Here’s a question for armchair generaIs. Why is Ukraine focused on the east / northeastern areas? It seems like Kherson would be a bigger priority. Once Kherson is retaken, a relatively small defensive force at the crossing from Crimea can be left behind. Then the forces that took Kherson can work their way east to Melitopol, then Mariupol, then work north, with little need for leaving behind large defensive garrisons until they start working north from Mariupol. On a map that seems like it would be a better strategy, especially if things like tanks and artillery are in short supply.
Essentially, they are focusing on both areas. It may not look like as much is happening in Kherson, but it’s a different sort of fight. In the northeast, the concentration of forces are quite dispersed and the areas being attacked are along a relatively broad front. This opens things up for maneuver and mobility. We see holes getting punched in lines and the Ukrainians afterwards attempting to exploit and encircle enemy strongpoints, and Russians abandoning them to avoid getting their lines of communication cut off. By contrast, the Kherson front has greater troop densities in a more geographically bound area. Here, Ukraine is minimizing frontal attacks to the extent they can and are attempting to slowly strangulate the Russians ‘trapped’ on the north bank of the Dnieper River. As you have probably already heard, Ukraine managed to knock out the rail and road bridges across the river, forcing Russia to rely on the much slower method of using barges to ferry supplies across the river.
It’s been a long time since I read The Art of War but I believe that the general advice is to hit them where they’re weak. And, given how quickly they collapsed, that would seem to have been true.
Of course, they’re also attacking Kherson. That one seems to not be very weak. I have to imagine that, despite what the others are saying here, not having the Dnipro accessible to the ocean is problematic for the country (I think they might have most of their ship-building on the river). So, for the Western front, I think it’s a strategic necessity for the long-term.
Personally, I think that they need to get behind Russia and cut off their supply-lines. But that does raise the risk of a nuclear response.
Opportunity costs. Russia basically stripped their northeastern front to reinforce the south, leaving just a shell defense. Which means that Ukraine could grab a lot of territory at a relatively lighter cost. Kherson meanwhile is a bit more of a slog, with tougher defenses in depth that have to be slowly strangled - there is far less of an opportunity for a dramatic breakthrough. Kherson is still a priority, but the dramatic victory up north was a massive propaganda coup that was more than worth it.
In the “middle” east they have to maintain a strong defensive presence because that is where Russia is still nibbling away, trying to expand Russian control around Donetsk.
The Ukrainians are focused on both the Kherson area and eastern Ukraine. They telegraphed an upcoming Kherson offensive, so the Russian invaders moved their best units there, which left them underprepared for the offensive in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainians smashed through the front line in eastern Ukraine, forcing the Russians there to start building a new defensive line further back. In Kherson area, the Russians have had months to build defenses and the best Russian troops are still there, so it’s harder to make progress. With the Ukrainians targeting the bridges that supply the Kherson area, the Russian invaders there should, in theory, weaken over time. If the Ukrainians focused all their energy on Kherson region, they would probably have had higher casualties and would have liberated much less land.
At the same time, continuing a slow (but not terribly insistent) press on Kherson keeps those top-quality troops pinned there, unable to shift elsewhere.
And there are other costs to consider - like the cost to civilians still under the control of the Russians. It’s pretty clear they’re being treated poorly. A military force that can’t stand up to a determined assault by a superior force is still plenty strong enough to continue oppressing a civilian population.
So the Ukrainians may also have seen this as a quick opportunity to relieve a large number of their own people, relatively cheaply.
In addition to this just being a good idea, it’s also a great propaganda coup. Videos of the UA being welcomed back play well everywhere except Russia.
Big teaser Lukashenko at it again.
Ukraine announces gains in Kherson. The big prize is Kherson City but that’s going to be difficult unless the Russians withdraw.
And if, perchance the Russians do try to secretly shift the troops elsewhere and the Ukrainians catch wind of it…
you know you are a screw-up if the only countries supporting you are:
- belarus
- north corea
- nicaragua
- syria
heck, even SOMALIA has turned on russia!
Here in map form:
Somalia voted against Russia in both today’s vote condemning the annexation and March’s vote condemning the invasion. It’s Eritrea that have gone from siding with Russia in March to abstaining today. However, Nicaragua, having abstained in March, today sided with Russia, keeping the number of countries supporting the Russian fascist invaders at five (including Russia).
meanwhile, Russian talent still manage to surprise us
meanwhile in russia:
(clearly, this action was not completely thought through)
and another interesting tidbit …
thx for fighting ignorance … 
That guy sitting in the road shaking his head had to have been at the rear of the passenger compartment. Otherwise he’d be hash like his squadmates.
a few days ago we wondered what the hit on the kerch bridge means logistically…
well - here you go:
and also here:
.
imho they have 2 options:
- lose a lot of perishable products in those trucks during this weeks of wait or
- relax safety again
(my guess is that they go for option 2. ) … and Ukr. will strike again in a month or so
That is what we call a “target-rich environment.” Just made for an A-10. I wonder where they could find some?
Unfortunately, an A-10 is also an easy target in a contested airspace.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
I wonder how many drones can hit those trucks in any given hour?