NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 08 2022 05:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So now Belarus is threatening to attack Poland, I guess for supporting Ukraine, for some reason...
Source? I can't find any information on that.
Here you go.
Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Belarus, Ruslan Kosygin, said Belarusian forces will strike primarily at Poland's infrastructure.
"The territory of Poland, as well as the Baltic countries, is turning into a polygon, where the USA plans to unleash another bloody conflict in Europe against the Russian Federation and its allies," BELTA quotes Kosygin.
He pointed to military exercises, as well as "attempts by individual Polish politicians to initiate the return of the so-called Polish ancestral lands, which means the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus."
Kosygin called that "preparation for conducting military operations in the eastern direction" on the background of "Western Europe degradation and their actual loss of independent decision-making."
"The Polish leadership must understand in the first place. - The territory of Poland with its military infrastructure becomes the primary target of an attack in the event of a conflict, namely decision-making centers, elements of the management system, points of permanent deployment of the national armed forces, arsenals and bases, and as well as critically important objects of their economy and transport infrastructure," Kosygin said.
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
You can be pretty sure if you like but you’d be wrong. The British empire was a net drain on the public purse. Spanish was weird because they just looted silver from people without bothering to actually govern but as a rule empire has never been profitable. The looting part is fun but then the occupying bit is shit. The best way to do it is privatize the looting but nationalize the governing which is basically the pineapple example mentioned. Make bank from the resources and demand a bailout when the locals try to nationalize your shit.
Lets go through the listed empires one by one. Portugal, small, one sole land neighbout greatly more populous than it is, first European maritime empire, powerful enough not be utterly dominated by the then Castille, though diplomatic marriage played a part.
Spain which you wierdly acknowledge greatly prospered with it's empire then dismisses this, an empire allowed it to press European claims it otherwise could not had with the great wealth allowing Spain to hold massive and sophisticated armies of the time, as well as a large navy, influencing European politics greatly, though most notably affecting by fighting the rest of Europe at the same time. Twice. They lost though.
Netherlands, the birth of Netherlands against the then immense armies and navy of the Spanish army is also the birth of the Dutch Empire, which allowed the nation to accrue enough wealth over the course of about 80 years to not only survive but prosper against the behemoth of the Spanish Empire at the time, with mercenaries and forts brought by control of trade by the Dutch through their empire. The lowland rebellion that would become Netherlands if not for the wealth of the Dutch Empire; they are one and the same intrinsically linked at the time, navy and army funded by the Ducth Empire.
Britain, a long history but mostly speaking the wealth of Empire allowed a navy and a trained professional army as opposed to conscript army which was able to greatly interfere on the continent almost at will. Most obvious would be both world wars, being able to afford a navy that would not had existed without funds from empire, which essentially blockaded or otherwise exert sea control over almost the entirety of the Atlantic, North and Mediterrean sea and bringing hundreds of thousands of overseas troops, which otherwise would not have existed if not for empire.
Lets not forget the more recent examples of that period of the land empires of the Russian Empire and Chinese Empire, which through lands conquered greatly increased the wealth and power of their nation. Throughout the dawn of history, land was power and conquering land and being an empire was immensely profitable for the nation. It's not really debateable, as it is empire which always prospered and those that could not be locally powerful became vassals or were conquered in turn.
Some places were a drain on a martime Empire, mostly inland Africa which was for the most part only conquered during the relatively late Scramble for Africa period (often suprisingly cheap in terms of manpower), but in terms of monetary power and in military power, the true and most important expression of wealth from the viewpoint of nation, conquering land very much paid for themselves.
Of course all this is all totally irrelevant in the modern world, where wealth is no longer so much a matter of agriculture and natural resources and unlikely to be worthwhile, at least without essentially genociding the local population. Russia isn't seeking to occupy Ukraine for a notion of wealth, but for political and idealogical grounds. ____________________
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
These are the areas gained by each side since April 4th. Dark green is for Ukraine, dark red is for Russia. To me it's clear that Russia has gained a lot more ground in mostly one region, while Ukraine has gained a lot more ground in many regions. Overall it's even. But I'll let other people be the judge.
Still looks very much Russia has gained to me and very much so that Russia has gained far more important territory. Supposing that the area has remained the same ignores the importance of the occupied area, but makes for a nice story I guess. Great for morale boost, not useful for understand what has or is currently occuring. I'll note that the green areas are somewhat dubious as it seems especially for the region past Kherson to simply include any area that Russians have penetrated to, even if they never truly had control of the area, but I suppose such is the fog of war.
If as you say, Russian occupied areas gained is from withdrawing soldiers from other areas, that is an indication of Russia coordinating better rather than the early stages of the war. There's really isn't anything to gain by thinking Russians cannot learn. Afterall, Colonels ultimately do not want to die, and no commander, no matter how callous Russians seem, wants the men under their command to die and will be willing to adapt to acheive their objectives. Think I, like you, will leave those words and this topic at that.
___________
On July 07 2022 17:18 r00ty wrote: Just two thoughts: I don't think there is enough pressure on other oil producing countries to increase/maximize production. There should be more oversight and transparency for the companies, it seems like a giant cash grab atm. Oil/gas going down is what hurts the Putin regime the most.
Also, as one poster poited out a couple of weeks ago my country, its politicians and people are highly unrealistic about its production and consumption of energy. If we want all electric cars, Germany would have to at least triple its electric energy production. And on top the grid is not made for that, think people coming home from work to quick charge their electric cars at basically the same time. That peak would require an amount of battery capacity or an amount of regulators (power plants) that's not cost effective or even realistic considering we don't have that much space. It is possible with batteries and energy management systems in nearly every household but that will cost a bit.
I think that my government is still gambling on the Russian gas to be back soon and activating the 2 new Nordstream pipelines and the connected infrastructure as soon as possible. There is no real plan B. Unfortunately we're undermining
that by throwing money at Putin.
Saudi Arabia seem to be refusing to pump more oil, which is a remarkable contrast to the time when Iran was sanctioned, when Saudi Arabia opened their taps and almost bankrupted Russia and Venezuela as a side effect. Turns out Saudi Arabia does prefers to do as is beneficial to them, and in this case Saudi Arabia is enjoying the benefits of higher oil prices.
Exactly. And as if they don't have enough already. Billions upon billions of dollars are made on the backs of the Ukrainian people and by putting us all on the road to global recession. This could be ended without firing a bullet, but "the west" is too reliant on and toothless toward the autocrats in this world sitting on the oil and gas.
Belarus lol. If they send troops who is gonna control the people at home?
Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Belarus, Ruslan Kosygin, said Belarusian forces will strike primarily at Poland's infrastructure.
"The territory of Poland, as well as the Baltic countries, is turning into a polygon, where the USA plans to unleash another bloody conflict in Europe against the Russian Federation and its allies," BELTA quotes Kosygin.
He pointed to military exercises, as well as "attempts by individual Polish politicians to initiate the return of the so-called Polish ancestral lands, which means the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus."
Kosygin called that "preparation for conducting military operations in the eastern direction" on the background of "Western Europe degradation and their actual loss of independent decision-making."
"The Polish leadership must understand in the first place. - The territory of Poland with its military infrastructure becomes the primary target of an attack in the event of a conflict, namely decision-making centers, elements of the management system, points of permanent deployment of the national armed forces, arsenals and bases, and as well as critically important objects of their economy and transport infrastructure," Kosygin said.
Belarus cannot even support RU in UA, let alone conduct operations against NATO. This is just a diversion, which the Polish will ignore entirely.
On other news, a large number of ammunition dumps have been hit with what appears to be Himars fire. This might be the ramp up before a UA counteroffensive, destroying RU ability to use large amounts of artillery fire, but such logistical bottle necks will take a few weeks to materialize. Expect news on whether UA attacks in a week or two.
McWilliams, B. and G. Zachmann wrote an excellent overview of the natural gas situation in the EU ahead of the winter. Basically, if RU turns of gas flows to Europe entirely, this is how much different countries would need to reduce consumption to avoid running out. It's useful to look at ranges, like in the graph below, because there's quite a bit of fluctuation.
Portugal, Spain and France are effectively isolated from the wider European market because of limited connections between Spain and France, and France and the north and east. These countries’ supplies are not vulnerable to a Russian disruption, although weak French nuclear power generation places a strain on its neighbour’s power supply and hence gas demand. Cooperation might allow Algerian gas to be re-routed from Spain to Italy, putting the Spanish spare capacity to better use in a European context.
The Baltics have historically been highly dependent on Russia. The region is now heavily reliant on imports via the Klaipeda LNG terminal in Lithuania, while a new interconnection (Santaka) with Poland is important because it connects the region to the wider European market. For now, the connection is used to supply Poland, but allows for flexibility in terms of reductions in Poland and the Baltics. A Floating Storage and Regasification Unit under construction in Estonia might provide an extra 2 TWh/month. The Baltics have so far achieved the largest demand response in Europe, while also experiencing some of the highest energy price increases. Finland’s ability to switch fuels has led to a more than halving of national gas demand.
Poland relies on eastward flows from Germany to complement imports from the big LNG terminal in Świnoujście (6 TWh/month). Polish storage at time of writing is full and reasonably large. By the end of 2022, the Baltic pipe should allow direct imports of 8 TWh/month from Norway. This cannot all be attributed to Poland as flows will potentially transit Poland into the Baltics via the new Santaka connection (1.5 TWh/month), to Germany or possibly even south to Slovakia via a new interconnector.
Denmark and Sweden form a joint balancing zone. Normally the countries would be largely self-sufficient for gas but the Danish Tyro field is under maintenance until June 2023, creating a dependence on imports from Germany, which are exposed to Russian disruptions.
Romania has substantial own production capacities. However sizeable imports come from Ukraine and Bulgaria (both based on Russian gas). There might be options for re-routing through Bulgaria other gas (LNG arriving in Turkey or Greece, or other gas transited through Turkey). However, Bulgaria serves as a key transit country into the south-east European region, being the point of entry for Turkstream. Thus if flows through the pipeline slow, many countries will look to Bulgaria for gas transit.
Czechia, Austria, Slovakia and Slovenia will depend heavily on Germany should Russian flows through Ukraine stop. A key variable will be how demand responds in southern Germany and whether sufficient gas continues to pass through into Czechia and Austria. Austrian storage is relatively large, meaning the country group has a major opportunity to prepare for the winter over the next couple of months.
Croatia and Greece’s LNG terminals are key points of entry into the market. Some Azeri gas imported through Greece might be diverted northward to feed Bulgaria. If Italian demand for Azeri gas were reduced, more might be freed up to head into Bulgaria. An expansion of the Croatian KrK terminal later in the year might bring another 0.3TWh/month capacity, which would be welcome for a terminal currently running at very high capacity. A newly operational interconnection between Greece and Bulgaria (2.5TWh/month) also improves the situation. With Serbia signing a new deal for more Russian gas in recent days, and Hungary’s negotiated exemption from the oil embargo, it is likely that Turkstream will anyway be the last Russian pipe still operating.
Italy’s dependence on Russia comes via imports through Austria. The slowing of these flows will be felt particularly in the north of Italy, while Italy overall has quite substantial options for diversification. A key variable, not only for Italy but also for Italy’s ability to help neighbouring countries, is the ability to transmit gas from the south to the north of the country. Another particularity is the high share of gas in power generation in Italy (43%). Reducing power consumption or tapping into alternative electricity sources would thus substantially reduce gas consumption, currently standing at 22 TWh of gas in power generation per month.
For Belgium, the Zeebrugge LNG terminal will remain vital, as will imports from the UK which might be at risk in case of a cold winter in the UK. Some gas passes from France to Belgium. The Netherlands has significant own-production capacities, and good LNG import capacities. Exports to neighbouring countries drives the need for lower consumption in the Netherlands, where a large share of power generation is also gas-fired. In the first four months of 2022, Dutch gas-fired power consumption was 33% below 2021 levels (2.5 TWh/month).
Germany will rely on flows from Norway, domestic gas from the Netherlands and LNG imports via Belgium. As an important transit country, the volume of re-exported gas is a key variable. The German government has already initiated phase 2 (out of 3) of its emergency gas-rationing plan. Emergency plans are also in place to bring a new LNG terminal on line in Wilhelmshaven (8TWh/month).
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
You can be pretty sure if you like but you’d be wrong. The British empire was a net drain on the public purse. Spanish was weird because they just looted silver from people without bothering to actually govern but as a rule empire has never been profitable. The looting part is fun but then the occupying bit is shit. The best way to do it is privatize the looting but nationalize the governing which is basically the pineapple example mentioned. Make bank from the resources and demand a bailout when the locals try to nationalize your shit.
Lets go through the listed empires one by one. Portugal, small, one sole land neighbout greatly more populous than it is, first European maritime empire, powerful enough not be utterly dominated by the then Castille, though diplomatic marriage played a part.
Spain which you wierdly acknowledge greatly prospered with it's empire then dismisses this, an empire allowed it to press European claims it otherwise could not had with the great wealth allowing Spain to hold massive and sophisticated armies of the time, as well as a large navy, influencing European politics greatly, though most notably affecting by fighting the rest of Europe at the same time. Twice. They lost though.
Netherlands, the birth of Netherlands against the then immense armies and navy of the Spanish army is also the birth of the Dutch Empire, which allowed the nation to accrue enough wealth over the course of about 80 years to not only survive but prosper against the behemoth of the Spanish Empire at the time, with mercenaries and forts brought by control of trade by the Dutch through their empire. The lowland rebellion that would become Netherlands if not for the wealth of the Dutch Empire; they are one and the same intrinsically linked at the time, navy and army funded by the Ducth Empire.
Britain, a long history but mostly speaking the wealth of Empire allowed a navy and a trained professional army as opposed to conscript army which was able to greatly interfere on the continent almost at will. Most obvious would be both world wars, being able to afford a navy that would not had existed without funds from empire, which essentially blockaded or otherwise exert sea control over almost the entirety of the Atlantic, North and Mediterrean sea and bringing hundreds of thousands of overseas troops, which otherwise would not have existed if not for empire.
Lets not forget the more recent examples of that period of the land empires of the Russian Empire and Chinese Empire, which through lands conquered greatly increased the wealth and power of their nation. Throughout the dawn of history, land was power and conquering land and being an empire was immensely profitable for the nation. It's not really debateable, as it is empire which always prospered and those that could not be locally powerful became vassals or were conquered in turn.
Some places were a drain on a martime Empire, mostly inland Africa which was for the most part only conquered during the relatively late Scramble for Africa period (often suprisingly cheap in terms of manpower), but in terms of monetary power and in military power, the true and most important expression of wealth from the viewpoint of nation, conquering land very much paid for themselves.
Of course all this is all totally irrelevant in the modern world, where wealth is no longer so much a matter of agriculture and natural resources and unlikely to be worthwhile, at least without essentially genociding the local population. Russia isn't seeking to occupy Ukraine for a notion of wealth, but for political and idealogical grounds. ____________________
On July 07 2022 15:41 Magic Powers wrote:
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
These are the areas gained by each side since April 4th. Dark green is for Ukraine, dark red is for Russia. To me it's clear that Russia has gained a lot more ground in mostly one region, while Ukraine has gained a lot more ground in many regions. Overall it's even. But I'll let other people be the judge.
Still looks very much Russia has gained to me and very much so that Russia has gained far more important territory. Supposing that the area has remained the same ignores the importance of the occupied area, but makes for a nice story I guess. Great for morale boost, not useful for understand what has or is currently occuring. I'll note that the green areas are somewhat dubious as it seems especially for the region past Kherson to simply include any area that Russians have penetrated to, even if they never truly had control of the area, but I suppose such is the fog of war.
If as you say, Russian occupied areas gained is from withdrawing soldiers from other areas, that is an indication of Russia coordinating better rather than the early stages of the war. There's really isn't anything to gain by thinking Russians cannot learn. Afterall, Colonels ultimately do not want to die, and no commander, no matter how callous Russians seem, wants the men under their command to die and will be willing to adapt to acheive their objectives. Think I, like you, will leave those words and this topic at that.
___________
On July 07 2022 17:18 r00ty wrote: Just two thoughts: I don't think there is enough pressure on other oil producing countries to increase/maximize production. There should be more oversight and transparency for the companies, it seems like a giant cash grab atm. Oil/gas going down is what hurts the Putin regime the most.
Also, as one poster poited out a couple of weeks ago my country, its politicians and people are highly unrealistic about its production and consumption of energy. If we want all electric cars, Germany would have to at least triple its electric energy production. And on top the grid is not made for that, think people coming home from work to quick charge their electric cars at basically the same time. That peak would require an amount of battery capacity or an amount of regulators (power plants) that's not cost effective or even realistic considering we don't have that much space. It is possible with batteries and energy management systems in nearly every household but that will cost a bit.
I think that my government is still gambling on the Russian gas to be back soon and activating the 2 new Nordstream pipelines and the connected infrastructure as soon as possible. There is no real plan B. Unfortunately we're undermining
that by throwing money at Putin.
Saudi Arabia seem to be refusing to pump more oil, which is a remarkable contrast to the time when Iran was sanctioned, when Saudi Arabia opened their taps and almost bankrupted Russia and Venezuela as a side effect. Turns out Saudi Arabia does prefers to do as is beneficial to them, and in this case Saudi Arabia is enjoying the benefits of higher oil prices.
No. Your argument essentially runs “Britain had an empire and also Britain could afford an empire therefore the empire paid for itself”. It just doesn’t follow. It never paid for itself.
No, I pretty much explicitly wrote Britain could afford a navy and army that could influence continental Europe that it wouldn't had been able to if not for empire. But hey create a strawman to burn down of your own accord.
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
You can be pretty sure if you like but you’d be wrong. The British empire was a net drain on the public purse. Spanish was weird because they just looted silver from people without bothering to actually govern but as a rule empire has never been profitable. The looting part is fun but then the occupying bit is shit. The best way to do it is privatize the looting but nationalize the governing which is basically the pineapple example mentioned. Make bank from the resources and demand a bailout when the locals try to nationalize your shit.
Lets go through the listed empires one by one. Portugal, small, one sole land neighbout greatly more populous than it is, first European maritime empire, powerful enough not be utterly dominated by the then Castille, though diplomatic marriage played a part.
Spain which you wierdly acknowledge greatly prospered with it's empire then dismisses this, an empire allowed it to press European claims it otherwise could not had with the great wealth allowing Spain to hold massive and sophisticated armies of the time, as well as a large navy, influencing European politics greatly, though most notably affecting by fighting the rest of Europe at the same time. Twice. They lost though.
Netherlands, the birth of Netherlands against the then immense armies and navy of the Spanish army is also the birth of the Dutch Empire, which allowed the nation to accrue enough wealth over the course of about 80 years to not only survive but prosper against the behemoth of the Spanish Empire at the time, with mercenaries and forts brought by control of trade by the Dutch through their empire. The lowland rebellion that would become Netherlands if not for the wealth of the Dutch Empire; they are one and the same intrinsically linked at the time, navy and army funded by the Ducth Empire.
Britain, a long history but mostly speaking the wealth of Empire allowed a navy and a trained professional army as opposed to conscript army which was able to greatly interfere on the continent almost at will. Most obvious would be both world wars, being able to afford a navy that would not had existed without funds from empire, which essentially blockaded or otherwise exert sea control over almost the entirety of the Atlantic, North and Mediterrean sea and bringing hundreds of thousands of overseas troops, which otherwise would not have existed if not for empire.
Lets not forget the more recent examples of that period of the land empires of the Russian Empire and Chinese Empire, which through lands conquered greatly increased the wealth and power of their nation. Throughout the dawn of history, land was power and conquering land and being an empire was immensely profitable for the nation. It's not really debateable, as it is empire which always prospered and those that could not be locally powerful became vassals or were conquered in turn.
Some places were a drain on a martime Empire, mostly inland Africa which was for the most part only conquered during the relatively late Scramble for Africa period (often suprisingly cheap in terms of manpower), but in terms of monetary power and in military power, the true and most important expression of wealth from the viewpoint of nation, conquering land very much paid for themselves.
Of course all this is all totally irrelevant in the modern world, where wealth is no longer so much a matter of agriculture and natural resources and unlikely to be worthwhile, at least without essentially genociding the local population. Russia isn't seeking to occupy Ukraine for a notion of wealth, but for political and idealogical grounds. ____________________
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
These are the areas gained by each side since April 4th. Dark green is for Ukraine, dark red is for Russia. To me it's clear that Russia has gained a lot more ground in mostly one region, while Ukraine has gained a lot more ground in many regions. Overall it's even. But I'll let other people be the judge.
Still looks very much Russia has gained to me and very much so that Russia has gained far more important territory. Supposing that the area has remained the same ignores the importance of the occupied area, but makes for a nice story I guess. Great for morale boost, not useful for understand what has or is currently occuring. I'll note that the green areas are somewhat dubious as it seems especially for the region past Kherson to simply include any area that Russians have penetrated to, even if they never truly had control of the area, but I suppose such is the fog of war.
If as you say, Russian occupied areas gained is from withdrawing soldiers from other areas, that is an indication of Russia coordinating better rather than the early stages of the war. There's really isn't anything to gain by thinking Russians cannot learn. Afterall, Colonels ultimately do not want to die, and no commander, no matter how callous Russians seem, wants the men under their command to die and will be willing to adapt to acheive their objectives. Think I, like you, will leave those words and this topic at that.
___________
On July 07 2022 17:18 r00ty wrote: Just two thoughts: I don't think there is enough pressure on other oil producing countries to increase/maximize production. There should be more oversight and transparency for the companies, it seems like a giant cash grab atm. Oil/gas going down is what hurts the Putin regime the most.
Also, as one poster poited out a couple of weeks ago my country, its politicians and people are highly unrealistic about its production and consumption of energy. If we want all electric cars, Germany would have to at least triple its electric energy production. And on top the grid is not made for that, think people coming home from work to quick charge their electric cars at basically the same time. That peak would require an amount of battery capacity or an amount of regulators (power plants) that's not cost effective or even realistic considering we don't have that much space. It is possible with batteries and energy management systems in nearly every household but that will cost a bit.
I think that my government is still gambling on the Russian gas to be back soon and activating the 2 new Nordstream pipelines and the connected infrastructure as soon as possible. There is no real plan B. Unfortunately we're undermining
that by throwing money at Putin.
Saudi Arabia seem to be refusing to pump more oil, which is a remarkable contrast to the time when Iran was sanctioned, when Saudi Arabia opened their taps and almost bankrupted Russia and Venezuela as a side effect. Turns out Saudi Arabia does prefers to do as is beneficial to them, and in this case Saudi Arabia is enjoying the benefits of higher oil prices.
Exactly. And as if they don't have enough already. Billions upon billions of dollars are made on the backs of the Ukrainian people and by putting us all on the road to global recession. This could be ended without firing a bullet, but "the west" is too reliant on and toothless toward the autocrats in this world sitting on the oil and gas.
Belarus lol. If they send troops who is gonna control the people at home?
I wouldn't go so far as to say end the war without firing a bullet, but certainly if the other non-Russian OPEC members would pump more, it would be rather beneficial to Europe. Don't worry too much at throwing money at Putin though, when winter comes and Putin turns off the gas completely, there will be no money for putin either.
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
You can be pretty sure if you like but you’d be wrong. The British empire was a net drain on the public purse. Spanish was weird because they just looted silver from people without bothering to actually govern but as a rule empire has never been profitable. The looting part is fun but then the occupying bit is shit. The best way to do it is privatize the looting but nationalize the governing which is basically the pineapple example mentioned. Make bank from the resources and demand a bailout when the locals try to nationalize your shit.
Lets go through the listed empires one by one. Portugal, small, one sole land neighbout greatly more populous than it is, first European maritime empire, powerful enough not be utterly dominated by the then Castille, though diplomatic marriage played a part.
Spain which you wierdly acknowledge greatly prospered with it's empire then dismisses this, an empire allowed it to press European claims it otherwise could not had with the great wealth allowing Spain to hold massive and sophisticated armies of the time, as well as a large navy, influencing European politics greatly, though most notably affecting by fighting the rest of Europe at the same time. Twice. They lost though.
Netherlands, the birth of Netherlands against the then immense armies and navy of the Spanish army is also the birth of the Dutch Empire, which allowed the nation to accrue enough wealth over the course of about 80 years to not only survive but prosper against the behemoth of the Spanish Empire at the time, with mercenaries and forts brought by control of trade by the Dutch through their empire. The lowland rebellion that would become Netherlands if not for the wealth of the Dutch Empire; they are one and the same intrinsically linked at the time, navy and army funded by the Ducth Empire.
Britain, a long history but mostly speaking the wealth of Empire allowed a navy and a trained professional army as opposed to conscript army which was able to greatly interfere on the continent almost at will. Most obvious would be both world wars, being able to afford a navy that would not had existed without funds from empire, which essentially blockaded or otherwise exert sea control over almost the entirety of the Atlantic, North and Mediterrean sea and bringing hundreds of thousands of overseas troops, which otherwise would not have existed if not for empire.
Lets not forget the more recent examples of that period of the land empires of the Russian Empire and Chinese Empire, which through lands conquered greatly increased the wealth and power of their nation. Throughout the dawn of history, land was power and conquering land and being an empire was immensely profitable for the nation. It's not really debateable, as it is empire which always prospered and those that could not be locally powerful became vassals or were conquered in turn.
Some places were a drain on a martime Empire, mostly inland Africa which was for the most part only conquered during the relatively late Scramble for Africa period (often suprisingly cheap in terms of manpower), but in terms of monetary power and in military power, the true and most important expression of wealth from the viewpoint of nation, conquering land very much paid for themselves.
Of course all this is all totally irrelevant in the modern world, where wealth is no longer so much a matter of agriculture and natural resources and unlikely to be worthwhile, at least without essentially genociding the local population. Russia isn't seeking to occupy Ukraine for a notion of wealth, but for political and idealogical grounds. ____________________
On July 07 2022 15:41 Magic Powers wrote:
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
These are the areas gained by each side since April 4th. Dark green is for Ukraine, dark red is for Russia. To me it's clear that Russia has gained a lot more ground in mostly one region, while Ukraine has gained a lot more ground in many regions. Overall it's even. But I'll let other people be the judge.
Still looks very much Russia has gained to me and very much so that Russia has gained far more important territory. Supposing that the area has remained the same ignores the importance of the occupied area, but makes for a nice story I guess. Great for morale boost, not useful for understand what has or is currently occuring. I'll note that the green areas are somewhat dubious as it seems especially for the region past Kherson to simply include any area that Russians have penetrated to, even if they never truly had control of the area, but I suppose such is the fog of war.
If as you say, Russian occupied areas gained is from withdrawing soldiers from other areas, that is an indication of Russia coordinating better rather than the early stages of the war. There's really isn't anything to gain by thinking Russians cannot learn. Afterall, Colonels ultimately do not want to die, and no commander, no matter how callous Russians seem, wants the men under their command to die and will be willing to adapt to acheive their objectives. Think I, like you, will leave those words and this topic at that.
___________
On July 07 2022 17:18 r00ty wrote: Just two thoughts: I don't think there is enough pressure on other oil producing countries to increase/maximize production. There should be more oversight and transparency for the companies, it seems like a giant cash grab atm. Oil/gas going down is what hurts the Putin regime the most.
Also, as one poster poited out a couple of weeks ago my country, its politicians and people are highly unrealistic about its production and consumption of energy. If we want all electric cars, Germany would have to at least triple its electric energy production. And on top the grid is not made for that, think people coming home from work to quick charge their electric cars at basically the same time. That peak would require an amount of battery capacity or an amount of regulators (power plants) that's not cost effective or even realistic considering we don't have that much space. It is possible with batteries and energy management systems in nearly every household but that will cost a bit.
I think that my government is still gambling on the Russian gas to be back soon and activating the 2 new Nordstream pipelines and the connected infrastructure as soon as possible. There is no real plan B. Unfortunately we're undermining
that by throwing money at Putin.
Saudi Arabia seem to be refusing to pump more oil, which is a remarkable contrast to the time when Iran was sanctioned, when Saudi Arabia opened their taps and almost bankrupted Russia and Venezuela as a side effect. Turns out Saudi Arabia does prefers to do as is beneficial to them, and in this case Saudi Arabia is enjoying the benefits of higher oil prices.
No. Your argument essentially runs “Britain had an empire and also Britain could afford an empire therefore the empire paid for itself”. It just doesn’t follow. It never paid for itself.
No, I pretty much explicitly wrote Britain could afford a navy and army that could influence continental Europe that it wouldn't had been able to if not for empire. But hey create a strawman to burn down of your own accord.
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
You can be pretty sure if you like but you’d be wrong. The British empire was a net drain on the public purse. Spanish was weird because they just looted silver from people without bothering to actually govern but as a rule empire has never been profitable. The looting part is fun but then the occupying bit is shit. The best way to do it is privatize the looting but nationalize the governing which is basically the pineapple example mentioned. Make bank from the resources and demand a bailout when the locals try to nationalize your shit.
Lets go through the listed empires one by one. Portugal, small, one sole land neighbout greatly more populous than it is, first European maritime empire, powerful enough not be utterly dominated by the then Castille, though diplomatic marriage played a part.
Spain which you wierdly acknowledge greatly prospered with it's empire then dismisses this, an empire allowed it to press European claims it otherwise could not had with the great wealth allowing Spain to hold massive and sophisticated armies of the time, as well as a large navy, influencing European politics greatly, though most notably affecting by fighting the rest of Europe at the same time. Twice. They lost though.
Netherlands, the birth of Netherlands against the then immense armies and navy of the Spanish army is also the birth of the Dutch Empire, which allowed the nation to accrue enough wealth over the course of about 80 years to not only survive but prosper against the behemoth of the Spanish Empire at the time, with mercenaries and forts brought by control of trade by the Dutch through their empire. The lowland rebellion that would become Netherlands if not for the wealth of the Dutch Empire; they are one and the same intrinsically linked at the time, navy and army funded by the Ducth Empire.
Britain, a long history but mostly speaking the wealth of Empire allowed a navy and a trained professional army as opposed to conscript army which was able to greatly interfere on the continent almost at will. Most obvious would be both world wars, being able to afford a navy that would not had existed without funds from empire, which essentially blockaded or otherwise exert sea control over almost the entirety of the Atlantic, North and Mediterrean sea and bringing hundreds of thousands of overseas troops, which otherwise would not have existed if not for empire.
Lets not forget the more recent examples of that period of the land empires of the Russian Empire and Chinese Empire, which through lands conquered greatly increased the wealth and power of their nation. Throughout the dawn of history, land was power and conquering land and being an empire was immensely profitable for the nation. It's not really debateable, as it is empire which always prospered and those that could not be locally powerful became vassals or were conquered in turn.
Some places were a drain on a martime Empire, mostly inland Africa which was for the most part only conquered during the relatively late Scramble for Africa period (often suprisingly cheap in terms of manpower), but in terms of monetary power and in military power, the true and most important expression of wealth from the viewpoint of nation, conquering land very much paid for themselves.
Of course all this is all totally irrelevant in the modern world, where wealth is no longer so much a matter of agriculture and natural resources and unlikely to be worthwhile, at least without essentially genociding the local population. Russia isn't seeking to occupy Ukraine for a notion of wealth, but for political and idealogical grounds. ____________________
On July 07 2022 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Pretty sure the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British Empire pretty much paid for themselves, in that all of those respective empires at their height could afford more military to defend their homeland and influence their local area that is Europe which is the point of "wealth" from the standpoint of a country. ______________
On July 05 2022 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't know why you are all acting so suprised that Russia is capable of taking a city that has been slowly encircled for weeks, when I did say they are learning lessons and their army is coordinating over a month ago. Can't remember where I got this from, but it was reported that Russia is throwing about 50 thousand artillery shells a day. This sounds like a lot, and it is if if you are in the target area, but for point of comparison WW1 could see a million shells on certain days. There is no chance Russia will run into supply issues as long as Ukraine cannot strike deep into Russian supply points and Russia keeps its slow rate of advance.
Russia hasn't learned much of a lesson then, as they've only claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, and in the process they've depleted a lot of their arsenal. Russia is already facing supply issues, and has been for weeks at least.
For us to misunderstand the situation would mean that Russia has been significantly holding back so far, which is certainly not the case, with the exception of the nuclear option. They're factually incapable of meaningfully striking deeper into Ukraine. They've directed their fire onto certain regions more than others, resulting in a success like encircling Severodonetsk and Lysychansk and that whole region, while at the same time relinguishing control over numerous other regions that nobody has spoken about in recent weeks, but it's been happening continuously.
My assumption would be that Russia, in order to have that one success, ordered a reduction of manpower in those other regions. So as has been said a few times, claiming territory is one thing, but holding it is another, and I guess that's especially true during an offensive war. Hence why I'd consider this phase the special stalling operations.
I don't see how you can say Russia has claimed as much ground as they've surrendered, when Russia occupies whole areas of Ukraine whereas, Ukraine controls none of Russia's territory.
Or perhaps you meant from some indeterminate point of time, in which case you'll have to provide a date, preferably but not neccessarily from within a month ago, so it makes some sort of sense. Then we can compare. Some areas nearby Kharkiv has been regained, but the importance of such pales in comparison to the territory Russia now occupies. The difference in the area, and of the importance of the two cities is a far bigger gain than a few towns and villages, both in the area, and of former population sense and in strategical and logistical sense, as cities are always on major roads and crossroads, far more defensible than villages and farmland, and make for good places to store supplies.
As to the rest, it is as you admit, a bunch of assumptions. Hopeful assumptions which I share the intention of, but thoughts and prayers will not help Ukraine.
A few weeks ago I posted a comparison of the battle lines. The starting point was after Russia had withdrawn from the North, because I wanted to show how much progress Russia was able to make in the weeks/months since. There was no overall progress, the lines had shifted in both directions about equally. Recently I've made another comparison, but this time I didn't post it because it was the same conclusion of no overall progress. I can post it though so you can compare them.
As you can see, in the Severodonetsk region Russia has made significant progress. But if you compare the entire front, Ukraine has pushed back in many other regions. In total it's roughly equal on both sides. This is how I drew my conclusion of Ukraine successfully stalling, and it's why I'm optimistic about Ukraine eventually being able to push Russia back to the borders, unless of course Putin escalates and goes nuclear. Unfortunately I think it's quite likely that it'll take years because Ukrainians are mostly fighting alone. But who knows what'll happen, it's too early to call a definitive outcome.
I opened up the two pictures in new tabs, copied them into another image program for direct comparison and it looks like Russia has gained more area overall. Even if we were to accept your premise that the area of occupied territory between those two points in time are the same, the area Russia has gained is incomparable in logistical and strategic worth for reasons I had previously outlined.
These are the areas gained by each side since April 4th. Dark green is for Ukraine, dark red is for Russia. To me it's clear that Russia has gained a lot more ground in mostly one region, while Ukraine has gained a lot more ground in many regions. Overall it's even. But I'll let other people be the judge.
Still looks very much Russia has gained to me and very much so that Russia has gained far more important territory. Supposing that the area has remained the same ignores the importance of the occupied area, but makes for a nice story I guess. Great for morale boost, not useful for understand what has or is currently occuring. I'll note that the green areas are somewhat dubious as it seems especially for the region past Kherson to simply include any area that Russians have penetrated to, even if they never truly had control of the area, but I suppose such is the fog of war.
If as you say, Russian occupied areas gained is from withdrawing soldiers from other areas, that is an indication of Russia coordinating better rather than the early stages of the war. There's really isn't anything to gain by thinking Russians cannot learn. Afterall, Colonels ultimately do not want to die, and no commander, no matter how callous Russians seem, wants the men under their command to die and will be willing to adapt to acheive their objectives. Think I, like you, will leave those words and this topic at that.
___________
On July 07 2022 17:18 r00ty wrote: Just two thoughts: I don't think there is enough pressure on other oil producing countries to increase/maximize production. There should be more oversight and transparency for the companies, it seems like a giant cash grab atm. Oil/gas going down is what hurts the Putin regime the most.
Also, as one poster poited out a couple of weeks ago my country, its politicians and people are highly unrealistic about its production and consumption of energy. If we want all electric cars, Germany would have to at least triple its electric energy production. And on top the grid is not made for that, think people coming home from work to quick charge their electric cars at basically the same time. That peak would require an amount of battery capacity or an amount of regulators (power plants) that's not cost effective or even realistic considering we don't have that much space. It is possible with batteries and energy management systems in nearly every household but that will cost a bit.
I think that my government is still gambling on the Russian gas to be back soon and activating the 2 new Nordstream pipelines and the connected infrastructure as soon as possible. There is no real plan B. Unfortunately we're undermining
that by throwing money at Putin.
Saudi Arabia seem to be refusing to pump more oil, which is a remarkable contrast to the time when Iran was sanctioned, when Saudi Arabia opened their taps and almost bankrupted Russia and Venezuela as a side effect. Turns out Saudi Arabia does prefers to do as is beneficial to them, and in this case Saudi Arabia is enjoying the benefits of higher oil prices.
Exactly. And as if they don't have enough already. Billions upon billions of dollars are made on the backs of the Ukrainian people and by putting us all on the road to global recession. This could be ended without firing a bullet, but "the west" is too reliant on and toothless toward the autocrats in this world sitting on the oil and gas.
Belarus lol. If they send troops who is gonna control the people at home?
I wouldn't go so far as to say end the war without firing a bullet, but certainly if the other non-Russian OPEC members would pump more, it would be rather beneficial to Europe. Don't worry too much at throwing money at Putin though, when winter comes and Putin turns off the gas completely, there will be no money for putin either.
The question is how and when Ukrainians will attempt to take that bridge out, rather than if. Russians are aware of that and already deployed countermeasures (radar disruption and smoke generators) let's see what happens now. Taking out that bridge would certainly, be a victory for Ukraine.
Why would Ukraine waste their time blowing up a bridge that has very little strategic significance ? Russia already has land access to Crimea. Unless they push the russian army away from southern Ukraine completely, which is not happening this year, blowing this bridge up is pointless. The media coverage of this war is too sensational for my likings. I'm tired of reading titles claiming that "X will turn the war". First the M777 artillery, then the 8 or so HIMARS artillery systems, now some random bridge, next God knows.
On July 10 2022 00:33 Vinekh wrote: Why would Ukraine waste their time blowing up a bridge that has very little strategic significance ? Russia already has land access to Crimea. Unless they push the russian army away from southern Ukraine completely, which is not happening this year, blowing this bridge up is pointless. The media coverage of this war is too sensational for my likings. I'm tired of reading titles claiming that "X will turn the war". First the M777 artillery, then the 8 or so HIMARS artillery systems, now some random bridge, next God knows.
I guess I'll repeat myself and the article. Because it is of some strategic importance (straight lines are shorter) and it is of huge symbolic importance (it is a huge visual and expensive symbol that Russia controls Crimea).
Cool story for the media. I understand them. They have to produce sensational titles that will bring clicks every day on topic that is, most of the time, extremely boring. Still, this one is absurd (the idea and the article itself). They are proposing that somehow Ukrainian forces should fly bombers 250+ km into Russian territory, somehow unnoticed I guess. Someone had an enlightenment while watching Top gun.
Ukraine doesn't have the means and I'm pretty sure the desire to destroy that bridge.
Yeah. That's why every analyst out there mentioned it and Russians deployed countermeasures to protect the bridge. Because it does not have strategic importance. Stop trolling.
On July 09 2022 23:57 Silvanel wrote: The question is how and when Ukrainians will attempt to take that bridge out, rather than if. Russians are aware of that and already deployed countermeasures (radar disruption and smoke generators) let's see what happens now. Taking out that bridge would certainly, be a victory for Ukraine.
All defensive systems deployed there long time ago (even before the bridge was ready for usage).
Ok, disregarding any war impact it is still one of the most expensive while still nearby landmarks. Building it cost around 3.5 Billion USD. Of course it won't be as expensive to repair but you are still talking about a very large return on a successful hit. It would also require longer distance transports that adds logistical strain and extra costs. So hitting it would probably end up costing Russia around 1 Billion USD but not impact the war result.
![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/2yKc7bw1/Stand-4-April-2022-Green-Line-overlay.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/v7dM3Z6.png)
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/1tmGVGn0/Stand-4-April-2022.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/QCVc0jqH/Stand-05-Juli-2022.png)
