FancyCat

Someone that will be important to understanding if Ukraine is engaging in successful actions is the rate of attrition and losses vs territory gained, one other factor is the time and distance and how Russia reacts to it. A grinding push to the Azov Sea vs a collapse of Russian forces beyond the first line of defense are two different sides of the coin. I've seen tweets pointing out new Russian defensive belts being created on satellite. Sure, personnel maybe running low, but those stats are obscured from us and Ukraine's manpower is as well. ISR is great, but you still need the weapon systems to lob a shell to take out whatever is identified. In that sense, I think I'm quite confident in stating allowing cluster munitions to Ukraine is a very important decision, on par with the supply of artillery rounds and systems to Ukraine that had the same go around of Western reluctance. Anything that helps sustain Ukraine's ability to attrict Russia is important. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of shells is no small deal.

They selected a U.S sanctioned apparently empty cargo ship if the recording is true, seemingly very high standards of target selection. can't even have environmentalists decrying spilled fuel over a potential sinking.

These landing ships have been used to supply Crimea. Not sure how cheap or easy to make these drones are, but certainly this raises questions as to the viability of Russia supplying Crimea should the bridge be impacted again.

Global economy. While you do have good points regarding these chips falling into Russia, it's important to note the nature, these parts are flowing via 3rd party countries largely. Not only that, many of these parts are not considered sensitive, or consumer grade, they are in many cases produced in 3rd party countries like China, so transfer is even easier. https://www.barrons.com/articles/russia-ukraine-war-exports-sanctions-western-technology-5a3eff69

Eh I disagree, if Ukraine were to retake all territory, that is a win 100% even if Russia were to lob missiles day and night at Ukraine. At that point, international pressure would be intense on Russia, as the losing party to concede and formalize a agreement. Hell, the weight of Ukraine militarily capturing and liberating it's territory would shatter Russian image internationally and domestically. It would empower a new Ukrainian image internationally, which would be powerful in shifting stances and opinions. At that point, it's very likely parties like Iran and China probably slow their support lest the full weight of changing opinion make their support no longer beneficial. Oh sure, missiles raining on Kiyv send a message, but the Ukrainian flag in Crimea and Luhansk is just a earth shattering message as well. Plus, Ukraine has shown itself to be capable of inflicting pain on Russia. If Russia reaches the point of being such that it has lost (and if all territory of 1991 borders has been restored, that is a loss) and Ukraine starts bombarding Russia proper to ensure pain is occurring, I think world opinion will be conclusively pro Ukrainian. That does wonders in opening post war reconstruction.

Actually, i think Ukraine will be able to take territory, just not fast or with sweeping movements in the rear.

I don't think Ukraine has the ability to clearly break thru those defensive lines. A slow grind, chunk by chunk out of the network, but nothing we have seen indicates a exploitation formation won't get turned into burning junk by a Ka-58 or etc.

Also if Ukraine is unable to move thru minefields with armored columns quickly, and needs infantry to lead the way and clear paths, this will be slow. Furthermore, if Ukraine is unable to ensure these armored columns won't get attacked by air power than there won't be any possibility of armored deep thrusts at all.

So I guess the main question is, does Ukraine have the ability to use deep maneuver and penetration into the enemy rear? My answer is probably no. That means Kharkov was a unique one off enabled by extreme Russian inability or lack of foresight to reinforce the lines there. The fact that Ukraine was unable to extend the push further means Ukraine's reserves were not enough, or Russia's reserves were enough to stop their advance. I think for now Ukraine is limited to engaging in moving town by town, attriting Russia long range and careful local pushes. Nothing like Kharkov, Gulf War, more like WWI.

Many stories have come out already of Western military veterans encountering the artillery heavy battlefield and ******* their bricks at operating at parity or even at a worse level than Russia, and it being a difficult transition. As already stated, drop a western unit in place of a Ukrainian one, but don't give it air support, artillery parity, and the performance difference of the two is gonna be pretty much the same imo or worse decent chance. Maybe certain units or nationalities might fare better, but different ballgame. As for why Ukraine had to use newly raised units, I mean we won't know until the war ends how exactly manpower and equipment wise things were strained, now maybe the Ukrainian General Staff just chose wrongly, or the ability to pull whole formations off the line just wasn't possible without endangering and allowing Russian advances.

The aftermath of the Wagner mutiny saw the admission of Wagner being controlled, run, owned by the Russian state, including prior to the invasion. One can no longer deny Wagner is independent of the Russian government.

Mariupol reminded me of Chernihiv, so point taken, and querying units most likely to accept being encircled and besieged and not falter, Ukrainians do have the credentials in that regard so it’s not too unjust to knock Russians for not being willing in the same way.

Tbf to Russia....does anyone like being surrounded?

Mass vs Precision….we must recall the importance of Western vs Soviet, tho we don’t have hard numbers, and probably not till the end of the war, Western vehicles, are essential for allowing survivability of personnel. I do think that this preservation of personnel has far reaching consequences for Ukraine, for the validity of future conflicts, for the world to consider. I am not smart enough to write on it, but I do think consideration of this has more to be analyzed.

in response to the restart of the offensive jumping off,

Something to note, as of presently, Ukraine's anti air network is not able to cover Kiyv, the front lines, and Odessa in sufficient numbers. Russia is also using anti-ship missiles, which I believe are able to avoid more defenses. The illustration of attacks on economic infrastructure on Odessa, the Danube, showcase the risk in Russia retaining Crimea, as missiles are launched from Crimea towards Odessa. The worst scenario for Ukraine is one where Ukraine is unable to enter NATO or end the war via retaking Crimea and Russia engages in a long distance war to economically devastate Ukraine's exports, combine it with civilian targeting, driving Ukrainians to leave the country. Ensuring the West wins the conflict, means ensuring Ukraine has a long term plan at flourishing, which means the conditions for such flourishing must be met in some form or manner. Whether NATO entrance, or flooding of weapons and equipment or the liberation of Crimea, we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal, Ukraine must not become a economic basketcase, unable to ensure security for their people, due to Russian long range weapons. You can destroy Russian capacity for war with NATO all you want, the nuclear risk factor means it will never come to war between NATO and Russia, and if that means the Russian ability to wage war on Ukraine remains standing, the West will be considered to have lost.

Russia is now destroying infrastructure on the Danube, threatening significant grain transfer facilities, of which were exporting more grain than the Black Sea grain deal.

Well Ukraine has no naval forces. Ukraine also has a smaller air force in airframes and pilots. Russia also have a finite number of pilots, airframes so both are trying to preserve strength. The Russian Navy has wisely retrained from nearing the coast, and I doubt their ability to influence the war would improve if they began to try to get closer. I don't disagree....but I kinda do? Fact is the West just does not have a ton of equipment to give to Ukraine to fight the war of attrition Ukraine is fighting. NATO would have just smashed the hell out of Russia with airpower, making a war of attrition irrelevant. Add in the concerns of escalation and we are here now. Luckily, looks like Ukraine's strategy of equipment attainment continues to pay off. I recall estimates in the past of 1. When Ukraine ends the war, 2. Ukraine needs 2-4 years before it can get them, to lol and behold, Ukraine will get F-16 fighters before the end of the year.

Ahh nevermind, looks like he was released, and was just arrested as he was protesting Girkin's arrest. Shame.

Russia's statement about potentially attacking any Black Sea ports of Ukraine and ships heading to it include this example heading to a smaller port. As you can see, the Black Sea is about to get freaking hot. I feel like this is not being emphasized, but both sides are about to turn the Black Sea which still has tons of shipping ongoing into a warzone. Turkey, the UN, and etc are probably frantically calling both Ukraine and Russia trying to sort out a return to the grain deal as rn, it looks to me heading straight into Russia losing its ability to export and import from the Black Sea.

Map of traffic to Russian and Ukrainian ports in the occupied region near the Kerch Bridge, that's a lot of traffic....perfect for some unmanned boats.