From my understanding their goal in Kiev mostly was to pin them down, surround the city, and use that position to stop shipment of arms and supplies from western Ukraine to East. That would make their campaigns in the east and south much easier, but in the end they failed to block resupply routes. Earlier assessments were predicting that Russians would dig in near Kiev and continue attrition but now they are outright retreating. These positions were very hard to win and they’re abandoning them altogether.
This means they’ve basically failed in all of their goals in Kiev. They failed to surrender the city. They failed to block the supply routes. They’ve even given up on keeping pressure on Ukrainian forces in Kiev.
This is not WWI trench warfare, but modern maneuver warfare. Moving to different positions is a normal part of it and not simply an indication of failure.
But is that more realistic? Beating the large contingent around the city, taking the territory around it, surround it, fight off breakout and relief attempts of such a large city with such a numerical disadvantage sounds - armchair-general stuff again - highly unrealistic.
I have been following the troop movements and from that I think it is relatively clear they wanted to surround Kiev. At the first days they pushed very hard from both the north and east straight to Kiev, and for the most part did surround it from those directions, although their control was somewhat tenuous.
From there, they had been building a base of operations somewhat at a distance to the front lines for logistics support, and had entrenched themselves on the front lines. This suggests the plan was to surround the city as it would’ve been overkill for hit and run tactics and just applying pressure. The following weeks they were constantly trying to push from the north of the city to the west. If you look at day to day troop movements you’ll see the main areas of contention was west of Kiev where Russian and Ukrainian forces kept going back and forth. Again, suggesting the plan was to surround the city.
Now let me tell you, this plan is not as stupid as you’re making it out to be. In fact it was working according to plan the first few days. What really turned the tide was Russia’s logistics issues which they had likely not anticipated to be this severe. This lead massive amounts of the hardware they had moved to the northern bases with such difficulty inoperable due to lack of ammo and fuel.
Such a problem so early in the operation meant that they could not effectively apply pressure to Ukrainian supply routes in the west either, which created a destructive feedback loop where as time went on Russians became weaker and weaker and Ukrainians stronger due to resupplies.
It is also clear from the entrenched positions and establishing of logistics bases that they had indeed plan to stay there for a quite a while. The fact that they abandoned places like Hostomel Airport and surrounding areas which they had given a lot of casualties to take shows things are not going according to their plans. Even a week earlier military analysts were predicting Russians would entrench their positions even further and keep pressure on Kiev for another month or so, their retreat does indeed show a complete reevaluation of their plans.
You are operating on pure conjecture ascribing intentions to Russia which it never stated that it had and which its operations do not indicate with anywhere near the kind of certainty you claim to have that “it is relatively clear they wanted to surround Kiev”.
Again this idea of complete encirclement goes contrary to the objectives of the operation. Not only would it require more forces being dedicated to maintaining such an encirclement than Russia actually deployed there, but it would have been counterproductive to two of the main goals of the semi-surround that they deployed: one being to keep a corridor open for civilians to evacuate west, the other being to allow more Ukrainian forces from elsewhere to be drawn into the city as they would feel compelled to reinforce it due to their capital being under threat. This serves to draw away more forces from other fronts and prevents reinforcements from going east where Russia’s main objectives are located.
It is not Russia that said they were going to remain entrenched around Kiev, by your own admission it was western commentators/analysts. Russia announced that they would be redeploying and they have done just that. How is this “losing”?
You act as if the Russian military is comically incompetent, unable to plan for eventualities or to account for the enemy’s possible moves, unable to assess either its own or the enemy’s strength accurately. Yet we know for a fact that Russia has excellent intelligence on virtually the entirety of Ukraine, it has been able to conduct targeted strikes on all sorts of military objectives deep inside Ukrainian territory all the way to the far west. Why then do you think they would make such amateurish mistakes as you are ascribing to them? You have been consuming far too much western propaganda surrounding this conflict.
Not only would it require more forces being dedicated to maintaining such an encirclement than Russia actually deployed there
3 of Russia’s largest forces were deployed there, 2 from north and 1 from east, along with majority of their air power in fighter jets, drones, and helicopters.
to keep a corridor open for civilians to evacuate west
can be done while city is surrounded, look at Mariupol
to allow more Ukrainian forces from elsewhere to be drawn into the city as they would feel compelled to reinforce it due to their capital being under threat.
They don’t need to have open access to the city center to be drawn to it.
It is not Russia that said they were going to remain entrenched around Kiev, by your own admission it was western commentators/analysts.
We have satellite pictures, drone footage, and amateur videos showing this was the case. Not just some random analyst’s words taken on pure good faith. Your only evidence for Russia not being entrenched is just “Russia didn’t say it” as if they’re going to publicly acknowledge every little detail of their plans.
You act as if the Russian military is comically incompetent
I did not. I only said they underestimated the severity of their logistics issues. This is not “comically incompetent”. On the other hand you’re trying to present them as fantastically flawless, having made zero mistakes and faced zero setbacks.
From my understanding their goal in Kiev mostly was to pin them down, surround the city, and use that position to stop shipment of arms and supplies from western Ukraine to East. That would make their campaigns in the east and south much easier, but in the end they failed to block resupply routes. Earlier assessments were predicting that Russians would dig in near Kiev and continue attrition but now they are outright retreating. These positions were very hard to win and they’re abandoning them altogether.
This means they’ve basically failed in all of their goals in Kiev. They failed to surrender the city. They failed to block the supply routes. They’ve even given up on keeping pressure on Ukrainian forces in Kiev.
This is not WWI trench warfare, but modern maneuver warfare. Moving to different positions is a normal part of it and not simply an indication of failure.
deleted by creator
I have been following the troop movements and from that I think it is relatively clear they wanted to surround Kiev. At the first days they pushed very hard from both the north and east straight to Kiev, and for the most part did surround it from those directions, although their control was somewhat tenuous.
From there, they had been building a base of operations somewhat at a distance to the front lines for logistics support, and had entrenched themselves on the front lines. This suggests the plan was to surround the city as it would’ve been overkill for hit and run tactics and just applying pressure. The following weeks they were constantly trying to push from the north of the city to the west. If you look at day to day troop movements you’ll see the main areas of contention was west of Kiev where Russian and Ukrainian forces kept going back and forth. Again, suggesting the plan was to surround the city.
Now let me tell you, this plan is not as stupid as you’re making it out to be. In fact it was working according to plan the first few days. What really turned the tide was Russia’s logistics issues which they had likely not anticipated to be this severe. This lead massive amounts of the hardware they had moved to the northern bases with such difficulty inoperable due to lack of ammo and fuel.
Such a problem so early in the operation meant that they could not effectively apply pressure to Ukrainian supply routes in the west either, which created a destructive feedback loop where as time went on Russians became weaker and weaker and Ukrainians stronger due to resupplies.
It is also clear from the entrenched positions and establishing of logistics bases that they had indeed plan to stay there for a quite a while. The fact that they abandoned places like Hostomel Airport and surrounding areas which they had given a lot of casualties to take shows things are not going according to their plans. Even a week earlier military analysts were predicting Russians would entrench their positions even further and keep pressure on Kiev for another month or so, their retreat does indeed show a complete reevaluation of their plans.
You are operating on pure conjecture ascribing intentions to Russia which it never stated that it had and which its operations do not indicate with anywhere near the kind of certainty you claim to have that “it is relatively clear they wanted to surround Kiev”.
Again this idea of complete encirclement goes contrary to the objectives of the operation. Not only would it require more forces being dedicated to maintaining such an encirclement than Russia actually deployed there, but it would have been counterproductive to two of the main goals of the semi-surround that they deployed: one being to keep a corridor open for civilians to evacuate west, the other being to allow more Ukrainian forces from elsewhere to be drawn into the city as they would feel compelled to reinforce it due to their capital being under threat. This serves to draw away more forces from other fronts and prevents reinforcements from going east where Russia’s main objectives are located.
It is not Russia that said they were going to remain entrenched around Kiev, by your own admission it was western commentators/analysts. Russia announced that they would be redeploying and they have done just that. How is this “losing”?
You act as if the Russian military is comically incompetent, unable to plan for eventualities or to account for the enemy’s possible moves, unable to assess either its own or the enemy’s strength accurately. Yet we know for a fact that Russia has excellent intelligence on virtually the entirety of Ukraine, it has been able to conduct targeted strikes on all sorts of military objectives deep inside Ukrainian territory all the way to the far west. Why then do you think they would make such amateurish mistakes as you are ascribing to them? You have been consuming far too much western propaganda surrounding this conflict.
3 of Russia’s largest forces were deployed there, 2 from north and 1 from east, along with majority of their air power in fighter jets, drones, and helicopters.
can be done while city is surrounded, look at Mariupol
They don’t need to have open access to the city center to be drawn to it.
We have satellite pictures, drone footage, and amateur videos showing this was the case. Not just some random analyst’s words taken on pure good faith. Your only evidence for Russia not being entrenched is just “Russia didn’t say it” as if they’re going to publicly acknowledge every little detail of their plans.
I did not. I only said they underestimated the severity of their logistics issues. This is not “comically incompetent”. On the other hand you’re trying to present them as fantastically flawless, having made zero mistakes and faced zero setbacks.