@KipPotapych Thanks for your very long reply. You will excuse me if I don't reply every word of it. But there are arguments I can agree with. As you said, it's more a matter of optimism or pessimism. And what I have seen in this war makes me think optimistically because we have already seen the unbelievable. Of course, for Ukraine, the moment is critical. It's not blind optimism. It's rational optimism.
KipPotapych said:
What did we promise that we did not deliver?
You made a good point when you say that we gave them much more than what we intended to give them at the beginning.
But, especially the European Union, made a clear decision to support Ukraine
for as long (and for as much)
as it takes. Zelensky counted on this. He thought that the West and, in particular Europe, would give enough ammunitions and weapons. And Europe didn't. No matter how much they gave already. Despite the huge number of vehicles and ammunitions delivered, it was still like 5x less than what was needed to vanquish Putin's army. Of course, nobody expected the West to give enough vehicles to match the Russians. Ukrainians wouldn't have enough trained men to drive them anyway. But the fact is that, when Zelensky said that a massive number of shells was urgently needed, we were unable to give them.
To end with my plead in the defence of Zelensky: Every time a country made a donation to Ukraine, he personally thanked this country for the aid. Not matter how small this aid was. Every time. (But you don't read Ukrinform, right?)
It's not like he only complains and blames us.
Khodorkovsky said:
Gentlemen, you have practically lost the war. We have lost the war. The Ukrainian GDP prior to the war was $160B; the GDP of Russia - $2.2T; Germany - $4.1T; the EU - $17T. Putin spends on the war $120B per year. And just for an example, the cost of the most common 152mm artillery shell is $500. Putin is spending on war 5.4% of the GDP, approximately. European assistance to Ukraine over the two years of war adds up to about $88B, or 0.25% of the GDP, but this is with the cost of a 155mm artillery shell being between $5,000 and $8,000. That means that along with the American deliveries the real ratio of expenditures on war is 2.5 to 1, in favour of Putin and that is in the best case scenario. This year, without the American deliveries, the ratio is 4 to 1, also in the best case scenario.
No his numbers are not real. 155 shells cost now between $3000 and $5000 after a big surge in price due to high demand on the market (not only for Ukraine), extra special urgent orders, and higher cost in raw material, notably cannon powder.
Before the war it was between $1500 and $2500. I can't get back to the source of the pre-war numbers but find new links, at random, for reference:
Cost in the US
Cost in Germany (RheinMetal)
You will also see that the cost of the guided Excalibur shell has almost doubled from $65K to $110K.
Note that this is market price, the price on the market if you want to buy shells out of the shelf. (pun intended LOL). The price paid by the Czeck Initiative is market price. Not production cost. The price paid is not revealed, but my point is that they pay market price while Russian pay domestic production cost.
When US and German manufacturers have
a cost between $3K and $5K, it includes a benefit for the company, a compensation for priority order which makes them lose other orders, and pre-payment for investment in machinery. This in two of the most expensive countries.
Shells produced in other countries, e.g. Eastern Europe may be 30% or 50% cheaper for the same quality. Let alone production inside Ukraine proper.
With increased production projected to exceed one million, one can expect the cost to be lower, perhaps to pre war levels. Excluding rise in costs for raw materials. In an nutshell, price is widely variable.
Russia is producing shells at $500 without all the burden of a capitalist economy. And I'm sure that many costs are not included, like the new machine tools Russia has to import from China and pay with oil barrels. And when or if, Russia buys shells abroad, outside their Fabulous 3 Eternal Friends, he pays the same price as the west does.
Then, but you know it, there is the quality and accuracy. If I remember correctly it takes 4x less NATO shells (4 or 5) to hit a target than Russian ones (15 to 20). If this ratio is correct, we win.
But, the most important mistake he made is over simplification. A war is not won just by arithmetic. I'm sure Khodorkovsky knows this. He is not stupid. He says that to show his support for the Russian victory in the
CBO (Cyrillic character: pronounced SVO). He had been jailed under Putin and, I think, he doesn't want to be in trouble again.
KipPotapych said:
What did we promise now that would make such a difference?
F16, ATACMS and other long range missiles, shells and everything else. Especially long range missiles and long range capacity from F16. So far Ukrainians can hit the Russian rear only with a few Storm Shadows and Brimestones (only inside Ukraine), and outside Ukraine with home made drones, S300 retrofit, Neptune (if they still have any), and Grad rockets mounted on Sea Babies (sea drones).
New long range capacity, preferably with the right to strike inside Russia, could damage Russian logistic enough to turn the tide, IMO.
Without this, even if they get enough shells, Ukrainians can kill as many Russian soldiers as they want, they will never stop the constant flow of new mechanized brigades coming in. To destroy the logistic and supply routes, I think they need 200 long range or medium range missiles. We are far from that count.
Patriot systems are also needed to protect these assets.
KipPotapych said:
n regard to the “millennia”, that is a very long time and a lot of things happened in that historic timeframe. Like so many other countries did whatever they did with so many other countries. This is a nonsensical argument, if an argument at all.
Geez, you really reply to EVERYTHING!
Rybar said:
Some Ukrainian analysis suggests that 2 Mig-29s were hit, but one belonged to Ukraine - that is, it has been sitting there since 2014. The other has not moved in at least several months and likely wasn’t operational.
I would be very surprised that Ukrainians would use their rarefied long range missiles without double checking the validity of the targets. If some planes didn't move for several months or years, they certainly knew it. it's possible that they noticed that the planes had been replaced by new ones. But OK, I was not at the base at the time of the attack, so I can't tell.
_______________________________
Feanor said:
An interesting look at Russian counter-battery fires. We have a Ukrainian howitzer hiding inside a building, and then a Russian artillery strike hitting the building and all around it. Note the poor accuracy. It does look like they hit the target. But it also looks like they hit not-the-target.
link
What do you think the projectiles were?
Whatever it is. It seems to me that Russians are using very powerful means to destroy just one tank.
They have these missiles and bombs in big quantities but only the less accurate models. Accurate models with =<10 meters accuracy, they count them on their fingers.
worldpopulationreview.com
