Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Real Name said:
Ant that's a big loss for UA strategically?
Click to expand...
Sometimes one gets the impression that every city/town is called "strategic" but here's what NYT writes about it:
Pokrovsk, which had a prewar population of about 60,000, sits on a key road linking several cities that form a defensive arc protecting the part of Donetsk that Ukraine still holds. It is also the last major city in the central part of the Donetsk region under Ukrainian control.
Click to expand...
Combined with the possible fall of Kurakhove and Velyka Novosilka, two Ukrainian strongholds under assault further south, the capture of Pokrovsk could pave the way for a complete Russian takeover of the southern half of the Donetsk region. It could also open a path for new attacks on the neighboring Dnipropetrovsk region, analysts say.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/12/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-pokrovsk.html
 
Real Name said:
Ant that's a big loss for UA strategically?
Click to expand...
Yes. At the same time it is the big question (that we are asking for the whole war) how many of such wins Russia can afford. We see increasing problems in Russia but so far they still are able to stay a stable country. Russia has been more resilient than most expected (or hoped), but still Pokrovsk is one of the bloodiest battles in history of armored warfare and that will have lasting impact on the Russian army.
 
stefan92 said:
Yes. At the same time it is the big question (that we are asking for the whole war) how many of such wins Russia can afford. We see increasing problems in Russia but so far they still are able to stay a stable country. Russia has been more resilient than most expected (or hoped), but still Pokrovsk is one of the bloodiest battles in history of armored warfare and that will have lasting impact on the Russian army.
Click to expand...

I agree, and the sheer amount of time it has taken to (almost) conquer Pokrovsk likely means that all the defences just beyond that will have been built up to be just as difficult to take. Clearly Russia can’t get to Kiev at their current rate of losses of men and equipment per square mile, so at some point they will take an area and go no further. Logically that would be the border of those 2 oblasts I’d think,
 
Both Ukrainian & Russian bloggers have reported that North Korean troops have been put into combat, in the Kursk area.
 
Real Name said:
Whats happening on the ground, Pokrovsk is about to fall?
Click to expand...

Well, if we go off past examples of them reaching the outskirts of what is considered a key location. It may fall somewhere between 1-3 years.
 
Holy moly. This is apparently an inland ammo dump, 10km inland from the Russian naval base.

 
Last edited:
The incident took place in the Kerch Strait, which separates Russia from Crimea - the Ukrainian peninsula illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014.
Click to expand...

 
golden_blunder said:
Who sank them?
Click to expand...
Apparently the storm. This time for real. Those ships as I understood are more designed for usage on rivers than on the open sea, so heavy swell isn't their natural environment. In a broader sense this appears to be a result of the damage done to the Kerch bridge - Russia needs to bring fuel to Crimea and the railroad bridge is weakened, so can't be used to do that. So they have to use these ships that aren't optimal for the current weather there.
 
Ukrainian forces claim 'significant' casualties among North Koreans in Kursk
The Ukrainian Defense Ministry's Main Directorate of Intelligence said on Monday that at least 30 North Korean soldiers were killed and wounded in weekend battles in Russia's western Kursk region, prompting commanders to send reinforcements to frontline units.
Click to expand...
"North Korean army units are being re-equipped after losses in assaults" around the villages of Plekhovo, Vorozhba and Martynovka in the Kursk region, the GUR wrote in a post to its official Telegram channel.
Click to expand...
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...alties-north-koreans-kursk/story?id=116818610
 
^Ukrainians have shared drone close-up footage of North Koreans where you can see their face. They look young, but we also know that Buryats (ethnic minority in Russia) are sent to the front sooo...judging on physical appearances could be questionable.
 
VorZakone said:
^Ukrainians have shared drone close-up footage of North Koreans where you can see their face. They look young, but we also know that Buryats (ethnic minority in Russia) are sent to the front sooo...judging on physical appearances could be questionable.
Click to expand...

Although we can't say with 100% certainty until they capture some of them for interrogation, there is little doubt anymore that these are North Koreans. Previous videos and evidence have been inconclusive or fake, but these recent videos along with all reports (from both Ukraine and Russian sources) confirm it for me at least.

The North Koreans seem to be using a different tactic than previous Russian attacks in that area, they have no armored support that can be seen but instead spread out over large open areas and approach on foot. We'll see how effective it is, but a similar strategy worked for Russia in Bakhmut for example. Its more difficult to target small dispersed groups with drones or artillery, if they're willing to just walk through whatever attacks they face and take losses until some of them eventually reach their destination.

And Ukraine fires the commander overseeing the Donetsk defense: https://www.ft.com/content/97f8a9e5-1bd0-462a-a916-df2aa82b68b3

Some not great news coming from a couple of places on the eastern frontline in the past days where groups of Ukrainian troops got encircled after failing to withdraw in a timely manner. Quite frankly some strange decisions there to not withdraw while Russia slowly approaches and eventually encircles those troops. Completely unnecessary losses there for Ukraine.
 
The reason why there were so many casualties despite a small number of battles is because North Korean soldiers were deployed as frontline shock troops in an unfamiliar open field and lack abilities to respond to drones, Lee said.
Click to expand...

 
nimic said:
This war already destroyed the myth of Russian military prowess, is there maybe a similar one for North Korea?
Click to expand...
Is there a myth of North Korea's military prowess? Outside of North Korea.
 
I should have invaded Ukraine earlier, Putin tells Russians in TV marathon
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia should have launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine earlier and been better prepared for the war.

In his end-of-year press conference on Thursday, Putin said, with hindsight, there should have been "systemic preparation" for the 2022 invasion, which he refers to as a "special military operation".
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjgzrkxp97o
 
nimic said:
This war already destroyed the myth of Russian military prowess, is there maybe a similar one for North Korea?
Click to expand...
They have been more effective than the Russians. Under heavy losses they won positions that the Russians couldn't win. Which probably means that the North Koreans prove to be inhumane but still better than the Russian army.
 
stefan92 said:
They have been more effective than the Russians. Under heavy losses they won positions that the Russians couldn't win. Which probably means that the North Koreans prove to be inhumane but still better than the Russian army.
Click to expand...

If you have a 10% casualty rate to win a few kilometres of land have you really won?
 
TwoSheds said:
If you have a 10% casualty rate to win a few kilometres of land have you really won?
Click to expand...
The question is more like: What is better, having a 50% casualty rate for winning a few kilometers, or having a 20% casualty rate for winning nothing?
 
stefan92 said:
The question is more like: What is better, having a 50% casualty rate for winning a few kilometers, or having a 20% casualty rate for winning nothing?
Click to expand...

Probably the latter in a war of attrition but who knows I suppose.
 
stefan92 said:
The question is more like: What is better, having a 50% casualty rate for winning a few kilometers, or having a 20% casualty rate for winning nothing?
Click to expand...

And even better, when the casualties are not coming from your own army but from foreign soldiers that you purchased and mean nothing to you or the future of your country.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
These casualty percentages are wild and definetely untrue.
Click to expand...

Which percentages are those. Didn't South Korea say ~100 dead, 1000 injured? 11,000 troops -> 10%. I suppose it depends on the definition of an injury but I'm assuming they don't mean they got pricked by a rose on the way though the lines.
 
TwoSheds said:
Which percentages are those. Didn't South Korea say ~100 dead, 1000 injured? 11,000 troops -> 10%. I suppose it depends on the definition of an injury but I'm assuming they don't mean they got pricked by a rose on the way though the lines.
Click to expand...

Well 20% casualties touted above renders an entire division combat inoperable to the point that it must withdraw or cease to function as a unit and to merge with others.

50% casualties is basically US Civil War at its worst, and the most horrific of WWII/WWI level of casualties that is practically unheard of in modern war (barring your ISIS maniacs who just decide to blow themselves up).

10% casualties like touted above, if the SK's are accurate, is a pretty insane casualty rate for what has essentially been 1 week of operational tempo.

10% is close to the threshold which makes that unit combat ineffective, dependent on force structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.