- Ukrainian forces launched a surprise offensive into Russia’s Kursk region last Tuesday.
- They have captured around 1,000 square kilometers of Russian land so far, Kyiv’s top general said.
- That figure is almost as much territory as Russia has seized in Ukraine this year.
This bit seems relevant, given that Ukraine’s stated intention has always been reclaiming their own land:
The overall goal of the incursion is not immediately clear. Conflict analysts have suggested that Ukraine may be trying to alleviate some pressure on its forces elsewhere along the sprawling front line, gain leverage for potential territorial negotiations with Russia, or even just humiliate Moscow and boost morale in Kyiv.
That, or “reclaiming their own land” was a bit more expansive than we all realized /s
Technically Earth is the native land of all Ukrainians.
Can you imagine how dumb we would all feel if Russia was right? (/s)
I’ve heard Kursk has the gas pipeline to Europe.
Had.
The Ukrainians overran it and disabled it. It won’t be working for a very long time.
Good. Fuck Hungary, and one up for the climate change.
Ukraine doing more for the EU than the entire EU parliament.
Does this mean Germany is going to have a bad time and fuck up the power grid for all of Europe this winter again?
Germany has 90%+ of its gas supply through the lmg now
Always best to keep them guessing. Strategically, it’s gold.
So… Ukraine is capturing Russia as fast as Russia initially expected to capture Ukraine.
It would be absolutely hilarious, if the whole thing wasn’t so sad. Nevertheless, it’s a welcome change of direction in this war and shows what a determined country and army can do against such a big aggressor.
I just hope it actually changes something in the end. Let’s hope Putler meets his window to fall out of soon.
Time for denazification of Russia.
we need to stop calling everything we don’t like nazism. Russia will need to be de-Putin’d
Sounds like something a Nazi would say… /s
Slava Ukraini
Heroyam Slava 🇺🇦
Literally the “best defence is a good offence” case
I was watching an old documentary about ww2. When France declared war on Germany they just sat on there border watching them. Some British politician or general or something was there and asked why they didn’t shoot them. They said “they aren’t bothering us so we don’t bother them”. They made one offence at the start of the war when Germany’s western flank was entirely exposed (it was also the only French offence of the entire war) they went about 100m then came back.
Then Germany attacked somewhere else and they folded.
Its actually amazing how much of a cluster fuck the start of ww2 was. Bringing back horses after inventing the tank 20 years before and using it ti win ww1 levels of intelligence.
Its actually amazing how much of a cluster fuck the start of ww2 was. Bringing back horses after inventing the tank 20 years before and using it ti win ww1 levels of intelligence.
This is asinine. Horses were extremely useful in WWII. Try watching less Hollywood movies.
One of the reasons Germans were so successful in their “lightning warfare” - they used horses which simplified logistics tremendously. A truck is no good if you don’t have fuel, and fuel supplies have been cut. A horse can just eat grass and drink water.
You know what’s extremely useful than horse in WW2? Imperial Japanese Army knocking on your door with soldiers on bicycle.
These are different applications.
And I wasn’t going to argue against bicycles having been extremely useful.
I understood them to be talking about cavalry, in that sentence.
In the dragoon quality it was still useful.
Not against tanks which would be why the royal dragoons switched to tanks.
WWII has seen very fast evolution of warfare approaches. What Germans did in the beginning of the war was roughly similar to what Russians and Ukrainians have learned to do in the last few months. And if we consider that nobody had the brains to come to that theoretically, not NATO countries, not Israel, not even Iran with friends (who were the closest), then it becomes intuitively understandable why German military of those days is considered so genial - it went to war with the right premises (but with clearly fallacious overarching strategy) in the first place. Of course, Tukhachevsky and a few others have written about similar ideas, but didn’t get the chance to actually employ them. What the end of the war looked like was the same thing conceptually, but scaled for full industrial potential of all sides.
Most historians I’ve read consider ww1 to have had a far greater evolution, starting with napoleonic tactics and ending with rolling artillery barrages and tanks.
However, I’m not sure of the point you’re looking to make here. I mean, the polish army sending cavalry against the germans was an act of wild desperation. I think thats the point they were making there.
When did the Germans use horses as offensive cavalry in WW2?
You can clearly find references of French and the British dragging their heels in the interwar years because presumably the posh boys want their horses.
You don’t know what you are on about. What Hollywood movies are there about army modernisation in the interwar period you think I am watching? I’ll actually enjoy watching it.
The person you replied to is not talking about cavalry. Horses were used by the Germans for moving men and equipment.
I know. But I made the original comment and I wasn’t on about horses being used for moving men and equipment. I was talking about them being used instead of tanks.
Okay. Horses were used to move men and equipment. How is that related to my original point?
Okay. Horses were used to move men and equipment. How is that related to my original point?
Dragoons are cavalry. That’s how.
Yes, it’s obvious they wouldn’t use lancers. Even in WWI cavalry charges are a thing of post-war (Soviet, Polish, maybe others’) propaganda much more than of actual use.
Literally no one used horses as offensive cavalry at any strategic scale in WW2.
Some exceptions occured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Schoenfeld
Is it? Russia just got new claims for this war.
Casus belli typically doesn’t work after the fact
Yeah they can claim to have fucked around and found out.
Logistics is king folks, remember that.
I’m sure access to Western intelligence doesn’t hurt either.
And having competent generals.
Even as we speak, one of the few good and well respected Russian generals who dared speak out at the poor leadership of the general staff, had been arrested for supposed fraud. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-arrested-general-ivan-popov-fraud-d8c4d6a7d447ff801b3f15bc540f77b6
I approve. The more idiots are in charge wasting what little offensive capabilities Russia has left the better for Ukraine.
Is there a list of more competent people, I mean fraudsters? Russian authorities can sure need some anonymous tips, right?
I used to think Putin is Stalin-lite, but he is actually more in line with an incompetent tsar. There is stark resemblance with the Putin’s army and the post-Napoleonic tsarist Russian army. Both bathed themselves in past military glories from defeating Napoleon and Nazi Germany respectively. They paraded themselves with flashy uniforms and spectacles of new technological weaponry. But in the subsequent years and generations after that, tsarist Russia got mauled by the Ottomans, French and British alliance and Japanese. And post-WWII Russia got their assets handed by the Afghans and now Ukrainians.
I forget who said it, but an American general once said “Amateurs discuss tactics; professionals discuss logistics.”
Build one of those on tracks, that’ll show the russians who’s boss
Zelenskyy went from being a comedian to clowning on Putin in only a few years.
East Ukraine sounds like it might be a nice place one day.
deleted by creator
Here’s to Ukraine becoming the capital of the larger Ukrainian Federation that will be needed after the fall of Russia.
Why in the world would you want to create a new iteration of the same shit?
What do you mean? Ukraine is not Russia. The corruption of Ukraine is from Putler placed politicians.
I think the point is no one really wants any country to have that much territory it just causes problems, especially when large parts of it are not really productive. It just results in a very large population and an enormous burden on the government.
Yeah, one country spanning 11 time zones is a bit much. They have just shy of 145 million residents. And burden on the government or no, there’s loads of areas in the far reaches that I’m sure would just rather be their own country.
I agree, down with the USA. /s
Seriously - that’s not the problem. Tying together into one state with ex-Soviet unitarist culture so many different areas with natural riches and subservient population is bad.
I’d rather split both Russia and Ukraine into equally-sized (population-wise) pieces and have them form confederations where unity is wanted. (Fuck, that’s another USA)
Since Ukraine can’t hope to have a victory that will solve the threat, I think Ukrainians should be interested. Their country would split into like 3 pieces which are different enough anyway.
It won’t work if you just announce oh this country is going to get split. It has to happen organically, or it won’t happen at all.
I’m not saying it will happen I’m just saying that it would be the best outcome. I’m saying that NATO don’t particularly want to replace Russia with pseudo Russia, there really isn’t any point doing that. So the original comment about having Ukraine take over Russia just doesn’t work in his absolutely not in NATO’s interests.
And that’s before you even look at the problem of subjugating a population, some of which will be fighting back, leading to a never-ending guerrilla war. Which is another thing NATO have no interest in happening, especially if the ultimate objective of Ukraine is to join NATO.
Ex-Soviet space becoming through some agreements supported by referendums fractured into small enough fragments in loose confederations is not something I’d expect to be a cause for guerilla war. Any forcible change is.
Australia is a large country but we have very little usable land. Our population is tiny too
No. Ukraine is just like Russia in everything but geography. Which means it has more densely and equally spread population, fewer fossil fuel resources, realistic logistics with Central Europe and Balkans.
Corruption-wise it’s absolutely the same.
EDIT: Downvotes? Has anyone here (other than myself) ever been in Russia and in Ukraine? Even in Western countries corruption is a problem, how do you think it is in post-Soviet countries the whole power in which at some point belonged to crooks with golden toilet seats?
People either shills or in denial.
Yermak and his cronies are setting up the new oligarchic elites for after they win the war.
These clowns can’t help it.
With that being said, US has ton of corruption too, but our peasants accept it as legal lol
I mean, fuck Putin, but don’t delude yourself that this will get easier
Is this the timeline where Ukraine kills Putin and puts his head on a Pike? Find out next time on dragon ball z!
What did the fish do to deserve that?
It knows what it did
Maybe they should just swap countries and be done with it.
I’d much rather it all become Ukraine. They are better people.
дякую
Ласкаво просимо! Слава Україні!
I hope DDG translate did a good enough job lol
“будь ласка” is “you’re welcome” in Ukrainian. As the other commenter mentioned, “ласкаво просимо” is something like “welcome” in general, when welcoming someone to a country or to your home, for example
Ласкаво просимо! Слава Україні!
translated by DDG as “welcome! Glory to Ukraine!”
Correct
So sad Vlad
Does Ukraine get an exception from the general advice against invading Russia? Winter is coming. But they kinda have some advantages over prior attempts.
Yes they do get an exception because they are just as familiar to the climate as the orcs. It’s not like Kursk et al has proper defenses RUs can hole up inside. The orcs literally just lost the Kursk battallian HQ building lol (forgive the leddit link)
Note I don’t know anything about it.
I would say if they are just disrupting rather than trying to hold it, they would be in much more sane shape than the historical advice that mostly applies to would-be conquerors. Even if they are trynig to hold it as a bargaining chip, it’s probably less ambitious than the historically usual goal of trying to conquer “Russia”.
I’ve been looking for some sort of analysis of this Kursk incursion but have come up empty handed. I’m looking for something along the lines of Markus Reisner’s analyses.
In particular, I’m wondering what the likely paths are to altering the course of the war.
How likely is it that Ukraine will be able to hold this territory? Will they be able to use it as a staging area to launch additional attacks?
Is it likely to alter the artillery equation? Russia currently fires 3-5 times as many artillery shells as Ukraine does. Does this do something like limiting their production rates or their ability to deliver ordinance to the front lines?
Is it likely that Ukraine killed or captured enough Russian troops to impact the broader war?
A phrase like, “That figure is almost as much territory as Russia has seized in Ukraine this year.” kind of implies that there has been a shift in the momentum of the war and that we can expect such announcements more regularly going forward. Is that actually likely?
My pessimistic guess is that this was a brilliant tactical move that will ultimately get steamrolled by Russia’s sheer mass, but I’d love to read an analysis from someone with more expertise.
Blitzing into largely undefended territories and nabbing large amounts of territory is kind of the easy part. As anyone who plays any sort of RTS, the key question is how you set up defenses and maintain logistics to thwart counter-offensives. The good news is that Ukraine has options. They can choose to dig in before Russia amasses troops to attack and legitimately try to hold onto the territory, or they can simply back out and use this as a skirmish to divide Russian forces before launching another offensive elsewhere.
This seems to a) be intended to divide Russian attention and spread their forces out, b) be used in negotiation and applying domestic pressure to Putin, and c) provide a greater buffer for air-defense to counter inbound artillery and missiles. Who knows for sure though.
That makes sense. I’d have questions about all of those too
a) be intended to divide Russian attention and spread their forces out Do we know if that’s happening? Russia has a lot of people and equipment and it’s not obvious to me that they need to pull many resources from other fronts to reinforce Kursk.
b) be used in negotiation and applying domestic pressure to Putin That would make sense too. As long as Ukraine is still holding that territory when those negotiations are going on. Are there any estimates on when those negotiations could happen and if Ukraine will still be in control of Kursk by then?
c) provide a greater buffer for air-defense to counter inbound artillery and missiles
That true but only in the areas directly near Kursk. Is it likely that this can be repeated along the rest of the battle lines?Your intuition on what Ukraine is hoping to achieve seems reasonable but I don’t know if it’s likely to work out that way.
The whole thing makes me think back to the “Ukrainian counteroffensive” from last year. At the time, US advisors were telling them to do a fast combined arms assault on some place like Mariupol, instead of dithering around, letting the Russians build a ton of defenses and then smashing all the fancy US equipment against said defenses. This assault seems almost like what that counteroffensive should have been. I say “almost” because I’m puzzled about the target. Controlling Mariupol would have cut off the entire western half of the Russian assault. They’d have no supplies and nowhere to run to besides going for a swim. Kursk? The benefits are less obvious.
this has to be something designed to pull forces away from other places. I don’t think Ukraine is planning on holding it for any length of time.
we saw video come out about 200 miles from the front in Kursk showing military transport trucks that had been struck by Ukraine as they were going to reinforce the region, which means Ukraine has dedicated deep strike capabilities to this part of the battlefield.
I think the intention is to kill and destroy as much Russian personnel and materiel as they can while it’s being transported. like they’ve mapped out all of the travel lines in to and out of Kursk, and they have dedicated weapons platforms prepared to destroy anything that comes up those roads. they’ll be able to blitz a whole bunch of Russian equipment without even having to engage them on the ground, if those trucks were full (there were stacked bodies in the video), that’s 300 casualties without having to put any of your infantry in danger.
If that’s the case then Ukraine would need to repeat the Kursk invasion a lot before it made a difference.
Trying to out attrit an opponent with many times the population and GDP is a pretty tall order.
I’m trying to differentiate between things we might like and things that are actually likely.
it’s not just the attrition aspect, it’s the fact that those resources are being pulled away from the other fronts. this would succeed even if all the stuff that Russia sent to Kursk came back intact
I think that still boils down to attrition and relative size.
From what I’ve seen. Russia has only pulled small numbers of troops out of other theaters to reinforce Kursk. They’ve had an ongoing assault on Avdiivka and they don’t seem to have pulled enough troops out of there to slow down the assault.
The impact, both the severity of the impact and the duration of the impact is likely to hinge on how deep Russias reserves are and their overall production capacity. As near as I can tell, they have both in spades.
From what I’ve seen on Russian industrial production they don’t really care too much if all of Kursk were destroyed. It’s not a strategic location (I think) and all the human and material resources can be easily and quickly replaced.
That obviously involves a lot of guesswork on my part. That’s why I’m wondering if someone with expertise just knows the answers to these kinds of questions (and would hopefully also provide sources).
As much as I hate linking to it, you could probably find out by asking in the defcon warning system forums.
defcon warning system forums
I’ll check them out. I’m curious why you wouldn’t want to link to them. Do they do something bad?
Last I checked in there some of the posters had a hard right slant. It’s not all of them, but enough to leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Is this a real thing? I only hear news about it on a couple niche youtube channels that I am not sure aren’t propaganda. Searching “Ukraine” on Lemmy for the last week yields a very small number of results. I haven’t heard word one about it from my mainstream sources. What the fuck? Is there an embargo on this or something??
That’s not the impression I’ve been getting. This has been covered extensively from places ranging from BBC and Telegraph to PBS, and numerous reddit subs. I haven’t seen this much activity centered on Ukraine in a while.
deleted by creator
I’ve seen Preston Stewart covering it on his various platforms, although he hasn’t given the sort of breakdown op is asking for
