Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Riggo-toni]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/madrid-nato-summit-2022-russia-ukraine/661494/

Let’s Use Chicago Rules to Beat Russia

But these moves, beneficial as they may be, only partly meet the needs of the moment. Time and again Ukraine has demonstrated its ability to absorb high-end military hardware and deploy it quickly and effectively. This seems to be the case with HIMARS, the mobile rocket systems that are extremely accurate, and with which Ukrainian forces seem to be already hitting Russian ammunition dumps and military headquarters. Instead of the promised eight, the Ukrainians need 80, and work should be happening now to scale up transfers of these and like weapons as fast as possible.

What the Biden administration still struggles with is the ultimate purpose of Western assistance to Ukraine. At his press conference, the president said that the United States and its allies would not “allow Ukraine to be defeated.” That is the wrong objective. It should be, rather, to ensure Russia’s defeat—the thwarting of its aims to conquer yet more of Ukrainian territory, the smashing of its armed forces, and the doing of both in a convincing, public, and, yes, therefore humiliating way. Chicago rules, in other words.

[DCSaints_fan]

Looks like American politics and Ukranian politics have started to cross over

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/09/ukraine-foreign-ministry-blasts-rep-victoria-spartzs-cynical-allegations-00044860

 

Quote

FOREIGN POLICY

Ukraine Foreign Ministry blasts Rep. Victoria Spartz's ‘cynical’ allegations

The Ukraine-born Republican lawmaker wrote a letter to Biden Friday resurfacing past concerns about top Zelenskyy aides and calling for more oversight.

 

Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry released a blistering statement Saturday accusing the first and only Ukraine-born U.S. lawmaker of playing politics over Russia’s war, in a rare public tussle between prominent officials from the two countries.

The extraordinary statement comes after Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) asked President Joe Biden to brief Congress on years-old allegations against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. Earlier this week, the freshman lawmaker also slammed both Biden and Zelenskyy for their approaches to the ongoing war, infuriating officials in both countries.

 

[China]

Another General Killed as Russian Leak Admits ‘Big Shot ****ing Command’ Was Obliterated

 

Ukrainian forces took out yet another Russian general in a massive counterattack in Kherson, local authorities said Tuesday.

 

A general and five Russian military officers were killed in a Ukrainian strike on Russian headquarters using the U.S.-supplied M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARs), according to Serhiy Bratchuk, a representative of the Odesa regional military administration.

 

“After a strike by HIMARS on the headquarters in the Kherson region, Major General [Artyom] Nasbulin, the head of the 22nd Army Corps of the Russian Armed Forces (military unit 73954, Simferopol), was killed. Colonel Kens, whose death we announced yesterday, died there as well. And apart from him, the commander of the 20th motorized rifle division (military unit 22220, Volgograd) Colonel Andrei Gorobyets, the head of the operational department of the headquarters of the 20th MRD, Colonel Koval, the head of artillery of the 20th MRD, Colonel Gordeev. In total more than 150 died, including 5 officers,” Bratchuk said in a statement posted on Telegram.

 

Russian-installed authorities in the occupied Nova Kakhovka confirmed a Ukrainian strike on the area but made no mention of the Russian general and officers killed, claiming instead that Ukrainian forces had used “American HIMARS” to strike a warehouse storing a chemical compound that caused a massive explosion.

 

Russia’s RIA Novosti, citing local Kremlin-backed authorities, said at least five people were killed, seven were missing, and up to 80 were injured.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Line of barges waiting to sail up Danube and collect grain will take several weeks to clear, Ukraine says

 

The line of barges currently waiting to sail up the Danube River and load up on grain at one of Ukraine’s river ports will take several weeks to clear, first deputy Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food Taras Vysotsky said in a televised address Wednesday.

 

“A queue of about 90 barges has formed in the area of the Danube River for several months and will continue for several more weeks,” Vysotsky said. “Thanks to the release of Snake Island, the additional throughput is four to five vessels per day.”

 

“This route is not able to compensate for the volumes that we exported through our Black Sea ports,” he also added.

Before Russia’s invasion, about 80% of Ukraine’s grain exports were shipped from the country’s Black Sea ports.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[ixcuincle]

 

[bcl05]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

Have to confess to having some contradictory feelings, about what sure looks like a Russian strategy of targeting civilians as a way of forcing Ukraine to stop fighting them.  

 

Yes, I have no problem at all with believing that Russia literally is intentionally targeting civilian concentrations, as a way of weakening Ukraine, both for now, and for the future.  That what we're seeing here isn't state sponsored terrorism, it's terrorism literally committed by a state.  

 

And that what I want to do, is for Biden to blow up an apartment in Moscow.  

 

"Vlad?  You want to play the game of targeting civilians as a way of improving your position at the negotiating table?  Well, OK.  Let us know what you decide that targeting civilians becomes unacceptable, again."

 

But, . . . . . 

 

I have to say.  I also would not have any trouble at all believing that Ukraine has, well, something military in the neighborhood of those strikes, either.  

 

I wouldn't blame them.  They're horribly outgunned, and they're fighting for the survival of their country, and their culture.  And Ukraine needs to have a long supply chain to keep their forces equipped, too.  And I assume they ain't exactly got a robust system of infrastructure now, either.  

 

And I'm aware that the Ukrainians have been playing the PR game.  (Quite well.  I compliment them on it.)  

 

Just saying.  War can be . . . complex.  Especially when neither side really has any moral limitations.  (Admittedly for different reasons.)  

[The Sisko]

C'mon Joe. Get Ukraine more of these guys...with the extended range ammo plz.

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by The Sisko

[China]

Yellen Pushes Plan to Cap Price of Russian Oil on Global Markets

 

The United States is pressing to implement a plan meant to force Russia to sell oil at artificially low prices on the global market, in order to deprive the Kremlin of funding for its war in Ukraine.

 

Speaking at a news conference in Bali, Indonesia, before the start of a meeting of the finance ministers of the G-20 large economies, Yellen restated the Biden administration's condemnation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. She said that cutting its profits from crude oil sales "would deny [Russian President Vladimir] Putin the revenue his war machine needs."

 

She also argued that capping the price of Russian oil would further one of the administration's major domestic aims: reducing inflation.

 

"A price cap on Russian oil is one of our most powerful tools to address the pain that Americans and families across the world are feeling at the gas pump and the grocery store right now," she said.

 

However, the price cap plan relies on a complicated mechanism that has never been tried before, and some experts in global energy markets have said they believe it will not work.

 

Cap tied to sanctions

The plan that Yellen is proposing is tied to a new set of financial sanctions that the European Union, United Kingdom and the U.S. are preparing to impose on Russia.

 

In order to bring its crude oil to market, Russia relies on various transactions with international lenders, shipping firms and insurance companies. The current plan is to cut Russia off from those services beginning late this year. In theory, this would make it practically impossible for it to export any oil at all in the near term, and much more difficult in the future.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Capping the price of Russian oil doesn’t sound too realistic… as long as China and India are buyers what incentive does Russia have to accept lower prices for its fuel..

Edited July 16, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[FootballZombie]

The Oil cap plan is another indication that major NATO powers are letting it be known they are more than willing to deter Russian aggression for the long haul.

 

This is something that would not even take effect until next year. That is some serious long game planning.

It sends a message that we will continue to support Ukraine and have no plans of stopping any time soon and are even setting things up to be even more impactful in the future should it be necessary. 

[DCSaints_fan]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Capping the price of Russian oil doesn’t sound too realistic… as long as China and India are buyers what incentive does Russia have to accept lower prices for its fuel..

Yeah, I'm a little skeptical that is going to do anything.  Its another case of the West thinking it wields more power than it actually has. I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions led to regime change or even a change in policy. Not Cuba, not North Korea, not Iran, not Iraq, not Venezuela.   You could even argue the exact opposite because it hurts the population more than the leaders, make it even harder for a popular uprising to happen.

 

I think Biden's initial instinct on oil was right - oil is fungible and demand is inelastic, if Russia can't sell to West they will just sell to someone else.

 

But perhaps the situation is more complex as it seems, because I don't think India and China are paying full price right now, when you factor in transport, because it costs more to transport the oil there, than it does from say, Saudi Arabia.   So there could be some effect if they allowed buyers from the West back into the market, that global oil prices would go down to what they were before the invasion even if Russia never sells a drop to anyone in the West.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Just now, DCSaints_fan said:

Yeah, I'm a little skeptical that is going to do anything.  Its another case of the West thinking it wields more power than it actually has. I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions led to regime change or even a change in policy. Not Cuba, not North Korea, not Iran, not Iraq, not Venezuela.   You could even argue the exact opposite because it hurts the population more than the leaders, make it even harder for a popular uprising to happen.

 

I think Biden's initial instinct on oil was right - oil is fungible and demand is inelastic, if Russia can't sell to West they will just sell to someone else.

 

But perhaps the situation is more complex as it seems, because I don't think India and China are paying full price right now, when you factor in transport, because it costs more to transport the oil there, than it does from say, Saudi Arabia.   So there could be some effect if they allowed buyers from the West back into the market, that global oil prices would go down to what they were before the invasion even if Russia never sells a drop to anyone in the West.

@FootballZombie take also reasonable, symbolizing long term moves away from Russia.

[The Sisko]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Capping the price of Russian oil doesn’t sound too realistic… as long as China and India are buyers what incentive does Russia have to accept lower prices for its fuel..

What incentive would they have to pay more than the capped price? Just to be good friends? I don’t think so.
 

1 hour ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Yeah, I'm a little skeptical that is going to do anything.  Its another case of the West thinking it wields more power than it actually has. I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions led to regime change or even a change in policy. Not Cuba, not North Korea, not Iran, not Iraq, not Venezuela.   You could even argue the exact opposite because it hurts the population more than the leaders, make it even harder for a popular uprising to happen.

 

I think Biden's initial instinct on oil was right - oil is fungible and demand is inelastic, if Russia can't sell to West they will just sell to someone else.

 

But perhaps the situation is more complex as it seems, because I don't think India and China are paying full price right now, when you factor in transport, because it costs more to transport the oil there, than it does from say, Saudi Arabia.   So there could be some effect if they allowed buyers from the West back into the market, that global oil prices would go down to what they were before the invasion even if Russia never sells a drop to anyone in the West.

There’s also the production costs. I think Russia has some of the lowest production costs outside of the ME so the sanctions wouldn’t affect them as badly as it would some other countries. However, what the sanctions might do is get the Russians to produce more to keep their cash flow up. If that happens and it increases supply, the west wins. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by The Sisko

[Larry]

2 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions led to regime change or even a change in policy. Not Cuba, not North Korea, not Iran, not Iraq, not Venezuela.   

At least as I understand it, at one time, NK had one nuclear reactor making fuel for a nuke. It had (some power rating), I think 1 KW?  And they had a 2 and a 4 under construction. 
 

We imposed sanctions. 
 

And we offered them relief from sanctions, and cash, if they'd shut down the reactor. 
 

They shut down the one. And we lifted the sanctions. 
 

And then W took over. 
 

He immediately re-imposed the sanctions. Made a big speech calling them bad names. And demanded that they do more. 
 

NK resumed the reactor. Finished the other two. 
 

Set off a nuke. (After at least one did). 
 

At least as I recall events, sanctions successfully stopped a wannabe nuclear power from becoming one. Until we decided not to live up to our end of the deal. 
 

----

 

Similarly, sanctions convinced Iran into shutting down their nuclear program, dismantling a large chunk of it, and allowing international inspectors to verify that they weren't going further than the agreed upon limits. 
 

Until we decided not to stick to our part of the deal. 
 

Again, sanctions appear to have successfully pressured a Bad Guy into shutting down their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. (Although, as far as I know, Iran has not yet developed one.)

 

No, in neither case did sanctions produce a permanent change. But in both cases, the sanctions produced a change that we had demanded, lasting until we decided we were going to impose them, anyway. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

What incentive would they have to pay more than the capped price? Just to be good friends? I don’t think so.

 

 

I guess it depends on how close the capped price is to the market price. For example, if Russia is capped at 60/barrel and the market price is 120/barrel, and Russia makes it clear they aren’t selling for less than 100/barrel, I would imagine China and India would be fine with buying at $100/barrel. Certainly someone would.

 

 

 

[The Sisko]

The buyer has the leverage in this case. “Hey, I don’t need this agita from the sanctions. I’d love to buy at your discounted price but you’ve got to go lower to make it worth the risk.” Or, “The sanctioned price is $X/barrel. I’m not going above that. If you can find someone else to buy at a higher price, good for you.”

Even if the cap only results in them paying a bit less than their existing discounted rate, it still means Russia is likely to increase production to offset the lower sales prices. They’re going to be even more pressed for cash going forward because a lot of the money he saved up to counter the expected sanctions is about to be confiscated to give to Ukraine, never to be seen again.

Edited July 16, 2022 by The Sisko

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

The buyer has the leverage in this case. “Hey, I don’t need this agita from the sanctions. I’d love to buy at your discounted price but you’ve got to go lower to make it worth the risk.” Or, “The sanctioned price is $X/barrel. I’m not going above that. If you can find someone else to buy at a higher price, good for you.”

Even if the cap only results in them paying a bit less than their existing discounted rate, it still means Russia is likely to increase production to offset the lower sales prices. They’re going to be even more pressed for cash going forward because a lot of the money he saved up to counter the expected sanctions is about to be confiscated to give to Ukraine, never to be seen again.

Yes, but you agree the price is likely to be above the cap?

 

also, I was thinking the sanctions would only be in place for US and EU companies similar to how the gas and oil sanctions are currently implemented. We asked India to join the sanctions and they politely said no…

[Wildbunny]

5 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Yeah, I'm a little skeptical that is going to do anything.  Its another case of the West thinking it wields more power than it actually has. I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions led to regime change or even a change in policy. Not Cuba, not North Korea, not Iran, not Iraq, not Venezuela.   You could even argue the exact opposite because it hurts the population more than the leaders, make it even harder for a popular uprising to happen.

Still that's how Reagan "killed" the USSR with an agreement with Saudi to have low petrol prices and crumble their economy.

 

That wasn't exactly sanctions as they are now, but that's still doable.

[China]

 

[PeterMP]

On 7/16/2022 at 3:21 AM, Wildbunny said:

Still that's how Reagan "killed" the USSR with an agreement with Saudi to have low petrol prices and crumble their economy.

 

That wasn't exactly sanctions as they are now, but that's still doable.

 

This isn't really true on several different levels.

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/13/michael-reagan/ronald-reagans-son-says-his-father-got-saudis-pump/

 

The USSR economy had been dying for years before Reagan took over.  Even when oil prices had been high during the 1970s, the USSR GDP growth had been low and by 1980 its economy had already fallen behind much of the rest of the developed world.

 

 

 

The lowering of oil prices in the mid-1980s hardly shows up as a blip.

Also the relationship between Saudi oil production and prices is not very robust.  The Saudis don't increase oil production until the mid-1980s.  Oil prices had been dropping since 1980. 

 

Also, the idea that the Saudis increased production because of Reagan is extremely questionable.  The Saudis likely didn't increase oil consumption because a 2nd term President asked them to.  They did it because the other OPEC countries didn't limit their oil production and their market was being threatened by other countries (including Mexico which sees a sharp increase in oil production in the late 1970s and then starts falling in the early 1980s).

 

In 1990, global oil production is actually less than it was in 1980.  But consumption also doesn't change much from the late 1970s to the late 1980s and is actually even down in the US.  Years of high oil prices drove increases in the efficiency of energy usage (e.g. resulted in cars with high fuel efficiency) and government regulations resulted in less oil consumption, especially among wealthy western countries and causing prices to drop.

 

The Saudis discovered that they can't keep prices high long term (especially if the rest of OPEC doesn't cooperate) as it just spurs increased energy efficiency and investment and development elsewhere.  What they can do is keep prices high for a while, but then they have to increase production which leads energy efficiency to back slide (e.g. more people by less energy efficient cars) and undercuts investment in oil development in other countries (lower prices killed investment in Mexico and Texas and crashed their economies we've seen it more recently with the fracking industry where the Saudis essentially made the same play).

 

And while the drop in oil prices did hurt the USSS, it also hurt the US (again the Texan economy tanks).  Like the US, the USSR had a broad and diverse economy and was no more likely to have an economic collapse due to lowering oil prices than the US.

 

Lastly, bad economies don't necessarily cause governments to collapse.  We've seen that in Cuba and other places.

 

The collapse of the USSR was due to more fundamental issues related to the leaders of the state and their objectives.

 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-is-wrong/

 

Oil prices start to fall in 1980 before the Saudis increase production.  The Saudis don't increase production until 1986 and it is unlikely them doing so had anything to do with Reagan.  The USSR economy had been lagging behind western economies for years before the change in oil price and the Saudis increase production.  Even if the USSR economy had tanked, looking at other similar cases, there's no real reason to think that would coincide with a political collapse.

Edited July 18, 2022 by PeterMP

[China]

Russia Accidentally Shoots Down Their Own $36M Su-34 Bomber In Ukraine: Report

 

Multiple Ukrainian media outlets have reported that a $36 million Russian Su-34 bomber was reportedly shot down by Russia’s own forces over Ukraine’s eastern Luhansk region on Monday.

 

“Russian invaders from the air defense shot down their own plane, which was flying in the sky over Alchevsk,” reported Ukrainian news outlet dialog.ua, noting that the incident could have taken place when Ukraine’s armed forces launched a targeted attack on military depots in the occupied city.

 

The jet was reportedly downed near Alchevsk, a city in the Luhansk region—one of the areas where the war is currently focused. Alchevsk is currently under the occupation of Russian-backed separatist forces.

 

Videos and photographs of the charred remains of a Russian Su-34 fighter-bomber were shared on social media by the Strategic Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

 

A Russian Telegram user called Ruslan reportedly wrote: “The jet is ours, unfortunately. Sometimes it happens. I heard the info from a friend, I thought bulls**t, but it was confirmed.”

 

 

Click for the full story