This is the worst day of the war : memes

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Maybe somebody can explain to me what the significance of the Ukrainian push is precisely. It looks like Russians realized that they did not have enough forces to hold both Kherson and Kharkov regions, and they chose to withdraw from Kharkov rather than lose troops there.

It's worth noting that the Ukrainian troops are no longer in fortified defensive positions and their lines of communication to support the forward troops are now defined precisely. The Ukrainian attack has not destroyed nor disrupted Russia’s air, artillery, rocket and missile assets, and Russians have sent reinforcements and will most likely launch a counter offensive once their forces are consolidated. Once there is actual engagement between the armies we'll see what happens, and if Kherson offensive is anything to go by then it's not likely to go well for Ukraine.

[–] UnreliantGiant@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Kupyansk is a critical node to supply Izyum and Lyman. Russia did heavy fighting for weeks to take these two cities and constantly launched attacks from there, binding a lot of Ukrainian troops. With Kupyansk gone, Izyum is fully cut off (and already confirmed taken) and Lyman is now very difficult to access for Russians (rail access is gone and the major roads lead to ukrainian held territory) as only small side streets are left for the Russians. Proper logistics to Lyman are pretty much impossible now and it's a matter of time until Russia has to leave it too. Rail access to Severodonetsk is also gone, but it can still be supplied through Svatove, so I don't think it will change hands soon (unless the rumours of Russians abandoning Svatove are true, which I doubt at this moment).

I also doubt Russia will counterattack anything in Kharkiv in the near future. They announced fully retreating from Kharkiv oblast and there's already confirmations of ukrainian troops in cities/villages north of Kharkiv even though they shouldn't be really affected by the attack on Kupyansk. They might hold on to the east of the Oskil river though, in an attempt to keep Severodonetsk

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Kupyansk is a critical node to supply Izyum and Lyman.

You'll have to elaborate on what exactly makes Izyum and Lyman strategically important in this war. Especially in a short term exchange of hands given that Ukraine was able to take this territory because Russia chose to withdraw troops. This is reminiscent of the the first Kharkov offensive when Ukraine rolled up to the border did some photo ops and then left.

The failed offensive in Kherson seems like a much bigger story to me since that's where actual combat happened and Ukraine sustained heavy losses without managing to gain any territory to speak of. Russians are currently consolidating the forces they withdrew and reinforcing them with fresh troops. That is a very likely indication that they're preparing a counteroffensive. People seem to be counting their chickens before they hatch here.

I also doubt Russia will counterattack anything in Kharkiv in the near future.

I expect Russia will consolidate its gains in Kherson and Donbas before looking at taking Kharkov. Donbas is where the main front is, and fighting there hasn't let up with Russians along with LPR and DPR making steady gains there. That seems to me like the most important front to watch.

[–] UnreliantGiant@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The Kharkiv offensive won't decide the outcome of the entire war of course. But with how little the front has moved in the last two months, this sudden change is pretty big. It was also very unexpected because everyone kept talking about Kherson before. Every bit of territory matters to Ukraine, and I guess they saw this was the most lightly defended part.

You’ll have to elaborate on what exactly makes Izyum and Lyman strategically important in this war

Izyum and Lyman provide an additional axis to attack Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. (Successfully) attacking from that direction and from the east could have allowed Russia to encircle and therefore conquer a large part of Donetsk Oblast. Now they can only attack from the mostly heavily fortified east. Taking Donetsk Oblast was one of their big plans, right? Well it just became much harder. Also Luhansk is now open to attack from the west, with the only big defense being the Oskil river. That's where the main front is, right? Luhansk and Donetsk Oblast, the Donbass region?

Also there was a lot of equipment left behind. Russia still has a lot of tanks at home, but it still hurts, especially when the enemy is able to make use of it. Lots of POWs as well.

LPR and DPR making steady gains

What did they gain in the last two months? Pisky? With all 6 inhabitants? Their area gains are miniscule compared to what just happened in a span of days.

Kherson

Russia had no gains in Kherson for a while now and some small area losses. The fight there is extremely expensive for both sides, but Kherson is currently in a similar situation as Severodonetsk was a few months ago, just with the sides switched. There are no working bridges over the Dnieper, making supplies extremely difficult because they have to be ferried over the river. And those ferries are constantly harassed by HIMARS strikes. With no hope for properly supplying the area, it is basically already lost. It's just a matter of time, and Ukraine has the logistical advantage

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

But with how little the front has moved in the last two months, this sudden change is pretty big. I

Once again, I fail to see the strategic importance of this change. Ukraine did a big push on two fronts. Russia chose to hold in Kherson, and to withdraw around Kharkov. I'm not seeing how this improves the situation for Ukraine anymore than their last Kharkov offensive that was rolled back within weeks.

Every bit of territory matters to Ukraine, and I guess they saw this was the most lightly defended part.

Taking territory is only meaningful if you can hold it. Ukraine was able to take it because Russia chose to withdraw. If Russia consolidates and counter attacks then Ukraine will be in exact same position Russia was in when they held it.

Now they can only attack from the mostly heavily fortified east.

Again, this hinges on Ukraine being able to actually hold this territory.

Well it just became much harder.

Except it hasn't because as I've explained above, Ukraine is in no better position to hold this territory than Russia was. As you yourself pointed out, it's lightly defended.

Also there was a lot of equipment left behind. Russia still has a lot of tanks at home, but it still hurts, especially when the enemy is able to make use of it. Lots of POWs as well.

I haven't seen any credible reports regarding this. A lot of stuff that's been shown on social media turned out to be Ukrainian equipment or from other battles. Pretty much every account suggests that Russians did an orderly and strategic withdrawal.

What did they gain in the last two months? Pisky? With all 6 inhabitants? Their area gains are miniscule compared to what just happened in a span of days.

This is a war of attrition. Ukraine is losing anywhere from 100 to 500 troops each and every day by their own admission. They're also unable to replace their military equipment or ammunition. Ukraine is not able to sustain this for much longer, and western support is not sufficient to replace what they're losing.

The fight there is extremely expensive for both sides, but Kherson is currently in a similar situation as Severodonetsk was a few months ago, just with the sides switched.

Even western media admits that the fighting is far more expensive on the Ukrainian side because Russia has massive artillery and air superiority over Ukraine.

And those ferries are constantly harassed by HIMARS strikes. With no hope for properly supplying the area, it is basically already lost. It’s just a matter of time, and Ukraine has the logistical advantage

So far there is zero evidence that HIMARS have made any strategic impact on combat. Also worth noting that Russia has hundreds of MLRS systems comparable to HIMARS, if this is what wins the war then Russia has a huge advantage here.

[–] UnreliantGiant@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

Wow you're still just as funny as you were last time I talked to you

Taking territory is only meaningful if you can hold it

Correct. And they absolutely can hold it. On the first try it took Russia months to take it, and I don't see how they can do that again, given all the troops that were involved are now in Kherson. But I guess we'll just have to see.

orderly and strategic withdrawal.

Lol no. Literally just take a look at https://twitter.com/UAWeapons and you'll see tons of abandoned and destroyed Russian vehicles. They were completely overwhelmed in Kharkiv and did not plan this. Of course it's not all precisely geolocatable but it has to come from somewhere.

This is a war of attrition

Correct. And majority of the Russian army is in Kherson with their back towards a river with no bridges. Supplies are limited and they are unable to move a meaningful amount of vehicles in or out of Kherson. This is completely unsustainable in the long term.

Even western media admits that the fighting is far more expensive on the Ukrainian side

It sure is expensive. But Kherson has tied so many russian resources that Ukraine now managed to steamroll through Kharkiv. It doesn't matter whether Kharkiv was just an orderly retreat (it wasn't) or a "sign of goodwill" (it wasn't) or a rout (it was), Ukraine just wants their territory back. And there is "steady" progress on Kherson too, at least more steady than LDPR progress on Pisky and Bakhmut

zero evidence that HIMARS have made any strategic impact

HIMARS is the reason Russian logistics are completely fucked in Kherson. It's also the reason for the rise in "smoking accidents" in ammo dumps on Russian occupied territory.

Russia has [..] MLRS systems comparable to HIMARS

So in Russias hands they do have strategic impact? Also please tell me the name. I'm looking for something with about 80km range, less than 10m deviation at max range, and which is actually used by Russia. So far I have only seen them use Kalibrs for comparable targets, and those are much more expensive than HIMARS rockets and easier to intercept. It's also questionable how many of those are still left.

I'm done with this thread, we both know this discussion won't reach a conclusion. I'm interested to see where our points will stand in another 6 months

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago

Literally just take a look at

Explains a lot about your position given that you get your info from an Ukrainian propaganda account on Twitter 😂

And majority of the Russian army is in Kherson with their back towards a river with no bridges. Supplies are limited and they are unable to move a meaningful amount of vehicles in or out of Kherson. This is completely unsustainable in the long term.

Weird that Ukraine isn't making gains there if Russians are in such a dire position isn't it.

It sure is expensive. But Kherson has tied so many russian resources that Ukraine now managed to steamroll through Kharkiv.

Yes, Ukraine managed to steamroll uncontested territory. Quite the tour de force there just like the first Kharkov offensive.

HIMARS is the reason Russian logistics are completely fucked in Kherson. It’s also the reason for the rise in “smoking accidents” in ammo dumps on Russian occupied territory.

Except that there is zero indication that HIMARS played any role in Kherson or that Russian logistics are having any problems there. Meanwhile, attacks in Crimea were carried out by drones. Ukraine doesn't even have HIMARS missiles with the range to hit Crimea.

So in Russias hands they do have strategic impact?

What I actually said was that If HIMARS type systems make a strategic impact then Russia has an advantage in this area by virtue of having an order of magnitude more MLRS systems.

I’m done with this thread, we both know this discussion won’t reach a conclusion. I’m interested to see where our points will stand in another 6 months

Good, let's see what actually happens since it's pretty clear we're not going to convince each other of anything here.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] uthredii@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The significance is that Ukraine recaptured land in days that took Russia months.

This has shown that Ukraine is able to leverage superior weapons, moral and intelligence to achieve large gains.

Or do you believe this is what Russia wants and is all part of a plan?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago (9 children)

That's not significant at all because the Russians chose not to contest this territory. If Ukraine defeated Russian military to take this land then that would indeed be very significant. The only thing this shows is that Russians aren't throwing their troops into a meat grinder for media gains the way Ukraine did in Kherson.

[–] uthredii@beehaw.org 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hopefully they will 'decide not to contest' more territory soon.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago

Seems highly unlikely.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] Awoo@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Not much evidence of russian troop captures, deaths or armour taken/destroyed in this "offensive". Kinda makes me think Russia just abandoned the area and let Ukraine take it with no real losses. This stands out compared to the repelled Kiev offensive North West of Kiev many months ago where we had a lot of content come out showing destroyed russian armour, captured troops etc.

Occupying land does not by itself achieve very much if your opponent does not fight for it.

I am very concerned for the civilians of these areas who were being told by the Ukrainians as the Russians took the area that if they accepted supplies, aid or the Russian occupation they would be treated as enemies of Ukraine. They are probably in significant danger now.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the destruction of the tank conga line that was obviously supposed to go storm Kyiv was the worst for Russia, though I suppose that wasn't a single day. So yeah, maybe worst single day.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You might need to provide some citations for this fantastical event you're citing here.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh, I know you've fully bought the Kremlin's line about the tanks being some brilliant strategic move to keep the Ukrainian armed forces split instead of a move to overthrow the government. But yeah, I'd say loosing hundreds of tanks and many Russian lives in a failed offensive was pretty bad, and no amount of spin about "strategic realignment" can mask that.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've simply asked you to provide a reference to the alleged destruction of the Russian column that was doing a fixing operation around Kiev. Show me a single credible source supporting the claim of Russia losing hundreds of tanks there.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Okay, so any exact numbers are hard to come by. A few things factors make it difficult: impure motives of various parties, lack of verification,

Russia claimed no casualties in the opening period of the war until that claim was no longer sustainable.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces claimed 1000 tanks destroyed. It's not clear where the Kyiv Independent is citing to exactly. My guess is that they were inflating statistics, but it's not inconceivable. Russia's formations opened them up to attack.

The UK came out with similar figures, but it's aggregate figures without the backing proof. I doubt you will consider the UK a credible source.

This analysis seems to be the most methodical and transparent. It gives an estimate of over 1000 tanks destroyed as of the end of February. After a cursory glance over the contents, it looks like they've done a good job at using open source intel to produce their numbers. The source is definitely pro-Western, but given it's backing its data with credible evidence I consider the results credible.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (39 children)

Ukrainian armed forces have been consistently lying about everything from ghost of Kiev to snake island. Their reports are highly unreliable and cannot be taken seriously. I'm also not sure why we'd consider UK source credible either to be honest.

This analysis seems to be the most methodical and transparent.

This analysis looks incredibly speculative based on rather questionable methodology actually. If Russia lost over a 1000 tanks since February the war would've been long over.

It's obvious that there are losses on both sides, however pretty much every actual report shows that this is predominantly an artillery battle and Russia has massive artillery superiority over Ukraine. This channel has been doing good coverage of the conflict using western sources, and I recommend checking it out for a different perspective on the conflict.

load more comments (39 replies)

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But it's not a war!

[–] VinesNFluff@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Tbh I'm scared Putin will just say fuck it and hit the nuke button.

He is crazy enough.

Memes

Rules: