Battle of Bakhmud won by Russia

[Kruska]

Yeah, to avoid getting entangled in Donbas they decided to stretch their frontline on a thousand of miles just to withdraw their troops afterwards because 'they didn't have the resources' and get entangled there for almost a year. And you have a nerve to call this strategy 'correct'. Sorry, I fail to comprehend this high-end reasoning.

So according to you the Wehrmacht having taken Brest-Litowsk in the first week of operation Barbarossa, and broken through the main Russian defense line, resulted in Stalin surrendering?
You got to be kidding.
But you believe that the RF having attacked e.g. Bahkmut and broken through the main UAF defense line would have made Zelinsky in Kiev 500mls away surrender? You got nerves man

Russia having assembled it's total force of 95.000 combat troops, thousands of tanks/APC/AFC and artillery plus approximately 120,000 support and militia troops all in Donbas would have gone unnoticed by the UAF? you really know how to entertain
And the UAF forces stationed just opposite Crimea - from Odessa to Mariupol would have stood by and watched? You must be a strategic genius
And the UAF forces stationed at Kharkiv right down along to Lysyschansk would also have stood by and watched? wow what a tactical master you are
And the UAF forces stationed from the Belarus border to Kiev right down to central Ukraine would........... what on earth are you dreaming and talking about?

Anyway let's not discuss on this subject anymore - it's getting very tiresome, have a nice day

 

[badger2]

Nazis of Death

 

[ESay]

So according to you the Wehrmacht having taken Brest-Litowsk in the first week of operation Barbarossa, and broken through the main Russian defense line, resulted in Stalin surrendering?
You got to be kidding.
But you believe that the RF having attacked e.g. Bahkmut and broken through the main UAF defense line would have made Zelinsky in Kiev 500mls away surrender? You got nerves man

Russia having assembled it's total force of 95.000 combat troops, thousands of tanks/APC/AFC and artillery plus approximately 120,000 support and militia troops all in Donbas would have gone unnoticed by the UAF? you really know how to entertain
And the UAF forces stationed just opposite Crimea - from Odessa to Mariupol would have stood by and watched? You must be a strategic genius
And the UAF forces stationed at Kharkiv right down along to Lysyschansk would also have stood by and watched? wow what a tactical master you are
And the UAF forces stationed from the Belarus border to Kiev right down to central Ukraine would........... what on earth are you dreaming and talking about?

Anyway let's not discuss on this subject anymore - it's getting very tiresome, have a nice day

Okay, I will repeat this again, slowly. It is obvious that Russia was unprepared to wage a war on the scale it was started (territory wise). And that is why it constantly contracted the frontline afterwards by pulling out from the North, the Kharkiv oblast, and Kherson (though on this direction they reached as far as Voznesensk on the west and almost reached Kryvyi Rig on the north).

Simple logic tells me (I am far from being a military expert) that the best tactic would have been not to disperse their forces, but to concentrate them on one or two directions to defeat most capable units of the rival. Something like punching with a fist rather than with spread out fingers, or similar stuff.

Of course, no one would have waited and watched. That was not my point at all, that is just silly.

If you like analogies with the WWII, then no one in their sound mind would claim that say the battle of Kursk or the siege of Leningrad was a feint or that retreating German army left territories because of their little strategic value.

 

[Flash]

I've seen reports that Bakhmud is a stalemate now. The Russkies really haven't prevailed yet and they have suffered a loss of six Russian casualties for one Ukrainian.

 

[Kruska]

Okay, I will repeat this again, slowly. It is obvious that Russia was unprepared to wage a war on the scale it was started (territory wise). And that is why it constantly contracted the frontline afterwards by pulling out from the North, the Kharkiv oblast, and Kherson (though on this direction they reached as far as Voznesensk on the west and almost reached Kryvyi Rig on the north).

Simple logic tells me (I am far from being a military expert) that the best tactic would have been not to disperse their forces, but to concentrate them on one or two directions to defeat most capable units of the rival. Something like punching with a fist rather than with spread out fingers, or similar stuff.

Of course, no one would have waited and watched. That was not my point at all, that is just silly.

If you like analogies with the WWII, then no one in their sound mind would claim that say the battle of Kursk or the siege of Leningrad was a feint or that retreating German army left territories because of their little strategic value.

Russia in its initial attack never had the forces towards fielding the respective manpower and equipment for a war enveloping towards engaging all the UAF forces and their available reserves throughout Ukraine.
That is what I had and have stated all the time. Adding that therefore the RF never intended on engaging throughout the entire Ukraine.

They had been very successful in punching through from Sumy to Kiev (240mls) within less then a week and from Belarus to Kiev (60-80mls) in 2-3 days. Taking control of Kiev/Hostomel airport already on day 1 till day 2.
Their main objective was to achieve the surrender of Kiev - either via intimidation and/or to take possession of Kiev via a political coup. - then move in their forces into Kiev.
If proofed to be successful a fantastic victory without causing any significant losses - since they would not have had to engage further in the South or Donbas/Luhansk - Oblast,
or anywhere else in Ukraine.

Stalingrad was a super feint conducted by the Soviets - luring more and more Wehrmacht units into Stalingrad via keeping up a minimal required defense - therefore allowing the Wehrmacht to gain 80% of the city and making Hitler already to bring out the party cake. Whilst amassing huge troops the the north and south of Stalingrad - pushing through the weak flanks held by Italian, Bulgarian and Hungarian troops - then encircling and therefore wiping out more then 500,000 men including those previously holding the flanks.

And the Wehrmacht did retreat from non strategic areas multiple times, e.g. in Italy.

 

[Kruska]

Russia in its initial attack never had the forces towards fielding the respective manpower and equipment for a war enveloping towards engaging all the UAF forces and their available reserves throughout Ukraine.
That is what I had and have stated all the time. Adding that therefore the RF never intended on engaging throughout the entire Ukraine.

They had been very successful in punching through from Sumy to Kiev (240mls) within less then a week and from Belarus to Kiev (60-80mls) in 2-3 days. Taking control of Kiev/Hostomel airport already on day 1 till day 2.
Their main objective was to achieve the surrender of Kiev - either via intimidation and/or to take possession of Kiev via a political coup. - then move in their forces into Kiev.
If proofed to be successful a fantastic victory without causing any significant losses - since they would not have had to engage further in the South or Donbas/Luhansk - Oblast, or anywhere else in Ukraine.

They did not have the forces to intimidate and break through towards Kiev - and to additionally attack the heavily fortified and UAF occupied front-line in Donbass and Luhansk-Oblast. They however succeeded with the Southern group (constituting roughly 1/3 of their entire available force) coming from Crimea to control more or less the entire southern areas, penetrating around 120mls deep and 250mls. wide, also within a week. They could tactically not afford to send more then 50% of the remaining force towards Kiev - since they still needed to upkeep their defensive positions in Donbass and Luhansk-Oblast - and yet they managed to make considerable gains towards the North and North-west of Luhansk. All in all they beat the shit out of the Ukrainian forces in the first 2 weeks. Despite the UAF being aware of the Russian buildup since 9 month. But probably just like you they might have placed their bet onto a massive Russian attack via Donbas. Which in turn would have been rather stupid - since they where aware about the Russian combat forces having been divided amongst 3 main groups. North,(Belarus) East and North (Sumy) and South (Crimea) and a so called 4th group (mostly separatist militias) task with defending the Donbas/Luhansk, front-line.

How many more times do I need to repeat that?

Stalingrad was a super feint conducted by the Soviets - luring more and more Wehrmacht units into Stalingrad via keeping up a minimal required defense - therefore allowing the Wehrmacht to slowly gain 80% of the city and making Hitler already to bring out the party cake. Whilst amassing huge troops the the north and south of Stalingrad - pushing through the weak flanks held by mostly Italian, Bulgarian and Hungarian troops - then encircling and therefore wiping out more then 500,000 men including those previously holding the flanks. Most likely Stalingrad was the by far, largest military faint in the entire human history.

And the Wehrmacht did retreat from non strategic areas multiple times, e.g. in Italy.

 

[ESay]

Russia in its initial attack never had the forces towards fielding the respective manpower and equipment for a war enveloping towards engaging all the UAF forces and their available reserves throughout Ukraine.
That is what I had and have stated all the time. Adding that therefore the RF never intended on engaging throughout the entire Ukraine.

They had been very successful in punching through from Sumy to Kiev (240mls) within less then a week and from Belarus to Kiev (60-80mls) in 2-3 days. Taking control of Kiev/Hostomel airport already on day 1 till day 2.
Their main objective was to achieve the surrender of Kiev - either via intimidation and/or to take possession of Kiev via a political coup. - then move in their forces into Kiev.
If proofed to be successful a fantastic victory without causing any significant losses - since they would not have had to engage further in the South or Donbas/Luhansk - Oblast, or anywhere else in Ukraine.

They did not have the forces to intimidate and break through towards Kiev - and to additionally attack the heavily fortified and UAF occupied front-line in Donbass and Luhansk-Oblast. They however succeeded with the Southern group (constituting roughly 1/3 of their entire available force) coming from Crimea to control more or less the entire southern areas, penetrating around 120mls deep and 250mls. wide, also within a week. They could tactically not afford to send more then 50% of the remaining force towards Kiev - since they still needed to upkeep their defensive positions in Donbass and Luhansk-Oblast - and yet they managed to make considerable gains towards the North and North-west of Luhansk. All in all they beat the shit out of the Ukrainian forces in the first 2 weeks. Despite the UAF being aware of the Russian buildup since 9 month. But probably just like you they might have placed their bet onto a massive Russian attack via Donbas. Which in turn would have been rather stupid - since they where aware about the Russian combat forces having been divided amongst 3 main groups. North,(Belarus) East and North (Sumy) and South (Crimea) and a so called 4th group (mostly separatist militias) task with defending the Donbas/Luhansk, front-line.

How many more times do I need to repeat that?

Stalingrad was a super feint conducted by the Soviets - luring more and more Wehrmacht units into Stalingrad via keeping up a minimal required defense - therefore allowing the Wehrmacht to slowly gain 80% of the city and making Hitler already to bring out the party cake. Whilst amassing huge troops the the north and south of Stalingrad - pushing through the weak flanks held by mostly Italian, Bulgarian and Hungarian troops - then encircling and therefore wiping out more then 500,000 men including those previously holding the flanks. Most likely Stalingrad was the by far, largest military faint in the entire human history.

And the Wehrmacht did retreat from non strategic areas multiple times, e.g. in Italy.

Yes, their goal was quick surrender of the Ukrainian government and replacing it with their puppet one. How did that work out?

This tactic would have been more than okay had they assessed situation in Ukraine more correctly. Many people, including me, at that time believed that that would be a relatively easy win for Russia with Ukrainian resistance lasting for some weeks at best. But the things went in a different way.

And then they switched to the plan B (if they ever had those variables) that corresponds with 'my' plan. Namely, to increase pressure on one direction to encircle and crush the main Ukrainian army grouping there. I remember some Russian milblogers were eager to draw arrows and circles on a map that were supposed to mean something.

But the Russians already lost the time at that moment and intimidating effect had gone with that.

I don't get what you are disagreeing with and arguing against. It is so obvious.

I mean a feint from the German part. And the reason they began pulling out of Italy wasn't because of little strategic value of those territories. Don't change the goalposts.

And in the wars for territories, that the WWII was and the Russia-Ukraine war is, it is ridiculous to talk about 'non strategic' ones. The only reason these wars started is territorial grabs. And even some abandoned village in Ukrainian Polesje is 'strategic' in this regard.

 

[Litwin]

Brest-Litowsk

Death

Welcome to Ukraine you dirty Mongols

 

[Litwin]

the leading militarily geostrategist >

 

[Kruska]

Yes, their goal was quick surrender of the Ukrainian government and replacing it with their puppet one. How did that work out?

They failed in their strategic plan to take over the Kiev government, or for the Ukraine government to surrender.

And in the wars for territories, that the WWII was and the Russia-Ukraine war is, it is ridiculous to talk about 'non strategic' ones. The only reason these wars started is territorial grabs. And even some abandoned village in Ukrainian Polesje is 'strategic' in this regard.

A strategic target/object is not defined via simply being enemy territory - but it's specific location in regards to a topographic layout and what it beholds e.g. a major railroad hub.
One of the strategic goal's of Barbarossa was the occupation of Moscow. The other two were the occupation of Leningrad and the Baku oil-fields (the so-called Archangel-Caucasus line). Therefore Stalingrad was a key target of strategic value for Army Group South. - and not some cottage areal 60km west or south of Stalingrad.

Stalingrad falling or in danger to fall to the Wehrmacht, therefore becomes now a strategic target for the Soviet army and not some cottage areal 80km north or south of Stalingrad.

Upon the Soviet armies starting their encirclement of Stalingrad - and the Wehrmacht not having the means to stop the encirclement - Stalingrad is no more of strategic value to the Wehrmacht and the troops need to be pulled out, before the encirclement is completed - something that Corporal Hitler never understood. He never understood strategy or strategic targets - only defeat/destroy the Soviet-Union postulated as his general vision. The Kursk-pocket was no more a strategic target after 2 month - but simply his idiotic believe being able to annihilate Soviet troops via a pincer movement, after giving them 5 month to fortify their positions and bringing in huge reserves.

And a strategic defensive line in Italy included the Monte-Casino hills - therefore Kesselring ordered the retreat of the Wehrmacht from Southern Italy (Apulia/Calabria/Campania) - non strategic value - into the strategic Gustav-Line.

 

[ESay]

They failed in their strategic plan to take over the Kiev government, or for the Ukraine government to surrender.

A strategic target/object is not defined via simply being enemy territory - but it's specific location in regards to a topographic layout and what it beholds e.g. a major railroad hub.
One of the strategic goal's of Barbarossa was the occupation of Moscow. The other two were the occupation of Leningrad and the Baku oil-fields (the so-called Archangel-Caucasus line). Therefore Stalingrad was a key target of strategic value for Army Group South. - and not some cottage areal 60km west or south of Stalingrad.

Stalingrad falling or in danger to fall to the Wehrmacht, therefore becomes now a strategic target for the Soviet army and not some cottage areal 80km north or south of Stalingrad.

Upon the Soviet armies starting their encirclement of Stalingrad - and the Wehrmacht not having the means to stop the encirclement - Stalingrad is no more of strategic value to the Wehrmacht and the troops need to be pulled out, before the encirclement is completed - something that Corporal Hitler never understood. He never understood strategy or strategic targets - only defeat/destroy the Soviet-Union postulated as his general vision. The Kursk-pocket was no more a strategic target after 2 month - but simply his idiotic believe being able to annihilate Soviet troops via a pincer movement, after giving them 5 month to fortify their positions and bringing in huge reserves.

And a strategic defensive line in Italy included the Monte-Casino hills - therefore Kesselring ordered the retreat of the Wehrmacht from Southern Italy (Apulia/Calabria/Campania) - non strategic value - into the strategic Gustav-Line.

Yes, they failed in their initial plan. And all their further moves were an adjustment to the reality they had found themselves.

That is why they pulled out of the North, when they found out they couldn't take Kiev with relatively small numbers and inability to support their army spanned on a thousand of miles.

That is why they pulled out of Kharkiv oblast when it became obvious they couldn't take the Kharkiv city under a siege, couldn't move south onto Sloviansk from Izum area, and couldn't hold out a push of Ukrainian army there.

That is why they pulled out of Kherson when it became evident that their push on Odesa couldn't be more real than a fairy tale, and their logistics lines over the Dnieper were under constant fire of Ukrainian troops.

I don't get why it is so hard to admit the obvious and why to make up silly stories about feints and 'unstrategic' territories.

 

[skye]

Nazis of Death

Horrible!

Nazis of Death is a good description for Zelensky's thugs.

 

[Kruska]

Yes, they failed in their initial plan. And all their further moves were an adjustment to the reality they had found themselves.

Correct - and it was obviously the only strategy Russia had.

That is why they pulled out of the North, when they found out they couldn't take Kiev with relatively small numbers and inability to support their army spanned on a thousand of miles.

Correct - only that the Russian forces had not created a 1000 of mls. front - the 300mls front line to the south (Crimea) and Donbas/Luhansk Oblast already existed before Feb. 22. and was extended by approx. 150mls due to their push onto Kherson and reaching Kamianske/Stepove. The Rf further increased the front-line by approx. 180msl due to occupying these 7000km2. As such the total frontline increase was less then 350mls to the existing 300mls. = 650mls and not thousands of mls. Those thrusts coming from Sumy and Belarus did not constitute front-lines - since they were only thrusts conducted towards Kiev and were abandoned via the taking the same route backwards upon their retreat.

That is why they pulled out of Kharkiv oblast when it became obvious they couldn't take the Kharkiv city under a siege,

No, the RF were clearly defeated via being pushed back by the UAF to the Russian border - taking heavy losses just as the RF did.

couldn't move south onto Sloviansk from Izum area, and couldn't hold out a push of Ukrainian army there.

They might have, (difficult to say) but since Kharkiv was no more a valid strategic target and the RF attention being placed towards Luhansk - they decided correctly to move them out of these 7000km2 into Luhansk and Donbas. Thereby tempting the UAF to locate large troop formations into areas of no strategic value - and again being able to pound UAF troops from their new defensive line shortened by 180mls. Whilst at the same time getting their hands onto Lyshychansk and Sieverdonesk.

That is why they pulled out of Kherson when it became evident that their push on Odesa couldn't be more real than a fairy tale, and their logistics lines over the Dnieper were under constant fire of Ukrainian troops.

Correct - smartest thing to do for the RF - shortening the front-line by around 80mls. And now the UAF is getting pounded without having a realistic chance to push over towards Crimea.

I don't get why it is so hard to admit the obvious and why to make up silly stories about feints and 'unstrategic' territories.

Because you either don't understand or are unwilling to acknowledge that in a war - targets change and become either strategic or loose a former strategic value, which is defined by either sides differently, depending onto changing front-lines and the strategy of the respective party.

The 7000km2 posses no strategic value for the UAF - only a shortening of the front-line (good for both sides) further problems for the UAF in regards to safekeeping, but certainly a good effect
onto claiming the liberation of Ukraine territory - which admittedly is the only strategy that Zelinsky and the UAF can come up with since Feb. 2022. The UAF so far has not managed to take a
single strategic target - aside from safekeeping Kharkiv from being further threatened by RF ground-forces at present.

Same goes for the Kherson front - yes they have again liberated Ukrainian territory, even a big city, thus shortened the front-line - (good for both), but are no step further towards winning aka liberating the rest of the occupied territories. After 13 month of war!!!. the UAF basically only got one big city - Kherson - to show for and 7000km2 of non strategic territory.

The entire front-line since Feb. 22nd in regards to Southern Ukraine, Donbas and Luhansk/Oblast has only changed primarily in favor for the RF, and yes they lost Kherson and the ability to strike Kharkiv and Mikolaiv with ground-forces. (Forces the Ukraine based RF doesn't have anyway). It has however not prevented the RF from continuing to push further into Southern Ukraine, Donbas
and Luhansk.

Unless the UAF is able to decisively endanger the RF in Donbass/Luhansk,and Crimea - they are nowhere near a victory or towards ending this war. Russia can keep on going for at least another 2 years - either holding on to the territory/front-line they presently control or inching forwards every month. Maybe the RF can take e.g. Bahkmut, then loose it again and then keep coming at it again.

Again very slowly for you, step by step;

Kherson was a strategic target for the RF - because without taking/controlling Kherson (thus eliminating UAF troops that would endanger their flanks) they cant drive North-East towards Kryvyi Rih, nor West towards Mikolaiv - understand?
Since the RF did not possess the forces to continue their advance towards Kryvyi Rih and Mikolaiv - the RF doesn't need to hold onto Kherson - understand?
Therefore Kherson is no more of strategic value for the RF - understand?
And something that has no strategic value isn't defended accordingly - understand?

Taking Kherson was of no strategic value for the UAF - since it's bridges crossing the Dnieper were all destroyed and there are huge swamp lands behind Kherson - understand?
Taking Kherson was of no strategic value for the UAF - since there were no RF forces there to entrap - or that could have endangered the UAF flanks, since the RF pulled out - understand?
Just because one can quarter troops more easily into a city and bring in supplies via the surrounding existing road and rail infrastructure - doesn't make it a strategic target - understand?
It's just a great logistic hub - understand?

Opposite Nova Kakhovka (500-1000m) lies Kozatske - with a main road (P-47) and a railway line running through it coming from Shnihurivka - which in turn connects to Mikolaiv and Kryvyi Rih.
Other roads lead to Mikolaiv, Kherson and Kryvyi Rih - understand?

Therefore taking e.g. Nova Kakhovka (30mls West of Kherson) would have been a strategic target - since there are no swamps behind it and would have allowed the UAF to form a bridgehead from where they could push towards Crimea and encircle Kherson automatically via the M-14 from behind. - understand?

The UAF to take the strategic target Nova Kakhovka instead of Kherson in the first place (that was anyway being evacuated by the RF) (no matter the initial losses) would have been be a strategic move and would have been a strategic disaster for the RF - understand?
In the meantime (5 month) rest assured, the RF is even more aware about the strategic value and utmost importance of Nova Kakhovka then before November 2022 - understand?

If you want to, you can play the exact same scenario possibility with Kamianske being the strategic initial target (no matter the losses) with the UAF pushing in from Zaporizhziah direction using the M-18 towards Melitopol (super strategic target) barely 50mls from Kamianske.

Now what does that clearly proof, at least to a military person like me?

1. No strategic thinking or ability in the UAF exists - only propaganda ability towards liberating territory and a big deserted city and endless blah, blah, from Zelinsky about liberating Ukraine and holding on desperately onto towns along the Donbas/Luhansk front-line and constantly propagating huge RF losses.
2. No military tactics developed or in existence by the UAF - that would allow to go right out for such an obvious target.
Since October 2022. UAF - 800,000 men/2500 tanks and AFV's plus HIMARS/PsH2000 etc. - All super NATO trained - right? and can't break trough a defensive line that is at most covered by 25,000 demotivated - badly led and ill equipt, conscripted Russian forces, at any of these two given strategic exemplary points.
3. The tactical military ability of the UAF is no way better then that of the RF - taking all those NATO supplies into account - they are far worse then the RF.
4. Western Media Propaganda for the masses? - wow!

Now let's lean back and await the super strategic offensive, coming from the NATO trained UAF in 1/2/3/4/5 month.

 

[badger2]

Bahmut

 

[ESay]

Correct - and it was obviously the only strategy Russia had.

Correct - only that the Russian forces had not created a 1000 of mls. front - the 300mls front line to the south (Crimea) and Donbas/Luhansk Oblast already existed before Feb. 22. and was extended by approx. 150mls due to their push onto Kherson and reaching Kamianske/Stepove. The Rf further increased the front-line by approx. 180msl due to occupying these 7000km2. As such the total frontline increase was less then 350mls to the existing 300mls. = 650mls and not thousands of mls. Those thrusts coming from Sumy and Belarus did not constitute front-lines - since they were only thrusts conducted towards Kiev and were abandoned via the taking the same route backwards upon their retreat.


No, the RF were clearly defeated via being pushed back by the UAF to the Russian border - taking heavy losses just as the RF did.

They might have, (difficult to say) but since Kharkiv was no more a valid strategic target and the RF attention being placed towards Luhansk - they decided correctly to move them out of these 7000km2 into Luhansk and Donbas. Thereby tempting the UAF to locate large troop formations into areas of no strategic value - and again being able to pound UAF troops from their new defensive line shortened by 180mls. Whilst at the same time getting their hands onto Lyshychansk and Sieverdonesk.

Correct - smartest thing to do for the RF - shortening the front-line by around 80mls. And now the UAF is getting pounded without having a realistic chance to push over towards Crimea.

Because you either don't understand or are unwilling to acknowledge that in a war - targets change and become either strategic or loose a former strategic value, which is defined by either sides differently, depending onto changing front-lines and the strategy of the respective party.

The 7000km2 posses no strategic value for the UAF - only a shortening of the front-line (good for both sides) further problems for the UAF in regards to safekeeping, but certainly a good effect
onto claiming the liberation of Ukraine territory - which admittedly is the only strategy that Zelinsky and the UAF can come up with since Feb. 2022. The UAF so far has not managed to take a
single strategic target - aside from safekeeping Kharkiv from being further threatened by RF ground-forces at present.

Same goes for the Kherson front - yes they have again liberated Ukrainian territory, even a big city, thus shortened the front-line - (good for both), but are no step further towards winning aka liberating the rest of the occupied territories. After 13 month of war!!!. the UAF basically only got one big city - Kherson - to show for and 7000km2 of non strategic territory.

The entire front-line since Feb. 22nd in regards to Southern Ukraine, Donbas and Luhansk/Oblast has only changed primarily in favor for the RF, and yes they lost Kherson and the ability to strike Kharkiv and Mikolaiv with ground-forces. (Forces the Ukraine based RF doesn't have anyway). It has however not prevented the RF from continuing to push further into Southern Ukraine, Donbas
and Luhansk.

Unless the UAF is able to decisively endanger the RF in Donbass/Luhansk,and Crimea - they are nowhere near a victory or towards ending this war. Russia can keep on going for at least another 2 years - either holding on to the territory/front-line they presently control or inching forwards every month. Maybe the RF can take e.g. Bahkmut, then loose it again and then keep coming at it again.

Again very slowly for you, step by step;

Kherson was a strategic target for the RF - because without taking/controlling Kherson (thus eliminating UAF troops that would endanger their flanks) they cant drive North-East towards Kryvyi Rih, nor West towards Mikolaiv - understand?
Since the RF did not possess the forces to continue their advance towards Kryvyi Rih and Mikolaiv - the RF doesn't need to hold onto Kherson - understand?
Therefore Kherson is no more of strategic value for the RF - understand?
And something that has no strategic value isn't defended accordingly - understand?

Taking Kherson was of no strategic value for the UAF - since it's bridges crossing the Dnieper were all destroyed and there are huge swamp lands behind Kherson - understand?
Taking Kherson was of no strategic value for the UAF - since there were no RF forces there to entrap - or that could have endangered the UAF flanks, since the RF pulled out - understand?
Just because one can quarter troops more easily into a city and bring in supplies via the surrounding existing road and rail infrastructure - doesn't make it a strategic target - understand?
It's just a great logistic hub - understand?

Opposite Nova Kakhovka (500-1000m) lies Kozatske - with a main road (P-47) and a railway line running through it coming from Shnihurivka - which in turn connects to Mikolaiv and Kryvyi Rih.
Other roads lead to Mikolaiv, Kherson and Kryvyi Rih - understand?

Therefore taking e.g. Nova Kakhovka (30mls West of Kherson) would have been a strategic target - since there are no swamps behind it and would have allowed the UAF to form a bridgehead from where they could push towards Crimea and encircle Kherson automatically via the M-14 from behind. - understand?

The UAF to take the strategic target Nova Kakhovka instead of Kherson in the first place (that was anyway being evacuated by the RF) (no matter the initial losses) would have been be a strategic move and would have been a strategic disaster for the RF - understand?
In the meantime (5 month) rest assured, the RF is even more aware about the strategic value and utmost importance of Nova Kakhovka then before November 2022 - understand?

If you want to, you can play the exact same scenario possibility with Kamianske being the strategic initial target (no matter the losses) with the UAF pushing in from Zaporizhziah direction using the M-18 towards Melitopol (super strategic target) barely 50mls from Kamianske.

Now what does that clearly proof, at least to a military person like me?

1. No strategic thinking or ability in the UAF exists - only propaganda ability towards liberating territory and a big deserted city and endless blah, blah, from Zelinsky about liberating Ukraine and holding on desperately onto towns along the Donbas/Luhansk front-line and constantly propagating huge RF losses.
2. No military tactics developed or in existence by the UAF - that would allow to go right out for such an obvious target.
Since October 2022. UAF - 800,000 men/2500 tanks and AFV's plus HIMARS/PsH2000 etc. - All super NATO trained - right? and can't break trough a defensive line that is at most covered by 25,000 demotivated - badly led and ill equipt, conscripted Russian forces, at any of these two given strategic exemplary points.
3. The tactical military ability of the UAF is no way better then that of the RF - taking all those NATO supplies into account - they are far worse then the RF.
4. Western Media Propaganda for the masses? - wow!

Now let's lean back and await the super strategic offensive, coming from the NATO trained UAF in 1/2/3/4/5 month.

If you have audacity to say that Kharkiv oblast and Kherson have no strategic value for Ukraine, then I leave that up to you. I gave my reasoning above and don't feel a need to repeat it again.

Nova Kahovka lies on the north-east of Kherson. Behind the Dnieper. Trying to take this town would have been an insanity, because the Ukrainian grouping there would have put themselves in the Russian shoes around Kherson - being entangled, with virtually one logistics route being under fire of the enemy.

Yes, Ukrainian army is far from perfect. But before criticising it, take a look what territories the Russians controlled on this very day of the last year. Oh, sorry, I forgot. No strategic value.

About the expected Ukrainian offensive. I don't think it will have a form some people expect it to be.

 

[badger2]

"Installation Zelensky" shown in Europe.

 

[Kruska]

If you have audacity to say that Kharkiv oblast and Kherson have no strategic value for Ukraine, then I leave that up to you.

Kharkiv offers a position for the UAF to attack where? as such it is not of military strategic value for the UAF. Feel free to explain why in your opinion it is.
And yes, Kherson is no military strategic target for the UAF either - I explained to you why. Feel free to explain why in your opinion it supposedly is.

I gave my reasoning above and don't feel a need to repeat it again.

What reasoning? and where did you state it?

So far in all your reply's you only state your personal opinion - which basically only comes down to refuting my statements, and never backed up by military reasoning or forwarding substantiated arguments by you.
You simply state - no those 7000km2 are strategic. The RF created thousands of mls front-line, etc. etc. Feel free to explain why in your opinion these 7000km2 posses a strategic value for the UAF and where these thousands of mls. front-line are or have ever been.

Nova Kahovka lies on the north-east of Kherson. Behind the Dnieper. Trying to take this town would have been an insanity, because the Ukrainian grouping there would have put themselves in the Russian shoes around Kherson - being entangled, with virtually one logistics route being under fire of the enemy.

So what? strategic attacks are not allowed to generate losses? in view of their objective? UAF losses so far, for this non-strategic Bahkmut are estimated at 20000+ men.
With only a single main-road H-32 leading to it (see your own argument in regards to Nova Kahovka). Feel free to explain aside from Zelinsky saying so, why in your opinion Bahkmut is of strategic value for the UAF.

Kamianske being the initial strategic target for "alternative 2" - moving on to Melitopol - would be far more easier. And yet the UAF is unable to execute such an attack.
Due to fearing losses? well then Zelinsky should surrender immediately.

Obviously you did not read my post - or got to understand it.

Yes, Ukrainian army is far from perfect. But before criticising it, take a look what territories the Russians controlled on this very day of the last year. Oh, sorry, I forgot. No strategic value.

The RF controls presently around 5 times the territory then that of 22nd of February.
Criticizing beholds making negative comments without reasoning - more or less like all your posts. - criticizing incl. reasoning is called - analysis.

About the expected Ukrainian offensive. I don't think it will have a form some people expect it to be.

As long as the UAF does not possess tactical and strategic abilities (clearly non-existent - see my previous post), it doesn't matter as to where and when they might attack.

 

[ESay]

Kharkiv offers a position for the UAF to attack where? as such it is not of military strategic value for the UAF. Feel free to explain why in your opinion it is.
And yes, Kherson is no military strategic target for the UAF either - I explained to you why. Feel free to explain why in your opinion it supposedly is.


What reasoning? and where did you state it?

So far in all your reply's you only state your personal opinion - which basically only comes down to refuting my statements, and never backed up by military reasoning or forwarding substantiated arguments by you.
You simply state - no those 7000km2 are strategic. The RF created thousands of mls front-line, etc. etc. Feel free to explain why in your opinion these 7000km2 posses a strategic value for the UAF and where these thousands of mls. front-line are or have ever been.

So what? strategic attacks are not allowed to generate losses? in view of their objective? UAF losses so far, for this non-strategic Bahkmut are estimated at 20000+ men.
With only a single main-road H-32 leading to it (see your own argument in regards to Nova Kahovka). Feel free to explain aside from Zelinsky saying so, why in your opinion Bahkmut is of strategic value for the UAF.

Kamianske being the initial strategic target for "alternative 2" - moving on to Melitopol - would be far more easier. And yet the UAF is unable to execute such an attack.
Due to fearing losses? well then Zelinsky should surrender immediately.

Obviously you did not read my post - or got to understand it.

The RF controls presently around 5 times the territory then that of 22nd of February.
Criticizing beholds making negative comments without reasoning - more or less like all your posts. - criticizing incl. reasoning is called - analysis.

As long as the UAF does not possess tactical and strategic abilities (clearly non-existent - see my previous post), it doesn't matter as to where and when they might attack.

You can't make serious advances from Kharkiv and Kherson areas. These operations were to regain lost territories and make it impossible for the Russians to farther advance from them.

Kharkiv counter-offensive was meant to safe the city of Kharkiv from possible siege and to push back Russian grouping from Izum area thus eliminating a threat from northern flank for Sloviansk agglomeration.

Kherson counter-offensive was meant to eliminate the only remaining Russian bridgehead on the right bank. Your speculations that the Russian troops didn't pose danger there don't hold water.

Except of that, there is 'common' reasoning that every part of Ukrainian territory should be liberated. But the UAF has obvious limits in their capabilities. And of course, it won't regain them all.

 

[badger2]

Between Avdiikvka now getting hammered with artillery and whether to try to re-take Bahmut is like this:

 

[Kruska]

You can't make serious advances from Kharkiv and Kherson areas.

Exactly - as such they are no strategic military targets of value for the UAF

These operations were to regain lost territories and make it impossible for the Russians to farther advance from them.

Regain lost territory - that's all - since the RF did not posses the means to carry on their assaults towards Mykolaiv and Kryvyi Rih they correctly decided to retreat behind the Dnieper river. The UAF victory was in majority achieved via pounding the RF with Himars and disrupting/destroying their supply lines and logistic hubs. Not via superior tactics.

Kharkiv counter-offensive was meant to safe the city of Kharkiv from possible siege

Not from possible siege but actual siege by the RF - the UAF clearly demonstrated the better tactics on that particular front - also aided by the retreating RF since Moscow was aware that the Rf did not possess the means to take or encircle Kharkiv. But nonetheless a clear UAF victory based on military tactics.

and to push back Russian grouping from Izum area thus eliminating a threat from northern flank for Sloviansk agglomeration.

Again - it was the RF that manged to conquer these areas with heavy losses in the first place - upon the RF retreating (deciding giving up these territories) the UAF used the chance to move in. Strategic value? no not at all.

Kherson counter-offensive was meant to eliminate the only remaining Russian bridgehead on the right bank. Your speculations that the Russian troops didn't pose danger there don't hold water.

The RF did not pose a strategic danger at all (far to weak and to small) - but used it's artillery positions to harass foremost Mykolaiv and only very shortly and with no effect Kryvyi Rih. To prevent continuous artillery harassment towards Mykolaiv - the UAF did the right thing attacking and pushing back the RF forces. Instead of devising and executing a Dnieper river crossing and froming a strategic bridgehead, the UAF was content with regaining occupying a deserted Kherson - with no strategic military value.

Except of that, there is 'common' reasoning that every part of Ukrainian territory should be liberated.

Correct - but this can only be done via strategic prongs targeting and taking strategic targets - e.g Melitopol thus ending the war in a fast as possible way, and not simply waiting for Russian forces to retreat - since IMO the RF won't retreat anymore since November/December last year. They now have sufficient forces to hold the line and even gain small victories along the front-line. Also remarkably the RF has shown new tactical abilities - see their ability to establish Flanks.

But the UAF has obvious limits in their capabilities. And of course, it won't regain them all.

Why? the UAF has far more men in the field (more then double and all super NATO trained), then the RF and it's weaponry is more or less in the same quantity league as those of the RF - and/or certainly superior to the Russian fielded hardware to equalize on quantity figures. Could it be that the UAF (Zelinsky) and Western Media propagated military accounts and e.g. (RF all calling home to mama and complaining) and loss statistics are exaggerated/falsified Bull....? especially in regards to those of the UAF? just saying.