re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

They can be intercepted but it’s not nearly as easy as the Russians are claiming. If they went for Kerch they would send several at once with the idea that that in the worst case some will get through. This is costly though and also another reason they hesitate to give them to Ukraine because with all the air defense it would expend them fairly quickly. There are also different warheads for the ATACMS. They make a an anti-personnel and light vehicle type with fragmentation munitions, a standard HE (high explosive) warhead as well as a 500 lb. penetrating warhead. Of course the penetrating variant would be the best choice for a bridge but I’m not sure how many of those are in the inventory.

quote:

---

As already stated, Ukraine placed a big emphasis on blowing up artillery and rockets during the month.

---

Prepping the battlefield, setting conditions.

Some things from the last day or so

Interesting thread from Tatarigami about the "Club of Angry Patriots" which examines the possibility of internal dissension within Russia, though as he notes, a prior incarnation the "Committee of January 25th" achieved little. Also interesting in light of the explosion at the cafe where other Russian milbloggers were gathering.

Twitter - @Tatargami_UA

Article examining the formation of the three new army corps in Ukraine and how they should be organised.

19FortyFive.com - Should Ukraine bring back divisions?

This in particular could be cause for concern if true, Ukraine can't really afford this attitude with less manpower.

quote:

---

Glenn Grant, a British defense analyst and advisor to Ukraine’s military, wrote that he fears the current structure lends itself to this: “There are simply too many organizations working separately from each other and even at times in opposition. This creates pockets of “first, second and third “divisions of quality where some units are equipped and trained properly, and others are not… This lack of a common concept encourages organizational arrogance where some parts of the military system are considered better or more important than others and are both treated and act so. This attitude risks sending soldiers and volunteers to their death early because the system has not valued them sufficiently to prepare them properly for the realities of battle.”

---

Photos reportedly of Ukrainians training with M2 Bradleys, looks like they've gotten rid of the desert cam paint jobs.

Twitter - @NOELreports

Edit: Quote and clarity.

It seems like war is just a big game of tit for tat. At what point do prominent people start losing some skin?

quote:

---

Yeah...I'm sure there were no plain civilians killed with it.

---

I think the cafe was rented out to military bloggers.

quote:

---

Yeah...I'm sure there were no plain civilians killed with it.

---

Take it up with the FSB. This was a message to Prigozhin.

quote:

---

I'm sure there were no plain civilians killed with it.

---

why do we only care about civilian deaths when its Russians and not Ukrainians

quote:

---

I believe that when the Ukrainians start their offensive, they will have the ATACMS. If not in great number, at least enough to take out the Kerch Bridge and the two bridges connecting Crimea with Southern Kherson.

The smoke we are hearing about why we can't send them is just that - smoke. The first news the Russians get of their presence in Ukraine will be when the opening barrage of the offensive drops those bridges.

To assure success in this offensive and therefore the best possibility of an end to the war on Ukrainian terms, the White House has to send them. Hell, they may already be in the country.

---

I disagree. The only way that I can make sense of the decisions of the NSA/White House is in the context of the "understanding" that the US reportedly had with China early in the war.

Reportedly, in the early days of the war, President Biden and President Xi had an understanding that the US would not provide jets to Ukraine, and China would not assist Russia in the war. This was not any kind of formal agreement -- just a "I won't send X if you don't send Y" understanding.

The US insists that it is no longer worried about "escalation" in the sense of a Russian reaction. Nor is there evidence that the Biden administration is still primarily concerned about the impact of a Ukrainian victory in terms of chaos inside Russia. And support in the US public for Ukraine aid remains high.

That indicates that there is another political reason that the US is not delivering ATACMS and F-16s.

And I personally think that Biden and Xi have extended and modified that understanding. That's why, despite all the thoughts that China might supply Russia with some real military assistance, it hasn't happened. Xi went to Moscow to meet with Putin, and Putin got almost nothing that he wanted.

That's why, I believe, we see the UK probably sending Storm Shadow and why there are rumors of the French buying their Mirage 2000 jets back from the UAE to give them to Ukraine -- the US isn't going to send ATACMS and F-16s, because it wants to keep China out of the game.

Again, this is just my opinion, but it's the only way things make sense to me.

quote:

---

DMAN1968

---

Welcome to war.

Its mean, it's ugly, it's bloody.

Its pointless to try to combat it's nature.