4 ms·

Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force), Kherson held little strategic value for Russia at that point.* Promising to never

Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force), Kherson held little strategic value for Russia at that point.* Promising to never leave Kherson was political folly, something Ukrainians tried to make as costly as possible. However, they largely failed at that. Those who paid attention saw column after Ukrainian column get mauled by VDV artillery. There was indeed a moment where Ukraine took some land but in the end nothing came of it but pain. But certainly they did keep on the pressure (plus some other things), and so in the end Russians made the militarily prudent but politically very difficult decision (causing a period of widespread doom and gloom among supporters of Russia) to leave in good order. Ukrainians were apparently as surprised as almost anyone else. * I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force.

lisasays 3y ago
Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force), Not only did they absolutely intend to take Mikolaiv - they were expecting to positively waltz their way through it, on their way to waltzing through Odesa, where their countrymen were surely waiting to welcome them with thronging parades, offering bread, salt and flowers.
mandelken 3y ago
> * I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force. Genuinly curious, because this is the first time I read this. How do you see the taking of Odessa by Russia as very likely? It's their main port, I don't see how Ukraine would be able to survive without it.
tptacek 3y ago
It's easy to find dozens of sources about the strategic importance of Kherson, which is also evident from a glance at a map, and Kherson is also ten times larger than Bakhmut, so this doesn't really respond to my question. Without any expertise in war, or the region, I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy. It’s because he’s here to try push public opinion about why Ukraine is losing, he is not here to engage in honest arguments. Look through his post history and you will seem summarily dismiss any evidence Russia has worse casualties or is in anyway losing this war.
- rainworld 3y ago
  Let me put this way: It’s not going to happen, that’s not how it’s done, but pulling a bit back and just doing it again wouldn’t be the craziest thing Russia could do at this point. This is industrial warfare. The primary (not only) goal is to destroy the enemy army. Ideally with short/long supply lines (“Why are the Dnieper bridges still up?”), in favorable territory. Yes, this is as ugly a thing as it gets. Hundreds of thousands of men are dead and hundreds of thousands more will die in all likelihood. That’s how it is. And no side is innocent in this. And, again, people don’t want to hear it but Russia is doing well enough. The original, mostly post-soviet Ukrainian army of 24th Feb. is all but gone. More than half of their officers are confirmed dead (obituary and all), most of their original heavy gear is destroyed. Gonna avoid discussing overall casualties here but it’s a lot. People are going to be shocked when/if the numbers ever come out. This is why in the West it’s all about begging for and donating of gear, and the training of fresh troops. Because Ukrainians need it. And their “second army”, post-soviet gear from outside is also mostly gone. Willing donors are all but depleted, too. And this is why, after much reluctance, Western tanks are now in Ukraine. But the West does not have all that much to give. And they are not really producing either. So, unless things change drastically soon, there will be no “fourth” Ukrainian army. And then Russia will cross the Dnieper again. Or maybe not. Because the situation is much more serious than most of us Westerners realize. Our leaders are playing with nuclear fire, whether they know it or not. But not because Russia is losing. Because the West is all but at war with a nuclear power and when/if that threshold is crossed Russia is not going to wait for US forces to deploy in Poland or whatever, or worse. They don’t want this but they are prepared for it. They want to avoid it but they are not bluffing. As they keep warning us. Finally, given the complexities and constraints of the system, “F-16s for Ukraine”, if it actually happens, will at very least mean even more NATO crews in Ukraine and in fact probably takeoffs from Poland and Romania. It’s not certain that Russia will consider this the threshold crossed, but you bet they’ll give an unambiguous response.

lisasays 3y ago

Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force), Not only did they absolutely intend to take Mikolaiv - they were expecting to positively waltz their way through it, on their way to waltzing through Odesa, where their countrymen were surely waiting to welcome them with thronging parades, offering bread, salt and flowers.

mandelken 3y ago

> * I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force. Genuinly curious, because this is the first time I read this. How do you see the taking of Odessa by Russia as very likely? It's their main port, I don't see how Ukraine would be able to survive without it.

tptacek 3y ago

It's easy to find dozens of sources about the strategic importance of Kherson, which is also evident from a glance at a map, and Kherson is also ten times larger than Bakhmut, so this doesn't really respond to my question. Without any expertise in war, or the region, I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy.

_kbh_ 3y ago
> I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy. It’s because he’s here to try push public opinion about why Ukraine is losing, he is not here to engage in honest arguments. Look through his post history and you will seem summarily dismiss any evidence Russia has worse casualties or is in anyway losing this war.
rainworld 3y ago
Let me put this way: It’s not going to happen, that’s not how it’s done, but pulling a bit back and just doing it again wouldn’t be the craziest thing Russia could do at this point. This is industrial warfare. The primary (not only) goal is to destroy the enemy army. Ideally with short/long supply lines (“Why are the Dnieper bridges still up?”), in favorable territory. Yes, this is as ugly a thing as it gets. Hundreds of thousands of men are dead and hundreds of thousands more will die in all likelihood. That’s how it is. And no side is innocent in this. And, again, people don’t want to hear it but Russia is doing well enough. The original, mostly post-soviet Ukrainian army of 24th Feb. is all but gone. More than half of their officers are confirmed dead (obituary and all), most of their original heavy gear is destroyed. Gonna avoid discussing overall casualties here but it’s a lot. People are going to be shocked when/if the numbers ever come out. This is why in the West it’s all about begging for and donating of gear, and the training of fresh troops. Because Ukrainians need it. And their “second army”, post-soviet gear from outside is also mostly gone. Willing donors are all but depleted, too. And this is why, after much reluctance, Western tanks are now in Ukraine. But the West does not have all that much to give. And they are not really producing either. So, unless things change drastically soon, there will be no “fourth” Ukrainian army. And then Russia will cross the Dnieper again. Or maybe not. Because the situation is much more serious than most of us Westerners realize. Our leaders are playing with nuclear fire, whether they know it or not. But not because Russia is losing. Because the West is all but at war with a nuclear power and when/if that threshold is crossed Russia is not going to wait for US forces to deploy in Poland or whatever, or worse. They don’t want this but they are prepared for it. They want to avoid it but they are not bluffing. As they keep warning us. Finally, given the complexities and constraints of the system, “F-16s for Ukraine”, if it actually happens, will at very least mean even more NATO crews in Ukraine and in fact probably takeoffs from Poland and Romania. It’s not certain that Russia will consider this the threshold crossed, but you bet they’ll give an unambiguous response.