(Reuters) - Ukrainian troops are suffering high losses because Western arms are arriving too slowly to equip the armed forces properly, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told CNN in an interview aired on Sunday.

Russia has been gaining ground in parts of eastern Ukraine including around Pokrovsk. Capture of the transport hub could enable Moscow to open new lines of attack.

Zelenskiy said the situation in the east was “very tough”, adding that half of Ukraine’s brigades there were not equipped.

  • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    So honest question, with Zelenskiy himself saying that they are critically low on artillery, artillery shells, and armored vehicles, what strategic advantage is afforded by the long range missiles that have been in the news so much lately? What benefit does striking some random target hundreds of miles within Russia accomplish for Ukraine, who is slowly losing the ability to hold ground?

    • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      They won’t hit a “random target”, they’ll hit things like airfields, command centers, and ammunition dumps.

      For example, a strike could take out several of the jets the terrorists in the Kremlin are using to kill civilians in Kharkiv.

    • The_v@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Long range attacks are about knocking out supplies, the ability to produce new supplies, and the ability to get supplies to the front line.

      Say Russia is getting more newly made artillery shells to the front line. The best way to fix this is to blow up the factories.

      If you can’t take out the factories directly, take out components that the factories need to operate: ore processing, fuel refineries, electricity grid, etc.

      The problem is all the critical targets are a long ways from the front line and Ukraine currently has limited capacity to hit them.

      Meanwhile Russia is targeting all of Ukraine’s internal infrastructure constantly.

      Long wars are won by the production capabilities of the groups involved as much as the front line troops.

    • Olap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Everyone talked about tanks as ww1 winners. But people don’t quite realise the stupendous artillery advantage the allies had. 2 or 3 to 1 by the end of the war in places. And significantly more shells. There’s a reason we are still digging then up today

    • SMillerNL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      If they were random targets, sure. But the messaging clearly included the wish to strike military targets at long range. Don’t have to lose people to a aerial bomb if the plane carrying it has been destroyed by a long range strike.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      What benefit does striking some random target hundreds of miles within Russia accomplish

      They’re not random but attempts to make more strategic difference, and to expand the war beyond just the front

      • how can Russian artillery keep shelling if their supplies are blown up, and the supplies for those? And how responsive can they be at re-supply if new supplies have to come from hundreds of miles?
      • how can Russia keep feeding the meat grinder if fresh troops need to fight their way to the front, lose their supplies, and take losses even before they get there?
      • how can Russian commanders work if they’re dead? And their commanders are dead? And someone is trying to make battle decisions from hundreds of miles away?

      Think of the Russian Black Sea fleet. The surviving ships are so far away that they’re not making any contribution to the war. Now, imagine making the Russian Air Force ineffective, Russian Command ineffective, and the supply situation ever worse

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It slowed the progress by necessitating the movement of invading troops back to defend. Ukraine also had a major propaganda win from the Kursk offensive.

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    2 months ago

    Here’s an honest question : are they buying all the weapons and ammo? If so then the suppliers need to ramp up production. It’s money in their pickets.

    If they aren’t buying all weapons and ammo, and some is being given to the Ukraine . Then maybe we need to change what is happening. No one can continue forever giving money to another person /entity. Sooner or later the money runs out.

    The real question is, if it’s becoming a financially strain then maybe it’s time we change tactics and end this thing faster. Maybe it’s time to send NATO in. Yes I know Ukraine doesn’t want foreign militaries in there but if they haven’t won by now maybe a hard choice has to be made.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      That doesn’t make any logical sense. You say it’s a financial strain to send equipment and propose sending NATO in to help. Where is NATO getting their equipment from?

      ITS THE SAME EQUIPMENT.

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You are missing a step. Right now we are sending them equipment, and they are barely holding their own. If NATO goes in, then it’s a TON more equipment, plus a TON more troops. If Russia is barely holding their own against Ukraine, do you think they can hold back all of NATO?

        That war would be over a lot quicker

        Also, there is equipment that can’t be sent Ukraine, for example of the United States F 22, we literally can’t give that to the Ukraine. The law prevents it. But if NATO went in, that means the US would go in and the US could fly the F-22 into combat there.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          then it’s a TON more equipment,

          Then why isn’t it sent to Ukraine?

          plus a TON more troops.

          Ukraine has said they need supplies, not troops.

          • andrewta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Some of it,such as the f-22, the US can’t legally sell or give to them by law. It’s literally against the law.

            Also there is the cost of the rest of it. If the Ukraine government is paying for it then yes sell it, but some of it is not being paid for. Some of it is being GIVEN. That costs money from the US tax players. At some point that well runs dry. You can’t just keep giving and giving. It doesn’t work. So since this has gone on long enough maybe it’s time to end it.

            As for Ukraine saying no troops. Let’s recap. If the Ukraine was paying for ALL of it then I’d say just keep selling equipment to them. Sooner or later one side or the other breaks. But some of it is not being paid for. The dollar amount is getting large of what congress has authorized so far. How long before our budget says wtf?! Sooner or later either we stop giving to save our economy or we send troops before we get to that point to end it faster.

            Yes I know Ukraine is saying no troops but there is the other half that equation. Ukraine is going to have to make a tough call at some point, unless they figure out how to beat Russia before that point.

            Money is a finite item, it is not infinite

    • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Agreed its time to send NATO in. NATO should have closed Ukraine’s airspace when this started.