History in the Making: Russian Invasion

In reply to OHSCrifle :

I've been three times, including once as the escort for a British vet returning for the first time since he landed in 1944. It is certainly worth a visit.

On the subject of logistics, reports just out that Ukraine and Russia are signing a deal tomorrow to enable export of grain. This will be carried out under the auspices of the UN and Turkey, the latter of which will conduct inspections on the ships. While there's a lot of condemnation of Russia for "weaponizing food", if one thinks about it for a moment, it's hard to imagine Russia doing anything else. Making it hard for Ukraine to export its most important commodity, undermining its economy and driving up the price of grain (which helps Russia and hurts some countries supporting Ukraine), is eminently logical. There are secondary effects that could result in considerable hardship or loss of life, but these do not negatively impact Russia in any significant way. Not pleasant, but this is a war, after all.

What does the post Russian-Ukrainian War look like in terms of world economics and investments? 

We're obviously in a recession. How much of that is a product of this war is debatable. What isn't debatable is that when this war ends, Russia will be in a different spot than it was previously. It will need trade with Europe, and it will be desperate to sell its cheap energy to the rest of the continent. It will undoubtedly lower oil prices. 

Cheap gas won't necessarily make for cheap mortgage and interest rates - which have also slowed the economy (largely due to us coming back down to earth in terms of real estate speculation and investment). Travel might ramp up again (cheaper to fly and drive). 

Rebuilding Ukraine will take tremendous resources, but this war has made old allies closer and even formed new alliances that might have been weak in the past. Europe will be eager to rebuild and pull itself out of its own recession, but I'm not sure how that will impact domestic economies in North America. 

Seems like if you were looking to capitalize on a rebound, if, and when this conflicts ends, shipping might be a good sector. 

In reply to pheller :

Shipping, construction equipment, farming equipment (to replace what Russia stole/destroyed), construction materials (though that may be localized to European companies), military manufacturing(even before the war is over, replenishing is happening already, and a lot of countries are going to be more interested in Western weapons if they can afford them), gas field development and repair(land and sea).

There's going to be a mad scramble to rebuild Ukraine once the fighting stops, but while companies are going to see a big empty just waiting to be remade in new and shiny, the Ukrainians are going to be dead broke except for what they can beg, borrow, or steal (it's still a fairly corrupt place, after all, though apparently they're being pressed to work on this) from Western governments. Expect a big revolving door of easy Western money funneled to Ukraine, then funneled back to the West via durable goods purchases from Western companies.

On the defense front, it's going to be a bonanza for high tech. The Czechs just announced their intention to double their fighter force to 24 (two squadrons) with purchase of new F-35s - no competition, no call for proposal, just send us a bunch of your best jets. The US has a leg up initially, but there will be a lot of internal pressure within the EU to buy from within the bloc if they can ramp up production capacity fast enough. Right now, a lot of EU defense firms have been building so slowly that they simply couldn't meet seriously increased demand quickly even if they wanted to.

It will also depend on how much of Ukraine is left. 

A lot of Ukraine's agriculture and potential oil and gas fields are in the south and south east, as well as the shore off shore of Crimea. 

In reply to 02Pilot :

Any chance the frozen Russian foreign reserves will get used to cover some of the rebuilding?

In reply to eastsideTim :

Sure, but I have a feeling that those frozen assets are going to be used as a negotiating chip in trying to get a better deal at the end of the conflict. That's when things are going to get very tricky for the diplomats, since what Ukraine wants (maximal territorial retention/reclamation), what Western Europe wants (cheap energy), and what the US wants (limiting Russia's ability to project power, and possibly cooperation on other issues (Iran nuclear deal)) are all quite different. A lot will depend on how many other cards each side has to play when the time comes.

There are rumblings from the Pentagon that transfer of A-10's to Ukraine has not been completely discounted.  That smells to me of the Zoomies trying to unload their unwanted step child to Zelensky in the hope they can then approach Congress with a spreadsheet demonstrating the Warthog no longer makes financial sense, given their (new) limited inventory.  I have to admit, things like the Switchblade drone are beginning to make me wonder if there's a more flexible and effective means of close air support than what the A-10 can offer.  Somehow the idea of the A-10 ending up in the hands of Finland or Sweden or Poland wouldn't worry me too much...

In reply to stroker :

Zoomies = US Airforce?

Noddaz said:

In reply to stroker :

Zoomies = US Airforce?

Yep.  Sorry.  I thought that was a common term of endearment...  

stroker said:

There are rumblings from the Pentagon that transfer of A-10's to Ukraine has not been completely discounted.  That smells to me of the Zoomies trying to unload their unwanted step child to Zelensky in the hope they can then approach Congress with a spreadsheet demonstrating the Warthog no longer makes financial sense, given their (new) limited inventory.  I have to admit, things like the Switchblade drone are beginning to make me wonder if there's a more flexible and effective means of close air support than what the A-10 can offer.  Somehow the idea of the A-10 ending up in the hands of Finland or Sweden or Poland wouldn't worry me too much...

I really love the A10, but I think this is a good point. I also still think the Ukrainians can really use them.

I really love the A10, but I think this is a good point. I also still think the Ukrainians can really use them.

It might look that way, but since neither side controls the skies the A10s might have issues with enemy planes.

In reply to stroker :

The Marines call them the Chair Force.  But I digress, I have respect for all the Armed Forces.

I'm sure many in the USAF would love to send the Warthogs to Ukraine (or anywhere else) to free up funding for NGAD projects, but the big hurdle is that the A-10s have a bunch of supporters in Congress that staunchly refuse to cut them out of the budget. As far as effectiveness in Ukraine, I suspect the training and logistics support (especially if they were to employ modern PGMs) would take so long to establish that the need may have passed, or the conflict evolved into a different stage at least. Persistent loitering munitions and drones are probably going to be more effective, and importantly are much less politically sensitive for both the US Congress and the Russians.

The similarities of this and the Spanish Civil war are fascinating. 
  now it's Russia VS NATO.  Then it was Germany vs Russia. 
     Both used a 3rd country as their test grounds so they could find out what works  in coming wars. 
 Bottom line?  Technology is going to win.  Drones are just in the beginning stages.  They will evolve and get cheaper and cheaper until we can darken the sky with them. 
Current drones have virtually no defensive capability  but that too will evolve  from basic programmable methods until AI is used  to both attack and defend. 
    Basically they will become A10 version 3-4 Where the pilot is sitting safely in a chair someplace safe.    Until a pilot can't compute  fast enough. 
     Tanks and other surface weapons  like cannons will be forced to stay in hiding  or be totally removed from the battlefield. 
 Cheaper disposable drones will go after the grunts. 

I say convert the A-10 into a drone and let the gamer kids at Grand Forks AFB have at it. Haven't almost all of them been upgraded with new wings and such?

Zelensky stated that he will not agree to a cease-fire unless all the territory Russia has occupied is returned to Ukrainian control. I bet there are a lot of nervous meetings taking place in foreign affairs ministries across the West today.

Well, that grain shipping agreement didn't last long. Just hours after signing.

Yahoo.com: Russia hits Ukraine's Black Sea port despite grain deal

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Want to bet that there's nothing in that document that expressly prohibits striking Ukrainian port facilities when there are no bulk carriers docked under the terms of the agreement?

In reply to frenchyd :

There are certainly some similarities to the Spanish Civil War in terms of equipment testing and development (there are going to be a lot of "lessons learned" debriefs after this one), the political situation is rather different. In the SCW, you had small foreign forces, mostly specialists - pilots, armor crews, etc. - except for the Italians, who sent large units of "volunteers", and the foreign legionary units on both sides. Predominantly, though, it was Spaniard vs. Spaniard, fighting for control of Spain. The war in Ukraine is very much not a civil war, as you've got distinct national identities at play.

I do question the contention that "technology is going to win". It has been decisive in some modern conflicts (various Arab-Israeli Wars, the Gulf War), but very much not in others (Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan). Much depends on what it is and how it's being used; this is a major and often overlooked factor in proxy wars where one or both sides are reliant on foreign technology. Ultimate control lies in the hands of those providing the technology, giving them considerable leverage over the battlefield and the political situation. The Ukrainians are making good use of the technology being provided to them, but it has limitations in terms of what it allows them to do operationally, for example they were not given ATACMS, which would have opened up considerable possibilities but also created risks for the US. It's not that the US doesn't want Ukraine to win, but there are some reservations about just how much the US wants them to win by (and how much risk the US is willing to incur to achieve a Ukrainian victory), and that is reflected in the restrictions on advanced weapons systems being provided.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Desire to win will win.  In a sense, love for country and homeland tends to prevail because there is a strong driving force other than mere military orders.

This is not to say that this is ALL it takes, but the defenders tend to be much more motivated, especially when the invaders are largely wondering what the hell they are doing there in the first place.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Desire, and the recognition that you have nothing to lose by fighting to the death. North Vietnam recognized this, and Ukraine does as well. Victory for the opposition meant extermination in each case.

Another reason Russia ain't doing too hot in this war.

Barrel from a Russian BMP

https://www.reddit.com/r/machining/comments/w78nfw/have_a_look_at_this_barrel_from_a_russian_bmp/

VolvoHeretic said:

Well, that grain shipping agreement didn't last long. Just hours after signing.

Yahoo.com: Russia hits Ukraine's Black Sea port despite grain deal

I believe the Russians only offered that "deal" to avoid having a Navy-lead escort.

Which goes back to what I said many weeks ago. I would be, if in a position to do so, far more likely to provide military escorts for humanitarian missions like this. Before I mentioned Abrahms tanks escorting humanitarian convoys out of cities. I think this also qualifies. I don't think we have to be the weak ones here. Let the Russians decide if they want to fire on a US Carrier Group escorting grain. Let the Russians decide if they want to fire on Abrahms tanks bringing refugees out to Bill in Hungary. I don't think we need to pretend we aren't helping anymore, and this truly isn't entering the war. I'll bet even NATO would participate in such a thing.

tuna55 said:

VolvoHeretic said:

Well, that grain shipping agreement didn't last long. Just hours after signing.

Yahoo.com: Russia hits Ukraine's Black Sea port despite grain deal

I believe the Russians only offered that "deal" to avoid having a Navy-lead escort.

Which goes back to what I said many weeks ago. I would be, if in a position to do so, far more likely to provide military escorts for humanitarian missions like this. Before I mentioned Abrahms tanks escorting humanitarian convoys out of cities. I think this also qualifies. I don't think we have to be the weak ones here. Let the Russians decide if they want to fire on a US Carrier Group escorting grain. Let the Russians decide if they want to fire on Abrahms tanks bringing refugees out to Bill in Hungary. I don't think we need to pretend we aren't helping anymore, and this truly isn't entering the war. I'll bet even NATO would participate in such a thing.

I'd be willing to be good money that, at this point in the conflict, you wouldn't get a single NATO country - at least of those with the military and logistical capability to pull off such a mission - to agree to it. There's no political gain to be had, and an enormous amount of risk. And Turkey, which is walking a diplomatic tightrope with the Russians, is never going to allow the US to put any significant forces through the Straits. Oh, and aircraft carriers are prohibited from passing through the Bosporus under the Montreux Convention (well, technically it's capital ships over 15,000 tons), so no carrier task force is going into the Black Sea (where it would be a sitting duck, BTW).

This isn't the same is reflagging Kuwaiti oil tankers in the 1980s or providing humanitarian aid in a post-conflict environment; it would be the equivalent of sticking your hootus in a hornet's nest and hoping to come out with some honey.