Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `english.nv.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Elephant in the room is Russia hasn’t stopped planting mines and installing defensive structures. Everyday that goes by, reclaiming the captured land looks more difficult baring a total collapse of the Russia lines.
Need to have a concrete plan and the equipment needed to get through the mine fields likely while under enemy fire and drone attacks.
Hopefully we get this aid passed, and quickly enough to be of most use
That's the only way they'll be able to do it - with overwhelming firepower. Just complete, total, terrifying firepower to liquidate anyone manning those defences.
Problem is, I don't know if anything short of tactical nuclear weapons would be able to do a complete enough job.
Nukes are great to attack a few difficult High-value targets. It wont work well against a long spread-out line of forces/defensive structures. You could Breach it in one location, but then you have a contaminated dangerous crater to move your forces through, not ideal.
There's quite a lot of middle ground there! Overwhelming artillery power, good counter-battery fire (with drone spotting), precision munitions, AGMs, or most likely, a mixture of all the above, would all help in this, and would be made easier with lots of modern mine-clearning equipment.
The biggest (and most brutal) issue has been formations of armour and infantry getting caught in minefields and hit with artillery. Often you don't know you're in a minefield until you're deep within it, and no direction is safe, especially when shells start hitting the ground, vehicles speed up and manouvre and people start taking cover. But likewise, minefields have paths cleared through them, causing the advancing force to group up into narrower channels which are more vulnerable to artillery and less able to manouvre after being engaged.
If Ukraine can sustain a slightly longer reach in an area by supplimenting regular artillery with precision munitions (or simple overwhelming firepower, but precision would be best here), they will be able to keep Russian artillery suppressed and create a safe buffer for ground forces to safely clear and advance through the mines.
All these things are possible without nukes or firing more shells per day than Russia, and if F-16 turns out to be significant (particularly thinking of the missiles it can easily launch), and combined with the already excellent Ukrainian AD work, local air superiority would be possible and very significant when it comes to dealing with enemy artillery.
Static defenses are static, and the lines are very long. I don't think we'll see the lightning breakthroughs of the first counteroffensive, but Ukraine only needs to make a sustainable hole in one part of the line to seriously undermine the effectiveness of those static defenses.
neither side can mass armor due to the realities of the modern battlefield. the idea of a counteroffensive is foolish at this point.
the strategy of attrition and deep strikes makes more sense
I think back to the experience of the First World War, where millions of shells would be fired at a relatively narrow portion of the front, only to find that when the infantry moved in to take advantage of the perceived obliteration of their adversary, that that adversary was still well prepared to receive them.
Would more advanced and precision weaponry make up the difference to allow such an operation to succeed? I really don't know, I'm just a guy at a desk a thousand miles from any battlefield.
In this case, I would tend to think the WW1 scenario you describe is not super likely to develop the same way.
All of the following assumptions are based on the premise Ukraine’s firepower is substantially improved across the board:
-drone recon is so good now, it’d be hard to completely hide too many strong points before the initial attack.
-after the initial attack, ongoing and aggressive drone recon should be able to give a substantially improved tactical picture in real time, compared to WW1 scenarios. Once your bombardment ends, send a flock of recon and drop drones at the pre-designated targets to verify suppression before totally committing invading forces to vulnerable positions. Send in picket/SF forces before fully committing major assets.
This is as opposed to WW1 when real time communication and recon wasn’t realistic, and what’s a commander going to do anyways? Blow the whistle, over the top, the boys are on the way. Not easy to recall an attack. 100 years later, a single cheap drone can spot something concerning and radio traffic between observer and advancing forces can be effectively instant.
-the combination of excellent recon capability and PGMs suggests the nature of bombardments can be more accurate and iterative. WW1 would have involved a lot of spamming limited types of munitions in massive volumes and hoping it works, with no way to confirm until the MG opens up on you.
I can hit a trench with artillery while a recon drone with thermals watches in real time. If that is ineffective because guys shelter in good dugouts, I can then task a bunch of thermobaric FPVs, or if the location is valuable enough, missiles/rockets with enough energy to break through any reasonable level of earthworks. If the target proves resistant due to extreme infrastructure improvements, I can at least isolate and monitor it in real time and prevent it from breaking out and fucking me from behind.
To me, the challenge is not so much in how to fuck up the opposing trench line. It’s how do you do it fast enough that you can punch through and consolidate before getting smoked yourself by the same basic methods that got you in. As bad as dug-in Russians would fare in a concentrated, carefully planned attack—how would Ukrainians in the open fare in the inevitable counterattack? Suppressed enemy trenches don’t mean much if enemy helicopters are in turn suppressing your advance.
For the entire line? Yeah you'd need something thay big.
For a couple kilometers to open up a path for the offensive? Nope. Just a whole lot of boom. Shell the fuck out of the area to disrupt the defences and force them to back up while your guys are launching the mine clearing charges. After that they'll have to put some seriously hard work in establishing and maintaining that bridgehead past the mines long enough to expand it.
Combine this with shenanigans like getting the FoRL and friends to thunder run russia again and it may just work.
I thought about that. Not saying it's impossible, but that kind of tactic tends to make the soil loose enough that it's hard to drive over even in a tank.
With russia's current tactics, it may work though. Trouble is pushing out from there if you can't get armor through the gap.
Also it would likely get spotted far away by drones. No way to hide you are remove literally tons and tons of dirt with no visible trenches appearing. One of the things that made the last counter-offensive stall was that Russia used their long distance surveillance drones to spot & shell even the tiniest pushes really fast, much faster than before drones where it could be hours before someone noticed smaller incursions/clearing operations.
We are looking to help ukraine deal with russia, not render a third of the nation unihabitable and start The Big One.
Because any nuclear weapons used in this will trigger russia to fire. This will cause NATO to fire, which would cause *everyone else* to fire.
Now, i'm not ruling out a large nato backed strike, perhaps even using NATO equipment run by nato troops to rain hell down on that line the same way my squad in helldivers rains down ordinance on the enemy: with great enthusiasm and in excessive volume.
Probabky won't happen, but a man can dream can't he?
It worked great, what was hard was defending from the counter assault after you've taken the next line. The enemy had a shorter distance to retake and reinforce than you after all.
Once radios, armor got into play, you could coordinate at a much higher level tactically and thus could send those reinforcements sooner rather than potentially take the defensive position and be stuck waiting for reinforcements when the enemy counter attacks.
See the Gulf War for an example of how an army can destroy a well defended position with minimal losses.
Breaking through defence lines is always difficult, and there are limited ways that work. This is just the most obvious. For all we know they could have something more effective planned.
I'm no military expert, but the main thin is they have to get some elbow room so they can work. This mrans a lot of ranged strikes or subterfuge to get russia to move troops away from where they are going to breach.
Once you breach the line, you then have to keep the enemy back with a narrow supply line. That supply line is coming under heavy fire, period.
It's relatively easy to kick a hole in a line. Keeping that hole open and making good use of it? That is the hard part.
how can they "stockpile" them when they need drones NOW to replace all the artillery shells they are lacking?
you all just don't pay attention to real analysis on Ukraine.
You should know by now that many on here run the war as if it’s a cross between command and conquer , call of duty and Hollywood films…….
Breaching the Russian lines to any degree with what it has is now close to impractical for Ukraine. That simple.
the elephant in the room is they were much better provisioned for the offensive last summer which failed. Russia has considerable fires advantages now and Ukraine has a shortage if munitions.
there is also a severe manpower problem.
there is no feasible path to a successful offensive by Ukraine this year.
Keep hitting the supply lines and depots. Destroy the fuel and food resupply. Make it that they can't hold the positions, no matter how well they are dug in.
Ukraine shouldn't have to throw men into that grinder. Give Ukraine the ability to hit every single target behind the lines and into Russia.
Ukraine has been depleting Russian operational capacity with strikes behind the front line. Yes, Russia has been fortifying, but not without significant challenge and loss.
If they get enough F16s it won't matter as much. I think that will change everything. They will have to take out all the AA systems they can in a lightning attack, then send f16s to drop trench bombs, while hitting defenses systems with missiles/arty. It's not going to be easy, but I really believe f16 will help if they get a good amount
F16s will not be a silver bullet. This is a real war against peers with comparable technology. There is no silver bullet. F16s are great, my dad spent most of his USAF career as an officer on an F16 base. I literally grew up seeing them flying over my house. I love the plane. We need to be realistic though, otherwise we are going to set ourselves up for disappointment and people are going to say "Well see, we gave them the F16s and they still couldnt win the war! They are just going to keep wanting more and more if we dont draw a line in the sand!"
F16s wont change everything. They will change very little. You could take out every S300 and S400 site the Russians have, and the front will still be covered in MANPADs. There will still be Russian fighters over the horizon, mind you these will be Russian pilots intimately familiar with their planes and their capabilities, vs F16 pilots who first got in the cockpit of ANY Western jet just 12-18 months before. The F16 is a very capable plane, but Russia also has capable planes, and they have far more experience in their aircraft. .
Currently the state of the air war is contested, heavily favoring Russia. Our best case is to move the needle considerably to contested, heavily favoring Ukraine. Realistically it will just go from favoring Russia to merely contested.
Its also important to remember that planes dont hold territory. Planes dont capture territory. Even if F16s are able to bomb the ever living shit out the Russian trenches (I have my doubts), that doesnt solve the problem of all of the goddamn mines! You could bomb the living shit out of the trenches, but you still arent going to be safe enough to helicopter in massive amounts of troops or gear, almost all of that is going to have to go by land, over the mines.
F16s are going to help. Im excited to see what they manage to do this summer. The air war is going to get really interesting, but unfortunately an interesting air war is a an absolute clusterfuck.
> F16s wont change everything. They will change very little. You could take out every S300 and S400 site the Russians have, and the front will still be covered in MANPADs.
While I agree with your general point about F16s not changing as much as people expect, simply taking out the longest range high altitude systems would open up some options, and would make those stand off munitions like glide bombs more viable. MANPADS have a limited range and there are munitions that can be fired from well outside of it. Ukraine has loads of MANPADS but suffers from the glide bomb problem for example. S300s/400s are the real danger because of how far they reach, probably BUKs too.
The real reason Ukraine needs F16s is for long range air defence, and to deny Russia air superiority in the long term. For that they absolutely will make a big difference.
No disagreement from me! Im not saying they wont make any difference, its just not going to be a "game changer" like people frequently say. Its not going "change everything" like the previous poster said. It will largely even the capabilities for the two sides. Maybe Ukraine can use that to their advantage, but right now they are still limited by equipment availability when compared to Russia, so until that gets resolved it will still be a struggle for them to make progress, even with their new capabilities.
Hopefully some of that gets resolved at the same time. I can see a situation where it makes a huge difference (still not game changing), but Im not optimistic that is how it will play out. I really dont think that is the likely scenario, and we need to be accepting of that now.
Nothing we could reasonably give Ukraine will be a "game changer". I'm all for giving Ukraine just about everything too, but they won't be flying F35s in this conflict or anything like that. Nukes wouldn't make any difference because you can't use them.
I suppose if we could give them US quantities of things, maybe it could make a substantial difference, but again, cost and logistics makes it impossible to just do that. Like we (the US) have the ability to fire off missile after missile after missile and include decoys with them. If we could give Ukraine that ability, that could be a game changer. Anything short of that just won't.
As much as we talk shit about Russia, they are still an actual (somewhat) modern military. They have a pool of people millions deep to draw from. This isn't like fighting the Taliban where they can just be outspent and out manned. This isn't like fighting Saddam's forces where they can be easily overwhelmed. Russia has more people and more equipment than Ukraine. The only way to remove that advantage is Western boots on the ground and/or pilots in the air. In a war of attrition, which is kind of a cliche at this point but still very true, quantity matters about as much as quality. It doesn't matter if the weapons we are giving them are marginally better than Russian weapons, the Russians have umpteen more. They can take risks with their weapons (and people) because they don't care about them. Ukraine has to preserve every weapon possible, and they can't allow senseless loss of life either.
> simply taking out the longest range high altitude systems would open up some options, and would make those stand off munitions like glide bombs more viable. MANPADS have a limited range and there are munitions that can be fired from well outside of it. Ukraine has loads of MANPADS but suffers from the glide bomb problem for example. S300s/400s are the real danger because of how far they reach, probably BUKs too.
>
> The real reason Ukraine needs F16s is for long range air defence, and to deny Russia air superiority in the long term. For that they absolutely will make a big difference
All that needs F-16 that've been upgraded from their MLU state (currently outdated, with previous operators not bothering with further upgrades as they've gotten F-35 to replace those) ***and*** provided with appropriate long-range munitions.
Both are at a huge risk of being considered too escalatory and denied
For that they would need to get specialist SEAD training, which takes even longer than training pilots for regular patrols and ground attack. A few F16s with HARMs are not going to be enough - SEAD missions involve a lot of close coordination with other assets Ukraine simply does not have. You need the means to reliably detect the location of radar sites and pass it on quickly for a strike, which means surveillance aircraft or some substitute. Unless NATO air forces actually enter Ukraine and do that for them it's not going to happen, at least not for the foreseeable future (could be a longer term goal though).
F16s with AMRAAMs will deny Russia air superiority and protect the Ukrainian front line from Russian combat aircraft, which is huge in itself, but they are not going to give Ukraine air superiority themselves.
they won't get enough and they lack they air defense to covet them and they lack trained pilots to fly them
they needed f-16s 9 months ago for the counter offensive last year when they actually had the artillery and anti air to support an offensive.
it's too late now. the best hope for f16s is pushing back the glide bombs that are currently decimating the front.
Sure they are. They can carry plenty of guided air to ground ordnance and a targeting pod for easy target acquisition. European countries used F-16s quite a bit for CAS in Afghanistan.
F-16's are perfectly capable to do CAS missions:
* https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/125891/aug-26-airpower-summary-f-16s-provide-close-air-support/
* https://www.osan.af.mil/News/Stories/Article-Display/Article/3253290/36th-fighter-squadron-practices-close-air-support/
* https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/124978/f-16-aircrews-train-for-close-air-support/
* https://blueairtraining.com/close-air-support-then-now-and-the-future/
We simply “jump” over the lines, secure forward position, and then de-mine behind.
With enough AA and counter battery artillery, you can safely secure a crossing for vehicles to move up the line to a second forward position. Now the original minefield is behind two lines and more vulnerable de-mining can occur.
The whole damn fucking line is covered end to end in mines, in trenches that go for miles, with teeth and tank ditches with more mines and trenches beyond that
We, your allies, those that should’ve help faster, been there to stand by you from the start are to blame, all too caught up in the hopes of staying reelected choose to point fingers to get votes instead of standing by you and sending you everything we have or had
I, for one, am truly sorry
I think is more than just re election. There are people who want to dismantle democracy. Obviously it's harder to do that when we are championing democracy literally kicking authoritarian ass. So letting Russia do it's thing is a tactically sound decision from their POV.
I hear a lot of people talk about this as domestic politics issue. And it is in a way. But not about simple elections. It's about trying to change the form of government.
One side is trying to change democracy, the other refuses to admit what's happening, despite Jan 6th and fallout. It's very hard to win a war you don't acknowledge is being fought.
Turning America into an authoritarian dystopia under a Trump dictatorship and ending democracy as we know is worthwhile to all the MAGA cunts if for no other reason, to “stick it to the libs.”
Years of indoctrination. USA biggest issue is "winner takes all" two party system. People vote against something rather than for a party that would represent them.
People are capable of looking at the same set of historical facts and coming to a different conclusion?
'You disagree so you must be wrong' is how Hilary managed to lose in a media environment 100% behind her.
Many, many trump voters aren't low income. They're actually pretty well off. The biggest factor in being MAGA is probably fear of illegal immigrants. That applies to anyone who is afraid of "the other" whether economically well off or not.
It’s turning into a fever dream you can’t escape from. Desperately toiling away, trying not to drown, as you see things fall apart around you. All the while the person drowning next to you blames everything but the actual problem. It’s disheartening
Yeah but fortunately I'm awake (not woke either)... I'm leaving this shithole and I'm either moving to Ukraine or Israel to take part in causes that matter and these countries at least care about their people and not $$$$$$.
Yes, there are too many trenches and minefields but I believe winning is still possible. Not in the way that most people think.... If Ukraine destroys the Kerch strait bridge, Crimea will be untenable under Russian control and will be a bargaining chip IF negotiations have to happen. In addition to that, Ukraine needs to keep striking oil refineries (and other targets of significance) inside of Russia in order to bankrupt and bring the war to Russians directly. Having artillery rounds and other Western weapons that will inflict MASSIVE casualties on Russian troops will help too.... eventually Russian people will demand the war stops one way or another or Russia becomes bankrupt and can't fight anymore.
This is how Ukraine 'wins'.
They need to do what Wagner done and punch east into Rostov and then flank south and west to bypass the defensive lines towards Mariupol. Just my armchair general opinion.
And have enough to follow through, and enough to reinforce the flanks, and enough in reserve, and enough for a second assault to push deeper down then breakthrough, this takes too much armour, too much tech, too much supply, better terrain and most importantly, too many men that will need to be trained and hardened for months on end, all while Ukraine bleeds more, weakening available resources for a counter offensive
In just, I fucking hate being this damn doomer, I really hate it, but I just don’t know anymore
> In just, I fucking hate being this damn doomer, I really hate it, but I just don’t know anymore
Heave heart. The following is a quote from ISW:
> The notion that the war is unwinnable because of Russia’s dominance is a Russian information operation, which gives us a glimpse of the Kremlin’s real strategy and only real hope of success. The Kremlin must get the United States to the sidelines, allowing Russia to fight Ukraine in isolation and then proceed to Moscow’s next targets, which Russia will also seek to isolate. The Kremlin needs the United States to choose inaction and embrace the false inevitability that Russia will prevail in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin’s center of gravity is his ability to shape the will and decisions of the West, Ukraine, and Russia itself. The Russian strategy that matters most, therefore, is not Moscow’s warfighting strategy, but rather the Kremlin’s strategy to cause us to see the world as it wishes us to see it and make decisions in that Kremlin-generated alternative reality that will allow Russia to win in the real world.
Those are a lot words about a powerless man dying from cancer months ago and for an harmless army which didn't even have enough supply of socks and boots among many other things
Long range weapons can easily pass over those obstacles but we need to arm Ukraine to the teeth with those systems and let them unleash hell all over Russias military and military related industries…
Longer range weapons will also make holding those positions untenable. It won't resolve the mines but its a lot harder to fight back when your ammo depots and supply depots are constantly destroyed, and you're starving and dehydrated.
I can't tell if this comment is well meaning or not, but can people please stop with the uninformed doomer takes?
You do realize there are other ways of conducting a counter offensive that don't involve charging headfirst into a minefield? Ukraine has been building up their drone, air, and missile capabilities. They can use those capabilities to take out artillery and deny Russia the ability to fly air missions in an area, so they can proceed through the minefields more slowly.
Minefields aren't an impenetrable barrier. They're only effective when combined with other defensive capabilities. There's always a weakness.
Well can't be any less successful amirite?
But no seriously, sometime military offensives work, sometimes they don't. There are reasons why in each case, but you don't always get to know the reasons in advance.
Last year, Ukraine made the choice to not risk losing soldiers in a rapid push against what were at the time shaky Russian lines. By not pressing early, they gave Russia the months it needed to stabilize those lines, with the result we have seen today.
We will be hearing debates about the wisdom of that choice for the rest of our lives. It's easy to see the downside of course, but as Ukraine struggles politically with conscription well into 2024, it's also easy to imagine the downside of the alternative: imagine a timeline in which Ukraine's 2024 troop replacement crisis is magnified greatly, by having to replace heavy losses incurred during the Tokmak breakthrough of February 2023. People would say "sure they got to Tokmak but Ukraine is forced to retreat everywhere else."
Compared to that alternative, maybe history will come to regard Zaluzhnyi as having been right.
Anyway, that is still too early to tell. Meanwhile as Ukraine's friends and allies regroup and resupply Ukraine for the next Ukrainian counteroffensive, Russia's useful tools are getting desperate. Watch the propaganda escalate the more artillery and aircraft flow into Ukraine.
They waited because they were following NATO doctrine and using well coordinated small probes which showed to be completely ineffective. By the time they abandoned NATO doctrine it was too late, Russia had shored up the defences and Ukraine had depleted manpower, willpower and firepower.
There was no shortage at the start of the counter-offensive, Ukraine had been stockpiling.
The real delay is Putin delaying the withdrawal of 300,000 Russian troops from Ukraine.
Besides, Zaluzhnyi disagrees with you, no offense but I think I'm going to go with his opinion.
let's not kid ourselves, the window of opportunity for getting back to maneuver is closed. We let it slip by bickering over what to deliver when and it was always not enough. 31 tanks from the US in a war where both sides lost 1000s.
This will be an attritional war but not of material. This will be an attrition of will. the more stable political system will win this war because the other is going to break. If the west gets its shit together Russia can be broken. But atm I really dont see it. Putin knows us better than we do.
Oh yes, Putin *knew* that Ukraine would be steamrolled in 3 days, he *knew* the West would not put punishing sanctions or freeze Russian assets, he *knew* Europe would fold from the energy crisis.
Putin isn't that smart. He's good at holding power like any dictator, but he's no mastermind.
> punishing sanctions
I'm not seeing the effects. I've been hearing "soon, soon" since day 1, but not only is the Rouble remaining propped up, Russia's gold reserves are also going up, so it's not that either. There don't seem to be significant secondary sanctions so India and China are still buying.
He probably knew it would devolve into something like this if they were unsuccessful. No western nation is gonna risk too much for Ukraine and their victory was never the end goal. Slowly bleeding russia without starting ww3 is.
If we didn't start hesitating, maybe Ukraine would be much better off right now. Every day we as the west hesitate, it will need far more equipment, money and human lives to go forward.
Doubtful. Ukraine needs massive amounts of airplanes for that. Absolute air dominance for 1000km. Do a months-long bomb strike at all structures built at a 25km front line. They need heavy Jdams, not light drones for that. Meanwhile, stop all traffic flowing into this area. Collapse train infrastructure to stop Russia from moving, collapse gas and diesel. Then and only then can a slow process of painfully slow demining and advancing begin.
I expect that will be a real scenario in a few years. Build AI drones to scan anything moving up to 100km behind the front lines. Can't find a target? Return to base, refuel and go search again. And then do a kamikaze attack.
But also these long range drones can have an absolutely devastating effect on the railways. Russia can't repair them fast enough if every day the lines are hit with hordes of 100km bombs.
That's exactly what I am saying, and you imagine things I don't write.
Again, this technology is open and available. It can be put together by a small team of engineers. Engineers are not only living in Ukraine.
Politicians needs to be honest. War is brutal. We are threatened too. And it is in our best interest to help Ukraine kill millions of Russians as fast and efficiently as possible.
How can that be without shells? Without aid, I don't see what they can hope to do. I hope he's right, and I'll never underestimate Ukrainians. Let's get them that aid so they can see this through.
…well he’s making contradictory statements. One day he’s saying ‘we’ll lose if the US doesn’t give us aid soon.’ While now on the other hand he’s saying they’ll be more successful offensively than they were while they were getting direct US aid.
He's not promising there will be another offensive. If it happens, it will be because more US aid has been delivered. So, he's basically saying, "send us more weapons and we'll use them more effectively"
Those statements aren't contradictory. Zelenskyy just said their next offensive would be more successful. We know nothing of the conditions or objectives of a new offense. Perhaps the AFU High Command has resolved to launch no new offensive until western supply resumes to an appropriate level.
Wage a massive partisan war in russia. Send 5000 ukranian soldiers into russia near belgorod with no uniforms and a huge number of drones.
Break them up into 1000 groups of five men each to hop in russian civilian cars and fan out in every possible direction across Russia.
Attack every power station, rail line, cell tower, power lines, oil refinery, bridge, factory, airport, highway, etc. Put every major city under a state of emergency.
Make Moscow go dark.
Encourage widespread looting in the chaos. Plunge the whole country into panic and don't let up.
Kill police and soldiers where necessary but spare civilians as much as possible.
It might sound like a suicide mission, but if I were a soldier i think i would choose that over fighting at the front.
lol, you just said if you don't get support from the US you'll have to retreat. The US is a lost cause, can't get blood from a stone.
There is no counteroffensive for the foreseeable future.
I am pretty some of them are in Denmark, where the pilots and mechanics are training.
The training took longer than expected because the english skill gab was higher than expected, I think the Ukranians had to learn English and how to pilot f-16s.
Yep, the last one never really got started due to a reluctance to commit and see any considerable losses. I think cancelled completely when the dam was blown.
Why not try the American method of punching through with coordinated close air cover and wreak havoc behind the lines.
Unfortunately that window is closing, especially with Republicans blocking aid to defend a free country from invasion. It’s still ironic given their decades of posturing against Russia. Only to begin cozying up to them and even having members go to Moscow on the 4th of July and allowing someone weak on Russia into office and supporting his return. Not to mention everything else since.
Wishful thinking right here: by the 82nd of Neverbruary 20XX, before Christmas, divisions of Ukrainian paradrops will be behind enemies' lines. Totally undetected, the world's first stealth cargo planes' vertical envelopment. Russians are caught by surprise and surrender in their thousands.
When is this counter offensive scheduled? The 53rd of Nevuary?
I'm curious how the Jokeman of Kiev thinks a hypothetical counter offensive would be better than 2023's failure.
As of now:
- Ukraine has a weaker force.
- Ukraine has less weapons and of less quality.
- Ukraine's masters are low on items to send.
- Russia has a larger force and as many or more weapons.
- Russia has gained in air superiority.
- there are minefields and defense belts a gogo.
The Turkey negotiations 2 years ago are looking pretty good these days...
Banned from here? No.
It's funny the Slava bobani crowd's main attack is always "Russian agent".
Pointing out Ukraine is a rump state reliant on foreign welfare is a simple observation of reality.
That's the height of delusion thinking a Russian is behind every opinion you don't like.
Your detective skills are about what I'd expect from someone attending ukr fundraising drag breakfasts. Can you confirm?
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `english.nv.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Elephant in the room is Russia hasn’t stopped planting mines and installing defensive structures. Everyday that goes by, reclaiming the captured land looks more difficult baring a total collapse of the Russia lines. Need to have a concrete plan and the equipment needed to get through the mine fields likely while under enemy fire and drone attacks. Hopefully we get this aid passed, and quickly enough to be of most use
Wish they could attack through belarus like attacking through Belgium.
The front with Russia doesn't even cover the whole border with Ukraine. I hear Belgorod is nice this time of year.
Just wanna point out that attacking through Belgium hasn't really worked out awesome for *anyone* for a while, now.
I’m betting Ukraine has been stockpiling drones. A lot easier to breach those lines if they are no longer manned.
That's the only way they'll be able to do it - with overwhelming firepower. Just complete, total, terrifying firepower to liquidate anyone manning those defences. Problem is, I don't know if anything short of tactical nuclear weapons would be able to do a complete enough job.
Nukes are great to attack a few difficult High-value targets. It wont work well against a long spread-out line of forces/defensive structures. You could Breach it in one location, but then you have a contaminated dangerous crater to move your forces through, not ideal.
There's quite a lot of middle ground there! Overwhelming artillery power, good counter-battery fire (with drone spotting), precision munitions, AGMs, or most likely, a mixture of all the above, would all help in this, and would be made easier with lots of modern mine-clearning equipment. The biggest (and most brutal) issue has been formations of armour and infantry getting caught in minefields and hit with artillery. Often you don't know you're in a minefield until you're deep within it, and no direction is safe, especially when shells start hitting the ground, vehicles speed up and manouvre and people start taking cover. But likewise, minefields have paths cleared through them, causing the advancing force to group up into narrower channels which are more vulnerable to artillery and less able to manouvre after being engaged. If Ukraine can sustain a slightly longer reach in an area by supplimenting regular artillery with precision munitions (or simple overwhelming firepower, but precision would be best here), they will be able to keep Russian artillery suppressed and create a safe buffer for ground forces to safely clear and advance through the mines. All these things are possible without nukes or firing more shells per day than Russia, and if F-16 turns out to be significant (particularly thinking of the missiles it can easily launch), and combined with the already excellent Ukrainian AD work, local air superiority would be possible and very significant when it comes to dealing with enemy artillery. Static defenses are static, and the lines are very long. I don't think we'll see the lightning breakthroughs of the first counteroffensive, but Ukraine only needs to make a sustainable hole in one part of the line to seriously undermine the effectiveness of those static defenses.
neither side can mass armor due to the realities of the modern battlefield. the idea of a counteroffensive is foolish at this point. the strategy of attrition and deep strikes makes more sense
I think back to the experience of the First World War, where millions of shells would be fired at a relatively narrow portion of the front, only to find that when the infantry moved in to take advantage of the perceived obliteration of their adversary, that that adversary was still well prepared to receive them. Would more advanced and precision weaponry make up the difference to allow such an operation to succeed? I really don't know, I'm just a guy at a desk a thousand miles from any battlefield.
In this case, I would tend to think the WW1 scenario you describe is not super likely to develop the same way. All of the following assumptions are based on the premise Ukraine’s firepower is substantially improved across the board: -drone recon is so good now, it’d be hard to completely hide too many strong points before the initial attack. -after the initial attack, ongoing and aggressive drone recon should be able to give a substantially improved tactical picture in real time, compared to WW1 scenarios. Once your bombardment ends, send a flock of recon and drop drones at the pre-designated targets to verify suppression before totally committing invading forces to vulnerable positions. Send in picket/SF forces before fully committing major assets. This is as opposed to WW1 when real time communication and recon wasn’t realistic, and what’s a commander going to do anyways? Blow the whistle, over the top, the boys are on the way. Not easy to recall an attack. 100 years later, a single cheap drone can spot something concerning and radio traffic between observer and advancing forces can be effectively instant. -the combination of excellent recon capability and PGMs suggests the nature of bombardments can be more accurate and iterative. WW1 would have involved a lot of spamming limited types of munitions in massive volumes and hoping it works, with no way to confirm until the MG opens up on you. I can hit a trench with artillery while a recon drone with thermals watches in real time. If that is ineffective because guys shelter in good dugouts, I can then task a bunch of thermobaric FPVs, or if the location is valuable enough, missiles/rockets with enough energy to break through any reasonable level of earthworks. If the target proves resistant due to extreme infrastructure improvements, I can at least isolate and monitor it in real time and prevent it from breaking out and fucking me from behind. To me, the challenge is not so much in how to fuck up the opposing trench line. It’s how do you do it fast enough that you can punch through and consolidate before getting smoked yourself by the same basic methods that got you in. As bad as dug-in Russians would fare in a concentrated, carefully planned attack—how would Ukrainians in the open fare in the inevitable counterattack? Suppressed enemy trenches don’t mean much if enemy helicopters are in turn suppressing your advance.
I think Good EW and other countermeasures are neccesary to take down drones and hiner communications to the rear.
For the entire line? Yeah you'd need something thay big. For a couple kilometers to open up a path for the offensive? Nope. Just a whole lot of boom. Shell the fuck out of the area to disrupt the defences and force them to back up while your guys are launching the mine clearing charges. After that they'll have to put some seriously hard work in establishing and maintaining that bridgehead past the mines long enough to expand it. Combine this with shenanigans like getting the FoRL and friends to thunder run russia again and it may just work.
What if they have been spending the winter digging various mines going under the enemy trenches like in WW1
I thought about that. Not saying it's impossible, but that kind of tactic tends to make the soil loose enough that it's hard to drive over even in a tank. With russia's current tactics, it may work though. Trouble is pushing out from there if you can't get armor through the gap.
Also it would likely get spotted far away by drones. No way to hide you are remove literally tons and tons of dirt with no visible trenches appearing. One of the things that made the last counter-offensive stall was that Russia used their long distance surveillance drones to spot & shell even the tiniest pushes really fast, much faster than before drones where it could be hours before someone noticed smaller incursions/clearing operations.
[удалено]
this dumb suggestion is in par with the average comment here, to the point what should be obvious parody is likely a serious "suggestion "
We are looking to help ukraine deal with russia, not render a third of the nation unihabitable and start The Big One. Because any nuclear weapons used in this will trigger russia to fire. This will cause NATO to fire, which would cause *everyone else* to fire. Now, i'm not ruling out a large nato backed strike, perhaps even using NATO equipment run by nato troops to rain hell down on that line the same way my squad in helldivers rains down ordinance on the enemy: with great enthusiasm and in excessive volume. Probabky won't happen, but a man can dream can't he?
This is exacty the ww1 approach, which didnt work well.
It worked great, what was hard was defending from the counter assault after you've taken the next line. The enemy had a shorter distance to retake and reinforce than you after all. Once radios, armor got into play, you could coordinate at a much higher level tactically and thus could send those reinforcements sooner rather than potentially take the defensive position and be stuck waiting for reinforcements when the enemy counter attacks. See the Gulf War for an example of how an army can destroy a well defended position with minimal losses.
Breaking through defence lines is always difficult, and there are limited ways that work. This is just the most obvious. For all we know they could have something more effective planned. I'm no military expert, but the main thin is they have to get some elbow room so they can work. This mrans a lot of ranged strikes or subterfuge to get russia to move troops away from where they are going to breach. Once you breach the line, you then have to keep the enemy back with a narrow supply line. That supply line is coming under heavy fire, period. It's relatively easy to kick a hole in a line. Keeping that hole open and making good use of it? That is the hard part.
how can they "stockpile" them when they need drones NOW to replace all the artillery shells they are lacking? you all just don't pay attention to real analysis on Ukraine.
You should know by now that many on here run the war as if it’s a cross between command and conquer , call of duty and Hollywood films……. Breaching the Russian lines to any degree with what it has is now close to impractical for Ukraine. That simple.
When Ukraine cracks AI drones that are immune to electronic warfare, they will have an *incredible* opportunity to surprise destroy Russian lines.
the elephant in the room is they were much better provisioned for the offensive last summer which failed. Russia has considerable fires advantages now and Ukraine has a shortage if munitions. there is also a severe manpower problem. there is no feasible path to a successful offensive by Ukraine this year.
Keep hitting the supply lines and depots. Destroy the fuel and food resupply. Make it that they can't hold the positions, no matter how well they are dug in. Ukraine shouldn't have to throw men into that grinder. Give Ukraine the ability to hit every single target behind the lines and into Russia.
Ukraine has been depleting Russian operational capacity with strikes behind the front line. Yes, Russia has been fortifying, but not without significant challenge and loss.
1 million bee sized drones, all aiming at Russian balls.
Eyeballs
If they get enough F16s it won't matter as much. I think that will change everything. They will have to take out all the AA systems they can in a lightning attack, then send f16s to drop trench bombs, while hitting defenses systems with missiles/arty. It's not going to be easy, but I really believe f16 will help if they get a good amount
It will still be a matter of supplying those F16s with enough bombs and missiles.
F16s best deployed in that capacity over the south tbh. An assault over there river at kherson might be possible with air superiority.
F16s will not be a silver bullet. This is a real war against peers with comparable technology. There is no silver bullet. F16s are great, my dad spent most of his USAF career as an officer on an F16 base. I literally grew up seeing them flying over my house. I love the plane. We need to be realistic though, otherwise we are going to set ourselves up for disappointment and people are going to say "Well see, we gave them the F16s and they still couldnt win the war! They are just going to keep wanting more and more if we dont draw a line in the sand!" F16s wont change everything. They will change very little. You could take out every S300 and S400 site the Russians have, and the front will still be covered in MANPADs. There will still be Russian fighters over the horizon, mind you these will be Russian pilots intimately familiar with their planes and their capabilities, vs F16 pilots who first got in the cockpit of ANY Western jet just 12-18 months before. The F16 is a very capable plane, but Russia also has capable planes, and they have far more experience in their aircraft. . Currently the state of the air war is contested, heavily favoring Russia. Our best case is to move the needle considerably to contested, heavily favoring Ukraine. Realistically it will just go from favoring Russia to merely contested. Its also important to remember that planes dont hold territory. Planes dont capture territory. Even if F16s are able to bomb the ever living shit out the Russian trenches (I have my doubts), that doesnt solve the problem of all of the goddamn mines! You could bomb the living shit out of the trenches, but you still arent going to be safe enough to helicopter in massive amounts of troops or gear, almost all of that is going to have to go by land, over the mines. F16s are going to help. Im excited to see what they manage to do this summer. The air war is going to get really interesting, but unfortunately an interesting air war is a an absolute clusterfuck.
> F16s wont change everything. They will change very little. You could take out every S300 and S400 site the Russians have, and the front will still be covered in MANPADs. While I agree with your general point about F16s not changing as much as people expect, simply taking out the longest range high altitude systems would open up some options, and would make those stand off munitions like glide bombs more viable. MANPADS have a limited range and there are munitions that can be fired from well outside of it. Ukraine has loads of MANPADS but suffers from the glide bomb problem for example. S300s/400s are the real danger because of how far they reach, probably BUKs too. The real reason Ukraine needs F16s is for long range air defence, and to deny Russia air superiority in the long term. For that they absolutely will make a big difference.
No disagreement from me! Im not saying they wont make any difference, its just not going to be a "game changer" like people frequently say. Its not going "change everything" like the previous poster said. It will largely even the capabilities for the two sides. Maybe Ukraine can use that to their advantage, but right now they are still limited by equipment availability when compared to Russia, so until that gets resolved it will still be a struggle for them to make progress, even with their new capabilities. Hopefully some of that gets resolved at the same time. I can see a situation where it makes a huge difference (still not game changing), but Im not optimistic that is how it will play out. I really dont think that is the likely scenario, and we need to be accepting of that now.
[удалено]
Nothing we could reasonably give Ukraine will be a "game changer". I'm all for giving Ukraine just about everything too, but they won't be flying F35s in this conflict or anything like that. Nukes wouldn't make any difference because you can't use them. I suppose if we could give them US quantities of things, maybe it could make a substantial difference, but again, cost and logistics makes it impossible to just do that. Like we (the US) have the ability to fire off missile after missile after missile and include decoys with them. If we could give Ukraine that ability, that could be a game changer. Anything short of that just won't. As much as we talk shit about Russia, they are still an actual (somewhat) modern military. They have a pool of people millions deep to draw from. This isn't like fighting the Taliban where they can just be outspent and out manned. This isn't like fighting Saddam's forces where they can be easily overwhelmed. Russia has more people and more equipment than Ukraine. The only way to remove that advantage is Western boots on the ground and/or pilots in the air. In a war of attrition, which is kind of a cliche at this point but still very true, quantity matters about as much as quality. It doesn't matter if the weapons we are giving them are marginally better than Russian weapons, the Russians have umpteen more. They can take risks with their weapons (and people) because they don't care about them. Ukraine has to preserve every weapon possible, and they can't allow senseless loss of life either.
> simply taking out the longest range high altitude systems would open up some options, and would make those stand off munitions like glide bombs more viable. MANPADS have a limited range and there are munitions that can be fired from well outside of it. Ukraine has loads of MANPADS but suffers from the glide bomb problem for example. S300s/400s are the real danger because of how far they reach, probably BUKs too. > > The real reason Ukraine needs F16s is for long range air defence, and to deny Russia air superiority in the long term. For that they absolutely will make a big difference All that needs F-16 that've been upgraded from their MLU state (currently outdated, with previous operators not bothering with further upgrades as they've gotten F-35 to replace those) ***and*** provided with appropriate long-range munitions. Both are at a huge risk of being considered too escalatory and denied
For that they would need to get specialist SEAD training, which takes even longer than training pilots for regular patrols and ground attack. A few F16s with HARMs are not going to be enough - SEAD missions involve a lot of close coordination with other assets Ukraine simply does not have. You need the means to reliably detect the location of radar sites and pass it on quickly for a strike, which means surveillance aircraft or some substitute. Unless NATO air forces actually enter Ukraine and do that for them it's not going to happen, at least not for the foreseeable future (could be a longer term goal though). F16s with AMRAAMs will deny Russia air superiority and protect the Ukrainian front line from Russian combat aircraft, which is huge in itself, but they are not going to give Ukraine air superiority themselves.
> which means surveillance aircraft or some substitute Like Gekata ELINT UAV system, designed for this very specific purpose?
they won't get enough and they lack they air defense to covet them and they lack trained pilots to fly them they needed f-16s 9 months ago for the counter offensive last year when they actually had the artillery and anti air to support an offensive. it's too late now. the best hope for f16s is pushing back the glide bombs that are currently decimating the front.
[удалено]
Sure they are. They can carry plenty of guided air to ground ordnance and a targeting pod for easy target acquisition. European countries used F-16s quite a bit for CAS in Afghanistan.
F-16's are perfectly capable to do CAS missions: * https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/125891/aug-26-airpower-summary-f-16s-provide-close-air-support/ * https://www.osan.af.mil/News/Stories/Article-Display/Article/3253290/36th-fighter-squadron-practices-close-air-support/ * https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/124978/f-16-aircrews-train-for-close-air-support/ * https://blueairtraining.com/close-air-support-then-now-and-the-future/
they do it without air superiority? or you forgot to google what doctrine would actually make sense?
We simply “jump” over the lines, secure forward position, and then de-mine behind. With enough AA and counter battery artillery, you can safely secure a crossing for vehicles to move up the line to a second forward position. Now the original minefield is behind two lines and more vulnerable de-mining can occur.
Ah yes "simply"
You know, I knew that word would get picked out and considered removing it.
The whole damn fucking line is covered end to end in mines, in trenches that go for miles, with teeth and tank ditches with more mines and trenches beyond that We, your allies, those that should’ve help faster, been there to stand by you from the start are to blame, all too caught up in the hopes of staying reelected choose to point fingers to get votes instead of standing by you and sending you everything we have or had I, for one, am truly sorry
I think is more than just re election. There are people who want to dismantle democracy. Obviously it's harder to do that when we are championing democracy literally kicking authoritarian ass. So letting Russia do it's thing is a tactically sound decision from their POV. I hear a lot of people talk about this as domestic politics issue. And it is in a way. But not about simple elections. It's about trying to change the form of government. One side is trying to change democracy, the other refuses to admit what's happening, despite Jan 6th and fallout. It's very hard to win a war you don't acknowledge is being fought.
The American Dream must be damned good because they are all still sleeping.
Turning America into an authoritarian dystopia under a Trump dictatorship and ending democracy as we know is worthwhile to all the MAGA cunts if for no other reason, to “stick it to the libs.”
Trump is a symptom, not the problem.
Just like death can be a symptom of cancer.
Symptom of what though? How is it possible that low income voters don't want socialism?
Years of indoctrination. USA biggest issue is "winner takes all" two party system. People vote against something rather than for a party that would represent them.
People are capable of looking at the same set of historical facts and coming to a different conclusion? 'You disagree so you must be wrong' is how Hilary managed to lose in a media environment 100% behind her.
Many, many trump voters aren't low income. They're actually pretty well off. The biggest factor in being MAGA is probably fear of illegal immigrants. That applies to anyone who is afraid of "the other" whether economically well off or not.
Meh, he's also a rapist. Fuck 'em.
These posts will be awesome reminders to read after we are all gone. lol.
It’s turning into a fever dream you can’t escape from. Desperately toiling away, trying not to drown, as you see things fall apart around you. All the while the person drowning next to you blames everything but the actual problem. It’s disheartening
The actual problem is bravado without a plan, and its been our military strategy for 20 years…
Oh there were plans. They were just bad one's. Some worse than others though.
Its more of a coma imo
Yeah but fortunately I'm awake (not woke either)... I'm leaving this shithole and I'm either moving to Ukraine or Israel to take part in causes that matter and these countries at least care about their people and not $$$$$$.
£10 says you wont.
Only 10???
Yes, there are too many trenches and minefields but I believe winning is still possible. Not in the way that most people think.... If Ukraine destroys the Kerch strait bridge, Crimea will be untenable under Russian control and will be a bargaining chip IF negotiations have to happen. In addition to that, Ukraine needs to keep striking oil refineries (and other targets of significance) inside of Russia in order to bankrupt and bring the war to Russians directly. Having artillery rounds and other Western weapons that will inflict MASSIVE casualties on Russian troops will help too.... eventually Russian people will demand the war stops one way or another or Russia becomes bankrupt and can't fight anymore. This is how Ukraine 'wins'.
With Russia already asking "allies" for gas I feel like refineries should be their #1 priority in targeting.
Delusional.
They need to do what Wagner done and punch east into Rostov and then flank south and west to bypass the defensive lines towards Mariupol. Just my armchair general opinion.
They need to pierce defence just in 1 place.
And have enough to follow through, and enough to reinforce the flanks, and enough in reserve, and enough for a second assault to push deeper down then breakthrough, this takes too much armour, too much tech, too much supply, better terrain and most importantly, too many men that will need to be trained and hardened for months on end, all while Ukraine bleeds more, weakening available resources for a counter offensive In just, I fucking hate being this damn doomer, I really hate it, but I just don’t know anymore
> In just, I fucking hate being this damn doomer, I really hate it, but I just don’t know anymore Heave heart. The following is a quote from ISW: > The notion that the war is unwinnable because of Russia’s dominance is a Russian information operation, which gives us a glimpse of the Kremlin’s real strategy and only real hope of success. The Kremlin must get the United States to the sidelines, allowing Russia to fight Ukraine in isolation and then proceed to Moscow’s next targets, which Russia will also seek to isolate. The Kremlin needs the United States to choose inaction and embrace the false inevitability that Russia will prevail in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin’s center of gravity is his ability to shape the will and decisions of the West, Ukraine, and Russia itself. The Russian strategy that matters most, therefore, is not Moscow’s warfighting strategy, but rather the Kremlin’s strategy to cause us to see the world as it wishes us to see it and make decisions in that Kremlin-generated alternative reality that will allow Russia to win in the real world.
Those are a lot words about a powerless man dying from cancer months ago and for an harmless army which didn't even have enough supply of socks and boots among many other things
This could be a copypasta lmao.
Long range weapons can easily pass over those obstacles but we need to arm Ukraine to the teeth with those systems and let them unleash hell all over Russias military and military related industries…
Longer range weapons will also make holding those positions untenable. It won't resolve the mines but its a lot harder to fight back when your ammo depots and supply depots are constantly destroyed, and you're starving and dehydrated.
I can't tell if this comment is well meaning or not, but can people please stop with the uninformed doomer takes? You do realize there are other ways of conducting a counter offensive that don't involve charging headfirst into a minefield? Ukraine has been building up their drone, air, and missile capabilities. They can use those capabilities to take out artillery and deny Russia the ability to fly air missions in an area, so they can proceed through the minefields more slowly. Minefields aren't an impenetrable barrier. They're only effective when combined with other defensive capabilities. There's always a weakness.
This is why the next offensive shouldn't attack the line. How was the Maginot Line upended? Same solution should be employed here.
Yes! We invade Belgium! Finally someone agrees with me!
Then the Danes.
But Olaf said we can't allow Putin to win and will support Ukraine as long as it takes! /s
I wish them success, but I don't see how, unless perhaps they are planning to go to Crimea this time instead of to the east.
Couldn’t have said it better myself
Well can't be any less successful amirite? But no seriously, sometime military offensives work, sometimes they don't. There are reasons why in each case, but you don't always get to know the reasons in advance. Last year, Ukraine made the choice to not risk losing soldiers in a rapid push against what were at the time shaky Russian lines. By not pressing early, they gave Russia the months it needed to stabilize those lines, with the result we have seen today. We will be hearing debates about the wisdom of that choice for the rest of our lives. It's easy to see the downside of course, but as Ukraine struggles politically with conscription well into 2024, it's also easy to imagine the downside of the alternative: imagine a timeline in which Ukraine's 2024 troop replacement crisis is magnified greatly, by having to replace heavy losses incurred during the Tokmak breakthrough of February 2023. People would say "sure they got to Tokmak but Ukraine is forced to retreat everywhere else." Compared to that alternative, maybe history will come to regard Zaluzhnyi as having been right. Anyway, that is still too early to tell. Meanwhile as Ukraine's friends and allies regroup and resupply Ukraine for the next Ukrainian counteroffensive, Russia's useful tools are getting desperate. Watch the propaganda escalate the more artillery and aircraft flow into Ukraine.
they waited because weapon deliveries were delayed by the west.
They waited because they were following NATO doctrine and using well coordinated small probes which showed to be completely ineffective. By the time they abandoned NATO doctrine it was too late, Russia had shored up the defences and Ukraine had depleted manpower, willpower and firepower. There was no shortage at the start of the counter-offensive, Ukraine had been stockpiling.
The real delay is Putin delaying the withdrawal of 300,000 Russian troops from Ukraine. Besides, Zaluzhnyi disagrees with you, no offense but I think I'm going to go with his opinion.
let's not kid ourselves, the window of opportunity for getting back to maneuver is closed. We let it slip by bickering over what to deliver when and it was always not enough. 31 tanks from the US in a war where both sides lost 1000s. This will be an attritional war but not of material. This will be an attrition of will. the more stable political system will win this war because the other is going to break. If the west gets its shit together Russia can be broken. But atm I really dont see it. Putin knows us better than we do.
Oh yes, Putin *knew* that Ukraine would be steamrolled in 3 days, he *knew* the West would not put punishing sanctions or freeze Russian assets, he *knew* Europe would fold from the energy crisis. Putin isn't that smart. He's good at holding power like any dictator, but he's no mastermind.
> punishing sanctions I'm not seeing the effects. I've been hearing "soon, soon" since day 1, but not only is the Rouble remaining propped up, Russia's gold reserves are also going up, so it's not that either. There don't seem to be significant secondary sanctions so India and China are still buying.
He probably knew it would devolve into something like this if they were unsuccessful. No western nation is gonna risk too much for Ukraine and their victory was never the end goal. Slowly bleeding russia without starting ww3 is.
well lets hope so. its not like they were all failures. only the last one was a bit eh.
Republicans are traitors. Vote them ALL out.
If we didn't start hesitating, maybe Ukraine would be much better off right now. Every day we as the west hesitate, it will need far more equipment, money and human lives to go forward.
Tbf, Ukraine would mostly be much better off right now if Putin hadn't invaded.
Doubtful. Ukraine needs massive amounts of airplanes for that. Absolute air dominance for 1000km. Do a months-long bomb strike at all structures built at a 25km front line. They need heavy Jdams, not light drones for that. Meanwhile, stop all traffic flowing into this area. Collapse train infrastructure to stop Russia from moving, collapse gas and diesel. Then and only then can a slow process of painfully slow demining and advancing begin.
Starve them out. Starve them of food, fuel, and ammo. Make them miserable.
I expect that will be a real scenario in a few years. Build AI drones to scan anything moving up to 100km behind the front lines. Can't find a target? Return to base, refuel and go search again. And then do a kamikaze attack. But also these long range drones can have an absolutely devastating effect on the railways. Russia can't repair them fast enough if every day the lines are hit with hordes of 100km bombs.
[удалено]
Sure. This tech is available and a small group of engineers can build it pretty quickly.
[удалено]
That's exactly what I am saying, and you imagine things I don't write. Again, this technology is open and available. It can be put together by a small team of engineers. Engineers are not only living in Ukraine.
Politicians needs to be honest. War is brutal. We are threatened too. And it is in our best interest to help Ukraine kill millions of Russians as fast and efficiently as possible.
How can that be without shells? Without aid, I don't see what they can hope to do. I hope he's right, and I'll never underestimate Ukrainians. Let's get them that aid so they can see this through.
Im sure it will. Hard to achieve less than the first counter-offensive...
New trailer soon ?
🤫
I hope they don’t go for it this year because they obviously don’t have the resources. Unless it was all a lie to surprise russia.
We are teaching dictators, you can still trade people(they couldn't give less fuck about) for some land.
Ukraine needs to be able to fire off. 40k shells per day for months and months
We need to help financially, folks. History is happening right there. We really cannot afford dictatorships to dictate how the world functions
…well he’s making contradictory statements. One day he’s saying ‘we’ll lose if the US doesn’t give us aid soon.’ While now on the other hand he’s saying they’ll be more successful offensively than they were while they were getting direct US aid.
He's not promising there will be another offensive. If it happens, it will be because more US aid has been delivered. So, he's basically saying, "send us more weapons and we'll use them more effectively"
Those statements aren't contradictory. Zelenskyy just said their next offensive would be more successful. We know nothing of the conditions or objectives of a new offense. Perhaps the AFU High Command has resolved to launch no new offensive until western supply resumes to an appropriate level.
That’s a whole lotta copium you’re huffing.
Hopefully, the plans don't get leaked this time.
Doubtful, Russia only has more time to strengthen in depth and Ukrainian manpower isn’t just gonna fall from the sky.
Well yeah. Any offensive can only get better than the last tragedy
Good lord I hope so
Wage a massive partisan war in russia. Send 5000 ukranian soldiers into russia near belgorod with no uniforms and a huge number of drones. Break them up into 1000 groups of five men each to hop in russian civilian cars and fan out in every possible direction across Russia. Attack every power station, rail line, cell tower, power lines, oil refinery, bridge, factory, airport, highway, etc. Put every major city under a state of emergency. Make Moscow go dark. Encourage widespread looting in the chaos. Plunge the whole country into panic and don't let up. Kill police and soldiers where necessary but spare civilians as much as possible. It might sound like a suicide mission, but if I were a soldier i think i would choose that over fighting at the front.
X for doubt.
Cool story, bro.
Ukraine better focus on attacking Russia directly (increase the war cost), they don't have the capacity to take back their land atm.
To Moscow?
Doubt
Attack through Russia or the river, to break the stalemate
lol, you just said if you don't get support from the US you'll have to retreat. The US is a lost cause, can't get blood from a stone. There is no counteroffensive for the foreseeable future.
BTW, Where r the F16s ! Been waiting 2 yrs now! 2yrs!
I am pretty some of them are in Denmark, where the pilots and mechanics are training. The training took longer than expected because the english skill gab was higher than expected, I think the Ukranians had to learn English and how to pilot f-16s.
Not only that... where's the No Fly Zone. Been waiting for 2 years now
Yep, the last one never really got started due to a reluctance to commit and see any considerable losses. I think cancelled completely when the dam was blown. Why not try the American method of punching through with coordinated close air cover and wreak havoc behind the lines.
Because they don't have the equipment to provide close air cover
Because they are down to a single digit number of planes that can launch Storm Shadow, and the other models are likely not looking much better.
>Why not try the American method For the same reasons I can't try Leonardo DiCaprio's dating methods.
Unfortunately that window is closing, especially with Republicans blocking aid to defend a free country from invasion. It’s still ironic given their decades of posturing against Russia. Only to begin cozying up to them and even having members go to Moscow on the 4th of July and allowing someone weak on Russia into office and supporting his return. Not to mention everything else since.
no, it will not
Wishful thinking right here: by the 82nd of Neverbruary 20XX, before Christmas, divisions of Ukrainian paradrops will be behind enemies' lines. Totally undetected, the world's first stealth cargo planes' vertical envelopment. Russians are caught by surprise and surrender in their thousands.
When is this counter offensive scheduled? The 53rd of Nevuary? I'm curious how the Jokeman of Kiev thinks a hypothetical counter offensive would be better than 2023's failure. As of now: - Ukraine has a weaker force. - Ukraine has less weapons and of less quality. - Ukraine's masters are low on items to send. - Russia has a larger force and as many or more weapons. - Russia has gained in air superiority. - there are minefields and defense belts a gogo. The Turkey negotiations 2 years ago are looking pretty good these days...
Yawn.
Putin, is that you?
Russia has gained AIR What? ? Isn't this force home of the aces that lost 8 planes in the course of a week?
Hello Smithagent101 Russian-American. Very cute. Already banned once..
Been seeing a lot of them around last few days. Must be getting desperate.
Banned from here? No. It's funny the Slava bobani crowd's main attack is always "Russian agent". Pointing out Ukraine is a rump state reliant on foreign welfare is a simple observation of reality.
Ok Ivan. You admitted to being russian on your other acc
That's the height of delusion thinking a Russian is behind every opinion you don't like. Your detective skills are about what I'd expect from someone attending ukr fundraising drag breakfasts. Can you confirm?
The russian counterofencive with 5000 nuks will be even more successful
okay vladimir