Ukraine

Are they having a telethon to raise funds for a new bridge?

Are they having a telethon to raise funds for a new bridge?

I honestly would not be surprised if they were.

nickc
Full Member
It’s remarkable, given the concentration of forces applied by the Russians, just how little they’ve achieved in the last 90 days. They’ve been able to mass their ground forces in this one small area (in relation to the rest of Ukraine), and the Ukrainians have managed to fight the Russian forces to near enough a standstill. So, the Russians have managed to advance about 6-10 miles, it’s very intense, very violent, 10’s of 1000’s of artillery everyday, sound and fury…lots of casualties on both sides, but very little gained.

Stalemate is the obvious conclusions of this war, have been for aa long time, imo. For the Russians I actually think Kherson city is basically bargaining chip come negotiations if they ever happen. The Russians will want to keep presence on that side of the river as it'll give them the further threat of attacking/illusion of being able to attack Mykolaiv and potentially on to Odesa.

Don’t look at it as a bridge and a city, consider how Kherson controls the Dnieper river. The river does what rivers do and joins major cities, the UKR is cutting another, bigger, logistical route that gives access from the sea through Kherson and Dnipro to Kyiv
In addition, if Russia controls the river then they have a defensible border for the eastern 1/3+ of Ukraine

Looking at the geography of the area, that's why I think the bridge needs to stay open for the Ukrainians, as you mentioned if that bridge comes down, it gives the Russians an easy line to defend even. It would weaken my hypothesis above mind you, but it would also weaken Ukraine's hopes of taking back the rest of the Kherson Oblast and even on to Crimea.

So short term destroying the bridge is a gain, but long term not so much I think.

Well unless the Ukrainians have the ability to build their own bridge, but I don't see how construction efforts would be possible by either side, under attack.

Looking at the geography of the area, that’s why I think the bridge needs to stay open for the Ukrainians, as you mentioned if that bridge comes down, it gives the Russians an easy line to defend even

Except Ukrainian forces have much longer reach weapons.
Additionally it seems that Russian air defence is being snipped bit by bit.
I wonder if the reverse is true - Ukraine could create simple buffer zone against the river. Anything that moves = big bang time.

matt_outandabout
Full Member

Except Ukrainian forces have much longer reach weapons.

So how come the Russians are able to bomb every city in Ukraine? The Himars are good, but the Russians also have long range capability. The himars level the playing field a bit more than anything.

Would be a fierce battle anyhow, cause the russians will want to keep that side of the river, due to the Crimea canal.

If the Ukrainians can take that side of the river, I will actually change my thoughts from stalemate to Ukraine are winning, cause I think keeping that side is definitely one of the key Russian war aims.

The Russians have/had huge stockpiles and are indiscriminately bombing cities. The Ukrainian response is targeted attacks to be more effective.

The premise is that you don't need to be accurate when you're just hitting a huge target and collateral damage is not on their minds.

Stalemate is the obvious conclusions of this war, have been for aa long time, imo.

I defo wish editing lasted longer than 15 minutes on here! 😆

So how come the Russians are able to bomb every city in Ukraine?

They are using cruise missiles to bomb cities. As I understand it, their guidance systems are fairly crude compared to U.S. weapons and they can't be quickly retargeted. That means they can hit static targets like buildings but can't be used to attack convoys and the like. They are also very expensive and Russia doesn't have a big stockpile so they are really just using them as terror weapons. They are also using heavy anti-aircraft missiles to attack land targets, which is a sign of desperation.

The GPS guided rockets the Ukrainians received from the U.S. are extremely accurate and can be quickly reprogrammed so they are much more useful for precision strikes

So how come the Russians are able to bomb every city in Ukraine?

They may have reach, but lack accuracy it seems.

They don't need to be accurate to cause untold terror and have an awful destabilising effect.

The Russian H bombs were similarly crude. They had huge payloads so it didn't matter if it landed on the Houses of Parliament or in Docklands or Orpington- everything would be destroyed within a huge radius

I get the importance of accuracy, but we are talking about destroying and rebuilding a bridge here. It doesn't really take precision guided munitions to stop a construction project. In particular, one that has to span around half a km at minimum.

It doesn’t really take precision guided munitions to stop a construction project.

One of the things with HIMARs is that Russian officers and engineering teams know that it has pinpoint accuracy and that they are key targets. Killing the engineers and destroying their equipment will do more harm to the Russians than just destroying one bridge.

It doesn’t really take precision guided munitions to stop a construction project.

Russian troops of all kinds now know that individual vehicles or houses can be targeted with awesome precision, within very short spaces of time, with one strike/warhead/shell. They know that drones and satellites are watching 24/7. They know that the GPS artillery cannot be stopped by air defences, and even HIMARS is difficult to stop. They know that the Russian air force is a chocolate fireguard.

It's a very foolish or drunk Russian soldier who steps out with bridge repair spade in hand or stands next to a radar or meets his leaders in a captured building.

That's what the accuracy gets you.

Stalemate is the obvious conclusions of this war, have been for aa long time, imo.

I think we all need to see if the Ukrainians can mount a counter-offensive before you can make those sorts of claims TBH.

Yeah, but the opposite is true if the ukrainians do push them back. I'm not really sure you are getting my point here. That actually destroying that bridge would be tantamount to a change in war aims for the Ukrainians.

nickc
Full Member
Stalemate is the obvious conclusions of this war, have been for aa long time, imo.

I think we all need to see if the Ukrainians can mount a counter-offensive before you can make those sorts of claims TBH.

Agreed, but we've been waiting on it for a while.

I dont think in the grand scheme of things its really that long is it?

They need to mobilise, train, arm, build up the logisitics, then have all the preparations done beyond all that. Ive no idea how long that takes but longer than 6 months to set the conditions for a genuine counter doesn't seem unreasonable.

They are also using heavy anti-aircraft missiles to attack land targets, which is a sign of desperation.

Absolutely. The Russian S300 and 400 ground-to-air missiles are long-range but aren't accurate against ground targets and they don't need much of an explosive charge to damage an aluminium or CF skinned aircraft.
They've been used as a terror weapon with awful consequences but this points to three things:
Russia doesn't have anything more suitable
They wouldn't be effective against troops in armoured vehicles or dug in
They can't achieve much against western missile attacks and drones

Stalemate is the obvious conclusions of this war, have been for aa long time, imo.

There's a whole range of plausible outcomes. A stalemate is one, but where the frontlines are is a different question. At some point Ukraine will attempt an offensive operation to push Russia back. How successful that will be is unknowable but my money is on Ukraine winning back at least some territory. It's possible that Ukraine will push Russian forces back to the Russian border and then it will stalemate, it's possible that it will stalemate roughly along the current frontlines. It's also possible that the Russian forces will collapse like they did in the north, but it's also possible that the Ukrainian offensive will be largely unsuccessful. At this point, predictions about the outcome are little more than guesses.

This is unconfirmed but at some point we will be seeing a Ukrainian counteroffensive like this:

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1550437862918819840

dup.

. It’s possible that Ukraine will push Russian forces back to the Russian border and then it will stalemate,

That is not Stalemate. More what you'd call Checkmate. 😆

piemonster
Free Member
I dont think in the grand scheme of things its really that long is it?

They need to mobilise, train, arm, build up the logisitics, then have all the preparations done beyond all that. Ive no idea how long that takes but longer than 6 months to set the conditions for a genuine counter doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Could be right, aye. If you go back a month or 2 though, the chat was it would be happening around now. But maybe it is starting. I dunno. Maybe this himar ability is the start of it. Hopefully, time will tell.

Well, theres what gets said, and whats actually true.

For a while now the chat im seeing, ultimately sourced from Ukraine, is August.

Although im not sure why theyd announce it well in advance beyond domestic propaganda.

Although im not sure why theyd announce it well in advance beyond domestic propaganda.

Ukraine (and the U.S.) have been brilliant at playing mind games with the Russians. An announcement like that will put the Russians on edge, they also know that there will be a Ukrainian offensive somewhere, sometime, but Ukraine still gets to choose where and when.

They’ve been used as a terror weapon with awful consequences but this points to three things:
Russia doesn’t have anything more suitable
They wouldn’t be effective against troops in armoured vehicles or dug in
They can’t achieve much against western missile attacks and drones

4) Russian troops are frightened, unskilled and ordered to fire. So they point in vaguely the right direction and press 'go'. Who's going to check too closely where they land - and if they do, blame the 1980's kit they are using.

This is unconfirmed but at some point we will be seeing a Ukrainian counteroffensive like this:

The Russians "bleeding"? As the chess grandmaster Tartakower said - "moral victories don't count".This O'Brien guy has been predicting encirclement of Russian units for weeks. Last time I read (before I un-followed him on Twitter) it was in Donbas, and near Kharkiv. Let's see what actually happens - I'd love to be wrong!

I think thay Twitter post is already 3rd hand and extrapolated by the time hes posted it.

Admittedly, i got that from Twitter....

From relatively early on, credible sources have had the Ukrainians saying mid-late August for counter attack. Always wise to make sure logistics is taken care of before trundling in. Just ask Monty.

Anyway, RA have depended up until now on old, relatively dumb, artillery and a neolithic logistics set up. UA are busy dismantling that. As has been said the difference between the "drop it on a sixpence from 50miles" HIMARS and the RU fire and hope artillery is night and day. Any Russian soldier worth his or her salt won't be going anywhere near an ammo dump, command centre, radar, big gun or that bridge. To conflate the Russians' fairly randomly sending missiles and artillery into crowded cities, with the UA's ability to inflict surgical strikes on high value targets from 50miles, is to be somewhat missing the point.

In addition, when the RA have 1000s of fired up UA coming at them, and they no longer have the cover of their artillery, whilst the UA are dropping highly targeted rounds on them, it'll be interesting to see how keen they are to stick around and get killed..

In terms of that bridge. I suspect the UA haven't destroyed it completely for a reason. Equally I suspect they know the Russians will try and destroy it as and when..

Of course the real way to destroy a bridge like that is to mine it. Wouldn't want to be the RA sappers deputised to lay the charges though. Trying to blow it up with artillery is difficult, especially so if any artillery near enough to have a chance of doing the job is being obliterated by counter battery fire..

RU have depended up until now on old, relatively dumb, artillery and a neolithic logistics set up.

Sure, but take a look at a map. Huge crescent of nasty red colour where the Russians have occupied. At a cost? - yes, in civilians and Russian troops, neither of which Putin cares a damn about, and also Ukrainian troops and economic infrastructure.

My guess is that a good sign that the Russians are hurting will be that they turn off the gas. Today they turned Nordstream 1 back on after annual maintenance.

To conflate the Russians’ fairly randomly sending missiles and artillery into crowded cities, with the UA’s ability to inflict surgical strikes on high value targets from 50miles, is to be somewhat missing the point.

I never conflated them, I was making a specific point about needing to construct a bridge over the river.

Sorry, fair point, didn't mean it in quite that way.

Sure, but take a look at a map. Huge crescent of nasty red colour where the Russians have occupied. At a cost? – yes, in civilians and Russian troops, neither of which Putin cares a damn about, and also Ukrainian troops and economic infrastructure

Can't argue with the amount of red on the map.

But that's an awfully long front to be trying to defend. And for a lot of it, it's very thin too. An enterprising commander (backed up by the best brains in NATO), would quite possibly be thinking that you could look to slice it up, not least because for a big chunk of it, if the defenders are pushed back a little bit, they're in the sea.

If you think about it, if they can drive a wedge to the coast, hold the Eastern Front and attack West, they're basically fighting troops to the West who are effectively cut off from resupply. Defeat them and then turn East kinda thing

Anyway, to the matter at hand. If the UA can push the RA out of Kherson and over the bridge and assuming that they clear the RA out of all land to the North and West of the river, they now have a clear, easily defensible border that they can lightly garrison against Russian attacks. In this scenario they're happy for the bridge to go. Because their next move could then be to attack South West down the line of the river on the other side (from Zaporizhzhia). With the river behind them they can't be flanked from the North West and they can squeeze the RA forces on the other side from Kherson into a pocket, whilst advancing South towards Melitopol, or at the very least creating an Eastern front that they can hold. Is it risky? Probably. Would it work? Quite possibly. We know the average RA soldier has little appetite for the fight. We know their logistics are shot and their artillery and any major manoeuvres are increasingly under threat from HIMARS. So the RA in the Dnieper pocket would have the choice of fighting with no logistical support or retreating into the Crimea.

Seems plausible and in that scenario taking the bridge out makes sense as it creates a virtually impenetrable border for UA and allows them to create a force multiplier heading South from Zaporizhzhia to split the RA and cut the ones across from Kherson off.

Anyway, that's enough late night armchair generalling from me. Happy for others to pull it apart

I’d like to know what Russia gained by allowing grain exports to happen. Must have been something.

From the New York Times

What’s in it for Russia?

Russia is also a major exporter of grains and fertilizer and the agreement should make it easier to sell those goods on the world market.The Kremlin has repeatedly claimed that its stocks cannot be exported because of sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union.

The measures do not in fact affect those goods, but private shipping companies, insurers, banks and other businesses have been reluctant to help Russia export grains and fertilizers, fearing that they might run afoul of sanctions or that doing business with Russia might harm their reputations. Offering reassurance, the European Union on Thursday issued a legal clarification to its sanctions saying that various banks and other companies involved in the grain trade were not in fact banned.

The United Nations said that, armed with similar assurances by the United States, it held talks with the private sector, and that trade from Russia — especially the Russian port of Novorossiysk — should pick up pace

In other words, the Russian war machine is running out of steam.

In this scenario they’re happy for the bridge to go. Because their next move could then be to attack South West down the line of the river on the other side (from Zaporizhzhia).

That's a bad reading of the geography though. Attacking from Zaporizhia towards Crimea is a very weak position. It significantly shortens the area they can attack from. The Dnipro river is a defensible position, no matter how many Himars they have.

I think you also discount how important the Crimea canal is to the Russian's. It's absolutely a main war aim, imo. I actually think they would give up land in the east to protect that.

mattyfez
Free Member
In other words, the Russian war machine is running out of steam.

The RA has been running out of steam since they were supposedly beaten back(they didn't they withdraw), from the Kyiv assault.

Have a listen to the new BA chief on his thoughts about Russian endurance. "Russia often starts wars badly, [...] and yet can regenerate and still ultimately prevail."

btw I'm not critical because I think the RA is great I just don't think the commitment is sufficient yet, as ever I hope I'm wrong.

I see transport of goods by rail to Kalingrad is now OK. timing- the day after signing the grain deal.

I’d like to know what Russia gained by allowing grain exports to happen. Must have been something

It's not something that seems to be talked about in most articles about the agreement, but there was always going to be a price
Along with grain exports, fertiliser exports have been opened up as well which makes sense. A quick search will show that Russia is the fourth largest producer of nitrogen-based fertiliser in the world and produces 8+ times what Ukraine produced in 2018 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1252656/nitrogen-fertilizer-production-by-country/
There are lots of fertiliser types and I haven't researched them all (sorry 🙂 ) but Russia is also a major producer of phosphate fertilisers and potash (with Belarus)
The EU has reduced its sanctions in relation to oil exports by ship/third-party trading in oil by allowing payments to Russia for oil https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-sanctions-tweak-unblock-russian-oil-deals-with-third-countries-2022-07-22/
Russia is now getting much needed money in its bank for grain, fertiliser and oil. Ukraine on the other hand has seen a reduction in its ability to get money from the trade due to damage caused by the war to crops, farms, machinery, storage, etc

I see transport of goods by rail to Kalingrad is now OK. timing- the day after signing the grain deal.

I think that made sense. Kaliningrad is a part of Russia but isolated from the "mainland" and goods can move freely within Russia. The more important point is not allowing sanctioned exports other than within Russia. Kaliningrad is Russia's only non-freezing port
It's worth noting "rail". Roads are still off-limits for freight

Foreign Policy have published an article on the effectiveness of sanctions against Russia, tackling many of the recebt claims (such as the pivot east of oil and gas for which until now Id only seen claims and no numbers to back up the claims)

Im not all that familiar with FP but its a US source that apparently has taken a lro Democrat.stance in recent years.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/22/russia-economy-sanctions-myths-ruble-business/

The article is authored by

By Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the Lester Crown professor in management practice and a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, and Steven Tian, the director of research at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute.

Neither of whom I know much about.

It puts a positive spin on sanctions, but at least provides sources and some reasoning.

That's a long article! I'll give it a read later. One thing I agree with straight away is the difficulty in getting reliable information- the Kremlin is very carefully managing any information about their economy right now

piemonster
Free Member

Would read but it's paywalled.

I had to click on it a couple of times, before getting through the paywall.

Interesting read, 👍

ah, I must just have used up my free articles, opened in another browser, all good. 🙂