Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Draco-Onis]

Yeah, it does look like Russia is waiting as long as they can to prevent what should be a full-on selloff crash in any free situation, and instead make it a "rich Russians can save themselves first". Any foreign investors stuck with unsellable, worthless assets are going to get hammered.

Bond markets are divided into separate part defaulting on foreign investors because they cannot pay using foreign assets doesn't mean they aren't going to be paying domestic ones which they can in rubbles. The default would be the result of them unable to access their banks due to sanctions not the fundamentals, they have more than enough to cover their debt.

As for the stock market most of the oligarchs have the majority of their assets out of Russia even if frozen they can still appreciate in value so they won't be hit that bad.

- - - Updated - - -

To me, this is the dangerous part. I mean, more than bombing civilians already is. He's had multiple weeks of failures and losses that could have been painted over with the appearance of a victory if he'd taken the offramps. He didn't. We're going to watch as he very slowly and very costly grinds Ukraine down by erosion, while the effects are dumped onto the average Russian civilian who wanted nothing to do with this.

I was hoping that the slow speed of Russia's war would give Putin more time to change course. I guess it did give him more time, but he didn't want it.

Well he does have very limited options, he can't turn tail and run it's too late for that and even if he did the damage to the economy is done and most of it cannot be reversed. He will get his pound of flesh regardless of cost which at this point is minimal from his perspective.

[Breccia]

More on Easo's comment which, again to me at least, reads like Russia trying to pretend they shouldn't face consequences of their hostile actions.

The claim is that Biden, and the rest of the WH, called Putin a "war criminal" and that's the reason of the cutoff. So, yeah, Putin's at least feigning indignation about being called mean names. Especially considering he actually is a war criminal. Oh, and considering the EU took the same stance I expect them to follow suit.

Hostile actions taken against Russia would receive a decisive and firm rebuff

I don't know if that's more warmongering/threatening/posturing which, yeah, I've seen that show it stops being funny in the third episode; or if calling Putin a "war criminal" is the "hostile action" in which case aww poor baby doesn't wike it when his widdle feewings are hurt. Dry your tears on the piles of Ukrainian corpses you personally caused, monster, WHO records six more attacks on Ukrainian health care facilities.

That's more than 2 attacks per day. This is unaccaptable. Health care must always be protected.

EDIT: One, maybe more, was a children's hospital. You only hit one of those if (a) you're aiming at it, or (b) you're carpet-bombing and hitting everything else, too. Neither is acceptable.

Obviously Putin could try to just say "fuck everything" and start a nuclear holocaust. I remain hopeful that the humans in his chain of command aren't as ready to die as he is. Besides that, I'd like to see what he says a "firm rebuff" is, other than that picture of Shirtless Putin.

- - - Updated - - -

He will get his pound of flesh regardless of cost which at this point is minimal from his perspective.

Yeah, that's the kicker, isn't it? His perspective. He's got such a stockpile of supplies in the bunker he'll never leave again that there's not a ton we can do to him directly anymore. Just try to make his rich friends less rich until one of them snips the antenna off, locks the door from the outside, and takes over. Or, you know, kills him.

And yeah, it looks like Russia will handle the whole "defaulting on foreign investors because they cannot pay using foreign assets" by just, you know, deciding not to do it. "We didn't default, we chose not to pay you" sounds like something Kramer would say.

[Fuiking]

Can we discuss how badly the netherlands is performing in freezing assets of russians and even kind of allows dutch companies recruit russian soldiers?

[Elenos]

@CostinR - those are all casualties, not just killed, but regardless - 1k per day would mean Russian force would be combat incapable very soon.

Ukraine says killed in their reports, Hell their ministry of foreign affairs posts daily counts. Though to be fair they aren't saying 1k daily killed. Rather 300.

https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/stat...65743769948160



Ukraine ladies and gents. Wonderland 2.0.

[Draco-Onis]

Yeah, that's the kicker, isn't it? His perspective. He's got such a stockpile of supplies in the bunker he'll never leave again that there's not a ton we can do to him directly anymore. Just try to make his rich friends less rich until one of them snips the antenna off, locks the door from the outside, and takes over. Or, you know, kills him.

And yeah, it looks like Russia will handle the whole "defaulting on foreign investors because they cannot pay using foreign assets" by just, you know, deciding not to do it. "We didn't default, we chose not to pay you" sounds like something Kramer would say.

One of the first thing Putin did was gut the power of the oligarchs they are not close to him enough to kill him. Also even if by some miracle Putin gets killed, do you think the world would be safer with a Russia going through a power struggle of such magnitude? we may end up with a worse monster down the road. If something happens it needs to happen naturally with no outside pressure.

If Putin dies now the West would be blamed whoever killed him would be killed, a power struggle would ensue with all sides vowing revenge.

[Breccia]

Can we discuss how badly the netherlands is performing in freezing assets of russians and even kind of allows dutch companies recruit russian soldiers?

Um...sure? What's stopping you?

Meanwhile:

Putin’s Russia looks increasingly desperate as Ukraine war nears stalemate, analysts say

Russia’s economy is now creaking under the immense weight of international sanctions and the costs of war, having largely failed to achieve major military victories in Ukraine. Close watchers of Moscow, and Putin, say there are increasing signs of desperation in Russia’s military campaign and siege tactics.

“I don’t think Russia can win,” Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, told CNBC.

“They’re bogged down. They’re having trouble with supplies. They are having trouble with ammunition. They are not able to take the major cities. They’re not advancing. They are showing a lot of desperate measures like calling in Syrians or asking the Chinese for help, or threatening to attack the NATO countries’ [weapons] supplies [to Ukraine] and raising the specter of biological or chemical or nuclear use,” he noted.

“These are all signs of, I think, desperation,” Volker told CNBC on Friday, adding that they are getting squeezed between military failure on the ground, and the failure of Russia’s economy due to the sanctions. “And so time is working against them now,” he said.

Volker said that Russia’s desperation for a quick win in Ukraine means that it is now resorting to what he described as “barbarian tactics” including “targeting civilians directly, shelling cities” to try to create “fear and exhaustion in the population.”

Now for the record I disagree with the bolded, but only in the context of "Russia actually tries". Days ago, half of us posted that 99-100% commitment figure. We're seeing signs of recruitment of mercenaries, Syrians and Belarussians. If Putin just said "fuck it, send 500,000 more troops, another 40 miles of tanks and trucks with actual supplies this time, and if they still don't surrender air-drop kholodets" this thread would be going differently. If I didn't know any better, I would say Putin wants this war to go badly and grind to a halt. I just don't know why. It can't be a pretense to use chemical or biological weapons -- he can just do that because he feels like it and he's a murdering bastard. And it's not making him more popular.

@Draco-Onis said Putin doesn't have choices, I disagree in semantics, he has choices he doesn't want to use because they could get him thrown out of power or murdered. But this doesn't appear to be much better.

- - - Updated - - -

we may end up with a worse monster down the road.

You'll understand if I say I'm ready to roll those dice. And I've never liked that reasoning anyhow. "Why should I do XXX when the result could be worse?" needs a lot more justification for me to accept it.

The ideal result, and highly unlikely so we're clear, is for a new Russian leader/group to cut Putin out of power and announce to the world "Putin was crazy, we're in charge now, let's fix this together". I'm not convinced Putin has somehow made an ally of a much worse monster that's for some reason hasn't had his chance before, but I am convinced Putin has made many of his allies much worse off. Just not enough to do anything about it.

[Draco-Onis]

You'll understand if I say I'm ready to roll those dice. And I've never liked that reasoning anyhow. "Why should I do XXX when the result could be worse?" needs a lot more justification for me to accept it.

The ideal result, and highly unlikely so we're clear, is for a new Russian leader/group to cut Putin out of power and announce to the world "Putin was crazy, we're in charge now, let's fix this together". I'm not convinced Putin has somehow made an ally of a much worse monster that's for some reason hasn't had his chance before, but I am convinced Putin has made many of his allies much worse off. Just not enough to do anything about it.

Who would survive killing Putin? Do you honestly think we wouldn't be blamed for it? the timing just wouldn't be in our favor.

[Breccia]

Ukraine ladies and gents.

Just so we're clear, if the only two choices on who to believe are Russia and Ukraine, and Russia's the one cutting off communication that would allow for proof, then I'm going to side with Ukraine. "I know but I'm not telling" stopping having meaningful effect when I was six. Maybe if Ukraine had full ability to show all the damage they've done we'd have better results, but Russia's the one cutting that off, so, hands tied.

Or, I could just accept American numbers, which are high enough anyhow.

[Gorsameth]

Um...sure? What's stopping you?

Meanwhile:

Putin’s Russia looks increasingly desperate as Ukraine war nears stalemate, analysts say



Now for the record I disagree with the bolded, but only in the context of "Russia actually tries". Days ago, half of us posted that 99-100% commitment figure. We're seeing signs of recruitment of mercenaries, Syrians and Belarussians. If Putin just said "fuck it, send 500,000 more troops, another 40 miles of tanks and trucks with actual supplies this time, and if they still don't surrender air-drop kholodets" this thread would be going differently. If I didn't know any better, I would say Putin wants this war to go badly and grind to a halt. I just don't know why. It can't be a pretense to use chemical or biological weapons -- he can just do that because he feels like it and he's a murdering bastard. And it's not making him more popular.

@Draco-Onis said Putin doesn't have choices, I disagree in semantics, he has choices he doesn't want to use because they could get him thrown out of power or murdered. But this doesn't appear to be much better.

- - - Updated - - -



You'll understand if I say I'm ready to roll those dice. And I've never liked that reasoning anyhow. "Why should I do XXX when the result could be worse?" needs a lot more justification for me to accept it.

The ideal result, and highly unlikely so we're clear, is for a new Russian leader/group to cut Putin out of power and announce to the world "Putin was crazy, we're in charge now, let's fix this together". I'm not convinced Putin has somehow made an ally of a much worse monster that's for some reason hasn't had his chance before, but I am convinced Putin has made many of his allies much worse off. Just not enough to do anything about it.

Or he doesn't have another half a million troops and another 40 miles of trucks, or the supplies to fill them.

Sending more troops and vehicles that need to be supplied doesn't do anything when you can't supply the ones you have already committed.

[Breccia]

Who would survive killing Putin?

It would take an alliance of people, including a lot of top military.

Do you honestly think we wouldn't be blamed for it?

Yes, if the people who cut Putin out of power say "We did this because Putin was killing our Russia, we're going to fix our country together". Like I said, highly unlikely, but as the damage increases hopefully more likely. I did say "ideal" not "realistic".

[Draco-Onis]

It would take an alliance of people, including a lot of top military.



Yes, if the people who cut Putin out of power say "We did this because Putin was killing our Russia, we're going to fix our country together". Like I said, highly unlikely, but as the damage increases hopefully more likely. I did say "ideal" not "realistic".

That's fair enough the average Russian would never buy it, that would be the biggest whiplash in history. As long as Putin keeps Russia insulated from the truth and the majority of Russians support him his death would be a disaster.

[Breccia]

Or he doesn't have another half a million troops and another 40 miles of trucks, or the supplies to fill them.

Sending more troops and vehicles that need to be supplied doesn't do anything when you can't supply the ones you have already committed.

See that's the thing: from what we've seen of Russia's forces, I think he can do it. He would need to put in the effort, but he could if he really wanted to. I've posted numbers on the subject before, including that Russia has hundreds of thousands of troops not currently being used.

It would, of course, be admission that his planning failed because he didn't have enough. Which, by hiring mercs, is already out there. So at this point, why not?

Basically, while I continue to cheer for the Ukrainian people, I'm still baffled by Putin's motivations here. Why wage a war this way?

- - - Updated - - -

and the majority of Russians support him

Here's hoping this support dips due to recent events. I mean, it is dipping, but it's not "let's storm the Kremlin" bad or anywhere near it.

[Gorsameth]

See that's the thing: from what we've seen of Russia's forces, I think he can do it. He would need to put in the effort, but he could if he really wanted to. I've posted numbers on the subject before, including that Russia has hundreds of thousands of troops not currently being used.

It would, of course, be admission that his planning failed because he didn't have enough. Which, by hiring mercs, is already out there. So at this point, why not?

Basically, while I continue to cheer for the Ukrainian people, I'm still baffled by Putin's motivations here. Why wage a war this way?

- - - Updated - - -



Here's hoping this support dips due to recent events. I mean, it is dipping, but it's not "let's storm the Kremlin" bad or anywhere near it.

Again, the obvious answer is often the correct one, Yes Putin wants to end this as soon as possible and Russia should have more troops so why are they not being used? Because they either don't exist, are not trained or can otherwise not be deployed.

It makes no sense for Russia to have half a million troops watching this quagmire unfold so why are they not deployed? Because they can't be deployed for whatever reason, most likely because they can't be supplied based on what we see.

[Breccia]

I guess I should quote some of that March 2 article I just cited, since it hits two currently discussed topics.

It’s hard to get an accurate death toll on either side — Russia does not publish such figures — but an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Saturday that around 3,500 Russian soldiers had been killed or injured so far during the invasion, Reuters reported. Ukraine’s deputy defense minister put the number higher on Sunday, at 4,300, but said the figure had not been verified.

Max Hess, senior political risk analyst at AKE International, told CNBC he didn’t believe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would boost Putin’s popularity, noting “it certainly won’t have any impact like after Crimea, not at all.”

“Even if it all ends now ... it seems already — based on Ukraine numbers — that probably more Russians have died [during the invasion of Ukraine] than died in the Chechen conflict in the ’90s,” he said Monday.

Timothy Ash, emerging markets strategist at BlueBay Asset Management, has noted that he believes Putin has “spectacularly miscalculated” when it comes to Ukraine.

“It’s now pretty clear that Putin’s game plan (planned for years) was to encircle Ukrainian troops in Donbas, take out key military and economic infrastructure, encircle Kyiv and Kharkhiv and assume Zelensky would throw in the towel, Ukrainian troops would not fight and the Western sanctions response would be muted. I think he also planned to install a puppet regime in Kyiv,” Ash said in emailed comments Sunday.

“He has been spectacularly wrong on all counts,” Ash noted. “Thousands of Russian mothers will be grieving the loss of their sons. Russians will see their living standards drop and their savings melt.”

That second guy appears spot on. But those death estimates, ouch. Worse than the fighting in Chechnya weeks ago. All I have is Wikipedia to go on, but there's a topical dispute there. Russia claims they lost 3,500 soldiers or so -- and we now know they've lost double that. But, there are claims Russia lied and the real number dead was 14,000. I know, Russia using misinformation, what a shock.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, the obvious answer is often the correct one, Yes Putin wants to end this as soon as possible and Russia should have more troops so why are they not being used? Because they either don't exist, are not trained or can otherwise not be deployed.

I mean...I'm having a harder and harder time disagreeing with this based on evidence, but I'm still not willing to believe war-hungry Russia of all places has 100,000 troops ready to go and nothing else in reserves. Those numbers don't sit with me. So "can otherwise not be deployed" is where we'll have to meet on this one.

[Poopymonster]

I guess I should quote some of that March 2 article I just cited, since it hits two currently discussed topics.



That second guy appears spot on. But those death estimates, ouch. Worse than the fighting in Chechnya weeks ago. All I have is Wikipedia to go on, but there's a topical dispute there. Russia claims they lost 3,500 soldiers or so -- and we now know they've lost double that. But, there are claims Russia lied and the real number dead was 14,000. I know, Russia using misinformation, what a shock.

- - - Updated - - -



I mean...I'm having a harder and harder time disagreeing with this based on evidence, but I'm still not willing to believe war-hungry Russia of all places has 100,000 troops ready to go and nothing else in reserves. Those numbers don't sit with me. So "can otherwise not be deployed" is where we'll have to meet on this one.

Some are probably in/near cities to ensure the rabble don't try to get all pitchfork and torchy.

[Breccia]

Oh, one more point for the Panda.

Putin has committed 75 percent of Russia's total military to the Ukraine war, Pentagon estimates

From four days ago.

So, um, that's...interesting.

The U.S. estimates that Russian President Vladimir Putin has "around 75 percent of his total military committed to the fight in Ukraine," the official said, clarifying later that the 75 percent figure mostly refers to "battalion tactical groups, which is the units that he has primarily relied upon."

Britain's Ministry of Defense said Tuesday that given Putin's significant "personnel losses" in Ukraine, "Russia is redeploying forces from as far afield as its Eastern Military District, Pacific Fleet, and Armenia. It is also increasingly seeking to exploit irregular sources such as private military companies, Syrian and other mercenaries."

The Pentagon goes on to say that, even in the height of our fuckery in Afghanistan and Iraq, we hit 30% deployment. So, yeah, you have a solid point here.

- - - Updated - - -

Some are probably in/near cities to ensure the rabble don't try to get all pitchfork and torchy.

He should, but Russia also has a lot of police per capita. I'm guessing here, but I'm guessing that Russian police are basically military lite.

[Iphie]

I mean...I'm having a harder and harder time disagreeing with this based on evidence, but I'm still not willing to believe war-hungry Russia of all places has 100,000 troops ready to go and nothing else in reserves. Those numbers don't sit with me. So "can otherwise not be deployed" is where we'll have to meet on this one.

I do want to point out that Russia usually has defenders on the borders with other countries as well...those on the border with Finland are, according to the newspapers here, mostly gone to Ukraine. That would imply that there really isn't much more. Which makes no sense as you say.

[Breccia]

those on the border with Finland are, according to the newspapers here, mostly gone to Ukraine.

Wow. That's ballsy. Finland does a lot of things really well, that's a border Russia should have left fortified.

[Iphie]

Wow. That's ballsy. Finland does a lot of things really well, that's a border Russia should have left fortified.

Finland isn't going to get Karelia, Petsamo and Salla back with military might. We keep an eye out to what's going on but in principle Russia doesn't need to fear Finland. I mean it's the infantry and their vehicles that are gone (roughly 20k troops apparently, 4-5k stayed behind up north.), the airbases are still occupied but obviously that's a different beast.

And yes, the Finnish army is pretty professional when it comes to defense.

[Xyonai]

Russian Troops Open Fire Amid Ukrainian Protests in Occupied City Kherson

There's a video in the link but nothing graphic. It's currently unclear if those in the square were being fired at, or if Gunfire just happened to happen nearby to scare them off.