- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 4/1/23 at 8:04 am to tigeraddict
Posted on 4/1/23 at 8:04 am to tigeraddict
I just went back and Ukraine has reported destroying 83 artillery/MLRS pieces in the last 7 days. Total reported at around 400 days is around 3k. So over 2.7% or their reported kills have been in the last week vs what was killed in 13 months.
1
Posted on 4/1/23 at 9:41 am to tigeraddict
Posted on 4/1/23 at 10:18 am to TexasForever
This reminds me of the Maskirovka the Ukrainians did right before the Kherson offensive, where they manipulated the media by telling them they were seeking negotiations and making a big show out of being a bad shape.
Then they launched the Kherson offensive.
Starting to feel similar.
Then they launched the Kherson offensive.
Starting to feel similar.
This post was edited on 4/1/23 at 10:18 am
Posted on 4/1/23 at 12:19 pm to TexasForever
Posted about the Admiral Grigorovich getting hit but it might be an April Fools joke. Kind of ridiculous in a war
This post was edited on 4/1/23 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 4/1/23 at 2:28 pm to TexasForever
quote:
it might be an April Fools joke
It's a joke. It's not anywhere near the fighting.
Posted on 4/1/23 at 2:29 pm to TexasForever
Good point:
quote:
So general Chris Cavoli of US European Command said in February 2023 that UA needs both ATACMS and F-16 according to POLITICO. At the same time general Mark Milley consistently asserts that UA doesn’t need ATACMS. Both can’t be right. Somebody is wrong.
Posted on 4/1/23 at 3:42 pm to GOP_Tiger
From a recent interview...
Milley was asked whether the ATACMS long-range missile would become the latest advanced weapon initially withheld from and later sent to Ukraine.
“Well, there's a policy decision to date not to, so far. And I would never predict anything on the table, off the table, for the future. But from a military standpoint, we have relatively few ATACMS, we do have to make sure that we maintain our own munitions inventories, as well."
I take "policy decision" as code for coming from the white house. He tries to defend the decision, but not very well, later in the interview.
DefenseOne
Later in the article...
That rationale for not giving Ukraine MGM-140 ATACMS missiles, which have a range of 190 miles, did not sit well with retired general Ben Hodges, who led U.S. Army Europe from 2014 to 2017.
“I'm actually surprised given the talent of the people involved, how incoherent these kinds of excuses are,” Hodges told Defense One on Friday. “For the chairman to say, well, there's actually other systems that could do what the attackers does, okay, what are we doing to get them there?”
He said the Ukrainians need to be able to strike the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters on the Crimean peninsula.
“It’s exactly 300 kilometers from Odessa to Sevastopol. So if you could be launching ATACMS right now. The Black Sea Fleet would have already had to relocate because their port facilities, if not ships, would have already had to move.”
Milley was asked whether the ATACMS long-range missile would become the latest advanced weapon initially withheld from and later sent to Ukraine.
“Well, there's a policy decision to date not to, so far. And I would never predict anything on the table, off the table, for the future. But from a military standpoint, we have relatively few ATACMS, we do have to make sure that we maintain our own munitions inventories, as well."
I take "policy decision" as code for coming from the white house. He tries to defend the decision, but not very well, later in the interview.
DefenseOne
Later in the article...
That rationale for not giving Ukraine MGM-140 ATACMS missiles, which have a range of 190 miles, did not sit well with retired general Ben Hodges, who led U.S. Army Europe from 2014 to 2017.
“I'm actually surprised given the talent of the people involved, how incoherent these kinds of excuses are,” Hodges told Defense One on Friday. “For the chairman to say, well, there's actually other systems that could do what the attackers does, okay, what are we doing to get them there?”
He said the Ukrainians need to be able to strike the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters on the Crimean peninsula.
“It’s exactly 300 kilometers from Odessa to Sevastopol. So if you could be launching ATACMS right now. The Black Sea Fleet would have already had to relocate because their port facilities, if not ships, would have already had to move.”
This post was edited on 4/1/23 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 4/1/23 at 5:39 pm to GOP_Tiger
We absolutely do not have many ATACMS to hand Ukraine but we are also developing new systems to replace the ATACMS so I think a compromise can be had here. We can give them 50-100 of them just to strike vital targets like Kerch and Sevastopol as well as enemy airfields but it would come with the caveat that we get ultimate approval of the targets they want to hit so there would be no mishaps. If Crimea is seriously a target for Ukraine then Kerch has to go into the water. All of it this time. Both vehicle lanes as well as the rail line.
Posted on 4/1/23 at 6:10 pm to LSUPilot07
I believe it is more a political decision that a strategic one. I think the low inventory stand is just an excuse. The administration is slow rolling what they sent out of fear of escalation.
MBT was a big jump. Longer range munitions and air power are lines they are not ready to hit yet.
MBT was a big jump. Longer range munitions and air power are lines they are not ready to hit yet.
Posted on 4/1/23 at 6:16 pm to LSUPilot07
I said it before and I will say it again: the Senate Armed Services Committee tried to put $100 million in the budget last year to restore a bunch of expired ATACMS, and the Pentagon/White House got it taken back out.
We don't WANT to have more ATACMS. That way, we can claim that we don't have any to spare. This is still Jake Sullivan territory, but the White House and DoD don't want to admit that it's a political decision.
We don't WANT to have more ATACMS. That way, we can claim that we don't have any to spare. This is still Jake Sullivan territory, but the White House and DoD don't want to admit that it's a political decision.
Posted on 4/1/23 at 6:20 pm to LSUPilot07
quote:
If Crimea is seriously a target for Ukraine then Kerch has to go into the water.
If Ukraine's spring offensive can reach the Sea of Azov, then they'll be able to hit Kerch with GLSDB -- but not Sevastopol.
EDIT: And then there's Storm Shadow, which was never officially confirmed. Storm Shadow WOULD wreck Sevastopol.
This post was edited on 4/1/23 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 4/1/23 at 6:41 pm to GOP_Tiger
103 miles from the nearest point not on the Crimean Peninsula
Posted on 4/1/23 at 8:46 pm to CitizenK
quote:
103 miles from the nearest point not on the Crimean Peninsula
Google Maps gives me 90 miles from the bridge to Kyrylivka.
Posted on 4/1/23 at 10:13 pm to tigeraddict
It’s without a doubt political but they also aren’t lying about us having low stocks of them. We only have a few thousand of them in our arsenal. That’s why they kind of compromised and gave the GLSDBs and the JDAMs but none if that can reach Kerch so it’s basically a stalemate. I think they could at least send another battalion of M1A1 tanks and maybe 100 more Bradleys. It wouldn’t really even make a dent in our capability and we are about to start producing the Bradley’s replacement. I have no actual proof but just a feeling that the Ukrainians are going to use the Bradleys to good effect. Ukraine bought a few hundred thousand drones from China, basically all of their stock of that drone, to be kamikaze weapons with either anti armor warheads from RPGs or frag grenades for Russian troops. Those are also going to make a very big difference.
This post was edited on 4/1/23 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 4/1/23 at 10:37 pm to LSUPilot07
One of the things that really frustrates me is that none of the news organizations track the money that's left in our drawdown authority or the USAI budget. I'd like to know how much more we can spend -- after the $2.6 billion coming this week, I don't know much more than we can give above ammo and parts.
Posted on 4/2/23 at 6:25 am to GOP_Tiger
I said over a month ago that this administration and the west doesn't want a Ukrainian victory. They are scared to death of a total Russian defeat. They have not provided Ukraine with the weapons to push Russia out. Even Ben Hodges is beginning to call them out. When Ukraine falls short in the offensive, the Macrons, Schultz and Sullivan types will be screaming for negotiations.
You want to know something that is a real joke and really sad: Russia has taken over the presidency of the UN Security Council. You can't make this stuff up. I would be really concerned if the UN was an organization that was really worth a damn.
You want to know something that is a real joke and really sad: Russia has taken over the presidency of the UN Security Council. You can't make this stuff up. I would be really concerned if the UN was an organization that was really worth a damn.
This post was edited on 4/2/23 at 7:12 am
Posted on 4/2/23 at 6:57 am to GOP_Tiger
This reporting by Julia Ioffe in Puck states the obvious to any observer of the DC establishment, but it's still useful.
My first thought is that all of this reflects the current negativity caused by the fact that the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives were a long time ago, and the conflict increasingly looks like a stalemate to those who aren't expecting a significant Ukrainian success in their upcoming offensive.
Gen. Ben Hodges comment on the article is interesting:
I do think that a successful spring offensive will change the entire strategic calculus. And then the talk in DC, Paris, and Berlin will change. Everyone loves a winner, and support for Ukraine will grow if it looks like Ukraine is truly winning.
On the other hand, if Ukraine isn't able to reach the Sea of Azov by midsummer, then I think everything stops, as this article indicates. And, in a sense, it should. If all the armor given for this offensive isn't enough for its success, then the West probably can't afford to help Ukraine regain its territory.
quote:
Everyone I spoke to who participated in these White House briefing calls was vociferous in praising the Biden administration’s policy on Ukraine. They wanted to give the president and his advisors credit for this and credit for that. They really had done a terrific job, everyone said, of saving Ukraine and acting nimbly in a rapidly evolving, predictably unpredictable conflict. But as soon as we went off the record or spoke on background, the truth flowed like a mighty river.
It turns out that Washington’s foreign policy set has grown increasingly frustrated with the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy. What is it, exactly? On one hand, the administration has been consistent in its line on Ukraine: Ukraine must win, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, this must not turn into World War III, and we must defend and strengthen the rules-based (and American-designed) international order.
But what does any of that really mean? What does winning in Ukraine even look like
quote:
How “all in” are we? “If they have a strategy, it hasn’t been shared,” one expert on these regular briefing calls with administration officials complained.
In recent weeks, however, it seems that at least part of the policy has become a bit less gauzy. It can be articulated, essentially, as this: Let’s wait and see how Ukraine’s spring counter-offensive goes, and then we’ll reassess.
quote:
“I think the administration’s expectation has been that Ukraine has everything it needs for an offensive and if they don’t get anything done, well, then we’ll have to reassess,” the first participant told me. “What that reassessment means, it’s not clear to me.
quote:
Still another participant in the calls reflected another frustration: Are we giving Ukrainians enough to win? Or does winning simply mean as much as Ukraine can claw back with the current levels of support and during this very finite window of opportunity? It seemed, this third participant told me, that at this point a Ukrainian victory just means “Whatever Ukraine can muster. And then… what?” this participant wondered
quote:
“I think we have a policy until late summer/early fall and then it’ll get caught in our political process, at which point we’ll say, ‘Well, we tried.
quote:
“I think they want this to happen this year,” the first participant of the White House calls told me of the beginning of a negotiated solution. “We have elections next year and we’re in campaign season already. Ukraine might take back some territory but it won’t be a massive territorial takeback. I think that’s where we’ll be at the end of the year. They’re going to want to hold the line and Congress will support them on that.”
quote:
Still, this gap between official Biden administration rhetoric has been worrying Ukrainians, who are telegraphing that they are concerned that this plays right into Putin’s plan: wait out the fickle Americans, without whom the Europeans are as good as useless, and then grind the Ukrainians down. “Ukrainians have been asking if the U.S. intends to press Ukraine into some kind of negotiated settlement,” said the person familiar with the administration’s thinking. “My sense is the U.S. doesn’t want a false stalemate. The game plan is to provide Ukraine a window of opportunity but assume the war ends up as a natural stalemate. Then, seek negotiations or a frozen conflict.”
My first thought is that all of this reflects the current negativity caused by the fact that the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives were a long time ago, and the conflict increasingly looks like a stalemate to those who aren't expecting a significant Ukrainian success in their upcoming offensive.
Gen. Ben Hodges comment on the article is interesting:
quote:
Only part with which I disagree is where you said nobody expects a decisive outcome from the Ukrainian counteroffensive. I do...UAF will penetrate Russian defenses, bring up more HIMARS, make Crimea untenable for Russian forces. Crimea is decisive.
I do think that a successful spring offensive will change the entire strategic calculus. And then the talk in DC, Paris, and Berlin will change. Everyone loves a winner, and support for Ukraine will grow if it looks like Ukraine is truly winning.
On the other hand, if Ukraine isn't able to reach the Sea of Azov by midsummer, then I think everything stops, as this article indicates. And, in a sense, it should. If all the armor given for this offensive isn't enough for its success, then the West probably can't afford to help Ukraine regain its territory.
Posted on 4/2/23 at 6:58 am to RLDSC FAN
British Defence Intelligence
INTELLIGENCE UPDATE
UPDATE ON UKRAINE 02 April 2023
While Russia has suffered up to 200,000 casualties since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a significant minority of these have been due to non-combat causes.
On 27 March 2023, a Russian Telegram news channel reported there have been 'extremely high' numbers of incidents, crimes, and deaths linked to alcohol consumption amongst the deployed Russian forces.
Other leading causes of non-combat casualties likely include poor weapon handing drills, road traffic accidents and climatic injuries such as hypothermia. Russian commanders likely identify prevalent alcohol abuse as particularly detrimental to combat effectiveness. However, with heavy drinking pervasive across much of Russian society, it has long been seen as a tacitly accepted part of military life, even on combat operations.
INTELLIGENCE UPDATE
UPDATE ON UKRAINE 02 April 2023
While Russia has suffered up to 200,000 casualties since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a significant minority of these have been due to non-combat causes.
On 27 March 2023, a Russian Telegram news channel reported there have been 'extremely high' numbers of incidents, crimes, and deaths linked to alcohol consumption amongst the deployed Russian forces.
Other leading causes of non-combat casualties likely include poor weapon handing drills, road traffic accidents and climatic injuries such as hypothermia. Russian commanders likely identify prevalent alcohol abuse as particularly detrimental to combat effectiveness. However, with heavy drinking pervasive across much of Russian society, it has long been seen as a tacitly accepted part of military life, even on combat operations.
Posted on 4/2/23 at 7:05 am to cypher
quote:
British Defence Intelligence
As worthy as the North Korean intel agencies
Page 2599 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News