How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Jayjay]

Why? They block all of the roads and leave the fields wide open. Perhaps it's all they can do.

It's what you do when you are terrified of local irregular saboteurs. The US did something similar in Vietnam - they controlled the roads, but knew that any patrol that went off the highway would need to be a significant force, as anything smaller than a company strength unit would likely never come back.

The gaps between the roads are covered by aerial surveillance and any enemy moving in those gaps is dealt with by aerial bombardment. In theory.

But aerial surveillance demands limited tree cover and an enemy with poor camouflage capabilities; And when the enemy looks like the civilian population, the task is basically impossible.

In Ukraine, the gaps are agricultural fields with practically no cover. Not a Vietnamese jungle.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When the ground freezes, it allows offenses, but history has shown that Russia is better at it than Ukraine.

Seriously? The last nine months seem to disagree with you quite strongly.

I follow the war daily and what I've seen is Russia attacking, and Ukraine repelling the attacks. Not vice versa.

The notable exceptions are the Russian withdrawal from the north near the beginning of the war (while making advances elsewhere), Ukraine's counter-attack in Kharkiv oblast (which was before the mobilization and didn't get as far as it should have), and most recently Russians withdrawing from Kherson (which was kind of a special case, where Russia got itself stuck in an impossible to supply situation and was being bled to death).

Defending is easier than attacking. Especially if you've got time to prepare fortifications, which is what Russia's been doing for months; in Donbas, for years.

Russia keeps wasting it's strength attacking. Ukraine conserves their strength for when a piece of the front has been sufficiently weakened.

 

[Jayjay]

When the ground freezes, it allows offenses, but history has shown that Russia is better at it than Ukraine.

Seriously? The last nine months seem to disagree with you quite strongly.

I follow the war daily and what I've seen is Russia attacking, and Ukraine repelling the attacks. Not vice versa.

The notable exceptions are the Russian withdrawal from the north near the beginning of the war (while making advances elsewhere), Ukraine's counter-attack in Kharkiv oblast (which was before the mobilization and didn't get as far as it should have), and most recently Russians withdrawing from Kherson (which was kind of a special case, where Russia got itself stuck in an impossible to supply situation and was being bled to death).

Defending is easier than attacking. Especially if you've got time to prepare fortifications, which is what Russia's been doing for months; in Donbas, for years.

Russia keeps wasting it's strength attacking. Ukraine conserves their strength for when a piece of the front has been sufficiently weakened.

With mobilization and Russia ramping up its production of weapons, I'm not at all convinced that Russia is weakening. Or if it is, that it's weakening faster than Ukraine. The progress is slow, but in the east Russia seems to be able to make some small gains.

 

[barbos]

Russia keeps wasting it's strength attacking. Ukraine conserves their strength for when a piece of the front has been sufficiently weakened.

Dude, you're making shit up. Russian Army left territories with explicit goal of stopping wasting resources. It's ukrainian imbeciles wasting NATO resources on attacking.

 

[Jayjay]

Russia keeps wasting it's strength attacking. Ukraine conserves their strength for when a piece of the front has been sufficiently weakened.

Dude, you're making shit up. Russian Army left territories with explicit goal of stopping wasting resources. It's ukrainian imbeciles wasting NATO resources on attacking.

Getting Kherson and Kharkiv back was definitely worth it, for both Ukraine and it's backers. Even if Russia is hell-bent of punishing Ukraine for it.

If Russia had kept Kherson, it would have eventually taken the Odessa and and the entire southern coastline, and it would have direct route to attack Ukrainian rear. And in the east, taking back Izyum and Lyman means that Russia is very unlikely to be able to reach the administrative borders of Donetsk oblast. The strategic significance of these victories to Ukraine is larger than merely the land area that was liberated.

You may be right about future attacks, if they fail. But given how stingy NATO countries are about providing weapons, Ukraine constantly has to consider attrition and how to make the most out of limited supplies.

 

[bilby]

Why? They block all of the roads and leave the fields wide open. Perhaps it's all they can do.

It's what you do when you are terrified of local irregular saboteurs. The US did something similar in Vietnam - they controlled the roads, but knew that any patrol that went off the highway would need to be a significant force, as anything smaller than a company strength unit would likely never come back.

The gaps between the roads are covered by aerial surveillance and any enemy moving in those gaps is dealt with by aerial bombardment. In theory.

But aerial surveillance demands limited tree cover and an enemy with poor camouflage capabilities; And when the enemy looks like the civilian population, the task is basically impossible.

In Ukraine, the gaps are agricultural fields with practically no cover. Not a Vietnamese jungle.

The enemy still looks just like the civilian population. In fact, it's even worse for Russia, in that the people who are only pretending to be civilians are, sometimes, friendly irregulars rather than enemies.

 

[Jayjay]

Why? They block all of the roads and leave the fields wide open. Perhaps it's all they can do.

It's what you do when you are terrified of local irregular saboteurs. The US did something similar in Vietnam - they controlled the roads, but knew that any patrol that went off the highway would need to be a significant force, as anything smaller than a company strength unit would likely never come back.

The gaps between the roads are covered by aerial surveillance and any enemy moving in those gaps is dealt with by aerial bombardment. In theory.

But aerial surveillance demands limited tree cover and an enemy with poor camouflage capabilities; And when the enemy looks like the civilian population, the task is basically impossible.

In Ukraine, the gaps are agricultural fields with practically no cover. Not a Vietnamese jungle.

The enemy still looks just like the civilian population. In fact, it's even worse for Russia, in that the people who are only pretending to be civilians are, sometimes, friendly irregulars rather than enemies.

First, you assume Russia gives a shit about civilians. To quote Full Metal Jacket: "Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!"

Second, we're talking about open fields. Why would there be civilians? Villages and towns are different, but I suspect those are precisely the positons on the map that Russia has fortified (and possibly evacuated the population).

 

[barbos]

If Russia had kept Kherson,

Russia will get back Kherson when the time comes.
Until then, it's cheaper to leave it and make Ukrainian Junta and their NATO backers waste resources on staying there. In fact ukrainians has already started realizing that - they conduct their own evacuation from the city. Soon it will be empty.
To be fair, Kiev will be empty soon too.

 

[Patooka]

If Russia had kept Kherson,

Russia will get back Kherson when the time comes.
Until then, it's cheaper to leave it and make Ukrainian Junta and their NATO backers waste resources on staying there.

What are you talking about? There's no Ukranians anymore, we have nazi zombies, remember? They require very little in regards to logistics.

 

[bilby]

If Russia had kept Kherson,

Russia will get back Kherson when the time comes.
Until then, it's cheaper to leave it and make Ukrainian Junta and their NATO backers waste resources on staying there.

What are you talking about? There's no Ukranians anymore, we have nazi zombies, remember? They require very little in regards to logistics.

To be fair, their failure to advance more rapidly is likely due to the lack of braaaaiiiiiins on the Russian side.

 

[Jayjay]

If Russia had kept Kherson,

Russia will get back Kherson when the time comes.

Not going to happen. Crossing the river and keeping your troops supplied on the other side is nigh impossible as long as Ukraine keeps fighting. Russia is more likely to take Kyiv than Kherson. At least you can get there without crossing the Dnipro.

Until then, it's cheaper to leave it and make Ukrainian Junta and their NATO backers waste resources on staying there. In fact ukrainians has already started realizing that - they conduct their own evacuation from the city. Soon it will be empty.

Yes, just like I predicted, Russia is grinding the "forever Russian" city of Kherson to dust with artillery just out of spite. But keep in mind that with Russia out of Kherson, there are no more artillery strikes in Mykolaiv or Kryvyi Rih. When the war is over, people can move back in and rebuild.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Russia keeps wasting it's strength attacking. Ukraine conserves their strength for when a piece of the front has been sufficiently weakened.

Dude, you're making shit up. Russian Army left territories with explicit goal of stopping wasting resources. It's ukrainian imbeciles wasting NATO resources on attacking.

Look at what's happened on the ground--basically stationary followed by big leaps. Note that it's been Russia losing territory as time goes on. You can see the world press, thus you can see the battle maps. Ukraine isn't going for battles, they're going for supplies and then surrounding Russian troops when they're weakened enough for a breakthrough. And as the Russian troops fall back they get slaughtered. Now you have the problem that the troops aren't equipped for the weather--the same problem the Germans had so long ago.

 

[barbos]

Not going to happen. Crossing the river

Who said anything about crossing the river?

Yes, just like I predicted, Russia is grinding the "forever Russian" city of Kherson to dust with artillery just out of spite.

Nope. They are grinding supply lines.

 

[barbos]

Look at what's happened on the ground--basically stationary followed by big leaps. Note that it's been Russia losing territory as time goes on.

OK, and Ukraine is loosing people. What do you think the end result will be?
And no, Russia does not lose territory. They leave it.

 

[bilby]

Look at what's happened on the ground--basically stationary followed by big leaps. Note that it's been Russia losing territory as time goes on.

OK, and Ukraine is loosing people. What do you think the end result will be?
And no, Russia does not lose territory. They leave it.

In other news, Qatar has exited the World Cup, after a dismal record of zero wins, zero draws, and three leavings.

 

[Copernicus]

Look at what's happened on the ground--basically stationary followed by big leaps. Note that it's been Russia losing territory as time goes on.

OK, and Ukraine is loosing people. What do you think the end result will be?
And no, Russia does not lose territory. They leave it.

And Ukraine is not regaining any lost territory at all. They just enter it after the Russians choose to leave it.

 

[Jayjay]

Russia keeps wasting it's strength attacking. Ukraine conserves their strength for when a piece of the front has been sufficiently weakened.

Dude, you're making shit up. Russian Army left territories with explicit goal of stopping wasting resources. It's ukrainian imbeciles wasting NATO resources on attacking.

Look at what's happened on the ground--basically stationary followed by big leaps. Note that it's been Russia losing territory as time goes on. You can see the world press, thus you can see the battle maps. Ukraine isn't going for battles, they're going for supplies and then surrounding Russian troops when they're weakened enough for a breakthrough. And as the Russian troops fall back they get slaughtered. Now you have the problem that the troops aren't equipped for the weather--the same problem the Germans had so long ago.

That's not what's happening right now though. Russia is making gradual progress in the east. The advantages that Ukraine had in Kharkiv and Kherson don't exist there, and a successful counter-attack seems very unlikely.

Russia's tactic is to probe the front line for weak parts, and then when they find one, concentrate forces in that one spot and keep pounding it day after day, week after week. The system relies on cleaning possible Ukrainian defenses and equipment with UAV-guided artillery, then send infantry to mop up. If infantry gets decimated as they usually do, they just rinse and repeat. Wagner mercenaries that are fighting in Bakhmut have no shortage of cannon fodder recruited from prisons, and they don't particularly care what happens to them.

If Ukraine can't do something to break or circumvent this system, it's going to be Ukraine eventually losing the war of attrition.

 

[Jayjay]

Not going to happen. Crossing the river

Who said anything about crossing the river?

So what's the plan? Invade Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova and then attack Kherson from the east?

The river forms a natural barrier that's hard to cross, for both sides. Recall how hard it was for Russia to get over Siverskydonets river in the east back in May, and that was just a tiny stream compared to Dnipro.

Yes, just like I predicted, Russia is grinding the "forever Russian" city of Kherson to dust with artillery just out of spite.

Nope. They are grinding supply lines.

Bullshit. They're hitting apartment buildings, convenience stores, and art museums (though of course Russians looted the museum before retreating so there probably wasn't anything left there of value). And that's just the few examples I could find after a short search. And that's in addition to mining the city and cutting off its electricity and communications cables before leaving.

 

[TV and credit cards]

And no, Russia does not lose territory. They leave it.

Yeah, um, ah, we meant to do that.


Russian forces left Kherson in a more or less orderly fashion because their backs were against the river. They did not have the luxury of turning tail and running away as in Kharkiv. Had they been ordered to remain and attempt to hold the west bank of the Dnipro as was Putin's original plan, it would have been a slaughter or mass surrender of Russian troops.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

On a more general note this is going to be a formative nation-defining event in the history of Ukraine. The massive loss of life, the struggle, the eventual victory will be memorialized forever in the history of the country. It is the type of event that defines nations. The rashists on the other hand, well, we know what the dustbin of history has in store.