But with how little the front has moved in the last two months, this sudden change is pretty big. I
Once again, I fail to see the strategic importance of this change. Ukraine did a big push on two fronts. Russia chose to hold in Kherson, and to withdraw around Kharkov. I’m not seeing how this improves the situation for Ukraine anymore than their last Kharkov offensive that was rolled back within weeks.
Every bit of territory matters to Ukraine, and I guess they saw this was the most lightly defended part.
Taking territory is only meaningful if you can hold it. Ukraine was able to take it because Russia chose to withdraw. If Russia consolidates and counter attacks then Ukraine will be in exact same position Russia was in when they held it.
Now they can only attack from the mostly heavily fortified east.
Again, this hinges on Ukraine being able to actually hold this territory.
Well it just became much harder.
Except it hasn’t because as I’ve explained above, Ukraine is in no better position to hold this territory than Russia was. As you yourself pointed out, it’s lightly defended.
Also there was a lot of equipment left behind. Russia still has a lot of tanks at home, but it still hurts, especially when the enemy is able to make use of it. Lots of POWs as well.
I haven’t seen any credible reports regarding this. A lot of stuff that’s been shown on social media turned out to be Ukrainian equipment or from other battles. Pretty much every account suggests that Russians did an orderly and strategic withdrawal.
What did they gain in the last two months? Pisky? With all 6 inhabitants? Their area gains are miniscule compared to what just happened in a span of days.
This is a war of attrition. Ukraine is losing anywhere from 100 to 500 troops each and every day by their own admission. They’re also unable to replace their military equipment or ammunition. Ukraine is not able to sustain this for much longer, and western support is not sufficient to replace what they’re losing.
The fight there is extremely expensive for both sides, but Kherson is currently in a similar situation as Severodonetsk was a few months ago, just with the sides switched.
Even western media admits that the fighting is far more expensive on the Ukrainian side because Russia has massive artillery and air superiority over Ukraine.
And those ferries are constantly harassed by HIMARS strikes. With no hope for properly supplying the area, it is basically already lost. It’s just a matter of time, and Ukraine has the logistical advantage
So far there is zero evidence that HIMARS have made any strategic impact on combat. Also worth noting that Russia has hundreds of MLRS systems comparable to HIMARS, if this is what wins the war then Russia has a huge advantage here.
Also they often use it for terror strikes at civilians in Donbas. This speak volumes about who they are and who are their suppliers - their country is in “fight for the very survival and independence”, and they waste expensive and supposedly very effective weapons to murder civilians.
Also, even USA do not want to give them longer range missiles because they would just used it to terror strikes against russian cities in Russia.
Wow you’re still just as funny as you were last time I talked to you
Taking territory is only meaningful if you can hold it
Correct. And they absolutely can hold it. On the first try it took Russia months to take it, and I don’t see how they can do that again, given all the troops that were involved are now in Kherson. But I guess we’ll just have to see.
orderly and strategic withdrawal.
Lol no. Literally just take a look at https://twitter.com/UAWeapons and you’ll see tons of abandoned and destroyed Russian vehicles. They were completely overwhelmed in Kharkiv and did not plan this. Of course it’s not all precisely geolocatable but it has to come from somewhere.
This is a war of attrition
Correct. And majority of the Russian army is in Kherson with their back towards a river with no bridges. Supplies are limited and they are unable to move a meaningful amount of vehicles in or out of Kherson. This is completely unsustainable in the long term.
Even western media admits that the fighting is far more expensive on the Ukrainian side
It sure is expensive. But Kherson has tied so many russian resources that Ukraine now managed to steamroll through Kharkiv. It doesn’t matter whether Kharkiv was just an orderly retreat (it wasn’t) or a “sign of goodwill” (it wasn’t) or a rout (it was), Ukraine just wants their territory back. And there is “steady” progress on Kherson too, at least more steady than LDPR progress on Pisky and Bakhmut
zero evidence that HIMARS have made any strategic impact
HIMARS is the reason Russian logistics are completely fucked in Kherson. It’s also the reason for the rise in “smoking accidents” in ammo dumps on Russian occupied territory.
Russia has […] MLRS systems comparable to HIMARS
So in Russias hands they do have strategic impact? Also please tell me the name. I’m looking for something with about 80km range, less than 10m deviation at max range, and which is actually used by Russia. So far I have only seen them use Kalibrs for comparable targets, and those are much more expensive than HIMARS rockets and easier to intercept. It’s also questionable how many of those are still left.
I’m done with this thread, we both know this discussion won’t reach a conclusion. I’m interested to see where our points will stand in another 6 months
Explains a lot about your position given that you get your info from an Ukrainian propaganda account on Twitter 😂
And majority of the Russian army is in Kherson with their back towards a river with no bridges. Supplies are limited and they are unable to move a meaningful amount of vehicles in or out of Kherson. This is completely unsustainable in the long term.
Weird that Ukraine isn’t making gains there if Russians are in such a dire position isn’t it.
It sure is expensive. But Kherson has tied so many russian resources that Ukraine now managed to steamroll through Kharkiv.
Yes, Ukraine managed to steamroll uncontested territory. Quite the tour de force there just like the first Kharkov offensive.
HIMARS is the reason Russian logistics are completely fucked in Kherson. It’s also the reason for the rise in “smoking accidents” in ammo dumps on Russian occupied territory.
Except that there is zero indication that HIMARS played any role in Kherson or that Russian logistics are having any problems there. Meanwhile, attacks in Crimea were carried out by drones. Ukraine doesn’t even have HIMARS missiles with the range to hit Crimea.
So in Russias hands they do have strategic impact?
What I actually said was that If HIMARS type systems make a strategic impact then Russia has an advantage in this area by virtue of having an order of magnitude more MLRS systems.
I’m done with this thread, we both know this discussion won’t reach a conclusion. I’m interested to see where our points will stand in another 6 months
Good, let’s see what actually happens since it’s pretty clear we’re not going to convince each other of anything here.
Once again, I fail to see the strategic importance of this change. Ukraine did a big push on two fronts. Russia chose to hold in Kherson, and to withdraw around Kharkov. I’m not seeing how this improves the situation for Ukraine anymore than their last Kharkov offensive that was rolled back within weeks.
Taking territory is only meaningful if you can hold it. Ukraine was able to take it because Russia chose to withdraw. If Russia consolidates and counter attacks then Ukraine will be in exact same position Russia was in when they held it.
Again, this hinges on Ukraine being able to actually hold this territory.
Except it hasn’t because as I’ve explained above, Ukraine is in no better position to hold this territory than Russia was. As you yourself pointed out, it’s lightly defended.
I haven’t seen any credible reports regarding this. A lot of stuff that’s been shown on social media turned out to be Ukrainian equipment or from other battles. Pretty much every account suggests that Russians did an orderly and strategic withdrawal.
This is a war of attrition. Ukraine is losing anywhere from 100 to 500 troops each and every day by their own admission. They’re also unable to replace their military equipment or ammunition. Ukraine is not able to sustain this for much longer, and western support is not sufficient to replace what they’re losing.
Even western media admits that the fighting is far more expensive on the Ukrainian side because Russia has massive artillery and air superiority over Ukraine.
So far there is zero evidence that HIMARS have made any strategic impact on combat. Also worth noting that Russia has hundreds of MLRS systems comparable to HIMARS, if this is what wins the war then Russia has a huge advantage here.
deleted by creator
This has been the story with all the wunderwaffe NATO sent to Ukraine so far.
Also they often use it for terror strikes at civilians in Donbas. This speak volumes about who they are and who are their suppliers - their country is in “fight for the very survival and independence”, and they waste expensive and supposedly very effective weapons to murder civilians.
Also, even USA do not want to give them longer range missiles because they would just used it to terror strikes against russian cities in Russia.
Wow you’re still just as funny as you were last time I talked to you
Correct. And they absolutely can hold it. On the first try it took Russia months to take it, and I don’t see how they can do that again, given all the troops that were involved are now in Kherson. But I guess we’ll just have to see.
Lol no. Literally just take a look at https://twitter.com/UAWeapons and you’ll see tons of abandoned and destroyed Russian vehicles. They were completely overwhelmed in Kharkiv and did not plan this. Of course it’s not all precisely geolocatable but it has to come from somewhere.
Correct. And majority of the Russian army is in Kherson with their back towards a river with no bridges. Supplies are limited and they are unable to move a meaningful amount of vehicles in or out of Kherson. This is completely unsustainable in the long term.
It sure is expensive. But Kherson has tied so many russian resources that Ukraine now managed to steamroll through Kharkiv. It doesn’t matter whether Kharkiv was just an orderly retreat (it wasn’t) or a “sign of goodwill” (it wasn’t) or a rout (it was), Ukraine just wants their territory back. And there is “steady” progress on Kherson too, at least more steady than LDPR progress on Pisky and Bakhmut
HIMARS is the reason Russian logistics are completely fucked in Kherson. It’s also the reason for the rise in “smoking accidents” in ammo dumps on Russian occupied territory.
So in Russias hands they do have strategic impact? Also please tell me the name. I’m looking for something with about 80km range, less than 10m deviation at max range, and which is actually used by Russia. So far I have only seen them use Kalibrs for comparable targets, and those are much more expensive than HIMARS rockets and easier to intercept. It’s also questionable how many of those are still left.
I’m done with this thread, we both know this discussion won’t reach a conclusion. I’m interested to see where our points will stand in another 6 months
Explains a lot about your position given that you get your info from an Ukrainian propaganda account on Twitter 😂
Weird that Ukraine isn’t making gains there if Russians are in such a dire position isn’t it.
Yes, Ukraine managed to steamroll uncontested territory. Quite the tour de force there just like the first Kharkov offensive.
Except that there is zero indication that HIMARS played any role in Kherson or that Russian logistics are having any problems there. Meanwhile, attacks in Crimea were carried out by drones. Ukraine doesn’t even have HIMARS missiles with the range to hit Crimea.
What I actually said was that If HIMARS type systems make a strategic impact then Russia has an advantage in this area by virtue of having an order of magnitude more MLRS systems.
Good, let’s see what actually happens since it’s pretty clear we’re not going to convince each other of anything here.
deleted by creator
I just realized we’re having a “serious” discussion on /c/memes right now. I’ll just leave this here then
this is a terrible meme lol. Not even because it’s politics or anything. Just… flat
Flat memes are the best
I prefer 3D memes