The_MonkeyKing

Agreed on the military conclusions.

allegedly a video of the Russian blocking units (zagradotryads) working. 16865584531710.mp4 source: https://2ch.hk/po/res/54562197.html#54563125 and

and here is a video: Leo_2R_genocide.mp4

I don't see the major western-aligned OSINT analyst questioning the validity of these images. They have an exceptional track record of spotting fakes.

Failed 47th mechanized brigade(?) offensive mapped

I wonder if Ukraine can dry up Dnipro-river with other dams downstream from Dnipro-city for enough time to enable raiding and harassment operations from light forces?

Is there any reason the US would not announce and replace the Bradley losses? Would be cost-effective(there are ready organizations and crews just lacking vehicles) and a huge positive statement in the information space. And the US has Bradleys coming out of its ears... I am waiting.

Blowing that dam surely makes the water obstacle smaller upstream with time. Also, watering canals are going to dry up. That "river" also runs pretty west-east, a good obstacle. Might make things easier for Ukrainians later on. But sort term, sure. And that is how the Russians seem to think. And also brake everything they cannot have...

So now we might see quite a fast retreat to the main line of defense I this are

I agree. I just think this equation starts by giving way more money to Pentagon for this. Might be even counterproductive to advance qualitative increase before increasing the money allocation. People are left feeling "now Ukraine has what they need" when US is giving them every type of system. While in reality, the situation is the same without more money.

Yeah, lots of unknowns. If this first line that has now been breached in some places was indeed just "the skirmish line" of the Russians Ukrainians are in for a hard long fight. On the other hand, if Russia has a "forward defense" the operations have been wildly successful. The Russians don't really have a lot of space to back up to, just like in Herson the water is at their backs. Ukraine observation and strike capacity might encompass the entire Russian rear only after a couple of tens of kilometers. This would support more of a forward posture.

I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. We have seen huge qualitative increase in aid from the USA with a budget that was allocated when IFVs were seen of the table.

Maybe a long-range(<500km) strike capasity is not the most cost-efficient way of using the current money available to the Pentagon? That is what I mean. Possibly better to put it to GMLRS and GLSDB? Or antiair, mechanized capability, training ext. With more budget sure, ATACMS will become cost-effective at some threshold.

Historically it works by plowing up stuff every day. We shall see. We are still to really see the Ukrainian partisan potential materialize in support of military operations

Giving more sophisticated, complex, expensive weapons that are also expensive to sustain, without raising the total budget allocated to support Ukraine is a bad idea in my opinion. There are not a lot of taboos to break left either, Ukraine already has the Storm Shadow. I am quite confident the Pentagon has been supplying Ukraine with the best amount and kind of equipment for the budget politicians have allocated. TLDR: more budjet please!

EDIT: wrong geoloc

AI summary: The Ukrainian counter-offensive has begun, focusing on Zaporizhzhia but with pressure across the front. It's too early to draw conclusions. Expectations and objectives are unclear, and Russian defenses shouldn't be underestimated. Ukrainian units are facing challenges due to mobilization and lack of air support. Breaching operations are difficult, and attrition is expected. The battles will likely last for weeks and months. Western support and donations are crucial for Ukraine's success. The situation is uncertain, and patience is needed to see the outcome. This will be a long and challenging summer for Ukraine.

When looking at confirmed losses Russia keeps losing units in its rear like artillery, and Ukraine has lost almost none (none in the south). The losses are numerically larger on the Russian side still. Even the Ukrainian "bad" days are roughly similar losses on both sides. I would say these are positive early indicators for Ukraine. I would have expected Ukraine to have significantly higher losses at the start of these offensive operations than the Russians.

There is a historical "analogy" for every agenda. The Kursk one is not even that fitting...

Also, it is the terrain that needs the fortifications the most. Might also mean Russia has less capability manning them. So we cannot really jump to any conclusions based on the fortifications alone

RUS sources stated these attacks were (again) repulsed with significant casualties I think we have had a reliable indicator of RUS milblog net panicking if there is any Ukrainian success. We are still to see it in these actions.

I myself find this one the best: The War in Ukraine : Scribble Maps just click here to see the fortifications:

Footage of the Bradley battle UKR POV: rapidsavecom-same-battler-from-0806-from-afu-bradley-pow-pd734k9uz25b1_aPibKr1V.mp4 source (I cropped it): https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/145l0wp/same_battler_from_0806_from_afu_bradley_pow/

Seems the equipment was lost to Russian territory (at least for the duration of the photo op). To me, this makes it less likely any neighboring breaches were successful and the equipment would have been left under Ukrainian control to recover later on.

Cannot solve the helicopter problem within contested or mutually denied airspace. Those things scoot and fire >10km away from "hull down" positions. This is one way NATO would have handled large Soviet formations with extensive AA. Fortunately these are not even close to the threat and volume of us army rotatory wing.