Posted on 09/10/2022 10:46:40 AM PDT by marcusmaximus
In short, the Ukrainian advance has been too slow and lacks a clear path to reach operational objectives. Already, Russia has begun to deploy huge reserves to this theater, and fear is beginning to show among the more operationally aware Ukrainians. One Ukrainian journalist at the front had this to say:
“There is heavy fighting near Kupyansk, worse than Balakleysky. We are taking heavy losses. The enemy is transferring a bunch of reserves by air. The “Wagnerites” have already arrived in the city itself. The sky is filled with aircraft. Hearing about all this, a haunting feeling of an ambush arises in the soul. What if this all really turns out to be a strategic level ambush?”
I do not believe this is an “ambush” per se by the Russian army. The word ambush implies that the Russian forces were already in position, drawing the Ukrainians into a specific maneuver plan where they could be attacked from prepared positions. That’s not what’s happening at all - Russian forces are coming in fresh from reserve and were not pre-deployed to the sector. What the operation reflects instead is Russia’s preference to wage a high-firepower, mobile defense. Frontline positions are, relatively speaking, thinly manned, which powerful mobile reserves are held back. This is a flexible, firefighting approach which allows the Ukrainians to advance into vulnerable positions so that they can be destroyed.
For Ukraine, one of the basic problems is that Russia has such an enormous advantage in firepower - aircraft, tube artillery, rocketry, and tanks - that any offensive must reach operational depth quickly in order to disrupt Russia’s ability to bring this firepower to bear. In the Izyum sector, this simply isn’t possible.
Lacking the ability to operationally compromise Russian forces here, Ukraine will find itself in a good old fashioned shootout against an enemy with vastly superior firepower - not only that, but it is in fact Ukraine that now faces operational complications, having blasted their way into a salient with no prospects for crossing the Oskil in force and exploiting.
“True alter. Kazan, nosewanking, bobbit and Ivanpresto will tell you this is a strategic feint”
Perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else, Kiev was CLEARLY a feint (really, 30,000 Russian troops taking a city of 3 Million, PLEASE), this was not, as the people in these towns will now face ‘Ukrainian Justice’ for having asked for food and water from the Russian liberators.
The Local Defenders there were obviously not ready for the NATO attack. The question now becomes what happens to the NATO forces when Russia engages them? We shall see!!!
The “feint” was something Putin supporters made up to cover his losses. Putin tried to take all of Ukraine and was met with resistance he did not expect and shoved backed to Russian controlled regions. He lost many many troops and a tremendous amount of equipment. He lost 30% of his combat ability. And more importantly, the world saw how weak he really was.
Russia opened up the invasion of Ukraine with an airborne assault on Hostomel airport, just outside of Kyiv. The unit tasked by capturing the airport was 331st Airborne Regiment of the VDV.
The unit was effectively wiped out, with the commanding officer and his second in command dead. Between 200 and 400 men died when either one or two planes carrying soldiers to the airport were shot down out of the sky. There were also heavy losses on the ground, as Ukrainians fought to retake the airport.
Who sends their elite formations into a feint, I wonder? Especially if that feint is so ill prepared the entire elite unit loses combat effectiveness and needs to be reconstituted? Who uses paratroopers to hold ground anyway, they’re notoriously bad at it.
If the attack on Kyiv was a feint, it was the worst feint of all military history.
why wasn’t the Kyiv attack a feint?
1. Russia put a significant chunk of its army behind the attack on Kyiv. We are talking about elite Airborne troops, tank divisions, and the best battalions Russia has
2. The “feint” went on too long. Russia continued attacking this front for months, refusing to give up
3. When Russia failed to make progress they sent reinforcements. Why do this? You send reinforcements so that you have a better chance at achieving objectives. You don’t reinforce a feint attack
4. Russia only abandoned this front when Ukrainian forces pushed them out by force
5. It makes no strategic sense. Much of Kyiv’s defense was local. Attacking Kyiv didn’t distract Ukraine or pull significant forces off other fronts. Kyiv was defended by Kyiv residents taking up arms.
And funny how some Russian explanations for mistakes/defeats/retreats have more than a whiff of 'Allo 'Allo - Rene caught with the servant girl about them.
You Stupid Comrade! I am not fleeing! Can you not see, I am... er... TELECOMMUTING!
Just like Yanukovych... who thought he could order a total Ukrainian military surrender over the phone from Moscow. Some people actually seem surprised that Ukraine's government responded to his doing that by majority-voting to declare him unfit to continue as President. Rinse and repeat with Strelkiv, Pushilin, Stremousov....
Any more front line pro-Russian Ukrainian authorities trying to lead from the front in Ukraine from deep inside Putin's safe territories?
Oh, yes. Kadyrov, in Grozny.
I answered - 30,000.
Very interesting point of view…
However, answer me this, oh great dumfukistan douche, why is the wondrous and fearsome Russian bear playing with Ukraine for so long? Shouldn’t the Bear try to show the world it can take little pathetic Ukraine without trying so hard?
It’s been half a year you farking idiot, and russia is losing. So sit down and shut up.
“Very interesting point of view…”
Anyone actually FOLLOWING the war there knows what’s going on. In this case, Russia wasn’t defending the areas that were attacked by NATO. We’ll soon see who Russia does against NATO.
And I prove to you that you are wrong. It wasn’t q feint. Losing your best troops and trying to hold on for wo long is not q feint.
Putin thought he would get a repeat of Crimea in 2014 when he sent hundreds of troops and gained a lot.
He was wrong
Really?
Russia is going to attack NATO?
I’m wasting my time conversing with a complete idiot.
I might as well discuss poetry with a chimp.
“And I prove to you that you are wrong. It wasn’t q feint.”
30,000 troops.
By the way, what do you guys plan to do to Germany if they don’t PAY UP. After all, you guys are beefing up your military for some reason...
“Russia is going to attack NATO?”
Sounds like they need to at this point, since NATO attacked the liberated areas of Ukraine.
The PUtler fanclub is seething today. You can tell by the keywords.
Facts disturb fascist supporters.
I guess he forewent the ammo and took the ride instead...
Oh, yeah, they’ve been in a tizzy for the past 72 hours, and some have quietly slinked away.
[...some have quietly slinked away.]
I think they call it “re-deploying” , “regrouping”, ... what are the other euphemisms?.
They probably lost contact with HQ and don’t know what they are supposed to post.
Again, read
Russia put a significant chunk of its army behind the attack on Kyiv. We are talking about elite Airborne troops, tank divisions, and the best battalions Russia has.. they my have been 30k, but were Russian elite troops.
Who sends their elite formations into a feint, I wonder? Especially if that feint is so ill prepared the entire elite unit loses combat effectiveness and needs to be reconstituted?
“Are you all going to cry how unfair Putin is when he destroys Ukraine? Fucking idiots should have sued for peace.”
Would you want Americans to surrender if it was the U.S.A. under attack?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.