Blind faith is what led to the 2023 counteroffensive being such a failure in terms of objectives, throwing the best equipped and freshest troops into the maw and getting chewed up in insanely dense minefields and a surprising breadth of Russian treeline positions lying in wait.

Bahkmut, Kursk, and the dogged bridgehead across the Dnipro by ZPP in 2023-2024 are just a few examples of moves that cost an outsized quantity of SF/men and materiel in general, NATO equipment and elite units, and marines respectively, while delivering mixed to ‘not worth it’ results imo

Ukraine has definitely had a large quantity of their highly trained and elite troops attrited and eroded - why else do we see so many recruitment openings for the more kinetic units like Azov and SF?

Retreats like from Avdiivka hurt to see, but that is the game they should be playing of defense in depth while abusing and assaulting Ru weak points as they are found.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (16 children)

Blind faith is what led to the 2023 counteroffensive being such a failure

That is more than a year ago, and the lesson was absolutely learned.

Bahkmut, Kursk, and the dogged bridgehead across the Dnipro by ZPP in 2023-2024 are just a few examples of moves that cost an outsized quantity of SF/men and materiel

Not true, Bakhmut cost Russians way more, and tactical retreat was done to avoid unnecessary losses. Kursk was a strategic crucial victory for many reasons.

The situations are not comparable.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago (15 children)

Not true, Bakhmut cost Russians way more, and tactical retreat was done to avoid unnecessary losses.

Cost more numerically, yes. But if your opponent at Bahkmut is Wagner + armed convict meat waves, and it’s costing you regular and decently trained soldiers and mobilized personnel it is not a good trade, even at 5:1. When your opponent has a military aged male population of roughly 80 million, whilst you have at best 20 million MAMs, you need to be more selective in how you spend lives and materiel to attain objectives. Russia has almost entirely looted their Soviet inheritance of armor, and is hobbling together any shitbox tank, BMP, or MTB with drone cages and mine rollers to throw at the front - Ukraine should be (and this year has) obliging them, grinding away at the Russians and ceding territory slowly via defense in depth. Russia cannot maintain forever, even with DPRK support, whilst China largely sits this one out and gets an economic win.

Kursk was a strategic crucial victory for many reasons

Strategic how? It was a cultural and political victory, but like many of the prestige offensives, it has cost highly skilled and well equipped troops to capture mobliks and swelled the length of the frontline that ultimately needs defending. The much theorized hope that Kursk would force Russia to slow/stop their advances in the Donbas has not played out.

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 0 points 6 days ago

Invading a country is way way harder. You need absolutely definitive victories Russia isn't getting that

Look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan/Iraq. It's far easier to defend your home than go attack someone else's. Russia's moral is shit and while they have more bodies, I'd rather have ten motivated fighters than a hundred miserable fuckers.

load more comments (14 replies)