Retreat from Kursk: Ukrainian troops tell of catastrophe and panic
Posted by Leopatto@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 322 comments
Posted by Leopatto@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 322 comments
DeaglanOMulrooney@reddit
I predict that, in the next 24 hours, somebody is going to come and say that this BBC article is pro-Putin propaganda because it is not in line with the Ukrainian Armed Forces version of events.
Nethlem@reddit
Wasn't within 24 hours, and it wasn't "somebody", but full-on Reuters, with most Redditors joining in.
NearABE@reddit
Ukraine was never interested in actually taking Kursk. Diverting the Russian military was always the purpose of that operation.
The border is quite long. It would make more sense to find a weak point or maybe two and the create a new pocket their. There is no reason to hold a position if the situation is not advantageous in some way.
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
Kursk was chosen because it was very lightly defended, there is nothing there of any strategic value. People guessed that zelensky wanted to draw troops away from the donbass front, but that never happened because there are nearly as many volunteer troops in Russia as there are in Ukraine.
Other people thought that occupyingee part of kursk was maybe going to be a bargaining chip, but they never used it to bargain. They just stayed and slowly got whittled down, wasting a lot of their best men and equipment on what seems to have been a completely pointless exercise.
More cynical people theorized that zelensky might have deliberately sacrificed them, seeing as how they were mostly the highly trained and competent extremists, who also had the best equipment. Those fighters were very likely to be a problem for any post war government, and especially to a Jewish leader giving away land to Russia. They don't see the need to ever surrender or make concessions.
NearABE@reddit
Reporting from Ukraine claims it did exactly what it was supposed to: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cdEs_1OdCFg
That is not an unbiased source obviously. I would claim that these things are almost always a “gray area”. Both Ukraine and Russia relocated troops to Kursk.
Hitting a weakly defended area, punching through the line, and causing chaos is usually a formula that wins wars.
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
Yes, it would have made sense if there was some objective. But they were contained in a very unimportant area, the line they punched through was just conscripts because there was nothing to defend there. They made it a few dozen km before they were contained, and then gradually worn down until the remaining troops are either trapped or fleeing without their equipment, because they weren't evacuated in time. Actually there was never an order to withdraw.
If there was an objective, you would think they would safely withdraw the troops after it was achieved instead of leaving them to be destroyed. What objective required them to stay until they were inevitably defeated?
They didn't draw away or reduce any Russian forces in Ukraine, which zelensky would have known wouldn't happen, because Russia had more than adequate numbers still in Russia to handle the invasion, several hundred thousand volunteers and 2 million conscripts.
It was never used as a bargaining chip.
In the end, it deemed very pointless.
It could just be exactly what it looks like, a way to decimate the elite extremist troops that are the biggest impediment to ending the wag and the biggest danger to any post war government and zelensky, should he give up land to Russia, which is bound to happen.
ShootmansNC@reddit
Kursk NPP was the objective according to Syrskyi, but they didn't get anywhere close to it so they had to settle for Pyaterochka.
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
That would have made sense but they clearly didn't send enough men an equipment to hold an area that long with an extended supply line.
I read somewhere they would have needed 3x more men to reach the plant and keep a supply route open. But even then, Russia would likely just send 3x more troops as well. The end result would have been the same.
They should have used it as a bargaining chip right away instead of waiting for losses to add up, imho
ShootmansNC@reddit
They should have taken the L and retreated from Kursk asap to save as much men and material they could, but Ukraine is always putting PR ahead of the reality on the ground.
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
I can't wait for this war to be over, it's really painful seeing them flail about with no kind of plan. It's like they're just waiting to collapse.
ShootmansNC@reddit
They're currently wasting troops and vehicles trying to get into Belgorod.
NearABE@reddit
Wasting life fighting a war.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
That's not what Zelensky nor Syrskiy said, they've clearly stated that they wanted to keep this territory up to the negotiations in order to trade it for Russian held territory in Ukraine.
It also didn't actually divert much of anything, as Ukrainian losses in territory after Kursk operation accelerated.
https://static.nv.ua/shared/system/MediaInfographic/images/000/023/043/original/l2R3Qqu9NTq7aIn0SqrM.jpeg?q=85&stamp=20241015163611&f=webp
NearABE@reddit
Imagine if I had suggested “use of buggies and motorcycles” would be listed as causing a major shift in combat a few years ago.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Yeah, I would call your source garbage, and to be honest the source I've provided is garbage. But usually if extremely biased sources admit something that is going against their narrative, it is usually true. So that's why I've provided this source.
NearABE@reddit
Is your source garbage? It is possible that everything else has been wrecked. The soldiers on buggies and cycles have access to mechanized transportation. They can arrive with more ammunition and supplies than an enemy arriving with only what he can carry on his back.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Nah. Proportionally, buggies and bikes are largely insignificant in Russian logistical operations. There were just a few videos that were circulating at the time, so obviously they latched on to them without any actual research.
NearABE@reddit
Google search AI says they just bought 2100 buggies from Chinese sources in December. Another article says that the repair units are assembling buggies from engines salvaged from other vehicles.
Logistics happen on roads, rails, pipelines etc. The buggies are carrying Russian infantry into combat. They are performing the role of the armored personnel carrier sans armor.
There is an elegant efficiency here that deserves some respect. If we disregard the bloody mess and just look at effectiveness there is potential.
Turgius_Lupus@reddit
The argument, is that since drone will ruin the day of everything regardless of the protection it has, you may as well provide a smaller target with less potential casualties to reduce drone efficiency.
Particularly since you cant jam drones with fiberoptic spools.
NearABE@reddit
It is not just smaller. Buggies can move fast. The passengers can carry shotguns and look around for drones.
Drones are a type of aircraft. Soon there will be specialized drone interceptors. We could also deploy self driving skids with decoy passengers. The armored combat vehicles are costing multiple $ millions each. The decoys could carry real ammunition and supplies.
Turgius_Lupus@reddit
The problem with self driving anything is jamming. I know Russia has released vids of experiments with self driving drones, from old T-55's filled with explosives' driven into Ukrainian trenches (Oryx considers that a Ukrainian kill BTW), to attempts at fully remote controlled tanks, to medic evac units, to remote control weapon platforms, but very little of it seems to be useful in actual combat conditions vs having a human present. They have had a lot of success with the Turtle tanks however as a means to attract and deplete FPV drones. But the fact a $600.00 drone can mission kill a 10 mill Tank or 5 mill APC full of men still hasn't really donned on the western public.
NearABE@reddit
I believe “jamming” means disrupting the communications. That matters if a human operator is controlling the vehicle. Fully self driving cars are not remotely controlled. There are flying fiber optic drones which are immune to jamming. That should be easy to deploy on the ground over short distances. Vehicles that are moving can use line of sight laser communication.
Turgius_Lupus@reddit
Russia is able to Jam fire and forget weapons like Javlins, GPS, ect and transmitters would also be an obvious target. The reality is electronic warfare makes automation of such things impossible unless you are controlling it by a fiberoptic spool like Russia has done with drones. But that will be a lot more difficult with a ground vehicle vs sticking a large spool on a drone so it doesn't get caught on something.
NearABE@reddit
If we are using a spool the fiber will not get caught on anything. It just lays on the ground.
A fully autonomous drone does not need a wire or a transmission.
GPS is jammed but that is done by jamming the satellite signals.
Do you have a source for the Javelin countermeasure claim? It uses imaging as a guidance system. The guidance is entirely inside of the missile. The shooting crew can move to cover right after pulling the trigger.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
I've you've seen any videos from the frontlines you'd see that this is not what's happening.
tu_tu_tu@reddit
Nah. Some extremely biased sources tends either to be written by doomscrollers or to be driven by gaining clicks from doomscrollers.
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
Then why did they try to hold it for 200 days?
no_u_mang@reddit
As a potential bargaining chip, talking point and resource sink
damien24101982@reddit
i dont think russians would ever even consider that a bargaining chip in the first place, it was favourable for them to grind ukraine down there as well.
AlbertoRossonero@reddit
They sent a lot of their best and most experienced troops their I’m sure once they consolidated their defenses it was a bit of a blessing to grind down their best soldiers given how badly their new recruits have been doing.
Oatcake47@reddit
Then the USA shat the bed and rolled over for tummy tickles from Putler.
Nethlem@reddit
During the last 3 years there were several opportunities when Ukraine would have had something to bargain with during negotiations:
2022, after the way overextended Russian military had to fall back, no negotiations for a ceasefire because Western diplomats considered negotiations with Russia to be "naive".
In 2023 with the not so successful Summer Offensive, would have been a good opportunity for at least a ceasefire, instead people insisted Ukraine will take Crimea back by force, and anybody who even brought negotiations up was insulted as "Putin something"
2024, after taking Kurks still no real attempts at diplomacy, sat on that fat bargaining chip for months, didn't do anything with it.
Only for a new US government to actually re-establish diplomatic relations with Russia, aka doing the bare minimum to get something like a ceasefire by getting both sides talking.
And your take on all of that, is once again; "Omg negotiations is rolling over for Putler! We will fight to the last Ukrainian!"
nj0tr@reddit
I think you are missing the most important ones:
before 2021 - implement Minsk agreements (and keep all territories except Crimea). 2021 - agree to not seek NATO membership (and still have a slim chance to keep DNR and LNR) 2022 (just before operation start) - agree to DNR and LNR independence and to not seek NATO membership (and keep all the other territories) 2022 (after operation started) - agree to cede DNR and LNR and to not seek NATO membership (and keep all the other territories) - they actually almost agreed to this in Istanbul
I can only see their position deteriorating over time due to unwillingness to accept the reality and negotiate in good faith.
Nethlem@reddit
If we want to go that far back, then there are plenty of other points in history when diplomacy was willfully destroyed.
Euromaidan should have been ended by a peaceful transition deal leading to early re-elections, the three opposition leaders and at the time president Yanukovych shook hands on that and had a signed deal.
Part of the deal was also for the Yanukovych government to pull back most of the riot cops from Kiyv who were protecting the parliament, the ministry of interior and the presidential administration.
The Yanukovych government held up its part of the deal, pulling back most of the riot cops, which two out of the three opposition leaders, these two, then took it as an opportunity to attack and take over these now mostly unprotected institutions with the help of groups like Right Sector, forcing Yanukovych to flee.
That was when the elected government, and president, of Ukraine was overthrown in 2014, kicking off a civil war, between Euromaidan supporters and Yanukovych loyalists, which has by now escalated into a full blown war.
US government propaganda didn't waste a single day before already seeding the narrative how there allegedly was no coup in Ukraine, and there's most certainly no civil war, all that is just "inflammatory language" spread by Russia.
The same US government propaganda also made fun of the Russian claim that West Ukrainian nationalists were attacking East Ukrainian settlements, once again claiming it's all Russian lies.
Two years later those same Ukrainian nationalists would then end up bragging in interviews about doing exactly what Russia said they did.
Heck, even up to late 2021 Russia was still trying to solve the situation at the negotiation table by bringing concrete demands there, plenty of observers correctly interpreted this already back then as what it was: An ultimatum
But instead of taking that opportunity to start meaningful negotiations with Russia, the "collective West" mostly ignored it, got outraged about how Russia could dare to try to start negotiations by going into them with maximum demands.
Which any good negotiator does, so they have leverage to give up as part of the negotiations, that way both sides can meet at a "middle ground" that leaves them equally unhappy. Instead, Russia's original list of demands was made out as "Putin's plans to take over all of Europe!".
AlbertoRossonero@reddit
Breath of fresh air honestly, thank you.
crusadertank@reddit
No the loss at Kursk was already set in stone before Trump had anything to do with it
Russia have been closing in on the supply lines since Biden was in charge. And all the setup for their attack was done before Trump had anything to do with this
this_dudeagain@reddit
I mean they were throwing North Koreans into the grinder for it. Strange times
AlbertoRossonero@reddit
Why wouldn’t they make use of their defense pact? Less of their people in the line of danger is a good thing for them. Russia handled it very well and didn’t over commit to the initial assault. Their managing of the war at this point is far better than Ukraine who lost invaluable experienced troops, hardware and vehicles in the retreat, and the little bit of land they still held for leverage once the trump administration took over.
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
It was a pretty stupid mission and always doomed to fail. They never had the men nor resources to do anything other than go to kursk to die. All they did was taken a lightly defended non-strategic area, and then gradually lose men and equipment until they collapsed. It's the US that helped them last so long, which was a mistake. The US isn't a fairy godmother, play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Are you guys still not over your TDS episodes?
steauengeglase@reddit
Man, Trump and his supporters are the ones doing the crazy mental gymnastics. On Friday they were tossing around maps saying Ukraine was so encircled that the Russians were half way to Kyiv, when that directly contradicted Russian sources, because the god-emperor must always be right.
Truth is, Trump just wants to burn whatever negotiating leverage Ukraine has, because he only wants himself and Putin at the table. He has an infantile, idealized version of Putin living in his head.
Golvellius@reddit
I wish... he has in his head the image of Putin that a bratty bottom would have of his big bear friend
BillyYank2008@reddit
The real TDS is the insanity of Trump glazers who have embraced every deranged thing he does and act like it's common sense.
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Compared to lunacy brought by the Democrats? Yes, yes it is.
BillyYank2008@reddit
Glad we agree the Trumpers are worse.
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Than Democrats? That's hardly possible since Democrats made every effort possible to reach as far into insanity as they could.
Anyone less insane is automatically better.
BillyYank2008@reddit
I said the real TDS comes from Trumpers.
You said. "Compared to the lunacy caused by Democrats? Yes, yes it is."
I know reading comprehension isn't a strong point among Trumpers, but maybe read more carefully next time you want to respond.
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Ah yes, the typical "we are so much better and smarter than you" attitude that led to Democrats losing everything and now Trump is dismantling everything tainted by the progressives over past decades.
Some self-reflection is in order if you ever think about getting into power again.
MonsutAnpaSelo@reddit
is TDS a telly program?
Eexoduis@reddit
Comrade! How is the weather in Moscow today?
TheHeroYouNeed247@reddit
It is always interesting to see Russian apologists spouting the same defensive nonsense as US republicans.
Eexoduis@reddit
They aren’t a Russian apologist, just a Russian
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
You Brits are funny.
TheHeroYouNeed247@reddit
Stop by a comedy show on your next tour of our famous churches.
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
Do those comedians have a licence?
TheHeroYouNeed247@reddit
Yes, it's called the PEL, public entertainment license, they may also need a PRS and a alcohol licence if they want to sell drinks.
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
(I don't get this one)
TheHeroYouNeed247@reddit
You had to be European.
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
I am? I don't get the connection between comedy show and churches.shows
Love_JWZ@reddit
Is it TDS to say that Trump being elected is being a huge aid Putin?
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Hopefully, the one to benefit the most from the peace will be Ukraine.
Love_JWZ@reddit
This does not answer my question. Is it TDS to state that Trump being elected is more beneficial to Putin than Harris getting elected, because Trump has said that Zelensky is a dictator that started this war, and has disrupted weapon and intelligence deliveries?
Is that a form of TDS, like something that you consider a mental illness, or no? And why?
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Trump is blabbermouth. Most of the decisions are made by the state apparatus, by career bureaucrats. Foreign policy doesn't change like the presidents do.
If Harris was elected, the same thing would happen, just expressed using a different kind of word salad.
Trump vs Zelensky was absolutely expected to happen, don't forget the whole impeachment thing and how Zelensky threw his lot with the Democrats, even actively campaigning with them against Trump.
Trump holds grudges like no other and it was only a matter of time before the would lash at Zelensky.
Love_JWZ@reddit
You dodged the question again, so let me try again: is it TDS to say Trump’s election benefits Putin when he’s calling Zelensky a dictator, disrupting aid, and openly questioning support for Ukraine?
Yes or no?
BillyYank2008@reddit
You know Boris Alcoholikov from St. Petersburg isn't going to answer your question because it would either be transparently false and give him away as someone who is biased towards Russia or he will be saying something that his bosses will be angry about.
Love_JWZ@reddit
The people unable to answer questions, are the ones that need to be asked the most.
ScaryShadowx@reddit
You're absolutely out of touch with US politics if you think that is the case today. Trump has removed almost every career bureaucrat who had a clue and didn't kiss his ring and replaced them with people who will blindly do what he wants. Swathes if government offices including senior staff are refusing to follow arguably illegal orders and are being fired and replaced with people with zero experience who will just say yes to Trump.
The government is now alienating their closest allies who they have had decades of friendship with, talking about annexing allied countries, starting trade wars with their closest trading partners, completely ignoring the courts, and using government resources to go after whoever Trump deems a personal enemy who slighted him.
This is nowhere close to business as usual for the US and it's definitely Trump in control.
ParticularClassroom7@reddit
Not really. it's all smoke and mirrors, circus for Trump's voters, kabuki theater to lure Russia away from China.
What has changed in American policy since "I will stop the war in 24 hours" came into office? Nothing.
What's changed since the public falling out in the White House? Nothing.
Weapons flow, Ukraine is still losing men, weapon and land day by day. Now there's a ceasefire proposal that the Russians will never agree to. Europe has agreed to spend a trillion EUR on rearmament, more pressure to take the Russian reserve in Euroclear.
China rhetoric becomes stronger by the day, economic war coming. What always follow an economic war? You can read history by yourself.
runnydiarrhea@reddit
It was a factual statement, hope this helps.
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
Then that means diverting the russian military wasn't the goal of the operation
no_u_mang@reddit
You seem stupid.
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
I guess all the Ukrainians in the article are stupid too then
no_u_mang@reddit
Another flawed and deeply unintelligent inference.
Love_JWZ@reddit
Something can have multiple goals, actually
WombatusMighty@reddit
Because it massively hurt the Russian regime. Russia kept wasting ten thousands of soldiers and thousands of vehicles, massively lost face among the russian ultra-nationalists and had to beg for more soldiers from North Korea.
This could hardly have went better for Ukraine.
Hyndis@reddit
Russia signed a defense treaty with North Korea shortly before the Kursk incursion. There was no begging, NK was happy to come to the aid of its new ally.
For one, this strengthened the trade deal where NK trade munitions for the fuel and food it desperately needs and of which Russia has large surpluses. Secondly, it gets NK's military real, genuine combat experience which is the best kind of training a military can get. And third, NK gets a few fewer mouths to feed, which is a good thing because of its food shortages (for NK's leadership, that is).
Kim Jong Un comes out way ahead in the deal.
SpeakerEnder1@reddit
There were certainly some NK military members in Kursk. How many of them saw front line action? Probably not many. They pushed that narrative for months and months, put huge bounties on capturing a NK. Ukrainian finally found some vaguely asian looking Russians to drag out before people found out they weren't North Korean, then I guess they captured maybe two, but who really knows if they were. They had to make up all sorts of stories about North Koreans blowing themselves up, or Russians going back and cutting their faces off so the Ukrainians couldn't prove their nationality. They are still claiming they killed half of this 12,000 man front line force from North Korean, but couldn't provide any proof. Even the Ukrainians fighting in Kursk said it was a bullshit story.
Hyndis@reddit
From the article:
and
There were about an equal number of North Korean troops as there were Ukrainian troops, plus another 58,000 - 70,000 Russian troops (I don't know if the BBC's reporting is including NK's troops in the 70k number or if its 70k Russians plus 12k NK's, the wording is ambiguous).
The sheer number of troops opposing Ukraine means that regardless of their quality of training and equipment they cannot be ignored, and clearly it has a devastating impact on Ukraine's fortunes on that battlefield as evidenced by the full retreat by Ukraine's army.
Even if all of NK's troops are infantrymen with rifles only and nothing else, thats still 12k troops that must be countered, and Ukraine lacks the manpower to content with them plus all of the Russians.
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
You don't think they liked being able to use non Russian soldiers?
ScaryShadowx@reddit
Yes, all those killed Ukrainian soldiers was a massive win for Ukraine.
rowida_00@reddit
I’m not entirely sure if you’re being serious or if this is face of being divorced from reality 😂
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Maybe stop reading Ukrainian propaganda and use more neutral sources?
WombatusMighty@reddit
Okay Ivan, keep sniffing the copium.
Western_Revolution86@reddit
Lmao u are the one trying to spin this as a victory.
And of course, if u don't believe that every Ukrainian is killing ten Russians before orderly retreating u must be a Russian bot.
I wonder how much of a shock will be for people like u when peace finally comes and Ukraine is not holding Moscow.
Statharas@reddit
Because this is the only instance in over 80 years where another country occupied a part of Russia
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
You would think by now that other countries would learn it's goes very poorly for them after they extend to far and then have to retreat.
Ukraine is just another one for the list
HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit
I mean, this is a question of holding the line a few miles in, not a march to Moscow.
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
Sure, Ukraine wasn't able to do either.
It's the same as Napoleon, just Ukraine wasn't able get as far before they were out of momentum
HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit
Not for the same reason though.
Statharas@reddit
Yes, tactical genius, it is absolutely an overextension on a frontline with over 1.5m total casualties
Kursk was never an overextension for Ukraine, it was for Russia
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
Who's retreating again?
crusadertank@reddit
Depends on if you consider the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria a country or not
Since they invaded and took over and occupied areas of Dagestan.
MarderFucher@reddit
10k troops held down 30-40k, in final stages as much as 50-60k troops. I'd say that in itself was a goal and achievement.
Angry_drunken_robot@reddit
Where are you getting those numbers?
MarderFucher@reddit
Various sources, but Mark Takacs's videos are some of the best in the field.
Angry_drunken_robot@reddit
The obvious question is where they get their numbers. In the very video you link to the comments are rife with complaints about the numbers that they use and where he gets them from.
So, basically you have no idea if these numbers are correct.
You are trusting someone else and believing them to be truthful, when that cannot be validated.
If you have any other sources, I'd love to see them.
You are of course free to your own opinion, but lets be frank, what you have is not factual. It's an opinion. A highly suspect opinion.
damien24101982@reddit
im curious too.
Angry_drunken_robot@reddit
I'm beginning to think that they pulled those numbers from a place that would be between their legs and behind their taint.
Nethlem@reddit
Apparently it also wasn't interested in using Kursk as a bargaining chip for negotiations to have at least something to negotiatie with.
Same with the gains from the Summer offensive 2023; Would have make for excellent position to actually engage in diplomacy.
Sure, that's totally what's gonna happen, this ain't no rout, it's a tactical retreat /s
The only realistic advantage the Kursk operation gave Ukraine was to use it in negotiations. Besides that territorial bargaining the place held practically zero economic or military value to any side.
And it won't be much different if Ukraine manages to spearhead somewhere else across the border into Russia in any meaningful way.
Tho I will not be surprised if Ukraine started a whole bunch of small and fast, but unsustainable, raids across the border, and have Western media inflate it to way more than it amounts to, i.e. the raids on Belogrod in the past.
__Clever_Username__@reddit
>Same with the gains from the Summer offensive 2023; Would have make for excellent position to actually engage in diplomacy.
... What gains? We know now that Ukraine did not achieve it's minimum main objective (capturing Tokmak) according to various western news sources. It did manage to capture a few dozen tiny hamlets in the grey zone I suppose, although virtually all of those have been retaken now by Russia.
Nethlem@reddit
Just because the gains weren't what tons of propaganda wanted everybody them to be, doesn't mean that there were no gains.
Particularly with all the media circus and hype prior and during the summer offensive: It would have been a good opportunity for both sides for a ceasefire while still keeping their "face" somewhat.
Ukraine could have acted like the negotiations where the result of its amazing summer offensive putting Russia in a bind.
But Russia might have needed some convincing because back then it had not yet taken enough of Donbas to keep Donetsk out of Ukrainian artillery range. Tho, I guess that could have happened as part of a trade; Ukraine gets Tokmak, Russia gets Donetsk not getting shelled anymore, that might have worked.
moonorplanet@reddit
Ukraine literally started believing their own propaganda and went into Kursk to embarrass Putin and make him look weak. They literally believed that Putin as a narcissist would divert his troops to save face.
ashy_larrys_elbow@reddit
That actually made a lot of sense… until they tried to hold it for too damn long, unnecessarily wasting men and equipment. We probably won’t know the details of these decisions until years from now, but in the moment, this looks like a blunder.
Hyndis@reddit
Agreed. It at first seemed like an attempt to turn a war of attrition into a war of maneuver, but as soon as Ukraine started blowing bridges at the sight of the first Russian it lost any advantage in maneuver and could no longer flank Russia's front line. It should have immediately withdrawn while Russia was still repairing the bridges.
BurialA12@reddit
They've done border raid in belgorod outskirts many times, just treat it as another. But they decided to bunker down this time
NearABE@reddit
Do we have any accurate assessment of how much effort Russia wasted trying to take it back?
Kaymish_@reddit
No accurate assessments, but from looking at how the other fronts kept grinding forwards at about the same rate of acceleration it didn't waste much effort.
The Russians basically did what I predicted when it first happened. They sealed it up and attrited the Ukrainians while focusing on the rest of the war.
NearABE@reddit
The key question is whether Russia is now deploying war materiel that is newly created or are they still relying on refurbishing Soviet stockpiles.
If you look at a map that includes enough area to see Ukraine the movement of the fighting looks rather small. Meanwhile I just read reports of Russia advancing with buggies and motorcycles. Should we take this Russian advance as an indication that western countries should look into deploying more buggies and bikes in their armed forces? Do you believe that Russia (and for that matter Ukraine) decided that the T-72 sucks balls after all and that buggies are the future of mechanized assault?
I for one think something like this really will be the case. However, it will be autonomous self driving buggies and bikes. Human passengers might ride along too the front but not likely as assault vehicles. Except in rare cases of airborne or special operations.
Depressed-Bears-Fan@reddit
Well drones and cheap atgms HAVE made tanks a lot less useful than they were. I don’t know if T-72s suck, they were the Toyota Corolla’s of tanks, meh but plentiful, but they are big and easy to spot and destroy with a cheap weapon. M1s definitely don’t suck as far as tanks go….but the russkies have destroyed a bunch of them. And this doesn’t come as a shock to a lot of military guys…the Saudis lost a bunch in Yemen, and the Kurds destroyed several Turkish M1s in Syria.
All this wondering when “maneuver war” is going to break out. I’m not sure it is.
NearABE@reddit
So you dont think drone unicycles are going to reintroduce maneuver warfare?
BaguetteFetish@reddit
Not really. Ukraine's casualty claims are the stuff of fantasy, but it's not like Russia is also giving accurate numbers.
I think the only thing we can say with certainty is that Russia absolutely took losses in Kursk, but the fact that most of the Ukrainian elite were tied up in Kursk while Russia's aren't, means every soldier Ukraine lost will hurt a lot more.
CitizenMurdoch@reddit
I don't think was ever intended to be a war of maneuver, that's just extraordinarily wishful thinking. I think the objective always was to utilize the political aspect of taking russian territory to force the Russians to divert a disproportionate amount of forces to an otherwise strategically unimportant front, thus sparing other fronts. To this end this has been an unqualified success. Ukrainian losses and forces committed to Kursk has been far less than that of Russia, and Russia has face operation problems along other fronts, where they have essentially been belly crawling across Ukraine for months
Hyndis@reddit
Neither Ukraine nor Russia is going to give accurate numbers as to the cost of that front, so there's no information to say that it was an unqualified success.
It looks like a failure though. The idea was either probably to try to flank Russian lines from behind, or to try to hold Russian territory as a bargaining card in any peace negotiations. Ukraine was successful on neither fronts, they nether flanked Russia, nor did thy hold it as a bargaining card.
At this point Russia is mopping up what little remains of the incursion. There's no way Putin will agree to hand over even one inch of Russian territory, he's going to recapture it all back by force.
Boner-Salad728@reddit
How have diversion worked?
I guess when Kursk began all Ru offensive actions in East Ukraine halted?
NearABE@reddit
I have neither the time nor the intelligence access to give an accurate analysis of battlefield outcomes.
War is inherently a shitty thing to do. Ukraine and Russia are destroying each others’ military. After the enemy is more destroyed the situation becomes more fluid. I think it is fairly clear that both Ukrainian and Russian forces have taken a severe beating. The mutual destruction is not in itself a reason to believe that strategy or tactics need to be changed.
Boner-Salad728@reddit
1) “Ukraine was never interested in actually taking Kursk. Diverting was always the purpose of that operation”
2) “I have no time and intelligence access to give accurate analysis”
If you, guy 2, dont know - than call guy 1 who sounds so sure. He certainly knows and will answer my simple question on how Kursk affected Russian East Ukraine capturing speed. Its open data btw, you guy 2 can get some intelligence with quick search.
damien24101982@reddit
true goal was taking nuclear powerplant, they failed. and they overextended themselves, as russians simply have more troops to reposition. they shoulda bailed the second they failed to reach the powerplant. (altho imho whole operation is PR move without care for soldiers (sacrificed knowingly for stupid cause) or war equipment(because its "free"))
American_Crusader_15@reddit
The perfect balance of media information.
Twitter will tell you that Russia is actually 3 days away from taking Kiev, and reddit will tell you Ukraine is actually playing 4d chess.
Naurgul@reddit
War brings out the worst most extreme forms of black and white thinking in people. It's horrible.
re_carn@reddit
What kind of “gray thinking” could be here? Russia attacked Ukraine - that's a fact. Another thing is that there is a lot of wishful thinking, when all inconvenient facts are cut off and each side remains in its echo chamber, where everything is fine and victory will be next week.
AlbertoRossonero@reddit
The gray would be something most people don’t want to discuss or acknowledge. As far as the actual conflict both sides are always extremely biased and blind to facts and eat up all the propaganda that affirms their beliefs.
Naurgul@reddit
"Gray" thinking would be like you said: you might support Ukraine but not to the point of wishful thinking taking over and believing all pro-Ukrainian propaganda.
ElectroMagnetsYo@reddit
As with every single conflict, the closest thing to the truth comes out years after the fact.
Nomad1900@reddit
Not really. It is really wonderful in many ways. Only in adversity, do we see real values of people and their opinions.
BufferUnderpants@reddit
A guy named Benito had this point of view, it got turned upside down in Lombardy, after some war crimes and selling out his country as the price of waging war for its sake.
75bytes@reddit
“But it is not yet clear at what cost.” Literally from article. If this was maneuvre to save eastern front dure situation (which ukrainian accomplished with best fpv squads) id call it success
_MonteCristo_@reddit
If Ukraine needed to shore up their eastern front, then they could have withdrawn from Kursk days or weeks ago, in a more orderly fashion. Ukraine are reporting astronomical Russian casualties, and if they actually lost 50k troops in taking back Kursk, then this might have been worth it. But if the Russian casualties have been exaggerated, which most analysts say Ukraine does, then this was a badly conducted retreat.
ScaryShadowx@reddit
If Ukraine's casualty numbers were anywhere close to accurate throughout this war, they would be walking in and taking Moscow with two men and a gun.
TheObeseWombat@reddit
That is just not true. Were you under the impression that casualties equated to dead soldier?
75bytes@reddit
surprise, war is casualties no matter what. imagine usa not interrupted intel and long range missiles not run out to hit command that plans offensive
wetsock-connoisseur@reddit
The situation was deteriorating for weeks, before trump ever did what he did
75bytes@reddit
apart from not denying that Ukrainians weren't to stay you say you think Trump has nothing to do? He showed his fondness to putin, he's like-minded and in his world you can't attack big guys and break rules, mkay? At minimum he wanted to remove this "card" from the table, maybe Ukrainians did this gesture. Im sure if they really wanted they could hold more, but what's the point when world situation is completely changed. Trump doesn't see this as advantage, moreover sees this as burden according to his ww3 rhetoric. So, there is high chance it's "favor" to start negotiations. This BS about encirclement and surrendering is 100% BS, two pathological liars (trump and putin) always use situation to create own simulacra of reality
wetsock-connoisseur@reddit
I’m not commenting on the morality of trumps actions
I just said that Ukraine had been slowly losing ground in Kursk before trump turned off intelligence
75bytes@reddit
yes which is kinda planned. tactical manoeuvre instead of grinding in one area which by definition is unfavorable for ukraine. i dont know classified military data obviously but what we can see is that russia was made to react in this case and there are signs that eastern front is stabilized for now
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Intel was out for a week, meaning it had no real impact on what was happening in Kursk.
75bytes@reddit
suuuuuuure... russian troops were amassing in kursk along with NK so Ukraine. Intel and ammo help pause had also has 0 impact. Worst case scenario with increased casualties but still worth it. Neither encirclement nor surrendering so far, which would be real fail of operation. But tactically operation was success, manoeuvres are only option to break russia most "comfortable" goal to fight only in for max concentration of forces. Hitting in weakly defended spot and forcing to respond is nice move. Shame that Donny nullified operation's political value and removed this "card". But Putin declared that no negotions before Kursk regained so who knows...
studio_bob@reddit
Russia is numerically superior to Ukraine, so it was always to their advantage for another front to be opened. That's why they were in no hurry to push the Ukrainians out of Kursk, instead letting them poor their best units into a disadvantageous situation to get pummelled for months on end while Russian advances accelerated and expanded all across the rest of the front, especially in donbas
Ukraine was also operationally encircled in Kursk for weeks before the interruption in American intel. Russia fire control of their supply road in Sumy made resupply and evacuation impossible and degraded their strength significantly before the main Russian offensive to expel them kicked off. That was a much more significant than the interruption in intel.
Fact is, Ukraine waited too long to withdraw, again, and this disaster is the result. They should have gotten out as soon as it became clear they could no longer secure their logistics at least a month ago.
If Kursk had been a 2-3 week long raid to get cheap propaganda win and force Russia to divert resources to stiffen up the border I we could have called it a success. Clinging to it for months, trading probably hundreds of square kilometers of Ukrainian territory and who knows how much of their best men and equipment to do so, in the name of an unrealistic "bargaining chip" which ultimately came to nothing makes it decidedly one of the worst blunders of the war so far imo
75bytes@reddit
yeah, pure imo. i can tell pretty much opposite imo.
studio_bob@reddit
just say you were wrong and go
75bytes@reddit
why? im not wrong
studio_bob@reddit
I took time to outline a bunch of facts which contradict your idea that Kursk was a win for Ukraine, and your only response is "well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. I'm not wrong." that's just annoying
75bytes@reddit
i dont care if facts are annoying for you. facts are russia amassed 50k troops along with 12k NK troops in place where they shouldn't have. another fact offensive in Donbas halted. You claim that ukraine. Do you have any classified army info? You don't, neither do I. I can only see aforementioned facts
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
You understand that the Russian offensive in Kursk has been ongoing for a while, right?
The intel denial was so short it didn't change much.
But I assume you guys will use anything as "Orange man bad".
75bytes@reddit
i wrote down cohesive response accounting for all nuances and factors and you responded with what? with some obvious info that no one denies? and yes intel denial was absolutely crucial. you know now that it was short IN HINDSIGHT. at the moment this backstabbing move had both actual on-the-ground and dismoraling effects. I don't say Trump sold Ukrainians but russians DEFINITELY used the situation (as they should)
_MonteCristo_@reddit
That was a big factor. But I would argue that as soon as Trump was elected, Ukraine should have been making contingency plans for such a move. As outrageous a move as it was, it wasn't exactly surprising
WombatusMighty@reddit
Hard to make contingency plans when the rest of Europe is hiding with their heads in the sand. You can't just easily replace the intel from the US.
TheObeseWombat@reddit
Do you know what surrounded means? Because the way you presented the statement of the UAF suggests you consider it incorrect. It’s not.
The fact that there was a retreat clearly demonstrates there was still a route through which the Ukranian forces retreated. And the fact that the Russian army is not just rolling into Ukraine through the point where the incursion began proves they did manage to rearrange their defensive lines.
The article does not prove that the UAF lied about anything, it simply indicates that the retreat, which was already known, was more painful than most pro-Ukraine people thought/hoped it was.
Statharas@reddit
Not really, but it is widely suspected that Trump or possibly Elon gave out locations of troops within Kursk to appease Putin
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
"Widely suspected," a way of making an accusation with no evidence and trying to make it seem credible
Putin_Is_Daddy@reddit
Suspected by Ukrainian troops who were finding a coincidence of being attacked accurately by Russia right after turning on their Starlinks.
Solarwinds-123@reddit
Starlink uses radio signals to communicate. Detecting those is trivial if you have the equipment and know what you're looking for. From there, triangulating the origin is easy.
Starlink has been in use long enough that Russia has connected plenty of data and learned to detect transmissions.
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
if it's not a coincidence or erroneous pattern finding as people do all the time, The more obvious possibility is that the radio signal is being detected. The frequencies and channels that this technology uses is public knowledge. Signal interception or SIGINT Is a common, Old, and well developed tactic.
Is there any actual evidence that Muk or Trump is informing them? Or is this, again, just something that someone thought and said and you read it on the Internet?
Why Trump and My specifically? Why not a defector or mole in Ukraine? Why not a SpaceX employee breaching security?
There's nothing demonstrating this is happening besides a few anecdotes, and if it is happening, there is nothing pointing to musk or Trump as having done this.
Putin_Is_Daddy@reddit
I’m just explaining where the source of this type of information is coming from. It could be BS, it could be exactly as some are speculating, it could be somewhere in the middle.
Statharas@reddit
"Coincidence"
Nethlem@reddit
There's nothing to "put together", so far all we have is two anonymous Reddit accounts claming a bunch of hearsay without even the attempt to source it in any way.
If that's the level at wich you already accept something as fact, then I see many glue pizzas in your future.
cheeruphumanity@reddit
…and the propagandists are pouring in, trying to cast doubts on Ukrainian credibility. Same old same old.
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
Brought to you by the US.
pddkr1@reddit
The pocket was already 40% of its largest size before US paused offensive intelligence
There’s no indication that the US pause on offensive intelligence affected Kursk lol
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
You should tell the Ukrainian soldiers and military analysts that, because they do not agree.
Their counter-offensive started at the exact same time as the US announced they would stop intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
pddkr1@reddit
I’m not concerned about what the Ukrainians say.
The counter offensive has been ongoing for weeks, months. You can type Kursk into this sub and scroll backwards by time.
This is a level of shifting blame we expect to see on the sub when repeatedly confronted with the reality that Kursk was not a good idea.
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
Of course you're not, because the people on the ground contradicts what you, a random person with no knowledge of what is happening, says happened.
I'm talking about the recent advancements, which happened on the same day the intelligence sharing was stopped.
pddkr1@reddit
And the 60% or more lost before?
I’ll take independent reporting over biased takes
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
Can't you read? I'm talking about the most recent advancements which coincided with the stop of intelligence sharing, which Ukraine relied on.
What independent reporting are you referring to, which said the US pause on intelligence didn't have anything to do with the recent Kursk advancements?
pddkr1@reddit
Can’t you?
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
I think you've got a comprehension problem as well. Why would the stop of US intelligence sharing impact the advancements prior to the stop? You're making absolutely no sense.
No, it wasn't. The intelligence sharing stopped on 5th of March, and then the very same day and the day after we started hearing about how the Russians had broken through the Ukrainian defensive line south of Sudzha.
It was reported by both Ukrainian sources, as well as Reuters and the Daily Telegraph a couple of days later.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bulk-ukrainian-forces-fighting-inside-russia-almost-cut-off-open-source-maps-2025-03-07/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/03/07/russia-breaks-through-ukrainian-lines-in-kursk/
pddkr1@reddit
Ok
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
🤡
pddkr1@reddit
I think you’re failing to grasp how these things interact
Have a good one
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
No, I think you do. I was talking about what happened immediately after, and as a result of the intelligence stop, and you keep asking me about things that happened before that.
pddkr1@reddit
“No you”
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
Please explain to me how the US intelligence stop impacted the Kursk counter-offensive before it happened. Thanks.
pddkr1@reddit
Was Kursk collapsing prior?
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
No.
pddkr1@reddit
Lmaooo ok
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
How much territory had Russian gained in the week prior to the intelligence sharing stop?
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
Still there was no massive encirclement, the Russians had been closing in on the Ukrainian supply lines for months, the troops used by Russia were away from the Donbass front allowing Ukraine to launch counter offensives in Toretsk and Pokrovsk directions, while also all the destruction from the battle affected Russian territory instead of Ukrainian territory. Overall it's quite the strategic success, and pulling back under those consequences is in every situation going to be difficult
wetsock-connoisseur@reddit
But Russia is not short of either men or equipment
OTOH it was Ukraine that lost its best equipment and best soldiers while already being short of both of them
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
Russia has lots of men, but its rates of voluntary conscription are no longer keeping up with the demand from losses as no amount of money is sufficient to convince enough people to join voluntarily. The ecobomy is already overheating from lack of workers and heavy wartime spending and the shock of mobilization from millions more Russians being conscripted by force or fleeing the country (plus Ukrainian drone strikes crippling ever more oil industry) could start causing real problems for the Russian ecobomy that even the expert finance minister in charge of the Russian central bank won't be able to fix. This is all in addition to inflation that is going to keep rising eventually faster than workers wages because the central bank isn't going to be able to raise interest rates further due to political opposition by the Kremlin. The Russian economy is a fraction of the EU economy, it won't be able to outspend Europe in the long term.
damien24101982@reddit
wdym mean long term this crap shoulda stopped back in 2022. they better solve this giga fast because its not realistic anymore.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
This war will not end until Russia is beaten to a position where it's forced to accept a ceasefire, and Russia at the moment only wants to continue the war until it has dwmilitarized Ukraine so it can conquer the rest like Germany did with Czechoslovakia. The Russian response to the Us and Ukrainian ceasefire offer was rejection
pddkr1@reddit
You know that’s not going to happen right?
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
How do you get Russia to stop conquering Ukraine when it feels like it's winning? How do you stop the country that started the war to conquer Ukraine from continuing the war?
This war wouldn't have happened if Russia didn't invade Ukraine. Russia would not be getting hit by drone strikes if it didn't invade Ukraine. Russia would still be happily selling gas and oil to Europe if it didn't invade Ukraine
wetsock-connoisseur@reddit
1) what you just said Russia might experience sometime in future, Ukraine is already at the stage where they are having trouble finding men to fight the war and mind you Ukraine has 1/5th of population of Russia and they are 1 step short of conscripting every man above the age of 18 to fight
2) can Europe produce enough equipment in the first place?, for example Europe collectively could produce about 1.7 million artillery shells by end of 2024 vs 4.5 million for Russia and probably at a much lower cost
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
Ukraine has done necessary reforms to its manpower policies that will alleviate the manpower issue and focus on replenishing existing units and enabling rotations.
William Spaniel has videos on the topic explaining how the Russian domestic situation is frankly unstable the longer the war continues:
https://youtu.be/aFozF5J9oTQ?si=ZWtEAX__6Wxly0Tl
https://youtu.be/knJbiGdi1Zs?si=Lz1JR7HOYIWvWuMZ
Also here's about the Russian problem with conscription: https://youtu.be/B1G0UOd4SmQ?si=j49CFfpiy2uUkru4
It is not just European shell production which already is ramping up, there is also the Czech shell intiative providign additional shells from third party countries, the unreliable US shell supply, as well as Ukraine's domestic production. In any case you have to take into account that the Western military doctrine is not based on air power parity and trench warfare, it's based on overwhelming air power to bomb enemy positions from the air. It won't matter if Russia produces in a real war more artillery shells than Europe if the Europeans can just dismantle the Russian logistics with air power.
zeigdeinepapiere@reddit
This isn't true.
damien24101982@reddit
I think they dont value equipment as much because we keep sending more.
there is a joke in my country:
"do you know which car goes 100kmh on macadam road? company car"
aka people dont really respect of value things they didnt buy themselves.
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
"The roads are littered with hundreds of destroyed cars, armoured vehicles and ATVs (All Terrain Vehicles). There are a lot of wounded and dead.
In a message on 14 March, Dmytro added: "Everything is finished in the Kursk region... the operation was not successful."
Redditor: another strategic success 😏
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
It can be a tactical disaster but a strategic success. Imagine if those 70 thousand Russian forces were in Sumy instead of Kursk region, or in the Donbass
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
That will come next week.
This has been the most classic Russia tactic there is.
Let your enemy attack and then overextend in endless Russia.
Then hit them back hard when they have to pull back.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
Firstly Russia is more likely to send them to Pokrovsk and Toretks ehere its troops are losing ground to Ukrainian counter offensives.
Secondly, the Russians would be attacking properly defended Ukrainian lines with elite forces that pulled out of Kursk.
Thirdly Russia overextended itself with sending 70k troops to Kursk where Ukraine took defensive positions, as it hasn't conquered Pokrovsk yet nor Toretsk that are of much larger strategic importance as logistical hubs for Ukraine as now Ukraine is pushing Russia back from its key logistics hub of Pokrovsk. It could've fallen if Russia didn't spread out its forces by overcommitting in the completely unstrategic Sudzha salient it could've contained with less troops.
While Russia was distracted in Kursk, Ukraine struck Russia's blindspot in the actually important front of Pokrovsk
damien24101982@reddit
dude cmon, its tragic waste of people and sacrifice of their elite soldiers and equipment while still losing in other regions.
the idea alone they would let themselves be caught in a pincer for some PR points is beyond stupid
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
The Kursk gambit pulled a disproportionate number of Russian troops to Kursk or the other border area while showcasing how Ukraine can mount a mobile counteroffensive under the right circumstances. Also Pokrovsk has not fallen and instead Russia is being pushed back. Toretsk has not been lost as Ukraine is pushing Russia back. Kupyansk direction has seen Russians counterattacked. The Russians are still suffering diaproportionate losses at the hand of Ukrainian drones, artillery and mines in equipment and men. The Russians cannot just magically move the 70k troops from Kursk to Pokrovsk or Toretsk in an instant, and more importantly Ukraine has initiative in Pokrovsk and Toretsk forcing the Russians to pour men into defensive battle under Ukrainian drone supremacy forcing the Russians to suffer heavy casualties in just trying to reinforce the defense in Pokrovsk salient especially. Should the Allies have abandoned the Normandy beach head during WW2 and not launch a naval invasion of southern France because the Normandy beachhead was a slow slog for months after D-Day?
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
Imagine if those elite Ukrainian troops were recapturing Ukrainian territory with solid logistical backing in Ukraine instead of being sent into Russia only to have their only logistics road be targeted by russian artillery and drones. Sending your troops into tactical disasters impacts morale on a strategic level.
Finland ceded more territory than the soviets demanded before the winter war, and then ceded even more territory after the continuation war, which was started by Finland. They also had to ban the political parties the soviets told them to. Maybe not the best example, if Ukraine follows it they'll end up having to give up Odessa and Kharkov, as well as bring back yanukovych.
MarderFucher@reddit
Those units could not have had the same operational freedom in Donbass as in Kursk where they could leverage their expertise.
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
What do you mean by that?
28lobster@reddit
Trenches and # of Russian soldier's per sq km was denser in Donbass than Kursk prior to Ukraine moving into Kursk. Those place limits on operational freedom
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
The Soviet demands were a ruse, that would've caused Finland to cede the Mannerheim line while placing Soviet forces within artillery range of the capital at Porkkala. Stalin would've marched on Finland like it did in the Baltics if Finland surrendered to Soviet demands. It was basically the same as a robber asking you to give them the key to your home or they would beat you up for it.
Also those elite Ukrainian forces would have without the Kursk operation been fightign a defensive operation in Sumy, while the Russians would've been free to send tens of thousand sof more troops to the Donbass front to counter any Ukrainian elite forces, which would've been shredded in the trench warfare of the Donbass. The Russians have had to expend tens of thousands of troops to retake Russian land rather than conquering more Ukrainian territory.
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
"without the Kursk operation been fightign a defensive operation in Sumy"
No? The whole reason Kursk happen so easily was because Russians pulled troops out of there to reinforce their operation in Kharkiv (area around Vovchanks where the fights are still ongoing even today)
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
The Russians had been building up troops in proximity to the Sumy region before the Ukrainians struck the weakest part of the border. The Russians already attacked Kharkiv direction with minimal troops unless you forgot
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Hmm no? If Russians had troops near Sumy, the Kursk incursion wouldn't have been possible or would have been at least opposed by actual troops and not 18 year old conscripted border guards.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
The Russians reinvaded Kharkiv region and have turned Vovchansk to rubble
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
I think Finland is a good example of what it takes to survive, to protect the most important part of any country - its people and culture. They did make tough decisions and thanks to those, Finland and the Finns still exist.
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
What part of losing more territory than was demanded of you and letting a foreign state control which parties are allowed in your government is a good example?
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Maybe try rereading my comment, this time slower?
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
Can you explain how declaring the continuation war helped protect the Finnish people and culture?
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
Oh right, good point, I was focusing only on the Winter War.
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
Finland wrapped that up as quickly as possible to capitalise on their effective resistance. Something Ukraine made illegal by decree and has been discouraged from by it's allies.
The__Hivemind_@reddit
Finlands goal in the continuation war wasn't keeping independence.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
The Finns though had avdry hard time not taking the chance to join Germany in its invasion of the USSR to take back the lands the Soviets had stolen from Finland in the winter war after it failed to conquer Finland, especially as you had hundreds of thousands of Finns in a country with less than 4 million people turned into refugees after their home had been conquered, and in addition the Soviets were in a quite good position to just conquer Finland in full with it having a military base with minimal distance to the capital, while having seized from Finland it's natural defensive position on the Karelian Isthmus.
The__Hivemind_@reddit
"The Soviets were in quite a good position to conquer Finland". OK, but they didn't. So my point still stands, literally a land grab. They didn't even want just to get their lost lands. They went way deeper than that.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
The Soviets didn't conquer Finland after the Winter war because the Germans invaded them first, and during the cold war the Soviets didn't dare invade because the Finns had shown just how costly the conquest of Finland would be in the winter and cintinuation wars to make it the last thing they wanted. To this day Finland maintains one formidable conscription army designed to specifically make the Russian invasion of Finland the bloodiest imaginable affair in some of the most formidable terrain imaginable.
Finland would be a poor post Soviet state had it noght chosen to fight for its right to independence
The__Hivemind_@reddit
What you are saying is an oxymoron. The Soviets wanted to invade Finland, but didn't manage to because of the German invasion,(for which claim you have no evidence but OK), but the Soviets also didn't want to invade Finland because it would be too costly. Those things can't be true at the same time. They either wanted to or didn't want to, pick one. Also, as weapons developed the advantages that Finland had during the winter war became less and less relevant, the Soviet army stronger and stronger, while the finnish wasn't so impressive due to restrictions imposed on it after it's defeat in the second world war. In my eyes it was clear that Finland just wanted to get more land and help the nazis. It is obvious from their usage of nazi symbolism and usage of concentration camps often worse than nazi ones. You can try whitewashing it all you want but they were in the wrong
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
The Soviets had a general famously say after the winter war how "we have conquered enough land to bury our dead", the Soviets suffered over 300 thousand casualties to supposedly deny a German threat on Leningrad from the north only to cause Germans to be allowed to attack from Finland defeating the whole purpose of the official reaosn to get Karelia by turning Finland from neutral to hostile. The Soviets during the Molotov Ribbentrop pact had Finland in their sphere alongside the Baltics, eastern Poland and Bessarabia. Even more notably the Soviets established the Terijoki government to act as its puppet administration in Finland like it also did when conquering Poland after Barbarossa.
Also the point abput the concentration camps is pointless, both the Finnish and German ones were bad, but the German extermination camps cannot be compared to Finnish concentration camps. Also the Finnish army's Swastikas came before the Nazis rise to power
The__Hivemind_@reddit
Finland didn't just allow Germany to attack from its lands, it actively participated with its own army, stop lying, you aren't helping your position. Also Finland wasn't neutral. Hell, there were border skirmishes on the Soviet Finnish border befour the winter war. The point about the concentration camps wasn't pointless. It shows that Finland wasn't just trying to take back it's lost land. Still, you didn't address my other point. So do you admit that what you said previously is an oxymoron?
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
Finland reconquered the lands it had lost in addition to occupying lands up to more defensible borders along the rivers.
Also if Turkey conquered the Aegean islands because it deemed them absolutely necessary for its national security like the official Soviet desires on Karelia were in defense of Leningrad, then should Greece just accept the Turkish conquest of the Greek Aegean island because in attempring to retake them it would be the aggressor?
The__Hivemind_@reddit
If Greece collaborated with turkeys enemies who were also genocidal maniacs who wanted to wipe out the turks and also staged border conflicts against them then yes, Turkey would be pretty fucking justified to do that.
DefinitelyNotMeee@reddit
For certain definition of "independent"
pddkr1@reddit
Slava Block propaganda and armchair generals really doing mental gymnastics
HKEY_LOVE_MACHINE@reddit
Gotta love how A_T has all the putin's lap dogs coming out of the woodwork to rejoice at the situation, of Ukraine being demolished by an imperialist invader.
The hypocrisy is incredible: the US is always evil because it's imperialist, Russia is never evil despite being imperialist.
chillichampion@reddit
I wouldn’t call Russia imperialist. Militaristic yes.
burlycabin@reddit
Yeah, this is absolutely insane to see.
Redditbecamefacebook@reddit
Lol. A lot of people coming out of the woodwork to claim Russia is amazing and Ukraine sucks, and everything we hear about Ukraine defense is propaganda.
Meanwhile, we're discussing Russia taking back their own territory during an invasion that was supposed to last 3 days. How many years are we at again?
I wouldn't mind a counterpoint to the Ukrainian propaganda if it wasn't so obviously being pushed by a Russian propagandists.
Leopatto@reddit (OP)
Brother hop off, I'm not Russian.💀
It's BBC, what better news platform is there?
MentalRental@reddit
That article is kinda weird. Hard to tell how accurate it is when their sources are all Telegram messages and the authors don't mention if and how they verified that the people they were speaking to were legitimate Ukrainian soldiers.
Redditbecamefacebook@reddit
I was more referring to the usual suspect commenters and the spin some people are trying to put on the article, but you seem to have taken this rather personally.
I notice in your past comments you claim that 'Ukraine is getting their shit pushed in,' which is an interesting way to characterize a rather small, inconsequential country managing to hold territory within a neighboring 'superpower.'
Leopatto@reddit (OP)
Of course, I was a proponent here in Poland of pushing the government into a firmer stance against Ukraine and that they should immediately push for peace negotiations given that they had a slightly upper hand before the spring (or was it summer?) offensive.
Ukraine could never match the Russian military. In terms of population, production, and whatnot.
Then, the Kursk suicidal intrusion frankly achieved nothing. Loss of life, and a loss of a good friend of mine.
I curse Zelensky for prolonging this war. It should have ended last year.
CptHrki@reddit
They're quite literally matching them this entire war, with incredibly gimped aid.
Russians instigated the "civil" war then invaded Crimea and Donbas in 2014 and proceeded to ignore and violate every single peace agreement because they officially weren't there. This is despite de facto getting Crimea and DNR/LNR without any consequences. Now they ask for no security guarantees or peacekeepers, interesting.
And in all this, you find Zelensky to blame lmao. Not the west for doing almost nothing for 8 years, not Biden for sending aid too slowly, not Trump and Vance for public humiliation and extortion, not Putin for literally orchestrating 11 years of war.
Redditbecamefacebook@reddit
But you're totally not a propagandist.
Also parroting Russian drivel suggesting that Ukraine is at fault for this war. 'If only Ukraine surrendered this would all be over.'
Yeah. That's how it works. Just like when Russia stopped at Crimea, last time.
Leopatto@reddit (OP)
No, I hate Russians. My family was killed during WW2 and Soviet occupation. I never said that it's Ukraines fault.
I understand American education is in the toilet, but please do not twist my words.
RaulParson@reddit
Russia was never "willing to sit down and negotiate". You've been colonized by too much brainrot if you believe that. Even now their "preconditions" for sitting down to any talks are "surrender, and then we'll see". He's completely on the money in pointing out that you come off as a propagandist.
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
Russia was never "willing to sit down and negotiate".
Ah yes. The multiple sources saying Boris ruined the potential peace deal which was actually initialled and close to bring signed are all fantasy, right?
Said by someone from the epicentre of global colonisation
RaulParson@reddit
Correct, that is brainrot and was never real. Care to link a credible one?
Depressed-Bears-Fan@reddit
Istanbul didn’t happen?
joedude@reddit
What?
RaulParson@reddit
Seems pretty straightforward? There's no non-brainrot explanation to actually believe and spread a statement like "Russia was willing to sit down and negotiate". Plenty of brainrot to be found on the internet though, and now it lives in his brain, which was colonized like by a mold.
Leopatto@reddit (OP)
Your opinion is as relevant as last week's rain.
I was never a propagandist, I'm just stating what my colleagues in the Polish government said.
Redditbecamefacebook@reddit
You just suggest that the war could have ended years ago, but the only way that would have happened is if Ukraine surrendered.
If your family was actually killed in WW2 by Soviets, they'd be pretty embarrassed to read your comments.
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad
Responsible-Bar3956@reddit
Ukraine is at least partially responsible for this war, they poked the bear and now the country is being destroyed and their beloved EU allies won't sacrifice a single soldier for them, they are fighting alone and after the war Ukraine will be a depopulated hell hole.
Redditbecamefacebook@reddit
How dare they have the audacity to fight back?
The surge in agenda posters around here doesn't fool anybody. Weird how quickly this sub swung pro-Russia, pro-Israel.
Responsible-Bar3956@reddit
lmao, i have no horse in this fight, i am not a westerner or Russian, but i know for sure Ukraine is responsible for this war.
burlycabin@reddit
Just stop. How the hell did they poke the bear? The damn bear invaded their country.
JessiLouCorvus@reddit
What exactly did Ukraine do?
Czart@reddit
UkraineRussiaReport poster. Yap, absolutely expected braindead take.
JessiLouCorvus@reddit
Trying to be real here, but didn't Ukraine have one of the largest militaries in Europe even before the war? Definitely doesn't match the might of the Russian military, but I wouldn't call them small or inconsequential.
Redditbecamefacebook@reddit
Yeah, but Russia bills itself as a superpower capable of going toe-to-toe with the US and NATO.
I'll be the first to acknowledge the European and US interests might be dragging this out with the intention of draining Russia, but that doesn't make Russia's attack any more justified.
Nethlem@reddit
Does Russia bill itself as that? Or is that rather what Western bellicists claim it bills itself as, so they can justify inflating NATO to even more comical degrees.
Because anybody looking at the numbers knows this is nonsense, yet for the past 3 years there's been a complete hysteria how Russia will just roll all the way to the Atlantic if NATO members don't spend trillions more in "defense", as if Ukraine has suddenly become the new Fulda gap.
People demanding that Germany should re-arm to Cold War levels, back when NATO was still opposing the Warshaw Pact. But there is no more Warshaw Pact, some of its former members have by now even joined NATO, meaning NATO is bigger than it ever was during the Cold War.
Russia knows this, NATO knows this, anybody following actual geopolitics knows this, and it's exactly for this reason that Russia is weary of NATO creeping up even closer to its doorstep.
No different than when the US lost their shit over the Soviets "encroaching" through Cuba, a "pathetic little" island the mighty superpower US to this day hasn't managed to regime change, only illegally occupying a small naval base in Cuba to torture people there, any of that sounding familiar?
themanofmanyways@reddit
But Ukraine was not planning on joining NATO, so this line of argumentation is just ridiculous. It would be akin to shooting people who have parties in my neighbourhood because I'm afraid of a home invasion.
NATO expanded because smaller countries, often actual victims of Russian agression, sought an ally that would broadly respect their security interests. A thing Russia has never really been willing to do.
This constant attempt to paint the war as a result of NATO encroachment is dishonest.
Redditbecamefacebook@reddit
Ok, so NATO has about 5 times the population, and a bit more than double the numbers of Russian military.
Thanks for proving my point.
makingfunofclowns@reddit
Christ you're thick. Flag makes sense.
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
Bruh... You're embarrassing yourselves.
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
Thank you! I don't understand how people can be so delusional.
JessiLouCorvus@reddit
Absolutely not. I am not defending Russia and aggression like this should be kept in check by the world. I just wanted to clarify Ukraine's military wasn't really a slouch pre-war and was already fighting "russian backed separatists" before the open conflict began.
damien24101982@reddit
which part of his statement is wrong tho....
royal_dansk@reddit
Ah, yes! The 3 days to Kiev, as always. For all we know, the entire Ukraine will fall into the hands of Putin but that will be nothing because, you know, the 3 days to Kiev.
Nethlem@reddit
Can you point to some of these "a lot of people"?
Or are we supposed to just take your strawman as established fact so you can have easy time doing exactly what you are trying to project on others?
GrandviewHive@reddit
The approach taken by Western media and "experts" in analyzing the war in Ukraine, as reflected by both current and retired military analysts, can be summarized as follows: these "experts" define Russia's objectives based on their own assumptions, only to claim that Russia has not achieved them. One reason for Russia's perceived advantage over the West in Ukraine is that they view the conflict as an ongoing process, while the West tends to see it as a series of isolated actions. The Russians perceive events as a continuous narrative, akin to a film, whereas the West views them as disconnected snapshots. They see the overall picture, while the West focuses on individual details.
A key factor in Russia's success is its comprehensive approach to warfare. Russia operates within a framework of Clausewitzian thinking, where operational successes are leveraged for strategic objectives. They recognize the developments that lead to the current situation. The Russian perspective on war suggests a fluid transition between politics and warfare; for them, negotiation is an integral part of the process. In contrast, Westerners often view negotiation as a separate endeavor, which accounts for their hesitance to pursue diplomatic solutions.
Ukraine lost the war before it even began, and the assistance from its so-called Western partners is merely an additional burden that could sink the entire failing structure even faster. The opportunity for "repair" has long since passed.
zdzislav_kozibroda@reddit
That was a lot of words to say Kremlin just throws shit on the wall and looks what sticks.
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
If that's your comprehension from the detailed comment, it paints a grim picture about your reading skills and education.
zdzislav_kozibroda@reddit
Your inability to recognise a Russian bot sent here to praise Kremlin and spread defeatism paints even grimmer picture about yours.
WombatusMighty@reddit
This. To even have the audacity of mentioning success and Russia in the same sentence, after the three day special operations is already well over three years with minimal territory gains, that is just pure russian copium.
damien24101982@reddit
considering we (us/eu) pumped like half a trillion or trillion dollars/euros into ukraine and provided them communications means and all possible tactical intel,... id say its a success considering ukraine is losing war of attrition and russia hasnt even started conscription but it basically "buying" mercs.
just counting all the zeroes and imagining all that money and equipment makes my head hurt.
Kaymish_@reddit
Not to mention they wrecked their own economies, likely permanently, with illegal unilateral coercive sanctions that didn't work.
MoChreachSMoLeir@reddit
While you're not entirely wrong, what you're lacking is the Kremlin's understanding of this war. While conquest and Russian chauvinism are huge parts of this war, it's not the full picture. Putin ordered the invasion as part of a regime security mission. Yes, he would love to have political control over Ukraine, his biggest motivation was launching a war to consolidate power, unify the nation, and muzzle the oligarchic elite. As well, Putin conceives of this war as being a war against "The West." His political objectives are political control over Ukraine, yes, but also hegemony in Eastern Europe and launching Russia as a great power.
The Russian army, while humiliated in 2022, is now a stronger force than it was before the invasion. Putin's regime is much more secure. The elite has been dismantled and remade in Putin's image. He's effectively dissolved article 5 and without having to even try to do something like invade Narva and wait for NATO to fail to respond. Putin doesn't have a "clean" victory. This took much longer than he wanted and he is still far away from one of his objectives, political control over Ukraine, but he has achieved many of his objectives and has a fair shot at achieving all of them.
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
how has he dissolved article 5? it was not tested in this conflict at any point.
cleepboywonder@reddit
Russia has not achieved its war aims. Inthink thats been clear for 3 years now. I donmt have to be a westoid nato simp to see that the VDV got fucking smoked and Kyiv held. This war if Russia hadn’t been incompetent would have been over in 48 hrs. Now its 3 years into a war its spent thiusands of lives on.
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Creator | Source Code
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
PlutosGrasp@reddit
Lol. So this is journalism now? “Anonymous social media accounts”. How sad.
fartingbeagle@reddit
It is the BBC not BuzzFeed.
PlutosGrasp@reddit
Buzzfeed had pretty excellent journalism actually.
crusadertank@reddit
now? this has been a constant for a long time now.
In fact it is even better than most sources I have seen recently talking about Russia or this war.
Usually it is just "sources say"
John-Mandeville@reddit
This is why American strategists never wanted them to pull that stunt to begin with. Remember the surprisingly muted western reaction to the advance on Kursk? They'd been trying to talk them out of it. The offensive was for domestic political consumption as a (temporary) morale boost. It never made strategic sense.
coverageanalysisbot@reddit
Hi empleadoEstatalBot,
We've found 20 sources (so far) that are covering this story including:
Meduza (Left): "How did the Russian army win the battle for Kursk Oblast? And why did the Armed Forces of Ukraine need this operation? Summing up the main episode of the war in 2025"
ZDF (Center): "Ukraine withdrawal: Why the operation in Kursk ends"
Die Presse (Leans Right): "Ukraine loses its pledge to Putin"
Of all the sources reporting on this story, 20% are right-leaning, 20% are left-leaning, and 60% are in the center. Read the full coverage analysis and compare how 20+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.
I’m a bot. Read here to learn how it works or message us with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you.
foxwagen@reddit
Losing some of your best troops and equipment in the wrong place is one of the worst trade deals of all time.
Zelensky was hoping to make this a media success and even a bargaining chip at the negotiation table. Now he has neither the troops nor the bargaining chip he wanted. The Russians could truly lose 50k soldiers and it would still be a massive strategic victory.
I still maintain that the biggest tragedy in this war are Ukrainian lives lost due to poor strategic decisions by the military and the politicians.
based_mafty@reddit
Is BBC Russian propaganda? I was told by brave slava ukraine redditor that ukraine is winning the war? /s
From the article, western equipment isn't really advantage anymore. Even if ukraine has shit ton of equipment, russia simply overwhelm them with raw numbers. From the article, ukraine use 12.000 soldiers in kursk offensive and russia just overwhelm them with 70k soldiers. Tell me again how is ukraine supposed to win without troops from other nation?
TheHeroYouNeed247@reddit
Crazy to see somebody bragging that their country has no problem simply throwing soldiers lives away to win a battle.
"You have better equipment, but we have expendable soldiers!"
Depressed-Bears-Fan@reddit
Yeah here in the west we throw OTHER countries soldiers into the meat grinder in service to our hegemony. I hate what my leaders have done to the Ukrainians.
BrotherEstapol@reddit
That also includes Ukrainians who went to Afghanistan and Iraq!
Happy to take troops, but not the other way around...
wetsock-connoisseur@reddit
That’s how Russia has has always conducted war - a war of attrition, in the beginning they did try shock and awe, didn’t work and fell back on what they had experience in
I mean soldiers yes, but has Russia outgunned Ukraine in pretty much every other resource too - tanks, artillery, trucks, drones etc
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
No it isn’t, can we stop with the literal nazi-era ‘Asiatic Horde’ propaganda.
TheBeAll@reddit
Didn’t work because they’re too incompetent to wage any other war. People are okay being conscripted for an existential defensive war, not so much as the invaders.
LEFT4Sp00ning@reddit
Don't think they're bragging, more pointing out the manpower differences between both countries and that Russia has a lot more soldiers to spare than Ukraine (which is just a fact). It's basically turned into an attrition war at this point, those tend to favour the country with more population and troops since it's easier to get more soldiers into combat and go on for longer than the other side is able to when you have more soldiers and a higher population to draw further soldiers from
MarderFucher@reddit
So you are telling me the operation tied down 70 thousand troops and loads of equipment.
Soepoelse123@reddit
More money and gear.
Type_02@reddit
Didnt you hear what they said? That Kursk isnt important and they already achieve their goal by attacking Russia to prove that Russia is weak mean that they are already win. /s
They probably gonna miss their monthly pilgrimage to Russian supermarket and cant content farm anymore.
_MonteCristo_@reddit
In most other fronts, there isn't such a big numerical disparity. But Kursk had many of Ukraine's best, most seasoned troops. And the Russian forces mobilized to deal with it included a lot of troops that were previously not fighting in Ukraine as I understand. So they could afford to greatly outnumber them in this theatre.
TheBlack2007@reddit
Ukraine is not winning but you aren’t either. You’re grinding yourselves down, ruined your demographics and emptied your storage for good measure not even mentioning the stranglehold on Europe‘s economy that is now gone and won’t come back.
__Clever_Username__@reddit
Honestly feel like if this operation was going to happen at all, it would've been better for Ukraine to go about it like they did in Belgorod earlier. Quick in and out, maybe on a bigger scale. Roll in, occupy some villages for a few days, take some pictures with the terrified locals, then retreat in good order behind a previously prepared defensive line in Sumy. Instead, as the article says, you have some of the best, well equipped Ukrainian soldiers dying to second rate Russian soldiers and Norks. Doesn't matter if they're killing the them at a 10:1 ratio, it's about the quality of the soldier they're losing. Same thing happened in Bakhmut, Ukraine lost armies worth of professional soldiers to penal colony meat waves. All while repeating this bizarre claim about using this (continually shrinking) Kursk pocket as a bargaining chip in potential negotiations, while Russia carried on capturing dozens of settlements/towns in Donbass.
BrotherEstapol@reddit
I was also expecting it to be a in/out operation, but someone above said that they were aiming to capture a nuclear plant there but didn't make it? No idea if there's truth to that, but given they didn't make it, I'm surprised they didn't just pull out anyway. "Well we tried! But we sure did make Putin embarrassed, lets get back!" don't think there'd have been shame in that.
I know you said it was bizarre, but I can at least understand the logic behind them wanting to keep it as a bargaining chip; it's actually some territory they would be happy to concede to Russia, unlike all their pre-2014 territory that the Russians want/currently hold. Now they will have nothing to bargain with! The issue seems to be that keeping it this long just wasn't a viable option.
We're all operating with the benefit of hindsight, but also without all the facts, so who knows what their original intent was!
Responsible-Bar3956@reddit
how Russia can cause this much physical and mental damage while fighting with shovels and using donkeys as transportation? it's well known that Ukraine has 1:2134 ratio advantage in this war, why they keep losing ?
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
Remember, it's a gas station masquerading as a country but it's powerful enough to roll over Europe.
Common_Echo_9069@reddit
I wonder what delusional BS the NAFO bots on reddit will spin out of this now? Also, people are still wondering why on earth they diverted manpower away from defending Ukraine to this pointless endeavour.
Statharas@reddit
Aren't you just living in your own echo chamber?
And this wasn't a pointless endeavor. The only reason Ukraine is losing ground in Kursk is due to Trump cutting off information network and a suspected handover of information regarding Ukrainian positions to Russia.
Kaymish_@reddit
They were losing ground in Kursk well before trump cut them off. Also this collapse is too soon after that to blame that for it. The Russians have been digging around the edges of the Kursk incursion for weeks. Also the whole war has been coated in drones the Russians probably know where the Ukrainians are before trump knew.
Depressed-Bears-Fan@reddit
The funniest thing about hearing this drivel from the “stand with Ukraine” war party NPCs is that everybody in the realist camp was predicting it a long time ago. The narrative shift is so predictable.
Welfdeath@reddit
Ukraine is winning so hard they are retreating and Russia is losing so badly they are advancing .
Common_Echo_9069@reddit
lol
bippos@reddit
Because they are advancing in Donbas now that’s why
Common_Echo_9069@reddit
So you're not retreating as the article says, you're "advancing".
bippos@reddit
So across a front which stretches across multiple areas you think only one state of battle is possible
Type_02@reddit
They are advancing backward
Common_Echo_9069@reddit
Lmao, reminds me of NATO branding their retreat from Afghanistan a "Retrograde manoeuvre".
Global_Mortgage_5174@reddit
nafo bots... really? whata more likely that pro NATO people are bots or... are they simply patriots of democratic nations that realise the nations of NATO, and the way of life within them, is vastly superior to the warmongering dictator his army of aids infested alcohol brainwashed barbarians?
bluecheese2040@reddit
It's almost like fighting a war by PR and the news cycle results in this. Ukraine has been horrific for this. It costs its men severely in avdiivka, bakhmut, pisky, severodonetsk, kursk and many more...like vuledar. When the end wad looming rather than withdrawing while they still could they left it so late that it turned into a semi rout.
All the time their fan boys post 'Sudzha stands', 'Avdiivka stands', 'bakhmut stands' and then after the withdraw they say nothing at all.
Let's not get it twisted...at a time when support for Ukraine is sketchy at best...(trump restored aid to Ukraine but he hasn't added to it) to waste so many vehicles and men is frankly inexcusable.
But after the initial successes this wasn't a military operation it was purely a political one. Surrounded on 3 sides...1 Road in...it was a meat grinder.
Russia could rely on North Koreans and other forces to close the pocket. It didn't draw men from other fronts.
As a raid it was a success, but this operation had been a shit show.
Ukraine needs to withdraw when it has to and stop losing men to these last minute retreats under huge fire.
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
Thank you for saying that! Who rememberes the stupid and laughable attempt in the early days of the conflict where they were spinning stories of radio transmission to a RU vessel from combatants on an island and the one about an ace fighter pilot.
I was made fun of when my skepticism stayed creeping in.
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
Thank you
damien24101982@reddit
werent they offered safety if they lay down their arms? why would they try to "retreat" through killzone that has weapons trained on them and is covered by swarms of drones? whose stupid order was that?
RaulParson@reddit
...the safety of Russian torture camps ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Ukrainian_prisoners_of_war )? Them taking their chances really seems like the correct play.
SurturOfMuspelheim@reddit
Wikipedia is not a source.
RaulParson@reddit
No, the sources are what's in the little [] boxes on the wikipedia page? Are you new to the internet?
SurturOfMuspelheim@reddit
Yep, so post those. Oh, wait, you don't, cause you haven't read them or verified them.
1st_Tagger@reddit
Only one side is kidnapping children. And it's not Ukraine
RaulParson@reddit
I did. All neatly collected on a wikipedia page which works as a summary for your easy perusal.
Anyway, enough of you.
damien24101982@reddit
Id rather not be dead
RaulParson@reddit
Not to worry, they have that covered too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Execution_of_surrendering_and_captured_Ukrainian_soldiers
Given how much of an embarrassment the Kursk incursion was to the regime in Russia, it's more than reasonable of them to assume this is the sort of treatment they'd get after accepting any "offer of safety".
SurturOfMuspelheim@reddit
It really isn't embarrassing, whatever that means. You just think it is because you think war is a game.
MonsutAnpaSelo@reddit
Perhaps the lads on the front have a better idea of what laying down their arms will result in
Still_There3603@reddit
If Russia really goes through with the Sumy offensive and succeeds despite how telegraphed it's been, then I don't even know.
The Kursk Front turning into the Sumy front poses problems for the Eastern Front in Toretsk, Chasiv Yar, & Pokrovsk. That front has stablized but could quickly change when allocation of troops becomes an issue heading into the Summer.
No-Spoilers@reddit
I don't even think that's the biggest issue, I think Russia getting intelligence from the US is the bigger issue. It is no surprise this all happens amid reports of Russia suddenly knowing everything about Ukraine's positions in Kursk, ammo depots, supply routes and such. The reports of starlink giving away their position. The US freezes intelligence to ukraine and then immediately Russia knows everything?
A lot can be done with a little bit of good intel.
Nethlem@reddit
So when Ukraine does good on the battlefield, that's thanks to all the support given by the US.
But when Russia does good on the battlefield, then that's thanks to all the support given by the US.
Sounds kinda like a proxy-war with the US proxying both sides, which is not even that unprecedented, was already a running theme with the Iran-Iraq war, and to a degree even happened in Syria.
ThisI5N0tAThr0waway@reddit
Who could have predicted that stopping Intel from getting to the Ukrainian would hurt their combat operation ? /S
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.