Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 152727 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #650 on: June 18, 2022, 06:58:36 AM »
So, pull the rug from under the hard fighting Ukes and accede to Russian conquest so far?  Any concerns about devastating what remains of our credibility as an ally?  Might this affect our efforts to form an alliance to stop China?

Afghanistan ended our credibility. Continuing to feed Ukes into the meat grinder does nothing. Russia is winning.

Anyone paying attention knows the US is a treacherous friend and a weak enemy.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: June 18, 2022, 07:10:33 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #652 on: June 18, 2022, 07:19:43 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #653 on: June 18, 2022, 07:53:25 AM »
Well, this forum is, as are patriotic Americans voting in November.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #654 on: June 18, 2022, 07:58:44 AM »
Well, this forum is, as are patriotic Americans voting in November.

https://www.axios.com/2020/09/01/bloomberg-group-trump-election-night-scenarios

Brace yourself for another "red mirage".

"Fortified" elections, for your protection!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
WSJ: Where are the rockets for Ukraine?
« Reply #656 on: June 18, 2022, 03:08:16 PM »
Where Are the Rockets for Ukraine?
The U.S. has supplied only four advanced rocket-launch system known as Himars in the war with Russia. Kyiv says it needs 60.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
June 17, 2022 7:04 pm ET


The battle for eastern Ukraine has been raging for more than 60 days, and it was foreseeable and foreseen that this long-range artillery duel would favor Russia. The mystery is why U.S. weapons support continues to be halting, and the latest example is the anemic offerings of multiple-launch rocket systems.


The Biden Administration this week announced another $1 billion in security assistance for Ukraine, and included are more munitions for a rocket system known as Himars. These rocket launchers pack a punch with precise munitions, and they can “shoot and scoot” to elude Russian retaliation.

But the U.S. hasn’t provided nearly enough launchers to blunt the Russian equipment advantage. Ohio Republican Rob Portman, who is co-chairman of the Senate Ukraine caucus, on the Senate floor this week offered a blunt assessment of the facts on the ground: Brutal fighting continues in Severodonetsk, where the Russians are making grinding progress, and the Luhansk region could fall within weeks if the Ukrainians can’t get longer-range artillery.

“Because the Russians have more artillery than the Ukrainians and their weapons have longer ranges,” the Senator explained, “the Russian forces concentrate massive firepower on Ukrainian positions at distances, which the Ukrainian forces cannot reach.” Then the Russians “move in. They destroy territory. They occupy it.” The “disparity in the quality and quantity of artillery” has put Ukraine at “a distinct disadvantage.”

How many rocket systems do our friends need? A Ukrainian military adviser told the Guardian earlier this month: “If we get 60” systems “then the Russians will lose all ability to advance anywhere, they will be stopped dead in their tracks. If we get 40 they will advance, albeit very slowly with heavy casualties; with 20 they will continue to advance with higher casualties than now.”

And how many rocket systems has the U.S., the world’s premiere military power, offered so far? Four. And these launchers, which the Biden Administration announced on June 1, won’t reach the battlefield with trained crews until roughly the end of the month, U.S. defense officials have estimated. The Brits and Germans have offered their own rocket systems—but only three apiece.

As Sen. Portman noted, the U.S. is also withholding rockets with the longest range. The ostensible reason is that the Biden Team worries about Ukrainians striking into Russian territory. But the Ukrainians have promised only to defend their sovereign land, and withholding the weapons suggests we don’t trust them.

The stakes are high, and not only for Ukraine. If the Russian military mops up the Donbas, Vladimir Putin will have grabbed more land that he can sell at home as a victory. He can then regroup and push southwest toward Odessa, robbing the Ukrainians of their coast line and building a bridge to Transnistria in Moldova. Europe will be less secure, and Mr. Biden will bear some responsibility.

Skeptics of U.S. aid to Ukraine like to say we can’t support the country forever. But that’s all the more reason to get Kyiv the right weapons sooner and in enough numbers so Ukraine can stop and then roll back Russian advances. That’s the only way to get Mr. Putin to the negotiating table with any hope of a cease-fire on Ukrainian terms favorable to NATO.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1555
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #657 on: June 18, 2022, 07:40:11 PM »
Ukr-Russia war has become a proxy war run by the U.S. Russia is escalating by stopping/reducing gas flows to developed economies like Italy and Germany. Very soon they will cry Uncle. European unity may not last too long come winter. Giving Ukr heavy weapons does not change the result, Russia starts using heavier weapons. More civilians die and Ukr infrastructure gets damaged.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #658 on: June 18, 2022, 10:34:53 PM »
Yes.

Russia will win.

Ukr-Russia war has become a proxy war run by the U.S. Russia is escalating by stopping/reducing gas flows to developed economies like Italy and Germany. Very soon they will cry Uncle. European unity may not last too long come winter. Giving Ukr heavy weapons does not change the result, Russia starts using heavier weapons. More civilians die and Ukr infrastructure gets damaged.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1555
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #660 on: June 19, 2022, 06:00:27 AM »
Yes.

Russia will win.

Minor correction...has already won. It occupies 20 % or more of territory, not a single sq.mile is likely to be returned. The question now is how much more will Ukr lose. Unless Zelensky. quickly compromises, Odessa and Transnystria will also go in this round. If Europe gives up on Russian energy, their economies go into recession, or at best are severely hampered due to high costs of purchasing oil from elsewhere. Oil is a zero sum game, countries need oil, if they purchase from the Middle East, Russian oil simply gets diverted to the rest of the world. News reports are that Russian oil is purchased cheaply by India,  refined and resold at a higher price back to Europe.

This ZH article offers insights into Russian thinking https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/luongo-russias-new-rules

With the economy in a tail spin, someone is sure to ask Biden why are we sending billions to Ukr.  Ukr survives as long as the US funds them.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
Garry Kasparov: Man the fukk up!
« Reply #661 on: June 19, 2022, 08:44:53 AM »
Awakened to Putin’s Threat, Biden and the West Nod Off Again
The president appeared on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ and didn’t mention Russia’s war against Ukraine in a 23-minute interview.
By Garry Kasparov
June 17, 2022 6:53 pm ET


Earlier this month President Biden addressed the nation. Rather than do so from behind the Resolute Desk, he went on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” In a 23-minute interview, Russia’s war on Ukraine wasn’t mentioned once. With domestic issues such as inflation, the Jan. 6 hearings, abortion and gun control on the president’s plate, the war in Ukraine may seem less of a priority. But it isn’t. Providing Ukraine with everything it needs to fight the Russians is the right—and popular—thing to do.

Yet Mr. Biden seems as if he’d rather pass the buck than act. During remarks at a Democratic fundraiser two days after the Kimmel interview, he said that President Volodymyr Zelensky “didn’t want to hear it” when warned about Russia’s imminent invasion. The Ukrainians deny this, but even if it were true, what of the U.S. ignoring its own warnings? No sanctions or aid was deployed to deter Mr. Putin’s invasion. Mr. Zelensky was surely skeptical that any U.S. support would be forthcoming after the fighting started.

Now we know the high cost of that failure to act—the slaughter, destruction and war crimes in Ukraine, and the food and fuel crises around the world. Instead of working to contain Mr. Putin in the eight years since he first invaded Ukraine, instead of insulating themselves against blackmail by becoming less dependent on Russian exports, American and European governments kicked the can down the road.

They also kept the door open to Mr. Putin, giving him confidence along with the hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues he used to arm his war machine. Mr. Biden had a summit and several calls with Mr. Putin, and for what? Mr. Putin has stayed in power for 22 years by ignoring what weak Western leaders say and watching what they do. He took note as U.S. intelligence correctly predicted his long-planned invasion but did nothing to stop it. He watched as the first U.S. offer of help to Ukraine was to evacuate Mr. Zelensky under the assumption that Kyiv would fall within hours. Ukrainian courage and skill proved that assumption wrong.

Mr. Biden may be besieged politically, but Mr. Zelensky is besieged literally, as Ukraine suffers great loss of life in its defense of the eastern Donbas region. The only way to end the war is by helping Ukraine regain its territory and sovereignty and destroying Mr. Putin’s war machine. Anything less would allow Russia to consolidate and rearm, while Ukrainians under occupation suffer.

Mr. Putin made his intentions clear in a televised appearance on June 9, birthday of Peter the Great. Like Peter, Mr. Putin said he plans to “reclaim” lost lands. Unlike Peter, who modernized Russia and brought it closer to Europe, Mr. Putin is isolating Russia and moving it into a dark age. While dictators usually lie about everything they do, they are often candid about what they would like to do. Mr. Putin has long talked about rebuilding his beloved Soviet Empire. This week’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum featured the presentation of a map of “former Ukraine,” from Kyiv to Odessa. Colonialism is not a Western European invention, despite what some progressives seem to think.

The escalation Mr. Biden and other Western leaders say they fear if they take stronger action to support Ukraine is guaranteed by their caution. Ukraine is the frontline now, but if Mr. Putin succeeds, he won’t stop there. A direct confrontation with North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces will become inevitable. If the goal is Ukrainian victory, the White House must say so clearly and everything Ukraine needs must be sent now.

During World War II, the American lend-lease program delivered millions of tons of materiel to the Soviet Union. I refuse to believe that it’s harder to get a few hundred howitzers into Ukraine today than it was to ship trucks and tanks past Nazi U-boats. Ukraine is running out of everything, even bullets. The U.S. has the way but not the will.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced another formidable Ukrainian military aid program at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Wednesday. The package includes some of the longer-range weapons Ukraine desperately needs. That’s good, but more is needed. Stop talking about negotiated outcomes that will only give Mr. Putin time to prepare his next attack. Helping Ukraine isn’t charity. Democracy can’t be defended on the cheap. The high cost of inflation will be nothing compared with the price Vladimir Putin will exact if he isn’t stopped now.

Mr. Kasparov is chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Garry Kasparov: Man the fukk up!
« Reply #662 on: June 19, 2022, 08:48:17 AM »
You'd think he'd know checkmate when he saw it.


Awakened to Putin’s Threat, Biden and the West Nod Off Again
The president appeared on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ and didn’t mention Russia’s war against Ukraine in a 23-minute interview.
By Garry Kasparov
June 17, 2022 6:53 pm ET


Earlier this month President Biden addressed the nation. Rather than do so from behind the Resolute Desk, he went on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” In a 23-minute interview, Russia’s war on Ukraine wasn’t mentioned once. With domestic issues such as inflation, the Jan. 6 hearings, abortion and gun control on the president’s plate, the war in Ukraine may seem less of a priority. But it isn’t. Providing Ukraine with everything it needs to fight the Russians is the right—and popular—thing to do.

Yet Mr. Biden seems as if he’d rather pass the buck than act. During remarks at a Democratic fundraiser two days after the Kimmel interview, he said that President Volodymyr Zelensky “didn’t want to hear it” when warned about Russia’s imminent invasion. The Ukrainians deny this, but even if it were true, what of the U.S. ignoring its own warnings? No sanctions or aid was deployed to deter Mr. Putin’s invasion. Mr. Zelensky was surely skeptical that any U.S. support would be forthcoming after the fighting started.

Now we know the high cost of that failure to act—the slaughter, destruction and war crimes in Ukraine, and the food and fuel crises around the world. Instead of working to contain Mr. Putin in the eight years since he first invaded Ukraine, instead of insulating themselves against blackmail by becoming less dependent on Russian exports, American and European governments kicked the can down the road.

They also kept the door open to Mr. Putin, giving him confidence along with the hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues he used to arm his war machine. Mr. Biden had a summit and several calls with Mr. Putin, and for what? Mr. Putin has stayed in power for 22 years by ignoring what weak Western leaders say and watching what they do. He took note as U.S. intelligence correctly predicted his long-planned invasion but did nothing to stop it. He watched as the first U.S. offer of help to Ukraine was to evacuate Mr. Zelensky under the assumption that Kyiv would fall within hours. Ukrainian courage and skill proved that assumption wrong.

Mr. Biden may be besieged politically, but Mr. Zelensky is besieged literally, as Ukraine suffers great loss of life in its defense of the eastern Donbas region. The only way to end the war is by helping Ukraine regain its territory and sovereignty and destroying Mr. Putin’s war machine. Anything less would allow Russia to consolidate and rearm, while Ukrainians under occupation suffer.

Mr. Putin made his intentions clear in a televised appearance on June 9, birthday of Peter the Great. Like Peter, Mr. Putin said he plans to “reclaim” lost lands. Unlike Peter, who modernized Russia and brought it closer to Europe, Mr. Putin is isolating Russia and moving it into a dark age. While dictators usually lie about everything they do, they are often candid about what they would like to do. Mr. Putin has long talked about rebuilding his beloved Soviet Empire. This week’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum featured the presentation of a map of “former Ukraine,” from Kyiv to Odessa. Colonialism is not a Western European invention, despite what some progressives seem to think.

The escalation Mr. Biden and other Western leaders say they fear if they take stronger action to support Ukraine is guaranteed by their caution. Ukraine is the frontline now, but if Mr. Putin succeeds, he won’t stop there. A direct confrontation with North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces will become inevitable. If the goal is Ukrainian victory, the White House must say so clearly and everything Ukraine needs must be sent now.

During World War II, the American lend-lease program delivered millions of tons of materiel to the Soviet Union. I refuse to believe that it’s harder to get a few hundred howitzers into Ukraine today than it was to ship trucks and tanks past Nazi U-boats. Ukraine is running out of everything, even bullets. The U.S. has the way but not the will.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced another formidable Ukrainian military aid program at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Wednesday. The package includes some of the longer-range weapons Ukraine desperately needs. That’s good, but more is needed. Stop talking about negotiated outcomes that will only give Mr. Putin time to prepare his next attack. Helping Ukraine isn’t charity. Democracy can’t be defended on the cheap. The high cost of inflation will be nothing compared with the price Vladimir Putin will exact if he isn’t stopped now.

Mr. Kasparov is chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
WSJ: Where are the rockets for Ukraine
« Reply #663 on: June 19, 2022, 01:33:57 PM »
Where Are the Rockets for Ukraine?
The U.S. has supplied only four advanced rocket-launch system known as Himars in the war with Russia. Kyiv says it needs 60.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
June 17, 2022 7:04 pm ET


The battle for eastern Ukraine has been raging for more than 60 days, and it was foreseeable and foreseen that this long-range artillery duel would favor Russia. The mystery is why U.S. weapons support continues to be halting, and the latest example is the anemic offerings of multiple-launch rocket systems.


The Biden Administration this week announced another $1 billion in security assistance for Ukraine, and included are more munitions for a rocket system known as Himars. These rocket launchers pack a punch with precise munitions, and they can “shoot and scoot” to elude Russian retaliation.

But the U.S. hasn’t provided nearly enough launchers to blunt the Russian equipment advantage. Ohio Republican Rob Portman, who is co-chairman of the Senate Ukraine caucus, on the Senate floor this week offered a blunt assessment of the facts on the ground: Brutal fighting continues in Severodonetsk, where the Russians are making grinding progress, and the Luhansk region could fall within weeks if the Ukrainians can’t get longer-range artillery.

“Because the Russians have more artillery than the Ukrainians and their weapons have longer ranges,” the Senator explained, “the Russian forces concentrate massive firepower on Ukrainian positions at distances, which the Ukrainian forces cannot reach.” Then the Russians “move in. They destroy territory. They occupy it.” The “disparity in the quality and quantity of artillery” has put Ukraine at “a distinct disadvantage.”


How many rocket systems do our friends need? A Ukrainian military adviser told the Guardian earlier this month: “If we get 60” systems “then the Russians will lose all ability to advance anywhere, they will be stopped dead in their tracks. If we get 40 they will advance, albeit very slowly with heavy casualties; with 20 they will continue to advance with higher casualties than now.”

And how many rocket systems has the U.S., the world’s premiere military power, offered so far? Four. And these launchers, which the Biden Administration announced on June 1, won’t reach the battlefield with trained crews until roughly the end of the month, U.S. defense officials have estimated. The Brits and Germans have offered their own rocket systems—but only three apiece.

As Sen. Portman noted, the U.S. is also withholding rockets with the longest range. The ostensible reason is that the Biden Team worries about Ukrainians striking into Russian territory. But the Ukrainians have promised only to defend their sovereign land, and withholding the weapons suggests we don’t trust them.

The stakes are high, and not only for Ukraine. If the Russian military mops up the Donbas, Vladimir Putin will have grabbed more land that he can sell at home as a victory. He can then regroup and push southwest toward Odessa, robbing the Ukrainians of their coast line and building a bridge to Transnistria in Moldova. Europe will be less secure, and Mr. Biden will bear some responsibility.

Skeptics of U.S. aid to Ukraine like to say we can’t support the country forever. But that’s all the more reason to get Kyiv the right weapons sooner and in enough numbers so Ukraine can stop and then roll back Russian advances. That’s the only way to get Mr. Putin to the negotiating table with any hope of a cease-fire on Ukrainian terms favorable to NATO.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1555
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #664 on: June 19, 2022, 07:15:32 PM »
Yes, the US should push back against China. The problem in Indian and Taiwan govt circles is that no one knows the true committment of the USA. If the US gets a good deal with China, both India and Taiwan will be dumped. Under Trump, the Europeans were threatened with weakening of NATO. Under Biden, the Saudi Alliance is weak. We throw around our weight willy nilly, but the almighty petrodollar is not what it used to be and rivals are coming up. Ukr. will be dumped by the USA and it will further damage our credibility. If tomorrow Putin decides to use a nuke on Ukr, does anyone think anybody is going to do anything about it ?. Ukr has no treaty with the USA. This is the reason, Putin will win in the final escalation. Infact, even if Putin nukes a NATO country like Poland, Estonia etc, the US may not respond with nukes (best guess), even though there would be war. Nukes will only be used, if there is a direct attack on America. Otherwise the complete destruction of the US (and Russia) is assured. I do not see any US president making that decision.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Garland to Ukraine
« Reply #666 on: June 21, 2022, 07:40:32 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #667 on: June 21, 2022, 02:32:22 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1555
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #669 on: June 26, 2022, 04:58:53 AM »
This is an interesting take on the impact of industrialization capacity between US and Russia

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/biden-better-buy-more-bullets


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #671 on: June 26, 2022, 02:36:28 PM »
Some seriously unsound leaps of logic in there, but several passages of penetrating power.  Will post in Geopolitics thread.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
GPF: A New Phase in the Uke War
« Reply #674 on: June 27, 2022, 11:40:11 AM »
June 27, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
A New Phase in the Ukraine War
Russia has learned from early setbacks.
By: Ridvan Bari Urcosta and Allison Fedirka
Wars tend to unfold in phases, though it’s never clear how many phases there will be when the war breaks out, and less clear still where one phase ends and another begins until after the fact. It’s all part and parcel of the fog of war. What’s certain is that the first phase of war doesn’t always presage how the rest of the war will go.

If you apply that logic to Ukraine, you can conclude that the first phase is over, that both sides are prepared to continue, and that though Russia “lost” the first phase, it has learned enough lessons to emerge stronger as Ukraine faces a number of new constraints.

Ukraine
(click to enlarge)

Learning From Failure

Russia’s early setbacks owe largely to its failure to accommodate its own vulnerabilities. Moscow opened up the conflict on three fronts: in far eastern Ukraine, in the northeast along Ukraine’s border with Russia, and in the north along the border with Belarus. The two northern thrusts suffered from intelligence failures such as the number and enthusiasm of pro-Russia forces inside Ukraine that led to misinformed or just plain bad political decisions; from overextended supply lines and poor communication capabilities that left Russian forces uncoordinated and poorly protected; and from an ineffective and often times incompatible mishmash of old and new technologies and tactics. Put simply, it was a mess, and it led Moscow to withdraw its forces from its northern thrusts.

Russian Advances into Ukraine, March 7, 2022
(click to enlarge)

The second phase, then, takes place primarily in the south and east, and will occur in three distinct settings: cities, grain fields within the forest belt, and near river systems. Urban warfare will involve a lot of artillery followed by the forward movement of troops. Fighting in the grain fields will be akin to guerilla warfare, accompanied by the deliberate destruction of forests and fields, a practice that dates back to the Soviet era. Riverine warfare will be slower and stodgier, since natural barriers will obstruct offensives and counteroffensives.

Russia’s strategy for the second phase will prioritize military goals and will pursue them methodically. In practice, this means focusing its efforts on the stretch of Ukraine from Luhansk and Donetsk down to Kherson. Russia controls about 95 percent of Luhansk and about 60 percent of Donetsk. Within this conflict zone, Russian forces are creating a number of small battle pockets that allow for massive and concentrated fire on Ukrainian troops from two or three sides. The purpose of this approach is to grind down Ukrainian forces until they reach critically low levels. Unlike in the first phase of the war, in which Russia had a massive concentration of forces, this new tactic instills more flexibility and, in theory, more effectiveness against hard targets. Already, Kyiv has consistently sent reinforcements to these areas to replace the fallen.

Russian Territorial Control of Ukraine, June 23, 2022

(click to enlarge)

The new strategy – a shift from Russian troop advancement to Ukrainian troop attrition – is partly a response to Ukraine’s fortifications in the east. Moscow understands that Ukraine spent nearly a decade creating multilayered defenses in and around Donbas. The result was a sophisticated underground defense system across an estimated 40,000 square kilometers (15,500 square miles) that made any type of blitzkrieg operation impossible. A strategy centered on pockets of kill zones allows Russian forces to slowly but surely deplete Ukrainian forces without necessarily demanding huge Russian advancements. (Hence why Russia has been observably more active in destroying Ukrainian logistical targets.) In theory, the scene will play out like this: Russian advancements will be slow, and when they meet resistance they will stop, launch a series of rocket and artillery strikes against Ukraine’s defensive lines, and advance slowly again once enemy forces are weakened. Importantly, this entire strategy assumes that Western allies will continue to send only aid and military hardware, not soldiers. It’s a safe assumption, but if it’s wrong, Russia has a real problem on its hands.

Zone of Massive Ukrainian Fortifications, June 23, 2022
(click to enlarge)

Until then, Russia will continue to develop what appears to be future offensives from Popasnaya, which it took control of in May, in three directions: toward Lesichansk, the underbelly of Ukrainian defense; toward Zolotoye, which will sever Ukrainian communications; and toward Bakhmut, the fall of which would severely imperil surrounding areas by opening them up to Russian attack from the south. To execute these maneuvers, Russia will heavily rely on artillery complemented by aircraft, radio-electronic warfare, platoons and tanks. The logic of war makes it difficult for the Ukrainians to avoid Russian forces in the zone between Slavyask, Bakhmut and Lesichansk, which is becoming a center of gravity in the conflict. Both sides, therefore, understand the area’s importance.

Donets River Basin, Ukraine

(click to enlarge)

The biggest drawback of this strategy is that it excludes the use of drones, the absence of which reflects Russia’s tactical and material shortcomings. Small drones would enable more night attacks and significantly reduce manpower losses. Indeed, one of the biggest lessons Russia learned in phase one was that small drones can greatly assist artillery bombardment. Russia possesses sophisticated types of drones, but it doesn’t produce them on an industrial level – something a recent government decision will soon change.

Betrayal

Ukraine will have to adapt to changes on the battlefield and Russia’s new strategy accordingly. Kyiv understands that the outcome of the war may well come down to how long Ukrainian forces can keep fighting. In terms of hardware, Ukraine seems relatively well-positioned. It is well-equipped, with several air defense systems that mitigate the damage of Russian aviation assaults. Ukraine also has ample anti-tank weapons and sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles of various classes to provide strong artillery reconnaissance. Western allies have promised Ukraine even more weaponry to support its fighting efforts, but it is unclear how much of the promised goods are ready for immediate delivery and how long training will take.

Relatedly, manpower is a crucial issue. Ukraine got a ton of conscripts and volunteers at the outset of the war, and though they boosted Ukraine’s numbers, many of them lacked training and experience, and they deplete the number of reservists available later. Replacing soldiers always matters in war, but it matters even more as Russia starts to adopt a strategy of attrition.

This question ties into the more pressing constraint of managing both the political and military sides of the war. Public buy-in and nationalism play a huge role in galvanizing and unifying the Ukrainian people toward a single goal. On the military side, there will be instances in which military logic dictates that troops withdraw from one location, regroup and resist in a new location. (Such is the case in Donetsk, where 1,000 troops are stationed in what is effectively a kill zone.) But Kyiv will be under enormous political pressure to sell the war to its people and its allies, and the finer points of warfare aren’t always easy to articulate, let alone sell. The government, meanwhile, is also dealing with controversial legislation that divides political and military efforts. For example, measures to curb the use of the Russian language bolster anti-Russian sentiment but undermine the military’s propaganda warfare efforts, which are primarily in Russian. The government and military need to resolve tensions like these if they are to successfully adapt to this new phase of the war.

And so this summer is likely to witness both sides concentrating their efforts in three main directions: Kharkiv region, Donbas and Kherson. Ukraine will continue to prepare for a counteroffensive in Kherson, currently Russia’s weakest position. Russia is expected to finish its operation in Donbas and integrate the areas it occupies in Kharkiv and Kherson. Until Ukrainian forces are expelled from Donbas, Russia is unlikely to concentrate on other war theaters. That is, the war will not end with the taking of Donbas and Kharkiv. Ukraine will slowly retreat but with great resistance. Any sign of a peace agreement will be seen as a betrayal of national interests.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
Ukes take back Snake Island
« Reply #675 on: June 30, 2022, 09:16:40 AM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
America leading the way!
« Reply #676 on: July 03, 2022, 08:21:51 AM »
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1543426648753807360

Now add footage from our wide open border.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
George Friedman: Russian Military Doctrine
« Reply #680 on: July 05, 2022, 06:57:58 AM »
July 5, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Russian Military Doctrine
By: George Friedman
The city of Lysychansk has fallen to Russia, giving it full control of Ukraine’s breakaway Luhansk region. Russian forces also occupy nearly all of neighboring Donetsk, the other region that the Kremlin recognized as independent two days before launching its invasion. Russia has the choice of accepting this victory as the culmination of the war or seeking total victory by seizing all of Ukraine. Before considering that option, we need to understand the conceptual framework that defined Russia’s initial plan.

All military forces have a doctrine. Doctrine defines how wars are to be fought. In the United States during the late Cold War, the doctrine was called AirLand Battle, which envisioned a combined arms system for offense and defense operating as a single force under unified command. The Chinese had a doctrine called active defense, which envisioned the enemy constantly on the attack while Chinese forces both contained them in most sectors and carried out attacks as opportunities arose. There are many concepts in any military, and most are of little account. The basic combat model defines the type of weapons to be procured, the proper blend of forces, the training they receive and so on. Doctrines exist for an entire theater and for much smaller units. All must be blended in a single battle force in the event of war.

The Russian doctrine defined after the fall of the Soviet Union is called Deep Battle. It anticipates Russian combat at any level of warfare. The goal is to go as deeply and quickly into the enemy as possible. To do this, there must be intense coordination at all levels of the battle and also between levels. So in Ukraine, Deep Battle was to coordinate the general operations in each theater. Theaters were needed to manage the battle at components as small as battalions. The depth of the doctrine is determined not only by how far the enemy can be penetrated but also by how deeply command and control can be carried out.

Deep Battle holds great promise when information flows rapidly to the next highest level of command. The Russian army is a sledgehammer. When that coordination, consultation and command breaks down – and the key is communication, which is notoriously late or wrong in a battle – the hammer hits the army at its knees. Deep Battle turns into a centralized command system, where senior command cannot see realities at the lower level.

The concept for the initial attack on Ukraine followed the Deep Battle concept. It organized the force into three thrusts built around armor and striking from the north toward Kyiv, from the south toward Odesa and a short distance into the Donbas in the east. The initial orders seemed to be in place regardless of events. The northern force got bogged down on a road and remained there for days, with no correction to its orders. That force was likely intended to support the force coming from the east. Tanks burn fuel fast, even when idling, and logistics didn’t have new orders or couldn’t execute them. Out of the single Deep Battle, there emerged three separate theaters of operations with no integrated battle plan. Clearly, the flow of information broke as infantry entered heavily defended cities and failed to understand the force it was facing. Senior command was unaware of battle intelligence on the enemy, logistical reality or battle reports and, instead of devolving more command, kept the reins tight. It was Deep Battle at its worst.

It improved quickly. First, the three zones were treated differently. The northern battle group coming out of Belarus was told to withdraw and possibly send forces to the main battle in the east. The same for the southern thrust. All resources went to the third group, the one that took Luhansk. Deep Battle applied to the single decisive group that defeated the Ukrainians in Luhansk. Rather than fighting the war as a single battle, it took the initial concept and broke it into three theaters taking one area, likely redeploying all but an occupation force and the rest to the southern thrust, which if it succeeds makes the northern thrust irrelevant.

Deep Battle did not fail as a concept but in the execution. The battle now to be fought is simpler. The move toward Odesa will have the orderliness of a successful battle. Senior command is more likely to understand the condition of the battle and give orders as needed, while keeping a careful eye on a single theater, rather than three.

It is far from clear that Russia can win. The concentration on the Donbas has given Ukrainian forces a great deal of badly needed rest, as well as new weapons and training on using those weapons. Soldiers who have experienced the battlefield are far more trainable than the novices who first faced Russia. Russia is now moving toward its next theater of operations, with its troops bloodied and officers who have tasted defeat and victory. They are facing a large, motivated and bloodied Ukrainian army with powerful new weapons. Deep Battle failed the first test, but it gets a second bite against an enemy that fights in small groups with strategic direction but whose tactics reside at far lower levels, a doctrine of diffused authority. Except for the blood that will be shed, it will be interesting to see what happens.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
WSJ
« Reply #689 on: July 15, 2022, 05:18:25 AM »


Ukraine’s Allies Ask Whether Western Arms Will Let Kyiv Turn Tide Against Russia
U.S. rocket launchers and other supplies help Ukrainians fight invasion, but the prospect of a protracted war remains
Ukrainian troops in the Kharkiv region use U.S.-supplied equipment to battle Russian forces on Thursday.
Ukrainian troops in the Kharkiv region use U.S.-supplied equipment to battle Russian forces on Thursday. EVGENIY MALOLETKA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Daniel MichaelsFollow
, Warren P. StrobelFollow
 and Gordon LuboldFollow
July 15, 2022 7:03 am ET



Advanced Western weapons have boosted Ukraine’s fortunes in battling Russia’s invasion recently, but it remains unclear whether those arms will enable Kyiv to turn the tide and avoid a prolonged, grinding stalemate, say Western officials.

U.S. Himars mobile rocket launchers and other systems from France, the U.K., Germany and Poland have begun scoring direct hits on Russian bases far behind front lines, including spectacular detonations of ammunition depots. The strikes are critical because Russian troops have gained ground in eastern Ukraine over recent weeks by firing large amounts of artillery in fairly concentrated areas.

“Ukraine has now been successfully striking Russian locations in Ukraine, deeper behind the front lines, and disrupting Russia’s ability to conduct that artillery operation,” a senior U.S. defense official said this week.

Whether the destruction of Russian munitions and command centers is sufficient to undermine Moscow’s ability to wage war in Ukraine remains a core question for countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that have recently shifted to providing far more precise, long-range and expensive equipment.


“There is a lot of analysis going on in capitals about the most efficacious weapons systems to provide,” said a senior Western intelligence official, who said systems must be readily used without extensive training and easily sustained and repaired during battle.


While Himars, which have a range of almost 50 miles, and other multiple-launch rocket systems that don’t shoot as far have recently drawn attention, other equipment such as ammunition, armored personnel carriers and precision shells for more traditional howitzers is also proving significant.

Ukrainian officials welcome the Western weaponry but want more, including precision long-range artillery systems, armored vehicles, tanks and drones to counter Russia’s jamming systems. “Definitely, we need [drones]—a lot of them,” said Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov in an interview.

The U.S. has committed 12 Himars to Ukraine, and not all are yet in the country in operation. Oleksii Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said in an interview this week that if Ukraine had 50 Himars “it would be a completely different situation.”


If the new systems don’t show demonstrable results in the near future, Western eagerness to supply them may fade, some analysts warn. Western Europe as a result of the war now faces surging energy and food prices that look set to worsen as winter approaches. In the U.S., elections in November will focus attention on inflation and energy prices.

“As time goes on, it’s hard to see how the West is going to sustain the type of support we’ve been providing over the last six months,” said Rachel Rizzo, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington.

Since Russia in the spring shifted its invasion strategy from attacking Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, and other big cities to targeting the country’s east, Western armaments have allowed Ukraine to continue fighting and slow Russian advances in ways it couldn’t have done independently.

Russia has been forced to limit its ambitions but has gained ground and appears able to continue advancing gradually behind its artillery barrages.

During a news conference at the NATO summit in Madrid on Thursday, President Biden said his administration was preparing to send an additional $800 million to support Ukraine and pledged that Russia’s war will not result in Ukrainian defeat. Photo: Europa Press/Zuma
U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that the war is likely to grind on “for an extended period of time,” Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said late last month. In that scenario, Russia will continue to make small territorial gains with no breakthrough.

Two other scenarios, she said, would involve a major Russian advance on the ground, or Ukraine stabilizing the front lines and making gains of its own, likely around the southern city of Kherson.

The extent to which advanced Western equipment and precision strikes on high-value Russia targets can change that outlook may get clearer in coming weeks. Some open-source intelligence analysts already see hints of shifts in Russian tactics, potentially as a result of artillery shortages due to Ukrainian attacks.

Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute think tank, said the Himars and similar systems have had an immediate impact on the conflict, significantly eroding a Russian advantage in long-range artillery that helped Moscow’s forces advance in May and June.

Ukrainian forces concur. “Our vehicles hit precisely and painfully, changing the course of the war,” said Lt. Valentyn Koval, a Ukrainian Himars operator.

Russian social media and Ukrainian intelligence indicated that Moscow’s forces have been stunned and demoralized by the range and precision of the new rockets, which are hard to intercept. But the number of advanced Western rocket systems remains limited.

“We can’t be everywhere at the same time, so the work is progressing slowly,” said Lt. Koval.

That pace could result in a protracted war with neither side able to defeat the other, say analysts. Some believe such a situation plays to Russia’s advantage because President Vladimir Putin doesn’t worry about public opinion and has deep supplies of basic Cold-War era munitions that may allow his troops to at least retain Ukrainian territory they have taken.

Still, Ukrainian long-range strikes can have an outsize impact on Moscow’s highly centralized armed forces, Western analysts say. Russia’s inflexible military logistics mean it must rely on large ammunition depots, often near front lines. Hitting these warehouses has a more profound impact on Russian operations than strikes on individual weapons because guns without ammunition are of little use. Strikes on command posts can have a similarly significant impact on Russia’s top-heavy leadership structure.

“When they get hit, it’s a pretty big loss,” said Mr. Lee, a former U.S. Marine infantry officer who has followed the war closely.


Russia has few defenses against the Western systems, he said, because they can be fired quickly and moved out of range of opposing artillery. They can operate at night, making them harder for Russia’s drones to detect.

Mr. Lee said that the arrival of Himars appears to have helped blunt Russia’s advances. But he cautioned that doesn’t necessarily mean that Ukraine will be able to claw back territory. To do that, he said, Ukraine must assemble well-trained military units, artillery and ammunition.

The Biden administration has been criticized by some U.S. lawmakers and policy analysts for not sending more Himars to Ukraine, and more quickly. An even greater limiting factor is Himars munitions, Mr. Lee said. “We don’t have enough to give them,” he said.


So far, he said, Ukraine has been using the guided, long-range rockets judiciously, firing a limited number each night in operations likely supported by U.S. intelligence data giving the precise location of Russian ammunition storage sites and battlefield command centers.

The new systems require much more training than Western artillery and vehicles previously sent, so the pace at which Ukraine can deploy them is slower. A debate is raging over whether Ukraine should take soldiers and officers away from fighting to train on the new systems, depriving front-line troops of vital support.

Western governments have provided only a small number of advanced systems also because they are expensive, limited in supply and often covered by export restrictions. Red tape in Washington and other capitals, as well as the limited supplies of advanced ammunition, have prompted frustration among Ukrainians.

Vivian Salama, Stephen Kalin and Alan Cullison contributed to this article.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ
« Reply #690 on: July 15, 2022, 07:09:33 AM »
Ukraine has lost.




Ukraine’s Allies Ask Whether Western Arms Will Let Kyiv Turn Tide Against Russia
U.S. rocket launchers and other supplies help Ukrainians fight invasion, but the prospect of a protracted war remains
Ukrainian troops in the Kharkiv region use U.S.-supplied equipment to battle Russian forces on Thursday.
Ukrainian troops in the Kharkiv region use U.S.-supplied equipment to battle Russian forces on Thursday. EVGENIY MALOLETKA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Daniel MichaelsFollow
, Warren P. StrobelFollow
 and Gordon LuboldFollow
July 15, 2022 7:03 am ET



Advanced Western weapons have boosted Ukraine’s fortunes in battling Russia’s invasion recently, but it remains unclear whether those arms will enable Kyiv to turn the tide and avoid a prolonged, grinding stalemate, say Western officials.

U.S. Himars mobile rocket launchers and other systems from France, the U.K., Germany and Poland have begun scoring direct hits on Russian bases far behind front lines, including spectacular detonations of ammunition depots. The strikes are critical because Russian troops have gained ground in eastern Ukraine over recent weeks by firing large amounts of artillery in fairly concentrated areas.

“Ukraine has now been successfully striking Russian locations in Ukraine, deeper behind the front lines, and disrupting Russia’s ability to conduct that artillery operation,” a senior U.S. defense official said this week.

Whether the destruction of Russian munitions and command centers is sufficient to undermine Moscow’s ability to wage war in Ukraine remains a core question for countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that have recently shifted to providing far more precise, long-range and expensive equipment.


“There is a lot of analysis going on in capitals about the most efficacious weapons systems to provide,” said a senior Western intelligence official, who said systems must be readily used without extensive training and easily sustained and repaired during battle.


While Himars, which have a range of almost 50 miles, and other multiple-launch rocket systems that don’t shoot as far have recently drawn attention, other equipment such as ammunition, armored personnel carriers and precision shells for more traditional howitzers is also proving significant.

Ukrainian officials welcome the Western weaponry but want more, including precision long-range artillery systems, armored vehicles, tanks and drones to counter Russia’s jamming systems. “Definitely, we need [drones]—a lot of them,” said Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov in an interview.

The U.S. has committed 12 Himars to Ukraine, and not all are yet in the country in operation. Oleksii Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said in an interview this week that if Ukraine had 50 Himars “it would be a completely different situation.”


If the new systems don’t show demonstrable results in the near future, Western eagerness to supply them may fade, some analysts warn. Western Europe as a result of the war now faces surging energy and food prices that look set to worsen as winter approaches. In the U.S., elections in November will focus attention on inflation and energy prices.

“As time goes on, it’s hard to see how the West is going to sustain the type of support we’ve been providing over the last six months,” said Rachel Rizzo, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington.

Since Russia in the spring shifted its invasion strategy from attacking Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, and other big cities to targeting the country’s east, Western armaments have allowed Ukraine to continue fighting and slow Russian advances in ways it couldn’t have done independently.

Russia has been forced to limit its ambitions but has gained ground and appears able to continue advancing gradually behind its artillery barrages.

During a news conference at the NATO summit in Madrid on Thursday, President Biden said his administration was preparing to send an additional $800 million to support Ukraine and pledged that Russia’s war will not result in Ukrainian defeat. Photo: Europa Press/Zuma
U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that the war is likely to grind on “for an extended period of time,” Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said late last month. In that scenario, Russia will continue to make small territorial gains with no breakthrough.

Two other scenarios, she said, would involve a major Russian advance on the ground, or Ukraine stabilizing the front lines and making gains of its own, likely around the southern city of Kherson.

The extent to which advanced Western equipment and precision strikes on high-value Russia targets can change that outlook may get clearer in coming weeks. Some open-source intelligence analysts already see hints of shifts in Russian tactics, potentially as a result of artillery shortages due to Ukrainian attacks.

Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute think tank, said the Himars and similar systems have had an immediate impact on the conflict, significantly eroding a Russian advantage in long-range artillery that helped Moscow’s forces advance in May and June.

Ukrainian forces concur. “Our vehicles hit precisely and painfully, changing the course of the war,” said Lt. Valentyn Koval, a Ukrainian Himars operator.

Russian social media and Ukrainian intelligence indicated that Moscow’s forces have been stunned and demoralized by the range and precision of the new rockets, which are hard to intercept. But the number of advanced Western rocket systems remains limited.

“We can’t be everywhere at the same time, so the work is progressing slowly,” said Lt. Koval.

That pace could result in a protracted war with neither side able to defeat the other, say analysts. Some believe such a situation plays to Russia’s advantage because President Vladimir Putin doesn’t worry about public opinion and has deep supplies of basic Cold-War era munitions that may allow his troops to at least retain Ukrainian territory they have taken.

Still, Ukrainian long-range strikes can have an outsize impact on Moscow’s highly centralized armed forces, Western analysts say. Russia’s inflexible military logistics mean it must rely on large ammunition depots, often near front lines. Hitting these warehouses has a more profound impact on Russian operations than strikes on individual weapons because guns without ammunition are of little use. Strikes on command posts can have a similarly significant impact on Russia’s top-heavy leadership structure.

“When they get hit, it’s a pretty big loss,” said Mr. Lee, a former U.S. Marine infantry officer who has followed the war closely.


Russia has few defenses against the Western systems, he said, because they can be fired quickly and moved out of range of opposing artillery. They can operate at night, making them harder for Russia’s drones to detect.

Mr. Lee said that the arrival of Himars appears to have helped blunt Russia’s advances. But he cautioned that doesn’t necessarily mean that Ukraine will be able to claw back territory. To do that, he said, Ukraine must assemble well-trained military units, artillery and ammunition.

The Biden administration has been criticized by some U.S. lawmakers and policy analysts for not sending more Himars to Ukraine, and more quickly. An even greater limiting factor is Himars munitions, Mr. Lee said. “We don’t have enough to give them,” he said.


So far, he said, Ukraine has been using the guided, long-range rockets judiciously, firing a limited number each night in operations likely supported by U.S. intelligence data giving the precise location of Russian ammunition storage sites and battlefield command centers.

The new systems require much more training than Western artillery and vehicles previously sent, so the pace at which Ukraine can deploy them is slower. A debate is raging over whether Ukraine should take soldiers and officers away from fighting to train on the new systems, depriving front-line troops of vital support.

Western governments have provided only a small number of advanced systems also because they are expensive, limited in supply and often covered by export restrictions. Red tape in Washington and other capitals, as well as the limited supplies of advanced ammunition, have prompted frustration among Ukrainians.

Vivian Salama, Stephen Kalin and Alan Cullison contributed to this article.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ-Disarming NATO
« Reply #691 on: July 15, 2022, 07:25:20 AM »
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/111/151/297/original/1e72cb2a175f78c7.jpg



Ukraine has lost.




Ukraine’s Allies Ask Whether Western Arms Will Let Kyiv Turn Tide Against Russia
U.S. rocket launchers and other supplies help Ukrainians fight invasion, but the prospect of a protracted war remains
Ukrainian troops in the Kharkiv region use U.S.-supplied equipment to battle Russian forces on Thursday.
Ukrainian troops in the Kharkiv region use U.S.-supplied equipment to battle Russian forces on Thursday. EVGENIY MALOLETKA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Daniel MichaelsFollow
, Warren P. StrobelFollow
 and Gordon LuboldFollow
July 15, 2022 7:03 am ET



Advanced Western weapons have boosted Ukraine’s fortunes in battling Russia’s invasion recently, but it remains unclear whether those arms will enable Kyiv to turn the tide and avoid a prolonged, grinding stalemate, say Western officials.

U.S. Himars mobile rocket launchers and other systems from France, the U.K., Germany and Poland have begun scoring direct hits on Russian bases far behind front lines, including spectacular detonations of ammunition depots. The strikes are critical because Russian troops have gained ground in eastern Ukraine over recent weeks by firing large amounts of artillery in fairly concentrated areas.

“Ukraine has now been successfully striking Russian locations in Ukraine, deeper behind the front lines, and disrupting Russia’s ability to conduct that artillery operation,” a senior U.S. defense official said this week.

Whether the destruction of Russian munitions and command centers is sufficient to undermine Moscow’s ability to wage war in Ukraine remains a core question for countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that have recently shifted to providing far more precise, long-range and expensive equipment.


“There is a lot of analysis going on in capitals about the most efficacious weapons systems to provide,” said a senior Western intelligence official, who said systems must be readily used without extensive training and easily sustained and repaired during battle.


While Himars, which have a range of almost 50 miles, and other multiple-launch rocket systems that don’t shoot as far have recently drawn attention, other equipment such as ammunition, armored personnel carriers and precision shells for more traditional howitzers is also proving significant.

Ukrainian officials welcome the Western weaponry but want more, including precision long-range artillery systems, armored vehicles, tanks and drones to counter Russia’s jamming systems. “Definitely, we need [drones]—a lot of them,” said Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov in an interview.

The U.S. has committed 12 Himars to Ukraine, and not all are yet in the country in operation. Oleksii Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said in an interview this week that if Ukraine had 50 Himars “it would be a completely different situation.”


If the new systems don’t show demonstrable results in the near future, Western eagerness to supply them may fade, some analysts warn. Western Europe as a result of the war now faces surging energy and food prices that look set to worsen as winter approaches. In the U.S., elections in November will focus attention on inflation and energy prices.

“As time goes on, it’s hard to see how the West is going to sustain the type of support we’ve been providing over the last six months,” said Rachel Rizzo, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington.

Since Russia in the spring shifted its invasion strategy from attacking Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, and other big cities to targeting the country’s east, Western armaments have allowed Ukraine to continue fighting and slow Russian advances in ways it couldn’t have done independently.

Russia has been forced to limit its ambitions but has gained ground and appears able to continue advancing gradually behind its artillery barrages.

During a news conference at the NATO summit in Madrid on Thursday, President Biden said his administration was preparing to send an additional $800 million to support Ukraine and pledged that Russia’s war will not result in Ukrainian defeat. Photo: Europa Press/Zuma
U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that the war is likely to grind on “for an extended period of time,” Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said late last month. In that scenario, Russia will continue to make small territorial gains with no breakthrough.

Two other scenarios, she said, would involve a major Russian advance on the ground, or Ukraine stabilizing the front lines and making gains of its own, likely around the southern city of Kherson.

The extent to which advanced Western equipment and precision strikes on high-value Russia targets can change that outlook may get clearer in coming weeks. Some open-source intelligence analysts already see hints of shifts in Russian tactics, potentially as a result of artillery shortages due to Ukrainian attacks.

Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute think tank, said the Himars and similar systems have had an immediate impact on the conflict, significantly eroding a Russian advantage in long-range artillery that helped Moscow’s forces advance in May and June.

Ukrainian forces concur. “Our vehicles hit precisely and painfully, changing the course of the war,” said Lt. Valentyn Koval, a Ukrainian Himars operator.

Russian social media and Ukrainian intelligence indicated that Moscow’s forces have been stunned and demoralized by the range and precision of the new rockets, which are hard to intercept. But the number of advanced Western rocket systems remains limited.

“We can’t be everywhere at the same time, so the work is progressing slowly,” said Lt. Koval.

That pace could result in a protracted war with neither side able to defeat the other, say analysts. Some believe such a situation plays to Russia’s advantage because President Vladimir Putin doesn’t worry about public opinion and has deep supplies of basic Cold-War era munitions that may allow his troops to at least retain Ukrainian territory they have taken.

Still, Ukrainian long-range strikes can have an outsize impact on Moscow’s highly centralized armed forces, Western analysts say. Russia’s inflexible military logistics mean it must rely on large ammunition depots, often near front lines. Hitting these warehouses has a more profound impact on Russian operations than strikes on individual weapons because guns without ammunition are of little use. Strikes on command posts can have a similarly significant impact on Russia’s top-heavy leadership structure.

“When they get hit, it’s a pretty big loss,” said Mr. Lee, a former U.S. Marine infantry officer who has followed the war closely.


Russia has few defenses against the Western systems, he said, because they can be fired quickly and moved out of range of opposing artillery. They can operate at night, making them harder for Russia’s drones to detect.

Mr. Lee said that the arrival of Himars appears to have helped blunt Russia’s advances. But he cautioned that doesn’t necessarily mean that Ukraine will be able to claw back territory. To do that, he said, Ukraine must assemble well-trained military units, artillery and ammunition.

The Biden administration has been criticized by some U.S. lawmakers and policy analysts for not sending more Himars to Ukraine, and more quickly. An even greater limiting factor is Himars munitions, Mr. Lee said. “We don’t have enough to give them,” he said.


So far, he said, Ukraine has been using the guided, long-range rockets judiciously, firing a limited number each night in operations likely supported by U.S. intelligence data giving the precise location of Russian ammunition storage sites and battlefield command centers.

The new systems require much more training than Western artillery and vehicles previously sent, so the pace at which Ukraine can deploy them is slower. A debate is raging over whether Ukraine should take soldiers and officers away from fighting to train on the new systems, depriving front-line troops of vital support.

Western governments have provided only a small number of advanced systems also because they are expensive, limited in supply and often covered by export restrictions. Red tape in Washington and other capitals, as well as the limited supplies of advanced ammunition, have prompted frustration among Ukrainians.

Vivian Salama, Stephen Kalin and Alan Cullison contributed to this article.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
NATO sending its' military equipment to Ukraine
« Reply #692 on: July 15, 2022, 07:36:09 AM »
and Ukraine is not even IN NATO!

 :-o

I agree with Tucker this war can go on for yrs till all Ukrainians are dead,
and cost us a bundle and for what ?  it ain't worth it .


I agree with a 99 yo
Jewish ex Secretary of State :

Ukraine should try and stop the carnage
hand over the Donbas region (sp?).  End the death and destruction

the rest is not worth it.

though not clear if Putin would accept this......

psssst:

we're broke
let Europe pay for most of this.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2022, 07:38:34 AM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18269
    • View Profile
Re: NATO sending its' military equipment to Ukraine
« Reply #693 on: July 15, 2022, 08:23:40 AM »
No easy answers now.  I like the policy of the previous administration better.  Contain Russia with low, low, low gas and oil prices.

They weren't financing major wars when gas was $1.79 - 2.19, when oil was $60 /barrel:
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

NATO, Europe and US should announce and begin the construction of 1000 new nuclear power facilities and see what happens to the price of oil and Soviet Russian expansionism.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2022, 08:25:24 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #694 on: July 15, 2022, 09:00:24 AM »
"Contain Russia with low, low, low gas and oil prices."

Very pithy!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: NATO sending its' military equipment to Ukraine
« Reply #695 on: July 15, 2022, 09:43:51 AM »
THIS!

No easy answers now.  I like the policy of the previous administration better.  Contain Russia with low, low, low gas and oil prices.

They weren't financing major wars when gas was $1.79 - 2.19, when oil was $60 /barrel:
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

NATO, Europe and US should announce and begin the construction of 1000 new nuclear power facilities and see what happens to the price of oil and Soviet Russian expansionism.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #697 on: July 18, 2022, 11:50:49 AM »
The attack on Kiev was a feint?

Seriously?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18269
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #698 on: July 18, 2022, 01:25:54 PM »
The attack on Kiev was a feint?

Seriously?

From the article:  "Ukraine did not force the retreat of the Russian troops in March that surrounded Kiev in March. That was a classic feint and was used successfully to pin Ukraine forces around Kiev so that Russia could concentrate on Mariupol and the Donbas."

   - Not completely a fake, but maybe a real attack designed "to pin Ukraine forces around Kiev so that Russia could concentrate on Mariupol and the Donbas."

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69436
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #699 on: July 18, 2022, 04:11:19 PM »
Sorry, not taking that seriously.  Russki propaganda to the contrary, they wanted Kiev and failed.  Period.