User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 11:33:58 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: Worse consequence than being removed as President of Russia and being thrown in prison or killed? What would those be? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: No, you have it wrong. Evil? Yes. Stupid...sorta, but not completely. I fully believe that if he thought there would be no consequences he would have already been dropping tactical nukes. But he knows there would be, so he doesn't. Worse consequence than being removed as President of Russia and being thrown in prison or killed? What would those be? Huh? He knows if he keeps in conventional and IN Ukraine, NATO isn't going to intervene directly. He knows if he starts dropping nukes that changes. I don't understand your question. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 11:34:24 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: to what near to middle term end? Yes of course forces on the offensive by definition have the initiative, which is a good and useful thing. What is the objective of seizing the initiative? Let me give some examples of what I mean. Is it to as you say put Russia on the horns of a dilemma for the purposes of dividing Russian forces between the current active front and thereby weakening the active front in the donbass, allowing a UA offensive there regaining territory (tactical) is it to break the support of the Russian people for Putin and cause such internal strife that it hastens the end of the war and provides increased leverage for Ukraine at any future negotiations? (strategic) Is is a full drive to Moscow or a diversionary thing that Russia will feel compelled to respond to? Are they? Or is it fuck it, YOLO, lets see what opportunities this creates? My interpretation is that it's biggest impact is political on Putin, Moscow is the really the only area of Russia that Moscow cares about and it's not in danger (yet) so while it's embarrassing that doesn't matter to dictators until it reaches a tipping point, strong men tend to be durable but brittle. They don't bend they break all at once. Without lots of resources the Kursk offensive has a geogrpahic limit. You can only stretch lines of communication so thin. So regardless of major Russian moves this can only go so far. Does Ukraine have that level of resources? It would be amazing if they do, historic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You serious? To seize the initiative, and provide Russia with a dilemma. Like placing a rook and a queen in check with one move. The UAF have almost a 3:1 advantage in terms of numbers in Kursk, fighting against forces that have no prepared defenses. Yes of course forces on the offensive by definition have the initiative, which is a good and useful thing. What is the objective of seizing the initiative? Let me give some examples of what I mean. Is it to as you say put Russia on the horns of a dilemma for the purposes of dividing Russian forces between the current active front and thereby weakening the active front in the donbass, allowing a UA offensive there regaining territory (tactical) is it to break the support of the Russian people for Putin and cause such internal strife that it hastens the end of the war and provides increased leverage for Ukraine at any future negotiations? (strategic) Is is a full drive to Moscow or a diversionary thing that Russia will feel compelled to respond to? Are they? Or is it fuck it, YOLO, lets see what opportunities this creates? My interpretation is that it's biggest impact is political on Putin, Moscow is the really the only area of Russia that Moscow cares about and it's not in danger (yet) so while it's embarrassing that doesn't matter to dictators until it reaches a tipping point, strong men tend to be durable but brittle. They don't bend they break all at once. Without lots of resources the Kursk offensive has a geogrpahic limit. You can only stretch lines of communication so thin. So regardless of major Russian moves this can only go so far. Does Ukraine have that level of resources? It would be amazing if they do, historic. There's a multitude of obvious positive effects of going into Kursk. Buffer Zone (As Stated by Ukraine): russia was relentlessly dropping glide bombs on Kharkiv oblast and the city. That has changed for the better. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-russian-guided-bomb-attacks-have-decreased-sharply-kharkiv-region-2024-08-12/ Gas metering station in Kursk Oblast: https://cepa.org/article/ukraine-has-its-foot-on-gazproms-throat/ Rail lines, supply lines, airports, etc: https://cepa.org/article/ukraines-special-operations-troops-sow-destruction-in-russia/ https://www.intellinews.com/ukrainian-incursion-into-kursk-paralyses-russia-s-railways-339053/ How deep do they really need to go? This relatively small incursion sure seems to be one major thorn in the side. The amount of positive results over the past two weeks is readily available and abundant. Not to mention Ukrainian troops actually acting civilized and looking after those russian civilians.that didn't evacuate. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/08/14/7470410/index.amp |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 11:54:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 56xdx_Z]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By walkinginadangerzone: It's been posted in earlier pages that Ukraine moved troops from other fronts in the south east to go into the north. They'd have to relocate more troops from those southern fronts and that could probably lead to another Avdiivka opening. It was pointed out earlier that Ukraine could have sent these troops to reinforce the green troops (as carmel's linked article mentioned) in the Avdiivka front, but they didn't. It's an interesting strategy. Russia broke through the original defense lines built since 2014 in Donbass, and picked up pace. So Ukraine instead sends their forces on an expedition into Russian territory, in small numbers compared to even the Tet offensive, with hopes that Russia would be forced to divert troops or would be like the US and lose political will to continue the fight. But the Ukrainians going into Kursk are reenacting the WWII/Nazi or Napoleon boogieman in the eyes of the Russians, so the public sentiment factor is probably backfiring. So what's Ukraine going to do, send their limited forces on a death march to Moscow, or try to hold a slice of Kursk for as long as possible before their forces end up running away as the front crumbles in Donbass |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:06:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: to what near to middle term end? Yes of course forces on the offensive by definition have the initiative, which is a good and useful thing. What is the objective of seizing the initiative? Let me give some examples of what I mean. Is it to as you say put Russia on the horns of a dilemma for the purposes of dividing Russian forces between the current active front and thereby weakening the active front in the donbass, allowing a UA offensive there regaining territory (tactical) is it to break the support of the Russian people for Putin and cause such internal strife that it hastens the end of the war and provides increased leverage for Ukraine at any future negotiations? (strategic) Is is a full drive to Moscow or a diversionary thing that Russia will feel compelled to respond to? Are they? Or is it fuck it, YOLO, lets see what opportunities this creates? My interpretation is that it's biggest impact is political on Putin, Moscow is the really the only area of Russia that Moscow cares about and it's not in danger (yet) so while it's embarrassing that doesn't matter to dictators until it reaches a tipping point, strong men tend to be durable but brittle. They don't bend they break all at once. Without lots of resources the Kursk offensive has a geogrpahic limit. You can only stretch lines of communication so thin. So regardless of major Russian moves this can only go so far. Does Ukraine have that level of resources? It would be amazing if they do, historic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You serious? To seize the initiative, and provide Russia with a dilemma. Like placing a rook and a queen in check with one move. The UAF have almost a 3:1 advantage in terms of numbers in Kursk, fighting against forces that have no prepared defenses. Yes of course forces on the offensive by definition have the initiative, which is a good and useful thing. What is the objective of seizing the initiative? Let me give some examples of what I mean. Is it to as you say put Russia on the horns of a dilemma for the purposes of dividing Russian forces between the current active front and thereby weakening the active front in the donbass, allowing a UA offensive there regaining territory (tactical) is it to break the support of the Russian people for Putin and cause such internal strife that it hastens the end of the war and provides increased leverage for Ukraine at any future negotiations? (strategic) Is is a full drive to Moscow or a diversionary thing that Russia will feel compelled to respond to? Are they? Or is it fuck it, YOLO, lets see what opportunities this creates? My interpretation is that it's biggest impact is political on Putin, Moscow is the really the only area of Russia that Moscow cares about and it's not in danger (yet) so while it's embarrassing that doesn't matter to dictators until it reaches a tipping point, strong men tend to be durable but brittle. They don't bend they break all at once. Without lots of resources the Kursk offensive has a geogrpahic limit. You can only stretch lines of communication so thin. So regardless of major Russian moves this can only go so far. Does Ukraine have that level of resources? It would be amazing if they do, historic. I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:14:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: PortaJohnPicasso]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Like placing a rook and a queen in check with one move. Um, you can attack both at once, but neither can be placed in "check "  |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:22:35 PM EST
[#6]
I think their offensive is starting to outpace their EW umbrella, they've lost some critical piece of hardware to drones. Sadly, there just might be nothing they can do about that, since Ukraine EW capacity is not where it needs to be and probably will not be for another year or so.
I'd say that Ukraine is doing a good job. It's not just for propaganda. They struck the enemy where he was weakest and they are managing to stay highly mobile and fluid, which is what a smaller opponent needs to do in any match up. Guys who are saying that Ukraine made a mistake by taking assets off the line for this offensive are trying to tell us that it's better to stand toe to toe with a bigger guy and slug it out rather than dance around him. I think those guys are wrong. Can Ukraine seize and hold that territory? Maybe, it will come down to timing honestly and even if they can't they could make a very orderly withdraw and still would have accomplished a lot by making the Russian reallocate assets. It was a smart play and I have zero issues with Ukraine pushing into Russia with NATO hardware, because I just don't see that as possibly being enough to spark a nuclear or even conventional conflict between NATO and Russia. I think Ukraine sees that Trump could win in November. If Trump wins they know the writting is on the wall and a negotiated settlement is going to happen. If they can have a piece of Russia going into that negotiation as a bargaining chip they can get a much better deal for themselves. Offensive operations are resource intense though and Ukraine has its work cut out for it for sure. This is kind of a Hail Mary play like the Germans with the Battle of the Bulge, but it could work out pretty damn well in this case and was definitely worth a shot. I still hope that Trump wins, we get a negotiated settlement before Summer of 2025 and that Ukraine walks away with a great deal of its territory with the right to arm its own military (I doubt they'll get through this without a pledge not to join NATO for a set number years). |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:25:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: ExFed1811]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RolandofGilead: Huh? He knows if he keeps in conventional and IN Ukraine, NATO isn't going to intervene directly. He knows if he starts dropping nukes that changes. I don't understand your question. You don't understand the question because that possibility never occurred to you. Dropping an A-Bomb on your own territory is kind of like an unauthorized nuclear test. You think Europe and the US are going to risk getting nuked because of that? Maybe so. I'm pretty sure the people making all the money off of this conflict all have some pretty nice ass bunkers. I don't have one. Do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:34:05 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: You don't understand the question because that possibility never occurred to you. Dropping an A-Bomb on your own territory is kind of like an unauthorized nuclear test. You think Europe and the US are going to risk getting nuked because of that? Maybe so. I'm pretty sure the people making all the money off of this conflict all have some pretty nice ass bunkers. I don't have one. Do you? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Huh? He knows if he keeps in conventional and IN Ukraine, NATO isn't going to intervene directly. He knows if he starts dropping nukes that changes. I don't understand your question. You don't understand the question because that possibility never occurred to you. Dropping an A-Bomb on your own territory is kind of like an unauthorized nuclear test. You think Europe and the US are going to risk getting nuked because of that? Maybe so. I'm pretty sure the people making all the money off of this conflict all have some pretty nice ass bunkers. I don't have one. Do you? No it's because you're changing the argument. You pointed out a supposed dichotomy, I explained how that was incorrect, now you're making a new argument. Your initial argument was that "ukebros" will say he's evil, but somehow won't drop nukes. I explained how that's not "ukebros" stance at all. |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:37:22 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RolandofGilead: No, you have it wrong. Evil? Yes. Stupid...sorta, but not completely. I fully believe that if he thought there would be no consequences he would have already been dropping tactical nukes. But he knows there would be, so he doesn't. LOL, I was getting ready to type the exact same thing. Evil? Yes Stupid? Not THAT stupid. Hard to look like a stronk leader when you nuke your own country to keep tiny Ukraine out, especially when you are the one that started the Russia becomes even more of a pariah, and the money/equipment faucets to Ukraine get turned to 11 worldwide. NATO discusses removal of the mad bully with nukes by any means necessary. You invade another country, if they counter-invade you use nukes? Can't have that. Chances of Russia keeping the land they invaded long term goes to zero. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:38:29 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RolandofGilead: No it's because you're changing the argument. You pointed out a supposed dichotomy, I explained how that was incorrect, now you're making a new argument. Your initial argument was that "ukebros" will say he's evil, but somehow won't drop nukes. I explained how that's not "ukebros" stance at all. Yes, that does appear to be their stance, and you did nothing to refute that. It's okay to not really know if that might happen or not, and what would be the result. I don't think there is a person alive who knows. That's kind of the point. You just underlined it for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:39:36 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: Yes, that does appear to be their stance, and you did nothing to refute that. It's okay to not really know if that might happen or not, and what would be the result. I don't think there is a person alive who knows. That's kind of the point. You just underlined it for me. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: No it's because you're changing the argument. You pointed out a supposed dichotomy, I explained how that was incorrect, now you're making a new argument. Your initial argument was that "ukebros" will say he's evil, but somehow won't drop nukes. I explained how that's not "ukebros" stance at all. Yes, that does appear to be their stance, and you did nothing to refute that. It's okay to not really know if that might happen or not, and what would be the result. I don't think there is a person alive who knows. That's kind of the point. You just underlined it for me. It's easy to be right when you misrepresent the argument presented to you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:40:35 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You serious? To seize the initiative, and provide Russia with a dilemma. Like placing a rook and a queen in check with one move. The UAF have almost a 3:1 advantage in terms of numbers in Kursk, fighting against forces that have no prepared defenses. Yes of course forces on the offensive by definition have the initiative, which is a good and useful thing. What is the objective of seizing the initiative? Let me give some examples of what I mean. Is it to as you say put Russia on the horns of a dilemma for the purposes of dividing Russian forces between the current active front and thereby weakening the active front in the donbass, allowing a UA offensive there regaining territory (tactical) is it to break the support of the Russian people for Putin and cause such internal strife that it hastens the end of the war and provides increased leverage for Ukraine at any future negotiations? (strategic) Is is a full drive to Moscow or a diversionary thing that Russia will feel compelled to respond to? Are they? Or is it fuck it, YOLO, lets see what opportunities this creates? My interpretation is that it's biggest impact is political on Putin, Moscow is the really the only area of Russia that Moscow cares about and it's not in danger (yet) so while it's embarrassing that doesn't matter to dictators until it reaches a tipping point, strong men tend to be durable but brittle. They don't bend they break all at once. Without lots of resources the Kursk offensive has a geogrpahic limit. You can only stretch lines of communication so thin. So regardless of major Russian moves this can only go so far. Does Ukraine have that level of resources? It would be amazing if they do, historic. I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. Rumor is that this is the game to seize as much territory before weather frustrates any large assaults, and then the US presidential election occurs. Odds are that either presidential candidate will try to enforce "peace" within their first 100 days, which will still likely be frozen ground or muddy spring in Ukraine/Kursk area. I still believe this is going to end in a NATO championed Dayton Accords-esque agreement, just like Bosnia-Herzegovina & Serbia/Kosovo. A Zone of Separation (ZOS) and separate areas/countries for the splinter groups. Dayton Accords were drawn up & settled upon with each others advanced lines. NATO performing peacekeeping/Stability & UN doing policing, demining & rebuilding duties forever. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:43:25 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: You don't understand the question because that possibility never occurred to you. Dropping an A-Bomb on your own territory is kind of like an unauthorized nuclear test. You think Europe and the US are going to risk getting nuked because of that? Maybe so. I'm pretty sure the people making all the money off of this conflict all have some pretty nice ass bunkers. I don't have one. Do you? And yes he needs international support. At this point China and India are the only thing propping him up, and they wouldn't be able to look the other way over a nuke |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:46:19 PM EST
[#14]
They might try and take Belgorod, which is actually a Ukrainian city and probably never should have been in Russia
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:51:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: ExFed1811]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: If Putin nukes his own country not only will he lose all international support, he will probably get a bullet in the back of his head from his own people. And yes he needs international support. At this point China and India are the only thing propping him up, and they wouldn't be able to look the other way over a nuke It's a good thing everyone is sure of that. Because otherwise, things could get really bad, really quick. But, you're sure, so we're good. |
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:53:19 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: You don't understand the question because that possibility never occurred to you. Dropping an A-Bomb on your own territory is kind of like an unauthorized nuclear test. You think Europe and the US are going to risk getting nuked because of that? Maybe so. I'm pretty sure the people making all the money off of this conflict all have some pretty nice ass bunkers. I don't have one. Do you? If Europe and the US are going to get nuked, than we are ALREADY fucked. Play it out and tell me how it looks long term. Seems like you should point your anger, concern and confusion at pooty. He is the one that invaded another country while threatening nukes. Any nuclear war concerns are 100% because of HIM. Ukraine has nothing to lose, and Pooty put all of us in this position. |
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 12:59:54 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: It's a good thing everyone is sure of that. Because otherwise, things could get really bad, really quick. But, you're sure, so we're good. It is already bad, and either way it ends poorly for Ukraine. How many Ukrainians have already died because of this "special operation"? How much land has Russia already taken? Do you think Russia will stop if they realize there is no response to their invasions? Sorry, pooty pooty already put you in this mess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 1:01:16 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: It's a good thing everyone is sure of that. Because otherwise, things could get really bad, really quick. But, you're sure, so we're good. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: Originally Posted By PolarBear416: If Putin nukes his own country not only will he lose all international support, he will probably get a bullet in the back of his head from his own people. And yes he needs international support. At this point China and India are the only thing propping him up, and they wouldn't be able to look the other way over a nuke It's a good thing everyone is sure of that. Because otherwise, things could get really bad, really quick. But, you're sure, so we're good. You're free to disagree with the assessment that he won't use nukes. What's obnoxious is being told that I'm making an argument that I'm not making. |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 1:31:23 PM EST
[#19]
My theory:
Russia wants (needs) to do this via conventional warfare. Ukraine has put up a hell of a fight, but they ARE going to eventually get ground down and lose their land. Does not matter if they do it slowly or quickly because Russia will continue to throw bodies into the meat grinder. The only way to attempt to change the narrative is for Ukraine to make Moscow feel this war. They need to do as much damage as possible in Russia, and get closer and closer to Moscow. As horrible as it would be for their troops, Ukraine comes out on top if Russia uses a nuke. If pooty does not want to use a nuke, and wants to keep the war away from Moscow, the OBVIOUS political and international answer is to pull his troops out of Ukraine, and thus Ukraine will pull out of Russia. Ukraine has nothing to lose because Russia put them (and all of us) in this position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 1:41:16 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/51435/IMG_2451_jpeg-3301142.JPG Good one. Nice to see Russia on the receiving end of some pain, since they have inflicted so much upon the world themselves, and even more with the export of their ideas… |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 1:50:31 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Subpar: I still don’t support spending American treasure or blood for the Ukraine, but they certainly have earned the world’s respect. It looks horrendous there and they have no quit. I’ve even slowed my shit-posting because of their performance. It’s pretty incredible. It is part of the American mindset to support the underdog. Nobody makes a feel good movie where the bully wins in the end do they? Nope. Everyone wants to see the underdog have their day in the sun. Anyhow- hopefully the Ukrainians are able to pull off some long term wins with this move to justify the risk. If not, it was still probably worth the gamble. |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 1:54:11 PM EST
[#22]
The PR of it is absolutely amazing. it's a slap to the Nth degree.
There has been no such invasion since 1941. And Kurks itself is symbolic. They apparently have no viable forces to deal with. In 1941 there was a massive conscription effort. Today such an effort is not viable. The Russian Federation is fighting the war the same way US fought in Nam. Of course it can't win. They can, if they conscript everyone, as they did in 1941. But they can't do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:05:33 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ad_nauseam: The PR of it is absolutely amazing. it's a slap to the Nth degree. There has been no such invasion since 1941. And Kurks itself is symbolic. They apparently have no viable forces to deal with. In 1941 there was a massive conscription effort. Today such an effort is not viable. The Russian Federation is fighting the war the same way US fought in Nam. Of course it can't win. They can, if they conscript everyone, as they did in 1941. But they can't do that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:12:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: lil_Sig]
[#24]
RFK Just told the Truth about Russia Ukraine/ US WAR!
 WATCH: RFK Jr. says he’s suspending his presidential bid and backing Donald Trump |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:18:15 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. It is good PR and the effects of IO are more real these days than ever. So I don't discount those things as legitimate goals. It does further the plot with the allies, and certainly at least puts Putin on the spot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:20:59 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryChina is going to be very powerful with the $70B Belarusian GDP on its side. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:24:54 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: It's a good thing everyone is sure of that. Because otherwise, things could get really bad, really quick. But, you're sure, so we're good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:27:19 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: That's along the lines of my thinking, if it was maneuver warfare, a big left hook to flank prepped defenses I could see. But to just poke a salient into Russia and inevitably stop because you don't have the logistics to support it, and do nothing else with it seems less impressive than the media would suggest. It is good PR and the effects of IO are more real these days than ever. So I don't discount those things as legitimate goals. It does further the plot with the allies, and certainly at least puts Putin on the spot. Russian sources suspect Ukraine has a reserve for another attack. Has me wondering if they are going to try another attack across the border north by Rylsk or something. But ultimately I think they wanted Russian land and FSB border troops for trade. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:29:07 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By panthermark: My theory: Russia wants (needs) to do this via conventional warfare. Ukraine has put up a hell of a fight, but they ARE going to eventually get ground down and lose their land. Does not matter if they do it slowly or quickly because Russia will continue to throw bodies into the meat grinder. The only way to attempt to change the narrative is for Ukraine to make Moscow feel this war. They need to do as much damage as possible in Russia, and get closer and closer to Moscow. As horrible as it would be for their troops, Ukraine comes out on top if Russia uses a nuke. If pooty does not want to use a nuke, and wants to keep the war away from Moscow, the OBVIOUS political and international answer is to pull his troops out of Ukraine, and thus Ukraine will pull out of Russia. Ukraine has nothing to lose because Russia put them (and all of us) in this position. It's possible for both Russia and Ukraine to lose. Russia can actually suffer so many losses "winning" that it ceases to have economic or military significance. I don't see ANY downside to the United States making this as costly for Russia as possible. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:33:40 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. Where is the downside to Ukraine here? They either reverse the Russian gains elsewhere, or they keep the land or the trade it to get back what Russia took elsewhere. Also, there IS a risk to Russia that they do turn right and take Belgorod, which as an ethnically Ukrainian area, should be inherently easy for the Ukrainians to hold long term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:46:25 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You serious? To seize the initiative, and provide Russia with a dilemma. Like placing a rook and a queen in check with one move. The UAF have almost a 3:1 advantage in terms of numbers in Kursk, fighting against forces that have no prepared defenses. Yes of course forces on the offensive by definition have the initiative, which is a good and useful thing. What is the objective of seizing the initiative? Let me give some examples of what I mean. Is it to as you say put Russia on the horns of a dilemma for the purposes of dividing Russian forces between the current active front and thereby weakening the active front in the donbass, allowing a UA offensive there regaining territory (tactical) is it to break the support of the Russian people for Putin and cause such internal strife that it hastens the end of the war and provides increased leverage for Ukraine at any future negotiations? (strategic) Is is a full drive to Moscow or a diversionary thing that Russia will feel compelled to respond to? Are they? Or is it fuck it, YOLO, lets see what opportunities this creates? My interpretation is that it's biggest impact is political on Putin, Moscow is the really the only area of Russia that Moscow cares about and it's not in danger (yet) so while it's embarrassing that doesn't matter to dictators until it reaches a tipping point, strong men tend to be durable but brittle. They don't bend they break all at once. Without lots of resources the Kursk offensive has a geogrpahic limit. You can only stretch lines of communication so thin. So regardless of major Russian moves this can only go so far. Does Ukraine have that level of resources? It would be amazing if they do, historic. I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:53:24 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lil_Sig: RFK Just told the Truth about Russia Ukraine/ US WAR!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8jRnvK5W4MI'm pretty sure that's his brain worm speaking. I agree with him on some stuff, but he's absolutely fucking retarded when it comes to Ukraine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:56:32 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryOh look, an assessment that at face value asks the simple question of what the goals and commensurate benefits are here weeks into the offensive....something nobody can answer. But since it doesn't present a glaring net positive for Ukraine, even if only based on pure speculation with zero evidence....you attempt to marginalize it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 2:58:34 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: That's along the lines of my thinking, if it was maneuver warfare, a big left hook to flank prepped defenses I could see. But to just poke a salient into Russia and inevitably stop because you don't have the logistics to support it, and do nothing else with it seems less impressive than the media would suggest. It is good PR and the effects of IO are more real these days than ever. So I don't discount those things as legitimate goals. It does further the plot with the allies, and certainly at least puts Putin on the spot. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By daemon734: I'm still trying to figure out what major strategic benefit exist for Ukraine with a 3:1 troop advantage in Kursk. Not enough to go anywhere and do anything exceptionally effective, barely enough to hold in place if Russia actually sends a real response. No prepared defenses seems to go along with the limited value associated with the area. Meanwhile the effects on the Ukrainian lines elsewhere are real. Weeks in and it still looks like the only reason was PR and IO, which don't seem to really have panned out very well. It is good PR and the effects of IO are more real these days than ever. So I don't discount those things as legitimate goals. It does further the plot with the allies, and certainly at least puts Putin on the spot. The Ukrainians have dropped bridges over the Seym river, captured a (the?) major gas metering station that feeds Russian gas to Europe, captured the rail station at Sudzha likely giving them critical intelligence on Russian rail logistics, and they've moved dangerously close to both the E38 highway and the big rail yard/junction in Lgov. For those last two, they're close enough to deter/deny use of those routes. That's a pretty good list of tactical accomplishments in a short time, and that's before we consider this war has been stagnant for over a year. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:01:07 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Where is the downside to Ukraine here? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Where is the downside to Ukraine here? That's a pretty simple question to answer. Even if you are incapable of identifying it yourself, you can literally just watch the news. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-kursk-incursion-pokrovsk.html More than two weeks into its surprise offensive in western Russia, Ukraine’s advance has slowed, with its troops making only marginal gains around territory they already control. But more than 200 miles to the southeast, another offensive is gaining momentum: Russia’s drive toward Pokrovsk, a stronghold in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region. In recent days, Moscow’s troops have seized at least three settlements and reached the outskirts of a town along a railroad to Pokrovsk, a logistics hub for the Ukrainian Army in the region. The Russian advance has put the Ukrainians in the precarious position of defending one critical front while attempting to press forward on another, all with limited troop numbers and weaponry. President Volodymyr Zelensky said this week that Ukraine was working on boosting its forces in the east with more men and weapons to resist the Russian advance. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-new-recruits-pokrovsk-ed2d06ad529e3b7e47ecd32f79911b83 While Ukraine presses on with its incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, its troops are still losing precious ground along the country’s eastern front — a grim erosion that military commanders blame in part on poorly trained recruits drawn from a recent mobilization drive, as well as Russia’s clear superiority in ammunition and air power. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:02:26 PM EST
[#36]
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: That's a pretty good list of tactical accomplishments in a short time, and that's before we consider this war has been stagnant for over a year. Yep. Tactical accomplishments. While dedicating a strategic level force. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:07:39 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: That's a pretty simple question to answer. Even if you are incapable of identifying it yourself, you can literally just watch the news. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-kursk-incursion-pokrovsk.html https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-new-recruits-pokrovsk-ed2d06ad529e3b7e47ecd32f79911b83 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:11:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Strategically if the Russians were going to advance anyway elsewhere, under the path they have chosen the net number of square miles lost is less, and some of the fight shifts over into Russian cities Define the "cities" they are fighting over. None of those cities being lost would lead to a critical gap in a long and highly contested FLOT. Trading random Kursk farmland for FLOT strongholds doesn't sounds like a solid benefit. I don't think you understand the concept of "no downsides". |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:18:40 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 56xdx_Z: It's an interesting strategy. Russia broke through the original defense lines built since 2014 in Donbass, and picked up pace. So Ukraine instead sends their forces on an expedition into Russian territory, in small numbers compared to even the Tet offensive, with hopes that Russia would be forced to divert troops or would be like the US and lose political will to continue the fight. But the Ukrainians going into Kursk are reenacting the WWII/Nazi or Napoleon boogieman in the eyes of the Russians, so the public sentiment factor is probably backfiring. So what's Ukraine going to do, send their limited forces on a death march to Moscow, or try to hold a slice of Kursk for as long as possible before their forces end up running away as the front crumbles in Donbass Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 56xdx_Z: Originally Posted By walkinginadangerzone: It's been posted in earlier pages that Ukraine moved troops from other fronts in the south east to go into the north. They'd have to relocate more troops from those southern fronts and that could probably lead to another Avdiivka opening. It was pointed out earlier that Ukraine could have sent these troops to reinforce the green troops (as carmel's linked article mentioned) in the Avdiivka front, but they didn't. It's an interesting strategy. Russia broke through the original defense lines built since 2014 in Donbass, and picked up pace. So Ukraine instead sends their forces on an expedition into Russian territory, in small numbers compared to even the Tet offensive, with hopes that Russia would be forced to divert troops or would be like the US and lose political will to continue the fight. But the Ukrainians going into Kursk are reenacting the WWII/Nazi or Napoleon boogieman in the eyes of the Russians, so the public sentiment factor is probably backfiring. So what's Ukraine going to do, send their limited forces on a death march to Moscow, or try to hold a slice of Kursk for as long as possible before their forces end up running away as the front crumbles in Donbass Yeah, I think they underestimated the russians. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:24:23 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Define the "cities" they are fighting over. None of those cities being lost would lead to a critical gap in a long and highly contested FLOT. I don't think you understand the concept of "no downsides". Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By PolarBear416: Strategically if the Russians were going to advance anyway elsewhere, under the path they have chosen the net number of square miles lost is less, and some of the fight shifts over into Russian cities Define the "cities" they are fighting over. None of those cities being lost would lead to a critical gap in a long and highly contested FLOT. I don't think you understand the concept of "no downsides". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:31:34 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: If they make it to E105 then Belgorod will fall Will it? And would they be able to hold it even if it did? Eventually Russia will cough up some units organically without stripping the front. That's how force generation works, and they are absolutely on the upper side of that curve compared to Ukraine. Again, regardless of your statements to the contrary, Ukraine seems to be taking a massive risk for what appears to be a very undefined and possibly temporary strategic gain. One that has yet to even be proven at all. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:39:44 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: The Ukrainians have dropped bridges over the Seym river, captured a (the?) major gas metering station that feeds Russian gas to Europe, captured the rail station at Sudzha likely giving them critical intelligence on Russian rail logistics, and they've moved dangerously close to both the E38 highway and the big rail yard/junction in Lgov. For those last two, they're close enough to deter/deny use of those routes. That's a pretty good list of tactical accomplishments in a short time, and that's before we consider this war has been stagnant for over a year. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:40:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: KaerMorhenResident]
[#43]
Ukraine has multiple ways it can play this out, if it holds any of the territory going into the fall rainy season it might be able to have a bargaining chip in a post-Trump victory world negotiated settlement and if they end up having to withdraw they could probably do so in good order having raised a lot of Hell on the enemy while forcing them to reallocate resources. Let's not discount the propaganda value of this action either, Ukrainian civilians eat this stuff up and the limp wrists in the EU will see this as a sign that Ukraine can still do more than just mitigate the damage.
I have to say, I just don't think you fight Russia on Russia's terms in a straight up attrition war over trench lines. Ukraine just trading blows with Russia along a static front (that they were terrible at preparing, but that's another conversation) is not a good way for them to get a good outcome. Audacity, audacity, audacity...he who dares wins. If Ukraine had actually put the work into a defense in depth that would be different, but they did a shit job at that and they're playing the cards they have now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:41:46 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Will it? And would they be able to hold it even if it did? Eventually Russia will cough up some units organically without stripping the front. That's how force generation works, and they are absolutely on the upper side of that curve compared to Ukraine. Again, regardless of your statements to the contrary, Ukraine seems to be taking a massive risk for what appears to be a very undefined and possibly temporary strategic gain. One that has yet to even be proven at all. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:52:44 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Yep. Tactical accomplishments. While dedicating a strategic level force. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: That's a pretty good list of tactical accomplishments in a short time, and that's before we consider this war has been stagnant for over a year. Yep. Tactical accomplishments. While dedicating a strategic level force. It's funny how the claimed size of the force changes more often than the wind changes direction. It's a raiding party, no wait, it's a DIV, no it's a smaller force of maybe a BDE or something, oh wait, now it's big enough that the Russobots are claiming they've killed/captured 4,000+ dudes even though the Ukrainians are still advancing. lol Nobody seems to have any idea how many soldiers Ukraine really has anywhere, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the Ukrainians themselves probably have a pretty good idea how many guys they have on the line, in reserve, in training domestically, in training with NATO, etc. It's also worth noting that nobody saw this coming. The US didn't see it, Biden's people are mad as hell they weren't notified, and Russia was completely caught off guard. So while Ukraine definitely has an interest in being methodical about what is communicated publicly, we should probably take external assessments about them with a grain of salt, too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 3:57:19 PM EST
[#46]
Trump likes winners. Trump does not want to be associated with losers. Taking territory is winning while losing territory, albeit very slowly while heavily outnumbered and outgunned, is losing. If Ukraine can make a case that they're winners when properly supplied Trump will properly supply them and take a big piece of the glory when they win, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 4:00:27 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ad_nauseam: The PR of it is absolutely amazing. it's a slap to the Nth degree. There has been no such invasion since 1941. And Kurks itself is symbolic. They apparently have no viable forces to deal with. In 1941 there was a massive conscription effort. Today such an effort is not viable. The Russian Federation is fighting the war the same way US fought in Nam. Of course it can't win. They can, if they conscript everyone, as they did in 1941. But they can't do that. The U.S. could have succeeded in Vietnam. In fact, it did essentially win but chose not to protect its victory by refraining from intervening when the north decided to attack again. But you had Leftist anti-war types having the dominant voice, not too dissimilar from what we see on the Right today, victims of the same enemy's IO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 4:01:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: It's funny how the claimed size of the force changes more often than the wind changes direction. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: It's funny how the claimed size of the force changes more often than the wind changes direction. Yeah, sure does. Now do the objectives. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: It's also worth noting that nobody saw this coming. The US didn't see it, Biden's people are mad as hell they weren't notified, and Russia was completely caught off guard. So while Ukraine definitely has an interest in being methodical about what is communicated publicly, we should probably take external assessments about them with a grain of salt, too. That's the part that worries me. It was virtually undefended, nobody addressed it early, and weeks in, the response has been minimal. Being that any tangible long term objective is absolute speculation weeks into the operation, and the only actual concern Russia seems to be actually producing are western headlines of "Putin big MAD"....all signs sure are leaning towards the fact that this really doesn't mean much for the war outside of giving fantasy footballers things to cheer about. Ukraine has absolutely taken some big losses during this event, including some virtually irreplaceable equipment. To me this is as if the US were fighting Mexico at the border, fighting hard for El Paso and San Diego and the Mexicans stormed Sierra Vista Arizona and everybody was shocked it was relatively undefended. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 4:10:06 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: It's funny how the claimed size of the force changes more often than the wind changes direction. It's a raiding party, no wait, it's a DIV, no it's a smaller force of maybe a BDE or something, oh wait, now it's big enough that the Russobots are claiming they've killed/captured 4,000+ dudes even though the Ukrainians are still advancing. lol Nobody seems to have any idea how many soldiers Ukraine really has anywhere, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the Ukrainians themselves probably have a pretty good idea how many guys they have on the line, in reserve, in training domestically, in training with NATO, etc. It's also worth noting that nobody saw this coming. The US didn't see it, Biden's people are mad as hell they weren't notified, and Russia was completely caught off guard. So while Ukraine definitely has an interest in being methodical about what is communicated publicly, we should probably take external assessments about them with a grain of salt, too. This was planned with Nato advisors. Doctrinally it's no different than any conflict - break a stalemate by attacking where the enemy isn't expecting it. The Russians haven't been able to innovate manoeuvre warfare since WW2. |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 8/23/2024 4:18:15 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: The U.S. could have succeeded in Vietnam. In fact, it did essentially win but chose not to protect its victory by refraining from intervening when the north decided to attack again. But you had Leftist anti-war types having the dominant voice, not too dissimilar from what we see on the Right today, victims of the same enemy's IO. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: Originally Posted By ad_nauseam: The PR of it is absolutely amazing. it's a slap to the Nth degree. There has been no such invasion since 1941. And Kurks itself is symbolic. They apparently have no viable forces to deal with. In 1941 there was a massive conscription effort. Today such an effort is not viable. The Russian Federation is fighting the war the same way US fought in Nam. Of course it can't win. They can, if they conscript everyone, as they did in 1941. But they can't do that. The U.S. could have succeeded in Vietnam. In fact, it did essentially win but chose not to protect its victory by refraining from intervening when the north decided to attack again. But you had Leftist anti-war types having the dominant voice, not too dissimilar from what we see on the Right today, victims of the same enemy's IO. That is true. The failure was a combination of politics, bad ROE, et cetera. I am saying that the Russian Federation is in the same spot. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
