Russia’s economy is on the brink of collapse, they are running out the of refined oil, they are short of military hardware and none of this is likely to improve. How soon before Russians around Putin get sick of it? One can only hope very soon.
You could be right. But I remember a lot of respected people suggested that if Russia lost about 100,000 men they would be forced to end the war. They would compare the deaths from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which was "18,000". With what we know now its hard to believe the 18,000 figure. The Soviets likely lost at least an order of magnitude more men. My point is we outside Ukraine have underestimated the level of malevolency Putin and his supporters in Russia have towards Ukraine that could prolong this war even past a severe economic downturn. They could possibly still have men going into meat waves and citizens building cheap off the shelf drones to cause Ukraine trouble. But I agree if they keep having key facilities related to oil and weapons manufacturing taken out it could change the outcome.
I think the number of men they lose is fairly irrelevant and their wins of various fields is meaningless too. Their economy is going bust and they are running out of refined oil. Some say Hitler lost when he ran out of oil. Incidentally my mum lived in Mestre next to Venice and in WW2 it was under occupation by Germany after Mussolini was killed. The allies bombed and destroyed the marghera oil refinery near her home, they had targeted other refineries as is Ukraine right now with drones WW2 war ended soon after that. Yes of course it depends on many things.
Hitler lost when he rumbled tanks into USSR. By 1942 he lost strategic initiative and most of the original army. Eastern Front accounted for 75% of all German losses
If Germany stayed out of USSR, the war would have stalemated as Germany couldn't knock out Britain and Britain/USA couldn't knock out Germany as all its forces would be available to defend France and Italy..
I recall reading in my dim, dark past "somewhere" in some now obscure history book, that the author claimed that the 8th sacrament of the Russian Orthodox Church is SUFFERING. Suffering thus has been inculcated into Russian culture historically. It therefore would seem that Russians possess an almost infinite capacity to suffer. If so, then the horrendous losses of mostly Russian men in combat will not move the Russian population politically unless some crisis point is reached. What is that point? Is it a severely degraded economy? Or will it occur when a significant percentage of the European Russian population starts to experience massive war deaths? Will an eventual decisive defeat of the Russian armed forces on the field of battle (Ukraine & Crimea) end the conflict, or will a Putin dominated Russia continue the fight from within the borders of Russia?
I suspect that the center of gravity pertaining to Ukrainian vs. Russian "victory" will be the West's political will to support Ukraine militarily and economically. I don't see either side quitting the conflict of its own volition.
I don't know enough about Western European politics to say this about Western Europe, but in my opinion, the political system of my (U.S.) own nation is in disarray, and will remain so even if "iL Douche Bag" [Trump] fails to re-capture the U.S. Presidency. It is entirely possible for the U.S. to lose the political will to continue the fight, i.e., to continue support for Ukraine, a support heretofore in my perception that has been niggardly thus far compared with what support is actually required to defeat decisively Russian armed forces on the field of battle. Sorry for the pessimism!
Russia will reach a point when it will be forced to give up. I only heard tonight that they just do not have the hardware, in the form of tanks to make any strategic breakthrough, so what are they doing? . They are down to occupying less land than they did last year, their navy is all but destroyed and the economy trashed with a refined oil shortage. What exactly do you think they will be achieving in the next months?
"What exactly do you think they will be achieving in the next months?"
This is a very good question! Until "what ends ends" and when later the professional historians, political scientists, politicians, et. al., contribute their professional & academic two-cents worth of "I told you so's" [toward one conclusion or the other], I will render a mere layman's guess: Russia's army and other bastard sons of Father Putin will suffer and incur casualties that should not have been incurred in anticipation of Trump winning the U.S. Presidency. Of course if Trump doesn't win, then Russia will have achieved nothing.
In stating the above, I acknowledge that the U.S. isn't the only Western player with a stake in Ukraine and who has contributed treasure, however insufficient thus far, in helping Ukraine prevail over the Russian bear.
I fervently hope that I am wrong and that you are correct, that Russia will be forced to give up. Assuming you are correct, I can only wonder at the long-term international political ramification of such a failure. I can't speak for the Western Europeans, but what I know (amateur here too!) of the U. S. political system and long-term U.S. foreign policy, I perceive that American policy makers fear a potential break-up of the Russian commonwealth of states. The "Stans," or at least those with petroleum reserves must look pretty enticing to the PRC. Also, Siberia is a treasure trove of national resources (well at least having a bunch of trees! **LOL** ). Japan is re-arming and China continues to arm. It could be that those two nations have their lustful eyes gazed upon Siberia. Russia is 11 time zones wide. That's a hell of a huge land mass to govern much less to protect militarily. Add in the existence of nuclear weapons and we have a complex, highly dangerous mix of geo-political agendas at play.
Yes agree. What America needs is a Henry Kissinger type of negotiator because when Russia collapses it will start a process of breaking up , which is essential. But China could be a problem. I think they need a chunk of Russia, Manchuria so as to stop further encroachment. That could be a deal but it’s a way off. Otherwise China could be a menace.
Mere number of tanks or equipment is meaningless. It's how you use them. Russia could have deployed its whole fleet of 10,000+ tanks at Andiivka in 2014 when all this started* and the result would still have been the same - 10 years of grinding stalemate.
Russian military doctrine is stuck in 1943 and it's concept of military command in 1720s (Great Northern War).
Let's not forget in 1941 Wehrmacht's mere 3000 odd mainly obsolete tanks helped trash 24,000 (including 1500 KV-1 and T-34s) better equipped and better armoured Russian tanks. Soviet lost over 3000 "superior" T-34 and KV1s in Jun-Dec 1941 alone.
Quantity is necessary but not a guarantee of anything.
*People forget or don't know Ukrainians defeated Russian army's offensives in 2014.
Civilians are in general very unlikely to topple a government, even if things look bad. The government also needs to mess up, big time, and it's still a rare occurrence then.
If we are looking for a parallel, Russia had suffered way more horrendous casualties in WWI (literal millions), the population was short on food, they were losing their own territory - and the Tsar fell only because he ordered the bulk of his armies around the capital and had them sit there, armed, waiting to be sent into a much huger grinder than today. His ministers were desperately trying to warn him, all in vain. Of course he was taken down in the end.
Putin is cautious?? Seems to me he’s pretty stupid. Now he’s depending on Belarus to be the fall guy in chucking over a strategic nuclear bomb. I suppose he hopes Belarus will get the retaliation. All very desperate and pathetic stuff. I don’t hold Putin in any esteem at all. If he’d worked for me he’d have got the sack ages ago.
Yes, Putin is extremely, even exceedingly, cautious. His personal bodyguard / security agency, the FSO, numbers at least tens of thousands of carefully vetted, well-paid personnel, and it's fully intact. He also makes permanently sure no one else can get too powerful in Russia - Prigozhin was closest to that, and even he turned out to be very far.
I can absolutely believe he would make a lousy civilian worker, and you would have every reason to fire him, had you been his employer. But he's self-employed, and he has talent for the aspects that are important to a Russian monarch.
He also sucks as a military leader. That's also irrelevant. He doesn't need to be good in that to stay in power.
He probably has way more than 4 doctors and 100 bodyguards.
But an important aspect pointed out by the Russian experts I read, is that he actually values people who are loyal to him. These can count on him, and will always get some comfy government job no matter what. In this regard, he's different from Trump who thinks everyone at all is worthless scum - Putin only considers regular folks to be worthless scum, those that he sends into the grinder.
You clearly don't understand the Russian system of government. Whilst a war in Ukraine was a risky proposition, Putin's government is run according to far more cautious principles with many checks and balances to keep any one party from having ideas of toppling him. So oligarchs, FSB, the military and the civilian government leadership and all factions within are all entwined in a symbiotic relationship with Putin whilst at the same time they are hostile to each other.
Remember Prigozhin got majorly fucked over with his coup. He never had any support from the Russian elites.
And remember Stalin did stupid reckless wars too (invasion of Finland) and then even got caught with his pants down by Germans in 1941 and yet he survived.
Sorry, Sally, that's a complete nonsense. Russian GDP is rising above expectations, oil factories got minor "injures" and got repairing, military production rose in times (Krasnopol production, for example, 20 times (!)), and etc. This does not mean, of course, that Russia can win the war. However, it cant't afford to lose it.
As per Russians getting tired of Putin? Well, since 2022 both the West and Ukraine doing their best to help him keep the power even stronger by dozens of idiotic moves.
The gdp is including the war economy as you correctly state. That’s not an income, it’s a cost that gets nothing in return but uses up income in wages and materials. NOT something you should be including to show an uptick. Meanwhile the gas company Gasprom has lost 8 billion in one year, that’s one company providing the income to support the economy. Oil refining is seriously damaged. If you think they can fix damaged oil refineries you are wrong. They need specialist parts and experts to fix and it takes years. Especially those tall chimney like structures. Two things Russia doesn’t have are experts and parts. .
War economy is still GDP. Here in west we also count building bombs as GDP. Even crime increases GDP - eg cost of replacement of stolen goods, operation of courts, police and gaols, cost of healthcare for drug addicts all increase GDP.
Even companies borrowing money out of control to buy their own shares increases GDP (share buybacks are endemic in US).
Sure Danny, everything is GDP. There is a formula. Question is, which one of the 4 factors is the main contributor to Russia's GDP now. There are things that raise GDP but don't make the country better off.
That is arguably most economic growth a lot of which is concentrated in the hands of a few select elites.
Eg Here in Australia GDP growth is going up but we actually have a GDP per capita recession.
Only thing pumping up GDP is mass immigration but in reality that is not a good thing because living standards are in decline and infrastrucuteenot coping with mass inflix of people.
Oh and because of inflation (not in salaries) GDP growth is essentially eaten up by inflation.
Then there's the concentration of wealth happening throighout the world. Does it matter of GDP is up 5% if all of that 5% goes to a handful of rich people?
Another vital point that is overlooked in the West is oligarch money. In the past, they keep it abroad at deposits, buying castles, yachts, and etc. Luckily for Russia, russophobеs in the West put sanctions on the most pro-Western part of Russian society - rich people. As a result, volenz-nolenz, they keep money at home and a lot of investements, especially in infrustructure and new machinery factories are being done.
I’ve heard that large businesses are being renationalised without compensation to the owners. All the foreign companies have already been grabbed and resold for a fraction of their worth. Oligarchs abroad have been told to return, with their families, or lose their business. If they do return they might be jailed. I think the focus on oligarchs has been overblown. They don’t have powers of persuasion , don’t have Putin’s ear and can lose all their wealth in the new Stalinist war economy.
People keep saying Russia is about to collapse for 3 years (actually more, every single deluded westerner seemed to be convinced Putin will be removed by Navalny etc).
Yet here we are and Russia is still doing their thing.
There is a discussion inside Ukraine among many members of the civil society what the victory would look like for the country. It’s indeed is far from being easy to outline. Yet, there was a good try.
>The liberation of the entire territory of Ukraine and the end of hostilities will not bring an end to the war. And it is not only a matter of reparations for the damage caused to the country and punishing the guilty. Feverish anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western sentiment in tandem with the imperial ambitions of both the Russian elite and ordinary Russians will, sooner or later, lead to future escalation and war. To protect Ukraine and the world from new waves of aggression, the anti-war coalition needs to create conditions that will result in profound internal changes in Russia to ensure sustainable peace.
Don’t you think that Russia will implode? Putin is about to hike up taxes, he’s nationalising businesses without compensation. No good for an economy. China is not giving the help he hoped for and buying gas at less than cost to produce. Gasprom lost $8 billion instead of providing a profit. An economy cannot run like this for long. War needs money, lots and lots and Russia is running out of it fast without a hope in hell of any sort of upswing Putin is desperate.
I think that sceptical optimism here is the way to go. For Russia to implode there should be certain preconditions to be true, political ones, inside it. As it is an empire, one of the preconditions is an existing of various national political groups that want independence. Among hundreds of nationalities in Russia, there are only two that could be called nations — Chechens and Tatars (Russian is debatable cause it’s still unclear whether we are seen know forming of a new nations or final devouring of the remains by the empire). But these both are very very far from the independence.
What could catalyse the process of these nations to brew is a Russian military defeat when Ukraine can either by force or by peace negotiation conditional by the situation on the battlefield to restore the control of border 1991, yet it would be far from the political victory.
For political victory Ukraine needs a deconstruction of Russia as empire. So the later one to become at best a space of various independent national states or at minimum a true federation with international control over nukes.
For economic preconditions for Russia to collapse — I think that it’s more illusion of the past, when USSR collapsed. It was one the biggest lessons learned by Russia since then. I do not thing they are any close to repeat that scenario once more.
Regarding nukes for Ukraine. Well, I think that what Ukraine did in 90s when the nukes were taken form it self-willingly is a truly progressive precedent oriented to the brighter future. What Ukraine did with the Nukes is like what Gandhi did to civil resistance. I see it that way and that’s why I’m a proponent to go away form that Cold War mentality. Trying to rearm Ukraine with nukes is a reactionary. There are more that enough of them in the world. Becoming a full member of NATO is the nearest goal instead. Joining EU and giving it military component is the strategy.
Despite a scepticism here about walking zombies in the West, which I pretty much agree with, I’d like still to remind everyone and that 100 hundred year ago Ukraine lost it’s war for independent cause it was completely alone! Comparing to the support Ukraine gets from partners now — it is immense source for optimism and window for opportunity to finally change the way the life goes in Eastern Europe therefore the whole Europe and therefore the West.
Yet for now, the most urgent thing is to arm Ukraine and push Russians out, aiming for their military defeat. In case it will happen so in the way, that Russia will implode — good, yet it’s a hope for the best. Getting ready to the worst — that is a proper strategy and a risk management.
A. Ukraine never had control of the nukes. The control was in Moscow. They were a useless liability.
B. All those things you mention (eg Russian nukes under foreign control) are unrealistic and on par with Star Trek. I suspect the Moscow elites would sooner destroy the world than let Russia be broken up.
And in any case, do you think China would let US control Russian nukes?!?
c. Yes, Russians are a specific ethnic group. Denying them that is the same as denying Ukrainians their ethnicity.
"Ukraine never had control of the nukes. The control was in Moscow", - clearly you have absolutely no idea of you are talking about and yet there are one million bullshit comments from you here.
All the authorisation codes and electronic security measures for activating those nukes was in Moscow. Russia maintained operational control over those nukes.
It's like America controls B61s nukes that are based in Europe despite those being assigned to participating NATO air forces. Or are you stupid enough to think Germany, Belgium, Turkey have independent nuclear deterrents just because nuclear warheads are stationed on their territory?
Even useless incompetent Soviets understood nukes had to be kept on a tight leash. Hence even during USSR, all nukes were heavily controlled from Moscow.
Only thing as irritating as Putin trolls are American/pro-Ukrainian trolls. Both live in a fantasy realm.
I think Russia imploding is much less likely than Putin being replaced by an equivalent hard liner. At some point, and I don’t think we Russia is close to it yet, a group of oligarchs will take out Putin to avoid their complete ruin. There will be a new president of Russia who will change very little, except to blame the disastrous war on Putin and commit to a Korean DMZ-style stalemate and cease fire. With enough Western support, Ukraine may regain a large chunk of territory before this happens, but I think there will eventually be a battlefield stalemate the slowly cools into a frozen conflict.
Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. The frozen conflict is a post soviet phenomenon i.e. Russian propaganda and what they don’t mind to achieve. For an analogy North/South Korea or East/West Germany are babies of the Cold War. For Ukraine it’s a political defeat to turn the war in frozen conflict — cause the political victory is to say goodbye to Russia by all means. Just imagine what should follow next? In case of frozen conflict there will be neither EU nor NATO membership for Ukraine. Exiting form the war emergency stage will lead to even more people flee the country causing a scenario that does not promise much for the country. Kyiv understands it pretty well and draws its politics from it.
I was really thinking from the perspective of a new Russian government that wanted to get the war behind them and blame everything on Putin. I don't think Ukraine agrees to a cease fire before recovering Crimea. The stalemate would be in the Donbas where Russian supply lines are short. At that point, I don't think a frozen conflict precludes EU and NATO membership. I agree with you that without achieving integration with Europe, a frozen conflict is a bad outcome for Ukraine.
It precludes NATO membership. If Ukraine joins NATO with Russians still on its territory, it can seek to activate Article 5. NATO will not want an "automatic" war with Russia.
partially I agree with you. But! In case with Kosovo and Palestine we're a dealing with new nations. In case with Transnistria or with Donbas – we do not. So I agree that "Frozen conflict is a universal concept". On top I will say that Russia uses it to hook up the territories that they couldn't control now but willing to do so in the future presenting it like the protection. It was the case in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine. Without Russia there would be no conflict. But we can't say the same regarding Kosovo or Israel cause the brewing there started long before it became the Cold War matter.
Kosovo is not a new nation. It essentially a chunk of Serbia that is now populated maonly by Albanians. No sich thong as a Kosovar.
Palestine is also not a new nation. Palestinians lived their for a couple of thousand years. Gaza is literally a refugee camp containing descendents of people expelled/ethnically cleansed by Israel in 1948. And noting most of these Israelis were European Jews.
West Bank was part of Jordan before Israel conquered it.
So situation is equivalent to South Ossettia or gormer Armenian pseudo repiblic of Artesh.
Kiat because westerners are doing it doesn't mean it is any different to what Russoa does.
It is like people who claom being killed by American bombs for liberty is better than being killed by Russian bombs for imperial expansion.
Soviet Union ran a war economy for 70 years before it imploded. How else do you think Russia inherited 12,000 tanks?!? USSR didn't really bother with consumer goods, it's main economic concern was weaponry.
Lend lease only started in 1941 and finished in 1945.
Before WW2 USSR built more weapons in 1930s than anyone - Eg 24,000 tanks (Britain produced maybe a 1000). Whole Soviet pre war economy was geared towards arms manufacture.
And after WW2 USSR conntinued essentially a war economy up to 1991 wjen it imploded due to economic mismanagememt.
You bring up very good points. If I was Zelensky I would be scraping whatever I can get to rearm with nukes. Russia will never give up on trying to subjugate Ukraine unless it has nukes. As well denuclearizing Ukraine in exchange for NATO membership would be a more palatable arrangement. Otherwise its a tough road for Ukraine especially with fickle weak US Natsec under Biden.
Regarding nukes for Ukraine. Well, I think that what Ukraine did in 90s when the nukes were taken form it self-willingly is a truly progressive precedent oriented to the brighter future. What Ukraine did with the Nukes is like what Gandhi did to civil resistance. I see it that way and that’s why I’m a proponent to go away form that Cold War mentality. Trying to rearm Ukraine with nukes is a reactionary. There are more that enough of them in the world. Becoming a full member of NATO is the nearest goal instead. Joining EU and giving it military component is the strategy.
Despite a scepticism here about walking zombies in the West, which I pretty much agree with, I’d like still to remind everyone and that 100 hundred year ago Ukraine lost it’s war for independent cause it was completely alone! Comparing to the support Ukraine gets from partners now — it is immense source for optimism and window for opportunity to finally change the way the life goes in Eastern Europe therefore the whole Europe and therefore the West.
I think that *if* Ukraine loses the war, that will be a strong argument for more countries getting equipped with nuclear armament.
The argument will be "Ukraine gave away willingly their nukes, and look where they ended" and "If you can threaten with nuclear annihilation, nobody is going to attack you". I have already noticed that there were voices in Germany calling about building a nuclear deterrent, like France (imagine what kind of taboo is broken if they are speaking about such an action)
The idea of "non proliferation" ironically started from the existing nuclear powers (USA, UK, USSR, France, China), which then initiated a lot of effort trying to keep the nuclear arms club as absolutely exclusive as possible (at least in theory).
India, Pakistan, North Korea and (most probably) Israel have already become members of this (very exclusive) club, but God forbid that other countries enter it too. I don't know if having Germany or Ukraine armed with nuclear weapons like France will cause additional instability (Middle East definitely is too unstable for having local people in possession of nuclear weapons).
But, if we deny to Ukraine the right to wield nuclear weapons as deterrence, we have to let this country be able to arm themselves with a strong enough conventional armed force that none of their neighboring countries will think about invading them. We cannot require Ukraine to stay away from nuclear weapons and at the same time not permit this country to arm themselves. Someone, sooner or later, will be tempted to attack.
Also Russia has been this way since Ivan the Terrible in 1500s. The social and cultural aspects of it go even further back to the Grand Dutchy Of Moscow and the Mongol occupations in 1200s.
Foreign interference in their economy and government will just make them more against the west.
That Manifesto is absurdist fantasy. As if Russia would agree to complete disarmament and foreign control over its laws? The manifesto calls for something along the lines of Treaty of Versailles back in 1918.
Even Navalny didn't agree with returning Crimea. I doubt if he lived, he or any other Russian democrat would agree with total disarmament and Russian economy, institutions and government being placed under essentially foreign control.
Navalny was a Russian imperial chauvinist no less then Putin with exception to know how the Internet works. He supported occupation of Crimea in 2014 what implies that he did not respect the international law. He is not figure to be referred with such an awe. There is a phrase "Russian liberals cease to be liberal where the Ukrainian border begins". Meditate on that.
regarding Manifesto. It's a program that shows how the Ukrainain civil society sees that war. So treat it as a data that you need to take into account when thinking about why Ukraine resists, despite pre-24th Feb West was utterly sceptical about Ukraine will withstand, which was to degree the echo of Russian propaganda. Russia is indeed a big power. But the large portion of that image is a fiction produced by Kremlin.
Totally agree on Navalny. Stupid westerners like hom but he chummed up with whote supremacists and neo nazis when it suited him. I mentioned him cause clueless westerners regard him as some sort of progressive leader.
There are no liberals in Russia, only cynical opportunists.
I understand Ukraine's resistance, I have been following it since 2014.
But if Ukraine thinks Russia should be destroyed on its current format and tirned onto a western vassal, then they underestimate Russian resolve as much as the Russians underestimate Ukrainian resolve.
As for Russian military power, it was never there. Anyone who paid attention to Russian military pre2022 should have known this.
People ignore Russian BTGs getting thrashed in Ukraine in 2014. People ignore poor performance of Russian trained Wagner in Libya and Syria. They ignore poor performance of Russians in Syria and Georgia. In Georgia and Syria Russia won because the other side lacked strength and counters to even Russia's WW2 era tactics.
But at the same time Russia is not as weak as the pro Ukrainian trolls insist. If they were that weak and that stupid Russia would have collapsed into chaos by May 2022.
Very profound article, thank you so much. Makes a lot of sense to me. I think Biden unfortunately is banking on the fact that Putin/Russia cannot win to delay aid in order to ensure a smooth reelection campaign. But what he and all his "expert" natsec lawyers are missing out on is the fact that Ukraine isnt guaranteed to win either as you have correctly noted. Russia can still spend enormous resources hurting Ukrainians.
Over the long term, I believe the Ukrainians will come out on top and get back all their 1991 borders. But at great cost if they dont receive enough help. But I believe this is only possible if first the Baltics, Nordic and Visegrad are fully pivoted to military industrial support of Ukraine with no limits. Without this, its hard to see lawyers like Sullivan resist the temptation to delay and prolong this war by drip feeding military aid.
What are these “enormous resources? “. Last time I looked Russian soldiers were riding around on golf carts on the battlefield and getting killed in their hundreds , sometimes thousands, each day. I see now they are going to Mali to recruit cannon fodder as the Nepalese ran away when they got to Ukraine. I don’t know how Putin isn’t embarrassed.
I think we underestimated the level of Malevolency Putin and his supporters in Russia have towards Ukraine. They can send multiple men into meat waves as well as continue finding cheap ways of copying Ukrainian battlefield innovations. Ukraine defeating Russia requires making it happen not waiting for it happen. And this can only be done by fully supporting them.
Russian 2024 total defence spending is about $150b. 2024 combined military aid to Ukraine is about $100b. About 60% of Russia's spending is on payroll/compensation. Meaning, that Russia's and Ukraine's materiel budgets are comparable. Also, $150b is less than 1% of the GDP of just the EU on its own.
Russia does not have enormous resources, it's a pathetic, laughable rabble not an army, when compared with just the European NATO. It's just that Ukraine has been the poorest and most corrupt (excl. Russia) country in Europe, so Russia's resources seem large when compared to that.
You bring up valid points. But as Tom has said in the past, having a larger GDP doesnt translate into military goods if there is no initiative to produce military goods. Russia as you noted is not economically as strong as the West but for example it has been outproducing the West in certain crucial types of artillery and even much better at sourcing these globally from its allies. What we need is an industrial push to produce more military equipment and send them to Ukraine
The devil is in the details. Russian military production has to be split between new and from storage equipment. Then in the stored equipment, there's the high readiness, i.e. quick and cheap to prepare and send to front and then the decades long, outdoors, for all intents and purposes, scrap yards, where only hulls are usable.
To cut the long story short, the Russian brand new and new from old hulls production rates are very low. Last time I've heard it was about 200 tanks per year. Worth remembering that there's much more to an army than a T-55 fully refurbished tank. The rest of the production is based on short and medium term storage. Russia has effectively run out of those in every equipment category. That is why the Russian production rate has more or less stagnated since mid-2023.
NATO, today but certainly by the end of 2024, will have outproduced Russia in every weapons and equipment category. France on its own already produces 72 wheeled SPGs per year. How many SPGs does Russia produce? I don't have the exact, up-to-date numbers, but it won't be much more than that. The Russian industry is clearly struggling with the production of artillery barrels.
The issue in this war, has always been political decisions, individual and collective, by NATO members. If politicians wanted Ukraine to liberate its territories as soon as possible (however long it would take in reality), then all the tools required are available: money, industrial capacity, know-how, training, logistics etc.
TLDR; Russia is not competitive in any category with NATO. It's the idiotic, cowardly and sometimes simply corrupt politicians that have even remotely made this a contest.
Yep. And your last point is exactly why RF is dangerous. Until Putin is gone, they have more will to keep going than the West does (although we are getting better). They also have a much higher "pain threshold" as a society bc of their history, so their mobilization potential as a percentage of their money/industry/human resources/general well being of the population is relatively much higher. Europe and the US seem to be in a similar dynamic to where England and France were in 37-39. They can't imagine having to tell their populations that war is upon them again and they need to give up wealth, peaceful lifestyles, and their sons/daughters to a war that's not inside their country yet.
NATO has always outproduced Russia in weapons. Even the shrunk down European militaries outclass and outnumber the Russian military. I mean even Norway has more than double the stealth fighters in service than Russia has.
This is why I don't buy into "Putin's going to attack NATO" rhetoric.
It's political crap.
Russia thought it could play in its own playground ala Ukraine hence they started this war.
I need to correct you that from the open sources Hungarian corruption exceeds Ukrainian. Ukraine is at severe war with corruption for several years. And it's already bearing fruits.
What does it even mean from "open sources". The most widely accepted corruption assessment is the corruption perception index by Transparency. In 2023 Ukraine was the worst in Europe (not counting Russia), like in most years. Also, Hungary is by far the worst in the EU. I don't think your argument is as winning one as you think it is.
Whether the "war on corruption" is happening and is bearing fruit is hard to tell. Zelensky not so long ago asked the media to stop talking about corruption so much. Doesn't sound like a leader that is winning the war on corruption. It will take years before we will be able to truly assess how much has actually changed. Corruption is a culture. Culture changes slowly, if ever.
Listen, fkng parrot, I'll tell you who's more corrupt than Ukraine: it's USA, Bulgaria, Hungary, to name a few. Many more to list. Why don't you write your repetitive anti-Ukrainian bollocks somewhere in your own (anti-Ukrainian) blog, ffs.
It seems that your numbers are not entirely correct.
Maybe ru has $150bln. war spending now, but it seems sources mention $120bln. (Khodorkovsky). That is $10bln. a month.
UA received $85bln budgetary assistance and $95bln. military assistance during 30 months of war (UA gov sources + Rammstein quotes). That is $5.66bln per month, with 3.2bln (per month) of that is military assistance.
Ru has income from top 10 exports, which are definitely fully controlled by their top officials, of around $300bln a year.
So my view on the "winning formula" (there is quite some sarcasm) this: NATO countries dedicate 0.25% of their GDPs towards UA military assistance. Which is 10 bln. a month. No budgetary assistance to UA. That fund is filled with money, not equipment, and then committee, NATO + UA, decide and where and what to buy, depending on the need, price, and availability. That is delivered systematically at the pace of 10 bln. worth of equipment enters UA monthly.
No extra limits to use it, besides international laws imposed.
Also EU starts confiscating 300 bln. ru assets at the pace of 10 bln. a month, which UA uses for budgetary purposes. Humanitarian, economy, restoration, etc. All other countries focus on military support.
EU + US impose sanctions that reduce top 10 ru exports to below $200bln. plus restrict fully high tech imports.
All seems doable, but it ain't happening I think, anyways.
If you really want to go through numbers with a fine comb, then you have to add the actual UA defence spending on top of the aid, which is not insignificant about $40B. Also, as I stated, a large portion of the RF defence spending is on payroll, while all or nearly all of the military aid is in equipment. UA costs are also lower as it is a poorer country, so each $ has a higher PPP. However you slice and dice it, UA and RF have comparable and competitive budgets. What will happen in 2025 is too early to predict.
Most of your "winning formula" has already been happening. The exact equipment has always been coordinated and discussed with UA. Also, UA have been provided some freedom in simply choosing what to buy. First the industry must ramp up production before it can all be done on a larger scale. Training is another issue, a large and difficult one to solve as well.
I don't believe that the EU will simply confiscate the euroclear money. They may decide to transfer the profits from it, which is several billion euros per year. I would like to be surprised.
Sanctions are constantly increased and, in particular, the US are constantly monitoring and closing financial channels. Chinese and Turkish banks have all but ceased money transfers with Russia. Alibaba has stopped shipments to Russia, it seems that Hikvision (surveillance systems) has left suddenly overnight. These are just high profile recent examples.
Last but not least, you're making the same mistake journalists make, treating export revenue as income to the federal budget. Only a small % actually ends up in Kremlin's coffers. You make the exports sound as if they are big, while in reality they are alarmingly low (alarmingly for Russia), $425B in 2023. Poland's exports in 2023 were about $340B, while Germany's $1,700B. Russia is an economic dwarf strangled by murderous sanctions.
No, this is not happening, even close. I would not go through all the small details, but simply taken, equipment shipped to UA is mostly evaluated at replacement cost. Means, what would be the cost of new modern equipment coming as replacements to those countries. For example Bradley, some transactions mentioned at 2 mln per one. This means for 3.2 bln. 1500 items could be delivered in one month. This is not happening, even close. Making it 10, would be 3 times more, plus at different costing.
Now about ru top exports, why do you think that anything beyond costs and small expenses would not end up in those coffers? That the whole point. And then why do you think that exports you see in statistics is real value of exports? And not for example ru owned firms abroad buying goods at slightly higher the costs, and then selling around the world at normal pricing?
Also do not forget that all Russian kit is much cheaper and the Western kit is overpriced, so as number of items the difference is even bigger. At least and thank God, the quality of Western kit indeed worth the money.
Much needed commentary. Also, I'd like to add, with people focusing on whether or not Russia attrits faster than Ukraine: we don't know at this point.
What we can say, is that Ukraine will rebuild with the help of the West.
We can also say that Russia currently attrits faster than literally everyone else not fighting in this war: EU, US, India, and most importantly China. Putin rather lives as Chinas vassal, weakening every day, than cooperate with EU and US on equal terms, which is mindboggling. And Xi happily takes the opportunity. This we can say for sure.
Russia was never going to cooperate with US on equal terms. The fact that America happily supported Ukraine is great evidence of this. It's not like America would tolerate Russia or China openly arming Houthis or Iran or North Korea.
If only our super-hyper-omgsoooomuchccompetent media outlets would even consider to pointi out this and stick it to the face of etremists "pacifists"...
Life in Afganistan has improved a lot under U.S.A. occupation, e.g. healthcare. Of course, taking into account how much money USA has stuffed there ... it was a failure, but not a decisive failure, if I take the war terminology to the humanitarian aid and economy :D
Precisely that is what resulted in the Western defeat in that war....
That with 'life in Afghanistan has improved' was valid for perhaps (in best case) 5% of the Afghan population. And there was - absolutely - no outlooks for any kind of improvement. Which is why then thousands of youngsters began joining the Taliban again, and why the Afghan government couldn't survive on its own.
Had the West been successful, it would've taken serious care to increase that percentage to at least 50%.
It failed, miserably, at that.
...which is no surprise, because at the same time the very 'West' took great care to concentrate about 90% of its own wealth in the hands of around 500, perhaps 1000 of its own super-rich jerks, the mass of whom is, effectively, paying less taxes than you or me (percentage-wise, measured on their and your or mine total income).
Friendly recommendation: re-think the way you think, otherwise you're playing straight into the hands of all the possible Pudding-fans in the West (in particular).
Our ('Western') systems of governance are broken, and in urgent need of reform. They are broken because the system of control of the governance was subverted from within - and thus disabled. The only way for 'us' to become capable of winning wars again is to reform and re-establish the system of control of the way our countries are governed: to make the politics completely transparent and not only curb, but make political corruption impossible.
Until that changes, both private- and corporate interests are going to continue dictating our politics, and we're going to continue applying double standards, instead of 'the rule of law and order'.
Billions was given in aid but all siphoned off at every level so that the original contractor suspiciously drives around in 4x4s and has designer clothes. When I lived in Egypt I had a connection who owned a limestone quarry. He had an order for a few tons of limestone for a road. But surely I thought the limestone wouldn’t be hard enough for a road. It would crumble The purchase went ahead anyway and was used to make the road. This was an example of a contract to build a road that had been handed ie subcontracted, down numerous times until the poor mug who has to actually do the job can’t afford the right materials. Then everyone wonders why the road is broken and the place looks a dump. That happens in all these countries and why they are crap.
Honestly, the western efforts, especially in germany where I live, feel like the appeasement policies of Chamberlain in 1930. And we saw where that led with Hitler. Some bullies need to be stopped, even at the cost of lives, let alone an itty bitty piece of luxury like not having taxes increase to pay for weapons for Ukraine....
Can't get it - why enforcing a complete Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, would be equal to the abandonment of the principle of rule of law and order? You mean russian by nationality? Because i can't see any abandonment of the principle of rule of law and order in withdrawal all russians with guns and establishing ukrainian control over it's internationally recognized territories.
The text says "giving any other result to Pudding, but enforcing a complete Russian withdrawal", which means any other result then full ru withdrawal would be abandonment of law and order.
Youre reading this war as a stand alone conflict but Russia takes it as a part of a larger plan.
Its a deliberate strategy of peacemeal destruction of a country that, as you rightly pointed out, cant be destroyed with one go.
Here is how it looks like:
1992-2013 Political corrosion and keeping the date and military dysfunctional. Ie preparatory phase
2014- TBD peacemeal destruction.
2014 Crimea, 2015 Donbass, 2022- tbd however much can be taken. Once there is a ceasefire then conquered areas will be Russified. At the same time there will never be a peace deal, just ceasefire that Russia can cancel whenever opportunity presents to continue the slow destrcuction.
If you look at the history of Russia then youll see that this playbook has been used quite often and is very effective.
Russia probably will not destroy Ukriane within next year or two but over the course of next 20-30 years it can do it and Ukrainians know this - thats why they dotn want to agree on any ceasefires as this plays into Russian strategy.
Unfortunately, West doesnt see it that way and as Ukrainian victory is dependent on their help then here is why I think the statement Russia cant win is not correct. They can and the lands of current Russia are full of dead or dying nations that bear testimony to this.
Problem: initiating an invasion with the aim of exterminating Ukraine has changed a lots of the quotation you're describing in the last two paragraphs. It's disrupting the Russian strategy first and foremost: now 'all cards are on the table' and the situation is crystal clear. There is no doubt about their intentions and thus less opportunity to their usual subversion.
At least nominally, that should make plenty of things easier.
....if only the West gets its rubbish done, finally...
Lets hope its so! As for now it sure seems that West treats it like something that can be settled by simply "exhausting" Russia on the battlefield at the expense of Ukrainian lives, then giving away whatever land they managed to conquer in a peace deal for Russia to "save face" and call it a mission accomplished.
I think that’s highly highly highly unlikely considering Russia is on the road to financial ruin within a year Why do people still want to believe that Russia is a strong economy with an ace fighting force that is going to continue for 20 + years ? I just don’t understand where they are getting their info from. I’ve studied it and the truth is catastrophic for Russia on 3 different criteria, economy, refined oil and hardware like tanks and planes. They are on the road to ruination and nothing but nothing can stop it. Putin might have one of those cyanide pills tucked away.
Economic ruin doesnt mean military ruin. Russia will always find money and men for their military and the population will comply - this is what Western analysts tend to miss as they presume that mass discontent will end the war. That is not how Russia works.
The regime however would collapse quite quickly when they suffer a military defeat on the battlefield as this shows that czar is weak and weak czar must go - so when people are puzzled why Russia is running meat attacks then this is why. They need to keep the idea of victorious Russia going and only way to keep it going is to show some achievements, however small. Naturally, the human losses it brings doesnt concern the Kremlin and it doesnt concern the Russian population either.
Dumb arse westerners don't understand Russian system which is still essentially feudal .
The serfs are generally expendable. Occassionally they rise up ala 1905 or 1917 bit that is only when as you said the Tzar has suffered massive military defeat.
Only "tzar" to avoid dissent following two military humiliations in 1939 and 1941 was the Georgian, Josef Stalin, who built up one of the most effective authoritarian control mechanisms in history.
Yes, but the preparatory work was done during those years.
For example Ukrainian military was all but dysfunctional, intelligence agencies utterly compromised when it all started and there was a heavy Russian trace in getting it to that state.
But so was the Russian military and FSB up to 2008 at least (and to be honest they're not that competent now).
Russian military performance in Georgia was dismal. They won because Georgia's military was too small and also too incompetent to properly defend themselves.
The Russian trace was due to extremely close ties between the two after fall of USSR due to shared language, religion and history.
Note Baltic states with very little cultural similarity to Russia got away cleanly.
Azerbaijan did too, chumming up with culturally similar Turks.
So Russia's influence over Ukraine was a historical and cultural hangover, and not some sort of grand Russian conspiracy.
The FSB amd GRU had it easy because many Ukrainians maintained close ties with Russia
If Ukrainians and Belarus cleaved their relationship with Russia in 1990s, today they woild both ne on EU and NATO. But they chose the easy pathway and now both people's suffer under Russian opression.
Even the less developed Stans were more able to navigate out of complete Russian influence than Ukraine and Belarus.
Basically Belarus and Ukraine are responsible for their own destinies. They chose comfy easy Tsarist/Soviet colonial master instead of trying a new path until it was too late
Well, I can’t agree that there’s anything brilliant or clever in giving accolades to people who suck up to him even if they are idiots. Personally I’ve been an MD in a company and brown noses are really annoying especially if they are incompetent and they always are. His adoration to have his ego massaged is another weakness that will ensure his failure.
This is the (one of many) difference between you and Putin: he thinks farting up someone's nostrils is great sport, you think it's embarrassing and revolting.
Good thougts, Tom. I think all this this matter feels like Russia, Ukraine and the collective West have three different timetables.
For me this conflict start brewing in 2001/2002, when Russian security pretentions where sidelined by the then US government. War on islamic terrorism was a common point that Putin try to explore and when rejected, the suspicion and paranoia of the all time invaded russians start to win their hearts. Add to them the bad experience with neocapitalism and you have an angry and resented country.
Then try to analize all the nato expansion to the east and georgian war through the eyes of a paranoic Russian who fears the world is against them and voila, it's self explaining why we are here.
Dig into how much money the West invested into Russia after 1991. It’s insane amount! More over, all head offices for even such things as music distribution labels were based in Moscow covering ares of other independent country such as Ukraine, Georgia etc. There should be zero blame on the West offering economic integration over the military competition. The blame might be that the US hadn’t done a good job to understand what was going on in the Eastern Europe well enough to see it not through Russian lenses only. It’s a shame that Russia, with all resources available did not progress from XIX mentality despite having nukes and the internet.
Yes and lots of money invested was a con. When Medvedev was President he thought he could make a Silicon Valley in Russia. Lots of gullible fools in the US thought he was genuine and invested. Of course there was nothing behind the plan. Like a Potemkin village it was a made up cardboard cut out. There was no real Silicon Valley . Even if anyone had tried they would have been manoeuvred out by cronies of the government and all that. Russia cannot do anything but emulate the US in trite ways
I was born in Kyiv in 1993. 2 years after Soviet Union was closed as a project. And I don't know why I sentenced to die in trenches fighting Russian mad homosovetikus fappers if I (and 85% of my friends and colleagues) only want to join EU and achieve for my country western standards of life?
That is exactly why Putin and the system he represents wants you dead, neighbor. They cannot allow a prosperous, democratic Ukraine to exist because than the Russians would want the same thing. And that would bring an end to the system. Big no no. From their POV all ex Soviet republics have to be poorer, more corrupt and have less perspectives than Russia itself, for Ru and system Putin to keep working as they do, and as they have since centuries. Ideally ex Warsaw Pact states too, but luckily for us that boat has long sailed.
.....
Just after the 2022 invasion a Romanian diplomat explained how surprised he was when he met Putin in 2007-8. V.V. , unlike his official propaganda, did not say a word about US troops here, NATO membership or AEGIS ashore, but was extremley concerned and upset about EU membership and how we will become Europe's slaves and a colony.
It never was about NATO, America or a military threat against Russia. It was always about the existential threat to the corrupt, imperial sytem existing for centuries in Russia posed by prosperity and freedom of the masses.
Yes and no. Russian elites and oligarchs were almost based in the West, and they could have changed something by now, but they didn't. There are some of them talking about "free Russia" (I have recently seen a fascinating interview with Garry Kasparov), but it seems they are not too many, and not much loved by the average Russian. Yes, I second you, they want all former SSR countries and former communist countries to fail and they will do their best to see this. But IMO, that is because they consider themselves superior and they hope in this way they will achieve again dominance over them/us. Not because they are afraid of our living style. I think our main problem is that we don't understand Russian mentality, and we expect them to think and act like us. They don't. It's a different and unique culture and they see themselves as a superpower like the USA or China. Russian elites, no matter how educated they are, will never agree Russia to be part of a Western world dominated by the USA (like France, UK or Germany). They want to be at least as equal and influential as the USA. The average Russian thinks the same - therefore he was fascinated by Prigozhin. This is the source of all problems. And this wouldn't change without a serious defeat. Maybe I am wrong, but this is my feeling.
Last time I check, Romanians gave natural resources for mining royalty at 3%.
When Serbia got 6% for mining royalty, Romanians start to protest: they wanted more, like Serbia but western oligarchs told Romanians: we can speak about 1% or 2% increase, not 100% increase!
So yes, Romania is slave country, just like Serbia.
Thanks, Tom, this is a critical argument and you’ve captured its key points perfectly. The issue for the Ukrainians seems to be getting their victory conditions accepted by their backers and the rest of the world. Whilst Zelensky made good progress on this initially, the majority of the West have diluted their support of these and that makes deciding on a win/loss so hard. Hopefully the increasing support of key European states will help: they, after all, understand the threat more clearly! In between, any ally of the US or even NATO must be carefully assessing their confidence in their friends coming to their aid in the future!
One other question has come to mind: the British (and Australians) are building new nuclear submarines and investing in Trident, given the obvious limitations on weapons use for Ukraine, does anyone know if the same conditions might apply to the “independent” deterrent?
“borders of 1992” -> 1991
“borders of 1992” -> 1991
Russia’s economy is on the brink of collapse, they are running out the of refined oil, they are short of military hardware and none of this is likely to improve. How soon before Russians around Putin get sick of it? One can only hope very soon.
You could be right. But I remember a lot of respected people suggested that if Russia lost about 100,000 men they would be forced to end the war. They would compare the deaths from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which was "18,000". With what we know now its hard to believe the 18,000 figure. The Soviets likely lost at least an order of magnitude more men. My point is we outside Ukraine have underestimated the level of malevolency Putin and his supporters in Russia have towards Ukraine that could prolong this war even past a severe economic downturn. They could possibly still have men going into meat waves and citizens building cheap off the shelf drones to cause Ukraine trouble. But I agree if they keep having key facilities related to oil and weapons manufacturing taken out it could change the outcome.
I think the number of men they lose is fairly irrelevant and their wins of various fields is meaningless too. Their economy is going bust and they are running out of refined oil. Some say Hitler lost when he ran out of oil. Incidentally my mum lived in Mestre next to Venice and in WW2 it was under occupation by Germany after Mussolini was killed. The allies bombed and destroyed the marghera oil refinery near her home, they had targeted other refineries as is Ukraine right now with drones WW2 war ended soon after that. Yes of course it depends on many things.
Agreed
Hitler lost when he rumbled tanks into USSR. By 1942 he lost strategic initiative and most of the original army. Eastern Front accounted for 75% of all German losses
If Germany stayed out of USSR, the war would have stalemated as Germany couldn't knock out Britain and Britain/USA couldn't knock out Germany as all its forces would be available to defend France and Italy..
I recall reading in my dim, dark past "somewhere" in some now obscure history book, that the author claimed that the 8th sacrament of the Russian Orthodox Church is SUFFERING. Suffering thus has been inculcated into Russian culture historically. It therefore would seem that Russians possess an almost infinite capacity to suffer. If so, then the horrendous losses of mostly Russian men in combat will not move the Russian population politically unless some crisis point is reached. What is that point? Is it a severely degraded economy? Or will it occur when a significant percentage of the European Russian population starts to experience massive war deaths? Will an eventual decisive defeat of the Russian armed forces on the field of battle (Ukraine & Crimea) end the conflict, or will a Putin dominated Russia continue the fight from within the borders of Russia?
I suspect that the center of gravity pertaining to Ukrainian vs. Russian "victory" will be the West's political will to support Ukraine militarily and economically. I don't see either side quitting the conflict of its own volition.
I don't know enough about Western European politics to say this about Western Europe, but in my opinion, the political system of my (U.S.) own nation is in disarray, and will remain so even if "iL Douche Bag" [Trump] fails to re-capture the U.S. Presidency. It is entirely possible for the U.S. to lose the political will to continue the fight, i.e., to continue support for Ukraine, a support heretofore in my perception that has been niggardly thus far compared with what support is actually required to defeat decisively Russian armed forces on the field of battle. Sorry for the pessimism!
Agreed, but western Europe has more skin in the game and its feeble politicians are slowly finding little teaspoonfuls of resolve.
Russia will reach a point when it will be forced to give up. I only heard tonight that they just do not have the hardware, in the form of tanks to make any strategic breakthrough, so what are they doing? . They are down to occupying less land than they did last year, their navy is all but destroyed and the economy trashed with a refined oil shortage. What exactly do you think they will be achieving in the next months?
"What exactly do you think they will be achieving in the next months?"
This is a very good question! Until "what ends ends" and when later the professional historians, political scientists, politicians, et. al., contribute their professional & academic two-cents worth of "I told you so's" [toward one conclusion or the other], I will render a mere layman's guess: Russia's army and other bastard sons of Father Putin will suffer and incur casualties that should not have been incurred in anticipation of Trump winning the U.S. Presidency. Of course if Trump doesn't win, then Russia will have achieved nothing.
In stating the above, I acknowledge that the U.S. isn't the only Western player with a stake in Ukraine and who has contributed treasure, however insufficient thus far, in helping Ukraine prevail over the Russian bear.
I fervently hope that I am wrong and that you are correct, that Russia will be forced to give up. Assuming you are correct, I can only wonder at the long-term international political ramification of such a failure. I can't speak for the Western Europeans, but what I know (amateur here too!) of the U. S. political system and long-term U.S. foreign policy, I perceive that American policy makers fear a potential break-up of the Russian commonwealth of states. The "Stans," or at least those with petroleum reserves must look pretty enticing to the PRC. Also, Siberia is a treasure trove of national resources (well at least having a bunch of trees! **LOL** ). Japan is re-arming and China continues to arm. It could be that those two nations have their lustful eyes gazed upon Siberia. Russia is 11 time zones wide. That's a hell of a huge land mass to govern much less to protect militarily. Add in the existence of nuclear weapons and we have a complex, highly dangerous mix of geo-political agendas at play.
Please excuse the length of this reply.
Yes agree. What America needs is a Henry Kissinger type of negotiator because when Russia collapses it will start a process of breaking up , which is essential. But China could be a problem. I think they need a chunk of Russia, Manchuria so as to stop further encroachment. That could be a deal but it’s a way off. Otherwise China could be a menace.
I doubt Russia will collapse even though westerners wish it.
And west won't allow Russia to collapse because 5000 loose nukes is a potential disaster. West wants Russia as a counter to China.
Before the war, the Atlantic Council and other prominent western think tanks wrote about their preferred outcomes for Russia:
1. West "subtly influences" regime change and put in essentially a controllable puppet regime .
2. New western installed puppet government starts agitating against China to draw Chinese resources to its northern border.
Mere number of tanks or equipment is meaningless. It's how you use them. Russia could have deployed its whole fleet of 10,000+ tanks at Andiivka in 2014 when all this started* and the result would still have been the same - 10 years of grinding stalemate.
Russian military doctrine is stuck in 1943 and it's concept of military command in 1720s (Great Northern War).
Let's not forget in 1941 Wehrmacht's mere 3000 odd mainly obsolete tanks helped trash 24,000 (including 1500 KV-1 and T-34s) better equipped and better armoured Russian tanks. Soviet lost over 3000 "superior" T-34 and KV1s in Jun-Dec 1941 alone.
Quantity is necessary but not a guarantee of anything.
*People forget or don't know Ukrainians defeated Russian army's offensives in 2014.
Civilians are in general very unlikely to topple a government, even if things look bad. The government also needs to mess up, big time, and it's still a rare occurrence then.
If we are looking for a parallel, Russia had suffered way more horrendous casualties in WWI (literal millions), the population was short on food, they were losing their own territory - and the Tsar fell only because he ordered the bulk of his armies around the capital and had them sit there, armed, waiting to be sent into a much huger grinder than today. His ministers were desperately trying to warn him, all in vain. Of course he was taken down in the end.
Putin is a lot more cautious than that.
Putin is cautious?? Seems to me he’s pretty stupid. Now he’s depending on Belarus to be the fall guy in chucking over a strategic nuclear bomb. I suppose he hopes Belarus will get the retaliation. All very desperate and pathetic stuff. I don’t hold Putin in any esteem at all. If he’d worked for me he’d have got the sack ages ago.
Yes, Putin is extremely, even exceedingly, cautious. His personal bodyguard / security agency, the FSO, numbers at least tens of thousands of carefully vetted, well-paid personnel, and it's fully intact. He also makes permanently sure no one else can get too powerful in Russia - Prigozhin was closest to that, and even he turned out to be very far.
I can absolutely believe he would make a lousy civilian worker, and you would have every reason to fire him, had you been his employer. But he's self-employed, and he has talent for the aspects that are important to a Russian monarch.
He also sucks as a military leader. That's also irrelevant. He doesn't need to be good in that to stay in power.
He’s certainly cautious about himself. 4 doctors and 100 bodyguards, while everyone else is worthless scum according to him
He probably has way more than 4 doctors and 100 bodyguards.
But an important aspect pointed out by the Russian experts I read, is that he actually values people who are loyal to him. These can count on him, and will always get some comfy government job no matter what. In this regard, he's different from Trump who thinks everyone at all is worthless scum - Putin only considers regular folks to be worthless scum, those that he sends into the grinder.
Well said
You clearly don't understand the Russian system of government. Whilst a war in Ukraine was a risky proposition, Putin's government is run according to far more cautious principles with many checks and balances to keep any one party from having ideas of toppling him. So oligarchs, FSB, the military and the civilian government leadership and all factions within are all entwined in a symbiotic relationship with Putin whilst at the same time they are hostile to each other.
Remember Prigozhin got majorly fucked over with his coup. He never had any support from the Russian elites.
And remember Stalin did stupid reckless wars too (invasion of Finland) and then even got caught with his pants down by Germans in 1941 and yet he survived.
Putin's the same. Every successful dictator is.
Sorry, Sally, that's a complete nonsense. Russian GDP is rising above expectations, oil factories got minor "injures" and got repairing, military production rose in times (Krasnopol production, for example, 20 times (!)), and etc. This does not mean, of course, that Russia can win the war. However, it cant't afford to lose it.
As per Russians getting tired of Putin? Well, since 2022 both the West and Ukraine doing their best to help him keep the power even stronger by dozens of idiotic moves.
The gdp is including the war economy as you correctly state. That’s not an income, it’s a cost that gets nothing in return but uses up income in wages and materials. NOT something you should be including to show an uptick. Meanwhile the gas company Gasprom has lost 8 billion in one year, that’s one company providing the income to support the economy. Oil refining is seriously damaged. If you think they can fix damaged oil refineries you are wrong. They need specialist parts and experts to fix and it takes years. Especially those tall chimney like structures. Two things Russia doesn’t have are experts and parts. .
War economy is still GDP. Here in west we also count building bombs as GDP. Even crime increases GDP - eg cost of replacement of stolen goods, operation of courts, police and gaols, cost of healthcare for drug addicts all increase GDP.
Even companies borrowing money out of control to buy their own shares increases GDP (share buybacks are endemic in US).
Sure Danny, everything is GDP. There is a formula. Question is, which one of the 4 factors is the main contributor to Russia's GDP now. There are things that raise GDP but don't make the country better off.
That is arguably most economic growth a lot of which is concentrated in the hands of a few select elites.
Eg Here in Australia GDP growth is going up but we actually have a GDP per capita recession.
Only thing pumping up GDP is mass immigration but in reality that is not a good thing because living standards are in decline and infrastrucuteenot coping with mass inflix of people.
Oh and because of inflation (not in salaries) GDP growth is essentially eaten up by inflation.
Then there's the concentration of wealth happening throighout the world. Does it matter of GDP is up 5% if all of that 5% goes to a handful of rich people?
That is perfectly true. And why do you think it is better in Russia?
GDP is an indicator of economic activity. Right now, Russian military contractors are operating at full capacity, but that's not sustainable
Another vital point that is overlooked in the West is oligarch money. In the past, they keep it abroad at deposits, buying castles, yachts, and etc. Luckily for Russia, russophobеs in the West put sanctions on the most pro-Western part of Russian society - rich people. As a result, volenz-nolenz, they keep money at home and a lot of investements, especially in infrustructure and new machinery factories are being done.
I’ve heard that large businesses are being renationalised without compensation to the owners. All the foreign companies have already been grabbed and resold for a fraction of their worth. Oligarchs abroad have been told to return, with their families, or lose their business. If they do return they might be jailed. I think the focus on oligarchs has been overblown. They don’t have powers of persuasion , don’t have Putin’s ear and can lose all their wealth in the new Stalinist war economy.
All fine, I guess. https://news-sky-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/russia-weighs-up-its-biggest-tax-shake-up-in-almost-25-years-as-putin-scrambles-to-finance-ukraine-war-13146522?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17175161283421&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2Frussia-weighs-up-its-biggest-tax-shake-up-in-almost-25-years-as-putin-scrambles-to-finance-ukraine-war-13146522
People keep saying Russia is about to collapse for 3 years (actually more, every single deluded westerner seemed to be convinced Putin will be removed by Navalny etc).
Yet here we are and Russia is still doing their thing.
Don't underestimate your enemies.
There is a discussion inside Ukraine among many members of the civil society what the victory would look like for the country. It’s indeed is far from being easy to outline. Yet, there was a good try.
>The liberation of the entire territory of Ukraine and the end of hostilities will not bring an end to the war. And it is not only a matter of reparations for the damage caused to the country and punishing the guilty. Feverish anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western sentiment in tandem with the imperial ambitions of both the Russian elite and ordinary Russians will, sooner or later, lead to future escalation and war. To protect Ukraine and the world from new waves of aggression, the anti-war coalition needs to create conditions that will result in profound internal changes in Russia to ensure sustainable peace.
https://sustainablepeacemanifesto.org
Don’t you think that Russia will implode? Putin is about to hike up taxes, he’s nationalising businesses without compensation. No good for an economy. China is not giving the help he hoped for and buying gas at less than cost to produce. Gasprom lost $8 billion instead of providing a profit. An economy cannot run like this for long. War needs money, lots and lots and Russia is running out of it fast without a hope in hell of any sort of upswing Putin is desperate.
Re: implosion of Russia
I think that sceptical optimism here is the way to go. For Russia to implode there should be certain preconditions to be true, political ones, inside it. As it is an empire, one of the preconditions is an existing of various national political groups that want independence. Among hundreds of nationalities in Russia, there are only two that could be called nations — Chechens and Tatars (Russian is debatable cause it’s still unclear whether we are seen know forming of a new nations or final devouring of the remains by the empire). But these both are very very far from the independence.
What could catalyse the process of these nations to brew is a Russian military defeat when Ukraine can either by force or by peace negotiation conditional by the situation on the battlefield to restore the control of border 1991, yet it would be far from the political victory.
For political victory Ukraine needs a deconstruction of Russia as empire. So the later one to become at best a space of various independent national states or at minimum a true federation with international control over nukes.
For economic preconditions for Russia to collapse — I think that it’s more illusion of the past, when USSR collapsed. It was one the biggest lessons learned by Russia since then. I do not thing they are any close to repeat that scenario once more.
Regarding nukes for Ukraine. Well, I think that what Ukraine did in 90s when the nukes were taken form it self-willingly is a truly progressive precedent oriented to the brighter future. What Ukraine did with the Nukes is like what Gandhi did to civil resistance. I see it that way and that’s why I’m a proponent to go away form that Cold War mentality. Trying to rearm Ukraine with nukes is a reactionary. There are more that enough of them in the world. Becoming a full member of NATO is the nearest goal instead. Joining EU and giving it military component is the strategy.
Despite a scepticism here about walking zombies in the West, which I pretty much agree with, I’d like still to remind everyone and that 100 hundred year ago Ukraine lost it’s war for independent cause it was completely alone! Comparing to the support Ukraine gets from partners now — it is immense source for optimism and window for opportunity to finally change the way the life goes in Eastern Europe therefore the whole Europe and therefore the West.
Yet for now, the most urgent thing is to arm Ukraine and push Russians out, aiming for their military defeat. In case it will happen so in the way, that Russia will implode — good, yet it’s a hope for the best. Getting ready to the worst — that is a proper strategy and a risk management.
A. Ukraine never had control of the nukes. The control was in Moscow. They were a useless liability.
B. All those things you mention (eg Russian nukes under foreign control) are unrealistic and on par with Star Trek. I suspect the Moscow elites would sooner destroy the world than let Russia be broken up.
And in any case, do you think China would let US control Russian nukes?!?
c. Yes, Russians are a specific ethnic group. Denying them that is the same as denying Ukrainians their ethnicity.
"Ukraine never had control of the nukes. The control was in Moscow", - clearly you have absolutely no idea of you are talking about and yet there are one million bullshit comments from you here.
All the authorisation codes and electronic security measures for activating those nukes was in Moscow. Russia maintained operational control over those nukes.
It's like America controls B61s nukes that are based in Europe despite those being assigned to participating NATO air forces. Or are you stupid enough to think Germany, Belgium, Turkey have independent nuclear deterrents just because nuclear warheads are stationed on their territory?
Even useless incompetent Soviets understood nukes had to be kept on a tight leash. Hence even during USSR, all nukes were heavily controlled from Moscow.
Only thing as irritating as Putin trolls are American/pro-Ukrainian trolls. Both live in a fantasy realm.
I think Russia imploding is much less likely than Putin being replaced by an equivalent hard liner. At some point, and I don’t think we Russia is close to it yet, a group of oligarchs will take out Putin to avoid their complete ruin. There will be a new president of Russia who will change very little, except to blame the disastrous war on Putin and commit to a Korean DMZ-style stalemate and cease fire. With enough Western support, Ukraine may regain a large chunk of territory before this happens, but I think there will eventually be a battlefield stalemate the slowly cools into a frozen conflict.
Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. The frozen conflict is a post soviet phenomenon i.e. Russian propaganda and what they don’t mind to achieve. For an analogy North/South Korea or East/West Germany are babies of the Cold War. For Ukraine it’s a political defeat to turn the war in frozen conflict — cause the political victory is to say goodbye to Russia by all means. Just imagine what should follow next? In case of frozen conflict there will be neither EU nor NATO membership for Ukraine. Exiting form the war emergency stage will lead to even more people flee the country causing a scenario that does not promise much for the country. Kyiv understands it pretty well and draws its politics from it.
I was really thinking from the perspective of a new Russian government that wanted to get the war behind them and blame everything on Putin. I don't think Ukraine agrees to a cease fire before recovering Crimea. The stalemate would be in the Donbas where Russian supply lines are short. At that point, I don't think a frozen conflict precludes EU and NATO membership. I agree with you that without achieving integration with Europe, a frozen conflict is a bad outcome for Ukraine.
It precludes NATO membership. If Ukraine joins NATO with Russians still on its territory, it can seek to activate Article 5. NATO will not want an "automatic" war with Russia.
Frozen conflict is a universal concept. It's not just Russians that do it.
Eg Kosovo conflict is frozen (not even all NATO/EU states recognise Kosovo). There is still a lot of agitation on both sides and many flare ups.
Eg Israel and occupied territories (Golan, West Bank, Gaza). Occasionally they flare up.
Frozen conflict is useful for anyone who is seeking to undermine the territorial integrity of another country.
partially I agree with you. But! In case with Kosovo and Palestine we're a dealing with new nations. In case with Transnistria or with Donbas – we do not. So I agree that "Frozen conflict is a universal concept". On top I will say that Russia uses it to hook up the territories that they couldn't control now but willing to do so in the future presenting it like the protection. It was the case in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine. Without Russia there would be no conflict. But we can't say the same regarding Kosovo or Israel cause the brewing there started long before it became the Cold War matter.
Kosovo is not a new nation. It essentially a chunk of Serbia that is now populated maonly by Albanians. No sich thong as a Kosovar.
Palestine is also not a new nation. Palestinians lived their for a couple of thousand years. Gaza is literally a refugee camp containing descendents of people expelled/ethnically cleansed by Israel in 1948. And noting most of these Israelis were European Jews.
West Bank was part of Jordan before Israel conquered it.
So situation is equivalent to South Ossettia or gormer Armenian pseudo repiblic of Artesh.
Kiat because westerners are doing it doesn't mean it is any different to what Russoa does.
It is like people who claom being killed by American bombs for liberty is better than being killed by Russian bombs for imperial expansion.
Also Moldova - fake country. Should be and used to be part of Romania. Transnsnistria should be part of Ukraine.
South Ossettia is actually a minority who chim up with Russoans cause rhe Georgians want to oppress them.
Donbas is imperialism but no different to say Israel taking over Golan Heights and West Bank in 1967.
Well said.
Soviet Union ran a war economy for 70 years before it imploded. How else do you think Russia inherited 12,000 tanks?!? USSR didn't really bother with consumer goods, it's main economic concern was weaponry.
Lend lease from the US. Go look it up
Lend lease only started in 1941 and finished in 1945.
Before WW2 USSR built more weapons in 1930s than anyone - Eg 24,000 tanks (Britain produced maybe a 1000). Whole Soviet pre war economy was geared towards arms manufacture.
And after WW2 USSR conntinued essentially a war economy up to 1991 wjen it imploded due to economic mismanagememt.
You bring up very good points. If I was Zelensky I would be scraping whatever I can get to rearm with nukes. Russia will never give up on trying to subjugate Ukraine unless it has nukes. As well denuclearizing Ukraine in exchange for NATO membership would be a more palatable arrangement. Otherwise its a tough road for Ukraine especially with fickle weak US Natsec under Biden.
Regarding nukes for Ukraine. Well, I think that what Ukraine did in 90s when the nukes were taken form it self-willingly is a truly progressive precedent oriented to the brighter future. What Ukraine did with the Nukes is like what Gandhi did to civil resistance. I see it that way and that’s why I’m a proponent to go away form that Cold War mentality. Trying to rearm Ukraine with nukes is a reactionary. There are more that enough of them in the world. Becoming a full member of NATO is the nearest goal instead. Joining EU and giving it military component is the strategy.
Despite a scepticism here about walking zombies in the West, which I pretty much agree with, I’d like still to remind everyone and that 100 hundred year ago Ukraine lost it’s war for independent cause it was completely alone! Comparing to the support Ukraine gets from partners now — it is immense source for optimism and window for opportunity to finally change the way the life goes in Eastern Europe therefore the whole Europe and therefore the West.
I think that *if* Ukraine loses the war, that will be a strong argument for more countries getting equipped with nuclear armament.
The argument will be "Ukraine gave away willingly their nukes, and look where they ended" and "If you can threaten with nuclear annihilation, nobody is going to attack you". I have already noticed that there were voices in Germany calling about building a nuclear deterrent, like France (imagine what kind of taboo is broken if they are speaking about such an action)
exactly! and we do not want the spread of nuclear weapon, at least if our aim is more safe and sustainable civilisation
The idea of "non proliferation" ironically started from the existing nuclear powers (USA, UK, USSR, France, China), which then initiated a lot of effort trying to keep the nuclear arms club as absolutely exclusive as possible (at least in theory).
India, Pakistan, North Korea and (most probably) Israel have already become members of this (very exclusive) club, but God forbid that other countries enter it too. I don't know if having Germany or Ukraine armed with nuclear weapons like France will cause additional instability (Middle East definitely is too unstable for having local people in possession of nuclear weapons).
But, if we deny to Ukraine the right to wield nuclear weapons as deterrence, we have to let this country be able to arm themselves with a strong enough conventional armed force that none of their neighboring countries will think about invading them. We cannot require Ukraine to stay away from nuclear weapons and at the same time not permit this country to arm themselves. Someone, sooner or later, will be tempted to attack.
Does Ukraine need to rearm with nukes if it will join NATO?
Also Russia has been this way since Ivan the Terrible in 1500s. The social and cultural aspects of it go even further back to the Grand Dutchy Of Moscow and the Mongol occupations in 1200s.
Foreign interference in their economy and government will just make them more against the west.
That Manifesto is absurdist fantasy. As if Russia would agree to complete disarmament and foreign control over its laws? The manifesto calls for something along the lines of Treaty of Versailles back in 1918.
Even Navalny didn't agree with returning Crimea. I doubt if he lived, he or any other Russian democrat would agree with total disarmament and Russian economy, institutions and government being placed under essentially foreign control.
Navalny was a Russian imperial chauvinist no less then Putin with exception to know how the Internet works. He supported occupation of Crimea in 2014 what implies that he did not respect the international law. He is not figure to be referred with such an awe. There is a phrase "Russian liberals cease to be liberal where the Ukrainian border begins". Meditate on that.
regarding Manifesto. It's a program that shows how the Ukrainain civil society sees that war. So treat it as a data that you need to take into account when thinking about why Ukraine resists, despite pre-24th Feb West was utterly sceptical about Ukraine will withstand, which was to degree the echo of Russian propaganda. Russia is indeed a big power. But the large portion of that image is a fiction produced by Kremlin.
Totally agree on Navalny. Stupid westerners like hom but he chummed up with whote supremacists and neo nazis when it suited him. I mentioned him cause clueless westerners regard him as some sort of progressive leader.
There are no liberals in Russia, only cynical opportunists.
I understand Ukraine's resistance, I have been following it since 2014.
But if Ukraine thinks Russia should be destroyed on its current format and tirned onto a western vassal, then they underestimate Russian resolve as much as the Russians underestimate Ukrainian resolve.
As for Russian military power, it was never there. Anyone who paid attention to Russian military pre2022 should have known this.
People ignore Russian BTGs getting thrashed in Ukraine in 2014. People ignore poor performance of Russian trained Wagner in Libya and Syria. They ignore poor performance of Russians in Syria and Georgia. In Georgia and Syria Russia won because the other side lacked strength and counters to even Russia's WW2 era tactics.
But at the same time Russia is not as weak as the pro Ukrainian trolls insist. If they were that weak and that stupid Russia would have collapsed into chaos by May 2022.
Very profound article, thank you so much. Makes a lot of sense to me. I think Biden unfortunately is banking on the fact that Putin/Russia cannot win to delay aid in order to ensure a smooth reelection campaign. But what he and all his "expert" natsec lawyers are missing out on is the fact that Ukraine isnt guaranteed to win either as you have correctly noted. Russia can still spend enormous resources hurting Ukrainians.
Over the long term, I believe the Ukrainians will come out on top and get back all their 1991 borders. But at great cost if they dont receive enough help. But I believe this is only possible if first the Baltics, Nordic and Visegrad are fully pivoted to military industrial support of Ukraine with no limits. Without this, its hard to see lawyers like Sullivan resist the temptation to delay and prolong this war by drip feeding military aid.
What are these “enormous resources? “. Last time I looked Russian soldiers were riding around on golf carts on the battlefield and getting killed in their hundreds , sometimes thousands, each day. I see now they are going to Mali to recruit cannon fodder as the Nepalese ran away when they got to Ukraine. I don’t know how Putin isn’t embarrassed.
I think we underestimated the level of Malevolency Putin and his supporters in Russia have towards Ukraine. They can send multiple men into meat waves as well as continue finding cheap ways of copying Ukrainian battlefield innovations. Ukraine defeating Russia requires making it happen not waiting for it happen. And this can only be done by fully supporting them.
Russian 2024 total defence spending is about $150b. 2024 combined military aid to Ukraine is about $100b. About 60% of Russia's spending is on payroll/compensation. Meaning, that Russia's and Ukraine's materiel budgets are comparable. Also, $150b is less than 1% of the GDP of just the EU on its own.
Russia does not have enormous resources, it's a pathetic, laughable rabble not an army, when compared with just the European NATO. It's just that Ukraine has been the poorest and most corrupt (excl. Russia) country in Europe, so Russia's resources seem large when compared to that.
You bring up valid points. But as Tom has said in the past, having a larger GDP doesnt translate into military goods if there is no initiative to produce military goods. Russia as you noted is not economically as strong as the West but for example it has been outproducing the West in certain crucial types of artillery and even much better at sourcing these globally from its allies. What we need is an industrial push to produce more military equipment and send them to Ukraine
The devil is in the details. Russian military production has to be split between new and from storage equipment. Then in the stored equipment, there's the high readiness, i.e. quick and cheap to prepare and send to front and then the decades long, outdoors, for all intents and purposes, scrap yards, where only hulls are usable.
To cut the long story short, the Russian brand new and new from old hulls production rates are very low. Last time I've heard it was about 200 tanks per year. Worth remembering that there's much more to an army than a T-55 fully refurbished tank. The rest of the production is based on short and medium term storage. Russia has effectively run out of those in every equipment category. That is why the Russian production rate has more or less stagnated since mid-2023.
NATO, today but certainly by the end of 2024, will have outproduced Russia in every weapons and equipment category. France on its own already produces 72 wheeled SPGs per year. How many SPGs does Russia produce? I don't have the exact, up-to-date numbers, but it won't be much more than that. The Russian industry is clearly struggling with the production of artillery barrels.
The issue in this war, has always been political decisions, individual and collective, by NATO members. If politicians wanted Ukraine to liberate its territories as soon as possible (however long it would take in reality), then all the tools required are available: money, industrial capacity, know-how, training, logistics etc.
TLDR; Russia is not competitive in any category with NATO. It's the idiotic, cowardly and sometimes simply corrupt politicians that have even remotely made this a contest.
Yep. And your last point is exactly why RF is dangerous. Until Putin is gone, they have more will to keep going than the West does (although we are getting better). They also have a much higher "pain threshold" as a society bc of their history, so their mobilization potential as a percentage of their money/industry/human resources/general well being of the population is relatively much higher. Europe and the US seem to be in a similar dynamic to where England and France were in 37-39. They can't imagine having to tell their populations that war is upon them again and they need to give up wealth, peaceful lifestyles, and their sons/daughters to a war that's not inside their country yet.
Russia's GDP is between Spain's and Australia's. Not so scary when you think of it like that, even with defence spending at 40%.
NATO has always outproduced Russia in weapons. Even the shrunk down European militaries outclass and outnumber the Russian military. I mean even Norway has more than double the stealth fighters in service than Russia has.
This is why I don't buy into "Putin's going to attack NATO" rhetoric.
It's political crap.
Russia thought it could play in its own playground ala Ukraine hence they started this war.
But they were never going to attack NATO.
I need to correct you that from the open sources Hungarian corruption exceeds Ukrainian. Ukraine is at severe war with corruption for several years. And it's already bearing fruits.
What does it even mean from "open sources". The most widely accepted corruption assessment is the corruption perception index by Transparency. In 2023 Ukraine was the worst in Europe (not counting Russia), like in most years. Also, Hungary is by far the worst in the EU. I don't think your argument is as winning one as you think it is.
Whether the "war on corruption" is happening and is bearing fruit is hard to tell. Zelensky not so long ago asked the media to stop talking about corruption so much. Doesn't sound like a leader that is winning the war on corruption. It will take years before we will be able to truly assess how much has actually changed. Corruption is a culture. Culture changes slowly, if ever.
Listen, fkng parrot, I'll tell you who's more corrupt than Ukraine: it's USA, Bulgaria, Hungary, to name a few. Many more to list. Why don't you write your repetitive anti-Ukrainian bollocks somewhere in your own (anti-Ukrainian) blog, ffs.
It seems that your numbers are not entirely correct.
Maybe ru has $150bln. war spending now, but it seems sources mention $120bln. (Khodorkovsky). That is $10bln. a month.
UA received $85bln budgetary assistance and $95bln. military assistance during 30 months of war (UA gov sources + Rammstein quotes). That is $5.66bln per month, with 3.2bln (per month) of that is military assistance.
Ru has income from top 10 exports, which are definitely fully controlled by their top officials, of around $300bln a year.
So my view on the "winning formula" (there is quite some sarcasm) this: NATO countries dedicate 0.25% of their GDPs towards UA military assistance. Which is 10 bln. a month. No budgetary assistance to UA. That fund is filled with money, not equipment, and then committee, NATO + UA, decide and where and what to buy, depending on the need, price, and availability. That is delivered systematically at the pace of 10 bln. worth of equipment enters UA monthly.
No extra limits to use it, besides international laws imposed.
Also EU starts confiscating 300 bln. ru assets at the pace of 10 bln. a month, which UA uses for budgetary purposes. Humanitarian, economy, restoration, etc. All other countries focus on military support.
EU + US impose sanctions that reduce top 10 ru exports to below $200bln. plus restrict fully high tech imports.
All seems doable, but it ain't happening I think, anyways.
If you really want to go through numbers with a fine comb, then you have to add the actual UA defence spending on top of the aid, which is not insignificant about $40B. Also, as I stated, a large portion of the RF defence spending is on payroll, while all or nearly all of the military aid is in equipment. UA costs are also lower as it is a poorer country, so each $ has a higher PPP. However you slice and dice it, UA and RF have comparable and competitive budgets. What will happen in 2025 is too early to predict.
Most of your "winning formula" has already been happening. The exact equipment has always been coordinated and discussed with UA. Also, UA have been provided some freedom in simply choosing what to buy. First the industry must ramp up production before it can all be done on a larger scale. Training is another issue, a large and difficult one to solve as well.
I don't believe that the EU will simply confiscate the euroclear money. They may decide to transfer the profits from it, which is several billion euros per year. I would like to be surprised.
Sanctions are constantly increased and, in particular, the US are constantly monitoring and closing financial channels. Chinese and Turkish banks have all but ceased money transfers with Russia. Alibaba has stopped shipments to Russia, it seems that Hikvision (surveillance systems) has left suddenly overnight. These are just high profile recent examples.
Last but not least, you're making the same mistake journalists make, treating export revenue as income to the federal budget. Only a small % actually ends up in Kremlin's coffers. You make the exports sound as if they are big, while in reality they are alarmingly low (alarmingly for Russia), $425B in 2023. Poland's exports in 2023 were about $340B, while Germany's $1,700B. Russia is an economic dwarf strangled by murderous sanctions.
No, this is not happening, even close. I would not go through all the small details, but simply taken, equipment shipped to UA is mostly evaluated at replacement cost. Means, what would be the cost of new modern equipment coming as replacements to those countries. For example Bradley, some transactions mentioned at 2 mln per one. This means for 3.2 bln. 1500 items could be delivered in one month. This is not happening, even close. Making it 10, would be 3 times more, plus at different costing.
Now about ru top exports, why do you think that anything beyond costs and small expenses would not end up in those coffers? That the whole point. And then why do you think that exports you see in statistics is real value of exports? And not for example ru owned firms abroad buying goods at slightly higher the costs, and then selling around the world at normal pricing?
Also do not forget that all Russian kit is much cheaper and the Western kit is overpriced, so as number of items the difference is even bigger. At least and thank God, the quality of Western kit indeed worth the money.
Much needed commentary. Also, I'd like to add, with people focusing on whether or not Russia attrits faster than Ukraine: we don't know at this point.
What we can say, is that Ukraine will rebuild with the help of the West.
We can also say that Russia currently attrits faster than literally everyone else not fighting in this war: EU, US, India, and most importantly China. Putin rather lives as Chinas vassal, weakening every day, than cooperate with EU and US on equal terms, which is mindboggling. And Xi happily takes the opportunity. This we can say for sure.
Russia was never going to cooperate with US on equal terms. The fact that America happily supported Ukraine is great evidence of this. It's not like America would tolerate Russia or China openly arming Houthis or Iran or North Korea.
Kill yourself.
How about you calm yourself down by sucking your fathers dick?
If only our super-hyper-omgsoooomuchccompetent media outlets would even consider to pointi out this and stick it to the face of etremists "pacifists"...
Excellent reading, once again.
Life in Afganistan has improved a lot under U.S.A. occupation, e.g. healthcare. Of course, taking into account how much money USA has stuffed there ... it was a failure, but not a decisive failure, if I take the war terminology to the humanitarian aid and economy :D
Precisely that is what resulted in the Western defeat in that war....
That with 'life in Afghanistan has improved' was valid for perhaps (in best case) 5% of the Afghan population. And there was - absolutely - no outlooks for any kind of improvement. Which is why then thousands of youngsters began joining the Taliban again, and why the Afghan government couldn't survive on its own.
Had the West been successful, it would've taken serious care to increase that percentage to at least 50%.
It failed, miserably, at that.
...which is no surprise, because at the same time the very 'West' took great care to concentrate about 90% of its own wealth in the hands of around 500, perhaps 1000 of its own super-rich jerks, the mass of whom is, effectively, paying less taxes than you or me (percentage-wise, measured on their and your or mine total income).
Friendly recommendation: re-think the way you think, otherwise you're playing straight into the hands of all the possible Pudding-fans in the West (in particular).
Our ('Western') systems of governance are broken, and in urgent need of reform. They are broken because the system of control of the governance was subverted from within - and thus disabled. The only way for 'us' to become capable of winning wars again is to reform and re-establish the system of control of the way our countries are governed: to make the politics completely transparent and not only curb, but make political corruption impossible.
Until that changes, both private- and corporate interests are going to continue dictating our politics, and we're going to continue applying double standards, instead of 'the rule of law and order'.
"No bucks no Buck"
Billions was given in aid but all siphoned off at every level so that the original contractor suspiciously drives around in 4x4s and has designer clothes. When I lived in Egypt I had a connection who owned a limestone quarry. He had an order for a few tons of limestone for a road. But surely I thought the limestone wouldn’t be hard enough for a road. It would crumble The purchase went ahead anyway and was used to make the road. This was an example of a contract to build a road that had been handed ie subcontracted, down numerous times until the poor mug who has to actually do the job can’t afford the right materials. Then everyone wonders why the road is broken and the place looks a dump. That happens in all these countries and why they are crap.
C.Q.F.D.
Honestly, the western efforts, especially in germany where I live, feel like the appeasement policies of Chamberlain in 1930. And we saw where that led with Hitler. Some bullies need to be stopped, even at the cost of lives, let alone an itty bitty piece of luxury like not having taxes increase to pay for weapons for Ukraine....
Yes, looks like the Phoney War...
Can't get it - why enforcing a complete Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, would be equal to the abandonment of the principle of rule of law and order? You mean russian by nationality? Because i can't see any abandonment of the principle of rule of law and order in withdrawal all russians with guns and establishing ukrainian control over it's internationally recognized territories.
The text says "giving any other result to Pudding, but enforcing a complete Russian withdrawal", which means any other result then full ru withdrawal would be abandonment of law and order.
Youre reading this war as a stand alone conflict but Russia takes it as a part of a larger plan.
Its a deliberate strategy of peacemeal destruction of a country that, as you rightly pointed out, cant be destroyed with one go.
Here is how it looks like:
1992-2013 Political corrosion and keeping the date and military dysfunctional. Ie preparatory phase
2014- TBD peacemeal destruction.
2014 Crimea, 2015 Donbass, 2022- tbd however much can be taken. Once there is a ceasefire then conquered areas will be Russified. At the same time there will never be a peace deal, just ceasefire that Russia can cancel whenever opportunity presents to continue the slow destrcuction.
If you look at the history of Russia then youll see that this playbook has been used quite often and is very effective.
Russia probably will not destroy Ukriane within next year or two but over the course of next 20-30 years it can do it and Ukrainians know this - thats why they dotn want to agree on any ceasefires as this plays into Russian strategy.
Unfortunately, West doesnt see it that way and as Ukrainian victory is dependent on their help then here is why I think the statement Russia cant win is not correct. They can and the lands of current Russia are full of dead or dying nations that bear testimony to this.
Valid points, no doubt.
Problem: initiating an invasion with the aim of exterminating Ukraine has changed a lots of the quotation you're describing in the last two paragraphs. It's disrupting the Russian strategy first and foremost: now 'all cards are on the table' and the situation is crystal clear. There is no doubt about their intentions and thus less opportunity to their usual subversion.
At least nominally, that should make plenty of things easier.
....if only the West gets its rubbish done, finally...
Lets hope its so! As for now it sure seems that West treats it like something that can be settled by simply "exhausting" Russia on the battlefield at the expense of Ukrainian lives, then giving away whatever land they managed to conquer in a peace deal for Russia to "save face" and call it a mission accomplished.
I think that’s highly highly highly unlikely considering Russia is on the road to financial ruin within a year Why do people still want to believe that Russia is a strong economy with an ace fighting force that is going to continue for 20 + years ? I just don’t understand where they are getting their info from. I’ve studied it and the truth is catastrophic for Russia on 3 different criteria, economy, refined oil and hardware like tanks and planes. They are on the road to ruination and nothing but nothing can stop it. Putin might have one of those cyanide pills tucked away.
Economic ruin doesnt mean military ruin. Russia will always find money and men for their military and the population will comply - this is what Western analysts tend to miss as they presume that mass discontent will end the war. That is not how Russia works.
The regime however would collapse quite quickly when they suffer a military defeat on the battlefield as this shows that czar is weak and weak czar must go - so when people are puzzled why Russia is running meat attacks then this is why. They need to keep the idea of victorious Russia going and only way to keep it going is to show some achievements, however small. Naturally, the human losses it brings doesnt concern the Kremlin and it doesnt concern the Russian population either.
Economic ruin doesn’t mean military ruin? Of course it does!
You can win the war and still be ruined economically eg Britain after WW2
Britain was supplied by the US. So was USSR. Hence why they could continue the war.
Irrelevant to the point. Britain won WW2 but its economy and empire were ruined.
Extremely well said.
Dumb arse westerners don't understand Russian system which is still essentially feudal .
The serfs are generally expendable. Occassionally they rise up ala 1905 or 1917 bit that is only when as you said the Tzar has suffered massive military defeat.
Only "tzar" to avoid dissent following two military humiliations in 1939 and 1941 was the Georgian, Josef Stalin, who built up one of the most effective authoritarian control mechanisms in history.
1992-2013 - the Ukrainian elites were happy to plunder their own country, Russians or not.
Russia in 1992-2008 was not capable of any coherent large scale operation of this capacity and sophistication.
Yes, but the preparatory work was done during those years.
For example Ukrainian military was all but dysfunctional, intelligence agencies utterly compromised when it all started and there was a heavy Russian trace in getting it to that state.
But so was the Russian military and FSB up to 2008 at least (and to be honest they're not that competent now).
Russian military performance in Georgia was dismal. They won because Georgia's military was too small and also too incompetent to properly defend themselves.
The Russian trace was due to extremely close ties between the two after fall of USSR due to shared language, religion and history.
Note Baltic states with very little cultural similarity to Russia got away cleanly.
Azerbaijan did too, chumming up with culturally similar Turks.
So Russia's influence over Ukraine was a historical and cultural hangover, and not some sort of grand Russian conspiracy.
The FSB amd GRU had it easy because many Ukrainians maintained close ties with Russia
If Ukrainians and Belarus cleaved their relationship with Russia in 1990s, today they woild both ne on EU and NATO. But they chose the easy pathway and now both people's suffer under Russian opression.
Even the less developed Stans were more able to navigate out of complete Russian influence than Ukraine and Belarus.
Basically Belarus and Ukraine are responsible for their own destinies. They chose comfy easy Tsarist/Soviet colonial master instead of trying a new path until it was too late
Well, I can’t agree that there’s anything brilliant or clever in giving accolades to people who suck up to him even if they are idiots. Personally I’ve been an MD in a company and brown noses are really annoying especially if they are incompetent and they always are. His adoration to have his ego massaged is another weakness that will ensure his failure.
This is the (one of many) difference between you and Putin: he thinks farting up someone's nostrils is great sport, you think it's embarrassing and revolting.
Well. This perfectly sums up everything in one phrase :)
Good thougts, Tom. I think all this this matter feels like Russia, Ukraine and the collective West have three different timetables.
For me this conflict start brewing in 2001/2002, when Russian security pretentions where sidelined by the then US government. War on islamic terrorism was a common point that Putin try to explore and when rejected, the suspicion and paranoia of the all time invaded russians start to win their hearts. Add to them the bad experience with neocapitalism and you have an angry and resented country.
Then try to analize all the nato expansion to the east and georgian war through the eyes of a paranoic Russian who fears the world is against them and voila, it's self explaining why we are here.
Dig into how much money the West invested into Russia after 1991. It’s insane amount! More over, all head offices for even such things as music distribution labels were based in Moscow covering ares of other independent country such as Ukraine, Georgia etc. There should be zero blame on the West offering economic integration over the military competition. The blame might be that the US hadn’t done a good job to understand what was going on in the Eastern Europe well enough to see it not through Russian lenses only. It’s a shame that Russia, with all resources available did not progress from XIX mentality despite having nukes and the internet.
Yes and lots of money invested was a con. When Medvedev was President he thought he could make a Silicon Valley in Russia. Lots of gullible fools in the US thought he was genuine and invested. Of course there was nothing behind the plan. Like a Potemkin village it was a made up cardboard cut out. There was no real Silicon Valley . Even if anyone had tried they would have been manoeuvred out by cronies of the government and all that. Russia cannot do anything but emulate the US in trite ways
USA and west already win!
Actualy they win at the moment when Soviets starts killing Soviets with Soviet weapons!
You’re right. Ukraine has won, Russia is killing time pretending they are in a war they might win. Not happening and won’t be happening
I was born in Kyiv in 1993. 2 years after Soviet Union was closed as a project. And I don't know why I sentenced to die in trenches fighting Russian mad homosovetikus fappers if I (and 85% of my friends and colleagues) only want to join EU and achieve for my country western standards of life?
That is exactly why Putin and the system he represents wants you dead, neighbor. They cannot allow a prosperous, democratic Ukraine to exist because than the Russians would want the same thing. And that would bring an end to the system. Big no no. From their POV all ex Soviet republics have to be poorer, more corrupt and have less perspectives than Russia itself, for Ru and system Putin to keep working as they do, and as they have since centuries. Ideally ex Warsaw Pact states too, but luckily for us that boat has long sailed.
.....
Just after the 2022 invasion a Romanian diplomat explained how surprised he was when he met Putin in 2007-8. V.V. , unlike his official propaganda, did not say a word about US troops here, NATO membership or AEGIS ashore, but was extremley concerned and upset about EU membership and how we will become Europe's slaves and a colony.
It never was about NATO, America or a military threat against Russia. It was always about the existential threat to the corrupt, imperial sytem existing for centuries in Russia posed by prosperity and freedom of the masses.
Yes and no. Russian elites and oligarchs were almost based in the West, and they could have changed something by now, but they didn't. There are some of them talking about "free Russia" (I have recently seen a fascinating interview with Garry Kasparov), but it seems they are not too many, and not much loved by the average Russian. Yes, I second you, they want all former SSR countries and former communist countries to fail and they will do their best to see this. But IMO, that is because they consider themselves superior and they hope in this way they will achieve again dominance over them/us. Not because they are afraid of our living style. I think our main problem is that we don't understand Russian mentality, and we expect them to think and act like us. They don't. It's a different and unique culture and they see themselves as a superpower like the USA or China. Russian elites, no matter how educated they are, will never agree Russia to be part of a Western world dominated by the USA (like France, UK or Germany). They want to be at least as equal and influential as the USA. The average Russian thinks the same - therefore he was fascinated by Prigozhin. This is the source of all problems. And this wouldn't change without a serious defeat. Maybe I am wrong, but this is my feeling.
Last time I check, Romanians gave natural resources for mining royalty at 3%.
When Serbia got 6% for mining royalty, Romanians start to protest: they wanted more, like Serbia but western oligarchs told Romanians: we can speak about 1% or 2% increase, not 100% increase!
So yes, Romania is slave country, just like Serbia.
Thanks, Tom, this is a critical argument and you’ve captured its key points perfectly. The issue for the Ukrainians seems to be getting their victory conditions accepted by their backers and the rest of the world. Whilst Zelensky made good progress on this initially, the majority of the West have diluted their support of these and that makes deciding on a win/loss so hard. Hopefully the increasing support of key European states will help: they, after all, understand the threat more clearly! In between, any ally of the US or even NATO must be carefully assessing their confidence in their friends coming to their aid in the future!
One other question has come to mind: the British (and Australians) are building new nuclear submarines and investing in Trident, given the obvious limitations on weapons use for Ukraine, does anyone know if the same conditions might apply to the “independent” deterrent?