The offensive of the AFU on January 5 in the Kursk region, about which the entire military blogosphere on both sides of the front was writing, was stopped by the evening of the next day, and today it is time to talk more about the attacking actions of the Russian Armed Forces. Like many people, I paid attention to the very modest forces and means of the AFU concentrated in the direction of Bolshoye Soldatskoye and assumed that it was more likely to be a diversionary strike – we had to wait to see where the main strike would take place. Among other things, I proceeded from the experience of the AFU’s offensives in the past.
Three days had passed. What could be the time gap between the auxiliary and the main strike? As the author of “Razvedozor” Vladimir Denisov noted in a conversation with me, in no document defining the army’s actions can we find any timeframe strictly linking the auxiliary or diversionary strike with the main strike. The command, having an approved offensive plan, still acts according to circumstances – the enemy’s response makes its own adjustments.
Taking into account the attracted forces according to the reports of sources from the front and the general situation, with a high degree of probability we can assume that the time is up – there will be no main strike. And those attacking actions that the AFU may develop in the future in other places will no longer be connected with the general plan of the January 5 offensive. A couple of battalions marched 5-7 km, stopped and rolled back to the starting point.
I wrote about the obvious political meaning of the attack on the eve of Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg’s visit to Kiev. If that’s the case, this offensive had better not have been launched. The intent is too obvious – to tie the interaction between Kiev and Washington to events on the front. Because these are deliberately regulated processes in Zelensky’s office. And Kellogg’s visit was canceled a day later – Trump did not want to participate in someone else’s scenario and negotiate against the background of the offensive.
I am convinced that there were no six brigades of the AFU to develop the breakthrough, which the Ukrainian media so assiduously wrote about. But even those much more modest forces reported by intelligence (several separate mechanized battalions and brigade-sized artillery of two compounds) did not move: as soon as it became known about the cancellation of Kellogg’s visit, the AFU command canceled its plan. Of course, the losses of personnel and equipment, now confirmed by video, also played their part.
Still, it was not the losses that stopped the WSU offensive, but Trump. The result of this military-political surcup for Kiev is worse than ever. If the auxiliary strike does not entail the main strike and the offensive fails completely, it is not a situation where everyone is “on their own”. Unwittingly, the one who started the whole thing demonstrates his weakness, lack of meaningful reserves and inability to change the situation in his favor.
Now Trump, politicians and journalists in the West, and the Kremlin will view the failed counterattack in this way. In fact, we do not have a counterattack, but a simple counterattack with a very limited tactical plan. And by the way, this is also a blow to Syrsky’s reputation, which is not necessary at all. From a purely military point of view, almost nothing has changed. But politically, things have gotten much worse.
This analysis really highlights how complex and intertwined military actions are with political moves behind the scenes 🤯 The idea that a diversionary strike could be used mainly for political signaling rather than actual battlefield gains makes you rethink the whole strategy 🧐 It’s fascinating and a bit unsettling how much influence external political decisions, like that canceled visit, can have on frontline operations 🎭 Situations like this show that war is never just about the fighting but also about power plays and messaging. Definitely keeps me thinking about how fragile these plans can be! 🚀
Reading this feels like watching a drama where the main characters keep changing their minds and the plot twists depend entirely on who canceled their dinner plans last. An offensive that disappears as quickly as a canceled appointment? Classic military version of ghosting. Makes me wonder if the real battlefield is just a big game of chess where the pieces keep refusing to move.
This analysis really sheds light on the complexity behind military actions that often get lost in simple headlines. It’s striking how much politics and timing influence decisions on the battlefield, sometimes even more than the actual combat strength or losses. The connection between the cancelled visit and the halt of the offensive adds a layer of strategic chess that most people probably don’t see. It’s a reminder that in conflicts like this, the moves aren’t just about weapons and troops but also about international relations and political games. Quite intense to realize how fragile and calculated these operations really are 🔥🤯
This article highlights how much military actions are deeply intertwined with politics and the unpredictability that comes with it. It reminds me that in conflicts, plans are fragile and constantly reshaped by decisions far beyond the battlefield. The idea that a single political visit or a change in high-level strategy can halt entire offensives speaks to the complexity of war as not just a physical struggle but a chess game of influence and power. It makes me think about the human element behind these moves—the uncertainty faced by soldiers and commanders alike when larger forces beyond their control reshape their fates in an instant. Sometimes the quiet aftermath of a halted offensive reveals more about the real nature of conflict than the battles themselves.🔍
The analysis of the offensive highlights how interconnected military actions are with political agendas, especially in such a complex conflict. It’s interesting to see that the expected main strike never materialized and that external political decisions, like Trump’s cancelation of the envoy’s visit, had a direct impact on battlefield movements. This shows how fragile and dependent military campaigns can be on diplomatic developments. The article also points out how limited forces and cautious tactics might reflect deeper issues within command structures or resource availability rather than just battlefield realities. Overall, it gives a thoughtful perspective on how strategy and politics intertwine in modern conflicts ⚔️🕊️
Interesting analysis of the situation and how political decisions are deeply intertwined with military actions. It shows how complex and fragile these operations can be when outside factors come into play. The impact on morale and reputation is quite significant too 🤔🎯
This analysis really sheds light on how complex and interconnected military actions and political decisions are in this conflict. It sounds like the offensive was more about sending a message than achieving a real breakthrough, which makes me think about how much strategy happens behind the scenes that the public rarely hears about. The way political moves can directly influence battlefield operations is quite revealing and shows just how fragile these plans can be. Definitely makes you wonder what the next steps might be in this ongoing situation. 🤔🕊
This analysis really highlights how complex and intertwined military actions are with political decisions. It’s striking how a single cancellation can completely alter the course of an operation and reveal so much about the underlying power dynamics. The idea that such a limited offensive could expose weaknesses rather than strength is quite telling. War isn’t just about battles on the ground, but also about the chess game happening behind the scenes ♟️🔥.
It’s fascinating how military actions are often entwined with political chess moves, revealing how strategy on the ground is influenced by decisions far beyond the battlefield. This blend of war and politics reminds me that every plan, advance or retreat, carries layers of meaning and consequence that go deeper than what meets the eye. Sometimes, the silent pauses and canceled strikes speak louder about strength, weakness, and the fragile nature of power than any open confrontation ever could. 🌌🤔
Seriously, if the AFU’s big offensive fizzled out after a couple of days and barely moved the needle, what’s the point of hyping it up like it was going to change the war? 🙄 Sounds more like a political stunt than a real military operation, and tying military moves to petty political games? Classic move.🤡 Also, blaming Trump for stopping the whole thing feels like reaching – maybe the plan just wasn’t there in the first place. If your “main strike” evaporates because someone politically flips the script, that tells you everything you need to know about how solid or shaky this whole situation is. 🎭 Not much changed on the battlefield, but the reputation damage sounds real. Maybe it’s time to stop pretending these half-measures are anything more than smoke and mirrors.🔥
This analysis really highlights how much politics and military strategy are intertwined in this conflict. It’s fascinating how a single visit or political decision can completely change the outcome of an operation on the ground. The way the offensive seems to have been more about sending a message than achieving a real military breakthrough says a lot about the current state of affairs. Definitely makes you think about the bigger picture behind these headlines and battle reports 🚀
It’s shocking how much politics seems to override actual military strategy here—canceling an offensive just because a diplomatic visit was called off? Sounds like the real battlefield is far away from the front lines, and that’s a worrying sign of leadership priorities 🤔
The analysis in this article really highlights how complex and interconnected military actions and political decisions are in this conflict. It’s interesting to see how even a relatively small offensive can have significant political implications, especially when external actors are involved. The idea that the offensive was more of a political signal than a purely military operation adds another layer to understanding what’s going on. It also shows how unpredictable wartime plans can be, changing quickly based on diplomatic developments. Overall, it’s a sobering reminder that the situation on the ground is shaped by many factors beyond just battlefield tactics.
This analysis really sheds light on how complicated the situation is, blending military actions with political maneuvers 🎯💥🤔. It’s fascinating how a single canceled visit can influence real battlefield decisions and reveal weaknesses on both sides. The idea that the offensive was more about political signaling than actual military gain makes me think about how wars are fought not just with weapons but with strategies on many levels. Definitely gives a lot to ponder about the interplay between military plans and diplomacy in modern conflicts!
It’s fascinating to see how political decisions and military actions are so intertwined in this conflict. The idea that a canceled visit could directly influence the course of an offensive adds a whole new layer to understanding these events. Sometimes it feels like the real battles happen off the battlefield, driven by diplomacy and strategy rather than just troops and firepower. 🔍