• pipedpiper@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah why not. Quick attack will break the enemy’s backbone. Russia shouldn’t wait for another 2 years so that West could replenish the arms.

    • pigginz@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The “quick attack to break the enemy’s backbone” more often than not ends up getting bogged down again after expending a ton of resources for a small gain. The way I see it, Russia’s best move would to be to stay on the defense for now maybe with some limited offensive action to strengthen the borders of what they already have taken and put defensive fortifications in more ideal places.

      First of all, attacking is very expensive in equipment and lives, so there’s that. Ukraine is content to keep throwing their troops against fortified defenses, don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.

      Furthermore, the war is declining in popularity in the USA and Europe and support is wavering a bit. A big headline-grabbing offensive could change that. Republicans want to pivot to China and a “stalemate” that’s a big waste of money looks pretty bad for Biden going into election year.

      Of course if Ukraine is able to get more attacks through to more targets inside Russian borders then a big offensive will probably be demanded as a response regardless.

      I don’t have the picture of the situation that the Russian MOD has so I’m just speculating, but Ukraine seems far more desperate to try move the lines of battle than Russia is.

    • ImOnADiet🇵🇸 (He/Him)@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I just thought offensives were pretty hard in the winter because of the cold and especially all the snow/ice, but rivers freezing seems like the only advantage to me