[Goose]

I don’t think it is that Ukraine doesn’t move until they know they can win.  More likely, they are constantly probing Russian defenses until they find a soft spot or break through, and then they move in to capitalize.

BC

You are correct BC. They fight like Russians. Attack everywhere and reinforce success. I think Ukraine probably has superior intelligence information because they have lots of stay-behinds and they also have what NATO gives them. That means they are less in the dark than the Russians are, but they apparently don't have the force to adopt a battle plan that avoids pounding away and rather wins by position and maneuver. They have done a lot to change their philosophy, but they have limitations (apparently) that prevent them from fighting like NATO.

I think neither Russia nor Ukraine has a "plan" they are following. There are many irons in the fire and they both will react to developments. Russia's forced withdrawal in the area leading to Mylove did shorten their line considerably and it wasn't a catastrophe. They are still defending. Maybe they had thoughts about blowing the dam, and maybe they still do. One wonders if the supply situation on the right bank has improved considerably. Sending in more troops if you can't feed or arm the ones you already have there makes little sense. You do not become more effective, you just have more mouths to feed. So why are they doing it? It makes sense if they can supply them, but what has changed to make that be true?

The "right answer" is to concentrate a mobile striking force, forget about Kherson, take Nova Kakhovka and go down the highway. Cut them off. Unfortunately, Ukraine can't do that, it seems. Kherson city has no offensive potential, especially now. You can bypass it. However, it does appear that the head of the Ukrainian general staff knows his army. He said they would take Kherson city by the end of the year, and it appears his timing may be correct :-).

[Goose]

I don’t think it is that Ukraine doesn’t move until they know they can win.  More likely, they are constantly probing Russian defenses until they find a soft spot or break through, and then they move in to capitalize.

BC

You are correct BC. They fight like Russians. Attack everywhere and reinforce success. I think Ukraine probably has superior intelligence information because they have lots of stay-behinds and they also have what NATO gives them. That means they are less in the dark than the Russians are, but they apparently don't have the force to adopt a battle plan that avoids pounding away and rather wins by position and maneuver. They have done a lot to change their philosophy, but they have limitations (apparently) that prevent them from fighting like NATO.

I think neither Russia nor Ukraine has a "plan" they are following. There are many irons in the fire and they both will react to developments. Russia's forced withdrawal in the area leading to Mylove did shorten their line considerably and it wasn't a catastrophe. They are still defending. Maybe they had thoughts about blowing the dam, and maybe they still do. One wonders if the supply situation on the right bank has improved considerably. Sending in more troops if you can't feed or arm the ones you already have there makes little sense. You do not become more effective, you just have more mouths to feed. So why are they doing it? It makes sense if they can supply them, but what has changed to make that be true?

The "right answer" is to concentrate a mobile striking force, forget about Kherson, take Nova Kakhovka and go down the highway. Cut them off. Unfortunately, Ukraine can't do that, it seems. Kherson city has no offensive potential, especially now. You can bypass it. However, it does appear that the head of the Ukrainian general staff knows his army. He said they would take Kherson city by the end of the year, and it appears his timing may be correct :-).

[Nan3cy]

I was just watching last night’s Amanpoure and Company, and the Russian ambassador to the UK told Christiane straight out that Bucha wasn’t real, it was staged by the BBC. Yikes.

[Nan3cy]

I was just watching last night’s Amanpoure and Company, and the Russian ambassador to the UK told Christiane straight out that Bucha wasn’t real, it was staged by the BBC. Yikes.

[akiddoc]

The dumb letter the progressive caucus put out yesterday has already been retracted, supposedly signed months ago and put out by a staffer. What a stupid own goal to put that out.

Sunak has talked about not spending 3% on defense spending, though hasn't really talked about reducing aid to Ukraine. Their MOD Ben Wallace, very popular in Ukraine, is staying on so that's a good sign.

Also, important not to lose sight that US has been far away the biggest contributor of Ukrainian aid, and the Baltic states also pulling much more than their weight.

While I would not like it and it doesn't seem likely anyway, if UK, Germany, France and Italy all stopped sending support, Ukraine's military operations would likely continue on similarly to before.

Of more concern is the position of the Republican leadership in the House. They have threatened to reign in or stop support for the Ukraine if they take the House. The progressive wing of the Democrats cannot stick up to Biden, as was just seen.

[akiddoc]

The dumb letter the progressive caucus put out yesterday has already been retracted, supposedly signed months ago and put out by a staffer. What a stupid own goal to put that out.

Sunak has talked about not spending 3% on defense spending, though hasn't really talked about reducing aid to Ukraine. Their MOD Ben Wallace, very popular in Ukraine, is staying on so that's a good sign.

Also, important not to lose sight that US has been far away the biggest contributor of Ukrainian aid, and the Baltic states also pulling much more than their weight.

While I would not like it and it doesn't seem likely anyway, if UK, Germany, France and Italy all stopped sending support, Ukraine's military operations would likely continue on similarly to before.

Of more concern is the position of the Republican leadership in the House. They have threatened to reign in or stop support for the Ukraine if they take the House. The progressive wing of the Democrats cannot stick up to Biden, as was just seen.

[BostonCard]

Please be very judicious about US domestic politics in this thread. I recognize that it sometimes touches directly on Ukraine policy, but please bear in mind that it has a high potential of going sideways.

BC

[BostonCard]

Please be very judicious about US domestic politics in this thread. I recognize that it sometimes touches directly on Ukraine policy, but please bear in mind that it has a high potential of going sideways.

BC

[M T]

A couple of weeks back, some people were arrested in Italy (apparently at the behest of the US) for allegedly violating sanctions against Russia. Russia was especially upset about the arrest of the son of a Siberian governor.

"The Kremlin had condemned Uss's arrest, saying it would do "everything possible" to defend its citizens." Now Russia has put that person on a wanted list, with the desire to get him extradited.  But convicted would be a different matter.

Maybe Britney Griner and other Americans in jail in Russia should be charged with some crime in the US, and the US should go for extradition.

While I feel no person should undergo what Britney has been and is facing, it would be a shame to allow a person accused of enhancing the Russian war machine to go free in exchange for a WNBA star that was caught with trace amounts of a drug.

By the way, Britney was sentenced to 9 years.  The Russian charges (money laundering) against Uss carry a sentence of up to 7 years, IF convicted.

[M T]

A couple of weeks back, some people were arrested in Italy (apparently at the behest of the US) for allegedly violating sanctions against Russia. Russia was especially upset about the arrest of the son of a Siberian governor.

"The Kremlin had condemned Uss's arrest, saying it would do "everything possible" to defend its citizens." Now Russia has put that person on a wanted list, with the desire to get him extradited.  But convicted would be a different matter.

Maybe Britney Griner and other Americans in jail in Russia should be charged with some crime in the US, and the US should go for extradition.

While I feel no person should undergo what Britney has been and is facing, it would be a shame to allow a person accused of enhancing the Russian war machine to go free in exchange for a WNBA star that was caught with trace amounts of a drug.

By the way, Britney was sentenced to 9 years.  The Russian charges (money laundering) against Uss carry a sentence of up to 7 years, IF convicted.

[BostonCard]

Russia and other autocratic countries have long abused extradition rules and Interpol red notices to get their way.

I would look to leave Russia if I were an Italian. (Well, I’d look to leave Russia no matter my nationality, but especially if I were an Italian).  Just as China detained the two Michael’s in order to bargain for the daughter of the Huwawei founder who was arrested in Canada in order to be extradited to the Us for bypassing sanctions on Iran, I would expect Russia to put pressure on the Italian government by finding a couple of Italian citizens to arrest.

BC

[BostonCard]

Russia and other autocratic countries have long abused extradition rules and Interpol red notices to get their way.

I would look to leave Russia if I were an Italian. (Well, I’d look to leave Russia no matter my nationality, but especially if I were an Italian).  Just as China detained the two Michael’s in order to bargain for the daughter of the Huwawei founder who was arrested in Canada in order to be extradited to the Us for bypassing sanctions on Iran, I would expect Russia to put pressure on the Italian government by finding a couple of Italian citizens to arrest.

BC

[GK3]

A very interesting article on why soldiers stop fighting.  Also, some of the pictures are quite striking.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/29/europe/ru...index.html

[GK3]

A very interesting article on why soldiers stop fighting.  Also, some of the pictures are quite striking.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/29/europe/ru...index.html

[dabigv13]

Gnarly video clips of unmanned naval drones attacking Black Sea Fleet earlier today. Unclear how much damage was done but it looks like they did hit the frigate Makarov, I think their most valuable/capable surface ship in the Black Sea Fleet, and a minesweeper.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/158...ABz-9jWR3g[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Gnarly video clips of unmanned naval drones attacking Black Sea Fleet earlier today. Unclear how much damage was done but it looks like they did hit the frigate Makarov, I think their most valuable/capable surface ship in the Black Sea Fleet, and a minesweeper.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/158...ABz-9jWR3g[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Another intense video

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1586433948988887040?s=20&t=g4yo9f8UYMUKkjVga79RLA[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Another intense video

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1586433948988887040?s=20&t=g4yo9f8UYMUKkjVga79RLA[/tweet]

[Hurlburt88]

Gnarly video clips of unmanned naval drones attacking Black Sea Fleet earlier today. Unclear how much damage was done but it looks like they did hit the frigate Makarov, I think their most valuable/capable surface ship in the Black Sea Fleet, and a minesweeper.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/158...ABz-9jWR3g[/tweet]

I saw in the WSJ this morning that Russia is citing these attacks as reason to suspend the agreement to allow Ukraine to export grain via the Black Sea

[Hurlburt88]

Gnarly video clips of unmanned naval drones attacking Black Sea Fleet earlier today. Unclear how much damage was done but it looks like they did hit the frigate Makarov, I think their most valuable/capable surface ship in the Black Sea Fleet, and a minesweeper.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/158...ABz-9jWR3g[/tweet]

I saw in the WSJ this morning that Russia is citing these attacks as reason to suspend the agreement to allow Ukraine to export grain via the Black Sea

[OutsiderFan]

According to Russia, Ukraine is developing mosquitoes that carry a disease that will only kill Russians.

I mean, how could any country possibly lose a war when it has such a culture of truth telling?

It's too bad any country that would say such nonsense can't be kicked out of the UN permanently under the idea nothing it says can be trusted if it would say such things to other countries. It's simply insulting and disrespectful to others to engage in such dishonesty, and it's not possible to negotiate anything with someone who is dishonest and has no respect for others.

[OutsiderFan]

According to Russia, Ukraine is developing mosquitoes that carry a disease that will only kill Russians.

I mean, how could any country possibly lose a war when it has such a culture of truth telling?

It's too bad any country that would say such nonsense can't be kicked out of the UN permanently under the idea nothing it says can be trusted if it would say such things to other countries. It's simply insulting and disrespectful to others to engage in such dishonesty, and it's not possible to negotiate anything with someone who is dishonest and has no respect for others.

[81alum]

Race against time now before the rain and cold take over. I didn’t think Ukraine would be able to get as far as it has already, but soon the weather will make advances even more challenging.

Goose, doesn't winter put an under-supplied defender in an even worse position?  I'm trying to understand the differences between this situation and that of the Germans at Stalingrad.  Could the Ukrainians mount something like the Russian winter offensive from November though February 1942, trapping the overextended Russians?  How is winter going to make it easier to resupply the Russians in Kherson?  So much is said about the rain and mud, but eventually the ground freezes, and it becomes firm enough for vehicles and difficult to even dig a foxhole.  One might think that those conditions would favor a war of movement over a static war.  So why is the conventional wisdom that the Ukrainians can't continue their offensive when winter begins?

Apparently some Ukrainian soldiers have the same thoughts:

“Think of the orcs in their trenches,” Lieutenant Oleh said, using a derisive term for Russian soldiers. “They have no heavy weaponry, no supplies, it’s cold and raining. It’s a really difficult state for morale.”

If they try to hold out in Kherson city, he said, referring to a protracted battle with the Nazis in World War II, “it will be Stalingrad in winter for them."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/29/world...llery.html

Of course the comparison is too facile.  But soldiers without adequate supplies in a city during winter cannot be a happy situation.

[81alum]

Race against time now before the rain and cold take over. I didn’t think Ukraine would be able to get as far as it has already, but soon the weather will make advances even more challenging.

Goose, doesn't winter put an under-supplied defender in an even worse position?  I'm trying to understand the differences between this situation and that of the Germans at Stalingrad.  Could the Ukrainians mount something like the Russian winter offensive from November though February 1942, trapping the overextended Russians?  How is winter going to make it easier to resupply the Russians in Kherson?  So much is said about the rain and mud, but eventually the ground freezes, and it becomes firm enough for vehicles and difficult to even dig a foxhole.  One might think that those conditions would favor a war of movement over a static war.  So why is the conventional wisdom that the Ukrainians can't continue their offensive when winter begins?

Apparently some Ukrainian soldiers have the same thoughts:

“Think of the orcs in their trenches,” Lieutenant Oleh said, using a derisive term for Russian soldiers. “They have no heavy weaponry, no supplies, it’s cold and raining. It’s a really difficult state for morale.”

If they try to hold out in Kherson city, he said, referring to a protracted battle with the Nazis in World War II, “it will be Stalingrad in winter for them."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/29/world...llery.html

Of course the comparison is too facile.  But soldiers without adequate supplies in a city during winter cannot be a happy situation.

[Goose]

Race against time now before the rain and cold take over. I didn’t think Ukraine would be able to get as far as it has already, but soon the weather will make advances even more challenging.

Goose, doesn't winter put an under-supplied defender in an even worse position?  I'm trying to understand the differences between this situation and that of the Germans at Stalingrad.  Could the Ukrainians mount something like the Russian winter offensive from November though February 1942, trapping the overextended Russians?  How is winter going to make it easier to resupply the Russians in Kherson?  So much is said about the rain and mud, but eventually the ground freezes, and it becomes firm enough for vehicles and difficult to even dig a foxhole.  One might think that those conditions would favor a war of movement over a static war.  So why is the conventional wisdom that the Ukrainians can't continue their offensive when winter begins?

Apparently some Ukrainian soldiers have the same thoughts:

“Think of the orcs in their trenches,” Lieutenant Oleh said, using a derisive term for Russian soldiers. “They have no heavy weaponry, no supplies, it’s cold and raining. It’s a really difficult state for morale.”

If they try to hold out in Kherson city, he said, referring to a protracted battle with the Nazis in World War II, “it will be Stalingrad in winter for them."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/29/world...llery.html

Of course the comparison is too facile.  But soldiers without adequate supplies in a city during winter cannot be a happy situation.

Very much agree, but something isn't "right" here. If the Russian supply situation is so bad, why has the number of outgoing artillery shells from the Russians been increasing, not decreasing? The Russians have moved many conscripts onto the right bank. Why do that if you can't supply them? The Russians did supposedly "evacuate" the civilians, which would somewhat ease the supply situation, but that doesn't increase the supply of military items, like ammunition. It could be that the Russians are just clueless (and/or desperate), but for some reason I doubt that. Something isn't adding up here. It may be those pontoon bridges are working a bit too well.

[Goose]

Race against time now before the rain and cold take over. I didn’t think Ukraine would be able to get as far as it has already, but soon the weather will make advances even more challenging.

Goose, doesn't winter put an under-supplied defender in an even worse position?  I'm trying to understand the differences between this situation and that of the Germans at Stalingrad.  Could the Ukrainians mount something like the Russian winter offensive from November though February 1942, trapping the overextended Russians?  How is winter going to make it easier to resupply the Russians in Kherson?  So much is said about the rain and mud, but eventually the ground freezes, and it becomes firm enough for vehicles and difficult to even dig a foxhole.  One might think that those conditions would favor a war of movement over a static war.  So why is the conventional wisdom that the Ukrainians can't continue their offensive when winter begins?

Apparently some Ukrainian soldiers have the same thoughts:

“Think of the orcs in their trenches,” Lieutenant Oleh said, using a derisive term for Russian soldiers. “They have no heavy weaponry, no supplies, it’s cold and raining. It’s a really difficult state for morale.”

If they try to hold out in Kherson city, he said, referring to a protracted battle with the Nazis in World War II, “it will be Stalingrad in winter for them."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/29/world...llery.html

Of course the comparison is too facile.  But soldiers without adequate supplies in a city during winter cannot be a happy situation.

Very much agree, but something isn't "right" here. If the Russian supply situation is so bad, why has the number of outgoing artillery shells from the Russians been increasing, not decreasing? The Russians have moved many conscripts onto the right bank. Why do that if you can't supply them? The Russians did supposedly "evacuate" the civilians, which would somewhat ease the supply situation, but that doesn't increase the supply of military items, like ammunition. It could be that the Russians are just clueless (and/or desperate), but for some reason I doubt that. Something isn't adding up here. It may be those pontoon bridges are working a bit too well.

[BostonCard]

Looks like at least one of the drones hit its target…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ukrainerussia2/status/1586275263775662124?s=46&t=eQN7Jdy-5pqdWre2gvLjgQ[/tweet]

EDIT: never mind, I posted too soon. That footage is from May.

BC

[BostonCard]

Looks like at least one of the drones hit its target…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ukrainerussia2/status/1586275263775662124?s=46&t=eQN7Jdy-5pqdWre2gvLjgQ[/tweet]

EDIT: never mind, I posted too soon. That footage is from May.

BC

[81alum]

Very much agree, but something isn't "right" here. If the Russian supply situation is so bad, why has the number of outgoing artillery shells from the Russians been increasing, not decreasing? The Russians have moved many conscripts onto the right bank. Why do that if you can't supply them? The Russians did supposedly "evacuate" the civilians, which would somewhat ease the supply situation, but that doesn't increase the supply of military items, like ammunition. It could be that the Russians are just clueless (and/or desperate), but for some reason I doubt that. Something isn't adding up here. It may be those pontoon bridges are working a bit too well.

The answer may be simple.  The Germans wanted to retreat to a more defensible position, but were not allowed to do so for political reasons since Stalingrad had become such an important symbol for Hitler's advance.

Losing Kherson could be politically devastating to Putin--after all the incompetence of this war has become apparent despite the domestic propaganda.  The decision to remain could be based on Putin's assessment of political risks rather than military risks.  And given that the Russians will remain, I am sure that the commanders will make the best of it.  It will be up to Ukraine to exploit this decision and genuinely turn it into another Stalingrad.  If they can, it could be the turning point of the war, given how many eggs Putin has put in the Kherson basket.

[81alum]

Very much agree, but something isn't "right" here. If the Russian supply situation is so bad, why has the number of outgoing artillery shells from the Russians been increasing, not decreasing? The Russians have moved many conscripts onto the right bank. Why do that if you can't supply them? The Russians did supposedly "evacuate" the civilians, which would somewhat ease the supply situation, but that doesn't increase the supply of military items, like ammunition. It could be that the Russians are just clueless (and/or desperate), but for some reason I doubt that. Something isn't adding up here. It may be those pontoon bridges are working a bit too well.

The answer may be simple.  The Germans wanted to retreat to a more defensible position, but were not allowed to do so for political reasons since Stalingrad had become such an important symbol for Hitler's advance.

Losing Kherson could be politically devastating to Putin--after all the incompetence of this war has become apparent despite the domestic propaganda.  The decision to remain could be based on Putin's assessment of political risks rather than military risks.  And given that the Russians will remain, I am sure that the commanders will make the best of it.  It will be up to Ukraine to exploit this decision and genuinely turn it into another Stalingrad.  If they can, it could be the turning point of the war, given how many eggs Putin has put in the Kherson basket.

[Goose]

Very much agree, but something isn't "right" here. If the Russian supply situation is so bad, why has the number of outgoing artillery shells from the Russians been increasing, not decreasing? The Russians have moved many conscripts onto the right bank. Why do that if you can't supply them? The Russians did supposedly "evacuate" the civilians, which would somewhat ease the supply situation, but that doesn't increase the supply of military items, like ammunition. It could be that the Russians are just clueless (and/or desperate), but for some reason I doubt that. Something isn't adding up here. It may be those pontoon bridges are working a bit too well.

The answer may be simple.  The Germans wanted to retreat to a more defensible position, but were not allowed to do so for political reasons since Stalingrad had become such an important symbol for Hitler's advance.

Losing Kherson could be politically devastating to Putin--after all the incompetence of this war has become apparent despite the domestic propaganda.  The decision to remain could be based on Putin's assessment of political risks rather than military risks.  And given that the Russians will remain, I am sure that the commanders will make the best of it.  It will be up to Ukraine to exploit this decision and genuinely turn it into another Stalingrad.  If they can, it could be the turning point of the war, given how many eggs Putin has put in the Kherson basket.

Certainly possible. It is also probable that Russia is hoping the river freezes and gives them a way to easily supply the right bank. They may have to hold on for two months for that to happen (if it does). However, the increase in outgoing fire all along the front is disturbing. Obviously this hasn't been rigorously evaluated in public, but in as far as it is true, it increases Putin's odds.

It is wise to look at the forces Russia has on the west bank. While they are considerable, their loss doesn't of itself threaten the loss of the rest of Kherson Oblast. Russia is building defensive lines on the east bank and deeper into the Oblast. Ideally, Ukraine needs to wrong-foot them with a rapid offensive that cuts off a lot of the Russian forces. If they have to fight all the Russians in the Oblast, it is going to be long and bloody. Destroying many of them by surrounding them (as Von Paulus was) and NOT fighting them is lots better. So far, Ukraine hasn't been able to do that.

[Goose]

Very much agree, but something isn't "right" here. If the Russian supply situation is so bad, why has the number of outgoing artillery shells from the Russians been increasing, not decreasing? The Russians have moved many conscripts onto the right bank. Why do that if you can't supply them? The Russians did supposedly "evacuate" the civilians, which would somewhat ease the supply situation, but that doesn't increase the supply of military items, like ammunition. It could be that the Russians are just clueless (and/or desperate), but for some reason I doubt that. Something isn't adding up here. It may be those pontoon bridges are working a bit too well.

The answer may be simple.  The Germans wanted to retreat to a more defensible position, but were not allowed to do so for political reasons since Stalingrad had become such an important symbol for Hitler's advance.

Losing Kherson could be politically devastating to Putin--after all the incompetence of this war has become apparent despite the domestic propaganda.  The decision to remain could be based on Putin's assessment of political risks rather than military risks.  And given that the Russians will remain, I am sure that the commanders will make the best of it.  It will be up to Ukraine to exploit this decision and genuinely turn it into another Stalingrad.  If they can, it could be the turning point of the war, given how many eggs Putin has put in the Kherson basket.

Certainly possible. It is also probable that Russia is hoping the river freezes and gives them a way to easily supply the right bank. They may have to hold on for two months for that to happen (if it does). However, the increase in outgoing fire all along the front is disturbing. Obviously this hasn't been rigorously evaluated in public, but in as far as it is true, it increases Putin's odds.

It is wise to look at the forces Russia has on the west bank. While they are considerable, their loss doesn't of itself threaten the loss of the rest of Kherson Oblast. Russia is building defensive lines on the east bank and deeper into the Oblast. Ideally, Ukraine needs to wrong-foot them with a rapid offensive that cuts off a lot of the Russian forces. If they have to fight all the Russians in the Oblast, it is going to be long and bloody. Destroying many of them by surrounding them (as Von Paulus was) and NOT fighting them is lots better. So far, Ukraine hasn't been able to do that.

[M T]

The two USV videos show attacks at different times.  The first video is pretty clearly at night, seemingly with fog present, while the second appears to be during partial light.  The two attacks in the first video seem to have been carried out without Russian detection as we see no evidence of defensive attempts.

I suspect the first video shows two more or less simultaneous attacks with neither ship having been alerted to an earlier attack.  The UCVs appear to hit the frigate basically mid-ship and the mine-sweep at the stern.    During the video of the attack on the frigate, at 0:23 there appears to be a flash.  Could this be the strike against the mine-sweeper?  That segment ends 16 seconds later ("The moment of the strike"), but we don't know if the video is real-time or slow-motion.

The end of the first video contains a sequence seen from the shore (recorded from a laptop), we see two explosions separated by 7 (video) seconds and by some unknown distance.   The first is a small explosion (1:12) while the second is a massive explosion (1:19).  The distance between the two suggests to me that this isn't a primary and secondary explosion, but two primary explosions.   

The second video shows a later attack (lighter sky) with defenses alerted, and contains a number of clips (0:00-0:25, 0:26-0:51, 0:52-1:01, 1:02-1:08,1:09-1:14, 1:15-1:42).  As best I can tell, the first two clips are of the same USV but separated in time.  I presume the series of explosions in the distance are vessels firing artillery at suspected drones.  The target is best seen at 0:51 (could be the frigate).  There is another time skip after that, with the target facing the other direction.  Perhaps that is from a different USV.

The view of the monument shows an explosion in daylight at 1:25.  The pedestrians stop about 2 seconds later suggesting the explosion was only 0.4 miles away.  (I presumed that monument was in Sebastopol but I can't confirm that.)

Ah... one of these USVs had washed ashore recently.  

Russia is only acknowledging a hit on the mine sweeper "with minor damage".

The monument at the end of video2 appears to be here.  The view in the video is from a webcam site.

[M T]

The two USV videos show attacks at different times.  The first video is pretty clearly at night, seemingly with fog present, while the second appears to be during partial light.  The two attacks in the first video seem to have been carried out without Russian detection as we see no evidence of defensive attempts.

I suspect the first video shows two more or less simultaneous attacks with neither ship having been alerted to an earlier attack.  The UCVs appear to hit the frigate basically mid-ship and the mine-sweep at the stern.    During the video of the attack on the frigate, at 0:23 there appears to be a flash.  Could this be the strike against the mine-sweeper?  That segment ends 16 seconds later ("The moment of the strike"), but we don't know if the video is real-time or slow-motion.

The end of the first video contains a sequence seen from the shore (recorded from a laptop), we see two explosions separated by 7 (video) seconds and by some unknown distance.   The first is a small explosion (1:12) while the second is a massive explosion (1:19).  The distance between the two suggests to me that this isn't a primary and secondary explosion, but two primary explosions.   

The second video shows a later attack (lighter sky) with defenses alerted, and contains a number of clips (0:00-0:25, 0:26-0:51, 0:52-1:01, 1:02-1:08,1:09-1:14, 1:15-1:42).  As best I can tell, the first two clips are of the same USV but separated in time.  I presume the series of explosions in the distance are vessels firing artillery at suspected drones.  The target is best seen at 0:51 (could be the frigate).  There is another time skip after that, with the target facing the other direction.  Perhaps that is from a different USV.

The view of the monument shows an explosion in daylight at 1:25.  The pedestrians stop about 2 seconds later suggesting the explosion was only 0.4 miles away.  (I presumed that monument was in Sebastopol but I can't confirm that.)

Ah... one of these USVs had washed ashore recently.  

Russia is only acknowledging a hit on the mine sweeper "with minor damage".

The monument at the end of video2 appears to be here.  The view in the video is from a webcam site.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/western-weapo...02031.html

This article includes many of the positive points made on this board about the situation in Kherson in general and around Kherson city in particular. It does not address the comments coming from other Ukrainian reports that Russian artillery is actually increasing their rate of fire. Infantry always has a tendency to deprecate their own artillery and inflate the opposing artillery (because they face one but not the other), but even allowing for that, these reports are a bit disturbing.

This article also reports by a Ukrainian likening the Russian position to that of the Germans at Stalingrad. It is important to remember that the Russians defeated the 6th army not by beating it to death but rather by surrounding it, cutting it off from supply and reinforcement, and waiting for the inevitable. They took 91,000 prisoners. Granted, the right bank occupying force is a lot smaller than 6th army was, but the principle is the same. Ukraine wants the entire Oblast back, not just Kherson. Suffering heavy casualties to just get back the city is not a win. Ukraine needs to do what Russia did at Stalingrad, cut off the city and then advance in the enemies rear areas.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/western-weapo...02031.html

This article includes many of the positive points made on this board about the situation in Kherson in general and around Kherson city in particular. It does not address the comments coming from other Ukrainian reports that Russian artillery is actually increasing their rate of fire. Infantry always has a tendency to deprecate their own artillery and inflate the opposing artillery (because they face one but not the other), but even allowing for that, these reports are a bit disturbing.

This article also reports by a Ukrainian likening the Russian position to that of the Germans at Stalingrad. It is important to remember that the Russians defeated the 6th army not by beating it to death but rather by surrounding it, cutting it off from supply and reinforcement, and waiting for the inevitable. They took 91,000 prisoners. Granted, the right bank occupying force is a lot smaller than 6th army was, but the principle is the same. Ukraine wants the entire Oblast back, not just Kherson. Suffering heavy casualties to just get back the city is not a win. Ukraine needs to do what Russia did at Stalingrad, cut off the city and then advance in the enemies rear areas.

[81alum]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/western-weapo...02031.html

This article includes many of the positive points made on this board about the situation in Kherson in general and around Kherson city in particular. It does not address the comments coming from other Ukrainian reports that Russian artillery is actually increasing their rate of fire. Infantry always has a tendency to deprecate their own artillery and inflate the opposing artillery (because they face one but not the other), but even allowing for that, these reports are a bit disturbing.

This article also reports by a Ukrainian likening the Russian position to that of the Germans at Stalingrad. It is important to remember that the Russians defeated the 6th army not by beating it to death but rather by surrounding it, cutting it off from supply and reinforcement, and waiting for the inevitable. They took 91,000 prisoners. Granted, the right bank occupying force is a lot smaller than 6th army was, but the principle is the same. Ukraine wants the entire Oblast back, not just Kherson. Suffering heavy casualties to just get back the city is not a win. Ukraine needs to do what Russia did at Stalingrad, cut off the city and then advance in the enemies rear areas.

Yes, Goose, you and I certainly see the war of movement and envelopment to offer the most promise for Ukraine.  As I understand it, the US and NATO adopted this combined arms war-of-movement strategy during and after WWII after the Germans more or less invented it.  The Soviet Union, however, during WWII and later did not fully embrace that doctrine--despite their spectacular success at Stalingrad.  And given that the Ukrainian military (until recently) has been more a product of Soviet doctrine than of Nato doctrine, is there simply a lag in military doctrine?  The Ukrainian success in the NE sure looked like it was designed to be a war of movement, but what is happening around Kherson does not.  I presume they really do want a Stalingrad and not a Verdun.

[81alum]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/western-weapo...02031.html

This article includes many of the positive points made on this board about the situation in Kherson in general and around Kherson city in particular. It does not address the comments coming from other Ukrainian reports that Russian artillery is actually increasing their rate of fire. Infantry always has a tendency to deprecate their own artillery and inflate the opposing artillery (because they face one but not the other), but even allowing for that, these reports are a bit disturbing.

This article also reports by a Ukrainian likening the Russian position to that of the Germans at Stalingrad. It is important to remember that the Russians defeated the 6th army not by beating it to death but rather by surrounding it, cutting it off from supply and reinforcement, and waiting for the inevitable. They took 91,000 prisoners. Granted, the right bank occupying force is a lot smaller than 6th army was, but the principle is the same. Ukraine wants the entire Oblast back, not just Kherson. Suffering heavy casualties to just get back the city is not a win. Ukraine needs to do what Russia did at Stalingrad, cut off the city and then advance in the enemies rear areas.

Yes, Goose, you and I certainly see the war of movement and envelopment to offer the most promise for Ukraine.  As I understand it, the US and NATO adopted this combined arms war-of-movement strategy during and after WWII after the Germans more or less invented it.  The Soviet Union, however, during WWII and later did not fully embrace that doctrine--despite their spectacular success at Stalingrad.  And given that the Ukrainian military (until recently) has been more a product of Soviet doctrine than of Nato doctrine, is there simply a lag in military doctrine?  The Ukrainian success in the NE sure looked like it was designed to be a war of movement, but what is happening around Kherson does not.  I presume they really do want a Stalingrad and not a Verdun.

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ukrainiannews24/status/1586802855649984513?s=61&t=FGmsn-q-i8kK0xWvE4KuxQ[/tweet]

Of course, who knows what will happen.  It would be nice to capture or destroy all that equipment.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ukrainiannews24/status/1586802855649984513?s=61&t=FGmsn-q-i8kK0xWvE4KuxQ[/tweet]

Of course, who knows what will happen.  It would be nice to capture or destroy all that equipment.

BC