Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rroff said:
I'm not sure there isn't a disconnect there between the prohibitive reality of it and what Putin might desire.

Russia has put a lot of effort in recent years especially from around 2015/16 or so onwards in the Baltics and eastern Europe, making social and political inroads beyond the normal extending their influence large countries/entities do, actions which have lead to a worsening security situation in the Baltics including acquisitions of strategic locations in places like Finland and Gotland, some dubious events around Gotland such as large numbers of people linked to GRU visiting as "tourists", etc. and "leaked" plans for an invasion and setting up of S-400 installations on Gotland ( https://twitter.com/anders_aslund/status/1484907973013086211 I suspect in this case an overt threat through state media to try and make NATO step back*) so as to make it difficult for NATO to respond should Russia move on the Baltics, etc. etc. (granted most countries will develop a range of military plans as a contingency, even against allies, most of which will never be used).

If Ukraine had simply fallen with little more than a whimper from the West I suspect Russia would have pushed on with those plans using a variety of hybrid methods and more direct where they can until there was a push back - it is simply Putin's nature even if he didn't set out with a conquest of Europe (which I doubt he has any serious intentions as to) or a full on restoration of the empire. I think people vastly underestimate the security nightmare we'd have had to content with if Ukraine had rolled over and even now if Russia prevails even in this waker state there is still significant risk there.

I think it quite likely Russia would have progressed from Ukraine to using it to nibble away at eastern Europe using sort of carrot and stick methods, building up a large force on the borders of countries on the one hand, while using their political and social inroads on the other to try and flip countries to become somewhat like Belarus is to Russia, then hope to capitalise on the chaos that would produce in eastern Europe as a distraction from moves they might make in the Baltics although that becomes a sticking point where more direct methods would be required and the risks of escalation.


* Some comments in there about it being about the West fabricating fake news about Russian intentions, but I've seen more than one source of supposed Russian plans to that end.
Click to expand...

My partner of 13 years is from the Baltics and I spend a lot of time there; I was there for the whole of this summer an hour or so drive from the Russian border, so I probably know better than most on here what has been really going on in the Baltics.

The point that I'm countering is that if Ukraine fell that Putin would then go on to try and take back other former Soviet countries (now in E.U./NATO), which at best is just wishful thinking and falls more in line with what I call, hypothetical justification propaganda, the kind that Tony Blair employed to get rid of Saddam Hussain; that he had weapons of mass destruction and if he didn't then he was going to make them...

It really is not needed as Putin has already done enough actual bad things to more than justify the current response so there is no need to ostensibly make more hypothetical stuff up, especially when history and precedence tell a different story.

There are some fundamental differences between Ukraine (Belarus) and the Baltics which will escape most on here but one is that the Baltic nations are not Slavs, whereas Ukraine (Belarus, Russia) are. Their language root and history is totally different. Putin has "good" reasons why he would not want Ukraine or Belarus cozying up to the West which does not apply to the Baltic states. That ship has sailed and any notion that he would try to destabilise the Baltic states as some form of pre-emptive play before invading belongs more in the script of a show like Berlin Station than it does in reality.
 
Last edited:
Interesting news coming out today that Russia's fleet of T-90A tanks has pretty much disappeared from Ukraine.

The T-90A was the model made before the T-90M and thus far almost twice as many have been produced, yet despite that only three of them have turned up destroyed in Ukraine since March. In total, only 7% of the T-90A fleet has been confirmed destroyed in Ukraine, compared to >50% of the T-80U fleet and >25% of the T-90M fleet. ~50 are known to be at a storage facility but this still leaves over 200 top of the line tanks (by Russian standards) missing.

Possible reasons people have hypothesised:
  • They're being kept back to defend Moscow from Ukraine (or maybe the ghost of Prigozhin).
  • They're keeping a strong force of the "good stuff" in reserve in case NATO or China start something.
  • They never actually existed, after all there's no photo of every one claimed made all in a row so the production numbers could be inflated due to propaganda or corruption.
  • Russia has secretly been converting them to T-90S models to fulfil export orders to bring in that sweet dollar.
  • They are at the factory waiting to be converted to T-90M models.
While some of the theories are a tad comical there aren't really any other explanations, there's no good answer for Russia, and that last one is potentially dangerous for them as it means their T-90M tank production capability has been heavily inflated, and by a finite resource.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Interesting news coming out today that Russia's fleet of T-90A tanks has pretty much disappeared from Ukraine.

The T-90A was the model made before the T-90M and thus far almost twice as many have been produced, yet despite that only three of them have turned up destroyed in Ukraine since March. In total, only 7% of the T-90A fleet has been confirmed destroyed in Ukraine, compared to >50% of the T-80U fleet and >25% of the T-90M fleet. ~50 are known to be at a storage facility but this still leaves over 200 top of the line tanks (by Russian standards) missing.

Possible reasons people have hypothesised:
  • They're being kept back to defend Moscow from Ukraine (or maybe the ghost of Prigozhin).
  • They're keeping a strong force of the "good stuff" in reserve in case NATO or China start something.
  • They never actually existed, after all there's no photo of every one claimed made all in a row so the production numbers could be inflated due to propaganda or corruption.
  • Russia has secretly been converting them to T-90S models to fulfil export orders to bring in that sweet dollar.
  • They are at the factory waiting to be converted to T-90M models.
While some of the theories are a tad comical there aren't really any other explanations, there's no good answer for Russia, and that last one is potentially dangerous for them as it means their T-90M tank production capability has been heavily inflated, and by a finite resource.
Click to expand...


I don't think they're kept back for Moscow. The division that's supposed to defend Moscow in theory is the 4th guards division and they use T-80 tanks because they say it's better than the T-90
 
ubersonic said:
Interesting news coming out today that Russia's fleet of T-90A tanks has pretty much disappeared from Ukraine.

The T-90A was the model made before the T-90M and thus far almost twice as many have been produced, yet despite that only three of them have turned up destroyed in Ukraine since March. In total, only 7% of the T-90A fleet has been confirmed destroyed in Ukraine, compared to >50% of the T-80U fleet and >25% of the T-90M fleet. ~50 are known to be at a storage facility but this still leaves over 200 top of the line tanks (by Russian standards) missing.

Possible reasons people have hypothesised:
  • They're being kept back to defend Moscow from Ukraine (or maybe the ghost of Prigozhin).
  • They're keeping a strong force of the "good stuff" in reserve in case NATO or China start something.
  • They never actually existed, after all there's no photo of every one claimed made all in a row so the production numbers could be inflated due to propaganda or corruption.
  • Russia has secretly been converting them to T-90S models to fulfil export orders to bring in that sweet dollar.
  • They are at the factory waiting to be converted to T-90M models.
While some of the theories are a tad comical there aren't really any other explanations, there's no good answer for Russia, and that last one is potentially dangerous for them as it means their T-90M tank production capability has been heavily inflated, and by a finite resource.
Click to expand...

I'd have thought if Russia was holding stuff back in case of NATO, etc. they'd have kept the T-90Ms instead of the As but I do think people have a wrong impression as to how Russia has conducted this war in terms of the impact on their regular armed forces and what is being held back to maintain security of Russia.

The T-90s are one of the few pieces of hardware that Russia has significantly garaged up which makes true numbers harder.

Something I touched on much earlier in the thread, something I assume maybe fixed with the T-90M but I've no recent information on that, there were batches of the T-90A which had crippling reliability issues with the fire control systems and engine/transmission which meant they had to be serviced at extremely short intervals to keep them operational, which might be why so few have been used - though it is also possible they simply "secretly" converted those to export models rather than try and fix them (I would actually lean towards this).

I have my doubts as to the ghost fleet notion, despite it being quite a likely one being Russia, they've established T-90 production and maintenance lines which are known to have been busy producing stuff even before this war - I can't remember the exact details off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
The IMF has changed its view on Russia's GDP, which a year ago they said would have a -2.3% drop, and instead they now say it has grown to +2.2% this past year, despite 2 years of sanctions post invasion, and next year (after 3 years of sanctions) its still looking at +1.1% of growth, mostly fuelled by military spending. Maybe the sanctions need a rethink into something with a more immediate impact, rather than having ones that "might" cause a country financial harm in 4 to 5+ years time after an event.

IMF Director said:
"We are seeing a considerable fiscal impulse in Russia from ramping up spending related to the war,"............... "That is really a short-term impact you are going to see of fuelling growth in the economy,"
Click to expand...

www.reuters.com

IMF: Russia's war spending fuels short-term growth, longer-term outlook 'dim'

Huge fiscal spending on the military is fuelling short-term economic growth in Russia, but looking at the longer term picture the outlook is "dim", the International Monetary Fund's European Director Alfred Kammer said on Friday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

www.imf.org

Russian Federation and the IMF

www.imf.org
 
Last edited:
ianh said:
The IMF has changed its view on Russia's GDP, which a year ago they said would have a -2.3% drop, and instead they now say it has grown to +2.2% this past year, despite 2 years of sanctions post invasion, and next year (after 3 years of sanctions) its still looking at +1.1% of growth, mostly fuelled by military spending. Maybe the sanctions need a rethink into something with a more immediate impact, rather than having ones that "might" cause a country financial harm in 4 to 5+ years time after an event.



www.reuters.com

IMF: Russia's war spending fuels short-term growth, longer-term outlook 'dim'

Huge fiscal spending on the military is fuelling short-term economic growth in Russia, but looking at the longer term picture the outlook is "dim", the International Monetary Fund's European Director Alfred Kammer said on Friday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

www.imf.org

Russian Federation and the IMF

www.imf.org
Click to expand...

Its hardly unexpected.
They are massively spending in the short term on war based materials, driving economic activity.
I CBA to read the full assessment, but in the short term its pretty easy to throw loads of money at some economic "growth" its pretty pointless if its not adding any real capacity since it will fall away as soon as the impact of throwing cash at it goes away.

They cant keep doing that with the impact of sanctions.
It was hardly a secret they had a large war chest to support exactly this scenario.
 
ianh said:
The IMF has changed its view on Russia's GDP, which a year ago they said would have a -2.3% drop, and instead they now say it has grown to +2.2% this past year, despite 2 years of sanctions post invasion, and next year (after 3 years of sanctions) its still looking at +1.1% of growth, mostly fuelled by military spending. Maybe the sanctions need a rethink into something with a more immediate impact, rather than having ones that "might" cause a country financial harm in 4 to 5+ years time after an event.



www.reuters.com

IMF: Russia's war spending fuels short-term growth, longer-term outlook 'dim'

Huge fiscal spending on the military is fuelling short-term economic growth in Russia, but looking at the longer term picture the outlook is "dim", the International Monetary Fund's European Director Alfred Kammer said on Friday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

www.imf.org

Russian Federation and the IMF

www.imf.org
Click to expand...



I'd struggle to find someone who thinks this is good growth or comparable growth to the world. When we talk about GDP it's helpful to remember we're also assuming all countries who's GDP we are comparing are trying to do the same thing, inventing new products and services, providing support and service, selling, buying and trading foreign goods and exporting your goods etc - normal consumer goods like food, resources etc. and when countries are competing for the same thing in the global business world then we view one's GDP growth as good.

It's not really fair to then compare Russian GDP with others when their economy is not doing the above, their growth is being paid for with debt and it's being used to fund a war. In the years leading up to WW2, some people tried to praise Hitler and the Nazi party because they were raising Germany's GDP and lowering unemployment but in reality they were just building tanks, bombers and guns for a war - so in hindsight if we no longer consider the German GDP growth of pre and during ww2 to be growth worth admiring or being surprised by, then I fail to see it being worth while caring about Russian GDP

So just because Russia can still increase GDP, that doesn't mean sanctions don't work and it doesn't mean their GDP is somehow comparable to the rest of the world, seeing their GDP go up doesn't mean their civilian population's lives are improving

GDP is a crude measure that can be easily manipulated and you can have two countries, one providing small GDP growth but their population is living well and another who's GDP is growthing but it's because they are undergoing rapid industrial building of war machines paid for with debt and lowering of living standards for their citizens - yet if all we do is look at GDP we'll say the second country is doing really well. Just like people tried to say look Hitler is doing really well for his people and look how that turned out...
 
Last edited:
For a country with as many resources as Russia has that is utterly depressing and the vast majority of the growth is invariably headed straight into the elite's pockets so hardly representative of how the country is actually doing.
 
I wonder what numbers are being put in by IMF. Are they the ones Nabiullina is producing with guidance notes from kremlin? lol
Central bank is at 15% now. Dmitry Potapenko predicting it go up to 17.5% in December. Not long to go.
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
I'd struggle to find someone who thinks this is good growth or comparable growth to the world. When we talk about GDP it's helpful to remember we're also assuming all countries who's GDP we are comparing are trying to do the same thing, inventing new products and services, providing support and service, selling, buying and trading foreign goods and exporting your goods etc - normal consumer goods like food, resources etc. and when countries are competing for the same thing in the global business world then we view one's GDP growth as good.

It's not really fair to then compare Russian GDP with others when their economy is not doing the above, their growth is being paid for with debt and it's being used to fund a war. In the years leading up to WW2, some people tried to praise Hitler and the Nazi party because they were raising Germany's GDP and lowering unemployment but in reality they were just building tanks, bombers and guns for a war - so in hindsight if we no longer consider the German GDP growth of pre and during ww2 to be growth worth admiring or being surprised by, then I fail to see it being worth while caring about Russian GDP

So just because Russia can still increase GDP, that doesn't mean sanctions don't work and it doesn't mean their GDP is somehow comparable to the rest of the world, seeing their GDP go up doesn't mean their civilian population's lives are improving

GDP is a crude measure that can be easily manipulated and you can have two countries, one providing small GDP growth but their population is living well and another who's GDP is growthing but it's because they are undergoing rapid industrial building of war machines paid for with debt and lowering of living standards for their citizens - yet if all we do is look at GDP we'll say the second country is doing really well. Just like people tried to say look Hitler is doing really well for his people and look how that turned out...
Click to expand...

Good post and generally correct.
One minor thing is there was reasonable concensus that Russia had approx 500Bn($ I am 99% sure) put aside for war in cash or fairly easy to liquidate assets such as gold.
They were burning through approx £30Bn at one point, so in theory should pretty much have used up that chest. IMO thats what was fuelling the growth.
 
Moscow singer Polina Menshnykh should haunt her manager for getting her such a crummy gig at the DPR.

On the bright side, her performance did bring the house down and had a guest appearance from some precision rockets.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom