Zveroboy1

Yeah there are lots of different takes on it with either small subtle differences or quite major ones. Some are clearly pro Russian maps, some pro Ukrainian. Depending on which one you are looking it at, it definitely changes the assessment one can make of the whole situation.

Mariupol needs to hold because if/when it falls, it will free up a lot of forces the Russians can use to threaten the whole Donbas in conjunction with the taking of Izyum. Would we see broad sweeping advances? Doubtful. More likely the same slow grind with heavy attrition, but it would still put the JFO in the Donbas area in a precarious position. Actually the same pattern could be occurring in the north east with the partial encirclements of Sumy and Chernihiv. These are thorns in the Russian's side, which as we have seen can't simply be bypassed, that force them to commit lots of units to secure their supply lines, with catastrophic results so far. But potentially there are lots of forces that could be spared here. Obviously that wouldn't change the overall strategic or geopolitical picture much.

Yes not only Liveuamap, even the wikipedia map which is usually fairly conservative and probably always 2-3 days behind events is showing quite a lot of changes. I am not sure what to believe now. This might get reverted back to a previous version where Russian advances are less dramatic, but what's shown here doesn't really reflect the consensus I have been reading lately about the total absence of progress of the Russian army. People were cheering about Russians pulling back from Kherson but actually what seems to be happening is more likely them giving up their thrust to nowhere along a northern axis towards that nuclear plant. And instead they have shifted their advance eastward on the north side of the Dniepr? And what about Chernihiv? Is it under siege? Similarly Sumy and Sievierodonetsk look almost encircled.

No. Spies don't count for the purpose of occupying terrain objectives.

I had a related question about the Ukrainian employment of light infantry AT groups. It looks like it has been highly successful for them and I don't want to detract from their tactical achievements, but I wonder whether it is really a choice or rather the least bad option they have currently. In other words could they use IFVs and tanks offensively in the present conditions if they wanted to or would they also suffer the same fate as the moving Russian armoured columns if they tried? Obviously they wouldn't be ambushed the same way the Russians are but wouldn't they suffer heavy losses if they did nonetheless? Someone could point out that it doesn't matter whether they're more or less forced to resort to this method of fighting since it works very well and they'd be right. But still I have been wondering how much tactical and operational freedom of maneuver the UA possesses. Also the conditions could change and for counter-attacking or withdrawing, mobility would certainly help. Edit : I guess Haiduk more or less answered it already.

Okay thanks. I hope we don't have to wait too long for this bug to be fixed; it is a problem for meeting engagements.

Ukrainian soldiers are the new Finns of ww2. All they need now is a new Simo Häyhä.

The all seeing bug with the M3A1 scout car that was mentioned earlier in the thread, does it affect only this particular vehicle or all Russian half tracks with a 50 cal?

Yeah I agree that it will only delay the problem and until Putin is removed from power, there will always be a threat to your country and Europe as a whole. So he definitely has to go, that goes without saying. My point is that sometimes in war you have to put ideology aside and use realpolitik to resolve a conflict. As distasteful and unsatisfying as it might sound, a political solution is often the only practical way when there is a stalemate on the battlefield. What I was trying to do is come up with a possible hypothetical scenario as to how this war could end. Your guess as to what the final outcome will be is probably just as good as mine. But personally I don't see Putin just folding. He could very well be overthrown by mass protests, economic sanctions, even a coup, who knows? But just calling it quits, I could be wrong but I just don't see it. As far as genocide is concerned, I'd rather this word wasn't overused for fear it loses its meaning.

I am afraid it is you who misunderstood, both the point I was trying to make and the Russian objectives. I know it is not about grabbing some territory. Or rather it was not in the beginning but now that Putin's initial plan has failed, that might give him a way out. Now you say Zelensky can't agree to a cease fire but what happens if Ukraine refuses to make any concessions? You are planning on having an unconditional surrender of Russia? I am not sure how realistic this is given the fact that Putin feels he can't lose this war because that would be the end of him politically and his downfall. So it goes on forever until either Putin is overthrown, the Russian military collapses or Putin decides to use nukes? Watch the interview that was linked above. It gives a good insight into Putin's stance and state of mind. By the way the reasons for the invasion from a Russian perspective were laid out quite explicitly in the leaked premature victory speech that was broadcasted by mistake two weeks ago. (I think it was akd that linked the document.) Putin basically thinks that Ukraine belongs to the Russian sphere of influence, he sees it drifting more and more towards the West and if he doesn't reverse the course of history now then later it will be too late, becoming forever out of his grasp. I don't agree with any of that nonsense but if you paid attention and managed to look past all the chest thumping, absurd denazifying pretence and the revisionist historical justification that was used, it was actually quite bluntly put forward for all to see in all its cold, ruthless and hyper cynical nature. While I am sympathetic to the Ukrainian plight (I am not pro Putin at all even though I have a Russian assault gun as my avatar) and I can understand your anger and outrage at what is going on in your country right now, I am sorry but there is no indication at this point that there is anything resembling a genocide. The Russian army has definitely been targeting civilians and will probably continue to do so in a direct violation of the rules of war, but a genocide it isn't.

Yes great interview. The very end where she is asked how dangerous Putin is right now is pretty scary.

TL;DR :Yes that's what I meant. They can't realistically take Kyiv and I don't believe in the Grozny urban assault scenario at all but could perhaps force the Ukrainian government to the negotiation table by just shelling it.

Lots of people here and in the media are talking about a possible siege of Kyiv. It appears that the Ukrainians have been launching small localized counter-attacks and even pushed back the Russian forces in a few areas. But it still looks like the Russian forces might be inching closer to the city even if their supply lines are not secured and control of the territory they presently occupy is only partial at best. However they're not quite there yet. And while still possible in theory, it is rather doubtful whether they can even manage to fully encircle the Ukrainian capital. However what if Putin decided that instead of launching an assault a la Grozny on Kyiv once it is surrounded, to just shell it out of spite, not unlike what happened in Sarajevo, in order to exert political pressure and force the Ukrainian government to the negotiation table in order to get more favourable terms? First in this scenario you wouldn't even need to fully encircle the city. Since the goal wouldn't be to trap Ukrainian forces inside a cauldron nor to cut the city off completely, leaving a corridor open for civilian to evacuate would actually be a good idea from the Russian perspective, as long as the corridor could potentially be brought under artillery fire. Of course that would be really ugly and cause even more civilian casualties and international condemnation of the Putin regime. But then again one could ask what more have the Russians got to fear in the way of sanctions that hasn't already been imposed on them? Militarily the Russians probably can't win this war. But the problem is that I don't see how Putin can afford to lose this war politically either. It would be disastrous for him. He basically has his back against the wall, he can't simply call it quits and needs some sort of face saving solution. Ukrainian resolve looks really strong right now and justifiably so but how likely is it that if Putin follows this course of action and the situation just degenerates into a long stalemate with less offensive operations, that Zelensky decides to tap out out in the end and agree to territorial concessions in order to spare civilian lives and avoid senseless destruction?

The CIA is not sounding awfully optimistic right now. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/putin-angry-frustrated-cia-director-double-ukraine/story?id=83318093

Believe it is a green screen if you want. You sound hell bent on it anyway so no amount of debunking is going to convince you.

There are different camera angles in the footage I provided and all. This would be way too much work to edit. And there is another video of the same meeting and exact same moment with a higher resolution where it looks perfectly normal. This is most definitely video compression artefacts. And why would you not simply green screen him with the microphone already present on the footage before editing it? Makes zero sense sorry. Also have you ever considered the fact that the super long table he used during the talks with Macron could have been some sort of psychological trick? It is a common trick to destabilize your interlocutor. Having him sit on a slightly smaller chair etc. He did just that with Merkel who is known to dislike dogs by having one in order to make her uncomfortable.

I don't think Putin is ready to quit just yet personally. The land bridge to Donbas could be a way to save face and cut his losses but Mariupol is bound to fall sooner or later and then that would probably free up a lot of troops and the Russians could resume their advance towards the north. I don't see them achieving anything in the Kyiv meat grinder anytime soon unless the forces coming for the north east can reach the Kyiv suburbs. There is one thing that makes a bit cautious though and that's why I try to remain measured : this war is covered in such a way that it is akin to a boxing match where you only get to see one half of the ring and one single boxer. You see one boxer taking a lot of punches but even though he is clearly fumbling a lot you are not really seeing how many of his own punches are landing. Clearly the Russians are getting mauled but it is bound to take its toll on the Ukrainian side too in the long run and who knows how far Putin is ready to go.

Video compression glitch more like; the same thing that people used to claim Hillary Clinton was a lizard.

This analysis looks especially manifest in the east, along the Sumy and Konotop axis. Once they broke though, the Russians initially managed to make decent headways bypassing lots of urban areas in their push westward. But driving forward with such narrow spearheads exposed their rear areas and flanks. Then the isolated BTGs which might work for hybrid warfare run out of steam because they don't have enough staying power for this type of conventional war. The lack or absence of second echelon means the advance stalls within a week. Meanwhile they appear to reinforce failure around Kyiv where they are getting wrecked and are just banging their head against a wall.

Yes you know this must have been the main reason why we kept seeing all these abandoned vehicles. Was some of it caused by fleeing Russians? Sure definitely a few. Some of it caused by lack of fuel? Certainly. Some caused by ambushes too. But this has to be the main reason, several looked bogged down and for the vast majority of them, the recovery vehicles never came to tow them. It is like that footage where you saw several bmps i think it was inside a farm complex, they looked way too neatly parked to have been simply abandoned. It must have been a collection point for vehicles that were slightly damaged or had encountered a mechanical problem.

Right yes, I liked the point of failures bit, more chances to fail because all the parts have to succeed in order for the whole thing to work. I was looking at it from a different angle.

True of course yes but I mean Putin didn't design the invasion plan himself. He defined military and political goals and the top brass designed a plan to achieve these objectives. Now if you mean that the objectives were impossible to fulfil in the first place yeah, hard to disagree with that. I guess my point was that you can't simply divide the whole Russian army strength in 4 or 5 because you see that many thrusts. It is possible that some of these should only count for 1/2. That doesn't really change the overall picture though mind you.

Playing devil's advocate a bit here because I mostly agree with Steve's points, but isn't it a bit flawed however to automatically assume all the different axis the Russians are pursuing have been affected the same level of effort? Clearly Kyiv has to be a main effort in terms of strength even though it looks like the Ukrainian resistance is so strong, the Russian have been forced to shift their attack to the west; the two drives out of Crimea as well if only because they seem to be most competent and are perhaps achieving the most. The pushes from the east however, especially the one in front of Kharkiv, I am not certain they can be counted as major efforts. They very well might be, but could also be secondary thrusts to be honest. If you look at the eastern half of Ukraine, it almost looks like a bulge in a way right? With the way Russians can attack both from Belarus and Crimea. If you were in charge of the whole thing you'd never affect the main effort from the east imo. They seem to be attacking all over the place and so that would mean a dilution of their strength. But it is common practice to attack along secondary axis to pin down enemy forces or to deceive the enemy as to your real intentions, even launching secondary attacks first sometimes. The Soviets were good at that before. It looks obvious the Russians are facing lots of issues and their performance has been far from stellar to put it mildly, but surely this is something generals must have studied at the military academy. Could they simply have forgotten all this stuff lol ?

This raises one question though, especially in the north east sector, you see what appears to be BTGs advancing along the road network towards the west but how much staying power do these formations really have? Aren't they going to run out of steam soon? I think it was Haiduk who said they don't even operate as a whole formation but in small detachments too. It is possible their combat power becomes too degraded soon to operate effectively.

I am afraid this is the only part that really made sense for me in the whole thing : the Ukrainians having had to shift forces elsewhere before the invasion to react to the positioning of Russian forces in Belarus and thus weakening somewhat the Donbas front. As far as encirclements are concerned, the only two places that look really threatened right now are the north east area from Shostka to Chernihiv and the south east area between Lysychansk and Kupiansk. And in both cases it looks like there is still a long way to go before they are complete. And seeing how sluggish the whole Russian advance has been so far, it sounds likely that the defending UA troops could just pull back in time before they're trapped and thus avoid being encircled. Now the only real danger is perhaps becoming more vulnerable as a result if they're forced to leave their dug in positions they have had years to consolidate to move in the open. And this is something I have been wondering too. To what extent does the UA have some freedom of maneuver outside of built up areas to reposition and counter attack ?