Posted on 09/05/2022 6:44:24 AM PDT by delta7
After the first Ukrainian attempt to push towards had failed it is now reinforcing that failure. As I describe the move:
The only 'successful' attack was across the Inhulet river near Andriivka in the direction of the dam and river crossing that closes off the Kakhovka Dnieper reservoir. The troops were cut off and mostly destroyed. On the western side of the salient a Russian unit crossed the Inhulet towards north and attacked the Ukrainians on that side. It soon had to pull back and the Ukrainians used the Russian crossing to reconnect with the cut off units in the salient.
More Ukrainian reinforcements were pushed into the salient where they have little natural protection from Russian artillery and air force attacks.
The political leadership of Ukraine is committed to continue this massacre. The Ukrainian Telegram channel 'Resident' reported:
Our source in the OP said that Zelensky holds a meeting every day on the counteroffensive in the South of Ukraine, at the moment the Armed Forces of Ukraine have the opportunity to create a foothold in the Krivoy Rog direction. Zalusky reported on the heavy fighting and losses suffered by the Ukrainian army in the steppes, but the political center of influence insist on continuing the #Battle_for_Kherson operation. Reserves from the eastern front and Kharkov will be transferred to the Dnepropetrovsk region, in order to achieve the advantage of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, no information will be officially published in the media until the seizure of territories.
Earlier another war observer noted:
Ukrainian channel Legitimny reports Helensky is prepared to sacrifice up to 20K dead and 40k wounded in the Kherson offensive, which would be 6% of his army. Current losses are around 2% so he's going for 2nd offensive wave. I believe that 60,000 men are more than 10% of the Ukrainian army but that is not the point.
'Resident' and 'Legitimny' are seen as authoritative Ukrainian sources. Unfortunately I have no access to the their Telegram channels so I can not verify the quotes. But it seems clear that Zelenski is going for broke.
Zalusky, the military leader of the Ukrainian army, will not be happy with this decision.
The only Ukrainian hope is that the Russian forces on the western side of the Dnieper can be cut off from the other side to then run out of supplies. The bridges across are damaged or destroyed but Russia has enough ferries to keep the supply line open. Large river crossing are part of every bigger Russian military training event. It has the materials and troops experienced with it. That is why I have my doubt that the Ukrainian hope can be realized.
Meanwhile the Russian military plays its usual defensive game. The frontline along the Kherson regions is currently held by lightly armored airmobile units. Whenever a Ukrainian push gets too strong they pull back from the front line, or leave the town under threat, to let the artillery and airforce do its work. They then pull up mobile reinforcements and push back until they are in their old positions. Rinse and repeat.
While this tactic costs the Russian side some losses the much higher ones are on the Ukrainian side.
The former Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar writes:
Russia’s “domain control” can be put in perspective: the enemy is, on the one hand, caught on the bare steppe and cut down with the overwhelming superiority of Russian artillery and aviation, and, on the other hand, encountering well-fortified, entrenched defence lines. That said, Zelensky cannot give up, as he is desperately in need of a success story. Kiev still hopes to reverse the situation, but how that is achievable remains to be seen.
Against this sombre backdrop, more and more sceptical voices are being heard in the US about the Biden Administration’s policy trajectory. The latest is an opinion piece in Wall Street Journal by Gen. (Retd) Mark Kimmitt, formerly Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs in the Bush administration. Kimmitt predicts that “a breakthrough is unlikely” and soon, “logistics shortfalls” may force a change in US strategy. ... In principle, the options are: i) “dig deeper into NATO stockpiles being held back for national defences”; ii) “ramp up critical shortfalls” by invoking Defense Production Act and its European equivalents; iii) escalate the conflict by targeting Crimea and Russia itself; or, iv) forcing Zelensky to face the grim reality that “diminishing resupplies” of weaponry actually contains “the message of declining outside support” for the war itself.
The retired general with Republican Party leanings concludes: “Beginning the diplomatic resolution would be distasteful, and perhaps seen as defeatist, but as there is little chance of climbing out of the current morass, it may be better to negotiate now than later… Looking into a future of protracted war, diminishing high-tech systems and mounting casualties, Mr. Zelensky and NATO must face up to tough decisions before those decisions are forced on them.”
Of those four options the first will be rejected by the professional military. The second is, at least in Europe, currently impossible for lack of cheap energy. Metal smelters and forges in Europe are shutting down. The third option, escalation, is the one the neoconservatives will press for, likely with some success. The fourth option is one Joe Biden and other are yet unwilling to take.
I therefore expect that the U.S. will double down, most likely with some new attacks on Crimea and the Kerch bridges.
It won’t happen any time soon, but if I were Ukraine and I’m refusing to negotiate, I would accept the current situation and begin a guerilla war versus this conventional war that appears to be going nowhere.
Try to get Russia to pay a really high price for occupying territory by bleeding them by using a thousand cuts.
Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan, IEDs, Suicide Bombers, targeted assassinations, etc., anything to put the fear of god into Russian Soldiers
Russia never runs out of people. They don’t have much money and they are certainly NOT a big manufacturing economy.
History shows that Russia wins wars through brutal attrition as long as their populace agrees with it. The “war” is not very popular in Russia because few understand the reasoning or see the Ukraine as a threat.
At least the Ukrainians believe they are fighting for their nation and to avenge their dead.
The rich grow wealthier and the poor bleed. I don’t really see an off-ramp in the current framework.
Putin has tied his survival and that of his corruptocrat regime to the conflict. Is he weakening his nation for his ego or did his “yes men” lead him down a primrose path? Is he truly that popular in Russia?
The massive corruption in the Ukraine has grown worse since the conflict began fueled by globalist leaders showering borrowed money on the Ukrainian leaders to continue the conflict. They hate Putin.
The real winner is China.
Your right, thanks to our idiotic leaders the number one threat to the West, China, is benefiting. However, Russia has replaced its European energy customers with Asian customers and is doing just fine.
Offensives launched for political reasons usually end badly. The Kerensky Offensive in 1917 destroyed public support for the Provisional Government leading to the October Revolution.
The problem with this attack is it has no objective other than hoping to talk the US into sending more weapons.
Heck of a way to burn up material and lives.
I am watching. Russia owns half of Ukraine and Europe will probably be shut down and starved of energy this winter.
Yet babbling, globaloid-boosters keep telling us to "watch and see."
That's because his source is a pro-Kremlin blog.
“… The Russians had 25,000 hard pressed, poorly supplied troops with their backs against the Dnieper with the bridges cut.…”
***************************************************************
Cutting the bridges certainly makes resupply more difficult. But what the Ukrainians (and our resident globalist warmongers) don’t seem to understand is that with the Russians controlling both banks of the river RESUPPLY CAN CONTINUE using ferries and barges… and it is.
An offensive without air superiority is doomed to fail. I guess most of the Ukraine’s military leaders missed that class.
If you took the time to read the posts, they are all non western news articles- Moon of Alabama only gathers them. Keep drinking the corrupted western MSM kool aid….didn’t Trumps warning about western fake news teach you anything?
You may be right. Thus far no independent reliable source suggesting that this Ukrainian offensive has had any significant success.
Technically it can, but not at anywhere near the same rate as it would if the bridges were intact. The Russians on the west bank will not be able to sustain the same rate of fire without running out of ammunition.
Yep - love your Russian propaganda - it always good for a laugh - if it came on soft white paper, it would make good butt wipe.
Using boats and barges to ferry supplies across a river is nowhere near as efficient as using railroads or trucks. The Russians may be getting supplies across, but the tonnage moved is significantly less per day. That will hurt Russian combat effectiveness and help the Ukrainians.
Yes, I agree. Where the Ukrainians were stupid was publicizing plans for their offensive months in advance giving the Russians plenty of time to pre-position reinforcements and supplies on the western side of the river. The targeting of the bridges so much in advance also gave the Russians plenty of advance time to build up their alternative river crossing capabilities.
hellEnskyy.
I like it.
A dumber tart you’ll never find - “Barebacking It” Baerbock, Easy German Earth Girl
Shades of the old 1960s joke that the Arabs would fight Israel to the last Egyptian.
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.