Thanks, Tom, good to read a more positive report and evidence of some operational exhaustion for the Russians snd a bit more resources for the Ukrainians.
Thank you Tom. It sounds like one one hand Ukraine is causing some serious damage to ammo storages, AD sites and annihilating 1000+ Russian soldiers every day, buy yet the Russian appear to be slowly crawling forward. Are the Ukrainian gains not being reported the same way, or is there so little offensive on the ground? Also - there is a lot of online craze about THAT bridge, but I have heard little about the railroad Russia is building across the occupied territories to supply them from north-east. Would you happen to have any information on that? Thanks again.
It is hard to run any even tactical offensives against 500k invaders with aerial supermacy and x5 art superiority. Zsu counters when and where it is possible, like at Lyptsy today or Vovchansk recenty. Main goal is to make Ru grinding through fortifications, rivers, swamps etc. landscape especially in NorthernUA is very good for such tactics (during WWII huge districts there were fully controlled by Ukrainian partisans even in 1942-43).
Railroad is a problem for sure, but it is one-line road, there is certain amount of bridges there and it is not too deep behind frontlines, so could be Scalped, Himarsed, ATACMSed or UAVed. So, it is a big prob, but not too big as for me
According to every single western military media including this one, one does not see Russians exercising any kind of aerial or artillery superiority or in fact anything except ongoing stupidity.
All we see are:
1. Russian air defences being pummelled.
2. Russian artillery being pummelled.
3. Russian air bases being pummelled and jet being pummelled on the ground.
4. Russian ammunition depots being pummelled.
5. Russian tanks/AFVs being pummelled.
6. Russian radar sites being pummelled (including those 2000 km away).
7. Russian oil refineries being pummelled
8. Reports on how nearly every single Russian long range munition is destroyed.
9. Ukrainians being so apparently bereft of targets they chase lone Russian soldiers with FPV drones.
10. Russians attacking in golf carts, Mad Max vehicles and being pummelled.
11. Praise for how great Ukrainians soldiers are and comments on how stupid Russians at all tactical levels are.
12. Russian missiles hitting hardware stores and apartment buildings.
13. Russians suffering 1000-1700 casualties a day (yet no news on Ukrainian casualties - I guess your average Ukrainian soldier is Rambo-cross-Terminator-but-with-heart-of-gold much like your average American or British soldier).
So given all the above, one could make the conclusion the Ukrainians should have this one in the bag. Why they aren't in Moscow or Vladivostok is anyone's guess.
To be honest no amount of mobiks is going to sustain 7,000 - 11,900 casualties a week at any sustained level especially with poor Russian logistics. At some point they have massive areas that are essentially undefended and ripe for exploitation. Remember Tom et al are all saying: "Russia is running out of vehicles, SPGs etc. Russian FPV drones are crap, Russian/North Korean ammunition doesn't work, Russians don't know how to command troops."
Let's not forget truly incompetent forces tend to crumble against truly competent ones regardless of size - French in May 1940, western Russia in 1941, Arabs in 1967, Syrians in 1981, Iraqis in 1991 etc etc.
Forces of relatively equal competence tend to get bogged down, be it Allies in Italy in 1943-44, Iran and Iraq in 1980-88, Ethiooua-Eritrea back in late 1990s etc.
In reality everyone including Tom is biased. And as we read western sources, there is an inherent bias.
I do appreciate Tom's posts, but I take it with a grain of salt. Indeed like every western commentator, he has at least a seething dislike of Russians.*
*Russia could be invaded by human eating aliens and western commentators would applaud it.
First start reading. Tom and Dons quite offen post about UA looses( radars, planes, tanks..) .
Than you should start thinking. If RU army had 5-10 more vehicles as UA, has 10 times more planes and is still not able to advance so UA must be doing something good.
And about looses. RU has all stuff in open area which can be scanned be satellites. IF before war was there 20000 pieces of artilellery and in February was less than 10000 then there is the stuff? and it is similar with tanks...
UA doesn't want to go to Moscow, just to the border but without ammo and with RU air superiority you can just defend.
and for refineries and similar you can find a lot of videos, but we both knows that you are russia troll :)
and yes we hate now RU, my country was occupied by RU but i forgive and hope that RU will be now normal country without attacking others. I was wrong.
Ukrainians losses are very rarely reported on Tom and Dons reports. Most of it is about Russian losses.
I don't deny Russian losses are heavy. But western reporting doesn't even mention Ukrainian casualties.
Indeed if western reporting and all Ukrainian statements were correct, Russia would have been defeated last year as Ukrainian flag would be flying over Sevastapol right now (as promised by high ranking Ukrainian generals in 2022 such as Kyrylo Budanov).
The same western "analysts" stated over and over how Russia will be unable to sustain their losses, won't be able to rebuild their military, how the Russian economy will collapse, how Russians won't be able to produce arms (now they just talk about how Russia's arms are poor quality).
Has any of this happened? No.
In fact Russia has been able to survive and thrive and is now maintaining an almost constant state of offensive warfare.
If Ukrainian casualties were low, then they should have ample reserves to smash aside the "incompetent, low quality" Russians defending the front lines.
Indeed once the Russians have bled out their last golf cart in each assault, it should not be problematic for superior Ukrainians with their superior tactics, superior western weapons to simply counterattack and smash the remaining "Orc" dregs now should it?
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Ukraine is suffering massive casualties just like Russia (note Russia is attacking hence casualties will be higher all things remaining same). Both sides are evenly matched hence the stalemate.
As for westerners hating Russians, it never stopped even in the 1990s. Note how often bad guys in 1990s movies were Russians? Westerners have always viewed Russians as drunken, subhuman barbarians (or undermenschen as one Austrian described them).
The Americans will hate the Russians as long as Russia exists. If they supported failed Soviet Union with a Marshall Plan, we probably wouldn't be in this state. Instead Washington danced on the USSR's grave and then sent its IMF and World Bank cronies to dismantle Russia's industrial capacity with the same plan as the 1945 Morgenthau Plan to convert Germany into an agrarian state. Russian economic losses were more than WWII.
Russia is today a third world gas station/farm because the US wanted it that way. And like any third world resource rich dictatorship, its leaders dream of glory and destiny (ref: Amin, Mugabe, Soeharto, Hussein, Gaddafhi etc).
We speak more about RU looses because we got some number from UA, which are more or less confirmed by Western Agencies or by Satelite images. For UA looses we have only RU source, but RU claims absolut bullshits. For example UA claims 350 planes destroyed RU has 1400 at the beginning RU claims 400 UA planes destroyed that is 2 much more as UA has at the beginnig + were delivered and UA planes are still in use. UA claims 12000 artilery destroyed and similar amount is misiing in storages.
RU is resposible for itself, can made big profit with west but choose to fight. It was not USA who decied. It was Putin.Until 2014 it was economic/political fight about UA, when RU start loosing then Putin to start with weapons.
Russia hasn't had 1400 fighters and bombers for a long time. There was perhaps 1000 in service in 2022. The 1400 number probably included retired MiG-29s, Su-24/25/27s. The 1000 included following in 2022 :
Su-24 140 - 14 confirmed lost
Su-25 140 - includes training UBK, 31 confirmed lost
Su-27 100 - 2 confirmed lost
Su-30 130 - 11 confirmed lost
Su-34 130 - 27 confirmed lost
Su-35 96 - 7 confirmed lost,
Su-33 15
MiG-29 100 - mostly used for training
MiG-31 110 - 3 confirmed lost
Tu-22M3 - 45 - 3 confirmed lost
Tu-95 - 30-40 - 1 confirmed lost
Tu-160 - 19
Su-57 was prototypes only at this stage.
Russian confirmed fighter and bomber losses are about 100. This is from Oryx but also western sources like British MOD. UA's claims are 350% more than confirmed Russian losses. Ukraine certainly hasn't taken out 250 transports/support aircraft as Russians don't even operate that many!
I don't go that far. West helped Russia in nineties. Could have been more generous but wasn't trying to destroy her. In early days of putin when he pretended to be sane the west treated him like an ally. Again not particularly generous but not antagonistic.
Western sources… quite many. Quite different. Anyhow, I have no trouble finding sources that talk about Ukrainian losses and Ukrainian problems. Regarding ability to predict the outcome of the war I think all have missed. First obviously Putin who wanted Kyiv in 3 days. Then the western overestimated Ukraines ability to attack in 2023, and now we will gave to see. Russias ability to take losses is scary and something I dont really think the Western countries understood. Which by the way is because we didnt see the Russians as subhumans (they are drunken), we didnt see the racist imperialism inherent in the Russian government. We thought, naively that the system was some variant of the western. We belived in «wandel durch handel». At this very moment the truth is that western societies actually still care more about Russian lives that the Russian leaders. A marshal plan for Russia? They got a lot of support in the nineties. But they choose a different path. Of war, of cruelty, of imperialism. And now the Russian behaviour underscores to westerns that we cannot, really cannot trust a regime that behaves that way. They need to loose this war.
The support Russia received from west was tied to economic "reforms" and especially what they called shock therapy. Essentially Russia had to privatise rapidly and rapidly close down unprofitable industries. GDP PPP collapsed significantly more than it during WWII (if you know your WWII history then you will realise how massive this).
This is where the oligarchs first emerged - the west supported this process.
The IMF even provided reports on how it saw Russia's future not as an industrial country (which it was) but rather an economy focused on natural resource exploitation (ie petrochemicals) and agriculture.
Western aid was never substantial - it's main purpose was preventing a complete collapse (ie nuclear Russia disintegrating).
By the way same was applied to Asia during SE Asian Crisis. Eg IMF made Indonesia relinquish food subsidies which caused food to skyrocket and ended up in hunger and rioting.
Again analysis showed western "aid" was:
a.) Too small to do anything except stave off total collapse
b.) Requirements for government cuts to spending (fiscal tightening) created massive social problems and stymied recovery
c.) Local banks were forced to be closed down without depositor insurance, again leading to collapse in living standards as savings were wiped out.
d.) Imposed unrealistic structural reform objectives that in the longer term damaged the functioning of socities.
e.) Forced deregulation of currencies - again when combined with forced removal of capital flow restrictions this spurned greater collapse
And then they did the same to Greece in GFC. There are many other examples over last 30 years.
Note when west itself has hit crisis point eg GFC or COVID, they did not follow any of the usual shock treatment policies they reserve for poorer countries. Instead they printed and spent money like drunk sailors, bailed out banks etc etc.
A couple of years ago IMF even admitted its past policies weren't any good (but they still preach them whenever any poorer country is in trouble).
And nowadays there is virtually no trust in third world of western institutions like IMF and World Bank. They are viewed as American attack dogs designed to subjugate and surrender sovereignty to the west.
But back to my point, there never was a Marshall program for Russia and all western aid was designed to stave off total collapse but more critically forced Russians to dismantle their economy and restructure it to the west's liking.
This created ideal for someone like Putin to emerge especially as the chaos destroyed whatever civic society existed and saw underfunded civil institutions become completely corrupted. Indeed initially Russia thrived under Putin.
Now Russia might still have failed even with a Marshall Plan. We don't know. But western actions were crucial to creating an environment where someone like Putin could thrive.
As for path of war and imperialism, did you already forget Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria etc etc?!?
Also forgot to mention, defence is much easier than attack.
A single well placed soldier entrenched and armed with a machine gun can stall a whole company's advance. Indeed there's cases of solitary tanks stalling entire divisions (both Russian and German examples).
Remember in Ukraine's offensive last summer, they got pummelled and got caught doing the same kind of stupid stuff the Russians were.
Successful offensive action is hard to achieve even without drones. It takes excellent planning, coordination and control, reconnaissance, communications to achieve. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have that. Both are too still essentially Soviet WW2 militaries (and by WW2 I mean 1942-43m, not the semi-decent 1944-45 Soviet forces).
Defense us easier unless you are bombed to kingdom come, by artillery or glide bombs. Then your Lone infanteryman with a machinegun dies before he can use it. Without so much air support I believe Ukraine would hold.
And in reality, not so easy to destroy entrenched defenders. This has been proven time and again. It's why they say you need at least 3:1 advantage to successfully attack a defended position (and in reality often more).
Otherwise WW1 western front would not have ground into stalemate. Same in Iran-Iraq, Italian front WWII etc etc, Same in Ukraine.
Normandy was the same with allies were stalemated for near 2 months.
In Normandy it wasn't until operation Cobra and a truly massive application of airpower and artillery punched through. They literally used nearly 2000 heavy bombers and fighter bombers to carpet bomb German positions and in several occasions their own troops (Americans alone suffered nearly 800 casualties from their own bombers in two separate raids in two days).
In one instance during Cobra, as many as 1,900 heavy and 600 fighter bombers dropped more than 4.000 tons of bombs in 3 hours in an area measuring 3 x 7 km!!
Russians and Ukrainians can't even imagine that kind of firepower in a focused area. Actually the Americans can't either - it would take 400 F-15Es (they only have 220). or 519 F-16Cs to drop that kind of ordnance (and that's without carrying fuel tanks). It would take Russians about 330 Su-34s to achieve this - again they only have about 100 left. In fact combined Su-30/34/35 fleet is about 350 aircraft.
Or Battle of Kursk - Germans could not punch through Soviet lines despite fielding near 2,500 AFVs including large bulk of operational Tigers, Ferdinands, Sturmpanzers and nearly every single Panzer Division as well as near 1800 aircraft. And also despite your average Soviet formation being poorly trained and with a terrible command model. But getting a soldier in a trench to fire a rifle is a lot easier than getting that same soldier across a battlefield.
Now look at Ukraine - even with glide bombs, large amount of artillery and FPV drones the Russians can't punch through. Even with HIMARS/M270, drones, Leopard 2, Bradley, CEASAR, the Ukrainians couldn't punch through last summer.
Mines + sighted in artillery + dispersed defenders in mutually supporting positions + concealed reserves makes attack extremely difficult. Drones just make the whole experience more miserable.
yes, every nation should have second chance, but not this and absolutly not without very big sorry as was done by german after ww2. But RU is attacking his neigbour in 18,19,20 and 21 so no sign of improvent.
This is a Soviet/Russian doctrine which the west cannot digest - grinding down the enemy regardless of human losses. This had always been the way Russia fights, this is their way of life and can serve as ab explanation to the general character of these people. The way to win is to convince Russian leader to stop, be it through diplomacy or (and most likely) by a combination of military response And diplomacy. Otherwise Russia will continue grinding its rows of teeth against the flesh of Ukraine until Russia decides to stop. The hardware will never be the issue for them, a country with millions of people that can/will be conscripted if needed and those that are willingly contract to live and die for a lot of money.
1. what exactly has UK won in WW2!? Oh you mean the nearly 30mil of Soviets that died so that UK survives and does not speak German? LOL big winners here. Lost all their colonies and had ration cards up to 70s.
2. Russia gained about a quarter of Ukraine, not counting Crimea that they took without firing a single shot.
I am not a Russian fan boy, just like to see things for what they are.
You are a Sovietfanboy. Your comment is a colonialist and imperialist declaration. You would have preferred Great Britain speaking German and occupied by national-socialists.. Or better still : have the USSR and Germany divide Europe among them ? As it was stated in the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 1939 ? Western Europe was liberated by the Western allies. With it there came democracy and Western values. Eastern Europe was liberated from national-socialism and immediately occupied by Soviet-Russian communism. This meant oppression, torture, reeducation, murder, deportation, dictatorship ... and for a lot of Ukrainians the gulag. For a lot of Belarusians as well. The two nations who suffered (of course with Poland and the Baltic States) the major part of the brutal German occupation and contributed the most (proportionally to the number of population within the Sovietunion and the number of their nationals participating in the Red Army) to the victory over the Germans. --- Whereas the West started to decolonize - which you call a defeat, the Sovietunion continued its brutal colonization after WW2 ? Which you call a victory ? --- It is probably difficult for you to understand that there were once and still are Europeans who rather fight against terrorist regimes like the Sovietunion then and Russia today than live under the Soviet or Russian or national-socialist boot. Even if they do not live as gloriously rich WW2 than did the Soviet population. --- Russia declared to take Kyijv in three days ! Remember that .
Great Britain ended war bankrupt, it's industry diminished and its empire crumbling (colonialism wasn't viewed as bad up to 1940s).
That decline was never stopped. Now living standards in Britain are starting to decline to as its final reserves of social and other capital are expended.
No, not a Russian fan boy - Russia is yesterday's news and even without Putin, the country would not have thrived - too many cultural problems and too much American hatred to ever allow Russia a real place in the word.*
*Americans bare long grudges eg Cuba. They only forgave Iraq and Libya "their sins" after the US destroyed both countries.
Bollocks. I am not a Russian or a Ukrainian fanboy. I don't care about either of these people (much like you probably didn't care when me and my family was hunkering in a bunker when the Serbs were shelling us in 1991).
I am interested in the war from technical, tactical and geopolitical perspectives.
Very well, I dont think anybody following the war is able to be a disinterested observer. But if you are, you dont need to claim anything. Regarding you and your familien hunkering down in 1991. I remember that very well. And we cared, and tried to support this being bombed. Not easy to do without intervening, so most it didnt end up as meaningful support. But the west did care. Enough to finally bomb Serbia to stop them. Maybe too little, maybe to late. Interventions are difficult and the Serbs are not happy with the bombing. The problem is that when people start killing others it isnt so easy to stop them. And there are costs to that. Caring isnt enough in itself, it can be pretty useless. But I did care and I still care for people being bombed. Unfortunately there are too many too many places.
Ok, I saw your comment on not being a Russian fanboy was after you were attacked. If you are attacked as one it is ok to say you are not. I still find neutrality a difficult concept here, but be that as it may.
Lol, that is a lot of emotion, sounds like a painful subject.
You said England won but they barely fought on the European continent (where it mattered) and without USSR fighting Germans for 4 years England would be under Germany - fact.
After Allied victory over Germany England was in total economic distress and lost any strategic influence outside of its shores - fact.
Everything else you wrote is semantics. What matters are the end results. You blame soviets but enjoy the fruits of their actions nevertheless - that is also a fact.
I see the only win here is that England survived, barely…
You may not like the soviet regime, nor do i, but you cannot change facts.
Kiev in 3 days means absolutely nothing today. What matters is that thousands of Ukrainians are dying for a war that did not need to happen. Regardless, the war is on and people are dying… and there are less of Ukrainians than Russians. What kind of win will there be in the end of this war for Ukrainians? Unlikely much of it.
Churcill was not a great statesman: he lost an empire, while England could have watched at Germans and Russians killing each other for nearly 12-15 years...
Yankee are never very clever: even Patton (a smart one) recognized to have fought the "wrong enemy"!
No empire is infinite; they all fell at a certain point of history. Even if Britain or Spain are small now, most of the world population speaks English and Spanish. That's because you don't win only by force or killings, but you win by culture and civilisation. And even now Canadians and Australians are King's subjects by their own will. So, what has Britain lost? Regarding the enemy, the didn't pick the wrong one. They fought first against the bigger monster. But there are some weird things in WWII indeed.
From a population percentage, Belorussia lost most but it was constantly a warzone:
Russia SFSR: 12.7%
Ukraine SFSR: 16.3%
Belorussian SFSR: 25.3%
Lowest percentages were the various Stans (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc) with average of about 7.7% total population loss because the Axis never got that far.
Just because you are pro-Ukraine doesn't mean you should try to rewrite history.
Wow, we are in Tom's place disussing the topic. Ever heard about organization called Luftwaffe? And that dominance over them allowed allies directly bombing Germany? Was that probably thanks to USSR airplanes, or maybe England did play some "small" role there?
Ever hear of the US? It was their aircraft industry and industry in general that propped both the Brits and Soviets? Without US, both Brits and Soviets would have lost the war.
And I'm not even American before someone tries to play that card.
Sure, England played a role, fought valiantly. I am not belittling their effort and sacrifice, but let’s be real… percentage wise their effort was not massive.
Do you hear about war in Asia? or how many 100s planes were shotdown in 1940-41? If they will attack RU. Or do you know that in same time as Stalingrad 300000 german sodier capitulated in Tunis( mostly to Britain). Just they don't loose so many people it doesn;t not mean they dont do a big job.
Historically Russia has broken down under heavy losses at least twice. Russo_Japanese war and WW1. True, it was the same regime, but Russia broke. So while I agree that this is how they fight they are not invincible when they fight. And in WW2 they had heavy western support to enable their victory. So, they have a strategy, but is it effektive enough? We will see.
Except for maybe 1944-45, Russia's army has always been a largely ramshackle useless thing.
It does have a couple of things it has always been able to do well.
1. Ability to rapidly mobilise to replace losses and gain numerical advantages. Does it matter if you've exhausted your forces and smashed 6 Soviet/Russian divisions when they've mobilised another 8?
2. Stubborn defence, even against all odds.
3. Russia's old serf culture means it is able to absorb massive casualties other forces could not. Ironically this culture also makes them inflexible as the army is stratified.
Occasionally they get a decent general but their military educational system doesn't really foster great military leaders. Doesn't help the army is stuck in 1700-21 Great Northern War with all command power concentrated at higher echelon, lower level officers being mere conduits for orders and NCOs being primarily for discipline.
The thing is, all that you’ve listed just doesn’t matter because Russia is not fighting the US, they are fighting a nation that is less and leas interested in fighting back, nation more corrupt than Russia itself… Let’s just say they have some serious existential issues. Oh yeah, I grew up in Ukraine.
To be honest I view Ukraine and Russia as being essentially the same in terms of core values - both corrupt Slavic countries, prone to authoritarianism, with most people unwilling to make changes and societies permanently tainted by the worst aspects of Russian Empire and haunted by influence of Mongol domination up to 1400s.
For all its evil, Communism actually created progress. But now left to their own devices, Russians and Ukrainians revert back to their base cultural instincts.
Oh and I am a Slav too from a country in the Balkans!!
You may be a Slav but you clearly have no clue about history of Russians and Ukrainians. For starters Ukrainians, unlike Russians have never created empire, in fact their political culture with all its flaws has more in common with Cossacks Sich anarchy and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth "noble democracy" than with Russian самодержавие. In consequence unlike Russians, Ukrainians have never let authoritarian politicians to take over the state, and unlike Russians they were able to oppose and overthrow them whenever they tried. For Yugoslavia, that was far away from SU communism may meant some progress but for the rest of us in CEE it was just another form of Russian colonialism. They are not the same just as Serbs and Croats are not the same, just because for couple of hundred years they lived together under one political power.
I will say the mobilized quite a lot. What does full mobilization even mean? After all they need someone in the munitions factory, the tank factory etc. they have pulled out quite a few stops, and mobilized several hundred thousands. And Putin obviously doesnt want to mobilze in the big cities. Anyhow, does he have any equipment for all those poor sods if he mobilize them. I think Putin has mobilized as much and hard as he dares.
I agree. Attrition is in fact western doctrine too - except west tries to do it with least casualties on their own side.
True manoeuvre warfare is hard to implement especially against an opponent with similar level of competence. Russians used to have a deep battle concept similar to Blitzkrieg. But they seldom managed to achieve it even in late WW2. There's a handful of examples - Bagration, Manchuria etc.
The modern Russian military seemed to not have any kind of offensive deep battle doctrine before 2022. The Battalion Tactical Group concept was purely defensive (even if they were meant to attack to stall - so called Active Defence). Now you wonder why am I mentioning BTGs when they are tactical?
Well the BTG concept would gut the rest of the brigade's or even division's fighting strength. So you have 1 brigade or even division generating an understrength battalion's worth of combat power.
Even if Russia went into Ukraine following its doctrine, it would have been smashed as the BTGs were weak defensive formations. No amount of artillery and armour would make up for lack of infantry (or reconnaissance or command and control).
Russia's modern military lacks other key components required with offensive as well as effective defensive capabilities - ability to conduct interdiction against key enemy rear formations. Their airforce is too archaic and too wedded to concepts from 1940s. Even with glide bombs they can only hit front lines (yes I know Tom will say "but it's their doctrine", but their doctrine is outdated).
If there was no corruption in the Russian military and they adhered to their outdated essentially WWII doctrine, outcome would have been the same. But Russia is too poor to ever have a 100% or even 40% modern military.
In fact ironically if Russia's military changed its mindset to a western one and stopped being corrupt, the force would shrink to levels too unsustainable to defend it as the country is too poor to be able to afford a modern capable military big enough to defend such a large territory.
Look at US which is in a benign geopolitical environment and much smaller than Russia. Yet it only has 13 active divisions (including USMC) despite spending 3% of GDP on military. If taking into account PPP and Russia's divisions were on par with American ones, the Russians could only afford 2 divisions for a country that is 1.8 times bigger.
Sure they could gut the navy to get more, but the navy is already underfunded and nearly all of its large surface combatants obsolete. They could gut the airforce too but even before 2022 that was in terminal decline (2000 combat jets in 2000, 900 in 2022 and even without Ukraine probably down to 300 by 2040 (Leftovers of Flanker series plus maybe 150-200 Su-57).
Furthermore, last week a UA T-64 and a UA BMP deserted to RU side. ))))
P.S. Some UA deserters that drowned in Tysa river were found with ...firearms wounds (UA borderguards shot at them). The word is that the border with Romania is being mined to stop runaways. Sorry, but it's unthinkable even in Russia.
Sweden is going to deliver ASC 890 plane (if it will happen this year). Is this a game changer or with 5 hours of operational time just a tactical advantage easily hunted by russians?
I am not really knowledgeable enough to know the answer to your question. However following Tom’s writings for some time I think the answer would be: this is not a « wunderwaffe » that will radically transform the war. However it will be probably be useful if integrated properly into Ukraines forces. The reason is simply that wunderwaffe does not really exist, and war is a complex business. I also believe that he would rather Sweden sent a lot if Gripens, but that is of course not only Sweden needing to do. My to cents on this, let’s see what Tom says if he has time.
If I am not mistaken, at high altitude the Swedish AEW radar has a detection radius of 400 km or so for a typical jet fighter (let's say 300 km for a smaller target like a large missile such as the R-37). It's a given that Russians will want to destroy these aircraft, so I would expect these operating from the southwest region of Ukraine.
Greece has the ERIEYE as well (initially on Saab 340 platform, later on an Embraer regional jet), it's quite useful even if you cannot have 24/7 coverage (with two airplanes, you cannot have continuous coverage beyond 9-10 hours per day).
Hi Tom. Thank you for the great update. You always try to keep spirits up where possible, which is very supportive.
May i ask a side question about mobilization - topic most civilians have controversial thoughts about.
Do you know a historical cases of what countries in war did good, or bad in this regard? Which laws or actions helped? In particular, the big demand is for the demobilization law and strict time frame one can expect to serve. I doubt it is possible(definitely not easy) with existing resources and capacity to train new soldiers. But many expect kind of justice for those who fight and those who continue living relatively safe and normal life.
.. i remember the final of the great M.A.S.H series - all went home when the war ended.
Slowly over time there was a drawdown of troops but all did not go home when the ceasefire was implemented. (There's been no formal treaty that ended the war).
Here's a generalized list of when the troops of different nations left South Korea. The US 2nd division is still there.
Voronezh(DM)M with range of 6000km is like "eyes" for Tobol EWS aiming to jam GPS/GNSS signals, suppressing Starlinks, influencing Excalibur, HIMARS and other high precise weapons. There are about 10 such long-range Voronezhs in whole Ru, but critical are those in Belorussia, Kaliningrad, StPeresbourgh (damaged), Orenburgh (damaged) and Armavir (damaged). There was also 1 in Prypiat (near Chernobyl, UA) - of course, it is unavailable since 2014.
Secondary (from UA PoV) is to break Ru anti-nucs shield. It makes Ru potentially very sensitive in matters of defense against possible nucs attack - Moscow, StPetersbourgh, whole its European part to Ural mountains is more less open
Did you see any proofs that Voronezh near Orsk was really hit? Mine only saw pictures with spots on the ground that can be anything like puddle after rain
"Macron is [...] doing exactly the least to help Ukraine" I don't think this is accurate. France is keeping a low profile. I bet we'll discover the true extend of the french help later, after the war.
Politicians like Macron care only about one single thing : their image and communicating about everything.
They're already bragging all the time about how much they're doing for ukraine (but when factually counting what they sent, it's peanut).
And they're putting a theatrical show about sending their army in Ukraine, despite everyone knowing it's never going to happen.
So there's no way they're doing things secretly/low key, even if they were to send one or 2 more mortar in Ukraine tomorrow, they would be bragging about it for weeks. It's their nature.
Well, France has sent the CAESAR and the SCALP-EG to Ukraine, among other stuff, and these are definitely VERY useful. Maybe it's not necessary to discount Macron's rhetoric so readily?
And "never say never" - there are already discussions about sending French trainers etc to Ukraine.
Yes and that's exactly proving my point. Sending instructors in Ukraine is useless and is just a PR stunt.
Because it's basically taking some risks for doing something can be done already 300 km away in safety in Poland or Romania just to say "we are sending troops to ukraine".
It's just a political/PR move with no real practical benefits
Is this monetary donations, military/civil equipment, personnel? What about financial help, loans, etc.? Do these include help via the EU, NATO and other organizations?
In general, the biggest economies of the West can spend lower percentages of their GDP in order to have an impact in absolute numbers.
Help via EU is distributed among EU countries by their GDP. You can find charts with and without EU help and all are similar - France is in the lower half. Compare it to Germany. Simply, Macron talk is cheap.
I am no aware about any "NATO" help. "NATO" does nothing itself - it just coordinates it's member countries.
France's own official estimate is 2.6 bln in military equipment deliveries. The source considers is to be overestimated, but ultimately takes the number. The GDP of France is 2.7 trln. per year. That level of contribution would be about half of the average contribution (in terms of GDP percentage) among NATO countries, but that is difficult to estimate among EU countries as there are different level of contributions, including EU wide funds.
Sweden to delay delivery of JAS-39 Gripen. The jet which can take off and land on a road. The jet which can take on board METEOR missiles with a 200 km range. The jet which designed for the country that can rely only on itself. Impossible stupidity.
F-16 crews training took about a year or even more (honestly, it's been so long I don't even remember). My guess is, to get Gripens in a year from now, the crews should start training tomorrow. That would be the only good reason for the delay, IMHO.
For experienced pilots with English language knowledge, a year would be the minimum for type training. They would need to 'unlearn' their MiG-29 etc first.
For brand new pilots, two years is the practical minimum training (first in propellers, then trainers, then jets, then tactics and learning their trade). You would want to train them at least three years before you can call them ready for operations.
As a data point, since Hellenic Air Force received their first Rafales (with six veteran pilots in the first wave, who landed these in Greece), it took more than 1.5 years to call the first squadron operational. And that's with six months advance training, with an air force familitar with Dassault Mirages for nearly half a century.
Landing of first six Rafales: 19 Jan. 2022
Declared Final operational capability (FOC) for first squadron: 3 Sept. 2023
I'd like to see jets in the Ukrainian sky in any time: two, five, ten, fifty years. This war will continue for years, we (Ukrainians) should plan for years, not to the end of the current year. I'm ready to argue with anyone that Gripens will be useful. It's a bloody war which turns to hell from time to time and ZSU needs Sweden weapon which designed for independent fight.
It’s been said in Swedish news media that the Gripen-to-Ukraine program has been paused in order to not interfere with the introduktion of the F-16.
On the other hand Zelenskij, who is wisiting Sweden today, has asked Sweden to continue with Gripen preparations/training anyway. He states that Ukraine can handle both in paralell..
The news about BRU-61/GBU-39 integration on Mig-29 is very interesting! Multiple GBU-39 are said to be able to be planned to arrive at a target simultaneously, from several directions. But they navigate with GPS, are they susceptible to jamming?
Seems like the delivering countries of F-16 jets asked Sweden not to deliver Gripens, as it could weaken their logistic for the F-16s. They ,(F-16 deliverers), don´t believe Ukraine can handle two different types of western jets.
It might be true, but Ukraine with partial success can run tanks, howitzers, IFV, APC and other gears. Logistics questions haven't a significant role in the long term. Perhaps a lack of a ground service team in PCU is an obstacle to operate two different jets. I'm not a specialist in the Air Forces.
Ground support is VERY important (and complex) part of operating a jet squadron.
I remember reading that a Eurofighter EF2000 squadron needed 200 people relocating for a squadron in the Baltic states.
So, if we postulate three squadrons of F-16, Ukraine would need to provide 3x200 ground support personnel (and spare parts etc) for supporting operations of these jets. Probably the Gripen requires much less support, but even then Ukraine air force is quite stretched thin.
Maybe you are right, maybe you are not. I used to work on JSC Motor Sich and I knew about plane support. How to serve TV3 117(ТВ3 117) engine and so on. BTW I have friends in "Mig-remont" plant in Zapporizhzhia airport. We were talking about our craft many years ago. Your are mestaken as for me.
I dont doubt your Numbers of an actual transfer of Eurofighters. Whether the Ukrainians will need the same number to operate is another question. I guess if you look closeøy at those Numbers you will find quite a few posts that are Nice to have, not need to have.
I remember these numbers because they made an impression on me, as you can imagine.
Even if the Gripen or the F-16 requires half the amount of personnel, thanks to being a single engined aircraft, it's still a significant investment on specially trained people
Thanks for the update Tom. Good news Ukraine is getting some SAAB 340 AEW&C aircraft as well as RB-99 Air to Air missile. Seems Sweden is really stepping up to save Ukraine.
Cannot wait to read future reports about mega-super-ultra-hypervetilated "summer russian BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIGG offensive" by our beloved supersmart-best-ohmygodsooooocompetent media outlets prone to parrot-like repeating best twitter's Pudding fans' bs.
And about all that meaningless and pointless EU-side election-fuelled babbling about "strikes inside Russia": poor children, did you know that is basically just Biden's decision that matter, in such regards? You know, to argue about "strike here, rather than there", you should BRING SOME WEAPONS IN SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS BEFORE!
Thanks, Tom, good to read a more positive report and evidence of some operational exhaustion for the Russians snd a bit more resources for the Ukrainians.
Thank you Tom. It sounds like one one hand Ukraine is causing some serious damage to ammo storages, AD sites and annihilating 1000+ Russian soldiers every day, buy yet the Russian appear to be slowly crawling forward. Are the Ukrainian gains not being reported the same way, or is there so little offensive on the ground? Also - there is a lot of online craze about THAT bridge, but I have heard little about the railroad Russia is building across the occupied territories to supply them from north-east. Would you happen to have any information on that? Thanks again.
It is hard to run any even tactical offensives against 500k invaders with aerial supermacy and x5 art superiority. Zsu counters when and where it is possible, like at Lyptsy today or Vovchansk recenty. Main goal is to make Ru grinding through fortifications, rivers, swamps etc. landscape especially in NorthernUA is very good for such tactics (during WWII huge districts there were fully controlled by Ukrainian partisans even in 1942-43).
Railroad is a problem for sure, but it is one-line road, there is certain amount of bridges there and it is not too deep behind frontlines, so could be Scalped, Himarsed, ATACMSed or UAVed. So, it is a big prob, but not too big as for me
According to every single western military media including this one, one does not see Russians exercising any kind of aerial or artillery superiority or in fact anything except ongoing stupidity.
All we see are:
1. Russian air defences being pummelled.
2. Russian artillery being pummelled.
3. Russian air bases being pummelled and jet being pummelled on the ground.
4. Russian ammunition depots being pummelled.
5. Russian tanks/AFVs being pummelled.
6. Russian radar sites being pummelled (including those 2000 km away).
7. Russian oil refineries being pummelled
8. Reports on how nearly every single Russian long range munition is destroyed.
9. Ukrainians being so apparently bereft of targets they chase lone Russian soldiers with FPV drones.
10. Russians attacking in golf carts, Mad Max vehicles and being pummelled.
11. Praise for how great Ukrainians soldiers are and comments on how stupid Russians at all tactical levels are.
12. Russian missiles hitting hardware stores and apartment buildings.
13. Russians suffering 1000-1700 casualties a day (yet no news on Ukrainian casualties - I guess your average Ukrainian soldier is Rambo-cross-Terminator-but-with-heart-of-gold much like your average American or British soldier).
So given all the above, one could make the conclusion the Ukrainians should have this one in the bag. Why they aren't in Moscow or Vladivostok is anyone's guess.
To be honest no amount of mobiks is going to sustain 7,000 - 11,900 casualties a week at any sustained level especially with poor Russian logistics. At some point they have massive areas that are essentially undefended and ripe for exploitation. Remember Tom et al are all saying: "Russia is running out of vehicles, SPGs etc. Russian FPV drones are crap, Russian/North Korean ammunition doesn't work, Russians don't know how to command troops."
Let's not forget truly incompetent forces tend to crumble against truly competent ones regardless of size - French in May 1940, western Russia in 1941, Arabs in 1967, Syrians in 1981, Iraqis in 1991 etc etc.
Forces of relatively equal competence tend to get bogged down, be it Allies in Italy in 1943-44, Iran and Iraq in 1980-88, Ethiooua-Eritrea back in late 1990s etc.
In reality everyone including Tom is biased. And as we read western sources, there is an inherent bias.
I do appreciate Tom's posts, but I take it with a grain of salt. Indeed like every western commentator, he has at least a seething dislike of Russians.*
*Russia could be invaded by human eating aliens and western commentators would applaud it.
First start reading. Tom and Dons quite offen post about UA looses( radars, planes, tanks..) .
Than you should start thinking. If RU army had 5-10 more vehicles as UA, has 10 times more planes and is still not able to advance so UA must be doing something good.
And about looses. RU has all stuff in open area which can be scanned be satellites. IF before war was there 20000 pieces of artilellery and in February was less than 10000 then there is the stuff? and it is similar with tanks...
UA doesn't want to go to Moscow, just to the border but without ammo and with RU air superiority you can just defend.
and for refineries and similar you can find a lot of videos, but we both knows that you are russia troll :)
and yes we hate now RU, my country was occupied by RU but i forgive and hope that RU will be now normal country without attacking others. I was wrong.
Ukrainians losses are very rarely reported on Tom and Dons reports. Most of it is about Russian losses.
I don't deny Russian losses are heavy. But western reporting doesn't even mention Ukrainian casualties.
Indeed if western reporting and all Ukrainian statements were correct, Russia would have been defeated last year as Ukrainian flag would be flying over Sevastapol right now (as promised by high ranking Ukrainian generals in 2022 such as Kyrylo Budanov).
The same western "analysts" stated over and over how Russia will be unable to sustain their losses, won't be able to rebuild their military, how the Russian economy will collapse, how Russians won't be able to produce arms (now they just talk about how Russia's arms are poor quality).
Has any of this happened? No.
In fact Russia has been able to survive and thrive and is now maintaining an almost constant state of offensive warfare.
If Ukrainian casualties were low, then they should have ample reserves to smash aside the "incompetent, low quality" Russians defending the front lines.
Indeed once the Russians have bled out their last golf cart in each assault, it should not be problematic for superior Ukrainians with their superior tactics, superior western weapons to simply counterattack and smash the remaining "Orc" dregs now should it?
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Ukraine is suffering massive casualties just like Russia (note Russia is attacking hence casualties will be higher all things remaining same). Both sides are evenly matched hence the stalemate.
As for westerners hating Russians, it never stopped even in the 1990s. Note how often bad guys in 1990s movies were Russians? Westerners have always viewed Russians as drunken, subhuman barbarians (or undermenschen as one Austrian described them).
The Americans will hate the Russians as long as Russia exists. If they supported failed Soviet Union with a Marshall Plan, we probably wouldn't be in this state. Instead Washington danced on the USSR's grave and then sent its IMF and World Bank cronies to dismantle Russia's industrial capacity with the same plan as the 1945 Morgenthau Plan to convert Germany into an agrarian state. Russian economic losses were more than WWII.
Russia is today a third world gas station/farm because the US wanted it that way. And like any third world resource rich dictatorship, its leaders dream of glory and destiny (ref: Amin, Mugabe, Soeharto, Hussein, Gaddafhi etc).
We speak more about RU looses because we got some number from UA, which are more or less confirmed by Western Agencies or by Satelite images. For UA looses we have only RU source, but RU claims absolut bullshits. For example UA claims 350 planes destroyed RU has 1400 at the beginning RU claims 400 UA planes destroyed that is 2 much more as UA has at the beginnig + were delivered and UA planes are still in use. UA claims 12000 artilery destroyed and similar amount is misiing in storages.
RU is resposible for itself, can made big profit with west but choose to fight. It was not USA who decied. It was Putin.Until 2014 it was economic/political fight about UA, when RU start loosing then Putin to start with weapons.
Both sides overstate.
Russia hasn't had 1400 fighters and bombers for a long time. There was perhaps 1000 in service in 2022. The 1400 number probably included retired MiG-29s, Su-24/25/27s. The 1000 included following in 2022 :
Su-24 140 - 14 confirmed lost
Su-25 140 - includes training UBK, 31 confirmed lost
Su-27 100 - 2 confirmed lost
Su-30 130 - 11 confirmed lost
Su-34 130 - 27 confirmed lost
Su-35 96 - 7 confirmed lost,
Su-33 15
MiG-29 100 - mostly used for training
MiG-31 110 - 3 confirmed lost
Tu-22M3 - 45 - 3 confirmed lost
Tu-95 - 30-40 - 1 confirmed lost
Tu-160 - 19
Su-57 was prototypes only at this stage.
Russian confirmed fighter and bomber losses are about 100. This is from Oryx but also western sources like British MOD. UA's claims are 350% more than confirmed Russian losses. Ukraine certainly hasn't taken out 250 transports/support aircraft as Russians don't even operate that many!
They have taken delivery of additional jets.
I don't go that far. West helped Russia in nineties. Could have been more generous but wasn't trying to destroy her. In early days of putin when he pretended to be sane the west treated him like an ally. Again not particularly generous but not antagonistic.
Western sources… quite many. Quite different. Anyhow, I have no trouble finding sources that talk about Ukrainian losses and Ukrainian problems. Regarding ability to predict the outcome of the war I think all have missed. First obviously Putin who wanted Kyiv in 3 days. Then the western overestimated Ukraines ability to attack in 2023, and now we will gave to see. Russias ability to take losses is scary and something I dont really think the Western countries understood. Which by the way is because we didnt see the Russians as subhumans (they are drunken), we didnt see the racist imperialism inherent in the Russian government. We thought, naively that the system was some variant of the western. We belived in «wandel durch handel». At this very moment the truth is that western societies actually still care more about Russian lives that the Russian leaders. A marshal plan for Russia? They got a lot of support in the nineties. But they choose a different path. Of war, of cruelty, of imperialism. And now the Russian behaviour underscores to westerns that we cannot, really cannot trust a regime that behaves that way. They need to loose this war.
The support Russia received from west was tied to economic "reforms" and especially what they called shock therapy. Essentially Russia had to privatise rapidly and rapidly close down unprofitable industries. GDP PPP collapsed significantly more than it during WWII (if you know your WWII history then you will realise how massive this).
This is where the oligarchs first emerged - the west supported this process.
The IMF even provided reports on how it saw Russia's future not as an industrial country (which it was) but rather an economy focused on natural resource exploitation (ie petrochemicals) and agriculture.
Western aid was never substantial - it's main purpose was preventing a complete collapse (ie nuclear Russia disintegrating).
By the way same was applied to Asia during SE Asian Crisis. Eg IMF made Indonesia relinquish food subsidies which caused food to skyrocket and ended up in hunger and rioting.
Again analysis showed western "aid" was:
a.) Too small to do anything except stave off total collapse
b.) Requirements for government cuts to spending (fiscal tightening) created massive social problems and stymied recovery
c.) Local banks were forced to be closed down without depositor insurance, again leading to collapse in living standards as savings were wiped out.
d.) Imposed unrealistic structural reform objectives that in the longer term damaged the functioning of socities.
e.) Forced deregulation of currencies - again when combined with forced removal of capital flow restrictions this spurned greater collapse
And then they did the same to Greece in GFC. There are many other examples over last 30 years.
Note when west itself has hit crisis point eg GFC or COVID, they did not follow any of the usual shock treatment policies they reserve for poorer countries. Instead they printed and spent money like drunk sailors, bailed out banks etc etc.
A couple of years ago IMF even admitted its past policies weren't any good (but they still preach them whenever any poorer country is in trouble).
And nowadays there is virtually no trust in third world of western institutions like IMF and World Bank. They are viewed as American attack dogs designed to subjugate and surrender sovereignty to the west.
But back to my point, there never was a Marshall program for Russia and all western aid was designed to stave off total collapse but more critically forced Russians to dismantle their economy and restructure it to the west's liking.
This created ideal for someone like Putin to emerge especially as the chaos destroyed whatever civic society existed and saw underfunded civil institutions become completely corrupted. Indeed initially Russia thrived under Putin.
Now Russia might still have failed even with a Marshall Plan. We don't know. But western actions were crucial to creating an environment where someone like Putin could thrive.
As for path of war and imperialism, did you already forget Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria etc etc?!?
US is slightly less bad than Russia.
Also forgot to mention, defence is much easier than attack.
A single well placed soldier entrenched and armed with a machine gun can stall a whole company's advance. Indeed there's cases of solitary tanks stalling entire divisions (both Russian and German examples).
Remember in Ukraine's offensive last summer, they got pummelled and got caught doing the same kind of stupid stuff the Russians were.
Successful offensive action is hard to achieve even without drones. It takes excellent planning, coordination and control, reconnaissance, communications to achieve. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have that. Both are too still essentially Soviet WW2 militaries (and by WW2 I mean 1942-43m, not the semi-decent 1944-45 Soviet forces).
Defense us easier unless you are bombed to kingdom come, by artillery or glide bombs. Then your Lone infanteryman with a machinegun dies before he can use it. Without so much air support I believe Ukraine would hold.
And in reality, not so easy to destroy entrenched defenders. This has been proven time and again. It's why they say you need at least 3:1 advantage to successfully attack a defended position (and in reality often more).
Otherwise WW1 western front would not have ground into stalemate. Same in Iran-Iraq, Italian front WWII etc etc, Same in Ukraine.
Normandy was the same with allies were stalemated for near 2 months.
In Normandy it wasn't until operation Cobra and a truly massive application of airpower and artillery punched through. They literally used nearly 2000 heavy bombers and fighter bombers to carpet bomb German positions and in several occasions their own troops (Americans alone suffered nearly 800 casualties from their own bombers in two separate raids in two days).
In one instance during Cobra, as many as 1,900 heavy and 600 fighter bombers dropped more than 4.000 tons of bombs in 3 hours in an area measuring 3 x 7 km!!
Russians and Ukrainians can't even imagine that kind of firepower in a focused area. Actually the Americans can't either - it would take 400 F-15Es (they only have 220). or 519 F-16Cs to drop that kind of ordnance (and that's without carrying fuel tanks). It would take Russians about 330 Su-34s to achieve this - again they only have about 100 left. In fact combined Su-30/34/35 fleet is about 350 aircraft.
Or Battle of Kursk - Germans could not punch through Soviet lines despite fielding near 2,500 AFVs including large bulk of operational Tigers, Ferdinands, Sturmpanzers and nearly every single Panzer Division as well as near 1800 aircraft. And also despite your average Soviet formation being poorly trained and with a terrible command model. But getting a soldier in a trench to fire a rifle is a lot easier than getting that same soldier across a battlefield.
Now look at Ukraine - even with glide bombs, large amount of artillery and FPV drones the Russians can't punch through. Even with HIMARS/M270, drones, Leopard 2, Bradley, CEASAR, the Ukrainians couldn't punch through last summer.
Mines + sighted in artillery + dispersed defenders in mutually supporting positions + concealed reserves makes attack extremely difficult. Drones just make the whole experience more miserable.
What they are doing is not to be forgiven.
yes, every nation should have second chance, but not this and absolutly not without very big sorry as was done by german after ww2. But RU is attacking his neigbour in 18,19,20 and 21 so no sign of improvent.
This is a Soviet/Russian doctrine which the west cannot digest - grinding down the enemy regardless of human losses. This had always been the way Russia fights, this is their way of life and can serve as ab explanation to the general character of these people. The way to win is to convince Russian leader to stop, be it through diplomacy or (and most likely) by a combination of military response And diplomacy. Otherwise Russia will continue grinding its rows of teeth against the flesh of Ukraine until Russia decides to stop. The hardware will never be the issue for them, a country with millions of people that can/will be conscripted if needed and those that are willingly contract to live and die for a lot of money.
Still, the Russians have now lost more people NOT conquering Ukraine than the United Kingdom lost winning WW2 - total of about 450000.
1. what exactly has UK won in WW2!? Oh you mean the nearly 30mil of Soviets that died so that UK survives and does not speak German? LOL big winners here. Lost all their colonies and had ration cards up to 70s.
2. Russia gained about a quarter of Ukraine, not counting Crimea that they took without firing a single shot.
I am not a Russian fan boy, just like to see things for what they are.
You are a Sovietfanboy. Your comment is a colonialist and imperialist declaration. You would have preferred Great Britain speaking German and occupied by national-socialists.. Or better still : have the USSR and Germany divide Europe among them ? As it was stated in the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 1939 ? Western Europe was liberated by the Western allies. With it there came democracy and Western values. Eastern Europe was liberated from national-socialism and immediately occupied by Soviet-Russian communism. This meant oppression, torture, reeducation, murder, deportation, dictatorship ... and for a lot of Ukrainians the gulag. For a lot of Belarusians as well. The two nations who suffered (of course with Poland and the Baltic States) the major part of the brutal German occupation and contributed the most (proportionally to the number of population within the Sovietunion and the number of their nationals participating in the Red Army) to the victory over the Germans. --- Whereas the West started to decolonize - which you call a defeat, the Sovietunion continued its brutal colonization after WW2 ? Which you call a victory ? --- It is probably difficult for you to understand that there were once and still are Europeans who rather fight against terrorist regimes like the Sovietunion then and Russia today than live under the Soviet or Russian or national-socialist boot. Even if they do not live as gloriously rich WW2 than did the Soviet population. --- Russia declared to take Kyijv in three days ! Remember that .
Great Britain didn't win WWII, USSR and USA did.
Great Britain ended war bankrupt, it's industry diminished and its empire crumbling (colonialism wasn't viewed as bad up to 1940s).
That decline was never stopped. Now living standards in Britain are starting to decline to as its final reserves of social and other capital are expended.
No, not a Russian fan boy - Russia is yesterday's news and even without Putin, the country would not have thrived - too many cultural problems and too much American hatred to ever allow Russia a real place in the word.*
*Americans bare long grudges eg Cuba. They only forgave Iraq and Libya "their sins" after the US destroyed both countries.
Great post
If you feel the need to say you are not a Russian fanboy you probably are.
Bollocks. I am not a Russian or a Ukrainian fanboy. I don't care about either of these people (much like you probably didn't care when me and my family was hunkering in a bunker when the Serbs were shelling us in 1991).
I am interested in the war from technical, tactical and geopolitical perspectives.
Very well, I dont think anybody following the war is able to be a disinterested observer. But if you are, you dont need to claim anything. Regarding you and your familien hunkering down in 1991. I remember that very well. And we cared, and tried to support this being bombed. Not easy to do without intervening, so most it didnt end up as meaningful support. But the west did care. Enough to finally bomb Serbia to stop them. Maybe too little, maybe to late. Interventions are difficult and the Serbs are not happy with the bombing. The problem is that when people start killing others it isnt so easy to stop them. And there are costs to that. Caring isnt enough in itself, it can be pretty useless. But I did care and I still care for people being bombed. Unfortunately there are too many too many places.
Ok, I saw your comment on not being a Russian fanboy was after you were attacked. If you are attacked as one it is ok to say you are not. I still find neutrality a difficult concept here, but be that as it may.
They won the right to decide over their own future.
Lol, that is a lot of emotion, sounds like a painful subject.
You said England won but they barely fought on the European continent (where it mattered) and without USSR fighting Germans for 4 years England would be under Germany - fact.
After Allied victory over Germany England was in total economic distress and lost any strategic influence outside of its shores - fact.
Everything else you wrote is semantics. What matters are the end results. You blame soviets but enjoy the fruits of their actions nevertheless - that is also a fact.
I see the only win here is that England survived, barely…
You may not like the soviet regime, nor do i, but you cannot change facts.
Kiev in 3 days means absolutely nothing today. What matters is that thousands of Ukrainians are dying for a war that did not need to happen. Regardless, the war is on and people are dying… and there are less of Ukrainians than Russians. What kind of win will there be in the end of this war for Ukrainians? Unlikely much of it.
The genocidal war of destruction of Russia against Ukraine did not need to happen ? Of course, you are a Putinboy.
Churcill was not a great statesman: he lost an empire, while England could have watched at Germans and Russians killing each other for nearly 12-15 years...
Yankee are never very clever: even Patton (a smart one) recognized to have fought the "wrong enemy"!
This is history: not Usrr fan base!
No empire is infinite; they all fell at a certain point of history. Even if Britain or Spain are small now, most of the world population speaks English and Spanish. That's because you don't win only by force or killings, but you win by culture and civilisation. And even now Canadians and Australians are King's subjects by their own will. So, what has Britain lost? Regarding the enemy, the didn't pick the wrong one. They fought first against the bigger monster. But there are some weird things in WWII indeed.
"Kiev", oh, clearly you are an ordinary putin lover who jerk on millions losses (mostly Ukrainians and Belarusians) and calling it "victory".
Not true.
In terms of overall casualties (by republic):
Russia SFSR: 13.95 million (7.2 m were civilians)
Ukraine SFSR: 6.85 million (5.2m were civilians)
Belorussian SFSR: 2.29 million (1.67m civilians)
From a population percentage, Belorussia lost most but it was constantly a warzone:
Russia SFSR: 12.7%
Ukraine SFSR: 16.3%
Belorussian SFSR: 25.3%
Lowest percentages were the various Stans (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc) with average of about 7.7% total population loss because the Axis never got that far.
Just because you are pro-Ukraine doesn't mean you should try to rewrite history.
To rewrite history one must know it. Moat commentaries so far show that people know nothing.
Don't mess citizenship and nationality
Lol bro i am from Ukraine. Where are you from?
You are maybe from Ukraine but obviously not Ukrainian. Typical russian scum which write in the internet about himself "soviet immigrant"
What a joke.
Are you Ukrainian by enrnicity?
Do you have Ukrainian Citizenship?
Do you speak Ukrainian?
Wow, we are in Tom's place disussing the topic. Ever heard about organization called Luftwaffe? And that dominance over them allowed allies directly bombing Germany? Was that probably thanks to USSR airplanes, or maybe England did play some "small" role there?
Ever hear of the US? It was their aircraft industry and industry in general that propped both the Brits and Soviets? Without US, both Brits and Soviets would have lost the war.
And I'm not even American before someone tries to play that card.
Without US support and Soviet bodies… Otherwise you are correct indeed.
Sure, England played a role, fought valiantly. I am not belittling their effort and sacrifice, but let’s be real… percentage wise their effort was not massive.
Do you hear about war in Asia? or how many 100s planes were shotdown in 1940-41? If they will attack RU. Or do you know that in same time as Stalingrad 300000 german sodier capitulated in Tunis( mostly to Britain). Just they don't loose so many people it doesn;t not mean they dont do a big job.
LOL. You talk too much, and you want us to believe your fantasies. That's not going to happen. Keep calm and vote for Trump. You will have a surprise.
Historically Russia has broken down under heavy losses at least twice. Russo_Japanese war and WW1. True, it was the same regime, but Russia broke. So while I agree that this is how they fight they are not invincible when they fight. And in WW2 they had heavy western support to enable their victory. So, they have a strategy, but is it effektive enough? We will see.
Except for maybe 1944-45, Russia's army has always been a largely ramshackle useless thing.
It does have a couple of things it has always been able to do well.
1. Ability to rapidly mobilise to replace losses and gain numerical advantages. Does it matter if you've exhausted your forces and smashed 6 Soviet/Russian divisions when they've mobilised another 8?
2. Stubborn defence, even against all odds.
3. Russia's old serf culture means it is able to absorb massive casualties other forces could not. Ironically this culture also makes them inflexible as the army is stratified.
Occasionally they get a decent general but their military educational system doesn't really foster great military leaders. Doesn't help the army is stuck in 1700-21 Great Northern War with all command power concentrated at higher echelon, lower level officers being mere conduits for orders and NCOs being primarily for discipline.
The thing is, all that you’ve listed just doesn’t matter because Russia is not fighting the US, they are fighting a nation that is less and leas interested in fighting back, nation more corrupt than Russia itself… Let’s just say they have some serious existential issues. Oh yeah, I grew up in Ukraine.
To be honest I view Ukraine and Russia as being essentially the same in terms of core values - both corrupt Slavic countries, prone to authoritarianism, with most people unwilling to make changes and societies permanently tainted by the worst aspects of Russian Empire and haunted by influence of Mongol domination up to 1400s.
For all its evil, Communism actually created progress. But now left to their own devices, Russians and Ukrainians revert back to their base cultural instincts.
Oh and I am a Slav too from a country in the Balkans!!
You may be a Slav but you clearly have no clue about history of Russians and Ukrainians. For starters Ukrainians, unlike Russians have never created empire, in fact their political culture with all its flaws has more in common with Cossacks Sich anarchy and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth "noble democracy" than with Russian самодержавие. In consequence unlike Russians, Ukrainians have never let authoritarian politicians to take over the state, and unlike Russians they were able to oppose and overthrow them whenever they tried. For Yugoslavia, that was far away from SU communism may meant some progress but for the rest of us in CEE it was just another form of Russian colonialism. They are not the same just as Serbs and Croats are not the same, just because for couple of hundred years they lived together under one political power.
So far it Is effective. Don’t forget that Russia has not done any actual mobilization.
They have massive reserve of human bodies to throw into this “Special Operation”.
I will say the mobilized quite a lot. What does full mobilization even mean? After all they need someone in the munitions factory, the tank factory etc. they have pulled out quite a few stops, and mobilized several hundred thousands. And Putin obviously doesnt want to mobilze in the big cities. Anyhow, does he have any equipment for all those poor sods if he mobilize them. I think Putin has mobilized as much and hard as he dares.
I agree. Attrition is in fact western doctrine too - except west tries to do it with least casualties on their own side.
True manoeuvre warfare is hard to implement especially against an opponent with similar level of competence. Russians used to have a deep battle concept similar to Blitzkrieg. But they seldom managed to achieve it even in late WW2. There's a handful of examples - Bagration, Manchuria etc.
The modern Russian military seemed to not have any kind of offensive deep battle doctrine before 2022. The Battalion Tactical Group concept was purely defensive (even if they were meant to attack to stall - so called Active Defence). Now you wonder why am I mentioning BTGs when they are tactical?
Well the BTG concept would gut the rest of the brigade's or even division's fighting strength. So you have 1 brigade or even division generating an understrength battalion's worth of combat power.
Even if Russia went into Ukraine following its doctrine, it would have been smashed as the BTGs were weak defensive formations. No amount of artillery and armour would make up for lack of infantry (or reconnaissance or command and control).
Russia's modern military lacks other key components required with offensive as well as effective defensive capabilities - ability to conduct interdiction against key enemy rear formations. Their airforce is too archaic and too wedded to concepts from 1940s. Even with glide bombs they can only hit front lines (yes I know Tom will say "but it's their doctrine", but their doctrine is outdated).
If there was no corruption in the Russian military and they adhered to their outdated essentially WWII doctrine, outcome would have been the same. But Russia is too poor to ever have a 100% or even 40% modern military.
In fact ironically if Russia's military changed its mindset to a western one and stopped being corrupt, the force would shrink to levels too unsustainable to defend it as the country is too poor to be able to afford a modern capable military big enough to defend such a large territory.
Look at US which is in a benign geopolitical environment and much smaller than Russia. Yet it only has 13 active divisions (including USMC) despite spending 3% of GDP on military. If taking into account PPP and Russia's divisions were on par with American ones, the Russians could only afford 2 divisions for a country that is 1.8 times bigger.
Sure they could gut the navy to get more, but the navy is already underfunded and nearly all of its large surface combatants obsolete. They could gut the airforce too but even before 2022 that was in terminal decline (2000 combat jets in 2000, 900 in 2022 and even without Ukraine probably down to 300 by 2040 (Leftovers of Flanker series plus maybe 150-200 Su-57).
Looks like ordinary UA citizens do not know albout 1k orcs killed per day and chosing to flee instead of fighting for "just case":
https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/05/29/ukraines-desperate-draft-dodgers-drown-in-the-river-of-death
Furthermore, last week a UA T-64 and a UA BMP deserted to RU side. ))))
P.S. Some UA deserters that drowned in Tysa river were found with ...firearms wounds (UA borderguards shot at them). The word is that the border with Romania is being mined to stop runaways. Sorry, but it's unthinkable even in Russia.
Thanks again Tom
Sweden is going to deliver ASC 890 plane (if it will happen this year). Is this a game changer or with 5 hours of operational time just a tactical advantage easily hunted by russians?
I am not really knowledgeable enough to know the answer to your question. However following Tom’s writings for some time I think the answer would be: this is not a « wunderwaffe » that will radically transform the war. However it will be probably be useful if integrated properly into Ukraines forces. The reason is simply that wunderwaffe does not really exist, and war is a complex business. I also believe that he would rather Sweden sent a lot if Gripens, but that is of course not only Sweden needing to do. My to cents on this, let’s see what Tom says if he has time.
It helps push that AEW umbrella a bit further eastward as NATO ISTAR/AEW planes can't fly over Ukrainian territory.
If I am not mistaken, at high altitude the Swedish AEW radar has a detection radius of 400 km or so for a typical jet fighter (let's say 300 km for a smaller target like a large missile such as the R-37). It's a given that Russians will want to destroy these aircraft, so I would expect these operating from the southwest region of Ukraine.
Greece has the ERIEYE as well (initially on Saab 340 platform, later on an Embraer regional jet), it's quite useful even if you cannot have 24/7 coverage (with two airplanes, you cannot have continuous coverage beyond 9-10 hours per day).
Thank you Tom. These western restrictions are just infuriating.
Hi Tom. Thank you for the great update. You always try to keep spirits up where possible, which is very supportive.
May i ask a side question about mobilization - topic most civilians have controversial thoughts about.
Do you know a historical cases of what countries in war did good, or bad in this regard? Which laws or actions helped? In particular, the big demand is for the demobilization law and strict time frame one can expect to serve. I doubt it is possible(definitely not easy) with existing resources and capacity to train new soldiers. But many expect kind of justice for those who fight and those who continue living relatively safe and normal life.
.. i remember the final of the great M.A.S.H series - all went home when the war ended.
Thank you.
Slowly over time there was a drawdown of troops but all did not go home when the ceasefire was implemented. (There's been no formal treaty that ended the war).
Here's a generalized list of when the troops of different nations left South Korea. The US 2nd division is still there.
https://www.unc.mil/History/Post-1953-Evolution-of-UNC/
Thank you Donald!
Out of my curriosity Tom , do you have any military combat experience? That could explain a lot to many of us. Many thanks for your work
Tom, thank you. What's the impact of attacking the radar station deep in Russia?
Voronezh(DM)M with range of 6000km is like "eyes" for Tobol EWS aiming to jam GPS/GNSS signals, suppressing Starlinks, influencing Excalibur, HIMARS and other high precise weapons. There are about 10 such long-range Voronezhs in whole Ru, but critical are those in Belorussia, Kaliningrad, StPeresbourgh (damaged), Orenburgh (damaged) and Armavir (damaged). There was also 1 in Prypiat (near Chernobyl, UA) - of course, it is unavailable since 2014.
Secondary (from UA PoV) is to break Ru anti-nucs shield. It makes Ru potentially very sensitive in matters of defense against possible nucs attack - Moscow, StPetersbourgh, whole its European part to Ural mountains is more less open
Did you see any proofs that Voronezh near Orsk was really hit? Mine only saw pictures with spots on the ground that can be anything like puddle after rain
It makes a mess of Russia's nuclear warning system which is bad for all of us as MAD is based on assumption any side can see an attack.
It doesn't help Russia's space based monitoring systems are nearly all out of commission and unable to be replaced. Article about Russian space capabilities here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2024.2330848
Thanks Tom -I agree with others about western restrictions-just ridiculous!
As of May 29th morning 19 people were confirmed as killed and 54 injured in the air strike on the mall in Kharkiv 💔
Thank you for your report!
Thoughts on the AIM-120D? I think you might have talked about it before... I read the F-16's would come with some of those on top of AIM-120B &co.
Still a medium range missile, not long enough to counter the R-37 without some sneaky tactics
"Macron is [...] doing exactly the least to help Ukraine" I don't think this is accurate. France is keeping a low profile. I bet we'll discover the true extend of the french help later, after the war.
Politicians like Macron care only about one single thing : their image and communicating about everything.
They're already bragging all the time about how much they're doing for ukraine (but when factually counting what they sent, it's peanut).
And they're putting a theatrical show about sending their army in Ukraine, despite everyone knowing it's never going to happen.
So there's no way they're doing things secretly/low key, even if they were to send one or 2 more mortar in Ukraine tomorrow, they would be bragging about it for weeks. It's their nature.
Well, France has sent the CAESAR and the SCALP-EG to Ukraine, among other stuff, and these are definitely VERY useful. Maybe it's not necessary to discount Macron's rhetoric so readily?
And "never say never" - there are already discussions about sending French trainers etc to Ukraine.
Yes and that's exactly proving my point. Sending instructors in Ukraine is useless and is just a PR stunt.
Because it's basically taking some risks for doing something can be done already 300 km away in safety in Poland or Romania just to say "we are sending troops to ukraine".
It's just a political/PR move with no real practical benefits
Compare French aid to it's GDP e.g. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/ You have to press "Expand statistics" to find it in the lower half of the table.
Is this monetary donations, military/civil equipment, personnel? What about financial help, loans, etc.? Do these include help via the EU, NATO and other organizations?
In general, the biggest economies of the West can spend lower percentages of their GDP in order to have an impact in absolute numbers.
Help via EU is distributed among EU countries by their GDP. You can find charts with and without EU help and all are similar - France is in the lower half. Compare it to Germany. Simply, Macron talk is cheap.
I am no aware about any "NATO" help. "NATO" does nothing itself - it just coordinates it's member countries.
The detailed tracker is here: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
France's own official estimate is 2.6 bln in military equipment deliveries. The source considers is to be overestimated, but ultimately takes the number. The GDP of France is 2.7 trln. per year. That level of contribution would be about half of the average contribution (in terms of GDP percentage) among NATO countries, but that is difficult to estimate among EU countries as there are different level of contributions, including EU wide funds.
And yet they ARE doing things secretly/low key :-)
If that can make you sleep better at night, I'm glad :)
"Just trust me, broh" :-)
Sweden to delay delivery of JAS-39 Gripen. The jet which can take off and land on a road. The jet which can take on board METEOR missiles with a 200 km range. The jet which designed for the country that can rely only on itself. Impossible stupidity.
Were there any plans to deliver Gripens to Ukraine? I haven't heard of any
Not really plans, but thinking about it.
Sweden said when the country joins NATO they share with Ukraine some Gripens.
Ah, it has escaped my attention.
There's a reasonable explanation for the delay, though:
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/05/29/sweden-pauses-gripen-ukraine/
Thank you
F-16 crews training took about a year or even more (honestly, it's been so long I don't even remember). My guess is, to get Gripens in a year from now, the crews should start training tomorrow. That would be the only good reason for the delay, IMHO.
Some ukrainian pilots already underwent basic training for gripens a while ago.
Yep, but that was just a basic one for pilots. Ground crews need lots of training too.
For experienced pilots with English language knowledge, a year would be the minimum for type training. They would need to 'unlearn' their MiG-29 etc first.
For brand new pilots, two years is the practical minimum training (first in propellers, then trainers, then jets, then tactics and learning their trade). You would want to train them at least three years before you can call them ready for operations.
As a data point, since Hellenic Air Force received their first Rafales (with six veteran pilots in the first wave, who landed these in Greece), it took more than 1.5 years to call the first squadron operational. And that's with six months advance training, with an air force familitar with Dassault Mirages for nearly half a century.
Landing of first six Rafales: 19 Jan. 2022
Declared Final operational capability (FOC) for first squadron: 3 Sept. 2023
I'd like to see jets in the Ukrainian sky in any time: two, five, ten, fifty years. This war will continue for years, we (Ukrainians) should plan for years, not to the end of the current year. I'm ready to argue with anyone that Gripens will be useful. It's a bloody war which turns to hell from time to time and ZSU needs Sweden weapon which designed for independent fight.
It’s been said in Swedish news media that the Gripen-to-Ukraine program has been paused in order to not interfere with the introduktion of the F-16.
On the other hand Zelenskij, who is wisiting Sweden today, has asked Sweden to continue with Gripen preparations/training anyway. He states that Ukraine can handle both in paralell..
The news about BRU-61/GBU-39 integration on Mig-29 is very interesting! Multiple GBU-39 are said to be able to be planned to arrive at a target simultaneously, from several directions. But they navigate with GPS, are they susceptible to jamming?
Seems like the delivering countries of F-16 jets asked Sweden not to deliver Gripens, as it could weaken their logistic for the F-16s. They ,(F-16 deliverers), don´t believe Ukraine can handle two different types of western jets.
It might be true, but Ukraine with partial success can run tanks, howitzers, IFV, APC and other gears. Logistics questions haven't a significant role in the long term. Perhaps a lack of a ground service team in PCU is an obstacle to operate two different jets. I'm not a specialist in the Air Forces.
Ground support is VERY important (and complex) part of operating a jet squadron.
I remember reading that a Eurofighter EF2000 squadron needed 200 people relocating for a squadron in the Baltic states.
So, if we postulate three squadrons of F-16, Ukraine would need to provide 3x200 ground support personnel (and spare parts etc) for supporting operations of these jets. Probably the Gripen requires much less support, but even then Ukraine air force is quite stretched thin.
Maybe you are right, maybe you are not. I used to work on JSC Motor Sich and I knew about plane support. How to serve TV3 117(ТВ3 117) engine and so on. BTW I have friends in "Mig-remont" plant in Zapporizhzhia airport. We were talking about our craft many years ago. Your are mestaken as for me.
I dont doubt your Numbers of an actual transfer of Eurofighters. Whether the Ukrainians will need the same number to operate is another question. I guess if you look closeøy at those Numbers you will find quite a few posts that are Nice to have, not need to have.
I remember these numbers because they made an impression on me, as you can imagine.
Even if the Gripen or the F-16 requires half the amount of personnel, thanks to being a single engined aircraft, it's still a significant investment on specially trained people
Thanks for the update Tom. Good news Ukraine is getting some SAAB 340 AEW&C aircraft as well as RB-99 Air to Air missile. Seems Sweden is really stepping up to save Ukraine.
Thanks Tom
Cannot wait to read future reports about mega-super-ultra-hypervetilated "summer russian BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIGG offensive" by our beloved supersmart-best-ohmygodsooooocompetent media outlets prone to parrot-like repeating best twitter's Pudding fans' bs.
And about all that meaningless and pointless EU-side election-fuelled babbling about "strikes inside Russia": poor children, did you know that is basically just Biden's decision that matter, in such regards? You know, to argue about "strike here, rather than there", you should BRING SOME WEAPONS IN SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS BEFORE!
Pointless political trash talking.
Thank you very much.