My Understanding Ukraine's Strategic Shift

lenux12343@lemmy.world to Ukraine@sopuli.xyz – 17 points –

In the recent weeks, Ukraine's military strategy has notably transformed. Transitioning from a maneuver warfare approach that prioritizes rapid, dynamic movements, Ukrainian forces have now opted for a more measured approach, incrementally advancing in small infantry groups, while targeting key supply hubs and depots. This tactical modification, which seems to be an effective response to artillery and minefield threats, closely echoes the methods used during the successful Kherson offensive.

The decision of Ukraine's leadership to adopt this change is admirable. They've risen to the difficult challenge posed by the conflict, which includes obstacles like dense minefields and the need for precision strikes over raw firepower. They've shown exceptional adaptability, shifting their focus from large-scale, potentially exposed maneuvers to more localized operations. Remember, everyone including the enemy can see what's happening on the front line, so it's nearly impossible to build up forces without the enemy noticing. With the recent donation of Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICMs) and a push for F-16s, alongside a call for additional anti-aircraft assets, Ukraine may need to bring their anti-aircraft equipment closer to the frontline to counter enemy helicopters and aircraft which will assist in covering tracks of large build up since enemy won't have as good intel as it has now. This is why the enemy is targeting cities, to get Ukraine to devote resources away from the front. This adjustment could pave the way for a return to maneuver-based operations.

It's also essential to comprehend that Western military doctrines, such as those used by NATO, may not seamlessly apply here. An illustration of this was when during an interview of a Ukrainian soldier training in Germany was told asking his instructors what do they do when they encounter a minefield, their response is to simply bypass it. Minefields, despite being a basic warfare tool, have substantially complicated the terrain, hindering the success of larger, maneuver-oriented operations that are typically characteristic of NATO-style warfare.

This ongoing conflict underscores the reality that modern warfare isn't purely about technological superiority or overwhelming firepower. Factors on the ground, like geographical constraints and an adversary's tactical choices, can shape the selection of the most effective strategy. In this light, Ukraine's transition to more deliberate, careful infantry operations and targeting logistics hubs is a strategic answer to these conditions.

The situation vividly demonstrates the necessity for flexibility and adaptability in military strategies, a lesson with relevance beyond this conflict. Ukraine's leadership and their forces have displayed an innovative and adaptable approach which fully deserves our support and admiration. I hope that NATO sees the value of having Ukraine as a partner and a member, as they are the most trained and experienced "Allied" nation.

Having said that, I think one option to explore is for Ukraine to make a thunder run into Belgorod and Kursk. This will expand the front further, forcing the enemy to move their forces to prevent more territory from being captured. I know this may not be what the western partners would have wanted, but if Ukraine is to achieve success with less bloodshed. Either Ukraine needs full support or opening of "another front".

Slava Ukraini

Also, not trying to spread enemy prop, so I can delete this.

5

I don't think it's in Ukraine's best interest to open a front on Russian soil. Sure, it would have the benefit of dividing the attention of Russia's troops, but there are other considerations. Namely, all of their western partners have been very vocal about not invading Russia, or using their gifted armaments on targets on Russian soil.

Don't get me wrong - Ukraine has been impressive as hell, but a significant amount of their punching power comes from their western allies. The last thing they want to do is piss them off.

In a world where those conditions didn't exist, I would agree with you 100% that taking territory in Russia would be a smart play. But in this world, with these circumstances, I think that would be a big mistake. They were happy enough to host Russian separatist groups who would then make those attacks because that gave them plausible deniability, but doing it with Ukrainian troops would be a bridge too far.

The time for the left hook is long past - when they sent the free Russian forces across that was the time for a blocking force and an enfilade attack. Why it wasn’t done we won’t hear for years, but I will remain curious during that wait.

I agree with you in that Ukraine is limited to its own borders. The other option is launching air/ sea landing aussults into Crimea or across the Dnipro.

Hoping for some additional good news from next months NATO meeting

Well, they already are across the Dnipro. They've had a bridgehead outside of Oleshky for weeks, now. According to recent reports, they just expanded it as well. The attack on the Kerch bridge has caused some major logistical issues that have been greatly exacerbated by Ukraine's constant blowing-up of ammo depots. So I think that we'll probably see Ukraine take Oleshky in the next month or two as well.