Posted on 06/12/2022 2:52:35 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Almost 4 months after the start of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the war turned into an "artillery duel". And victories in battles are increasingly being won by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. A significant role in this is played by the supply of Western weapons, which are gaining momentum, but are still insufficient. Der Spiegel writes about this in an analytical article.
"At the beginning of the offensive, when Russian troops began to advance in large columns from the north to major Ukrainian cities such as Kiev and Kharkiv, the goal was to lure the enemy into ambushes, where anti-tank weapons were waiting for him. However, now that the struggle has migrated to the vast steppes of the south and east of Ukraine, it has become more violent, more ruthless... Courage, experience and imagination do not help much when the necessary weapons are not at hand," the newspaper writes.
Journalists quote the Ukrainian deputy, Colonel Roman Kostenko, who now commands a special unit that works closely with the Gunners. The MP believes that it is artillery that will be of decisive importance in the battle for the Ukrainian South, where the unit headed by him is fighting.
The publication notes that if initially the Ukrainian army had mainly Soviet-made artillery systems at its disposal, now the share of Western equipment is growing.
"On one of the fields covered with artillery, M777 is firing at Russian positions. The United States promised the Ukrainian military 108 such howitzers, as well as 200,000 rounds of ammunition for them. Howitzers are not self-propelled, they are towed by other vehicles. In addition, the" Triple Seven", which the Ukrainians call" three axes", has a longer range than Russian artillery, and uses standard - sized NATO shells that can be replenished, " the newspaper writes, adding that Norway and France also supplied Ukrainian artillery.
According to adviser to the head of the Office of the president of Ukraine Alexey Arestovich, the supply of Western artillery is "decisive" for the situation at the front today. Without them, he says, "the enemy would now storm Zaporozhye, take Lisichansk and surround Slavyansk."
"In close combat, battalion vs battalion, we win," says Arestovich. "Our problem is that the enemy is shooting at us with almost impunity from a long distance." This, according to him, explains the high Ukrainian losses of up to 100 servicemen daily. Ukraine, he adds, ran out of ammunition for its own rocket launchers in early April, "except for the inviolable reserve," the author of the article quotes Arestovich's statement.
At the same time, the Russian occupiers do not experience a shortage of artillery and ammunition - and use them at full capacity in the Donbas.
"The Ukrainian commander on the Eastern Front called Russian tactics a 'wall of fire'. Before each attack, they create a "blanket" of artillery fire, which allows them to inflict losses on Ukrainian defenders. And the Russians are unlikely to run out of ammunition in the near future: "they use Soviet-era stocks, and the Soviets were not stingy when it came to weapons." The commander also praises the New M777 howitzers." the Russians are afraid of them, " he says.
Journalists also quote John Spencer, a military expert at the Madison Policy Forum think tank, who believes that these Western systems "significantly affect the Donbass."
"Ukrainians are now waiting for the next delivery from the West. The United States intends to send four M142 HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems. And the British promised several M270 systems, a multiple launch rocket system with a range of up to 80 kilometers. This is not only twice as much as that of American howitzers, but also slightly exceeds the range of comparable Russian systems. And the Germans promised to deliver four MARS II systems by the end of June," writes Der Spiegel.
Western rocket launchers are capable of destroying enemy artillery from a long distance. And while Russian missile launchers are notorious for their inaccuracy, with a scattering radius of 170 meters, HIMARS and M270 allow accurate strikes provided that GPS-guided missiles are used.
"These systems will really make a difference," said Mark Kanchian, an analyst at The Washington - based think tank at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"The problem, however, is that the eight systems promised by the Americans, British and Germans are not enough to protect against Russian offensive along the entire front line. "10 systems are probably enough for the Donbass alone, but it is likely that at least twice as many are needed for the rest of the front," Kanchian said.
Journalists state that recently Ukraine has been conducting counterattacks in the southern region, the medium – term goal is to recapture the territory west of the Dnieper. Russia captured Kherson, which gave it a springboard on the West Bank of the river, from which it could move to Odessa.
Now, says Colonel Kostenko, the Ukrainian army is able to strike at the initial positions of the invaders with the help of targeted artillery, which is controlled using drones.
"But then they send reserves, and we can't protect the territory," he says.
According to Kostenko, Modern Multiple Launch Rocket Systems with their long range will allow Ukrainian soldiers to also attack Russia's reserve lines, which will facilitate the maintenance of the recaptured territory.
"Meanwhile, the United States has made it quite clear about the possibilities of weapons systems, taking president Zelensky's promise that Ukraine will not use rocket launchers to fire at Russian territory. And Washington decided not to supply the so-called ATACMS missile, which can be launched by the same launchers, but has a range of up to 300 km. Russian President Vladimir Putin did not seem impressed by the announced deliveries of missile systems, because he said that they "will not change anything in essence," the newspaper writes.
And even those MLRS that are already on the way will not be able to start using immediately.
"The question is how quickly Ukraine will actually be able to deploy multiple launch rocket systems. Four HIMARS systems from the United States have already been transported to Europe, but Ukrainian soldiers still need to be trained in their use, and this training is given three weeks. Meanwhile, German systems require software configuration, which can lead to significant delays, possibly even before winter," the publication writes.
Journalists recalled that the German government is delaying the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine.
So far, Berlin has only supplied light weapons and ammunition, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, 16 million rounds of ammunition, 50 field medical vehicles, and 80 armored SUVs.
"However, when it comes to heavy weapons, all that Ukraine has received from Berlin is promises. Other countries sent much more. Poland, for example, supplied 230 upgraded T-72 battle tanks, and the Czech Republic — 61 armored personnel carriers," States Der Spiegel.
The publication also noted the "huge solidarity" of Eastern European countries with Ukraine, which was a victim of Russian aggression.
"In tiny Lithuania, the population raised 5 million euros to buy a Bayraktar combat drone for Ukrainians. And the Eastern European ones also helped in other ways: they still had a significant number of Soviet weapons that the Ukrainians could easily use. Western systems may be better, but they need training," the newspaper writes.
Recall that on June 11, it became known when Ukraine will receive the long-suffering howitzers from Germany. According to the Ukrainian ambassador to this country Andriy Melnyk, the Panzerhaubitze 2000 howitzers are approximately on June 22. After that, German Gepard anti-aircraft self-propelled guns are expected to be delivered.
Only verified information is available in the Obozrevatel Telegram channel and in Viber. Don't be led to fakes
I have no doubts that the person believing in the above general considers organizations that can’t get the currency rates right reputable. That’s called top down idiocracy.
What isolation from world economy are you talking about? The world is not limited to G7 which can’t compete with BRICS based on scale.
And BRICS refuses to be your sweatshop and the source of cheap commodites anymore.
Are you ready to work on the factory line to compensate?
Your delusions are astonishing.
There is no shortage of pet food, tampons and baby formula in Russia FYI, and the gas is $2 per galon.
Again, those organizations are reliable and widely trusted sources of economic data and analysis. Their outlook for the Russian economy is negative due to sanctions.
Congrats to the BRIC countries for their ambitions, but all of them have fundamental strutural weaknesses that mst be remedied if they are to succeed. In essence, Brazil is shambolic and corrupt, Russia ia run by a dictator determined by expansion and war, India is a deeply divided country, and China is getting old before it gets rich.
Nobody knew that these organizations are so bad and politicized. Your evaluation of BRICS downsides is biased and exaggerated. The same problems exist in G7. They don’t stop BRICS from outperforming the ‘free world’ and being more attractive model for the third world. It is the future.
As for the BRICs, they are a mixed lot, a category but not a cohesive bloc, and in the last few years, the BRICs economic performance has faltered. With China's economy cooling in relative terms, her demand for imported natural resources diminished as well, which resulted in a decline in export earnings for the other BRIC nations.
In addition, the BRICs are up against fundamental economic constraints. Like Japan a generation ago, China now confronts the limitations of her economic model of export-led industrialization. No longer the low cost producer, China must contend with competition from Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, and others. They aim to advance through the "sweatshop" industries that your last post scorns for the BRICs.
For China especially, major economic advances now require technological innovation, the protection of property and human rights, and the development of rule of law. China is not embracing these requirements because they are contrary to the principles of Communist Party rule. With unfavorable demographics as well, China seems destined to get stuck in the "middle income trap" and become old before she gets rich. And if China moves against Taiwan, the regime itself will come under stress and may fail.
Russia has deep corruption and similar economic and demographic problems, compounded now by the burdens of war against Ukraine, an autocratic regime, technological stagnation, and sanctions by the US and the EU. South Africa has a corrupt and unstable government with severe racial antagonisms that repel investors. Brazil also suffers from extensive corruption, political instability, and corrosive class divisions.
As with China, Brazil and India are confronting the middle income trap. Yet both have a major advantage over China in the form of European political and legal institutions that promote the rule of law, property and human rights, and civil institutions.
As this brief survey indicates, the BRICs and the wider developing world have differences that make common economic and political action implausible. Indeed, with China aligned with Pakistan and increasingly thuggish toward India, it is hard to imagine anything more than shallow and temporary cooperation between them.
As the conflict between China and India becomes acute, which way will Russia tilt? Already, under menace from China, India has dropped Russia as the longstanding, near monopoly foreign arms supplier to India. US, European, and Israeli weapons and platforms that actually work in combat are now preferred in New Delhi.
Moreover, since Russia is unable to help India control the Indian Ocean, a de facto alliance between India and the United States is now emergent. This development reflects both common strategic interests and extensive economic ties between India and the US.
With the world fragmented into competing nations and alliances with divergent interests, being the strongest power in the world carries outsize advantages and obligations. Like it or not, for most countries, the US is the ally of choice due to its unique combination of economic, financial, political, military, and cultural strengths. And in such a world, Russia has little to offer most countries.
Except other than China, no one wants what BRIC has, orc.
So that's another thread, isn't it?
You just do your slav squat while you pop another krokodil...dance. monkey. dance.
LOL. That is why Argentina, Mexico, Turkey, Iran and Indonesia are applying to join. Tell me what the ‘free world’ has and they lack.
Moreover, using Purchasing Power Parity inflates the calculated GDP of less develooped countries. The deceptive part is that even though the cost of living in BRICS countries and the developing world is lower, except for retirees on a fixed income, few in America or Britain or Germany or another developed nation freely choose to live in a BRICS country or in the Third World.
Indeed, the net flow of people is from those countries to the developed nations because the quality of life is better there. There are more opportuities and services in the form of comprehensive public education, abundant medical care, clean air and water and sewage services, functional power utilities, reliable police and other public services, and access to courts for redress.
The cost of all that adds to the tax burden, which is then embedded in prices and makes for a higher cost of living and higher standard of living in developed nations. And since residents of developed nations like the US are more productive, they earn higher salaries and bid up the price of goods and services.
As for "exporting inflation," it commonly stems from two factors: putting money into other economies through trade and tourism; and by a country mismanaging its national currency. A general inflationary excess of dollars in the international system would usually be reflected in a weakening of the dollar in currency markets. That is not the case today, with the dollar being relatively strong.
Your orthodox take is dated. The quality of infrastructure and services is worsening in the “free world” and catching up in the developing world, but still more affordable.
The entire goal of BRICS is to close the gap.
Would you mind telling the difference between the American and Russian making the same income adjusted to PPP?
Who do you think has it better and why?
Why do skilled people emigrate in large numbers from Russia and China to the West? Why did Putin send most of his billions in stolen wealth outside of Russia to the EU? Why do so many of India's university graduates emigrate to the United States?
There are a number of quality of life indexes, and all also show Russia and other BRICS rated well below the US, Europe, and other developed nations. The benchmark is the comprehensive OECD Better Life Index. The US is ranked at 10, while Russia is ranked at 33.
Wikipedia has an accessible chart of the recent years' rankings. Usefully, the Wikipedia article also contains links to numerous other indexes. Help yourself to an education.
Okay, no answer as usual.
Why super-wealthy Americans are buying homes elsewhere? That’s because the can. Most of the investments of the wealthy Russians are domestic anyway, the overseas homes are a thing of the past due the industrial scale theft of assets taking place in the ‘free world’. Private property in Russia is protected at the same time.
How do you know who and in what numbers migrating from Russia? Digital nomads tend to migrate after a job. At the same time about 120,000 Americans used to hold tye Russian work permits at one point. Overall there is a positive inflow of immigrants into Russia and not in the other direction. Who moves to the US? It is years no since the visas aren’t issued anymore.
How do you know where Putin holds his billions and how to you know he have them at all? It is the same crap as ghost of Kiev your media is so attached to.
Remember—towards the end Hitler said Wonder weapons would win the war. Mr. Z thinks western Wonder Weapons will win the day—they will not.
You had my heart fluttering for a moment when you referred to "industrial scale theft of assets." I thought that you might be referring to the theft of Communist Party assets when the USSR was dissolved, or the theft of Soviet state industries in that era. Alas, no, what you find objectionable is the sanctions imposed on Russia and on Putin and his circle of oligarch pals who gained great wealth in those and later thefts.
How do we know about Putin's stolen billions? Ex-spies, renegade oligarchs, and investigative journalists and Putin's political opponents inside Russia. The cumulative body of information is detailed and credible and too often results in the murder of the source by Putin's hitmen.
The killing of Litvinenko in London was especially flagrant, using as it did a radioactive material -- Polonium -- that is produced in the necessary quantities only in a single reactor that is in Russia and under government control. The Russian hitment were identified as aligned with Putin.
More propaganda, none of that you have said is supported by facts.
Of all the real enemies of the Russian state, why Litvinenko?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.