I don't know why we took this course of action. We gave Ukraine Javelins and Stingers. Then we gave them drones. Later they received MLRS and Howitzers. Lastly, we gave them HIMARS. It was incremental military aid when the Ukrainians needed all those weapons from the start of the war. I have no clue what the hang up was. Our generals knew what Ukraine needed. Maybe it was a budget issue. I don't know.

Takes time to train. Takes time to deploy. Takes time to assess needs and also determine what we have that might be available and not required for our own security interests.

By the same token, there is a brain drain happening in Russia. When many of the multinationals left as part of sanctions, their workers tended to follow.

And it was unclear how far Putin was willing to go.

He appears to be All-In and damn the consequences for his country.

Waffledynamics 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.

---

also the fact that they could be putting thousands of troops into an isolated pocket

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

txags92 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

3rd and 2 said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

It's pretty clear this is the strategy- whether we want to do this or not.

we don't have enough munitions in our arsenals to suddenly make Ukraine an equal of Russia on the battlefield, the best we can do is steadily build up their defensive capabilities and integrate high technology weaponry and doctrine into their military.

and hope they can hold and make limited counterattacks to keep the Russians off balance.

with nuclear weapons, you don't want a massive collapse of the Russians (even if it were possible to do it militarily)

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Via Hot Air

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

Our senior generals who watched Russia invade Ukraine had the knowledge and staff to wargame the conflict and understand what the requisite requirements or capabilities were needed by Ukraine. If our senior generals don't know how to wargame it then they are in the wrong business.

The pattern of aid was close precision fires with Javelins and Stingers, precision fires with a little more range with drones. Then longer precision fires with HIMARS. When you fight a large enemy force, you want to fight them in depth from close to far.

I don't entirely buy the "we need training time" excuse for the delay in aid. The US decided to give aid incrementally which led to incremental training. The aid drove the training train.

Ukraines timely response to artillery requests is something we should adopt remove the lawyers too

Drone strike on Russian navy base in Crimea apparently launched from Russian-held territory. RESISTANCE

Watching and will edit with notable bits of information.

-Russia captured Pokrovske village and is 8 km from Bakhmut.
-Wildfires are raging in the South due to lack of firefighting crews

Nothing big else hat hasn't already been noted in this thread.

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

Find out more about the UK government's response: https://t.co/WFgCHPs7yY

🇺🇦 #StandWithUkraine 🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/sU8IJmgiyF

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) August 1, 2022

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

3rd and 2 said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, AUGUST 1

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.

---

https://time.com/6202299/ukraine-invasion-european-union-becoming-union/

In short the EU is teetering. As an economic unit it was never going to work with parity for all. As a geopolitical defensive unit, it may work. However, France and Germany are going to have to give up their positions of economic dominance. It is Time, however, they make some very good points on the realities Europe is facing. The fallout from this is going to be very interesting as the power dynamic in the EU is shifting rapidly. The eastern nations are about to see themselves become much more influential in Europe. If the EU can survive this.

Germany is waffling, because they are aware their entire economic system is on the edge of complete collapse. This was, 100% of course, due to a series of extremely poor decisions and the rest of the EU is not super happy with their leadership. Leave it to zie Germans to put Europe on the edge of collapse once again.

LMCane said:

---

Waffledynamics 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.

---

also the fact that they could be putting thousands of troops into an isolated pocket

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

---

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.

What if this was just a feint to fix the Russians?!?

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).

Ukraine's battlefield success is built on many pillars, not the least of which is an empowered NCO corps.

CHANGE

I think I might have some clarity. The US has recently created permanent basing in Poland with V Corps HQs only. Typically, a US Army Corps is comprised of up to 50,000 soldiers. The Corps commander, Lt. Gen. Kolasheski, has a robust staff of experts in various fields who are COLs and are at the cusp becoming general officers, but it is not guaranteed. LTG Kolasheski is the Commander in that region which means he is responsible for that region to include leading the kinetic fight should the US enter that phase. He should be the major conduit for the US response across the board.

What is the capability and expectations of V Corps?

- It conducts contingency planning should the US have to enter the war with combat power. The combat divisions and brigades will fall under V Corps HQs.

- It has a robust and expert staff to plan combat and logistics missions with the full spectrum of expertise and capabilities.

- It is capable of planning Joint Operations such as Combined Arms, Foreign Militaries, and Foreign Countries.

For these reasons I will make the strong assumption that V Corps is helping Ukraine plan combat operations and planning and executing logistics support from various nations to help Ukraine.

That is my 2 cents for today.

Management of the multi-national logistics effort supplying Ukraine is hosted by USEUCOM and led by the US and the UK. A bit long but be sure and read thru. CELL

There is also a high-level political group that meets regularly to source new aid for Ukraine. CONTACT GROUP

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).

---

I would find it very difficult to believe we have 50K troops in Poland.

From what I can find we only have about 100K troops in all of Europe and approximately 10K in Poland as of March.

I'm pretty sure I read we have a specialized logistics force separate from anything else based in Germany for our Ukraine support.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/07/21/inside-the-multinational-logistics-cell-coordinating-military-aid-for-ukraine/

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

---

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.

Other way round. It is the responsibility of the Services to support and resource unified combatant commanders like EUCOM. USAEUR likely enables forward ground movement of US sourced materiel bound for Ukraine to border pickup points, but not international aid.

"With the arrival of sophisticated equipment provided by NATO and other allies, the cell is now a "one-stop shop" that not only coordinates and tracks deliveries coming from all over the world to Ukraine, but also organizes the training of its armed forces to operate and sustain the equipment. The challenge is lining up the training schedule with equipment deliveries, Heinz noted."

"When a nation offers to provide military assistance, the cell coordinates the logistics to keep the assets "in flow" from the providing nation to the border of Ukraine. The door-to-door process can take 48-96 hours, Heinz said."

"King noted that when the cell was first set up, the team was moving quickly to coordinate the rapidly incoming military assistance donations. Now, the team is planning deliveries up to two months out, he said."

AgLA06 said:

---

I would find it very difficult to believe we have 50K troops in Poland.

---

I said it was a HQs only.

2000AgPhD said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Waffledynamics 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.

---

also the fact that they could be putting thousands of troops into an isolated pocket

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

---

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.

---

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.

Red1 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

I would find it very difficult to believe we have 50K troops in Poland.

---

I said it was a HQs only.

---

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.

The Department of the Army announced in February the activation of an additional corps headquarters, called Fifth Corps (V Corps), to be located in the United States at Fort Knox, Kentucky, with a forward command post to be located in Europe. The city of Poznan will be the location of the U.S. Army V Corps Headquarters (Forward) in Poland. The V Corps Headquarters will consist of approximately 635 soldiers, of which a portion will be positioned at the forward command post in Poznan on a rotational basis. U.S. Army Europe expects the first rotation of personnel to start arriving in October 2020.

"We have a strong relationship with our Polish allies and appreciate the outstanding support they provide to our rotational Soldiers," said Lt. Gen. John. S. Kolasheski, V Corps commanding general. "As we stand up the V Corps forward command post in Poznan we look forward to strengthening that relationship as we work together to build readiness and enhance interoperability between our militaries and those of our allies and partners."

The unit's flag was first unfurled in Poland and the corps' incoming commander, Maj. Gen. John S. Kolasheski was promoted to Lieutenant General during a ceremony Aug. 4, in Krakow. The primary mission of the new forward headquarters will be to conduct operational planning, mission command and oversight of the rotational forces in Europe. It will also provide additional capability to support allies and partners in the region. V Corps will be a major participant in DEFENDER-Europe 21, planned to take place in the Balkan and Black Sea regions from May-June 2021.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The center of gravity of V Corps is the LTG with his HQs which are located in Poland. A function of USAEUR is to resource V Corps and Ukraine. The Corps Commander's task is to coordinate with USAEUR, V Corps, and Ukraine with the help of many Liaison and Staff Officers. The Corps is where the rubber meets the road, so it ensures proper planning and execution. That is how it works.

Today's SITREP.

Quote:

---

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"

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/2-august--zelenskiy-said-that-despite-us-supplies-of-rocket

Russia just has way too damn many guns.

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 Ukraine

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.

---

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 Ukraine

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.

Take it with a grain of salt. I'd say Ukraine is doing much better with Western help than without.