▲ 795 ▼ Top general says Ukrainian forces have captured almost as much Russian territory in the last week as Russia has land in Ukraine this year (www.businessinsider.com) submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 105 comments fedilink hide all child comments Ukrainian forces launched a surprise offensive into Russia's Kursk region last Tuesday. They have captured around 1,000 square kilometers of Russian land so far, Kyiv's top general said. That figure is almost as much territory as Russia has seized in Ukraine this year.
[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (7 children) I still wonder what their main objective is permalink fedilink source hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] suzune@ani.social 83 points 2 years ago (2 children) To disperse the army from the northeastern fronts. Russia is now forced to defend the entire border and cannot focus their attacks on their previous objectives. This is a good move. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Eximius@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (1 child) That, and they can potentially dismantle staging areas for planes and other infrastructure (in this case gas pipeline). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Both of those, and they force engagements with Russia to force them to throw men and materiel at it, further depleting Russian stockpiles. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I keep looking at maps and wondering how Ukraine haven't been routed and cut off in enemy territory with no supply lines. What they're doing seems borderline insane but more power to them! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Wdym? There's a road that goes right over the border to Sudzha. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago Leverage for negotiations. Their gains would be much less for the same expense, were they in areas where Russia expects to be attacked. It's the same pattern with bullies - they are always surprised when the victim is no longer forbidden to hit everywhere and not only where the bully took initiative. Worked in Artsakh in 90's too against Soviet and Azeri forces. Sadly the last few years (or two decades) have undone this largely. But just like in Artsakh, they shouldn't agree to any frozen status, or it will end just like for Artsakh. They should just keep advancing until Russia does something to guarantee their security. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Shard@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) I hope its not just for negotiating. I hope by breaking the Russian front, they have created openings that they can now exploit to tear down Russian defenses. Russia has created a really difficult frontal defense thats many layers of mine fields and defensive positions interlaced. But now their sides and backs are exposed and it's much easier for Ukraine to out flank the defense and unseat Russian defenses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why hope it's "not just for negotiating"? I mean why not use this as leverage to force the Russians to negotiate on Ukraine's terms? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shard@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because its a big tactical advantage that they opened a gaping hole in Russian defensive lines. Defenses are strongest in the direction they are facing. They are very weak from the sides and even worse from the rear. (Ukraine now has a lot of Russian rear it can take advantage of, from Kursk) If Ukraine has the manpower they could take this little bit of land, manoeuvre around the Russian lines, wreck their shit and get back a lot of land that was stolen from them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Palkom@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago Just to underline what this comment is saying: this type of breakthrough was the wet dream of WW1. The race to the sea, where the western front was established, was based on finding a flank and turning it. That was the objective of most warfare up to that point, and it ended because they ran out of ground on which to turn a flank. Then they couldn't meaningfully break through the defenses (or layers of, to be more accurate), like we see Ukraine doing in Kursk. If they turn the flank, they'll have routing russians for days, and have achieved maneuver warfare again. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think it's actually irrelevant really because I don't reasonably see a situation where Putin is going to be prepared to negotiate. He seems to see this war as his lasting legacy (there have been rumors that he might have some terminal condition, possibly cancer), he doesn't want his legacy to be defeat, he wants it to be victory even if it requires the death of about 80% of the population. The only way that Russia would negotiate is if Putin is no longer in charge. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mistic@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* Negotiations happen when one or, more likely, two sides don't see a way to improve their positions with military force. The rumors you're speaking of are a direct consequence of Russia being an autocracy. When you have a country whose ruler doesn't leave on their own (a dictator), people start speculating on when he's going to die. These rumors have been going around for about a decade, I believe, and are pretty much meaningless. Now, about "securing a legacy." I think it's much more trivial than that. Invading Ukraine was a good way to secure presidency for the next 1-2 terms and to eradicate opposition within the country. If that's the case, then, in a sense, he got what he wanted, although he likely also expected the war to be short and victorious (judging by the state media narrative at the time). That didn't happen. And now there are other issues at hand for him. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago In my completely unresearched opinion? "We just kept advancing, and it just kept working". permalink fedilink source parent [–] atro_city@fedia.io 5 points 2 years ago Could it be for the "peace" negotiations? "OK, we freeze the country's borders as they are right now, you let us join NATO and the EU, and we get what we captured". permalink fedilink source parent [–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago Mess around! Mess around! Putin's head is a footie ball! Mess around! permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago "Catch us if you can" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] suzune@ani.social 83 points 2 years ago (2 children) To disperse the army from the northeastern fronts. Russia is now forced to defend the entire border and cannot focus their attacks on their previous objectives. This is a good move. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Eximius@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (1 child) That, and they can potentially dismantle staging areas for planes and other infrastructure (in this case gas pipeline). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Both of those, and they force engagements with Russia to force them to throw men and materiel at it, further depleting Russian stockpiles. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I keep looking at maps and wondering how Ukraine haven't been routed and cut off in enemy territory with no supply lines. What they're doing seems borderline insane but more power to them! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Wdym? There's a road that goes right over the border to Sudzha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (1 child) That, and they can potentially dismantle staging areas for planes and other infrastructure (in this case gas pipeline). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Both of those, and they force engagements with Russia to force them to throw men and materiel at it, further depleting Russian stockpiles. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Both of those, and they force engagements with Russia to force them to throw men and materiel at it, further depleting Russian stockpiles. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I keep looking at maps and wondering how Ukraine haven't been routed and cut off in enemy territory with no supply lines. What they're doing seems borderline insane but more power to them! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Wdym? There's a road that goes right over the border to Sudzha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Wdym? There's a road that goes right over the border to Sudzha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago Leverage for negotiations. Their gains would be much less for the same expense, were they in areas where Russia expects to be attacked. It's the same pattern with bullies - they are always surprised when the victim is no longer forbidden to hit everywhere and not only where the bully took initiative. Worked in Artsakh in 90's too against Soviet and Azeri forces. Sadly the last few years (or two decades) have undone this largely. But just like in Artsakh, they shouldn't agree to any frozen status, or it will end just like for Artsakh. They should just keep advancing until Russia does something to guarantee their security. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Shard@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) I hope its not just for negotiating. I hope by breaking the Russian front, they have created openings that they can now exploit to tear down Russian defenses. Russia has created a really difficult frontal defense thats many layers of mine fields and defensive positions interlaced. But now their sides and backs are exposed and it's much easier for Ukraine to out flank the defense and unseat Russian defenses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why hope it's "not just for negotiating"? I mean why not use this as leverage to force the Russians to negotiate on Ukraine's terms? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shard@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because its a big tactical advantage that they opened a gaping hole in Russian defensive lines. Defenses are strongest in the direction they are facing. They are very weak from the sides and even worse from the rear. (Ukraine now has a lot of Russian rear it can take advantage of, from Kursk) If Ukraine has the manpower they could take this little bit of land, manoeuvre around the Russian lines, wreck their shit and get back a lot of land that was stolen from them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Palkom@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago Just to underline what this comment is saying: this type of breakthrough was the wet dream of WW1. The race to the sea, where the western front was established, was based on finding a flank and turning it. That was the objective of most warfare up to that point, and it ended because they ran out of ground on which to turn a flank. Then they couldn't meaningfully break through the defenses (or layers of, to be more accurate), like we see Ukraine doing in Kursk. If they turn the flank, they'll have routing russians for days, and have achieved maneuver warfare again. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think it's actually irrelevant really because I don't reasonably see a situation where Putin is going to be prepared to negotiate. He seems to see this war as his lasting legacy (there have been rumors that he might have some terminal condition, possibly cancer), he doesn't want his legacy to be defeat, he wants it to be victory even if it requires the death of about 80% of the population. The only way that Russia would negotiate is if Putin is no longer in charge. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mistic@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* Negotiations happen when one or, more likely, two sides don't see a way to improve their positions with military force. The rumors you're speaking of are a direct consequence of Russia being an autocracy. When you have a country whose ruler doesn't leave on their own (a dictator), people start speculating on when he's going to die. These rumors have been going around for about a decade, I believe, and are pretty much meaningless. Now, about "securing a legacy." I think it's much more trivial than that. Invading Ukraine was a good way to secure presidency for the next 1-2 terms and to eradicate opposition within the country. If that's the case, then, in a sense, he got what he wanted, although he likely also expected the war to be short and victorious (judging by the state media narrative at the time). That didn't happen. And now there are other issues at hand for him. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why hope it's "not just for negotiating"? I mean why not use this as leverage to force the Russians to negotiate on Ukraine's terms? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shard@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because its a big tactical advantage that they opened a gaping hole in Russian defensive lines. Defenses are strongest in the direction they are facing. They are very weak from the sides and even worse from the rear. (Ukraine now has a lot of Russian rear it can take advantage of, from Kursk) If Ukraine has the manpower they could take this little bit of land, manoeuvre around the Russian lines, wreck their shit and get back a lot of land that was stolen from them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Palkom@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago Just to underline what this comment is saying: this type of breakthrough was the wet dream of WW1. The race to the sea, where the western front was established, was based on finding a flank and turning it. That was the objective of most warfare up to that point, and it ended because they ran out of ground on which to turn a flank. Then they couldn't meaningfully break through the defenses (or layers of, to be more accurate), like we see Ukraine doing in Kursk. If they turn the flank, they'll have routing russians for days, and have achieved maneuver warfare again. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think it's actually irrelevant really because I don't reasonably see a situation where Putin is going to be prepared to negotiate. He seems to see this war as his lasting legacy (there have been rumors that he might have some terminal condition, possibly cancer), he doesn't want his legacy to be defeat, he wants it to be victory even if it requires the death of about 80% of the population. The only way that Russia would negotiate is if Putin is no longer in charge. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mistic@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* Negotiations happen when one or, more likely, two sides don't see a way to improve their positions with military force. The rumors you're speaking of are a direct consequence of Russia being an autocracy. When you have a country whose ruler doesn't leave on their own (a dictator), people start speculating on when he's going to die. These rumors have been going around for about a decade, I believe, and are pretty much meaningless. Now, about "securing a legacy." I think it's much more trivial than that. Invading Ukraine was a good way to secure presidency for the next 1-2 terms and to eradicate opposition within the country. If that's the case, then, in a sense, he got what he wanted, although he likely also expected the war to be short and victorious (judging by the state media narrative at the time). That didn't happen. And now there are other issues at hand for him. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Shard@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because its a big tactical advantage that they opened a gaping hole in Russian defensive lines. Defenses are strongest in the direction they are facing. They are very weak from the sides and even worse from the rear. (Ukraine now has a lot of Russian rear it can take advantage of, from Kursk) If Ukraine has the manpower they could take this little bit of land, manoeuvre around the Russian lines, wreck their shit and get back a lot of land that was stolen from them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Palkom@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago Just to underline what this comment is saying: this type of breakthrough was the wet dream of WW1. The race to the sea, where the western front was established, was based on finding a flank and turning it. That was the objective of most warfare up to that point, and it ended because they ran out of ground on which to turn a flank. Then they couldn't meaningfully break through the defenses (or layers of, to be more accurate), like we see Ukraine doing in Kursk. If they turn the flank, they'll have routing russians for days, and have achieved maneuver warfare again. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Palkom@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago Just to underline what this comment is saying: this type of breakthrough was the wet dream of WW1. The race to the sea, where the western front was established, was based on finding a flank and turning it. That was the objective of most warfare up to that point, and it ended because they ran out of ground on which to turn a flank. Then they couldn't meaningfully break through the defenses (or layers of, to be more accurate), like we see Ukraine doing in Kursk. If they turn the flank, they'll have routing russians for days, and have achieved maneuver warfare again. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think it's actually irrelevant really because I don't reasonably see a situation where Putin is going to be prepared to negotiate. He seems to see this war as his lasting legacy (there have been rumors that he might have some terminal condition, possibly cancer), he doesn't want his legacy to be defeat, he wants it to be victory even if it requires the death of about 80% of the population. The only way that Russia would negotiate is if Putin is no longer in charge. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mistic@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* Negotiations happen when one or, more likely, two sides don't see a way to improve their positions with military force. The rumors you're speaking of are a direct consequence of Russia being an autocracy. When you have a country whose ruler doesn't leave on their own (a dictator), people start speculating on when he's going to die. These rumors have been going around for about a decade, I believe, and are pretty much meaningless. Now, about "securing a legacy." I think it's much more trivial than that. Invading Ukraine was a good way to secure presidency for the next 1-2 terms and to eradicate opposition within the country. If that's the case, then, in a sense, he got what he wanted, although he likely also expected the war to be short and victorious (judging by the state media narrative at the time). That didn't happen. And now there are other issues at hand for him. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mistic@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* Negotiations happen when one or, more likely, two sides don't see a way to improve their positions with military force. The rumors you're speaking of are a direct consequence of Russia being an autocracy. When you have a country whose ruler doesn't leave on their own (a dictator), people start speculating on when he's going to die. These rumors have been going around for about a decade, I believe, and are pretty much meaningless. Now, about "securing a legacy." I think it's much more trivial than that. Invading Ukraine was a good way to secure presidency for the next 1-2 terms and to eradicate opposition within the country. If that's the case, then, in a sense, he got what he wanted, although he likely also expected the war to be short and victorious (judging by the state media narrative at the time). That didn't happen. And now there are other issues at hand for him. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago In my completely unresearched opinion? "We just kept advancing, and it just kept working". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 5 points 2 years ago Could it be for the "peace" negotiations? "OK, we freeze the country's borders as they are right now, you let us join NATO and the EU, and we get what we captured". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago Mess around! Mess around! Putin's head is a footie ball! Mess around! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago "Catch us if you can" permalink fedilink source parent