Kiev Is Burning

[Roman Alymov]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, and they promised they wouldnt go to Ukraine again. Which they solved, by turning the terrain they were standing on into Russia. Great Success!

 

   I'm sorry but sometimes it seems to be you got some reading problems, so let me repeat from my previous post

"Third, there is some sort of "promise" by General Staff that conscripts (even ones recruited from new regions) will not be sent to "conflict zones" and "new regions" (both are not legally defined) - as result, we have idiotic situation of, for example, boy from Donetsk, who have spent most of his childhood (from 8 to 18) under pro-Ukr shelling, required to be sent somewhere to deep rear when conscripted into Army. At the same time, conscripts on Belgorod or Kursk border are not in "new regions" and not in "conflict zones"  and are facing NATO tanks even without recieving war zone payments."

   As we see, "turning the terrain they were standing on into Russia" have not actually changed anything - except that now conscripts from, for example, Donetsk, who were previously supposed to go to Militia of independent Donetsk Republic and, as result, at least stay in war zone, are now supposed to be sent to other regions of Russia. So there is REDUCTION of potential number of youngsters on frontline, not increase of it.

 

[Roman Alymov]

Artlllery (?) vs. pro-Ukr armor, Kursk region. Note field roads condition: bone-solid with dust. Autumn rains will turn them into mud https://t.me/boris_rozhin/139386

[Stuart Galbraith]

43 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

   I'm sorry but sometimes it seems to be you got some reading problems, so let me repeat from my previous post

"Third, there is some sort of "promise" by General Staff that conscripts (even ones recruited from new regions) will not be sent to "conflict zones" and "new regions" (both are not legally defined) - as result, we have idiotic situation of, for example, boy from Donetsk, who have spent most of his childhood (from 8 to 18) under pro-Ukr shelling, required to be sent somewhere to deep rear when conscripted into Army. At the same time, conscripts on Belgorod or Kursk border are not in "new regions" and not in "conflict zones"  and are facing NATO tanks even without recieving war zone payments."

   As we see, "turning the terrain they were standing on into Russia" have not actually changed anything - except that now conscripts from, for example, Donetsk, who were previously supposed to go to Militia of independent Donetsk Republic and, as result, at least stay in war zone, are now supposed to be sent to other regions of Russia. So there is REDUCTION of potential number of youngsters on frontline, not increase of it.

 

Is not 'new regions' if its 'old Russia'.

[Roman Alymov]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is not 'new regions' if its 'old Russia'.

 

See above, promised limitations are both on "new regions" and "conflict zones".  Actually instead of debating that, you could concentrate on the practice of promoting conscripts to sign contracts  - after that, they are no more "conscripts" but "contract soldiers" (=volunteers) and are not subject of any limitations.  That is why Russian bureoucracy is focused on number of contracts as main KPI.

[Roman Alymov]

Drone video of BMP-2 delivering assault group to Ugledar under MG and ATRM/RPG fire https://t.me/milinfolive/131904

[Yama]

27 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is not 'new regions' if its 'old Russia'.

But wasn't it called 'Novorossija'? I'm confused...

So it seems Russians have captured Verdu...I mean, Vuhledar. Oh well, it only took them 2 years and probably like 30 000 casualties. I'm sure it was totally worth it.

 

[Roman Alymov]

Walk around Bradley IFV wreck still burning somewhere in Kursk/Sumy region, note something boiling in ERA boxes.... https://t.me/infomil_live/10718

[Roman Alymov]

3 minutes ago, Yama said:

But wasn't it called 'Novorossija'? I'm confused...

Novorossia is historic term to address entire region, from XVIII century, for regions reunited with Russian Empire after long wars against Ottomans. For example Novorossysk port and city are also "Novorossia".

[ink]

57 minutes ago, Yama said:

But wasn't it called 'Novorossija'? I'm confused...

So it seems Russians have captured Verdu...I mean, Vuhledar. Oh well, it only took them 2 years and probably like 30 000 casualties. I'm sure it was totally worth it.

 

Or 10 years, if you really want to stretch it!

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

But wasn't it called 'Novorossija'? I'm confused...

So it seems Russians have captured Verdu...I mean, Vuhledar. Oh well, it only took them 2 years and probably like 30 000 casualties. I'm sure it was totally worth it.

 

What was old is new again!

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 minutes ago, ink said:

Or 10 years, if you really want to stretch it!

Or 30 years, looked at another way....

[ink]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Or 30 years, looked at another way....

Now you're starting to sound like Roman 😄

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 minutes ago, ink said:

Now you're starting to sound like Roman 😄

I blame Sir Holford Mackinder myself.

 

[ink]

49 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I blame Sir Holford Mackinder myself.

 

Too right, that guy has a lot to answer for.

[ink]

On 9/16/2024 at 12:27 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Speaking of stuff I heard in the podcasts, there seems to be something of a tactical envelopment underway in Kursk. Russians attacked the Ukrainian left flank, a Ukrainian counteroffensive came over the border and seems to have part enveloped them, with many bridges also being taken out with ATACMS. Hearing this from several different sources, so there is seemingly something in it.

I haven't been following things very closely. Did anything come of this?

[Stuart Galbraith]

The big tactical envelopment failed to come off, just as you predicted. However to the north there was a smaller pocket they did successfully achieve, and managed to kettle a number (unspecified) of members of a Russian Naval Infantry unit. Last I heard the Ukrainians were sitting on their heels, himarsing repeated relief column trying to break through. AFAIK they are still surrounded, the Ukrainians waiting them out.

The lesson seems to be that small envelopments can come off, but with drones and the force ratio, its near impossible to pull off big ones. The Ukrainians just poked off out of Vulevar for example, which might have been a battalion or two in the bag if they stuck around. The Russians seemingly couldnt move fast enough to make it work.

[mandeb48]

4 hours ago, Yama said:

So it seems Russians have captured Verdu...I mean, Vuhledar. Oh well, it only took them 2 years and probably like 30 000 casualties. I'm sure it was totally worth it.

 

Nothing about this war has been worth it in general, but the issue of Vugeldar has a logistical background, although its importance is difficult to quantify. There is a double-track railway that goes from Donetsk to Mauryopol, this was too close to the front to be useful. It passes approximately 20 km from Vuhledar.  To solve this problem Russia built a single-track bypass further south. But if the front moves west/northwest it could improve the possibility of restoring the original railway with greater capacity.

https://t.me/periskop_pacific/5371

On the map: 1 was the front until now
3 is the original railways
4 is the new bypass

Edited Wednesday at 12:56 PM by mandeb48

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The big tactical envelopment failed to come off, just as you predicted. However to the north there was a smaller pocket they did successfully achieve, and managed to kettle a number (unspecified) of members of a Russian Naval Infantry unit. Last I heard the Ukrainians were sitting on their heels, himarsing repeated relief column trying to break through. AFAIK they are still surrounded, the Ukrainians waiting them out.

The lesson seems to be that small envelopments can come off, but with drones and the force ratio, its near impossible to pull off big ones. The Ukrainians just poked off out of Vulevar for example, which might have been a battalion or two in the bag if they stuck around. The Russians seemingly couldnt move fast enough to make it work.

Accordibg to different sources Vuhlevar cost UKR hundreds of pows and only about half that tried breaktrought in the end managed to escape. Not that succeafull defence in the end (they tried to keep it too long).

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, they have been doing that a lot lately. There was one Ukrainian commander who was well regarded (I forget where it was), and he withdrew in good order without waiting for the command to give him orders, and they relieved him. They still dont seem to get over the idea that Bakhmut was a success. I supposed in terms of Russian casualties it was, but not considering it bled the Ukrainians white too.

[MiGG0]

17 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, they have been doing that a lot lately. There was one Ukrainian commander who was well regarded (I forget where it was), and he withdrew in good order without waiting for the command to give him orders, and they relieved him. They still dont seem to get over the idea that Bakhmut was a success. I supposed in terms of Russian casualties it was, but not considering it bled the Ukrainians white too.

That is exactly RUS aim in their attrition war. It does not matter that they lose more. UKR is going to be running out pretty much everything faster than they are.

[Stuart Galbraith]

They will if they stand and fight. Logically the idea should be to move more. But of course to move you need lots more mechanised vehicles, more fuel, more logistics...

I entirely see why the Ukrainians went into Russia, it was the right choice. But it doesnt mean that time is on their side. Something Im increasingly frustrated the Americans are unable to see.

[MiGG0]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They will if they stand and fight. Logically the idea should be to move more. But of course to move you need lots more mechanised vehicles, more fuel, more logistics...

I entirely see why the Ukrainians went into Russia, it was the right choice. But it doesnt mean that time is on their side. Something Im increasingly frustrated the Americans are unable to see.

 

Again, I dont as there is not single strategic success in it (if they would have got as far as Kursk PP, it would be different but currently it just disaster for them). Forces there are now bogged in worse defensive positions and casualties are inflicted to them faster that it would be in Donbass as it is more fortified. Also areas Donbass that they lose faster are far more valuable (mines) even economically. 

Edited Wednesday at 02:31 PM by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont agree that they are in worse positions, and I think anything that has Russia stretching their resources to create units to fill out the line there is clearly worth doing. That said, their strategic picture is clearly deteriorating, there are no two ways about it.

I think next year, we are either going to have to come in on their side, or sit on our hands and watch them start to fall apart. We blew our chance of their deciding a victory on their own.

[MiGG0]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont agree that they are in worse positions, and I think anything that has Russia stretching their resources to create units to fill out the line there is clearly worth doing. That said, their strategic picture is clearly deteriorating, there are no two ways about it.

I think next year, we are either going to have to come in on their side, or sit on our hands and watch them start to fall apart. We blew our chance of their deciding a victory on their own.

In expense that you dont have enough forces elsewhere to even reinforce and rotate units probably? It is only worth if you want to lose faster. UKR Donbass units are really, really close of collapsing totally.

Edited Wednesday at 02:39 PM by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

Doesnt look that way to me. There was a Russian attack yesterday in that area where the Russian forces lost 60 tanks and AFV's and made no gains.