Ukraine

[pecunia]

Relatively large Russian equipment losses coupled with a standard amount of soldier losses tells me Ukraine is doing more targeted strikes.  Probably drones.

No, since the current offensive started (and winter really hit) we had only one or two days of losses above 1000 (but higher material).
And the Ukrainians are sorely missing arty grenades. If this goes on, Russia might lose another 1000 tanks and 2000 APC, but then they will win because Ukraine has nothing left to stop them.

Whenever I see comments like this one, a picture of this nerdy looking Mike Johnson guy pops into my head for some reason as though he could somehow help.

[dignam]

Claiming either side "will win" is kind of ridiculous at this point.  The only information we really have is battle lines and materiel/personnel losses, and even those may not be very accurate.  We can make guesses as to who is advancing where, what kind of strikes were done, etc.  But each side has it in their best interest to keep their cards close to the vest.

[LennStar]

Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.

Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.

And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.

[pecunia]

Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.

Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.

And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.

So to add a bit.  If this Mike Johnson guy would allow a vote in the US Congress to give aid to Ukraine, it would help alleviate the situation where Ukraine has to resort to Molotov cocktails.

[sonofsven]

Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.

Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.

And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.

So to add a bit.  If this Mike Johnson guy would allow a vote in the US Congress to give aid to Ukraine, it would help alleviate the situation where Ukraine has to resort to Molotov cocktails.

But that would hurt Putin, and, by extension, the New Republican party.

[pecunia]

Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.

Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.

And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.

So to add a bit.  If this Mike Johnson guy would allow a vote in the US Congress to give aid to Ukraine, it would help alleviate the situation where Ukraine has to resort to Molotov cocktails.

But that would hurt Putin, and, by extension, the New Republican party.

I wish they would bring back the old one.  They gave us OSHA, freed the slaves, the EPA, believed in financial responsibility, respected the military, gave us National Parks and other things.  I used to vote for those guys once in a while.    If Teddy Roosevelt were around today, Russia would be out of Ukraine.  That walking softly with the big stick thing is what is needed.

[Tyson]

Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.

Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.

And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.

So to add a bit.  If this Mike Johnson guy would allow a vote in the US Congress to give aid to Ukraine, it would help alleviate the situation where Ukraine has to resort to Molotov cocktails.

But that would hurt Putin, and, by extension, the New Republican party.

I wish they would bring back the old one.  They gave us OSHA, freed the slaves, the EPA, believed in financial responsibility, respected the military, gave us National Parks and other things.  I used to vote for those guys once in a while.    If Teddy Roosevelt were around today, Russia would be out of Ukraine.  That walking softly with the big stick thing is what is needed.

Agreed.  The current party seems to be based on the existential panic of the working class in middle America.  Economically their jobs have been under fire for a while (with automation and outsourcing being major disruptors).  These jobs aren't coming back, they know it in their bones and that causes the rage we see nowadays.  The 'culture wars' are just a cover and a distraction from the real, underlying economic war that they are losing.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

An important difference between China and Russia (from a year ago):

BEIJING (AP) — China rolled back rules on isolating people with COVID-19 and dropped virus test requirements for some public places Wednesday in a dramatic change to a strategy that confined millions of people to their homes and sparked protests and demands for President Xi Jinping to resign.

https://apnews.com/article/health-business-china-covid-economy-e5559f6062cf052a71ad6ba1ceece693

Mass protests lead President Xi to drop Covid-19 restrictions.  Russia arrested 15,000 protestors in the first two weeks of its war - that seems like Russia's approach to protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_protests_in_Russia_(2022%E2%80%93present)

China arrests plenty of protesters.  Clever protestors have gotten around laws against protesting specific things by protesting with blank signs.

Has Russia changed policies because of mass protests?  I claim the answer is no, but I'm open to being wrong.

My point was that mass protests in China caused China to change behavior (dropping Covid-19 restrictions).  Smaller protests certainly result in arrests, like hundreds arrested over the Hong Kong security law.  Smaller protests in Russia also result in arrests - I don't see a difference at that scale.  I'm not aware of Russia changing government policy in response to mass protests, so I'm contrasting that with the example in China where it has.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Maybe the Ukraine aid package needs new branding: "Aid to Ukraine, made in America".  The weapons and ammunition are built in the United States, and then shipped to Ukraine.  Unlike the claims of Trump's "freedom caucus", we know what is going to Ukraine because we built it.

Republicans have a bill ready to make progress on the border, but now Trump is interfering.  It seems he doesn't want progress made under Biden, and Republicans may follow his lead.  That same bill provides aid to Ukraine, so both might go down together.  We'll see.

That said, it was good seeing the REPO act make progress in Congress:

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced legislation Wednesday to allow the U.S. to seize frozen Russian assets to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4426738-seize-russian-assets-ukraine-senate/

[techwiz]

Ukraine Shoots Down Another $50 Million Russian Su-34 Fighter Bomber.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ukraine-shoots-down-another-50-million-russian-su-34-fighter-bomber/ar-BB1huwJW?cvid=e61febce8c254edfe0be4b01d22a7e54&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=6

I wonder if the economics on these expensive planes make sense anymore with drone technology/warfare? 

[pecunia]

Ukraine Shoots Down Another $50 Million Russian Su-34 Fighter Bomber.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ukraine-shoots-down-another-50-million-russian-su-34-fighter-bomber/ar-BB1huwJW?cvid=e61febce8c254edfe0be4b01d22a7e54&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=6

I wonder if the economics on these expensive planes make sense anymore with drone technology/warfare?

Solid state electronics can certainly withstand more G's than a human being and weighs less.  No benefits need to be paid to widows and children.  The training is software that doesn't forget and makes no human errors.

I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes.  They are legacy Soviet equipment.  It cost Putin very little.  The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL)  It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes.  You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them.  It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will.  The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.

[zolotiyeruki]

Ukraine Shoots Down Another $50 Million Russian Su-34 Fighter Bomber.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ukraine-shoots-down-another-50-million-russian-su-34-fighter-bomber/ar-BB1huwJW?cvid=e61febce8c254edfe0be4b01d22a7e54&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=6

I wonder if the economics on these expensive planes make sense anymore with drone technology/warfare?

Solid state electronics can certainly withstand more G's than a human being and weighs less.  No benefits need to be paid to widows and children.  The training is software that doesn't forget and makes no human errors.

I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes.  They are legacy Soviet equipment.  It cost Putin very little.  The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL)  It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes.  You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them.  It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will.  The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.

That would be fine for Putin if he had production of newer jets running at any sort of scale.  But he doesn't--every plane he loses is one that is very difficult to replace.

[maizefolk]

The Su-34 is a post-Soviet design that only entered production in the 21st century.

An additional indirect cost of losing aircraft in the war to Russia is that they're one of the handful of countries with significant arms export businesses and while the USA exports more arms in terms of absolute dollars, Russia's arms exports are a much bigger chunk of their overall GDP and overall employment.

Poor performance of planes and other weapon systems in Ukraine is going to reduce interest from international buyers who would be considering buying those same planes and weapon systems.

[zolotiyeruki]

Poor performance of planes and other weapon systems in Ukraine is going to reduce interest from international buyers who would be considering buying those same planes and weapon systems.

Poor ability to deliver ordered equipment is also gonna reduce interest. I heard Russia sent a bunch of tanks intended for India to Ukraine instead.

[maizefolk]

Yes that is also true. Although that problem is a bit less Russian specific. I believe we also redirected a bunch of F-16s Taiwan had ordered to the countries in Europe to replace the MiGs NATO states were sending to Ukraine.

[Dancin'Dog]

The Su-34 is a post-Soviet design that only entered production in the 21st century.

An additional indirect cost of losing aircraft in the war to Russia is that they're one of the handful of countries with significant arms export businesses and while the USA exports more arms in terms of absolute dollars, Russia's arms exports are a much bigger chunk of their overall GDP and overall employment.

Poor performance of planes and other weapon systems in Ukraine is going to reduce interest from international buyers who would be considering buying those same planes and weapon systems.

Seeing how effective cheap drones have been I can't imagine many countries would be shopping for fighter jets these days.  Have you seen the Anduril Roadrunner?  I wouldn't want to be a pilot these days.

[maizefolk]

Seeing how effective cheap drones have been I can't imagine many countries would be shopping for fighter jets these days.

The Czechs just signed a deal to by 24 new F-35s from us yesterday.

A Greek purchase of 40 F-35s and a Turkish purchase of 40 new F-16s when through on Friday.

[Travis]

Poor performance of planes and other weapon systems in Ukraine is going to reduce interest from international buyers who would be considering buying those same planes and weapon systems.

Poor ability to deliver ordered equipment is also gonna reduce interest. I heard Russia sent a bunch of tanks intended for India to Ukraine instead.

Any time you see an article about T-90S in Ukraine, that's an Indian tank.

Seeing how effective cheap drones have been I can't imagine many countries would be shopping for fighter jets these days.  Have you seen the Anduril Roadrunner?  I wouldn't want to be a pilot these days.

The manned warplane will probably disappear by the end of this century entirely, but until drones can carry the kind of weapons payload of current fighters and bombers they're still useful.  The drones and cruise missiles making the headlines lately are also one-time use. You have to have thousands of them to deliver the same effects of a normal warplane.

A Ukrainian, Russian, or Iranian drone right now could fly 1000km and blow up a small building, but it can also be shot down without too much effort. The B-2 can fly halfway around the world, deliver the firepower equivalent of a several dozen of those drones without being seen, and go home to do it again tomorrow. We've been experimenting with splitting the difference with drones that can fly alongside manned aircraft and be missile carriers that get queued by the pilot. All of those solutions have costs to them. The B-2/B-21 are billion dollar planes, but meant to be invincible.  Cruise missiles and drones that can fly fighter-bomber distances with reasonably-sized warheads are a million dollars a pop so if you want to replace the manned capability you'll need thousands of them.

Russian military doctrine calls for heavy use of long range missiles whether they be air or ground launched, but in two years they've burned through decades worth of production. They're the second largest military producer in the world and currently living hand to mouth, firing cruise missiles and long range drones at the rate they're being built. On the same note the West is running out of air defense missiles plucking them out of the sky, but everyone noticed and modern SAM production is going to go hard for the next decade.

[Tyson]

Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine.  The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.

[LennStar]

I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes.  They are legacy Soviet equipment.  It cost Putin very little.  The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL)  It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes.  You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them.  It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will.  The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.

That would be fine for Putin if he had production of newer jets running at any sort of scale.  But he doesn't--every plane he loses is one that is very difficult to replace.

As maizefolk said, those are (relativly) newly planes. Design may have been started by the Soviets, but production started after 2000 and Russia is producing them right now. The factory promised to increase production to 6 planes in 2024.
Every single one shot down hurts Russia. Not only because the plane itself is missed, but also it puts more strain on the planes and pilots of the other ones.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

What happened to Su-34s doesn't mean all fighters have the same problems.

A lack of guided bombs required the Su-34s to fly low for accurate bombing, where they were subjected to heavy Ukrainian air-defenses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(2022-present)

From earlier in the war, this quote shows that Ukraine and Russia can work towards a common goal - shooting down Russian planes.
"Another was a modernized variant Su-34M and was reportedly shot down by Russian forces."

Looks like Russia has 149+ Su-34 fighter-bombers left, or roughly 1 in 7 destroyed during the war in Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft

[GuitarStv]

Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine.  The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.

They were losing tons of shit in Afghanistan too . . . but still hung around for 15 odd years.

[Sibley]

Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine.  The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.

They were losing tons of shit in Afghanistan too . . . but still hung around for 15 odd years.

Heck, the US stuck around in Afghanistan for 20 odd years too. Sunk cost fallacy is a bitch.

[pecunia]

I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes.  They are legacy Soviet equipment.  It cost Putin very little.  The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL)  It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes.  You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them.  It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will.  The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.

That would be fine for Putin if he had production of newer jets running at any sort of scale.  But he doesn't--every plane he loses is one that is very difficult to replace.

As maizefolk said, those are (relativly) newly planes. Design may have been started by the Soviets, but production started after 2000 and Russia is producing them right now. The factory promised to increase production to 6 planes in 2024.
Every single one shot down hurts Russia. Not only because the plane itself is missed, but also it puts more strain on the planes and pilots of the other ones.

But a lot of the tanks,.........Tanks for the memories,.........They are old.

[dividendman]

I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes.  They are legacy Soviet equipment.  It cost Putin very little.  The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL)  It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes.  You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them.  It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will.  The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.

That would be fine for Putin if he had production of newer jets running at any sort of scale.  But he doesn't--every plane he loses is one that is very difficult to replace.

As maizefolk said, those are (relativly) newly planes. Design may have been started by the Soviets, but production started after 2000 and Russia is producing them right now. The factory promised to increase production to 6 planes in 2024.
Every single one shot down hurts Russia. Not only because the plane itself is missed, but also it puts more strain on the planes and pilots of the other ones.

But a lot of the tanks,.........Tanks for the memories,.........They are old.

Maybe we should end the Boeing export ban to Russia to further degrade their capabilities.

[Tyson]

Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine.  The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.

They were losing tons of shit in Afghanistan too . . . but still hung around for 15 odd years.

Heck, the US stuck around in Afghanistan for 20 odd years too. Sunk cost fallacy is a bitch.

Very true!

I was also thinking that what the best outcome in this war is not a defeated Russia, but rather a weakened Russia.  Since we are dealing with the sociopath Putin, and Putin has nuclear weapons, then a quick decisive victory is too humiliating for someone as ego driven as Putin.  A long slow death in a meat grinder war is more likely to keep the nukes off the table. 

[Sibley]

Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine.  The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.

They were losing tons of shit in Afghanistan too . . . but still hung around for 15 odd years.

Heck, the US stuck around in Afghanistan for 20 odd years too. Sunk cost fallacy is a bitch.

Very true!

I was also thinking that what the best outcome in this war is not a defeated Russia, but rather a weakened Russia.  Since we are dealing with the sociopath Putin, and Putin has nuclear weapons, then a quick decisive victory is too humiliating for someone as ego driven as Putin.  A long slow death in a meat grinder war is more likely to keep the nukes off the table.

Plus, potentially degrade the viability of those nukes. Russia has finite resources, there were questions/concerns about their nuclear weapon maintenance schedule before the war, an additional 2 years of increasing strain on resources is not going to improve matters.

[waltworks]

It sort of doesn't matter if there's a decent chance any given nuke is a dud, though, when you have thousands of them. Who's going to roll the dice that a Russian nuclear strike will mostly/completely fail? Not me.

-W

[zolotiyeruki]

I was also thinking that what the best outcome in this war is not a defeated Russia, but rather a weakened Russia.  Since we are dealing with the sociopath Putin, and Putin has nuclear weapons, then a quick decisive victory is too humiliating for someone as ego driven as Putin.  A long slow death in a meat grinder war is more likely to keep the nukes off the table.

This, I fear, may be the behind-the-scenes realpolitik behind the US's and Europe's slow roll on supporting Ukraine.  I understand the intent--if Russia's bogged down in Ukraine, their potential for mischief elsewhere is reduced--but forcing Ukraine to bear the cost of the rest of the world's future peace is unsettling.

[LennStar]

The US financial planning for Ukraine help is several - up to ten - years long, so yes, that seems to be the case. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/26/ukraine-war-plan-biden-defense/


While Ukraine had some success in the Krim area with long range strikes, the situation is getting dire on the land fronts. The lack of artillery shells, enemy "rain" and immense waves of attacks have made holding current positions impossible it seems.

Ukraine has already feverishly building new defense lines more to the west.

South of Kupjansk teh Ukraine lines have been broken in a wider area, and Russian forces have advanced about 10km (Tabaivka). There are signs that Avdijivka will finally be evacuated once the new defense lines are finished.

Meanwhile in the capital there are more and more rumors about conflict between Selensky and Saluzhnyj including a refused "voluntary" retirement from the position of Chief of Military (whatever the title is).

[dividendman]

It looks like Ukraine sunk another Russian warship: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/europe/ukraine-russian-warship-crimea-ivanovets-intl/index.html

[blue_green_sparks]

It looks like Ukraine sunk another Russian warship: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/europe/ukraine-russian-warship-crimea-ivanovets-intl/index.html

That type of warship is supposed to have a stern-facing, hi-speed, radar-controlled gatling gun. Perhaps the angle of attack was well planned. I read that the US even acquired an example of that Soviet built ship from the newly unified Germany.

[Radagast]

Comparisons with the USSR's 1980 misadventure in Afghanistan badly miss. Russia is right now sustaining around 10x the casualties in a decade in Afghanistan every year. 10x the average annual loss rate, and their population is 1/3 the size of the USSR. This is 30 times more impactful, and more if you account for the population age distribution. Manufacturing is similar: equipment losses are off the chart, Russia has much lower manufacturing capacity than the USSR, and has been mostly sustaining itself off the stockpiles it inherited from the USSR. It's obviously not sustainable. One issue is that the definition of sustainable changed since the beginning of the war. Originally sustainable was in reference to the size of Russia's active military, then the reserves, but now both the original force and the reserves have been entirely destroyed which didn't seem like a rational course of events at first. So now sustainable has switched to reference literally all equipment Russia can come up with, which is perhaps 4x greater than the original active force. So the goal posts have moved a few times. Russia is still on track to run out of equipment, it will just take 3-4 years rather than 1-2.

The important and frustrating thing is the NATO+ countries need to supply Ukraine ample munitions and equipment to chew through all that with relative losses as low as possible. So far they have been very slow to do that which really pisses me off on several levels. I'm very supportive of Russia losing a million men and 10,000 tanks, but let's make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

[pecunia]

Comparisons with the USSR's 1980 misadventure in Afghanistan badly miss. Russia is right now sustaining around 10x the casualties in a decade in Afghanistan every year. 10x the average annual loss rate, and their population is 1/3 the size of the USSR. This is 30 times more impactful, and more if you account for the population age distribution. Manufacturing is similar: equipment losses are off the chart, Russia has much lower manufacturing capacity than the USSR, and has been mostly sustaining itself off the stockpiles it inherited from the USSR. It's obviously not sustainable. One issue is that the definition of sustainable changed since the beginning of the war. Originally sustainable was in reference to the size of Russia's active military, then the reserves, but now both the original force and the reserves have been entirely destroyed which didn't seem like a rational course of events at first. So now sustainable has switched to reference literally all equipment Russia can come up with, which is perhaps 4x greater than the original active force. So the goal posts have moved a few times. Russia is still on track to run out of equipment, it will just take 3-4 years rather than 1-2.

The important and frustrating thing is the NATO+ countries need to supply Ukraine ample munitions and equipment to chew through all that with relative losses as low as possible. So far they have been very slow to do that which really pisses me off on several levels. I'm very supportive of Russia losing a million men and 10,000 tanks, but let's make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

Ukraine needs to furnish men and women for this struggle.  This is quite the sacrifice.

[Radagast]

Comparisons with the USSR's 1980 misadventure in Afghanistan badly miss. Russia is right now sustaining around 10x the casualties in a decade in Afghanistan every year. 10x the average annual loss rate, and their population is 1/3 the size of the USSR. This is 30 times more impactful, and more if you account for the population age distribution. Manufacturing is similar: equipment losses are off the chart, Russia has much lower manufacturing capacity than the USSR, and has been mostly sustaining itself off the stockpiles it inherited from the USSR. It's obviously not sustainable. One issue is that the definition of sustainable changed since the beginning of the war. Originally sustainable was in reference to the size of Russia's active military, then the reserves, but now both the original force and the reserves have been entirely destroyed which didn't seem like a rational course of events at first. So now sustainable has switched to reference literally all equipment Russia can come up with, which is perhaps 4x greater than the original active force. So the goal posts have moved a few times. Russia is still on track to run out of equipment, it will just take 3-4 years rather than 1-2.

The important and frustrating thing is the NATO+ countries need to supply Ukraine ample munitions and equipment to chew through all that with relative losses as low as possible. So far they have been very slow to do that which really pisses me off on several levels. I'm very supportive of Russia losing a million men and 10,000 tanks, but let's make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

Ukraine needs to furnish men and women for this struggle.  This is quite the sacrifice.

Yes, and that's up to them to decide. But if that's their decision, IMO we should do everything we can to support them.

[PeteD01]

Long but interesting video about the breaking heating infrastucture and other crises in Russia:


Konstantin Samoilov - Russia has Been Hit by a Perfect Winter Storm that may Affect War's Outcome.

Russia has been hit be a perfect storm, that may affect the outcome of the war. Crumbling infrastructure combined with a cold winter. Strikes on strategic military energy infrastructure by Ukraine, and growing war fatigue among the domestic population. The move to a war economy, rampant inflation, and a growing deficit of some staple goods.
----------

Welcome to our monthly conversation with Konstantin, who is one of the most respected voices on YouTube about what is happening Inside Russia.

Konstantin Samoilov is a well-known YouTuber whose channel ‘Inside Russia’ comments insightfully on Russia’s decent into authoritarianism over the last few years. But now, like many others, he’s outside Russia, with no idea of when he can return there. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URzXdRO02ps

[sonofsven]

Apparently, supporting Russia and Putin is now so important to the New Republican Party they will torpedo a long sought immigration bill that had almost everything they demanded and negotiated for because it was tied to Ukraine funding.
New Republican chief propagandist Tucker Carlson is in country (RU) now and will be releasing his exclusive Vlad interview to tell "the other side of the story", soon to be published on X, I'm sure.

[zolotiyeruki]

Apparently, supporting Russia and Putin is now so important to the New Republican Party they will torpedo a long sought immigration bill that had almost everything they demanded and negotiated for because it was tied to Ukraine funding.
New Republican chief propagandist Tucker Carlson is in country (RU) now and will be releasing his exclusive Vlad interview to tell "the other side of the story", soon to be published on X, I'm sure.

I hate to drag this off-topic thread off topic, but from what I've read, the bill didn't actually do much to actually secure the border.  It added funding for various mitigation measures (deportation flights, detention beds, more immigration judges), and a trigger (5,000 illegal crossings per day) to allow the government to enact further restrictions.  Given the current administration's pattern of not enforcing the existing laws, though, I can understand the GOP's reticence to agree to the deal.  And given how many times the democrats have payed lucy-with-the-football on immigration...

I still think Ukraine aid should be passed on its own, but if they're gonna take the political heat for demanding border security, they might as well actually get something meaningful out of it.

[LennStar]

The border is secure. Which army do you think is going to invade the USA?

Migration has nothing to do with border security, even though the word is taken almost all the time by people who do not want other people to move around freely as is their natural right.

----

Anyway, Germany has made a package sending 100 heavy vehicles (including some Gepard, wherever we have found them, and several sets of Iris-T air defense) to Ukraine, cementing it's stand as the 2nd biggest helper of Ukraine despite certain reluctances.

And Ukraine can use any help they get. It seems like they were able to fight back the Russians in the Avdijivka pipe into a stalemate around a dozen houses, but that town is riding on an ever sharper razor's edge.

On the bright side it looks like Russia has "exhausted" it's offensive power for the winter in the sense that we reached the hight of the bell curve. But maybe they are just holding back for a final push before the elections to finally get a "Good War News".

Also it seems we now have reached the predicted point of significant efficiency difference. Dispite 1:5 or even 1:10 ratios on shells fired, the Ukrainian fire seems to be so more precise that it mostly makes up for the difference (partly thanks to North Korean quality).
Russian equipment quality will continue it's downwards trends (on average), while Ukrainians will more likely improve - as long as the West supplies, of course.

[bacchi]

Apparently, supporting Russia and Putin is now so important to the New Republican Party they will torpedo a long sought immigration bill that had almost everything they demanded and negotiated for because it was tied to Ukraine funding.
New Republican chief propagandist Tucker Carlson is in country (RU) now and will be releasing his exclusive Vlad interview to tell "the other side of the story", soon to be published on X, I'm sure.

I hate to drag this off-topic thread off topic, but from what I've read, the bill didn't actually do much to actually secure the border.  It added funding for various mitigation measures (deportation flights, detention beds, more immigration judges), and a trigger (5,000 illegal crossings per day) to allow the government to enact further restrictions.  Given the current administration's pattern of not enforcing the existing laws, though, I can understand the GOP's reticence to agree to the deal.  And given how many times the democrats have payed lucy-with-the-football on immigration...

I still think Ukraine aid should be passed on its own, but if they're gonna take the political heat for demanding border security, they might as well actually get something meaningful out of it.

Ukraine aid will never be passed on its own. That's why it was tied to immigration, in the hopes that it would pull some House Republicans along. The Republicans got everything they wanted on the immigration side but it apparently wasn't enough.

McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.

McConnell, now nearing his 82nd birthday, is determined to fund the Ukrainian war effort, a push his allies have depicted as legacy-defining. But now that his party is set on Wednesday to reject a bipartisan trade of tougher border policies for war funding, his far-right critics are speaking out more loudly

[waltworks]

I hate to drag this off-topic thread off topic, but from what I've read, the bill didn't actually do much to actually secure the border.  It added funding for various mitigation measures (deportation flights, detention beds, more immigration judges), and a trigger (5,000 illegal crossings per day) to allow the government to enact further restrictions.  Given the current administration's pattern of not enforcing the existing laws, though, I can understand the GOP's reticence to agree to the deal.  And given how many times the democrats have payed lucy-with-the-football on immigration...

To be clear, this is 5,000 *encounters* per day. This does not mean letting in 5,000 people and then shutting things down. It's just having 5,000 people *try* to cross.

The bigger deal is more immigration judges. Current law says anyone can try to claim asylum, but because we can't actually assess those claims in a reasonable time, they *by law* have to be either detained (not possible with current facilities) or released. Everyone, on every side of the issue, should be shouting to the rooftops about getting more capability to process asylum claims.

Other stuff:
-Money for more detention facilities, which is step 1 if you don't want to just have to release people.
-4300 new asylum officers (who would be authorized to process many claims without a judge) and 100 new judges, with the goal of processing asylum claims in <6 months, rather than the ~10 years we're at currently.
-Forces Biden administration to spend already allocated funds to construct more border wall.
-Money for fentanyl detection/interdiction at the border
-Visas for some Afghan refugees who have US citizen relatives in the armed forces or are considered US allies (ie worked for the US in Afghanistan)
-Allows more work permits for ayslum seekers while they wait for their cases to be resolved
-Tons of money to hire lots more border patrol agents
-Money for cities dealing with lots of migrants (this one is probably the only one that Republicans don't like)

I don't know how on earth you can say that bill isn't a HUGE step forward in immigration policy. It also contains basically nothing that progressives advocate for in any way, it's essentially a total capitulation and a massive GOP win pretty much any way you look at it. Almost every provision polls really well with the general public, to boot.

Remember: current law says anyone can claim asylum and we can't just summarily deport them without a hearing. There is no avenue for the Biden administration to just "close the border" because it's *illegal* to do that (at least since Title 42 expired). This bill would make that possible (once the inevitable lawsuits got sorted out, anyway). Claiming that the president could close the border anytime is just simply not true.

But chaos is good politics I guess.

-W

[GuitarStv]

I don't know how on earth you can say that bill isn't a HUGE step forward in immigration policy. It also contains basically nothing that progressives advocate for in any way, it's essentially a total capitulation and a massive GOP win pretty much any way you look at it. Almost every provision polls really well with the general public, to boot.

I agree - this bill was everything that people making noise about immigration policy changes wanted.

[waltworks]

I thought this NYT profile of Senator Langford and his dismay at the fate of the immigration bill pretty much summed it up:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/us/politics/james-lankford-border-deal.html

(paywalled, TLDR: Langford is a super honorable religious conservative who thought he had gotten almost everything the GOP wanted in a border bill... and was then thrown straight under the bus)

@zolotiyeruki you should check it out.

-W

[pecunia]

I don't know how on earth you can say that bill isn't a HUGE step forward in immigration policy. It also contains basically nothing that progressives advocate for in any way, it's essentially a total capitulation and a massive GOP win pretty much any way you look at it. Almost every provision polls really well with the general public, to boot.

I agree - this bill was everything that people making noise about immigration policy changes wanted.

To be honest with you I haven't seen any more people cross from Canada recently.  Where I live I've seen little change.

[rocketpj]

Republicans claimed to want a border bill, thinking that the Democrats wouldn't give them what they claimed to want.  Democrats called their 'bluff' and gave them basically everything they asked for.

Then Trump and his minions spoke up and said - out loud - that they want the border to remain a 'crisis' for the election.  So the Republican party, being the spineless toadies they have become, immediately threw the deal - which, again, provided everything they asked for - under the bus.

I guess the Republicans have realized that all their other policies are vote losers, so they want this one to remain front and centre.  Unfortunately for all the actual humans involved, that means a lot more people will suffer to sustain this bit of political theatre.  Unfortunately for the Ukrainians, it means their lives and freedom are less important than some trivial, possible electoral advantage for Donald Trump.

[Just Joe]

McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.

Sounds like someone is not confident that Trump will be in the WH after next election? I'd love to see Tucker C spend about 6 months or a year in a Russian jail. See if he would still be singing Putin's praises afterward. I get it though, he's too valuable to Putin to do that.

[Travis]

McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.

Sounds like someone is not confident that Trump will be in the WH after next election? I'd love to see Tucker C spend about 6 months or a year in a Russian jail. See if he would still be singing Putin's praises afterward. I get it though, he's too valuable to Putin to do that.

State media identified him by name as an asset to their cause in the opening weeks of the war. He's more likely to get a parade through Moscow than a jail cell.

[dividendman]

McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.

Sounds like someone is not confident that Trump will be in the WH after next election? I'd love to see Tucker C spend about 6 months or a year in a Russian jail. See if he would still be singing Putin's praises afterward. I get it though, he's too valuable to Putin to do that.

That's not it. If Trump is elected Democrats in the Senate won't vote for this same deal, and you need 60 votes. If Biden wins, he has no incentive to approve any deal. That's why McConnell thought this was the only chance. Say what you want about McConnell, but he's probably the most successful Republican legislator/leader of the last 25 years in actually getting Republican priorities through.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.

Sounds like someone is not confident that Trump will be in the WH after next election? I'd love to see Tucker C spend about 6 months or a year in a Russian jail. See if he would still be singing Putin's praises afterward. I get it though, he's too valuable to Putin to do that.

State media identified him by name as an asset to their cause in the opening weeks of the war. He's more likely to get a parade through Moscow than a jail cell.

Maybe no jail in Moscow, but Europe views Mother Tucker as aiding Putin.

European lawmakers are considering slapping Kremlin propagandist Tucker Carlson with sanctions, including a travel ban, after Carlson conducted an "interview" with Vladimir Putin.

https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1755270708408553817

I linked to a retweet by Bill Browder, who championed the Magnitsky Act over the killing of his lawyer in Russia.  He currently advocates for seizing Russia's currency reserves (held in foreign central banks) to pay Ukraine for the damage caused by Russia.

[dividendman]

Are you guys serious with the hoping for sanctions etc. on Carlson? He's an interviewer, that's it.

We've had people interview murderers, terrorists (while still at large in Afghanistan/Pakistan), etc. Should we just throw all of these reporters/interviewers in jail? We've had people interview Saddam Hussein and other terrible people. Talking to them is not a crime.

Dennis Rodman cuddles with a dictator who has killed millions... where are the calls for sanctions.