Ukraine

[LennStar]

I'm no expert, but it seems that cutting off Russian oil production & distribution should be a top priority.  None of Russia's allies are donating anything, oil is paying for it all.  How much of the oil infrastructure is within drone range?  Where do the tanker ship dock for refilling?  That all seems like large stationary or slow moving targets that should be easy to damage, if within range.

But that would increase fuel prices and damage the economy!
And no, I am not joking.
That is also why there is a cap on Russians exported oil price, but not on the oil itself. Of course e.g. China is happy to help circumventing that - but also pays less.

The US has killed millions of people to keep the oil flowing, think they would not let a few ten thousand Ukrainians die for the same reason?

[waltworks]

Biden screwed them over, Trump (I'm assuming he'll be elected) will screw them even more. Our kids will get to get drafted to fight some combo of N. Korea/China/Russia/Iran. Lovely.

-W

[GuitarStv]

Biden screwed them over, Trump (I'm assuming he'll be elected) will screw them even more. Our kids will get to get drafted to fight some combo of N. Korea/China/Russia/Iran. Lovely.

-W

And the childless win yet again.  :P

[waltworks]

JD Vance will draft your cats, ladies!

-W

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm no expert, but it seems that cutting off Russian oil production & distribution should be a top priority.  None of Russia's allies are donating anything, oil is paying for it all.  How much of the oil infrastructure is within drone range?  Where do the tanker ship dock for refilling?  That all seems like large stationary or slow moving targets that should be easy to damage, if within range.

That's a delicate subject, because oil is a global market.  Blockade or sink Russia's tankers, and you make oil prices around the world rise.  Ukraine doesn't want the world mad at it, so when they strike Russian oil & gas facilities, they target production and supply intended for Russian domestic use, not export.

That said, there are signs that some sanctions are having an effect: https://kyivindependent.com/sanctioned-lng-ships-gather-off-russian-coast-as-buyers-withdraw-bloomberg-reports/

There has been open talk (including Ukrainian high military) about the Eastern front having collapsed. I would not call it that way, but clearly the emphasis in fighting retreat has changed from fighting to retreat.

It is true that Russia is incrementally advancing on every portion of the front.  However, it's important to keep in mind the pace of advancement, and the cost.  The pace is incredibly slow--at current rates, it will take Russia something like a century to take over all of Ukraine.  And the cost is incredibly high: Russia has sustained nearly 700,000 casualties over the last two and a half years, and they are rapidly burning through their stockpile of old tanks and APCs/IFVs.

The US has killed millions of people to keep the oil flowing, think they would not let a few ten thousand Ukrainians die for the same reason?

Millions?

[Radagast]

OK there has been a lot of gloom and doomism recently, so I try to look at more objective sources. Mine are primarily American/British military historian Phillips oBrien, and ISW. They aren't acting doom and gloom. Maybe exasperated with the extreme incompetence with which the US and Europe have handled the war, with which I agree. (Really, North Korea invades Europe, and Europe just doesn't care?) ISW says Putin ordered Russia to attack at all costs before the serious mud sets in (and maybe before the US election), but their attack does not have the resources to be sustained for much longer (a couple months plus or minus a couple months). Russia is taking extreme losses. Ukraine reported 1,500+ Russian casualties just yesterday, and I was initially skeptical but now have come to believe their reporting is reasonably accurate. There are reports that Russian production refurbishment of certain armored vehicle classes is starting to decline because the remaining storage is exhausted or in such poor condition that it cannot be readily restored. So I have strong belief in the ability of Ukraine to win, however this is contingent on the level of support each side gets from outside actors. Yes, Biden is the Millard Fillmore of our time.

[Radagast]

Radagast - It's a bit odd to favor North Korea's military exports over any European country.  The U.S. is largest arms exporter in the world - followed by France (11%).  After China (5%), you have Germany (4%), Italy (4%), and Spain (3%).  Not sure if you include the UK (3%) or not, but European countries are significant arms exporters.  A country that wanted to receive weapons would be better served by allying with a major European power, instead of North Korea.

Well, North Korea has provided half of all artillery shells Russia has fired for two years, exceeding all NATO donations by a factor of like 5, as well has hundreds of ballistic missiles exceeding the range of anything NATO has provided, and with no restrictions, not even against civilian targets, in addition to 10,000+ soldiers, which for all I know will become 100,000+ if the first batch works out. I'd easily take that over what any European country in your list has given Ukraine.

[Radagast]

I'm no expert, but it seems that cutting off Russian oil production & distribution should be a top priority.  None of Russia's allies are donating anything, oil is paying for it all.  How much of the oil infrastructure is within drone range?  Where do the tanker ship dock for refilling?  That all seems like large stationary or slow moving targets that should be easy to damage, if within range.

In order to do that, the US would have to ramp up domestic oil production to match any shortfall, which is politically untenable for Biden, even if strategically intelligent and beneficial to the US economy overall. Ramping up US oil production and systematically destroying Russian production is a good thought, but most people I think would rather let Russia win, because Russia conquering Ukraine seems to them less imperialist than the US allowing Ukraine to destroy Russian oil production and then profiting from the result. (Most of the world is heavily steeped in Soviet and Russian propaganda I have come to realize).

[LennStar]

]It is true that Russia is incrementally advancing on every portion of the front.  However, it's important to keep in mind the pace of advancement, and the cost.  The pace is incredibly slow--at current rates, it will take Russia something like a century to take over all of Ukraine.

I think you missed the recent news, because that is what I am talking about. This is not longer the case. Villages used to be hold for weeks, cities for months.
In some places now the Russians are basically walking through villages and even small towns. And don't forget that every taken town is one that Ukraine has to take back and also rebuild.

Or in other words: A few month back I said that the rate of advancement has increased from meters per week to dozens of meters per day.
And now we are kilometers per week.

Yes, Russia has problems, but so has Ukraine. Not only manpower, but also building fortifications. The ones used so far are sometimes going back to 2014. In many places there have not been any good build behind that.
The current major goal, Prokrovsk, has a town in front. In that town "dragon teeth" are lying around in the central place. Not in front of the town to prevent Russians from sending in heavy vehicles.
If you are heavily outnumbered, fortifications are a must have.

In order to do that, the US would have to ramp up domestic oil production to match any shortfall, which is politically untenable for Biden, even if strategically intelligent and beneficial to the US economy overall.

or you could just try your hardest to get rid of your oil addiction. But I guess that is too "liberal" and "leftist extremist".
I just got the data for new glasses. I have horrible eyes. But no comparison to the shortsightedness of way too many people.

[Radagast]

In order to do that, the US would have to ramp up domestic oil production to match any shortfall, which is politically untenable for Biden, even if strategically intelligent and beneficial to the US economy overall.

or you could just try your hardest to get rid of your oil addiction. But I guess that is too "liberal" and "leftist extremist".
I just got the data for new glasses. I have horrible eyes. But no comparison to the shortsightedness of way too many people.

But that has no relationship to the problem at hand, we should do that regardless of who makes the oil, and even in an extreme case it would take 10 more years. The options are
1. Don't destroy Russian oil production (which is what we will do, and emissions will be what they will be, and you won't speak against it as you just did which is why we will do this)
2. Destroy it and let the world economy go into economic depression for a decade, with a likely significant shift toward extreme nationalist governments globally
3. Destroy it and let a nation which has significant oil reserves expand production. The main choices are the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

Obviously the world's preference, by a margin of 10:1, is option 1.

[Travis]

Russia still jacking up interest rates in order to fight inflation and find buyers for its bonds.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-interest-rates-0fa1d7385be622fd98756a5b4e715262

Other Russian economic news. TL:DR - they're bleeding cash at an accelerating rate and can't finance or tax their way out of it

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/10/28/russia-economy-spending-sanctions-budget-war-ukraine/?utm_content=gifting&tpcc=gifting_article&gifting_article=cnVzc2lhLWVjb25vbXktc3BlbmRpbmctc2FuY3Rpb25zLWJ1ZGdldC13YXItdWtyYWluZQ==&pid=OC22371069

[BicycleB]

Really interesting articles, @Travis. Thanks for posting.

[LennStar]

Russia still jacking up interest rates in order to fight inflation and find buyers for its bonds.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-interest-rates-0fa1d7385be622fd98756a5b4e715262

Other Russian economic news. TL:DR - they're bleeding cash at an accelerating rate and can't finance or tax their way out of it

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/10/28/russia-economy-spending-sanctions-budget-war-ukraine/?utm_content=gifting&tpcc=gifting_article&gifting_article=cnVzc2lhLWVjb25vbXktc3BlbmRpbmctc2FuY3Rpb25zLWJ1ZGdldC13YXItdWtyYWluZQ==&pid=OC22371069

Oh yes, I forgot that I wanted to mention that too.
Inflation is so strong the central bank had a rates jump from 19% to 21% in one go. But imho inflation will still go on and even accelerate because it's caused directly and indirectly by the war.
And instead of being a main contributor the the state's budget, Gazprom (and others) are costing money. And the reserves are quickly drying up.
Russias economy was on a high due to the war effort, but I suspect in spring it will start to show serious problems, maybe even the root of the German Angst: hyperinflation.

It's really a race now between the front collapsing under the meatwaves or the Russian economy collapsing by burning it's own foundations.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Radagast - It's a bit odd to favor North Korea's military exports over any European country.  The U.S. is largest arms exporter in the world - followed by France (11%).  After China (5%), you have Germany (4%), Italy (4%), and Spain (3%).  Not sure if you include the UK (3%) or not, but European countries are significant arms exporters.  A country that wanted to receive weapons would be better served by allying with a major European power, instead of North Korea.

Well, North Korea has provided half of all artillery shells Russia has fired for two years, exceeding all NATO donations by a factor of like 5, as well has hundreds of ballistic missiles exceeding the range of anything NATO has provided, and with no restrictions, not even against civilian targets, in addition to 10,000+ soldiers, which for all I know will become 100,000+ if the first batch works out. I'd easily take that over what any European country in your list has given Ukraine.

I appreciate that additional information, and was surprised enough to fact check it - it's true.  Your point isn't what Europe could do, but how little they've met Ukraine's needs - especially compared to North Korea selling arms to Russia.

While this isn't NATO's war, it is a war in Europe.  If you look at how much each European country helped Ukraine, it is proportional to distance.  Perhaps this is per capita, but Poland contributes more than Germany, which contributes more than France, and Spain contributes less than any of them.  Without U.S. aid, I think Ukraine will end up relying on a few European countries who are closest to it.

[bill1827]

While this isn't NATO's war, it is a war in Europe.  If you look at how much each European country helped Ukraine, it is proportional to distance.  Perhaps this is per capita, but Poland contributes more than Germany, which contributes more than France, and Spain contributes less than any of them.  Without U.S. aid, I think Ukraine will end up relying on a few European countries who are closest to it.

According to https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/ukraine-support-tracker-data-20758/ in financial terms the leading contributors are the US, EU, Germany, UK, Japan, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and France. Poland is 11th.

In terms of GDP the leading contributors are Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Netherlands, Slovakia and Norway. The US is 16th.

It's understandable that the Baltic states make a large contribution in terms of GDP. They have history with Russia.

[reeshau]

I think the neighboring countries, particularly Poland, have also played an important role in breaking taboos, such as donating tanks and planes.

[Radagast]

My observation is that Ukraine's fortunes on the battlefield generally closely follow US supply of material. So if they haven't been doing well recently, the first question to ask is: what has the US been doing for Ukraine recently?

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/41431

[techwiz]

My observation is that Ukraine's fortunes on the battlefield generally closely follow US supply of material. So if they haven't been doing well recently, the first question to ask is: what has the US been doing for Ukraine recently?

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/41431

Supply and also restrictions on where and what can be targeted.

[Radagast]

Based on my reading of different sources, this is what I see happening. ISW says Russia will attack with everything they have, especially armor, until the mud sets in. Their goal is to cross open terrain and get right up next to many settlements. Then it will be muddy and they'll stop using armor and switch to their favorite consumable, meat. So there will be a winter of horrifying meat assaults all along the front, with little armor to back them up. Probably any armored vehicle that can move is about gone by now, so Russia will spend the next 6 months building up a new armored force while attacking over muddy ground with poorly supported infantry. Then in the summer they'll do the same thing using armor over open terrain, and try and repeat 2024 in 2025 by ending with meat assaults. However, they will then be about out of Soviet vehicles, so their method stops working summer-fall-2026. They'll still have refurb and new vehicles, just in insufficient numbers. They have until then to think of something else, or they will no longer be able to seize territory or defend except with trenches. Also their economy will be doing quite poorly by then.

There will be a continued gradual decline in the quantity and quality of armor, and it will take more Russians to make up for it. 2% of all Russian men are apparently already casualties. A year from now it may be over 3%, and rising at a growing rate. The rate of Russian casualties per day has already roughly doubled from 2023 based on my memory. In summary, I see things going as they have been through fall 2026, unless something happens to change it. Variables are mostly from outside countries such as the US and unlikely China, or else events in Russia. European countries are individually too small to be variables unless they do something drastic. I don't see Ukrainians as variables, if you are going to be killed painfully by Russians anyway, you may as well take an average of 6 of them with you.

[Radagast]

Radagast - It's a bit odd to favor North Korea's military exports over any European country.  The U.S. is largest arms exporter in the world - followed by France (11%).  After China (5%), you have Germany (4%), Italy (4%), and Spain (3%).  Not sure if you include the UK (3%) or not, but European countries are significant arms exporters.  A country that wanted to receive weapons would be better served by allying with a major European power, instead of North Korea.

Well, North Korea has provided half of all artillery shells Russia has fired for two years, exceeding all NATO donations by a factor of like 5, as well has hundreds of ballistic missiles exceeding the range of anything NATO has provided, and with no restrictions, not even against civilian targets, in addition to 10,000+ soldiers, which for all I know will become 100,000+ if the first batch works out. I'd easily take that over what any European country in your list has given Ukraine.

I appreciate that additional information, and was surprised enough to fact check it - it's true.  Your point isn't what Europe could do, but how little they've met Ukraine's needs - especially compared to North Korea selling arms to Russia.

While this isn't NATO's war, it is a war in Europe.  If you look at how much each European country helped Ukraine, it is proportional to distance.  Perhaps this is per capita, but Poland contributes more than Germany, which contributes more than France, and Spain contributes less than any of them.  Without U.S. aid, I think Ukraine will end up relying on a few European countries who are closest to it.

Yeah, I think the aid in proportion to distance thing is pretty interesting too.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

While this isn't NATO's war, it is a war in Europe.  If you look at how much each European country helped Ukraine, it is proportional to distance.  Perhaps this is per capita, but Poland contributes more than Germany, which contributes more than France, and Spain contributes less than any of them.  Without U.S. aid, I think Ukraine will end up relying on a few European countries who are closest to it.

According to https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/ukraine-support-tracker-data-20758/ in financial terms the leading contributors are the US, EU, Germany, UK, Japan, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and France. Poland is 11th.

In terms of GDP the leading contributors are Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Netherlands, Slovakia and Norway. The US is 16th.

It's understandable that the Baltic states make a large contribution in terms of GDP. They have history with Russia.

The U.S. economy is much larger than other contributors to Ukraine, so U.S. support is vitally important.  While that wasn't my key point, it is worth noting how hard it will be to replace U.S. aid, if it ceases (again, like it did earlier in 2024).

I found a "% GDP" graph of support for Ukraine, which is what I intended (perhaps per capita says the same, I'm not sure).  I'm a bit surprised Denmark contributed so highly, with no shared border.  Perhaps they fear a sea attack, which could reach all parts of Denmark faster than other countries.  Next up, #2 to #4 contributors per GDP, are the three Baltic states (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia).  These are tiny countries sharing a border with Russia.  Finland's army is larger, perhaps allowing them in at #5 despite their long land border with Russia.  These are the countries most vulnerable to a Russian attack.

After that come countries one step away from Russia.  Sweden is adjacent to Finland, and ranks #7.  Then comes Poland, #8, who shelters behind Ukraine and Lithuania.  I'm providing the link below so others can explore the list further.

Looking at this link, my earlier point can be clarified:  By % of GDP, it goes Poland, Germany, France and Spain.  The countries farthest away contribute the least, as a percent of their country's production.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/

[dividendman]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

[Taran Wanderer]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

Sadly I think you’re right.

[Radagast]

Never say die. Whimsy has always been a key element of Trump's policy.

Either way, good luck to Ukraine and Europe.

[cerat0n1a]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

Pretty sure it will take longer than a year to build factories for new missiles, fighter jets, artillery etc. Maybe it will happen in time to deter Putin's invasion of the Baltics or Poland.

[BicycleB]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

Pretty sure it will take longer than a year to build factories for new missiles, fighter jets, artillery etc. Maybe it will happen in time to deter Putin's invasion of the Baltics or Poland.

I suspect the Biden administration will send what supplies they can and Ukraine will use them well for a few months, but US technical/logistical support will get kneecapped soon after.  :(

[dividendman]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

Pretty sure it will take longer than a year to build factories for new missiles, fighter jets, artillery etc. Maybe it will happen in time to deter Putin's invasion of the Baltics or Poland.

I suspect the Biden administration will send what supplies they can and Ukraine will use them well for a few months, but US technical/logistical support will get kneecapped soon after.  :(

Biden flubbed this big time, he didn't go all in at the start like he should have. Oh well, Putin wins again.

[ChpBstrd]

Shall the thread now pivot from Ukraine to what happens when the US quits or undermines NATO?

[Mr FrugalNL]

Either way, good luck to Ukraine and Europe.

Thank you. I fear we will need it. It's chilling what might happen if Putin believes (rightly or wrongly) that the US won't honour its article 5 obligation under the NATO charter while Trump is in office.

Good luck to the people of Taiwan too, for that matter.

[alsoknownasDean]

I actually think we'll see more European countries developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Travis]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

Pretty sure it will take longer than a year to build factories for new missiles, fighter jets, artillery etc. Maybe it will happen in time to deter Putin's invasion of the Baltics or Poland.

If Europe was really going to pick up our share, they should have been serious about it 18 months ago. They haven't been. We threw billions at recapitalizing our artillery and missile factories and we're still not where we'd like to be.

[LennStar]

I am very much not in the mood to explalin the intricacys, so I will keep at the basic, easy to understand parts.

The German Chancellor has just fired the finance minister. Part of the reason is the FM refusal for more help for Ukraine (if it does not come with even more welfare cuts, which everyone else refused).

The (though not automatic) result will be new elections in march.
In these elections the "MAGAs" of Germany, the right extremist AfD will get such a huge amount of votes that it's either all other parties together (extremely unstable) or someone with AfD (extremely worrysome) to create a government.

AfD is... "Putin friendly", so in the latter case you can expect a lot LESS help from Germany for Ukraine. Oh, and they will likely try to shove out that million of Ukrainians who have fled here because West Ukraine is save.

[ChpBstrd]

I actually think we'll see more European countries developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

It's what I would advise them to do, as well as developing a large EU military.

The U.S. is gone, and the Russia-China-Iran alliance is on the march.

The welfare state doesn't mean much when you're in the same position as Ukraine, drafting men off the street in a desperate bid to avoid being victims of genocide.

[bacchi]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

Pretty sure it will take longer than a year to build factories for new missiles, fighter jets, artillery etc. Maybe it will happen in time to deter Putin's invasion of the Baltics or Poland.

I suspect the Biden administration will send what supplies they can and Ukraine will use them well for a few months, but US technical/logistical support will get kneecapped soon after.  :(

Biden flubbed this big time, he didn't go all in at the start like he should have. Oh well, Putin wins again.

It takes Congress to send money to Ukraine.

[LennStar]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

Pretty sure it will take longer than a year to build factories for new missiles, fighter jets, artillery etc. Maybe it will happen in time to deter Putin's invasion of the Baltics or Poland.

I suspect the Biden administration will send what supplies they can and Ukraine will use them well for a few months, but US technical/logistical support will get kneecapped soon after.  :(

Biden flubbed this big time, he didn't go all in at the start like he should have. Oh well, Putin wins again.

It takes Congress to send money to Ukraine.

But it only needs the army to send a few thousand tanks to Ukraine for "testing".

[Radagast]

Strangely when I realized Trump won what kept me up at night was thinking of Europe. The US at a minimum has four more years of solidarity and prosperity, and an 80+% chance of pulling through after that. However Europe will need to step up defense spending rapidly to support Ukraine and prepare itself if the US goes. I then realized that half the countries in Europe would fracture or be taken over by a suddenly expansive far right if that happens (an "odd" mixture of nationalism and definitely definitely not spending money or time to oppose Russia). I'm not sure if the EU can save both Ukraine and itself. Since it's eastern and northern members may regard saving Ukraine as equivalent to saving themselves, I wonder how the EU will pull through, and not revert to a bunch of nationalist independent states.

Europeans and US liberals are very open about the superiority of European governance. However having paid attention to EU politics for the first time following the Ukraine war, I have wondered about the truth in that, or if European governance would look as good if it was exposed to the level of internal and external critique and sensationalism that US governance is.

Russia and Putin are far stronger and more capable than I gave them credit for. Ukraine is about 60% of the way toward defeating Russia in a war of attrition, and Russia is about to force its opponents to voluntarily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

edited to say prosperity instead of prosperousness (lol)

[markbike528CBX]

In his last visit to the US, Zelensky visited Trump.

And is quick for congratulations on election. 
 
Damn, I'm glad I'm not a national leader.
I can bullshit with the best of them, but blowing smoke up an ass?
Nope, I get caught laughing in the middle of the process.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4976166-volodymyr-zelensky-donald-trump-2024-election-victory/

[Radagast]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

Pretty sure it will take longer than a year to build factories for new missiles, fighter jets, artillery etc. Maybe it will happen in time to deter Putin's invasion of the Baltics or Poland.

I suspect the Biden administration will send what supplies they can and Ukraine will use them well for a few months, but US technical/logistical support will get kneecapped soon after.  :(

Biden flubbed this big time, he didn't go all in at the start like he should have. Oh well, Putin wins again.

It takes Congress to send money to Ukraine.

I very much place 90% of the blame on Biden. The commander in chief has great powers to accomplish military objectives without congressional interference. A supermajority of Congress and the public would have supported a much stronger Biden response, however he repeatedly did the bare minimum, delaying, prolonging, and trickling US support and deliberately withholding key weapons systems at critical times. I thought he did a fantastic job in the first half of 2022. Since then it's gotten to the point I'll be glad to see his back (though possibly not in favor of Trump).

[Fru-Gal]

In his last visit to the US, Zelensky visited Trump.

And is quick for congratulations on election. 
 
Damn, I'm glad I'm not a national leader.
I can bullshit with the best of them, but blowing smoke up an ass?
Nope, I get caught laughing in the middle of the process.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4976166-volodymyr-zelensky-donald-trump-2024-election-victory/

Zelensky being VERY smart (even though it seems like an uphill battle given Trump’s Putin connection). But who knows? Reminds me of how easily Mexican president Obrador handled Trump. Because Obrador could not give two shits about his own ego, he easily flattered Trump and defused most of his threats. He also did adhere to some Trump requests and put detention centers on the Mexican side of the US border and on Mexico’s southern border. Now with a woman president, it will be interesting to see if she can continue the flattery and keep Trump where she wants him. She will definitely be in a less favorable position by virtue of being a woman.

[reeshau]

In his last visit to the US, Zelensky visited Trump.

And is quick for congratulations on election. 
 
Damn, I'm glad I'm not a national leader.
I can bullshit with the best of them, but blowing smoke up an ass?
Nope, I get caught laughing in the middle of the process.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4976166-volodymyr-zelensky-donald-trump-2024-election-victory/

Zelensky being VERY smart (even though it seems like an uphill battle given Trump’s Putin connection). But who knows? Reminds me of how easily Mexican president Obrador handled Trump. Because Obrador could not give two shits about his own ego, he easily flattered Trump and defused most of his threats. He also did adhere to some Trump requests and put detention centers on the Mexican side of the US border and on Mexico’s southern border. Now with a woman president, it will be interesting to see if she can continue the flattery and keep Trump where she wants him. She will definitely be in a less favorable position by virtue of being a woman.

Flattery is Trump's currency.  Even Kim Jong Un did it.

[ChpBstrd]

In his last visit to the US, Zelensky visited Trump.

And is quick for congratulations on election. 
 
Damn, I'm glad I'm not a national leader.
I can bullshit with the best of them, but blowing smoke up an ass?
Nope, I get caught laughing in the middle of the process.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4976166-volodymyr-zelensky-donald-trump-2024-election-victory/

Zelensky being VERY smart (even though it seems like an uphill battle given Trump’s Putin connection). But who knows? Reminds me of how easily Mexican president Obrador handled Trump. Because Obrador could not give two shits about his own ego, he easily flattered Trump and defused most of his threats. He also did adhere to some Trump requests and put detention centers on the Mexican side of the US border and on Mexico’s southern border. Now with a woman president, it will be interesting to see if she can continue the flattery and keep Trump where she wants him. She will definitely be in a less favorable position by virtue of being a woman.

If Pardo knows how to flirt, she may have an advantage.

If Zelinsky was smart, he'd had his own videotape of Trump pissing on prostitutes (or is it being pissed on?).

[Travis]

Well, if Europe cares about Ukraine they're going to have to step it up, because Trump is going to put an end to Ukrainian aid methinks.

Pretty sure it will take longer than a year to build factories for new missiles, fighter jets, artillery etc. Maybe it will happen in time to deter Putin's invasion of the Baltics or Poland.

I suspect the Biden administration will send what supplies they can and Ukraine will use them well for a few months, but US technical/logistical support will get kneecapped soon after.  :(

Biden flubbed this big time, he didn't go all in at the start like he should have. Oh well, Putin wins again.

It takes Congress to send money to Ukraine.

I very much place 90% of the blame on Biden. The commander in chief has great powers to accomplish military objectives without congressional interference. A supermajority of Congress and the public would have supported a much stronger Biden response, however he repeatedly did the bare minimum, delaying, prolonging, and trickling US support and deliberately withholding key weapons systems at critical times. I thought he did a fantastic job in the first half of 2022. Since then it's gotten to the point I'll be glad to see his back (though possibly not in favor of Trump).

Biden is going to hand this over to Trump with several billion in aid unspent. Between him and Sullivan, every decision they made as far as escalation of weapon systems took place weeks or months after it would have had the greatest impact. If Zelensky now needs to find a way to play Trump's ego off of Putin's then best of luck to him.

[waltworks]

Yep, I'd bet in 100 years that will be Biden's legacy - the old man who dithered and hesitated his way into losing the prelude for WW3.

-W

[ChpBstrd]

Yep, I'd bet in 100 years that will be Biden's legacy - the old man who dithered and hesitated his way into losing the prelude for WW3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg

[LennStar]

Yep, I'd bet in 100 years that will be Biden's legacy - the old man who dithered and hesitated his way into losing the prelude for WW3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg

I don't think that's the same. Hindenburg is mostly known for giving Hitler his special rights that could not be overturned by parliament. It was his lack of hesitation that turned the Chancellor into the Dictator.

[reeshau]

The Wall Street Journal has an article on the "Deathonomics" of Russia's military recruitment, going into the poorest parts of the country and offering relatively rich sums that make people willingly go to their death.

"Russian economist Vladislav Inozemtsev calculates that the family of a 35-year-old man who fights for a year and is then killed on the battlefield would receive around 14.5 million rubles, equivalent to $150,000, from his soldier’s salary and death compensation. That is more than he would have earned cumulatively working as a civilian until the age of 60 in some regions. Families are eligible for other bonuses and insurance payouts, too.

'Going to the front and being killed a year later is economically more profitable than a man’s further life,' Inozemtsev said, a phenomenon he calls 'deathonomics.'”

It reminds me of the reverse case of one of the studies in the original Freakonomics, where the death sentence did not deter US drug gangs, because their life expectancy on the street was shorter than it would be on death row.

[LennStar]

I don't think that is the reason, but it's a freaking awesome statistic all right!

You should also not forget that a lot of those soldiers won't survive a year. But more interesting is the fact how much the sign-up bonuses etc. have risen. Russia is running full speed into a hyperinflation scenario with a breakdown of the civil sector. They are literally pulling at a too small blanket from five sides in regards to manpower. 

If you are a leader that is caring for his people, this would be a house on fire scenario. Unfortunately the Russians don't have such leader and don't want one.

[ChpBstrd]

The Wall Street Journal has an article on the "Deathonomics" of Russia's military recruitment, going into the poorest parts of the country and offering relatively rich sums that make people willingly go to their death.

"Russian economist Vladislav Inozemtsev calculates that the family of a 35-year-old man who fights for a year and is then killed on the battlefield would receive around 14.5 million rubles, equivalent to $150,000, from his soldier’s salary and death compensation. That is more than he would have earned cumulatively working as a civilian until the age of 60 in some regions. Families are eligible for other bonuses and insurance payouts, too.

'Going to the front and being killed a year later is economically more profitable than a man’s further life,' Inozemtsev said, a phenomenon he calls 'deathonomics.'”

It reminds me of the reverse case of one of the studies in the original Freakonomics, where the death sentence did not deter US drug gangs, because their life expectancy on the street was shorter than it would be on death row.

And just imagine, every time we fill up our cars we contribute indirectly to the economics of a system that pays people to die.

Hence the urgency of Ukraine finding ways to degrade Russia's oil production, transport, and refining operations. How about paying Russians $150k, granting them citizenship, and extracting them from Russia in exchange for sabotage operations against pipelines, power lines, bridges, etc? That's a better deal than being a soldier because you get to live at the end! It's also cheaper than attempting to do the job using long-range drones or Ukrainian spies.

[ChpBstrd]

Good summary of the post-election strategic position of Russia and why the Russians might not agree to a "deal":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQDCRLJHRTc

I think it's more likely Trump engages in mock negotiations, and when Ukraine refuses a bad deal he uses that as justification to permanently cut off aid.

I also think the author may be correct about a 2027 or 2028 invasion of Taiwan. I hope I can reach FIRE before then, and be sitting in a very large bond tent by that time.

[BicycleB]

Good summary of the post-election strategic position of Russia and why the Russians might not agree to a "deal":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQDCRLJHRTc

I think it's more likely Trump engages in mock negotiations, and when Ukraine refuses a bad deal he uses that as justification to permanently cut off aid.

I also think the author may be correct about a 2027 or 2028 invasion of Taiwan. I hope I can reach FIRE before then, and be sitting in a very large bond tent by that time.

Bingo!

I've been wondering how Trump would go at Ukraine. You've probably hit on it.