How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

9 минут назад, Z1812 сказал:

Эта статья, хотя и не обязательно ободряющая, кажется разумным описанием наблюдаемой ситуации.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/6/9/is-russia-inching-towards-victory-in-ukraines-donbas-region

- the most combat-ready troops were saved for the battle in the Donbas (although everyone knows that the airborne units, as well as the Taman and Kantemirov divisions) were defeated near Kyiv and Kharkov. - Russia is steadily moving towards its goals, although these goals are unknown to anyone, including Russia itself (Recipe for borscht? Conquests of Peter the Great? denazification?) - Russian aviation is not trying to destroy Ukrainian aviation, and it doesn’t need it (what a trifle, some kind of aviation, who is interested in it in the 21st century) interesting interpretation of Russian propaganda narratives, thanks

[danfrodo]

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Re the tube and fire volume exaggerations and so on, that could well all be true to push Western aid panic buttons. But the reality is that UA defenders in static positions are getting the crap pounded out of them by Russian arty right now.  I believe them about the casualty counts.

Wow, what a great bunch of posts from everyone.  Spent a solid hour this pouring rain morning just going through the two pages that came in overnight.  Aragorn, TheCapt, LLFlank, others, thanks! 

My takeaways:

1.  Collapse:  I look at this as local/sector which could then lead to front collapse -- like potential for the current UA Kerson-front attacks to lead to local collapse, then panic sets in leading to bigger collapse (abandoned roadblocks, troops just retreating w/o orders), leading to UA being able to cut off large RU forces, leading to front collapse.  In Severodonetsk region, there's no good avenues for UA to cut off RU forces due to terrain and strong RU forces.  Izyum and Popasne are possible for Kyiv-front-style collapse, but I don't see that for Severodonetsk.

2.  So, Severodonetsk.  No serious military strategic or operational value.  But high potential propaganda for Putin plus could give him enough gains to try to diplomatically freeze the status quo -- can he bribe enough politicians and influencers to pull this off?  -- for example, the most watched news-channel show in the US is 100% Putin propaganda.  Yeah, it's only the brainwashed that see it, but it does have influence.  Putin clearly hoping the poison will spread outward once he starts talking peace and love.  What do y'all see as the strategic purpose for each side in putting so much into the fight for this ground?

3.  more Severodonetsk:  is this flypaper to attract and attrit RU strength in a way that has nearly zero strategic risk for UA?  Or does UA really care about this ground such that  Kherson attacks are hoped to draw away forces?-- I doubt this one.  Does UA have some other major operations in the works that require Severodonetsk to tie down RU forces????

3. LLFlank quote above: yeah, these UA soldiers are getting hammered.  Sure would be nice to significantly degrade the only tactical advantage RU has -- artillery.

4.  Jeebus H Kristo, will this rain here never stop????  It's June, monsoon season should've ended many months ago.  But my actual point is that I read in some posts that the rivers in Ukraine are lowering dramatically w the dry summer season.  I wonder what this will mean for operations that are currently heavily restricted by waterways.

[sburke]

27 minutes ago, z1812 said:

This article, while not necessarily encouraging,  seems a reasonable account of the current situation.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/6/9/is-russia-inching-towards-victory-in-ukraines-donbas-region

a lot of things wrong with this article but this one is the main one.

Russia slowly inches its way towards its goals 

What exactly are Russia's goals at this point?  I doubt the Russians even know anymore.  I'm just waiting for the moment that Putin decides the number of toilets stolen or destroyed is how to evaluate victory.

[panzermartin]

3 hours ago, alison said:

One useful thing I find comes out of this sort of intra-European bickering is that it completely dispels the notion that NATO is some kind of sinister agent of US hegemony with a singular goal of crushing that country's enemies. This is what people who see the whole world through the lens of authoritarianism don't understand. In the "free" world, people are not only allowed to disagree on policy, but they openly and continuously debate it. Unfortunately that means we sometimes don't take as decisive action as would be ideal, but what's important is that when the action is taken we can be sure that the process was relatively transparent and the motivations are well-understood, even if not everyone was persuaded. In my opinion it is the freedom to have these conversations that is a big part of what structures like NATO are supposed to be protecting.

I would say, sinister is not the right word. But US hegemony since the end of WW2 is something we cant debate. Its definetely a modern empire, like the Romans, the British etc. Otherwise why would they need 750 military bases around the World. At this point can comeone answer me, does US spend zillions to maintain those bases just for the sake of protecting other peoples well being.

That being said, the western world moved forward and prospered along with the prosperity of post WW2 USA. I still consider them a force of progression and change, I wouldnt want to see them going authoritarian or isolationist. That would probably be the end of the circle of western democracy since it was born in Athens. Yes they are a ruthless capitalist hegemon but they are constantly evolving and have a very vocal progressive and democratic side,( sometimes over the top, as everything american). Our backward religious zealots are probably offended by their LGBT flag next to their embassy emblem here but how cool an official state does that?

But there is a dark side , the rampant capitalism and materialism they nurtured, the market driven mentality and the threat towards more social orientated systems they represent . And there is that behemoth, dominant military/gun complex, the black and white approach of the world, the series of miscalculated campaigns that brought turbulance (change?) in the Middle East that other countries had to pay for and handle the consequences. And a half baked job in Ukraine starting in 2014...who knows where that will lead us. 

Truth is the whole western world much depends on USA's clear thinking and reading of the current situation...Well God Bless I guess...

[Vet 0369]

On 6/11/2022 at 11:09 AM, Seminole said:

To not be misunderstood, NATO serves the interventionist cause as an international fig leaf for aggressive U.S. military action.

 ‘It’s not America doing this, we’re answering the international call for justice.’

Politicians in part use this concept of multilateral international support to try and sidestep domestic support/authorization.  Recall Bush I’s team considered they didn’t have to get Congressional support, and argued the president was already authorized to answer the UN’s call to military action.  Now they wisely obtained that support prior to hostilities (unlike Clinton (vote failed for Congressional authorization) and Obama (never even sought Congressional authorization)). 

Do you think any EU members were going going to initiate a bombing campaign against Serbia without the U.S.?  It’s almost as laughable logistically as it is from a military efficacy standpoint.

As for the UNSC:

NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.^[34]

With respect to Libya, again the U.S. president failed to obtain Congressional approval, and I already linked the UK parliament’s report on the lies used by Western politicians to justify the bombing campaign and support for the Islamist revolutionaries:

An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention and its aftermath was conducted by the U.K. Parliament's House of Commons' cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclusions of which were released on 14 September 2016 in a report titled Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options.^[232] The report was strongly critical of the British government's role in the intervention.^[233][234] The report concluded that the government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element."^[235] In particular, the committee concluded that Gaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians, and that reports to the contrary were propagated by rebels and Western governments. Western leaders trumpeted the threat of the massacre of civilians without factual basis, according to the parliamentary report, for example, it had been reported to Western leaders that on 17 March 2011 Gaddafi had given Benghazi rebels the offer of peaceful surrender and also that when Gaddafi had earlier retaken other rebel cities there were no massacres of non-combatants.

The idea that France would have militarily intervened without the U.S. is not tenable.  This military intervention never happens without the White House agreeing to it, for what we have learned are dubious public reason.  

Regardless, neither the Serbian or Libyan interventions where ‘defensive’ responses by NATO, bolstering the notion the ‘defensive alliance’ was indeed more than that, and used to aggressively intervene in foreign countries that had never attacked a NATO member.  
That is reality.  
You can say the Russians are paranoid, but you can’t say truthfully that NATO is just a defensive alliance.  Clinton and Obama decided to use it for diplomatic cover when they lacked UN and Congressional authorization for their desire to solve problems with bombs.  

OK, while this this poster’s two posts are very interesting from the Russian point of view, they have nothing to do with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I fully expect him to eventually cross the line and be banned as a Russian Bot. Therefore, let’s not feed the Troll.

[dan/california]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ukrainian-military-unit-russia-artillery-1365021/

Good article, not particularly cheery. Author is a former Marine.  

[dan/california]

Better news, maybe?

[danfrodo]

14 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

OK, while this this poster’s two posts are very interesting from the Russian point of view, they have nothing to do with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I fully expect him to eventually cross the line and be banned as a Russian Bot. Therefore, let’s not feed the Troll.

There's a dude really out of time.  He would've been an amazing political commissar in the good ol' days of the Great Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  A state entity so popular and beloved that it had to imprison it's own people (and the people of its hostage nations in eastern europe).

[G.I. Joe]

32 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Russian aviation is not trying to destroy Ukrainian aviation, and it doesn’t need it (what a trifle, some kind of aviation, who is interested in it in the 21st century)

I keep getting the distinct impression that the systemic weaknesses in the Russian military are hitting the Air Force particularly hard (unsurprisingly, given the expense of maintaining a good air force).

There has been some commentary off and on about how many of the Russian pilots captured or KIA have been majors and up. Of course it's perfectly normal for senior officers to be flying in combat, but here it seems as if they're doing the bulk of the flying. That makes me think they either have to ration a limited number of flying hours and only the senior guys are getting enough time to stay current, they have issues in their recruitment and training pipeline, or both. Add to that the number of retired pilots they have flying as mercenaries now, and it looks like there are issues.

I also remember reading somewhere (pretty sure it was here, and I think they had a cited source) that the Russian Air Force never flew in anything larger than two-ship formations in Syria. Not being able to coordinate even four-ship flights (in NATO, that would be the basic building block for air tactics as I understand it) looks like a massive red flag regarding their readiness and training.

Also, has anyone else found the apparent lack of any attempt to use the Su-57... interesting?

[dan/california]

The latest ISW map of Kherson shows the Ukrainian strategy of endless nibbling is having results. They could range the airfield with tube artillery soon. I suspect the Russians will find that inconvenient.

[Vet 0369]

On 6/11/2022 at 12:27 PM, Battlefront.com said:

There's been similar statements from Ukrainian sources for a couple of days now.  This isn't too worrying because Ukraine has most of what it needs to replace its 152mm guns with NATO standard 155mm guns.  I can't remember how many shells for those are already in Ukraine, but it's measured in weeks worth of supply, not days, and is still growing.

What this indicates to me is that Ukraine made the right requests at the right time in the right way so that it has been able to transition over to NATO standards with minimal disruption to artillery support.  However, it seems like the availability of NATO 155mm came just in time, which of course isn't optimal.

Steve

The thing that I try to keep in mind when reading these “releases” from Ukraine is the possibility of PsyOps. What better way to encourage a “totally hide bound” enemy to become over-confident, to under-estimate the strength of Ukraine, and to bait the Russia into an I’ll-advised offensive that you can then smash decisively.

NOTE: My use of “The Russia” is not a typo. It is intentional. As Haiduk explained in a reply to a question from me long ago in this thread, regarding “The Ukraine” vs. “Ukraine,” using “The” indicates an inferior territory or region.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, alison said:

One useful thing I find comes out of this sort of intra-European bickering is that it completely dispels the notion that NATO is some kind of sinister agent of US hegemony with a singular goal of crushing that country's enemies. This is what people who see the whole world through the lens of authoritarianism don't understand. In the "free" world, people are not only allowed to disagree on policy, but they openly and continuously debate it. Unfortunately that means we sometimes don't take as decisive action as would be ideal, but what's important is that when the action is taken we can be sure that the process was relatively transparent and the motivations are well-understood, even if not everyone was persuaded. In my opinion it is the freedom to have these conversations that is a big part of what structures like NATO are supposed to be protecting.

heh... I've been having the very same thoughts!  If NATO is a tool of the US, the US should look for a better tool

But in reality, this is pretty much the tool that the US wants.  Yes, it would prefer that Europe was more united and proactive about threats than it is.  the Yugoslav genocide was preventable, or at least could have been diminished, for example.  But overall, the US wants its allies to have their hearts in whatever tasks are in front of it.  As frustrating as it might be from the US perspective, it's better than no arrangement or an imposed one like the Warsaw Pact.

Steve

[danfrodo]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

heh... I've been having the very same thoughts!  If NATO is a tool of the US, the US should look for a better tool

But in reality, this is pretty much the tool that the US wants.  Yes, it would prefer that Europe was more united and proactive about threats than it is.  the Yugoslav genocide was preventable, or at least could have been diminished, for example.  But overall, the US wants its allies to have their hearts in whatever tasks are in front of it.  As frustrating as it might be from the US perspective, it's better than no arrangement or an imposed one like the Warsaw Pact.

Steve

Reminds me when a guy I used to work with said "a lot of folks are saying Obama is the anti-christ".  I said "huh, darn, I always expected the anti-christ to be a lot more effective.  Really disappointing."

NATO is operating the way democracies operate.  Frustrating, contentious, and sometimes pretty effective.

Edited June 12, 2022 by danfrodo

[holoween]

29 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

 

NOTE: My use of “The Russia” is not a typo. It is intentional. As Haiduk explained in a reply to a question from me long ago in this thread, regarding “The Ukraine” vs. “Ukraine,” using “The” indicates an inferior territory or region.

Thats not how this works at least in english. The US or the UK seem to disagree with this idea for example.

[Huba]

UA counterattacks against RU west of Izium. We discussed it as obvious thing to do if RU tries to lose the "small pincers" around Donbas, and here we go

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Huba

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

That's a keeper!

As to Jomini, when he spoke of a pivot point I think he was referring to the entire salient (UA controlled Donbas) behind Sivierdonetsk, not just the city, clear back to Siversk, at least. Or that's how I read him, anyway.

Also, this map I found yesterday suggests that the main concentration of Russian guns is north of Sivierdonetsk. So perhaps a little wider angle and therefore slightly more area to deploy in. Doesn't change your points much tho, just for info

 

Maybe, to give benefit but I am not sure what he means by "pivot point" then.  Severodonetsk is a frontal, straight and simple.  Once you take it, you then have to take Lysychansk etc.  Then once you do that you have push up the salient (again frontal).  I do not see this as an operational manoeuvre pivot point - a jumping off point for more frontal, maybe.  To take Siversk we are talking 25km of advancing over rolling ground, same ground that the Russians have stalled at Poposna and South-south-west of Izyum.  I am not sure why everyone keeps looking for some sort of Russian rapid operational manoeuvre or the conditions for one.  The Russians have been plodding and stalling over "undefendable western Dobas ground" for two months now.  How they are supposed to break that pattern after heavy bleeding all over Severodonetsk is beyond me.  Maybe they have a couple fresh Divisions with T-14s in the back pocket...

To my mind, for the Russians the operational objective has to be Sloviansk - Kramatorsk.  It looks like an MSR hub for both road and rail, Kramatorsk has a airfield.  You take that and you have options to pivot off of.  Problem was, and is, the Russians cannot seem to make offense work for them beyond this grinding attritional WWI-style humping and that is not going to get them the opportunities they are looking for.

I guess they could grind down the salient and then "declare victory" which will mean nothing as the UA keeps infiltrating, nipping, hacking and snacking on them.  The simple fact that the UA refuses to leave, and they damn well know where the Russian are, and are not, is a clear sign to my mind that this whole dance is still working for them.  Otherwise they should have fallen back to the S-K line along the KT river, regroup...giggle watching the Russians try to advance in good order, and then counter.

[Vet 0369]

21 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Assuming this isn't another instance of Ukraine just no to their visit soon, would mean more weapons and equipment for Ukraine is about to be pledged. 

Until I have definitive proof to the contrary, I usually suspect these types of “visits* are nothing more than what we call “live-shots” here in the U.S. They are always for political gain over the opposing party. One particularly discussing one for me was an unannounced photo op of a Congressional Representative during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that caused the Marine Security to have to divert Marines from their mission to provide security for the withdrawal (no U.S. military commander will risk even a publicity hound politician being killed or injured “on their watch”. I’m particularly disgusted because he represents my District, he is a Former Marine Officer who served in Afghanistan on the Judge Advocate Staff (a Lawyer, not a combat officer) and should have known better. Even his own Party was furious with his actions.

[Haiduk]

Enemy artillery destroyed a section of the second bridge to Siverodonetsk. Their artillery tried to do this more than a week, could hit bridge several times, but only slightly damaged it. And now they have success. The last bridge remained, but it was in bad conditions already before a war. This puts again a question of city defense expediency. 

The defense of Siverodonetsk is obviously political decision, so in society there is many criticism about this and demands to Armed Forces Command "don't listen Zelenskyi and to withdraw our guys to Lysychansk immediately". Though, looks like Siverodonetsk like and Rubizhe previuosly now playing a role of "meat grinder". Main forces, that ae storming the city and villages around are not Russians, but 2nd and 7th motor-rifle brigades of LPR + some battalions of conscripts rifle regiments. Russians probably represented with Kadyrov's forces and 31st air-assault brigade. 

Inside the city our troops hold industrial zone and quarters around it. LPR/Russians occupies NE and E parts of the city. All other space is just a place of artilery and airstrikes and deadly "counter-strike" games, as told commander of "Legion of Freedom" - one of the unit, holding the city. This is volunteer unit under Nationmal Guard comamnd, mostly of members of political moderate nationalist party "Svoboda" ("Freedom")

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

I posted this one a couple dozen pages ago (i.e. a couple of days) and posting again as it fleshes out the point I'm about to make:

 

I think some of our OSINT guys are failing to take the lessons that are outlined in the above video.  Namely, looking at the pure military reports of X has taken Y meters in Z location isn't really the best way to get a sense of where things are headed.  Instead people really need to be looking at some of the underlying pieces of intel, combine it with actual KNOWN results of THIS war, give some thought about strategic elements, and then add that to the current reports of fighting.  This provides a well rounded concept of the war and where it might be headed.

Instead I continually see otherwise smart people, who are definitely paying attention, consistently making the same mistakes as people before the war did.  Looking at only the apparent state of affairs is unlikely to give you a sense of the real state.  I'm don't want to pick on Jomini of the West, but I'm going to single him out because we've got him solidly discussed in the past few pages.

Let's look at artillery for a start.  Jomini posts about 900 pieces of Russian artillery and how much bigger that is than Ukraine's capacity.  That and Ukraine's running out of Soviet caliber shells for its artillery.  Wow, sounds like a really scary number if one doesn't look at anything else.  I look at other stuff, and so do a lot of you guys, so let's hit that number with a bit more context (in no particular order):

• Ukraine has probably more NATO standard shells in hand than Ukraine started the war with
• Reports from Russian sources say that a significant amount of the artillery in the area is running very low on ammunition.
• The number of tubes isn't important, it is what they are able to do that is.  I'm going to break this one down into a bunch of sub concepts
  • Russian artillery direction has been horribly wasteful.  You've all seen the videos of Ukrainian fields that have more shell craters in them than the moon.  Do we really think Ukrainian forces were occupying all that land?  No.  So the conclusion is that a huge number of Russian shells are wasted.  Why?  A number of reasons I can think of, but for now I don't think relevant to dive into
  • The more Russia uses a tube the more worn the tube becomes.  Russia has fired a HUGE amount of shells over the course of this war, including all the ones that killed nothing but good soil.  At some point systems will have to go offline because they are ineffective or they are going to do nothing more than kill microbes and bushes far away from Ukrainian forces
  • Russian stocks of usable/safe ammo are not endless. There's already been reports of unsafe rounds causing casualties to personnel and/or equipment, there's also reports of running out of some types of shells.  Russia has no capacity to replace these on its own.  Stealing from Belarus is their only possible option and even that is limited
• Hitting targets in a war of maneuver is even harder than hitting them in a war of positions.  If Russia requires massed artillery to make any progress at all, then good luck to them when they try to maneuver
• Ukraine is getting NATO systems online that are, shot for shot, vastly superior to Soviet era systems.  Ukraine has already stated that M777 and Caesar have reduced their ammo consumption AND increased their results.  So comparing Russian ammo expenditures against Ukrainian is meaningless unless some sort of adjustment is made on the Ukrainian side of the equation
• Russia has to use its artillery to eliminate a wide range of Ukrainian capabilities in order to advance.  Since Russia is relying upon artillery so heavily, Ukraine can concentrate all of its artillery on Russian artillery.  Every gun Ukraine eliminates weakens Russia's ability to keep the fighting going, but the same is not true in reverse
• Whatever Russia's military and/or political goals might be, they involve taking terrain from Ukraine.  Artillery can not do that on its own.  Period

I could probably go on and on about this, but I think you get my point   And that is I was able to draw out the above points by looking at the totality of the information in front of us.  Analysis requires more than counting stuff and doing some simplistic math.

On the topic of Jomini's points about what Russia can do with Severodonetsk once it takes it (*IF* it takes it), The_Capt has already beat me to most of what I have to say about it.  Adding to his points is that Russia has shown itself to absolutely suck at exploiting a breakthrough because it tends to bleed itself to near death achieving it.  With no significant forces in reserve, and ever increasing losses for an ever decreasing acquisition of terrain, this is unlikely to get better.  Especially because Ukraine, for all its casualties, has more men to commit to this war.

As I ,and others, have been saying since the start of this war... Ukraine can lose the ENTIRE Donbas and Russia will still lose the war.  Ukraine knows this as well.  As The_Capt put it so well, if Ukraine is holding out on the eastern bank of Severodonetsk then they must think this will give them an advantage.  This is not Ukraine bleeding itself for some stupid PR reason, this is them committing forces in a way that is designed to achieve Ukraine's overall goal... whch is to kill Russians.  Otherwise, it would have withdrawn (instead of reinforced) it's Severodonetsk positions and fought Russians from the superior western bank positions.  So like The_Capt, I conclude that Ukraine thinks it can kill more Russians by staying within their 900 gun range.  That is telling.

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

So, Severodonetsk.  No serious military strategic or operational value.  But high potential propaganda for Putin plus could give him enough gains to try to diplomatically freeze the status quo -- can he bribe enough politicians and influencers to pull this off?  -- for example, the most watched news-channel show in the US is 100% Putin propaganda.  Yeah, it's only the brainwashed that see it, but it does have influence.  Putin clearly hoping the poison will spread outward once he starts talking peace and love.  What do y'all see as the strategic purpose for each side in putting so much into the fight for this ground?

So that is a good question.  My guess is:

For Ukraine - to create opportunity to kill more Russians and expensive gear they cannot replace.  The UA has not been perfect (no military under stress is) but they have been far too good that this is some sort of error.  Unless there is some deep cultural symbolism I am missing here, this looks like a honeypot play.

For Russia - To Quote Schwarzkopf "Bovine Scatology".  Create drama to have drama.  They can take this town and call it a great victory, much like Mariupol.  And then Putin can try and stay in power for another month. 

[Suleyman]

Am I the only one who thinks things aren't looking good for UAF in Donbas? I've been keeping up with both sources and it shows that the RU forces are going to be victorious in the region. Mykhailo Podolyak an adviser to Zelensky, said they are taking 200 KIAs a day, artillery and airstrikes are a great advantage on the RU side so it makes sense. If Ukraine and allies wants to beat the Russians in Donbas in a decisive way, they must be supplied with large amounts of heavy equipment to cancel out the firepower advantage the Russians possess. Do I think the Russians can go much further than Donbas if they are to be victorious? No. It's too much land to cover, and the Ukraine has the manpower advantage in the region. 

Since the Russians don't have a lot of manpower to play with, and they do have a rotation going on it's gonna be slow advances on their side, we can't expect them to advance in rapid breakthroughs they're committing to the slow and grinding out methods because they face the threat of heavy attrition if they try those type of tactics. Both sides have battle hardened soldiers by now, so infantry on infantry is a bad idea for RU forces, they don't want to fight on an equal footing and risk losing valuable infantry that they do not possess much of. 

 

 

[Haiduk]

23 minutes ago, Suleyman said:

Mykhailo Podolyak an adviser to Zelensky, said they are taking 200 KIAs a day, artillery and airstrikes are a great advantage on the RU side so it makes sense.

This can be just an element of psychological pressure to the West and signal "you are too slow in weapon supply". Though, intencity of clashes from Kherson to Kharkiv now extremaly high, so both sides have big, but comparable losses.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Haiduk

[Vet 0369]

33 minutes ago, holoween said:

Thats not how this works at least in english. The US or the UK seem to disagree with this idea for example.

I place the the major difference here as being that the US or the UK haven’t tended to use the article to indicate an inferior subject region or territory as The Russia does.

[Combatintman]

15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think there should be a new saying... "it's not how much artillery you have, it's what you do with it that counts!".  Looks like a Russian supply convoy, perhaps with a mix of fuel and rocket artillery ammo, conveniently parked all in one spot and the drivers didn't put in the effort to move their vehicles once the shelling started.  This was uploaded yesterday and I didn't see any reference to where it might be:

 

I've just had a quick hunt.  The only easy identifier is the fact that this was 40 Artillery Brigade - a Southern Command Unit according to Wikipedia - so probably Kherson or points east of it which doesn't narrow it down much.  I've not had a decent pick into this but this video doesn't appear to have any geolocation data in its metadata so it will be tough to pin down without more context.

For those that have the time to hunt around for videos - this is a great tool for finding geo-tagged videos:

Location Search - Discover Geo-tagged Videos - YouTube Geofind (mattw.io)

Easy peasy to use - click location search - drag the green pin to where you want to look, add filters as required such as date-time ranges, search radius etc, scroll down a bit and click submit.

The link below is a search I did around Sieverodonetsk for the last seven days

https://mattw.io/youtube-geofind/location?location=48.90486748996277,38.316726806640645&timeframe=day-7&doSearch=true

Have a look at ones that interest you - click the Open in Map option or View Metadata and go to geo location and copy and past the geo coords in the box to your mapping application of choice.

 

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

So, Severodonetsk.  No serious military strategic or operational value.

Before a war it was temporary administrative center of Ukraine-controlled part of Donetsk oblast