Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

ArmchairAnalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Another ISW assessment:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

-----------

Fredrick W. Kagan, George Barros, and Kateryna Stepanenko


In more detail:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


March 6, 2:00 PM EST

The military situation on the ground has not changed significantly in the past 24 hours. Russian forces continue to mass for renewed offensive operations east and west of Kyiv, west of Kharkiv, and toward Mykolayiv-Odesa but have not yet initiated new large-scale ground attacks. Russia has increased aerial and artillery/rocket attacks on civilian positions and infrastructure, including known evacuation corridors. Ukrainian forces reportedly conducted a second counter-attack in two days, this time near Mariupol. The Ukrainian air force and air defense forces continue to operate, inflicting damage on Russian ground forces and disrupting Russian air and missile operations.

Key Takeaways

  • Russian forces spent the past 24 hours largely regrouping and preparing for renewing offensive operations around Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Mykolayiv.
  • The Ukrainian General Staff reports the presence of a large concentration of Russian forces west of Kharkiv that it assesses will launch a wide offensive southwest toward the Dnipro River, although no such offensive has begun as of this publication.
1646620430537.png

Immediate items to watch
  • Russian operations northwest of Kyiv may resume attacks on the city and/or attempts to encircle it to the west in the next 24-48 hours;
  • Russian forces east of Kyiv may resume their drive likely intended to envelop Kyiv from the east;
  • Russian forces may attempt amphibious landings anywhere along the Black Sea Coast from Odesa to the mouth of the Southern Bug in the next 24-48 hours.
-----------
Note:

The Ukrainian General Staff also noted that Russian forces illegally present in the Moldovan breakaway region of Transnistria are on high alert, although it also claimed that their morale is poor and they do not want to fight in Ukraine.[17] ISW has no independent verification of either claim. Russia has maintained three battalions in Transnistria for decades despite the opposition of the Moldovan government. Those battalions have historically had low readiness levels and are unlikely to be able to conduct effective mechanized maneuver operations on their own. The Ukrainian General Staff may be reporting on them because of indicators they are seeing that the Russians intend to use them in conjunction with an attack on Odesa. ISW has no independent indicators to support such an assessment, although it would be logical.
 

sferrin

Junior Member
Registered Member
“There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--Hamlet

Japan's now not close to being a 'mortal threat' militarily against China. But Japan has the potential to be.
If Japan were to renounce its commitment to shun nuclear weapons, then Japan has the industrial might and
technological prowess to build a nuclear arsenal quickly and become one of the world's major military powers.

What many Chinese may find worrisome is that Japanese nationalists (many of whom hold power in government)
show too few signs of being sincerely repentant for Japan's aggression against China in 1931-45 (or earlier).
Moreover, increasingly Sinophobic Americans may encourage the Japanese to believe that they did nothing
seriously wrong toward China in 1931-45.
Japan almost certainly will go nuclear. South Korea as well. But neither country has any interest in conquest. If they did they'd already be nuclear. Even together they wouldn't be a "mortal threat" to China. The notion that Ukraine is or ever could be a "mortal threat" to Russia is ridiculous.
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
Translated from Ukrainian
Approximate situation at the front as of March 6.
It is worth noting that if the Russian military has appeared somewhere, it does not mean that they control the territory.

That map is an example of, for the lack of a better term, coping. US troops weren't in every square inch in Afghanistan or Iraq. A successful control of a region or country is determined by the control of key cities and roads and the size of the enemy's presence in those locations. Deploying military personal and equipment in every single square inch of a region is unnecessary and a waste of resources and time.
 

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
You really believe the US was worried about Grenada? Seriously? (There's a world of difference between not wanting insurgents being supplied in South America and honest to god thinking they're a threat to the nation. The fact this needs to be pointed out to you suggests you're probably a good candidate for the ignore list.)
You have a long record of parroting simplistic US propaganda and appearing incredulous whenever anyone dares to
point out facts to the contrary. I concur that some writers here seem too unbalanced in their pro-Russian views.
But you seem on the extreme opposite of that. Can't you find another forum full of ignorant flag-waving Americans?
Most educated people outside the USA don't blindly agree with the US propaganda eagerly absorbed by most Americans.

Note that the US government did not give the same 'justification' that you have for the US invasion of Grenada.

"The US government defended its invasion of Grenada as an action to protect American citizens living on the island, including
medical students. Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth W. Dam said that action was necessary to "resolve" what Article 28 of the
charter of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(O.A.S.) refers to as "a situation that might endanger the peace". He added that
the OAS charter and the UN charter both "recognize the competence of regional security bodies in ensuring regional peace
and stability,"
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
referring to the decision by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to approve the invasion.

The UN Charter prohibits the use of force by member states except in cases of self-defense or when specifically authorized by
the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The UN Security Council had not authorized invasion.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Similarly, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
adopted General Assembly Resolution 38/7 by a vote of 108 to 9 with 27 abstentions, which "deeply deplores
the armed intervention in Grenada, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
A similar resolution in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
received widespread support but was vetoed by the United States."
--Wikipedia

The US invasion of Grenada violated international law and was overwhelmingly condemned by other countries.
Even Margaret Thatcher personally disapproved of it, though she felt beholden to the USA for supporting the UK earlier
in the Falklands War.

As an analogy, let's suppose that Russia claimed that some Russian citizens (students) in Ukraine were endangered.
Then surely you would--if you were not a hypocrite--approve of Russia sending a VDV unit to rescue the students,
even if it would necessitate further military action to secure the area around the school and then the area around that
and so on, right? That's how the USA extrapolated a supposed 'humanitarian rescue mission' of a few students into
invading, taking over, and occupying a sovereign country. Another glorious victory for the American Empire!
 

coolgod

Brigadier
Registered Member
The first that I heard of Soviet misbehavior in Manchuria or China in 1945 was from a late relative, a veteran of the war.
Given my youth, he tended to avoid graphic details, yet he clearly seemed aware of many terrible occurrences.

For a published book in English (which has different titles for the UK and US editions), Max Hastings wrote
_Nemesis: The Battle for Japan 1944-45_ or _Retribution: The Battle for Japan 1944-45_
It has a chapter about the USSR's war on Japan in 1945, including describing some Soviet war crimes against Chinese.

Russian culture (chess, literature, mathematics, music) was a significant influence of my upbringing.
Yet I can criticize Russian imperialism and respect or sympathize with peoples who fought against it.
I just read that part, your source is literally 2 paragraphs in a 700 page book, with supposedly 2 sources of rape, only one of which was witnessed. I'm not saying there wasn't sporadic sexual misconduct (i.e., rape) by the soviets to the Chinese civilians, but that is hardly the best example of Russian/Soviet imperialism against China.
The days and weeks that followed the Russian occupation were a brutal
shock to the 'liberated' people of Aihni. They witnessed their share of
the orgy of rape and destruction which overtook Manchuria. On
13 August, Xu Guiming saw two Russian soldiers accost in the street a
local girl named Zhang - half-Russian, half-Chinese, like many people
of the region. 'We reckon you owe us one; they said, throwing her to
the ground. One man held her down while the other bestrode her, and
a ghastly little drama took place. Zhang fought fiercely, throwing aside
her rapist. This caused the other man to unsling his gun and shoot her.
His careless bullets also killed his comrade, however. The occupants of
a passing Russian vehicle, seeing what happened, themselves unleashed
a burst of fire which killed the murderer. Three corpses were left
unheeded in the street.
Xu did not himself witness another local incident which became
notorious. A Russian burst into the home of a local policeman, Mr Su,
who was sitting with a man friend and his twenty-year-old wife, newly
delivered of a baby. The Russian brusquely ordered the men out, and
raped the girl. When he emerged, the outraged Chinese seized and
bound him, then thrust him down their well. This incident rendered
the avenging Chinese briefly famous, and a local hero. However, when
the Communists soon afterwards took control of Aihni, Su was arrested
for killing the Russian, 'our ally', and summarily shot. His raped wife
was denounced as a counter-revolutionary, an outcast, and forbidden
ever again to marry or receive the protection of a man.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Japan almost certainly will go nuclear. South Korea as well. But neither country has any interest in conquest. If they did they'd already be nuclear. Even together they wouldn't be a "mortal threat" to China. The notion that Ukraine is or ever could be a "mortal threat" to Russia is ridiculous.
Aa a "Neutral" country Ukraine is not a threat, not even a "mortal threat" but as a MEMBER OF NATO, then only a toddler would think that it wouldn't be a metal threat to Russia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top