It's never as simple as my words are describing it, no matter where: there are no words to describe all the miserable cold, mud, stench, sights one can't forget for the rest of life, fear, terror because of permanent threat of death or maim...
Sorry to go off-topic, but what are the chances of the first A-50 to have been actually shot down by a s200 and not Patriot? People speculated that it was a Patriot, but Ukraine actually never said how they shot it down.
Appreciate your great information as always, but can't help but be disappointed in your take on UA's entrenchment efforts. The fact that they are having to rely only on the efforts of the organic engineering units within their brigades is an indication of the failure of command to plan for "Plan B".
They had way more time than a couple of months to prepare fall back positions. Avdiivka has been the point of the main Russian push since October, and one of the positions most in jeopardy since 2014. UA had a decade to create reinforced fallback positions. Especially along the favorable terrain along their (hopefully) new defensive line.
As the old Soviet saying goes - heroism of the common soldiers is always an indication of command fuck-ups.
It is not a state program “fortification construction”: every brigade/unit has to create a plan of 1st, 2nd, 3rd defence line (unit commanders task). Then to give respective orders to their engineering unit to construct fortification (unit commanders task). Engineering unit has to dig&build. In case they lack machinery or materials they are free to order support from higher -ranking engineering units. And usually they get helped.
Main problem is on stages 1-3: to plan, to order, to understand and to begin construction
Yep. That's my point above. It's a fxsk-up that something as strategically crucial as the ORDLO main defensive line was left to unit commanders to build out as opposed to being planned holistically at the general staff level.
Anything 5 km behind the line is under heavy shelling from artillery, MLRS, drones and sometimes airplanes. Any civilian equipment has no chance to survive.
A metro building machine is destroyed by the very first missile or Shahed that hits it. And it is very expensive.
D30 has a range of 30 km. MLRS and Lancets hit up to 70 km. Shaheds are used agains fortifications and Kalibrs come as soon as the Russians behold a crowd.
There was a detailed article on fortification effort by the Kyiv Independant months ago when Zelensky admitted Ukraine needed to go on the defensive for a while. Like most of the newspaper content, it was top notch. Unfortunately, I cant find it again.
One of the big issue they said is fortifications work were left to local authorities who lacked funding and planification. It is easy to understand why since the same local administrations are the one most damaged by the hostilities. There was the idea to involve private sector more but personally I am warry about such thing given the stakes and the scale. I find this emphasis on privatization, for fortification or for Ukroboronprom, a bit ... odd ... in the middle of a conflict.
Good roll up, thank you. I am hoping we get this aid done soon. I have found out that so many people just don't know jack shit about the history of this whole thing, and well, I have managed to educate some. Every bit helps, especially when you get to shut some tankie up with some real honest history.
Thanks Tom for the report some pretty good some so so and some were holding our breath any way its war and stuff happens, I was reading and hearing how the Orcs were advancing like crazy so it good to read your report
….sometimes there’s no way to end in ‘optimistic’ fashion, no matter how much one wants to do so.. Understand but we are all sober persons and we need to act like adults, the reality is reality and it wouldnt change just be cause "we want". If somebody want optimistic endings, sorry nope. The reality is - most of the time - Blood, Sweat & Tears
"see, brigades trained by glorious NATO - but then only how to assault, not how to hold their new positions… hkhm"
Reminds of my childhood watching documentaries about WWII. There they always said: The Wehrmacht manual was quite a detailed and impressive book with quite some pages. However, retreat was covered on 3 pages...
So Tom, why are there so many similarities between the Wehrmacht and NATO?
That was sarcasm, meaning that yes, they did read too many of Wehrmacht memoirs. The US Army run a big post-WWII-investigation into the German ops, resulting in dozens of books, just for example.
Ah, sry but every time I read Rainer it reminds of Rainer Pariasek and that makes my brain go boogie.
It is just fascinating to me, that someone believes that there is a mine clearing vehicle going in front of a column to clean the path like displayed in multiple military videos when your own side stops the entire, much larger armoured vehicle onslaught from distances with infantry an ATGM hiding in forests, bushes, trenches, houses, ditches and what not. Especially as Soviet tank break through, as far as I know, always started first with an infantry onslaught and afterwards there came hundreds of tanks.
WWII had its share of field fortifications, but they had relatively little effect, at least if you compare it to WWI. Even the more impressive pieces like the Maginot line were circumvented or broken through in not much time. I would suppose the thinking went like "Why would we even try? They will just get an armored division around it, with air support. Let's focus on armored divisions and air support instead." Of course, now that no armored division can stick out its nose without being immediately spotted by drones and pounded by everything at hand, a trench system is suddenly not that useless anymore, but generals are trying to win the previous war, generally.
As for the Wehrmacht, if this is true, I can understand that it was set up for massive land grabs in massive offensive wars, so if it had to retreat, things were pretty hopeless already. Similarly, if NATO is designed to wage counter-insurgency in remote places, and they face the question of how to stop a large-scale enemy onslaught, that means they have fucked up something royally and may need to just leave.
Sry, but I have to massively disagree. The German Wehrmachts offensive power was eliminated in the battle of Kursk behind massive minefields, trenches and othe field fortifications. There the Soviets took out the movement of the war of movement and that is exactly what Surovikin did too.
The landing in Salerno was also stuck in massive trench warfare.
I didn't say trenches had no effect in WWII. Just way less then in WWI when they dominated everything.
True, the defensive lines the Germans could successively fall back to in Northern Italy did slow down the Allied advance a lot, not just immediately behind Salerno. Earlier in 1940, the Alpine line did repel an Italian attack. But all of those were greatly aided by mountainous terrain, just like the Arpad line.
The Mannerheim line played its role, too.
But the others? Maginot line - broken. Atlantic wall - broken. Siegfried line - overrun. Stalin line - overrun. WWII armored forces were already more mobile and more powerful than that, with relatively few similarly powerful and mobile countermeasures.
Kursk I think is an imperfect example. Minefields, artillery etc. were certainly effective there, but the victory was more due to the British breaking the Germans' highly confidential Lorenz machine codes, resulting in the Soviets knowing way in advance where and how the Germans were going to attack. Also, most of the Wehrmacht's offensive power was spent by December 1941, with what they could still muster in 1942 having been worn down in their failed attempt to seize the Caucasian oilfields.
I would not conflate NATO doctrine and capabilities with Ukraine's. NATO (US) doctrine is built around air superiority and interdiction in depth. It takes many years of training to create a "NATO standard" brigade, and hundreds of billions of dollars per year to purchase and sustain the materiel. The whole "NATO trained ZSU brigades" was a bit of positive propaganda. They had less time to train than a marine infantry soldier gets before getting to his unit. We didn't provide them with an air force of NATO size and ability, nor with the sort of officer and NCO corps we have. In our defense, these things take years if not decades to create.
As they say, 9 women can't make a baby in a month.
That said, we should have provided much much more materiel to support Ukraine in their way of fighting, which could have still enabled their success. Should have provided it faster, and made sure that our words match our deeds when it comes to deliveries.
And this is not a "bad thing". It's just the reality of UA mobilizing a force of older men in an army that is trained and organized to a post-Soviet standard.
We need to be more realistic about this fact of life, and not try to impose our doctrine on ZSU or give them what we would like for ourselves based on our own doctrine assumptions.
Instead be realistic and support them with the materiel that will maximize THEIR success in the paradigm within which THEY are able to most successfully fight today.
As they say, the fisherman likes strawberries, but the fish like worms. Successful fishermen don't offer strawberries to fish....
Also, more is always better. Even if misguided and inefficient. We are at the point where anything is better than nothing.
1. I am sure there was a negotiation between ZSU and NATO what skills to train, otherwise it would be a big fail of ZSU. So, the only one to blame is ZSU and it's leadership.
2. Since 2014 ZSU gained very good experience in building trenches, no need to ask NATO to train trench building. They have many (wounded) veterans who could do training better. If they need a safe place, ZSU may send their instructors abroad with the novice servicemen.
3. Similarly with complaints about lack of training with UXO, and drones. ZSU knows better than NATO UXO and drones at Ukrainian frontlines. It's nonsense to blame NATO.
I can't say that all media as NYT and haven't fact-cheking, but more often I come to this thought. In 2012 when the EURO in Ukraine and Poland hasn't started yet, the BBC said Ukraine is a criminal country with a bad ecology and many other disgusting misinformation. I remember it clearly. It was May 2012.
Look, Austrians biggest newspaper (populist boulevard type) wrote that the evil Ukrainians are killing the stray dogs (in Austria many people prefer dogs over children). Those poor puppies. Ignoring completely that a homeless person was bitten to death by a pack and eaten afterwards.
Just imagine that would have happened to a drunk football fan sleeping on the street because he was too drunk to find his way home.
You're right, Ukraine wasn't the safest place in the world. But five thousand of Netherlands fans were happy in Ukraine, the Swedish fans spent a good time, and the English fans who didn't believe in that misinformation took a good memory. Overall all Europeans didn't complain about security or service in Ukraine.
I am well aware of that as my wife is from Kyiv. It was just an example how a newspaper is writing with the same lack of knowledge to please its own narrative.
I'd not call Ukraine of 2012 the safest place in the world.
Ironically, many of the hooligans of 2012 fought police on Maidan in 2014 and left for the Donbas front. Many thugs from the other side stayed in Donetsk city. The (somewhat frozen) war made the rest of the country safer.
Yes, football fans in Ukraine were uniting during Maidan and they were playing a significant role in those actions. After Maidan the football fans joined the AFU and protected their country. Denys Prokopenko is one of the most widely known member of the football fans.
Thanks, I have searched for it but last mentioned in the 23.02 newsletter as attacked but not taken. I have not seen the name of this village in any news.
Don't recall exact dates any more, but it was claimed as taken by the Russians already around 20 January. Then confirmed to me as taken by the Russians on 21 or 22 February.
Thank's Tom,
Thank you, Tom
Thank you tom
Elenivka, Donetsk region: 155th marines RU got HIMARSed, 19 KiA, 12-15 WiA incl (unconfirmed) its top command stuff.
PS: RIP to all fallen Lions…
Thank you! The situation in Ivanivske seems to be more complex but let’s see…
It's never as simple as my words are describing it, no matter where: there are no words to describe all the miserable cold, mud, stench, sights one can't forget for the rest of life, fear, terror because of permanent threat of death or maim...
Here are hundreds of short interviews https://meduza.io/feature/2024/02/24/ty-sidish-na-trupah-esh-na-trupah-i-vse-eto-ochen-trudno-dlya-mozgov
Sorry to go off-topic, but what are the chances of the first A-50 to have been actually shot down by a s200 and not Patriot? People speculated that it was a Patriot, but Ukraine actually never said how they shot it down.
You just have read AND an understand the last two or three postings, why to explain it the 5th or 7th time...
AFAIK, the first one was by a Patriot. Indeed, by the 138th Air Defence.
No idea what unit is operating S-200s.
There's no evidence that it was a Patriot. Ukraine never said how it shot it down.
if it was shot down anyway, what difference does it make?
The Ukrainians are running out of patriot missiles, if they can supplement them with S200 missiles it's a big deal
Thanks for the update Tom. All in all they´re still holding on.
On a sidenote... any chance to be admitted in your Facebook group? I see you cleaned up your closet...
Appreciate your great information as always, but can't help but be disappointed in your take on UA's entrenchment efforts. The fact that they are having to rely only on the efforts of the organic engineering units within their brigades is an indication of the failure of command to plan for "Plan B".
They had way more time than a couple of months to prepare fall back positions. Avdiivka has been the point of the main Russian push since October, and one of the positions most in jeopardy since 2014. UA had a decade to create reinforced fallback positions. Especially along the favorable terrain along their (hopefully) new defensive line.
As the old Soviet saying goes - heroism of the common soldiers is always an indication of command fuck-ups.
Don't mean to be negative, just very sad.
It is not a state program “fortification construction”: every brigade/unit has to create a plan of 1st, 2nd, 3rd defence line (unit commanders task). Then to give respective orders to their engineering unit to construct fortification (unit commanders task). Engineering unit has to dig&build. In case they lack machinery or materials they are free to order support from higher -ranking engineering units. And usually they get helped.
Main problem is on stages 1-3: to plan, to order, to understand and to begin construction
Yep. That's my point above. It's a fxsk-up that something as strategically crucial as the ORDLO main defensive line was left to unit commanders to build out as opposed to being planned holistically at the general staff level.
Unfortunatelly, I must admit I am desparatelly demotivated by this.
Orcs started to build defence in Zaporizhya in Nov 22.
When orcs attacked Avdiivka in October I was surprise to hear there is no defence... how? Its already 1.5 year of tge war....
Now its 2 years of the war, 6 month attacks on Avdiivka.
How its possible not to have defences built there?
We are blaming so much west for weapons. But dig in is purelly local guys with escavators or concrete reinforcement from beton.
I am speechless how its possible not to have defence behind Avdiivka.
Now 3rd assault and 47th run a crazy counter-attacks, even using abramses in desparate attempt to stop orcs.
What stopped us to create another underground avdiivka 5 km behind the line and lay 2 mil mines?
Use metro digging equipment if needed
Anything 5 km behind the line is under heavy shelling from artillery, MLRS, drones and sometimes airplanes. Any civilian equipment has no chance to survive.
The supply of mines is not infinite as well.
Ok 10 km, does not matter. Or use metro tunnel building machine.
Just build freaking defence and mine
A metro building machine is destroyed by the very first missile or Shahed that hits it. And it is very expensive.
D30 has a range of 30 km. MLRS and Lancets hit up to 70 km. Shaheds are used agains fortifications and Kalibrs come as soon as the Russians behold a crowd.
There was a detailed article on fortification effort by the Kyiv Independant months ago when Zelensky admitted Ukraine needed to go on the defensive for a while. Like most of the newspaper content, it was top notch. Unfortunately, I cant find it again.
One of the big issue they said is fortifications work were left to local authorities who lacked funding and planification. It is easy to understand why since the same local administrations are the one most damaged by the hostilities. There was the idea to involve private sector more but personally I am warry about such thing given the stakes and the scale. I find this emphasis on privatization, for fortification or for Ukroboronprom, a bit ... odd ... in the middle of a conflict.
Edit :
Found it
https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-finally-moves-to-fortify-front-line-but-could-it-be-too-little-too-late/
It does not matter why. What matter is the result.
I would understand 1 week, or even 4 weeks. Verify result. If no result - do something else.
Will you tell your history book in 400 years.
"Enemy built 5 defensive belts and stopped all attacks, we did not built anything, so they killed 3 of our brigades and occupied 50 km"
Sound like a horrible excuse.
Good roll up, thank you. I am hoping we get this aid done soon. I have found out that so many people just don't know jack shit about the history of this whole thing, and well, I have managed to educate some. Every bit helps, especially when you get to shut some tankie up with some real honest history.
Спасибо
Thanks Tom for the report some pretty good some so so and some were holding our breath any way its war and stuff happens, I was reading and hearing how the Orcs were advancing like crazy so it good to read your report
….sometimes there’s no way to end in ‘optimistic’ fashion, no matter how much one wants to do so.. Understand but we are all sober persons and we need to act like adults, the reality is reality and it wouldnt change just be cause "we want". If somebody want optimistic endings, sorry nope. The reality is - most of the time - Blood, Sweat & Tears
"see, brigades trained by glorious NATO - but then only how to assault, not how to hold their new positions… hkhm"
Reminds of my childhood watching documentaries about WWII. There they always said: The Wehrmacht manual was quite a detailed and impressive book with quite some pages. However, retreat was covered on 3 pages...
So Tom, why are there so many similarities between the Wehrmacht and NATO?
'Rainer von Zufall'...
Ok, I rather thought the staff read too many of German generals memoirs
That was sarcasm, meaning that yes, they did read too many of Wehrmacht memoirs. The US Army run a big post-WWII-investigation into the German ops, resulting in dozens of books, just for example.
Ah, sry but every time I read Rainer it reminds of Rainer Pariasek and that makes my brain go boogie.
It is just fascinating to me, that someone believes that there is a mine clearing vehicle going in front of a column to clean the path like displayed in multiple military videos when your own side stops the entire, much larger armoured vehicle onslaught from distances with infantry an ATGM hiding in forests, bushes, trenches, houses, ditches and what not. Especially as Soviet tank break through, as far as I know, always started first with an infantry onslaught and afterwards there came hundreds of tanks.
WWII had its share of field fortifications, but they had relatively little effect, at least if you compare it to WWI. Even the more impressive pieces like the Maginot line were circumvented or broken through in not much time. I would suppose the thinking went like "Why would we even try? They will just get an armored division around it, with air support. Let's focus on armored divisions and air support instead." Of course, now that no armored division can stick out its nose without being immediately spotted by drones and pounded by everything at hand, a trench system is suddenly not that useless anymore, but generals are trying to win the previous war, generally.
As for the Wehrmacht, if this is true, I can understand that it was set up for massive land grabs in massive offensive wars, so if it had to retreat, things were pretty hopeless already. Similarly, if NATO is designed to wage counter-insurgency in remote places, and they face the question of how to stop a large-scale enemy onslaught, that means they have fucked up something royally and may need to just leave.
Sry, but I have to massively disagree. The German Wehrmachts offensive power was eliminated in the battle of Kursk behind massive minefields, trenches and othe field fortifications. There the Soviets took out the movement of the war of movement and that is exactly what Surovikin did too.
The landing in Salerno was also stuck in massive trench warfare.
I didn't say trenches had no effect in WWII. Just way less then in WWI when they dominated everything.
True, the defensive lines the Germans could successively fall back to in Northern Italy did slow down the Allied advance a lot, not just immediately behind Salerno. Earlier in 1940, the Alpine line did repel an Italian attack. But all of those were greatly aided by mountainous terrain, just like the Arpad line.
The Mannerheim line played its role, too.
But the others? Maginot line - broken. Atlantic wall - broken. Siegfried line - overrun. Stalin line - overrun. WWII armored forces were already more mobile and more powerful than that, with relatively few similarly powerful and mobile countermeasures.
Kursk I think is an imperfect example. Minefields, artillery etc. were certainly effective there, but the victory was more due to the British breaking the Germans' highly confidential Lorenz machine codes, resulting in the Soviets knowing way in advance where and how the Germans were going to attack. Also, most of the Wehrmacht's offensive power was spent by December 1941, with what they could still muster in 1942 having been worn down in their failed attempt to seize the Caucasian oilfields.
I would not conflate NATO doctrine and capabilities with Ukraine's. NATO (US) doctrine is built around air superiority and interdiction in depth. It takes many years of training to create a "NATO standard" brigade, and hundreds of billions of dollars per year to purchase and sustain the materiel. The whole "NATO trained ZSU brigades" was a bit of positive propaganda. They had less time to train than a marine infantry soldier gets before getting to his unit. We didn't provide them with an air force of NATO size and ability, nor with the sort of officer and NCO corps we have. In our defense, these things take years if not decades to create.
As they say, 9 women can't make a baby in a month.
That said, we should have provided much much more materiel to support Ukraine in their way of fighting, which could have still enabled their success. Should have provided it faster, and made sure that our words match our deeds when it comes to deliveries.
Indeed, the mass of the ZSU is still... hm... 'Soviet-style' - especially in regards of command and logistics, not only in regards of equipment.
Yes.
And this is not a "bad thing". It's just the reality of UA mobilizing a force of older men in an army that is trained and organized to a post-Soviet standard.
We need to be more realistic about this fact of life, and not try to impose our doctrine on ZSU or give them what we would like for ourselves based on our own doctrine assumptions.
Instead be realistic and support them with the materiel that will maximize THEIR success in the paradigm within which THEY are able to most successfully fight today.
As they say, the fisherman likes strawberries, but the fish like worms. Successful fishermen don't offer strawberries to fish....
Also, more is always better. Even if misguided and inefficient. We are at the point where anything is better than nothing.
1. I am sure there was a negotiation between ZSU and NATO what skills to train, otherwise it would be a big fail of ZSU. So, the only one to blame is ZSU and it's leadership.
2. Since 2014 ZSU gained very good experience in building trenches, no need to ask NATO to train trench building. They have many (wounded) veterans who could do training better. If they need a safe place, ZSU may send their instructors abroad with the novice servicemen.
3. Similarly with complaints about lack of training with UXO, and drones. ZSU knows better than NATO UXO and drones at Ukrainian frontlines. It's nonsense to blame NATO.
4. See also Tatarigami sober analysis https://frontelligence.substack.com/p/post-avdiivka-on-the-defensive
RE: that ABRAMS that was disabled... here: https://www.facebook.com/butusov.yuriy/posts/pfbid0EdENBat9PbtzFMSyGPoMZNXynjmA9PB86VuUoUvnD2D9rJb7CTfRaFzUf31JRZXSl Butusov points tovard "...But for less heroism and more professionalism, commanders at higher and lower levels have to draw conclusions so that mistakes are not repeated." I must fully agree with him. Unfortunatelly, UA high command strategy is more about "lets do something..."
The higher command can't do anything if it's not getting artillery ammo nor engineering equipment.
Dear Tom, thank you for your update.
Regarding the NYT. You know, they are just following a scientific approach and currently it's that of the Dunning Kruger effect.
:))
I can't say that all media as NYT and haven't fact-cheking, but more often I come to this thought. In 2012 when the EURO in Ukraine and Poland hasn't started yet, the BBC said Ukraine is a criminal country with a bad ecology and many other disgusting misinformation. I remember it clearly. It was May 2012.
Look, Austrians biggest newspaper (populist boulevard type) wrote that the evil Ukrainians are killing the stray dogs (in Austria many people prefer dogs over children). Those poor puppies. Ignoring completely that a homeless person was bitten to death by a pack and eaten afterwards.
Just imagine that would have happened to a drunk football fan sleeping on the street because he was too drunk to find his way home.
You're right, Ukraine wasn't the safest place in the world. But five thousand of Netherlands fans were happy in Ukraine, the Swedish fans spent a good time, and the English fans who didn't believe in that misinformation took a good memory. Overall all Europeans didn't complain about security or service in Ukraine.
If you don't trust me, check on the internet.
I am well aware of that as my wife is from Kyiv. It was just an example how a newspaper is writing with the same lack of knowledge to please its own narrative.
Certainly
I'd not call Ukraine of 2012 the safest place in the world.
Ironically, many of the hooligans of 2012 fought police on Maidan in 2014 and left for the Donbas front. Many thugs from the other side stayed in Donetsk city. The (somewhat frozen) war made the rest of the country safer.
Yes, football fans in Ukraine were uniting during Maidan and they were playing a significant role in those actions. After Maidan the football fans joined the AFU and protected their country. Denys Prokopenko is one of the most widely known member of the football fans.
When was Tabaivka lost to the Russians?
According to DeepStateMap (which is mostly accurate) from 27th to 28th of January.
Thanks, I have searched for it but last mentioned in the 23.02 newsletter as attacked but not taken. I have not seen the name of this village in any news.
Don't recall exact dates any more, but it was claimed as taken by the Russians already around 20 January. Then confirmed to me as taken by the Russians on 21 or 22 February.