3 3
SkyDekker

Ukraine

Recommended Posts

(edited)
12 minutes ago, olofscience said:

They'll need:

  • spare parts to repair and maintain their vehicles. Should be ok for the simplest ones, for the most advanced ones, the sanctions will have a bite.
  • manufacturing capability to replace vehicles destroyed in combat
  • refinery capacity. You don't just pump oil out of the ground and pour it into fuel tanks. Many of these refineries also depend on western technology to operate and maintain.
  • probably many other things.

Supply chain and logistics sounds boring, but it's the most difficult aspect that people often underestimate. Heck, companies like Ford are having trouble manufacturing enough cars due to supply chain issues (due to covid), and they're not even under sanctions.

Right, but what’s the timescale on that? You think their refineries will be inoperable by June?

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jakee said:

Well, this is on Russia’s border, not on the other side of the world. And while it’s not free, I think the relatively low tech way Russia conducts war is a hell of a lot cheaper than the way the west conducts war. What do they really need? Munitions which they’ll have vast quantities of stockpiled already, and oil which they pump out of the ground. We spend a hell of a lot on protecting our soldiers, Russia is quite happy to spend its soldiers lives. They were in Syria in force for several years without worrying much about the cost. 

Sam Denby has done many videos on the airline industry, and logistics of other businesses. Yesterday he put out this one on the logistics of the Russian Army in the Ukraine invasion .

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jakee said:

Right, but what’s the timescale on that? You think their refineries will be inoperable by June?

For the Russian civil airlines, blocked from getting Airbus/Boeing spare parts and support, the timescale is about 3 weeks, after that they'll have to start cannibalizing parts. They have about 500 airliners, so it will take years before they run out of operational ones like what happened to Iran under sanctions.

For military hardware, I don't know. I'd imagine wear and tear on those to be quite a bit higher than civilian equipment. Probably quite a lot more wear and tear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I loved the Steven Seagal impression!

Seagal has been a long-time supporter of Putin and once called him “one of the greatest world leaders if not the greatest world leader alive today.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, olofscience said:

For the Russian civil airlines, blocked from getting Airbus/Boeing spare parts and support, the timescale is about 3 weeks, after that they'll have to start cannibalizing parts. They have about 500 airliners, so it will take years before they run out of operational ones like what happened to Iran under sanctions.

Err, right. Airliners. That is definitely a thing we were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Kurt Volker former US ambassador to NATO, likes my idea.

Being consistently scoffable doesn't mean every idea a guy has should be immediately scoffed. I really don't want it to get around but I liked your idea first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

He's so naive! 

"The U.S. government is looking for ways to replenish Poland’s arsenal should the country agree to provide some of its Soviet-era combat jets to Ukraine, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said." 

Who could have thought of that?

Hi Joe,

I saw him on the national news last night, standing with the Ukrainian foreign minister ( I think it was the FM ).  One thing struck me, Blinken is no Churchill.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Seagal has been a long-time supporter of Putin and once called him “one of the greatest world leaders if not the greatest world leader alive today.”

 

Hi Phil,

Seagal has never come across to me as having much of an IQ.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

I saw him on the national news last night, standing with the Ukrainian foreign minister ( I think it was the FM ).  One thing struck me, Blinken is no Churchill.

Jerry Baumchen

Maybe that's a good thing. In any case his first book, Ally Versus Ally: America, Europe, and the Siberian Pipeline Crisis  published in 1987 shows he's given what faces us today some previous thought. I've not read it, only the review on Foreign Policy, but apparently at the time he felt Russia would be Russia and a strong alliance should be the primary focus.

From FP:

"In Ally Versus Ally, Blinken evinced little sympathy for the Reagan administration’s campaign of maximum pressure against the Soviet Union, though he also thought the Europeans’ hope that “expanded economic relations will produce positive change in the Kremlin’s foreign and domestic policies” was “wishful thinking.” However, he argued, U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union was less important than U.S. policy toward its European allies. The key geopolitical prize was not changes in Soviet behavior—which were difficult to predict or to shape—but alliance unity."

“By promoting a more harmonious alliance, rather than one divided over an issue as fundamental as East-West trade relations, the West will be in a better position to meet the challenges posed by its adversaries,” Blinken wrote. The reason was that the U.S. strategy of containing Soviet influence primarily depended on the durability of the transatlantic alliance. “If the Siberian pipeline crisis teaches us anything, it is that the Western alliance must look inward, and not simply outward, if it is to remain secure.” 

Given the state of the Alliance, particularly post Trump, he just might be the right guy for the times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Maybe that's a good thing. In any case his first book, Ally Versus Ally: America, Europe, and the Siberian Pipeline Crisis  published in 1987 shows he's given what faces us today some previous thought. I've not read it, only the review on Foreign Policy, but apparently at the time he felt Russia would be Russia and a strong alliance should be the primary focus.

From FP:

"In Ally Versus Ally, Blinken evinced little sympathy for the Reagan administration’s campaign of maximum pressure against the Soviet Union, though he also thought the Europeans’ hope that “expanded economic relations will produce positive change in the Kremlin’s foreign and domestic policies” was “wishful thinking.” However, he argued, U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union was less important than U.S. policy toward its European allies. The key geopolitical prize was not changes in Soviet behavior—which were difficult to predict or to shape—but alliance unity."

“By promoting a more harmonious alliance, rather than one divided over an issue as fundamental as East-West trade relations, the West will be in a better position to meet the challenges posed by its adversaries,” Blinken wrote. The reason was that the U.S. strategy of containing Soviet influence primarily depended on the durability of the transatlantic alliance. “If the Siberian pipeline crisis teaches us anything, it is that the Western alliance must look inward, and not simply outward, if it is to remain secure.” 

Given the state of the Alliance, particularly post Trump, he just might be the right guy for the times.

 

Hi Joe,

Re:  he just might be the right guy for the times.

Or, maybe he is not:  By promoting a more harmonious alliance

Time will tell; as always.

Jerry Baumchen

Edited by JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Hi folks,

I came across this statement today:  The invasion was not going well, Russia was becoming less powerful and it cannot continue

What do you think of it?

IMO it could not be more incorrect.

Don't fight in Ukraine - military boss tells Britons - BBC News

Jerry Baumchen

Edited by JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

I came across this statement today:  The invasion was not going well, Russia was becoming less powerful and it cannot continue

What do you think of it?

IMO it could not be more incorrect.

Don't fight in Ukraine - military boss tells Britons - BBC News

Jerry Baumchen

As I've been recently informed: "Time will tell; as always."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Mr. Putin, we're going to be placing missiles along the borders, but they're just for humanitarian purposes. </sarcasm> 

Well, I mean, that's no more absurd that Putin invading Ukraine to "de-Nazify" it.

Quote

I'm sure he'll go for that.  

At this point he's probably going to have to.  The world has turned solidly against him, and if he attacks (say) Belarus or Romania, he's going to see a coordinated worldwide response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, olofscience said:

Supply chain and logistics sounds boring, but it's the most difficult aspect that people often underestimate.

And it's also what wins wars.

At the beginning of World War II, the German air force was vastly superior to Britain's.  Better pilots, better training, better aircraft - the Brits were still using cloth covered biplanes for some missions.

Fortunately the allies realized this - and they got to work.  The US supplied massive amounts of raw materials and actual aircraft/pilots to England, and started targeting Germany's industry rather than its military (or civilian) facilities.  Thus, there would be an air battle, and Germany would shoot down 200 British aircraft while the Brits would shoot down 10.  But by the next week, the Brits would have 200 more aircraft, and the Germans found it hard to replace those 10 due to a shortage of ball bearings due to a destroyed factory.

This is one reason why harassing Atlantic shipping was so important to the Germans - they were trying to shut down that critical supply line.

It should also be pointed out that, even later in the war, British aircraft sucked.  After World War II the fields of France were littered with Spitfires and Hurricanes that would take off on their first mission, have an engine failure or catch on fire, and land (and be abandoned) in France.  But again, for every aircraft lost that way, they'd build 3 more.

And this wasn't some decades long endeavor.  It started affecting the war within a year.  Now, no one knows how long the takeover of Ukraine is going to take - but if it goes on for that long the lack of materiel is going to be a significant factor in Putin's ability to wage war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, I mean, that's no more absurd that Putin invading Ukraine to "de-Nazify" it.

At this point he's probably going to have to.  The world has turned solidly against him, and if he attacks (say) Belarus or Romania, he's going to see a coordinated worldwide response.

He doesn't need to attack what he already has under his control:

https://fortune.com/2022/03/05/ukraine-invasion-russia-belarus/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

I came across this statement today:  The invasion was not going well, Russia was becoming less powerful and it cannot continue

What do you think of it?

IMO it could not be more incorrect.

Don't fight in Ukraine - military boss tells Britons - BBC News

Jerry Baumchen

IMO the Putin meat grinder could last years. Look how long the Syrian war lasted. I believe Ukrainians are determined. Putin didn't get where he is by giving up easily. There are weapons depots all over Russia. Putin will run out of A/C before he runs out of armored vehicles.

Evidently there are already 20,000 none Ukrainian nationals in Ukraine fighting already. With volunteers from every corner of the globe besieging Ukrainian embassies to volunteer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Russian army unveils their new environmentally-friendly armor:

Desperate Russian Rear-Area Troops Are Armoring Their Vehicles With Wood Logs

I wonder what sort of energy you'd need to set off their reactive armor?  I mean, it shouldn't damage the tank but I bet it makes a hell of a racket - and destroys the armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, billvon said:

Right.  But if supplies start pouring into rebels in Belarus, then he has another front in his war.

Now there you go again. Naive strategic thinking is fun when you're drinking beerski's but the thing we really need here and now is BJ Worth. That's right, it's time to pull BJ out of mothballs to organize a 500 Way. We'll build a big Yellow and Blue F U and land with streamers all around the Russian 1st Guards Motor Rifle Division. How cool would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Kurt Volker former US ambassador to NATO, likes my idea.

Actually, it was his idea from March 3rd that you posted on March 4th. You also fail to mention that there were six points AND he said then that it needed to be done in the next 24 hours. 

 https://cepa.org/six-ways-to-help-ukraine-survive-right-now/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3