How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

I wonder what kind of plan Zaluzhny has, the one in which the Ukrainian armed forces have a sufficient amount of ammunition or the one in which they have no ammunition at all?

Of course, Zaluzhny has no plan for next year. Simply because he has no idea how much military supplies he can count on next year

[JonS]

@acrashb

You're making the same fundamental mistake that Trump did in viewing Defence as a pure cost-centre.

The US accrues massive collateral benefits from its outsized defence spending. Yes, that comes with expectations which mightn't seem 'fair'.

Edited November 29, 2023 by JonS

[LongLeftFlank]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The UA Summer offensive failed to achieve visible results.  I am sorry but no one (including you, Mr Broken Clock) were able to articulate why this condition would occur given the information we had at hand.

 Further, you and been crying about the sky falling pretty much since March of 22.  You will excuse the class if we did not jump on board another LLF doom and gloom exercise. 

The obstacles were a concern.  We did push back on the whole “Lolz Russia” wave because those obstacle belts looked pretty well developed to my eyes.  What was missing was the RA ability to defend them.  Given the abysmal losses and state of affairs of the RA after the Winter offensive how on earth they managed to defend an 800km frontage and actually cover those minefields is frankly beyond me.  If you wish to impress explain that.  How did the RA logistically, ISR and simple combat power manage to actually cover all those obstacles?  Let alone do it effectively?  Please state your thesis.  If you stand in a field long enough and cry “lightening” one day you will be correct.  That does not mean you actually understand how lightening happens.

Nice tantrum, not to mention an absurd caricature of my many posts, and of my overall outlook on the war.  I'm going to take the rest of this pissing match into a quote bubble, so folks can flick by it.

8 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Since the start of the thread, in spite of all the meming and jackassery, I've also tried to find and share credible frontline reports. In fact I'm pretty sure I was first to surface a lot of the feeds that folks here quote regularly.  I would hardly put the vast bulk of this material in the Roepcke class.  In fact, I've often tried to highlight stuff that supports or confirms good points made by you, Steve or others.

Also, I don't give a rats about impressing anyone. I'm just an energy industry w&&ker who builds CM scenarios when I have time, and have never pretended to be anything more. So that's just yet another gratuitious put down, to which I say

you.

I don't know why I should even bother "stating a thesis" given your determination to treat anything I say with open contempt, but fine, maybe it will yield some useful discussion. I've provoked that before, several times.  Also, you did say 'please' and yes, I'm actually Canadian too.

a. It was quite obvious to me (yay, me) that the NATO-style Big Buildup, Followed By The Big Push to the Green Fields Beyond was going to be, pace Anzio, not a wildcat but a beached whale, given the minefields and I didn't even dream of the density that they actually employed. It was a Kursk replay, everyone was saying so, including Gen. Zaluzhny. I thought Front Aviation would play more of a role than it did, and was also surprised (and cheered) by the relative feebleness of their artillery.

b. But my 'thesis' -- which like everyone else's here has had to recalibrate with new information, especially regarding the drone revolution -- was and remains that rather than trying to build a New Model Army modeled on NATO heavy brigades but with laser beams in the freeking heads, Ukraine was, and is, far better served transforming the bulk of their force into  something as close as possible to "1200 Ranger (or Jaeger or Cossack or PAVN) battalions", doctrinally focused on ambush, infiltration  and envelopment.

Hence all my 'wailing' about how the UA ought to be mobilising significantly more infantry, from a much larger pool of men; this is brutally hard service and troops need to be rotated out, and train green cadres.

Similarly, their armour should be centered on independent tank battalions, tasked to ops where their armoured fist or screen is called for.

Artillery, well, I generally follow the consensus here, but it seems Aerorozvidka blazed the trail with on-call drone spotting and fire support for all sizes of formations.

...Would this '1200 Ranger battalions' force structure have obtained a different result north of Tokmak in summer 2023? Unlikely, but these battalions could have commenced aggressive ops in this zone as early as last fall, when the Russians were still infantry poor and vehicle-bound, and the Zaporozhe-Vuhledar front was relatively porous, with vulnerable supply lines and significant partisan activity. No way the Ivans could have trucked all those mines to this zone, let alone laid most of them.

...btw, you yourself shaped a lot of my thinking on this stuff, but it wouldn't be the first time I learned a lot from a know-it-all bully.

The Ignore key is over there.

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, JonS said:

You're making the same fundamental mistake that Trump did in viewing Defence as a pure cost-centre.

The US accrues massive collateral benefits from its outsized defence spending. Yes, that comes with expectations which mightn't seem 'fair'.

Why does everyone forget these little tidbits when they talk NATO spending?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Of course Trump was going to bluster and try to get everyone to spend more on defence within NATO…it a market.

[Letter from Prague]

27 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

It's easy for us to be optimistic about a war which we're not having to suffer.

Or when you're not close to anyone that does.

I work with quite a few people whose families are stuck on the occupied territories. Their aging parents are getting no healthcare, because that is limited only to people with Russian passport. their younger siblings will become cannon fodder for the Russians once they come of age, if they live that long. They might also ended up forcibly moved to Siberia or in a mass grave any day.

I see the toll it takes on people every day, so it somewhat makes my blood boil when people say things like "it's just territory, might not be worth it".

12 minutes ago, acrashb said:

He uses bull-in-a-china-shop tactics to get results, sometimes it works (often not).  On NATO, he was saying the obvious: most of the free world, including my country, free rides on the US taxpayer. I think his various threats were a way to scare other states into stepping up (at least I hope so).
Result: NATO defense spending as a share of GDP 2023 | Statista

Looks like the bluster did have the desired (or a desirable) effect.  Hard to be sure, but the chart is persuasive, as he was inaugurated in Jan 2017.

I think we talked about this in here as well, and there was even a Perun video on this topic: this "other countries are freeloaders on NATO" is bull****.

From the point of view of US, NATO is most of all an investment. The US wants a certain world order - mostly one where world is stable and American companies are making truckloads of money all over the world - and NATO is one of many levers it uses for that (the huge fleet that makes it safe to do international shipping is another one, for example).

The return of investment is huge - in NATOless world, I would not be writing this on a Macbook while having Amazon.de open in a second tab, I would not pay my lunch using a Visa card, and people would not be watching Hollywood movies so much they ask European police to read them their rights. No idea what the alternative would be - maybe I'd be living in fully automated luxury gay space communism (*), maybe the world would be radioactive wasteland - but it would not be this. Just the amount of money US has made selling military hardware to its NATO allies pays for the alliance several times over.

Anyone who is complaining about "freeloaders in NATO" is playing some very strange political game, because that is not what NATO is for.

(*): like Star Trek or something

[acrashb]

7 minutes ago, JonS said:

@acrashb

The US accrues massive collateral benefits from its outsized defence spending. Yes, that comes with expectations which mightn't seem 'fair'.

Which is why the world has gotten away with free-riding for so long.  It isn't fair, and it weakens the alliance.

If the US wants to continue to spend ~4.5% of GDP and in so doing get the side benefits, great, as long as countries like Canada step up and meet their 2% commitment (and ultimately do something smart with the money).

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Of course Trump was going to bluster and try to get everyone to spend more on defence within NATO…it a market.

Motives are one thing, results another.  Ideally they align, but if they don't and the results are okay, well let's carry on.  Our system is designed so that results are generally good even when motives are suspect - for example, many of the politicians I've known had very poor motives, and yet produced results because that's how they got re-elected.  Having said that, I acknowledge that poor motives have a corrosive effect, given time.

Not everything DT produced was evil, even when the methods were disturbing.  Check the chart, steady growth in NATO spending as a percentage of GDP.

[The_Capt]

36 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Nice tantrum, not to mention an absurd caricature of my many posts, and of my overall outlook on the war.  I'm going to take the rest of this pissing match into a quote bubble, so folks can flick by it.

The Ignore key is over there.

Oh dear, now I have gone and hurt feelings.  You did post a massive “I told you so” post, which kinda feels like you have been saving up for.  We have all had our doom and gloom moments to be fair.  I like your Ranger idea but it is hard enough to take a store clerk and turn them into a basic infantryman let alone a Ranger capable of deep distributed operations, but it is thinking out of the box.

Bully?!  Now that one does hurt.  I mean I am not going to let over-polished unsubstantiated opinion sail past completely unchallenged and we have seen plenty of it.  If we are trying to unpack the failure of the Summer 23 offensive then I am all ears.  If you are trying to show that you knew it was going to fail all along I clearly am going to call BS.  No one really “knew” it was going to end the way it did.  It was a possibility but one would have to have insider knowledge we do not have access to in order to “know”.

I do agree that we way over-invested in Western build up and superiority, looks like that was a bad call.  As to levels of infantry - well an old SSM of mine used to say “you push with the prick you got”.  Ukraine could only train so many and was under pressure from both western partners and the threat of RA recovery.  It was not like they could sit out Summer 23 while Russia planted more minefields.  They had to go and did.  It did not work out.  I do not think it was Russian hordes, it was Russian C4ISR and a baffling density of minefield (honestly one does have to admire he engineer works from a strictly professional viewpoint).

Anyway, let’s not say things we will regret in the morning.  It was an elbow to the rib, not a meat cleaver to your nose.  

Edited November 29, 2023 by The_Capt

[acrashb]

2 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

Anyone who is complaining about "freeloaders in NATO" is playing some very strange political game, because that is not what NATO is for.

Not me.  I see at relatively close range (I live in the country and pay attention) the omnishambles that is the Canadian Armed Forces - lots of good intentions and not enough stuff.  Partly it's money (a hard limiting factor) and partly it's competence, which can be improved with will (and time, and money).

It's a travesty, and Canada has been free-riding on the US taxpayer for years, with respect to defense.  Just because we can doesn't mean we should.  In a practical sense, it erodes a team when some members are feigning sprained ankles while others move the ball down the field.  If NATO is for mutual defence - and it is - then Canada (and others) are lagging in 'mutual'.

[Letter from Prague]

Just now, acrashb said:

Not me.  I see at relatively close range (I live in the country and pay attention) the omnishambles that is the Canadian Armed Forces - lots of good intentions and not enough stuff.  Partly it's money (a hard limiting factor) and partly it's competence, which can be improved with will (and time, and money).

It's a travesty, and Canada has been free-riding on the US taxpayer for years, with respect to defense.  Just because we can doesn't mean we should.  In a practical sense, it erodes a team when some members are feigning sprained ankles while others move the ball down the field.  If NATO is for mutual defence - and it is - then Canada (and others) are lagging in 'mutual'.

I meant Trump and similar voices in EU, not you.

And Donald and similar probably are the best advertisement for "spend money on defense and don't rely on US", just not necessarily the way they think they are.

Anyway, it's a bit offtopic.

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Motives are one thing, results another.  Ideally they align, but if they don't and the results are okay, well let's carry on.  Our system is designed so that results are generally good even when motives are suspect - for example, many of the politicians I've known had very poor motives, and yet produced results because that's how they got re-elected.  Having said that, I acknowledge that poor motives have a corrosive effect, given time.

Not everything DT produced was evil, even when the methods were disturbing.  Check the chart, steady growth in NATO spending as a percentage of GDP.

We are not going to unpack DT presidency here.  I agree he did light a fire under defence spending.  Hell even Canada started to look worried (the whole aluminum thing did not help).  But let’s also not attribute it “fairness in collective defence”, or at least not all of it.  The US does gain a lot by NATO spending more, it is the largest arms market on the planet.  So more aggressive marketing than honest rebalancing or defence responsibilities.

%GDP is a terrible metric. It allows nations like Greece who basically have set up a camo workfare program to come out but they are not really able to contribute to collective deterrence. I also think that this whole argument is going to fade as Putin just secured NATO budgets for at least a decade.

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Not me.  I see at relatively close range (I live in the country and pay attention) the omnishambles that is the Canadian Armed Forces - lots of good intentions and not enough stuff.  Partly it's money (a hard limiting factor) and partly it's competence, which can be improved with will (and time, and money).

It's a travesty, and Canada has been free-riding on the US taxpayer for years, with respect to defense.  Just because we can doesn't mean we should.  In a practical sense, it erodes a team when some members are feigning sprained ankles while others move the ball down the field.  If NATO is for mutual defence - and it is - then Canada (and others) are lagging in 'mutual'.

Ouch.  Well we do make up for it in ghusto and much fewer national caveats.  Look we have a Devils Agreement with the US on continental defence.  They will pay for it all and when the war comes we will be the battlefield.  As to global and power projection, well we do show up…shambles that we are.  And we can fight, plenty of evidence of that.  We are kinda the imperial auxiliaries.  Just enough to keep the empire happy but not so much we have to give up something.

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

You are correct. Trump can certainly run from jail. But commuting or pardoning himself likely doesn't get past the Supreme Court so it would be an unprecedented mess. Just like last time. 

Point of personal privilege  and friendly amendment. In the event of a Trump second term, the federal criminal and state civil and criminal prosecutions will indeed be a sordid mess. No matter the outcomes. However…

Because of the nature of the judicial system and the ability to appeal, any criminal conviction is unlikely to occur until well AFTER the election and inauguration , even in the unlikely event the federal cases were to go forward. But a Trump Justice Dept. 2.0 is quite likely to immediately drop all of its own Trump federal prosecutions on Inauguration Day 1/20/2024. The prosecutor for the Georgia state charges has recently suggested that her trial may well drag on into 2025. And the hopes of some that State prosecutions are out of federal jurisdiction are effectively vapor. The Justice Department's current policy disallows criminal prosecution of a sitting President due to the disruptions of the Commander In Chief to carry out his duties….national security etc. And rest assured the right wing Supreme Court will backstop such decisions. Nor will a Republican Senate and House impeach Trump. 
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

Maybe Nikki Haley will surpass Trump? More likely Trump would select her as VP. Because of the Republican primary schedule and its “Super Tuesday”, Trump will have the nomination locked up before the first trial might even start. Never dismiss outright a bizarre turn of events. But those who hope trials in and of themselves will derail a Trump election will likely be disappointed. 

[Letter from Prague]

Given the ... ahem ... teeny tiny war crime track record from the previous wars, maybe the US is as much defending Canada as it is defending the world from Canada? 

[Harmon Rabb]

Fingers crossed this report is accurate, the less of these things flying the better.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

I don't know if he's a troll, a Russian propagandist or someone who has been inadvertently convinced by Russia propaganda and I don't really care. We should call it what it is.

That is a deeply unfair and frankly insulting post. You are talking about a man who is living inside Ukraine and who bases his pessimistic view on his assesment of war weariness level of the ordinary Ukrainians. Something you by definition would not know about, and the Western press would not report about - not newsworthy enough. Frankly, In this forum on this subject only the opinion of Haiduk and Zeleban matters, as they are the only ones who can take a measure of that metric. And you are saying that Zeleban thinks that people he meets every day are losing the will to fight not because he sees the symptoms of that, but because he has been "inadvertently convinced by Russian propaganda"? What hubris!

Shame on you.  

[Jammason]

23 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Keep in mind the % of ground seized compared to Russia's prewar land area.  I think we're talking about a fraction of a faction of a percentage.  If this tiny amount of land held some incredible money making resource, important population center, port, etc. then maybe it could be seen as a gem in a pile of dung.  But the only significant city they have now, Mariupol, is flattened and depopulated.  No prize there.  Plus, it really is only useful for maintaining the otherwise non-important lands they currently occupy.  It's not like it opened up a trade route to any place else.

I'm guessing you would have thought your more recent "10 point summary" would have closed this line of conversation, but I thought I'd just add this: It's not so much the % of ground seized, but how it's connected. Putin established his land bridge to Crimea, thus drastically reducing the chance of Crimea ever being on the negotiating table, cementing this bit of 2014 aggression as a permanent win. If things freeze as they are now, even the destruction of his beloved Kerch bridge won't affect Russia's access to the unsinkable aircraft carrier (with nice beaches, too!) in the Black Sea.

International recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and the land bridge that connects it would be a big win for Putin (or at least a silver lining he could sell as a big win internally). The four new oblasts + Crimea also form a mega-cauldron from which he can (and no doubt will) re-arm and attack from in ~8-10 years after any negotiated cease-fire.

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

That is a deeply unfair and frankly insulting post. You are talking about a man who is living inside Ukraine and who bases his pessimistic view on his assesment of war weariness level of the ordinary Ukrainians. Something you by definition would not know about, and the Western press would not report about - not newsworthy enough. Frankly, In this forum on this subject only the opinion of Haiduk and Zeleban matters, as they are the only ones who can take a measure of that metric. And you are saying that Zeleban thinks that people he meets every day are losing the will to fight not because he sees the symptoms of that, but because he has been "inadvertently convinced by Russian propaganda"? What hubris!

Shame on you.  

I think billbindc missed out Zeleban's background, which does make his comments seem unfair.  However, Zeleban's comments and method of arguing them are not unlike those of pro-Russians that I've banned from this thread.  So, there is that.  I'm going to chalk up billbindc's comments to misunderstanding which, I hope, has been corrected for.

As for Zeleban's comments, there's been two different categories.  The first is his personal experiences and discussions.  I have no doubt they are being honestly presented, but personal experiences can be deceiving.  If I ask random people in the town next to me who the rightful President of the US is I'm pretty sure a minority would say "Biden".  If I asked in my town I think it would be "Biden", but not by much more than 60%.  If I were to drive 2 hours south and ask the same question it would likely be 90% Biden.  The point is that one has to be very careful to extrapolate personal experiences into a national context.

The second category is commentary about the West that is not only factually incorrect but generally similar to Russian talking points.  More problematic is his apparent resistance to having his faulty opinions corrected by those with much greater understanding of the topic.

So, if Zeleban wants to have his views respected because he is living them, then he should extend the same courtesy to others who are doing the same thing with their lived experiences.

Steve

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Jammason said:

I'm guessing you would have thought your more recent "10 point summary" would have closed this line of conversation, but I thought I'd just add this: It's not so much the % of ground seized, but how it's connected. Putin established his land bridge to Crimea, thus drastically reducing the chance of Crimea ever being on the negotiating table, cementing this bit of 2014 aggression as a permanent win. If things freeze as they are now, even the destruction of his beloved Kerch bridge won't affect Russia's access to the unsinkable aircraft carrier (with nice beaches, too!) in the Black Sea.

International recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and the land bridge that connects it would be a big win for Putin (or at least a silver lining he could sell as a big win internally). The four new oblasts + Crimea also form a mega-cauldron from which he can (and no doubt will) re-arm and attack from in ~8-10 years after any negotiated cease-fire.

This is a solid point, except for the international recognition part.  That damned land bridge is not good news at all but I do not think it is big enough to give Russia “a win”.  International recognition will never come anymore than it did for Crimea.  If it does ever happen it means the western rules based order is dead and we are in the opening chapters of Chung Ko.  Then best strategy, short of pulling Ukraine into NATO is to Korean Peninsula this thing.  I multi-lateral security treaties that see western troops on the ground in Ukraine.  This effectively will create a deterrence by denial situation for Russia in do-overing this war in a decade…assuming Russia is capable of that in a decade.

Do not get me wrong it would have been far better if Ukraine had taken that corridor back - and I do not think that ship has sailed yet but it is getting further away.  But I think Steve’s point is that Russia can claim victory if this thing stops right now but the reality is very different.  All war is negotiation and we may finally be at a point where both sides can come to terms with how things are…or maybe not, I honestly do not know.

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, Jammason said:

I'm guessing you would have thought your more recent "10 point summary" would have closed this line of conversation, but I thought I'd just add this: It's not so much the % of ground seized, but how it's connected. Putin established his land bridge to Crimea, thus drastically reducing the chance of Crimea ever being on the negotiating table, cementing this bit of 2014 aggression as a permanent win. If things freeze as they are now, even the destruction of his beloved Kerch bridge won't affect Russia's access to the unsinkable aircraft carrier (with nice beaches, too!) in the Black Sea.

International recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and the land bridge that connects it would be a big win for Putin (or at least a silver lining he could sell as a big win internally). The four new oblasts + Crimea also form a mega-cauldron from which he can (and no doubt will) re-arm and attack from in ~8-10 years after any negotiated cease-fire.

Oh, I agree with all of this.  Except that Crimea is not all that great of a prize any more.  It has always been a net drag on the economy of whomever governed it, so now Russia has more net negative economic territory protecting it.  That's not really a win-win long term.  Especially because it seems that Crimea's ability to dominate the Black Sea is no longer true, or at least very questionable.

Which means the land bridge is really just about protecting a point of national pride.  That isn't "nothing", but whoa... man... what a price tag for bragging rights.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Do not get me wrong it would have been far better if Ukraine had taken that corridor back - and I do not think that ship has sailed yet but it is getting further away.  But I think Steve’s point is that Russia can claim victory if this thing stops right now but the reality is very different.  All war is negotiation and we may finally be at a point where both sides can come to terms with how things are…or maybe not, I honestly do not know.

Yes, that was my primary point.

Also, I don't think it was ever realistic for Ukraine to have taken back Crimea by force, with or without the land bridge.  Therefore, Putin obtained a militarily useless buffer at an enormous price. 

Steve

[The_Capt]

33 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think billbindc missed out Zeleban's background, which does make his comments seem unfair.  However, Zeleban's comments and method of arguing them are not unlike those of pro-Russians that I've banned from this thread.  So, there is that.  I'm going to chalk up billbindc's comments to misunderstanding which, I hope, has been corrected for.

As for Zeleban's comments, there's been two different categories.  The first is his personal experiences and discussions.  I have no doubt they are being honestly presented, but personal experiences can be deceiving.  If I ask random people in the town next to me who the rightful President of the US is I'm pretty sure a minority would say "Biden".  If I asked in my town I think it would be "Biden", but not by much more than 60%.  If I were to drive 2 hours south and ask the same question it would likely be 90% Biden.  The point is that one has to be very careful to extrapolate personal experiences into a national context.

The second category is commentary about the West that is not only factually incorrect but generally similar to Russian talking points.  More problematic is his apparent resistance to having his faulty opinions corrected by those with much greater understanding of the topic.

So, if Zeleban wants to have his views respected because he is living them, then he should extend the same courtesy to others who are doing the same thing with their lived experiences.

Steve

Tense on the old Hot Thread today.  Not a good vibe to be found.  Everyone seems on edge somewhat.  Maybe take a moment and remember that we are all on the same side?  

[Harmon Rabb]

Alright folks, I need some sleep. This is gonna be my last post for the day. I leave you with some optimistic clips of the international community showing solidarity with Ukraine I found on Twitter today, but did not want to post individually.

 

 

 

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Point of personal privilege  and friendly amendment. In the event of a Trump second term, the federal criminal and state civil and criminal prosecutions will indeed be a sordid mess. No matter the outcomes. However…

Because of the nature of the judicial system and the ability to appeal, any criminal conviction is unlikely to occur until well AFTER the election and inauguration , even in the unlikely event the federal cases were to go forward. But a Trump Justice Dept. 2.0 is quite likely to immediately drop all of its own Trump federal prosecutions on Inauguration Day 1/20/2024. The prosecutor for the Georgia state charges has recently suggested that her trial may well drag on into 2025. And the hopes of some that State prosecutions are out of federal jurisdiction are effectively vapor. The Justice Department's current policy disallows criminal prosecution of a sitting President due to the disruptions of the Commander In Chief to carry out his duties….national security etc. And rest assured the right wing Supreme Court will backstop such decisions. Nor will a Republican Senate and House impeach Trump. 
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

Maybe Nikki Haley will surpass Trump? More likely Trump would select her as VP. Because of the Republican primary schedule and its “Super Tuesday”, Trump will have the nomination locked up before the first trial might even start. Never dismiss outright a bizarre turn of events. But those who hope trials in and of themselves will derail a Trump election will likely be disappointed. 

The DC trial happens in March. 

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

That is a deeply unfair and frankly insulting post. You are talking about a man who is living inside Ukraine and who bases his pessimistic view on his assesment of war weariness level of the ordinary Ukrainians. Something you by definition would not know about, and the Western press would not report about - not newsworthy enough. Frankly, In this forum on this subject only the opinion of Haiduk and Zeleban matters, as they are the only ones who can take a measure of that metric. And you are saying that Zeleban thinks that people he meets every day are losing the will to fight not because he sees the symptoms of that, but because he has been "inadvertently convinced by Russian propaganda"? What hubris!

Shame on you.  

I have made no comments denigrating Ukrainian war weariness or his local knowledge. I respect his experience there and honor it...nor would I attempt to talk down to him about it despite the fact that it has in fact been pretty heavily reported here. That's obviously not enough to pretend expertise. But let's be honest...Zeleban did not confine himself to that and made a whole variety of tendentious observations about American politics, NATO, etc that wouldn't have been out of place on Russia Today. I don't think it's shameful to point that out nor am I ashamed to. 

That said, I'll leave it alone. I think everyone's made their point. 

[Battlefront.com]

More videos of recent destruction of expensive and limited availability Russian hardware.  One video was just posted here, the other three are new:

No wonder Russia is having to strip stuff from Kaliningrad.  I don't know how many of each of these things they make per year, but I don't imagine it can be enough to replace what is being lost.

Steve