Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[discokermit]

I don't think anyone you're arguing with is, or is turning, pro-Trump, pro-fascist, or anything similar.

The word you're looking for is, according to Lebanese socialist Gilbert Achcar in his 2021 article How to Avoid the Anti-Imperialism of Fools, 'neo-campist':

the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, just further away and less immediate.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well the article says one on the routes in is Turkey, which was a country Fez mentioned so, seem to be backing up their point if anything.

What I take issue with is your use of the word unaffected and the Guardian's use of "no problem". Can they get around sanctions and imoort these things, yes of course they can anyone who expects otherwise is an idiot.

Can they import as many as before, as easily and as cheaply. Almost certainly not. The question is how much more difficult is and how many problems is it causing them. And that is not a question we can really answer, it is obviously not as many as I would like, but beyond that it is hard to say.

So they are affected to some degree, I wonder why you want to imply otherwise?

effectively unaffected then. the sanctions regime was designed to damage the russian economy and restrict their access to the technology, so that they wouldn't be easily able to lay their hands on microchips and so forth. so that as time went by their ability to wage war would be affected. if i order something and it takes say 2 weeks longer to arrive and is perhaps 10% more expensive than it used to be, well, there's a war on.

any friction there may be in their supply channels doesn't seem sufficient to seriously impact on the russian ability to manufacture and use things like these bombs with abandon. when on the one hand there was a series of sanctions imposed to stop russia's ability to wage war unimpeded and on the other there is great use of bombs more than 2 years in, i'd tend toward the sanctions regime being uneffective in its intentions.

back in the day, in the napoleonic wars or the first world war, literal blockades were put in place. the germans were forced to find to synthesise chemicals which they'd previously had other means of making - hence the importance of eg the haber process to make ammonia. the battle of copenhagen was fought over access to wood for ships. part of war has always involved access to the materials needed to fight the conflict. nowadays this involves access to the sort of high tech things which were not needed in many twentieth century wars, and if russia's able to maintain a supply of chips and so on despite the contemporary equivalent of a blockade, despite longer supply routes and so on, the effectiveness of the economic war has to be called into question.

 

[Ax^]

fez's post sacred > holy > holey - as per my response about russian inflation and the like. but yeh the widespread calling of people cunts and the like doesn't add to understanding of the war and what could have been a thread that showed our exchange of information and ideas at its best has instead become a slag off fest. i saw somewhere recently at a university where the college head was asking about how could people disagree well online. it's something that we should consider here as there are.

really

*slow clap

 

[emanymton]

effectively unaffected then. the sanctions regime was designed to damage the russian economy and restrict their access to the technology, so that they wouldn't be easily able to lay their hands on microchips and so forth. so that as time went by their ability to wage war would be affected. if i order something and it takes say 2 weeks longer to arrive and is perhaps 10% more expensive than it used to be, well, there's a war on. any friction there may be in their supply channels doesn't seem sufficient to seriously impact on the russian ability to manufacture and use things like these bombs with abandon. when on the one hand there was a series of sanctions imposed to stop russia's ability to wage war unimpeded and on the other there is great use of bombs more than 2 years in, i'd tend toward the sanctions regime being uneffective in its intentions. back in the day, in the napoleonic wars or the first world war, literal blockades were put in place. the germans were forced to find to synthesise chemicals which they'd previously had other means of making - hence the importance of eg the haber process to make ammonia. the battle of copenhagen was fought over access to wood for ships. part of war has always involved access to the materials needed to fight the conflict. nowadays this involves access to the sort of high tech things which were not needed in many twentieth century wars, and if russia's able to maintain a supply of chips and so on despite the contemporary equivalent of a blockade, despite longer supply routes and so on, the effectiveness of the economic war has to be called into question.

Every heard of paragraphs? That's basically unreadable with my dyslexia

 

[Pickman's model]

Every heard of paragraphs? That's basically unreadable with my dyslexia

have another look. thank you for flagging that up

 

[Fez909]

of course the size of the economy is relevant when talking about isolation. to be isolated is not to trade with them and they are trading with everybody, even if the route is a bit circuitous for some.
lower standards of living? where is the evidence?
most of this is speculation or incorrect and none of it supports your claim of isolation.

It's not relevant. Isolation doesn't mean no trade. It means trading with fewer countries. It also means diplomatic and economic sanctions.

South Africa experienced international isolation during apartheid, but their economy also didn't collapse immediately. In fact, the early years of the apartheid regime experienced rapid growth in GDP, too.

The negative effects of sanctions are offset to the working classes and the elites maintain their status. Or in the case of South Africa, the blacks and the whites. There are lots of paralells between the two in terms of isolation.

ZA experienced capital flight and currency devaluation and imposed restrictions to stem this, just like Russia have. Inflation went to 12% due to expensive imports, Russia is similarly seeing high interest, though not quite as extreme. They were subject to oil sanctions (buying) but were able to skirt around these and buy on the international market, just like Russia has been able to avoid their sanctions.

International capital stopped flowing into the country, so they used gold mining profits to invest in South African businesses instead - which sounds very much like what Russia are doing with their Soverign Wealth Fund.

Separate from the economy, ZA was subject to censure from the UN, the Pope/church, and experienced sporting boycotts. All of which are true to say about Russia, today.

The long-term implications of isolation on a country's international standing and relationships extend beyond immediate economic indicators.

 

[TopCat]

fez's post sacred > holy > holey - as per my response about russian inflation and the like. but yeh the widespread calling of people cunts and the like doesn't add to understanding of the war and what could have been a thread that showed our exchange of information and ideas at its best has instead become a slag off fest. i saw somewhere recently at a university where the college head was asking about how could people disagree well online. it's something that we should consider here as there are.

I think one of the problems was the banning of any media sources that put forward views opposing the western narrative. Relentless exposure to propaganda is effective in influencing even people who have previously demonstrated a capacity for analysis.

It leads to rage in some when people simply disagree with them.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think one of the problems was the banning of any media sources that put forward views opposing the western narrative. Relentless exposure to propaganda is effective in influencing even people who have previously demonstrated a capacity for analysis.

It leads to rage in some when people simply disagree with them.

we know we're being lied to by the media, or at least we should do.

some things are relatively minor - william's penchant for being shagged up the arse by someone who isn't his wife, for example, which the rest of the world can read about but it's never mentioned in newspapers here. other things are more important. how people laughed in the 1980s when it was reported that the argentine media had reported the sinking of hms invincible on several occasions.

but the number of times we've been fed misleading information about the russian ability to prosecute the war, the number of times we've been told they're on the brink of collapse, look equally ridiculous when you see that the people who are really running out of weapons are the ukrainians to whom so much has been promised.

 

[emanymton]

effectively unaffected then. the sanctions regime was designed to damage the russian economy and restrict their access to the technology, so that they wouldn't be easily able to lay their hands on microchips and so forth. so that as time went by their ability to wage war would be affected. if i order something and it takes say 2 weeks longer to arrive and is perhaps 10% more expensive than it used to be, well, there's a war on.

any friction there may be in their supply channels doesn't seem sufficient to seriously impact on the russian ability to manufacture and use things like these bombs with abandon. when on the one hand there was a series of sanctions imposed to stop russia's ability to wage war unimpeded and on the other there is great use of bombs more than 2 years in, i'd tend toward the sanctions regime being uneffective in its intentions.

back in the day, in the napoleonic wars or the first world war, literal blockades were put in place. the germans were forced to find to synthesise chemicals which they'd previously had other means of making - hence the importance of eg the haber process to make ammonia. the battle of copenhagen was fought over access to wood for ships. part of war has always involved access to the materials needed to fight the conflict. nowadays this involves access to the sort of high tech things which were not needed in many twentieth century wars, and if russia's able to maintain a supply of chips and so on despite the contemporary equivalent of a blockade, despite longer supply routes and so on, the effectiveness of the economic war has to be called into question.

I don't think that is really all that different from what I have said in my last few posts except you seem certain the impact is low while I say we don't really know.

I maintain that long term they have fucked themselves, but it is not clear yet how much impact it will have on the war.

Going back to fhe Guardian article it may be they can continue using guided bombs at this rate for months, ot they may have to scale back use soon to let stockpiles rebuild.

 

[discokermit]

It's not relevant. Isolation doesn't mean no trade. It means trading with fewer countries. It also means diplomatic and economic sanctions.

South Africa experienced international isolation during apartheid, but their economy also didn't collapse immediately. In fact, the early years of the apartheid regime experienced rapid growth in GDP, too.

The negative effects of sanctions are offset to the working classes and the elites maintain their status. Or in the case of South Africa, the blacks and the whites. There are lots of paralells between the two in terms of isolation.

ZA experienced capital flight and currency devaluation and imposed restrictions to stem this, just like Russia have. Inflation went to 12% due to expensive imports, Russia is similarly seeing high interest, though not quite as extreme. They were subject to oil sanctions (buying) but were able to skirt around these and buy on the international market, just like Russia has been able to avoid their sanctions.

International capital stopped flowing into the country, so they used gold mining profits to invest in South African businesses instead - which sounds very much like what Russia are doing with their Soverign Wealth Fund.

Separate from the economy, ZA was subject to censure from the UN, the Pope/church, and experienced sporting boycotts. All of which are true to say about Russia, today.

The long-term implications of isolation on a country's international standing and relationships extend beyond immediate economic indicators.

we shall see.

 

[emanymton]

but the number of times we've been fed misleading information about the russian ability to prosecute the war, the number of times we've been told they're on the brink of collapse, look equally ridiculous when you see that the people who are really running out of weapons are the ukrainians to whom so much has been promised.

Well this ar least is something we can agree on.

As someone on Ukraine's side the constant talking down of Russia and talking up Ukraine is infuriating, it doesn't help. It just leads people think they don't need more help.

 

[The39thStep]

Well this ar least is something we can agree on.

As someone on Ukraine's side the constant talking down of Russia and talking up Ukraine is infuriating, it doesn't help. It just leads people think they don't need more help.

It’s also substitutes cheerleading for any analysis .

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think that is really all that different from what I have said in my last few posts except you seem certain the impact is low while I say we don't really know.

I maintain that long term they have fucked themselves, but it is not clear yet how much impact it will have on the war.

Going back to fhe Guardian article it may be they can continue using guided bombs at this rate for months, ot they may have to scale back use soon to let stockpiles rebuild.

in the long term, as keynes said, we're all dead. the problem for me is that we have to deal with the short and medium terms, in which the russian reorientation toward china and iran may allow it to exceed in duration the western (broadly eu and nato) willingness to support ukraine militarily and economically.

 

[emanymton]

I think one of the problems was the banning of any media sources that put forward views opposing the western narrative. Relentless exposure to propaganda is effective in influencing even people who have previously demonstrated a capacity for analysis.

Here in the interests of bring more civil. I agree banning RT was stupid.

Almost as stupid as making it hard for Russians to leave, talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Or the Ukrainians in the foot I guess.

 

[emanymton]

in the long term, as keynes said, we're all dead. the problem for me is that we have to deal with the short and medium terms, in which the russian reorientation toward china and iran may allow it to exceed in duration the western (broadly eu and nato) willingness to support ukraine militarily and economically.

Again I don't really disagree, that has been my concern from day 1.

For lack of a better term "the west" has the resources to give Ukraine a clear advantage, what it lacks is the political will to do so.

 

[Fez909]

effectively unaffected then. the sanctions regime was designed to damage the russian economy and restrict their access to the technology, so that they wouldn't be easily able to lay their hands on microchips and so forth. so that as time went by their ability to wage war would be affected. if i order something and it takes say 2 weeks longer to arrive and is perhaps 10% more expensive than it used to be, well, there's a war on.

any friction there may be in their supply channels doesn't seem sufficient to seriously impact on the russian ability to manufacture and use things like these bombs with abandon. when on the one hand there was a series of sanctions imposed to stop russia's ability to wage war unimpeded and on the other there is great use of bombs more than 2 years in, i'd tend toward the sanctions regime being uneffective in its intentions.

back in the day, in the napoleonic wars or the first world war, literal blockades were put in place. the germans were forced to find to synthesise chemicals which they'd previously had other means of making - hence the importance of eg the haber process to make ammonia. the battle of copenhagen was fought over access to wood for ships. part of war has always involved access to the materials needed to fight the conflict. nowadays this involves access to the sort of high tech things which were not needed in many twentieth century wars, and if russia's able to maintain a supply of chips and so on despite the contemporary equivalent of a blockade, despite longer supply routes and so on, the effectiveness of the economic war has to be called into question.

It has restricted their access to the technology and it has had a serious impact on their ability to use and manufacture precision bombs.

They rely more and more on Iranian and domestic drones, which have a smaller explosive payload and are more susceptible to AA fire. they're also re-purposing AA missiles to be land-attack weapons, etc. These are reductions in capabilities.

January 2023:



April 2023


They are still making cruise missiles, but have probably used up all of their stockpiles, so now they can only use what they can make. China and others are providing the tech needed to make these, and that obviously weakens the sanctions effects, but it was never going to be reduced to zero. If the sanctions were not in place, they would be making a lot more of them, I'm sure.

Russia will never completely run out of high tech military equipment, but they are definitely being hampered by the lack of them, and that in part goes on to explain why they're unable to carry out the kind of operations they want.

 

[emanymton]

It’s also substitutes cheerleading for any analysis .

Yes that's exactly what it is! No actual attempt to understand, and be realistic. For some it is a belief that being anything other than 100pct positive means you are not showing support*. For politicians it is a substitute for real support.

* completely of topic, but is this a modern thing, when any negativity is frowned upon? Where reviews can only be 1 star or 5 star. Is this part of that?

 

[The39thStep]

Yes that's exactly what it is! No actual attempt to understand, and be realistic. For some it is a belief that being anything other than 100pct positive means you are not showing support*. For politicians it is a substitute for real support.

* completely of topic, but is this a modern thing, when any negativity is frowned upon? Where reviews can only be 1 star or 5 star. Is this part of that?

This may explain why sometimes the thread has whittled down to the few who have no doubts and are absolutely staunch ?.

 

[mojo pixy]

* completely of topic, but is this a modern thing, when any negativity is frowned upon? Where reviews can only be 1 star or 5 star. Is this part of that?

 

[Pickman's model]

It has restricted their access to the technology and it has had a serious impact on their ability to use and manufacture precision bombs.

They rely more and more on Iranian and domestic drones, which have a smaller explosive payload and are more susceptible to AA fire. they're also re-purposing AA missiles to be land-attack weapons, etc. These are reductions in capabilities.

January 2023:

View attachment 419504

April 2023
View attachment 419506

They are still making cruise missiles, but have probably used up all of their stockpiles, so now they can only use what they can make. China and others are providing the tech needed to make these, and that obviously weakens the sanctions effects, but it was never going to be reduced to zero. If the sanctions were not in place, they would be making a lot more of them, I'm sure.

Russia will never completely run out of high tech military equipment, but they are definitely being hampered by the lack of them, and that in part goes on to explain why they're unable to carry out the kind of operations they want.

the data, which as it is given in your graphics in percentages does not allow the conclusions you draw to be sustained. it would be useful to know the actual numbers which might speak more strongly to the claims you make. the number of alcm might be constant but the use of iranian drones increased for example. yeh the percents look one way but this is a time when the hard numbers would offer greater clarity to support your case

 

[emanymton]

This may explain why sometimes the thread has whittled down to the few who have no doubts and are absolutely staunch ?.

I see that on the Russia side, not noticed it on the Ukraine side. Myself and others claim that continuing to exist and an independent country is a victory of sorts, if that is what you mean?

If this war comes to an end it will be with something both sides can try and claim as a victory.

 

[Rob Ray]

Interesting piece here on the Czech intiative to try and buy in shells from outside Europe. Given the most recent talk has been of Ukraine operating at a 1:10 deficit, alongside the EU's seeming production snafu and the US deadlock, its initial mooted delivery date of June may be the thing to watch in terms of whether Ukraine can keep fighting or not in the short-medium term

Loading…

balkaninsight.com

Also sounds very much like in five or ten years' time we'll be watching a new generation of War Dogs/Lord of War films about skeevy indepedent arms dealers making bank on a buying splurge from former customers of the USSR.

 

[TopCat]

Interesting piece here on the Czech intiative to try and buy in shells from outside Europe. Given the most recent talk has been of Ukraine operating at a 1:10 deficit, alongside the EU's seeming production snafu and the US deadlock, its initial mooted delivery date of June may be the thing to watch in terms of whether Ukraine can keep fighting or not in the short-medium term

Loading…

balkaninsight.com

Sounds very much like in five or ten years' time we'll be watching a new generation of War Dogs/Lord of War films about skeevy indepedent arms dealers making bank on a buying splurge from former customers of the USSR.

The Ukrainian penchant for stealing stuff and flogging it will likely extend to western supplied weapons. Expect a flood similar to that during and after the balkans wars.

 

[Pickman's model]

I see that on the Russia side, not noticed it on the Ukraine side. Myself and others claim that continuing to exist and an independent country is a victory of sorts, if that is what you mean?

If this war comes to an end it will be with something both sides can try and claim as a victory.

that's going to be when the real struggle starts, the struggle to rebuild and restore. which will go on far longer than the fighting and likely see more ukrainian casualties, in the same way more people have died of 9/11 since 2001 than died on the day itself. the amount of shit in the environment, formerly in buildings, for example. there may be celebrations when the fighting ends but that's when the real work begins

 

[Rob Ray]

A flood of cheap, powerful weapons into Europe and a parallel increase of gangland horrors was pretty much inevitable the moment Russia rolled over the border tbh, it's just an artifact of any major war where at the end of it most of what's still parseable into profit is basically going to be the capacity and means for violence.

 

[emanymton]

that's going to be when the real struggle starts, the struggle to rebuild and restore. which will go on far longer than the fighting and likely see more ukrainian casualties, in the same way more people have died of 9/11 since 2001 than died on the day itself. the amount of shit in the environment, formerly in buildings, for example. there may be celebrations when the fighting ends but that's when the real work begins

Again I don't disagree, this is going to do untold damage for decades to come. This is why invading another country is so abhorrent to me, beyond the war itself the effects weight on both countries for generations.

 

[Pickman's model]

Again I don't disagree, this is going to do untold damage for decades to come. This is why invading another country is so abhorrent to me, beyond the war itself the effects weight on both countries for generations.

it is of course more than that, there's all the things that aren't being done that should be which affect all of us. we've discussed the effect the war is having on food supplies to eg the middle east. but there's also the cost to climate science as formerly longstanding scientific links have been severed and cannot be easily connected again.

given russia's area and in particular its permafrost and the methane hydrates along the laptev sea and so on, information about the speed and extent of melt and methane emissions is really important.

for me, climate change is a driver of political instability and to an extent political instability is a driver of climate change, given the lack of real will to do the things necessary to ensure there are historians (and of course other people) to look back at this time. this war isn't just ukraine and russia, it's affecting millions and perhaps billions of people far beyond the borders of the belligerents to varying extents

 

[discokermit]

It has restricted their access to the technology and it has had a serious impact on their ability to use and manufacture precision bombs.

They rely more and more on Iranian and domestic drones, which have a smaller explosive payload and are more susceptible to AA fire. they're also re-purposing AA missiles to be land-attack weapons, etc. These are reductions in capabilities.

January 2023:

View attachment 419504

April 2023
View attachment 419506

They are still making cruise missiles, but have probably used up all of their stockpiles, so now they can only use what they can make. China and others are providing the tech needed to make these, and that obviously weakens the sanctions effects, but it was never going to be reduced to zero. If the sanctions were not in place, they would be making a lot more of them, I'm sure.

Russia will never completely run out of high tech military equipment, but they are definitely being hampered by the lack of them, and that in part goes on to explain why they're unable to carry out the kind of operations they want.

or, the shahed has proven to be incredibly cheap and effective and so is being used more.

 

[Pickman's model]

This may explain why sometimes the thread has whittled down to the few who have no doubts and are absolutely staunch ?.

or are simply bloody-minded

 

[Pickman's model]

or, the shahed has proven to be incredibly cheap and effective and so is being used more.

yeh. the cost to ukraine of shooting down an iranian drone is almost certainly more than its value. so why not use more, the russians doubtless argue. depleting ukraine's ammunition and missiles through greater use of cheap drones seems like a win from moscow.