View Single Post
  #669  
Old 12-19-2023, 11:57 AM
Heffe Heffe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Strategically and/or operationally, that makes a lot of sense. What strikes me, though, is that the Ukrainians have never really even threatened a breakout on the left bank. A breakout would require a mechanized spearhead and the logistical infrastructure to support it. They simply haven't been able to amass strong mobile forces in the bridgehead- it doesn't seem like they've really even tried. AFAIK, there's been no attempt to put a pontoon bridge or AFV ferry in place. In all fairness, whether the Ukrainians would have been able to defend said effectively from Russians airstrikes and artillery is quite another matter. The bridgehead was formed and, up to this point, totally supported by small boats. There's no way a modern breakout force can be sustained by small boat.

As a result of the Ukrainians' failure to expand the bridgehead and threaten a breakthrough, the Russians haven't really had to divert strong forces to contain it. My impression is that during the first couple of weeks of the UAF bridgehead, it really freaked the Russians out, and they took heavy losses trying to dislodge it by direct assault. That played right into the Ukrainians' hands. It appears that the Russians have learned that this approach is wasteful and counterproductive. Now, they seem content to cordon off the beachhead and batter it with artillery and airstrikes. Ukrainian troops are stuck on the left bank getting pounded on the daily for little appreciable operational/strategic gains. This was lamented by several of the UAF personnel quoted in the piece.

Why the UAF insists on reinforcing failure with this operation is less clear. Perhaps they have fallen prey to the sunk-cost fallacy?

-
Perhaps "breakout" was the wrong word there. More just that there was a risk of Ukraine taking more land unless Russia spent resources trying to defend it, which reduced their capability of doing lateral reinforcements from the Kherson region back over to near Robotyne.

As for why they're continuing to reinforce the area? Your guess is as good as mine - it doesn't make much sense to me either. I heard that domestically, it made a splash in Russian news and upset their milbloggers that Russia couldn't dislodge the Ukrainians...but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to continue to throw soldiers into the operation.
Reply With Quote