The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[seaspear]

There are more reports of PV drones with a 40 kilometre range this brings more of the artillery within range ,it might be that that this type of weapons systems has the same protection installed as per modern tanks

Kiev troops start using FPV drones of longer range

The new drones were detected in the Zaporozhye, Orekhov, Dzerzhinsk, Kremennaya and Kharkov directions of the special military operation, as well as in Russia’s borderline areas of Belgorod and Kursk

tass.com

 

[rsemmes]

the ability to move and return home after loosing a wheel (or two) due to a drone strike, while a tracked vehicle would have to be abandoned in the same circumstances.

So, they have to be good wheels. It is going to be abandoned, that track (if the track is actually cut) can be repaired in situ; it's just that you may need to fight an EW battle to do that. So, it will be abandoned.
"...conditions and the mission." And being cheaper.

 

[Fredled]

There are more reports of PV drones with a 40 kilometre range this brings more of the artillery within range ,it might be that that this type of weapons systems has the same protection installed as per modern tanks

Kiev troops start using FPV drones of longer range

The new drones were detected in the Zaporozhye, Orekhov, Dzerzhinsk, Kremennaya and Kharkov directions of the special military operation, as well as in Russia’s borderline areas of Belgorod and Kursk

tass.com

The Lancet already has a 40km range and is one of the most effective Russian weapon against Ukrainian forces.

 

[Fredled]

Interesting note on Russian UAV by an Ukrainian spokesman
In Ukraine’s north, Russians significantly reduce intensity of UAV attacks because of bad weather. Glide bombs keep gliding.

"If we specifically take the aviation component, the enemy does not stop employing guided aerial bombs. But we see that weather conditions have deteriorated somewhat, so there is a certain decrease in the use of FPV drones and UAV explosive payload drops, albeit insignificant. We have also seen a significant decrease in the use of attack drones over the past 24 hours; they were not recorded in the evening and overnight.

The invaders continue to shell border communities in Chernihiv and Sumy regions and parts of Kharkiv region, but over the past day there has been a slight decrease in the number of such attacks. Also, glide bombs keep pummelling border communities in Sumy region on a daily basis.

We also recorded one case where multiple launch rocket systems were employed. The enemy fired 40 salvos and once used unguided air missiles firef by a helicopter.

Ceasefire:
According to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, Russians, once again, breached the Energy Ceasefire.

After the agreements in Riyadh, there was an agreement not to strike the energy structure. At the same time, Russia continues to violate this agreement. Energy facilities in Kherson, Kharkiv, and Poltava have already been damaged, and this morning another Russian strike damaged a power facility in Kherson, leaving 45,000 residents without electricity

Mineral Deal:

It is crucial to draft a text that serves the interests of both sides and is mutually acceptable. In this context, it is worth highlighting that the agreement under negotiation cannot contradict our EU integration, which remains one of our core principles.

link
This is complicated Trump's mineral ambitions. Because EU membership for Ukraine is as important as the physical defence of their land. The EU is also not ready to give up on the Ukrainian membership, thought it's still a long term project. They are not ready to let Trump plunder Ukraine neither.
That's a problem for Trump because he knows that Zelensky has the EU card in his hand.

Azov:

An important and moving meeting took place at the Central Synagogue of Ukraine! We, together with Pastor Mark Burns, President Trump's spiritual advisor, had the honor to receive the real Heroes, the defenders of Azovstal. Those who held the defense in the darkest days, who became a symbol of the indomitability of the Ukrainian spirit, who were severely wounded but never surrendered

link
This is a double sided propaganda operation:
1/ They are celebrating the so called Nazi Azovstal defenders in a synagogue with a rabbi. Maybe these aforementioned defenders are not from the Azov battalion, but the word "Azov" is there. They are again blowing the myth of the neo-Nazi Ukraine.

2/ "Trump's Spiritual Leader." <== What the Hell is that? LOL Two oxymorons in just three words. It's not clear to me whether this reverend has any influence on Trump. But, maybe he has. Or he will be sacked and will lose his title of "Presidential Spiritual Leader".
He is certainly not as influencial as Putin's power-behind-the-throne Patriarch Kyrill.

Devil Merchant:
Here is a funny event: Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill, blessed medallions with Putin's initials to be given to soldiers before sending them to die on Ukrainian soil...

Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, these are crosses, as well as medallions depicting Saint Vladimir the Great, the equal-to-the-apostles prince and founder of our state, who defended our land with a sword and remains a symbol of the unity of Russian lands. Moreover, he is also your heavenly patron. I believe this will be especially meaningful and pleasing to all the soldiers who receive these items

LOL. Russian soldiers don't give a damn about his blessed crossed or medals and they don't intent to die. They just want their money and that's it.

Here is a picture of Vladimir Putin with the Priest of Belzebuth aka Patriarch Kirill inspecting the gifts:

____________________________________

The Secret History of America’s Involvement in the Ukraine War

Interesting read. I didn't know that ATACMS made pot holes on the Kerch Bridge.

I think that during the 2023 counter offensive, Ukrainians knew that retaking Melitopol would not be possible or extremely costly in lives. Americans told them that they estimated that 20K soldiers would die in this operation, suggesting it as an acceptable death toll. It was not acceptable for the Ukrainians. But they tried nonetheless until it became clear that it would be a failure.

I don't have any opinion about Bahkmut. But it seems that Syrsky, according to the article, saw an opportunity to finish off the Russians there, after Wagner started to complain about the regular Russian army and their commanders. He knew that something went wrong and that an attack at this moment when Russians were angry against each other and disorganised could be successful. But he didn't have enough brigades, Ukrainians were not in their best shape after the battle of Bahkmmut. So this failed too.
But had the Ukrainians launched all their forces against the Surovikin Line, maybe they could have pushed further than Rabotino or Tokmak, but they would have lost many more troops.

After reading the end of the article, I feel that Ukrainians could make a successful counter offensive in 2025, in the Melitopol-Berdiansk direction. (Mariupol is too far on the east, and Russians will defend it too much.)
I'm not saying that they will do it. But if they do it this time, and if they have US support, they will have several advantages they didn't have in 2023.

Does anyone actually believe that Ukraine can develop some long range missile on their own? Of course not.

No. But their partners are not only those we think they are:
1/ Ukraine has collaborated with Turkey to build jet engines to the Byraktar. It's not clear if the Byraktar is still used at all in Ukraine today, but the consortium is alive and the jet engines are real. Ukrainians used them on their own missile-drones.
2/ China is providing Ukraine 90% of drone parts. You will rarely see Ukrainian diplomats criticizing China despite their eternal friendship with Russia.

Link to the post the tables attached above were taken from:

https://x.com/naalsio26/status/1904701124864581751

Do you think that an anonymous post on X is a reliable source?
Just asking...

The guy clearly has little to no clue whatsoever about the subject he is talking about.

So, why do you post this article?

 

[KipPotapych]

There are more reports of PV drones with a 40 kilometre range this brings more of the artillery within range ,it might be that that this type of weapons systems has the same protection installed as per modern tanks

Kiev troops start using FPV drones of longer range

The new drones were detected in the Zaporozhye, Orekhov, Dzerzhinsk, Kremennaya and Kharkov directions of the special military operation, as well as in Russia’s borderline areas of Belgorod and Kursk

tass.com

There have been similar reports for months now. I wonder if it is actually the case though. Don’t quote me ln the correctness of the timeline, but I would put the first time I heard about the 40 km range for an FPV drone probably last summer, if not earlier. It was reported by the Russians, I believe, that they now had this capability. It was then confirmed by Ukrainians (re the Russian capability). Then Ukrainians got the same capabilities, reportedly. And back and forth like that. Here is a report from last September talking about the Russian standard FPV drone operators hitting Ukrainian targets 40 km away (a Ukrainian outlet, in English):

russia Hits Targets with Standard FPV Drones at 40 km Range: How They Achieve It and Ukraine’s Counter Developments | Defense Express

FPV drones have proven to be an effective means of attack, so now the question is who will improve the capabilities of this weapon faster, better, and on a larger scale

en.defence-ua.com

They are suggesting that a “mothership” is used for such attacks. I have read about other technologies as well. Ukriane had likely used their sea drones for the “mothership” hitting targets in Crimea, far away from the frontline (I would have to dig up the videos). The interesting thing about those videos was that none of the targets had any kind of drone protection, indicating that there was zero expectation of the possibility being struck with an FPV drone this deep inside.

Then, there were reports about Russians using fiberoptic drones with a 40 km long wire. Later, Ukrainians reported that now they have the capability as well. For example, an article from the same outlet as above, from January:

Ukrainians Made an FPV With Fiber-Optic Cord Stretching For 41 km | Defense Express

The new record-breaking product of affordable drone warfare and a few implications of the drone race that this warfare entails

en.defence-ua.com

What is interesting (to me) is that the distance reported is always 40 km. Maybe it is not really that interesting though, haha. Previously it was 20 km, a kind of cap.

I am sure we will see some “epic” and mind blowing stuff (literally and figuratively) and there is a good chance it will happen rather sooner than later. The whole development is pretty interesting. Things come and go. Yet, some stay for the long haul. Remember those incendiary drones (the dragons or whatever it was they called it)? Lots of hype at the time, but turned out to be a propaganda gimmick (which was predicted here) and we do not see it getting further development, at least at this time. Many other things. It seems that entire groups of the most “famous” drone operators, ie the volume of videos posted, have virtually disappeared and were replaced by someone else, operating better technology. Go figure.

So, they have to be good wheels. It is going to be abandoned, that track (if the track is actually cut) can be repaired in situ; it's just that you may need to fight an EW battle to do that. So, it will be abandoned.
"...conditions and the mission." And being cheaper.

Yes, cost is always a factor, no doubt.

I wonder how much repair stuff is actually happening in the field in this environment though. Probably next to none. I would think that once the vehicle is struck and immobilized, the survivors bail more often than not (we can probably say “always” if we remove the outliers and won’t be far off from the truth). We have seen plenty of videos showing what happens to those who don’t.

The Lancet already has a 40km range and is one of the most effective Russian weapon against Ukrainian forces.

The “modern” Geran/Shahed has a range of about 1,300-1,500 km and they mount cameras on them nowadays. But it is about extremely cost effective FPVs in particular that seaspear is talking about.

Interesting note on Russian UAV by an Ukrainian spokesman
In Ukraine’s north, Russians significantly reduce intensity of UAV attacks because of bad weather. Glide bombs keep gliding.

General stats for March based on the Ukrainian GS reports:





Today (yesterday?) was the first time no Shades were reported at all. This is the first time since Dec 10, when the pause lasted for 3 days and then big strikes with the accumulated stock followed in days ahead (this is per the same dude cited above).

Interesting read. I didn't know that ATACMS made pot holes on the Kerch Bridge.

Didn’t Ukrinform report that? Lol.

That was probably the biggest waste of these missiles. Russians claimed to intercept all 12 missiles that were launched. Traffic on the bridge was reportedly stopped for about 4 hours.

Russia claims Ukraine attempted ATACMS attack on Crimean Bridge

Russia downed 12 ATACMS launched overnight by Ukraine as part of an attack on the Crimean Bridge, Russian state-controlled news agency RIA Novosti reported on Aug. 16, citing the Russian Defense Ministry.

kyivindependent.com

Crimea bridge targeted in ATACMS strike: Russia

Ukraine launched its surprise incursion into Russian territory on August 6.

www.newsweek.com

Note that the traffic restrictions were reported by a Ukrainian propaganda outlet indicating that it probably happened. Provided that the restrictions had only lasted 4 hours, it could very well be the case that the Russian interception reports were also true and no “potholes” were created. Whether it was 12 missiles or more, who knows. What this new report does is it confirms that it actually happened and gives validity to the Russian claims. It was outright rejected by many as Russian propaganda previously.

Funny thing: the Kiev Independent report cited above says “illegally” constructed bridge. The Newsweek report says “legally” constructed bridge. Lol.

Americans told them that they estimated that 20K soldiers would die in this operation, suggesting it as an acceptable death toll. It was not acceptable for the Ukrainians.

Any evidence they lost less? Common sense would suggest that they may have lost more with the strategy they chose instead.

But they tried nonetheless until it became clear that it would be a failure.

It was known to be a failure on the first, second, or third day, tops. It was previously reported by Washington Post as well and summarized by me here. They tried until they completely exhausted their resources, while moving nowhere. The “trying” resulted in dismissal of Zaluzhny and appointment of Syrsky, who clearly, as very nicely outlined in the article, followed Zelensky’s showtime agenda.

But it seems that Syrsky, according to the article, saw an opportunity[…]

So basically a failure of strategic planning based on feelings.

But he didn't have enough brigades,

What they did is split the manpower; thus, leaving insufficient resources for any of the three directions, which led to the writing on the wall - that is, it was bound to fail.

They went for Bakhmut, in my opinion, due to the showtime mentality. The political actors (namely Zelensky) created a Bakhmut tale of epic proportions and then they, completely baselessly and erroneously, thought that it might be an easy target. They were wrong. These constant miscalculations about the Russians basically cost them this war. Low morale, they won’t fight, Putin’s embarrassment that should lead to some irrational decisions, etc. We now have what we have. No war planning should ever be based on this. Especially when you had already clearly showed lack of understanding the first time. This “we know Russians, trust us” proposal is extremely dangerous. Which is rather funny because the Ukrainians follow the script to the tee quite often themselves. See the Bakhmut counteroffensive as the greatest example.

but they would have lost many more troops.

Why?

After reading the end of the article, I feel that Ukrainians could make a successful counter offensive in 2025, in the Melitopol-Berdiansk direction[…]

What advantage? Less men? Men who are less prepared and motivated? More bombs from the Russians? Introduction of fiberoptic drones? While less Russian armour (questionable and not as crucial for the defensive purposes), but more and arguably more motivated Russian troops? And so on.

It is highly unlikely they will ever see another “bulk” delivery of equipment and ammunition, including artillery, as they had during the preparation for the 2023 counteroffensive. I said back then (before and after) that that was their one chance. They failed. Moreover, they showed lack of strategic planning then and since, as well as propensity to waste a tremendous amount of resources for showtime and very little returns (none, actually). What we will see from now on, in my opinion, is counterattacks that take some land, lose some, but overall Russian advancement in most (or all) directions. And then it will be over in some way. I could be wrong and time will tell. Many reasonable people predict that this will be over in 2025 or first half of 2026 at the latest. I do not have anything solid and evidence based to counter that perspective.

It's not clear if the Byraktar is still used at all in Ukraine today

It appears those have been obsolete for a very long time now, as far as this conflict is concerned. One of those things I mentioned earlier that went into the sunset and never returned.

 

[KipPotapych]

China is providing Ukraine 90% of drone parts. You will rarely see Ukrainian diplomats criticizing China despite their eternal friendship with Russia.

Not sure where the 90% comes from, but they also provide Russia with a lot of the same components. I saw estimates ranging from 40 to 75% (don’t quote me on those numbers). I would think they are also providing them with some tech they want to test as well, but this is a pure speculation on my part. Russia had a much bigger industrial and technological base than Ukraine did going into this thing (and does today).

Do you think that an anonymous post on X is a reliable source?
Just asking...

Trick question, right?
The answer is no. This, however, is not a random “anonymous post” on X. When you follow dozens of source over a long period of time, you, miraculously, get this ability to be able to sort through the bullshit fairly quickly.

So, why do you post this article?

Another trick question?


Humour time:








@seaspear, more on the 40 km range stuff I just found among these saved snapshots (Bendett is an excellent source to follow for those interested in UAVs and the like):



Again, it always seems to be 40 km…

 

[seaspear]

A forty kilometre range could possibly enable a counter strike to artillery to be from such a drone rather than exposing artillery for this

 

[swerve]

...
Does anyone actually believe that Ukraine can develop some long range missile on their own? Of course not. That’s nonsense. The NYT article cited above talks about the Moskva being sinked by the Ukrainian Neptun missile, which allegedly came as a surprise to the Americans because they didn’t even know that Ukriane had anti-ship missiles. Convincing? Obviously not. ...

Yes, obviously not, since it was shown at an arms exhibition in 2015 . . . I find it hard to take that seriously.

Could they develop it on their own? Why not? It's hardly cutting edge technology these days. Like Ukrainian drones, a lot of it is commercially available, & we know that Motor Sich has been making suitable engines for a long time. Israel, with far fewer resources, developed an anti-ship missile in the 1960s, & much, much more of the technology is now common. Sweden built its own anti-ship missiles in the 1960s, starting with a 1950s French target drone. Why do you think it impossible for Ukraine to do the same 50 years later, with a hell of a lot more to base it on?

Oh, & Mongolia's a raw material exporter, like Guyana. Foreign money pays for the infrastructure & technology to extract the minerals & the country gets rich. It's not a sensible comparison.

 

[Bob53]

This article goes into some depth losses of both sides it is not up to date grantedly but shows some trends which I was referring too if you have a source that can do a comparison of both sides losses I would be happy to peruse

Analysis of losses of heavy military equipment during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Check out AndriiMaichub's Article on novyPro.com

www.novypro.com

I cannot find another source that’s seems as creditable or as balanced as Orynx.

 

[Bob53]

Speaking of the surrounding myths and whatnot, this article was brought to my attention today:

Whisper it, but the tide might just be turning against Putin

The American president has lost patience with the Russian leader – so has his own people

www.telegraph.co.uk

Depending on how I open it, it appears to be behind a paywall, but I want it to be read in its entirety, so I will simply copy and paste the entire thing as it is pretty short and utter garbage:

The Kremlin is nervous. On Saturday night, a limousine belonging to Vladimir Putin’s official fleet dramatically exploded north of the headquarters of the Russian security services. Last week, footage showed servicemen being frisked by special protection officers. Those same officers were later seen opening up sewer hatches in a hunt for bombs near where the Russian leader was speaking. To Western intelligence agencies, the situation is becoming clear: within Russia’s top brass, the knives are out for their leader.

Western analysts are often accused of wishful thinking. Rightly so. In March 2022, an op-ed in the New York Times described Russia as a “Potemkin superpower”, naively suggesting that just the faintest push would cause the whole regime to suddenly collapse.

Such a projection has not come to pass. But there is one thing the rising paranoia does certainly reveal: Putin does think he’s vulnerable.

You can understand why. Let’s first consider the feeling within Russian society at large. Since the war started three years ago, 250,000 soldiers have died - the pain does now appear to be cutting through. Grieving mothers are now starting to write to president Putin demanding explanations, with one telling Sky News: “it’s impossible to live like this”.

The heavy losses have led to a wider conscription crisis which has caused Putin to offer salaries - far above the average - for young men to go to the front line. Do not underestimate the anger of these families: when Moscow was at war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it was the mothers of soldiers that formed the frontline of the anti-war movement.

Then there’s the key demand made by Putin in negotiations with the US: that Volodymyr Zelensky be removed before a ceasefire be agreed. The madness of that condition exposes the Russian premier’s desperation. Mr Zelensky’s possible successor, current ambassador to the UK Valerii Zaluzhny, is more hardline than him.

But what will worry Putin the most is the impatience of the man he once considered his most loyal friend in the West: Donald Trump. On Sunday, the American president deviated from his traditional praise for the Russian leader by saying he was “p----- off” with him after weeks of attempting to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine. That marks a sharp change of tone from 2015, when Trump described him as a “strong leader”.

We are now entering the time of year known as “fighting season” – the months where the weather warms up and the ground hardens to allow tank warfare.

The improved weather could favour Ukraine. Clearer skies will make drones more useful in targeting Russian forces, and their untrained troops – with no experience of combined arms, tanks, artillery and airpower – will also struggle against Ukraine’s better trained defence.

There could be no time when the Russian premier’s vulnerability could be as pivotal in altering the course of this war as now. The question is whether the West will seize the moment.

I am not even sure if any comment is necessary here. The guy basically makes stuff up in regard to the explosions and stuff that follows. He then throws a whole bunch of other shit, pardon my language, random stuff, it appears, to see if anything sticks. The guy clearly has little to no clue whatsoever about the subject he is talking about. And so on. I said before (a while ago now) that the British press had reached the rock bottom for the most part. I was wrong, lower bottoms are apparently s thing.

Provided what the British MoD has been posting for the past three years though, this is hardly surprising. No wonder many people are completely disconnected from the reality.

I’m in Australia. The press here across several of the MSMs report basically the following.
Trump is trying to pressure Russia and Ukraine into cease fire.
USA wants to get its hands on Ukraine minerals resources As part of a Ceasefire deal but will not include any security guarantees.
Europe is scrambling to shore up military supplies to the Ukraine.
Putin is trying to take advantage and delay as much as possible.
The situation in the Ukraine is dire.
Russian forces outnumber and are slowly grinding them down.
Ukraine is facing shortages of manpower, artillery shells and anti aircraft weapons.
big issue is that Ukraines manpower shortages means very little rest for fighting troops.
some new weapons are still dripping feeding into Ukraine.
Ukraine defence is killing many Russians ( up to 700k casualties with around 200k dead from Russia) but still be ground down.
Its seems that the western supply to Ukraine was too little and too slow, If the current supply of weapons…primarily , IFV and anti aircraft weapons were supplied quickly there was a chance that the Ukraine could of stalled Russians further east that current positions.

Sure there are the odd reports that don’t represent reality coming from both sides propaganda but in the main the above is what’s reported. From reports here it’s seems like it’s being reported accuratel.

 

[Feanor]

Yes, obviously not, since it was shown at an arms exhibition in 2015 . . . I find it hard to take that seriously.

Could they develop it on their own? Why not? It's hardly cutting edge technology these days. Like Ukrainian drones, a lot of it is commercially available, & we know that Motor Sich has been making suitable engines for a long time. Israel, with far fewer resources, developed an anti-ship missile in the 1960s, & much, much more of the technology is now common. Sweden built its own anti-ship missiles in the 1960s, starting with a 1950s French target drone. Why do you think it impossible for Ukraine to do the same 50 years later, with more to base it on?

On the one hand it's not impossible. On the other hand their Grom program wasn't exactly doing well for many years prior. Suddenly, in wartime, under bombardments, with people leaving the country, they produce and deploy an effective cruise missile with AShM and LACM variants, and then within a couple of years roll out an upgraded variant of that same missile with extended range. It looks like they may have had some help. The Neptune itself appears to be a derivation of the Soviet Kh-35, a missile that's been exported to quite a few countries. I have a strong suspicion that there is foreign involvement in Ukraine's missile programs.

 

[Bob53]

You must be following some other war. This “new tactic” has been implemented for much longer than 6 months. It was discussed in this thread as well.

What happened now was Ukraine stopped their completely unreasonable creation of new brigades and sent the reserves to the frontline. The changes you see now are the result of that.


They hit some facilities year round. Production requires energy, including MIC. In the winter, the intensity of the attacks increases greatly though. They also start striking the heating system in the winter that is mostly centralized.


Putin didn’t demand that. You are upside down again. That was him “kicking the ball back”. Remember when Europe and then Zelensky proposed ceasefire at the Black Sea and “air”? This is a variant of exactly that, but with terms acceptable to Russia. Like I said a couple of weeks ago or whenever that was, it would be dumb for the Russians to agree to ceasing all arial attacks and I explained why that would be the case. If, and this is most certainly the case (or at least very likely), the sea ceasefire includes port infrastructure, Ukraine is the one gaining here and quite a bit, clearly. Therefore, Russia wants stuff in return. The same goes for the energy infrastructure: if this turns into anything more permanent than a month, Ukraine is the one gaining here and greatly. Russia inflicts a lot more damage there that is felt quite a bit more than the Ukrainian strikes in Russia that are worth not very much at all in the grand scheme. This is clear as day to me. Hence, Russia wants stuff in return. The very least they can ask for is sanctions removed from the Agricultural Bank (to start). See the grain deal falling apart for reference. There is nothing extraordinary here at all. In fact, we have been through something similar a couple of years ago or so.


You should read my other post. Even better, read the article.


Upside down again. I didn’t see anyone here saying that everything is fine. What has been suggested is that there is no doom and collapse is not happening any time soon. They can and do manage.

It is very clear that sanctions have an effect. One would either completely lack understanding or be lying if they said there was no effect. They could also be completely delusional, like their counterparts on the other side of things, and truly believing they speak the truth, while being completely disconnected from the reality.


Now straight to the conspiracy stuff, eh?


Is that so? Because most others disagree. Also, if one thinks he can actually win, why would they try to sell anything.


Again with humiliation and stuff. Quite literally, nobody cares and it is irrelevant, completely.

What’s “buretchka”?


What Russia is doing now is very rational. They have not been in a stronger negotiating position than they are today since at least the very beginning of the conflict, while “we are all in this together” trying to get Ukraine an “upper hand” and have been for the past… well, 3 years. Mark Milley was right in 2022.

Americans are shifting their priorities, which was expected regardless of the results of the elections, and, moreover, have their internal issues to deal with; the biggest disruption within NATO since its creation, trust between the US and Europe are at the lowest it had ever been; Ukraine, while not collapsing, is loosing the war (lost already, in my opinion, and long ago) and there is nothing that can change that, really; Europe is displaying its impotence and indecisiveness; right wing and, what they call, pro-Russian parties are gaining speed in the west; after over three years of war and the shenanigans of the past couple of months, there is still no strategy of even goals formulated by anyone on the western side (as opposed to Putin’s irrationality?); and so on. To paraphrase Trump, Putin has all the cards. He can ask for whatever he wants and see what sticks, then he can decide if what sticked is acceptable or not.

Sure, some can wait for some just peace and rainbows in the sky. All in complete oblivion. I really have no idea what people are thinking and how their thought process works. The real world is completely different from that oblivion.

Well from the other side of the worlds it is funny that Norh Korean troops were needed to prop up the Russian army and that Ladas and Electric scooters are now front line assault vehicles.

 

[swerve]

On the one hand it's not impossible. On the other hand their Grom program wasn't exactly doing well for many years prior. Suddenly, in wartime, under bombardments, with people leaving the country, they produce and deploy an effective cruise missile with AShM and LACM variants, and then within a couple of years roll out an upgraded variant of that same missile with extended range. It looks like they may have had some help. The Neptune itself appears to be a derivation of the Soviet Kh-35, a missile that's been exported to quite a few countries. I have a strong suspicion that there is foreign involvement in Ukraine's missile programs.

I think it's very likely they had some help. Probably help with Bohdana as well. It's not exactly a secret that European companies have been providing technical help. Some of them have said so publicly.

But the suggestion (not by you) that such things as Bohdana are being made abroad looks rather imaginative. Ukraine had a lot of metal-bashing industry, & some of the skilled people have moved from eastern Ukraine to the still Ukrainian-held parts of the country since 2014.

BTW, Neptune didn't suddenly happen. It had been around for a few years, but like other Ukrainian developments was starved of money. A bit of money, & political pressure to eliminate bureacratic delays & corruption, could speed things up a lot. And then western help on top!

I don't think there should be arguments about whether it's all 100% Ukrainian, or all western aid. I think it's somewhere in between.

 

[Fredled]

Note that the traffic restrictions were reported by a Ukrainian propaganda outlet indicating that it probably happened. Provided that the restrictions had only lasted 4 hours, it could very well be the case that the Russian interception reports were also true and no “potholes” were created. Whether it was 12 missiles or more, who knows. What this new report does is it confirms that it actually happened and gives validity to the Russian claims. It was outright rejected by many as Russian propaganda previously.

I was surprised by these pot holes because either the ATACMS are intercepted and only debris fall on bridge. But debris don;t create pot hole or somebody was joking that the asphalt was damaged on surface. Or there was a crater and in this case the bridge was seriously damaged.
It's possible that Ukrainians tried to hit the bridge with cluster amunitions. (I have read that they recieved only this type.) This would increase their chance to hit the bridge but if only one ATACMS crosses the air defence shield and drop it's multiple bombs on it, most of the bombs niss the bridge and are not able to cause important damages. Had more than one or two ATACMS succeeded in hiting the bridge the number of sub munitions would have been enough to make significant damage.
If the bridge was closed for only four hours, it was probably not hit by a cluster amunition.

Ukrinform didn't report that because it was a failure. But not only an Ukrainian failure, also an American one. The American at least agreed and provided coordinates, if not actively participated in the preparation of the attack. Americans expected it to be successful. They under estimated the Russian air defence. It's also very difficult to hit a bridge according to the German officers in charge of the Taurus.

However, Ukrainians successfuly hit the ferries and the ferry crossing a few miles away from the Bridge. Maybe not on the same day, I don't know. They made several successful strikes on these ferry crossing.

Funny thing: the Kiev Independent report cited above says “illegally” constructed bridge. The Newsweek report says “legally” constructed bridge. Lol.

Ukrainians always refers to the "illegally build bridge". And they are right because the Russian company which built this bridge didn't have the legal permit from the Ukrainian administration to start the work. That's why they decided to proceed with its destruction.
Then the Russians started to call the bridge "legally build bridge". LOL.

Any evidence they lost less? Common sense would suggest that they may have lost more with the strategy they chose instead.

It's of course very difficult to estimate the losses for a scenario that didn;t happen. But I'm sure, that had the Ukrainians thrown all their forces on the Surovikin line, it would have been a true disaster.
I don't think that they would have succeeded in breaking the line and still have enough men to secure the gain.

Long term, it's sure that they have lost as many and more later, but in different fronts. The article speaks about three areas of interest. Quiet interrestingly the Mariopol direction was the most successful but it was meant to be a mere diversion, so there were no visible result. There were also many fights between these three areas.

It's your interpretation that Zelensky decided to retake bahkmut for the show. I think it's a little bit more complex than that. He has his personal preference. And Kursk was definetely one. But he can't take decision if it's strongly not recommended by his generals. And he can take such a decision only if his generals agree that it's a good idea. Because if he acts like an idiot, he will lose his legitimacy, and perhaps his presidency.
I always remember that the officers on the front line know better than us how to fight the Russians.

It is highly unlikely they will ever see another “bulk” delivery of equipment and ammunition, including artillery

Well, of course, a second counter offensive would depend on that. If they don't get the tools to start it, they won't do it. But if they do receive another bulk delivery, they could do it. Again, I don;t predict that they will do it, I just say that they could, that there is still a possibility.
NATO allies have pledged for $20B worth of military assitance in 2025 so far. Mark Rutte
Trump is likely to pledge a big amount too if Putin keeps playing the goof with him.

What advantage?
1/ Experience of the previous time. We can expect that they won't repeat the same mistakes.
2/ Less men? Not sure. Russians too will have less men. New Ukrainian recruits are less trained and less motivated than the battle hardened soldiers. Yes. But on the Russian side, the contrast is much more severe. A large part of new recruits are inapt to combat and sometimes to even carry a weapon. So, in and out, I think, they are even in term of manpower.
3/ More air power and new types of missiles. The key to success before an attack is to bomb the ennemy line and the ennmy rear effectively. It was not done in 2023 because they didn't have enough means to do it. Today, they may not have enough for a big and quick victory, but they will have a much bigger air and missile power. The F16s and Mirages are not there only to intercpet cruise missiles.
4/ Demining method. I'm speculating here, but if there is something that they had to fix, it was the demining method. They should have a plan to massively and quickly demine the areas of penetration. In 2023, they used traditional methods and they failed to secure the ground. I don't know if they have new possibilities now, but if they are going to try again, it means that they have it.

Of course, it's clear that the mood in Europe is rather for a peace deal than for another bloodshed. So, IMO, the odds of seeing another counter offensive in 2025 is only 20%. But not zero. If Russians keep on attacking as they do now, the odds will be higher. We will see in one month what is the trend.

Not sure where the 90% comes from, but they also provide Russia with a lot of the same components. I saw estimates ranging from 40 to 75% (don’t quote me on those numbers). I would think they are also providing them with some tech they want to test as well, but this is a pure speculation on my part.

90% is not surprising. China deliver 90% of drone components to the whole world, including Ukraine. It's possible that Ukraine purchase Chinese indirectly and that Chinese don't know what is going to Ukraine and not. But maybe not. Chinese want to do business and they don't care.

Russia had a much bigger industrial and technological base than Ukraine did going into this thing (and does today).

But the West + Ukraine has a much bigger base than Russia.

A forty kilometre range could possibly enable a counter strike to artillery to be from such a drone rather than exposing artillery for this

That's the point. 40km is the longer range for artillery. but it's theoretical because artillery is never position exactly 40km from the front line. They are much closer.

 

[Bob53]

It’s interesting how the perceptions change in this war. On the one hand, tracks are better for getting around. On the other, wheels are faster and they can keep moving with a few missing after multiple drone strikes. I see different people making different conclusions in this regard all the time.


In the interview posted the other day, an alleged F-16 pilot claims to be flying daily over Russian targets and troops.

View attachment 52556

Interview is here (in Ukrainian):

I would say:

I feel like I may have already asked about it, but is there any particular reason we (maybe just me?) hardly ever see or hear about Lancets anymore? FPV’s are cheaper and have longer range now? Ukrainians intercepting Lancets? Something else?



There was an interesting observation made by this one weapons tracker the other day:

View attachment 52557


I believe this is a combination of things, including what you are suggesting. I also noticed that lately Russians send a swarm of Shaheds into one or two places rather than a few to a dozen different areas. Not sure why this was not done before as it seems to be a better strategy. There were also reports that Ukraine actually has big problems with their air defences due to lack of supplies. For example (from March 15):

View attachment 52558



Ukrainians claim destruction of 96 cruise missiles at the airbase:

Ukraine's Engels drone strike destroyed 96 Russian cruise missiles, General Staff claims

The missiles were reportedly intended for three planned strikes in March and April.

kyivindependent.com

Satellite imagery clearly shows some destruction at the airbase, a couple of deep craters, etc.

Ukraine claimed to use the new Neptun whatever they call them missiles for the attack. I have seen one or two videos with the usual UAVs flying over the “cameramen” and making the hits at or the direction of the airbase.

After the strike, the lemmings have stirred up and started talking about the nuclear weapons being stored there and some being destroyed, lol. There were posts with some random dude talking about radiation levels in the area spiking up and concluding that the nukes were hit, lol.

View attachment 52559

Funny enough, if you look at the profile of the poster cited above, she identifies as a proud lemming and warns to distinguish between (Russian) propaganda and reality, lol:

Edit: note that that ^ person has over 34,000 followers!

To be fair. I read a lot on this thread to try and keep myself informed.

What is clear is that for certain posters …everything is pro Russian. They post a lot of Russian narrative, successful Russian videos links and information. To these people, just about everything said that is negative to Russia is deemed propaganda by fools and lemmings.

on the other hand there are others that only post positive Ukrainian information and narrative.

 

[Bob53]

There have been similar reports for months now. I wonder if it is actually the case though. Don’t quote me ln the correctness of the timeline, but I would put the first time I heard about the 40 km range for an FPV drone probably last summer, if not earlier. It was reported by the Russians, I believe, that they now had this capability. It was then confirmed by Ukrainians (re the Russian capability). Then Ukrainians got the same capabilities, reportedly. And back and forth like that. Here is a report from last September talking about the Russian standard FPV drone operators hitting Ukrainian targets 40 km away (a Ukrainian outlet, in English):

russia Hits Targets with Standard FPV Drones at 40 km Range: How They Achieve It and Ukraine’s Counter Developments | Defense Express

FPV drones have proven to be an effective means of attack, so now the question is who will improve the capabilities of this weapon faster, better, and on a larger scale

en.defence-ua.com

They are suggesting that a “mothership” is used for such attacks. I have read about other technologies as well. Ukriane had likely used their sea drones for the “mothership” hitting targets in Crimea, far away from the frontline (I would have to dig up the videos). The interesting thing about those videos was that none of the targets had any kind of drone protection, indicating that there was zero expectation of the possibility being struck with an FPV drone this deep inside.

Then, there were reports about Russians using fiberoptic drones with a 40 km long wire. Later, Ukrainians reported that now they have the capability as well. For example, an article from the same outlet as above, from January:

Ukrainians Made an FPV With Fiber-Optic Cord Stretching For 41 km | Defense Express

The new record-breaking product of affordable drone warfare and a few implications of the drone race that this warfare entails

en.defence-ua.com

What is interesting (to me) is that the distance reported is always 40 km. Maybe it is not really that interesting though, haha. Previously it was 20 km, a kind of cap.

I am sure we will see some “epic” and mind blowing stuff (literally and figuratively) and there is a good chance it will happen rather sooner than later. The whole development is pretty interesting. Things come and go. Yet, some stay for the long haul. Remember those incendiary drones (the dragons or whatever it was they called it)? Lots of hype at the time, but turned out to be a propaganda gimmick (which was predicted here) and we do not see it getting further development, at least at this time. Many other things. It seems that entire groups of the most “famous” drone operators, ie the volume of videos posted, have virtually disappeared and were replaced by someone else, operating better technology. Go figure.



Yes, cost is always a factor, no doubt.

I wonder how much repair stuff is actually happening in the field in this environment though. Probably next to none. I would think that once the vehicle is struck and immobilized, the survivors bail more often than not (we can probably say “always” if we remove the outliers and won’t be far off from the truth). We have seen plenty of videos showing what happens to those who don’t.



The “modern” Geran/Shahed has a range of about 1,300-1,500 km and they mount cameras on them nowadays. But it is about extremely cost effective FPVs in particular that seaspear is talking about.



General stats for March based on the Ukrainian GS reports:

View attachment 52593

View attachment 52592

Today (yesterday?) was the first time no Shades were reported at all. This is the first time since Dec 10, when the pause lasted for 3 days and then big strikes with the accumulated stock followed in days ahead (this is per the same dude cited above).



Didn’t Ukrinform report that? Lol.

That was probably the biggest waste of these missiles. Russians claimed to intercept all 12 missiles that were launched. Traffic on the bridge was reportedly stopped for about 4 hours.

Russia claims Ukraine attempted ATACMS attack on Crimean Bridge

Russia downed 12 ATACMS launched overnight by Ukraine as part of an attack on the Crimean Bridge, Russian state-controlled news agency RIA Novosti reported on Aug. 16, citing the Russian Defense Ministry.

kyivindependent.com

Crimea bridge targeted in ATACMS strike: Russia

Ukraine launched its surprise incursion into Russian territory on August 6.

www.newsweek.com

Note that the traffic restrictions were reported by a Ukrainian propaganda outlet indicating that it probably happened. Provided that the restrictions had only lasted 4 hours, it could very well be the case that the Russian interception reports were also true and no “potholes” were created. Whether it was 12 missiles or more, who knows. What this new report does is it confirms that it actually happened and gives validity to the Russian claims. It was outright rejected by many as Russian propaganda previously.

Funny thing: the Kiev Independent report cited above says “illegally” constructed bridge. The Newsweek report says “legally” constructed bridge. Lol.



Any evidence they lost less? Common sense would suggest that they may have lost more with the strategy they chose instead.


It was known to be a failure on the first, second, or third day, tops. It was previously reported by Washington Post as well and summarized by me here. They tried until they completely exhausted their resources, while moving nowhere. The “trying” resulted in dismissal of Zaluzhny and appointment of Syrsky, who clearly, as very nicely outlined in the article, followed Zelensky’s showtime agenda.


So basically a failure of strategic planning based on feelings.


What they did is split the manpower; thus, leaving insufficient resources for any of the three directions, which led to the writing on the wall - that is, it was bound to fail.

They went for Bakhmut, in my opinion, due to the showtime mentality. The political actors (namely Zelensky) created a Bakhmut tale of epic proportions and then they, completely baselessly and erroneously, thought that it might be an easy target. They were wrong. These constant miscalculations about the Russians basically cost them this war. Low morale, they won’t fight, Putin’s embarrassment that should lead to some irrational decisions, etc. We now have what we have. No war planning should ever be based on this. Especially when you had already clearly showed lack of understanding the first time. This “we know Russians, trust us” proposal is extremely dangerous. Which is rather funny because the Ukrainians follow the script to the tee quite often themselves. See the Bakhmut counteroffensive as the greatest example.


Why?


What advantage? Less men? Men who are less prepared and motivated? More bombs from the Russians? Introduction of fiberoptic drones? While less Russian armour (questionable and not as crucial for the defensive purposes), but more and arguably more motivated Russian troops? And so on.

It is highly unlikely they will ever see another “bulk” delivery of equipment and ammunition, including artillery, as they had during the preparation for the 2023 counteroffensive. I said back then (before and after) that that was their one chance. They failed. Moreover, they showed lack of strategic planning then and since, as well as propensity to waste a tremendous amount of resources for showtime and very little returns (none, actually). What we will see from now on, in my opinion, is counterattacks that take some land, lose some, but overall Russian advancement in most (or all) directions. And then it will be over in some way. I could be wrong and time will tell. Many reasonable people predict that this will be over in 2025 or first half of 2026 at the latest. I do not have anything solid and evidence based to counter that perspective.



It appears those have been obsolete for a very long time now, as far as this conflict is concerned. One of those things I mentioned earlier that went into the sunset and never returned.

Re Fibre controlled FPV. The tension strength of a typical fibre cable is about 2kgs. Put any more weight than that and the fibre which is usually .015 of a millimetre thick will break. Unless a thicker …and therefore heavier and more voluminous fibre is deployed, this would be a limiting factor on the distance if a cable controlled drone.

 

[seaspear]

I was surprised by these pot holes because either the ATACMS are intercepted and only debris fall on bridge. But debris don;t create pot hole or somebody was joking that the asphalt was damaged on surface. Or there was a crater and in this case the bridge was seriously damaged.
It's possible that Ukrainians tried to hit the bridge with cluster amunitions. (I have read that they recieved only this type.) This would increase their chance to hit the bridge but if only one ATACMS crosses the air defence shield and drop it's multiple bombs on it, most of the bombs niss the bridge and are not able to cause important damages. Had more than one or two ATACMS succeeded in hiting the bridge the number of sub munitions would have been enough to make significant damage.
If the bridge was closed for only four hours, it was probably not hit by a cluster amunition.

Ukrinform didn't report that because it was a failure. But not only an Ukrainian failure, also an American one. The American at least agreed and provided coordinates, if not actively participated in the preparation of the attack. Americans expected it to be successful. They under estimated the Russian air defence. It's also very difficult to hit a bridge according to the German officers in charge of the Taurus.

However, Ukrainians successfuly hit the ferries and the ferry crossing a few miles away from the Bridge. Maybe not on the same day, I don't know. They made several successful strikes on these ferry crossing.

Ukrainians always refers to the "illegally build bridge". And they are right because the Russian company which built this bridge didn't have the legal permit from the Ukrainian administration to start the work. That's why they decided to proceed with its destruction.
Then the Russians started to call the bridge "legally build bridge". LOL.


It's of course very difficult to estimate the losses for a scenario that didn;t happen. But I'm sure, that had the Ukrainians thrown all their forces on the Surovikin line, it would have been a true disaster.
I don't think that they would have succeeded in breaking the line and still have enough men to secure the gain.

Long term, it's sure that they have lost as many and more later, but in different fronts. The article speaks about three areas of interest. Quiet interrestingly the Mariopol direction was the most successful but it was meant to be a mere diversion, so there were no visible result. There were also many fights between these three areas.

It's your interpretation that Zelensky decided to retake bahkmut for the show. I think it's a little bit more complex than that. He has his personal preference. And Kursk was definetely one. But he can't take decision if it's strongly not recommended by his generals. And he can take such a decision only if his generals agree that it's a good idea. Because if he acts like an idiot, he will lose his legitimacy, and perhaps his presidency.
I always remember that the officers on the front line know better than us how to fight the Russians.

Well, of course, a second counter offensive would depend on that. If they don't get the tools to start it, they won't do it. But if they do receive another bulk delivery, they could do it. Again, I don;t predict that they will do it, I just say that they could, that there is still a possibility.
NATO allies have pledged for $20B worth of military assitance in 2025 so far. Mark Rutte
Trump is likely to pledge a big amount too if Putin keeps playing the goof with him.

What advantage?
1/ Experience of the previous time. We can expect that they won't repeat the same mistakes.
2/ Less men? Not sure. Russians too will have less men. New Ukrainian recruits are less trained and less motivated than the battle hardened soldiers. Yes. But on the Russian side, the contrast is much more severe. A large part of new recruits are inapt to combat and sometimes to even carry a weapon. So, in and out, I think, they are even in term of manpower.
3/ More air power and new types of missiles. The key to success before an attack is to bomb the ennemy line and the ennmy rear effectively. It was not done in 2023 because they didn't have enough means to do it. Today, they may not have enough for a big and quick victory, but they will have a much bigger air and missile power. The F16s and Mirages are not there only to intercpet cruise missiles.
4/ Demining method. I'm speculating here, but if there is something that they had to fix, it was the demining method. They should have a plan to massively and quickly demine the areas of penetration. In 2023, they used traditional methods and they failed to secure the ground. I don't know if they have new possibilities now, but if they are going to try again, it means that they have it.

Of course, it's clear that the mood in Europe is rather for a peace deal than for another bloodshed. So, IMO, the odds of seeing another counter offensive in 2025 is only 20%. But not zero. If Russians keep on attacking as they do now, the odds will be higher. We will see in one month what is the trend.


90% is not surprising. China deliver 90% of drone components to the whole world, including Ukraine. It's possible that Ukraine purchase Chinese indirectly and that Chinese don't know what is going to Ukraine and not. But maybe not. Chinese want to do business and they don't care.


But the West + Ukraine has a much bigger base than Russia.

That's the point. 40km is the longer range for artillery. but it's theoretical because artillery is never position exactly 40km from the front line. They are much closer.

The forty kilometre drone gives it a radius of operations not just directly in front

 

[seaspear]

This article goes into production numbers by Russia of its aircraft, helicopter's,tanks and ifv,s its not quite up to date and I expect exact numbers will not be released ,certainly the satellite pictures of many of the tank and ifv storage facilities that held this equipment for many years show much of this withdrawn for perhaps restoration likely production numbers overall will be heavily affected when these yards are depleted

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071847.2024.2392990#d1e101

Satellite images show scale of Russian losses as 'outdated' vehicles used

The depletion of Russia's armored vehicle stockpile points to growing strain on its military resources.

www.newsweek.com

Russia Still Has Three Years of Tanks in Storage Based on Satellite Imagery | NextBigFuture.com

Youtuber Covert Cabal has updated his count of Russian Soviet era tanks in storage. He uses satellite images.

www.nextbigfuture.com

 

[Feanor]

This article goes into production numbers by Russia of its aircraft, helicopter's,tanks and ifv,s its not quite up to date and I expect exact numbers will not be released ,certainly the satellite pictures of many of the tank and ifv storage facilities that held this equipment for many years show much of this withdrawn for perhaps restoration likely production numbers overall will be heavily affected when these yards are depleted

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071847.2024.2392990#d1e101

An interesting article and I generally agree with it but with a few strange pieces. I'll point out a few;

Military specialist Roman Skomorokhov, in a review of potential industrial manufacturers of tanks, concluded that in the short term, UVZ was the only manufacturer able to build new tanks, with a possible output of 500–600 a year at best

This seems a very strange number. Khlopotov, someone with UKBTM ties, quoted the UVZ main conveyor as having a peak throughput of 400 tanks per year. That's a theoretical maximum, not a practical one. Largest one-year volume of MBTs and MBT-chassis vehicles in one year was iirc 2011 with ~350 vehicles produced, a combination of domestic orders for the T-90A, continuing Algerian and Indian deliveries and likely some BREM-1Ms. How could they expect an output that high? There's no evidence of a second main conveyor being built.

MoD had called for the resumption of the serial production of T-80 tanks from scratch, an activity not undertaken since the 1970s

Last new-built T-80s are from the 1990s, not 1970s. At one point the production line was still around but not active. It's unclear if it survives entirely to this day, but they're making GTD-1250 engines, assuming they're going to fit the Proryv turret, and the FCS and autloader are already being replaced in the BVM package, and the tank cannon is the same as the T-90 family, it's really a matter of making hulls? Not quite a stretch.

Perm Motovilikhinskiye Zavody, making a range of systems including 152-mm howitzers Msta-B and D-20, and 120-mm self-propelled systems Nona-S, Nona-SVK, Vena and the 240-mm Tyul’pan

More like used to make. They certainly aren't making these systems today. There is no evidence of any towed guns being produced from scratch. There is evidence of Msta-SM and possibly Mal'va being new-built. There were also token quantities of 2S31 Venas, likely leftover from export orders. 2S23 Nona-SVK were produced in some small quantity in the mid-2010's, but there's no evidence production resumed for this war. 2S44 Giatsint-Ks so far are all converted old Giatsint-B cannons. The quantity is unclear, but it's likely small.

He curiously doesn't mention any MLRS production or upgrades, not the Uragan-1, not the Tornado-G. It's unclear why.

 

[KipPotapych]

Yes, obviously not, since it was shown at an arms exhibition in 2015 . . . I find it hard to take that seriously.

Could they develop it on their own? Why not? It's hardly cutting edge technology these days. Like Ukrainian drones, a lot of it is commercially available, & we know that Motor Sich has been making suitable engines for a long time. Israel, with far fewer resources, developed an anti-ship missile in the 1960s, & much, much more of the technology is now common. Sweden built its own anti-ship missiles in the 1960s, starting with a 1950s French target drone. Why do you think it impossible for Ukraine to do the same 50 years later, with a hell of a lot more to base it on?

If you read the part of my post you quoted, I am arguing that the Americans must have known of the existence of the missiles, as opposed to “Surprise! We sank the biggest Russian ship all by ourselves with the missiles you had no idea we had! Don’t mind that we need “help” with every single other strike from you guys!” That is not a convincing story at all. That was my point.

I think it's very likely they had some help. Probably help with Bohdana as well. It's not exactly a secret that European companies have been providing technical help. Some of them have said so publicly.

Isn’t it exactly what I was saying?

I don't think there should be arguments about whether it's all 100% Ukrainian, or all western aid. I think it's somewhere in between.

The original argument was not whether it is 100% Ukrainian. The argument was that it is irrational to waste the equipment as they did (still do) because they fully, 100%, depend on the western supplies of that equipment. Be it complete armoured vehicles and tanks, or 50% of their Bohdana howitzer (I just made it up, I don’t know what the actual percentage is). To run ahead, when I say “fully, 100%” I am saying that if the help stops, they would have no armour and they would not be able to assemble Bohdanas.

As for the imaginative, yes I said “How do we know that they are even built inside Ukraine?”or something of that nature. That was an intentional hyperbole on my part (and I apologize, I don’t like hyperboles myself). I wanted to highlight the point. And I would still say, however, that the probability of what I said being true is not zero. Wouldn’t you agree? Can we state otherwise with absolute certainty? No, we cannot and that is the point. In other words, we don’t know if their Bohdanas are 50% imported, 75, or 90. That’s all. Because Zelensky says that they produce 20 or whatever it is per months means nothing, really, as far the subject of the discussion is concerned.

Oh, & Mongolia's a raw material exporter, like Guyana. Foreign money pays for the infrastructure & technology to extract the minerals & the country gets rich. It's not a sensible comparison.

Why isn’t it? Ukriane mainly sells resources - that is, raw materials - and agriculture. They sell iron ore instead of finished consumer products made of steel. To run ahead, they do (did?) make and export products made of steel, including some machinery and whatnot, but at least half of their exports consists of what I said above, namely agriculture and iron ore.

Ok, I actually looked it up:

In 2021, the largest percentage of Ukraine's exports was accounted for by agricultural and food products, namely 40.7%. The leaders of this industry are oil as a processed product, cereals (wheat, corn, etc.), sugar, confectionery, vegetables and fruits, and flour products.

The metallurgical complex is in second place with 23.5%, and the third place is held by mineral products (oil and its distillation products, ores, slag, ash, etc.) with 9%.

So we can account for about 75% of their exports prewar in those two paragraphs.

However, if my comparison is deemed improper, I can say Moldova instead. Is that better and more appropriate? The fact that they are not some… what did I say previously? Tech wiz or something like that or a major arms exporter/developer… that fact is undeniable. They grow stuff and make candy, for the most part. I am not even sure what the argument is here.

I should probably add, this is not some “bashing” of Ukraine or anything like that, but a realistic assessment for reasonable expectations.

I cannot find another source that’s seems as creditable or as balanced as Orynx.

The person I cited participates in the Oryx project. Everything they have on their list can be found on Oryx’s. I don’t think there is anyone better though In terms of separating the losses in accordance with the directions of the front. Not that I saw to this day, anyway.

Well from the other side of the worlds it is funny that Norh Korean troops were needed to prop up the Russian army and that Ladas and Electric scooters are now front line assault vehicles.

Were they really needed though? It was the rocket-man who offered the troops, according to the Americans, Putin didn’t ask for them.

But U.S. intelligence agencies have now assessed that the deployment was North Korea’s idea and not Russia’s, though President Vladimir V. Putin quickly embraced it, American officials say.

Sending Troops to Help Russia Was North Korea’s Idea, U.S. Officials Say

North Korean troops have now entered Russia’s war with Ukraine in a major way, and some have been killed, Western officials say.

www.nytimes.com

It's possible that Ukrainians tried to hit the bridge with cluster amunitions.

To hit a bridge with cluster munitions would be an even more asinine idea. Especially the bridge that is primarily used by civilians.

(I have read that they recieved only this type.)

I don’t believe this is the case. I would have to dig around to provide concrete evidence, but not at the moment.

Had more than one or two ATACMS succeeded in hiting the bridge the number of sub munitions would have been enough to make significant damage.

These cannot make a significant damage to a bridge like that, by definition.

The American at least agreed and provided coordinates, if not actively participated in the preparation of the attack. Americans expected it to be successful.

That’s another “strange” part of the story. They say they knew it would not be successful, but let Ukriane proceed to prove the point. That’s not how things work in real life.

However, Ukrainians successfuly hit the ferries and the ferry crossing a few miles away from the Bridge. Maybe not on the same day, I don't know. They made several successful strikes on these ferry crossing.

Yes, they did. Ferries are not a bridge though.

Then the Russians started to call the bridge "legally build bridge"

They didn’t. They refer to it as just a bridge. Why would they do otherwise?

In the Newsweek article, it is likely a typo - they probably meant to say “illegally”.

But he can't take decision if it's strongly not recommended by his generals. And he can take such a decision only if his generals agree that it's a good idea. Because if he acts like an idiot, he will lose his legitimacy, and perhaps his presidency.

Zaluzhny was fired in spite of him being against the direction chosen in 2023. He also was on record (quoted here by me) being against the Kursk offensive. Other officers have been dismissed (cited here by me) for their refusal to participate in or initiate the Kursk offensive. With my bias, which I fully accept, the article, combined with what I just wrote, makes it very clear that decisions are being made for political reasons and showtime.

I always remember that the officers on the front line know better than us how to fight the Russians.

They probably do. But they also follow orders, which they don’t have to agree with.

Mark Rutte Trump is likely to pledge a big amount too if Putin keeps playing the goof with him.

Trump can’t pledge anything. That’s not how things work in the US. Assuming he could, I don’t think be would. In my opinion, he is ready for Ukriane to drown and go away. I do not believe there will be some major help from the US going forward. Furthermore, their own intel suggests that Russia will basically win the war, help from the EU and the US notwithstanding. I will post the proof for this in another post.

But on the Russian side, the contrast is much more severe. A large part of new recruits are inapt to combat and sometimes to even carry a weapon.

This is rather funny because you are basically parroting the guy whose article I called “utter garbage” the other day.

So, IMO, the odds of seeing another counter offensive in 2025 is only 20%. But not zero.

Why not 15 or 25%?

But the West + Ukraine has a much bigger base than Russia.

Sure. There is no plus in Russia though. For example, you say the equation is West + Ukraine >> Russia. Today it is likely West + Ukraine - USA > Russia. An enormous change just like that.


I will make another post tomorrow, providing aforementioned proof and reply to other posts.