Did I read the same article as everyone else? I don't get where "failed offensive" is coming from. It was western media that created the impression of an impending counter-offensive that would all but end the war, not anything from Ukraine's armed forces as far as I know.

Since launching a much-vaunted counteroffensive using many billions of dollars of Western military equipment, Ukraine has recaptured more than a dozen villages but has yet to penetrate Russia's main defences," .... NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told CNN that Ukrainian commanders deserved the benefit of the doubt. 'Ukrainians have exceeded expectations again and again," he said. "We need to trust them. We advise, we help, we support. But... it is the Ukrainians that have to make those decisions."

This doesn't sound like a "failed" offensive to me. The "much-vaunted" part came from the West, not Ukraine. It sounds to me like western officials got themselves psyched up based on nothing and are now whining about it. So like, yeah, critics of the slow counteroffensive, shut up. You sound as ridiculous as the people who acted like Kyiv would be taken by March 2022.

[–] BynarsAreOk@hexbear.net 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Respectfuly, it is painful to read shit like this from uninformed people.

Here try googling this "Ukraine counter offensive goal crimea before:2023-07-01"(without quotes), just 3 random examples.

Zelensky signaled Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Russia is underway. Here’s what to expect

In terms of its goals, Kyiv has consistently said that it wants to recapture all of the territory controlled by Russia. In an address earlier this year Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that included Crimea.

“It is not an intention, it is our land. Crimea is our sea and our mountains,” Zelensky said.

Ukraine ‘ready’ to talk to Russia on Crimea if counteroffensive succeeds lol lmao

Ukraine's counteroffensive: Goals, opportunities, risks

In September 2022, in his only programmatic paper so far, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Lieutenant General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi offered only a rough sketch of how a Ukrainian counteroffensive might look. In the paper, he spoke of "several resolute, ideally simultaneous counterattacks." One strategically crucial target Zaluzhnyi mentioned was the Crimean peninsula, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014. In Kyiv, all agree this is the main direction Ukraine should focus its efforts. But they are also expecting surprises and deceptive maneuvers. Many, however, doubt Ukraine has enough equipment and fighting power to regain the peninsula.

Even western media tried to downplay it casting doubt from the beginning but the point I highlight is undeniably the planned goal was not achieved and it wont be achieved. Everyone would call that a failure.

But even the fucking Nazis can't agree on their own narrative and they're just coping now

Ukraine counteroffensive creeps ahead, measured in blood exactly 2 months ago, July 1st 2023

Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the counteroffensive was "slower than desired", without getting too specific. Ukraine says it has recaptured a cluster of villages in operations that liberated 130 square km (50 square miles) in the south, but this is a small percentage of the total territory held by Russia.

Go tell Zelensky to shut the fuck up, oh wait.

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who are "the fucking Nazis" in your comment?

[–] BynarsAreOk@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Take a guess?

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

The presence of Neo-Nazis within a nation's borders does not give another country just cause to invade unilaterally. The idea that, because Ukraine has Neo Nazis and incorporated groups like Azov into its formal military structure, it makes the Russian invasion justified, is to implicitly accept that bigger, more powerful countries are entitled to "spheres of influence" and thus should be able to unilaterally intervene in their neighbour's politics when it suits them.

Ukrainians aren't particularly more supportive of Neo-Nazis than any other white-dominant nation in Europe – it was just an excuse by Russia to invade.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

billions of dollars of western equipment and they recaptured a dozen villages.

The Russians have the parts of Ukraine they want and have fortified heavily which leads my analysis of the situation to be that Ukraine recapturing the taken area is not realistic and their goal of getting Crimea on top of that to be completely delusional

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Russians have the parts of Ukraine they want

This is revisionist. It was clear that Russia's military objectives in invading the rest of the country last year were to remove Zelensky and put back a friendly government to Moscow. They failed, and now are falling back on what was always the more pragmatic and "reasonable" war goal of holding the pre-February 2022 lines of control + what they still have now. But, now that an all-out state of war exists between Ukraine and Russia, it's "allowable" in the eyes of the West for Ukraine to try and regain all of its internationally-recognized territory in a way that it wasn't before.

...have fortified heavily which leads my analysis of the situation to be that Ukraine recapturing the taken area is not realistic and their goal of getting Crimea on top of that to be completely delusional

I don't mean to deride your analysis, but I also do wonder how much analysis some random Hexbear user can really make. I mean, I can look at maps of assessed control from the ISW and I hear about what goes down in some of the more nationalist Russian telegram channels but I deliberately try to avoid anything that makes me sound knowledgeable in military strategy and tactics.

I will say, that given the general attitude here that we want choices and decisions to be taken that reduce the fighting and scale of death, Ukraine's approach of incrementally retaking villages instead of throwing everything it's got in a mad rush to break Russian lines shouldn't be criticized.

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is revisionist. It was clear that Russia's military objectives in invading the rest of the country last year were to remove Zelensky and put back a friendly government to Moscow. They failed, and now are falling back on what was always the more pragmatic and "reasonable" war goal of holding the pre-February 2022 lines of control + what they still have now. But, now that an all-out state of war exists between Ukraine and Russia, it's "allowable" in the eyes of the West for Ukraine to try and regain all of its internationally-recognized territory in a way that it wasn't before

This whole time the Russians have been talking about wanting the east exclusively the early rush to kiev was consistent with the stated aim of forcing Ukraine to surrender early into the war

I will say, that given the general attitude here that we want choices and decisions to be taken that reduce the fighting and scale of death, Ukraine's approach of incrementally retaking villages instead of throwing everything it's got in a mad rush to break Russian lines shouldn't be criticized.

Even the Ukrainians are talking in that article about how hard it is to breach the Russian defences. The Ukrainians have thrown everything they had in a mad rush to break the Russian lines and only succeeded at retaking a dozen villages. It is ridiculous to assume the side with less soldiers, lacking air superiority, and ran by the most corrupt nation in Europe with vast amounts of support being resold by Ukrainian generals has any chance of defeating the larger power. Early in the war Ukraine had an advantage as it's soldiers had in violation of the Minsk treaty been fighting in Eastern Ukraine for the last 8 years so were more militarily experienced now Russia has been fighting for a while they will have worked out much of the issues of their organisation

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] tomatopathe@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ukraine needs to get within artillery range of certain major logistical hubs to hamper Russian reinforcement and supply via the southern corridor. And it is close, now. The Russian administrators of Melitopol have already abandoned the place.

With ATACMS, this would have been easier, fyi.

Only people who don't understand the situation repeat the sort of thing you are claiming.

Furthermore, the US aid to Ukraine was mostly stuff that was destined to be decommissioned. The "billions of dollars" is on paper, not in fact. Nothing Ukraine is receiving from the USA is current gen or in use by the US and therefore isn't diminishing the US armed forces. Arguably it's actually increasing US strength, since the USA is now ramping up artillery shell production.

From a strategic standpoint, destroying the Russian military (estimated around 50% of Russia's MBTs and Airforce) in exchange for stuff you weren't going to use anyway is a bargain.

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

no one wants them to hit those places with artillery if the Ukrainians start using American artillery on Russian cities the Americans will have kittens

Russia has nuclear weapons which means there is a line that can't be crossed with regard to dealings with them

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] UnicodeHamSic@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You do realize that increasing us strength and military spending are bad things right? That just means more death and misery to thr world in general and US residents aslo?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 19 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Given the substantial losses of men and equipment and the meagre gains I do think it is safe to assume that the counteroffensive does not go as well as Kiev has hoped for.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

It was western media that created the impression of an impending counter-offensive that would all but end the war, not anything from Ukraine’s armed forces as far as I know.

Or from NATO generals. At least not as an overall theme, or after actually understanding the situation on the ground.

I'd say western media recalled the likes of Operation Desert storm, generally "it's not a war but a drubbing" NATO operations, then saw the Kharkiv counter-offensive, missed that the fast mechanised advance was preceded by slogging advances until a breakthrough was achieved, and then expected the same thing to happen against the Surovikin line. Ukraine simply does not have the capacity to employ NATO offensive doctrine, more or less "hit the opposing force so hard in the air that they'll find themselves fighting a land war against air superiority on their whole territory".

And the Surovikin line which wasn't even the main obstacle as now transpired Russians had positions in literally every single forest belt parallel to the trenches visible from space. And mines, mines literally everywhere, Ukraine turned towards IR imagining to figure out where to best go through them (mines heat up in the sun and are then very visible at dusk).

Russia, of course, also announced the offensive failed the day it started but that was to be expected.

load more comments (48 replies)