20
Ukraine running out of options to retake significant territory
(www.washingtonpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
20 points (55.6% liked)
World News
32247 readers
713 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Denys Davydov did video on these type of comments about a week ago. He dragged up a lot of newspaper front pages of the invasion of the Nazis in 1945. There was a ton of articles stating just how slow the move was going. An attacking force is always going to have a hard time against a very entrenched enemy. You also have to remember Ukraine does not have a good air force until they get those pilots trained up for the F-16. They are making gains and are knocking on the second defence line in two areas. Any gains Russia has made they loose 2 days later, with the exception of Bakhmut.
That's just not true. Ukraine has not even gotten through the first defense line anywhere along the front. Where are you referring to with them knocking on the second line?
So it is a lie that they have broken through to Robotyne?
I'm not sure if Robotyne has completely been taken by AFU or not, but that's not part of the "first line of defense". These are outer/forward defense positions. We aren't totally sure what portion of Russian defense units are manning these forward positions however, and the RFAF have tried to build up fortification around the area, but its not the first official line, which is maybe where people get confused.
If you look at this image, I've labelled the two main lines of the Russian defenses from deepstatemap:
https://i.imgur.com/MnksZXt.png
And here I've circled in blue, an example of what portion of the Defense in Depth doctrine, Robotyne and areas where AFU has made gains, these parts of the front are equivalent to:
https://i.imgur.com/nOSvIJU.png
Source for second image US Fort Moore on Russian Maneuver Defense: https://www.moore.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2021/Spring/2Grau_Bartles21.pdf
Russia have left Robotyne and those black lines are defence lines. The deep state map is always a few days behind.
Ukraine has also committed the 82 brigade into that area to push further forward. All of which has been made possible with the newer method of mine detecting.
Precisely the point. The allies had air superiority. Ukraine does not, therefore you cannot expect the same gains.
It was because of the Russian offensive that the Germans were defeated. Anyone with an interest in history knows that. Without Russia there was no beating Germany.
D-day landings were 175k men, the invasion force was a 3m strong multinational force.
I disagree that Ukraine should defer to a peace treaty, while the west supports them. It is western hardware that is making the difference. Ukraine knows this. It states it publicly and often. Russia are not making any gains against Ukraine now the Wagner have left the field. What Wagner committed in Bakhmut was unsustainable, and arguably the limits of where it was going to get to. Since Russia is nothing more than a crumbling obstacle now, why would Ukraine give ground to Russia. The Ruble has collapsed. There is dissent at the top now with daggers out for scapegoats. The damage Prigozhin did is still making its mark. All the war is doing is making Russia more and more indebted to China. China is happy to sell Russia arms to watch it destroy itself.
Russia's best outcome right now would be to be able walk away without incurring reparations cost for the carnage they have reaped. However, I doubt this will be seen as acceptable.
Sacking all of your recruitment officials (as Zelensky did days ago) is always a sign of imminent victory and definitely not a sign of desperate exhaustion. The Russians are (probably) waiting for the Ukrainians to destroy what remains of their armed forces on those impossible fortifications. Once this is done, Russia will retake whatever territory it has lost and snap up any land with a Russian-speaking population (Odessa for instance).
A bit of a stark difference between the belligerents isn't it. One has a corrupt army that cannot fight due to the restrictions that corruption that has caused. The other stamped on corruption when it was revealed. The only win Russia will see from this travesty is if they decide en masse to remove the corrupt blight that infects their country.
The Russian Federation and the government of Ukraine are both creations of the USA. Are you saying that we should bring back the USSR? Before you answer with the usual liberal nonsense, please google the terms “yanks to the rescue” and “Siberian intervention.”
What?
It was a 100 years ago. No one had any dealings with Russia for near fifty years between then and now. And outside of NATO Ukraine wishes to be in the EU, which is a competitor to the USA.
You don’t know what you’re talking about and should really sit back and listen when people who have spent years learning about these subjects discuss them.
The next few winters are going to be extremely cold. Get wrapped up and enjoy that discussion.
They'd have lost Kharkiv and Kherson if they'd done that. So clearly in hindsight that was not the best option.
And another important thing to bear in mind is that the start of the advance is the hardest part of the advance. Russia has built up a thick crust of defensive lines. At some point the advance penetrates that crust, and then the gooey center goes much more quickly.
Unless the Russians abandoned all of good Soviet military doctrine (which is quite possible since they're so virulently anti-communist), that is the furthest from the truth possible.
The Soviet military doctrine has been Deep Operation since the founding of the nation, where there is no single hard battlefront, instead keeping the combat line deep and flexible. Unless there is significant evidence to the contrary, I would assume that the operational paradigm for the Russian military remains the same.
If there's a "combat line" then there's another side to that line.
It's not exactly a line. It's miles and miles of defensive fortifications, entrenchments, units, and supply lines in a myriad configurations. There's no breaking through it in a traditional sense. Like I said earlier, the entire doctrine of warfare is different, like how the US armed forces doctrine is based on aerial support.
Ok, a thick line. Haven't you seen the map?
That's exactly what I'm talking about. How is that a line to break through? It's a mesh of defensive fortifications miles deep.
I'm not seeing a "mesh" on that map. I'm seeing a line. There's a speckling of fortifications deeper in, but a military that has broken through that line isn't going to have much trouble with a speckling. That's the "gooey center" I was talking about. The main strength is concentrated along the line.
Your own map shows fortifications all over the theater. Yes, there's more concentrated towards the front naturally. Are you talking about that?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's the thick crust of defensive lines. Once you're through that it becomes easier to move.
The whole point here is that people are complaining that the offensive is "moving slowly" and I'm pointing out that of course it's moving slowly, it has to get through the most heavily defended regions first. Once it's done that it'll move more quickly.
Yes, exactly. The soviet defensive doctrine is partially inefficient because they wanted the entire operational area to be hardened without a specific weak point to exploit or breakthrough. The offensive army is forced to Trudge 😉 through the entire region.
Now I want cupcakes. Dammit.
What invasion of the nazis in 1945 are you talking about?
You mean Allied advances into Germany?
Also can't deny that denys guy is far from an impartial source lol
OFC he is not impartial. The media articles he linked were partisan towards the allies mentioned in them. Even in their own press the allies were referred to as being slow. This was not seen as a criticism. Germany were seen as a formidable force to be reckoned with. The fact they were even moving in the right direction at all was to be commended. There was an understanding that the task was difficult, much like Ukraine removing Russia is now.
Not impartial as in, a Ukrainian propagandist. I purposfully avoid headlines like 'Russia DESTROYS recruits with LANDMINES. How would you trust a guy like that, right?
The reality on the ground is totally different than the situation in 1945, too. German industrial capacity, manpower, air force,... Were pretty much out of the picture. Showing headlines from the times back then only shows you how it was being reported on.
O aye, can you link to that headline?
I respect him as a voice of reason