[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status/1567653882360217600?s=20&t=mgzRZwLzAp46xqW0hgXlGg[/tweet]

Good visualization of Ukrainian gains in the east. Ukraine is mounting two different offensives now that each seem to be advancing more rapidly than Russia's offensive in Luhansk.

Perhaps Ukraine will be doing an operational pause soon to consolidate, but I think we're past the turning point now, Ukraine has the initiative. Past the end of the beginning, getting closer to the beginning of the end.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status/1567653882360217600?s=20&t=mgzRZwLzAp46xqW0hgXlGg[/tweet]

Good visualization of Ukrainian gains in the east. Ukraine is mounting two different offensives now that each seem to be advancing more rapidly than Russia's offensive in Luhansk.

Perhaps Ukraine will be doing an operational pause soon to consolidate, but I think we're past the turning point now, Ukraine has the initiative. Past the end of the beginning, getting closer to the beginning of the end.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status...xqW0hgXlGg

Good visualization of Ukrainian gains in the east. Ukraine is mounting two different offensives now that each seem to be advancing more rapidly than Russia's offensive in Luhansk.

Perhaps Ukraine will be doing an operational pause soon to consolidate, but I think we're past the turning point now, Ukraine has the initiative. Past the end of the beginning, getting closer to the beginning of the end.

Lets wait and see what the POW count from this operation is. Restoring a significant amount of territory to Ukraine is great, but if the Russians just retreated in good order (or Ukraine was advancing into mostly empty space) it is much less great. It is interesting looking at the time lapse to see the Russian position was a salient which Ukraine collapsed. Ukraine now has a salient into Russian positions. Lets see if the salient expands in width or deepens. Expands is good. Deepens can be good too but carries much more risk.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status...xqW0hgXlGg

Good visualization of Ukrainian gains in the east. Ukraine is mounting two different offensives now that each seem to be advancing more rapidly than Russia's offensive in Luhansk.

Perhaps Ukraine will be doing an operational pause soon to consolidate, but I think we're past the turning point now, Ukraine has the initiative. Past the end of the beginning, getting closer to the beginning of the end.

Lets wait and see what the POW count from this operation is. Restoring a significant amount of territory to Ukraine is great, but if the Russians just retreated in good order (or Ukraine was advancing into mostly empty space) it is much less great. It is interesting looking at the time lapse to see the Russian position was a salient which Ukraine collapsed. Ukraine now has a salient into Russian positions. Lets see if the salient expands in width or deepens. Expands is good. Deepens can be good too but carries much more risk.

[81alum]

I don't follow these events with the detailed knowledge of some of you, but this NYT article made an impression on me 3 days ago--making me wonder how well sanctions of any kind will work in the future.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/03/world...l-law.html

"...But over the past year, Windward, a large maritime data company that provides research to the United Nations, has uncovered more than 500 cases of ships manipulating their satellite navigation systems to hide their locations. The vessels carry out the deception by adopting a technology that until recently was confined to the world’s most advanced navies. The technology, in essence, replicates the effect of a VPN cellphone app, making a ship appear to be in one place, while physically being elsewhere."

This discussion of "manipulating the ship's GPS" is nonsense. It isn't necessary or useful. The AIS transponder receives data from an external source (NMEA bus, RS-232 etc). Any laptop can be substituted to supply fake location data. The ship's GPS is not involved at all, and there is nothing "advanced" about it. It has been going on for many years. There are other AIS spoofs as well, such as pretending to be a different vessel. One dodge that is a bit more sophisticated is to have an AIS transmitting the location of the spoofing ship as anchored someplace, while the ship transits either with no AIS operating or transmitting the ID of a different ship. Unless you can actually overfly the ship transmitting the fake ID, you are none the wiser, and even then it can be tricky if the fake ID is plausible, eg using the ID of a ship of the same manufacture and class.

The US used to have a large enough VP community that we could minimize this type of activity by monitoring "chokepoints" in maritime commerce and aggressively surveilling suspected violators when they "wandered off" someplace . It wasn't by any means airtight but it was somewhat effective. No more. Satellites  are now being used to receive AIS signals and some anomalies can be detected that way. However, they can't actually "see" the ships, so cheating is still easy. All those P-3s actually did something after all.

Goose, I have learned to respect your detailed and extensive knowledge on matters like this.  But I am not quite sure what you are saying.  When you observe that cheating is still easy, it sounds like you are endorsing the general thrust of the NYT article.  But you begin by making a well informed critique of the NYT article.  It sounds like the NYT article was written by someone with less knowledge and understanding than you have, but the ultimate conclusion is the same?  Sanctions don't work very well because maritime cheating is so easy?

[81alum]

I don't follow these events with the detailed knowledge of some of you, but this NYT article made an impression on me 3 days ago--making me wonder how well sanctions of any kind will work in the future.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/03/world...l-law.html

"...But over the past year, Windward, a large maritime data company that provides research to the United Nations, has uncovered more than 500 cases of ships manipulating their satellite navigation systems to hide their locations. The vessels carry out the deception by adopting a technology that until recently was confined to the world’s most advanced navies. The technology, in essence, replicates the effect of a VPN cellphone app, making a ship appear to be in one place, while physically being elsewhere."

This discussion of "manipulating the ship's GPS" is nonsense. It isn't necessary or useful. The AIS transponder receives data from an external source (NMEA bus, RS-232 etc). Any laptop can be substituted to supply fake location data. The ship's GPS is not involved at all, and there is nothing "advanced" about it. It has been going on for many years. There are other AIS spoofs as well, such as pretending to be a different vessel. One dodge that is a bit more sophisticated is to have an AIS transmitting the location of the spoofing ship as anchored someplace, while the ship transits either with no AIS operating or transmitting the ID of a different ship. Unless you can actually overfly the ship transmitting the fake ID, you are none the wiser, and even then it can be tricky if the fake ID is plausible, eg using the ID of a ship of the same manufacture and class.

The US used to have a large enough VP community that we could minimize this type of activity by monitoring "chokepoints" in maritime commerce and aggressively surveilling suspected violators when they "wandered off" someplace . It wasn't by any means airtight but it was somewhat effective. No more. Satellites  are now being used to receive AIS signals and some anomalies can be detected that way. However, they can't actually "see" the ships, so cheating is still easy. All those P-3s actually did something after all.

Goose, I have learned to respect your detailed and extensive knowledge on matters like this.  But I am not quite sure what you are saying.  When you observe that cheating is still easy, it sounds like you are endorsing the general thrust of the NYT article.  But you begin by making a well informed critique of the NYT article.  It sounds like the NYT article was written by someone with less knowledge and understanding than you have, but the ultimate conclusion is the same?  Sanctions don't work very well because maritime cheating is so easy?

[Goose]

Goose, I have learned to respect your detailed and extensive knowledge on matters like this.  But I am not quite sure what you are saying.  When you observe that cheating is still easy, it sounds like you are endorsing the general thrust of the NYT article.  But you begin by making a well informed critique of the NYT article.  It sounds like the NYT article was written by someone with less knowledge and understanding than you have, but the ultimate conclusion is the same?  Sanctions don't work very well because maritime cheating is so easy?

I was reacting to two things. The NYT seemed to be saying that the cheating was possible due to new technology that affects the ship's GPS. That isn't the case and gives the public a very false impression about GPS spoofing. My second point was that false AIS indications are nothing new and are pretty well understood. This technology was quite commonly used by Nigerian oil pirates even 10 years ago. It is an issue but we have experience countering it.

Sanctions in this case are not working as well as they might because of policy errors, not technical challenges. The US has the ability to follow the majority of the cargo that is being "sanitized". The worst problem is that we have not partnered well enough with the nations where many of these ships are registered. We need their cooperation to board these ships and impound them if they are misrepresenting their cargo. The second problem is that we have under-resourced our ability to patrol the sea lanes. We have successfully (at least in the main) beat these two problems previously but we cannot assume sanctions will work without significant effort on our part. Maritime cheating isn't that easy if anybody is paying attention and plans to act on what they see. Right now, we are not. The rest of the west does have some capability to help, but without us leading diplomatically and  "militarily" it can't happen.

[Goose]

Goose, I have learned to respect your detailed and extensive knowledge on matters like this.  But I am not quite sure what you are saying.  When you observe that cheating is still easy, it sounds like you are endorsing the general thrust of the NYT article.  But you begin by making a well informed critique of the NYT article.  It sounds like the NYT article was written by someone with less knowledge and understanding than you have, but the ultimate conclusion is the same?  Sanctions don't work very well because maritime cheating is so easy?

I was reacting to two things. The NYT seemed to be saying that the cheating was possible due to new technology that affects the ship's GPS. That isn't the case and gives the public a very false impression about GPS spoofing. My second point was that false AIS indications are nothing new and are pretty well understood. This technology was quite commonly used by Nigerian oil pirates even 10 years ago. It is an issue but we have experience countering it.

Sanctions in this case are not working as well as they might because of policy errors, not technical challenges. The US has the ability to follow the majority of the cargo that is being "sanitized". The worst problem is that we have not partnered well enough with the nations where many of these ships are registered. We need their cooperation to board these ships and impound them if they are misrepresenting their cargo. The second problem is that we have under-resourced our ability to patrol the sea lanes. We have successfully (at least in the main) beat these two problems previously but we cannot assume sanctions will work without significant effort on our part. Maritime cheating isn't that easy if anybody is paying attention and plans to act on what they see. Right now, we are not. The rest of the west does have some capability to help, but without us leading diplomatically and  "militarily" it can't happen.

[GK3]

Goose, I have learned to respect your detailed and extensive knowledge on matters like this.  But I am not quite sure what you are saying.  When you observe that cheating is still easy, it sounds like you are endorsing the general thrust of the NYT article.  But you begin by making a well informed critique of the NYT article.  It sounds like the NYT article was written by someone with less knowledge and understanding than you have, but the ultimate conclusion is the same?  Sanctions don't work very well because maritime cheating is so easy?

I was reacting to two things. The NYT seemed to be saying that the cheating was possible due to new technology that affects the ship's GPS. That isn't the case and gives the public a very false impression about GPS spoofing. My second point was that false AIS indications are nothing new and are pretty well understood. This technology was quite commonly used by Nigerian oil pirates even 10 years ago. It is an issue but we have experience countering it.

Sanctions in this case are not working as well as they might because of policy errors, not technical challenges. The US has the ability to follow the majority of the cargo that is being "sanitized". The worst problem is that we have not partnered well enough with the nations where many of these ships are registered. We need their cooperation to board these ships and impound them if they are misrepresenting their cargo. The second problem is that we have under-resourced our ability to patrol the sea lanes. We have successfully (at least in the main) beat these two problems previously but we cannot assume sanctions will work without significant effort on our part. Maritime cheating isn't that easy if anybody is paying attention and plans to act on what they see. Right now, we are not. The rest of the west does have some capability to help, but without us leading diplomatically and  "militarily" it can't happen.

Well said!

[GK3]

Goose, I have learned to respect your detailed and extensive knowledge on matters like this.  But I am not quite sure what you are saying.  When you observe that cheating is still easy, it sounds like you are endorsing the general thrust of the NYT article.  But you begin by making a well informed critique of the NYT article.  It sounds like the NYT article was written by someone with less knowledge and understanding than you have, but the ultimate conclusion is the same?  Sanctions don't work very well because maritime cheating is so easy?

I was reacting to two things. The NYT seemed to be saying that the cheating was possible due to new technology that affects the ship's GPS. That isn't the case and gives the public a very false impression about GPS spoofing. My second point was that false AIS indications are nothing new and are pretty well understood. This technology was quite commonly used by Nigerian oil pirates even 10 years ago. It is an issue but we have experience countering it.

Sanctions in this case are not working as well as they might because of policy errors, not technical challenges. The US has the ability to follow the majority of the cargo that is being "sanitized". The worst problem is that we have not partnered well enough with the nations where many of these ships are registered. We need their cooperation to board these ships and impound them if they are misrepresenting their cargo. The second problem is that we have under-resourced our ability to patrol the sea lanes. We have successfully (at least in the main) beat these two problems previously but we cannot assume sanctions will work without significant effort on our part. Maritime cheating isn't that easy if anybody is paying attention and plans to act on what they see. Right now, we are not. The rest of the west does have some capability to help, but without us leading diplomatically and  "militarily" it can't happen.

Well said!

[old spanish trail]

Hey Goose, just wanted to tell you that I don't read all the points made in this long thread, but I very much appreciate your excellent info and efforts to keep the important discussion moving. Thanks you.

[old spanish trail]

Hey Goose, just wanted to tell you that I don't read all the points made in this long thread, but I very much appreciate your excellent info and efforts to keep the important discussion moving. Thanks you.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1567450148615110657?s=20&t=0XJSlJWc2siiYp1aI5cKZw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1567677734360432640?s=20&t=Cyv4y5UP3VV1aaYoxPLq-A[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1567450148615110657?s=20&t=0XJSlJWc2siiYp1aI5cKZw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1567677734360432640?s=20&t=Cyv4y5UP3VV1aaYoxPLq-A[/tweet]

[TrumpCard]

https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status...xqW0hgXlGg

Good visualization of Ukrainian gains in the east. Ukraine is mounting two different offensives now that each seem to be advancing more rapidly than Russia's offensive in Luhansk.

Perhaps Ukraine will be doing an operational pause soon to consolidate, but I think we're past the turning point now, Ukraine has the initiative. Past the end of the beginning, getting closer to the beginning of the end.

Lets wait and see what the POW count from this operation is. Restoring a significant amount of territory to Ukraine is great, but if the Russians just retreated in good order (or Ukraine was advancing into mostly empty space) it is much less great. It is interesting looking at the time lapse to see the Russian position was a salient which Ukraine collapsed. Ukraine now has a salient into Russian positions. Lets see if the salient expands in width or deepens. Expands is good. Deepens can be good too but carries much more risk.

How significant is the territory that Ukraine is capturing?  Mariupol and Kherson City are indisputably significant cities with prewar populations numbering near half a million.  Lysychansk, Severodonetsk, and Melitopol are smaller, but still ~100,000 each.  But that's not the terrain Ukraine has captured or appears close to capturing.  The town of Davydiv Brid (which appears to be a target Ukraine wants but hasn't yet taken) apparently had a prewar population of < 2,000.  The town of Oleksandrivka (another significant battle front that I don't think Ukraine has taken) had a prewar population of < 3,000.  Balakliya (which Ukraine reportedly encircled) is bigger at ~25,000, but still not the type of prize that normally makes headlines.  These are not isolated cases.  Ukraine mostly is taking farm land or towns/villages with very small populations or unreported populations.  Is there something about these locations like altitude or rail access that makes us think Ukraine is about to gain a whole bunch more territory that includes bigger towns?  Do we have reason to think Russia isn't just surrendering these towns to take more defensible positions elsewhere?  Or are we just being hopeful that past victories presage future ones? Or maybe, after the losses Ukraine suffered in the Donbas, any gains are rightly seen as a victory worth celebrating?

[TrumpCard]

https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status...xqW0hgXlGg

Good visualization of Ukrainian gains in the east. Ukraine is mounting two different offensives now that each seem to be advancing more rapidly than Russia's offensive in Luhansk.

Perhaps Ukraine will be doing an operational pause soon to consolidate, but I think we're past the turning point now, Ukraine has the initiative. Past the end of the beginning, getting closer to the beginning of the end.

Lets wait and see what the POW count from this operation is. Restoring a significant amount of territory to Ukraine is great, but if the Russians just retreated in good order (or Ukraine was advancing into mostly empty space) it is much less great. It is interesting looking at the time lapse to see the Russian position was a salient which Ukraine collapsed. Ukraine now has a salient into Russian positions. Lets see if the salient expands in width or deepens. Expands is good. Deepens can be good too but carries much more risk.

How significant is the territory that Ukraine is capturing?  Mariupol and Kherson City are indisputably significant cities with prewar populations numbering near half a million.  Lysychansk, Severodonetsk, and Melitopol are smaller, but still ~100,000 each.  But that's not the terrain Ukraine has captured or appears close to capturing.  The town of Davydiv Brid (which appears to be a target Ukraine wants but hasn't yet taken) apparently had a prewar population of < 2,000.  The town of Oleksandrivka (another significant battle front that I don't think Ukraine has taken) had a prewar population of < 3,000.  Balakliya (which Ukraine reportedly encircled) is bigger at ~25,000, but still not the type of prize that normally makes headlines.  These are not isolated cases.  Ukraine mostly is taking farm land or towns/villages with very small populations or unreported populations.  Is there something about these locations like altitude or rail access that makes us think Ukraine is about to gain a whole bunch more territory that includes bigger towns?  Do we have reason to think Russia isn't just surrendering these towns to take more defensible positions elsewhere?  Or are we just being hopeful that past victories presage future ones? Or maybe, after the losses Ukraine suffered in the Donbas, any gains are rightly seen as a victory worth celebrating?

[dabigv13]

These advances in Kharkiv directly threaten main Russian rail and road supply lines. Either directly or by allowing Ukraine to get artillery closer in range. And these are some of the first offensives Ukraine has really embarked on in this war against ostensibly entrenched troops. So to see Ukraine succeeding, on two fronts at the same time, is very heartening. It will probably still be a while before Kherson or another large city is taken, but now it at least seems feasible.

[dabigv13]

These advances in Kharkiv directly threaten main Russian rail and road supply lines. Either directly or by allowing Ukraine to get artillery closer in range. And these are some of the first offensives Ukraine has really embarked on in this war against ostensibly entrenched troops. So to see Ukraine succeeding, on two fronts at the same time, is very heartening. It will probably still be a while before Kherson or another large city is taken, but now it at least seems feasible.

[Goose]

How significant is the territory that Ukraine is capturing?  Mariupol and Kherson City are indisputably significant cities with prewar populations numbering near half a million.  Lysychansk, Severodonetsk, and Melitopol are smaller, but still ~100,000 each.  But that's not the terrain Ukraine has captured or appears close to capturing.  The town of Davydiv Brid (which appears to be a target Ukraine wants but hasn't yet taken) apparently had a prewar population of < 2,000.  The town of Oleksandrivka (another significant battle front that I don't think Ukraine has taken) had a prewar population of < 3,000.  Balakliya (which Ukraine reportedly encircled) is bigger at ~25,000, but still not the type of prize that normally makes headlines.  These are not isolated cases.  Ukraine mostly is taking farm land or towns/villages with very small populations or unreported populations.  Is there something about these locations like altitude or rail access that makes us think Ukraine is about to gain a whole bunch more territory that includes bigger towns?  Do we have reason to think Russia isn't just surrendering these towns to take more defensible positions elsewhere?  Or are we just being hopeful that past victories presage future ones?  Or maybe, after the losses Ukraine suffered in the Donbas, any gains are rightly seen as a victory worth celebrating?

Many of the smaller settlements being secured in the south are valuable because they sit astride secondary roads that lead to Kherson. These roads are now denied to Russia but available as lines of advance for Ukraine. Ukraine now has Kherson within artillery range. It is a tightening noose. Eventually you have a surrounded metropolis. That is where Ukraine is going in the south. These victories do matter.

In the north, it is much harder to say. The "objective" of that attack is unknown. It may have none other than occupying territory, and that is always a bad situation. Liberating people is always good, but you don't want to spread yourself too thin in doing so. Lets see how this unfolds.

[Goose]

How significant is the territory that Ukraine is capturing?  Mariupol and Kherson City are indisputably significant cities with prewar populations numbering near half a million.  Lysychansk, Severodonetsk, and Melitopol are smaller, but still ~100,000 each.  But that's not the terrain Ukraine has captured or appears close to capturing.  The town of Davydiv Brid (which appears to be a target Ukraine wants but hasn't yet taken) apparently had a prewar population of < 2,000.  The town of Oleksandrivka (another significant battle front that I don't think Ukraine has taken) had a prewar population of < 3,000.  Balakliya (which Ukraine reportedly encircled) is bigger at ~25,000, but still not the type of prize that normally makes headlines.  These are not isolated cases.  Ukraine mostly is taking farm land or towns/villages with very small populations or unreported populations.  Is there something about these locations like altitude or rail access that makes us think Ukraine is about to gain a whole bunch more territory that includes bigger towns?  Do we have reason to think Russia isn't just surrendering these towns to take more defensible positions elsewhere?  Or are we just being hopeful that past victories presage future ones?  Or maybe, after the losses Ukraine suffered in the Donbas, any gains are rightly seen as a victory worth celebrating?

Many of the smaller settlements being secured in the south are valuable because they sit astride secondary roads that lead to Kherson. These roads are now denied to Russia but available as lines of advance for Ukraine. Ukraine now has Kherson within artillery range. It is a tightening noose. Eventually you have a surrounded metropolis. That is where Ukraine is going in the south. These victories do matter.

In the north, it is much harder to say. The "objective" of that attack is unknown. It may have none other than occupying territory, and that is always a bad situation. Liberating people is always good, but you don't want to spread yourself too thin in doing so. Lets see how this unfolds.

[Hurlburt88]

I like the good news coming out recently.   THat said, a more pessimistic long-term view remains a shadow in my mind:  
- Russia uses energy to reduce European support of Ukraine
-  Russia annexes as much of Ukraine as they can, perhaps after making gains in a 2023 offensive
- Russia invokes "we will use nukes since this is part of Russia" to help defend annexed territories going forward

[Hurlburt88]

I like the good news coming out recently.   THat said, a more pessimistic long-term view remains a shadow in my mind:  
- Russia uses energy to reduce European support of Ukraine
-  Russia annexes as much of Ukraine as they can, perhaps after making gains in a 2023 offensive
- Russia invokes "we will use nukes since this is part of Russia" to help defend annexed territories going forward

[Mick]

I like the good news coming out recently.   THat said, a more pessimistic long-term view remains a shadow in my mind:  

- Russia uses energy to reduce European support of Ukraine
- Russia annexes as much of Ukraine as they can, perhaps after making gains in a 2023 offensive

- Russia invokes "we will use nukes since this is part of Russia" to help defend annexed territories going forward
  --> Ukraine's military acknowledges this:
Ukraine military chief says ‘limited’ nuclear war cannot be ruled out (msn.com)

And...
 - Russia will steal and "disappear" as many Ukrainians as they possibly can to turn them into Russians, much like Stalin did.
US: Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians forced to Russia (msn.com)

[Mick]

I like the good news coming out recently.   THat said, a more pessimistic long-term view remains a shadow in my mind:  

- Russia uses energy to reduce European support of Ukraine
- Russia annexes as much of Ukraine as they can, perhaps after making gains in a 2023 offensive

- Russia invokes "we will use nukes since this is part of Russia" to help defend annexed territories going forward
  --> Ukraine's military acknowledges this:
Ukraine military chief says ‘limited’ nuclear war cannot be ruled out (msn.com)

And...
 - Russia will steal and "disappear" as many Ukrainians as they possibly can to turn them into Russians, much like Stalin did.
US: Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians forced to Russia (msn.com)

[dabigv13]

Too bad for Russia, Ukraine gets a say. The Kherson annexation vote has already been postponed indefinitely by their offensive there.

And they're doing a good "Guderian in 1940 France" impression with their Kharkiv offensive. 

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1567897087773220867?s=20&t=cvcGJMQfY7hYq33PZ7d9Ng[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng[/tweet]

Russia will be lucky to end the war holding onto Crimea.

.....


Interesting combat footage-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1567901702958768131?s=20&t=NR7WF7scje7O5kSuaE4zBA[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Too bad for Russia, Ukraine gets a say. The Kherson annexation vote has already been postponed indefinitely by their offensive there.

And they're doing a good "Guderian in 1940 France" impression with their Kharkiv offensive. 

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1567897087773220867?s=20&t=cvcGJMQfY7hYq33PZ7d9Ng[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng[/tweet]

Russia will be lucky to end the war holding onto Crimea.

.....


Interesting combat footage-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1567901702958768131?s=20&t=NR7WF7scje7O5kSuaE4zBA[/tweet]

[TrumpCard]

The mapped gains look pretty impressive in terms of area, assuming they are accurate.  Shevchenkov looks like it's more than half way from Ukraine's prior position to Kupyansk.  Playing devil's advocate, however, it looks like Ukraine has captured a lot of farmland, which was the type of terrain that seemed to favor Russia in the Donbas battle.  What factors make this battlefield more favorable than the Donbas was for Ukraine?  Is the coming wet season going to prevent Russia from advancing it's artillery as it did in the Donbas?  Are HIMARS enough of a game changer to alter the outcome?

[TrumpCard]

The mapped gains look pretty impressive in terms of area, assuming they are accurate.  Shevchenkov looks like it's more than half way from Ukraine's prior position to Kupyansk.  Playing devil's advocate, however, it looks like Ukraine has captured a lot of farmland, which was the type of terrain that seemed to favor Russia in the Donbas battle.  What factors make this battlefield more favorable than the Donbas was for Ukraine?  Is the coming wet season going to prevent Russia from advancing it's artillery as it did in the Donbas?  Are HIMARS enough of a game changer to alter the outcome?

[dabigv13]

Ukraine can't stop, won't stop.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/HN_Schlottman/status...-q9lohnmjw[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/156...-q9lohnmjw[/tweet]

Ukraine's rate of advance is much quicker than Russia in the Donbas, and Russia had to pause offensive action in pretty much all other areas to amass the combat power for even that very slow advance. Ukraine is moving quicker, and on multiple fronts. I think the type of terrain is favorable to mechanized maneuver warfare, something Russia has not really demonstrated thus far though everyone thought it would be an advantage for Russia over Ukraine. Well, Ukraine is now showing the world they can do it.

Ukraine achieved a breakthrough, and are in the Russian rear making big problems. They are pouring in support and air defense to consolidate and continue pressing forward. It has been a couple days since the breakthrough and Ukraine does not seem to have slowed down.

Here's Ukrainian short range air defense pushing forward into the gap in Kharkiv.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/TSzulc_/status/1567885233957003264?s=20&t=1ci9gGlv2FS06tewnL_xQw[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Ukraine can't stop, won't stop.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/HN_Schlottman/status...-q9lohnmjw[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/156...-q9lohnmjw[/tweet]

Ukraine's rate of advance is much quicker than Russia in the Donbas, and Russia had to pause offensive action in pretty much all other areas to amass the combat power for even that very slow advance. Ukraine is moving quicker, and on multiple fronts. I think the type of terrain is favorable to mechanized maneuver warfare, something Russia has not really demonstrated thus far though everyone thought it would be an advantage for Russia over Ukraine. Well, Ukraine is now showing the world they can do it.

Ukraine achieved a breakthrough, and are in the Russian rear making big problems. They are pouring in support and air defense to consolidate and continue pressing forward. It has been a couple days since the breakthrough and Ukraine does not seem to have slowed down.

Here's Ukrainian short range air defense pushing forward into the gap in Kharkiv.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/TSzulc_/status/1567885233957003264?s=20&t=1ci9gGlv2FS06tewnL_xQw[/tweet]

[Goose]

Too bad for Russia, Ukraine gets a say. The Kherson annexation vote has already been postponed indefinitely by their offensive there.

And they're doing a good "Guderian in 1940 France" impression with their Kharkiv offensive. 

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng

The concern is that Ukraine might be doing what Russia is allowing them to do. The list of armies that got themselves in trouble by over-extending themselves against Russia is so long there is no point in enumerating it. This is not to say that I believe that is what is happening here, but rather that caution is advisable. I would feel a lot better about this if I knew Ukraine had an objective. If they intend to surround Izyum, great. If they intend to cut all the north-south GLOCS, great. Exploiting a void in the enemies defenses is a good idea only if you have an "end game" for it. Earlier in the war Ukraine showed great ability to defend while avoiding encirclement. Hopefully they fully remember how to to that if necessary.

Russia will be lucky to end the war holding onto Crimea.

Ukraine has been very upfront that they intend to get all their territory back. I actually think they have a potentially much easier fight for Crimea than they do in the Donbas. Crimea is easier to isolate from Russia. Donbas is almost impossible. However, if Russia finally realizes this war is idiotic Ukraine may not have to fight for either. Hope springs eternal.

[Goose]

Too bad for Russia, Ukraine gets a say. The Kherson annexation vote has already been postponed indefinitely by their offensive there.

And they're doing a good "Guderian in 1940 France" impression with their Kharkiv offensive. 

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...q33PZ7d9Ng

The concern is that Ukraine might be doing what Russia is allowing them to do. The list of armies that got themselves in trouble by over-extending themselves against Russia is so long there is no point in enumerating it. This is not to say that I believe that is what is happening here, but rather that caution is advisable. I would feel a lot better about this if I knew Ukraine had an objective. If they intend to surround Izyum, great. If they intend to cut all the north-south GLOCS, great. Exploiting a void in the enemies defenses is a good idea only if you have an "end game" for it. Earlier in the war Ukraine showed great ability to defend while avoiding encirclement. Hopefully they fully remember how to to that if necessary.

Russia will be lucky to end the war holding onto Crimea.

Ukraine has been very upfront that they intend to get all their territory back. I actually think they have a potentially much easier fight for Crimea than they do in the Donbas. Crimea is easier to isolate from Russia. Donbas is almost impossible. However, if Russia finally realizes this war is idiotic Ukraine may not have to fight for either. Hope springs eternal.

[dabigv13]

I think it's a close to zero percent possibility Russia, of the very big brain lighting-attack-to-take-Kiev-with-a-bunch-of-paratroopers school of strategic planning, has somehow lured Ukraine into an ill advised attack to stretch their supply lines. The much much much likelier reality is that Ukraine talked up their Kherson offensive so much that Russia reinforced there, while leaving other fronts poorly defended, and Ukraine is capitalizing on it. Ukraine has interior lines and they are taking good advantage of that

If Russia was going to trap Ukraine in some salient they would need to have strong troops at the edges of the salient to collapse inwards. Instead, the narrow break has only widened.

Ukraine achieved a breakthrough and had follow on troops ready. This was a very well planned Ukrainian offensive, and they would be pretty foolish to announce it or their objectives ahead of time.

[dabigv13]

I think it's a close to zero percent possibility Russia, of the very big brain lighting-attack-to-take-Kiev-with-a-bunch-of-paratroopers school of strategic planning, has somehow lured Ukraine into an ill advised attack to stretch their supply lines. The much much much likelier reality is that Ukraine talked up their Kherson offensive so much that Russia reinforced there, while leaving other fronts poorly defended, and Ukraine is capitalizing on it. Ukraine has interior lines and they are taking good advantage of that

If Russia was going to trap Ukraine in some salient they would need to have strong troops at the edges of the salient to collapse inwards. Instead, the narrow break has only widened.

Ukraine achieved a breakthrough and had follow on troops ready. This was a very well planned Ukrainian offensive, and they would be pretty foolish to announce it or their objectives ahead of time.

[Goose]

I think it's a close to zero percent possibility Russia, of the very big brain lighting-attack-to-take-Kiev-with-a-bunch-of-paratroopers school of strategic planning, has somehow lured Ukraine into an ill advised attack to stretch their supply lines. The much much much likelier reality is that Ukraine talked up their Kherson offensive so much that Russia reinforced there, while leaving other fronts poorly defended, and Ukraine is capitalizing on it. Ukraine has interior lines and they are taking good advantage of that

I agree with your idea here. Russia always did have the problem that Ukraine is a big country and they didn't have enough troops to put one every 10 square feet. I have not seen much indicating that Russia has moved large numbers of BTGs to the south. They moved a few early on and then stopped. I think attrition inflicted by Ukraine both in the Donbas and now in Kherson Oblast has forced Russia to strip some areas of troops. Ukraine is taking advantage of that, as they should.

If Russia was going to trap Ukraine in some salient they would need to have strong troops at the edges of the salient to collapse inwards. Instead, the narrow break has only widened.

Actually, no. Russia defeated both the Germans and Napoleon largely by attacking their overstretched supply lines with irregular and very mobile troops. That was enough to do Napoleon in all by itself. Germany was eventually defeated by a head-on defensive battle that brought them to a halt. At that point, their supply lines were so long the Germans started to collapse simply due to distance. It was also true that army group south had a very long left flank that they couldn't protect. They too couldn't put a man every 10 feet. Ukraine can have the same problem. Russia didn't plan it out that way. It wasn't a "trap" by Russia. It was what happened.

You rightly point out that Ukraine has a pretty wide corridor and is making it wider. This is good. It is also true they are in their own land and their supply lines don't reach all the way back to Germany. OTOH, it is still quite possible for Ukraine to get themselves in a situation where the way forward is blocked and Russia is nibbling at their flanks. Not a lightning attack, but still effective.

Ukraine achieved a breakthrough and had follow on troops ready. This was a very well planned Ukrainian offensive, and they would be pretty foolish to announce it or their objectives ahead of time.

Totally agree. As I said, I would be happier if I knew what they intended, but their goal isn't to make me happy :-). I do hope they have thought out their end game though.

[Goose]

I think it's a close to zero percent possibility Russia, of the very big brain lighting-attack-to-take-Kiev-with-a-bunch-of-paratroopers school of strategic planning, has somehow lured Ukraine into an ill advised attack to stretch their supply lines. The much much much likelier reality is that Ukraine talked up their Kherson offensive so much that Russia reinforced there, while leaving other fronts poorly defended, and Ukraine is capitalizing on it. Ukraine has interior lines and they are taking good advantage of that

I agree with your idea here. Russia always did have the problem that Ukraine is a big country and they didn't have enough troops to put one every 10 square feet. I have not seen much indicating that Russia has moved large numbers of BTGs to the south. They moved a few early on and then stopped. I think attrition inflicted by Ukraine both in the Donbas and now in Kherson Oblast has forced Russia to strip some areas of troops. Ukraine is taking advantage of that, as they should.

If Russia was going to trap Ukraine in some salient they would need to have strong troops at the edges of the salient to collapse inwards. Instead, the narrow break has only widened.

Actually, no. Russia defeated both the Germans and Napoleon largely by attacking their overstretched supply lines with irregular and very mobile troops. That was enough to do Napoleon in all by itself. Germany was eventually defeated by a head-on defensive battle that brought them to a halt. At that point, their supply lines were so long the Germans started to collapse simply due to distance. It was also true that army group south had a very long left flank that they couldn't protect. They too couldn't put a man every 10 feet. Ukraine can have the same problem. Russia didn't plan it out that way. It wasn't a "trap" by Russia. It was what happened.

You rightly point out that Ukraine has a pretty wide corridor and is making it wider. This is good. It is also true they are in their own land and their supply lines don't reach all the way back to Germany. OTOH, it is still quite possible for Ukraine to get themselves in a situation where the way forward is blocked and Russia is nibbling at their flanks. Not a lightning attack, but still effective.

Ukraine achieved a breakthrough and had follow on troops ready. This was a very well planned Ukrainian offensive, and they would be pretty foolish to announce it or their objectives ahead of time.

Totally agree. As I said, I would be happier if I knew what they intended, but their goal isn't to make me happy :-). I do hope they have thought out their end game though.

[BostonCard]

And if the Ukrainians are dumb enough to invade into Russia, sure.  But we are talking less than 50 km here.

BC

[BostonCard]

And if the Ukrainians are dumb enough to invade into Russia, sure.  But we are talking less than 50 km here.

BC

[Treefence]

Not sure if this is obvious or not, but based on everything developing in the Kharkiv offensive, I get the feeling the objective is to fully cut off all logistical routes to Izium.  That's always been a major hub for Russian forces in the east.  A long way to go to achieve this, but if Ukraine could surround, and eventually take Izium, it would be a brobdingnagian blow for Russians, especially if they end up having POW's in the four to five figure range. in the overall offensive.

[Treefence]

Not sure if this is obvious or not, but based on everything developing in the Kharkiv offensive, I get the feeling the objective is to fully cut off all logistical routes to Izium.  That's always been a major hub for Russian forces in the east.  A long way to go to achieve this, but if Ukraine could surround, and eventually take Izium, it would be a brobdingnagian blow for Russians, especially if they end up having POW's in the four to five figure range. in the overall offensive.