Kyiv reports successes in the south and north-east of the country. Australian military strategist Mick Ryan draws five conclusions from this and explains why Ukraine understands more about multi-front wars “than all of us”.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reports further successes in the Cherson and Luhansk regions. Australian military strategist Mick Ryan emphasizes that while “few” have been officially confirmed so far, five conclusions can already be drawn.
First: According to the expert, the advance in Cherson and Luhansk is an “excellent Ukrainian operational concept”. Although the two areas are geographically separate, the attacks are “part of an integrated concept and a comprehensive military strategy.”
Second, the two operations would support each other: “The south is the crucial region because of its economic contribution to the Ukrainian economy,” said Ryan. But the East is also important. “It’s a region in close proximity to Russia, so gains here have a significant morale impact on Russians.” In addition, the Northeast is an important logistical route in support of operations in Donbass.
Third, the Ukrainian attacks are well timed. After Ukrainian artillery battles and the use of Himar rockets in southern Cherson, a large number of Russian troops were deployed there. “This provided an opportunity for the next aspect of the Ukrainian concept of war: the advance on Kharkiv”. That presented “a classic dilemma for the Russians,” according to Ryan. They had to decide how they wanted to divide their forces between the south and the north-east. And at the same time they continued their “senseless attacks in Donbass”.
Fourth: It is easier for the Ukrainians to operate in different geographical posts – because they operate inland. For the Russians on the outer lines, this poses greater problems.
Fifth, the Ukrainian armed forces continued to successfully focus on their “corrosion strategy” – the destruction of Russian weapons, logistics, hubs and troops. “This is wearing down the Russians from within. It physically weakens their fighting ability and also has profound moral implications,” Ryan said.
In addition, there was a successful “reconnaissance battle” for tactical information. This revealed weak points and Russian forces were quickly and easily crushed. The same has been observed in the Kharkiv area, and it is now also possible in Cherson.
The military strategist sums it up: “Ultimately, the physical and psychological pressure of all these integrated elements of Ukrainian warfare can lead to a cascade of tactical (and possibly operational) mistakes by the Russians.” For example, the mobilized troops are deployed too quickly without the necessary logistical support at the front . Or that resources such as fire and air forces are used up too quickly.
“All of this gives the Ukrainians more opportunities to destroy more of the Russian army and retake more ground.”
In his Twitter post on Sunday, he concludes: “What we have seen from the Ukrainian armed forces lately is further evidence that they understand modern multi-front warfare better than any of us.”
According to the expert, the Ukrainian warfare has caused a profound mental shock to the Russians on a political, strategic, operational and tactical level. The next few hours and days would show how operations in Kharkiv and Kherson unfolded. But because of the pressure in those two areas, opportunities may arise elsewhere for Ukrainians to capitalize on, he says.
Putin’s “bloodhound”, Ramzan Kadyrov, called for a nuclear strike by Russia in the four annexed territories. Military experts are now explaining why that doesn’t make sense. With his aggressive verbal attacks, Kadyrov is also tearing a deep rift in Russia’s military structures.
Azovstal fighter Mikhailo Dianov spent four months in Russian captivity. He was recently released in a prisoner exchange. Now he speaks for the first time about the experiences. He tells of torture, humiliation and pain that will probably remain.
For Zelenskyj, the military successes make the annexations forgotten. Ex-CIA boss Petraeus sees a “desperate” Putin. And an analysis by the renowned ISW shows: Russian reporting is changing “fundamentally”. what happened in the night
