Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Is this Moldova stuff coming from Ukrainian intel or Western intel?

It's cited from Moldovan Intelligence, obviously can't know if they are receiving info from elsewhere. They've also shut their airspace down today due to an unknown UAV.
 
So this would be like the third likely World War inducing incident in three months (plus Nord Stream and the missile in Poland). Is it just posturing or something else? Who benefits from this narrative? I assume it would be those who want to promote peace talks in something similar to the current conditions.
 
So this would be like the third likely World War inducing incident in three months (plus Nord Stream and the missile in Poland). Is it just posturing or something else? Who benefits from this narrative? I assume it would be those who want to promote peace talks in something similar to the current conditions.
What you mean?

In other news, Lloyd Austin is coming to Estonia this Thursday the 16th and Stoltenberg & Van der Leyen should be coming on the 24th for Estonia's 105th Independence Day & also the year of the war date.
 
Ignore the awful music but this it is pretty insane footage from few days ago:


The song is from the Ukrainian TV show "деревня дураков" (the forest of the fools). It's perfect for this video, if you know the show.
 
I'm sure Putin would love to control Moldova and use it as a western flank for eventually invading Odesa Oblast.
Is there a realistic scenario of something like this happening? I mean, Russia doesn't have any direct route to Moldova and they have (according to wiki) around 1,500 troops in Transnistria? I mean, even with some additional troops from Transnistria itself they're not going to take the country, surely?


Although after all the shit that Putin has pulled so far even those lunatic-sounding scenarios may be his actual plan...
 
Is there a realistic scenario of something like this happening? I mean, Russia doesn't have any direct route to Moldova and they have (according to wiki) around 1,500 troops in Transnistria? I mean, even with some additional troops from Transnistria itself they're not going to take the country, surely?


Although after all the shit that Putin has pulled so far even those lunatic-sounding scenarios may be his actual plan...

Fomenting instability from within is always a pretext for Putin to get his hooks into a country. I don't think he would invade outright given everything else thats going on, but it would be immensely helpful to him to control as much of Moldova as possible to put pressure on southwestern Ukraine.
 
Any chance of any negotiations soon? Or have the weapons manufacturers not made enough yet?
 
Any chance of any negotiations soon? Or have the weapons manufacturers not made enough yet?

Is that what you think? That the reason there aren't any peace negotiations is because of weapons manufacturers?

Edit: I guess it is.

Ukraine will win one day…the country will be completely destroyed and they’ll owe the West $100s of billions…but at least they ‘won’, Russia weakened AND they’ll have an Oscar.

It will be clear that it was definitely worth flirting with NATO that’s for sure.

Just my thoughts.
 
"The U.S. military is considering sending Ukraine thousands of seized weapons and more than a million rounds of ammunition once bound for Iran-backed fighters in Yemen, an unprecedented step that would help Kyiv battle Russian forces, U.S. and European officials said."

 
Any chance of any negotiations soon? Or have the weapons manufacturers not made enough yet?
Putin's true ambition is to go down in history as a leader than made Russia expand. Just like Catherine the great and Ivan the great. Hard to negotiate with that.

And I take your comment about weapons manufacturers as some sort of joke, as I'm sure you don't really suggest that they are the reason there's war going on.
 
Any chance of any negotiations soon? Or have the weapons manufacturers not made enough yet?
There will be negotiations as soon as the Russian regime opens up for a genuine withdrawal from all occupied territory… (which won’t happen soon enough).
 
Is there a realistic scenario of something like this happening? I mean, Russia doesn't have any direct route to Moldova and they have (according to wiki) around 1,500 troops in Transnistria? I mean, even with some additional troops from Transnistria itself they're not going to take the country, surely?


Although after all the shit that Putin has pulled so far even those lunatic-sounding scenarios may be his actual plan...

I don't know anything of Moldovan politics, but I'm going to take wild guess there's a Russian backed opposition party doing everything it can to cause disruption and sew mistrust. They'll be paying off people of influence and flooding media with their nonsense. The usual...

I wouldn't expect any Russian/Transnistrian troops to be involved except maybe some "local separatists" that spring up from nowhere.
 
This is also applies to Russia in fairness
It does, but as I previously stated, they can simply expand the industry without telling their country and divert all resources into it in the short term whereas the "West" can't do it freely under some circumstances. You hope that some of the countries from the West have started doing it as much as they can.

In addition, the UA requires a steady supply of ammunition to repel the RA human waves. At the moment, the UA can face a more serious short-term issue with it if they want to hold the line as much as possible.
 
It does, but as I previously stated, they can simply expand the industry without telling their country and divert all resources into it in the short term whereas the "West" can't do it freely under some circumstances. You hope that some of the countries from the West have started doing it as much as they can.

In addition, the UA requires a steady supply of ammunition to repel the RA human waves. At the moment, the UA can face a more serious short-term issue with it if they want to hold the line as much as possible.
Are we sure that NATO is the “smaller side” in the realm of arms production capabilities?
 
Are we sure that NATO is the “smaller side” in the realm of arms production capabilities?
Not at all, though I'm not sure what NATO's or the RA's current arms production rate (not capabilities) is. However, based on all of the reports alarming that the current rate of ammunition production will not be able to keep up with usage in the near future, I am hopeful that NATO countries will start taking it very seriously very soon, because I am sure that the RA is doing everything they can.

Nevertheless, NATO countries have to persuade their politicians/populations to increase the arm production in peacetime (?), and how long they will do so even if they increase is obviously an open question.
 
Last edited:
Not at all, though I'm not sure what NATO's or the RA's current arms production rate (not capabilities) is. However, based on all of the reports alarming that the current rate of ammunition production will not be able to keep up with usage in the near future, I am hopeful that NATO countries will start taking it very seriously very soon, because I am sure that the RA is doing everything they can.

Nevertheless, NATO countries have to persuade their politicians/populations to increase the arm production in peacetime (?), and how long they will do so even if they increase is obviously an open question.
Recall that one to two months ago, US and UK intelligence assessed that Russia 1) had a critical artillery shell shortage 2) had reduced artillery fire by up to 75% compared to its wartime peak and 3) that Russia had been using 40 year old shells recently in Ukraine.
 
Recall that one to two months ago, US and UK intelligence assessed that Russia 1) had a critical artillery shell shortage 2) had reduced artillery fire by up to 75% compared to its wartime peak and 3) that Russia had been using 40 year old shells recently in Ukraine.
I've seen them and they still have more shells than what UA has right now. That led back to the post you first replied. The Russians, of course, do not have as many weapons and ammunition as they did before the invasion, but they do have manpower, and the UA needs all the ammunition it can get to repel them to save their own manpower, which is inferior to Russia's. Furthermore, the point was made that Putin does not care about his people. He has the authority to divert all resources to produce as much ammunition as possible, which many Western countries do not have, which could be a problem in the short term for UA if the situation keeps going on. Also, recall that the US has been telling UA that they were using an unsustainable amount of artillery shells in the Bakhmut area.

And we've been assuming for months that the Russians are out of ammunition which might be or will be true at some point but is more along the lines of "in the long run, we will all be dead" stuff. Estimating how bad the Russians are or their equipment situation makes little sense to me. It is best to consider what UA lacks and prepare accordingly. I'm more interested in knowing if NATO is increasing production of some critical ammunition for the UA than in assuming the Russians will also face difficulties. Well, good if they do, but what about UA?
 
Last edited:
I'm more interested in knowing if NATO is increasing production of some critical ammunition for the UA than in assuming the Russians will also face difficulties. Well, good if they do, but what about UA?
It is. For example Rheinmetall is building a new facility in Germany to produce medium caliber ammuninition and just yesterday the contracts were signed that they will produce and deliver the 35mm Gepard ammo for Ukraine. And that's not the only movement towards more ammo production, but just an example.
 
I've seen them and they still have more shells than what UA has right now.
Yes, but a large stock of old, degrading artillery isn’t going to be as useful as a growing stock of new artillery. Not to mention, Russia’s entire army doctrine relies on burning through massive quantities of shells and howitzer barrels before making an assault. Doing that with reduced quality equipment is going to lead to a large capability gap between what their stockpile can provide and what their doctrine demands. It will lead to them ordering, as we’ve already seen evidence of, large infantry assaults without their usual covering artillery and armor. Fighting in Ukraine has increasingly resembled the Western Front of WWI and in recent months we have been witnessing Russia’s capability and doctrine devolve from Western Front 1917-1918 practices to Western Front 1914-1915 practices… which is not good for them. 1914-1915 showed what happens to infantry assaults against prepared positions without adequate artillery support, and it was a bloodbath.
I'm more interested in knowing if NATO is increasing production of some critical ammunition for the UA
The US, for one, is increasing artillery production by 500%.
 


Think that's a calculated claim to irritate the German public. People in here seemingly fear WWIII a bit more than in other places and Russia knows that. How not only the chancellor but sadly also large parts of the population hesitated a lot to supply Ukraine with heavy weaponry.
 
Wallace: 97% of Russia's army involved in Ukraine war

https://www.forces.net/ukraine/97-r...ffering-wwi-levels-attrition-defence-sec-says

The Defence Secretary says 97% of Russia's army is involved in the Ukraine war.
Ben Wallace said Russian troops in Ukraine are suffering "almost First World War levels of attrition and with success rates of a matter of metres".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Wallace said since General Valery Gerasimov was appointed Russia's Chief of the General Staff, "we've seen a sort of effort to advance on all fronts".

"We haven't actually seen this massing of a single force to punch through, a big offensive – just an effort to advance, and that has come at a huge cost to the Russian army," he said.
(...)
"If 97% of the Russian army is now committed to Ukraine with an attrition rate very, very high, and potentially their combat effectiveness depleted by 40% and nearly two-thirds of their tanks destroyed or broken, that has a direct impact on the security of Europe."

He added: "It actually says, that those Russian land forces that used to mass in places like Kaliningrad on the border between Poland and the Baltic states or those threats are absolutely in a less threatening position simply because there aren't much left of it."
 
Interesting to read back some of the takes at the time. Predictions are hard, I guess?