Here we go again-Ukraine once again pt2

[Jimbuna]

Russia produces three times as many missiles for war with Ukraine as US and Europe

Russia is producing almost three times more artillery ammunition than the US and Europe can supply to Kyiv, which is a crucial advantage before a new Russian offensive in Ukraine this year, according to CNN.

Russia is producing approximately 250,000 artillery munitions per month, or about 3 million per year, according to NATO intelligence estimates on Russian defense production provided to CNN, as well as sources familiar with Western attempts to arm Ukraine. In total, the US and Europe can only produce about 1.2 million munitions annually for shipment to Kyiv, a senior European intelligence representative told CNN.

American military aims to produce 100,000 artillery shells per month by the end of 2025 - less than half of Russia's monthly production - and even this figure is currently out of reach as the $60 billion funding for Ukraine has stalled in Congress, said a senior official.
"What we are in now is a production war," said a NATO senior official to CNN. "The outcome in Ukraine depends on how each side is equipped to conduct this war."

Official sources say Russia is currently producing about 10,000 shells per day, while from the Ukrainian side - only 2,000 per day. According to a European intelligence representative, in some places along the thousands of kilometers of front line, this ratio is even worse.

CNN notes that the shortage is observed at the most dangerous moment for military operations in Ukraine since Russia attacked Kyiv in February 2022. American funds for arming Ukraine have run out, and Republican opposition in Congress has effectively blocked funding.

Meanwhile, Russia recently captured the Ukrainian city of Avdiivka and is generally perceived to have the initiative on the battlefield. Ukraine is struggling not only with a shortage of ammunition but also with an increasingly severe shortage of manpower on the front lines.

The US and its allies have provided Ukraine with a range of modern systems, including the M-1 Abrams tank, and soon the F-16 fighter jets. But military analysts say the war will likely be won or lost based on who can produce more artillery shells.

"The number one issue that we’re watching right now is the munitions," said a NATO representative. "It’s those artillery shells, because that’s where Russia really [is] mounting a significant production advantage and mounting a significant advantage on the battlefield."

According to a NATO representative, Russia operates artillery plants around the clock and without weekends, with 12-hour shifts. Currently, about 3.5 million Russians are working in the defense sector, compared to 2-2.5 million before the war. Russia also imports ammunition: last year Iran sent at least 300,000 artillery shells - "probably more than that," said an official - and North Korea provided at least 6,700 containers of ammunition, containing millions of shells.

"Russia has put everything they have in the game," said an intelligence representative. "Their war machine works in full gear."

A rough US equivalent would be if President Joe Biden invoked the Defense Production Act, said an American official, which gives the president the authority to order companies to rapidly produce equipment to support the country's national defense.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...1008964e&ei=23

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

Russia to start production of new air bombs for strikes on Ukraine - ISW

Recently, Russian forces have been actively shelling frontline settlements with guided aerial bombs. Experts do not rule out the possibility that the aggressor may launch serial production of enhanced guided aerial bombs to expand their use across the front line in Ukraine, according to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

A spokesperson for the Tavria operational-strategic group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Captain Dmytro Lykhoviy, announced on March 10 that Russian forces had struck Myrnohrad in the Donetsk region with three Universal Multiservice Glide Bombs (UMGB) D-30SN.

The spokesperson stated that the advanced guided glide bombs UMGB D-30SN essentially transformed unguided gravity bombs FAB from Soviet times into guided glide bombs.
The report states that Russian forces had already used unguided glide bombs in January 2024.

Additionally, Russian military bloggers recently claimed that Russian forces in unspecified areas of Ukraine have begun to strike with unguided glide bombs FAB UMGB, in contrast to the use of unguided glide bombs with unified planning and correction modules.

The guided glide bombs UMGB have a guidance system that includes a jam-resistant GLONASS/GPS receiver Komet and complex wings similar to the Kh-101 cruise missile.

Bloggers noted that Russian forces could launch guided floating bombs UMGB from aircraft and ground-based multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) Tornado-S and Smerch. Currently, Russian aviation launches UMGB without rocket engines, but in the future, the aggressor plans to use such bombs with rocket engines.

"Russian milbloggers claimed that UMGB guided glide bombs with a jet engine and fuel tank, currently absent from aerial glide bombs with UMPC, will allow Russian aviation to drop guided glide bombs from a lower altitude similar to air-to-surface cruise missiles and increase the maximum strike range to 80-90 kilometers," the report said.

It is noted that the increased flight range of guided glide bombs UMGB will allow Russian aviation to increase the depth of strikes on Ukrainian positions without the risk of detection or destruction by the Air Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

"Russian milbloggers claimed that the Russian defense industrial base (DIB) is attempting to mass-produce UMPB-guided glide bombs. Russian forces will likely attempt to serialize production of UMPB guided glide bombs and increase their use across the frontline," the report said.

During the night of March 10, the Russian military shelled Myrnohrad in the Donetsk region.

Initially, the Ukrainian Armed Forces reported shelling with S-300 surface-to-air missiles. However, it was later revealed that the aggressors used new glide bombs UMGB D-30SN for the shelling. These are old high-explosive aviation bombs transformed into guided aviation bombs with additional planning functions and additional propulsion units.

Additionally, the Ukrainian military recently practiced targeting enemy aircraft at a distance of over 150 kilometers. However, the results of this operation have not been reported.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...7ff78cf3&ei=31

[Dargo]

White House expected to send more ATACMS munitions to Ukraine

The White House is expected to announce as soon as Tuesday that it will send a new package of weapons worth $300 million to Ukraine, and it will include a number of Army Tactical Missile Systems, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the discussions.

The package will include a number of the Anti-Personnel/Anti-Materiel, or APAM, an older version of the long-range ATACMS, which travels 100 miles and carries warheads containing hundreds of cluster bomblets, according to one of the officials. All were granted anonymity to speak ahead of an announcement.

The tranche will also include additional rounds for the 155mm howitzers and the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, according to that official and one other U.S. official. The U.S. first sent a first shipment of mid-range ATACMS in September... https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...ine-00146487?2

Ukraine drone hits one of RussiaÂ’s biggest oil refineries

Ukraine has mounted one of the most wide-ranging attacks inside Russia in months, hitting energy sites and a major oil refinery in drone strikes on at least seven regions. More than two dozen drones were reported over central Russia, with the defence ministry on Tuesday claiming to have intercepted most over regions bordering Ukraine. But the strikes also caused big fires at two major energy infrastructure sites inside Russia, significantly damaging one of the countryÂ’s biggest oil refineries.

...

In addition to the drone strikes overnight, two armed militia units based in Ukraine and backed by Kyiv — the Russian Volunteer Corps and Free Russia Legion — made incursions from Ukraine into the Belgorod and Kursk regions of Russia. The group of anti-Kremlin fighters has previously broken across the border into Russia leading to skirmishes with the Russian army. Russian pro-Kremlin military bloggers on Tuesday said several groups of armed men on pick-up trucks stormed the border, with some reporting gun battles. The Free Russia Legion posted a video claiming to show its tanks crossing the border at night. “We are coming to rescue you . . . from dictatorship,” a group leader said in a video. In another video, the group showed what it said was a Russian armoured personnel carrier being destroyed by its fighters... https://www.ft.com/content/4bcaf063-...a-e58c87b1c8a3

What do we know about the ‘Siberian Battalion’ that reportedly crossed into Russia?

In the early hours of March 12, Russian state media sounded the alarm. A number of Ukrainian military units consisting of Russian fighters reportedly attempted to cross from Ukraine into Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry claimed that it "thwarted Kyiv's attempt to make a breakthrough into the Russian border territory in the Belgorod and Kursk oblasts," adding that the incursion took place "simultaneously in three directions." Meanwhile, the units allegedly taking part in the attack say that the operation is ongoing.

While this wasn't the first time units consisting of Russians fighting for Ukraine have allegedly crossed into Russian territory, this time a new formation had its first run. Announced in October and training throughout the winter, the new Siberian Battalion took part in the incursion, along with the earlier formed Freedom of Russia Legion. The Siberian Battalion was the third unit established by Ukraine for Russian nationals who want to join the fight against the Kremlin. The battalion was meant primarily for ethnic minorities coming from Siberia, including Buryats, Yakuts, Tuvans, and others.

Siberia, a cold North Asian region that covers 77% of RussiaÂ’s territory, is home to a variety of ethnic minorities that have been largely disenfranchised by the Russian state. Nine of the 10 poorest Russian regions, in terms of GRP per capita, are regions with a substantial minority population. Out of them, five are located in Siberia. Adding another Russian unit to the Ukrainian Armed Forces is more about information warfare than growing UkraineÂ’s battlefield capacity, experts say.

"Russian volunteer battalions fighting alongside Ukrainians are an aspect of the war which may make little direct difference on the front line, but it will have a disproportionate impact in terms of information activities, morale and influence on Russia's population and its leadership," Keir Giles, senior consulting fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, told the Kyiv Independent. https://kyivindependent.com/what-we-...d-into-russia/

[mapuc]

The Ukrainian should have a lot more soldiers
Sending many more into Russia than they have



Markus

[Skybird]

Random Twitter quote, based on a report by Newsweek from Decembre.

155mm shells rose in price from $2,700 per piece to €4,000 per piece. For russians, a 152mm shell costs $500-$600 per piece. The American company Vista Outdoor, which owns the manufacturers of firearms and cartridges Remington, CCI, Alliant Powder, Federal, reported the possibility of a global shortage of gunpowder. So next year the company will be forced to raise the prices of ammunition by at least 10%. This was reported by Newsweek.
The German defense concern Rheinmetall has increased the prices of 155mm ammunition required by the conflict in Ukraine by more than 1.5 times since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, Welt reported on Tuesday. According to a document obtained by Welt, Rheinmetall will deliver 333,333 rounds of ammunition at an average price of 3,600 euros per round as part of the contract. (for reference, the French have a 155-mm projectile that costs more than 4,000 euros, while the production capacity allows the production of no more than 650 projectiles per month).
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/sta...45528955777077

The Europeans have agreed on a 5 bn Euros military fond for Ukraine. (Germany has pledged for the runnign year 7 bn). The germans wanted it that bilateral military aid and funding for that will be counted for national contributions into that fond. France wanted that European produced (=French produced) items shall be given priority.

Well.

No decisions on fundamental increases in military production capacities.

What there has been decided in past 12 months or less regarding boosting military production capacities, is way too little. The Russians produce, by factors, more - and, by factors, cheaper.

The lack of serious interest is obvious. Correcting this seems to be not really intended. Symbolic acts, if they serve the national economy - but no substantial changes.

[mapuc]

Markus

[Reece]

^ Agree 100%
Good on ya Denmark!

[Jimbuna]

Putin is ‘sensing weakness in the West’ after nuclear threat, say experts

RUSSELS – Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons against Nato are “deeply worrying”, but appear aimed at intimidation rather than warning of an imminent risk, according to experts.

Mr Putin on Wednesday said that Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons if its sovereignty or independence is threatened and boasted that its nuclear arsenal was “much more” advanced than that of the United States. It was the latest of his many nuclear warnings since launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In his state-of-the-nation address last month, he said further Western involvement in the conflict would risk nuclear war.

Patricia Lewis, who heads Chatham House’s International Security Programme, says that while the threats are chilling, they are not having the desired effect on the West. “Putin’s clearly trying to frighten us, but the West has not been spooked – and that’s a good thing,” she told i. “But the idea that you would use nuclear weapons just seems bonkers for people. You know he’s not going to do anything so stupid.”
Mr Putin has repeatedly invoked the taboo of nuclear weapon use since 2022, but Dr Lewis says he is trying to break Western resolve, particularly after French President Emmanuel Macron’s suggestion that Nato troops could be sent to support Ukraine’s military.

“Putin is perhaps sensing the weakness or uncertainty in the West about the outcome, and the lack of enthusiasm as time goes on. He thinks he can outwait the West, he thinks they’ve got a limited attention span, that they’ll get distracted by the next thing, which might be Gaza now,” she said.

Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal with just under 6,000 nuclear weapons, and can launch its nuclear weapons from land-based missiles, submarines or planes.

At the start of his invasion of Ukraine, Mr Putin ordered his military to put Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces on high alert, and in September 2022, said he was prepared to use nuclear weapons as he warned the West: “I’m not bluffing.”

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said Mr Putin threatened him with a missile strike in a phone call in the run-up to the invasion, telling him it “would only take a minute”.

British officials have said there are no signs Russia is preparing to use a tactical nuclear weapon in or around Ukraine despite the recent bellicose statements. But the intimidation has had its effects, with Germany’s Space Command chief, Major General Michael Traut, warning last month about the danger of a nuclear weapon detonation in orbit by Russia, and tech billionaire Elon Musk pulling back satellite support for Ukraine, citing nuclear risks.

Florian Eblenkamp, an advocacy officer at the Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said that even though the nuclear threats have been empty so far, they are still alarming.

“I think it’s safe to say that the risk of nuclear use has certainly gone up since 2022,” he said. “It’s hard to quantify that, of course, but even 1 per cent risk is unacceptable – and it’s deeply worrying that the nuclear option remains on the table.”

Andrey Baklitskiy, senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva, said Mr Putin’s nuclear threats were often issued when Ukraine’s Western allies were debating sending weapons to Kyiv.

“We have seen him issue red lines but these have been quite fluid,” he said. “So Russia said there should be no heavy weaponry, no missile systems, no fighter jets, no tanks, and so forth. All this has been supplied, but none of it triggered any big response on the Russian side.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...71431e8d&ei=67

[Skybird]

@ Markus

The video: +1

And Denmark continues to put us others to shame. They seem to really have red the sign of the times.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68557038

[Skybird]

If you thought Colonel Reisner were a bit pessimistic, then wait until you listened to this former German and NATO general. He speaks relatively slow, so autotranslation subtitles work well. Sobering.



I dont beleive Putin wants to negotiate a real perace deal. At best what can be acchieved - and not before the American elections and the circus afterwards are done and over - is a seize fire and a freezing of the frontlines.

Seen this way, the Danish decision to support Ukriane by giving it all its own artillery can be seen as gallantry and honesty - whether it really is matching "realism" - thats an entirely different question.

I already said months ago that I think that in principle the war is decided. Against Ukraine. What we see now is just the time it takes everybody to let that sink in. And in 2022 I said that the biog chance to win was to kickl, bomb and shoot the hellm out of Russia in the first motnhs of the war, for that the early ihase was the only rela chance to deliver Russia such a desastrous kick in the azz that until today they still would fly around Earth in a long lasting orbit. Woth not acchieving that, no matter the bvreaosns for it, the war in principle was lost because from that early time window on the scales were dropping in faovur of Russia which then continued by making its numerical and industrial superiority felt. And since then it mounts the pressure more and more and more. And nothing the West has tried has eased that pressure. And Ukraine - as I see it, it stands, in more and more parts of the battlezones it kneels with its back against the abyss. West of Avdijivka it is said there is a real big risk now for a strategic, operational breakthrough of the Russians. The Ukrainians currently seem to flush pratcially evertyhing into that sector that they still have. They are desperate, but their defence structures there were improvised within a short number of weeks, whereas the Russian defences that stopped the Ukrianian offensive last year had been erected over 7-9 months.

Over 50% of the Ukrainian yearly fiscal budget - is sponsored by the West. Kuijat remidns of it, but you can find the numbers elswhere, too. Over 50% of the civilian, non-military budget of the state is poaid by the West. De facto it is neither a autonomously surviving economic entity anymore, nor a sovereign state. And next comes the demand that the West also pays for the rebuilding. And if Ukraine would join the EU, it would immediately become the by far biggest receiver of subsidies, much more than currently Poland. Up to over 40% of the EU budget may end up in Ukraine.

We should not have gotten involved in the first (Ukraine is no NATO member, mind you) - or have started a full-scale entering of the war and send everything NATO had into Ukraine and leaving the Russians in no doubt what would happen if they dare to use nukes. Myself, I would have chosen option 2. Though with an angry fist in the pocket, because Ukraine is no NATO member. But NATO simpyl could not afford to let happen what is happening now - the demaskign of its inner structural wekaness and political indifference. And these are what will cost us very dearly in the future. The reputation of NATO is destroyed. I forsee a Trump win with a probability of 55:45, something in that range. He will just give NATO the rest.

There is a new Westenr priority now that is needed, and practically every political actor of power is denying it: massive self-rearming AQAP. We have failed to stop the Russians in Ukraine. Now the next Russian attack will find us on our own soils.

We chattering stupids.


P.S.
Kujat is not without controversy here in Germany. And he was too close with Merkel, for my taste. I know all that, I am aware of it. And I don't necessarily agree with some of the details of his statements, but on the whole I think his assessment is mercilessly realistic.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

@ Markus

The video: +1

And Denmark continues to put us others to shame. They seem to really have red the sign of the times.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68557038

He should have given credit to The Netherlands too They have also shown a will to help Ukraine more than one could ask for.

Markus

[Skybird]

[Focus] According to information from "Business Insider", an explosive analysis by German intelligence services is currently circulating in the German government. Troop movements, military restructuring and the deployment of new missiles, particularly in western Russia, would suggest that Putin is preparing for a fundamental conflict with the West.

Specifically, according to current observations of the situation in Russia, it "can no longer be ruled out" that Putin will attack at least parts of NATO territory "from 2026", for example in the Baltic states or Finland. The German services have reportedly not yet made any such specific statements.

Just a few days ago, Lithuanian intelligence services also stated in their annual report that they believe Russia is preparing for a confrontation with NATO. The Kremlin had initiated a comprehensive military reform and was gradually expanding its capabilities towards the West.

According to information from "Business Insider", NATO headquarters also shares the concern about Russia's growing military strength and a further confrontation, Business Insider learned. However, this does not necessarily have to lead to war. In the medium term, US intelligence services do not see any danger of an attack, they say. According to them, it would take another five to eight years for Putin's armed forces to regain the military strength they had before the war in Ukraine.

--------------------

An RAF plane carrying British Defense Secretary Grand Shapps was the victim of a Russian hacker attack. On the return flight from Poland, the plane's GPS signal and internet connection were interrupted for around 30 minutes. A source told the Mirror that this was a "completely irresponsible" action by the Russian regime.

In addition to Shapps and his team, a select group of journalists are also said to have been present. However, security was not compromised at any time. As reported by The Express, the pilots had directly informed the passengers that other navigation options were also available.

A source from the Ministry of Defense said: "Although the RAF is well prepared for such things, this still poses an unnecessary risk to civilian aircraft, putting people's lives at risk. There is no excuse for this. On Russia's part, this is very irresponsible."

Since the beginning of the war, Russian forces have repeatedly used radio jamming to attack Ukrainian aircraft.

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If you thought Colonel Reisner were a bit pessimistic..

Seen this way, the Danish decision to support Ukriane by giving it all its own artillery can be seen as gallantry and honesty - whether it really is matching "realism" - thats an entirely different question.

I already said months ago that I think that in principle the war is decided. Against Ukraine. What we see now is just the time it takes everybody to let that sink in. And in 2022 I said that the biog chance to win was to kickl, bomb and shoot the hellm out of Russia in the first motnhs of the war, for that the early ihase was the only rela chance to deliver Russia such a desastrous kick in the azz that until today they still would fly around Earth in a long lasting orbit. Woth not acchieving that, no matter the bvreaosns for it, the war in principle was lost because from that early time window on the scales were dropping in faovur of Russia which then continued by making its numerical and industrial superiority felt. And since then it mounts the pressure more and more and more. And nothing the West has tried has eased that pressure...

We should not have gotten involved in the first (Ukraine is no NATO member, mind you) - or have started a full-scale entering of the war and send everything NATO had into Ukraine and leaving the Russians in no doubt what would happen if they dare to use nukes. Myself, I would have chosen option 2. Though with an angry fist in the pocket, because Ukraine is no NATO member. But NATO simpyl could not afford to let happen what is happening now - the demaskign of its inner structural wekaness and political indifference. And these are what will cost us very dearly in the future. The reputation of NATO is destroyed. I forsee a Trump win with a probability of 55:45, something in that range. He will just give NATO the rest.

There is a new Westenr priority now that is needed, and practically every political actor of power is denying it: massive self-rearming AQAP. We have failed to stop the Russians in Ukraine. Now the next Russian attack will find us on our own soils.

We chattering stupids.

Sorry, I didn't intend to chop your post up, I just wanted to pair it down a little.

Sky, I'm leaning towards the idea that the goal is to bring back the old Warsaw Pact. Just a reminder, um, on which side of Germany do you live?

You might want to keep some optimism. It couldn't hurt.
Worst case, you can crash on my couch if no one else claims you.
Assuming, of course, we all don't get vaporized.

Meanwhile, keep an open mind on the US election. One truth at the moment is that Trump's party is in the process of burning themselves down while polarizing the voters. That makes it tough to raise money from the big donors (chaos is BAD for business). I'm keeping my fingers crossed that our national fever will break.

Our "neo patriots" like to yell, but they also enjoy convenience. Its very hard to order a pizza or some Chinese food in the middle of a full-blown revolution. Eventually, they will wake up and realize that they're burning down their own house to spite their neighbors. On a related note, I'm not seeing signs that our military is willing to embrace a dictator. A tyrant, maybe, but that "dear leader" crap isn't going to fly.

Think about it, NATO is stronger now than it was three years ago.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

Think about it, NATO is stronger now than it was three years ago.

That could be argued. What has been given away - so far has mostly not been replenished. For most of what is missing not even orders have been placed.

You are right, I am not optimistic. Nor am I pessimistic. I belong to this kind of strange people for whom the glass is neither half full nor half empty - but twice as big as it has to be for its current fill. In other words: optimism leads me nowhere. Realism does.

We have been optimistic. For years and decades. See where it has got us.



I refer to Gen. Zalushnji's essay in The Economist that brought him so deep into trouble with Zelenskji. But the general was right. He saw it coming. And he did not like what he saw.