57 Comments
User's avatar
Bill Harrison's avatar

That's great! I'm sure the million-plus casualties of the war will be encouraged to hear this! At least their sacrifices won't have been in vain.

Expand full comment
Paul Stone's avatar

Russia is responsible for the war. The point behind this analysis is that even if you don’t believe there is a moral imperative to arm Ukraine, there are also other reasons to do so.

Expand full comment
James's avatar

Ukraine's sacrifices will not have been in vain the day the last invader leaves Ukraine - or even if that day is not reached, because of the millions of Ukrainians who have been saved from living under the Russian yoke. The brave defenders of Ukraine have saved generations yet unborn from slavery.

We'll never know how many lives in other eastern European countries they have also saved with their courageous resistance to the brutal occupiers.

It is the Russian casualties we must really feel sorry for - for they have died in vain, for the hubris of one foolish old man. The only consolation for their families is that the invasion has failed - so their fallen have only their own actions to rue and repent, not those inflicted by the Russian state on Ukrainians not yet born.

Expand full comment
Rafallo's avatar

Well said.

Expand full comment
Russia News Reports's avatar

"We have to conscript Ukrainians to train our battlefield AI" sounds so crazy and godless it is hard to believe this isn't a parody article on the Babylon Bee.

Expand full comment
Paul Stone's avatar

That’s not what the article said though.

Expand full comment
Spike's avatar

Nice numbers and a nice return on investment. However, that is exactly the problem for future investments.

You need to see, that for investments the history is not relevant. Only future returns are of interest and, as brutal as it is, Ukraine delivered a too high ROI and basically ripped the market of further revenue.

E.g. Russian tank stock has been depleted. So any Dollar spent now will deliver less destroyed tanks then it used to be, because anti tank missiles will be also used against bunkers, ladas and other targets. As Russian industry is not capable of building up a proper market supply and stocks are also running low, there is even less likelihood of a proper return. Also from a strategic perspective is the threat of Russian tanks overrunning the European plains is gone. Heck, if Poland is fulfilling their plans, they alone are more capable than the Russians will be.

Same is even more valid for fixed wing aircraft as there is almost no supply anymore possible, because they are too scared to even fly into range.

Furthermore us the intelligence gathered on moving targets on valid for infantry as the Soviet style tanks, IFVs and APCs are running out of stock. Yes, some similarities can be drawn, but the future generations of those vehicles will have different protection.

From a geopolitical impact point a devestment is highly advised. If Russias capabilities are even more degraded, China will have it even more easy to dominate Asia. Who on this planet would like to have that with the exception of Xi. He is dreaming already of reestablishing communism in Russia and get cheap raw materials from now Russian territories on favourable terms as Russians industrial base is continually degraded by Ukrainians. They are making them perfect for Colonialism in a mercantalistic sense like the Imperialistic powers of the 18/19 century did with most of the world.

Why on earth would you continue spending money?

Expand full comment
Commenter's avatar

The entire "Russia as a counterbalance to China" rhetoric always was and always will be absolutely retarded. Just astonishingly ignorant. Anyone making even a peep in that direction can be dismissed entirely.

Expand full comment
Spike's avatar

Of course, not that this ever happened, or so

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

Expand full comment
Jim the Enchanter's avatar

Good points, but there's an additional consideration if we go full cynical about it.

Putin might pretend openness to deals with the US or even Western Europe, but he won't ever commit to those, he'll rather become a colonial administrator for China. So, degrading his war machine until it implodes, making him vulnerable to whatever interest groups that are willing to topple him, then offering some treaty to the new regime that might just want to balance China a bit more, seems to align with the long-term interests of the West.

Expand full comment
Spike's avatar

In a machiavellian approach, that doesn't matter and no I am not cynical. I just see it at this point the most rational explanation for what is going on.

Free to be convinced by better arguments or facts, not by moral arguments.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 15
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Spike's avatar

That is irrelevant.

Expand full comment
Jim the Enchanter's avatar

Okay, let's call it machiavellian, not cynical. I was raising a practical point, not a moral one.

It would make sense for the West, in the strictest machiavellian terms, to keep investing in Ukraine until Putin's regime collapses - because they don't need to commit boots on the ground, and Putin will always be hostile, and at this point he won't be able to push back against Chinese interests anyway, even if he wanted to.

Of course, it's absolutely possible that our countries will want to devest, and think they are immoral, but smart. They would in fact be immoral, but idiotic.

Expand full comment
Spike's avatar

The key issue is that you are talking about the West as one entity, which it never was as every country has different interests.

Anders Puck Nielsen had this in one of his videos regarding the Korean War, where Denmark was an US ally and delivered only the very minimum. The same is in Europe today. The threat to Poland and the Baltics is not comparable to the threat to Spain due to geography.

Expand full comment
James's avatar

It has other positive returns. The more thorough the defeat of Russia the longer she will be deterred from the next war. It is even possible that it will lead to the collapse and splintering of the entire Russian federation, making future invasion of Europe all but impossible.

Such an outcome could even lead to the end of the Russian nuclear threat - rump states might be persuaded to part with their nuclear weapons for cash, conventional arms or incorporation into a European security umbrella.

Expand full comment
Spike's avatar

Is that in the interest of the US. I argue no:

Splintered Russia will leave Siberia for China. Can also be politically.

What happens to the 6k nukes laying around.

Expand full comment
James's avatar

It is in the interest of the whole world - even the Russians. So, yes, it is in the US interest.

And it is probably our one good chance to solve the problem of those nukes, as I outlined.

Expand full comment
Researching Ukraine's avatar

I purposefully stayed away from opinion or politics in those piece. But I think what is obvious is that the "minerals deal" to repay the US is nonsense. Or that the American tax payer is on the line for billions. All completely debunked.

Expand full comment
leonid's avatar

Метод оцінки боєздатності війська і шансів на перемогу у війні

https://aeroabc.blogspot.com/2022/06/blog-post.html?m=1

Expand full comment
Rafallo's avatar

A few notes:

1. I don't know if chatGPT was used when writing the article, but it really really really looks like it was. The whole formatting of sections with lists in them smells of chatGPT a lot. I don't think it's bad to use a tool like this (smartly), but either way I don't like the way the final article looks. Please treat this as a friendly feedback, not an accusation, I don't mean to devalue the author's work here.

2. I'm also not a fan of the concept of trying to convince immoral people that moral values are worth real money. It won't work and it is devaluing things that are priceless. Already we see several Russian trolls in the comments trying to play this out for RU propaganda - that the West is supposedly forcing Ukraine to lose lives for its own benefits. As if it was the West that started the war or that Ukraine doesn't want to fight, but needs to be forced. But either way, the propaganda works on some people, because the equation of "we gain billions while thousands die for it" is powerful on imagination. And thus people who are heartless, egotistical and immoral (Trump administration) can pretend their policy is the moral one.

3. The reason it won't work is because there is a presupposition behind these calculations, with which the people opposed to US aid for Ukraine disagree with. Specifically, that Russia is an enemy. If Russia is enemy, then helping Ukraine is obvious. If Russia is not an enemy, then the biggest points on the list do not apply (if it's not enemy, we don't need to weaken it). Therefore it would make more sense IMHO to show why Russia is and will remain an enemy to the whole free world, including US.

Expand full comment
James's avatar

If someone is so stupid or ignorant as to not realise that Russia is the enemy of everything good and worthwhile then that person can be disregarded - unless or until they take steps to overcome the deficiency.

Russia destroys for the sake of destruction.

It destroys peace and harmony. It destroys political discourse, truth, and undersea cables - and kills people in parks in Salisbury.

You may not be at war with Russia - but know well that Russia is at war with you.

Expand full comment
Rafallo's avatar

I wish we could just disregard ignorant and stupid people, but they are currently steering the foreign affairs of the most influential country on Earth...

Expand full comment
Tupolev16's avatar

God, what drugs do you take.))))

"undersea cables". Btw, not a single case of cable disorder is confirmed to have any Russian intervention. Just propaganda for EU citizens which are fed by BS to justify collapse of industries, gradual decrease of living standards and migrants' striking criminal rate.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 15
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Tupolev16's avatar

Hand on heart, never considered EU an enemy of Russia. My IMHO, EU is ruled by Deep State, not national leaders. They make EU citizens think that Russia is an enemy, disguising by that economics disaster and turning of EU into khalipates.

Absolutely not arguing all the UA affair for Russia as a disaster in all means, still, cynically speaking, it's a local conflict which bears zero danger to EU, to say nothing about US.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 15
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Tupolev16's avatar

"but I would have thought that actions in Georgia, Crimea, Donbas and finally the full scale invasion might have also had a slight influence on EU leadership and population?" Noone arguing that EU population (especially in Eastern Europe with phantom pains of the Soviet past) could be scared to death. However, EU politicians and, especially, generals perfectly realise that by all means, primarialy military and economically can Russia dare more than within the borders of the former USSR.

Expand full comment
Hans Torvatn's avatar

Lead by Deep state? Apart from Deep state being a meaningless concept Eu isn’t lead. Lead would imply a direction. EU is reasonably good at crisis management. That’s it.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 16
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Sarcastosaurus's avatar

...and millions of Russians are doing their utmost to prove they're no 'enemies of the EU' by volunteering to get slaughtered in Ukraine, while killing Ukrainians?

Expand full comment
Tupolev16's avatar

Tom, as I always say, 90+% can't think independently, no matter whether you in EU, Ruassia or Ukraine. Russians thnk that they fight nazis, Ukranians think that they fight for freedom. At the end, both are just puppets

Expand full comment
Russia News Reports's avatar

Not sure about the continent, but the UK has already made it clear that migrants will *not* be expected to serve their new country in a war with Russia, just indigenous Brits. "Be assaulted by migrants and be killed in foreign wars" are the two things the native European has to look forward to.

Expand full comment
Rafallo's avatar

Make up your mind, propagandists. If there will be no war, as you claim (Russia would never attack anyone), nobody will fight in it.

Expand full comment
Russia News Reports's avatar

Well even when Russia wasn't doing anything, British troops were helping Bush invade Afghanistan and Iraq. And per capita, the British spilled more blood in the sand than anyone else. What freedumbs did you lose in Helmand province? :)

A cynical observer might suggest that your government just hates you.

Expand full comment
Oskar Krempl's avatar

Ah so the USSR never invaded Afghanistan, which started a war, that ruined the country completely and made it a playground for extremists?

In which other universe are you living?

Expand full comment
Hans Torvatn's avatar

And how many Russian lives are lost in attacks in the Ukrainan war? A cynical observer might count more lives lost there, even per capita than Brits lost in Afghanistan. Maybe the Russian government hates the Russian people!

Expand full comment
Oskar Krempl's avatar

Ah, you remind me that the RF tried to flood Finnland with 3rd world migrants, so Finnland closed the border. I am eager for your explanation, why the 'peace loving' Gollum in Moscow would do something like that? 😁

Expand full comment
Tupolev16's avatar

Russia was just giving chance to numerous freedom fighters, LGBT activists, prisoners of conscience, and etc. to reach well-deserved asylum in Finland. )))))

Expand full comment
Oskar Krempl's avatar

Ah I understand, so first they imported them to export them later to the west. What a pity that Finland didn't understand the benevolant gesture of good will from "Gollum", who just wanted to destabilize them for the greater good of the RF, as this is part of their special mission in the world. 🤔😁

Expand full comment
EugenLend's avatar

You yourself understand perfectly well that you are lying, but you continue your dirty work. Russian = liar!

Expand full comment
Hans Torvatn's avatar

Just out of curiosity. What would it take to convince you that Russia did cut an undersea cable? And is it Russia who does it if a third party is hired?

Expand full comment
Mike Green's avatar

Where are you from? Are you Russian?

Expand full comment
Russia News Reports's avatar

'"we gain billions while thousands die for it" is powerful on imagination.'

Indeed it is, but you guys said it, not us :) And that's been the template for every US war since 1945.

Expand full comment
Rafallo's avatar

It's so great that this has not been the template for Russia and Soviet Union. They were always only coming up with brotherly help. We Poles are so glad for it!

Expand full comment
Russia News Reports's avatar

Factually, yes, though that's not a high bar to get over. More than 80% of all wars on earth since 1945 have been started by the USA.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2345663/us-initiated-81-global-armed-conflicts-from-1945-to-2001

Expand full comment
Hans Torvatn's avatar

But this war was started by Russia. So since you don’t like people starting wars, could you tell Putin to go home? That would end the war too.

Expand full comment
Sarcastosaurus's avatar

Erm, nope. Alone the fact the 'source' of that article is a post by the Chinese Embassy in Russia, and that this is counting 248 armed conflicts around the World since 1945 - is indicative of this entire story being BS.

I'm editor of six book-series doing very little else but discussing all the possible wars fought since 1945 (if you want to check: https://www.helion.co.uk/people/tom-cooper.php), and can tell you: not only were nearly 400 of wars fougth since 1945, but the USA were responsible for less than a fifth of them, and that at most.

....which in turn is the reason why such like you are falling for the BS spread by the Chinese Embassy in Russia: you all have no trace of clue about the mass of the wars fought since 1945 (which, BTW, is valid for about 99% of the US and Western public, too) - because the mass of wars in question were not involving the USA, and thus remain under-reported.

Expand full comment
Researching Ukraine's avatar

This is a Rand-style paper paired way down to be palatable for Substack. The ordering and outline form makes it much more readable. If it was just paragraphs or a "word-wall" no one would read it.

Expand full comment
PeterL's avatar

I think we're long past the concept of USA acting in its own strategic interests at this point.

Voters and politicians are currently making decisions based on "alt facts" and are predicting outcomes based on "I feel it will work out."

A recession is badly needed to provide a reality check, no analysis of future negative consquences is going to be believed in the first place. And as a bonus a recession will bring the price of Russia's oil down.

Expand full comment
JG's avatar

Cost benefit analysis is my jam; I like this. Very well done Ben, excellent work. This is the kind of report that needs to be laid out. True, certain idiots won't care, but this kind of tally adds further Strenght to 'support' arguments. Good work 👍

Expand full comment
Piotr's avatar

Well, what is the source of those numbers? Battlefield AI Dataset ($25B–$100B) - this "estimate" spans over two orders of magnitude, so this is not estimate, this is a guess. Accepting 400% error I can "estimate" nearly everything.

Russian Military Degradation ($500B–$1T) - while it is the truth that Russia lost a lot of equipment, we have to remember that 1) they lost mostly land forces equipment; air force, navy, nuclear, cosmic forces are untouched. 2) Russian army degraded in some aspects, but it also developed totally new capabilities that the rest of NATO, including USA is lacking - drones, electronic warfare on the level of companies (if not platoons). 3) Russian army has tens of thousands soldiers with real battlefield experience, again, something that NATO armies are lacking. They have people who spent winter in the trenches.

I remember what happened on Polish-Belarus border when Belarus started its operation of smuggling to Poland illegal emigrants - many Polish soldiers, sent to guard the border, were complaining that they were wet and cold, they didn't have nice, warm place to sleep, that they haven't got a hot meal every day. Well, boys (there were no girls there), that was peanuts as compared to what Russian and Ukrainians soldiers were passing through. Watch some films.

4) Russia developed new skills to fight western equipment, Himmars that were considered "magic weapon" that will always hit the target, turned out to be jammable, as any other weapon, and their undoubted strengths could be fought. Similarly HARM missiles. Russia was learning too. After a few months Russians adjusted.

So, we can also claim that it is the opposite, Russian army developed new skills is MORE dangerous and MORE capable. Worst, it is passing it experience to their friends, for instance from North Korea, which troops had a bad first entrance on the Kursk battlefield, had significant losses, but then it regrouped, learned from its painful mistakes and made a difference, what finally led to Ukrainian withdrawal from the area.

So, North Korean army gets more capable, and there is more pressure that way on US troops in South Korea.

Strategic Deterrence ($100B+) - Sorry, but this is total bollocks, Arctic security? How? "Baltic corridor reinforcement" what? What reinforcement? Poland is rising its military spending, but this is related with military equipment prices inflation and does not translate to actual capabilities, at least not in the short run, money does not equal capabilities. Baltic states are making their efforts, but we will see results not earlier than in 5-7 years.

Germany is bullshitting everyone about "one brigade that will be sent to Lithuania" but everyone knows, that there will be no brigade, as Germany simply does not have one ready for the fight, even on their own ground. And the only countries that have some real capabilities - France and Greece, are not exactly rushing to Estonia.

So if the corridor is to be hold it is on US Army, like it or not. And, given the current situation, it may happen that Lithuania will be defended mostly through twits full of contempt for Russia and Putin who decided to "defend Russian minority in Narva, Estonia" (Estonia has 21% Russian minority).

For now, if Baltic corridor should be defended,

Expand full comment
Marton Sunrise's avatar

No Naval losses?

Whatever happened to the Black Sea fleet?

Airforce untouched

One can count the number of operational AWAC-type planes on the fingers of one hand

Expand full comment
Anly's avatar

Thanks for this summary, it’s been so needed.

I can only add, that gathering from a number of sources of information it becomes clear that the total number of financial aid to Ukraine stays uncertain. The total sum Ukraine actually has received remains even more unclear.

I trust this arithmetics , where the Ukrainian- Americans calculate that not $300 billions, like our dear President says, not $175 billions like our sources say, but about 70 billions Ukraine was promised, $30 billions Ukraine actually received in weapons and Ukrainian heros do magic with those financial crumbs.

https://protectukrainenow.org/en/report

Expand full comment