Concentrating on Kyiv, setting up supply lines back to the east to support that drive. Trying to take the city of Sumy which seems to be important to get supplies to the Kyiv operations
Surrounding and besieging major eastern cities such as Kharkiv, Melitopol, Mariupol.
Preparing a major assault on Odessa and according to the New York Times today planning an assault on Zaporizhizhia and then Dnipro.
Each one of these would need significant troops and protected supply lines. Is that possible with 150,000-170,000 soldiers?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are making some remarkable claims today about losses in the air war for the Russians yesterday. They claim 10 Russian aircraft down, 4 by SAMs, 4 by air to air, 2 by short range air defense. facebook.com/kpszsu/videos/…
At the same time they are claiming to have destroyed an entire regiment of Russian airborne forces, with all their equipment including tanks. (I dont speak Ukrainian but have received this summary from the trustworthy @TrentTelenko
These are extraordinary claims and as its war we have to take them with a grain of salt. However if they are even half correct two things seem to be happening.
An important understanding of why time is on Ukraine’s side unless Putin basically commits an entirely fresh army, which would have to start moving very soon.
If this estimate is right, the Russians have already lost 20000 to 24000 killed and wounded. This is without making many attempts to get into Ukrainian cities (which would be very bloody operations)
In the meantime, the Ukrainians have resupplies with massive amounts of the right weaponry to cause massive more casualties if the Russians do move into cities (or indeed move almost anywhere in the open)
The Institute for the Study of War has written a noteworthy and commendable update. Now the Ukrainian Army might 'fight to a standstill' the Russian forces trying to encircle Kyiv. understandingwar.org/backgrounder/r…
The Russian Army is not learning lessons, is still having trouble resupplying and the overall Russian performance is 'questionable'.
My impression, as a non-expert on the Russian Army, is that a real problem they are facing is a lack of motivation in their soldiers. The Russians seem hesitant, slow to act, rely on firepower, and actually not interested in fighting.
I very much understand why you might consider my position hypocritical, and respect that. And I also know many people on my Twitter feed support an immediate no-fly zone (NFZ). Might make sense to develop my thinking a little more.
The discussion of a NFZ is normally couched in terms of how Russia would respond/escalate. However the threat of a NFZ is also a way to keep Russia from escalating. That escalation could involve tactical nukes or chemical/bio weapons.
If NATO goes now for a NFZ, the Russian leadership might calculate that escalation is in their interest. That could be a stated tactical nuke in Ukraine. Would then NATO blow up the world in response? Probably not.
Some thoughts on the arguments for a no-fly zone, effective aid for the Ukrainians and air power. Been quoted a little in this article in the @WSJ (paywall) wsj.com/articles/the-w…
The question of a no-fly zone seems more one of NATO being a full scale participant in this war or not. As many of said, it leads inevitably to direct exchanges between Russia and NATO.
While I still think it very unlikely that Russia would go to full scale nuclear exchange at that point (ie end human existence), not sure we want to find out. Only thing that might change my mind on a no fly zone is a chemical/biological attack by Russia.
You can almost tell the sense of surprise from the US spokesperson about how effective the Ukrainian air defense systems have been (or conversely how relatively ineffective the Russians have been in taking them out).