Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffe
That's very fair, but at some point the lack of equipment will result in casualties far in excess of 3:1. You can't just have men with rifles running in against combined forces in well entrenched positions forever.
|
Agreed. Your example cuts both ways, though, when it comes to offensive operations. The Russians have just captured Soledar after weeks of heavy fighting. Can the Ukrainians afford to sustain a 3:1 casualty ratio to retake it?
And Ukraine is running out of ammunition too, in particular for its artillery. Although local production has recently ramped up, it can't keep up with demand. Recent reports are that artillery fires have diminished from both sides. NATO is having a difficult time providing enough fresh shells and rockets to keep up with Ukrainian expenditures. They've been outsourcing resupply to "unaligned" countries (like Pakistan), but that supply is going to dry up soon as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffe
I kind of suspect the reason why Leopards and Challies are currently on offer is because Ukraine knows that in order for their own forces to go on the offense, they need better armor support, and have communicated that to friendly western nations. If Russia sustains another major defeat or two, Putin risks losing the support of the mil-bloggers, and then that of the people. We'll have to see how that all plays out.
|
I hope that turns out to be the case. The UAF is probably going to have to repel a large-scale Russian offensive in the spring before it can go over to the offensive again. That's what Ukrainian intel is saying, at least. There's growing concern that said offensive will include another lunge at Kiev out of Belarus. There're also rumblings that the Belarussian military might be taking part in same. If that were to happen, the strategic calculus of Ukraine and NATO is going to have to change.
-