Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Schulz2.0 28992]

 

[atomheartbevo 89757]

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 89757]

Damn, Japanese Prime Minister made an unannounced visit to Ukraine

 

[Slacks 6829]

19 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

what a garbage country. ex president making statements that they are going to blow up courts. 

[atomheartbevo 89757]

Kazakhstan bypassing Russia for oil shipments, wonder when Russia will attempt a Special Military Operation there.

Japan increasing aid?  Big deal, since they have strict armament exports.

 

[Parliament 14271]

13 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Damn, Japanese Prime Minister made an unannounced visit to Ukraine

 

Did he bring his samurai sword?

 

ETA

I bet Japanese weapons are pretty friggin' good.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Parliament

[Trey3216 15350]

14 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I think they realize that no one respects them in any way, so the only thing they are left with is their false belief that people fear them. Some of the Russian Talking Heads earlier were bemoaning the fact people don’t fear them anymore.   Now that we’ve had a year of synchronized Tank turret tossing, they no longer have the ability to threaten people realistically.

Think about it: they can’t even win a war against Ukraine without begging weapons from North Korea, China and Iran.     It’s like America went to war in Iraq, but had to ask the Brits and Canadians for weapons.   If Putin is sitting in his dacha, planning on how he can turn Russia into the world’s biggest pariah, he needs to be congratulated on the work so far.

It'd be more like if we had to beg for ammo from Panama and Nicaragua.  

[BabaYaga 15302]

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Damn, Japanese Prime Minister made an unannounced visit to Ukraine

 

[Nivek 16948]

5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Did he bring his samurai sword?

 

ETA

I bet Japanese weapons are pretty friggin' good.

They are sending body armor, vans, and defensive gear, not weapons. 

[bolverk 29695]

27 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

For anyone who's curious: Google Lens translates the title of this book, Kobzar, as "The Bard."

According to Wiki: 

Kobzar (Ukrainian: Кобзар, "The bard"), is a book of poems by Ukrainian poet and painter Taras Shevchenko,[1] first published by him in 1840 in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Taras Shevchenko was nicknamed The Kobzar after the publishing of this book. From that time on this title has been applied to Shevchenko's poetry in general and acquired a symbolic meaning of the Ukrainian national and literary revival.[2]

That's some pretty cool, subtle messaging in this photo for the Ukrainian people.

[atomheartbevo 89757]

 

[MissingInAction 25127]

42 minutes ago, Parliament said:

 

I bet Japanese weapons are pretty friggin' good.

Sure, but have you seen the instructions?

[Gatorubet 30271]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Kazakhstan bypassing Russia for oil shipments, wonder when Russia will attempt a Special Military Operation there.

Japan increasing aid?  Big deal, since they have strict armament exports.

I posted a YouTube video in the China thread that talks about the future of the stans oil production bypassing Russia - and those countries moving much closer to China in influence. The consensus from the video is that China is neutering Russia and buying cheap mineral and petroleum assets and will soon be Russia’s main buyer. If the Russian military continues to be humiliated, China may decide it wants the natural resources and water of the areas formally Chinese that were taken by Russia 100 years ago.   The Chinese population on the border in those far east Siberian areas has a 13 to 1 advantage over the Russian population, and this was before Russia mobilized a lot of its minorities from the east for the meat grinder.

You see Russia, that’s the problem with claiming historical lands. Other countries can do that too.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Gatorubet

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Interesting power play between Japan and China on who and how they are supporting Ukraine/Russia. We are all about to party like it's 1940 with the same cast of characters, just new cliques. 

[Hefeweizen 5328]

7 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Interesting power play between Japan and China on who and how they are supporting Ukraine/Russia. We are all about to party like it's 1940 with the same cast of characters, just new cliques. 

Yeah the surprise visit of the Japanese is a calculated insult to China, and is fucking awesome.  This really is lining up as a good guy versus bad guy alliance.  We haven’t had one of those in a long time.  Maybe Korea.  I don’t count Afghanistan.  

[PTINS 3472]

Bakhmut, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine:

The collective posts and comments here are incredibly informative, but left many questions in my mind that didn't connect the dots. Why does Ukraine want to hold Bakhmut so bad?

I have taken the liberty to facilitate the discussion and comments related to Bakhmut. So....below are my renderings and Google Earth screen shots of Bakhmut, and the surrounding area.  

Bakhmut: Red line is the nominal Ukraine-Russia Contact Line, with everything east of the line "held" by Russia. Russia has controlled the 3 sides of Bakhmut for some time, with the sliver to the west controlled by Ukraine. Note the "Bakhmut River", with the tributary to the west, which flows from south to the north. 

Same map w/ highways.

Bakhmut, with the 450' Elevation Line depicting the Bakhmut "valley" and higher ground: The headwaters of the "river" originate in the valleys above the 450' Elevation Line. Everything north of the 450' line area depicted (the straight green line) is a lower elevation than 450', everything west, south and east is higher than 450' (the straight green line is shown for clarity only, this is an open valley descending towards the northeast). 

Bakhmut, with the 600' Elevation Line (orange line). Bakhmut is in kinda a box canyon open to the north. 

Bakhmut, with the 750' Elevations: The mains higher elevations to the west, held by Ukraine. The higher elevations to the south and east, held by Russia, are not shown. The highest point I found was 1130', ~ 30ish miles southeast of Bakhmut.

1. Note that almost everything in the valley is within 10 miles of the 750' plateaus to the west.

2. The 750' plateaus to the west are the highest points west for 200+ miles. (Mount Bonnell in Austin is 775' & Lady Bird (Town Lake) is 428').

3. Note the 600'+ plateau towards the southwest of Bakhmut is mainly cultivated fields, which does rise to ~ 750' towards the base of the triangle towards the southwest.  I expect this is where we saw a lot of the videos of Russia vehicular targets along the tree lines and the Orcs/open fodder in the open fields.

4. Bottom line, if you controlled Mount Bonnell and could hit any target in Austin, would you give it up? 

5.  If you controlled Austin, and were getting shelled from Mont Bonnell on a regular basis, would you stay?

6. Thank you all again for sharing what you know.

[PTINS 3472]

Disregard last map in post.

Edited March 21, 2023 by PTINS

[Rimbo 26018]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

For anyone who's curious: Google Lens translates the title of this book, Kobzar, as "The Bard."

According to Wiki: 

Kobzar (Ukrainian: Кобзар, "The bard"), is a book of poems by Ukrainian poet and painter Taras Shevchenko,[1] first published by him in 1840 in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Taras Shevchenko was nicknamed The Kobzar after the publishing of this book. From that time on this title has been applied to Shevchenko's poetry in general and acquired a symbolic meaning of the Ukrainian national and literary revival.[2]

That's some pretty cool, subtle messaging in this photo for the Ukrainian people.

as an Astros fan, I really, really don't ever want to hear about anything named "Bard" right now

[PTINS 3472]

39 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I posted a YouTube video in the China thread that talks about the future of the stans oil production bypassing Russia - and those countries moving much closer to China in influence. The consensus from the video is that China is neutering Russia and buying cheap mineral and petroleum assets and will soon be Russia’s main buyer. If the Russian military continues to be humiliated, China may decide it wants the natural resources and water of the areas formally Chinese that were taken by Russia 100 years ago.   The Chinese population on the border in those far east Siberian areas has a 13 to 1 advantage over the Russian population, and this was before Russia mobilized a lot of its minorities from the east for the meat grinder.

You see Russia, that’s the problem with claiming historical lands. Other countries can do that too.

Except no US Armor coming to save the day.

[Schulz2.0 28992]

 

[Schulz2.0 28992]

 

 

 

[Parliament 14271]

Those M1A1's can shoot our top-end ammo, correct?

[Scheiss Meister 8408]

2 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Those M1A1's can shoot our top-end ammo, correct?

If they've been retrofitted with the 120mm main gun, yes.  If not, as I recall, the older 105mm du antitank rounds were quite sufficient against T-72s in the first Gulf War.

[686 3450]

[/url]  

The rubber chicken “Titanic” audio is worth a listen on this clip in case you had the sound off; good stuff:

[MillerEP 30492]

 

[SydneyCarton 48134]

1 minute ago, MillerEP said:

 

We honestly expect those guys aren't ushered directly to a mobilization office the second they receive their pardon? Hell, they'll likely be receiving their pardons in a goddamn mobilization office, then get Abe Simpson turned right back the fuck around. 

[MillerEP 30492]

 

[SL Xpress 7517]

1 hour ago, PTINS said:

Bakhmut, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine:

The collective posts and comments here are incredibly informative, but left many questions in my mind that didn't connect the dots. Why does Ukraine want to hold Bakhmut so bad?

I have taken the liberty to facilitate the discussion and comments related to Bakhmut. So....below are my renderings and Google Earth screen shots of Bakhmut, and the surrounding area.  

Bakhmut: Red line is the nominal Ukraine-Russia Contact Line, with everything east of the line "held" by Russia. Russia has controlled the 3 sides of Bakhmut for some time, with the sliver to the west controlled by Ukraine. Note the "Bakhmut River", with the tributary to the west, which flows from south to the north. 

Same map w/ highways.

Bakhmut, with the 450' Elevation Line depicting the Bakhmut "valley" and higher ground: The headwaters of the "river" originate in the valleys above the 450' Elevation Line. Everything north of the 450' line area depicted (the straight green line) is a lower elevation than 450', everything west, south and east is higher than 450' (the straight green line is shown for clarity only, this is an open valley descending towards the northeast). 

Bakhmut, with the 600' Elevation Line (orange line). Bakhmut is in kinda a box canyon open to the north. 

Bakhmut, with the 750' Elevations: The mains higher elevations to the west, held by Ukraine. The higher elevations to the south and east, held by Russia, are not shown. The highest point I found was 1130', ~ 30ish miles southeast of Bakhmut.

1. Note that almost everything in the valley is within 10 miles of the 750' plateaus to the west.

2. The 750' plateaus to the west are the highest points west for 200+ miles. (Mount Bonnell in Austin is 775' & Lady Bird (Town Lake) is 428').

3. Note the 600'+ plateau towards the southwest of Bakhmut is mainly cultivated fields, which does rise to ~ 750' towards the base of the triangle towards the southwest.  I expect this is where we saw a lot of the videos of Russia vehicular targets along the tree lines and the Orcs/open fodder in the open fields.

4. Bottom line, if you controlled Mount Bonnell and could hit any target in Austin, would you give it up? 

5.  If you controlled Austin, and were getting shelled from Mont Bonnell on a regular basis, would you stay?

6. Thank you all again for sharing what you know.

I appreciate you taking so much time to put this out there.

Here are my some of my thoughts on Bakhmut, and to some degree the whole eastern front for the last few months. 

1. The priority for UAF has been to create new brigades, train them on new western armor that had been pledged, and prepare for a late spring/summer offensive depending how when the equipment arrived.

From what I've read 28,000 troops have been pulled away, with a mixture of veterans and newer recruits, to form an effective assault force based on mobility and puncturing enemy lines. There's no way to tell how effective this force will be, with all the variables involved, until they're actually utilized. If they're effective, then the defensive posture of the UAF through these last few months will have been worth it, and frankly, we'll forget a lot about whatever thoughts we've had regarding Bakhmut and the decisions being made there. 

2. The second priority has been to not give up an inch to the Russians. We've seen very few tactical retreats, to the point I'd say there really haven't been any, when we saw quite a few in the first 6 months of the war. One of the few ones I've seen was the tactical withdrawal from the eastern river in Bakhmut.

3. The center has held in Bakhmut. The progress from the frontal assaults on the eastern front of Bakhmut have been astoundingly woeful on the Russian side. They'll take some outlying buildings. The next day the Ukrainian troops take them back. This has gone on for 8 months.

4. The part that has endangered Bakhmut are the flanks. We saw the fight for Soledar, which the Russians were able to successfully prosecute. Look how far they've reached since then. It's not impressive for a mechanized force, but for assault troops in trench warfare relying solely on infantry they've continually pushed Ukrainian forces back, and now are even headed north along the M03. 

The biggest thing for me is that there are no real setbacks for the Russian forces. Their progress is plodding and incremental, but once they take ground, the Ukrainians are not able to take it back. 

From what I've read Russians employed waves of attacks as reconnaissance. They tried to find seams in the defenses, and attack there. When they found weak spots, they exploited them. Ukrainians have their own mobilization issues, and their best, most effective units can't be everywhere at once. The Russians are able to find where the least effective defense forces are by throwing bodies in waves at the defenders. When people are massacred, that's probably not a weak spot. When they're able to successfully mount an attack, they push forward. 

In the last two weeks Ukraine has sent in reserves of some of their best units to try to bolster the flanks. They've performed better in the south, but the Russians continue to make incremental gains in the north. 

The battle to complete the encirclement of the city has seemed to reach a bit of a standstill over the last few days, but progress continues to be made at various points on the flanks. 

To me the chief issues have been - a lack of ammunition, particularly artillery shells. Being outnumbered by 4 to 1 or great ratios. The lack of concern for life by the Russian command, which allows them to be more aggressive in their assaults, and also has an effect on morale for Ukrainians who feel like they're mowing down emotionless zombies who keep coming regardless. I also think there's been some degradation of the Ukrainian force as newly mobilized troops dragged off the streets replace former volunteers with prior military service who volunteered at the outbreak of the war, but have since been killed or wounded. 

Rob Lee and Michael Kofman came back from their trip to Bakhmut, talking to the various people fighting there, with the question of whether Ukraine is still getting the same kind of benefit there they were a couple of months ago. That can't be just them talking about their personal views based on what they've seen. That has to be a reflection in part of people who are actually doing the fighting. We've seen the general in charge of ground forces in the area be dismissed by Zelensky with no explanation. We've seen a battalion commander speak up about newly mobilized troops being sent to their death with little training, who was also relieved of his command. There are a lot of signals there that not everyone is 100% on board with the defense of Bakhmut at this point. 

I have wanted them to pull back for quite some time, for the reasons of geography you've already pointed out in more detail and in a better way than I ever could. But I'm an armchair/video game general. Not a real one. And I don't have access to all the motivations or considerations Zelensky and the military have to balance. Like the troops at the front, I can only hope they have the right idea here, and they come out on top. 

I guess my biggest issue is I haven't seen a single place along the entire front where Ukraine has managed to push back against the Russians once they take some territory. I can only assume that's on purpose, but from the point of view of an observer, I sure would like it better if I saw more effective Ukraine counter attacks on the advancing Russian forces. I think for many of us on this thread and around the world, a lot of our hopes are being invested in the upcoming Ukrainian counter offensive they've been preparing for now for quite some time. A lot rides on its success, frankly. 

Again, thank you for the effort you put into those maps. I greatly appreciate it. 

 

[MillerEP 30492]

 

[SL Xpress 7517]

I've seen this reported by a number of sources, but this was the first article that showed up in my Google search.

7 countries in NATO managed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense in 2022, which is incredibly woeful. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (Yay, Baltic!) Poland, and then the US and UK. Oh, and Greece, because of fears (and a LONG time historical enmity) of fellow NATO member, Turkiye. 

The EU as a block spent 1.5% on GDP, which is not covered in this article. 

The Baltic countries and Poland are pushing for a raise from 2% to 2.5% as a target. 

Here's the article:

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/only-7-nato-members-hit-alliances-2-percent-gdp-defense-spending-target-in-2022/

Spoiler

Only 7 NATO members hit alliance’s 2 percent GDP defense spending target in 2022

Despite the concerning finding, between 2021 and 2022, defense spending across the alliance increased by 2.2 percent in real terms, surpassing an estimated $1 trillion.

By   TIM MARTINon March 21, 2023 at 1:58 PM

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg presents the alliance’s annual report for 2022 (NATO)

BELFAST — Just seven of NATO’s 30 member states met its 2 percent GDP defense spending target in 2022, figures from the alliance’s newly published annual report show, while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlighted for many the criticality of future defense spending in Europe.

The US, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the United Kingdom, all achieved the standard with Croatia and France among those falling just short. Others were further behind.

“We actually expected the number to be slightly higher but because GDP has increased more than expected for a couple of allies, two fell below [the] two percent [target],” said Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, addressing media today.

 

Despite that finding, defense spending across the alliance increased by 2.2 percent in real terms from the year before. Total NATO military spending in 2022 was “estimated to exceed” $1 trillion, figures from the annual report reveal.

The overall 2 percent GDP target is set to be reviewed in July at NATO’s Heads of State Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. Stoltenberg said that it would be for allies to jointly decide on a new, long-term, spending target but that he will be advocating for an “ambitious” figure.

 

Despite defense budgets across Europe increasing in response to Russia’s invasion, procurement has not kept pace with “the dangerous world we live in,” according to Stoltenberg, warning that the uplift in military funding must quickly “turn into real cash contracts and concrete equipment.”

He spoke of holding talks with defense industry officials “dedicated to ramping up production” and that NATO will continue to work with different “joint procurement groups” within the alliance to support production targets.

 

 

 

AIR WARFARE, SPONSORED

“Fool Around & Find Out” – Holistic Situational Awareness & Decision-Making

Part 2 of a narrative series illustrating how Elbit America’s USA-manufactured products enable customers to successfully accomplish their most demanding missions.

From   ELBIT AMERICA

“The most important thing is that contracts are signed with industry so production can be increased,” he added. “We are already seeing more contracts being signed and we welcome all the different initiatives in different formats for joint procurement, because we think that can help to speed up [production] and also utilize economies of scale.”

NATO members have so far delivered €65 billion ($70 billion) worth of military equipment to Ukraine, but disjointed campaigns to send main battle tanks and fighter jets to the frontline, marred by political disagreements, have exposed tension within the alliance. Meanwhile, a bitter dispute between Sweden and Turkey threatens to delay the Scandinavian country’s entry to the organization.

Finland’s path to joining the alliance now looks straightforward, with Hungary to hold a vote ratifying ascension on March 27. Turkey will do the same before its parliament enters recess 1 July, according to Stoltenberg.

He declined to provide an exact date of when Sweden will join NATO but said he had spoken to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday about ratification, but without a timeframe for a parliamentary vote to take place in Turkey, a delay to entry looms.

Recommended

France to reassess what it wants in a ‘new standard’ Tiger attack helicopter

The French Ministry of Defense declined to tell Breaking Defense whether the “new standard” referred to a full MkIII upgrade or a less ambitious plan.

By TIM MARTIN

As international attention turned this week to events in Moscow with the state visit of China’s President Xi Jinping and the Beijing-offered peace plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, Stoltenberg said that it is “for Ukraine to decide” the terms of peace. China, he said, must first enter dialogue with Kyiv for Beijing to help broker any kind of peace.

Stoltenberg also said that NATO also has “no proof” that China transferred “lethal” equipment to Russia for the war in Ukraine, but it has “seen some signs” of a request made by Moscow to Beijing for weapons to be made available. The request “is being considered by Chinese authorities,” he added. The comment comes on the heals of media reporting that US intelligence believed China was considering providing lethal aid to Moscow, as well as a report by The New York Times that China had supplied $12 million-worth of drones already.

Elsewhere in NATO’s annual report, the alliance noted a number of key targets were achieved in 2022, including 15 allies supporting the Ground-Based Air Defence program, agreeing to merge it with the Rapidly Deployable Mobile Counter Rockets, Artillery and Mortar project. The land-based initiative seeks to “develop and procure counter rockets, artillery, and mortar capabilities that are mobile and can be rapidly deployed to protect troops and at-risk installations,” noted the annual report.

An “important milestone” was also met in June 2022 after six partners working on the Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability program signed a Memorandum of Understanding to work on studies for the final design of the future medium-sized, multi-role helicopter. The program’s concept phase is expected to run until the end of 2025, with a target of 2040 for entry to service.

In March 2022, a first Multinational Ammunition Warehousing Initiative location was also opened in Estonia to support eight recently established multinational battlegroups. The initiative has been fundamentally designed to “transform the Alliance’s approach to ammunition storage and life cycle management.”

NATO also took delivery of two Airbus A330 Multinational Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft last year, with a full fleet of nine planes planned for delivery in 2024.

At a maritime level, the Naval Electromagnetic Operations Trial, hosted by Spain at Rota Naval Base in November 2022, saw 45 military assets “from warships to fighter jets” develop electromagnetic warfare technology and test counter unmanned aerial systems concepts.

 

[MillerEP 30492]

 

[JesusSweatDuck 17784]

4 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

Sure, but have you seen the instructions?

Are all the pictures pixelated?

[Viper 12109]

2 hours ago, PTINS said:

Except no US Armor coming to save the day.

[PTINS 3472]

15 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I appreciate you taking so much time to put this out there.

Here are my some of my thoughts on Bakhmut, and to some degree the whole eastern front for the last few months. 

1. The priority for UAF has been to create new brigades...

2. The second priority has been to not give up an inch to the Russians. The center has held in Bakhmut.  The part that has endangered Bakhmut are the flanks. We saw the fight for Soledar, which the Russians were able to successfully prosecute. Look how far they've reached since then. It's not impressive for a mechanized force, but for assault troops in trench warfare relying solely on infantry they've continually pushed Ukrainian forces back, and now are even headed north along the M03. 

The biggest thing for me is that there are no real setbacks for the Russian forces. Their progress is plodding and incremental, but once they take ground, the Ukrainians are not able to take it back. 

The battle to complete the encirclement of the city has seemed to reach a bit of a standstill over the last few days, but progress continues to be made at various points on the flanks. 

Rob Lee and Michael Kofman came back from their trip to Bakhmut, talking to the various people fighting there, with the question of whether Ukraine is still getting the same kind of benefit there they were a couple of months ago. That can't be just them talking about their personal views based on what they've seen. That has to be a reflection in part of people who are actually doing the fighting. We've seen the general in charge of ground forces in the area be dismissed by Zelensky with no explanation. We've seen a battalion commander speak up about newly mobilized troops being sent to their death with little training, who was also relieved of his command. There are a lot of signals there that not everyone is 100% on board with the defense of Bakhmut at this point. 

But I'm an armchair/video game general. Not a real one. And I don't have access to all the motivations or considerations Zelensky and the military have to balance. 

I guess my biggest issue is I haven't seen a single place along the entire front where Ukraine has managed to push back against the Russians once they take some territory. I can only assume that's on purpose, but from the point of view of an observer, I sure would like it better if I saw more effective Ukraine counter attacks on the advancing Russian forces. I think for many of us on this thread and around the world, a lot of our hopes are being invested in the upcoming Ukrainian counter offensive they've been preparing for now for quite some time. A lot rides on its success, frankly. 

Again, thank you for the effort you put into those maps. I greatly appreciate it. 

 

Thanks for the info. Your highlighted observations are what pushed me to try to get a better understanding.  I'm also an armchair general, with a limited understanding of geography and topography in Ukraine. Ukraine knows their backyard better than I ever will, so any failures to understand I have are due to my insufficient knowledge.

It seems again, holding the high ground is the key.  Russia would need the equivalent of a Pickett's Charge type assault to surround Bakhmut from the southwest.  That doesn't keep them from trying. If Russia took Bakhmut and the high ground to the west, there is not a significant geographic barrier to the west for a 100+ miles. Not unlike pouring a pitcher of water on a table, with the only containment of the spread being the volume of water. Now replace the water w/ Russians.  Better to keep the cork in place rather than trying to clean up a much larger geographical mess later on. 

I am hopeful for a successful spring offensive, with refortified troops integrated with new weapons systems. There are parallels to Desert Storm. Clearly not the magnitude, but a necessity to get all the pieces in place, including the logistics tail, before you start. The coalition had all the pieces in the box, they just had to get them out. Ukraine, doesn't have that luxury.

[SL Xpress 7517]

24 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Thanks for the info. Your highlighted observations are what pushed me to try to get a better understanding.  I'm also an armchair general, with a limited understanding of geography and topography in Ukraine. Ukraine knows their backyard better than I ever will, so any failures to understand I have are due to my insufficient knowledge.

It seems again, holding the high ground is the key.  Russia would need the equivalent of a Pickett's Charge type assault to surround Bakhmut from the southwest.  That doesn't keep them from trying. If Russia took Bakhmut and the high ground to the west, there is not a significant geographic barrier to the west for a 100+ miles. Not unlike pouring a pitcher of water on a table, with the only containment of the spread being the volume of water. Now replace the water w/ Russians.  Better to keep the cork in place rather than trying to clean up a much larger geographical mess later on. 

I am hopeful for a successful spring offensive, with refortified troops integrated with new weapons systems. There are parallels to Desert Storm. Clearly not the magnitude, but a necessity to get all the pieces in place, including the logistics tail, before you start. The coalition had all the pieces in the box, they just had to get them out. Ukraine, doesn't have that luxury.

Yeah, Chasiv Yar has always been more important because it's at the top of a hill, more so than Bakhmut, down in the valley. It overlooks a critical swath of the T0504, the "Road of Life" for Bakhmut, which is already under Russian artillery fire. There's also a local dirt road that leads from Chasiv Yar to Bakhmut which is also used to ferry supplies and people back and forth, but with the muddy season its utility was reduced. 

At one point the Russians were making a significant push towards Chasiv Yar, but Ukraine sent some of their best forces there, and they pushed them back. 

This war has given me a new appreciation for our own armed forces. It's not like I didn't think we were awesome before, but you look at the battles in Ukraine, and it's easy to surmise that the US would have wiped the floor in terms of a toe to toe battle - with either force, really - in no time. Occupation would be a different matter, but in terms of any standing organized military units, they wouldn't have stood a chance. I didn't think I took our land based forces for granted, but this war has shown me that I have in some ways. 

[atomheartbevo 89757]

30 minutes ago, PTINS said:

If Russia took Bakhmut and the high ground to the west, there is not a significant geographic barrier to the west for a 100+ miles. Not unlike pouring a pitcher of water on a table, with the only containment of the spread being the volume of water. Now replace the water w/ Russians.  Better to keep the cork in place rather than trying to clean up a much larger geographical mess later on. 

I am hopeful for a successful spring offensive, with refortified troops integrated with new weapons systems. There are parallels to Desert Storm. Clearly not the magnitude, but a necessity to get all the pieces in place, including the logistics tail, before you start. The coalition had all the pieces in the box, they just had to get them out. Ukraine, doesn't have that luxury.

I keep coming back to why Bakhumt in the overall major scheme of things?  If Ukraine has used Bakhmut to tied up a lot of Russian forces, and then punches through in one or more other areas, Russia will most likely have to abandon Bakhmut and pull troops out of there, but we know they will struggle to move those forces around, both because of how many Russian vehicles have been destroyed and HIMARS ranges, and because of how they do their logistics (railheads).

It's somewhat of a problem the US has faced in various places over the decades, with Iraq being the newest example (but certainly applying to Vietnam, and even Afghanistan for both us and the Soviets) - we only had so many troops in a large, hostile country.  We couldn't hold every major town or village, and if we hold one, that means there's something available elsewhere.  Of course, we had logistics chains (road-based vehicles and helicopters) that functioned better than what the Russians currently have, but it was still whack-a-mole for us.

Sorry to ramble, but what I was getting at is that even if Russia takes that high ground, it won't matter if Ukraine opens up an offensive elsewhere, since Russia will need to make some hard decisions about pulling forces back from the Bakhmut area and deploying them elsewhere.  Ukraine is building up a highly-mobile, armored force, and Russia isn't.

[SL Xpress 7517]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I keep coming back to why Bakhumt in the overall major scheme of things?  If Ukraine has used Bakhmut to tied up a lot of Russian forces, and then punches through in one or more other areas, Russia will most likely have to abandon Bakhmut and pull troops out of there, but we know they will struggle to move those forces around, both because of how many Russian vehicles have been destroyed and HIMARS ranges, and because of how they do their logistics (railheads).

It's somewhat of a problem the US has faced in various places over the decades, with Iraq being the newest example (but certainly applying to Vietnam, and even Afghanistan for both us and the Soviets) - we only had so many troops in a large, hostile country.  We couldn't hold every major town or village, and if we hold one, that means there's something available elsewhere.  Of course, we had logistics chains (road-based vehicles and helicopters) that functioned better than what the Russians currently have, but it was still whack-a-mole for us.

Sorry to ramble, but what I was getting at is that even if Russia takes that high ground, it won't matter if Ukraine opens up an offensive elsewhere, since Russia will need to make some hard decisions about pulling forces back from the Bakhmut area and deploying them elsewhere.  Ukraine is building up a highly-mobile, armored force, and Russia isn't.

Well, I'd argue it's not just Bakhmut. We're seeing some of the same things around Avdiivka. The town itself is a ridiculously well fortified fortress, basically, with a system of bunkers and trenches. It's been on the front lines since 2014. It's only about 8 miles north of Donetsk, and for a time was actually captured by separatist forces early on before the UAF threw them back. And yet we continue to see each day the Russians creeping around on the flanks. It's at the point where Bakhmut was a couple of months ago.

Then in the Kharkiv Oblast, there was a time it looked like Ukraine might capture Kreminna. Now Ukraine is getting pushed back along the entire front, west of the city. There aren't any major gains, but day by day there are incremental advances, and like I said above, once Russia takes ground, they don't seem to be giving it up for the most part. 

Nonetheless, I agree completely about what a successful offensive could do to Russian operations. Of course, the failures in Iraq were exactly that it takes more troops to effectively occupy a country than it does to defeat the military forces in the first place, and there simply wasn't the political will to deploy 200,000 US troops or so in Iraq for years at a time. But that's also why The Surge helped in a lot of respects. It was a big move in the right direction. 

The difference is by that point it was completely asynchronous warfare, and this isn't. This is two similarly armed forces going toe to toe. I've seen it dismissed, but honestly there are a lot more similarities with the Iran Iraq war than I feel people have drawn thus far. Much different terrain in many respects, and there the more motivated enemy is the one who used wave tactics, and the less motivated one had a bit of an advantage in terms of military systems. But some of the same issues Iraq was facing during the attritional period are some of the same ones Ukraine is right now. 

[atomheartbevo 89757]

22 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

and like I said above, once Russia takes ground, they don't seem to be giving it up for the most part. 

The land in blue is land Ukraine has taken back over the last year (and this is an outdated map, there were additional gains).  That's a lot of land that Russia has given up (over 54% to be precise).

[SL Xpress 7517]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The land in blue is land Ukraine has taken back over the last year (and this is an outdated map, there were additional gains).  That's a lot of land that Russia has given up (over 54% to be precise).

 

Do you feel like you're educating me? I'm talking about over the last 3 months or so. Russia makes tiny incremental advances, but when they make an advance, the territory is not given up. 

Surely you know I'm quite aware of the massive counter offensives Ukraine succeeded with in Kharkiv and Kherson. I feel like you're insulting my intelligence with this post. Is that your intention?

[956 Worldwide 34737]

Russia’s latest manufactured red line is the UK sending depleted uranium rounds with the Challengers. Lots of talk about considering it a “dirty bomb” and “responding accordingly.” 

 

Of course, Russia is using depleted uranium shells but that’s different.  Very different. 
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/21/putin-says-russia-will-respond-if-uk-supplies-depleted-uranium-shells-to-ukraine

[SL Xpress 7517]

11 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Russia’s latest manufactured red line is the UK sending depleted uranium rounds with the Challengers. Lots of talk about considering it a “dirty bomb” and “responding accordingly.” 

 

Of course, Russia is using depleted uranium shells but that’s different.  Very different. 
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/21/putin-says-russia-will-respond-if-uk-supplies-depleted-uranium-shells-to-ukraine

 

Dumb. I noticed the article also quotes the general secretary for the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), who is also dumb. 

I'm disappointed the British aren't sending 28 challenger 2 tanks afterall. I missed the UK MoD denying they were doubling the amount being sent. Still grateful for the British breaking the logjam of who would go first in donating main battle tanks.

[MillerEP 30492]

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

32 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

 

Do you feel like you're educating me? I'm talking about over the last 3 months or so. Russia makes tiny incremental advances, but when they make an advance, the territory is not given up. 

Surely you know I'm quite aware of the massive counter offensives Ukraine succeeded with in Kharkiv and Kherson. I feel like you're insulting my intelligence with this post. Is that your intention?

And I thought I was on edge about UKR’s coming offensive.

[atomheartbevo 89757]

35 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Do you feel like you're educating me? I'm talking about over the last 3 months or so. Russia makes tiny incremental advances, but when they make an advance, the territory is not given up. 

Surely you know I'm quite aware of the massive counter offensives Ukraine succeeded with in Kharkiv and Kherson. I feel like you're insulting my intelligence with this post. Is that your intention?

I'm not trying to insult you, just that it's not all doom and gloom - it's just my opinion, but it feels like when Russia takes ground these days, it's because Ukrainian leadership has made the decision that it was not worth defending either manpower wise, or it was not that important geographically. And it also feels like Ukraine carefully calculates how much land they are willing to trade for Ukrainian soldiers.

Russia needs a good 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio to take contested ground (maybe higher these days, what with drones changing the game, and Russia's problems with armor, etc.) and it doesn't feel like they have that a lot of times as well, but Ukraine is still willing to give up land.

I'm sure when all is said and done, Bakhumt will make complete sense.

[SL Xpress 7517]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

I'm not trying to insult you, just that it's not all doom and gloom - it's just my opinion, but it feels like when Russia takes ground these days, it's because Ukrainian leadership has made the decision that it was not worth defending either manpower wise, or it was not that important geographically. And it also feels like Ukraine carefully calculates how much land they are willing to trade for Ukrainian soldiers.

Russia needs a good 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio to take contested ground (maybe higher these days, what with drones changing the game, and Russia's problems with armor, etc.) and it doesn't feel like they have that a lot of times as well, but Ukraine is still willing to give up land.

I'm sure when all is said and done, Bakhumt will make complete sense.

I don't feel like it's doom and gloom whatsoever.

Nonetheless, Russia makes incremental advances, and Ukraine makes none. It's been that way for months. That's not being doom and gloom. That's simply a recitation of the facts on the ground. 

I'll also say that Bakhmut doesn't have to make sense to me. They've held it for 8 months. They continue to hold it. I'm saying that I would have preferred they retreat to higher ground with a more stable front line, but they haven't. I also don't think I'm alone in that view. It doesn't make it the right one. I also acknowledged that a successful offensive in a couple of months will make Bakhmut's current situation forgotten on a number of levels. Some of which you already brought up in terms of Russia having to move forces to deal with new threats on different parts of the front. 

This conversation is all in response to someone putting out a question as to what is happening in Bakhmut and why, and me trying to address it in some way. I just don't appreciate you giving a response to me pointing out Ukraine's successful offensive last fall like it's some kind of new information.  

[SL Xpress 7517]

33 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

A lot of ramifications for this. This war is certainly sealing the fate of Russia in all kinds of ways. I'm curious if it ends up being the advantage for China it seems to be in the short run. I guess it depends on the Western response. 

[atomheartbevo 89757]

10 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I don't feel like it's doom and gloom whatsoever.

Nonetheless, Russia makes incremental advances, and Ukraine makes none. It's been that way for months. That's not being doom and gloom. That's simply a recitation of the facts on the ground. 

I guess it comes down to how that’s viewed.

I should add that Russia may not even actually want Bakhmut all that bad for the price it’s costing, but if it’s degrading a potential rival to Putin, without openly looking like it, then that opens up other discussions about what the Russians can actually do versus what Putin is making them do. Wagner does not get to choose its targets, lest we forget, and Putin maybe supporting them enough to make it (the advances) happen, but only because he’s degrading Wagner.

On to the the meat of things. Do you think Ukraine could have made some serious advances over the last few months?  I happen to think they could have, from everything I’ve seen, but I also think they are keeping their powder dry and trying to attrit Russian forces with as few Ukrainian troops being exposed/killed as possible, in preparation for something bigger.  So in my mind, it makes sense to not go on any offensives to take a chunk of ground that will then have to be defended, and to instead train up troops on the new equipment, etc. and spend a lot of time planning and preparing.

Russia having to mobilize a lot more men, and the recent measures with college students, etc. makes me think they are seeing the writing on the wall and are worried about a counter-offensive, but Bakhmut is a sunk-cost fallacy for them and/or it’s meant to degrade Wagner.

[atomheartbevo 89757]

6 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

A lot of ramifications for this. This war is certainly sealing the fate of Russia in all kinds of ways. I'm curious if it ends up being the advantage for China it seems to be in the short run. I guess it depends on the Western response. 

Russia is losing the ability to project power while at the same time having to increasingly rely on China to buy its main exports, and it has to rely on China for almost all imports now.  Definite Chinese advantage.  Russia being cut off from Europe proper will always help China.

[DigglerontheHoof 21207]

Russia looks like they'll be reduced to 3 things that will keep them relevant: land mass, nukes, and natural resources. 

[Parliament 14271]

And cabbage