Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Russians going all in now in their assault on the northern flank of Avdiivka. Losses were up to 800 troops yesterday, almost all reduced in the march to the front. Estimated that Russians have massed 40K troops in rear areas to conduct this attack. Time for some ATACMS clusters in the assembly areas to break up these formations (this is a gentleman's war: Soviets would have used persistent chemical agents for area denial in these circumstances)

11 Nov: BRUTAL!!! RUSSIANS BARELY CROSS 100 METERS AND GET OBLITERATED | War in Ukraine Explained


Ukraine has also been very successful in degrading Russian leadership. The Russian/Soviet military is very centralized. Having initiative is very discouraged and everyone only does what the commander says, even if it results in disaster. The German army of WW II strongly encouraged independence among lower ranks and the western Allies followed suit. Independence at all levels particularly suited the American army which was made up of people who came from an independent thinking culture (compared to most countries at the time, not that truly independent thought was ubiquitous).

In WW II and ever since the Soviet/Russian army have been locked into a mindset of only do what the commander tells you and not one iota more. It gets people to do suicidal charges at the enemy, but it also eliminates any tactical flexibility.

By taking out a lot of Russian commanders, it has left a vacuum of leadership. There still are senior officers, but very few low and middle grade officers to carry out the mission. Many of the people who were junior officers early in the war were prematurely promoted to higher rank without the experience. And those junior officers have largely not been replaced.

A lot of intercepted phone calls mobiks talk about the only officer they have ever seen is a colonel or a general who shows up, tells them they are going to be charging x location and then they disappear. They have never seen another officer of lower rank.

Russia was officer heavy at the start of the war. Their officer corps was one of the largest per capita in the world, but now they have very few officers left below the rank of colonel. The Russians relied so heavily on officers because lower ranking officers did what NCOs do in other armies. They policed the troops and made sure there was some semblance of discipline. In winter, NCOs ensure that troops are following good cold weather hygiene and doing what it takes to reduce cold injuries like frostbite, trench foot, and hypothermia. With nobody pushing the troops to keep their feet dry and wear the right protective clothing, a lot of people are going to get cold injuries and be lost to the army.

This is going to be a worse problem this winter than last winter. The officer corps is thinner now than it was.

The Update from Ukraine video talks about 70% being lost on an assault. Casualty rates no western army could sustain, but in a pure numbers game throwing 40,000 men at a position and having 12.000 survive the assault does give the Russians the ability to take ground. At least for a short while. Once they take those positions, they have no training or leadership to get them to consolidate their positions, so the Ukrainians just whittle them down until there are not enough left to hold the position and then take it back.

Russia's meat wave tactics work very short term for Moscow. Especially politically. But long term they are weakening their army. They are losing men and equipment much, much faster than they can replace it.

I saw something else that I can't find right now that was talking about the maps in western media are diverging. The best sources are still relying on ISW maps which are usually a few days out of date, but they take the effort to try and be accurate. But some western sources are relying on maps from Russian sources and they are reporting Russian gains that have been proven wrong with video of Ukrainian troops in areas that should be well behind the Russian lines now walking around perfectly safe.

The Russian army has always had a culture of lying and the field commanders are probably reporting to Moscow ever exaggerated claims of success because they are trying to protect their own back ends. Then Moscow is embellishing these results and publishing them.

There is attrition on both sides, but Russia is accelerating their attrition rate with these pointless attacks and allowing the Ukrainians to whittle down their forces with low casualties themselves.


This is going to be a problem. A majority in Congress want to see aid sent to Ukraine, but the Speaker of the House serves as a gatekeeper for bills getting to the floor. There is a way to get a bill to the floor around the Speaker, but it requires some Republicans breaking ranks and working with the Democrats and there isn't any backbone to do that right now.
 
Thinking about the winter ahead for Ukraine…they have stated they won’t sit idly by if/when Russia again attacks their energy infrastructure this winter. Very recently, Ukraine’s Energy Minister Galushchenko said in an interview that Ukraine is open to the possibility of attacking Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure if Moscow proceed as such. Russia's oil and gas sector accounts for ~40% of Russia's federal budget revenues, so this is a very high value target.

Where might Ukraine decide to strike in this scenario?

Russia exports crude oil by pipeline and by oil tanker at sea. The Druzhba pipeline system carries oil to the EU but since the war that has been reduced to about a third, currently ~1 million tons. The ESPO pipeline carries oil to China and has remained steady at about 2.5 millions tons.

Most of Russia’s seaborne exports originate from western terminals (Baltic and Black Seas) with about ~2.75 million tons and a lesser ~0.9 million tons from eastern Siberian fields serving mostly Asian customers.

Ukraine has several tools we know of to deconstruct Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure including missiles, sabotage, and sea borne drones.

This got me thinking about the Montreux Convention which governs the transit of merchant vessels and warships through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus Strait and the presence of warships in the Black Sea. At the beginning of the war Turkey announced it was invoking its powers therein which permits warships only to return to base in the Black Sea but otherwise does not allow any other warships to enter or leave.

But does this include covert boats carrying sea drones and other weaponry? Regardless, would Ukraine even acknowledge their direct/indirect roles of projecting such power into Russia ports in the Baltic and elsewhere?

There is renewed reporting recently that perhaps Ukraine severed the Nordstream gas pipeline. If this is indeed the case, their abilities for projecting power abroad have likely grown since, so it would be conceivable to see more powerful and frequent strikes to Russia from inside and outside - including on the high seas.
 
they have stated they won’t sit idly by if/when Russia again attacks their energy infrastructure this winter. Very recently, Ukraine’s Energy Minister Galushchenko said in an interview that Ukraine is open to the possibility of attacking Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure if Moscow proceed as such.

If Europe is still dependent on Russian fossils this winter, I cannot imagine a quicker way to cut their support of UKR off at the knees than to attack the Russian fossil exports. I wish it were no so, but UKR would be taking a massive risk in doing so. Of course the US would be delighted to export NG to the EU. If that can make up the shortfall, then it is game on. If fact, it would make a UKR attack a no-brainer
 
If Europe is still dependent on Russian fossils this winter, I cannot imagine a quicker way to cut their support of UKR off at the knees than to attack the Russian fossil exports. I wish it were no so, but UKR would be taking a massive risk in doing so. Of course the US would be delighted to export NG to the EU. If that can make up the shortfall, then it is game on. If fact, it would make a UKR attack a no-brainer
All important points for Ukraine to consider.

If Ukraine really did break the Nord Stream pipeline and Europeans (Germans in particular) believe it, there seems to be not a whimper. In fact, just a few days ago Germany’s governing coalition agreed to double the country's military aid for Ukraine next year to 8 billion euros ($8.5 billion) and this is expected to pass.

Europe is also no longer dependent on Russia for natural gas (NG) exports. Further, NG storage is full in Europe ahead of the winter and energy prices are way down regionally. LNG is plentiful worldwide and prices are down to inflation adjusted all time lows. Europe now is finally in a position of adequate emergency LNG degasification capacity.

At ~10 million bpd, Russia is the 3rd largest oil producer after the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. The world consumes ~100 million bpd. OPEC+ currently is purposefully withholding ~2 million bpd, so matched capacity is theoretically there if Ukraine were able to knock out 20% of Russian production/delivery. Since oil/gasoline is approaching 100% fungible, world markets would realign with Russia taking the large brunt of the pain.
 
Europe now is finally in a position of adequate emergency LNG degasification capacity.

I have read (so take it with a grain of salt, since I have no particular insight into the topic) that full NG reserves in Europe, combined with import capacity, can cover a mild winter. That is certainly a much better position than two years ago but it leaves a lot of room for problems:

  • A non-mild winter is the obvious one
  • Regional scarcity
  • High prices
 
I have read (so take it with a grain of salt, since I have no particular insight into the topic) that full NG reserves in Europe, combined with import capacity, can cover a mild winter. That is certainly a much better position than two years ago but it leaves a lot of room for problems:

  • A non-mild winter is the obvious one
  • Regional scarcity
  • High prices

Many of us also bought so many solar panels (to cover for lower winter irradiance) that electricity is sometimes even free (especially on sunny days):

 
Zeihan's geopolitical analysis of Russia's Navy.


That is an interesting knitted cap.

Zeihan has some fairly good analysis, but he misses some details and he sometimes goes with the worse case scenarios.

All but the largest Russian ships can travel on the internal river systems in Russia. The Russians have reinforced the Black Sea fleet during the war by bringing in some smaller ships via rivers. NATO allies have done the same for Ukraine sending small vessels down the Danube.

Ukraine has blunted the effect of the Russian navy by putting their bases in Crimea at risk. Russia has also stopped firing strategic missiles, many of which were fired from naval ships. A lot of people are speculating that Russia is just storing up recently produced missiles to use on Ukraine when the weather gets cold and I agree that's what is likely going on. Though Russian missile production is heavily dependent on imported electronics and it is possible that sanctions have shut down missile production.

China does not make the parts they need, but there is speculation the newly produced missiles we saw last year were made with smuggled parts. It's also possible they had enough parts on the shelf to make about a year's worth of missiles, but they now can't get the parts for new production.

We'll know if they are storing up missiles or not in a few weeks. I think it likely they have just been hoarding recent production.

The Russian navy in the Black Sea has fairly limited missions. If they wanted to risk their ships to Ukrainian attack they would be trying to interdict traffic in and out of Ukrainian ports, but they aren't doing that. Their only other missions are keeping supply moving into Crimea and launching missiles at Ukraine. With no missile launches they are just moving supply. Basically an expensive freight service.

In military thinking there are two types of military powers: land power and sea powers. The type of territory a country has determines which power it's going to become. Japan, England, and the Netherlands are all natural sea powers. Their economies have been dependent on over seas trade and before the post WW II era they needed strong navies to protect their trade routes. In a sea power the navy is the premiere service with the army having a secondary role.

Land powers are the opposite with the army being the premiere service and the navy being secondary or even non-existent. Germany was a land power before the post -WW II era and when the war situation got bad, the surface navy was the first thing cut. The submarine navy remained because it was a counter to the Royal Navy's dominance.

The USSR/Russia has always been a land power. Control over the easternmost parts of Europe and northern Asia has required a strong army with the navy being a secondary consideration.

The United States is the only exception to the rule pretty much in world history. It's both. The US is a natural fortress with peaceful neighbors. US military interests have rarely been close to home. Especially after the US Civil War. It needs a large powerful navy to get the army where it needs to fight and to protect it's flank while it's fighting. Then on top of that the navy is powerful enough to sink any other navy in a lazy afternoon.

the USSR/Russia's navy has always been designed to do as much damage to the US Navy as possible before they were sunk. The ground attack role it's had in this war is secondary to its main mission.
 
I've never been particularly impressed by any of Zeihan's analyses. He presents his opinions with conviction, but so do plenty of yahoos. Maybe he's right in regards to what he says about the Russian naval fleet, but I won't be wasting my time finding out.

This was on the sidebar on YouTube the other day. I thought it was a decent analysis of Zeihan
 
This was on the sidebar on YouTube the other day. I thought it was a decent analysis of Zeihan
His views on China's naval capabilities are pretty laughable. He basically thinks they have no naval capabilities. His views on renewable energy are even more laughable. He thinks that there's only enough resources for N. America to go green, and that the US will wage war on the rest of the world to gain control of those resources.
 
His views on China's naval capabilities are pretty laughable. He basically thinks they have no naval capabilities. His views on renewable energy are even more laughable. He thinks that there's only enough resources for N. America to go green, and that the US will wage war on the rest of the world to gain control of those resources.

He cherry picks his data. The Chinese navy is still a weaker force than the USN, but they should have no trouble dealing with pirates if they need to.
 
Bottom line for me, it was a reasonable assessment of the Russian Navy and appropiate for the thread.

Zeihan might have some undesirable traits but some of us here might not be much different. He's a futurist and is paid for his opinions. It's okay to disagree on topics but ad hominens add little value.

Soap box off - let's get back to those bright and cheery discussions. :)
 
To those who have missed the previous 30 years, here is a short list of the results of negotiations with Russia that it never respected:


At school, "new" Ukrainian pupils were required to wrap themselves in the Russian flag and wear it until the end of classes. When some children got tired and asked to remove it, the teacher agreed. However, moments later, an armed Russian soldier quarreled with the children over their "dislike for Russia." In the school halls, children constantly encountered such armed soldiers standing under the classrooms, taking 10-year-old Ukrainians for "disciplinary talks" over careless Ukrainian "please" in class. Luckily, the children attended the Russian school for only 4 days before our rescuers took the family away.