[Goose]

Interesting, it appears that the Ukrainians are trying to cut off the Russians in Izium.

I hope they pull it off.  If the Ukrainians cut off 22 Russian BTGs in Izium, that’s probably about 1/5 of the total Russian force.



BC

This is a good thing even if it doesn't result in the isolation of the Russian advance force because it forces the Russians to react to the Ukrainians instead of Russia dictating the location and nature of the next battle. It is that unplanned reactive activity that Russia has not shown the ability to execute. It also slows down Russian activity which can stretch out the logistics schedules, giving yet another chance to exploit a Russian weakness.

All actions in war carry risk, but not allowing your opponent to do what he wants and doing what he does not expect is the way to victory. This is especially true if you are the smaller force. Let's hope it works.

---

I was reading a four-day-old article on the Center for Strategic & International Studies site that noted that the Russians were attempting a "cauldron battle" (surrounding the Ukrainian army in Eastern Ukraine), and that the best Ukrainian move would be to launch a series of spoiling attacks that, ideally, would prevent Russians from building up forces.  Went on to state that Ukraine should transition from defensive war to offensive action in order to counterattack Russia's assailable flanks, which could cascade low morale among Russian forces into larger scale surrenders and combat losses.  This is necessary to break the Russian army, given Ukraine's destroyed economy and displaced millions.

I also saw that article a few days ago. I think it is correct in it's recommended actions, although I think it makes a virtue of necessity. Ukraine can't allow it's forces in the Donbas to be cut off, so they can't just sit there and allow themselves to be encircled. Counter-attacking the "arms" of the encircling forces is a way to prevent that. Doing so from cities may force/lure Russia to attempt to capture those cities, which requires forces that Russia probably can't spare/doesn't have. In Syria, the rebels were not in a position to ever do something like this, so Russia didn't have to worry about it. In Ukraine, they do, which allows Russia an opportunity to screw it up.

It has been clear from the start that the morale of the Russian forces is low. Ukraine needs to keep it that way. Even if the Russian forces don't start surrendering in mass, they may not fight very hard. That may be enough to cause the Russian army to implode at the top, as Putin purges generals who are not winning. Putin's morale can be a weapon too.

[Goose]

Interesting, it appears that the Ukrainians are trying to cut off the Russians in Izium.

I hope they pull it off.  If the Ukrainians cut off 22 Russian BTGs in Izium, that’s probably about 1/5 of the total Russian force.



BC

This is a good thing even if it doesn't result in the isolation of the Russian advance force because it forces the Russians to react to the Ukrainians instead of Russia dictating the location and nature of the next battle. It is that unplanned reactive activity that Russia has not shown the ability to execute. It also slows down Russian activity which can stretch out the logistics schedules, giving yet another chance to exploit a Russian weakness.

All actions in war carry risk, but not allowing your opponent to do what he wants and doing what he does not expect is the way to victory. This is especially true if you are the smaller force. Let's hope it works.

---

I was reading a four-day-old article on the Center for Strategic & International Studies site that noted that the Russians were attempting a "cauldron battle" (surrounding the Ukrainian army in Eastern Ukraine), and that the best Ukrainian move would be to launch a series of spoiling attacks that, ideally, would prevent Russians from building up forces.  Went on to state that Ukraine should transition from defensive war to offensive action in order to counterattack Russia's assailable flanks, which could cascade low morale among Russian forces into larger scale surrenders and combat losses.  This is necessary to break the Russian army, given Ukraine's destroyed economy and displaced millions.

I also saw that article a few days ago. I think it is correct in it's recommended actions, although I think it makes a virtue of necessity. Ukraine can't allow it's forces in the Donbas to be cut off, so they can't just sit there and allow themselves to be encircled. Counter-attacking the "arms" of the encircling forces is a way to prevent that. Doing so from cities may force/lure Russia to attempt to capture those cities, which requires forces that Russia probably can't spare/doesn't have. In Syria, the rebels were not in a position to ever do something like this, so Russia didn't have to worry about it. In Ukraine, they do, which allows Russia an opportunity to screw it up.

It has been clear from the start that the morale of the Russian forces is low. Ukraine needs to keep it that way. Even if the Russian forces don't start surrendering in mass, they may not fight very hard. That may be enough to cause the Russian army to implode at the top, as Putin purges generals who are not winning. Putin's morale can be a weapon too.