I'm seeing more and more reports about Ukraine potentially being led into a trap and suffering a massive amount of casualties.
If so, then this really is a repeat of Operation Citadel, and almost exactly 80 years to the date.
What Russia seems to be employing right now is the strategy of Elastic Defense (also known as Defense in Depth), the strategy itself . Indeed, the Soviets did make use of this strategy during the Battle of Kursk and it has had a notable presence historically with it being employed in World War 1 with the Hindenburg line. It is essentially the idea you have layered defensive lines meant to stress and slow down the enemy (and hopefully funneling them into areas where the one on the offensive becomes over stretched allowing for a counter attack). A textbook definition of how it would be employed would see the forward defensive line. This is how you can sort of tell when people who are talking about military matters do not actually know that much because having your forces retreat is part of the idea, you just slow down the advance. I will admit that I am definitely no expert, but seeing others refer to how those mobolized not putting up much of a struggle, or just running away shows a clear lack of understanding of defensive stratagem. Remember that part of the Hindenburg Line would see those on the first "line" where meant to retreat. Now did the Hindenburg line? No, German forces had deteriorated severely by this point however concurrently the main Russian Armies have not been engaged in serious conflict. Most of the German elites by that point had been washed up in the Spring Offensive (lol german spring offensive failed) and much of Germany was starving. This is very much an abridged explanation but Russia is not in the same situation as Germany was in 1918.
This is the current problem Ukraine forces are going to be having to deal with, defense in depth places emphasis on trying to stress and slow down an enemy offensive, if Ukraine loses momentum (due to other defenses, stressed logistics ). If Ukraine however chooses to attack, then Russia gets the time to specifically respond. Russia retains the ability to deploy their more elite reserves at will if there is a clear concentration of the enemy. Minefields will also help with this as if done in a certain way, will mean the concentration of heavy vehicles or infantry being concentrated. - Especially if Ukraine doesn't clear a whole field but rather just makes select corridors (Russia may have also done this on purpose, I don't know the specifics). So basically, when people go on about Ukraine taking so much territory it's not that much of a win but much rather either:
A: Coping
B: Stupidity as they know very little of defensive operation
or C: Meant as propaganda in the collective circlejerk of the NAFO kind as they jack each other off.
There was almost certainly a propaganda approach to this as the scale of kilometers is something different to what we have heard about other major battles recently such as with Bakhmut which for those that don't know much about military affairs. This is likely to not be a blitz if successfully employed. Some may compare this to Bakhmut but Bakhmut was heavily defended and had more defense fortifications. Maps of the Russian defensive lines have been posted before and we can evidently see how there was an intent to effectively layer them. Sure, you could just go around some of them but this stresses your logistics which with artillery and drones in the vicinity you want them to be as sound as possible. Evidently, there has been no gains on the pace or scale akin to that of Kharkov and this is to be expected. Russia has been building up the front. Those that are high on Dunning Kruger syndrome will often mention that logistics is the most important thing to warfare. This is mostly true, but a lot of people fail to understand the relationship between offensive operations and logistics. Defense in Depth as such manipulates the one on the offensive to enter a specific thrust or position meaning they are exposed and bulges can be attacked on multiple fronts. If you only have one straight defensive line, what will happen is in the event of it being breached is that the enemy can rush straight across the front which when mixed with armored forces what you get is effectively the German encirclement of the Benelux and Northern France in 1940. This was only effective because no offensive operation was a success in slowing the Germans down with either forcing them into conflict (allowing forces to be redeployed) or just by preventing the german forces to be able to have fuel.
Yep. Claims of a village getting smoked by 100+ TOZ rounds....
Even the Brits are facing reality...
View attachment 5168380
And it is with this point which highlights the propaganda elements, some will go on about "it is still kilometers bakhmut slow" and this will make some happy as it doesn't compare where they are fighting. Yet, even the MoD admits that the advances have been slowed and are not taking all that much territory with "heavy fighting" but it is still spun in a partisan way. Russia wants the advance to be slowed, you want the one on the offensive to be losing heavy forces and having their elite forces winded and unable to be used. This is why I disagree with the assertion that if you are on the offensive you get to chose the location of the battle. You don't, you can chose to attack at a position but it's when you attack the cost of stopping the offensive is costly. The cost is especially high in a war that is basically being watched as if it was a sports match. It's the feeling of missing a goal multiplied by a trillion. When combined with how soldiers will feel moral and how this has been built up. This is partially why Zelensky gave a nothingburger about the counter offensive in stating that
"Russia will lose if Ukrainian counteroffensive succeeds" archive . No objectives were given, but Zelensky can basically say that a mile was a win hence shouting "Russia has practically lost the war". People will eat it up, as Zelensky embraces his inner Goebbels with claims of a "total war more radical than anything yada yada yada".
This is more going off on a tangent but I do also find it partially funny when people assume Ukraine can't have a Nazi problem due to Zelensky being Jewish. The idea of working to build up an almost racial hiearchy and . You can be a Nazi without agreeing to their set racial hierarchy. Nationalist Socialist theory is more complex than jew bad but much rather it asserts a racial class hiearchy (this is ontological within the ideology and leads off into many other parts of it) whereby individuals are grouped into classes based around race (there is also the economics around it and how this really all comes into the idea of the relationship between the volk and the nation). Which hey, we all know how Ukraine is on the side of a racial hierarchy when it comes to their viewing of the orcs and no doubt that those that are pro Ukraine would likely wish for some "Zelensky comedy camps" to be opened up in Crimea because Russians can't vote for self determination if there are no Russians. This is why the point of Zelensky being a jew is sort of irrelevant and is more akin to a fallacy as to accept that there are Slavic Nazis (as many do in the form of Azov) one has to accept that in Nationalist Socialist theory the racial hierarchy is not strictly jew and slav bad. The racial hierarchy as such forms a replacement of class.
More schizocoping from ukrainian tg channels
View attachment 5168318View attachment 5168321
Orcs are using aviation and artillery against us, it's not fare reeee
View attachment 5168325View attachment 5168326
^Does sort of demonstrate the idea of defense in depth. By the Ukraine forces being covered, it slowed them down and begun to filter their best units. I am not currently aware of the state of the units engaged in the fighting whether they were meant to be the best of the best or some newer forces but if it is the latter then what that ultimately means is that Ukrainian forces had achieved a pyrrhic victory. + When they infer that the Russian infantry are weak and had to rely on artillery this is more of a common strategy, men in the long run are generally more expensive and valuable than a set of dumb arty shells (especially when we are to count the entire lives of the individual). This too is common in the doctrines of other countries such as with the US. You don't waste lives It was meant to be a killing ground. We don't know the quantity of men there. This is more speculation. There is then also the cost of repairing the tanks and the added logistical pressure of moving them from Ukraine to the point of getting them repaired. It is not as simple as putting them on a train as those trains would be exposed.
Tl;dr: Ukraine counter offensive going badly. Ukraine claims of gains are more copius in nature. Trenches lost were meant to be lost and it's not some 5d chess move but a common and famous strategy which most internet armchair generals are not familiar in and coom at the thought of gains and Russian "orcs" being bad. Russia is also stressing Ukrainian logistics.
