How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Harry Bosch]

Some years back, Russia outsourced some of their tank parts production. Modern Russian tank transmissions were produced in Italy. Advanced electronics were made in France. Due to sanctions on Russia, these sources are no longer available to the Russian military.

This is the problem with modern manufacturing. For example, Boeing orders lots of components from countries all over the world. When I worked at Boeing, we did lots of business with Russian engineering companies. Boeing had to do that, because other countries that purchase things demand that there be some kind of economic reciprocity in order to make up for the economic loss of buying foreign products. Boeing sold its airliners to Russian companies, so it needed to establish those relationships. I even once visited the headquarters of Boeing Russia back in the 1990s. They were an excellent source of engineering expertise for us, but that mostly dried up after Putin came to power. Russia became an unreliable business partner. That is happening to a similar extent with China these days.

Russian tank manufacturers likely purchased assembly kits for components in their tanks, and those components had to be machined and tested according to Russian specifications. Those assemblies would now need to be manufactured in Russia or the contracts transferred to some other country, such as China, North Korea, India, Iran, or other country that can be part of a newly formed secure supply chain. So this war is becoming a huge economic windfall for those countries, but it isn't clear to me that they can provide supplies that Russia needs quickly enough to be of use in its invasion plans. It often takes years for new supply chains to be formed. The West is certainly feeling some economic pinches from the loss of Russian supply chains (as barbos gleefully points out from time to time), but they are in a far better position than Russia to absorb the loss.

Totally agree. The Russian invasion has really highlighted how reliant our supply chain is on peace. I think that we need to deleverage our supply chain, bring it back to American (called reshoring) or at least only have our supply chain in friendly countries. We should not be trading with any country that is at war or threatening war with a sovereign country. This includes China IMO.

Yeah, the problem with this is that it assumes that friendship between nations is a thing, and that that thing is the cause of, and not the consequence of, peace.

It further assumes that trade isn't a major cause of either peace or friendship between nations.

All of those assumptions are highly dubious.

The consequences of "We won't trade with you because you might become a future enemy" could be pretty dire, if it turns out that "We won't be your friends because you won't trade with us" is also a thing.

And as Charles de Gaulle observed, countries don't have friends, only interests.

It's in the interests of any country to avoid war with major trading partners. Not so much though with countries with whom little or no trading takes place. You can fight them with impunity, unless their armies turn out to be stronger than yours.

Maybe only trading with "friends" is too extreme. However, we should at least not be trading with enemies. Russia is an enemy today. China is threatening war with us now. If they started a war over Taiwan, we'd immediately go into deep recession and 80% of the world's chips come from Taiwan. We need to find a way to separate countries from our supply chain that want to wage war.

 

[bilby]

China is threatening war with us now.

No more so than at any time in the last seventy years or so.

There's a lot of media coverage about the prospect of war with China right now, which I strongly suspect is being engineered by Russia, for reasons that should be obvious.

I'm not seeing any new movement or commentary from China herself though. Just a change in emphasis from the media in their reporting of China related events.

 

[Copernicus]

Some years back, Russia outsourced some of their tank parts production. Modern Russian tank transmissions were produced in Italy. Advanced electronics were made in France. Due to sanctions on Russia, these sources are no longer available to the Russian military.

This is the problem with modern manufacturing. For example, Boeing orders lots of components from countries all over the world. When I worked at Boeing, we did lots of business with Russian engineering companies. Boeing had to do that, because other countries that purchase things demand that there be some kind of economic reciprocity in order to make up for the economic loss of buying foreign products. Boeing sold its airliners to Russian companies, so it needed to establish those relationships. I even once visited the headquarters of Boeing Russia back in the 1990s. They were an excellent source of engineering expertise for us, but that mostly dried up after Putin came to power. Russia became an unreliable business partner. That is happening to a similar extent with China these days.

Russian tank manufacturers likely purchased assembly kits for components in their tanks, and those components had to be machined and tested according to Russian specifications. Those assemblies would now need to be manufactured in Russia or the contracts transferred to some other country, such as China, North Korea, India, Iran, or other country that can be part of a newly formed secure supply chain. So this war is becoming a huge economic windfall for those countries, but it isn't clear to me that they can provide supplies that Russia needs quickly enough to be of use in its invasion plans. It often takes years for new supply chains to be formed. The West is certainly feeling some economic pinches from the loss of Russian supply chains (as barbos gleefully points out from time to time), but they are in a far better position than Russia to absorb the loss.

Totally agree. The Russian invasion has really highlighted how reliant our supply chain is on peace. I think that we need to deleverage our supply chain, bring it back to American (called reshoring) or at least only have our supply chain in friendly countries. We should not be trading with any country that is at war or threatening war with a sovereign country. This includes China IMO.

Yeah, the problem with this is that it assumes that friendship between nations is a thing, and that that thing is the cause of, and not the consequence of, peace.

I don't think that we should equate "friendly countries" with personal friendships. There is such a thing as fair and friendly competition. The real issue here is one of trust between nations. If one cannot trust another nation to keep to its promises and agreements, then trade relationships become difficult, if not impossible. The real problem with Russia is that they have a reputation for cheating that sometimes makes trust difficult to maintain. This happens a lot in the sports world, because of its state-sponsored programs of doping. Doping is common in international sports competitions, but it goes to a whole new level when it turns out to be sanctioned and/or subsidized by a government. Russia also has a very recent reputation of reneging on international agreements--for example, its guarantee of Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for giving up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal. Under Putin, it has been transformed from "friendly country" to "hostile country" in the eyes of most Americans now. That wasn't the case before Russia's 2014 invasion, but it was slowly moving in that direction as Putin's grip on power grew. A similar process is taking place under Xi in China, which has become increasingly hostile, despite our very deep trade relations with China.

It further assumes that trade isn't a major cause of either peace or friendship between nations.

There can be no question but that trade relations provide an incentive for countries to cooperate, because their economic interests and security needs come into alignment. Trade requires security and stability in order to thrive. Unfortunately, other pressures--for example, desire for regional and international domination--can override economic incentives. Putin's ultranationalist jingoism seems to have overridden the common sense of those who rule in Russia.

All of those assumptions are highly dubious.

The consequences of "We won't trade with you because you might become a future enemy" could be pretty dire, if it turns out that "We won't be your friends because you won't trade with us" is also a thing.

And as Charles de Gaulle observed, countries don't have friends, only interests.

It's in the interests of any country to avoid war with major trading partners. Not so much though with countries with whom little or no trading takes place. You can fight them with impunity, unless their armies turn out to be stronger than yours.

I absolutely agree with your last point, but countries have historically gone to war repeatedly when war was against their economic interests. For example, Hitler's dream of an expanded German empire where the "master race" replaced "subhuman" Slavs led him to break his pact with Stalin earlier than expected and engage in a surprise attack on the Soviet Union. At the time, the Soviets were supplying Germany with a considerable proportion of their food calories (from Ukraine) and oil needs. Germany and Russia were already traditional enemies, so Stalin had expected the alliance to break down eventually. That made him turn a blind eye to the growing signs. Hitler's betrayal of the "friendly" alliance allowed him to quickly seize most of Ukraine and take over Stalin's network of collectivized agriculture for a couple of years, but he failed to secure the oil reserves he needed.

 

[bilby]

The Soviet Union, and to a great extent Russia since the USSR's collapse, had a history of what I think of as "cargo cult success". They looked at successful nations (whether in terms of economic output, or sporting achievement, or attractiveness to migrants and/or tourists, or any other sphere), and sought to emulate not their fundamental structures that were the cause of their successes, but instead the proxy measures that were the indicators of success.

So rather than build loads of cars and buildings and bridges and factories and all the other things that made (for example) the USA one of the world's largest producers of steel, they simply saw "the USA is successful economically, as indicated by her massive output of steel", and so they set out to make as much steel as possible, regardless of how much they really needed.

Rather than develop an economy with plenty of free time and disposable income for the workers, they simply saw "Australia is a happy country, as indicated by her successes in sports and athletics", and so they set out to win as many trophies and medals as possible, regardless of how much cheating and cruelty that needed to achieve.

The same thing happens in badly run corporations, where every manager does whatever he can, fair or foul, to improve his KPIs, without any regard for whether this is actually helping the business to achieve its actual goals.

People lose sight of the objectives, and start to work solely towards maximising proxy measures of success, which were only effective proxies as long as nobody was trying to distort their results.

That's why it's so difficult to get a handle on Soviet economic results - the data are total garbage, because the economy was geared towards improving the data, rather than towards improving the actual economy.

Sports doping is a classic case. If the objective is to be good at sports, doping is stupid and dangerous, and doesn't achieve the objective, because winning by cheating isn't the same as being the best.

If the objective is to own a bunch of medals and trophies, then doping is the easiest way to get those. Well, the second easiest, after simply awarding them to your own guys, without inviting anyone else to participate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some years back, Russia outsourced some of their tank parts production. Modern Russian tank transmissions were produced in Italy. Advanced electronics were made in France. Due to sanctions on Russia, these sources are no longer available to the Russian military.

This is the problem with modern manufacturing. For example, Boeing orders lots of components from countries all over the world. When I worked at Boeing, we did lots of business with Russian engineering companies. Boeing had to do that, because other countries that purchase things demand that there be some kind of economic reciprocity in order to make up for the economic loss of buying foreign products. Boeing sold its airliners to Russian companies, so it needed to establish those relationships. I even once visited the headquarters of Boeing Russia back in the 1990s. They were an excellent source of engineering expertise for us, but that mostly dried up after Putin came to power. Russia became an unreliable business partner. That is happening to a similar extent with China these days.

Russian tank manufacturers likely purchased assembly kits for components in their tanks, and those components had to be machined and tested according to Russian specifications. Those assemblies would now need to be manufactured in Russia or the contracts transferred to some other country, such as China, North Korea, India, Iran, or other country that can be part of a newly formed secure supply chain. So this war is becoming a huge economic windfall for those countries, but it isn't clear to me that they can provide supplies that Russia needs quickly enough to be of use in its invasion plans. It often takes years for new supply chains to be formed. The West is certainly feeling some economic pinches from the loss of Russian supply chains (as barbos gleefully points out from time to time), but they are in a far better position than Russia to absorb the loss.

Totally agree. The Russian invasion has really highlighted how reliant our supply chain is on peace. I think that we need to deleverage our supply chain, bring it back to American (called reshoring) or at least only have our supply chain in friendly countries. We should not be trading with any country that is at war or threatening war with a sovereign country. This includes China IMO.

Yeah, the problem with this is that it assumes that friendship between nations is a thing, and that that thing is the cause of, and not the consequence of, peace.

It further assumes that trade isn't a major cause of either peace or friendship between nations.

All of those assumptions are highly dubious.

The consequences of "We won't trade with you because you might become a future enemy" could be pretty dire, if it turns out that "We won't be your friends because you won't trade with us" is also a thing.

And as Charles de Gaulle observed, countries don't have friends, only interests.

It's in the interests of any country to avoid war with major trading partners. Not so much though with countries with whom little or no trading takes place. You can fight them with impunity, unless their armies turn out to be stronger than yours.

Maybe only trading with "friends" is too extreme. However, we should at least not be trading with enemies. Russia is an enemy today. China is threatening war with us now. If they started a war over Taiwan, we'd immediately go into deep recession and 80% of the world's chips come from Taiwan. We need to find a way to separate countries from our supply chain that want to wage war.

Or having to rely on one another helps prevent it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It’s measured by 80% Russian casualty rates.

120% according to Zele the Clown

What does it say when Putin hasn't even defeated that Clown yet. Been a year, and all the Russians have managed to do was kill a bunch of Ukrainians, get a bunch of Russians killed, disrupt public infrastructure, got a flag ship sunk, and litter Ukraine with abandoned vehicles. One year to manage only that. And Zelensky is the clown.

Russia is fighting NATO aggression here. And does that successfully, considering the size of the NATO. Ukrainian army which NATO had a year ago does not exist anymore, it was utterly exterminated with all their equipment and soldiers.
You are the bad guys here, you!

And where did NATO find so many soldiers that speak Ukrainian so fluently that they choose to communicate in that language???

Your claim doesn't pass the laugh test!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Russia can still manufacture steel and other basic parts easily. The problem is with electronics and sensors that Russia can't manufacture on its own, and which need to be either replaced with alternative parts from China, or smuggled in via third countries. So I think that while Russia can build tanks, they might be missing some key capabilities like night vision or most advanced cameras.

Key capabilities like gunnery computers that allow it to shoot while moving. Without the computers you have to sit still and you have to do distance like you do with a rifle--estimate and know what the drop will be for the distance you're shooting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Totally agree. The Russian invasion has really highlighted how reliant our supply chain is on peace. I think that we need to deleverage our supply chain, bring it back to American (called reshoring) or at least only have our supply chain in friendly countries. We should not be trading with any country that is at war or threatening war with a sovereign country. This includes China IMO.

We should have our supply chain for essential items in friendly territory to the extent this is feasible. Nonessentials don't need such protections.

 

[Jayjay]

Ukraine is evacuating civilians and shutting down comms in Bakhmut. Looks like they will withdraw finally to avoid being encircled.

 

[TomC]

Ukraine is evacuating civilians and shutting down comms in Bakhmut. Looks like they will withdraw finally to avoid being encircled.

Dang.
I'm no fan of nuclear war. But I'm near 65. It's not really my problem anymore.

Drop some big bombs on Moscow. They shouldn't be nukes, just big.

I feel similarly about Washington DC and Beijing and London. Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, and Rio. The list is endless.

Don't fuck with the human race. The rest of us will be hateful. In the way that clever apes with opposable thumbs can do it.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Ukraine is evacuating civilians and shutting down comms in Bakhmut. Looks like they will withdraw finally to avoid being encircled.

Considering how much men and material Russia/Wagner threw away to get this city, Ukraine could certainly use a few more defeats like this.

 

[Rhea]

I am sad to hear that have reached the end of their ability to hold the city. I fear for the residents as the Russians move in. I can only hope there is some tactical silver lining that allows Ukraine to counter attack more effectively from the outside. Somehow. Wishful thinking.

 

[Patooka]

Here's an article that highlights the "One more victory like this and I'm ruined" situation Russia has gotten itself into.

Smashed By Ukrainian Mines And Artillery, Russia’s Winter Offensive Just Ground To A Halt Outside Vuhledar

Outside Vuhledar, the Russian 72nd Brigade met the Ukrainian 72nd Brigade—and got beaten at least as badly as Russian marine brigades did in previous months. If this is the best Russia can do, its ballyhooed winter offensive could be costly ... and brief.

www.forbes.com

Desperate to maintain the pace of operations, the army replaces any well-trained, well-equipped troops who’ve been hurt or killed with an equal number of new recruits—but without taking the time, or expending the resources, to train and equip those new troops to the previous standard.

So the army gets less and less competent even as it inducts more and more new personnel. Incompetence leads to even greater losses, which prompts the army to double down: draft more green troops, train them even less and hurry them to the front even faster than it did the previous recruits.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Here's an article that highlights the "One more victory like this and I'm ruined" situation Russia has gotten itself into.

Smashed By Ukrainian Mines And Artillery, Russia’s Winter Offensive Just Ground To A Halt Outside Vuhledar

Outside Vuhledar, the Russian 72nd Brigade met the Ukrainian 72nd Brigade—and got beaten at least as badly as Russian marine brigades did in previous months. If this is the best Russia can do, its ballyhooed winter offensive could be costly ... and brief.

www.forbes.com

Desperate to maintain the pace of operations, the army replaces any well-trained, well-equipped troops who’ve been hurt or killed with an equal number of new recruits—but without taking the time, or expending the resources, to train and equip those new troops to the previous standard.

So the army gets less and less competent even as it inducts more and more new personnel. Incompetence leads to even greater losses, which prompts the army to double down: draft more green troops, train them even less and hurry them to the front even faster than it did the previous recruits.

It would serve Ukrainian forces if intel could pinpoint where Russia's more experienced troops (what's left of them) are and concentrate their efforts there. What's left quickly goes into panic mode when things don't go as planned. There's no leadership and no one can think on their feet.

 

[Elixir]

There's no leadership and no one can think on their feet.

AFAICT, if you’re a Russian soldier and you think on your feet, you get shot in the back.
You‘re not paid to think, you’re paid to die.

 

[Jayjay]

Ukraine is evacuating civilians and shutting down comms in Bakhmut. Looks like they will withdraw finally to avoid being encircled.

Considering how much men and material Russia/Wagner threw away to get this city, Ukraine could certainly use a few more defeats like this.

And how many men did Ukraine lose defending it? Russia spent mostly convicts. Ukraine lost some of their most motivated and capable people. Quality also matters.

 

[Patooka]

Ukraine is evacuating civilians and shutting down comms in Bakhmut. Looks like they will withdraw finally to avoid being encircled.

Considering how much men and material Russia/Wagner threw away to get this city, Ukraine could certainly use a few more defeats like this.

And how many men did Ukraine lose defending it? Russia spent mostly convicts. Ukraine lost some of their most motivated and capable people. Quality also matters.

I can't prove one way or the other, but I suspect Ukraine can weather the cost somewhat. Not because of the people Russia is losing, but the kit. You're absolutely right about quality matters. The gap between quality is even more important and by all indications is consistently widening in Ukraine's favour. It's not just possible but probable that by June Ukraine's military will look like some archaic throwback from the 80s, but Russia will be stuck in the 1950s. Russia can't compete with the logistical capabilities of the West, and for better or for worse, that depends on shareholders of Lockheed and Northrop and not western voters. Ukraine is going to keep getting supplied for some time. Russia is going to keep on running out.

 

[Jayjay]

Russia can't compete with the logistical capabilities of the West, and for better or for worse, that depends on shareholders of Lockheed and Northrop and not western voters. Ukraine is going to keep getting supplied for some time. Russia is going to keep on running out.

As a shareholder of Northrop and Lockheed I hope you're right.

 

[steve_bank]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

 

[Copernicus]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.