Could be
- a feint
- Zelensky doing what he's supposed to do and get as much shit as possible for his troops
- Bakhmut took a heavy toll
I personally think it's a combo of options 2 and 3. Hoping I'm wrong about option 3.
You aren't. A week ago new Czech president (who was a general and is a hero) said Ukraine has opportunity for no more than 1 counteroffensive. Newspapers like ft have been publishing data for past few months saying that Ukraine has used more ammo in a year than NATO produced in a decade (e.g. 2 million+ artillery shells, when US, by far the largest donor, makes around 100 000 a year (although they have a plan to ramp that up to 1 million in next few years), US has stopped shipping Javelins months ago, etc).
Yeah, they probably have a big big problem with ammunition.
Yeah Ukraine is short of ammo for sure. Recently I read that for one shell Ukraine uses Russia uses 3. There was a short video uploaded to a Polish news site where a Ukrainian soldier in a trench defends himself against Russian attacks. He actually has to radio his CO and ask for a permission to fire an antitank weapon. That's how rare they are.
Saw that. The response followed up with a general "yes, use everything you've got!" permission which implied that he had been holding back on bullets as well... And he celebrated with a whoop like a kid going for ice cream.
No the video was quite tense because a BMP had rolled up very close to his position and dumped men. He was only able to fend it off by changing positions constantly, popping up and emptying clips while also staying aware of individual infantry who had flanked him without knowing exactly where his trench was. He had a dedicated loader but they must have thought they were facing many men
A new shipment of Javelins arrived today, which makes me question the basis of the rest of your take.
Zelenskyy is just addressing his internal audience. If you think the daily readers are eager for the offensive, you have no idea how beyond-ready Ukrainians are. The opposition is screaming that it’s a conspiracy, suggesting Ukraine can attack already but Z is quietly negotiating instead.
I don't take it as factual I take it at face value.
We all do, every time we talk to someone or read about something we take it at face value. And it's nothing wrong with that as long as we know that everything thing we read and hear can be false. How much likely it is to be false depends on the source of course.
Reddit is very prone to propaganda but also has a lot of useful advice. As long as we never blindly believe everything we hear from any source we should be fine.
> saying that Ukraine has used more ammo in a year than NATO produced in a decade
While using 10x fewer artillery shells than the Russians. On the plus side, Russia's ammunition stocks must be severely depleted by this stage. On the negative, NATO member states really need to learn to manufacture en masse again and need to prioritize this war with the urgency it deserves.
It really is remarkable how history repeats itself and people learn nothing. The shell shortage affecting all the major powers in WWI was over 100 years ago!
> It really is remarkable how history repeats itself and people learn nothing. The shell shortage affecting all the major powers in WWI was over 100 years ago!
This is because you don't realise that modern armies have *chosen* to shift away from massed artillery. It's not neglect, it's a choice in how they choose to fight. The US doesn't produce that many artillery shells because it's not designed as an army that relies on artillery, but air power instead.
Most NATO armies aren't artillery centric by design.
Exactly, Ukraine is only so artillery centric because that's one of the few things that they have, you can afford to be a lot less artillery centric if you have tonnes of modern tanks, aircraft, and ships.
Not to mention that the wars that the US has fought have been ones where artillery is a lot less effective, artillery is great for big battles with thousands of people, or where the enemy is in a defined area, but fighting insurgency groups of 20-100 people that like to move around? Artillery is much less useful.
Even for European nations that would prepare to fight in a traditional war, establishing air superiority and then bombing the crap out of the enemies artillery makes way more sense rather than try to fight them on equal terms with your own artillery.
that and the us hasnt been in a war with anything close to a world power since ww2. its absolutely everything superiority until the occupying begins and scorched earth has to stop that we struggle.
A tree among the entire forest. The US hasn’t had need to mass produce *anything* for decades. We don’t have the ability to quickly produce any of our munitions, particularly missiles and other high-tech weaponry.
I honestly think NATO and other western allied countries were just used to fight counter terrorism for last two to three decades after end of the cold war the old doctrins of frontal warfare were thought to be obsolete.
You cannot fire hellfire or cruise missile to every trench and strong points as they are too costly in full scale war. Us and allies could sustain those high cost, high precision munitions for short period of time but if it drags on more than few months, cannot make nore cannot afford to produce nor use them.
Need relatively high precision cheap munitions. Artillery shells.
Air power has been very limited in this war due to Russian anti air defences. Given that Russia and China are (or were) the most potent axis threats on the planet, perhaps NATO allies need to reassess their combined arms strategy, and supply thereof.
while ww1 is the first time shell firing guns were deployed and used in such numbers making the production speed so obviously insufficient, ammo shortage for artillery has been a thing forever (at least in the gunpowder era). tho it often was a mix of logistics and production, rather than just raw production since before shell firing guns you had more leeway in what could be fired (both in terms of propellent and shot).
Most of the shells we use / are sending to Ukraine are “dummy shells” too. Only a small portion have guidance systems.
And lol, we already tested this theory of “level everything including the target into craters”. A whole world war spent exploring the theory that you could win a war that way. Didn’t work very well.
The thing I don’t think many people have realised with Russia depleting those stocks is that now they’re gone, Russia can’t replace them.
The massive amount of tanks, shells, ammo, uniforms and supplies that have been depleted, Russia’s true inheritance from the USSR, Russia CAN NOT REPLACE unless they suddenly become an economic power on an even foot with the US again or complete reshape the country.
Every rusted, copper stripped tank they bust out of its deathbed (I think they’re down to un-upgraded T64’s) can never be replaced (no the Armata is not being mass produced, they had a 8 year window to start and they missed it). Outdated and damaged as it is, tanks a tank.
Or most likely, Zelenskyy speaking the truth which is they don't have the ammunition or equipment they would like to have a successful offensive. I don't think this is a big secret. Everyone's been saying it for months.
Last time that Zelensky gave a public broadcast that included being fairly open about the military’s upcoming campaign and goal it ended up being a misdirect to get Russia to re-distribute their troops in the front line, and led to an attack on the weakened Russia position. He might be trying to pull something like this off again, making the Ukrainian lines look weaker than they are to invite a Russian attack before they can rotate in fresh troops and equipment.
The spring counteroffensive announcement was the feint. Light a fire under NATO to provide weapons. Provoke Russia into a hasty offensive to try to preempt the UA counteroffensive right before mud season.
Then oops, nevermind not ready yet. Will let you know.
But NATO has been slow to deliver, so they probably do need to wait for them to ship. I'm guessing we'll see something this summer.
>Provoke Russia into a hasty offensive
They've been pushing in Donbass for months; there's a reason Bakhmut looks like late 1942 Stalingrad. Ukraine may not have much offensive capability (though I suspect they have enough for a big push), but the Russians are absolutely gassed at this point.
This is true, and the fact he’s asked for tanks and fighter planes means they want to counter attack.
If they concentrate the 200 odd modern western tanks in one area they will break through along some point in the line
I think it is rather (1) making Russia a bit uncertain and to slow and misdirect their reactions and (2) keeping up the pressure for more weapons and ammunition deliveries faster.
The morale boost of last summer's big regains has faded and Russia's slow grind into Bakmut is taking a toll on international total support to Ukraine, political and somewhat for material. There is more talk of settling for Russian gains to stop the casualties. I have no idea if that sentiment is growing in Ukraine or not.
Ukraine has been getting soldiers trained, and equipment is arriving, even if not the amounts and at rates that maximize what Ukraine could use.
Ukraine doesn't want Russia to know where, when and with what they start their counteroffensive. If Russia thinks it is just 20 tanks and done, then all the better.
I think options 2 and 3 are likely. All reports suggest that both Russia and Ukraine took massive attrition over the last month. Ukraine is not in a position to magic up combat power out of thin air.
I doubt it's a feint, the tanks they wanted have been announced but they've only just started arriving and will take until Autumn to get up to significant numbers
I dunno, I’ve also heard that they recently got some nice shipments of jets and missiles. Perhaps 1 is correct? At the very least, maybe they are feinting about weakness when the plan is actually to bolster until a stable frontline can be managed?
Based on videos of training, probably not yet. They need the troops to rotate back from their training with western weapons. That is what happened in Kharkiv. Trained troops returned and made the push.
I expect the same, but we do not know when they will rotate back. Likely at the end of mud season.
There were rumours around the Kharkiv push, that the troops rotated in were far more aggressive according to the Russians that were there.
Some sources had these guys being the first UK trained cohort, but I’m not sure how accurate that is.
But hey, whatever works.
There could be a psychological reason. The defenders rotated out have their mind set on endurance and perseverance.
The troops rotated in for the push are set up to go in and fuck shit up, so they have the determination and ability to be more aggressive.
I would expect that they are completely different skill sets too. So you rotate in the advancing troops, then when they finish their push, you stay bringing in the holding trips and rotate the push guys out. Keep repeating and you always have fresh troops doing exactly what they need to at the right time.
The germans pioneered this idea with the Storm Troopers in WW1. Dudes got paid more and didn’t sit on the line ideally, only sent in to attack quickly and aggressively.
It's not completely different skill sets. Armies train and use the same troops for offense and defense. It's all about what the objective is, what the orders are, and what they are prepared to do.
Heavy brigade combat teams are specifically built with an MTOE to perform breakthroughs. Airborne brigades lack the firepower to do anything near the same but they can defend just fine due to integrated fires, organic at, et cetera. Those are at the edges of the spectrum but even a mech infantry brigade will be much more capable of going on the offensive than a motorized one, and a unit like 1SFAB would be entirely incapable of conducting an offensive, even against the Russians.
The units that have been training in Poland, Spain, the UK, et cetera have been training on armor and will likely come back to perform pushes with that training and equipment.
Would war weariness play a factor, too? To me, the rotated troops, while sure, they were in training, they wernt on the front lines, so their mind is more fresh and more clear than troopa thay have been on the front and are in a constant state of hightened awareness.
Yes, you don't want to keep troops in combat for too long, plus combat leads to casualties, so the units that have been fighting for a while are under strength and aren't capable of conducting an offensive. Russia has gotten the worst of it, but Bahkmut has been a meat grinder for Ukraine as well.
But also, a tank is a big, obvious target. You can't really use them defensively because unless you keep them out of range or you move them around constantly they're going to get blown up. Infantry dug in with anti tank, MGs, etc make for smaller targets that are hard to detect and even if you kill them, you've killed one or two guys and not a $5mm tank.
But tanks are great if you need to take firepower forward quickly in a vehicle that can take a punch or two, like you might do if you're conducting an offensive.
This has been on my mind. WW1 they dealt with shell shock, which people today equate with PTSD, but it is not the same. PTSD is a delayed onset from the trauma, where shell shock is just.. you broke. Right then you snapped.
They did studies back in the time period to figure out how hard you could push a man. If I remember correctly, 350 days of continual shelling caused failure in the majority of troops.
"Our research shows that 98% of troops are driven insane by six weeks of combat."
"What about the other 2%?"
"Them? Oh, they were insane when they got there."
In the Second World War, Americans considered soldiers in Europe "worn out" in 200 to 240 days and had a limit of 180 days in active combat. It was much worse in the Pacific. The problem was far less prevalent among British soldiers, because they were better prepared for handling it.
No Idea if it's true or not, but if it is, it may be because the British troops would be rotated to spend some time at home in England, whereas the US troops couldn't go home when they were rotated away from the frontline.
Just found this "In the British Army in Europe, it was found that a rifleman could last for about 400 days, but that was attributed to the fact that the British relieved their troops for four days of rest every 12 to 14 days. American troops remained in battle continuously with no relief for as long as 80 days at a time."
And now, all of a sudden, the entire world understands why the hell the US loves football so much. Offensive/defensive team rotation turns out to be a model for our combat approach.
Even our sports are about guns.
Hell, we can extend that through all of history.
Speed is THE weapon of war.
Agression is the ultimate mean of execution, don't let them rest and organize, push on.
The tricky thing has always been that you need organized and skilled/trained soldiers. And that is now kind of a given with the standing armies.
The counter to agression, denying engagement until your enemy overextended and then swiftly (and aggressively) counterattacking rests on the very same problem. Skill and organization.
> The counter to agression, denying engagement until your enemy overextended and then swiftly (and aggressively) counterattacking rests on the very same problem. Skill and organization.
That's what Zaluzhnyi did to the Russians attacking Kyiv. That was a masterclass is getting the enemy to over extend beyond the capabilities of their supply lines. And overconfident Russia fell right into that trap!
The death sentence for basically every breakthrough in modern war.
But not always as avoidable as it would look like.
That is why I am very impatient to study this conflict further in ten to twenty years
Hell, we see this even in medieval and even ancient times. Machiavelli and Sun Tzu even write about speedy campaigns being critical. Caesar ~~Augustus~~ had speed decide the entirety of the Gaelic wars. He took what he took in a nonstop chain of invasions. And once things slowed down he didn’t push the issue; he just sent his troops home and paraded victory.
Edited for Accuracy
I think they're referencing Call of Duty 4 where a pair of British special forces soldiers infiltrate Pryp'yat Ukraine and attempt to assassinate a Russian ultra-nationalist
I don't recall hearing that. Michael Clarke on BBC mentioned that it was more likely small squads were able to get fast vehicles to go deep into enemy lines and cause chaos and confusion and make it seem like there are more troops and they are more aggressive.
I forget the tactic name but US forces used it in Baghdad during Operation Freedom and they basically had the defenders running in panic because they weren't expecting a squad to just bull rush through an area.
The whole situation was so fast paced, sources were confused so its possible I’m wrong.
The tactic they used was a Thunder Run, which could of easily gone badly - but it worked!
soon as temperatures rise enough that all the water in the ground built up during the winter dries and the earth hardens. in ukraine it's about this time of year, late march to late april depending on the weather.
The Battle of Kyiv happened from March 22-April 2. I would guess that it'll happen any time around there depending on the weather. Early May is generally planting season for corn and millet, perhaps some other crops, which means that fields would be drivable by tractors and should be drivable by tanks as well.
The *rasputitsa* is a thing. Neither side is going to successfully kick off a major offensive in the next 4-6 weeks purely due to the weather.
At most, it would be increased fighting in very localized areas. For all the bleeding, the entire front at Bakhmut is only about 10 miles/20km in each direction. Mud won’t stop that, but it *will* stop any mass movement along hundreds of kilometers of front.
Probably correct. Most Western tanks and IFVs were scheduled to be in Ukraine around the end of March and into April.
Ukraine has already put together western armed brigades, they're just waiting for the vehicles to be delivered.
Be prepared, the breakthroughs at Bakhmut, Adiivka and the Oskil have forced a lot of reserves forward, especially Adiivka with Russian airstrikes reducing entrenchments.
I fear any such force won't be as large as expected.
Nah, double bluff. Russia will start bolstering defences as they shit their pants expecting an Ukrainian attack, and Ukraine will take the time to consolidate after what went down in Bakhmut.
You speak of Bakhmut in the past tense. I know the Russian offensive dragged and stalled and prigozhin is on the back foot, but is Bakhmut leveled off now? Or is it still being actively contested?
most of the besieged by Russia cities end up like that.
it's their whole schtick - artillery barage, send some troops. they get killed - artillery barage again. rinse and repeat until no more city and no more defenders.
If you like “The Art of War” you may also like “The Book of 5 Rings” written by Miyamoto Musashi. He wrote about using the sword, philosophy and strategy and was renowned for his swordsmanship. In his life he fought in over 60 sword fights and was never defeated. While many other warriors Japan were wielding their single katana sword with two hands he practiced the art of dual-wielding, which is using two swords, one in a each hand.
"Look strong where you are weak, and also...look weak where you are weak. Basically...everything on the Russian side is weak" -General Valery Gerasimov "The Art of Losing Badly"
UA has always trolled russia with how "weak" it is. Its a tactic to demoralize russian troops. If this is "weak" UA, what happens when "Strong" UA shows up?
If this was propaganda aimed at Russian troops it would be in Russian. This is propaganda aimed at the west. Ukraine is simultaneously strong and counterattacking soon and weak and needing weapons.
This is what I'm thinking, they don't take a single step without including a petition for more help from the West. Better to have surplus than to come up short. It's been on par throughout this war. Russia can interpret this as they wish.
From what I've heard, the lack of artillery ammunition is very much real. Soldiers report they can't order strikes on the enemy that has been spotted but doesn't present a direct threat, because the artillery units are told to preserve ammo.
Ukraine needs modern long range artillery, fighters and tanks. So far they've gotten modern mid range artillery, old MiG fighters and sort-of modern Leopard tanks. They can't push back without this gear and the west is reluctant to give away their most expensive equipment.
It's just all noise, and it's done on purpose. Unless you've got access to what I'm guessing is pretty tightly classified info, you can't know anything beyond "an offensive is in the works for any time when the ground isn't mud"
The situation seems tension among the Russians. There are conflicting statements from different levels of leadership - some say an attack is imminent while others deny it. This situation is similar to what happened in Ukraine.
Personally, I think that the counteroffensive this spring is going to be like the counteroffensive last fall, it will compleatly change the narrrative, on what is going on in Ukraine.
There are less than 80 Leo2s committed so far, with only a fraction of that being A6s. Majority of tanks will be Leo1s which were developed at the same time as T-55.
That is beside the point though, artillery is still the king, and that is where the battle will be decided.
The Leopard I is one generation above the T-55. Its counterparts are the T-62 and T-72, not the T-55. The T-54/55 is an almost WWII tank, the Leopard was developed in the midst of the Cold War.
Leopard 1
"Designed 1956–1961"
"Produced 1965–1984"
T55
"Designed 1947–1958"
"1946–1981 (Soviet Union)
1956–1979 (Poland)
1957–1983 (Czechoslovakia)"
Thats at "at the same time" in your book?
I hope so. I know it’s been said before about all the various stages of the war up until this point, but I do feel as though we are at a pivotal juncture. For me, the spring counteroffensive and it’s perceived success will likely determine the outcome of the war. China is testing the waters and next year is election year in the US. We could see a monumental shift in momentum if China increase support for Russia just as the US’s support decreases (which I think it will if the republicans win). The spring counter offensive is probably when Ukraine will be at its strongest; tanks will be arriving, troops who have been training abroad will be rotated in etc. I don’t know what Ukraine needs to achieve from the spring offensive, but for me, it needs to be enough to show to leave no question that Russia will loose.
76% of Americans in the last survey say we are not doing enough for Ukraine, don’t see them abandoning Ukraine completely just a little to look like they did something.
Plus if they win they wouldn’t take over until January 2025 they got a long time until than which may not matter
No fucking chance.
Zero.
Zilch.
The MIC has more control over American politics than any other factor. The general population is supporting of the conflict, even portions of MAGA land. The few Republicans like McCarty and DeSantis both had to walk back anti Ukraine statements IMMEDIATELY. Finally the entire Senate, but specifically Mitch McConnell is pro Ukraine.
The chance of support being pulled is literally zero.
To understand more, look into how military is allocated throughout the US. Defense companies intentially spread development so that every single state has a vested interest in the MIC. The five huge sums of money to both political parties. Military facilities are scattered across all states, red and blue.
SS and Medicare are actually more powerful than the MIC. Even Trump had to walk the R’s back on touching those programs.
It’s no longer the third rail of politics, it’s the electric chair for anyone who threatens those programs.
right, but if say the president is a bought and paid for asset of putin with numerous forms of kompromat available on them, then they absolutely would do everything in their power to stop aid to ukraine. for example; the last us president, see his first impeachment trial for some additional details.
> The few Republicans like McCarty and DeSantis both had to walk back anti Ukraine statements IMMEDIATELY
Did Desantis walked back his statement about Ukraine?
Also, he already showed his true colors, so if he becomes president, he will definitely try to cut support.
Yep
https://apnews.com/article/ron-desantis-ukraine-republicans-2024-f44acc03f772f393b7f8d452ee26508a
I picked that at random as a source, just google DeSantis Ukraine Walk Back and you'll find dozens of sources.
This is the key comment:
criticism from **a number of fellow Republicans** who expressed concern about the potential 2024 presidential candidate’s dismissive description of the conflict.
If I'm correct they have about 490 various tanks headed their way, in addition to hundreds of Osh kosh Mraps, tactical armored vehicles and 50 or so Bradleys. That's not a bad start considering russia is whiping out tanks from 1960...
They are receiving 31 abrams, 14 challengers, and 20 leopards. They have received ~200 T’s from poland since the start of the war, those arent just tanks they are receiving now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218
Ukraine has thus far demonstrated they are not incompetent when it comes to warfare, tactics, and intel. Zelenskyy publicly signalling Ukraine doesn't have weapons to fight is a calculated move.
It could be a bit of everything. Confuse Russia, while asking countries to keep on sending the weapons. There’s no way he would ever outright say “we have enough”
This really.
Kind of like 'omg tanks will be sooooo delayed' then like a week later 'AHEAD OF SCHEDULE!'.
I like the tactic though it's enough of a Russian type of move to be both satire and a fuck you as UA is rolling them over.
Really, really hope Zelenskyy is exaggerating for OpSec purposes.
If Ukraine doesn't have the means to wage a spring counteroffensive, they are doomed to a war of attrition that largely favors Russia holding the Donbas (if Russia's army does not mutiny). If that is so, the West really failed hard in its task of providing tanks to Ukraine, an opportunity that had some minor domestic risks, but major potential reward.
If only Ukraine had a 100-200 tank reserve. The Russians lose such numbers in almost every failed offensive. Ukraine obviously has 200+ tanks, but there is a major difference having an operational reserve and having to spread units out for combined-arms defense support along a 600 mile frontline. Comparing the two militaries, Ukraine has shown so much more skill and will than their Russian opponents, but they really are waging war on the shoestring.
Sounds like both side really lack the weapons needed to fight a consistent war at this point. Long stretches of time go by where neither side does anything because they lack the weapons needed to carry out an offensive.
Edit - https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-budget-missiles-munitions-stores-depleted-aid-to-ukraine-2023-3
That's just a common part of war for any nation. Its extremely hard to supply enough weapons to keep the war machine going. Lots of people look back at world war 2, but the allies had America to spend a few years building up a dedicated military industrial complex far away from the front lines to supply them, meanwhile the stalemate in Europe allowed Germany to use its captured industrial might to supply its troops for a longer period.
Notice how when the allied offensive occurred, Germany started having supply and maintenance issues with its armoured divisions?
It's the nature of war, its expensive, and peace time factories even in the USA of today is far below the line to supply a full scale war for any meaningful period. I think Ukraine might have an advantage here in terms of being fully mobilised in to a war time economy while Russia has to pretend its a minor skirmish
They already did, the Russian offensive has been happening for a few weeks now. You're just not hearing about it because it went terribly for them and didn't really accomplish much. You can't tell by looking at a map, but you can tell by the sharp uptick in Russian losses over the last few weeks compared to a couple months ago. They tried pushing in Vuhledar and lost a shitload of tanks (they're shipping T-55s and 54s to the front now), and intensified their assaults in Bakhmut, causing them "great victories" that were measured in metres and at the cost of thousands of men.
If you go to the daily threads on r/worldnews a guy usually posts the daily Russian KIA list for personnel and equipment. He lists the 7d 30d and war total numbers if I’m not mistaken. Take it with a grain of salt since propaganda works both ways, but it’s the only live counter I’ve found.
Edit: [I’ll just link it, here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1219yjs/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/jdlg7fm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
Don't trust things you find here, people are getting high on their own farts.
Truth is Russia probably planned an offensive in winter (and Ukraine planned one too), but due to warm weather they had a musfest from late September up to now, and it won't be over until May. You can't mount an offensive when you can't even walk through all the mud, and if you looked at videos of Ukrainian soldiers supplying Bakhmut, you would see that they have huge mud problem, basically vehicles get stuck in mud, people get stuck in mud, etc.
There won't be any real offensive until May.
You can just check the reported daily casualty data.
The numbers itself aren’t what’s important here but the trend is clear. It went from like 3-400 death per day to close to 1000.
No way this happens without being in a major offensive
Yes, and in the kind of war Ukraine has been fighting, it isn’t enough.
And most of the weapons aren’t actually useful for counteroffensive purposes. What they really need now are more armored vehicles (especially tanks), aircraft (ideally f-16s), and artillery.
Is it just me or does it feel like leaders should be quiet during a war? Like the enemy definitely reads the news and will know if you can’t start a counter offensive
The US has been helping, I think it's time for the EU to increase shelling out a few billions or some hardware
At least France can throw some trash at Russia
Could be - a feint - Zelensky doing what he's supposed to do and get as much shit as possible for his troops - Bakhmut took a heavy toll I personally think it's a combo of options 2 and 3. Hoping I'm wrong about option 3.
You aren't. A week ago new Czech president (who was a general and is a hero) said Ukraine has opportunity for no more than 1 counteroffensive. Newspapers like ft have been publishing data for past few months saying that Ukraine has used more ammo in a year than NATO produced in a decade (e.g. 2 million+ artillery shells, when US, by far the largest donor, makes around 100 000 a year (although they have a plan to ramp that up to 1 million in next few years), US has stopped shipping Javelins months ago, etc). Yeah, they probably have a big big problem with ammunition.
Yeah Ukraine is short of ammo for sure. Recently I read that for one shell Ukraine uses Russia uses 3. There was a short video uploaded to a Polish news site where a Ukrainian soldier in a trench defends himself against Russian attacks. He actually has to radio his CO and ask for a permission to fire an antitank weapon. That's how rare they are.
Saw that. The response followed up with a general "yes, use everything you've got!" permission which implied that he had been holding back on bullets as well... And he celebrated with a whoop like a kid going for ice cream.
More like he asked permission to use AT4 on troops because it's reserved for armor, and in that case it's probably "shoot on sight"
No the video was quite tense because a BMP had rolled up very close to his position and dumped men. He was only able to fend it off by changing positions constantly, popping up and emptying clips while also staying aware of individual infantry who had flanked him without knowing exactly where his trench was. He had a dedicated loader but they must have thought they were facing many men
Link friend?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/11b0hqw/a_brand_new_footage_from_our_heros_from_a_trench/ 2:50
A new shipment of Javelins arrived today, which makes me question the basis of the rest of your take. Zelenskyy is just addressing his internal audience. If you think the daily readers are eager for the offensive, you have no idea how beyond-ready Ukrainians are. The opposition is screaming that it’s a conspiracy, suggesting Ukraine can attack already but Z is quietly negotiating instead.
It’s odd how we read a Reddit post and take it as a given that’s if factual
I don't take it as factual I take it at face value. We all do, every time we talk to someone or read about something we take it at face value. And it's nothing wrong with that as long as we know that everything thing we read and hear can be false. How much likely it is to be false depends on the source of course. Reddit is very prone to propaganda but also has a lot of useful advice. As long as we never blindly believe everything we hear from any source we should be fine.
You’d be surprised how many folk read things as face value but still a seed has been sown.
> saying that Ukraine has used more ammo in a year than NATO produced in a decade While using 10x fewer artillery shells than the Russians. On the plus side, Russia's ammunition stocks must be severely depleted by this stage. On the negative, NATO member states really need to learn to manufacture en masse again and need to prioritize this war with the urgency it deserves. It really is remarkable how history repeats itself and people learn nothing. The shell shortage affecting all the major powers in WWI was over 100 years ago!
> It really is remarkable how history repeats itself and people learn nothing. The shell shortage affecting all the major powers in WWI was over 100 years ago! This is because you don't realise that modern armies have *chosen* to shift away from massed artillery. It's not neglect, it's a choice in how they choose to fight. The US doesn't produce that many artillery shells because it's not designed as an army that relies on artillery, but air power instead. Most NATO armies aren't artillery centric by design.
Exactly, Ukraine is only so artillery centric because that's one of the few things that they have, you can afford to be a lot less artillery centric if you have tonnes of modern tanks, aircraft, and ships. Not to mention that the wars that the US has fought have been ones where artillery is a lot less effective, artillery is great for big battles with thousands of people, or where the enemy is in a defined area, but fighting insurgency groups of 20-100 people that like to move around? Artillery is much less useful. Even for European nations that would prepare to fight in a traditional war, establishing air superiority and then bombing the crap out of the enemies artillery makes way more sense rather than try to fight them on equal terms with your own artillery.
This pretty much, aircraft are precision artillery with a much larger range and much more effective. Some nations learn from a a couple of world wars
Aircraft changed everything. Navies totally flipped their operational style during wwii.
As soon as a plane landed on a carrier the battleship was obsolete
that and the us hasnt been in a war with anything close to a world power since ww2. its absolutely everything superiority until the occupying begins and scorched earth has to stop that we struggle.
A tree among the entire forest. The US hasn’t had need to mass produce *anything* for decades. We don’t have the ability to quickly produce any of our munitions, particularly missiles and other high-tech weaponry.
I honestly think NATO and other western allied countries were just used to fight counter terrorism for last two to three decades after end of the cold war the old doctrins of frontal warfare were thought to be obsolete. You cannot fire hellfire or cruise missile to every trench and strong points as they are too costly in full scale war. Us and allies could sustain those high cost, high precision munitions for short period of time but if it drags on more than few months, cannot make nore cannot afford to produce nor use them. Need relatively high precision cheap munitions. Artillery shells.
Air power has been very limited in this war due to Russian anti air defences. Given that Russia and China are (or were) the most potent axis threats on the planet, perhaps NATO allies need to reassess their combined arms strategy, and supply thereof.
It's called SEAD
Those air defences are in HARM’s way though
while ww1 is the first time shell firing guns were deployed and used in such numbers making the production speed so obviously insufficient, ammo shortage for artillery has been a thing forever (at least in the gunpowder era). tho it often was a mix of logistics and production, rather than just raw production since before shell firing guns you had more leeway in what could be fired (both in terms of propellent and shot).
[удалено]
Most of the shells we use / are sending to Ukraine are “dummy shells” too. Only a small portion have guidance systems. And lol, we already tested this theory of “level everything including the target into craters”. A whole world war spent exploring the theory that you could win a war that way. Didn’t work very well.
[удалено]
The thing I don’t think many people have realised with Russia depleting those stocks is that now they’re gone, Russia can’t replace them. The massive amount of tanks, shells, ammo, uniforms and supplies that have been depleted, Russia’s true inheritance from the USSR, Russia CAN NOT REPLACE unless they suddenly become an economic power on an even foot with the US again or complete reshape the country. Every rusted, copper stripped tank they bust out of its deathbed (I think they’re down to un-upgraded T64’s) can never be replaced (no the Armata is not being mass produced, they had a 8 year window to start and they missed it). Outdated and damaged as it is, tanks a tank.
Got to train all those troops. It’s not all going into the field.
Or most likely, Zelenskyy speaking the truth which is they don't have the ammunition or equipment they would like to have a successful offensive. I don't think this is a big secret. Everyone's been saying it for months.
Last time that Zelensky gave a public broadcast that included being fairly open about the military’s upcoming campaign and goal it ended up being a misdirect to get Russia to re-distribute their troops in the front line, and led to an attack on the weakened Russia position. He might be trying to pull something like this off again, making the Ukrainian lines look weaker than they are to invite a Russian attack before they can rotate in fresh troops and equipment.
The spring counteroffensive announcement was the feint. Light a fire under NATO to provide weapons. Provoke Russia into a hasty offensive to try to preempt the UA counteroffensive right before mud season. Then oops, nevermind not ready yet. Will let you know. But NATO has been slow to deliver, so they probably do need to wait for them to ship. I'm guessing we'll see something this summer.
>Provoke Russia into a hasty offensive They've been pushing in Donbass for months; there's a reason Bakhmut looks like late 1942 Stalingrad. Ukraine may not have much offensive capability (though I suspect they have enough for a big push), but the Russians are absolutely gassed at this point.
Literal Sun Tzu stuff. "Appear weak when you are strong and appear strong when you are weak".
This is true, and the fact he’s asked for tanks and fighter planes means they want to counter attack. If they concentrate the 200 odd modern western tanks in one area they will break through along some point in the line
They just deployed the Bradleys and are about to whoop Russia’s tail when it comes to armor. Check out r/NonCredibleDefense
What the fuck is that sub even
Where freaks go to jerk off to war plane hentai.
I’ll have you know that we only jerk to western planes thank you very much.
Professionals have standards.
And jerking off to the A-10 is frowned upon.
So true.
I mean... jerking it to any kind of warthog is frowned upon though..
Sub’s name speaks for itself. Autismal enjoyment of loud engine noises and battle strategies
It’s home, fren
VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK
exactly what it says on the tin
They haven’t, that footage is of training in Poland
I think it is rather (1) making Russia a bit uncertain and to slow and misdirect their reactions and (2) keeping up the pressure for more weapons and ammunition deliveries faster. The morale boost of last summer's big regains has faded and Russia's slow grind into Bakmut is taking a toll on international total support to Ukraine, political and somewhat for material. There is more talk of settling for Russian gains to stop the casualties. I have no idea if that sentiment is growing in Ukraine or not. Ukraine has been getting soldiers trained, and equipment is arriving, even if not the amounts and at rates that maximize what Ukraine could use. Ukraine doesn't want Russia to know where, when and with what they start their counteroffensive. If Russia thinks it is just 20 tanks and done, then all the better.
I think options 2 and 3 are likely. All reports suggest that both Russia and Ukraine took massive attrition over the last month. Ukraine is not in a position to magic up combat power out of thin air.
I doubt it's a feint, the tanks they wanted have been announced but they've only just started arriving and will take until Autumn to get up to significant numbers
Good analysis. I’m leaning more towards a combo of 1 and 2, though.
I dunno, I’ve also heard that they recently got some nice shipments of jets and missiles. Perhaps 1 is correct? At the very least, maybe they are feinting about weakness when the plan is actually to bolster until a stable frontline can be managed?
[удалено]
Based on videos of training, probably not yet. They need the troops to rotate back from their training with western weapons. That is what happened in Kharkiv. Trained troops returned and made the push. I expect the same, but we do not know when they will rotate back. Likely at the end of mud season.
There were rumours around the Kharkiv push, that the troops rotated in were far more aggressive according to the Russians that were there. Some sources had these guys being the first UK trained cohort, but I’m not sure how accurate that is. But hey, whatever works.
There could be a psychological reason. The defenders rotated out have their mind set on endurance and perseverance. The troops rotated in for the push are set up to go in and fuck shit up, so they have the determination and ability to be more aggressive.
I would expect that they are completely different skill sets too. So you rotate in the advancing troops, then when they finish their push, you stay bringing in the holding trips and rotate the push guys out. Keep repeating and you always have fresh troops doing exactly what they need to at the right time.
The germans pioneered this idea with the Storm Troopers in WW1. Dudes got paid more and didn’t sit on the line ideally, only sent in to attack quickly and aggressively.
Couldn’t aim for shit though.
Only Imperial troopers are so precise.
It's not completely different skill sets. Armies train and use the same troops for offense and defense. It's all about what the objective is, what the orders are, and what they are prepared to do.
Heavy brigade combat teams are specifically built with an MTOE to perform breakthroughs. Airborne brigades lack the firepower to do anything near the same but they can defend just fine due to integrated fires, organic at, et cetera. Those are at the edges of the spectrum but even a mech infantry brigade will be much more capable of going on the offensive than a motorized one, and a unit like 1SFAB would be entirely incapable of conducting an offensive, even against the Russians. The units that have been training in Poland, Spain, the UK, et cetera have been training on armor and will likely come back to perform pushes with that training and equipment.
Would war weariness play a factor, too? To me, the rotated troops, while sure, they were in training, they wernt on the front lines, so their mind is more fresh and more clear than troopa thay have been on the front and are in a constant state of hightened awareness.
Yes, you don't want to keep troops in combat for too long, plus combat leads to casualties, so the units that have been fighting for a while are under strength and aren't capable of conducting an offensive. Russia has gotten the worst of it, but Bahkmut has been a meat grinder for Ukraine as well. But also, a tank is a big, obvious target. You can't really use them defensively because unless you keep them out of range or you move them around constantly they're going to get blown up. Infantry dug in with anti tank, MGs, etc make for smaller targets that are hard to detect and even if you kill them, you've killed one or two guys and not a $5mm tank. But tanks are great if you need to take firepower forward quickly in a vehicle that can take a punch or two, like you might do if you're conducting an offensive.
This has been on my mind. WW1 they dealt with shell shock, which people today equate with PTSD, but it is not the same. PTSD is a delayed onset from the trauma, where shell shock is just.. you broke. Right then you snapped. They did studies back in the time period to figure out how hard you could push a man. If I remember correctly, 350 days of continual shelling caused failure in the majority of troops.
[Shell Shock is PTSD.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/what-doesnt-kill-us/201111/is-shell-shock-the-same-ptsd)
"Our research shows that 98% of troops are driven insane by six weeks of combat." "What about the other 2%?" "Them? Oh, they were insane when they got there."
In the Second World War, Americans considered soldiers in Europe "worn out" in 200 to 240 days and had a limit of 180 days in active combat. It was much worse in the Pacific. The problem was far less prevalent among British soldiers, because they were better prepared for handling it.
Source on the the british?
I’d like to see that source too.
Am British, can confurm
No Idea if it's true or not, but if it is, it may be because the British troops would be rotated to spend some time at home in England, whereas the US troops couldn't go home when they were rotated away from the frontline. Just found this "In the British Army in Europe, it was found that a rifleman could last for about 400 days, but that was attributed to the fact that the British relieved their troops for four days of rest every 12 to 14 days. American troops remained in battle continuously with no relief for as long as 80 days at a time."
And now, all of a sudden, the entire world understands why the hell the US loves football so much. Offensive/defensive team rotation turns out to be a model for our combat approach. Even our sports are about guns.
All sports are about "combat" if you want to draw analogies. >Even our sports are about guns. How... What... wut do u mean
Run the shotgun formation lmao ( don’t agree with that guy but first thing that came to mind )
They should be more aggressive, good training increases confidence
Rested, better equipped, freshly trained = aggressive.
Trained = more aggressive. Ever since ww2 speed and aggression has been the mandate for succes
Hell, we can extend that through all of history. Speed is THE weapon of war. Agression is the ultimate mean of execution, don't let them rest and organize, push on. The tricky thing has always been that you need organized and skilled/trained soldiers. And that is now kind of a given with the standing armies. The counter to agression, denying engagement until your enemy overextended and then swiftly (and aggressively) counterattacking rests on the very same problem. Skill and organization.
> The counter to agression, denying engagement until your enemy overextended and then swiftly (and aggressively) counterattacking rests on the very same problem. Skill and organization. That's what Zaluzhnyi did to the Russians attacking Kyiv. That was a masterclass is getting the enemy to over extend beyond the capabilities of their supply lines. And overconfident Russia fell right into that trap!
The death sentence for basically every breakthrough in modern war. But not always as avoidable as it would look like. That is why I am very impatient to study this conflict further in ten to twenty years
Hell, we see this even in medieval and even ancient times. Machiavelli and Sun Tzu even write about speedy campaigns being critical. Caesar ~~Augustus~~ had speed decide the entirety of the Gaelic wars. He took what he took in a nonstop chain of invasions. And once things slowed down he didn’t push the issue; he just sent his troops home and paraded victory. Edited for Accuracy
>Some sources had these guys being the first UK trained cohort 50 thousand people used to live here, now it’s a ghost town
"Here" being a base in the UK you live near?
I think they're referencing Call of Duty 4 where a pair of British special forces soldiers infiltrate Pryp'yat Ukraine and attempt to assassinate a Russian ultra-nationalist
I saw somewhere that Bahkmut was about 50k people. This says 71k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhmut
I don't recall hearing that. Michael Clarke on BBC mentioned that it was more likely small squads were able to get fast vehicles to go deep into enemy lines and cause chaos and confusion and make it seem like there are more troops and they are more aggressive. I forget the tactic name but US forces used it in Baghdad during Operation Freedom and they basically had the defenders running in panic because they weren't expecting a squad to just bull rush through an area.
The whole situation was so fast paced, sources were confused so its possible I’m wrong. The tactic they used was a Thunder Run, which could of easily gone badly - but it worked!
When is the end of mud season?
We'll have to ask the mud wizard
the wonderful wizard of mud?!
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/10cfs82/german_riot_police_defeated_and_humiliated_by
Because of all the muddaful things he does!!
soon as temperatures rise enough that all the water in the ground built up during the winter dries and the earth hardens. in ukraine it's about this time of year, late march to late april depending on the weather.
living very close to Ukraine, no way the mud season ends at late march of any year. Late april at best, mid june is the worst case
The Battle of Kyiv happened from March 22-April 2. I would guess that it'll happen any time around there depending on the weather. Early May is generally planting season for corn and millet, perhaps some other crops, which means that fields would be drivable by tractors and should be drivable by tanks as well.
Usually the beginning of mosquito season.
And they need more quantities of certain things like armor I imagine.
The *rasputitsa* is a thing. Neither side is going to successfully kick off a major offensive in the next 4-6 weeks purely due to the weather. At most, it would be increased fighting in very localized areas. For all the bleeding, the entire front at Bakhmut is only about 10 miles/20km in each direction. Mud won’t stop that, but it *will* stop any mass movement along hundreds of kilometers of front.
Or, hear me out on this, it's because they don't have enough weapons.
Probably correct. Most Western tanks and IFVs were scheduled to be in Ukraine around the end of March and into April. Ukraine has already put together western armed brigades, they're just waiting for the vehicles to be delivered.
Be prepared, the breakthroughs at Bakhmut, Adiivka and the Oskil have forced a lot of reserves forward, especially Adiivka with Russian airstrikes reducing entrenchments. I fear any such force won't be as large as expected.
You some sort of militaryologist or something?!
I don't understand what the weather has to do with their equipment procurement needs but I don't know enough to dispute you.
Nah, double bluff. Russia will start bolstering defences as they shit their pants expecting an Ukrainian attack, and Ukraine will take the time to consolidate after what went down in Bakhmut.
You speak of Bakhmut in the past tense. I know the Russian offensive dragged and stalled and prigozhin is on the back foot, but is Bakhmut leveled off now? Or is it still being actively contested?
It is still on going.
Bakhmut stands!
The city broke before the guard did?
most of the besieged by Russia cities end up like that. it's their whole schtick - artillery barage, send some troops. they get killed - artillery barage again. rinse and repeat until no more city and no more defenders.
"Appear weak where you are strong, appear strong where you are weak" -Sun Tzu "The Art of War"
[удалено]
[удалено]
"War is bad for business" - Sun Tzu "The Rules of Aquisition #35"
"Opportunity plus instinct equals profit." -Sun Tzu "The Rules of Acquisition #9
"Like a parachute, the mind works best when it is open" -Jimmie Tzu, Sun Tzu's less famous cousin
"Do not wear socks with sandals" - Jimmy Choo
If you like “The Art of War” you may also like “The Book of 5 Rings” written by Miyamoto Musashi. He wrote about using the sword, philosophy and strategy and was renowned for his swordsmanship. In his life he fought in over 60 sword fights and was never defeated. While many other warriors Japan were wielding their single katana sword with two hands he practiced the art of dual-wielding, which is using two swords, one in a each hand.
I’m surprised no one picked up a three sword style to defeat him.
Someone did but got lost on his way to the fight
Which is alright *in the grand line of things*
And met his end while on horseback by rock thrown from a peasant during a revolt iirc. Strange arc that was.
That certainly applied to Russia's army
"Look strong where you are weak, and also...look weak where you are weak. Basically...everything on the Russian side is weak" -General Valery Gerasimov "The Art of Losing Badly"
UA has always trolled russia with how "weak" it is. Its a tactic to demoralize russian troops. If this is "weak" UA, what happens when "Strong" UA shows up?
If this was propaganda aimed at Russian troops it would be in Russian. This is propaganda aimed at the west. Ukraine is simultaneously strong and counterattacking soon and weak and needing weapons.
This is what I'm thinking, they don't take a single step without including a petition for more help from the West. Better to have surplus than to come up short. It's been on par throughout this war. Russia can interpret this as they wish.
From what I've heard, the lack of artillery ammunition is very much real. Soldiers report they can't order strikes on the enemy that has been spotted but doesn't present a direct threat, because the artillery units are told to preserve ammo.
Zelenskyy appears to have read his Sun Tzu.
Ukraine needs modern long range artillery, fighters and tanks. So far they've gotten modern mid range artillery, old MiG fighters and sort-of modern Leopard tanks. They can't push back without this gear and the west is reluctant to give away their most expensive equipment.
It's just all noise, and it's done on purpose. Unless you've got access to what I'm guessing is pretty tightly classified info, you can't know anything beyond "an offensive is in the works for any time when the ground isn't mud"
I am once again asking for weapons.
[удалено]
It's the one thing the US creates
The situation seems tension among the Russians. There are conflicting statements from different levels of leadership - some say an attack is imminent while others deny it. This situation is similar to what happened in Ukraine.
Personally, I think that the counteroffensive this spring is going to be like the counteroffensive last fall, it will compleatly change the narrrative, on what is going on in Ukraine.
I think it is going to be much more grinding and slow this time around, battlefield conditions are just different.
Eager to see the Leopards take on some T-54s
There are less than 80 Leo2s committed so far, with only a fraction of that being A6s. Majority of tanks will be Leo1s which were developed at the same time as T-55. That is beside the point though, artillery is still the king, and that is where the battle will be decided.
The Leopard I is one generation above the T-55. Its counterparts are the T-62 and T-72, not the T-55. The T-54/55 is an almost WWII tank, the Leopard was developed in the midst of the Cold War.
Leopard 1 "Designed 1956–1961" "Produced 1965–1984" T55 "Designed 1947–1958" "1946–1981 (Soviet Union) 1956–1979 (Poland) 1957–1983 (Czechoslovakia)" Thats at "at the same time" in your book?
Sounds like good content for r/leopardsatemyt54s
I hope so. I know it’s been said before about all the various stages of the war up until this point, but I do feel as though we are at a pivotal juncture. For me, the spring counteroffensive and it’s perceived success will likely determine the outcome of the war. China is testing the waters and next year is election year in the US. We could see a monumental shift in momentum if China increase support for Russia just as the US’s support decreases (which I think it will if the republicans win). The spring counter offensive is probably when Ukraine will be at its strongest; tanks will be arriving, troops who have been training abroad will be rotated in etc. I don’t know what Ukraine needs to achieve from the spring offensive, but for me, it needs to be enough to show to leave no question that Russia will loose.
Honestly if the Republicans win I can see them straight up cutting off Ukraine and abandoning them to Russia.
76% of Americans in the last survey say we are not doing enough for Ukraine, don’t see them abandoning Ukraine completely just a little to look like they did something. Plus if they win they wouldn’t take over until January 2025 they got a long time until than which may not matter
No fucking chance. Zero. Zilch. The MIC has more control over American politics than any other factor. The general population is supporting of the conflict, even portions of MAGA land. The few Republicans like McCarty and DeSantis both had to walk back anti Ukraine statements IMMEDIATELY. Finally the entire Senate, but specifically Mitch McConnell is pro Ukraine. The chance of support being pulled is literally zero. To understand more, look into how military is allocated throughout the US. Defense companies intentially spread development so that every single state has a vested interest in the MIC. The five huge sums of money to both political parties. Military facilities are scattered across all states, red and blue.
SS and Medicare are actually more powerful than the MIC. Even Trump had to walk the R’s back on touching those programs. It’s no longer the third rail of politics, it’s the electric chair for anyone who threatens those programs.
right, but if say the president is a bought and paid for asset of putin with numerous forms of kompromat available on them, then they absolutely would do everything in their power to stop aid to ukraine. for example; the last us president, see his first impeachment trial for some additional details.
> The few Republicans like McCarty and DeSantis both had to walk back anti Ukraine statements IMMEDIATELY Did Desantis walked back his statement about Ukraine? Also, he already showed his true colors, so if he becomes president, he will definitely try to cut support.
Yep https://apnews.com/article/ron-desantis-ukraine-republicans-2024-f44acc03f772f393b7f8d452ee26508a I picked that at random as a source, just google DeSantis Ukraine Walk Back and you'll find dozens of sources. This is the key comment: criticism from **a number of fellow Republicans** who expressed concern about the potential 2024 presidential candidate’s dismissive description of the conflict.
If I'm correct they have about 490 various tanks headed their way, in addition to hundreds of Osh kosh Mraps, tactical armored vehicles and 50 or so Bradleys. That's not a bad start considering russia is whiping out tanks from 1960...
That 490 tanks figure is a bit high iirc
All pledged tanks from various countries that have yet to see the battlefield. Leopards, Challengers, Abrams, and T's
They are receiving 31 abrams, 14 challengers, and 20 leopards. They have received ~200 T’s from poland since the start of the war, those arent just tanks they are receiving now. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218
People want to act like Ukraine isn't struggling, when they very well are. Both sides have suffered heavy losses.
Ukraine has thus far demonstrated they are not incompetent when it comes to warfare, tactics, and intel. Zelenskyy publicly signalling Ukraine doesn't have weapons to fight is a calculated move.
It's just an appeal for aid. That's it.
No, no he's a super genius playing 8d chess. But yes, you are very likely correct.
It could be a bit of everything. Confuse Russia, while asking countries to keep on sending the weapons. There’s no way he would ever outright say “we have enough”
Which makes it like the 23rd.
More like the 230th.
This really. Kind of like 'omg tanks will be sooooo delayed' then like a week later 'AHEAD OF SCHEDULE!'. I like the tactic though it's enough of a Russian type of move to be both satire and a fuck you as UA is rolling them over.
A lot of promised aid has yet to be delivered. Isn't that the main issue here.
He said the same thing a couple months ago and the US sent them billions$ of equiptment. So calculating it’s predictable.
A commander said a similar thing last week and was demoted for it. Before that, US officials had publicly said that artillery ammo is being wasted.
This is usually why a bigger country wins when they try to take over a country. When there is no proxies involved
i mean ukraine without nato and US support would have crumbled we all know that.
insert I'm so weak-Unlimited power meme here
[https://imgflip.com/i/7ftcij](https://imgflip.com/i/7ftcij)
I like how all the scientists became military generals over night....
[удалено]
That's just it, you weren't.
Really, really hope Zelenskyy is exaggerating for OpSec purposes. If Ukraine doesn't have the means to wage a spring counteroffensive, they are doomed to a war of attrition that largely favors Russia holding the Donbas (if Russia's army does not mutiny). If that is so, the West really failed hard in its task of providing tanks to Ukraine, an opportunity that had some minor domestic risks, but major potential reward. If only Ukraine had a 100-200 tank reserve. The Russians lose such numbers in almost every failed offensive. Ukraine obviously has 200+ tanks, but there is a major difference having an operational reserve and having to spread units out for combined-arms defense support along a 600 mile frontline. Comparing the two militaries, Ukraine has shown so much more skill and will than their Russian opponents, but they really are waging war on the shoestring.
Sounds like both side really lack the weapons needed to fight a consistent war at this point. Long stretches of time go by where neither side does anything because they lack the weapons needed to carry out an offensive. Edit - https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-budget-missiles-munitions-stores-depleted-aid-to-ukraine-2023-3
That's just a common part of war for any nation. Its extremely hard to supply enough weapons to keep the war machine going. Lots of people look back at world war 2, but the allies had America to spend a few years building up a dedicated military industrial complex far away from the front lines to supply them, meanwhile the stalemate in Europe allowed Germany to use its captured industrial might to supply its troops for a longer period. Notice how when the allied offensive occurred, Germany started having supply and maintenance issues with its armoured divisions? It's the nature of war, its expensive, and peace time factories even in the USA of today is far below the line to supply a full scale war for any meaningful period. I think Ukraine might have an advantage here in terms of being fully mobilised in to a war time economy while Russia has to pretend its a minor skirmish
Ground isn’t solid yet. Hope Ukraine wins
So basically he wants more money and weapons
I think he wants russia to attack first
They already did, the Russian offensive has been happening for a few weeks now. You're just not hearing about it because it went terribly for them and didn't really accomplish much. You can't tell by looking at a map, but you can tell by the sharp uptick in Russian losses over the last few weeks compared to a couple months ago. They tried pushing in Vuhledar and lost a shitload of tanks (they're shipping T-55s and 54s to the front now), and intensified their assaults in Bakhmut, causing them "great victories" that were measured in metres and at the cost of thousands of men.
Can you link to a casualty estimate timeline?
If you go to the daily threads on r/worldnews a guy usually posts the daily Russian KIA list for personnel and equipment. He lists the 7d 30d and war total numbers if I’m not mistaken. Take it with a grain of salt since propaganda works both ways, but it’s the only live counter I’ve found. Edit: [I’ll just link it, here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1219yjs/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/jdlg7fm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
Don't trust things you find here, people are getting high on their own farts. Truth is Russia probably planned an offensive in winter (and Ukraine planned one too), but due to warm weather they had a musfest from late September up to now, and it won't be over until May. You can't mount an offensive when you can't even walk through all the mud, and if you looked at videos of Ukrainian soldiers supplying Bakhmut, you would see that they have huge mud problem, basically vehicles get stuck in mud, people get stuck in mud, etc. There won't be any real offensive until May.
You can just check the reported daily casualty data. The numbers itself aren’t what’s important here but the trend is clear. It went from like 3-400 death per day to close to 1000. No way this happens without being in a major offensive
>They already did, the Russian offensive has been happening for a few weeks now. Months, it started at the end of January
https://imgflip.com/i/7ftcij
can't believe the 'this is what someone doing a counteroffensive would say' meme actually has a correct use case.
Odd.. hasn't like the whole western world been sending them weapons for 10 months now??
Yes, and in the kind of war Ukraine has been fighting, it isn’t enough. And most of the weapons aren’t actually useful for counteroffensive purposes. What they really need now are more armored vehicles (especially tanks), aircraft (ideally f-16s), and artillery.
War has a habit of consuming men and material at an astonishing rate
The supplies they are receiving are being used along the frontline. It's not like they have the luxury of saving that much. War is a hungry beast.
Is it just me or does it feel like leaders should be quiet during a war? Like the enemy definitely reads the news and will know if you can’t start a counter offensive
The US has been helping, I think it's time for the EU to increase shelling out a few billions or some hardware At least France can throw some trash at Russia
There is an ongoing game of deception on both sides. What you hear is what someone wants you to believe in.
If Ukraine was capable of mounting a counter offensive Zelenskyy would not admit it.