|
The Ukrainian Army Is No Longer Mechanized
This is a rather sad tale:
Address by the President of the Russian Federation – Kremlin.ru, Feb 24 2022
The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.
—
Official introduction of 153rd Mechanized Brigade – Military Land, Dec 27 2023
Another brigade from the 150s batch makes an official appearance.
On October 17, 2023, we reported about the creation of five new Ukrainian mechanized brigades for the possible counter-offensive in 2024. The 151st Mechanized Brigade was officially revealed on October 30 while 154th Mechanized Brigade on November 1.
Today, the 153rd Mechanized Brigade was publicly announced. The unit received its insignia and motto – the power of unconquered.
—
Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu held a conference call with the leadership of the Armed Forces (machine translation) – Ministry of Defense, Apr 2 2024
Since January, the armed forces of Ukraine have lost more than 80 thousand servicemen, 14 thousand units of various weapons, including more than one thousand two hundred tanks and other armored combat vehicles.
—
153rd Mechanized Brigade is no longer mechanized – Military Land, Apr 3 2024
The lack of vehicles forced Ukrainian command to back down from the original plans.
The leadership of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has reorganized the 153rd Mechanized Brigade into an infantry brigade. This change was announced through the official social media channels of the brigade.
While the official reason behind the change remains undisclosed, it is presumably linked to the shortage of infantry fighting vehicles.
…
The reorganization of the 153rd Brigade may not be an isolated occurrence. According to our sources, the 152nd Mechanized Brigade is also slated for transformation into an infantry brigade in the near future.
Each day the Russian Ministry of Defense reports the observed losses of the Ukrainian army. While the reported numbers are unlikely to be exact the reports are considered to be reliable and do tell a story.
In the first year of the war the Ukrainian army often lost more armored vehicles per day than general vehicles, i.e. trucks. By mid 2023 the numbers of armored vehicle and trucks destroyed per day, as reported by the MoD, were about equal. By the end of 2023 that ratio was on average two trucks per one armored vehicle. It has since increased further. Yesterday's report claimed 32 destroyed Ukrainian trucks but only 4 destroyed armored vehicles.
The numbers provide that the armed forces of Ukraine, as well as its allies, have run out of armored vehicles of all kinds.
A mechanized brigade is supposed to have some 100 armored (i.e. 'mechanized') vehicles of various kind plus some 30 tanks. An infantry brigade has, if its lucky, some unarmored trucks or buses.
An infantry brigade can only fight on foot. Its men have to dig in, by hand, to have a chance stay alive without armor protection. To do this in an environment where the enemy has a near perfect view of the battlefield, a reported artillery supremacy of 7 to 1 plus the ability to drop hundreds of precision guided bombs deep behind the frontline is not really survivable.
A 2024 counter offensive by the armed forces of Ukraine was and is a pipe dream. The five new brigades will be destroyed as soon as they come near to the frontline.
Ukraine has been demilitarized. It is high time to acknowledge that.
To give up now is the only way for Ukraine to survive.
This year marks NATO’s 75th anniversary. On the occasion, the head of the Russian Security Council gave an interview in which he bluntly explained Russia’s view of NATO.
from Anti-Spiegel
April 4, 2024 6:00 am
Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Russian Security Council, gave an interview to a Russian newspaper on the occasion of NATO’s upcoming 75th birthday, in which he presented the Russian view of NATO. I translated the interview.
Start of translation:
“Bloody history”: Nikolai Patrushev explains what NATO has come to in 75 years
April 4th marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO.
Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev explained to aif.ru what role this alliance has played in world politics and how its main goal became the “containment” of Russia.
Question: Nikolai Platonovich, the heads of NATO member states plan to celebrate the anniversary in July during the alliance’s Washington summit. But in the rest of the world many will not celebrate, because in their eyes this organization has earned a reputation as the world’s main aggressor over these 75 years. Do you agree?
Patrushev: Judge for yourself. The anniversary of the founding of NATO practically coincided with the 25th anniversary of the large-scale bombing of Yugoslavia, when the planes of the North Atlantic Alliance mercilessly massacred unarmed people under the guise of “defending human rights and democracy.” The bombings killed more than 2,500 people and injured more than 12,000 civilians. The exact death toll from the operation has not yet been determined. The use of depleted uranium munitions led to soil contamination and a multifold increase in cancer cases among the population, which continue to kill people a quarter of a century after NATO aggression.
NATO has conducted more than 20 major military operations in its 75 years of existence. In addition, individual countries of the alliance have repeatedly participated in military coalitions outside the bloc formed by the US to satisfy its global ambitions in various regions of the world – in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and dozens of other armed conflicts. It is therefore ridiculous that the bloc is trying to deny and, even more, gloss over the facts of the destruction of cities and countries and the killing of thousands of civilians.
I will not delve into NATO’s bloody history, but it is necessary to know it to understand the nature of the alliance as a stable, perpetual source of danger, crisis and conflict.
Question: According to the text of the North Atlantic Treaty, the alliance is not only a military but also a political alliance. What do you think his politics are?
Patrushev: NATO’s entire policy is based on Washington’s instructions. Washington is using the alliance to maintain its armed presence in Europe and to demonstrate that its satellites support its indispensability in ensuring the security of that continent. In addition, the US-controlled military bloc is intended to exert undue pressure from the so-called “collective West” on the sovereign states of the world using military, economic, informational and other means.
NATO is used as Washington’s instrument to wage “hybrid wars.” Its members obediently follow the instructions to impose economic sanctions, “freeze” financial resources, conduct intelligence activities, psychological operations and cyberattacks, and participate in actions to undermine and disorganize the system of state administration of countries that do not comply with politics the Anglo-Saxons agree. The alliance does not shy away from using terrorist organizations for its interests.
Question: It is known that twelve countries in Europe and North America originally joined NATO to counter the influence of their previous ally in the anti-Hitler coalition, the Soviet Union…
Patrushev: In the past, the USA, England and their satellites were not above lying and claiming that the alliance was founded to counteract the “aggressive efforts” of the Warsaw Pact. They fail to mention that the Warsaw Pact was signed on May 14, 1955, six years after the founding of NATO. It should be remembered that, thanks to the creation of the Warsaw Pact, military equality and peace reigned in Europe for many years.
From its founding until the end of the Cold War, NATO grew by only four members.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO underwent several waves of expansion, primarily by absorbing former European allies of the USSR. Today, NATO includes 32 countries with a total of around four million soldiers in their armed forces. Another five countries take part in the programs to expand the NATO partnership.
Question: The NATO bloc, an invention of the Cold War, seemed to have lost the meaning of its existence after the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Even the question of Russia joining NATO was seriously discussed. Who do you think benefited from us becoming enemies again?
Patrushev: In the 1990s, NATO members consciously tried to convince us that they were pragmatists interested in joint military and political cooperation with Russia to maintain peace and stability in Europe. In reality, the West saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as just one of the stages of the confrontation with Russia. The weakening of our country as an economic and political competitor and its subsequent removal from the world political map through its dismemberment were the long-term strategic goals of Washington, London and the countries of the collective West they controlled. That is why those responsible in Brussels have described our state as the main source of threat to European security and have explicitly anchored this in NATO’s strategic concept.
Question: Recently, the head of the NATO Military Committee, Rob Bauer, stated that NATO is ready for an open war with Russia. It looks like they are not thinking about reconciliation?
Patrushev: This statement is in line with the entire NATO policy. In March, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg presented an annual report on the organization’s activities over the past year. The entire document focuses on the main task – “containing” Russia and especially China, so NATO has blatantly gone beyond its geographical mandate and openly proclaimed its global ambitions.
NATO is systematically strengthening its military potential along our borders from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea. Even the term “NATO’s Eastern Flank” appears in the speeches and documents of the leaders of the alliance, which includes all the Eastern European countries bordering Russia and allied Belarus, as well as Romania and, more recently, Sweden and Finland. The leadership of the alliance makes no secret of the fact that the largest military exercise near Russia’s borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union, “Steadfast Defender 2024,” currently taking place in Europe, is aimed at “containing” Russia. Last year alone, NATO and its member states conducted 130 alliance and over 1,000 national maneuvers and training sessions. Mind you, not in a decade, but in a year, in 2023.
Question: Many people in Russia are convinced that since the first years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington has been trying to make Ukraine a military bridgehead for a strategic defeat of our country. Do you share this opinion?
Patrushev: NATO exercises have been taking place regularly in Ukraine since 1995. And in 2004, the Verkhovna Rada passed a law on free access of NATO forces to the territory of Ukraine, thereby sacrificing the country’s sovereignty for the sake of the alliance.
The increased militarization of Ukraine began after the Western coup in Kiev in February 2014 and the genocide of the Russian-speaking population carried out by the Ukronazis. There is irrefutable evidence that Kiev, at the behest of the US and NATO, intended to use extreme force to resolve the problem of “unruly” regions.
NATO is a de facto party in the Ukraine conflict and is actively involved in organizing the shelling of Russian territories by neo-Nazis. Within its framework, collective decisions are made on new supplies of weapons, increasing their technical capabilities and range, and NATO trainers in several countries train mercenaries and saboteurs to take part in anti-Russian operations.
The US and NATO plan is to keep Ukraine, or at least part of it, under their complete control as an anti-Russian territory that serves the interests of the North Atlantic bloc. In this context, the task of demilitarizing Ukraine remains relevant.
Question: Martin Wijnen, the commander of the Dutch army, said there is an urgent need to recruit up to 3,000 volunteers willing to take part in an armed n conflict with Russia. Do you think the Europeans will seriously go into battle?
Patrushev: Stirring up Russophobia, the intimidation of one’s own citizens by the imaginary “Russian threat”, has become the most important part of the policy of European governments, which in this way try to distract people’s attention from the growing domestic political and economic problems.
In addition, Russophobia is being used by Washington and London to bind other NATO countries through economic commitments. The United States benefits by expanding the capabilities of the military-industrial complex and dictating to its allies the conditions for purchasing very specific types of weapons and uniforms from their manufacturers.
Defense spending by NATO member states has risen to 50 percent of total global spending this year. The alliance’s budget has grown for the ninth consecutive year and will reach more than $1.1 trillion in 2023.
Recently, the Estonian Prime Minister announced that she was increasing military spending and raising taxes in the country. It is forced to commit this political suicide because the members of the alliance are obliged to obey the bloc’s discipline by increasing military spending. This year, 18 countries in the alliance have already fulfilled Washington’s “order” by increasing NATO’s military spending to two percent of GDP.
Question: Do you think European leaders are willing to obediently follow the White House’s orders, even if it harms their countries?
Patrushev: The European countries of the bloc lost many elements of their sovereignty a long time ago and are in fact only an economic and political pillar of the alliance. Under these conditions, all NATO military plans will be obediently carried out by European governments, for whom the ideals of independence and responsibility to the people of their own countries and their future have given way to the desire to meet Washington’s global demands.
On the contrary, international security should be viewed as a single and indivisible good that should equally benefit all states without exception. This is exactly the approach taken by Russia, and our country has a large number of like-minded people, and it continues to grow.
End of translation
Posted by: ossi | Apr 4 2024 15:26 utc | 99
|
