[Goose]

---

They have more forces available, but they are having trouble supplying the ones the have already deployed. More troops may just make the supply problem worse. This will be especially true if things are done ad hoc without an overall plan, which right now seems to be the Russian MO.



Unfortunately the Ukraine has essentially no ability to strike into Russia, so Russia can keep firing missiles unto Ukraine until they run out of them. That won't be soon. It is unclear which approach Russia is going to use, flood the area with more troops or stand off and blow things up. Either one is possible. Adding more troops carries the most risk, as casualties could increase significantly as lower quality formations are used. No telling what Putin will do. Doing both makes little sense, as it increases risks more than benefits.

Additional units would likely have their own logistics capabilities.  There is a real issue in the north that the mud is making them stick to the roads and there are no more roads.

One of Russia's difficulties is that most of their formations lack organic logistics capabilities. The design is that they will be supported by other LOC units. While Putin can also bring in more LOC troops, the fact these units have not trained together with the units they support brings many problems. It is also true that the limited road network sets a capacity limit on the sources of supply. This will be true even in a few weeks when the mud dries out. That is, has been, and will be a serious problem for the Russians.

With the war at a stalemate, Russia will continue to fire rockets and artillery at the cities.  OTOH, Ukraine is going to relentlessly attack Russian supply lines.  It feels unlikely that Russia will ever reach its targets.  OTOH, it is possible that the Russian army could essentially collapse due to lack of supply and being encircled by Ukraine units.

It strikes me that time is not Putin's friend.  All the talk of a potential cease fire is the best evidence we have of how poorly the Russians are doing.

Ukraine will attack Russian supply lines to the best of their ability. So far, they have seriously slowed the Russian down but have not stopped them. If Russia goes on the defensive, it is improbable that Ukraine can drive them out of the country IMHO. What will be necessary is the Russians to quit for some reason, such as financial inability to continue or popular unrest. The longer this goes on, the more probable those two things become. The question is how long can Ukraine resist enough to deny Russia a "victory". In the end, such a victory will be Pyrrhic, but that won't be immediately obvious. Ukraine needs to hang on, and "the West" needs to do what is possible to help that happen.

[Goose]

---

They have more forces available, but they are having trouble supplying the ones the have already deployed. More troops may just make the supply problem worse. This will be especially true if things are done ad hoc without an overall plan, which right now seems to be the Russian MO.



Unfortunately the Ukraine has essentially no ability to strike into Russia, so Russia can keep firing missiles unto Ukraine until they run out of them. That won't be soon. It is unclear which approach Russia is going to use, flood the area with more troops or stand off and blow things up. Either one is possible. Adding more troops carries the most risk, as casualties could increase significantly as lower quality formations are used. No telling what Putin will do. Doing both makes little sense, as it increases risks more than benefits.

Additional units would likely have their own logistics capabilities.  There is a real issue in the north that the mud is making them stick to the roads and there are no more roads.

One of Russia's difficulties is that most of their formations lack organic logistics capabilities. The design is that they will be supported by other LOC units. While Putin can also bring in more LOC troops, the fact these units have not trained together with the units they support brings many problems. It is also true that the limited road network sets a capacity limit on the sources of supply. This will be true even in a few weeks when the mud dries out. That is, has been, and will be a serious problem for the Russians.

With the war at a stalemate, Russia will continue to fire rockets and artillery at the cities.  OTOH, Ukraine is going to relentlessly attack Russian supply lines.  It feels unlikely that Russia will ever reach its targets.  OTOH, it is possible that the Russian army could essentially collapse due to lack of supply and being encircled by Ukraine units.

It strikes me that time is not Putin's friend.  All the talk of a potential cease fire is the best evidence we have of how poorly the Russians are doing.

Ukraine will attack Russian supply lines to the best of their ability. So far, they have seriously slowed the Russian down but have not stopped them. If Russia goes on the defensive, it is improbable that Ukraine can drive them out of the country IMHO. What will be necessary is the Russians to quit for some reason, such as financial inability to continue or popular unrest. The longer this goes on, the more probable those two things become. The question is how long can Ukraine resist enough to deny Russia a "victory". In the end, such a victory will be Pyrrhic, but that won't be immediately obvious. Ukraine needs to hang on, and "the West" needs to do what is possible to help that happen.

[Hurlburt88]

when you say "LOC" troops, what does LOC stand for ?  I always think of it as "line of control" but I sense here it has a logistical meeting

[Hurlburt88]

when you say "LOC" troops, what does LOC stand for ?  I always think of it as "line of control" but I sense here it has a logistical meeting

[Goose]

when you say "LOC" troops, what does LOC stand for ?  I always think of it as "line of control" but I sense here it has a logistical meeting

Line of communication. These units are typically things like trucking, railway and aircraft related formations that are responsible for moving material from it's sources to the forward areas. The fighting units themselves then distribute it from there. The LOC troops typically do not report to the fighting units but rather to logistics organizations. Russia in particular has always relied on rail transport for lots of their military logistics, because in many cases distances are long and roads aren't great. As a result, they have lots of railway troops. Naturally they also have a lot of trucking related formations. These troops are not expected to fight. If they end up fighting, something is really wrong.

[Goose]

when you say "LOC" troops, what does LOC stand for ?  I always think of it as "line of control" but I sense here it has a logistical meeting

Line of communication. These units are typically things like trucking, railway and aircraft related formations that are responsible for moving material from it's sources to the forward areas. The fighting units themselves then distribute it from there. The LOC troops typically do not report to the fighting units but rather to logistics organizations. Russia in particular has always relied on rail transport for lots of their military logistics, because in many cases distances are long and roads aren't great. As a result, they have lots of railway troops. Naturally they also have a lot of trucking related formations. These troops are not expected to fight. If they end up fighting, something is really wrong.

[BostonCard]

Good piece on the importance of rail for Russian resupply, and why they haven’t been able to take advantage of the rail network.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-ukra...ck-2804108

Ukraine -- unlike Western Europe -- uses the same gauge of railroad as Russia. That infrastructure, though, can't be used to bring supplies until troops control the towns that sit on them, in particular key junctions such as Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiv in the north, or Kherson, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia in the south.

The problem for Russia is that its military needs to take major cities to access the rail network, Vershinin said by telephone from Virginia. "The other problem is that the Russians have not brought enough manpower," he said. "This is a brobdingnagian country, and every time they need to take a city they also have to leave force behind to hold it."

[BostonCard]

Good piece on the importance of rail for Russian resupply, and why they haven’t been able to take advantage of the rail network.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-ukra...ck-2804108

Ukraine -- unlike Western Europe -- uses the same gauge of railroad as Russia. That infrastructure, though, can't be used to bring supplies until troops control the towns that sit on them, in particular key junctions such as Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiv in the north, or Kherson, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia in the south.

The problem for Russia is that its military needs to take major cities to access the rail network, Vershinin said by telephone from Virginia. "The other problem is that the Russians have not brought enough manpower," he said. "This is a brobdingnagian country, and every time they need to take a city they also have to leave force behind to hold it."

[Softball Fan]

The latest news reports indicate the Belarus military is going to invade Ukraine starting this coming week.   I admire Ukraine's resolve to fight back.  However it seems Putin's strategy is to keep bombing civilians until Ukraine gives up.  I can't envision Putin giving up. If it comes down to it I believe he will use chemical weapons and then tactical nuclear weapons. I'm becoming increasingly unsure about the path forward for Ukraine. 

I almost think it might be better to surrender to Putin's terms and then start an underground resistance.  Otherwise innocent Ukrainian citizens keep dying for weeks or possibly months until the inevitable of Russia's occupation happens anyway. The suffering of Ukraine's citizens is difficult to watch on TV news reports.

[Softball Fan]

The latest news reports indicate the Belarus military is going to invade Ukraine starting this coming week.   I admire Ukraine's resolve to fight back.  However it seems Putin's strategy is to keep bombing civilians until Ukraine gives up.  I can't envision Putin giving up. If it comes down to it I believe he will use chemical weapons and then tactical nuclear weapons. I'm becoming increasingly unsure about the path forward for Ukraine. 

I almost think it might be better to surrender to Putin's terms and then start an underground resistance.  Otherwise innocent Ukrainian citizens keep dying for weeks or possibly months until the inevitable of Russia's occupation happens anyway. The suffering of Ukraine's citizens is difficult to watch on TV news reports.

[Goose]

Good piece on the importance of rail for Russian resupply, and why they haven’t been able to take advantage of the rail network.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-ukra...ck-2804108

Ukraine -- unlike Western Europe -- uses the same gauge of railroad as Russia. That infrastructure, though, can't be used to bring supplies until troops control the towns that sit on them, in particular key junctions such as Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiv in the north, or Kherson, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia in the south.

The problem for Russia is that its military needs to take major cities to access the rail network, Vershinin said by telephone from Virginia. "The other problem is that the Russians have not brought enough manpower," he said. "This is a of immense proportions country, and every time they need to take a city they also have to leave force behind to hold it."

The other significant problem is that rail infrastructure is more vulnerable than roads. If you just blow up the signaling equipment, not even the track itself, you drastically reduce the capacity of the network. Some of the rail lines are electric. Blow up the substations and they are useless unless Russia brings their own diesel locomotives. I would expect Ukraine will make sure no working locomotives are left for the Russians. Broken ones derailed across the tracks and booby trapped are a nice touch. Of course, blowing up rail bridges is nice too. You can't simply substitute a Baily bridge or equivalent. Trains are too heavy for that. Javelin missiles work great on locomotives. Heck, even an AT4 (M136) will do the job if you can get close enough. Ukraine probably won't waste aircraft (that are valuable and in short supply) on the railroads, but drones can do a good enough job.

[Goose]

Good piece on the importance of rail for Russian resupply, and why they haven’t been able to take advantage of the rail network.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-ukra...ck-2804108

Ukraine -- unlike Western Europe -- uses the same gauge of railroad as Russia. That infrastructure, though, can't be used to bring supplies until troops control the towns that sit on them, in particular key junctions such as Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiv in the north, or Kherson, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia in the south.

The problem for Russia is that its military needs to take major cities to access the rail network, Vershinin said by telephone from Virginia. "The other problem is that the Russians have not brought enough manpower," he said. "This is a of immense proportions country, and every time they need to take a city they also have to leave force behind to hold it."

The other significant problem is that rail infrastructure is more vulnerable than roads. If you just blow up the signaling equipment, not even the track itself, you drastically reduce the capacity of the network. Some of the rail lines are electric. Blow up the substations and they are useless unless Russia brings their own diesel locomotives. I would expect Ukraine will make sure no working locomotives are left for the Russians. Broken ones derailed across the tracks and booby trapped are a nice touch. Of course, blowing up rail bridges is nice too. You can't simply substitute a Baily bridge or equivalent. Trains are too heavy for that. Javelin missiles work great on locomotives. Heck, even an AT4 (M136) will do the job if you can get close enough. Ukraine probably won't waste aircraft (that are valuable and in short supply) on the railroads, but drones can do a good enough job.

[BigJohn043]

The latest news reports indicate the Belarus military is going to invade Ukraine starting this coming week.   I admire Ukraine's resolve to fight back.  However it seems Putin's strategy is to keep bombing civilians until Ukraine gives up.  I can't envision Putin giving up.  If it comes down to it I believe he will use chemical weapons and then tactical nuclear weapons.  I'm becoming increasingly unsure about the path forward for Ukraine. 

I almost think it might be better to surrender to Putin's terms and then start an underground resistance.  Otherwise innocent Ukrainian citizens keep dying for weeks or possibly months until the inevitable of Russia's occupation happens anyway.  The suffering of Ukraine's citizens is difficult to watch on TV news reports.

The Belarus army is tiny.  Something like 50K active duty and most of those are 18 month conscripts.  They also won't commit any where near all of their forces even if they do contribute.

Putin doesn't have any where near the kind of force it would require in order to take a major city like Kiev.  They really can't even take small cities in the North East like Suny.

Putin will cause immense damage but he is losing.  Supply is only going to get more difficult.  Even ground that he takes will be difficult to defend.

[BigJohn043]

The latest news reports indicate the Belarus military is going to invade Ukraine starting this coming week.   I admire Ukraine's resolve to fight back.  However it seems Putin's strategy is to keep bombing civilians until Ukraine gives up.  I can't envision Putin giving up.  If it comes down to it I believe he will use chemical weapons and then tactical nuclear weapons.  I'm becoming increasingly unsure about the path forward for Ukraine. 

I almost think it might be better to surrender to Putin's terms and then start an underground resistance.  Otherwise innocent Ukrainian citizens keep dying for weeks or possibly months until the inevitable of Russia's occupation happens anyway.  The suffering of Ukraine's citizens is difficult to watch on TV news reports.

The Belarus army is tiny.  Something like 50K active duty and most of those are 18 month conscripts.  They also won't commit any where near all of their forces even if they do contribute.

Putin doesn't have any where near the kind of force it would require in order to take a major city like Kiev.  They really can't even take small cities in the North East like Suny.

Putin will cause immense damage but he is losing.  Supply is only going to get more difficult.  Even ground that he takes will be difficult to defend.

[OutsiderFan]

The latest news reports indicate the Belarus military is going to invade Ukraine starting this coming week.   I admire Ukraine's resolve to fight back.  However it seems Putin's strategy is to keep bombing civilians until Ukraine gives up.  I can't envision Putin giving up.  If it comes down to it I believe he will use chemical weapons and then tactical nuclear weapons.  I'm becoming increasingly unsure about the path forward for Ukraine. 

I almost think it might be better to surrender to Putin's terms and then start an underground resistance.  Otherwise innocent Ukrainian citizens keep dying for weeks or possibly months until the inevitable of Russia's occupation happens anyway.  The suffering of Ukraine's citizens is difficult to watch on TV news reports.

The Western and NATO countries should not let Ukraine go without a fight after investing so much money and resources in its defense. The fact Ukraine has withstood the invasion so well for almost a month - when most people thought it would be routed in a few days - makes NATO inaction even more disappointing. 

So infuriating to see Ukraine be taking such a beating while we just sit on sidelines and watch. But I will acknowledge there are a whole lot of variables to consider, and a whole lot I don't know, that if I did, might make me favor NATO inaction.

[OutsiderFan]

The latest news reports indicate the Belarus military is going to invade Ukraine starting this coming week.   I admire Ukraine's resolve to fight back.  However it seems Putin's strategy is to keep bombing civilians until Ukraine gives up.  I can't envision Putin giving up.  If it comes down to it I believe he will use chemical weapons and then tactical nuclear weapons.  I'm becoming increasingly unsure about the path forward for Ukraine. 

I almost think it might be better to surrender to Putin's terms and then start an underground resistance.  Otherwise innocent Ukrainian citizens keep dying for weeks or possibly months until the inevitable of Russia's occupation happens anyway.  The suffering of Ukraine's citizens is difficult to watch on TV news reports.

The Western and NATO countries should not let Ukraine go without a fight after investing so much money and resources in its defense. The fact Ukraine has withstood the invasion so well for almost a month - when most people thought it would be routed in a few days - makes NATO inaction even more disappointing. 

So infuriating to see Ukraine be taking such a beating while we just sit on sidelines and watch. But I will acknowledge there are a whole lot of variables to consider, and a whole lot I don't know, that if I did, might make me favor NATO inaction.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/zelenskky-sai...15765.html

In so far as Zelenskyy is unwilling to give up Crimea, there isn't going to be a peace agreement. The two Donbas "Republics" are probably in a similar category. Putin absolutely cannot give these up and remain in power. That would represent a loss on his part, and he can't let that happen. There is little doubt that "the law" in on Ukraine's side regarding these issues, but the facts on the ground are not. A cease-fire may be obtained with these issues unresolved, but not peace.
A cease-fire works for Ukraine only if the West is allowed to militarily build them up while negotiations for a final agreement are in progress. Right now, Russia probably would like to call a TO so they can get reorganized. It needs to be a short TO because leaving their troops in place is costly in supplies and gives the Russian people time to figure out what is going on. They will then just start the war again if they don't get what they want. Ukraine would get less benefit from a short pause than Russia will militarily UNLESS the West "sells" them lots of stuff during the pause. Hard for Putin to object since there is no war at that point, right?
This "give up no territory" situation could be solved if Ukraine "sells" Crimea to Russia for 100 billion or so. Obviously, it would be under duress, but Putin could claim he got what he wanted and Ukraine could say they didn't "give up territory". Putin probably isn't getting much if any of his frozen funds back anyway. It will need to be used to rebuild Ukraine. Leveraging it to get over this issue might be a way out. Goodness knows both sides will need one.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/zelenskky-sai...15765.html

In so far as Zelenskyy is unwilling to give up Crimea, there isn't going to be a peace agreement. The two Donbas "Republics" are probably in a similar category. Putin absolutely cannot give these up and remain in power. That would represent a loss on his part, and he can't let that happen. There is little doubt that "the law" in on Ukraine's side regarding these issues, but the facts on the ground are not. A cease-fire may be obtained with these issues unresolved, but not peace.
A cease-fire works for Ukraine only if the West is allowed to militarily build them up while negotiations for a final agreement are in progress. Right now, Russia probably would like to call a TO so they can get reorganized. It needs to be a short TO because leaving their troops in place is costly in supplies and gives the Russian people time to figure out what is going on. They will then just start the war again if they don't get what they want. Ukraine would get less benefit from a short pause than Russia will militarily UNLESS the West "sells" them lots of stuff during the pause. Hard for Putin to object since there is no war at that point, right?
This "give up no territory" situation could be solved if Ukraine "sells" Crimea to Russia for 100 billion or so. Obviously, it would be under duress, but Putin could claim he got what he wanted and Ukraine could say they didn't "give up territory". Putin probably isn't getting much if any of his frozen funds back anyway. It will need to be used to rebuild Ukraine. Leveraging it to get over this issue might be a way out. Goodness knows both sides will need one.

[Softball Fan]

Good piece on the importance of rail for Russian resupply, and why they haven’t been able to take advantage of the rail network.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-ukra...ck-2804108

Ukraine -- unlike Western Europe -- uses the same gauge of railroad as Russia. That infrastructure, though, can't be used to bring supplies until troops control the towns that sit on them, in particular key junctions such as Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiv in the north, or Kherson, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia in the south.

The problem for Russia is that its military needs to take major cities to access the rail network, Vershinin said by telephone from Virginia. "The other problem is that the Russians have not brought enough manpower," he said. "This is a of immense proportions country, and every time they need to take a city they also have to leave force behind to hold it."

The other significant problem is that rail infrastructure is more vulnerable than roads. If you just blow up the signaling equipment, not even the track itself, you drastically reduce the capacity of the network. Some of the rail lines are electric. Blow up the substations and they are useless unless Russia brings their own diesel locomotives. I would expect Ukraine will make sure no working locomotives are left for the Russians. Broken ones derailed across the tracks and booby trapped are a nice touch. Of course, blowing up rail bridges is nice too. You can't simply substitute a Baily bridge or equivalent. Trains are too heavy for that. Javelin missiles work great on locomotives. Heck, even an AT4 (M136) will do the job if you can get close enough. Ukraine probably won't waste aircraft (that are valuable and in short supply) on the railroads, but drones can do a good enough job.

Goose, you seem to be into the weapons strategy side of this.   I owned a company that supplied electronic sub-assemblies to defense contractors.   I sold it a few years ago and mostly retired. 

I’m surprised Javelin is the only U.S. missile making it into the news.   Javelin is a portable, shoulder fired missile, relatively easy to use so it’s ideal for Ukraine.  But there are other small, mobile missile systems that could be employed in Ukraine.  I don’t why they’re not or maybe they are being supplied covertly. Between heat seeking and GPS guided missiles there’s an array of U.S. technology for ground and drone attack that is specifically designed for this type of war.

[Softball Fan]

Good piece on the importance of rail for Russian resupply, and why they haven’t been able to take advantage of the rail network.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-ukra...ck-2804108

Ukraine -- unlike Western Europe -- uses the same gauge of railroad as Russia. That infrastructure, though, can't be used to bring supplies until troops control the towns that sit on them, in particular key junctions such as Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiv in the north, or Kherson, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia in the south.

The problem for Russia is that its military needs to take major cities to access the rail network, Vershinin said by telephone from Virginia. "The other problem is that the Russians have not brought enough manpower," he said. "This is a of immense proportions country, and every time they need to take a city they also have to leave force behind to hold it."

The other significant problem is that rail infrastructure is more vulnerable than roads. If you just blow up the signaling equipment, not even the track itself, you drastically reduce the capacity of the network. Some of the rail lines are electric. Blow up the substations and they are useless unless Russia brings their own diesel locomotives. I would expect Ukraine will make sure no working locomotives are left for the Russians. Broken ones derailed across the tracks and booby trapped are a nice touch. Of course, blowing up rail bridges is nice too. You can't simply substitute a Baily bridge or equivalent. Trains are too heavy for that. Javelin missiles work great on locomotives. Heck, even an AT4 (M136) will do the job if you can get close enough. Ukraine probably won't waste aircraft (that are valuable and in short supply) on the railroads, but drones can do a good enough job.

Goose, you seem to be into the weapons strategy side of this.   I owned a company that supplied electronic sub-assemblies to defense contractors.   I sold it a few years ago and mostly retired. 

I’m surprised Javelin is the only U.S. missile making it into the news.   Javelin is a portable, shoulder fired missile, relatively easy to use so it’s ideal for Ukraine.  But there are other small, mobile missile systems that could be employed in Ukraine.  I don’t why they’re not or maybe they are being supplied covertly. Between heat seeking and GPS guided missiles there’s an array of U.S. technology for ground and drone attack that is specifically designed for this type of war.

[ca245]

Good piece on the importance of rail for Russian resupply, and why they haven’t been able to take advantage of the rail network.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-ukra...ck-2804108

Ukraine -- unlike Western Europe -- uses the same gauge of railroad as Russia. That infrastructure, though, can't be used to bring supplies until troops control the towns that sit on them, in particular key junctions such as Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiv in the north, or Kherson, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia in the south.

The problem for Russia is that its military needs to take major cities to access the rail network, Vershinin said by telephone from Virginia. "The other problem is that the Russians have not brought enough manpower," he said. "This is a of immense proportions country, and every time they need to take a city they also have to leave force behind to hold it."

The other significant problem is that rail infrastructure is more vulnerable than roads. If you just blow up the signaling equipment, not even the track itself, you drastically reduce the capacity of the network. Some of the rail lines are electric. Blow up the substations and they are useless unless Russia brings their own diesel locomotives. I would expect Ukraine will make sure no working locomotives are left for the Russians. Broken ones derailed across the tracks and booby trapped are a nice touch. Of course, blowing up rail bridges is nice too. You can't simply substitute a Baily bridge or equivalent. Trains are too heavy for that. Javelin missiles work great on locomotives. Heck, even an AT4 (M136) will do the job if you can get close enough. Ukraine probably won't waste aircraft (that are valuable and in short supply) on the railroads, but drones can do a good enough job.

Goose, you seem to be into the weapons strategy side of this.   I owned a company that supplied electronic sub-assemblies to defense contractors.   I sold it a few years ago and mostly retired. 

I’m surprised Javelin is the only U.S. missile making it into the news.   Javelin is a portable, shoulder fired missile, relatively easy to use so it’s ideal for Ukraine.  But there are other small, mobile missile systems that could be employed in Ukraine.  I don’t why they’re not or maybe they are being supplied covertly. Between heat seeking and GPS guided missiles there’s an array of U.S. technology for ground and drone attack that is specifically designed for this type of war.

Another anti-armor weapon the Ukrainians have been using with great success is the NLAW, supplied by Britain and developed by SAAB of Sweden. It is lighter and shorter range, so it complements the Javelin.
NLAW

[ca245]

Good piece on the importance of rail for Russian resupply, and why they haven’t been able to take advantage of the rail network.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-ukra...ck-2804108

Ukraine -- unlike Western Europe -- uses the same gauge of railroad as Russia. That infrastructure, though, can't be used to bring supplies until troops control the towns that sit on them, in particular key junctions such as Kharkiv, Sumy and Chernihiv in the north, or Kherson, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia in the south.

The problem for Russia is that its military needs to take major cities to access the rail network, Vershinin said by telephone from Virginia. "The other problem is that the Russians have not brought enough manpower," he said. "This is a of immense proportions country, and every time they need to take a city they also have to leave force behind to hold it."

The other significant problem is that rail infrastructure is more vulnerable than roads. If you just blow up the signaling equipment, not even the track itself, you drastically reduce the capacity of the network. Some of the rail lines are electric. Blow up the substations and they are useless unless Russia brings their own diesel locomotives. I would expect Ukraine will make sure no working locomotives are left for the Russians. Broken ones derailed across the tracks and booby trapped are a nice touch. Of course, blowing up rail bridges is nice too. You can't simply substitute a Baily bridge or equivalent. Trains are too heavy for that. Javelin missiles work great on locomotives. Heck, even an AT4 (M136) will do the job if you can get close enough. Ukraine probably won't waste aircraft (that are valuable and in short supply) on the railroads, but drones can do a good enough job.

Goose, you seem to be into the weapons strategy side of this.   I owned a company that supplied electronic sub-assemblies to defense contractors.   I sold it a few years ago and mostly retired. 

I’m surprised Javelin is the only U.S. missile making it into the news.   Javelin is a portable, shoulder fired missile, relatively easy to use so it’s ideal for Ukraine.  But there are other small, mobile missile systems that could be employed in Ukraine.  I don’t why they’re not or maybe they are being supplied covertly. Between heat seeking and GPS guided missiles there’s an array of U.S. technology for ground and drone attack that is specifically designed for this type of war.

Another anti-armor weapon the Ukrainians have been using with great success is the NLAW, supplied by Britain and developed by SAAB of Sweden. It is lighter and shorter range, so it complements the Javelin.
NLAW

[gailtate]

Not according these folks. From Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy’s biography of Putin, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin:

The special closed world of the oligarchs at the core of Putin’s informal system echoes the relationship between the tsar and his elite servitors. Neither the current crony oligarchs nor the original post-Soviet oligarchs are oligarchs in the Western sense. They are not a single group or even a set of groups with an independent base of power. They are all part of Putin’s one-boy network. They do not jockey for power with Putin, although they do clearly try to get access to the person of the president to transmit their views and concerns and have some influence over his decisions. As in earlier, historical versions of this system, their positions and status are entirely dependent on Putin. So is the oligarchs’ property — it is a privilege that flows from their relationship with the president.

As president, Putin protects the oligarchs and his inner circle. The oligarchs steward and manage the key sectors of the Russian economy. They pay formal taxes and also deliver tribute to Putin and the state through the informal systems of taxation. They prosper because they deliver and precisely because they have Putin’s protection.



Putin’s’ informal, unofficial system and the formal world of the state apparatus both depend upon unity of command. Putin may have rejected the idea of a unipolar world dominated by the rules and institutions of the United States and its Western allies, but he is very much a unipolar president. Others can bring ideas to the table and criticize the president during the deliberative part of the policy process, but his word is final. What he says, goes, once the decision is made. . . . In Putin’s conceptualization of himself as CEO of Russia, Inc., and in his conceptualization of the vertikal vlasti” — a top-down, strict chain of command — “everyone beneath him is an operational manager. They implement, they do not set the strategic direction.”

Then there's little nugget from Once Upon a Time in Russia, a profile of Russia’s oligarchs written in 2015. Looks like Putin established who was boss from the start:

In the first week, Putin invited all of the oligarchs out to Stalin’s old house. This is a place where there’s like bullet holes in the walls where people used to get lined up and shot. He had all the oligarchs sit down at a table. He got up in front of them, and he said, you’ve all made tons of money. You’ve all done really, really well. You can keep your money. But from here on out, you stay out of my way. All the oligarchs who stayed out of his way are the oligarchs who are around today doing very well, and the oligarchs who did not, who spoke up, all died or were exiled — were found hanging in their bathroom or fell down an elevator shaft or fell out of a helicopter. It was not good business going up against Putin. Putin very quickly became the most powerful oligarch of all.

The author, Ben Mezrich, says this today:

(Put has) weeded out everyone who’s an enemy. The oligarchs who remain are utterly loyal to him, and, honestly, very afraid of him. . . . These sanctions, I think, are pretty intricate when they go after these people who have so little to gain from what’s going on right now and have everything to lose. I do think you’re seeing cracks appear, and I do think as a class, the oligarchs want this war to end.

The good news is that with every passing day, Russia become a le$$er power and a bigger pariah. How long before his people start boiling rocks to make soup?

[gailtate]

Not according these folks. From Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy’s biography of Putin, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin:

The special closed world of the oligarchs at the core of Putin’s informal system echoes the relationship between the tsar and his elite servitors. Neither the current crony oligarchs nor the original post-Soviet oligarchs are oligarchs in the Western sense. They are not a single group or even a set of groups with an independent base of power. They are all part of Putin’s one-boy network. They do not jockey for power with Putin, although they do clearly try to get access to the person of the president to transmit their views and concerns and have some influence over his decisions. As in earlier, historical versions of this system, their positions and status are entirely dependent on Putin. So is the oligarchs’ property — it is a privilege that flows from their relationship with the president.

As president, Putin protects the oligarchs and his inner circle. The oligarchs steward and manage the key sectors of the Russian economy. They pay formal taxes and also deliver tribute to Putin and the state through the informal systems of taxation. They prosper because they deliver and precisely because they have Putin’s protection.



Putin’s’ informal, unofficial system and the formal world of the state apparatus both depend upon unity of command. Putin may have rejected the idea of a unipolar world dominated by the rules and institutions of the United States and its Western allies, but he is very much a unipolar president. Others can bring ideas to the table and criticize the president during the deliberative part of the policy process, but his word is final. What he says, goes, once the decision is made. . . . In Putin’s conceptualization of himself as CEO of Russia, Inc., and in his conceptualization of the vertikal vlasti” — a top-down, strict chain of command — “everyone beneath him is an operational manager. They implement, they do not set the strategic direction.”

Then there's little nugget from Once Upon a Time in Russia, a profile of Russia’s oligarchs written in 2015. Looks like Putin established who was boss from the start:

In the first week, Putin invited all of the oligarchs out to Stalin’s old house. This is a place where there’s like bullet holes in the walls where people used to get lined up and shot. He had all the oligarchs sit down at a table. He got up in front of them, and he said, you’ve all made tons of money. You’ve all done really, really well. You can keep your money. But from here on out, you stay out of my way. All the oligarchs who stayed out of his way are the oligarchs who are around today doing very well, and the oligarchs who did not, who spoke up, all died or were exiled — were found hanging in their bathroom or fell down an elevator shaft or fell out of a helicopter. It was not good business going up against Putin. Putin very quickly became the most powerful oligarch of all.

The author, Ben Mezrich, says this today:

(Put has) weeded out everyone who’s an enemy. The oligarchs who remain are utterly loyal to him, and, honestly, very afraid of him. . . . These sanctions, I think, are pretty intricate when they go after these people who have so little to gain from what’s going on right now and have everything to lose. I do think you’re seeing cracks appear, and I do think as a class, the oligarchs want this war to end.

The good news is that with every passing day, Russia become a le$$er power and a bigger pariah. How long before his people start boiling rocks to make soup?

[2006alum]

Friendly request to keep all things Ukraine in one thread. One way we can limit the intrusion of politics-y stuff on this board is by containing it so those who'd like to avoid it can do so easily. :)

[2006alum]

Friendly request to keep all things Ukraine in one thread. One way we can limit the intrusion of politics-y stuff on this board is by containing it so those who'd like to avoid it can do so easily. :)

[gailtate]

Friendly request to keep all things Ukraine in one thread. One way we can limit the intrusion of politics-y stuff on this board is by containing it so those who'd like to avoid it can do so easily. :)

Thought I was on it. My error.

[gailtate]

Friendly request to keep all things Ukraine in one thread. One way we can limit the intrusion of politics-y stuff on this board is by containing it so those who'd like to avoid it can do so easily. :)

Thought I was on it. My error.

[BostonCard]

No problem, Gail; happens to the best of us.

For more on Putin, I recommend this episode of throughline, NPR’s history podcast.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/25/791359186/the-moth

There’s an anecdote in there that tells you a lot about the relationship between Putin and the oligarchs.  You can see the video of that encounter here:

https://youtu.be/48Kk7kobMQY

“Give me back my pan” as a flex.

BC

[BostonCard]

No problem, Gail; happens to the best of us.

For more on Putin, I recommend this episode of throughline, NPR’s history podcast.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/25/791359186/the-moth

There’s an anecdote in there that tells you a lot about the relationship between Putin and the oligarchs.  You can see the video of that encounter here:

https://youtu.be/48Kk7kobMQY

“Give me back my pan” as a flex.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/osinttechnical/status/1506762525739827209?s=21[/tweet]

Tide turning?

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1506695758346661894?s=21[/tweet]

I saw a reference to an unverified claim by Ukraine that they had killed a *sixth* Russian General.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/osinttechnical/status/1506762525739827209?s=21[/tweet]

Tide turning?

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1506695758346661894?s=21[/tweet]

I saw a reference to an unverified claim by Ukraine that they had killed a *sixth* Russian General.

BC

[fullmetal]

Anyone other than me find "Naval Infantry" a contradiction in terms...?

A year ago, a theory was advanced that Russia needed to invade Ukraine to restore water flow in the North Crimean Canal. Since the invasion, Russia has reopened the canal.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1506742739161198592[/tweet]

[fullmetal]

Anyone other than me find "Naval Infantry" a contradiction in terms...?

A year ago, a theory was advanced that Russia needed to invade Ukraine to restore water flow in the North Crimean Canal. Since the invasion, Russia has reopened the canal.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1506742739161198592[/tweet]

[JustAnotherFan]

Anyone other than me find "Naval Infantry" a contradiction in terms...?

A year ago, a theory was advanced that Russia needed to invade Ukraine to restore water flow in the North Crimean Canal. Since the invasion, Russia has reopened the canal.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1506742739161198592[/tweet]

With zero knowledge on this topic as it pertains to Russia I would guess it is the same as the Marines, which very much have been the Navy's infantry in the past, in the US.

[JustAnotherFan]

Anyone other than me find "Naval Infantry" a contradiction in terms...?

A year ago, a theory was advanced that Russia needed to invade Ukraine to restore water flow in the North Crimean Canal. Since the invasion, Russia has reopened the canal.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1506742739161198592[/tweet]

With zero knowledge on this topic as it pertains to Russia I would guess it is the same as the Marines, which very much have been the Navy's infantry in the past, in the US.

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-hum...lewebshare

I don’t know how they estimate that 20% of Russian forces have been lost, but it does square with the fact that up to six Russian generals were killed (out of 20, I believe), and that Russian deaths are somewhere in the high single digit thousands (if you add captured, injured, and deserting soldiers it is easy to get to ~20%), in which case, wow.

If Ukraine can surround and neutralize a portion of the soldiers in the outskirts of Ukraine, it adds to that.

Also, this: https://www.wsj.com/video/series/on-the-...lewebshare

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-hum...lewebshare

I don’t know how they estimate that 20% of Russian forces have been lost, but it does square with the fact that up to six Russian generals were killed (out of 20, I believe), and that Russian deaths are somewhere in the high single digit thousands (if you add captured, injured, and deserting soldiers it is easy to get to ~20%), in which case, wow.

If Ukraine can surround and neutralize a portion of the soldiers in the outskirts of Ukraine, it adds to that.

Also, this: https://www.wsj.com/video/series/on-the-...lewebshare

BC

[Goose]

If Ukraine can surround and neutralize a portion of the soldiers in the outskirts of Ukraine, it adds to that.



BC

Ukraine at this point has to hope for a complete morale failure in the Russian military leading to a serial mass surrender. Surrounding a significant formation and causing it to capitulate could do that. Otherwise, Ukraine will just be slowly pounded into oblivion. If Russia can hold up politically for however long that takes, no other outcome is really possible. Ukraine simply doesn't have the combat power to force a Russian surrender or to drive them put of the country. They can hold Russia off for a while, maybe a long time, but not forever.

[Goose]

If Ukraine can surround and neutralize a portion of the soldiers in the outskirts of Ukraine, it adds to that.



BC

Ukraine at this point has to hope for a complete morale failure in the Russian military leading to a serial mass surrender. Surrounding a significant formation and causing it to capitulate could do that. Otherwise, Ukraine will just be slowly pounded into oblivion. If Russia can hold up politically for however long that takes, no other outcome is really possible. Ukraine simply doesn't have the combat power to force a Russian surrender or to drive them put of the country. They can hold Russia off for a while, maybe a long time, but not forever.