FancyCat

Again, shouldn't be too big a issue as long as Ukraine apologizes, ensures proper payment, etc. Friendly fire happens.

I doubt that this will wound the Ukrainians a lot in public opinion. End of the day, Ukraine is trying to fend off hundreds of missiles and drones that are bringing Ukraine to the dark and cold. As long as Ukraine apologizes to Poland and Poles, I don't see why Poland won't understand why this happened.

Nothing indicates that NATO wants to invoke Article 5 and escalate. Most likely, new weapons to Ukraine, maybe finally some ATACMS. The issue is that even tho NATO does not want to escalate, we cannot have a situation where Russia is normalized into striking Polish territory (accidentially or deliberately) without NATO response. So it will be interesting to see what the alliance decides upon.

Ukraine has gotten aid from the U.S without advance notice of it's arrival in Ukraine. They may well have sent the riverine boats already.

Political considerations are always important in war. Might we wonder whether Ukraine pushing is motivated by ensuring Western support does not subside? What better way to tell Milley to shove his words than to cross the Dnipro? I would not be comfortable with crossing the river in significant mass without control of the dam.

Does Ukraine control the dam? I ask cause it's one thing to flood the Russian defensive line, another thing to flood multiple Ukrainian bridgeheads.

I wonder if this might dent African government and public support for Russia? Russia has been focused on swaying non-Western opinion with good success but this may erode a bit and make it easier for Ukrainian inroads.

I recall someone stating it was doctrine for Soviet forces to do rapid river assaults, instead of deliberate planned operations during pursuit operations?

One good thing is that Combat Mission can stimulate morale and training deficiencies that make it possible for such a action to occur in the game.

How do we feel about the Kinburn peninsula? The South command has stated operations are ongoing there. We know Russia has been trying to reinforce it via tweet below. Control of the Dnipro is essential for the economic future of Ukraine, including the mouth of the river. We know the U.S supplied riverine boats to Ukraine, could it actually be possible for Ukraine to take and hold the area? I believe the area is within artillery range for Ukraine to cover it?

Something to keep in mind, contrast Ukrainian words on the destruction of Mariupol and the "liberation" of it by Russia vs that of Kherson's liberation. Plays well internationally, domestically, plays well with those under occupation, and imagine the thinking of all the collaborators, where in Kharkiv they ran, Kherson they ran. Where else will they run and leave them behind? No Stalingrad, no "not one step back", the annexations mean nothing, nothing at all, the territory is not Russian, and the people who sided with them, nothing. Again, deal or no deal, it is better for Russia to leave intact than be evicted by force. You save the civilians, the infrastructure, you preserve your forces and supply for the next battles. Every shell fired to evict Russia from Kherson is one less to evict Russia from Svatove and so on.

Like I said, the west is probably suggesting to Putin he can have his military, what's left of it, back, without being further depleted. But...as Biden has remarked, Putin must leave Ukraine for peace. He can bring home Russian soldiers but he must concede all of Ukraine back to it.

I believe a key aspect of western reluctance and restraint is offering Putin the chance to leave Ukraine with some semibalance of a military and some ability to craft a saving grace narrative than being forced out by Ukrainian tanks. I believe that Kherson is where Ukraine has decided to do the same. If we recall, upon the beginning of the campaign to disable the bridges over the Dnipro, high ranking officials in the Ukrainian government voiced publicily that Russia should leave the right bank and save the lives of their troops and that the bombardments were designed to emphasize their inability to hold it and supply them. Again, it is important for Russia to suffer military defeat, deaths, and retreat but equally important for Ukraine to conserve their equipment, personnel, and civilians and infrastructure for the rest of the war as much as possible. The emphasis on regaining their PoWs, ensuring the evacuation of civilians from the frontlines and their efforts to maintain infrastructure speak to that regard.

Nothing to be glum about. For months in this thread and worldwide, most people doubted the ability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to retake Kherson, to defeat the Russian military, to illustrate the ability to liberate their homeland through military means and today means all doubters are silenced. Russia was not supposed to lose Kherson. It was to one day take Odessa from Kherson as a launch point. Nevermind military strategy, the Russian military was supposed to be powerful enough and have defeated the Ukrainian attacks in such a manner that Kherson was "forever Russian". All of that is dashed and with it, the image of the Russian Armed Forces.

Two scenarios, one, Russia successfully deceived Ukrainian forces and withdrew to a tighter perimeter in prep for final withdraw or are in the process of doing so. I still expect a lot of equipment left behind, but POWs not at all really. If Russia was relying on a rearguard, or a final stand force to bleed out Ukraine, I would expect them to try and retain as far away from Kherson and the dam to prevent artillery fire, so that option is largely gone except for Kherson itself. More POWs, whether they fight a defensive battle or surrender, remains to be seen. Either way, I seriously doubt Russia won’t be forced to leave a lot of equipment behind due to the attacks on the bridgeheads, so we cannot look at equipment left and conclude the withdrawal was a failure, as the equipment was lost after it shipped over in the first place basically. Now, certainly if they failed to disable the equipment, certainly a sign of a bad withdrawal. But supply dumps, POWs will be more useful for determining whether the retreat was orderly or not.

If Russia had cycled conscripts and untrained personnel to cover for moving out trained and higher value units, it is not a surprise that they are broken and fleeing for the left bank. You don't want your less experienced forces conducting rear guard actions. So I suppose Russia does not give a damn about the conscripts and only the better trained personnel or it is a extensive collapse. How many times have we had Russian high command act like everything is okay and then the picture on the ground is painfully contrasting? Too many...

We saw with Lyman that Russia can hold an urban position for a decent amount of time, destroying Kherson, killing untold numbers of civilians and risking the deaths of soldiers does not benefit Ukraine vs allowing Russia to withdraw their troops.

As an article from a U.S official noting a peace deal is likely circling around, a reminder how much it may or may not come true.

Recall that a big problem with Russian morale is a feeling among the masses that high command is sending them to their deaths and doing so for fruitless reasons. In that sense, it is important to signal to the Russian soldiers that retreat is occurring, it is planned and orderly, and is being undertaken to actually not send you to your deaths for no reason. Makes sense to announce it to illustrate control of the situation both to civilians and the home front and to the soldiers in Ukraine or nearly about to be sent.

Are the bridges gone over the Dnipro or just unusable for vehicles? Big difference, if it's just vehicles, men can simply cross. Isn't the dam crossable still?

Maybe Russians are trying their version of Severodonetsk, if you recall, Russia attempted a push into the city head on and got bloodied for it. End of the day, letting Russia leave Kherson quietly is the best thing, no Mariupol, no turning another one of Ukraine's cities into rubble. Destroy the equipment. The men are useful to kill or maim but forcing them to fight in urban defense is not great vs retreating.