Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[Relic]

What they did in Bakhmut was wrong, and a repeat of that would also be wrong. One of the reasons why Syrskyi is not trusted by the Ukrainian military is exactly the bad strategy he had in Bakhmut, because he retreated too late.

In the initial part of the offensive (both Balhmut and Avdiivka), the Russians were losing at a disproportionately high rate compared to Ukrainian defenders (some sources say 7-1 losses). This is when it was a good strategy to defend and bleed the Russians. But once they got into the city in Bakhmut and started to fight house by house, the loss rate evened out to approximately 1-1. This is terrible for Ukraine, because losing 1-1 against Russia is clearly in favor of the Russians who have a much larger population pool.

Once the Russians entered the city, the Ukrainians should have retreated, to avoid the 1-1 attrition rate of the house to house fighting.

Syrskyi made the wrong call In Bakhmut when he overstayed at the expense of many lives, and it seems that the same mistake is being made in Avdiivka now. The Ukrainians should have already left Avdiivka, once it was obvious that the retreat is inevitable and becomes more dangerous by the day.

Ukraine needs to conserve its manpower and inflict maximum damage on the Russians with minimal losses. Any fight that doesn’t have a very high casualty ratio in favor of the Ukrainians is good for Russia.

I actually thoroughly disagree with this opinion. The choice Syrskyi made in Bakhmut was controversial because, as you alluded to, the last 6'ish weeks that Ukraine stayed in the fight there, the casualty ratio was closer to 1-to-1 compared to the much better ratio Ukraine enjoyed earlier in the conflict.

But Syrksyi didn't leave troops in Bakhmut and actually further reinforce it, to get his troops killed. He did it for two very important reasons that have quickly been forgotten.

1. His primary goal was to make Wagner combat ineffective moving forward, by inflicting extraordinary loss on their manpower and armor. Wagner was Russia's nost effective fighting force at that point in the war and by forcing them through absolute hell, despite his troops facing the same reality, more than 20,000 Wagner fighters were KIA in the Bakhmut offensive and it was their last gasp of the war, before disappearing into irrelevancy. That would have been a horrible decision to have to make for Syrskyi, but ending Wagner's campaign in Bakhmut was a national priority at the time, and the objective was achieved.

2. His secondary goal was to force Russia to divert forces to Bahkmut to reinforce Wagner, to alleviate pressure on lesser defended areas of the front, more vulnerable to Russian breakthrough. Russia diverted an estimated 14,000-17,000 troops to Bakhmut to reinforce the Wagner effort. Those troops had been planned to be used elsewhere. By Syrskyi holding out in Bahkmut as long as he did, Russia was forced to commit those troops to the assault as well and they too went through the meat grinder, meaning that they weren't able to be immediately deployed in effective fashion, after the Bahkmut campaign.

Yes, Syrskyi, in that one instance, chose to sacrifice Ukrainian loves for the greater war effort. The move was heavily criticized and will remain so into the future. But such are the decisions that Generals have to make. A war with a front this large, has many factors to take into consideration and when / how you choose to fight vs retreat is critical. I tend to believe that Syrskyi calculated for how long Ukraine could withstand a 1-to-1 casualty rate and chose that option because he had the "big picture" of what was happening on the ground, in the war, at the time. He chose the virtual elimination of Wagner and the tying up of additional regular Russian forces for months.

Note that Syrskyi was also the commander in charge of the defense of Kyiv and that turned out to be a brilliantly, executed plan, which was not nearly the meat grinder that Bakhmut was. It's not as if he has used the same plan, at every point stop, and not achieved results.

 

[Relic]

Andrew Perpetua's documented losses for Russia and Ukraine, Monday, February, 12th.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757325229485965465

 

[Kartal1]

Russia used an advanced hypersonic missile for the first time in recent strike, Ukraine claims​

By Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 1:24 AM EST, Tue February 13, 2024

View attachment 65590
In this image taken from video released by Russian Defense Ministry in 2022, a Zircon hypersonic cruise missile is launched by a Russian navy frigate from the Barents Sea.


CNN —
Ukraine claims it has evidence Russia fired an advanced hypersonic missile – one that experts say is almost impossible to shoot down – for the first time in the almost 2-year-old war.

The government-run Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise said in a Telegram post that debris recovered after a February 7 attack on the Ukrainian capital pointed to the use of a Zircon hypersonic cruise missile by the Russian military.

“Markings on the parts and fragments, the identification of components and parts, and the features of the relevant type of weapon” point to the first-ever use of the Zircon in combat, said the institute, which is part of Ukraine’s Justice Ministry.

The Telegram post was accompanied by a video showing dozens of pieces of debris believed to be from the new missile.

Ukrainian authorities reported four people were killed and 38 others injured in Kyiv during the February 7 attacks, but no casualties have been directly attributed to the alleged Zircon missile.


There was also no mention of the launch platform for the missile, though previous reports in Russian state media say it has been deployed on a warship.

Experts say the Zircon, if it lives up to what the Russian government says about it, is a formidable weapon.

Its hypersonic speed makes it invulnerable to even the best Western missile defenses, like the Patriot, according to the United States-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA).

The alliance says its speed has been put at Mach 8, or almost 9,900 kilometers per hour (6,138 mph). Hypersonic is defined as any speed above Mach 5 (3,836 mph).

“If that information is accurate, the Zircon missile would be the fastest in the world, making it nearly impossible to defend against due to its speed alone,” the alliance says on its website.

The site also points to the missile’s plasma cloud as another “valuable” feature.

“During flight, the missile is completely covered by a plasma cloud that absorbs any rays of radio frequencies and makes the missile invisible to radars. This allows the missile to remain undetected on its way to the target,” it says.

Additionally, the MDAA says the Zircon is “a maneuvering anti-ship hypersonic cruise missile” with a range of somewhere between 500 and 1,000 kilometers (310 to 620 miles).

When the Russian navy frigate Admiral Gorshkov set out on a combat mission last January, leader Vladimir Putin boasted about the Zircon missiles the ship was carrying.


“It has no analogues in any country in the world,” Putin said, according to a report from the state media agency TASS. “I am sure that such powerful weapons will reliably protect Russia from potential external threats and will help ensure the national interests of our country,” he added.

If Russia has introduced the new weapon into the conflict, it could mean trouble for a Ukrainian air defense already straining to repel Moscow’s aerial attacks.

For instance, in that February 7 attack in which the Zircon was allegedly used, three Iskander ballistic missiles and four Kh-22 cruise missiles fired by Russian forces evaded attempts to bring them down, data from Ukraine’s air force shows.

Although air defenses have brought down Iskander missiles in the past, it is believed that Ukraine has failed to intercept a single Kh-22 in almost two years of war. Speaking in December, Ukrainian Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat said that Russia had fired almost 300 Kh-22s so far in the war.

Ukraine’s air defenses did have some success during the February 7 attack, bringing down 26 of 29 Kh-101, Kh-555 and Kh-55 type cruise missiles, all three Kalibr cruise missiles and 15 of 20 Shahed drones fired by Russia. But those are less-advanced than the Zircon.

Despite that, analysts caution not to exaggerate the impact the use of the Zircon could have on the war as a whole.

As it is a new – and expensive – technology, one question is, how many has Russia produced?

A key “consideration is Russia’s ability to produce and field a capability like Zircon at scale, especially as the program will compete for financial and other resources with priorities like rebuilding the Russian ground forces,” Sidharth Kaushal, research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, wrote last year after the Admiral Gorshkov allegedly deployed with Zircons aboard.

CNN’s Svitlana Vlasova, Mariya Knight, Andrew Carey and Jack Guy contributed to this report.

---

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/europe/ukraine-russia-zircon-hypersonic-missile-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757097633032671604

@Kartal1 @Sanchez If true then this is a very interesting development, it means Zircon actually got through MIM-104's shield. Unlike the fake hypersonic Kinzal.

As the article says they are more expensive, hard to make and not used in big numbers.

If they use them smart, for sure this missile carries a big potential to inflict massive damage, but we are talking about the Russians here.

I don't think it's worth to use them against civilian blocks.

 

[contricusc]

Yes, Syrskyi, in that one instance, chose to sacrifice Ukrainian loves for the greater war effort. The move was heavily criticized and will remain so into the future. But such are the decisions that Generals have to make.

While there were also positive aspects in defending Bakhmut for such a long time, the overall result was bad for Ukraine.

In Ukraine’s situation, one of the most important things is to keep troop morale high and maintain a population that is willing to join the war effort. From a psychological perspective, the excessive losses inflicted in Bakhmut and the apparent lack of care about the lives of the soldiers was a disaster with huge repercussions on the recruitment effort.

Since Bakhmut, Ukraine is having a very hard time in recruiting new soldiers, and it is hard to justify to the regukar Ukrainian men why he should join the fight when the Country’s top general is nicknamed “the Butcher” and is known to sacrifice soldiers without hesitation for tactical/strategical gains. This type of Soviet thinking is very bad for morale, and one of the main reasons why Ukraine is fighting this war is because many people wanted to get rid of this way of thinking. By acting like the Russians, Ukraine is defeating the purpose of its fight.

A good general prioritizes the safety and the morale of its troops over some insignificant achievements on the battlefield map. Throwing men at a problem is the Russian way of doing things, and Ukraine should never copy that if it wants to win.

 

[mehmed beg]

I find it truly funny , that is some observations.
Russia to attack Europe? Maybe Poland, maybe Finland.
But besides, Central Asia and Caucasus, what really Russia wants and dreams are Bosphorus and Balkans. But hey , as long as it frustrates " colonial " powers it is OK.
Someone else blood is truly free, besides imagine how good someone's argument can be, when you put argument that the West annihilated Bosnians, Pomaks and Albanians though they were white.
Also I don't get the majority of the Europeans who don't like Putin. Tucker Carlson does though, annihilate Muslims of Balkans, Turkey, Caucasus and Central Asia and estabilish in Outre Mere European " values " . Better that, I guess , than " liberalism" .
All this Polish, Turks,Finish, Romanias , Azeris , Albanians, Uzbek etc will pay but hey it will make so many people happy, from Philippines to Norway.

 

[Gary]

Russian HIMARS
Russian HIMARS!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757425071889514993

 

[Relic]

While there were also positive aspects in defending Bakhmut for such a long time, the overall result was bad for Ukraine.

In Ukraine’s situation, one of the most important things is to keep troop morale high and maintain a population that is willing to join the war effort. From a psychological perspective, the excessive losses inflicted in Bakhmut and the apparent lack of care about the lives of the soldiers was a disaster with huge repercussions on the recruitment effort.

Since Bakhmut, Ukraine is having a very hard time in recruiting new soldiers, and it is hard to justify to the regukar Ukrainian men why he should join the fight when the Country’s top general is nicknamed “the Butcher” and is known to sacrifice soldiers without hesitation for tactical/strategical gains. This type of Soviet thinking is very bad for morale, and one of the main reasons why Ukraine is fighting this war is because many people wanted to get rid of this way of thinking. By acting like the Russians, Ukraine is defeating the purpose of its fight.

A good general prioritizes the safety and the morale of its troops over some insignificant achievements on the battlefield map. Throwing men at a problem is the Russian way of doing things, and Ukraine should never copy that if it wants to win.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

It's not lost on me that the morale of the Ukrainian Army and public is important. It's also not lost on me that that the "sacrifice" of Ukrainian soldiers is not something that the Ukrainians can afford.

But I think you're ignoring the fact that there WAS real thought and strategy that went into the decision to defend Bakhmut the way Ukraine did. I laid it out thoroughly in my last post, but I'll re-itterate the fact that...

1. Rendering Wagner combat ineffective beyond Bakhmut was Syrskyi's primary goal.

2. Forcing Russia to re-route 14,000-17,000 troops and put them through the West grinder as well, likely saved other Ukrainian positions along the front.

At the end of the day, context is important. The 6 extra weeks that Ukraine stayed in Bakhmut cost the lives of an estimated 3000-4000 Ukrainians from everything I've read. That's, undeniably, a high number of troops and I'm certainly not simply passing it off as nothing. But we have not seen Syrskyi repeat that tactic across the front, which means that it was a strategic calculation. Time will tell if it was the right one.

If Syrskyi sends the 3rd Assault Brigade into Avdiivka without a plan, and doesn't execute a timely, fighting retreat of the 47th, 53rd and 110th from the ruins of the city, costing Ukraine execessive loss of life in the process, I'll be highly critical. But that isn't what's happening yet. It appears the 3rd Assault Brigade will be used as a blocking unit to allow the orderly retreat of the Ukrainian Army from Bakhmut. Time will tell if the retreat is executed well.

 

[Gary]

One way to scale Russia's war effort industrial output

Remdizel JSC who produces engine for trucks, MRAPs,MTLB and many more will produce 1000 engine per year, 1600 in 2025

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757329338477793287

 

[Afif]

As the article says they are more expensive, hard to make and not used in big numbers.

If they use them smart, for sure this missile carries a big potential to inflict massive damage, but we are talking about the Russians here.

I don't think it's worth to use them against civilian blocks.

Of course, of course, any single conventional weapon (no matter how awesome it is) is hardly going to change anything on strategic level. On top of that, Russians has a very limited production line for Zircon (you can bet it has been hit by heavy sanctions already)

But I am just excited about the fact that PAC-3 failed to intercept a hypersonic cruise missile. That means, USA will need a new generation interceptor for this type of threats emerging in the future.

 

[Gary]

The Ukrainians send 15 out of 64 men strong squad diverted from the artillery troops as infantrymen on foot. Only 4 survive after a few days.

And people still think that Avdiivka is this giant meat grinder where only Russia that is losing so many troops

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756791228627083564

I remember that Thomas Theiner guy gleefully declared that after Russia has thrown so many people for the battle of Bakhmut, Russia will no longer have enough men to man the Surovikin line for the then upcoming Russian offensive.

10-1 casualty ratio is a myth, more like 3-1

 

[Gary]

The distance of the Avdiivka cauldron to link up is less than 5km (4.8). Using the median line as an imaginary supply/retreat route, that means Russian troops positioned at the edge of the 2 cauldrons could easily shoot anything that try to cross the the field using that imaginary line.

A KPV 14.5mm machine gun effective range is 3000m, more than enough to create a kill zone for Ukrainians wishing to enter or exit Avdiivka at this point.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757026385242017853

Seems bleak with General butcher at the helm.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757446953783169251

 

[contricusc]

But I think you're ignoring the fact that there WAS real thought and strategy that went into the decision to defend Bakhmut the way Ukraine did. I laid it out thoroughly in my last post, but I'll re-itterate the fact that...

My opinion is that the strategy was mistaken, and the decision was made not only because of strategic reasons, but also because of political reasons.

Zelensky doesn’t like to show defeats on the battlefield (he is very much like Putin in this regard), and Syrsky is a very loyal general to Zelensky (his loyalty has now been rewarded with promotion, not his competence).

Zelensky has always put pressure on the military not to withdraw from difficult positions like Severdonetsk, Bakhmut, and now Avdiivka (I believe that the current army command shakeup is because there were disagreements between Zelensky and Zaluzhny over the strategy).

The fact that Syrsky is now the commander of the armed forces is very dangerous for Ukraine, as there is no real opposition left for Zelensky, who can now insist in his repeated mistakes without anyone to oppose him.

Ukraine would have been much better off if the one changed was Zelensky (with someone like Klitschko for example). I would trust a Klitshcko-Zalushny team much better than a Zelensky-Syrsky one, and I am sure the soldiers at the front would too.

 

[Ecderha]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757362934890828135

 

[Ecderha]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757470871688470635

 

[Ecderha]

ruzzia power continue to fall

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757421242838065492

 

[FiReFTW]

Easy to say when someone is sitting in the middle of Europe. But you know, someone has to be at the border

And would you prefer to have Ukraine or Russia as a neighbour?

I have neither country at my border so the question makes no sense.
I just don't see the point in sending military help or aid or whatever to any country in the world if your own people or country don't have a gain in it, why would I work hard in my job only for my money to go somewhere that has nothing to do with me?

 

[Gary]

Zelensky doesn’t like to show defeats on the battlefield (he is very much like Putin in this regard),

He is more like Hitler in 1941, when he dismisses Guderian after the defeat of Operation Typhoon (the battle to capture Moscow) for earlier arguing with him that the German army must press further East rather than a costly operation to secure oilfields South in the Caucasus.

His constant interference is also mimicking Hitler's interference between the OKH and OKW, where he get to decide what's what. But at least Hitler has combat experience in WW1, what does Zelensky have to overrule Zaluzhny?

Continue like this, and maybe in a few years, Zelensky will be in his Kyiv 'fuhrerbunker' arguing with Syrski and his general staff when will 'Steiner's attack' come into effect. LOL

 

[Gary]

Ukrainians getting patriotically dragged to the front line

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757098934667825383

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757114127670034772

 

[Gary]

Russia built a new high tech medical school + hospital to serve locals in Mariupol.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756882109627617667

So now we know Russia has built:

New Apartments
New Schools
New Hospitals

What do I miss ?

 

[Gary]

I don't think it's worth to use them against civilian blocks.

They use the KH-22/32 for that. Very effective especially against factories