How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

Heavy drone for medical transport.

Is this the beginning of the new air-mobile (drone mobile?) infantry?

Drone Dragoons.  Drongoons.

 

And if it gets shot down on the way, it will double as a coffin.

A big part of why drones are so successful is that they are so small that they are almost impossible to spot and hit at range. This one, not so much.

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, Simcoe said:

I don't really buy this narrative.

1. It's close enough to the heart of Donetsk to shell/send drones from. This restricts the Russians ability to move and transport supplies up and down the line.

2. The most heavily fortified part of the entire line. You won't find such a large concentration of concrete bunkers after this until you reach the new line they're building farther to the west.

3. The Ukrainians have shelled civilian areas regularly from Avdiivka. As long as it stands the DPR and the civilian population will question Russians commitment to their cause.

Finally, I have a hard time believing Russia is the only one suffering during this battle. It's pretty easy to geolocate equipment losses but what about infantry hit farther behind the line with artillery, thermobarics, glide bombs, FPV drones. This is a fire sac surrounded on three sides.

Whether it's worth it I don't know but we have to stop assuming Russians are stupid. It's counterproductive. If they are spending this much blood and treasure and we don't understand why then there must be something they know that we don't.

 

Well you have already been pretty badly mauled over this on already but lets unpack it a little further.  First off "this" is not a "narrative", it is analysis and assessment.  A narrative would be whatever you think my analysis was promoting.  Much in that same way your own analysis is promoting another narrative.

But lets just break down your points:

1.  Range.  So you claim that the Adiivka salient is critical to continued UA ability to strike the "heart of Donetsk" and why it is so important to both the RA and UA.   Well that statement simply does not hold up.

 

So that first one is a 22.5km circle from the center of Donetsk.  As can be seen about the closest anyone is going to bring guns in the Adiivka salient is in and around Orlivka.  Any closer and those guns are extremely vulnerable.  Plus it is as close as the UA needs to get with modern base bleed rounds from 152mm or 155mm rounds. The major problem with your theory at point #1 is that the UA has a lot of terrain within the same gun ranges...that aren't currently in a threatened salient.  Neetaliove and Krasnohorivka are both well within the same ranges, with far more free terrain to shoot and scoot.  So unless the UA is parking guns right in the middle of the Adiivka salient (and they do not need to take that risk) this entire point of your argument falls apart.  The UA can threaten Russian logistics from various points, none of them rely on the "critical node" of Adiivka.

Ok, point #2 - Fortification.  Well ok, I can accept that it is heavily fortified.  Well first question is "how many of those fortifications are new?"

Adiivka was a front line town back in 2015.  So how old are all those bunkers?  But let's say that they are indeed new.  Well why would the UA build such heavy fortifications - likely on top of ones nearing ten years old?  One conclusion is that this is somehow key terrain/vital ground.  Or the other is that the UA has fortified because the RA keep attacking there.  The fact that either side has fortified is a signal that this area is worth something, but it does not establish what that value is, or is not.  Like Bakhmut, I suspect the value for the UA, on a piece of terrain they were fighting over for nearly a decade, is that it does threaten Donetsk...politically.  It is a line on the map pointing at a rebel/Russian controlled city.  That makes it an insult, a poke in the eye - but does not translate into military value.  The UA could threaten Donetsk from about a 90 degree angle - as those other maps showed.  So this is all about "I have it and you can't get it back."  followed by "I disagree".  The primary Ukrainian military value is the fact that significant numbers of Russians are being pushed to die there.  Just like Bakhmut, which also fell and somehow did not lead to a full collapse of the entire UA defensive line.

And point #3 - "Ukrainian shelling civilians".  Ok, if we are going to start throwing "narrative" around, I think I can smell where the one you are promoting one is coming from.  The idea that Russia suddenly cares so much about Donetsk civilians who are suffering under the warcrimes of the UA is a pretty bold statement to toss out without a shred of proof.  Do you have any references that show this?  The actual loss of civilian lives in Dontesk?  I am sure it has happened but do we have any proof of UA terror strikes in Donetsk?  As to shelling ranges...see point #1.  As to a Russian "hearts and minds" campaign...well they probably are coming late to that table given the horrendous losses the LNT/DPR have already suffered in the service of the Russian cause. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

The idea that a nation that has acted brutally with clear disregard of the LAOC suddenly "cares too much" is pretty weak.

Point #4 - you kinda snuck this one in under the door.  Ukrainian losses.  Well we know they are not zero, but given simple realities of defensive vs offensive, along with what we can see, the ratio is very likely in Ukraine's favour.  How heavily in that favour remains unknown.  What we do know is that despite losses, the UA has managed to hold this area under RA assault for over 3 months.  This tells us that the losses have been sustainable.  Russia has also suffered horrendous losses but keeps on attacking, so also sustainable...for now.  Russia could be trying to wear the UA down to the point is suffers an operational collapse.  But we have not seen this yet.  We did not see it at Bakhmut and I have doubts it will happen here at Adiivka.  In the end we will have to see but the levels of hardware the RA is losing alone brings into question the value of this current operation.

Last point - "Dumb Russia". Well here you are correct.  We do no service to ourselves assuming Russia is always "dumb."  However, we also do disservice if we assume that they are smarter than they are too, which appears a plague in some political circles.  Throwing away a division on a piece of ground of dubious value is not militarily smart - it may very well be politically smart, I personally do not see it but...  Russia has a pretty bad track record of bad ideas politically driven in this war, pretty much right from the start.  They have made some pretty basic errors - like don't try and defend with a river behind you that has only one viable crossing; don't overreach and then double down on that overextension.  I strongly suspect that Adiivka is being politically pushed from the top.  It is a demonstration in the making.  A demonstration to the Russia people, in their state controlled information bubbles, that Russia is still "winning".  How politically smart or dumb that is, I will leave to others.  Militarily, Adiivka is a horrible idea.  Attacking heavily fortified enemy positions in continuing frontals, losing entire Bns at a time is not militarily smart.

Finally, I am not sure where you are getting these points from.  Perhaps they are personal analysis, which is fine but you should likely work to learn more and refresh a lot of your metrics and assumptions.  If you are getting them elsewhere (I get a strong whiff of MacGregor) would suggest you balance them out and keep coming back here with good questions.

Edited February 6 by The_Capt

[Kinophile]

Drone on Drone

 

Edited February 6 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

29 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

And if it gets shot down on the way, it will double as a coffin.

A big part of why drones are so successful is that they are so small that they are almost impossible to spot and hit at range. This one, not so much.

Successful as weapons, no? This would be leaving the fighting, so getting smaller and less obvious every second, with more dangerous UAS much closer. 

I assume this is for comatose but stabilized, critical patients. 

Edited February 6 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You have been Captain Wrongway Peachfuzz since entering 

*stealing*

Heh

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, Ales Dvorak said:

I wouldn't be so sure about that, bro. Saw this in 1991.

Reading Anthony Loyd at this exact moment:

"What defined the two groups? Race? They were the same race. Culture? They were all Tito-era children. Religion? No man present had the first clue about the tenets of his own faith, be it Orthodox or Islam. They were southern Slav brothers, pitting in conflict by the rising phoenix of long dead banners raised by men whose only wish was power, vlast, and in so doing they created a self perpetuating cycle of fear and death that grew in Bosnia, feeding of its own evil like a malignant tumour."

A lot of that going around these days.

 

[Kraft]

54 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

And if it gets shot down on the way, it will double as a coffin.

A big part of why drones are so successful is that they are so small that they are almost impossible to spot and hit at range. This one, not so much.

I'd argue it is faster and safer than a pickup truck driving through mud, dodging shell craters and mines, artillery and fpv drones - although the latter have a chance of taking this thing down. 

Also it doesnt put a driver at risk, so for hard to reach places this can have valuable use. It probably costs a lot more than a simple truck though.

Edited February 6 by Kraft

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Reading Anthony Loyd at this exact moment:

"What defined the two groups? Race? They were the same race. Culture? They were all Tito-era children. Religion? No man present had the first clue about the tenets of his own faith, be it Orthodox or Islam. They were southern Slav brothers, pitting in conflict by the rising phoenix of long dead banners raised by men whose only wish was power, vlast, and in so doing they created a self perpetuating cycle of fear and death that grew in Bosnia, feeding of its own evil like a malignant tumour."

A lot of that going around these days.

 

I was driving through a small village right at the start of the tour.  Every 2nd or 3rd house had been burned out.  I asked if the Serbian Army had done all this.  I was told, "no, those were the neighbors".  These people had lived next to each other for over 40 years.

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

And if it gets shot down on the way, it will double as a coffin.

A big part of why drones are so successful is that they are so small that they are almost impossible to spot and hit at range. This one, not so much.

Shot down so hard verbally before it was shot down with a gun, ufff. 

[Ales Dvorak]

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 I was told, "no, those were the neighbors".  These people had lived next to each other for over 40 years.

Sad but true.

[billbindc]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I was driving through a small village right at the start of the tour.  Every 2nd or 3rd house had been burned out.  I asked if the Serbian Army had done all this.  I was told, "no, those were the neighbors".  These people had lived next to each other for over 40 years.

Much longer than 40 in many cases. 

Loyd's "My War Gone By I Miss It So" is absolutely chilling and unfortunately more relevant by the day. Loyd, btw, is the great grand son of Sir Adrian Carton de Wiart. 

[Ales Dvorak]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

"What defined the two groups? Race? They were the same race. Culture? They were all Tito-era children. Religion? No man present had the first clue about the tenets of his own faith, be it Orthodox or Islam. They were southern Slav brothers, pitting in conflict by the rising phoenix of long dead banners raised by men whose only wish was power, vlast, and in so doing they created a self perpetuating cycle of fear and death that grew in Bosnia, feeding of its own evil like a malignant tumour."

 

Until Tito's death the most famous slogan in Yugoslavia was:" Čuvajte bratstvo i jedinstvo kao zenicu oka svog ". Loosely translated: " Keep brotherhood and unity as the apple of your eye ".

Surely for a reason.

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

And if it gets shot down on the way, it will double as a coffin.

A big part of why drones are so successful is that they are so small that they are almost impossible to spot and hit at range. This one, not so much.

Flying low and away from the front is very different than flying high looking for targets within the frontlines.

Also, what are the alternatives for EVAC?  A much larger ground vehicle that moves 1/2 to 1/4 the speed over predictable and known routes?  Much easier for a FPV to hit the ground vehicle than this proposed aerial drone.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

What we do know is that despite losses, the UA has managed to hold this area under RA assault for over 3 months.  This tells us that the losses have been sustainable.  Russia has also suffered horrendous losses but keeps on attacking, so also sustainable...for now. 

If we look at units engaged on both sides it tells the story right there.  After it was clear that Russia was investing heavily in Avdiivka the Ukrainians reinforced their positions.  Standard reaction, counter action stuff.  But what's happened since then?  Ukraine still has the same three primary units in the line after 3 months, 2 of which came straight from the intense counter offensive.  They are still in the line and Russia and slaughtering Russian attacks.

On the Russian side they keep rotating new units into the line.  I've long since stopped trying to track what's been rotated in, but I presume the rotations have not ceased.

This gives us a pretty good window on personnel losses.  If Ukraine's were as numerically high as Russia's, we'd have seen Ukrainian reinforcement/rotations already.

Steve

[Simcoe]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well you have already been pretty badly mauled over this on already but lets unpack it a little further.  First off "this" is not a "narrative", it is analysis and assessment.  A narrative would be whatever you think my analysis was promoting.  Much in that same way your own analysis is promoting another narrative.

But lets just break down your points:

1.  Range.  So you claim that the Adiivka salient is critical to continued UA ability to strike the "heart of Donetsk" and why it is so important to both the RA and UA.   Well that statement simply does not hold up.

 

So that first one is a 22.5km circle from the center of Donetsk.  As can be seen about the closest anyone is going to bring guns in the Adiivka salient is in and around Orlivka.  Any closer and those guns are extremely vulnerable.  Plus it is as close as the UA needs to get with modern base bleed rounds from 152mm or 155mm rounds. The major problem with your theory at point #1 is that the UA has a lot of terrain within the same gun ranges...that aren't currently in a threatened salient.  Neetaliove and Krasnohorivka are both well within the same ranges, with far more free terrain to shoot and scoot.  So unless the UA is parking guns right in the middle of the Adiivka salient (and they do not need to take that risk) this entire point of your argument falls apart.  The UA can threaten Russian logistics from various points, none of them rely on the "critical node" of Adiivka.

Ok, point #2 - Fortification.  Well ok, I can accept that it is heavily fortified.  Well first question is "how many of those fortifications are new?"

Adiivka was a front line town back in 2015.  So how old are all those bunkers?  But let's say that they are indeed new.  Well why would the UA build such heavy fortifications - likely on top of ones nearing ten years old?  One conclusion is that this is somehow key terrain/vital ground.  Or the other is that the UA has fortified because the RA keep attacking there.  The fact that either side has fortified is a signal that this area is worth something, but it does not establish what that value is, or is not.  Like Bakhmut, I suspect the value for the UA, on a piece of terrain they were fighting over for nearly a decade, is that it does threaten Donetsk...politically.  It is a line on the map pointing at a rebel/Russian controlled city.  That makes it an insult, a poke in the eye - but does not translate into military value.  The UA could threaten Donetsk from about a 90 degree angle - as those other maps showed.  So this is all about "I have it and you can't get it back."  followed by "I disagree".  The primary Ukrainian military value is the fact that significant numbers of Russians are being pushed to die there.  Just like Bakhmut, which also fell and somehow did not lead to a full collapse of the entire UA defensive line.

And point #3 - "Ukrainian shelling civilians".  Ok, if we are going to start throwing "narrative" around, I think I can smell where the one you are promoting one is coming from.  The idea that Russia suddenly cares so much about Donetsk civilians who are suffering under the warcrimes of the UA is a pretty bold statement to toss out without a shred of proof.  Do you have any references that show this?  The actual loss of civilian lives in Dontesk?  I am sure it has happened but do we have any proof of UA terror strikes in Donetsk?  As to shelling ranges...see point #1.  As to a Russian "hearts and minds" campaign...well they probably are coming late to that table given the horrendous losses the LNT/DPR have already suffered in the service of the Russian cause. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

The idea that a nation that has acted brutally with clear disregard of the LAOC suddenly "cares too much" is pretty weak.

Point #4 - you kinda snuck this one in under the door.  Ukrainian losses.  Well we know they are not zero, but given simple realities of defensive vs offensive, along with what we can see, the ratio is very likely in Ukraine's favour.  How heavily in that favour remains unknown.  What we do know is that despite losses, the UA has managed to hold this area under RA assault for over 3 months.  This tells us that the losses have been sustainable.  Russia has also suffered horrendous losses but keeps on attacking, so also sustainable...for now.  Russia could be trying to wear the UA down to the point is suffers an operational collapse.  But we have not seen this yet.  We did not see it at Bakhmut and I have doubts it will happen here at Adiivka.  In the end we will have to see but the levels of hardware the RA is losing alone brings into question the value of this current operation.

Last point - "Dumb Russia". Well here you are correct.  We do no service to ourselves assuming Russia is always "dumb."  However, we also do disservice if we assume that they are smarter than they are too, which appears a plague in some political circles.  Throwing away a division on a piece of ground of dubious value is not militarily smart - it may very well be politically smart, I personally do not see it but...  Russia has a pretty bad track record of bad ideas politically driven in this war, pretty much right from the start.  They have made some pretty basic errors - like don't try and defend with a river behind you that has only one viable crossing; don't overreach and then double down on that overextension.  I strongly suspect that Adiivka is being politically pushed from the top.  It is a demonstration in the making.  A demonstration to the Russia people, in their state controlled information bubbles, that Russia is still "winning".  How politically smart or dumb that is, I will leave to others.  Militarily, Adiivka is a horrible idea.  Attacking heavily fortified enemy positions in continuing frontals, losing entire Bns at a time is not militarily smart.

Finally, I am not sure where you are getting these points from.  Perhaps they are personal analysis, which is fine but you should likely work to learn more and refresh a lot of your metrics and assumptions.  If you are getting them elsewhere (I get a strong whiff of MacGregor) would suggest you balance them out and keep coming back here with good questions.

Thank you for the well thought out reply. 

#1 As your map suggests. Avdiivka is the closest and it's not out of the question to fire a shell or two into Donetsk. Being that close allows for shorter range to guns or drones to conduct fire missions.

#2 Doesn't matter whether they are new or not. Currently Ukraine can tie up a much greater percentage of Russian manpower with comparatively fewer forces. The question is how dense are the fortifications behind it. If there are none or few behind Avdiivka then Ukraine now has a section of the front that must be much more heavily manned. 

#3 Here's a few examples. These were from a quick google search. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/21/ukrainian-shelling-donetsk-shopping-area

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/21/russia-says-at-least-25-killed-in-blast-at-donetsk-market#:~:text=At least 27 people have,Tekstilshchik on the Ukrainian military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Donetsk,_Russia

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-shelling-russian-controlled-donetsk/32676019.html

#4 Even the US argued that Ukraine should leave Bakhmut. Multiple Ukrainian officials have lamented that Bakhmut should have been given up earlier to spare manpower.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/ukraine-shift-tactics-bakhmut/index.html

I don't bring these up to celebrate one side or the other just to challenge viewpoints here. I've enjoyed reading the responses even with the insults. 

Edited February 6 by Simcoe
Added additional source

[Anthony P.]

50 minutes ago, Ales Dvorak said:

Until Tito's death the most famous slogan in Yugoslavia was:" Čuvajte bratstvo i jedinstvo kao zenicu oka svog ". Loosely translated: " Keep brotherhood and unity as the apple of your eye ".

Surely for a reason.

 

It can be argued though that the Tito regime's policy of "get along you, or else..." only delayed the inevitable or even exacerbated it. Suppressing the right of national self-determination typically results in widespread violence once said suppression is at an end.

 

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Also, what are the alternatives for EVAC?  A much larger ground vehicle that moves 1/2 to 1/4 the speed over predictable and known routes?  Much easier for a FPV to hit the ground vehicle than this proposed aerial drone.

An ambulance won't crash in flames if successfully targeted by electronic warfare, it'll just lose its GPS and radio.

Statistically it's likely safer, but airliner travel could also be argued to increase in safety if human pilots were replaced by autopilot and drone piloting. But the notion of being flown by someone who's not there, physically alongside you would definitely put off most prospective passengers nonetheless.

[riptides]

5 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

......

 

An ambulance won't crash in flames if successfully targeted by electronic warfare, it'll just lose its GPS and radio.

Statistically it's likely safer, but airliner travel could also be argued to increase in safety if human pilots were replaced by autopilot and drone piloting. But the notion of being flown by someone who's not there, physically alongside you would definitely put off most prospective passengers nonetheless.

I don't think a medical transport patient cares how they get evac'd. 

[Carolus]

27 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

 #3 Here's a few examples. These were from a quick google search. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/21/ukrainian-shelling-donetsk-shopping-area

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/21/russia-says-at-least-25-killed-in-blast-at-donetsk-market#:~:text=At least 27 people have,Tekstilshchik on the Ukrainian military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Donetsk,_Russia

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-shelling-russian-controlled-donetsk/32676019.html

I will leave the military related points to those who are militarily savvy.

But this... sorry to say but this is pretty shoddy sourcing.

The first two sources refer to the same incident, the source of which is a local pro-Russian official, and there have been Donetsk civilians who have been lamenting on social media that the shelling came from the Russian side as part of a "disciplinary measure". It was also apparently mortar rounds in an area where even heavy mortars with extended range can't reach from UA controlled territory.

Aljazeera is not a source - it is a privately funded broadcaster whose purpose is doing marketing for its founders and islamist terrorist organisations who have the favor of these founders (and malign those who do not).

Then there is Wikipedia, the purpose of which is being a collection and summary of online sources. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is bad, but one has to be aware the content is often  "Party A said this, Party B said that". It is not doing investigations or journalism, it is a collection of infos.

And the last one, directly in the first fat paragraph, says 

"a Kremlin-installed official in the eastern region of Ukraine said. This has not been independently verified"

 

Really? After Russia's abysmal track record over the last... decades? 

Edited February 6 by Carolus
additions and typos

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

#1 As your map suggests. Avdiivka is the closest and it's not out of the question to fire a shell or two into Donetsk. Being that close allows for shorter range to guns or drones to conduct fire missions.

Ok,  now it really sounds like you are clinging onto an answer in spite of the facts.  The UA does not need to push guns those few extra thousand meters to hit deeper into Donetsk…they are hitting Volgograd FFS.  Why on earth would they risk assets like guns by pushing them deeper into a besieged salient when they can hit to the same depth elsewhere or with other systems.  More to the point why would they lose hundreds/thousands of troops to simply hang onto that?  It makes no military sense and frankly, you offer zero proof this is what the UA is indeed doing.

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

#2 Doesn't matter whether they are new or not. Currently Ukraine can tie up a much greater percentage of Russian manpower with comparatively fewer forces. The question is how dense are the fortifications behind it. If there are none or few behind Avdiivka then Ukraine now has a section of the front that must be much more heavily manned. 

It is remarkable how convoluted the logic can get trying to hold onto a static belief.  So we know Russia built a massive defensive belt while Ukraine gave them breathing room last winter.  So while Russia bleeds all over Adiivka on the bunkers that were built there over a decade ago…they are somehow unable to build reinforced fall back positions?  So they are dying at Adiivka because the UA cannot possibly figure out how to pour concrete and dig holes a couple kms back…for over 3 months?!  I would buy your logic if the RA assault was lightening fast with tempo to match.  But this has been another leg humping grinding attack in slow motion.

 

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

#3 Here's a few examples. These were from a quick google search. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/21/ukrainian-shelling-donetsk-shopping-area

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/21/russia-says-at-least-25-killed-in-blast-at-donetsk-market#:~:text=At least 27 people have,Tekstilshchik on the Ukrainian military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Donetsk,_Russia

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-shelling-russian-controlled-donetsk/32676019.html

Well you really have 3 incidents…one from 2014.  Most are relying on Russian reporting but I won’t quibble on that.  I have no doubt that UA has struck some civilian targets.  Now whether they were acceptable collateral damage, accidents or deliberate is for an investigation to decide.  What we do not have proof of is a systemic terror campaign of striking civilian targets over time….you know, like the one Russia has been doing with thousands of long range missiles.  Further none of what you quote supports this bizarre “hearts and minds” theory on why this place matters to Russia so much.  The UA can gleefully hammer Donetsk from many angles by many means…Adiivka is not central to this ability.  Your entire argument breaks down right there.

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

#4 Even the US argued that Ukraine should leave Bakhmut. Multiple Ukrainian officials have lamented that Bakhmut should have been given up earlier to spare manpower.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/ukraine-shift-tactics-bakhmut/index.html

Sure, many people did.  But since Bakhmut Russia has not been able to create, project or sustain an operational level offensive.  The trade off risk was allowing Russia time to dig in elsewhere.  I honestly cannot say if they were right or wrong on this.  But “so freakin what?”  The UA is holding to inflict a lot of damage on the RA - that is the most likely operational objective…it makes sense.  The RA objective makes less military sense…in fact it makes almost none (see all of the above).  It does make a lot of sense to one desperate autocrats who desperately needs to demonstrate to his population that they can win this war and do “something”.  So he is very likely pushing his generals for that demonstration.  Adiivka, like Bakhmut make sense through that lens.

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

I don't bring these up to celebrate one side or the other just to challenge viewpoints here. I've enjoyed reading the responses even with the insults. 

Challenging viewpoints is fine, in fact encourage.  The idea that Russia is using Adiivka as an attritional focal point where they can accept asymmetric losses in order to wear down the UA is not new.  What is missing is any proof that it is working.  As Steve just pointed out the UA units seem to be static, same formations holding that line for over 3 months.  While the RA is rotating units like mad.  This is an indicator but we will have to see where this goes.  Bakhmut was not a success by any stretch, unless one can prove the Summer offensive failed due to losses there.  But most of the summer offensive stalling was not lack of manpower, it was the entry costs of trying to cross minefields.

I guess in the end, there is good counter-thinking and challenging.  And then there is bad.  Bad simply plants a stick in the ground and then tries to bend facts around it.  It insists it is correct regardless of the facts.  Good counter-thinking adapts and asks questions (note: you have not asked a single question in all this…just a lot of opinion)

Edited February 6 by The_Capt

[Ales Dvorak]

23 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

It can be argued though that the Tito regime's policy of "get along you, or else..." only delayed the inevitable or even exacerbated it.

Sure we can argue, but in the end we'll never know. What's done is done.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Further none of what you quote supports this bizarre “hearts and minds” theory on why this place matters to Russia so much.  The UA can gleefully hammer Donetsk from many angles by many means…Adiivka is not central to this ability.

Ukrainians have not been shooting at Donieck proper for a long time. Nothing can be gained by that, it would be pure waste of ammo.  

[Anthony P.]

37 minutes ago, riptides said:

I don't think a medical transport patient cares how they get evac'd. 

Not if they're unconcious perhaps, but otherwise the vast majority of human beings can very much be counted on to have opinions about being shoved into a windowless, remotely piloted aircraft.

Driverless cars and buses elicit much emotion from fellow motorists. No one is likely to agree to set foot on a remotely piloted airliner. To expect different with "CASEVAC-drones" is to assume that existing evidence will be reversed without for no real reason.

[billbindc]

24 minutes ago, Ales Dvorak said:

Sure we can argue, but in the end we'll never know. What's done is done.

Tito obviously looms large in this discussion but it was a lot more than Tito. Yugoslavia as a state was most viable when it was held together by the facts on the ground of the Cold War that surrounded it. When the USSR began to fail, the coherence of the state began to blur just as the generation that had created it left the political scene. 

[Ales Dvorak]

15 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Tito obviously looms large in this discussion but it was a lot more than Tito. Yugoslavia as a state was most viable when it was held together by the facts on the ground of the Cold War that surrounded it. When the USSR began to fail, the coherence of the state began to blur just as the generation that had created it left the political scene. 

I agree.

[kimbosbread]

In the end, what happened with Kadyrov’s hospital stay? We don’t see much from him anymore.