Given the buildup of Ukrainian forces around Kharkiv over the last fortnight and the expectation of a major counter-offensive in the North-East, the big question is why Russia failed to respond to it in time. Came across an interesting view that for Russia holding onto Kherson was the bigger strategic priority. Presented with two threats…
Given the buildup of Ukrainian forces around Kharkiv over the last fortnight and the expectation of a major counter-offensive in the North-East, the big question is why Russia failed to respond to it in time. Came across an interesting view that for Russia holding onto Kherson was the bigger strategic priority. Presented with two threats building in the West and North East - and with a limited number of troops to counter both threats simultaneously - Russia had to repel the threat in Kherson first, even if that put the NE at risk.
Russia is actually playing a real gamble. They will not give up Kherson, because they still dream of conquering Odessa. On the other hand, the loss of Kupiansk and Izium jeopardized all their operations in Donbass. They will need to build or reinforce other supply routes, which requires time they may not have. And it is not certain that they will be able to replenish the equipment, supplies and soldiers they lost at Kharkiv.
Agree. It is a big risk - one forced upon them by their decision to conduct a SMO with limited troop numbers. Madness not to secure and fortify gained territory. They've effectively shot themselves in the foot. But looking at maps, if things get desperate, it is easier to manage a loss of territory in NE and close to Russian border than to reclaim lost territory Kherson. As you say, securing the South coast and Odessa, and linking up with Transnistria are key SMO objectives. Whereas, as long as Ukrainian advance can be halted and Ukraine's professional troops & hardware contained in the NE, not sure what the bigger strategic gain will be for Ukraine.
Given the buildup of Ukrainian forces around Kharkiv over the last fortnight and the expectation of a major counter-offensive in the North-East, the big question is why Russia failed to respond to it in time. Came across an interesting view that for Russia holding onto Kherson was the bigger strategic priority. Presented with two threats building in the West and North East - and with a limited number of troops to counter both threats simultaneously - Russia had to repel the threat in Kherson first, even if that put the NE at risk.
Russia is actually playing a real gamble. They will not give up Kherson, because they still dream of conquering Odessa. On the other hand, the loss of Kupiansk and Izium jeopardized all their operations in Donbass. They will need to build or reinforce other supply routes, which requires time they may not have. And it is not certain that they will be able to replenish the equipment, supplies and soldiers they lost at Kharkiv.
Agree. It is a big risk - one forced upon them by their decision to conduct a SMO with limited troop numbers. Madness not to secure and fortify gained territory. They've effectively shot themselves in the foot. But looking at maps, if things get desperate, it is easier to manage a loss of territory in NE and close to Russian border than to reclaim lost territory Kherson. As you say, securing the South coast and Odessa, and linking up with Transnistria are key SMO objectives. Whereas, as long as Ukrainian advance can be halted and Ukraine's professional troops & hardware contained in the NE, not sure what the bigger strategic gain will be for Ukraine.