[BostonCard]

I guess that the Russians have the initiative in the sense that they are on the offensive, but it really looks like that offensive is running on fumes.  It’s been a couple weeks since it looked like Bakhmut’s fall was imminent, and while it still could happen any day, I’m starting to see some indications that Russia might actually fail.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ch-18-2023

ISW tends to have blue and yellow colored glasses, so I take it with a grain of salt, but it is still notable that despite having Bakhmut surrounded by three sides, they’ve made very little progress.  Is it possible that they won’t be able to close the deal?  And even if they do, will they have anything left in the tank?

BC

[BostonCard]

I guess that the Russians have the initiative in the sense that they are on the offensive, but it really looks like that offensive is running on fumes.  It’s been a couple weeks since it looked like Bakhmut’s fall was imminent, and while it still could happen any day, I’m starting to see some indications that Russia might actually fail.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ch-18-2023

ISW tends to have blue and yellow colored glasses, so I take it with a grain of salt, but it is still notable that despite having Bakhmut surrounded by three sides, they’ve made very little progress.  Is it possible that they won’t be able to close the deal?  And even if they do, will they have anything left in the tank?

BC

[Goose]

I guess that the Russians have the initiative in the sense that they are on the offensive, but it really looks like that offensive is running on fumes.  It’s been a couple weeks since it looked like Bakhmut’s fall was imminent, and while it still could happen any day, I’m starting to see some indications that Russia might actually fail.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ch-18-2023

ISW tends to have blue and yellow colored glasses, so I take it with a grain of salt, but it is still notable that despite having Bakhmut surrounded by three sides, they’ve made very little progress.  Is it possible that they won’t be able to close the deal?  And even if they do, will they have anything left in the tank?

BC

IMO they won't have anything left in the tank, at least for a while. The mud season is well underway and may actually end in two or three weeks. Russia has always advanced/attacked in fits and starts during this war. They need time, sometimes a month or more, to regenerate their forces. Ukraine may have a great opportunity upcoming where Russia is over-extended, ill supplied, and just wants to "chill". Unfortunately, the trained tank brigade/combined arms formations are not going to be ready in two or three weeks. So, what does Ukraine have "up it's sleeve", if anything?
It also may be true that Russia just doesn't have the wherewithal to "recharge" in three weeks/a month. There may be a major lull in the fighting as neither side is ready for more. The onus is probably on Ukraine to start driving Russia back. Timing is important. Too soon and Ukraine might not be ready "enough" to prevail. Wait too long and Russia may preempt them. That may be OK if Ukraine is ready to take advantage and hit behind a Russian attack. By May we should know. If Ukraine doesn't move before the end of May, IMO something is really wrong and they are probably toast. Ukraine has sacrificed a lot to buy time for an offense. That offense needs to manifest itself.

[Goose]

I guess that the Russians have the initiative in the sense that they are on the offensive, but it really looks like that offensive is running on fumes.  It’s been a couple weeks since it looked like Bakhmut’s fall was imminent, and while it still could happen any day, I’m starting to see some indications that Russia might actually fail.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ch-18-2023

ISW tends to have blue and yellow colored glasses, so I take it with a grain of salt, but it is still notable that despite having Bakhmut surrounded by three sides, they’ve made very little progress.  Is it possible that they won’t be able to close the deal?  And even if they do, will they have anything left in the tank?

BC

IMO they won't have anything left in the tank, at least for a while. The mud season is well underway and may actually end in two or three weeks. Russia has always advanced/attacked in fits and starts during this war. They need time, sometimes a month or more, to regenerate their forces. Ukraine may have a great opportunity upcoming where Russia is over-extended, ill supplied, and just wants to "chill". Unfortunately, the trained tank brigade/combined arms formations are not going to be ready in two or three weeks. So, what does Ukraine have "up it's sleeve", if anything?
It also may be true that Russia just doesn't have the wherewithal to "recharge" in three weeks/a month. There may be a major lull in the fighting as neither side is ready for more. The onus is probably on Ukraine to start driving Russia back. Timing is important. Too soon and Ukraine might not be ready "enough" to prevail. Wait too long and Russia may preempt them. That may be OK if Ukraine is ready to take advantage and hit behind a Russian attack. By May we should know. If Ukraine doesn't move before the end of May, IMO something is really wrong and they are probably toast. Ukraine has sacrificed a lot to buy time for an offense. That offense needs to manifest itself.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prigozhin-cre...44205.html

It seems Prigozhin may agree that Russia will go on the defensive in Donbas "soon". It may well be true that Ukraine has moved up troops that could be used for a renewed offensive. Prigozhin and Russia may indeed fear that is what Ukraine intends and want to fight on the defensive for a while. Ukraine may indeed intend that, or to require Russia to "Honor the threat". Of course, this could also merely be precautions against further Russian successes. Maybe they did scare the bear, but I think it more probable the bear is just "out of gas" for the moment. The extent (and the time frame) of Russia reconstituting its forces in Donbas and renewing an offensive is unknown. IMO it would happen if they are "left alone" for a month or so. Ukraine may fully intend to deliver spoiling attacks in the Donbas to prevent a Russian buildup (not leave them alone) and (hopefully) focus Russian resources and attention there. Then Ukraine can (in the May time frame) deliver an armored thrust in the south that Russia is not prepared to defeat.

I don't think Ukraine has the force structure to drive Russia out of the Donbas in the near term. It also isn't, in general, great combined arms country. Too may rivers and forests. It is a good place to defend, as Ukraine has shown. If Ukraine can prevent Russia from going back on the offensive in the (relatively) near term, Ukraine can set the conditions for their own offensive to succeed. Fixing the Russians in place in Donbas is a great first step. They can't quickly transfer troops south if they are fully engaged.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prigozhin-cre...44205.html

It seems Prigozhin may agree that Russia will go on the defensive in Donbas "soon". It may well be true that Ukraine has moved up troops that could be used for a renewed offensive. Prigozhin and Russia may indeed fear that is what Ukraine intends and want to fight on the defensive for a while. Ukraine may indeed intend that, or to require Russia to "Honor the threat". Of course, this could also merely be precautions against further Russian successes. Maybe they did scare the bear, but I think it more probable the bear is just "out of gas" for the moment. The extent (and the time frame) of Russia reconstituting its forces in Donbas and renewing an offensive is unknown. IMO it would happen if they are "left alone" for a month or so. Ukraine may fully intend to deliver spoiling attacks in the Donbas to prevent a Russian buildup (not leave them alone) and (hopefully) focus Russian resources and attention there. Then Ukraine can (in the May time frame) deliver an armored thrust in the south that Russia is not prepared to defeat.

I don't think Ukraine has the force structure to drive Russia out of the Donbas in the near term. It also isn't, in general, great combined arms country. Too may rivers and forests. It is a good place to defend, as Ukraine has shown. If Ukraine can prevent Russia from going back on the offensive in the (relatively) near term, Ukraine can set the conditions for their own offensive to succeed. Fixing the Russians in place in Donbas is a great first step. They can't quickly transfer troops south if they are fully engaged.

[BostonCard]

Lol, the shade.


[tweet]https://twitter.com/usembassykyiv/status/1637067122709807104?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Lol, the shade.


[tweet]https://twitter.com/usembassykyiv/status/1637067122709807104?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]

BC

[gocard14]

Ukraine MOD daily Russian casualty count (so taken with a grain of salt) today with 21 tanks and 23 IFVs in addition to the now typical 710 troops. 

Absolutely insane casualty rates. Anecdotally also seeing a lot more “drone drops explosive on armored vehicle” videos popping up

https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status...CCZ3SP6dPw

[gocard14]

Ukraine MOD daily Russian casualty count (so taken with a grain of salt) today with 21 tanks and 23 IFVs in addition to the now typical 710 troops. 

Absolutely insane casualty rates. Anecdotally also seeing a lot more “drone drops explosive on armored vehicle” videos popping up

https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status...CCZ3SP6dPw

[BostonCard]

There is word that Russia is sending unarmed troops out (presumably convicts) just to smoke out Ukranian positions.  Absolutely bonkers.

BC

[BostonCard]

There is word that Russia is sending unarmed troops out (presumably convicts) just to smoke out Ukranian positions.  Absolutely bonkers.

BC

[BostonCard]

A couple of good threads on Ukraine and Bakhmut:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1637880591898095618?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]

Lee continues to think that Ukraine would be better of husbanding its resources for a spring offensive.  Notes the parallels to Russia's summer offensive and Ukraine's counteroffensive.  Also hits on a theme that Goose has talked about; Russia's redeployment of troops from Kherson to support the objective.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/defmon3/status/1637538073625112577?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]

Though the thread "rant" reads a bit unfinished, the take home point is that Russia may (again) be over-extending itself and Ukraine poised for a counter-attack.

I think Rob Lee's last tweet from the earlier thread is key:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1637881609813630991?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet] 

BC

[BostonCard]

A couple of good threads on Ukraine and Bakhmut:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1637880591898095618?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]

Lee continues to think that Ukraine would be better of husbanding its resources for a spring offensive.  Notes the parallels to Russia's summer offensive and Ukraine's counteroffensive.  Also hits on a theme that Goose has talked about; Russia's redeployment of troops from Kherson to support the objective.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/defmon3/status/1637538073625112577?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]

Though the thread "rant" reads a bit unfinished, the take home point is that Russia may (again) be over-extending itself and Ukraine poised for a counter-attack.

I think Rob Lee's last tweet from the earlier thread is key:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1637881609813630991?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet] 

BC

[TrumpCard]

Lee's analysis compares the relative attrition of Ukraine's forces and Russia's forces in Bakhmut, Andiivka, and Vuhledar.  The argument appears to be that Ukraine now is has a worse attrition ratio in Bakhmut than it has in the other current battles, so it would be better to focus defenses on those other places.  At least that's my understanding of his argument.  If I have it right, then I think Lee may be missing the mark.  I would think the right comparison is the relative attrition of Ukraine's forces and Russia's forces at Bakhmut versus the relative attrition at whatever place Russia would move its offensive after conquering Bakhmut.  If Ukraine believes that giving up Bakhmut would put the next fight on even less favorable terrain -- say Sloviansk -- then Ukraine may be making the right choice to accept a less favorable relative rate of attrition that Ukraine had been achieving through much of the winter.

[TrumpCard]

Lee's analysis compares the relative attrition of Ukraine's forces and Russia's forces in Bakhmut, Andiivka, and Vuhledar.  The argument appears to be that Ukraine now is has a worse attrition ratio in Bakhmut than it has in the other current battles, so it would be better to focus defenses on those other places.  At least that's my understanding of his argument.  If I have it right, then I think Lee may be missing the mark.  I would think the right comparison is the relative attrition of Ukraine's forces and Russia's forces at Bakhmut versus the relative attrition at whatever place Russia would move its offensive after conquering Bakhmut.  If Ukraine believes that giving up Bakhmut would put the next fight on even less favorable terrain -- say Sloviansk -- then Ukraine may be making the right choice to accept a less favorable relative rate of attrition that Ukraine had been achieving through much of the winter.

[gocard14]

Agreed. Ukraines choice isn’t “fight in Bakhmut or another place of their choosing” it is Fight in Bakhmut or retreat from Bakhmut, and likely then defend another area at a time and place of Russia’s choosing. I don’t know what the right choice is but it seems Ukraine’s command feels staying in Bakhmut is the right option. 

It isnt talked about as much as on the Russian side, but Ukraine also has a lot of raw recruits and is buying time to train maneuver forces. It may make sense to use their less trained troops to hold Bakhmut while marshaling their power for offensives.

[gocard14]

Agreed. Ukraines choice isn’t “fight in Bakhmut or another place of their choosing” it is Fight in Bakhmut or retreat from Bakhmut, and likely then defend another area at a time and place of Russia’s choosing. I don’t know what the right choice is but it seems Ukraine’s command feels staying in Bakhmut is the right option. 

It isnt talked about as much as on the Russian side, but Ukraine also has a lot of raw recruits and is buying time to train maneuver forces. It may make sense to use their less trained troops to hold Bakhmut while marshaling their power for offensives.

[BostonCard]

I think your framing is probably correct, with two caveats.  First, I don't think Russia is equipped to do all that more after it captures Bakhmut.  So, I think once that is done, it will enter an operational pause, while it tries to regroup, lets the mud dry out, and waits for the next wave of conscripts to enter the force.

Second, I think Rob Lee is probably comparing Bakhmut to a generic Russian attacks.  I think another Vuhledar is unlikely, but every time that Russia tries a de novo attack, it could stumble into another catastrophe like it.  From Russia's perspective, the devil it knows (Bakhmut) is likely to be less unfavorable than the ones it doesn't know.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think your framing is probably correct, with two caveats.  First, I don't think Russia is equipped to do all that more after it captures Bakhmut.  So, I think once that is done, it will enter an operational pause, while it tries to regroup, lets the mud dry out, and waits for the next wave of conscripts to enter the force.

Second, I think Rob Lee is probably comparing Bakhmut to a generic Russian attacks.  I think another Vuhledar is unlikely, but every time that Russia tries a de novo attack, it could stumble into another catastrophe like it.  From Russia's perspective, the devil it knows (Bakhmut) is likely to be less unfavorable than the ones it doesn't know.

BC

[Goose]

From Russia's perspective, the devil it knows (Bakhmut) is likely to be less unfavorable than the ones it doesn't know.


BC

Not only that, but most of the troops attacking in Bakhmut are Wagner, nor Russian Army. The High Command has only limited control over what Wagner does. Similarly, Wagner doesn't have its own organic transport and supply system. It has to rely on the Russian Army. For that reason, moving Wagner anywhere else is undoubtedly a much trickier proposition than regular military would be. They may have little choice but to stay there and attack.

[Goose]

From Russia's perspective, the devil it knows (Bakhmut) is likely to be less unfavorable than the ones it doesn't know.


BC

Not only that, but most of the troops attacking in Bakhmut are Wagner, nor Russian Army. The High Command has only limited control over what Wagner does. Similarly, Wagner doesn't have its own organic transport and supply system. It has to rely on the Russian Army. For that reason, moving Wagner anywhere else is undoubtedly a much trickier proposition than regular military would be. They may have little choice but to stay there and attack.

[BostonCard]

Good piece on how Ukraine survived the Russian attacks on its infrastructure (hopefully I figured out how to "gift" the article)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ukraine..._permalink

BC

[BostonCard]

Good piece on how Ukraine survived the Russian attacks on its infrastructure (hopefully I figured out how to "gift" the article)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ukraine..._permalink

BC

[dabigv13]

Good piece on how Ukraine survived the Russian attacks on its infrastructure (hopefully I figured out how to "gift" the article)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ukraine..._permalink

BC

Good article

In all, Russia has lobbed more than 850 missiles and hundreds more drones at Ukraine’s power infrastructure, according to Ukrainian officials. The onslaught didn’t weaken people’s resolve; 87% of Ukrainians are against any territorial concessions in exchange for peace, the same percent as in September, according to a February survey by the Kyiv International Sociology Institute.

[dabigv13]

Good piece on how Ukraine survived the Russian attacks on its infrastructure (hopefully I figured out how to "gift" the article)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ukraine..._permalink

BC

Good article

In all, Russia has lobbed more than 850 missiles and hundreds more drones at Ukraine’s power infrastructure, according to Ukrainian officials. The onslaught didn’t weaken people’s resolve; 87% of Ukrainians are against any territorial concessions in exchange for peace, the same percent as in September, according to a February survey by the Kyiv International Sociology Institute.

[Mick]

Can't recall where I read it, but I ran across an article that described the behavior and attitudes of Londoners during the Blitz. Apparently, they learned to adapt quite quickly to regular Nazi bombings and adjusted fairly quickly, to the point that learned to live with it, and didn't lose their resolve, just as the Ukrainians appear to be doing.

[Mick]

Can't recall where I read it, but I ran across an article that described the behavior and attitudes of Londoners during the Blitz. Apparently, they learned to adapt quite quickly to regular Nazi bombings and adjusted fairly quickly, to the point that learned to live with it, and didn't lose their resolve, just as the Ukrainians appear to be doing.

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/samagreene/status/1638230854991224857?s=20[/tweet]

Good thread about the Xi/Putin meeting, whereby Putin gets played.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/samagreene/status/1638230854991224857?s=20[/tweet]

Good thread about the Xi/Putin meeting, whereby Putin gets played.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Why doesn't China just take Russia instead of Taiwan? They won't get any military pushback from the U.S. and NATO in terms of fitting with China to save Russia from being overtaken. And I'm sure the U.S., NATO, and Australia would be gleeful to see Russians rise up against an occupying or annexing China to boot.

I hope China cuts the price it is willing to pay for Russian energy steadily over time until Russia has no choice but to just give its resources to China, not because I'm a China fan (F China), but because I enjoy people getting Karma visited on them in a very big way. 

India and Africa can be customers for Russian energy, but not at the scale Russia needs. India is already taking advantage of the fact there is a cap on Russian oil. China will be squeezing Russia from here to eternity, and Russia can't say "give us military aid" or we'll cut you off. Putin thought he could play footsie with Europe and then crush it with military might assuming NATO would be too afraid to act after he overwhelmed Ukraine. He couldn't even take Bakmhut, let alone the Baltic NATO countries, and now Finland is a NATO member too.

Hard to imagine Putin weakening Russia more over the last year. If he was a Head Coach, his team would be in last place and any competent overseers would be ready to fire him. The Bernard Muir of keeping Russian presidents in power must be in charge.

[OutsiderFan]

Why doesn't China just take Russia instead of Taiwan? They won't get any military pushback from the U.S. and NATO in terms of fitting with China to save Russia from being overtaken. And I'm sure the U.S., NATO, and Australia would be gleeful to see Russians rise up against an occupying or annexing China to boot.

I hope China cuts the price it is willing to pay for Russian energy steadily over time until Russia has no choice but to just give its resources to China, not because I'm a China fan (F China), but because I enjoy people getting Karma visited on them in a very big way. 

India and Africa can be customers for Russian energy, but not at the scale Russia needs. India is already taking advantage of the fact there is a cap on Russian oil. China will be squeezing Russia from here to eternity, and Russia can't say "give us military aid" or we'll cut you off. Putin thought he could play footsie with Europe and then crush it with military might assuming NATO would be too afraid to act after he overwhelmed Ukraine. He couldn't even take Bakmhut, let alone the Baltic NATO countries, and now Finland is a NATO member too.

Hard to imagine Putin weakening Russia more over the last year. If he was a Head Coach, his team would be in last place and any competent overseers would be ready to fire him. The Bernard Muir of keeping Russian presidents in power must be in charge.

[TrumpCard]

I’m not counting any coups until they hatch. Russia is not in a great spot, obviously, but I think the media has oversold how F’d Russia really is.

[TrumpCard]

I’m not counting any coups until they hatch. Russia is not in a great spot, obviously, but I think the media has oversold how F’d Russia really is.

[Goose]

Why doesn't China just take Russia instead of Taiwan? They won't get any military pushback from the U.S. and NATO in terms of fitting with China to save Russia from being overtaken. And I'm sure the U.S., NATO, and Australia would be gleeful to see Russians rise up against an occupying or annexing China to boot.

I can assure you that virtually nothing in this thought is correct. China taking over Siberia and Eastern Russia is just about the Pentagon's worst nightmare.

[Goose]

Why doesn't China just take Russia instead of Taiwan? They won't get any military pushback from the U.S. and NATO in terms of fitting with China to save Russia from being overtaken. And I'm sure the U.S., NATO, and Australia would be gleeful to see Russians rise up against an occupying or annexing China to boot.

I can assure you that virtually nothing in this thought is correct. China taking over Siberia and Eastern Russia is just about the Pentagon's worst nightmare.

[OutsiderFan]

Why doesn't China just take Russia instead of Taiwan? They won't get any military pushback from the U.S. and NATO in terms of fitting with China to save Russia from being overtaken. And I'm sure the U.S., NATO, and Australia would be gleeful to see Russians rise up against an occupying or annexing China to boot.

I can assure you that virtually nothing in this thought is correct. China taking over Siberia and Eastern Russia is just about the Pentagon's worst nightmare.

Please explain how China gaining Russian territory is so much worse than Russia having it.

[OutsiderFan]

Why doesn't China just take Russia instead of Taiwan? They won't get any military pushback from the U.S. and NATO in terms of fitting with China to save Russia from being overtaken. And I'm sure the U.S., NATO, and Australia would be gleeful to see Russians rise up against an occupying or annexing China to boot.

I can assure you that virtually nothing in this thought is correct. China taking over Siberia and Eastern Russia is just about the Pentagon's worst nightmare.

Please explain how China gaining Russian territory is so much worse than Russia having it.

[lex24]

Why doesn't China just take Russia instead of Taiwan? They won't get any military pushback from the U.S. and NATO in terms of fitting with China to save Russia from being overtaken. And I'm sure the U.S., NATO, and Australia would be gleeful to see Russians rise up against an occupying or annexing China to boot.

I can assure you that virtually nothing in this thought is correct. China taking over Siberia and Eastern Russia is just about the Pentagon's worst nightmare.

Please explain how China gaining Russian territory is so much worse than Russia having it.

Because China is a significantly bigger threat to the US than Russia. China is an economic giant.  Russias economy is weak.  The last thing the US or the world needs is China expanding. Add that Russians probable response would be nuclear and it’s a nightmare anyway you slice it.

[lex24]

Why doesn't China just take Russia instead of Taiwan? They won't get any military pushback from the U.S. and NATO in terms of fitting with China to save Russia from being overtaken. And I'm sure the U.S., NATO, and Australia would be gleeful to see Russians rise up against an occupying or annexing China to boot.

I can assure you that virtually nothing in this thought is correct. China taking over Siberia and Eastern Russia is just about the Pentagon's worst nightmare.

Please explain how China gaining Russian territory is so much worse than Russia having it.

Because China is a significantly bigger threat to the US than Russia. China is an economic giant.  Russias economy is weak.  The last thing the US or the world needs is China expanding. Add that Russians probable response would be nuclear and it’s a nightmare anyway you slice it.