Ukraine Watch...

[Ralphw2]

BBC reports that Russian convicts are still entering the Ukraine war, but the offer of freedom after 6 months has now gone. They get a one year rolling contract that lasts as long as the war if they can still fight, and on eventual release they are effectively on parole, not pardoned. Refusing to fight means being locked in a pit in the ground and starved into submission
Survival rates in some units is reportedly 38% so far, basically the expected casualty rates are 100%. Training is 2weeks before being sent to the front lines or less.

Judging by the videos of failed Russian attacks posted daily, they fight about as well as you would expect.

Judging by analysis of satellite images of Russian weapons storage sites, Russia has lost about half its cold war artillery reserves, and most of its main battle tanks. The drone videos increasingly show older t72 tanks, t80s are fewer and the t90s are rare sights.

[BritDownUnder]

An interesting story from Forbes about Russian soldiers being attacked whilst answering the call of nature.

More and more Russians are getting blown up by Ukrainian drones while using the latrine outside their positions along the front line of Russia’s 22-month wider war on Ukraine.

Meanwhile from Radio Free Europe (I thought that shut down after the Cold War ended). Russian conscript beaten to death for not signing up to serve in Ukraine. Supposedly Russian conscripts are not supposed to serve outside Russia unless they agree to do so.

[Default0ptions]

BBC reports that Russian convicts are still entering the Ukraine war, but the offer of freedom after 6 months has now gone. They get a one year rolling contract that lasts as long as the war if they can still fight, and on eventual release they are effectively on parole, not pardoned. Refusing to fight means being locked in a pit in the ground and starved into submission
Survival rates in some units is reportedly 38% so far, basically the expected casualty rates are 100%. Training is 2weeks before being sent to the front lines or less.

Judging by the videos of failed Russian attacks posted daily, they fight about as well as you would expect.

Judging by analysis of satellite images of Russian weapons storage sites, Russia has lost about half its cold war artillery reserves, and most of its main battle tanks. The drone videos increasingly show older t72 tanks, t80s are fewer and the t90s are rare sights.

So why isn’t Ukraine winning?

And if the state of the Russian military is as dire as you suggest - how could they possibly threaten NATO?

Aren’t we supposed to be seriously worried by that possibility?

</sigh>

[Ralphw2]

If you want an in depth assessment of who is winning this war the recent analysis by Perun on youtube is quite good. Russia started this war with overwhelming numerical advantage in almost every area against Ukraine, and as it has progressed they have used that massive advantage to less and less effect. The changing nature of the war, and the massive impact of cheap drones, combined with a limited supply of Western weapons put to very good and imaginative use by Ukraine, has resolved into currently almost entirely static lines of trench warfare, where Russia is quite happy to throw everything it has got - antiquated hardware, massive numbers of untrained conscript and convict soldiers, and recently huge numbers of low quality artilery shells from North Korea, and some quite good weapons from Iran, against massively dug in troops and swarms of drones that take out advancing columns even before they enter no mans land.

There is only one man who can win this war for Russia, the biggest threat to NATO in its history, and he is standing for the president of the US (again).

Otherwise, both Russia and Ukraine have the hardware and man power to fight for a few more years, if the West keeps sending the ammunition.

On the youtube now, a new sight on the front lines - a Russian T55 tank being taken out by a drone.

Russia does not and never did (since 1990 ) pose a serious threat to NATO as a whole. It does pose a threat to those NATO members near the Russian border, and Putin has clearly demonstrated that he wants to take those nations back into his empire.

[Default0ptions]

If you want an in depth assessment of who is winning this war the recent analysis by Perun on youtube is quite good. Russia started this war with overwhelming numerical advantage in almost every area against Ukraine, and as it has progressed they have used that massive advantage to less and less effect. The changing nature of the war, and the massive impact of cheap drones, combined with a limited supply of Western weapons put to very good and imaginative use by Ukraine, has resolved into currently almost entirely static lines of trench warfare, where Russia is quite happy to throw everything it has got - antiquated hardware, massive numbers of untrained conscript and convict soldiers, and recently huge numbers of low quality artilery shells from North Korea, and some quite good weapons from Iran, against massively dug in troops and swarms of drones that take out advancing columns even before they enter no mans land.

There is only one man who can win this war for Russia, the biggest threat to NATO in its history, and he is standing for the president of the US (again).

Otherwise, both Russia and Ukraine have the hardware and man power to fight for a few more years, if the West keeps sending the ammunition.

On the youtube now, a new sight on the front lines - a Russian T55 tank being taken out by a drone.

Russia does not and never did (since 1990 ) pose a serious threat to NATO as a whole. It does pose a threat to those NATO members near the Russian border, and Putin has clearly demonstrated that he wants to take those nations back into his empire.

You’re really not describing the situation I see on the ground Ralph, but time will tell.

Russia has already achieved the aims it set out at the start and there is very little chance that the Ukraine can push them all the way back and out of Crimea too.

The ongoing fiddling at the edges by the west is just a money sink. It’s never going to retake any significant territory.

And why would Russia want to take Ukraine? It’s hopelessly corrupt, in massive debt, and pretty much a basket case.

It’s a liability, not an asset.

[Default0ptions]

“To End The War In Ukraine, Expose Its Core Lie”

“The essential argument used to avoid negotiation and continue support for the war in Ukraine is based on a falsehood. That falsehood, repeated by President Joe Biden, is that when Vladimir Putin decided to invade, he intended to conquer all of Ukraine and "annihilate" it.”

“But if basic military logic is taken into account, the fact that Putin committed only 120,000–190,000 men to his campaign and did not mobilize more resources until months later, after Kiev rejected the Istanbul peace deal, indicates that his objectives in Ukraine were limited and revolved around guaranteeing the security of the populations of Donbass and Crimea from Ukrainian assaults and Russia from NATO expansion. Given that Ukraine had cut off Crimea’s water and electricity years before, this required a land bridge to the region; hence, the illegal annexations of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... s-core-lie

[Default0ptions]

Hmm Ralph - Perun on YouTube that you recommended for an in-depth analysis of the Ukraine turns out to be a commentator on video games.

I made an effort but he knew less than I did on the subject.

Probably not a great and quotable authority really - and absolutely certainly not a guy to hang an argument on.

[clv101]

there is very little chance that the Ukraine can push them all the way back and out of Crimea too.

The ongoing fiddling at the edges by the west is just a money sink. It’s never going to retake any significant territory.

I think this is pretty much beyond doubt now. It did become a war of attrition and the west has reached the limits of its interest & willingness to support plus has become seriously distracted by the Middle East. Russia had a military economy with reasonable supply of physical resources and enough global partners around the world.

[BritDownUnder]

Ukraine will have trouble in making advances but they may not have to. To continue whittling down the Russians in their defensive lines and take advantage of the increasing public discontent in Russia. Then using asymmetric warfare to remove Russian military hardware from service and give the West an excellent weapon testing laboratory.

As for the West getting tired of supplying more weapons I don't really see that. Australia has sent Ukraine $850 million of aid in a $100 billion budget - hardly crippling economically. For comparison Australia spends $60 billion importing oil and refined products every year.

Russia was defeated by attrition in World War One but it took a few years. I see they are going back to Soviet tactics in having blocking troops to stop retreats.

I would say that Russia tried to take Ukraine for the population as much as the land. Having another 40 million easily Russified Slavs in a Russia where ethnic Russians are in rapid decline would give them a population boost. All the extra grain production would be nice too but it never be used as a bargaining chip to the West. Middle East and Africa maybe.

Meanwhile I hear Russia is trying out a GPS jammer based in Kaliningrad

[invalid]

Looks like Avdeyevka is about to fall.

[BritDownUnder]

I suppose in the big scheme of things it depends how many Russians are consumed in its capture. After all Stalingrad also fell to the Germans for a short while but in the end it didn't do them too much good.

[Mark]

I suppose in the big scheme of things it depends how many Russians are consumed in its capture. After all Stalingrad also fell to the Germans for a short while but in the end it didn't do them too much good.

Personally, it reminds me of WW1
Loads of wasted men and machinery for a nett gain of a few hundred metres...
On the face of it, Ukraine seems to value its fighting men much more than the Russians, so may be more willing to concede here and there...

At the end of all this, there's going to have to be massive clean-up operation...
The environmental devastation is massive...

[Ralphw2]

Elon Musk has publicly called for US to abandon Ukraine to Putin, as he believes Russia cannot be kicked out of the country, and further military aid would be a waste of money

How long before Starlink is reinstated over Russian airspace?

[clv101]

Elon Musk has publicly called for US to abandon Ukraine to Putin, as he believes Russia cannot be kicked out of the country

This not a radical position. This is an accurate assessment *unless* the west are willing to deliver significantly more support than we have been willing to so far. The question to the West is *are* we willing to significantly increase support? If the answer to that is no, it follows as surely as night follows day that Russia cannot be kicked out. Musk might be wrong, maybe the US and Europe are willing to up their engagement, but with the Middle East, China, and the likelihood of a Trump presidency, you've got to admit it doesn't look likely.

As far as I know Starlink has never been available over Russia airspace, can't see that changing. It's available in 70 countries, lots, including Russia and China aren't covered. Coverage map here: https://www.starlink.com/map

[Mark]

Ukraine will have trouble in making advances but they may not have to. To continue whittling down the Russians in their defensive lines and take advantage of the increasing public discontent in Russia. Then using asymmetric warfare to remove Russian military hardware from service and give the West an excellent weapon testing laboratory.

For sure, it's a war of attrition - but the availability of Ukrainian manpower might be the first thing to run out ?

Exhausted Ukraine struggles to find new men for front line:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68255490