...

Im not even sure people know or if there even is a defined definition of what a rapid victory would be for a Russia vs Ukraine war.
I heard everything from 6 to 12 weeks would be rapid in modern warfare terms.

That's the kind of leadership these EU countries now have. They learned to play tough with your adversaries from their splendid "Liberal arts" education from American institutions. The results seems to speak for itself.
Its all about vibez and feelz in the west reality and facts don't matter anymore just print more euros and hope it keeps on going well.
 

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
New ISW assessment:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

-----------

By Fredrick W. Kagan, George Barros, and Kateryna Stepanenko

In more detail:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

March 19, 3 pm ET

Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war. That campaign aimed to conduct airborne and mechanized operations to seize Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, and other major Ukrainian cities to force a change of government in Ukraine. That campaign has culminated. Russian forces continue to make limited advances in some parts of the theater but are very unlikely to be able to seize their objectives in this way.
The doctrinally sound Russian response to this situation would be to end this campaign, accept a possibly lengthy operational pause, develop the plan for a new campaign, build up resources for that new campaign, and launch it when the resources and other conditions are ready. The Russian military has not yet adopted this approach. It is instead continuing to feed small collections of reinforcements into an ongoing effort to keep the current campaign alive. We assess that that effort will fail.

The ultimate fall of Mariupol is increasingly unlikely to free up enough Russian combat power to change the outcome of the initial campaign dramatically. Russian forces concentrated considerable combat power around Mariupol drawn from the 8th Combined Arms Army to the east and from the group of Russian forces in Crimea to the west. Had the Russians taken Mariupol quickly or with relatively few losses they would likely have been able to move enough combat power west toward Zaporizhiya and Dnipro to threaten those cities. The protracted siege of Mariupol is seriously weakening Russian forces on that axis, however. The confirmed death of the commander of the Russian 150th Motorized Rifle Division likely indicates the scale of the damage Ukrainian defenders are inflicting on those formations. The block-by-block fighting in Mariupol itself is costing the Russian military time, initiative, and combat power. If and when Mariupol ultimately falls the Russian forces now besieging it may not be strong enough to change the course of the campaign dramatically by attacking to the west.

Russian forces in the south appear to be focusing on a drive toward Kryvyi Rih, presumably to isolate and then take Zaporizhiya and Dnipro from the west but are unlikely to secure any of those cities in the coming weeks if at all. Kryvyi Rih is a city of more than 600,000 and heavily fortified according to the head of its military administration. Zaporizhiya and Dnipro are also large. The Russian military has been struggling to take Mariupol, smaller than any of them, since the start of the war with more combat power than it is currently pushing toward Kryvyi Rih. The Russian advance on that axis is thus likely to bog down as all other Russian advances on major cities have done.

The Russian military continues to commit small groups of reinforcements to localized fighting rather than concentrating them to launch new large-scale operations. Russia continues to commit units drawn from its naval infantry from all fleets, likely because those units are relatively more combat-ready than rank-and-file Russian regiments and brigades. The naval infantry belonging to the Black Sea Fleet is likely the largest single pool of ready reserve forces the Russian military has not yet committed. Much of that naval infantry has likely been embarked on amphibious landing ships off the Odesa coast since early in the war, presumably ready to land near Odesa as soon as Russian forces from Crimea secured a reliable ground line of communication (GLOC) from Crimea to Odesa. The likelihood that Russian forces from Crimea will establish such a GLOC in the near future is becoming remote, however, and the Russian military has apparently begun using elements of the Black Sea Fleet naval infantry to reinforce efforts to take Mariupol.

The culmination of the initial Russian campaign is creating conditions of stalemate throughout most of Ukraine. Russian forces are digging in around the periphery of Kyiv and elsewhere, attempting to consolidate political control over areas they currently occupy, resupplying and attempting to reinforce units in static positions, and generally beginning to set conditions to hold in approximately their current forward positions for an indefinite time. Maxar imagery of Russian forces digging trenches and revetments in Kyiv Oblast over the past several days supports this assessment.[1] Comments by Duma members about forcing Ukraine to surrender by exhaustion in May could reflect a revised Russian approach to ending this conflict on terms favorable to Moscow.

Stalemate will likely be very violent and bloody, especially if it protracts. Stalemate is not armistice or ceasefire. It is a condition in war in which each side conducts offensive operations that do not fundamentally alter the situation. Those operations can be very damaging and cause enormous casualties. The World War I battles of the Somme, Verdun, and Passchendaele were all fought in conditions of stalemate and did not break the stalemate. If the war in Ukraine settles into a stalemate condition Russian forces will continue to bomb and bombard Ukrainian cities, devastating them and killing civilians, even as Ukrainian forces impose losses on Russian attackers and conduct counter-attacks of their own. The Russians could hope to break Ukrainians’ will to continue fighting under such circumstances by demonstrating Kyiv’s inability to expel Russian forces or stop their attacks even if the Russians are demonstrably unable to take Ukraine’s cities. Ukraine’s defeat of the initial Russian campaign may therefore set conditions for a devastating protraction of the conflict and a dangerous new period testing the resolve of Ukraine and the West. Continued and expanded Western support to Ukraine will be vital to seeing Ukraine through that new period.

Key Takeaways:

  • We now assess that the initial Russian campaign to seize Ukraine’s capital and major cities and force regime change has failed;
  • Russian forces continue efforts to restore momentum to this culminated campaign, but those efforts will likely also fail;
  • Russian troops will continue trying to advance to within effective artillery range of the center of Kyiv, but prospects for their success are unclear;
  • The war will likely descend into a phase of bloody stalemate that could last for weeks or months;
  • Russia will expand efforts to bombard Ukrainian civilians in order to break Ukrainians’ will to continue fighting (at which the Russians will likely fail);
  • The most dangerous current Russian advance is from Kherson north toward Kryvyi Rih in an effort to isolate Zaporizhiya and Dnipro from the west. Russian forces are unlikely to be able to surround or take Kryvyi Rih in the coming days, and may not be able to do so at all without massing much larger forces for the effort than they now have available on that axis;
  • The Russians appear to have abandoned plans to attack Odesa at least in the near term.
View attachment 85600

Immediate items to watch:
  • Russian forces will likely capture Mariupol or force the city to capitulate within the coming weeks;
  • Russia will expand its air, missile, and artillery bombardments of Ukrainian cities;
  • Russian forces will likely continue efforts to reach Kryvyi Rih and isolate Zaporizhiya;
  • Russian forces around Kyiv will continue efforts to push forward into effective artillery range of the center of the city;
  • Russian troops will continue efforts to reduce Chernihiv and Sumy
It took 4-5 months for the Russians to take Grozny, which is about the size of Mariupol following the start of the 2nd Chechen War. Kiev is much larger. No, rightly thinking Russian military strategist would believe that taking the much larger Kiev would happen within just a few days unless they were thoroughly counting on the Ukrainians surrendering quickly with little fight. That sort of thinking was wishful thinking. If the Russians were thinking that, it showed the extreme extend of hubris on their part that is extremely mind boggling given their experiences in Chechnya.

But it does actually look like in the North that they were actually banking on that sort of wishfulness, given that they made forward cavalier thrusts of armour and infantry deep into Ukrainian territory, advancing well ahead of logistics, without proper close air support, and undertook very little effort towards initial probing and extensive artillery recon with fire, or fanning out infantry alongside their armoured advances to deal with ambushes.

The Ukrainians lined the routes that the Russians passed by, allowing the Russians to gather and bunch up in large numbers, before blasting away at them with anti armour weapons, artillery, and drone strikes, causing severe casualties to the initial armoured column thrusts of the Russians.

.
 

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
It took 4-5 months for the Russians to take Grozny, which is about the size of Mariupol following the start of the 2nd Chechen War. Kiev is much larger. No, rightly thinking Russian military strategist would believe that taking the much larger Kiev would happen within just a few days unless they were thoroughly counting on the Ukrainians surrendering quickly with little fight. That sort of thinking was wishful thinking. If the Russians were thinking that, it showed the extreme extend of hubris on their part that is extremely mind boggling given their experiences in Chechnya.

But it does actually look like in the North that they were actually banking on that sort of wishfulness, given that they made forward cavalier thrusts of armour and infantry deep into Ukrainian territory, advancing well ahead of logistics, without proper close air support, and undertook very little effort towards initial probing and extensive artillery recon with fire, or fanning out infantry alongside their armoured advances to deal with ambushes.

The Ukrainians lined the routes that the Russians passed by, allowing the Russians to gather and bunch up in large numbers, before blasting away at them with anti armour weapons, artillery, and drone strikes, causing severe casualties to the initial armoured column thrusts of the Russians.

.
Continued...

All those loses in the North could have been avoided if the Russians had been much more cautious and deliberate, knowing full well that the Ukrainians possessed effective anti armour weaponry and drones. They would have taken all the precautionary measures that I listed earlier and would have suffered much lower causalities, while the combined arms of their fire power behind slow, steady, armoured advances would have made it untenable for the Ukrainians to line large numbers of their units to ambush them, and they would have also destroyed many Ukrainian artillery batteries beforehand.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
That's the kind of leadership these EU countries now have. They learned to play tough with your adversaries from their splendid "Liberal arts" education from American institutions. The results seems to speak for itself.
We should abolish liberal arts studies from Universities
They provide a net negative to the world.
 

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
The people who believe here that Russia would be able to take Kiev within a few days or a week are as hubristic as any members of Russian Defence Staff who assumed that the Ukrainians would surrender quickly after just a few shots.

Some will say hindsight is 20/20, but it is not about hindsight just based on any failure of the Russians to do so if that was really their aim to do so. It is based on past experience in a wars in which the Russians themselves fought, the Chechen Wars. The Russians know bloody well that it takes many weeks to months to defeat a very determined, supplied, reasonably competent, and decently equipped force in semi-urban combat, even if one's side has much greater fire power and is much better supplied.

NEVER go to war underestimating the enemy. The Russians learned this in Chechnya the first time and they were much more prepared, deliberate, and cautious the second time. It seems as though they did not apply that dictum in Ukraine initially, it was after the first week that they did so, switching to PLAN B of the much more cautious and deliberate approach, after PLAN A cost them heavy casualties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top