The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

[theprestige]

Two UK citizens and a Moroccan, who fought on the Ukrainian side in the country's eastern Donbas region, may face the death penalty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/wor...90ffce4259031cb5a25529&pinned_post_type=share

In the interest of saving you a click: A prosecutor in the DNR is saying this.

 

[Craig4]

I saw that the US and the UK are giving Ukraine longer range rockets. This should expand their range to about 40 miles. There are rockets for the system that can travel about 190 miles but Ukraine isn't getting those. Still 40 miles could be a game changer.

 

[pzkpfw]

Just as importantly, the logistics tail needed to support an F-35 is going to be a lot more complicated and expensive than for an A-10. And it's useless to give either plane to Ukraine without giving them the logistics tail as well. This also means it would probably take a lot longer to set up that logistics tail for an F-35 than for an A-10.

In this hypothetical, the A-10s would be able to be treated as expendable. (More so than any military equipment is).

I'm no expert and I suppose I'm wrong, but I assume keeping them flying long enough for the current crisis is different than maintaining them to the standard to last another ten years. Kind of like you should change the oil in your car as often as the manufacturer says, but ...

(And yes, no pilot wants their plane to "run out of oil" while in the air. (I'm not saying zero or shoddy logistics/maintenance.))

((Not that I think any of this is practical or will happen.))

 

[Andy_Ross]

In the interest of saving you a click: A prosecutor in the DNR is saying this.

They are the ones holding the POWs.
Seems he has authority to do it.

 

[theprestige]

They are the ones holding the POWs.
Seems he has authority to do it.

Not disputing their authority. Just giving a complete summary of what jurisdiction is saying this. That being the obvious question raised but not answered by your post. This way people can get the answer without having to click through, give away their eyeballs, and wade through the fluff to find the lede.

 

[eerok]

With respect to the new, less cheerful tone regarding how the war is going, Ukraine is changing their message because IMO it's time for them to change their message. This was never going to be a walk in the park, but it was important to show the West at the outset that Ukrainians were fit and able to take the fight to the invaders. Otherwise why would anyone else invest in their struggle?

But it's a tough fight, and it's time for Western allies to step up to another level with more and better support and materiel.

Ukraine has been good at the information war, and you can't fault them because they're fighting for their very survival. So for those who might be losing heart at how things are going, this was never going to be easy. This is just a new phase, and it requires more effort from everyone.

That's just how it seems to me. I think Ukraine can still win, but it's far from over.

 

[Ziggurat]

In this hypothetical, the A-10s would be able to be treated as expendable. (More so than any military equipment is).

I'm no expert and I suppose I'm wrong, but I assume keeping them flying long enough for the current crisis is different than maintaining them to the standard to last another ten years. Kind of like you should change the oil in your car as often as the manufacturer says, but ...

(And yes, no pilot wants their plane to "run out of oil" while in the air. (I'm not saying zero or shoddy logistics/maintenance.))

((Not that I think any of this is practical or will happen.))

Jet plains need specialized maintenance on a regular basis. Even as "expendable" they still should last months at a minimum, since we can expect the war to last that long or longer. You can't last even that long doing combat missions without regular service, even if you skimp on some long term stuff.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Old jets need even more maintenance.

 

[theprestige]

And these days I think even the F-35 logistics chain may be cheaper than the A-10's. Sourcing obsolete electronics is no easy thing. Buying parts is sets of ten is a lot more expensive than buying them in sets of a hundred. Or a thousand.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

Well, with some stretching of how to define "locals" as including people from the region who arguably have a dog in the fight (which is happening in Ukraine), we've been at it for some time.

See: Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

We backed militias in Libya.

We hired despotic warlords in Sudan who went from harboring our targets to killing them for us.

I will grant you this instance has the benefit of being on the right(er) side of morality, but those are exceptions.

Even when we roll up our sleeves and do it ourselves, we tend to leave behind massive stockpiles of abandoned arms and equipment. It is not a certainty and other variables come into play, but in many cases this means lots of black market weapons, dubious partners flush with cash, and other concerns that can lead to instability long after we leave.

 

[a_unique_person]

I saw that the US and the UK are giving Ukraine longer range rockets. This should expand their range to about 40 miles. There are rockets for the system that can travel about 190 miles but Ukraine isn't getting those. Still 40 miles could be a game changer.

That enough to get the artillery.

 

[a_unique_person]

RUssian morale is not so great either.

But it;s clear you want to basically give Putin what he wants. Appeasement alway works so well...

No. I didn't say that.

 

[tyr_13]

And these days I think even the F-35 logistics chain may be cheaper than the A-10's. Sourcing obsolete electronics is no easy thing. Buying parts is sets of ten is a lot more expensive than buying them in sets of a hundred. Or a thousand.

Appropriately enough, Boeing just delivered the first set of modernized replacement wings for the A-10. The current order is 50 wing sets and a max of iirc 117.

That's a billion dollar contract.

 

[Craig4]

That enough to get the artillery.

Well, it can let the howitzers continue their artillery duel and the MRLS and (whatever the British system is) to go after Russian logistics and formations before they get to the FEBA (I may be dating myself with that term).

 

[BobTheCoward]

According to the BBC, the messaging from the Ukrainian government has taken a turn towards being more pessimistic (and perhaps more realistic )



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/wor...906edcb622de4ef912291c&pinned_post_type=share

The BBC are saying that after they have finished in Donbas, then the Russians will switch to Kharkiv. IIRC a couple of months ago I linked to a CNN video where a retired US general said it was inevitable that Russia would seize, and hold, everything East of the Dnieper river. At the time I thought he was being ridiculously pessimistic, now I'm not so sure.

For all the talk of Russia taking heavy casualties, having low morale and having to resort to using ancient equipment, they seem to be advancing inexorably. Maybe their losses are being vastly overestimated, maybe their reserves run far, far deeper than first assumed, maybe they're much better at regrouping and re-equipping units or a combination of all three, but they seem to be getting more, not less, effective.

I think the main driver is the operation.

There were two questions

1) are they capable of completing the occupation of the already supportive Eastern region and slowly expand from there while suffering casualties against an enemy with less resources

2) Can they launch a US style rapids assault.

People thought the answer was yes to both. It turns out the answer to 2 was no. But 1 is still true.

NATO was probably scared of two. But now that two is off the table, that is great news. But one is maybe not that hard to achieve.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

there comes a point of diminishing returns, when it might make a lot more sense for Ukraine weaken Russia to the point that they are boxed in, and leave them there to run out of food and supplies.
For 8 years Ukraine did okay (with western help) without the Eastern regions, and it can do so again.
Reconquering them is not urgently required, IMO, not at any cost.

 

[Craig4]

there comes a point of diminishing returns, when it might make a lot more sense for Ukraine weaken Russia to the point that they are boxed in, and leave them there to run out of food and supplies.
For 8 years Ukraine did okay (with western help) without the Eastern regions, and it can do so again.
Reconquering them is not urgently required, IMO, not at any cost.

There's a lot of sense to this if the Ukrainians keep up the pressure but maybe not go on the offensive. They could kill their way out of this. Strong resistance at the FEBA and long range fires killing Russians in the rear, they could get to a point of the Germans on the Western Front in WWII or Russia in 1917 and the army collapses (or in Germany's case gets so near collapse they end the war).

Let Europe moving away from Russian energy have its effect, let the sanctions do their work on Russia's ability to replace material losses and keep a steady stream of coffins going back to Russia and their army could fall apart in the field.

 

[The Don]

there comes a point of diminishing returns, when it might make a lot more sense for Ukraine weaken Russia to the point that they are boxed in, and leave them there to run out of food and supplies.

Russia seems to have sorted out their logistics issues so it's much less likely that this will occur. Indeed, every day they hold on to territory is a day they can use to enhance their supply chains.

For 8 years Ukraine did okay (with western help) without the Eastern regions, and it can do so again.
Reconquering them is not urgently required, IMO, not at any cost.

Every day Russia holds onto territory is a day they can use for Russification. They can ship off civilians to who-knows-what fate and replace them with good Russians. This is the human version of salting the earth.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think the main driver is the operation.



There were two questions



1) are they capable of completing the occupation of the already supportive Eastern region and slowly expand from there while suffering casualties against an enemy with less resources



2) Can they launch a US style rapids assault.



People thought the answer was yes to both. It turns out the answer to 2 was no. But 1 is still true.



NATO was probably scared of two. But now that two is off the table, that is great news. But one is maybe not that hard to achieve.

I really do wonder how much buyers remorse there will be in the East that supports Russia. There is so much destruction and Russia wont do any more than rebuild a village or two for propaganda purposes.

 

[Aridas]

Russia seems to have sorted out their logistics issues so it's much less likely that this will occur.

For what it's worth - I don't think that there's much evidence of that. In the east, in particular, they're still operating very close to territory that they've controlled for years. The big issues with logistics when it came to Kiev (and Izyum) have had a fair bit to do with very overextended and exposed supply lines. Popasna? Not the same at all. With that said, the Russian Popasna salient is, of course, still being fought over fiercely. Looks like Russia picked up another village to the south and lost a bit of what it had taken on the north of that, either way, in more recent news there.

The rough Russian casualty count for the day reported also jumped up, incidentally. Many days it seems to be roughly 200. The most recent looks like it was 600.

Elsewhere, there might be action in Kherson oblast, again? I saw a report that there's a limited attack right in the middle of their supply line to the northern edge of what they've taken over there.