I am sure someone will tell me why this is a dumb idea but what if Ukraine started taking Russian

[Quixote1818]

towns northeast of Kyiv to force the battle back to where Russia has a hard time fighting in wooded areas with towns and on Russian soil instead of Ukrainian soil? If they started sending tanks into those Russian regions wouldn't Russia have to pull troops off the far east region and put them in the Russian areas where Ukraine starts taking towns? From what I have heard, the area of eastern Ukraine the fighting is moving to is flat and open and favors the Russians. Not to mention if they are taking Russian towns then it's Russian homes and buildings getting blown up in the middle of the battles instead of Ukrainian towns.

[intrepidity]

1. I mean, I hear what you're saying

but that transforms Ukraine into an aggressor rather than defender. It may be tricky to maintain the moral high ground which is serving Ukraine well. jmho

[marie999]

7. It does not make Ukraine the aggressor although Putin will claim they are.

[Tommy Carcetti]

2. I honestly don't think Ukrainians have any interest in taking any Russian territories.

They simply want to hold on to their own territory. No sense in wasting resources for that.

[relayerbob]

3. Most of the area north of Kyif is Belarus

The towns east of Sumy are better candidates, but there is no intention nor good purpose to spread their forces out that way. Yes, it would distract from the Russian main assault a little, but not much, and would result in Ukrainian supply lines that would be long and hard to protect. They are already taking the war inside of Russia's borders and will continue to do so. In recent comments, Sec Austin pointed out that the US is "not discouraging" that sort of activity, and is providing Ukraine with intelligence to help them fight the war. In other words, we're showing them positions of vulnerabilities and saying, "we certainly wouldn't recommend an attack on this position at x.xx long y.yy lat, with drones and helicopters armed with these types of rockets, as that might cause the Russians a lot of trouble." ha!

In any case, they have their hands full, let's see them take some serious offensive actions to free Mariupol and eastern and Southern Ukraine.

[pecosbob]

4. Right now slowing down/stopping the Russians means destroying Ukrainian infrastructure

Sad but true fact. Russian supply transport is their main weakness as is evidenced by their inability to get food, fuel and ammo to their troops in Ukraine, specifically around Kyiv. The areas in southern Ukraine where the Russians have now massed troops control the two major rail lines through the region. Latest drone tech supplied to Ukraine targets the locomotives of these supply trains. Right now the battle is over supply.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Russia has already taken troops from the far East. Russia's border defences are now thin

I think it is wise to not escalate and attack Russian towns. Ordinarily, that would be a normal tactic/strategy.

But Ukraine is winning the info war and by avoiding Russian territory, they avoid invoking Russian defensive patriotism which would make them fight harder.

This way, Russian mothers are asking why are their sons dying in Ukraine? For what? Attack Mother Russia and they stop asking such questions.


Remember, it was Russian mothers who exposed the hollow war in Afghanistan and brought down the Soviet Union, which of course was crumbling badly for many other reasons.

[uponit7771]

6. North of Kyiv is Belarus but I agree with your sentiment; go after Russian rail roads where they

... used to move 90% of their heavy equipment.

Start bombing equipment in Russian cities close to the borders that can be used as support for the Russian troops.

When Russians get away from their railroads bad things happen to their whole operations