A question to Tom and Don: Zelensky yesterday announced that 180,000 Russians were KIA which is well below the figures announced by ZSU. At the same time, he also said that around 500k are the casualties including the wounded. Yet, it was my understanding that the numbers announced by ZSU are for KIA not including wounded. What is your reconciliation of the numbers. I expected some overestimation (or over-declaration) but not 2-3 times higher. Suddenly all of the numbers - tanks, IFVs - look inflated 2-3 times
I follow the UK/US for long term casualty estimations. Ukraine's estimation of Russian casualties tend to be 15% higher on a consistent basis. The Ukraine estimation of daily Russian casualties are useful for trends, but I read them understanding that they are likely 15% higher than the more likely estimations. At the beginning of February, the UK said there were 350k dead and wounded Russians. (Add on 15% and that comes to 402k).
3) "the Russian industry is currently making enough to sustain the present rate of expenditure, and might increase this by 20%, but that is also as good as it is likely to get: the VSRF will have to continue importing ammunition" - the logic is hard to grasp.
Last two winters we're extremely warm in Ukraine, nothing comparable to 1942/43. There ist no snow at the southwestern part of the frontline right now.
Totally agree with most of them except for one fact. Russia hasn't 140 million population. I just checked and the English internet hasn't the truth about the population of Russia. People in the West agree with the official statistics trustfully. On the Russian internet widely common fact that Russia has only 90 million people. Here is a request for Google "90 миллионов в рф". This number found in the internet after an interview of some spokesman ZAGS (civil registration system). From time to time even Pudding said the truth. https://24tv.ua/ru/putin-sluchajno-nazval-istinnoe-kolichestvo-naselenija-za-uralom-24-kanal_n2274667
If the total Russian population is lower than 100 million, the human losses ratio won't be sustainable for a long time I think. If I remember correctly, Ukraine has approximately 40 million population, but there's a fierce debate about mobilizing half a million troops (and start rotating/demobilizing the older veterans)
The trouble is that the loss ratio is somewhere between 1:1 and 1:2 (confirmed KIA is 42K against 43K. Ukraine seems to allow publishing obituaries thus the Ukrainian KIA seems to be close to the confirmed 42K. The Russians may have suppressed some obituaries, but they have poor MEDEVAC thus their ration of WIA to KIA is lower (meaning Ukraine's WIA to KIA is higher, while KIA are comparable). The Russian statistics for bequests points at 75K dead because of the war https://meduza.io/feature/2024/02/24/75-tysyach-pogibshih-rossiyskih-soldat ). This means that Ukraine's relative losses (per population) are about 2 times higher than Russian.
Also Ukraine doesn't have 40 million population anymore. Latest estimate by UN for 2023 was 36.7 million, but for whole Ukraine. 3.6 million inhabitants were estimated to be in DPR and LNR (in the size 2014 - 2022) and additional app. 2 millions in the parts of Cherson, Zhaporizhia, Donezk and Luhansk which were occupied since 2022. Population in non-occupied part of Ukraine nowadays IMHO is somewhere around 30 million.
Good info re: Ukraine vs. Russia military logistics challenges. It would seem to me that in the absence of abundant logistical support at this juncture, Ukraine should maintain a defensive posture that seeks to deny Russia victory rather than actually trying to defeat Russia outright. The latter comes into view potentially when/if Ukraine possesses an abundance of logistical support. This is something that Robert E. Lee failed to appreciate during the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865. General Lee should not have pursued an offensive strategy. Rather than defeat the Union forces en masse, he should have instituted a defensive strategy to deny the Union victory until the North's electorate tired of that war and forced the Lincoln gov't (or successor gov't) to sue for peace. Yeah, I know, armchair generalship on my part!
It features a very deep model for Machiavellian politics.
One of the parameters is the population's tolerance to losses. It starts at 1% (wartime losses / population) for democracies, goes to 3% for authoritarian states, and is infinite for institutionalized totalitarianism.
Well, the problem was, unlike Ukraine, the South was under a blockade. Which kept getting more effective. So the economy was slowly being crushed.
Moreover, Lee's main offensive, Gettysburg, was launched to counter Grant's siege of Vicksburg. It was high risk, but any other course would have just condemned the South to slow strangulation--the strategy that eventually decided the war.
Yes, but the political end of warfare still applies. The Union victory at Vicksburg meant that the South could not defeat militarily the North. What remains is the will to fight. Even before Vicksburg Lee, in his invasion of the North (e.g., Chancellorsville), spent the lives of his troops seemingly with wild abandon. The South had maybe a White population of 3 million vs. the North's 11 million. Fewer Southern White males available for the U.S. Civil War meat waves and frontal assaults in the face of rifled musketry and lethal artillery. The South could not sustain the casualties that Lee's military efforts prompted. Post Gettysburg Lee went on the strategic defensive because he had no choice. By then politically it was too late for a negotiated settlement. Yes, more after-the-fact armchair generalship.
My point is that the U.S. Civil War was not originally a Lost Cause (which turned into an ideology and myth). My armchair generalship perhaps is a cheap-shot way to examine a historical series of events, but I still assert that had Lee taken the strategic defensive early-on, then the political conditions in the North could have deteriorated eventually to such an extent that McClellan perhaps could have defeated Abraham Lincoln in his 2nd run for the Preisdency in 1864. McClellan favored suing for peace.
Of course this doesn't apply to Ukraine, and I confess my ignorance of the details of Ukrainian history, culture, language, and its relationship with the Russian bear. The current war in Ukraine is current, not historical. We do not get to see how things will work out given alternative courses of action. Nonetheless, given the logistics considerations alone, I perceive that Ukraine has no choice but to go on the strategic defensive. I also perceive that time is not on Ukraine's side. If Putin lives long enough and if the Russian population can endure his presidency and his determination to wage war against Ukraine, Russia will out produce Ukraine in military gear and ammunition. There is no guarantee that the West will endure the costs of supporting Ukraine in the long term. Gawd forbid that this war will interrupt our collective desires for iPhones, electrically powered Teslas, vacation cruises, our entertainment of reality-entertainment TV shows such as Dancing with the Stars, and the latest hijinks of the Kardashians.
Sorry for being a bit pessimistic today. Prompted by my disgust with the more than nomal dysfunctional condition of our (American) national political system. I am also frustrated at watching Ukraine's first rate military potentially facing defeat by an obviously corrupt, venal, and incompetent Russian military eventually due to an over-abundance of 2nd rate military gear that Russia is able to produce. Despite all of this, I do not suggest that Ukraine is a lost cause. Glory to Ukraine!
* Somewhere in 16-17 century Ukrainian Cossacks were independent sometimes fighting sometimes allying Tatars and Poles. Then they asked Russians to help them. The Russians occupied most of Ukraine and destroyed the Cossacks. Other lands were under Polish rule.
* During late WW1 when the Russian tzar left the throne Ukraine proclaimed independence and allied with Germans. The Germans were defeated, the communists revolted against the democrats in Russia, attacked and captured Ukraine. The western part was ruled by Poles
* During WW2 Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed independence but were arrested by Hitler. Sadly the same nationalists murdered many Polish families (Volhynian massacre). Guerillas fought the communists for 10 more years but they were killed one by one.
Now Ukraine was independent since 1991, but it is threatened by Russia again.
This is similar to the history of Poland that was ruled by Russia for centuries and got a only narrow window of independence between WW1 and WW2.
Ukraine independent since 1991--lesson here is not to give up your nukes! Nations with nukes don't get invaded by other nations. Also, so much for security guarantees from the Russian bear and the West. I had also read online recently that should Ukraine fall, Russia might not take all of it necessarily. Poland then will want some of Ukraine (Galicia?), Slovakia will want the Transcarpathians, and Romania is interested in a piece of Ukraine too, except I think that Moldova and (Transnistra if it should succeed in being part of Russia) may be in the way. We in the "West of the West" (e.g., U.S.A.) are not well schooled in Eastern European history & geo-politics. Must have something to do with all of those hard-to-learn Slavic languages. **LOL** . . . and intellectual laziness.
Because Vicksburg was under siege, and certain to fall, Lee's only real option was to go for broke in the East.
Otherwise, as you say, it would be just slow strangulation. Remember, Lee had established forts to bring in supplies before taking charge of the Army of Northern Virginia, and knew the South could not win a long war.
A showdown with a previously mauled Union army at Chancellorsville was thus the best of the bad options. The strategy was good.
So interesting to talk with you about a very important U.S. historical period and its civil war. Unfortunately, Ukraine is now facing its own war of survival so I will close with my final comment on the U.S. Civil War. It is easy for me to critique a General after-the-fact, but I think that you were suggesting, in terms of bad tactics, that Lee should not have accepted battle at Gettysburg wherein his Army of Northern Virginia was facing a Union army firmly entrenched on the high ground. Lee could have maneuvered around the Union forces (Longstreet's preference IIRC) which may have changed the ultimate result of the battle and the war itself. We will never know if this would have led to a Confederate victory which might have led to near-term war termination that favored the Confederate of States of America.
I don't know how the Ukraine War will turn out. If it favors Ukraine, then what, for example, will termination of hostilities look like? What will the conditions of a "return to peace" look like? What happens if Russia starts coming apart politically, as in losing some of its States in the Russian dominated CIS (e.g., the "Stans," Armenia, Georgia, some or all of those states in the Caucuses . . . . )? I even can perceive Russia, seriously weakened by the Ukraine war, losing potentially Siberia. Siberia, due to its natural resources, must appear very attractice to China and perhaps even to Japan. Japan is now re-arming. China likely also is very interested in (some of) the "Stans" due to oil.
There are some prominent academic/intellectual specialists in international relations in the U.S. who oppose the Ukraine war for fear it might lead to a de-stabilized Russia and could lead to international power relationships disrupted should Russia come apart. This is not my point of view, but I am not a expert in history or international relations. Just interested in the subject matter. Add nuclear weapons into the geo-political mix and we have some real complexity and some very real danger!
Thanks for a very interesting discussion. I didn't mean for it to detract from the important comments normally found herein regarding Ukraine.
My point was, strategically, invading the North was the best option. Think we both agree Lee's tactics were bad at Gettysburg.
As for Ukraine, my view is that Putin really can't shift back to a peace time Russia or a normal economy. War is now his only justification for staying in power. It also enables him to crack down on all dissent, just as Stalin's regime did.
So don't expect any let up on his hybrid attack on the West...
Always a nice write up Don. (It’s me Rex btw from FB) always can’t wait for your weekly reports. Reading this after a long hospital shift with coffee. Keep it up bro.
USSR collapsed not due to Chernobyl, but due to economic pressure performed by President Reagan.
Reagan was able to persuade Middle East (Saudi Arabia) to boost manufacturing of crude oil and at the same time boost weapons manufacturing.
Crude oil price fell.
USSR lost huge profits and tried to chase the US with munition manufacturing.
And collapsed. Chernobyl is a sad fact. Some territory was abandoned.
Very few people really suffered and died from radiation.
Hundreds. Not thousands.
Very few became disabled. I know that from first hands. From a radiology doctor who used to treat them.
Russia's economy is much better shape than Europe's economy. For the last year due to high crude oil prices and no enforcement of sanctions, Russia experience 5% YoY economy growth after 2% contraction in 2022.
Green Energy is Russia's and Iran's sweet dream that they want to never end.
Russian mobilization drafts ~40-45k monthly. They have time to perform 2-month training and drills before throwing to a meatgrinder.
There used to be 420,000 Russians orcs in Ukraine in September. 5 months later there were 460,000 of them.
They are bringing ~8,000 more troops than they lose each month. That in turn allows them to concentrate troops on the direction of assault in much bigger quantity significantly outnumbering defenders.
If we will not give Ukraine sufficient weapons and not drop world crude oil price then Ukraine is done and in some time Europe will follow Ukraine. Few years will be needed for Russia to prep a new assault at Moldova, Baltic States, maybe Poland.
Europe and the US are still sleeping and taking care of internal affairs
Thanks Don!
A question to Tom and Don: Zelensky yesterday announced that 180,000 Russians were KIA which is well below the figures announced by ZSU. At the same time, he also said that around 500k are the casualties including the wounded. Yet, it was my understanding that the numbers announced by ZSU are for KIA not including wounded. What is your reconciliation of the numbers. I expected some overestimation (or over-declaration) but not 2-3 times higher. Suddenly all of the numbers - tanks, IFVs - look inflated 2-3 times
Цифра - 31 000 удивила больше, чем потери рф
I follow the UK/US for long term casualty estimations. Ukraine's estimation of Russian casualties tend to be 15% higher on a consistent basis. The Ukraine estimation of daily Russian casualties are useful for trends, but I read them understanding that they are likely 15% higher than the more likely estimations. At the beginning of February, the UK said there were 350k dead and wounded Russians. (Add on 15% and that comes to 402k).
Спасибо. Хочется верить, что все кончится хорошо для моей страны. Но сколько ждать...
Too long, obviously, but WW2 went on too long, as well.
1) OSINT has identified 42 000 of killed Ukrainian soldiers https://ualosses.org/soldiers/ Zelensky (telling about 31 000) seems to be misinformed.
2) The losses are evenly distributed by time https://ualosses.org/statistics/
3) "the Russian industry is currently making enough to sustain the present rate of expenditure, and might increase this by 20%, but that is also as good as it is likely to get: the VSRF will have to continue importing ammunition" - the logic is hard to grasp.
Because the blog is called "Sarcastosaurus"
good catch)
I would put the declared number of Ukraine losses by Zelensky as the lower limit. Probably the real number is around 20% higher.
By a similar logic, I would put the estimates of Russian KIA by Zelensky as the upper limit, and maybe subtract around 15% for more realistic numbers.
Of course, that's a gut feeling, I have no real data etc.
Ammm... Any number lower than confirmed losses can be called a lower limit. 42K seems to be confirmed. You have all the names and links to obituaries in the database. Thus 7000 or even 0 losses is a lower limit for the confirmed 42000. There is also an official report of 15000 MIA https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3770197-u-reestri-zniklih-bezvisti-e-dani-pro-blizko-15-tisac-vijskovih-mvs.html
Thus we can treat 42000+15000 as confirmed KIA+MIA losses. The lower limit, of course, is 0.
Russians claim to have hit a NASAMS launcher https://t.me/grey_zone/22126
Proper link: https://twitter.com/small10space/status/1762074175492047277
Could be a decoy. Sitting on a field by itself, nothing and no one else around. Also seems to be earlier video as there is no snow.
Last two winters we're extremely warm in Ukraine, nothing comparable to 1942/43. There ist no snow at the southwestern part of the frontline right now.
Was ist that that launcher made of wood or that one made of paper mache?
Totally agree with most of them except for one fact. Russia hasn't 140 million population. I just checked and the English internet hasn't the truth about the population of Russia. People in the West agree with the official statistics trustfully. On the Russian internet widely common fact that Russia has only 90 million people. Here is a request for Google "90 миллионов в рф". This number found in the internet after an interview of some spokesman ZAGS (civil registration system). From time to time even Pudding said the truth. https://24tv.ua/ru/putin-sluchajno-nazval-istinnoe-kolichestvo-naselenija-za-uralom-24-kanal_n2274667
If the total Russian population is lower than 100 million, the human losses ratio won't be sustainable for a long time I think. If I remember correctly, Ukraine has approximately 40 million population, but there's a fierce debate about mobilizing half a million troops (and start rotating/demobilizing the older veterans)
The trouble is that the loss ratio is somewhere between 1:1 and 1:2 (confirmed KIA is 42K against 43K. Ukraine seems to allow publishing obituaries thus the Ukrainian KIA seems to be close to the confirmed 42K. The Russians may have suppressed some obituaries, but they have poor MEDEVAC thus their ration of WIA to KIA is lower (meaning Ukraine's WIA to KIA is higher, while KIA are comparable). The Russian statistics for bequests points at 75K dead because of the war https://meduza.io/feature/2024/02/24/75-tysyach-pogibshih-rossiyskih-soldat ). This means that Ukraine's relative losses (per population) are about 2 times higher than Russian.
Thanks for the data. Traditional ratio of KIA:WIA in most wars is around 1:3 or so. The 1:1 ratio shows that this war is unusually deadly for soldiers
1:1 is confirmed Ukrainian KIA to confirmed Russian KIA.
The database of confirmed Ukrainian KIA is 42K https://ualosses.org/soldiers/
The database of confirmed Russian KIA is 44K https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng
KIA to WIA is unknown for both sides, but Ukrainian MEDEVAC is believed to be better.
Also Ukraine doesn't have 40 million population anymore. Latest estimate by UN for 2023 was 36.7 million, but for whole Ukraine. 3.6 million inhabitants were estimated to be in DPR and LNR (in the size 2014 - 2022) and additional app. 2 millions in the parts of Cherson, Zhaporizhia, Donezk and Luhansk which were occupied since 2022. Population in non-occupied part of Ukraine nowadays IMHO is somewhere around 30 million.
Thanks Don . . .!!
Only Victory!
Good info re: Ukraine vs. Russia military logistics challenges. It would seem to me that in the absence of abundant logistical support at this juncture, Ukraine should maintain a defensive posture that seeks to deny Russia victory rather than actually trying to defeat Russia outright. The latter comes into view potentially when/if Ukraine possesses an abundance of logistical support. This is something that Robert E. Lee failed to appreciate during the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865. General Lee should not have pursued an offensive strategy. Rather than defeat the Union forces en masse, he should have instituted a defensive strategy to deny the Union victory until the North's electorate tired of that war and forced the Lincoln gov't (or successor gov't) to sue for peace. Yeah, I know, armchair generalship on my part!
There is a computer game called Shadow Empire.
It features a very deep model for Machiavellian politics.
One of the parameters is the population's tolerance to losses. It starts at 1% (wartime losses / population) for democracies, goes to 3% for authoritarian states, and is infinite for institutionalized totalitarianism.
And this parameter is dynamic in reality.
As more and more troops are KIA/MIA and more people are mobilized, the population tolerance will shift to lower levels (I suppose).
https://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/ShadowEmpire/Shadow%20Empire%20manual%20EBOOK.pdf
5.1.9.6. CASUALTIES
Military casualties have an impact on the Zone where the Soldiers come
from. People there are losing fathers, sons and other family members.
Although some military losses are expected by the Population at a certain
level of casualties, people will eventually feel the sacrifice in life is becoming
too great and it will reduce Happiness and Loyalty. Note that the Fist Profile
opens up the road to Regime Feats that can increase the casualty tolerance
of your Populace.
5.3.9.1. LONG TERM CASUALTY EFFECTS
Last 20 rounds average of casualties are calculated (t-1,t-2…,t-20) and if
this average is higher than the Casualty Tolerance of 0.5% + (Fist Profile /
66) then there is a drop in Happiness and Loyalty. As a rule of thumb, the
Casualty Tolerance will be around 1%.
5.3.9.2. SHORT TERM CASUALTY EFFECTS
Last 3 rounds average (t-1,t-2,t-3) of casualties are calculated and if this
average is higher than the Casualty Tolerance of 1% + (Fist Profile / 33) then
there is a drop in Happiness and Loyalty. As a rule of thumb, the Casualty
Tolerance will be around 2%.
Fist PROFILE SCORE
50 War Lust 50% higher casualty tolerance
70 Militarized Politics 100% higher casualty tolerance
90 Total War Mentality 200% higher casualty tolerance
Well, the problem was, unlike Ukraine, the South was under a blockade. Which kept getting more effective. So the economy was slowly being crushed.
Moreover, Lee's main offensive, Gettysburg, was launched to counter Grant's siege of Vicksburg. It was high risk, but any other course would have just condemned the South to slow strangulation--the strategy that eventually decided the war.
The road not taken isn't always better...
Yes, but the political end of warfare still applies. The Union victory at Vicksburg meant that the South could not defeat militarily the North. What remains is the will to fight. Even before Vicksburg Lee, in his invasion of the North (e.g., Chancellorsville), spent the lives of his troops seemingly with wild abandon. The South had maybe a White population of 3 million vs. the North's 11 million. Fewer Southern White males available for the U.S. Civil War meat waves and frontal assaults in the face of rifled musketry and lethal artillery. The South could not sustain the casualties that Lee's military efforts prompted. Post Gettysburg Lee went on the strategic defensive because he had no choice. By then politically it was too late for a negotiated settlement. Yes, more after-the-fact armchair generalship.
My point is that the U.S. Civil War was not originally a Lost Cause (which turned into an ideology and myth). My armchair generalship perhaps is a cheap-shot way to examine a historical series of events, but I still assert that had Lee taken the strategic defensive early-on, then the political conditions in the North could have deteriorated eventually to such an extent that McClellan perhaps could have defeated Abraham Lincoln in his 2nd run for the Preisdency in 1864. McClellan favored suing for peace.
Of course this doesn't apply to Ukraine, and I confess my ignorance of the details of Ukrainian history, culture, language, and its relationship with the Russian bear. The current war in Ukraine is current, not historical. We do not get to see how things will work out given alternative courses of action. Nonetheless, given the logistics considerations alone, I perceive that Ukraine has no choice but to go on the strategic defensive. I also perceive that time is not on Ukraine's side. If Putin lives long enough and if the Russian population can endure his presidency and his determination to wage war against Ukraine, Russia will out produce Ukraine in military gear and ammunition. There is no guarantee that the West will endure the costs of supporting Ukraine in the long term. Gawd forbid that this war will interrupt our collective desires for iPhones, electrically powered Teslas, vacation cruises, our entertainment of reality-entertainment TV shows such as Dancing with the Stars, and the latest hijinks of the Kardashians.
Sorry for being a bit pessimistic today. Prompted by my disgust with the more than nomal dysfunctional condition of our (American) national political system. I am also frustrated at watching Ukraine's first rate military potentially facing defeat by an obviously corrupt, venal, and incompetent Russian military eventually due to an over-abundance of 2nd rate military gear that Russia is able to produce. Despite all of this, I do not suggest that Ukraine is a lost cause. Glory to Ukraine!
Ukraine was conquered by Russia 3 times:
* Somewhere in 16-17 century Ukrainian Cossacks were independent sometimes fighting sometimes allying Tatars and Poles. Then they asked Russians to help them. The Russians occupied most of Ukraine and destroyed the Cossacks. Other lands were under Polish rule.
* During late WW1 when the Russian tzar left the throne Ukraine proclaimed independence and allied with Germans. The Germans were defeated, the communists revolted against the democrats in Russia, attacked and captured Ukraine. The western part was ruled by Poles
* During WW2 Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed independence but were arrested by Hitler. Sadly the same nationalists murdered many Polish families (Volhynian massacre). Guerillas fought the communists for 10 more years but they were killed one by one.
Now Ukraine was independent since 1991, but it is threatened by Russia again.
This is similar to the history of Poland that was ruled by Russia for centuries and got a only narrow window of independence between WW1 and WW2.
Ukraine independent since 1991--lesson here is not to give up your nukes! Nations with nukes don't get invaded by other nations. Also, so much for security guarantees from the Russian bear and the West. I had also read online recently that should Ukraine fall, Russia might not take all of it necessarily. Poland then will want some of Ukraine (Galicia?), Slovakia will want the Transcarpathians, and Romania is interested in a piece of Ukraine too, except I think that Moldova and (Transnistra if it should succeed in being part of Russia) may be in the way. We in the "West of the West" (e.g., U.S.A.) are not well schooled in Eastern European history & geo-politics. Must have something to do with all of those hard-to-learn Slavic languages. **LOL** . . . and intellectual laziness.
I am not sure Putin wants to deal with another 10 years of guerilla warfare. He may rather prefer "Finlandization" similar to the results of the Winter War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#Moscow_Peace_Treaty
Because Vicksburg was under siege, and certain to fall, Lee's only real option was to go for broke in the East.
Otherwise, as you say, it would be just slow strangulation. Remember, Lee had established forts to bring in supplies before taking charge of the Army of Northern Virginia, and knew the South could not win a long war.
A showdown with a previously mauled Union army at Chancellorsville was thus the best of the bad options. The strategy was good.
But the tactics were not...
So interesting to talk with you about a very important U.S. historical period and its civil war. Unfortunately, Ukraine is now facing its own war of survival so I will close with my final comment on the U.S. Civil War. It is easy for me to critique a General after-the-fact, but I think that you were suggesting, in terms of bad tactics, that Lee should not have accepted battle at Gettysburg wherein his Army of Northern Virginia was facing a Union army firmly entrenched on the high ground. Lee could have maneuvered around the Union forces (Longstreet's preference IIRC) which may have changed the ultimate result of the battle and the war itself. We will never know if this would have led to a Confederate victory which might have led to near-term war termination that favored the Confederate of States of America.
I don't know how the Ukraine War will turn out. If it favors Ukraine, then what, for example, will termination of hostilities look like? What will the conditions of a "return to peace" look like? What happens if Russia starts coming apart politically, as in losing some of its States in the Russian dominated CIS (e.g., the "Stans," Armenia, Georgia, some or all of those states in the Caucuses . . . . )? I even can perceive Russia, seriously weakened by the Ukraine war, losing potentially Siberia. Siberia, due to its natural resources, must appear very attractice to China and perhaps even to Japan. Japan is now re-arming. China likely also is very interested in (some of) the "Stans" due to oil.
There are some prominent academic/intellectual specialists in international relations in the U.S. who oppose the Ukraine war for fear it might lead to a de-stabilized Russia and could lead to international power relationships disrupted should Russia come apart. This is not my point of view, but I am not a expert in history or international relations. Just interested in the subject matter. Add nuclear weapons into the geo-political mix and we have some real complexity and some very real danger!
Thanks for a very interesting discussion. I didn't mean for it to detract from the important comments normally found herein regarding Ukraine.
My point was, strategically, invading the North was the best option. Think we both agree Lee's tactics were bad at Gettysburg.
As for Ukraine, my view is that Putin really can't shift back to a peace time Russia or a normal economy. War is now his only justification for staying in power. It also enables him to crack down on all dissent, just as Stalin's regime did.
So don't expect any let up on his hybrid attack on the West...
Thanks Don for te interesting report some good information to digest
Always a nice write up Don. (It’s me Rex btw from FB) always can’t wait for your weekly reports. Reading this after a long hospital shift with coffee. Keep it up bro.
Thanks Don for the update. I’ve been waiting for the real story on the availability of surplus 155 mm cluster shells.
Thank you so very much for the clarity of this report.
USSR collapsed not due to Chernobyl, but due to economic pressure performed by President Reagan.
Reagan was able to persuade Middle East (Saudi Arabia) to boost manufacturing of crude oil and at the same time boost weapons manufacturing.
Crude oil price fell.
USSR lost huge profits and tried to chase the US with munition manufacturing.
And collapsed. Chernobyl is a sad fact. Some territory was abandoned.
Very few people really suffered and died from radiation.
Hundreds. Not thousands.
Very few became disabled. I know that from first hands. From a radiology doctor who used to treat them.
Russia's economy is much better shape than Europe's economy. For the last year due to high crude oil prices and no enforcement of sanctions, Russia experience 5% YoY economy growth after 2% contraction in 2022.
Green Energy is Russia's and Iran's sweet dream that they want to never end.
On DPICM ammunition. We have a huge stockpile that is melting very fast these days.
Because it gets scrapped as we speak.
President Biden could have shipped it to Ukraine on EDA, but instead chose to scrap it.
I am not surprised as this is not the first time when he deliberately choses not to help Ukraine.
I am not saying it lightly. That is a result of 2-year analysis.
On Ukraine survival, I wish I had your optimism.
Russian mobilization drafts ~40-45k monthly. They have time to perform 2-month training and drills before throwing to a meatgrinder.
There used to be 420,000 Russians orcs in Ukraine in September. 5 months later there were 460,000 of them.
They are bringing ~8,000 more troops than they lose each month. That in turn allows them to concentrate troops on the direction of assault in much bigger quantity significantly outnumbering defenders.
If we will not give Ukraine sufficient weapons and not drop world crude oil price then Ukraine is done and in some time Europe will follow Ukraine. Few years will be needed for Russia to prep a new assault at Moldova, Baltic States, maybe Poland.
Europe and the US are still sleeping and taking care of internal affairs