Russian invasion of Ukraine discussion

[mack7.62]

These guys seem to be more in touch with reality than DG.

Anton Gerashchenko
@Gerashchenko_en
·7h

https://twitter.com/i/status/1633003799554957315

Russian propagandists say that the "time is now on Ukrainian side" and "we need to end this conflict as soon as possible."

THE REASON FOR THIS CHANGE OF HEART BELOW

KyivPost@KyivPost
·\6h
⚡️Two Ukrainian pilots are currently at a military base in the #US having their skills tested in flight simulators to see how much time they would need to learn to fly various US military aircraft, including #F16, CNN reported.

WhereisRussiaToday@WhereisRussia
·2h
Poland will transfer another 10 #Leopard Tanks to #Ukraine this week, the Polish Ministry of Defense has confirmed.

Special Kherson Cat
@bayraktar_1love
·3h
Poland is ready to launch a service hub on Polish territory that will deal with the repair and service of Leopard tanks delivered to Ukraine. Presumably hub will be located it in the Bumar-Łabędy plant.

Constantine ��✙
@Teoyaomiquu
·
Mar 5
Ukraine will get double to amount of challenger 2 tanks from GB. Isn’t this great news to wake up to?

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
@RFERL
·
7h
Ukrainian crews being trained on British Challenger 2 tanks in England told
@radiosvoboda
the vehicle's power, mass, and operating controls will be a welcome addition on the battlefield in the Donbas region.

The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
·
Feb 28
Canada's Department of National Defense published a video of Ukrainian soldiers training to use Leopard 2 tanks.

The first Canadian Leopard 2 main battle tank arrived in Poland on Feb. 5. Canada has so far promised to give Ukraine 8 Leopard 2 tanks.

MEANWHILE IN RUSSIA

Samuel Ramani
@SamRamani2
·
14h
Russia's 1st Guards Tank Army is undergoing a retro transformation

Due to tank losses, it will start using 60-year T-62 battle tanks instead of next generation T-14 Armata tanks, which were expected from 2021

[mack7.62]

This explains why there is no retreat from Bakhmut

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato...our-favor.html

In the battles for Bakhmut, the Russian aggressors lose seven times as many soldiers as the Armed Forces of Ukraine do.
Oleksiy Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, said this during the national news telethon, Ukrinform reports.

He noted that the issue of Russian military losses, in particular in the battles around Bakhmut, had been raised at the meeting of the Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief on Thursday.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

They are buying it because they are getting it for less than 60 bucks a barrel compared to just under 79 dollars elsewhere.

Yes, but the claim was made that it had fallen in February, that was the question when compared to credible news sources to the contrary.

India's oil imports from Russia were near zero before Russia invaded Ukraine. India began increasing oil imports from Russia when oil was over $100, to over a million barrels per day before the recent $60 price cap. That said, Russia has been selling at a discount though the period and India has taken advantage of favorable pricing.

As far as the $60 price cap recently imposed... oil traded at $60 and below in recent years (see graph periods 2015-2020-). Oil producing nations managed to survive.

Oil market complexities are far beyond my understanding other than reading a few articles... but reading through this thread I don' think I'm alone.

[mack7.62]

The point is that Russia oil revenues are off by 50% over a year ago, but some insist that the sanctions have not hurt them.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The point is that Russia oil revenues are off by 50% over a year ago, but some insist that the sanctions have not hurt them.

Who says that sanctions haven't hurt them [Russia]? Lots of reporting that Russia has so far weathered the storm much better than predicted, but I havant heard any credible source that Russia hasn't been hurt.

As far Russia's oil revenues being off 50% from a year ago, I suspect that claim is probably true. However, consider that oil was $110 a year ago largely due to the Russian invasion, which of course Putin took advantage of those higher prices. Oil is now near $80. That's a near 30% haircut in price for all oil producing nations from a year ago.

[WillBrink]

Yes, but the claim was made that it had fallen in February, that was the question when compared to credible news sources to the contrary.

India's oil imports from Russia were near zero before Russia invaded Ukraine. India began increasing oil imports from Russia when oil was over $100, to over a million barrels per day before the recent $60 price cap. That said, Russia has been selling at a discount though the period and India has taken advantage of favorable pricing.

As far as the $60 price cap recently imposed... oil traded at $60 and below in recent years (see graph periods 2015-2020-). Oil producing nations managed to survive.

Oil market complexities are far beyond my understanding other than reading a few articles... but reading through this thread I don' think I'm alone.

Per the infographic posted by our resident Putin, fan boy, who didn't understand his own graphic in #2745, 'net sales down 50% and 85% in EU. To any person, company, or nation, 'net $ is the most important metric no?

The point is that Russia oil revenues are off by 50% over a year ago, but some insist that the sanctions have not hurt them.

And 85% from the EU.

Who says that sanctions haven't hurt them [Russia]? Lots of reporting that Russia has so far weathered the storm much better than predicted, but I havant heard any credible source that Russia hasn't been hurt.

As far Russia's oil revenues being off 50% from a year ago, I suspect that claim is probably true. However, consider that oil was $110 a year ago largely due to the Russian invasion, which of course Putin took advantage of those higher prices. Oil is now near $80. That's a near 30% haircut in price for all oil producing nations from a year ago.

See comment above on resident Putin fan boy claiming Russia's econ is doing swimmingly well. Putin is no dummy, and put away a big war chest of $ to counter the sanctions he knew would happen, but also no doubt under estimated the response by the world considering what they/we'd done in the past from his attacks and annexing of neighbors. He made a gambit as to Ukrainian willingness and ability to fight, ability of his own mil, and the resulting response from the world, and it's failed badly.

We can debate as to whether all that's justified and the juice worth the squeeze, but that's reality of it. If we end up in WWIII, well, probably not worth it. If "win" or lose in Ukraine, it's seriously reduced Russia's capabilities (goal achieved there) and or willingness to continue into other neighboring nations, some which are NATO members, worth it. Proxy wars are a very good deal for the countries involved in them, but come with serious risks if the nation has nukes. That didn't prevent proxy wars against us in 'Nam and elsewhere, as they knew the US would never first strike with a nuke over a proxy war, win or lose. Of course Eisenhower wanted to nuke China during Korea, and due to that and other transgressions, was fired over it.

[utahjeepr]

A lot of this stuff amounts to arguing semantics.

Are the sanctions hurting Russia and reducing their capacity to make war? Demonstrably yes. Now that's not to say that sanctions are having a crippling effect. It isn't a matter of cutting Pootieboi off at the knees. It's more like it has given him a gimpy leg. His resources are reduced, not eliminated.

As for the significance of Bakhmut. Does it have strategic value? Yes. In and of itself Bakhmut has limited value for Russia. It is something of a hub, not an end goal but a transitory one. Same for Ukraine, the ability to control Bakhmut improves their lines of communication in the immediate area. So for both it is a "nice to have" not a "must have". It is more vital to the Russians as a means of communication to feed continued advances.

The fight for Bakhmut has surpassed the town's tangible value. Lots of pundits talk about it being of psychological importance for both Russia and Ukraine and there is truth to that. For Russia, failure after expending so much effort would be beyond embarrassing. It would call into question their ability to continue at all. For Ukraine it would be less devastating, but it would be a disappointment. Every inch of ground lost to the Russians is.

For Ukraine though there is really not much down side to this fight. Unless of course they hold too long and lose troops and material unnecessarily. They have to fight the Russians, Bakhmut is as good a place as any. They are inflicting heavy, and reportedly very disproportionate, losses upon the enemy. Blunting the Russian spear. So long as they keep their head in the big game and don't allow themselves to get trapped this is a win. Even if they ultimately lose the town.

[WillBrink]

A lot of this stuff amounts to arguing semantics.

Are the sanctions hurting Russia and reducing their capacity to make war? Demonstrably yes. Now that's not to say that sanctions are having a crippling effect. It isn't a matter of cutting Pootieboi off at the knees. It's more like it has given him a gimpy leg. His resources are reduced, not eliminated.

As for the significance of Bakhmut. Does it have strategic value? Yes. In and of itself Bakhmut has limited value for Russia. It is something of a hub, not an end goal but a transitory one. Same for Ukraine, the ability to control Bakhmut improves their lines of communication in the immediate area. So for both it is a "nice to have" not a "must have". It is more vital to the Russians as a means of communication to feed continued advances.

The fight for Bakhmut has surpassed the town's tangible value. Lots of pundits talk about it being of psychological importance for both Russia and Ukraine and there is truth to that. For Russia, failure after expending so much effort would be beyond embarrassing. It would call into question their ability to continue at all. For Ukraine it would be less devastating, but it would be a disappointment. Every inch of ground lost to the Russians is.

For Ukraine though there is really not much down side to this fight. Unless of course they hold too long and lose troops and material unnecessarily. They have to fight the Russians, Bakhmut is as good a place as any. They are inflicting heavy, and reportedly very disproportionate, losses upon the enemy. Blunting the Russian spear. So long as they keep their head in the big game and don't allow themselves to get trapped this is a win. Even if they ultimately lose the town.

I'm most curious if the Ukranian's are trying to hold out long enough for the mass of gear being sent and employ that to best effects to make the Russian losses that much higher, but I don't know what's there (high quality MBTs, Bradly, ammo, etc, etc) and as you say, if the damage caused to the Russians is high enough in the exchange, even losing Bakhmut is a win.

[utahjeepr]

I'm most curious if the Ukranian's are trying to hold out long enough for the mass of gear being sent and employ that to best effects to make the Russian losses that much higher, but I don't know what's there (high quality MBTs, Bradly, ammo, etc, etc) and as you say, if the damage caused to the Russians is high enough in the exchange, even losing Bakhmut is a win.

I don't know that the new assets can be fielded and incorporated that quickly. More likely the Ukes are going to be willing to take more risk with their existing assets knowing what is in the pipeline. Double edged sword there, but they have proven to make rational choices thus far for the most part.

[1168]

The sanctions topic is always interesting here.

Putin Fanboys: “I’m fond of Russia because Putin stands up to the Globalist plot”

Also Putin Fanboys: “Sanctions are bad, totally not working, the world shouldn’t try to disconnect Russia from the Global Economy.”