Keep across all the live scores and results from the Australian Open at Melbourne Park
Keep up with all the action at the Australian Open finals in our live blog
A day after President Vladimir Putin announced his first mobilisation of around 300,000 Russian soldiers back in September, I visited a Ukrainian military position near the frontline of the then-contested city of Kupiansk.
Viktor, a Ukrainian soldier who had just participated in the triumphant Kharkiv counteroffensive, told of the pride he had for the soldiers he'd accompanied into battle.
I asked whether Mr Putin's new conscripts would make a difference to the war.
"No," he said, cutting a steely look.
"It will just mean more fertiliser for my land."
Four months later, Ukrainian intelligence officials claim that Russia is about to announce a second mobilisation, with speculation that as many as 500,000 conscripts could be called up.
So, could throwing this many soldiers into battle change the course of the war?
Or is the Kremlin about to sacrifice masses of poorly trained troops into the Donbas "meat-grinder", in a move that could have domestic repercussions for Mr Putin?
Military historian Phillips O'Brien seems to think Ukrainian soldiers like Viktor might be right not to hold grave fears of a mass mobilisation.
The professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews says the size of an army is not the decisive element in modern warfare.
"Training and equipment matter more than mass armies because equipment is the force multiplier," he told the ABC.
"If you have a lot of soldiers, but the Ukrainians, for instance, have the advantage with range and accuracy, with things like HIMARS (US rocket launchers) and their new artillery system, those soldiers aren't going to help you nearly as much."
Professor O'Brien says that history tells us armies with the best access to high-tech equipment and machines tend to gain the upper hand.
"In World War II, it was a question of who had the most advanced aircraft, the most advanced vehicles," he said.
"It's equipment in the largest numbers that matters. Not necessarily who had the largest army.
"Machines matter more when it comes to enduring industrial warfare."
In the past week, western nations have made it clear they are committed to providing the kind of weaponry and machinery that Ukraine needs to push Russian forces back.
On Wednesday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced his government would provide Ukraine with a number of its Leopard 2 tanks and approve requests from other European allies to do the same.
Hours later, US President Joe Biden also announced a supply of M1 Abram tanks would be made available to Ukraine.
The US had earlier announced another $US2.5 billion ($3.58 billion) military aid package — including air defence, armoured vehicles and surface-to-air missiles — while the UK and eight other European nations committed to deliver "an unprecedented set of donations," including air defence, artillery, and battle tanks.
The Tallinn Pledge makes it clear these European countries want to "ensure a Ukrainian battlefield victory in 2023".
Russia does not have comparable support coming from its allies.
When it comes to training newly conscripted troops, Russia is at another disadvantage.
Professor O'Brien believes at least six months is needed to properly train a new unit of soldiers in the middle of a war.
"You really need time and then you've got to make sure you give them good frontline equipment," he says.
"From what we can tell, the new Russian units are showing up, not with newly made advanced equipment, but mostly with Russian equipment that's from storage."
"This accentuates the trend lines of the war so far where Ukraine has been getting better equipment and Russia has been getting worse equipment."
Taras Berezovets, a senior lieutenant with Ukraine's special forces, says Russian soldiers have been arriving at the front near Bakhmut with little training.
"What we know from POW's [prisoners of war] we have captured is they would go for training, which lasted at least two weeks typically," he told the ABC.
"In some regions they have been well-trained. In others, they were allowed only to shoot two to three rounds [before being sent into battle]. That's all."
While mobilisations may not help Russia win the war, it could help drag the battle out longer than Ukraine and the West would like.
Konrad Muzkya, a defence analyst and director of Rochan Consulting, said the next wave of mobilisation could push the war out by years.
When asked whether the first mobilisation had helped tie up Ukrainian forces around the city of Bakhmut, Lieutenant Berezovets admitted it made some difference.
"The number of forces, whatever kind of sophisticated and modern weaponry you have, it still counts. It still affects the battle," he said.
"For instance, our soldiers who used machine guns, they said it was like a zombie movie: They might have killed dozens of Russians in a single attack, but they were still coming in waves."
Professor O'Brien says the first mobilisation in September led to massive Russian casualties for little strategic gain.
"They seemed to rush a huge number of extra troops to the front quite quickly in October, November and December, which allowed the Russians to do these forms of human wave attacks in places like Soledar and Bakhmut, which have gained a little ground, but not huge amounts of important strategic ground," he says.
"They might have helped Russia stabilise the line. They certainly have not helped Russia turn the course of the war."
Just after midnight on New Year's Day, a HIMARS strike on a vocational school in Makiivka caused the biggest loss of Russian lives from a single attack since the war began.
Moscow says 89 of its troops were killed, while Ukraine's armed forces put the figure at 400.
The victims were soldiers who had been conscripted during the first mobilisation in September.
Many of those killed and injured in the attack had been drafted from the Samara region of Russia.
The people of Samara have been kept in the dark about the scale of the sacrifice the region has made to Putin's war.
The local military commissar, Alexey Vdovin, has insisted that a list of the dead and wounded will not be published.
Sergei Podsytnik, a former deputy coordinator of the Samara office for the now imprisoned opposition activist Alexei Navalny, launched a petition calling on the Ministry of Defence to come clean about who died in the attack.
"It is not known whose relatives were lied about," he told the ABC.
"This is not to glorify the dead. I received claims from some activists that we want to make heroes out of them. This is an attempt to restore humanity in people."
He says the missile strike has had a huge impact on the region.
"I can give a vivid example of the village of Mirny," Mr Podsytnik said.
"It has a population of 7,500. After the strike on Makiivka, five coffins arrived there.
"Yesterday, I learned that a boy from my school, who was a year older than me, died. The teachers from the school lost their son and husband.
"Makiivka is a big tragedy by the standards of Samara. Many people from the area died at the same time."
Mr Podsytnik is able to speak out about what's happening in Samara because he is living in exile in Georgia.
He claims that families of the dead were not invited to the funeral rallies that took place in Samara on January 4.
"The general's wife [Yekaterina Kolovkina] spoke at them and called for revenge and the killing Ukrainians. But there were no relatives there."
There were reports at the time that Ms Kolovkina used her speech to call on Mr Putin to mobilise more soldiers.
Mr Podsytnik says that it could be risky for local officials to try and draft more soldiers from the area.
"It all depends on the nature of the mobilisation, how they will carry it out," he said.
"If they act from the least discontent, then they will recruit less from Samara. Especially from the villages where the coffins have already arrived.
"If they do not take this into account and grab people on the street, then I don't know what will happen."
Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow and associate fellow at Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program, says if Mr Putin decides to pursue a second round of mobilisation, it could send a dangerous message to the Russian people.
"I think that they would be very alarmed by it because it would actually illustrate the fact that Russia is not winning [the war]," he told the ABC.
Sir Andrew believes the Kremlin will continue to focus on drafting soldiers from the regions and spare the men from the big cities for fear of causing protests.
"I imagine that's what he [Putin] would try and avoid," he said.
"There are people in St Petersburg and to a lesser degree in Moscow who have actually been quite effective in criticising Putin."
The former ambassador believes Mr Putin remains secure in his leadership for now, but that the first round of conscription and the ongoing failures of the war are having an impact.
"Every now and again you see him in a state of real worry. For example, to me when he went alone to the church for the Orthodox Christmas.
"That was a frightened and oddly uncomposed man."
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn, and work.
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.
AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time)