Over the past couple of days, Ukraine has hit some big Russian ammunition depots in the Tver region with spectacular results. According to War Zone,

"Such was the power of the detonation that a light-magnitude earthquake was reported in the Tver region, registering at 2.8 on the Richter scale."

Why weren't these depots hit earlier?

Connecting back to T2k, the number of well-stocked arms depots in Russia speaks to the massive quantities of ammunition stockpiled during the Soviet era.

-

Solidifies that the 2000 counter-attack makes sense, as it would take longer to deplete all the reserves.

Another story that seems right out of T2k

Russian aircraft carrier crew sent to frontline in Ukraine

Bizarre :confused:

Could be a lot of reasons, but the one I had read that seemed most convincing was that these bases were hit by Ukraine's new domestic rocket drone, which was only recently unveiled. This one:

https://defence-blog.com/ukraine-dis...ytsya-missile/

If true, it could be that Ukraine simply didn't have domestic weapons capable, until recently, of hitting the facilities. Or alternatively they didn't feel that they had a solid corridor through Russia's AA net to make it work until now.

The UJ-25 Skyline would also have the range and is jet-powered, but even that was first shown to the public only a year ago and it allegedly has a much smaller warhead than Palianytsia (~10 kg versus ~50 kg). Regardless of type, it would take a while to build up the inventory for the 100+ drone salvo allegedly used for the first depot strike. Strizh would also have the range, but not the numbers, to strike the depot 300 miles from the Ukrainian border.

Dear Leader to Dear Leader
 

Apparently, North Korea is sending troops to Ukraine to support Russian combat ops.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/no...gainst-ukraine

So, according to Putin, NATO sending ground forces- even just as rear echelon support troops- to Ukraine to help it fight Russia is a "red line" that will trigger a nuclear response, but Russia can field DPRK troops in combat-support roles. As yet, neither Russia nor North Korea is bothering to pretend that these troops are independent volunteers or mercs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if North Korea starts sending ground combat troops to Ukraine.

Recent reports indicate that a few DPRK troops have already been KIA by UAF artillery/air strikes.

Russia already has a 10-to-1 advantage in troop strength v. Ukraine. DPRK support troops will allow Russia to employ even more cannon fodder on the front lines...

How does Ukraine stand a chance, long-term, when it is forced to fight with one hand tied behind its back and Russia can do whatever the hell it wants? Hopefully, this move by Pyongyang prompts Seoul to fast-track weapon transfers- especially artillery ammo and AFVs- to Ukraine.

Seriously, NATO needs to step up or Europe is going to end up with some very nasty neighbors.

-

Again trying to pull game info from this war, this pdf gives a good primer on what is necessary to manufacture artillery shells in a limited resource environment.

https://static.opensourcecentre.org/...o_ordnance.pdf

Starting at page 37 I learned a bit about what would go into the Russians making new artillery shells and what manufacturing plants might be significant.

Read an interesting thing yesterday. Apparently in all the US and all of Europe outside of the Ukraine and Russia, there is a SINGLE installation still making TNT that the ENTIRE West, including the US, is dependent on for making artillery shells, and that installation is in Poland.

Does that include South Korea? (As they are "Western" in everything but direction). I really hope RoK starts evening the playing field given the DPRK support of Russia.

First, the bad news...
 

Bad News:

Recent reports claim that North Korea is sending combat troops to Ukraine. Some have already appeared on the front line in the Kursk bulge. On the plus side, there are already unconfirmed reports that some of the North Korean troops have already deserted. Considering how far they are from home, where these deserters are going off to is a big question. A better option would probably be defection (by surrendering to Ukrainian forces).

Good News:

Australia is sending 49 surplus M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. Forbes reports that these vehicles will go to the 47th Mechanized Brigade, Ukraine's current M1 operator. About half of the first batch of Abrams have been destroyed or damaged/pulled from the fighting. Ukrainian Abrams are modified with Soviet-era reactive armor and anti-drone cages.

-

Source? I thought US military explosives were made at Holston.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...-output-goals/

Holsten manufactures IMX-104 but not TNT.

From the article:

"Currently there is no TNT production in the U.S. and the supplies come from allies such as Australia and India.

Poland is a major supplier, but with every country ramping up production to support Ukraine and meet their own demands, Bush noted late last year, the U.S. will need to onshore TNT production."

While not a modification per se, the Ukrainian Abrams also have American reactive armor. What I've seen pictures of is Kontakt-1* on the glacis and M19 ARAT on the hull sides, with no ERA on the turret and no second layer of ARAT (M32) on the hull sides. Based on what I've seen written about them, using Paul's pages they'd be M1A1 SA, with an extra 80 AV vs Heat on the HF and 100 AV vs Heat on the HS**, using the book rules for ERA for everything other than the additional armor value. Normally I'd just consider a cage to add Sp to the relevant armor, but the Abrams already has that for TS, so all it would do is add Sp to TR.


*This could be Nizh instead of Kontakt. Ukraine has started loading Kontakt containers with Nizh modules because the Nizh containers were hard to reload. If it's Nizh, it only adds around 75 AV vs Heat, but also adds 25 AV vs kinetic penetrators, which Kontakt-1 doesn't help against at all.

**A Ukrainian write-up finally gave me the first estimate I've seen of ARAT's effectiveness, which was that M19 adds 500-550mm of RHA-equivalent protection against HEAT. I still don't have any estimates for M32, and I don't know how good that estimate for the M19 is, but it sounds plausible and is better than not having an estimate at all.

Museum Tanks?
 

Here's Simon Whistler's take on whether the Russians are pulling tanks out of museums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4yqUwxddTY

For the past couple of weeks, news hasn't been good for Ukraine and it keeps getting worse. I think Russia's use of an experimental IRBM armed with conventional warheads is interesting. Apparently, Moscow warned the US gov't beforehand. This is a dangerous precedent and will require a mutual trust that hasn't been earned and I don't think either side is particularly eager to give.

-

"But Chuddha, what if-" "It won't."
 

Probably unearned, but the trajectory of a ballistic shot becomes obvious fairly immediately on launch, and the launches themselves are trackable by FIRMS and more advanced national reconnaissance assets; a ballistic threat to the United States isn't exactly something that would go unnoticed,

Publicly, we're no longer launch on warning, with the stated doctrine being to launch following a confirmed detonation (again, something that would be detected immediately), but one imagines that this doctrine would go out the window if multiple launches were detected and the course tracks indicated deployments against strategic assets, which in and of itself is a straightforward mathematical exercise in firing solutions.

One assumes this is why we maintain launch on warning readiness and capability despite not officially maintaining it as policy. Sidelong observations being a full nuclear deployment would be rather difficult to miss, given the nature of how it must be conducted to have even a remote hope of knocking out enough assets to make such a gambit "worth it," and that a single delivery vehicle being launched would be madness, as it would precipitate a full strategic escalation without inflicting any serious damage to the United States; a half measure would be utter suicide, and a functional deployment would be the most obvious event imaginable.

Though this is entirely conjecture, it's also likely we knew about the launch prep even before they told us; our defense intelligence apparatus has flexed several times in the past two decades with detailed information about Russian test launches immediately prior to or immediately after the Russians have issued a bare public acknowledgement.

On another front, one wonders exactly what state their nuclear arsenal is in. Their entire defense budget (including nuclear readiness) amounts to roughly about what we spend on nuclear maintenance alone.

According to the latest news it seems that the war will end with the current borders, Ukraine not in NATO.
And that seems to be the most favourable ending.

I even found opinions, that there may be a demand that NATO goes back to the borders of 1991 or so and that Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, etc must leave NATO.

What do you think?

As it appears to be on a short timeline, I think it is best to wait to see what happens rather than speculate.

Favorable? I think that depends on perspective. "Most acceptable to all parties", perhaps.

I think that would be a massive unearned strategic victory for Russia. Trump might agree to those conditions, but NATO and the effected member countries most certainly would not and, AFAIK, the USA doesn't have unilateral fiat authority to affect this downsizing.

-

Random thoughts from the last couple of days. Mods, please let me know if I have crossed the line with any comments or take the post down. My intention was not to even get close to anything potentially inflammatory.

I asked the question a year or two ago about economic sanctions hurting Russia, and how that may impact the war. But in recent days I'm left asking myself did the USA run out of money before Russia did?

Or did the USA simply run out of patience fighting another over seas war?

I thought Trump was "pro guns" and by extension "pro war" because of the huge economic benefit it provided to the USA (ie lot of jobs and local spend?)? But getting out of the war will mean less spend?
The difference between this war and others is that the USA didn't have boots on the ground, so I thought they'd be more likely to stay the course.

In my mind, if we relate recent events back to WWII. It would be like the Allies allowing Germany to "keep" Poland and France if it brought an early end to the war. And allowing Japan to "keep" Pupau New Guniea and Australia if it ended the war.

And if thats the case, what stops Russia next time (next year?)? I'd be nervous if I was Poland.

How bad must Ukraine feel not being allowed to Join NATO? Is like not being allowed into a "friends" group.

Russia/Putin just had to sit there for the last couple of weeks and watch NATO implode.

While I am not in favour of war. I'm not sure I'm in favour of peace at any cost. Or rewarding bad behaviour (ie Russias military exercise to invade Ukraine).

To kcdusk:
War and military take money. And you need to earn money as a state (by taxing your companies and citizens) by producing things and selling them.

We of the West believed McKinsey and outsourced everything.
So, the taxes to collect got smaller and now we are dependent on other countries.

And thats why we have no money because now we have to pay for everything bought abroad.
Yes, for the Greens and climate people it is nice, because we dont pollute the enviroment. The pollution is done somewhere else and worse than if we would be producing.Because we have enviromental protection laws and Nigeria (just as example!) has not.

And Mc Kinsey also is responsible for (example): Germany has only ammo for TWO days of fighting a war but needs SIX months to produce the same amount of ammo.

We have only a few factories to produce said ammo and the blogger BigCountryExpat once listed the factories in the USA who produce ammo.
Hint: Not many.
And that equals No Arsenal of Freedom like in WWII.
And does anybody want to guess how long it will take to bring the necessary industrial power back to our countries and reviving our military infrastructure to support armies like during the height of the Cold War?

Pro Guns doesnt mean Pro war. Si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war.
You need weapons to fight a war but ask any soldier and while he is willing to fight he abhors war.
My dad was 14 at the end of WWII and while he didnt tell me much about it (and he was not clear on certain parts but if I use logic it must have been very dark what he experienced), it is enough to convince me that the only war I want to experience is with PC games, board games and roleplaying games.

But make no mistake: If the threat would be high enough, I would fight. But why should I fight for the rulers of Germany of the last 20 or so years?
Germany has gone down the drain, massive immigration without us citizens asked by the government, the Declaration of Human Rights was nearly shredded during COVID - so the answer is no.


But now to something that I read and it shocked me.
I found:
https://www.msn.com/de-de/nachrichte...9890ad6a&ei=13 (in German)
and
https://time.com/7207661/bidens-ukra...zelensky-loss/

It asks if Ukraine was led into a trap by Biden.
According to a Mr Green of the security Council of Biden the victory of Ukraine was never a goal of the US government.
And the White House knew that Ukraine would never regain the territory they lost to Russia.
The only goal was to weaken Russia and to strengthen the Alliance.

Quote:
Wenn etwas ruchlos ist, dann die Tatsache, dass die Biden-Administration laut Time wusste, was sie tat. Sie schickte die Ukraine in einen militärischen Kampf, den sie nicht gewinnen konnte, und verhinderte – gemeinsam mit Großbritannien unter Boris Johnson – einen frühen Friedensschluss, zu dem sowohl Selenskyj als auch Putin damals bereit waren.

Translation:
If something was infamous then it was the fact that the Biden-Administration knew what they did according to TIME magazine. They sent the Ukraine into a war they couldnt win and prevented - together with England under Boris Johnson - an early peace to which both Zelensky and Putin were ready.

The witness to this is the former ukrainian ambassador to the USA Tschalyj.

They mention a study of the RAND corporation from 2019 (here I have to translate from german "Russland überdehnen und aus dem Gleichgewicht bringen" into english so it is not the exact title): To overextend Russia and destroy its balance

So, if this is true (and msn is no conspiracy site) - I know that officers sent soldiers to die - but extending a war even they clearly knew it was over - the last time this happened was WWII.

Might be prudent to ask
 

Why no one really cared when this exact same thing happened in 2008 with Georgia under an identical pretense. Answer might simply be that social media feels couldn't really get attached to it, and it was simply realpolitik ruling the day, and that American politics weren't as divisive.

Cold reality of the situation is that Ukraine is facing serious manpower issues, and with the lines as stagnated and fortified as they are, the only way anyone's breaking through is Ukraine collectively decides that the next generation isn't worth it, conscripts every MAM in the country, and Zergs them over minefields a mile deep to capture territory that otherwise has no realistic chance of being recaptured without risking nuclear war over a massive Western invasion and establishment of a no-fly zone.

So Western counter-invasion and sweeping the Russkies with an actually functional combined arms military off the table... what's the play? What's the end goal?

Is it to fuel a meat grinder for the next 3 years? 6 years? Are we supposed to push on through a decade of CombatFootage videos of Ukrainian soldiers throwing beehives into Russian dugouts, Switchblades and Lancets counter sniping each others' operators, increasingly rare T-72s setting new manned spaceflight records, soldiers executing each other over survivable wounds, Ukrainian civilian housing structures being bombed into atomization?

Do we sit here and do this year after year while being chided by allies that sent four artillery barrels that our 120 weren't enough? By an ally that sent 50 MRAPS wagging their finger at us because 400 Strykers, 300 Bradleys, 200 M113s, 5000 humvees, and 1000 MRAPs wasn't our fair share? That the 100,000 ATGMs and 10,000 Javelins just doesn't stack up to three dozen AMX-10s and two dozen Milans? That we didn't do enough when our first batch of artillery shells outscaled Europe's total yearly production?

Do we do this while the minefields grow deeper, more impenetrable as they finish stacking another decade onto the fifty years' worth of mines they've already laid in belts around these captured territories, and as the demographic impact of casualties keeps on growing?

I'm all for seeing Russian troops mulched, don't get me wrong, and the suicide highlight reel still makes me chuckle darkly and shake my head, but... if we're capable of making the realization that Ukraine probably isn't going to get that territory back, or even most of it back, then what's the next outcome? Are we actually just doing this to see Russia ground to a nub? We're already watching Bukhankas and golf carts being used as personnel carriers. We're already looking at WWII hardware and some of the most ork-ass construction ever seen outside of Syria rolling around on a modern battlefield. It can't really be said that we expect them to do BETTER against some country that ISN'T Ukraine, and a multipolar war against Russia has only two realistic outcomes: Moscow burning and doing a McDonald's construction any% speedrun or nukes flying.

So... what's left? Is there some reason left to prolong the war by pouring money and war stocks into this other than to watch people die for ground that's practically never going to change hands again, only to be taken to task that no matter what we send, it's still not going to be enough, and that - at the end of it all - if we don't push even harder at nuclear annihilation by swearing blood oaths to deploy troops before we've even got a peace deal on the table, that we're unreliable demons from the pit?

None of this should be construed as support for Russia. Ukraine was brutally invaded by an aggressor Russia in an illegal war over absurd pretenses, and they do not deserve what's taking place. It's a tragedy of the highest order, and every Ivan with his skull split by 5.56 is a step closer to making it right. But I feel like it's worth asking what the end goal, after three years, currently is - while evaluating what's actually possible but not necessarily palatable.

I might be wrong, and anyone's free to disagree with me, but I'm not exactly sure that another 200 Leopards or another dozen Patriots or another ten thousand Javelins is what makes blue Robin Williams pop out of the lamp and snap his fingers back to the map as it existed in 2022.

As Poland put it, why is the EU - a group of countries comprising 500 million people insisting that the US, a country of 330 million people, to defend them against Russia, a country with 133 million people and GDP smaller than Texas?

Great analysis, Hapless.

Ukraine does not have the military power, even with generous Western aid, to retake most of its currently Russian-occupied territories. Should the Ukrainian gov't just throw in the towel, then?

Framing it as a binary choice, war or peace, oversimplifies things.

Zelensky is reasonable enough to sacrifice currently-occupied Ukrainian territory for an end to the bloodshed (but if he said so publicly, he'd have much less bargaining power at the negotiating table). However, a peace treaty that doesn't include security guarantees for Ukraine (with the USA and or NATO as guarantors), is worthless. The resulting "peace" would not be likely to last more than a couple of years, at most.

Why? Because Russia will use the respite to retool and rebuild its military forces, then try again later. Just ask Chechnya.

Putin's made it clear that he will not honor bilateral peace agreements with Ukraine. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give its nuclear weapons back to Russia in exchange for security assurances from Moscow.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factshee...urances-glance

Russia broke its promise twenty years later, when Russian troops invaded Crimea. Less than ten years after that, Russia invaded Ukraine (2022). Putin is a neo-imperialist. He's been very clear than he believes than many, if not all, former SSRs belong to Russia. He's also shown a willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own people to violently take them back. Let's not forget that Putin started this war by his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Framing Zelensky as the war-monger is pure Russian propaganda.

Therefore, it's not surprising that Zelensky insists that a negotiated peace settlement include robust security guarantees supported by the US/NATO. In the absence of said, Ukraine is willing to continue fighting. It's not an unreasonable or overly-sanguine position to take, given the circumstances and historical precedent.

History has shown again and again that a phony peace is no peace at all.

-

To Raellus:
Then we need to produce weapons and raising armies.

And another lessen:
Dont give up your nuclear weapons. Never!

But having nuclear weapons is not enough. You also need the willpower to use them.
And frankly I dont see much willpower in Europe.
A lot of hot air but nothing more.

Are We Doomed to Repeat the Past?
 

That's a fair question. Europe is also providing monetary and materiel aid to Ukraine. By some metrics, Europe has provided more than the USA.

https://www.reuters.com/world/how-mu...ed-2025-03-04/

That said, I agree that Europe could be doing more.

Are you suggesting that the US abdicate its role as "Leader of the Free World"?

As a Cold War kid, it's hard for me to reconcile US Russia policy today with our foreign policy imperatives of 30 years ago. The USA has been the de facto leader of NATO since 1949, the "Indispensable Nation". For better or for worse, Western Europe has looked to the USA for leadership since 1942. For the most part, we relished that role. And now, during the worst diplomatic/military crisis to hit Europe since WW2, we leap out of the driver's seat because guaranteeing the peace and security of Europe is too expensive? Are the savings worth it?

Do we really want to return to the isolationist foreign policy that the USA adhered to immediately following WWI? Anyone who's studied history knows how that turned out. It certainly didn't lead to peace.

And what message will the USA turning its back on Ukraine send to our allies? What message does it send to Putin, to Xi, and to Kim?

In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, several European countries have indeed been increasing their defense spending over the past few years.

-

The only major European country that has been serious about rebuilding their military capability is Poland.

The UK, France, Germany, Italy have all made token gestures. The UK isn't producing any new tanks, France isn't producing any new tanks, Germany alone can make, at best, 100-150 tanks PER YEAR - most of which are slated for foreign contracts, not German service. That's the entire old, non-US NATO capacity. 100-150 tanks per year. Turkey, Spain, and Greece all have as many Leopard 2's as Germany has (~350).

Poland, when it's all said and done, will have 1,000 K2 Black Panther thanks compared to ~350 Leopard 2's for Germany.

Europe has much the same problem the US has, but only so much worse. They de-industrialized, especially their military capacity, and scrapped most of the cold war material that they had. And what they didn't scrap - a lot of it has already been sent to Ukraine.

So, increasing military spending from 1.5% of GDP to 1.7% of GDP isn't going to help a whole lot when there isn't sufficient capacity to build tanks, IFVs, artillery tubes, artillery shells, drones, explosives, ammunition, etc.

The entire German army is down to 63,000 people. The UK Army 74,000. The French army 121,000. The Turkish army has close to 300,000, but you are lying to yourself if you think they are going to attack Russia to defend Ukraine.

So the entire German, French, and UK armies have 1/2 the manpower a not-fully-mobilized Russia has on the Ukraine front.

Surveys of Western European countries of how many people would fight to defend their country show numbers in the teen percentages. What do you think a European mobilization to fight in Ukraine is going to poll at? Meanwhile, the EU has thrown open it's borders and is enduring a migrant invasion. Ireland now sports a higher foreign born population percentage than the US has (and for the record, the US foreign born percentage is the highest it's ever been).

Europe has become Turkey in reverse. The sick man.

I'm not saying this to be mean or because I dislike Europe (I'm going there next week), but pointing out that Europe has lost it's capacity to fight, lost it's will to fight, and yet it's leaders are committing them to a fight they cannot win in defiance of all reality. And Europe still has not committed to the structural changes that will change any of that.

You also have problems with spending priorities. For example the UK has significantly more admirals (33) than combat vessels (19).

Five Lessons Learned from War in Ukraine
 

That's nuts.

Here's an interesting piece from War Zone on lessons learned from the war in Ukraine:

https://www.twz.com/news-features/na...war-in-ukraine

-

From the article:

Lesson 5: “We are woefully under-invested in our transatlantic defense industrial base to produce the capabilities we need at pace and at scale. Russia, with an economy 5% the size of NATO, produces in three months many critical munitions that it takes 32 allies an entire year to produce. I know I’m not making friends amongst the industry at this point, but something is very wrong here, and we must fix it.”

Goffus expanded on that last lesson.

The defense industrial base has “not been this important in a long time,” he explained, adding that the U.S. has to step up its capacity to produce weapons.

Lithuania wants “to buy AMRAAMS for their NASAMS,” he stated. “Five-year wait. I talked to the Bulgarian CHOD [Chief of Defense]. They want to buy Javelins for their Strykers. Seven-year wait. I talked to some of the big allies who want to buy Patriots. 10-year wait. That needs to get fixed.”

Which reinforces my point - both the US and Europe are not in a position to wage a protracted war, regardless of how much money they allocate to it, because the defense industrial base to spend the money is nonexistent.

This reminds me of my favorite response when a CEO wanted to throw money at a problem when there was no way we could hit his time target.

"Nine women can't make a baby in a month"

1. Poland recives most of its money from eu reallocation and socialist money redeistribution funds. Payd in eu admissions from the rich countries. So poland basicly spend money from sweden denmark france germany who they recive in cash. When these cash will go down in future Poland gotta reduce wellfare alot to pay for all exensive wep systems they bought like abrams panthers apaches and f35s, poland is not a rich country so this will affect living standards alot.

2. Most military material has gone up alot in price. Like a leaopard 2 tank had gone up 600% in price in 20 years or so and is 7-8 years waiting list for deliviery. so increasing next year from 2 to 2.5% doesnt help at all as war material increase faster in prices. An small increase in % gdp to defence useally lead to less bang and soldiers or warmashines for the buck.

Germany votes to spend more on defense.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...d=BingNewsSerp

-

So how will these money be spent? prices on Leopard 2 tanks will go up alot and the few production lines will be for german vehicles forcing all other countries in europe buy from other countries.Currently price on 1 leopard is 16 times higher then a modernised t72 but are pretty equal in combat support roles in ukraine. the t72 have better indirect support and HE round and leo 2 little better speed but are useless in mud in march and october.

It also looks like Germany is going to need to spend more on recruitment, salaries, and benefits.

German army struggles to get Gen Z recruits ‘ready for war’
https://www.ft.com/content/30594f17-...a-57cdf0176841

The fact that jumped out to me was