[Goose]

Russia is unquestionably a better army now than then.

Uhhhh I very much question that. Russia is a much worse army now than they were at the start of the war. Their troops are fewer in number and more poorly trained. They are using poorer quality and less numerous equipment. Their best precision munitions have almost no stockpiles and are pretty much being used as they are produced.

They are better at using their poorly equipped and poorly trained military now than a year ago, perhaps.

Your first points reflects not how "good" the Russian military is, but rather its size and equipment. These factors do matter. However, having lots of equipment you can't competently employ is of little use. Russia has already made that mistake and it is a "sunk cost". These factors may result in Russia losing the war, but are not a reflection on how the Russians are using their reduced assets.

Russia is clearly using their troops much more effectively now. They made a lot of mistakes early on and asked their forces to do things they simply couldn't execute. They don't do that now, after paying in blood for stupidity. The BTG is a thing of the past. There is not as much churn in the leadership positions because they have identified their effective leaders. Their ability to plan what the can execute and exploit success is much better. They don't line up large conveys of military assets to be destroyed. They don't routinely make "stupid" mistakes, which they clearly did early in the war. They also aren't relying on mercenary troops that are of questionable loyalty to the government. Casualties are high, but not so high they can't be replaced, at least for a few years. The VKS is finally being used effectively to support ground offensives. Possibly most importantly Russia has mounted a very, very effective GPS jamming capability that is very seriously degrading Ukrainian precision guided weapons over large areas. Obviously, this is "of immense proportions" because precision weapons were a way for Ukraine to compensate for smaller numbers.

Ukraine's army is worse off now too though. This attack on Kharkiv is probably mostly to occupy Ukrainian reserves and prevent their deployment to the Donbas. Russia has a lot of men near Belgorod but Ukrainian defensive lines are stronger here than almost anywhere else. Russia doesn't seem to have made much progress thus far.

Agree with this analysis. The primary purpose of this attack is to "fix" Ukrainian assets in place. There are a couple of ways to look at this. One is that Russia is using this attack for a dual purpose. It does fix the Ukrainians in place, but it is also a good way to "blood" newly raised troops that will be transferred elsewhere soon to make way for the new class of contract. Historically, Russia has done this a lot.

It is arguable that "fixing" the Ukrainian troops in place isn't necessary, because Ukraine has kept these areas strong even without actual attacks. This makes the "blooding" aspect more probable. I don't know the composition of these units so I can't confirm this factor. Arguably, Russia shouldn't have executed an attack to fix the Ukrainians unless and until Ukraine started to transfer troops elsewhere. That creates a "double whammy". You hit units that are moving (which is easier than dug in defenders). A breakthrough is possible, but even if it doesn't happen Russia would do damage. This is the argument that if your opponent is doing what you want, don't disturb him.

[Goose]

Russia is unquestionably a better army now than then.

Uhhhh I very much question that. Russia is a much worse army now than they were at the start of the war. Their troops are fewer in number and more poorly trained. They are using poorer quality and less numerous equipment. Their best precision munitions have almost no stockpiles and are pretty much being used as they are produced.

They are better at using their poorly equipped and poorly trained military now than a year ago, perhaps.

Your first points reflects not how "good" the Russian military is, but rather its size and equipment. These factors do matter. However, having lots of equipment you can't competently employ is of little use. Russia has already made that mistake and it is a "sunk cost". These factors may result in Russia losing the war, but are not a reflection on how the Russians are using their reduced assets.

Russia is clearly using their troops much more effectively now. They made a lot of mistakes early on and asked their forces to do things they simply couldn't execute. They don't do that now, after paying in blood for stupidity. The BTG is a thing of the past. There is not as much churn in the leadership positions because they have identified their effective leaders. Their ability to plan what the can execute and exploit success is much better. They don't line up large conveys of military assets to be destroyed. They don't routinely make "stupid" mistakes, which they clearly did early in the war. They also aren't relying on mercenary troops that are of questionable loyalty to the government. Casualties are high, but not so high they can't be replaced, at least for a few years. The VKS is finally being used effectively to support ground offensives. Possibly most importantly Russia has mounted a very, very effective GPS jamming capability that is very seriously degrading Ukrainian precision guided weapons over large areas. Obviously, this is "of immense proportions" because precision weapons were a way for Ukraine to compensate for smaller numbers.

Ukraine's army is worse off now too though. This attack on Kharkiv is probably mostly to occupy Ukrainian reserves and prevent their deployment to the Donbas. Russia has a lot of men near Belgorod but Ukrainian defensive lines are stronger here than almost anywhere else. Russia doesn't seem to have made much progress thus far.

Agree with this analysis. The primary purpose of this attack is to "fix" Ukrainian assets in place. There are a couple of ways to look at this. One is that Russia is using this attack for a dual purpose. It does fix the Ukrainians in place, but it is also a good way to "blood" newly raised troops that will be transferred elsewhere soon to make way for the new class of contract. Historically, Russia has done this a lot.

It is arguable that "fixing" the Ukrainian troops in place isn't necessary, because Ukraine has kept these areas strong even without actual attacks. This makes the "blooding" aspect more probable. I don't know the composition of these units so I can't confirm this factor. Arguably, Russia shouldn't have executed an attack to fix the Ukrainians unless and until Ukraine started to transfer troops elsewhere. That creates a "double whammy". You hit units that are moving (which is easier than dug in defenders). A breakthrough is possible, but even if it doesn't happen Russia would do damage. This is the argument that if your opponent is doing what you want, don't disturb him.