Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Dargo

Ukraine has done this before, lure an army in cities where they are slaughtered in street fighting. Rumor is Russian officers have fled Kherson, the aim being to slowly strangle Russian supply lines and cut off thousands of soldiers in the city and area north of the Dnipro River.

This Danish expert is convince Russia will lose the war

After attack on Crimea - impossible for Russians to win war, says expert

A military expert has predicted all along that the Russians will lose the war in Ukraine - and he stands by that prediction.

Ukrainian forces have for the past week been enjoying a tailwind on the battlefield in southern Ukraine.

On Tuesday, an ammunition depot and a transformer station on the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula were hit by explosions. The attack comes exactly a week after several large explosions hit an air base in Crimea.

On Sunday, the Ukrainians also moved a step closer to cutting off the Kherson region and isolating Russian troops in the area when they destroyed a strategically important bridge at the Nova Kakhovka dam.

Already in July, the Ukrainians stated that they were determined to retake the Kherson region, bordering Crimea, by September.

Going after Russian supply lines
According to Jacob Kaarsbo, senior analyst at the think tank Europa, the recent attacks are proof of the Ukrainians' strategy to retake Kherson and Crimea.

- They are trying to hit targets deep inside the Russian hinterland in the same way they did very effectively at the start of the war in the Kyiv region. Ukrainian forces are going after Russian supply lines, which rely heavily on rail transport. The ammunition depot that was hit on Tuesday is very close to a railway junction, Jacob Kaarsbo tells TV 2.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

So you see there's many expert who says Ukraine will retake Kherson-Doubt they will have the resources to start such a huge offensive. The ammo they got so far has almost been used.

The logistic in the supply line has to work perfect when conducting an offensive with 1 million men.

Markus

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by mapuc

This Danish expert is convince Russia will lose the war



So you see there's many expert who says Ukraine will retake Kherson-Doubt they will have the resources to start such a huge offensive. The ammo they got so far has almost been used.

The logistic in the supply line has to work perfect when conducting an offensive with 1 million men.

Markus

In recent weeks, Ukrainian forces have struck three key bridges over the river, making them virtually impassable for heavy vehicles do not know Ukraine is able to launch a big offensive insiders say the signs are that a Ukrainian counterattack is imminent.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Dargo

In recent weeks, Ukrainian forces have struck three key bridges over the river, making them virtually impassable for heavy vehicles do not know Ukraine is able to launch a big offensive insiders say the signs are that a Ukrainian counterattack is imminent.

Some of my Danish friends are not so convince-As one said They do not have a crystal ball-No one can predict the future.

He may be right-While Russia is about to be surrounded in Kherson Oblast-The Russian has gained land around Bakhmut oblast.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

^ Some of the Danish expert has an another attitude

Danish TV2 Wrote:

Markus

The losses not only of the Russian have been immense - that of the ukrainians in the East as well. Both armies must be very exhausted. To assess what the ukrainians are up to, one would need to know how exhausted they are indeed, and whnether they have the manpower to stage a counteroffensive with fighting intention. And one thing is also sure: an offensive needs mobility. And there the Ukrainians may have deficits, has too few IFVs and APCs.



The Ukrainians have had high losses, too. Its just not as much talked about.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The losses not only of the Russian have been immense - that of the ukrainians in the East as well. Both armies must be very exhausted. To assess what the ukrainians are up to, one would need to know how exhausted they are indeed, and whnether they have the manpower to stage a counteroffensive with fighting intention. And one thing is also sure: an offensive needs mobility. And there the Ukrainians may have deficits, has too few IFVs and APCs.



The Ukrainians have had high losses, too. Its just not as much talked about.

Thank you Skybird.

An offensive needs mobility.

Could have been thinking wrong.

Would it be a win for Russia if China do attack Taiwan-Here I mean USA is one of the major contribute of weapon and ammo to Ukraine-If China attacks Taiwan USA has, as promised, to send weapon and ammo to Taiwan.

Can US military industry handle two war ? I don't know if they can-I think that USA will let UK and Europe taking care of Ukraine, while they take care of Taiwan.

Markus

[Skybird]

After Russia started to play "Look what I do!", the stunned Wesatern audience was quick to fire loud words and mighty phrases and assured everybody willing to listen thta now one would get to the real nitty gritty and find serious replies.

I warned early that this will not last long, especially with regard to Bubble-Olaf's promises for a massive rise of the German defence budget plus an additional special font of 100 billion. And what has happened: it all already got watered down. Massively.

The NATO response to the war and the truthfulness after the early word shelling also leaves much to be desired. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung writes:

Russian attack on a member state? NATO thinks it's possible and is preparing for an emergency

The alliance has defined Russia as the greatest threat to peace. It also no longer rules out an attack by Moscow on an ally. However, it continues to refrain from establishing a permanent military presence on its eastern flank.

On a spring day in 1997, U.S. President Bill Clinton shook the bearish hand of his counterpart, Boris Yeltsin. NATO leaders, the president of the Russian Federation and the secretary general of the Western military alliance had just signed the so-called NATO-Russia Founding Act. The mood at the Élysée Palace in Paris was exuberant. "The world my predecessors dreamed of and worked for for fifty years is finally within our grasp," Clinton enthused. "This document," Yeltsin said, "will support stability throughout Europe and even beyond the borders of this continent."

The Founding Act - a declaration of intent, not a treaty binding under international law - was supposed to aim for a "lasting and comprehensive peace" in Europe. It was the result of years of tough negotiations between East and West. In it, the former Cold War adversaries promised to renounce "the threat or use of force against each other or against any other State, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence." The crucial sentence boded well: "NATO and Russia do not regard each other as adversaries."

One illusion less

A quarter of a century later, the paper seems to have fallen out of time. War is once again raging on the continent. With the Russian army's invasion of Ukraine, the West has finally lost its illusion of being able to come to an agreement with the Kremlin on a European peace order. At its summit in Madrid at the end of June, NATO described Russia as the "most significant and immediate threat to the peace and security of its members." One does not want to rule out the possibility that Russian President Vladimir Putin could also give the order to attack an ally. And one plans accordingly to strengthen deterrence capabilities on the eastern flank of the alliance area.

But is the file really dead, or does it still play a role in the allies' deliberations? There is hardly a principle of international law that Russia has not violated, NATO circles say. At the same time, military planners seem to want to keep up the facade of the agreement. For example, U.S. Defense Department Assistant Secretary for International Security Celeste Wallander, speaking to reporters in June, said Washington's decision to establish a permanent headquarters for the U.S. Fifth Army Corps in Poland was consistent with "our understanding of the NATO-Russia Founding Act." I guess that means: it still exists, the Founding Act.

According to the agreement, Moscow recognizes the right of sovereign states to choose for themselves "the means of ensuring their own security." In return, NATO had committed itself to stationing neither nuclear weapons nor "substantial combat forces on a permanent basis" in the "territory of new members." The states of the former Warsaw Pact (which pushed themselves under NATO's protective umbrella) were thus enabled to join the alliance without, however, being allowed to hope for a larger troop presence.

Already with the Georgian war in 2008, but at the latest with the annexation of Crimea and the Moscow-instigated conflict in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Putin violated the right to territorial integrity guaranteed in the Act. Nevertheless, NATO continued to keep its promise. Starting in 2017, it deployed four so-called battlegroups to Poland and the Baltics, where Russian provocations were most likely to be feared. These battlegroups, each composed of around 1,000 servicemen and women from several NATO states, were intended to reinforce local forces. They were not stationed permanently, however, but were to rotate every six months. Moreover, they were hardly large enough to repel a Russian attack and therefore could not be considered "substantial".

"Largest new deployment of collective security"

Why should NATO still adhere to this self-restraint after the invasion of Ukraine? In a first reaction, the alliance activated its defense plans after February 24 and moved parts of the so-called Nato Response Force (NRF) to the eastern flank. This response force consists of ground and air forces, naval and special operations units that must be ready to deploy particularly quickly to counter acute threats. Since 2014, the NRF, which can be requested by NATO's supreme commander for Europe in an emergency, has been steadily increased from 13,000 to 40,000 soldiers.

At their summit in Madrid, the allies decided to maintain significantly more troops at high readiness. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced plans to increase the number to more than 300,000 troops next year - with 100,000 of them ready to deploy within 10 days and the rest in up to 30 days. This is "the biggest rebuild of collective defense and deterrence since the Cold War," Stoltenberg announced.

The number of troops on the ground is also to be increased: Already in March, the alliance sent four more battlegroups to Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania, thus marking NATO's presence in all former Warsaw Pact states. Until now, each battlegroup has generally consisted of one or two battalions of 800 to 1,000 soldiers each. According to the new plans, the units in all eight frontline states are now to be expanded to the level of a brigade with three to six battalions. Heavy equipment, such as artillery, is to be stored on site.

However, the alliance continues to adhere to the "rotation principle" of soldiers. The Americans, who have so far stationed around 100,000 troops throughout Europe and thus bear the brunt of the continent's defense, also have no intention of establishing a permanent, substantial military presence on the eastern flank. Their forces are located for the very most part in Western Europe. The only exception is the planned permanent headquarters of the Fifth Army Corps in Poznan, western Poland. The officers stationed there in the future, however, are not members of combat forces, American officials affirm.

The Balts and Poles are disappointed

The disappointment is particularly great in Poland and the Baltic states. There, the risk of a cross-border war has by no means been eliminated and it would be fatal to wait for military support to be flown in from the West in the event of a Russian attack on their countries. Much human suffering, it is feared, could be inflicted by the invading forces by then.

But there are probably several reasons for the reluctance of the allies: Some, for example, are probably now taking a more confident view of the Russian threat. Russia's military appears to them to be weakened and not ready for an exchange of blows with NATO. Second, many NATO states still simply lack the capacity to become more militarily engaged in the east. Third, some member states prioritize other regions anyway. The southern Europeans criticize that the Russian threat should not be overlooked in view of the threats to the alliance's southern flank in the form of terrorism, mass migration and climate change.

Although the NATO-Russia Founding Act is no longer mentioned in the new strategic concept, there is no consensus in the alliance to officially denounce it. This is also significant. A return to cooperation with Russia does not seem to be completely out of the question for some member states.
----------------


Still no increase of significant proportion in troop presence at the broder to the enemy. The naivety - and unscrupolousness - in Western hopes to just return to the former state of relations with Russia in the forseeable future, is stunning. And sobering. No, I am not convinced. Not one bit.

Or maybe it is a stubborness to admit that what had one's head stuck in one's a### the past 20 years.

NATO may be superior in conventional forces. But NATO continues to have its forces scattered all over the place, unfocussed, unprepared, unreadied, days if not weeks away from any likely centre of action. Any attacker has choice of time and place, and can gain local superiority therefore - and then cause a calamity while NATO sleepers still need to get out of their beds. The victims of this will be the economy and infrastructure of the struck country, and the civilian population it. Thank you, NATO (means: NATO memberstates). We now sleep better knowing this.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The losses not only of the Russian have been immense - that of the ukrainians in the East as well. Both armies must be very exhausted. To assess what the ukrainians are up to, one would need to know how exhausted they are indeed, and whnether they have the manpower to stage a counteroffensive with fighting intention. And one thing is also sure: an offensive needs mobility. And there the Ukrainians may have deficits, has too few IFVs and APCs.



The Ukrainians have had high losses, too. Its just not as much talked about.

Hard to disagree with that assessment.

[Jimbuna]

Preparing for the worst as situation at nuclear plant ‘approaches critical’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62579154

[Jimbuna]

[Skybird]

Ukraine says Russia is withdrawing planes and helicopters form its Crimea bases. Not verified by independeant sources, though. Also, Kyiv has threatened more openly than ever before to "deconstruct" the Kertch bridge. And the Russian Black Sea fleet has a new comander. Again.


One problem there: if they destroy the bridge, and want to drive the Russians out - where should the Russians flee then? Should they swim?


I more and more tend to believe that Kyiv played it very clever and indeed does not intend to run a huge major counter-offensive on the ground, just made Russia dn the world it woudl when hammered home the tlak about retaking Cherson. They instead lock Russian forces in place and isolate them by destroyjg their supply networks, making it impossible for them to endlessly hold the ground they have "conquered". This is clever in itself, this is probably also due tpo limited availability of forces for such an offenbsiove, and this is clever becasue by evading big battles wiht Russia it denies Russia the playing of its trump cards and denies them the freedom to run the battles the way Russia wants them.

If true: then sly foxes are at play. I too was wondering why they so openly talked about their plans to retake Cherson. Deception it probably was. Bees not necessarily need or can kill an attacker: they just annoy him so much and make life so miserable for him that he finally runs away all by himself.

[Jimbuna]

Total combat losses of Russian Federation since beginning of war - about 44,300 people, 234 planes, 197 helicopters, 1,889 tanks and 4,179 armored vehicles. INFOGRAPHICS

The Russian occupiers, who invaded the territory of Ukraine, continue to suffer losses. As of the morning of August 18, the loss of enemy personnel is approximately 44,300.

This was reported in the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Censor.NET informs.

The total combat losses of the enemy from 24/02 to 18/08 are approximately: Source: https://censor.net/en/n3361527

personnel - about 41,300 (+200) people were eliminated,
tanks - 1889 (+3) units,
armored combat vehicles - 4179 (+17) units,
artillery systems - 1010 (+17) units,
MLRS - 265 (+2) units,
air defense equipment - 136 (+0) units,
aircraft - 234 (+1) units,
helicopters - 197 (+1) units,
UAVs of operational-tactical level - 793 (+1),
cruise missiles - 190 (+0),
ships/boats - 15 (+0) units,
automotive equipment and tank trucks - 3,061 (+7) units,
special equipment - 93 (+0).
"The enemy suffered the greatest losses in the Donetsk direction," the General Staff noted. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3361527

[Skybird]

Russia has sent at least three Mig-31 armed with supersonic Kinschal missiles to Kaliningrad.


Two Mig-31 have violated Finnish air defence space on Monday. The approached a city in Finland that is more than 150 km away from the border.


Estland reports the most intense Russian cyberattacks on its infrastructure since 2007.

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ukraine says Russia is withdrawing planes and helicopters form its Crimea bases. Not verified by independeant sources, though. Also, Kyiv has threatened more openly than ever before to "deconstruct" the Kertch bridge. And the Russian Black Sea fleet has a new comander. Again.


One problem there: if they destroy the bridge, and want to drive the Russians out - where should the Russians flee then? Should they swim?

Russia has taken about 10 ships to the Black Sea, the operational command "South" reports. Ships of the Russian Federation take shelter in safe areas along the Crimean coast to Novorossiysk. There are two surface carriers of the Russian Federation with 16 Kalibr-type cruise missiles and a large amphibious ship on combat duty.

Originally Posted by Skybird

If true: then sly foxes are at play. I too was wondering why they so openly talked about their plans to retake Cherson. Deception it probably was. Bees not necessarily need or can kill an attacker: they just annoy him so much and make life so miserable for him that he finally runs away all by himself.

Exactly, they let the Russians use their ammo and cause them to build supply lines/crossings what Ukraine destroy again.

And even Russians help Ukraine:
A sabotage was carried out on the railway near Moscow, as a result of which the railway equipment was put out of order, - reported expert Alexey Golobutsky. As a result, the railway section will temporarily stop working. This is another sabotage in a number of similar ones occurring throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Most of them, one way or another, are aimed at disabling the communications that supply weapons for the war with Ukraine. "The actions of the unknown are not similar to the work of the Ukrainian special services. The most likely option is the activity of the Russian partisan movement, which is gaining momentum in the Russian Federation," the expert said.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Dargo

Russia has taken about 10 ships to the Black Sea, the operational command "South" reports. Ships of the Russian Federation take shelter in safe areas along the Crimean coast to Novorossiysk. There are two surface carriers of the Russian Federation with 16 Kalibr-type cruise missiles and a large amphibious ship on combat duty.
Exactly, they let the Russians use their ammo and cause them to build supply lines/crossings what Ukraine destroy again.

Wondering-Could it be that the Ukrainian are planning on doing a Schwarzkopf tactical move.

(During the first Iraqi war Schwarzkopf moved some division from one place to another to lure the Iraqi defence in Kuwait.)

Markus

[Dargo]

KYIV, Ukraine — Ukrainian forces are pursuing a new strategy of attacking key military targets deep inside Russian-occupied territory in hopes of undermining Moscow’s ability to hold the front lines ahead of an eventual Ukrainian counteroffensive to reclaim territory, Ukraine’s defense minister said Wednesday. Ukraine’s conventional forces lack the weapons and ammunition needed to launch a full-scale ground offensive to retake territory from the Russians, Oleksii Reznikov said in an interview. He said he expects that sufficient quantities will eventually be delivered in line with commitments already made by Ukraine’s Western partners.

In the meantime, Ukraine is seeking to erode Russia’s capabilities by attacking its most sensitive military installations from within. “We’re using a strategy to ruin their stocks, to ruin their depots, to ruin their headquarters, commander quarters,” he said. “It’s our answer to their meat-grinder tactics.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-new-strategy/