Russia - threadbanned users in OP

My own theory and from reading is that Ukraine realise that Russian reserve forces have become critically low. And they don't have the reserves to maintain the southern front as it is and that a push now with their heavy brigades could potentially break through the lines.

UAF aren't stupid. They haven't been throwing their soldiers and armor into the fire for Robotyne and Urozhaine. Two tiny insignificant villages. Russia know full well that defending Urozhaine and then tactically retreating to a better line of defense, minimizing their losses and maximising Ukraines is the standard procedure and best practise. But they don't. We've seen Russians holding on to Urozhaine well beyond what was logically sound until they were forced to abandon the place on foot. At which point dozens of them were clustered out of existence. Every day we hear about Russians counter attacking like madmen on these small settlements. Burning through their reserves.

Now why is this? Russia aren't as stupid as we'd all like to believe either. Why aren't they simply holding their positions and retreating when it becomes too hot? I think the reason they're doing this is twofold.

1. They only have water at their backs. Unlike in the east where they can retreat towards Russia. Every meter they cede in the south is a meter less that they can hide their logistics from HIMARS and standard artillery. They need to avoid this at all costs.
2. They want to hold out until the proper bad weather takes hold. Then every meter they currently own is one more meter they can mine and place new mobilised men in. I guess then the hope will be that the West becomes bored over Christmas with Ukraine given the limited offensive gains.

You see many pundits decrying the lack of progress on the front and if Ukraine were to continue taking territory at their current rate it'll be over a year worth of slogging and I doubt they have that much men and material to maintain that tempo. But they know this and still they persist. I don't believe its fair to measure this thing linearly. It's a snowball. The beginning is the toughest part. Whether the snowball gains enough momentum remains to be seen.

Took them bloody long enough! The US gives the green light to Denmark & the Netherlands to send F-16s to Ukraine as soon as pilot training is complete: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-approves-sending-f-16s-ukraine-denmark-netherlands-2023-08-17/

A few of the channels that I watch had Ukraine using two tanks in part of the assault on Urozhaine, it's a cagey careful strategy, assault gain ground, remove equipment as the inevitable Russian artillery assault rains down, identify the artillery positions, Hiimars them and start again.

Without doubt, Ukraine have been looking to do two things, stretch Russian logistics, up and down the front and destroy their supply chain. If they can completely cut the Kerch bridge Russia will be in some bind. As with Virgil Russia have been throwing ridiculous resources to hold tiny villages, presumably if Ukraine gain some more ground all the way to the sea will be within Himars range. If that happens nothing will be safe for Russia.

Is it fair to say the counter offensive has been a failure thus far? Seems to be the vibe the expert on Sky News has being putting out all week.

Slower progress than hoped but not a failure

Seems to be gaining momentum at the moment

More good news and a another step closer to F-16s in Ukrainian hands.

Confirmed by BBC, though in all honesty these drone attacks in Moscow seem mostly to be failures, rarely avoiding being shot down. Moscow air defences probably best in the country? There need to be more successful hits to have a real impact. Maybe go for easier targets or choose less protected cities

As things stand currently, the counteroffensive certainly looks to have failed. There were broad territorial expectations before it began and the UAF are now rapidly running out of time to meet them. By the time winter kicks in, we'll be back to 6/7 months of stalemate, which will suit Putin.

The hope is there'll be a breakthrough somewhere by October but it's looking increasingly unlikely.

I'd say the plan originally was to get to Mariupol. Now I think they'd be happy or settle with Tokmak, which itself would force Russia to withdraw further south. Create a new grey zone.

The fcuk up is with the west in delaying supplying UAF with what they needed. Gave Russia ample time to mine the fcuk out of everything.

I'd reckon that Kerch Bridge is living on borrowed time. What's likely saving it at the moment are the dire threats & retaliation the Russian administration rush out any time it has been damaged to date. Russia however went ahead and blew the Kakhovka Dam and is constantly reckless around the Zaporizhia nuclear plant. Ukraine will sooner or later be able to target it. Even if the west limits the range or defines use of supplies, they can/ will develop their own. I'm no expert on air defence systems, can you defend an 18 kilometre narrow bridge?

It is hard to determine if it is a failure or success unless you know what the Russian strength is. There is a lot of uncertainty about what they have. But they are losing battles so they can't have a huge amount left.

There was a Washington post article released either today or yesterday where US Intelligence officials are saying its unlikely that this Ukraine counter offensive will achieve the gold medal of piercing all the way to Melitopol. Just to get ahead of the misery merchants on the thread.

And while I'd actually agree that it seems unlikely that Ukraine will reach the sea of Azov by this time 8 weeks there really isn't anything new in the article that isn't widely known for months now.

• Ukraine not using NATO tactics but opting for small scale and attrition rather than driving all their units in a columns and taking huge losses
• Russian minefields and defenses more formidable than originally thought
• Ukr not having air superiority
• Counter offensive being a tough slog

By what metric are you basing this on? Ukraine are on the offensive and currently(going by Oryx) destroying Russian armor and equipment at a rate 3x to what they're losing. That's absolutely miraculous considering the defenders advantage. And an absolute disaster for Russia. Russian artillery and counter battery is being absolutely genocided daily.Russia even fired one of their most respected generals for saying as much. They fully lost 2 of their most effective anti armor helis yesterday alone. And continue to lose 1 a week.

The Ukr forces that have crossed the Dnipro continue to creep forwards towards the only good main supply line in the south by Oleshky. And Russia seem unable to dislodge them. Almost certainly because they simply don't have the reserves to do it. Another potentially catastrophic sign for Russia. And now as of a couple of days ago Ukraine has put their 82nd brigade into the mix. So we'll see soon enough why they've chosen to do this.

All that implies that a breakthrough is much MORE likely now than it was 2 months ago. Unless the mud season starts tomorrow. They may not make massive gains in this counter offensive noone here knows. But I just can't agree that the signs are terrible as of today.

Port on fire in Mordor

This is a good point. I remember hearing on an economist podcast an excellent remark that dictatorships often look very secure until about 5 minutes before they collapse. The stalemate situation could be similar. Or it might go on and on. Who knows...

They do. For example, Clare Daly and Mick Wallace have consistently voted against Europe in favour of Putin's Russia.

The recent term Campist encapsulates their thinking:

"A leftist who supports any country/organization simply for being opposed to the United States or the West, including authoritarian governments who would otherwise not follow leftist beliefs."

They are typically smart enough to make a vapid condemnation of Putin, but typically it's just window dressing before making statements that are directly in line with Putin's. The "Putin is bad but" trope.