EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 342
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation617 Posts
Most of those who left in autumn just were not supposed to be mobilized in the first place, but were afraid that they would be. On January 10 2023 00:58 Gorsameth wrote: And another mobilization around the 15th has been making the rumour rounds for a while now. Does tell you something about what is left alive of the previous wave if they already need a new one. First of all, Russia is greatly enlarging its army, I was giving info about that in the end of December. I've already seen 3 new Motorized Rifle regiment numbers that previously did not existed in Russian military structure (346th, 44th, 45th). Second, I'm not sure we'll see it on 15th Jan, since a lot of mobilized are still on training grounds (judging by witness claims, videos from the grounds themselves and complaints of mobilized being placed on the wrong military specialty). And third, I wonder how that logic applies to Ukraine, since they are basically on permanent mobilization since 24 Feb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobilization_in_Ukraine#2022 They had 700 thousand soldiers (up from somewhat around 350 000 before 24 Feb, if we include National and Border guard) in May - https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/21/live-sievierodonetsk-shelling-brutal-and-pointless-zelenskyy-says-as-russia-continues-offe Then they claimed having one million in June - https://www.axios.com/2022/06/15/ukraine-1000-casualties-day-donbas-arakhamia And then stopped giving info on mobilization numbers, only stating that they conscript fewer people than at the start of the war, but they still do. https://ukranews.com/en/news/903005-afu-command-declares-that-there-will-be-no-waves-of-mobilization But initial pace was 650 000 within first 4 months. By accounts of AFU POWs, some of them were conscripted in August and September. https://t.me/boris_rozhin/74646 https://t.me/kremlinprachka/22818 If they really are forming two new army corps (I posted about it few pages back) - it also will be several tens of thousands men. So you need to evaluate numbers on both sides, before arriving to a conclusion. On January 10 2023 02:05 JimmiC wrote: My understanding is the past mobilization avoided Moscow and St. Petersburg and this one will not, and given the populations and that many of the correct age so on are already gone the concentration from those major cities should be high. Will be interesting how this effects the wars populatrity in Russia. Actual effect as well as a percentage distribution of the first wave of mobilized is yet to be seen, since confirmed losses among mobilized are much lower than those of a regular army https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-64181570 And regular army was comprised of different regions unequally, since the poorer regions had given much higher numbers of contract troopers, than richer ones. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
edit: The U.S. is considering sending Stryker armored combat vehicles to Ukraine in an upcoming aid package to help Kyiv fend off an expected Russian spring offensive, according to two people familiar with the discussion. The news follows the Biden administration’s announcement last week that it will send 50 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, a powerful tracked armored vehicle that carries an autocannon, a machine gun and TOW missiles. The Strykers may be part of the next tranche of military aid, according to a Defense Department official, who like others asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations ahead of an announcement. The administration could announce the package, with or without Strykers, late next week around the time of the next Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in Germany. The people stressed that no final decision has been made, and the administration could decide to send the Strykers in a future package instead. “We have no announcements to make at this time,” said Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Garron Garn. A spokesperson for the National Security Council did not comment by press time. Strykers would be another capability boost for Kyiv’s rapidly growing arsenal and would help meet a critical need for armor, as concerns grow that Russia is planning a second mobilization for a major new offensive in the coming weeks. While Strykers are not as powerful or protective as tanks, the eight-wheeled armored fighting vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems can operate in snow, mud and sand, though off-road mobility is somewhat limited by its lack of tracks. “Ukrainians need armored personnel carriers and short of other countries providing it, is what we have in inventory,” the DoD official said. “Not as good as a Bradley for a tank fight, but good to protect infantry and get up close to a fight.” The U.S. has already sent Ukraine thousands of combat vehicles, including Humvees and mine-resistant vehicles used to move troops on the battlefield. But Strykers could offer a balance between a tank and an armored personnel carrier. Army operators say the wheeled vehicle moves more quietly than a Bradley and note that it can ferry more troops, nine compared to six in a standard M2. The vehicles were deployed regularly to Iraq with U.S. infantry battalions where they allowed U.S. troops to move quickly along paved roadways while offering more protection than a Humvee, along with a .50 caliber machine gun operated remotely by a soldier inside the vehicle. Ukraine already operates a similar vehicle, as the first of a planned 39 Canadian Armoured Combat Support Vehicles — a Canadian version of the Stryker also built by General Dynamics — started to arrive in Ukraine in recent weeks. The vehicles were initially purchased for the Canadian armed forces, but in June Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was diverting their delivery to Ukraine. Source | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On January 10 2023 08:01 Magic Powers wrote: What's the takeaway? Is the situation critical or is it just an observation of additional effort by Russian forces? At the moment, Russia's committed overwhelming forces to Soledar and made significant gains in the city. Ukraine has brought in reinforcements to fight back. The air forces of both sides are active. Wagner's brought their most experienced soldiers for this and I don't know what Ukraine can do to hold on to Soledar. Might see a full retreat to Bakhmut | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On January 10 2023 17:12 warding wrote: Julian Röpke is one of the least reliable journalists out there by the way. The guy was claiming the Kherson offensive was a massive failure two days into it. Thanks for the note. I think his bias is noticable in this comment: "All those “it’s a strategic meat grinder” folks should swallow their words." How can he say that if the situation is still unfolding? If I'm not mistaken Bakhmut was under Russian occupation initially during the war, so in that region Ukraine is fighting to hold reclaimed territory. So far it's looking like a repeat of Kherson. | ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation617 Posts
On January 10 2023 20:16 Magic Powers wrote: Thanks for the note. I think his bias is noticable in this comment: "All those “it’s a strategic meat grinder” folks should swallow their words." How can he say that if the situation is still unfolding? If I'm not mistaken Bakhmut was under Russian occupation initially during the war, so in that region Ukraine is fighting to hold reclaimed territory. So far it's looking like a repeat of Kherson. Bakhmut was never under Russian control. It came into artillery firing range in May, and the battle itself unfolded in late July-early August (though fighting was still happening before, just further from the city). | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539 Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal. The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed. Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On January 10 2023 21:02 Ardias wrote: Bakhmut was never under Russian control. It came into artillery firing range in May, and the battle itself unfolded in late July-early August (though fighting was still happening before, just further from the city). I see, thanks for the correction. | ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation617 Posts
On January 10 2023 09:06 plasmidghost wrote: Adding some updates. There's still a chance of successful defense. The extreme cold will be significant in determining who prevails. Ukraine has been killing Russian close-combat squads of around eight people, but they keep coming. Ukrainian reinforcements are effective. https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1612588298509090817 Russian TG channel made a compilation of Wagner movement in Soledar within last week, allegedly based on some UA OSINT map. https://t.me/voenacher/37420 Considering the stalemate there for previous 3-4 months on eastern edge of the city, that's quite rapid progress for Russian forces. There is also a situation south of Bakhmut, where there is ongoing battle for Klishchiivka village, which is a strong defence point for Ukrainian forces. If they lose it, the last major road to Bakhmut will be under direct fire from there. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On January 10 2023 17:12 warding wrote: Julian Röpke is one of the least reliable journalists out there by the way. The guy was claiming the Kherson offensive was a massive failure two days into it. Thank you for the heads-up, I had no idea | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote: This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe). https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539 Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal. The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed. Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table. I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3380 Posts
On January 10 2023 17:12 warding wrote: Julian Röpke is one of the least reliable journalists out there by the way. The guy was claiming the Kherson offensive was a massive failure two days into it. He wasn't wrong. It was clearly meant to be a breakthrough attack and it failed back then. We now know the Ukrainian commander in charge was dismissed soon afterwards. | ||
KwarK
United States43464 Posts
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote: I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones. Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more. It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch. Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training. The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”. | ||
| ||
