Ukraine War Update NEWS: Pt 1 - Overnight & Other News, Terrorist Attack Analysis
Table of Contents 📖
"It's from Ivan sitting in a desk in St. Petersburg."
Hello Team
🎦 00:00-00:24⏩
Jonathan welcomes everyone to the first part of his Ukraine War update for 23rd March 2024, apologising for the slight delay due to his son's victorious football match. He begins by presenting the Ukrainian General Staff's figures for estimated Russian losses from the previous day, reminding viewers that these figures represent Ukrainian claims and come with the usual caveats detailed in the video description.
Return to top⤴️
🪦 DISCLAIMER FOR GENERAL STAFF LOSSES DATA
- These are real people with real lives and real families who love them. Don’t let the numbers sap your humanity.
- These numbers probably aren’t accurate but they’re the best we have and we don’t need them to be accurate to be indicative of patterns of activity.
- All losses are estimates. Losses cannot be counted with accuracy because of the conditions on the ground.
- Both sides would see it to be of their advantage to minimize their own losses maximize the other side’s losses.
- Neither side releases their losses but we have enough transparency from the Ukrainian side to have confidence in they are indicative.
- Personnel losses are hard to count. If a soldier gets injured, heals up, and returns to the front line only to get injured again, is that one loss or two? Also, how to deal with losses from PMC’s or soldiers fighting with RF from occupied territories?
- Equipment losses are hard to count. If an AA complex involves several parts and one part gets disabled, is that a loss, or a fraction of a loss? If a tank gets disabled, repaired, back into the fight, then disabled again, is that one lost tank or two?
- All recorded losses are vulnerable to multiple reporting. We have already seen numerous cases of multiple drones in the air reporting the same loss from different angles as multiple engagements.
- Losses are not always reported on the same day they occurred. It is frequent that drone losses are reported at least 24 hours after other terrestrial equipment losses. Certain losses may not be reported for days or weeks for military intelligence reasons.
Russian Losses
🎦 00:24-01:25⏩
Jonathan details the Ukrainian General Staff's figures for claimed Russian losses from the previous day, noting that personnel losses are above 1,000 again, a significant figure. He highlights the substantial losses in tanks (12), armoured personnel vehicles (19), artillery systems (36), vehicles and fuel tanks (57), and special equipment (19), speculating that the high number of special equipment losses might be due to the destruction of excavators. Jonathan emphasises that while these figures appear favourable for Ukraine, they are only one side of the story and don't reflect potential Ukrainian losses.
Return to top⤴️
Military Aid and Losses - Poland: RAK-120 Self-Propelled Mortar
🎦 01:25-02:49⏩
Jonathan acknowledges Andrew Perpetua's tireless efforts in compiling loss data. He reports on evidence suggesting the first loss of a RAK-120 self-propelled mortar, a system provided by Poland, confirmed through a video shared by the Ukrainians. He clarifies that at least 24 such vehicles were pledged to Ukraine by Poland in March 2023.
Return to top⤴️
Ukraine: Loss of Nasams Launcher - Zaporizhia Oblast
🎦 02:49-04:18⏩
Jonathan highlights War Vehicle Tracker's report on the Russian destruction of a Ukrainian Nasams launcher near Prevolnoye, Zaporizhzhia Oblast. The geolocation provided remains unverified, but Jonathan notes the strategic significance of losing such high-value equipment, emphasising the Ukrainians' limited reserves and their constant need for air defence systems. The secondary explosions observed in the footage indicate this is a genuine loss and not a decoy. Jonathan points out the challenge of replacing such sophisticated systems, especially considering Ukraine's fully committed military resources, likening the situation to a shop with empty shelves and no warehouse backup.
Return to top⤴️
Analysis: Russian Use of Desert Cross Buggies
🎦 04:18-06:31⏩
Jonathan delves into his ongoing question regarding the frequent destruction of Russian Desert Cross 1003 buggies, pondering whether their losses are due to their tactical suitability or simply a consequence of resource constraints. He cites a report from Special Curse on Cat, outlining a common Russian tactic of using these buggies as disposable troop carriers, driving them close to the front line before abandoning them for infantry to hold the positions. Jonathan remains uncertain if this reflects a deliberate strategy or a necessity driven by equipment shortages. He notes an incident described by Special Curse on Cat where Russian special forces, using a Chinese-made golf cart (likely referring to the Desert Cross), were engaged by Ukrainian forces in Berdychiv, showcasing the vulnerability of these vehicles to drones and anti-tank weapons. Jonathan acknowledges that the question of whether the Russians employ these buggies out of choice or necessity remains unanswered.
Return to top⤴️
Ukraine & Russia: Drone Warfare - Who has the Advantage?
🎦 06:31-12:03⏩
Jonathan discusses the ongoing debate about drone superiority in the conflict. He recounts a conversation with Greg, who, after speaking with a commander in Chasiv Yar, believes Russia holds a drone advantage, citing the commander's claims of overwhelming Russian drone presence in the area. Jonathan, however, holds a more nuanced view, arguing that drone advantage is likely localised and varies across the frontline. He emphasises the importance of considering potential bias in reports, noting that both sides are likely to perceive the enemy's drone activity as more intense. Jonathan observes that while Ukrainian forces in Chasiv Yar might be experiencing significant pressure from Russian drones, it doesn't necessarily mean the Russians aren't facing similar challenges elsewhere. He supports his perspective by citing data from Tochny and Andrew Perpetua, highlighting the significant losses suffered by Russian equipment, suggesting Ukrainian drones are effectively targeting them. He also notes the shift in tactics where Ukrainian forces have adopted the Russian approach of using drones to target buildings and positions, as seen in footage of Ukrainian Marines dismantling a Russian FPV operating base on the left bank. Jonathan concludes that while the current data, particularly for March, indicates an overall Ukrainian advantage in drone warfare, including the crucial aspect of thermal drones, the situation remains fluid and varies geographically. He reiterates his disagreement with Greg's assessment, believing that Ukraine currently holds the upper hand in all categories of drone usage based on verified data and observed trends.
Return to top⤴️
Ukraine: Drone Interceptions
🎦 12:03-12:18⏩
Jonathan shifts focus to overnight drone attacks. He reports that Russia launched 34 Shahed drones into Ukraine, of which 31 were successfully intercepted, demonstrating a high success rate for Ukrainian air defenses. He highlights the significance of this wave, coming after the previous night's missile and drone attacks.
Return to top⤴️
Russia: Attacks on Kharkiv - Double Tap Strikes
🎦 12:18-12:46⏩
Jonathan reports on a double-tap attack on Kharkiv, likely carried out using S-300 missiles. He describes the incident where a communal facility was struck, causing a fire in a three-storey building and injuring a local man. The second strike, typical of Russian tactics, targeted first responders, injuring a firefighter and damaging emergency vehicles. Jonathan condemns the ongoing use of double-tap strikes and attacks on civilian targets with questionable military value.
Return to top⤴️
Ukraine: Targeting of Russian Oil Refineries - Legitimate Targets?
🎦 12:46-18:08⏩
Jonathan delves into the debate surrounding Ukraine's targeting of Russian oil refineries, acknowledging the US pressure on Ukraine to cease these attacks. He revisits his previous analysis of the situation, highlighting the potential impact on global oil supply, refining capacity, and subsequent price fluctuations and inflation, regardless of whether the refined products are intended for domestic or international markets. He argues that targeting refineries could compel Russia to seek refined oil on the international market to meet domestic and military needs, ultimately affecting global supply and demand. Jonathan cites Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister, Olha Stefanishyna , who defends the attacks as legitimate military targets. He agrees with this assessment while acknowledging the potential global economic consequences. Jonathan reports on Ukraine's resumption of attacks on Russian oil refineries after a brief pause. The Kuybyshevsky oil refinery in Russia's Samara region, specializing in jet fuel production, was struck overnight, with the fire lasting until morning. Situated 900 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, this attack targeted a previously unharmed refinery. Jonathan references reports from Jane Keeve and Special Curse on Cat, both highlighting the resumption of attacks on Russian refineries, including the significant fire at the Kubyshev refinery in Samara, which burned for nine hours. He points out the confusion surrounding the initial reports due to two refineries being located in proximity. Jonathan provides further details on the Kubyshev refinery, highlighting its production capacity of 7 million tonnes of oil annually, producing over 20 petroleum products, including gasoline and diesel fuel. He reiterates that both refineries were likely targeted. Quoting Illia Ponomarenko , a former journalist for the Kyiv Independent, Jonathan suggests the Kremlin exerted immense pressure on the US administration to curb Ukraine's strikes on its oil infrastructure, likely using threats of escalation, retaliation, and nuclear options. Ponomarenko argues that this pressure led to the "absurd" demand for Ukraine to refrain from striking Russia's oil refining industry, a crucial component of its war machine, even with Ukrainian-made weapons. Jonathan highlights Ponomarenko's observation that these attacks hit the Kremlin where it hurts, especially given Russia's halted gas exports and Indian refineries refusing Russian crude oil due to sanctions. Ponomarenko speculates that the recent large-scale missile attacks on Ukraine's civilian energy infrastructure might be retaliation for the drone strikes on refineries. Jonathan reiterates that at least 11 Russian refineries have been damaged or incapacitated by Ukrainian strikes, primarily in Russia's European region. Ponomarenko concludes by suggesting that Ukraine, through its actions, has chosen to let the Kremlin's oil burn, defying pressure from the US and directly impacting Russia's war funding.
Return to top⤴️
Russia: Missile Attack on Ukrainian Energy Infrastructure
🎦 18:08-19:26⏩
Jonathan reports on the Russian missile strike targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure. He references the Euromidan Press , stating that the attack, involving eight missiles aimed at a hydroelectric dam, was intended to cripple the energy grid and hinder Ukraine's expanding defence production capabilities. Jonathan explains that while such an attack could significantly damage the dam's functionality, completely destroying it and causing catastrophic flooding would require a far greater number of missiles. He emphasises that this attack, rather than targeting civilian energy supplies, was strategically aimed at disrupting Ukraine's military industrial complex, which is rapidly expanding with external support.
Return to top⤴️
Russia: Declining Oil Refining Rates
🎦 19:26-21:54⏩
Jonathan highlights Bloomberg's report on the decline in Russia's average daily oil refining rate, attributing it to Ukrainian drone strikes on major facilities. The rate has fallen to its lowest weekly level in 10 months, dropping by over 400,000 barrels per day compared to the previous month's average. Jonathan then cites the UK Ministry of Defence's latest intelligence update, corroborating the reports of successful Ukrainian drone strikes on 12 Russian oil refineries between 15th and 16th March, including three large facilities in the Samara Oblast. These strikes, reaching up to 900 kilometres from Ukraine, demonstrate the expanding range of Ukrainian capabilities. Jonathan emphasises the financial burden these attacks place on Russia, disrupting its domestic fuel market. The strikes are estimated to have impacted at least 10% of Russia's refinery capacity, with potential for long and costly repairs, exacerbated by sanctions hindering the acquisition of replacement equipment. Jonathan mentions the Russian Energy Ministry's plans to deploy Pantsir air defence systems to protect these vulnerable facilities. However, he argues that given the size of Russia's energy infrastructure, achieving comprehensive protection is unlikely, drawing a parallel to a blanket that's too small to cover an entire bed.
Return to top⤴️
Russia: Terrorist Attack in Moscow - Overview & Analysis
🎦 21:54-33:06⏩
Jonathan transitions to the terrorist attack in Moscow, which he believes is unrelated to Ukraine. He references Tim White's updates on the attack, noting the rising death toll from 83 to 150. After the initial attack on a concert hall and shopping mall complex, a fire caused the roof to collapse. The FSB released a traffic camera photo of a white Renault, suspected as the terrorists' getaway vehicle, which was later stopped near the Belarus border in Bryansk. The car reportedly overturned after failing to stop at a roadblock in the village of Katsun. One suspect was apprehended immediately, another shortly after, while two others escaped. All identified suspects are from Tajikistan. A gruesome photograph of one of the arrested men, an assault rifle, and a pistol allegedly recovered from the scene circulate online, but Jonathan refrains from displaying it. He acknowledges the profound impact of this attack on Russia, comparing it to the Beslan school siege almost two decades ago. Jonathan dismisses conspiracy theories suggesting the attack was staged, acknowledging the horrific reality of the event. He notes the US intelligence warning issued two weeks prior, highlighting a high probability of a terrorist attack in a crowded location in Russia, specifically mentioning concerts. Putin, at the time, dismissed the warning as blackmail. Despite receiving specific details from US intelligence, which they publicly disregarded, Russian authorities failed to prevent the attack, highlighting a critical security failure. Jonathan observes the public criticism directed at Putin's absence and lack of immediate response. A planned live address from Putin was cancelled, further fuelling public discontent. Jonathan analyses the attack, suggesting it was a well-planned military-style operation based on the terrorists' preparedness and knowledge of the layout. He questions the choice of a white Renault with Belarusian plates as a getaway vehicle, especially considering their apparent intention to cross the heavily fortified Ukrainian border near Belarus. He highlights the attack's exposure of Russia's internal security vulnerabilities, suggesting the diversion of resources to the war in Ukraine might have compromised domestic security. Jonathan posits that the attack serves to humiliate and undermine Putin, given his numerous adversaries and the potential for internal conflicts within Russia, citing the historical context of the 1999 Russian apartment bombings that facilitated Putin's rise to power. Jonathan reminds viewers of the previous apartment bombings, widely believed to be false flag attacks orchestrated by Russia to justify the second Chechen war. He speculates whether a similar event could lead to Putin's downfall. Jonathan highlights Anton Kuraschenko's observation that the attack coincides with the start of Putin's fifth term, suggesting it might not be the last of its kind. Kuraschenko contends that Russian forces or special services were likely complicit or directly involved in the attack, demonstrating Putin's willingness to sacrifice Russian citizens, even those who voted for him, to achieve his goals. Jonathan brings attention to the irony of Hamas condemning the attack and offering condolences to the Russian people. He points out the FSB's claim that the terrorists had links to Ukraine and were attempting to escape across the border, questioning its validity.
Return to top⤴️
Russia: Public Reaction & Criticisms
🎦 33:06-34:29⏩
Jonathan notes the public anger and criticism within Russia, particularly regarding the US intelligence warning that was seemingly ignored. Anton Gerashchenko's analysis highlights inconsistencies between official reports and eyewitness accounts. Gerashchenko questions the terrorists' ease of movement in a city saturated with surveillance cameras and criticises the lack of security presence at the Crocus City Hall , despite contracts with security firms and the National Guard. Jonathan acknowledges the difficulty of verifying these claims but concedes their plausibility. Gerashchenko also points to the absence of security checks and deactivated metal detectors at the venue, as reported by survivors. He criticises the delayed response of Spetsnaz units, questioning why they took over an hour to arrive from a military base located just eight minutes away. Gerashchenko suggests that the delayed response, with Spetsnaz waiting for firefighters to extinguish the fire before entering, raises suspicions of deliberate inaction or even facilitating the terrorists' escape, thereby increasing the casualty count. Jonathan concludes that while such inconsistencies are not uncommon in the aftermath of tragedies, the possibility of Russian involvement, whether directly or opportunistically, remains plausible.
Return to top⤴️
Russia: Double Standards and Hypocrisy
🎦 34:29-34:57⏩
Jonathan highlights the hypocrisy of Russian authorities, who are more concerned with silencing dissent and blaming external forces than addressing their own security failures. He points out the absurdity of Russia expecting assistance from the US, their perceived enemy, while simultaneously engaging in the conflict in Ukraine. Jonathan criticises the FSB's attempts to deflect responsibility by blaming Ukraine, despite their own intelligence failures and the credible US warning that they chose to ignore.
Return to top⤴️
Serbia: Exploiting the Situation
🎦 34:57-35:15⏩
Jonathan shifts focus to Serbia, a country within Russia's sphere of influence. He reports that following the Moscow attack, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić convened a National Security Council meeting. Jonathan anticipates a crackdown on Russian opposition groups in Serbia, citing it as a common tactic employed by Serbian and Russian intelligence agencies to silence dissent and maintain control.
Return to top⤴️
France: Russian Troll Farm Activity
🎦 35:15-38:29⏩
Jonathan addresses a comment from a French viewer named Two Half , who observed significant Russian troll farm activity on YouTube videos discussing French President Emmanuel Macron's response to homophobic remarks made by the Russian government about France's openly gay Prime Minister. Two Half notes the prevalence of bot-like accounts with generic surnames, first names, and random numbers in the comment sections, all criticising Macron and promoting pro-Russian narratives. Jonathan connects this observation to his previous discussion about the pervasiveness of online troll farms, emphasizing their role in manipulating public perception and amplifying disinformation. He cautions viewers against forming opinions based solely on online comments, as these platforms are easily manipulated by coordinated efforts to influence public discourse. Jonathan uses the example of US politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Joe Biden to illustrate how foreign troll farms can create a distorted perception of public opinion by flooding comment sections with polarised views. He reiterates that these online sentiments might not reflect the actual beliefs of the electorate. Jonathan emphasises the importance of discerning between online perception and offline reality, cautioning against accepting online narratives at face value, as they are often manipulated by external actors. He expresses gratitude to Two Half for sharing the anecdote, highlighting it as a concrete example of the issues he has been discussing.
Return to top⤴️
Mainstream Media Comment Sections: A Breeding Ground for Disinformation
🎦 38:29-42:07⏩
Jonathan elaborates on the issue of troll farms manipulating online discourse. He shares his experience of observing comment sections on mainstream media platforms like the BBC, noting a significant pro-Russian bias, particularly on videos reporting on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Jonathan highlights a BBC video about Russian strikes on Ukraine where the top comments, sorted by upvotes, are overwhelmingly pro-Russian, demonstrating the effectiveness of coordinated manipulation tactics. He provides examples of these comments, showcasing their sarcastic and mocking tone, often dismissing the severity of the situation in Ukraine and downplaying Russian losses. Jonathan emphasises that casual viewers, encountering such comments, might be misled into believing in a widespread anti-Ukraine sentiment, highlighting the power of troll farms to shape public opinion through coordinated disinformation campaigns. He reiterates his commitment to countering these tactics, acknowledging the crucial role online platforms play in the ongoing information war. Jonathan expresses concern over the prevalence of these troll farms on various mainstream media outlets, regardless of their political leanings or geographical focus, highlighting the global reach of these disinformation campaigns. He cautions viewers against underestimating the influence of these online actors, suggesting that even seemingly extreme comments might originate from paid trolls rather than genuine individuals.
Return to top⤴️
Wrap up
🎦 42:07-43:20⏩
Jonathan concludes the video by thanking viewers for their time. He addresses a comment from Martin Elzen , who recently finished reading his book critiquing the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Jonathan expresses his appreciation for Elzen's positive feedback and encourages viewers interested in exploring philosophical arguments about God's existence to check out his book, "Destroying the Best Argument," along with his other works. He signs off by reminding viewers to like, subscribe, and share the video, and bids them farewell.
Return to top⤴️
