Russian special military operation in Ukraine #32

I doubt about any deal. The retreat is logical since they couldn't take anymore territory in this direction for months now. Nikolaev was impossible to take.

Retreat, re-equip and start a better offensive.

Those lost equipment need to be burnt or destroyed now by aviation. There shouldn't be any AD system there right now since they just left. Destroy it quickly with fab bombs.

caveat emptor wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:For the clueless caveman who likes to pretend to be smart and always turns out to be stupid - the one with the picture of the mountain.
T-72B3 tanks NEVER had Kontakt-1 on the side of the tank, but those tanks have either 3 screens with Kontakt-5 ERA (model 2011) or Relict ERA on the model 2016.

Adding some Kontakt-1 on the sides and welding slat armor is one day job. And we've seen that Ukrainians did similar jobs with captured Russian equipment in the past.
But, if it helps you with coping easier, be my guest.

Its a T-72B3. You can see the thermal sight.

Hole wrote:

famschopman wrote:If there was a perfect moment in time to push through, make progress and gain a stronghold on forward positions, it was like ... now.

Well, not now but in 2 to 3 weeks. The weather plays a role in timing the offensive.



Pavlovka, motherf... 
You know, the brigade of Marines that was destroyed a few days ago, according to unnamed sources. 

1 village for 370000 pop city. Yeah, great deal.

Azi wrote:What speaks against a trap is the simple fact that there is no real fighting in Kherson. The Ukrainian troops are able to enter the villages and towns unhindered and the Russian troops leave with peace of mind. No Air Force work and only a little artillery fire from the Russian side. And that means that Ukraine doesn't have to occupy the territory with many soldiers... two brigades are enough and a trap makes literally no sense.

Looks like a dirty deal at the expense of the local population.

It's a rumour, but it's from November 4th. Makes a bit of sense if you look at it all closely. The death of Kirill Stremousov also makes sense, it is a warning sign, so to speak, for all critics to shut up and swallow any deal without criticism. Surely Stremousov would not have been silent if his homeland had fallen to the Ukronazis. Looks like a ceasefire coming soon. Might also be beneficial for Russia if Ukraine's true losses become public and civil unrest erupts. But could also harm Russia if Ukraine secretly gets weapons and continues to train troops in EU countries. But as already written ... this kind of "Minsk 3" is just a vague rumor!

There isn't going to be any Minsk 3, the Kremlin is not crewed with chumps

It's either a peace deal and territorial recognition once and for all, or the war goes on.

About Stremousov, the logistics issues and the geographical location of Kherson I'll withhold on commenting on. Doomers - do continue. Please.

Isos wrote:I doubt about any deal. The retreat is logical since they couldn't take anymore territory in this direction for months now. Nikolaev was impossible to take.

Retreat, re-equip and start a better offensive.

Those lost equipment need to be burnt or destroyed now by aviation. There shouldn't be any AD system there right now since they just left. Destroy it quickly with fab bombs.

Nikolayev was in no sense meaning or interpretation 'impossible to take'. The Ukrainians had a garrison there with some artillery, some mech infantry or marines but that was about it. It has about the same population as Mariupol, and probably has been fortified significantly as well. So a similar amount of forces would need to be committed.

The Russians at one point had it surrounded from most directions. But they chose not to assault it, neither Krivoy Rog either. Instead they retreated somewhat and formed new defensive lines. It's not a question of taking any territory - they chose not to, and switched most efforts to the Donbass direction; whereupon the Nikolayev-Kherson front was stale other than intermittent Ukrainian advances that all failed spectacularly apart from the one that took a little territory back in September.

Hole wrote:[[/url]

If it is trye we will see it. Su-34 delivries haven't increased particularly since february and S-70 is still in development.

They should focus more on producing orion uav and more lancet. Lancet showed much better result than any other russian flying hardware. Orion has the capabilities to be a real game changer but its use is still very low and its weapons seems to be just being tested and not used regularly.

Last footage of that orion launched kornet missile was very long time ago.

flamming_python wrote:

Nikolayev was in no sense meaning or interpretation 'impossible to take'. The Ukrainians had a garrison there with some artillery, some mech infantry or marines but that was about it.

The Russians at one point had it surrounded from most directions. But they chose not to assault it, neither Krivoy Rog either. Instead they retreated somewhat and formed new defensive lines. It's not a question of taking any territory - they chose not to, and switched most efforts to the Donbass direction; whereupon the Nikolayev-Kherson front was stale other than intermittent Ukrainian advances that all failed spectacularly apart from the one that took a little territory back in September.

If they could they would.

That front was the same for months. No real progress.

And the 300k mobilized don't seem to change the situation. Most think they would be used in an offensive but that yet has to be proven.

The actual political forces within russian armed forces are destroying the russian army. Wagner, Chechens, Special forces... are all trying to get dumb victories to be seen as the best even if it fucks up the operation. Add to that a political leadership that doesn't even know what goal it wabts and keep negociating with the USA and you end up with a lost war.

Defensive lines are already made in Crimea and Belgorod in Russia. I'm not optimistic about a russian victory. It will be a long conflict like Syrian or Iraqi ones that will last forever and at the end will be useless.

Hole wrote:
You know, the brigade of Marines that was destroyed a few days ago, according to unnamed sources. 

They have looked quite vibrant for a death ones since the rumor started

flamming_python wrote:
No-one wants a long war
It's just the optimal strategy from the Russian POV. NATO has a lot of forces it can pour in. And Russia would rather grind the Ukrainians down separately first. And out in the open, rather than coming to them in every Mariupol, Avdeevka and Pavlovka

Well, you said a thing and deny it it the same line
And I agree
The point is that Russkie do want a long&prolonged war now.
They didn't want it back in the Spring.
Russkie wanted a regime change operation based on a rapid advance, claiming lots of ground, sending a message, and expecting regime collapse&bend for negotiations.
Didn't happen.
Due to tons of reasons, nazification level is one of them.
The secret police's role is indisputable.
NATO direct influence, the fact that Anglosaxons de facto rule&command the remaining rotting body of the Ukropistan plays the role either ...
Ethnic cleansing made 2014+ is a factor too.
Now things turned. Not even "now", a few months back.
Now it is a meat grinder.
Ukro meat is to be grinded, with the available NATO stocks along.

Isos wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Nikolayev was in no sense meaning or interpretation 'impossible to take'. The Ukrainians had a garrison there with some artillery, some mech infantry or marines but that was about it.

The Russians at one point had it surrounded from most directions. But they chose not to assault it, neither Krivoy Rog either. Instead they retreated somewhat and formed new defensive lines. It's not a question of taking any territory - they chose not to, and switched most efforts to the Donbass direction; whereupon the Nikolayev-Kherson front was stale other than intermittent Ukrainian advances that all failed spectacularly apart from the one that took a little territory back in September.

If they could they would.

If they couldn't they wouldn't have either made it all the way to the city or have taken similarly-sized Mariupol. They clearly had the forces who could fulfill the orders if needed.

As to whether it was the right call or not, I'm not in a position to judge. But it fits into the modus operandi - avoid urban battles whenever possible, and focus more on the Donbass for the time being rather than on hard-core Bandera territory

That front was the same for months. No real progress.

Yes, because they weren't advancing

The Ukrainians attempted to advance all throughout the last 6 months however, each time getting repulsed with heavy losses

And the 300k mobilized don't seem to change the situation. Most think they would be used in an offensive but that yet has to be proven.

They're already on the front-lines, at least a couple tens of thousands, as there have already been reports of the first casualties among them 3 weeks ago

As for changing the situation - that rather assumes there is a situation in the first place. AFAIK the strategy is the same now as it was. No offensives have been ordered yet.

The actual political forces within russian armed forces are destroying the russian army. Wagner, Chechens, Special forces... are all trying to get dumb victories to be seen as the best even if it fucks up the operation. Add to that a political leadership that doesn't even know what goal it wabts and keep negociating with the USA and you end up with a lost war.

Wagner, Chechens and others are all on the same side and are all acting in co-ordination. The political leadership knows what goals it wants. You don't know what goals it wants, but that's a seperate question entirely.
And who is negotiating with the USA? Russian officials just stated the other day that they require negotiations directly with the Ukraine, not with the USA over the Ukraine.

Defensive lines are already made in Crimea and Belgorod in Russia. I'm not optimistic about a russian victory. It will be a long conflict like Syrian or Iraqi ones that will last forever and at the end will be useless.

If they are actually dumb enough to try and make it to the Crimean and Belgorod borders then the Russian military command will be celebrating and the war will be shortened for sure. Building defensive lines there might be for the occasion they are stupid enough to try, or maybe part of the effort to invite them to come out into the open.

Scott Ritter Explains Why Russia's Kherson Withdrawal is a Pyrrhic Ukrainian Victory, 11.10.2022.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has ordered the withdrawal of Russian troops from parts of Kherson to form defensive positions on the left bank of the Dnepr River, after commander of all Russian forces in Ukraine Sergei Surovikin warned of Kiev's plans to launch a massive missile attack on a local dam and indiscriminate strikes on civilians.
Speaking with Sputnik, Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, has explained why the decision to relocate Russian troops to the left bank of the Dnepr River shouldn't be viewed as a "Russian defeat," but rather as a "pyrrhic Ukrainian victory."

Sputnik: What are the main reasons for the Russian withdrawal from parts of Kherson? Is this a reasonable move, given circumstances such as the approaching winter?

Scott Ritter: I think the decision was made irregardless of the weather. This is a decision that seemed to focus on preserving the lives of thousands of Russian soldiers over holding on to territory which has no intrinsic value in the short term. I think it was a just decision, one that was made based upon purely military objectives. I think the decision had been made because it was too difficult to reliably supply the Russian troops stationed on the right bank of the river in the vicinity of Kherson with the materiel necessary to ensure their victory over attacking Ukrainian forces and that ultimately these lives could be saved by going back to the left bank, securing their defensive positions and then holding off the Ukrainians, until such time Russia was able to accumulate sufficient offensive military power necessary to retake Kherson, reoccupy the right bank and possibly advance further into Ukraine.

Sputnik: What does Ukraine win and lose by occupying the right bank?

Ritter: First and foremost, this will be a very big political victory for Ukraine. There should be no doubt about this. Ukraine will be capturing or recapturing from their perspective the only major administrative center that had been captured by the Russians in their special military operation. The recapture of Kherson has been a strategic objective of the Zelensky government and the Ukrainian military from the start of their major counter-offensive in September. And if they are able to put troops in Kherson, raise the Ukrainian flag over the administrative buildings of Kherson, this will be seen as an extraordinarily important political victory for them, one which will be able to be used to argue for continued military and financial support from NATO, from the United States and from other nations.

But it's a political victory only because unless the Ukrainian occupation of Kherson occured in partnership with a larger peace agreement that guaranteed them possession of Kherson in perpetuity, this is, I believe, simply a temporary state of affairs that ultimately, once Russia is able to assemble the totality of the 300,000 men that were mobilized and then carry out combat operations reflective of this new military capacity, that Russia will recapture Kherson, reoccupy the right bank of the Dnepr River and as I said before, have the possibility of advancing further into Ukraine up to and including the capture of the city of Odessa.

Sputnik: In his report to the defense minister, commander of Russian forces in Ukraine Surovikin pointed out that Ukraine’s losses are 7-8 times greater than Russia’s. Can Ukraine really continue to rely on rapid advances?

Ritter: This is ultimately the military math that must be considered by everybody who is assessing the situation. The fact of the matter is, Ukraine cannot continue to operate under conditions where it's suffering seven to eight times casualties as their Russian opponents and expect to emerge from this conflict victorious. The casualty rate is too high. It's unsustainable, and ultimately, if it continues, will lead to the strategic defeat of Ukraine.

This is why the Kherson operation must be viewed not as a Russians defeat, but as a pyrrhic Ukrainian victory, that means that Ukraine may have achieved a political victory, but the military cost that they take was too high, unsustainable and ultimately will lead to the defeat of Ukraine.

Sputnik: What does this move say about the Russian strategy? Is Moscow playing the long game in Ukraine? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy?

Ritter: First and foremost, this should demonstrate to the Russian mothers, wives and daughters that the Russian government takes the lives of their loved ones, the men who have been sent into combat very seriously and is not willing to sacrifice them needlessly. That's an extraordinarily important statement being made by the Russian government, where they are willing to accept short-term embarassment in exchange for preserving the lives of Russia's most precious asset, which is its human resources, in this case, the men who wear the uniform of the Russian army.

It also shows that Russia is in no hurry to get this conflict over with, that Russia is willing to consolidate its defenses in order to preserve life potentially extending the conflict, but in a manner which allows Russia to gain the advantage at a time and place that's more beneficial to Russia, so that not only will Russia ultimately achieve the military victory it seeks, but it will do so without needlessly sacrificing thousands of Russian military lives.

https://sputniknews.com/20221109/scott-ritter-explains-why-russias-kherson-withdrawal-is-a-pyrrhic-ukrainian-victory-1103953027.html

Kherson is no different to other recent tactical withdrawals by Russia . The only difference is that by moving troops behind the River , then defence becomes far cheaper and easier , compared to say other places . And also Kherson is a Russian city , only if Russians allow it to be a city . I am sure now that without civilians , it can turn into a deadly ground and scorched Earth for the other side , devoid of real value . That only leaves the territory lost around the city . But since this area is on the other side of the River , then capturing and maintaining it , over long term , becomes very expensive . Much cheaper to build new Kherson on the Russian side , than defend old Kherson , on the other side .

Since the initial success of SMO , the Ukrs side did manage to gather forces and mount counter- offensives , as I predicted . But these forces were larger and better armed and motivated , than planners had initially predicted . Then the decision was made to increase forces , and this is not yet complete . Once all forces are in place and they start to fight , only then we can say how successful they were . So until this happens , we have to put up with the current situation .

I doubt very much , if Ukrs will be able to fight in the longer term . Their cities will be devoid of population and turned into refugees . The armed forces still hiding in them , can then be destroyed , without killing civilians . They can not carry on with manufacture and industry , without mains electricity , using small generators . Water and food will be in short supply . They will depend completely on outsiders and supplies . But the war they wage , will be on their turf . They will always be on the defensive , with diminishing numbers .....

NATO and the Nazis will sacrifice Ukraine for their own ends . They will not seek peace . Peace for the Nazis is an acute disease , without a cure . And for NATO , peace is a chronic condition , ultimately leading to death . So Ukraine will be no more . It's people absorbed within EU . The western region a ruin , inhabited by a motley crew of mercenaries and die-hard Nazis , firing the odd missile into the Eastern region . And the East , will turn into a fortress , in a new frontier region .

Russia can't resupply its troops with heavy equipment (and whatever else) one way, but it can get them back over the river the other way without leaving Ukraine with another arsenal to take over? Smells like 90% bullshit.

This shitshow is going to turn into one giant frontline from Zaporozhye to Svatove unless Russia tries something a little more daring - maybe it will once the obvious lack of manpower is fixed in a month or so.

They have looked quite vibrant for a death ones since the rumor started  

No problem if you got him on your side

@ilciclistainblu
Italy cuts off the arms supply to Ukraine, approved by the previous government. This was stated by the Italian Defense Minister Crosetto

....
Good...

No need to worry much about T-90. Ukrainians have captured T-90s near Kharkov.
It’s  just a mediocre and flawed tank that is about to be replaced by brand new modern and up to date T-14, nothing NATO doesn’t know about oldie already. Technically speaking, on paper, Oplot is better tank than any T-72 derivative apart from T-90AM. And thanks to lazy TCs, Ukrs have more functioning T-90s than Oplots. Means nothing in the bigger picture

Abandoning Kherson because Ukraine might blow up the dam is retarded.


The right bank of the river has higher terrain than the left bank. There is basically no way Ukraine could flood the heights of the city. In contrast the left bank will be flooded and will be indefensible. Having the height advantage also means it will be easy for Ukraine to aim artillery towards the left bank. Plus like others have said, if Russia can pullout their heavy equipment, then they could also supply their existing troops. In my opinion they should just have continued delaying their advance until reinforcements come, and once the ground froze over they could have attacked Zaporizhzhia city and tried to push from both there and Kherson towards the center. All they had to do was push Ukrainian forces far enough away from Kherson they could not easily use artillery on the river passage points.

I definitely agree with the withdrawal from the Right Bank. I think my only criticism is I wish all the energy, lives, and effort spent in Kherson over the past 8 months had been spent in the east.

Regular wrote:No need to worry much about T-90. Ukrainians have captured T-90s near Kharkov.
It’s  just a mediocre and flawed tank that is about to be replaced by brand new modern and up to date T-14, nothing NATO doesn’t know about oldie already. Technically speaking, on paper, Oplot is better tank than any T-72 derivative apart from T-90AM. And thanks to lazy TCs, Ukrs have more functioning T-90s than Oplots. Means nothing in the bigger picture

Russia knows t-72 very well yet ukrainian t-72 firing a HE shell will still kill russians.

Equipement that really have to not to fall in the hands if the enemy are fighter jets, AD radar systems and comms tools.

Rest who cares. Ak-47 still kills US soldiers and is still a better piece than modern rifles. T-90 is just an uparmoured t-72. Hit it everywhere but front and it will get destroyed just like any other tank including t-14.

Russia had at least 11 AFU brigades tied down in kherson. The retreat will allow these brigades to be transferred to donbass and further bog down the russian offensive. keep in mind that the entire ugledar area is defended by JUST ONE AFU brigade and the russians are still make barely any progress there. This retreat means that bakhmut, avdeevka, etc will never be liberated, or won't be liberated until around 2026.

https://t.me/boris_rozhin/69831