Maybe somebody can explain to me what the significance of the Ukrainian push is precisely. It looks like Russians realized that they did not have enough forces to hold both Kherson and Kharkov regions, and they chose to withdraw from Kharkov rather than lose troops there.
It’s worth noting that the Ukrainian troops are no longer in fortified defensive positions and their lines of communication to support the forward troops are now defined precisely. The Ukrainian attack has not destroyed nor disrupted Russia’s air, artillery, rocket and missile assets, and Russians have sent reinforcements and will most likely launch a counter offensive once their forces are consolidated. Once there is actual engagement between the armies we’ll see what happens, and if Kherson offensive is anything to go by then it’s not likely to go well for Ukraine.
Kupyansk is a critical node to supply Izyum and Lyman. Russia did heavy fighting for weeks to take these two cities and constantly launched attacks from there, binding a lot of Ukrainian troops. With Kupyansk gone, Izyum is fully cut off (and already confirmed taken) and Lyman is now very difficult to access for Russians (rail access is gone and the major roads lead to ukrainian held territory) as only small side streets are left for the Russians. Proper logistics to Lyman are pretty much impossible now and it’s a matter of time until Russia has to leave it too. Rail access to Severodonetsk is also gone, but it can still be supplied through Svatove, so I don’t think it will change hands soon (unless the rumours of Russians abandoning Svatove are true, which I doubt at this moment).
I also doubt Russia will counterattack anything in Kharkiv in the near future. They announced fully retreating from Kharkiv oblast and there’s already confirmations of ukrainian troops in cities/villages north of Kharkiv even though they shouldn’t be really affected by the attack on Kupyansk. They might hold on to the east of the Oskil river though, in an attempt to keep Severodonetsk
Kupyansk is a critical node to supply Izyum and Lyman.
You’ll have to elaborate on what exactly makes Izyum and Lyman strategically important in this war. Especially in a short term exchange of hands given that Ukraine was able to take this territory because Russia chose to withdraw troops. This is reminiscent of the the first Kharkov offensive when Ukraine rolled up to the border did some photo ops and then left.
The failed offensive in Kherson seems like a much bigger story to me since that’s where actual combat happened and Ukraine sustained heavy losses without managing to gain any territory to speak of. Russians are currently consolidating the forces they withdrew and reinforcing them with fresh troops. That is a very likely indication that they’re preparing a counteroffensive. People seem to be counting their chickens before they hatch here.
I also doubt Russia will counterattack anything in Kharkiv in the near future.
I expect Russia will consolidate its gains in Kherson and Donbas before looking at taking Kharkov. Donbas is where the main front is, and fighting there hasn’t let up with Russians along with LPR and DPR making steady gains there. That seems to me like the most important front to watch.
The Kharkiv offensive won’t decide the outcome of the entire war of course. But with how little the front has moved in the last two months, this sudden change is pretty big. It was also very unexpected because everyone kept talking about Kherson before. Every bit of territory matters to Ukraine, and I guess they saw this was the most lightly defended part.
You’ll have to elaborate on what exactly makes Izyum and Lyman strategically important in this war
Izyum and Lyman provide an additional axis to attack Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. (Successfully) attacking from that direction and from the east could have allowed Russia to encircle and therefore conquer a large part of Donetsk Oblast. Now they can only attack from the mostly heavily fortified east. Taking Donetsk Oblast was one of their big plans, right? Well it just became much harder. Also Luhansk is now open to attack from the west, with the only big defense being the Oskil river. That’s where the main front is, right? Luhansk and Donetsk Oblast, the Donbass region?
Also there was a lot of equipment left behind. Russia still has a lot of tanks at home, but it still hurts, especially when the enemy is able to make use of it. Lots of POWs as well.
LPR and DPR making steady gains
What did they gain in the last two months? Pisky? With all 6 inhabitants? Their area gains are miniscule compared to what just happened in a span of days.
Kherson
Russia had no gains in Kherson for a while now and some small area losses. The fight there is extremely expensive for both sides, but Kherson is currently in a similar situation as Severodonetsk was a few months ago, just with the sides switched. There are no working bridges over the Dnieper, making supplies extremely difficult because they have to be ferried over the river. And those ferries are constantly harassed by HIMARS strikes. With no hope for properly supplying the area, it is basically already lost. It’s just a matter of time, and Ukraine has the logistical advantage
But with how little the front has moved in the last two months, this sudden change is pretty big. I
Once again, I fail to see the strategic importance of this change. Ukraine did a big push on two fronts. Russia chose to hold in Kherson, and to withdraw around Kharkov. I’m not seeing how this improves the situation for Ukraine anymore than their last Kharkov offensive that was rolled back within weeks.
Every bit of territory matters to Ukraine, and I guess they saw this was the most lightly defended part.
Taking territory is only meaningful if you can hold it. Ukraine was able to take it because Russia chose to withdraw. If Russia consolidates and counter attacks then Ukraine will be in exact same position Russia was in when they held it.
Now they can only attack from the mostly heavily fortified east.
Again, this hinges on Ukraine being able to actually hold this territory.
Well it just became much harder.
Except it hasn’t because as I’ve explained above, Ukraine is in no better position to hold this territory than Russia was. As you yourself pointed out, it’s lightly defended.
Also there was a lot of equipment left behind. Russia still has a lot of tanks at home, but it still hurts, especially when the enemy is able to make use of it. Lots of POWs as well.
I haven’t seen any credible reports regarding this. A lot of stuff that’s been shown on social media turned out to be Ukrainian equipment or from other battles. Pretty much every account suggests that Russians did an orderly and strategic withdrawal.
What did they gain in the last two months? Pisky? With all 6 inhabitants? Their area gains are miniscule compared to what just happened in a span of days.
This is a war of attrition. Ukraine is losing anywhere from 100 to 500 troops each and every day by their own admission. They’re also unable to replace their military equipment or ammunition. Ukraine is not able to sustain this for much longer, and western support is not sufficient to replace what they’re losing.
The fight there is extremely expensive for both sides, but Kherson is currently in a similar situation as Severodonetsk was a few months ago, just with the sides switched.
Even western media admits that the fighting is far more expensive on the Ukrainian side because Russia has massive artillery and air superiority over Ukraine.
And those ferries are constantly harassed by HIMARS strikes. With no hope for properly supplying the area, it is basically already lost. It’s just a matter of time, and Ukraine has the logistical advantage
So far there is zero evidence that HIMARS have made any strategic impact on combat. Also worth noting that Russia has hundreds of MLRS systems comparable to HIMARS, if this is what wins the war then Russia has a huge advantage here.
Also they often use it for terror strikes at civilians in Donbas. This speak volumes about who they are and who are their suppliers - their country is in “fight for the very survival and independence”, and they waste expensive and supposedly very effective weapons to murder civilians.
Also, even USA do not want to give them longer range missiles because they would just used it to terror strikes against russian cities in Russia.
Russia chose to hold in Kherson, and to withdraw around Kharkov
don’t mind me, just saving some of your claims for the future when Ivans will “choose” “a gesture of goodwill” again.
Have you written an explanation for this “regrouping” already? oh nah, let me guess, the city has “no significance”, right? yeah, also let’s spice it up with “heavy” casualties from UAF, “freezing” europe and the west crumbling aaaaany daaaaay noooow; sounds whataboutist enough? good
Wow you’re still just as funny as you were last time I talked to you
Taking territory is only meaningful if you can hold it
Correct. And they absolutely can hold it. On the first try it took Russia months to take it, and I don’t see how they can do that again, given all the troops that were involved are now in Kherson. But I guess we’ll just have to see.
orderly and strategic withdrawal.
Lol no. Literally just take a look at https://twitter.com/UAWeapons and you’ll see tons of abandoned and destroyed Russian vehicles. They were completely overwhelmed in Kharkiv and did not plan this. Of course it’s not all precisely geolocatable but it has to come from somewhere.
This is a war of attrition
Correct. And majority of the Russian army is in Kherson with their back towards a river with no bridges. Supplies are limited and they are unable to move a meaningful amount of vehicles in or out of Kherson. This is completely unsustainable in the long term.
Even western media admits that the fighting is far more expensive on the Ukrainian side
It sure is expensive. But Kherson has tied so many russian resources that Ukraine now managed to steamroll through Kharkiv. It doesn’t matter whether Kharkiv was just an orderly retreat (it wasn’t) or a “sign of goodwill” (it wasn’t) or a rout (it was), Ukraine just wants their territory back. And there is “steady” progress on Kherson too, at least more steady than LDPR progress on Pisky and Bakhmut
zero evidence that HIMARS have made any strategic impact
HIMARS is the reason Russian logistics are completely fucked in Kherson. It’s also the reason for the rise in “smoking accidents” in ammo dumps on Russian occupied territory.
Russia has […] MLRS systems comparable to HIMARS
So in Russias hands they do have strategic impact? Also please tell me the name. I’m looking for something with about 80km range, less than 10m deviation at max range, and which is actually used by Russia. So far I have only seen them use Kalibrs for comparable targets, and those are much more expensive than HIMARS rockets and easier to intercept. It’s also questionable how many of those are still left.
I’m done with this thread, we both know this discussion won’t reach a conclusion. I’m interested to see where our points will stand in another 6 months
Explains a lot about your position given that you get your info from an Ukrainian propaganda account on Twitter 😂
And majority of the Russian army is in Kherson with their back towards a river with no bridges. Supplies are limited and they are unable to move a meaningful amount of vehicles in or out of Kherson. This is completely unsustainable in the long term.
Weird that Ukraine isn’t making gains there if Russians are in such a dire position isn’t it.
It sure is expensive. But Kherson has tied so many russian resources that Ukraine now managed to steamroll through Kharkiv.
Yes, Ukraine managed to steamroll uncontested territory. Quite the tour de force there just like the first Kharkov offensive.
HIMARS is the reason Russian logistics are completely fucked in Kherson. It’s also the reason for the rise in “smoking accidents” in ammo dumps on Russian occupied territory.
Except that there is zero indication that HIMARS played any role in Kherson or that Russian logistics are having any problems there. Meanwhile, attacks in Crimea were carried out by drones. Ukraine doesn’t even have HIMARS missiles with the range to hit Crimea.
So in Russias hands they do have strategic impact?
What I actually said was that If HIMARS type systems make a strategic impact then Russia has an advantage in this area by virtue of having an order of magnitude more MLRS systems.
I’m done with this thread, we both know this discussion won’t reach a conclusion. I’m interested to see where our points will stand in another 6 months
Good, let’s see what actually happens since it’s pretty clear we’re not going to convince each other of anything here.
That’s not significant at all because the Russians chose not to contest this territory. If Ukraine defeated Russian military to take this land then that would indeed be very significant. The only thing this shows is that Russians aren’t throwing their troops into a meat grinder for media gains the way Ukraine did in Kherson.
I think it also shows that $100 billion in funding from NATO-aligned forces really is making a technological difference. For comparison, Russia’s annual military budget is $48 billion.
It’s not like military industrial capacity balance has changed significantly since June. If anything mass shutdowns of steel mills across Europe makes it worse for NATO now.
However, Russia itself built many of its strategic and operational concepts around short war assumptions. Though it has demonstrated the ability to expend resources at scale so far, the question of whether Russia has all the underpinnings of a state capable of continuing to fight a long war deserves further examination
Russia probably benefits from having stockpiles capable of sustaining combat operations for several years, as well as the capacity to manufacture more at scale. Other capabilities such as tanks and armoured fighting vehicles will, however, need to be regenerated, given the levels of attrition Russia is taking. A key consideration here will be how Russia’s major manufacturers function in the absence of Western components – which, notably, they have failed to substitute in the last decade. After the post-2014 sanctions on defence exports, Russia was able to achieve effective substitution of Western goods in seven out of 127 categories of equipment identified as priorities for import substitution.
It concludes with
To be sure, Russia can cut corners – by excluding the need for refresher courses for militarily experienced individuals, for example. Moreover, its enormous stockpiles in areas like artillery shells mean its military machine will not grind to a halt any time soon. Its military will, however, undergo a progressive devolution in qualitative terms should this option be chosen. Alternatively, Russia could opt to replace lost capabilities with qualitatively comparable materiel and personnel for a second offensive – and will probably succeed in some categories. It will not, however, be able to replace the capacity it is shedding at scale. Given a pause, it can potentially generate enough combat capability to, in conjunction with its remaining pre-war capabilities, enable a subsequent offensive. Its ability to do this depends on whether the Russian system is given the breathing space to conserve existing resources, given its limited ability to replace human and material assets at scale.
So basically Russia needs a pause to be able to withstand this. But given that NATO funding doesn’t seem to be slowing down any time soon, how much will that really help? The source you posted pointed out Lockheed Martin could easily go from it’s current production of 2,100 missiles a year to 4,000 in a couple years
If you look at the packages NATO has been sending each new package is smaller than the last. This is true both for weapons and financial aid. Meanwhile, Europe is now crashing economically and will not have enough energy to last the winter. European steel mills are shutting down already. Without energy from Russia it’s not possible for Europe to ramp up weapons production. Europe is also starting to see civil unrest in many countries, this will only grow as people realize the enormity of the economic disaster they’ve been driven into.
Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin ramping up production two years in the future will make no impact on this war. Finally, there is a problem with logistics for NATO. Russia can deliver supplies easily via rail while supplies from US have to come from across the ocean. Overall, this does not paint a promising picture for NATO.
Maybe somebody can explain to me what the significance of the Ukrainian push is precisely. It looks like Russians realized that they did not have enough forces to hold both Kherson and Kharkov regions, and they chose to withdraw from Kharkov rather than lose troops there.
It’s worth noting that the Ukrainian troops are no longer in fortified defensive positions and their lines of communication to support the forward troops are now defined precisely. The Ukrainian attack has not destroyed nor disrupted Russia’s air, artillery, rocket and missile assets, and Russians have sent reinforcements and will most likely launch a counter offensive once their forces are consolidated. Once there is actual engagement between the armies we’ll see what happens, and if Kherson offensive is anything to go by then it’s not likely to go well for Ukraine.
Kupyansk is a critical node to supply Izyum and Lyman. Russia did heavy fighting for weeks to take these two cities and constantly launched attacks from there, binding a lot of Ukrainian troops. With Kupyansk gone, Izyum is fully cut off (and already confirmed taken) and Lyman is now very difficult to access for Russians (rail access is gone and the major roads lead to ukrainian held territory) as only small side streets are left for the Russians. Proper logistics to Lyman are pretty much impossible now and it’s a matter of time until Russia has to leave it too. Rail access to Severodonetsk is also gone, but it can still be supplied through Svatove, so I don’t think it will change hands soon (unless the rumours of Russians abandoning Svatove are true, which I doubt at this moment).
I also doubt Russia will counterattack anything in Kharkiv in the near future. They announced fully retreating from Kharkiv oblast and there’s already confirmations of ukrainian troops in cities/villages north of Kharkiv even though they shouldn’t be really affected by the attack on Kupyansk. They might hold on to the east of the Oskil river though, in an attempt to keep Severodonetsk
You’ll have to elaborate on what exactly makes Izyum and Lyman strategically important in this war. Especially in a short term exchange of hands given that Ukraine was able to take this territory because Russia chose to withdraw troops. This is reminiscent of the the first Kharkov offensive when Ukraine rolled up to the border did some photo ops and then left.
The failed offensive in Kherson seems like a much bigger story to me since that’s where actual combat happened and Ukraine sustained heavy losses without managing to gain any territory to speak of. Russians are currently consolidating the forces they withdrew and reinforcing them with fresh troops. That is a very likely indication that they’re preparing a counteroffensive. People seem to be counting their chickens before they hatch here.
I expect Russia will consolidate its gains in Kherson and Donbas before looking at taking Kharkov. Donbas is where the main front is, and fighting there hasn’t let up with Russians along with LPR and DPR making steady gains there. That seems to me like the most important front to watch.
deleted by creator
The Kharkiv offensive won’t decide the outcome of the entire war of course. But with how little the front has moved in the last two months, this sudden change is pretty big. It was also very unexpected because everyone kept talking about Kherson before. Every bit of territory matters to Ukraine, and I guess they saw this was the most lightly defended part.
Izyum and Lyman provide an additional axis to attack Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. (Successfully) attacking from that direction and from the east could have allowed Russia to encircle and therefore conquer a large part of Donetsk Oblast. Now they can only attack from the mostly heavily fortified east. Taking Donetsk Oblast was one of their big plans, right? Well it just became much harder. Also Luhansk is now open to attack from the west, with the only big defense being the Oskil river. That’s where the main front is, right? Luhansk and Donetsk Oblast, the Donbass region?
Also there was a lot of equipment left behind. Russia still has a lot of tanks at home, but it still hurts, especially when the enemy is able to make use of it. Lots of POWs as well.
What did they gain in the last two months? Pisky? With all 6 inhabitants? Their area gains are miniscule compared to what just happened in a span of days.
Russia had no gains in Kherson for a while now and some small area losses. The fight there is extremely expensive for both sides, but Kherson is currently in a similar situation as Severodonetsk was a few months ago, just with the sides switched. There are no working bridges over the Dnieper, making supplies extremely difficult because they have to be ferried over the river. And those ferries are constantly harassed by HIMARS strikes. With no hope for properly supplying the area, it is basically already lost. It’s just a matter of time, and Ukraine has the logistical advantage
Once again, I fail to see the strategic importance of this change. Ukraine did a big push on two fronts. Russia chose to hold in Kherson, and to withdraw around Kharkov. I’m not seeing how this improves the situation for Ukraine anymore than their last Kharkov offensive that was rolled back within weeks.
Taking territory is only meaningful if you can hold it. Ukraine was able to take it because Russia chose to withdraw. If Russia consolidates and counter attacks then Ukraine will be in exact same position Russia was in when they held it.
Again, this hinges on Ukraine being able to actually hold this territory.
Except it hasn’t because as I’ve explained above, Ukraine is in no better position to hold this territory than Russia was. As you yourself pointed out, it’s lightly defended.
I haven’t seen any credible reports regarding this. A lot of stuff that’s been shown on social media turned out to be Ukrainian equipment or from other battles. Pretty much every account suggests that Russians did an orderly and strategic withdrawal.
This is a war of attrition. Ukraine is losing anywhere from 100 to 500 troops each and every day by their own admission. They’re also unable to replace their military equipment or ammunition. Ukraine is not able to sustain this for much longer, and western support is not sufficient to replace what they’re losing.
Even western media admits that the fighting is far more expensive on the Ukrainian side because Russia has massive artillery and air superiority over Ukraine.
So far there is zero evidence that HIMARS have made any strategic impact on combat. Also worth noting that Russia has hundreds of MLRS systems comparable to HIMARS, if this is what wins the war then Russia has a huge advantage here.
deleted by creator
This has been the story with all the wunderwaffe NATO sent to Ukraine so far.
Also they often use it for terror strikes at civilians in Donbas. This speak volumes about who they are and who are their suppliers - their country is in “fight for the very survival and independence”, and they waste expensive and supposedly very effective weapons to murder civilians.
Also, even USA do not want to give them longer range missiles because they would just used it to terror strikes against russian cities in Russia.
don’t mind me, just saving some of your claims for the future when Ivans will “choose” “a gesture of goodwill” again.
Have you written an explanation for this “regrouping” already? oh nah, let me guess, the city has “no significance”, right? yeah, also let’s spice it up with “heavy” casualties from UAF, “freezing” europe and the west crumbling aaaaany daaaaay noooow; sounds whataboutist enough? good
I love living rent free in that head of yours. 😂
Wow you’re still just as funny as you were last time I talked to you
Correct. And they absolutely can hold it. On the first try it took Russia months to take it, and I don’t see how they can do that again, given all the troops that were involved are now in Kherson. But I guess we’ll just have to see.
Lol no. Literally just take a look at https://twitter.com/UAWeapons and you’ll see tons of abandoned and destroyed Russian vehicles. They were completely overwhelmed in Kharkiv and did not plan this. Of course it’s not all precisely geolocatable but it has to come from somewhere.
Correct. And majority of the Russian army is in Kherson with their back towards a river with no bridges. Supplies are limited and they are unable to move a meaningful amount of vehicles in or out of Kherson. This is completely unsustainable in the long term.
It sure is expensive. But Kherson has tied so many russian resources that Ukraine now managed to steamroll through Kharkiv. It doesn’t matter whether Kharkiv was just an orderly retreat (it wasn’t) or a “sign of goodwill” (it wasn’t) or a rout (it was), Ukraine just wants their territory back. And there is “steady” progress on Kherson too, at least more steady than LDPR progress on Pisky and Bakhmut
HIMARS is the reason Russian logistics are completely fucked in Kherson. It’s also the reason for the rise in “smoking accidents” in ammo dumps on Russian occupied territory.
So in Russias hands they do have strategic impact? Also please tell me the name. I’m looking for something with about 80km range, less than 10m deviation at max range, and which is actually used by Russia. So far I have only seen them use Kalibrs for comparable targets, and those are much more expensive than HIMARS rockets and easier to intercept. It’s also questionable how many of those are still left.
I’m done with this thread, we both know this discussion won’t reach a conclusion. I’m interested to see where our points will stand in another 6 months
Explains a lot about your position given that you get your info from an Ukrainian propaganda account on Twitter 😂
Weird that Ukraine isn’t making gains there if Russians are in such a dire position isn’t it.
Yes, Ukraine managed to steamroll uncontested territory. Quite the tour de force there just like the first Kharkov offensive.
Except that there is zero indication that HIMARS played any role in Kherson or that Russian logistics are having any problems there. Meanwhile, attacks in Crimea were carried out by drones. Ukraine doesn’t even have HIMARS missiles with the range to hit Crimea.
What I actually said was that If HIMARS type systems make a strategic impact then Russia has an advantage in this area by virtue of having an order of magnitude more MLRS systems.
Good, let’s see what actually happens since it’s pretty clear we’re not going to convince each other of anything here.
deleted by creator
I just realized we’re having a “serious” discussion on /c/memes right now. I’ll just leave this here then
this is a terrible meme lol. Not even because it’s politics or anything. Just… flat
Flat memes are the best
deleted by creator
The significance is that Ukraine recaptured land in days that took Russia months.
This has shown that Ukraine is able to leverage superior weapons, moral and intelligence to achieve large gains.
Or do you believe this is what Russia wants and is all part of a plan?
That’s not significant at all because the Russians chose not to contest this territory. If Ukraine defeated Russian military to take this land then that would indeed be very significant. The only thing this shows is that Russians aren’t throwing their troops into a meat grinder for media gains the way Ukraine did in Kherson.
I think it also shows that $100 billion in funding from NATO-aligned forces really is making a technological difference. For comparison, Russia’s annual military budget is $48 billion.
deleted by creator
This is a pretty good summary of how NATO has been faring against Russia militarily so far in this conflict from the Royal United Services Institute in UK https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare
It’s from June…
But sure I’ll check it out
It’s not like military industrial capacity balance has changed significantly since June. If anything mass shutdowns of steel mills across Europe makes it worse for NATO now.
Well for what it’s worth, a more recent publication from that source you posted is this:
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/can-russia-continue-fight-long-war
It concludes with
So basically Russia needs a pause to be able to withstand this. But given that NATO funding doesn’t seem to be slowing down any time soon, how much will that really help? The source you posted pointed out Lockheed Martin could easily go from it’s current production of 2,100 missiles a year to 4,000 in a couple years
If you look at the packages NATO has been sending each new package is smaller than the last. This is true both for weapons and financial aid. Meanwhile, Europe is now crashing economically and will not have enough energy to last the winter. European steel mills are shutting down already. Without energy from Russia it’s not possible for Europe to ramp up weapons production. Europe is also starting to see civil unrest in many countries, this will only grow as people realize the enormity of the economic disaster they’ve been driven into.
Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin ramping up production two years in the future will make no impact on this war. Finally, there is a problem with logistics for NATO. Russia can deliver supplies easily via rail while supplies from US have to come from across the ocean. Overall, this does not paint a promising picture for NATO.
deleted by creator
Hopefully they will ‘decide not to contest’ more territory soon.
Seems highly unlikely.