Critical response from a very pro-Ukrainian account. Seems pretty pissed at Ukrainian leadership.

Sure.

The primary goal was to sever the Russian land corridor to Crimea, with the assumption that this would eventually lead to isolating Crimea, provided the bridge would be destroyed.

Another objective was to liberate at least Tokmak, as Tarnavskyi himself stated, and…

— Tatarigami_UA (@Tatarigami_UA) October 31, 2023

" The primary goal was to sever the Russian land corridor to Crimea, with the assumption that this would eventually lead to isolating Crimea, provided the bridge would be destroyed.

Another objective was to liberate at least Tokmak, as Tarnavskyi himself stated, and potentially Melitopol.

We were unable to reach the operational space effectively or penetrate all lines of defense, which is why there was no maneuver.

Russian logistical routes and control over the territory remained overall intact, with some tactical losses.

We employed two corps and a significant number of 155mm artillery pieces from South Korea, but only managed to liberate a few villages. The presidential adviser himself stated that they would be in Crimea by the end of summer.

Russian forces are not defeated or forced to retreat; they are currently conducting two offensives in Kupiansk and Avdiivka, which forced the 47th brigade to move from the South to Avdiivka. The strategic initiative is shifting back to Russia.

Our offensive potential is exhausted, and our ammunition is depleted, while the Russians have received a new batch of ammunition, which they will likely use this winter to make gains, as we expended resources without achieving significant goals."

I would say at this point the counter offensive was a failure. They need to take significantly more territory than they have and specifically in cutting logistical links in the south. To get an end to this the Ukes need to get to near the 2014 borders. To be able to rearm without the all-in commitment of the West then they will need a good bit of that territory back. It's still possible, but it's going to require taking out a lot more Russian equipment and bleeding a whole lot more Russians while absorbing a lot fewer casualties. I think it can be done but it's going to require a break through somewhere to get to the transport links along the Azov to do the job.

for all the shiny new toys that keep getting flashed as game changers; nothing seems to be able to easily slice though old school things like mines, fortifications and gobs of fresh meat grinder ready personnel. They need some way to massively outflank the whole damn Orc setup; that would require something the Ukes don't have, massive naval and air capabilities. So here we sit.

The quoted poster mentions Ukraine's goals for the counteroffensive haven't been achieved but I haven't been able to find any timeline goals for it stated or published in a few minutes of searching (would welcome others sharing such information). If there was nothing stated, how does one measure success or failure? If it is measured against the more considerable territory gains Ukraine achieved in 2022, then yes, it has been much less successful. But if you measure it against most people's pre-war assessments about how fast Russia would capture the country, it still can be considered a success as Ukraine, with aid from the west, has continued to be able to slowly push back the not insignificant Russian military in several areas.

jbeaman88 said:

---

The quoted poster mentions Ukraine's goals for the counteroffensive haven't been achieved but I haven't been able to find any timeline goals for it stated or published in a few minutes of searching (would welcome others sharing such information). If there was nothing stated, how does one measure success or failure? If it is measured against the more considerable territory gains Ukraine achieved in 2022, then yes, it has been much less successful. But if you measure it against most people's pre-war assessments about how fast Russia would capture the country, it still can be considered a success as Ukraine, with aid from the west, has continued to be able to slowly push back the not insignificant Russian military in several areas.

---

I think you are right. It is a success that Ukraine is still in existence as an autonomous country. I hope we don't give up on them as long as they are having gains no matter how marginal we may think the gains are. It has been long past time to put an end to Putin's bull***** I firmly believe that we just waited too long to deliver the weapons necessary for Ukraine to succeed.

docb said:

---

jbeaman88 said:

---

The quoted poster mentions Ukraine's goals for the counteroffensive haven't been achieved but I haven't been able to find any timeline goals for it stated or published in a few minutes of searching (would welcome others sharing such information). If there was nothing stated, how does one measure success or failure? If it is measured against the more considerable territory gains Ukraine achieved in 2022, then yes, it has been much less successful. But if you measure it against most people's pre-war assessments about how fast Russia would capture the country, it still can be considered a success as Ukraine, with aid from the west, has continued to be able to slowly push back the not insignificant Russian military in several areas.

---

I think you are right. It is a success that Ukraine is still in existence as an autonomous country. I hope we don't give up on them as long as they are having gains no matter how marginal we may think the gains are. It has been long past time to put an end to Putin's bull***** I firmly believe that we just waited too long to deliver the weapons necessary for Ukraine to succeed.

---

Y'all are assuming Russia's aim is to take the entire country, from what I've seen, that isn't the case at all.

Given the style of assaults we've seen from Ukraine, I don't think that they are going to shut things down this winter. Mud may be an issue, but I think it will impact Russia's ability more so to attack. Unless Russia does a better job of equipping their troops, I don't see how Ukrainian gains cannot be made this winter.

It's become a resource battle and Ukraine is winning that in a big way with 3:1 more or less destruction of equipment and casualties but the Russians have built some deep defenses that are tedious to attack through where Ukraine is currently doing that. Ukraine is going to have to either bait Russia into overextending on an attack axis that they haven't consolidated a defense in depth behind and then attack through the attack, or be innovative in where they attack in a weaker, less defended area to make substantial progress.

Fall/winter might be good this time for mobile warfare, as it will be extremely hard to hide with no foliage and snow and earth exposing every movement or concentration of activity, so planning and tactical preparation will be more effective.

Too bad they can't Inchon Crimea by landing a substantial force on the railroad junction and then digging in to cut off most the rail based supplies moving through. Very risky but it could cause major disruption on the southern front.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It's become a resource battle and Ukraine is winning that in a big way with 3:1 more or less destruction of equipment and casualties but the Russians have built some deep defenses that are tedious to attack through where Ukraine is currently doing that. Ukraine is going to have to either bait Russia into overextending on an attack axis that they haven't consolidated a defense in depth behind and then attack through the attack, or be innovative in where they attack in a weaker, less defended area to make substantial progress.

Fall/winter might be good this time for mobile warfare, as it will be extremely hard to hide with no foliage and snow and earth exposing every movement or concentration of activity, so planning and tactical preparation will be more effective.

Too bad they can't Inchon Crimea by landing a substantial force on the railroad junction and then digging in to cut off most the rail based supplies moving through. Very risky but it could cause major disruption on the southern front.

---

yes, all of those defenses in depth become more or less useless if the Orcs get threatened from the rear......

Wouldn't that landing force be subject to relentless Russian airstrikes?

NM.

Russia took a third of the Ukraine economy, took away 70-80% of Ukes O&G reserves, took 75% of Ukes naval fleet with taking Crimea, and so far will end up costing Ukraine over $100 billion in rebuild cost. Ukraine needed to cut off the natural land bridge to Crimea but is not even close, they can take out the Kerch bridge all they want but as long as Russia has control of the east they still have a way to support Crimea.

The current stalemate favors Russia. People don't realize how big of a deal it was when Russia took Crimea in 2014 without consequence (thank you Obama and Hillary). From reports on the ground this is mostly an artillery war with very little movement from infantry under the fire. It sounds like Ukraine just brought in another brigade in the east but it may be too late of a push with winter coming

Not really a new topic, but Lancets seem to be making an outsized impact minus all other precision capabilities the Russians lack. Also, a good read here ... Czech engines, US electronics. How the Russian-made Lancet attack UAVs expose holes in anti-Russian sanctions

Latest Defence Intelligence update on the situation in Ukraine – 01 November 2023.

Find out more about Defence Intelligence's use of language: https://t.co/OZliNVlcZr

🇺🇦 #StandWithUkraine 🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/3clDjWJvob

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) November 1, 2023

Depend on if it brings air defenses and if Russia has the ranged munitions to use on it. It is just a theory as I don't see any other strategic way to attack the existing defense except maybe a major bridgehead across the Dnipro, which interestingly might be most possible in the harshest winter cold when the soft ground might be frozen more solid.

Only think I can think of to get things moving is to use cruise missiles and ATACMS to hit Russian air defense while pilots are becoming proficient with F16s. Continue to degrade air defenses and then move this to the air.

Russia hits 118 Ukrainian towns and villages within 24 hours, the most ever in a single day.

TERRORISM

74OA said:

---

Russia hits 118 Ukrainian towns and villages within 24 hours, the most ever in a single day.

TERRORISM

---

118 towns hit and Russia was probably aiming at 3. Barrels have to be worn out by now

They were probably aiming at 218.

Am I naive in thinking it's time to seek a deal and redraw maps? Ukraine's inability to make any meaningful gains during their offensive has cost them the war, IMO.

In the first weeks of the offensive the Ukes experienced unsustainable losses, got cold feet, and went back to playing small ball instead of doubling down on trying to achieve a knockout blow.

Could they have achieved a breakthrough in May if they would have kept going? Would expending 75k soldiers and 80% of western armor in a span of 3-4 days have gotten through Russia's defensive lines? If the Ukes went all in and we're routed, would Poland have rushed in to secure Kiev before the Russians could get there? Where would the current line of engagement be today in that scenario?

The latest estimates I've seen suggest that the Ukranians are inflicting a 3:1 casualty ratio on the Russians. Unfortunately, per Zeihan, they needed a 7:1 or preferably 9:1 casualty ratio to win a war of attrition.

Russia is run by paranoid nationalists. Their entire aim from this war (and frankly since the fall of the Soviet Union) was to secure geographic areas that would help protect them from invasion by outside forces. Georgia, Chechnya, etc. were all part of this same grand defense strategy. They need to actually go past Ukraine to secure geographic defense advantages in Moldova and Romania. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland are also situated in and near prime geographic access-point defense areas. This is why their ascension into NATO pissed Russia off so much and why they did not want Ukraine dealing with Europe. They are paranoid about a ground invasion of Russia from these areas as has happened many times in history.

Zeihan's video today talks about Russia's rationale for invasion. He talked about this at the beginning of the war so this is more of a quick summary and worth the watch.

lb3 said:

---

Am I naive in thinking it's time to seek a deal and redraw maps? Ukraine's inability to make any meaningful gains during their offensive has cost them the war, IMO.

In the first weeks of the offensive the Ukes experienced unsustainable losses, got cold feet, and went back to playing small ball instead of doubling down on trying to achieve a knockout blow.

Could they have achieved a breakthrough in May if they would have kept going? Would expending 75k soldiers and 80% of western armor in a span of 3-4 days have gotten through Russia's defensive lines? If the Ukes went all in and we're routed, would Poland have rushed in to secure Kiev before the Russians could get there? Where would the current line of engagement be today in that scenario?

The latest estimates I've seen suggest that the Ukranians are inflicting a 3:1 casualty ratio on the Russians. Unfortunately, per Zeihan, they needed a 7:1 or preferably 9:1 casualty ratio to win a war of attrition.

---

The only way that stopping the war now and ceding territory based upon current lines would result in a peace of meaningful duration is if it was part of a deal where the remainder of Ukraine became a NATO member whose sovereignty was guaranteed by all other NATO members. I don't think either Ukraine or Russia would be interested in such a proposal at the moment.

Waffledynamics said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Am I naive in thinking it's time to seek a deal and redraw maps?

---

I don't see why that would even be close to considerable right now. It's one stalled offensive. That's bound to happen at some point.

---

Meanwhile Russia conducts another round of annual conscriptions and Ukraine is reportedly unable to field some western systems due to a lack of soldiers to man them. (See bottom half of this article: https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/ ).

I feel like ATACMs and F16s will arrive too late to make a difference. They should have been in place for the Kharkiv offensive.

lb3 said:

---

Am I naive in thinking it's time to seek a deal and redraw maps? Ukraine's inability to make any meaningful gains during their offensive has cost them the war, IMO.

In the first weeks of the offensive the Ukes experienced unsustainable losses, got cold feet, and went back to playing small ball instead of doubling down on trying to achieve a knockout blow.

Could they have achieved a breakthrough in May if they would have kept going? Would expending 75k soldiers and 80% of western armor in a span of 3-4 days have gotten through Russia's defensive lines? If the Ukes went all in and we're routed, would Poland have rushed in to secure Kiev before the Russians could get there? Where would the current line of engagement be today in that scenario?

The latest estimates I've seen suggest that the Ukranians are inflicting a 3:1 casualty ratio on the Russians. Unfortunately, per Zeihan, they needed a 7:1 or preferably 9:1 casualty ratio to win a war of attrition.

---

Should the Wolverines have quit?

If not, why should the Ukes?

Sure...it's a humorous way to say it, but it IS the same sentiment...

Should they quit? That's for the Uke's to decide.

But what purpose does it serve to continue when the west is only giving them the weapons needed to keep from losing but not the weapons needed to win?

If we're serious about helping Ukraine win and not just survive, let's send them some ground launched Tomahawks, some HIMAR launched LRASM (Long Range Anti-ship Missile) and maybe a few F-117s just to make it spicy.

F-117 is still highly classified. There's a lot of things in the design of those that's still very secret. They're also still used as testbeds and stealth aggressors.

lb3 said:

---

Should they quit? That's for the Uke's to decide.

But what purpose does it serve to continue when the west is only giving them the weapons needed to keep from losing but not the weapons needed to win?

If we're serious about helping Ukraine win and not just survive, let's send them some ground launched Tomahawks, some HIMAR launched LRASM (Long Range Anti-ship Missile) and maybe a few F-117s just to make it spicy.

---

A fast victory is not in the West's interest.
1. Decisive defeat may lead to an unstable Russia
2. Bleeding Russian combat power may make the West a safer place.

Our strategy before Reagan was to bleed Russia in Afghanistan. It only takes a handful of politicians playing 'realpolitik' to slow the funding.

lb3 said:

---

Am I naive in thinking it's time to seek a deal and redraw maps? Ukraine's inability to make any meaningful gains during their offensive has cost them the war, IMO.

In the first weeks of the offensive the Ukes experienced unsustainable losses, got cold feet, and went back to playing small ball instead of doubling down on trying to achieve a knockout blow.

Could they have achieved a breakthrough in May if they would have kept going? Would expending 75k soldiers and 80% of western armor in a span of 3-4 days have gotten through Russia's defensive lines? If the Ukes went all in and we're routed, would Poland have rushed in to secure Kiev before the Russians could get there? Where would the current line of engagement be today in that scenario?

The latest estimates I've seen suggest that the Ukranians are inflicting a 3:1 casualty ratio on the Russians. Unfortunately, per Zeihan, they needed a 7:1 or preferably 9:1 casualty ratio to win a war of attrition.

---

What has Russia done to even suggest this is an option? You can't just call Putin and hope you can get a peace deal that'd be remotely favorable. And who is to say that any sort of peace deal lasts if you did get one? Besides, why is it up to us to find a solution to stop the fighting? The invasion of Ukraine was a unilateral decision by Russia. Ukraine is the country with everything at stake.

I still think if the West keeps supporting Ukraine they will eventually win. Sure Russia can keep conscripting more bodies, but modern warfare is more about equipment and logistics. Ukraine has been seriously winning the battle of attrition from an equipment standpoint - often something like 3-1 in tank, artillery, and IFV losses. As much as these numbers didn't quite result in enough for Ukraine to defeat Russia in 2023, it does create a more fragile Russian military in 2024. Now, does that mean they'll get a breakthrough next year? I don't know. But realistically, I think this war isn't even halfway over yet, and I think Ukraine still has a good bit going for it. However, they need reliable and continued support from the West... I think it's easily within our calability to do so. And if we don't continue to support them, autocrats everywhere we reaffirm our democracy's weakness and impatience in the face of mild inconvenience. There will be serious ramifications for that. Frankly this scenario is worse than Ukraine outright losing this war with continued support.

The era of AI drone barrages appears to have dawned:

Quote:

---

Now it's being confirmed by Western sources that Russia has been increasing use of fully automated AI versions of the Lancet:

Quote:

---

The Russian Armed Forces have started actively using Lancet barrage munitions with a new guidance system.

In fact, the target recognition and acquisition system in the new Lancet (aka Izdeliye-53) works like the homing head of an air-to-surface missile, which makes it possible to achieve absolute accuracy in hitting the target, including objects in motion.

It is noteworthy that after destroying the Czech RM-70 Vampire MLRS, the drone also targeted the Czech 152mm wheeled SAU vz.77 Dana.

In fact, after the introduction of the new Lancets, the crew's tasks are reduced to designating a combat zone for it in the programme and launching the drone from the catapult. The functions of target search and acquisition are performed by automation, and the crew can change position immediately after the launch.

---

…
The sources said the newer versions of these drones have an "automatic guidance system that can distinguish types of targets and increase strike success rates," the ISW said on Saturday. The Kremlin's forces are reportedly testing the uncrewed kamikaze drones "for mass synchronized swarm strikes."

---

I've mostly been spooked by the casualty ratio only being 3:1 so far in the war and Ukraine's troubles in recruiting new soldiers and reports that they don't have the manpower to deploy some of the western weapon systems they have received.

That 3:1 casualty ratio is unsustainable for Ukraine. They need to maintain a high casualty rate and be doing better than twice that ratio if this is going to be a pure war of attrition.

lb3 said:

---

Should they quit? That's for the Uke's to decide.

But what purpose does it serve to continue when the west is only giving them the weapons needed to keep from losing but not the weapons needed to win?

If we're serious about helping Ukraine win and not just survive, let's send them some ground launched Tomahawks, some HIMAR launched LRASM (Long Range Anti-ship Missile) and maybe a few F-117s just to make it spicy.

---

Hell, I'm all for giving them some strategic nukes just to get this over with. You guys are going to end up spending your whole lives on this thread at this rate.