Ok, here's my amateur interpretation of where things currently stand:

The Russian Army is in some state of partial collapse, having abandoned the attack of Kiev and failing to make substantive advances ont he ground in weeks. Stockpiles of precision guided munitions have been largely depleted, the Ural tank plant has stopped production and the 135,000 conscripts called up last week will take months to be trained and formed into effective combat units. Nontraditional sources of reinforcements (Wagner group mercs, 16,000 Syrian veterans and various Chechen private armies) are unlikely to arrive in sufficient mass and be able to integrate effectively into the Russian armed forces to effect the outcome. Byelorussian units are unlikely to intervene on Russia's behalf. The Russian military itself is scraping the bottom to the barrel for combat troops, having denuded the Pacific Fleet of Marines, for example.

The Ukrainians are likely to follow/drive the Russians back to the Byelorussian border in the north. Mariupol is probably lost, the Russians control about 85% of it. The Russian units retreating from the Kiev front are likely to be re-commited in the Donbas region, or at least allow a shuffle of uncommited units (if any exist) to the Donbas. The Russian hope is that the influx of troops there will shore up the front line enough to resist the coming Ukrainian counterattack. To limit the scope of the counterattack the Russians are trying to tie down as many Ukrainian troops as they can in other areas, launching diversionary attacks in Odessa and Kharkov to prevent the Ukrainian command from stripping those areas of troops to reinforce the counterattack.

Russian control of occupied areas is tenuous, with repeated anti-occupation protests in the only city they have occupied, Kherson. The Russians lack sufficient troops to secure these areas, and attempts to recruit local sympathizers to assume administrative duties has failed as heavy-handed kidnappings of local government officials feeds civilian resistance. Russian attacks on semi-beseiged cities and civilian facilities (shelters, schools, hospitals, apartment buildings) is intended to terrorize the Ukrainain population and destroy civilian morale, creating pressure on the Ukrainian government to sue for peace.

The Ukrainian military is still smaller and limited in its abilities, although with very high morale. Allied aid has allowed them to prevail in the defensive battles and the government has a deep potential manpower pool. (They are currently only calling up veterans with combat experience since 2014, although accepting volunteers with less experience). The amount of training required for the Ukrainians to be outfitted with advanced non-Soviet equipment will be prohibitive - Stinger missiles can be used effectively with a few days of instruction, Patriots will require months of training, and NATO has largely retired the masses of equipment required for Ukraine to hastily form combined arms mechanized units.

Going forward, on the battlefield my personal estimation is that the Russians will struggle to make any further territorial gains. The level of additional troops and their effectiveness that can be thrown in Donbas will effect how successful the Ukrainians are in recapturing that territory, although the Ukrainian drive will be largely of a light infantry/partisan nature, infiltrating behind Russian combat units and cutting them and their supporting logistic coumns to pieces in small packets. The Russians will continue to use whatever long-range munitions they have left to attack targets throughout the depth of Ukraine, but those attacks will continue to have little strategic effect other than unifying Ukrainians in the will to fight and keeping Western publics pressuring their governments to continue supporting Ukraine (hence Zelensky's address to parlianments around the world and Grammy awards message).

Which brings us to where the war goes strategically going forward. I'm confident that the only meeting Putin will accept with Zelensky is to accept Zelensky's surrender. Not going to happen. The Russian propaganda machine has already recast the war goals from demilitarization and denazifaction of Ukraine - regime change - down to expansion of the separatist puppet states. The possibility of continued failue by the Russian military on the ground puts even this objective in doubt. The Ukrainians soon will be able go to the peace talks offering recognition of Russian control of Crimea and Donbas and a pledge to memorialize NATO non-membership and probably get Russian acceptance. (By the way, regime change in Moscow in the short term is probably not going to happen... the oligarchs are able to hide their money from Western sanctions, the urban middle class is fleeing and too small to effect a change and the 50% of the population in the regions and rural areas are too willing consumers of state propaganda to rise up against Putin. Now, in a year or two when the defeated Army is back home, please see 1905 and 1917!) Zelensky has to choose how to move forward in war termination... 1) seek a more or less immediate ceasefire, accepting the loss of territory in Crimea and Donbas, ending the bloodshed and leaving open a "frozen conflict" like the ones in South Osetia, Transdnistr and Nagorno-Karabakh, or 2) take the risk that the Russian miltiary collapse will continue and his forces will be able retake not only the territory they lost in the last 2 months but also the Donbas separatist regions without provoking a Russian escalation.

Fairly high-level and simplified, but that's where I think things stand now! I'm happy to hear your thoughts!

Astute analysis, Chico- spot on, IMHO.

I don't think that Ukraine is going to be able to retake the Donbass (militarily, at least). The Ukrainian armed forces have excelled in defensive ops, but offense requires a lot more training, C2, and heavy weapons. The tables will turn if/when Ukraine attempts a strategic counteroffensive. Russian troops have failed pretty spectacularly in offensive ops, but again, defense is simpler, and their backs will be up against home soil (increasing motivation and easing logistics issues). The Russians also have solid local support in the de-facto separatist-controlled regions.

It's hard to see Zelensky accepting permanent loss of regions of eastern Ukraine, especially in light of recent evidence of large-scale Russian war crimes, but there's probably not much he can do to stop it. He might be willing to cede Crimea at the negotiating table, but that's a fait accompli, but that's not likely to restore the status quo ante bellum. I don't see Putin as willing to give up anyterritory firmly under Russian control, so yeah, a frozen conflict seems the most likely outcome at this point.

The fates of Donbass and Mariupol might depend on which leader, Putin or Zelensky lasts longer. In that contest, the ruthless autocrat has the advantage.

-

Newer Map
 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPi7zvlX...name=4096x4096

Again too big to embed

The Irony
 

Cool find, Kato. Just wish the city names were easier to read.

Re the article linked below, it must be frustrating for Russian soldiers to be facing off against fresh waves of Russian-made (or designed, at least) AFVs. If Moscow only knew then (back in the 1970s & '80s) what it knows now...

:D

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ded-to-ukraine

I hope this deal doesn't get blocked like the 3rd party MiG-29 transfer.

-

The way some of the Czech articles were phrased, it sounded like the vehicles have already been moved. The tanks, unfortunately, are "monkey model" T-72M1, the export version of the T-72A, which is hideously outdated. It's understandable that the Czechs wouldn't transfer any of their 30 T-72M4CZ that have been modernized (they have ~80-90 T-72M1 that weren't modernized), but the T-72M1 is basically a deathtrap on the modern battlefield. They're best used as either training vehicles or parts donors for Ukraine's modernized T-72 tanks. The BMP-1 will probably enter service as quickly as Ukraine can check them and replace any Czech language markers with Ukrainian ones, because Ukraine uses literally hundreds of BMP-1 in their military.

The creator also has the Kharkiv-Donbas Strategic Front where the names are clearer.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPou3yHX...name=4096x4096

Here is the latest largest picture
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPouUCxW...name=4096x4096

Source
https://twitter.com/JominiW/
Not normally a twitter fan but information is information.

When this is over, Ukraine is going to need something like the Marshall Plan after World War 2. I heard a report on NewsNation that it will take more than $1 trillion to rebuild Ukraine.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-tank-killers

Switchblade 600s have entered the fray.

"Special Armor"
 

It'll be interesting to see what effect Switchblade- especially the anti-armor version- has on the conflict. I hope it's not too little, too late.

One way that T2k discussion on this forum has proved particularly prescient is evidenced by the improvised "special armor" increasingly seen fitted to Russian soft-skinned vehicles on the Ukraine battlefield.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...an-major-power

I thought the MTLB engine hood mounted to the truck was particularly interesting. In my PotV PbP campaign, the crew used a similar trick to give the Wisla Krolowa river tug's bridge some protection against small arms fire.

-

On another forum, I've referred to that as "psychosomatic armor" - it makes the driver feel better about his chances, but it doesn't really do much against a dedicated opposition.

Cappy's Update
 

Cappy is giving us an update;



https://youtu.be/OZUMJ_T1YBI

Swag

Leopard I to Ukraine?
 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...manys-approval

What are the odds that this goes through? I doubt it'll happen, but I hope it does.

-

Goose eggs, for the reasons given in the article, and since Germany hasn't seen fit to contribute anything useful to the Ukraine effort besides attaboys.

So Russia is withdrawing forces east. But looks like mounting a new attack in the south, with forces cueing up again along highways.

I wonder if their tactics will be different this time, if they learnt anything from the resistance they received from their initial thrusts. Or if it will just be the same grinding advance.

It does seem that the Russians don't learn from their mistakes, doesn't it?

Tactics v Terrain
 

One of the big reasons for the failure of the first phase of the Russians' offensive (around Kiev) was that their tanks were operating in wooded and/or urban areas, were Ukrainian infantry armed with ATGMs and RPGs could effectively use ambush and hit-and-run tactics. Russian tactics don't necessarily need to change for them to have success in the east. The terrain there is much more open. The landscape is much more conducive to massed tank formations and artillery fires operating at range, negating many of the advantages that Ukrainian forces had during the Kiev campaign. The Russians will also have much shorter supply lines in the Donbass (and more local support). This article does a good job of explaining this in a bit more detail:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ains-of-donbas

In more positive news,

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ine-by-the-u-s

I wonder why Slovakia's MiGs are OK, but Poland's were too risky to transfer.
:confused:

-

We used to do that at all the units I was stationed at -- get the tanks to follow us into the woods, where they couldn't turn their turrets without being blocked with a tree and the TC had to pop up in his hatch to use the commander's machinegun. He usually died fast and we could pelt the tanks as much as we wanted with AT-4s and ATGMs. One brave soul even snuck to the rear quarter of an M1, climbed up on the engine deck without the crew noticing, and set a (simulated) thermite grenade on top of the engine deck. The M1 was called by the referees a total loss.

Maybe the Polish wanted too much in return -- much more than simply F-16s, but something else that was not advertised. The Slovakians may have given NATO a better deal.

Putin's current strategy may go something like this.

1. Take hammer.

2. Bash objective with hammer.

3a. If objective breaks, move on to next objective.

3b. If hammer breaks, put in requisition for a larger hammer.

Repeat until all objectives have been broken, or the supply of hammers has been exhausted.

Putin ran short of hammers trying to take Kyiv, so he's taking his remaining hammers east where he intends to whale away at the Ukrainians in the Donbas and along the Azov coast.

The political difference seems to be a direct transfer versus the US acting as a passthrough.

There may also be technology transfer issues. I seem to recall another War Zone article stating that Poland's MiGs have received some upgrades not present in the Slovakian fleet.

- C.

For the Ukrainians to manage to sink a Russian cruiser, that's quite an achievement. Fair to say that would be the most expensive individual piece of hardware the Russians have lost as a result of Putin's current folly?

I work with marketing teams all the time and the timing of the announcement of this stamp and the sinking, is more than you can ask for. I hope they sell 10s of millions of those stamps.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQP_z0FX...jpg&name=small


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQQxu92X...g&name=900x900


Edit the website is overloaded and they would not be available yet but giving them a link. http://pm.ukrposhta.ua/nishop.php (Ukrainian postal service)

edit 2 removed ?? from sinking. Russia admitted it.

That's gold, Jerry! GOLD!

Gavin Rides Again!
 

Here's what's in the latest US military aid package for Ukraine:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...age-to-ukraine

-

It's been confirmed on the major news channels (even Fox) -- The Moskva has sunk!

Most of crew had gotten off before it sunk.

Now, which do you believe:
1) A spontaneous fire broke out aboard her
2) The Ukrainians fired two antiship missiles at her
3) Two missiles hit her, which are what caused the fire in the first place.

Slava Ukraini!
 

The irony.

I think 2 & 3 most likely.

This brief AP article provides a little history about the Moskva.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-wa...d50470e2519982

I always thought the Slava class cruisers were the most attractive warships in the Soviet navy. Their cruise missile tubes were intimidating.

-

I'd like to think 2 and 3 happened but the experts on the news tend to think 1. We'll see which it is.

From Russias point of view, neither option is good.
1. Yes, our crew is so incompetent we started a fire on board that was so bad, we sunk; or
2. Yes, Ukraine sunk her with an anti-ship missile.

I don't know which scenario is more damaging to admit too.

Russian TV seems to be blaming Kyiv for the sinking of the Moskva and are calling it a Casus Belli for expanding attacks on Kyiv and railways.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...66062771875851

The story of an accidental explosion appears to have unraveled.

The most dangerous times in the conflict are now approaching. And by that I mean that Putin's plans have gone so very, very off-the-rails that circumstances have now almost certainly moved outside the branching tree of possible outcomes that he had prepared for. He may have the kind of mind that can step back and start planning calmly for the new reality he finds himself in. Or he may start to act more like a caged animal that's paranoid and irrational.

I think the only really smart thing he's done in recent times is put the entire conflict under the operational command of a highly efficient, ruthless killer of a general officer. Smart in terms of having some hope of salvaging the situation on the ground. Perhaps not so smart in that the man he's put in charge has shown no hesitation in Syria to utilise indiscriminate slaughter of civilians on a really large scale, including the use of chemical weapons.

There is probably some red line that NATO and/or the US will regard as the point at which direct intervention is necessary. I could be wrong. I don't think it's anywhere near the point that Russian nukes will start popping off, but I could be wrong about that too.

Russia utilizing NBC weapons would enrage the world, make things very uncomfortable for the Chinese, and pretty much ensure some degree of direct NATO involvement; I like to think they're not that stupid and/or desperate. Additionally, Russian attacks on military aid to Ukraine, inside the borders of third countries, would likely be considered a breach of Article 5, so, despite Russian diplomatic bluster, I consider it highly unlikely. Putin is looking to move the goalposts and to get some positive momentum so that he can declare victory and go home, and widening the war to include first rank military powers isn't going to help him achieve that. I expect them to concentrate every boot, rifle, and track on just hammering away until they can claim they "liberated" the Donbas.

One has to to wonder what lessons Putin drew from NATO's lukewarm response to Assad ignoring a declared "red line" and continuing to use chemical weapons against his own people in Syria. What did NATO do? A: Lobbed a dozen or so Tomahawks at an airbase or two. Is Putin going to worry too much about a strong NATO response if he authorizes the use of chemical weapons on Ukrainian trench lines in the Donbass?

-

I've given up trying to agree on what line to cross is too far. There have been 3, 4 or 6 or 7 times in this war i've thought, Whooa - too far.

Yet no response from NATO. Because they didn't want to provoke Russia. Which left me thinking there is no line that's too far.

It made me think back to high school and no one wanted to stand up to the yard bully. He's walking around hitting people but no one wanted to stand up to him, least they be hit. Do you know what happened? He kept walking around hitting people! By not doing anything, the worst happened any way!

I'm not in favour of war. But i also think NATO should be doing more. If they won't get involved during the Ukraine invasion, when will they? Poland? Spain?!

ROK T-80Us
 

South Korea probably wants to steer well clear of the Ukraine War, but its upgraded T-80Us (sent to the ROK by Russia to pay off Soviet-era debts) would be a welcome addition to Ukraine's MBT force. It's not like the ROK really needs them. Their locally built K1 (mini Abrams) and K2 Black Panthers are highly capable, and they still have quite a few upgraded M48s in reserve.

-

What would you suggest? So far, NATO has figured out a way to keep Ukraine afloat and avoid a direct fight with the Russians, while killing a lot of their men, destroying a lot of their hardware and demonstrating that the Russian military is vastly overrated. Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, giving the alliance a nice boost and the Germans seem ready to expand the Bundeswher. As an added bonus, China must be seriously questioning their alliance with Russia, feeling much like the Germans did vis-a-vis Italy during World War Two (a nation with a military that looked good on paper, but performed poorly and required constant support). While I won't go so far as to say that the Western policies have been a complete success - the war isn't over yet and the moves in the weeks leading up to the conflict failed to deter the Russians - they have been both measured and effective.

Given the risks from a more direct confrontation and the limited (if any) additional rewards, what would be gained? I'm curious because I hear this frustration from others, but never have gotten a good reply.

I guess that's why i didn't offer a solution. Its more a feeling of these constant, daily war atrocities in this day and age, feels so wrong. This can't be the lessor of two evils, can it (perhaps it is)?

I agree NATO has done well to impose economic sanctions, and Ukraine has done well to hold its own. Is this because of good management? Was this the plan all along?

Or dumb luck Russia hasn't lived up to expectations?

I think the sanctions need to be strengthened, or at least tightened up considerably. I've heard that there are multiple loopholes that the Russians are actively exploiting. After the first week of the war, news reports were all like, "The Russian economy is on the verge of collapse!" That was a month ago. In the meantime, it appears that they've figured out how to circumvent some of the sanctions and cope with the economic impact of those that are actually working. So that leverage is apparently not as strong as the media initially reported.

Apart from that, I think the US shouldn't have chickened out on the transfer of Polish MiG-29s. It's not too late, I imagine, to pass them along. They're not going to change the game, but in the absence of a no-fly zone, a few more fighters would help the Ukrainians defend their cities from bombing. Last I heard, the Slovak MiGs are still on the way.

And The Drive recently suggested that the Romanians should give Ukraine their recently grounded fleet of MiG-21s (which are slated to be replaced by second-hand F-16s soon anyway).

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ded-to-ukraine

-

I think there is almost zero chance the Russians would launch nukes in response to direct NATO military intervention in Ukraine. I'm not sure what you mean by "additional rewards", but time after time we've seen western nations go into conflicts essentially to enrich themselves while telling the world it was the "right thing to do". Well this time the right thing to do is to stop a totally unjustified invasion and the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians, and that's the reward.

What's a good way to rally the people around you? Go to War!

Unless it goes on too long, gets too expensive, the people at home are tired of being downtrodden...

Regardless of what Putin wants, Putin is not Stalin, or even Khrushchev...

Putin's done a pretty good job of muzzling dissent at home. Even exiles aren't safe from the long arm of the FSB.

I think we need to look at the lessons of history. Appeasement doesn't work. It only encourages aggression. The world basically turned a blind eye to the Russian seizure of Crimea in 2014. Look where we are now.

The EU/UN/NATO were slow to intervene during the Yugoslav Wars (1991-2001). As a result, tens of thousands of civilians were killed. More were displaced. Ethnic cleansing entered the English lexicon.

When NATO finally did intervene- first, by implementing a no-fly zone, later by conducting airstrikes and putting boots on the ground- the Yugoslav Wars were ended.

Unfortunately, the situation in Ukraine is drastically different.

The elephant in the room today is that none of the afore-mentioned bad actors of the not-so-distant past had a nuclear arsenal. This complicates things immensely. How does one stand up to a nuclear-armed bully without triggering Armageddon?

-