The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
These “officials” had an agenda and their Russian counterparts have as well. Unfortunately for the latter, they haven’t been as effective in hiding C-Fs. Russian performance has improved but whether it is enough may be debatable. Probably the plan is to keep the pressure on and hope for failing resolve by the West, probably viable given the geopolitical deterioration in Asia-Pacific.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Everybody has an agenda John, everybody.

With regards to the war a lot remains to be seen; whether the Russian army will soon be incapable of sustaining the effort; whether Western weapons will ultimately prove decisive, etc.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yelenovka

A missile strike hit the detention facility at Yelenovka where Ukrainian POWs were being held. Russia is claiming this was a strike by Ukraine using GMLRS munitions. So far we have reports of over 40 killed and over 140 wounded POWs, and reports of 53 killed, 75 wounded POWs, and 8 detention facility workers wounded. Warning footage of corpses.


GMLRS fragments allegedly found at the scene of the strike.


Russia has allegedly invited the UN and the Red Cross to participate in the investigation.


Sevastopol'

On Russia's Navy Day, the HQ of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol' was attacked by a small UAV. Initial reports stated the UAV came from Ukraine, but follow-on information suggests that it's too small for that. 5 were wounded in the attack, with relatively minor damage to the facility.


Increased security around the VMF HQ.

 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
As you say Sturm, everyone has an agenda. Including the men of Al Jarreza. These chaps are perpetually harping about Western double standards and their equivalency when they are patently spinning an anti-western and anti-Israeli agenda.


As much as I like checking out their free services to hear the other side of the argument, like RT, I find their standards to be substandard to quality western efforts. And I don't include in the The Sun, Daily Mail, etc.

So when I find reporting like this about 'the truth', I take it with a grain of salt. Does the west have an agenda. Of course. Are the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian states totalitarian and murderous. Yep. Just like the USSR and Iraq, who right up to their moment of implosion were spinning away with propaganda and lies.

That may be arrogant to some but is an overarching background assessment as we wade through Trump, Brexit, COVID, Taiwan, Ukrainian politics and the moral positions of us v them.
 

Karl Franz

New Member
It is interesting how similar fighting is in/around Bakhmut to fighting at Popasna. Everything is going almost the same, downright to the units involved (Wagner PMC), with similar aim of creating a cauldron to the north, this time around Siversk. If they are successful in capturing Bakhmut and creating a cauldron I expect that again Ukrainians will be able to pull back, while the Russians will be content with hitting them with air and artillery strikes sending retreating units to western Ukraine to be rebuilt. Similarities are too striking for all of this to be a coincidence and I honestly believe this was preplanned.

One other thing I noticed, particularly in pro Russian sources surprised me. When you get through all the propaganda you actually find interesting information, such as no mentioning of Russian troops on the front lines from Huliaipole all the way down south to Siversk in the north. There are of course a lot of artillery units giving support to rebels and a lot of mine clearing and infrastructure rebuilding tasks that Russians are doing away from the front but no mention of Russian regulars fighting either around Donetsk or Bakhmut, which is rather interesting considering how big of a part of the front this represents and that this is currently where the fighting is most active.

If the above is correct and there are really no Russian troops fighting on the front lines in Donetsk region (although it's quite possible I missed something), then the claimed offensive at Kryvyi Rih could really be possible. when first I heard about this I didn't think Russians had deployed enough troops for offensives here and in Donetsk region, however if rebels are able to conduct Donetsk offensive with only support from Russian air and artillery with the backing of PMC/irregular then I could see them gathering sufficient forces in the south.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It is interesting how similar fighting is in/around Bakhmut to fighting at Popasna. Everything is going almost the same, downright to the units involved (Wagner PMC), with similar aim of creating a cauldron to the north, this time around Siversk. If they are successful in capturing Bakhmut and creating a cauldron I expect that again Ukrainians will be able to pull back, while the Russians will be content with hitting them with air and artillery strikes sending retreating units to western Ukraine to be rebuilt. Similarities are too striking for all of this to be a coincidence and I honestly believe this was preplanned.

One other thing I noticed, particularly in pro Russian sources surprised me. When you get through all the propaganda you actually find interesting information, such as no mentioning of Russian troops on the front lines from Huliaipole all the way down south to Siversk in the north. There are of course a lot of artillery units giving support to rebels and a lot of mine clearing and infrastructure rebuilding tasks that Russians are doing away from the front but no mention of Russian regulars fighting either around Donetsk or Bakhmut, which is rather interesting considering how big of a part of the front this represents and that this is currently where the fighting is most active.

If the above is correct and there are really no Russian troops fighting on the front lines in Donetsk region (although it's quite possible I missed something), then the claimed offensive at Kryvyi Rih could really be possible. when first I heard about this I didn't think Russians had deployed enough troops for offensives here and in Donetsk region, however if rebels are able to conduct Donetsk offensive with only support from Russian air and artillery with the backing of PMC/irregular then I could see them gathering sufficient forces in the south.
There definitely are Russian troops there. It just doesn't get mentioned much. There are also significant rebel forces in that area. With the shutting down of the LNR front, many of those forces became available for use elsewhere. Ukraine has attempted counter-attacks southward and east-ward towards Kherson from the Nikolaev and Krivoy Rog axis, but they've been unsuccessful, with reports from the 35th and reconstituted 36th MarBdes being that they got hit very hard when 1) attempting to attack and 2) even moving to the front line.

As you say Sturm, everyone has an agenda. Including the men of Al Jarreza. These chaps are perpetually harping about Western double standards and their equivalency when they are patently spinning an anti-western and anti-Israeli agenda.


As much as I like checking out their free services to hear the other side of the argument, like RT, I find their standards to be substandard to quality western efforts. And I don't include in the The Sun, Daily Mail, etc.

So when I find reporting like this about 'the truth', I take it with a grain of salt. Does the west have an agenda. Of course. Are the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian states totalitarian and murderous. Yep. Just like the USSR and Iraq, who right up to their moment of implosion were spinning away with propaganda and lies.

That may be arrogant to some but is an overarching background assessment as we wade through Trump, Brexit, COVID, Taiwan, Ukrainian politics and the moral positions of us v them.
There's a difference between quality of information support and truthfullness of the narrative. Western media does a better job of presenting their point of view, but it doesn't make the point of view inherently more honest. Russia has missed many possible propaganda victories in this war due to sheer ineptitude. The reality is that Russia's governmental apparatus is in many ways out of touch even with many of those who support them.
 

Karl Franz

New Member
There definitely are Russian troops there. It just doesn't get mentioned much. There are also significant rebel forces in that area. With the shutting down of the LNR front, many of those forces became available for use elsewhere. Ukraine has attempted counter-attacks southward and east-ward towards Kherson from the Nikolaev and Krivoy Rog axis, but they've been unsuccessful, with reports from the 35th and reconstituted 36th MarBdes being that they got hit very hard when 1) attempting to attack and 2) even moving to the front line.
It is interesting that Russian regulars don't get mentioned much, perhaps it's an attempt to conceal their locations and hide the true strength of forces in the area. I was attempting to figure out the size of the rebel forces but all I am getting are prewar numbers. If you guys have any estimates, it would be interesting to see.

I was following Ukrainian attempts to conduct offensive towards Kherson, as far as I can tell they outnumber Russians in the area but are sending their forces piecemeal. I saw a lot of videos where a platoon size force would move into a position usually consisting of 40-50 men and half a dozen armored vehicles (IFV,APC) and then get hit by Russian artillery.

I talked to guys who were fighting against an enemy with similar superiority in firepower, and they did use platoons and even smaller sized units to avoid detection and getting hit before the fighting has even started but they were fighting in mountainous terrain covered with forests while Ukrainians are fighting in a steppe so sending in smaller units doesn't necessarily mean they wont get detected.

I am no expert but if I were advising Ukrainians I would suggest using their superiority in manpower to conduct probing attacks all along the front line thus stretching Russian forces (especially artillery assets) and preventing them from concentrating their firepower (which is what usually stops Ukrainian attacks). This way they can tie down Russian forces and at the same time find out where the weak points are for a more concentrated attack. This will undoubtedly lead to heavier casualties but Ukraine has already shown an ability to absorb such losses.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It is interesting that Russian regulars don't get mentioned much, perhaps it's an attempt to conceal their locations and hide the true strength of forces in the area. I was attempting to figure out the size of the rebel forces but all I am getting are prewar numbers. If you guys have any estimates, it would be interesting to see.
I really don't. On the one hand they've mobilized thousands of men, possibly 20-30 thousand. They've also gotten a decent stream of volunteers from Russia, including fighters who were part of the '14-'15 campaigns. On the other hand they've taken horrific casualties over the past 5 months in multiple major frontal offensives, many of them unsuccessful. Bloggers associated with rebel forces have openly talked about rebel higher command throwing troops away in less then useful attacks with high casualties.

I was following Ukrainian attempts to conduct offensive towards Kherson, as far as I can tell they outnumber Russians in the area but are sending their forces piecemeal. I saw a lot of videos where a platoon size force would move into a position usually consisting of 40-50 men and half a dozen armored vehicles (IFV,APC) and then get hit by Russian artillery.
Well it's hard to capture 10 such elements moving with just one camera. Despite the overall high volume of footage it's still not as if we have photo and video of every offensive attempt. To top it off, concentrating larger forces in a single area is a good way to have people getting hit by Russian artillery.

I talked to guys who were fighting against an enemy with similar superiority in firepower, and they did use platoons and even smaller sized units to avoid detection and getting hit before the fighting has even started but they were fighting in mountainous terrain covered with forests while Ukrainians are fighting in a steppe so sending in smaller units doesn't necessarily mean they wont get detected.

I am no expert but if I were advising Ukrainians I would suggest using their superiority in manpower to conduct probing attacks all along the front line thus stretching Russian forces (especially artillery assets) and preventing them from concentrating their firepower (which is what usually stops Ukrainian attacks). This way they can tie down Russian forces and at the same time find out where the weak points are for a more concentrated attack. This will undoubtedly lead to heavier casualties but Ukraine has already shown an ability to absorb such losses.
I guess we'll see how it plays out. I saw an interesting piece that speculated that Ukraine is preparing a dedicated forces numbering 15000-30000 strong for a large counterattack, and that this force will accept the bulk of the armored vehicles being delivered from the west, as well as a solid chunk of the artillery pieces. Presumably this will be the real counter-attack at Kherson instead of the many (dozens?) of counter-attacks announced so far that haven't amounted to much more then btln-sized elements fighting over local objectives, typically unsuccessfully.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
As you say Sturm, everyone has an agenda. Including the men of Al Jarreza. These chaps are perpetually harping about Western double standards and their equivalency when they are patently spinning an anti-western and anti-Israeli agenda.
First of all there is a marked difference between Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic. Secondly just because one doesn't agree with what they say or is more inclined to a particular side doesn't imply that it's ''anti Israeli/Western''.... If I talk about Palestinian children being killed in an air strike; an unarmed protester being hit by live Israeli rounds or a Zionist plot in the 1940's to poison the water supply in London; am I anti-Israeli? If I say that a lot of issues faced in the Middle East is the fault of the locals but that Western powers because of their legacy of meddling and creating artificial borders without bothering to consult the locals also share a large part of the blame; does it make me anti-Western?

Al Jazeera reports on a lot of issues in a manner in which others don't - that is my personal take. On a personal basis when it comes to the Middle East and other places I tend to rely more on Al Jazeera English compared to CNN, BBC and others which are worried about their reporting for fear of offending others or getting a backlash. Take BBC as an example; for years it referred to the West Bank and Gaza [until the Israeli withdrawal] as ''disputed'' which they are not; they are/were ''occupied'' under international law. Even the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were covered very selectively by certain news organisations.

the USSR and Iraq, who right up to their moment of implosion were spinning away with propaganda and lies.
Iraq didn't ''implode''; it was invaded by outside powers for their own selfish interests under the pretext of WMDs [which they never found because Saddam disposed them but didn't say it because of the Iranians]. These outside powers who invaded Iraq also ''were spinning away with propaganda and lies''. Let be clear about this; Iraq didn't ''implode''. It came close to being a failed state because of Saddam's policies and because of Western sanctions which led to the deaths of many ordinary Iraqis but didn't prevent the Baathists from continuing to maintain their palaces and supply of fine scotch, cigars and many other things via Jordan. Ultimately it was not the sanctions or anything else but the U.S. invasion which led to the Baathists losing power. At a much later date Iraq did come close to ''imploding'' but this was because of a violent Shia/Sunni sectarian war [at one point an average of 300 were dying daily] which resulted from the U.S. invasion.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@Feanor I have strong doubts about any Russian claims WRT the attack against the Yelenovka POW facility holding Ukrainian POWs. There have been claims by both the UN and the Red Cross that they have been prevented by Russian forces from making any enquiries on the ground about the attack.

I also have been ignoring Ukrainian claims as well WRT to a deliberate Russian attack on the facility because it is at present a he said she said argument. However I will say this, Russia has a long history of mistreatment, torture and illegal killing of POWs that it has captured and that, plus it labelling the Azov Battalion as a terrorist organisation doesn't help its cause.

Furthermore, the separatist groups planned execution of three non Ukrainian POWs fighting as members of the Ukrainian military in Ukrainian uniform, carrying Ukrainian military ID in their correct names, is a war crime, regardless of what the separatists claim. Also their court is not a legal court anyway because they aren't recognised as a legal independent country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Feanor I have strong doubts about any Russian claims WRT the attack against the Yelenovka POW facility holding Ukrainian POWs. There have been claims by both the UN and the Red Cross that they have been prevented by Russian forces from making any enquiries on the ground about the attack.

I also have been ignoring Ukrainian claims as well WRT to a deliberate Russian attack on the facility because it is at present a he said she said argument. However I will say this, Russia has a long history of mistreatment, torture and illegal killing of POWs that it has captured and that, plus it labelling the Azov Battalion as a terrorist organisation doesn't help its cause.

Furthermore, the separatist groups planned execution of three non Ukrainian POWs fighting as members of the Ukrainian military in Ukrainian uniform, carrying Ukrainian military ID in their correct names, is a war crime, regardless of what the separatists claim. Also their court is not a legal court anyway because they aren't recognised as a legal independent country.
Do you mind providing the links to the UN and Red Cross statements that Russia prevented the investigation? This is quite significant since Russia is claiming that they attempted to involve both the Red Cross and the UN in the investigation.

There is scant evidence of Russian mistreatment of POWs in this conflict. And granted, my basic assumption is that bad things are happening. But in this case both sides have that situation currently and that history. Russia is not the Soviet Union, and neither is Ukraine, but both come from that past. The SBU is also a successor to the KGB. I'm also not sure I see a connection between mistreatment of POWs in general and POW torture for intelligence reasons, and this missile strike.

The rebels have historically done much worse then Russia. It's commonly understood in circles knowledgeable about the LDNR that in the '14-'15 wars the rebels routinely didn't take prisoners from Ukrainian volunteer formations. Executing 3 western citizen POWs as "mercenaries", or rather threatening to do so as a political maneuver to try and put western countries in the uncomfortable position of either negotiating with the rebels directly for their release, or letting them die through inaction, is significantly less heinous then what some rebel unit were doing '14. But again I'm not sure what this has to do with the current strike.

Last but not least, to quote someone... what makes a country a country is if other countries think that country is a country. There was a time when internationally the United States wasn't recognized as a legal independent country. And considering the fate of the LDNR is almost certainly Russian annexation, their legitimacy as nation-states is mostly irrelevant. I would disregard the court procedure entirely as symbolic nonsense and see this threat for what it is; a political maneuver. Either western countries have to negotiate with the rebels directly and publicly, giving Russia a major propaganda win and quite plausibly (though far from certainly) securing the release of their citizens. Or they do nothing, and the LDNR presents this as the execution of western war criminals for a different kind of domestic propaganda win.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Update.

Kherson-Nikolaev-Odessa.

Ukrainian strikes in Novaya Kahovka.


Battle damage to the rail bridge in Kherson.


Kharkov-Sumy.

Russian strikes in Kharkov.


Russian T-90M firing somewhere in Kharkov region. It's likely part of that same element from the 27th Motor-Rifles.


Knocked out MBT and destroyed BMP (2? BRM-1?), Kharkov area, allegedly Ukrainian.


Battle damage from a Russian strike in Kharkov.


LDNR Front.

Shellings of Donetsk continue.


DNR artillery firing on Avdeevka.


DNR MT-12s firing on Ukrainian positions.


DNR artillery, including 100th Bde, firing on Peski.


LNR artillery firing on Soledar.


LNR forces near Soledar. Warning footage of corpses.


DNR technical firing an SPG-9.


Fires burn in Alchevsk after a presumably Ukrainian strike.


Destroyed allegedly Ukrainian civilians vehicles belonging to the territorial defense forces, near Vrubovka, Lugansk region.


There are reports that the Butovka mineshaft on the outskirts of Avdeevka was taken by rebel forces.


LNR T-72B1s. Location and context unclear.


More land mines have been scattered across Donetsk. It appears to be remote mining by Ukrainian forces, behavior that is more then questionable considering the context.


A civilian car hit a land mine in Donestk.


Remote mines were also scattered all over Gorlovka.


Mineclearing in the streets of Donetsk both professional and improvised.


Russian tanks moving towards Artemovsk/Bakhmut.


A new unit has been formed in the LNR, btln Storm. Note the better equipment and training they're doing. The mismatched uniforms suggest that this is a volunteer formation but the much better equipment suggests that Russian supplies are provided to this unit directly. This follows a pattern with better trained volunteer btlns being prepared in Russia. It's likely that Russia intends to use these units at focal points to lead the assault.


Misc.

Very brief Russian interview with a Strela-10 operators that claims his unit shot down many UAVs, mostly helicopter-type.


There are reports that Azeri-Turkish guided munitions were supplied to Ukraine.


NATO/EU.

Poland is handing over 8 more Krab howitzers to Ukraine.

 

Karl Franz

New Member
I'm seeing more and more chatter about possible Russian offensive towards Zaporizhzhia. Apparently Russians are building forces on both banks of Dnieper in an attempt to envelope the city from both sides.

Regarding Yelenovka POW facility attack I think we should apply occam's razor. The most logical explanation is that Ukrainian reconnaissance assets misidentified POW camp as temporary barracks for Russian/rebel troops notified the local command which ordered an artillery strikes. Russian claims of Ukraine purposely executing POWs are highly unlikely as the only reason for it would be one/more prisoners having critical information that they could divulge to the enemy, but these man have been in prison for a long time so any information they had would have already been given or the information would no longer be viable. Also unlikely are Ukrainian's claims of stage propaganda stunt, because if this was an objective Russians would have to look just a few kilometers to the north in Donetsk where Ukrainians are constantly hitting civilian targets and are now even firing antipersonnel mines, so there is no reason to stage an incident when you can just report what is happening not so far to the north.

Propaganda battle is going to continue and is probably going to get even more ugly as this conflict drags on. All of us should be extra careful when reading reports, even reports from reputable sources, as they may have been targeted by purposely placed misinformation. In any case following this conflict has been a hard task and is only going to get harder. As such we may not get a clear picture for years maybe even a decade from now.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I'm seeing more and more chatter about possible Russian offensive towards Zaporizhzhia. Apparently Russians are building forces on both banks of Dnieper in an attempt to envelope the city from both sides.
I could understand an offensive from the Eastern bank towards there but both sides? One side sticking to roads you got a distance of 45km to cover, On the other you have a distance of almost 140km which will mean a lot more manpower and resources needed their not just for the advance but to cover the flank and this is at a time when the ligistical lines are being hampered, damaged and/or put out of action. I would call BS on this chatter, From the Kherson bridgehead its just entirely unrealistic for them to get the manpower and equipment to achieve they especially at same time logistics and threatened and they are under various minor ground attacks, It will quite literally be weakening their lines allowing UA more freedom of action and having that advance be cut off from the rear while from the other bank of the Dnieper their are a number of rivers they would need to cross just to get to the outskirts of Zaporizhzhia giving UA forces some prime defensive positions and plenty of bridges to blow up to make any offensive from that side a slow grinding march. That is just the issues to get to their, Once their its trying to take a city of circa 750,000 and we have seen several times how hard its been for Russian forces to take smaller cities.
 

Karl Franz

New Member
I could understand an offensive from the Eastern bank towards there but both sides? One side sticking to roads you got a distance of 45km to cover, On the other you have a distance of almost 140km which will mean a lot more manpower and resources needed their not just for the advance but to cover the flank and this is at a time when the ligistical lines are being hampered, damaged and/or put out of action. I would call BS on this chatter, From the Kherson bridgehead its just entirely unrealistic for them to get the manpower and equipment to achieve they especially at same time logistics and threatened and they are under various minor ground attacks, It will quite literally be weakening their lines allowing UA more freedom of action and having that advance be cut off from the rear while from the other bank of the Dnieper their are a number of rivers they would need to cross just to get to the outskirts of Zaporizhzhia giving UA forces some prime defensive positions and plenty of bridges to blow up to make any offensive from that side a slow grinding march. That is just the issues to get to their, Once their its trying to take a city of circa 750,000 and we have seen several times how hard its been for Russian forces to take smaller cities.
I have come across this information in pro Ukrainian sources and it has started to appear in bigger/major media publications as shown in the link I posted few posts back. As this information is coming from Ukrainians there is more merit to it as I believe they are showing their ability to track movements of Russian forces, while in Russia's case it could be dismissed as an attempt to misguide and confuse Ukrainians as to where they are planning their next offensive. I also believe that they have misidentified the goal as being Kryvyi Rih which to me makes no sense due to it having no strategic value (some propaganda value as it is the birth place of Ukrainian president) while Zaporizhzhia definitely does.

Whether or not this is possible is another question. As I have come to understand the troops being gathered are new units and will not weaken the front line towards Mykolaiv, furthermore Russians would be able to hit Ukrainians with artillery across Dnieper and possibly use amphibious and air assault operations to deploy troops in Ukraine's rear. Finally troops from the western bank don't have to reach the city but apply enough pressure to keep Ukrainians busy while the eastern bank offensive develops. Difficult to be sure, but not impossible.

Concerning supply situation things do not look dire for the Russians (at the moment). Although hitting a bridge undoubtedly causes headaches for Russian logisticians alternative crossings via pontoon bridges have already been established and the bridge itself can be repaired if damaged. Honestly I never expected bombing the bridge to work and as we have seen no attempts for some time to hit it apparently Ukrainians agree with me, if you need further evidence just ask the Russians they have hit Pidyomnyy Mist bridge eight times I believe (possibly more if I missed some) and Ukrainians were able to repair it each time within various time frames (sometimes within a day). There is no doubt that some delays were caused by damaging bridges but we have seen no evidence of supply shortages on the front lines nor attempts to find alternate ways to supply troops such as for example an airlift operation to Kherson.
 
With all 3 permanent crossings over the Dnepr damaged and/or inoperable, the RU forces on the N side are in some degree of risk. At this time it appears that only the Nova Khalkosa dam/bridge is somewhat operable to heavy traffic. Ferries cannot come close to the Kherson bridge in terms of traffic and with the railroad bridge out, that removes the single best way to move supplies to the N bank. Air supply is unlikely, even if the RU have the requisite airlift tonnage ("Goering redeux"). Are there any airfields capable to landing an IL-76 or similar on the N bank that arent already damaged or within UKR artillery range ? Air dropping supplies is less efficient and again, I doubt the RU are going to risk fat, slow transports that close to UKR air defense zones.

Maybe the RU were smart enough to move the artillery to the S side of the river which would relieve some of the supply requirements, but if I was a RU soldier on the N side, I would be practicing how to swim.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I have come across this information in pro Ukrainian sources and it has started to appear in bigger/major media publications as shown in the link I posted few posts back. As this information is coming from Ukrainians there is more merit to it as I believe they are showing their ability to track movements of Russian forces, while in Russia's case it could be dismissed as an attempt to misguide and confuse Ukrainians as to where they are planning their next offensive. I also believe that they have misidentified the goal as being Kryvyi Rih which to me makes no sense due to it having no strategic value (some propaganda value as it is the birth place of Ukrainian president) while Zaporizhzhia definitely does.

Whether or not this is possible is another question. As I have come to understand the troops being gathered are new units and will not weaken the front line towards Mykolaiv, furthermore Russians would be able to hit Ukrainians with artillery across Dnieper and possibly use amphibious and air assault operations to deploy troops in Ukraine's rear. Finally troops from the western bank don't have to reach the city but apply enough pressure to keep Ukrainians busy while the eastern bank offensive develops. Difficult to be sure, but not impossible.

Concerning supply situation things do not look dire for the Russians (at the moment). Although hitting a bridge undoubtedly causes headaches for Russian logisticians alternative crossings via pontoon bridges have already been established and the bridge itself can be repaired if damaged. Honestly I never expected bombing the bridge to work and as we have seen no attempts for some time to hit it apparently Ukrainians agree with me, if you need further evidence just ask the Russians they have hit Pidyomnyy Mist bridge eight times I believe (possibly more if I missed some) and Ukrainians were able to repair it each time within various time frames (sometimes within a day). There is no doubt that some delays were caused by damaging bridges but we have seen no evidence of supply shortages on the front lines nor attempts to find alternate ways to supply troops such as for example an airlift operation to Kherson.

Assuming the link you are referring to then was the one posted in post #4,285 as I have not seen any other links posted by you in last 2 pages besides that one then how exactly did you come to the conclusion they are aiming to hit Zaporizhzhia from both sides? Nothing in the article indicates at all that Zaporizhzhya is the target, In fact the only mention of it is in reference to the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant and alleged aim to force UA forces away from it.

As to Kryvyi Rih having no strategic value it is a fairly decent mining and logistics hub so denying Ukraine revenue from its operations and hindering Ukrainian transport routes makes it strategically a very valuable target.

With out wanting to be rude but you are making a number of claims about targets, forces etc but have yet to provide a single source to back any of it up, With the one source being entirely unrelated. Could you please actually post some sources in regards to this otherwise for now its unsubstantiated in its entirety.
 

Karl Franz

New Member
Assuming the link you are referring to then was the one posted in post #4,285 as I have not seen any other links posted by you in last 2 pages besides that one then how exactly did you come to the conclusion they are aiming to hit Zaporizhzhia from both sides? Nothing in the article indicates at all that Zaporizhzhya is the target, In fact the only mention of it is in reference to the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant and alleged aim to force UA forces away from it.

As to Kryvyi Rih having no strategic value it is a fairly decent mining and logistics hub so denying Ukraine revenue from its operations and hindering Ukrainian transport routes makes it strategically a very valuable target.

With out wanting to be rude but you are making a number of claims about targets, forces etc but have yet to provide a single source to back any of it up, With the one source being entirely unrelated. Could you please actually post some sources in regards to this otherwise for now its unsubstantiated in its entirety.
As I have written this is a possible future Russian offensive which may or may not happen. When responding in my last post I was discussing the possibility/viability of such offensive not whether it is really going to happen.

As for the sources:

In general they are talking about build up of Russian forces in the south and around Dnieper for possible Russian offensive or to counter the talked about Ukrainian counter offensive. The two are not mutually exclusive, by conducting a preemptive offensive Russians can affect Ukrainian preparations and force them to contain the situation by sending troops who are planned for counter offensive. As such we know the general direction of the Russian offensive is going to be to the north and the most logical place to aim for is Zaporizhzhia.

With regarding to Kryvyi Rih having no strategic value I stand by my assessment, it is not sitting on any major supply arteries, it is not blocking access to anything and can be easily bypassed, and its possible capture would not force Ukrainians to drastically alter their approach to the war, while capturing Zaporizhzhia and applying pressure to Dnipro would. If Russians are concerned with Ukrainian revenue they would not have done a grain deal allowing for the resumption of export of Ukrainian agricultural products or keep paying hundreds of millions of dollars for gas transit.

On top of that Zaporizhzhia is an administrative center of one of the regions Russians have established military/civilian administration so that would give them one more reason to try and take it. If you are looking for a source that maps out possible Russian offensives showing its exact route and final objective I would have to refer you to Russian high command.

As you said this is only a claim as we cannot be sure even if we had more evidence about possible offensive. Russians could be using their favorite maskirovka to throw us off and attack in completely different direction or not attack at all. The reason I have posted the possibility of Russian offensive is not only the offensive itself, but also redeployment of large concentrations of troops from Donbas to the south thus possibly changing the main direction of this conflict from east to south.
 
Top