Replies

What is the strategic goal here? The Ukes invaded the least guarded part of the border and created a bulge. For what, exactly?

If to improve their negotiating position, they miscalculated. No ‘peace talks’ will begin while they hold these positions. They are temporary, at best, with no air cover, no trenching, no fixed defenses, INSIDE OF RUSSIA. The russkies won’t take long to eradicate them. Then what? How many dead for a failed PR stunt?

Since by sitting still the Ukes were slowly losing any change up has the potential to be positive and yield unexpected results. I would not assume that this will be crushed by Putin anytime soon and positively. Something has changed here and I would guess that we are behind some unseen factors to this that are yet to be revealed.

The invasion of Russian territory proper by Ukrainian forces is a major political and military embarrassment to Putin. It obligates him to reallocate scarce military power and logistical support to meet the new and unexpected threat. This in turn weakens the Russian grip on Ukrainian territory. That could provide an opportunity for Ukraine to retake Crimea or parts of Donbas.

As for the "no peace talks" mantra, there are ways around such a stance or it can be changed for the sake of peace.

I presume they can cut off attacks from the area and perhaps supply lines, I do not know. But that would be logical.

They displaced a lot of Russians, which makes the discontent in Russia greater; this war is very unpopular.

Russia would also (probably) have to move its troops from the Ukraine to answer this. That would be of great strategic value.

And it’s a morale thing. Kind of like the Doolittle raiders.

If to improve their negotiating position, they miscalculated.

That's not known yet. Did the Russians miscalculate when they invaded Ukraine?

No ‘peace talks’ will begin while they hold these positions. They are temporary,

Not true. The Russians hold Ukraine territory, and now the Ukrainians hold Russian territory. Tit-for-tat. You come tinto my house, I have the right to go into your house. You take what's mine, I have the right tote what's yours. See how that works? .

at best, with no air cover,

Air cover is not the only way to support troops on the ground.

no trenching, no fixed defenses,

Not true. Russia tried to stop them, and met with very stiff resistance. And the Ukrainians continue to advance deeper into Russia.

INSIDE OF RUSSIA. The russkies won’t take long to eradicate them.

Like I said, the Russkies tried to stop them and met with very stiff resistance, with many thousands of Russkies dead.

Then what? How many dead for a failed PR stunt?

And, what have the Russians achieved with their invasion of Ukraine? hundreds of thousands dead and hundreds of thousands injured, tens of thousands widows and tens of thousands kids left fatherless, and hundreds of billions lost in a very costly war. Plus international condemnation, including being banned from the Olympics.

Russia is stuck fighting a war which they can't win, and the Kremlin is panicking.

The most obvious answer is two-fold:
To tear up Russia’s logistic tail, and
to make Russia defend more territory.

1000 men can’t hold more than a single village, but on the move they can make a mess of roads, supply depots, rail lines, and airfields.

Whether they do in fact succeed or not we will see, but those things are certainly doable.

Attack where the enemy is not. It’s a basic and effective strategy. It will force the Russians to pull troops from the main front line. Not just for a counter attack in Kursk (which Ukraine will probably fast retreat from) but other border areas as Russia is reminded that the whole country is at war, not just where they want the war to be. With less troops on the main front line Russia loses offensive capability and counter attacks to regain territory have a higher chance of success.

Plus of course you have the disruption effect. People fleeing aren’t making war supplies. And maybe the war gets less popular in Russia. Or not. That’s always a 50/50 bet.