Ukrainian War Developments

anzha said:

A Russian analyst - Mikhail Khodarenok, someone noted as very much a Russian patriot - questions whether the plans proposed for conquering Ukraine (if it ever came to that) would work as well as believed:

Click to expand...

Generally, there won’t be any kind of Ukrainian blitzkrieg. Utterances by some experts of the type “The Russian Army will destroy the greater part of VSU sub-units11 in 30-40 minutes,” “Russia is capable of destroying Ukraine in 10 minutes in a full-scale war,” “Russia will destroy Ukraine in eight minutes” don’t have a serious basis.

Click to expand...

72 hrs max should be far more than enough time to capture Eastern Ukraine.

Ideally Russia should stop there and maybe feign a massive attack on Kiev to force it to surrender and come to the negotiating table.

If that happens then IMO that would be the best case scenario for it in a military incursion.

reservior dogs said:

Here is my take on the Ukraine crisis.

1. All sides except the U.S. want to have conflict in Ukraine. The Ukrainians, the Russians and the Europeans are trying quite hard to prevent a conflict. The U.S. wanted and is driving the path towards conflict.

2. The goals of the conflict for the U.S. are two fold. First, we need to control the Western Europeans in NATO as NATO no longer have a real purpose. Second, we want to prevent a Europe/Russia merger which starts with the Nordstream coming on line. that will form a block strong enough to no longer stay in the orbit of the U.S. If they do join up, Europe will have the economy, arms and would also have the absence of a credible enemy which was the role of Russia.

Click to expand...

I think you expect too much from the USA administration.

There is no plan, only random moves that settle with a consensus, and looks externaly as a common plan.

Thez don't plan, only react, for things that we don't know.

Example, what happens if last year the Russians / Chinese started to help the Iranians with intel to get rid of the MOSAD/CIA agents ?

Or simply China/ Russia reached the treshold technologically to develop and manufacture indepenently equipment ?

Or any other secret, behind the curtains moves, that we will know around 2060. In good case.

Fyodor Lukyanov trolling French state media:

Some more speculation on the nature of ongoing conflict in Ukraine based on historical evidence:

-----------------------

This is historical data on currency exchange rates from 2014-2015. It shows what effect the conflict had on main capital markets, especially Eurozone and USA.

War in Donbas begins in April of 2014 but the main escalation occurs in late August of 2014 when Russian forces directly intervene to stop Ukrainian counter-offensive and prevent collapse of separatist regions. The first ceasefire (Minsk I) occurs in September which is then broken in January of 2015 leading to second ceasefire (Minsk II) in February and the freezing of the conflict in current state.



From the beginning of war in Donbas in April 2014 to the ceasefire of Minsk II in February 2015 Euro has lost 25% of value ( from 1EUR=1,39USD to 1EUR=1,05USD). Such drop in value is caused by shifting of sufficient amount of capital from Euro-denominated markets and to USD-denominated markets. Since USD and EUR are two largest internationally traded currencies it means quite a substantial amount of capital that moved from Europe to USA.

This is not reflected in other currencies meaning that USD was the primary or even only beneficiary of the war in Ukraine.

British Pound rises in value only after Minsk II and it is a weaker shift than in USD. Reminder - this is over a year before the Brexit referendum in June 2016 and the impact can be seen easily on the graph.



Canadian Dollar and Yen register similar short-lived blips unlike a more stable USD shift in value reflecting long-term adjustment.






Both Ruble and Hryvna fall in value significantly by about 50% and 75% respectively.




Currently both American and British financial markets are separated from Euro which should provide them with a greater boost caused by capital flight.

In other words by stimulating the conflict in Ukraine the US caused a shift in capital from affected markets to US markets. Such process is essentially plunder, just done with indirect means of market manipulation rather than with traditional methods.

It is expected that a similar withdrawal of capital from European markets would occur if the fighting in Ukraine was to resume and this is a secondary motive that the US and UK likely have in stimulating tensions and instability. While everyone else stands to lose both economically and physically the US and UK stand to gain financially while bearing no physical losses.

-----------------------

Some information on military potential of Ukraine and Russia. Independent brigades and divisional regiments are treated equivalent units in terms of strength.

Belarussian forces consist of 4 mechanized brigades and 1 air assault brigade in total which is not sufficient to perform combat operations in Ukraine and guard the border with Poland, Lithuania and Latvia so they are excluded.

Ukraine

active forces:

• 2 tank brigades
• 12 mechanized brigades
• 4 motorized brigades
• 1 naval infantry brigade with potentially another almost ready
• 7 air assault brigades
• 3 mechanized (national guard) brigades
• 14 "public security" (national guard) brigades
• 8 security (national guard) regiments assigned to strategic locations (nuclear powerplants, industrial sites)

reserve forces - not mobilized currently:

• 3 reserve tank brigades
• 5 reserve mechanized brigades
• 25 brigades of light infantry/territorial defense (one per oblast)

Russia

• 10 airborne regiments
• 2 naval infantry brigades
• 6 tank brigades (regiment or brigade) in western military district
• 8 mechanized brigades in western military district
• 3 tank brigades in southern military district
• 6 mechanized brigades in southern military district
• 3 tank brigades in central military district
• 4 mechanized brigades in central military district
• up to 4 mechanized brigades in eastern military district

Those are the maximum extent of forces that can be used in Ukraine while retaining minimum defensive posture in all the other regions - all forces in Kaliningrad, near St.Petersburg, in Northern Military District and one brigade per army in Central and Eastern military districts. It means that to gather those units Russia is stripping its military districts of everything except the bare minimum.

Additionally the separatist regions have nominally fielded their own forces which are subordinate to the Russian Southern Military District

• 6 mechanized brigade equivalents in Donetsk
• 4 mechanized brigade equivalents in Luhansk

These units have combat strength below Ukrainian regular units but above Ukrainian national guard (except mechanized brigades) and territorial defense units.

Total minimum force without mobilization of reserves available for combat operations at current moment:

Ukraine

• 2 tank brigades
• 16 mechanized brigades (incl. naval infantry)
• 11 motorized brigades (incl. air assault)
• 14 infantry/light brigades

Russia

• 12 tank brigades
• 20-24 mechanized brigades (incl. naval infantry)
• 10 motorized (airborne) regiments
• 10 allied (mechanized) brigades

While there is qualitative advantage on the Russian side both in terms of technology and experience Ukraine has sufficient strength to inflict high casualties against an invading forces. In particular Ukraine has 7 brigades of tube artillery and 4 brigades of rocket artillery compared to Russia's minimum available 6 brigades of artillery (tube and rocket) giving them at least parity. Artillery on brigade level is also comparable meaning that the necessary firepower exists as long as ammunition is provided. Stocks of ammunition for artillery are the crucial factor.

This does not look like Russia preparing an attack. It looks like Russia preparing for any eventuality and proactively restricting the movements for Washington. They stand to lose too much from a full-scale conflict even if it turns out in their favor. Any casualties and losses of equipment will be problematic as the units deployed are the primary fighting strength of Russian armed forces.

The US and UK stand to gain without almost any risk to their own position. Their only loss is not stimulation the conflict which makes them the obvious culprit for any instability and tensions taking place.

This is textbook example of the economic concept of "moral hazard".

MarKoz81 said:

Currently both American and British financial markets are separated from Euro which should provide them with a greater boost caused by capital flight.

In other words by stimulating the conflict in Ukraine the US caused a shift in capital from affected markets to US markets. Such process is essentially plunder, just done with indirect means of market manipulation rather than with traditional methods.

Click to expand...

Great analysis overall. I would like to add that the US Fed Reserve is going to raise the interest rates very soon and multiple times this year to control the skyrocketing inflation, so certainly the US will heavily benefit from capital outflow in the event of conflict.

Overbom said:

Jake Sullivan occasionally says something that is right. What he says is why China hasn't endorsed (or even entertained the possibility) a Russian attack to Ukraine.

I suspect that in case Russia actually attacks, China will do a masterclass in walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Click to expand...

Sullivan can fuck off. Tell the US to pull its remaining troops out of Iraq as per the order of the sovereign Iraq government, or have 100 occupier marines "neutralized" each day.

Well, if the EU and Russians are smart, then they should collectively "stand down and stand by" and watch US dollar tumble this year. Surely there must be some European elites that want the Euro to rival the US dollar in global trade.

Fun times for everbody involved.

Su-30Ms are on patrol in Belarus.

M4 highway, 70km from Rostov-on-Don, close to the border with