Ukrainian army was at its peak when the war started. It's been significantly reduced in capacity since, and the weapons that the west sends come nowhere close to replacing what was lost. If Ukraine couldn't win with its original force, why would anybody expect it to win with a hodgepodge of western weapons and a decimated army. Even western publications are starting to grudgingly accept that there is no path towards Ukraine winning this war.

What's actually happening is that Ukraine continues to lose territory. The longer this war goes on the more territory Ukraine will lose, and end up in an increasingly worse bargaining position.

[–] Ninmi@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (22 children)

All the expert opinions I've seen have reduced the situation in the east to a stalemate and possible Ukrainian regains in the south. Also, with how much I hear about Ukrainians being very disorganized at the start and with the further lack of any weapons apart from their own, it's odd to claim the Ukrainian army was at its peak. The Russians seemed to have simply failed miserably trying to take over the entire country quickly.

[–] basiliscos@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How much of territories Ukrain returned back to its control? Ukrain has a few tactical wins, like sinking down russian ship(s) and repell Russians from an island. But what are strategical gains since April?

[–] Ninmi@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

From what I've seen, apart from Snake Island, they've made small gains at the very edges of the battle line but lost a City at the heart of the eastern battle. From what I've read, they're trying to form a bigger counteroffensive right now and have been urging Ukrainians to evacuate from occupied territories before the real battles commence as it'll get ugly. They're also getting another big batch of tanks from Poland.

[–] basiliscos@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

lost a City at the heart of the eastern battle.

Actually, it is quite a large port-city Mariupol, and a few minor cities like Lisitchansk and SeveroDonetsk. As the result whole territory of LPR is deoccupied from Ukraine (or lost by Ukraine). It is quite a strategic win of Russia, isn't it?

they’re trying to form a bigger counteroffensive right now

It is not fair to compare "plans" with "gains". Every side might have big plans, but from military point of view it is better to compare initiative and territorial gains.

They’re also getting another big batch of tanks from Poland.

The amount of tanks is about 200, as I've heard. It is actually quite a few number, as Ukrain had about 6'500 of them in 1992 ( English wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine ). Would it be 10 000 of tanks, yep, that definitely might change the situation drastically.

[–] Ninmi@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Actually, it is quite a large port-city Mariupol, and a few minor cities like Lisitchansk and SeveroDonetsk. As the result whole territory of LPR is deoccupied from Ukraine (or lost by Ukraine). It is quite a strategic win of Russia, isn’t it?

Correct. My understanding is that the situation in the east is at stalemate in large part due to the new HIMAR systems cutting supply lines. Right now, post-north regains, Ukraine seems to have lost fair bit more than it has gained.

It is not fair to compare “plans” with “gains”. Every side might have big plans, but from military point of view it is better to compare initiative and territorial gains.

This is true, but I believe it gives important and timely context as to why Ukraine could be on the back foot at the moment, and why Yogthos' knee-jerk doomsday analysis shouldn't be taken too seriously. They may end up being correct, but I'm going to rely on the Finnish military experts instead which have been accurate in all accounts except calling that Putin wouldn't invade.

The amount of tanks is about 200, as I’ve heard. It is actually quite a few number, as Ukrain had about 6’500 of them in 1992

There's no way Ukraine had 6500 properly operational tanks and what you cite is from 1992. 200 simply is substantial. Furthermore, my understanding is that ammunition is what Ukraine lacks for their older weaponry, while Russia has stockpiles upon stockpiles of it.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You do realize that Ukraine had hundreds of MLRS systems before they got HIMARS right? There is nothing magical about HIMARS, it's not some wunderwaffen that western media makes it out to be. It's a truck with a rocket launcher attached to it. So far there is absolutely zero indication that HIMARS are making any actual difference, nor is there any reason to expect them to.

This is true, but I believe it gives important and timely context as to why Ukraine could be on the back foot at the moment, and why Yogthos’ knee-jerk doomsday analysis shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

That's not my analysis, it's the anaylsis of pretty much every military expert out there. If you can't see that Ukraine is losing the war, then you're living in an alternate reality. I wonder if you will be capable of doing any self reflection once Ukraine loses the war.

Furthermore, my understanding is that ammunition is what Ukraine lacks for their older weaponry, while Russia has stockpiles upon stockpiles of it.

Russia has actual industrial capacity to produce weapons and ammunition. Ukraine and the west do not. This isn't my assessment, this is what British military think tank states.

[–] basiliscos@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You do realize that Ukraine had hundreds of MLRS systems before they got HIMARS right? There is nothing magical about HIMARS, it’s not some wunderwaffen that western media makes it out to be.

You are right when you compare HIMARS with other Russian/Soviet MLRS. The difference comes with NATO satelite's targeting / highlighting. Together with long-range missiles (300 km) it can be serious weapon. Ukraine don't have such a missiles for now, at least officially, as far as I know.

Russia demostrated recently that it can successully intercept 100% of them with S-400 anti-air weapon.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The difference comes with NATO satelite’s targeting / highlighting. Together with long-range missiles (300 km) it can be serious weapon.

The issue is with the volumes of these systems. 12 missile launchers aren't going to make a significant difference in the war. Russia has hundreds of comparable systems with satellite/drone targeting. Furthermore, HIMARS are meant to be used as part of a combined arms force. US and Russia integrate these systems with things like air support, artillery and so on. This is what allows them to be effective. If you just roll it out on the battlefield all on its own, then it's not going to last long. There are already reports that Russia destroyed anywhere from 2-4 of the HIMARS shipped to Ukraine.

As you point out, Russian air defence is also able to intercept these. Ukraine demonstrated that they can get some through by doing saturation fire, but that depletes their stocks of ammunition very quickly.

In my opinion, HIMARS are just cover for the fact that the west is unable to supply Ukraine with enough heavy weapons and ammunition. They're being sold as a game changer the same way M777s were, but in practice it's just a distraction. This is primarily an artillery war, and Russia has massive superiority in their artillery capability.

[–] basiliscos@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago

I completely agree with you, that HIMARS in the current amounts cannot play game changing role.

[–] thervingi@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago

Tanks are useless if you don't have air superiority. They will just get blown up. Same with artillery. You can't go on the offensive without controlling the skies.

Ukraine's only real advantage is the Bayraktar drone.

load more comments (20 replies)

load more comments (48 replies)