One thing I've learned by following the SMO is that the Russian never do what everyone else is expecting. Might be about to cross the river, might do something completely different, like assaulting the Sumy oblast. Heck, might even drop paratroopers and marines straight into Odessa. Keeping the Ukro regime off balance and using their own actions against them is what the Russians do best.
(Just imagine how much the coke monkey and his Western patrons would freak out if they suddenly lose Odessa)
I sense that Putin and his staff have many options and within those options next to plan A also almost a whole alphabet of alternate and sub plans.
My sensing at this moment, is based upon signals from the fronts and Geopolitical important developments (Europe), but excluding Trump's influence because i cannot sense him any more, so i do instead sense the Zionist tentacle of the Monster in the City of London (the NAZI-tentacle is included in my Europe sensing).
So... i give 67.5% probability for this option:
ASAP (as soon as Donetsk will be as good as liberated and the Northern Buffer zone is strong enough), an offensive from Centre to the Dnieper with left Zaporizhia and right Dnipro. An offensive South of Zaporizhia, crossing the Dnieper to create a bridgehead and from there cut Zaporizhia (and later Dnipro) supply-lines, effectively creating a Siege and with the purpose to use the bridges (or repaired or pontoon bridges) as supply-lines to the fronts in the South-West.
From the Kherson and Zaporizhia Bridgeheads an offensive to reach Transnistria, cutting of Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa from supplies from the North and extending the Kiev-Front lines with 400-500 km, stretching those beyond their capacities for that).
And indeed possible support by Aerial droppings and Naval landings, south of Odessa towards Transnistria (or the other way if that was first), cutting off supply from Moldova or via Moldova from Romanian harbours at the Danube-Delta.
I'm not so sure about that Transnistria offensive you mention, that would generate extremely long exposed flanks on both the north and south side and that is pretty much the opposite of the slow, consolidating gains the Russian Army has done until now.
One thing I am indeed sure about is that we're going to see more flashy yet harebrained attacks from the Ukro side. As time goes on, Z and his MI6 handlers grow increasingly desperate and put larger and larger sums on the green table, if you know what I mean.
The Kerch bridge and Crimea are two possible targets, but the first is well defended and the second is almost impossible to invade via land, and even worse in an amphibious assault (if only because the Ukros lack manpower, firepower, equipment and sea control to pull it off). They'll probably try to attack Belarus in hopes of getting something, anything, out of Lukashenko, like a bully who can't hope to beat up someone and opts for ambushing that someone's little brother.
It seems so. I agree. But remember that Nikolaev is hidden behind many rivers. That means, once you have occupied Kherson and reached those rivers and closed the North-part of the Siege, they protect your South flank and once you entered Transnistria, you have a very long west-flank, ready to be used and the Zaporizhia/Dnipro bridgehead forms your East-flank after clearing the area south-west of Zaporizhia in the initial attack.
So there is no real fighting at 3 sides and the North side is open steppe land and as difficult to defend as the steppe west of Donbass.
We have learned from the fighting in Donbass, that the NAZI defenders flee or be killed as soon as they are being surrounded and they have no means of defense until they find another 'settlement' to hide in the basements.
I had read about those bridges, but actually seeing tanks crossing is something different. The surface was shaking like a leaf in a high wind, and if a tank topples sideways it's goodnight for the crew.
I read somewhere that during WW2 the Soviets put up such bridges with their surface just under the water, so the Germans didn't know they were there until tanks and trucks started crossing. That must have been even scarier.
That's why the Russians have put so much effort into engineering better bridges. The US turns out MBAs; the Russians turn out engineers. They indeed had a lot of problems with wet gap operations in WWII. But they have still had their failures! Though nothing on the scale of UAF failuires.
One thing I've learned by following the SMO is that the Russian never do what everyone else is expecting. Might be about to cross the river, might do something completely different, like assaulting the Sumy oblast. Heck, might even drop paratroopers and marines straight into Odessa. Keeping the Ukro regime off balance and using their own actions against them is what the Russians do best.
(Just imagine how much the coke monkey and his Western patrons would freak out if they suddenly lose Odessa)
I almost hate to say it but doesn't that make Trump sort of Russian?
A dumb, incompetent enemy is always your greatest ally.
Could be, but to be honest i have the feeling that though this be method, yet there Is madness in't.
Thank you eh.. Doctor.
I sense that Putin and his staff have many options and within those options next to plan A also almost a whole alphabet of alternate and sub plans.
My sensing at this moment, is based upon signals from the fronts and Geopolitical important developments (Europe), but excluding Trump's influence because i cannot sense him any more, so i do instead sense the Zionist tentacle of the Monster in the City of London (the NAZI-tentacle is included in my Europe sensing).
So... i give 67.5% probability for this option:
ASAP (as soon as Donetsk will be as good as liberated and the Northern Buffer zone is strong enough), an offensive from Centre to the Dnieper with left Zaporizhia and right Dnipro. An offensive South of Zaporizhia, crossing the Dnieper to create a bridgehead and from there cut Zaporizhia (and later Dnipro) supply-lines, effectively creating a Siege and with the purpose to use the bridges (or repaired or pontoon bridges) as supply-lines to the fronts in the South-West.
From the Kherson and Zaporizhia Bridgeheads an offensive to reach Transnistria, cutting of Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa from supplies from the North and extending the Kiev-Front lines with 400-500 km, stretching those beyond their capacities for that).
And indeed possible support by Aerial droppings and Naval landings, south of Odessa towards Transnistria (or the other way if that was first), cutting off supply from Moldova or via Moldova from Romanian harbours at the Danube-Delta.
Cassandra.
I'm not so sure about that Transnistria offensive you mention, that would generate extremely long exposed flanks on both the north and south side and that is pretty much the opposite of the slow, consolidating gains the Russian Army has done until now.
One thing I am indeed sure about is that we're going to see more flashy yet harebrained attacks from the Ukro side. As time goes on, Z and his MI6 handlers grow increasingly desperate and put larger and larger sums on the green table, if you know what I mean.
The Kerch bridge and Crimea are two possible targets, but the first is well defended and the second is almost impossible to invade via land, and even worse in an amphibious assault (if only because the Ukros lack manpower, firepower, equipment and sea control to pull it off). They'll probably try to attack Belarus in hopes of getting something, anything, out of Lukashenko, like a bully who can't hope to beat up someone and opts for ambushing that someone's little brother.
Thank you Doctor...
It seems so. I agree. But remember that Nikolaev is hidden behind many rivers. That means, once you have occupied Kherson and reached those rivers and closed the North-part of the Siege, they protect your South flank and once you entered Transnistria, you have a very long west-flank, ready to be used and the Zaporizhia/Dnipro bridgehead forms your East-flank after clearing the area south-west of Zaporizhia in the initial attack.
So there is no real fighting at 3 sides and the North side is open steppe land and as difficult to defend as the steppe west of Donbass.
We have learned from the fighting in Donbass, that the NAZI defenders flee or be killed as soon as they are being surrounded and they have no means of defense until they find another 'settlement' to hide in the basements.
Just saying.
Cassandra
I had read about those bridges, but actually seeing tanks crossing is something different. The surface was shaking like a leaf in a high wind, and if a tank topples sideways it's goodnight for the crew.
I read somewhere that during WW2 the Soviets put up such bridges with their surface just under the water, so the Germans didn't know they were there until tanks and trucks started crossing. That must have been even scarier.
That's why the Russians have put so much effort into engineering better bridges. The US turns out MBAs; the Russians turn out engineers. They indeed had a lot of problems with wet gap operations in WWII. But they have still had their failures! Though nothing on the scale of UAF failuires.
https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/telligent-evolution-components-attachments/13-21393-00-00-00-35-81-77/2020_2D00_03_2D00_01-Russia_1920_s-Increasing-Bridging-Capabilities_2D00_Military-and-Civil-Motives-_2800_Bartles_2900_.pdf?forcedownload=true&_=e675d8a60fe34fd791738ccafd74abdc
Maybe a case of the alleged Red Army saying: "If you don't know how, we'll teach you. If you don't want to, we'll make you".
Thank You Julian