Thread: No more powder

Ahhhhh - not actually taking sides on the entire Russian/Ukrainian family squabble thing, bit off topic but here we go anyway...

I wasn't intending to comment on Russian aggression just the apparent stupidity behind the strategic and tactical factors by which they reached the decision to lauch a large-scale invasion at that time. It might not have started out as a decision to mount a large scale invasion, but equally after the initial failures Russia could have made a more sane decision to stick their tail between their legs and sod off home rather than doubling down and proceeding to shower the landscape in blood. Standard military doctrine states that Russia by keeping it a 'special military operation' has tied themselves to an eventual failure simply due to attrition and not being able to field sufficient manpower to maintain control over the battlefield (Russian law prevents large-scale military and industrial mobilisation without a declaration of war - and in any event the effects of the sanctions in limiting access to technology probably prevents much of a ramp-up in industrial capacity now anyway). It does have the effect of making light nuclear weapon use somewhat more likely too. In the same vein, Ukrainian mobilisation is probably too slow to reach a critical level of troops to efficiently and effectively force the Russian units back out of contested lands - leading to 'stalemate' which has been much bandied about and misused by the media. Ukrainian use of more modern tech weapons has only really levelled the playing field and not resulted in a shift in the balance - this is another factor tying Russia down further into a war of attrition.

Any way you look at it, this is more costly than any engagement since WW2 with a faster casualty rate in manpower, equipment and munitions than just about every action Russia has been involved in in the last 30 years combined. The stats don't lie, and against things going forwards - winter is coming. All that happens in that part of the world in winter in terms of warfare is people dying - bad juju's.

Talking further about the reasons behind the entire thing - Crimea houses the home port of the Black Sea fleet. Nuf said - without own-country control of that base tensions were always going to occur as soon as the host nation tried to extract more for the favour of housing the fleet. If you look at the bridge between Russia and Crimea - and particularly the speed at which the bridge was built after 2014 there was a large amount of the preplanning gone into that design prior to 2014 and the eventual annexation. Unfortunately the bridge is only good for light vehicles, so a land bridge between Crimea and Russia that is secure and not threatened was the next option and the whole seperatist construct is part of this setup. Now, going back to the likelihood of small nukes and creating a 'no go' area in this part of the world (ZNPP meltdown anyone?). Everything else we see is fluff basically from what I see, although the comment on industry and raw materials may have some value.

The scuttle about the Russian gas supplies and the Nordstream 2 pipeline are really non events, N2 never went online so never figures into the equation in terms of capacity losses. Ukraine was entitled to royalties from the pipelines crossing their territory, as in the case of every major pipeline and transmission service around the world and once the royalty amount became disputed the predictable response was a 'product tax'. Have a look at the numbers of pipelines exporting gas out of Russia, and how do you think the storage levels in the EU are still increasing with the N1 pipeline out of service? As always the comment that media reporting is not correct is entirely true, but also the other point is correct in that this has been on the slow boil since the breakup of the USSR. There's always something going on in the background when a major block fragments like the USSR did, and there are still potential flashpoints in the Kaliningrad area and Transnistria for a couple.

In terms of propellant and component shortages, with the consumption in the current conflict I cannot see anything returning back to 'normal' stock levels any time soon. Plants will literally be running 24/7 producing milspec product and shipping it out as fast as they can package it. Not only do we have the actual useage of munitions, but every nation in the area is trying to rebuild stockpiles of everything from small arms to medium calibre to heavy artillery. Unfortunately for civilian shooting sports, that is everything we use!

Originally Posted by No.3

Ahhhhh - not actually taking sides on the entire Russian/Ukrainian family squabble thing, bit off topic but here we go anyway...

I wasn't intending to comment on Russian aggression just the apparent stupidity behind the strategic and tactical factors by which they reached the decision to lauch a large-scale invasion at that time. It might not have started out as a decision to mount a large scale invasion, but equally after the initial failures Russia could have made a more sane decision to stick their tail between their legs and sod off home rather than doubling down and proceeding to shower the landscape in blood. Standard military doctrine states that Russia by keeping it a 'special military operation' has tied themselves to an eventual failure simply due to attrition and not being able to field sufficient manpower to maintain control over the battlefield (Russian law prevents large-scale military and industrial mobilisation without a declaration of war - and in any event the effects of the sanctions in limiting access to technology probably prevents much of a ramp-up in industrial capacity now anyway). It does have the effect of making light nuclear weapon use somewhat more likely too. In the same vein, Ukrainian mobilisation is probably too slow to reach a critical level of troops to efficiently and effectively force the Russian units back out of contested lands - leading to 'stalemate' which has been much bandied about and misused by the media. Ukrainian use of more modern tech weapons has only really levelled the playing field and not resulted in a shift in the balance - this is another factor tying Russia down further into a war of attrition.

Any way you look at it, this is more costly than any engagement since WW2 with a faster casualty rate in manpower, equipment and munitions than just about every action Russia has been involved in in the last 30 years combined. The stats don't lie, and against things going forwards - winter is coming. All that happens in that part of the world in winter in terms of warfare is people dying - bad juju's.

Talking further about the reasons behind the entire thing - Crimea houses the home port of the Black Sea fleet. Nuf said - without own-country control of that base tensions were always going to occur as soon as the host nation tried to extract more for the favour of housing the fleet. If you look at the bridge between Russia and Crimea - and particularly the speed at which the bridge was built after 2014 there was a large amount of the preplanning gone into that design prior to 2014 and the eventual annexation. Unfortunately the bridge is only good for light vehicles, so a land bridge between Crimea and Russia that is secure and not threatened was the next option and the whole seperatist construct is part of this setup. Now, going back to the likelihood of small nukes and creating a 'no go' area in this part of the world (ZNPP meltdown anyone?). Everything else we see is fluff basically from what I see, although the comment on industry and raw materials may have some value.

The scuttle about the Russian gas supplies and the Nordstream 2 pipeline are really non events, N2 never went online so never figures into the equation in terms of capacity losses. Ukraine was entitled to royalties from the pipelines crossing their territory, as in the case of every major pipeline and transmission service around the world and once the royalty amount became disputed the predictable response was a 'product tax'. Have a look at the numbers of pipelines exporting gas out of Russia, and how do you think the storage levels in the EU are still increasing with the N1 pipeline out of service? As always the comment that media reporting is not correct is entirely true, but also the other point is correct in that this has been on the slow boil since the breakup of the USSR. There's always something going on in the background when a major block fragments like the USSR did, and there are still potential flashpoints in the Kaliningrad area and Transnistria for a couple.

In terms of propellant and component shortages, with the consumption in the current conflict I cannot see anything returning back to 'normal' stock levels any time soon. Plants will literally be running 24/7 producing milspec product and shipping it out as fast as they can package it. Not only do we have the actual useage of munitions, but every nation in the area is trying to rebuild stockpiles of everything from small arms to medium calibre to heavy artillery. Unfortunately for civilian shooting sports, that is everything we use!

I think that we all have to accept that the conflict has been 'forced'. It is all about money cycled through armaments contracts and nothing to do with 'saving Ukraine'. US involvement in Ukraine is a dirty business. Joe Biden was in charge of policy in Ukraine after the civil war broke out in 2014. His son Hunter and his brother James were being paid US150,000 per month as 'representatives' on a Ukraine energy company board. Half of this was paid to Joe Biden - as shown by Hunters Laptop. Nancy Peolsi's grandson was similarly involved as was John Kerrys son.

I see it thus: Stir up trouble somewhere in the world, issue 'arms aid' and direct sales contracts for items, a lot of which are never made and cannot be traced anyway and the arms companies cycle money back to Biden, Pelosi, Obama, Bush etc - the swamp as Trump called them.
The Pelosi visit to Taiwan has resulted in something like 1.8 Billion of arms sales already and no doubt 'windfall profits' in the swamp.

As far as Crimea goes, without picking sides it is pretty obvious that Russia would never relinquish it's Naval base. Crimea was part of Russia for 300 years and the population is 80% Russian. Russia only transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 to increase the ethnic Russian population in Ukraine. Crimea remained autonomous ( own Govt) inside Ukraine and then following the referendum rejoined Russia.
Ukraine has cut off the fresh water supply to civilian Crimea, hardly a humanitarian act.
Crimea had originally been an “autonomous republic” (avtonomnaya respublika) in the RSFSR, but its status was changed to that of an “oblast’” (province) in the RSFSR in 1945, ostensibly because the forced removal of the Crimean Tatars had eliminated the need for autonomy. After the Crimean oblast was transferred to the UkSSR in 1954, it retained the status of an oblast’ within Soviet Ukraine for 37 years. In early 1991, after a referendum was held in the UkrSSR and a resolution was adopted a month later by the UkrSSR parliament, the status of Crimea was upgraded to that of an “autonomous republic.” Crimea retained that designation within Ukraine after the Soviet Union broke apart. In the Russian Federation, however, the category of “autonomous republic” does not exist. In the treaty of annexation signed by the Russian and Crimean governments on 18 March 2014, the status of the peninsula was changed to simply a “republic” (Respublika Krym), joining 21 other “republics” of the Russian Federation’s now-85 federal “subjects,” with Crimea and the city of Sevastopol added as separate entities.[[3]

One of the ironies of the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 is that when the chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, Kliment Voroshilov, offered his closing remarks at the session on 19 February 1954, he declared that “enemies of Russia” had “repeatedly tried to take the Crimean peninsula from Russia and use it to steal and ravage Russian lands.” He praised the “joint battles” waged by “the Russian and Ukrainian peoples” as they inflicted a “severe rebuff against the insolent usurpers.” Voroshilov’s characterization of Russia’s past “enemies” seems eerily appropriate today in describing Russia’s own actions vis-à-vis Ukraine. A further tragic irony of the Crimean transfer is that an action of sixty years ago, taken by Moscow to strengthen its control over Ukraine, has come back to haunt Ukraine today.

Mark Kramer is Director of the Cold War Studies Program at Harvard University and a Senior Fellow of Harvard's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies

Documents

I see this conflict being drawn out as long as possible to extract the maximum profits, meaning years of component shortages for us.
The big winner will be China, they will get Russian Gas and Oil at bargain prices and will out compete European manufacturing that has depended on cheap Russian Energy.

Black Powder and cast lead ahead !