111
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by little_cow@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Ukraine is making limited advances in its counteroffensive against Russian forces but has yet to employ the kind of larger-scale operations that American officials believe could enable a breakthrough, officials and analysts say, deepening questions among some of Ukraine’s chief backers about whether Kyiv can move fast enough to match a finite supply of munitions and arms.

Five weeks into the highly anticipated operation, Ukrainian forces are attempting to weaken Russian defenses by firing fusillades of artillery and missiles and sending small teams of sappers into the sprawling minefields that constitute their adversary’s outermost ring of defense. But the pace of progress, in three main areas along a vast 600-mile front line, has generated concerns in the West that the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky may not deliver as powerful a blow as it could.

A U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share the American assessment of the operation, said the United States and other nations had trained Ukrainian troops on integrated offensive maneuvers and provided mine-clearing equipment including rollers and rocket-fired charges.

“Applying all those capabilities in a way that enables them to breach those obstacles, but do it quickly, is paramount,” the official said. At the same time, the official added, as Ukrainian forces face intense attacks from antitank munitions and armed Russian drones: “We don’t underestimate or under-appreciate that it’s a very tough situation.”

Underlying the evolving assessments of the operation, which Kyiv launched in early June after months of preparation, is a debate about the tactics that can best enable Ukraine to penetrate highly fortified Russian lines and recapture sufficient territory to potentially nudge President Vladimir Putin toward abandoning his goal of cementing permanent control over vast swaths of Ukraine.

Western officials and analysts say Ukraine’s military has so far embraced an attrition-based approach aimed largely at creating vulnerabilities in Russian lines by firing artillery and missiles at command, transport and logistics sites at the rear of the Russian position, instead of conducting what Western military officials call “combined arms” operations that involve coordinated maneuvers by large groups of tanks, armored vehicles, infantry, artillery and, sometimes, air power.

Ukraine’s military leaders argue that, lacking aviation might, they must avoid unnecessary losses against an adversary with a far larger pool of recruits and weaponry. To preserve manpower, Ukraine has fielded just four of a dozen trained brigades in the current campaign.

“We cannot use meat-grinder tactics as the Russians do,” Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine’s defense minister, said in an interview. “For us, the most precious thing is the lives and health of our soldiers. That is why our task is to achieve success at the front while protecting lives.”

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank that tracks daily battlefield developments, calculates that Ukraine has liberated some 250 square kilometers since the beginning of the offensive, far short of Western hopes and, as Zelensky acknowledged, slower than Ukrainian leaders had wished.

Expectations are high: a Ukrainian counteroffensive last fall yielded shocking gains against unprepared and undermotivated Russian troops, including the recapture of strategic areas in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions.

Military analysts say there are important differences this time that come down in Moscow’s favor. Unlike last fall, when Kremlin leaders appeared to doubt Ukraine’s ability to punch back, Russian forces have had months to plant mines, dig trenches and position anti-armor and drone units that have slowed Ukraine’s advance. And unlike in Ukraine’s recapture of the port city of Kherson, where Moscow struggled to resupply and defend positions across the Dnieper River, Russian forces along the front line have no major obstacles at their back.

While Russia’s military is showing signs of strain, including the dismissal of one senior commander, the reported death of another in a Ukrainian strike and the withdrawal of mercenary Wagner forces, it has shown itself to be a formidable adversary. Moscow has been able to ship fresh troops to the front lines, powered in part by Putin accelerating mobilization at home.

Another important feature of Moscow’s defenses are the omnipresent drones that provide Russian forces granular, real-time information about Ukrainian troops’ whereabouts, enabling them to conduct kamikaze attacks or tee up targeted strikes, a challenge that not even American forces — for all their combat experience in recent decades — have faced on this scale.

Analysts say that Ukrainian attempts to breach Russian defenses with armored units early in the offensive were met with overwhelming artillery, antitank missiles, loitering munitions and helicopter fire, generating significant losses. Ukrainian officials say Russia is especially quick to fire on armored vehicles and anti-mine equipment such as the Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) when they press forward.

As a result, Ukrainian commanders have embraced more low-profile advances involving groups of 15 to 50 people on foot, said Kateryna Stepanenko, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. Some are sappers who advance on their bellies to find and disable enemy mines. Other infantry teams lie in wait with surface-to-air missiles to take down Russian helicopters.

Rob Lee, a former Marine infantry officer now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said Ukraine’s tactics could minimize losses — but they come with trade-offs. “Advancing on foot will likely reduce the attrition they sustain,” he said. “But it means the advances will be slower and have less opportunity to achieve a rapid breakthrough.” Ukraine got a boost this month when President Biden authorized the provision of U.S. cluster munitions to Ukraine, unlocking an arsenal of controversial artillery ammunition that has the potential to tide Ukraine over until Western nations can produce more standard shells.

Analysts say that another impediment to mounting larger-scale operations is the limited training that Ukrainian troops received over the winter on those combined-arms tactics, something that American forces rehearse at a specialized training center year after year.

U.S. officials have been reluctant to comment extensively on Ukraine’s tactics because they don’t want to be perceived as criticizing a close partner at a time of existential threat.

Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims, a senior official on the U.S. military’s Joint Staff, noted that Ukrainian troops were being asked to employ new equipment and tactics “all while being shot at and bombed” as they attempt to traverse a massive minefield. He noted that it took months before breakthroughs occurred in other major historical battles.

“And so where they are gaining hundreds of meters a day, maybe a kilometer a day in some places, they’re doing that at great cost in terms of effort,” he told reporters last week. “This is hard warfare; it’s in really tough terrain; it’s under fire, and really, when you consider all of that, it’s pretty remarkable,” he said.

But as the campaign continues without large-scale gains, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s top military officer, is making urgent appeals for donations of Western air power to offset Ukraine’s disadvantages.

While the Biden administration has not agreed to directly provide the F-16 fighter jets that Ukraine wants, the White House relented in permitting other countries to transfer their own U.S.-origin planes to Ukraine. A European-led training effort is expected to get underway next month.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

What does it benefit we Americans to have more of a say in how they win their war? We should help them win and rebuild and then denazify Russia - who has crippled themselves economically and demographically, which will have knock-on effects globally that shape the whole century. It's a hideous situation overall, and even my insanely simplistic view would be a bad outcome.

[-] flipht@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

"We should help them win the war" necessitates providing advice on strategy, tactics, and the use of the equipment we have provided.

You can't really have the outcome you've described without the US officials doing exactly what they're doing.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Is that an opener to a conversation you'd find interesting to actually have? If yes, very confusing.

[-] flipht@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

It's not a conversation. It's a statement of fact. The person I responded to said that we should help them win the war, but also seemed to be questioning why we'd be involved in logistics, while also saying that we should somehow "denazify" Russia, which is simultaneously vague and a hugely expanded action.

Cause and effect. You want the effect? You have to do some stuff to make some causes.

[-] chickenwing@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

denazify Russia

Before or after we win the war on terror?

[-] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago

After that and just a bit before drugs winning the war on drugs

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

No that one's over terror won lol. Didn't FDR say we have to be afraid of fear? Why did we forget the prophecy?

Anyway, denazify Russia for sure. It doesn't take a chickenshit seppo to say "Nazis are bad"

[-] chickenwing@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

FDR got us into WW2 you want this to escalte into WW3? Be careful what you wish for. What exactly does your "denazify" Russia entail? Removing Putin? Because that could require invasion and if you think Iraq had blowback try that shit with Russia.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Don't take this personally but yikes

[-] chickenwing@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What you don't want to escalate a war and get millions of people killed? YIKESARINO.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

yeah is he saying we should not have gotten involved in WW2????

[-] chickenwing@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

WW3 will involve nuclear bombs and weapons beyond that. Why the fuck would you want to risk that? There are better outcomes to this.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

what does that have to do with getting involved with ww2 that involved nuclear bombs, No one wanted ww2 except the nazis and imperial japan but it happened. Same will be the case if www3 happens.

[-] chickenwing@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You can prevent WW3 by de-escalating right now. It would help if we worked on diplomacy rather than sending a bunch of bombs to Ukraine and hoping it all works out. You realize that it's not the 40's anymore and WW3 could mean nuclear armageddon right?

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

You can't de-escalate from an invasion! The ones responsible are the invaders. Im not going to roll over if a country invades the us and compromise because they threaten ww3. Suck every dick in the world or ww3. your not sucking dick so your not trying to prevent it. fuck that shit.

[-] chickenwing@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Well you can start by not threatening Russia with invasion. Russia is propagandizing this as a fight for their survival don't add fuel to the flame by saying your going to invade them. The US has invade and left a few countries over the years and it didn't take threats to make us leave. We left after the public turned on it and it became politically unpopular. The same will happen in Russia but not if you threaten them.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Russia normalized invasion by invading ukraine. If you don't want something to happen to you then you don't do it to other people. That is the golden rule and the way societies work. Russia does not get to do whatever it wants by screaming nukes any time someone does not let them.

[-] chickenwing@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Doesn't matter what is fair. Russia has nukes and will use them if they feel threatened. If Russia ends up getting hit by a Ukrainian bomb then they might retaliate by hitting the ones who gave it to them. Best way forward is to make a truce that pleases no one but keeps the peace.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

yeah thats the suck all the dicks solution. Sorry no. Nukers gonna nuke. Might nuke because they feel threatened by nothing.

[-] chickenwing@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah well great as long as the nuke hits you and not me I think I'm fine with it.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Russia normalized invasion by invading ukraine. If you don't want something to happen to you then you don't do it to other people. That is the golden rule and the way societies work. Russia does not get to do whatever it wants by screaming nukes any time someone does not let them.

[-] Beetschnapps@universeodon.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@chickenwing if you think FDR himself got the entire country into a WORLD WAR you are too damn stupid to take seriously. Go find another villain like cobra commander or something cause reality is apparently too hard.

[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Give.them.tanks. hundreds of them

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Who is saying that? There is a big difference between a general and say the IT admin. My impression is those who know war are happy with how things are going, but those who don't think war is easy.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I feel this way. They talk like making a breakthrough through mine fields, artillery, aviation and several lines of defense is easy if you just push hard enough. Aviation alone would stop any push that would go too far it seems.

I feel like the dam destruction did a lot to stop UK advance too.

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Never trust the word of a public official speaking under the condition of anonymity.

[-] zouden@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That was a good read, thanks for sharing it.

[-] Spacebar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's a war of attrition now.

[-] VariousWorldViews@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

While the Biden administration has not agreed to directly provide the F-16 fighter jets that Ukraine wants,

Biden won't do anything that can end the war quickly.

this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
111 points (96.6% liked)

World News

38500 readers
3503 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS