Russia-Ukrainian War

[UK]

9 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I recommend checking out the documentary “Winter on Fire” about the Euromaiden revolution on Netflix. It also provides background and it is clear that the war in Ukraune started in February 2014 not 2022, it just went cold for a while.

 

Before Viktor Yanukovych was ousted , Ukraine was on its way to become a Russian vassals state like Belarus by means of a treaty with Putin that pivoted Ukraine away from its path to the EU toward Russia. When people revolted and ousted Yanukovych, Putin took military action and invaded the Crimea and also started a proxy war in Donbas that never really ended.

 

Now in 2022, Putin came to finish the jobs he started in 2014 but what while the West and the US did nothing in 2014, to Putins surprise the Western response was unified and impactful and that’s got us and Ukraine where we are right now.

 

Based on my read of the story line of history and and Putin, this will not end with Ukraine becoming neutral or anything of this sort, because Putin knows that the people in Ukraine tilt toward the west and sooner or later any Russian friendly regime might fall.

 

So in my opinion, the only way to end this is to help Ukraine to become part of Europe in the end and likely part of NATO or associated with it. Anything else will just make the conflict a temporary cold one and Putin will strike again at an opportune time for him to get what he thinks belongs to Russia. 
 

I have no idea if another Russian leader would look at this the same way. Possibly any Russian leader would, be skeptical towards the west, but I don’t think about anyone would start a war - that’s a choice not and inevitable thing.

 

 

 

I agree with your view, nothing to add. 

[Xerxes]

War started in 2014. There we agree. 

 

The outcome of the conflict is not inevitable. There we agree as that future is yet to be written. 
 

BUT the collision (step 2 and step 3) was inevitable. It happens to be centred around Putin and we in the west we all like a central figure for our narrative. but it would have happened eventually in other forms. More or less violent. Putin or no Putin.
 

 

think of it this way, if it took +2 decades past 1945 for wine-drinking, peace-loving Western European nations and governments to finally stop their wars of imperial preservation and bow out and become “museum” nations (step 4), do you really think that the Kremlin, the heir to the Soviet Union, a superpower, and the Romanov before it, and the Golden Horde of Subotai and Batu Khan before them, would just chose to become a “museum” nation attached with gas stations !! 
 

 

———-

World War 2 WAS inevitable. As that part 2 had to happen to finish off what it essentially was a German challenge to the Anglo/French supremacy. 
 

What was NOT inevitable was the way it happened, with the the rise of Hitler and all that baggage. Hitler happened because of the fertile ground created for Nazisim post-Versailles.
 

But Hitler or not there would have been that final contest. We just got the very worse version of it, as a reaction to seeds planted in Versailles. 
 

Hitler just rode the tailwind of what was inevitable and added his own demonic touch. 
 

We may have some control over the severity of conflicts, but we do not have any say on the massive general current of history. what needed to happen and would have happened. 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Xerxes

[Spekulatius]

@Xerxes You have a very different view of history in general than I do. Way back then, when I had history in school, our teacher presented two different views of history.

 

There is the one view that history centers around “great leaders” as anchor points. That’s the history written by Alexander the Great,  Charlemagne, Caesar, Churchill, Hitler, Napoleon. This is typically the history that was taught hundred of years ago.

 

Then there is the school that believes that great leaders don’t really matter all that much and that history works sort of like a mechanical clock that moves in somewhat predictable ways driven by long term forces.  The leaders only matter is over as they crystallize these forces and often accelerate their deployment. This is the history taught by Karl Marx and also Mearsheimer fall into this school of thought.

 

I don’t think any of these views are correct and history is just what people do and reflects the choices they make. There is free will and there are forces driving nations in certain direction for a long time. that’s why Britain is different than Germany and China is different than the US. But nothing is inevitable and sometimes great leaders break or redirect the longer term forces and sometimes the long term forces break the great leaders.

[Xerxes]

56 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

But nothing is inevitable and sometimes great leaders break or redirect the longer term forces and sometimes the long term forces break the great leaders.

 

That is actually very well said.

 

That said, for clarity, my "inevitable" comment was not about the "outcome". The outcome of the conflict will be a titanic test of wills between the two giant forces. And a great leader can more than compensate other shortcomings. Agreed with that.

 

My "inevitable" comment was specifically about the "collision" and the "onset of the conflict" that compounds those historical pressure points building over the long term.

 

That future and the outcome of the war is yet to be written ... and there is an empy blank page of all the things that could happen. Anything is possible.....

 

----------------------

Unrelated to this thought, on Churchill, i have a comment/observation that I ll write later today, as i have to leave the house.

 

 

[no_free_lunch]

I agree with Spek's view on Maidan protests being the point where Ukraine threw off the Russian yoke.  Russian influence is still there today, via religious leaders and political leaders, Ukraine continues to push that out.  The war validates the thesis that there is no room for that viewpoint.  How can you tolerate a side which will send in an army and use strategic bombing against you if you disagree.  When the other side is democracy and a more prosperous west, it seems a clear choice.

Edited January 2, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[james22]

The war in Ukraine seems permanent. Neither side appears capable of destroying the opposing force or articulating what it would take to reach a peace agreement.

 

The Russians are speaking to Belarus, India and anyone else they might find, but no one can help enough on the battlefield or in the munitions factory to turn the tide. The Ukrainians are speaking to the United States, NATO and anyone else who will listen so that they will continue to receive weapons – perhaps even some new ones.

 

But Ukraine hasn’t broken Russia yet, concerned as it is with preventing the collapse of the country, and doing so may prove difficult. On the battlefield, there is movement on both sides, but movement doesn’t carry with it the taste of victory. When, then, do wars end if the leadership will not concede?

 

History shows there are several answers to that question.

 

1. A war ends when one side lacks the material to continue. Germany’s campaign in World War II ended when it was unable to produce and field the weapons needed to fend off the Allied powers.

 

2. A war ends when one side’s morale is exhausted – when soldiers and civilians are simply unwilling to bear the burden of war, even if victory is possible. This was the case for the United States in the Vietnam War.

 

3. A war ends when there is no hope of a radical increase in military power, and when foreign intervention is impossible. In WWII, Britain persevered knowing it could not defeat Germany but reasonably expecting an American intervention.

 

4. A war ends when the consequences of defeat seem tolerable to civilians. In World War II, the Italian public saw Allied occupation as a preferable alternative. (Conversely, nations will continue to fight when the cost of defeat is catastrophic.)

 

...

 

But so long as Ukraine fears a defeat by Russia, capitulation is practically impossible. The same cannot be said of Russia.

 

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-state-of-play-in-ukraine/

[UK]

https://archive.is/u7UkM/again?url=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-04/ukraine-peace-talks-lessons-in-war-and-diplomacy-from-frederick-the-great%3Fsrnd=premium-europe

 

 “Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.”

[Spekulatius]

What is Putin’s snickers bar?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/playing-risk-made-cold-war-kids-masters-of-an-unruly-globe-11673015444?mod=trending_now_news_4

[UK]

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/01/04/a-russian-warlords-savagery-is-sending-a-loud-message-to-moscow

[formthirteen]

I was unfamiliar with the Atlantic Council and did some googling and found this article:

https://www.ft.com/content/6ceb6331-07a0-4b1f-b777-3034b288a3be

 

Quote

Nearly half of top foreign policy experts think Russia will become a failed state or break up by 2033, while a large majority expects China to try to take Taiwan by force, according to a new survey by the Atlantic Council that points to a decade of global tumult ahead.

 

After even more googling I found "The top 23 risks and opportunities for 2023”, including ”Venezuelan oil comes online, relieving pressure on global energy markets”:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/risks-opportunities-2023/

 

I don't know if the opinions of "foreign policy experts" are as good as "analyst estimates". The complexity of the problem and accuracy are probably about the same. However, it would be quite easy to model Russia's aggression even for a self-appointed ”top foreign policy expert" like myself:

 

- every year, 99% probability of a prominent Russian falling out of a window near the Kremlin

- every 10 years, 99% probability of Russia invading and pillaging a neighboring country

- every 100 years, 99% probability of Russian land grab attempt

 

The accuracy of this model is about 99% (±1%) according to my own estimates.

Edited January 10, 2023 by formthirteen

[UK]

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-and-poland-push-germany-to-send-leopard-tanks-to-ukraine/

 

[UK]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-claims-success-in-ukraines-soledar-its-first-advance-in-months-11673429457

 

In May and June, Ukraine made a similar stand in nearby Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, grinding down Russian forces in heavy street battles before eventually retreating to escape encirclement. That neutralized, for a while, Russia’s offensive abilities. At the time, however, Russia was mostly waging the war with professional contract troops, and suffered from severe manpower shortages. Mr. Putin’s October mobilization of 300,000 reservists, coupled with Wagner’s prison recruitment drive that started in earnest in August, have changed the arithmetic of attrition to be in Russia’s favor. Mr. Prigozhin has said that his goal in the Bakhmut area isn’t so much to seize the city itself as to destroy Ukraine’s most combat-capable forces. Western—and some Ukrainian—officials, soldiers and analysts increasingly worry that Kyiv has allowed itself to be sucked into the battle for Bakhmut on Russian terms, losing the forces it needs for a planned spring offensive as it stubbornly clings to a town of limited strategic relevance. Some of them say that it would make sense to retreat to a new defensive line on the heights west of Bakhmut while such a pullback can still be organized in a coordinated fashion, preserving the Ukrainian military’s combat strength. “It’s not me, it’s King Leonidas who figured out that you should fight the enemy on the terrain that is advantageous to you,” said one Ukrainian commander in Bakhmut, referring to the ruler of Sparta who battled the Persian Empire at Thermopylae. “So far, the exchange rate of trading our lives for theirs favors the Russians. If this goes on like this, we could run out.”

[UK]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-12/ukraine-war-is-still-low-tech-for-now?srnd=premium-europe

[UK]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-long-west-ready-11673571215?mod=hp_lead_pos9

[Spekulatius]

6 hours ago, UK said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-long-west-ready-11673571215?mod=hp_lead_pos9

A cording to Ukrainian sources, the Russians are losing 500-600 soldiers on average/ day. That estimate of combat count casualties may be a tad optimistic, but I think Russia also loses people where Ukraine does see them (thickness, accidents, weather related  and other attrition losses etc). If the losses are about correct, and we take a 550 average loss number per day, then  Russia is going to lose 200k soldiers/ year and will need to new recruitment drive every year to keep this up. The 300k they raised in fall 2022 will be spent next fall.

 

We probably need to give Ukraine more decisive weapons that allow for deceive wins in addition to the ability to strike these drone bases that continue to bash the Ukraine infrastructure.

 

Europe is a relatively good shape. My brother is telling me that energy prices even for consumers are now rapidly dropping and the economy isn’t too bad. The meltdown from an energy crisis has been avoided for sure. Gas is at 64 Euros/MWH down from a peak of over 300 Euros, but still tripple the price from 2020. It’s won’t get all the way back to 2020, but I think it could go to 30-40 Euro pretty quickly. Storage in Germany is still  90.7% full and 83% in Europe overall.

 

Further ore, the discounts on Russian crude keep increases as they have to dump this on fewer and fewer buyers apperntly.

[no_free_lunch]

Thanks for that spek, I didnt know all this, but could tell from the narrative shift that Europe would make it.  I still have serious long term concerns about Europe energy supply.  They are still very dependent on the Middle East and the US. The US drew heavily on the SPR to keep energy in check.  Meanwhile the energy companies in North America are being disincentived to produce.  We are not out of the woods.

 

Even though Russia has a larger population,  they will run out of the capacity to lose soldiers first.  They are not automatons, this is not some theoretical where they can endlessly feed their population to slaughter.  I've said it all before but I feel it will lead to revolt.   To accelerate that, the west needs to keep sanctions on max, which they will.

 

I think the next step is to go after India for their continued support of Russia.  Why should the west do business with them?  They need us as much as the west needs them. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[Xerxes]

Consumer may be fine in 2022. Thanks to all the measures taken.

 

That said, there will be a re-shaping of the European industrial landscape that has feeding itself on cheap natural gas as input feedstock. Most likely back to (or to) United States. I imagine 25 years ago, it was the reverse with a lot of industries moving to Europe given high pre-shale natural gas prices in the United States and elsewhere, and low and steady flow of natural gas from Russia.

 

Add to it, Biden's protectionist Inflation Reduction Act, European manufacturing industry are rather squeezed.

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Consumer may be fine in 2022. Thanks to all the measures taken.

 

That said, there will be a re-shaping of the European industrial landscape that has feeding itself on cheap natural gas as input feedstock. Most likely back to (or to) United States. I imagine 25 years ago, it was the reverse with a lot of industries moving to Europe given high pre-shale natural gas prices in the United States and elsewhere, and low and steady flow of natural gas from Russia.

 

Add to it, Biden's protectionist Inflation Reduction Act, European manufacturing industry are rather squeezed.

Russian NG was never that cheap in Europe, Europe had already to deal with higher energy costs for a while, that’s nothing new. Now Europe is going to pay spot and later contract prices for LNG to replace the natural gas. Those prices are higher than what they used to pay , but much lower than the prices that they are paying now. I don’t see a widespread de- industrialization but I think some industries that use a lot of Ng like basic chemicals and steel production are going to be challenged.

 

I do think that the current situation in Europe will lead to even more renewables for energy but how to ensure grid reliability with all those fluctuations in production is going to be a challenge.

 

I also think we are going to see a boom in defense spending for perhaps a decade pretty much everywhere (Europe, US, Asia, China).

[Xerxes]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Russian NG was never that cheap in Europe, Europe had already to deal with higher energy costs for a while, that’s nothing new. Now Europe is going to pay spot and later contract prices for LNG to replace the natural gas. Those prices are higher than what they used to pay , but much lower than the prices that they are paying now. I don’t see a widespread de- industrialization but I think some industries that use a lot of Ng like basic chemicals and steel production are going to be challenged.

 

I do think that the current situation in Europe will lead to even more renewables for energy but how to ensure grid reliability with all those fluctuations in production is going to be a challenge.

 

I also think we are going to see a boom in defense spending for perhaps a decade pretty much everywhere (Europe, US, Asia, China).

 

Pre-shale revolution (and sometimes after) Russian natural gas was indexed against the price of oil, but even that (I believe) was lower than natural gas prices in the U.S. pre-shale (talking early 2000s).

 

Put yourself in that era. If U.S. was a major net importer (not exporter) of natural gas why would an industrial base that uses natural gas heavilly as input would locate itself there. Those industries moved to Europe which had natural has coming in from Soviet-era pipeline, reliably (then mentallity).

 

Of course shale and LNG technologies changed all that.

 

I do hope we wont see that exodus from Europe to the U.S.

 

[Viking]

6 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

I think the next step is to go after India for their continued support of Russia.  Why should the west do business with them?  They need us as much as the west needs them. 

Geopolitics is all about national self interest. Not right and wrong. 
 

India is primarily looking after India. Geopolitically, India has never been aligned strongly with the West. The West was aligned strongly with Pakistan (and against India) during a couple of wars. Much if India’s military equipment is of Russian origin. India’s primary geopolitical threat is China. It is complicated. But it should not surprise anyone that India is going to try and not pick sides in the Ukraine war (the West versus Russia/China). 
 

India is still trying to raise much of its population out of poverty. Running water. Electricity. Basic stuff. Lots of work needs to be done. India will take Russian energy at well below market prices.

 

India looks to be shifting more to the West economically (Modi’s reforms). However, for decades India was aligned with the Soviet Union / Russia. My guess is those ties still run deep (culturally). It will take India decades to pivot culturally to more of a Western economic model. And it would not take much to push the economic train off the rails. So Modi likely needs to be careful.

 

The West will want to pull India into its orbit. It will be interesting to see how things play out the next couple of years. India is projected to be the fastest growing major economy in the coming years - that also matters.

—————

India has a unique cultural/political/economic model (with a crazy amount of diversity). there are lots of other posters on this board who can offer way more insight than me.

 

https://www.greaterpacificcapital.com/thought-leadership/indias-diversity-is-a-strategic-asset

 

“India is more like a continent than a country, in terms of the diversity of its peoples and the scale of its diversity.”

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Viking

[Xerxes]

8 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

I think the next step is to go after India for their continued support of Russia.  Why should the west do business with them?  They need us as much as the west needs them. 

Go after India !!!?!?

Are we talking about the same West that pivoted to China post-Vietnam war during the Nixon-Kissinger-Mao-EnLai rapprochement in the 70s. With the very same Red China that fought bloody war with India near its border. 
 

The same West that supported Pakistan during the Cold War. Pakistan and the US were so close that U2 missions were even flown its soil. In fact, Kissinger even flew from Pakistan for its secret mission to China before it became public. 
 

The same West that keep subsiding Pakistan’ general and ISI, during the Afghan war. 
 

As always, there is the self-centred, all-about-me West, that remember what it wants to remember (through Hollywood), and forgets what is convenient to forget. 
 

India will get close to West overtime as their own pace. We need India. We want India. The only obstacle is West acting like it always does. Self-entitled and all-about-me. Relationships are hard to built and easy to fracture. It needs to be nurtured overtime. Folks in the West may go Aeroplane mode when it gets boring, but the world doesn’t stop turning. 
 

PS: general comment and definitely not toward you. 

[Spekulatius]

The west will leave India alone, because the problem of India being aligned with Russia solves itself. As long as India does not deliver weapons to Russia, nothing will happen.

 

The reason the problem solves itself are as follows:

1) Russia’ economy is very small and does not have gravitational pull. They have nothing to offer but cheapish energy.

2) Russia has aligned themselves with China, which is an India’s biggest enemy (besides Pakistan).

3) India has purchased a lot of weapons from Russia, which have been found vastly inferior to western or even a Ukrainian weapons. They are also inferior to China’s weapons at this point most likely.

 

So this issue of India being aligned with Russia will solve itself over time. There is no reason for the west to push India around.

[UK]

16 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

A cording to Ukrainian sources, the Russians are losing 500-600 soldiers on average/ day. That estimate of combat count casualties may be a tad optimistic, but I think Russia also loses people where Ukraine does see them (thickness, accidents, weather related  and other attrition losses etc). If the losses are about correct, and we take a 550 average loss number per day, then  Russia is going to lose 200k soldiers/ year and will need to new recruitment drive every year to keep this up. The 300k they raised in fall 2022 will be spent next fall.

 

We probably need to give Ukraine more decisive weapons that allow for deceive wins in addition to the ability to strike these drone bases that continue to bash the Ukraine infrastructure.

 

Europe is a relatively good shape. My brother is telling me that energy prices even for consumers are now rapidly dropping and the economy isn’t too bad. The meltdown from an energy crisis has been avoided for sure. Gas is at 64 Euros/MWH down from a peak of over 300 Euros, but still tripple the price from 2020. It’s won’t get all the way back to 2020, but I think it could go to 30-40 Euro pretty quickly. Storage in Germany is still  90.7% full and 83% in Europe overall.

 

Further ore, the discounts on Russian crude keep increases as they have to dump this on fewer and fewer buyers apperntly.

 

Those same sources are saying, that Russia is preparing at least 500-600 K additional mobilization for this spring offences. Even yet there is >400 K prisoners left (they also stared to use them for war production, if not for meat grinder). Still no martial law officially, but they are starting to seriously subjugate economy and oligarchs for war effort (those not on board could loose their influence, or live, or both). Also they increased social spending for low income people (common prosperity anyone?) substantially. This is the same disillusioned group they are targeting to voluntary join war, by offering quite generous money for service or for family, if participant dies (https://youtu.be/Jn6jOlpMg1Y). Most importantly it seems there is still quite high support fir war in general public, they are not happy about the war progress and direction, but even more not prepared or willing to accept defeat. Such current situation is not very favorable or even sustainable for Ukraine, math is not on their side. So now it is almost sure, that more serious equipment, like heavy tanks, is coming from the west soon. This probably will be seen as an escalation by Russia.

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by UK

[John Hjorth]

9 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

... 1) Russia’ economy is very small and does not have gravitational pull. They have nothing to offer but cheapish energy. ...

 

What @Spekulatius is writing here to me not only a fact, but a fact that is not covered and given weight sufficiently in the coverage and the overall picture painted of the conflict in the main steet media.

 

And that fact must matter a lot going forward for the outcome of this conflict.

 

Facts : Trading Economics - GDP by country - Europe .

 

Russia has a GDP comparable to less than twice the GDP of the Netherlands or about equal three times the GDP of Sweden.

 

Further sanctions against Russia are in the mould to be decided and implemented in February 2023 to further increase the pressure to break the spine of the Russian economy.

Edited January 15, 2023 by John Hjorth

[Dinar]

2 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

What @Spekulatius is writing here to me not only a fact, but a fact that is not covered and given weight sufficiently in the coverage and the overall picture painted of the conflict in the main steet media.

 

And that fact must matter a lot going forward for the outcome of this conflict.

 

Facts : Trading Economics - GDP by country - Europe .

 

Russia has a GDP comparable to less than twice the GDP of the Netherlands or about equal three times the GDP of Sweden.

 

Further sanctions against Russia are in the mould to be decided and implemented in February 2023 to further increase the pressure to break the spine of the Russian economy.

This is a faulty analysis.  If Sweden disappears from the face of the earth, how will that impact the world's economy?  If Russia stops exporting oil, gas, titanium, etc... the world will be devastated.  

 

Russia's ability to suffer is orders of magnitude more than in the West.  Europeans do not have electricity/gas, people riot.  In Russia, there are a lot of villages without either.

 

 Europe and the US is very vulnerable to asymmetric warfare - cyber attacks, attacks on electric grids, water supplies, etc...  How difficult would it be for Russian special forces to destroy all transformers in say US and Western Europe?   That would bring the Western world to its knees.

 

Instead of pontificating of how weak and irrelevant Russia is, think about our own vulnerabilities.  

 

The best outcome for all parties, (Ukraine, Russia, the West) is an immediate peace treaty or armistice.  The delay just benefits India and China.

 

Time is NOT on the side of Ukraine, do not delude yourselves.  Russia has tremendous reserves of foreign currency, gold, etc... Do you realize that it could easily hire 300K North Korean mercenaries tomorrow?