1/ Mika Mäenpää (@MMaenpaa1, go follow him!) has posted an excellent assessment of the situation near Kharkiv from a military professional's perspective. It deserves to be read widely, so I hope he'll forgive me for doing a quick translation of it into English.
2/ From @MMaenpaa1:
I was going to write this when the attack on Kharkiv started, but then I said let's wait and see. The Ukrainian counter-attack seems to be a prime example of brilliant use of intelligence, deception and information warfare: operational intelligence.
I was going to write this when the attack on Kharkiv started, but then I said let's wait and see. The Ukrainian counter-attack seems to be a prime example of brilliant use of intelligence, deception and information warfare: operational intelligence.
3/ Military action: since the summer, Ukraine has concentrated its fire and (visible) troop operations on the southern part of the front. In particular, HIMARS, which gave the impression of preparing the battlefield, ...
4/ but turned out to be more of an EBO [Effects-Based Operations]-type influence.
[Translator's note - see the linked article on Wikipedia about EBO.] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects-b…
[Translator's note - see the linked article on Wikipedia about EBO.] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects-b…
5/ Throughout the summer, Ukraine has given the public the impression that it is attacking in the direction of Kherson and that this is the most important direction for it. This narrative has even been supported by the President.
6/ After the start of the attack on the Kherson front, the issue was highlighted by invoking #OPSEC, and yet the picture was of "this year". 🤔
Of course, obfuscation only works if something actually happens.
Of course, obfuscation only works if something actually happens.
7/ Russian intelligence was constantly fed the picture that troops were coming in the direction of Kherson. This apparently caused Russia to critically undermine the Kharkiv front. The launch of the attack finally "confirmed" the narrative.
8/ Here on Twitter, people were also wondering why the counterattack in Kherson's direction was so slow in the end.
9/ Obviously the resistance was tough as Russia had concentrated their strength there, but Ukraine also had no need to go "all in" on Kherson as this was probably a diversion.
10/ Ukrainian intelligence had found the Russian weak spot in Kharkiv perfectly and that is where Ukraine struck; just as all the rules of engagement advise.
11/ Now it seems that Ukraine has brought its operational intelligence to the battlefield and is making full use of, among other things, foreign information support. Rumours of war gaming with the US support this theory.
12/ Don't count your chickens yet, let's now see the operation through to the end, but I have to say "well played" by the Ukrainian armed forces. 👏 /end
(Original thread in Finnish linked below).
https://twitter.com/MMaenpaa1/status/1568512350822481920
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
