History in the Making: Russian Invasion

NOHOME said:

Assuming that there is no quit in the russian willingness to fight, and that the world is going to maintain at least the current level of economic sanctions, where do we see russia as a nation  5 years from now?

Three points.

 1.  Economically will Russia survive 5 years?   Most of the globe is either cut them off or turned their backs to Russia. Well except for those two economic powerhouses of North Korea and Iran.  Plus more than 1/2 of the Money Russia banked in the past is tied up by the west.  Their bankroll is getting pretty meager. 
  2. Manpower has to come from someplace.  Russia needs a lot to force its population in line.  ( and stop pending rebellions)   Somebody has to run the trains and keep the lights on. •••••• Since a lot of draft age male Russians have left Russia are there really that many extra?  

3.     Russia's population in spite of cash incentives to have children is continuing to decrease dramatically.   Between those that have left and those that have been killed and those that are fighting wounded or captured by Ukraine  Russia has lost more population than anytime since WW2   At some point will parts of  already semi autonomous regions just close their borders and declare independence?  

I think one of the reason Japan showed little signs of the war a few years later was the same reason fire bombing was so effective, most of their structures at that time where made of wood.  As a picture I posted a while back demonstrated the results of the fire bombing resulted in a totally flat city except for a few industrial buildings.

In reply to frenchyd :

This is mostly hyperbole. Russian energy exports have been hurt, but not like you say. Russia was bringing in 1.1 billion a day from fossil fuels, now it's about 700M a day. It is considerably more than Iran an NK buying from them, countries in the EU are still buying.

Russia, along with plenty of other countries, has had demographic problems for a long time. You make it sound like they are going to run out of people tomorrow, they arent. All reporting is pointing towards Russia setting up for a protracted war. In all likelihood if nothing changes, this will still be going on in 5 years. It will hurt Russias demographics even more, but they aren't running out of fighting men anytime soon.

In reply to Opti :

Somewhat curious about what they are going to fight with.  Not much in today's world works without microchips, be it the weapon itself or the assembly line that it is built on.  Not to mention that the people who understand technology have been leaving at a fast pace.

My fear is that if they reach a point of war-making exhaustion, they might just decide to use up the nukes that are laying around.

Headline in the New York Times this morning:

"Several top Ukrainian officials were fired amid a ballooning corruption scandal, the biggest upheaval in the government since the war began."

In reply to NOHOME :

I keep saying this and getting told Russia isn't really a threat. Russia being massively embarrassed, cornered, or becoming unstable from a power perspective is bad for everyone, because they have nukes. It's a fine balance between Russia being minimized on the global stage (good for us) and it getting too bad for them (bad for everyone, literally everyone). 

Russia is losing soldiers and equipment quickly, that doesn't mean theyre out, and they can still buy (from reduced sources for sure). It also kind of their SOP throughout history. It also doesn't mean they will continue to lose soldiers at this rate. Adjustments are made constantly and sometimes they help, Ukraine could start losing ground, or Russia could start losing people faster. Just because it seems Ukraine has the upper hand now doesn't mean it will continue that way, especially as the people across the world are less and less willing to spend the money to support Ukraine.

My position is their is no end in sight and much of what's talked about is hyperbole (Russia is out of people, Russia has no money, Russia is out of arms, Ukraine is winning, Russia isn't a threat, the war will be over as soon as Ukraine kicks them out) and the longer this goes on the higher the likely hood of a really bad result is. 

I don't think it's as clear cut as some people think, all we hear is propaganda (from all sides), and Russia is setting up for a long war, while ratcheting up rhetoric about how they are actually fighting against the west and threatening other countries, and the other countries are tiptoeing around the fact that they are fighting a proxy war. It's a tinder box waiting to explode. I think it is incredibly more dangerous than it's given credit for.

Opti said:

In reply to NOHOME :

I keep saying this and getting told Russia isn't really a threat. Russia being massively embarrassed, cornered, or becoming unstable from a power perspective is bad for everyone, because they have nukes. It's a fine balance between Russia being minimized on the global stage (good for us) and it getting too bad for them (bad for everyone, literally everyone).

Russia is losing soldiers and equipment quickly, that doesn't mean theyre out, and they can still buy (from reduced sources for sure). It also kind of their SOP throughout history. It also doesn't mean they will continue to lose soldiers at this rate. Adjustments are made constantly and sometimes they help, Ukraine could start losing ground, or Russia could start losing people faster. Just because it seems Ukraine has the upper hand now doesn't mean it will continue that way, especially as the people across the world are less and less willing to spend the money to support Ukraine.

My position is their is no end in sight and much of what's talked about is hyperbole (Russia is out of people, Russia has no money, Russia is out of arms, Ukraine is winning, Russia isn't a threat, the war will be over as soon as Ukraine kicks them out) and the longer this goes on the higher the likely hood of a really bad result is.

I don't think it's as clear cut as some people think, all we hear is propaganda (from all sides), and Russia is setting up for a long war, while ratcheting up rhetoric about how they are actually fighting against the west and threatening other countries, and the other countries are tiptoeing around the fact that they are fighting a proxy war. It's a tinder box waiting to explode. I think it is incredibly more dangerous than it's given credit for.

(My emphasis added above)

I don't know that this is actually the case. Hypothetically, consider how much more dangerous the situation might become if Ukraine made multiple breakthroughs into Donbas and Crimea, and started racing toward the Russian frontier. Now Putin and his advisors have to make quick decisions based upon the potential of Ukraine not stopping (an eerily similar scenario to MacArthur's rush to the Yalu in 1950, and look how that turned out). The slow grind and the measured escalation offer all parties the opportunity to think through their decisions; this doesn't guarantee safety or ensure their decisions will be correct, but it's also generally better than making choices in a panic.

I think, based on statements by the Germans, that this is the crux of their concern about the Leopard 2s. They fear that the tanks will enable the Ukrainians to break through, and when they do there is the possibility that Russian resistance will collapse en masse (the Germans did, after all, have that exact experience in 1941). If this occurs, it will destabilize the Russian government, and as problematic as Putin is, in such a scenario it is unlikely that anyone replacing him would be anything other than more extreme.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Yes I agree with you completely. I think the only sticking point is, correct me if I misunderstand, you believe as this goes on the likelihood of a sudden change is lower.

I think the longer this goes on the more chances you have for something as you describe to happen. War is crazy, throughout history tides are turning all the time.

WW1 starting is widely attributed to the killing of Ferdinand (yes it massively oversimplified) but it does illustrate how something relatively small, if conditions are right, can lead to massively bad things.

In reply to Opti :

Clearly, the unforeseen cannot be accurately prepared for in all its myriad possibilities and permutations, however situations like the July Crisis of 1914 (or the Berlin Blockade, or the Able Archer war scare in 1983, or...) tend to evolve out of periods of tense peace, not during active conflicts. Not to say it can't happen - the October Revolution of 1917 was a direct result of the First World War, and was indeed precipitated by the Germans as an attempt to undermine the Russian czarist government politically, since they had not been able to defeat them militarily - but it is historically less likely.

02Pilot said: as problematic as Putin is, in such a scenario it is unlikely that anyone replacing him would be anything other than more extreme.

Putin is not exactly a young, healthy man. If this stretches out over a long period of time, his (likely to be more extreme) replacement may be in control anyway.

02Pilot said:

If this occurs, it will destabilize the Russian government, and as problematic as Putin is, in such a scenario it is unlikely that anyone replacing him would be anything other than more extreme.

We're already at genocide of Ukrainians, the only way this gets worse is a nuclear exchange that has been specifically said will:

1. Activate a defensive NATO response.
2. Russia will NOT survive.

Russia has claimed for years like any bully, that if things get bad for them it'll be bad for everyone. Well, it's bad for them now lol- I'm pretty sure multipule video game currencies (Roblox in particular) are still worth more than the Rubel.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

There's plenty of ways it can get worse. Revolution in Russia. Coup in Russia. Prominent figures (Putin, Zelensky, etc.) assassinated or otherwise killed. Russia occupies more of Ukraine and takes stronger measures of control. Russia employs chemical weapons. The list goes on.

Genocide is obviously a bad thing, but it's also been very selectively dealt with by the US and the West (see Rwanda, Myanmar, Cambodia, Congo, etc.). It is, in isolation, a grave moral offense, but stopping it on purely moral grounds is clearly not a vital US interest.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

See more hyperbole. In currency its not about being worth more. Its about historic relative value to other currencies. The Rubel has been pretty flat relative to the US dollar since about 2015, it took a huge dive (to about half) right after the invasion. Its currently back to its pre invasion value. Im not saying Russia is in a good situation, im saying its not near as dire for them as people think it is. Example: Russia has no money, Russia currency is worthless, Russia has almost lost, Russia is out of people.

There are plenty of ways it can get WAY worse.

In reply to Opti :

I could be wrong on this (I don't spend a lot of time monitoring Russian currency value) but my understanding is the Russians were able to prop up the ruble after the initial hit post-invasion using a one-time expenditure from their reserves.  I don't think they have enough money left to do it again.  They might be refilling reserves with whatever money they're making from oil sales, but I suspect that money is going straight back into munitions purchases...

In reply to stroker :

They might have done some of that initially. Right now they are doing all kinds of stuff like jacking up interest rates, requiring businesses to convert 80 percent of foreign currency to rubles, restricting sales of certain securities, and restricting transferring money abroad.

A big part is the massive holes in the "sanctions" and Putin telling his natural gas buyers it has to be purchased in Rubels. (Took a page out of the USs book there)

Sounds like Germany may have finally relented on sending tanks - CNN Link

Hope they can get them quickly and get trained fast enough for them to make a difference.

In reply to eastsideTim :

And AP is now reporting that the US is going to concurrently announce approval for the Abrams. I'm guessing the Germans played hardball, and this was the only way to get the Leopards there. I also suspect that the Abrams will not be on the same timetable, and once the Ukrainians have their Leopards in service (along with perhaps a token force of Abrams), they won't be interested in the much more maintenance-intensive Abrams, and the approval will be allowed to quietly expire.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I saw the M1 announcement somewhere, but whatever article I read mentioned they could be there in as soon as a week.  If true, I am assuming this is one of those situations where they've had Ukranian soldiers traning on them for a while already.

I still think the Abrams is going to be far less important than the Leopards.

An interesting observation:

The Wagner Group’s outsized reliance on recruitment from penal colonies appears to be having increasing ramifications on Wagner’s combat capability. Head of the independent Russian human rights organization “Rus Sidyashchaya” (Russia Behind Bars) Olga Romanova claimed on January 23 that out of the assessed 50,000 prisoners that Wagner has recruited, only 10,000 are fighting on frontlines in Ukraine due to high casualty, surrender, and desertion rates.[5] ISW cannot independently confirm these figures, but they are very plausible considering Wagner’s model of using convicts as cannon fodder in highly attritional offensive operations.[6] The model Wagner has reportedly been using of retaining its highly trained long-serving mercenaries as leadership and Special Forces–type elements on top of a mass of untrained convicts also lends itself to high combat losses, surrenders, and desertions. The Wagner Group aim of reducing casualties among its non-convict mercenaries likely undermines its ability to retain and use effectively its large mass of convicts at scale and over time. ISW has previously reported on instances of relatives of Wagner group fighters receiving empty coffins after being told their loves ones died in Ukraine, suggesting that Wagner lacks the basic administrative and bureaucratic infrastructure to track and present its own losses, adding further credibility to the “Rus Sidyashchaya” estimate.[7]

So, I have a question:

As part of their PR effort, russia has been using a LOT of bombs to destroy pretty much every building and house in any village they visit. I never understood their need to level every single building in a city that they target. Kind of a low-yield strategy insofar as stopping soldiers.

So either this is a huge waste of bombs that they can't really afford, or russia has no end of mortars to use on anything that remotely looks like infrastructure. 

They must be getting paid by the round.

NOHOME said:

So, I have a question:

 

As part of their PR effort, russia has been using a LOT of bombs to destroy pretty much every building and house in any village they visit. I never understood their need to level every single building in a city that they target. Kind of a low-yield strategy insofar as stopping soldiers.

So either this is a huge waste of bombs that they can't really afford, or russia has no end of mortars to use on anything that remotely looks like infrastructure. 

Seems to me that it points out the true intention of russia here.  And why Ukraine is fighting back so hard.

NOHOME said:

So, I have a question:

 

As part of their PR effort, russia has been using a LOT of bombs to destroy pretty much every building and house in any village they visit. I never understood their need to level every single building in a city that they target. Kind of a low-yield strategy insofar as stopping soldiers.

So either this is a huge waste of bombs that they can't really afford, or russia has no end of mortars to use on anything that remotely looks like infrastructure. 

Ever see the destruction the Allies did to Germany and Japan?   But it looked really nice later. 
  Sometime in the future Russians are going to look at Ukraine and envy how nice it's fixed up. In the mean time that urban renewal is going to create a lot of good jobs  for those returning vets.  
Meanwhile Russians economy ruined by Putin still will be stumbling along, barely. 

Is there any chance that some of the russian funds being detained around the world will be used to rebuild Ukraine? Maybe auction off a few mega-yachts and oligarch properties in London?

Or is that stuff all going to be tied up in courts until it sublimates into being law-firm paychecks?

In reply to NOHOME :

All depends on the peace settlement. I suspect those funds are being held with an eye toward using at least some (government assets, not private oligarch money) as a carrot to get the Russians to agree to whatever deal is on the table once we get to the endgame. Much noise will be made about selling megayachts and penthouses with lots of black lacquer furniture and closets full of designer tracksuits, but Russian state assets probably have more value as a negotiating tool.