Ukraine: Ongoing…

[Darzin]

On the Lukashenko thing no way he's harmed by Russia, he's one of the only factors keeping Belarus in Russia's camp if he dies there is a decent chance Belarus democratizes and joins the EU. 

[Ser Reptitious]

1 hour ago, Darzin said:

On the Lukashenko thing no way he's harmed by Russia, he's one of the only factors keeping Belarus in Russia's camp if he dies there is a decent chance Belarus democratizes and joins the EU. 

Not harmed in any possibly lethal way, I agree. But some broken fingers or other minor but painful injuries to remind Lukashenko who's the boss? I could definitely see that happening.

[Werthead]

Interesting analysis from both Kofman and Lee that recent Ukrainian gains around Bakhmut have been low-hanging fruit generated by Russian incompetence, and as a result Russia has rushed artillery and reserves to the Bakhmut area to stop a possible total collapse (Russian Telegram messages from both regular and Wagner troops suggesting this is not impossible). However, there are no signs of Ukraine's heavy assault brigades and new formations in the Bakhmut area. Possibly Ukraine turned Bakhmut into an area of high contention to both deny Russia an easy (if meaningless) win and also tie down forces whilst it hits elsewhere along the line with its heavy equipment. This may have been opportunistic - Ukraine is genuinely bewildered they are still holding onto Bakhmut and flabbergasted by Russia's tactics which have obliterated a titanic amount of offensive firepower for almost zero gains - and may have dramatically reinforced their chances of victory elsewhere on the line (before Bakhmut really turned into the grinder, Ukrainian sources seemed very sour on the counter-offensive being that effective, now they are much more cautiously optimistic).

Some indications Russia has pulled troops out of those 70km-deep trenches far to the west to reinforce Bakhmut, which would be 1) breathtakingly moronic and 2) utterly on-brand. 

This ties in with reports within Russia that the government really does not want to carry out a new round of mobilisation, and have even limited their shadow mobilisation of students to the minimum they think they can get away with without causing trouble, and this has severely limited their manpower reserves to both hold the line, take Bakhmut and also generate forces for a new Russian summer or early autumn offensive later this year.

The collapse around Bakhmut seems to have been caused by well-equipped Wagner units being pulled off the flanks to fight in the city. VDV units replaced them and these are the ones that have been destroyed or pushed back.

Some indications that Ukraine is also fielding Turkish-built cluster munitions.

[Maithanet]

I actually wonder if the Russian reluctance to do another round of mobilization is giving the Ukrainians an incentive to further delay the offensive.  Russia is basically getting weaker by the month, might as well wait until further shipments arrive.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

 

Some indications Russia has pulled troops out of those 70km-deep trenches far to the west to reinforce Bakhmut, which would be 1) breathtakingly moronic and 2) utterly on-brand. 

This ties in with reports within Russia that the government really does not want to carry out a new round of mobilisation, and have even limited their shadow mobilisation of students to the minimum they think they can get away with without causing trouble, and this has severely limited their manpower reserves to both hold the line, take Bakhmut and also generate forces for a new Russian summer or early autumn offensive later this year.

The collapse around Bakhmut seems to have been caused by well-equipped Wagner units being pulled off the flanks to fight in the city. VDV units replaced them and these are the ones that have been destroyed or pushed back.

Some indications that Ukraine is also fielding Turkish-built cluster munitions.

Those are some bloody deep trenches. 

Edited May 19 by The Anti-Targ

[Wilbur]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

...Ukraine is genuinely bewildered they are still holding onto Bakhmut and flabbergasted by Russia's tactics which have obliterated a titanic amount of offensive firepower for almost zero gains - and may have dramatically reinforced their chances of victory elsewhere on the line (before Bakhmut really turned into the grinder, Ukrainian sources seemed very sour on the counter-offensive being that effective, now they are much more cautiously optimistic)...

The constant Russian tendency over the past twelve months to seek some sort of internal political gains at the expense of actual military common sense reminds me of the sort of thing that consuls did in the Roman Republic up to Fabius, when they would seek out a cheap victory in order to earn a triumph.

My favorite is Lucius Manlius Regulus in the First Punic War, who successfully attacked and surrounded Carthage and then failed to preserve the long-term advantage for Rome, gambling on a personal triumph that cost him his life and indirectly led to the Second and Third Punic Wars.  You read this story and are dumbfounded by the stupidity driven by personal greed, and Bakhmut seems to be a similar type of story for the Russians.

[horangi]

17 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Those are some bloody deep trenches. 

"The Dwarves [Or... ok too easy] delved to greedily and too deep."  It would be a shame if a Balrog was to find its way up.

[Which Tyler]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Those are some bloody deep trenches. 

This is Russia - they claim 75km
They commissioned 32.5km
They grabbed enough slave labour for 16.25km
But didn't provide any shovels or pick-axes, so they actually tried to dig 8.015km
But there was a "misunderstanding" between foreman and workers, so they actually dug 4km
Horizontally.

[Tongue Stuck to Wall]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

This is Russia - they claim 75km
They commissioned 32.5km
They grabbed enough slave labour for 16.25km
But didn't provide any shovels or pick-axes, so they actually tried to dig 8.015km
But there was a "misunderstanding" between foreman and workers, so they actually dug 4km
Horizontally.

Finally, 2km of those trenches were sold on the black market by a local brigade commander so he could finish paying for his new dacha.

[Gareth]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Those are some bloody deep trenches. 

Gotta go deep to recruit mobilize Kong from Hollow Earth.  

[Which Tyler]

6 minutes ago, Tongue Stuck to Wall said:

Finally, 2km of those trenches were sold on the black market by a local brigade commander so he could finish paying for his new dacha.

We call that the ornamental lake

[Maithanet]

The US has announced that it no longer opposes other countries providing F-16 fighters to Ukraine.  Further, a DoD assessment found that it would take only 4 months to train experienced Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s in combat.  That is a much shorter time window than the previously reported 18 months, and the difference is apparently that 18 month figure was for new pilots (which IMO was a ridiculous assumption to begin with). 

Regardless, there's no question that Britain/Poland (and probably the US too) will provide Ukraine with F-16s fairly soon.  It is very likely there will be F-16s deployed in combat in this war by the year's end.  That is meaningful for several reasons.  The F-16 is a very good, if somewhat dated, aircraft, it offers significant capabilities that Ukraine does not currently have in both air to air combat and combat air patrol work.  In addition, it is just another example that Ukraine is getting stronger and more technically robust, while the Russian forces are going in the other direction. 

[Werthead]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The US has announced that it no longer opposes other countries providing F-16 fighters to Ukraine.  Further, a DoD assessment found that it would take only 4 months to train experienced Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s in combat.  That is a much shorter time window than the previously reported 18 months, and the difference is apparently that 18 month figure was for new pilots (which IMO was a ridiculous assumption to begin with). 

Regardless, there's no question that Britain/Poland (and probably the US too) will provide Ukraine with F-16s fairly soon.  It is very likely there will be F-16s deployed in combat in this war by the year's end.  That is meaningful for several reasons.  The F-16 is a very good, if somewhat dated, aircraft, it offers significant capabilities that Ukraine does not currently have in both air to air combat and combat air patrol work.  In addition, it is just another example that Ukraine is getting stronger and more technically robust, while the Russian forces are going in the other direction. 

Well, Britain won't be providing F-16s to Ukraine for the simple reason we don't have any

We have agreed to help provide training and funding to secure them from third parties, though.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Well, Britain won't be providing F-16s to Ukraine for the simple reason we don't have any

We have agreed to help provide training and funding to secure them from third parties, though.

Yeah, I haven't memorized the list of aircraft that various European countries have at their disposal.  Regardless, it's safe to assume some countries are going to donate them to Ukraine.

[Job Snow]

For once there won't be a lack of maintained available equipment unlike with leopard 2s. Most of the F16 nations are actively phasing them out for F35's, so it should be trivial to find decent numbers of well maintained airplanes for Ukraine.

[Kalbear]

My understanding with the f16s is that they are designed to take off and land on only the most meticulous runways - which Ukraine does not have. Idea being that if Ukraine refit a runway to make it work Russia would know immediately what's up and go blow those planes or the runways up.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

There were reports back in February of Ukraine quietly building new runways in several locations, and also working on some roads to be able to serve as runways for F16s. 

Their old runways, even undamaged, would've been risky for the F16s, their old Migs were more robust and fine with their concrete runways.

I assume they place their new runways as far away from Russian artillery as possible and hope for their air defenses to hold.

 

Edited May 20 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Werthead]

5 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

My understanding with the f16s is that they are designed to take off and land on only the most meticulous runways - which Ukraine does not have. Idea being that if Ukraine refit a runway to make it work Russia would know immediately what's up and go blow those planes or the runways up.

They are aware of this. They've said the solution is to extend every runway, civil or military, in the country and give Russia too many targets to hit. They note that Russia has had difficulty cratering their runways as it is and their air defences are strong, they've lost relatively few aircraft (incredibly) and they're confident of ensuring the security of any donated aircraft, as with their existing ones.

[Gorn]

Also, the accuracy of Russian missiles has been greatly overrated.

I remember a satellite image analysis from early in the war of a missile strike, where six Iskander missiles ($3 million each) were launched on an airport. 5 missed the runway entirely, 1 hit an unimportant part of the runway, and caused damage that a cement truck and a few men with shovels can fix in a couple of hours.

Edited May 20 by Gorn

[horangi]

Even if the planes have only a minimal impact offensively, they can become a 'fleet-in-being' wherein the Russians are forced to react as if they could be used.  Every missile used on a runway cratering mission is one not targeting an apartment block in Kyiv.  Its the same for many of the modern NATO systems being donated, they force a reaction and remove tactical and strategic flexibility without even a single round fired, much like moving ammo depots outside of HIMARS range.

Edited May 20 by horangi