As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread๐งต:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
just a bit North of Kherson and the other over the dam at Nova Kakhovka (purple pentagons).
Since the arrival of M142 HIMARS both crossing have been pounded heavily by Ukrainian forces.
Since August the Antonovsky bridge near Kherson is impassable for vehicles (photo), while 2/n
the dam at Nova Kakhovka is still passable for trucks, but not heavy vehicles (photo).
Over the last month Ukraine has been wearing the russian forces in Kherson down: through artillery fire, constant probing attacks, drone attacks, and by destroying their ammo and supplies. 3/n
russia brought in pontoons to supply its forces in the South near Kherson (photo), but thanks to HIMARS Ukraine has been hitting and sinking these pontoons.
Now Ukraine went on the offensive in the North and quickly overran the starving, demoralized russian forces there. 4/n
This is the same map as in tweet 1, but seeing this map makes it easier to understand Ukraine's initial attacks (blue arrows):
One attack pierced the russian line near the Dnipro, using the 5 km wide river to cover its eastern flank. At the same time Ukrainian troops attacked 5/n
from their Inhulets bridgehead - thus fixing the russians forces there in place.
Meeting little resistance Ukrainian forces pushed South to Dudchany. This meant that the russian troops still holding the front in the North are now at risk of being encircled. The latest news
6/n
indicate that these russians are already fleeing from there (red arrows).
Kherson is steppe = a flat landscape with some thin treelines as only cover. There are no natural barriers, which makes it impossible for the russians to set up an improvised defensive line.
7/n
The russians can't stop retreating until the next natural barrier: either the Dnipro river or the Inhulets river
Retreating over the Dnipro Nova Kakhovka would make more sense for the russians, as
(Photo of the landscape in northern Kherson - ideal armored warfare country) 8/n
here their trucks and light vehicles can still cross and once on the left bank the russians could set up a defensive line to secure the rear of their forces fighting in Zaporizhzhia.
The other option is to retreat South to the Inhulets river (blue line). 9/n
Retreating to the Inhulets would be what a complete moron does... so the russians will do it.
Let's look again at the map with the second phase of the operation in Kherson: the russians retreat either over the Nova Kakhovka dam or over the Inhulets river: 10/n
if they retreat over the dam they will have to leave all their heavy vehicles behind, if they retreat over the Inhulets they will have to abandon most of their vehicles for lack of fuel.
And if the russians retreat over the Inhulets, the Ukrainians can cross the Dnipro and
11/n
establish a bridgehead on the left bank, from which they can attack towards Crimea and Melitopol. At Kakhovka they can also cut the water to Crimea.
In short the russians only have bad options (putin the "strategic genius" at it again).
Some russians will flee over the
12/n
Nova Kakhovka dam, but most will retreat over the Inhulets... and as said that's the most moronic option, because then the russians there will be boxed in by Ukrainian troops from three sides, with M777 howitzers able to hit almost every spot, and 13/n
AHS Krab, PzH 2000, Zuzana 2 and CAESAR able to hit every spot. And the only supply line will be pontoons, whose landing spots on both sides of the Dnipro are in Ukrainian artillery range.
Retreating over the Inhulets is retreating into a death trap. Once Ukrainian M777 can
14/n
hit the pontoons no ammo, no fuel, no food - nothing will reach the 15,000 russians stuck there. It's starve to death or freeze to death or surrender for them.
And they can't flee across the Antonovsky bridge as Ukrainian spotters will see them & artillery will shred them.
15/n
And in fall/winter they can't swim across the 1 km wide Dnipro river with its freezing water, as that would mean death by hypothermia.
putin just annexed Kherson, so he refuses to give it up... which means he has doomed all the russian troops there to death.
16/n
This is a textbook example how a smart, capable, flexible, motivated army can use terrain, enemy incompetence, and operational art to beat a cretinously led army.
We're gonna see more of this, because putin is a moron and General Zaluzhnyi is a genius.
17/end
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As many people do not realize the importance of ๐ฌ๐ฑ Greenland for the defence of the ๐บ๐ธ US, I will explain it:
โข ๐จ๐ณ chinese nuclear submarines
If you watched The Hunt for Red October, you already know the reason the US has been, is, will be worried about enemy submarines.
1/24
Enemy submarines operating off the US East Coast would sink US ships, blockade US ports, launch cruise missiles at US cities, and disrupt US supply and reinforcement transports to Europe.
Today russia's Northern Fleet has 5ร cruise missile and 9ร attack submarines at
2/24
Murmansk, which in case of war would sail towards the central Atlantic.
But to get there the russian submarines must pass the GIUK gap or Greenland-Iceland-UK gap.
During the Cold War the US Navy and US Air Force operated P-3C Orion Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) and
3/24
After the end of the Cold War ๐ธ๐ช Sweden demilitarized #Gotland island, the key strategic location in the Baltic Sea.
After russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, Sweden remilitarized the island. The new Gotland Regiment (P 18), an armored formation, is a signal to enemy and allies, 1/9
that Sweden WILL DEFEND Gotland.
Sweden also formed a second amphibious battalion, ordered Blekinge-class submarines, bought Patriot air defence systems, grows its air force with Gripen E fighters, ordered modernized RBS 15 Mk. IV anti-ship missiles, etc. etc. 2/9
In short: Sweden is investing in its defence, with equipment orders and upgrades, as well as unit formations and relocations that signal the country's intent to defend all of its territory.
Are the Swedish forces strong enough to defeat a russian invasion 4-5 years after the 3/9
They last added a frigate to their Navy in 2011. They plan to add the next by around 2032 (!).
This is an unserious clown-show!
Alas, they are just as unserious as ๐ฉ๐ช๐ซ๐ท๐ฌ๐ง๐ฎ๐น๐ช๐ธ๐ธ๐ช๐ณ๐ด๐ง๐ช๐ต๐น๐ณ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ช. Governments in Europe refuse to accept that we are in an emergency far
1/14
worse than any in the last 80 years.
โข russia is invading Ukraine, which will fall if we do not triple our military aid.
โข China will invade Taiwan, which will cut off all trade with Japan and South Korea
โข Trump is gonna break all bonds with Europe, and invade Panama
2/14
This means Europe can no longer rely on the highly trained and exquisitely equipped 100,000 US troops based in Europe to defend us.
Furthermore since russia invaded Ukraine the US Army has continuously two armored brigades and one light brigade on rotation in Europe, which
3/14
What does Trump's victory mean for NATO - listed from most certain to worst:
1) Operation Atlantic Resolve, which protects Eastern Europe since russia's invasion of Ukraine, will almost certainly end. 2) The only two US Army brigades in Europe (2nd Cavalry Regiment in ๐ฉ๐ช &
1/4
173rd Airborne Brigade in ๐ฎ๐น๐ฉ๐ช) will very likely return to the US. 3) US Air Force units in Europe will likely be reduced, but I doubt Trump will close the bases... he needs them to bomb Iran. 4) US nuclear sharing with ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฎ๐น๐ณ๐ฑ๐ง๐ช๐น๐ท will likely end, leaving Europe without
2/4
tactical nuclear weapons. 5) Trump could pull US officers and assets from NATO's command structure... which would cripple NATO commands like the Allied Air Command, Allied Land Command, Joint Forces Command Naples, etc. leaving NATO unable to command forces to fight a russian
3/4