The War in Ukraine

[Cloud Cover]

This article is a little confusing - seems to at first suggest that the 35mm SkyRanger turret could be swapped for the gun turret on the Leo 1, but then suggests the alternative is take advantage of Leo 1 storage space for another 252 rounds for SkyRanger. Is that the hull and the original turret with only the gun swapped out? Or just hull storage? How would ammo be passed up?

Rheinmetall May Propose Hybrid Air Defense Vehicle for Ukraine

Despite recent promises of additional anti-missile systems from Ukraine’s allies, Kyiv still cries out for additional air defense assets that Rheinmetall may be able to partially solve.

www.kyivpost.com

 

[Maxman1]

Schweizer Waffen für die Ukraine: Nationalrats-Kommission gibt grünes Licht

Die Sicherheitspolitische Kommission (SIK) des Nationalrats sprach sich dafür aus, dass Drittstaaten Schweizer Waffen an die Ukraine weitergeben dürfen.

www.watson.ch

Switzerland working to allow exports to Ukraine.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Schweizer Waffen für die Ukraine: Nationalrats-Kommission gibt grünes Licht

Die Sicherheitspolitische Kommission (SIK) des Nationalrats sprach sich dafür aus, dass Drittstaaten Schweizer Waffen an die Ukraine weitergeben dürfen.

www.watson.ch

Switzerland working to allow exports to Ukraine.

They really are the last 'untapped' reservoir of weapons left in Europe.

 

[suffolkowner]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1803017810215387595

And so it begins. China may end up with more of Russia than Russia has of Ukraine

 

[suffolkowner]

Інтервю з Андрієм Кобзарем - досвідченим артилеристом і командиром розрахунку Panzerhaubitze 2000.

Андрій Кобзар - з 90-х років член УНСО, строкову службу проходив в 1997-1998 р.р. в 820-му МСП 128-ї МСД (нині - 128 ОГШБр) - на САУ 2С1.

drukarnia.com.ua

This Ukrainian likes his German howitzer

 

[PrairieFella]

Apparently the Ukrainians have cut off a BTG or so worth of troops in Vovchansk. They're hunkered in a chemical plant and are getting pounded by Ukrainian glide bombs. The irony...

 

[suffolkowner]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1802978777988800851

Russian T90 production/refurbishment

https://twitter.com/x/status/1802978780090191895

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1802978777988800851

Russian T90 production/refurbishment

https://twitter.com/x/status/1802978780090191895

Refurbished/theft is a better choice of words.
He noted that a non insignificant number of the T-90’s were actually export tanks (that India had paid [at least partially] for) that got rerouted. Those had been built in previous years to assemble the delivery order.

I’m curious how he comes up with the potential 90 annual number for 2025 based on most OS numbers suggest 27-32 is their actual best possible build for new tanks - and there aren’t a lot of older tanks to refurb anymore.

 

[Maxman1]

Russia Redeploys Military Forces from Finland's Borders to Ukraine, Finnish Intelligence Reports

united24media.com

 

[Maxman1]

US Confirms Plans to Station F-16 Jets on the Territory of Ukraine

united24media.com

 

[Skysix]

US Confirms Plans to Station F-16 Jets on the Territory of Ukraine

united24media.com

So Ukraine will now only "officially" sign for and take ownership of any particular American supplied F16 as needed and then move it into Ukraine. Until then they can remain on NATO territory in storage awaiting delivery and still be safe from Russian attack. When damaged and needing more repair than can be done in Ukraine they can be trucked out as "parts" and a replacement accepted and flown in. All perfectly in agreement with the (once again) overly restrictive end user agreements.

It is somewhat unclear from OSINT if the various other permissions the US has given F16 donor countries have allowed them full authority to transfer the aircraft into Ukrainian ownership at which point they would no longer be (if they even are now) "American" F16's and thus not restricted by the US/UA bilateral agreement.

I would REALLY appreciate it if the text of these bilateral agreements could be published. Particularly under what circumstances military aid and intervention can be requested and EXACTLY how the provision of such is guaranteed - because the NATO Article 5/6 provisions are actually FAR weaker than article 42.7 of the EU membership treaty. Which would then allow wiggle room for NATO membership to be constantly delayed if full EU membership is achieved.

 

[KevinB]

So Ukraine will only "officially" sign for and take ownership of any particular American supplied F16 as needed and then move it into Ukraine. Until then they can remain on NATO territory in storage awaiting delivery and still be safe from Russian attack. When damaged and needing more repair than can be done in Ukraine they can be trucked out as "parts" and a replacement accepted and flown in. All perfectly in agreement with the (once again) overly restrictive end user agreements.

It is somewhat unclear from OSINT if the various other permissions the US has given F16 donor countries have allowed them full authority to transfer the aircraft into Ukrainian ownership at which point they would no longer be (if they even atre now) "American" F16's and thus not restricted by the US/UA bilateral agreement.

I would REALLY appreciate it if the text of these bilateral agreements could be published. Particularly under what circumstances military aid and intervention can be requested and EXACTLY how the provision of such is guaranteed - because the Article 5 provisions are actually FAR weaker than those of the EU membership treaty. Which would then allow wiggle room for NATO membership to be constantly delayed if full EU membership is achieved.

The goal is not to publish them as too keep Russia guessing as exactly what can or cannot be done.
Frankly the entire way assistance has been structured is that it is more of a boiling frog approach - which I dislike - as it gradually turns up the heat on Russia - but in the same way they may not realize they are being boiled and so keep in the water - where a full heat approach would probably have Russia jump out of Ukraine earlier.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The goal is not to publish them as too keep Russia guessing as exactly what can or cannot be done.
Frankly the entire way assistance has been structured is that it is more of a boiling frog approach - which I dislike - as it gradually turns up the heat on Russia - but in the same way they may not realize they are being boiled and so keep in the water - where a full heat approach would probably have Russia jump out of Ukraine earlier.

I think the point of this approach, IMHO, clung to the misguided belief that giving Russia an off ramp to save face was one they'd want to take.

After checks notes 846 days, I don't think they're going to change their minds and head home in the worry of "potential" escalation of capabilites from Ukraine.

 

[KevinB]

I think the point of this approach, IMHO, clung to the misguided belief that giving Russia an off ramp to save face was one they'd want to take.

After checks notes 846 days, I don't think they're going to change their minds and head home in the worry of "potential" escalation of capabilites from Ukraine.

110%. When someone goes all in, you either need to call or fold. Not just keep gradually tossing stuff into the pot.

I’m concerned about what occurs when Russia realizes the water is boiling and they don’t have any strength left to get out of the pot…

 

[QV]

I think the off ramp Russia proposed was keeping everything they've gained at this point... which of course is not acceptable to Ukraine. Question is will Ukraine be able to take that territory back or will Russia incrementally advance or just hold/defend?

 

[KevinB]

I think the off ramp Russia proposed was keeping everything they've gained at this point... which of course is not acceptable to Ukraine. Question is will Ukraine be able to take that territory back or will Russia incrementally advance or just hold/defend?

I think the biggest question is what is Russia wiling to lose to try to keep what they have.

As long as Ukraine has the will, and the West provides equipment and munitions, Russia is like the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think the biggest question is what is Russia wiling to lose to try to keep what they have.

As long as Ukraine has the will, and the West provides equipment and munitions, Russia is like the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

I'm looking forward to seeing in about 3+ weeks how many ordinary Russians make the choice to take their summer holidays in Crimea along the southern coastline. Its the perfect opportunity to smack the Kerch bridge as hard as they can, along with cutting the watermains to Crimea to try and create as much panic among those Russians as possible.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm looking forward to seeing in about 3+ weeks how many ordinary Russians make the choice to take their summer holidays in Crimea along the southern coastline. Its the perfect opportunity to smack the Kerch bridge as hard as they can, along with cutting the watermains to Crimea to try and create as much panic among those Russians as possible.

I think theyve already shipped a bunch of non-essentials back due to water shortages. When they blew the dam I think they screwed the water canal

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’m concerned about what occurs when Russia realizes the water is boiling and they don’t have any strength left to get out of the pot…

The capacity of the totalitarian nation state, especially one buoyed by limitless petro-dollars, to sustain damage for extended periods of time is astonishing.

For example....

The Iran–Iraq War, also known as the First Gulf War[f] was an armed conflict between Iran and Iraq that lasted from September 1980 to August 1988. Active hostilities began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran and lasted for eight years, until the acceptance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 by both sides. Iraq's primary rationale for the attack against Iran cited the need to prevent Ruhollah Khomeini—who had spearheaded the Iranian Revolution in 1979—from exporting the new Iranian ideology to Iraq.

Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KevinB]

The capacity of the totalitarian nation state, especially one buoyed by limitless petro-dollars, to sustain damage for extended periods of time is astonishing.

For example....

The Iran–Iraq War, also known as the First Gulf War[f] was an armed conflict between Iran and Iraq that lasted from September 1980 to August 1988. Active hostilities began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran and lasted for eight years, until the acceptance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 by both sides. Iraq's primary rationale for the attack against Iran cited the need to prevent Ruhollah Khomeini—who had spearheaded the Iranian Revolution in 1979—from exporting the new Iranian ideology to Iraq.

Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Have you looked at the Russian Energy Sector recently? It's not supporting much due to irreparable damages.