Russian forces have made incremental advances in Ukraine but lack the capacity for major offensives due to shortages in munitions and manoeuvre units, according to a senior NATO official.
Speaking ahead of the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels, the official outlined the challenges facing Russia’s military efforts, despite its ongoing tactical gains.
“Russia continues to make small but steady tactical advances, but they lack the necessary munitions and manoeuvre units for a major offensive,” the NATO official stated.
The official added that for Russia to achieve larger breakthroughs, it would likely require a significant mobilisation of personnel and resources. However, this move could be politically risky for President Vladimir Putin, as it may provoke domestic unrest and weaken his support within Russia.
“Russia would need a significant mobilisation to execute larger offensives, but there are clear political concerns that may prevent this from happening in the near term,” the official explained.
Strategic Limitations
Despite Russia’s numerical advantage in terms of manpower and munitions, its forces have struggled to achieve decisive victories on the battlefield. The NATO official noted that while Russia has relied heavily on massed forces and artillery, it has been unable to capitalise on tactical successes due to logistical constraints and shortages of experienced units.
“Even with slow gains, Russia is unable to follow through with major breakthroughs due to limitations in its manoeuvre units and logistics,” the official remarked.
This assessment highlights the broader challenges facing Russia’s military strategy in Ukraine. While it can continue to sustain operations through gradual gains, its inability to mount a large-scale offensive significantly limits its strategic options and prolongs the conflict.
Not for long if the reports of North Korean troops are in play, this could free up alot of troops from major pushes in other areas
12,000 military personnel, including a special forces unit
On a front with 300,000 active soldiers taking 15,000 casualties a month 12,000 is nothing.
For now but Kim has many more he could send
He will need to feed them first and make sure they don’t defect as soon as they are out of North Korea.
Exactly, what percentage of the amount sent will see the opportunity to just run away? It will be a job in itself watching them all to stop defectors.
NATO should move in now, if only to act as border guards for areas not in direct conflict. Russia have already broke their own red line of foreign troops.
I agree, also extend air defences out right across all of western Ukraine then start to send “advisors” to assist the Ukrainians. China and Russia did exactly this to us in Korea and we never stared WW3.
And let’s say the Russians then: 1) inform NATO countries that tactical nuclear use in Ukraine is now imminent; 2) put their tactical and strategic nuclear forces on the highest level of alert. 3) inform Germany and other dual key countries that in the event of a NATO nuclear response to Russia’s pending use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, that the dual key countries will be struck first … the NATO counter move is what?
And there you are spouting Kremlin scare tactics perfectly🙄
Thinking critically in the realm of reality does not actually seem to be a “Kremlin scare tactic” … but whatever.
Exactly 💯
Russia isn’t going to use a nuke. It’s not under any form of existential threat. NATO has no interest in Russian lands whatsoever. Unlike its best friend China.
Erm…laugh at them because a nuclear attack on NATO by Russia would be tantamount to committing suicide? The only reason Putin keeps making nuclear threats against NATO is that he’s got nothing else, and seems to believe that possessing a sizeable strategic force somehow gives him an advantage against powers that also possess formidable second strike capabilities. That belief makes no sense, and is likely simply a flimsy rationalisation of his desire to believe that Russia is still a major power, despite having spent the last couple of years proving otherwise.
You need to actually read the scenario … nuclear weapons would be used in Ukraine, not initially against NATO.
In any case, fortunately there are grown ups in charge in most NATO countries. The US has shown no indication that it is prepared to put its territory or cities at risk for the sake of the Donbas. That is the reality. So this is entirely academic.
Ok so if he has a tantrum where would a nuke actually be used?
If he attacks a city he will be immediately condemned by the whole world China,India among among them.
it would be fairly obvious if he was going to use one on the eastern front as he would have to pull his own troops back to create a space to use one,again he would be condemned world wide.
NATO could by deployed (unlikely) along the Northern border in theory to create the ‘buffer’ zone Pootin wants so no justification to attack a NATO country there as it would need the agreement of both Ukraine and Russia to happen.
Oh and according to various reports Ukraine has the means to build a plutonium bomb if push comes to shove!
Point out that any use will be reciprocated straight back at Russia, like for like. That’s exactly the point & value of having a nuclear deterrent, all an enemy can do is guarantee their own demise. If instead of standing firm we quiver, tremble, dither, capitulate & appease, then we’re being idiots & not acting wisely or responsably with our own nuclear deterrents.
Get South Korea to send troops to help Ukraine.
🤣🤣🤣
Once again, a brainless idiot can’t actually make a point.
Reported by press only, or confirmed by NATO sources? Significant difference. 🤔
Tales of the Blatantly Obvious.
Russia supposedly “lacks artillery,” yet even Ukrainian soldiers acknowledge they hold a 1:10 advantage in artillery firepower. Not to mention Russia’s massive production lines running non-stop, churning out new units, and reportedly receiving 6 million shells from North Korea. Meanwhile, the EU has struggled to deliver even 500,000 rounds in a year. Honestly, the claim that Russia is short on artillery is laughable propaganda.
Without the USA does NATO? Does the UK?