The War in the Ukraine

Botnet

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

For those defending Bakhmut, Russia’s more cautious tactics bring little relief, as the daily bombardment of Ukrainian positions continues uninterrupted.

Outside the city, the close proximity of Russian and Ukrainian lines, often less than a kilometer apart, means that Russia doesn’t even need to use its heavy artillery as much, instead relying on an endless stream of mortar, grenade and rocket launcher fire to pound Ukrainian positions.

For the Ukrainian soldiers tasked with holding the first line, there is little to do but hope that one’s trench or dugout doesn’t take a direct hit.

“Our first and second lines of defense are relatively stable, but it comes at a great cost,” said Ivan, whose unit and exact posting have been kept undisclosed for security reasons.

“Some units are simply running out of people. From what I saw, in only one fight, we had around 10 of our guys killed, never mind the number of wounded. Not everyone could be extracted from the battlefield, some just bled out where they lay.”

In these conditions, the common belief about Russia’s poor effectiveness as a fighting force can quickly melt away.

“They (Ukrainian military leadership tell everyone about the huge casualties suffered on the Russian side, but from what I could see around Bakhmut, things are more or less OK for them,” said Ivan.

“In terms of the coordination between their brigades and artillery, and their overall unit cohesion, you can tell they are doing very well in this sector because of how difficult it is to fight against them.”

Interesting to see such defeatism from Ukraine's #1 propaganda outlet...could signal more Russian advances near Bakhmut.
 

baykalov

Senior Member
Registered Member
Russian govt official spokesman Dmitry Peskov and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov are on record saying Russia is not seeking regime change in Ukraine. Putin is on record saying the war can only end via negotiated settlement. This doesn't sound like a strategy to "end Ukrainian state viability" to me, the infrastructure strikes are designed to make Ukrainian lives inconvenient, reduce public morale, or degrade military efficiency/performance. Russia is using this to negotiate from a stronger position, not regime change or ending Ukraine existence.

So no, Russia is not seeking to end Ukrainian existence, they are just looking to capture Donbass and declare victory. The retreat from Kherson, Kharkiv, Kiev and mobilization all point to a swift capture of Donestk (original objective), not some grand strategy to end Ukrainian existence.

Lavrov recently said that one of the main goals of the special military operation is to turn Ukraine into a peaceful and good neighbourly country.

How this goal will be achieved without regime change, I personally see no way.

And from Putin's latest statement:

The war in Ukraine could be a “long process”, Russian president Vladimir Putin said Wednesday, who said the country would defend itself with “all the means” at its disposal.

“There can be only one answer from our side – a consistent struggle for our national interests. We will do just that. And let no one count on anything else,” Putin said.

“We will focus on peaceful means, but if nothing else remains, we will defend ourselves with all the means at our disposal.”

“Of course, this may be a protracted process,” Putin added.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
I wonder how many meters per litre they get swimming a tracked vehicle through mud
Bit less oil export from russia, bit higher market price for oil, they could make even profit from burning too much diesel.

Like during WWII, USA has all raw materials and people to make weapons.

This time the table turn around, and Russia has practically infinite supply.

An as it stand the 85 million Iran MIC supplying Russia as well, so the future is not so nice for Ukraine.
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Russian govt official spokesman Dmitry Peskov and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov are on record saying Russia is not seeking regime change in Ukraine. Putin is on record saying the war can only end via negotiated settlement. This doesn't sound like a strategy to "end Ukrainian state viability" to me, the infrastructure strikes are designed to make Ukrainian lives inconvenient, reduce public morale, or degrade military efficiency/performance. Russia is using this to negotiate from a stronger position, not regime change or ending Ukraine existence.

So no, Russia is not seeking to end Ukrainian existence, they are just looking to capture Donbass and negotiated settlement. The retreat from Kherson, Kharkiv, Kiev and mobilization all point to a swift capture of Donestk (original objective), not some grand strategy to end Ukrainian existence.
I don't think "war can only end via negotiated settlement" is a very useful statement. Unless your war goal is the extermination of the other side all wars end with some sort of negotiated settlement, even if the negotiation term was once famously "either sign here on the instrument of unconditional surrender or we bath more of your cities in the light of our atom bomb".

What it says to me is Russia does not aim to incorporate all (or even majority) of Ukraine into Russia and that a country called Ukraine will exist after the war in some form. But as with the transition from Imperial Japanese Empire to Japan the nature of the country is not guaranteed to be the same before and after.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
I do still feel the L-7 Gun those "Westernized" T-55 can still pack punch, but then if i were ever ask on "Ultimate T-55's" It would be T-55M-6 for sure.
If doing an ambush or against IFV/APC and infantry positions, it still works, provided the Ukranians get properly stored ammo for them.

Against other MBT's from the front, it might have issues even with the T-62M

13/13 drones shot down, two buildings hit :rolleyes:

The buildings crashed into the remains of the drones, obviously.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
I do still feel the L-7 Gun those "Westernized" T-55 can still pack punch, but then if i were ever ask on "Ultimate T-55's" It would be T-55M-6 for sure.
It would depend on how heavily upgraded the L-7 types are.

China's experience with L-7 is mixed, on one hand, they quickly upsized the guns to 125mm on almost every major tank, on the other hand, the Type 15 still uses something of the same caliber but far far more modernized. Even then, the Type 15 gun is considered insufficient to penetrate the most heavily armored tanks from the front.

I doubt those Eastern European countries have anywhere near the expertise to upgrade a L-7 that much. But on the other hand, Russia will also mostly not be fighting with T-90M.

The biggest problems with the T-55 is how shit it is in every aspect, but at the end of the day it has a gun that can destroy APCs and T-72 if it hits in the rear and maybe the sides.

Given that Russians have overkill in terms of firepower, you'd rather want something with high mobility than something modern and heavily armored unless you can back it up properly.
 
Top