Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Torie]

Interesting article from The Wall Street Journal (3 Hrs ago) about why it has taken a bit longer to get certain types of military hardware to Ukraine.

Very long article and this is just a relatively small excerpt.

How Removing a Handful of Screws Allowed the Pentagon to Deliver Stingers to Ukraine

Taking out classified gear enabled the military to send the antiaircraft missiles after the Russian invasion

In the late fall of 2021, as Russian forces massed at the border of Ukraine, U.S. lawmakers pressed the Pentagon on why the Biden administration wasn’t sending Stinger antiaircraft missiles to help Kyiv. The option wasn’t available, they were told, because the weapons in the U.S. inventory contained classified equipment.

Months later, the Pentagon came up with a solution to the problem. By removing several screws, the military was able to withdraw a sensitive item from the missile’s hand-held launcher, opening the way to sending the weapons from U.S. stocks.

As the Pentagon worked on the problem of whether it could deliver its Stingers, the Biden administration came up with a backstop: An export version of the American-made weapons that was already in the hands of Baltic nations began to be transferred to Ukraine in early February.

The Stinger systems from the U.S. military’s stocks didn’t arrive in Ukraine until late February shortly after the Russian invasion was under way.

“The armed services committee was briefed in November that the reason the U.S. was not providing Stingers was that there was a classified, non-export variant,” said Rep. Mike Waltz, a Florida Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. “They did not get there until after the invasion.”

The episode points to a problem that has bedeviled multiple U.S. administrations, current and former officials say. While the U.S. has spent billions of dollars helping Ukraine’s forces, the need for some military capabilities weren’t addressed until a massive Russian military buildup turned a foreign policy dispute into an increasingly urgent crisis.

“It is a lot easier to cut through bureaucratic and budgetary obstacles in wartime when there is a real urgency. And during peacetime it is not easy to predict where the next conflict is going to happen,” said William Taylor, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. “But we should have provided these weapons to Ukraine years ago.”

Military aid to Ukraine has a long and complex history. After Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and intervened in the Donbas region in southeastern Ukraine, the Obama administration provided only limited defensive assistance, fearing offensive weapons could be seen as provocative in Moscow. For example, when the U.S. sent counter battery radars to help the Ukrainians pinpoint the source of enemy mortar fire, the systems were modified so they couldn’t identify targets on Russian territory.

...

The version in the U.S. military’s inventory had been upgraded and contained a classified component. Removing it, military officials initially thought, would be a difficult and lengthy process.

In an effort to get the antiaircraft missiles to the Ukrainians, the Biden administration in January approved the transfer of U.S.-made Stingers from the Lithuanian and Latvian inventories, which started to arrive early the next month.


The Pentagon meanwhile continued to focus on the problem of converting the American Stingers to a version that could be exported. The Pentagon eventually determined the classified item could be removed in a matter of minutes by taking out a small number of screws in the missile’s hand-held launcher.

The first delivery from the Pentagon’s inventory arrived on Feb. 27, an administration official said, days after the Russian invasion was under way.

....

I guess the pentagon has learned that if in a crisis you want to arm other nations to defend themselves, you need two versions of a weapon, one of which is suitable for export.  It's kind of amazing that nobody thought about that issue before.

[Torie]

The good news (news that I never, ever expected to read in the NYT when Russia unleashed the dogs of war):




And in addition to Putin having no hesitancy to target civilians, the bad news:



“Brutal tactics.” Is there some point when the news and images of the slaughter of civilians deemed in the way or expendable pawns to Putin, becomes just too much to bear for the Western mind to stomach? Is there any red line out there at all as to that issue?

[Torie]

Something I think people are missing with regards to the red line issue is that punitive sanctions at quite this scale are themselves unprecedented, especially against a country like Russia that both is very large and had a more or less "normal" role in the world economy right up until they were imposed. Even if they're not really working that we know of, yet, it isn't like the West has been sitting idle just because there are no Boots On The Ground or ICBMs in the air.

Is there any rate of the death of civilians  from ordinance from the air that would compel that air ceasing to be a free fire zone for Russia? That is the question. The most extreme measure would involve using NATO pilots, and then you dial back from there to NATO planes flown by others, and so forth.

[Torie]

In addition to tough hypotheticals that are getting all too close to reality on no fly zones, we have another one lurking out there:

Saudi, Emirati Leaders Decline Calls With Biden During Ukraine Crisis
Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-emirati-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-during-ukraine-crisis-11646779430

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

[Torie]

In addition to tough hypotheticals that are getting all too close to reality on no fly zones, we have another one lurking out there:

Saudi, Emirati Leaders Decline Calls With Biden During Ukraine Crisis
Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-emirati-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-during-ukraine-crisis-11646779430

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

no, he shouldn't.  But since he is the human manifestation of the "lesser evil," he probably will.


<see, I can use big words too sir!  Never mind that I got the red squiggly line underneath >

You go for the greater evil? I guess you mean that Biden rationalizes going for the greater evil by claiming it is the lesser evil, of that his judgement is so poor that he cannot properly calibrate, I get it. I assume your rationale has something to do with time horizons or economics or some other wonky stuff that you ponder in the secure location in which you work.

[Torie]

In addition to tough hypotheticals that are getting all too close to reality on no fly zones, we have another one lurking out there:

Saudi, Emirati Leaders Decline Calls With Biden During Ukraine Crisis
Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-emirati-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-during-ukraine-crisis-11646779430

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

No. They'll increase production on their own as prices surge to maintain market share and cash in; political pressure is not relevant. They're not going to cut off their noses to spite Biden, so call their bluff.

That actually is exactly where my mind is going. They are just too greedy to pass this up, aren't they? They really are willing to forego all that dough to prop up Putin? Have they really gone that far down into Dante's inferno and the axis of evil? Stay tuned.

[Torie]

The reality is that no state that Russia sets up in the east of Ukraine will be accepted as a state by the vast majority of UN states (see Crimea and the Donbas). A puppet regime in the west/Kyiv will not be accepted by the majority of UN states if there is a functional Ukrainian government in exile and continued resistance within Ukraine itself.

To be fair, wouldn't time (eventually) heal all wounds and what not? Perhaps what might be the absolute best case scenario for Russia is something like the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, where they set up a separatist puppet republic in half of the country with no recognition (except for Turkey itself). And of course, Turkey these days is a relatively standard country (and was even more so before Erdogan went authoritarian)

If you want to keep going with the analogy, the internationally recognized half of Cyprus even went on to eventually join the EU!

Admittedy this is the absolute best case scenario for Russia, which is very unlikely. Also I don't think Eastern Ukranians support Russia anywhere close to the rates that Turkish Cypriots would have supported the Turkish invasion.

Yes, well, one way out would have been a referendum in the Russian speaking areas as to what country they wanted to be a part of, as part of a package where Russia would accept the result as binding, and the balance joined NATO or whatever. But that ship sailed long ago. And now the reality is that some areas of Russia would vote in far greater numbers  to exit and join Ukraine, than the reverse in Ukraine. How would Crimea vote now in a free and fair election?

[Torie]

Absolutely based, the Ukrainians hit the 5 year old "stealth" Russian patrol boat Vasily Bykov with freaking unguided land based MLRS fire on the 7th (appreciate just how difficult it is to hit moving, floating targets at sea with "dumb" rockets from land) and the ship has reportedly sunk today:

"As the #Odesa-based newspaper Dumskaya reported, it was a specially designed secret operation of the Ukraine Navy. Two #Ukrainian speedboats provoked the Russian boat to follow them, so it sailed right into the prepared area of artillery fire and was successfully destroyed."

This is a scene right out of some action flick where you suspend your disbelief.

[Torie]

A Bloomberg economic analysis shows that Russian inflation surged 2.2% in just the week after the war started.  It expects inflation to peak in July at 19%.  For 2022 various investment banks estimate overall Russian inflation to be anywhere from 13% to 22%.  Still with reference interest rates at 20% the lower middle class savings are mostly protected with the upper class getting hit hard since the produces they buy are much more import intensive and the inflation they are facing must be far worse than 20%.

You need to define your rates as to whether they are monthly or annualized. I assume that you know what I am talking about.

[Torie]

A Bloomberg economic analysis shows that Russian inflation surged 2.2% in just the week after the war started.  It expects inflation to peak in July at 19%.  For 2022 various investment banks estimate overall Russian inflation to be anywhere from 13% to 22%.  Still with reference interest rates at 20% the lower middle class savings are mostly protected with the upper class getting hit hard since the produces they buy are much more import intensive and the inflation they are facing must be far worse than 20%.

You need to define your rates as to whether they are monthly or annualized. I assume that you know what I am talking about.

Agreed.  The Bloomberg economic rate of 2.2% is not annualized. The Bloomberg economics peak of 19% was also not annualized.  But the various investment bank estimates are annualized and ergo comparible to reference interest rates.

So now we know that having money in a Russian bank earning a 20% annualized interest rate has a negative real interest rate return of about 8% in one month not annualized. It seems like the net worth of most Russians is going to be wiped out.

[Torie]

In addition to tough hypotheticals that are getting all too close to reality on no fly zones, we have another one lurking out there:

Saudi, Emirati Leaders Decline Calls With Biden During Ukraine Crisis
Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-emirati-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-during-ukraine-crisis-11646779430

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

No. They'll increase production on their own as prices surge to maintain market share and cash in; political pressure is not relevant. They're not going to cut off their noses to spite Biden, so call their bluff.

This feels like a misrepresentation of how petroleum markets work. Biden is asking them to ramp their production up in order to decreases prices, whereas Saudi Arabia & the UAE would rather have prices remain high so that they can benefit from the highest possible margins. If they further increase production, then they'll see diminishing returns with falling prices. So, yeah, Biden is asking them to do something that they genuinely don't seem willing to engage in at this time. Granted, this perspective that's evidently being shared by Saudi Arabia & the UAE right now is rather short-termist insofar as the elasticity preferences of consumers are concerned, but OPEC has never really been known for the long-game.

You have a point, but it may be that may be that their increase in production 1) does not cause a reduction of revenue from their existing production due to lower prices by as much as they get in additional revenue from more production, and 2) as to the additional production, if they don't sell those extra barrels now, when they sell them later it will be a lower price, particularly now with the full court press to move towards green now in effect, as well as because it will not be that long before others are pumping more oil at the margins as prices go up . It may be an excellent business decision to pump baby pump and sell baby sell, while the iron is hot, rather than others rake in the "excess" profits.

This is something of a plate tectonic shift. We all knew that using fossil fuels was bad for the planet, although there was disagreement on the urgency and the amount of costs to incur to phasing them out faster than otherwise. Now we know that it finances too many bad boy nations, which I guess now has some of Gulf states as junior members. So oil becomes "weaponized," and accelerating weaning of the West from oil, saves not only the planet from flood and pestilence and famine, but also from autocracy and evil. Being overly dependent on exports from anywhere that is subject to going bad is a bad investment decision.

I assume oil market specialists are cranking these equations as we speak. It also of course would be useful to look at the oil futures market. What does it predict oil will be selling at a year from now? How about 3 years from now? And then convert it into real dollars, not nominal dollars.
 
PS: And perhaps the Keystone Pipeline should be built but not used. But it is there to turn on in a pinch. Drill baby drill, but don't pump baby pump. Have a rainy day energy backup supply, and consider it a cost of living into a world suffused with hate and evil and sin. The riskiest scheme of all is to make oneself vulnerable to be taken hostage by the devil.

[Torie]

A Bloomberg economic analysis shows that Russian inflation surged 2.2% in just the week after the war started.  It expects inflation to peak in July at 19%.  For 2022 various investment banks estimate overall Russian inflation to be anywhere from 13% to 22%.  Still with reference interest rates at 20% the lower middle class savings are mostly protected with the upper class getting hit hard since the produces they buy are much more import intensive and the inflation they are facing must be far worse than 20%.

You need to define your rates as to whether they are monthly or annualized. I assume that you know what I am talking about.

Agreed.  The Bloomberg economic rate of 2.2% is not annualized. The Bloomberg economics peak of 19% was also not annualized.  But the various investment bank estimates are annualized and ergo comparible to reference interest rates.

So now we know that having money in a Russian bank earning a 20% annualized interest rate has a negative real interest rate return of about 8% in one month not annualized. It seems like the net worth of most Russians is going to be wiped out.

But if the inflation is a one time spurt and then declines like Bloomberg Economics expects the best thing to do is to look at 2022 overall inflation and compare that to reference interest rate.  Now it is very possible the investment banks will underestimate 2022 Russia inflation and then even with interest rates at 20% the result is still negative returns on bank deposits.

You need to match terms J. The 20% Russian bank rate has a term of one hour. It can be changed at any time. It is not a guaranteed rate for a week, a month, a year, etc. Surely you know this. And that is before you factor in default risk.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1501512022470635521

American defense officials say, reported on CNN's live feed, that Russia still has 90% of its combat power ready for use, that doesn't sound like "losing significant equipment" or "running out of available troops" to me. I understand this forum is unabashedly cheerleading for Ukraine but believing in obvious pro-Ukrainian propaganda and exaggerated reports is a sure way to be disappointed when reality hits.

Russia has about “90% of their available combat power still ready for their use” in Ukraine, a senior US defense official told reporters on Wednesday.

The US assesses Russia no longer has “several hundred vehicles of different stripes and sizes” available to them, but the US does not know if those vehicles were captured, destroyed or abandoned, the official added.  

CNN first reported Tuesday that the US estimated that as much as 8% to 10% of Russian military assets used in the invasion of Ukraine are now destroyed or inoperable, according to a US official familiar with the latest intelligence as of Tuesday.

The equipment lost includes tanks, aircraft, artillery and other military assets. That is close to double the losses that CNN reported last week when it was estimated Russia had lost 3% to 5% of its military assets.

That is a cheap shot, really. Yes, it appears that about 95% of us hate Putin's war, and about 90% of us think he is a war criminal, but many of us also fear for the worst, and are very worried about it, and while we hope the good news is true, know full well it might not be for various reasons. So yeah, you have the sentiment right, but I don't think the perception that forumites are naive fools on this one is accurate at all. In fact my perception is quite the opposite. The forum has been at its best in this conflict, and I salute them for that.

[Torie]

Equities markets are rallying while energy and food futures are falling (by a lot) on news that Ukraine is open to discussing Russia’s demand for neutrality.  I think they are counting their chickens before they hatched.  While I think Putin should take this deal and end this war I suspect his position would be "this would have been fine before the war but now it is not enough"

When there is some slow down in the military push by Russia while talk chat ensues, yeah maybe. Absent that, it is all in the Putin play book. Talk peace prospects and possibilities while waging war, until there is no one left to talk to. So I agree with your instincts on that one.

[Torie]

Per The Guardian ~ 7 Minutes ago:

Russia’s foreign ministry has confirmed the use of the TOS-1A weapon system in Ukraine, Britain said. The UK’s ministry of defence said the system uses thermobaric rockets, creating incendiary and blast effects.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/09/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/09/ukraine-news-russia-war-ceasefire-broken-humanitarian-corridors-kyiv-russian-invasion-live-vladimir-putin-volodymyr-zelenskiy-latest-updates

[Torie]

NR is very anti Putin and pro Ukraine but in an editorial writes:

Say No to  No Fly Zone

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/say-no-to-a-no-fly-zone/#slide-1

The rag's coverage of the war I have found to be excellent FWIW.

And CNN has a video of a young Russian man who lives in Ukraine and has been bombed, but his Dad in Russia does not believe him - the Russian propaganda is that effective. So the young man has started a movement to have sons and daughters in Ukraine call their parents back home to get the word out.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/03/09/russia-propaganda-ukraine-war-vladimir-putin-newday-vpx.cnn

[Torie]

I understand opposition to a no-fly zone. I understand that we don't want to actively initiate war with Russia. I don't necessarily agree with the logic, but I understand it.

What I don't understand is why we aren't doing LITERALLY EVERYTHING short of that to support Ukraine. That's the difference between prudence and cowardice.

Make a list of what the US should be doing but isn't.

[Torie]

Bullet points from a guy in the know supposedly to brighten up your day, not:

1. Putin has always been secretive and conspiratorial but “What I have heard about the president’s behavior over the past two years is alarming. His seclusion and inaccessibility, his deep belief that Russian domination over Ukraine must be restored and his decision to surround himself with ideologues and sycophants have all helped to bring Europe to its most dangerous moment since World War II.” It has not helped that Putin is even more paranoid about Covid than I am.

2.  Thus his rat pack is basically down to one Mr. Kovalchuk, who ala Muon2 holds a doctorate in physics, but unlike Muon2 is also “an ideologue, subscribing to a worldview that combines Orthodox Christian mysticism, anti-American conspiracy theories and hedonism.” The hedonism and mysticism bit sounds interesting. Is that "a thing" in the Orthodox Church?

3. “The economy, social issues, the coronavirus pandemic, these all annoy Putin. Instead, he and Mr. Kovalchuk obsess over the past.” Yeah, they can be annoying I have to agree, but somebody has to do it. And it sounds about right that Putin does not care much about something as mundane as the standard of living of his people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/opinion/putin-russia-ukraine.html

[Torie]

And also in the NYT is this outstanding article by the guy who I think coined the word "woke," Ross Douthat. Gosh I wish I had his talent and insight.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/opinion/ukraine-russia-invasion-west.html

1. The real politick guy John Mearsheimer, who thinks only the great powers matter, and the rest are but pawns, and the West went wrong when it NATO'ed up Russia's borders rather than team up with Russia to keep China contained, with one exception, had it all wrong. Putin does not care about NATO, he wants Ukraine part of Russia NATO or no NATO, and Ukraine has shown that "pawns" can matter more then JM thinks. I mean they have proven to be a real pain in the butt to Putin.  The idea that great power leaders can be counted on to be rational actors is also wrong. The planet is not a game of Risk.

2. It is wrong however to toss real politick entirely into the dust bin however. China, India and the Gulf states are all breaking bad, so that is a concern.

I am not doing the article justice, but the above are a couple of take aways.

[Torie]

The above squib BRTD put up ties into the notion that Russians are just abandoning their equipment, after they fail to find a bunch of Nazis running around or something.

Free airline tickets out to a country of your choice in exchange for a tank.

Zelensky looks like a got a few hours of sleep and a shave. His being but 43 is a big bonus here. The even bigger bonus is his fluency in Russian of course. One speech for Ukraine, another for Russia. No wonder Putin wants him dead so bad.

[Torie]

Russia has now likely lost more troops than the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1501860795843416068

Would be huge, though I'm still skeptical. Ukrainian figures are most likely an exaggeration to boost their fighting moral. Didn't the US estimate Russian losses at around 4k 2-3 days ago? Seems more plausible to me.

Anyway, it speaks volumes how Putin is ready to send his soldiers to death for his delusional Greater Russia fantasies.

Well it said it was from a US official, so give yourself permission to be a tad optimistic here.

[Torie]

the guy who I think coined the word "woke," Ross Douthat.

This has to be some kind of joke, but I just don't get it

It was not meant as a joke.

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/heritage-explains/woke-corporate-capitalism

[Torie]

So I was just skimming through the Russia invades Georgia thread we had and it reminded me that that invasion took place around the same time as an Olympics in Beijing.  Weird heh?

The obvious conclusion here is that the Olympics must never again be scheduled in Beijing.

Yup, though should never have been for other reasons already. It's a horrible policy to prop up authoritarian regimes and dictatorships with sports events. But since IOC and others are corrupt through and through... well.

I have posted more than once that I believe that the Olympics need to be divorced from nationalism and national teams, or shut down. Their ratings are going down the toilet anyway, so it is not as if my opinion is two standard deviations from the mean or anything.

[Torie]

I like that idea. And it has the virtue of having been done before, so there is precedent. Calm down Putin. You can offer 100k to American pilots to defect to Russia in return. Oh wait, we are talking about dollars rather than rubles aren't we?

[Torie]

Not sure if this is something new and disturbing that we did not know or just noise:

On Tuesday, a new U.S. intelligence assessment concluded that Russia will pursue its interests in “competitive and sometimes confrontational and provocative ways, including pressing to dominate Ukraine and other countries in its ‘near-abroad.’ ” In testimony on the Hill, William Burns, the C.I.A. director and a former Ambassador to Russia, was pressed about Vladimir Putin’s intent. “He’s not going to stop at Ukraine, correct?” asked Representative Jackie Speier, of California. Burns replied, “That’s what makes it more important than ever to demonstrate that he’s not going to succeed in Ukraine.” The stakes, Burns acknowledged, are bigger. “This is one of those pivotal points where we and all of our allies and partners need to act.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-growing-fear-of-a-wider-war-between-russia-and-the-west

And one more which is no surprise to me as collateral damage:

Sometimes sanctions can also have the counterintuitive effect of consolidating the power of an authoritarian government, according to Dursun Peksen, a political scientist at the University of Memphis. When a nation becomes isolated, he found, access to state resources becomes even more important, and elites unite behind the leader and quell opposition. Sanctions are often detrimental for human rights, democracy, gender equality, press freedom and public health in affected nations such as Iran and Cuba, Mr. Peksen’s research showed.
“Russia will become a lot more authoritarian, more isolated, and it's the average Russian citizen that will incur the most cost,” he said. Ultimately, he added, when imposing sanctions “we have to strike a balance between political gain and civilian pain.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/11/world/economic-sanctions-history.html