Ukraine

[ChpBstrd]

It's definitely a war of economic attrition, and a contest to see which economy / currency collapses first.

Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil infrastructure, Russian strikes on Ukrainian electrical infrastructure, and mutual strikes on each other's manufacturing/shipping/transportation can be seen as attempts to create an economic depression that forces the other side to stop fighting. Western sanctions and seizures of Russian assets are another form of economic warfare, and are answered by Russian cyberattacks and hybrid warfare.

Russia raised interest rates last month by 2%, to 18%, in response to the official inflation rate being 9%. Meanwhile Ukrainian inflation has risen sharply in recent months to 5.4% and there are concerns about Ukraine's growing trade deficit causing the country to bleed out foreign currency, which could lead to default within months.

[LennStar]

I don't know what the Ukranians targeted in Moscow, but I'd think the bridges would be good targets there too. 


I've lived in the mountains and it's a big deal when they do bridge repairs, and you happen to live on the wrong side of the bridge.  30-minute detours every day for 6-12 months suck, even in peace times.


A city would be crippled with a few major bridges down.

A bridge in Moskow would be, at least at the moment, a war crime. It would be different if the city is surrounded, but as long as there is no fight that profits from it, it's purely civilian.

[Dancin'Dog]

I don't know what the Ukranians targeted in Moscow, but I'd think the bridges would be good targets there too. 


I've lived in the mountains and it's a big deal when they do bridge repairs, and you happen to live on the wrong side of the bridge.  30-minute detours every day for 6-12 months suck, even in peace times.


A city would be crippled with a few major bridges down.

A bridge in Moskow would be, at least at the moment, a war crime. It would be different if the city is surrounded, but as long as there is no fight that profits from it, it's purely civilian.

So how is the recent drone attack classified?  Which targets in Moscow are "approved" for attacking?

[Michael in ABQ]

I don't know what the Ukranians targeted in Moscow, but I'd think the bridges would be good targets there too. 


I've lived in the mountains and it's a big deal when they do bridge repairs, and you happen to live on the wrong side of the bridge.  30-minute detours every day for 6-12 months suck, even in peace times.


A city would be crippled with a few major bridges down.

A bridge in Moskow would be, at least at the moment, a war crime. It would be different if the city is surrounded, but as long as there is no fight that profits from it, it's purely civilian.

Destroying infrastructure is not a war crime. Blowing up a civilian apartment complex on purpose would be, but not destroying a bridge (or refinery or rail line) that supports the war effort.

[Travis]

And Russian railroads are still in total chaos trying to find the wagons to move reinforcements and supplies to this new sector.

Hopefully the Russian RR are a target too? Take out all the locomotives possible?

Not really. The trains themselves are far behind the lines and often switch between military and civilian cargoes. Plus they're often moving targets so harder to hit.

Saw that Belarus has staged it's military along the Ukrainian border. Do they really want to do that?

The Belarussian Army was on alert and standing on its border for the entirety of 2022. Lukashenko talks tough to keep Putin off of his back, but isn't interested in actually getting involved in this war. Providing the staging bases for the initial invasion got him into trouble enough with the rest of the world.

It seems like the Russians have been saying this every day about every part of the line since Ukraine first invaded though. I didn't check for a couple days, did anything actually happen?

Russian sources have claimed secondary invasions in Belgorod, Bryansk, and Zap in the last three days. All turned out to be nothingburgers; however, the Ukrainian 3rd Assault Brigade claimed to have carved out a 2km chunk of the border positions north of Kharkiv where Russia had its summer offensive producing hundreds of Russian casualties. Nothing confirmed yet, but if I see any hard evidence I'll post it here.

I don't know what the Ukranians targeted in Moscow, but I'd think the bridges would be good targets there too. 

Bridges are very difficult to damage. They're engineered to hold countless thousands of tons of vehicles and withstand nature and time. When it comes to Ukrainian drones, the longer the distance traveled the smaller the warhead so they wouldn't be a good target around Moscow.

That airfield in Volgograd I mentioned yesterday? The attack damaged or destroyed seven planes.

https://x.com/MarcinRogowsk14/status/1826767452891742391

Ukraine also attacked a ferry that was shipping dozens of railcars of oil products from Rostov to Crimea. The cargo and the ferry are gone.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1826643115052335550?t=cIh5T6Y2EMM6FkmsQhTIiA&s=19

And in economic news, Russia has been struggling to sell bonds to keep its finances straight. Last month they cancelled at least one bond sale because nobody wanted to buy at the interest rate offered. They have 13 bond auctions scheduled for this quarter, have done five, but only reached 25% of their target.

[LennStar]

I don't know what the Ukranians targeted in Moscow, but I'd think the bridges would be good targets there too. 


I've lived in the mountains and it's a big deal when they do bridge repairs, and you happen to live on the wrong side of the bridge.  30-minute detours every day for 6-12 months suck, even in peace times.


A city would be crippled with a few major bridges down.

A bridge in Moskow would be, at least at the moment, a war crime. It would be different if the city is surrounded, but as long as there is no fight that profits from it, it's purely civilian.

Destroying infrastructure is not a war crime. Blowing up a civilian apartment complex on purpose would be, but not destroying a bridge (or refinery or rail line) that supports the war effort.

We were talking about bridges 500 miles away. They don't support the war effort - especially not in any significant way compared to their civilian use.

Refineries always do that, because nothing sucks fuel like a bunch of tanks or a fighter afterburnering away from a missile.

[Radagast]

I don't know what the Ukranians targeted in Moscow, but I'd think the bridges would be good targets there too. 

Bridges are very difficult to damage. They're engineered to hold countless thousands of tons of vehicles and withstand nature and time. When it comes to Ukrainian drones, the longer the distance traveled the smaller the warhead so they wouldn't be a good target around Moscow.

As someone who knows a bit about bridge engineering, I've been pretty impressed with how difficult they are to destroy in this war. They aren't designed for that. Bombs violate their warranty. I've been wondering how its possible, and two theories are that Soviet bridges are over built (but I doubt the Kerch bridge was), or that bridge integrity depends on the tension element, which is small, sheltered, strong, and hard to hit.

[Travis]

I don't know what the Ukranians targeted in Moscow, but I'd think the bridges would be good targets there too. 

Bridges are very difficult to damage. They're engineered to hold countless thousands of tons of vehicles and withstand nature and time. When it comes to Ukrainian drones, the longer the distance traveled the smaller the warhead so they wouldn't be a good target around Moscow.

As someone who knows a bit about bridge engineering, I've been pretty impressed with how difficult they are to destroy in this war. They aren't designed for that. Bombs violate their warranty. I've been wondering how its possible, and two theories are that Soviet bridges are over built (but I doubt the Kerch bridge was), or that bridge integrity depends on the tension element, which is small, sheltered, strong, and hard to hit.

Not an engineer, but having spent time around the weapons it seems that where you hit and with what kind of warhead matters a lot. We build bombs specifically to ruin runways for example. To drop a bridge you need thousands of pounds of explosives with at least some penetration power (but not too much), preferably on the supports rather than the spans.

When Kerch was hit about a year and a half ago with a car bomb, it essentially tossed a prefabricated bridge span into the water, but that was forklifted back into place and fully restored in a few weeks.  Rendering the bridge unusable will probably require demolitions on the supports or a lot of airstrikes. In Vietnam and Iraq we didn't cause lasting damage on highway or rail bridges unless we dropped multiple 2000 pound bombs. Last year Ukraine hit a bridge in Crimea with a StormShadow which has two warheads one on top of the other. The first one penetrated the bridge, but the second exploded in the water below the hole it just made wasting most of the explosive force. The Antonovsky bridge which connects Kherson to southern Ukraine was hit about 100 times by GMLRS rockets which are designed for vehicles and buildings. The spans were penetrated almost every time with basketball-sized holes, but were patched with sheet metal. The bridge was still standing, but it took weeks to make it too dangerous to use. The Russians demo'd the supports on their way out and dropped the entire thing in seconds.

[Radagast]

My perspective is that the weakest part of a bridge is the center of the span. In all cases it is held up by just a few square inches of steel (or a keystone), and there's no real way around that. It's not over designed at all. Comparatively, the supports are a mass of poured concrete and rebar, the least critical area, and the easiest part to over design.

My belief is it has nothing to to with the bridge and everything to do with accuracy of weapons. You literally need to hit an area of a few square inches of high strength steel to target the weakest part of a bridge. To miss by a millimeter is to miss by a mile. "Over pressure" won't do anything, and tiny fragments will just glance off. So you target the "supports" because they are large and easy to hit and overpressure is somewhat effective against concrete, even though these are also the least critical and most overdesigned part.

In Ukraine news, I don't recall hearing of Russia shooting S-300 missiles at Ukraine recently. Maybe they realized they need them all to defend themselves going forward.

[LennStar]

It seems that Ukraine thinks the Russians have stretched themselves enough into Kursk with sending 60K troops there.
The frontline in Kursk seems to be at a (temporarily) standstill. But in Charkiv Ukraine reclaimed some territory. And a counter attack in Niu York of all places seems to have taken that place (though I am pretty sure not for long).
Of course Russians are still advancing in other places, like towards the Oskil river.
The worst news for Ukraine is that there is a breakthrough south of Prokrovsk, south of Ukrainsk, which is a big danger because it is easy to create a pocket there from Krashnohorivka (under 5km from current breakthrough to the lake). 

From my understanding of the results, militarily the Kursk Special Cultural Exchange is about a 50:50 compared to defending the East with those troops. PR side the results are a definitive win for Ukraine.

----

On a technical aside there have been photos of a "hangar" tank (complete cage) with an evacuation slide on the side.  And more small drone crashing into big drones videos.

[ChpBstrd]

I was skeptical of the wisdom of the Kursk invasion, and now it looks like the strategy hasn't worked. Russia didn't redeploy forces from the Eastern fronts, and instead simply dug in to block deeper incursions into Kursk at minimal cost. Ukraine will have to redeploy their Kursk battalions to defend Pokrovsk, or to fight the breakthrough that happens after Pokrovsk falls. That will leave their remaining forces in Kursk exposed. Overall the strategy has expanded the length of the front lines Ukraine has to defend at a pre-existing numerical disadvantage.

Meanwhile, it is unclear how the Kursk territory Ukraine occupies is helping them. The narrow peninsula of land is in full drone range, preventing a larger artillery/missile setup to hit Moscow or even the city of Kursk. Recent Russian bombardments are a reminder that the incursion did nothing to deplete Putin's ability to launch rockets and drones at Ukrainian cities.

The phrase "never interrupt your opponent while they are making a mistake" summarizes the Russian response of continuing to pound out advances on the Eastern front. Ukraine should evacuate Kursk immediately after laying mines and destroying anything of military value. Then they should redeploy to dig in around the outskirks of Pokrovsk and flank the bulge leading toward it. They already gave Putin a bloody nose in Kursk, and captured many prisoners. Time to take the win and move on.

[LennStar]

I was skeptical of the wisdom of the Kursk invasion, and now it looks like the strategy hasn't worked. Russia didn't redeploy forces from the Eastern fronts,

That's simply wrong. They did. But less than Ukraine hoped, I bet.

Overall the strategy has expanded the length of the front lines Ukraine has to defend at a pre-existing numerical disadvantage. 

But if Ukraine manages to close the area they have prepared in the last 2 weeks - west of the current incursion - the frontline will have been shortened, and on Russian soil and in a favorable position at a river.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

In the Presidential debate, former President Trump was asked about hoping Ukraine wins the war, yes or no, and he repeatedly refused to answer.  While I suspected he hates Ukraine and favors Russia, his refusal to answer removed any doubt.

Iran provided Russia some missiles that the U.S. views as an escalation.  That might explain why Biden has switched to saying he's "working on it", referring to allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles.  The rumor is that Anthony Blinken is going to approve long-range targeting during his visit to Kiev.  I hope so, but I'll believe it when Ukraine hits Russian airfields deeper in Russian territory.

[LennStar]

It has been relativly quiet (hardware-wise, wetware still getting killed at astoundingly similar rates every day) on the front for about a week.

Yesterday big clashes again. Russia claims they have retaken several villages in the Kursk area. "That Ukraine guy" claims Russians have finally relocated troops from Prokorvsk. I haven't stumbled upon that somewhere else. But the advance there has stalled...

The official UK announcement is that there are now 60K Russian troops in Kursk. Of course only the smaller part is prior attack troops, but this is still a logistical problem (including spontanous severe temperature elevations), not to mention that many of those troops are not supposed to actually fight and such have low battle worth. Ukraine might actually still advance even if outnumbered that much.

If true I will up my "military success" rate for Ukraine in regards to the Kursk attack to 80%.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Another measure of success is if Russian troops take the entire Donbas, which would be a big morale loss for Ukraine.  Part of the reason for the Kursk incursion was to take pressure off troops to the south.

Another aspect of the war is financial, with Russia devoting 8% of GDP to the war.  Unfortunately, it seems that the IMF (International Murder Fund?), plans to aid Russia.

"Nine European countries protest against IMF resuming missions to Russia"
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/nine-european-countries-protest-against-imf-resuming-missions-to-russia/

[zolotiyeruki]

A few days ago, the Russian gov't increased the benchmark interest rate to 19%. Ouch.

[Travis]

Massive drone attack on an ammo depot in Tver region of Russia. TASS reported "some fires due to falling debris." See for yourself.

https://x.com/evgen1232007/status/1836239353560895947

https://x.com/alternative_war/status/1836255833652359480

The complex contains dozens of underground storage areas for artillery and missiles. I'm told the complex can hold about 30k tons of munitions. The photo is from NASA's FIRMS satellite which is designed to look for forest fires, but has been getting used in the war to chart battlefield explosions. The complex is a couple miles across.

[LennStar]

It does seem to really go according to Ukrainian plans in the North. The Russians made the attack with good quality airborne units. And while the Russians got some land back, it was mostly hard to defeat positions. At the better ones their offense blunted.

Why is that important?
Because the Ukrainian incursion towards Glushkovo has advanced further. The most likely scenario is now that they press on along the railway lines to Korenevo - directly into the back of those blunted airbrone units. If Ukrainians succeed (which will be hard, no doubt), they would not only force a retreat under fire from 2 sides, but also encircle the Russian troops south of that railway line.

However for that to be really bad Ukraine would need to take or at least go around Korenevo, which does not look like it will be possible in the near future. (There is a village encircled still fighting, I guess that is what is stopping them for now.) Mabye the Ukrainians are feigning there or regrouping, or really stopped, but the Kursk front has been very static on the Eastern side for a week now (or Ukraine even losing small bits).

Please keep in mind that the mud season will begin shortly. Since all roads in this region are mud, the position everyone is in will likely decide how it will go throughout the next half year. If Ukraine can take Korenevo, and press the attack in the south to the river at least at one point, the whole incursion will be a success.
If Ukraine fails to do this, it's likely they have to retreat (partly).

But that the Kursk operation was a success can be seen by the fact that Putin has just ordered to increase army size by another 180K to nearly 2.4M.
This is not going to help the Russian indutry with it's labor shortage and the inflation.

[zolotiyeruki]

Massive drone attack on an ammo depot in Tver region of Russia. TASS reported "some fires due to falling debris." See for yourself.

https://x.com/evgen1232007/status/1836239353560895947

https://x.com/alternative_war/status/1836255833652359480

The complex contains dozens of underground storage areas for artillery and missiles. I'm told the complex can hold about 30k tons of munitions. The photo is from NASA's FIRMS satellite which is designed to look for forest fires, but has been getting used in the war to chart battlefield explosions. The complex is a couple miles across.

For context, this ammo dump is a similar distance from Ukraine as Moscow is.  It sits about 230 miles west of Moscow and 240 miles south of St. Petersburg, and roughly 300 miles from the nearest point of Ukraine.  And it's HUGE--roughly 3 miles by .75 miles.  Russia is claiming that over 100 drones were involved in the strike, and despite all of them being shot down, some debris hit the ammo dump. :\  There are estimates that it can hold ~30,000 tons of munitions, and that it's used to store everything from ballistic missiles to unguided rockets to artillery shells.

The photos and videos are showing absolutely massive explosions and massive clouds of smoke, and some videos were taken at night, while others are during the day, so this thing's been cooking off secondary explosions for a good, long while.  It'll be interesting to see satellite imagery in a few days, once the smoke clears.

If Ukraine did indeed attack with 100 drones, that's a pretty massive attack.

EDIT:  I'm also seeing reports that it was only six (!) drones.  That's a little hard to believe, but after seeing some videos showing the sizes of the explosions, I can imagine burning debris raining down from one area of the depot to another.  If it was indeed a mere six drones?  Man, talk about a fantastic ROI!

[LennStar]

And worth every single one of them. I guess they wanted to make sure to see some good fireworks.

[zolotiyeruki]

It seems Russia's been storing lots of munitions, densely packed and out in the open, for months: https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1836371959178838316  That would help explain how Ukraine made a big kaboom even if they didn't penetrate the buried stockpiles.

[markbike528CBX]

Massive drone attack on an ammo depot in Tver region of Russia. TASS reported "some fires due to falling debris." See for yourself.

https://x.com/evgen1232007/status/1836239353560895947

https://x.com/alternative_war/status/1836255833652359480

The complex contains dozens of underground storage areas for artillery and missiles. I'm told the complex can hold about 30k tons of munitions. The photo is from NASA's FIRMS satellite which is designed to look for forest fires, but has been getting used in the war to chart battlefield explosions. The complex is a couple miles across.

For context, this ammo dump is a similar distance from Ukraine as Moscow is.  It sits about 230 miles west of Moscow and 240 miles south of St. Petersburg, and roughly 300 miles from the nearest point of Ukraine.  And it's HUGE--roughly 3 miles by .75 miles.  Russia is claiming that over 100 drones were involved in the strike, and despite all of them being shot down, some debris hit the ammo dump. :\  There are estimates that it can hold ~30,000 tons of munitions, and that it's used to store everything from ballistic missiles to unguided rockets to artillery shells.

The photos and videos are showing absolutely massive explosions and massive clouds of smoke, and some videos were taken at night, while others are during the day, so this thing's been cooking off secondary explosions for a good, long while.  It'll be interesting to see satellite imagery in a few days, once the smoke clears.

If Ukraine did indeed attack with 100 drones, that's a pretty massive attack.

EDIT:  I'm also seeing reports that it was only six (!) drones.  That's a little hard to believe, but after seeing some videos showing the sizes of the explosions, I can imagine burning debris raining down from one area of the depot to another.  If it was indeed a mere six drones?  Man, talk about a fantastic ROI!

A little bit of debris is not going to affect these above-ground, dirt covered (so I guess technically underground) bunkers. 
The dirt itself would stop stuff, nearly no matter how badly the bunkers are constructed.

Those drones were a lot tougher than your usual octacopter.  Getting through the dirt and the underlying concrete is tough.
I would suggest that the number of drones is somewhere between 6 and 100.   On various videos, I saw more than 6 distinct fires.
No matter what the drones were, it would take at least one for each bunker exploded.    Those bunkers are spaced and likely designed to blow without nearby bunkers being affected.
I'm not sure that you could physically overpack a bunker to get a big enough bang to start others.  But this is Putin's Russia, so maybe.
There is a the section that is not forested was built post 1986 and is aboveground and is separated by earth berms.
A newer post-2013 section is the earth covered bunkers.  Per Google Earth.

Additional pics/coverage.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/18/ukraine-drone-attack-on-russian-arms-depot-toropets

On the other hand, maybe some "Hezbollah-Israeli" pagers and cell phones?

[ChpBstrd]

A few days ago, the Russian gov't increased the benchmark interest rate to 19%. Ouch.

This is the most real metric of progress in the war. Russia is printing money to finance the war, while chewing up their own tax base. The devaluation process will continue until a tipping point arrives. Then it is economic collapse and hopefully the end of the Putin regime.

Afghanistan repeated.

[zolotiyeruki]

At least one explosion was large enough to register as a magnitude 2.5 earthquake, so I'm not sure even a dirt-covered storage bunker would be strong enough. Maybe.  The shockwave was *very* impressive.

Two thirds of the ammo depot appears to have been sheet-steel buildings surrounded by revetments, so exploding/falling debris from an adjacent building could very well start another building ablaze, especially since several videos showed just that sort of debris getting flung everywhere.

[Michael in ABQ]

Massive drone attack on an ammo depot in Tver region of Russia. TASS reported "some fires due to falling debris." See for yourself.

https://x.com/evgen1232007/status/1836239353560895947

https://x.com/alternative_war/status/1836255833652359480

The complex contains dozens of underground storage areas for artillery and missiles. I'm told the complex can hold about 30k tons of munitions. The photo is from NASA's FIRMS satellite which is designed to look for forest fires, but has been getting used in the war to chart battlefield explosions. The complex is a couple miles across.

For context, this ammo dump is a similar distance from Ukraine as Moscow is.  It sits about 230 miles west of Moscow and 240 miles south of St. Petersburg, and roughly 300 miles from the nearest point of Ukraine.  And it's HUGE--roughly 3 miles by .75 miles.  Russia is claiming that over 100 drones were involved in the strike, and despite all of them being shot down, some debris hit the ammo dump. :\  There are estimates that it can hold ~30,000 tons of munitions, and that it's used to store everything from ballistic missiles to unguided rockets to artillery shells.

The photos and videos are showing absolutely massive explosions and massive clouds of smoke, and some videos were taken at night, while others are during the day, so this thing's been cooking off secondary explosions for a good, long while.  It'll be interesting to see satellite imagery in a few days, once the smoke clears.

If Ukraine did indeed attack with 100 drones, that's a pretty massive attack.

EDIT:  I'm also seeing reports that it was only six (!) drones.  That's a little hard to believe, but after seeing some videos showing the sizes of the explosions, I can imagine burning debris raining down from one area of the depot to another.  If it was indeed a mere six drones?  Man, talk about a fantastic ROI!

A little bit of debris is not going to affect these above-ground, dirt covered (so I guess technically underground) bunkers. 
The dirt itself would stop stuff, nearly no matter how badly the bunkers are constructed.

Those drones were a lot tougher than your usual octacopter.  Getting through the dirt and the underlying concrete is tough.
I would suggest that the number of drones is somewhere between 6 and 100.   On various videos, I saw more than 6 distinct fires.
No matter what the drones were, it would take at least one for each bunker exploded.    Those bunkers are spaced and likely designed to blow without nearby bunkers being affected.
I'm not sure that you could physically overpack a bunker to get a big enough bang to start others.  But this is Putin's Russia, so maybe.
There is a the section that is not forested was built post 1986 and is aboveground and is separated by earth berms.
A newer post-2013 section is the earth covered bunkers.  Per Google Earth.

Additional pics/coverage.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/18/ukraine-drone-attack-on-russian-arms-depot-toropets

On the other hand, maybe some "Hezbollah-Israeli" pagers and cell phones?

Yes, earth-covered magazines are supposed to be designed so that any explosion in one can't affect the others nearby. However, that requires them to be designed, built, and operated to certain standards. Given the corruption in Russia I'm guessing they failed on one or more of those aspects. Either built them too close together or without enough overburden or stored more explosives than it was designed to contain.

I worked with several individuals who were experts in these as a DoD civilian and have been inside dozens of them. All of them were much smaller than the ones Russia built here. The Russian ones are 100' x 135' or 13,500 square feet and are 330 feet apart. Looking at some on a US base they are much smaller at roughly 1,000-2,000 SF and spaced 200-400 feet apart. Of course, many of the Russian ones also appear to just be metal buildings. Those might be used to store something like rifle ammunition versus actual high explosives like missiles, bombs, artillery shells, etc.

[Travis]

Before

https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870477639242154

After

https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870480411717694
https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870482538418273
https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870485998543116
https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870488057893189
https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870490004066569

[zolotiyeruki]

Before

https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870477639242154

After

https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870480411717694
https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870482538418273
https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870485998543116
https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870488057893189
https://x.com/MT_Anderson/status/1836870490004066569

Holy smokes, they hit the jackpot.  I'm not sure there's a single building or bunker left intact.  Amazing.

[LennStar]

Ukraine managed to get a sizeable chunk of Charkiv near Vovchansk back. That also makes defense there easier.

THe fights in Pokrovsk are still going on very hard. At the moment the Russians do not advance, but that is likely just that phase fo their attack. A: soften up with arty, B) send in small infantry groups and C) if they manage to find a foothold, send in bigger troops.
The current aim there is to flank the city.
The same goes for Vuhledar, where ground is lost (very slowly) around the city.

[LennStar]

In Vovchansk the Russian encircled troops in the aggregate plant that have been sitting there for month only supported by drones have now lost, Ukrainians are claiming. With the recent land win on the flank and the totally destroyed town not offering much cover, I suspect the Russians will be forced to leave eventually if that is true.
Strategically unimportant, but morally a big point.

Far more important is that another 2 big ammo depots have been hit by drones (don't be confused, one at the same town Toropets than the first strike, which is still burning.). No sorry, the drones have been intercepted, but falling debris has ignited the storages. Ukrainians are joking about naming the next drone "Falling Debris" so that Russians are forced to tell the truth at least once.

At the maximum the 3 hits might have cost Russia a whole month of ammo use (all weapon types). Or in other words more than 1/10 of all (big depot) storage capacity.

On hte tactical levels we have the usual Russian incremental advacnements on all fronts, especially around Niu-York (which now has completely fallen) and towards Prokrovsk.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

In Vovchansk the Russian encircled troops in the aggregate plant that have been sitting there for month only supported by drones have now lost, Ukrainians are claiming. With the recent land win on the flank and the totally destroyed town not offering much cover, I suspect the Russians will be forced to leave eventually if that is true.
Strategically unimportant, but morally a big point.

I've seen photographs of smiling, captured Russian troops.  Keep in mind Russia has recruited prisoners, then sent them to the front to die.  They are very likely to get better treatment as Ukraine's prisoners of war.  In situations where troops might be captured, I expect Ukraine to be more successful than expected.

Ukrainians are joking about naming the next drone "Falling Debris" so that Russians are forced to tell the truth at least once.

Hilarious, and quite appropriate.  Previously the builders of that storage depot claimed it wouldn't be harmed by a nuclear blast.  Maybe they can name another drone "Not Nuclear Blast"?

[LennStar]

Maybe get really creative. What about "harmelss rain" or "Putin's incompetence"? "Not a NATO drone" might also be appreciated by the Russians. Or "Too Much Vodka".

[MustacheAndaHalf]

From the news, Ukraine has hit 2 smaller Russian storage facilities with missiles and ammunition, for a total of 3 destroyed by drones.  Ukrainian President Zelensky will be speaking with President Biden, and I assume he will mention the destroyed facilities, and how more could be targeted with long-range U.S. weapons.

Zelensky also visited a factory in Pennsylvania where howitzer shells are being made.  It is cool seeing the military leader thanking U.S. workers for the munitions that have "saved millions of Ukrainian lives" in his words.

Each time Russia draws a red line, it gets crossed and nothing happens.  A few days after President Biden's disastrous debate, he tried to explain why Ukraine is restricted from long range attacks in Russia (with U.S. weapons systems).  He said they could attack Moscow - but he could just tell Ukraine not to attack Moscow if that was the problem.  Jake Sullivan (National Security Advisor) is calling the shots, so until he gets replaced, I don't expect U.S. policy to change.  I hope Biden is pressured enough to stop hampering Ukraine, but it seems unlikely.

[LennStar]

Look like the "fortress city" of Vuhledar, which has held out all the time, will finally fall in short time. It's already surrounded by 3/4 and the only supply road left under fire of Russians.
In the case of Vuhledar (at least I hope) the Ukrainians should have prepared and good to defense positions just a few km inlands, so it's not like it is an immense strategic victory, but it will certainly be a big point on the morale scale. I think it's the last position from 2022 that still remains Ukrainian.

Generally speaking have the Russians, at least in many southern and eastern areas, stopped the relentless glorious frontal assaults and are trying to encircle strongpoints. They still do meat waves to set foot into new areas.

After a relativly low activity week, the Russian pushes are now strong again with ~20 tanks and 40-50 other armored vehicles per day lost. This is a pattern that was common in the last 2 month and I think it shows a more conservative approach (and probably logistics problems). Russians are actually looking, planning and thinking. It took long time, but their officers have become better. Or maybe all those incompetents who had the position because of bribes got themselves killed by their incompetence. Survival of the fittest.   

[LennStar]

Look like the "fortress city" of Vuhledar, which has held out all the time, will finally fall in short time. It's already surrounded by 3/4 and the only supply road left under fire of Russians.

Pretty sure it has now happened, at least that there is an active retreat from the city itself with the southern part in Russian hands. It's incedible how long that small town was hold.

[zolotiyeruki]

Look like the "fortress city" of Vuhledar, which has held out all the time, will finally fall in short time. It's already surrounded by 3/4 and the only supply road left under fire of Russians.

Pretty sure it has now happened, at least that there is an active retreat from the city itself with the southern part in Russian hands. It's incedible how long that small town was hold.

What's remarkable is that if you look it up on a map, it's actually a pretty small (albeit dense) town--far less than a single square mile.  And Russia has lost a LOT of men trying to take it over the past two and a half years.

[LennStar]

Look like the "fortress city" of Vuhledar, which has held out all the time, will finally fall in short time. It's already surrounded by 3/4 and the only supply road left under fire of Russians.

Pretty sure it has now happened, at least that there is an active retreat from the city itself with the southern part in Russian hands. It's incedible how long that small town was hold.

What's remarkable is that if you look it up on a map, it's actually a pretty small (albeit dense) town--far less than a single square mile.  And Russia has lost a LOT of men trying to take it over the past two and a half years.

Vuhledar had 14K inhabitants in 2021. Russia lost more soldiers trying to take it. I am actually surprised so many building (skeletons) are still standing.

[LennStar]

Long time since any update, but that does not mean nothing happened. What happens is the same though.

Ukraine is steadily, albeit slowly, losing ground on every front, including Kursk. There Russia has now amassed 50K troops, outnumbering the 10K+ troops of Ukraine by at least 3:1. In the last days at the northern most areas, a back-and-forth fighting happened.

[LaineyAZ]

Tough situation.  Is it time to consider a compromise to end this?

I know Zelensky does not want to cede any ground permanently, but how long can Ukraine withstand this?  I'm not sure if there's any negotiations going on behind the scenes but there has to be a way out.  It's disgusting to think of appeasing Putin, though.

[zolotiyeruki]

Tough situation.  Is it time to consider a compromise to end this?

I know Zelensky does not want to cede any ground permanently, but how long can Ukraine withstand this?  I'm not sure if there's any negotiations going on behind the scenes but there has to be a way out.  It's disgusting to think of appeasing Putin, though.

IMO it's a game of attrition and time.  At current rates, Russia is on track to run out of armored vehicles and artillery in the next 18 months or so.  Their overwhelming advantage in artillery (often 10:1 or more) over Ukraine is a major factor in their success over the past 2.5 years.  If you consider how slowly Russia is gaining ground, and at what cost in men and materiel, it's entirely possible that in 18 months, the two sides will be equally matched.

On the home front, Russia's economy is putting on a brave face, but the status quo can't continue forever.  They've stripped a lot of working-age men away from civilian work to support (or directly participate in) this war.  Their oil and gas exports are way down, and their military exports are basically nil at this point.

If we can just get our knuckle-headed politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to show a little spine and provide Ukraine with the arms they need...

[Radagast]

The most ideal situation would have been if Biden had equipped and allowed Ukraine to destroy all Russian targets on Ukrainian territory in 2022, or even spring 2023 so they could plausibly have made it to the sea of Azov. However he was determined to let the war drag out until Ukraine compromised or Russia withdrew by their own decision rather than by force, so Ukraine's current approach IMO is as good as it gets as the next least worst solution. Don't let ignorant media types influenced by Russia get to your head: the territory Ukraine is losing is insignificant. What Russia is doing is really really dumb and it is costing them terribly. The best case for Ukraine is to intelligently cede little bits of ground here and there, seeking to maximize Russian losses relative to their own. Russia continuing to attack at any cost is the gift that keeps on giving, and it's getting more costly as they run out of their best and most available equipment. They are currently averaging about 1,200 casualties per day, and the trend has been increasing. ISW estimates the current force will culminate within a few months, but that Russia will continue to attack even if they can't accomplish anything. Pointless but costly Russian attacks are ultimately what will force them to give up.

[LennStar]

Don't let ignorant media types influenced by Russia get to your head: the territory Ukraine is losing is insignificant. What Russia is doing is really really dumb and it is costing them terribly.

Yes and yes. %-wise that area is nearly nothing. But miliary speaking, it's also where the best defenses are. Also Ukraine is also losing a lot of people.
And civilian speaking every week it's another village that is completely destroyed and needs to be rebuild. Not to mention all that agrarian land that is mined-infested and probably poinsenous by all that chemical explosions.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Depending on the U.S. election in 3 weeks, Ukraine will either get a similar level of support (Harris), or no further support (Trump).  Putin will either see the status quo, or get a huge advantage, so it makes sense he's waiting to see what happens.

On Fareed Zakaria GPS, the host asked the former head of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Hass) about the restrictions on Ukraine.  Fareed mentioned that the Biden administration doesn't seem to think those restrictions matter much, and that Russia would just move artillery further back into Russia.  Mister Hass disagreed, saying the artillery would be pushed outside its effective range.  He believes Ukraine should be "unshackled" and allow to target Russian bases and military (perhaps with limits on Moscow and civilian targets).  I hope that raises the issue to a wider audience.

[LennStar]

On Fareed Zakaria GPS, the host asked the former head of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Hass) about the restrictions on Ukraine.  Fareed mentioned that the Biden administration doesn't seem to think those restrictions matter much, and that Russia would just move artillery further back into Russia. 

That host should be fired - or whoever set someone on the seat who clearly knows less about the war than someone who was never in any army and never hold a gun knew in 2020.
Not to mention that simple artillery would not even be targeted by those weapons.

(perhaps with limits on Moscow and civilian targets)

Civilan targets are not allowed by international law anyway duh.
You might forget that in the face of Russia and Israel not caring about that at all (And Russia intentionally attacking civilian targets), but so far, at least Ukraine does.

[LennStar]

Russia managed it!

According to Ukrainian counting, they topped 9000 Russian tanks and 18'000 AFV today - exactly a 1:2 ratio!

Artillery systems are still 10 days away from 20K though, so only 4/5 stars.

That is still only ~60% of what Germany lost in WWII, but those tanks were tiny compared to today, so in metal it's probably already more. And of course only halve of the time.

edit: Reportedly the first 18 North Korean soldiers of the 3000 soldier batallion have already surrendered/fled (article said surrendered but also that Russians are hunting them).

[MustacheAndaHalf]

On Fareed Zakaria GPS, the host asked the former head of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Hass) about the restrictions on Ukraine.  Fareed mentioned that the Biden administration doesn't seem to think those restrictions matter much, and that Russia would just move artillery further back into Russia. 

That host should be fired - or whoever set someone on the seat who clearly knows less about the war than someone who was never in any army and never hold a gun knew in 2020.
Not to mention that simple artillery would not even be targeted by those weapons.

What are you talking about?

Ukraine's President Zelensky has stated one of the five (public) pillars of his "victory plan" is the lifting of restrictions on using weapons deep in Russia.  Ukrainian soldiers have said the same.

[LennStar]

On Fareed Zakaria GPS, the host asked the former head of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Hass) about the restrictions on Ukraine.  Fareed mentioned that the Biden administration doesn't seem to think those restrictions matter much, and that Russia would just move artillery further back into Russia. 

That host should be fired - or whoever set someone on the seat who clearly knows less about the war than someone who was never in any army and never hold a gun knew in 2020.
Not to mention that simple artillery would not even be targeted by those weapons.

What are you talking about?

Ukraine's President Zelensky has stated one of the five (public) pillars of his "victory plan" is the lifting of restrictions on using weapons deep in Russia.  Ukrainian soldiers have said the same.

Yes, but you don't spend one of a few hundred long-range missiles to destroy some artillery piece (of thousands) that your normal artillery may also hit.
You use those long range capabilities for depots (as Ukraine has done with their drones), refineries, barracks... not some random artillery.

[Radagast]

I'd rather be allied with North Korea than any European nation, and only behind the US by a small margin mostly because of size. I've been very disappointed with democracies willingness to defend themselves recently, in every respect.

If Trump wins, and what the Baltics, Nordics, and Poland have been saying is true, they may need to become directly involved in the war in 2025 or else be picked off one at a time over the next decade.

Hopefully Harris wins, and makes me glad to see Biden's back.

[LennStar]

There has been open talk (including Ukrainian high military) about the Eastern front having collapsed. I would not call it that way, but clearly the emphasis in fighting retreat has changed from fighting to retreat.

In that way it's very questionable if the Kursk incursion was a good thing militarily. Those troops would surely have increased defense capabilities. But I think it was the realization that the front was wavering that was part of the reason for the incursion - the hope that it would motivate more Western help. That would also explain the strange... everything around the "victory plan".

On the other hand Putin might have made a strategic error in deploying North Koreans. It was definitely also meant as a signal to the West that he can still escalate - but so can South Korea. SK so far has not send any offensive materiel to Ukraine. And they were clearly not amused by the involvement of NK.

Why does that matter? Ukraine has some 105mm artillery systems and got several donated too, including the "beta testing" of a Humvee based mobile howitzer. Talk about mobile artillery there...
Interstingly SK has done something simliar to keep their 105mm alive longer than originally planned (they were due to phase out some years ago). Mostly because SK still has literally millions of shells on stock.

If SK decides to ship a few hundred 105mm systems and let's say 2 million shells to Ukraine, it would be a great help.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

LennStar - I think I mislead you earlier, when I focused on artillery and didn't mention other targets in Russia.  To me, each reason Biden gives for not unshackling Ukraine is flawed.  Months ago he was asked about it, and mentioned not wanting Ukraine to attack Moscow.  He could simply unshackle Ukraine except for Moscow - his point didn't make sense.  And a couple weeks ago, the Biden Administration said Russia's artillery would just be moved back, so lifting restrictions wouldn't matter.  But that would place artillery out of effective range.  That was what I recalled from that specific conversation, but there was much more that I didn't recall/mention.

Russia also has bombers located within range of Ukraine's artillery, and those are prime targets.  When Biden was considering lifting Ukraine's restrictions, Russia moved its planes out of range.  There are various military targets in Russia that Ukraine could hit were restrictions lifted.  Ideally, those restrictions would be lifted secretly, and Russia would discover it during a surprise attack.

---
Radagast - It's a bit odd to favor North Korea's military exports over any European country.  The U.S. is largest arms exporter in the world - followed by France (11%).  After China (5%), you have Germany (4%), Italy (4%), and Spain (3%).  Not sure if you include the UK (3%) or not, but European countries are significant arms exporters.  A country that wanted to receive weapons would be better served by allying with a major European power, instead of North Korea.

[Dancin'Dog]

I'm no expert, but it seems that cutting off Russian oil production & distribution should be a top priority.  None of Russia's allies are donating anything, oil is paying for it all.  How much of the oil infrastructure is within drone range?  Where do the tanker ship dock for refilling?  That all seems like large stationary or slow moving targets that should be easy to damage, if within range.