DavidFields

Spare a microscopic bit of sympathy for every corporal, and and quartermaster in the Chinese army. Can you imagine the inspections and audits Xi has ordered to be sure how much of a military he ACTUALLY has.

Good, but long (50 minutes) video by Perun on Russian nuclear doctrine and why he thinks it's a bluff. (Perun is the guy who had some good videos linked here on Russian logistics a few weeks back).
 

A couple points: 
1. Russia has to take it first and isn't showing the ability to get to Sloviansk much less the Donets/Dnipr.
2. I would strongly suggest following what folks at Brookings/German Marshall Fund/SAIS/etc are saying. They reflect official opinion in Brussels/DC pretty well and the explicit word is that only Ukraine decide when to quit. Russia has taken such an extreme and incompetent course that there's simply no alternative but to castrate their military power now or plan on having to do it again three years from now.
3. Ah, Luttvak. Let's just say a guy who wrote a book called "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire" and another called "The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire" wherein his theses are completely unsupported by any archaeological, textual or historical evidence is not the guy you should be putting much trust in. He's a clever dilettante and not much more.

Hey LongLeft, I generally agree w your analysis here.  Except that it aint liberals who are the problem in the west when it comes to supporting democracy & freedom.  Biden & Obama haven't been kissing Putin's ass, that other feller and his enablers are the ones doing that.  I am sure there's some lefties calling for no war at all cost.  There's been a daily peace protest by a bunch of old hippies in front of the county courthouse in my town for years now, and I saw them the other day w signs about Ukraine, wanting to negotiate -- as if that's an option!  But those lefties are the fringe, not the mainstream.
So how about you think before you throw around these outdated tropes?  It's not the lefties that were trying to destroy NATO, wreck western partnerships,  and empower Putin for four recent long years.  The most popular nightly news commentary show on TV is so pro-Putin it'd be banned on this forum -- and its viewers are all righties, not lefties.
But overall, keep up the good work, I do really like your posts.

The only problem I have with that strategy is so what?  Putin declares war and now he can conscript massively.  Now you have a whole lot of untrained folks many of whom really don't want to be in this meat grinder and you have to train them.  Handing them a weapon and sending them off to the front will just end up with a lot more cargo 200.  For them to make an effective impact on the battlefield they need to be trained.  Time is not on Putin's side and this doesn't help solve the time problem.

Lend-Lease was passed by the United States House of Representatives.

and China (and the world) have learned a very important lesson:  Putin can not be trusted as a business partner.  If you become dependent on what he has, he will use as a device for extortion.  China might be fine getting some below market stuff, but would they ever make themselves dependent on Putin?  I sure wouldn't

It does, but since the Russians have made it ABSOLUTELY clear, that their plan is to shoot every man of vaguely military age, rape any woman or child the they feel like, and then turn the whole country into something worse than a gulag, the Ukrainians are pretty much going to fight to the last twelve year old. The Russians can quit and go home any time, they just need proper encouragement. Watching their #^%^%##hole buddies die in burning AFVs is an EXCELLENT encouragement. ALL of them dying in burning AFVs is ok, too.

FWIW, Gepard is a tank. Just not an MBT.
It would certainly be useful protecting Dniper bridges.
This leads to my real point -
It seems agreed that the UA in its current semi-NATO/becoming NATO firm is able to stand up to and knock back the RA, operationally and tactically.
It's real strategy weakness are it's S/LOCs. In theory it has the advantage of interior LOCs - but they are long, vulnerable to air attack along their entire length (western border to Eastern front lines) choke-pointed by the Dniper bridges and seemingly not fully stood-up yet.
I posit that no real operational level UKR counteroffensive will happen (and has not happened) until UA untangles and properly militarizes (organisationally, with sufficient AA/AD) that situation.
This long exposed tail probably will suck up a disproportionate amount of AA assets, further limiting what's available for immediate cover to any offensive.

This is not how the utility of tanks is determined.  Like saying Sherman 75s were outdated and useless in 1944.

Making fun of the fact Russian officers treat their soldiers like crap, give them no context to their orders, and just generally lead them into slaughter over and over again.

Do these people have no conception of how stupid they look and sound? Apparently not. Drank their own Kool-Aid, the lot of 'em. Just a shame they have to take so many people along for the ride.

This won't work like that. Disregarding the fact that we will never be in NATO while France, Germany and, especially, Hungary are there as they are - Russia is hell bent on destroying Ukraine. Do you really think russians care about occupied Crimea and Donbas? It's just what they managed to capture. Until their troops are on polish border - they will not stop. And it doesn't matter which czar russians elect. They keep putin in power only because he is currently the alpha male. If he becomes weak - russians will just replace him with any other putin.
Russia will stop only when they have no army to attack with anymore and/or are too busy killing each other - but at that point Crimea and occupied Donbas territories will be easy pickings anyway - with no Russia to support any pro-russian movement in there.

too many likes can only lead to trouble.  Why back in the day we didn't even HAVE likes. When you wanted to like something you had to go see em, send a letter, or call them... on a rotary dial phone!  You young people today have it so easy.  😎

My impression is that those 18 guns and ammo are really a token force that won't have too much overall impact on the situation on the ground. 40000 is more than 2000 rounds per gun, this sound really excessive, unless you do WW1 style preparatory barrages.
What I think those guns really are is a first step toward UA moving to NATO calibers. 152mm rounds supply will dry up at some point. Already Slovakia sent (or will send) some of SP Zuzana howitzers, and more NATO 155 guns will follow. There were talks about buying some PzH 2000 from Rheinmetall  stocks- this might be possible if German government finally gets it's act together; maybe Lithuania will be willing to part with their too. Those would introduce a radical change in capability for UA army, those are first class even compared to newer designs. Ultimately though, the only NATO army that has significant stocks of mothballed artillery is the US army and if this war is prolonged, Ukraine will have to look there for equipment.
In the meantime 122 mm rocket (RM70 and BM21) and tube artillery (Polish 2S1) is making its way to Ukraine as we speak. There are considerable stocks of those available in Eastern European NATO armies. Poland had 13 modernized battalions of 2S1 at one point, we could part with considerable part of these I think.
What is interesting to me is that IIRC apart from these 18 155 guns from the last US arms package, it was mentioned that other long range system was to be delivered. I can only assume that it means HIMARS or M270. Those coupled with GMLRS rockets would be a complete game changer in artillery war I think.
Let's see what happens, situation seems to be developing really quickly and it looks like more and more weapon systems seem to be on the table again.
Actually I don't think it was stated explicite what guns were to be delivered. My bet were M198 or M777, as those are easier to airlift. Video with M109s on rail cars in Poland showed equipment moving to the Baltics I think.

What sort of nonsense is this? Nazism according putin's definition whatever that is. In a democracy people with different political views can start their own political parties whether right or left wing. Tolerance is not in putin's dictionary. I refuse to write that name with a capital. 

This offensive has nothing to do with resources and never did. Or at least not literal resources. For example russians couldn't care less if occupied Crimea ever gets drinking water - even if everybody died there of starvation - "those are just khokhol traitors anyway". Their military base was getting enough and that's the only thing that ever mattered.
And you know why? If russians ever cared about their economics - they wouldn't still be so critically dependent on black stuff from a hole in the ground.
Russia has only one single, unchangeable goal: destruction of Ukraine, complete elimination and enslavement of ukrainians - nothing else. Because if ukrainians exist and resist - this makes a huge plothole in their empire-building mythology and this is why you see putin spewing absolute insanity.
 

Question to anyone who might know or have an idea...
Playing around in CMO and some of EW (electronic warfare) aircraft have effects that extend quite a distance. It looks possible to remain in friendly/neutral territory or in international waters, turn on the EW warfare gear and affect unfriendly nations radar/SAM guidance, ship radars and so on miles away.
Its was reported a few weeks ago that the US deployed a squadron of F-18 Growlers to Europe. These have an offensive ECM load out that has quite a range of effects when used. It appears they could easily stay in NATO territory, turn on the ECM and the effects would easily extend into Ukraine.
Over international water they could easily have effects on any ships within their ECM gears range.
I've heard of some reports the Russians may be jamming GPS.
What is the international law in regards to this sort of activity-if any? In peacetime and during conflict. Is interfering with a combatants use of the electromagnetic spectrum considered an act of war like blockading? Or is it something along the line of providing weapons and supplies, but not actively taking part in a conflict? Don’t see anything on this seems like a grey area.
I've heard of people losing TV reception and other effects to electronics when presumably military exercises were happening and jamming aircraft  presumably turned their gear on.

The talk of the upcoming offensives today is based on the concept of destroying a large number of UA in the Donbas. Our general synopsis is that without some sort of magic wand it is fairly impossible for the RA to do this. With an all out effort and a bunch of luck the RA might be able to pull off the breakthrough and encirclement but I'm pretty sure no one here thinks that they would have anything left to reduce the "trapped" troops. Like we talked about a couple weeks ago, if they did manage to make the kettle, who would truly be surrounded? The UA has a lot of combat power in there and it isn't likely to roll over and play dead. On top of that, this has been their AO for several years now so I would think that they would have lots of supplies stockpiled within that area and wouldn't run out of beans, bullets and Band-Aids as fast as and encircled pincer would. 
Basically we are gaming the same thing that the "experts" are gaming. Said experts haven't gained our confidence and trust so far so why are we following their lead? Yes it is the most obvious attack from a military stand point if your goal is to destroy the enemies military, but is that their goal? If we compare to the negotiations Putin has realized that his vaunted military might wasn't what they thought it was, the UA is a beast, the people are very troublesome to logistics and everyone on his side is running low on combat power and high tech munitions. The surviving generals have to know this too and such and operation is out of bounds by May 9th. Throw in some crappy weather on top of it and how could they realistically expect to achieve that goal? If they have rolled back their demands on the negotiations I would think that means they know what kind of pickle is coming for them if this isn't over fairly soon.
I said a couple weeks ago that I thought they would do whatever it takes to clear Mariupol, secure their land bridge and any gains in the L/DPR and then shoot for a ceasefire. Their problem right now is they don't have anything to bargain with. How do they get a bargaining chip that Zelensky will take seriously and the west will pressure for a cease fire? They need hostages. Where is a big bunch of hostages that they could take? Kharkov. 
It's been pointed out several times that the forces that withdrew from the Kyiv area haven't been moved south to form a stronger pincer from that region. The reinforcements coming in aren't predominantly going south. The units being rebuilt and reinforced haven't been moving south of Izium. So if this Donbas pincer movement is expected to take place, why isn't there a southern pincer? Especially considering for the past few weeks that has been deemed to be the weak point in the line. That is where the schwerpunkt should be coming from. Instead all the forces remain in the northern sector where the UA and the world expects the attack and is building up for it. Even if the Donbas encirclement worked the UA units in the kettle really don't work as hostages. Even if the RA managed to somehow reduce the entrapped UA units in the end the losses that they would sustain ends the ability of the RA to do anything else for a very long time. The "victory" would surely lead to defeat as they have nothing left to defend against a Ukraine that has added more resolve to crush them and continues to grow their military through western aid and training up reserves. No win this way.
So instead, encircle Kharkov. Everyone expects the attack to the Southeast, go Northwest. Shorten the encirclement distance considerably. Pocket only a couple brigades instead of a dozen that you have to deal with. Your combat power can be more focused out than in. Even if half the population of Kharkov and the surrounding area has left you probably still have a million civilians in the cauldron. Now you have an instant humanitarian crisis and a nice hostage to trade for some concessions at the negotiation table (Putin keeps L/DNR and land bridge, gives up Kherson and Kharkov). Since you are a soulless piece of dung you make your point by an intense 24 hour indiscriminate artillery barrage just to add some pressure to act quickly at the negotiation table.
Do I think this is possible? Probably not due to all the problems with the RA ops so far, but they'd have a much better chance at this than a Donbas encirclement. It also works with who they are, what they are willing to do and what we've seen with their troop locations/movements so far. It's really the only way I see for them to get any leverage for negotiations.
Thoughts?

Steve said
To put this into perspective, a full strength BTG has about 225 infantry available to it.  300 if you're talking about a BTG that is infantry centric.  Let's call the minimum force requirement 5000 dismounted infantry.  That's the equivalent of 17-22 BTGs.  Russia has something like 80 or so in the fight right now and they are all fully committed, so they don't count.  It has probably another 30 or so reconstituting behind the lines with another 40 or so probably too shattered to even think about.
Me
From me, 5000 seems too low, 5000 seems WAY too low. Tre Russians have to attack on a front SEVERAL kilometers wide, just keep ATGMs from being able to shoot clear across the width of the breakthrough the are trying to create. Then they have to hold the flank of every kilometer they  advance. Even if you assume they could get by with 50 men per linear kilometer, and I think that is totally in adequate, that only buys you a a hundred kilometers of infantry coverage, You have to cover both sides of your salient, and you SURELY need more than 50 men per linear kilometer to actual front of the attack. So 5000 men might get you a five or ten kilometer front 25 kilometers deep. I don't see that accomplishing anything except a great many dead Russians. 
If the game has taught me anything it is that a company of infantry can only handle so much contested ground, and trying to exceed that goes rather poorly.

M was 60km south of Odessa when hit, so more likely blockading the southern trade routes. No significant land forces in range to protect.
This position also possibly helps explain why it was hit - to crack the blockade, force the BSF back and allow cargo ships in to Odessa. Thence probably why ASMs were requested - not to hit the BSF as such (although obviously the target) but to open the sea routes and start the process of reviving Ukraine's collapsed Economy. Still gotta deal with the BSF's submarines though.
UKR lacks any usable Anti Sub vessels or systems so the only option is to hit the docklands (which if done right would also take out the handful of ships under repair. 
The timing now would be ideal, as probably a third of the RUS subs will be at sea and the others will be tied up or in dock getting refueled/refitted/ rested since being on patrol since the start of the war.
Trash the docks, you trash the fleet.
It has no where else to go, that can hold it together as a unit, support it and protect it.
Hell, trash the docklands warehouses only and you'd start seeing drifting RUS warships in about two weeks.
 

Nice internal view of Kontakt-5 module:

The new Night Witches:
 

I wouldn't rule out that any other significant Russian ships just ran as fast as they could, in case the Ukrainians had more missiles. It is getting ever harder to think of the Russians as functioning military, as opposed to particularly well armed mob.

You bribe an underpaid railway worker to put a package in a certain railcar when the next train with artillery munitions is scheduled to go across the bridge.