Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?

[Battlefront.com]

Fair enough sir. I was not aware of the forum's policy on discussing Crimea so please accept my apologies. Rules are rules!

Not a problem at all! Crimea isn't a forbidding topic, it's just off topic for this thread. If we don't stick to some parameters we could find ourselves debating if Ukraine is even a country to start with, as I've seen that happen!

The point I made above was designed to show why it is important not to allow the snowball to start rolling down the avalanche prone mountain You didn't start it going and I was also tempted to respond to it, even though I'm the one that said we need to stay on topic

However, if you do want to debate it further; please feel free to PM me. It's always nice to hear from you even though we happen to disagree on this matter very strongly.

I've had the debate several times before and I don't think much would differ for a new one. Although I do not want this to distract the thread, I think I owe it to you to simply say I have an informed opinion that it is not as cut and dried as you stated. That being said, I think after many rounds of debate we would find find ourselves in fundamental agreement that if there had been a free and fair vote last Spring that it would have been favorable to annexation. Since I think we only differ about the degree and reasons for the support I'm content to leave it there.

Steve

[DreDay]

Imagine separatist and Russian military saying even 1/10th of this on Russian prime time media. You'd need a very good imagination to picture that!

Or maybe you could just get a Russian translator and not push your imagination too far... There have been quite a few reports of heavy casualties incurred by rebel forces in Russian and Rebel media, including whole programs dedicated to those rebel fighters that had perished or got maimed in fighting. Of course you would never hear them referring to Russian military proper in this context for the obvious reasons. But then again, they don't appear to have suffered anything close to the humiliating defeats that were inflicted on Ukrainian forces in the summer and winter campaigns either...

[DreDay]

Steve, I completely agree and accept your post on Crimea. Let's not beat on a dead horse again. Thank you for keeping our discussion on point!

[Battlefront.com]

I don't want to dwell on this too much either, but I fail to see how a frontal assault on fortified urban area (which had only occurred after capturing the key positions around it, btw..) would be any easier than other kinds of operations without suppressing enemy artillery first.

That's my point. They tried those things for MONTHS and they failed. Then they made a huge effort to pinch off the pocket at the neck during the January offensive. That failed quite miserably, largely because of Ukrainian artillery. So they instead direct assaulted Debaltseve because Ukrainian artillery could not respond. Simply put, it was out of range. Sure, the Debaltseve forces had a very small amount of medium caliber towed artillery and mortars, but compared to what was on the separatist/Russian side it was like fighting a war with a pistol against someone with a machinegun.

The switch to direct assault on Debaltseve was a very sound, pragmatic change of plan for the separatist/Russian side of things. In war you attack where your enemy is weakest, not where it is strongest. The only thing is a direct assault is more costly in terms of casualties. Which is why they did try other things first.

 

However, if you are implying that Russian armed forces had played a major role in the latest battles; then no - there is not enough evidence yet to support it. We (myself included) suspect that, but there is just not enough solid evidence as of now..

I think there is plenty of evidence to show that the backbone of the fighting, including command and control, air defenses, artillery, and logistics were handled primarily by regular Russian forces. The separatists, for the most part, did the dying at the front. Some exceptions being a few tank units.

 

 

Or maybe you could just get a Russian translator and not push your imagination too far... There have been quite a few reports of heavy casualties incurred by rebel forces in Russian and Rebel media, including whole programs dedicated to those rebel fighters that had perished or got maimed in fighting. Of course you would never hear them referring to Russian military proper in this context for the obvious reasons. But then again, they don't appear to have suffered anything close to the humiliating defeats that were inflicted on Ukrainian forces in the summer and winter campaigns either...

Which is my point. The separatists/Russians have had humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat. Yet you are watching Russian media and don't have that impression. They won the battle for the airport, true, but how many months and how many dead did it take to accomplish this? And what value is the airport in any real term now? Same thing with Debaltseve. Despite two direct interventions by Russian regular armed forces the Ukrainians stood firm and finally, after the pressure was too much, managed to execute an extremely good withdrawal under adverse conditions. I see no humiliation in that either.

Ilovaisk, on the other hand, was a humiliating defeat. Though, to be fair, they would not have suffered the defeat if Russian military forces hadn't invaded behind their lines and then allowed the separatists (some allege Russian forces too) to violate Putin's promise of safe passage. So Ukraine loses points for trusting Russia's official "no interference" rhetoric.

But let's not forget that Ilovaisk, happened after the separatists were basically eliminated as a fighting force. Slavyansk was taken as were a number of other major defense points. Horlivka was surrounded. Luhansk was pinched off. Donetsk was in the process of being pinched off. The border crossings were Russia were mostly retaken. Donetsk and Luhansk territory was being chopped up in two other ways as well. It was only the direct intervention of Russian armed forces that stabilized and reversed the situation. I doubt very much that got the sort of attention on Russian TV as the eventual success of the airport and Debaltseve battles, even allowing for not mentioning the direct Russian armed forces involvement.

 

 

Steve, I completely agree and accept your post on Crimea. Let's not beat on a dead horse again. Thank you for keeping our discussion on point!

Thanks for keeping this discussion interesting

Steve

[DreDay]

Which is my point. The separatists/Russians have had humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat. Yet you are watching Russian media and don't have that impression. They won the battle for the airport, true, but how many months and how many dead did it take to accomplish this? And what value is the airport in any real term now? Same thing with Debaltseve. Despite two direct interventions by Russian regular armed forces the Ukrainians stood firm and finally, after the pressure was too much, managed to execute an extremely good withdrawal under adverse conditions. I see no humiliation in that either.

Steve, with all due respect, you don’t know me and I would appreciate you not making any assumptions about what news sources I follow and what influences my biases.

As for your interpretation of the “Humiliating” defeats by Rebels and moreover Russians (whose actual involvement in fighting is extremely ambiguous); countered by skillfully withdraws – give me a break! The rebels did suffer quite serious casualties in fighting for Debalseve; and particularly in their failed attempts to take Peski and Avdeivka. Was it humiliating – perhaps; but not nearly as humiliating as having your major major staging area surrounded, pounded into the ground and forced to evacuate under deadly fire while losing hundreds of men KIA, MIA, and POW along with most of their material equipment and ammo. That is what I call a real defeat, and I think that most military objective military analysts would agree with me.

I just don’t have the energy or the interest to talk about the Donetsk Airport right now; perhaps we can come back to it sometime later.

Ilovaisk, on the other hand, was a humiliating defeat. Though, to be fair, they would not have suffered the defeat if Russian military forces hadn't invaded behind their lines and then allowed the separatists (some allege Russian forces too) to violate Putin's promise of safe passage. So Ukraine loses points for trusting Russia's official "no interference" rhetoric.

I mostly agree however again you are missing some key details here. The agreement (with the Russians) was for the Ukrainian forces to abandon or to destroy their heavy equipment in Illovaiks; instead their commander had chosen to fight their way through in two MARCHING columns (as confirmed by multiple Ukranian survivors) we both know how tragically it went from there…

But let's not forget that Ilovaisk, happened after the separatists were basically eliminated as a fighting force. Slavyansk was taken as were a number of other major defense points. Horlivka was surrounded. Luhansk was pinched off. Donetsk was in the process of being pinched off. The border crossings were Russia were mostly retaken. Donetsk and Luhansk territory was being chopped up in two other ways as well. It was only the direct intervention of Russian armed forces that stabilized and reversed the situation. I doubt very much that got the sort of attention on Russian TV as the eventual success of the airport and Debaltseve battles, even allowing for not mentioning the direct Russian armed forces involvement.

I definitely agree with some of your points. The retreat from Slavyansk and Kramatorsk that had resulted in a loss of almost 50% rebel territory was definitely a defeat. However in this case, Strelkov had actually managed to execute a skillfully retreat (besides his covering armored group that was wiped out) and his units were able to start clearing out the border with Russia right after their move to Donetsk.

And yes the rebel forces were in pretty dire situation before the “North Wind” had blown their way, which is not surprising at all considering the disparity in manpower and especially equipment that was completely favoring the Ukranians in the summer.

Yet the rebels were still able to defeat the Ukrainians in key border crossings like Izmarino and Marinovka and to halt Ukrainian advances in Shakhtersk, and Illovaysk (prior to the vacationers showing up). The rebels were definitely losing in the summer (as one would expect), but their losses were not nearly as catastrophic as what has been inflicted on their Ukrainian counterparts…

Thanks for keeping this discussion interesting

Steve

Likewise good sir!

[Kraft]

Are there any sources on the casulties from Ilowaisk?

[DreDay]

Are there any sources on the casulties from Ilowaisk?

There are defintely sources from both the rebels and the Ukranian security forces. Not surprisingly, the rebel estimates appear to be too high, while the Ukranian estimates seem to be quite conservative. You can search for them online if you're really interested. The problem lies with a number of MIAs that is very ambiguos; and while regular Ukranian MOD units might have been acounted for fairly accuratly, their voulenteer battalion lists are a complete mess

[Zveroboy1]

Interesting interview in that vid. It seems to confirm what I read earlier about Logvinovo being taken in a night attack under the cover of heavy artillery. That could make an interesting CM scenario by the way.

 

Also I definitely agree about what DreDray has to say about the role of artillery, in particular the "offensive by artillery" part. It could be argued that most modern wars fall into this category but in the current situation it sounds especially relevant. Positions are just pounded until the defenders pull back, then there is a mopping up operation, the kind you see in all these vids with low intensity fighting, platoon strength units supported by a BTR or two and a couple of tanks shelling isolated pockets of resistance or sniper nests, then a counter barrage, rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, with all due respect, you don’t know me and I would appreciate you not making any assumptions about what news sources I follow and what influences my biases.

I'm sorry, that was not my intention. I was simply going by what you previously posted about Russian media and your take on the situation. Based on your follow up comments I don't think you and I are that far apart, but how much of your balanced view is coming from the fact that a) you are very good with English, are interested in checking out other points of view, and c) have military experience to guide your opinions? This is not an accusation of any sort, I am genuinely curious.

 

As for your interpretation of the “Humiliating” defeats by Rebels and moreover Russians (whose actual involvement in fighting is extremely ambiguous); countered by skillfully withdraws – give me a break!

I listed a large number of military engagements where the Ukrainians rolled over separatists despite their bravado on YouTube videos. I illustrated that they were for all intents and purposes totally defeated on the battlefield on their own. We can quibble about what to call this, but certainly you have already agreed that the loud and bold claims of the separatists in the Spring were trashed in July and August prior to the involvement of Russia's armed forces.

Since then I do not consider months and months of near constant failed attacks on the airport and Debaltseve, with heaps of dead and wounded in the process, as shining examples of victory. I keep things in context of the entire battle, not just the last 5 minutes when the flag is put on the tallest remaining building. The separatists suffered massive casualties and failed to destroy the Ukrainian forces that were almost entirely cut off. Based on my studies of wars throughout history, I absolutely do not consider Debaltseve a "humiliation". A loss, certainly, but losses in wars are normal.

Now, had the rebels destroyed the Ukrainian force that was in Debaltseve, then I would agree that it was a "humiliation". And it was damned close to it, I grant you that.

 

The rebels did suffer quite serious casualties in fighting for Debalseve; and particularly in their failed attempts to take Peski and Avdeivka. Was it humiliating – perhaps;

The separatists and Russians make consistent and disparaging claims about Ukraine's morale, it's equipment, it's military fighting capabilities, etc. So if they are correct, then I would say the major separatist/Russian defeats are "humiliating" to them. However, if the separatists/Russians want to talk about Ukraine's military capabilities as being a step up from cavemen with AKs, then perhaps I will view it differently. Because being beaten by a worthy foe is different than beaten by a bunch of incompetent conscripts that Poroshenko forced to fight.

 

but not nearly as humiliating as having your major major staging area surrounded, pounded into the ground and forced to evacuate under deadly fire while losing hundreds of men KIA, MIA, and POW along with most of their material equipment and ammo. That is what I call a real defeat, and I think that most military objective military analysts would agree with me.

Well, I don't think the evidence supports that they lost most of their material equipment or their ammo. Lots of video of Ukrainians returning not only with functional vehicles but towing disabled ones. As for what was left behind, most of it appears to have been badly damaged. And what wasn't they destroyed before pulling out. Ammo? The lack of ammo was cited as a major reason for the withdrawal, so I don't think there was much left.

Casualties are a different matter. They suffered quite a lot, but the separatists/Russians suffered more. Was that a good trade? I can't say for sure because the war hasn't finished yet. But from what I've seen, Ukraine made a stand for many months and on balance it was a major strategic distraction for the separatist/Russian forces as well as being the last battle for many of their soldiers. Sure, the Ukrainians didn't manage to hold onto it, but they did manage to hold onto it longer than Russia thought they would (i.e. the 15th). Holding it a few days after the ceasefire went into affect likely had major geopolitical benefits to Ukraine.

As I said, everything needs to be kept in context. A defeat it was, but "humiliating"? I do not think so. Not at all in my book.

 

I just don’t have the energy or the interest to talk about the Donetsk Airport right now; perhaps we can come back to it sometime later.

Sure. But it is in many ways similar to the Debaltseve battle.

 

I mostly agree however again you are missing some key details here. The agreement (with the Russians) was for the Ukrainian forces to abandon or to destroy their heavy equipment in Illovaiks; instead their commander had chosen to fight their way through in two MARCHING columns (as confirmed by multiple Ukranian survivors) we both know how tragically it went from there…

I'd have to look over the evidence, but from what I remember the columns were trucks carrying the soldiers along the specified routes. I don't think those soldiers were taking away heavy equipment. In fact, that was part of the problem for the trapped forces... they had very little of it to begin with. Now, the forces along the Russian border were instructed to leave their equipment and they did not. But that wasn't the group that was ambushed and slaughtered as far as I know. There is also evidence that the Russian military did most of the butchering, though of course there's room for doubt with that.

 

I definitely agree with some of your points. The retreat from Slavyansk and Kramatorsk that had resulted in a loss of almost 50% rebel territory was definitely a defeat. However in this case, Strelkov had actually managed to execute a skillfully retreat (besides his covering armored group that was wiped out) and his units were able to start clearing out the border with Russia right after their move to Donetsk.

Interesting that Girkin having to be forced to retreat from a large sector of front, and losing his rearguard, is not a "humiliating defeat" in your view. I wonder why the separatists still drone on and on about retaking Slavyansk? I don't think the Ukrainians care one way or the other about Debaltseve specifically.

 

And yes the rebel forces were in pretty dire situation before the “North Wind” had blown their way, which is not surprising at all considering the disparity in manpower and especially equipment that was completely favoring the Ukranians in the summer.

True, but the separatists branded themselves as morally and motivationally superior to the Ukrainians. Even with all the armaments that Russia gave them, including tanks, and the bombardments from Russian soil... the separatists lost engagement after engagement. And the Ukrainian force was by all accounts poorly led and unevenly equipped.

 

Yet the rebels were still able to defeat the Ukrainians in key border crossings like Izmarino and Marinovka and to halt Ukrainian advances in Shakhtersk, and Illovaysk (prior to the vacationers showing up). The rebels were definitely losing in the summer (as one would expect), but their losses were not nearly as catastrophic as what has been inflicted on their Ukrainian counterparts…

This is not true. The separatists managed to hold onto Izmarino in large part because the force sent to take it was slaughtered in the open by Russian artillery fired from Russian soil. Attacks which they were unable to respond to. Marinovka fell to Ukrainian forces and was only retaken after the initial phase of the Russian counter attack started. Once again, launched in part from Russian soil. Shakhtersk, on the other hand, was far more contested. However, there are reports of Russian involvement in the battles along that line prior to the general counter attack of mid August. Certainly the Ukrainian positions there didn't disintegrate until the counter attack began. Likewise, the Ukrainians were defeated in their attempts to keep Luhansk city encircled by attacks from Russian forces including attacks from Russian soil (artillery and ground attacks).

The counter attack in August had the biggest success in the south, but in the north it mostly stalled out. Debaltseve did not fall, the Donetsk airport did not fall, expanding the territory north of Luhansk failed, and expanding out from Donetsk quickly stalled.

With all that said, I am not saying that the Ukrainians haven't suffered major defeats. They have. But considering the state of the Ukrainian military in the Spring of 2014, and the fact that they had to fight organized Russian units as well as Russian supplied separatists, I think they have done very well. I'm also sure, with 110% confidence, that the Kremlin didn't expect even half the fight it got.

Where things go from here is as unclear as ever. The ball is mostly in Putin's court as it has been since he started the war in Ukraine. So it's mostly up to him what happens from here on out.

Steve

[DreDay]

I'm sorry, that was not my intention. I was simply going by what you previously posted about Russian media and your take on the situation. Based on your follow up comments I don't think you and I are that far apart, but how much of your balanced view is coming from the fact that a) you are very good with English, are interested in checking out other points of view, and c) have military experience to guide your opinions? This is not an accusation of any sort, I am genuinely curious.

No worries. Your curiosity is well called for and even flattering. When the time is right I will share my background and my relation to this subject matter. As of now I don’t yet feel comfortable doing it, for reason that I prefer to keep private. Till then, I prefer to discuss the actual facts and my interpretation of them…

I listed a large number of military engagements where the Ukrainians rolled over separatists despite their bravado on YouTube videos. I illustrated that they were for all intents and purposes totally defeated on the battlefield on their own. We can quibble about what to call this, but certainly you have already agreed that the loud and bold claims of the separatists in the Spring were trashed in July and August prior to the involvement of Russia's armed forces.

I honestly have no idea what bold separatist claims that were made in the spring you seem to be focusing on. Frankly, I don’t believe that either side (or the Russians for that matter) had anticipated this conflict turning into such a bloody mess back then. Of course the rebels were suffering defeats (mainly by losing ground) in the early and mid-summer when they were outgunned, outmanned, and completely disorganized. That is to be expected and I don’t see why that would come as a surprise to anyone.

Since then I do not consider months and months of near constant failed attacks on the airport and Debaltseve, with heaps of dead and wounded in the process, as shining examples of victory. I keep things in context of the entire battle, not just the last 5 minutes when the flag is put on the tallest remaining building. The separatists suffered massive casualties and failed to destroy the Ukrainian forces that were almost entirely cut off. Based on my studies of wars throughout history, I absolutely do not consider Debaltseve a "humiliation". A loss, certainly, but losses in wars are normal.

Now, had the rebels destroyed the Ukrainian force that was in Debaltseve, then I would agree that it was a "humiliation". And it was damned close to it, I grant you that.

Again, I don’t have any inclination on focusing on battles for Donetsk airport right now, since I consider them to be quite marginal despite their heavy media coverage. Still, that battle had resulted in a Ukrainian defeat as we can clearly tell now. I would not call that particular defeat humiliating and Ukrainian units defending the airport had shown great skill and valor (although I do consider failed Ukrainian counter attacks after the “Modern” terminal had fallen to the rebels to be criminally irresponsible). Nor would I call rebel actions a shining example of victory there (with an exception of their final assault on the “Main” terminal that was both excellently planned and executed). Moreover, I would also add that the rebels did suffer a significant defeat when all their efforts to take neighboring Peski and Makeyevka was successfully beaten back by Ukrainian defenders…. So I am certainly not trying to suggest that rebel performance was always stellar and that the Ukrainians are completely incapable of competent operations. With all due respect sir, you might have inadvertently put those words into my mouth without realizing my actual view on this.

As for the fighting around Debalseve, I very strongly (albeit still respectfully) disagree with your take on it. The actual operations to surround and Debaltseve had started by DNR/LNR forces in January and were pretty much over by mid-Feb; so I have no idea where you get the notion that they had lasted fruitlessly for many months.

Yes the rebels did suffer heavy casualties in fighting for Derebaltseve pocket. How heavy - we don’t quite know, but the sources that I had seen point to several hundred KIA which seems to be a realistic estimate. Of course the Ukrainians (who had the advantage of operating from defensive positions) seem to have suffered at least as many casualties as well. We really don’t know yet how many Ukrainian soldiers had managed to escape Debaltseve. Some were lucky and courageous enough to fight their way through (although many others were not as lucky and had perished in the process), some had left through the “green corridors” offered by the rebels after Ukrainian heavy weapons had been destroyed. Yet others had simply run for their lives. All of these cases have been reported in numerous interviews and reports by Ukrainian survivors, most of whom had described their escape from Debaltseve as “living hell”.

What makes that loss humiliating for the Ukrainians is the fact that they had been utterly defeated in a highly fortified and militarized strategic area by a force that was not much larger, nor better equipped, or trained than theirs. Is it not a worst defeat or a greatest victory in military history – not even close; but was it humiliating for the Ukrainian government and army – you betcha!

[BTR]

Counting what we know made out (same video posted by Steve):

 

http://dragon-first-1.livejournal.com/22839.html

[DreDay]

The separatists and Russians make consistent and disparaging claims about Ukraine's morale, it's equipment, it's military fighting capabilities, etc. So if they are correct, then I would say the major separatist/Russian defeats are "humiliating" to them. However, if the separatists/Russians want to talk about Ukraine's military capabilities as being a step up from cavemen with AKs, then perhaps I will view it differently. Because being beaten by a worthy foe is different than beaten by a bunch of incompetent conscripts that Poroshenko forced to fight.

I don’t quite get your point here. I have seen quite a few disparaging statements about the morale of regular (conscripted/mobilized) ZSU army units. Are they just propaganda – perhaps; is it surprising – not at all. However when it comes to ZSU and National Guard equipment and supplies, I have only heard the rebels say how they are completely outnumber and outgunned…

Well, I don't think the evidence supports that they lost most of their material equipment or their ammo. Lots of video of Ukrainians returning not only with functional vehicles but towing disabled ones. As for what was left behind, most of it appears to have been badly damaged. And what wasn't they destroyed before pulling out. Ammo? The lack of ammo was cited as a major reason for the withdrawal, so I don't think there was much left.

Interviews with the surviving officers from 128 mountain brigade and 42 territorial battalion seem to paint a very different picture. Have you had a chance to examine/translate them or are you just relying on Ukranian TV coverage and Poroshenko’s words?

Casualties are a different matter. They suffered quite a lot, but the separatists/Russians suffered more

I am willing to bet that you have absolutely no knowledge of the actual rebel and Ukrainian casualty figures, and are simply relying on selective analysis and wishful thinking. For that matter I don’t have those numbers either, but I simply don’t accept your argument here as I strongly question your procession of any reliable information on this subject.

. Was that a good trade? I can't say for sure because the war hasn't finished yet. But from what I've seen, Ukraine made a stand for many months and on balance it was a major strategic distraction for the separatist/Russian forces as well as being the last battle for many of their soldiers. Sure, the Ukrainians didn't manage to hold onto it, but they did manage to hold onto it longer than Russia thought they would (i.e. the 15th). Holding it a few days after the ceasefire went into affect likely had major geopolitical benefits to Ukraine.

Again, I fear that you are letting your wishful thinking get the best of your otherwise rational analysis here. The Ukrainians had claimed that Debaltseve was never surrounded and that everything was hunky-dory there up until the very day that their forces (or rather the few lucky ones that had such opportunity) ran for their lives out of it. They had absolutely failed to master up any successfully counter attacks to retake key positions around it or to secure the passage ways out of it. They had to leave/destroy a significant portion of their weapons and equipment there, as evidenced by multiple video and photo evidence. Hundreds of their soldiers were killed in attempts to relieve it and subsequent attempts to escape from it (again as evidence by plentiful video evidence and interviews with the survivors). They had lost an important strategic area that was used to block transportation between DNR and LNR and to stage possible attacks on Horlovka and Donetsk. Moreover, they had shown themselves to be completely incapable of mounting any offensive operations or even defending against a poorly trained and organized rag-tag force. If that is not humiliating – I don’t know what is.

That is about as much as I can reply at this point, but I would love to address the rest of your post and subsequent points tomorrow… TBC

The separatists and Russians make consistent and disparaging claims about Ukraine's morale, it's equipment, it's military fighting capabilities, etc. So if they are correct, then I would say the major separatist/Russian defeats are "humiliating" to them. However, if the separatists/Russians want to talk about Ukraine's military capabilities as being a step up from cavemen with AKs, then perhaps I will view it differently. Because being beaten by a worthy foe is different than beaten by a bunch of incompetent conscripts that Poroshenko forced to fight.

I don’t quite get your point here. I have seen quite a few disparaging statements about the morale of regular (conscripted/mobilized) ZSU army units. Are they just propaganda – perhaps; is it surprising – not at all. However when it comes to ZSU and National Guard equipment and supplies, I have only heard the rebels say how they are completely outnumber and outgunned…

Well, I don't think the evidence supports that they lost most of their material equipment or their ammo. Lots of video of Ukrainians returning not only with functional vehicles but towing disabled ones. As for what was left behind, most of it appears to have been badly damaged. And what wasn't they destroyed before pulling out. Ammo? The lack of ammo was cited as a major reason for the withdrawal, so I don't think there was much left.

Interviews with the surviving officers from 128 mountain brigade and 42 territorial battalion seem to paint a very different pictures. Have you had a chance to examine/translate them or are you just relying on Ukranian TV coverage and Poroshenko’s words?

Casualties are a different matter. They suffered quite a lot, but the separatists/Russians suffered more

I am willing to bet that you have absolutely no knowledge of the actual rebel and Ukranian casualty figures, and are simply relying on selective analysis and wishful thinking. For that matter I don’t have those numbers either, but I simply don’t accept your argument here as I strongly question your procession of any reliable information on that matter.

. Was that a good trade? I can't say for sure because the war hasn't finished yet. But from what I've seen, Ukraine made a stand for many months and on balance it was a major strategic distraction for the separatist/Russian forces as well as being the last battle for many of their soldiers. Sure, the Ukrainians didn't manage to hold onto it, but they did manage to hold onto it longer than Russia thought they would (i.e. the 15th). Holding it a few days after the ceasefire went into affect likely had major geopolitical benefits to Ukraine.

Again, I fear that you are letting your wishful thinking get the best of your otherwise rational analysis here. The Ukrainians had claimed that Debaltseve was never surrounded and that everything was hunky-dory there up until the very day that their forces (or rather the few lucky ones that had such opportunity) ran for their lives out of it. They had absolutely failed to master up any successfully counter attacks to retake key positions around it or to secure the passage ways out of it. They had to leave a significant portion of their weapons and equipment there, as evidenced by multiple video and photo evidence. Hundreds of their soldiers were killed in attempts to relieve it and subsequent attempts to escape from it (again as evidence by plentiful video evidence and interviews with the survivors). They had lost an important strategic area that was used to block transportation between DNR and LNR and to stage possible attacks on Horlovka and Donetsk. Moreover, they had shown themselves to be completely incapable of mounting any offensive operations or even defending against a poorly trained and organized rag-tag force. If that is not humiliating – I don’t know what is.

That is about as much as I can reply at this point, but I would love to address the rest of your post and subsequent points tomorrow… TBC

[DreDay]

Sure. But it is in many ways similar to the Debaltseve battle.

I am not quite sure what makes you say that, but let’s save that discussion for another day if you don’t mind…

 

I'd have to look over the evidence, but from what I remember the columns were trucks carrying the soldiers along the specified routes. I don't think those soldiers were taking away heavy equipment. In fact, that was part of the problem for the trapped forces... they had very little of it to begin with. Now, the forces along the Russian border were instructed to leave their equipment and they did not. But that wasn't the group that was ambushed and slaughtered as far as I know. There is also evidence that the Russian military did most of the butchering, though of course there's room for doubt with that.

Please do sir. There are quite a few interviews/articles by the survivors from Ilovaysj and they all seem to be consistent on that sequence of events.

 

Interesting that Girkin having to be forced to retreat from a large sector of front, and losing his rearguard, is not a "humiliating defeat" in your view.

Meh… we are talking schematics here. If you want to call it “humiliating” I will not lose any sleep over it. The biggest difference that I see is that Slavyansk defenders were completely outgunned by the surrounding Ukrainian forces and that they were able to retreat in good order (besides the rearguard of course) and to go into battle around sector D almost right away.

 

I wonder why the separatists still drone on and on about retaking Slavyansk? I don't think the Ukrainians care one way or the other about Debaltseve specifically.

Oh I don’t know, perhaps because the rebels consider Slavyansk to be their land, while the Ukranians from outside of Donbass don’t feel the same way about Debaltseve... Is that really that hard to comprehend?

 

True, but the separatists branded themselves as morally and motivationally superior to the Ukrainians.

I have no idea why you keep focusing on rebels claiming superior morale and conviction over their opponents. Had the Ukrainian forces not claimed the same? For that matter, has any fighting force in all of military history not tried to make the same claim. Yet, you only seem to hold it against the rebels, which I find a bit peculiar (to put it politely)

 

Even with all the armaments that Russia gave them, including tanks, and the bombardments from Russian soil... the separatists lost engagement after engagement. And the Ukrainian force was by all accounts poorly led and unevenly equipped.

It’s pretty elementary – Russian military supplies were quite limited till the end of summer and rebels were basically made up of a collection rag-tag disorganized and untrained formations; so yes, even an extremely incompetent Ukrainian army was still vastly superior to them.

 

This is not true. The separatists managed to hold onto Izmarino in large part because the force sent to take it was slaughtered in the open by Russian artillery fired from Russian soil. Attacks which they were unable to respond to.

That’s probably a part of it; although like most other Russian covert ops there, we would not know for sure for a while. However the battle for Izvarino had involved the border check-point switching hands multiple times and most of the fighting had occurred around the road leading from it to Krasnodon, which was not easily accessible to Russian artillery.

 

Marinovka fell to Ukrainian forces and was only retaken after the initial phase of the Russian counter attack started. Once again, launched in part from Russian soil.

Marinovka was infact re-captured by the Ukrainian forces, but rebels had kept the control of strategic heights around it which had effectively allowed for the encirclement of sector D formations and their subsequent destruction. Which btw, was a huge and largely underestimated blow to ZSU that had started a domino effect of other units getting demolished as their flanks/rear got exposed and no reserves were available.

 

Shakhtersk, on the other hand, was far more contested. However, there are reports of Russian involvement in the battles along that line prior to the general counter attack of mid August.

If by “contested” you mean elite Ukrainian VDV marching columns riding into it and getting slaughtered by a hastily assembled rebel force, then your definition of "contested" is very different from mine. I would be curious to see what evidence you can produce of Russian involvement Shakhtersk. I have seen no indication of it whatsoever, so please forgive me for being a little skeptical…

Edited March 1, 2015 by DreDay

[Schmoly War]

Should be interesting when the full version drops.

 

[Rokko]

Thanks for the heads up, you gotta love VICE.

[Hister]

Yes, I indeed love Vice news. Seems balanced enough and asks the right questions. Ever since their main reporter for the conflict has been tortured by separatists the frequency and to an extent also quality of the reports has sonewhat fallen.

They seem to be getting slowly back on track now.

[Battlefront.com]

Interviews with the surviving officers from 128 mountain brigade and 42 territorial battalion seem to paint a very different picture. Have you had a chance to examine/translate them or are you just relying on Ukranian TV coverage and Poroshenko’s words?

I do not rely on reporting from mass media, Ukrainian or otherwise. And I certainly do not pay any attention to what politicians say. I also understand that spokespeople for militaries don't stand up in front of the cameras and say "all is lost... woe is us... we're going to get slaughtered!!". But you have brought those comments into this discussion several times as if they are relevant, which means you put more value in such words than I do.

I am willing to bet that you have absolutely no knowledge of the actual rebel and Ukrainian casualty figures, and are simply relying on selective analysis and wishful thinking. For that matter I don’t have those numbers either, but I simply don’t accept your argument here as I strongly question your procession of any reliable information on this subject.

You apparently haven't read my earlier posts on the topic. I do not want to repeat myself here, but I did a detailed analysis based on the best information that is available. I doubt you have better sources than I do, but if you do we'd all benefit from seeing better information. For sure there is a lot of room for improvement.

Again, I fear that you are letting your wishful thinking get the best of your otherwise rational analysis here. The Ukrainians had claimed that Debaltseve was never surrounded and that everything was hunky-dory there up until the very day that their forces (or rather the few lucky ones that had such opportunity) ran for their lives out of it. They had absolutely failed to master up any successfully counter attacks to retake key positions around it or to secure the passage ways out of it. They had to leave/destroy a significant portion of their weapons and equipment there, as evidenced by multiple video and photo evidence. Hundreds of their soldiers were killed in attempts to relieve it and subsequent attempts to escape from it (again as evidence by plentiful video evidence and interviews with the survivors). They had lost an important strategic area that was used to block transportation between DNR and LNR and to stage possible attacks on Horlovka and Donetsk. Moreover, they had shown themselves to be completely incapable of mounting any offensive operations or even defending against a poorly trained and organized rag-tag force. If that is not humiliating – I don’t know what is.

Your characterization of the operation is, IMHO, flawed. And I am basing that on examination of a wide array of evidence, including survivor accounts. Again, I have already posted a detailed analysis from my perspective in this thread. If you wish to read it and challenge it, that would be good. But I don't want to spend my time repeating it.

Again, I fear that you are letting your wishful thinking get the best of your otherwise rational analysis here. The Ukrainians had claimed that Debaltseve was never surrounded and that everything was hunky-dory there up until the very day that their forces (or rather the few lucky ones that had such opportunity) ran for their lives out of it.

Name me a country at war that has it's spokespeople and politicians tell the truth when situations are unfavorable before there is a decision point. None that I am aware of, so I do not understand why you put such emphasis on this.

Me, I pay them *no* attention. Instead I looked at reports coming out from Debaltseve and from reporters who either went into the salient or were prevented from getting in there. The situation was clearly deteriorating prior to Minsk 2 and it rapidly deteriorated due to the offensive designed to completely destroy the Ukrainian forces there before the ceasefire took effect. The Ukrainians were *not* surrounded, though they were effectively under observed fire and that has similar (but not the same) consequences for forces trying to withdraw.

They had absolutely failed to master up any successfully counter attacks to retake key positions around it or to secure the passage ways out of it.

False. If what you said were true then the separatist/Russian forces would have cut them off at the neck as they had tried to do for so long. In fact, they had to give up this strategy because the Ukrainians beat them badly at it, including a limited counter offensive to regain some of the lost ground. However, I generally agree with you that for whatever reason (and I do believe it is complicated) the Ukrainians couldn't widen the corridor and therefore had little option but to withdraw from it. I also think militarily withdrawal would have been wiser earlier, but politically there was reason to stay there. Sometimes soldiers must die for political reasons because wars are more than just about isolated battles.

They had to leave a significant portion of their weapons and equipment there, as evidenced by multiple video and photo evidence. Hundreds of their soldiers were killed in attempts to relieve it and subsequent attempts to escape from it (again as evidence by plentiful video evidence and interviews with the survivors).

What was the separatist/Russian objective in Debaltseve? Was it to allow 2500+ Ukrainians to withdraw with most of their functioning equipment after fighting them for 5+ months? Because if it was, then Debaltseve was a big victory for the separatist/Russian side. If it was not, then I would ask you to consider that this wasn't the huge victory you are making it out to be.

They had lost an important strategic area that was used to block transportation between DNR and LNR and to stage possible attacks on Horlovka and Donetsk.

Yes, this is definitely true. It is why Ukraine held the territory for so many months when, militarily, it made sense to withdraw and shorten the line. So losing it is, of course, a significant defeat for Ukraine's war strategy. But how much of a difference it will make is yet to be determined.

Moreover, they had shown themselves to be completely incapable of mounting any offensive operations or even defending against a poorly trained and organized rag-tag force.

You are calling the Russian army "a poorly trained and organized rag-tag force"?

Seriously, the forces arrayed against the bottom of the salient were anything but "rag-tag". For sure the Russians marched the poorly trained units into battle as cannon fodder and they were, in fact, decimated as a result. But the end result was the majority of Ukrainian soldiers being able to execute a fighting withdrawal in fairly good order considering the circumstances. Imperfect as it might be, it was competently executed. And for sure the separatist/Russian planners were unable to stop it from happening. Which, if they really had surrounded the Ukrainians, shows which force performed their tasks better relative to each other.

If that is not humiliating – I don’t know what is.

Sure, if you hold to your view of the battle, I agree it was a humiliating defeat for Ukraine. But I think you have some major facts wrong, so I do not agree.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Please do sir. There are quite a few interviews/articles by the survivors from Ilovaysj and they all seem to be consistent on that sequence of events.

I will look and see what I can dig up. But for the record, this is the first time I've seen someone claim the slaughter was excusable because of something the Ukrainians did to violate the conditions of withdrawal.

 

Meh… we are talking schematics here. If you want to call it “humiliating” I will not lose any sleep over it. The biggest difference that I see is that Slavyansk defenders were completely outgunned by the surrounding Ukrainian forces and that they were able to retreat in good order (besides the rearguard of course) and to go into battle around sector D almost right away.

As did the forces in Debaltseve, who were also "surrounded" by your definition. Yet you consider one "humiliating" and the other positively.

 

Oh I don’t know, perhaps because the rebels consider Slavyansk to be their land, while the Ukranians from outside of Donbass don’t feel the same way about Debaltseve... Is that really that hard to comprehend?

Yes, because it's totally false. Girkin's force was initially 100% non-Ukrainian. So they weren't fighting for "their land" in any legitimate sense. For sure by the time they left Slavyansk there was a local component, but again the bulk of Girkin's forces were from Russia and therefore they were a foreign invasion force taking land from a neighboring country.

As for the Ukrainians, if they weren't interested in retaining parts of their own country under their own control, then why are they fighting and dying for it? Because it is their land.

Both sides in a war, even in a true civil war (which this absolutely is not), can not view every single inch of soil as being worth dying for in all circumstances all the time. Ukraine held onto Debaltseve for 5+ months because it was a part of their country and a strategic location. When they gave it up it was because they were militarily obligated to. Losing it is not a crushing blow to the cause of retaking Donbas because at that level it is an insignificant piece of it. Losing it, however, does have strategic implications for that effort.

So I say again, the piece of territory as a piece of territory has far more significance to the separatist/Russian side of the fighting than it does for Ukraine. They can afford to lose it, though they for sure would have preferred to keep it.

 

I have no idea why you keep focusing on rebels claiming superior morale and conviction over their opponents. Had the Ukrainian forces not claimed the same? For that matter, has any fighting force in all of military history not tried to make the same claim. Yet, you only seem to hold it against the rebels, which I find a bit peculiar (to put it politely)

I only brought it up because I felt it was a counter to the charge of "humiliation". When one side claims they are superior AND can't dislodge the enemy for 5 months AND couldn't destroy the enemy's force during withdrawal despite having it nearly surrounded, I do not think "humiliation" is appropriate.

And yes, of course the Ukrainians say a lot of bad things about the separatists. They also have some harsh words about each other, especially higher command. They also have acknowledged that fighting Russian armed forces is not easy at all. In fact, when Ukrainian fighters are asked how they know they are fighting Russian armed forces and not separatists, the simple answer "because Russians know how to fight, so when the enemy force suddenly starts fighting effectively we know it's not the separatists".

 

It’s pretty elementary – Russian military supplies were quite limited till the end of summer and rebels were basically made up of a collection rag-tag disorganized and untrained formations; so yes, even an extremely incompetent Ukrainian army was still vastly superior to them.

Although I will disagree about the equipment to some degree, overall the statement you made is more true than not.

 

That’s probably a part of it; although like most other Russian covert ops there, we would not know for sure for a while. However the battle for Izvarino had involved the border check-point switching hands multiple times and most of the fighting had occurred around the road leading from it to Krasnodon, which was not easily accessible to Russian artillery.

Yet Russian artillery was striking these areas from Russian soil and quick drives over the border and back again. It was even caught on video more than once, and IIRC some satellite photos were also released. So easy or not, it was done and it had a significant impact on the viability of the force there. It was a long, long route for resupply under even the best of circumstances, so it wouldn't take much to make it unviable. Air resupply was also made impossible due to the prolific supply of anti-air weapons to the separatists.

 

Marinovka was infact re-captured by the Ukrainian forces, but rebels had kept the control of strategic heights around it which had effectively allowed for the encirclement of sector D formations and their subsequent destruction. Which btw, was a huge and largely underestimated blow to ZSU that had started a domino effect of other units getting demolished as their flanks/rear got exposed and no reserves were available.

Yes, the "southern cauldron" was a major victory for the largely separatist forces and a major defeat for Ukraine. No question about it. Ukraine allowed its forces to be overextended and overestimated how quickly they could seize the border area with their existing force. This, BTW, I would classify as a "humiliating defeat" for the Ukrainians.

 

If by “contested” you mean elite Ukrainian VDV marching columns riding into it and getting slaughtered by a hastily assembled rebel force, then your definition of "contested" is very different from mine. I would be curious to see what evidence you can produce of Russian involvement Shakhtersk. I have seen no indication of it whatsoever, so please forgive me for being a little skeptical…

One ambush in a long series of battles isn't important. Yes, I am quite familiar with that ambush and have, unfortunately, seen the videos gleefully uploaded showing the scattered body parts of the VDV soldiers who were caught in it. IIRC it was a platoon sized force. Even "elite" units have bad things happen to them. Something the76th Pskov VDV can attest to as well.

As for Russian military involvement at this point, it started in very early August on a very small scale. Perhaps 2-3 battalions inserted along this vital route to Donetsk. Russia of course knew that if the supply line between Izvarino and Donetsk was cut then the war was effectively over until it could reestablish it. So it would be SHOCKING to find that no Russian units were involved in the fight along that axis. That would require an assumption of great incompetence of Russian military strategists and I, for one, do not think they are incompetent.

Things went pretty logically from what I can see. Russia kept its direct military presence in Ukraine to a minimum at first. Advisors, specialists, special forces, etc. were pretty much the only forces present from Spring until July. Equipment, both quantity and lethality, increased as Ukraine began to get more aggressive.

After the Ukrainians went on the offensive and started taking back large amounts of territory Russia was faced with the inevitable conclusion that even sending in tanks for the separatists to use wasn't going to cut it. So they initially tried to put a very small military footprint in Ukraine to see if they could trip up Ukraine's offensive enough to avoid a larger intervention. This had very limited effect, but it was enough to stall the offensive that was going to cut off Donetsk from the south. Artillery was used for cross border strikes in other locations instead of sending in ground forces.

But this also failed to stop the offensive, which was now coming in from the north as well as the south. In particular from what became the Debaltseve salient. Which meant the success of the Southern Cauldron wasn't sufficient to change the strategic picture. So Russia had a decision to make... stay with the existing plan and fairly quickly see a military collapse of its proxy fighters, or make a larger investment to bail them out. And around the 10-12th of August that was when we saw significant Russian armed forces entering Ukraine, with a noticeable impact on the fighting starting around the 15th.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

How much credence do you give this "interview"? Initially I thought he was captured and debriefed under pressure, but it seems he is actually making it on ukrainian television.

 

When someone is open about "HQ and troops lived in separate realities" I tend to believe them. The "black as negroes" comment im not sure about, if he is making fun of the rumour or actually trying to confirm it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du-HxvAJVxo&feature=youtu.be

I want to get back to this video for a sec because I believe this is a "teachable moment". I already expressed my opinion that this commander doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. That doesn't mean he's lying, it means he is not in possession of all facts and therefore is making some opinions based on incomplete information. There is hard evidence available that contradicts his view that the withdrawal was unplanned and/or executed only because of local (128th Mt BGD) orders.

Not wanting to rely solely on my own opinions, I forwarded the video to a friend without any commentary from me. His opinion was exactly the same for the same reasons. He too has seen the evidence that shows the primary point of the commander's interview to be false. Or at best, not accurate.

My friend speaks fluent Ukrainian and Russian. He is a long standing critic of Ukrainian military hierarchy since before the war and a major critic of its handling of the war to this day. He also has... uhm... professional credentials to analyze information like this. I'll leave it there

The thing to remember when looking at any one piece of evidence is to keep it in context and compare it against other pieces of evidence. Especially when it is coming from a lower level critical of a higher level or vice versa. Levels of command deliberately have different areas of responsibility and therefore experiences. A battalion commander knows more about his battalion than Army HQ. Army HQ knows more about the big picture than the battalion commander. A grunt on the ground knows almost nothing about either, but he sure knows more about how to fight the enemy tactically than either.

This does not mean a battalion commander has no basis to know or criticize higher levels of decision making. He does. But it is almost certain that he doesn't have all the facts they do and for sure he is looking at the battlefield in a more narrow way than higher HQ is. Perhaps he is right, perhaps he is wrong, or perhaps it is somewhere inbetween. By comparing a battalion commander's experiences against other known facts can help you get a feel for which it might be. In this case, I think he's "somewhere inbetween" for the most part, but "wrong" when it comes to his main charge that the withdrawal wasn't planned or directed by higher levels of command and was, instead, the sole action of the commander of the 128th Mt. BGD.

Steve

[Pablius]

Wouldn`t a local commander be subject to a martial court or at least sacked for retreating from such a position without, at least, tacit approval from the higher levels of the chain of command?

 

I understand that politics can obscure the subject, and the local officer may be punished anyway to save face, but any consequence to the lower officer would be, in principle, and indication of the higher officers intents and orders

[DreDay]

I do not rely on reporting from mass media, Ukrainian or otherwise. And I certainly do not pay any attention to what politicians say. I also understand that spokespeople for militaries don't stand up in front of the cameras and say "all is lost... woe is us... we're going to get slaughtered!!". But you have brought those comments into this discussion several times as if they are relevant, which means you put more value in such words than I do.

Steve, I think that we can both agree that there is no single information sources on either side that can be relied on for comprehensive and truthful coverage of the military actions in East Ukraine. In the absence of such, the best thing that analysts like you and I can do is to aggregate multiple information streams and mediums, rate them for their accuracy and relevance and look for common trends. With such methodology one absolutely cannot discard the interviews with actual battle participants; they certainly cannot be taken as a primary source of information; but they are quite relevant and important nonetheless…

You apparently haven't read my earlier posts on the topic. I do not want to repeat myself here, but I did a detailed analysis based on the best information that is available. I doubt you have better sources than I do, but if you do we'd all benefit from seeing better information. For sure there is a lot of room for improvement.

Guilty as charged sir. I would love to go back and re-read some of your earlier posts when my time allows for it. I certainly don’t claim to have any better sources than you do (or any better analytical skills for that matter); with one notable exception – I am lucky enough to have reading comprehension of both Russaian and Ukranian, which allows me to get a lot of the information streams that are simply not available in English.

Your characterization of the operation is, IMHO, flawed. And I am basing that on examination of a wide array of evidence, including survivor accounts. Again, I have already posted a detailed analysis from my perspective in this thread. If you wish to read it and challenge it, that would be good. But I don't want to spend my time repeating it.

Fair enough. As I’ve already said, I would love to go back and re-read some of your earlier posts when my time commitments allow for it. We will take it from there when I am up to speed on what you have claimed earlier

Name me a country at war that has it's spokespeople and politicians tell the truth when situations are unfavorable before there is a decision point. None that I am aware of, so I do not understand why you put such emphasis on this.

Of course, every country operates on the similar propaganda principlez at the war time. Ukraine is not unique in it by any way. Yet, when this propaganda is completely invalidated by the actual events on the ground that tends to be a major failure on both militarily and political scale. That is what I saw happening in Debaltseve and that’s why I had made my points about it.

Me, I pay them *no* attention. Instead I looked at reports coming out from Debaltseve and from reporters who either went into the salient or were prevented from getting in there. The situation was clearly deteriorating prior to Minsk 2 and it rapidly deteriorated due to the offensive designed to completely destroy the Ukrainian forces there before the ceasefire took effect. The Ukrainians were *not* surrounded, though they were effectively under observed fire and that has similar (but not the same) consequences for forces trying to withdraw.

With all due respect sir, you are really fishing here and letting your basses get the best of you (in my humble opinion). The Ukrainian units in Debaltseve could not get any relief force into the area, nor could they supply their garrison there with enough ammo and supplies to survive the rebel onslaught. They had ended up fleeing. Some units did it in a skilled organized way, while others had to run for their lives with no support or command while taking huge losses and abandoning their equipment. You are welcomed to call it whatever you want, but it does not make the plight of those misfortunate units look any better….

False. If what you said were true then the separatist/Russian forces would have cut them off at the neck as they had tried to do for so long. In fact, they had to give up this strategy because the Ukrainians beat them badly at it, including a limited counter offensive to regain some of the lost ground. However, I generally agree with you that for whatever reason (and I do believe it is complicated) the Ukrainians couldn't widen the corridor and therefore had little option but to withdraw from it. I also think militarily withdrawal would have been wiser earlier, but politically there was reason to stay there. Sometimes soldiers must die for political reasons because wars are more than just about isolated battles.

I generally agree with most of what you say here. There rebels did fail in their efforts to close the pocket at its bottleneck despite their original intention to do it. I have no idea how “badly” they were beaten as I have not seen any remotely credible numbers on that, but the fact stands – they had failed in their original operational objective. Luckily for the rebels, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, the DNR/LNR forces (most likely under Russian operational command) kept probing the defensive perimeter until that had found the weak spots (like Uglegorsk) that had allowed them to block the Debalseve garrison and to establish fire control over the pass ways to it. Ukranians had tried to counterattack those areas, but were stopped. At which point Debalseve absolutely had to be evacuated to avoid a complete a complete surrender. Supposedly that was Putin’s proposal to Petroshenko at Minsk-2. At the time Petroshenko had insisted that his forces have enough strength to hold Debalseve and to clear any blockade of it. I am in position to blame him, but in hindsight he was wrong and his actions had cost a few hundred Ukranian soldiers their lives.

What was the separatist/Russian objective in Debaltseve? Was it to allow 2500+ Ukrainians to withdraw with most of their functioning equipment after fighting them for 5+ months? Because if it was, then Debaltseve was a big victory for the separatist/Russian side. If it was not, then I would ask you to consider that this wasn't the huge victory you are making it out to be.

I am guessing that their objective was to clear a major strategic area that was used to shell Gorlovka (which took a horrific toll on local population btw) and could be used as a staging point for attacks to cut off Gorlovka and even Donetsk. It was also to “liberate” a major city that they consider to be theirs and to cause as much destruction of Ukrainian hardware as possible. In the end all of those objectives were met, but probably at a higher cost than the rebels had expected. For the record - I am not claiming it to be so much of a great victory for the rebels (except for their actions in Uglegorsk where I have been very impressed with their planning tactical opps there); but rather yet another embarrassing defeat for the Kiev government (which in theory should have had all the means to fight off the rebel offensive)

Yes, this is definitely true. It is why Ukraine held the territory for so many months when, militarily, it made sense to withdraw and shorten the line. So losing it is, of course, a significant defeat for Ukraine's war strategy. But how much of a difference it will make is yet to be determined.

No argument here sir. This is not a turning point by any means.

You are calling the Russian army "a poorly trained and organized rag-tag force"?

Not sure that I get your joke sir. Do you happen to have any credible evidence of any significant number of Russian regulars fighting around Debltseve? If so, I would love to hear it…

Seriously, the forces arrayed against the bottom of the salient were anything but "rag-tag". For sure the Russians marched the poorly trained units into battle as cannon fodder and they were, in fact, decimated as a result. But the end result was the majority of Ukrainian soldiers being able to execute a fighting withdrawal in fairly good order considering the circumstances. Imperfect as it might be, it was competently executed. And for sure the separatist/Russian planners were unable to stop it from happening. Which, if they really had surrounded the Ukrainians, shows which force performed their tasks better relative to each other.[\quote]

C’mon Steve, I really respect you intellectual, analytical, and information processing skills; but if I may – your biases tend to get the best of you on some occasions (perhaps I am guilty of that as well, but I do try to be mindful of it)… First of all, I am 100% certain that you have no credible idea of how many Russian units (if any) were involved in fighting there.. Neither do I for that matter... Second, I am even more certain that you have no credible information on how many Ukrainian units and how much of their equipment was able to escape, and how many of them as still lying on the roads leading out of Debaltseve ; again neither do I, but based on a the video evidence that I’ve seen we are talking hundreds (especially if you include POWs). Finally you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the Debaltseve garrison was offered a safe passage as long as they destroyed/gave up their heavy weapons; so clearly the rebels were not obsessed with killing as many ZSU soldiers as possible, but rather accomplishing their strategic objectives.

So if you want to see it as a Ukranian victory and “Russian” defeat, be my guest; but please don’t expect me to take you seriously on that particular point.

Likewise sir. I am perfectly contempt to agree to disagree on this. I do very much appreciate your points though, and I hope that you find mine worthy of consideration as well.

[DreDay]

Please discard my double-post. Still trying to master the UI here. Is there any way to delete your own posts?

Edited March 1, 2015 by DreDay

[DreDay]

Again please discard. Sorry for the confusion.

Edited March 1, 2015 by DreDay

[DreDay]

I will look and see what I can dig up. But for the record, this is the first time I've seen someone claim the slaughter was excusable because of something the Ukrainians did to violate the conditions of withdrawal.

It might be new to you sir due to a lack of good English language source on this, but it has been a known claim by Ukrainian survivors for quite a while.

Yes, because it's totally false. Girkin's force was initially 100% non-Ukrainian. So they weren't fighting for "their land" in any legitimate sense. For sure by the time they left Slavyansk there was a local component, but again the bulk of Girkin's forces were from Russia and therefore they were a foreign invasion force taking land from a neighboring country.

I would like to respectfully caution you from making such strong definite statements on a very conspicuous and secretive conreversial subject matter. Strelkov (or Girkin if you prefer) had entered Salvyansk with about 50-60 fighters. About half of them were Russian nationals, while the rest were either Crimeans or anti-Maidan activist from other regions in South- East Ukraine. The major reason for his choice of Slavyansk (according to Strelkov himself) was the fact that there was already a very strong separatist network there that was ready supports them. As he had built up his forces there, they were joined by both Russian (National) volunteers and local supporters. I have no idea what the actual break down of one vs the other was, but it is significant to note that his retreat convoys from Slavyansk had included hundreds of families of local fighters… so they were far from just a foreign invasion force.

As for the Ukrainians, if they weren't interested in retaining parts of their own country under their own control, then why are they fighting and dying for it? Because it is their land.

Ummm, yeah… Common John… last thing that I want is to sound condescending to you, but we are talking the basics of seperatists vs. federal forces struggle here. That paradigm has been played out a million times over already and the conflict in Donbass is not that different (if not for the involvement of major world powers in it)

Both sides in a war, even in a true civil war (which this absolutely is not), can not view every single inch of soil as being worth dying for in all circumstances all the time. Ukraine held onto Debaltseve for 5+ months because it was a part of their country and a strategic location. When they gave it up it was because they were militarily obligated to. Losing it is not a crushing blow to the cause of retaking

Donbas because at that level it is an insignificant piece of it. Losing it, however, does have strategic implications for that effort.

I mostly agree, except for two (perhaps minor) point. A) You have absolutely no authority to deny this being a civil war with 100% conviction. I can see why you will question it, but that’s as far as I am willing to let you get away with it. Please don’t take it the wrong way, but I find those kinds of statements beneath your well deserved reputation for thoughtful analysis Rebels efforts to take control of Debltseve had started during this “winter offensive” (i.e. mid Jan) – I have no idea where you get the 5+ month figure from.

So I say again, the piece of territory as a piece of territory has far more significance to the separatist/Russian side of the fighting than it does for Ukraine. They can afford to lose it, though they for sure would have preferred to keep it.

100%. No disagreement here sir.

I only brought it up because I felt it was a counter to the charge of "humiliation". When one side claims they are superior AND can't dislodge the enemy for 5 months AND couldn't destroy the enemy's force during withdrawal despite having it nearly surrounded, I do not think "humiliation" is appropriate.

I understand what you’re saying, but I am not sure where you are getting the 5 month figure from, nor do I understand why you are so eager to give the Ukranians the credit for skillful withal.

To be quite honest, the disparity in manpower and firepower between the ZSU and the rebels is so one-sided (even with all the Russian support), that I consider any major battle loss to be humiliating for the Ukrainian side…

And yes, of course the Ukrainians say a lot of bad things about the separatists. They also have some harsh words about each other, especially higher command. They also have acknowledged that fighting Russian armed forces is not easy at all. In fact, when Ukrainian fighters are asked how they know they are fighting Russian armed forces and not separatists, the simple answer "because Russians know how to fight, so when the enemy force suddenly starts fighting effectively we know it's not the separatists".

Well yeah, that’s pretty much implicit; although I do not except the simple notion that Russian forces are involved in fighting whenever the ZSU faces stiff opposition… of course I don’t dispute certain level of Russian involvement either…

Yet Russian artillery was striking these areas from Russian soil and quick drives over the border and back again. It was even caught on video more than once, and IIRC some satellite photos were also released. So easy or not, it was done and it had a significant impact on the viability of the force there. It was a long, long route for resupply under even the best of circumstances, so it wouldn't take much to make it unviable. Air resupply was also made impossible due to the prolific supply of anti-air weapons to the separatists.

No arguments here sir.

Yes, the "southern cauldron" was a major victory for the largely separatist forces and a major defeat for Ukraine. No question about it. Ukraine allowed its forces to be overextended and overestimated how quickly they could seize the border area with their existing force. This, BTW, I would classify as a "humiliating defeat" for the Ukrainians.

Perhaps, the only thing that I will add to this is that Ukranian political (more so than military) command had underestimated Russian resolve to get involved in clearing out their border with Donbass at the time that Sector D was created.

[DreDay]

One ambush in a long series of battles isn't important. Yes, I am quite familiar with that ambush and have, unfortunately, seen the videos gleefully uploaded showing the scattered body parts of the VDV soldiers who were caught in it. IIRC it was a platoon sized force. Even "elite" units have bad things happen to them. Something the76th Pskov VDV can attest to as well.

Oh sure, I did not intend to dishonor the memory Ukrainian soldiers that gave their lives in that battle by any means. My only point was that the control of Shakhtersk was not nearly as contested as you seemed to imply; but rather it was decided in the opening rounds of the battle due to the unfortunate tactical choices made by the 25th VDV brigade.

As for Russian military involvement at this point, it started in very early August on a very small scale. Perhaps 2-3 battalions inserted along this vital route to Donetsk. Russia of course knew that if the supply line between Izvarino and Donetsk was cut then the war was effectively over until it could reestablish it. So it would be SHOCKING to find that no Russian units were involved in the fight along that axis. That would require an assumption of great incompetence of Russian military strategists and I, for one, do not think they are incompetent.

Things went pretty logically from what I can see. Russia kept its direct military presence in Ukraine to a minimum at first. Advisors, specialists, special forces, etc. were pretty much the only forces present from Spring until July. Equipment, both quantity and lethality, increased as Ukraine began to get more aggressive.

I agree. And I would also like to add that apperantly there were a couple of Russian (not sure if organic or improvised) BTGs clearing the routes around Snezhoye at the same time.

After the Ukrainians went on the offensive and started taking back large amounts of territory Russia was faced with the inevitable conclusion that even sending in tanks for the separatists to use wasn't going to cut it. So they initially tried to put a very small military footprint in Ukraine to see if they could trip up Ukraine's offensive enough to avoid a larger intervention. This had very limited effect, but it was enough to stall the offensive that was going to cut off Donetsk from the south. Artillery was used for cross border strikes in other locations instead of sending in ground forces.

But this also failed to stop the offensive, which was now coming in from the north as well as the south. In particular from what became the Debaltseve salient. Which meant the success of the Southern Cauldron wasn't sufficient to change the strategic picture. So Russia had a decision to make... stay with the existing plan and fairly quickly see a military collapse of its proxy fighters, or make a larger investment to bail them out. And around the 10-12th of August that was when we saw significant Russian armed forces entering Ukraine, with a noticeable impact on the fighting starting around the 15th.

Again, I agree with you 100% here.