- Ukrainian forces launched a surprise offensive into Russia’s Kursk region last Tuesday.
- They have captured around 1,000 square kilometers of Russian land so far, Kyiv’s top general said.
- That figure is almost as much territory as Russia has seized in Ukraine this year.
Keep going 'til Alaska, my dudes.
Slava Ukraini
Heroyam Slava 🇺🇦
Zelenskyy went from being a comedian to clowning on Putin in only a few years.
Business Insider - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Business Insider:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
I’ve been looking for some sort of analysis of this Kursk incursion but have come up empty handed. I’m looking for something along the lines of Markus Reisner’s analyses.
In particular, I’m wondering what the likely paths are to altering the course of the war.
How likely is it that Ukraine will be able to hold this territory? Will they be able to use it as a staging area to launch additional attacks?
Is it likely to alter the artillery equation? Russia currently fires 3-5 times as many artillery shells as Ukraine does. Does this do something like limiting their production rates or their ability to deliver ordinance to the front lines?
Is it likely that Ukraine killed or captured enough Russian troops to impact the broader war?
A phrase like, “That figure is almost as much territory as Russia has seized in Ukraine this year.” kind of implies that there has been a shift in the momentum of the war and that we can expect such announcements more regularly going forward. Is that actually likely?
My pessimistic guess is that this was a brilliant tactical move that will ultimately get steamrolled by Russia’s sheer mass, but I’d love to read an analysis from someone with more expertise.
As much as I hate linking to it, you could probably find out by asking in the defcon warning system forums.
defcon warning system forums
I’ll check them out. I’m curious why you wouldn’t want to link to them. Do they do something bad?
Last I checked in there some of the posters had a hard right slant. It’s not all of them, but enough to leave a bad taste in your mouth.
this has to be something designed to pull forces away from other places. I don’t think Ukraine is planning on holding it for any length of time.
we saw video come out about 200 miles from the front in Kursk showing military transport trucks that had been struck by Ukraine as they were going to reinforce the region, which means Ukraine has dedicated deep strike capabilities to this part of the battlefield.
I think the intention is to kill and destroy as much Russian personnel and materiel as they can while it’s being transported. like they’ve mapped out all of the travel lines in to and out of Kursk, and they have dedicated weapons platforms prepared to destroy anything that comes up those roads. they’ll be able to blitz a whole bunch of Russian equipment without even having to engage them on the ground, if those trucks were full (there were stacked bodies in the video), that’s 300 casualties without having to put any of your infantry in danger.
If that’s the case then Ukraine would need to repeat the Kursk invasion a lot before it made a difference.
Trying to out attrit an opponent with many times the population and GDP is a pretty tall order.
I’m trying to differentiate between things we might like and things that are actually likely.
it’s not just the attrition aspect, it’s the fact that those resources are being pulled away from the other fronts. this would succeed even if all the stuff that Russia sent to Kursk came back intact
I think that still boils down to attrition and relative size.
From what I’ve seen. Russia has only pulled small numbers of troops out of other theaters to reinforce Kursk. They’ve had an ongoing assault on Avdiivka and they don’t seem to have pulled enough troops out of there to slow down the assault.
The impact, both the severity of the impact and the duration of the impact is likely to hinge on how deep Russias reserves are and their overall production capacity. As near as I can tell, they have both in spades.
From what I’ve seen on Russian industrial production they don’t really care too much if all of Kursk were destroyed. It’s not a strategic location (I think) and all the human and material resources can be easily and quickly replaced.
That obviously involves a lot of guesswork on my part. That’s why I’m wondering if someone with expertise just knows the answers to these kinds of questions (and would hopefully also provide sources).
Blitzing into largely undefended territories and nabbing large amounts of territory is kind of the easy part. As anyone who plays any sort of RTS, the key question is how you set up defenses and maintain logistics to thwart counter-offensives. The good news is that Ukraine has options. They can choose to dig in before Russia amasses troops to attack and legitimately try to hold onto the territory, or they can simply back out and use this as a skirmish to divide Russian forces before launching another offensive elsewhere.
This seems to a) be intended to divide Russian attention and spread their forces out, b) be used in negotiation and applying domestic pressure to Putin, and c) provide a greater buffer for air-defense to counter inbound artillery and missiles. Who knows for sure though.
That makes sense. I’d have questions about all of those too
a) be intended to divide Russian attention and spread their forces out Do we know if that’s happening? Russia has a lot of people and equipment and it’s not obvious to me that they need to pull many resources from other fronts to reinforce Kursk.
b) be used in negotiation and applying domestic pressure to Putin That would make sense too. As long as Ukraine is still holding that territory when those negotiations are going on. Are there any estimates on when those negotiations could happen and if Ukraine will still be in control of Kursk by then?
c) provide a greater buffer for air-defense to counter inbound artillery and missiles
That true but only in the areas directly near Kursk. Is it likely that this can be repeated along the rest of the battle lines?Your intuition on what Ukraine is hoping to achieve seems reasonable but I don’t know if it’s likely to work out that way.
The whole thing makes me think back to the “Ukrainian counteroffensive” from last year. At the time, US advisors were telling them to do a fast combined arms assault on some place like Mariupol, instead of dithering around, letting the Russians build a ton of defenses and then smashing all the fancy US equipment against said defenses. This assault seems almost like what that counteroffensive should have been. I say “almost” because I’m puzzled about the target. Controlling Mariupol would have cut off the entire western half of the Russian assault. They’d have no supplies and nowhere to run to besides going for a swim. Kursk? The benefits are less obvious.
Maybe they should just swap countries and be done with it.
I’d much rather it all become Ukraine. They are better people.
дякую
Ласкаво просимо! Слава Україні!
I hope DDG translate did a good enough job lol
“будь ласка” is “you’re welcome” in Ukrainian. As the other commenter mentioned, “ласкаво просимо” is something like “welcome” in general, when welcoming someone to a country or to your home, for example
Ласкаво просимо! Слава Україні!
translated by DDG as “welcome! Glory to Ukraine!”
Correct
East Ukraine sounds like it might be a nice place one day.
deleted by creator
So sad Vlad
Is this a real thing? I only hear news about it on a couple niche youtube channels that I am not sure aren’t propaganda. Searching “Ukraine” on Lemmy for the last week yields a very small number of results. I haven’t heard word one about it from my mainstream sources. What the fuck? Is there an embargo on this or something??
I’ve seen Preston Stewart covering it on his various platforms, although he hasn’t given the sort of breakdown op is asking for
deleted by creator
That’s not the impression I’ve been getting. This has been covered extensively from places ranging from BBC and Telegraph to PBS, and numerous reddit subs. I haven’t seen this much activity centered on Ukraine in a while.
Is this the timeline where Ukraine kills Putin and puts his head on a Pike? Find out next time on dragon ball z!
What did the fish do to deserve that?
It knows what it did
dafuq you want russian territory for
Bargaining power
Forcing Russia to defend so they can’t be on the offense any more.
Time for denazification of Russia.
we need to stop calling everything we don’t like nazism. Russia will need to be de-Putin’d
Sounds like something a Nazi would say… /s
I still wonder what their main objective is
I hope its not just for negotiating.
I hope by breaking the Russian front, they have created openings that they can now exploit to tear down Russian defenses.
Russia has created a really difficult frontal defense thats many layers of mine fields and defensive positions interlaced. But now their sides and backs are exposed and it’s much easier for Ukraine to out flank the defense and unseat Russian defenses.
Why hope it’s “not just for negotiating”? I mean why not use this as leverage to force the Russians to negotiate on Ukraine’s terms?
Because its a big tactical advantage that they opened a gaping hole in Russian defensive lines.
Defenses are strongest in the direction they are facing. They are very weak from the sides and even worse from the rear. (Ukraine now has a lot of Russian rear it can take advantage of, from Kursk)
If Ukraine has the manpower they could take this little bit of land, manoeuvre around the Russian lines, wreck their shit and get back a lot of land that was stolen from them.
Just to underline what this comment is saying: this type of breakthrough was the wet dream of WW1. The race to the sea, where the western front was established, was based on finding a flank and turning it. That was the objective of most warfare up to that point, and it ended because they ran out of ground on which to turn a flank. Then they couldn’t meaningfully break through the defenses (or layers of, to be more accurate), like we see Ukraine doing in Kursk. If they turn the flank, they’ll have routing russians for days, and have achieved maneuver warfare again.
I think it’s actually irrelevant really because I don’t reasonably see a situation where Putin is going to be prepared to negotiate. He seems to see this war as his lasting legacy (there have been rumors that he might have some terminal condition, possibly cancer), he doesn’t want his legacy to be defeat, he wants it to be victory even if it requires the death of about 80% of the population.
The only way that Russia would negotiate is if Putin is no longer in charge.
Negotiations happen when one or, more likely, two sides don’t see a way to improve their positions with military force.
The rumors you’re speaking of are a direct consequence of Russia being an autocracy. When you have a country whose ruler doesn’t leave on their own (a dictator), people start speculating on when he’s going to die. These rumors have been going around for about a decade, I believe, and are pretty much meaningless.
Now, about “securing a legacy.” I think it’s much more trivial than that. Invading Ukraine was a good way to secure presidency for the next 1-2 terms and to eradicate opposition within the country. If that’s the case, then, in a sense, he got what he wanted, although he likely also expected the war to be short and victorious (judging by the state media narrative at the time). That didn’t happen. And now there are other issues at hand for him.
Could it be for the “peace” negotiations? “OK, we freeze the country’s borders as they are right now, you let us join NATO and the EU, and we get what we captured”.
Mess around! Mess around! Putin’s head is a footie ball! Mess around!
Leverage for negotiations.
Their gains would be much less for the same expense, were they in areas where Russia expects to be attacked.
It’s the same pattern with bullies - they are always surprised when the victim is no longer forbidden to hit everywhere and not only where the bully took initiative.
Worked in Artsakh in 90’s too against Soviet and Azeri forces. Sadly the last few years (or two decades) have undone this largely.
But just like in Artsakh, they shouldn’t agree to any frozen status, or it will end just like for Artsakh. They should just keep advancing until Russia does something to guarantee their security.
To disperse the army from the northeastern fronts. Russia is now forced to defend the entire border and cannot focus their attacks on their previous objectives.
This is a good move.
I keep looking at maps and wondering how Ukraine haven’t been routed and cut off in enemy territory with no supply lines. What they’re doing seems borderline insane but more power to them!
Wdym? There’s a road that goes right over the border to Sudzha.
That, and they can potentially dismantle staging areas for planes and other infrastructure (in this case gas pipeline).
Both of those, and they force engagements with Russia to force them to throw men and materiel at it, further depleting Russian stockpiles.
“Catch us if you can”
In my completely unresearched opinion?
“We just kept advancing, and it just kept working”.
Does Ukraine get an exception from the general advice against invading Russia? Winter is coming. But they kinda have some advantages over prior attempts.
Note I don’t know anything about it.
I would say if they are just disrupting rather than trying to hold it, they would be in much more sane shape than the historical advice that mostly applies to would-be conquerors. Even if they are trynig to hold it as a bargaining chip, it’s probably less ambitious than the historically usual goal of trying to conquer “Russia”.
Yes they do get an exception because they are just as familiar to the climate as the orcs. It’s not like Kursk et al has proper defenses RUs can hole up inside. The orcs literally just lost the Kursk battallian HQ building lol (forgive the leddit link)
Literally the “best defence is a good offence” case
I was watching an old documentary about ww2. When France declared war on Germany they just sat on there border watching them. Some British politician or general or something was there and asked why they didn’t shoot them. They said “they aren’t bothering us so we don’t bother them”. They made one offence at the start of the war when Germany’s western flank was entirely exposed (it was also the only French offence of the entire war) they went about 100m then came back.
Then Germany attacked somewhere else and they folded.
Its actually amazing how much of a cluster fuck the start of ww2 was. Bringing back horses after inventing the tank 20 years before and using it ti win ww1 levels of intelligence.
Its actually amazing how much of a cluster fuck the start of ww2 was. Bringing back horses after inventing the tank 20 years before and using it ti win ww1 levels of intelligence.
This is asinine. Horses were extremely useful in WWII. Try watching less Hollywood movies.
One of the reasons Germans were so successful in their “lightning warfare” - they used horses which simplified logistics tremendously. A truck is no good if you don’t have fuel, and fuel supplies have been cut. A horse can just eat grass and drink water.
You know what’s extremely useful than horse in WW2? Imperial Japanese Army knocking on your door with soldiers on bicycle.
These are different applications.
And I wasn’t going to argue against bicycles having been extremely useful.
When did the Germans use horses as offensive cavalry in WW2?
You can clearly find references of French and the British dragging their heels in the interwar years because presumably the posh boys want their horses.
You don’t know what you are on about. What Hollywood movies are there about army modernisation in the interwar period you think I am watching? I’ll actually enjoy watching it.
Literally no one used horses as offensive cavalry at any strategic scale in WW2.
Some exceptions occured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_SchoenfeldThe person you replied to is not talking about cavalry. Horses were used by the Germans for moving men and equipment.
I know. But I made the original comment and I wasn’t on about horses being used for moving men and equipment. I was talking about them being used instead of tanks.
Okay. Horses were used to move men and equipment. How is that related to my original point?
Okay. Horses were used to move men and equipment. How is that related to my original point?
Dragoons are cavalry. That’s how.
Yes, it’s obvious they wouldn’t use lancers. Even in WWI cavalry charges are a thing of post-war (Soviet, Polish, maybe others’) propaganda much more than of actual use.
I understood them to be talking about cavalry, in that sentence.
In the dragoon quality it was still useful.
Not against tanks which would be why the royal dragoons switched to tanks.
WWII has seen very fast evolution of warfare approaches. What Germans did in the beginning of the war was roughly similar to what Russians and Ukrainians have learned to do in the last few months. And if we consider that nobody had the brains to come to that theoretically, not NATO countries, not Israel, not even Iran with friends (who were the closest), then it becomes intuitively understandable why German military of those days is considered so genial - it went to war with the right premises (but with clearly fallacious overarching strategy) in the first place. Of course, Tukhachevsky and a few others have written about similar ideas, but didn’t get the chance to actually employ them. What the end of the war looked like was the same thing conceptually, but scaled for full industrial potential of all sides.
Most historians I’ve read consider ww1 to have had a far greater evolution, starting with napoleonic tactics and ending with rolling artillery barrages and tanks.
However, I’m not sure of the point you’re looking to make here. I mean, the polish army sending cavalry against the germans was an act of wild desperation. I think thats the point they were making there.
Is it? Russia just got new claims for this war.
Casus belli typically doesn’t work after the fact
Yeah they can claim to have fucked around and found out.
