• 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.
    • Pete@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      4 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.

  • Reality Suit@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 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
        ·
        4 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
          ·
          4 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
            5
            ·
            4 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
              ·
              4 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
                4 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
                  ·
                  4 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
          4 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?

    • Suzune@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      ·
      4 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.

      • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 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!

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        4 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
          ·
          4 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.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 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
      ·
      4 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
        ·
        4 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?

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          4 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
            4 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.

        • Shard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          4 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
            ·
            4 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.

    • atro_city@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 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”.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    4 months ago
    Business Insider - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Business Insider:

    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
    Wikipedia about this source

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-captured-hundreds-square-miles-russian-territory-general-2024-8

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • nednobbins@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ve been looking for some sort of analysis of this Kursk incursion but have come up empty handed. I’m looking for something along the lines of Markus Reisner’s analyses.

    In particular, I’m wondering what the likely paths are to altering the course of the war.

    How likely is it that Ukraine will be able to hold this territory? Will they be able to use it as a staging area to launch additional attacks?

    Is it likely to alter the artillery equation? Russia currently fires 3-5 times as many artillery shells as Ukraine does. Does this do something like limiting their production rates or their ability to deliver ordinance to the front lines?

    Is it likely that Ukraine killed or captured enough Russian troops to impact the broader war?

    A phrase like, “That figure is almost as much territory as Russia has seized in Ukraine this year.” kind of implies that there has been a shift in the momentum of the war and that we can expect such announcements more regularly going forward. Is that actually likely?

    My pessimistic guess is that this was a brilliant tactical move that will ultimately get steamrolled by Russia’s sheer mass, but I’d love to read an analysis from someone with more expertise.

    • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      this has to be something designed to pull forces away from other places. I don’t think Ukraine is planning on holding it for any length of time.

      we saw video come out about 200 miles from the front in Kursk showing military transport trucks that had been struck by Ukraine as they were going to reinforce the region, which means Ukraine has dedicated deep strike capabilities to this part of the battlefield.

      I think the intention is to kill and destroy as much Russian personnel and materiel as they can while it’s being transported. like they’ve mapped out all of the travel lines in to and out of Kursk, and they have dedicated weapons platforms prepared to destroy anything that comes up those roads. they’ll be able to blitz a whole bunch of Russian equipment without even having to engage them on the ground, if those trucks were full (there were stacked bodies in the video), that’s 300 casualties without having to put any of your infantry in danger.

      • nednobbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If that’s the case then Ukraine would need to repeat the Kursk invasion a lot before it made a difference.

        Trying to out attrit an opponent with many times the population and GDP is a pretty tall order.

        I’m trying to differentiate between things we might like and things that are actually likely.

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

          it’s not just the attrition aspect, it’s the fact that those resources are being pulled away from the other fronts. this would succeed even if all the stuff that Russia sent to Kursk came back intact

          • nednobbins@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I think that still boils down to attrition and relative size.

            From what I’ve seen. Russia has only pulled small numbers of troops out of other theaters to reinforce Kursk. They’ve had an ongoing assault on Avdiivka and they don’t seem to have pulled enough troops out of there to slow down the assault.

            The impact, both the severity of the impact and the duration of the impact is likely to hinge on how deep Russias reserves are and their overall production capacity. As near as I can tell, they have both in spades.

            From what I’ve seen on Russian industrial production they don’t really care too much if all of Kursk were destroyed. It’s not a strategic location (I think) and all the human and material resources can be easily and quickly replaced.

            That obviously involves a lot of guesswork on my part. That’s why I’m wondering if someone with expertise just knows the answers to these kinds of questions (and would hopefully also provide sources).

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Blitzing into largely undefended territories and nabbing large amounts of territory is kind of the easy part. As anyone who plays any sort of RTS, the key question is how you set up defenses and maintain logistics to thwart counter-offensives. The good news is that Ukraine has options. They can choose to dig in before Russia amasses troops to attack and legitimately try to hold onto the territory, or they can simply back out and use this as a skirmish to divide Russian forces before launching another offensive elsewhere.

      This seems to a) be intended to divide Russian attention and spread their forces out, b) be used in negotiation and applying domestic pressure to Putin, and c) provide a greater buffer for air-defense to counter inbound artillery and missiles. Who knows for sure though.

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

        That makes sense. I’d have questions about all of those too

        a) be intended to divide Russian attention and spread their forces out Do we know if that’s happening? Russia has a lot of people and equipment and it’s not obvious to me that they need to pull many resources from other fronts to reinforce Kursk.

        b) be used in negotiation and applying domestic pressure to Putin That would make sense too. As long as Ukraine is still holding that territory when those negotiations are going on. Are there any estimates on when those negotiations could happen and if Ukraine will still be in control of Kursk by then?

        c) provide a greater buffer for air-defense to counter inbound artillery and missiles
        That true but only in the areas directly near Kursk. Is it likely that this can be repeated along the rest of the battle lines?

        Your intuition on what Ukraine is hoping to achieve seems reasonable but I don’t know if it’s likely to work out that way.

        The whole thing makes me think back to the “Ukrainian counteroffensive” from last year. At the time, US advisors were telling them to do a fast combined arms assault on some place like Mariupol, instead of dithering around, letting the Russians build a ton of defenses and then smashing all the fancy US equipment against said defenses. This assault seems almost like what that counteroffensive should have been. I say “almost” because I’m puzzled about the target. Controlling Mariupol would have cut off the entire western half of the Russian assault. They’d have no supplies and nowhere to run to besides going for a swim. Kursk? The benefits are less obvious.

    • kinther@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      As much as I hate linking to it, you could probably find out by asking in the defcon warning system forums.

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

        defcon warning system forums

        I’ll check them out. I’m curious why you wouldn’t want to link to them. Do they do something bad?

        • kinther@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Last I checked in there some of the posters had a hard right slant. It’s not all of them, but enough to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

  • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 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??

    • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 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

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 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.

  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 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
      ·
      4 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”.

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

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

        • BatrickPateman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          4 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
            ·
            4 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
      ·
      4 months ago

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