Ukraine - Russia Conflict (Original Title: Things are heating up in the Donbass)

[holdover]

An explosion early Friday morning seriously damaged the key Antonivsky Bridge in Kherson, Ukraine. The explosion came as Russian forces retreated from the strategically important city. Neither side has claimed responsibility for the blast.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

Stratego

Obligatory!

 

[holdover]

The withdrawal does make sense. 20,000 Russian troops facing 60,000 Ukrainian troops . Backs to the river. If the supply artery's are cut . it would be a catastrophy .They were over stretched , supply lines vulnerable, facing an imminent Ukraine offensive.Much better to dig in for the winter. This would also free up some of the better units . rest refit get ready for the next drive . the defenses could be manned by the new soldiers comming in , and they can still house them in the city on the eastern bank

Even if the Russians could drive another 100 miles , all thier doing is extending thier supply lines for little gain

 

[Acer-m14]

i'm still waiting for the TVs to pop up saying ..

we interrupt this broadcast to bring you important updates on the war in Ukraine ..

 

[ArmedCorgi]

i'm still waiting for the TVs to pop up saying ..

we interrupt this broadcast to bring you important updates on the war in Ukraine ..

Something like this...

 

[Acer-m14]

Something like this...

close ..

more like CNN , MSNBC .. Ect ... reporters in the middle of the war zone reporting and taking fire ..

like to do when a hurricane comes inland

 

[ArmedCorgi]

close ..

more like CNN , MSNBC .. Ect ... reporters in the middle of the war zone reporting and taking fire ..

like to do when a hurricane comes inland

Oh, so like this...

 

[spat]

The withdrawal does make sense. 20,000 Russian troops facing 60,000 Ukrainian troops . Backs to the river. If the supply artery's are cut . it would be a catastrophy .They were over stretched , supply lines vulnerable, facing an imminent Ukraine offensive.Much better to dig in for the winter. This would also free up some of the better units . rest refit get ready for the next drive . the defenses could be manned by the new soldiers comming in , and they can still house them in the city on the eastern bank

Even if the Russians could drive another 100 miles , all thier doing is extending thier supply lines for little gain

Yes, it makes good military sense to withdraw.

But that's how you win wars, by making your enemy repeatedly withdraw because it's the only thing that makes sense.

The entire Ukranian strategy is to just keep doing that until the Russians all withdraw all the way back to the border.

 

[holdover]

But that's how you win wars, by making your enemy repeatedly withdraw because it's the only thing that makes sense.

Well I dont totally agree with that , The way you win wars is to destroy his ABILITY to fight. Cant fight without ammo ,food parts. those are the targets .

 

[spat]

Well I dont totally agree with that , The way you win wars is to destroy his ABILITY to fight. Cant fight without ammo ,food parts. those are the targets .

Classically yes.

But most modern conflicts have left both parties intact. The dispute is about the territory.

Ukraine is not going to pursue Russia into Russian territory, so they will be left with *some* ability to fight.

Ukraine's declared victory conditions are to get Russian armed forces out of Ukranian territory. That will look like a series of withdrawals by Russia.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Classically yes.

But most modern conflicts have left both parties intact. The dispute is about the territory.

Ukraine is not going to pursue Russia into Russian territory, so they will be left with *some* ability to fight.

Ukraine's declared victory conditions are to get Russian armed forces out of Ukranian territory. That will look like a series of withdrawals by Russia.

Ukraine is going to have an increasingly difficult time as their numbers become depleted they don't have new reserves to mobilize. Every day this drags on they will grow weaker.

Ukraine as a cruel twist of fate every day they advance they increase their supply lines and the amount of territory an increasingly depleted army has to maintain and cover. The more territory they take back the harder it will be to keep it. The farther the bulk of Ukrainian forces advance in the SE the more vulnerable Kiev is from a northern flank attack coming down from Belarus.

There are no simple answers and each seemingly good turn of events for Ukraine leads to new challenges. They're in a tough position for sure

 

[spat]

Ukraine is going to have an increasingly difficult time as their numbers become depleted they don't have new reserves to mobilize. Every day this drags on they will grow weaker.

Ukraine as a cruel twist of fate every day they advance they increase their supply lines and the amount of territory an increasingly depleted army has to maintain and cover. The more territory they take back the harder it will be to keep it. The farther the bulk of Ukrainian forces advance in the SE the more vulnerable Kiev is from a northern flank attack coming down from Belarus.

There are no simple answers and each seemingly good turn of events for Ukraine leads to new challenges. They're in a tough position for sure

Certainly they are. But Ukraine has most of NATO backing their logistics train. And they are just re-taking territory that's already theirs.

The home court advantage is huge.

Russia struggled to maintain logistics over a few hundred miles. Ukraine has to move their gear from Ukraine. to ... Ukraine.

I don't know how scorched earth Russia went in the withdrawal, but it's possible Ukraine could get train loads of NATO equipment shipped from Germany or France and unload it practically at the front.

 

[holdover]

Classically yes.

But most modern conflicts have left both parties intact. The dispute is about the territory.

Ukraine is not going to pursue Russia into Russian territory, so they will be left with *some* ability to fight.

Ukraine's declared victory conditions are to get Russian armed forces out of Ukranian territory. That will look like a series of withdrawals by Russia.

The dispute is always about territory when It comes to war.

the ONLY reason they are able to fight is because of NATO supplies. Thats it. they have no ability to produce weapons and they have no abilty to even run the goverment. The US is paying all goverment employees. Ukraine would have collapsed if it wasnt for NATO .

Ukraine does not have the ability to beat the russians . Thier definition of winning is to regain thier lost territories , Thats going to be tough to do since Russia can out produce them forever. They have no ability to ever beat Russia in Russia. they cant stop Russia from producing arms .

The one and only thing keeping Ukraine alive is NATO .

 

[DoOver]

UKR REPORT

@UKR_Report


#BREAKING

UKRAINE "MILITARY AID" FROM USA - WAS INVESTED IN CRYPTO "FTX" BY UKRAINE!


10:18 PM · Nov 11, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

2,099
Retweets
967
Quote Tweets
5,489
Likes

 

[spat]

The dispute is always about territory when It comes to war.

the ONLY reason they are able to fight is because of NATO supplies. Thats it. they have no ability to produce weapons and they have no abilty to even run the goverment. The US is paying all goverment employees. Ukraine would have collapsed if it wasnt for NATO .

Ukraine does not have the ability to beat the russians . Thier definition of winning is to regain thier lost territories , Thats going to be tough to do since Russia can out produce them forever. They have no ability to ever beat Russia in Russia. they cant stop Russia from producing arms .

The one and only thing keeping Ukraine alive is NATO .

Not any more it's not.

We didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq over territory. Both were about policy.

In neither case did we have any intention of annexing them.

There are dozens of other similar examples.

Powerful countries have found out that having compliant governments installed in other places is better than owning then yourself.

In a world where "democracy" is the gold standard, the last thing you want to do is absorb a country who's populace that hates your guts.

Better to install a compliant authoritarian government that you can influence. Then you don't have to let those people vote in your election, and you don't have to take responsibility for the totalitarian acts of their government.

 

[tirwin1]

 

[DoOver]

 

[DoOver]

 

[holdover]

Not any more it's not.

We didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq over territory. Both were about policy.

In neither case did we have any intention of annexing them.

There are dozens of other similar examples.

Powerful countries have found out that having compliant governments installed in other places is better than owning then yourself.

In a world where "democracy" is the gold standard, the last thing you want to do is absorb a country who's populace that hates your guts.

Better to install a compliant authoritarian government that you can influence. Then you don't have to let those people vote in your election, and you don't have to take responsibility for the totalitarian acts of their government.

No, you completely misunderstand.

 

[spat]

No, you completely misunderstand.

One of us does.

 

[holdover]

Shakes head.

How do you invade another country without taking key terrain objectives? It's impossible.

 

[spat]

Shakes head.

How do you invade another country without taking key terrain objectives? It's impossible.

See Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, etc...

Sure we might create a base temporarily somewhere, but we did not permanently occupy territory.

There is a huge difference between creating a base that's a few square miles, and establishing martial law across 100,000 square miles.

And at no point did anyone expect us to try to annex that territory.

We have military bases all over the world, that doesn't mean we're occupying England, Germany, France, Japan, etc...

 

[tirwin1]

 

[RedBreast21]

Shakes head.

How do you invade another country without taking key terrain objectives? It's impossible.

The world hasn't seen this type of ground warfare between large well supported armies since the Iran Iraq war.

The conflicts the U.S. has been involved in since Vietnam were where the overwhelming U.S. forces stomping on a poorly equipped enemy and honestly, we didn't fair well against a determined enemy. Mostly because of politics and not a fault of our forces.

So regular ground warfare doctrine absolutely applies in this war with the exception of better actionable Intel available through drones and satellites. That has changed things and as such requires a change in tactics and deception. If Ukraine cannot match force numbers on the front, then it's over. WW1 style warfare. Ukraine stacked up 60k troops against 12k and the Russian's who did a tactical retreat, drew the Ukraine forces in and it was nothing but carnage. Artillery killed over 6k Ukrainians (that Ukraine numbers) and 1600 Russians. If you aren't hearing of this then change your source of media.

As for Kerson, The Russian forces had to pull back as they didn't have the numbers to defend and with all bridges blown over the Nepa river and only pontoon bridges, it was a good tactical decision as you cannot support the defending force against a numerical superior force and the bridge is venerable to attack. The Nepa river makes for a great natural barrier and defensive line with many miles on the other side of the river targeted. I am sure the entire, once held area is targeted by Russian artillery. That is exactly what we would do and have done in similar warfare. The battle of the bulge in ww2 is an example where one commander tactically fell back upon each engagement until the German supplies line stretched thin and the ultimately the German's ran out of fuel and their attack stalled. It will be interesting to see if Ukraine enters that area in real large numbers.

Putin has 400k troops in the pipeline to put on that entire new annexed border which will likely be showing up in December. Once that happens Ukraine will not have the numbers to match. He may go back across the river as the city has deep historical connection to the birth of Russia.

This is why you see countries like France and Italy making statements about ending their support. How far is too far? And for what?

But people can do more to show support other than lip service on youtube and other message boards. As the Ukraine recruiting websites say "Hero's never Die" and people can now sign up, get a flight and get paid up to 2k a day. A paid mercenary.

People here need to focus on BRICS. That will be your real life changing event. We need to work with that new global landscape because that is exactly what Ukraine is all about.

 

[holdover]

See Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, etc...

Sure we might create a base temporarily somewhere, but we did not permanently occupy territory.

There is a huge difference between creating a base that's a few square miles, and establishing martial law across 100,000 square miles.

And at no point did anyone expect us to try to annex that territory.

We have military bases all over the world, that doesn't mean we're occupying England, Germany, France, Japan, etc...

Sorry . You don't understand .you absolutely must take hold terrain. Period. You can't take Bagdad without troops. You can't take Bagdad without a an assembly area. You can't take Kiev without securing your flanks. I have no idea what in the world your talking a Bout

 

[holdover]

The world hasn't seen this type of ground warfare between large well supported armies since the Iran Iraq war.

The conflicts the U.S. has been involved in since Vietnam were where the overwhelming U.S. forces stopping on a poorly equipped enemy and honestly, we didn't fair well against a determined enemy. Mostly because of politics and not a fault of our forces.

So regular ground warfare doctrine absolutely applies in this war with the exception of better actionable Intel available through drones and satellites. That has changed things and as such requires a change in tactics and deception. If Ukraine cannot match force numbers on the front, then it's over. WW1 style warfare. Ukraine stacked up 60k troops against 12k and the Russian's who did a tactical retreat, drew the Ukraine forces in and it was nothing but carnage. Artillery killed over 6k Ukrainians (that Ukraine numbers) and 1600 Russians. If you aren't hearing of this then change your source of media.

As for Kerson, The Russian forces had to pull back as they didn't have the numbers to defend and with all bridges blown over the Nepa river and only pontoon bridges, it was a good tactical decision as you cannot support the defending force against a numerical superior force and the bridge is venerable to attack. The Nepa river makes for a great natural barrier and defensive line with many miles on the other side of the river targeted. I am sure the entire, once held area is targeted by Russian artillery. That is exactly what we would do and have done in similar warfare. The battle of the bulge in ww2 is an example where one commander tactically fell back upon each engagement until the German supplies line stretched thin and the ultimately the German's ran out of fuel and their attack stalled. It will be interesting to see if Ukraine enters that area in real large numbers.

Putin has 400k troops in the pipeline to put on that entire new annexed border which will likely be showing up in December. Once that happens Ukraine will not have the numbers to match. He may go back across the river as the city has deep historical connection to the birth of Russia.

This is why you see countries like France and Italy making statements about ending their support. How far is too far? And for what?

But people can do more to show support other than lip service on youtube and other message boards. As the Ukraine recruiting websites say "Hero's never Die" and people can now sign up, get a flight and get paid up to 2k a day. A paid mercenary.

People here need to focus on BRICS. That will be your real life changing event. We need to work with that new global landscape because that is exactly what Ukraine is all about.

Pretty much agree with most of your post

 

[DoOver]

 

[holdover]

See Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, etc...

We took and held terrain in every one of those countries. Seriously, You cant take objective A without first securing objective B and C .

 

[holdover]

Not any more it's not.

We didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq over territory. Both were about policy.

In neither case did we have any intention of annexing them.

There are dozens of other similar examples.

Powerful countries have found out that having compliant governments installed in other places is better than owning then yourself.

In a world where "democracy" is the gold standard, the last thing you want to do is absorb a country who's populace that hates your guts.

Better to install a compliant authoritarian government that you can influence. Then you don't have to let those people vote in your election, and you don't have to take responsibility for the totalitarian acts of their government.

I think there is some kind of misunderstanding here, Your talking about policy, Im talking about battle tactics

I said ""The dispute is always about territory when It comes to war."" refering to tactics on the battle field , not National policy .

You said : And at no point did anyone expect us to try to annex that territory.


which is correct, but not talking about annexing anyone , Just the use of terrain .

 

[holdover]

Not any more it's not.

We didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq over territory. Both were about policy.

In neither case did we have any intention of annexing them.

There are dozens of other similar examples.

Powerful countries have found out that having compliant governments installed in other places is better than owning then yourself.

In a world where "democracy" is the gold standard, the last thing you want to do is absorb a country who's populace that hates your guts.

Better to install a compliant authoritarian government that you can influence. Then you don't have to let those people vote in your election, and you don't have to take responsibility for the totalitarian acts of their government.

I agree with most of this except Were talking about 2 different things .