[Mentalist]

Orcs are trying to push everywhere, averagin about 1k casualties/day for the past two weeks.

They are trying to put the screws on the Western governments to stall approving new supplies for the UAF.

Basically, all eyes are on the Congress right now to secure a new budget to keep suppling UAF with shells in the new year.

Ukraine is ramping up drone production, and Zelensky stated we are producing 6 155mm SPGs "Bohdana" (on the Czech Tatra chassis) per month; but without a steady flow of basics such as arty shells and small arms ammo, this can't suffice.

All eyes this month are gonna be on Washington. I'm expecting a steady stream of not so great news from the frontlines, until/when the next shipment of shells arrives to stabilize the lines.

[Werthead]

Putin recently flew to the UAE to try to shore up relations there, and intriguingly took Kadyrov with him.

Having failed to expel migrants passing through Russia into Finland and the Baltic States, Russia has started arresting them and pressing them into service in Ukraine. Efficient, I guess.

A 58-year-old Ukrainian sniper has reportedly broken the world record for the longest kill shot by hitting a Russian soldier at a distance of 3.8 kilometres. The Ukrainian sniper unit was engaging Russian targets clean on the other side of the Dnipro.

A Russian Su-24M over the Black Sea was shot down by a Patriot missile. Some Russian aircraft are having problems working out the maximum "safe range" they can operate from without being hit by Patriots (against which Russian flares and ECM seem mostly ineffective).

Saudi Arabia and several other members of OPEC+ have expressed annoyance at Russia's lack of transparency about is energy production sector. OPEC+ members are supposed to share data on production with one another so they can coordinate prices. It stops members cutting side-deals with other countries. There seems to be suspicion that Russia is producing more oil than it is saying and then selling the excess on the down-low to China and other countries, undercutting other members of the consortium.

Russian civilian aircraft failures this week:

• A Boeing 777 suddenly developed an electrical fire that caused an immediate evacuation before takeoff from Moscow.
  
• A Tu-204 cargo plane's engine burst into flames during takeoff from Ulan-Ude. The pilot managed to dump the fuel, extinguish the fire and land, but the engine was a write-off.
  
• A passenger plane flying from Kazan to Moscow made an emergency landing at Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow. The stabilization system experienced a malfunction and the pilots had to manually fly the plane to an emergency touchdown.
  
• An Aeroflot Airbus A321 made an emergency landing at Pulkovo Airport (St. Petersburg) after the cockpit air conditioning system failed.
  
• A Boing 737 made an emergency landing at Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk after wheel pressure failures.
  
• A plane taking off from Novosibrisk saw its autopilot and flaps fail simultaneously.
  
• An Aeroflot Airbus A321 flying from St. Petersburg to Moscow made an emergency landing at Sheremetyevo due to an engine failure.
  
• A Yamal airline Superjet 100 landed at Tyumen Roschchino Airport due to an unspecified technical malfunction.
  
• A Russian military cargo plane also just straight-up exploded.

The head of the Polish National Security Bureau has issued a warning that Russia may be looking to launch an invasion of NATO's eastern flank in three years. Germany recently said it would take Russia between five and nine years to prepare an attack on eastern Europe, perhaps more if the war in Ukraine was dragged out. However, Poland and the Baltic States believe this is too optimistic. Putin may be looking to launch an invasion of the Baltic States and maybe Poland on his watch, and having just turned 71 he may be feeling time is not on his side for a longer timetable.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

Ukraine Is on the Cusp of Losing This War: 'We're Screwed'

[...] Ukraine needs some kind of secret weapon at this point.

[...] the military academy that once trained Napoleon last week assembled 100 military, political, finance, academic, and business leaders with intimate knowledge of the war to privately game out what happens next.

[...] America and its allies also flush with cash are gambling like skinflints: deep pockets, short arms and no guts.

[...] "[The US] Congress won't come together to help Ukraine anytime soon," [...]

The fear and loathing of abandonment is palpable.

Rag-tag infantry heroes are firing World War I machine guns at Russian drones. The top Ukrainian military commander says that training and recruiting troops has become a dismal challenge.

[...]


Ukraine in two years won't have enough warm bodies to fill the trenches and freeze the lines against the Russian onslaught [...]

Ukraine neither possesses the guns, ammo, money, medicine, food nor combatants to defeat the potential 3.3 million troops Russia could put on the battlefield—or the resources required to overpower the Kremlin's ubiquitous social media trolls in the likewise deadly struggle for hearts and minds.

"The information war over the internet shapes the public opinion that guides the elite political and decision making on financial aid to Ukraine," [...] "It must be won at all costs."

[...]

According to the collective wisdoms mustered inside the École Militaire, if the West keeps singing the same tune in Ukraine, what Cohen describes as a replay of the Great War of 1914-18 is on track to leave democracy "screaming from a crypt."

Ukraine Is on the Cusp of Losing This War: 'We're Screwed' (thedailybeast.com)

I'd generally take 'on the cusp' to imply much sooner than two years (or a year and a couple of weeks, if Trump is sworn in as president 'I'll only be a dictator on day one'...)....

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 12 December 2023 - 12:46 PM

[Mentalist]

One of UA's biggest mobile providers, Kyivstar is having massive sercie outages after a cyberattack. Monobank, one Ukraine's top financial institutions, is under dDOS


At the same time, the HUR claims to have wiped Russian Tax Service's database.


New Polish Prime Mister has been sworn in, and everyone now hopes the blocade of the border by disgruntled Polish truck drivers who were being undercut by Ukrainians is now going to be halted.

After going to Argentina to celebrate the new president's election, Zelensky is again in D. C., to try and push personally for approval of the new military aid package before Congress breaks for the holidays. At the same time, there's first (ultra tentative) rumours of a diplo-breakthrough with Hungary that's been insisting on locking any talks for extending EU membership invitation to Ukraine.

Putler announced he's running for re-election, and Navalny's team is claiming he's gone missing in the Russian penitentiary system, with admin of 2 correctional facilities both claiming to his lawyers they don't have him.

[Werthead]

Azath Vitr (D, on 12 December 2023 - 12:46 PM, said:

I'd generally take 'on the cusp' to imply much sooner than two years (or a year and a couple of weeks, if Trump is sworn in as president 'I'll only be a dictator on day one'...)....

Was this article written by AI? Pretty terrible. Of course, they also have another article speaking of the horrors and nightmares of Putin as Russian voters turn against the war in larger numbers, which seems as optimistic in the other direction.

Ukraine is not really on the cusp of losing the war imminently, but it is on the cusp of losing the ability to gain a strategic initiative on the battlefield and, lacking the funds and reinforcement technology from western countries, it will not be able to penetrate Russian defences in significant amounts. This will lead initially to a frozen conflict, potentially over several years, and then possibly a no-choice peace agreement at a later time. Events in Europe, in the United States, in Ukraine itself, in Russia and even in China could influence a lot of that: Russia itself is much weaker and more brittle than it initially appeared, and an apparently out-of-the-blue moment of chaos could erupt at any time (a Chechen rebellion, an internal coup by harder-liners, an internal coup by geopolitical realists in the FSB, Putin spontaneously dropping dead).

Without that, countries like Britain, the Baltics and the Nordics will continue backing Ukraine to the hilt, and Germany has woken up to the threat (at least until its own elections), but other countries could equivocate. Some countries are continuing to try to create a negotiating position where perhaps Russia withdraws from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in full but "gets to keep" Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk; whilst this will end the war, it will likely satisfy neither Ukraine nor Russia. South Korea has been providing Ukraine with artillery shells and munitions via the US as a third party, but, wary of North Korea gaining influence and money from the war, they could switch to providing Ukraine directly. South Korea is small and only has a third of the population, but its armaments industry is gargantuan and its ability to manufacture shells and armaments rivals that of Russia. South Korea's armament industry ramping up could also benefit Japan and its own deterrent against North Korea.

Trump in the White House may be less capable and less belligerent than it appears at the moment (he's been pushing back on hardline positions on the culture wars and on abortion), but concerns over a Trump unconstrained by having to run a third time and bitter and angry about 2020 should not be dismissed.

What should be focusing minds is that if Ukraine loses the war and loses its sovereignty, the chances of a flushed-with-success Putin simply stopping there and not pursuing a military campaign against NATO, especially if the USA pulls out, are very unlikely indeed.

This post has been edited by Werthead: 12 December 2023 - 07:07 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Werthead, on 12 December 2023 - 07:06 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 12 December 2023 - 12:46 PM, said:

I'd generally take 'on the cusp' to imply much sooner than two years (or a year and a couple of weeks, if Trump is sworn in as president 'I'll only be a dictator on day one'...)....

<SNIP>

What should be focusing minds is that if Ukraine loses the war and loses its sovereignty, the chances of a flushed-with-success Putin simply stopping there and not pursuing a military campaign against NATO, especially if the USA pulls out, are very unlikely indeed.

Sans US, I still believe NATO would wreck what's left of the Russian military. I find it hard to believe the European contingent of NATO would not own the skies in eastern Europe.

[the broken]

I think perhaps it's underestimated how difficult fighting wars on this scale is. There is no magic number where 'If X amount of aid is provided' that means victory, or 'If X amount of aid is not provided, that means defeat. It's more complicated than that, however annoying that reality is for people who write tabloid headlines.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

the broken, on 13 December 2023 - 02:14 AM, said:

I think perhaps it's underestimated how difficult fighting wars on this scale is. There is no magic number where 'If X amount of aid is provided' that means victory, or 'If X amount of aid is not provided, that means defeat. It's more complicated than that, however annoying that reality is for people who write tabloid headlines.

Quote

Experts, too, have warned that Russia would take advantage of any breakdown of US support Ukraine going into the new year.

"If the West cuts aid to Ukraine, Russia will win," George Barros, the geospatial-intelligence team lead and a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War [...]

[...] "If the US fails to provide aid soon, the collapse of the lightly armed, Ukrainian Armed Forces," which are running low on ammunition, could "lead to a slaughter, raping, looting and vengeance of tragic and historic proportions," Dan Rice, the President of American University Kyiv [...]

Barros [said] the current stalemate on the battlefield is highly unstable, and a decision made in the West to either renew support for Ukraine or not could easily tip the scale.

[...] while Ukraine does have other supporters to lean on, including NATO and European allies, it's not clear how much those benefactors have to give. Similar to the US, other countries such as the UK, Germany, and France all face depleted stockpiles, limited resources, and little disposable military might. [...]

"Russia's military supply situation has been steadily improving," [...] "Artillery ammunition production has almost doubled, and has recently been supplemented by over 1 million shells and hundreds of howitzers from North Korea," [...]

[...] the head of NATO's military committee sounded the alarms on depleted weapons supplies, warning there was little left to offer Ukraine.

"The bottom of the barrel is now visible," Adm. Rob Bauer of the Netherlands, the chair of the NATO Military Committee and NATO's most senior military official, said in October.

[...] "Without that Western aid, Ukraine's ability to continue fighting is deeply in question," David Silbey, an associate professor of history at Cornell University specializing in military history, defense policy and battlefield analysis[...] "They simply don't have the resources to build the massive amount of munitions needed to continue fighting. Zelenskyy is talking for his life and his country's."

Europe Could Struggle to Support Ukraine's War If US Aid Stops (businessinsider.com)

[Edit: the article doesn't address whether South Korean ammunition would be sufficient in the near-term, if US and European supplies are essentially cut off....]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 13 December 2023 - 12:44 PM

[Mentalist]

The entire frontline isn't going to collapse in a second. Orcs still need to push through a number of strongpoints, and the cost will inevitably be high, since they rush and their recon capacity is terribad.

But without sufficient supplies to carry on anti-battery work, the advantage in artillery and airpower will inevitably lead to overwhelming pressure requiring that positions be abandoned. And every position lost increases the potential cost of trying to take it back, making the overall calculus incrementally worse.

It also saps the popular resolve to keep fighting rather than abandoning the country, emigrating and starting over, if the cause is clearly hopeless. Which is ultimately Putler's gameplan: he feels he can outlast any resistance.

[the broken]

I'm not sure that adds up. Ukraine has a tightrope to walk, where they have to look weak enough to push the US into giving aid, but not so weak as to feel like its not worth it. These narratives are being driven by political needs, not the military situation on the ground. The most important thing is probably the casualties, which are a fairly closely guarded secret.

Team 1: Europe, US/NATO,

Team 2: North Korea.

Which do you think has better military industrial capacity? North Korea may have vast stockpiles, but they will be either 70 (!) year old leftovers, or be from Russia or China in the first place. A million shells is not that much when you're burning through 20,000 a day and not necesarily even gaining territory for it. It says Russian artillery supplies have almost doubled, but doesn't give numbers, so that doesn't help us much.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

the broken, on 14 December 2023 - 12:40 AM, said:

I'm not sure that adds up. Ukraine has a tightrope to walk, where they have to look weak enough to push the US into giving aid, but not so weak as to feel like its not worth it. These narratives are being driven by political needs, not the military situation on the ground. The most important thing is probably the casualties, which are a fairly closely guarded secret.

Team 1: Europe, US/NATO,

Team 2: North Korea.

Which do you think has better military industrial capacity? North Korea may have vast stockpiles, but they will be either 70 (!) year old leftovers, or be from Russia or China in the first place. A million shells is not that much when you're burning through 20,000 a day and not necesarily even gaining territory for it. It says Russian artillery supplies have almost doubled, but doesn't give numbers, so that doesn't help us much.

In the longer term, sure, the EU + the UK could in principle produce more ammunition than Russia+North Korea---provided there's the political will for sufficient funding. But the question is about the near to mid term. Here are some numbers from the article:

Quote

The US Army has completely reworked its outputs since the war began and hopes to substantially increase its 155mm artillery production from the current rate of 30,000 a month, already a substantial increase since the start of the war, to 100,000 by the end of 2025.

30,000/month = 360,000/year

From October:

Quote

Presently, Russia has the capability to produce between 1 and 1.5 million artillery rounds annually

Russian army has 4M artillery shells, 350K received outside (bulgarianmilitary.com)

Granted, that's from 'bulgarianmilitary.com'. From September (New York Times):

Quote

Russia's current ammunition production is seven times greater than that of the West.

Russia Overcomes Sanctions to Expand Missile Production, Officials Say - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

From last week (Reuters):

Quote

European Union countries have placed orders for only 60,000 artillery shells under an EU scheme to help get 1 million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine by next spring


[...] Officials and industry leaders have offered different explanations for the EU's struggle to meet the goal.

Some argue that many governments have simply not backed up their rhetoric about supporting Ukraine for the long haul by placing orders with arms firms.

Others insist that it takes time for industry to ramp up and restart production of such artillery shells, which until recently were not viewed as a priority for modern warfare.

EU countries order only 60,000 shells for Ukraine via new scheme - sources | Reuters

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 14 December 2023 - 01:24 PM

[Werthead]

This article is less imminently-alarmist but does spell out the massive geopolitical gambit that American Republicans are taking. The free world is not going to collapse, but the USA's position as its leader could, very quickly, and there is a massive risk of nuclear proliferation as countries like South Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland etc realise that the USA's guarantees are not worth anything and rush to build their own deterrents. We could go from having nine nuclear powers to two dozen very quickly, with the attendant risks for escalation.

There is a small but nontrivial chance Ukraine could achieve a major military breakthrough somewhere on the front in the coming weeks (as the land fully freezes and allows limited operations to resume) and change the terms of the discussion. There is also a small chance of a shift inside Russia that could change the terms of the debate, possibly revolving around Kadyrov and Chechnya. Putin taking Kadyrov on tour with him and apparently expending more effort on keeping him on-board suggests Putin sees a dangerous opportunity for Chechnya to take advantage of Russia's over-exposure to break away again, and he wants to avoid that by any means necessary.

[Mentalist]

EU voted on starting accession talks with UA and Moldova. Georgia granted candidate status.

Orban wasn't in the room when the voting happened, so he couldn't veto it. Funny, that.

Putler held his Direct Line ™ press conference today. He stated that there's 617k orcs involved in the war atm. Roughly half-million were supposedly signed onto contract service this year.

Meanwhile, the UK is estimating roughly 300k (or about 90% of the initial invasion force have been KIA or WIA. Grim math, to say the least.

[Mentalist]

EU voted on starting accession talks with UA and Moldova. Georgia granted candidate status.

Orban wasn't in the room when the voting happened, so he couldn't veto it. Funny, that.

Putler held his Direct Line ™ press conference today. He stated that there's 617k orcs involved in the war atm. Roughly half-million were supposedly signed onto contract service this year.

Meanwhile, the UK is estimating roughly 300k (or about 90% of the initial invasion force have been KIA or WIA. Grim math, to say the least.

[the broken]

I didn't read the New York Times article because pof the paywall, but I did look at the others, and there's more to it than that. Re the EU scheme, don't forget about this part

Quote

The broader initiative, launched in March, offered various schemes to get 1 million shells and missiles to Ukraine within a year for the war against Russia's invasion. Together, those schemes have yielded some 480,000 munitions, according to the EU - less than half of the target, with about four months to go

The 60,000 figure is are the shells that have been ordered between the article and next march. The way you quoted it seems to imply that that EU's target was 1m, but they only could supply 60,000, when what really happened is 480,000 have already been supplied and 60,000 more have been ordered. Also, this is a specific EU scheme, , ordered by seven Eu countries including the likes of Lithuania and Denmark, through the EU. Individual member states contributions outside of a specific set of EU schemes are not counted towards that total.

Seven nations in the 27 nation EU alliance ordered 60,000 shells through a specific scheme. That doesn't say much about the rest of Europe's capacity, as it doesn't count conributions through any of the other schemes or contributions not made through the EU. It's not the 1m target, but it is extremely misleading to present 60,000 shells as the EU total contribution's to the intended 1m.

The other notable thing is that when talking about US production it specifies numbers of a specific shell, the 155mm, whereas the figures about russian production don't mention a specific type when making their figures

Quote

There are reports from Western media outlets in September indicating plans within the Russian Federation to ramp up yearly artillery ammunition production to 2 million with the timeline remaining unspecified. Presently, Russia has the capability to produce between 1 and 1.5 million artillery rounds annually, or between 83-125 thousand units per month.By contrast, the United States, the chief artillery round supplier to Ukraine, produces 28,000 155-mm units monthly with plans to scale up production to 100,000 monthly units [or 1.2 million units annually] by 2026. Even France recently revealed plans to triple its ammunition exports to Ukraine—from 1,000 units in January 2023 to 3,000 by January 2024

(emphasis mine)

Also:

Quote

Estonian intelligence shared another alarming statistic — the Russian Federation currently hosts 4 million artillery rounds, sufficient for a year-long, low-intensity conflict. It is imperative to monitor how this discovery impacts the perceived balance of military resources in the region.OSINT analyst @HerrDr8 recently published data suggesting Russian forces are expending 7,000 rounds daily from their artillery systems, a record low since February 2022. At this rate, assuming no future supply, Russia's ammunition stocks would deplete in around 19 months. Should the daily usage rise to 10,000 rounds per day, the ammunition would last up to 13 months.

7,000 per day is a record low. Any kind of status quo changing offensive will have to ramp that up significantly. If 7,000 per day lasts 19 months, and 10,000 last 13 months, what happens if you ramp that up to 20,000 or 30,000?

Of course, it's not as simple as that, but neither is anything else. It's important not to be complacent, but it is also important not to panic. Ukraine's offensive was less successful than expected in spite of all the aid they had, because they were facing strong defences. The thing is, that cuts two ways for any impending Russian offensive.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

the broken, on 15 December 2023 - 12:57 AM, said:

I didn't read the New York Times article because pof the paywall, but I did look at the others, and there's more to it than that. Re the EU scheme, don't forget about this part

Quote

The broader initiative, launched in March, offered various schemes to get 1 million shells and missiles to Ukraine within a year for the war against Russia's invasion. Together, those schemes have yielded some 480,000 munitions, according to the EU - less than half of the target, with about four months to go

The 60,000 figure is are the shells that have been ordered between the article and next march. The way you quoted it seems to imply that that EU's target was 1m, but they only could supply 60,000, when what really happened is 480,000 have already been supplied and 60,000 more have been ordered. Also, this is a specific EU scheme, , ordered by seven Eu countries including the likes of Lithuania and Denmark, through the EU. Individual member states contributions outside of a specific set of EU schemes are not counted towards that total.

Seven nations in the 27 nation EU alliance ordered 60,000 shells through a specific scheme. That doesn't say much about the rest of Europe's capacity, as it doesn't count conributions through any of the other schemes or contributions not made through the EU. It's not the 1m target, but it is extremely misleading to present 60,000 shells as the EU total contribution's to the intended 1m.

The other notable thing is that when talking about US production it specifies numbers of a specific shell, the 155mm, whereas the figures about russian production don't mention a specific type when making their figures

Yes, you're right, sorry. In context, I'd assume the 480,000 was primarily preexisting stock, not new production, though the article doesn't explicitly say that. Attributing the 60,000 figure to low production capacity, along with the claim that the EU's ammunition stores are now severely depleted , does strongly imply it though.

From the New York Times article (again, from September):

Quote

Russia is now producing more ammunition than the United States and Europe. Overall, Kusti Salm, a senior Estonian defense ministry official, estimated that Russia's current ammunition production is seven times greater than that of the West.

Russia's production costs are also far lower than the West's, in part because Moscow is sacrificing safety and quality in its effort to build weapons more cheaply, Mr. Salm said. For instance, it costs a Western country $5,000 to $6,000 to make a 155-millimeter artillery round, whereas it costs Russia about $600 to produce a comparable 152-millimeter artillery shell

Russia Overcomes Sanctions to Expand Missile Production, Officials Say - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

From November 27th (I've bolded the most relevant parts):

Quote

In what has often been an artillery war, Ukraine is already suffering from "shell-hunger", says Michael Kofman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an American think-tank. He reckons that Ukraine was firing 220,000-240,000 larger calibre shells (152mm and 155mm) per month during the summer, but the rate of fire is dwindling and will fall to 80,000-90,000 shells a month. Even these numbers are more than America and European countries are currently producing—roughly 28,000 and 25,000 a month respectively. Western production is rising, with targets to triple output, but that will take a year or more, and some of the output will be used to replenish Western stocks and supply others. Russia outpaces Western shell production and has been helped by a surge of rounds from North Korea.

Ukraine's new enemy: war fatigue in the West (economist.com)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 15 December 2023 - 12:10 PM

[Werthead]

the broken, on 15 December 2023 - 12:57 AM, said:

Of course, it's not as simple as that, but neither is anything else. It's important not to be complacent, but it is also important not to panic. Ukraine's offensive was less successful than expected in spite of all the aid they had, because they were facing strong defences. The thing is, that cuts two ways for any impending Russian offensive.

There is a big question on if Russia has accepted a moderate short-term goal of holding the territory it already has with perhaps minor additional gains (they definitely want to take Avdiivka). If they do and switch to full-on defensive mode, that makes it tough for Ukraine to break through their lines without major new resources.

Russia deciding to go for broke and making another big push somewhere could be very difficult, as Ukraine has also established huge defensive lines and postures, and every success (even minor) in this conflict so far has come for Russia at ludicrous cost.

I saw one Ukrainian claim that the counteroffensive was actually about as successful as Ukraine had hoped in terms of the number of Russians killed and Russian military equipment destroyed, possibly even moreso, but this did not translate into territory reclaimed. Russian defensive efforts, first with the minefields and then with pouring conscript meat shields into the gaps, were more successful than it was believed would be possible. Ukraine was unable to maintain pressure for long enough to break through, but it appears that they were not a million miles away when they took Robotyne.

[the broken]

Can't read the new articles, they're both behind walls.

You're going to get all kinds of conflicting information from different sources. One of the articles talks about a million North Korean shells, the other says 350,000. Which is correct? That's quite a big difference. Russia and North Korea are not the most transparent places, who knows what the real numbers are.

I don't think the 480,000 was existing stocks, because there is a quote from the EU saying that using existing stocks is an alternative to the schemes, not part of them.

This specifically refers to the EU, not Europe, and the EU is an organisation that doesn't actually have an army at all, so the EU (as distinct from member states) is unlikely to have large stocks of artillery shells on hand to supply an army that doesn't exist. The EU does have financial power, so if they wanted to buy shells then the schemes would be a good way to do that allowing small but rich members like Luxembourg to contribute to Ukraine's defence, even though they are not a military power (they have 939 staff, the only artillery they have is for gun salutes) It would not be counting stocks donated by individual member states like France, Germany, or Poland who already have military power, because they don't need the EU scheme and would be donating by themselves, not through the EU.

Quote

I saw one Ukrainian claim that the counteroffensive was actually about as successful as Ukraine had hoped in terms of the number of Russians killed and Russian military equipment destroyed, possibly even moreso, but this did not translate into territory reclaimed. Russian defensive efforts, first with the minefields and then with pouring conscript meat shields into the gaps, were more successful than it was believed would be possible. Ukraine was unable to maintain pressure for long enough to break through, but it appears that they were not a million miles away when they took Robotyne.

Honestly I think the expectations for the offensive were just too high to begin, with, driven by Western political reasons and not the reality on the ground. Breaking through a fortified line has never been easy. It doesn't mean Ukraine is on the verge of collapse or anything, the US just wants to say that because it helps with their politics back home.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

the broken, on 16 December 2023 - 01:37 AM, said:

I don't think the 480,000 was existing stocks, because there is a quote from the EU saying that using existing stocks is an alternative to the schemes, not part of them.

I think you're thinking of this quote:

Quote

Another option for EU members was to deliver from existing stocks, yielding some 300,000 shells and missiles, the EU says.

EU countries order only 60,000 shells for Ukraine via new scheme - sources | Reuters

It's badly worded, but the use of 'was' rather than 'is' suggests they meant that 300,000 of the 480,000 were provided from existing stocks. Thankfully other news sources state this more clearly (from November 14th, before the other article):

Quote

Some 300,000 rounds have been delivered from existing stocks in the EU so far. With the rest becoming increasingly elusive to source before spring, Latvian Defense Minister Andris Spruds insisted the original target should not be taken too literally.

"Well, of course, 1 million rounds are symbolic. I think aspiration and ambition is important,"

The European Union is struggling to produce and send the ammunition it promised to Ukraine | PBS NewsHour

From December 6th:

Quote

“People familiar with the figures” claim European Union countries have placed orders for only 60,000 artillery shells of the 1 million rounds promised by the EU to Ukraine by March.

The EU had pledged to supply the munitions by allowing countries to place orders with industry, with contracts negotiated by the bloc’s European Defence Agency, as well as by providing shells from their existing stocks

[...] The EU says that about 480,000 shells have now been sent

Ukraine War, Day 651: Zelenskiy Cancels Meeting With Senate After Top Republicans Block Aid - EA WorldView

So clearly existing stocks are being counted towards the 1 million figure, and included in the 480,000.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 16 December 2023 - 12:50 PM

[Werthead]

This analysis of the cost-benefits of allowing a Russian victory or pushing for a Ukrainian victory is excellent. It points out the tremendous geostrategic advantages and cost savings of keeping Russian troops on the far side of Ukraine from the rest of NATO.

It does, however, take it as read that the United States, now and in the future, will remain a NATO member and there are not elements in the United States that do not care about Ukraine or indeed Europe. The idea that America will simply happily walk away and let all of Europe fall to a Russian military push is unfathomable to a lot of institutions, but it's clearly not unfathomable to some in the American political system.