Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 736
Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
![]()
2Pacalypse-
Croatia9476 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
On October 03 2024 23:53 zatic wrote: I would be very careful with statements like this. If true, it says that Russia might not be able to continue the war as it has until now. It does not mean Russia can't or won't continue the war. It just means the Russian leadership will have to chose where to make cuts to continue paying for the war. And unfortunately I don't believe anything else has priority over the destruction of Ukraine for Putin. Nor do I believe any misery he will bring to his own people will cause enough pressure to scale back or stop the war. Good callout. It’s like the “they’re running out of missiles” news from a year ago. It doesn’t mean no missiles, it means that once the stockpile is depleted they’re down to firing at the rate of production which is something that can be scaled if the necessary trade offs are made. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17197 Posts
On October 03 2024 23:53 zatic wrote: I would be very careful with statements like this. If true, it says that Russia might not be able to continue the war as it has until now. It does not mean Russia can't or won't continue the war. It just means the Russian leadership will have to chose where to make cuts to continue paying for the war. And unfortunately I don't believe anything else has priority over the destruction of Ukraine for Putin. Nor do I believe any misery he will bring to his own people will cause enough pressure to scale back or stop the war. True, but more and more reports are coming in that the situation is actually pretty dire for the Russians. Their losses increase year by year so their expenditure into war has to also increase while their economy is slowing down. They're also running low on equipment as seen in this charts: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FnfGcdqah5Et_6wElhiFfoDxEzxczh7AP2ovjEFV010/edit?gid=0#gid=0 It doesn't really matter if they have infinite manpower and are willing to fight the war to the bitter end if they don't have anything left to fight the war with. Most of their modern equipment has already been lost, they still have big stocks of very old stuff like T-64 and first generation T-72 tanks but those are probably in terrible condition and it's not clear how many can actually be repurposed for battlefield duties. In the military it's said that a unit loses it's fighting capability after suffering about 30% casualties. It's similar with equipment and from the data it seems like in most categories Russia has lost 50-70% of their land-based equipment (tanks, IFVs, artillery). In any case, it doesn't look great for them in case of a protracted conflict. Especially that with their tactics any territory they capture is reduced to rubble so you're not gaining any actual infrastructure or anything that could help recoup your losses. Ukraine is also pretty beat up but with the support from the West if they can just hold on for a bit longer Russia will most likely either sue for peace or fold and collapse itself. | ||
Excludos
Norway7954 Posts
On October 04 2024 00:01 2Pacalypse- wrote: Yes, what zatic said. The perun video I linked earlier concludes the same thing. The war is definitely hurting Russia, a lot, but they can fight this war for much longer than 2025, if they(Putin) so chooses. However, it is true that the current intensity of fighting is not maintainable. So the economic issues might be a trigger for a big change in the war, but it's definitely not set in stone if and when that will happen. This is entirely true. But it's worth mentioning that this is what it takes for Russia to fight the war as they currently are; pretty much on equal grounds with Ukraine. Ukraine is unlikely to need to step down their performance, provided the west keeps up their support. So it's a lose-lose situation for Russia. They won't be able to hold on if they cut their spendings, but simultaneously they won't be able to continue as they are. Barring any new left-field development in this conflict, Russia is in for a world of issues come late 2025 | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
| ||
Billyboy
472 Posts
So I agree that who knows when or if they will run out of money, but what is certain is that Russia is in a worse position than it was before the war and at some point fairly soon that reality is going to start coming to the people of Russia. And it is going to get harder and harder for them to explain why all their sons are going off to die to make the country poorer. Edit: they have also crushed their own military export business. | ||
![]()
2Pacalypse-
Croatia9476 Posts
On October 04 2024 01:17 Billyboy wrote: The Russian war chest shrinking from 183Bn to 55bn from the start of the war to now is pretty telling. Especially when you consider that as a pariah state it will be really hard for them to get loans. Generally if a country made the massive investment they could expect a revenue from it, but almost all the Russian investment has been for things that explode in the Ukraine. Like if someone spent 1 m on a new machine for their factory or 1m on a fireworks show celebrating their business, sure they both spend 1m but one has a expected pay back and one was for ego. None of this massive investment Russia is making is going to have a payback and that is even before you get into the man power they lost, and they people they are losing are basically the most productive people in your society. So I agree that who knows when or if they will run out of money, but what is certain is that Russia is in a worse position than it was before the war and at some point fairly soon that reality is going to start coming to the people of Russia. And it is going to get harder and harder for them to explain why all their sons are going off to die to make the country poorer. Edit: they have also crushed their own military export business. To be fair, they did get a pretty sizeable and resource-rich chunk of land. Whether they can hold on to it remains to be seen though. | ||
Billyboy
472 Posts
On October 04 2024 01:24 2Pacalypse- wrote: To be fair, they did get a pretty sizeable and resource-rich chunk of land. Whether they can hold on to it remains to be seen though. That is true, but Russia takes cities by leveling them. So how much more investment will it be to unlock those resources? And how long until they can sell them? And then who will be willing to buy them and at what discount? If anyone was trying to do some sort of ROI or payback calculation I have trouble believing that it will a positive while anyone in power now is still alive, and that is if they "win". | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
The value of the land to Russia is in ensuring that Ukraine doesn't succeed, not in helping Russia succeed. If access to plentiful natural resources, good soil, and friendly nearby trading partners were enough to make Russia succeed then it wouldn't look the way it does. | ||
Simberto
Germany11338 Posts
On October 04 2024 00:40 Gorsameth wrote: Yeah I can appreciate articles about how the war is affect Russia and its stockpiles but anything about "X runs out by Y" is just useless crap. We know countries can keep going on fumes for a long time and there are all sorts of ways to draw out what are supposedly the current reserves. Indeed. Modern countries can keep war going for a very long time. Yes, it is painful, yes, it ruins the industry at home in the long term, and yes, people in the country suffer. But that doesn't stop a country from keeping a war going. Germany in 1939 almost certainly had a weaker economy than Russia in 2022. And yet it could keep fighting a disastrous and expensive war for 6 years. We should be very careful to not compare a war economy with a peacetime economy. In war, a country is absolutely willing to make tradeoffs for the future that it wouldn't do at peace. Because losing the war is even more expensive. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17197 Posts
Russian production (despite being ramped up heavily) is unable to meet the demand. Too much corruption and wrong overall setup. | ||
Slydie
1899 Posts
https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/russia-still-second-largest-gas-provider-eu-after-norway-lng-imports-increasing Russia obviously played this out very well, knowing that the EU had no viable alternatives, and the EU is willing to fund both sides of the war, as long as they get the cheap energy they need. I just watched another documentary about blocking their oil exports destroyed Iraq as a country. The west know perfectly well how effective this can be, but they are refusing to in this case. Does anyone know some more details about this weird game of energy, territory and power? | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
On October 06 2024 05:57 Slydie wrote: Because support for the war among the population drops real fast when gas prices just keep on rising and rising and as a result bring everything else up in price as well.This is talked about far too little. The EU has a lion's share of the responsability for this war not ending by financing it through continued gas imports. Words are one thing, action is another, and the gas keeps flowing, partly through Ukraine! https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/russia-still-second-largest-gas-provider-eu-after-norway-lng-imports-increasing Russia obviously played this out very well, knowing that the EU had no viable alternatives, and the EU is willing to fund both sides of the war, as long as they get the cheap energy they need. I just watched another documentary about blocking their oil exports destroyed Iraq as a country. The west know perfectly well how effective this can be, but they are refusing to in this case. Does anyone know some more details about this weird game of energy, territory and power? People already got into financial trouble during the first winter and governments had to jump in to stop it spiralling out of control. There is only so much hardship people are willing to endure for a conflict happening on the other side of the continent. Even if the result of that conflict has a direct impact on future stability. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17197 Posts
| ||
Lmui
Canada6208 Posts
On October 07 2024 05:32 Manit0u wrote: Unfortunately a lot of Europe runs on natural gas and it's impossible to just cut it off, especially when Russia was providing the vast majority of it. At least the current situation has opened up some of the countries' eyes to the fact that they should probably look towards diversifying their sources of gas. It's not like they aren't trying either: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62564 ![]() Dropping gas consumption by almost ~20% in two years is an incredible feat for a continent. It's going to take a lot of work, Europe’s natural gas pipeline receipts from Russia declined by 58% (6.3 Bcf/d) in 2022 and 89% (9.7 Bcf/d) in 2023, compared with the 2021 annual average. Europe has primarily used liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports to offset reduced imports from Russia. I wouldn't be surprised to see those numbers continue to decline over the next two years. This is billions of dollars of supply chain migration, it's not something you can snap your fingers and change. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
On October 07 2024 06:03 Lmui wrote: It's not like they aren't trying either: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62564 ![]() Dropping gas consumption by almost ~20% in two years is an incredible feat for a continent. It's going to take a lot of work, I wouldn't be surprised to see those numbers continue to decline over the next two years. This is billions of dollars of supply chain migration, it's not something you can snap your fingers and change. We could do more, though: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Can-Europe-Survive-Winter-Without-Russian-Gas-Experts-Weigh-In.html#:~:text=Analysts argue that completely cutting,demand and overcome regulatory challenges. Basically we just need to get our shit together (politically). One analysis finds we could just close the tap and be completely fine. The other finds that we'd have to reduce our dependency on gas even further, although the way I understand that, we'd have enough reserves already for the upcoming winter, so we'd have another year to fix that dependency once and for all, which should be doable. | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
On October 07 2024 06:36 Acrofales wrote: We could do more, though: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Can-Europe-Survive-Winter-Without-Russian-Gas-Experts-Weigh-In.html#:~:text=Analysts argue that completely cutting,demand and overcome regulatory challenges. Basically we just need to get our shit together (politically). One analysis finds we could just close the tap and be completely fine. The other finds that we'd have to reduce our dependency on gas even further, although the way I understand that, we'd have enough reserves already for the upcoming winter, so we'd have another year to fix that dependency once and for all, which should be doable. The main conclusion is that the EU could not only go through the next winter without Russian gas, but it could also do so without having to experience economic catastrophe. However, for this to happen, Europe would have to overcome severe technical and regulatory challenges and also slash its annual demand for natural gas by 10-15% as no amount of non-Russian imports would be enough to sufficiently refill storages ahead of the next winter. Just get everyone to agree on a whole bunch of issues and cut 15% of demand. ezWe should continuously work to reduce our dependency on gas in general and Russia in particular but its a lot easier to do some research and say "X Y Z should based on our research manage it" compared to actually doing it in real time when failure has rather bad economic consequences. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
On October 07 2024 06:43 Gorsameth wrote: Just get everyone to agree on a whole bunch of issues and cut 15% of demand. ez We should continuously work to reduce our dependency on gas in general and Russia in particular but its a lot easier to do some research and say "X Y Z should based on our research manage it" compared to actually doing it in real time when failure has rather bad economic consequences. Assuming no diminishing returns, cutting gas consumption by 20% since 2022 means we could cut that 10-15% by winter 2025, meaning we could essentially close the tap from Russia right now if we also cut through the red tape that analysis mentions. We'd need a plan for that reduction to happen orderly and in an assured way, and it's obviously risky, but it definitely seems doable. Of course, with the current paralysis in European decision making, there's nobody remotely willing to prioritize it. But that's a fair criticism of Europe. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
| ||
Manit0u
Poland17197 Posts
![]() I wonder how the Russians are representing their territorial gains over the years... | ||
| ||