Eddy

A response from Mick Ryan regarding the reports of the Russians modifying their assault tactics Basically, he's comparing it to the German Stormtroopers of 1918 and positing that without changes to the operational level it won't make that much of a big picture difference. If there is no capability to exploit, then 'chopping a hole' as Ludendorff called it will lead to nothing. And he doubts that RA will be able to create the capability as it's not just equipment that would be needed, but training, changes to doctrine etc, etc. which is difficult at the best of times, let alone in a war. And of course the Ukrainian have a say as well.

It's also available on YT here if that's more convenient: I'm about half way through but so far it is well worth the watch

To add to the discussion on Russia's economy: Starts with a short discussion of the Chinese FM visit to Moscow and Putin being forced to use the 'small table'! Then goes on to the Russian economy, before the war, during and what's to come. Worth watching it all I think but the interesting points for me are: Around about May and June Russia was raking it in because the energy shock pushed prices so high but this has now stopped. Russian exports of oil now have a price ceiling and the buyers have no incentive whatsoever to pay more than that ceiling. Russia is not making any money i.e. it's not covering it's costs and the price of a barrel of Ural oil is 35% down on a barrel of Brent. And it's not selling hardly any gas to Europe anymore so that income stream has dried up. So in effect there is no income and Russia is relying on it's savings account i.e. the National Wealth Fund. So Russia is tapping into it's national wealth fund. This has fallen since the start of the year from 12% of Russian GDP to 7% If that carries on Russia Govt. completely runs out of money in 3.5 years (I don't follow his maths here. To me it's sooner than that) But that's only if the events are linear, could burn through the fund faster )or slower I guess) Like I say, don't understand how he got to 3.5 years before that fund runs out.

Correct. The only currency that could possibly rival the dollar as the reserve currency in the near future (like years away) is the Euro and for a number of reasons that's not going to happen. As for the Yuan, it's not traded enough, CCP have this big sovereignty control thing over their currency and there are trust issues. As for crypto, it's an asset class similar to gold not a currency.

Not sure if this has been posted yet but I found this a fascinating read about the build up and first few days from within the US administration (plus some little bits from the UKs worst ever Prime Minister) in their own words ‘Something Was Badly Wrong’: When Washington Realized Russia Was Actually Invading Ukraine - POLITICO

I was literally just reading about the previous attack on The Drive Mariupol Strikes Raise Questions About Possible New Ukrainian Long-Range Weapons (thedrive.com) They also raise GLDSB but provide no evidence wither way.

Just listened to the often excellent Ukraine: the Latest podcast. They are quoting a Western defence official (probably British but that's just my guess) stating that the casualty figures are at least 100K Ukrainians, 200k Russian. Those figures are comprised of killed, missing, wounded and taken prisoner. An important bit is the mortality rate. The official stated (according to them) that the mortality rate for Ukrainian is between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20, whereas the Russian mortality rate is 1 in 3. So according to the quote that would be between 5k and 10K Ukrainian dead versus approx. 66K Russian. Must admit I'm taking the 1 in 20 with a pinch of salt but what do I know? Can be found here (I've copied at the time they're talking about this so you don't have to wade through an hour!) : First reporter fluffs his numbers at first btw

Which can be found here ‘We killed three Russians’: the secretive Ukrainian special forces taking the fight across the border | Ukraine | The Guardian

Interesting RUSI article around some of the challenges of providing Tranche 1 Typhoons Giving RAF Typhoons to Ukraine Would Be a Very Expensive Symbolic Gesture | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org) Long and short of it is that Typhoons are less suitable for lots of reasons and that the Gripen C is a much better fit.

Yep, this from a retired Air Marshal, Edward Stringer On Sky News he'd stated previously that just giving F16s without all the Awacs, EW, refuelling etc. (i.e. the whole package) wouldn't be much more of an improvement on what they've got now.

Not sure whether this has been posted yet but here's another upbeat, happy-clappy report from the ever cheerful Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service!!!

That's what I thought but according to this Senior Research fella at RUSI: So not aircraft type specific from what he's saying.

At least we've got away from that bloody balloon!

Good link thanks. However, the article argues, and I think this is important, that Putin did not know he was making a big gamble and in fact he 'saw Russia’s invasion as a limited and acceptable risk' (from the article). My understanding of the point the article is making is that Putin at all times has been risk-averse if the risk is large, as he perceives that risk. Given this the article ends with 'Putin’s reluctance to take risks directly related to his conventional war in Ukraine indicates that he remains highly unlikely to pursue nuclear escalation or war with NATO.' (their bold) To paraphrase the article, in Putin's mind he has taken no big risks either invading or mobilising or whatever and that he will continue to not take any big risks in the future, because he is not a risk taker. Obviously, I think I'm right in saying a lot of the people here thought invading Ukraine was a massive, ginormous risk.

I wonder whether the IMF will revise their forecast given this evidence from the Russian Finance Ministry today: Oil and gas revenue down year on year by 46% Govt expenditure up year on year by 59% A 46% drop in revenue is significant I reckon. Russia budget deficit soars as energy revenues slump by almost half | Financial Times (ft.com)

Defence Editor of The Economist tweets

Just to be specific, is that more ammo, more tubes or both? Also did see a couple of tweets from Ukrainians asking for cluster munitions - is that doable from a US perspective?

That said .... (although tbf the article is behind a paywall so I haven't actually read it!)

Too right, but didn't know my audience

Defence Editor of the Economist tweets Which is what I always thought because 1) it's the Mirror, 2) article says sending AH-64E of which we have the square root of bugger all and 3) it's the Mirror. For non-UK people The Sun, The Mirror, The Star and The Express are really, really not good sources for information

My view: it's a tank. Unless it comes up against a T72/T90/T80, in which case it's not.

I read in a tweet that there were fireworks going off near to the barracks seconds before the attack. I thought I could hear them in the vid. Apparently, some of the mobiks went out to watch as well, otherwise the KIA would have been higher.

Not sure if this has been posted yet but I found the latter part of this interesting (first part explains what an integrated AD is so you won't learn anything new – or anything at all really) Around about 40 mins they talk about why Putin is pushing for something before late spring and what is bubbling up in the Russian economy/society. It puts a bit of flesh on the bone of what a Russian home front ‘collapse’ (for want of a better word) could look like.

Historical example for this would be the 1917 French Army Mutinies ( 1917 French Army mutinies - Wikipedia ). A national modifier would not be appropriate because it was specific to a certain time, predicated by specific events. Afterall the French Army were prepared to attack prior and after these mutinies, once the credibility of army higher-ups was restored and several hundred mutineers were shot.

I saw it in this thread