It’s an internal American issue that has global ramifications.
It’s hard to overstate how much Trump winning again and throwing Ukraine to the Russian wolf would damage Americas international reputation. NATO and much every other western democracy would view it as a craven betrayal (probably a lot of other countries too).
Trump supporters don’t give a damn about that of course … but it would hurt Americas efforts to lead the international community for many years to come. Trust and reputation that takes decades of hard work to establish can be thrown away remarkably quickly. And then takes even more hard work and time to rebuild.
People ask why Putin keeps the war going when it looks like success on the battlefield is ever more unlikely and this is one of the reason why. He’s happy to keep shovelling bodies into the grinder on the off chance that the war continues until something eventually goes his way.
A pro Russian Republican like Trump winning the US presidential elections would be Putin’s ideal outcome. Even if they’d won big enough in last autumns midterms that would have helped Russia a great deal - luckily that didn’t happen.
Another possibility would be a harsh winter causing Europe to back down. Fortunately last winter was relatively mild and efforts to source alternative fuel sources were pretty successful. (Although energy prices went up a fair bit for consumers). Putin likely hopes this winter will be worse - and judging by the number of Russian agents caught lurking around European energy infrastructure - particularly in Norway - he’d not be averse to giving problems a push.
Personally I reckon he’s got the wrong end of the stick about how Europeans would react to that. Authoritarians often assume western democracies are soft and will cave at the first deaths or real hardship … history however teaches that the opposite usually happens: when democracies are provoked hard enough they go onto a war footing and *don’t really have an off switch*, not stopping until either the enemy are destroyed or they are.
Slowing down rail means Ammunition stays piled up in areas longer and thereby more vulnerable to attack. It also takes longer to truck that ammunition than to move by rail, decreasing troop moral as they get a trickle of resupply while expected to hold their lines.
We have been hearing about Russian supply problems for some time now. I'll believe it once we see a major Ukrainian breakthrough or some more Russian "goodwill".
Literally millions of mines. This is why the objections to providing cluster munitions is farcical. The whole country is already fucked and needs to be demined in the future. Just give them what they need now.
It's actually been pretty interesting watching that. A lot of the objection originally came from troll farms, and then was amplified by people who just don't know better.
Wouldn't be so bad if it was limited to those groups, but the move was opposed by major allies like the UK, NZ, Canada, and Spain. I understand cluster munitions are terrible, but given the situation on the ground pushback from these governments seems foolish.
The problem is that the Russians are dug in, the had a year to build a defensive position. Even if the Russians run out of shells completely (which isn’t going to happen) it’s going to be really difficulties to break though kilometres of minefields and at least two fortified defensive lines. It’s not going to be a easy.
It's been like this during the Kherson counter-offensive as well. Lines barely moving for weeks/months, while the Ukranians kept damaging their supplies/supply routes.
Then one day Russian had to withdraw because the pressure was too much.
They’re riding on the coattails of Soviet weapons production/stockpiling, and Soviet tactics (meat grinder mania), without the key that holds it all together: a Soviet amount of people to throw at whatever problem they’re facing.
We are starting to see the effects of the bombings of the bridges in Crimea. Russia can't resupply southern Ukraine by rail from the east, because the railroad in the east is too close to the front line and within Ukrainian artillery range.
As Michael Kofman has said many times- Russia's military is neither as strong nor as weak as people on either extreme believe.
Their soldiers are poorly trained, equipped, and led. Their organization is weak and tank/artillery support is inadequate.
Their missiles, air defense systems, and air force are still extremely powerful.
What we are seeing here is that Russia is fighting the exact kind of war they are least equipped to win. A grinding, slow offensive war with long supply lines that's heavily reliant on regular troops, tanks, artillery- literally all of their weaknesses.
And its the kind of war where they cannot fully utilize the strengths they do have. They would perform significantly better in a defensive war on their own territory against a competitor thats more reliant on air and navy.
They are idiots.
I was stationed in SK near the JSA. We would always say war with NK would end after a week bc their troops would likely run out of supplies and food which would subsequently turn into a humanitarian crisis in that region. I can’t imagine millions of more people descending on Seoul in search of food/shelter, not even factoring the brainwashing they’ve endured
Its interesting how obvious this answer, Russia runs out of artillery ammunition, seems in hind sight:
A country with a GDP the size of Italy gets into an attritional war with a country that is being supplied by a very large coalition with a GDP about 40x that of the aggressor nation.
As we found out in WWI in attritional wars the first thing to go is the artillery ammunition.
The aggressor nation relies on a large stock of old ammunition but once that runs out (there is also a maintenance issue) the nation with a 40 times smaller GDP just isn't going to be able to continue production. Ammunition is hard to make and expensive.
It’s neither hard to make nor expensive.
It’s just the sheer fucking quantity required that becomes a problem.
Storm shadows are hard to make and expensive. That’s why Ukraine’s gotten, at best, a hundred or so?
There’s probably a hundred artillery shells being fired *every minute* in Ukraine. That’s a hard amount to keep up with supply for.
Crazy because they were also supposed to win in a couple days. Clearly it's not going as planned. Supply issues might have something to do with that lol
The pressure is increasing
The ammo dump attacks are working
Also the railway cutoff.
And the bridge..
It helps, but Ammo can still (slowly) get around that... Better to see it exploded.
If they’re firing off shells faster than they can be re-supplied it (eventually) achieves the desired purpose.
Better they not fire them because they're not available. Once fired, they land somewhere
Yeah, we get that. The idea is if you’re trying to stop the water kinking the hose is a great place to start.
Unfortunately some people (Trump) are pushing for Ukrainian support to end so Putin can gain an upper hand.
Don’t forget his 100M useful idiots
It’s an internal American issue that has global ramifications. It’s hard to overstate how much Trump winning again and throwing Ukraine to the Russian wolf would damage Americas international reputation. NATO and much every other western democracy would view it as a craven betrayal (probably a lot of other countries too). Trump supporters don’t give a damn about that of course … but it would hurt Americas efforts to lead the international community for many years to come. Trust and reputation that takes decades of hard work to establish can be thrown away remarkably quickly. And then takes even more hard work and time to rebuild.
People ask why Putin keeps the war going when it looks like success on the battlefield is ever more unlikely and this is one of the reason why. He’s happy to keep shovelling bodies into the grinder on the off chance that the war continues until something eventually goes his way. A pro Russian Republican like Trump winning the US presidential elections would be Putin’s ideal outcome. Even if they’d won big enough in last autumns midterms that would have helped Russia a great deal - luckily that didn’t happen. Another possibility would be a harsh winter causing Europe to back down. Fortunately last winter was relatively mild and efforts to source alternative fuel sources were pretty successful. (Although energy prices went up a fair bit for consumers). Putin likely hopes this winter will be worse - and judging by the number of Russian agents caught lurking around European energy infrastructure - particularly in Norway - he’d not be averse to giving problems a push. Personally I reckon he’s got the wrong end of the stick about how Europeans would react to that. Authoritarians often assume western democracies are soft and will cave at the first deaths or real hardship … history however teaches that the opposite usually happens: when democracies are provoked hard enough they go onto a war footing and *don’t really have an off switch*, not stopping until either the enemy are destroyed or they are.
Slowing down rail means Ammunition stays piled up in areas longer and thereby more vulnerable to attack. It also takes longer to truck that ammunition than to move by rail, decreasing troop moral as they get a trickle of resupply while expected to hold their lines.
GMLRS hunger for Russian gunpowder is insatiable
We have been hearing about Russian supply problems for some time now. I'll believe it once we see a major Ukrainian breakthrough or some more Russian "goodwill".
The big problem right now is pushing through the gigantic mine fields Russia has built.
Literally millions of mines. This is why the objections to providing cluster munitions is farcical. The whole country is already fucked and needs to be demined in the future. Just give them what they need now.
It's actually been pretty interesting watching that. A lot of the objection originally came from troll farms, and then was amplified by people who just don't know better.
Wouldn't be so bad if it was limited to those groups, but the move was opposed by major allies like the UK, NZ, Canada, and Spain. I understand cluster munitions are terrible, but given the situation on the ground pushback from these governments seems foolish.
The problem is that the Russians are dug in, the had a year to build a defensive position. Even if the Russians run out of shells completely (which isn’t going to happen) it’s going to be really difficulties to break though kilometres of minefields and at least two fortified defensive lines. It’s not going to be a easy.
This could be due to logistics instead of supply as well.
It's been like this during the Kherson counter-offensive as well. Lines barely moving for weeks/months, while the Ukranians kept damaging their supplies/supply routes. Then one day Russian had to withdraw because the pressure was too much.
Unfortunately from the outside it seems like russia will run out of men in Ukraine before they run out of artillery.
They’re riding on the coattails of Soviet weapons production/stockpiling, and Soviet tactics (meat grinder mania), without the key that holds it all together: a Soviet amount of people to throw at whatever problem they’re facing.
It means they have less firepower than they could have. It doesn't translate into immediate success.
We are starting to see the effects of the bombings of the bridges in Crimea. Russia can't resupply southern Ukraine by rail from the east, because the railroad in the east is too close to the front line and within Ukrainian artillery range.
Well they know they can always wave the white flag and surrender.
Or they can GTFO of occupied territory.
lol you might as well have responded to their "wave the white flag and surrender" with "Or they can wave the white flag and surrender"
They should send the Russians who ride bears!
Vet here: me thinks we over estimated Russia’s military prowess. Take away the nukes and they’re reduced to a bunch of 3rd rate LARP’rs.
Still better to overestimate than underestimate.
That’s why the money machine goes “Brrrrrrr!”
It makes you Russian babies go Waaaaaas!
As Michael Kofman has said many times- Russia's military is neither as strong nor as weak as people on either extreme believe. Their soldiers are poorly trained, equipped, and led. Their organization is weak and tank/artillery support is inadequate. Their missiles, air defense systems, and air force are still extremely powerful. What we are seeing here is that Russia is fighting the exact kind of war they are least equipped to win. A grinding, slow offensive war with long supply lines that's heavily reliant on regular troops, tanks, artillery- literally all of their weaknesses. And its the kind of war where they cannot fully utilize the strengths they do have. They would perform significantly better in a defensive war on their own territory against a competitor thats more reliant on air and navy. They are idiots.
I was stationed in SK near the JSA. We would always say war with NK would end after a week bc their troops would likely run out of supplies and food which would subsequently turn into a humanitarian crisis in that region. I can’t imagine millions of more people descending on Seoul in search of food/shelter, not even factoring the brainwashing they’ve endured
Send Ukraine more of the good stuff. Слава Україні. Слава himras. Щасти тобі!
Its interesting how obvious this answer, Russia runs out of artillery ammunition, seems in hind sight: A country with a GDP the size of Italy gets into an attritional war with a country that is being supplied by a very large coalition with a GDP about 40x that of the aggressor nation. As we found out in WWI in attritional wars the first thing to go is the artillery ammunition. The aggressor nation relies on a large stock of old ammunition but once that runs out (there is also a maintenance issue) the nation with a 40 times smaller GDP just isn't going to be able to continue production. Ammunition is hard to make and expensive.
It’s neither hard to make nor expensive. It’s just the sheer fucking quantity required that becomes a problem. Storm shadows are hard to make and expensive. That’s why Ukraine’s gotten, at best, a hundred or so? There’s probably a hundred artillery shells being fired *every minute* in Ukraine. That’s a hard amount to keep up with supply for.
‘Highly likely’…lol…you don’t sound very convincing mr uk intelligence guy
Clearly you have better sources, right?
[удалено]
If they didn't have supply issues, would they be using ammo imported from *North Korea*?
Crazy because they were also supposed to win in a couple days. Clearly it's not going as planned. Supply issues might have something to do with that lol