• Ukrainian forces launched a surprise offensive into Russia’s Kursk region last Tuesday.
  • They have captured around 1,000 square kilometers of Russian land so far, Kyiv’s top general said.
  • That figure is almost as much territory as Russia has seized in Ukraine this year.
  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    ·
    3 months ago

    This bit seems relevant, given that Ukraine’s stated intention has always been reclaiming their own land:

    The overall goal of the incursion is not immediately clear. Conflict analysts have suggested that Ukraine may be trying to alleviate some pressure on its forces elsewhere along the sprawling front line, gain leverage for potential territorial negotiations with Russia, or even just humiliate Moscow and boost morale in Kyiv.

    • Pete
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      3 months ago

      It would be absolutely hilarious, if the whole thing wasn’t so sad. Nevertheless, it’s a welcome change of direction in this war and shows what a determined country and army can do against such a big aggressor.

      I just hope it actually changes something in the end. Let’s hope Putler meets his window to fall out of soon.

  • nl4real@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Zelenskyy went from being a comedian to clowning on Putin in only a few years.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I was watching an old documentary about ww2. When France declared war on Germany they just sat on there border watching them. Some British politician or general or something was there and asked why they didn’t shoot them. They said “they aren’t bothering us so we don’t bother them”. They made one offence at the start of the war when Germany’s western flank was entirely exposed (it was also the only French offence of the entire war) they went about 100m then came back.

      Then Germany attacked somewhere else and they folded.

      Its actually amazing how much of a cluster fuck the start of ww2 was. Bringing back horses after inventing the tank 20 years before and using it ti win ww1 levels of intelligence.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Its actually amazing how much of a cluster fuck the start of ww2 was. Bringing back horses after inventing the tank 20 years before and using it ti win ww1 levels of intelligence.

        This is asinine. Horses were extremely useful in WWII. Try watching less Hollywood movies.

        One of the reasons Germans were so successful in their “lightning warfare” - they used horses which simplified logistics tremendously. A truck is no good if you don’t have fuel, and fuel supplies have been cut. A horse can just eat grass and drink water.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            These are different applications.

            And I wasn’t going to argue against bicycles having been extremely useful.

        • Wanderer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          When did the Germans use horses as offensive cavalry in WW2?

          You can clearly find references of French and the British dragging their heels in the interwar years because presumably the posh boys want their horses.

          You don’t know what you are on about. What Hollywood movies are there about army modernisation in the interwar period you think I am watching? I’ll actually enjoy watching it.

          • mars296@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            The person you replied to is not talking about cavalry. Horses were used by the Germans for moving men and equipment.

            • Wanderer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I know. But I made the original comment and I wasn’t on about horses being used for moving men and equipment. I was talking about them being used instead of tanks.

              Okay. Horses were used to move men and equipment. How is that related to my original point?

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Okay. Horses were used to move men and equipment. How is that related to my original point?

                Dragoons are cavalry. That’s how.

                Yes, it’s obvious they wouldn’t use lancers. Even in WWI cavalry charges are a thing of post-war (Soviet, Polish, maybe others’) propaganda much more than of actual use.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                WWII has seen very fast evolution of warfare approaches. What Germans did in the beginning of the war was roughly similar to what Russians and Ukrainians have learned to do in the last few months. And if we consider that nobody had the brains to come to that theoretically, not NATO countries, not Israel, not even Iran with friends (who were the closest), then it becomes intuitively understandable why German military of those days is considered so genial - it went to war with the right premises (but with clearly fallacious overarching strategy) in the first place. Of course, Tukhachevsky and a few others have written about similar ideas, but didn’t get the chance to actually employ them. What the end of the war looked like was the same thing conceptually, but scaled for full industrial potential of all sides.

                • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Most historians I’ve read consider ww1 to have had a far greater evolution, starting with napoleonic tactics and ending with rolling artillery barrages and tanks.

                  However, I’m not sure of the point you’re looking to make here. I mean, the polish army sending cavalry against the germans was an act of wild desperation. I think thats the point they were making there.

        • BatrickPateman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          I approve. The more idiots are in charge wasting what little offensive capabilities Russia has left the better for Ukraine.

          Is there a list of more competent people, I mean fraudsters? Russian authorities can sure need some anonymous tips, right?

          • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            I used to think Putin is Stalin-lite, but he is actually more in line with an incompetent tsar. There is stark resemblance with the Putin’s army and the post-Napoleonic tsarist Russian army. Both bathed themselves in past military glories from defeating Napoleon and Nazi Germany respectively. They paraded themselves with flashy uniforms and spectacles of new technological weaponry. But in the subsequent years and generations after that, tsarist Russia got mauled by the Ottomans, French and British alliance and Japanese. And post-WWII Russia got their assets handed by the Afghans and now Ukrainians.

    • rustydomino@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 months ago

      I forget who said it, but an American general once said “Amateurs discuss tactics; professionals discuss logistics.”

  • Reality Suit@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Here’s to Ukraine becoming the capital of the larger Ukrainian Federation that will be needed after the fall of Russia.

      • Reality Suit@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        What do you mean? Ukraine is not Russia. The corruption of Ukraine is from Putler placed politicians.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think the point is no one really wants any country to have that much territory it just causes problems, especially when large parts of it are not really productive. It just results in a very large population and an enormous burden on the government.

          • SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, one country spanning 11 time zones is a bit much. They have just shy of 145 million residents. And burden on the government or no, there’s loads of areas in the far reaches that I’m sure would just rather be their own country.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              I agree, down with the USA. /s

              Seriously - that’s not the problem. Tying together into one state with ex-Soviet unitarist culture so many different areas with natural riches and subservient population is bad.

              I’d rather split both Russia and Ukraine into equally-sized (population-wise) pieces and have them form confederations where unity is wanted. (Fuck, that’s another USA)

              Since Ukraine can’t hope to have a victory that will solve the threat, I think Ukrainians should be interested. Their country would split into like 3 pieces which are different enough anyway.

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                It won’t work if you just announce oh this country is going to get split. It has to happen organically, or it won’t happen at all.

                I’m not saying it will happen I’m just saying that it would be the best outcome. I’m saying that NATO don’t particularly want to replace Russia with pseudo Russia, there really isn’t any point doing that. So the original comment about having Ukraine take over Russia just doesn’t work in his absolutely not in NATO’s interests.

                And that’s before you even look at the problem of subjugating a population, some of which will be fighting back, leading to a never-ending guerrilla war. Which is another thing NATO have no interest in happening, especially if the ultimate objective of Ukraine is to join NATO.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Ex-Soviet space becoming through some agreements supported by referendums fractured into small enough fragments in loose confederations is not something I’d expect to be a cause for guerilla war. Any forcible change is.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          No. Ukraine is just like Russia in everything but geography. Which means it has more densely and equally spread population, fewer fossil fuel resources, realistic logistics with Central Europe and Balkans.

          Corruption-wise it’s absolutely the same.

          EDIT: Downvotes? Has anyone here (other than myself) ever been in Russia and in Ukraine? Even in Western countries corruption is a problem, how do you think it is in post-Soviet countries the whole power in which at some point belonged to crooks with golden toilet seats?

  • p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 months ago

    Is this the timeline where Ukraine kills Putin and puts his head on a Pike? Find out next time on dragon ball z!

    • Suzune@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      ·
      3 months ago

      To disperse the army from the northeastern fronts. Russia is now forced to defend the entire border and cannot focus their attacks on their previous objectives.

      This is a good move.

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        3 months ago

        That, and they can potentially dismantle staging areas for planes and other infrastructure (in this case gas pipeline).

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Both of those, and they force engagements with Russia to force them to throw men and materiel at it, further depleting Russian stockpiles.

      • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I keep looking at maps and wondering how Ukraine haven’t been routed and cut off in enemy territory with no supply lines. What they’re doing seems borderline insane but more power to them!

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Leverage for negotiations.

      Their gains would be much less for the same expense, were they in areas where Russia expects to be attacked.

      It’s the same pattern with bullies - they are always surprised when the victim is no longer forbidden to hit everywhere and not only where the bully took initiative.

      Worked in Artsakh in 90’s too against Soviet and Azeri forces. Sadly the last few years (or two decades) have undone this largely.

      But just like in Artsakh, they shouldn’t agree to any frozen status, or it will end just like for Artsakh. They should just keep advancing until Russia does something to guarantee their security.

    • Shard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      I hope its not just for negotiating.

      I hope by breaking the Russian front, they have created openings that they can now exploit to tear down Russian defenses.

      Russia has created a really difficult frontal defense thats many layers of mine fields and defensive positions interlaced. But now their sides and backs are exposed and it’s much easier for Ukraine to out flank the defense and unseat Russian defenses.

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Why hope it’s “not just for negotiating”? I mean why not use this as leverage to force the Russians to negotiate on Ukraine’s terms?

        • Shard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          3 months ago

          Because its a big tactical advantage that they opened a gaping hole in Russian defensive lines.

          Defenses are strongest in the direction they are facing. They are very weak from the sides and even worse from the rear. (Ukraine now has a lot of Russian rear it can take advantage of, from Kursk)

          If Ukraine has the manpower they could take this little bit of land, manoeuvre around the Russian lines, wreck their shit and get back a lot of land that was stolen from them.

          • Palkom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just to underline what this comment is saying: this type of breakthrough was the wet dream of WW1. The race to the sea, where the western front was established, was based on finding a flank and turning it. That was the objective of most warfare up to that point, and it ended because they ran out of ground on which to turn a flank. Then they couldn’t meaningfully break through the defenses (or layers of, to be more accurate), like we see Ukraine doing in Kursk. If they turn the flank, they’ll have routing russians for days, and have achieved maneuver warfare again.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think it’s actually irrelevant really because I don’t reasonably see a situation where Putin is going to be prepared to negotiate. He seems to see this war as his lasting legacy (there have been rumors that he might have some terminal condition, possibly cancer), he doesn’t want his legacy to be defeat, he wants it to be victory even if it requires the death of about 80% of the population.

          The only way that Russia would negotiate is if Putin is no longer in charge.

          • Mistic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Negotiations happen when one or, more likely, two sides don’t see a way to improve their positions with military force.

            The rumors you’re speaking of are a direct consequence of Russia being an autocracy. When you have a country whose ruler doesn’t leave on their own (a dictator), people start speculating on when he’s going to die. These rumors have been going around for about a decade, I believe, and are pretty much meaningless.

            Now, about “securing a legacy.” I think it’s much more trivial than that. Invading Ukraine was a good way to secure presidency for the next 1-2 terms and to eradicate opposition within the country. If that’s the case, then, in a sense, he got what he wanted, although he likely also expected the war to be short and victorious (judging by the state media narrative at the time). That didn’t happen. And now there are other issues at hand for him.

    • atro_city@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Could it be for the “peace” negotiations? “OK, we freeze the country’s borders as they are right now, you let us join NATO and the EU, and we get what we captured”.

  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Does Ukraine get an exception from the general advice against invading Russia? Winter is coming. But they kinda have some advantages over prior attempts.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Note I don’t know anything about it.

      I would say if they are just disrupting rather than trying to hold it, they would be in much more sane shape than the historical advice that mostly applies to would-be conquerors. Even if they are trynig to hold it as a bargaining chip, it’s probably less ambitious than the historically usual goal of trying to conquer “Russia”.

  • jerkface@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Is this a real thing? I only hear news about it on a couple niche youtube channels that I am not sure aren’t propaganda. Searching “Ukraine” on Lemmy for the last week yields a very small number of results. I haven’t heard word one about it from my mainstream sources. What the fuck? Is there an embargo on this or something??

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s not the impression I’ve been getting. This has been covered extensively from places ranging from BBC and Telegraph to PBS, and numerous reddit subs. I haven’t seen this much activity centered on Ukraine in a while.

    • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’ve seen Preston Stewart covering it on his various platforms, although he hasn’t given the sort of breakdown op is asking for