How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[kimbosbread]

18 minutes ago, holoween said:

Some recon drones + something like s spike lr2 does everything far better and depending on the opponents countermeasures it might even end up cheaper per kill. And at that point you also dont need to carry that many weapons.

Absolutely, I think you’d probably carry a few different munitions. The point of it is that an M113 (or a Hilux pickup, or Lada Niva towing a trailer) can carry enough drones and missiles to detect and wipe out an entire BTG that is unlucky enough to be within 40km.

[hcrof]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

To put this in perspective, the new Boxer is anywhere from between 3-5 million per unit. Vehicles in general are just more expensive, cannon or not. (Ajax is even worse) The solution here is for NATO adopting a family of vehicles based on the same chassis to cheapen costs. Essentially NATO standard but even stricter. 
 

A Patria 6x6 is reportedly only $1M per vehicle. I am genuinely interested to know why a boxer is 3x more expensive. I'm sure it's better, but what exactly are you getting for your money!?

[Kinophile]

And with that I shall fade back once more. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

For any IFV to be rated especially good at its job, its usually a requirement to have some sort of ATGM capability, if only to provide something that can be used at very long range against moving /tough targets. Same for thermals and stabilisation. We really dont need to be looking at the British Warrior and going 'Yeah we want more of that'. Warrior lacks such features yet was not really that much cheaper on a per unit cost basis. (It was pretty much the same price of a Bradley in the 1980s at least, despite lacking everything that makes the Bradley so especially great. Its only upside was decent protection)

The M113 is 60+ years old and has nothing more than a MG on it.  Yet they are effective in Ukraine despite their drawbacks.  Who saw that coming?  I absolutely did not because I was fixated on the IFV concept.

Which gets back to my previous post saying that we need to be looking forward and not backward.  What used to work may no longer work.  What was once discarded might be valid as the basis for something that would work.

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

To put this in perspective, the new Boxer is anywhere from between 3-5 million per unit. Vehicles in general are just more expensive, cannon or not. (Ajax is even worse) The solution here is for NATO adopting a family of vehicles based on the same chassis to cheapen costs. Essentially NATO standard but even stricter.

An MRAP is somewhere around $500k and they have proven to be able to perform their primary job very well in Ukraine.

My town recently bought a firetruck for $1m because that is what it cost.  If someone had stood up at a public meeting and suggested we spent $5m on something that could do the same job and justified it by saying "vehicles in generael are just more expensive" would have found themselves run out of town.

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

All those fancy things might be expensive, but they vastly improve the performance of the vehicle far above their cost. A platoon of vehicles equipped with stabilisers, thermals and ATGMs are going to trounce a company of vehicles with just a basic autocannon bolted onto them. 

Again, you are falling back on your tried and true path of starting from a position of dogma and basing your argument upon that.  Of course an IFV with a lot of features on it is better than one with none.  But that's not the question.  The question is if ANY of that is needed or even usable any more. 

The primary role of an APC and IFV are the same, which is to transport infantry quickly and safely around the battlefield.  That should be the thing that is focused on, not the things that blur the line between a passenger vehicle and a tank.  Especially when discussing things with people that think the tank is a bad idea

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Putting this in the category of "yeah, well, we already knew that" is that Lavrov said they welcome JD Vance as Trump's running mate because, and I quote:

“He’s in favor of peace, he’s in favor of ending the assistance that’s being provided and we can only welcome that because that’s what we need — to stop pumping Ukraine full of weapons and then the war will end,”

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4778359-russia-welcomes-vance-views-ukraine/

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 hours ago, hcrof said:

A Patria 6x6 is reportedly only $1M per vehicle. I am genuinely interested to know why a boxer is 3x more expensive. I'm sure it's better, but what exactly are you getting for your money!?

Its a big chonky vehicle for one, with top of the line equipment, though I suspect what is most expensive is that modularity component so inherent to its design. I am pretty sceptical about such designs in the first place. You can achieve a modularity of spare parts across a family of vehicles for a much cheaper cost. Being able to plug in various different mission capsules is actually relatively limited in overall practical function on the field. At least its not having procurement woes unlike Ajax...

 

53 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The M113 is nearly 60 years old and has nothing more than a MG on it.  Yet they are effective in Ukraine despite their drawbacks.  Who saw that coming?  I absolutely did not because I was fixated on the IFV concept.

Which gets back to my previous post saying that we need to be looking forward and not backward.  What used to work may no longer work.  What was once discarded might be valid as the basis for something that would work

I think if you asked a Ukrainian if they would prefer a Bradley or an M113, you would get a pretty comprehensive answer. Just because an M113 is a great and cheap APC does not make it a great substitute for an IFV. Use of them in direct combat is the same as using an MTLB to assault a position, its using a less effective tool due to lack of anything better. Its far from an ideal solution. Certainly dont need to go the Mark Sparks route with the fascination on the M113, its pretty much a mobile box with a 50 on top and should be treated as such. 

 

53 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

My town recently bought a firetruck for $1m because that is what it cost.  If someone had stood up at a public meeting and suggested we spent $5m on something that could do the same job and justified it by saying "vehicles in generael are just more expensive" would have found themselves run out of town.

The vehicles are more expensive issue is probably down to more restricted production runs more than anything, that and potentially some design problems. Its not a defence of it by any means. Already outlined we really do need to have  a hard rethink on numbers and inter NATO country cooperation on vehicle procurement. Imagine how many more vehicles NATO could operate if we all used the same basic chassis for APCs and IFVs. Being able to take a vehicle made in the UK and go into a repair shop in Estonia to get spares seems such a no brainer to me. 

 

53 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Again, you are falling back on your tried and true path of starting from a position of dogma and basing your argument upon that.  Of course an IFV with a lot of features on it is better than one with none.  But that's not the question.  The question is if ANY of that is needed or even usable any more. 

The primary role of an APC and IFV are the same, which is to transport infantry quickly and safely around the battlefield.  That should be the thing that is focused on, not the things that blur the line between a passenger vehicle and a tank.  Especially when discussing things with people that think the tank is a bad idea

Its always a fair point to question roles, but I would point out that the Ukrainians seem to love good western IFVs due to their firepower as well as the ability to move people around. An IFV does not need to have everything put on it. (I can certain grant you some parties are guilty of wanting their vehicle to do everything) Certainly the western stuff is almost universally praised as being far better than the Soviet era kit than what the UA was using prior, so were doing something right at least.

I am just cautious about the 'going back to basics' argument because it rings a little too uncomfortably close to the reformer nuttery from the USA, where people like Sprey were saying that F-15 would of been better without Radar, or the whole incident of James Burton lying his *** off about the Bradley. (Who's book that despite being heavily debunked subsequently became a movie no less that continued to peddle his...less than honest account of Bradley development)

Edited July 18 by ArmouredTopHat

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Putting this in the category of "yeah, well, we already knew that" is that Lavrov said they welcome JD Vance as Trump's running mate because, and I quote:

“He’s in favor of peace, he’s in favor of ending the assistance that’s being provided and we can only welcome that because that’s what we need — to stop pumping Ukraine full of weapons and then the war will end,”

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4778359-russia-welcomes-vance-views-ukraine/

Steve

Picking Vance will likely turn out to be a mistake. Even some 43% of Trump supporters want aid to continue to Ukraine. 

There are tectonics moving on the Democratic side that will likely lead to a much more vigorous campaign. Vance will provide great fodder for it.

[Holien]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

There are tectonics moving on the Democratic side that will likely lead to a much more vigorous campaign

I await some good news...

Not for this thread but a week is a long time in politics...

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I think if you asked a Ukrainian if they would prefer a Bradley or an M113, you would get a pretty comprehensive answer.

You dodged my point completely.  And that is that an APC designed 60 years ago, one without armament, is doing a pretty damned good job on today's battlefield.  Prewar I would never have believed it, but now it makes total sense.  And the sense is that the IFVs are just not all that useful in what was supposed to be their traditional role.

On top of that, you are stacking the deck in your favor by having the hypothetical Ukrainians ask a single question that we all know the answer to.  What you aren't doing, and what I keep hammering on you to do, is ask the questions that are logical instead of comfortable.  For example (based on estimated costs):

1.  "Would you rather have 5000 MRAPS, 3125 M113, or 715 Bradleys?"

2.  "If you had only $1b left in foreign assistance aid, how much of that would you put into $3.5m Bradleys?  How much would you put into $800k M113s?  How much would you put into $500k MRAPS?"

3.  "If you could have an M113s with the armored protection of a Bradley without the armaments, would you rather 437 of those or 100 Bradleys?"

If I were a Ukrainian commander in charge of keeping my nation in the fight, not someone in the trenches, I would pick something other than the Bradley in each of these cases.  And they are reasonable cases.

Since the beginning of my debates with you I have emphasized that the world is full of choices and choices are most often constrained by financial resources.  Since financial resources are not endless, how a nation chooses to spend those resources has consequences.  From what I can tell you don't agree with this and instead believe that money is no object and the more spent the better things are.  When I raise practical, pragmatic issues around costs, production rates, logistics complications, etc. you sidestep them.  Even when I list them out verbatim.

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Certainly dont need to go the Mark Sparks route with the fascination on the M113, its pretty much a mobile box with a 50 on top and should be treated as such.

Sparks was all about tracks vs. wheels.  Everything he wrote was based on that.  In my view he fixated on the M113 because he was also trying to argue that the Styker was not only foolish because it had wheels, but because it was much more expensive than the M113.

I wrote the M113s off a long time ago as being useless.  And yet... see above.

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The vehicles are more expensive issue is probably down to more restricted production runs more than anything, that and potentially some design problems.

And here we are again with you not understanding basic economics.  This is like saying we could all have a current $500k Ferrari for $50k if they just made a lot more of them.  No explanation as to how this would be possible to do in reality.  It's the equivalent of waiving a magic wand.

Bradleys have low rates of production because they are inherently complex and expensive to make.  Making more of them would not significantly change that fact.

Drones, on the other hand, are already incredibly cheap compared to the Bradley's offensive capabilities and getting cheaper.  I'd rather have the financial equivalent in drones equal to the cost of 1/2 of a Bradley's weapons systems.

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Its always a fair point to question roles, but I would point out that the Ukrainians seem to love good western IFVs due to their firepower as well as the ability to move people around.

Sure, if you just gave me a Ferrari I would be thrilled with it and would be happy to say so.  But if I had to pay to buy it, pay to keep it running, and require a new one every couple of days because the old one wasn't functional... well... not so much because what I want and need is something to get me from A to B.  I'd rather stick with my Honda, thank you very much.

Finally, you are still dodging the main point, which is that IFVs (as with MBTs) are not being used in the roles for which they were intended because the battlefield has fundamentally changed.  As impressive as those videos of Bradleys are, it should be pointed out that most show them being used as light tanks, either because they don't have MBTs available or because they have found IFVs to be more useful than MBTs.  Which reinforces my point that an IFV is not what Ukraine needs, they need better APCs.  Wheeled, tracked, or otherwise.

Steve

P.S.  I am not signing the virtues of the M113, I'm using it to point out the folly of the IFVs in today's battles.  I'm not the only one to have done so:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/vikrammittal/2024/06/13/newest-american-aid-package-includes-200-m113s-for-ukraine/

[cesmonkey]

 

[Kraft]

Quote

Germany to halve military aid for Ukraine despite possible Trump White House

Quote

Although military aid to Ukraine will be cut, Germany will comply with the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defence in 2025, with a total of 75.3 billion euros.

Quote

The defence budget is set to receive a meagre 1.3 billion euros more than in 2024, far below the 6.7 billion euros requested by Pistorius.

As ever-increasing annual operating costs outpace this rise, the defence ministry is being forced to cut ammunition orders for 2025 by more than half, reduce procurement by 260 million euros and research and development by over 200 million euros.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-halve-military-aid-ukraine-despite-possible-trump-white-house-2024-07-17

 

[cesmonkey]

https://t.me/SolovievLive/269734
 

Quote

SOLOVYOV

Forwarded from China - Nikolay Vavilov

I don't remember such a secret party event in the last 10+ years as the current third plenum of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of China - perhaps in early 2018, when the constitution was changed with Xi Jinping's indefinite powers.

So far, no information from behind the Chinese wall, except for Xi Jinping's landmark article on defending sovereignty and developing with self-reliance, which in fact means in Chinese political language - readiness for the risks of decoupling from Western markets. It's

already 3 p.m. in China - they could publish data on the results of the plenum. Apparently, "consultations" on the final decisions are not going smoothly.

https://t.me/shuohuaxia/14866

Telegram

China - Nikolay Vavilov

In the midst of the Third Plenum, the leading theoretical journal of the Chinese Communist Party, Qiushi, published an article by Xi Jinping on defending independence and self-reliance in the context of reform and development of the country.

https://t.me/shuohuaxia/14730

 

[poesel]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Bradleys have low rates of production because they are inherently complex and expensive to make.  Making more of them would not significantly change that fact.

I'm not arguing about the rest of your post, but this is wrong. Bradleys and every other current military vehicle are so expensive because they are literally manufactured - 'manu' meaning 'by hand'. It is an artisanal product and priced accordingly.

If you placed an order for 100,000 Bradleys you sure get them for half price, likely less. With such an order, it is economically to set up a properly automated production line. The fixed costs will vanish in the numbers and you only pay variable costs.

I'll take your argument about the Sherman tank: it was cheap, there were many, it was easily serviceable, and it was good enough. It was designed and built by car companies.
The German tanks were expensive, few, difficult to service and very good tanks. They were designed by engineering bureaus.
The Americans had mass production in mind, the Germans perfection.

Ferraris sold 13,663 vehicles in 2023. There are 6724 Bradleys in total, produced over 15(!) years. That's a comparison between a niche car manufacturer and a common military vehicle (yeah, poor comparison, but I think you get my point).

[poesel]

53 minutes ago, Kraft said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-halve-military-aid-ukraine-despite-possible-trump-white-house-2024-07-17

 

Just a bit of explanation: this is not caused by a sudden lack of will to support Ukraine. This is mostly about an inner-political impasse between factions in the government. It will be fixed one way or the other with the next vote in '25.
It is very likely, that the next government will be the same or even be more pro-Ukrainian than this one. If that means more money, I don't know.

[Beleg85]

Worth to autotranslate article linked here, by Nastia Stanko (Ukrainian journalist we liked here so much in early phase of the war) about human cost of Krynky operation. To put context to recent changes in Ukrainian leadership.

 

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, poesel said:

I'm not arguing about the rest of your post, but this is wrong. Bradleys and every other current military vehicle are so expensive because they are literally manufactured - 'manu' meaning 'by hand'. It is an artisanal product and priced accordingly.

If you placed an order for 100,000 Bradleys you sure get them for half price, likely less. With such an order, it is economically to set up a properly automated production line. The fixed costs will vanish in the numbers and you only pay variable costs.

I'll take your argument about the Sherman tank: it was cheap, there were many, it was easily serviceable, and it was good enough. It was designed and built by car companies.
The German tanks were expensive, few, difficult to service and very good tanks. They were designed by engineering bureaus.
The Americans had mass production in mind, the Germans perfection.

Ferraris sold 13,663 vehicles in 2023. There are 6724 Bradleys in total, produced over 15(!) years. That's a comparison between a niche car manufacturer and a common military vehicle (yeah, poor comparison, but I think you get my point).

That is a bit simplistic as well. If an order for 100k Bradley’s was placed one could expect economies of scale, this is true. But a Bradley is made of a lot of stuff and an order that big could actually drive prices up as the Bradley is competing with a global supply chain.  Even internal to the US it would drive up demand that may very well outstrip supply in some key areas.  Modern IFV are not simply a metal box with a larger gun.  There are sensors, optics, complex engines and drive trains…and now we are layering APS and extra turrets.  There is no realistic scenario where a next-gen IFV is somehow cheaper than simpler armored vehicles.  Same goes for tanks, aircraft and ships.

Modern military equipment is increasingly expensive - we call it military inflation.  This is real global inflation plus the increased requirement costs, plus good old defence industry gouging.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Beleg85 said:

Worth to autotranslate article linked here, by Nastia Stanko (Ukrainian journalist we liked here so much in early phase of the war) about human cost of Krynky operation. To put context to recent changes in Ukrainian leadership.

 

This operation is a tragedy. It was a glimmer of hope that the UA could open up an offensive front to the south that simply never really matured. It caused the RA heartburn but never at the levels we hoped for.  The fact that the UA could sustain a force on the far bank for so long is a testament to both capability and resolve.  However, it now looks like it is over. We will like to have to wait some time to see what actually happened.

And now we are back to static attritional warfare.

[Edit:  however it looks like ISW is not calling it yet:

 

Russian sources claimed on July 17 that Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from positions in Krynky in the east (left) bank of Kherson Oblast, although ISW has not observed confirmation of these claims.[61] The Ukrainian General Staff reported continued positional fighting in the east bank of Kherson Oblast, including near Kozachi Laheri (west of Krynky), on July 16 and 17.[62] A Russian milblogger claimed on July 17 that Russian and Ukrainian forces continued small arms battles on unspecified islands in the Dnipro River Delta.[63] Elements of the Russian 80th Arctic Brigade (14th Army Corps [AC], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) are reportedly operating in the Kherson direction.[64]

 

Edited July 18 by The_Capt

[Grigb]

31 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This operation is a tragedy. It was a glimmer of hope that the UA could open up an offensive front to the south that simply never really matured. It caused the RA heartburn but never at the levels we hoped for.  The fact that the UA could sustain a force on the far bank for so long is a testament to both capable and resolve.  However, it now looks like it is over. We will like to have to wait some time to see what actually happened.

In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, poesel said:

I'm not arguing about the rest of your post, but this is wrong. Bradleys and every other current military vehicle are so expensive because they are literally manufactured - 'manu' meaning 'by hand'. It is an artisanal product and priced accordingly.

If you placed an order for 100,000 Bradleys you sure get them for half price, likely less. With such an order, it is economically to set up a properly automated production line. The fixed costs will vanish in the numbers and you only pay variable costs.

I'll take your argument about the Sherman tank: it was cheap, there were many, it was easily serviceable, and it was good enough. It was designed and built by car companies.
The German tanks were expensive, few, difficult to service and very good tanks. They were designed by engineering bureaus.
The Americans had mass production in mind, the Germans perfection.

Ferraris sold 13,663 vehicles in 2023. There are 6724 Bradleys in total, produced over 15(!) years. That's a comparison between a niche car manufacturer and a common military vehicle (yeah, poor comparison, but I think you get my point).

I had a more detailed paragraph in that spot, but I deleted it because my post didn't need to be larger Now I'll be more specific.

What you say is theoretically true, but it isn't practical.  The reason Bradleys are made by hand is because the number purchased is very low.  The number purchased is low because of the cost and because it is a niche market. 

In order to get production efficiency someone would have to invest 100s of billions of Dollars into the production.  I doubt very much that even if they halved the price they would increase sales enough to justify that expense.  Especially because some (a large?) portion of the production line would be specific to the Bradley and would be lost if they switched production to anything else.

Ferrari has come to the same conclusion.  The success rate of niche vehicle makers expanding to take on mainstream sales is not good.  If you want a reminder of this, look at Tesla.  They have repeatedly failed to deliver on a low cost EV despite that being a primary goal when the company was started 21 years ago and having beat the odds in establishing itself.

The difference with the Sherman is that the US realized, early on, that numbers and production speed mattered.  It was also done by a massive government backed by massive spending enabled by wartime political powers.  The conditions for the US government to do that now (thankfully) do not exist and private industry absolutely will not do it on its own, just like private industry would not have done it in the 1940s.

So... theory hits reality, reality wins.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

That is a bit simplistic as well. If an order for 100k Bradley’s was placed one could expect economies of scale, this is true. But a Bradley is made of a lot of stuff and an order that big could actually drive prices up as the Bradley is competing with a global supply chain.  Even internal to the US it would drive up demand that may very well outstrip supply in some key areas.  Modern IFV are not simply a metal box with a larger gun.  There are sensors, optics, complex engines and drive trains…and now we are layering APS and extra turrets.  There is no realistic scenario where a next-gen IFV is somehow cheaper than simpler armored vehicles.  Same goes for tanks, aircraft and ships.

Modern military equipment is increasingly expensive - we call it military inflation.  This is real global inflation plus the increased requirement costs, plus good old defence industry gouging.

Good points about there being some issues with supply and demand that complicate the "more means less cost" thinking.  Sometimes "more means less availability, which means higher cost".

There is also the pragmatic issues of outstripping the labor pool.  Business state, very frequently, that expansion is held back by the inability to find the right workers for the job.  The workers needed for Bradley manufacturing are not easy to find.  The various manufactures and subcontractors would most certainly have to increase pay, benefits, and training in order to fill out an expanded workforce.  That cost would eat away at cost efficiencies elsewhere.

And of course there is the risk, and it is a big one, that the mass produced version of the Bradley would be worse than the hand built one.  Corners would be cut, features would be removed/downgraded, quality would likely suffer, etc.

Mass producing a niche product is not easy.  I say this as a guy who is in a niche market making niche products

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

This operation is a tragedy. It was a glimmer of hope that the UA could open up an offensive front to the south that simply never really matured. It caused the RA heartburn but never at the levels we hoped for.  The fact that the UA could sustain a force on the far bank for so long is a testament to both capability and resolve.  However, it now looks like it is over. We will like to have to wait some time to see what actually happened.

And now we are back to static attritional warfare.

[Edit:  however it looks like ISW is not calling it yet:

 

 

Russian sources claimed on July 17 that Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from positions in Krynky in the east (left) bank of Kherson Oblast, although ISW has not observed confirmation of these claims.[61] The Ukrainian General Staff reported continued positional fighting in the east bank of Kherson Oblast, including near Kozachi Laheri (west of Krynky), on July 16 and 17.[62] A Russian milblogger claimed on July 17 that Russian and Ukrainian forces continued small arms battles on unspecified islands in the Dnipro River Delta.[63] Elements of the Russian 80th Arctic Brigade (14th Army Corps [AC], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) are reportedly operating in the Kherson direction.[64]

 

I am most curious why the assault was launched when it was instead of being a component of the summer counter offensive.  When we cased out Ukraine's summer offensive here I think all of us envisioned some form of move across the river in order to, at a minimum, make Russian commanders nervous about their flank.  And yet large scale incursions did not happen until after the offensive was long over.

Steve

[Carolus]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I am most curious why the assault was launched when it was instead of being a component of the summer counter offensive.  When we cased out Ukraine's summer offensive here I think all of us envisioned some form of move across the river in order to, at a minimum, make Russian commanders nervous about their flank.  And yet large scale incursions did not happen until after the offensive was long over.

Steve

We are all cheering for the underdog, but the UAF is at least as full of problems and weaknesses, excruciating mistakes and painful incompetence as it is of competent, tenacious and tragic heroes.

[Anthony P.]

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

“He’s in favor of peace, he’s in favor of ending the assistance that’s being provided and we can only welcome that because that’s what we need — to stop pumping Ukraine full of weapons and then the war will end,”

It's been a frustrating and confusing experience seeing the Republican party pivot from hawks drooling at the prospect of finding an excuse to invade another Middle Eastern country to just saying "eff it, let's go for straight up treason to own the libs or something".

[cesmonkey]

In his update today, Mashovets describes the Russians as still advancing but every more slowly and painfully:
https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/2041
 

He ends with:

Quote

We will not sum up the results for the entire zone of action of the GV "Center" today (first, next time, we will consider the changes in the Toretsk direction)... However, as an interim conclusion, we will note - the enemy in the Pokrovsk direction is "still crawling", but, obviously, doing this is - the further, the more difficult it is for him...

 

[danfrodo]

59 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

It's been a frustrating and confusing experience seeing the Republican party pivot from hawks drooling at the prospect of finding an excuse to invade another Middle Eastern country to just saying "eff it, let's go for straight up treason to own the libs or something".

One should always vote for the candidate explicitly preferred by one's enemies.  Especially candidates that love our enemies and hate our friends.