kevinkin

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-kharkiv-oblast-city-planning-evacuation-as-russians-approach
Given the slow and costly nature of Ukraine’s counteroffensive in Zaporizhzhia Oblast and the Donbas, any Russian breakthrough in Kharkiv Oblast would be of great concern to Kyiv. It could force Ukraine to reallocate forces and equipment to shore up that front, further diminishing its ability to liberate territory, up to and including Crimea.
I don't think we are talking about a "breakthrough".  But this is something to keep an eye on. Not sure why the situation is dire enough to publicly announce evacuations. Perhaps a plan of some type. 
“In the course of combat operations in Kupiansk direction, assault groups of the 6th Combined Arms Army captured four strongholds, five observation posts, destroyed a U.K.-manufactured Spartan Armored Personnel Carrier, one supply point and destroyed up to a company of infantry from the 67th Separate Mechanized Brigade near Mankovka tract,” the Russian MoD claimed. “In addition, during the day the enemy carried out nine counterattacks by units of the 67th and 14th separate mechanized brigades on Russian positions close to Sinkivka and Mankovka tract. All counterattacks were successfully repelled. The enemy losses were up to a platoon of manpower.”
Not much to write home about.
 

Sorry for the lousy graphic design, as evident engineers suck at such complex tasks.
PS! Sorry buddy, couldn’t help it when you set it up like that. Say it with brotherly love.

The west was giddy as schools girls with Russia's operational defeats last year. But the west failed to followed through put the hammer down out of fear of WMD. But what they also failed to comprehend is that the weekly strategic drone strikes are also a form of WMD when compounded. No fallout. No chemicals or viruses. But the effect on Ukraine as a young nation with a ancient culture is the same. For over a year the west has been titrating support with the hope of a Russian collapse. The famous sign in the bar; Free Beer! ... Tomorrow. Except nothing here is free.
There needs to be a major shift in the strategic calculus whereby WMD are removed from the picture - not physically but effectively. This will not happen on the static battlefield as we see it today. Putin loves what he is getting - death and destruction. He feels it hardens his people. And the west is playing into his hands. At some point western leaders have to stare their citizens in the eyes and tell them this is long war, here is why winning is vital, and we are in WW3 vs authoritarian rulers and the minions that keep them in power. This war is just to big to be nuisanced. Whatever happened to MAD? Why is the west looking so weak. Isn't the west the bastion of hope and prosperity?         

The current untrained mob of convicts has added enough resistance to prevent any major successes this whole offensive. They may die like flies but even the convicts stay in their trench and fight enough to make advancing terribly costly.
The only major success that can be had follows a collapse of the Russian line. With more mobiks, more lines can be filled. Means no collapse, which means endless grinding through trenchlines like its ww1 with a couple hundred meters here and there per day.
If the Russian public doesnt oust their beloved Tsar, then the manpower advantage swings wildly in the wrong direction - and I have little faith in Russian resistance, the zombies will complain but do as told.
Then the only way to win this is to draw enough Russian blood over years long slaughter that the state collapses before Ukraine does. Putin bets the West will force a negotiation before he gets a bullet in his head.
Assuming Trump winning thats not far fetched. The French and German publics will not carry this war alone for years, the Brits and baltics cant alone. 

The west was giddy as schools girls with Russia's operational defeats last year. But the west failed to followed through put the hammer down out of fear of WMD. But what they also failed to comprehend is that the weekly strategic drone strikes are also a form of WMD when compounded. No fallout. No chemicals or viruses. But the effect on Ukraine as a young nation with a ancient culture is the same. For over a year the west has been titrating support with the hope of a Russian collapse. The famous sign in the bar; Free Beer! ... Tomorrow. Except nothing here is free.
There needs to be a major shift in the strategic calculus whereby WMD are removed from the picture - not physically but effectively. This will not happen on the static battlefield as we see it today. Putin loves what he is getting - death and destruction. He feels it hardens his people. And the west is playing into his hands. At some point western leaders have to stare their citizens in the eyes and tell them this is long war, here is why winning is vital, and we are in WW3 vs authoritarian rulers and the minions that keep them in power. This war is just to big to be nuisanced. Whatever happened to MAD? Why is the west looking so weak. Isn't the west the bastion of hope and prosperity?         

https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/07/army-may-procure-multiple-variants-of-lasso-kamikaze-drones-to-boost-production-capacity-acquisition-chief-says/
Neat system. Moving to a more unified UAV where it can be adapted based on the objective/target set? Standardization has benefits in the long run. I wonder to the DOD has civilian engineers observing in Ukraine? If not, perhaps they should. 

https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/08/drone-wars-over-moscow/
Here's the conventional wisdom(?) in nutshell:
While drones have proven useful to both sides, they are unlikely to be decisive for either. Their effect on how the war ends will be marginal. In fact, no single weapon or system is capable of providing the decisive edge in this war. Ukraine is receiving – and in the case of drones, producing – weapons of better quality than Russia can field, but Russia retains a numerical advantage and has the ability to escalate in ways Ukraine cannot match, including the use of nuclear weapons. No clear military solution is easily available to either side. This war, like nearly all wars, will end in a negotiated settlement. But that won’t happen until both sides believe they’ll get a better deal by talking than by fighting; right now, both believe they can gain more by fighting. Drone strikes alone are unlikely to change that calculus.
The US buys into that, and so does Putin, but wonder if Ukraine does and are their operations being conducted with that understanding? It's almost as if Putin's war is being directed by China who is the only entity that can force him to the table. Otherwise, he thinks time and attrition are on his side.

https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/07/army-may-procure-multiple-variants-of-lasso-kamikaze-drones-to-boost-production-capacity-acquisition-chief-says/
Neat system. Moving to a more unified UAV where it can be adapted based on the objective/target set? Standardization has benefits in the long run. I wonder to the DOD has civilian engineers observing in Ukraine? If not, perhaps they should. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-and-china-sent-large-naval-patrol-near-alaska-127de28b
Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the patrol was a reminder that the U.S. has entered “a new era of authoritarian aggression” and applauded the robust U.S. response.
Making a sales call for the UA? As if this is going to stop US aid. But still, go practice somewhere else. 

Yikes:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/woman-arrested-plot-kill-president-volodymyr-zelenskyy-ukraine/story?id=102065597
As investigators gathered additional info, they found that the woman had been locating Ukraine’s defense systems and ammunition warehouses throughout the Ochakov region, they said. She traveled to the region and photographed sites, officials said.
The woman had allegedly been planning to share that info with Russia for “a new massive air strike” in the region.
Zelenksyy said he was briefed on "the struggle against traitors in Ukraine" during his daily conference call with Ukrainian leaders on Monday.

From the Sunday NYT:
https://dnyuz.com/2023/08/06/putins-forever-war/
Travel log around war torn Russia. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-and-china-sent-large-naval-patrol-near-alaska-127de28b
Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the patrol was a reminder that the U.S. has entered “a new era of authoritarian aggression” and applauded the robust U.S. response.
Making a sales call for the UA? As if this is going to stop US aid. But still, go practice somewhere else. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-and-china-sent-large-naval-patrol-near-alaska-127de28b
Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the patrol was a reminder that the U.S. has entered “a new era of authoritarian aggression” and applauded the robust U.S. response.
Making a sales call for the UA? As if this is going to stop US aid. But still, go practice somewhere else. 

Thanks for the article as it does examine the idea that attrition is another form of maneuver warfare. And I agree that firepower is more important than manpower. The outcome of the math requires accurate numbers which we don't have. We don't know if UA losses are efficient. Separating material losses and manpower losses does not last forever. Especially if the attacking force is on the long term inferior manpower side. That means UA needs firepower now. It needs to increase the RA loss rate in relative terms. There are so many unknowns, distilling this down to math as we would in peace time, may not produce an accurate result. The RA may crush the UA in a month or never. Moral factors play a role as well. That's in the work of phycology.  A concern is that the west may see their UA proxy as obtaining the west's objects short of Ukraine obtaining theirs. That goes beyond the calculus of combat. The article is thought provoking for sure. Glad you posted it. 
PS: The article mentions the western brigades are "crack" which has not been demonstrated on the battlefield. Little training + little combat experience does not equal crack. Better than what they will face? A  high probably, but not as simple as arithmetic in a real horrific war of survival. 

ISW:
Russian authorities are continuing to deport Ukrainian children to Russia under the guise of summer camps.
Has there been any reporting/analysis on the potential of Russia using these kids as barter in negotiations if/when they start? It's a very hard subject to discuss. I would rather not bring up my views on the matter except to say this one issue might prolong the conflict beyond the current kinetic fighting more than any other. Unless these kids are allowed to disappear in the fog of war forever and forgotten. 

ISW:
Russian authorities are continuing to deport Ukrainian children to Russia under the guise of summer camps.
Has there been any reporting/analysis on the potential of Russia using these kids as barter in negotiations if/when they start? It's a very hard subject to discuss. I would rather not bring up my views on the matter except to say this one issue might prolong the conflict beyond the current kinetic fighting more than any other. Unless these kids are allowed to disappear in the fog of war forever and forgotten. 

I thought the same thing while out today:
Historian Samuel Eliot Morison wrote in his official postwar naval history, 
“One of the most reprehensible failures on our part was the neglect of the local communities to dim their waterfront lights, or of military authorities to require them to do so, until three months after the submarine offensive started. When this obvious defense measure was first proposed, squawks went up all the way from Atlantic City to southern Florida that the ‘tourist season would be ruined.’ Miami and its luxurious suburbs threw up six miles of neon-light glow, against which the southbound shipping that hugged the reefs to avoid the Gulf Stream was silhouetted. Ships were sunk and seamen drowned in order that the citizenry might enjoy business and pleasure as usual.”
Reading this, isn't the Crimea in some sort of tourist season now?  It took the US a few months to enforce blackouts. But they did. 

And over at the War Zone:
Update, 7:00 AM PST: As well as the apparent USV attack on the Russian Navy amphibious landing ship Olenegorsky Gornyak, there are reports that other Russian targets have come under recent attack.
There are reports that explosions occurred in the area of Yuzhnaya Ozerievka, where the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s marine terminal is located, close to the scene of the landing ship attack. Once again, drone boats are said to have been used, in this case, to attack oil infrastructure.
 

And over at the War Zone:
Update, 7:00 AM PST: As well as the apparent USV attack on the Russian Navy amphibious landing ship Olenegorsky Gornyak, there are reports that other Russian targets have come under recent attack.
There are reports that explosions occurred in the area of Yuzhnaya Ozerievka, where the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s marine terminal is located, close to the scene of the landing ship attack. Once again, drone boats are said to have been used, in this case, to attack oil infrastructure.
 

To your point, this report is from ISW writers and a long summary of the situation as of 8/3/23.
https://time.com/6300772/ukraine-counteroffensive-can-still-succeed/
Last paragraph is as sober as it is a reflection of what is occurring:
Ukraine is still very much in the game, and the many structural advantages it has offer good reason to expect that Ukrainian forces will liberate vital lands and the people living on them if only the West holds firm in its support.
Have to say, the choice of words seems to be reeling in the expectations of the western reader who is following this God awful war. "in the game" is something the coach tells a youth soccer team heading in the second half down by 3 goals. "vital lands" I think means not all of Ukraine/Crimea is the objective, maybe it never was. They seem to imply it's now all about obtaining defensible borders and economic access to the south. 
 It matters to Ukraine and to the West where the lines are drawn when the fighting stops—and both Western and Ukrainian interests are badly harmed by allowing the lines to remain where they are.
In other words, Russia is winning as of today? Go figure. It's coming across as a appeal for more NATO firepower sooner not later. 
Ukraine’s backers must avoid rushing to premature conclusions about Ukraine’s prospects. It is far too soon to forecast the outcome of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, and there is no basis for assuming that it will fail. The West must internalize the reality that Ukrainian success is likely to be slower and more costly than many had hoped. It will be punctuated by moments of hope and disappointment. The West must therefore prepare to lean in to providing Ukraine with the materiel it will require for a long campaign and focus on getting it all to Ukraine as rapidly as possible rather than dripping it in gradually over time. 
That's a shot across the bow of western leadership. Or lack thereof. 
The likeliest path to Ukrainian success in this counter-offensive will be slow and staccato. Ukrainian troops continue to press along the front and with attacks against Russian rear areas until front-line Russian defenders lose the will or ability to continue the counter-attacks required by their elastic defense approach. At that point, Ukrainian forces may begin to grind through the Russian defenses 500 or 1,000 meters a day for a time in several locations, creating a series of footholds in the Russian lines until they reach points threatening the Russians’ ability to continue to hold the areas in between these footholds. This pattern shaped the first parts of the Kherson counter-offensive and led to a rather sudden Russian withdrawal from their initial lines to a much smaller pocket. The Ukrainians would likely follow such a limited Russian withdrawal this time by consolidating their gains, resting, and preparing to renew the effort from positions further to the south.
I think we had or have come to a similar conclusion. But the article does not mention there is a finite number within the demographics to maintain warfare endlessly which feeds back into the notion that where the line stabilizes might now be in the forefront of operational planners on both sides. 
PS: the geometry of war discussion is an interesting presentation. 
 

Been thinking long term related to this war and that has me thinking about training. See my question above about the NTC. Would it be crazy for Ukraine to take a serious look at the way US Marines are preparing to fight in the western Pacific? There is no intent to occupy China; sort of similar to the current war with Russian. Long range fires have been validated combined with UAVs. The Marines have economy of force in their DNA - well at least deploying in small foot prints. Elite, small, and hard hitting. Not everything is applicable since this is a continental war. However, training on the marine's application of force could result in discontinuities vs the traditional mechanized force the RA has. Not thinking about fire bases other they would fire and move fire and move. The marine's are embracing a Distributed Lethality concept that might help defend Ukraine into the immediate future. 
https://www.sandboxx.us/news/the-marines-new-drone-truck-can-take-out-enemy-ships-from-1000-miles-out/
 

For me the question is very much complicated by the lack of information on the differential casualty rates. But let's take a swing:
1. Kill RA troops
2. Kill RA troops
3. Kill RA troops
For any given period of time and terrain, ask your subordinates to figure out how to Kill RA troops while minimizing attrition on their force. Use gains in territory to foster 1, 2, and 3. Fall back if you can foster 1, 2, and 3. I would also warn against large encirclement operations unless the risks from RA counterattacks is low i.e. contained. 

For me the question is very much complicated by the lack of information on the differential casualty rates. But let's take a swing:
1. Kill RA troops
2. Kill RA troops
3. Kill RA troops
For any given period of time and terrain, ask your subordinates to figure out how to Kill RA troops while minimizing attrition on their force. Use gains in territory to foster 1, 2, and 3. Fall back if you can foster 1, 2, and 3. I would also warn against large encirclement operations unless the risks from RA counterattacks is low i.e. contained. 

For me the question is very much complicated by the lack of information on the differential casualty rates. But let's take a swing:
1. Kill RA troops
2. Kill RA troops
3. Kill RA troops
For any given period of time and terrain, ask your subordinates to figure out how to Kill RA troops while minimizing attrition on their force. Use gains in territory to foster 1, 2, and 3. Fall back if you can foster 1, 2, and 3. I would also warn against large encirclement operations unless the risks from RA counterattacks is low i.e. contained. 

Thanks for the report. I jumped to the conclusion and the writer seems to be advocating pushing Russia to the brink of nuclear war in an effort to call their bluff. 
Only an overwhelming Ukrainian military victory can deliver what Ukrainians themselves reasonably demand. This can only be achieved with external military support, in particular from the US. The arguments against providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry are spurious. What is needed is a greatly enhanced commitment by all of Ukraine’s backers to providing war-winning materiel as swiftly as it can be delivered and absorbed by Ukraine’s armed forces. This should include more air defence systems, long-range missiles, combat aircraft, advanced main battle tanks, and other such weapons systems as may be identified as essential to victory. Half-measures short of this will prolong the conflict, at a continuing cost in Ukrainian lives and also at great cost to the long-term prospects for the security of Europe.
Right or wrong this is a credible position to take and those that are pushing for it should be taken seriously. Unlike other reports, the writer does bring up the key element of time:
Most publications of this nature seek enduring relevance, a ‘shelf life’. Not here. US assistance remains decisive, but America is approaching another momentous electoral fork in the road, with a stark choice between an administration currently doing the right thing – albeit hesitantly and with one foot on the brake – and one that would wish to abandon Ukraine or, if possible, Europe altogether. This, then, is the decisive year in which to give Ukraine the necessary military assistance to win, before the 2024 US election distracts from and constrains Western action – or, in the event of a victory for Donald Trump or his fellow travellers, hands victory to Russia. Far too much time has already been lost to timidity and misplaced fears of Russian escalation.120 This delay could well prove tragic. If the recommendations in this report – principally to ensure Ukraine’s military victory and the reduction of Russia as a future threat – are not taken up within months, all is potentially lost.
The writer seems to be inferring the US election and results could be a factor. Well yes they are. But that should not drive the overall strategy. I don't think the policymakers in DC are going to "abandon Ukraine or, if possible, Europe altogether". There is too much money to be made. So in my view an analysis of time relates more closely to the rate of losses both side are incurring - not who wins next year's election. POTUS says the good guys are running out of ammo. That does not sound a like of ultra partisan statement to me. It's a sad fact.