Werthead Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Russia's Baltic Sea Fleet has managed to sink a Russian fishing trawler by accident during a live fire exercise. At least three people on the trawler Captain Lobanov were killed. A heavy missile strike on Kyiv. The Ukrainians are claiming 100% interception rate but falling debris caused significant damage. Some sources claiming multiple Kinzhal hypersonics were intercepted and destroyed, others just one. Some indications that the Kovalchuk Brothers have fallen out with Igor Sechin, the Rosneft energy chief. These are some of Putin's closest advisors and members of the inner circle (or, if not, are at least knocking on the door of the inner circle). The three have apparently clashed over their nominations for the post-election reshuffle. Sechin's son Ivan died last month in weird circumstances (he spontaneously suffocated and fell unconscious, then his bodyguard gave the wrong address to the ambulance, which took two hours to reach him, by which time he was dead at 35). At least some Russian formations have diverted from reinforcing the front in Ukraine to instead reinforce Belgorod, but have not yet amassed enough forces to counter-attack the partisans, who continue to attack targets in Belgorod and Kursk oblasts. The partisans apparently engaged Russian forces in Kozinka and eliminated them, but discovered they'd just called for reinforcements, so they set a trap which successful engaged and destroyed the rescue team. Reportedly this was a GRU Spetsnaz Rescue Team (2nd Detached Special Forces Brigade), which if true would be quite a scalp. Even Ukraine is treating that claim with scepticism. The CDU believes that Scholz will fold on supplying Taurus to Ukraine, but couldn't guess on the timescale. The Institute for the Study of War is pretty conservative in its reporting, but it has expressed concerns over the plans to form new Russian army units in western and north-western Russia. It believes these units have zero reason to exist other than for offensive action against NATO member countries. It does not believe the threat is imminent but could become a major issue in three to four years, especially if Russia is successful in Ukraine. However, it notes significant demography problems in Russia that makes standing up new large militarised formations from scratch problematic. Arakasi, Ser Reptitious, wiedzma and 4 others 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 13 minutes ago, Werthead said: The Institute for the Study of War is pretty conservative in its reporting, but it has expressed concerns over the plans to form new Russian army units in western and north-western Russia. It believes these units have zero reason to exist other than for offensive action against NATO member countries. It does not believe the threat is imminent but could become a major issue in three to four years, especially if Russia is successful in Ukraine. However, it notes significant demography problems in Russia that makes standing up new large militarised formations from scratch problematic. So, from what I've read recently, it seems like Ukraine's greatest moment of danger is the next six months. IF the US can wrangle out a 2024 funding deal, then Ukraine will have sufficient shells and weapons to make it through 2024, at which point European production (and the Ukrainian domestic industry) will have finally caught up and be able to fight at least defensively for as long as the financial support remains in Europe. Whether the US can actually get something passed is still very much up in the air, it seems like the optimists remain optimistic and the pessimists remain pessimistic, but if it's gonna happen it will be fairly soon. What happens if the US doesn't give any further support is a lot messier, since air/missile defenses in particular are going to start running out. However, I still somewhat struggle to imagine a scenario where the Russian army is capable of making a strong account for itself in 2028 against an alliance of the strongly anti-Russia EU nations (even assuming the US is fully isolationist and tacitly pro-Russia). The balance of forces is really bad right now for Russia, and with much of EU rearming to face Russian aggression, it will be even worse in 3-4 years. Werthead 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 2 hours ago, Werthead said: The Institute for the Study of War is pretty conservative in its reporting, but it has expressed concerns over the plans to form new Russian army units in western and north-western Russia. It believes these units have zero reason to exist other than for offensive action against NATO member countries. It does not believe the threat is imminent but could become a major issue in three to four years, especially if Russia is successful in Ukraine. However, it notes significant demography problems in Russia that makes standing up new large militarised formations from scratch problematic. Was coming to post that too - more information about their assessment here: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-20-2024 Quote Putin is likely attempting to set conditions to stabilize Russia’s long-term financial position at a higher level of government expenditure and is signaling that Russia’s long-term financial stability will require imposing at least some pain on some wealthy industrialist siloviki (Russian strongmen with political influence). Putin likely understands that financial crackdowns against industrialist siloviki could risk the political rapport Putin has built with them and is trying to mitigate those consequences. Russia does not appear to be facing imminent financial crisis, and increased military spending has been the most significant change in Russian budgetary policy, so efforts to secure Russia’s financial future are much more likely intended to set long-term conditions than to address immediate financial concerns.[5] Russia continues efforts to circumvent international sanctions, and the International Monetary Fund assessed that Russia’s GDP will grow by 2.6 percent in 2024 and reported that Russia’s GDP grew faster than all Group of Seven (G7) countries’ economies in 2023.[6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Was coming to post that too - more information about their assessment here: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-20-2024 '[5] Russia continues efforts to circumvent international sanctions, and the International Monetary Fund assessed that Russia’s GDP will grow by 2.6 percent in 2024 and reported that Russia’s GDP grew faster than all Group of Seven (G7) countries’ economies in 2023.' And Russia is allegedly out of easy oil too. Absolute horseshit, but there's economies to bolster for elections all over I guess [rolls eyes] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toth Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 7 hours ago, JGP said: Absolute horseshit, but there's economies to bolster for elections all over I guess [rolls eyes] I also raised my eyebrows at that. Sure, on paper I'm certain switching to a war economy looks like it increases the economy, but if all that new industrial output ends up burning in Ukraine, it then doesn't mean anything in the long run except that you are bleeding money. Darzin and JGP 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loge Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Toth said: I also raised my eyebrows at that. Sure, on paper I'm certain switching to a war economy looks like it increases the economy, but if all that new industrial output ends up burning in Ukraine, it then doesn't mean anything in the long run except that you are bleeding money. That's a weakness of GDP as a measure of wealth. It measures production, but not loss of assets through wear and tear. Neither does it count the depletion of natural resources. DireWolfSpirit and wiedzma 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Toth said: I also raised my eyebrows at that. Sure, on paper I'm certain switching to a war economy looks like it increases the economy, but if all that new industrial output ends up burning in Ukraine, it then doesn't mean anything in the long run except that you are bleeding money. I think a lot of Western analysis is too focused on the paper rather than the actual materials that paper can be used for. During the initial stage of the ware a lot Western analysis was too optimistic about the chances of Russian failure focusing on the low GDP rather than Russia's production abilities and stores. Money is nice but in the end it's the material reality of machines and people making stuff that affects the war. Now this is the opposite. This GDP growth is not healthy economic growth. A Horse Named Stranger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Hurricanes are good for GDP. That basically tells you all you need to know about using GDP as a proxy for economic strength. Tongue Stuck to Wall 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 Not surprisingly the US is asking Ukraine to stop bombing refineries due to the global economic impact: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/22/-russia-ukraine-live-updates.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 6 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Not surprisingly the US is asking Ukraine to stop bombing refineries due to the global economic impact: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/22/-russia-ukraine-live-updates.html I'm sure that Ukraine would be happy to stop bombing refineries for a mere $40 billion in assistance. Prince of the North, Bironic, Ser Reptitious and 5 others 6 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Today's missile attacks on Ukraine were expected - Russia has been hoarding weapons for months - but may have been a strategic mistake. The Ukrainian military was bracing for attacks on fortified positions and possibly munitions factories, airfields and so on. Russia bombing energy infrastructure right now, rather than at the start of winter, is unlikely to be as effective, and Ukraine has a lot of energy infrastructure spare parts stockpiled as they'd been anticipating this back in November. Still a hard hit, with a million people out of power for most of the day. 27 minutes ago, Maithanet said: I'm sure that Ukraine would be happy to stop bombing refineries for a mere $40 billion in assistance. This is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 12 hours ago, Toth said: I also raised my eyebrows at that. Sure, on paper I'm certain switching to a war economy looks like it increases the economy, but if all that new industrial output ends up burning in Ukraine, it then doesn't mean anything in the long run except that you are bleeding money. Oh, I get it. I advocated from go a complete embargo on all Russian petrochemical products, but international resolve to really punish Russia financially turned out to be as soft as cookie dough. I just get angry sometimes. Edited March 22 by JGP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 4 hours ago, Maithanet said: Hurricanes are good for GDP. That basically tells you all you need to know about using GDP as a proxy for economic strength. At the same time Russia is building significant power in munition and weapon creation. It might be at the cost of domestic production - hard to say, honestly - but it's very clear that they are successfully increasing their abilities to build up their military strength. Will that result in happiness for people? Probably not! Will it result in Russia both being more resilient to Western sanctions and being more powerful militarily? Yep! No matter what I think it's absolutely clear that the western sanctions against Russia have been a major failure in doing anything like what they were supposed to achieve, and they point out how ineffective sanctions as a tool can be when you're a large petrostate with a lot of connections around the world. They're probably good against things like Cuba or Venezuela but have very strong limits. JGP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Not clear if this is actually directly related to Ukraine, but I guess it belongs here for now. Serious attack at a concert hall in Moscow.https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-68642036?src_origin=BBCS_BBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 29 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Not clear if this is actually directly related to Ukraine, but I guess it belongs here for now. Serious attack at a concert hall in Moscow.https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-68642036?src_origin=BBCS_BBC That sounds like a false flag to justify something ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: That sounds like a false flag to justify something ugly. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's also way too early and too easy to reach for that. Terrorism within Russia is quite common. Also I'm not really sure Putin really feels he needs a false flag. Edited March 22 by polishgenius Maithanet and Ser Scot A Ellison 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 11 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Also I'm not really sure Putin really feels he needs a false flag. I mean, 88% of Russians clearly love him! JGP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 15 minutes ago, polishgenius said: I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's also way too early and too easy to reach for that. Terrorism within Russia is quite common. Also I'm not really sure Putin really feels he needs a false flag. Yeah, way too early to assert that it's a false flag operation. Unless I'm missing something, no one has been blamed yet for the attack, at least not in the live report thread that you linked. Week 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 9 minutes ago, DMC said: I mean, 88% of Russians clearly love him! I think one of the more dangerous things that US and western democracies do is believe that if someone lives in an authoritarian environment that they don't actually like it and want More Freedom. It's very likely that he's not as popular as that in Russia, but it's also very likely that he is very popular and their society is closer to what they want to do than the freedom one. Darzin and cock_merchant 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: I think one of the more dangerous things that US and western democracies do is believe that if someone lives in an authoritarian environment that they don't actually like it and want More Freedom. It's very likely that he's not as popular as that in Russia, but it's also very likely that he is very popular and their society is closer to what they want to do than the freedom one. I was just trying to bring some levity in the face of horrible news. Tbc, I agree with pg that there's no real reason to assume it's a false flag. Corvinus85, JGP and Ser Scot A Ellison 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts