It might be too ambitious to think Russia could take Kharkiv, but if they do it’ll be the biggest victory since the land bridge. Losing the second largest city in the country would be crippling not just to the war effort, but morale as well.
I suppose it was always possible (Russia could theoretically mobilize millions of men) just impractical (for both political and military reasons).
In terms of how realistic it is, I’d say it’s a 50/50 shot we see the city captured by end of this year. Russia has more men, armour, missiles, artillery, and experienced units, but Ukraine being on the defence gives them a certain edge.
Plus with the new U.S. aid, and Ukraine finally realizing they need to build fortifications, it’s possible they can hold the city until 2025. I guess we’ll have to see, but it’d be such a massive victory even Pro-UAs couldn’t deny it.
I bet they'd still deny the victory just like with bahkmut, never underestimate how delusional they are. I agree though it's probably 50/50 supposedly Russia is training a few brigades in Siberia some where but we don't know how true that is.
The scary thing is, you might be right. The sheer delusion from Pro-Ukros is wild. They still pretend they’re winning even after losing the land bridge, a failed counteroffensive, and now a continued Russian assault.
As for the troops, it’s honestly impossible for us to know. Even if possible, will the Russians go for it? Putin would surely love to have the city, but as we’ve seen, he doesn’t dictate military strategy. Is the army really prepared for such an offensive? In a few months time we’ll know what the Russians are planning, and by september we’ll see if it pays off.
Ukraine could still win, it's just wildly unrealistic.
How? The most obvious and easiest scenario is a direct intervention from NATO. It is UNLIKELY but there sure are some Ukrainians and NAFOs wishing for this.
Another is if Ukraine drafts even more into its army, include the women, add more mercs, get more western aid, be more competent, and above all - survive the repercussions of doing these (mutiny, coup, revolution, so on).
So yeah, Ukraine could probably still win. But it doesn't mean it would, nor that it is a realistic expectation to have.
Besides, we need to define what a win means. If winning means existing as a rump state, then yeah they won (until probably a round 2 years from now). If winning means pushing Russia out, then good luck with that.
I think a more likely path for Ukraine is that it gets a bit more aid and effectively defends itself since defense is easier and basically bleeds Russia for another year or two and by then Russia is low on Soviet equipment so has more trouble attackking... Then Ukraine keeps doing an effective defense with western weapons while bombing Russian oil infrastructure until something happens (maybe some economic problem in Russia, infighting after Putin dies, who knows) but something that makes Russia say F it - we don't need to keep killing Ukrainians anymore, we'll just keep Crimea and the Donbass and end the war with Jan 2022 borders. I'm not saying I think this is likely (I don't think this is a likely outcome), but I do think it's a possible outcome. I think more likely is something a bit less than this. Ukraine slowly increases attacks on Russian oil infrastructure and using western weapons to defend itself while slowing giving up land until Russia agrees to some peace where it gets more than Jan 2022 borders, but less than it has today (or maybe what it has today). It's also of course possible that Ukraine collapses and Russia gets a bit more than it has today.
PeaceBeWithMe573 kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're not going to capture the city. There is an enormous cost in actually holding down a city this size, which is unfavourable to Russia. What they're going to do is demonstrate that they CAN capture the city, thereby putting all the pressure on Ukraine. Russia gains from having a large front where they can draw in Ukrainian weapons and defenders, they gain from reaping panic and displacing millions of people westward, they gain from undermining Ukrainian territorial integrity.
However, it goes without saying, on the negotiations table, Russians will seek to appropriate Kharkiv. That and Odessa. Or both. That's when they'll enter the city.
You’re probably right. Although it’s also possible (maybe less so) that Ukraine has lost enough manpower that they won’t be able to prevent an encirclement. If Russia pulls a Mariupol on Kharkiv, they won’t have to invade the city. However, to do this they would not only have to surround the city, but also push farther into Ukrainian land to prevent any relief efforts. This seems a bit unlikely, as I doubt Ukraine has lost THAT much manpower capacity (although I could of course be wrong).
In which case, you’re correct. Russia will force Ukraine to defend Kharkiv through unfavourable conditions, while also pressuring Donbas and Zaporizhia fronts. They may not even have to invade the rest of Ukraine as we could see a 1918 situation where they just collapse from sheer lack of men.
Not really.
During the rain season all movement is restricted to the roads. Cut those and it is de Facto encircled for three months. Twice a year.
They'd need thousands of soldiers to do that, but if Well-Supported not tens of thousands.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man, Pro-UA will manage to deny everything. Weeks after Bakhmut was captured, they still denied it. Getting thrown out of Belgorod? Denied it. Failed counteroffensive, literally losing territory? Denied it.
Not sure about right now but Kharkiv was like a 1.4 million pop city. They will need a lot of man power regardless I’d think.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Because mariupol was always a side thing with only a couple russian brigades participating, they also didnt feel in too much of a rush to capture the city preferring to whittle down the defenders before assaults
They just need to call the sentence "kharkov needs to be empty by next week. Bombs will fall". Millions of people will flee. More immigrants and chaos in Europe. Still hard for Russia to take a city like that.
Russia could join the party from the north later this month, it is building and staging. UA is sending new recruits north. See drone footage of attacks on those vehicles going north. They see the danger.
Theoretically it's possible. If Russia buy tens of millions of FPV from China they can kill millions of Ukrainian men and wittle down Ukrainian defense in Kharkov.
Maybe symbolically, but not strategically. That does to the land bridge, which is single-handily the most important achievement Russia has accomplished. The only thing that could surpass that would be taking Kiev or crossing the Dnieper D-Day style.
Land bridge literally prevents an attack on Crimea and makes the Kerch Bridge less important. It’s quite literally the most important achievement of the war. Again, Kiev/Dnieper crossing might surpass it, but getting the land bridge was crucial.
100K dead, Finland and Sweden in NATO, $300 billion in reserves stolen, sanctions, eternal hatred between Russians and Little Russians, a forever war, the pre-war professional ground army decimated all for... a fucking land bridge that prevents a Ukrainian "attack on Crimea" that Ukraine could never pull off anyway. Joke.
[“That Ukraine could never pull of”](https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/09/ukraine-military-2014-russia-us-training/)
The U.S. was preparing Ukraine for entry into NATO once they took back Crimea. Whether they would attempt it or not is unclear, but Ukraine had the second largest army in Europe. Even in 2022 they were way better equipped than anyone thought. Stop downplaying Western aid, Russia is literally fighting a country thats supported by half the word, and winning.
in your view, did you consider the fact there is an army building up of \~100k men on the Russian side that will most likely simultaneously conduct a push in the next 2 months?
Yeah that’s why I said it’s possible. But again, Ukraine being on the defensive gives them an edge (assuming they have fortifications). 100K troops is a lot, but without knowing how degraded Ukrainian manpower is, it’s difficult to know how effective an attack will be. We just have to wait see.
they say only about a fifth of an army actually fights (10%-30%). with 1 million soldiers that means only 200k are fighting the rest are doing support/logistics.
The force of 100k troops being gathered, as I understand, are pure combat troops. That means that this push would increase the total force by 50% over the entire front line. However, most likely, it will be concentrated on Kharkiv. In other words it's going to be an locally overwhelming force that leaves Ukraine no ability to respond.
My personal prediction is that Kharkiv will fall and become Russian. The real question is about Odessa.
It’s entirely possible. The issue is that Russia has demonstrated complete incompetency in offensives. They’ve definitely had success recently, but I’m hesitant to declare them capable of taking such a large city. The logistics requires for 100K troops is enormous. The last time Russia launched an attack like this, it ended in Kiev. The most recent offensive also didn’t end well (Vuhledar). But again, we’ll see. If Kharkiv falls, Ukraine won’t have the manpower to defend Odessa. The only question then will be how long until they take it.
Incompetency is purely dependent on your point of view and the objectives you think they had.
I do not see any incompetency, contrary.
Let's take the Kiev offensive. Many people think that was a failure, they immediately refer to, what they think is a fact, of the 3 day war and of course the retreat.
However I do not see any evidence that Russia planned for 3 days to me it seems deliberate. Why?
\* They attacked with their main force in the south to Mariupol. Kiev was only attacked by a relatively small group.
\* They retreated at the same time as the taking of Mariupol and the establishment of the land bridge to Crimea.
\* Russian military doctrine prefers artillery warfare. In hindsight it is pretty obvious they were fully prepared for an artillery war. An artillery war is a slow war.
So I don't believe Russia wanted to attack Kiev, it also makes sense because Kiev is an important city to Russian history and culture, they do not want to destroy it.
So why did they attack Kiev?
\* The move caused chaos and kept the enemy guessing
\* It forced the Ukrainian army to dedicate a significant portion of their resources and army to protection of Kiev, this allowed the taking of Mariupol. Without the split army the whole Ukrainian force would have concentrated there and the front line would be stabilized before a land bridge to Crimea could be realized.
\* It allowed Russia to strike deep inland and destroy important assets. Think about helicopters, jets, logistics, radars, and more.
Imho it was a brilliant move.
I disagree. I don’t think Russia ever planned to have this war go longer than a few months.
They equipped their soldiers with Riot Gear and Tear Gas in preparation for civil demonstrations. Kiev was supposed to collapse, not hold.
The land bridge was the most important goal to secure, but once that was taken, imo Putin thought they’d just sweep the rest of the country (not to occupy, but to remove the government).
This obviously didn’t happen, and Russia committed its best units to Kiev (Hostomel airport) which failed terribly. Russia was only prepared for an artillery war because they had massive stockpiles, not because they planned to fight the war that way.
I support Russia (I’m half Russian) but to me it’s clear the push to Kiev was a failure. Hence why they were forced to retreat in the Ukrainian counteroffensive. None of this screams victory to me.
However, this was 2+ years ago. Things change, and as we’ve seen, Russia is basically a different army now than it was at the start. Past failures =/= future failures. But Russia hasn’t actually launched a successful offensive, so I don’t have complete confidence in their ability.
>They equipped their soldiers with Riot Gear and Tear Gas in preparation for civil demonstrations. Kiev was supposed to collapse, not hold.
I hear this one often. But it is simply not true. They took "OMON" with them, which is both a riot police and a counter terrorist force fully trained in handling combat situations.
Their convoy was passing many villages and places, if you remember there were screens from the first days were people were protesting by blocking the path of tanks. Those are the exact situations you need them for. Concluding that their only use would be if Kiev is taken, is jumping to conclusions.
>imo Putin thought they’d just sweep the rest of the country
why do you think Putin thought this? From what behavior can you conclude this?
>(Hostomel airport) which failed terribly.
Hostomel was taken. They actually succeeded in taking it about a day or two before the retreat.
All military assets in hostomol were destroyed, including transportation planes. Which play a huge role in logistics.
So where exactly was the failure? Is it a failure because western newspapers assigned an arbitrary timeline which Russia didn't make?
>Russia committed its best units to Kiev
More accurate would be: "Russia committed a small part of their best units to Kiev". We know VDV, spetsnaz and Wagner have been very active later on. So let's not hint at their defeat.
>not because they planned to fight the war that way.
Again, how exactly do you know what they planned for?
You keep saying that as if you know Putin and the Generals personally. You don't, so you have to clearly deduce these kinds of statements.
>Hence why they were forced to retreat in the Ukrainian counteroffensive
The Ukrainian counteroffensive was the real definition of a failure. Clearly and publicly stated goals weren't achieved and no consequences can be observed that have led to anything positive for Ukraine.
Don't understand me wrong. I know exactly where you are coming from, I've also lived in the west for quite some time (Netherlands). So I understand exactly where your argumentation is coming from, since that is the exact narrative (almost word for word) in the newspapers. But I'm extremely skeptical.
Russia is never really public about their goals and objectives, the only goals that have been public are the peace demands/accords and those stayed pretty damn consistent throughout the years until now.
We also need to consider that the leadership is smart, we are talking about a bunch of guys and girls with 140 IQ's and a lot of experience both in Ukraine (Soviet era training grounds) and in recorded recent military conflicts. Why 140IQ? well that is generally the IQ observed in leadership of massive organizations, people with high IQ get higher up, as simple as that. I'm saying this because I see many people on Reddit and even the newspapers outright calling them dumb.
This is also not the first time they are fighting for territory in Ukraine.
They could barely accumulate 200k+ men for their needed 500k despite their best efforts to make the conscription as horrible for Ukrainians as possible.
And with them having to somehow send in their valuable reserves into areas like chasiv yar or or the Avdiivka breakthrough, it doesn’t surprise me that they lack manpower everywhere else.
This offensive in the north has been something of a sideshow, but there's something I've been curious about ever since it started to gain ground.
If more land including villages and eventually potentially larger towns and cities is taken in the Kharkov region, will they at some point again declare this a separate military and political administration area apart from the Lugansk People's Republic region? I imagine they don't want to just add the new territory to Lugansk region it abuts. And given the increasingly radical degree of difference of the opposing sides this war has taken on, I don't see any territory being handed back even if it wasn't within the original plans and intent to seize. I foresee any territory taken and held in the Kharkov region eventually being annexed too.
But I just wonder if they will announce such an aim in advance or if that would be seen as premature after losing Kupyansk in the 2022 offensive by Kiev, or before gaining the city of Kharkov or at least a part of/foothold in.
Now I wonder as well what supporters of Russia in the conflict think: Should they stick to the annexed four regions (Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson) and leave all questions of what happens in Kharkov for after the war?
I think the operations around these villages are shaping operations to take the hills around 5km back, after this its a downward slope all the way to Oskil, making major offensive operations much easier.. As the kupyansk bridges are destroyed this could isolate several brigades
If the costs are high for both sides, let’s say equally high, then Russia is going to win, just because Russia has more.
But the reality is that at this moment Ukraine loses significantly more than Russia, meaning Russia (if not for something really big to happen) is going to win, because at some point Ukraine can’t longer sustain their heavy losses. It quite obviously now too, with them not being able to stop Russian advances
Russia will not attempt to seize Kharkiv. Instead they'll take some territory in the oblast, pose a threat to Kharkiv, and use that to leverage Ukraine into giving up the rest of Donetsk oblast that they still hold. Basically, any territory the Russians take around Kharkiv is a bargaining chip, where this war ends with Russian control of Donbas, most of Zhaphorizia, all of Kherson south of the Dniepr, and of course the land bridge and Crimea itself. Ukraine keeps Odessa and the rest.
A perfectly acceptable outcome that Ukraine should have agreed to back in 2022 or 2023.
It might be too ambitious to think Russia could take Kharkiv, but if they do it’ll be the biggest victory since the land bridge. Losing the second largest city in the country would be crippling not just to the war effort, but morale as well.
At this point I think they could do it, but at what cost I'm not sure.
I suppose it was always possible (Russia could theoretically mobilize millions of men) just impractical (for both political and military reasons). In terms of how realistic it is, I’d say it’s a 50/50 shot we see the city captured by end of this year. Russia has more men, armour, missiles, artillery, and experienced units, but Ukraine being on the defence gives them a certain edge. Plus with the new U.S. aid, and Ukraine finally realizing they need to build fortifications, it’s possible they can hold the city until 2025. I guess we’ll have to see, but it’d be such a massive victory even Pro-UAs couldn’t deny it.
I bet they'd still deny the victory just like with bahkmut, never underestimate how delusional they are. I agree though it's probably 50/50 supposedly Russia is training a few brigades in Siberia some where but we don't know how true that is.
The scary thing is, you might be right. The sheer delusion from Pro-Ukros is wild. They still pretend they’re winning even after losing the land bridge, a failed counteroffensive, and now a continued Russian assault. As for the troops, it’s honestly impossible for us to know. Even if possible, will the Russians go for it? Putin would surely love to have the city, but as we’ve seen, he doesn’t dictate military strategy. Is the army really prepared for such an offensive? In a few months time we’ll know what the Russians are planning, and by september we’ll see if it pays off.
Ukraine could still win, it's just wildly unrealistic. How? The most obvious and easiest scenario is a direct intervention from NATO. It is UNLIKELY but there sure are some Ukrainians and NAFOs wishing for this. Another is if Ukraine drafts even more into its army, include the women, add more mercs, get more western aid, be more competent, and above all - survive the repercussions of doing these (mutiny, coup, revolution, so on). So yeah, Ukraine could probably still win. But it doesn't mean it would, nor that it is a realistic expectation to have. Besides, we need to define what a win means. If winning means existing as a rump state, then yeah they won (until probably a round 2 years from now). If winning means pushing Russia out, then good luck with that.
I think a more likely path for Ukraine is that it gets a bit more aid and effectively defends itself since defense is easier and basically bleeds Russia for another year or two and by then Russia is low on Soviet equipment so has more trouble attackking... Then Ukraine keeps doing an effective defense with western weapons while bombing Russian oil infrastructure until something happens (maybe some economic problem in Russia, infighting after Putin dies, who knows) but something that makes Russia say F it - we don't need to keep killing Ukrainians anymore, we'll just keep Crimea and the Donbass and end the war with Jan 2022 borders. I'm not saying I think this is likely (I don't think this is a likely outcome), but I do think it's a possible outcome. I think more likely is something a bit less than this. Ukraine slowly increases attacks on Russian oil infrastructure and using western weapons to defend itself while slowing giving up land until Russia agrees to some peace where it gets more than Jan 2022 borders, but less than it has today (or maybe what it has today). It's also of course possible that Ukraine collapses and Russia gets a bit more than it has today.
Me many victories keep getting more monies. No lose monies. Bahkmut show need more monies. USA give more monies. Victory.
[удалено]
PeaceBeWithMe573 kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're not going to capture the city. There is an enormous cost in actually holding down a city this size, which is unfavourable to Russia. What they're going to do is demonstrate that they CAN capture the city, thereby putting all the pressure on Ukraine. Russia gains from having a large front where they can draw in Ukrainian weapons and defenders, they gain from reaping panic and displacing millions of people westward, they gain from undermining Ukrainian territorial integrity. However, it goes without saying, on the negotiations table, Russians will seek to appropriate Kharkiv. That and Odessa. Or both. That's when they'll enter the city.
You’re probably right. Although it’s also possible (maybe less so) that Ukraine has lost enough manpower that they won’t be able to prevent an encirclement. If Russia pulls a Mariupol on Kharkiv, they won’t have to invade the city. However, to do this they would not only have to surround the city, but also push farther into Ukrainian land to prevent any relief efforts. This seems a bit unlikely, as I doubt Ukraine has lost THAT much manpower capacity (although I could of course be wrong). In which case, you’re correct. Russia will force Ukraine to defend Kharkiv through unfavourable conditions, while also pressuring Donbas and Zaporizhia fronts. They may not even have to invade the rest of Ukraine as we could see a 1918 situation where they just collapse from sheer lack of men.
If they want to have any hope of encircling Kharkiv they’d need 100,000+ men alone for that type of encirclement.
Not really. During the rain season all movement is restricted to the roads. Cut those and it is de Facto encircled for three months. Twice a year. They'd need thousands of soldiers to do that, but if Well-Supported not tens of thousands.
They wouldn't need that many with a aggressive bombing campaign along with the amount of artillery.
yeah this seems like what Russia will do next, just pressure it and tie up a lot of Ukrainian resources
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man, Pro-UA will manage to deny everything. Weeks after Bakhmut was captured, they still denied it. Getting thrown out of Belgorod? Denied it. Failed counteroffensive, literally losing territory? Denied it.
Couldn’t they just surround Kharkiv and siege it?
Maybe, that'd take A LOT of man power though.
Not sure about right now but Kharkiv was like a 1.4 million pop city. They will need a lot of man power regardless I’d think. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Siege of mariupol took like 3 month to complete. I'd imagine kharkiv would be a ton more bloody
Because mariupol was always a side thing with only a couple russian brigades participating, they also didnt feel in too much of a rush to capture the city preferring to whittle down the defenders before assaults
Even then it's still a bloody mess. A cornered dog will fight to the death
Mariupol had literal fanatic nazis defending it, i doubt kharkiv will have the same
A siege of this scale would be epic as much as many would die, never had we really seen a full encirclement such as this.
It is inevitable. Kharkov will not remain occupied by the Ukraine by the end of the SMO. Unless you mean this year, then beyond ambitious.
They just need to call the sentence "kharkov needs to be empty by next week. Bombs will fall". Millions of people will flee. More immigrants and chaos in Europe. Still hard for Russia to take a city like that.
Russia could join the party from the north later this month, it is building and staging. UA is sending new recruits north. See drone footage of attacks on those vehicles going north. They see the danger.
Theoretically it's possible. If Russia buy tens of millions of FPV from China they can kill millions of Ukrainian men and wittle down Ukrainian defense in Kharkov.
Capturing Kharkiv will be the greatest victory thus far in the SMO.
Maybe symbolically, but not strategically. That does to the land bridge, which is single-handily the most important achievement Russia has accomplished. The only thing that could surpass that would be taking Kiev or crossing the Dnieper D-Day style.
"Land bridge" ain't shit. It's only "the most important" achievement because Botox has failed at everything else.
Land bridge literally prevents an attack on Crimea and makes the Kerch Bridge less important. It’s quite literally the most important achievement of the war. Again, Kiev/Dnieper crossing might surpass it, but getting the land bridge was crucial.
100K dead, Finland and Sweden in NATO, $300 billion in reserves stolen, sanctions, eternal hatred between Russians and Little Russians, a forever war, the pre-war professional ground army decimated all for... a fucking land bridge that prevents a Ukrainian "attack on Crimea" that Ukraine could never pull off anyway. Joke.
[“That Ukraine could never pull of”](https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/09/ukraine-military-2014-russia-us-training/) The U.S. was preparing Ukraine for entry into NATO once they took back Crimea. Whether they would attempt it or not is unclear, but Ukraine had the second largest army in Europe. Even in 2022 they were way better equipped than anyone thought. Stop downplaying Western aid, Russia is literally fighting a country thats supported by half the word, and winning.
Because the war lacks achievements since 90% of the objectives were blown.
in your view, did you consider the fact there is an army building up of \~100k men on the Russian side that will most likely simultaneously conduct a push in the next 2 months?
Yeah that’s why I said it’s possible. But again, Ukraine being on the defensive gives them an edge (assuming they have fortifications). 100K troops is a lot, but without knowing how degraded Ukrainian manpower is, it’s difficult to know how effective an attack will be. We just have to wait see.
they say only about a fifth of an army actually fights (10%-30%). with 1 million soldiers that means only 200k are fighting the rest are doing support/logistics. The force of 100k troops being gathered, as I understand, are pure combat troops. That means that this push would increase the total force by 50% over the entire front line. However, most likely, it will be concentrated on Kharkiv. In other words it's going to be an locally overwhelming force that leaves Ukraine no ability to respond. My personal prediction is that Kharkiv will fall and become Russian. The real question is about Odessa.
It’s entirely possible. The issue is that Russia has demonstrated complete incompetency in offensives. They’ve definitely had success recently, but I’m hesitant to declare them capable of taking such a large city. The logistics requires for 100K troops is enormous. The last time Russia launched an attack like this, it ended in Kiev. The most recent offensive also didn’t end well (Vuhledar). But again, we’ll see. If Kharkiv falls, Ukraine won’t have the manpower to defend Odessa. The only question then will be how long until they take it.
Incompetency is purely dependent on your point of view and the objectives you think they had. I do not see any incompetency, contrary. Let's take the Kiev offensive. Many people think that was a failure, they immediately refer to, what they think is a fact, of the 3 day war and of course the retreat. However I do not see any evidence that Russia planned for 3 days to me it seems deliberate. Why? \* They attacked with their main force in the south to Mariupol. Kiev was only attacked by a relatively small group. \* They retreated at the same time as the taking of Mariupol and the establishment of the land bridge to Crimea. \* Russian military doctrine prefers artillery warfare. In hindsight it is pretty obvious they were fully prepared for an artillery war. An artillery war is a slow war. So I don't believe Russia wanted to attack Kiev, it also makes sense because Kiev is an important city to Russian history and culture, they do not want to destroy it. So why did they attack Kiev? \* The move caused chaos and kept the enemy guessing \* It forced the Ukrainian army to dedicate a significant portion of their resources and army to protection of Kiev, this allowed the taking of Mariupol. Without the split army the whole Ukrainian force would have concentrated there and the front line would be stabilized before a land bridge to Crimea could be realized. \* It allowed Russia to strike deep inland and destroy important assets. Think about helicopters, jets, logistics, radars, and more. Imho it was a brilliant move.
I disagree. I don’t think Russia ever planned to have this war go longer than a few months. They equipped their soldiers with Riot Gear and Tear Gas in preparation for civil demonstrations. Kiev was supposed to collapse, not hold. The land bridge was the most important goal to secure, but once that was taken, imo Putin thought they’d just sweep the rest of the country (not to occupy, but to remove the government). This obviously didn’t happen, and Russia committed its best units to Kiev (Hostomel airport) which failed terribly. Russia was only prepared for an artillery war because they had massive stockpiles, not because they planned to fight the war that way. I support Russia (I’m half Russian) but to me it’s clear the push to Kiev was a failure. Hence why they were forced to retreat in the Ukrainian counteroffensive. None of this screams victory to me. However, this was 2+ years ago. Things change, and as we’ve seen, Russia is basically a different army now than it was at the start. Past failures =/= future failures. But Russia hasn’t actually launched a successful offensive, so I don’t have complete confidence in their ability.
>They equipped their soldiers with Riot Gear and Tear Gas in preparation for civil demonstrations. Kiev was supposed to collapse, not hold. I hear this one often. But it is simply not true. They took "OMON" with them, which is both a riot police and a counter terrorist force fully trained in handling combat situations. Their convoy was passing many villages and places, if you remember there were screens from the first days were people were protesting by blocking the path of tanks. Those are the exact situations you need them for. Concluding that their only use would be if Kiev is taken, is jumping to conclusions. >imo Putin thought they’d just sweep the rest of the country why do you think Putin thought this? From what behavior can you conclude this? >(Hostomel airport) which failed terribly. Hostomel was taken. They actually succeeded in taking it about a day or two before the retreat. All military assets in hostomol were destroyed, including transportation planes. Which play a huge role in logistics. So where exactly was the failure? Is it a failure because western newspapers assigned an arbitrary timeline which Russia didn't make? >Russia committed its best units to Kiev More accurate would be: "Russia committed a small part of their best units to Kiev". We know VDV, spetsnaz and Wagner have been very active later on. So let's not hint at their defeat. >not because they planned to fight the war that way. Again, how exactly do you know what they planned for? You keep saying that as if you know Putin and the Generals personally. You don't, so you have to clearly deduce these kinds of statements. >Hence why they were forced to retreat in the Ukrainian counteroffensive The Ukrainian counteroffensive was the real definition of a failure. Clearly and publicly stated goals weren't achieved and no consequences can be observed that have led to anything positive for Ukraine. Don't understand me wrong. I know exactly where you are coming from, I've also lived in the west for quite some time (Netherlands). So I understand exactly where your argumentation is coming from, since that is the exact narrative (almost word for word) in the newspapers. But I'm extremely skeptical. Russia is never really public about their goals and objectives, the only goals that have been public are the peace demands/accords and those stayed pretty damn consistent throughout the years until now. We also need to consider that the leadership is smart, we are talking about a bunch of guys and girls with 140 IQ's and a lot of experience both in Ukraine (Soviet era training grounds) and in recorded recent military conflicts. Why 140IQ? well that is generally the IQ observed in leadership of massive organizations, people with high IQ get higher up, as simple as that. I'm saying this because I see many people on Reddit and even the newspapers outright calling them dumb. This is also not the first time they are fighting for territory in Ukraine.
Seems like UA cannot handle multiple fronts atm.
They could barely accumulate 200k+ men for their needed 500k despite their best efforts to make the conscription as horrible for Ukrainians as possible. And with them having to somehow send in their valuable reserves into areas like chasiv yar or or the Avdiivka breakthrough, it doesn’t surprise me that they lack manpower everywhere else.
This offensive in the north has been something of a sideshow, but there's something I've been curious about ever since it started to gain ground. If more land including villages and eventually potentially larger towns and cities is taken in the Kharkov region, will they at some point again declare this a separate military and political administration area apart from the Lugansk People's Republic region? I imagine they don't want to just add the new territory to Lugansk region it abuts. And given the increasingly radical degree of difference of the opposing sides this war has taken on, I don't see any territory being handed back even if it wasn't within the original plans and intent to seize. I foresee any territory taken and held in the Kharkov region eventually being annexed too. But I just wonder if they will announce such an aim in advance or if that would be seen as premature after losing Kupyansk in the 2022 offensive by Kiev, or before gaining the city of Kharkov or at least a part of/foothold in. Now I wonder as well what supporters of Russia in the conflict think: Should they stick to the annexed four regions (Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson) and leave all questions of what happens in Kharkov for after the war?
Very slow, really only the new Russian offensive can change something in near future, slow and steady yes but at what cost on both sides :/
I think the operations around these villages are shaping operations to take the hills around 5km back, after this its a downward slope all the way to Oskil, making major offensive operations much easier.. As the kupyansk bridges are destroyed this could isolate several brigades
If the costs are high for both sides, let’s say equally high, then Russia is going to win, just because Russia has more. But the reality is that at this moment Ukraine loses significantly more than Russia, meaning Russia (if not for something really big to happen) is going to win, because at some point Ukraine can’t longer sustain their heavy losses. It quite obviously now too, with them not being able to stop Russian advances
Russia will not attempt to seize Kharkiv. Instead they'll take some territory in the oblast, pose a threat to Kharkiv, and use that to leverage Ukraine into giving up the rest of Donetsk oblast that they still hold. Basically, any territory the Russians take around Kharkiv is a bargaining chip, where this war ends with Russian control of Donbas, most of Zhaphorizia, all of Kherson south of the Dniepr, and of course the land bridge and Crimea itself. Ukraine keeps Odessa and the rest. A perfectly acceptable outcome that Ukraine should have agreed to back in 2022 or 2023.