Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 690

Thread: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

  1. #461
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    1,537
    Thanked 534 Times in 354 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Article in the Times on Russia's late of expensive missiles but increasing reliance on cheap Iranian drones.

    Lacking precision missiles, Russia is increasing its use of drones, Ukraine says.

    Russia is struggling to replenish its stockpiles of missiles but still has enough for more large-scale strikes and is rushing new munitions from the production line into use in the war, a senior Ukrainian intelligence official said in an interview published on Wednesday.

    The official, Gen. Vadym Skibitsky, Ukraine’s deputy intelligence chief, also said that Russia was compensating for its lack of missiles by increasing its use of drones, including those made by Iran, to strike Ukrainian infrastructure, according to comments published by the news outlet RBC-Ukraine.

    Russia’s strikes over the weekend could signal a new tactic of using a smaller number of high-precision missiles, especially in frontline areas, followed hours later by volleys of exploding drones, General Skibitsky said. “They will combine means to maintain the pace of strikes on our civilian infrastructure facilities,” he added.

    General Skibitsky said that Russia was straining to produce enough long-range missiles to launch precision strikes, an account that generally matches public statements from American and British military officials, as well as from independent military analysts. The strikes that Moscow launched on Dec. 31 included 20 cruise missiles, General Skibitsky said, compared with the 70 or more missiles it used in mass strikes beginning in October.

    Moscow is able to produce about 30 X-101 cruise missiles and about 15 to 20 sea-based Kalibr cruise missiles per month, the general noted. Given its current stockpiles, he said, Russia has enough missiles for “two to three” major barrages of 80 missiles or more. His estimates could not be independently confirmed, though they roughly match those that he gave to The New York Times in an interview last month.

    General Skibitsky told RBC-Ukraine that fragments of Russian missiles found recently in Ukraine bore markings indicating that they were manufactured in 2022, especially in the third quarter. “This means that they immediately go to the army from production,” he said.

    Russia’s increased use of the slow-moving Iranian drones has produced mixed results. Ukraine has become increasingly adept at shooting down the drones — downing all of the more than 80 fired its way over the New Year’s weekend, according to the Ukrainian Air Force. But many have caused damage, and over time, experts say, the drones could pose a severe challenge for Ukraine, in no small part because the weapons it uses to shoot down drones cost much more than the drones themselves.[My boldface italics]

    Ukraine estimates that Russia has used about 660 Iranian-made Shahed drones so far in the war. Moscow had a contract with Iran for a total of 1,750, General Skibitsky said, adding that a new batch of perhaps as many as 300 drones was now arriving as part of that contract. American officials have said that they are aware of reports that Russia and Iran are trying to set up a joint production facility for drones in Russia.

    Russia’s goal is to use swarms of drones in such large numbers that they overwhelm Ukraine’s air defenses, allowing some to get through to their targets, General Skibitsky said. In the recent attacks, he added, so many drones were fired that Ukraine’s National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems — advanced air defense systems produced by the United States and Norway — had to be reloaded with missiles while the raids were ongoing, the first time that has happened in the war.

    “If there are a very large number of drones in a particular direction, then they can simply break through the air defense system in that area,” he said. “In this way, they try to achieve their goal of destroying objects.”

    Oleksandr Chubko contributed reporting.

    — Shashank Bengali
    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01...a-ukraine-news

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to welch For This Useful Post:

    dneal (January 4th, 2023)

  3. #462
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,065
    Thanks
    2,422
    Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,322 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Good piece, and your bolded emphasis is spot on.

    I'm surprised no one is experimenting with electronic warfare systems to jam the drones' control signal.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  4. #463
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    1,537
    Thanked 534 Times in 354 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Good piece, and your bolded emphasis is spot on.

    I'm surprised no one is experimenting with electronic warfare systems to jam the drones' control signal.
    I'll bet the US is working on it right now. The Iranian drones look like a new wave of attack.

  5. #464
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,065
    Thanks
    2,422
    Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,322 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    I'll bet the US is working on it right now.
    ...
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  6. #465
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,082 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Why doesn't Israel knock out the drone plant in Iran? They've certainly got the capacity to do it.

    Is Netanyahu a back-channel buddy of Putin?

    In any event, if they insist on lying low, we should quit shipping the f*ckers billions of US dollars in advanced weaponry.

    Ditto the Saudis.
    Last edited by Chip; January 6th, 2023 at 04:28 PM.

  7. #466
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    1,537
    Thanked 534 Times in 354 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    NATO members will supply "fighting vehicles", such as the Bradley and the Marder, to Ukraine.

    New Armored Vehicles Will Help Ukraine Take the Fight to Russia

    The Western allies’ provision of infantry fighting vehicles signals their support for new offensives in coming months, analysts said.



    By Steven Erlanger and Thomas Gibbons-Neff

    Published Jan. 6, 2023
    Updated Jan. 7, 2023, 8:51 a.m. ET

    BRUSSELS — They will soon be covered in mud, riddled with shrapnel damage and under fire on Ukraine’s battlefields. But the three new types of armored vehicles offered to Ukraine this week signal that the Western allies are gearing up for another bloody year as the war enters a new phase of Ukrainian offensives against dug-in Russian forces.

    Not surprisingly, the Ukrainian government is ecstatic: “The time of weapons taboo has passed,” the foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, said in a Facebook post, welcoming the new lethal equipment.

    Russia is furious: The new vehicles are “another step toward an escalation of the Ukrainian conflict,” the embassy in Berlin decried in a statement.

    And frontline troops are cynical, often complaining that while the allies are not letting them lose, they aren’t letting them win, either.

    But the new weapons seem to mark a policy change in Washington, Paris and Berlin, giving more lethal support to the Ukrainian infantry, indicating less anxiety about Russian escalation and angling for more decisive Ukrainian victories in 2023.

    The trilateral decision “clarifies Western support for Ukraine for a potential offensive in the months to come,” said Ulrich Speck, a German foreign policy analyst. “And it signals Moscow that we’re not on the trajectory to peace negotiations soon.”

    The decision also reflects “a temperature change” in major Western capitals and a “reduction in the fear factor, a sense that a diminished Russia is less able or willing to escalate,” Mr. Speck said.

    The French AMX-10s, German Marders and the U.S. M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles will enter the war on the heels of two successful Ukrainian offensives that pushed Russian forces from the country’s northeast and the south.

    The new vehicles, known as infantry, or armored, fighting vehicles, are almost certainly intended to spearhead any future attempts to push the Russians out of Ukraine.

    “The Ukrainians are planning to do more offensive operations against dug-in Russian positions, so getting better infantry fighting vehicles to get close to defensive positions is important,” said Rob Lee, a military analyst at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

    The new equipment will be arriving just in time. After more than 10 months of bloody fighting, Ukraine’s Soviet-era vehicles that mirror the capabilities of the AMX, M2 and Marder have been slowly destroyed and damaged, according to Ukrainian troops and a U.S. official.

    But if not sent in large numbers, the recent armored additions will likely change little on the broader battlefield and add to Ukraine’s growing logistics burden, as Ukrainian mechanics struggle with a diverse fleet of vehicles that each have their own parts and ammunition requirements.

    The trio of vehicles are not the first armored vehicles sent by the West to Ukraine, but they are arguably the most advanced, occupying a category of war machines that are not quite armored personnel carriers, though some can carry troops, and not quite tanks.

    The AMX-10 has a 105-millimeter cannon. The M2 Bradley can be fitted with a 25-millimeter cannon and an anti-tank guided missile. The Marder is typically fitted with a 20-millimeter gun. The three different vehicles use different ammunition types, meaning more of a logistics headache for the Ukrainian troops using them. The French one runs on large tires; the others on treads.

    But the Bradley and Marder can both carry troops, making them critical for any kind of future Ukrainian offensive operations against Russia’s defenses along a front line that stretches more than 600 miles and has, in recent weeks, mostly stabilized after being reinforced by newly mobilized troops.

    Ukraine has been pressing its Western allies regularly for more sophisticated infantry equipment, including armored infantry fighting vehicles and top-of-the-line Western tanks, like the American Abrams and the German Leopard II.

    But Washington, Paris and Berlin have been cautious, trying to provide the weapons Ukraine actually needs and is capable of maintaining, while also keeping a wary eye on the depth of their own sometimes meager stockpiles.

    American officials have argued that Ukraine has enough good tanks in its Soviet-era T-72s, though it is running short of ammunition for them. The Americans and Germans argue that to train Ukrainians to operate modern Leopard or Abrams tanks — and to maintain them in the field — would take many months. The logistics chain needed for a fuel-guzzling tank like the Abrams is also extensive, added a U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss tactical matters.

    Currently, Ukrainian forces are using their Soviet-era tanks in more of a support role, keeping them protected behind the lines and employing their large main guns like artillery. They often rely on armored personnel carriers to move troops quickly in offensive maneuvers.

    On Friday, the Biden administration announced a new $3 billion package of military assistance for Ukraine that includes Bradley Fighting Vehicles, which officials said would be especially helpful to Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in the Donbas region of the country’s east. The administration said it would send 50 Bradleys. Germany has said it will provide 40 Marders.

    The German coalition government led by a Social Democratic chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has been especially careful to draw a line between defensive weapons, like the Gepard mobile antiaircraft vehicles, which have tank treads, and weapons that can be used for offensive infantry fighting, like the Marder and the Leopard. Berlin has maintained that it would not be the first NATO ally to supply such weapons to Ukraine.

    President Emmanuel Macron of France has held a similar stance, if more quietly. But on Wednesday, after discussions with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr. Macron suddenly announced that France would supply its AMX-10 to Ukraine — an infantry fighting vehicle with wheels, not tank treads, in service since the 1980s and being phased out in the French military.

    A NATO diplomat said on Friday that France, Germany and the United States had been discussing providing Ukraine with such vehicles, including the American Bradley and the German Marder, but that Mr. Macron went ahead on his own and announced France’s decision.

    On Thursday, after a conversation between President Biden and Mr. Scholz, the Germans said, the Americans and Germans consulted and announced their own decision to supply Bradleys and Marders, satisfying the German condition that Berlin not be the first to supply a new category of Western weaponry to Ukraine.

    Germany also announced that it would supply a Patriot missile battery to Ukraine in addition to the one that it was supplying to Poland — and which it had initially refused to give directly to Ukraine. That taboo, too, has now been broken.

    “It’s another step forward for Germany, which has been going one step at a time since Feb. 24,” said Ulrike Franke, a German defense expert with the European Council on Foreign Relations.

    Ukraine has been asking for these weapons since April, she said, but for Germany “it was a self-imposed taboo.” In Berlin, “we keep having these slightly absurd debates — offensive versus defensive, light versus heavy, modern versus old — and then a few months later we change our lines again,” she said. It’s an important evolution, “mostly in the German imagination,” she said.

    But it is also a bad look for the Franco-German relationship, she said, looking either like Berlin needs a push from Paris or that the two countries can’t work well together, with Mr. Macron pre-empting matters on his own.

    Steven Erlanger reported from Brussels and Thomas Gibbons-Neff from New York. Eric Schmitt, John Ismay and Michael D. Shear contributed reporting from Washington, Lara Jakes from Rome, Natalia Yermak from Kyiv, Ukraine, and Cassandra Vinograd from Paris.


    Thomas Gibbons-Neff is the Kabul bureau chief and a former Marine infantryman.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/w...er_new_arm_5_1

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to welch For This Useful Post:

    TSherbs (January 7th, 2023)

  9. #467
    Senior Member karmachanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    The edge
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 54 Times in 38 Posts
    Rep Power
    2

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Add Lightness and Simplicate

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to karmachanic For This Useful Post:

    TSherbs (January 7th, 2023)

  11. #468
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    1,537
    Thanked 534 Times in 354 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by karmachanic View Post
    When did Odessa fall?

    (This "Col. Macgregor" is a favorite of the "anti-imperialist" ex-leftists.)

  12. #469
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,065
    Thanks
    2,422
    Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,322 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    You guys have no idea the amount of money the taxpayer spends on gray-beards. Flying them to conferences and colleges so they can pontificate.

    It serves a purpose, but it leaves unspoken all the taken-for-granted systems spending machine.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  13. #470
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,082 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It serves a purpose, but it leaves unspoken all the taken-for-granted systems spending machine.
    You mean the Defense Department?

  14. #471
    Senior Member karmachanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    The edge
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 54 Times in 38 Posts
    Rep Power
    2

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    (This "Col. Macgregor" is a favorite of the "anti-imperialist" ex-leftists.)[/QUOTE]

    Denigrating those that have views/understanding which challenge the given narrative will not change the outcome.
    Add Lightness and Simplicate

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to karmachanic For This Useful Post:

    dneal (January 8th, 2023)

  16. #472
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,065
    Thanks
    2,422
    Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,322 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It serves a purpose, but it leaves unspoken all the taken-for-granted systems spending machine.
    You mean the Defense Department?
    That's a part of it. Business, government, lobbyists, shareholders, bureaucrats, contractors, constituents, employees, etc... all have a stake in propagating the self-licking ice-cream cone that the taxpayer writes checks for. It's not just defense. Pretty much anything that starts with "Department of..."

    Eisenhower warned of the "military-industrial complex". He had no idea that every other business sector would realize they could apply the same framework to their enterprise.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  17. #473
    Senior Member karmachanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    The edge
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 54 Times in 38 Posts
    Rep Power
    2

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    all have a stake in propagating the self-licking ice-cream cone that the taxpayer writes checks for.

    Taxpayer? You funny! More like 32 trillion debt.
    Add Lightness and Simplicate

  18. #474
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,065
    Thanks
    2,422
    Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,322 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by karmachanic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    all have a stake in propagating the self-licking ice-cream cone that the taxpayer writes checks for.

    Taxpayer? You funny! More like 32 trillion debt.
    Tax-credit-card-holder?
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  19. #475
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    1,537
    Thanked 534 Times in 354 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    A dozen British tanks might go to Ukraine...

    Britain is considering supplying a handful of Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, the first time a western country has indicated it may supply its homemade heavy armour to Kyiv in the war against Russia.

    No final decision by Downing Street has been made, British sources added, but Ukraine is hoping a positive move by the UK could help persuade Germany to follow suit later this month with its Leopard 2 battle tanks.

    Ukraine has been asking for British tanks “since summer”, a second source said. But the reality is that the UK, with a total fleet of 227, has a small supply compared with what is made by Germany and the US.

    An initial report from Sky News suggested the UK was considering supplying about 10 Challenger 2s, only a fraction of the 300 Kyiv wants as it tries to build up a mechanised force in pursuit of victory after more than 10 months of war.

    There are about 2,000 Leopard 2s in service in Europe with 13 different countries, but because they were originally made in Germany, the approval of Berlin would be required if any are to be re-exported to Ukraine.

    Western countries have already announced a step-up in their military aid to Ukraine this year. Last week, the US and Germany said they would provide 50 Bradley and 40 Marder fighting vehicles respectively.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ine-war-russia

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to welch For This Useful Post:

    dneal (January 9th, 2023)

  21. #476
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    1,537
    Thanked 534 Times in 354 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Estimates of what it will cost to rebuild parts of Ukraine to what it was before Putin's army invaded: the UN's ITU says about $1.79 Billion to rebuild Ukraine's communications infrastructure. By justice and by ethics, Russia ought to pay that.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/...sector-un-says

  22. #477
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,065
    Thanks
    2,422
    Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,322 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    British Challengers are good tanks. I didn't see how many "a handful" was though.

    There are a lot of options for post-war costs, but both sides still seem willing to fight about it for now.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  23. #478
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    1,537
    Thanked 534 Times in 354 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    British Challengers are good tanks. I didn't see how many "a handful" was though.

    There are a lot of options for post-war costs, but both sides still seem willing to fight about it for now.
    Story says only ten Challenger tanks. UK MoD apparently hopes to dislodge some German tanks. It notes that any countries that want to give the German tanks to Ukraine must, first, get German permission. Germany sold them on a contract that gives Germany the right to control where they might be sold onward. (Seems to me that this gives Germany a way to stop their tanks from being sold, say, to a war-lord in Africa or a drug cartel in Mexico.) More realistically, it would, following the MoD, mean that another NATO member could give some German Panther II tanks to Ukraine with German permission.

    "Another member", as of today, would be Poland:

    The president of Poland said on Wednesday that his country was prepared to send German-made Leopard II tanks to Ukraine if an “international coalition” agreed to do so, further ratcheting up the pressure on Berlin to approve the transfer of top-level combat tanks that Kyiv has been requesting to support potential offensives against Russian forces in the coming months.

    Poland had already decided to include the Leopards as part of a package from the coalition, President Andrzej Duda said, speaking at a joint news conference in Lviv with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and President Gitanas Nausėda of Lithuania. Mr. Duda added that he hoped the tanks would “soon flow through various routes to Ukraine.”

    Mr. Duda did not specify which countries might be involved in such a coalition. But Polish officials have urged Western nations several times this week to band together and jointly send more modern tanks to bolster Ukraine’s diminishing supply of Soviet-era tanks.

    Germany has long resisted sending Ukraine offensive weaponry out of concerns about escalating the war. And, out of ethical concerns, Germany places limits on its vast, lucrative arms exports and their re-export, so its agreement is required for Poland or any other country to send Ukraine the German-made Leopards.

    Mr. Zelensky said on Wednesday that Ukraine expected a “joint decision” on the transfer of the tanks and that it would take donations from several countries to meet the needs of Ukrainian forces. “One state cannot help us with Leopards, because we are fighting against thousands of tanks of the Russian Federation,” he said.

    The mounting pressure on Berlin comes a day after Britain said it was considering sending Challenger II tanks. No such Western-made battle tanks have been sent to Ukraine since the invasion.

    Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, expressed hope that the floodgates had been opened for the West to send battle tanks after France, the United States and Germany agreed in quick succession last week to send lighter armored fighting vehicles: AMX-10 RC reconnaissance vehicles from France, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles from the U.S., and Marder Infantry Fighting Vehicles from Germany.

    Germany’s decision to send the Marders marked a significant shift in Berlin’s approach, and the armored vehicles pledged by the three countries are some of the most advanced Ukraine has received since the start of the war. Still, they fall short of the capabilities of battle tanks like the Leopards, which analysts say could be key for Ukraine to push beyond the grinding attrition that has defined the war this winter.

    — Anushka Patil
    Last edited by welch; January 11th, 2023 at 04:59 PM.

  24. #479
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    1,537
    Thanked 534 Times in 354 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    Meanwhile, here is a strategy paper arguing that Ukrainian resistance to the Russian offensive in the Donbas in the early summer laid the base for the Ukrainian offensive that liberated Kharkiv and Kerson.

    As the Russian-Ukrainian War enters the winter, Ukrainians have reason to be cautiously optimistic about the course of the war. Following a strategic offensive at the end of August in multiple regions, Ukrainian forces have retaken nearly all of Kharkiv Oblast, parts of the Donetsk Oblast, and the right bank of Kherson Oblast. Several factors enabled Ukrainian offensives in Kherson and Kharkiv, but much of that success stems from the earlier Battle for the Donbas. Russia’s advances in the Donbas, from April to July, proved to be a pyrrhic victory, tactical successes at the expense of strategic vision. Russia expended valuable manpower and artillery ammunition, while Ukraine pursued a defense-in-depth strategy. By September, NATO arms deliveries had reduced Russia’s critical advantage in artillery and Moscow didn’t have sufficient forces or ammunition to hold the territory occupied, which set the stage for Ukraine’s successful offensives.

    The battle for the Donbas bled the Russian military of manpower, at a time when it lacked the forces to both hold captured territory and continue offensives. The Russian military offset this deficit by dramatically increasing its rate of artillery fire. This burned through Russia’s second most critical resource, artillery ammunition. The net effect of both decisions showed itself in the fall, when Russia lacked the manpower to defend Kharkiv and the artillery ammunition to hold defensive lines in Kherson. Since then, Moscow has been able to compensate for the manpower deficit with mobilization, but recent fighting in Bakhmut suggests Russian forces are conserving ammunition, no longer firing at the rate they did in earlier phases of the war.

    The most important inflection point of this war was at the end of March when the Kremlin realized it could not seize or encircle Kyiv and achieve its maximalist objectives. The Russian military still had several advantages over the Ukrainian military at this point, but it didn’t have the forces to continue advancing in most directions and had sustained heavy personnel and equipment losses. Ukraine and Russia were negotiating, and Ukrainian officials had signaled a willingness to make certain concessions; however, the two sides never reached an agreement. It isn’t completely clear how close these negotiations came to a final deal, but when Russia pulled its forces from northern Ukraine—leading to the discovery of the atrocities committed in Bucha and other towns occupied by Russian forces—the immediate prospects of further negotiations ended. Russia’s best option was to end the war at this point while extracting limited concessions. Once Russian forces no longer threatened Kyiv and other cities in the north, Russia’s bargaining position and ability to coerce Ukraine decreased substantially.

    After the initial phase of Russia’s invasion failed in February and March, the chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate, Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoy, announced that Russia would focus on seizing all of the Donbas. Russian forces retreated from the Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Sumy Oblasts, and were redeployed to Kharkiv, the Donbas, or southern Ukraine.

    However, there was an obvious problem with Moscow’s new strategy. Even if Russian forces managed to seize the entire Donbas region, there was little reason to believe that would force Ukraine to concede and end the war on Russian terms. Instead, the Kremlin’s thinking was increasingly characterized by strategic procrastination and wishful thinking. Moscow appeared to focus on its minimal war aims, without an understanding of how they would lead to achieving long-term strategic goals, or how the war might end. Despite a structural mismatch of military means to political ends, and no war termination strategy, Russian leadership committed to a campaign focused on occupying more territory in the Donbas, while trying to hold everything else. This approach consumed Russian manpower and ammunition at an unsustainable rate, setting the stage for successful Ukrainian offensives in the fall, and may well prevent the Russian military from restoring offensive potential even after this winter.
    The full article is at https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/12...aines-success/

    For those interested in logistics (dneal?), the authors comment:

    Although the Russian military still had a number of conventional advantages in April, Russia’s revised military objectives gave its commanders little room for operational art or creativity. Instead, the Russian campaign in the Donbas would often consist of frontal assaults on entrenched positions in the most fortified part of the country. Russian forces compensated by leaning heavily on their significant artillery advantage. When it achieved its greatest successes in May and June, the Russian military was firing substantially more artillery rounds each day than the Ukrainian military (although daily fire rates of 50,000–60,000 seem unrealistic figures). Despite this advantage, Russia’s advance was still slow and costly, because the military lacked the forces to conduct maneuver warfare or maintain momentum from any breakthrough. Outgunned Ukrainian soldiers holding the defensive lines in the Donbas in the spring and early summer were instrumental to Ukraine’s future offensives. They ensured that any Russian offensive would involve heavy losses, and they slowed down Russia’s advance, which bought critical time as Ukrainian troops trained on and received increasingly sophisticated NATO artillery systems and high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS). Consequently, Ukraine’s successes in Kharkiv and Kherson in the fall were due to the losses sustained by Russia in the spring.

    The arrival of HIMARS had an almost immediate effect on the battlefield. Russia’s logistics system is fairly antiquated and centralized, which meant it still relied heavily on large ammunition depots. Ukrainian HIMARS began to target these depots with explosive results. They also began to strike Russian command posts, and they were likely responsible for the strikes on the headquarters of Russia’s 20th Motorized Rifle Division and 106th Airborne Division in July. The destruction of these ammunition depots didn’t stop Russian artillery, but it significantly reduced the number of rounds they could fire every day. Additionally, Ukraine’s inventory of Western artillery would prove to be more effective at counter-battery fire, particularly once Ukraine began to receive precision-guided artillery rounds like the Excalibur. Since artillery was Russia’s greatest advantage during the Battle of the Donbas, the arrival of HIMARS and Western artillery was critical.
    Within my own semi-profession, I once designed out a messaging system to use GE's MARK*III network, and our inter-process communications system (we called it "Foreground Communications Manager", or FCM), to route trades to the NT Stock Exchange. Being inexperienced, I designed a series of FCM's that would have pulled all the trades into one large hub, which would have talked to the Exchanges Online Trading System.

    Having met the man, I called up Norm Harvey, a "founding father" who had worked in computers since the mid-1950s at GE, and who had developed FCM. Norm looked over my design, and hand-drew the correct system. "You don't want hubs like that, he said. "They become choke points. You want something more like a mesh system, like this. You want to route messages through any point that has less traffic".

    Incidentally, after the Trade Center attack in 2001, my new company worked with the Fed, the Bank of England, and a few other central institutions of the world's financial system, to explain "lessons learned". First of all: don't depend on armor-plating any critical place. No matter how well-defended (and my company had some very well-defended data centers), the enemy might still find a way to blow it up. Instead, we all said, redesign so that no single point could take you down if destroyed. Design-in so many other paths that terrorists cannot stop you with one attack.

    What the authors call old fashioned logistics hubs are what I designed in my simple-minded crack at an FCM-based trade-system, and what data-system designers considered good-enough before September 11?

    https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/12...aines-success/

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to welch For This Useful Post:

    Chip (January 9th, 2023)

  26. #480
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,065
    Thanks
    2,422
    Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,322 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Ukraine outrage and analysis.

    What the authors call old fashioned logistics hubs are what I designed in my simple-minded crack at an FCM-based trade-system, and what data-system designers considered good-enough before September 11?
    Essentially, yes.

    The main difference is that physical commodities are routed vs electronic signals. Weight, cube, terrain and distance play a key part. An M1 FUPP (Full Up Power Pack - complete engine and transmission) weighs around 7 1/2 tons and the container is the size of a subcompact car.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    welch (January 9th, 2023)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •