• antmzo220
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    The diversion is more significant than the article makes it out to be.

    What diversion? Russia hasn’t had to slow down it’s advances in other regions at all, in fact in some cases Russia has made faster gains, because Ukraine diverted its own best troops…

    On face value, Kursk region isn’t that important to Moscow and they’ve got the strategic points like the nuclear plant on lock. However it’s hard to deny the value of the morale boost that Ukraine desperately needed,

    It’s only a morale boost to westerners observing the news as if it’s a game. It doesn’t help the real world situation for Ukraine or Ukrainians. That’s what this was for, to signal boost to the west.

    The Kursk incursion does not change losses caused by poor military coordination present from Ukrainian and Russian command structures.

    No, it’s an example of said poor military coordination present in the Ukrainian command structure…

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      to signal boost to the west.

      Yes it does that too.

      From my understanding the losses occurred mainly from miscommunications between one group sent in to relieve another, or drone and air units with jammer units and that kind of thing. Macroscopic strategy decisions such as the Kursk incursion are not related to that. Clearly it was planned well as intelligence kept it under wraps until its execution. The execution of the defense was poorer on the eastern front such as intergroup communication problems, inadequately prepared defense lines and so on.