NamEndedAllen
-
Posts
671 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NamEndedAllen
-
-
4 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Tricky. Does the UA have the capacity to take enough troops off the line for 6-12 months of training? Does the UA logistical system have the slack to be re-tooled? The West could set it up, nothing money couldn't solve.
If we think this war is going to last another 12-24 months then I would seriously start thinking about it, along with a domestic Ukrainian arms industry. The UA is going to run out of Soviet-style equipment eventually and the Russian's have deeper pockets on paper.
Gotta admit it is an idea.
NYTimes: U.S. Will Train More Ukrainian Troops, Adding Advanced Battle Tactics
”Combined Arms” Infantry, artillery, armor, and air support when available. -
U.S. Will Train More Ukrainian Troops, Adding Advanced Battle Tactics
S. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-troops-training-pentagon.htmlWill Train More Ukrainian Troops, Adding Advanced Battle Tactics
The expanded training would emphasize “combined arms” warfare — tight coordination among infantry, artillery, armored vehicles and, when it is available, air support, so that each group is strengthened and protected by the others.Ukrainian officials have been wary of pulling too many troops off the front lines at any given time for specialized training given the intensity of the war. But with winter slowing the tempo of fighting in many parts of the combat zone, officials said the coming months would provide a window for more troops to benefit from training.
The training is expected to begin in January and would enable American instructors to train a Ukrainian battalion, or about 500 troops, each month, a number that could grow, Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, said at a news briefing. Other U.S. officials said the battalions could range up to 800 soldiers each
-
7 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:
For ideas that you consider “bad” yes. Unfortunately, they may be ideas that I consider to be perfectly valid GOOD ideas. How do you resolve that conflict of values and beliefs?
Not my aim! And I mostly agree with you. Unless your ideas are about racist supremacy crap or favoring the Dallas Cowboys. Or Jewish Space Lasers. That stuff. I was responding to Cap’s post stressing the need to correct mistaken ideas here and elsewhere, lest they affect governance and the like.
-
56 minutes ago, Sojourner said:
So yeah, I was obviously exaggerating about the not doing anything, but it would be nice if sanctions were actually enforced rather than enriching black marketeers. In the Barron's article Steve linked above, seven were charged but four are still at large. And one guy was stopped in October and stopped again in November before he was arrested in December. I thought I knew what "stop" means, guess I'll have to go dig out my copy of the OED.
Sorry, I guess I get a little impatient and cranky when I read about Russian torture chambers for children...
https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/ombudsman-childrens-torture-chamber-found-in-liberated-kherson
Sanctions, like war plans and everything else in life will never be perfect. But they sure do help.
-
48 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I am not sure where everyone is from but the opinions on this thread kind of do impact the war. First of all some are close to policy makers and are drawing on this conversation to inform decisions at higher levels. Second, and more importantly, we live in western democracies so the opinions of the people count very much.
I totally agree on trying to keep it above the belt, but informed decision is central to the democratic process and every conversation matters. Western democracies are not ruled by prime ministers and presidents - we rule them. And small conversations like the one's here are happening all over the internet and in every bar. If forum members go forth with a better view of the truth, or as best we can determine, then we have in some small way tried to make things better. This is why mis/dis information really needs to be hit hard, all of it. We cracked down on Bio Black sites, economic myths and a boatload of Russian lies and propaganda being pushed from some circles.
We can be passionate, we can disagree but we should never become an echo chamber or any value we have in the bigger conversation, that will impact foreign policies at some point, will be lost.
Very good to hear. And wise words.
I believe similar recent comments here are more concerned with the sharpness of tone, than with the extremely valuable thrashing of ideas and proposals that do serve as you indicate: Sharing valuable reports and information, then winnowing out the worst and emphasizing the best. Fact is, that doesn’t require absolutely convincing any particularly entrenched holder of a bad idea. Rather, ensuring that the majority here see the best facts and reasoning.If stamping out and annihilating every last instance of a bad idea were possible, politics at least in the USA would be far more rational than today!
-
58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
A Leo2 gives Ukraine a slightly better version of something they already have and it would be on a small scale. Not going to amount to anything. ATACMS, on the other hand, would likely put further stress on Russia's stumbling war effort. That could translate into meaningful impact. So if I had to choose between giving Ukraine Leo2 or ATACAM, it would be ATACAM hands down.
The thing is Russia is losing this war with what Ukraine already has. Adding ATACMS to the mix won't likely end Russia's ability to wage war any sooner than without ATACMS. Russia will adapt as they did to HIMARS. Assuming that Ukraine didn't use ATACMS in a way that provoked Russia into switching gears into all out conventional or nuclear war. Either of which would be very bad. Which is, like it or not, the concern of NATO governments.
Steve
Thanks. Well, I’m not touching the Leo Wars here! That’s why I highlighted ATACMS, as representative of systems to reach just the next layers where Russians have had re-organize - due to the existing HIMARS/new artillery. Wouldn’t pushing them back even farther once again contribute to a similar set of happy events including evacuating, abandoning the most forward positions or losing them? I’m not trying to be argumentative - I just haven’t grasped why another similar increase in reach would not result in similar benefits. I hadn’t thought that their transportation net, HQs, supply depots are already all pushed back into Russia itself
-
1 hour ago, LukeFF said:
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari has warned],
He sends me emails urging me to collect a very large amount of money, if I just follow a few simple steps. Credible?
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
The overall point that Ukraine, and by extension it's citizens, need to keep in mind is that Ukraine isn't entitled to anything. Not legally and not even morally in any meaningful sense.
Steve, I would like to think that at least some significant number of my fellow patriotic taxpayers are supporting massive war fighting aid not because of any sense that Ukraine is entitled to it (wherever that odd couching came from), and not solely morally motivated either. Rather, it is because the stark danger to Europe itself, the structures that support the relative prosperity snd freedom of Europeans and by extension, Britain, the USA, Canada - Western Civilization as we have known or deduced it to be. Russia’s actions are a threat to us all. It doesn’t take a weatherman to see the gale force winds so reminiscent of 1939.
And everything you have correctly observed points to the importance of ending the Russian invasion sooner. Nothing is more likely to erode voter support than another long, grinding, seeming endless morass war lasting not months but years.
-
4 hours ago, Twisk said:
It seems to me that the best support for Ukraine is continued ISR support and precision weapons. Do you need a tank when you can drop a PGM on them?
More and better drones and more and better PGM. Re: ATACMs I think there are significant portions of occupied Ukraine which cannot currently be hit. They would offer a chance for Ukraine to make the danger zone the entirety of occupied Ukraine. (I believe the M14 highway is out of range for example).I think “The Tank Is Dead Bandwagon” is dead. And starting to smell bad! But otherwise agree with your points.
-
17 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
This means Ukraine will continue to suffer until Russia collapses. No amount of Leo2s or ATACMS will likely make it happen any quicker.
Steve, agreed… all your points make sense. I do need to know more about your last point though, due to being a lot less knowledgeable on the critical specifics. Earlier in the war, the advent of HIMARS and the other upgrades extended the range and lethality of Ukrainian fires. This forced the enemy to push back its HQs, supply dumps, GLOCS protected by distance, etc - specifics you are better informed of. The outcome was disrupting and degrading the efficiency and speed for support and control of their frontline forces, and for Ukraine, increased shaping of the battlefield.
If this is more or less correct, isn’t there another similar layer beyond Ukraine’s current limit of reach, that the Allies’ existing weapons not yet provided could enable? Not deep strategic strikes far into Russia! Simply another extension to the distance Russia can safely organize - just as happened with the initial tranche of upgraded artillery etc? That’s what I have been hoping for, and frustrated not to see introduced. A logical, incremental next stage of boiling the wretched Russian frog, helping to choke Russia’s ability to supply their troops, freeze them, starve them…force them back farther towards Russian borders. Or…we’ve reached a natural limit with the current reach Ukraine has? They can’t target anything beyond that limit without grinding there way forward? Thanks for insights on this.
-
10 hours ago, dan/california said:
Of course we could have started nine months ago, or eight years and nine months ago.
BadaBOOM!
-
10 hours ago, Kinophile said:
But... what if we like the strap?
giggity
Sounds like a personal problem!
-
9 hours ago, Taranis said:
The US Department of Commerce estimates that Russia's access to semiconductors has been reduced by almost 70% since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, a review of customs records "revealed that since the invasion the declared value of Russian semiconductor imports has, in fact, risen sharply," Reuters says.
This is enormously disappointing. And a reminder that the differences between what we think we know and what is actually the case can easily render our favorite predictions terribly wrong. I keep remembering those early predictions that Ukraine would collapse in three days. Followed by, the Russian army would collapse by May, and then by August, and then in autumn. Similarly, that Russia itself would collapse. Sure, those things still could happen. It looks as if the odds lean that way, for the reasons often discussed here. And in WWI, a collapse of Russia did take it out of the war. But in WWII, neither Germany nor Russia nor Japan collapsed. Despite the horrendous losses and destruction of their nations. They fought until they were defeated and surrendered, or were victorious.
Earlier, Dan wrote that the longer the war goes on, the higher the cost of everything soars. That is simple truth. Regardless of whether or not more aid would defeat Russia sooner. The longer the war goes on, the more things can go sideways. Especially outside Ukraine and Russia. One thing is firmly established: if the Allies’ financial and military commitment wavers, all bets are off. In a multi-year grind, how solidly united is that commitment? The future is not written. And it is fickle.
-
4 hours ago, Baneman said:
To be fair, in 10+ months, Haiduk has almost never "bubbled over", I think we could cut him (and others) a wee bit more slack.
4 hours ago, Baneman said:Really, we should all do that with each other - sure we all have different opinions and that can lead to arguing, but we're all on the same side, so we should take a few deep breaths and try not to get irked at disagreement, rather than reaching for the ignore button.
Absolutely the most important post here. Your words should be quoted at the top of every page of the forum! We humans are so good at getting irked with one another. We can turn on each other and face off over the slightest matter - at a moment’s notice. Many a useful Internet forum has gone up in flames and turned to ashes. Fortunately, Steve and Elvis are crack moderators and keep the pot from boiling over. But really, we ought not to need Daddy and his threat of the strap.
-
1 minute ago, Ultradave said:
I'm 66 and a cancer survivor. I still run 4 times a week, bike, and swim at the Y. Took a bit to get back to seriousness after chemo but feeling strong now. One thing they told me was that they see that people who are in good health and good shape have the fewest issues handling chemo. Gotta' say I'm glad I WAS in good shape because chemo was a b1tch. Don't recommend. Zero stars out of 5.
My wife is also a runner. She's 68 and looks like she's about 50. Our ultra running days are behind us but I can't stop running.
Dave
Rock on, Dave!
-
1 hour ago, FancyCat said:
A bit uncharitable, he does reply later that NATO will be protected, and since Poland is part of NATO, it will be protected.
Mud!
? I was only saying those were his own opinions, not, as charged, the German government’s position! I thought that was a bit of an overreach.
-
1 hour ago, womble said:
They get the (eventual, once they're fully in compliance) removal of national sanctions, and the beginning of being readmitted to the "Community of Nations". I guess.
Again, sanctions. It's all that's left after the shouting and running about is over. Some of the "sanctions" that lift won't be so much official "thou shalt not"s being withdrawn as much as renormalisation of trading relationships. Being able to sell petrochem to the West at a market price, for example.
Of course, all this relies on Russia not just crawling into its shell and telling everyone to bugger off, like the North Koreans have.
It does look like a neat package, from afar. Possibly from very afar. And that’s about it, apart from also having had to agree to massive reparations - which would put a dent in oil dollars while the world moves from away dependency on Russian oil. Also somehow removing the Putin government and handing over high level war criminals. Replacing it with a neutral-ish Western friendly new government. And the humiliation in front of not just the world, but the oligarchs, military and the chattering classes. Plus, all this *before* leaving occupation of the four Oblasts? Because…they are in a stalemate, and maintaining the occupation? How likely to be accepted?
Or because Ukraine is opening an even larger can of Whup-arse on them and driving Russians from the field, out of all Ukraine. In which case Ukraine would have to give up its already accomplished re-occupation of its national territories to “international supervision”for a *decade* or so (who dat? NATO? UN? EU? China?). That is the proposed scenario. In which case the resulting political strife in Ukraine would seem to be enormous. “Who lost Crimea, Donbas, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya after all the heroes’ blood was shed winning them back?” Then what?
That whole future scenario seems to be connected to a vastly different past reality than ours. And especially than Ukraine’s or Russia’s. It resumes that both countries will surrender a great degree of sovereignty to an unnamed international authority. One that could enforce all sorts of complex terms over many years. Does this seem highly likely? The most likely outcome? To me it looks like the outcome outsiders would like to accept. And having shed no blood, makes sense as they all have other crises to deal with.
Personally, I think Russia and Ukraine are likely to primarily set the terms of an end to the conflict. Depending and not until one has the made decisive impact on the battlefield, from which the other sees no recovery.
-
4 hours ago, dan/california said:
And their we have the German position in a nutshell. Unless I read it wrong it says "of course we won't REALLY fight for Poland". And that is why everyone else is mad at them.
To be fair, it isn’t the German position. It is Butschi’s. Unless he speaks for the German government!
-
7 hours ago, Butschi said:
The ugly fact is that Germany has no legal obligation to give Ukraine anything.
Nobody outside Ukraine has a legal obligation to militarily aid Ukraine, AFAIK. Yet most of Western Civilization is doing so, and in a massive way. Because we see Russia’s actions as critical threats against our own national best interests, and against the basis of Western democracies and the civilization built upon them. Nothing since WWII’s existential threat resembles this war. Realistically, the massive support for Ukraine isn’t due to universal love of Ukraine itself. Besides the sheer humanitarian outrage and morally required response, it is the recognition of a looming widespread existential threat.
While not existentially threatening the USA, that nation’s foreign policy in Europe since WWII has always been at root, to ensure that no single nation again dominates the European continent, subjugating Europe to its will.
-
16 hours ago, The_Capt said:
we are talking about a Russian withdrawal, Putin gone and some sort of re-normalization effort with a new regime - which will need to include reparations and warcrimes prosecution - while Russia manages to keep it together. Ukraine in NATO and EU, reconstruction in full swing to try and pay everyone off.
AND more recently:
“Russia needs to leave, that we can agree upon, but I would hand them over to the international community to manage for a decade or so”
Thanks for your in-depth reply. My comment was part of a response to your earlier thoughts and insights on your vision of the best end state for the war. I do recall your analysis from way back. The sticky part has always been in lining up events between now, “Russia needs to leave”, and your international (peace-keeping?) oversight of occupied oblasts freed of Russian troops who assumed to have all returned to Russia. And an accompanying vision of a new Russia. My questions:1. Is your scenario built on Russians fully vacating the Oblasts *without* being militarily defeated in detail, each Oblast? If so what are the other assumptions about Russia that bringing this about? Ukraine is already fighting *within* several of them as we speak and will be pushing farther through the winter.
2. Do you foresee Ukraine deciding that after greater successes on the ground, freeing more territory, the USA and Allies will force Ukraine to stop and accept terms? And Russia will, as well?
3. AND after difficult negotiations, the Russians will agree to fully retreat, everywhere? And agree to the rest of your terms - reparations, war crimes trials? Why? What do they get out of this?
4. If the Russian concessions are predicated on Putin’s downfall and a new friendlier government, would this really happen *before* decisive defeat in Ukraine? Wouldn’t the government fall *after* utter defeat and humiliating concessions? Is the assumption that during the coming warfare phase, Putin’s government will fall first, and the friendlier government would emerge? This seems shaky.
5. But If Ukraine has militarily defeated the Russians on the ground in each Oblast, I think it is an open question whether Ukraine would accept giving over some sort of international jurisdiction of them. You state reasons *why* that would be wise from an international perspective. But Ukraine and likely some of its close allies may not agree. So - a good scenario but Devil in the details.
6. NATO membership - How? I asked earlier about the requirement for a nation to be fully in control of its borders in order to apply for membership. Your scenario would complicate or derail that. Or do you know ways around it?
7. But if everything fell into place and your post war vision took place, my pessimism about Russia and the current state of governments everywhere leads me to wonder how the imposition of meaningful - meaning massive -reparations, and coughing up national and military leadership for war crimes shown worldwide…how all that would or could be enforced. Isn’t it likely that any conceivable future Russia would renege on various parts of such an agreement? All the allied nations party to such an agreement would have to agree on how to handle various violations by Russia, and get international corporations to buy in on starting and likely stopping specific aspects of trade. And are we relying on Ukraine or NATO or the UN or ?? to enforce banned activities within the four liberated Oblasts?? Who polices them?
To be clear, your vision has much to commend it! But it raises questions about the two warring parties perceptions and whether either or both would agree. And then of course, all the devils in the enormous amount of details. So it may be the Best Outcome. But is it the Best Likely Outcome.
-
Perhaps this ice is breaking:
“British Defense Minister Ben Wallace, meanwhile, on Monday said his nation was not ruling out sending longer-range munitions to Ukraine than the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS and M270 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) provided by the U.S. and allies.”
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-russia-relying-on-degraded-ammo-says-pentagon -
5 hours ago, The_Capt said:
it all comes down to killing the right Russians. This is not simple exhaustion through attrition, this is corrosive warfare. It basically means killing the critical nodes and connectors within the Russian war machine faster than they can be replaced. This is precise erosion leading to system collapse
Yes. Precisely stated.
l’ve been hoping the next increment of *longer* range weapons (not the longest, for God’s sakes alive!), ratcheting up will boiling that everloving frog a bit faster, peeling the next few layers from this rotting Russian onion. Or more like pulling the plug on a fair piece of their regional connectivity for communicate, control, and supply.4 hours ago, The_Capt said:some sort of re-normalization effort with a new regime - which will need to include reparations and warcrimes prosecution - while Russia manages to keep it together.
While wonderfully gleaming outcome for Ukraine and the Allies, this is a bit difficult to imagine as a Russian driven outcome, their choice and decision.
4 hours ago, The_Capt said:Ukraine in NATO and EU, reconstruction in full swing to try and pay everyone off.
This is more easily imagined. But I think NATO requires a nation to be fully in control of its borders before membership. So a rather complete and total retreat by Russian forces out of Ukraine would be the prerequisite. A likely scenario of that aftermath is a country seething with anger and hate, honor impugned and still armed with nuclear weapons… more inclined towards blood vengeance than a make-nice-with-everyone and here’s all your war criminals and a pile of oil money kind of attitude.
But maybe that’s just me.
-
31 minutes ago, FancyCat said:
Certainly we won’t know what the UKR general Staff and Zelensky are thinking of using should long range missiles be provided, but every indication from prior history indicates exceeding awareness of how to best not provoke Russia or cross lines that benefit Russia and negatively affect Ukraine. Everything I’ve seen in public statements points to silencing Russian airfields, Russian airbases and missile infrastructure that so far Ukraine has no way of stopping Russia from lobbing massive missile strikes.
As far as I can tell, those targets aren’t exactly one for one the same as your suggested targets, industrial capacity (tho military repair bases have been set afire), ISR (tho Ukraine has hit airfields and radar sites in Belarus and Russia proper with drones and missiles), SLOCs in Russia close to the border have not been heavily impacted like in Belograd, or political HVTs. Except maybe that car bombing, but I still think it was a FSB op.
Actually, a very restricted campaign against a few targets is in my opinion well aligned with Ukrainian intentions and understanding of how to best inflict damage against the Russian government without needlessly causing rallying the flag effects. For example, a limited campaign striking the airfields where the long range missiles striking Ukraine with impunity would absolutely be worthwhile, considering the limited infrastructure for Russia to site these forces, the limited amount of aircraft, and their logistical tail, and certainly, Ukraine has already struck at these targets, both closer to the border and the recent attacks. A limited campaign to strike a tanker aircraft, or 1-4 strategic bombers, and that’s it, Russia would have to stop or risk further unsustainable damage to the strategic air fleet. It wouldn’t cause a rally the flag effect, it would be a significant boost to Ukrainian military and civilian morale, it would degrade and delay the ability for the Russian military to launch further missile attacks, and importantly, would represent a commitment to Ukraine by the West without being “needlessly” destructive and backfiring.
Sorta like when only 4 HIMARS were provided to Ukraine at the beginning. (Later more but still) I recall people being annoyed at the fact that the US has 450 himars but only provided 4. We certainly don’t need to provide more than a few ATACMS missiles to Ukraine, this entire conflict has been characterized by quite slow and few supplies to Ukraine.
Example, U.S waits for Russia to launch another massed missile strike at Ukraine, publicly declare a few missiles were given, amid Ukraine firing them at the airfields. Russia must takes steps to prevent losses, and degrades the ability for missile strikes on Ukraine as a result.
I mean we already helped sink the Moskva. Is the Admiral Makarov off limits due to being able to fire missiles against land targets? Russia has already virtually ignored the drone attack on the Engels air base. Wiki says it’s the only base where the Tu-160 is based at so another limited strike via ATACMS could force Russia to relocate or stop using it for missile strikes, certainly a important goal worth pursuing.
Well said! This is the scale I’ve hope for. NOT the straw man of a full on NATO type assault across all Russia to destroy their entire military industrial complex! Just please continue the frog boiling, raise the heat another nice juicy notch!. A follow on to the first wave of HIMARS and the other Allied assets that were so important to Ukraine’s seizing the momentum. Another incremental increase to Ukraine’s reach, sufficient to push farther back the exclusion zones for the major Russian logistic centers, vital junctions, GLOCs. Shutting down remaining airbases in Crimea. Wrecking the next layer of their networks across the theater. Increased ability to choke supplies to Russian invaders. Increased air defense and offense capabilities. Ensure continued joy in the Black Sea. Aid in blunting Russian SLOC. Port facilities. I’m sure the Ukrainian high command could and has laid out the argument and plans for thus more than once.
To what end? Strengthening the momentum to force Russians out of Ukraine. Guarding against their return. However, IIRC @The_Capthas hinted that this sort of turning the heat up on the frog may not be feasible. If so, knowing the specifics of why would help relieve the frustration. Excluding targeting issues - I believe Ukraine has or can solve that without major USA ISR escalation, what is militarily impractical about peeling the Russian onion another couple layers?
-
3 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:
My comment was in jest, I refrained from using a smiley emoji so as not to cause emotional damage to one of our revered members
Of course! The perils of e-mail. To which forums do resemble. My apologies!
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by NamEndedAllen
(How do you guys get quotes from other sources displayed in the forum’s quote blocks? I used the link option but only see underlining! Probably stating he in the face!)
Remember those upgunned, upgraded very old M-55 tanks from Slovenia?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/12/17/ukraines-super-upgraded-m-55s-tanks-have-equipped-a-new-kind-of-brigade/?sh=1061d27b739b
We finally know which Ukrainian army unit took ownership of those super-upgraded, but very old, M-55S tanks that Slovenia donated to Ukraine. It’s the 47th Assault Brigade. A new kind of unit with a very special leader. A famous veteran and author named Valery Markus. The M-55S is a deeply modernized Soviet T-55, a tank type that first entered service in the late 1950s. In the 1990s, the Slovenian army paid Israeli firm Elbit and STO RAVNE in Slovenia to modify 30 of its 36-ton T-55s. Among other enhancements—including reactive armor, an uprated engine and a new fire-control system—the M-55S has a stabilized, British-made L7 105-millimeter main gun in place of the original Soviet 100-millimeter gun. The gun is what makes the M-55S valuable to Ukraine. The British gun is compatible with a wide range of modern ammunition, including armor-piercing sabot rounds that can penetrate the armor of a Russian T-72. As recently as a week ago it still was unclear which Ukrainian unit would operate the M-55Ss. A video that circulated online on Dec. 9 depicts crews training on the new-old tanks in the thick, cold mud that’s typical of early winter in eastern Ukraine. The news finally broke on Saturday, when Markus shared photos with the M-55Ss in the background. The tanks now belong to the 47th Assault Brigade. The 47th is a young unit—and unique in the Ukrainian order of battle. It’s an entirely volunteer formation—no conscripts—and it is, for lack of a better term, more Western than sister brigades are. It reportedly leans heavily on its non-commissioned officers, like brigades in NATO armies do. The 47th also possesses a greater proportion of NATO-style weaponry than other Ukrainian brigades do. The M-55S itself is a hybrid: a Soviet hull with a NATO main gun. Markus, a famously-mustachioed veteran of the fighting in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region in 2014 and 2015 who wrote a popular book about his wartime experience, helped to recruit volunteers for the 47th and also serves as its sergeant major. “In the 47th Brigade, we are trying to create the principles of a truly new Ukrainian army,” Markus wrote on social media. The 47th was a battalion with around 400 soldiers when it first formed back in April. Over the summer it expanded to a regiment with 2,000 or so troops. The addition of a tank battalion with M-55Ss apparently compelled the Ukrainian general staff to redesignate the regiment as a brigade.