- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 4/8/23 at 1:06 pm to StormyMcMan
Posted on 4/8/23 at 1:06 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
Of course once it falls the optics reverse, but the strategic value still isn't there.
If Bakmuth was so critical I’d think Russia would have taken it months ago, but on the other hand, if Bakmuth wasn’t of importance then why did Ukraine invest so heavily in defending it?
War is seldom cut and dry. Often things spin out of control. That’s what happened at Gettysburg for instance. There wasn’t suppose to be a major battle there, but things evolved.
Bakmuth might mean little on a paper map, but thousands on each side would tell us otherwise.
2
Posted on 4/8/23 at 1:31 pm to doubleb
Bakhmut is important psychologically and politically, to both sides.
It is of limited strategic value in the pure military sense, to both sides.
It is of limited strategic value in the pure military sense, to both sides.
Posted on 4/8/23 at 1:50 pm to TexasForever
quote:
Truly sad to see all of these Ukrainian losses continue to pour in daily for a "non-strategic" location
Ukraine has to fight Russia somewhere along the front. To not fight means to constantly fall back. Bakhmut, being urban, is an ideal place to defend. High ground to the west. If you must fight somewhere to Davis enemy forces and degrade his strength, then it’s this location.
But losing the city isn’t much of a strategic loss. And it’s been reported from numerous sources that the loss ratio has favored the Ukrainians. Maybe not so much lately but still not in Russia’s favor.
Posted on 4/8/23 at 2:00 pm to TexasForever
quote:
I simply posted an article that was published today, not sure why this is an issue for you.
No, you posted it in response to another poster posting about Russian shell hunger. Plus you've been one of the ones saying this thread only slurps up Uke propaganda. Which you just did again in your response to me. I was simply using that to point out that you are wrong.
I, personally, know that this whole thing has been a long shot for Ukraine since the beginning. I read so many other sources outside of this thread. And I have actually been accused of being a Russian supporter earlier in this thread. But in the year+ since this thing kicked off, I've come to realize that this thread wants Ukraine to win (just like myself), but is actually pretty rational when it comes to the realities that are available, for us to consume, on the ground.
Just as a recent example: Just about every regular poster in this thread that wants Ukraine to repel the Russians have been wondering for months why in the hell the UAF didn't tactically withdraw from Bakhmut 2 months ago. To go with your other post, every military analyst in the world (except Zelensky hurr durr) has said from the end of last year that Bakhmut is not tactically or strategically important for Ukraine to hold. In my opinion, and it's been my opinion for a while, is that the city became a symbolic inflection point for both sides while not much else was happening across the rest of the front. Everything had kind of turned into a stalemate and the vast majority of heavy combat was focused on Bakhmut. It turned out bad for both sides. Ukraine lost way more manpower that could have been used for the counter offensive that is coming (along with a shite ton of ammo that could have been preserved for it) and Russia also lost a shite load of manpower/ammo/equipment and time to fortify that part of the line as they've done elsewhere.
So now what? Why did either side waste so much capital on that one tiny part of the front? What about Vuhledar? Why did Russia stupidly keep running so much armor into the same spot to get blown to bits? What about Kherson in the South? Why hasn't Ukraine stepped up their probes in that area to keep Russia from solidifying their defensive lines there? Who knows, seems like the posters in this thread can only go on what information is available and discuss it here. As far as the political ramifications of this war...that's for another thread.
This post was edited on 4/8/23 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 4/8/23 at 2:11 pm to IAmNERD
I certainly read pro-Russian sources and post their stuff regularly. For me, the point of this thread is to help me understand the war, and I have to read stuff from both sides to do that.
But, yeah, no one in here posts pics of Zelensky with little heart stickers. The people who ever post in here saying "our side is going to dominate!" are the pro-Russian trolls.
The rest of us know that war is an inherently uncertain enterprise. No war would ever be fought, unless both sides believed that they could win.
But, yeah, no one in here posts pics of Zelensky with little heart stickers. The people who ever post in here saying "our side is going to dominate!" are the pro-Russian trolls.
The rest of us know that war is an inherently uncertain enterprise. No war would ever be fought, unless both sides believed that they could win.
Posted on 4/8/23 at 2:16 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
But, overall, the artillery battle has favored Russia so far in the war.
The Khodakovsky quote is interesting not only for the implication that Russia is not sending shells to low-intensity areas of the front, but also because of why: Russia has begun to stockpile ammo in anticipation of the Ukrainian spring offensive.
That's the key thing now -- not how much is distributed to frontline units, but how much has been prepared by both sides.
That was my point exactly in asking if it could be both sides are conserving for this summer.
Yes, Russian firepower is on a level that Ukraine can't, and never has been, or ever will be able to match. That's been true since day 1. This has always been coming down to doctrine, ie, accuracy vs volume.
It's not really a true "accuracy vs volume" fight since Ukraine has had to lean so heavily on the same equipment from old stockpiles that Russia is using. But a big push with (even in limited numbers) western materials against fortified lines will give the west a clearer picture of what some future confrontation might look like.
And I know I've delved into the "two armies in Ukraine" topic with you regarding old Soviet reservists mentality vs trained by NATO mentality across the UAF command before. That is one of the most pressing issues for Ukraine to turn things around, imo. I will be watching that as closely as I can going forward.
ETA: Yes i said the US was gaining information about our weapons systems vs the Russians weapons systems for the "this is a proxy war" crowd. We know...
This post was edited on 4/8/23 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 4/8/23 at 2:27 pm to doubleb
It has been a killing ground for Russians. Wagner has been decimated there. It was held by less forces than Russian KIA there. 11 months to take 20 miles of territory is pretty much the definition of Pyrrhic Victory, for a place with not strategic significance. As a rule Wagner gets to keep the spoils, and in this case a salt mine
Posted on 4/8/23 at 2:36 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
Just about every regular poster in this thread that wants Ukraine to repel the Russians have been wondering for months why in the hell the UAF didn't tactically withdraw from Bakhmut 2 months ago
Ukraine has to fight Russia somewhere along the front. To withdraw from Bakhmut means russias fighting capacity is not weakened so they can just fight somewhere else. Bakhmut has been bloody for both sides but the attacker has lost more. An urban battle ground with high ground to the west makes bakhmut and ideal location to engage te enemy. And as to be expected the attackers losses have been higher then the defenders.
Until the mud season ends there will remain a static war where trench or urban assaults are the major action. Once the fields dry up then the ability for maneuver ware fade will open back up. Ukraine needed to hold the front until the winter wet ended in order to launch a counter offensive.
The longer they can hold bakhmut the longer they can tie up Russia forces and drain manpower, equipment and munitions from being dispersed for reinforcing other positions on the front.
I believe it was severdonsk last year they held out for a while when everyone said they would retreat. But the pinned down Russia and bless resources and later initiated the karkiv counter offensive.
That is the hope come spring. A repeat of last fall.
Posted on 4/8/23 at 2:44 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
No, you posted it in response to another poster posting about Russian shell hunger. Plus you've been one of the ones saying this thread only slurps up Uke propaganda. Which you just did again in your response to me. I was simply using that to point out that you are wrong.
Are you going to get this worked up about every article I post that doesn't paint a rosy picture for Ukraine?
quote:
And I have actually been accused of being a Russian supporter earlier in this thread. But in the year+ since this thing kicked off, I've come to realize that this thread wants Ukraine to win (just like myself), but is actually pretty rational when it comes to the realities that are available, for us to consume, on the ground.
Yeah, I went the opposite direction.
quote:
What about Vuhledar? Why did Russia stupidly keep running so much armor into the same spot to get blown to bits?
That's a good question and I can't answer it. It also doesn't hurt my feelings to see posts about it.
Posted on 4/8/23 at 2:46 pm to TexasForever
You keep saying my feelings are hurt...what makes you say that? Because I respond to your posts on a message board? You've responded to all mine. Are your feelings hurt since that's the criteria?
I also see you did not quote my question along the same lines regarding Ukraine, so one could only conclude that YOU are the one getting worked up about Russian forces being painted in a bad light.
Interesting...
I also see you did not quote my question along the same lines regarding Ukraine, so one could only conclude that YOU are the one getting worked up about Russian forces being painted in a bad light.
Interesting...
This post was edited on 4/8/23 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 4/8/23 at 3:16 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
You keep saying my feelings are hurt...what makes you say that? Because I respond to your posts on a message board? You've responded to all mine. Are your feelings hurt since that's the criteria?
I am just not that interested in this conversation, let's move on back to war discussion.
quote:
so one could only conclude that YOU are the one getting worked up about Russian forces being painted in a bad light
I legitimately don't give a shite about Russia, believe it or not. Just tired of the complete one-sided coverage of this war & all of the bullshite narratives like: "Russia is committing genocide", "Ukrainians fight for democracy worldwide", or "NATO countries will be invaded next."
I personally believe it's in America's best interest that this ends as soon as possible and it's my belief that Russia taking the east will force Ukraine/US to the negotiating table. Plenty of people here won't agree and that's perfectly fine.
Posted on 4/8/23 at 3:20 pm to TexasForever
quote:you just think the best case is russia getting what it wants
I legitimately don't give a shite about Russia
Posted on 4/8/23 at 3:36 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
you just think the best case is russia getting what it wants
It's inevitable, now it's just a matter of how many people need to die before it happens. The Russian military is significantly weakened, Europe is more dependent on US oil & gas than ever, and NATO is taking defense spending more seriously...Neocon mission accomplished, let's salvage what's left of the generation of young men now.
Posted on 4/8/23 at 3:50 pm to TexasForever
quote:
I am just not that interested in this conversation
Must be why you have a rebuttal for everything I post, huh?
quote:
let's move on back to war discussion.
That's what was happening before you chimed in.
Posted on 4/8/23 at 3:58 pm to TexasForever
quote:
Neocon mission accomplished, let's salvage what's left of the generation of young men now.
Thought you wanted to "get back to discussing the war"?
Don't be the hypocrite you hate...
This post was edited on 4/8/23 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 4/8/23 at 4:02 pm to IAmNERD
Get a room.......on another board you two.
Posted on 4/8/23 at 4:03 pm to jeffsdad
Posted on 4/8/23 at 4:04 pm to Obtuse1
A Russian learns the danger of firing captured weapons in this case an AT-4 LAW.
Twitter vid of the firing
Twitter vid of the firing
Posted on 4/8/23 at 4:11 pm to Obtuse1
Why Blockading Rather Than Retaking Crimea Might Be Kyiv's Best Option
quote:
Ukraine does not, however, need to drive occupying forces out of Crimea to render it less hospitable to Russia's purposes. Combinations of modern technologies could enable Ukraine to blockade and barrage Russian operations. Former U.S. Army Commander in Europe Lieutenant General Ben Hodges maintains that with long-range strike capabilities, Ukrainian forces could “make Crimea untenable for Russian forces” by the end of the summer.
Ukraine could use additional capabilities to neutralize most Russian military power in Crimea. It has demonstrated the use of explosive uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) in attacks against Russian warships based at Sevastopol. The concept is simple: camera-studded, low-profile USVs laden with explosives are directed toward targets. This emerging technology can sink warships and destroy maritime infrastructure.
USVs are well-suited for networked swarm attacks, and relatively low-cost. Their nascent designs can be modified to make them stealthier and harder to detect than most crewed vessels. Large-scale attacks using scores of USVs could inflict massive damage. Sinking a warship in a confined channel could create obstacles that would take weeks to clear, or longer if under fire.
The geography that makes Crimea hard to invade facilitates a modern-day siege. All Russian movements by land must pass through one of two constrained corridors. The first entails traversing hundreds of miles of occupied territory, including areas relatively close to the front and crawling with hostile populations, saboteurs, and special forces. The final gauntlet is the isthmus, a target-rich place with minimal room for maneuver and within range of current Ukrainian weapons.
It goes on to discuss the Kerch Strait Bridge and its possible vulnerabilities. I personally think it is going to take a multi-axis coordinated attack that can overwhelm what supposedly is a many-pronged defensive "net".
Full article from Moscow Times
Page 2622 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News