|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Guerrillas have killed the Russian backed Governor of Kakhovka via car bomb.
Andrii Shtepa, a Russian-appointed puppet leader of the village of Liubymivka, which is located on the left bank of Kherson Oblast, was blown up in the occupied city of Kakhovka.
Source
Also the Wagner group has been supplied with North Korean weaponry, and ammo.
The private Russian military company, the Wagner Group, took delivery of an arms shipment from North Korea to help bolster Russian forces in Ukraine, a sign of the group's expanding role in that conflict, a senior administration official said on Thursday.
"We can confirm that North Korea has completed an initial arms delivery to Wagner, which paid for the equipment. Last month, North Korea delivered infantry rockets and missiles into Russia for use by Wagner," the official said, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The U.S. assessment, based on intelligence to be unveiled publicly on Thursday, is that the amount of material delivered by North Korea will not change battlefield dynamics in Ukraine, "but we are concerned that North Korea is planning to deliver more military equipment to Wagner," the official said.
U.S. officials believe North Korea's arms delivery is a direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and they plan to raise this with the Security Council. Pyongyang has built ballistic missiles capable of striking almost anywhere on earth, weapons experts say, as well as shorter-range weapons.
The official said Russian President Vladimir Putin has increasingly turned to the Wagner Group, owned by his ally Yevgeny Prigozhin, for help in Ukraine, where Russian forces have stumbled in their bid to topple the Kyiv government.
The Biden administration on Wednesday unveiled new curbs on technology exports to the Wagner Group in a bid to further choke off supplies to the contractor.
More sanctions are coming in the weeks ahead against the Russian company and its support group in countries around the world, the official said.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russian businessman Prigozhin is spending more than $100 million per month to fund Wagner's operations in Ukraine, but has encountered problems recruiting Russians to fight there.
The United States estimates that Wagner has 50,000 personnel deployed in Ukraine, including 10,000 contractors and 40,000 convicts recruited from Russian prisons, the official said.
The Wagner Group, staffed by veterans of the Russian armed forces, has fought in Libya, Syria, the Central African Republic and Mali, among other countries.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Wagner has played a major role in the battle for the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut and has suffered heavy casualties there with about 1,000 Wagner fighters killed in recent weeks, most of them convicts, the official said.
Inside Russia, Prigozhin's influence is expanding, and his group's "independence from the Russian Defense Ministry has increased during the war in Ukraine," the official said, without providing evidence.
"For months, the Russian military has been relying on Wagner to lead combat operations in parts of the Donbas - and in certain instances, Russian military officials are actually subordinate to Wagner's command," the official said.
In addition, Prigozhin has criticized Russian generals and defense officials for their performance in Ukraine.
"It is apparent that Wagner is emerging as a rival power center to the Russian military and other Russian ministries," the official said.
Source
|
Russian Federation618 Posts
There was also an information given from the same meeting of Putin and MoD regarding the increase of the Russian Army in terms of organization. They are... ambitious, to say the least, in terms of military supply.
Though I must say, that there wasn't a definite time period said for that reform. May be 2 years, 3, 5, 10, whatever.
Also, it needs to be understand, that some of this stuff may be created through the reorganization of existing units with their equipment, and not a creation of new ones with new equipment from scratch.
Will be adding my opinion below each statement.
Create 3 completely new motor rifle divisions, plus expand 7 existing motor rifle brigades into divisions.
Sound quite extreme,especially in terms of support units necessary. Though in some aspects, pretty doable. You can still amass quite a number of tanks, BTRs and BMPs from the storage, probably artillery (though, most likely, towed artillery) as well, but, let's say Air Defence is more tricky.
Plus there is question of providing working communication network, means of recon, ammunition and logistics, and even barracks and storage for those.
Though my take is that these divisions will be of reduced number, not your regular 4-regiment division. Russian Army already had the experience with such (19th and 20th Motor Rifle divisions, for example), but still, number of support artillery, air defence, engineering and logistic vehicles needed will be huge.
Create 5 new artillery divisions, one per each military districts. Each such division must include high-powered artillery brigade.
Well, if we grab a ton of stored towed artillery, it's definetly possible (according to Military Balance, there something like 1000 D-20, 1000 2A36 and 600 2A65 152-mm artillery systems in storage). Problem is, again, transportation, communication and recon (artillery units need to have their own means of recon and fire correction).
I was questioning "high powered artillery brigades", but then saw that Military Balance lists 260 2S7 in storage.
And the main bottleneck for this (if we assume no manpower shortage), would be number of ammunition required to fire all that stuff. Russia has decent shell production, but not that much.
Create 2 new airborne divisions.
Kinda the easiest. Airborne divisions are small, and there is a bunch of BMDs in storage to fill the units, plus AB divisions supposed to be mobile, so they have less support units with them. Though I hope they stop with this aluminium bullshit (meaning BMD), and use modern MRAPs that are being produced, like KAMAZ "Vystrel" or VPK-Ural.
Expand 5 existing naval infantry brigades into naval infantry divisions.
Again, they would probably add one more regiment and some support units on top of existing ones. Definetly possible.
Each Combined Arms Army should have mixed air division, as well as helicopter brigade of 80-100 helicopters.
Now here is the onion. Even if we talk about reorganization of the structure and assume that all existing helos and planes will go into these - it still seems near impossible with current number of armies (12).
Though the thing is, and that's why I was speaking about reorganization earlier - some armies are a skeleton force compared to others. For example, 1st Guards Tank Army, if we count core units, has 2 divisions of 3 regiments, plus additional motor rifle brigade and tank regiment. So it's 32 tank and infantry battalions. And then there is 29th Combined Arms Army with... 1 motor rifle brigade. 4 tank and infantry battalions. But both of them have equal number of support (artillery, engineer, anti-air) brigades (okay divisions of 1st GTA have their own support units as well, but still). So we could see simply the reduction of the number of armies and increase is size of existing ones.
Still, even 600-700 helos would be a stretch, even if we include Mi-8 modernized variants in the mix. And we also have...
Plus create 3 new separate air divisions command, 8 new bomber regiments, 1 new fighter regiment, 6 army aviation (helicopter) brigades.
... this. This seems to be a demand for a completely new units, and there are another 6 helo brigades. Our main helo supplier, "Helicopters of Russia" company, produced 865 helos in past 5 years and claim to have capability to produce 360 per year.
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/73079/
But thing is, it's both military and civilian ones, and military ones do include transports (though you definetly could use Mi-8 in combat, even with guided weapons, so technically it's a combat helicopter as well).
As for planes - actually bomber regiment in the long run seems possible. It's 24 planes, and Su-34 production was 20 a year at peacetime, and production plant wasn't near at its full capacity at that time. Question will be with electronics of course, but I assume gray/parallel imports and trade with China could kinda help with most of it (Su-34 isn't super complicated aircraft).
Also, judging by the absent of new Ground Attack regiments, Su-25 production wouldn't be revived (they only upgrade existing ones).
We'll have to see, how these plans will compare with reality.
|
Apparently the strike on Rogozin was not done via HIMARS. But French supplied Howitzers.
Twitter is stating that the wound is a lot more serious than let on and he is being flown to Moscow.
|
|
|
Maybe they should throw him to jail for that...
|
So if the rumors of Belarus being forced into the war are true (unlikely) do you think Ukraine would counter attack into the country? I don't think they have nukes? Not saying they would take Minsk but to advance the front sligthly and take and defend enemy towns. Always better to figth on their ground if you can.
|
Russian Federation618 Posts
On December 23 2022 22:06 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
So if the rumors of Belarus being forced into the war are true (unlikely) do you think Ukraine would counter attack into the country? I don't think they have nukes? Not saying they would take Minsk but to advance the front sligthly and take and defend enemy towns. Always better to figth on their ground if you can.
Almost every maneuver element Ukraine has (tank, mechanized, motorized, air assault, marine, jager and National Guard rapid reaction brigades) are engaged on Donbass Front. Protection of the other parts of Ukraine border relies mostly on local TDF units.
Example of sources - this map:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=180u1IkUjtjpdJWnIC0AxTKSiqK4G6Pez&hl=en_US&ll=48.55825282731494,36.82033580093235&z=7
|
On December 23 2022 23:14 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 22:06 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
So if the rumors of Belarus being forced into the war are true (unlikely) do you think Ukraine would counter attack into the country? I don't think they have nukes? Not saying they would take Minsk but to advance the front sligthly and take and defend enemy towns. Always better to figth on their ground if you can. Almost every maneuver element Ukraine has (tank, mechanized, motorized, air assault, marine, jager and National Guard rapid reaction brigades) are engaged on Donbass Front. Protection of the other parts of Ukraine border relies mostly on local TDF units. Example of sources - this map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=180u1IkUjtjpdJWnIC0AxTKSiqK4G6Pez&hl=en_US&ll=48.55825282731494,36.82033580093235&z=7
Except for the very large force buildup currently happening which is the reason they put the bare minimal they had to in Donbass...
I think they will have more than enough if they want to but the question was would they cross the border.
|
Holland to put up to 2.5 billion Euros to Ukraine for Defense etc.
|
I think most likely the Northern build-up is posturing to distract the Ukrainian forces and thin them out. Basically it's a bluff, and it's working because it has to be taken seriously, quite similar to Putin's nuclear threat. This is proper war strategy. Not every threat is real, but you make your enemy think it could be real.
It's something that Ukraine is also doing. Russia has to consider the possibility of Ukrainian troops crossing the Russian (or other) borders. The more paranoid they are about it, the better for Ukraine.
|
Strategically counter-attacking into belarus to knock them out of the war would make sense but this isn't a normal war. Ukraines ability to collect military aid relies on a PR campaign in the countries giving them aid. Going from being a pure defender of their borders to a nation who is conquering other nations would compromise their ability to get such foreign aid.
I don't think belarus's military will get into the war as the political situation would turn south fast. Russia trying to go 3 day war 2.0 would still run into the obvious issue of not being able to actualy take the capital and having their supply lines be ravaged by partisans and special forces. They do not have the army to storm kyiv so their only choice would be to surround the city and attempt to retake the suburbs which, uh did not go well the first time.
|
United States44191 Posts
No point invading Belarus to knock them out of a war they’re not in. Let’s say they seize Minsk and Belarus makes a peace, the Russian army still occupies the place, fighting continues. It’ll be as meaningful as the Italian capitulation in WW2, the fighting in Italy continued because it was occupied by Nazis. In WW2 it was as good a place for Americans to kill Nazis as any other but Ukraine has plenty of Russians at home to kill.
|
For comparison our aid to Ukraine this year was about 1 billion euros. The 2.5 is what is currently budgeted but can still change depending on circumstances.
|
Russian Federation618 Posts
On December 24 2022 01:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 23:14 Ardias wrote:On December 23 2022 22:06 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
So if the rumors of Belarus being forced into the war are true (unlikely) do you think Ukraine would counter attack into the country? I don't think they have nukes? Not saying they would take Minsk but to advance the front sligthly and take and defend enemy towns. Always better to figth on their ground if you can. Almost every maneuver element Ukraine has (tank, mechanized, motorized, air assault, marine, jager and National Guard rapid reaction brigades) are engaged on Donbass Front. Protection of the other parts of Ukraine border relies mostly on local TDF units. Example of sources - this map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=180u1IkUjtjpdJWnIC0AxTKSiqK4G6Pez&hl=en_US&ll=48.55825282731494,36.82033580093235&z=7 Except for the very large force buildup currently happening which is the reason they put the bare minimal they had to in Donbass... I think they will have more than enough if they want to but the question was would they cross the border.
Which tank and mechanized elements this buildup consists of?
|
Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrij Melnyk is once again asking for battle tanks. He appeals specifically to Scholz to take a leading role that other nations can follow.
https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Melnyk-Berlin-should-form-European-armored-alliance-for-Ukraine--42608547/
I really do hope that these tanks get delivered sometime soon, and that the reason shipment was being blocked was actually just for strategic purposes (unfortunately I doubt that). Ukraine would benefit a whole lot due to increased ammunition but also because these tanks are a lot better in several ways, like greater safety for the crew for instance.
|
On December 24 2022 20:00 Magic Powers wrote:Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrij Melnyk is once again asking for battle tanks. He appeals specifically to Scholz to take a leading role that other nations can follow. https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Melnyk-Berlin-should-form-European-armored-alliance-for-Ukraine--42608547/I really do hope that these tanks get delivered sometime soon, and that the reason shipment was being blocked was actually just for strategic purposes (unfortunately I doubt that). Ukraine would benefit a whole lot due to increased ammunition but also because these tanks are a lot better in several ways, like greater safety for the crew for instance.
Safety in a tank is entirely down to the sensor suite to detect and kill enemies before getting shot at. While I have no doubt that the Leo 2 is extremely resistant to frontal fire, any side or rear hit is still likely going to be loss of vehicle, and artillery will still mobility kill. I'm sure that it has a better sensor suite than anything in theatre at least, so if it's being used for an advance, it's probably one of the best tanks to lead a column with as it can see things coming from much further away and is less likely to be stopped.
I'm still not entirely certain Ukraine needs them. The role of the tank this conflict(when not being sacrificed in useless charges) has been like 90% indirect artillery, and 10% fast advances. They would only really need a spearhead of a couple dozen IMO.
|
On December 24 2022 20:00 Magic Powers wrote:Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrij Melnyk is once again asking for battle tanks. He appeals specifically to Scholz to take a leading role that other nations can follow. https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Melnyk-Berlin-should-form-European-armored-alliance-for-Ukraine--42608547/I really do hope that these tanks get delivered sometime soon, and that the reason shipment was being blocked was actually just for strategic purposes (unfortunately I doubt that). Ukraine would benefit a whole lot due to increased ammunition but also because these tanks are a lot better in several ways, like greater safety for the crew for instance.
The latest US aid package is said to include a lot of ammunition for Soviet/Russian tank types. (125mm shells)
That's about as close as it will ever get to admitting that western tanks are simply not happening.
|
On December 24 2022 22:23 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2022 20:00 Magic Powers wrote:Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrij Melnyk is once again asking for battle tanks. He appeals specifically to Scholz to take a leading role that other nations can follow. https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Melnyk-Berlin-should-form-European-armored-alliance-for-Ukraine--42608547/I really do hope that these tanks get delivered sometime soon, and that the reason shipment was being blocked was actually just for strategic purposes (unfortunately I doubt that). Ukraine would benefit a whole lot due to increased ammunition but also because these tanks are a lot better in several ways, like greater safety for the crew for instance. The latest US aid package is said to include a lot of ammunition for Soviet/Russian tank types. (125mm shells) That's about as close as it will ever get to admitting that western tanks are simply not happening.
Ukraine has a fairly large amount of these old Soviet battle tanks (after the offensives now more than ever), so they require a very large supply of 125mm shells regardless of any new tank shipments.
I'm guessing the reason why Germany isn't sending modern battle tanks is - as many others have also said - because they only have few (at most 200 in operation), and German generals may've decided that sending even up to half of them wouldn't make a big enough difference in the war. Considering that a few months ago it was predicted that Ukraine needs modern tanks for the Kherson offensive, it turned out they didn't need any at all.
Now that everything North of the Dnipro has been claimed, there's a far smaller area that can be attacked using tanks. Especially now there might not be any concrete value in Germany sending them, but after the winter this will all change.
|
There's also the issue of needing to train the tank crews on how to use the tanks, add in a whole different supply line for their ammo(and I think another for their fuel?), and have the maintenance logistics so they can be field repaired and sent back to depots.
Sounds like a massive hassle and a half to set up mid-war.
|
On December 25 2022 12:28 Gahlo wrote:
Sounds like a massive hassle and a half to set up mid-war.
It is a big hassle. 3-6 months of training at least, different ammo, different tech, changing the labels in the vehicles etc.
So, let's have an estimate of about 6 months to be able to use western tanks in small capacity (more people can be brought on board as time progresses). It is a huge investment of people (who at the time aren't fighting at the front) and materiel. It all then depends on how long the war is going to last. If it'll be going on for another 3 years than the investment would probably be worth it in the long run as supply of warsaw-pact vehicles and ammo dwindles even further.
I guess strategists in the west don't really think Russia can keep this offensive up for the next year, but the time will tell. Personally I'm inclined to agree that the longer this war lasts the worse it gets for Russia (since Ukraine is already devastated).
Edit:
Ultimately, protracted wars are usually won by economy and if you consider that Texas (yes, the state in the US) alone has better economy than Russia there's simply no way it can keep up with the budget. US already passed the bill for Ukraine military aid valuing $45 billion for the next year, that's 2/3 of Russia's entire military spending per year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
