FancyCat

Personally I don't know how I feel about tanks being on the way out vs not but probably good to bring up these tweets. Makes sense to me, if offensives can't happen and you need something to use against enemy pushes and everything else is in short supply....is it ideal? Guess not but better than dead friendlies. Random poster I follow but he brings up a really good point that does not just apply to Abrams but to just in general the mindset of full on conventional conflict and the amount of losses expected and the fact the West haven't had the type of playing field in forever and the last time comparable was a cakewalk (ish). So....what was the expected tank losses in a full on conventional NATO vs USSR conflict?

Thread from Dara Massicot, she points out Russian long range strike intelligence gathering and strike abilities are increasing, and possibly they may have gotten two HIMARS launchers tho video is unclear.

https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-russia-diesel-prices-skyrocket-ukraine-war-drone-strikes-oil-refineries/

article on Japan's ruling coalition seeking to loosen restrictions that may allow it to export to Ukraine. Hopefully Ukraine has a good embassy there to push it. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/Japan-weighs-weapon-exports-to-nations-under-invasionhttps://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/Japan-weighs-weapon-exports-to-nations-under-invasion

As for why espouse the rhetoric of "total victory" by the West, well for one thing, aside from that brief stalling period, Russian peace demands and signalling has been maximal. No reason for the West to concede ground. As far as I'm aware of, we have terms from Russia being: the removal of the current Ukrainian government, the annexation of 4 regions into Russia, the blocking of Ukraine into NATO or EU, the demobilization of the Ukrainian military, the formalization of Russian sovereignty over Crimea. At least. There's that drunken idiot thinking of Odesa. Idiot or not, Russian rhetoric remains maximal. There is no reason to speak rhetorically of anything less than the restoration of full Ukrainian territorial sovereignty over its 1991 borders and the intent of Western aid to support such goals. There is no reason to speak cautiously regarding Western weapons being used inside Russia as they end UN arms embargoes on North Korea and Iran and fire from Russia into all of Ukraine. No reason to be cautious in rhetoric as Russian jamming affects the Eastern flank of NATO.

A frozen front line without a ceasefire is not a win for Ukraine or the West. A situation that presumably allows Russia to missile strike and drone attack into Ukraine's cities is one that will result in Ukraine's slow bleed out thru civilian morale collapse. I assume that a situation without ceasefire being agreed means ukraine is unable to threaten Russia with enough retaliation to bring Russia away from contently lobbing missiles. Mind you pre-2022 ceasefire and negotiations were in much different contexts than today. We have no idea what Russia's breaking point to begin negotiations to formalize a freeze is and not a form of surrender or Western loss. It is therefore essential to define win in terms of a maximal, seeking quick as possible goal, in order to best pressure Russia towards peace, to best prep western governments to aspire and support Ukraine with maximum aid and long term awareness of potential Russian renewal. (Things like arguing over ammo procurement should have never become a issue to the result now where the West looks weak as hell as Russia makes gains and can argue it can make strategic gains eventually, if our goal is to stop the war, anything that allows Russia to convince itself it can win is a failure)(lack of urgency is a failure) The slow drip of aid, the reactive position of the West to Russia, is a failure. At every step, Russia has escalated, has increased its capabilities, has continued to bet that it can exhaust the West. Instead of providing offramps, Russia sees it as Western weakness to take advantage of. The fear of Russian collapse, which characterized many foreign policy doves including Jake Sullivan in the Biden administration has resulted in the measures Russia has taken advantage of. It's necessary to no longer concern with Russian collapse (which I don't think has ever been a possibility in hindsight, if you forgot, at every step of escalation Russia has sought to warn of Russian collapse (I include nuclear weapons use as a collapse scenario, as only a hard pressed Russia would want to open Pandora's box) and right now it looks like Russia was stalling (obviously). If anything we need, the West needs to concern itself with Ukrainian collapse and to operate accordingly to prevent it. Accordingly, we must signal to Russia that it's maximal goal is impossible. Certainly the present situation indicates Russia still looks for its maximal goal. Holding up aid for months is certainly not helping the mindset of a dictator who started the full scale invasion in the delusion it would succeed quickly and painlessly. What does disregarding Russia's potential collapse mean in reality? Well for one thing, the restrictions on Western weapons use in Russia, Germany acting oh so scared of hurting Russian land with a missile as cluster munitions land in Odesa and France being exceedingly selfish procuring ammo are just some behaviors that Putin may be able to take solace in.

Guess precision took a hit...ugh. hey, great, a lesson for the future. Can we please just get 3rd party ammo sourced worldwide to Ukraine now? (I will assume with U.S aid unblocked this will resume, but a pox on certain European countries for insisting on EU based manufacturing at the expense of Ukraine. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116957/witnesses/HHRG-118-AS35-Wstate-PattD-20240313.pdf

how do we feel about the supply of ATGMs? feels like videos are dried up a bit of those.

It's undoubtedly encouraging Russia to continue, the West shot itself in the foot over the lack of ramp up, will, and ignorance to increase its MIC capability. I mention again, who the hell in Ukraine wants to enlist and spend their time getting shelled by Russia pumping out these shells while Europe lifts their nose at Indian made artillery shells? And America acts like a absolute idiot? More equipment to Ukraine. I'm actually starting to get pissed by the high dollar amounts touted by the West, numbers dammit, not cost.

The Super Tucano is Brazilian, and neither Bolsonaro or Lula allowed its sale to Ukraine, according to wiki, so it was never gonna happen.

Good news about the ATACMS already hitting S-300 and S-400 complexes....WHY THE HELL DID IT TAKE MONTHS AND MONTHS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. This country ffs..... Anyhow i was curious for the sourcing on the NYT reporting green light for destroying the Crimean bridge, and im not seeing specific wording mentioned for the bridge in either recent NYT articles on the delivery of ATACMS, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/us/us-ukraine-russia-missiles.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/us/politics/ukraine-aid-atacms.html Only general referencing to Crimea as a whole under target, nothing specific about the bridge, the word "bridge" not even mentioned.

Something else to note, all accounts by foreigners serving or served in Ukraine, describe a conflict and warzone of unparalleled difficulty and scale outmatching certainly any conflicts the West has engaged in recently, with equality of arms being the most equal since Vietnam? Or more likely Korea? The experience in Ukraine has been attested to as very much different than the superiority enjoyed in the GWoT. Ukrainians are on the back foot, and I certainly can’t begrudge any person staring at the months long drought of U.S support with anything but dread at joining the defense. Which is why I’ve mentioned that political considerations are essential to success in the war, sure, Ukraine has littered Southeast Ukraine with the wrecks of Russian equipment but the overwhelming narrative favors Russia still, evidently the wrecks of Russian equipment aren’t defeating the headlines of “Russian advances” and while long term this may spell the defeat of Russia, the evident goal of Russia is to persuade the West to cut off aid in the short term, and for Ukraine to surrender, demoralized by lack of aid and enemy advances. This is why Ukraine needs wins now. And considerations of the now, of the near term are important for Ukraine to make it long term.

Let’s not overstate the foreign numbers, while certainly there are foreigners serving in the Ukrainian military, the vast majority of personnel are Ukrainian. Quick google search brought up 20k foreigners, with 200k total on the low side of personnel on the frontlines, that’s still just 10 percent of the soldiers defending Ukraine are foreigners. No need to be hyperbolic, end of the day it is Ukrainian blood spilled to defend Ukraine.

And yet the narrative in Russia and the West is that Russia is advancing, a slow grind, but one that one could argue will result in breakthrough and collapse of the Ukrainian army. Certainly reviewing Russian news, where they were touting the hold up of aid to Ukraine via the U.S until just now, is part of the narrative that it is signalling to its domestic and international audience that dividends will occur with this costly advance, that the West and Ukraine is close to giving up. It is essential that Ukraine and the West defeats this narrative, both to ensure that Western audiences and elites are not convinced of the futility of further aid, and to spur further cracks in Russia. Continued, loud, assertive Western support to Ukraine is essential, the kind vocalized by Macron recently. But just to emphasize, I'm not saying focus on the bridge solely, but it takes time for a Russian operational collapse, and we don't exactly know what Ukraine has in terms of ability to immediately make that happen. But a bridge that symbolizes Putin's regime and Russia's connection to Crimea is a good way of telling the Russian civilian the war is not going well. And certainly one that won't potentially backfire on Ukraine and the West like targeting economic targets like oil and gas before the American election. (I believe analysis is finding that targets are being struck that focus on domestic consumption and not exports that might more severely drive up prices) and certainly not of the civilian harming, war crime potential. (In fact the first bridge attack probably acts like a way of defusing potential war crime objections in that Ukraine has been able to explain itself and gained western acceptance via normalization) Again I'm not saying focus on the bridge. I'm just saying that I'm not going to be surprised if Ukraine sends a ATACMS against it.

Being one of those who has warned of long term conflict not being instantly favorable to Ukraine and the West, it's always important to remind myself that Russian perspective is focused on portraying futility in opposing Russia, aimed at western audiences and Ukraine itself. (At least that's what I think) Actions like these piecemeal attacks, mounting losses, a focus on offensive vs defensive, but in a way that is wasteful and at opposition to the conception of modern warfare, signals to me that Russia is hoping on diluting Ukrainian and Western will, trading its personnel and equipment on the hope that either Ukraine breaks or the West breaks. Is Russia that changed from 40 years ago in the Soviet-Afghan War that it can continue to blink with no emotion at its losses in Ukraine? Certainly it is entirely in Russian advantage that Russia is mindlessly sending its forces to death, that it's supply is endless, and its will concrete. But is it true? In my opinion, Ukraine needs to focus on stabilizing it's front, and conduct signalling to both the Russian public, and internationally, that Russian advances have halted and will not occur, and will be a high tally for every attempt. Currently, despite these high losses Russia has convinced its public, and onlookers that advancing will be worth it. Ukraine must shatter that image, same as it shattered the images of Russia pre-invasion.

As shown in the sinking? of the Sergei Kotov, which was guarding the straits and bridge, threatening Kerch brings out Russian forces to defend it. Not that I’m saying focus on the bridge is essential , but I won’t be surprised if the bridge is the site of further attacks.

So ATACAMS first target was the S-400 complex in Crimea. Guess that answers whether it can intercept it.

Hit and its been repaired, im assuming the scenario we are operating on is a hit to the bridge that renders it unrepairable. Drones hitting Moscow has increased internal dissent tho, including hitting gas and oil complexes. I think if we regard the current state of war support for Russia, it is quite high right now. Besides, Russian messaging focusing on preventing German supply of missiles does indicate worry about the loss of the bridge. It is a legitimating factor over Crimea and Ukraine.

Would disagree on the bridge as not a war winner, its a highly symbolic target, its destruction would seriously harm the image of the Russian state both domestically and internationally, proponents of Russia needing internal dissent to help conclude the war, the bridge's loss is essential for that internal dissent to increase, irregardless of whatever supply/military value.

Huh. props to Biden and co. on the secret. Let's get those Tartus moving now Scholz. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/us-long-range-missiles-ukraine-00154110