Ukrainian military advanced towards Kherson
The shit gets packed....
Ukrainian military advanced towards Kherson
The Ukrainian military has tactical successes in the Kherson region.
"In Kherson Oblast, Ukraine's armed forces have advanced by another five kilometers from Tavrijs’ke,” he said.
“We are approaching Tomyna Balka, which is 20 kilometers away from the city of Kherson, where the invaders are. Currently, fighting is going on between Tavrijs’ke and Tomyna Balka.”
Hlan’ stressed that the Ukrainian army has achieved tactical victories, which should be utilized for counteroffensive momentum.
“No matter how hard the invaders try to recapture and regain their lost positions, they fail, and they roll back even more,” Hlan pointed out.
“Basically, we are gradually gaining an advantage.”.
When it comes to shelling, unlike the enemy, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are so accurate that they actually hit enemy equipment and ammunition, says Hlan, and, in contrast to the Russian military, not random civilian structures.
Ukrainian military advanced towards Kherson
The Ukrainian Endgame: An Imperfect Peace Is Better Than Endless War
The Russo-Ukraine war is destructive and dangerous. Much of Washington believes that a win by Kyiv would serve America’s interests. However, pursuit of victory would be far more costly than Ukraine’s advocates acknowledge. The US and leading European states should seek a modus vivendi with Russia that would secure Ukraine’s independence and yield a stable if imperfect regional peace.
Of course, only the Ukrainian government can decide what it is willing to agree to. However, the allies should make clear that they will not provide Kyiv with a blank check. It cannot expect support for an endless campaign in search of victory.
No doubt, the Baltic countries, NATO’s most aggressive but among its weakest members, remain ready to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian and American. However, US policy should focus on protecting this nation. The world is filled with good people stuck in bad neighborhoods – not just in Europe, but consider Taiwan, Nepal, Mongolia, and Mexico, which lost half its territory to an avaricious young American republic. (Canadians had better success in beating off several US attempts at conquest.) Geographic bad luck doesn’t warrant Washington going to war on another nation’s behalf.
The initial shock of Russia’s unjustified aggression triggered a wave of popular support for Ukraine in the US and Europe. Kyiv’s unexpected success made supporting Ukraine easy, spurring a dramatic expansion in what weapons Washington and European governments were prepared to supply. In the same way Ukraine’s and its armorers’ aims also grew. Initially the objective was to sustain the Ukrainian state. Soon there was talk of weakening Russia, preventing Moscow from launching a similar misadventure in the future, defeating Russia, pushing Moscow’s forces out of areas seized in 2014, and even ousting Vladimir Putin.
All worthy objectives, perhaps, but likely achievable only at great cost and risk. Ominously, the interventionist Greek Chorus in Washington also insisted that the US abandon independent decision-making and give Kyiv whatever the Zelensky government requested. For instance, retired Gen. Philip Breedlove argued: "We in the West have to decide that Ukraine and its future is to be determined by Ukrainians and we need to keep our nose out of it. We need to support their decision and help them move forward." Just shut up and pass the ammunition – along with tanks, long-range rockets, airplanes, and even nuclear weapons, if Poland’s former defense and foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski has his way.
However, America’s and Europe’s interests are not the same as Kyiv’s. All other things being equal, it would be great to insulate Ukraine from its position next to its large, authoritarian, and threatening neighbor. But that objective is not worth going to war with a nuclear-armed power, which is why members of the transatlantic alliance spent 14 years ostentatiously misleading successive Ukrainian governments, seeming to promise membership while refusing to consider membership. No NATO member was prepared to fight for Ukraine.
Since Kyiv is already at war, it would benefit from the conflict’s expansion to NATO and, most importantly, the US. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s reaction might be similar to that of Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill after Pearl Harbor: the latter said he "slept the sleep of the saved." This is not to blame Zelensky if he goes to bed every night hoping for a similar triggering event. American revolutionaries probably felt much the same when the French monarchy was debating whether to support their fight against the British.
However, the administration should put America’s interests first and hold back, despite the foreign policy establishment’s inflamed passions for Ukraine. For instance, Breedlove also denounced "a growing group of appeasers in Washington, D.C.," who were pushing for a diplomatic outcome. In fact, US policymakers have several compelling reasons for attempting to end the conflict.
- Americans – at least anyone lacking access to classified information – have little idea how the war is really going. Although much has been made about Russian casualties, until recently Kyiv failed to release Ukrainian numbers. Moscow’s early military efforts were embarrassing failures, but that didn’t mean Ukrainian losses in men and materiel were light. In the US official and informal censorship of news and social media threatens to cancel anyone pro-Russian, even if not a propagandist, biasing reporting. This limits access to accurate information, even for policymakers who strongly support Ukraine.
- The conflict’s future course is highly uncertain. Moscow evidently learned from its mistakes, adjusting strategy and tactics. Relying on its overwhelming advantage in artillery, Russian forces have been making progress in Ukraine’s east, pulverizing Ukrainian positions and causing significant casualties. However, there remains great disagreement over what this success portends for the future. Some observers believe that the Russian offensive will soon grind to a halt, that Moscow’s forces are "exhausted," in the view of retired Gen. Ben Hodges. Then Kyiv will stage a counter-offensive after Western arms arrive. Others contend that Moscow’s advance will break the Ukrainian military, leaving the latter without an experienced cadre, which has resisted so firmly. Along the way many Western weapons will be destroyed in transit and there will be insufficient time to train the Ukrainian military for their use. In any case, recent calls to push Russian forces from Crimea look increasingly unrealistic.
- Moscow has significant ability to escalate and expand the war. The Putin government could stop fighting with its peacetime military and initiate general mobilization. More seriously, Russia could use chemical or nuclear weapons against Kyiv’s forces. Doing so would devastate Ukraine and push the world to a nuclear precipice. Moscow is more likely to take this course if the allies continue to expand and proclaim their intervention against Russia. If the latter faced NATO, backed by US nuclear weapons, using chemical or nuclear weapons would risk much. However, if deployed against Ukraine alone the Biden administration, the ultimate "decider" in a case like this, would have no good options. Despite deranged demands that it initiate war and regime change, Washington would be unlikely to directly intervene if neither it nor an ally was targeted. For instance, adopting Sen. Mitt Romney’s crackpot suggestion that "NATO could engage in Ukraine, potentially obliterating Russia’s struggling military" almost certainly would trigger a nuclear response from Moscow, with full-scale war in the offing.
- Russia cannot afford to lose and has the weapons to avoid doing so. Putin’s conduct so far suggests that he is willing to temper his objectives when they prove impractical. For instance, he retreated from Kyiv and postponed if not abandoned efforts to oust the Zelensky government. However, the specter of a successful Ukrainian campaign to retake Crimea and Donbass likely would generate a far more brutal reaction. Such a defeat would humiliate the Russian dictator; dramatically worsen Moscow’s strategic position; weaken Russia’s influence over its "Near Abroad," most notably Central Asia; and yield Kyiv a position of strength, which might cause NATO to invite Ukraine to join the alliance. If the Zelensky government’s success was propelled by ever increasing US military aid, Moscow would feel even greater pressure and have even stronger justification in its view to strike.
- Both sides appear to believe that time is on their side. In Kyiv’s view, Russia will wear down its forces and sacrifice its most capable troops, creating an opportunity for a counterattack utilizing additional allied weapons. Moscow’s tired legions will suffer from new long-range fire and be driven home. In Russia’s view the current artillery-led offensive will wreck much of Ukraine’s trained troops, forcing surrender or withdrawal and opening the way to conquering the rest of the Donbass. Victory there might allow a renewed thrust on Kyiv, perhaps in conjunction with Belarus. With the actual battlefield result currently uncertain, both sides would gain from negotiation. If Ukraine and the allies guess wrong and refuse to talk, they will suffer as the war becomes more destructive and the peace ends up less tolerable.
- Economic factors favor Russia. The war has driven millions of Ukrainians from their homes and is expected to cut the country’s GDP almost in half. Western aid can only ameliorate the enormous harm and is likely to fall as the US and European countries face public pressure to focus on domestic problems. Economic recovery will be difficult for Ukraine even in areas free of combat since Moscow could launch missile or air attacks at any time and open a new front through Belarus. Although Russia has been hurt by sanctions, so far the impact has been manageable. Technology sanctions have real bite but will take time to measurably weaken the Russian army, the most important target. And the longer the conflict goes, the more likely Moscow find willing partners in the Global South to aid sanctions evasion.
- The US-European partnership against Russia faces increasing stress. The Washington War Party remains united and enthusiastic, viewing Moscow’s aggression as an opportunity to destroy Russia as a major factor in international politics. However, Moscow does not operate in a vacuum. Allied sanctions come atop a global economy roiled by COVID-19 and related problems. Dissent from Ukraine 24/7 is increasing in Europe in Hungary, Germany, Italy, France, Denmark, and elsewhere. Criticism of current policy is growing within the Republican Party while the Biden administration might find it harder to sustain political support as inflation rages and the election approaches. Most of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, tired of Washington’s sanctimonious and destructive interventions and eager to take advantage of discounted Russian oil, is resisting Washington’s latest sanctions campaign.
For good reason, then, Americans worry about deepening US involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war. While it is unsurprising that Kyiv and its Washington factotums advocate going all in, even risking escalation of the conflict, doing so is not in this nation’s interests. Unfortunately, President Joe Biden’s recent article in the New York Time did little to ease public concerns. Especially his promise not to "pressure the Ukrainian government – in private or public – to make any territorial concessions."
The US and Europe should focus on ending, not winning, the war. The longer the conflict goes, the more it will devastate Ukraine and undermine the Ukrainian state. The economic harm to the allies and beyond also will grow, weakening support for Kyiv. An American attempt to carry Ukraine to victory is more likely to encourage Putin to double down, perhaps even using nuclear weapons, than meekly yield. Washington’s goal should not be to save the Russian dictator from personal humiliation, which retired diplomat Dan Fried deemed "risible," but to forestall Putin from engaging in dangerous escalation to prevent personal humiliation.
Life is unfair, President Jimmy Carter once observed. That is especially true when it comes to international affairs. In a perfect world Ukraine would recover its territory, including that seized in 2014, collect reparations from Moscow, and frame Putin’s written apology for invading. However, none of these should be Washington’s objective. The US should promote a stable, peaceful settlement, one that keeps the Pandora’s Box of nuclear war closed.
https://original.antiwar.com/doug-bandow/2022/06/14/the-ukrainian-endgame-an-imperfect-peace-is-better-than-endless-war/
Putin Is Losing the War. Don't Be Fooled by What Happened in Severodonetsk
Russia is losing the Ukraine war. Though Moscow is poised to capture the eastern city of Severodonetsk, it again has proven itself incapable of attaining a broader conquest over its smaller neighbor. The Russian army's so-called victory is the latest installment in its humiliating military display and comes with a crushing human cost.
"The Russian military is getting weaker by the day, with little prospect of overall replenishment or meaningful reinforcement," a senior Defense Intelligence Agency official tells Newsweek. "Meanwhile, Ukraine is holding on ... [and] standing on the brink of major western augmentation of its offensive capability."
Most experts predict the war will continue to grind on for months, and many analysts are saying the tide has turned in Vladimir Putin's favor. It hasn't. Even as Severodonetsk falls, it's important to remember that Russia has already suffered three major embarrassing losses. First was Moscow's inability to reach Kyiv, depose the government there, and its subsequent withdrawal from the north. Second was its failure to take Ukraine's second city, Kharkiv, with another retreat from its environs. Third is its inability to move forward in the south, contrary to Kremlin predictions. Odesa and Mykolaiv are no longer threatened by Russia.
The fighting in Severodonetsk will likely go on for a week or more, and even longer if it turns into another Mariupol. "Even if Russia manages to take all of Donbas in the coming weeks, we'll still see a standoff where Ukraine increasingly has an advantage," the DIA official says.
The miracle in Severodonetsk
In his nightly video address on Sunday, President Volodymyr Zelensky assured his people that Ukraine is fighting for "literally every meter" of Severodonetsk.
Monday, Ukraine said its forces have been pushed out of the center of the city, their backs increasingly against the river. Some have questioned Kyiv's decision to mount a tenacious defense of Severodonetsk, asking why Ukrainian forces didn't retreat to the high ground on the other side at the twin city of Lysychansk (population 95,000) to live and fight another day.
This ignores that Severodonetsk has been under artillery and air attack since the beginning of the war, with Russian troops moving to its outskirts and beginning their campaign to take the city almost exactly two months ago. Since then, the fighting has been a see-saw of advances and retreats, Ukrainian forces managing to do the impossible and hold on even when defeat seemed imminent.
In late May, says Illia Ponomarenko, one of Ukraine's top military journalists, "Russia seemed to be just a step away from severing the T1302 highway (commonly known as 'the road of life') and closing the 40-kilometer-wide pocket [around the metropolitan area]." Ponomarenko explains that there was "doom and gloom in the media in Ukraine and beyond, with loud calls to the Ukrainian military to withdraw troops from Severodonetsk and Lysychansk to save them from inevitable disaster."And yet, he points out, Russia was unsuccessful at encircling the city. "With time," he says, "it has switched to much more narrow goals of creating several smaller death traps for the Ukrainian military instead of just one giant. In many ways, this happened due to Russia's lack of manpower for such a large operation, as well as fierce Ukrainian resistance.""The Russians totally control most of Severodonetsk," says Governor Serhiy Gaiday, head of the Luhansk administration where the city is located.
"The battles are so heavy that the struggle can last for days, not even for the street, but [also] for one high-rise building," he says."For weeks," Ponomarenko adds, "Russia and Ukrainian militaries are waging cut-throat, brutal fighting in the city, throwing more and more troops in the grinder, with houses and districts changing hands all the time."Now about 8,000 Ukrainian soldiers—elements of three regular army brigades, national guard, territorial guard, and foreign legion—are isolated on the eastern bank of the river, according to U.S. intelligence.
Ten-to-One works both ways
Despite fierce fighting on the ground, the Russians, as they have been doing throughout the war, resort to long-range artillery to attack Ukrainian soldiers and preserve their own infantry force.Ukraine's General Valeriy Zaluzhny, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, says that Russia outnumbers his country ten-to-one in guns and rockets. "Despite everything," Zaluzhny said on Facebook this week, "we continue to hold positions. Every meter of Ukrainian land there is covered in blood—but not only ours, but also the occupier's.
""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.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."Meanwhile the clamor from Kyiv pressuring the west to accelerate their supply of weapons continues. Not giving up on Severodonetsk shows that Kyiv is not giving up on holding Ukrainian territory, not ceding anything for free now that it recognizes how weak Putin's forces are. But it is also part of a holding action—holding on and hoping that sufficient arms will reach the front in time to defeat the Russian invaders.
Across the river
If Russian forces gain full control of Severodonetsk, the next step would be crossing the Siverskyi Donets River and assaulting Lysychansk. From there, it is just five miles to the Donbas border with greater Ukraine.
This weekend, Russian forces destroyed the Proletarskyi bridge over the river, the last driveable connection between the two cities. Governor Gaidai says the loss of the bridge means that there is "no way of leaving Severodonetsk in a vehicle."In order to move forward, the British military intelligence said on Monday, Russia is either going to have to "complete ambitious flanking actions, or conduct assault river crossings," neither of which it has managed to do in the last three months.
"Russia has struggled to put in place the complex coordination necessary to conduct successful, large-scale river crossings under fire," British military intelligence says. "Over the coming months, river crossing operations are likely to be amongst the most important determining factors in the course of the war.
"Another factor to ponder in putting the loss of Severodonetsk in context is that it is only a tiny segment of the battle: one that is important in continuing to take all of Donbas, but not so crucial that Ukraine's defenses collapse.The frontline between Russia and Ukraine, from east of Kharkiv in the north through Donbas to southern Ukraine all the way west to the Pivdennyi Buh river, is 1,500 miles (2400 km).
There are active hostilities, General Zaluzhny says, on nearly 680 miles (1100 km) of that front. Much of that is in communities around Severodonetsk and other pockets of Luhansk and Donetsk still under Ukrainian control. Outside of Donbas, Ukrainian counter-offensives have largely halted any Russian advances. The fourth setback is now likely to happen in the south and west.
As Severodonetsk falls, it is still a race between Ukraine's need for resupply and reinforcement and Russia's dwindling manpower.
"Severodonetsk is standing, and Ukraine is also fortifying the defenses Lysychansk just to the west, a city on a higher ground that is belted by the Siverskyi Donets River hilly banks, which gives a big advantage to defenders," writes Ponomarenko, assessing the bigger picture of the loss.He warns, as do other experts closely watching the war on the ground, that the loss might provoke both western officials and even Kyiv to see the Donbas as lost. And once Donbas is lost, even if Russia declares victory and a ceasefire, there is a danger of the west urging Ukraine to negotiate, to trade even more of its own territory for peace.
"What will the West choose: a tempting deal with the devil or the good side in history?," Ponomarenko asks. "We'll see soon."
Putin Is Losing the War. Don't Be Fooled by What Happened in Severodonetsk
