The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Profanity with untrue statement
NBC is reporting a Russian diplomatic note saying that the USA’s arming the Ukraine will have consequences. This could mean nukes. Russia-Ukraine war live updates: Moscow warns U.S. against weaponizing Ukraine, vows renewed missile attacks on Kyiv after warship sinks
US response: "Russian diplomats, go fuck yourselves!"

Honestly I'm tired of this bullshit. Tell the Kremlin if they keep making these dumb threats diplomatic relations will be broken off and a total trade embargo will be put on the cards with NATO members. Russia started this crap, and they can't threaten war just because we take sovereign action to arm another sovereign nation that has been invaded.

[Mod edit: My apologies for the issue of 1 warning point for 3 months. This is because your statement on the US response is also factually untrue and in the interest of fairness, the moderators will sanction.

No sanctions would apply, if you had said:


My metaphorical US response: "Russian diplomats, go f**k yourselves!"

We are a mature forum, with a minimum decorum expected.

OPSSG]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MotorManiac

New Member
There are reports that Russia bombed Asovstal plant with strategic bombers, I guess this implies that the fortifications cannot be taken by ground forces? This would also mean that the factories are annihilated and of no further commercial use if Russia will annex the region?

How likely is it that Putin will end the war with the fall of Mariupol and the Asovstal plant and declare it a victory by May 9th? The only good thing about Russian propaganda is, that the Russians likely would swallow the sligthest success as a great victory.
 
There are reports that Russia bombed Asovstal plant with strategic bombers, I guess this implies that the fortifications cannot be taken by ground forces? This would also mean that the factories are annihilated and of no further commercial use if Russia will annex the region?

How likely is it that Putin will end the war with the fall of Mariupol and the Asovstal plant and declare it a victory by May 9th? The only good thing about Russian propaganda is, that the Russians likely would swallow the sligthest success as a great victory.
Perhaps this an indication of things to come. The Russians have up until now purposely avoided as much collateral damage as possible.
[Mod edit: This statement in bold, after more than 50 days of war, is factually untrue.

1. Please do not add to the Russian efforts to confuse and distract. You are banned for 2 weeks.

  • Documented Russian Army use of certain types of weapons (including the scattering butterfly mines), indicate more than a lack of concern for collateral damage. Given that a number of Ukrainian civilian medical facilities that have been attacked by the Russian Army, it is clearly untrue.
  • Keep in mind that Russia's invasion of Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022, violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, a central tenet of the charter that requires UN member states to refrain from the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
  • On 2 Mar 2022, 141 members of the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution condemning Russia's actions as a threat to Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence (with 5 against and 35 who abstained from the vote).
2. Setting up explosives in civilian homes, gardens and public estates after withdrawal, to deliberately cause civilian harm crosses the line for any army. The booby trapping civilian homes in Ukraine, where the Russians pull the pin on grenade, put it in a glass, string it to a kitchen cabinet is pure evil. There is no military value to a kitchen cabinate or washing machine.
9929D6F9-671E-413E-8EA9-FB6CBF55B76F.jpeg

3. Reminder to all and directed to no one in particular: Meet the minimum standards for participation and this includes providing the source of statements, to establish facts; we can all help to stop the spreading of falsehoods or misinformation in DefenceTalk.

4. If possible, kindly avoid the accidental or deliberate spreading of propaganda.

5. Thank you for your attention.

OPSSG]

The sinking of the Moskva and the brazen western military transfers may change the strategic analysis. Heavy strategic bombing maybe the Russian response. If so, I pity the civilians caught in the targeted cities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MotorManiac

New Member
Perhaps this an indication of things to come. The Russians have up until now purposely avoided as much collateral damage as possible. The sinking of the Moskva and the brazen western military transfers may change the strategic analysis. Heavy strategic bombing maybe the Russian response. If so, I pity the civilians caught in the targeted cities.
That's debatable and Mariupol is already as destroyed as it can be, Asovstal plant is not a civilian target but might be a nearly impregnable fortress, at least in due time and with reasonable losses as Putin allegedly needs some sort of a victory until May 9th. Some links I already posted, can't guaranty their credibility:




"It's a city within a city," said Eduard Basurin, a representative for pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Donetsk region.

"There are several underground levels that date back to Soviet times which you can't bombard from above. You have to go underground to clean them out, and that will take time."

Entering the tunnels would be all but impossible for Russian troops, according to Alexander Grinberg, analyst at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.
Or maybe it is a show of force in an already destroyed city.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Looks like theres som emerging data on the last hours of the Moskva. SAR radar seems to indicate its final position and potential rescue vessels alongside
full story from Naval NEws


05100D9B-2C9C-4CDC-901A-DCBABD99A8FD.jpeg
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Russians have up until now purposely avoided as much collateral damage as possible.
I totally disagree with you on your statement. The destruction of Mariupol and the excessive damage to the towns and cities and loss of civilian lives to area's that have been over run or come within range of the Russian artillery, are not the actions of a military trying to avoid collateral damage. To me they seem to be the actions of a military that wants to intimidate and frighten the Ukrainian people as much as possible and have no respect for human life. How would the Russians like it if the Ukrainians where doing the same to Russian towns and cities? The sinking of the Moskva was a legitimate defensive action by the Ukrainians, as this ship had been involved in hostile acts against the Ukrainians.
 
Last edited:

GermanHerman

Active Member
I think the idea that russia is avoiding collateral damage stems from a false narative surrounding the bad performance of russian troops.

- Russia avoiding urban combat is not a sign of russia trying to minimize colateral damage but is a result of a) insufficient troops* and b) flawed intelligence / assumptions about ukrainian resistance.

*Mariupol alone is currently binding 14.000 russian troops while being notably smaller then Kharkiv for example

- Russia not utilizing it's strategic bombers is not a sign that russia wants to minimize colateral damage but a result of ukrainian AA still remaining operational to some degree and is even getting replanished. While CAS can (and does) fly low to avoid enemy radars strategic bombers dont operate like that.

- Russia not using fire as described by their doctrine is also not a sign of them trying to avoid civilian casulties. It's much rather a result of their initial push diviating from their doctrine and BTGs not working as intended. Once again this is propably the result of flawed expectations about ukrainian resistance.
After the failure of the attempted repeat of 2014 we actualy did see them use Fire extensivly in Mariupol and the whole eastern Front.

I think this is a case of confirmation bias. People that expect the russians to be able to excercise overwhelming force will look for explanations why they are not doing so that are not contradicting their initial believe.

We are all prone to this although our believes might differ. It's important to keep an open mind, look for different opinions and especially question oneself from time to time.

Especially with events like Bucha and the state of Mariupol in mind one should be critical of the believe that russia is avoiding civilian suffering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
US response: "Russian diplomats, go fuck yourselves!"

Honestly I'm tired of this bullshit. Tell the Kremlin if they keep making these dumb threats diplomatic relations will be broken off and a total trade embargo will be put on the cards with NATO members. Russia started this crap, and they can't threaten war just because we take sovereign action to arm another sovereign nation that has been invaded.
Okay we're all angry about the atrocities of this war, and the war itself. But let's keep it informative.
Diplomatic relations cannot be broken off, a trade embargo is possible though, but it wouldn't be very logical.

The UN, and more specifically the UNSC exists solely for the purpose of maintaining dialogue between all world powers, including Russia. That one won't be cut. And even trying to cut ties completely by removing Russia from the UNSC would do more harm than good.

A complete trade embargo might go beyond merely crippling Russia's economy and move into the a territory where it's doing more harm to the citizens than the government.
Sanctions are meant to be scalable. Go to the extreme end of a scale and you'll run out of your diplomatic deterrence.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Gonna throw in my 2 cents:
1. Russia has shown efforts to avoid civilian casualties early on. It has quickly faded as Russian plans crumbled and its soldiers started fighting and acting more like bandits rather than soldiers. The chaos going on inside the Russian army is contagious, and Russian soldiers are understandably not going to remain organized. And with banditry rampant, so is the disregard for human lives. Because it's not going to be the division HQ issuing commands and warnings against harming civilians. It's going to be commands from far lower, not even battalion HQ. Whatever local command is intact.
Also obviously not enough manpower to keep the soldiers in check.
Another aspect to this is that Russia has already suffered as much in the non-military spheres as it can, and expects nothing significant to add to that soon. Top it off with a clear desire for revenge and you get a government very much eager to bomb some cities to ash, claim them denazified, and go home proud, maybe even showcase the latest of Russia's remaining tech in the May 9 parade - the T-62.

2. Russian strategic bombers are more symbolic than practical. Their key advantage is payload, but that aspect is severely under-utilized in this war, seeing as Russia neither uses its air force to any significant capacity, nor does it send fighters on sorties fully, or even half loaded. Had we seen high sortie rates and fighter-bombers constantly loaded to the brim, maybe strategic bombers were justified.
But they're there mainly to carry large amounts of precision guided munitions like cruise missiles, and they're just not doing that with the low available stocks.
 

QEDdeq

Member
There are reports that Russia bombed Asovstal plant with strategic bombers, I guess this implies that the fortifications cannot be taken by ground forces? This would also mean that the factories are annihilated and of no further commercial use if Russia will annex the region?

How likely is it that Putin will end the war with the fall of Mariupol and the Asovstal plant and declare it a victory by May 9th? The only good thing about Russian propaganda is, that the Russians likely would swallow the sligthest success as a great victory.
About the use of strategic bombers, from what I've seen on various maps they hit an area that is linking two sections of the plant. Splitting the defenders in smaller sectors is they way they do sieges. They probably made use of heavy bombs in order to apply heavy disruption to the defenders in that particular area of the plant. However the Ukrainians are doing a superb elastic defense and they might reinforce the sector before the Russians move in their assault forces. You can see on this tweeted map where the bombed section is indicated (and indeed I think it is there as indicated judging from the aerial footage).

About the 9 May thing, I haven't seen any Russian source mentioning this. It first emerged in Western media from various retired western generals that provide analysis on CNN and BBC. In my view it is psyop meant to put pressure on the pro-Russian public by setting the illusion of a timetable and make them think that their leadership are running against the clock and that they fail to meet expectations. Pretty smart stuff if you ask me.

About ending the war with Mariupol, the war will not end just like that because the Russians want it. I mean Russia can occupy Mariupol, this will give them an edge in the victory calculation since the city's location is highly strategic. Then they can call for ceasefire and peace talks. But peace won't be acceptable for Ukraine at that point and if they feel they still have fight in them they will keep fighting. The tones of money and weapons supplied to Ukraine will not be incentives for peace either. So I'm afraid that this is going to be a long war and the fall of Mariupol won't be enough to close things down even if for the Russians might be a tempting exit point. I seriously don't think they have an appetite for a new and brutal offensive in Slaviansk - Kramatorsk - Severodonetsk area, even if, from the Russian perspective it would make sense to do it now and finish the job with Donbass once and for all since there won't be other chances after this I don't think. But on the other hand the attrition is already very high and this renewed offensive will make it even worse.

P.S. Maybe this is why Russia is now escalating the rhetoric saying that they're going to declare war on Ukraine (lol). Maybe they think that if they declare an official war they can legally use a couple of tactical nukes just to scare the Ukrainians into signing a disadvantageous peace. Because probably they know Ukraine wont accept peace on Russian terms otherwise. But this of course raises the issue of if/how NATO would respond to this kind of pressure.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
40F0C864-8020-4EA7-8A38-5D3858F80C3F.jpeg
In other news, it seems the series of two types of Ukrainian stamps are selling well in Kyiv and there is quite a demand from overseas collectors — given the latest news, Ukrposhta may need to release a follow on, given the status of the ship.

RIP to sailors lost at sea. Given that the news that Moskva was afloat after the initial explosion, it is fair to assume many of the crew would have survived to be evacuated.
 
Last edited:

Aerojoe

Member
With Russia threatening ever more missile strikes on Kiev how long can their cruise missile stocks last. Is it likely that sabre rattling strikes on Kiev in retaliation for Ukraine sabotage to infrastructure in Russia impacts Russia’s ability to strike military assets important to the eastern theatre of operations?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
View attachment 49153
In other news, it seems the series of two types of Ukrainian stamps are selling well in Kyiv and there is quite a demand from overseas collectors — given the latest news, Ukrposhta may need to release a follow on, given the status of the ship.

RIP to sailors lost at sea. Given that the news that Moskva was afloat after the initial explosion, it is fair to assume many of the crew would have survived to be evacuated.
It's a perfect symbol of the conflict. Fictional heroism turned into a symbol of triumph over what amounts to Russian stupidity and incompetence.
 

Twain

Active Member

I had heard about this website but hadn't looked at it in detail. A very interesting site, Talks about ways to resist the occupation and some intentionally vague reports about protests and partisan attacks. Also a small amount of info about things not going as smoothly as the russians would like in places like Kherson and Melitopol resulting in tying up russian troops that are needed elsewhere. Quite a few articles are posted here and some are quite interesting. Yes it is a Ukrainian government website but they don't seem to be going out of their way to make grandiose claims about russian losses.

My overall take is that there isn't near as much support for russia in southern ukraine as the russians would like everyone to believe.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
I posted some comments on the Australian navy thread that are more appropriate here. We do not yet know the exact cause of why the seemingly well defended Moskva was hit by two sea skimming SSMs. The details of what explosions occurred afterwards are secondary. The point is that even a country without a navy can set up a shore battery with sea-skimming SSMs and use cheap drones to target them accurately. Such SSMs have been a threat dating back to the Falklands War.

By comparison back in 2016 the USS Mason (Arleigh Burke) was targetted by land based SSMs three times off Yemen, the last time with five SSMs fired at Mason. Each time radar picked up the missiles and a combination of decoys, chaff and defensive fire (SAMs) successfully defended the ship.

So apart from crew quality and maintenance, there seem to me to be some lessons. The main one is that “light” surface combatants without radars capable of picking up incoming SSMs linked to PDMs able to shoot them down have no place in a modern naval battle.

The second lesson depends on whether maintenance of the Moskva played a part in its loss. But if so, the idea of buying cheap, old second hand major surface ships, like retired Ticonderogas, to boost fleet numbers is folly.

Regarding the Russian navy, they seem to be reputation-ally damaged from this incident. They sent their flagship near an enemy coast, in poor weather, without any reported support. Either poor ship condition or poor seamanship or both led to its loss. No matter what the exact cause, that reads pretty badly. Now any future opponent would be tempted to fire a couple of SSMs from opposing sides at a Slava and see what happens.
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
Since you mentioned the Falklands war, Scott, I’ve been wondering if the sinking of the Moskva will be as big a turning point as the sinking of the General Belgrano - the Argentine Navy stayed clear of the conflict zone after that event.

The Russian Navy will not want to risk losing another vessel by operating close to shore.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
You forgot training and state of alertness of the watch team. INS Hanit was the classic example, where equipment maintenance and training should normally not be an issue, but intel and complacency led to the decision to turn off critical systems (ESM, decoys)

Over 50 days of continuous operations can dull alertness. That the Ukrainians did not attempt an ASHM attack over this time period probably imparted a sense of complacency and assumption that they did not have the capability. Heck, most observers like us was surprised. Did they held back, or were they trying to get their systems to work or were they bidding their time?
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
I seriously don't think they have an appetite for a new and brutal offensive in Slaviansk - Kramatorsk - Severodonetsk area, even if, from the Russian perspective it would make sense to do it now and finish the job with Donbass once and for all since there won't be other chances after this I don't think.
The fight in Donbas by Russian announcement from beginning of the operation basically one of the main goal. Putin already put a General that being known for doing grinding attrition type of war in Syria. This's the thing they're doing in Chechnya.

Ukranian knows that, that's why Zelensky frantically asking for much more heavier weapons system. They know this is going to be the decisive front in the whole war.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I haven't had time for updates (I'll try to rectify this). But in the meantime I have a few thoughts. Bear with me, as a lot has happened, and my thoughts will wander from topic to topic.

1st, much has been made of NATOs unwillingness to risk war with Russia. What nobody seems to have considered is Russia's unwillingness to risk war with NATO. I suspect this has at least something to do with Russia not striking western weapons shipments.

2nd regardless of how the Moskva sank, it's important to understand that it's combat value in this particular conflict was low. It's a huge symbolic loss and a sign of major incompetence regardless (if they really took an AShM volley, it's a failure of missile defense, if they hit a sea mine how did it even sink, if it was a technical fire then it goes to show how poorly maintained it is and how outdated the fire-fighting system is). Any major damage to the ship would have render it unrepairable regardless. The only yard that can do the work realistically is half the world away (Nikolaev's yards are rusted into disrepair beyond all reason) and the cost of repairing a 40 year old ship after major damage is staggering while its value is limited. Realistically even if it had been towed back to Sevastopol', those resources are better spent on new 22350 frigates. And I strongly suspect, had one of those frigates been in place of the Moskva, the situation would have turned out differently.

3rd Mariupol' has basically fallen. Regardless of everything else, and the slow speed notwithstanding (slow compared to what though? major urban battles take time) Russia has succeeded in taking a large-ish city with many well armed defenders using a relatively small force, and relying heavily on rebel irregulars and even (rebel) reservists. Amidst the general failures of this war it is a success and it's important to look at it and see it for what it is. A half-destroyed city, most of its inhabitants fleeing or dead, 6 weeks of heavy fighting - a success. I think this answers the question of why Russia isn't assaulting Kharkov, or Kiev. What would success look like in those cities? Russia took Kherson, Berdyansk, and Melitopol', without a fight. Anywhere it has to fight will likely look like that, even in smaller towns. Note Izyum, a small town that Ukraine chose to defend, unsuccessfully. It fell to Russian forces. The damage isn't quite as bad as Mariupol', but it's so severe that most of the population also fled, and the heavy fighting took ~a week. It's pre-war population was shy of 50 000. Mariupol' isn't an exception, it's the rule.

4th Rebel reservists and Russian forces in LDNR areas are possible signs that the rebels are spent, or at least stretched thin. In this fight so far rebel forces have done quite well for themselves, and Sparta btln in Volnovakha is the most competent infantry force from the Russia side that I've seen footage of. Granted they're an elite rebel unit, but nonetheless it's telling. Reservists did start showing up well before the fighting got bad, so they're not a reaction. But their heavy use in Mariupol', and social media reports of them taking heavy casualties (what with the lack of training and body armor) are in my opinion indicative. And Russian units redeploying to the LDNR front make sense from the strategy shift stand point, but only at first glance. If the rebels were in good shape, Russian forces should have massed at Izyum and near Gulyapole (in the south). But instead they've shown up by Severo-Donetsk, and even south-west of Donestk by Volnovakha. I suspect the rebels have exhausted much of their fighting strength in admittedly successful offensive operations, DNR forces against Mariupol' and Volnovakha, LNR forces in taking almost all of northern Lugansk region. Rebel forces have been a good resource for Russia, but this well is tapped fully if not running dry.

5th Russia isn't done. It's quite likely that we will see at the very least one more major offensive by Russia. There are few major urban areas for Ukrainian forces in the east to cling to, and despite the media campaign and some of the best PR money can buy, the Ukrainian armed forces have taken horrific losses, especially in heavy equipment. Ukraine is certainly able to keep fighting, and a whole slew of new infantry brigades with western-donated weapons have been formed in western Ukraine, but the primary stockpile of artillery, IFVs, MBTs, is severely depleted. Russia continues to control the skies. It's quite possible, likely even, that Russia can succeed in this upcoming offensive. Russia will likely not be able to (my money is they won't even try) take Zaporozhye or Dnepropetrovsk. I suspect an assault on Kharkov won't happen either, unless Russia opts for a long war, with a serious domestic mobilization effort. In all likelihood we will see either a fighting withdrawal, or an encirclement and destruction of Ukrainian forces in the east (possibly both). Withdrawing on roads when the enemy has air superiority is not likely to look pretty. We have footage of Ukrainian forces from around Mariupol' that tried to retreat towards Zaporozhye to attest to that. We will probably see another Mariupol'/Volnovakha style battle around the Slavyank-Kramatorsk urban sprawl.
 

Rock the kasbah

Active Member
I haven't had time for updates (I'll try to rectify this). But in the meantime I have a few thoughts. Bear with me, as a lot has happened, and my thoughts will wander from topic to topic.

1st, much has been made of NATOs unwillingness to risk war with Russia. What nobody seems to have considered is Russia's unwillingness to risk war with NATO. I suspect this has at least something to do with Russia not striking western weapons shipments.

2nd regardless of how the Moskva sank, it's important to understand that it's combat value in this particular conflict was low. It's a huge symbolic loss and a sign of major incompetence regardless (if they really took an AShM volley, it's a failure of missile defense, if they hit a sea mine how did it even sink, if it was a technical fire then it goes to show how poorly maintained it is and how outdated the fire-fighting system is). Any major damage to the ship would have render it unrepairable regardless. The only yard that can do the work realistically is half the world away (Nikolaev's yards are rusted into disrepair beyond all reason) and the cost of repairing a 40 year old ship after major damage is staggering while its value is limited. Realistically even if it had been towed back to Sevastopol', those resources are better spent on new 22350 frigates. And I strongly suspect, had one of those frigates been in place of the Moskva, the situation would have turned out differently.

3rd Mariupol' has basically fallen. Regardless of everything else, and the slow speed notwithstanding (slow compared to what though? major urban battles take time) Russia has succeeded in taking a large-ish city with many well armed defenders using a relatively small force, and relying heavily on rebel irregulars and even (rebel) reservists. Amidst the general failures of this war it is a success and it's important to look at it and see it for what it is. A half-destroyed city, most of its inhabitants fleeing or dead, 6 weeks of heavy fighting - a success. I think this answers the question of why Russia isn't assaulting Kharkov, or Kiev. What would success look like in those cities? Russia took Kherson, Berdyansk, and Melitopol', without a fight. Anywhere it has to fight will likely look like that, even in smaller towns. Note Izyum, a small town that Ukraine chose to defend, unsuccessfully. It fell to Russian forces. The damage isn't quite as bad as Mariupol', but it's so severe that most of the population also fled, and the heavy fighting took ~a week. It's pre-war population was shy of 50 000. Mariupol' isn't an exception, it's the rule.

4th Rebel reservists and Russian forces in LDNR areas are possible signs that the rebels are spent, or at least stretched thin. In this fight so far rebel forces have done quite well for themselves, and Sparta btln in Volnovakha is the most competent infantry force from the Russia side that I've seen footage of. Granted they're an elite rebel unit, but nonetheless it's telling. Reservists did start showing up well before the fighting got bad, so they're not a reaction. But their heavy use in Mariupol', and social media reports of them taking heavy casualties (what with the lack of training and body armor) are in my opinion indicative. And Russian units redeploying to the LDNR front make sense from the strategy shift stand point, but only at first glance. If the rebels were in good shape, Russian forces should have massed at Izyum and near Gulyapole (in the south). But instead they've shown up by Severo-Donetsk, and even south-west of Donestk by Volnovakha. I suspect the rebels have exhausted much of their fighting strength in admittedly successful offensive operations, DNR forces against Mariupol' and Volnovakha, LNR forces in taking almost all of northern Lugansk region. Rebel forces have been a good resource for Russia, but this well is tapped fully if not running dry.

5th Russia isn't done. It's quite likely that we will see at the very least one more major offensive by Russia. There are few major urban areas for Ukrainian forces in the east to cling to, and despite the media campaign and some of the best PR money can buy, the Ukrainian armed forces have taken horrific losses, especially in heavy equipment. Ukraine is certainly able to keep fighting, and a whole slew of new infantry brigades with western-donated weapons have been formed in western Ukraine, but the primary stockpile of artillery, IFVs, MBTs, is severely depleted. Russia continues to control the skies. It's quite possible, likely even, that Russia can succeed in this upcoming offensive. Russia will likely not be able to (my money is they won't even try) take Zaporozhye or Dnepropetrovsk. I suspect an assault on Kharkov won't happen either, unless Russia opts for a long war, with a serious domestic mobilization effort. In all likelihood we will see either a fighting withdrawal, or an encirclement and destruction of Ukrainian forces in the east (possibly both). Withdrawing on roads when the enemy has air superiority is not likely to look pretty. We have footage of Ukrainian forces from around Mariupol' that tried to retreat towards Zaporozhye to attest to that. We will probably see another Mariupol'/Volnovakha style battle around the Slavyank-Kramatorsk urban sprawl.
What's your thinking mate
Can Ukraine survive a ww2 summer
You know tanks ( who cares what vintage) running amok on the wheat plains
 
Top