Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Jacob]

In my view, the Russian victory conditions are twofold:

• To harm Ukraine sufficiently that other countries - and Russia itself - sees Russia as a big power that can impose its will on recalcitrant states within the Russia defined "Russkiy Mir".
• To inflict systemic shocks on the Western world such that its political coherence and mutual trust is splintered and its scope for political and military action to contain totalitarian states (especially Russia) is significantly weakened (this is not solely an aim of the attack on Ukraine, but a goal in the broader conflict with the West which the Ukraine War is part of).

In my view, I think there are still paths for Russia to achieve those objectives.

On the other hand, Russia is paying a significant price for its current actions. Whether that price ends up being worth it depends both on how thoroughly it achieves its goals (or not), and how well it recovers from the consequences. I think Russia is paying a fairly high price at the moment, but I'm unclear on the longer consequences.

[Josquius]

But we can read newspapers and discuss what is being reported by those who have a better idea of what is happening than us.

For sure, and I for one appreciate it when folks post new perspectives and/or summaries of in-depth analysis that I haven't read myself.

That said, I myself haven't read anything that indicates an imminent Ukrainian collapse; and my understanding is that some of the Western materiel has begun arriving and should continue to arrive over the next months (including the first F16s, hopefully).

Ukraine isn't going to collapse. As in the front isn't going to suddenly cave and Russia overwhelm the whole country.
But it is a very real concern that their will to keep fighting could be waning. Everyone who wants to fight has already signed up. To a youngster in Kyiv does the fate of a group of pensioners and Russophiles in Donetsk really matter?
Certainly in their situation I'd be in no rush to sign up to be front line infantry. Why die when you don't have to no matter what you think of the politics. Just how bad do they believe letting Russia would win be?- it seems not great enough to be worth this ultimate sacrifice.

The F16s need to come asap. Both for their practical use and the morale boost they'll bring. The west also really needs to step up the rate of rearming. I've heard the analogy at current is like trying to fill a bucket with 6 cups of water at a time when someone else is taking out 7; better than the previous situation where they only had 1 coming in, but still a loss.

The salient questions in my view are:

When does the current Russian attack culminate, and how far will it get before it does?

I've heard on the one hand this is them throwing everything they can at Ukraine before the American aid really makes an impact. On the other I've also heard a big summer offensive is to be expected.

How impactful will the Western support incoming this summer and fall be (including new US support)?
How will the outcome of the US election and various European elections impact future support for Ukraine?

The US election will be huge. I can guarantee on the front lines of both sides you'll have people watching the results and cheering if their candidate wins (the colours neatly matching the way the sides are usually mapped).
If Trump does win....that would shatter Ukraine.

[Tamas]

On the other hand if we indulge in pure propaganda for the sake of morale how then can there be a discussion within democratic societies which points to the woeful levels of support being given to obtain the objective of the propaganda.

That's a valid point of course.

But still, we should not be talking about an assured/imminent Ukrainian defeat right after any tactical (I don't think we can confirm there's even an operational breakthrough yet) success by Russia.

[crazy canuck]

On the other hand if we indulge in pure propaganda for the sake of morale how then can there be a discussion within democratic societies which points to the woeful levels of support being given to obtain the objective of the propaganda.

That's a valid point of course.

But still, we should not be talking about an assured/imminent Ukrainian defeat right after any tactical (I don't think we can confirm there's even an operational breakthrough yet) success by Russia.

Who has talked about an assured Russian victory.l?  No one has claimed that.  But lots of folks here are claiming that there is no chance of it occurring which seems foolhardy to me.  And more to the point if extended to our political leaders, very counter productive.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/13/world/europe/ukraine-missile-defenses.html?unlocked_article_code=1.s00.5Piz.nuMP6jvhPZlR&smid=url-share


An analysis by the NYTimes regarding the increasing success of Russian missile strikes.  The Russians have improved their tactics but the biggest problem is the Ukrainians have simply run out of patriot and other air defence missiles and so just have to watch as the Russians hit their targets.

[jimmy olsen]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/13/world/europe/ukraine-missile-defenses.html?unlocked_article_code=1.s00.5Piz.nuMP6jvhPZlR&smid=url-share


An analysis by the NYTimes regarding the increasing success of Russian missile strikes.  The Russians have improved their tactics but the biggest problem is the Ukrainians have simply run out of patriot and other air defence missiles and so just have to watch as the Russians hit their targets.

How much, if any, of that $60 billion aid package was air defense missiles?

[crazy canuck]

Read the article, it addresses when the aid is expected to have an effect.

That's why I posted it

[Zoupa]

This is not going to end in either a russian victory or WW3. That is exactly the narrative the kremlin has been pushing for the past 10 years and it's sad to see it has convinced some of you.

To get down to the bone of the matter, we need the US to supply artillery ammunition until european production has finished ramping up. It will outpace russian production by the end of 2025. That's it. That's the heart of the matter.

[crazy canuck]

This is not going to end in either a russian victory or WW3. That is exactly the narrative the kremlin has been pushing for the past 10 years and it's sad to see it has convinced some of you.

To get down to the bone of the matter, we need the US to supply artillery ammunition until european production has finished ramping up. It will outpace russian production by the end of 2025. That's it. That's the heart of the matter.

And if that happens the Russians won't win.  If.

It's sad to see some of you think it is all a foregone conclusion and there is no need to talk about the fact it is not happening now.

[Josquius]

Hopefully Ukraine will survive, get it's manpower trouble sorted, properly build up its ammo stocks, etc...
I do think they will.

But it's daft to refuse to recognise that this isn't a certainty and it will take active effort from them and the west to get to this.
It is very possible that Russia seizes more land and the conflict ends with Russia owning a chunk of Ukraine.

The American election in particular is a huge risk that will change everything. A trump win wouldn't be automatically damning for Ukraine, but it would mean Europe would have to a seriously kick on to a level that is hard to imagine at current.

[Josquius]

From my usual semi reliable source things sound like they're OK with Kharkiv afterall.

MILITARY & STRATEGIC:
KHARKIV: RUSSIANS HELD

After advancing around 8km into Ukraine the Russians have largely been held back. This is a combination of reserves, defence lines, sufficient depth to be able to fire at them with the weapons provided under the terms of use rules enforced by donors, and the rapid relocation of the elite 47th and 93rd brigades.
The Russians have taken about half of Voschansk on the right side of the river and have reached the outskirts of Liptsy on the left side. Liptsy matters because it's a point on the main Kharkiv road from Russia that they can use for most artillery to shell the city. As they seem obsessed with raising in to the ground this is their prime target.
During the initial attack the Ukrainian Border Guards - small groups intended to identify the attackers and assess their strength, before retreating to the first defence line, managed to hold their positions for as long as 8 hours, providing invaluable intelligence and a major nuisance to the Russian advance.
This may have allowed the Russians to take the first four villages, but the defence plan was always to sacrifice these - there was no viable way to defend them.
The border guards fight was exceptional and they outperformed everyone's expectations - true heroes. The vast majority successfully reached the first line of defence in front of Liptsy having bought valuable time.
Drone operators of the 42nd Brigade once again showed their incredible expertise as they smashed up wave after wave of Russian armour - the Russians making it easier by following the same attack route time after time as they always do. There is a mass of video evidence showing their success.
The Russians are still held up at the initial defence line that was designed to hold them back for Ukrainian reserves to reach the First Defence Line which is still 3km south, which tells you something about how tenaciously the Ukrainians are fighting the orcs. You can't help but get the feeling the Russians expected this to be much easier and quicker. They certainly tried to use a more combined forces type approach to this attack. Instead it's become much slower and more of a slog than they planned for.
Russian advance infantry forces that reached Liptsy were quickly mopped up and many surrendered.
The Vovchansk front had the same plan as Liptsy. The first border villages could not be held and a fighting withdrawal became necessary. Vovchansk however is much closer to the border and it was inevitable with the weight of Russian forces pressing here, they got into the town.
Another issue for the defenders was the open fields here left nowhere to hide and there was open ground everywhere with no defensive positions.
This meant they had to pull back - but they also had the same problem with being able to fire at Russians only on Ukrainian territory. For that you need space.
Yet again the border guards performed an extraordinary fighting retreat keeping the Russians out of the town for as long as they could while reinforcements arrived.
The main defence line here is not in the northern part of the city, but south of the centre on the southern banks of the river Vovcha.
It's taken the Russians a week to move just 3.5km and they're nowhere near taking Vovchansk. They're facing mobile and flexible defences that make their lives a misery, despite the fact they have unlimited air support from glide bombs.
The trouble is the gliders only work on fixed positions and the Ukrainians are keeping themselves mobile to harass the attackers.
Still the big issue remains not being able to hit Russian supplies and reinforcements over the border.
Anthony Blinken, US Secretary of State sort of implied that the Americans weren't stopping the Ukrainians from doing what was needed, using the phrase 'it's
Ukraine's decision on how to prosecute the war'. Was that permission or wasn't it? Nobody knew. The State Department spokesperson when asked said 'there's been no change to the United States position'. So we still don't know and assume the use of weapons over the border is a no-go.
CONTINUED...

CONTINUES....
With a week now past we have a much better picture of what the Russians are doing and how it's going.
We also have encouraging signs that Ukrainian forces everywhere are getting the ammunition they need. Several low key comments and images indicate the 155mm shells are flowing as are the small arms rounds.
Cluster munitions may be vile as a concept but they have been massively effective in this war where Russia has such a huge manpower advantage.
Overall a brave and intense defence by Ukraine that has shown consummate skill and courage - and frankly a great deal of very effective and well communicated staff level planning.
Things don't go as well as this has for the defenders without rigorous staff work and everyone knowing what was meant to happen. The problems were always about how much land to give to defend successfully given the geography, the weight of attack, and the restrictions on where they could fire. A week into this and I think Ukraine has a lot to be proud of.
The question is what will the Russians do with the troops stationed further around the border in Kursk?

Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦!

[Jacob]

That's an encouraging picture.

What's the source?

[Jacob]

As always, I find Anders Puck-Nielsen worth watching on this:

It does seem like there was a bit of a media panic over "tactically significant results".

[Josquius]

That's an encouraging picture.

What's the source?

Just a British guy on telegram who regularly posts about military stuff.
I can't get a read on exactly who he is. Some vibes he's a nobody cos playing as some kind of military big shot.
But he seems to do enough research and have enough actual news to follow anyway.

https://t.me/militarystrategyanalysis


I do get vibes the media might have taken the big Russian advances, which were gifted giving defending the border was impractical, as more than they were.
Hadn't heard the bit on the border force fighting retreat though which is great. And Russia not even reaching the actual defensive lines yet - I saw this on the BBC the other night too, though there the vibe was more they were built in the wrong place.
Certainly this major town Russia had taken half of - it just makes sense to defend behind the river that runs through it.

[crazy canuck]

As always, I find Anders Puck-Nielsen worth watching on this:

It does seem like there was a bit of a media panic over "tactically significant results".

I see no evidence that reporters at the NYTimes don't understand what tactically significant results means.  His claim that there is a lack of knowledge is based, he says, on one conversation he says he had with one reporter.

Please start reading newspapers with actual reporting standards and ethics.

This nonsense that actual news reporting and reporters are inaccurate or don't understand is a claim that requires more evidence than this.  But the fact that you and others so readily accept it as true shows how effective disinformation campaigns to discredit actual news sources has been.