Current Affairs Ukraine

[Eidean]

Until a few days ago there was no intention publicly that Ukraine would ever move into Russian territory.

Even if Zelensky really believes the Russian military is that thin they'd have to retreat it does not give him the right to emulate what Russia is doing even if it's on a smaller scale. There are real people, Russian and Ukrainian, who live in these areas on the borders that are suffering immensely already.

What the Ukrainian & Russian military tell the world during a modern war, isn’t always the truth behind closed doors & I thought that’d been obvious.

Zelensky knows the reality that they’re not thin & UA are struggling massively in certain areas. He has every right to hit military targets within Russia when theyre directly responsible for action within Ukraine. If England invaded Scotland tomorrow, you think they wouldn’t ever cross the border to try & gain an advantage?

Those locals in the Kursk oblast had no problem waving their lads off to slaughter Ukrainian civilians & invade their land.

 

[PhilM]

Until a few days ago there was no intention publicly that Ukraine would ever move into Russian territory.

Even if Zelensky really believes the Russian military is that thin they'd have to retreat it does not give him the right to emulate what Russia is doing even if it's on a smaller scale. There are real people, Russian and Ukrainian, who live in these areas on the borders that are suffering immensely already.

You're viewing this in a 2D dimensional way, whereas war and politics and three-dimensional - it's all a big game of chess. This is a pawn in the greater game.

We're unsure of Ukraine's long-term objectives beyond regaining the sovereignty over their territory, and forcing a situation where they can maintain this.

How to achieve these goals comes down to a combination of military operations and diplomacy; to have a strong-hand in the latter, you need the former.

Purely speculation on my behalf here, but I view this offensive as having four main objectives, which overlay each in part - mutually supportive so to speak.

The offensive could be aiming for the key logistics routes nearby which, if captured, will have a negative impact on their abilities elsewhere on the front.

Is the offensive forcing Russia to redeploy assets from elsewhere on the front? Yes it is, and this could mean a negative impact on their abilities elsewhere.

Do you think the moral of the Russian army has been enhanced by this incursion? Likewise, do you think the moral of the Russian people has improved?

Like déjà vu perhaps, this could all have a negative impact on the Russian army's ability to conduct operations elsewhere, which likely means Ukraine territory.

It also strengthens the hand of the Ukraine diplomats to hopefully, at some point, be able to come to a peaceful negotiation, which is palatable for all.

While we cannot get carried away about this operation's success or ability to induce change, I do envisage an embolden Ukraine hand when it comes to diplomacy.

Russia is losing valuable weaponry, valuable infrastructure (potential gas pipeline?), and positions further into Russia like airfield and depots are now vulnerable.

At some point, we can now all hope that wise heads prevail and some people in Russia decide to come to the table with a fair and open perspective.

A purely defensive military and political strategy from the Ukrainians wouldn't produce this. If pushing further into Russia does, then it has my backing.

 

[bicycleheader]

Does it really show initiative?? What it shows to me is that weapons supplied by the US and UK ostensibly to protect Ukraine and its infrastructure are now being used to claim territory that isn't theirs and has no right to be theirs. More weapons, more taking land, none of this will achieve peace.

Zelensky should be held to account for these actions just as Putin should be for his.

Until a few days ago there was no intention publicly that Ukraine would ever move into Russian territory.

Even if Zelensky really believes the Russian military is that thin they'd have to retreat it does not give him the right to emulate what Russia is doing even if it's on a smaller scale. There are real people, Russian and Ukrainian, who live in these areas on the borders that are suffering immensely already.

Forgive me if I’m missing something obvious, but I don’t understand your point

Are you saying in general that a country that has been invaded and is at war, should only fight on their own territory and should not use incursions over the border as part of their strategies of engagement or whatever you’d call it?

 

[Damo_1878]

I’ll give him a watch, thank you.

Kings & Generals is a History Channel but very well researched videos & an easy watch. They do some very specific areas & then shorter “updates”

I watch that as well. Very good, and presented.

Obviuosuly none of the channels are 100% perfect. Always good to look at a variety of sources. I know you're ex Army so clearly that's where your main experience is.

Another general military affairs channel, I recommend is "Sub Brief". He's ex USN, but the presentation style is really good and clear.

 

[Eidean]

Like it’s been discussed on here, 1 of the obvious motivations is down to this. Changes the picture in certain areas now.

 

[JLW]

Forgive me if I’m missing something obvious, but I don’t understand your point

Are you saying in general that a country that has been invaded and is at war, should only fight on their own territory and should not use incursions over the border as part of their strategies of engagement or whatever you’d call it?

Strange ive just had a notification for this post??

@GrandOldTeam

 

[bicycleheader]

Strange ive just had a notification for this post??

Ye just a post I must have clicked add quote on ages ago, I deleted it

 

[Damo_1878]

You're viewing this in a 2D dimensional way, whereas war and politics and three-dimensional - it's all a big game of chess. This is a pawn in the greater game.

We're unsure of Ukraine's long-term objectives beyond regaining the sovereignty over their territory, and forcing a situation where they can maintain this.

How to achieve these goals comes down to a combination of military operations and diplomacy; to have a strong-hand in the latter, you need the former.

Purely speculation on my behalf here, but I view this offensive as having four main objectives, which overlay each in part - mutually supportive so to speak.

The offensive could be aiming for the key logistics routes nearby which, if captured, will have a negative impact on their abilities elsewhere on the front.

Is the offensive forcing Russia to redeploy assets from elsewhere on the front? Yes it is, and this could mean a negative impact on their abilities elsewhere.

Do you think the moral of the Russian army has been enhanced by this incursion? Likewise, do you think the moral of the Russian people has improved?

Like déjà vu perhaps, this could all have a negative impact on the Russian army's ability to conduct operations elsewhere, which likely means Ukraine territory.

It also strengthens the hand of the Ukraine diplomats to hopefully, at some point, be able to come to a peaceful negotiation, which is palatable for all.

While we cannot get carried away about this operation's success or ability to induce change, I do envisage an embolden Ukraine hand when it comes to diplomacy.

Russia is losing valuable weaponry, valuable infrastructure (potential gas pipeline?), and positions further into Russia like airfield and depots are now vulnerable.

At some point, we can now all hope that wise heads prevail and some people in Russia decide to come to the table with a fair and open perspective.

A purely defensive military and political strategy from the Ukrainians wouldn't produce this. If pushing further into Russia does, then it has my backing.

Final point, a purely defensive strategy will not win a war and is ultimately self defeating. It can force an opponent into stalemate and then hope they give up, but that's not what the Ukrainians want. They don't a frozen conflict. They want Russia and Putin off their territory and to stop interfering in their affairs and ultimately to join the EU and NATO. It's basically Poland 2.0.

By invading Ukraine (vain attempt to try and reverse their Cold War defeat) all they've done is pushed Ukraine away. It's not how to win friends and influence people. It's the opposite.

Taking the war into Russia is needed, as if the war is only fought inside Ukraine, that ultimately will cause Ukraine to lose. They're basically doing what they need to do, to win.

 

[Damo_1878]

Like it’s been discussed on here, 1 of the obvious motivations is down to this. Changes the picture in certain areas now.

This is the strategy they have. They want to get their HIMARs and GMLRS in range of these long range strike bases and to add that to their Drone attacks to add "mass" to the attacks

They're going to cause havoc now.

 

[PhilM]

That’s why I think they’ll fall back to more defendable ground.

Seen very little from RuAF aviation so far - be interesting to see what if any impact they will have.

I think the main issue here is at the Russian C2 level. Putin declared the Kursk situation as a KTO (counter-terrorism op). That effectively means the Rosgvardiya should be running the show along with support from FSB and MOD. However I don’t see this as a counter-terror op (like Chechnya was) This is full-scale combined arms manoeuvre warfare and that’s something the Rosgvardiya know very little about. So it’ll be interesting to see how the Russian KTO develops.

​

I was reading a good book about European leaders by Ian Kershaw (here's the link here, as I'd recommend it as a decent enough read).

Anyway, the similarities between Stalin and Putin - beyond the obvious Russian bit - did come into my mind in terms of how he managed his power.

Now we're talking on the same level at all, but Stalin inflicted great terror on his politicians and army, and produced a structure that purely aided him.

When it came down to being effective in their roles, this wasn't the priority, and we saw the epic failures at the start of WWII because of this style.

Russia's continued failures in response to Ukrainian actions, show the lack of experience and flexibility within their senior ranks - wrong people doing the wrong job.

 

[Eidean]

I watch that as well. Very good, and presented.

Obviuosuly none of the channels are 100% perfect. Always good to look at a variety of sources. I know you're ex Army so clearly that's where your main experience is.

Another general military affairs channel, I recommend is "Sub Brief". He's ex USN, but the presentation style is really good and clear.

Oh absolutely & unfortunately a lot of commentators have a complex war to report on and plenty of disinformation.

 

[Damo_1878]

I was reading a good book about European leaders by Ian Kershaw (here's the link here, as I'd recommend it as a decent enough read).

Anyway, the similarities between Stalin and Putin - beyond the obvious Russian bit - did come into my mind in terms of how he managed his power.

Now we're talking on the same level at all, but Stalin inflicted great terror on his politicians and army, and produced a structure that purely aided him.

When it came down to being effective in their roles, this wasn't the priority, and we saw the epic failures at the start of WWII because of this style.

Russia's continued failures in response to Ukrainian actions, show the lack of experience and flexibility within their senior ranks - wrong people doing the wrong job.

Its emblematic of most autocratic dictatorships, and under Putin that is what they have

It's a hallmark that they make strategic blunders because there cannot be any opposition to what the "big boss" says. So it's an echo chamber of one. There's no alternative ideas. People are too afraid to upset "the big boss". Corruption thrives

That's what has happened here and continues to happen.

In democracies decision making often gets delegated. Decisions debated and alternative thoughts are put forward. Thats why you don't see the same level of strategic blunders made

Look at Everton thanks to Bill Kenwright. He was the same, he was autocratic, couldn't tolerate any opposition, and excluded them. We went from one blunder to another.

 

[supertoffee98]

Forgive me if I’m missing something obvious, but I don’t understand your point

Are you saying in general that a country that has been invaded and is at war, should only fight on their own territory and should not use incursions over the border as part of their strategies of engagement or whatever you’d call it?

I'm saying that we should not be arming Ukraine and that it was a grave mistake to arm them. That is my point.

 

[Eidean]

I'm saying that we should not be arming Ukraine and that it was a grave mistake to arm them. That is my point.

So you’d have let Russia control Ukraine?

After chemical poisonings on British soil, interference in US & British elections, Brexit, active measures doctrine, invading neighbours at what point do you think Russia stop?

 

[bicycleheader]

I'm saying that we should not be arming Ukraine and that it was a grave mistake to arm them. That is my point.

No I mean your point in calling out the recent move by Ukraine into Russia

I think I was just trying to clarify if you are saying you don’t think any country at war should do this or just in this situation for some reason?