Ukraine counter offensive have failed

[nahtanbob]

Ukrainians will be getting F Solas soon, let's see if that makes any difference in their fortunes.


And what will draining Russia conventional military strength accomplish? It's not like another country will take advantage of depleted Russian conventional defences and invade...

To prevent another Russian invasion of another country

since you are asking logical questions what has Russia accomplished by attacking Ukraine ?

Indeed.

One of the main reasons the Ukrainian Air Force has been able to stay in the fight is its ability to move its aircraft around the country and still have the enough airstrips with stocked supplies capable of sustaining air combat operations.

Top Ukraine War Lessons From USAF's Commander In Europe

The 542-day-old war in Ukraine offers some stark lessons for how the U.S. and NATO might have to fight a war in Europe in the future.

www.thedrive.com

This is but one example.

Ukrainian ground forces were barely visible in the first month of the war but they are challenging Russian ground forces out in the open and on a scale that mujhaideen in Afghanistan never could. Ukrainian ground forces do not have much to show in tanks but they are making excellent use of artillery systems including HIMARS in ongoing clashes.

On the other hand, Russians have exceeded all expectations in terms of challenging Ukrainian forces. If Russia had shown this much commitment to war in Afghanistan, it would have defeated mujahideen and turned Afghanistan into a Russian colony. Russian army might be much stronger than Soviet army of the 1980s though.

Afghanistan is a huge country. Soviets committed only 130,000-150,000 troops. Soviets occupied most of Afghanistan. In Ukraine Russians have made little gains. They barely hold 15% of Ukraine.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Indeed.

One of the main reasons the Ukrainian Air Force has been able to stay in the fight is its ability to move its aircraft around the country and still have the enough airstrips with stocked supplies capable of sustaining air combat operations.

Top Ukraine War Lessons From USAF's Commander In Europe

The 542-day-old war in Ukraine offers some stark lessons for how the U.S. and NATO might have to fight a war in Europe in the future.

www.thedrive.com

This is but one example.

Ukrainian ground forces were barely visible in the first month of the war but they are challenging Russian ground forces out in the open and on a scale that mujhaideen in Afghanistan never could. Ukrainian ground forces do not have much to show in tanks but they are making excellent use of artillery systems including HIMARS in ongoing clashes.

On the other hand, Russians have exceeded all expectations in terms of challenging Ukrainian forces. If Russia had shown this much commitment to war in Afghanistan, it would have defeated mujahideen and turned Afghanistan into a Russian colony. Russian army might be much stronger than Soviet army of the 1980s though.

This is not easy when you have big enemy like Russia, while you didn't invade but you have to defend the country against aggressors. It needs big heart,courage, brave people to fight Big country like Russia for your family.

18+
Inside a Ukrainian battlefield hospital by New York times (YouTube)

 

[SaadH]

To prevent another Russian invasion of another country

since you are asking logical questions what has Russia accomplished by attacking Ukraine ?

Secured it's western borders, liberated Russia speaking population of Ukraine and more importantly initiated the premature end of dollar hegemony.

 

[Paji]

Secured it's western borders, liberated Russia speaking population of Ukraine and more importantly initiated the premature end of dollar hegemony.

Russia has lost far more than it has gained in the war. It would have been a Russian victory only if they had taken Kiev and installed a puppet government within a month and if Europe and the rest of the world had accepted this as a fait accompli like they did for the occupation of Crimea. As things turned out, it has been a geopolitical disaster for Russia. They have lost hundreds of thousands to injury and death in battle, many more skilled young men and their families have fled the country to avoid conscription, they are isolated diplomatically and being forced to buy weapons and ammo from the likes of North Korea and Iran. The economic infrastructure is collapsing. They have lost their most profitable gas market, probably forever and even once dependable arms customers like India and Armenia are now looking at other options. The former CIS republics in Central Asia have effectively been lost to Chinese/ western influence now .

 

[jhungary]

And what will draining Russia conventional military strength accomplish? It's not like another country will take advantage of depleted Russian conventional defences and invade...

Do you think this war is going to end this year?

The war is going to drag on for 2 or maybe 3 more years, so by depleting Russia conventional military capability, they are trying to win the war next year or maybe the year after.

The combat loss of power on both side is immense, but Ukraine mainly depends on Western Equipment and the West had not even dip into their reserve stock yet. So degrading Russian military capability help them win the war, that's the ultimate objective, not winning a counter offensive.

On the other hand, I wouldn't say Ukraine counteroffensive had failed all their objective, if Ukraine take Robotyne (Which is very likely as they took 60-70% of that city), it put the entire Russian southern front in jeopardy because Tokmak is only 20km away and Melitopol is only 75km away, well within the artillery and HIMARS range from Ukrainian artillery. And tokmak itself is an anchor of the entire southern front. If Ukraine can put artillery/HIMARS on both Tokmak and Melitopol, they can stave the supplies with the entire southern Russian front, like what they did to Kherson back in November last year

 

[jhungary]

Russia has lost far more than it has gained in the war. It would have been a Russian victory only if they had taken Kiev and installed a puppet government within a month and if Europe and the rest of the world had accepted this as a fait accompli like they did for the occupation of Crimea. As things turned out, it has been a geopolitical disaster for Russia. They have lost hundreds of thousands to injury and death in battle, many more skilled young men and their families have fled the country to avoid conscription, they are isolated diplomatically and being forced to buy weapons and ammo from the likes of North Korea and Iran. The economic infrastructure is collapsing. They have lost their most profitable gas market, probably forever and even once dependable arms customers like India and Armenia are now looking at other options. The former CIS republics in Central Asia have effectively been lost to Chinese/ western influence now .

The problem is, Russian gain are done mostly by the onset of war. In which Ukraine weren't prepared for an invasion, no western equipment, no western help, no M777, no HIMARS, no Storm Shadow and no Western Tank, only TB2 and Javelin, and they stopped the Russian invasion stone cold 35 clicks out from Kyiv, THAT, was Russian best chance.

Now with Russia digging defensive line on an offensive operation, it indicated Russia is going to sit this one out because if they want to attack again, they would have to go thru the same defensive line they made, and just because it's Russian who dig those trenches and lay those mind does not mean those thing, which hinder the Ukrainian offensive, would not affect the Russian themselves when they decide to have another go. Which mean there are likely no to negligible gain for Russia for a foreseeable future.

On the other hand, it make you wonder what it would be like if Ukraine had the West Support before the war and was prepared for an invasion like this.

 

[nahtanbob]

Secured it's western borders, liberated Russia speaking population of Ukraine and more importantly initiated the premature end of dollar hegemony.

Secure Western borders from whom ? If anything NATO has gotten bigger with two capable small countries

In 2014 they already occupied couple of Russian dominated oblasts.

What dollar hegemony ? There is nothing in Ukraine to undermine dollar hegemony

they have alienated their Ukrainian cousins for a long time

 

[Paji]

On the other hand, it make you wonder what it would be like if Ukraine had the West Support before the war and was prepared for an invasion like this.

Before the war, Western support was all from America. The French, Germans and other West Europeans did not want to jeopardize their business dealings with Russia and did not believe Putin would act so recklessly. CIA assessment was that Ukraine would fall within weeks and they did not want to give Ukrainians advanced weapons that would fall into Russian hands and America was more militarily invested in Afghanistan anyway. And any arming of Ukraine beyond a threshold risked pre-empting a Russian invasion. So, while your question is rhetorically interesting, I don't see a practical scenario in which things would have been done very differently.

 

[nahtanbob]

Before the war, Western support was all from America. The French, Germans and other West Europeans did not want to jeopardize their business dealings with Russia and did not believe Putin would act so recklessly. CIA assessment was that Ukraine would fall within weeks and they did not want to give Ukrainians advanced weapons that would fall into Russian hands and America was more militarily invested in Afghanistan anyway. And any arming of Ukraine beyond a threshold risked pre-empting a Russian invasion. So, while your question is rhetorically interesting, I don't see a practical scenario in which things would have been done very differently.

I think Putin was nuts attacking Ukraine

 

[jhungary]

Before the war, Western support was all from America. The French, Germans and other West Europeans did not want to jeopardize their business dealings with Russia and did not believe Putin would act so recklessly. CIA assessment was that Ukraine would fall within weeks and they did not want to give Ukrainians advanced weapons that would fall into Russian hands and America was more militarily invested in Afghanistan anyway. And any arming of Ukraine beyond a threshold risked pre-empting a Russian invasion. So, while your question is rhetorically interesting, I don't see a practical scenario in which things would have been done very differently.

It really depends.

As I said, Ukraine was not really prepared for this war when the Russian invaded. More preparation does not mean more arms, they could have call up reserve a year or two prior or make sensible purchase (they do have arms deal with selected country before the invasion, not all of them are aid)

The issue here is, most of what Ukraine felt to Russia were done without a fight, either from a governor/mayor that is sympathised with Russia (or even working under them) or they see no point of fighting as they can't hold off, either they think support is not enough or troop are not enough. That give way to Russian easy take over on some oblast (Kherson mayor abandoned Kherson city after 5 days of siege, Kupiansk mayor literally gave way to Russian force and handed the city without a fight and so on) Those are probably going to change if Ukraine were more prepared, every inch of soil losses require 3 times the effort to get it back, and the Ukrainian loses a lot of ground during the beginning phase, almost 90% (beside Crimea and Donbas before the war) of russian occupied Ukraine were made during that 2 months between Feb-April 2022.

I would say the frontline and landscape would have been a lot difference had Ukraine prepared for the attack.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Now that this has become a long drawn war of attrition, I fail to see how Russia can benefit. The drain on their economy must be immense. And any victory will probably be pyrrhic.

It's more likely to be Afghanistan redux. The Afghanistan war was a significant contributor to ending USSR. Let's see what this one does to Putin's Russia.

 

[jhungary]

Now that this has become a long drawn war of attrition, I fail to see how Russia can benefit. The drain on their economy must be immense. And any victory will probably be pyrrhic.

It's more likely to be Afghanistan redux. The Afghanistan war was a significant contributor to ending USSR. Let's see what this one does to Putin's Russia.

It's ALWAYS a long drawn out war of Attrition, it's how smaller country win a war with a big country throughout the course of history, it's how the Allied of Germanic Tribe defeated the Roman back in 16AD, and then you have Vietnam, Afghanistan and so on, you don't expect the smaller country to outright win a quick victory against a larger foe, I mean even Russia is not that incompetent.

For Russia, a win is nothing less than either Kyiv capitulate or they conquered Kyiv, I think we can all agree this is not going to happen judging from the progress of this war. So there are no prospect for a sounded Russian victory, what we can see now is whether or not Russia can hold on to their gain, or Ukraine can recover all their ground. Spending 19 months on a campaign to take less than 20% of Ukraine is no victories for Russia, even if they can hold on to them.

 

[kingQamaR]

I pretty much expected it to be a slog. Ukraine doesn't have the air power for a blitzkrieg or a desert storm type of advance so it's going to be a slog ww1 or Iran-Iraq war. Not to mention Russia had over a year fortify these positions.

 

[nahtanbob]

It's ALWAYS a long drawn out war of Attrition, it's how smaller country win a war with a big country throughout the course of history, it's how the Allied of Germanic Tribe defeated the Roman back in 16AD, and then you have Vietnam, Afghanistan and so on, you don't expect the smaller country to outright win a quick victory against a larger foe, I mean even Russia is not that incompetent.

For Russia, a win is nothing less than either Kyiv capitulate or they conquered Kyiv, I think we can all agree this is not going to happen judging from the progress of this war. So there are no prospect for a sounded Russian victory, what we can see now is whether or not Russia can hold on to their gain, or Ukraine can recover all their ground. Spending 19 months on a campaign to take less than 20% of Ukraine is no victories for Russia, even if they can hold on to them.

holding 20% of Ukraine is a military victory. But it is a political disaster.

 

[jhungary]

holding 20% of Ukraine is a military victory. But it is a political disaster.

Not 20%, as that would included Donbas (pre-2022) and Crimea, so from 2022, Russian may be gaining around 9-11%, which some of them already rolled back.

and if they are holding that at the onset, maybe, not 19 months down the road. It's a military diaster for Russia, because in deployment term, the goal they should have aimed at is taken Kyiv and already reaching the eastern bank of Dnipro river. Which mean 50% of Ukraine should have fallen to Russia if Russian plan were to materialised.

Now with that 20% which gain mostly small town and empty land, and very pronged to be counterattacked. I don't think any military leader in Russia, hell, any military leader in the world wanted the Situation Russia had in Ukraine right now. It's as we said, a cluster-****