Ukraine V

[anubisgrau]

Putin s War Machine Helps Keep Russian Industry Humming
• Industrial production was flat in 2022 despite sanctions
• Military sectors helped manufacturing outperform other areas

Bloomberg News, February 1, 2023; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...r-machine-helps-keep-russian-industry-humming


Surging military production is helping keep Russian industry going strong, offsetting much of the damage done by international sanctions and other fallout from the invasion of Ukraine.

Industrial output ended 2022 down only 0.7%, according to a consensus of forecasts compiled by Bloomberg...

 

[anubisgrau]

I assume all the hype about Russian economy coming now from reputable sources such as Bloomberg or Economist should be in function of justification of sending more and more arms to fight against RF. Otherwise it would be very demoralizing on so many levels...

 

[DimitryZ]

Sky News tonite:
'Are you suggesting putting boots on the ground in Ukraine?' - #KayBurley
Former Defence Minister Sir Gerald Howarth: "I think that is something we now have to consider, certainly if you were to put a NATO force in there."
https://twitter.com/i/status/1620340243898540032

Just stop. Note the word "former."

Every ACTING politician in NATO countries says otherwise.

But this underscores a real, if currently manageable risk of direct NATO/RF conflict.

Should we accelerate military aid and risk either backlash or disintegration from RF? Or should we slow it down, decreasing the risk of escalation but increasing the horrible cost to Ukraine (and RF)?

 

[DimitryZ]

I recognise that right too.

I also recognise the right of other leaders to say no.

I suspect it would be irresponsible for any leader to assent to every single request Zelenskyy makes. Example:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...will-not-provide-f-16-fighter-jets-to-ukraine

Might not be the final word but it sounds definitive for now.

Like a carefully choreoographed dance, unlike some of the more gung-ho posts on this thread.

And yeah, I do think there's a lot of machismo, armchair-general type posturing and fetishisation of military hardware here. It's not really my cup of tea, so I tend to notice it.

Consider that what you call "fetishisation" is actually my work.

One of the skills we acquire as adults is not to flinch when people tell you they are in uncomfortable professions, say mortuary business... or weapons business. (Or maybe both - vertical integration ).

It's OK to keep a straight face and treat us as normal people. A white lie, if you will.

 

[DimitryZ]

Probably not. Yes, probably.

We're just a bunch of old duffers talking shite on an obscure hi-fi forum, aren't we?

Aren't we also citizens of at least nominally democratic countries that have a civic responsibility to form a coherent position on only THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL EVENT IN OUR LIVES?

 

[DimitryZ]

https://www.economist.com/finance-a...a-dodges-oil-sanctions-on-an-industrial-scale

How Russia dodges oil sanctions on an industrial scale

As another embargo looms, the grey trade is about to explode
Jan 29th 2023

Economist finds, to the West’s chagrin and Russia’s relief, that the new “shadow” shipping and financing infrastructure is robust and extensive. Rather than fade away, the grey market stands ready to expand when the next set of sanctions is enforced.

Russia’s exports took a knock after Europe’s initial salvo in December. Two months on, however, they have recovered to levels last seen in June. The volume of oil on water, which tends to climb when the market jams up, is back to normal. As expected, China and India are picking up most of the embargoed barrels. Yet there is a surprise: the volume of cargo with unknown destinations has jumped. Russian oil, once easy to track, is now being distributed through more shadowy channels

Do you realize that Urals oil is selling well below even the ceiling imposed by the West and barely covers the RF cost of production?

It sounds like you are celebrating China and India taking RF to the cleaners...

Total RF government revenues are down ~30%, while the war expenses are pushing expenditures up enormously. You do the math.

 

[DimitryZ]

I assume all the hype about Russian economy coming now from reputable sources such as Bloomberg or Economist should be in function of justification of sending more and more arms to fight against RF. Otherwise it would be very demoralizing on so many levels...

But what is your position?

 

[anubisgrau]

position on what? sanctions against russia? i'm not an economist but i found sanctions in general very immoral and cowardish - not only in this case but in general. against cuba, iran, korea, serbia, name it - everywhere hitting ordinary people and not politicians and decision makers. putin will not feel them or he will be long time 6ft under when they start making a real effect. russia in 2022 had better economic performance than uk in the same period (IMF chart on the previous page) - showing that brexit is (sadly) a bigger catastrophe than sanctions against putin.
i am only adding more information to the pool we are all in on this forum, but if you prefer only a talk how western politics in ukraine and vs russia is nothing short of brilliant, you can do so.

 

[anubisgrau]

you mean position on sending arms?
it's too late mate. the war has gone too far and sadly there is a side which massively benefits from the events - it's your country. not russia, not ukraine, especially not europe.
if you wanted to avoid the war, you could have done so much before. you should have talked talked talked talked with putin just as long as it was needed to come to anything credible.
at the moment the only thing i want is peace, you can say it's abstract and maybe absurd idea, but victory for any side is not a peace in XXII century europe.
i really wish americans are bleeding in this war just a fraction from how ukrainians are bleeding, your position would be very different.

 

[Spraggons Den]

Show me where I have “denied the right of Ukraine to buy, beg or borrow arms” or supported Stop the War and I will apologise for saying you have no integrity.

I didn't say you were a supporter of Stop the War. I said you, Drood and STW were against sending arms to Ukraine and cited not wanting to intensify the fighting as the reason. You previously wrote for example:

"In this light the question is not ‘should we arm Ukraine?’, but is the US only arming the Ukraine sufficient to prolong the conflict and the suffering to a) weaken Putin and b) to force Ukraine deeper into need for IMF loans'” and "..negotiation is the only option. The calls for escalating the conflict will only result in the loss or more innocent lives."

Regarding your view on who is responsible for the conflict:

"..what seems obvious is that NATO is expanding and that Russia, and not so incidentally China, are fearful and suspicious of that NATO expansion. A much better option would be to have been to discourage Ukrainian ambitions to join NATO."

 

[Nero]

FFS can’t this guy STFU?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ukraine-fighter-planes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

[DimitryZ]

position on what? sanctions against russia? i'm not an economist but i found sanctions in general very immoral and cowardish - not only in this case but in general. against cuba, iran, korea, serbia, name it - everywhere hitting ordinary people and not politicians and decision makers. putin will not feel them or he will be long time 6ft under when they start making a real effect. russia in 2022 had better economic performance than uk in the same period (IMF chart on the previous page) - showing that brexit is (sadly) a bigger catastrophe than sanctions against putin.
i am only adding more information to the pool we are all in on this forum, but if you prefer only a talk how western politics in ukraine and vs russia is nothing short of brilliant, you can do so.

So, there should be no economic sanctions on RF after it invaded Ukraine? Should countries continue to buy Russian hydrocarbons the same as before the invasion?

Try to be direct. I know your overall political orientation so I don't need a refresher.

 

[DimitryZ]

you mean position on sending arms?
it's too late mate. the war has gone too far and sadly there is a side which massively benefits from the events - it's your country. not russia, not ukraine, especially not europe.
if you wanted to avoid the war, you could have done so much before. you should have talked talked talked talked with putin just as long as it was needed to come to anything credible.
at the moment the only thing i want is peace, you can say it's abstract and maybe absurd idea, but victory for any side is not a peace in XXII century europe.
i really wish americans are bleeding in this war just a fraction from how ukrainians are bleeding, your position would be very different.

If Americans were bleeding like the Ukranians, all of us would be either dead or on the way.

I know you desperately want to see Americans dead, but that doesn't appear to be our historical purpose.

But teasing out facts, what you want is an immediate ceasefire (Step (0) in your plan). You never pointed out how that is to be achieved.

Nor have you specified direct actions you recommend the parties around the conflict take. If the country where you vote was asking its citizens what should their position be in this conflict, I assume you would recommend neutrality? Does your citizenship nation provide arms to Ukraine? Should it continue? Should it stop? Should it start?

I am really not interested in all the dressings and opinions people use to describe their positions. You have agency - use it.

 

[Hook]

If Americans were bleeding like the Ukranians, all of us would be either dead or on the way.

I know you desperately want to see Americans dead, but that doesn't appear to be our historical purpose.

But teasing out facts, what you want is an immediate ceasefire (Step (0) in your plan). You never pointed out how that is to be achieved.

Nor have you specified direct actions you recommend the parties take. If the country where you vote was asking its citizens what should their position be in this conflict, I assume you would recommend neutrality?

I am really not interested in all the dressings and opinions people use to describe their positions. You have agency - use it.

He says that all he wants is peace, then he wishes that Americans were fighting and bleeding in Ukraine.

Must be difficult living with such internal inconsistency. I wish you luck with helping him reduce his cognitive dissonance.

 

[anubisgrau]

So, there should be no economic sanctions on RF after it invaded Ukraine? Should countries continue to buy Russian hydrocarbons the same as before the invasion?

Try to be direct. I know your overall political orientation so I don't need a refresher.

my overall political orientation in this case is simple - if you want to win russia, go out and fight. don't do it with mincing ukraine till the last drop of their blood.

regarding sanctions, they simply don't work the way you think. they are aimed to project the illusion that something is done, including deadly harm to russia but the results are much less than what you believe. you find a plenty of articles about the way how russia dodged them. i know it's sad but majority of the world simply don't care about this war and will gladly buy heavily discounted russian oil without any remorse where this money gonna go and how many ukr children it gonna kill. in the end of the day, your country has been doing similar morally dubious things ever since, and so what?

i lived in a country under sanctions for almost 10 years. they didn't stop the war, they didn't bring the dictator down. it was NATO intervention that made both goals happen. go figure.

If Americans were bleeding like the Ukranians, all of us would be either dead or on the way.

I know you desperately want to see Americans dead, but that doesn't appear to be our historical purpose.

But teasing out facts, what you want is an immediate ceasefire (Step (0) in your plan). You never pointed out how that is to be achieved.

Nor have you specified direct actions you recommend the parties around the conflict take. If the country where you vote was asking its citizens what should their position be in this conflict, I assume you would recommend neutrality? Does your citizenship nation provide arms to Ukraine? Should it continue? Should it stop? Should it start?

I am really not interested in all the dressings and opinions people use to describe their positions. You have agency - use it.

i don't want to see anyone dead - that is the point of my writing - but it seems that despite your years in Russia you missed a bit of education about figurative language, right?

serbia did give ukraine a plenty of 152 and 155mm rounds for howitzers, 82mm mortar shells etc, equipment to fix the broken electric supplies, medical aid/vehicles, opened a few camps with superb living conditions only for refugees from ukraine.....
https://n1info.rs/english/news/ukrainian-forces-using-serbian-weapons/
https://n1info.rs/english/news/russian-reporter-publishes-pictures-of-serbian-made-munitions/

but it didn't impose the sanctions against russia nor will ever do against any country in the world. first, because what harm can serbia do to russia - none, second because our citizens, not politicians, suffered badly from the sanctions in the 90s and if anyone knows how wrong they are, we know. on top we received 180,000 refugees from russia, mostly young people, draft doggers, political dissidents etc.

about step 0 - i wish i know what to do, i guess the nobel prize for peace would be mine and currently i miss some money to fix my cottage in greece. but i sincerely hope someone finds a way to achieve it asap.

 

[DonQuixote99]

you mean position on sending arms?
it's too late mate. the war has gone too far and sadly there is a side which massively benefits from the events - it's your country. not russia, not ukraine, especially not europe.
if you wanted to avoid the war, you could have done so much before. you should have talked talked talked talked with putin just as long as it was needed to come to anything credible.
at the moment the only thing i want is peace, you can say it's abstract and maybe absurd idea, but victory for any side is not a peace in XXII century europe.
i really wish americans are bleeding in this war just a fraction from how ukrainians are bleeding, your position would be very different.

What makes you think the US did not talk talk talk to Putin? I think Putin wanted this war and was determined to have it, no matter what anyone said. Of course, he expected it to go vastly differently than it has. So did the US, and everybody.

 

[DimitryZ]

my overall political orientation in this case is simple - if you want to win russia, go out and fight. don't do it with mincing ukraine till the last drop of their blood.

regarding sanctions, they simply don't work the way you think. they are aimed to project the illusion that something is done, including deadly harm to russia but the results are much less than what you believe. you find a plenty of articles about the way how russia dodged them. i know it's sad but majority of the world simply don't care about this war and will gladly buy heavily discounted russian oil without any remorse where this money gonna go and how many ukr children it gonna kill. in the end of the day, your country has been doing similar morally dubious things ever since, and so what?

i lived in a country under sanctions for almost 10 years. they didn't stop the war, they didn't bring the dictator down. it was NATO intervention that made both goals happen. go figure.







i don't want to see anyone dead - that is the point of my writing - but it seems that despite your years in Russia you missed a bit of education about figurative language, right?

serbia did give ukraine a plenty of 152 and 155mm rounds for howitzers, 82mm mortar shells etc, equipment to fix the broken electric supplies, medical aid/vehicles, opened a few camps with superb living conditions only for refugees from ukraine.....
https://n1info.rs/english/news/ukrainian-forces-using-serbian-weapons/
https://n1info.rs/english/news/russian-reporter-publishes-pictures-of-serbian-made-munitions/

but it didn't impose the sanctions against russia nor will ever do against any country in the world. first, because what harm can serbia do to russia - none, second because our citizens, not politicians, suffered badly from the sanctions in the 90s and if anyone knows how wrong they are, we know. on top we received 180,000 refugees from russia, mostly young people, draft doggers, political dissidents etc.

about step 0 - i wish i know what to do, i guess the nobel prize for peace would be mine and currently i miss some money to fix my cottage in greece. but i sincerely hope someone finds a way to achieve it asap.

That sounds good great.

But specifically, should Serbia continue to give Ukraine more much needed munitions (and from my point of view, I am very grateful to Serbia for doing so), give more of them or, perhaps, stop aid?

Man, can you make up your mind? It's been a YEAR!

 

[TheDecameron]

FFS can’t this guy STFU?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ukraine-fighter-planes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

It’s reminiscent of the days when May had to sack Patel for running foreign policy behind the back of the then Foreign Secretary. I imagine Cleverly has used your very words to his Permanent Secretary on more than one occasion.

 

[ks.234]

I didn't say you were a supporter of Stop the War. I said you, Drood and STW were against sending arms to Ukraine and cited not wanting to intensify the fighting as the reason. You previously wrote for example:

"In this light the question is not ‘should we arm Ukraine?’, but is the US only arming the Ukraine sufficient to prolong the conflict and the suffering to a) weaken Putin and b) to force Ukraine deeper into need for IMF loans'” and "..negotiation is the only option. The calls for escalating the conflict will only result in the loss or more innocent lives."

Regarding your view on who is responsible for the conflict:

"..what seems obvious is that NATO is expanding and that Russia, and not so incidentally China, are fearful and suspicious of that NATO expansion. A much better option would be to have been to discourage Ukrainian ambitions to join NATO."

None of those quotes, some of them selective, back up your false claim that I have denied the right of Ukraine to buy arms, they don’t even support the idea that I don’t think Ukraine should be armed.

I have already addressed what I have said about NATO, and it does not add up to your false claim that I have blamed the West for Putin’s invasion.

The charge of no integrity stands.

 

[ks.234]

Just stop. Note the word "former."

Every ACTING politician in NATO countries says otherwise.

But this underscores a real, if currently manageable risk of direct NATO/RF conflict.

Should we accelerate military aid and risk either backlash or disintegration from RF? Or should we slow it down, decreasing the risk of escalation but increasing the horrible cost to Ukraine (and RF)?

Is it true that every politician in a nato country is calling for boots on the ground? I know some are, but every? NATO certainly isn’t

And if they are, why is it not happening?

As to the question of should we accelerate or slow down military intervention in Ukraine, such a decision would require an accurate and informed assessment of the geopolitical conditions on the ground, the likely consequences, what the objectives are and above all, a viable exit strategy.

If you support putting US and other countries boots on the ground in Ukraine, what are your objectives and what is your strategy for getting them out again?