Is the Donbas about to fall?

[mindlight]

Why Ukraine's Sievierodonetsk is so important | DW | 09.06.2022

The city of Sievierodonetsk now has no bridges to it for resupply or escape. If the city falls then the Russians will be able to claim a victory comparable to the fall of Mariupol. This shifts the momentum of the war in their favor. Despite fierce resistance and horrendous casualties, they may now be about to take the Donbas. As they advance they are destroying all symbols of Ukrainian identity and national distinctiveness and reimposing their own Russian identity in these places. Many of those still loyal to Ukraine have fled these places and those who remain are often pro-Russian.

If they take Sievierodonetsk what is to stop them from advancing further? Is the West doing enough to support the Ukrainians in this fight?

 

[Servant78]

The way those western MSM created news to brainwash people is beyond imagination.

 

[SuperCow]

The way those western MSM created news to brainwash people is beyond imagination.

It would be helpful to clarify this statement to understand exactly what you mean.

 

[Servant78]

It would be helpful to clarify this statement to understand exactly what you mean.

You wont believe anyway.

 

[SuperCow]

You wont believe anyway.

Well, the way I see it, your statement could mean a few things:

1.) Russia's invasion is justified. Ukraine obviously provoked them and NATO is the great Satan and our media is brainwashing the western world into believing that Ukraine is innocent.
2.) The invasion was not necessarily justified, but Russia was unreasonably provoked into war by aggressive NATO policies.
3.) Russia's invasion is evil, but the media and western governments are lying about Ukraine's success and throwing people's money into a military machine that is a lost cause.
4.) The media and western governments are brainwashing people into supporting one side of a war that we have no business getting involved in.
5.) The media and western governments are pushing a dangerous agenda that could lead us to a third world war, inevitably leading to a nuclear holocaust.

Or maybe you have some entirely new spin I haven't heard yet.

 

[Halbhh]

Why Ukraine's Sievierodonetsk is so important | DW | 09.06.2022

The city of Sievierodonetsk now has no bridges to it for resupply or escape. If the city falls then the Russians will be able to claim a victory comparable to the fall of Mariupol. This shifts the momentum of the war in their favor. Despite fierce resistance and horrendous casualties, they may now be about to take the Donbas. As they advance they are destroying all symbols of Ukrainian identity and national distinctiveness and reimposing their own Russian identity in these places. Many of those still loyal to Ukraine have fled these places and those who remain are often pro-Russian.

If they take Sievierodonetsk what is to stop them from advancing further? Is the West doing enough to support the Ukrainians in this fight?

Ah. Sure, it's sorta like Mariupol, but....instead of that, the coverage reminds me actually of how the mainstream view back in March was that Russia would just push into Kiev, sooner or later, in that the view had this similarity: the notion that Russia is just so strong, and will just overwhelm, etc..... Of course they can take Sievierodonetsk, but what will it cost them, and how long can they hold it?

The already taken cities/territories are pretty restive I've read many times now, in less prominent news accounts. It seems like Russia is going to have an Afghanistan experience to me (pick either the Russian one in Afghanistan, or else the more recent U.S. experience, either one).

Give it a year, and then have a look. And if Russia is still in the Donbass at that point, then give it another year, and look again....

If Putin is even still alive in a year. If Putin dies, someone more rational might come to power at some point.

 

[Homeowner]

You wont believe anyway.

What is the point of posting this then ?

 

[Homeowner]

The city of Sievierodonetsk now has no bridges to it for resupply or escape. If the city falls then the Russians will be able to claim a victory comparable to the fall of Mariupol. This shifts the momentum of the war in their favor. Despite fierce resistance and horrendous casualties, they may now be about to take the Donbas

Napoleon occupied Moscow. Didn't help him to win the war. Russia can claim whatever they want. If Ukraine has the spirit to keep fighting those claims will just look more silly each passing day.

In the long run how can Russia win if Ukraine doesn't surrender ? They have taken around 20% of the country including their starting positions in their puppet states. Their advance has been slowed dramatically and every mile they advance adds to their logistics problems while Ukraine gets more weapons and reservists each passing day. Not to mention the hostile population on occupied territories that Russia doesn't begin to have manpower to police.

How much can Russia bleed before political instability, sanctions, army morale and their cash reserves dry out ?

There is now reports of them planning to strip their army of trainers to form another 30 or 40 BTGs (Battalion Tactical Groups) which will help short term but cripple their further training if the war continues.

It looks like a last gasp push to achieve a military success of sorts in attempt to turn it into political victory.

Doubtful it will have the effect they hope.

 

[mindlight]

Ah. Sure, it's sorta like Mariupol, but....instead of that, the coverage reminds me actually of how the mainstream view back in March was that Russia would just push into Kiev, sooner or later, in that the view had this similarity: the notion that Russia is just so strong, and will just overwhelm, etc..... Of course they can take Sievierodonetsk, but what will it cost them, and how long can they hold it?

The already taken cities/territories are pretty restive I've read many times now, in less prominent news accounts. It seems like Russia is going to have an Afghanistan experience to me (pick either the Russian one in Afghanistan, or else the more recent U.S. experience, either one).

Give it a year, and then have a look. And if Russia is still in the Donbass at that point, then give it another year, and look again....

If Putin is even still alive in a year. If Putin dies, someone more rational might come to power at some point.

The initial attack in February was an attempt at Blitzkrieg which failed spectacularly. Given Russian military investment and modernization these last 10 years that was a surprise not only to the media but to most Western military analysts also. Their new tactics work better for the Russian military machine and just involve a brute force steamrolling of the opposition regardless of losses incurred. Given they have more men and more equipment that tactic may well secure the Donbas.

It is possible that Putin dies and a new government has a change of heart but I would not place a large amount of money on that bet. The basic sentiment of wait and see is always a wise one and it is far from over yet.

 

[mindlight]

Napoleon occupied Moscow. Didn't help him to win the war. Russia can claim whatever they want. If Ukraine has the spirit to keep fighting those claims will just look more silly each passing day.

In the long run how can Russia win if Ukraine doesn't surrender ? They have taken around 20% of the country including their starting positions in their puppet states. Their advance has been slowed dramatically and every mile they advance adds to their logistics problems while Ukraine gets more weapons and reservists each passing day. Not to mention the hostile population on occupied territories that Russia doesn't begin to have manpower to police.

How much can Russia bleed before political instability, sanctions, army morale and their cash reserves dry out ?

There is now reports of them planning to strip their army of trainers to form another 30 or 40 BTGs (Battalion Tactical Groups) which will help short term but cripple their further training if the war continues.

It looks like a last gasp push to achieve a military success of sorts in attempt to turn it into political victory.

Doubtful it will have the effect they hope.

The reports about the difficulties around Sievierodonetsk are coming from the Ukrainians.

Having secured the Donbas, Crimea and the landbridge to that the Russians could just declare a ceasefire line and sit behind it. Fighting defensively is easier than a full-scale assault. The Ukrainians could keep on fighting but they would lose far more men in an offensive war than they are even now.

How hostile is the Donbas to Russia now that most civilians have already left or have been shipped to Russia? Many of those who stayed have done so because they were pro-Russian. Given the destruction of basic infrastructure, cholera and other diseases may well be more of a pressing problem in the occupied areas than guerilla warfare.

The Russians do have a problem with logistics and that limits the amount of extra territory that they can take. But Putin can claim a victory if he succeeds in liberating the Donbas and also secures that landbridge. Of course, the Ukrainians will not accept that but what would they be able to do with that if a ceasefire rather than peace talks is the outcome here. Putin will then keep the open wound of conflict going with the option of launching new invasions in later years, if he is still around that is.

Russia has 2-3 times the manpower that Ukraine does. If they halt behind a ceasefire line having secured the Donbas they have enough men to wage this war for decades.

Sievierodonetsk has not yet fallen and the Ukrainian military keeps on surprising all the experts but this is not like Afghanistan as there is enough sympathy behind Russian lines to sustain their territorial gains. The Crimea is a perfect example of this.

 

[Homeowner]

Sievierodonetsk has not yet fallen and the Ukrainian military keeps on surprising all the experts but this is not like Afghanistan as there is enough sympathy behind Russian lines to sustain their territorial gains. The Crimea is a perfect example of this.

Crimea is perfect example of nothing. It is very geographically isolated piece of land with big military base on it with minimal land contact to mainland Ukraine and surrounded by sea. Hardly a typical case.

Without general mobilization Russia has less soldiers for this war than Ukraine has. If Russia goes on defensive that just gives Ukraine more time to bring their reserves up and get whatever long range assets people are sending them on the border.

Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland. The longer this takes more the balance of forces should favor Ukraine and they know it which makes it very unlikely they are going to take any hodge podge peace deal Putin is going to offer which they would be stupid to trust anyway since Putin's word is worth nothing.

Only thing that might get Russia the peace settlement they wish is if the West blinks and pressures Ukraine.
However this seems shortsighted because people know this just gives Russia time to prepare for their next war in their foolhardy quest to restore their old imperial borders.

 

[Halbhh]

The initial attack in February was an attempt at Blitzkrieg which failed spectacularly. Given Russian military investment and modernization these last 10 years that was a surprise not only to the media but to most Western military analysts also. Their new tactics work better for the Russian military machine and just involve a brute force steamrolling of the opposition regardless of losses incurred. Given they have more men and more equipment that tactic may well secure the Donbas.

It is possible that Putin dies and a new government has a change of heart but I would not place a large amount of money on that bet. The basic sentiment of wait and see is always a wise one and it is far from over yet.

Here's what is happening to Russia in Severodonetsk:
"Both sides are extremely exhausted and have sustained devastating losses," says Ponomarenko.
Those losses, according to U.S. intelligence, have been particularly bad for Russia, which has suffered as many as 10 casualties for every Ukrainian soldier lost since the offensive began on April 18. The senior DIA official ascribes the Ukrainian advantage to greater morale and motivation, better training and leadership, superior knowledge and use of the terrain, better maintained and more reliable equipment, and even greater accuracy."

With a victory like that, it's being shown how bad the idea to invade Ukraine was. They have no ability to hold much of that new Donbass territory long term seems to me unless Russians in general are willing to suffering having large numbers of their troops killed (and that's likely to get even worse in time it seems).

"To take all of the Donbas (as the two provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk are called), Moscow has now committed 45 percent of its entire armed forces. Since the beginning of the war, Ukraine says it has killed over 32,000 Russian soldiers. U.S. intelligence thinks the number of Russians killed is closer to 18,000, but sources tell Newsweek that an additional 65,000 have been injured.

"Russian generals see their people simply as cannon fodder," says President Zelensky.

"It can't go on forever like this," the senior DIA official says of Russia's shrinking manpower pool. "It started with trained troops, then resorted to reserves and conscripts, then administrative personnel, students and even cadets, then new draftees rushed to the battlefield. They are literally running out of people."
Putin Is Losing the War. Don't Be Fooled by What Happened in Severodonetsk (msn.com)

Over and over in modern history nations with bigger militaries have tried to maintain control over parts of a smaller nation that has determined resistance that is popular in the small nation (having the support of the majority of the native population).

It's never worked out long term in modern times for the bigger nation.

 

[Homeowner]

Deeper look of the Russian manpower issues for those interested.

 

[mindlight]

Deeper look of the Russian manpower issues for those interested.

Thanks for sharing this. For the sake of those who do not have time to view it, it gives a fairly comprehensive overview of the Russian infantry situation. Some key points I took from this:

1) Because this is a "special operation" NOT a war the Russian units are fighting in peacetime configuration and therefore are undermanned and lack key dismountable support infantry for operations. This is a major problem in urban warfare especially and seriously undermines the effectiveness of these units.
2) The obvious way to flesh these units out to their designed capacity is to call a General Mobilisation but that would require calling this a war which Putin is unwilling to do.
3) The Russians are trying various ways to flesh out the units without calling a General Mobilisation. These include bonuses to people in poor ethnic minority regions and the use of trainers from training battalions and the employment of mercenaries.
4) The local Donbas Republics ordered general mobilization and may have as many as 100000 men in the field but only 44000 regulars. The extra manpower is not well trained, fights with archaic equipment, and are being used as cannon fodder.
5) Many key infantry units were severely mauled in the early stages of the war
6) The Russian military command seriously underestimated the motivation and effectiveness of the Ukrainian forces.

Questions asked here include whether or not this way of fighting is sustainable in the long term. The loss of trainers for example will damage long-term Russian military effectiveness and the use of Donbas infantry as cannon fodder will maximize casualties and cause resentment in the very areas the Russians are here to "liberate."

What this video tells me is that many of the deficits observed in the Russian military performance are directly caused by the political decision to send them in in a peacetime configuration or because the stop gap forces employed are poorly trained for the task. Effectively the army has been sent in with one arm tied behind its back.

 

[mindlight]

Crimea is perfect example of nothing. It is very geographically isolated piece of land with big military base on it with minimal land contact to mainland Ukraine and surrounded by sea. Hardly a typical case.

It is a perfect example of how the Russians, having taken a place, can keep it secure with very little local opposition. The Donbas region is similar in this respect as it is now denuded of pro-Ukrainian populations and populated by highly motivated pro-Russian locals. This is nothing like Afghanistan.

Without general mobilization Russia has less soldiers for this war than Ukraine has. If Russia goes on defensive that just gives Ukraine more time to bring their reserves up and get whatever long range assets people are sending them on the border.

Russia is filling gaps in its forces with ethnic minorities, mercenaries, and local Donbas forces. These are taking heavy casualties but may well be regarded as expendable assets by Putin. If Plan B is now only about the Donbas and a land bridge to the Crimea he has enough defensive force to hold the territory there is there having secured it. Also, the option of a General Mobilization is still there and would radically change the force balance.

Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland. The longer this takes more the balance of forces should favor Ukraine and they know it which makes it very unlikely they are going to take any hodge podge peace deal Putin is going to offer which they would be stupid to trust anyway since Putin's word is worth nothing.

True and they have been fighting with surprising effectiveness. But again an offensive operation is a very different kind of war and one they are not well equipped for. I very much doubt that Putin can hope to take any major cities: Kharkiv, Kyiv, or Odesa with this military configuration but he would be able to hold the lands he has taken with it and probably complete his conquest of the Donbas if he can do that in the next month or so. A ceasefire would enable him to avoid all negotiations and establish a line he simply needs to defend.

Only thing that might get Russia the peace settlement they wish is if the West blinks and pressures Ukraine.
However this seems shortsighted because people know this just gives Russia time to prepare for their next war in their foolhardy quest to restore their old imperial borders.

You might be underestimating the desire for peace in some key European countries like Germany, France, and Italy. The proposed visit by the leaders of these three nations to Kyiv will be interesting. Scholz has still not declared any kind of faith in a Ukrainian victory as they have been defining it: ie a restoration of their full territory. He is being realistic in adopting this position as Ukraine is extremely unlikely to take back the East Donbas or Crimea militarily. Support for Ukraine remains important but not for delusions about what is probably not achievable.

 

[mindlight]

Here's what is happening to Russia in Severodonetsk:
"Both sides are extremely exhausted and have sustained devastating losses," says Ponomarenko.
Those losses, according to U.S. intelligence, have been particularly bad for Russia, which has suffered as many as 10 casualties for every Ukrainian soldier lost since the offensive began on April 18. The senior DIA official ascribes the Ukrainian advantage to greater morale and motivation, better training and leadership, superior knowledge and use of the terrain, better maintained and more reliable equipment, and even greater accuracy."

Who is dying? It seems these are not Russian regulars being sacrificed here. Why is Putin so willing to sacrifice his ethnic minorities and the irregulars of the Donbas as opposed to ethnic Russians?

With a victory like that, it's being shown how bad the idea to invade Ukraine was. They have no ability to hold much of that new Donbass territory long term seems to me unless Russians in general are willing to suffering having large numbers of their troops killed (and that's likely to get even worse in time it seems).

"To take all of the Donbas (as the two provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk are called), Moscow has now committed 45 percent of its entire armed forces. Since the beginning of the war, Ukraine says it has killed over 32,000 Russian soldiers. U.S. intelligence thinks the number of Russians killed is closer to 18,000, but sources tell Newsweek that an additional 65,000 have been injured.

"Russian generals see their people simply as cannon fodder," says President Zelensky.

"It can't go on forever like this," the senior DIA official says of Russia's shrinking manpower pool. "It started with trained troops, then resorted to reserves and conscripts, then administrative personnel, students and even cadets, then new draftees rushed to the battlefield. They are literally running out of people."
Putin Is Losing the War. Don't Be Fooled by What Happened in Severodonetsk (msn.com)

This really depends on the objectives. If the aim is to end the operation after the occupation of the full Donbas territory then Putin can switch to a defensive mode that would be easier to sustain and for which force superiority is not required.

Over and over in modern history nations with bigger militaries have tried to maintain control over parts of a smaller nation that has determined resistance that is popular in the small nation (having the support of the majority of the native population).

It's never worked out long term in modern times for the bigger nation.

The difference here is the history of the region which was Russian, that most of the pro-Ukrainian population have left and that Russians are more ruthless than Americans or British people when it comes to occupations. The Crimea is an example of how local acceptance came quite easily. Further West Russia advances however the more your argument applies.

 

[Homeowner]

You might be underestimating the desire for peace in some key European countries like Germany, France, and Italy.

Hard to underestimate it. People are really bad in reacting to threats that do not seem imminent. It is evolutionary trait to concentrate on immediate survival.

Besides all of those countries are in NATO so not like they have to worry that their lands are gonna get sliced away.

To be fair if US got belligerent and started nabbing pieces of Mexico I doubt Ukraine would have been that eager to throw their full support for Mexico either.

There were couple more of good videos from the current war by same youtuber

 

[Halbhh]

The difference here is the history of the region which was Russian

That's actually analyzed in a lot of detail in many places by historians, and one can read up on their findings, as I did a few months back. If we considered Ukraine to really be Russian because once Moscow and Kiev were together as the Rus, then by a similar measure of comparing time as part of the Rus vs time being fully independent and non-Rus later....that standard would imply something about the United States it seems to me. For a very long time the land of the current United States belonged entirely to Native American tribes, and we've been an independent nation relatively much less time than the Native Americans controlled the land.

Ergo, if Kiev is supposed to belong to Moscow now, then....here in the U.S., a similar standard in my personal view would suggest to me by the same standards that this land should be controlled entirely then by Native Americans.

But I don't think it should. Rather, we should compensate for any cheated out of land, even now by reparations to their descendents, but the U.S. should not stop being its own new nation.

Who is dying? It seems these are not Russian regulars being sacrificed here. Why is Putin so willing to sacrifice his ethnic minorities and the irregulars of the Donbas as opposed to ethnic Russians?



This really depends on the objectives. If the aim is to end the operation after the occupation of the full Donbas territory then Putin can switch to a defensive mode that would be easier to sustain and for which force superiority is not required.



The difference here is the history of the region which was Russian, that most of the pro-Ukrainian population have left and that Russians are more ruthless than Americans or British people when it comes to occupations. The Crimea is an example of how local acceptance came quite easily. Further West Russia advances however the more your argument applies.

I predict Ukraine will continue to make Russian troops pay for being there until they leave. In time they will have to leave, as Ukraine will gain more and more military ability. The Ukrainians won't give up. And at least for now I don't think Russia will try to murder 20 or 30 million Ukrainians.

 

[SuperCow]

Russia has a history of fighting wars using untrained people as cannon-fodder. It largely surprised Hitler that Russia was willing to throw millions of untrained soldiers into the Nazi battle all the while mobilizing a million more for a counter-offensive. They threw thousands of tanks manufactured in Siberia outside of bombing range into battles against far superior Panzers and Tiger tanks and largely won based on expendable numbers.

If they used similar tactics they could throw a few million troops at the Ukrainians and overwhelm them, uncaring about their own soldiers well-being for the sake of victory. The difference is that, kind of like WW1, the general population would not tolerate it and revolt as all the deaths were totally unnecessary. (Unlike WW2 in which they could make the case of struggling for their own survival against Germany.)

When the population began starving in WW1, Russia was doomed. Sanctions are not enough to cripple Russia in that way today, partly because many countries are not cooperating so they aren't isolated enough. It might eventually work, but it would likely take years for local Russians to feel enough pain to cause a revolt. Losing McDonald's and IKEA isn't enough for a civil uprising. The west isn't willing to bomb their infrastructure into oblivion, which is what it would take in the end. So there is this game of chicken going on where Russia is protected against homeland attacks from the west due to the threat of nuclear escalation, even to the extent that Ukraine is given restrictions on attacking Russian land as a condition for receiving defensive weapons. (Which is wrong in my opinion. A column of supply trucks moving south from Belgorod in these circumstances should be a legitimate target, regardless of whether they've actually crossed the border yet.)

And Russia knows it can't set foot inside of Poland or other Baltic states even though all the weapons are coming through that country, as that would legitimize the Ukrainian arguments against capitulation and shock NATO into real action.

 

[Homeowner]

Russia has a history of fighting wars using untrained people as cannon-fodder. It largely surprised Hitler that Russia was willing to throw millions of untrained soldiers into the Nazi battle all the while mobilizing a million more for a counter-offensive. They threw thousands of tanks manufactured in Siberia outside of bombing range into battles against far superior Panzers and Tiger tanks and largely won based on expendable numbers.

That is largely a myth. Even at the height of WWII Soviet Union used months of training to get the conscripts up to some proficiency before sending them to front lines. Also the German tanks were far from superior being often over engineered like Tiger and had strictly limited supply of fuel.

Soviet tanks may have been bit rough on edges with Soviet doctrine estimating that tanks reaching the front line had a life expectancy measured in weeks so it made no sense to build them to last or polish them up.

They were tools that were good enough to do the job and by the end of 1945 Soviet Union had built almost 60 000 T 34s. Consider this to under 2000 Tiger Is and IIs Germany ever managed to build ; tanks they had no fuel to run, spare parts to repair nor experienced crews to man.

Then you consider they were also fighting in the West and South. Pure hubris.

In this war Russia does not have millions of soldiers nor means to equip them even if they drafted them. Which is one of the reasons they don't do it leaving aside social instability and the economic blow it would cause.