Russia's War Against Ukraine

[JasonPratt]

I think I've got that already, but yes I IMMEDIATELY thought of the flying HK bots from Terminator.

All Ukraine's hornets need now is a plasma rifle in a 40 kilowatt range. (Or whatever line Arnold gave at the gun store.)

[Uberhaus]

I think I've got that already, but yes I IMMEDIATELY thought of the flying HK bots from Terminator.

All Ukraine's hornets need now is a plasma rifle in a 40 kilowatt range. (Or whatever line Arnold gave at the gun store.)

You'll have to settle for these (look for the Warhammer/WH40k reference):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2024/09/02/dragonfire-flamethrowing-drone-burns-up-russian-positions/

[JasonPratt]

I think it's kind of sadly amusing that Russian milbloggers thought the drone was a Russian weapon attacking geolocated Russian positions. Because that's actually plausible. 

[Crossroads]

War on the Rocks with a long article on prospects of Russian economy:

Russia Is on a Slow Path to Bankruptcy, But How Slow?


Closing paragraphs:

What could happen when Russia runs out of financial reserves? It's an exercise in foresight, but several scenarios are conceivable. The first is the most unrealistic: For lack of funding, Russia stops its military spending, abandons its "special operation" in Ukraine, acknowledges its defeat, and goes back to "business as usual." But there is a problem: It is true that the Russian state heavily financed the resurrection of the Soviet military-industrial complex, but who will finance the reversal, and how? The possibility of reversing the transformation of Russian industry, from the production of military equipment to the production of civilian goods, is highly questionable in the specific context of future financial difficulties.

The Central Bank of Russia stated in April 2022 that Russia will have to face "reverse industrialization" in the coming years. Russia financed the restarting of weapons factories, some of which had been mothballed for years. This had repercussions for the entire supply chain and subcontractors, but an abrupt halt to production for military purposes will not be without consequences for all sectors directly linked to the supply of weapons components — the military-industrial complex. Factories that used to produce tanks or missiles aren't going to produce cars or washing machines overnight.

Whatever the case, this scenario would make it possible to envisage a gradual lifting of sanctions, or even the release of aid from international institutions in the medium term, provided that Russia undertakes to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine. While this is the scenario that would probably best avoid economic collapse, it is also the one that presents the greatest political risks for Vladimir Putin. The probability of such a scenario occurring is therefore extremely low, as long as Putin holds the reins of power tightly.

A second scenario could involve massive Chinese intervention (financial loans, supply of equipment, munitions, troops, etc.) in exchange for even greater access to Russia's natural resources, or even in exchange for territories such as Siberia. This hypothesis would enable Russia to continue its offensive and bolster its economy for years to come. The flaw in this scenario is that it would expose China to massive economic retaliation from the West. Apart from the fact that this would split the world into two major geopolitical blocs, as it did during the Cold War, China's already shaky economy would have a hard time absorbing the shock, making this scenario highly unlikely beyond current support.

The third scenario is the most likely: change nothing and try to adapt. Considering that the Russian economy is beginning to operate in a closed circuit, once its reserves have been exhausted, Russia could quickly decide to suspend certain social benefits and reduce salaries while continuing to raise taxes. In addition, it could seize all foreign assets still present in Russia (or even gradually sell the Russian Central Bank's gold reserves on parallel markets). As this is unlikely to be enough in the long run, Russia will have no choice but to turn on the "money printing press," accentuating the inflationary spiral and further depreciating the ruble. This maximalist strategy would most likely enable Russia to hold out for some years, but with the risk of a cataclysmic economic collapse in the end: This is pretty much the exact description of the Soviet Union's economic situation between 1989 and 1991.

In a country where more than half the population lives directly off state subsidies, where the poverty rate will exceed 13 percent in 2021 (even though poverty criteria are much lower than in the West), and where 62 percent of Russians have neither savings nor enough to buy more than clothes and food, the long-term risk for Russia is to find itself in an economic situation identical to that which preceded the fall of the Soviet Union.

[al_infierno]

Ryan McBeth put out an interesting video covering the recent revelation about Russia's influence of right-wing media:

[Sir Slash]

This guy strikes me as a total, 'Flake' badly in need of a girlfriend. Or a new hobby. What a coincidence, less than two months before a national election someone with a political view finds fault with others they disagree with. 

[al_infierno]

This guy strikes me as a total, 'Flake' badly in need of a girlfriend. Or a new hobby. What a coincidence, less than two months before a national election someone with a political view finds fault with others they disagree with. 

Ryan McBeth is a legit military intel analyst.  He made a video debunking fears and consternation about Project 2025.  He's a very level headed and unbiased guy, all in all.  There's a reason I shared his video and not the countless others whinging about who's being paid by Russia and why.

[JudgeDredd]

Ryan McBeth is a legit military intel analyst.  He made a video debunking fears and consternation about Project 2025.  He's a very level headed and unbiased guy, all in all.  There's a reason I shared his video and not the countless others whinging about who's being paid by Russia and why.

I believe Ryan McBeth is totally legit. Maybe I'm being hoodwinked, but I have a feeling he knows what he's talking about...far more so than 99.9% of the rest of the internet users (well aware I'm one of them  )

I don't know what he's got - his analysis just seems to have legitimacy...the whole process he goes through.

I'll stick by him until I'm informed of something to make me question that.

[Jarhead0331]

I think McBeth is a legit military intel analyst too. I watch his videos and have posted some here on occasion. However, I also think he has exhibited personal bias and when his content crosses over from the military to the political or ideological, I think his voice loses some of its credibility and authority.

For the record, I'm not talking about the above video specifically, because I have not watched it.

[JudgeDredd]

It might depend on whether his political/ideological content aligns with the person watching it, mighten it?

I don't know if I've seen any of his stuff where he goes on the political so I don't really know where he stands.

I just wonder maybe if people are on a separate side politically to him, then that's why he loses credibility and authority - to them. Might it be different if they and he were both taking the same political stance?   

In other news, Putin's decided if Storm Shadow is allowed to cross the border into Russia, ..."NATO is at war with Russia".

Of course the danger is - boxing him into a corner where he does in fact feel the need to escalate from conventional arms. But like I said - if you cow tow to threats, then why the **** have armies and weapons in the first place. We might just as well roll over and have our tummies tickled.

**** him.

[Jarhead0331]

It might depend on whether his political/ideological content aligns with the person watching it, mighten it?

I don't know if I've seen any of his stuff where he goes on the political so I don't really know where he stands.

I just wonder maybe if people are on a separate side politically to him, then that's why he loses credibility and authority - to them. Might it be different if they and he were both taking the same political stance? 

If a person is intellectually honest the political leaning of a purported expert or commentator should make no difference in the amount of weight or credibility that person lends to the opinion. For me, it has to do with the bonafides or credentials, ie. training, experience, education and intellect. Personally, I may not agree with everything a given expert says, but if he or she is discussing a topic in which he or she has great education or experience, I'm still going to listen and consider. If that same person is expressing opinion on a matter to which they do not have particular proven expertise, I'm going to be much more circumspect.

[ArizonaTank]

It might depend on whether his political/ideological content aligns with the person watching it, mighten it?

The indictment is real enough. If it goes to trial I think some interesting information will come out. But even if there is just a kernel of truth in the allegations, that information will not make any of those mentioned in the indictment look good.

I am an old cold warrior...so do I think the Soviets...er...I mean the Russians...would do this? Of course they would. Do I think you could find American influencers who would take $400K a month to say whatever and not question why...sadly the answer is yes. 

Exhibit no. 1...watch the video header

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/watch-alleged-russian-asset-tim-pool-screams-that-ukraine-is-the-enemy-of-the-us/ar-AA1q2TRm?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[Tripoli]

It might depend on whether his political/ideological content aligns with the person watching it, mighten it?

I don't know if I've seen any of his stuff where he goes on the political so I don't really know where he stands.

I just wonder maybe if people are on a separate side politically to him, then that's why he loses credibility and authority - to them. Might it be different if they and he were both taking the same political stance? 

If a person is intellectually honest the political leaning of a purported expert or commentator should make no difference in the amount of weight or credibility that person lends to the opinion. For me, it has to do with the bonafides or credentials, ie. training, experience, education and intellect. Personally, I may not agree with everything a given expert says, but if he or she is discussing a topic in which he or she has great education or experience, I'm still going to listen and consider. If that same person is expressing opinion on a matter to which they do not have particular proven expertise, I'm going to be much more circumspect.

To further emphasize what I believe Jarhead is implying: while credentials are important, the fundamental issue are the facts and logic of the argument.  Even an absolute morale and intellectual reprobate can be correct on a given issue.  For example, consider the historical example of the initial reporting of the Katyn massacre.  The initial reporting was made by Nazi Germany, who claimed the massacre was done by the Soviets.  An impartial observer at the time would properly note that the German government was populated by inveterate liars, who had every reason to lie about the perpetrators.  But the same observer would also note that the exhaustive evidence provided by the Germans and the ICRC, combined with the Soviet reaction, gave creedence to the German claim of Soviet complicity in the massacre. 

Just because someone has a bias, or even a history of being wrong does not mean that they are in a particular case.  You have to examine their evidence and argument. A person can both be untrustworthy and correct on a given issue.

[JasonPratt]

Tim Pool also makes a thorough case that he and most of the others didn't know that Tenet was being financed by Russia Today, and that they're doing exactly what they've always been doing. Also that he sure didn't receive instructions on what to present and how -- of course that's only his word for it, but again he does have a record going back beyond the Tenet alliance (as do the others).

I think it's likely that the Tenet manager was approached by RT due to proclivities already expressed by the people involved and the manager decided to take the money to do what they were already doing anyway. But I sure don't know the in-and-out details, or even that Pool, Southern and the others had formed their own media group (until about a week ago when the story broke). Maybe McBeth has better source information; I'm sure he's done more research than me! 

For context, I think Pool is wrong about our support of Ukraine's defense being unnecessary and even morally wrong. He's a pretty firey guy, though, and does not have a record I know of, of being paid to say what he otherwise doesn't believe. That said, I've also long been cautious (including since this whole thread began) about Ukranian governmental corruption. I'm fine with helping the Ukrainian people defend themselves from invasion and massacre, and I agree that Putin's destructive land grabs must be stopped as softly as feasibly possible under the circumstances including a 'hot' cold war where necessary. I have no interest in helping their government per se.

[Sir Slash]

I am confident that in time if the allegations prove true, we will see that proof. Like when actual criminal charges are filed. Right now sanctioning someone or some organization doesn't prove a thing. Russia, China, and Iran's clear purpose in all things is to sow discord and division amongst the American people regardless of political beliefs one way or another. We should be smarter than that.