Hello everybody! Yes, I know: on this blog you want to read the latest news from the War in Ukraine. Well, sorry, but sometimes I cannot but disappoint you. Principally because the state of ‘western civilisation’ is certainly reaching entirely new levels of… ‘development’… so much so, sometimes I can’t hold back.
While that may be true he is consistent in one thing: supporting his own ego and lining his pockets. (Ok two more things). That might be dangerous to Russia, if he suddenly decides he could earn money on winning the war. Russias best outcome of the war might be a defeated Trump quarreling about the deafeat and abosbing all internal energy in the next year. Russia needs a divided USA. But, he will certainly deliver on that as well if elected.
Maybe Trump could sell Ukraine to Putin (but is he the only one bearing this risk?). That is the main scary thing. But friend with Russia he is not. He's following his own interests. We will see.
It's impossible to bankrupt Russia this way because Russia makes nearly no profits with oil-refined products, they are exporting crude oil instead - and make enough money on it to not only hold their economy, but also buy modern Western industrial equipment (sunction-circumvented easily) in droves to build new military factories.
It's a cost-effective strike campaign, yet not any kind of decisive one - just an attempt to limit the Russian capabilities with means at hand.
Crude Oil export was 2 times bigger als Product so oil product are important(15-20% of all export), but because of less refinery capacity, they need to sell more crude oil, then price go down. These attack cost bilions on repair and maybe some other bilions on selling cheaper oil. To get faster result UA needs to attack more refineries or also maybe some oil/ gas terminals. Another thing is that also transport of oil product on 2000 km can be problematic if many refineries are destroyed. Next year UA plans to close some pipeline to EU, so there will be also problem how to transport enough gas and oil for RU. IF and how long can RU live with that economic know only very few people( maybe Nabulina) most of people do some predictions without having any good source, because to much lying, hidden infos and too many thing can changed.
Thank you very much, Tom, as much as I am relieved that the front has stabilized to some degree, I can understand your concerns about the destruction in the hinterland only too well.
This war of attrition is so diverse, encompassing so much destruction on so many different levels, all important for the functioning of both civil society and warfare, that I don't really know how much longer it can go on like this.
The Russians are doomed, no doubt about this, but I am very worried that they will be able to bring about some kind of collapse in Ukraine before they themselves implode - after all, they unfortunately have a wide choice.
I fear the answer to the 'year of decision' is that the Russians manage to destroy almost all of Ukraine's remaining power plants. That's then game over, because they can't import enough electricity from the west, or build new power plants in a space of months before next winter.
Zero chance it will make much difference in Ukraine. They will never surrender. Think Great Britain under relentless assaults of the Luftwaffe with 50,000 English civilians killed from Nazi airstrikes alone. Literally thousands of merchant ships sunk in the Atlantic by 400 Nazi U-Boats in 1942-3. They will just ration everything further and pull together even stronger. Zelenskiy is Churchill. Pudding cannot survive this forever because his oligarchs are getting increasingly poorer. Thank you.
Ukrainian situation is far more complicated than Great Britain in 1939-45.
Many Ukrainians are not interested in fighting. Huge numbers (millions) have escaped to the west and even today draft dodging is endemic, facilitated by corrupt recruiters. Indeed in August 2023 all the heads of every single one Ukraine's regional army recruitment centres were sacked due to corruption.
Even before the war started in 2014 Ukrainians were mainly moving out of Ukraine.
Ukraine (but also Russian) army average age is over 40 years old. Young people are exempt from conscription until age 25. However many young people have left Ukraine and have been for decades.
National solidarity isn't so coherent in Ukraine. There are still many pro-Russian holdouts and things like endemic corruption stymy loyalty or willingness to fight against some segments of the community.
So whilst there are many patriots in Ukraine, there are also many people who either don't care, don't want to fight or who are still pro-Russians.
Britain in 1939-41 was a far more coherent cultural entity.
Russia's extreme authoritarian system and essentially serf culture also gives it massive resilience (much like Japan and Germany's cultural factors and totalitarianism meant they kept resisting until they were totally destroyed).
I think this is why the future of the war is a frozen conflict. There could be black swan events but given everything we've seen frozen conflict is most likely. Even (now ex) US Joint Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, said this war could easily last 10 years.
It could be frozen and last a long time, sure, but they've had no F16s and limited numbers of Patriots, not to mention limited artillery shells and missiles for six months. Now that all that has changed, it seems premature to render judgement. My point is they will never surrender and will pull together further especially if they get Crimea back.
The UK was in very bad shape at the outset of WW2 because Chamberlain was an appeaser and didn't want to fight. Halifax also wanted to cut a deal with Hitler. Churchill refused to offer any kind of deal and demanded total Nazi surrender.
They had a very divided Parliament. The King knew they needed Churchill so that helped. Churchill knew once the USA starting fully supporting the UK, that Germany and Italy would eventually fall. It's shame it took so long for the USA to enter the war once it was attacked by Japan. Ukraine has the support of most of the Western world. And if Biden wins in five months the aid will only increase. I still think Pudding may not make it too far past November if Biden wins. They may be resilient but the suffering there is off the charts and their nation already collapsed once under much less pressure in 1991.
First whereas F-16 and Patriot are very good systems, they are not guaranteed war winners. In fact Ukraine is still missing several key aerial systems that the US has - dedicated SEAD aircraft, dedicated SEAD units, stealth aircraft, a long range interceptor of at least 4.5 generation, 5th generation networking capabilities and a few other tidbits.
F-35 would solve a lot of these issues but that's not on the board.
Secondly like Russia, Ukraine has problems in conducting offensive warfare against deep defences (as exemplified by their failed 2023 offensive). Both sides have been unable to coordinate more than small units (platoons, companies). There's nothing at high levels.
----
As for Britain:
You are essentially comparing Britain pre-1939 with Ukraine circa 2024. Britain pre-1939 is more analogous to Ukraine pre-2022.
Chamberlain might have been an appeaser in 1938 but he did declare war on German in 1939. Chamberlain was also instrumental in getting rearmament started - everything from small arms to Spitfires/Hurricanes to tank programs to ships.
Britain was in no shape to go to war in 1938 and Chamberlain brought time for the British.
Churchill became PM in May 1940 by which stage Britain and Germany had been at war for 8 months and by which stage British rearmament had begun in full swing.
Up to 2022 Ukraine had not bothered with any kind of systemic rearmament. The country was too dysfunctional, corrupt and poor. Too many of its people including head of opposition weren't just pro-Russian, they essentially were Russian (Eg Viktor Medvedchuk - born in Russia, exiled to Russia)!
---------
As for USSR in 1991 and Russia 2024, the comparison is not the same.
- Perestroika destroyed the power of the Soviet elites by allowing ethnic nationalists and dissidents to speak out again. They could point out fallacies in Soviet system or agitate for independence without fear of imprisonment.
Putin's more clever than that. He's running a far more authoritarian system where there is no dissent. Short of the elites rising up, there's no one to counter him.
He is closer to Stalin than Gorbachev.
- In 1939 Stalin's Red Army suffered 313,000+ casualties against little Finland (even smaller than Ukraine).
Stalin remained in power. Why? Because there was no opposition and he ruled with an iron fist.
Gorbachev's read army suffered 50,000 casualties and the system toppled? Why, because Gorbachev's Perestroika allowed mothers to complain about their dead sons.
Bare in mind Russia was humiliated in First Chechen War and the system didn't collapse.
Indeed total Russian military casualties in 2 Chechen Wars are unknown but estimated at anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 (not known because it's kept secret).
Again by the time Putin rumbled around in 1999 the political system had shut down dissent.
-------
The parallels today in Russia are closer to USSR in 1939 than they are to 1991.
Likelihood of collapse is not likely. In fact as Zelensky has stated, West does not want Russia to lose because they don't want risk Russian collapse. So the West won't let Ukraine win decisively.
There are few if any parallels to the USSR in 1939. The USA kept Stalin and the USSR alive in the early years of WW2 because we were allies then and it served our interests with the UK to force Hitler to fight a two front war. We were sending them arms and sustenance as fast as we could.
The Battle of Stalingrad was the major defeat of the Nazis leading to the fall of Hitler. He made a fatal mistake by overextending his reach and got his arm cut off by a very severe winter there. As a strategist he proved to be an idiot just like Pudding. NATO has now doubled its border with Russian by enrolling Finland who can also fight very well. NATO is now much stronger as a result.
As for Ukraine's failed offensive, which is true, they had no air support in attacking heavily entrenched Russian positions. Also did not ATACMS and other long range missiles. It never had a remote chance of succeeding it was just to buy more time.
That is about to change. The West would love to see Russian collapse because the longer term strategy is to weaken China who is heavily subsidizing their war effort with money, exports, and political leverage with other partners. They have formed a new axis of evil with NK and Iran, all mortal enemies of the West.
Evidence of this can be seen in the USA's attempt to crash the Russian stock market last week which caused a bank run in Moscow until China bailed them out with yuan. Nobody knows what will happen in the long run but there are global consequences to all that is happening in Ukraine involving two superpowers both far stronger than Russia or the USSR in WW2 for the matter.
Now that the EU elections are over the USA election is the biggest variable driving the possible outcomes in Ukraine. The Trump/Biden debates are rapidly approaching and will be very interesting. The primary goal of the West is how to win in Ukraine WITHOUT triggering a broader conflict. It's a delicate balance.
there's a possibility to install multiple diesel power generators, distributed around the country.
These usually go up to 3-4 MW each, which is not bad for large villages (that's how many Greek islands are still electrified, because the Aegean archipelago is not easy to connect every island to the mainland energy distribution system)
He can't destroy all power plants because nearly 45% of our energy generation is nuclear power plants. So it's could be hard winter but we will survive and kill all russofashists in our country borders
Thanks Tom, great read. There are many bitter words to be said about the so called West. However, I believe the economic aspect of this war is your blind spot. You keep talking about "freezing" the conflict, like many in NATO/EU countries do. However, this is fantasy.
It is not possible to freeze/pause/temporarily stop a war, while a country is running a war economy. It simply cannot be done and expect anything else than the total economic collapse. Like many others, you are misconceiving the difference between colonial conflicts (Chechnya, Afghanistan, 2014 invasion of Ukraine) and a total war in Ukraine today. Russia cannot go back to a civilian economy and build up/rebuild the military, because it will end the current regime. The inevitable economic collapse and political vacuum, may lead to the repeat of the dissolution of the USSR, when 15 new, sovereign countries were founded.
Russia today, no longer has any advanced civilian economy. The mostly state companies working for the war effort today, will be completely uncompetitive. If you want to see what will happen to Russia's economy if it reverts back to the civilian mode, look at the Russian automotive industry. Today, virtually all cars are Chinese, at best assembled in Russia from complete Chinese kits. Often they are all made in China and simply "made in Russia" label slapped onto them after crossing the border. In at least one of the former car factories (VW IIRC), they cut the machines to pieces because they didn't have anything else to do with them.
Freezing the conflict must lead to reverting to the civilian economy, because it is necessary to rebuild and prepare for the next round. For today's Russia, reverting to the civilian ecnomy, while keeping the defence spending, will mean the total economic collapse and becoming a 100% Chinese vassal. All advanced (and many basic as well) parts of the economy will be taken by Chinese businesses and imports. Moscow will not be able to do anything about it, because they rely totally on the trade with China.
Last but not least, you are talking about the salaries in the Russian military and defence sector as if it was caused by some great economic performance. Russia is simply bleeding dry their entire civilian economy and the savings of their people. Those salary increases are still not keeping up with inflation. You are writing about it as if bankrupting not just the state but the entire population was not only sustainable in the long term but also a sound economic management. Madness.
What I mean with 'freezing the conflict' - is 'freezing it in its current condition'. One where 'Russian army is advancing' (even if not at all, though at horrible cost). Pudding retains incredible financial reserves, and even once the economy might collapse (must admit: I'm having it hard to imagine this, not because I would be misconceiving the difference between colonial conflicts and this total war, but because Russia has so many natural sources) - he's going to find few problems to obtain credits.
Thus, he can 'freeze' this conflict in a state where 'Russian Army is advancing' - for years longer.
Russia is already overdependent on Chinese support in regards of much of its economy: there's no doubt about this. BUT: Putin's got no problem to whore the entire country just in order to remain in power. And he'll do everything necessary for this to remain that way.
Combined with millions ready to serve for money, he can go well beyond the point where the VSRF has no tanks left (not even museum pieces).
That's the point.
Especially so considering the 'West' - i.e. our idiotic oligarchy and the politics administering on its behalf - has no other answers but its idiotic insistence on maintaining status quo and helping Ukraine 'win a set-apiece battle', whle pretending that everything's fine (to the domestic public, and on the international scene). This - simply - can't work, and is never going to work. In worst case, Putin's going to save himself from one election (whether in the USA or EU or on Mars) to the other...
In this regards, he's got a lot more 'breathing space' and a lot more experience than any of Western oligarchs and 'politicians' (combined).
Tom, you are probably 1 of best war analyst in the world, but you are not a excelent econom analyst. Not because you are wrong ,( I don't know if you are wrong) but nobody can be expert in 2 such diffrent topics.
Soviet Union has more natural and has bankrupted with just small war.
Venezeula has biggest oil reserves in world and has bankrupted.
Not only in west are idiots.
Just imagine UA close pipelines and destroy oil and LNG terminals or Denmark close baltic sea... and RU loose half of dollar incomes. Can and will UA do it? I don't know.
Will Russia bakrupted? Most probably NO, North Korea still exist. Will Russia has less money on war? Most probably yes. When? Nabulina knows 50% and rest 50% depends on west and UA.
USSR bankrupted itself with massive military expenditure and poor macro economic management since Breznhev took over in 1960s.
Even then USSR could have survived.
Note USSR lost over 300,000 men in Finland in 1939 but Stalin kept his job.
The difference between USSR 1939 and USSR 1991 is that Gorbachev had completely weakened the security apparatus through Perestroika. He allowed dissent, Stalin did not.
And here's where Putin is closer to Stalin than Gorbachev.
Hence Russia can withstand a lot more brutality, losses and economic woes than USSR in 1980s. If you want me to provide evidence, then look at the current 500,000 Russian losses which is even more than Stalin lost in Finland in 1939.
Yes, also North Korea is still existing. Yes Putin is near to Stalin. For me bankrupt means also hyperinflation, not enough goods( for people and also for war).
But there are some diff to Stalin era. With internet, satelite... you can not block information as it was before and people was used to have some free and money. In Stalin era everybody was poor. There is a lot of people which is loosings millions, bilions or the have lost their family or just freedom. Enough for revolution? Probably not. Enough for killing Putin? Hitler, De Gaulle survived tens of atentat but Kennedy was killet at first attempt.
I think you don't understand one key thing about Russia: it doesn't matter to the elites if the masses are poor. Same actually applies for most developing countries.
Power is held by the elites, not the people. The elites are the military, politicians and rich people. As long as they're happy and they can keep their armed thugs paid then it doesn't matter the average pleb is poor.
Same actually applies increasingly in west. Here is Australia the rich are engorging themselves to such a point most inflation is due to p orfict taking.
The government pretends it cares but in reality they don't and none of their policies actually make any difference.
Not yet and future is unclear. Poor people are small problem, but also elite is getting poorer ( or less rich) and that can be problem.
You can block internat partialy, but it is hard to block everything. It is very expensive and satelite TV cannot be block. But as you say. Most important is elite. Is Elite happy? Not every elite .Can elite makes revolution? Probably no. Want someone from elite or also unhappy poor people kill Putin? For sure yes and many of them. Will they try and be successfully? We will see and don't forget Putin is 71. In this age can everything happend but he can also be in command 10 years.
And last thing don't forget middle class( IT and technics specialist,...) if they will be poor they will go away from RU. But you need them, Yes you can block borders, but RU has to many borders and too much corruption.
Yes, Russia can probably last for a number of years, with the current conflict intensity. Yes, it is utterly idiotic what NATO leaders are doing. However, what do we expect from people like Scholz, who was personally fighting tooth and nail for nordstream 2 (Handelsblatt). NATO has the control over the intensity of this war, if they decided to increase it, Russia would fold. It seems that, for reasons unknown to me, beyond the typical corruption/incompetence/stupidity/cowardice (cross out as you wish), they do not want to do this. This is as far as Russia goes. NATO can apply coup de grace or they can keep toying with it.
My personal opinion, is that Ukraine is also a reason as to why western leaders are not that keen on investing more into this war. Zelenskyy, and in particular his buddy Yermak, have essentially made a mockery of the EU and the US regarding their demands for systemic, anti-corruption reform. At the moment, nobody really believes that Ukraine will be allowed into either NATO or the EU any time soon. What do you do with this ruined country with 1/3 of the population gone, but with a vast arsenal of western equipment? Nobody wants to have another Afghanistan, funding a corrupt, lawless government for decades. Zelenskyy has just dismissed 2 well regarded officials, Mustafa Nayyem and Oleksandr Kubrakov. People can tell me as much as they want that maybe they were correct decisions. However, from the point of view of the EU/US, these were the people they were dealing with in the context of hundreds of billions of dollars of future reconstruction funds. They liked them, in particular Nayyem. Neither Zelenskyy nor Yermak seem to understand this simple thing. Nobody trusts them enough to just give them hundreds of billions of dollars. Therefore, nobody will give Ukraine any significant money. The frozen Russian funds, will be first used to compensate losses, loans etc. suffered by NATO countries and their businesses/corporates. They will delay and delay until the Ukrainian government finally gets it.
As far as Russian reserves are concerned, they are small. According to official Russian statements, the National Wealth Fund currently has 227.33 bln Chinese yuan (worth $31 billion), 358.96 tons of gold (worth $25 billion) and 1.514 bln ruble (worth $1 billion) plus other non liquid unnamed assets (valued at $76 billion). Non liquid assets are primarily stock, so you can forget about that. Gold is also something you cannot simply get rid of because it will decrease the prices. Yuan is not really a reserve, because they need it to continue trade with China. Russia no longer really has any significant liquid reserves. Any reserves in rubles can be ignored, because the ruble is not exchangeable and subjected to inflation. Russia has vast natural resources but so what? It cannot sell enough of them for the right price. Last year steel production was at the level of a decade ago. Hardly a sign of mass military production.
I do agree with you though, that the one thing Russia has in abundance, is meat.
The two of you have an excellent conversation and great argument. My “two cents” as a rookie in this affair: This war of attrition is the one side loosing, which supply chain (in terms of manpower, armor, energy, monetary funds, etc.) will break at a given point in an “unrepearable” fashion. Time will tell, but I would reckon, Russias will be the one loosing this contest in the long run, as I believe “the West” will continue supporting Ukraine (in a fairly mediocre fashion) continuously to “bleed Russia dry”, which will eventually lead to a completely ruined Russian country in terms of nearly all facets (economically, culturally, sociology, etc.)
I agree it likely that NATO will just keep the current level of support, except for the significant capability increase through F16s and Saab AEWs.
It does appear we are getting closer to 1991. I wouldn't bet on the dissolution of the Russian Federation. I don't think there are any significant independent regions left. Maybe Chechnya but their separation from RF could be lethal for Kadyrov and his entire clan.
I have seen nothing to indicate we are close to 1991. Perversely Russian economy is thriving due to war production and the oil/resource sectors continue to bankroll Russia.
Unlike in 1991, modern Russia is not totally isolated from overseas cash with countries like China, India etc still happy to deal with them.
Don't take it the wrong way, but if you think the economy is thriving and that it is thriving due to war production, then you understand so little about economics that any further discussion is pointless.
Some analysts have stated that if Russia runs out of puff, then west will reduce Ukrainian aid. Zelensky himself has said that west does not want Russia to lose.
The west's aid is actually quite sporadic already and a lot of what they're giving is ancient garbage (eg M113s, YPR765).
Frozen war is the west's goal, not liberating Ukraine. Secretaries of State and Defence, Blinken and Austin, even said goal of Ukrainian war is to bleed Russia whilst General Milley said this war will easily last up to 10 years when he was Chief of General Staff.
Shoulda, woulda, maybe, somebody said... Interesting, but irrelevant. If Ukraine wants to win, it has to convince NATO and the EU to make it happen. In order to convince them, Ukraine has to show it is a serious country, a democracy, determined to join the western civilisation, that it can manage itself. Zelenskyy has done nothing to convince anyone about it. I wouldn't even bet on Ukraine being a democracy after the war.
Big mistake of many people and politicians was underestimating of willingness of Ruzzians to die for it's Tsar or money (including gen. Zaluzny, as he admitted, and many Russian opposition politicians.). But the same mistake is to overestimate it.
VSFR lure people for money, but then they have to beat them or even kill them when they refuse to go to the meat assaults. So, there will be a point, when people would stop signing to VSFR. I agree problem for ZSU to endure with minimal losses to this point is proper support from West and allies.
As per the "meat assaults": things are very different in 2024 comparing to 2022, especially training wise.
Following you logic, please proceed with sentiment towards the war among the Ukranians: TG channels are full of videos of how UA "recruiters" are hunting ordinary men for army on the streets, with people running, hiding, crying and shooting back. 40 corpses of deserters found in Tisa river, some of them shot in the back by UA border guards.
Recently, a UA soldier deserted to RU side of the front on his T-64.
For how long UA population will be ready to fight on?
BTW, let me play devil's advocate: have you heard about any serious civil unrest in overtaken parts of Ukraine? Effectively, none. Moreover, thousands of former UA citizens joined RU army.
"Recently, a UA soldier deserted to RU side of the front on his T-64."
Source for this claim? I think this a Russian propaganda fairy tale or staged propaganda story (just take a captured T-64 and put a guy in an Ukrainian uniform.)
The question for how long UA population will be ready to fight on, can also be reverted to Russia. For how long will the Russians and their mercenaries be willing to fight for money, when they realize that 80% are not coming home, that the coffins are piling up and the promised payment is sacked by corrupt officials?
The Russians still have a serf mentality. Nothing's really changed there for centuries when it comes to the social contract.
And people will continue signing up for VSRF as long as the pay is better than civilian work (which in Russia has always been the case in most of its impoverished regions).
Interesting post. Full of right and wrong thoughts (my imho, of course).
Regarding civilian production. Since the war start, a lot of new SME projects for "import substitution" were launched. Many of them are successful and a few even export machinery (!!!) to....EU (like it or not).
As per auto production. All old "Soviet brands" like Lada, Kamaz, and etc, work at full swing. However, foreign assemblies (VW, Koreans, Ford and others) indeed halted the production and were swiftly replaced by Chinese. It's painful. For example, myself being a passionate buyer of Cadillacs for the last 20 years, have an unpleasant choice of paying triple price for Cadillac imported via third country with no guarantees attached or buy smth. Chinese. New generation of Chinese cars look awesome with their futuristic forms though I have doubts about the quality of "insights". Anyway, in 5-10 years Chinese autos will destroy once lovely but now louse EU brands like Fiat, Citroen, and etc. But that's the other story.
All in, the dependence on China is painful and I don't like it. However, there's another side of the shield. I met with several...well...mid-size Russian industrials. Their message was the following: we were in despair in 2022-23 as we had a block of buying spare parts for our equipment from Germany and Italy or were pressed to buy them at triple price from "mediators". However, in 2024 they got Chinese equipment which less effective, less reliable but....much cheaper and no problems with spares. And now the industrialists are happy. In general, Chinese will sell everything needed to fill any gap.
Another point that most people overlook is stupid and idiotic sanctions of the West on oligarkhs (thanks heaven for that!!!). The most pro-Western people in the world got busted. And now, instead of spending billions of dollars on castles, yachts or simply keeping money at accounts with JPMorgan or Barclays, they invest funds inside the Russia, especially on infrastructural projects.
Agriculturewise Russia is completely selfsufficient but for bananas and coffee.))))
The bottom line: Russia can't be defeated neither military nor economically. The history shows that only inner unrest can do.
Import substitution cannot substitute all imports, at the same volume, for the same price, with the same delivery time. Russia is building up vast storage capacity because it has no guaranteed flow of components. In other words, the supply chain is completely unwieldy.
Yes, the Chinese can sell almost anything civilian/dual-use, but that also has limits. Even more important is the fact, that cross-border finance is extremely difficult nowadays, with more and more Chinese banks simply refusing to process them. Also, the Chinese demand essentially full pre-payment with long delivery times. All of that is a killer for any manufacturing. Also, funnily enough, the trade with China is limited by the amount of oil and gas that Russia exports to it. That's because the yuan is the only acceptable currency and China does not allow anyone to simply exchange their currency, especially for a worthless ruble. There's actually a reverse problem with India, where Russia has many billions of dollars in rupies, that cannot be held outside of India but there is very little that Russia imports from them. It's sitting there doing nothing.
Thank you for mentioning Lada. It is a brilliant example of the technological degeneration of the Russian economy. A substandard car, by european standards, before 2022, is now sold without the most basic systems, that used to be standard until then. The same thing is happening throughout Russian manufacturing, especially in the military industry. Lack of western components, lack of replacement parts for western machines, lack of western machines to set up new production lines, lack of western software etc. Everything including tanks is getting simpler, more basic, requiring more labour, less efficient etc. If Russia was in the late XX/early XXI century (I'm being generous) in terms of manufacturing, they are progressing in rocket speed towards the dark depths of the cold war.
Almost forgot, Russia lost the Crimean war, Russo-Japanes war, WW1 (revolution or not, wouldn't have won). Russia loses major wars all the time. The only time it achieves victory in Europe, is if it's a part of a large western coalition.
No offense, you did not get my message. I am not contradicting the idea of decreasing of living standards for mid-class, certain loose of competencies, and etc. But for 80% of Russian population all these things will go unnoticed. More of this, due to the recent investment in infrustructure, astronomic payments to army personnel, and salaries increase generally thruout the country, millions of people will paradoxically say that the life got better.
As per finance assesment - your are going into extremes. I do not want to elaborate, since you obviously do not have "inside" info about it. In general, it's unpleasant, but just a certain percent of extra costs (at least, for basic things).
Regarding tbe wars: Crimea war? Russo-Japanese? Most of population did not even notice those defeats. See the peace terms of both wars. The "winners" got more exausted than the defeated Russia.
A few % inflation you say? Sure, I guess Putin said so. I hear loans are really cheap as well nowadays. What are the interest rates 16%?
No offense taken. Also, no offense but it's completely irrelevant what an average Russian thinks, feels, knows or wants. Wars are fought for political gains. No amount of potatoes, vodka and happy golfing in Ukraine, will win a war. Also, this idea that one can fight a war without money is a laughable Russian myth for idiots. There is nothing Russia can do to win, if NATO doesn't want it to.
See no reason to proceed the dispute further, let's stick to our own ground. My imho, you are going into emotional extremes that hurt you generally interesting approach.
As per your last sentence: what NATO "wants to" does not matter. Only US can radically change the things. Luckily for Russia, US is giving limited assistance to Ukraine, just enough to survive. The reasons why surely deserve a separate research.
The derangement of Russians never ceases to be funny. Europe has provided more military and financial support than the US. The European arms industry alone will outproduce Russia in every category, including ammunition, by the end of 2024. Unlike Russia, Europe can scale up production to any level it wants. We are all quaking in our boots thinking of all those Russians in Chinese golf carts streaming across the NATO border.
I agree with Tupolev. Average Russian won't care about Lada not having air bags because they could never afford a Lada in the first place.
This is a country where nearly 25% of people don't have access to sewerage or running water. Why would they care about Lada's not having airbags?!? Even a shit Lada is an upgrade for many.
Outside of St Petersburg and Moscow, most of Russia is primitive and in a state of permanent decay - this is why they view the USSR as the golden era. Because if you lived in some crappy Soviet industrial city east of the Urals that made subpar goods, you still had a guaranteed job, were provided with subsidised housing and could access social and public services. Now the inefficient factories are gone, there's no guaranteed work etc.
Hence joining the armed forces is seen as a great opportunity. Even better, the old Soviet weapons factory that was barely open prior to 2022 now needs more workers than it has ever since 1991.
All of a sudden that Lada might actually be a possibility for the first time in your life.
Nobody cares about what Russians think. If whether a Russian cares about air bags, is what you got out of this whole thread, then I don't know what else to say. It's irrelevant if they can get more soldiers. None of this matters. 10M russians in golf carts worries nobody.
Yes, because that is crucial to understanding what is happening to the economy and the war effort. You cannot win a war, you cannot rebuild, you cannot become stronger, by going backwards technologically. Technological advancement isn't only about quality, it's primarily about effectiveness and efficiency.
The history shows that only internal unrest can beat Russia. Of course this doesnt mean that will last forever, But Even if, the internal unrest is usually created/helped/dependent etc by external conflicts. And while Putin definetly is in power now the conflict created the environment for internal unrest.
If Russia can survive just fine without x, y and z, then let it do just that. Let it with withdraw from Ukraine, return all Ukrainian children and pay for the rebuilding. And let it live prosperously and self-sufficiently without economic links to the West and without invading its neighbours again. Why does Russia need Ukraine? What's worth all that suffering on both sides?
The Russian economy had a 50% margin of stolen income (where all those yachts and mansions came from). Right now they make that margin thinner - by persecuting officials for corruption and increasing taxes for oil exports - but they did not start increasing taxes or prices for their population, yet.
Thus, it's not in a real "war mode" and nobody knows how much of the corruption margin remains to be used for funding the war.
Russia has only a few weeks ago proposed a significant tax increases, including income and corporate taxes. You cannot fund budget deficits from imaginary money.
Of course it is a war economy. If a business doesn't produce for the military, whatever it is, it cannot obtain cheap loans, i.e. much below the current credit rates. Nobody can afford 20+% loans. All military production is paid for by the state, if they need more people and higher wages, they get the money for it from the government. Massive cuts in government spending on anything non-military. Train freight has to prioritise specific sectors that are crucial for either funding the military or military production. The list is endless. It doesn't matter what you call it formally, for all intents and purposes it is a war economy.
In general, I see a certain misconception being repeated time and time again. Almost any country can sustain some kind of a war, at some intensity, for a very long time. That is irrelevant. What matters is, can that country scale up and up and up as the conflict progresses. Russia can no longer do that, in fact it kind of ceased doing that already last year. Even the number of soldiers in Ukraine isn't increasing. It's complete stagnation.
NATO will have outproduced Russia in every equipment category by the end of 2024. In many key categories, such as air assets, NATO produces many tens of times more. It's irrelevant if they can keep sending Buryats in golf carts.
Sure, but then the conversation is very different. It's obvious that Russia has an industrial advantage over Ukraine. Ukraine produces nothing, except drones, in any meaningful quantity. Russia is competing industrially with NATO. It's a purely political decision how much and what equipment is transferred to Ukraine. If Russia could compete, there would already be 1M soldiers in Ukraine, but as things are, even more than 2 years after the invasion, the VSRF is completely incapable of supporting a larger force.
If Russia could produce more, they would merely lose more. Even if Russian produced 100 times more weapons than it does, it still wouldn't make a difference.
Truth is Russian military is incapable of waging modern warfare.
1. You have a command structure rooted in 1700s age of massed musket regiments. Russian junior leaders have no initiative and are mere conduits for higher commanders orders. There is still no truly functional NCO corps. This is why you often have Russian generals having to go to frontline to work out what's going on.
2. You have an army with a WW2 and even WW1 approach to fighting warfare. Eg the airforce as an extension of artillery. Lack of true combined arms etc etc. Their approach to logistics is stuck in Napoleonic times.
Their doctrine is based on scientific formulas with little or no deviation or flexibility and which take away all independence from junior officers.
3. The higher command is incompetent and basically political appointments - no Zhukovsky's, Vaututin's Rokossovsky's. This then permeates to lower levels at division, brigade, battalion and company level.
WW2 Russians were lucky they inherited a whole heap of generals who had learned their trade in hard battles in WWI, Russian Civil War, Russo-Polish War and clashes with Japanese in 1930s.
The current crop never had to fight near peer opponents until now! Most are political appointments. Meritocracy died in Soviet Army in 1945 when the old pre-war culture of political obedience became prominent again.
This is why even limited western aid mostly comprised of ancient junk has managed to stop the Russians.
Even if Russia was churning out thousands of T-90s and hundreds of Su-57s the outcome would be essentially the same.
1. You do not understand anything about economics.
2. You believe in myths of Russian invincibility.
3. You believe that money is not needed for war, if you are Russian.
4. Somehow, inconceivably, you think there is not point in ramping up war production during the war, because it will get destroyed anyway. This is actually the most bizarre statement I've heard in a long time. To say it's nonsensical, is an understatement.
Russia never had an advanced civilian economy. It was and still is a petro-state where nearly 25% of people don't have access to running water or sewerage (and people call me a Russian troll). Things like car factories or other civilian manufacturing were limited in their scope.
And thus as long as petro-dollars are flowing in to prop the economy up, it can sustain itself regardless of whether the war continues or not.
Because if the armaments factories close, then the government will dole out welfare to keep people fed and use the massive security apparatus to clobber anyone who complains. Remember this is closer to a Stalinist state than Perestroika era USSR.
This is also why the Russian population can sustain such massive losses and such a massive army - most of the population was never engaged in anything meaningful or sustainable before the war. There was a massive surplus of humans especially outside of St Petersburg and Moscow.
Conditions were so miserable for most Russians that a one way trip to Ukraine is seen as an improvement. If you're lucky you get out alive with all your limbs and a good lump of cash by Russian standards.
(Yes the Russians claimed low unemployment but their stats are a mass of lies).
They had some advanced economy. It was based on western machines, western software, western processes. The oil and gas sector was also based on western technology, especially the modern part of it. Those destroyed distillation towers cannot be replaced by Ivan and Sasha, they cannot be brought from China or India.
To all who read the comment from this person. This account is ruzzian troll/propagandist, who spreads anti-ukrainian propaganda and deliberately posts fake information. This account uses the information from ruzzian state propagandist resources and so called Z-voenkors (ruzzian war correspondents) as a proof.
Moreover this account uses hate speech for humilitating ukrainians and everything that is pro-ukrainian.
I urge you to ignore his comments and ask Tom to block him.
Here is the illustration of what are the real targets of what they call SVO: it’s a complete annihilation of Ukraine and ukrainians:
His argumentation etc. by side: I know 'Tupolev' for years (even 'decades', literally) already, and thus know he means no harm. (He might not have a lots of 'evidence' to show in support of his points of view, but in few cases when he does, this is solid.)
At least he is nowhere near as delusional as so many of Western Pudding-fans with social media presences and millions of followers.
And, well... kill me, but I'm that way. As long as I can have at least a 'semi-reasonable' exchange with a person, I'll never give up.
Except they won't give Ukraine any Aegis ships or Aegis ashore, so those Standard missiles don't have another immediate purpose.
Two years ago I was arguing for the transfer of some old US Aegis cruisers through a private intermediary to Ukraine. They might even be active right now, guarding Odesa and the coast. Standards can shoot down ballistic missiles - it's the U.S. Navy's Patriot equivalent. And all the orcs can field in the Black Sea now are submarines, which the Ticos can also hunt.
Imagine you being France, would you sell your best military technology to a country which competes with you on the world stage? (eg Russia in Africa)
Or sell nuclear weapons to Ukraine? In general, France sells weapons to everybody not competing with them (and on good terms).
Same with USA. A hegemony doesn't export the best weapons to everyone (they didn't sell the F-22 to anyone else, even to Saudis, who had deep enough pockets). And giving permission to export some weapons, but not others, is another lever of pressure (eg. you may get a permission to buy AMRAAM, but not AIM-260 for your F-16s).
NATO is a wholly different game. As a strictly defense organization, they don't attack other countries. USA may start a war on Iraq or Serbia, but the other NATO members are under no obligation to follow (typical example: France in the second Gulf war, if my memory serves me correctly).
"Imagine you being France, would you sell your best military technology to a country which competes with you on the world stage ? (eg Russia in Africa)"
I mean ... This is exactly what France have been doing during the past decades. Where do you think thermals for modernised Russian MBTs came from ? Check out French defence related companies like Thales and Saffran. Russia was and still remains an important customer.
Even in non-business-related affairs. France have been supportive of Russian imperial adventures in Africa. More precisely in Libya. As well as Syria. Like most of NATO save for Turkey who was then accused of betraying NATO (ho the irony).
There was a move to sell FREMM frigates to Russia, if I remember correctly (during Hollande presidency). Fortunately, that didn't go very far.
Imagers aren't complete weapons (sure, these are an important element, but not a whole SCALP-EG or similar weapon). I doubt that France has sold their heavy hitters to antagonists
And that's why you want to avoid buying defense equipment from a single supplier. You may lose economies of scale and be saddled with logistics for multiple spare parts for different tanks, airplanes, ships, etc, but you have more strategic options.
Some examples from Greece: F-16 vs Mirage 2000 "The sale of the century" it was termed in the eighties. At the end, Greece bought both types (the good thing about the French is, they are selling to you almost all of the weapons possible for your plane - except nuclear, of course, while with USA you have to go through State Dept. giving an export license for every weapon type for your F-16). And a recent order of Rafale jets and an upgrade program to F-16V means that there'll continue to be two main types of fighter jets.
Similar for warships (most times bought second-hand), Hellenic Navy had multiple types of frigates from Netherlands, Germany, USA serving concurrently (the only "monopoly" is in submarines, which are all of German origin, Type 209 and Type 214, if memory serves me correctly). And recently, there was an order for Belharra frigates (currently being laid up), with Aster missiles etc.
Tanks are mostly a German case, with Leopard 1A5 and Leopard 2A6 being the bulk (plus some old M60 MOLF tanks, mostly dispersed in islands for defense). And there are both European and American howitzer like the M109 and PzH2000 serving in parallel (I don't know if these can utilize the same type of artillery rounds - I remember reading that there's a big problem with standardization in this segment)
Frankly, it's strange to see the ocean tug Nikolay Chiker in a such company of ships. Chiker played the most important role in that famous voyage when the Russian aircraft carrier came to Syria in December 2016. The super-capable aircraft carrier Kuznetsov couldn't handle the travel without a tug, only the ocean tug Nikolai Chiker could control such an enormous ship like Kuznetsov. So, if Chiker is back in business then Gorshkov has big problems with an engine or power unit.
"how else can they achieve such a feat? In the US-elections of this November?"
I share most of your cynicism about Biden & Scholz et.al. They clearly are unwilling to risk a military defeat of RU. (I would add the problem is not really the leadership. The majority of western foreign policy thinking has always favored a stalemate & armistice.)
In a recent newsletter you suggested Trump plausibly may not be any worse for Ukraine.
With Trump you have a 50/50 type situation - if he sees it in his interest to back Putin, he will. If, on the other hand, he feels like he can't look visibly weak in an area where his enemy's propaganda has constantly tried to assert a tie to Putin, he might declare that Putin has to respect Ukraine's 1991 borders and send more aid - Ukraine got its first Javelins under Trump.
Meanwhile with Biden you have a 95% chance that he'll counterbalance anything good he does for Ukraine with something that favors Putin in some way. His goal is simply to roll back the clock to about 2015.
Pick your poison. The real issue is that funding for Ukraine has to get through Congress and it's likely to be paralyzed by partisanship for years to come.
Trump has few beliefs. But his isolationist/protectionist instincts are sincere and consistent for decades. He doesn't value alliances. Your suggestion that Trump might send "more aid" sufficient to roll back RU to international borders is far fetched. It's not just a matter of "more aid"; it requires a hell of a commitment. Trump generally doesn't do hard things requiring sacrifice and long commitments.
Funding for Ukraine is not threatened by partisanship. It is threatened by Trump & his America First wing of the Republican party.
A lot of conservative, enthusiastic UKraine supporters are thinking like you. (I'm thinking of the Secret Squirrel guy on twitter. ) I fully appreciate your contempt for Biden. I appreciate your dedication & contribution to Ukraine's fight. The equating of Biden & Trump doesn't add up. Both bad doesn't mean equally bad.
Trump winning is a risk for Russia because he is inconsistent. And he might try to force some deal that ends up difficult for Putin. Putin wants the internal conflict in US to go on. One way or another.
I disagree that Trump is unpredictable. He has a long track record of favoring the easy way out of foreign confrontations. The deal he made with the Taliban was shockingly craven. He asked for nothing to accommodate our former allies; agreed to get out in a few months.
When Trump said he could negotiate an end to the war in UKR quickly, it is BS but is evidence of his thinking. A quick resolution can only be done by abandoning UKR. Squuzing RU for a favorable deal will take years of commitment.
1. How can you predict "the easy way out"? It will always depend on the factors on the field.
2. In the current context one (even Trump) has to consider Russia's strong ties with China and NK, and the Global South. Do you think Putin could now turn its back to China for the sake of Trump? Do you think the USA will go as far with the isolation as abandoning Europe, its last ally?
You are projecting upon Trump some minimal wisdom and long term thinking. That is not how America First isolationism works. Many of his ideological soul mates in Congress still insist that support to counter China and Ru are separate, competing priorities.
Battlefield/geopolitical considerations? Trump has made clear on and off the record that abandoning UKR is cost free. He chillingly twice predicted that RU is ultimately going to conquer all of UKR.
The very worst argument advanced is that the mad, unpredictable Trump will control Putin by sending more aid. The challenge is UKR is herding an alliance of two dozen countries over many more years. Aid has to be ramped up for years or it is near useless. Trump doesn't do alliances, let alone long, difficult projects that will bear fruit later. He is America First to the core, has been for decades. He is Putin's wet dream.
That is true, I am projecting some minimal wisdom, at least on his advisors. It is obvious that an isolated America could be enough for its reasonable development, but it would definitely be nothing "great". I tend to think that Putin (and KGB) wanted to influence the US politics in its favor, offering to balance/help to counter China, in exchange for "free hand" for Russia in Eastern Europe. It is not the case anymore, because of the resistance in Ukraine. Now Putin has to sing at a different table, long or short, and has nothing to offer to the US, he depends on China. He just hopes Trump is idiot enough to stop helping Ukraine. It's interesting that all these "superpowers", with their "superpoliticians", somehow disregarded Europe as a power. While I agree that the EU looks weak, I wouldn't underestimate it completely. After all, everybody underestimated Ukraine, and the Ukrainians taught everyone a lesson.
Putin has already won the US elections. That gambit is mission accomplished. It doesn't matter who wins, because about half the country will reject the outcome as illegitimate. Political paralysis will endure.
There is no America to speak of any more. It's vital to keep that in mind. Partisans want to pretend that 2024 is THE mother of all battles, but dysfunction is here to stay until at least the end of this decade. This is a political realignment that has to run its course.
This is why I've been warning Ukraine supporters for over a year and a half now to ignore the US media BS narrative framing as a matter of survival. The Zombie Idiocy plague ate the US federal government's mind long ago.
Congress will be divided on any issue that doesn't make rich people or Israel happy. Then of course it will act with due haste and zero debate because Israel is the official Good Guy in this heroic epic. Presidents are mostly figureheads who rule through executive order.
Looks like Weimar, but thankfully the federal structure of the US makes totalitarian rule highly unlikely. Let me put it this way - if the West Coast, which votes 2 to 1 against Trump, went revolutionary and declared itself an autonomous federal region, even all of Red America together couldn't take us over. Imagine if Ukraine had a series of mountain ranges between it and Moscow. Geography matters.
My message to the rest of the world: forget about America. At least, the parts which think they can play isolationist and magically attract capital sufficient to survive.
Not possible (yet) to disregard USA hegemony. That hegemony was built at great effort and expense during the 20th century, it'll take a long time to see a Europe independent of the USA military (ironically, the previous Trump presidency shook up many European capitals into action, as glacial as it may be - inertia is hard to overcome)
I don't see Europe moving out of inertia. Too many domestic problems for that. In fact Macron's new warhawk persona is typical of French leaders when they're domestically struggling. Last time a French president was in trouble domestically, they stabbed their new ally Gaddafhi in the back and destroyed Libya as a coherent state.
Note that the Kissinger joke about a European phone number still holds (not literally, but still...)
There are multiple domestic politics at play inside the EU (witness Orban and Fico vs Macron and Scholz - everyone has their own agenda and voters to please). EU is still not a monolithic entity
Except US hegemony demonstrably doesn’t exist. It’s an illusion that politicians across the “west” use to avoid taking responsibility.
Note how every time Ukraine asks for any modern gear, the US insists that sending any would detract from operational readiness somewhere else? That’s a tell. The US provides a few extremely handy capabilities and has more depth than any other individual player. But it is totally reliant on allied support to do anything more than park a carrier group off the coast and sling missiles.
That’s the shocking conclusion years of studying the US political system brought me to. The USA is as much of a bluff as the USSR proved to be. It took only a single generation of incompetent idiots to hollow it out beyond hope of repair.
Traditional US military planning is to be prepared for a two oceans war. Since the collapse of the USSR, the pressure for a "peace dividend" caused lots of companies consolidation and lots of stored equipment in places like Davis-Monthan base (fortunately, the desert is a better place to store equipment, away from humidity). And artisanal, low rate production of things like artillery rounds).
It takes time and money for the USA to restore Cold War era production capacity (and let's not speak about WW2 production capacity)
If Putin is increasing pay to soldiers and key workers, that's likely both recognizing that inflation has eroded their salaries, and also will be the cause even more inflation when this money gets spent. And if he's increasing pay in USD terms - that will worsen the problem even more.
At its core, Russia's problem is that the value of Russian civilian economy production is decreasing - due to military production, due to sanctions, due to refinery strikes, ect. The only two possible outcomes of this are Russians consuming less stuff or importing more stuff. By all indications Russia is currently doing the latter, but it's not a sustainable solution. Crude oil can buy a lot of stuff but has its limits. Russia can only spend money and get into debt so long as China is willing to bankroll them, and China seems to be having its own difficulties.
Russian civilian manufacturing has never been that important to the economy - in fact civilian manufacturing is no longer important in most of the western world. Globalisation means most civilian products are made in China or Bangladesh or Mexico or Philippines.
In fact the Russians got economic more value out of military production because they could export weapons for cash. That has ceased and in the long run will prove more problematic.
So, as ever, nothing is true and everything is possible in Russia. Peter Pomerantsev may well go down in history as one of the great reporters of our time because that observation defines perfectly the aggrieved deluded Russian mindset. For all the criticisms of the West, it's good that we can point to our flaws instead of pretending they don't exist. So let Putin think he will win as the speed of Russian decay accelerates.
The irony is thick here. An indirect Putin ally torpedoing a ship carrying Ruskie coal, a fleet of that country's ships off the coast of Florida whose governor has stated the war in Ukraine is no concern of the US (us). -Guess DeSantis is okay with Russian missiles stationed 90 miles off the Florida coast.- Of course Putin's sub didn't look to be in the best of conditions. Might make one wonder why a weapon sent as a warning message to the western world is less than ship-shape. Not to mention your observation of the US armada sent to "escort" the Russian caravan or as some might say, "don't tread on us" display of righteous resolve if Putin crosses the (territorial) line.
pudding hopes for convicted felon trump (
Exactly. On the other hand, how could anyone sane trust the orange felon? He is unpredictable.
Many people have pointed out that the only thing Trump did consistently during his presidency is refuse to criticise Russia.
While that may be true he is consistent in one thing: supporting his own ego and lining his pockets. (Ok two more things). That might be dangerous to Russia, if he suddenly decides he could earn money on winning the war. Russias best outcome of the war might be a defeated Trump quarreling about the deafeat and abosbing all internal energy in the next year. Russia needs a divided USA. But, he will certainly deliver on that as well if elected.
Maybe Trump could sell Ukraine to Putin (but is he the only one bearing this risk?). That is the main scary thing. But friend with Russia he is not. He's following his own interests. We will see.
Which is why Ukraine is destroying as much of Pudding’s oil refining capacity as quickly as possible in order to bankrupt him.
They can and do sell crude oil.
It's impossible to bankrupt Russia this way because Russia makes nearly no profits with oil-refined products, they are exporting crude oil instead - and make enough money on it to not only hold their economy, but also buy modern Western industrial equipment (sunction-circumvented easily) in droves to build new military factories.
It's a cost-effective strike campaign, yet not any kind of decisive one - just an attempt to limit the Russian capabilities with means at hand.
Crude Oil export was 2 times bigger als Product so oil product are important(15-20% of all export), but because of less refinery capacity, they need to sell more crude oil, then price go down. These attack cost bilions on repair and maybe some other bilions on selling cheaper oil. To get faster result UA needs to attack more refineries or also maybe some oil/ gas terminals. Another thing is that also transport of oil product on 2000 km can be problematic if many refineries are destroyed. Next year UA plans to close some pipeline to EU, so there will be also problem how to transport enough gas and oil for RU. IF and how long can RU live with that economic know only very few people( maybe Nabulina) most of people do some predictions without having any good source, because to much lying, hidden infos and too many thing can changed.
Thank you very much, Tom, as much as I am relieved that the front has stabilized to some degree, I can understand your concerns about the destruction in the hinterland only too well.
This war of attrition is so diverse, encompassing so much destruction on so many different levels, all important for the functioning of both civil society and warfare, that I don't really know how much longer it can go on like this.
The Russians are doomed, no doubt about this, but I am very worried that they will be able to bring about some kind of collapse in Ukraine before they themselves implode - after all, they unfortunately have a wide choice.
I fear the answer to the 'year of decision' is that the Russians manage to destroy almost all of Ukraine's remaining power plants. That's then game over, because they can't import enough electricity from the west, or build new power plants in a space of months before next winter.
Yes and no. I have a feeling that is is not so catastrophic (although definitely is bad).
Zero chance it will make much difference in Ukraine. They will never surrender. Think Great Britain under relentless assaults of the Luftwaffe with 50,000 English civilians killed from Nazi airstrikes alone. Literally thousands of merchant ships sunk in the Atlantic by 400 Nazi U-Boats in 1942-3. They will just ration everything further and pull together even stronger. Zelenskiy is Churchill. Pudding cannot survive this forever because his oligarchs are getting increasingly poorer. Thank you.
Ukrainian situation is far more complicated than Great Britain in 1939-45.
Many Ukrainians are not interested in fighting. Huge numbers (millions) have escaped to the west and even today draft dodging is endemic, facilitated by corrupt recruiters. Indeed in August 2023 all the heads of every single one Ukraine's regional army recruitment centres were sacked due to corruption.
Even before the war started in 2014 Ukrainians were mainly moving out of Ukraine.
Ukraine (but also Russian) army average age is over 40 years old. Young people are exempt from conscription until age 25. However many young people have left Ukraine and have been for decades.
National solidarity isn't so coherent in Ukraine. There are still many pro-Russian holdouts and things like endemic corruption stymy loyalty or willingness to fight against some segments of the community.
So whilst there are many patriots in Ukraine, there are also many people who either don't care, don't want to fight or who are still pro-Russians.
Britain in 1939-41 was a far more coherent cultural entity.
Russia's extreme authoritarian system and essentially serf culture also gives it massive resilience (much like Japan and Germany's cultural factors and totalitarianism meant they kept resisting until they were totally destroyed).
I think this is why the future of the war is a frozen conflict. There could be black swan events but given everything we've seen frozen conflict is most likely. Even (now ex) US Joint Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, said this war could easily last 10 years.
It could be frozen and last a long time, sure, but they've had no F16s and limited numbers of Patriots, not to mention limited artillery shells and missiles for six months. Now that all that has changed, it seems premature to render judgement. My point is they will never surrender and will pull together further especially if they get Crimea back.
The UK was in very bad shape at the outset of WW2 because Chamberlain was an appeaser and didn't want to fight. Halifax also wanted to cut a deal with Hitler. Churchill refused to offer any kind of deal and demanded total Nazi surrender.
They had a very divided Parliament. The King knew they needed Churchill so that helped. Churchill knew once the USA starting fully supporting the UK, that Germany and Italy would eventually fall. It's shame it took so long for the USA to enter the war once it was attacked by Japan. Ukraine has the support of most of the Western world. And if Biden wins in five months the aid will only increase. I still think Pudding may not make it too far past November if Biden wins. They may be resilient but the suffering there is off the charts and their nation already collapsed once under much less pressure in 1991.
First whereas F-16 and Patriot are very good systems, they are not guaranteed war winners. In fact Ukraine is still missing several key aerial systems that the US has - dedicated SEAD aircraft, dedicated SEAD units, stealth aircraft, a long range interceptor of at least 4.5 generation, 5th generation networking capabilities and a few other tidbits.
F-35 would solve a lot of these issues but that's not on the board.
Secondly like Russia, Ukraine has problems in conducting offensive warfare against deep defences (as exemplified by their failed 2023 offensive). Both sides have been unable to coordinate more than small units (platoons, companies). There's nothing at high levels.
----
As for Britain:
You are essentially comparing Britain pre-1939 with Ukraine circa 2024. Britain pre-1939 is more analogous to Ukraine pre-2022.
Chamberlain might have been an appeaser in 1938 but he did declare war on German in 1939. Chamberlain was also instrumental in getting rearmament started - everything from small arms to Spitfires/Hurricanes to tank programs to ships.
Britain was in no shape to go to war in 1938 and Chamberlain brought time for the British.
Churchill became PM in May 1940 by which stage Britain and Germany had been at war for 8 months and by which stage British rearmament had begun in full swing.
Up to 2022 Ukraine had not bothered with any kind of systemic rearmament. The country was too dysfunctional, corrupt and poor. Too many of its people including head of opposition weren't just pro-Russian, they essentially were Russian (Eg Viktor Medvedchuk - born in Russia, exiled to Russia)!
---------
As for USSR in 1991 and Russia 2024, the comparison is not the same.
- Perestroika destroyed the power of the Soviet elites by allowing ethnic nationalists and dissidents to speak out again. They could point out fallacies in Soviet system or agitate for independence without fear of imprisonment.
Putin's more clever than that. He's running a far more authoritarian system where there is no dissent. Short of the elites rising up, there's no one to counter him.
He is closer to Stalin than Gorbachev.
- In 1939 Stalin's Red Army suffered 313,000+ casualties against little Finland (even smaller than Ukraine).
Stalin remained in power. Why? Because there was no opposition and he ruled with an iron fist.
Gorbachev's read army suffered 50,000 casualties and the system toppled? Why, because Gorbachev's Perestroika allowed mothers to complain about their dead sons.
Bare in mind Russia was humiliated in First Chechen War and the system didn't collapse.
Indeed total Russian military casualties in 2 Chechen Wars are unknown but estimated at anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 (not known because it's kept secret).
Again by the time Putin rumbled around in 1999 the political system had shut down dissent.
-------
The parallels today in Russia are closer to USSR in 1939 than they are to 1991.
Likelihood of collapse is not likely. In fact as Zelensky has stated, West does not want Russia to lose because they don't want risk Russian collapse. So the West won't let Ukraine win decisively.
There are few if any parallels to the USSR in 1939. The USA kept Stalin and the USSR alive in the early years of WW2 because we were allies then and it served our interests with the UK to force Hitler to fight a two front war. We were sending them arms and sustenance as fast as we could.
The Battle of Stalingrad was the major defeat of the Nazis leading to the fall of Hitler. He made a fatal mistake by overextending his reach and got his arm cut off by a very severe winter there. As a strategist he proved to be an idiot just like Pudding. NATO has now doubled its border with Russian by enrolling Finland who can also fight very well. NATO is now much stronger as a result.
As for Ukraine's failed offensive, which is true, they had no air support in attacking heavily entrenched Russian positions. Also did not ATACMS and other long range missiles. It never had a remote chance of succeeding it was just to buy more time.
That is about to change. The West would love to see Russian collapse because the longer term strategy is to weaken China who is heavily subsidizing their war effort with money, exports, and political leverage with other partners. They have formed a new axis of evil with NK and Iran, all mortal enemies of the West.
Evidence of this can be seen in the USA's attempt to crash the Russian stock market last week which caused a bank run in Moscow until China bailed them out with yuan. Nobody knows what will happen in the long run but there are global consequences to all that is happening in Ukraine involving two superpowers both far stronger than Russia or the USSR in WW2 for the matter.
Now that the EU elections are over the USA election is the biggest variable driving the possible outcomes in Ukraine. The Trump/Biden debates are rapidly approaching and will be very interesting. The primary goal of the West is how to win in Ukraine WITHOUT triggering a broader conflict. It's a delicate balance.
Plan is to survive until US election.
there's a possibility to install multiple diesel power generators, distributed around the country.
These usually go up to 3-4 MW each, which is not bad for large villages (that's how many Greek islands are still electrified, because the Aegean archipelago is not easy to connect every island to the mainland energy distribution system)
He can't destroy all power plants because nearly 45% of our energy generation is nuclear power plants. So it's could be hard winter but we will survive and kill all russofashists in our country borders
Thanks Tom, great read. There are many bitter words to be said about the so called West. However, I believe the economic aspect of this war is your blind spot. You keep talking about "freezing" the conflict, like many in NATO/EU countries do. However, this is fantasy.
It is not possible to freeze/pause/temporarily stop a war, while a country is running a war economy. It simply cannot be done and expect anything else than the total economic collapse. Like many others, you are misconceiving the difference between colonial conflicts (Chechnya, Afghanistan, 2014 invasion of Ukraine) and a total war in Ukraine today. Russia cannot go back to a civilian economy and build up/rebuild the military, because it will end the current regime. The inevitable economic collapse and political vacuum, may lead to the repeat of the dissolution of the USSR, when 15 new, sovereign countries were founded.
Russia today, no longer has any advanced civilian economy. The mostly state companies working for the war effort today, will be completely uncompetitive. If you want to see what will happen to Russia's economy if it reverts back to the civilian mode, look at the Russian automotive industry. Today, virtually all cars are Chinese, at best assembled in Russia from complete Chinese kits. Often they are all made in China and simply "made in Russia" label slapped onto them after crossing the border. In at least one of the former car factories (VW IIRC), they cut the machines to pieces because they didn't have anything else to do with them.
Freezing the conflict must lead to reverting to the civilian economy, because it is necessary to rebuild and prepare for the next round. For today's Russia, reverting to the civilian ecnomy, while keeping the defence spending, will mean the total economic collapse and becoming a 100% Chinese vassal. All advanced (and many basic as well) parts of the economy will be taken by Chinese businesses and imports. Moscow will not be able to do anything about it, because they rely totally on the trade with China.
Last but not least, you are talking about the salaries in the Russian military and defence sector as if it was caused by some great economic performance. Russia is simply bleeding dry their entire civilian economy and the savings of their people. Those salary increases are still not keeping up with inflation. You are writing about it as if bankrupting not just the state but the entire population was not only sustainable in the long term but also a sound economic management. Madness.
Fair enough.
What I mean with 'freezing the conflict' - is 'freezing it in its current condition'. One where 'Russian army is advancing' (even if not at all, though at horrible cost). Pudding retains incredible financial reserves, and even once the economy might collapse (must admit: I'm having it hard to imagine this, not because I would be misconceiving the difference between colonial conflicts and this total war, but because Russia has so many natural sources) - he's going to find few problems to obtain credits.
Thus, he can 'freeze' this conflict in a state where 'Russian Army is advancing' - for years longer.
Russia is already overdependent on Chinese support in regards of much of its economy: there's no doubt about this. BUT: Putin's got no problem to whore the entire country just in order to remain in power. And he'll do everything necessary for this to remain that way.
Combined with millions ready to serve for money, he can go well beyond the point where the VSRF has no tanks left (not even museum pieces).
That's the point.
Especially so considering the 'West' - i.e. our idiotic oligarchy and the politics administering on its behalf - has no other answers but its idiotic insistence on maintaining status quo and helping Ukraine 'win a set-apiece battle', whle pretending that everything's fine (to the domestic public, and on the international scene). This - simply - can't work, and is never going to work. In worst case, Putin's going to save himself from one election (whether in the USA or EU or on Mars) to the other...
In this regards, he's got a lot more 'breathing space' and a lot more experience than any of Western oligarchs and 'politicians' (combined).
Tom, you are probably 1 of best war analyst in the world, but you are not a excelent econom analyst. Not because you are wrong ,( I don't know if you are wrong) but nobody can be expert in 2 such diffrent topics.
Soviet Union has more natural and has bankrupted with just small war.
Venezeula has biggest oil reserves in world and has bankrupted.
Not only in west are idiots.
Just imagine UA close pipelines and destroy oil and LNG terminals or Denmark close baltic sea... and RU loose half of dollar incomes. Can and will UA do it? I don't know.
Will Russia bakrupted? Most probably NO, North Korea still exist. Will Russia has less money on war? Most probably yes. When? Nabulina knows 50% and rest 50% depends on west and UA.
USSR bankrupted itself with massive military expenditure and poor macro economic management since Breznhev took over in 1960s.
Even then USSR could have survived.
Note USSR lost over 300,000 men in Finland in 1939 but Stalin kept his job.
The difference between USSR 1939 and USSR 1991 is that Gorbachev had completely weakened the security apparatus through Perestroika. He allowed dissent, Stalin did not.
And here's where Putin is closer to Stalin than Gorbachev.
Hence Russia can withstand a lot more brutality, losses and economic woes than USSR in 1980s. If you want me to provide evidence, then look at the current 500,000 Russian losses which is even more than Stalin lost in Finland in 1939.
Yes, also North Korea is still existing. Yes Putin is near to Stalin. For me bankrupt means also hyperinflation, not enough goods( for people and also for war).
But there are some diff to Stalin era. With internet, satelite... you can not block information as it was before and people was used to have some free and money. In Stalin era everybody was poor. There is a lot of people which is loosings millions, bilions or the have lost their family or just freedom. Enough for revolution? Probably not. Enough for killing Putin? Hitler, De Gaulle survived tens of atentat but Kennedy was killet at first attempt.
First there is no hyperinflation in Russia.
I think you don't understand one key thing about Russia: it doesn't matter to the elites if the masses are poor. Same actually applies for most developing countries.
Power is held by the elites, not the people. The elites are the military, politicians and rich people. As long as they're happy and they can keep their armed thugs paid then it doesn't matter the average pleb is poor.
Same actually applies increasingly in west. Here is Australia the rich are engorging themselves to such a point most inflation is due to p orfict taking.
The government pretends it cares but in reality they don't and none of their policies actually make any difference.
Not yet and future is unclear. Poor people are small problem, but also elite is getting poorer ( or less rich) and that can be problem.
You can block internat partialy, but it is hard to block everything. It is very expensive and satelite TV cannot be block. But as you say. Most important is elite. Is Elite happy? Not every elite .Can elite makes revolution? Probably no. Want someone from elite or also unhappy poor people kill Putin? For sure yes and many of them. Will they try and be successfully? We will see and don't forget Putin is 71. In this age can everything happend but he can also be in command 10 years.
And last thing don't forget middle class( IT and technics specialist,...) if they will be poor they will go away from RU. But you need them, Yes you can block borders, but RU has to many borders and too much corruption.
Also you can block the internet. They do it all the time across the owrld.
Yes, Russia can probably last for a number of years, with the current conflict intensity. Yes, it is utterly idiotic what NATO leaders are doing. However, what do we expect from people like Scholz, who was personally fighting tooth and nail for nordstream 2 (Handelsblatt). NATO has the control over the intensity of this war, if they decided to increase it, Russia would fold. It seems that, for reasons unknown to me, beyond the typical corruption/incompetence/stupidity/cowardice (cross out as you wish), they do not want to do this. This is as far as Russia goes. NATO can apply coup de grace or they can keep toying with it.
My personal opinion, is that Ukraine is also a reason as to why western leaders are not that keen on investing more into this war. Zelenskyy, and in particular his buddy Yermak, have essentially made a mockery of the EU and the US regarding their demands for systemic, anti-corruption reform. At the moment, nobody really believes that Ukraine will be allowed into either NATO or the EU any time soon. What do you do with this ruined country with 1/3 of the population gone, but with a vast arsenal of western equipment? Nobody wants to have another Afghanistan, funding a corrupt, lawless government for decades. Zelenskyy has just dismissed 2 well regarded officials, Mustafa Nayyem and Oleksandr Kubrakov. People can tell me as much as they want that maybe they were correct decisions. However, from the point of view of the EU/US, these were the people they were dealing with in the context of hundreds of billions of dollars of future reconstruction funds. They liked them, in particular Nayyem. Neither Zelenskyy nor Yermak seem to understand this simple thing. Nobody trusts them enough to just give them hundreds of billions of dollars. Therefore, nobody will give Ukraine any significant money. The frozen Russian funds, will be first used to compensate losses, loans etc. suffered by NATO countries and their businesses/corporates. They will delay and delay until the Ukrainian government finally gets it.
As far as Russian reserves are concerned, they are small. According to official Russian statements, the National Wealth Fund currently has 227.33 bln Chinese yuan (worth $31 billion), 358.96 tons of gold (worth $25 billion) and 1.514 bln ruble (worth $1 billion) plus other non liquid unnamed assets (valued at $76 billion). Non liquid assets are primarily stock, so you can forget about that. Gold is also something you cannot simply get rid of because it will decrease the prices. Yuan is not really a reserve, because they need it to continue trade with China. Russia no longer really has any significant liquid reserves. Any reserves in rubles can be ignored, because the ruble is not exchangeable and subjected to inflation. Russia has vast natural resources but so what? It cannot sell enough of them for the right price. Last year steel production was at the level of a decade ago. Hardly a sign of mass military production.
I do agree with you though, that the one thing Russia has in abundance, is meat.
The two of you have an excellent conversation and great argument. My “two cents” as a rookie in this affair: This war of attrition is the one side loosing, which supply chain (in terms of manpower, armor, energy, monetary funds, etc.) will break at a given point in an “unrepearable” fashion. Time will tell, but I would reckon, Russias will be the one loosing this contest in the long run, as I believe “the West” will continue supporting Ukraine (in a fairly mediocre fashion) continuously to “bleed Russia dry”, which will eventually lead to a completely ruined Russian country in terms of nearly all facets (economically, culturally, sociology, etc.)
I agree it likely that NATO will just keep the current level of support, except for the significant capability increase through F16s and Saab AEWs.
It does appear we are getting closer to 1991. I wouldn't bet on the dissolution of the Russian Federation. I don't think there are any significant independent regions left. Maybe Chechnya but their separation from RF could be lethal for Kadyrov and his entire clan.
I have seen nothing to indicate we are close to 1991. Perversely Russian economy is thriving due to war production and the oil/resource sectors continue to bankroll Russia.
Unlike in 1991, modern Russia is not totally isolated from overseas cash with countries like China, India etc still happy to deal with them.
Don't take it the wrong way, but if you think the economy is thriving and that it is thriving due to war production, then you understand so little about economics that any further discussion is pointless.
Some analysts have stated that if Russia runs out of puff, then west will reduce Ukrainian aid. Zelensky himself has said that west does not want Russia to lose.
The west's aid is actually quite sporadic already and a lot of what they're giving is ancient garbage (eg M113s, YPR765).
Frozen war is the west's goal, not liberating Ukraine. Secretaries of State and Defence, Blinken and Austin, even said goal of Ukrainian war is to bleed Russia whilst General Milley said this war will easily last up to 10 years when he was Chief of General Staff.
Shoulda, woulda, maybe, somebody said... Interesting, but irrelevant. If Ukraine wants to win, it has to convince NATO and the EU to make it happen. In order to convince them, Ukraine has to show it is a serious country, a democracy, determined to join the western civilisation, that it can manage itself. Zelenskyy has done nothing to convince anyone about it. I wouldn't even bet on Ukraine being a democracy after the war.
I actually agree with this. Even before war Zelensky was trying to override the judiciary, a big no no in democracies.
Big mistake of many people and politicians was underestimating of willingness of Ruzzians to die for it's Tsar or money (including gen. Zaluzny, as he admitted, and many Russian opposition politicians.). But the same mistake is to overestimate it.
VSFR lure people for money, but then they have to beat them or even kill them when they refuse to go to the meat assaults. So, there will be a point, when people would stop signing to VSFR. I agree problem for ZSU to endure with minimal losses to this point is proper support from West and allies.
Generally agree with the first part.
As per the "meat assaults": things are very different in 2024 comparing to 2022, especially training wise.
Following you logic, please proceed with sentiment towards the war among the Ukranians: TG channels are full of videos of how UA "recruiters" are hunting ordinary men for army on the streets, with people running, hiding, crying and shooting back. 40 corpses of deserters found in Tisa river, some of them shot in the back by UA border guards.
Recent escape to Hungary:
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-hungary-border-military-conscription/32986954.html
Recently, a UA soldier deserted to RU side of the front on his T-64.
For how long UA population will be ready to fight on?
BTW, let me play devil's advocate: have you heard about any serious civil unrest in overtaken parts of Ukraine? Effectively, none. Moreover, thousands of former UA citizens joined RU army.
"Recently, a UA soldier deserted to RU side of the front on his T-64."
Source for this claim? I think this a Russian propaganda fairy tale or staged propaganda story (just take a captured T-64 and put a guy in an Ukrainian uniform.)
The question for how long UA population will be ready to fight on, can also be reverted to Russia. For how long will the Russians and their mercenaries be willing to fight for money, when they realize that 80% are not coming home, that the coffins are piling up and the promised payment is sacked by corrupt officials?
Here you are:
https://t.me/boris_rozhin/124711
And for a change, people in Lutsk (Western Ukraine) fight off army recruiters:
https://t.me/boris_rozhin/127542
LOL 24th of May... and as already said, could be staged by Russian propaganda. Wouldn't be the first time.
The Russians still have a serf mentality. Nothing's really changed there for centuries when it comes to the social contract.
And people will continue signing up for VSRF as long as the pay is better than civilian work (which in Russia has always been the case in most of its impoverished regions).
Interesting post. Full of right and wrong thoughts (my imho, of course).
Regarding civilian production. Since the war start, a lot of new SME projects for "import substitution" were launched. Many of them are successful and a few even export machinery (!!!) to....EU (like it or not).
As per auto production. All old "Soviet brands" like Lada, Kamaz, and etc, work at full swing. However, foreign assemblies (VW, Koreans, Ford and others) indeed halted the production and were swiftly replaced by Chinese. It's painful. For example, myself being a passionate buyer of Cadillacs for the last 20 years, have an unpleasant choice of paying triple price for Cadillac imported via third country with no guarantees attached or buy smth. Chinese. New generation of Chinese cars look awesome with their futuristic forms though I have doubts about the quality of "insights". Anyway, in 5-10 years Chinese autos will destroy once lovely but now louse EU brands like Fiat, Citroen, and etc. But that's the other story.
All in, the dependence on China is painful and I don't like it. However, there's another side of the shield. I met with several...well...mid-size Russian industrials. Their message was the following: we were in despair in 2022-23 as we had a block of buying spare parts for our equipment from Germany and Italy or were pressed to buy them at triple price from "mediators". However, in 2024 they got Chinese equipment which less effective, less reliable but....much cheaper and no problems with spares. And now the industrialists are happy. In general, Chinese will sell everything needed to fill any gap.
Another point that most people overlook is stupid and idiotic sanctions of the West on oligarkhs (thanks heaven for that!!!). The most pro-Western people in the world got busted. And now, instead of spending billions of dollars on castles, yachts or simply keeping money at accounts with JPMorgan or Barclays, they invest funds inside the Russia, especially on infrastructural projects.
Agriculturewise Russia is completely selfsufficient but for bananas and coffee.))))
The bottom line: Russia can't be defeated neither military nor economically. The history shows that only inner unrest can do.
Import substitution cannot substitute all imports, at the same volume, for the same price, with the same delivery time. Russia is building up vast storage capacity because it has no guaranteed flow of components. In other words, the supply chain is completely unwieldy.
Yes, the Chinese can sell almost anything civilian/dual-use, but that also has limits. Even more important is the fact, that cross-border finance is extremely difficult nowadays, with more and more Chinese banks simply refusing to process them. Also, the Chinese demand essentially full pre-payment with long delivery times. All of that is a killer for any manufacturing. Also, funnily enough, the trade with China is limited by the amount of oil and gas that Russia exports to it. That's because the yuan is the only acceptable currency and China does not allow anyone to simply exchange their currency, especially for a worthless ruble. There's actually a reverse problem with India, where Russia has many billions of dollars in rupies, that cannot be held outside of India but there is very little that Russia imports from them. It's sitting there doing nothing.
Thank you for mentioning Lada. It is a brilliant example of the technological degeneration of the Russian economy. A substandard car, by european standards, before 2022, is now sold without the most basic systems, that used to be standard until then. The same thing is happening throughout Russian manufacturing, especially in the military industry. Lack of western components, lack of replacement parts for western machines, lack of western machines to set up new production lines, lack of western software etc. Everything including tanks is getting simpler, more basic, requiring more labour, less efficient etc. If Russia was in the late XX/early XXI century (I'm being generous) in terms of manufacturing, they are progressing in rocket speed towards the dark depths of the cold war.
Almost forgot, Russia lost the Crimean war, Russo-Japanes war, WW1 (revolution or not, wouldn't have won). Russia loses major wars all the time. The only time it achieves victory in Europe, is if it's a part of a large western coalition.
No offense, you did not get my message. I am not contradicting the idea of decreasing of living standards for mid-class, certain loose of competencies, and etc. But for 80% of Russian population all these things will go unnoticed. More of this, due to the recent investment in infrustructure, astronomic payments to army personnel, and salaries increase generally thruout the country, millions of people will paradoxically say that the life got better.
As per finance assesment - your are going into extremes. I do not want to elaborate, since you obviously do not have "inside" info about it. In general, it's unpleasant, but just a certain percent of extra costs (at least, for basic things).
Regarding tbe wars: Crimea war? Russo-Japanese? Most of population did not even notice those defeats. See the peace terms of both wars. The "winners" got more exausted than the defeated Russia.
A few % inflation you say? Sure, I guess Putin said so. I hear loans are really cheap as well nowadays. What are the interest rates 16%?
No offense taken. Also, no offense but it's completely irrelevant what an average Russian thinks, feels, knows or wants. Wars are fought for political gains. No amount of potatoes, vodka and happy golfing in Ukraine, will win a war. Also, this idea that one can fight a war without money is a laughable Russian myth for idiots. There is nothing Russia can do to win, if NATO doesn't want it to.
See no reason to proceed the dispute further, let's stick to our own ground. My imho, you are going into emotional extremes that hurt you generally interesting approach.
As per your last sentence: what NATO "wants to" does not matter. Only US can radically change the things. Luckily for Russia, US is giving limited assistance to Ukraine, just enough to survive. The reasons why surely deserve a separate research.
xD
The derangement of Russians never ceases to be funny. Europe has provided more military and financial support than the US. The European arms industry alone will outproduce Russia in every category, including ammunition, by the end of 2024. Unlike Russia, Europe can scale up production to any level it wants. We are all quaking in our boots thinking of all those Russians in Chinese golf carts streaming across the NATO border.
Russo-Japanese loss resulted in quite a few problems internally in Russia. Not in Japan.
Near toppled the Tzar!
However most Russians (ie rural peasants still living in near serf conditions) didn't care about it.
It comes down to how people in Moscow and St Petersburg feel about it.
And as long as the people in those 2 cities are not completely enraged, then the regime is stable.
I agree with Tupolev. Average Russian won't care about Lada not having air bags because they could never afford a Lada in the first place.
This is a country where nearly 25% of people don't have access to sewerage or running water. Why would they care about Lada's not having airbags?!? Even a shit Lada is an upgrade for many.
Outside of St Petersburg and Moscow, most of Russia is primitive and in a state of permanent decay - this is why they view the USSR as the golden era. Because if you lived in some crappy Soviet industrial city east of the Urals that made subpar goods, you still had a guaranteed job, were provided with subsidised housing and could access social and public services. Now the inefficient factories are gone, there's no guaranteed work etc.
Hence joining the armed forces is seen as a great opportunity. Even better, the old Soviet weapons factory that was barely open prior to 2022 now needs more workers than it has ever since 1991.
All of a sudden that Lada might actually be a possibility for the first time in your life.
Nobody cares about what Russians think. If whether a Russian cares about air bags, is what you got out of this whole thread, then I don't know what else to say. It's irrelevant if they can get more soldiers. None of this matters. 10M russians in golf carts worries nobody.
You are the one raised technological degeneration of Russian cars, not me.
Yes, because that is crucial to understanding what is happening to the economy and the war effort. You cannot win a war, you cannot rebuild, you cannot become stronger, by going backwards technologically. Technological advancement isn't only about quality, it's primarily about effectiveness and efficiency.
The history shows that only internal unrest can beat Russia. Of course this doesnt mean that will last forever, But Even if, the internal unrest is usually created/helped/dependent etc by external conflicts. And while Putin definetly is in power now the conflict created the environment for internal unrest.
If Russia can survive just fine without x, y and z, then let it do just that. Let it with withdraw from Ukraine, return all Ukrainian children and pay for the rebuilding. And let it live prosperously and self-sufficiently without economic links to the West and without invading its neighbours again. Why does Russia need Ukraine? What's worth all that suffering on both sides?
The Russian economy had a 50% margin of stolen income (where all those yachts and mansions came from). Right now they make that margin thinner - by persecuting officials for corruption and increasing taxes for oil exports - but they did not start increasing taxes or prices for their population, yet.
Thus, it's not in a real "war mode" and nobody knows how much of the corruption margin remains to be used for funding the war.
Russia has only a few weeks ago proposed a significant tax increases, including income and corporate taxes. You cannot fund budget deficits from imaginary money.
Of course it is a war economy. If a business doesn't produce for the military, whatever it is, it cannot obtain cheap loans, i.e. much below the current credit rates. Nobody can afford 20+% loans. All military production is paid for by the state, if they need more people and higher wages, they get the money for it from the government. Massive cuts in government spending on anything non-military. Train freight has to prioritise specific sectors that are crucial for either funding the military or military production. The list is endless. It doesn't matter what you call it formally, for all intents and purposes it is a war economy.
In general, I see a certain misconception being repeated time and time again. Almost any country can sustain some kind of a war, at some intensity, for a very long time. That is irrelevant. What matters is, can that country scale up and up and up as the conflict progresses. Russia can no longer do that, in fact it kind of ceased doing that already last year. Even the number of soldiers in Ukraine isn't increasing. It's complete stagnation.
NATO will have outproduced Russia in every equipment category by the end of 2024. In many key categories, such as air assets, NATO produces many tens of times more. It's irrelevant if they can keep sending Buryats in golf carts.
NATO is not Ukraine, its production is not dedicated to this war.
Sure, but then the conversation is very different. It's obvious that Russia has an industrial advantage over Ukraine. Ukraine produces nothing, except drones, in any meaningful quantity. Russia is competing industrially with NATO. It's a purely political decision how much and what equipment is transferred to Ukraine. If Russia could compete, there would already be 1M soldiers in Ukraine, but as things are, even more than 2 years after the invasion, the VSRF is completely incapable of supporting a larger force.
If Russia could produce more, they would merely lose more. Even if Russian produced 100 times more weapons than it does, it still wouldn't make a difference.
Truth is Russian military is incapable of waging modern warfare.
1. You have a command structure rooted in 1700s age of massed musket regiments. Russian junior leaders have no initiative and are mere conduits for higher commanders orders. There is still no truly functional NCO corps. This is why you often have Russian generals having to go to frontline to work out what's going on.
2. You have an army with a WW2 and even WW1 approach to fighting warfare. Eg the airforce as an extension of artillery. Lack of true combined arms etc etc. Their approach to logistics is stuck in Napoleonic times.
Their doctrine is based on scientific formulas with little or no deviation or flexibility and which take away all independence from junior officers.
3. The higher command is incompetent and basically political appointments - no Zhukovsky's, Vaututin's Rokossovsky's. This then permeates to lower levels at division, brigade, battalion and company level.
WW2 Russians were lucky they inherited a whole heap of generals who had learned their trade in hard battles in WWI, Russian Civil War, Russo-Polish War and clashes with Japanese in 1930s.
The current crop never had to fight near peer opponents until now! Most are political appointments. Meritocracy died in Soviet Army in 1945 when the old pre-war culture of political obedience became prominent again.
This is why even limited western aid mostly comprised of ancient junk has managed to stop the Russians.
Even if Russia was churning out thousands of T-90s and hundreds of Su-57s the outcome would be essentially the same.
All that you've written suggests:
1. You do not understand anything about economics.
2. You believe in myths of Russian invincibility.
3. You believe that money is not needed for war, if you are Russian.
4. Somehow, inconceivably, you think there is not point in ramping up war production during the war, because it will get destroyed anyway. This is actually the most bizarre statement I've heard in a long time. To say it's nonsensical, is an understatement.
Russia never had an advanced civilian economy. It was and still is a petro-state where nearly 25% of people don't have access to running water or sewerage (and people call me a Russian troll). Things like car factories or other civilian manufacturing were limited in their scope.
And thus as long as petro-dollars are flowing in to prop the economy up, it can sustain itself regardless of whether the war continues or not.
Because if the armaments factories close, then the government will dole out welfare to keep people fed and use the massive security apparatus to clobber anyone who complains. Remember this is closer to a Stalinist state than Perestroika era USSR.
This is also why the Russian population can sustain such massive losses and such a massive army - most of the population was never engaged in anything meaningful or sustainable before the war. There was a massive surplus of humans especially outside of St Petersburg and Moscow.
Conditions were so miserable for most Russians that a one way trip to Ukraine is seen as an improvement. If you're lucky you get out alive with all your limbs and a good lump of cash by Russian standards.
(Yes the Russians claimed low unemployment but their stats are a mass of lies).
They had some advanced economy. It was based on western machines, western software, western processes. The oil and gas sector was also based on western technology, especially the modern part of it. Those destroyed distillation towers cannot be replaced by Ivan and Sasha, they cannot be brought from China or India.
Top 👌
Amusing in a grim way
"...….the USN and the EUNAVFOR are wasting SAMs around the Red Sea - to protect the Russian coal exports…" So true, and so stupid!!!
Taken out of context, hundreds of other ships go by. Still, indeed a very funny concidence. Interesting that Russian media is silent about coal cargo.
To all who read the comment from this person. This account is ruzzian troll/propagandist, who spreads anti-ukrainian propaganda and deliberately posts fake information. This account uses the information from ruzzian state propagandist resources and so called Z-voenkors (ruzzian war correspondents) as a proof.
Moreover this account uses hate speech for humilitating ukrainians and everything that is pro-ukrainian.
I urge you to ignore his comments and ask Tom to block him.
Here is the illustration of what are the real targets of what they call SVO: it’s a complete annihilation of Ukraine and ukrainians:
https://meduza.io/feature/2024/06/20/zdes-i-seychas-proishodit-krupneyshiy-genotsid-so-vremen-vtoroy-mirovoy-eti-foto-tomu-podtverzhdenie-kak-vyglyadyat-ukrainskie-voennye-posle-plena
His argumentation etc. by side: I know 'Tupolev' for years (even 'decades', literally) already, and thus know he means no harm. (He might not have a lots of 'evidence' to show in support of his points of view, but in few cases when he does, this is solid.)
At least he is nowhere near as delusional as so many of Western Pudding-fans with social media presences and millions of followers.
And, well... kill me, but I'm that way. As long as I can have at least a 'semi-reasonable' exchange with a person, I'll never give up.
Got your point. Unsubscribing
Obviously you don't understand democratic concept of freedom of speech.
Except they won't give Ukraine any Aegis ships or Aegis ashore, so those Standard missiles don't have another immediate purpose.
Two years ago I was arguing for the transfer of some old US Aegis cruisers through a private intermediary to Ukraine. They might even be active right now, guarding Odesa and the coast. Standards can shoot down ballistic missiles - it's the U.S. Navy's Patriot equivalent. And all the orcs can field in the Black Sea now are submarines, which the Ticos can also hunt.
I doubt that USA would risk giving the Aegis to Ukraine, it's rather 'sensitive' technology.
I would like to remind the situation regarding Turkey and the F-35/S-400 combination...
Agreed.
The way America ranks its allies is another reason why you can’t trust it.
In reality, NATO should have already taken over this job. I don’t understand why anyone would believe Article 5 means jack squat at this point.
Let's not confuse NATO and USA.
These serve two very different purposes.
Imagine you being France, would you sell your best military technology to a country which competes with you on the world stage? (eg Russia in Africa)
Or sell nuclear weapons to Ukraine? In general, France sells weapons to everybody not competing with them (and on good terms).
Same with USA. A hegemony doesn't export the best weapons to everyone (they didn't sell the F-22 to anyone else, even to Saudis, who had deep enough pockets). And giving permission to export some weapons, but not others, is another lever of pressure (eg. you may get a permission to buy AMRAAM, but not AIM-260 for your F-16s).
NATO is a wholly different game. As a strictly defense organization, they don't attack other countries. USA may start a war on Iraq or Serbia, but the other NATO members are under no obligation to follow (typical example: France in the second Gulf war, if my memory serves me correctly).
"Imagine you being France, would you sell your best military technology to a country which competes with you on the world stage ? (eg Russia in Africa)"
I mean ... This is exactly what France have been doing during the past decades. Where do you think thermals for modernised Russian MBTs came from ? Check out French defence related companies like Thales and Saffran. Russia was and still remains an important customer.
Even in non-business-related affairs. France have been supportive of Russian imperial adventures in Africa. More precisely in Libya. As well as Syria. Like most of NATO save for Turkey who was then accused of betraying NATO (ho the irony).
There was a move to sell FREMM frigates to Russia, if I remember correctly (during Hollande presidency). Fortunately, that didn't go very far.
Imagers aren't complete weapons (sure, these are an important element, but not a whole SCALP-EG or similar weapon). I doubt that France has sold their heavy hitters to antagonists
And that's why you want to avoid buying defense equipment from a single supplier. You may lose economies of scale and be saddled with logistics for multiple spare parts for different tanks, airplanes, ships, etc, but you have more strategic options.
Some examples from Greece: F-16 vs Mirage 2000 "The sale of the century" it was termed in the eighties. At the end, Greece bought both types (the good thing about the French is, they are selling to you almost all of the weapons possible for your plane - except nuclear, of course, while with USA you have to go through State Dept. giving an export license for every weapon type for your F-16). And a recent order of Rafale jets and an upgrade program to F-16V means that there'll continue to be two main types of fighter jets.
Similar for warships (most times bought second-hand), Hellenic Navy had multiple types of frigates from Netherlands, Germany, USA serving concurrently (the only "monopoly" is in submarines, which are all of German origin, Type 209 and Type 214, if memory serves me correctly). And recently, there was an order for Belharra frigates (currently being laid up), with Aster missiles etc.
Tanks are mostly a German case, with Leopard 1A5 and Leopard 2A6 being the bulk (plus some old M60 MOLF tanks, mostly dispersed in islands for defense). And there are both European and American howitzer like the M109 and PzH2000 serving in parallel (I don't know if these can utilize the same type of artillery rounds - I remember reading that there's a big problem with standardization in this segment)
well... this is the second russian ship hit by Houties... I guess those times no SAM was wasted to protect them...
A fantastic piece. Thank you very much.
Frankly, it's strange to see the ocean tug Nikolay Chiker in a such company of ships. Chiker played the most important role in that famous voyage when the Russian aircraft carrier came to Syria in December 2016. The super-capable aircraft carrier Kuznetsov couldn't handle the travel without a tug, only the ocean tug Nikolai Chiker could control such an enormous ship like Kuznetsov. So, if Chiker is back in business then Gorshkov has big problems with an engine or power unit.
https://i.imgur.com/mh3vJIF.png
https://i.imgur.com/YfjJFOL.jpeg
P.s. It was easy to find out where Kuznetsov was; it was enough to know where Chiker was. Marine traffic did the fantastic job.
They may be preparing for a possible failure of engines of another of their ships.
"how else can they achieve such a feat? In the US-elections of this November?"
I share most of your cynicism about Biden & Scholz et.al. They clearly are unwilling to risk a military defeat of RU. (I would add the problem is not really the leadership. The majority of western foreign policy thinking has always favored a stalemate & armistice.)
In a recent newsletter you suggested Trump plausibly may not be any worse for Ukraine.
Is Putin wrong to prefer Trump?
With Trump you have a 50/50 type situation - if he sees it in his interest to back Putin, he will. If, on the other hand, he feels like he can't look visibly weak in an area where his enemy's propaganda has constantly tried to assert a tie to Putin, he might declare that Putin has to respect Ukraine's 1991 borders and send more aid - Ukraine got its first Javelins under Trump.
Meanwhile with Biden you have a 95% chance that he'll counterbalance anything good he does for Ukraine with something that favors Putin in some way. His goal is simply to roll back the clock to about 2015.
Pick your poison. The real issue is that funding for Ukraine has to get through Congress and it's likely to be paralyzed by partisanship for years to come.
You have the correct measure of Biden IMO.
Trump has few beliefs. But his isolationist/protectionist instincts are sincere and consistent for decades. He doesn't value alliances. Your suggestion that Trump might send "more aid" sufficient to roll back RU to international borders is far fetched. It's not just a matter of "more aid"; it requires a hell of a commitment. Trump generally doesn't do hard things requiring sacrifice and long commitments.
Funding for Ukraine is not threatened by partisanship. It is threatened by Trump & his America First wing of the Republican party.
A lot of conservative, enthusiastic UKraine supporters are thinking like you. (I'm thinking of the Secret Squirrel guy on twitter. ) I fully appreciate your contempt for Biden. I appreciate your dedication & contribution to Ukraine's fight. The equating of Biden & Trump doesn't add up. Both bad doesn't mean equally bad.
ps. Trump sent javelins to UKraine only after his "perfectly good" conversation with Zelensky exposed him.
Both bad, yes, But not equally bad. The US needs to choose.
Trump winning is a risk for Russia because he is inconsistent. And he might try to force some deal that ends up difficult for Putin. Putin wants the internal conflict in US to go on. One way or another.
I disagree that Trump is unpredictable. He has a long track record of favoring the easy way out of foreign confrontations. The deal he made with the Taliban was shockingly craven. He asked for nothing to accommodate our former allies; agreed to get out in a few months.
When Trump said he could negotiate an end to the war in UKR quickly, it is BS but is evidence of his thinking. A quick resolution can only be done by abandoning UKR. Squuzing RU for a favorable deal will take years of commitment.
I agree. Trump is a transactionalist. He doesn't have any ideological stance. Instead each issue is dealt with by maximising what he gets out of it.
1. How can you predict "the easy way out"? It will always depend on the factors on the field.
2. In the current context one (even Trump) has to consider Russia's strong ties with China and NK, and the Global South. Do you think Putin could now turn its back to China for the sake of Trump? Do you think the USA will go as far with the isolation as abandoning Europe, its last ally?
You are projecting upon Trump some minimal wisdom and long term thinking. That is not how America First isolationism works. Many of his ideological soul mates in Congress still insist that support to counter China and Ru are separate, competing priorities.
Battlefield/geopolitical considerations? Trump has made clear on and off the record that abandoning UKR is cost free. He chillingly twice predicted that RU is ultimately going to conquer all of UKR.
The very worst argument advanced is that the mad, unpredictable Trump will control Putin by sending more aid. The challenge is UKR is herding an alliance of two dozen countries over many more years. Aid has to be ramped up for years or it is near useless. Trump doesn't do alliances, let alone long, difficult projects that will bear fruit later. He is America First to the core, has been for decades. He is Putin's wet dream.
That is true, I am projecting some minimal wisdom, at least on his advisors. It is obvious that an isolated America could be enough for its reasonable development, but it would definitely be nothing "great". I tend to think that Putin (and KGB) wanted to influence the US politics in its favor, offering to balance/help to counter China, in exchange for "free hand" for Russia in Eastern Europe. It is not the case anymore, because of the resistance in Ukraine. Now Putin has to sing at a different table, long or short, and has nothing to offer to the US, he depends on China. He just hopes Trump is idiot enough to stop helping Ukraine. It's interesting that all these "superpowers", with their "superpoliticians", somehow disregarded Europe as a power. While I agree that the EU looks weak, I wouldn't underestimate it completely. After all, everybody underestimated Ukraine, and the Ukrainians taught everyone a lesson.
Putin has already won the US elections. That gambit is mission accomplished. It doesn't matter who wins, because about half the country will reject the outcome as illegitimate. Political paralysis will endure.
There is no America to speak of any more. It's vital to keep that in mind. Partisans want to pretend that 2024 is THE mother of all battles, but dysfunction is here to stay until at least the end of this decade. This is a political realignment that has to run its course.
This is why I've been warning Ukraine supporters for over a year and a half now to ignore the US media BS narrative framing as a matter of survival. The Zombie Idiocy plague ate the US federal government's mind long ago.
Congress will be divided on any issue that doesn't make rich people or Israel happy. Then of course it will act with due haste and zero debate because Israel is the official Good Guy in this heroic epic. Presidents are mostly figureheads who rule through executive order.
Looks like Weimar, but thankfully the federal structure of the US makes totalitarian rule highly unlikely. Let me put it this way - if the West Coast, which votes 2 to 1 against Trump, went revolutionary and declared itself an autonomous federal region, even all of Red America together couldn't take us over. Imagine if Ukraine had a series of mountain ranges between it and Moscow. Geography matters.
My message to the rest of the world: forget about America. At least, the parts which think they can play isolationist and magically attract capital sufficient to survive.
Not possible (yet) to disregard USA hegemony. That hegemony was built at great effort and expense during the 20th century, it'll take a long time to see a Europe independent of the USA military (ironically, the previous Trump presidency shook up many European capitals into action, as glacial as it may be - inertia is hard to overcome)
Very good points. Yes, Europe is moving out of inertia, and its damn hard.
I don't see Europe moving out of inertia. Too many domestic problems for that. In fact Macron's new warhawk persona is typical of French leaders when they're domestically struggling. Last time a French president was in trouble domestically, they stabbed their new ally Gaddafhi in the back and destroyed Libya as a coherent state.
Note that the Kissinger joke about a European phone number still holds (not literally, but still...)
There are multiple domestic politics at play inside the EU (witness Orban and Fico vs Macron and Scholz - everyone has their own agenda and voters to please). EU is still not a monolithic entity
Except US hegemony demonstrably doesn’t exist. It’s an illusion that politicians across the “west” use to avoid taking responsibility.
Note how every time Ukraine asks for any modern gear, the US insists that sending any would detract from operational readiness somewhere else? That’s a tell. The US provides a few extremely handy capabilities and has more depth than any other individual player. But it is totally reliant on allied support to do anything more than park a carrier group off the coast and sling missiles.
That’s the shocking conclusion years of studying the US political system brought me to. The USA is as much of a bluff as the USSR proved to be. It took only a single generation of incompetent idiots to hollow it out beyond hope of repair.
Traditional US military planning is to be prepared for a two oceans war. Since the collapse of the USSR, the pressure for a "peace dividend" caused lots of companies consolidation and lots of stored equipment in places like Davis-Monthan base (fortunately, the desert is a better place to store equipment, away from humidity). And artisanal, low rate production of things like artillery rounds).
It takes time and money for the USA to restore Cold War era production capacity (and let's not speak about WW2 production capacity)
https://youtu.be/iaJ9QZp-DJo?si=ZDQBOiuOipRnV4fF
If Putin is increasing pay to soldiers and key workers, that's likely both recognizing that inflation has eroded their salaries, and also will be the cause even more inflation when this money gets spent. And if he's increasing pay in USD terms - that will worsen the problem even more.
At its core, Russia's problem is that the value of Russian civilian economy production is decreasing - due to military production, due to sanctions, due to refinery strikes, ect. The only two possible outcomes of this are Russians consuming less stuff or importing more stuff. By all indications Russia is currently doing the latter, but it's not a sustainable solution. Crude oil can buy a lot of stuff but has its limits. Russia can only spend money and get into debt so long as China is willing to bankroll them, and China seems to be having its own difficulties.
Russian civilian manufacturing has never been that important to the economy - in fact civilian manufacturing is no longer important in most of the western world. Globalisation means most civilian products are made in China or Bangladesh or Mexico or Philippines.
In fact the Russians got economic more value out of military production because they could export weapons for cash. That has ceased and in the long run will prove more problematic.
So, as ever, nothing is true and everything is possible in Russia. Peter Pomerantsev may well go down in history as one of the great reporters of our time because that observation defines perfectly the aggrieved deluded Russian mindset. For all the criticisms of the West, it's good that we can point to our flaws instead of pretending they don't exist. So let Putin think he will win as the speed of Russian decay accelerates.
The irony is thick here. An indirect Putin ally torpedoing a ship carrying Ruskie coal, a fleet of that country's ships off the coast of Florida whose governor has stated the war in Ukraine is no concern of the US (us). -Guess DeSantis is okay with Russian missiles stationed 90 miles off the Florida coast.- Of course Putin's sub didn't look to be in the best of conditions. Might make one wonder why a weapon sent as a warning message to the western world is less than ship-shape. Not to mention your observation of the US armada sent to "escort" the Russian caravan or as some might say, "don't tread on us" display of righteous resolve if Putin crosses the (territorial) line.
US to redirect Patriot air defence orders to Ukraine
https://www.ft.com/content/89fe9d6b-3a0f-42a5-af50-cff7f457a126
Enough people have said this enough times that I am starting to believe it
Better to wait and see.
Actions (should) speak louder than words.