WW2 France-Germany theory?
Just pretend like you are sending every single soldier and equipment to the front line but in secret just attack the weakest point in the chain from behind, encircle, artillary barrage and move on.
I am just wondering if the entire border is fortified? Because if not then they could pull it off "IF" this time they first get proper intelligence reports and acuurately asses the situation.
BTW about time this winds down, Russia didnt really achieve much at all since 2014 till now. It is a stale mate between NATO and Russiabut all in all Russia did a brilliant job. Imagine holding off NATO and still inching forward that is crazy considering the amount of fire power NATO can supply their people in Ukraine.
I'm not sure what the spacing is, some places must have at most a small amount of soldiers in the area. Because the front lines are like 1,200+ km. Now that you mention it, it must be that those advances troops could get cut off if there was fortified positions on both sides. Also they could get attacked from three sides. To the left, to the right and head on.
Initially the Russians wanted to do a deep encirclement of the Donbas. But with the Ukrainians having cars and trucks and roads everywhere with all these farms, villages and towns, the Ukrainians were then doing hit and runs with the anti-tank weapons. Then you could try to pursue those hit and run groups, but then you get stretched even further into the vastness of Ukraine.
Ya the Russian army and the DPR & LPR armies they are better than people are giving them credit for. I watched how the Russians took Popasna and then continued to extend their territorial gains from there and encircle the Ukrainians in the cauldron. The Russians look like a professional European military to me.
Some of the Russians weaknesses are not necessarily Russia specific weaknesses. For example, how would NATO tanks and armored vehicles do against the anti-tank weapons. And the Russian airforce, Russia didn't have the money to invest in Airforce so they didn't invest much in it. Plus we don't know how the US Airforce would do against a country with a lot of modern surface to air missile systems and other mobile air defense systems. Just the size of Ukraine I don't think a lot of the planes have the range to fly deep into Ukraine and back.
The Russians did what I would have done for long range attacks, just invest in cruise missiles. Which the Russian cruise missiles look equivalent to me to the Tomahawk cruise missiles. Those have 1,200 km range and the Ukrainians haven't hit any of them, over 3,000 have hit targets in Ukraine. Plus the Russians also have the hypersonic cruise missiles, although they don't need to use them because the normal cruise missiles are getting through.
For the ground army the Russians went with having a ton of artillery, including multiple different mobile artillery in large numbers. That turned out to be very effective. NATO made a mistake not having a ton of artillery available. NATO got too thinking about high quality systems which are powerful.. but you also need a vast bulk of regular army stuff. That is where the high end stuff becomes really powerful when it gets added in. As you slip in the high end stuff and it can turn battles between two armies of large bulk. Whereas just the high end stuff by itself it can't hold positions and have the mass everywhere.
The Russians also have taken severe losses and still fighting. Which was very momentous to actually demonstrate that.
The Russian weapons systems like their artillery showed it was really durable as well, and easy to operate. That is Russian military doctrine., its really smart.
Russia is a strong country, its still top 5 easily.
