Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ceratisa t1_j6gm1bs wrote

Reply to comment by DarkWangster in Ukraine calls for faster weapons supplies as Russia presses eastern offensive by redcccp

Russia isn't overwhelming them. Russia has only recently had its first victory in months, yet it was over a small non-vital town. The battle took months and they have virtually destroyed the entire town to do it. This was at the cost of thousands and thousands of Russiana.

80

sus_menik t1_j6hbgb0 wrote

Have you checked the map recently? It is pretty clear that Russians regained overall initiative, even at places like Kremiina there were some advances.

34

muncherofhay t1_j6juvin wrote

Yeah I agree right now the Ukranians are on the back foot. It looks like thousands of Russians dying to hundreds of Ukranians, but the Russians are still advancing. They don't seem to mind the cost.

1

bombmk t1_j6k1xhx wrote

1: Initiative is not "overwhelming"

2: Not known if remaining defensive is a conscious strategic choice while they are waiting for spring and the new hardware it brings. That is of course highly speculative.

But it does seem like positive movements map wise has been going the Russian way lately. No argument there. The less obvious part is whether that has come at a sustainable cost.

0

AmberHeards t1_j6gt5m9 wrote

And quite possibly even more Ukrainians unfortunately (if you're referring to Soledar). There were a bunch of videos of Ukrainian soldiers critical of their leadership for not pulling out soon enough, some featuring hordes of Ukrainian corpses. Check out the UkraineRussiaReport subreddit if you want, NSFL-warning though.

27

SuperRedShrimplet t1_j6h01pv wrote

Ukraine were advised by the US to strategically withdraw as it wasn't worth defending but obviously there is a morale element here to which I think was something Ukraine didn't want to lose, so I can kind of understand why they also defended it as hard as they did.

20

ssepaulette t1_j6h1qyo wrote

Soledar has pretty big strategic implications though. The salt mine allows men, equipment and ammo to be housed and transported safely.

Provides an important springboard to cut supply routes to Bakhmut and Siversk, and the link between the 2 frontline cities. As we are speaking, Bakhmut is dangerously close to being encircled and if the Russians tighten the noose around the city successfully, a significant force of Ukraine’s best troops could get cut off and potentially destroyed, leaving a big hole in the front.

If that happens, Ukraine can forget about retaking any territories ever again, even with the western tanks. People need to understand the harsh reality.

23

Midnight2012 t1_j6hohcn wrote

They arnt using the mines like underground roads. I think you have the wrong idea.

8

MrHazard1 t1_j6hjr8x wrote

So if they close off the mine and fortify their flanks, they can hold out and kill a lot more russian meat being thrown at them until they need to retreat those good troops a bit further back, where they can continue the fight.

I don't think russia will be able to maintain the pressure for long enough, until they need to start drawing children and the pressure in kremlin starts to rise. Play the long game and make them pay heavily for every cm they get. And when they have it, come back with better NATO equipment and trained soldiers

−4

bfhurricane t1_j6hq4my wrote

The long game is more beneficial to Russia than Ukraine. They have more men and material to draw out a long conflict. That’s why Ukraine wants to (and must) win this decisively soon.

0

Lauris024 t1_j6hc84d wrote

"so you managed to kill 20000 of your own men to capture a destroyed city that had a population of 10000?"

1

sutrauboju t1_j6hjmgo wrote

Why do you think the population matters here? In war armies fight over strategic points on the map. Actual town population is irrelevant.

15

Lauris024 t1_j6hk9yh wrote

It's absolutely nuts for a modern army to lose 20000 men over some point which isn't even THAT important. Still don't see the problem? Let me put it more clearly - US lost around 7000 men in both, Iraq and Afghanistan war, combined, that lasted many, many years

1

sutrauboju t1_j6hko9b wrote

US has a better army than Russia is your take on this? Amazing insight tbh.

8

[deleted] t1_j6hkwqh wrote

[deleted]

−2

[deleted] t1_j6hlif3 wrote

[deleted]

2

[deleted] t1_j6hmcay wrote

[deleted]

−2

[deleted] t1_j6hncnu wrote

[deleted]

4

[deleted] t1_j6hpx95 wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_j6hr24t wrote

[deleted]

1

bombmk t1_j6k4s0i wrote

Question of what makes something "THAT important" is a little complex though.

What from the outside can be seen as a completely Pyrrhic victory can still work on the inside for someone like Putin that will be under increasing pressure to show success. To just give one example.

It could also boost morale all over the front for Russians troops - the effectively makes the cost worthwhile. (I doubt that, but for the sake of example)

And the Russian army does not operate under the same societal sensitivity to losses that the US does. It is still nuts - but that does not mean it cannot work for an orchish horde.

1

bombmk t1_j6k08qj wrote

The one thing that has me worried atm is that has been a while since we have had a significant Ukrainian positive movement on the fronts. As far as I can tell.
Now, that might VERY well be due to deliberate strategic decisions of just hanging on the ropes over winter and let the Russians punch themselves tired.
Still has me somewhat worried that the Russians with their more concentrated strategy of pushing flesh at the dam until it breaks might have found a way to prevent the Ukrainians from overloading the Ukrainian ability to cover the front AND maintain offensive capabilities.

At which point it becomes speculation about the sustainability of the Russian strategy.

But I sincerely hope that it is just me being overly worried. And that they new NATO hardware arrives sooner rather than later.

1