[inglor_cz]

As the Spartans famously said: "If".

Ukraine gets massive support from the club of the richest countries on the Earth, and, unlike Germany or France, the Anglo-Saxon behemoths seem to be committed in full. So is Poland, the necessary logistics hub for supplies. Russia is alone, even Iran refused to sell their drones to them.

The full impact of this economic and military imbalance cannot be seen yet. The Ukrainian army is in midst of switching their entire weaponry from the old Soviet models to the new Western ones. This is a grueling logistical task even in peace, much more so in war. But with each new type of equipment mastered (HIMARS, M-777, Panzerhaubitze 2000, in the future possibly Western tanks and jets), the total capability edge of the UAF over their Russian counterparts grows.

You can already see how the Russian offensive momentum has evaporated. They only managed to take very modest pieces of land over the last month or so, and basically none in July.

[qaq]

HIMARS is a very formidable addition to the arsenal, but in general quantities supplied are extremely modest to really turn the tide. Hopefully the deliveries will step up.

[inglor_cz]

They are enough to f*ck up Russian logistics behind the lines. Without a massive supply of shells from the rear to the guns themselves, the Russian artillery is incapable of executing their beloved "bomb everything into pieces" WWI-style doctrine.

And the Ukrainians have destroyed an untold number of Russian ammo dumps in the last weeks. Some of the explosions have been truly spectacular. This isn't something you can easily remedy. Any new ammo dump in range will be quickly spotted by either American spy satellites or local Ukrainian spies that are probably still active in Donbass - and get blasted to hell.

HIMARS is not enough to reconquer the lost territories, true. But it is enough to give Russians a forced operational pause.

[narrator]

The thing that the west is unwilling to do is give the Ukrainians cruise missiles. The Russians have lots and lots of these in the form of Kalibr and Iskander missiles that they launch from ships and mobile launchers and it seems to be making all the difference.

[inglor_cz]

What difference? They hit random civilian targets far behind the frontline.

This makes people angry, but does not significantly contribute to attrition of the Ukrainian military.

The recent cruise missile hits in Ukrainian cities haven't helped the Russians acquire even a square inch of new territory.

[TheLoafOfBread]

I don't understand this terror tactic either.

* It will only more cement Ukrainians against them

* It will have no negative influence on Ukrainian military nor aviation.

* Ukraine will use those attacks in their own propaganda to get more weapons and money from the West.

So those attacks are a waste of military assets with marginally negative gain. Who in Russian leadership is planning those dumb attacks?

[inglor_cz]

Rationally, this war wouldn't even start.

We are too rational here on HN to try to emulate/parse/analyze the decision making involved. There is a big dollop of madness there.

[philistine]

Think instead of the people who have authority over these weapon systems. How much time they spent training to use those weapons. How important it must feel to them that their weapons are used.

The fact that the intelligence needed to give them valuable targets is a secondary concern. Their main concern is the readiness and cohesion that come from pressing the fire button.

[qaq]

Well west is unwilling to supply modern tanks so Cruise missles look to be def. of the table. Ukraine is even short on basic armored personnel carriers and even regular consumer trucks widely used by military (mostly supplied by volunteers).

[inglor_cz]

This is not really about "willingness". Modern Western tanks are a logistical nightmare, and Ukrainian logistical capabilities to support them are limited. In order not to overextend them, everyone concentrates on doing what is most effective.

In the case of this war at this very moment, it is long range high precision artillery. HIMARS eats rockets like crazy, it needs to be supplied constantly.

Once those supply chains are fully built and safe, they can talk about adding tanks to the mix.

[qaq]

I think it's more of a public explanation than actual reality. Even supplying soviet planes is an issue (cause ooooh it might anger Putin)

[tablespoon]

> The Russians have lots and lots of these in the form of Kalibar and Islander missiles that they launch from ships and mobile launchers and it seems to be making all the difference.

Do they still have them or have they used most of them up?

IIRC, for all the attention they get, the US has surprisingly few cruise missiles and would use up its stockpiles pretty quickly in a war like that in Ukraine.

[adgjlsfhk1]

Russia is no where near running out of missiles. they still have a ridiculous amount of them.

[inglor_cz]

On paper, certainly.

But a lot of those missiles have been stored somewhere in Siberia for 40+ years. Their condition is probably less than stellar. Who would regularly inspect and maintain random ammo dumps located five timezones away from Moscow in the middle of nowhere?

I suspect that at least some of those missiles are outright out of commission and others are unstable enough to be a danger to the Russians themselves.

Also, see this anti-aircraft gun in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IwqmezeSuQ

[TheLoafOfBread]

They are already running out of Kalibr and Iskander missiles. Why would they started using S300 in Groun 2 Ground role?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-now-firing-s-30...

[JumpCrisscross]

Given what we’ve seen, the ones that weren’t delivered inoperable due to corruption likely lack targeting infrastructure.

[oneoff786]

HIMARS might be enough to retake things far away from Russia though. Russias logistics are terrible.

[lotusmars]

They won’t.

Europeans drag their feet on arming Ukraine and pressure it to surrender (“peace”).

The reason is gas and fear of refugee influx to Europe from hunger in Africa.

Plus Germans paying Russia billions for gas beats any arms supplies possible. And they will not stop doing it.

[inglor_cz]

"beats any arms supplies possible"

Very observably not. Russia seems to be actually incapable of buying any modern weapons for the billions of euros it receives from Germany. Even China considers such cooperation too risky.

The technical level of Russian equipment deployed in the battles in Ukraine has gone downhill since February. Now they are pulling really old stuff (designed or even manufactured in the 1950s-1960s) from storage. And some of their auxiliaries from the separatist republics literally use WWI and WWII small arms.

Money matters in war, but it cannot substitute for a missing/inadequate supply chain. You can't bury the enemy in an avalanche of euros, you actually need to procure the necessary equipment.

[lotusmars]

There is no need in sophisticated weaponry or even artillery when you have endless literal cannon fodder. Hide or deny losses and drag on just enough to exhaust your opponent.

A year of slow territorial gains? Two? More? Not a problem as long as economy is propped by European money, Germans don’t bother sending enough weapons and Western media is tired of war and looks elsewhere.

[yakak]

Russia already had poor demographics before and now it is possibly spending years losing military age males?

Russia as a low prospect J-curve state might not be entertaining to the western media but it is basically the outcome the US has been gunning for since Gorbachev left, always with a lot of resistance from Germany. After a few more years of setting up alternative gas routes, I'm not sure Germany will even have a way to offer Russia yet another chance.

[oneoff786]

Russia doesn’t have endless cannon fodder. And has had a lot of difficulty sourcing troops. They are fine losing troops but their army isn’t as big as people imagine. And the logistics needed to get people to the front with basic supplies is hard.

[pandaman]

Russia is itself the 2nd supplier of weapons on the international market and buying from the 1st (the US) is pretty pointless as whatever the US is selling is incompatible with the Russian systems. Who you envision Russia would need to buy weapons from?

[stewx]

> even Iran refused to sell their drones to them

"White House says Iran is preparing to supply Russia with weapons-capable drones"

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/politics/iran-russia-weapons-...

[inglor_cz]

They deny this. I suspect we will know soon. If they really go against their word, drones are hard to hide.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/iran-says-refused-supply-dron...

[norwalkbear]

It seems overall Ukraine isnt doing as well as the constant media spin says they are.

TikTok is full of videos show uk guys running from conscription. I know a whole team of developers who fled to Poland early.I think they lost the morale war, and it's just a matter of time until Nato intervenes directly to start Ww3

[_kbh_]

There’s also plenty of evidence that says that Russia isn’t doing so well, they have 100s of people in some battalions refusing to fight (likely because all their friends turned back up home dead).

There’s tonnes of HIMARS strikes taking out command and control points of Russias behind the front line. The VDV (Russian paratroopers) and it’s leader ship have been decimated by this war.

[inglor_cz]

I don't doubt that some of their guys dodged conscription. In every war, someone does.

But "losing the morale war" would probably manifest itself in localized frontline collapses, and this does not seem to be happening. The recent retreat in Luhansk oblast wasn't a rout, and other sections of the frontline are barely moving.

[SantiagoElf]

You mean, how Russia technically controls 20-25% of Ukraine's territory ?

Do you see what those sanctions against Russian cheap energy are doing in Europe:

- Estonia Goverment fell

- Bulgaria Goverment fell

- UK Goverment fell

- Italy's PM resigned

It's not even August. Do you know what will happen when colder months hit ? :)

[inglor_cz]

"UK Goverment fell" - it didn't, only the PM did. Johnson appointed a sexual predator to be the Chief Whip of the Tory faction in the Parliament and it was one mistake too many. It has nothing to do with sanctions against Russia. The government will continue under a new PM.

"Bulgaria Goverment fell" - Bulgaria has had by now four(?) early elections in a row, which predate the war in Ukraine. The Bulgarian political situation is an internal mess.

"Italy's PM resigned" - Italy has had 69 governments since WWII, nothing unusual there.

"Estonia Goverment fell" - Estonia is very anti-Russian in practice. Their next government is likely to be formed by the very same PM.

The EU has some 30 countries. Unlike Russia or odd exceptions like Merkel, their leaders come and go fairly frequently. Even 8 governmental changes in a year wouldn't be particularly strange in a club of 30 democracies.

[The_Colonel]

Italian and Bulgarian government collapses are connected to the Russian influence in the government coalition partners.

[inglor_cz]

Thank you. So there is some connection. But I would still claim that in case of Italy, a quick change in government is not an unusual phenomenon. Italian governments come and go so fast that most people outside Italy have trouble remembering the current PM's name.

[SantiagoElf]

Regardless, let's see how the EU will do without cheap Russian energy.

I predict riots, unrest and MORE goverment changes :)

Also ... quotas for showers, heating ,etc.

[soco]

That could build even more resentment against Putin, couldn't it?

[tomjen3]

The UK government fell because Boris was a lying fool to the wrong people. Be careful not to assume that because something big happened it must be the cause of something else.

[mrguyorama]

Specifically, I would say Boris's support for Ukraine is one of the only non-controversial things he has done as prime minister.

[soco]

And it's the only thing he could be regretted for (depending on who's gonna take his place)