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 …
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.
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.