Hello everybody! Finally, a ’slightly more comprehensive’ review for today – simply because there are enough (serious) ‘news’ to discuss them. *** AIR/MISSILE WAR During the night from 26 to 27 June, the Russians run their latest series of air strikes on Ukrainian air bases and energy sector. According to Ukrainian sources, they’ve deployed and the Ukrainian air defences shot down:
Thanks Tom - nice to have a report that is mostly good news. How significant would destruction (if that was acheived) of the jet fuel plant ? This seems a good way of reducing or eliminating the glide-bomb threat.
Rumors Ukraine destroyed an S500 in Crimea, impressive if true or just confirming the poor quality of Russian air defence- of course quantity wins over quality
I've not heard of an S500 being destroyed and would appreciate any reports on the matter. There is an estimated four batteries of the S500 and it is still in development according to Russia. They claim they deployed one battery to Crimea.
Yes, that is also similar to my source about Tivaz division except the claim was more than the radar, waiting impatiently for the video.
Assuming the S500 system compnents are linked close together with cables then hopefully it was more than the radar, as you know the ATACMS cluster has quite a wide spread. Probably the radar is anyway a key component that is hard to repair.
Even more so than the radar, it's the personnel operating it.
The Russians are ever louder in complaining that the entire S-300/400/500-SAM-series is a screw-up in this regards - because it's 'bunching together' personnel and equipment.
You seem deeply contemptuous and mocking of people and countries trying to arm, supply and train Ukraine. Is that just your online schtick, is it because whatever happens to be is not going to be good enough, frustration at the drawn out war, or is something else going on there? I don't think whatever the EU, US and/or NATO do, short of full-scale open warfare, will ever be enough. Great reports, by the way, just wondering about your drive-by shots.
For example, if person is earning 5000$ per month, that would mean a donation of 4.5 dollars per month, on average, towards winning a war in Ukraine. Which is okay, since people are not really much concerned about what is going on there. But still is not a reason to say that all is done, what is could be done. The honest thing would be to say, all is done, as far as we care.
And I was simply crying at reading that article, and I could not imagine how selectively people sometimes read. For example, few quotes, regarding this 61 billion new bill, that took 6 months to approve:
"For example, the bill includes funding to help the U.S. Army meet its monthly production goal of 100,000 155-millimeter (mm) shells by 2025."
"A curious element is that the legislation requests $13.4 billion to replenish stockpiles but only $7.8 billion of new drawdown authority. This discrepancy implies a preexisting deficit, likely stemming from accounting changes made last summer."
"U.S. forces ($7.3 billion) pays for the heightened U.S. force presence in Europe. The United States initially surged 20,000 troops to Europe to reassure European allies. While the surge presence declined to around 10,000, the regular fiscal year 2024 budget does not fully cover the costs of these deployed forces. Funds mostly go to the U.S. Army, which received $4.9 billion for its operations and maintenance."
It is deeply painful to look at how far people can go to defend something, which is not confirmed by the facts. I.e. facts are, there is no widespread willingness to help Ukraine to win this war shortly. Though there is plenty of individuals around the world that do genuinely care.
For me, it is deeply humiliating, shameful, and nothing but painful to watch YET ANOTHER nation of people keen to 'join us' (in the 'West') - being left down by corrupt idiots in charge of our 'liberal democracies' waving them away.
Especially because it's a cold matter of fact: we do have corrupt governments, controlled by oligarchy, and administering in its interests. And this oligarchy and its 'higher national interests' (which are all its own, personal interests) is what's resulting in the mass of atrocities and injustice for decades already. Indeed: that's the core reason screwing up our entire pluralism.
Otherwise, it couldn't happen the richest a-holes to pay 2% income tax and thus earn so much they can buy themselves not just 1-2 politicians, or 1-2 political parties, but entire countries plus the mainstream media to rule and propagate in their (private) interests.
So, when you ask me if that's my 'online schtick': nope. That's dead serious. And a 'daily reminder' for all of you reading my stuff.
....even more so because they are all so brilliantly retarded, that not one of them could ever come to the idea to draw a logical and plain simple conclusion: arm Ukrainians, let them fight, so you/we don't need to do so.
I hear you. I really do. And I appreciate your response. Political realities in republics and democracies can be a bit more complicated than your very compelling "arm Ukraine, let them fight, ... " conclusion. In no small irony, those realities are often driven by the very people who most support that straightforward conclusion. I guess what was bothering me was the very broad brush you seem to use in your comments, seeming to lash out at a broad swath of people worldwide who are trying to help Ukraine (perhaps not in the way you would wish, but trying nonetheless) with no apparent appreciation for the incredibly complex matrix of problems of which Ukraine is only a piece. You clearly know your stuff and have great sources, and you cleared up some of my angst with your response. Keep up the great work.
Please do not perceive it as intrusive, but let me add something. It has dawned on me where lies the crux.
You, as many other people is keenly aware of "political realities". And that is absolutely true and real.
But there is another reality, reality inside this war. And this reality comes alive on a feeling level, only if one follows a broad range of primary sources on a daily level. Like Tom does.
And for those that had a glimpse of that reality, it is clear that the situation needs very serious and fast reconsideration on a "political level" as well as personal. For unintended consequences of this course of war may far exceed in severity all the fears, or diplomatic or even military concerns that rule the current approach.
War technology, in these circumstances, is developing so fast, that is will already create unfortunately a global challenge for all players.
But besides, what is interesting is what would be the outcome for the whole Ukrainian nation? And how this all perceived in UA? And what would be the long term repercussions of that?
Just to give you a glimpse, an example, UA blogger writes: "Danish F-16s are arriving in Ukraine this summer, said Zelenskiy on a press conference". "Our drones have arrived yesterday, arrive today and will arive tomorrow to the frontlines, said me".
This one particular blogger already gathered donations and delivered to the frontlines 70000+ FPV drones. Just to remind you that first mentions of F-16 were "definitely before the end of 2023".
First Atacams were used in August 2022, before "allowed again", in spring 2024. Bill was held 6 months. Those things are perceived as decisions that led to deaths of friends. Killing decisions.
And there is quite a few bloggers from frontlines that deliver their sentiment daily.
For example news like "Greece is acquiring 150+ Bradleys from US" may lead to a questions, maybe even very bitter jokes, like "f... maybe we need all surrender and then check together with ru soldiers if those Bradleys will help them".
IMHO it is simply that most of those countries follow their own interests while trying to help Ukraine. That is certain. Sometimes there is incompetence and corruption, but sometimes their own interests are identified in way that is not so favorable to Ukraine. See the USA, maybe (hopefully not) France soon. Some politicians may even see Russia as a potential partner (probably Trump, Le Pen, Wilders). I absolutely think OUR interest is to end this war in favor of Ukraine rather sooner thsn later and that the West should help Ukraine way more and fast, but the aforementioned politicians are elected and supported by a large number of people in those countries. I think they are wrong but this is it. So all we can do is try to influence as much as we can the decisions of any politician, idiot or not.
I agree we have corrupt governments, But I dont think they are the main problem. They increase the problem for sure. However, corrupt or not the politicians follow their voters. Which is a main problem. the West as a collective does not really understand this war, they are allready bored, and they simply do not understand the need and possibility of Ukraine winning. Because they are used to having a large Russia there and for some reasons this is the way it is supposed to be. We do want Russia to Go back to its own areas, and thats it. We think that this would be sensible for Russia. Then we could trade with and visit them. And we wouldnt have to worry about them attacking, or even worse than one gasstation with nukes we could have25… so while politicians increase the trouble, we the voters are not helping either.
Yes, for being lazy and deluded by oligarchy and the media. But, in turn: that means that 'we' need people like 'me' - to remind us about not being lazy when voting.
And otherwise: no, 'we' are not stupid. Replace any 'president' or 'chancellor' by your 'everyday Joe', and he/she's going to bring far sounder decisions. 'The (mass of) voters' are no stupids at all: but, the oligarchy and the politicians like to blame voters for being stupids.
....because everything's better than to admit own mistakes.
I agree with the need to remind ourselves about not being lazy when voting. And exposing lies and corruption. And we are not stupid, But admitting to our own mistakes seems difficult.
In Ukraine, quite recently, a mass of voters, which thought (and some still think) they are not stupids at all, elected an "everyday Joe" as a president. First sound decision he did was disbanding the parliament, followed by elections, where the same mass of voters elected a party of "everyday Joes" to be legislation majority.
It didn't turn out well.
Three years were plainly wasted. Defense funding was cut, missile research funding was cut. Intelligence warnings about upcoming RF invasion were mostly ignored, up until final 2-4 months before it happened.
So... not all "everyday Joes" are good enough for the job.
Those of us who have followed defense matters closely for a long time seem to have realized that only ruthlessly hitting on the failings of our leaders can possibly force the system to shift gear. Give me a few billion dollars and things will actually change - and fast. Same is true of most everyone else reading this blog. At some point pressure will build on the politicians as people begin to question why they haven't done their jobs already. It isn't much, but it's all anybody in a democracy seems to have until it's acceptable to relieve some rich folks of their ill-gotten gains and put them to better use before it's too late.
Lots to worry about in this conflict. Putin has yet to deploy his most powerful, game changing weapon, DONALD TRUMP! God help us all should iL Douche (Bag) come to power in the United States of America. The current alternative to Trump isn't much to brag about, but at least he is not the supreme toxic narcissist that Trump is.
FYI: A follow-on to my original comment: this is a youtube video of a CNN spot discussing whether or not President Biden should be replaced on the Democratic ticket for Presidential candiate:
From what I understand about US politics is, whoever brings TV advertising gets the ticket for the party candidate (that's why Buttigieg stopped quickly his race for a Democratic nomination, and now he's trying to build his own network of supporters for a future election campaign).
How to effectively counterattack with small numbers of troops is the intellectual problem that I'm trying to tackle a lot lately.
The solution likely has to focus on rescaling operations. To advance in the era of the machine gun required density on the advance only once sufficient fire support could be maintained or persistent infiltration across a broad front. The same basic relationship appears to hold true now that drones can form effective pakfronts.
Either you maintain a high tempo of shallow attacks across an entire front or isolate a sector with fires. Moscow keeps trying to meld the two approaches, imitating the old Red Army. Ukraine likely has to tailor the approach to the front. Isolation in Kherson, unpredictable grind on Azov front, area defense and shallow counterattacks elsewhere.
The Schwerpunkt is Moscow's systemic difficulty getting an accurate picture of what's happening. Overwhelm the higher echelons of command, and one or more fronts will crack for want of support.
You might be interested in this, though not sure it directly related to your topic of research. A new world's largest and only UAS regiment formed:
"We are implementing a multi-layered model of control and presence and influence on the front line today, that is, there are 6 applied layers. As a result of the creation of the regiment, there will be 10 of them! 6 layers are common knowledge! There are radio-electronic intelligence systems, radio-electronic warfare systems, then there is remote mining, then there is patrolling and correction, then there is deep reconnaissance, and then there is strike action by means of FPVs, night copters, bombers, and strike wings. Those 4 layers that are added I will not voice now! Let it be an unpleasant surprise for the worms, and you will learn about them along the way and as their implementation increases!"
And to do the transcription, by the way, what I found works is free Deepgram account. There is, in playground, possible to insert YT links directly. And then translate the text, depending on language.
Thanks! Much appreciated. This is right up my alley - the organization side is fascinating. Also where there might be some extremely important innovations underway.
Thank for the update, lots of small good News from the front. Yes, the politicians are, well politicians are no better or worse now than before. We should learn to change that.
"...unless somebody there in the West finally comes to his or her senses, and starts re-arming Ukraine in really a very serious fashion: the ZSU has no other options but to patiently wait, let them come, kill themselves with their North Korean shells, but, and foremost continue k… erm… kuddling the Russians, in big numbers, over and over again.".
This is exactly what the West wants, so why re-arm Ukraine in a very serious fashion? Things are going absolutely fine according to the West, never change a winning team (or plan).
While it's generally possible to find in RU TG channels info about failures of RU weapons, assaults, generals, and etc, I never came across about data of North Korea shells poor perfomance. RU forces use a lot of old Soviet things that could malfunction.
On the contrary, saw several video of UA howitzers bumped by their own charges: either triple 7 goes busted due to the barrel being "exausted" or Soviet calibres exploding using Pakistani shells.
P.S. Funny that in many RU sources US M777 is often unofficially called "Port Wein". They just ironically refer to the Soviet era low-quality port wein under the label "777".
Tom, I will abstain from commenting UA kills ratios claims of RU missiles. Very often it looks like the following way: all RU missiles and UAVs were downed, but UA depots and factories are burning. Of course, RU officials report in the same manner.
What I procced to challenge is the use of S-300 against land targets. RU sources do confirm that capability but in guided manner for just 30km. For going ballistic (we already discussed it) the warhead is too small. So the picture is the following: RU sources explain remnants of S-300 missiles as UA malfunctioned lauches, while UA sources claim RU S-300 attacks.
My personal imho, RU forces use ver limited (if any) S-300 missiles for land attacks. Needless to say, will be happy to elaborate and discuss.
Thank for report. As usual, the front is in attrition battle, whereas main events are in rear (our, Russian and Western) Do you have information about a number of reconnaissance drones, that Russian launch and shot down every day? Yesterday I've seen video of strike on c 300 near Odessa, but I can't understand overall tendency. Does a number of the drone guided strikes increased, decrease or stay approximately the same during last month?
Thank you Tom. I was wondering, would you happen to know if the training of UA conscripts has improved? Whenever I´ve heard any mention of it, it was a bitter critique about how commanders are receiving barely trained men that have to be trained in the field to be of any use. Even happened upon a drone footage of its result; a position manned by perhaps ten men, with plenty of small arms, munition, RPGs and grenades, but only one laying down suppresive fire , one assisting him, while all the others waited around together, unarmed, clueless and complacent. A RF soldier took the position pretty much singlehandedly by crawling into an unmaned part of the trench, gunning down the two Ukrainians that were actively defending the position and then took the others captive. A rather disheartening display which made me wonder what is the point of all the equipment, some of which I donated for, if its going to end up in hands of guys getting sent to their units after two weeks of poor training.
I can share some info I've got from my colleagues who went through the recruit training course this year.
To no wonder, the quality depends on the training center. Some provide better training, some worse. As a rule, it is 4-5 week basic training for a riflemen plus some more for an advanced role (e.g. +2 weeks for a cook, +2-3 months for a tanker). Basic includes weapon proficiency, medical aid, tactics, handling explosives, topography, etc.
The quality also depends on the people who learn. My friend signed a contract, and he was in a group where all the apprentices were contractors. Another group at the same training center consisted of mobilized soldiers. His observation was that the group of contractors fared much better and got more attention from instructors - probably due to the fact that a majority of contractors volunteered for the service and were eager to learn, while a majority of mobilized guys were not really happy or motivated to serve and study. So, he concluded, even if one or two soldiers from a group of 20 are motivated to learn, the other 18 usually drag them back, because instructors usually work with a group as a whole, not with individual soldiers.
Hi Vadim thanks for your insight! That seems an issue difficult to solve, after all it’s something connected with the old difference between an army made of professionals and a larger one of mobilitated guys. Do you or your colleagues have suggestions to overcome this after what you saw firsthand?
And another question: did they share with you comments about the perceived motivation to fight among your average UA Joe? I know that someone’s partial perception can’t represent a valid sample for an entite country, but I’m curious. You know, in my country there’s a lot of putin fans or simply selfish (and implicitly racist towards east europe) people who share comments about you more and more weary of defending your homeland and use this to push their bs about “even they don’t want this anymore! Let’s stop sending the few weapons we already give and strike UA with the definitive punch so to impose these deluded nationalists to cede the occupied territories. They will never win.”
Well, an average man doesn't want to go to war. It is dangerous, unpredictable, etc, etc. More to say, a wife of an average man doesn't want him to go to war, even if he'd like to - unlike Russian men, Ukrainian men are often a useful family asset to keep at home to earn money and do whatever job needed.
However, if that's inevitable (eg when in a training camp already), man should do his best to prepare to keep himself alive - that should come naturally. However again, laziness sometimes prevails even when in danger - usually with grim consequences afterwards.
I'm not an expert, but I guess the biggest perceived motivation to fight is to be a part of your team (platoon, company, etc) - provided that the team has a good lead, is well-organized, supplied and supports you in time of need. Like a brotherhood. But to get this kind of motivation, one should become a part of the team first.
That's the same as in a school - if you have people from multiple backgrounds, you tend to focus on the average of the group, not the brightest/smartest students.
Similarly for an army training center - it's not easy nor cheap to make personalized training for everyone, so "one size fits all". But, the truth is, everybody gets to learn the basics (weapon use, basic training etc), it's up to the battle units to provide the necessary experience. And that's a big problem: Ukraine seems to lack the needed depth in units to build up experience before going to the front line (you wouldn't send a mobilized infantry with 1-2 months training directly to Luhansk region before some service at back-end "on the job" training, with a unit which is being retrofitted)
A more personalized training should happen in officer school, because they (should be) the intellectuals of the armed forces, who tend to use their brains instead of their muscles.
The appointment of Belusov is almost exactly equivalent to that of Robert McNamara during the Vietnam/American War. Same motivation, similar backgrounds (ie industrial but no military experience) and very likely the same outcome. At least I hope so.
Thanks Tom - nice to have a report that is mostly good news. How significant would destruction (if that was acheived) of the jet fuel plant ? This seems a good way of reducing or eliminating the glide-bomb threat.
Rumors Ukraine destroyed an S500 in Crimea, impressive if true or just confirming the poor quality of Russian air defence- of course quantity wins over quality
I've not heard of an S500 being destroyed and would appreciate any reports on the matter. There is an estimated four batteries of the S500 and it is still in development according to Russia. They claim they deployed one battery to Crimea.
I see a report of a radar being destroyed. https://t.me/combatfootageua/17832?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2B-KQ53--N6WEkYcQ2qSdr0l65u8h8eg8SUv60BgCM1mk0Zut5DAbWW-Y_aem_HPhAfDAbHXn94RLZeyJMNQ
Yes, that is also similar to my source about Tivaz division except the claim was more than the radar, waiting impatiently for the video.
Assuming the S500 system compnents are linked close together with cables then hopefully it was more than the radar, as you know the ATACMS cluster has quite a wide spread. Probably the radar is anyway a key component that is hard to repair.
Even more so than the radar, it's the personnel operating it.
The Russians are ever louder in complaining that the entire S-300/400/500-SAM-series is a screw-up in this regards - because it's 'bunching together' personnel and equipment.
You seem deeply contemptuous and mocking of people and countries trying to arm, supply and train Ukraine. Is that just your online schtick, is it because whatever happens to be is not going to be good enough, frustration at the drawn out war, or is something else going on there? I don't think whatever the EU, US and/or NATO do, short of full-scale open warfare, will ever be enough. Great reports, by the way, just wondering about your drive-by shots.
Greetings! There are many people and countries that do wholeheartedly support, and do a lot to help Ukraine.
And I have never personally seen those efforts being mocked up.
But there is a difference between what can be done by some, and what is done.
For example I had a discussion with one participant here, about percentage of GDP that goes towards military or non-military aid. And while numbers are circulating about as much as 0.5% GDP. The reality is that for 27 months around 98 billion of military aid was delivered (https://www.google.com/amp/s/unn.ua/en/amp/ukraine-has-already-received-dollar98-billion-within-the-framework-of-the-ramstein-program-but-new-decisions-must-be-made-especially-on-air-defense-austin), while the GDP of countries involved is around 50 trillion per year (12 months). This means 98/(50000/12*27)*100%=0.09%
For example, if person is earning 5000$ per month, that would mean a donation of 4.5 dollars per month, on average, towards winning a war in Ukraine. Which is okay, since people are not really much concerned about what is going on there. But still is not a reason to say that all is done, what is could be done. The honest thing would be to say, all is done, as far as we care.
So one forum participant then sent me this link to prove that US is doing hard job organising logistics and paying for all that: https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-ukraine-aid-package-and-what-does-it-mean-future-war
And I was simply crying at reading that article, and I could not imagine how selectively people sometimes read. For example, few quotes, regarding this 61 billion new bill, that took 6 months to approve:
"For example, the bill includes funding to help the U.S. Army meet its monthly production goal of 100,000 155-millimeter (mm) shells by 2025."
"A curious element is that the legislation requests $13.4 billion to replenish stockpiles but only $7.8 billion of new drawdown authority. This discrepancy implies a preexisting deficit, likely stemming from accounting changes made last summer."
"U.S. forces ($7.3 billion) pays for the heightened U.S. force presence in Europe. The United States initially surged 20,000 troops to Europe to reassure European allies. While the surge presence declined to around 10,000, the regular fiscal year 2024 budget does not fully cover the costs of these deployed forces. Funds mostly go to the U.S. Army, which received $4.9 billion for its operations and maintenance."
It is deeply painful to look at how far people can go to defend something, which is not confirmed by the facts. I.e. facts are, there is no widespread willingness to help Ukraine to win this war shortly. Though there is plenty of individuals around the world that do genuinely care.
Thank you for this analysis.
For me, it is deeply humiliating, shameful, and nothing but painful to watch YET ANOTHER nation of people keen to 'join us' (in the 'West') - being left down by corrupt idiots in charge of our 'liberal democracies' waving them away.
Especially because it's a cold matter of fact: we do have corrupt governments, controlled by oligarchy, and administering in its interests. And this oligarchy and its 'higher national interests' (which are all its own, personal interests) is what's resulting in the mass of atrocities and injustice for decades already. Indeed: that's the core reason screwing up our entire pluralism.
Otherwise, it couldn't happen the richest a-holes to pay 2% income tax and thus earn so much they can buy themselves not just 1-2 politicians, or 1-2 political parties, but entire countries plus the mainstream media to rule and propagate in their (private) interests.
So, when you ask me if that's my 'online schtick': nope. That's dead serious. And a 'daily reminder' for all of you reading my stuff.
....even more so because they are all so brilliantly retarded, that not one of them could ever come to the idea to draw a logical and plain simple conclusion: arm Ukrainians, let them fight, so you/we don't need to do so.
I hear you. I really do. And I appreciate your response. Political realities in republics and democracies can be a bit more complicated than your very compelling "arm Ukraine, let them fight, ... " conclusion. In no small irony, those realities are often driven by the very people who most support that straightforward conclusion. I guess what was bothering me was the very broad brush you seem to use in your comments, seeming to lash out at a broad swath of people worldwide who are trying to help Ukraine (perhaps not in the way you would wish, but trying nonetheless) with no apparent appreciation for the incredibly complex matrix of problems of which Ukraine is only a piece. You clearly know your stuff and have great sources, and you cleared up some of my angst with your response. Keep up the great work.
Please do not perceive it as intrusive, but let me add something. It has dawned on me where lies the crux.
You, as many other people is keenly aware of "political realities". And that is absolutely true and real.
But there is another reality, reality inside this war. And this reality comes alive on a feeling level, only if one follows a broad range of primary sources on a daily level. Like Tom does.
And for those that had a glimpse of that reality, it is clear that the situation needs very serious and fast reconsideration on a "political level" as well as personal. For unintended consequences of this course of war may far exceed in severity all the fears, or diplomatic or even military concerns that rule the current approach.
War technology, in these circumstances, is developing so fast, that is will already create unfortunately a global challenge for all players.
But besides, what is interesting is what would be the outcome for the whole Ukrainian nation? And how this all perceived in UA? And what would be the long term repercussions of that?
Just to give you a glimpse, an example, UA blogger writes: "Danish F-16s are arriving in Ukraine this summer, said Zelenskiy on a press conference". "Our drones have arrived yesterday, arrive today and will arive tomorrow to the frontlines, said me".
This one particular blogger already gathered donations and delivered to the frontlines 70000+ FPV drones. Just to remind you that first mentions of F-16 were "definitely before the end of 2023".
First Atacams were used in August 2022, before "allowed again", in spring 2024. Bill was held 6 months. Those things are perceived as decisions that led to deaths of friends. Killing decisions.
And there is quite a few bloggers from frontlines that deliver their sentiment daily.
For example news like "Greece is acquiring 150+ Bradleys from US" may lead to a questions, maybe even very bitter jokes, like "f... maybe we need all surrender and then check together with ru soldiers if those Bradleys will help them".
Sorry, if that sounds morbid.
IMHO it is simply that most of those countries follow their own interests while trying to help Ukraine. That is certain. Sometimes there is incompetence and corruption, but sometimes their own interests are identified in way that is not so favorable to Ukraine. See the USA, maybe (hopefully not) France soon. Some politicians may even see Russia as a potential partner (probably Trump, Le Pen, Wilders). I absolutely think OUR interest is to end this war in favor of Ukraine rather sooner thsn later and that the West should help Ukraine way more and fast, but the aforementioned politicians are elected and supported by a large number of people in those countries. I think they are wrong but this is it. So all we can do is try to influence as much as we can the decisions of any politician, idiot or not.
I agree we have corrupt governments, But I dont think they are the main problem. They increase the problem for sure. However, corrupt or not the politicians follow their voters. Which is a main problem. the West as a collective does not really understand this war, they are allready bored, and they simply do not understand the need and possibility of Ukraine winning. Because they are used to having a large Russia there and for some reasons this is the way it is supposed to be. We do want Russia to Go back to its own areas, and thats it. We think that this would be sensible for Russia. Then we could trade with and visit them. And we wouldnt have to worry about them attacking, or even worse than one gasstation with nukes we could have25… so while politicians increase the trouble, we the voters are not helping either.
Check Andrew's post below. Especially the first sentence.
Systemic corruption and incompetence is the main problem. No matter at what level: from the mayor of my village, up to the president of the USA.
Well, I agree its a problem. But another problem is still ourselves.
Ourselves?
Yes, for being lazy and deluded by oligarchy and the media. But, in turn: that means that 'we' need people like 'me' - to remind us about not being lazy when voting.
And otherwise: no, 'we' are not stupid. Replace any 'president' or 'chancellor' by your 'everyday Joe', and he/she's going to bring far sounder decisions. 'The (mass of) voters' are no stupids at all: but, the oligarchy and the politicians like to blame voters for being stupids.
....because everything's better than to admit own mistakes.
I agree with the need to remind ourselves about not being lazy when voting. And exposing lies and corruption. And we are not stupid, But admitting to our own mistakes seems difficult.
Ahem...
In Ukraine, quite recently, a mass of voters, which thought (and some still think) they are not stupids at all, elected an "everyday Joe" as a president. First sound decision he did was disbanding the parliament, followed by elections, where the same mass of voters elected a party of "everyday Joes" to be legislation majority.
It didn't turn out well.
Three years were plainly wasted. Defense funding was cut, missile research funding was cut. Intelligence warnings about upcoming RF invasion were mostly ignored, up until final 2-4 months before it happened.
So... not all "everyday Joes" are good enough for the job.
Those of us who have followed defense matters closely for a long time seem to have realized that only ruthlessly hitting on the failings of our leaders can possibly force the system to shift gear. Give me a few billion dollars and things will actually change - and fast. Same is true of most everyone else reading this blog. At some point pressure will build on the politicians as people begin to question why they haven't done their jobs already. It isn't much, but it's all anybody in a democracy seems to have until it's acceptable to relieve some rich folks of their ill-gotten gains and put them to better use before it's too late.
Thanks for update Tom. :-) Do you have any information about North Korean soliders being send to fight in Ukraine?
AFAIK, it's 'just' one regiment of engineers, or something of that kind.
....at least for the time being. We'll see if more are to follow....
Lots to worry about in this conflict. Putin has yet to deploy his most powerful, game changing weapon, DONALD TRUMP! God help us all should iL Douche (Bag) come to power in the United States of America. The current alternative to Trump isn't much to brag about, but at least he is not the supreme toxic narcissist that Trump is.
FYI: A follow-on to my original comment: this is a youtube video of a CNN spot discussing whether or not President Biden should be replaced on the Democratic ticket for Presidential candiate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt8eRZTas_Q
From what I understand about US politics is, whoever brings TV advertising gets the ticket for the party candidate (that's why Buttigieg stopped quickly his race for a Democratic nomination, and now he's trying to build his own network of supporters for a future election campaign).
How to effectively counterattack with small numbers of troops is the intellectual problem that I'm trying to tackle a lot lately.
The solution likely has to focus on rescaling operations. To advance in the era of the machine gun required density on the advance only once sufficient fire support could be maintained or persistent infiltration across a broad front. The same basic relationship appears to hold true now that drones can form effective pakfronts.
Either you maintain a high tempo of shallow attacks across an entire front or isolate a sector with fires. Moscow keeps trying to meld the two approaches, imitating the old Red Army. Ukraine likely has to tailor the approach to the front. Isolation in Kherson, unpredictable grind on Azov front, area defense and shallow counterattacks elsewhere.
The Schwerpunkt is Moscow's systemic difficulty getting an accurate picture of what's happening. Overwhelm the higher echelons of command, and one or more fronts will crack for want of support.
Dear Andrew,
You might be interested in this, though not sure it directly related to your topic of research. A new world's largest and only UAS regiment formed:
"We are implementing a multi-layered model of control and presence and influence on the front line today, that is, there are 6 applied layers. As a result of the creation of the regiment, there will be 10 of them! 6 layers are common knowledge! There are radio-electronic intelligence systems, radio-electronic warfare systems, then there is remote mining, then there is patrolling and correction, then there is deep reconnaissance, and then there is strike action by means of FPVs, night copters, bombers, and strike wings. Those 4 layers that are added I will not voice now! Let it be an unpleasant surprise for the worms, and you will learn about them along the way and as their implementation increases!"
The source is here: https://youtu.be/AuDG-IDJk8o
And to do the transcription, by the way, what I found works is free Deepgram account. There is, in playground, possible to insert YT links directly. And then translate the text, depending on language.
Thanks! Much appreciated. This is right up my alley - the organization side is fascinating. Also where there might be some extremely important innovations underway.
I have transcribed a part of the interview with Magyar that is out this weekend: https://open.substack.com/pub/zenitha/p/magyar-interview-24062024?r=3xwdx1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thank for the update, lots of small good News from the front. Yes, the politicians are, well politicians are no better or worse now than before. We should learn to change that.
"...unless somebody there in the West finally comes to his or her senses, and starts re-arming Ukraine in really a very serious fashion: the ZSU has no other options but to patiently wait, let them come, kill themselves with their North Korean shells, but, and foremost continue k… erm… kuddling the Russians, in big numbers, over and over again.".
This is exactly what the West wants, so why re-arm Ukraine in a very serious fashion? Things are going absolutely fine according to the West, never change a winning team (or plan).
While it's generally possible to find in RU TG channels info about failures of RU weapons, assaults, generals, and etc, I never came across about data of North Korea shells poor perfomance. RU forces use a lot of old Soviet things that could malfunction.
On the contrary, saw several video of UA howitzers bumped by their own charges: either triple 7 goes busted due to the barrel being "exausted" or Soviet calibres exploding using Pakistani shells.
P.S. Funny that in many RU sources US M777 is often unofficially called "Port Wein". They just ironically refer to the Soviet era low-quality port wein under the label "777".
Tom, I will abstain from commenting UA kills ratios claims of RU missiles. Very often it looks like the following way: all RU missiles and UAVs were downed, but UA depots and factories are burning. Of course, RU officials report in the same manner.
What I procced to challenge is the use of S-300 against land targets. RU sources do confirm that capability but in guided manner for just 30km. For going ballistic (we already discussed it) the warhead is too small. So the picture is the following: RU sources explain remnants of S-300 missiles as UA malfunctioned lauches, while UA sources claim RU S-300 attacks.
My personal imho, RU forces use ver limited (if any) S-300 missiles for land attacks. Needless to say, will be happy to elaborate and discuss.
Thanks Tom, this report sounded a bit better overall
Thanks for the update Tom.
Thank for report. As usual, the front is in attrition battle, whereas main events are in rear (our, Russian and Western) Do you have information about a number of reconnaissance drones, that Russian launch and shot down every day? Yesterday I've seen video of strike on c 300 near Odessa, but I can't understand overall tendency. Does a number of the drone guided strikes increased, decrease or stay approximately the same during last month?
Thank you Tom. I was wondering, would you happen to know if the training of UA conscripts has improved? Whenever I´ve heard any mention of it, it was a bitter critique about how commanders are receiving barely trained men that have to be trained in the field to be of any use. Even happened upon a drone footage of its result; a position manned by perhaps ten men, with plenty of small arms, munition, RPGs and grenades, but only one laying down suppresive fire , one assisting him, while all the others waited around together, unarmed, clueless and complacent. A RF soldier took the position pretty much singlehandedly by crawling into an unmaned part of the trench, gunning down the two Ukrainians that were actively defending the position and then took the others captive. A rather disheartening display which made me wonder what is the point of all the equipment, some of which I donated for, if its going to end up in hands of guys getting sent to their units after two weeks of poor training.
I can share some info I've got from my colleagues who went through the recruit training course this year.
To no wonder, the quality depends on the training center. Some provide better training, some worse. As a rule, it is 4-5 week basic training for a riflemen plus some more for an advanced role (e.g. +2 weeks for a cook, +2-3 months for a tanker). Basic includes weapon proficiency, medical aid, tactics, handling explosives, topography, etc.
The quality also depends on the people who learn. My friend signed a contract, and he was in a group where all the apprentices were contractors. Another group at the same training center consisted of mobilized soldiers. His observation was that the group of contractors fared much better and got more attention from instructors - probably due to the fact that a majority of contractors volunteered for the service and were eager to learn, while a majority of mobilized guys were not really happy or motivated to serve and study. So, he concluded, even if one or two soldiers from a group of 20 are motivated to learn, the other 18 usually drag them back, because instructors usually work with a group as a whole, not with individual soldiers.
Hi Vadim thanks for your insight! That seems an issue difficult to solve, after all it’s something connected with the old difference between an army made of professionals and a larger one of mobilitated guys. Do you or your colleagues have suggestions to overcome this after what you saw firsthand?
And another question: did they share with you comments about the perceived motivation to fight among your average UA Joe? I know that someone’s partial perception can’t represent a valid sample for an entite country, but I’m curious. You know, in my country there’s a lot of putin fans or simply selfish (and implicitly racist towards east europe) people who share comments about you more and more weary of defending your homeland and use this to push their bs about “even they don’t want this anymore! Let’s stop sending the few weapons we already give and strike UA with the definitive punch so to impose these deluded nationalists to cede the occupied territories. They will never win.”
Well, an average man doesn't want to go to war. It is dangerous, unpredictable, etc, etc. More to say, a wife of an average man doesn't want him to go to war, even if he'd like to - unlike Russian men, Ukrainian men are often a useful family asset to keep at home to earn money and do whatever job needed.
However, if that's inevitable (eg when in a training camp already), man should do his best to prepare to keep himself alive - that should come naturally. However again, laziness sometimes prevails even when in danger - usually with grim consequences afterwards.
I'm not an expert, but I guess the biggest perceived motivation to fight is to be a part of your team (platoon, company, etc) - provided that the team has a good lead, is well-organized, supplied and supports you in time of need. Like a brotherhood. But to get this kind of motivation, one should become a part of the team first.
That's the same as in a school - if you have people from multiple backgrounds, you tend to focus on the average of the group, not the brightest/smartest students.
Similarly for an army training center - it's not easy nor cheap to make personalized training for everyone, so "one size fits all". But, the truth is, everybody gets to learn the basics (weapon use, basic training etc), it's up to the battle units to provide the necessary experience. And that's a big problem: Ukraine seems to lack the needed depth in units to build up experience before going to the front line (you wouldn't send a mobilized infantry with 1-2 months training directly to Luhansk region before some service at back-end "on the job" training, with a unit which is being retrofitted)
A more personalized training should happen in officer school, because they (should be) the intellectuals of the armed forces, who tend to use their brains instead of their muscles.
The appointment of Belusov is almost exactly equivalent to that of Robert McNamara during the Vietnam/American War. Same motivation, similar backgrounds (ie industrial but no military experience) and very likely the same outcome. At least I hope so.