also the fact that they could be putting thousands of troops into an isolated pocketWaffledynamics said:
Big video.
Some highlights:
- Belarus still acts like they want to to get in on it.
- Russia has amassed troops near Kharkiv for another push
- Ukraine took a little more territory back near Izyum
- Lots and lots of shelling happening
- Russia is throwing a lot of their forces over to the Kherson region. It is expected that they will start an offensive against the Ukrainians there soon. Speculation is that they're more than doubling the amount of troops there (from ~12,000 to ~25,000)
- Russia built a heavier pontoon bridge in Darivka that can carry heavier equipment
- Germany will give Ukraine engineering tanks that can build heavy bridges
- Some of the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 tanks were lemons, but Germany is opening a maintenance facility near the border to fix them
I have some huge questions about the Russian reinforcements going to Kherson. How will they adequately supply those men? What would the armor situation be like with degraded ability to get heavy equipment over the river? Have they fixed some glaring logistical issues? Will they attack Mykolaiv, Kryvyi Rih, or both? I see a lot of dead Russians in the future if they try that because those towns are massively fortified.
There has to be something I'm missing that gives Russia some confidence in this.
It's pretty clear this is the strategy- whether we want to do this or not.txags92 said:I think what people are insinuating is that the US government wants a long war to bleed the orcs dry and make them a non-entity as a geopolitical foe in the long term. The fact that it gives us an excuse to print money to feed the military industrial complex and thin out the older obsolete weapons platforms in our arsenals to be replaced with newer ones is just a bonus in the eyes of people who believe that. I don't have much faith in our government, but I can't say I am cynical enough to believe that we would sacrifice the good people of Ukraine towards such an end, though I guess we have done it before elsewhere in the world.ABATTBQ11 said:3rd and 2 said:Yes, I don't think the US admin wants a quick victory which'll piss the Russians off. I think the US wants a long, bloody, slow vicotry that'll demoralize the Russians and won't escalate things. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just where we are.Private PoopyPants said:
I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.
I see both sides of this. A quick victory would certainly leave them demoralized, but it may also leave a sense of resentment and the question of, "Should we have done more?" A longer conflict gives the impression that fought hard but just couldn't do it. The former invites another try, while the latter says it's not worth it.
However, there's a fine line between giving Ukraine what they need and putting ourselves at risk. If you see someone who lost their home in a fire, you don't give them your life savings to rebuild and get them right back on their feet. You give them what you can without putting your own finances in jeopardy. That's where we are.
Quote:
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station is the biggest nuclear reactor in Europe. It is located on the southern bank of the Dnipro River just across from the city of Nikopol. And that means the reactor is currently on the front lines of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Russia has decided to take advantage by using the reactor as a place from which it can launch attacks without fear of retaliatory strikes.
Via Hot AirQuote:
The Russians have been firing from the cover of the Zaporizhzhia station since mid-July, Ukrainian military and civilian officials said, sending rockets over the river at Nikopol and other targets.
It is, in effect, a free shot. Ukraine cannot unleash volleys of shells in return using American-provided advanced rocket systems, which have silenced Russian guns elsewhere on the front line. Doing so would risk striking one of the six pressurized water reactors or highly radioactive waste in storage. And Russia knows it.
"They are hiding there so they cannot be hit," said Oleksandr Sayuk, the mayor of Nikopol. "Why else would they be at the electrical station? To use such an object as a shield is very dangerous."…
Over the past three weeks, the Russian military has parked Grad multiple rocket launchers between the reactor buildings, to protect them from retaliatory strikes, said Mr. Orlov, who is in touch with plant employees.
The Russians have also parked an armored personnel carrier and Ural military trucks in the turbine room of Reactor No. 1. The vehicles block a fire access route, Mr. Orlov said, posing a hazard to the entire plant. His assertions could not be independently verified.
24/ Ukraine, largely, has refused to fight how Russia wants to fight. It has developed & implemented its own military strategy with great discipline. What might other nations learn from the Ukrainian Armed Forces? In short – a lot. That is the topic of my next thread. End pic.twitter.com/kDzj7Inu8K
— Mick Ryan, AM (@WarintheFuture) August 1, 2022
The security assistance to Ukraine 🇺🇦 continues, this time in the form of a $550m package including tens of thousands of rounds of artillery ammunition. We remain committed to providing Ukraine with the capabilities they need to defend their homeland. pic.twitter.com/NmKMAi5zTo
— Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III (@SecDef) August 1, 2022
Latest Defence Intelligence update on the situation in Ukraine - 1 August 2022
— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) August 1, 2022
Find out more about the UK government's response: https://t.co/WFgCHPs7yY
🇺🇦 #StandWithUkraine 🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/sU8IJmgiyF
I wonder if some of our generals are chuckling and saying let's turn this into a proxy war and help Ukraine turn the Russian military into the 13th rated military in the world, or something like that. If Ukraine rolls over them, then the possibility of nukes being used increases, so the war has to be close.ABATTBQ11 said:3rd and 2 said:Yes, I don't think the US admin wants a quick victory which'll piss the Russians off. I think the US wants a long, bloody, slow vicotry that'll demoralize the Russians and won't escalate things. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just where we are.Private PoopyPants said:
I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.
I see both sides of this. A quick victory would certainly leave them demoralized, but it may also leave a sense of resentment and the question of, "Should we have done more?" A longer conflict gives the impression that fought hard but just couldn't do it. The former invites another try, while the latter says it's not worth it.
However, there's a fine line between giving Ukraine what they need and putting ourselves at risk. If you see someone who lost their home in a fire, you don't give them your life savings to rebuild and get them right back on their feet. You give them what you can without putting your own finances in jeopardy. That's where we are.
Quote:
ISW assesses that Russian forces were responsible for the killing of 53 Ukrainian POWs in an explosion at a Russian-controlled prison in Olenivka, Donetsk Oblast on July 28.
Two US officials anonymously confirmed to Politico on August 1 that no traces of US-provided High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), Ukraine's most precise artillery system, were found at the prison site.[4] The Kremlin alleges that Ukraine fired HIMARS and precision-guided rockets to kill Ukrainian POWs and deter Ukrainian defectors.
Satellite and other imagery from the site indicate that the attack only damaged one building, did not collapse the walls of that building, and did not leave any shell craters in the vicinity, very strongly suggesting that the destruction of the prison was the result of either a precision strike or an internally planted incendiary or explosive.[5]
One US official told Politico that "the evidence showed the attack was not conducted by Kyiv." If Ukraine had used something other than HIMARS to conduct the strike, the attack would almost certainly have left collateral damage around the facility, including craters and other damaged buildings. Given the US assessment that HIMARS were not used in the attack, ISW assesses that Russia was responsible for this attack on Ukrainian POWs in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
The big difference between Kursk in 1943 and Kherson today is that the Ukrainians have some degree of stand-off capability thanks to US and EU-supplied weaponry. The don't necessarily have to go in and root the Russians out like the Germans did. If anything, this looks to be shaping up like another battle of attrition - think Verdun rather than Kursk. Unfortunately, that probably favors the Soviets - Putin doesn't care how many of his men die so long as there is +1 standing at the end to declare victory.LMCane said:also the fact that they could be putting thousands of troops into an isolated pocketWaffledynamics said:
Big video.
Some highlights:
- Belarus still acts like they want to to get in on it.
- Russia has amassed troops near Kharkiv for another push
- Ukraine took a little more territory back near Izyum
- Lots and lots of shelling happening
- Russia is throwing a lot of their forces over to the Kherson region. It is expected that they will start an offensive against the Ukrainians there soon. Speculation is that they're more than doubling the amount of troops there (from ~12,000 to ~25,000)
- Russia built a heavier pontoon bridge in Darivka that can carry heavier equipment
- Germany will give Ukraine engineering tanks that can build heavy bridges
- Some of the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 tanks were lemons, but Germany is opening a maintenance facility near the border to fix them
I have some huge questions about the Russian reinforcements going to Kherson. How will they adequately supply those men? What would the armor situation be like with degraded ability to get heavy equipment over the river? Have they fixed some glaring logistical issues? Will they attack Mykolaiv, Kryvyi Rih, or both? I see a lot of dead Russians in the future if they try that because those towns are massively fortified.
There has to be something I'm missing that gives Russia some confidence in this.
clearly the Russkies believe this is the Battle of Kursk in 1943 all over again where they can take a pocket and defend it as the Ukes attack on all sides.
tending to look like that may work for Russia unless Ukraine can turn things around and really start hammering oncoming units before they get into place and dug in on the northern shore of the Dnipro
Red1 said:
I would like to understand the logistics to support Ukraine. It must be massive and far reaching because Ukraine relies on friendly countries to supply them with martial resources to keep them in the fight. I also ask if we are protecting the logistics capabilities in a neighboring country(s).
True but I have a strong suspicion V Corps conducts planning and ensures execution. One of the roles of Unified Commands is to support and resource the JTF Commanders.74OA said:
Management of the multi-national logistics effort supplying Ukraine is hosted by USEUCOM and led by the US and the UK. CELL
There is also a multinational political group that meets regularly to source aid for Ukraine. CONTACT GROUP
I said it was a HQs only.AgLA06 said:
I would find it very difficult to believe we have 50K troops in Poland.
The biggest difference is that the US is providing the Ukrainians with real-time, finely detailed intelligence on Russian force disposition and movement. That's the crucial enabler that allows Ukraine's new long-range fires to be so effective and for it to anticipate Russian actions.2000AgPhD said:The big difference between Kursk in 1943 and Kherson today is that the Ukrainians have some degree of stand-off capability thanks to US and EU-supplied weaponry. The don't necessarily have to go in and root the Russians out like the Germans did. If anything, this looks to be shaping up like another battle of attrition - think Verdun rather than Kursk. Unfortunately, that probably favors the Soviets - Putin doesn't care how many of his men die so long as there is +1 standing at the end to declare victory.LMCane said:also the fact that they could be putting thousands of troops into an isolated pocketWaffledynamics said:
Big video.
Some highlights:
- Belarus still acts like they want to to get in on it.
- Russia has amassed troops near Kharkiv for another push
- Ukraine took a little more territory back near Izyum
- Lots and lots of shelling happening
- Russia is throwing a lot of their forces over to the Kherson region. It is expected that they will start an offensive against the Ukrainians there soon. Speculation is that they're more than doubling the amount of troops there (from ~12,000 to ~25,000)
- Russia built a heavier pontoon bridge in Darivka that can carry heavier equipment
- Germany will give Ukraine engineering tanks that can build heavy bridges
- Some of the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 tanks were lemons, but Germany is opening a maintenance facility near the border to fix them
I have some huge questions about the Russian reinforcements going to Kherson. How will they adequately supply those men? What would the armor situation be like with degraded ability to get heavy equipment over the river? Have they fixed some glaring logistical issues? Will they attack Mykolaiv, Kryvyi Rih, or both? I see a lot of dead Russians in the future if they try that because those towns are massively fortified.
There has to be something I'm missing that gives Russia some confidence in this.
clearly the Russkies believe this is the Battle of Kursk in 1943 all over again where they can take a pocket and defend it as the Ukes attack on all sides.
tending to look like that may work for Russia unless Ukraine can turn things around and really start hammering oncoming units before they get into place and dug in on the northern shore of the Dnipro
V Corps headquarters is based at Ft Knox. The headquarters has a forward command post in Poland manned by several hundred personnel on a rotational basis.Red1 said:I said it was a HQs only.AgLA06 said:
I would find it very difficult to believe we have 50K troops in Poland.
https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/2-august--zelenskiy-said-that-despite-us-supplies-of-rocketQuote:
Zelenskiy said that despite US supplies of rocket artillery, Ukraine's forces could not yet overcome Russia's advantages in heavy guns and manpower: "This is very much felt in combat, especially in the Donbas. It is just hell there. Words cannot describe it"
Quote:
The Ukrainian military has been shaped to fight the conflict in the Donbass and thus poses little deterrent threat to Russia; provision of U.S. weapons can do nothing to change that. If Moscow is willing to launch a major war, invading the second-largest country in Europe with a population of over 40 million, all while absorbing tremendous economic punishment from the West, then it is unlikely to be deterred by whatever U.S. military assistance can be delivered in the coming weeks.
Quote:
In normal times, there are many good reasons for the United States to provide military support to Ukraine. But these are not normal times. Military assistance now will at best be marginal in affecting the outcome of the crisis. It might be morally justified to help a U.S. partner at risk of aggression. But given the scale of the potential threat to Ukraine and its forces, the most effective way Washington can help is to work on finding a diplomatic solution.
Keep in mind many of these people also expected Ukraine to fold like a cheap lawn chair and for Kyiv to fall in a couple of days.benchmark said:
Quick reminder what a few Rand Corp 'experts' were saying a month before the Russian invasion.
The West's Weapons Won't Make Any Difference to UkraineQuote:
The Ukrainian military has been shaped to fight the conflict in the Donbass and thus poses little deterrent threat to Russia; provision of U.S. weapons can do nothing to change that. If Moscow is willing to launch a major war, invading the second-largest country in Europe with a population of over 40 million, all while absorbing tremendous economic punishment from the West, then it is unlikely to be deterred by whatever U.S. military assistance can be delivered in the coming weeks.Quote:
In normal times, there are many good reasons for the United States to provide military support to Ukraine. But these are not normal times. Military assistance now will at best be marginal in affecting the outcome of the crisis. It might be morally justified to help a U.S. partner at risk of aggression. But given the scale of the potential threat to Ukraine and its forces, the most effective way Washington can help is to work on finding a diplomatic solution.