Virulently anti-Putin source will profoundly disappoint the Putin-deranged … Mediazona confirms identities of over 24,400 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine Note that the source estimates “could be higher” perhaps as high as 203,000 killed, wounded or missing. Of course the problem is that Russia has barely gotten that many on the frontlines until very recently. *for those taking solace in imagined high Russian casualty figures, I again remind that Russia lost upwards of 25 million in the last war it regarded as existential.
It's ironic you see it that way, because that's exactly how I see it all as well, only in the reverse. For example, Bakhmut doesn't serve much as a strategic victory for Russia. It was their offensive to lure Ukraine in to shed a lot of blood over a town that really didn't matter much in Russia's overall objective. Many Ukrainian supporters bemoaned the sacrifices Ukraine made to try to hang on to the town, due to its lack of overall import to either side. Russia moved in, destroyed the town, but more importantly, they took out a lot of Ukrainian soldiers in the process. Of course, I believe Russia will attempt to hold Bakhmut, but they're not going to hang themselves over Bakhmut if it comes down to it. The ballsy move would have been what I suggested a couple of months ago, which is to make a run at Crimea. I understand logistically, however, that is 99.9999% doomed to fail miserably. But if you really wanted to deliver the TKO to Russia's morale, taking parts of or all of Crimea would have done it. Might as well throw a haymaker while you had them on the back foot. Now the Russians are dug in quite well along the entire front, with the exception probably of Bakhmut, due to the obvious dangers. I don't think Russia will lose a lot of sleep over Bakhmut if Ukraine retakes it, as they know how well they are dug in everywhere else and it seems obvious Bakhmut is the easiest target for Ukraine. Russia is likely to send an offensive further east as it's easier for them to provide air cover from Russian air space and not expose their fortifications along the front. I'm a little surprised they haven't done it yet, tbh.
What would it do that Storm Shadow can't though? I mean, more is nice, and I agree with sending them, but I just don't see them as a game changer.
Honestly think Washington and London will see Bakhmut as the low-hanging fruit and not be terribly impressed. The objective of the counteroffensive was to snatch up more territory before heading to the bargaining table. Retaking a city you just slugged it out with Russia over for 6 months, which happens to be the most vulnerable for obvious reasons, is nothing to get overly excited about, imo. I think our leaders will view it the same. Show us you can make some headway against Russia's fortified front line and then we would have more faith in sending you "xx" amount of weaponry. Crimea, as extremely difficult to pull off as it may have been, would have been the gutsy Prigozhin coup type maneuver that might have worked out before Russia laced the entire beachfront of the peninsula with land mines and mortars. Most everything is off limits now and Bakhmut is the low-hanging fruit.
Abrams is the only platform we have that can be sent to Ukraine in numbers that matter. Russia is reportedly building 1500 tanks a year (probably more like refurbishing the thousands of T-72s they have in storage), Leo2s are good, but Ukraine needs a lot more than what they've gotten. Another plus is that you don't have to convince Germany to do anything.
We're not sending them anything we think we might have to use later on. Even if it's just a 3 percent chance.
They aren’t doing it because they are getting their ass kicked everywhere. Stop being a Russian fanboy and start hoping that Ukraine pulls this out.
As Russia continues to launch missiles at Civilian population centers with little or no military significance, one wonders when Ukraine will be unable to continue self control in this area.
If they don’t have the long range munitions and/or they want to keep receiving the ones they do have, I rather fancy they will remain quite disciplined.
I feel for Zelenski considering the decisions he has to make and the tightrope he has to walk. So far, I find his performance nothing less than remarkable.
The number I've seen is 1600 tanks over the next three years, and that's direct from Putin's bragging, which is not necessarily reliable. And that includes 34 tanks per month from a new plant that has not started production yet. Russia to produce, modernize over 1,600 tanks - Putin Another article finds 400 tanks/yr is closer to being reasonable (but still probably unrealistic). Russia was making 250 tanks a year in 2021 as they prepared for the war, and that included some refurbishing of older tanks. https://www.technology.org/2023/04/...e-to-produce-1500-main-battle-tanks-per-year/
An interesting article on the big picture for the war. The author predicts another 500+ days (18 months) of warfare before there can possibly be a resolution. Why no one can end the Ukraine war
Pence thinks that the U.S. will start fighting with Russia if Ukraine falls. He thinks Russia's next invasion would occur sooner rather than later. 'No doubt' US will go to war with Russia if Ukraine falls, Pence says; Prigozhin back in Russia?: Live updates
An easy claim to make since Ukraine does not appear anywhere on the verge of collapse. Even still, I don’t believe that. I think this Administration was perfectly willing to let Ukraine fall last year if Russia had been half as good as they thought they were. In my opinion, only a nuclear attack would drive up the war fever in this country sufficiently to commit armed force.
Really excellent read on the artillery situation and how Russia's back is against the wall in the Artillery war now. Ukraine Update: Russia doesn't have a backup plan when it runs out of artillery
