The War in the Ukraine

baykalov

baykalov

Senior Member
Registered Member
This article is from a month ago, when Biden requested an additional $13 billion for Ukraine for the new fiscal year, which begins in October. That is, this new $13 billion is for the last three months or until the end of this year.

The article also says that two-thirds of the funds previously approved by Congress have been spent or obligated.

Am I to understand that the entire Lend-Lease plus that additional $13 billion will be spent by the end of this year?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Biden administration on Friday asked Congress for $13.7 billion in additional aid for Ukraine, underlining its commitment to support the war-battered country in a costly conflict that shows little sign of abating.

As part of the Ukraine funding request, $7.2 billion would be used to give new weapons and military equipment to the country, replenish U.S. stockpiles and provide other defense-related support, administration officials said. An additional $4.5 billion would support the Ukrainian government, and $2 billion would be used to offset effects on energy supplies from Russia’s invasion.

The White House says that the funds are needed to sustain the pace of aid to Ukraine for the first three months of fiscal 2023, which begins at the start of October. The administration official said roughly three-fourths of the funds Congress has already approved for Ukraine have been spent or obligated.

Congress on a bipartisan basis has approved over $53 billion in security, economic and humanitarian assistance to address Russia’s invasion of Ukraine this year. Biden signed the last package, totaling $40 billion, into law in May. At the time, the White House said it expected those funds to last through the end of the fiscal year.
Click to expand...
 
V

Virtup

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'd say there's probably some corruption and incompetence in the higher echelons of the russian military given the incorrect positioning of the troops and the recent firings but as @plawolf said the Russian army as a whole is still functioning decently well if it can swiftly retreat and avoid encirclements without suffering huge losses (Ukraine pulled off a somewhat similar feat in Lysichansk by retreating in small groups).
Eventually, the corrupt and the incompetent will either die or get demoted/fired and replaced by the competent. Russia in this context is like an old sword that's being reforged in the flames of war (so is Ukraine, maybe). Wether they'll finish that process in time and without getting wrecked by Ukraine is still unknown.
 
P

Pmichael

Junior Member
phrozenflame said:
'At some points Russians will decide'. If you dont make decisions, you enemies will make it for you.

'Not doing it means the Russians doesn't see the current push serious enoguht.' Serious enough to mobilize 300,000 men at the least, change of command, pulling out more soviet stocks, etc. But sure, 'not serious enough'. Anyway, 300k is a good move for Russia, about 2 months late. They should anticipate there will be a response and just mad max this to 500-600k.
Click to expand...

Telegram is full with Russians showing that Russia can't provide enough equipment and training to those 300k men. Putin was even forced to talk about it in one his speeches. This is not going to help Russia to stabilize the front lines or even returning to taking the initiative which they lost since Summer.
 
P

Petrolicious88

Senior Member
Registered Member
phrozenflame said:
Russian losses arent just token ignorable losses when they do retreat from narrow vectors of exit, surrounded from 2-3 direction.

We heard the same 'banzai charge in Kharkhiv', going to run out of steam anytime now, then it was Izyium, then Lyman, now it's Kherson. Ukraine is now building up resources in Zaporizhzhya sector as well as per Russian intel. I recall how arrogantly many said mobilization is not needed up to less than a month ago too. Now we are at soon (tm) Russia will unleash total war. Anytime now.

With winter coming, Ukrainians will find it difficult to supply, but Russians will find it even harder with Iziyum and Lyman train networks out of reach, Kherson depending on choke points across river etc.

If Russians deployed 200k men to fight 500-900k Ukrainians backed by West in all manners, then it's Russia's miscalculation.

All of this, either its gross incompetence or corruption, in reality, it's probably a mix of both.

Many here count on the 'winter', so? Then there is summer again, just more months for Ukraine to train and equip more troops, they practically have access to unlimited credit line for the war. US has made that much clear. Americans will arm Ukrainians just enough to make it a grind and wear out Russians. They wont supply enough to end the war in a month's time, no, they'll keep the wound bleeding. This is becoming Iraq/Afghanistan on steroids for Russia.

Remember, people joked about 'haha Ukraine training sekrit big army for big offensive', that did eventually materialize.

Now I'm not saying Russians cant react and evolve, they did do that. I think it's a coin-toss a moment.
Click to expand...
Agree. So far Ukraine has also done a better job than Russia in terms of mobilizing, recruiting, training, equipping their troops, and using NATO intel to target Russian troops. Ukrainian airspace is still contested. Russian pilots initially tried to fly low to avoid SAMs, but they were then shut down with MANPADS. Russian mobilization is going to slow Ukrainian advances, but will not change the overall reality for Putin.
 
tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
plawolf said:
Do you understand anything about how basic warfare works?

Territory only has value if it confers strategic or tactical value.

You don’t just advance for the sake of advancing because the enemy has put weak defences there to allow you to advance there. That’s literally falling for the most basic rouse there is to send your forces where the enemy want them to go!

You talk of Russians doing the ‘withdrawal thing’ like they are cheating and just calling time-out whenever the Ukrainians are about to land a telling blow.

The very fact that the Russians can casually and consistently do their ‘withdrawal thing’ when the Ukrainians are pressing them as hard as they can should be setting of all sorts of alarm bells in the mind of any half competent commander. Because that shows significant capabilities and competence and is not the sign of an enemy on the ropes and his last legs like western social media would have you believe.
Click to expand...
But for Russia, this is no longer a "special military operation" in the land that Ukraine is advancing, after annexation they're actually capturing "Russia Land". Those territory was already hard fought for in the beginning of the war, now they are allowing Ukraine to waltz in and recapture the same land that took Russia initially weeks to capture. All the land captured gives Ukraine extra strategic depth and punch a hole in Russia's annexation plans.

We do not know how much Russia has lost in its withdrawals and it's a fool's errand to try to work it out at this time since the situation is still very dynamic, so your claim that Russia is losing low amount of units compared to Ukraine does not hold any water. After all they forced the defenders at Lyman to defend almost to the last second until encirclement. Ukrainian troops are highly replaceable while Russia's not. Until full mobilization occurs Ukraine will always hold a distinct manpower advantage over Russia.

Even if they lose 2 men for every Russian killed, Russia will still lose (without declaration of war). There will be no crippling of the Ukranian armed forces here, in fact I have seen legit no evidence of this what-so ever. Yes, they have taken casualties, yes, some fronts are slow-going, but nothing that indicates their combat effectiveness has dropped as a result of the rapid advance.

The rhetoric around the war has taken an almost 180 degrees turn in these last few months and now we went from justifying slow Russia advances to Russia retreats.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
plawolf said:
You don’t just advance for the sake of advancing because the enemy has put weak defences there to allow you to advance there. That’s literally falling for the most basic rouse there is to send your forces where the enemy want them to go!
Click to expand...
Territory has value too. If the opponent leaves his house unguarded then why not go in and seize it?

What would then homeowner say then?
"You just fell into my 5D trap actually!" lol

Its simple, Russia leaves areas undefended, Ukraine will get them back. And don't forget, Russia isn't losing Ukrainian land anymore, it is losing Russian territory.
 
V

Virtup

Junior Member
Registered Member
I heard somewhere in this forum (can't remember) that because this is an SMO, professional russian soldiers could choose wether they want to participate in it or not. Is this true (highly doubt it) ? Because if true it could explain the large drop in their numbers (from 150k to 50k).
 
C

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Overbom said:
Territory has value too. If the opponent leaves his house unguarded then why not go in and seize it?

What would then homeowner say then?
"You just fell into my 5D trap actually!" lol

Its simple, Russia leaves areas undefended, Ukraine will get them back. And don't forget, Russia isn't losing Ukrainian land anymore, it is losing Russian territory.
Click to expand...
This is a really cringe layman's take on warfare, so I am just going to refer you to the nuggets of wisdom plawolf has already shared below.
plawolf said:
Do you understand anything about how basic warfare works?

Territory only has value if it confers strategic or tactical value.

You don’t just advance for the sake of advancing because the enemy has put weak defences there to allow you to advance there. That’s literally falling for the most basic rouse there is to send your forces where the enemy want them to go!

You talk of Russians doing the ‘withdrawal thing’ like they are cheating and just calling time-out whenever the Ukrainians are about to land a telling blow.

The very fact that the Russians can casually and consistently do their ‘withdrawal thing’ when the Ukrainians are pressing them as hard as they can should be setting of all sorts of alarm bells in the mind of any half competent commander. Because that shows significant capabilities and competence and is not the sign of an enemy on the ropes and his last legs like western social media would have you believe.

In this war, indeed, almost all wars, territory matter a lot less than men and material. If you have men and hardware, you can retake lost territory. Loose all your men and war machines and how are you going to keep all the territory you took?

The Russians have never forgotten this principle and have been focusing on destroying the fighting strength of Ukraine while preserving their own as much as possible.

Giving up territory to buy time and wear down the enemy is as Russian a tactic as there is. Napoleon and Hitler advanced to Moscow and Stalingrad and what did all that captured Russian territory count for when the Russian counter-offensives rolled forwards?

The Ukrainians are paying a steep butchers’ bill for all their advances but they are not able to destroy much in the way of Russian troops.

This is the boxing equivalent of someone swinging and missing all his big blows while chasing the other guy all round the ring, taking jabs to the face all the while and thinking he is winning because the other guy is ‘withdrawing’.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top