if they don’t need to take the city then they should not have committed so much troops in a multi proned dash towards the city, which left russia with a convoluted front line that had large number of km of front to defend for a relatively small number of square km of actual territory to hold. In other words they created a gigantic sump that sucks up lots of russian manpower to defend not much useful territory.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
That was their Plan A (quick enemy collapse), but they likely have a Plan B, Plan C, Plan D, etc.... I didn't say that was their ONLY plan... But you are right, inevitably it is an war of attrition and brute force if the enemy is surprisingly stubborn.
Last edited:
The point of my recent posts was that Russia was trying to fight a war with severe financial constrains and try to minimize the cost of the war. This explains the way they fought the war and the slowness of the progress. It also show that the Russian military is confident that they will win out at the end and can take their time. They are taking Ukraine one section at a time and negotiating at the same time. If the Ukrainians agree, fine, otherwise, they move to the second city and start a fight there, and continue their negotiation. In the mean time, they are working to degrade the Ukrainian supplies, consistent with a long slow war of attrition.
In the South, it did work out. They did manage to destroy Ukrainian BTGs around Kherson by direct assault in the first days and capture the whole South except Mariupol(which they had encircled) fully intact, including the largest NPP in Ukraine and bridges over Dnepr river. Kiev thing was mostly to force negotiations, but Kiev was too stubborn, so military now would focus in dealing with Ukraine Eastern army group.
Kiev was not surrounded for enemy forces to pour into it ressources and supplies. They will block it from the east and all these ressources and supplies will continue to be stuck there denying all these reinforcement to the east part. Kiev was not meant to be taken if the Ukrainian government was not throwing the sponge at the start of the conflict.
Last edited:
I don't think that Kyiv was calling the shots. Biden does not want a quick end to the war. At some point, with enough time, the Russians can accomplish enough that maybe even Washington DC will see the futility and negotiate an end on Russia's terms.
In any case Ukraine that was existing before the war will not survive the onslaught. Only the West or North West will prevail. All this just to piss-off Russia.
Of course, Ukraine is a third rate army, so Russia, a military superpower, should be confident to brute force it if necessary. That was never in dispute, they will eventually win militarily, just takes slightly longer. Their initial original objective was a quick negotiated settlement with a blitzkrieg to surround the capital and hope it sues for peace, that is preferred to maximize gains and minimize cost to Russia lives and economy. A war of attrition is not necessarily inevitable, Russia could have scared Kiev into submission within the first week or so. A war of attrition is the least preferred because the point of a Military Superpower is to intimidate smaller powers before invasion or very early phase of invasion to capitulate. When you have to grind your enemy into ashes/rubble, then you will win, but at a higher cost to economy, causalities, and domestic support compared to a quick negotiated settlement.
in the south, fine. but it was clearly not war winning.
A successful attack that does not rely on the enemy simply giving up has to have the following stages:
1. preparatory: deploy forces to either achieve overwhelming superiority at a critical point, if the enemy can clearly see where the critical point is, or deploy forces to confuse the enemy regarding where the key objectives are, if there are multiple possible critical points. The russians did this. they clearly deployed their forces to confuse the ukrainians regarding how many and where the thrusts will be in the few days before the actual attack into ukraine proper.
2. break through: the initial assault force probe the enemy defences, identify weak points, the assaults force isolate or bypass strong points, open up the rear or interior of the enemy territory: the russians seems to have been more successful in the south than in the north, in the south they have invested a number of cities that functioned as defensive strong points. in the north they are stuck before kyiv. But no where have they actually broken through and opened up the rear or the interior of Ukraine. If anything, forces that should constitute the operational reserve used to exploit the breakthrough is being committed to try harder to achieve the breakthrough.
3. exploitation: having put neutralized enemy defences behind the tip of the break through advance, reserves are then committed to run around behind enemy lines, preventing the enemy from moving troops on strategic level. this is the war winning stage. I think no where has the russians attained this stage or are close to attaining this stage. even worse it also seems there is no more reserve on hand to take advantage of any opportunity of a break though should that happen now.
This does not mean the russians have lost. During WWII the germans were exceptionally adept at seemingly having shot their wad, and then skillfully scrap up reserves by retreating from exposed positions and ruthlessly breaking up tired and under strength units to aggregate them into a new reserve that then suddenly attack out of nowhere at the amazement of their enemies and retrieve the situation. The russians can do the same. But to be able to retrieve the situation, russia needs to create a new reserve so they can exploit any break through. this they appear to be doing by straightening the front line near kyiv and this freeing up troops for a potential break through elsewhere.
Would that be enough? Hard to say. we have to see.
Last edited:
Ukraine is freekin huge... they have already captured more than the size of Britain againts a country with twice the amount of troops who had time to prepare. Ukraine is practically twice as big than Germany. Big cities full of civilians needed to be evacuated. They plan to stay there, not a conquistadore thing steeling petrol like Irak and go home whatever is left behind...
- Status