JohninMK wrote:
It can be stated that the Ukrainian defense line is gradually being "gnawed" (but the pace of advance allows the enemy to fortify each next population). And if the "concrete second stage" of the special operation continues at the same pace, then perhaps the entire territory of the DPR will be liberated even before the first autumn frosts. (sarcasm)
Problems of the advancing troops:
I'm sure Strelkov is better informed and in a better position to analyze than my humble self. But this criticism looks weird
1) Very weak and imprecise tactical air support (despite the fact that the Russian Air Force is working at the limit of its capabilities, it was not possible to achieve serious results, we need an equivalent to the "Shturmovik" of the Great Patriotic War.
It's called an Su-25
Add the Mi-24 too
2) Poor observation of artillery. They forgot not only about artillery observation aircraft, but also about elementary advanced artillery observers, as a result of which "infantry fights separately from artillery and vice versa").
They have UAVs, they have satellites, they don't need artillery observation aircraft unless its really far downrange and you need updated info urgently. Then you can send a Su-24MR or something, or Ka-52s with their good optics, but it's risky.
As for artillery observers; clearly someone is on the radio or the tablet passing co-ordinates, if the arty arrives within 10 minutes of an engagement like the mercs claim they do
3) An acute shortage of Moderna means of tactical reconnaissance (reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles, not to mention attack drones).
Not in a position to judge on their quantity. But which class? Quadrocopters for city scouting and fighting the DNR is definitely short on, and the Russian army doesn't operate such a class; maybe it bought some commercial ones from donations as well.
Longer-range recon UAVs such as the Forpost? Maybe. But there seem to be a lot of Orlans used for correcting artillery and scouting
UCAVs? Well there are a lot of videos published. Probably the Russians could use some more, but on the whole destroying the enemy when you spot them is not typically a problem. The problem is spotting and identifying them if anything.
4) Low training of troops (including at the level of the command of units and formations) and the lack of initiative of the middle and lower commands.
Not in a position to judge.
I've read some of the reports about commendations and awards given to various servicemen and officers. In most cases it's due to them showing initiative of some kind and being praised for it.
Regardless, battle will teach people, if nothing else will
5) The absence of large reserves to take advantage of tactical advances that arise during the attack. As a result, the enemy quickly "fills the gaps", while maintaining the stability of the entire defense as a whole.
Back to the mobilization agenda. Time will tell whether it's the right move or not.
But Strelkov seldom sees the big picture. A drastic move such as mobilization, even partial, will mean an escalation and could prompt the Europeans to arm up too. Just a thought.
Perhaps solving military tasks is preferable with less people, just professionals is all. Mobilization is for if things go out of control.