How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, chrisl said:

But isn't that where this has been headed for the past year?  Nothing big can move without getting made and then unmade.  Small groups of infantry have been effective, or at least hard to target and hit.  There are at least two elements to mass: mass and density.  The low density has been demonstrated to at least be somewhat effective.  Is this attack with mass also at low density, or is it at a high enough density that's going to be relatively straightforward to hit as each element is spotted and turn into a walking meat grinder?

If only someone with an excellent record of building military sims would put out one focused on the current war?

Edit: If all you did was give it only to the Ukrainian military it be a significant contribution to their war effort. Pixeltruppen dying to demonstrate an idea is awful hurts a lot less than real people.

Edited May 16 by dan/california

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

To be fair, many Germans marched to Moscow and back on foot due to lack of vehicles, and as we know the front within 10km is considered dangerous for vehicles.

If there are no minefields and sparse defenders, it’s not a bad choice necessarily. I do wonder how re-supply will work if they push more than a few km on a broad front.

This is my take on it.  If we knew what Russia's full intentions were that would probably clarify things!

To summarize:

1.  Russia is frustrated with the lack of progress anywhere on the established frontline.  Progress being defined as something other than securing a tree plant here, a trench there, and occasionally a bombed out village.

2.  They decided opening up a "second front" would help draw Ukrainian forces away from the Donbas so better progress might be made. 

3.  Another part of opening a second front is furthering the defeatist talk within Ukraine and inside its Western partners.  Any weakening of resolve by anybody is good for Russia.

4.  At the same time, Russia recognizes that it's not in great shape either.  This offensive action needed to avoid another Bakhmut or Avdiivka level investment because that would likely erase any gains from the action.

5.  In the end they decided upon a limited incursion with a limited budget of mostly dismounted infantry.  No massive mechanized forces like Avdiivka.  Territorial objectives were kept close enough to the border that it could be taken by a dismounted force.  Once taken, it would be occupied and kept active enough to distract Ukraine but not Russia.

This all seems pretty sound to me.

What I would love to know is how much terrain Russia thought it might be able to take before the lines firmed up.  Did they get everything they were looking for?  Were they hoping for more and aren't going to get it?

The other question I have is if Russia was using this to proof a new offensive strategy or if it was simply the result of the constraints I mentioned above.  If so, then the question is... did Russia learn something new that we might see repeated elsewhere?

Steve

[dan/california]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

did Russia learn something new that we might see repeated elsewhere?

The first question is did what did the Ukrainians have on the other side of that line. It is at least possible that Ukraine had thinned their forces in this area too much. Depending on how much of a problem it is to not be able to fire NATO ordinance into Russia proper, and the force levels available? They may have known for weeks they were going to lose some ground here? It was simply the best of a bad set of choices.

While Ukraine losing some border areas isn't great, the real question as always is can Russia achieve anything with this minor success besides filling up military cemeteries all over Russia. 

[dan/california]

Not sure this a picture of the whole situation, but it certainly isn't bad news.

[dan/california]

The Russians are as eager as ever to remind us all that surrender is not an option.

[Battlefront.com]

Some more info and videos from the strike on the Crimean Belbek airbase a few days ago:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/32701

Steve

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, chrisl said:

But isn't that where this has been headed for the past year?  Nothing big can move without getting made and then unmade.  Small groups of infantry have been effective, or at least hard to target and hit.  There are at least two elements to mass: mass and density.  The low density has been demonstrated to at least be somewhat effective.  Is this attack with mass also at low density, or is it at a high enough density that's going to be relatively straightforward to hit as each element is spotted and turn into a walking meat grinder?

That is what made this one weird, it looks more like high mass and high density.  Those are very modest frontages and depth the RA is playing with, if it was 50k troops then for the first time in a long time high density mass may have been used effectively.  But of course it was at walking speed so the other important factor of momentum was lost.  News reports are all indicating that the UA has bottled this one back up, but it is still not clear how (or why) RA dismounted mass was being employed.

[FancyCat]

Maybe they ran out of vehicles. Or maybe they really figured that Ukraine was deeply on the ropes and an advance was possible.

[FancyCat]

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is excellent news.  I'm not surprised as the UK and US have carefully coordinated policy since before this war started.  It is not impossible for them to diverge from each other, but it is more likely they will stay on the same page.  The UK and France and even Estonia made some strong statements first to stir things up, then the US.  If that was how it was planned, it makes sense.

Steve

If the details on targeting using HIMARS from a year ago remain true, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/09/ukraine-himars-rocket-artillery-russia/

then the statement is not useful, it really depends on whether the U.S approves the targets and whether Ukraine still follows on U.S approval these days vs a year ago.

[Letter from Prague]

1 minute ago, FancyCat said:

If the details on targeting using HIMARS from a year ago remain true, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/09/ukraine-himars-rocket-artillery-russia/

then the statement is not useful, it really depends on whether the U.S approves the targets and whether Ukraine still follows on U.S approval these days vs a year ago.

I think this is evolving quite a bit as time goes on.

I remember when Ukraine first got HIMARS, US specifically modified it so it won't fire ATACMS even if Ukraine got it from somewhere else, to "prevent escalation". Now they actually have ATACMS from US.

I'm curious if Blinken meant the statement that Ukraine can target whatever it wants now. Although "they can target whatever they want but if they hit Russia we'll stop supporting them" is still technically "they can target whatever".

[danfrodo]

Some interesting videos today, showing close up fighting on Kharkiv front, plus the usual collection of bavovnas.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/5/16/2241008/-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Ukraine-hits-Crimean-air-base-for-second-day-in-a-row?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

Again we see claim of 1500 RU lost in a day, again, plus dozens of armored vehicles and arty systems.  Assuming that UKR is exaggerating consistently, this is still a 50% increase in RU casualties since they attacked over the border.  That's ~5 days of 1500 plus claimed, something like that?  Makes the estimate of 50k RU troops in the region seem awfully small when they are losing ~2% or so per day.  A month of this and UKR could walk to Belgorod.  

And so I go on hoping for a mutiny to start and spread.  These RU guys just seem to be OK with being slaughtered?  Geeeez, kill the masters.  I know it's probably not easy but at least you'd have a chance of surviving.  I suppose they can't trust each other enough to try it, thinking the others would not join in.  

[The_MonkeyKing]

4 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

I think this is evolving quite a bit as time goes on.

I remember when Ukraine first got HIMARS, US specifically modified it so it won't fire ATACMS even if Ukraine got it from somewhere else, to "prevent escalation". Now they actually have ATACMS from US.

I'm curious if Blinken meant the statement that Ukraine can target whatever it wants now. Although "they can target whatever they want but if they hit Russia we'll stop supporting them" is still technically "they can target whatever".

Nope, no chance in policy. Politicians and their double speak 

 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/africa-file-may-16-2024-russian-outreach-across-africa

Key Takeaways:

Libya. Russia has reinforced its military presence in Libya as it consolidates its positions across Africa. Russia may have deployed the influx of personnel and matériel as part of ongoing negotiations to secure a naval base in Libya, prepare to send more support to various theaters in sub-Saharan Africa, or strengthen its position to make itself essential to resolving the ongoing domestic stalemate in Libya. None of these potential causes are mutually exclusive. The Kremlin likely aims to protect its position in Libya so that it can use Libya’s strategic location to pose conventional and irregular threats to Europe and continue using it as a logistical bridgehead for activities in sub-Saharan Africa.  

 

Russia has knocked down a lot of dominoes across the Sahel by being willing to apply a moderate amount of forces and resources absolutely ruthlessly.

[Vanir Ausf B]

14 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I for one am really interested in how this all went down as it may provide some clues as to the health of the RA.

I think the RA really is short on APCs, but there were other factors specific to this operation. One is that the distances traveled are quite short; less than 5km in most places. The other is that the area nearest the border was largely undefended and the Russians knew it.

3/ Many question how Russian forces crossed the border so quickly. The answer is simple — the border is a grey zone heavily surveilled and, hence doesn't have defensive structures. Instead, the defensive lines are positioned deeper within Ukrainian territory.

4/ Manpower shortages compel Ukraine to avoid deploying large units along the border continuously, with fully stocked and ready for immediate-use artillery. Placing defenses directly on the border would result in Russian forces occupying vacated or sparsely manned trenches.

https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1788960858925580412

[chrisl]

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

That is what made this one weird, it looks more like high mass and high density.  Those are very modest frontages and depth the RA is playing with, if it was 50k troops then for the first time in a long time high density mass may have been used effectively.  But of course it was at walking speed so the other important factor of momentum was lost.  News reports are all indicating that the UA has bottled this one back up, but it is still not clear how (or why) RA dismounted mass was being employed.

I've seen various comments about "50,000", but have we seen any real evidence that it's that many, or just "units which, if they will filled to their full ToE would be 50K, but are only 10% filled"  If it were really 50,000 at high density you'd think they'd want to be really,really sure that Ukraine didn't have any tungsten rain available in the area.

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, chrisl said:

I've seen various comments about "50,000", but have we seen any real evidence that it's that many, or just "units which, if they will filled to their full ToE would be 50K, but are only 10% filled"  If it were really 50,000 at high density you'd think they'd want to be really,really sure that Ukraine didn't have any tungsten rain available in the area.

I've always thought this number referred to the entire sector, including defensive units, logistics, neighboring sectors, etc. and not 50,000 combat troops crossing the border.  If that's correct, the reported losses easily explain why the offensive has stalled out.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I've always thought this number referred to the entire sector, including defensive units, logistics, neighboring sectors, etc. and not 50,000 combat troops crossing the border.  If that's correct, the reported losses easily explain why the offensive has stalled out.

Steve

I believe this is correct. The number of Russian troops presently engaged in the area is probably a small fraction of that.

Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets stated on May 11 that Russian forces have committed up to two companies of the 7th Motorized Rifle Regiment (11th Army Corps [AC], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) and up to two battalions of the 18th Motorized Rifle Brigade (11th AC, LMD) to the ongoing operations in the Lyptsi and Vovchansk directions.[12] Ukrainian military observer Alexander Kovalenko stated on May 11 that elements of the 30th Motorized Rifle Regiment (72nd Motorized Rifle Division, 44th AC, LMD) and the 128th Motorized Rifle Brigade (44th AC, LMD) are also operating in the area.[13] Kovalenko stated that Russian forces have committed 2,000 personnel to the frontline along the border and have 1,500 to 2,000 personnel in immediate reserve.[14] Kovalenko stated that elements of the 44th AC are currently redeploying to Belgorod Oblast and that 3,750 additional Russian personnel from the 44th AC may arrive in the area within the next week.[15] Kovalenko stated that the Russian Northern Grouping of Forces has 30,000 to 35,000 personnel deployed along the entire border with Ukraine in Kursk, Bryansk, and Belgorod oblasts, a figure consistent with Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Deputy Chief Major General Vadym Skibitskyi's May 2 report that Russian forces had roughly 35,000 personnel deployed to the international border area.[16] Skibitskyi stated that Russian forces intend to establish a grouping in the area that is between 50,000 and 75,000 personnel in size.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-11-2024

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I believe this is correct. The number of Russian troops presently engaged in the area is probably a small fraction of that.

Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets stated on May 11 that Russian forces have committed up to two companies of the 7th Motorized Rifle Regiment (11th Army Corps [AC], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) and up to two battalions of the 18th Motorized Rifle Brigade (11th AC, LMD) to the ongoing operations in the Lyptsi and Vovchansk directions.[12] Ukrainian military observer Alexander Kovalenko stated on May 11 that elements of the 30th Motorized Rifle Regiment (72nd Motorized Rifle Division, 44th AC, LMD) and the 128th Motorized Rifle Brigade (44th AC, LMD) are also operating in the area.[13] Kovalenko stated that Russian forces have committed 2,000 personnel to the frontline along the border and have 1,500 to 2,000 personnel in immediate reserve.[14] Kovalenko stated that elements of the 44th AC are currently redeploying to Belgorod Oblast and that 3,750 additional Russian personnel from the 44th AC may arrive in the area within the next week.[15] Kovalenko stated that the Russian Northern Grouping of Forces has 30,000 to 35,000 personnel deployed along the entire border with Ukraine in Kursk, Bryansk, and Belgorod oblasts, a figure consistent with Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Deputy Chief Major General Vadym Skibitskyi's May 2 report that Russian forces had roughly 35,000 personnel deployed to the international border area.[16] Skibitskyi stated that Russian forces intend to establish a grouping in the area that is between 50,000 and 75,000 personnel in size.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-11-2024

Thanks.  So this helps explain why things have stalled out so quickly and, supposedly, why a similar operation into Sumy was cancelled.  They really don't have much combat power along the border.  Enough to grab some gray area territory and invest a bit in Ukraine's defenses, but that's about it.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

Might it be productive for Ukraine to push another Marine battalion over the Dnpr, perhaps below Oleshki? Sounds like the Ukies don't have manpower to do much more right now, but even that might put another huge strain on the Russians at the far end of their line. It would certainly force an urgent response.

Mind you, they've likely mined the hell out of the entire river bank area, after Krynki. Some folks have posted about drone-AI remote detection/flagging/demining solutions but no idea whether that's still in the vapourware stage. 

Part of this Russian activity up on their northern front could be that their supply lines here are as short as Ukraine's, for once. Economy of effort to go with their 1930s New Model Army. Where are the horses?

EDIT:  I remain convinced Ukraine absolutely must retake Kinburn spit, at a minimum, to help shield their Black Sea coast from, among other things, Russian naval drones (they, or rather the Chinese, have no doubt already copied the Sea Babies etc.).  Especially if He Who Shall Not Be Named pushes a ceasefire in place.

Edited May 17 by LongLeftFlank

[MikeyD]

I think the Russians are pulling a 'Russian rebels' move on the Ukraine border. Doing to Ukraine what the Russian rebel fighters are doing to them. Make a limited incursion across the border more as a propaganda move than anything else, Watch your opponent scurrying around trying to counter it, embarrassing the enemy. Any actual strategic importance? Not much, probably.

[Holien]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

more as a propaganda move than anything else

And that alas has worked with the BBC and MSM reporting Ukraine is on the ropes and struggling.

The simple headlines are being picked up and amplified to the masses who don't have time, or the understanding to assess what is actually happening.

[omae2]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

I think the Russians are pulling a 'Russian rebels' move on the Ukraine border. Doing to Ukraine what the Russian rebel fighters are doing to them. Make a limited incursion across the border more as a propaganda move than anything else, Watch your opponent scurrying around trying to counter it, embarrassing the enemy. Any actual strategic importance? Not much, probably.

50 000 is not limited. I think what they figured is that Ukraine defense is planned against mech force. Spread out infantry, atgms, drones. Also they know that they have limited tubes and ammo. So they might thought why send high value targets that they can destroy for the price that the unit is worth, why not send a bunch of guys that worth much less. Even on mech assaults the Ukrainians take out apcs first cause infantry is take long time to kill off once they spread out. They get into every bush and ditch and basement. In Bakhmut and Avdivka they used small meat waves to gather info and make dug in position so they can control more and more territory. Now, i think, they realized that they can skip the long grinding part by sending a lot of meat that will overwhelm the Ukrainian weapons. There is simply so much target that they cannot work on everyone due to the limited capabilities of the UAF.

But what they achieved is that they pushed the frontline into Ukraine about a dozen? kilometer.That means their arty can work on more targets. They also get another pr victory, cause in the last couple of weeks its all about russia is advancing. Is it worth it? Well i don't know but i think they feel like its worth it.

[mediocreman]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I think the Russians are pulling a 'Russian rebels' move on the Ukraine border. Doing to Ukraine what the Russian rebel fighters are doing to them. Make a limited incursion across the border more as a propaganda move than anything else, Watch your opponent scurrying around trying to counter it, embarrassing the enemy. Any actual strategic importance? Not much, probably.

Could it not be that the Russians is trying to get a buffert zone as too protect their borders from more incursions to happen? I think there is a logic in that these operations are happening, as I would imagine leaders in Russia has declared no more tolerance for any more fighting/intrusion on Russia proper. 

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I believe this is correct. The number of Russian troops presently engaged in the area is probably a small fraction of that.

Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets stated on May 11 that Russian forces have committed up to two companies of the 7th Motorized Rifle Regiment (11th Army Corps [AC], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) and up to two battalions of the 18th Motorized Rifle Brigade (11th AC, LMD) to the ongoing operations in the Lyptsi and Vovchansk directions.[12] Ukrainian military observer Alexander Kovalenko stated on May 11 that elements of the 30th Motorized Rifle Regiment (72nd Motorized Rifle Division, 44th AC, LMD) and the 128th Motorized Rifle Brigade (44th AC, LMD) are also operating in the area.[13] Kovalenko stated that Russian forces have committed 2,000 personnel to the frontline along the border and have 1,500 to 2,000 personnel in immediate reserve.[14] Kovalenko stated that elements of the 44th AC are currently redeploying to Belgorod Oblast and that 3,750 additional Russian personnel from the 44th AC may arrive in the area within the next week.[15] Kovalenko stated that the Russian Northern Grouping of Forces has 30,000 to 35,000 personnel deployed along the entire border with Ukraine in Kursk, Bryansk, and Belgorod oblasts, a figure consistent with Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Deputy Chief Major General Vadym Skibitskyi's May 2 report that Russian forces had roughly 35,000 personnel deployed to the international border area.[16] Skibitskyi stated that Russian forces intend to establish a grouping in the area that is between 50,000 and 75,000 personnel in size.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-11-2024

So maybe 5k, not 50k.  Well then this really was more RA leg humping to prove some sort of point.  Based on the rumoured losses it looks more like Russian business as usual as they lose hundreds of people for small gains.  The UA likely picked them up on ISR but either was constrained or did not have the resources at hand.  RA grabbed a few kms and then got stopped.

Dismounted aspect looks more likely either due to shortfalls or simple battlefield realities, as opposed to a shift in tactics. And we are back to another Friday in this war.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, mediocreman said:

Could it not be that the Russians is trying to get a buffert zone as too protect their borders from more incursions to happen? I think there is a logic in that these operations are happening, as I would imagine leaders in Russia has declared no more tolerance for any more fighting/intrusion on Russia proper. 

That has been floated by Ukraine as one of the objectives.  A 10km buffer to not only keep incursions away from their own border, but to put themselves within artillery range of Kharkiv.

Russians tend to do offensives for more than one reason, and many of those reasons are not military in nature.  Various forms of messaging can be almost always be assumed to be in play.  How important or significant the intent of the messaging is, though, is unknowable until someone within Putin's inner circle starts talking.

Steve