Ukraine: Ongoing…

[Werthead]

There's been a shit-ton of problems with convict troops completing tours of duty and going back to their home towns and promptly re-offending and getting arrested (or, in some cases, apparently just being allowed to run riot by confused police). Apparently some have already signed on for a second tour to get out of going back to prison, in a bizarrely comical circle of bullshit.

[Maithanet]

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

There's been a shit-ton of problems with convict troops completing tours of duty and going back to their home towns and promptly re-offending and getting arrested (or, in some cases, apparently just being allowed to run riot by confused police). Apparently some have already signed on for a second tour to get out of going back to prison, in a bizarrely comical circle of bullshit.

When they were first recruiting prisons, Wagner apparently claimed that casualties in thier units were typically around 15 percent.  I don't know if that is a number from thier African/Syrian excursions, or just made up from thin air.  The best casualty estimates for those prisoners in Wagner after six months in Ukraine are at least 85 percent, possibly a good bit higher.

So the problem of recidivism after a Wagner deployment mostly solves itself - the number who manage to complete two types of duty will be exceedingly small.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

News?

 

[kiko]

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

News?

 

Probably not what we think, even though reputable sources report it too. It's supposedly just swamps and marshes on the other side and it's not the Neck.

 

[Maithanet]

Yeah, it's a scouting/diversionary party coming across the Dnipro.  They've been doing that kind of thing for months.  I think they want to keep the Russians nervous about a big landing there, just to make them spread thier forces a bit more.

[Werthead]

Yeah, they cleared the Kilburn Peninsula months ago, not long after liberating Kherson, and then apparently vanished and the Russians came back, but the Ukrainians then returned with a heavy scouting force and the Russians withdrew, but the Ukrainians then pulled back and the Russians returned (after shelling a ton of empty terrain for ages first). The Russians were trying to put heavier artillery there to target Kherson and the mouth of the rivers (not just at Kherson but Mykolaiv as well), but the Ukrainians can hit that area with HIMARS and even aircraft with impunity, so the Russians gave up on it.

For axes of counter-attack, one Ukrainian option is a massed landing across the river: they picked up a lot of French amphibious equipment and American rapid-deployment mobile bridges to help with that, although I'm not sure there are any deployable bridges big enough to cross the river there in one go, but okay. That seems risky, but it might take the Russians by surprise by being both ambitious and tactically complex. It also allows the Ukrainians to mass forces and advance without worrying about their flanks (with the Black Sea to their right and the Dnipro to the left), which is a huge bonus over any other potential target. As they clear the area they can also bring over reinforcements over the Dnipro and also bring a large portion of Crimea into fire control, as well as cutting off a large proportion of Russian troops from the resupply routes via Crimea and the Kerch Straits. They can also start to pincer Mariupol and move towards liberating the nuclear power planet. However, it's very easy to go wrong, and if the Russians defeat them from crossing the river, Ukrainian casualties could be horrendous.

Certainly the Russians seem to have discounted it and focused their defences around Mariupol, figuring that's a more logical target, and they can rush troops up from further east if necessary.

[Maithanet]

I don't expect the Ukrainians to attempt something so risky.  Whatever the spring offensive is, it needs to work.  If it isn't at least mostly successful, it could shake the West in thier confidence in a Ukrainian victory.  That would be bad for future arms shipments.

I think that an attack somewhere in the south makes sense, and it's a big enough front that the have different axes to choose from.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I don't expect the Ukrainians to attempt something so risky.  Whatever the spring offensive is, it needs to work.  If it isn't at least mostly successful, it could shake the West in thier confidence in a Ukrainian victory.  That would be bad for future arms shipments.

I think that an attack somewhere in the south makes sense, and it's a big enough front that the have different axes to choose from.

I think it is at least a vague possibility (but not the most likely) if the Russians have stripped the area to reinforce Melitopol and Bakhmut (i.e. the exact same mistake they made in Kharkiv Oblast last year), relying or over-relying on the river for defence. If they have done that, then the Ukrainians may judge the risk worthwhile. Retaking the rest of Kherson Oblast gives the Ukrainians many more hugely important strategic options than attacking anywhere else (not least of which is blowing the Kerch Bridge), so it has to be at least something they've considered, even if they've ultimately decided against it.

It feels like Melitopol is now too obvious and the Russians have heavily reinforced that sector, so an offensive somewhere else along the line may make more sense, such as around Lyman and a push to retake the twin cities. The problem in that area is that it is relatively easy to reinforce, but Melitopol is a pain in the backside.

[Maithanet]

16 hours ago, Werthead said:

It feels like Melitopol is now too obvious and the Russians have heavily reinforced that sector, so an offensive somewhere else along the line may make more sense, such as around Lyman and a push to retake the twin cities. The problem in that area is that it is relatively easy to reinforce, but Melitopol is a pain in the backside.

Striking straight down to Melitopol is the obvious path, and I agree that seems a bit too unimaginative for the Ukrainians.  But there are other places in the south they could attack that are less well fortified and still offer significant benefits.  Retaking Mariupol would be a HUGE win, both politically and strategically.  Or towards Berdyansk (basically the same strategic benefits, if slightly less important symbolically).  Really if Ukraine can cut the rail line in Zaporyzhia and recapture at least one midsized town (even Tokmak would be enough IMO) then they can declare the offensive a win.  I'm sure they want more than that, but that level of success is basically the floor.  That is about as much as the Russians achieved in their Summer '22 offensive and far more than the Russian offensive in Feb of this year.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Striking straight down to Melitopol is the obvious path, and I agree that seems a bit too unimaginative for the Ukrainians.  But there are other places in the south they could attack that are less well fortified and still offer significant benefits.  Retaking Mariupol would be a HUGE win, both politically and strategically.  Or towards Berdyansk (basically the same strategic benefits, if slightly less important symbolically).  Really if Ukraine can cut the rail line in Zaporyzhia and recapture at least one midsized town (even Tokmak would be enough IMO) then they can declare the offensive a win.  I'm sure they want more than that, but that level of success is basically the floor.  That is about as much as the Russians achieved in their Summer '22 offensive and far more than the Russian offensive in Feb of this year.

The other thing the Ukrainians need to consider is that Russia is currently making an attempt to regenerate forces for a further offensive later on, so taking a location now at cost is useless if the Russians can make a concerted push back later on. If they can take and quickly and heavily fortify a position, so the Russians pay a ludicrous cost for it later on, that would be advantageous.

The Ukrainians also need to consider that late 2023 might be their most precarious moments for ammo and shell supplies, as western increases in armament production are not expected to fully kick in until the very end of this year or early next, so they need to consider how many weaponry to expend in their next operation. Modest objectives may be preferable, but run the risk of some supporting countries backing out.

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

The Ukrainians also need to consider that late 2023 might be their most precarious moments for ammo and shell supplies, as western increases in armament production are not expected to fully kick in until the very end of this year or early next, so they need to consider how many weaponry to expend in their next operation. Modest objectives may be preferable, but run the risk of some supporting countries backing out.

It's all speculative, but I would be surprised if the Ukrainians didn't have some pretty substantial stockpiles built up for this offensive specifically.  Their ammo expenditure has been pretty low for a while now. 

[Kalbear]

Per the intel leak Ukraine does not have a ton of stockpiles of anything and has at times been precariously low. They might have certain things that they've not really gotten to use a lot of - probably things like tanks, honestly - but most everything else is probably pretty close to BINGO ammo.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

It's all speculative, but I would be surprised if the Ukrainians didn't have some pretty substantial stockpiles built up for this offensive specifically.  Their ammo expenditure has been pretty low for a while now. 

The Russian cunningly diminished Ukraine's ability to stockpile ammo by strategically throwing troops in front of Ukrainian guns.

[Werthead]

Ukraine appears to have lopsided ammo stocks, lots for tank and possibly infantry assaults, middling for HIMARS artillery (HIMARS is still effective AF, but the Russians have learned to keep stockpiles out of range and use various makeshift interim transport methods) and sweet FA for their Russian-inherited artillery, which makes up a sizeable chunk of their artillery and counter-artillery capability. I believe the Czech Republic and Slovakia have been adapting their factories to produce Russian-calibre shells but it's not been a fast process. They have fairly reasonable ammo stocks for their NATO-inherited weapons but a problem that they don't have a lot of those NATO weapons to start with, and NATO countries have been slow to spool up their production lines (the UK was actually ahead of the curve on Javelin production, but the Russians have been refusing to deploy tanks in heavy assaults, so that's not that useful any more). 

It would be interesting to find out what the fuck is going on with GLSDB, there is zero excuse I can see for why Ukraine shouldn't have had a shitload of them months ago. The US has massive stocks left over from the pullback from Afghanistan (as in a million+ shells, by some accounts twice that and possibly that's in Europe alone, not counting what they have back home) which they could start flying into Poland tomorrow, it will allow Ukraine to hit Russian arms dumps currently out of HIMARS range and it's not the escalationary step they feel going straight to ATACMS would be. It would allow them to hit the Kerch Strait bridge, which I know some US generals are nervous about, but I don't think they can do it now, they'd still need to get closer to the Sea of Azov (or risk putting a HIMARS battery right on the front line, which would be foolish).

I wonder is GLSDB has been deployed but Ukraine are holding out on using it for their offensive.

[mcbigski]

Let's just send them another 100 billion and call it a win.  Heck, at that order of magnitude the Big Guy probably should only need 10 Bips.  Though I suspect the actual number is larger.

[A True Kaniggit]

17 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Let's just send them another 100 billion and call it a win.  Heck, at that order of magnitude the Big Guy probably should only need 10 Bips.  Though I suspect the actual number is larger.

What is a Bips?

[Varysblackfyre321]

47 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Let's just send them another 100 billion and call it a win.  Heck, at that order of magnitude the Big Guy probably should only need 10 Bips.  Though I suspect the actual number is larger.

Let’s call it a win when Ukraine gets it’s legal borders back. 

[mcbigski]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Let’s call it a win when Ukraine gets it’s legal borders back. 

Not sure exactly what the legal borders are.  But how much does that matter?  Seems a lot like West Virginia and Virginia fighting now about a line of control.  They started out the same, and split up.  But why is a local border skirmish a global conflict?  11 figure funding aside of course.

[The Anti-Targ]

Indeed. I'm sure the federal govt, US military and the other 48 US states would just say "let 'em fight it out" if V and WV state troopers got into a shooting war over who owned the route 219 strip.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Not sure exactly what the legal borders are. 

The Donbas and Crimea. There’s some ambiguity about Moscow but in the name compromise I think Ukraine could let Russia keep it as a treat.

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Seems a lot like West Virginia and Virginia fighting now about a line of control. 

It’s more like France or Britain deciding to take back the land they lost/gave up in North America.

Would you for the sake of peace implore America to let the annexations take place?

You get that Ukraine is a separate countries from Russia right?

Like you get that WV are apart of the same country right?

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

They started out the same, and split up

Even going along with the poor analogy Virginia decides to reconquer Virginia that’d really be bad for America’s security and thus global security.

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

11 figure funding aside of course.

Yeah I have a feeling you’d mock American revolutionaries as being tools of France if you were born in the colonies.

im going to hazard a guess and say you do glorify the founding fathers as heroes who were trying to accomplish something good,

Edited April 26 by Varysblackfyre321