@@tomk3732 It's like the Russian posters in Kherson "Russia is here forever" Where are the Russians there now? A Russian forever is counted in months isn't it Ivan ??
Regarding the grey tone / buffer zone, one thing you didn't mention as to why Ukraine needed to dig in much farther from the country border is that Ukraine is not allowed to attack on Russian soil with Western weapons. So aside from homemade drones and old-fashioned artillery, Ukraine's hands were tied whereas Russia could accumulate more and more ressources on their side of the border.
The silver lining here is that DC has now said the restriction on attacking Russia is over. So now Ukraine is weapons free on Belgorod oblast. Given that the 'offensive' has already ground to a halt, I think it might be safe to say this was a miscalculation on Putin's part. He didn't gain much, but instead triggered more escalation from NATO.
@@pax6833 Eh, it's more of a "morale" victory Like, have you seen history legends video? That one dumb youtuber who stated "The entire Ukrainian defense collapsed"? That's what they were going for. True stupitdity at it's finest
It's been frustrating reading media coverage that completely ignores this and makes it seem like the Ukrainians were just negligent. We're lucky to have the ISW and people like William who actually know what they're talking about.
@@dirkoftheblaze2352 yes and no. Large-scale offensive didn't happen, however small groups try to break in almost on a daily basis. As for the shelling part - that is correct
I believe this whole Kharkhiv operation is both the fixing in place option, and the stretching ukraine's troops thin option. Whether it will actually work remains to be seen though.
None of that. PU TIN said in a press interview in China that the Kharkhiv operations are meant to create a buffer zone to protect Russia from Ukrainian attacks, he made it clear that the objective is not to take Kharkhiv.
@@timothyrussell4445 How could you possibly know if it's working well or not you don't even know what the aim of the operation is in the first place, and it hasn't even been a week since the operation started? Are you telepathic?
it will work, the question is how long Ukraine has... if Ukraine can drag it for years, it not bad news, if they could last only months, then they need to consider surrender.
@@harderway8568 No, no, no you silly Russian troll. Didn't you get the memo from upstairs? Russian trolls are supposed to spout out propaganda lying and claiming that the Ukrainian leader is filthy rich from corrupt activities. And here you are saying that he is dirt poor. You're going to be in a heck of a lot of trouble with your boss if he sees what you posted. Maybe if you are lucky you won't be sent to the front for your massive screw-up.
Russia's tactics,for organization reasons, have been a general set of low-level pushes across the entire front. Opening up more fron means more total Ukranian territory falling simly because those pushes can happen over a longer line. That said, I mostly think this is a fixing operation, although your point about the range of tube artillery is well taken.
Lines-On-Map Man bringing the lines on the map again! Doesn't seem like a coincidence that as soon as the American aid package came through, Russia started moving to squeeze out as much as it can before Ukraine can get the tide turns against it favor.
Half of the fuckin aid is going in the pockets of officers and all! After all Ukraine is the most corrupt country in all of Europe (maybe after belarus) also, the tide won't turn now, the problem is not ammo or weapons, but manpower.
Turn the war in their favor ? I don't see that as a contingency if Ukraine were able to do it it would have already done it and all their success is based on heavy subsidies of foreign aid as it is, Europe needs to wake up and realize that Ukraine is their problem. It either increases war preparation spending or gets ready for Russia control the way I see it Europe is asleep at the wheel and has been and has no intention of changing that even with the recent increases in expenditure they are counting on American Management in something in their backyard
@@AaSs-ln9mmKharkiv operation and Kherson is “doing shit”?) inflicting up to 530k casualties is “doing shit”?) winning Black Sea battle without an actual navy is “doing shit”? Taking down Kindzhals is “doing shit”?) Shooting down 2 A-50s and Il-23 is “doing shit”?) Destroying 6 TU-23 bombers is “doing shit”?) Taking down nuclear weapon radar is “doing shit”?) Destroying hundreds of aircraft is “doing shit”?) Taking down all tank fleet ruzzians had before 24.02.22 is “doing shit”?) Educate yourself please.
I think it's a big jump to credit the recent US Aid package as a having a huge effect on Russian action. Russia has been building up their forces all year, and many analysts were expecting a large Russian offensive this summer.
Agreed. Everyone is trying to read the tea leaves, myself included. Personally, I think Putin is trying for the best look he can get by November, and to convince Trump of a fait accompli. But, it's anyone's guess as to the point of this now, including, I suspect, a lot of the Russian General Staff. Putin is an intelligence technocrat by trade and a criminal boss by choice. He sees Ukraine's allies as insufficiently united and committed (the technocrat) and is trying to capitalize (the crime boss). The whole thing looks rushed - like a dictator screaming at his generals for results. We will see.
he says Russia is on a time crunch and I don't buy it. Putin is more than willing to have this war last a decade if he has to. Foreign will run out while russia makes its own weapons
goes to show these arm chair experts, russia's big arrow attack will never come. they have been crippled in ww2 population wise and will not risk too much casualties.
@@begonekneecaps9718 Ah yes, weak, corrupt Ukraine that has managed to "somehow" hold out against chad, efficient, corrupt less mother Russia for 2+ years now. 🤡 Good job comrade, your weekly ration of a loaf of bread has been approved for your service to the motherland on the "online, keyboward-warrior" front. Keep it up!
👍😆 (I once received a graded philosophy exam at university, concerning argumentative analysis, a matter riddled with potential pitfalls, where the only comment was a spelling correction of the astronomer Johannes Kepler's name, which I had misspelled Keppler. That felt weird.)
@@glintongordon6811 Maybe i am wrong. I thought I remembered someone in Russia saying that it would take about three days. Or maybe someone else said it, and it wasn't true. I dont remember. That was a couple of years ago.
I'm not a general or military advisor but I've played enough strategy games to know pulling units from the Chasiv Yar direction is the worst thing Ukraine could do. They'd be better off pulling a platoon from each division along the donetsk river to consolidate them up north. You need to move FPV drones south to defend the river but they have significant manpower south they can tap into as Russia has mostly ignored the Kherson region for the last year. Without Russia sending a significant force south for an amphibious invasion, the risk is low. I also can't see Russia committing a significant force in the region as they've moved 50,000+ troops into the Kharkiv region. imo I see war like chess. They've made their move and it's time to capitalize on it. Whether that's total defense or launching an offensive of their own in the Kherson region. I definitely think it's time Ukraine expands it's enlistment if it isn't able to stabilize the front within the next month.
In your games did you have to take in account terrible corruption, soldiers' war fatigue and 15% of the army as deserters? That's how it is in Ukraine now
if ukraine unit are the same, what you said is logical, but they are not. the unit in the south do not have the same supporting elements in their command structure, they are not mobile and so cannot be more north without abandoning their equipment. support unit are expensive, not all military unit have the same mobility. they are really there as a buffer to delay any attack, but they are not equiped to face off with the enemy, if you take them away from a natural defensive river, their odds of survival would be bad.
@@KiraNt4 People often mention Ukraine's corruption but they never mention Russia's sort of cancels it out. Remember that these used to be part of the same country & Russia is well known for being a "Mafia state." with the whole falling out of a window epidemic. (Plus, other things like Russian generals selling propellers of ships for money) The major differences between the two is Russia is bigger & Ukraine's elections seem more legit.
A fine point on the size of US aid approved for Ukraine: it's not "61 billion." Most of the $61 billion is to buy new toys for the US military. I estimate that only about $20 billion worth of aid will actually make itself to Ukraine. Still a substantial amount, but nowhere near the amount that M. T. Greene chooses to descend into hysteria about as "shipping money to Ukraine."
This move by the Kremlin puzzles me. Like you said, the forces are nowhere near enough to occupy the city. But then again, neither were they during the "special military operation". Getting stuck in yet another slog (which is the most likely outcome, when you consider the tactical situation around Kharkiv, and how last time went) does nothing for the Kremlin. Because of this, the idea of this being a grey zone occupation exercise doesn't make much sense either. A fixing operation - while a possible explanation - comes with a massive problem: 50.000 troops are a *massive* investment for a move like this. And losses against an entrenched position - not to mention heavily urbanized area - will likely be high. Whatever gains the Kremlin hopes to gain at the cost of these losses, remains a mystery to me. The most likely (to me, at this time) explanation is that the Kremlin is frustrated at the state of the war. Fighting massive battles over tiny population centers like Avdiivka doesn't exactly help to win the war, and makes Russia look weak. (because it is.) I suspect this move is part political (technically taking a large chunk of territory - even if effectively dead man's land - makes Russia look stronger and perhaps the Kremlin hopes to have a demoralizing effect on the West - wrongfully so) part... "f*ck it, we can't win like this, might as well try a full-scale push across all fronts and see what happens" hail mary. It wouldn't be at all unlike the Kremlin to make massive bets that will either turn out amazingly or - most likely - disastrously.
@heitors.3917 Logistic motivations actually make a lot of sense. Ukraine has hit Rostov-on-don a lot the past 2 years but Belgorod and Kursk have comparitively remained pretty intact. Not to mention, the stress on the Southern and Eastern regions must be massive for the Russians.
When you have advantages in materiel and personnel, it pays to spread out the opponent as much as possible. Opening a new front favors the larger force.
It seems to me, Kiev could ‘conscript’ 18-25 year olds into back line only positions serving like 5 days a month. 3 days are used filling in back line positions and 2 days of training. And instead of all of these conscripts serving at the same time, they are spread across 10 groups serving concurrently. That would free up fighters to go to the front like other countries are considering doing.
Good rule of thumb is that if you or I, randos on the internet, have thought of this, it's a safe bet that the people who's job is to think of this kind of stuff already have.
Ukraine will have to throw everyone they have into action before any other countries get involved beyond small special forces deployments realistically
That could work, but the resources and manpower required to do that would make it not worth it. Generally, if you're going to conscript you want people to stay in the armed forces for a while because it takes time to get them up to speed on how things work. Even if it's a simple job, someone will always find a way to screw it up
I would make it for 20-25 year olds. But also expand it to everyone regardless of gender or fitness. Give everyone a couple of years after high school to continue studying and gain some civilian job related skills. Subsidize the costs for that post secondary education, especially in fields most needed by the country. Two years means a focus primarily on technical and vocational training but even associates liberal arts programs would be an option. Then during the 20-25 year old period they could have a national service requirement for everyone lasting a year or two of active service and the rest as a reservist. This should include civil defense training, some basic military training, and training in a national service job, then several months to a year of service work. This might include further military training and service for those who meet the standards and military needs. But could also involve training in other national service jobs that support the urgent needs of the country such as in medical care, logistics, law enforcement, construction, or manufacturing related to government needs. This will create a large pool of trained workers and military recruits. This then can be drawn upon in the 25 year old and older group for active service on the front lines or in critical rear area shortages on a rotating basis with relatively short duration in harm’s way because of the large pool. It simultaneously would create a war economy focused civilian life with opportunities provided for internships and jobs that would support overall morale and productivity.
@@jeffersonclippership2588you’ll be surprised how much major organizations miss things. That’s why intel made a portal where even janitors or customers can put forward their ideas and argue with top execs anonymously online.
Attritional wars require their own ‘Art of War’ and are fought with a ‘force-centric’ approach, unlike wars of manoeuvre which are ‘terrain-focused’. They are rooted in massive industrial capacity to enable the replacement of losses, geographical depth to absorb a series of defeats, and technological conditions that prevent rapid ground movement. In attritional wars, military operations are shaped by a state’s ability to replace losses and generate new formations, not tactical and operational manoeuvres. The side that accepts the attritional nature of war and focuses on destroying enemy forces rather than gaining terrain is most likely to win.
Aren't you that guy who was gloating about Ukrainian INGENEOUS tactic to "give Russia dilemmas" like half a year ago or so? If that's the case, you are among thre last people one should listen to with regards to "Russia's long-term strategy" and whatnot, my guy 😸
Russia has been mobilizing for a long time. My guess is that since they might have a manpower advantage, they are going to launch multiple offensives to vastly over stretch Ukraine's defenses/ reserves and supplies. If they launch a small offensive in Kharkiv, Sumy and maybe Chernihiv then this could overwhelm Ukraine defenders in the Donbass region forcing them to give up the Donbass in order to preserve their three other oblasts. However, this relies on Russia not only have a large army in its other fronts but also a large reserve force and then forces to spare for their other small offensives.
@@rmdomainer9042 well yea theyre using scouting parties to attack kharkov while still having more than 20,000+ soldiers behind the border waiting to be deployed lol they have stupid numbers
Not really, you shouldn't underestimate Russian manpower advantages. Doesn't mean they've suddenly become tactical geniuses, but it's become obvious Ukraine is having manpower issues, and unlike Russia, they're not recruiting from jails or pressuring non ethnic Russians from far provinces into service. Is that fair? Obviously not. However nothing is fair in war. Russia has 3x Ukraine's population, and with Putins successful retention of the presidency, following the "election," he has more sway in increasing mobilization. @@rmdomainer9042
as a swiss person, it is absolutely insane to me how many people think speaking language X means you want to be part of country X. we speak german, french and italian (and rumantsch, but that's purely swiss). that doesn't mean we would support an invasion by germany, france or italy. so why would anyone think this is fundamentally different in eastern countries? I know russian speaking ukranians who now refuse to speak russian
This analysis is BELOW moderate, sorry to say. Some facts you "forget": 1. The Russians wanted to negotiate a peace-agreement that would be respected (not like Minsk II where both Merkel and Hollande both admitted they never intended to apply it and it was just needed to prepare Ukraine for war). The Russians withdrew from Kiev because this was one of the actions agreed upon the peace deal in march 2022, that was until Boris Johnsson flew to Kiev to blow up the agreement... 2. You show Zelensky in Kiev on Feb 23, 2022 but somehow everyone doesn't want to mention that Zelensky blew up the Budapest Memorandum on Feb 19, 2022 (by begging for US nukes on the Munich Security Conference). After Ukraine killed ethnic russians in Donbass since 2014, this was the final barrier being taken away to end the killing of CIVILIANS in Ukraine with heavy warfare for 8 years before 2022... 3. According to the UN charter articles 106 and 107, the Russians (as legal inheritants of the Sovjet Union) have the right to intervene in Ukraine (among other countries) if there is a threat by neo-nazis to ethnic russians. Whether there is such threat will be evaluated, but I strongly recommend watching the French documentary by top-reporter Paul Moreira for Special Investigation made in 2016 first... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Av-Ilrlpz8M.html 4. Last but not least, maybe you should listen to "confessions" that the White House advisor made in 2015 on the Chicago Council on Global Affairs during the Q&A session... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QeLu_yyz3tc.html
honestly have no clue why they have waited this long to begin the special buffer operation and extend the distance of total frontline. lines on maps and such.
Because they planned to do it later, with more soldiers and resources, but aid package was approved earlier than expected so they rushed the entire operation. Remember those talks about "mega russian offensive" somewhere in summer? This should've been it.
Same reason as in WW1. Russia had more population than the entirety of the central powers. But could only afford to equip a fraction of that. Russia can field millions but that doesn’t mean they can also arm them. War is about the management of logistics not strategy anymore. It’s why Russia only used 150k troops in the initial invasion. Because that’s what they could arm. Except that was based off of lies and was more like 100k in reality.
@@sircatangry5864what aid package has to do with anything? Russia is still out-producing the entire NATO and therefore outgunning Ukraine. Since 2022 some people were talking about some potential big Russian offensive and some pro Ukrainian NPCs were celebrating every time nothing happened
All of his videos are unwatchable after you've seen 3 of them. Just repeating repeating and repeating. And even with so much repeating you still don't even get half a clear idea of what is going on.
Correct Very little of the huge US Congress-approved funds for Ukraine get to the front line A large share of the money in the aid bills is spent in the United States, paying for American factories and workers to produce the various weapons that are either shipped to Ukraine or to replenish the U.S. weapons stocks the Pentagon has drawn on during the war. Much of the U.S. aid has gone toward providing weapons systems, training, and intelligence The magnitude of U.S. aid to Ukraine in the latter part of the conflict has done little to stop Russian military success in Ukraine's Eastern Regions
Don't forget that we get to watch this summer why the Kakhovka Dam was built in the 1st place. Virtually no agriculture will exist in Crimea anymore. And the few Russian war tourists will have to bring their own water. At least until the water - boat/train/truck arrives. Russians love a good desert.
A concomitant consequence of this operation may be a speeding up of the deployment of troops from various European countries to Ukraine. There has already been an offer from some Baltic countries. Frankly, I think the US should plan on basing two full heavy mechanized corps in Eastern Europe (Poland, Finland, the Baltics, etc.). During the Cold War (I miss the Cold War) the US had between 300K and 500K troops in Europe. The level today is 50K. Large deployments in Europe would also be a big help for recruitment into the US Army. If the US did this, it would free up troops from those "front line" states to go into Ukraine as backup to Ukranian forces. This would allow Ukraine to move more forces to the front line, with substantial allied reserves to immediately back them up if something happened.
I've been hearing reports that Russia has ended their Avdiivka offensive including their attacks on Chasiv Yar. It doesn't work as a fixing operation when Russia lets off pressure elsewhere to fight in Kharkiv.
Fourth possibility: Russia doesn't have much of a strategy, except "push harder", and this is it. Lapin is rumored to be the general in charge of the Kharkiv offensive, after all, and he's not the Russian general held in highest regard by military experts.
Given that Russia paid dearly from the "We'll push into Ukraine and win" mentality, I have doubts. Because that would mean that RUssia has learned nothing from the entire conflict. Which... If that's the case... will most likely make every competent analysis question reality.
To me 50k troops is no where enough to take a city like kharkiv judging by they needed 100k+ to take much smaller bakhmut. they mostly doing a diversionary attack to take troops away from donbass front since donbass is the bare minimum Russia needs to call the whole thing a success
@@tomk3732 they can still cause a lot of damage with artillery and fpv drones in a defensive scenario... Also troops are not only use for offence but also for manning occupied territory. At max Russia will take territories to bring kharkiv inside shelling range and shell it for months before they actually try to take it. Thats what they do usually....
It doesn't matter how many soldiers Russia has there. The more important thing is how many soldiers does Ukraine have in comparison to Russia in that sector
Thank you William for bringing up the possible economic motive for now attacking Kharkiv. It ought to be obvious, but I haven't heard it somewhere else. After all, this is measurable with hitting Ukraine's grain exports. And since Russia now seems to be planning for a very long war, this economic warfare motive makes even more sense.
3:13 bro speaking about 61 we've heard it time and again that it's less than 20bn that would actually land in Ukraine hands and less than 15 would be dedicated to military. 50% of that money is going back to USA
What is missing here is a discussion of how this so-called buffer zone in Ukraine will likely turn into a killing zone of Russian troops. These troops were able to assemble in the relative safety inside the Russian border. With a huge wave of ammo coming into Ukraine from the U.S., how in the world does it benefit the Russians to put their troops inside Ukraine where Ukrainians can rain steel on them without having to restrict their weapon usage? Also missing in this discussion is how the Russians have already suffered devastating losses of their professional soldiers over two years of war. Now, they are sending relatively untrained soldiers into a killing zone in Ukraine. I don't see the logic here.
According to Putin the purpose of this activity in the kHarkiv Oblast which is a massive expansion of the Putin Russia War effort btw and one that continues to fail to achieve its objectives in everyway....is to create and I quote "a buffer zone." Is this quote an accurate translation of what Putin said? If so does that match what is happening on the ground? If not why not?
Putin doesn't have the men or equipment to take Kharkiv city. Even Russian MoD says they'd need at least 350,000 men to take the city. Which is about 60% of their entire deployed army in Ukraine. At best it's a buffer zone to stop attacks into Belgorod.
@@alexvaulin1140 so you're what, disagreeing with Russian MoD's own assessment?? :D :D And btw... why hasn't Russia taken all of Donbas, let alone Chasiv Yar? Why mobilize the economy and (per RT this past week) need to increase tank production and refurbishments by 350%?
The most important strategic theater is Crimea. Russia does not like its Navy being pushed back to coastal Russian waters. Occupying Kharkiv would be a nightmare. Watch.
They want to take it eventually so it looks like a case of “push as far as you can” while forcing Ukraine to divert resources to it. It could also be a probing attack or simply a play with what they have at the moment since it’s mostly a slow crawl near stalemate.
They are doing recon in force now. As long as Russia can arm men, their frontline will continue to grow. They really messed up in the beginning but their industry is leaning more towards military equipment now.
Russia knows that the bulk of Ukraine's missile systems are in the eastern and southern theatres. Kharkivs defences are mainly trench and mechanised infantry based. So Ukraine's going to have to shift hardware north fairly fast to stop a salient from developing.
I saw this earlier but now there is a BBC report confirming that the city was left without fortifications. The Russians just came in unopposed with minimal cost. Maybe this was just a target of opportunity due to Ukrainian mismanagement.
American policy of not using our weapons to fire into Russia is another mistake. Russian troops were assembling on border but Ukraine could not destroy them when they were most vulnerable. However, Ukraine had advance warning but since all their best troops have been killed, due to American policy, they were unable to take effective action.
Before the special military operations, Ukrainian force already to attack Donbass region@ Lugansk and Donestk republic...after this 2 Republic want to separate from Ukraine regime...
Had Ukraine not keep striking Belgorod, Russia would not have opened that front towards Kharkov. After numerous warnings from Russia to stop doing this to no avail, there you go, another frontline.
@@ZontarDow Well the sympathizers and apologists are saying that it's because of lack of weapons and that they will do better after the "Aid package arrives" I don't know why it's so hard to sit with the Russians and address their issues instead of what Macron is saying that ww3 is more preferable
Someone with intelligence revealed lately that Russia's intent is to take Kharkiv city and then STOP. But then if Ukraine fought too hard Russia would be willing to continue advancing. So if the city fell Ukraine should give cessation a chance.
The "biggest escalation" comes with a cost. The current casualty numbers are crazy (as I noted elsewhere in a reply, but some people don't read replies). Per AFU, ruzzian combat losses this month average 1250 per day, a total for May thus far of 25,000. Extrapolated to the end of the month, that would be 38,800, or a yearly pace of 460,000. But with the numbers for the first four months already baked into the cake, as it were, I'm projecting a total of 419,000 ruzzian casualties for 2024 as a whole. Adding such a figure for 2024 to the 360,000 men lost as of 31 December last, that would put ruzzia at a total of about 779,000 men eliminated by the end of 2024 in this "three day special military operation." If Ruzzia continues to press this hard while giving their troops so little protection, at some point the aggressors will simply crack. Sure, ruzzia is a big country, but it can't throw away the lives of its young men at this rate. Those 779,000 men represent more than three percent of the entire ruzzian male population aged 18 to 45. Imagine what would have happened in the USA if, during 34 months of the Vietnam War, the equivalent number of American men had been killed or severely wounded. That figure would be 1.2 MILLION, as compared with the actual figures of 40,000 KIA and 105,000 seriously wounded (total 145,000) in the three peak years of the Vietnam conflict (1967-69). The chart of Vietnam War casualties present a sharp "V" of escalating losses from 1964 through 1968, with a decline thereafter almost exactly matching the increases from 1964 to 1968. At the peak, you had the riots at the Democrat Convention and the other signs of exasperation on the part of those opposed to US participation in the war effort. The brainwashed ruzzian people will tolerate more slaughter of their men than Americans would. Nevertheless, I still expect them to hit a breaking point in the next year, as they are forced to suffer up to some EIGHT TIMES the losses, proportionately to population, that the US did in Vietnam.
You know, as a professor, you have never actalually been in a trench. You havent had to deal with wounded or mentally scarred service personal. Never seen what happens when a barrel breaches on a 155 mm howitzer. Be glad. Thank you for the information update and the work you do.
Looks to me not like the intentions is Kharkiv. To me it looks like initially to retake the gains of Ukraine in Kkharkiv oblast in 2022, and to increase the frontline length.
But with the cross border raids, wasnt that done to provoke a reaction from Russia? This kinda looks like an over reaction they might want, if the prepared their positions properly...
Мне интересно, реально остались упыри, считающие, что Украина может победить? Изначально ж было всё ясно, простая математика. Только переговоры могут спасти то население Украины, что ещё не полегло под снарядами в наспех вырытых окопах.
The fighting is always intense the day before it ends. Azerbaijan was moving very slow and then Armenia surrendered. Azerbaijan didnt have to fight for all the territory. Simply Armenian troops left and Azerbaijan took control. There will come a breaking point in this war and it will be sudden like Armenia when everyone was surprised when it collapsed.
Which is laughable calculation, just as William's land gains %. Lands gains were near non-existing during WW1 for 4 years. And on last year they increased by hundreds of thousands %.
