FancyCat

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.

Article on what exactly the HIMARS will do for Ukraine. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/what-himars-rocket-systems-can-and-cant-do-for-ukraine I think the most important aspect is the slow but steady switching of Ukraine to NATO armaments. That and more firepower is more firepower even if it's not "game changing"

Someone else had mentioned this, but I forget who or where I saw it, one way of preventing escalation is slowly and cautiously raising the aid being given to Ukraine, instead of the whole farmhouse, do it little by little, instead of Russia being hugely alarmed at the balance of war shifting in one set of equipment, more of a slow boil that Russia can sort of hope does not continue, and can try and prevent occurring and hope it can render a battlefield victory due to NATO not giving everything it could. Its difficult to predict what Russia may have done in the other scenario but it's worth considering that Russia needs to balance threatening nuclear/general war with NATO for involving itself in the conflict and the feasibility of NATO breaking apart due to worry and fear/the world siding with Russia.

Hmm, considering how Ukraine opted to hold urban territory during the first stages of the invasion to wear down Russian supply lines and inflict damages on the Russian rear and smartly chose that vs holding a broader defensive line or withdrawing wholesale, and considering Russian manpower numbers aren't really enough to tie down and lock down defenders and push forward, and assuming that Russia needs a long period of time to turn the urban area being defended into something undefendable, while they have to reduce the urban region, Ukraine can devote itself to counterattacking elsewhere or into the forces keeping the pocket on lock. Like Mariupol.

While Germany could be faster with armaments, German money is still important tbf. EU money is very important for keeping Ukraine afloat, and for just generally ensuring Ukraine can fight on. One easy way for NATO members to sort of avoid "escalation" is simply have everything go to Eastern European states like Poland, Baltics, who basically enjoy telling Russia to go to hell and have them pass on the equipment to Ukraine. Pretty sure this is ongoing rn.

You'll find another video if you click on the thread.

And no, things like tax cuts or less regulation and cheaper costs of production that Biden could do, wouldn't help. It would just be nationalizing the oil industry's debt, while letting them keep the profits. Nothing about cutting taxes or shredding regulations can tell a oil company to drill. And nothing American oil companies can do, outweighs the ability of OPEC to set prices to a certain level via controlling production. The American oil boom ended cause Saudi Arabia stepped on the gas pedal and dropped prices hard by increasing production, causing a cascade of mergers and cutting of expenses for oil companies operating in the U.S. The cost of extracting oil from the U.S will always be higher than the cost of extracting oil from Saudi Arabia, and the oil company extracting from the Arabian desert is literally owned by the royal family of Saudi Arabia. I mean the U.S could nationalize the oil industry and like many members of OPEC, provide oil domestically at a discount but that's not realistic. I mean the most realistic options for lowering oil prices isn't tax cuts or less regulations, and since Saudi Arabia's crown prince hates America being all fussy over the dead journalist, the only option is forging ahead with opening up Venezuela and Iran.

The good thing about Germany, while yes they are being so useless, Ukraine can mobilize public opinion and the opposition and coalition partners of the SPD to push on the chancellor. Hopefully this results in Germany being less useless soon.

Mind you, American oil companies were hammered the last time oil prices fell hard, the reluctance to increase capital expenses therefore increasing production can trace back to needing to pay off debt and look good for investors. There are foreign factors that may result in lower oil prices anywho, Biden is racing to open up Venezuela, and normalize with Iran. Those two factors could see significant drops of oil production. China continues to do lockdowns that significantly hit oil demand, so production may be freed for elsewhere. But there are also actors who wish for higher prices to remain, most countries have state owned oil companies, Saudi Arabia, OPEC is literally a cartel, asking Biden why he can't lower oil prices when he can't force oil companies to drill, as a literal cartel controls much of the world's oil reserves....and dictates pricing accordingly is just ignoring reality.