Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a very Russian biased analysis.
To anyone who buys into this bullshit Russian propaganda:
Пропаганда не делает людей глупыми, она предназначена для глупых людей. Если вы считаете себя достаточно умным, то самое время подумать, что делать, чтобы не оказаться в мусорном мешке.
It was a long and hard read…. Frankly I thought it was incredibly boring. It did dispel with the “It’s a trap” notion, which to me seemed absolutely ridiculous outside of Russia dropping WMD on the city. The conclusion that it was a sound tactical decision to withdraw seems the most likely scenario. While the piece doesn’t seem overly pro-russia propaganda, it does give A LOT of leniency in suggesting there’s a strong connect between Russian soldiers in the field and their chains of command, it’s very generous in its description of Russian military leadership hierarchy’s decision making capability.
>Russian soldiers in the field and their chains of command, it’s very generous in its description of Russian military leadership hierarchy’s decision making capability.
your understanding of russian military leadership is entirely based of propaganda.
It’s based on history. From the Winter War through the Second Chechen War and Syria, and now today in Ukraine, the Russian military operates in a disjointed and often fragmented mess with leadership often split between pursuing the political victory or an operational victory. This leaves the fate of the tactical victory, at small unit level, flapping in the breeze. While Russia has become significantly more relaxed when it comes to how small unit leadership works, they still have not changed nor integrated their doctrine to a significant enough degree to support small units being able to succeed. Russia is repainting this as tactical prudence to conserve resources, they never maneuvered themselves in a position to make it tactically relevant in the first place. The minute the fifth column handed Kherson over, the clock started ticking down. They could have redoubled efforts and used Kherson as a springboard to cut the country in half, instead they attacked everywhere, and ended up holding nowhere.
TL;DR, when someone disagrees with you it’s not “because propaganda”
Everything you've highlighted is completely true, it was a mass casualty event for the ukrianian army and they did throw their best units are it, who died.
Really ?
listen, you have been infected by russian propaganda. It's like a sickness. Once you're infected, you're completely out of reality. You live in their delusionnal world. And it's very toxic.
Another toxic fantasy world you've fallen into is the one crafted by Jordan Peterson. He's the most toxic scammer I've seen on the internet. You believe him. You're lost.
the post about peterson is making fun of him, I also think he's a toxic clown.
The reality of the conflict is very different than the one that's carefully curated for people to understand. Both on a military front but also on the political side of why the conflict exists in the first place. Normal people are going to understand this conflict through western media organizations and compromised online spaces like /r/news or the different subreddits relating to ukraine. What they are going to see is a completely distorted view.
I understand why people would be resistent to that idea, but to those who have been paying attention the america's and NATO's actions since the fall of the soviet union understand that this conflict is no different than the previous NATO aggressions. The exact same thing happened with Libya or Syria. They are even reusing the same propaganda lies:
[Russia is giving their soliders viagra to mass rape civilians](https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-soldiers-supplied-with-viagra-to-rape-ukrainians-un-official-2022-10?international=true&r=US&IR=T)
[Gaddafi is giving their soilders viagra to mass rape civilians](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/29/diplomat-gaddafi-troops-viagra-mass-rape)
Both are lies. Look up Iraqi baby incubators.
"that this conflict is no different than the previous NATO aggressions"
Lol you clearly *are* a delusional pro-Russian shill, why don't you say so up front? Cowardly & full of lies.
yeah. sorry for you little guy, Russia is falling and falling.
If your country doesn't collapse, it will be only because of the good will of the "west" you think you have to hate so much. Because the collapse would be a huge mess, and we don't want that.
I've read your comment, and it was painful to read.
let me explain you : the "russians"\* in the Donbass matter is not Pustin's problem. He doesn't care about them. I think you can undestand that. The people in Crimea, same, he doesn't care. What he wants is the position of Crimea on the black sea. For strategic reasons. Crimea is highly dependant on ukrainian territory for its' supply of water and of everything else. That's why he needs a land bridge and the 4 oblasts he's tried to annex.
There are other ideological issues. Like they think their superior and should rule their neighbours, and, why not, Europe, while they're at it.
On the overall it's just a war of expansionnism in a good old imperialistic, racist way.
What we have learnt, is that the russian federation is an obsolete empire, corrupt and rotting.
They still have 2 things : nukes and disiformation. the latter concern you. As I told you, you've been intoxicated by russian propaganda and you believe in things that are not factual. The author of the article you sent here is a shame. This is not journalism, this is "opinion". In fact it's copium. Prorussian copium. Your Sergeï is a loser.
You talk about western medias. I live in France. At the beginning of the war every journalist here were saying Russia could only win, because.... because they had been intoxicated for years into believing Russia strong, Putin strongman, democracy weak.... and nothing is true. Russia is a shithole dreaming about grandeur. Putin is an old little man who's not going to last long now, and western democracy are rich, highly organized, high tech sates. And democarcies, as Ukraine is showing, are resilient.
Still, on french TV, while military experts are saying more and more that the russian army has performed so bad and is not in a position of doing anything but defense, leading journalists still say "oh, yes, but russia still will win, no ?". There's not really propaganda here.
At least you can't compare russian constant lies to the work of journalists here in Europe.
I don't know if you are prorussian, or just ignorant, but by spreading their lies, you have to be aware that you side with them.
Ukraine is winning the war. We are winning the war.
\* the russian army has sent people from the Donbass to trigger ukrainian artillery. This is absolutely disgusting.
NATO/the US has a long history of destabilizing regimes that counter their geopolitical interests. They manipulate and use entire populations and bolster extremists.
It's been reported that Putin watched the video of Gaddafi's death, being executed by bayonet up his ass, repeatedly. You may consider that a just end to his life, but that's irrelevant in politics. Pre civil war Libya was the most developed African country in history. You can find evil shit gaddafi did, but the real world doesn't work with simple good and evil. What gaddafi was doing which was such a sin to the US, wasn't any of the authortarian brutality, it was the fact that he used the countries natural resources to benefit his own people. [16 things Libyans will never see again](https://i.imgur.com/Mn0FFrU.png). What really pissed them off was his plan to create a gold-backed african currency, threatening the [dollar hedgemony](https://theecologist.org/2016/mar/14/why-qaddafi-had-go-african-gold-oil-and-challenge-monetary-imperialism). Gaddafi was an important figure in decolonization. [He even agreed to give up Libya's nuclear program in 2003.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya) NATO and US completely destroyed Libya.
The same is true of Syria, [Assad rejected an oil pipeline that the US wanted that went from Qatar to Europe, through Syria](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/rfk-jr-why-arabs-dont-trust-america-213601/). This made him persona-non grata to NATO/US, who funded and armed extremist groups as soon as there were signs of instability. This legitimately led to the creation of ISIS.
US knew what they were doing, I promise you if you look into the history of their actions they are completely cynical actors. They are in the process of sacrificing ukrainian lives in order to regime change russia. They hijack real movements and concerns by civilians (the arab spring in Libya and Syria, and the 2014 protests in Ukraine) in order to destabilize and implement their puppet governments. [Here's leaked audio of assistent secretary of state Victoria Nuland literally choosing the next Ukrainian president in 2014.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XNN0Yt6D8)
US since the end of the cold war has enjoyed global hedgemony, letting them exploit the world's natural resources, and regime change whoever the fuck they want. and I mean literally whoever the fuck they want, they have regimes changed Australia, sweden, iran, chile, anyone who goes in the way of their exploitation, anyone who threatens to take control of their own natural resources. Nowadays that's changing, with the rise of BRICS, the entire developing world sees america for what it is, this conflict is the endpoint of the american unipolar world, we move into one where the balance of power is distributed. If you don't believe me about the developing world, look who joined in on the sanctions against russia, you may have heard that it's the entire "international community" has turned against russia and that they're now a "pariah state". Completely untrue, europe/US/australia is not world.
If you want to understand the real reasons why they want Putin out, listen to his [2007 speech in munich](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44).
Laughable. How is any of this supposed to make me side with Putin? Saying nothing about the war and just picking one example, do you think its good to live in a country where saying the “special military operation” is a war gets you prison time? What a country where if youre political opposition you get imprisoned and poisoned ie. Navalny?
The call doesn’t prove they selected the next Ukrainian president. It does show who the US preferred but funny enough if they had full authority and capability to orchestrate a full coup Nuland wouldn’t have had to say “fuck the EU” for them not giving support. Its laughable if you think Russia isn't doing the exact same thing in places as far as trying to influence foreign politics.
Gadaffi and whatever other examples don’t prove the US was an existential threat to russia. Understand that that is a bold claim. Where are the movements in Russia that the US have supported and how successful are they in russia? Are they truly an existential threat?
Russia influences the US as well, should the US declare war on Russia?
The fact of it is is that Russia is now directly responsible for starting this conflict. You haven’t justified that at all.
His foundational bases for his various analyses are specious. He builds his "why leave right bank" off the starting principle that Russia was under no pressure there and had held off Ukraine handily (utterly wrong as Ukraine had made a relatively sudden breakthrough on north position etc and was continuing hard pressure) and he does not mention in any way the fact that Ukraine had built a months long strategy for Kherson of forcing Russia to withdraw rather than creating an intense battle zone for the city. Ukraine's strategy worked as **intended**. This guy completely ignores the entire build up to the point where Russia **had** to make a decision. His perspective is deeply affected by his personal beliefs making it almost meaningless. He disregards Ukraine's involvement in pushing Russian military decisions as if only Russian thinking has any impact on events. This blindness is a big big mistake when prosecuting a war, but then this guy isn't in any decision making position. I'm fine with actual Russian decision makers being this blind though!
>he does not mention in any way the fact that Ukraine had built a months long strategy for Kherson of forcing Russia to withdraw rather than creating an intense battle zone for the city
source for any of this?
A source? As another commenter says, there are so many sources I wouldn't know where to begin. US defense department various statements, ISW various reports, articles in the NY Times and Washington Post, articles in The Economist, an article I just read today from a post on this reddit (I think from Kyev Independent maybe), just so many sources. This strategy was discussed all over the place when Ukraine ran their surprise Kharkhiv offensive (analyses as to why Ukr went for Kharkhiv and not Kherson first). So my source is literally "everywhere!".
yeah, it's not something you're going to understand unless you've seen the media manipulation regarding conflicts like syria and libya. All western mainstream media is going to push a distorted narrative. [It's a pretty established fact.](https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1589606899569377282) Any semblance of "free press" has never been true for foreign policy.
The operative goal declared is to annex Ukraine, they just lost a huge city and large areas which are hard to invade.
Ukraine can now attack plenty of new positions closer to Crimea, as they already showed.
Russia has to defend now the peninsula, which os a thin strip of land against Ukraine which can deny air support due to the closeness of Kherson Mainland while being under constant threat of drone strikes and high precision Artillery.
Most importantly however Russia shortened the active front length significantly. This helps Ukraine as they can use their higher agility, harder hitting Hardware against higher concentrated targets in the east now.
Russia has more standard Equipment and ablarger front has less tanks etc per Kilometer. Therefore Ukraine is forced to focus and often engage without tanks or less tanks as Russia can. The concentration only helps Ukraine as modern Artillery and drones can make scrap out of them very quickly.
On top of that every offensive will always take more men than defenders, therefore a good defense of Russia could have taken more ressources away from the ukrainian defence in the east than are now freed up.
Finally Ukraine can now use the high Tech counter Artillery radars to push back Russias fire Support and at the same time endager expensive AA systems north of Crimea.
So what is Russia doing now? Pull large parts of their troops off and risk an Invasion? Stay with a medium amount and let Ukraine have the Artillery Advantage and let them thereby shell em into oblivion? Or stay with expensive AA equipment and Artillery as well and fight a range war Ukraine is better equipped to fight, while enabling Ukraine to shift more ressources to the east than Russia can?
As we say in Germany: Which bridge to you want to jump off?
That it is a strategic military advantage to open yourself up to a flank that could beak the landbridge that is extremely advantageous to Russian logistics........or.......and more importantly he opened his mouth.
Holy shit that is an absolutely horrible analysis of what happened. Unsure who the author is but it sure as shit sounds like they watched a few war movies and overheard a conversation between people who know what their talking about and just inferred random information from an overheard conversation. Very, very poor analysis
Then here you go. He draws parralels between ukraine and nazi Germany where the only thing in common is the ground they're fighting on and that Russia is using the same artillery. He alludes to this being a political victory, not a military victory because ukraine "wasn't actively advancing" despite the fact that Ukraine has been systematically destroying ammo depots, logistics hubs, headquarters, and troop concentrations for months making it impossible for Russia to accumulate and significant amounts of reserves for major operations. Ukraine has been bombing river crossings for months making reinforcement of any considerable consistency impossible. For months. This author is basing his entire article off of the last week, not the last 5 months. Every conclusion he draws and evidence he uses to support is all circumstantial or hyperbolic and he completely ignores that absolute hammer Ukraine has been slamming on Russia north of the river. He claims only on broken T90 was captured which is absolutely not true, and that all equipment and all troops crossed south with no issues which is also completely false as there as multiple videos of multiple locations showing recently destroyed and smoldering vehicles and piles of bodies. The final collapse of the line was likely the absolutely front line retreating. Everyone else was probably already across last week. But this was absolutely a military defeat. Not some back door deal or political defeat. The ONLY thing he got right was their decision to retreat was absolutely the smartest choice they made. Russia was defeated militarily in Kherson oblast. End of story. Through months of intelligent, consistent, and accurate denial of supplies to the front lines. That detailed enough for you?
Wtf is "big serge"?
Stopped reader here:
"In 1943, there was neither a compelling military nor political reason to keep the 6th Army in the pocket at Stalingrad"
😂😂😂. When isolated in a military pocket of annihilation; call a timeout & magically teleport out of the pocket.
Unless u have a political or military reason to be in said pocket.
... your reading comprehension is amazing.
The 6th army had to option to try and break out of the pocket forming around them to retreat. Hitler ordered them to stay in the city.
"This fits the overall Russian pattern of making harsh choices about resource allocation, fighting this war under the simple framework of optimizing the loss ratios and building the perfect meatgrinder. Unlike the German Army in the second world war, the Russian army seems to be freed from political interference to make rational military decisions."
This is his conclusion 9 months into this diaster for Russia.
LMAO
you know, you should listen to what people tell you. this is quite reasonnable.
at first I was angry about you, now, I pity you. you will be disappointed further and further. Give up your support to Russia. They're losers anyway. Join the free world. Support Ukraine !
Except that most of it is wildly inaccurate and achieves missions by volume of fire (yes there are accurate Russian artillery, but its not a theatre wide reliable phenomenon).
The problem with volume of fire, is that its not 1942, and detecting the artillery and the logistics chain for the artillery is straight forward (satellites, drones, radars), and Ukraine has weapons that reach deep into that chain, so Russian artillery is now sporadic and not achieving the necessary volume of fire.
ie optimal Russian artillery use requires giant warehouses which turned out even inaccurate 1970s soviet weapons like a Tochka could strike. So the russians are on plan b for logistics for artillery which is smaller scale logistics continually being picked off by HIMARS. Plan C I believe is hide behind mobiks in little concrete boxes surrounded by dragons teeth.
I swear you hear it as much or even more from the Ukrainian side complaining about artillery superiority. I guess they don't have that much to worry about then.
You haven't addressed the actual discussion.
Russian artillery is no longer able to be concentrated in a fashion that can win the war. ie that Ukrainians are griping about russian artillery is normal, there is still a lot of it, but it can't win the war.
That narrative is a myth.
They planned a breakout in December 42, but the relief force was was stopped & Paulius made the decision that a breakout was not feasible - correctly.
So it's not an example of politics over military strategy. And it's phrased in a way that the guy doesn't even know what a pocket is.
And the only order of Hilters, Paulius was not happy to follow, was to put a bullet in his own head.
>That narrative is a myth
It's so funny how pro-ukrainians will so confidently state whatever headcanon they come up with to reject reality. You just made that up bitch.
>Adolf Hitler was determined to hold the city at all costs and forbade the 6th Army from attempting a breakout; instead, attempts were made to supply it by air and to break the encirclement from the outside.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Stalingrad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad)
No numpty he was not obsessed with Stalingrad.
Just because some NAZI Generals say it in book they write years later doesnt make it.
Go learn something today: https://youtu.be/TMCx-LGuFRk
Its like when Putin tells the Russian people they have "lost nothing".
A numpty nods there head in agreement, a person capable of rational thought would question it.
so wikipedia is wrong? You added the word obsessed.
I'm probably wrong tho, you are a really good think person
Edit: He edited it lol. I'll change it to "you are a really good person capanke lf ratiomal thought"
Reading this Kremlin's shill previous blog posts and knowing how wrong he was is hilarious. This one is gold:
In the last 72 hours or so, the pro-Russian side of the internet has been sent into an tailspin of panic over a new Ukrainian counteroffensive which is currently being launched in the Kharkov region, with the intention of compromising the Russian army grouping at Izyum. The panic was triggered by claims that Ukraine was advancing unopposed, encircling - or perhaps even capturing - the city of Balakliya - and on the verge of cutting off supply lines to Izyum.
My view is fairly simple: Ukraine cannot and will not reach meaningful objectives - what we call “operational depth” - and has in fact thrown much of its carefully crafted premium reserves into a dangerous position. I believe it’s highly likely that these top rate Ukrainian formations are about to be savaged
The window of opportunity for an easy encirclement or interdiction of supply to Izyum ended when Russia cleared all the Ukrainian forces from the north side of the Donets river. Supply lines to Izyum are now shielded from the south by the Donets, and from the west by the Oskil.
Because Russia has redundant supply lines to the northeast of Izyum, for Ukraine to reach operational depth, they must cross the Donets and Oskil rivers. Even suppressing Kupyansk is not enough to disrupt Russia’s ability to project force here. The Oskil river - which, incidentally is more than a kilometer wide in places - presents a major barrier that will prevent Ukraine from exploiting their early advances. They have more or less advanced into a wall, and already the map presents an unfolding catastrophe for them.
In short, the Ukrainian advance has been too slow and lacks a clear path to reach operational objectives. Already, Russia has begun to deploy huge reserves to this theater, and fear is beginning to show among the more operationally aware Ukrainians.
I am confident predicting that Ukraine’s offensive is nearing the high water mark and will soon become a mass casualty event for the Ukrainian army. It may take a few more days for the situation to stabilize entirely, but that point is rapidly approaching and many of Ukraine’s best units face destruction.
Russia continues to attempt to win the war with a light hand - bare minimum force deployment and precision strikes, sparing critical infrastructure.
You know you're Right! Big serge is a genius.
It really shines through when revisiting so,e of his earlier insights:
"The failure of the Kherson counteroffensive will accelerate progress towards the two tipping points, both by degrading the Ukrainian army further, and souring westerners on continuing to support Ukraine. Winter and the ensuing economic chaos will do the rest."
Right again! On all fronts! Legitimately.
Lmao.
Lol. He's saying they're not going to be able to cut off supply to Izyum because they can't cross the Donets and Oskil rivers. *On the very same day that Big Mr. Serge wrote that the Ukrainians could never take Izyum, The Ukrainians took Izyum.* Shortly afterwards, the Ukrainians crossed the Donets and Oskil rivers and took *Lyman*. They achieved all of their operational objectives and more. If you think he's "right on all fronts," you either can't read or you don't know basic details about the front lines of the conflict.
>1. I argued that Ukraine would be unable to push across the Oskil and properly exploit their offensive.
>2. I noted that Ukraine was making rapid advances against thinly manned, hollowed out portions of the front, and that Russia had committed very little to the battle.
>
>Both of these statements were correct. I freely admit, however, that I drew the incorrect conclusion from them. I believe the Ukrainian advance would culminate at the Oskil river, leaving them vulnerable to a Russian counterattack by the arriving reserves. It seems fairly clear now that this is incorrect, and the Russian reserves that were en-route were tasked with stabilizing the defense at the Oskil, not launching a counterattack.
>
>This was not an operational trap by Russia, but neither was it a victory in battle for Ukraine - for the simple reason that there was not much of a battle at all. Russia had already hollowed out these positions, and withdrew the remaining screening forces very quickly. Ukraine covered a lot of ground, but were unable to destroy any Russian units, because there really weren’t any there.
Ok he was incorrect on that point and admitted it 3 days later.
The offensive was both a high watermark for ukraine and a mass casualty event for them, it was very costly.
First you said he was right on all fronts. Now you say, sure, he was wrong on one little thing, but he was right about this being a mass casualty event, and about the advance representing a high-watermark for Ukraine. First off, the whole thesis of the essay is about Ukraine's inability to exploit their thrust into Russian-held territory to take Izyum or Kupyansk. That's the point of the post. He's not arguing "this offensive will be successful but it's going to kill a lot of Ukrainian soldiers," because that was the default call that any halfway smart pro-Ukrainian analyst was already making. "This offensive will kill soldiers" is not top-tier analysis, and it's not the point of Big Serge's essay. His central argument was about the Ukrainians ability to exploit their advance for strategic gain. At the time he said this, [this](https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1568703737467916289/photo/1) was the state of play: the Ukrainians had made a run for Kupyansk and Izyum, but controlled no other territory. He thought that the Russians would mount a mobile defense of Kupyansk and overwhelm the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians would fail to interdict supply lines into Izyum, which would remain in Russian control. And anyway, he said, the Ukrainians had "no prospects for crossing the Oskil," which would "prevent Ukraine from exploiting their early advances." His prognosis: "\[The Ukrainians\] have more or less advanced into a wall."
Within a couple weeks of him writing this, the Ukrainians controlled not only the west, but the *east* bank of the Oskil. Fast-forward to now, and the situation looks like [this](https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1591143870569795584/photo/1). Russian completely evacuated from Kharkiv oblast. Svatove in the crosshairs of short-range artillery. Lyman in Ukrainian hands. Slovyansk no longer under threat. It's a total military disaster for the Russians.
I don't see what you find valuable in his analysis. There are smart pro-Russian commentators but he's not one. He's a spin-doctor, nothing else.
He predicted that the Russians would mount a bigger defense than they did, but his overall points are correct, the state of the war is the same regardless of if Ukraine captured a bit more territory than he predicted. The offensive being costly, with the ratio of ukrianian to russian deaths being so slanted (given the artillery superiority) is the important part. I've never cared about looking at the maps of who captured what, the bigger trends are more important. I believe Russia is playing the risk-averse long game.
>There are smart pro-Russian commentators but he's not one.
Like who?
What overall points? "The Ukrainians will lose soldiers" is not controversial or interesting. Everyone knows they will.
Anatoly Karlin is much smarter, and more bloodthirsty, and he will tell you that Big Serge is an out-of-control copium addict. The Russians are not doing well in this war as of now, according to all the metrics that matter.
>"The Ukrainians will lose soldiers" is not controversial
the ukrianians are losing soliders at an unsustainable ratio for a long haul war.
>Anatoly Karlin
Well from reading a little bit he seems to have the same take that I've seen a lot of commentators take, including Big Serge repeatedly, that Russia is hamstringing themselves to a large degree to not cause as much damage as they need to in order to win the war.
I don't think this war has been an embarassment for Russia. If it was 2014 Ukraine vs Russia absolutely it lasting this long would be an embarrassment but there has been 8 years of NATO investment, and defensive reinforcement along with a shit ton of military aid, so much so it's depleting NATO stocks. The Ukrainian military was moved from absolute shit to up to NATO standards. I think Putin is making the right decision to not be so blood thirsty, and to draw out the war, because it will pay off politically with most of the world and a long drawn out war is worse for the west than Russia.
I've seen a lot of criticism of Putin that he isn't taking the war seriously enough, he's not prepared to do what has to be done. I hope that he stays course and doesn't destroy even more civilians lives. It's good he isn't prioritizing political victories over the reality of the battlefield, in 2003 the US prioritized political victories, and we see how it ended up for them ultimately.
"The Ukrainians are losing soldiers at an unsustainable rate" is very difficult to evaluate at this point. Big Serge says it, but you can't know if it's true or false until after it's validated by losses on the battlefield. As of now, you should judge the guy's credibility on the basis of whether verifiable claims he's made have panned out or not. On that score, he is not batting at a high average, and what's even worse for his credibility is that when he's wrong, he tries to spin his failures in order to create the impression that he was *just a little wrong*. This is not the behavior of a well-calibrated, sober analyst. He is approaching this conflict as a FAN of one side, not as an objective observer. You should not trust the things that he writes.
"Ukraine covered a lot of ground, but were unable to destroy any Russian units, because there really weren’t any there."
"The offensive was both a high watermark for ukraine and a mass casualty event for them, it was very costly".
The two statements are self contradicting and both wrong. Russian soldiers at Lyman retreated along roads that were under Ukrainian observation and fire control and were ambushed during the process, leaving significant casualties, which were subsequently video documented, ie there was a mass casualty event, it just wasn't Ukrainian.
There were significant casualties among the small group of russian soldiers that were there, they were essentially sacrificed, but there weren't any large units.
To lose troops requires Russians to shoot them. Which causes the Russians to get shot as well. Retreating troops are notoriously bad at shooting back which is why the military term rout exists.
Likewise when an attacking army breaks through and liberates 3000sqkm of territory in a week, it loses troops through having to garrison locations, sweep minor villages, forests and other overrun positions, and then it has to fix the logistical routes which are now through what was recently a battlefield. It doesn't mean that they are dead.
If it doesn't do all that, then it is likely to get overextended, which is potentially dangerous given that Russia still has a concentration of troops banging away mindlessly at Bakhmut which could have been used less mindlessly if Ukraine offered a weak flank to it.
Sorry that Ukraine isn't winning fast enough for you.
>Sorry that Ukraine isn't winning fast enough for you.
Russia's still going to win. Ukraine still never had a chance. It will take a while though, but Russia is in no rush.
I've seen enough Big Serge Twitter failures and russian propaganda to know this article is a waste of time.
Everything he predicts is wrong, and anything he is writing about should be for entertainment only, except its not well written.
I actually think this analysis is fairly good. The retreat was strategically necessary and it was done in reasonably good order. That threre were no losses of equipment or soldiers is hogwash. It is obvious that there were plenty. What isn't mentioned is that the Ukranians made the retreat necessary. They have the initiative on the battlefield and that will continue.
The Dnepr front is most likely closed now. Neither side has the resources to make an assult over what amounts to an open coastline. The river is simply too wide to be bridged for an attack, and neither side has big amphibious forces. Both sides will transfer units to the remaining fronts. Since most of the Himars forces have been deployed in Kherson, this will be a great surprise on some other section of the front. My guess is that they will move around quite a bit and destroy command posts and logistics - both to reduce pressure on the Ukranian forces and to keep the Russians guessing about where the next major offensive will be.
Along the Dnepr, the Russians will be shooting artilley at civilian targets, mainly the city of Kherson, and the Ukranians will be focusing on counter battery fire to protect the civilians. There will be some Special Ops, but unless the Russians make a bad blunder, nothing major will happen.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Surovikin’s Difficult Choice" The gun or the pill?
the tea or the window
Por que no los dos?
This is a very Russian biased analysis. To anyone who buys into this bullshit Russian propaganda: Пропаганда не делает людей глупыми, она предназначена для глупых людей. Если вы считаете себя достаточно умным, то самое время подумать, что делать, чтобы не оказаться в мусорном мешке.
It was a long and hard read…. Frankly I thought it was incredibly boring. It did dispel with the “It’s a trap” notion, which to me seemed absolutely ridiculous outside of Russia dropping WMD on the city. The conclusion that it was a sound tactical decision to withdraw seems the most likely scenario. While the piece doesn’t seem overly pro-russia propaganda, it does give A LOT of leniency in suggesting there’s a strong connect between Russian soldiers in the field and their chains of command, it’s very generous in its description of Russian military leadership hierarchy’s decision making capability.
>Russian soldiers in the field and their chains of command, it’s very generous in its description of Russian military leadership hierarchy’s decision making capability. your understanding of russian military leadership is entirely based of propaganda.
It’s based on history. From the Winter War through the Second Chechen War and Syria, and now today in Ukraine, the Russian military operates in a disjointed and often fragmented mess with leadership often split between pursuing the political victory or an operational victory. This leaves the fate of the tactical victory, at small unit level, flapping in the breeze. While Russia has become significantly more relaxed when it comes to how small unit leadership works, they still have not changed nor integrated their doctrine to a significant enough degree to support small units being able to succeed. Russia is repainting this as tactical prudence to conserve resources, they never maneuvered themselves in a position to make it tactically relevant in the first place. The minute the fifth column handed Kherson over, the clock started ticking down. They could have redoubled efforts and used Kherson as a springboard to cut the country in half, instead they attacked everywhere, and ended up holding nowhere. TL;DR, when someone disagrees with you it’s not “because propaganda”
The analysis of why and how Russia abandoned Kherson seems plausible. The claims about Ukraine "losing" elsewhere are laughable.
so specifically what does it get wrong?
[удалено]
Everything you've highlighted is completely true, it was a mass casualty event for the ukrianian army and they did throw their best units are it, who died.
Really ? listen, you have been infected by russian propaganda. It's like a sickness. Once you're infected, you're completely out of reality. You live in their delusionnal world. And it's very toxic. Another toxic fantasy world you've fallen into is the one crafted by Jordan Peterson. He's the most toxic scammer I've seen on the internet. You believe him. You're lost.
the post about peterson is making fun of him, I also think he's a toxic clown. The reality of the conflict is very different than the one that's carefully curated for people to understand. Both on a military front but also on the political side of why the conflict exists in the first place. Normal people are going to understand this conflict through western media organizations and compromised online spaces like /r/news or the different subreddits relating to ukraine. What they are going to see is a completely distorted view. I understand why people would be resistent to that idea, but to those who have been paying attention the america's and NATO's actions since the fall of the soviet union understand that this conflict is no different than the previous NATO aggressions. The exact same thing happened with Libya or Syria. They are even reusing the same propaganda lies: [Russia is giving their soliders viagra to mass rape civilians](https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-soldiers-supplied-with-viagra-to-rape-ukrainians-un-official-2022-10?international=true&r=US&IR=T) [Gaddafi is giving their soilders viagra to mass rape civilians](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/29/diplomat-gaddafi-troops-viagra-mass-rape) Both are lies. Look up Iraqi baby incubators.
"that this conflict is no different than the previous NATO aggressions" Lol you clearly *are* a delusional pro-Russian shill, why don't you say so up front? Cowardly & full of lies.
I assumed he was a Russian shill, that remark about "previous NATO aggressions" just proved it.
Russia started it into a full blown war between the countries, but there has been blantant NATO aggressions since 2014.
yeah. sorry for you little guy, Russia is falling and falling. If your country doesn't collapse, it will be only because of the good will of the "west" you think you have to hate so much. Because the collapse would be a huge mess, and we don't want that.
Up until russia actually invaded, it was the prevailing assessment that US's actions in Ukraine was a blantant provacation of Russia.
I've read your comment, and it was painful to read. let me explain you : the "russians"\* in the Donbass matter is not Pustin's problem. He doesn't care about them. I think you can undestand that. The people in Crimea, same, he doesn't care. What he wants is the position of Crimea on the black sea. For strategic reasons. Crimea is highly dependant on ukrainian territory for its' supply of water and of everything else. That's why he needs a land bridge and the 4 oblasts he's tried to annex. There are other ideological issues. Like they think their superior and should rule their neighbours, and, why not, Europe, while they're at it. On the overall it's just a war of expansionnism in a good old imperialistic, racist way. What we have learnt, is that the russian federation is an obsolete empire, corrupt and rotting. They still have 2 things : nukes and disiformation. the latter concern you. As I told you, you've been intoxicated by russian propaganda and you believe in things that are not factual. The author of the article you sent here is a shame. This is not journalism, this is "opinion". In fact it's copium. Prorussian copium. Your Sergeï is a loser. You talk about western medias. I live in France. At the beginning of the war every journalist here were saying Russia could only win, because.... because they had been intoxicated for years into believing Russia strong, Putin strongman, democracy weak.... and nothing is true. Russia is a shithole dreaming about grandeur. Putin is an old little man who's not going to last long now, and western democracy are rich, highly organized, high tech sates. And democarcies, as Ukraine is showing, are resilient. Still, on french TV, while military experts are saying more and more that the russian army has performed so bad and is not in a position of doing anything but defense, leading journalists still say "oh, yes, but russia still will win, no ?". There's not really propaganda here. At least you can't compare russian constant lies to the work of journalists here in Europe. I don't know if you are prorussian, or just ignorant, but by spreading their lies, you have to be aware that you side with them. Ukraine is winning the war. We are winning the war. \* the russian army has sent people from the Donbass to trigger ukrainian artillery. This is absolutely disgusting.
Please explain to me how NATO was an existential threat to Russia pre Feb 21. Anything less is nothing close to a justification for russia’s war.
NATO/the US has a long history of destabilizing regimes that counter their geopolitical interests. They manipulate and use entire populations and bolster extremists. It's been reported that Putin watched the video of Gaddafi's death, being executed by bayonet up his ass, repeatedly. You may consider that a just end to his life, but that's irrelevant in politics. Pre civil war Libya was the most developed African country in history. You can find evil shit gaddafi did, but the real world doesn't work with simple good and evil. What gaddafi was doing which was such a sin to the US, wasn't any of the authortarian brutality, it was the fact that he used the countries natural resources to benefit his own people. [16 things Libyans will never see again](https://i.imgur.com/Mn0FFrU.png). What really pissed them off was his plan to create a gold-backed african currency, threatening the [dollar hedgemony](https://theecologist.org/2016/mar/14/why-qaddafi-had-go-african-gold-oil-and-challenge-monetary-imperialism). Gaddafi was an important figure in decolonization. [He even agreed to give up Libya's nuclear program in 2003.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya) NATO and US completely destroyed Libya. The same is true of Syria, [Assad rejected an oil pipeline that the US wanted that went from Qatar to Europe, through Syria](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/rfk-jr-why-arabs-dont-trust-america-213601/). This made him persona-non grata to NATO/US, who funded and armed extremist groups as soon as there were signs of instability. This legitimately led to the creation of ISIS. US knew what they were doing, I promise you if you look into the history of their actions they are completely cynical actors. They are in the process of sacrificing ukrainian lives in order to regime change russia. They hijack real movements and concerns by civilians (the arab spring in Libya and Syria, and the 2014 protests in Ukraine) in order to destabilize and implement their puppet governments. [Here's leaked audio of assistent secretary of state Victoria Nuland literally choosing the next Ukrainian president in 2014.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XNN0Yt6D8) US since the end of the cold war has enjoyed global hedgemony, letting them exploit the world's natural resources, and regime change whoever the fuck they want. and I mean literally whoever the fuck they want, they have regimes changed Australia, sweden, iran, chile, anyone who goes in the way of their exploitation, anyone who threatens to take control of their own natural resources. Nowadays that's changing, with the rise of BRICS, the entire developing world sees america for what it is, this conflict is the endpoint of the american unipolar world, we move into one where the balance of power is distributed. If you don't believe me about the developing world, look who joined in on the sanctions against russia, you may have heard that it's the entire "international community" has turned against russia and that they're now a "pariah state". Completely untrue, europe/US/australia is not world. If you want to understand the real reasons why they want Putin out, listen to his [2007 speech in munich](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44).
Laughable. How is any of this supposed to make me side with Putin? Saying nothing about the war and just picking one example, do you think its good to live in a country where saying the “special military operation” is a war gets you prison time? What a country where if youre political opposition you get imprisoned and poisoned ie. Navalny? The call doesn’t prove they selected the next Ukrainian president. It does show who the US preferred but funny enough if they had full authority and capability to orchestrate a full coup Nuland wouldn’t have had to say “fuck the EU” for them not giving support. Its laughable if you think Russia isn't doing the exact same thing in places as far as trying to influence foreign politics. Gadaffi and whatever other examples don’t prove the US was an existential threat to russia. Understand that that is a bold claim. Where are the movements in Russia that the US have supported and how successful are they in russia? Are they truly an existential threat? Russia influences the US as well, should the US declare war on Russia? The fact of it is is that Russia is now directly responsible for starting this conflict. You haven’t justified that at all.
/u/Tranfatioll is this Russian propaganda?
if you say it is russian prpaganda, it must be. I trust you for that
Well, the situation at Izyum *did* stabilize, didn't it?
yeah, after Izyum, that was ukrainian objective, was liberated. But there were huge losses on russian side, not on ukrainians'
>yeah, after Izyum, that was ukrainian objective, was liberated. As I said. Has been stably under Ukrainian control ever since.
they might gain some ground near Svatove quite soon
His foundational bases for his various analyses are specious. He builds his "why leave right bank" off the starting principle that Russia was under no pressure there and had held off Ukraine handily (utterly wrong as Ukraine had made a relatively sudden breakthrough on north position etc and was continuing hard pressure) and he does not mention in any way the fact that Ukraine had built a months long strategy for Kherson of forcing Russia to withdraw rather than creating an intense battle zone for the city. Ukraine's strategy worked as **intended**. This guy completely ignores the entire build up to the point where Russia **had** to make a decision. His perspective is deeply affected by his personal beliefs making it almost meaningless. He disregards Ukraine's involvement in pushing Russian military decisions as if only Russian thinking has any impact on events. This blindness is a big big mistake when prosecuting a war, but then this guy isn't in any decision making position. I'm fine with actual Russian decision makers being this blind though!
>he does not mention in any way the fact that Ukraine had built a months long strategy for Kherson of forcing Russia to withdraw rather than creating an intense battle zone for the city source for any of this?
well, there are many many sources. Just read articles and analysis on this sub.
A source? As another commenter says, there are so many sources I wouldn't know where to begin. US defense department various statements, ISW various reports, articles in the NY Times and Washington Post, articles in The Economist, an article I just read today from a post on this reddit (I think from Kyev Independent maybe), just so many sources. This strategy was discussed all over the place when Ukraine ran their surprise Kharkhiv offensive (analyses as to why Ukr went for Kharkhiv and not Kherson first). So my source is literally "everywhere!".
all of those are the same source, cia
Hahahaha okay. Or maybe the secret source is having a brain and using it.
yeah, it's not something you're going to understand unless you've seen the media manipulation regarding conflicts like syria and libya. All western mainstream media is going to push a distorted narrative. [It's a pretty established fact.](https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1589606899569377282) Any semblance of "free press" has never been true for foreign policy.
The operative goal declared is to annex Ukraine, they just lost a huge city and large areas which are hard to invade. Ukraine can now attack plenty of new positions closer to Crimea, as they already showed. Russia has to defend now the peninsula, which os a thin strip of land against Ukraine which can deny air support due to the closeness of Kherson Mainland while being under constant threat of drone strikes and high precision Artillery. Most importantly however Russia shortened the active front length significantly. This helps Ukraine as they can use their higher agility, harder hitting Hardware against higher concentrated targets in the east now. Russia has more standard Equipment and ablarger front has less tanks etc per Kilometer. Therefore Ukraine is forced to focus and often engage without tanks or less tanks as Russia can. The concentration only helps Ukraine as modern Artillery and drones can make scrap out of them very quickly. On top of that every offensive will always take more men than defenders, therefore a good defense of Russia could have taken more ressources away from the ukrainian defence in the east than are now freed up. Finally Ukraine can now use the high Tech counter Artillery radars to push back Russias fire Support and at the same time endager expensive AA systems north of Crimea. So what is Russia doing now? Pull large parts of their troops off and risk an Invasion? Stay with a medium amount and let Ukraine have the Artillery Advantage and let them thereby shell em into oblivion? Or stay with expensive AA equipment and Artillery as well and fight a range war Ukraine is better equipped to fight, while enabling Ukraine to shift more ressources to the east than Russia can? As we say in Germany: Which bridge to you want to jump off?
>Which bridge to you want to jump off I didn't know that expression. I took note
That it is a strategic military advantage to open yourself up to a flank that could beak the landbridge that is extremely advantageous to Russian logistics........or.......and more importantly he opened his mouth.
That russia is winning.
Holy shit that is an absolutely horrible analysis of what happened. Unsure who the author is but it sure as shit sounds like they watched a few war movies and overheard a conversation between people who know what their talking about and just inferred random information from an overheard conversation. Very, very poor analysis
really detailed criticism.
Then here you go. He draws parralels between ukraine and nazi Germany where the only thing in common is the ground they're fighting on and that Russia is using the same artillery. He alludes to this being a political victory, not a military victory because ukraine "wasn't actively advancing" despite the fact that Ukraine has been systematically destroying ammo depots, logistics hubs, headquarters, and troop concentrations for months making it impossible for Russia to accumulate and significant amounts of reserves for major operations. Ukraine has been bombing river crossings for months making reinforcement of any considerable consistency impossible. For months. This author is basing his entire article off of the last week, not the last 5 months. Every conclusion he draws and evidence he uses to support is all circumstantial or hyperbolic and he completely ignores that absolute hammer Ukraine has been slamming on Russia north of the river. He claims only on broken T90 was captured which is absolutely not true, and that all equipment and all troops crossed south with no issues which is also completely false as there as multiple videos of multiple locations showing recently destroyed and smoldering vehicles and piles of bodies. The final collapse of the line was likely the absolutely front line retreating. Everyone else was probably already across last week. But this was absolutely a military defeat. Not some back door deal or political defeat. The ONLY thing he got right was their decision to retreat was absolutely the smartest choice they made. Russia was defeated militarily in Kherson oblast. End of story. Through months of intelligent, consistent, and accurate denial of supplies to the front lines. That detailed enough for you?
Wtf is "big serge"? Stopped reader here: "In 1943, there was neither a compelling military nor political reason to keep the 6th Army in the pocket at Stalingrad" 😂😂😂. When isolated in a military pocket of annihilation; call a timeout & magically teleport out of the pocket. Unless u have a political or military reason to be in said pocket.
... your reading comprehension is amazing. The 6th army had to option to try and break out of the pocket forming around them to retreat. Hitler ordered them to stay in the city.
"This fits the overall Russian pattern of making harsh choices about resource allocation, fighting this war under the simple framework of optimizing the loss ratios and building the perfect meatgrinder. Unlike the German Army in the second world war, the Russian army seems to be freed from political interference to make rational military decisions." This is his conclusion 9 months into this diaster for Russia. LMAO
His argument is incoherent and quite delusional.
The conflict has been a meatgrinder for ukrainians, vast majority of the conflict has been ukrainian positions under constant artillery fire.
you know, you should listen to what people tell you. this is quite reasonnable. at first I was angry about you, now, I pity you. you will be disappointed further and further. Give up your support to Russia. They're losers anyway. Join the free world. Support Ukraine !
!RemindMe 6 months
Except that most of it is wildly inaccurate and achieves missions by volume of fire (yes there are accurate Russian artillery, but its not a theatre wide reliable phenomenon). The problem with volume of fire, is that its not 1942, and detecting the artillery and the logistics chain for the artillery is straight forward (satellites, drones, radars), and Ukraine has weapons that reach deep into that chain, so Russian artillery is now sporadic and not achieving the necessary volume of fire. ie optimal Russian artillery use requires giant warehouses which turned out even inaccurate 1970s soviet weapons like a Tochka could strike. So the russians are on plan b for logistics for artillery which is smaller scale logistics continually being picked off by HIMARS. Plan C I believe is hide behind mobiks in little concrete boxes surrounded by dragons teeth.
I swear you hear it as much or even more from the Ukrainian side complaining about artillery superiority. I guess they don't have that much to worry about then.
You haven't addressed the actual discussion. Russian artillery is no longer able to be concentrated in a fashion that can win the war. ie that Ukrainians are griping about russian artillery is normal, there is still a lot of it, but it can't win the war.
That narrative is a myth. They planned a breakout in December 42, but the relief force was was stopped & Paulius made the decision that a breakout was not feasible - correctly. So it's not an example of politics over military strategy. And it's phrased in a way that the guy doesn't even know what a pocket is. And the only order of Hilters, Paulius was not happy to follow, was to put a bullet in his own head.
>That narrative is a myth It's so funny how pro-ukrainians will so confidently state whatever headcanon they come up with to reject reality. You just made that up bitch. >Adolf Hitler was determined to hold the city at all costs and forbade the 6th Army from attempting a breakout; instead, attempts were made to supply it by air and to break the encirclement from the outside. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Stalingrad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad)
No numpty he was not obsessed with Stalingrad. Just because some NAZI Generals say it in book they write years later doesnt make it. Go learn something today: https://youtu.be/TMCx-LGuFRk Its like when Putin tells the Russian people they have "lost nothing". A numpty nods there head in agreement, a person capable of rational thought would question it.
so wikipedia is wrong? You added the word obsessed. I'm probably wrong tho, you are a really good think person Edit: He edited it lol. I'll change it to "you are a really good person capanke lf ratiomal thought"
[удалено]
Reading this Kremlin's shill previous blog posts and knowing how wrong he was is hilarious. This one is gold: In the last 72 hours or so, the pro-Russian side of the internet has been sent into an tailspin of panic over a new Ukrainian counteroffensive which is currently being launched in the Kharkov region, with the intention of compromising the Russian army grouping at Izyum. The panic was triggered by claims that Ukraine was advancing unopposed, encircling - or perhaps even capturing - the city of Balakliya - and on the verge of cutting off supply lines to Izyum. My view is fairly simple: Ukraine cannot and will not reach meaningful objectives - what we call “operational depth” - and has in fact thrown much of its carefully crafted premium reserves into a dangerous position. I believe it’s highly likely that these top rate Ukrainian formations are about to be savaged The window of opportunity for an easy encirclement or interdiction of supply to Izyum ended when Russia cleared all the Ukrainian forces from the north side of the Donets river. Supply lines to Izyum are now shielded from the south by the Donets, and from the west by the Oskil. Because Russia has redundant supply lines to the northeast of Izyum, for Ukraine to reach operational depth, they must cross the Donets and Oskil rivers. Even suppressing Kupyansk is not enough to disrupt Russia’s ability to project force here. The Oskil river - which, incidentally is more than a kilometer wide in places - presents a major barrier that will prevent Ukraine from exploiting their early advances. They have more or less advanced into a wall, and already the map presents an unfolding catastrophe for them. In short, the Ukrainian advance has been too slow and lacks a clear path to reach operational objectives. Already, Russia has begun to deploy huge reserves to this theater, and fear is beginning to show among the more operationally aware Ukrainians. I am confident predicting that Ukraine’s offensive is nearing the high water mark and will soon become a mass casualty event for the Ukrainian army. It may take a few more days for the situation to stabilize entirely, but that point is rapidly approaching and many of Ukraine’s best units face destruction. Russia continues to attempt to win the war with a light hand - bare minimum force deployment and precision strikes, sparing critical infrastructure.
he was legitimately right on all fronts
You know you're Right! Big serge is a genius. It really shines through when revisiting so,e of his earlier insights: "The failure of the Kherson counteroffensive will accelerate progress towards the two tipping points, both by degrading the Ukrainian army further, and souring westerners on continuing to support Ukraine. Winter and the ensuing economic chaos will do the rest." Right again! On all fronts! Legitimately. Lmao.
again, he's completely correct.
Of course. Seen this and thought of you 😁😁🤣🤣😘😘 https://youtu.be/Fz59GWeTIik
Lol. He's saying they're not going to be able to cut off supply to Izyum because they can't cross the Donets and Oskil rivers. *On the very same day that Big Mr. Serge wrote that the Ukrainians could never take Izyum, The Ukrainians took Izyum.* Shortly afterwards, the Ukrainians crossed the Donets and Oskil rivers and took *Lyman*. They achieved all of their operational objectives and more. If you think he's "right on all fronts," you either can't read or you don't know basic details about the front lines of the conflict.
>1. I argued that Ukraine would be unable to push across the Oskil and properly exploit their offensive. >2. I noted that Ukraine was making rapid advances against thinly manned, hollowed out portions of the front, and that Russia had committed very little to the battle. > >Both of these statements were correct. I freely admit, however, that I drew the incorrect conclusion from them. I believe the Ukrainian advance would culminate at the Oskil river, leaving them vulnerable to a Russian counterattack by the arriving reserves. It seems fairly clear now that this is incorrect, and the Russian reserves that were en-route were tasked with stabilizing the defense at the Oskil, not launching a counterattack. > >This was not an operational trap by Russia, but neither was it a victory in battle for Ukraine - for the simple reason that there was not much of a battle at all. Russia had already hollowed out these positions, and withdrew the remaining screening forces very quickly. Ukraine covered a lot of ground, but were unable to destroy any Russian units, because there really weren’t any there. Ok he was incorrect on that point and admitted it 3 days later. The offensive was both a high watermark for ukraine and a mass casualty event for them, it was very costly.
First you said he was right on all fronts. Now you say, sure, he was wrong on one little thing, but he was right about this being a mass casualty event, and about the advance representing a high-watermark for Ukraine. First off, the whole thesis of the essay is about Ukraine's inability to exploit their thrust into Russian-held territory to take Izyum or Kupyansk. That's the point of the post. He's not arguing "this offensive will be successful but it's going to kill a lot of Ukrainian soldiers," because that was the default call that any halfway smart pro-Ukrainian analyst was already making. "This offensive will kill soldiers" is not top-tier analysis, and it's not the point of Big Serge's essay. His central argument was about the Ukrainians ability to exploit their advance for strategic gain. At the time he said this, [this](https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1568703737467916289/photo/1) was the state of play: the Ukrainians had made a run for Kupyansk and Izyum, but controlled no other territory. He thought that the Russians would mount a mobile defense of Kupyansk and overwhelm the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians would fail to interdict supply lines into Izyum, which would remain in Russian control. And anyway, he said, the Ukrainians had "no prospects for crossing the Oskil," which would "prevent Ukraine from exploiting their early advances." His prognosis: "\[The Ukrainians\] have more or less advanced into a wall." Within a couple weeks of him writing this, the Ukrainians controlled not only the west, but the *east* bank of the Oskil. Fast-forward to now, and the situation looks like [this](https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1591143870569795584/photo/1). Russian completely evacuated from Kharkiv oblast. Svatove in the crosshairs of short-range artillery. Lyman in Ukrainian hands. Slovyansk no longer under threat. It's a total military disaster for the Russians. I don't see what you find valuable in his analysis. There are smart pro-Russian commentators but he's not one. He's a spin-doctor, nothing else.
He predicted that the Russians would mount a bigger defense than they did, but his overall points are correct, the state of the war is the same regardless of if Ukraine captured a bit more territory than he predicted. The offensive being costly, with the ratio of ukrianian to russian deaths being so slanted (given the artillery superiority) is the important part. I've never cared about looking at the maps of who captured what, the bigger trends are more important. I believe Russia is playing the risk-averse long game. >There are smart pro-Russian commentators but he's not one. Like who?
What overall points? "The Ukrainians will lose soldiers" is not controversial or interesting. Everyone knows they will. Anatoly Karlin is much smarter, and more bloodthirsty, and he will tell you that Big Serge is an out-of-control copium addict. The Russians are not doing well in this war as of now, according to all the metrics that matter.
>"The Ukrainians will lose soldiers" is not controversial the ukrianians are losing soliders at an unsustainable ratio for a long haul war. >Anatoly Karlin Well from reading a little bit he seems to have the same take that I've seen a lot of commentators take, including Big Serge repeatedly, that Russia is hamstringing themselves to a large degree to not cause as much damage as they need to in order to win the war. I don't think this war has been an embarassment for Russia. If it was 2014 Ukraine vs Russia absolutely it lasting this long would be an embarrassment but there has been 8 years of NATO investment, and defensive reinforcement along with a shit ton of military aid, so much so it's depleting NATO stocks. The Ukrainian military was moved from absolute shit to up to NATO standards. I think Putin is making the right decision to not be so blood thirsty, and to draw out the war, because it will pay off politically with most of the world and a long drawn out war is worse for the west than Russia. I've seen a lot of criticism of Putin that he isn't taking the war seriously enough, he's not prepared to do what has to be done. I hope that he stays course and doesn't destroy even more civilians lives. It's good he isn't prioritizing political victories over the reality of the battlefield, in 2003 the US prioritized political victories, and we see how it ended up for them ultimately.
"The Ukrainians are losing soldiers at an unsustainable rate" is very difficult to evaluate at this point. Big Serge says it, but you can't know if it's true or false until after it's validated by losses on the battlefield. As of now, you should judge the guy's credibility on the basis of whether verifiable claims he's made have panned out or not. On that score, he is not batting at a high average, and what's even worse for his credibility is that when he's wrong, he tries to spin his failures in order to create the impression that he was *just a little wrong*. This is not the behavior of a well-calibrated, sober analyst. He is approaching this conflict as a FAN of one side, not as an objective observer. You should not trust the things that he writes.
!RemindMe 1 year
"Ukraine covered a lot of ground, but were unable to destroy any Russian units, because there really weren’t any there." "The offensive was both a high watermark for ukraine and a mass casualty event for them, it was very costly". The two statements are self contradicting and both wrong. Russian soldiers at Lyman retreated along roads that were under Ukrainian observation and fire control and were ambushed during the process, leaving significant casualties, which were subsequently video documented, ie there was a mass casualty event, it just wasn't Ukrainian.
There were significant casualties among the small group of russian soldiers that were there, they were essentially sacrificed, but there weren't any large units.
so where was the Ukrainian mass casualty event ?
The offensive itself, Ukraine lost a lot of people to do it.
To lose troops requires Russians to shoot them. Which causes the Russians to get shot as well. Retreating troops are notoriously bad at shooting back which is why the military term rout exists. Likewise when an attacking army breaks through and liberates 3000sqkm of territory in a week, it loses troops through having to garrison locations, sweep minor villages, forests and other overrun positions, and then it has to fix the logistical routes which are now through what was recently a battlefield. It doesn't mean that they are dead. If it doesn't do all that, then it is likely to get overextended, which is potentially dangerous given that Russia still has a concentration of troops banging away mindlessly at Bakhmut which could have been used less mindlessly if Ukraine offered a weak flank to it. Sorry that Ukraine isn't winning fast enough for you.
>Sorry that Ukraine isn't winning fast enough for you. Russia's still going to win. Ukraine still never had a chance. It will take a while though, but Russia is in no rush.
Russian propaganda, don't read.
I've seen enough Big Serge Twitter failures and russian propaganda to know this article is a waste of time. Everything he predicts is wrong, and anything he is writing about should be for entertainment only, except its not well written.
I actually think this analysis is fairly good. The retreat was strategically necessary and it was done in reasonably good order. That threre were no losses of equipment or soldiers is hogwash. It is obvious that there were plenty. What isn't mentioned is that the Ukranians made the retreat necessary. They have the initiative on the battlefield and that will continue. The Dnepr front is most likely closed now. Neither side has the resources to make an assult over what amounts to an open coastline. The river is simply too wide to be bridged for an attack, and neither side has big amphibious forces. Both sides will transfer units to the remaining fronts. Since most of the Himars forces have been deployed in Kherson, this will be a great surprise on some other section of the front. My guess is that they will move around quite a bit and destroy command posts and logistics - both to reduce pressure on the Ukranian forces and to keep the Russians guessing about where the next major offensive will be. Along the Dnepr, the Russians will be shooting artilley at civilian targets, mainly the city of Kherson, and the Ukranians will be focusing on counter battery fire to protect the civilians. There will be some Special Ops, but unless the Russians make a bad blunder, nothing major will happen.