Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

A good Sunday update thread from Phillips. Also be sure to check out Illia’s thread from Friday. Summary: we shouldn’t have been expecting a grand counteroffensive, so lack of immediate gains aren’t a sign of failure. It was a trap to whittle down Russian forces on Ukraine’s own terms made possible by being better equipped. More advanced weaponry like HARMS has also further reduced Russia’s ability to compete in the skies.

 
Rajma said:

Yeah that’s one way to devide the EU by calling the states that have been right about Russia all along as war-mongering. It’s must be nice living in France knowing you have a buffer of many Mariupols you arrogant tool.
Click to expand...

Is that what he actually says there? Doesn't seem accurate.

Edit: I see quite a few people questioning the aims of that Visegrad account in the responses.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Is that what he actually says there? Doesn't seem accurate.

Edit: I see quite a few people questioning the aims of that Visegrad account in the responses.
Click to expand...
I’ve read the translation it’s slightly misleading not by much though, what he says is basically we don’t want the ones that have been correct about Russia to steer the policy on Russia. Also, on not prolonging the war unnecessarily? What does he mean by that? If he doesn’t want to prolong it then he should be lobbying the most advanced weapons in good quantities to be sent to Ukraine ASAP that would end it quickly alright. He seems rather thick too me.
 
Last edited:
Rajma said:
I’ve read the translation it’s slightly misleading not by much though, what he says is basically we don’t want the ones that have been correct about Russia to steer the policy on Russia. Also, on not prolonging the war unnecessarily? What does he mean by that? If he doesn’t want to prolong it then he should be lobbying the most advanced weapons in good quantities to be sent to Ukraine ASAP that would end it quickly alright. He seems rather thick too me.
Click to expand...

Not what he said either.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Not what he said either.
Click to expand...
My bad if it’s indeed poor translation, can you translate it? I’ll remove the tweet in case it’s translated widely off the mark. Thanks.

I found a decent reply (a thread) when it comes to what he said:

 
Last edited:
Rajma said:
My bad if it’s indeed poor translation, can you translate it? I’ll remove the tweet in case it’s translated widely off the mark. Thanks.

I found a decent reply (a thread) when it comes to what he said:

Click to expand...

Feels like quite a lot of heavy lifting there "reading between the lines" in the Visegrad tweet, to be honest.
 
Simbo said:
Click to expand...


This is incredible, i'm not sure I've ever seen combat as close as this outside of an SAS raid.

Are the Russians coming from the left in this video? And the Ukranians under the bridge?
 
WHy do they do that only now, not earlier? Is it desperation or is something else behind that?
 
Zehner said:
WHy do they do that only now, not earlier? Is it desperation or is something else behind that?
Click to expand...

I guess because Europe's only option now is to make itself completely independent from Russian gas. If and when that has been done (and clearly it will be a long and painful road), then the influence that Russia has over the West will be significantly diminished. Seems like the kind of move you can only make once. I'd also guess (and it's obviously a guess) that Putin was so certain of a quick victory that he thought he could ride out the initial storm of condemnation and sanctions and then return to something like normality within a year or so. It's probably taken him longer than most to realise and accept that he's stuck in this conflict for the long run, and that the West won't be backing down, so he now feels it's time to play his trump card.
 
NicolaSacco said:
I guess because Europe's only option now is to make itself completely independent from Russian gas. If and when that has been done (and clearly it will be a long and painful road), then the influence that Russia has over the West will be significantly diminished. Seems like the kind of move you can only make once. I'd also guess (and it's obviously a guess) that Putin was so certain of a quick victory that he thought he could ride out the initial storm of condemnation and sanctions and then return to something like normality within a year or so. It's probably taken him longer than most to realise and accept that he's stuck in this conflict for the long run, and that the West won't be backing down, so he now feels it's time to play his trump card.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't it have made sense to do this earlier? I mean, the question is which side will lose more by it and if Russia is convinced it is Europe, then why not do it immediately?

I feel the impact would have been much harder than it is now a few weeks or even months ago.
 
Zehner said:
WHy do they do that only now, not earlier? Is it desperation or is something else behind that?
Click to expand...

Being able to gradually sell more to India and China. They need the money.
 
Zehner said:
WHy do they do that only now, not earlier? Is it desperation or is something else behind that?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would have made sense to do this earlier IF you fully believed (as I'm sure Putin did) that this would be a short war, and he could swiftly return to the 'status quo ante', except now with Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence. It's now become apparent that this is impossible. So he needs a new plan, effective over a longer period of time.

What Putin has done is inflict severe short and medium term pain on European economies and people, at the expense of causing longer term pain on his own economy. It's a policy with a serious and potentially permanent downside for Russian finances, power, and influence. I'm guessing that 6 months ago he didn't think it was worth the pay-off. As I say, i'm suspicious that he really hasn't been given the whole truth by his advisers, so it's taken him longer than most to realise and come to terms with the fact that there will be no purely military victory. I think he assumed that after a military victory, with Zelensky captured or killed and a pro-Russian leader in his place, that these 'facts on the ground' would lead to the West eventually turning away, like they did with Crimea and Luhansk/Donetsk. Had he known in advance that this would become a protracted conflict then I imagine he would have done precisely as you say, and turned off the taps from day one.
 
Zehner said:
But wouldn't it have made sense to do this earlier? I mean, the question is which side will lose more by it and if Russia is convinced it is Europe, then why not do it immediately?

I feel the impact would have been much harder than it is now a few weeks or even months ago.
Click to expand...
The moment Russia decides to actively shut down the pipeline is the moment when they are breaching their contracts and appearing as untrustworthy. So far they could (rightly) say that they are a reliable partner, and as long as that situation persisted there was the option that Europe starts buying again. During the whole war gas was flowing from Russia through Ukraine to Europe and neither of them dared to shut it down. Only now Russia has to realize that Europe will not step back from their decision and now is the only time to still have some leverage.
 
Zehner said:
But wouldn't it have made sense to do this earlier? I mean, the question is which side will lose more by it and if Russia is convinced it is Europe, then why not do it immediately?

I feel the impact would have been much harder than it is now a few weeks or even months ago.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine that cutting off the only reliable method of raising money that's been used to paint over the cracks on the entire foundation of Russia's failing economy was a big factor against doing it.

Limiting the supply allows you to both increase the pressure on Europe and keep the money flowing (less supply = higher price). Shutting it down leaves you with nothing.
 
harms said:
I'd imagine that cutting off the only reliable method of raising money that's been used to paint over the cracks on the entire foundation of Russia's failing economy was a big factor against doing it.

Limiting the supply allows you to both increase the pressure on Europe and keep the money flowing (less supply = higher price). Shutting it down leaves you with nothing.
Click to expand...

I think you're right but I'd love to see the numbers for this. We know he can keep selling to particularly China and India, but 1- it's at a discount, and 2- they don't have the infrastructure to sell as much as they did to Europe. It must be hurting Russia's economy significantly.
 
NicolaSacco said:
I think you're right but I'd love to see the numbers for this. We know he can keep selling to particularly China and India, but 1- it's at a discount, and 2- they don't have the infrastructure to sell as much as they did to Europe. It must be hurting Russia's economy significantly.
Click to expand...
Russia is as capable of selling to other places as Europe is of buying it in other places. They will need massive new infrastructure, either in pipelines or LNG terminals to export elsewhere. Which is why they are burning it.
 
Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm a real novice at this. Doesn't this mean he's effectively played his highest card? He can't switch off gas again, and surely Europe will just become more insistent on not remaining so dependant on Rusia? Does he have any larger economic tactic he can use, or has he now effectively run the full gamut of his economic strategy?
 
Erebus said:
Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm a real novice at this. Doesn't this mean he's effectively played his highest card? He can't switch off gas again, and surely Europe will just become more insistent on not remaining so dependant on Rusia? Does he have any larger economic tactic he can use, or has he now effectively run the full gamut of his economic strategy?
Click to expand...
I also would like to know this. Is there any more impactful economic card Putin can play here?
 
Russian economy in big problems?

Russia Privately Warns of Deep and Prolonged Economic Damage

Russia may face a longer and deeper recession as the impact of US and European sanctions spreads, handicapping sectors that the country has relied on for years to power its economy, according to an internal report prepared for the government.

The document, the result of months of work by officials and experts trying to assess the true impact of Russia’s economic isolation due to President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, paints a far more dire picture than officials usually do in their upbeat public pronouncements. Bloomberg viewed a copy of the report, drafted for a closed-door meeting of top officials on Aug. 30. People familiar with the deliberations confirmed its authenticity.
Click to expand...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...er-longer-sanctions-hit-internal-report-warns
 
Erebus said:
Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm a real novice at this. Doesn't this mean he's effectively played his highest card? He can't switch off gas again, and surely Europe will just become more insistent on not remaining so dependant on Rusia? Does he have any larger economic tactic he can use, or has he now effectively run the full gamut of his economic strategy?
Click to expand...
He was ways going to cut off supplies this winter before people can put infra and supply chains in place for next winter

Gut feel they are hoping with a cold winter and facing potential black outs and gas cuts some countries may push for sanction relief / exemptions for gas

Probably not going to work as the eu seems fairly unified.
 
Ben Wallace with new stats on Russian casualties. Over 25K Russians estimated to have been killed.
More than six months into its war in Ukraine, Russia "has yet to achieve any of its strategic objectives" in its invasion, UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said on Monday.

Russia "continues to lose significant equipment and personnel" in the war, he added, saying that the losses will have a lasting impact on Moscow's future combat effectiveness.

"It is estimated to date that over 25,000 Russian soldiers have lost their lives. If you include killed, casualties, captured or the now reported tens of thousands of deserters — over 80,000 dead or injured and the other categories," Wallace said during a statement to lawmakers in the House of Commons.
Click to expand...
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-09-05-22/index.html
 
Abizzz said:
Russia is as capable of selling to other places as Europe is of buying it in other places. They will need massive new infrastructure, either in pipelines or LNG terminals to export elsewhere. Which is why they are burning it.
Click to expand...

Yep, that was kind of my point!
 
NicolaSacco said:
I think you're right but I'd love to see the numbers for this. We know he can keep selling to particularly China and India, but 1- it's at a discount, and 2- they don't have the infrastructure to sell as much as they did to Europe. It must be hurting Russia's economy significantly.
Click to expand...
Russian ministry of finance predicts that the export of oil and gas is going to account for more than 40% of Russia's state budget revenue in 2022 (that's from the 20th of June).
Based on the numbers from January to May 2022 Russia has already earned ~59% of what they expected to earn from oil & gas prices in 2022.



Here's an article that seems to cover a lot of points on gas exports (Carnegie are usually decent)
...
If Russia stops selling gas to Europe, its budget losses may reach $40 billion. That’s certainly a significant sum for the Russian government, but it is an easier sacrifice than oil. And if gas sales are not stopped altogether, but merely curtailed, much of the monetary loss could be recouped through price growth. Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller boasted recently that decreased exports to the EU are fully compensated for by higher prices, and his company couldn’t be happier about it.
...
Click to expand...

It will be almost impossible to recoup those losses in short-to-mid perspective. The pipeline to China only can move 38 billion m2 of gas per year while North Stream-1 alone moves more than 59 billion m2. And, obviously, China and India are in a very comfortable position negotiation-wise — Russia has to sell it to them, it simply doesn't have any other options.
 
harms said:
Russian ministry of finance predicts that the export of oil and gas is going to account for more than 40% of Russia's state budget revenue in 2022 (that's from the 20th of June).
Based on the numbers from January to May 2022 Russia has already earned ~59% of what they expected to earn from oil & gas prices in 2022.



Here's an article that seems to cover a lot of points on gas exports (Carnegie are usually decent)


It will be almost impossible to recoup those losses in short-to-mid perspective. The pipeline to China only can move 38 billion m2 of gas per year while North Stream-1 alone moves more than 59 billion m2. And, obviously, China and India are in a very comfortable position negotiation-wise — Russia has to sell it to them, it simply doesn't have any other options.
Click to expand...


That's a very useful article, thanks!
 
Wonder if we'll hear more noise about upping military aid to Ukraine.

 

Signs of desperation there, not like North Korea would have been storing their ammo from 60s in any better conditions than Russia. Most of it likely to be found unusable when it arrives to the front. Also, could be China supplying it actually via NK, but who knows.
 
Last edited:
Early signs but it seems that Rascist Kherson frontline is beginning to crumble. Fingers crossed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.