I wondered what could make the day worse, but the world finds ways. I forgot is ECS a radar and how irreplaceable are the losses? By the way do you have any ideas about the drone that is used? Does it also mean that Russian OODA loop decreased significantly and how can Ukrainians prevent such losses in the future?
No specific ideas about the UAV used. Can only guess it was an Orlan or something of that capability and size.
The weather is relatively good, local temps are 2-6°C, so Orlans can operate. Plus, I think this was taken quite close to the frontline (say: 20-40km behind it).
Lets wait a bit: dont forget it could be also well prepared dummies. I cannot imagine a Patriot batalion simply staying fix during a daylight within hit range of Lancets, Smerchs, Iskanders and similar equipment.
No secondary detonations are visible, so launchers are empty? If empty, then what were they waiting for?
Osinters identified it happened 52 km from frontline. And It happened in night time so unfortunately it very likely truth.Moreover, number of machines in column was bigger than number of remnants, so some of them survived Actually only their stationary position can concern but it could be a moment of reallocation, although I would give a few percent for dummies.
Seems that Russia has finally figured out how to track and destroy moving assets. They took out Himars the other day and as they now are back doing air sorties in full swing then it seems at least they think they have somewhat neutralised Ukrainian AA ambush tactics.
If thats true then things are pretty bleak for Ukraine as I dont think they have any air defence assets to spare and whatever ground defenses they are building those really wont matter against 1500kg glide bombs.
Meanwhile Europe is paralyzed by fear over Russian nuclear threats and US has been made dysfunctional.
As history is written by the victors then maybe it will be then Putin The Great and "great gathering of Russian lands" as if they subjugate Ukrain then no one will say nothing when they annex all the rest of Ex Soviet republics. That would give Russia enormous resources and access to healthy central asian demographics (read endless meat wave attack option unlocked).
After that, its a quick tour to Baltics and we are gonna get that WW3 that all the western policymakers did their "best" to avoid by declining arming Ukraine when it mattered.
For a common man in Western world I think its time to start thinking in the terms of how to survive this period as everybody who just picks their noses now will be in the trenches dodging kamikaze drones in a few years time.
Things were pretty bleak for Ukraine already before 24.02.2024, meantime more then two years later Ukraine still fighting, Kyiv didn't fall in 72 hours and russo-fashist hordes didn't capture at least one complete region of Ukraine. So get the __ out of here with your predictions. Thanks in advance.
I very much want to be wrong in here and lets hope I am as if not then you might be reflecting on this before you get blown up by drone in some dugout.
Policymakers who got us into this mess wont be fighting this war, you are.
Americans had launched a war in Iraq and had left it after 10 years. Nato had bombed relative small Srbia and won (not so easy and immediately), than Nato had bombed much bigger Lybia and sucked. Now Nato should have invaded N Yemen, but they are not so excited about it. Poor air def, min amount of fighter jets: just hordes of junkees. Why then?
Big cities could be bombed weeks long without any significant affect on defenders: Aleppo. We will loose more territories, more men, more civilians etc. Umpk and Su34 alone are not able to win the war.
1.) You're mixing the US/UN-vs-Iraq War of 1991 (which is what I'm talking about) with the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 (even then, in 2003, the USA and allies walked-over Iraq within less than two months; what happened afterwards is a different story).
Serbia gave up on Kosovo, in 1999 (after some 90 days of NATO bombardment). Serbia never recovered from that blow (and never recovered Kosovo, either).
And Libya fell after 8 months in 2011: it wasn't NATO's fault that the country screwed up afterwards. Once Q was no more, the UN (read NATO) offered Libya to deploy a peacekeeping force that would've re-formed all the possible militias into a new national army and police: the Libyans flatly refused. They refused because one party of them was bribed by Qatar, the other by UAE. Eventually, that led to the civil war there, too... So, if at all, then NATO is to blame that it respected Libyan decisions.
Air power is - by its sheer nature - an offensive branch. And even if the Russians are never deploying it as more than 'extended range artillery' or 'fire brigade', whenever equipped with any kind of weapons offering 'above average' precision (in comparison to 'dumb bombs') - it's a murderous tool.
If the Russians find a way to ramp-up production and then equip even more of their jets with UMPKs, the ZSU is - really - in deep trouble. Right now, the time is on the Russian side.
Not good News. Russians both smart and lucky is not what we need. The luck element was/is unavoidable, the smart element not. Or maybe that as well. Lets just hope the dire situation galvanizes Europe into action.
Or Gaddafi about that no fly zone back then, without even bombardments of his ground troops - only self defence against those evil tanks and IFVs and infantry that threatened NATO planes by their sheer existence.
Back before the invasion, everyone was saying how Russia's land forces are completely undefeatable and could defeat the entire NATO arsenal. Ukraine has less than 5% of the entire NATO arsenal.
But even those people never ever doubted NATO supremacy in the air - US, UK, Germany, France - each of these countries has sufficient modern air forces on its own to dominate the air.
Sure, Russia has nukes but their usage is tricky. Strategic nukes are a terrorist's weapon - they can destroy cities and cause immense civilian casualties but that's it. They cannot save you against retaliation, even via conventional means. And tactical nukes are too short-ranged so NATO's air superiority can easily neutralize them.
NATO military doctrine is that you don't need anti-air and arty when your airforce can dominate the air. And of course it isn't working in Ukraine since NATO is giving them a few old second-hand jets 2-3 years into the war. Letting Ukraine get destroyed while keeping your guns to yourself is quite cold-hearthed but historically justified in this cutthroat world. But then concluding that you're weak because this didn't work is ridiculous.
Quite frankly, it made much more sense for the west to back down against Hitler during WW2 than to Putin now. Poland was already gone, France had surrendered. And Hitler had no interest in fighting the UK and the US and was eager to make peace with them. By contrast, Putin took 1 small town and now everyone including the pope(!) is losing their shit and talking about surrender.
Forget the "tactical" and "strategic" distinction with regards to nukes - it's a myth. Since counterforce doctrine became dominant, most nukes target other nukes. Cities are left intact as bargaining chips because to take out a city sends a signal of extreme intent. Nukes are all about signaling. Even when used.
If Putin wants to use a nuke, he'll fire an ICBM from a silo, because being in a fixed location nuclear planners know they can be hit and so intend to use them up first in any potential conflict. They're sponges designed to draw enemy shots. This is the function of the US fields in the middle of the country as well as the field China is building now.
Short-range, what people insist on calling"tactical" weapons despite that term saying more about the launcher than warhead, are more vulnerable. Their purpose is to sit in storage unless Moscow feels the need to scare everyone by moving a few around.
You wrote: Meanwhile Europe is paralyzed by fear Iver nucleear threaths… I disagree. Europe isnt behaving smart or effecient, but that is more because of inertia and political idiocy than fear. After two years without nukes that threat Russia issues are ignored. How many red lines have Europe not crissed in the two years. Europe is waking up, but far too alowly. I will Grant you that. And if Russia subjugates Ukraine, which definetly will be a very though job still, Europe will be protecting itself. And we understand we need to do that without the Americans. But yes, we should given more equipment before. And we should do more now.
Whether its fear, political idiocy or mix of both it still leads to the same outcome. As you noted Europe will be protecting itself - and then this protection is no longer weapons for Ukraine but your blood in a direct war.
When Russia stokes conflict lets say in Estonia then Europe only has two options - direct war or retreat. Are you ready to die for Narva?
Russians believe the answer is no and they will test their theory.
No. There are differences in what happens now depending on what was the reasons for delar. Poor politics can be overcome. As can fear. But when we attack policy makers we should remember that they act on input from their voters. Its not only policymakers that dosent see things clearly. As leaders they should, but… Anyhiw, The outcone isnt the same if Europe preparer itself. Willing to die for Narva? I am a Norwegian. We share a border with Russia (due to their imperialisme in WW2). I better be willing to act. Regarding die… I still think the goal of a soldier is to kill the enemy, not die for his country. But of course there are risks entailed in war.
Well, I’m not sure why so much emphasis on the destruction of the A50s (and what’s more it does seem that the one destroyed was the one under repair after being hit in Belarus) If Ukrainian drones can strike at the airports in Russia, better aim for the fighters and bombers.
Removing A-50s is supposed to help Ukrainian MiG-29s and Su-24 approach the combat zone so they can deploy their JDAMs, HAMMERs, and Storm Shadows/SCALP-EGs without getting intercepted by MiG-31s or Su-35s.
A pedantic note: this is not SEAD, but DEAD. Destruction, not supression of air defences. Between this, HIMARS the other day and previous P-18 and NASAMS strikes its obvious the Russians are onto something. Either broken into Ukr secure comms, better, stealthier surveillance drones, covert operatives deep behind lines attaching beacons to vehicles, etc. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
I would say - both. Intensivity means more people are involved in routs, positions, plans etc. ZSU, GenstabU, SBU and even GUR UA are still full or double/tripple/sleeping agents and “usefull idiots”
Unfortunately not: long times SBU department for Russia was in “sleep” mode, from 2010 to 2013 it was completely abolished. After 2014 it was reformed, but docs, contacts etc were lost forever and partially compromised. So, agent network in RU is not so big. But there is large amount of saboteurs, partisans etc sent in Russia during 2014-23. That is potential danger for their industry, bridges, power plants etc. Every day something burns, blows up or gets damaged
When the war just began in 2014, there were many cases of ukrainian generals used to send to enemy valuable combat information against ukrainian soldiers after which ukrainian planes were shot down, getting own troops into enemy encirclements, letting the enemy to go out of ukrainian encirclements, sieged city (Slovjansk) stopping own attacks, offensives before ruzzians carry up heavy armored vehicles and so on. There are still many enemy agents in the government and AFU.
Also, it must be taken into account that the Iskander missile strike cannot be done at once like "saw the enemy on the move and hit it". Iskander has to be deployed, programmed to hit by specified coordinates. All these take much time and cannot be done in an operational level situation. 100% there was a treason of when and where the column will move.
Was thinking about adding 'DEAD', but gave up: would make that sentence/paragraph even more problematic to read. Mind that 90% of readers here really have no idea about 'military jargon'.
And re. 'Russians onto something': thinking they're entirely dumb and can't make anything right in this war is dumb. They can. They've got their stuff together, at least along THIS sector of the frontline (Avdiivka-Shakhtarsk).
Moreover, mind that The only way to protect the ZSU troops along the frontline is to forward deploy Patriots, NASAMS and IRIS-T. When they are as intensively deployed as lately, they're exposing themselves to counter-strikes.
With other words: this simply 'had to happen'. Was unavoidable. Sooner or later.
Honestly biggest blame should go to Biden admin. Drip feeding, limiting weapons deliveries, Russia has gotten plenty of time to adapt to the war. Fellow Democrats dont like hearing this but this is the bitter truth. I dont think it can be said enough just how much he wasted bipartisan Ukrainian support. Its actually been the UK leading the way. They sent the first ATGMs, howitzers, pilot training, ALCMs, etc. We cant spend too much time blaming Republicans when our own Democratic President is too weak and slow to act with conviction, he's part of the problem when we look at the outcome. He's more focused on ensuring a second term than doing whats right.
This is only fair to a small extent. In 2022 it was very much the US leading the way, and you have to realize:
1. All the "experts", to use Tom's format, strongly believed that either Russia would give up soon, or Ukraine would just win automatically - so why pursue (probably unattainable) massive spending committments or, *gasp*, nuclear escalation?
2. There was no material aid that NATO could have provided, under any circumstances, that would have enabled a ZSU that wasn't ready for it to just walk over the Russians in a few months (who apparently would have just obligingly stood still and taken it).
I perceived during the Kupyansk-Izyum offensive already that the correct strategy, in a world where the will existed, would have been for NATO, led by the US, to invest in a years-long program* to completely remodel and reequip the Ukrainian military from top to bottom, synthesizing legacy NATO and Soviet doctrines with the new lessons from the battlefield, while attritting and delaying the VSRF well enough that eventually theater-scale maneuver warfare could be imposed against them.
I will repeat that if the material production game was always going to be a challenge for NATO, then the one thing Russia could never achieve for itself nor acquire from any ally was institutional reform and support to radically enhance organizational quality.
Because Ukraine was never going to win by outproducing or outlasting Russia. If it was going to win at all, it was going to be through comprehensive superiority of soldiery and commanders and administration.
*Granting that the politics for unprecedented multi-year committments were never there, my one dream was for a single Abrams amd division, and maybe a single Leopard mech division, to be accelerated toward deployment for 2023 summer. But even 1.5 years ago, it was already too late.
A massive amount of artillery, ammo and tanks in the very first months could have crushed the Russian army while it was still low on manpower and the Russian military industry did not begin repairing the old equipment and buying the stuff abroad.
"Massive" means several times more than the number of M777 that were received later, and getting enough shells all at once - then there would be no need to supply shells for 2+ years of the war.
"Massive" means achieving strong superiority in artillery over the Russian army.
This is a fantasy. A pile of men and equipment with zero training or organization is not a military, let alone one that could have simply defeated Russia at the time, when it was conducting aggressive offensives. In the very worst case, where NATO countries allowed Ukraine to come collect anything they wanted, Russia would have had defend rather than attack. and mobilize earlier.
Yours is fantasy. That "pile of men and equipment" defended surrounded and heavily bombed Mariupol for months.
Putting Russia into defense on their own territory would be winning the war. And they did not have any strong defense lines prepared in Ukraine save Donbas. And they were short on men, thus after attempts to defend under suppressing artillery fire there'd be too few of them to defend. This is what happens to Ukraine now because now Russia found out how to apply their air superiority in practice.
Unorganized and unequipped soldiers broke the Russian forces under Kyiv.
And if the Russians were as strong as you say, why were not they able to defeat Ukraine in the first weeks of the war? And if they were as strong as you write, why do you state that it was not possible to defeat the entire invading force with some help from the NATO countries?
Actually he is right. That pile of men has done a miracle in the first months, with no wonder weapons available. That was partly because also the Russians, like the whole world, were not expecting Ukrainians to fight like they did. They thought Ukrainians will surrender fast. Just read the stories about the battle for Hostomel and other stories from the beginning of the war and you will understand. Even some Ukrainians said it was pure luck. But it happened. When the first Western weaponry came, it was also a shock for the Russians. But now they adapted. The point is, it was indeed a huge risk for NATO to intervene massively at that moment, for more reasons. So we have what we have. We need to figure out how to win now.
All the experts you and Sullivan listened to. Gen. Breedlove, Gen Hodges, 4 former SACEURs, Gen Petraeus all advocated for sending as much equipment as soon as possible in early 2022 because weapons and tactics evolve during war. I remember Gen Hodges and Gen Petraeus clearly stating this, that the Biden strategy was giving Russians time to adapt, maybe you can mention your experts who are more qualified than the aforementioned Generals. So please do not make up fake statistics, update the people you listen to. Dr Phillip Karber(Former US military) has been saying since 2014 that Ukraine should have received ATGMs and Bradley IFVs a decade ago. His argument was Ukraine could fight the Russians conventionally if we provided the weapons. He said US strategy of preparing for guerrilla war in Ukraine was dumb. Remember Biden admin was still not sure Ukraine was going to push back the Russians which shows how incompetent it is. I was advocating for the US to send HIMARS in Feb 2022 and my fellow Americans were saying they were too advanced, today they say no one knew. But in reality the issue is delusion.
Remember that the main reason for not providing Ukraine with offensive weaponry was the same as the one behind refusing them NATO membership - to avoid "provocation" that would lead to Russia launching an all-out attack. After all, they didn't launch it in 2014, did they? Not having to fight a war trumps winning a war every day.
I had seasoned experts on international politics explain to me that we won't be seeing Russian tanks in Ukraine simply because it would be dumb of them when they have so many other tools to undermine Kyiv and force their will on her. Putin is a businessman, he would understand the restrictive costs of actually fighting even an insurgency. In the end, they were right, no? It really was a dumb move.
As for the all the delays since Feb 2022, those are much harder to excuse. They can be explained (not excused) with a society and their politics that haven't waged en existential war in eighty years, can no longer imagine what it is like, are generally reluctant to take part in it, and are used to adapting to everything very slowly anyway.
Glad we agree on the delays since Feb 2022. As soon as I heard Biden say in Jan 2022 that if Putin invades Ukraine, he's going to face the biggest sanctions ever I knew Biden admin and its Natsec team were clearly incompetent. Then the news came they tried to fly Zelensky out of the country. Like how incompetent could they be. There's so many smart analysts in our government who knew whats right but they're work isnt reaching the top because some lawyers have taken over the national security council.
More accurately, a clique of people who all know each other and are in this quest for power at any costs together. I've been arguing for over two years now that Biden always aimed to sell Ukraine to Putin, his sole aim was to make the cost as high as possible and pretend that there was no alternative to his strategy.
Millions of Americans have fallen for his con. I guess out of desperation as they sense their world falling apart.
Good to know that so long as it's not an "all-out" attack, avoiding escalation is the only way. I'll remember that the next time I want to expand my fence line into the neighbor's yard. Just a few inches isn't worth fighting for, surely.
The excuses people make for the system churning along on autopilot are getting pretty damn thin.
If someone bumps you with a shoulder on the street and doesn't say sorry, will you think him a jerk and go your way, or will you actually kick him in retaliation?
Avoiding escalation is a primeval instinct. Most animals will back down when confronted with aggression, humans included. I'm not commending it in any way, it's just the way it is.
As painful as the Crimea-Donbass grab was for Ukraine, for the West it was more like a shoulder bump. Earlier, when Putin played the same game with Georgia, there was even less of a reaction. When he played it in Chechnya, he even got outside support. In the case of Transnistria, Ukrainians lent Russia a hand as well.
Hitler is best known for the same tactic of moving the fence a few inches at a time. Stalin also did it. Mussolini did it. Lots of leaders did it. It was the foundation of European politics for centuries. It always* works, because people are either lazy, cowardly or disinclined to give a crap about anything, but usually all three.
You grew up in a different place than me, obviously :)
Escalation avoidance is a cultural thing. One ruscists make use of at every opportunity. Westerners are trained to be cowards. It's why they think words matter in and of themselves and aren't simple information exchange tools.
And why you have to expect them to sell you out. They make decent guns though.
Hodges has one of the worst track records of any commentator on this war whatsoever. You might as well listen to Konashenkov.
Whether or not Ukraine should have received more assistance sooner is not relevant to the unsupported and counterfactual claim that it could have used such aid to overwhelm Russia.
Ukraine received HIMARS in June 2022, after training began in May. How absurd and foolish one would have to be to imagine a war-changing difference of pushing that timeline up a month.
1.) Whether or not Ukraine received more assistance on time is 100% relevant to the factual assertion that it could have overwhelmed Russia in 2022(like it did in Kharkive and Kherson and Chernihiv). Ukraine was unable to mount an offensive against the Zaporizhzhia direction for this very reason. Have you been following this war or not? While Ukraine was negotiating for aid in late 2022, Russia was building defences. In the end the only thing Ukraine received in substantial sums was leaking its battle plans to the Russians.
2.)Besides HIMARS, the Biden admin has sent every single weapon systems too late or in insufficient quantities and just after the UK(ATGMs, Western artillery, tanks, CUAS systems, still no cruise missiles, still no pilot training, still no ballistic missiles, etc). How is sending 31 Abrams tanks out of 700 requested, 8 months after Russians have adapted to using FPV drones not relevant to the discussion about whether Ukraine could have overwhelmed Russia? Tanks for example are not as battlefield effective now especially without Western combat aircraft. Yet we were getting rid of 550 tanks that were in the Marines. These tanks would now need significant upgrades in terms of battle field APS systems in order to be combat effective for Ukraine to use due to Russian adaptation to fpv drones for example. We also need to send a lot more breaching equipment because the Russians got enough time to mine the whole south.
3.) You completely misunderstood Hodges. He always said if the US strategy changes from as long as it takes to we want them to win Ukraine could reach Crimea during the summer. And he's 100% right. It can be difficult for a layman to appreciate this because you have no idea how large our military resources here in the US are compared to Europe, Russia and even China. We have a lot of equipment and capacity to produce such equipment/ammunition including meeting all Ukraine's military needs. Hodges has emphasized this over and over again that we should give Ukraine what it needs and on time, for example long range precision systems which we have only done on one occasion for example amongst other things. We have 150 F15s and F16s in storage doing nothing and in great condition. We have 1000s of ATACMs, 10,000s of cruise missiles, thousands of ground artillery systems, capacity to produce millions of artillery shells per year but what we lack is the political will(under Biden) to pivot these resources and adjust production to support Ukraine. This is what Hodges meant when he said Ukraine could reach Crimea by the summer. He's been a bit equivocal(to the layman) at times but he's 100% spot on to people with domain expertise.
Yes, many experts and politics believed Russia would give up soon and they were not so wrong - even Putin hesitated with mobilization because he worried mass protests. And remember Prigozin's uprising? So, it was no so obvious Russian society would accepts so much blood of their sons for the Emperor's glory.
The fail of politics is they have forgotten one basic war rule: hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
I'd say something different. Why Lend-Lease, approved, signed and activated, was never requested by the ukrainians? Biden privileged 3 free-aid programs in which funds go to Pentagon which gives out old stocks to Ukraine and gets new hardware for itself. That's good for US economy. The downside is constant funding approval from Congress.
Lend-Lease doesn't need further approval. Ukraine simply needs to loan what he gets. It is a faster process YET Ukraine NEVER requested it.
Unfortunately, because of the limbo Lend-Lease fell into, it has expired last October by the end of fiscal year 2023
It seems that Biden held the lend-lease for an ace in his sleeve to restrict the Russians from doing something terrible like the widespread use of chemical weapons. I don't think Zelensky had an option to request support - actually Biden did not use up all the allocated free aid funds in 2022 IIRC. And he used to blame Zelensky for being ungrateful.
This is not correct. Biden used revaluation to assert that more funding was available than previously recorded, because aid was not properly valuated. The administration is currently under internal investigation for this 'clever accounting.' At any rate, this $4 billion or whatever it was not touched once the authorized funding ran out as expected by the end of the year. It could still be used, but - then there is no buffer left.
You have a point which requires further examination. We're not certain for the reasons why lend-lease wasnt used but it was a wasted opportunity for sure.
I'm one Obama-Clinton-Biden voter who is so disgusted with the pseudo-religion the party has become I'll never vote Blue ever again. And no, I'm not piling on DEI or complaining about "woke" whatever. Not that a vote in Oregon matters much thanks to the electoral college, but I'm also taking my forever boycott downticket too, and the Dems gerrymandered our town into a swing district the GOP nearly won, so...
And never another dollar to the bastards. Anything I donate goes to Ukraine.
A couple of observations from an retired redleg. First, this was a well done strike. Excellent target location, and as it was in convoy formation it was either getting ready to move, was paused while moving, or had just got there, the RU kill chain was spot on. That had just arrived or paused while moving, that was some solid work by the RU. If it was forming up to move, also a good job, but not as complex as while moving obviously, but the convoy commander screwed up in that you form up and you MOVE. You do not sit around on a road in a line wasting time that could get you spotted. I have to give them credit where its due. I'm not sure I'd call this SEAD though, I always understood SEAD as something done during an air operation (at least that is how we always did it) or prep for an operation, while just hitting the ADA during normal operations was regular targeting using your High Payoff Target list. Minor point though. The other thing is that it appears the UA needs to work on some tactical ADA support for their bigger ADA assets. Orlans are killers, but an Avenger would have knocked it out. The UA needs more anti-recon drone assets on the front line it appears. But it appears they missed the radar and C2 node, so that is good. Might be damaged though. And also, no secondaries as noted below, so that is something.
Agreed. At least the PSU should take care to protect any of such sub-units with 'close-in weapons systems': see, anti-UAV radars, and anti-aircraft weapons with range of 5,000+ metres. One can't send a precious company of MIM-104s into the harms way without anti-UAV-defences.
Iskander should know coordinates of the target. Thus there should be someone observing the target. In that case the observer was an Orlan or a comparable drone.
I'm have some questions about aire attrition. Why the VKS is not employing it's Miga 29 and 35?
What about the thousands of decommisioned and stored Mig-23 and 27? And it's possible to get some old Migs and Su from CIS countries, to refurbish and replenish VKS (por Ucranian), like Kazaks, Kirghiz and Uzbeks? What about Etiopian and Eritrean Migs and Sukois?
It is deploying MiG-35s. Have reported this the last 2-3 days, aleady.
MiG-23s and MiG-27s...? Well, there are people in Russia demanding a re-launch of produciton of Su-17s, too...
Point is: what's left of these airframes is all stored in the open, for 30 years now, and completely ruined.
Ethiopians have only a handful of MiG-23s left (if they haven't replaced them by Su-30s recently acquired from Belarus), while Eritrean MiG-29s and two Su-27 are grounded already since years (the regime has no money to maintain an air force already since the Badme War).
Thanks a lot for tour answer. Thinking about other ex soviet/Russian clients, can't think in any that could spare or resale their own Sukois or Migs to the VKS without compromising their regional security. Maybe Singapur.
Do the J-11 and the Su-27/30 are too different to think about chinese planes being used in the near future by the VKS? Or maybe repurchase the first Russian built Sukois?
And the Su -33 and the Mig 29K of the Kutznetsov? Are there being employed in CAP at least?
Here's a question you probably know the answer to better than me - how technically difficult is it to convert an old airframe to a drone? They do it with targets all the time.
If an airframe can fly once and is otherwise going to be disposed of, there are worse fates than to be used as a decoy. Or flying IED.
That is the worst issue about this loss: there was absolutely no need to bunch up like that. Each battery element should travel on a different route. If a single road is available, they should travel single vehicle at irregular intervals. No need to "form up" like Mike said above. Also when in working mode the launchers, radar, command post can be quite a way away from each other.
Regarding NASAMS which was hit in Zaporizhzhya area. As they have max wiki range about 50km, and real should be 35-40max, what is re reason to keep it near front line? Is ru AF flying so close or it's just for UAV hunting?
The same can be asked why to conduct the offensive attack with best equipment you have in 2023 directly on minefields and most fortified enemy tranches?
Don't understand what Himars are you talking about? There is only one confirmed by video hit of Himars and 1 video at night with absolutely unrecognizable image. I don't know about any Himars hits yesterday, only one 3-4 days ago
Wonder what's the likelyhood Russia has hacked something used by Ukraine's anti-air and arty teams. This increase in precision seems too big otherwise. Let's hope it's indeed something like that and Ukraine manages to adopt countermeasures fast.
I wondered what could make the day worse, but the world finds ways. I forgot is ECS a radar and how irreplaceable are the losses? By the way do you have any ideas about the drone that is used? Does it also mean that Russian OODA loop decreased significantly and how can Ukrainians prevent such losses in the future?
No specific ideas about the UAV used. Can only guess it was an Orlan or something of that capability and size.
The weather is relatively good, local temps are 2-6°C, so Orlans can operate. Plus, I think this was taken quite close to the frontline (say: 20-40km behind it).
Lets wait a bit: dont forget it could be also well prepared dummies. I cannot imagine a Patriot batalion simply staying fix during a daylight within hit range of Lancets, Smerchs, Iskanders and similar equipment.
No secondary detonations are visible, so launchers are empty? If empty, then what were they waiting for?
Questionable as for me…
Osinters identified it happened 52 km from frontline. And It happened in night time so unfortunately it very likely truth.Moreover, number of machines in column was bigger than number of remnants, so some of them survived Actually only their stationary position can concern but it could be a moment of reallocation, although I would give a few percent for dummies.
Seems that Russia has finally figured out how to track and destroy moving assets. They took out Himars the other day and as they now are back doing air sorties in full swing then it seems at least they think they have somewhat neutralised Ukrainian AA ambush tactics.
If thats true then things are pretty bleak for Ukraine as I dont think they have any air defence assets to spare and whatever ground defenses they are building those really wont matter against 1500kg glide bombs.
Meanwhile Europe is paralyzed by fear over Russian nuclear threats and US has been made dysfunctional.
As history is written by the victors then maybe it will be then Putin The Great and "great gathering of Russian lands" as if they subjugate Ukrain then no one will say nothing when they annex all the rest of Ex Soviet republics. That would give Russia enormous resources and access to healthy central asian demographics (read endless meat wave attack option unlocked).
After that, its a quick tour to Baltics and we are gonna get that WW3 that all the western policymakers did their "best" to avoid by declining arming Ukraine when it mattered.
For a common man in Western world I think its time to start thinking in the terms of how to survive this period as everybody who just picks their noses now will be in the trenches dodging kamikaze drones in a few years time.
Things were pretty bleak for Ukraine already before 24.02.2024, meantime more then two years later Ukraine still fighting, Kyiv didn't fall in 72 hours and russo-fashist hordes didn't capture at least one complete region of Ukraine. So get the __ out of here with your predictions. Thanks in advance.
I very much want to be wrong in here and lets hope I am as if not then you might be reflecting on this before you get blown up by drone in some dugout.
Policymakers who got us into this mess wont be fighting this war, you are.
No chance to win a war by FABs or aerial supermacy only. It will make a war more bloody and prolonged, but still not lost.
Well... ask the Iraqis how did they feel after 5 weeks of 'FABs and aerial supremacy only' in 1991...
Or Serbia in 1999
How did it all ended up: bloody ground wars both in ex-Jugoslavia and Iraq? Fragmented areas of control, clashes, insurrections etc.
Of course, Pu doesnt matter it at all, but without motivated ground troops in huge amounts there is no chance to control such territories
You know very well how it ended: the side being bombed had to give up the land they were trying to hold: Kuwait and Kosovo. Apply this to Ukraine now.
Americans had launched a war in Iraq and had left it after 10 years. Nato had bombed relative small Srbia and won (not so easy and immediately), than Nato had bombed much bigger Lybia and sucked. Now Nato should have invaded N Yemen, but they are not so excited about it. Poor air def, min amount of fighter jets: just hordes of junkees. Why then?
Big cities could be bombed weeks long without any significant affect on defenders: Aleppo. We will loose more territories, more men, more civilians etc. Umpk and Su34 alone are not able to win the war.
You're mixing plenty of things here.
1.) You're mixing the US/UN-vs-Iraq War of 1991 (which is what I'm talking about) with the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 (even then, in 2003, the USA and allies walked-over Iraq within less than two months; what happened afterwards is a different story).
Serbia gave up on Kosovo, in 1999 (after some 90 days of NATO bombardment). Serbia never recovered from that blow (and never recovered Kosovo, either).
And Libya fell after 8 months in 2011: it wasn't NATO's fault that the country screwed up afterwards. Once Q was no more, the UN (read NATO) offered Libya to deploy a peacekeeping force that would've re-formed all the possible militias into a new national army and police: the Libyans flatly refused. They refused because one party of them was bribed by Qatar, the other by UAE. Eventually, that led to the civil war there, too... So, if at all, then NATO is to blame that it respected Libyan decisions.
Air power is - by its sheer nature - an offensive branch. And even if the Russians are never deploying it as more than 'extended range artillery' or 'fire brigade', whenever equipped with any kind of weapons offering 'above average' precision (in comparison to 'dumb bombs') - it's a murderous tool.
If the Russians find a way to ramp-up production and then equip even more of their jets with UMPKs, the ZSU is - really - in deep trouble. Right now, the time is on the Russian side.
Not good News. Russians both smart and lucky is not what we need. The luck element was/is unavoidable, the smart element not. Or maybe that as well. Lets just hope the dire situation galvanizes Europe into action.
Or Gaddafi about that no fly zone back then, without even bombardments of his ground troops - only self defence against those evil tanks and IFVs and infantry that threatened NATO planes by their sheer existence.
Nothing was list, just ask him.
Back before the invasion, everyone was saying how Russia's land forces are completely undefeatable and could defeat the entire NATO arsenal. Ukraine has less than 5% of the entire NATO arsenal.
But even those people never ever doubted NATO supremacy in the air - US, UK, Germany, France - each of these countries has sufficient modern air forces on its own to dominate the air.
Sure, Russia has nukes but their usage is tricky. Strategic nukes are a terrorist's weapon - they can destroy cities and cause immense civilian casualties but that's it. They cannot save you against retaliation, even via conventional means. And tactical nukes are too short-ranged so NATO's air superiority can easily neutralize them.
NATO military doctrine is that you don't need anti-air and arty when your airforce can dominate the air. And of course it isn't working in Ukraine since NATO is giving them a few old second-hand jets 2-3 years into the war. Letting Ukraine get destroyed while keeping your guns to yourself is quite cold-hearthed but historically justified in this cutthroat world. But then concluding that you're weak because this didn't work is ridiculous.
Quite frankly, it made much more sense for the west to back down against Hitler during WW2 than to Putin now. Poland was already gone, France had surrendered. And Hitler had no interest in fighting the UK and the US and was eager to make peace with them. By contrast, Putin took 1 small town and now everyone including the pope(!) is losing their shit and talking about surrender.
Forget the "tactical" and "strategic" distinction with regards to nukes - it's a myth. Since counterforce doctrine became dominant, most nukes target other nukes. Cities are left intact as bargaining chips because to take out a city sends a signal of extreme intent. Nukes are all about signaling. Even when used.
If Putin wants to use a nuke, he'll fire an ICBM from a silo, because being in a fixed location nuclear planners know they can be hit and so intend to use them up first in any potential conflict. They're sponges designed to draw enemy shots. This is the function of the US fields in the middle of the country as well as the field China is building now.
Short-range, what people insist on calling"tactical" weapons despite that term saying more about the launcher than warhead, are more vulnerable. Their purpose is to sit in storage unless Moscow feels the need to scare everyone by moving a few around.
Other than that nuance, you're spot on.
You wrote: Meanwhile Europe is paralyzed by fear Iver nucleear threaths… I disagree. Europe isnt behaving smart or effecient, but that is more because of inertia and political idiocy than fear. After two years without nukes that threat Russia issues are ignored. How many red lines have Europe not crissed in the two years. Europe is waking up, but far too alowly. I will Grant you that. And if Russia subjugates Ukraine, which definetly will be a very though job still, Europe will be protecting itself. And we understand we need to do that without the Americans. But yes, we should given more equipment before. And we should do more now.
Whether its fear, political idiocy or mix of both it still leads to the same outcome. As you noted Europe will be protecting itself - and then this protection is no longer weapons for Ukraine but your blood in a direct war.
When Russia stokes conflict lets say in Estonia then Europe only has two options - direct war or retreat. Are you ready to die for Narva?
Russians believe the answer is no and they will test their theory.
No. There are differences in what happens now depending on what was the reasons for delar. Poor politics can be overcome. As can fear. But when we attack policy makers we should remember that they act on input from their voters. Its not only policymakers that dosent see things clearly. As leaders they should, but… Anyhiw, The outcone isnt the same if Europe preparer itself. Willing to die for Narva? I am a Norwegian. We share a border with Russia (due to their imperialisme in WW2). I better be willing to act. Regarding die… I still think the goal of a soldier is to kill the enemy, not die for his country. But of course there are risks entailed in war.
Thanks for so quick an update this is.
If RuZZians are able to track and destroy AA assets, the next weeks can be very hot (in the worse sense for Ukraine).
Well, I’m not sure why so much emphasis on the destruction of the A50s (and what’s more it does seem that the one destroyed was the one under repair after being hit in Belarus) If Ukrainian drones can strike at the airports in Russia, better aim for the fighters and bombers.
Removing A-50s is supposed to help Ukrainian MiG-29s and Su-24 approach the combat zone so they can deploy their JDAMs, HAMMERs, and Storm Shadows/SCALP-EGs without getting intercepted by MiG-31s or Su-35s.
Ukraine has to surrender the Donbas to Russia and ask for a peace treaty. Hopefully Russia should consider if so
How about you fuck off back to the troll farm
Its statements like this I hope Ukraine is working on a Nuclear deterrent.
This is absolutely not your call. Stop giving away other people's land.
A pedantic note: this is not SEAD, but DEAD. Destruction, not supression of air defences. Between this, HIMARS the other day and previous P-18 and NASAMS strikes its obvious the Russians are onto something. Either broken into Ukr secure comms, better, stealthier surveillance drones, covert operatives deep behind lines attaching beacons to vehicles, etc. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
Or Syrsky uses the rare systems more aggressively than Zaluzhny did.
I would say - both. Intensivity means more people are involved in routs, positions, plans etc. ZSU, GenstabU, SBU and even GUR UA are still full or double/tripple/sleeping agents and “usefull idiots”
Same holds for the other side though
Unfortunately not: long times SBU department for Russia was in “sleep” mode, from 2010 to 2013 it was completely abolished. After 2014 it was reformed, but docs, contacts etc were lost forever and partially compromised. So, agent network in RU is not so big. But there is large amount of saboteurs, partisans etc sent in Russia during 2014-23. That is potential danger for their industry, bridges, power plants etc. Every day something burns, blows up or gets damaged
When the war just began in 2014, there were many cases of ukrainian generals used to send to enemy valuable combat information against ukrainian soldiers after which ukrainian planes were shot down, getting own troops into enemy encirclements, letting the enemy to go out of ukrainian encirclements, sieged city (Slovjansk) stopping own attacks, offensives before ruzzians carry up heavy armored vehicles and so on. There are still many enemy agents in the government and AFU.
Also, it must be taken into account that the Iskander missile strike cannot be done at once like "saw the enemy on the move and hit it". Iskander has to be deployed, programmed to hit by specified coordinates. All these take much time and cannot be done in an operational level situation. 100% there was a treason of when and where the column will move.
Was thinking about adding 'DEAD', but gave up: would make that sentence/paragraph even more problematic to read. Mind that 90% of readers here really have no idea about 'military jargon'.
And re. 'Russians onto something': thinking they're entirely dumb and can't make anything right in this war is dumb. They can. They've got their stuff together, at least along THIS sector of the frontline (Avdiivka-Shakhtarsk).
Moreover, mind that The only way to protect the ZSU troops along the frontline is to forward deploy Patriots, NASAMS and IRIS-T. When they are as intensively deployed as lately, they're exposing themselves to counter-strikes.
With other words: this simply 'had to happen'. Was unavoidable. Sooner or later.
We try to learn the jargon, but yes you have a point. (For us 90 percenters…)
This is why modern aircraft are so important (be it F-16 or other type), they could leave danger zone much quicker.
Thanks Tom 1 st half of the report not very good last parts is encouraging , could some of these loses be to different tactics of the new CiC
Honestly biggest blame should go to Biden admin. Drip feeding, limiting weapons deliveries, Russia has gotten plenty of time to adapt to the war. Fellow Democrats dont like hearing this but this is the bitter truth. I dont think it can be said enough just how much he wasted bipartisan Ukrainian support. Its actually been the UK leading the way. They sent the first ATGMs, howitzers, pilot training, ALCMs, etc. We cant spend too much time blaming Republicans when our own Democratic President is too weak and slow to act with conviction, he's part of the problem when we look at the outcome. He's more focused on ensuring a second term than doing whats right.
Exactly. The actual problem is that there are far too few of modern Western SAMs around.
That's not on Ukrainians to blame.
This is only fair to a small extent. In 2022 it was very much the US leading the way, and you have to realize:
1. All the "experts", to use Tom's format, strongly believed that either Russia would give up soon, or Ukraine would just win automatically - so why pursue (probably unattainable) massive spending committments or, *gasp*, nuclear escalation?
2. There was no material aid that NATO could have provided, under any circumstances, that would have enabled a ZSU that wasn't ready for it to just walk over the Russians in a few months (who apparently would have just obligingly stood still and taken it).
I perceived during the Kupyansk-Izyum offensive already that the correct strategy, in a world where the will existed, would have been for NATO, led by the US, to invest in a years-long program* to completely remodel and reequip the Ukrainian military from top to bottom, synthesizing legacy NATO and Soviet doctrines with the new lessons from the battlefield, while attritting and delaying the VSRF well enough that eventually theater-scale maneuver warfare could be imposed against them.
I will repeat that if the material production game was always going to be a challenge for NATO, then the one thing Russia could never achieve for itself nor acquire from any ally was institutional reform and support to radically enhance organizational quality.
Because Ukraine was never going to win by outproducing or outlasting Russia. If it was going to win at all, it was going to be through comprehensive superiority of soldiery and commanders and administration.
*Granting that the politics for unprecedented multi-year committments were never there, my one dream was for a single Abrams amd division, and maybe a single Leopard mech division, to be accelerated toward deployment for 2023 summer. But even 1.5 years ago, it was already too late.
A massive amount of artillery, ammo and tanks in the very first months could have crushed the Russian army while it was still low on manpower and the Russian military industry did not begin repairing the old equipment and buying the stuff abroad.
What do you mean by massive ? Some numbers ? Ukraine already had a massive amount of artillery and tanks at the start of the invasion.
Not anywhere comparable to the Russian.
"Massive" means several times more than the number of M777 that were received later, and getting enough shells all at once - then there would be no need to supply shells for 2+ years of the war.
"Massive" means achieving strong superiority in artillery over the Russian army.
Whole Europe combined cannot compete with the Russians in number of tanks and arty pieces.
Whole Europe combined never tried.
And the Russian army was much smaller in the first months - they had none to put into their tanks and near their artillery.
This is a fantasy. A pile of men and equipment with zero training or organization is not a military, let alone one that could have simply defeated Russia at the time, when it was conducting aggressive offensives. In the very worst case, where NATO countries allowed Ukraine to come collect anything they wanted, Russia would have had defend rather than attack. and mobilize earlier.
Yours is fantasy. That "pile of men and equipment" defended surrounded and heavily bombed Mariupol for months.
Putting Russia into defense on their own territory would be winning the war. And they did not have any strong defense lines prepared in Ukraine save Donbas. And they were short on men, thus after attempts to defend under suppressing artillery fire there'd be too few of them to defend. This is what happens to Ukraine now because now Russia found out how to apply their air superiority in practice.
Those were soldiers already organized and equipped. The West doesn't have dragons' teeth of Greek myth for you to sow.
Unorganized and unequipped soldiers broke the Russian forces under Kyiv.
And if the Russians were as strong as you say, why were not they able to defeat Ukraine in the first weeks of the war? And if they were as strong as you write, why do you state that it was not possible to defeat the entire invading force with some help from the NATO countries?
Actually he is right. That pile of men has done a miracle in the first months, with no wonder weapons available. That was partly because also the Russians, like the whole world, were not expecting Ukrainians to fight like they did. They thought Ukrainians will surrender fast. Just read the stories about the battle for Hostomel and other stories from the beginning of the war and you will understand. Even some Ukrainians said it was pure luck. But it happened. When the first Western weaponry came, it was also a shock for the Russians. But now they adapted. The point is, it was indeed a huge risk for NATO to intervene massively at that moment, for more reasons. So we have what we have. We need to figure out how to win now.
All the experts you and Sullivan listened to. Gen. Breedlove, Gen Hodges, 4 former SACEURs, Gen Petraeus all advocated for sending as much equipment as soon as possible in early 2022 because weapons and tactics evolve during war. I remember Gen Hodges and Gen Petraeus clearly stating this, that the Biden strategy was giving Russians time to adapt, maybe you can mention your experts who are more qualified than the aforementioned Generals. So please do not make up fake statistics, update the people you listen to. Dr Phillip Karber(Former US military) has been saying since 2014 that Ukraine should have received ATGMs and Bradley IFVs a decade ago. His argument was Ukraine could fight the Russians conventionally if we provided the weapons. He said US strategy of preparing for guerrilla war in Ukraine was dumb. Remember Biden admin was still not sure Ukraine was going to push back the Russians which shows how incompetent it is. I was advocating for the US to send HIMARS in Feb 2022 and my fellow Americans were saying they were too advanced, today they say no one knew. But in reality the issue is delusion.
Remember that the main reason for not providing Ukraine with offensive weaponry was the same as the one behind refusing them NATO membership - to avoid "provocation" that would lead to Russia launching an all-out attack. After all, they didn't launch it in 2014, did they? Not having to fight a war trumps winning a war every day.
I had seasoned experts on international politics explain to me that we won't be seeing Russian tanks in Ukraine simply because it would be dumb of them when they have so many other tools to undermine Kyiv and force their will on her. Putin is a businessman, he would understand the restrictive costs of actually fighting even an insurgency. In the end, they were right, no? It really was a dumb move.
As for the all the delays since Feb 2022, those are much harder to excuse. They can be explained (not excused) with a society and their politics that haven't waged en existential war in eighty years, can no longer imagine what it is like, are generally reluctant to take part in it, and are used to adapting to everything very slowly anyway.
Glad we agree on the delays since Feb 2022. As soon as I heard Biden say in Jan 2022 that if Putin invades Ukraine, he's going to face the biggest sanctions ever I knew Biden admin and its Natsec team were clearly incompetent. Then the news came they tried to fly Zelensky out of the country. Like how incompetent could they be. There's so many smart analysts in our government who knew whats right but they're work isnt reaching the top because some lawyers have taken over the national security council.
More accurately, a clique of people who all know each other and are in this quest for power at any costs together. I've been arguing for over two years now that Biden always aimed to sell Ukraine to Putin, his sole aim was to make the cost as high as possible and pretend that there was no alternative to his strategy.
Millions of Americans have fallen for his con. I guess out of desperation as they sense their world falling apart.
Good to know that so long as it's not an "all-out" attack, avoiding escalation is the only way. I'll remember that the next time I want to expand my fence line into the neighbor's yard. Just a few inches isn't worth fighting for, surely.
The excuses people make for the system churning along on autopilot are getting pretty damn thin.
If someone bumps you with a shoulder on the street and doesn't say sorry, will you think him a jerk and go your way, or will you actually kick him in retaliation?
Avoiding escalation is a primeval instinct. Most animals will back down when confronted with aggression, humans included. I'm not commending it in any way, it's just the way it is.
As painful as the Crimea-Donbass grab was for Ukraine, for the West it was more like a shoulder bump. Earlier, when Putin played the same game with Georgia, there was even less of a reaction. When he played it in Chechnya, he even got outside support. In the case of Transnistria, Ukrainians lent Russia a hand as well.
Hitler is best known for the same tactic of moving the fence a few inches at a time. Stalin also did it. Mussolini did it. Lots of leaders did it. It was the foundation of European politics for centuries. It always* works, because people are either lazy, cowardly or disinclined to give a crap about anything, but usually all three.
* almost always
You grew up in a different place than me, obviously :)
Escalation avoidance is a cultural thing. One ruscists make use of at every opportunity. Westerners are trained to be cowards. It's why they think words matter in and of themselves and aren't simple information exchange tools.
And why you have to expect them to sell you out. They make decent guns though.
Hodges has one of the worst track records of any commentator on this war whatsoever. You might as well listen to Konashenkov.
Whether or not Ukraine should have received more assistance sooner is not relevant to the unsupported and counterfactual claim that it could have used such aid to overwhelm Russia.
Ukraine received HIMARS in June 2022, after training began in May. How absurd and foolish one would have to be to imagine a war-changing difference of pushing that timeline up a month.
1.) Whether or not Ukraine received more assistance on time is 100% relevant to the factual assertion that it could have overwhelmed Russia in 2022(like it did in Kharkive and Kherson and Chernihiv). Ukraine was unable to mount an offensive against the Zaporizhzhia direction for this very reason. Have you been following this war or not? While Ukraine was negotiating for aid in late 2022, Russia was building defences. In the end the only thing Ukraine received in substantial sums was leaking its battle plans to the Russians.
2.)Besides HIMARS, the Biden admin has sent every single weapon systems too late or in insufficient quantities and just after the UK(ATGMs, Western artillery, tanks, CUAS systems, still no cruise missiles, still no pilot training, still no ballistic missiles, etc). How is sending 31 Abrams tanks out of 700 requested, 8 months after Russians have adapted to using FPV drones not relevant to the discussion about whether Ukraine could have overwhelmed Russia? Tanks for example are not as battlefield effective now especially without Western combat aircraft. Yet we were getting rid of 550 tanks that were in the Marines. These tanks would now need significant upgrades in terms of battle field APS systems in order to be combat effective for Ukraine to use due to Russian adaptation to fpv drones for example. We also need to send a lot more breaching equipment because the Russians got enough time to mine the whole south.
3.) You completely misunderstood Hodges. He always said if the US strategy changes from as long as it takes to we want them to win Ukraine could reach Crimea during the summer. And he's 100% right. It can be difficult for a layman to appreciate this because you have no idea how large our military resources here in the US are compared to Europe, Russia and even China. We have a lot of equipment and capacity to produce such equipment/ammunition including meeting all Ukraine's military needs. Hodges has emphasized this over and over again that we should give Ukraine what it needs and on time, for example long range precision systems which we have only done on one occasion for example amongst other things. We have 150 F15s and F16s in storage doing nothing and in great condition. We have 1000s of ATACMs, 10,000s of cruise missiles, thousands of ground artillery systems, capacity to produce millions of artillery shells per year but what we lack is the political will(under Biden) to pivot these resources and adjust production to support Ukraine. This is what Hodges meant when he said Ukraine could reach Crimea by the summer. He's been a bit equivocal(to the layman) at times but he's 100% spot on to people with domain expertise.
Yes, many experts and politics believed Russia would give up soon and they were not so wrong - even Putin hesitated with mobilization because he worried mass protests. And remember Prigozin's uprising? So, it was no so obvious Russian society would accepts so much blood of their sons for the Emperor's glory.
The fail of politics is they have forgotten one basic war rule: hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Exactly, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
I'd say something different. Why Lend-Lease, approved, signed and activated, was never requested by the ukrainians? Biden privileged 3 free-aid programs in which funds go to Pentagon which gives out old stocks to Ukraine and gets new hardware for itself. That's good for US economy. The downside is constant funding approval from Congress.
Lend-Lease doesn't need further approval. Ukraine simply needs to loan what he gets. It is a faster process YET Ukraine NEVER requested it.
Unfortunately, because of the limbo Lend-Lease fell into, it has expired last October by the end of fiscal year 2023
probably because Ukraine drank the Kool-Aid of the successes of 2022 and expected a quick win over Russia?
It seems that Biden held the lend-lease for an ace in his sleeve to restrict the Russians from doing something terrible like the widespread use of chemical weapons. I don't think Zelensky had an option to request support - actually Biden did not use up all the allocated free aid funds in 2022 IIRC. And he used to blame Zelensky for being ungrateful.
This is not correct. Biden used revaluation to assert that more funding was available than previously recorded, because aid was not properly valuated. The administration is currently under internal investigation for this 'clever accounting.' At any rate, this $4 billion or whatever it was not touched once the authorized funding ran out as expected by the end of the year. It could still be used, but - then there is no buffer left.
Was the revaluation done in 2022 or 2023?
You have a point which requires further examination. We're not certain for the reasons why lend-lease wasnt used but it was a wasted opportunity for sure.
No only Biden, but it's a big fail of EU too. EU has a potential to support Ukraine well itself.
Second this!
I'm one Obama-Clinton-Biden voter who is so disgusted with the pseudo-religion the party has become I'll never vote Blue ever again. And no, I'm not piling on DEI or complaining about "woke" whatever. Not that a vote in Oregon matters much thanks to the electoral college, but I'm also taking my forever boycott downticket too, and the Dems gerrymandered our town into a swing district the GOP nearly won, so...
And never another dollar to the bastards. Anything I donate goes to Ukraine.
A couple of observations from an retired redleg. First, this was a well done strike. Excellent target location, and as it was in convoy formation it was either getting ready to move, was paused while moving, or had just got there, the RU kill chain was spot on. That had just arrived or paused while moving, that was some solid work by the RU. If it was forming up to move, also a good job, but not as complex as while moving obviously, but the convoy commander screwed up in that you form up and you MOVE. You do not sit around on a road in a line wasting time that could get you spotted. I have to give them credit where its due. I'm not sure I'd call this SEAD though, I always understood SEAD as something done during an air operation (at least that is how we always did it) or prep for an operation, while just hitting the ADA during normal operations was regular targeting using your High Payoff Target list. Minor point though. The other thing is that it appears the UA needs to work on some tactical ADA support for their bigger ADA assets. Orlans are killers, but an Avenger would have knocked it out. The UA needs more anti-recon drone assets on the front line it appears. But it appears they missed the radar and C2 node, so that is good. Might be damaged though. And also, no secondaries as noted below, so that is something.
Agreed. At least the PSU should take care to protect any of such sub-units with 'close-in weapons systems': see, anti-UAV radars, and anti-aircraft weapons with range of 5,000+ metres. One can't send a precious company of MIM-104s into the harms way without anti-UAV-defences.
Don't you believe it was hit by Iskander ballistic missile?
Iskander should know coordinates of the target. Thus there should be someone observing the target. In that case the observer was an Orlan or a comparable drone.
Thank you.
Thanks Tom.
I'm have some questions about aire attrition. Why the VKS is not employing it's Miga 29 and 35?
What about the thousands of decommisioned and stored Mig-23 and 27? And it's possible to get some old Migs and Su from CIS countries, to refurbish and replenish VKS (por Ucranian), like Kazaks, Kirghiz and Uzbeks? What about Etiopian and Eritrean Migs and Sukois?
It is deploying MiG-35s. Have reported this the last 2-3 days, aleady.
MiG-23s and MiG-27s...? Well, there are people in Russia demanding a re-launch of produciton of Su-17s, too...
Point is: what's left of these airframes is all stored in the open, for 30 years now, and completely ruined.
Ethiopians have only a handful of MiG-23s left (if they haven't replaced them by Su-30s recently acquired from Belarus), while Eritrean MiG-29s and two Su-27 are grounded already since years (the regime has no money to maintain an air force already since the Badme War).
Thanks a lot for tour answer. Thinking about other ex soviet/Russian clients, can't think in any that could spare or resale their own Sukois or Migs to the VKS without compromising their regional security. Maybe Singapur.
Do the J-11 and the Su-27/30 are too different to think about chinese planes being used in the near future by the VKS? Or maybe repurchase the first Russian built Sukois?
And the Su -33 and the Mig 29K of the Kutznetsov? Are there being employed in CAP at least?
Also, MiG-23 pilots are tricky to find these days in Russia
Here's a question you probably know the answer to better than me - how technically difficult is it to convert an old airframe to a drone? They do it with targets all the time.
If an airframe can fly once and is otherwise going to be disposed of, there are worse fates than to be used as a decoy. Or flying IED.
Does it make any sense to deploy multiple launchers in an ambush?
That is the worst issue about this loss: there was absolutely no need to bunch up like that. Each battery element should travel on a different route. If a single road is available, they should travel single vehicle at irregular intervals. No need to "form up" like Mike said above. Also when in working mode the launchers, radar, command post can be quite a way away from each other.
Regarding NASAMS which was hit in Zaporizhzhya area. As they have max wiki range about 50km, and real should be 35-40max, what is re reason to keep it near front line? Is ru AF flying so close or it's just for UAV hunting?
More like 30 km max for ground launched AMRAAM
The same can be asked why to conduct the offensive attack with best equipment you have in 2023 directly on minefields and most fortified enemy tranches?
1. Why are they driving in a column?
2. Himars Yesterday and Patriot today , seems like Ru have figured out something.
Don't understand what Himars are you talking about? There is only one confirmed by video hit of Himars and 1 video at night with absolutely unrecognizable image. I don't know about any Himars hits yesterday, only one 3-4 days ago
What do you expect from ruzzian in a command?
Wonder what's the likelyhood Russia has hacked something used by Ukraine's anti-air and arty teams. This increase in precision seems too big otherwise. Let's hope it's indeed something like that and Ukraine manages to adopt countermeasures fast.
They just got rid of those very old A50 and started to rely on spy drones and satellite imagery.
Whether you like it or not Russia is turning the tide of the war in its favor
И что нам с этим делать?