Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: skinowski who wrote (763545)	6/3/2022 2:01:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 793670

Generally the consensus has been that Russian offensives would be easier in the Donbass then around Kyiv or Kharkiv. One of the reasons is those are the two largest Ukrainian cities with more effort put in to protecting them. Also they (or at least Kyiv) are further from Russian rail infrastructure so its logistically harder on the Russians. But also the terrain was considered more favorable for offensive in the Donbass because its flatter and more open. It is more suitable for armored sweeps and rapid outflanking of the enemy. Weapons like the Javelin make it a lot more dangerous for armor but still armor has the ability to concentrate a lot of force quickly at a further distance and overwhelm the enemy even if you have to take more losses then you want doing so. But the offensives in this war have mainly been slow (early attacks were not so slow but often didn't work out that well, recklessly charging forward and taking a lot of losses) , and often a matter of blasting away at artillery until the enemy is disrupted enough that they can't stop you. More open makes it easier to take out the enemy so it helps the offense in that sense but it also make its easier for the enemy to spot you so if you charge forward when they still have a large effective force their with its own artillery you don't have a good place to hide from it. As for HIMARS everything I can see about the subject seems to talk about it going forward as planned (only 4 initially but likely more would follow later just as 18 M777s turned in to 90), just with notice that ATACMS will not be provided. If I was president and I was concerned about attacks in to Russia that's the way I would do it. I wouldn't bother about promises not to attack in to Russia because without ATACMS they can only hit areas along the border anyway, its long range artillery rockets not deep strike missiles. Even searched for phrases about HIMARS for Ukraine being canceled or Biden won't send HIMARS and things like that and I come up with nothing.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next