Ukraine v Russia II

I agree he is a tourist - it seems he wasn't actually fighting - at least not since the early days - because he does not have a contract. He appears to have been rejected for a contract. For instance his whole series of posts where he received orders to move out to Bakhmut appears to be highly deceptive. How could he have received orders? How could he have been fighting at Bakhmut when he is not part of any unit? it seems he simply went to these places and took larping footage

I agree it's not a huge deal but unfortunately harmful to the genuine orgs trying to raise money

 

Michael Weiss has an interesting interview on his latest podcast arguing for the Bakhmut strategy. This is one where the contrarians may have been proved right at the end of the day. Personally I think there is sometimes no correct answer to these kinds of questions.

Ukraine needed to fight the Russians somewhere, and that place ended up mainly being Bakhmut

There is of course a question as to whether they should have been going for a mobile defence rather than a fixed defence, but that is not without its own risks

 

Yeah - this is quite a classic WWII eastern front type engagement.

Thinly held position gets over run, armoured counter, then withdraw - back to square 1

 

Apparently the text says the T position was lost in a night battle but regained the next day

 

Predator got given a medal

1640360168805244928 is not a valid tweet id

 

The first 40 Marders arrived as well.

 

Obviously the T-pattern is only a glimpse of the wider war, but it illustrates the issue that offensives need to be at a scale where they can achieve something.

A “progress” of Russian military ambitions in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/sHoglp21bj

— Andriy P. Zagorodnyuk (@Andriypzag) March 28, 2023

 

There was a lot of misinformation from Ukraine during their previous counteroffensive, and it seemed to work in their favor. So, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

it seems like there are really only 3 realistic axes of advance for an offensive, and Russia knows what they all are. Of course Ukraine will try to deceive about their real objectives. I know this stuff has been gamed out heavily with the US advisers.

One obvious thing to do is to try to strike to the south to cut the landbridge and restore sea access. That has gigantic strategic consquences for Russia. Their entire position in the south could collapse due to logistical issues.

An alternate approach would be to strike in the Donbas, perhaps with the goal to destroy the best russian forces. We don't know where these are.

Ideally Ukraine wants a switch to mobile warfare where they have the advantage - e.g all the new Bradley IFVs - you want to be engaging in fast mobile operations with them, against russian armour. Not attacking trenches.

It's also likely that this won't be one strike - it will be multiple efforts.

 

I've been wondering about this

Many of Russia's best units are involved in these fights, so if you could strike with the right offensive depth you could threaten to trap these forces, and thus commit the reserve mobile russian forces

I think to do it, you'd need to be prepared to commit a lot of force to break through. You can see the issue with the Russian offensive is that commit 5 tanks here and 5 AFVs here, they all get blown up, then they do the same stuff again - so you end up just getting your stuff wrecked piecemeal.

 

Big Gun on wheels have arrived

28 March 2023

Ukrainians with a French AMX-10RC armoured fighting vehicle.

It's not clear where these videos were filmed, but the vehicles in the background have Ukrainian military number plates.https://t.co/5eCh85N5Y9 pic.twitter.com/pYc4Sx1mx8

— Naalsio (@naalsio26) March 29, 2023

 

Before you can set up larger armored formations, you first need to clear the sky. Especially recon drones and "suicide drones" can be a big problem. Recon drones can reveal amassment of armored forces and suicide drones are a real threat even for the best armored vehicles. The problem is, that there are only a handful of possible zones where you can start large scale operations and those see intense fighting since months. So you have also to deal with mine fields that are especially efficient with adjusted artillery corridors and mid ranged anti tank options. To get the sky clear is imo the only option to even think about breaking through these fortifications in large numbers.

I would rather consider a large scale operation in the south to break through to the black sea. Withdrawing Russian troops have a big problem with the sea in their back and supply from the vulnerable flanks.

 

This is why i think you have to attack with enough depth and scale to engage the enemy at his full strategic depth.

The russian offensive shows exactly what you are talking about but there is not enough scale or pressure - they get stopped in a narrow thrust and give up. You have to attack in a lot of places all at once - first to infiltrate, then breakthrough forces - and you have to overwhelm the enemy artillery etc rapidly

IMO this is what they will do, because the success of it creates disaster for the defence

 

Trump just openly supports Putin now

Donald Trump: "I got rid of NATO and built USMCA." pic.twitter.com/6yLn37SwMa

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) March 29, 2023

 

This is why I am worried that Germany announced yesterday that it had ordered replacement Leopards and Panzerhaubitzer 2000 for the ones sent to Ukraine - and it was going to take 2 years to get them... we need that every month if the US goes full fash and exits NATO