The war in Ukraine

[Caribbean]

Simple; It is NATO fighting Russia, yet we act like it isn't, in the form of weapons manufacturing, e.c.t. If we simply gave them just enough artillery alone, their counter-offensive would have been a success.

It seems to me that the West has taken the hugely cynical approach of letting Ukraine bleed Russia white, by never giving quite enough resources to allow them to go on the offensive successfully.

I don't think it's technology that has stalemated this war, it was the fact that support was delayed to give Russia sufficient time to construct massive minefields and fortified positions, coupled with the lack of airpower for Ukraine & the fact that Ukraine is constrained from using Western equipment to mount attacks on Russian military infrastructure within Russia itself.

[new guy]

Simple; It is NATO fighting Russia, yet we act like it isn't, in the form of weapons manufacturing, e.c.t. If we simply gave them just enough artillery alone, their counter-offensive would have been a success.

It seems to me that the West has taken the hugely cynical approach of letting Ukraine bleed Russia white, by never giving quite enough resources to allow them to go on the offensive successfully.

I don't think it's technology that has stalemated this war, it was the fact that support was delayed to give Russia sufficient time to construct massive minefields and fortified positions, coupled with the lack of airpower for Ukraine & the fact that Ukraine is constrained from using Western equipment to mount attacks on Russian military infrastructure within Russia itself.

We should be blaming ourselves not Ukraine. The EU and the US aim, I ephisise aim, is to only produce 163,000 shells per month for Ukraine's current need of 500,000 a month, compared to Russia's usage of 500,000 a month. The UK would have a massive credibility if it started producing the remaining 400,000 with BAE's new non-ITAR design.

[Zeno]

There have been some claims online that Ukraine is actually dropping more artillery shells on Russian forces , and that North Korea has sent close to a million rounds of artillery shells to Russia and has committed to full production of artillery shells , It would be interesting for a breakdown of equipment losses comparing artillery ,auv,s and other methods ,in considering which are the most effective .
Im not disputing the deadliness of artillery but accuracy may be more important than numbers and the importance of radar assisted counter batteries may be overlooked
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/u ... seoul-says

[albedo]

It would be interesting for a breakdown of equipment losses comparing artillery ,auv,s and other methods ,in considering which are the most effective .

This is available in various places, though not necessarily in the level of detail that you might ideally like - independent analysts can only really use video evidence that is publicly available, but that is still quite a lot. Oryx used to do a comprehensive job, but stopped in October I believe because no-one would provide financial support for them to continue, but there still seem to be some sporadic reports issued by them.

Another source is the OSINT mapper Andrew Perpetua who issues a daily summary of video that he has reviewed. (Actually the main source of damage seems to me to be grenades dropped by FPV drones, but that's just my observation.)

Andrew Perpetua is often quoted by the ATP Geopolitics YouTube channel, which usually issues several reports every day. Here was yesterday's news report for example:



Today's report does not seem to have been issued yet, but will probably appear soon.

[Caribbean]

I think ORYX stopped because he needed to "get a life" - there was just too much work involved. He regularly asked people NOT to send him money & donated anything he was sent to Ukrainian causes. I think several others have now stepped in to help, but they work to a slower tempo.

As you say, most figures are a bit low, because not everything has been photographed & recorded.

[albedo]

I think ORYX stopped because he needed to "get a life" - there was just too much work involved. He regularly asked people NOT to send him money & donated anything he was sent to Ukrainian causes.

That may well be true and I'm sure that's part of the picture. But there was also a lot of frustration publicly expressed I believe that Western defence and intelligence agencies were using the Oryx reports as a valuable independent assessment of losses but seemed completely unwilling to provide any financial support for Oryx, despite only a completely trivial amount of money being required. Such support would have allowed Oryx to modestly expand his team and reduce the pressure on him personally.

[albedo]

Any thoughts on the Zaluzhny essay/article in The Economist that concedes that the Ukraine war has apparently reached a deadlock? He seems to hold out little prospect of a material change now from stalemate/deadlock and thinks that, for example, the delivery of F16 is now too late to be offer a decisive advantage given the time that Russia has had to develop and implement its air defences, especially S400.

The original article is sadly behind a paywall other than the first paragraph:

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/1 ... eat-russia

But there is much comment elsewhere on the web, eg in the Kyiv Post:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/23584

[SW1]

Any thoughts on the Zaluzhny essay/article in The Economist that concedes that the Ukraine war has apparently reached a deadlock? He seems to hold out little prospect of a material change now from stalemate/deadlock and thinks that, for example, the delivery of F16 is now too late to be offer a decisive advantage given the time that Russia has had to develop and implement its air air defences, especially S400.

The original article is sadly behind a paywall other than the first paragraph:

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/1 ... eat-russia

But there is much comment elsewhere on the web, eg in the Kyiv Post:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/23584

In june and August I mentioned it looked like things had turned to stalemate and there was first hand accounts from the front line that Ukraine was losing too many people for too little gain and that lack of delivery of western weapons was severely hampering them but apparently that was too pessimistic and not what informed commentators were saying and the serious voices were saying it was always going to be slow.

Maybe the informed commentators and serious voices were not as informed as they thought. With both the uk and America heading into election year and war in the Middle East I fear promises to Ukraine will take a back seat to domestic audiences. Ukraine has largely fallen out of the media cycle.

Like in 1942 it may take 2 years of re equipping and training on modern western equipment and the build up of logistics to enable them a chance to break the line, as such this is their most dangerous time it will take a staying power to see things through that many western society’s seem incapable off doing over the past 30 years. In the mean time long range weapons and commando raid can hit the enemy to keep them in check just as we did with bomber command and commando raids in the day.

[Ian Hall]

https://www.reuters.com/world/nepal-urg ... 023-12-05/

[SW1]

[Phil Sayers]

The Vikings might be very useful in crossing from the Kherson city area to the bridgehead (minus any bridges still standing....) on the other side of the river. Right now Ukraine is somewhat constrained by an inability to 'safely' ferry significant numbers of troops across and then those troops lacking armour when they do get to the other side but this could help a lot with both.

[Ian Hall]

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2023 ... in-kherson

[Ian Hall]

Ukraine claims destruction of major Russian navy vessel in Crimea
Reuters


https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk ... 023-12-26/

[Ian Hall]

BBC News - Russia confirms damage to warship in Black Sea
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67821515

[Jdam]

Another Storm Shadow?

How many ships have they lost now?



Russians have confirmed it was "damaged"

[Little J]

Russians have confirmed it was "damaged"

A lick paint, that'll be fine

[Ian Hall]

https://www.politico.eu/article/firebal ... navy-ship/

[Phil Sayers]

Interesting that Ukraine seems to have adopted a strategy of prioritising landing ships as targets over e.g frigates firing cruise missiles. Makes perfect sense I suppose as chipping away at Russia's ability to logistically support its troops at the front will have more of a direct impact at the front; the effectiveness of the strategy would exponentially increase if the Kerch Bridge has another accident.

[Jdam]

I think Ukraine would sink all Russian ships if they could. I suspect the frigates and such are in non Ukrainian ports, the Russians most likely got complacent and maybe thought Ukraine didn't have any missiles left or didn't think Ukraine would find out about the shipment.

[Caribbean]

Interesting that Ukraine seems to have adopted a strategy of prioritising landing ships as targets over e.g frigates firing cruise missiles. Makes perfect sense I suppose as chipping away at Russia's ability to logistically support its troops at the front will have more of a direct impact at the front; the effectiveness of the strategy would exponentially increase if the Kerch Bridge has another accident.

I think they are setting up for the destruction of the Kerch bridge by eliminating their amphibious re-supply capability in advance. These ships could be used to run a ferry service across the Straight if the bridge is damaged & could even be used to evacuate armoured vehicles in the event of a Russian retreat. This is the second of the four large amphibs they had in the Black Sea

[wargame_insomniac]

The other factor is that Ukraine has slowly been able to increase their threat range. First they were targetting the west coast of Crimea, then the main Naval base at Sevastopol, now the post of Feodisaya (spelling??) on the east coast of Crimea.

I presume this refects Ukraine starting to reduce the large aviation disparity with Russia, as Western supplied SAM systems have slowly pushed Russian aircraft back. I presume this because it seems likely this attack on Russian LST was apparently from an air launched Scalp / Storm Shadow missile.

Maybe soon the Ukrainian Scalp / Storm Shadow missiles will have sufficient range to target the Kerch bridge directly, as well as by previous USV attacks.

[new guy]

Interesting that Ukraine seems to have adopted a strategy of prioritising landing ships as targets over e.g frigates firing cruise missiles. Makes perfect sense I suppose as chipping away at Russia's ability to logistically support its troops at the front will have more of a direct impact at the front; the effectiveness of the strategy would exponentially increase if the Kerch Bridge has another accident.

I think they are setting up for the destruction of the Kerch bridge by eliminating their amphibious re-supply capability in advance. These ships could be used to run a ferry service across the Straight if the bridge is damaged & could even be used to evacuate armoured vehicles in the event of a Russian retreat. This is the second of the four large amphibs they had in the Black Sea

I disagree, one wants the enemy to be able to retreat, as without that option the enemy fights harder. Even if it doesn't result in a harder fight, then you have to deal with trapped russian soldiers and civilians.

[Caribbean]

I disagree, one wants the enemy to be able to retreat, as without that option the enemy fights harder. Even if it doesn't result in a harder fight, then you have to deal with trapped russian soldiers and civilians.

Fair point, but I suspect that it is better to allow the enemy to retreat without its heavy equipment. Russia still retains civilian ferries and small landing craft, adequate for evacuating people, but is now becoming severely restricted in its ability to move tanks, APC & other heavy equipment across the STraights. This only leaves Russia with the option of withdrawing them North of the Sea of Azov, which leaves them within range of Ukrainian weaponry, as well as limited to smaller country roads (witness what happened earlier this year with civilians fleeing Crimea when the Kerch Bridge was closed multiple times - it was chaos, with some people taking many days to drive from Crimea back into Russia).

[new guy]

I disagree, one wants the enemy to be able to retreat, as without that option the enemy fights harder. Even if it doesn't result in a harder fight, then you have to deal with trapped russian soldiers and civilians.

Fair point, but I suspect that it is better to allow the enemy to retreat without its heavy equipment. Russia still retains civilian ferries and small landing craft, adequate for evacuating people, but is now becoming severely restricted in its ability to move tanks, APC & other heavy equipment across the STraights. This only leaves Russia with the option of withdrawing them North of the Sea of Azov, which leaves them within range of Ukrainian weaponry, as well as limited to smaller country roads (witness what happened earlier this year with civilians fleeing Crimea when the Kerch Bridge was closed multiple times - it was chaos, with some people taking many days to drive from Crimea back into Russia).

I agree

[Zeno]

With regards to the f-16 being used by Ukraine has any decision been reached on it having access to data from N.A.T.O aircraft?