Ukrainian War Developments

a lot of comments here that favors russia in its relation with EU seems to make an implicit, perhaps even unconscious assumption. that is Russia is able to endure losses of wealthy and suppression in standard of living in order to achieve a long term strategic goal, where as the EU would not be able to do the same.

I think this implicit assumption is inculcated in states that mythologize its communist past because the communists justify much of their actions on this basis. But it should be kept in mind that the communists make this justification out of necessity, not out of fundamental truth. the necessity stems from the fact that much of its history, communist governments were no good at creating wealth and raising standard of living compared to developed nations of the west. A government with a weakness or flawed performance that seeks to hold on to power must by necessity portray its weaknesses and flawed performances as signs of strengths by some made up principle.

so I think it is by no means clear that the EU would be unwilling to endure the hardship needed to squeeze Russia over a prolonged period. The fact that they also do things to mitigate the hardship does not imply they are unwilling to endure enough hardship to achieve their goals.

is this upcoming massive assault on Donbass going to be a reverse Kursk 1943, where an all out offensive against a well prepared and well established defensive line? I really wonder if Russia is going to be bringing any new capabilities to bear to gain a decisive advantage...use of overwhelming firepower WITH the assistance of advanced reconnaissance drones and tech...otherwise it is going to be a bloodbath

Richard Santos said:

so I think it is by no means clear that the EU would be unwilling to endure the hardship needed to squeeze Russia over a prolonged period. The fact that they also do things to mitigate the hardship does not imply they are unwilling to endure enough hardship to achieve their goals.

Click to expand...

If Trump gets re-elected and pulls the US out of NATO, would the EU still be willing to endure the hardship to squeeze Russia? How long do you think NATO would last without the US?

sheogorath said:

Danish mercenary confirms to dane TV2 channel the mass execution of russian POWs by ukrainian forces, himself getting to know a few of these soldiers before they were executed.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1513095115539156992

Click to expand...

Pretty much inevitable. If Ukrainians are executing POWs, and Russians are showing everyone how well they are treating Ukrainian POWs, the Ukrainians will carry on executing them.

There is no moral ground here, this is a war. It is not a policing operation like against ISIS or Chechnya.

You need to match what they're doing and do worse. That's what has happened in every war ever.

Abominable said:

Which would you rather be, short on money or short on gas?

Click to expand...

The third option is: "neither"

I would not cease oil/gas exports to Europe over Ukraine or start a war with NATO. Problem solved.

Abominable said:

Russia can borrow money and make ends meet, Europe has no way to replace gas.

Click to expand...

Even if you are forced to borrow, borrowing 45% of the annual budget income every year is not sustainable.

discspinner said:

is this upcoming massive assault on Donbass going to be a reverse Kursk 1943, where an all out offensive against a well prepared and well established defensive line? I really wonder if Russia is going to be bringing any new capabilities to bear to gain a decisive advantage...use of overwhelming firepower WITH the assistance of advanced reconnaissance drones and tech...otherwise it is going to be a bloodbath

Click to expand...

Based on the predictions by Western military officers, it will not be a frontal assault. Rather, it they will execute a pincer maneuver across flat and unpopulated terrain with the goal of seizing the crossing at Dnipro and enveloping the 60,000 or so Ukrainian troops. Having done that, the Russian would then proceed to annihilate the pocket.

The Ukrainians will need to counter-attack the Russian pincer maneuvers. They cannot afford static defense this time around. To do that, they will need a lot of armor and artillery.

Phead128 said:

The third option is: "neither"

I would not cease oil/gas exports to Europe over Ukraine. Problem solved.

Even if you are forced to borrow, borrowing 45% of the annual budget income every year is not sustainable.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make economic sense for either side to stop gas/oil sales. It's economic version of nuclear war. I was just pointing out it'll be much worse for Europe than Russia who at least won't be starving or freezing to death.

He's an article about what could happen to Germany:

Even if it was only for 1-2 months, it would have serious economic consequences. Whereas Russia would only have a temporary liquidity crisis.

Anlsvrthng said:

It is not that simple.


An LNG liquefaction plant on its own cost half as much as a similar energy capacity nuclear power plant, considering the ships, pipes, gasfield and so on the cost of it is close to the price of a nuclear power plant.

So, Europe could replace the Russian gas with LNG if :
1, making 30 years contracts with countries haveing lot of gas
2. paying and financing the LNG liquefaction plants and all related investements
3 wait 5-10 years to finish all project and receive the LNG


Good luck for that.

Click to expand...

I know but I was giving theoretical scenario. Russia is isolating Germany in Europe. At some point French and Italian and rest will revolt. They will not be able to deal with increase dependency on North Africa and Middleast. rising prices raise all the boats and give more opportunity of creating much flexible financial system

Zichan said:

If Trump gets re-elected and pulls the US out of NATO, would the EU still be willing to endure the hardship to squeeze Russia? How long do you think NATO would last without the US?

Click to expand...

No, of course not. But at this point the chance of trump getting re-elected seems slim.

Trump’s statements while he was president was alarming to those who expect consistent US policy. However, a neutral observer must conclude US foreign policy between 1946 and 2016 exhibited unevenness at tactical level but remarkably high degree of consistency and depth of objective at its core. Any betting men would probably put most of his money on American policy retaining a similar consistency into the future despite black swan events such as trump.