shhughes1116

Read my earlier post about mobilization. Ukraine is just now hitting the exponential curve upwards for mobilization, while Russia is struggling to fill frontline units with fresh meat. Ukraine’s problem isn’t numbers - they have more combat-experienced troops than any country in the world given the 8 year conflict in the Donbas and their 1-year rotation for conscripts. Ukraine’s problem is that they are struggling to outfit units with all the stuff needed for the front lines - helmets, boots, NVGs, etc. By the end of the Summer, Ukraine will likely have 750k mobilized troops, most of whom will already have combat experience from the Donbas. My prediction - - Ukraine pushes Russia back to the Feb 2022 borders; - Ukraine gives up Crimea during negotiations with Russia, and then promptly cuts the water at Nova Kakhovka, turning Crimea into an uninhabitable wasteland. - Referendum conducted in the Donbas by UN, and turns out people aren’t so interested in living under Russian rule. There are two additional facts which I think are helpful to understand - - Eastern front in WW2 was won on the backs of Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Siberian fighters, not ethnic Russians. The Ukrainians and Belorussians and Siberians know how to fight. - most of the Russian casualties have been among ethnic minorities and PMC soldiers. In other words, the elites and ethnic Russians don’t give a f**k about the human costs of the “special military operation”. If Putin starts a general mobilization by calling this a war, he is going to have a political problem with the elites and ethnic Russians, likely resulting in the end of his reign.

Thanks for sharing that clip - quite funny. Forgot how much I enjoyed Monty Python.

After 2014, it was a frozen conflict. Ukraine lacked the resources and political will to re-take Donbas, and Crimea’s location makes it challenging to retake. Russia was busy consolidating control over Donbas and Crimea. After the recent invasion and associated indiscriminate killing and shelling, the political will exists to spill blood while fighting Russia. And NATO has provided the resources that previously didn’t exist. I think Ukraine will push Russia back to the pre-2022 borders. At that point, I think the political leadership will take stock of whether the Ukrainian people are willing to die to retake Donbas and Crimea, and what the potential cost might be. If retaken, Crimea is easily defensible. On the other hand, the Donbas is not easily defensible and could become a demilitarized wasteland between Ukraine and Russia. Even Igor Girkin says that the Russians turned Donbas into a dump, so it might not be worth the cost for Ukraine to retake it.

Man, you guys are still prognosticating about the end game in Ukraine? Why is stalemate the most likely outcome? On what basis do you make this claim? Think about this from the perspective of mobilizing and maintaining an army in the field. On Day 1 of the war, Ukraine had about 100k active duty troops, most of them in the Donbas, with combat experience. They had another 650k men, many of them reservists, with combat experience from their 1-yr stints in the Donbas between 2014 and 2022. In this situation, they traded space for time, wearing down the Russians, to give them time for mobilization. It probably takes about 45 days to bring these men in, equip them, form them into units, train them into a functional brigade-level unit, and another week to work them into the front-line. And what do we see now, about 75 days after the war started? New brigade-level units deployed around Krakiv are pushing the Russians back. Same around the Izyum salient. By the end of the Summer, I’ll bet Ukraine has over 500k combat-experienced, NATO-equipped troops fighting in Eastern Ukraine, and another 250k territorial defense troops manning the borders around Kyiv, Krakiv and Odessa. On the other side, the Russians are only able to field about 250k troops at a time, outside of Russia. Even if they declare war and implement a general mobilization, they lack the logistical infrastructure for anything more. And they are equipping some soldiers in front-line units with dated equipment like MosinNagants. Nice rifle, but atrocious for a fire fight in the 21st century. And almost all of the replacements coming from Russia lack combat experience. So they have 250k troops, at most, to hold a long crescent-shaped front stretching from eastern Ukraine down to Kherson. That is not enough front-line troops to defend the land-bridge to Crimea AND hold the Donbas. A few weeks ago, I said to expect the Fourth Battle of Krakiv, which would blow open the Russian flank in the Donbas and lead to an encirclement of Russian troops. That is now happening in Izyum - the Ukrainians are starting to pinch that salient, while at the same time Ukraine troops are threatening Vovchansk. This will suck Russian troops from other areas to protect the railroad lines between Belgorod and Donbas. And they are being sucked into their rear areas to defend against partisans, especially in the South. With the growing manpower advantage and with an unending stream of weapons from the West, I suspect we are going to see Ukraine sever the land-bridge to Crimea this Summer by attacking towards Melitpol. This would expose the flank of Russian troops in Kherson and likely cause them to fall back into Crimea, rather than hold Kherson and die like the Ukrainian soldiers in Mauriopol. That opens up numerous possibles for Ukraine to finish the war on their terms. Plenty more bleeding and death to come, sadly. But I think we are going to see the Russian army routed in the field.

Putin is not going to use a nuclear weapon unless he feels like he is choosing between a war crimes trial at The Hague and Nuclear Annihilation. And in that case, he is not going to stop at a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Said another way, Putin can lose the “special military operation” in Ukraine and there is a reasonable chance he can still remain in power. But if he uses a tactical nuke, then he will be out of power, either because of world wide nuclear annihilation, or because NATO uses conventional weapons to destroy any and all infrastructure in Russia (I.e. ice-free deep water ports, energy infrastructure, transportation infrastructure) that makes it impossible for Russia to continue existing as a country.

For those that are militarily inclined, it looks like the Ukrainians are going to turn Izyum into the “Fourth Battle of Krakiv”. Just like in the Third Battle or Krakiv, the Russians have left their supply lines unprotected and overextended, this time with a mass of BTGs in near/around Izyum. And their Western flank is very exposed. If the Ukrainians are successful in the same manner as Manstein was in 1943, the Russian flank in Donbas will be blown wide-open. Rule #1 of Encirclement Club: when trying to encircle your enemy, don’t create a new salient with your forces that is exposed to encirclement by the very enemy you are trying to encircle.

There won’t be direct military intervention by NATO countries. You are already seeing the effects of those pictures. US is mobilizing former eastern bloc equipment - upgraded T72s and BMPs - for delivery to Ukraine. Ukraine asked for 100 tanks and 400 APVs. Looks like they are going to get that. That’s the mobile units they’ll need to push East. The MANPADS plus AFVs and drones will make the Ukrainian mobile units tough to beat. Mix in some real-time NATO ISR plus fresh Ukrainian infantry, and I think the Ujrianians have better than 50-50 odds of booting the orcs from the eastern portion of Ukraine.

The Russians rear areas are not secure. In order to secure their rear, they have to pull back troops from the various city encirclements. But In order to secure the encircled cities, they must pull troops out of their rear areas. Their multi-axis advance forced them into this poor situation. The Russians have chosen the latter, and the Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces are taking a page out of the Robert Rogers’ playbook and wreaking havoc on the Russian’s road-bound traffic in undefended rear areas. Certainly possible that Mauripol falls, and those Russian forces pivot north to cut off the eastern portion of Ukraine. That said, I think it is more likely that this slowly grinds into a stalemate, with the Russians unable to muster additional offensive actions. fortunately for Ukraine, they aren’t relying on this board for strategic military advice because they would most certainly be f**ked of that was the case.

Since the thread is about the endgame, I’ll offer my view. At this point, I see almost no chance that Ukraine agrees to de-militarization and neutrality. With each day that passes, the Russian ability to wage war decreases, and the Ukrainian ability to wage war (and their resolve to do so) increases. Each child that is murdered by indiscriminate rocket fire and artillery fire puts another parent on the battlefield that has nothing to lose in their quest to slaughter Russian soldiers. In the coming week, I think we will see more surrendering of Russian soldiers, more abandoned military equipment, and small areas where the Ukrainians push the Russians back. I also think the Russians will intensify their bombing of civilian areas in an effort to kill civilians and force the Ukrainians to negotiate. Medium-term, I think the Ukrainians push the Russians back to their borders, and turn the Donbas into a demilitarized wasteland, a la the Korean Peninsula. If Poland hands over their 30 Mig29s, I think this happens faster. During all of this, I think there is a greater than 50% chance that Russia bombs their own troops (or potentially a small town in russian) with a dirty bomb in order to justify further aggression against Ukraine.

Agreed. Amazing how many people in the West, sitting in their comfy chairs safe from indiscriminate rockets, believe that Ukraine should give up their ability to defend themselves and give up their rights as a sovereign nation, in response to an invading country that has a 100 year history of murdering Ukrainians. When your house is destroyed and your children have been murdered, there isn’t much left to live for. Lot of people in Ukraine are in this situation right now. Do you think they are going to lay down their arms and roll over for Russia? Or do you think they are going to grab a bunch of javelins and molotovs and slaughter as many Russian soldiers as they possibly can? I would go with the latter. And let’s talk about a practical problem for Putin. The first Tank Guards Army, the elite military ground unit in the Russian army and based in the Western District of Russia, is getting mauled in Ukraine. This happens to be the same unit that would lock down Moscow and the surrounding region if the populace attempted to overthrow the government. Continuing to bleed his army dry in Ukraine will undermine his ability to stay in power if the Russian populace revolts.

Bring on the fat premiums.

I like CLMT for 2022, for the following three high-level reasons: 1. Upcoming deleveraging (and refinancing of remaining debt at better rates), made possible by the recent $300 million Oaktree investment. 2. I think the expected cash flow from the Montana Renewables operation is not reflected in the current unit price. 3. The GP / founding families seem to have finally realized they are incompetent and appointed a CEO who appears competent, well-aligned with unit holders, and conveys a thoughtful strategy for the business. in addition to the above, I suspect some (or all) of the following are likely happen over the next few years, juicing the return further: 1. Expansion or Montana Renewables operation to produce sustainable/renewable aviation fuel. 2. Strategic sale of renewable diesel operation after it is up and running; 2. Conversion from partnership to c-Corp. happy to discuss more on a CLMT-specific thread if desired.

x2. I do the same in Excel.

I highly recommend the 2020 (or newer) Toyota Highlander Hybrid. Happy to answer questions if you have them.

I wouldn't say I am negative. I originally bought Viacom in the mid-20s, HODL through the March 2020 tank, and then sold in the high-40s (and missed the subsequent rip to $100) I tend to think mid-40s is a fair price, and I tend to think high-20s is a reasonable price to accumulate. When volatility is high, I like to sell at the money puts for stocks I like. In this case, the premium was too juicy to resist, and puts me into the stock at my buy price if I am put the shares.

To be honest, I hope it is not an isolated case.  The pricing disruptions caused by this forced unwinding of positions is great for those that are patient and hold some cash.  Nice option premium on VIAC for instance.  And I hope that the end result, as people see this blow up, is a reduction in leverage across the entire system.  I think this would be healthy for the financial system, and to my point above, lucrative for my portfolio. 

VIAC Jan 2023 puts @ $40 strike for $11.50.  I'd be happy to buy Viacom again in the high 20's. 

Hoovering up some UNTC. Not generally an O&G guy (aside from midstream), but this one is pretty cheap and the publication of post-restructuring financials should make that more obvious.

Yes, greening is still negatively impacting citrus production in Florida. Production is down more than 50% over the last ten years. The various interventions studied and applied have not been effective at reducing the spread. Infected trees have also been found outside of Florida, in Southern California and South Texas. There is a semi-last ditch collaboration with Bayer AG to identify a solution. In the meantime, a substantial amount of groves in Florida get transitioned to cattle grazing land.

They have a nice asset in Wyoming, which is cost-advantaged relative to synthetic production, and cost-advantaged relative to other trona miners. However, I don't trust management. Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they inflating annual production through deca rehydration, and eventually production would drop off significantly. The manner in which they disclosed this made them appear either dishonest or incompetent. Happy to chat more about this one on a dedicated thread for CINR.

This precisely and concisely sums up the problem with our present day society. To a certain extent, people are willing to tolerate inequality because our system is set up in a way that enables people to improve their lot in life through hard work, ambition, and creativity. That said, I believe this door to the middle and upper class is closing for many folks in society. If people feel like they can't improve their lot in life, they become a lot less tolerant of inequality. And when they have nothing, then they have nothing to lose by destroying the system. If we don't solve for this sooner rather than later, I don't think there will be much of capitalism left to save in the United States. I think this is where we need to be careful with how we describe the solutions. I see equity and equality differently. I believe in equality - equality of opportunity. We should endeavor to make sure people have access to education and other tools that enable them to start businesses, earn money, and to generally improve their lot in life. I do not believe in equity, which seems to be a disincentive for ambition, personal responsibility, and hard work. I struggle to see the difference between equity and socialism.

SDS.

Why have cities always been desired? When travel and communication was more difficult and time consuming cities brought people and ideas together in one spot. Population density was a necessity for ideas to spread and serendipitous meetings to take place. Also it allowed an economy of scale for businesses. All of that still happens in cities, but, I don't know if that is still entirely necessary. People now meet and talk online just as easily as off, and with modern shipping the whole country is your marketplace. Very well said. Still impossible to replicate human interaction, but virtual is good enough for much of day-to-day life, and when compared against cost and livability of cities, will be very interesting to see future trends. Cities may become virtual cities. We know have online community where members can have strong bonds . That wasn’t possible historically. Am I going to go to the virtual theater? the virtual music arena? the virtual ballpark? the virtual museum? the virtual skateboard park? the virtual hospital to have virtual surgery from a top-rated cardiothoracic surgeon? Pardon the hyperbole, but you get my point. People are drawn to cities by the availability decent-paying jobs AND amenities/attractions that are not available in rural parts of the country. The population density of [insert ruraltown USA) does not support a good theater, decent skateboard park, large music arena that attracts big-name artists, decent museum (history, art, sports, or something else), MLB/NFL ballpark, and/or NHL/NBA arena. it certainly doesn't support a high-end hospital with top-rated physicians either - you are lucky to have a good general surgeon and a good general practitioner in ruraltown USA's local hospital. So the idea that people are going to leave urban office buildings, and scatter to the four corners of the earth where they can work remotely from their house is far-fetched to me. I work 1/3 of the time at home, 1/3 of the time in the office, and 1/3 of the time on the road. I have an entire team of folks around the country, similarly situated. If I wanted, I could work 100% from home, and could do so wherever I want in the United States. The same goes for my team. But over the last 10 years, I have found that it is mind-numbing to work from home every single day, and it blurs the boundaries between work life and family life. I have also found that locating myself in rural places, even for short periods of time, is boring. This is not unique to me. I see this same mentality across an organization with 10,000+ people. People are hyper focused on working remote, on getting the hell out of the office, so they can enjoy sunshine and rainbows every day from the comfort of their own house. Yet 90-95% of the people who go off to work 100% remote end up returning to the city and our office buildings. They either went nuts working 100% remote in their small apartment in the city, or they went nuts (in a larger apartment or house) living in a rural area without the amenities they were accustomed to enjoying. I think we are going to see a huge cohort of folks jump on the 100% work-from-home bandwagon. I think we are going to subsequently see, in maybe a year or two, that many of these folks want to return to the office building and the city for the reasons mentioned above. I think the endgame is that most white collar workers will do 50% of their time in the office building, and 50% of their time at home. And most of these folks won't leave the city (or will return) because they will miss the action, the amenities, and the proximity of their friends/peers.

Sold my Google. Figured my quick 15% gain in advance of earnings was something worth holding onto, and had a hard time seeing what would push their shares higher in the near future.

Job title/description: Team Leader Industry you work in: Federal Gov City and Country: Virginia (United States) The Federal Gov can't seem to figure out what it wants the employees to do. Under Bush 2, telework was sporadic. Under Obama, we were pushed to telework. Under Trump, they rolled a lot of that back, only to find out that they didn't have enough office space for everyone. And with the pandemic, they want us working from home again. Prior to the pandemic, I worked in the office about 1/3 of the time, at home 1/3 of the time, and on the road about 1/3 of the time. I run a team with employees that are scattered around the United States, so it doesn't really matter where I work most of the time. Virtual communications (Skype, video, Bat Signal) are expected and routine, and if you can't deal with that, we get rid of you in your probationary period. The remaining time, I need an office and conference space, to meet with industry, or with foreign govt officials. As a result, I never was able to do 100% telework, and never will be able to in my current position. I will share one interesting observation, at least in my opinion. Good leaders can lead, whether their staff is remote or in the office. Shitty managers are shitty managers, regardless of where their staff are located. I think remote work really highlights those that are good at leading and connecting with people, and those who believe leadership is randomly showing up at your office door to "make sure you are working".