#16 Ukraine the brave, the whole World is watching!

[Werthead]

11 minutes ago, JGP said:

Damn, wouldn't that be something.

He used to be Putin's chef, so the memes write themselves.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Wagner have apparently lost 3000 of their 8000 mercenaries sent to Ukraine.

Also one of their more notorious soldiers, called the Executioner for killing prisoners, was apparently killed by a sniper few days ago

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Wagner have apparently lost 3000 of their 8000 mercenaries sent to Ukraine.

Isn't 8,000 their total strength? Not just their strength in Ukraine?

Losing almost 50% of your strength is heinous. No wonder that Wagner Group in Izium literally just left a few days ago, allegedly saying, "You're not paying us enough for this."

[Clueless Northman]

3 hours ago, Lykos said:

That's my take as well, I just find his choice of historical rolemodels telling.

Telling? The guy's from St Petersburg. It was obvious that Peter the Great was one of his role models - if there ever was a larger than life Russian leader, at least since Muscowy times, that would be him, so it's no wonder that most Russian leaders of the last 300 years tried to emulate him. I've always assumed that Ivan the Terrible was another one, to an extent. I also suspected Lenin might be, but after reading his comments about USSR these last few years, that's quite unlikely, odds would be higher with Stalin actually.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Wagner have apparently lost 3000 of their 8000 mercenaries sent to Ukraine.

 

How sad.

It should have been all 8,000 of them.

[Toth]

5 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

I also suspected Lenin might be, but after reading his comments about USSR these last few years, that's quite unlikely, odds would be higher with Stalin actually.

Only the last few years? It seems you haven't noticed that Putin spent a considerable amount of attention to historically rehabilitating Stalin and portray him as a necessary evil who is so foundational to the Russian nation that any criticism directed at him is to be taken as an attack on Russian identity, even though Stalin was a paranoid impulsive monster who also pretty much was the root of most of the factors that ultimately brought down the USSR.

Though I also found it interesting from the beginning how he emulates him even to the degree of how the terror and the displacement of Ukrainian civilians to Siberia is pretty much a 1:1 copy of Stalin's strategy when he invaded Poland.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Stalin was Georgian by the way, at least if my memory serves.

[Luzifer's right hand]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Stalin was Georgian by the way, at least if my memory serves.

That is just another fake ethnic group to people like Putin.

[Werthead]

Ukraine has made military gains around Zaporizhzhia and in clearing out the border area to the north of Kharkiv, although there hasn't been a major breakthough. They haven't expanded the Kherson salient to the south either.

The Russians do seem to have made inroads on the edges of the salient around Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, but again very slowly. I think the Ukrainians are going to have to face a hard choice between fighting to the end there, potentially losing thousands of their best troops, or withdrawing out of the salient altogether. However, that then allows Russia to shore up their lines and makes further advances into Donetsk easier. The Ukrainians also don't want to lose the Donets as a formidable defensive barrier, but with some Russian forces out of Popasna across the river (despite heavy Ukrainian counterattacks), that advantage may have already been lost. 

The Ukrainians and western intelligence are I think trying to work out where the Russian point of culmination in this military effort is. The Russians are showing a lot of signs of being very shaky outside this main area of effort, but their strategy of pouring mercenaries and the local troops into the blender and preserving Russian combat power means they still have most of their ~12-15,000 troops in the region available.

The LPR and DPR troops seem to have lost more than a quarter and almost a third of their combat power and there's growing signs of immense frustration and anger there, but whether that translates into more action, refusing to fight on a larger scale etc remains to be seen. Wagner losing almost half their troops is also potentially a huge issue but it hasn't translated to an impact on operations yet, at least that we've seen.

[Maithanet]

Guardian piece about the war.

Quote

Ukraine’s deputy head of military intelligence has said Ukraine is losing against Russia on the frontlines and is now almost solely reliant on weapons from the west to keep Russia at bay.

“This is an artillery war now,” said Vadym Skibitsky, deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence. The frontlines were now where the future would be decided, he told the Guardian, “and we are losing in terms of artillery”.

“Everything now depends on what [the west] gives us,” said Skibitsky. “Ukraine has one artillery piece to 10 to 15 Russian artillery pieces. Our western partners have given us about 10% of what they have.”

Ukraine is using 5,000 to 6,000 artillery rounds a day, according to Skibitsky. “We have almost used up all of our [artillery] ammunition and are now using 155-calibre Nato standard shells,” he said of the ammunition that is fired from artillery pieces.

This is a pretty pessimistic take.  5-6k rounds of artillery per day really isn't much.  This is a thousand mile front, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting.  This says that for secondary fronts there is probably very little artillery action at all.  I hope that additional rounds and equipment can be provided soon.  I don't expect the Ukrainians to be on an equal footing with Russia in terms of artillery, but outnumbered 10 to 1 is a really scary ratio. 

[Werthead]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This is a pretty pessimistic take.  5-6k rounds of artillery per day really isn't much.  This is a thousand mile front, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting.  This says that for secondary fronts there is probably very little artillery action at all.  I hope that additional rounds and equipment can be provided soon.  I don't expect the Ukrainians to be on an equal footing with Russia in terms of artillery, but outnumbered 10 to 1 is a really scary ratio. 

There is good news in that the sanctions are having a major impact and Russia's use of PGMs and missiles in general has dropped precipitously. But artillery shells are something they can churn out domestically at a relatively low cost.

Ukraine does have enormous strengths still, such as their number of tanks and troops, but they are right in that they need to reduce the dangers of the Russian artillery in order to be able to use those assets effectively. Destroying or disabling Russian artillery is a priority and they need more weapons to do that. The one to two dozen longer-ranged artillery pieces promised by the US and UK will help but they need more. I believe some of the existing delivered artillery can also be adapted to fire longer-range, GPS-guided shells.

However, Russia does have a manpower issue. Can they keep their current troops on the line fighting effectively without rotation, and will the mood sour when actual Russian soldiers start dying again in larger numbers once the DPR/LPR and Wagner troops are whittled down further?

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Ukraine does have enormous strengths still, such as their number of tanks and troops, but they are right in that they need to reduce the dangers of the Russian artillery in order to be able to use those assets effectively. Destroying or disabling Russian artillery is a priority and they need more weapons to do that. The one to two dozen longer-ranged artillery pieces promised by the US and UK will help but they need more. I believe some of the existing delivered artillery can also be adapted to fire longer-range, GPS-guided shells.

Sure, the shortcomings of the Russian military are not going away.  The manner they are fighting this war now is extremely artillery/ammunition heavy, which means that they must have a careful buildup and only incremental progress.  The downsides of that are obvious, as they have been trying to close the Sieverodonetsk pocket for over a month and still haven't done it.  If the Ukrainians do pull out of that area (which is looking likely unless the Russians run out of infantry or ammo) there's every reason to think that they can do a careful, successful withdrawal, because anytime the Russians move quickly they get destroyed.

But it does further temper my hopes for a summer offensive that will change this war and expose Russia's inability to hold the vast amount of Ukrainian territory it has occupied.  It does seem incredible that Russia has a 1,000 mile front and is committing over half of its forces to just ~50 miles or so in the Donbas.  That leaves something like 50-80k troops to hold almost a thousand miles?  That sounds...really impossible.  But the Ukrainians are wary of counterattacking because when they expose their infantry and armor they get shot up.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Sure, the shortcomings of the Russian military are not going away.  The manner they are fighting this war now is extremely artillery/ammunition heavy, which means that they must have a careful buildup and only incremental progress.  The downsides of that are obvious, as they have been trying to close the Sieverodonetsk pocket for over a month and still haven't done it.  If the Ukrainians do pull out of that area (which is looking likely unless the Russians run out of infantry or ammo) there's every reason to think that they can do a careful, successful withdrawal, because anytime the Russians move quickly they get destroyed.

But it does further temper my hopes for a summer offensive that will change this war and expose Russia's inability to hold the vast amount of Ukrainian territory it has occupied.  It does seem incredible that Russia has a 1,000 mile front and is committing over half of its forces to just ~50 miles or so in the Donbas.  That leaves something like 50-80k troops to hold almost a thousand miles?  That sounds...really impossible.  But the Ukrainians are wary of counterattacking because when they expose their infantry and armor they get shot up.

I would say that the Ukrainians have done an excellent job of talking down their prospects and ramping up the panic talk so it produces results for them in terms of support and supply. Not that the situation is not really grim and serious, as it is, but the Ukrainians have in the past said an individual battle or front is desperate and they are about to lose and hours later they're mustering counter-attacks and achieving successes. But they have also been saying for a long time that at some point in June or July they will be able to go on the offensive and their reserves will join the fight, and it appears that this is now starting to happen. The counter-attack last weekend was successful, if temporarily, and they are starting to achieve counter-attacks on other fronts away from the concentration in the middle of the Donbas.

I do agree though that Russia may have identified Ukraine's key weakness in its lack of artillery or counter-artillery, and the things the Ukrainians were hoping to counter that, like the anti-artillery drones, have not worked as hoped. Even the new long(ish)-range artillery that's being sent may not help if there's only small amounts of it, and every general on every front will be arguing for it to be deployed to help them (I can see the southern front making an argument that deploying it against Kherson on the end of the Russian line might lead to a full Ukrainian victory there, whilst sending it into the Donbas might just make it more likely to be destroyed).

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I would say that the Ukrainians have done an excellent job of talking down their prospects and ramping up the panic talk so it produces results for them in terms of support and supply. Not that the situation is not really grim and serious, as it is, but the Ukrainians have in the past said an individual battle or front is desperate and they are about to lose and hours later they're mustering counter-attacks and achieving successes. But they have also been saying for a long time that at some point in June or July they will be able to go on the offensive and their reserves will join the fight, and it appears that this is now starting to happen. The counter-attack last weekend was successful, if temporarily, and they are starting to achieve counter-attacks on other fronts away from the concentration in the middle of the Donbas.

I do agree though that Russia may have identified Ukraine's key weakness in its lack of artillery or counter-artillery, and the things the Ukrainians were hoping to counter that, like the anti-artillery drones, have not worked as hoped. Even the new long(ish)-range artillery that's being sent may not help if there's only small amounts of it, and every general on every front will be arguing for it to be deployed to help them (I can see the southern front making an argument that deploying it against Kherson on the end of the Russian line might lead to a full Ukrainian victory there, whilst sending it into the Donbas might just make it more likely to be destroyed).

When the US said it was sending just 4 MLRS units, I assumed that was for PR reasons to avoid pissing off the Russians, and that they'd make another announcement very soon of an addition 20 or more.  Not that 20 MLRS is enough to sweep the battlefield, but it's a helluva tool for Ukraine, unlike 4, which is just a tease. 

I'm really hoping that announcement is coming soon. 

[Wilbur]

7 hours ago, Maithanet said:

When the US said it was sending just 4 MLRS units, I assumed that was for PR reasons to avoid pissing off the Russians, and that they'd make another announcement very soon of an addition 20 or more.  Not that 20 MLRS is enough to sweep the battlefield, but it's a helluva tool for Ukraine, unlike 4, which is just a tease. 

I'm really hoping that announcement is coming soon. 

Exactly.  Put my tax dollars to work for something useful for a change.  Let's demonstrate to the Russians exactly why the US doesn't have universal healthcare.

[Werthead]

Ukraine is still holding onto the southern part of Severodonetsk along the river whilst the Russians and their proxies/allies are suffering heavy losses trying to storm those positions. It looks like the Ukrainians delayed having to abandon the city by at least a week and maybe now more. Analysts are picking up signs of real frustration on the Russian side at not being able to take the city, some reports of Russians and allied troops being killed in their own artillery strikes due to the "hugging the enemy" strategy.

The situation on the flanks of the salient remains okay but the Ukrainians are carefully keeping an eye on it. If the Russians gain momentum behind them, they still have a good window to withdraw. Losing Lysychansk uncontested would be a huge tactical blow for them, though.

[Werthead]

Ukraine has stated that its total number of military casualties in the campaign to date are around 10,000. There's some scepticism about that and the belief that those figures are on the low side. However, assuming they are in the ballpark accurate (say 10-15,000 casualties), that would suggest that so far Ukraine is running the Russians at a loss ratio of between 2:1 and maybe closer to 3:1.

In a war of attrition, that's not great news for Russia, who need to be achieving a much higher kill ratio in their favour (since they are outnumbered on the theatre scale by the Ukrainians overall) if they want to outlast the defenders. As it stands, that ratio is, as we've seen already, rapidly whittling away the number of "disposable" troops Russia has at its disposal, causing internal problems, and likely to mean they'll start needing to muster additional troops from Russia itself.

Ukrainian intelligence is also saying that they believe Russia has almost exhausted its stocks of PGMs and decent-quality missiles (at least those stocks allocated for Ukraine) but their stockpiling of standard artillery shells is extreme, with them being able to supply a campaign at roughly the same level of intensity as the war to date for the better part of a year.

[Kalbear]

Interesting thread on how Russian propaganda presaged Ukraine war from 10+ years ago:

 

 

[Kalbear]

Also interesting to me - the combination of cheap drones, cheap 3d printing hold/release mechanism and cheap vanes put onto the grenade make for a kind of ridiculously useful anti-trench system:
 

 

[Wilbur]

On 6/10/2022 at 12:23 PM, Maithanet said:

When the US said it was sending just 4 MLRS units, I assumed that was for PR reasons to avoid pissing off the Russians, and that they'd make another announcement very soon of an addition 20 or more.  Not that 20 MLRS is enough to sweep the battlefield, but it's a helluva tool for Ukraine, unlike 4, which is just a tease. 

I'm really hoping that announcement is coming soon. 

Well, maybe four units will be a game-changer, if TT is correct: