Here we go again-Ukraine once again pt2

[Skybird]

https://www-tagesspiegel-de.translat..._x_tr_pto=wapp


The use of ATACMS beyond (but still limited to near) the border has effects and helped to reduce the number of glide bomb attacks. However, that the US always delivers just small quantities and that France and the UK cannot deliver much more cruise missiles, coupled with that the Russians adapt and learn how to jam and bring down more and more of these numerically limited projectiles, commands mixed conclusions on how much a difference it all makes. The Russian pace in its advance on the ground may or may not have changed, but they still advance, and significantly so.


Next time window of interest for possible changes is opening not before January 20th.

[Skybird]

[Frankfurter Rundschau] Russian President Vladimir Putin will most likely not achieve his goal of expelling Ukraine from the Kursk region by the end of the year. This was indicated by the Russian Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, during a press conference. Moscow actually wanted to have successfully repelled the Ukrainian offensive in Kursk by October.
But on the ground, Russian soldiers are still fighting alongside North Korean troops against the Ukrainian armed forces. Gerasimov did say at the press conference that all of the military's tasks had been completed by 2024, according to the US newspaper Newsweek. However, Russia was unable to claim credit for the expulsion of the Ukrainian armed forces from Kursk.

Gerasimov's statements raise the question of what priorities Russia is currently pursuing in its all-out war in Ukraine, which has been going on for almost three years. Earlier statements by Putin gave the impression that the recapture of Kursk was at the top of Moscow's agenda.
----------------------

They take more time and higher losses, still, they push Ukraine back, have recaptured half of the territory in Kursk by now, and still taking more, slowly, but constantly. In this way, its only a question of time - and costs.

Which is also true for Ukraine which has sacrificed some of its elite troops to drive the Kursk adventure. Elite units that then were missing in the defence against the Russian advance in the East. Ukraine may cause Russian high losses in Kursk, but it paid for that with high own losses and a desastrous situation at Wuledar and Pokrovsk, which is the reason why I see the Kursk adventure as a terrible mistake, and a fiasco. Also, the hoped-for move of Russian forces from the Eastern front to Kursk never took place. But I indicated that opinion of mine already during the opening stage of that move, arguing it possibly only illustrates how desperate the Ukrainian situation is that they think they must break out of the then current situation at any cost to change how the war is more and more turning against them. So, maybe that mistake can be explained, or "understood". Nevertheless, it was and is a mistake, imho. A very, very costly one.

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Dargo]

Ukraine constantly poses dilemmas to the Russians, increasing their vulnerability. Ukraine deliberately gave up ground to buy time so they could train their reserve brigades in agility and flexibility. You can see the results of those highly mobile brigades now in Kursk and Kuyansk. They have no other choice either, as they do not have the same mass of troops as the Russians. I don't think the Ukrainians will give up Pokrovsk easily. And besides, as soon as the Russians approach the outskirts of the city, their advance will slow down. Indeed, there is a big difference between warfare in the countryside and in a city like Pokrovsk itself. It is a fairly large city, and it will take the Russians a lot of men and equipment to make progress there. It is itself something very different from the current trench-to-trench combat. Furthermore, it is also possible that the Ukrainians abandoned their positions around Pokrovsk to prepare to defend the city.

You can trace this difference in approach to the two countries' different military cultures. The Russians rely on the massive deployment of artillery and manpower in one place to force breakthroughs, in a kind of bulldozer tactic with which they may not gain much, but do so consistently. In contrast, the Ukrainians focus on movement, a strategy known in the West as manoeuvre warfare. In doing so, they are constantly trying to exploit the agile capability of their troops. In places where the Russians are leaving gaps, Ukrainian manoeuvre warfare is well suited to regaining ground. So they look for offensive opportunities to exploit their manoeuvrability, while Russia applies its bulldozer tactics in places like Pokrovsk. It is a clash of two different worldviews, with divergent philosophies, leadership and doctrines. There is also a marked difference in training. The Russians send their troops to the front relatively quickly, often after only four to six weeks of training. Ukraine, on the other hand, opts for thorough training of their brigades. They were given that time because the major Russian offensive never really took off.

By constantly posing new threats, forcing Russia to make choices about where to deploy its troops. This increases Russia's vulnerability By having a presence in Pokrovsk, Russia risks having no reserves left for other critical areas. It remains to be seen how this plays out further. If there comes a deal next year it will not be a peace deal it will be temporally freeze deal Ukraine people will never not now and not in the future accept a permanent loss of land. There is a hard core in the army and among the people, that will start a guerrilla war in the occupied territories, like in WW2 until Stalin's death. Russia will never know peace (not in Ukraine but also not in Russia), there will remain a large army in the occupied territories and never be able to control it, Ukraine will be able to keep this up for more than 10 years like last time. Majority of Ukraine people wants to start negotiations with Russia but refuses to give up land to Russia! Also ukraine has to change its constitution it has a law that forbids give up Ukrainian territory no 24Hr thing to do. And without real security guarantees, it's never going to be anything, nor is there going to be a deal in any form.

[mapuc]

Markus

[Skybird]

Internal problems of the Ukrainian army.


https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[Dargo]

In the meantime on the other side of the frontline windows open in case of critic! At least Ukraine does work on the problems, Russia never gave an F they let their troops starve in knee deep mud trenches surrounded with bodies of their former rotting occupants without good footwear and winter clothes led by utterly corrupt command.

[August]

[Raf1394]

There is something i really wanted to ask or know about this conflict.

I sometimes try to look at both sides of the story. I don't agree what Russia is doing. But the idea was never to destroy Ukraine like we see today.

Back in 2022 they wanted to launch a fast attack to remove the pro-west Ukrainian government and replace it with a puppet government that supports Russia. That fast attack failed completely, and now they are stuck in a almost three years war. One of the key demands of Putin to end the war is a agreement that Ukraine never joins NATO.
But sometimes i try to see the Russian side of the story. Everybody knows if a country joins NATO, they form a military alliance with NATO. Its possible that in theory, every big nation (for example the US) can put nuclear weapons in that country. If Ukraine joins NATO, everybody know every NATO country can install there nukes or tactical weapons or any kind of military in Ukraine. And Ukraine is right next to Russia. Moscow is in reach.

What i basically want to say, is that Russia feels kinda scared, knowing that thing could happen... They are scared of the NATO expansions towards the east. At the end of the cold war. There was even an agreement that no one would expand there influence. And have a bufferzone. But since then the NATO did expand.


I feel this story looks like a lot like the Cuba Missile Crisis, in 1962.
Cuba wanted to work together with the Soviet Union
(they have the right to do so) The US feels threatened, because the Soviet Union can have nuclear missiles in Cuba, being pointed at the US.
The US also had the Bay of Pigs invasion. the same idea like Russia did towards Ukraine. (not on that same scale) but still.

I feel like all these conflicts are just a big war of influence.

And joining the European Union is not the same thing like joining NATO. A country can still join the EU, but not join the NATO.
That the people in Ukraine want to ally themselves more with the EU, is there democratic right. But suddenly joining NATO gives this weird feeling to the Russians they are thinking things like ''Hmmm you join the EU, okay... But why do you form a military alliance with NATO?''

[Catfish]

'Russia feels threatened."

I understand that they are afraid of retaliation after what Putin did.
Rightly so.

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[sh3rules]

Originally Posted by Raf1394

But sometimes i try to see the Russian side of the story.

May the Russians reap what they have sown. May Russian cities get destroyed just like they have destroyed Ukrainian cities.

[August]

Originally Posted by Raf1394

Everybody knows if a country joins NATO, they form a military alliance with NATO. Its possible that in theory, every big nation (for example the US) can put nuclear weapons in that country. If Ukraine joins NATO, everybody know every NATO country can install there nukes or tactical weapons or any kind of military in Ukraine. And Ukraine is right next to Russia. Moscow is in reach.

Russia already shares a border with Norway, the three Baltic nations and now Finland, all members of NATO. I believe the Baltics are even closer to Moscow than Ukraine so annexing Ukraine brings Russia no advantage in that department at all.


BTW the Bay of Pigs was called off before any US troops were deployed. That kind of destroys the analogy.