Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Torie]

As helpful as NATO has been, I'm not convinced they would go beyond Ukraine reclaiming its land up to the Feb 24th lines, and Ukraine needs their continued support to wage that kind of operation against Russia. America still won't provide long range missiles to Ukraine, for fear of triggering a major escalation from Russia (whatever that even means at this point). Hard to see how invading Crimea wouldn't be worse from that perspective.

Taking back the Crimean Peninsula would almost surely have to come later in the war (implying Ukraine has nearly pushed Russia out), given how much control Russia has over Southern Ukraine and how much of Ukraine's forces are tied up elsewhere, at which point it's easy to see Russia refusing to concede Crimea no matter what it takes, nuclear weapons included. Actually, as far as nukes go, the perekop isthmus is pretty ideal for halting an invading force, particularly given that Ukraine doesn't have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion. I don't know if it would ever come to that, but I just can't see Russia giving up Crimea.

Do you care to speculate for me what what kinds of escalation America fears arising from giving Ukraine long range missiles that it needs to put an end of the asymmetry where Russian fire power can reach Ukraine assets while Ukraine's fire power cannot hit back at the source of that fire power? I have read about the concern that Ukraine would shoot them into Russia itself, but presumably Ukraine would agree to get permission first before doing that. It is not as if America does not have huge leverage in influencing how Ukraine goes about conducting its defense. So I am wondering what else might be out there on the fear menu, that has not crossed my radar screen but may have crossed yours.

One thing that I suspect Ukraine and America do agree on is that that this war needs to wind down this year, rather than drag on through the next with all the economic disruption and food shortages, and, nukes aside, incurring the  ongoing higher risk of through calculation or miscalculation of a major clash of the titans where troops of more nations get actively involved.

[jaichind]

One thing that I suspect Ukraine and America do agree on is that that this war needs to wind down this year, rather than drag on through the next with all the economic disruption and food shortages, and, nukes aside, incurring the  ongoing higher risk of through calculation or miscalculation of a major clash of the titans where troops of more nations get actively involved.

I hope for Ukraine's sake this is not true.  I totally agree that this is the vibe.  But it would be a disaster if this is their real strategy since it just allows Russia who can also pick up this vibe to organize their political military and economic strategy around the fact that Ukraine and the collective West would want to end this by the end of 2022.  The vibe that the Russians SHOULD be getting is that everyone, Ukraine and collective West, will fight until hell freeze over to stop the Russians and roll back the Russian offensive.

[Torie]

One thing that I suspect Ukraine and America do agree on is that that this war needs to wind down this year, rather than drag on through the next with all the economic disruption and food shortages, and, nukes aside, incurring the  ongoing higher risk of through calculation or miscalculation of a major clash of the titans where troops of more nations get actively involved.

I hope for Ukraine's sake this is not true.  I totally agree that this is the vibe.  But it would be a disaster if this is their real strategy since it just allows Russia who can also pick up this vibe to organize their political military and economic strategy around the fact that Ukraine and the collective West would want to end this by the end of 2022.  The vibe that the Russians SHOULD be getting is that everyone, Ukraine and collective West, will fight until hell freeze over to stop the Russians and roll back the Russian offensive.

My hope is that Ukraine gets the weapons it needs for Russia to be incentivized that the longer the war goes on, the worse it will be for them. Other than that, I take your point. My point is that whatever the risk of giving Ukraine more lethal weapons, that risk must be balanced against the risk of a long war.

[Badger]

https://exxpress.at/macrons-super-waffen-landen-bei-putin-nicht-bei-selenskyj/

Pro-OVP Austrian magazine reports that Ukrainian officers sold two French Caesar Howitzers  (they cost $3.5 million) to the Russians for 118k EUR each.

That's always a risk when dealing with countries with a significant corruption problem, hopefully those traitors will be executed asap.

How do we not know it is not just the Ukrainians but not



With 10% for the Big Guy.

Cool story bro. I suppose by this fallacy that because there was definitely corruption in World War II armaments and Supply contracts that the American people should have simply surrendered rather than Foster any potential wasteful spending.

Once again, you're not fooling anyone.

[walleye26]

Guys just put Bilaps on ignore-I did last week and this forum has been much better since then.

[DINGO Joe]

One thing that I suspect Ukraine and America do agree on is that that this war needs to wind down this year, rather than drag on through the next with all the economic disruption and food shortages, and, nukes aside, incurring the  ongoing higher risk of through calculation or miscalculation of a major clash of the titans where troops of more nations get actively involved.

I hope for Ukraine's sake this is not true.  I totally agree that this is the vibe.  But it would be a disaster if this is their real strategy since it just allows Russia who can also pick up this vibe to organize their political military and economic strategy around the fact that Ukraine and the collective West would want to end this by the end of 2022.  The vibe that the Russians SHOULD be getting is that everyone, Ukraine and collective West, will fight until hell freeze over to stop the Russians and roll back the Russian offensive.

Well, food shortages don't seem to be on the horizon

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/@W.1

And really, outside of LNG the world seems to be adapting to the disruption.  Can't really see any reason that the West won't continue supporting Ukraine blowing up every bit of Russian equipment until the warehouses are empty.

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-07/eu-bureaucracy-seen-blocking-1-5-billion-euro-loan-to-ukraine

"EU Bureaucracy Seen Blocking 1.5 Billion-Euro Loan to Ukraine"

The issue here seem to be concerns about Ukrainian ability to pay back the loan

[Virginiá]

Do you care to speculate for me what what kinds of escalation America fears arising from giving Ukraine long range missiles that it needs to put an end of the asymmetry where Russian fire power can reach Ukraine assets while Ukraine's fire power cannot hit back at the source of that fire power? I have read about the concern that Ukraine would shoot them into Russia itself, but presumably Ukraine would agree to get permission first before doing that. It is not as if America does not have huge leverage in influencing how Ukraine goes about conducting its defense. So I am wondering what else might be out there on the fear menu, that has not crossed my radar screen but may have crossed yours.

One thing that I suspect Ukraine and America do agree on is that that this war needs to wind down this year, rather than drag on through the next with all the economic disruption and food shortages, and, nukes aside, incurring the  ongoing higher risk of through calculation or miscalculation of a major clash of the titans where troops of more nations get actively involved.

I'm honestly not sure, but I think NATO in general is very wary of doing anything that could result in a clash between NATO and Russian forces, and America believes that if they arm Ukraine with long range guided munitions for rocket launch systems, or even cruise missiles, that at some point or another, they will be used against targets within Russia. It doesn't have to be done out of desperation. It could just be field officers who take liberties of which they don't quite comprehend the consequences of.

The thing is, Russia doesn't have much soft power to use at this point. Most of what they can do would hurt themselves just as much, if not more, such as cutting off oil/gas completely to shock world markets, or withholding grain and other food exports. They need the money as much as the world needs those resources. Other than that, as far as hard power goes, everyone already sees that their military is near exhausted. They are struggling to capture Eastern Ukraine, so what possible hope do they have by threatening NATO forces? It's why they haven't already attacked supply lines outside of Ukraine. They would be decimated by NATO forces, and the world knows this too, so Russia absolutely cannot draw them into the conflict. All they have are nuclear weapons. And they already sabre rattle about those enough as it is.

Realistically, I don't think Russia would attack NATO, but I do think if they had to escalate in a major way due to NATO overstepping, it could be nukes used against Ukraine. It's not that different than how North Korea threatens South Korea whenever they feel threatened, as if SK is their own personal whipping boy. They know they don't have a lot of other options. I think the west in general is trying to avoid that level of warfare ever making an appearance due to how quickly a situation like that could spiral.

I don't know how likely any of this is, but Russia knows they don't have a lot of options. Depending on how you look at this, that is a good or bad thing.

[Person Man]

Do you care to speculate for me what what kinds of escalation America fears arising from giving Ukraine long range missiles that it needs to put an end of the asymmetry where Russian fire power can reach Ukraine assets while Ukraine's fire power cannot hit back at the source of that fire power? I have read about the concern that Ukraine would shoot them into Russia itself, but presumably Ukraine would agree to get permission first before doing that. It is not as if America does not have huge leverage in influencing how Ukraine goes about conducting its defense. So I am wondering what else might be out there on the fear menu, that has not crossed my radar screen but may have crossed yours.

One thing that I suspect Ukraine and America do agree on is that that this war needs to wind down this year, rather than drag on through the next with all the economic disruption and food shortages, and, nukes aside, incurring the  ongoing higher risk of through calculation or miscalculation of a major clash of the titans where troops of more nations get actively involved.

I'm honestly not sure, but I think NATO in general is very wary of doing anything that could result in a clash between NATO and Russian forces, and America believes that if they arm Ukraine with long range guided munitions for rocket launch systems, or even cruise missiles, that at some point or another, they will be used against targets within Russia. It doesn't have to be done out of desperation. It could just be field officers who take liberties of which they don't quite comprehend the consequences of.

The thing is, Russia doesn't have much soft power to use at this point. Most of what they can do would hurt themselves just as much, if not more, such as cutting off oil/gas completely to shock world markets, or withholding grain and other food exports. They need the money as much as the world needs those resources. Other than that, as far as hard power goes, everyone already sees that their military is near exhausted. They are struggling to capture Eastern Ukraine, so what possible hope do they have by threatening NATO forces? It's why they haven't already attacked supply lines outside of Ukraine. They would be decimated by NATO forces, and the world knows this too, so Russia absolutely cannot draw them into the conflict. All they have are nuclear weapons. And they already sabre rattle about those enough as it is.

Realistically, I don't think Russia would attack NATO, but I do think if they had to escalate in a major way due to NATO overstepping, it could be nukes used against Ukraine. It's not that different than how North Korea threatens South Korea whenever they feel threatened, as if SK is their own personal whipping boy. They know they don't have a lot of other options. I think the west in general is trying to avoid that level of warfare ever making an appearance due to how quickly a situation like that could spiral.

I don't know how likely any of this is, but Russia knows they don't have a lot of options. Depending on how you look at this, that is a good or bad thing.

I mean, if they feel that they want to go out on their terms, they can take a lot of us out with them. If that were to happen, at least it happened then and not later.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Do you care to speculate for me what what kinds of escalation America fears arising from giving Ukraine long range missiles that it needs to put an end of the asymmetry where Russian fire power can reach Ukraine assets while Ukraine's fire power cannot hit back at the source of that fire power? I have read about the concern that Ukraine would shoot them into Russia itself, but presumably Ukraine would agree to get permission first before doing that. It is not as if America does not have huge leverage in influencing how Ukraine goes about conducting its defense. So I am wondering what else might be out there on the fear menu, that has not crossed my radar screen but may have crossed yours.

One thing that I suspect Ukraine and America do agree on is that that this war needs to wind down this year, rather than drag on through the next with all the economic disruption and food shortages, and, nukes aside, incurring the  ongoing higher risk of through calculation or miscalculation of a major clash of the titans where troops of more nations get actively involved.

I'm honestly not sure, but I think NATO in general is very wary of doing anything that could result in a clash between NATO and Russian forces, and America believes that if they arm Ukraine with long range guided munitions for rocket launch systems, or even cruise missiles, that at some point or another, they will be used against targets within Russia. It doesn't have to be done out of desperation. It could just be field officers who take liberties of which they don't quite comprehend the consequences of.

The thing is, Russia doesn't have much soft power to use at this point. Most of what they can do would hurt themselves just as much, if not more, such as cutting off oil/gas completely to shock world markets, or withholding grain and other food exports. They need the money as much as the world needs those resources. Other than that, as far as hard power goes, everyone already sees that their military is near exhausted. They are struggling to capture Eastern Ukraine, so what possible hope do they have by threatening NATO forces? It's why they haven't already attacked supply lines outside of Ukraine. They would be decimated by NATO forces, and the world knows this too, so Russia absolutely cannot draw them into the conflict. All they have are nuclear weapons. And they already sabre rattle about those enough as it is.

Realistically, I don't think Russia would attack NATO, but I do think if they had to escalate in a major way due to NATO overstepping, it could be nukes used against Ukraine. It's not that different than how North Korea threatens South Korea whenever they feel threatened, as if SK is their own personal whipping boy. They know they don't have a lot of other options. I think the west in general is trying to avoid that level of warfare ever making an appearance due to how quickly a situation like that could spiral.

I don't know how likely any of this is, but Russia knows they don't have a lot of options. Depending on how you look at this, that is a good or bad thing.

I would guess mobilisation is much politically easier for them than nukes (of any kind). It’s hard to think of many scenarios where they would use nukes against any opponent - and in violation of their own doctrine - before mobilising.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1544925274734612480

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1544925274734612480

It’s still too early to tell, but ISW recently assessed that Kremlin rhetoric was potentially laying the groundwork for a Russian operational pause - one likely to be matched by a similar Ukrainian pause, according to Kofman’s analysis.

This could be it. Given that an operational pause is not a ceasefire and is likely to be punctuated by artillery battles and small territorial changes, it may be difficult to confirm whether one is happening unless and until it remains in place for several weeks. It will allow both sides to reconstitute trained units, especially those needed for offensives.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I've put the Putin propagandist on ignore now. Cleans up the thread nicely.

[Torie]

Do you care to speculate for me what what kinds of escalation America fears arising from giving Ukraine long range missiles that it needs to put an end of the asymmetry where Russian fire power can reach Ukraine assets while Ukraine's fire power cannot hit back at the source of that fire power? I have read about the concern that Ukraine would shoot them into Russia itself, but presumably Ukraine would agree to get permission first before doing that. It is not as if America does not have huge leverage in influencing how Ukraine goes about conducting its defense. So I am wondering what else might be out there on the fear menu, that has not crossed my radar screen but may have crossed yours.

One thing that I suspect Ukraine and America do agree on is that that this war needs to wind down this year, rather than drag on through the next with all the economic disruption and food shortages, and, nukes aside, incurring the  ongoing higher risk of through calculation or miscalculation of a major clash of the titans where troops of more nations get actively involved.

I'm honestly not sure, but I think NATO in general is very wary of doing anything that could result in a clash between NATO and Russian forces, and America believes that if they arm Ukraine with long range guided munitions for rocket launch systems, or even cruise missiles, that at some point or another, they will be used against targets within Russia. It doesn't have to be done out of desperation. It could just be field officers who take liberties of which they don't quite comprehend the consequences of.

The thing is, Russia doesn't have much soft power to use at this point. Most of what they can do would hurt themselves just as much, if not more, such as cutting off oil/gas completely to shock world markets, or withholding grain and other food exports. They need the money as much as the world needs those resources. Other than that, as far as hard power goes, everyone already sees that their military is near exhausted. They are struggling to capture Eastern Ukraine, so what possible hope do they have by threatening NATO forces? It's why they haven't already attacked supply lines outside of Ukraine. They would be decimated by NATO forces, and the world knows this too, so Russia absolutely cannot draw them into the conflict. All they have are nuclear weapons. And they already sabre rattle about those enough as it is.

Realistically, I don't think Russia would attack NATO, but I do think if they had to escalate in a major way due to NATO overstepping, it could be nukes used against Ukraine. It's not that different than how North Korea threatens South Korea whenever they feel threatened, as if SK is their own personal whipping boy. They know they don't have a lot of other options. I think the west in general is trying to avoid that level of warfare ever making an appearance due to how quickly a situation like that could spiral.

I don't know how likely any of this is, but Russia knows they don't have a lot of options. Depending on how you look at this, that is a good or bad thing.

I would guess mobilization is much politically easier for them than nukes (of any kind). It’s hard to think of many scenarios where they would use nukes against any opponent - and in violation of their own doctrine - before mobilising.

How much would Russian mobilizing out of desperation truncate the half life of the current Putin plan? Has the Oracle of Delphi cryptically opined about that in the mist of the sulphur fumes?

[Person Man]

Do you care to speculate for me what what kinds of escalation America fears arising from giving Ukraine long range missiles that it needs to put an end of the asymmetry where Russian fire power can reach Ukraine assets while Ukraine's fire power cannot hit back at the source of that fire power? I have read about the concern that Ukraine would shoot them into Russia itself, but presumably Ukraine would agree to get permission first before doing that. It is not as if America does not have huge leverage in influencing how Ukraine goes about conducting its defense. So I am wondering what else might be out there on the fear menu, that has not crossed my radar screen but may have crossed yours.

One thing that I suspect Ukraine and America do agree on is that that this war needs to wind down this year, rather than drag on through the next with all the economic disruption and food shortages, and, nukes aside, incurring the  ongoing higher risk of through calculation or miscalculation of a major clash of the titans where troops of more nations get actively involved.

I'm honestly not sure, but I think NATO in general is very wary of doing anything that could result in a clash between NATO and Russian forces, and America believes that if they arm Ukraine with long range guided munitions for rocket launch systems, or even cruise missiles, that at some point or another, they will be used against targets within Russia. It doesn't have to be done out of desperation. It could just be field officers who take liberties of which they don't quite comprehend the consequences of.

The thing is, Russia doesn't have much soft power to use at this point. Most of what they can do would hurt themselves just as much, if not more, such as cutting off oil/gas completely to shock world markets, or withholding grain and other food exports. They need the money as much as the world needs those resources. Other than that, as far as hard power goes, everyone already sees that their military is near exhausted. They are struggling to capture Eastern Ukraine, so what possible hope do they have by threatening NATO forces? It's why they haven't already attacked supply lines outside of Ukraine. They would be decimated by NATO forces, and the world knows this too, so Russia absolutely cannot draw them into the conflict. All they have are nuclear weapons. And they already sabre rattle about those enough as it is.

Realistically, I don't think Russia would attack NATO, but I do think if they had to escalate in a major way due to NATO overstepping, it could be nukes used against Ukraine. It's not that different than how North Korea threatens South Korea whenever they feel threatened, as if SK is their own personal whipping boy. They know they don't have a lot of other options. I think the west in general is trying to avoid that level of warfare ever making an appearance due to how quickly a situation like that could spiral.

I don't know how likely any of this is, but Russia knows they don't have a lot of options. Depending on how you look at this, that is a good or bad thing.

I would guess mobilization is much politically easier for them than nukes (of any kind). It’s hard to think of many scenarios where they would use nukes against any opponent - and in violation of their own doctrine - before mobilising.

How much would Russian mobilzing out of desperation truncate the half life of the current Putin plan? Has the Oracle of Delphi cryptically opined about that in the mist of the sulphur fumes?

Whatever it is, it needs to be stronger than Sulpher.

[NewYorkExpress]

Vyacheslav Volodin threatens that Russia will take back Alaska.

In another blustery warning to the U.S., Vyacheslav Volodin, a longtime Putin aide who serves as the speaker of the lower house of parliament, warned Wednesday that Washington should remember that Alaska was part of Russia when it freezes Russian assets. Russia colonized Alaska and established several settlements there until the U.S. purchased it from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million.

“When they attempt to appropriate our assets abroad, they should be aware that we also have something to claim back,” Volodin said during a meeting with lawmakers.

[Virginiá]

I mean, if they feel that they want to go out on their terms, they can take a lot of us out with them. If that were to happen, at least it happened then and not later.

As I understand it, Soviet battle plans for a war with NATO involved a lot of tactical nuclear weapons used to blunt enemy formations and armor as well as to destroy bases, air fields, ammunition storage, etc. The Soviets needed weeks to fully mobilize their army within the Warsaw Pact nations and the USSR, and nuclear weapons would be used to give them that time. I don't think any government wants to end humanity. And even when nukes were more of an option than they are today, leveling entire population centers was usually the last thing any country wanted to do.

That's kind of what I was getting at with Russia deploying nukes in the event they exhaust their ability to fight and Ukraine is able to push them out. If they went for Crimea too, and/or started bombing targets on the border within Russia to prevent them from re-grouping, Russia could feel compelled to deploy nukes to force a stop to the war without losing anything else - aka closing out the conflict on their terms. I mean, really, there is nothing stopping them from doing that now - to prevent the loss of the Donbas, Southern Ukraine and Crimea. It would come with major consequences, but there is a good chance that Russia could use nukes to essentially freeze things where they are now - so long as NATO considers it time to get Ukraine to the negotiating table to prevent further escalation. I suppose it could also result in a huge increase of military aid, but I'm skeptical of that.

How much would Russian mobilizing out of desperation truncate the half life of the current Putin plan? Has the Oracle of Delphi cryptically opined about that in the mist of the sulphur fumes?

I'm not convinced Russia has the logistical capacity to support a full mobilization. They don't have the industry to start mass producing advanced weapon systems or munitions, either. Hell, they don't even have the ability to mass produce regular cars! They relied on imports of certain parts because they lacked the ability to produce them themselves. So they could try and pull up a bunch of poorly trained citizens, but they wouldn't necessarily have the same amount of military equipment to use nor would they have the ability to capture Ukraine any faster than when the war first started. There's just way too many soldiers with inadequate training, too much corruption, and not enough working trucks or other supply vehicles. If there were, they wouldn't have been bringing in consumer vehicles by train. It's also politically risky, too. But that's another conversation.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

https://exxpress.at/macrons-super-waffen-landen-bei-putin-nicht-bei-selenskyj/

Pro-OVP Austrian magazine reports that Ukrainian officers sold two French Caesar Howitzers  (they cost $3.5 million) to the Russians for 118k EUR each.

That's always a risk when dealing with countries with a significant corruption problem, hopefully those traitors will be executed asap.

How do we not know it is not just the Ukrainians but not



With 10% for the Big Guy.

That is fake news and Russian disinformation, like the fake story about Russia 'destroying' the HIMARs. The video 'evidence' was Russia blowing up a tree. Russia is rightfully nervous about Western long range artillery, so they want to hurt morale.

[NOVA Green]

I mean, if they feel that they want to go out on their terms, they can take a lot of us out with them. If that were to happen, at least it happened then and not later.

As I understand it, Soviet battle plans for a war with NATO involved a lot of tactical nuclear weapons used to blunt enemy formations and armor as well as to destroy bases, air fields, ammunition storage, etc. The Soviets needed weeks to fully mobilize their army within the Warsaw Pact nations and the USSR, and nuclear weapons would be used to give them that time. I don't think any government wants to end humanity. And even when nukes were more of an option than they are today, leveling entire population centers was usually the last thing any country wanted to do.

That's kind of what I was getting at with Russia deploying nukes in the event they exhaust their ability to fight and Ukraine is able to push them out. If they went for Crimea too, and/or started bombing targets on the border within Russia to prevent them from re-grouping, Russia could feel compelled to deploy nukes to force a stop to the war without losing anything else - aka closing out the conflict on their terms. I mean, really, there is nothing stopping them from doing that now - to prevent the loss of the Donbas, Southern Ukraine and Crimea. It would come with major consequences, but there is a good chance that Russia could use nukes to essentially freeze things where they are now - so long as NATO considers it time to get Ukraine to the negotiating table to prevent further escalation. I suppose it could also result in a huge increase of military aid, but I'm skeptical of that.

How much would Russian mobilizing out of desperation truncate the half life of the current Putin plan? Has the Oracle of Delphi cryptically opined about that in the mist of the sulphur fumes?

I'm not convinced Russia has the logistical capacity to support a full mobilization. They don't have the industry to start mass producing advanced weapon systems or munitions, either. Hell, they don't even have the ability to mass produce regular cars! They relied on imports of certain parts because they lacked the ability to produce them themselves. So they could try and pull up a bunch of poorly trained citizens, but they wouldn't necessarily have the same amount of military equipment to use nor would they have the ability to capture Ukraine any faster than when the war first started. There's just way too many soldiers with inadequate training, too much corruption, and not enough working trucks or other supply vehicles. If there were, they wouldn't have been bringing in consumer vehicles by train. It's also politically risky, too. But that's another conversation.

Generally agree, esp with the bolded statement, but still it appears that the Russian Armament Factories are able to continue to produce certain types of munitions with their factories allegedly now running 2nd and 3rd shifts.

Just read my latest Economist Magazine, and thought folks might be interested in a few snippets...

Meanwhile the US has one small arms munitions factory remaining versus the five defense plants running at the height of the Vietnam War.

Indeed, some Ukrainian officials, including Volodymyr Zelensky, the president, argue that if Western help arrives on a sufficient scale, Ukraine may be able to win the war before winter sets in. A military intelligence officer says that Ukraine’s best window for a counter-offensive will come in late October, when its stock of Western arms should be peaking.

The recent fighting has centred on long, heavy artillery barrages that consume vast amounts of ammunition. Russia, which has huge stocks, is thought to be blasting away so indiscriminately that America’s entire annual production would be enough to keep its guns firing for only two weeks, observes Alex Vershinin, a retired us Army officer

Although America and Europe, with vastly larger economies than Russia, could eventually gear up to produce whatever Ukraine needs, their output of shells and missiles will not double overnight. America produces only 2,100 Javelins a year. Mr Vershinin notes that the number of American small-arms plants has shrunk from five during the Vietnam war to one today.

“If you want to use himars as an area weapon,” warned Ben Wallace, Britain’s defence secretary, on June 29th, “you’ll be running out of ammunition in 12 hours.”

The aim is to encourage Ukraine to use rocket launchers and other long-range systems in line with their original purpose of fighting a “deep battle”: hitting important Russian targets, such as command posts and railway hubs, many kilometres behind the front lines

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2022/06/30/does-a-protracted-conflict-favour-russia-or-ukraine

[jaichind]

 Iran announces the completion of the first transport of Russian goods to India through the International North-South Corridor

[CumbrianLefty]

Did I spy a reference to Euromaidan as a "coup" by our resident pro-Russia poster above?

Crank identity confirmed, no need to further engage even on a superficial level.

[KaiserDave]

Stop responding to the troll

[rc18]

I mean, if they feel that they want to go out on their terms, they can take a lot of us out with them. If that were to happen, at least it happened then and not later.

As I understand it, Soviet battle plans for a war with NATO involved a lot of tactical nuclear weapons used to blunt enemy formations and armor as well as to destroy bases, air fields, ammunition storage, etc. The Soviets needed weeks to fully mobilize their army within the Warsaw Pact nations and the USSR, and nuclear weapons would be used to give them that time. I don't think any government wants to end humanity. And even when nukes were more of an option than they are today, leveling entire population centers was usually the last thing any country wanted to do.

That's kind of what I was getting at with Russia deploying nukes in the event they exhaust their ability to fight and Ukraine is able to push them out. If they went for Crimea too, and/or started bombing targets on the border within Russia to prevent them from re-grouping, Russia could feel compelled to deploy nukes to force a stop to the war without losing anything else - aka closing out the conflict on their terms. I mean, really, there is nothing stopping them from doing that now - to prevent the loss of the Donbas, Southern Ukraine and Crimea. It would come with major consequences, but there is a good chance that Russia could use nukes to essentially freeze things where they are now - so long as NATO considers it time to get Ukraine to the negotiating table to prevent further escalation. I suppose it could also result in a huge increase of military aid, but I'm skeptical of that.

How much would Russian mobilizing out of desperation truncate the half life of the current Putin plan? Has the Oracle of Delphi cryptically opined about that in the mist of the sulphur fumes?

I'm not convinced Russia has the logistical capacity to support a full mobilization. They don't have the industry to start mass producing advanced weapon systems or munitions, either. Hell, they don't even have the ability to mass produce regular cars! They relied on imports of certain parts because they lacked the ability to produce them themselves. So they could try and pull up a bunch of poorly trained citizens, but they wouldn't necessarily have the same amount of military equipment to use nor would they have the ability to capture Ukraine any faster than when the war first started. There's just way too many soldiers with inadequate training, too much corruption, and not enough working trucks or other supply vehicles. If there were, they wouldn't have been bringing in consumer vehicles by train. It's also politically risky, too. But that's another conversation.

Generally agree, esp with the bolded statement, but still it appears that the Russian Armament Factories are able to continue to produce certain types of munitions with their factories allegedly now running 2nd and 3rd shifts.

Just read my latest Economist Magazine, and thought folks might be interested in a few snippets...

Meanwhile the US has one small arms munitions factory remaining versus the five defense plants running at the height of the Vietnam War.

Indeed, some Ukrainian officials, including Volodymyr Zelensky, the president, argue that if Western help arrives on a sufficient scale, Ukraine may be able to win the war before winter sets in. A military intelligence officer says that Ukraine’s best window for a counter-offensive will come in late October, when its stock of Western arms should be peaking.

The recent fighting has centred on long, heavy artillery barrages that consume vast amounts of ammunition. Russia, which has huge stocks, is thought to be blasting away so indiscriminately that America’s entire annual production would be enough to keep its guns firing for only two weeks, observes Alex Vershinin, a retired us Army officer

Although America and Europe, with vastly larger economies than Russia, could eventually gear up to produce whatever Ukraine needs, their output of shells and missiles will not double overnight. America produces only 2,100 Javelins a year. Mr Vershinin notes that the number of American small-arms plants has shrunk from five during the Vietnam war to one today.

“If you want to use himars as an area weapon,” warned Ben Wallace, Britain’s defence secretary, on June 29th, “you’ll be running out of ammunition in 12 hours.”

The aim is to encourage Ukraine to use rocket launchers and other long-range systems in line with their original purpose of fighting a “deep battle”: hitting important Russian targets, such as command posts and railway hubs, many kilometres behind the front lines

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2022/06/30/does-a-protracted-conflict-favour-russia-or-ukraine

As for Javelins etc, Ukraine already has more tactical anti-tank weapons than Russia has armoured vehicles in total, so supply of more of them isn't so urgent. Even if Russia's last tank factory was fully functional, they couldn't produce anywhere near 2100 tanks a year...

And yes while the Western armouries have been allowed to wither (Russia's defence industry isn't in a great position either post-Soviet Union), they don't have to produce as much as Russia does. If >90% of your missiles/shells actually work as intended - and 9 times out of 10 hit their target, while your opponent's work only a fraction of the time and 9 out of 10 miss, you can get away with much lower production and much less intensive logistical support.

For example just today there's a video of a Russian self-propelled artillery piece being blown up by a single UAV-corrected shell firing (rather than there being a field littered with craters from inaccurate artillery). If you can do that you don't need to be supplied with 100s of thousands of new shells a day.

[Virginiá]

Generally agree, esp with the bolded statement, but still it appears that the Russian Armament Factories are able to continue to produce certain types of munitions with their factories allegedly now running 2nd and 3rd shifts.

Yeah, those are good points from the article. It's understandable, too. We have no need to have huge production lines of those kinds of munitions. If we planned to go to war, we would spin up the industrial capacity to prevent supply issues, but as far as a sudden (relatively speaking) war like this one goes, it still takes time for decisions to be made and resources to be gathered and put to use.

Speaking of production capacity, regarding consternation over America not wanting to send long-range rockets for the HIMARS, and I still disagree with that myself in general, but the reality is, NATO doesn't actually have a ton of those rockets to give Ukraine. The ATACMS surface-to-surface missile is what is being referenced, with a max range of 500 km. Only ~3,000 have been made and they are no longer producing it (and haven't for a while). It also costs a ton per unit (hence the program being ended) and each HIMARS pod can only fire a single one at a time. The successor to this is still in development I think, and even if it weren't, it's so new they couldn't possibly have enough stock to load Ukraine up with. That being said, they could still send some ATACMS missiles for very high priority targets.

Russia might be able to pump out quite a bit of artillery munitions themselves, but until they figure out a long-term solution for their semiconductor crisis, virtually all their advanced systems are going to be near-irreplaceable. And honestly, this isn't even really just a Russian problem. The semiconductor production industry has long been dominated by Taiwan's TSMC (for the most advanced chips) and foreign sources in general. It's only within the past 5 years that America has seriously made headway in moving a lot of production stateside, and that still isn't a done deal. So America could find itself with its own weapons production crisis if, say, China were to try to reunify annex Taiwan within the next ~5 years. It would be even worse for us because of how advanced our military tech is.

[jaichind]

Russia's June CPI MoM came in at -0.35% so the Russia inflation momentum has already shifted into deflation.  The expected USA June CPI MoM is expected to come in at 1.1%  The USA CPI MoM has been running at at least around 0.4% to 1.2% for since the Spring of 2021 which means the inflation momentum in the USA is still building.