Велика подяка хто приклав руки до цієї статті, це було дуже інформативно.
Я всім серцем з ЗСУ, і я розумію що наша армія також несе великі втрати, не тільки від артилерії, а від любої зброї, і зменшення стволів збереже більше життів, так є ракети, і авіація, але хочеться вірити що вогневий вал, як у нас називають, він скінчиться з часом.
Bomb the train yards - then they will have more difficulty moving both raw materials and the finished articles around a massive country. Hit the logistics and the army falls
That is easier said than done. My grandfather was repairing tramway rails in Vienna in 1945 as a conscript. They kept them running even under full allied bombardment. Ukraine doesn't have the capacity for that.
Come on, don’t you know, the whole supply of russian Far East and Eastern Sibera “hangs” on 2 railroads: BAM and Transsib. There are 4 or 5 bottlenecks there: 4 bridges on Lena/Ienisey and some other rivers + 3 tonnels. Once GUR manages to blow 30-40% of those, russia will be splitted in 2 huge noncorresponding pieces
A lot of circumstances were different in WW2 and the impact of allied bombing varied by region. The French railways were destroyed in preperation to D-Day and German units had to drive throughout the theater, at the expense of time, fuel and increased wear and tear on tracks and engines. It took 300 trains to move a panzer division, so even when the German railways increased efficiency through reorganization after 1942, they were never able to fully meet demands.
When the Luftwaffe was severely degraded and allied escort fighters were allowed to shoot anything that moved on their return trips, Germany was losing 40 locomotive a day, which was far more than they could produce. Add to that any damage that happened in rail yards due to bombing, or worse, the destruction of bridges, and an effective rail system that was never able to meet 100% of the military's needs was slowly degraded over time.
All true, but still it is relatively easy to repair railway tracks, as you can reuse a lot of the parts laying around.
That's why already General Sherman ordered his units to heat the steal over the fire of the wood of the rail basement and afterwards bind those, so that they can't be reused. He did that to finally break the backbone of the civilian economy to make them surrender.
Ukraine doesn't have the amount of capabilities to make that damage on the ground neither WWII allied capabilities to deliver that amount of damage by air.
Russia is a target rich environment and Ukraine has a limited, but increasing, number of drones. The train tracks themselves are the easiest component to repair. With so many trains already needing repairs, maintenance facilities would be a good target, as would bridges, the electrical grid that powers half the Russian trains, and the locomotives themselves.
With Russian trains only able to meet 93% of the current demand for transport, any degredation at all would have an impact on military operations and the economy in general.
There are a lot of other targets for Ukraine's strategic drones: ammo depots, aircraft on airbases, equipment and raw material factories, power generators and distribution equipment and oil refineries. Ukraine has to decide how to use their limited resources based on Russia's ability to defend a specific target, the amount of damaged Ukraine's weapons can cause, and the impact that damage will have on Russia's war effort.
Hitting the power substations which feed the Russian railways would be easier. (you then halt all electric trains passing through the area). But you must destroy ALL substations in two continuous districts, even one substation operating is enough to keep the traffic running, even at lower capacity.
I think the «direct» strategy of hitting ammunition storage, airfields and oil production is what hits Russian war efforts most and quickest. Other targets are certainly valid, of course also depending on circumstances, but directly blowing upthe Russian means to fight the war should yield better results than more indirekte strategien like railroafs. The Russian economy is hurting already, hit their war fighting ability.
Good point. It's easy to suggest targets, not so easy to hit them effectively. We have to consider that Ukraine's drones and even their Neptunes do not carry large warheads. I'm sure Ukrainian targeters take into account where, if just one small drone penetrates air defences, it's tiny warhead will do the most damage. It's why they prioritise munition dumps, oil storage tanks, refineries, and increasingly repair shops and warehouse at airfields.
So, Russia may have the will but not have all the means.
The key now is China. Does China needs a war that burns the USA war stocks, but hurts their capacity to continue being the "world factory"? Will the EU countries and USA relocate or reopen critical industries to regain strategic productions?
What will be the cost to Russia of so much dependance on China?
Finally, have the US the stocks to supply Ukraine, Israel and support Taiwan?
Not thinking about the future is probably one of the major errors one can do in a war. If we accept Clausewitz that war is continuation of politics with other means then you should always remember the politics. But you are certainly right most people forget, and Putin is no exception. He is a heartbeat (Ramzan Kadyrov) away from a second war in Checken, another from a rebellion in Belorussia… and destroying his ability to control this. And adding an enourmous debut to China in the process. Russia will Go down in flames Even if they win this. So, yes enormous costs.
It's a "lose -lose" situation. The win of the war is lessl painful than overdependance on China. "Go down in flames"???? Such prognosis have been heard last thousand years. No doubts, the costs of erroneous war are enormous, but not that dreadful.
You are obviously right its a loose-loose situation. Overdependence on China is maybe not a big concern if Russia wins strategically, but otherwise expensive. Yes, I think Russia will go down in flames, actually they are doing it now. Although mind you, the war in Ukraine is not enough in itself, there needs to be some additional unrest. But the flames are there. Your line «this has been said before» is trite, and basically yet another version of Russia is invincible. No empire has been so far, neither is Russia. But I agree that Russia can survive Even a defekt in Ukraine. What Russia cannot sustain as an empire is civil wars, and they will come.
After war end (whatever is the outcome), around 1,5 million russ soldiers will come back home. USSR didn’t survive Afgan syndrome, would Russia survive Ukrainian syndrome? I doubt it.
100000s drunk men with hurt bodies and souls will come back, crazy money they used to get will be over very soon, huge amount of unregistered weapons, oligarchs and policemen… look at Caucasus now: Kadyrov announces vendetta to 3 Russian senators from Dagestan live on TV… 20th century, Europe…
Kadyrov is necessary for Putin, but he can also clearly create friction. I was vaguely aware of his conflict with a senator from Dagestan, but threathening on atV was new for me. Could you provide some more information on this?
Russia was always going to be over reliant on China.
The only other outcome was over reliance on west as an untrusted third rate impoverished partner (even if they transitioned over to democracy).
Russia has been in industrial decline for over 30 years now (and before that 30 years of economic stagnation).
The civil wars are already here, just stifled by Moscow's boot - Tartarstan, Chechnya, Bashkortostan, Ingushetia, Pomoria, Kalmykia, Kuban, Circassia, Dagestan, Tuva, Buryatia etc.
In fact there is so much potential for dissolution that true democracy coming to Russia would see the country fall apart quickly with lots of new nuclear states being created.
Let's wait and see. One thing is for sure: Russia can't afford to lose this war no matter who will rule in Moscow in the future. As per going down in flames, could be, but the chances for Russia of setting diplomatic relations with Latino Republic of California, Caliphate of England or Berber Kingdom of Southern France somewhere in 2050 are equally high.
Because it's set to become part of the Autonomous West Coast. And since russian revanchism technically includes our territory, the moment we're free from D.C., Ukraine gets a nuclear-armed ally *very* intrigued by the prospect of expanding Alaska.
They were going down regardless of war in Ukraine or not. Russia is a dying civilisation and has been since 1980s. Neither peaceful* democracy nor current authoritarianism nor even a Singapore style authoritarian would save Russia from its economic, industrial, demographic and military decline.
*Peaceful as so peaceful Moscow allows the country to dissolve by allowing separatists carve the country up.
IMO Russia has been in terminal decline since 1980s. Sure Putin stymied the decline in 1999-2008 but that was a short lived spurt reliant on fossil fuels.
The death of the USSR and partially western supported deindustrialisation of the 1990s (IMF openly stated goal for Russian economy was to be natural resource extraction and agriculture) destroyed the Russian scientific and industrial capabilities.
Couple with demographic decline, global decarbonisation and Russia's geography, Russia's only future is decline under any scenario.
If it became truly democratic, it would have become a western lackey (but never accepted into EU or NATO and always viewed with distrust and as somewhat barbaric) and if it doesn't it becomes a Chinese lackey.
Indeed if Russia became a full fledged western style democracy, it's decline would have been much quicker as people would have emigrated even more to west (much like people from south central Europe are emigrating to west to the point Bulgarians, Croats etc are on their way to extinction in their homelands due to low birth rates compounded by emigration).
If Russia was a full fledged western democracy, its industrial decline would also have declined even further due to less government intervention in inefficient industries (this happened across a lot of the west - eg look at Australia where according to Harvard School of Business the economy went from a highly diversified one in 1970s to a near third world one in terms of industrial capability, economic diversity, value add, sophistication etc etc).
In a democratic system, separatism would have have skyrocketed. You can't level Grozny in a democratic system.
I actually think Putin etc are all aware of this. Long before the Ukrainian War, Putin and others such as Medvedev lamented Russian decline and predicted future hardship and breakup.
Hence by 2008 the following slogan emerged: "There is Putin - there is Russia, there is no Putin - no Russia."
The sanctions are company specific and don't apply to all things Chinese (or Turkish, Uzebek, etc. US companies violating sanctions are subject to domestic criminal prosecution). So Chinese companies that don't trade in dollars aren't impacted by the sanctions, but they are smaller and less efficient.
Another big source of sanction evasion is India. Just like the Chinese companies, if they don't trade in dollars then the sanctions won't have as much of an impact on them and there is a lot of profit to be made in evading sanctions.
Even when allied countries honor the sanctions and only sell to authorized recipients, some of these recipients re-sell the products to Russia as a third party transaction. Or sometimes the first recipient sells to another recipient who re-sells the products to Russia as a fourth party transaction. These transactions cost Russia more money but they receive the products, nonetheless. Tracking and identifying these third- and fourth-party transactions is more difficult but has been done with limited success. Each disruption of the supply chain costs Russian production time and sometimes even more money.
Higher military costs for Russia puts additional strain on their economy that is already overheating, a condition that will eventually have consequences.
EU countries and the US have increased their defense industries to a limited degree. This is not a WW2 effort when countries devoted 40-60% of their GDP to defense efforts. Granted, productivity is significantly higher now than 70 years ago, but it's major news when a European nation reaches the 2% GDP threshold of defense spending. The size of the economy is also a factor. The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on defense and that represents 40% of the world's defense expenditure. If the US and its allies spent 4% of their GDP on defense spending then all of Ukraine's equipment needs would be met in terms of quantity. (It still takes time for some equipment once production is started. For instance, and IFV or tank takes two years to build). But such an increase would come at a political cost at home. With political self-interest and the rise of authoritarian politics at stake, it is not a decision that governments are willing to make.
The US clearly does not have the stocks to supply Ukraine. The US and EU drew down their stocks to supply Ukraine as they (slowly) increased production. (A faster increase would cost more money not just for the factories, but to increase production of raw materials needed in the factories). The US retained some of their stocks to meet a certain level of worldwide threats whereas some EU countries gave almost all that they had because Russia is their threat. Ukraine's allies will continue to increase the flow of ammo to them but their stated end goals of ammo production is about a third of what would be an ideal supply of ammo.
Israel's ammo usage is significantly less than what Ukraine uses. And it seems that the US will always have enough ammo for Israel even if they disagree on how Israel uses it.
The US does not have enough stocks for Taiwan should China choose to attack it. Some of Taiwan's stocks were sent to Ukraine through the US and other shipments to Taiwan were deferred and shipped to Ukraine instead. Deterrence means having enough military power (and the political will to use it) to convince China cannot succeed in a war to conquer Taiwan. The military power is represented by equipment with sufficient capabilities and ammo. The US is planning to increase its stocks over time, because it is less expensive than rapid production, and is making the assessment that China is sufficiently deterred for the moment. (A war with China would have a major impact on everyone's economy and a key policy for the communists to keep power in China is providing enough domestic neccessities and comforts to satisfy their citizens). In the meantime, China keeps building islands and ramming Philppine fishing and coast guard ships.
The US is not burning through any significant war stocks supplying Ukraine. Most of what the US has donated is old and near time expired.
As an example here's the breakdown of some of the key components provided by US based on things still currently in service in the US military:
0 fighter jets (0% of total)
31 M1 Abrams (0.7% of total)
300 Bradley (8%)
18 M109A6 (1.4%)
2 Patriot batteries (1.4%)
40 HIMARS MLRS (6% - this includes M270 MLRS).
% include units in storage.
A lot of what has been supplied to Ukraine in terms of US built hardware (M109, F-16) actually came from European stocks. A huge chunk of it was out of service, obsolete equipment (eg Leopard I, M113, YPR-765). Even those F-16AM/BMs are currently being retired and replaced by F-35s.
The Europeans are pretty much out of old crap to offload. Most of their militaries were completely gutted by 2021 due to 3 decades of piece dividends. Hence modern equipment is in short supply - eg If Czechia or Belgium wanted to provide a modern medium SAM or modern tanks to Ukraine, they literally don't own those things anymore.
So the US is sitting on a gold mine of equipment with many core systems having reserves counting in the thousands.
It's questionable how much use 3700 Bradleys or 4,650 Abrams or 1250 M109s would be in any war against China unless the US is planning on conquering mainland China (which would prompt a nuclear response unless the Chinese are like modern Russians and don't care about other people invading their country).
The Bradley chassis are going to replace the support vehicles that are using M113s.
During the Cold War, European nations had thousands of tanks. Now they have a few hundred. Since it can take as long as two years to build an IFV or tank, it's good that someone in NATO has a reserve for some unforeseen event.
Generally interesting report, however, info like this one:
"Not counting worn out barrels, Russia lost 19,000 artillery pieces in 20 months, averaging over 900 guns per month. The rate of loss doubled in July and August."
marginally diminish its value.
Oryx reports around 2,000 RU guns and MLRSs lost. Why to post obvious UA PRBS?
Just for the log: while OSINT sources provides an important and nice lower limit for the losses through counting wrecks, the also assessed depletion of stocks more closely correlates with the official numbers in multiple categories.
Not to forget that Oryx reports losses based on footages only. I know some artillery men in person: only 1 out 5 or 6 towed artillery is reported, 1 out of 10 MLRS. Mostly it is not possible/not sanctioned to push footages online due to security reasons. Plus huge amount of 122 and mortars were damaged by NK ammo: it is impossible even to estimate such amount.
Generally i would say 19000 is overestimated, but not too much
Allies should be buying up the raw materials, CNC machines, barrel and other production capacity for its own desperately needed use. Deny the enemy by buying up supplies, in addition to sanctions.
Sounds like the targets are: chromium, cellulose, CNC machines, barrels, locomotive repair parts. Other raw materials I'm sure. And help Ukraine target the rail system.
"The trains are short of parts and 40,000 wagons are out of service because locomotives aren’t available because they need repairs"
Can you elaborate on this, please? If I understand correctly, you mean that these wagons cannot be used because a X number of locomotives are not available for hauling these?
Can someone explain me the process of barrel re-lining?
I thought it was about changing the innermost part of the barrel (the one with rifling). That way the worn barrel can be reused - basically as good as new, but with only a fraction of cost and effort required. I guess if this thing actually exists, then the barrel production calculation has to be re-done.
Large power transformers and sub-stations are not easy to replace. BrukenRuski over on Twitter/X has a good suggestion:
"From St. Petersburg to Lake Baikal there are no other assets more critical to Russia's Industrial Energy Military Complex than 500kV Large Power Transformers (LPTs) of its industrial electricity network. We know 🇺🇦 long range One-Way-Attack (OWA) drones torch them, nicely."
And here's a longer thread of his from 2022. No one paid much attention at the time. Possibly because Ukraine's long-range drones didn't exist then, or maybe the prevailing mindset which said Ukraine was about to collapse.
Quite an interesting article. But I have 1 question if you will. As you stated Russia is using its reserves, and they will hit the wall sooner or later. The same time they are losing tank after tank, artillery piece after artillery piece. My question is - is it possible to reuse barrels from destroyed tanks/artillery piece? And if yes, can it have significant influence on number of barrels available to Russia? I can imagine self propelled howitzer destroyed by drone be damaged beyond repair but still having useful barrel. Of course some vehicles explode to pieces, but not all of them.
This is an interesting read. Globally my company is 90% focused on CNC control systems (although locally we don't do much of it). It would be interesting to see how the sales figures for CNC systems to China from Europe/Japan have tracked throughout the war. My guess is that any windfall resulting from this has not been donated to support Ukraine... Also, it seems there is still some low-hanging fruit for bottle-necking Russian arms manufacture - rail, cotton, chemicals. Allies need to get on to these.
Thanks Don. To see my country’s flag three times on the chemical for explosives export to rf chart is shameful but not surprising. Historical ties dating back to our local fanboys of urss are hard to break. And this even if the snake changed its skin and now gets more support from careless far right industrials.
In fact, the sanctions do not affect Russia much in my opinion, and from my point of view, the Russians are still producing weapons well and excellently, especially artillery, in addition to the fact that North Korea's entry into the line provides great support for it, as well as the Chinese side, which provided a lot of equipment to develop Russian military production. I think that Western pressure on Russia will not continue for long, and Western countries will be forced not to force Russia to use nuclear weapons, and I think that the Russians will do this in relation to the sanctions. Sanctions on the North Korean regime did not affect the production of weapons, military equipment, ammunition, or explosives, and I think cooperation between the Russian and North Korean sides will work on problems even after the war. Western pressure will end once Trump wins the upcoming elections.
Thanks
Велика подяка хто приклав руки до цієї статті, це було дуже інформативно.
Я всім серцем з ЗСУ, і я розумію що наша армія також несе великі втрати, не тільки від артилерії, а від любої зброї, і зменшення стволів збереже більше життів, так є ракети, і авіація, але хочеться вірити що вогневий вал, як у нас називають, він скінчиться з часом.
Bomb the train yards - then they will have more difficulty moving both raw materials and the finished articles around a massive country. Hit the logistics and the army falls
That is easier said than done. My grandfather was repairing tramway rails in Vienna in 1945 as a conscript. They kept them running even under full allied bombardment. Ukraine doesn't have the capacity for that.
Oh what do you suggest then ??????
Hit the locomotives, probably easier said than done, but if successful then they are difficult/slow to be repaired
This invite retaliation and Ukraone is more vulnerable and dependent on railroads.
Come on, don’t you know, the whole supply of russian Far East and Eastern Sibera “hangs” on 2 railroads: BAM and Transsib. There are 4 or 5 bottlenecks there: 4 bridges on Lena/Ienisey and some other rivers + 3 tonnels. Once GUR manages to blow 30-40% of those, russia will be splitted in 2 huge noncorresponding pieces
So is Ukraine split în half by Dniepr. The Russians can atack the bridges far more effectively.It’s not a game worth playing.
That what they do. Hit trains while unloading ammo or fuel. So you get more damage through explosion.
A lot of circumstances were different in WW2 and the impact of allied bombing varied by region. The French railways were destroyed in preperation to D-Day and German units had to drive throughout the theater, at the expense of time, fuel and increased wear and tear on tracks and engines. It took 300 trains to move a panzer division, so even when the German railways increased efficiency through reorganization after 1942, they were never able to fully meet demands.
When the Luftwaffe was severely degraded and allied escort fighters were allowed to shoot anything that moved on their return trips, Germany was losing 40 locomotive a day, which was far more than they could produce. Add to that any damage that happened in rail yards due to bombing, or worse, the destruction of bridges, and an effective rail system that was never able to meet 100% of the military's needs was slowly degraded over time.
All true, but still it is relatively easy to repair railway tracks, as you can reuse a lot of the parts laying around.
That's why already General Sherman ordered his units to heat the steal over the fire of the wood of the rail basement and afterwards bind those, so that they can't be reused. He did that to finally break the backbone of the civilian economy to make them surrender.
Ukraine doesn't have the amount of capabilities to make that damage on the ground neither WWII allied capabilities to deliver that amount of damage by air.
Russia is a target rich environment and Ukraine has a limited, but increasing, number of drones. The train tracks themselves are the easiest component to repair. With so many trains already needing repairs, maintenance facilities would be a good target, as would bridges, the electrical grid that powers half the Russian trains, and the locomotives themselves.
With Russian trains only able to meet 93% of the current demand for transport, any degredation at all would have an impact on military operations and the economy in general.
There are a lot of other targets for Ukraine's strategic drones: ammo depots, aircraft on airbases, equipment and raw material factories, power generators and distribution equipment and oil refineries. Ukraine has to decide how to use their limited resources based on Russia's ability to defend a specific target, the amount of damaged Ukraine's weapons can cause, and the impact that damage will have on Russia's war effort.
Hitting the power substations which feed the Russian railways would be easier. (you then halt all electric trains passing through the area). But you must destroy ALL substations in two continuous districts, even one substation operating is enough to keep the traffic running, even at lower capacity.
I think the «direct» strategy of hitting ammunition storage, airfields and oil production is what hits Russian war efforts most and quickest. Other targets are certainly valid, of course also depending on circumstances, but directly blowing upthe Russian means to fight the war should yield better results than more indirekte strategien like railroafs. The Russian economy is hurting already, hit their war fighting ability.
Good point. It's easy to suggest targets, not so easy to hit them effectively. We have to consider that Ukraine's drones and even their Neptunes do not carry large warheads. I'm sure Ukrainian targeters take into account where, if just one small drone penetrates air defences, it's tiny warhead will do the most damage. It's why they prioritise munition dumps, oil storage tanks, refineries, and increasingly repair shops and warehouse at airfields.
So, Russia may have the will but not have all the means.
The key now is China. Does China needs a war that burns the USA war stocks, but hurts their capacity to continue being the "world factory"? Will the EU countries and USA relocate or reopen critical industries to regain strategic productions?
What will be the cost to Russia of so much dependance on China?
Finally, have the US the stocks to supply Ukraine, Israel and support Taiwan?
"What will be the cost to Russia of so much dependance on China?"
The cost will be enormous. However, in time of war you hardly think about the future.
There are other RU allies, simply they are not at the radar like China.
Not thinking about the future is probably one of the major errors one can do in a war. If we accept Clausewitz that war is continuation of politics with other means then you should always remember the politics. But you are certainly right most people forget, and Putin is no exception. He is a heartbeat (Ramzan Kadyrov) away from a second war in Checken, another from a rebellion in Belorussia… and destroying his ability to control this. And adding an enourmous debut to China in the process. Russia will Go down in flames Even if they win this. So, yes enormous costs.
It's a "lose -lose" situation. The win of the war is lessl painful than overdependance on China. "Go down in flames"???? Such prognosis have been heard last thousand years. No doubts, the costs of erroneous war are enormous, but not that dreadful.
You are obviously right its a loose-loose situation. Overdependence on China is maybe not a big concern if Russia wins strategically, but otherwise expensive. Yes, I think Russia will go down in flames, actually they are doing it now. Although mind you, the war in Ukraine is not enough in itself, there needs to be some additional unrest. But the flames are there. Your line «this has been said before» is trite, and basically yet another version of Russia is invincible. No empire has been so far, neither is Russia. But I agree that Russia can survive Even a defekt in Ukraine. What Russia cannot sustain as an empire is civil wars, and they will come.
After war end (whatever is the outcome), around 1,5 million russ soldiers will come back home. USSR didn’t survive Afgan syndrome, would Russia survive Ukrainian syndrome? I doubt it.
100000s drunk men with hurt bodies and souls will come back, crazy money they used to get will be over very soon, huge amount of unregistered weapons, oligarchs and policemen… look at Caucasus now: Kadyrov announces vendetta to 3 Russian senators from Dagestan live on TV… 20th century, Europe…
Kadyrov is necessary for Putin, but he can also clearly create friction. I was vaguely aware of his conflict with a senator from Dagestan, but threathening on atV was new for me. Could you provide some more information on this?
Russia was always going to be over reliant on China.
The only other outcome was over reliance on west as an untrusted third rate impoverished partner (even if they transitioned over to democracy).
Russia has been in industrial decline for over 30 years now (and before that 30 years of economic stagnation).
The civil wars are already here, just stifled by Moscow's boot - Tartarstan, Chechnya, Bashkortostan, Ingushetia, Pomoria, Kalmykia, Kuban, Circassia, Dagestan, Tuva, Buryatia etc.
In fact there is so much potential for dissolution that true democracy coming to Russia would see the country fall apart quickly with lots of new nuclear states being created.
Whether they would be nuclear states or not is unclear, but a possibility. Unfortunately
Let's wait and see. One thing is for sure: Russia can't afford to lose this war no matter who will rule in Moscow in the future. As per going down in flames, could be, but the chances for Russia of setting diplomatic relations with Latino Republic of California, Caliphate of England or Berber Kingdom of Southern France somewhere in 2050 are equally high.
We will have to wait indeed. But yes, Russia isnt the only country with problems.
Yup, never going to be a Republic of California.
Because it's set to become part of the Autonomous West Coast. And since russian revanchism technically includes our territory, the moment we're free from D.C., Ukraine gets a nuclear-armed ally *very* intrigued by the prospect of expanding Alaska.
Muscovy doesn't need a Pacific Coast. :D
Why do you think that Russia can't lose the war, and would withdrawal from Ukraine constitute losing?
You also forgot the New Texas Republic and North East American Urban Conglomerate.
Personally I always thought France was going to become more of an Islamic Republic than Berber Kingdom.
To be a fly on the wall in 2100 when the sounds of imam's calling the faithful to prayer ring out across western Europe.
I wonder how many rights LGTBTQA+, women and non-Islamic minorities will have in Europe then.
They were going down regardless of war in Ukraine or not. Russia is a dying civilisation and has been since 1980s. Neither peaceful* democracy nor current authoritarianism nor even a Singapore style authoritarian would save Russia from its economic, industrial, demographic and military decline.
*Peaceful as so peaceful Moscow allows the country to dissolve by allowing separatists carve the country up.
IMO Russia has been in terminal decline since 1980s. Sure Putin stymied the decline in 1999-2008 but that was a short lived spurt reliant on fossil fuels.
The death of the USSR and partially western supported deindustrialisation of the 1990s (IMF openly stated goal for Russian economy was to be natural resource extraction and agriculture) destroyed the Russian scientific and industrial capabilities.
Couple with demographic decline, global decarbonisation and Russia's geography, Russia's only future is decline under any scenario.
If it became truly democratic, it would have become a western lackey (but never accepted into EU or NATO and always viewed with distrust and as somewhat barbaric) and if it doesn't it becomes a Chinese lackey.
Indeed if Russia became a full fledged western style democracy, it's decline would have been much quicker as people would have emigrated even more to west (much like people from south central Europe are emigrating to west to the point Bulgarians, Croats etc are on their way to extinction in their homelands due to low birth rates compounded by emigration).
If Russia was a full fledged western democracy, its industrial decline would also have declined even further due to less government intervention in inefficient industries (this happened across a lot of the west - eg look at Australia where according to Harvard School of Business the economy went from a highly diversified one in 1970s to a near third world one in terms of industrial capability, economic diversity, value add, sophistication etc etc).
In a democratic system, separatism would have have skyrocketed. You can't level Grozny in a democratic system.
I actually think Putin etc are all aware of this. Long before the Ukrainian War, Putin and others such as Medvedev lamented Russian decline and predicted future hardship and breakup.
Hence by 2008 the following slogan emerged: "There is Putin - there is Russia, there is no Putin - no Russia."
Like North Korea. It is a major ally of Russia, and what do they have to lose.
The thing they have to loose is North Korea. The only important political goal of Kim is to stay in power.
The sanctions are company specific and don't apply to all things Chinese (or Turkish, Uzebek, etc. US companies violating sanctions are subject to domestic criminal prosecution). So Chinese companies that don't trade in dollars aren't impacted by the sanctions, but they are smaller and less efficient.
Another big source of sanction evasion is India. Just like the Chinese companies, if they don't trade in dollars then the sanctions won't have as much of an impact on them and there is a lot of profit to be made in evading sanctions.
Even when allied countries honor the sanctions and only sell to authorized recipients, some of these recipients re-sell the products to Russia as a third party transaction. Or sometimes the first recipient sells to another recipient who re-sells the products to Russia as a fourth party transaction. These transactions cost Russia more money but they receive the products, nonetheless. Tracking and identifying these third- and fourth-party transactions is more difficult but has been done with limited success. Each disruption of the supply chain costs Russian production time and sometimes even more money.
Higher military costs for Russia puts additional strain on their economy that is already overheating, a condition that will eventually have consequences.
EU countries and the US have increased their defense industries to a limited degree. This is not a WW2 effort when countries devoted 40-60% of their GDP to defense efforts. Granted, productivity is significantly higher now than 70 years ago, but it's major news when a European nation reaches the 2% GDP threshold of defense spending. The size of the economy is also a factor. The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on defense and that represents 40% of the world's defense expenditure. If the US and its allies spent 4% of their GDP on defense spending then all of Ukraine's equipment needs would be met in terms of quantity. (It still takes time for some equipment once production is started. For instance, and IFV or tank takes two years to build). But such an increase would come at a political cost at home. With political self-interest and the rise of authoritarian politics at stake, it is not a decision that governments are willing to make.
The US clearly does not have the stocks to supply Ukraine. The US and EU drew down their stocks to supply Ukraine as they (slowly) increased production. (A faster increase would cost more money not just for the factories, but to increase production of raw materials needed in the factories). The US retained some of their stocks to meet a certain level of worldwide threats whereas some EU countries gave almost all that they had because Russia is their threat. Ukraine's allies will continue to increase the flow of ammo to them but their stated end goals of ammo production is about a third of what would be an ideal supply of ammo.
Israel's ammo usage is significantly less than what Ukraine uses. And it seems that the US will always have enough ammo for Israel even if they disagree on how Israel uses it.
The US does not have enough stocks for Taiwan should China choose to attack it. Some of Taiwan's stocks were sent to Ukraine through the US and other shipments to Taiwan were deferred and shipped to Ukraine instead. Deterrence means having enough military power (and the political will to use it) to convince China cannot succeed in a war to conquer Taiwan. The military power is represented by equipment with sufficient capabilities and ammo. The US is planning to increase its stocks over time, because it is less expensive than rapid production, and is making the assessment that China is sufficiently deterred for the moment. (A war with China would have a major impact on everyone's economy and a key policy for the communists to keep power in China is providing enough domestic neccessities and comforts to satisfy their citizens). In the meantime, China keeps building islands and ramming Philppine fishing and coast guard ships.
Well said, Don.
The US is not burning through any significant war stocks supplying Ukraine. Most of what the US has donated is old and near time expired.
As an example here's the breakdown of some of the key components provided by US based on things still currently in service in the US military:
0 fighter jets (0% of total)
31 M1 Abrams (0.7% of total)
300 Bradley (8%)
18 M109A6 (1.4%)
2 Patriot batteries (1.4%)
40 HIMARS MLRS (6% - this includes M270 MLRS).
% include units in storage.
A lot of what has been supplied to Ukraine in terms of US built hardware (M109, F-16) actually came from European stocks. A huge chunk of it was out of service, obsolete equipment (eg Leopard I, M113, YPR-765). Even those F-16AM/BMs are currently being retired and replaced by F-35s.
The Europeans are pretty much out of old crap to offload. Most of their militaries were completely gutted by 2021 due to 3 decades of piece dividends. Hence modern equipment is in short supply - eg If Czechia or Belgium wanted to provide a modern medium SAM or modern tanks to Ukraine, they literally don't own those things anymore.
So the US is sitting on a gold mine of equipment with many core systems having reserves counting in the thousands.
It's questionable how much use 3700 Bradleys or 4,650 Abrams or 1250 M109s would be in any war against China unless the US is planning on conquering mainland China (which would prompt a nuclear response unless the Chinese are like modern Russians and don't care about other people invading their country).
But the US won't release much of anything really.
I was speaking of ammo.
The Bradley chassis are going to replace the support vehicles that are using M113s.
During the Cold War, European nations had thousands of tanks. Now they have a few hundred. Since it can take as long as two years to build an IFV or tank, it's good that someone in NATO has a reserve for some unforeseen event.
US intransigence is why European NATO countries should exhaust their active stocks by sending everything to Ukraine.
Then all of a sudden the US will be in a position where it has to backfill. Bluff calling time, Europe.
Generally interesting report, however, info like this one:
"Not counting worn out barrels, Russia lost 19,000 artillery pieces in 20 months, averaging over 900 guns per month. The rate of loss doubled in July and August."
marginally diminish its value.
Oryx reports around 2,000 RU guns and MLRSs lost. Why to post obvious UA PRBS?
Just for the log: while OSINT sources provides an important and nice lower limit for the losses through counting wrecks, the also assessed depletion of stocks more closely correlates with the official numbers in multiple categories.
Not to forget that Oryx reports losses based on footages only. I know some artillery men in person: only 1 out 5 or 6 towed artillery is reported, 1 out of 10 MLRS. Mostly it is not possible/not sanctioned to push footages online due to security reasons. Plus huge amount of 122 and mortars were damaged by NK ammo: it is impossible even to estimate such amount.
Generally i would say 19000 is overestimated, but not too much
Allies should be buying up the raw materials, CNC machines, barrel and other production capacity for its own desperately needed use. Deny the enemy by buying up supplies, in addition to sanctions.
Sounds like the targets are: chromium, cellulose, CNC machines, barrels, locomotive repair parts. Other raw materials I'm sure. And help Ukraine target the rail system.
"The trains are short of parts and 40,000 wagons are out of service because locomotives aren’t available because they need repairs"
Can you elaborate on this, please? If I understand correctly, you mean that these wagons cannot be used because a X number of locomotives are not available for hauling these?
Can someone explain me the process of barrel re-lining?
I thought it was about changing the innermost part of the barrel (the one with rifling). That way the worn barrel can be reused - basically as good as new, but with only a fraction of cost and effort required. I guess if this thing actually exists, then the barrel production calculation has to be re-done.
Large power transformers and sub-stations are not easy to replace. BrukenRuski over on Twitter/X has a good suggestion:
"From St. Petersburg to Lake Baikal there are no other assets more critical to Russia's Industrial Energy Military Complex than 500kV Large Power Transformers (LPTs) of its industrial electricity network. We know 🇺🇦 long range One-Way-Attack (OWA) drones torch them, nicely."
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1845677350152769740.html
And here's a longer thread of his from 2022. No one paid much attention at the time. Possibly because Ukraine's long-range drones didn't exist then, or maybe the prevailing mindset which said Ukraine was about to collapse.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1594901680654540800.html
Thanks for the read!
I'll offer you this quick one, use translator:
https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/120329414/sojapaevik-965-paev-kaks-soomlast-sattusid-kokku-uks-voitles-ukraina-teine-venemaa-poolel
Quite an interesting article. But I have 1 question if you will. As you stated Russia is using its reserves, and they will hit the wall sooner or later. The same time they are losing tank after tank, artillery piece after artillery piece. My question is - is it possible to reuse barrels from destroyed tanks/artillery piece? And if yes, can it have significant influence on number of barrels available to Russia? I can imagine self propelled howitzer destroyed by drone be damaged beyond repair but still having useful barrel. Of course some vehicles explode to pieces, but not all of them.
This is an interesting read. Globally my company is 90% focused on CNC control systems (although locally we don't do much of it). It would be interesting to see how the sales figures for CNC systems to China from Europe/Japan have tracked throughout the war. My guess is that any windfall resulting from this has not been donated to support Ukraine... Also, it seems there is still some low-hanging fruit for bottle-necking Russian arms manufacture - rail, cotton, chemicals. Allies need to get on to these.
Uh?
How does the cotton get from Kazakhstan to the US?
Thanks Don for this interesting article
Thanks Don. To see my country’s flag three times on the chemical for explosives export to rf chart is shameful but not surprising. Historical ties dating back to our local fanboys of urss are hard to break. And this even if the snake changed its skin and now gets more support from careless far right industrials.
In fact, the sanctions do not affect Russia much in my opinion, and from my point of view, the Russians are still producing weapons well and excellently, especially artillery, in addition to the fact that North Korea's entry into the line provides great support for it, as well as the Chinese side, which provided a lot of equipment to develop Russian military production. I think that Western pressure on Russia will not continue for long, and Western countries will be forced not to force Russia to use nuclear weapons, and I think that the Russians will do this in relation to the sanctions. Sanctions on the North Korean regime did not affect the production of weapons, military equipment, ammunition, or explosives, and I think cooperation between the Russian and North Korean sides will work on problems even after the war. Western pressure will end once Trump wins the upcoming elections.