• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
TurkeysGhost said:
Much obliged, not familiar with this source, though I don't think it's unique in pointing out that the recession being induced by high energy prices in the EU is sapping enthusiasm for continued support of the war.



Do you have a source for that? Everything I'm seeing is claiming that Russia is basically exporting more or less the same oil volume as before the war, instead sending it to China, India, or other uninvolved parties rather than the EU. Russia is evading the price cap and these alternative supply lines will only become more established the longer the situation lasts. Seems the impact of the sanctions was rather short lived.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/24/ukraine-the-wests-oil-war-against-russia-is-losing-momentum.html
Click to expand...

The problem with the idea that Russia is exporting it's oil in the same volume to China and India as it would have done to Europe is that it doesn't have the infrastructure, neither the pipelines, nor the ports, nor the shipping, to do so. It may be tanking some stuff overland, but that's prohibitively expensive. Secondly, the country has lost all access to the high level industry to make the parts it needs and the foreign experts it needs to keep production going at anything like full capacity. Thirdly, because of the European boycott of gas and restrictions on the price it will pay for Russian oil, both China and India have Russia over a barrel price wise and neither country is not going to use it.

And the steep rise in energy prices is not due to the Russian invasion (though that doesn't help with attempts to reduce the prices), it all to do with the Sauds heavily restricting OPEC production quotas because they've realised that without high oil prices they can't keep the bribery state that they depend on to stay in power going. Oil and gas prices were rising sharply before Russia invaded and have stayed high because of Saudi Arabia.

Edit: Where I'm getitng my information from isn't any one source, but it's mainly a number of youtube sources like Anders Puck Nielsen, Perun, Jake Broe and others who have a good record for strong information, and posters here and elswhere on fora I am member of who I've good reason to consider experts in either the oil industry or military tactics. The mainstream media can be good on publishing known facts, but it is very bad on analysis and deep investigation.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
The "worst place" is also known as the "kill zone".

A general principle for anyone in an ambush is: "Move off the 'X'" (IOW get out of the kill zone). The best way to move off the 'X' may or may not be straight at the ambush, depending on a number of factors.

A couple things that can contribute to @ing an ambusher often being the best route off the 'X':

1) A well-prepared ambush will include measures to cut off or trap the most obvious routes of escape (such as w/mines)

2) If the attackers are close enough, closing with them in order to suppress is more likely to work than trying to outrun bullets.

3) It is the response that ambushers are least likely to be expecting/prepared for.

4) Ambushers sometimes situate themselves atop a physical crest of raised terrain rather than the "military crest", meaning they may have a blind spot under their very noses (What happened to the Confederates at Missionary Ridge, TN)

ETA: I just noticed the post Tyr was responding to specified a close ambush, so, ninja'd I guess?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the premise as I understood it was close in point small arms ambush.

What often happened with RPG on vehicle ambush in Iraq and Afghanistan is that close-ish small arms would open fire to get the patrol to advance on the small arms when the RPG teams waiting in the classic L shape would open up on the vehicle(s) once they were distracted by the small arms team. The thing about close in ambush is that it's even less likely to have explosives where the small arms fire is coming from, be it mines or IED, because they usually don't want to risk being blown up by their own ordinance. They had the people they had tricked or forced to blow themselves up kept with separate teams. :(

It's really strange to be seeing better tactics from insurgency than from a 'modern near peer' adversary.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
The problem with the idea that Russia is exporting it's oil in the same volume to China and India as it would have done to Europe is that it doesn't have the infrastructure, neither the pipelines, nor the ports, nor the shipping, to do so. It may be tanking some stuff overland, but that's prohibitively expensive. Secondly, the country has lost all access to the high level industry to make the parts it needs and the foreign experts it needs to keep production going at anything like full capacity. Thirdly, because of the European boycott of gas and restrictions on the price it will pay for Russian oil, both China and India have Russia over a barrel price wise and neither country is not going to use it.

And the steep rise in energy prices is not due to the Russian invasion (though that doesn't help with attempts to reduce the prices), it all to do with the Sauds heavily restricting OPEC production quotas because they've realised that without high oil prices they can't keep the bribery state that they depend on to stay in power going. Oil and gas prices were rising sharply before Russia invaded and have stayed high because of Saudi Arabia.

Edit: Where I'm getitng my information from isn't any one source, but it's mainly a number of youtube sources like Anders Puck Nielsen, Perun, Jake Broe and others who have a good record for strong information, and posters here and elswhere on fora I am member of who I've good reason to consider experts in either the oil industry or military tactics. The mainstream media can be good on publishing known facts, but it is very bad on analysis and deep investigation.
Click to expand...

It's hard to over-state how important the abysmal state of Russia's skill economy and industrial capabilities are. They started hollow and have been degraded more. They literally didn't have the skilled workers to keep running some of their own oil extraction and had to hire out to have it done.

Brain drain will put a country way behind every time.
 
Nevertheless, in a War Economy, it's usually sufficient to do the very basic things reasonably well. And unlike Ukraine, Russia's production sites are generally out of reach of the enemy.

If NATO were to join the fight, Russia would be pooped. But against Ukraine alone it can probably keep up the fight for years to come.
 
tyr_13 said:
It's hard to over-state how important the abysmal state of Russia's skill economy and industrial capabilities are. They started hollow and have been degraded more. They literally didn't have the skilled workers to keep running some of their own oil extraction and had to hire out to have it done.

Brain drain will put a country way behind every time.
Click to expand...
It's a shame. At first Russia was finally moving ahead under Putin after the total chaos under Yeltsin. Then as is inevitable in a Democracy, people want to change the Government and try something else due to mistakes he was making. Putin decided to go all in and go back to running Russia as a dictatorship and mafia state. It's been all downhill since then. The series of 'patriotic' wars has only harmed Russia.
 
On the dam.
My theory is that the Russians had it wired for demolition 'just in case' and some local commander panicked when the Ukrainian forces started their probing attacks and he bit the button.
I don't think the Russians meant to do it.

There is plenty of precedence from WW2 and the Spanish civil war of panicking local commanders blowing bridges too soon.
 
Last edited:
I'm CERTAIN they meant to do it.

The whole goal of the war is to cripple Ukraine, and blowing the dam is doing exactly that for at least a decade.
Russia assumed that the counteroffensive would sweep them away with no chance to reconquer the dam. So this was the last chance to blow the thing and blame it on a local commander should there ever be a warcrime trial.
If Russia blew it with barrel bombs in a month or year, the would be no ambiguity.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Nevertheless, in a War Economy, it's usually sufficient to do the very basic things reasonably well. And unlike Ukraine, Russia's production sites are generally out of reach of the enemy.

If NATO were to join the fight, Russia would be pooped. But against Ukraine alone it can probably keep up the fight for years to come.
Click to expand...

Problem is, it's no longer 1914. Russia lacks the capability to make tanks and other ground vehicles, planes or ships in any appreciable number or to a standard that would survive a modern battlefield. At the moment it looks like all they can do is upgrade (badly) 1960's tanks to 1980's standards, which is a losing proposition. Hell, even in low tech machines like drones, they can't produce what they need.

And on munitions, apart from small arms bullets, it's increasingly looking like they are wholly dependant on foreign producers for anything.

That's an ok (not great, just ok) proposition if you've the most advanced military industrail nations backing you like Ukraine does, but Russia are dependent on Iran and North Korea for their military supplies, neither of which have any experience or expertise in exporting weapons, infact, North Korea probably has expertise only in making parade ground dummy mockups to slide over regular cars.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's a shame. At first Russia was finally moving ahead under Putin after the total chaos under Yeltsin. Then as is inevitable in a Democracy, people want to change the Government and try something else due to mistakes he was making. Putin decided to go all in and go back to running Russia as a dictatorship and mafia state. It's been all downhill since then. The series of 'patriotic' wars has only harmed Russia.
Click to expand...

Russia under Putain was never a democracy. Democracy in Russia died in 1993 when the west backed Yeltsin's coup against the Duma.
 
Andy_Ross said:
You don't blow a river crossing until you absolutely have to.
Click to expand...


Unless you only see a war in short term tactical terms. Which seems to be the case here. They blew another dam up during the battle for Kherson. It slowed things down for a week or so.


It also works well for punishing the enemy. Putin is laying waste to as much of Ukraine as possible.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Problem is, it's no longer 1914. Russia lacks the capability to make tanks and other ground vehicles, planes or ships in any appreciable number or to a standard that would survive a modern battlefield. At the moment it looks like all they can do is upgrade (badly) 1960's tanks to 1980's standards, which is a losing proposition. Hell, even in low tech machines like drones, they can't produce what they need.

And on munitions, apart from small arms bullets, it's increasingly looking like they are wholly dependant on foreign producers for anything.

That's an ok (not great, just ok) proposition if you've the most advanced military industrail nations backing you like Ukraine does, but Russia are dependent on Iran and North Korea for their military supplies, neither of which have any experience or expertise in exporting weapons, infact, North Korea probably has expertise only in making parade ground dummy mockups to slide over regular cars.
Click to expand...

Also they are not getting convoys of ships from USA and UK packed with materials and equipment
 
a_unique_person said:
Apparently the lake that was created by the dam is now nearly drained and could be available for launcing an attack against positions that are undefended.
Click to expand...

Maybe. As has been noted elsewhere, it's best not to assume that the ground will become firm enough to allow for meaningful assault or logistics soon enough for that to matter. It might technically be possible if all the stars align, but best not to assume much on that front in the near future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom