FancyCat

While it would have been nice for Ukraine to retake the entire city, Russia rushing in reinforcements and turning it into Mariupol 2.0 where they have to grind themselves down in urban combat probably serves just as well.

whoa, Zelensky visited a lot of the frontlines, including inside the salient, ballsy, and impressive they felt confident enough to make it happen.

18 Caesars are in Ukraine now, up from 6 in May. 6 diverted from the French Army, 12 from a existing order for Morocco. A review of Oryx's sheet shows 100 SPGs at least in the process of being sent to Ukraine/in Ukraine already. Hopefully this will ramp up with more from the U.S.

If Russia didn't have nukes, sure, I could see a situation like the Persian Gulf patrols. But....it does. So NATO is not going to risk nuclear confrontation and war. Plus commercial shipping won't go into the Black Sea unless a country seizes their ships or somehow legally forces them to work in the Black Sea.

The fact that the General Staff is stating the goal is for the liberation of all of Severodonetsk and not merely just holding part of the city, bolds very poorly for the Russian forces remaining in the city. Should Ukraine achieve full control of the city, after Russia proclaimed its "liberation" and touted it all over social media, the news, it would be immensely demoralizing for Russian forces, as it's a demonstration of Ukrainian counterattack prowess and the utter failure of Russian forces to predict and deal with stout Ukrainian offensives, and a damning view of the remaining Russian offensive power remaining. It would also signal to the world, and especially Ukraine's allies, that the views of the UK MoD, U.S, are more accurate than the more cautious views of France and Germany, and those who argue that stalemate is the current foreseeable outlook if not Ukraine's defeat.

Ding, Ding, Ding, truly Macron and Scholz are in the process of fundamentally cracking the independent European foreign policy movement, when in response to Putin's aggression towards the EU, they act more in concern with national interests than the interest of all EU states, especially ignoring the sensibilities of the EU eastern flank. The U.S, U.K, and Eastern flank will be quite strengthened at least, but certainly Germany and France are being utterly idiotic, short-sighted, they will not earn goodwill with EE like this. Ultimately, France and Germany remain cautious, and will remain so while the conflict seems stalemated, but whoever is doing their military analysis needs to be fired in Berlin and Paris. Luckily, Germany at least has major parties supporting Ukraine, and Marcon, while being flighty on Ukraine's victory, indicated in the same interview that France seeks to increase military aid to Ukraine, so i don't think Ukraine is being left to dry supplies wise. Let me ask yall this question, if Putin felt that he was truly going to lose in Ukraine (say Germany and France had made the same sort of Ukraine victory statements like U.S and U.K), do you think he would go to the negotiation table faster? Or double down? Cause on one hand, i can see him accepting the loss and retreat back to pre-Feb 26 borders, but on the other hand, this man made the decision to invade Ukraine full-scale in the first place. Let me propose to you a interesting alternative, imagine Putin believes he cannot win in Ukraine. Imagine instead of striving for more territories, more optimal positioning for the seizure of territories for Novorossiya, continuing to seek victory (some sort of clear victory) in Ukraine, imagine instead he realizes victory is impossible for Russia, and instead of these absolutely destructive offensives at Izyum, Severodonetsk, Popasna, he had instead went for total stalemate. Imagine how much improved the Russian position would be had they not done the offensives prior, and how much more strengthened their ability to counter and inflict damage on the Ukrainian armed forces would be oriented purely defensively. In that sense, its perfectly fine Putin thinks the West is cracking. Ukraine needs Russia to bleed out in these poorly done, rushed offensives. Putin will keep ordering these offensives since his wish is not stalemate, not yet, Russian attempts to "liberate" the remaining areas of the disputed oblasts in the East (including the entirety of Kherson oblast) indicate to me, that stalemate is not the Russian goal, Russia seeks to ekk out a victory like the total liberation of Kherson, Luhansk, Donetsk oblasts, and as long as Russia intends on bleeding itself out for those goals, Ukraine should absolutely strive for maximizing the bloodletting. In that sense, Macron's words aren't too important, as long as those SPGs get sent to Ukraine. Thats all that matters now, supplies for Ukraine.

France likes to look independent from the rest of the West. While it is in my opinion, a mistake, i guess it serves France domestically, as foreign policy wise, Eastern Europe is gonna be pissed for a good while at Germany and France, and Italy I suppose. As long as they keep sending those Caesar SPGs, they can say whatever they want tho, it won't change the battlefield reality when Ukraine routs the Russians (when that day occurs) and Ukraine's ability to tell France to shove it at the peace talks.

You weren't kidding about RFE, they are heading into Severodonetsk. Crazy especially after the French journalist died in the city.

Its one thing to let the enemy close in and then ambush and kill them, if they really retook Met'olkine, uh...that might actually count as a point for "it's a trap!" Considering the Russians reached the center of town. I mean sure ambush the guys inside Severodonetsk but how the hell did they get the upper hand on the Russians in Met'olkine?

I assume those conscripts have families that remain in the occupied territories. Be a little too willing to surrender, who knows what happens to your family you leave behind in DNR/LPR.

Who knows how it went down but I could see Ukrainian forces letting Russia enter the city, think they abandoned it, when in reality they want Russia to get in close so they can be punched in the face. Since Russian doctrine is basically destroy any resistance with artillery, so instead of letting their forces get marked and barraged, let them get close, ideally that would mean letting Russian forces to think it was deserted. Saw someone else mention letting Russia relax in the city, then since they aren't expecting exhausted defenders to counter attack and are prepping for a new attack across the bridge, don't prep defenses for defending. While important to state that US industrial might assisted the Russian victory, a lot of that aid didn't ramp until 1943. Germany spent tons of their combat ability in 1942. Interesting....how much do we say that German combat capacity was lost in the early years that was not possible to regenerate? What has Russia lost in Ukraine that it will never gain back? I think a ton of people commenting on the war elsewhere fail to see what Russia has lost and cannot regain within a timeframe for it to matter in the battles now. On that note, it's vital to note Ukraine has lost a lot, and yes U.S lend lease but that requires ramp up and modern warfare is way different than WWII. How many artillery batteries is the u.s willing to give to ensure Ukrainian victory? Russia has way more artillery. The difference between a Ukrainian broad offensive and the local counterattacks we see now may come down to what the U.S answer is.

A little more info on the Polish AHS Krab, including some Korean assistance.

boiling the frog slowly. little by little push the envelope of equipment. at the start of the conflict we were sending AT weapons, now armed drones 4 months later. is it slow? yes, but Russia is still acting like it can win, and if they think they can still win, they will be less likely to hit the panic button and dare NATO to call their bluff. Important to also emphasize, as each tier of equipment is reached, NATO's more flighty members will be very cautious, so matching and illustrating that Russia is not going to respond, is essential for smoothing their feelings and accommodating their concerns but clearly the direction is heading towards more and more advanced equipment.

Amazing footage. Edit: Geolocated by twitter user in comments!

It was quoted that a Russian official responded to Biden's comments something along the lines of it being good and non-escalating. There is a important mind game ongoing vs Russia, and part of it certainly is tilting the scale towards Ukraine's victory while doing their best to let Russia think the war is going fine enough to not seek urgent escalatory actions to try and force NATO to back down from supporting Ukraine else Russia sees its impending defeat come true.

Something else to keep in mind, removing Putin does not guarantee Russia stops acting like a great power and threatening her neighbors, imagine a internal coup removing Putin, and the West stops the sanctions and lets Ukraine freeze again on EU and NATO membership (not entirely impossible considering say Trump reenters the Presidency in 2024, Germany, France may betray Eastern Europe, etc). There is no guarantee that whatever Russian leader that comes after Putin will be as incompetent and certainly no guarantee they would be anti-war. As Finland illustrates, yes, Finland could stay neutral and risk conflict with Russia, while certainly they would be able to hold their own against Russia, maybe even win, why risk the conflict and all that suffering that entails? Better to join NATO, and make it nearly impossible. Yes, Ukraine could decide not to escalate by not taking Crimea, but why risk something 20 years down the line where Russia remasses forces on her border, and cuts off Odessa from Crimea and then 20 years down the line, certainly Ukraine's position on Crimea will be weaker due to time simply. No, its better to cut now and ensure Ukraine will not have to deal with this **** in the future. Retake Crimea and no more Kherson Peoples Republic or Novorossiya.

Crimea has been a important strongpoint and launchpoint for Russian attacks on Ukraine since 2014, should Russia retain the ability to hold and station military forces in Crimea, that will always be able to threaten the south of Ukraine and threaten the Black Sea coast of Ukraine and the global food market. (Imagine a Russian blockade of Odessa but this time no poorly planned full scale invasion, imagine the suffering and difficult decisions for Ukraine) What's the distance from Crimea to Melitopol or Kherson? Can their anti air defenses create difficulty for Ukraine to retake those cities? Ukraine may need to target Crimea to effectively retake and defend southern Ukraine anyhow. But allowing Crimea to stay Russian gives Russia a very potent lever for future conflict with Ukraine. (Yes, yes Russian military has degraded significantly but still, Russia does not need to reinvade Ukraine to blockade Odessa)

Looks seemingly like Ukraine has retreated from Severodonetsk.

Not too worried, isn't ATACMS in very short supply?

uh, pretty unbelievable if we are thinking this is a local shaping offensive, but i guess this might count as a deeper offensive? I mean it could mean simply Russia withdrew forces but Ukraine isn't nearby, but I doubt that Russia would withdraw from a town unless it was under threat from a Ukrainian advance. edit: nvm, theres two Mykolaivka in Kherson Oblast, probably this one: https://goo.gl/maps/aSbF5mmGTGTN4TYH7 this was the one suggested by O'Brien: https://goo.gl/maps/NRtQ2rfk6YngxSu56

If this is true, then those reports that the T-62s were merely for reserve units to replace more modern units for the front are false somewhat.

I completely forgot about airpower. Can mechanized offensives can occur when airspace is contested? I don't think that Ukraine can or wants to do any mechanized offensives and certainly not deep penetrations without air control. While Russia can't control the airspace, they can contest it, if these rumors about Russian airstrikes halting Ukrainian advances in Kherson are true, it would certainly be in line with the ability of the Ukrainian air force to contest and hurt Russian columns on the offensive as well while airspace is contested. If Ukraine is about to be supplied with F-16s, and is actively training pilots right now, I would absolutely defer big actions until they finish and come online for use. Whether thats true, well we will see when the later half of summer comes around.

I was rereading When Titans Clashed by David Glantz, and Glantz talks about how lend lease to the Soviet Union allowed for the Soviet mechanized breakthroughs on the Eastern Front to occur and exploit, thanks to material like American trucks that prolonged the Soviet logistical tail, had it not been sent, Soviet offensives would be exhausted quicker, and Axis forces could reconstitute a new defensive line easier. In that sense, the fact that Popasna didn't turn into a mechanized breakthrough means Russia does not have the tail to enable the mechanized breakthroughs that was Soviet doctrine and had even occurred in some form in the first stage of the war. Whatever breakthrough Russian artillery creates, Russian forces no longer have the ability to create decisive quick collapses, so in a sense, this is becoming quite WWI like. If Russia cannot conduct decisive operations, without mobilization, Russia will absolutely eventually lose a WWI type of conflict with infinite NATO equipment inbound that will open up the same sort of local breakthroughs Russia had in Popasna. Whether Ukraine has the ability to or the willingness to seek out mechanized deep breakthroughs, I have no clue. While the offensive in Kharkiv region was successful, I don't think it was necessarily a example of a breakthrough. Also, Ukraine seems in a way, quite keen to preserve their manpower, instead of risky maneuvers, Ukraine seems fine with slower advances, whether this is intended or a result of their situation, i dunno.