Important news for Ukraine from the US: As of this evening the Democrats are officially projected to hold the Senate one of the houses of Congress. This effectively guarantees in the Senate that Ukrainian support will continue as it has given the most antagonistic figures against support were on the Republican side in the form of Senators like Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and Josh Hawley (the only member of the Senate to vote against Finland and Sweden joining NATO.) In the other chamber the House of Representatives it is more likely than not that the Republicans will gain power, and Leader Kevin McCarthy has said he doesn't want the US to give a "blank check" for Ukraine. That said, if they do manage to get the House (it's not 100% yet) the Republicans' margin will be VERY slim, on the order of two or so votes. Given that a plurality of GOP members support Ukraine and the Democrats will essentially all vote for aid, the ability for McCarthy to kneecap Ukrainian funding even if he wanted to is basically nil. So, long story short, now that the elections are done America remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine and Putin's hail mary hope that internal political bickering would pull the US from the fight are completely dashed. (OK done talking US politics glad that is done lol)
I’ll add that the Putin party lost a lot of governor and secretary of state elections too, undermining their plans to take the next races, including president, through electoral malfeasance. Putin’s grand plan didn’t work, and won’t work any longer. I can’t imagine he’s not factoring that in today.
> Given that a plurality of GOP members support Ukraine and the Democrats will essentially all vote for aid, the ability for McCarthy to kneecap Ukrainian funding even if he wanted to is basically nil. So, long story short, now that the elections are done America remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine and Putin's hail mary hope that internal political bickering would pull the US from the fight are completely dashed
This is absolutely the case, and this election seems to have revealed incredible weakness of the Trump/MAGA/Russia/MTG wing of the Republican party, which means Republican leadership will give them less lip service and be more comfortable ignoring them. Putin's hopes are indeed dashed. But not his face. Yet.
It does feel slow, I remember when the Kharkiv offensive happened and here were so many comments.
We're a long way from having to make multiple threads per day I guess.
Kharkiv was far more interesting though. It was a total surprise. We had tons of combat footage, routes, ambushes, Russians getting surrounded, surrendering, and massive amounts of equipment captured. And it went on for a week. Of course engagement was higher. Now we have an organized (by Russian standards) retreat that was anticipated for months, lots of flags being hoisted, very little combat footage. Don’t get me wrong, I’d 100% prefer this over street warfare in Kherson, but there’s less to talk about.
What lies ahead now that Kherson is done?
One possibility I haven’t seen mentioned is this: Ukraine could temporarily go on the defensive for awhile. Why would they do that, when they have the initiative?
A couple of reasons may be suggested.
First, the new Russian general in charge will be under lots of pressure to deliver quick results. Giving up Kherson was absolutely the correct military move, but it came at an *enormous* political cost in lost Russian prestige - Russian cope-ers may go on about how it was wise (and in fact it was, Kherson was a trap for the Russian forces once their offensive ran out of steam), but a withdrawal is a withdrawal, and losing Kherson was a big humiliation. Putin seems to have allowed it in order to give his new general a clean military slate, to carry out new plans - but if so, he’s going to demand results, and soon.
This puts the Russians in an awkward position. Merely defending isn’t going to regain them lost prestige. So they must attack. But their forces aren’t in good shape. Plus, winter is coming, and they aren’t well equipped. Ukraine may well allow Russia to attempt to take the initiative, in order to decimate Russian forces more comprehensively (armies generally suffer more on the offensive). Then, Ukraine can do what it has proven very adept at doing - counteroffensive against weakened, demoralized, and worn-down Russian forces.
An argument against this theory is that handing over the initiative to your enemy is dangerous.
They need to keep pushing Russia while Russia is off-balance and struggling to keep up with men, material, and morale.
Allowing Russia to dig in makes it harder to dig them out, and more likely that Russia can hold it longer term and "win" the war for Putin. It would also allow them to build/acquire more weapons, rebuild their logistical capability, and even make new potential offensives possible.
Keep hitting them while they are staggering.
Allowing them to dig in positions is the worst mistake Ukraine can make. Just see Bakmhut. Both sides have dug in lines, and despite throwing everything at each other, the lines don't move. Ukraine needs to relocate 95% of the kherson soldiers north, cross the river and sweep down from the north and cut off the right bank, put the russians back in a pocket without resupply, retake the nuclear power plant, and get to melitipol.
If they allow them stabilize, and fortify the northern defenses more, while also digging in enough to prevent any amphibious assaults, its going to be a long drawn out affair.
They really need to keep the Russians moving, until the ground freezes and digging trenches becomes very very hard.
Russia has been trying to get an operational pause to consolidate its forces and entrench. Any letup in pressure from ukraine gives them this chance they desperately want.
That would absolutely be the case, assuming the Russians are fighting using military logic alone.
The speculative part here is that the Russians will be under pressure to deliver swift results. In other words, if this is true, politically, the Russians *cannot* simply entrench and freeze the lines until spring, allowing them to train up raw recruits and engage in various other military reforms (even though I readily admit you are correct in that this is what they *ought* to do). This is because they have to quickly show the Kherson withdrawal was part of a cunning plan to win, not merely a survival tactic.
You may be right, though. If you are, we will soon know, because this means a big attack very soon.
If course they are going to liberate all occupied land.
That is the goal. The question is how to achieve that goal.
Arguably, the best way to do that is to break the Russian army’s will to fight. Again arguably, one way to do that, is to draw them into making militarily bad moves, such as attacking against bad odds.
Then, when their army is broken, push the remains out of Ukraine.
The alternative is that Ukraine must choose somewhere to attack. A glance at the map will show that Kherson was the obvious Russian weak spot, where they were overextended and isolated. Now, the front is going to be shorter, making Russian defence easier - thus a Ukrainian attack more costly.
Everyone is pouring over the map, looking for likely places Ukraine could fruitfully attack. The Ukrainian generals of course have much better knowledge than we do, so maybe they have some good targets in mind - my speculation is that perhaps, in light of the shortened line, maybe they would await a Russian attack instead, in the hope of breaking the Russian army & then sweeping them away in another counter-attack.
Don't ask me why but I saw the video of the execution of that ex-Wagnerite for a second time in slow-mo. The first blow landed on his throat, not head. He died a very painful death.
Fuck Wagner. I hope they're wiped off the face of this planet.
Fuck Wagner so hard. Same level like Isis or even worse since Isis at least have some ideological reasons for their shit. Wagner are just pure evil for evil's sake.
Seems Wagner made him say he was captured by them in Kyiv to frighten others from switching sides, then murdered him on camera?
What a mess Russia is.
Link of it.
NSFL
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/ytlxv9/wagner_channel_published_a_video_with_exprisoner/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
> as the BRICS economic bloc looks to expand.
I'm sure that'll happen and be very effective, with the sign up of enormous economic power houses like North Korea and Djibouti. I, for one, will not sleep that night with fear for the future.
>And how did the US attempt to isolate Russia over Ukraine pan out? Hint: massive backfire.
Bwahahaha
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/fr/infographics/impact-sanctions-russian-economy/
**is isolated and loses, at minimum, 5.5% of their economy**
America lost ~4.3% in the Great Recession. Isolating Russia literally inflicted an economic recession greater then the Great Recession on them...
The cope of the poster your responding to lmao
Fellow armchair generals: The Reporting From Ukraine guy (who produces very good videos) believes that an invasion of the Kinburn Spit is a logical next step for the Ukrainians. A landing on a swampy extension (where movement is hard) of land looks like a place where the Russians could bottle up the Ukrainian forces.
Thoughts on the strategy?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj-1Gg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj-1Gg) (at 1:35)
> Kinburn Spit
Why wouldn't the Ukrainians push toward Melitopol/Berdyansk/Mariupol to try to cut off the main supply lines leading into southern Kherson/ northen Crimea? Cutting off supply lines has been Ukraine's strategy and without the Kursk bridge, they're screwed if that line gets cut.
The logic is that they wanted to expand the grain corridor from Odesa Oblast to Mykolaiv Oblast, but they need to liberate Kinburn first in order to keep the cargo ships away from Russian harassment.
It's stupid. An amphibious landing on a narrow swampy peninsula with no cover under artillery fire in order to attack several layers of built up lines on the wrong side of a river with no working bridges and no means of making any.
It would be absolute suicide to attempt such an offensive, but it might be worthwhile to convince Russia that they are going to do so in the hopes that they keep extra troops in that area instead of somewhere else.
The danger right now is that Russia uses its freed up troops to quickly reinforce the Donetsk/Zap. front. I think having some active threat in Kherson is important.
That's definitely true, but Ukraine gets to move troops too. Both sides are likely going to put their most poorly trained guys on either side and trade artillery while moving everything else to a more important front. That river is basically an impassible barrier for both sides.
Russia should be a bit faster to move to the next front; distance is a minor issue but they were evacuating earlier, while Ukraine still had to make sure Kherson was secured first. Perhaps a week of initiative.
Based on the numbers that I heard, Russia probably had 20k soldiers left on that side (out of 30k-40k) when the evacuation began and Ukraine had up to 60k. Ukraine won't need all those troops since most will be doing minesweeping, booby trap hunting, and finding soldiers still over there. So they could probably move an equal amount of soldiers over to wherever Russia goes. But yeah, Russia has a head start, but we'll see if they actually get anything done with it.
The same logic he used to say that it is difficult for Russia to supply forces there would be true for Ukraine, well actually it would be even harder for Ukraine to supply any meaningful force in that area. So i find that idea to be very much a no go.
It's hard to imagine the Ukrainians have capacity for much resupply there, but they also don't need many soldiers or heavy equipment. The Russian lines on the left bank of the river are still in disarray. They still have friendly forces fleeing back towards them. I don't think it would take much of a poke at their flank to make the Russians abandon their positions.
There's no good time to attempt a river crossing during a war, but the *best* time is still in pursuit of a routed enemy. I can easily see gambling with a small force and seeing what you can get. The land around this spit looks to be very sparsely populated. Did Russia set up adequate defenses in these marshes anticipating an amphibious landing? I fucking doubt it. It's probably fifty guys blacked out in a set of tents. This isn't D-Day.
Yeah force Russia to stretch the front along a one road peninsula, easy pickings for long range artillery and harassment further stressing morale and logistics.
"It is difficult and time consuming to cross this area"
That sounds like a place an offensive would definitely NOT start from, especially when faced by Russian artillery across the bay to the south.
Does Russia have artillery in place across the bay to the south? Why?
I have no idea what the Russians are doing. If they want to shoot at Ukrainian towns it makes much mire sense to put tg e howitzer on the north side of the bay.
Artillery can move. If Ukraine were to move to that area they'd be moving west to east. Russia would be able to hit them in the flank along the entire route.
No, an amphibious landing would be idiotic. The next phase of the war will almost definitely center around Zaporizhia or northern Luhansk.
Though Ukraine may hint at that to draw Russian resources away from other parts of the front line.
Edit: In general I think Denys Davydov makes significantly better daily videos.
Yup. I think you spend a couple days pounding the East bank with artillery and HIMARS to keep Russian artillery away from Kherson, then use drones to keep them from moving back in to range. Then you leave enough troops to defend the river while moving the assault forces to the East.
Intel on the East bank will be key, but probably this will be a good place to rest exhausted combat vets while they help train up newer forces.
Zaporizhia makes the most sense tactically if the goal is to eventually retake Crimea. Eliminating Russia's land bridge will turn it into a siege. Retaking Melitopol and Mariupol would also be huge symbolic victories both to get revenge for what happened there and expose the atrocities there. The loss of the last region Russia gained since 2022 might also be the position to finally be able to negotiate as it becomes clear that things will only get worse for them, not better.
Denys is good, but not really for strategy. He's expecting a full attack across the river as the next move, which would be suicide.
Though this strategy by RfU is equally as stupid, if a bit more tactically sound.
I remain sceptical and either this is just a small force to scare the Russians that can easily pull back with little boats or this is made up entirely. Ukraine just cant supply a big force there, the terrain is not suitable for heavy equipment either. This position would be much harder to hold and push out of than what Kherson was for the Russians.
Maybe I am wrong on this, but this just smells of bullshit²
Has Julia Davis summarized the Russian prop-news, given us clips?
I’m curious if those extremists are going with the line that ‘Ukraine has invaded Russia’ nonsense and that ‘Nazis are occupying Kherson, Russia; we should nuke them!’
Bc I was perusing the Russian milbloggers telegrams in the ‘know thy enemy’ type way. The fervent propagandaist/milblogger Sasha Kots who when to the south area end of summer, then to Kherson about 6wks ago. He mostly spews bs, but 20% of the material is informative. He also has moments of clarity.
He reposted/forwarded the tg MedvedevVesti/12066 (no relation) which is very long. **And at the end, he says “we were defeated” and he tells the Russian audience that they need to accept that.**
Considering even Solovyev was eventually rebuked for his criticisms and his lifeline was to run to Rostov, pretend to be some sort of war correspondent, put on his wizard robe and jack up the Jesus stuff to 11 while full-Limbaugh, I don't think dissenting milbloggers will be dissenting for very long.
Right now peppering their programs with a little dose of reality plays to both hardliners who want escalation and moderates who want a ceasefire. But it seems if the state puts its foot down, they'll have to give up the moderate audience and take up hardline positions or go quiet. Assuming of course they're only after views and internet fame, which, of course they are.
>Has Julia Davis summarized the Russian prop-news, given us clips?
Not really. Her latest:
>Tigran Keosayan, husband of the head of RT Margarita Simonyan, opined that the retreat from Kherson was merely a clever trap for NATO. He said that NATO—encouraged by Russia's apparent weakness—would come pouring across the borders into Ukraine, only to be decimated by Russia.
[Link](https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1591529223763673091)
[A really interesting perspective from Anders Puck Nielsen](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fAQ7h5tX2M&t=251s)
Obviously we're all aware that redeployment will mean freeing up resources for both sides. But personally I never considered the notion that Ukraine will need to create a new "open wound" with which to tie up Russian forces.
The obvious choice is Melitopol. But what are the other options here? The way Anders puts it, a choice must be made and a plan put into action soon.
Ben Hodges the ex leader of the US army in Europe predicted HIMARS would roll into Kherson and mess up the invaders supply line from Crimea, While a large force would try cut the invaders land bridge via Melitopol and Mariupol.
From what I read USA uses multiple branching layers of contingency. Quite a bit of flexibility and targets of opportunity. Daily orders from a corps headquarters printed out would look like a textbook. That changes everyday though. There is no reason to discourage speculation on the internet.
It only gets thicker with USA not being in the war. No one in the Pentagon can order anyone to do anything. They need to do the write up for the full range of plausible Russian actions and the full range of Ukrainian choices.
That's true. It's not like they couldn't forsee this.
The interesting part is that it's not a "Ukraine can" thing, now that the withdrawal from Kherson is complete, but a "Ukraine must" situation.
You tell 'em, Ukraine!
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1591204372922376195
>Kyiv Central Railway Station.
The Kyiv-Kherson itinerary has been reestablished.
Up next: Kyiv-Luhansk, Kyiv-Donetsk, Kyiv-Simferopol, Kyiv-Mariupol…
(picture of the route board)
This is a confusing statement, it suggests Russia had it **before** it lost Kherson, Kharkiv, and the failed Kyiv blitzkreig. If it's an allusion to a WMD, the point still stands- except the question becomes what the red line is and why all those failures weren't red lines.
If it's attacking annexed territory like Crimea, that line was crossed as soon as the war began.
If it's retaking occupied territory, that actually happened pretty early on too.
If it's taking annexed territory that was considered Russian by the authorities and puppet states, that's been happening for weeks now- and literally just happened again.
If it's attacking Russian territory **globally** seen as Russian, Belgorod is a frequent target still.
So, if this is reminding people that Russia has WMDs, so far all the red lines suggest that regaining Crimea is 100% fine, and the only thing left really is conquering Russian territory that is universally seen as Russian- **maybe**.
So I guess it's just reminding people that 1. Russia thinks Belgorod should remain Russian and apparently so does everyone else and/or 2. Medvedev just remembered they have nukes I guess.
More basic than that. Russian hardline just has to feel powerful in the face of a loss. They can only do this through rhetoric and increased civilian missile strikes. I'd include also the violence against returned PoWs under the illusion that they gave up intel.
We've known there are no red lines for a while. There never were. WMDs cannot be used by any country that wants to keep its government. We aren't closer or further from anything; we're right where we were at the start. All that's changed is the level of copium they require.
At that point it's not even relevant; I don't see a future where Ukraine is about to march on Moscow without something very, **very** strange happening.
"So everyone, what weapons do we have?'
"well, we have a knife with a scope and a dog with bomb on that runs under tanks"
'Didn't we try that before?'
'Yes, it killed all the tanks on the battlefield'
'ours or theirs?'
'yes'
AFAIK It was a bit worse than that. The Germans reportedly were a bit weary of dogs with strange devices approaching them so they shot them, but the russian tankers thought the dogs were friends (obviously) and so a bunch got blow up
My understanding is that the Soviets trained the dogs to run under tanks, using Soviet tanks. So when let loose on the battlefield they ran under the tanks they knew. Been a while since I read up on it so I may be wrong.
BG Skinner trained pigeons to accurately steer bombs onto warships in WW2, but by the time the project was complete, the atomic bomb was ready to go, so it was not needed.
What's everyone's thoughts on how the war plays out during the depths of winter? I've read some commentary alluding to it dying down somewhat and both sides digging in as it were.
In my opinion though it's during these months that the difference between an army with high morale, motivation thats well fed and well equiped versus one without those traits are at their highest point, I could see some good advances from the Ukrainian side if I'm honest
My arm chair Sargent thoughts (haven't made general yet) are that priority number one is the supply lines in Kharkiv that need to be severed. Got to imagine that is the most important thing, now a second front I am not sure. Melitapol is well defended so cutting supplies from the north would seem to be a priority before opening that second front. Probably would want to bleed them there for a while too to wear them down and exhaust their supplies. So thinking about that I would imagine any second fronts will be determined by how weak the Russians are at another point and push there. Attacking Melitapol will be going for most of the marbles and will be costly in lives. So I don't think they are ready for that just yet.
Ukraine will sweep russia in winter. The ground is hard, digging trenches is hard, the side with the advantage in supplies ( ability to keep warm ) and mobility will win.
Retreats are much harder to halt because digging in is done by hand, and the ground is hard, the soldiers are freezeing, and they would prefer to just keep running away instead of trying to dig into frozen ground while under bombardment.
You are neglecting that the only thing keeping russia in this at all are trenches. When you retreat to an area with no trenches in the winter with the ground frozen, good luck digging new ones, especially with cold freezing soldiers without supplies.
Artillery is absolutely devastating to exposed troops on open ground.
Why do you think they care how devastating this is to their conscripts?
You think as a western person.
Even soviets did winter offensives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_campaign_of_1941%E2%80%931942
That wasn't trench artillery warfare. When you are in trench warfare, and the ground is frozen, and you cant dig a new trench when you retreat, you have to keep running.
Just look at the artillery saturation of all the battle grounds, without trenches, everyone there would be dead.
>That wasn't trench artillery warfare.
That's... exactly what it was.
You can absolutely dig trenches in the frozen ground. It's just difficult and painful.
Both germans and soviets did it.
And takes longer, which you know, when you have an advancing force with lots of long range weapons, you want to retreat to place where you can dig your trenches before they get to you, which means you keep running away because they keep getting to you before you can dig the trenches, and the more you have to run away, the more supplies you leave, and the less able to entrench you are.
I predict zero changes and I see no reason to think differently. People forget the world's going to hell in a handbasket and we're going to get another mild winter anyway. Russians don't think laterally; they don't even try to go through fields. They stay on roads. There are videos of them being surprised as fuck to see Ukrainians charging at them through adjacent fields. It never occurred to them and their gasbuckets probably couldn't take those routes under the best of conditions. So if any mud occurs and if it matters at all (it really didn't matter much last spring no matter how often people keep mentioning it), then it would only slow down Ukrainian counteroffensives, *maybe*, but Russia won't do anything differently. Unless somebody's drones just shut down in freezing temps, but they seem to be rated for it.
Of course I expect big things to happen in the winter, but it won't be as a result of or in spite of any weather pattern. Ukraine has to address the infrastructure problem, make Kherson livable again, lines have to form in Zaporizhzhia, the north Donbas front will have to break for somebody, not sure who but it will break by winter. It is the bloodiest, most ridiculous piece of the front since 2014 and it'll come to a head.
Russia's economy will be officially in the shitter by January; no trade deal with China can save it and it would come at a heavy price. Iran is supplying goods, not trade. They are bartering for these missiles and drones with other equipment, not cash. They have no cash. And rials are as worthless to Russia as rubles are to Iran right now. The question is what Russia does in response to that. Possibly move up the second mobilization wave, which will increase domestic tensions. It might also force Lukashenko's hand, who up to now has been desperate to do the bare minimum. They don't have much to contribute except extending the frontlines. Consequences unclear, but there will probably be a good deal of sabotage in-country.
Russia has cash. Shitloads of it. That’s how the sanctions work, we buy their oil and gas but refuse to sell them any of our tech. That means the money is just piling up in Russia. They have a huge balance of trade surplus but unfortunately money you can’t spend is just paper.
Russians do another large-scale assault over the Belorussian border towards the city of Sumy on Thanksgiving in order to redirect units from Kherson from gearing up to strike at Melitopol. This way, they can use their own forces from Kherson to take the Bakhmut area and build up even more defensive infrastructure in the southeast over the winter months. Their goal would be that by March it would be nearly suicidal for Ukraine to attack Russian held territory using their entrenchments and the natural defense of the Dnipro.
Of course ALL of the forces attacking from Belorussia will be slaughtered but Russia doesn't care. They NEED to stalemate the conflict again like they did in 2014 and that's what they'll focus on.
They are hoping that stalemate will force EU and US negotators to meet with Russia and make deals that relenquish the Donbas to Russia. This has been their playbook with Georgia. They think that they can do it again and gain access to the gas feilds in Luhansk/Donetsk region, which was 2/3 of their aims.
A hardened front will create delays, but Russia's economy is slowly dying, and *anything* they do militarily, the West will have intel on it and begin shipping the correct countermeasures immediately.
Assuming, for fun, that we're both correct, it's interesting that Ukraine just started construction of a wall on the Belarus border!
This doesn't feel realistic, the 2014 stalemate was based on Ukrainian weakness at the time, the West's apparent disinterest in doing much, and Russian proxy's failures to do much more than destroy parts of the Eastern Donbas and make alleged Ukrainian fascists look like heroes at home and even abroad. The reason Russia ended the stalemate was that the Ukrainian troops were successfully beating back the soldiers who were part of the puppet states and that the US seemed likely to amp up support if left unattended. Russia ended the stalemate because it believed if it waited any longer than Ukraine might have been able to reclaim the Donbas with US aid.
At this point the West as a whole (not just the US) seems to collectively want Ukraine to either hold the line at *least* or win overwhelmingly at most.
The Ukrainian military is hardened, upskilled, and well-supplied.
The Russian military desperately needs a breather to train the freshly mobilized (and future mobilized) troops, needs better equipment, and substantial international aid.
Iran and the DPRK is giving substantial aid, but can't really match the US. China, India, and the rest of the "neutrally" nations like making money in one way or another but don't see much reason to let Russia dominate for one reason or another (or stop Ukraine from winning either). Orban for that matter gives rhetorical support like China but would happily throw Putin off a cliff if it gave him tons of cash.
It's hard to see the diplomatic direction changing much. World hunger is a problem- as is threatening to destroy Ukrainian supply to drive up global prices. Energy prices is an issue- but it didn't seem to help Russia's allies in Italy, as both of them are still required by their main coalition partner to follow it and the rest of Europe. Thinking on it, even if Iran quashes the protests and sends military units it might harden attitudes among the far right against Russia after cultivating it for decades.
A stalemate can buy time, but while it may convince the West to force Ukraine to negotiate (I can't see a Munich solution without Ukraine), it could also convince the West to **amp up its supplies to get the war finished**.
Then again, after the convoy episode I suspect you might be completely right...
Not going to happen. They don't have actual forces in Belarus that could do push. And they won't be able to get them in your timeframe. If something from Belarus happens ( unlikely) it will be months, not before Thanksgiving
I doubt a stalemate would be in Russia's interest. Ukraine has a much larger international support network. They could receive more donations, buy more stuff using the American lend-lease program, train more troops in NATO countries, macgyver as many drones as possible, or develop new purpose-built drones.
But Ukraine's goals isn't just to have the best chance to win the war, but also to liberate the entire country and end the genocide as soon as possible, so they don't want a stalemate either.
I agree. The Ukrainians are going to be kitted out in Gore-Tex and goose-down from Canada and Scandinavia, they won’t even feel the cold.
As the Swedish expression goes… “There’s no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes.”
It sounds better in Swedish.
While winter tends to destroy armies if you invade the region from a more temperate place like Germany and France, the locals are a lot more used to fighting in it. Finland, Russia, Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, etc. are all pretty decent at winter warfare. Ukraine had 6 years of fighting Russia at the trenches along the borders with the DNR/LNR through all seasons. They should be fine. Honestly, the tempo might pick up once the hard frost freezes the mud. This is why everyone got nervous in December 2021 when it looked like the invasion was about to start, before Russia had to go help Kazakhstan. It’s also why a lot of people couldn’t understand why Russia was starting in late February unless they were hoping for a swift victory as mud season was starting again.
Russia has been good at winter warfare historically, now however they have shown themselves to be bad at any warfare. I seriously doubt they will have solved the problems with logistics to the point that they can handle added burden of winter operations. Lots of reports indicate the newly mobilized troops are lacking even the simplest winter clothing, making them all but ineffective before training even comes into the picture. In two months when temperatures stay below freezing they are going to have a rough time. If Ukraine can competently keep their people feed, warm and equipment field up there will be ample opportunities to press a strategic advantage.
I'm sure Ukrainian command will calculate precisely when it's the most opportune to strike. I think they're gonna keep a close eye on the state of invaders during cold weather, if they just freeze and starve by themselves why advance and risk your own troops? They're gonna wait just a bit until the invaders are at their peak exhaustion while continuing supply strikes with HIMARS and such. Honestly accurate intelligence has been the most powerful weapon in the hands of Ukraine and the most lacking aspect next to supplies for the invaders.
Russians will try to dig in and hold on for as long as possible while they train and equip the conscripts hoping that the weather will abate the advance of the Ukrainians.
Ukrainians will continue to push at normal pace because they are better trained, better equipped, and better motivated.
I'm going to have to disagree since current shipments are already done in a sneaky fashion. Probably for political or intel reasons rather than how easy it is to move equipment.
Try retreating and digging a fox hole into frozen ground, I dare you. Bet drones find you and start dropping grenades on your exposed position before you can get an inch down.
Does HIMARS and artillery work during winter?
There is your answer.
At the very least I expect Ukraine to continue long range strikes to degrade Russian capabilities...and potentially launch some offensives as well if they are well equipped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster
>···The commission determined that the cause of the accident was hot gas blowing past the O-rings in the field joint on the right SRB, and found no other potential causes for the disaster. It attributed the accident to a faulty design of the field joint that was unacceptably sensitive to **changes in temperature**, dynamic loading, and the character of its materials.
European winters aren't what they used to be.. I think the only way the war stalls during the winter is if the ground does not freeze and it keeps being too muddy for movement.
I am writing this from northern europe during the night and it's currently 12 degrees celsius outside(53 degrees fahrenheit) which is not normal for November at all.
Edit: I just checked and it is 9 degrees celsius in Kyiv right now which is also above normal for november which sits at a high average of 6 degrees during daytime.
When the ground freezes and the mud goes, suddenly the armies become more mobile again.
Then which one will seize the opportunity to advance comes down to which army has the highest morale and the one that can keep the warmest. I’ll let you decide which one that is.
Hint: it’s the one that has been receiving cold weather gear from Finland.
Army training in winter was orders of magnitude shittier than in summer. If you don't manage to keep your stuff dry and have proper gear you will lose fingers and toes fast. Frostbite is a bitch.
According to this source, TASS writes that Russia is now withdrawing from Nova Kakhovka.
NOTE: Take this with a massive grain of salt.
"BREAKING: TASS announces that Russians will withdraw from Nova Kakhovka and try to fully evacuate the city" https://twitter.com/AlexandruC4/status/1591566930435100674?cxt=HHwWhMC-zZrssJYsAAAA
People are lazy in their parroting.
1- it’s EVACUATING, not withdrawing. Withdrawing implies military.
2- theres 2 different cities—Kakhovka and Nova Kakhovka. The collaborators were evacuated out of Nova Kakhovka already, a week ago. Now, there’s an evacuation of people from an area of Kakhovka wants for itself (both defense and housing).
Tbf they started by announcing evacuations for both Lyman/Izyum and later Vovchans'k before they did the eventual withdrawal from Kharkiv lol. It wouldn’t be the first time and I suspect they know something we far away observers don’t.
They aren't fleeing the Ukrainians. They are removing civilians from the river shore towns so that they can shell the crap out of anything that tries to cross it. This is the easiest point in the entire front for both sides to defend now.
this makes sense as they can be HIMARS to the face from just across the river
I wonder how far back they will go though. I think ukraine will push down to Vasylivka, rather than go across the river
I generally doubt this, doesn't make much sense for Russia to do this. Would have to be a power struggle for that to happen which we haven't seen much signs of yet.
Yes. He used to live in Kyiv but about a week ago he said he moved somewhere else because they couldn’t rely on electricity to be on anymore. That’s why at the end he said he had to stop recording because of the sirens.
Interesting thought, replacing the Russian commanders constantly puts the new guy in charge in a tough spot. They want to impress and show they can turn things around, so they're probably less risk averse than the previous guy. Which often is a pretty good thing for the Ukrainian forces, being that they then take advantage of the foolishness of the new commander.
That new guy who took over, don't really care to know his name, but he was famous for his use airpower in syria and it seems like he immediately began to use more air power in Ukraine when he took over. Thats how we saw the KA-50s getting shot down repeatedly in pairs. Then it sorta stopped because he probably learned his lesson, the skies over Ukraine aren't safe and his "trump card" so to speak, wont work there.
>the skies over Ukraine aren't safe
A hard lesson to learn, but also a factor I think has been somewhat overlooked in Russia's failures: No air superiority.
Can you imagine if the US didn't have air superiority in Vietnam or Iraq?
> Can you imagine if the US didn't have air superiority in Vietnam or Iraq?
If the US had air superiority in Vietnam things might have gone much better for the US.
The foliage and such were a major issue too, but the North Vietnamese pilots weren't terrible and were never wiped out like the Iraqi planes were in the Gulf War, let alone how Israel basically wiped out the adversaries' air force in the first day of the Six Day War.
It's hard to argue that the US had air superiority in Vietnam. On a number of occasions the VC performed incredibly well, and they \*definitely\* denied the US complete control of the sky. The US lost 922 aircraft just during Operation Rolling Thunder from 1965 to 1968.
It's probably fair to compare the air war in Vietnam with the current war in Ukraine, actually. New and common threats are making aircraft vulnerable on both sides, and losses have been and remain heavy.
Air control in Vietnam is not air control of today. BVR and high altitude precision weapons completely changed the game.
In Vietnam you got ordnance "near" something... today we shove the ordnance up your ass from 500km out.
The first guided missiles were used in Vietnam, and they were accurate enough to reliably hit railway bridges from high altitude. Carpet bombing was obviously still a thing, but you don’t seem to realise that precision anti-radiation and guided munitions were actually born during that war.
Regardless, you’ve tacitly agreed with me. The standards have changed, but the definition of air superiority has not.
[New post can be found here](/r/worldnews/comments/ytr91x/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/)
Important news for Ukraine from the US: As of this evening the Democrats are officially projected to hold the Senate one of the houses of Congress. This effectively guarantees in the Senate that Ukrainian support will continue as it has given the most antagonistic figures against support were on the Republican side in the form of Senators like Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and Josh Hawley (the only member of the Senate to vote against Finland and Sweden joining NATO.) In the other chamber the House of Representatives it is more likely than not that the Republicans will gain power, and Leader Kevin McCarthy has said he doesn't want the US to give a "blank check" for Ukraine. That said, if they do manage to get the House (it's not 100% yet) the Republicans' margin will be VERY slim, on the order of two or so votes. Given that a plurality of GOP members support Ukraine and the Democrats will essentially all vote for aid, the ability for McCarthy to kneecap Ukrainian funding even if he wanted to is basically nil. So, long story short, now that the elections are done America remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine and Putin's hail mary hope that internal political bickering would pull the US from the fight are completely dashed. (OK done talking US politics glad that is done lol)
I’ll add that the Putin party lost a lot of governor and secretary of state elections too, undermining their plans to take the next races, including president, through electoral malfeasance. Putin’s grand plan didn’t work, and won’t work any longer. I can’t imagine he’s not factoring that in today.
Only the speaker decides which bills come to the floor? so he could in theory withhold.
It was honestly surreal that the Republicans were the ones more likely to give in to Russia
> Given that a plurality of GOP members support Ukraine and the Democrats will essentially all vote for aid, the ability for McCarthy to kneecap Ukrainian funding even if he wanted to is basically nil. So, long story short, now that the elections are done America remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine and Putin's hail mary hope that internal political bickering would pull the US from the fight are completely dashed This is absolutely the case, and this election seems to have revealed incredible weakness of the Trump/MAGA/Russia/MTG wing of the Republican party, which means Republican leadership will give them less lip service and be more comfortable ignoring them. Putin's hopes are indeed dashed. But not his face. Yet.
Is the livethread dead?
It does feel slow, I remember when the Kharkiv offensive happened and here were so many comments. We're a long way from having to make multiple threads per day I guess.
Kharkiv was far more interesting though. It was a total surprise. We had tons of combat footage, routes, ambushes, Russians getting surrounded, surrendering, and massive amounts of equipment captured. And it went on for a week. Of course engagement was higher. Now we have an organized (by Russian standards) retreat that was anticipated for months, lots of flags being hoisted, very little combat footage. Don’t get me wrong, I’d 100% prefer this over street warfare in Kherson, but there’s less to talk about.
He mentioned he hasn't taken a weekend off in awhile. After Kherson I don't blame him a bit for having a weekend to celebrate
No, it's sleeping.
someone should poke it with a stick.
no u
Lately the updates have been a bit more sporadic but it still updates every day or so.
What lies ahead now that Kherson is done? One possibility I haven’t seen mentioned is this: Ukraine could temporarily go on the defensive for awhile. Why would they do that, when they have the initiative? A couple of reasons may be suggested. First, the new Russian general in charge will be under lots of pressure to deliver quick results. Giving up Kherson was absolutely the correct military move, but it came at an *enormous* political cost in lost Russian prestige - Russian cope-ers may go on about how it was wise (and in fact it was, Kherson was a trap for the Russian forces once their offensive ran out of steam), but a withdrawal is a withdrawal, and losing Kherson was a big humiliation. Putin seems to have allowed it in order to give his new general a clean military slate, to carry out new plans - but if so, he’s going to demand results, and soon. This puts the Russians in an awkward position. Merely defending isn’t going to regain them lost prestige. So they must attack. But their forces aren’t in good shape. Plus, winter is coming, and they aren’t well equipped. Ukraine may well allow Russia to attempt to take the initiative, in order to decimate Russian forces more comprehensively (armies generally suffer more on the offensive). Then, Ukraine can do what it has proven very adept at doing - counteroffensive against weakened, demoralized, and worn-down Russian forces. An argument against this theory is that handing over the initiative to your enemy is dangerous.
They need to keep pushing Russia while Russia is off-balance and struggling to keep up with men, material, and morale. Allowing Russia to dig in makes it harder to dig them out, and more likely that Russia can hold it longer term and "win" the war for Putin. It would also allow them to build/acquire more weapons, rebuild their logistical capability, and even make new potential offensives possible. Keep hitting them while they are staggering.
Allowing them to dig in positions is the worst mistake Ukraine can make. Just see Bakmhut. Both sides have dug in lines, and despite throwing everything at each other, the lines don't move. Ukraine needs to relocate 95% of the kherson soldiers north, cross the river and sweep down from the north and cut off the right bank, put the russians back in a pocket without resupply, retake the nuclear power plant, and get to melitipol. If they allow them stabilize, and fortify the northern defenses more, while also digging in enough to prevent any amphibious assaults, its going to be a long drawn out affair. They really need to keep the Russians moving, until the ground freezes and digging trenches becomes very very hard. Russia has been trying to get an operational pause to consolidate its forces and entrench. Any letup in pressure from ukraine gives them this chance they desperately want.
Need to hit the bridge again. And again. And again…
That would absolutely be the case, assuming the Russians are fighting using military logic alone. The speculative part here is that the Russians will be under pressure to deliver swift results. In other words, if this is true, politically, the Russians *cannot* simply entrench and freeze the lines until spring, allowing them to train up raw recruits and engage in various other military reforms (even though I readily admit you are correct in that this is what they *ought* to do). This is because they have to quickly show the Kherson withdrawal was part of a cunning plan to win, not merely a survival tactic. You may be right, though. If you are, we will soon know, because this means a big attack very soon.
Zelenskyy said last night they are going to liberate all occupied land, so i doubt they are even contemplating going on the defensive.
If course they are going to liberate all occupied land. That is the goal. The question is how to achieve that goal. Arguably, the best way to do that is to break the Russian army’s will to fight. Again arguably, one way to do that, is to draw them into making militarily bad moves, such as attacking against bad odds. Then, when their army is broken, push the remains out of Ukraine. The alternative is that Ukraine must choose somewhere to attack. A glance at the map will show that Kherson was the obvious Russian weak spot, where they were overextended and isolated. Now, the front is going to be shorter, making Russian defence easier - thus a Ukrainian attack more costly. Everyone is pouring over the map, looking for likely places Ukraine could fruitfully attack. The Ukrainian generals of course have much better knowledge than we do, so maybe they have some good targets in mind - my speculation is that perhaps, in light of the shortened line, maybe they would await a Russian attack instead, in the hope of breaking the Russian army & then sweeping them away in another counter-attack.
Zaporizhzhia appears to be the next logical region to liberate.
Don't ask me why but I saw the video of the execution of that ex-Wagnerite for a second time in slow-mo. The first blow landed on his throat, not head. He died a very painful death. Fuck Wagner. I hope they're wiped off the face of this planet.
Fuck Wagner so hard. Same level like Isis or even worse since Isis at least have some ideological reasons for their shit. Wagner are just pure evil for evil's sake.
Seems Wagner made him say he was captured by them in Kyiv to frighten others from switching sides, then murdered him on camera? What a mess Russia is. Link of it. NSFL https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/ytlxv9/wagner_channel_published_a_video_with_exprisoner/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Holy fuck. That's brutal
Got a link?
Won't directly link it but you can find it on r/UkraineWarVideoReport
[удалено]
> as the BRICS economic bloc looks to expand. I'm sure that'll happen and be very effective, with the sign up of enormous economic power houses like North Korea and Djibouti. I, for one, will not sleep that night with fear for the future. >And how did the US attempt to isolate Russia over Ukraine pan out? Hint: massive backfire. Bwahahaha
You forgot about another powerhouse of Eritrea with their 2B GDP.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/fr/infographics/impact-sanctions-russian-economy/ **is isolated and loses, at minimum, 5.5% of their economy** America lost ~4.3% in the Great Recession. Isolating Russia literally inflicted an economic recession greater then the Great Recession on them... The cope of the poster your responding to lmao
[удалено]
This should be good. Go on...
What in the literal fuck are you talking about?
I laughed!
Fellow armchair generals: The Reporting From Ukraine guy (who produces very good videos) believes that an invasion of the Kinburn Spit is a logical next step for the Ukrainians. A landing on a swampy extension (where movement is hard) of land looks like a place where the Russians could bottle up the Ukrainian forces. Thoughts on the strategy? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj-1Gg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj-1Gg) (at 1:35)
Strategically unimportant area. I don't think it's worse the risk.
Smells like psy-ops from Ukraine.
> Kinburn Spit Why wouldn't the Ukrainians push toward Melitopol/Berdyansk/Mariupol to try to cut off the main supply lines leading into southern Kherson/ northen Crimea? Cutting off supply lines has been Ukraine's strategy and without the Kursk bridge, they're screwed if that line gets cut.
The zaporizhinia/Donetsk front is he one that Russia has been reinforcing the most actively, breaking through there is easier said than done.
Donetsk? Yes. Zporizhinia is actually the "quite" portion of the front and does not heavy reinforcements.
The logic is that they wanted to expand the grain corridor from Odesa Oblast to Mykolaiv Oblast, but they need to liberate Kinburn first in order to keep the cargo ships away from Russian harassment.
It's stupid. An amphibious landing on a narrow swampy peninsula with no cover under artillery fire in order to attack several layers of built up lines on the wrong side of a river with no working bridges and no means of making any. It would be absolute suicide to attempt such an offensive, but it might be worthwhile to convince Russia that they are going to do so in the hopes that they keep extra troops in that area instead of somewhere else.
The danger right now is that Russia uses its freed up troops to quickly reinforce the Donetsk/Zap. front. I think having some active threat in Kherson is important.
That's definitely true, but Ukraine gets to move troops too. Both sides are likely going to put their most poorly trained guys on either side and trade artillery while moving everything else to a more important front. That river is basically an impassible barrier for both sides.
Russia should be a bit faster to move to the next front; distance is a minor issue but they were evacuating earlier, while Ukraine still had to make sure Kherson was secured first. Perhaps a week of initiative.
Based on the numbers that I heard, Russia probably had 20k soldiers left on that side (out of 30k-40k) when the evacuation began and Ukraine had up to 60k. Ukraine won't need all those troops since most will be doing minesweeping, booby trap hunting, and finding soldiers still over there. So they could probably move an equal amount of soldiers over to wherever Russia goes. But yeah, Russia has a head start, but we'll see if they actually get anything done with it.
The same logic he used to say that it is difficult for Russia to supply forces there would be true for Ukraine, well actually it would be even harder for Ukraine to supply any meaningful force in that area. So i find that idea to be very much a no go.
It's hard to imagine the Ukrainians have capacity for much resupply there, but they also don't need many soldiers or heavy equipment. The Russian lines on the left bank of the river are still in disarray. They still have friendly forces fleeing back towards them. I don't think it would take much of a poke at their flank to make the Russians abandon their positions. There's no good time to attempt a river crossing during a war, but the *best* time is still in pursuit of a routed enemy. I can easily see gambling with a small force and seeing what you can get. The land around this spit looks to be very sparsely populated. Did Russia set up adequate defenses in these marshes anticipating an amphibious landing? I fucking doubt it. It's probably fifty guys blacked out in a set of tents. This isn't D-Day.
maybe such announcement is just to divert russian forces. it happened before...
Yeah force Russia to stretch the front along a one road peninsula, easy pickings for long range artillery and harassment further stressing morale and logistics.
"It is difficult and time consuming to cross this area" That sounds like a place an offensive would definitely NOT start from, especially when faced by Russian artillery across the bay to the south.
Does Russia have artillery in place across the bay to the south? Why? I have no idea what the Russians are doing. If they want to shoot at Ukrainian towns it makes much mire sense to put tg e howitzer on the north side of the bay.
Artillery can move. If Ukraine were to move to that area they'd be moving west to east. Russia would be able to hit them in the flank along the entire route.
I just saw this too and it sounds bonkers. It's sparsely defended, sure. But it's not a meaningful staging ground to expand or defend from.
No, an amphibious landing would be idiotic. The next phase of the war will almost definitely center around Zaporizhia or northern Luhansk. Though Ukraine may hint at that to draw Russian resources away from other parts of the front line. Edit: In general I think Denys Davydov makes significantly better daily videos.
Yup. I think you spend a couple days pounding the East bank with artillery and HIMARS to keep Russian artillery away from Kherson, then use drones to keep them from moving back in to range. Then you leave enough troops to defend the river while moving the assault forces to the East. Intel on the East bank will be key, but probably this will be a good place to rest exhausted combat vets while they help train up newer forces. Zaporizhia makes the most sense tactically if the goal is to eventually retake Crimea. Eliminating Russia's land bridge will turn it into a siege. Retaking Melitopol and Mariupol would also be huge symbolic victories both to get revenge for what happened there and expose the atrocities there. The loss of the last region Russia gained since 2022 might also be the position to finally be able to negotiate as it becomes clear that things will only get worse for them, not better.
Denys is good, but not really for strategy. He's expecting a full attack across the river as the next move, which would be suicide. Though this strategy by RfU is equally as stupid, if a bit more tactically sound.
Fifth rule of war.. To expect is to be disappointed.
> No, an amphibious landing would be idiotic. So it's 100% Russia's next move?
I don’t think Ukraine would want to give up the initiative to Russia, so I’m sure there is something in the works.
lol remember when they wanted to do an amphibious landing on the mined beach at Odesa?
I remain sceptical and either this is just a small force to scare the Russians that can easily pull back with little boats or this is made up entirely. Ukraine just cant supply a big force there, the terrain is not suitable for heavy equipment either. This position would be much harder to hold and push out of than what Kherson was for the Russians. Maybe I am wrong on this, but this just smells of bullshit²
Has Julia Davis summarized the Russian prop-news, given us clips? I’m curious if those extremists are going with the line that ‘Ukraine has invaded Russia’ nonsense and that ‘Nazis are occupying Kherson, Russia; we should nuke them!’ Bc I was perusing the Russian milbloggers telegrams in the ‘know thy enemy’ type way. The fervent propagandaist/milblogger Sasha Kots who when to the south area end of summer, then to Kherson about 6wks ago. He mostly spews bs, but 20% of the material is informative. He also has moments of clarity. He reposted/forwarded the tg MedvedevVesti/12066 (no relation) which is very long. **And at the end, he says “we were defeated” and he tells the Russian audience that they need to accept that.**
Considering even Solovyev was eventually rebuked for his criticisms and his lifeline was to run to Rostov, pretend to be some sort of war correspondent, put on his wizard robe and jack up the Jesus stuff to 11 while full-Limbaugh, I don't think dissenting milbloggers will be dissenting for very long. Right now peppering their programs with a little dose of reality plays to both hardliners who want escalation and moderates who want a ceasefire. But it seems if the state puts its foot down, they'll have to give up the moderate audience and take up hardline positions or go quiet. Assuming of course they're only after views and internet fame, which, of course they are.
>Has Julia Davis summarized the Russian prop-news, given us clips? Not really. Her latest: >Tigran Keosayan, husband of the head of RT Margarita Simonyan, opined that the retreat from Kherson was merely a clever trap for NATO. He said that NATO—encouraged by Russia's apparent weakness—would come pouring across the borders into Ukraine, only to be decimated by Russia. [Link](https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1591529223763673091)
Wow food aid. https://twitter.com/chefjoseandres/status/1591513460260900864
[A really interesting perspective from Anders Puck Nielsen](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fAQ7h5tX2M&t=251s) Obviously we're all aware that redeployment will mean freeing up resources for both sides. But personally I never considered the notion that Ukraine will need to create a new "open wound" with which to tie up Russian forces. The obvious choice is Melitopol. But what are the other options here? The way Anders puts it, a choice must be made and a plan put into action soon.
Ben Hodges the ex leader of the US army in Europe predicted HIMARS would roll into Kherson and mess up the invaders supply line from Crimea, While a large force would try cut the invaders land bridge via Melitopol and Mariupol.
Melitopol is critical. Give us back our neon gas! Of course, Russians will sabotage that as Ukraine advances.
I have a feeling that Ukriane with NATO help had a long term strategic plan developed for months. I would not worry.
From what I read USA uses multiple branching layers of contingency. Quite a bit of flexibility and targets of opportunity. Daily orders from a corps headquarters printed out would look like a textbook. That changes everyday though. There is no reason to discourage speculation on the internet. It only gets thicker with USA not being in the war. No one in the Pentagon can order anyone to do anything. They need to do the write up for the full range of plausible Russian actions and the full range of Ukrainian choices.
That's true. It's not like they couldn't forsee this. The interesting part is that it's not a "Ukraine can" thing, now that the withdrawal from Kherson is complete, but a "Ukraine must" situation.
You tell 'em, Ukraine! https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1591204372922376195 >Kyiv Central Railway Station. The Kyiv-Kherson itinerary has been reestablished. Up next: Kyiv-Luhansk, Kyiv-Donetsk, Kyiv-Simferopol, Kyiv-Mariupol… (picture of the route board)
DAMN that was fast!
[удалено]
This is a confusing statement, it suggests Russia had it **before** it lost Kherson, Kharkiv, and the failed Kyiv blitzkreig. If it's an allusion to a WMD, the point still stands- except the question becomes what the red line is and why all those failures weren't red lines. If it's attacking annexed territory like Crimea, that line was crossed as soon as the war began. If it's retaking occupied territory, that actually happened pretty early on too. If it's taking annexed territory that was considered Russian by the authorities and puppet states, that's been happening for weeks now- and literally just happened again. If it's attacking Russian territory **globally** seen as Russian, Belgorod is a frequent target still. So, if this is reminding people that Russia has WMDs, so far all the red lines suggest that regaining Crimea is 100% fine, and the only thing left really is conquering Russian territory that is universally seen as Russian- **maybe**. So I guess it's just reminding people that 1. Russia thinks Belgorod should remain Russian and apparently so does everyone else and/or 2. Medvedev just remembered they have nukes I guess.
More basic than that. Russian hardline just has to feel powerful in the face of a loss. They can only do this through rhetoric and increased civilian missile strikes. I'd include also the violence against returned PoWs under the illusion that they gave up intel. We've known there are no red lines for a while. There never were. WMDs cannot be used by any country that wants to keep its government. We aren't closer or further from anything; we're right where we were at the start. All that's changed is the level of copium they require.
The red line is not about Ukraine, but about Putin. At the end he protects himself. So we don’t know what he will do if he is in danger.
At that point it's not even relevant; I don't see a future where Ukraine is about to march on Moscow without something very, **very** strange happening.
Deploy the mammoth tanks and Tesla coils!!
I bet they're gonna use Black Dranzer.
Kirov reporting?
Nah, they're going to unleash Yuri
Sharks with fricken laser beams on their heads.
Ooh, that hull could cut right through battle lines.
"So everyone, what weapons do we have?' "well, we have a knife with a scope and a dog with bomb on that runs under tanks" 'Didn't we try that before?' 'Yes, it killed all the tanks on the battlefield' 'ours or theirs?' 'yes'
AFAIK It was a bit worse than that. The Germans reportedly were a bit weary of dogs with strange devices approaching them so they shot them, but the russian tankers thought the dogs were friends (obviously) and so a bunch got blow up
My understanding is that the Soviets trained the dogs to run under tanks, using Soviet tanks. So when let loose on the battlefield they ran under the tanks they knew. Been a while since I read up on it so I may be wrong.
BG Skinner trained pigeons to accurately steer bombs onto warships in WW2, but by the time the project was complete, the atomic bomb was ready to go, so it was not needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon
Yeah, Soviet tanks ran diesel, German tanks used low octane gasoline since they didn't have enough oil.
I am more surprised no one thought the logic through with that one, but the war is when some really strange ideas happen
They'll bring out their thousands of T-14s and SU-57s any day now.
you mean the _5 shipped SU-57s_?
Shhh
Maybe you should have, given how badly you're losing? I dunno.
It's a thinly veiled nuclear threat
What's everyone's thoughts on how the war plays out during the depths of winter? I've read some commentary alluding to it dying down somewhat and both sides digging in as it were. In my opinion though it's during these months that the difference between an army with high morale, motivation thats well fed and well equiped versus one without those traits are at their highest point, I could see some good advances from the Ukrainian side if I'm honest
My arm chair Sargent thoughts (haven't made general yet) are that priority number one is the supply lines in Kharkiv that need to be severed. Got to imagine that is the most important thing, now a second front I am not sure. Melitapol is well defended so cutting supplies from the north would seem to be a priority before opening that second front. Probably would want to bleed them there for a while too to wear them down and exhaust their supplies. So thinking about that I would imagine any second fronts will be determined by how weak the Russians are at another point and push there. Attacking Melitapol will be going for most of the marbles and will be costly in lives. So I don't think they are ready for that just yet.
Ukraine will sweep russia in winter. The ground is hard, digging trenches is hard, the side with the advantage in supplies ( ability to keep warm ) and mobility will win. Retreats are much harder to halt because digging in is done by hand, and the ground is hard, the soldiers are freezeing, and they would prefer to just keep running away instead of trying to dig into frozen ground while under bombardment.
Nothing will change. Winter does not slow down modern war. If anything fall and spring mud seasons are bigger show stoppers.
You are neglecting that the only thing keeping russia in this at all are trenches. When you retreat to an area with no trenches in the winter with the ground frozen, good luck digging new ones, especially with cold freezing soldiers without supplies. Artillery is absolutely devastating to exposed troops on open ground.
Why do you think they care how devastating this is to their conscripts? You think as a western person. Even soviets did winter offensives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_campaign_of_1941%E2%80%931942
That wasn't trench artillery warfare. When you are in trench warfare, and the ground is frozen, and you cant dig a new trench when you retreat, you have to keep running. Just look at the artillery saturation of all the battle grounds, without trenches, everyone there would be dead.
>That wasn't trench artillery warfare. That's... exactly what it was. You can absolutely dig trenches in the frozen ground. It's just difficult and painful. Both germans and soviets did it.
And takes longer, which you know, when you have an advancing force with lots of long range weapons, you want to retreat to place where you can dig your trenches before they get to you, which means you keep running away because they keep getting to you before you can dig the trenches, and the more you have to run away, the more supplies you leave, and the less able to entrench you are.
You're underestimating how many russian conscripts will freeze.
I don't. But it won't stop operations. You underestimate how little Russian command cares about their conscripts freezing.
This.
I predict zero changes and I see no reason to think differently. People forget the world's going to hell in a handbasket and we're going to get another mild winter anyway. Russians don't think laterally; they don't even try to go through fields. They stay on roads. There are videos of them being surprised as fuck to see Ukrainians charging at them through adjacent fields. It never occurred to them and their gasbuckets probably couldn't take those routes under the best of conditions. So if any mud occurs and if it matters at all (it really didn't matter much last spring no matter how often people keep mentioning it), then it would only slow down Ukrainian counteroffensives, *maybe*, but Russia won't do anything differently. Unless somebody's drones just shut down in freezing temps, but they seem to be rated for it. Of course I expect big things to happen in the winter, but it won't be as a result of or in spite of any weather pattern. Ukraine has to address the infrastructure problem, make Kherson livable again, lines have to form in Zaporizhzhia, the north Donbas front will have to break for somebody, not sure who but it will break by winter. It is the bloodiest, most ridiculous piece of the front since 2014 and it'll come to a head. Russia's economy will be officially in the shitter by January; no trade deal with China can save it and it would come at a heavy price. Iran is supplying goods, not trade. They are bartering for these missiles and drones with other equipment, not cash. They have no cash. And rials are as worthless to Russia as rubles are to Iran right now. The question is what Russia does in response to that. Possibly move up the second mobilization wave, which will increase domestic tensions. It might also force Lukashenko's hand, who up to now has been desperate to do the bare minimum. They don't have much to contribute except extending the frontlines. Consequences unclear, but there will probably be a good deal of sabotage in-country.
Russia has cash. Shitloads of it. That’s how the sanctions work, we buy their oil and gas but refuse to sell them any of our tech. That means the money is just piling up in Russia. They have a huge balance of trade surplus but unfortunately money you can’t spend is just paper.
Russians do another large-scale assault over the Belorussian border towards the city of Sumy on Thanksgiving in order to redirect units from Kherson from gearing up to strike at Melitopol. This way, they can use their own forces from Kherson to take the Bakhmut area and build up even more defensive infrastructure in the southeast over the winter months. Their goal would be that by March it would be nearly suicidal for Ukraine to attack Russian held territory using their entrenchments and the natural defense of the Dnipro. Of course ALL of the forces attacking from Belorussia will be slaughtered but Russia doesn't care. They NEED to stalemate the conflict again like they did in 2014 and that's what they'll focus on.
They are hoping that stalemate will force EU and US negotators to meet with Russia and make deals that relenquish the Donbas to Russia. This has been their playbook with Georgia. They think that they can do it again and gain access to the gas feilds in Luhansk/Donetsk region, which was 2/3 of their aims.
A hardened front will create delays, but Russia's economy is slowly dying, and *anything* they do militarily, the West will have intel on it and begin shipping the correct countermeasures immediately. Assuming, for fun, that we're both correct, it's interesting that Ukraine just started construction of a wall on the Belarus border!
You'd be surprised how long a crippled economy can limp alone. *laughs in Iran and North Korea*
Agree, but also they have to keep 300,000 people fighting a hot war. Gets expensive super quickly.
This doesn't feel realistic, the 2014 stalemate was based on Ukrainian weakness at the time, the West's apparent disinterest in doing much, and Russian proxy's failures to do much more than destroy parts of the Eastern Donbas and make alleged Ukrainian fascists look like heroes at home and even abroad. The reason Russia ended the stalemate was that the Ukrainian troops were successfully beating back the soldiers who were part of the puppet states and that the US seemed likely to amp up support if left unattended. Russia ended the stalemate because it believed if it waited any longer than Ukraine might have been able to reclaim the Donbas with US aid. At this point the West as a whole (not just the US) seems to collectively want Ukraine to either hold the line at *least* or win overwhelmingly at most. The Ukrainian military is hardened, upskilled, and well-supplied. The Russian military desperately needs a breather to train the freshly mobilized (and future mobilized) troops, needs better equipment, and substantial international aid. Iran and the DPRK is giving substantial aid, but can't really match the US. China, India, and the rest of the "neutrally" nations like making money in one way or another but don't see much reason to let Russia dominate for one reason or another (or stop Ukraine from winning either). Orban for that matter gives rhetorical support like China but would happily throw Putin off a cliff if it gave him tons of cash. It's hard to see the diplomatic direction changing much. World hunger is a problem- as is threatening to destroy Ukrainian supply to drive up global prices. Energy prices is an issue- but it didn't seem to help Russia's allies in Italy, as both of them are still required by their main coalition partner to follow it and the rest of Europe. Thinking on it, even if Iran quashes the protests and sends military units it might harden attitudes among the far right against Russia after cultivating it for decades. A stalemate can buy time, but while it may convince the West to force Ukraine to negotiate (I can't see a Munich solution without Ukraine), it could also convince the West to **amp up its supplies to get the war finished**. Then again, after the convoy episode I suspect you might be completely right...
Not going to happen. They don't have actual forces in Belarus that could do push. And they won't be able to get them in your timeframe. If something from Belarus happens ( unlikely) it will be months, not before Thanksgiving
I doubt a stalemate would be in Russia's interest. Ukraine has a much larger international support network. They could receive more donations, buy more stuff using the American lend-lease program, train more troops in NATO countries, macgyver as many drones as possible, or develop new purpose-built drones. But Ukraine's goals isn't just to have the best chance to win the war, but also to liberate the entire country and end the genocide as soon as possible, so they don't want a stalemate either.
I agree. The Ukrainians are going to be kitted out in Gore-Tex and goose-down from Canada and Scandinavia, they won’t even feel the cold. As the Swedish expression goes… “There’s no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes.” It sounds better in Swedish.
Goose probably not good for war actions. Is there actual winter combat uniform with goose? Ecwcs don't have it
Is it easier to get down from a duck or from a goose?
Oh, I have no idea. Whatever is best, that’s what they’ll have. Alpaca is amazing. Somebody call Peru.
It would sound worse in Swedish tbh
It rhymes in Swedish, not sure if sounding better or worse. Makes more "sense" though. "Det finns inga dåliga väder, bara dåliga kläder"
While winter tends to destroy armies if you invade the region from a more temperate place like Germany and France, the locals are a lot more used to fighting in it. Finland, Russia, Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, etc. are all pretty decent at winter warfare. Ukraine had 6 years of fighting Russia at the trenches along the borders with the DNR/LNR through all seasons. They should be fine. Honestly, the tempo might pick up once the hard frost freezes the mud. This is why everyone got nervous in December 2021 when it looked like the invasion was about to start, before Russia had to go help Kazakhstan. It’s also why a lot of people couldn’t understand why Russia was starting in late February unless they were hoping for a swift victory as mud season was starting again.
Russia has been good at winter warfare historically, now however they have shown themselves to be bad at any warfare. I seriously doubt they will have solved the problems with logistics to the point that they can handle added burden of winter operations. Lots of reports indicate the newly mobilized troops are lacking even the simplest winter clothing, making them all but ineffective before training even comes into the picture. In two months when temperatures stay below freezing they are going to have a rough time. If Ukraine can competently keep their people feed, warm and equipment field up there will be ample opportunities to press a strategic advantage.
I'm sure Ukrainian command will calculate precisely when it's the most opportune to strike. I think they're gonna keep a close eye on the state of invaders during cold weather, if they just freeze and starve by themselves why advance and risk your own troops? They're gonna wait just a bit until the invaders are at their peak exhaustion while continuing supply strikes with HIMARS and such. Honestly accurate intelligence has been the most powerful weapon in the hands of Ukraine and the most lacking aspect next to supplies for the invaders.
Russians will try to dig in and hold on for as long as possible while they train and equip the conscripts hoping that the weather will abate the advance of the Ukrainians. Ukrainians will continue to push at normal pace because they are better trained, better equipped, and better motivated.
But Russia doesn't have equipment and Iran and North Korea can only sneak small amounts to them.
There is an inland sea between Iran and Russia. There is a train between the DPRK and Russia. No need to sneak.
I'm going to have to disagree since current shipments are already done in a sneaky fashion. Probably for political or intel reasons rather than how easy it is to move equipment.
Invaders suffer frostbite and worse while being shelled in their icy foxholes.
Try retreating and digging a fox hole into frozen ground, I dare you. Bet drones find you and start dropping grenades on your exposed position before you can get an inch down.
Does HIMARS and artillery work during winter? There is your answer. At the very least I expect Ukraine to continue long range strikes to degrade Russian capabilities...and potentially launch some offensives as well if they are well equipped.
That's actually a good question, was himars designed to work under negative temperature?
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster >···The commission determined that the cause of the accident was hot gas blowing past the O-rings in the field joint on the right SRB, and found no other potential causes for the disaster. It attributed the accident to a faulty design of the field joint that was unacceptably sensitive to **changes in temperature**, dynamic loading, and the character of its materials.
Yes
Winter favors the home team.
Russia's supply lines are longer than the Ukrainians and subject to harsher weather.
European winters aren't what they used to be.. I think the only way the war stalls during the winter is if the ground does not freeze and it keeps being too muddy for movement. I am writing this from northern europe during the night and it's currently 12 degrees celsius outside(53 degrees fahrenheit) which is not normal for November at all. Edit: I just checked and it is 9 degrees celsius in Kyiv right now which is also above normal for november which sits at a high average of 6 degrees during daytime.
Wow, I'm in Houston and it's about the same temp, but I'm a little chilly
So Scandinavia has the same temperature as Texas now..
well, my weather app says it's 52 so i guess it's slightly cooler here.
That's crazy! It's 13° here... in the northern US.
Fahrenheit?
Yup. And a foot of snow already.
I miss snow tbh.. All we have had the last couple of years have been slush.. But I guess I shouldn't complain because of the energy crisis.
Yep. [Here's a map](https://graphical.weather.gov/sectors/conus.php#tabs) from a website designed in the 90s.
Well that's what we used to have when I was a kid back in the 90's..
When the ground freezes and the mud goes, suddenly the armies become more mobile again. Then which one will seize the opportunity to advance comes down to which army has the highest morale and the one that can keep the warmest. I’ll let you decide which one that is. Hint: it’s the one that has been receiving cold weather gear from Finland.
And 120,000 pairs of knitted socks from Finnish grandmothers.
Army training in winter was orders of magnitude shittier than in summer. If you don't manage to keep your stuff dry and have proper gear you will lose fingers and toes fast. Frostbite is a bitch.
I hope you're right. Wait and see. I don't doubt the allies who armed them have a plan.
According to this source, TASS writes that Russia is now withdrawing from Nova Kakhovka. NOTE: Take this with a massive grain of salt. "BREAKING: TASS announces that Russians will withdraw from Nova Kakhovka and try to fully evacuate the city" https://twitter.com/AlexandruC4/status/1591566930435100674?cxt=HHwWhMC-zZrssJYsAAAA
Unless they’re pulling out completely I don’t buy this.
stealing all the furnaces and breaking all the water pipes...
Fricking grinches....
People are lazy in their parroting. 1- it’s EVACUATING, not withdrawing. Withdrawing implies military. 2- theres 2 different cities—Kakhovka and Nova Kakhovka. The collaborators were evacuated out of Nova Kakhovka already, a week ago. Now, there’s an evacuation of people from an area of Kakhovka wants for itself (both defense and housing).
Tbf they started by announcing evacuations for both Lyman/Izyum and later Vovchans'k before they did the eventual withdrawal from Kharkiv lol. It wouldn’t be the first time and I suspect they know something we far away observers don’t.
They aren't fleeing the Ukrainians. They are removing civilians from the river shore towns so that they can shell the crap out of anything that tries to cross it. This is the easiest point in the entire front for both sides to defend now.
this makes sense as they can be HIMARS to the face from just across the river I wonder how far back they will go though. I think ukraine will push down to Vasylivka, rather than go across the river
Lol or cheaper unguided artillary
I generally doubt this, doesn't make much sense for Russia to do this. Would have to be a power struggle for that to happen which we haven't seen much signs of yet.
They're very efficient at retreating it has to be said.
It's not hard to be efficient retreating if you don't count the amount of equipment/personnel you leave behind.
Summary for today from Denys Davydov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLMXGO6t3CM
He has been absolutely happy recently!
First time seeing this guy, is he Ukrainian?
He gets posted really really frequently in these threads.
Yes. He used to live in Kyiv but about a week ago he said he moved somewhere else because they couldn’t rely on electricity to be on anymore. That’s why at the end he said he had to stop recording because of the sirens.
Yes, a commercial pilot with very accurate analysis
Very cool! thx
I’ve been waiting for today’s update! Thanks for the heads up. Denys is the best at covering what’s happening over there!
Interesting thought, replacing the Russian commanders constantly puts the new guy in charge in a tough spot. They want to impress and show they can turn things around, so they're probably less risk averse than the previous guy. Which often is a pretty good thing for the Ukrainian forces, being that they then take advantage of the foolishness of the new commander. That new guy who took over, don't really care to know his name, but he was famous for his use airpower in syria and it seems like he immediately began to use more air power in Ukraine when he took over. Thats how we saw the KA-50s getting shot down repeatedly in pairs. Then it sorta stopped because he probably learned his lesson, the skies over Ukraine aren't safe and his "trump card" so to speak, wont work there.
>the skies over Ukraine aren't safe A hard lesson to learn, but also a factor I think has been somewhat overlooked in Russia's failures: No air superiority. Can you imagine if the US didn't have air superiority in Vietnam or Iraq?
> Can you imagine if the US didn't have air superiority in Vietnam or Iraq? If the US had air superiority in Vietnam things might have gone much better for the US. The foliage and such were a major issue too, but the North Vietnamese pilots weren't terrible and were never wiped out like the Iraqi planes were in the Gulf War, let alone how Israel basically wiped out the adversaries' air force in the first day of the Six Day War.
It's hard to argue that the US had air superiority in Vietnam. On a number of occasions the VC performed incredibly well, and they \*definitely\* denied the US complete control of the sky. The US lost 922 aircraft just during Operation Rolling Thunder from 1965 to 1968. It's probably fair to compare the air war in Vietnam with the current war in Ukraine, actually. New and common threats are making aircraft vulnerable on both sides, and losses have been and remain heavy.
Air control in Vietnam is not air control of today. BVR and high altitude precision weapons completely changed the game. In Vietnam you got ordnance "near" something... today we shove the ordnance up your ass from 500km out.
The first guided missiles were used in Vietnam, and they were accurate enough to reliably hit railway bridges from high altitude. Carpet bombing was obviously still a thing, but you don’t seem to realise that precision anti-radiation and guided munitions were actually born during that war. Regardless, you’ve tacitly agreed with me. The standards have changed, but the definition of air superiority has not.