What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
15,884
377
15,448
Country
China
Location
Australia
That is why Lyman is extremely important to the Ukrainian.

Unlike our bud @925boy here, who know nothing about MIlitary and Warfare. Lyman held the key access route North-South and East-West to the rest of Luhansk. There are only 3 Cities in this region have major access road (MSR) to all 4 directions, those are Kupiansk, Lyman and Starobilsk. Those are the center of Gravity of he entire Northern East, Ukraine, taking them will basically take the entire NE Ukraine

This is also seen how different Ukraine and Russia persecute this war. Ukraine tries to manoeuvre around and attack the center of gravity, while Russia wastes their resource and try to take every town, regardless of significancy they encounter, they dump too many resources to try and take Sieverodonetsk, and now Bakhmut, this is going to blow back to them in a simple military point of view.
 

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 14, 2008
14,570
-5
16,430
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
If HiMARS or any MRLS were the solution then Russia would have the whole of Ukraine by now. People seeming to be mixing fact and fiction, yes NATO supported Ukraine is counter attacking , in any war a counter attack would be expected and no army worth its salt wouldn't counter attack. . How Russia deals with the the Ukrainian counter attack and how Russia absorbs it are the keys. In WW2 Russia lost 60 Million people but still won the war. Russia has defined it's position and has declared an area to fight for which is a good step towards ending the war. Best for Ukraine to negotiate a settlement before it gets uglier.
 

Ali_Baba

SENIOR MEMBER
May 27, 2018
4,839
0
6,666
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
If HiMARS or any MRLS were the solution then Russia would have the whole of Ukraine by now. People seeming to be mixing fact and fiction, yes NATO supported Ukraine is counter attacking , in any war a counter attack would be expected and no army worth its salt wouldn't counter attack. . How Russia deals with the the Ukrainian counter attack and how Russia absorbs it are the keys. In WW2 Russia lost 60 Million people but still won the war. Russia has defined it's position and has declared an area to fight for which is a good step towards ending the war. Best for Ukraine to negotiate a settlement before it gets uglier.

Russia of WW2 is not the Russia of today ....

You must remember, those losses in WW2 were incurred when the Germans invaded Russia. Now, it is the Russians who are the aggressors and those mobilised for this from Russia war are not fighting to protect and evict invades from their homeland, - but to satisfy Putins ego in a foreign land ....
 

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
15,884
377
15,448
Country
China
Location
Australia
If HiMARS or any MRLS were the solution then Russia would have the whole of Ukraine by now. People seeming to be mixing fact and fiction, yes NATO supported Ukraine is counter attacking , in any war a counter attack would be expected and no army worth its salt wouldn't counter attack. . How Russia deals with the the Ukrainian counter attack and how Russia absorbs it are the keys. In WW2 Russia lost 60 Million people but still won the war. Russia has defined it's position and has declared an area to fight for which is a good step towards ending the war. Best for Ukraine to negotiate a settlement before it gets uglier.
The problem is would the Ukrainian settle?

Look at it at a Military Point of view. It didn't take much to know Ukraine is on the High, Russia is on the low at least for now. Now I can't see into the future, maybe the 300,000 untrained conscript Putin is going to send may make a different? Most likely not. Which mean at this point Ukraine don't have an incentive to make Russia settle. Russia may want to settle this because they are in the "Negative Military Position" or "Negative Outcome" (Watch Siege of Jadotville if you want to know what that mean) Which mean it serve nothing for Ukrainian to settle at this point. But it will give Russia a breather to settle at this point, which mean Ukraine not likely to ask for one.

Look at it at a Political Point of view. What can Ukraine get from a settlement? Whatever Russia said they will do they had done it, with the exception of using Nuke, which as explained before, if they want to use nuke, they don't need to wait til those oblast to be annexed first. So basically, all the move are already expanded, which mean in a political bargaining chip sense, the only thing Russia can offer is that they stop doing that. But then would Ukrainian trust that, solely on Russian word? It didn't take a genius to know they won't, which mean if a settlement is going to make, there have to be some kind of Security Guarantee that can be binding and offered to Ukraine. There are literally only one way, that's for Ukraine to join NATO, because EU does not compel member state to fight if one were attack, only NATO does that, every other C2C defence pact is non-binding. Which beg the question, would Russia be okay to have Ukraine in NATO? I don't really think so.

So as far as I see, both side don't want a negotiation, and as far as I see, this war will most likely decided on a battlefield.
 

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 14, 2008
14,570
-5
16,430
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
The problem is would the Ukrainian settle?

Look at it at a Military Point of view. It didn't take much to know Ukraine is on the High, Russia is on the low at least for now. Now I can't see into the future, maybe the 300,000 untrained conscript Putin is going to send may make a different? Most likely not. Which mean at this point Ukraine don't have an incentive to make Russia settle. Russia may want to settle this because they are in the "Negative Military Position" or "Negative Outcome" (Watch Siege of Jadotville if you want to know what that mean) Which mean it serve nothing for Ukrainian to settle at this point. But it will give Russia a breather to settle at this point, which mean Ukraine not likely to ask for one.

Look at it at a Political Point of view. What can Ukraine get from a settlement? Whatever Russia said they will do they had done it, with the exception of using Nuke, which as explained before, if they want to use nuke, they don't need to wait til those oblast to be annexed first. So basically, all the move are already expanded, which mean in a political bargaining chip sense, the only thing Russia can offer is that they stop doing that. But then would Ukrainian trust that, solely on Russian word? It didn't take a genius to know they won't, which mean if a settlement is going to make, there have to be some kind of Security Guarantee that can be binding and offered to Ukraine. There are literally only one way, that's for Ukraine to join NATO, because EU does not compel member state to fight if one were attack, only NATO does that, every other C2C defence pact is non-binding. Which beg the question, would Russia be okay to have Ukraine in NATO? I don't really think so.

So as far as I see, both side don't want a negotiation, and as far as I see, this war will most likely decided on a battlefield.
Well since Ukraine has nothing to lose then why don't they join NATO? Best time is now as Russian army is so weak, which will allow NATO to send planes and soldiers in?
 

Viet

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 18, 2012
27,996
0
19,973
Country
Viet Nam
Location
Germany
Lyman felt, then next is Svatove, that's the key town which run MSR North-South, after Lyman, you are looking at 8 Brigades (32,000 men) facing off a degraded Russian division around 15,000, depends on how many Russian escaped Lyman, sources said up to 5,000 are trapped in Lyman, while I will say this is a bit optimistic, I will say if this is true, you are looking at 30,000 Ukrainian against 10,000 scatted Russian along Svatove - Kreminna Line. That will be going to be another rout.

And after Svatove, Ukrianian target will no doubt be Starobilsk, which is what they really want, took Starobilsk and you take the rest of Northern Luchansk and threaten Luchansk City.


How about 2 years down the road? 5 years down the road? I have been saying all these since the beginning of the war 7 months ago, how about you really go remember what I said 3 to 6 months ago to see whether my prediction became true? I said US is going to send HIMARS back when HIMARS wasn't even known here on PDF. I said Ukraine is going to make Counter Offensive in the East when Russian still fighting for control in Sieverdonetsk back in May, I said Kherson counter offensive seems obvious for a distraction before they have been saying that for a long time back in August when Zelenskyy was talking about it before actually doing it in August. How many times I have been right since the beginning of the war?

PLEASE, DO FEEL FREE TO LOOK UP WHAT I SAID 3 TO 6 MONTHS AGO AND REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT I AM RIGTH. On the other hand, have you getting any right decision?

People have to be really dumb to buy what Putin said WHEN ALL THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL. Sure, according to him everything is A-OK since March to September as he said, "That's not a retreat, that's a planned troop movement, everything is going according to plan." How many times did he or that dude from MOD said that in the last 6 months. But then who call a general mobilisation on September 21? Sure, we lost 6000 soldiers, and everything is fine, I am just calling up 300,000 reserve who I send to the front line with 5 days of training and create a border issue where more men left Russia then the people I send to this war at the end of February. Sure, everything is A-OK according to him.

Man, you people are really gullible.
What’s with Kherson? Ukraine should repeat the Lyman moment, not let Russians escape the encirclement. 20,000 Russians will try to break out and link up the eastern river bank.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 6, Members: 2, Guests: 4)


Top Bottom