The IAEA allowed Japan to pour into the Pacific Ocean water cleaned of radiation from Fukushima, which Greenpeace called dangerous

Russia is trying to disable Ukrainian armored vehicles in order to slow down the counteroffensive of the Ukrainian army, according to the Ministry of Defense of Great Britain.

The military of the Russian Federation intensively uses anti-tank mines, which are placed in some areas so densely that “they use significantly more mines than is prescribed by their military doctrine”, writes British intelligence in its report on Tuesday, July 4.

Having detained the armored vehicle, Russia tried to strike it with drones, attack helicopters and artillery, writes British intelligence. But this tactic gives only a temporary result, because the Russian forces suffer from structural problems, according to British analysts.

“While Russia has achieved some success with this approach in the early stages of the counteroffensive against Ukraine, its forces continue to suffer from key weaknesses, particularly overstretched units and a lack of artillery ammunition,” British intelligence tweeted.

Western observers in their evaluations of the Ukrainian counteroffensive often note that it is slow and does not live up to expectations.

Pace of the counterattack: no time limits

Instead, NATO militaries say that a counteroffensive on a front line that exceeds 1,000 km cannot advance much faster. Especially since Russian troops had many months to prepare defense lines.

On Tuesday, Dan Sabbagh, defense editor of The Guardian newspaper, quoted the head of the British armed forces as Tony Radakina, who says that “a full counteroffensive has not yet taken place.” He describes Kyiv’s current strategy as “exhaust, stretch and beat” to gradually break Russian defense lines.

“Even in the last few weeks…Ukraine has taken more than Russia in the last year,” Sabbagh quoted a senior British military official as saying in a tweet.

The head of the armed forces of Great Britain said during the parliamentary hearings that the Russian army lost half of its fighting capacity in Ukraine, including 2,500 tanks, reports the Financial Times.

“Last year they used 10 million artillery shells, but at best they can produce 1 million shells a year. They lost 2,500 tanks and at best they can produce 200 [нових] tanks per year,” the general said.

According to Radakin, it would be unfair to tie Ukraine’s counteroffensive to a certain time, saying, “Russia is now so weak that it does not have the strength to [власного] counterattack”.

Western countries promise new tanks

Meanwhile, Western countries are increasing the supply of their tanks to Ukraine. On Monday, in an interview with a Polish newspaper, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said that Ukraine will receive the first batch of dozens of Leopard 1A5 tanks in the coming weeks. This equipment will be provided to Ukraine as part of aid from Germany and Denmark.

Ukrainian analysts from Defense Express believe that these tanks are not as modern as the Leopard 2 tank, and their shortcomings include a gun that has low impressive power and insufficient armor protection.

As the Voice of America reported, Ukraine received dozens of Leopard-2 tanks from Germany, Poland, and other European countries, as well as heavy armored vehicles from the United States, Britain, and France, which are in need of maintenance and repair.

Negotiations between Germany and Poland regarding the creation of workshops for the repair of German-made Leopard tanks of Ukraine are still ongoing, although the agreement was announced back in April.

Lessons from Ukraine for American tank manufacturers

At the end of last month, the columnist of the National Interest wrote that Western tanks are much better in terms of their qualities than Russian ones, but they are too expensive and not very suitable for Ukrainian conditions.

An Abrams costs $10 million to produce, and the newest Leopard 2 costs about $6 million. At the same time, Russia fires at them with Iranian drones, which can cost about 20 thousand dollars, notes Patrick Drennan, a journalist from New Zealand.

He also writes that the Abrams is very heavy and can get stuck in the muddy fields of Ukraine or destroy light bridges. They are also difficult to maintain, notes Drennan.

“The latest version of the Abrams is optimized to run on jet fuel, which is understandably difficult to replenish on the battlefield. However, an even bigger problem is that on-site repairs are not always possible for the Abrams. In fact, due to some logistical considerations, this prospect looks like real hell. For example, a front battalion cannot fix an Abrams with broken optics. To replace them, you have to pull out entire subsystems and send them to a warehouse – perhaps hundreds of miles away – and also order replacement subsystems,” the article’s author says.

The lesson from the battlefield in Ukraine, in his opinion, is that the US should simplify and make its tanks cheaper. This will be necessary not only for the American military, the observer believes, but also for Abrams to be competitive in the world arms markets.