Things Not So Rosy in Ukraine War

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

2 weeks ago:" Austin asks Russian defense minister for cease-fire in first talks since Ukraine invasion began"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/austin-asks-russian-def…

Yesterday Washington Post comes out a story describing poor state of Ukrainian volunteers:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/26/ukraine-fron…

Yesterday Zelensky harangues the West.
https://www.ibtimes.com/stop-playing-russia-end-war-zelenski…
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy urged the West to stop playing around with Russia and impose tougher sanctions on it to end its “senseless war” in Ukraine, adding that his country would remain independent, the only question was at what price.

Zelenskiy’s criticism of the West has mounted in recent days as the European Union moves slowly towards a possible Russian oil embargo and as thousands of Russian troops try to encircle the two eastern cities of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk.

Western military analysts see the battle for Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk as a possible turning point in the war after a shift in momentum towards Russia following the surrender of Ukraine’s garrison in Mariupol last week.

Zelenskiy said Russia was getting one billion euros a day from the 27-nation bloc for energy supplies.

A few days ago Washington Post opinion leaders come out for a debate on US Ukraine war policy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/ukraine-r…

It’s time to challenge the orthodox view on the war in Ukraine.
As Russia’s illegal and brutal assault enters its fourth month, the impact on Europe, the Global South and the world is already profound. We are witnessing the emergence of a new political/military world order. Climate action is being sidelined as reliance on fossil fuels increases; food scarcity and other resource demands are pushing prices upward and causing widespread global hunger; and the worldwide refugee crisis — with more international refugees and internally displaced people than at any time since the end of World War II — poses a massive challenge.

Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the risk of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden administration’s strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of weapons shipments, including anti-ship missiles, and revelations of U.S. intelligence assistance to Ukraine, it is clear that the United States and NATO are in a proxy war with Russia.

Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this proxy war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed analysis, discussion and debate?

Why, then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia, media or politics challenging the orthodox U.S. political-media narrative? Is it not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the Ukrainians is the wisest course?

The first Washington elite opinion leader has come out agin US policy & the EU still will not act on an oil-gas embargo & the real state of Ukraine resistance fighters makes the news. The Ukraine policy is being revealed as a continuation of the Perpetual War foreign policy of the US. Of course, this new opposition will be pushed back by the defense industry in their zeal for new increased defense spending proposal. Is the US agenda agin Russia toast? What is in the best interests of the American population?

Will Ukraine like Syria end as a lost of US prestige & defeat? The sheen of the “exceptional” nation is tarnished. Even Latin nations are refusing to be lackeys & challenge the US who can come to the Summit of the Americas.

7 Likes
2

I have noticed a change in the slant of media reporting.

Now, they talk of the Russians making slow progress in the eastern part of the country.

Now, they talk about Ukraine calling up reserves. I heard mention of one Ukranian unit of 240 that had 100 casualties.

Either the Russians are quick learners, or the rope sellers are looking at their profits and ordering the media to make Ukraine look like a lost cause?

Steve

3 Likes
3

Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this proxy war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed analysis, discussion and debate?

Why, then, aren’t more individuals at think tanks or in academia, media or politics challenging the orthodox U.S. political-media narrative? Is it not worth asking whether sending ever-more weapons to the Ukrainians is the wisest course?

===========================================================

I think that the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this proxy war are actively being analyed, discussed and debated at think tanks, media, and political circles in America, EU, NATO, and United Nations.

I happen to agree with Ukraine and NATO position that appeasement is a no win situation to a madness of this madman. Putin needs to be neutralized just like Hitler was neutralized.

Jaak

5 Likes
4

Personally I don’t see how Ukraine can win in the long term. Russia just has more weapons and people. Without more direct western involvement they will eventually wear down Ukraine and take what they want.

The US population loses interest quickly and are pretty self absorbed to care much. Without US intelligence it probably would have ended already.

Hopefully I’m wrong and the west will provide more direct aid. And Ukraine and/or the west need more direct strikes within Russia to cause their people to suffer more pain and apply more pressure on the government.

5

Personally I don’t see how Ukraine can win in the long term. Russia just has more weapons and people. Without more direct western involvement they will eventually wear down Ukraine and take what they want.

The same way that Afghanistan “won” back in the day - or that North Korea “won” against the U.S. In an asymmetric conflict, sometimes the smaller force can prevail in the long term, in the sense of preventing the larger force from establishing a permanent occupation of the entire territory of the invaded nation.

Ukraine has already achieved many of what it would have identified as its strategic aims in the first days of the invasion. They’ve rebuffed the initial force, maintained the continuity and legitimacy of the existing government, retained control of nearly all of their territory, and deterred the invaders from making further incursions in most of the country. It is now incredibly unlikely that Russia will be able to dislodge the existing national government or its institutions and absorb the entirety of the nation. Ukraine will likely continue to exist as a separate sovereign nation.

Russia probably can absorb a non-trivial portion of Ukrainian territory it controls. It might be able to move the border of what it controls well to the west of the current position, and may be able to consolidate further territorial gains. Russia can take a bite out of Ukraine and digest it, and the size of that bite might grow over the near term. But there’s probably a limit to how big a bite they’ll be able to get - Russia’s taken a fair amount of casualties and used up a sizable amount of conventional military hardware and materiel, and eventually has to face a trade-off between putting more resources into Ukraine and depleting its defensive capabilities elsewhere.

Albaby

3 Likes
6

Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the risk of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden administration’s strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of weapons shipments, including anti-ship missiles, and revelations of U.S. intelligence assistance to Ukraine, it is clear that the United States and NATO are in a proxy war with Russia…

…Will Ukraine like Syria end as a lost of US prestige & defeat? The sheen of the “exceptional” nation is tarnished. Even Latin nations are refusing to be lackeys & challenge the US who can come to the Summit of the Americas.

Estimated Russian losses: 25,000 soldiers, 1200 tanks, 200 aircraft, and 3,000 armored vehicles.
Estimated NATO losses: 0.

Gonna get ugly when NATO enters the fight /jk

Here’s the main difference: Russia already lost. Putin and most analysts though this whole thing would be over in a few days and Ukraine would be a puppet state by now. Now, Russia at best can hope to capture the Donbass and retain some territories in the south. That is a dramatic scaling back of objectives.

Russia started off and still has a much bigger and better equipped army. Ukraine cannot property equip all their soldiers and territory defense forces are driving to the front in their personal automobiles. I saw a unit of Belorus volunteers were trying to crowd source a mini-van. Most of the advanced artillery sent by the United States has yet to reach the front due to lack of trained crews.

However all that is changing. US trainers are teaching Ukrainian crews in Poland, Germany, and elsewhere. Equipment is pouring from many countries, etc. Russia might have the advantage right now, but I don’t think that will be true two months from now.

And lets be clear in on one other point. Unlike many other wars, the US is not involving itself in a civil war where we do not understand the issues and have no compelling national interest. This is an attack on a sovereign, democratic nation by our clear enemy. And Russia is committing Nazi-scale atrocities. Killing civilians on a huge scale, torture, mass rape, and looting. If you are not opposed to Russia’s crimes, you are on the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of history. Putin cannot be allowed to have a partial victory. He will simply regroup, rebuild, and try again. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

So yes, send weapons. Send lots of them, send them now, and send more in the future. Nearly all of our armaments were designed to destroy Russian equipment. Now is the time, and Ukraine is the place.

41 Likes
7

The first Washington elite opinion leader has come out agin US policy & the EU still will not act on an oil-gas embargo & the real state of Ukraine resistance fighters makes the news. The Ukraine policy is being revealed as a continuation of the Perpetual War foreign policy of the US. Of course, this new opposition will be pushed back by the defense industry in their zeal for new increased defense spending proposal. Is the US agenda agin Russia toast? What is in the best interests of the American population?

Like many other situations, the approach needs to change as the situation on the ground changes. A static, never changing response is a recipe for disaster.

I’m not going to second guess our initial approach to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But time has moved forward and a re-thinking of our current position is in order.

As you noted, this may already be a proxy war between US/NATO and Russia. With Ukraine caught in the middle. Do we continue in the proxy war, sending more and more war materiel into Ukraine? Do we continue economic sanctions against Russia?

Alternatively, do we switch to a hot war, sending in troops to fight Russia directly (whether NATO or US or some alliance outside of NATO)?

A third option (there’s always another option) would be to disengage. Stop sending war materiel into Ukraine. Maybe - or maybe not - continue economic sanctions against Russia.

What are the economic here?

Well, if we keep sending guns and ammo and supplies into Ukraine, the makers of those items would profit. These are expendables in a war, so need regular replenishment. They make up the logistics that is at the core of making war. So those suppliers would benefit. And the US taxpayer would be on the hook for the costs.

Hot war? Fire up the printing presses. More weapons. More machinery. More supplies. More payments to soldiers and bereavement benefits to families.

Disengage? That would greatly alter the money flows. Cut off money to the military-industrial complex. No more spending on war supplies. On the other hand, there would be a likely increase in humanitarian aid. That’s always an easier sell here at home. And a dropping of economic sanctions would begin the process of reversing the fallout from the sanctions. There is a cost to the sanctions, paid for by consumers in some combination of higher prices and unavailability of goods. Get rid of the sanctions, and those costs to consumers would drop. How far? Beats me, but probably not back to the pre-invasion status quo. If that status quo can even be teased apart from the Covid fallout.

Which will we see? Follow the money flows. See what lobbyists are spending. See how politicians are reacting. If they spend enough on lobbying, they may be able to buy one of the first two options.

–Peter

2 Likes
8

Russia probably can absorb a non-trivial portion of Ukrainian territory it controls.

Eastern Ukraine is where the ethnic Russians are concentrated. So Russia will have more support within the populace.

9

Do we continue in the proxy war, sending more and more war materiel into Ukraine?
I am certain this is what our government wishes to continue. Bleeding the Russians fighting to the last Ukrainian. Our nation good at using proxies be it Kurds, Montegards, and now Ukrainians.
Once Russia has been weaken enough where they would be little use as a China ally; the US focus then turns toward China somewhat weakened by economic warfare with US & movement of manufacturing from China to lower labor cost nations. Though it might behoove the US to sit & wait continuing with economic pressure as the China demographic issue* will soon come in play with reduced numbers of military aged mens & workers. I doubt our politicians will do that. They are short sighted & never play the long game.

Do we continue economic sanctions against Russia?
The US still awaits the EU to act on oil & gas sanctions. Hungary would be severely hurt by such sanctions & won’t agree. And apparently in the EU; one member can hold up the parade.

Alternatively, do we switch to a hot war, sending in troops to fight Russia directly (whether NATO or US or some alliance outside of NATO)?
I either the US or the EU will cross the potential use of nuke threshold. Nor do the Russians even though it is in effect at war with the US & EU through their proxy(Ukraine). All parties wish to ignore that fact they would be forced to do something.

*https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2021/03/25/recogni…
By 2040, according to UN estimates, the country will have seen a 10% drop in the absolute numbers in its working population, while its population of dependent retirees will have increased by some 50%.
the 30-40 age cohort provides the bulk of society’s inventiveness. In China, that age cohort is expected to shrink by 100 million over the next 20 years
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2021/10/30/china…
“China’s population is aging rapidly, with the most productive members of the labor force set to retire in less than 15 years,” the Frost report states.

It gets worse.

“The country’s birth rate has declined significantly over the last 20 years and shows signs of flattening in the decades ahead,” the note continues. An accompanying chart shows that the death rate in the country already vastly exceeds the birth rate.

10

And apparently in the EU; one member can hold up the parade.

The US figured this out roughly 230 years ago, ditching the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution. Given their progressive nature, I’m a little surprised the EU didn’t learn that lesson.

11

For evil to triumph, it is necessary only that good men do nothing.

Doing nothing is popular with some people, in part because it’s cheap… in first-order effects at least; second- and third-order effects may be different.

Feel free to say where you’d draw a line limiting what Russia is allowed to take by force. But explain why there, and not somewhere else… if a bit of Ukraine is ok, why not all of it? If all of it, why not Poland and Finland too? If those, why not Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, and Italy?

15 Likes
12

Dear Washington Post opinion leaders:

If the military aid beats the crap out of Russia I’m all in favor.

Send more!

Chicken Little is a looser!

Yours,

The Captain

5 Likes
13

Now, they talk of the Russians making slow progress in the eastern part of the country.

Sounds about right. They gave up on fast tactical maneuvering for obvious reasons. Now it’s back to their old tried and true – pound the hell out of the Ukrainians with artillery combined with small encirclements.

Now, they talk about Ukraine calling up reserves.

Does it surprise anyone that the Ukraine is strapped for manpower after three months?

DB2

4 Likes
14

I’m waiting for Jane Fonda to speak out against retaliating……let’s talk and show peace and love and not hatred towards others even if they want to kill people and destroy their ways of life and communities.

15

For evil to triumph, it is necessary only that good men do nothing.

Doing nothing is popular with some people, in part because it’s cheap… in first-order effects at least; second- and third-order effects may be different.

Feel free to say where you’d draw a line limiting what Russia is allowed to take by force. But explain why there, and not somewhere else… if a bit of Ukraine is ok, why not all of it? If all of it, why not Poland and Finland too? If those, why not Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, and Italy?

How does the Ukraine fit into the strategic interest of the USA beside bleeding Russia so we can then move on to China? How does Russia’s unilateral action differ US unilateral action to remove Assad in Syria?
NATO, which is largely run by the US, has told the Ukraine & Georgia that they would NOT be accepted into NATO. Thus the edict is that those nations are not worth defending likely due to the prospect of a potential nuclear war.

Russia has abandoned their efforts in Western Ukraine due to Ukrainian resistance. The Russian military has been proven to be a weak sister. syke6 postulates estimated Russia losses at 25,000 soldiers, 1200 tanks, 200 aircraft, and 3,000 armored vehicles. And any further movement westward means an invasion of a NATO member. How would Russia benefit from such an action?

1 Like
16

Now, they talk about Ukraine calling up reserves.

Does it surprise anyone that the Ukraine is strapped for manpower after three months?

DB2,

You are making the wrong assumption in all likelihood.

Try this assumption instead, the Ukrainian government is very functional and has issued orders for more men into the war zone from the reserves because the government can equip the men and women as arms flow into the country.

The idea the Ukrainians run out of men before the Russians would be totally wrong. Russia would have most of its men fighting an internal revolution in war if Russia was pushed that far.

2 Likes
17

Eastern Ukraine is where the ethnic Russians are concentrated. So Russia will have more support within the populace.

Reports have been that ethnic Russians in the Donbas are really POed at the Russians.

2 Likes
18

A few random observations from the Baltic (am in Finland today after visiting Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia over the past few days):

Jaak: Putin needs to be neutralized just like Hitler was neutralized.

I might point out that it took a few million soldiers and the equivalent of trillions of buck four years to accomplish that.

The US and NATO are trying to avoid that class of event. There has been a reluctance to supply weapons to Ukraine which would allow them to significantly attack the Russian homeland across the border or to sink the Russian fleet (currently bottled up in the Black Sea by Turkey closing the Bosporus to warships.

To gauge how Russia is doing, it is helpful to ignore the cheerleading from “experts” on both sides (including casualty “estimates” - more likely propaganda wishful thinking) and simply look at a map.

Russia’s initial attempt to scare the Ukraine government into an “Afghan Run” failed and they segmented the country with the distraction of a long column of vehicles. Its “sitting duck” label given by Western “experts” was belied by the fact that it was not successfully attacked by Ukraine with the resources they had available. After it accomplished its purpose, the column was withdrawn to regroup for repositioning in the west of Ukraine.

Russia sought to solidify its buffer zone in eastern Ukraine as well as create a barrier to prevent Ukraine from re-entering Crimea from the north. The map shows that they have more or less accomplished both goals. They are in the process of shifting the demographics of the area’s population to bias towards cessation of the area and potential annexation into Russia.

Sure Russia has lost troops, but domestic propaganda can likely spin this into the “heroes of the nation” model and reduce the possibility that resentment would boil over. From the standpoint of comparing personnel and material resources, Russia’s are likely an order of magnitude larger than Ukraine’s and even a war of attrition which numerical favors Ukraine could only be sustained by Ukraine for a limited period of time.

That said, the supplying of long-distance heavy arms to Ukraine runs two risks if Ukraine fired them across the Russian border; firstly that Russia would feel that they would now be justified in more direct actions against US interests and secondly that Russia would feel an obligation to hit Ukraine with an aim to cause devastation in cities like Kiev which have so far been spared.

For better or worse, the majority of Russians have been hearing a very different series of stories about the war that we in the West, and likely is largely supportive of their county’s actions. There have been a handful of “SODS” (Sudden Oligarch Death Syndrome) cases and lessons can be taken by others as to which side their bread is buttered on.

All Russia needs is a stalemate as possession is 9/10 of ownership and there is little incentive for Russia to give up its expensively gained spoils.

Objective interpretation of events requires discarding hopes, wishes and fairy tales. The protection of your finances requires that you are not surprised by events which could have been predicted if you were paying attention. I’m not predicting a specific outcome yet, but I am biased towards outcomes which are less optimistic than the US press seems to be predicting and hope that a crisis of the US becoming in direct physical conflict with Russia as we are not currently psychologically prepared for the draft to be reinstated and to see significant numbers of US deaths (let alone the increased stress which might be caused by nuclear potential).

Jeff

8 Likes
19

Reports have been that ethnic Russians in the Donbas are really POed at the Russians.

Perhaps some are. But the Ukraine since 2014 has been fighting anti-government separatist groups in Donbas. These groups are working hand in hand with Russia & supplied by the bear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_D…

20

But the Ukraine since 2014 has been fighting anti-government separatist groups in Donbas. These groups are working hand in hand with Russia & supplied by the bear.

If we have learned anything from our domestic politics, it’s that loud, noisy, disruptive groups can appear much larger than they really are.

Could the same be true in the Donbas region of Ukraine?

–Peter

5 Likes