"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (3 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


The main reason I'd favor attacking Melitopol would be that it's further from the Russian border and would tax Russian logistics proportionally. It would also have three potential avenues of exploitation, leaving the Russians to guess which one would be chosen. But yes, a drive on either city would split Russian forces, endanger the holdouts at Kherson, and as a bonus, using the Danish-donated Harpoon Bloc IIs, either objective would be a big hamper on Russian shipping in the Sea of Azov.

For those reason, either axis would be a good move if the Ukrainians can deliver it with enough forces to make it stick against the inevitable counterattacks. The difficulty with both is that with the Russians in strength around Zaphorizhye, the Ukrainians will either have to break through the Russians there directly, or offer a flank in the case of an attack on Mariupol. So attacking and securing Zaphorizhye has got to be an important preliminary.
 

Why Russia's sticking with a military strategy that's never worked before

Russia's new overall commander knows he cannot defeat the Ukrainian Army in the field — so he's turned to an old doctrine to terrorise and cower the Ukrainian people instead., writes Mick Ryan.
www.abc.net.au

Interesting comment: "...the Russian objective of drawing the war out for as long as possible. Putin clearly believes the West will eventually lose interest in the war...", especially when potentially combined with the noises coming out of the US Republican party:

Cheney slams ‘pro-Putin’ McCarthy over Ukraine funding threat

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy this week said the U.S. should not issue a “blank check” for further Ukraine funding.
www.politico.com

Putin must be thinking "just got to hold in a little bit longer...and then my useful idiots can do my bidding..."
 
GrauGeist said:
Or simply bypass Zaporizhehya, leaving it cut off and isolated.
The quality of Russian forces are such, that encircling and containing a city would can be an option, considering how poorly supplied they are, both in munitions as well as food.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. It depends on what they've got for men and materiel in Zaporizhehya, as well as their ability to counterattack such a Ukrainian kessel from outside.
 
If this report is accurate -- and while the Hill is very good on American politics it is weaker in international reportage -- it starts looking like the fight for Kherson could be a slugfest:

Kyrylo Budanov, chief of Ukraine's military intelligence arm, told a local newspaper that Moscow is only creating an "illusion" of a retreat by evacuating civilians from Kherson, a Ukrainian regional capital that Russia currently controls.

As Ukrainian forces make steady advances on Kherson, Budanov told the online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda that Russia is moving out cash, Russian-installed authorities and injured people, but he noted that Moscow is simultaneously moving in military resources.

"They are conducting this crazy information campaign that 'we care about people' and so on," Budanov told the outlet. "That is, they create the illusion that everything is gone. And at the same time, on the contrary, they bring new military units there and prepare the streets of the city for defense."

[...]

Last week, Gen. Sergey Surovikin, the newly installed commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, said "difficult decisions" may be necessary in Kherson, adding that Russian officials would "preserve the lives of the civilian population and our military personnel as much as possible."

"He prepares the groundwork so that, if a decision is made to surrender the city, or they will simply be kicked out, the groundwork will be prepared and somehow smooth it all out," Budanov told Ukrainska Pravda of Surovikin's remark.

"But at the same time, I cannot tell you that right now they are fleeing from Kherson," Budanov continued. "No, there is no such thing."

Branislav Slantchev, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, told The Hill last week that observers had seen the Russians simultaneously evacuating military assets and moving troops in.

[...]

"The troops positioned there are supposed to be among the better ones that they have," said Slantchev. "And so what they seem to be doing, they're moving out, saving these troops and equipment. And they're just rushing [national guard] troops, these recently mobilized people and things like this to the front lines to hold the front while the evacuation can be completed."

As I posted above, this doesn't seem like a good idea to me, using raw recruits as a covering force for a retreating army. Hopefully the Ukrainians can close the crossings and egress before the Russians evacuate their better troops.
 
GrauGeist said:
To be honest, they should avoid being drawn into a door-to-door situation, flow around them and isolate the city and keep the offensive momentum going.

Seiges are tough to break from a defender's position.
Click to expand...

The big problem with that is "How many civilian deaths are we willing to accept in the process?" That is, of necessity, a political question for Zelenskyy to answer as he instructs his generals on what to do.
 
GrauGeist said:
To be honest, they should avoid being drawn into a door-to-door situation, flow around them and isolate the city and keep the offensive momentum going.

Seiges are tough to break from a defender's position.
Click to expand...
But that will be the case? I mean if Rusia is withdrawing veterans/profesional soldiers and brining in conscripts to Kherson for defense, how long it will take for conscripts to surrender?

Are those veterans/profesional soldiers reinforcing other sectors? If the RF think that a one two is in the oven like early september, that could make sense.

But what if Ukrainia is playing a one two three. Feint in Kherson, feint in other sector (Mariupol, Melitopol,...) and then punch elsewere (even Kherson itself).

BTW, a urban war with a determined enemy could be hell for civilians but a siege won't be nice either.
 
Putin pulls out his less awful troops to defend Crimea. Putin sends a crap load of people he doesn't need or want (not really Russian enough) to the right bank. They're speed bumps. Putin blows the dam. Dead Ukrainians on both sides. No rearguard action. No problem.
When has Vladolph Putler and his circle of sycophants ever cared about humanity?
 
Last edited:
Door-to-door fighting in a large city can be a time consuming, resorce heavy, meat grinder while also putting civilians at great risk.

Seiging a city requires less resources and I am more than certain that the Ukrainian Army will allow civilians safe passage to safety.

So far, the greatest weapon in Ukraine's Arsenal, is their mobility. At this time, they cannot afford to get sucked into a Stalingrad V2.0 situation.
 
Neither one is a good choice indeed.
 
fubar57 said:
Knowing nothing about Ukraine resources and not wanting to over-stretch what they have, do they have the capabilities to launch an amphibious assault?
Click to expand...
I sense that Crimea itself is lightly defended and now difficult to support. Take a cargo ship, load it with troops? Resupply will need to the thought out. Russia no longer controls the sea nearby. An older article on the topic below, though overland.

A Ukrainian assault on Crimea – pipedream or future reality?

For many, the thought of a Ukrainian assault on Crimea is farfetched. However, recent analysis has demonstrated how a litany of Russian failures have opened up new pathways for the Ukrainian milita
www.defenceconnect.com.au

Paywall free version archive.ph
 
Last edited:
Crimea_River said:
The Russian mention of dirty bombs posted by GTX earlier today is worrying. Sounds like a pretext for them to use one and blame it on the Ukrainians. The West's response, if one were set off, would be interesting.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that the West would do anything beyond further sanctions and lethal aid if Russia set off a dirty bomb. I honestly don't think there is anything Russia can do within Ukraine that would provoke NATO to attack Russia. NATO is defensive, a full on nuclear strike to flatten Kyiv will not get the consensus to attack. Russia could launch a new Holodomor with Einsatzgruppen and gas chambers et al, publicly murdering Ukrainian women and children by the hundreds of thousands, stacking the bodies like sandbags in front of CNN and BBC cameras, and still NATO won't do more than increase arms support to Ukraine. This is Ukraine's war to win or loose, though maybe by that point Germany will finally release Leopard 2s.
 
Last edited:

Not sure I agree with your view regarding use of nuclear weapons. I think that's a red line, if not for NATO then at least for the US and UK. I suspect it rather depends on how big the weapon is and how far the fallout spreads. If there is substantial risk of fallout crossing a national border into NATO territory, then I think we will see action by the Organization. If it's a smaller weapon, then independent action by a coalition of the willing may well take place.

There are a lot of options where such a coalition could help Ukraine without actually engaging Russian ground forces. For example, deploying troops to defend Ukraine's border with Belarus would potentially free a substantial quantity of Ukrainian soldiers for operations elsewhere. Adding in-country, albeit rear-area, logistics support would also greatly accelerate available supplies into Ukraine (the cell that USEUCOM set up is doing great work...but having actual logistics specialists in-country would be hugely helpful). Establishing a no-fly zone to protect those in-country deployed coalition forces over western Ukraine would also have a big pay-off and limit Russia's freedom of action. Then there's augmenting air defences around Kyiv and other major cities, closer ISR overwatch of Russian forces, resources to help rebuild liberated areas....there really are a lot of options for direct, in-country support without actually engaging Russian troops on the ground.

Of course Russia and Belarus will claim this is evidence of NATO showing its true colours. However, I think the gloves need to come off if Russia does initiate any kind of nuclear event in Ukraine.
 
Once again, I refer to the Budapest Memorandum in the event of a nuclear attack on Ukraine.

Russia can bluster and toss red flags left and right but if they actually commit an atrocity with WMDs, they will become a pariah state in the eyes of not only the world, but their patrons.

The Russians come across as delusional idiots, but behind the curtain, they know that anything beyond conventional warfare will be political death amongst their peers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Total: 4 (members: 1, guests: 3)

    Similar threads

    A
    The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
    2
    Replies
    37
    Views
    1K
    Sisu
    S
    M
    All V-22's Grounded
    Replies
    2
    Views
    1K
    GTX
    M
    All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
    Replies
    19
    Views
    2K
    MIflyer
    M
    M
    The Wrath of KAAN?
    Replies
    3
    Views
    841
    Snautzer01
    M
    The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
    Replies
    2
    Views
    497
    Thumpalumpacus
    Menu
    Log in
    Register