Kiev Is Burning

[txtree99]

US Arms Makers Dominate Top Expo As Russia Fails To Sell
 

Russia's standing as a global arms exporter has been diminished by Russian President Vladimir Putin's ongoing war in Ukraine, but exports had been declining for a few years prior to the conflict.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows that Russia's share of global arms exports fell from 22 percent from 2013-17 to 16 percent from 2018-22.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-arms-makers-dubai-airshow-russia-sanctions-1845564

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

BTW. To conclude that economic growth would result from this would turn the laws of the market economy on their head.

Building tanks and missiles does not create added value. It's like the baker buying his own bread and then multiplying that production and buying even more of his own bread. This can not go well. Otherwise, Putin would have to be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Building tanks and missiles is massively better than taking money out of country to stock in in foreign bank accounts, buying palaces in London, football clubs etc. At least, now money are given to real production workers (increasing demand for education in such proferssions as welder etc. - not only PPT/Ecxel dwellers as it used to be for decades) and then spread to small businesses in provincial Russian cities, not pet stylists in London.

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

As seen here?

Hmm, MT-LB seems to be running out...

https://x.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1728487041451639273?s=20

And, the term increase is a broad field. 

Not all units got MTLBs to convert, while next to all are looking for the way of having support weapon of their own with next to unlimited stock of ammunition (as it was massively produced in Soviet time and stored since then). And accuracy is good enough for "hit this corner of the field, with forest belts crossing" fire tasks.

[Josh]

18 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Building tanks and missiles is massively better than taking money out of country to stock in in foreign bank accounts, buying palaces in London, football clubs etc. At least, now money are given to real production workers (increasing demand for education in such proferssions as welder etc. - not only PPT/Ecxel dwellers as it used to be for decades) and then spread to small businesses in provincial Russian cities, not pet stylists in London.

Presumably the money paying for munitions and other war related products comes from the government budget, not oligarchy bank accounts?

[Roman Alymov]

12 minutes ago, Josh said:

Presumably the money paying for munitions and other war related products comes from the government budget, not oligarchy bank accounts?

    State bubget was the source of oligarchy bank accounts, so no dofference.

Volunteer from Nigeria in RusArmy https://t.me/milinfolive/111466

[Stefan Kotsch]

42 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Building tanks and missiles is massively better than taking money out of country to stock in in foreign bank accounts,

Old school socialism. 🤔

[Roman Alymov]

26 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Old school socialism. 🤔

.....Or good old "Buy American Russian". Anyway, good news for Britons as they will not suffer from inflated housing prices in London anymore (or, at leasrt, will not be able to blame it on Russians - as, probably, there is a lot of criminal money coming from other places too).

[Stefan Kotsch]

More bullshit. 

[mkenny]

56 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

.....Or good old "Buy American Russian". Anyway, good news for Britons as they will not suffer from inflated housing prices in London anymore (or, at leasrt, will not be able to blame it on Russians - as, probably, there is a lot of criminal money coming from other places too).

Don't worry Boris made a KGB tool a Lord and he now has a seat in The House Of Lords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev

 

Lots of MPs were made 'consultants' to various Russian mobsters and made a lot of money out of it. 

[seahawk]

10 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

.....Or good old "Buy American Russian". Anyway, good news for Britons as they will not suffer from inflated housing prices in London anymore (or, at leasrt, will not be able to blame it on Russians - as, probably, there is a lot of criminal money coming from other places too).

That is the good thing. The only thing the Western sanctions achieved is to re-vitalize Russian industries. Russia should decide to keep Western products out of Russia forever. Russians should buy Russian.

[Roman Alymov]

Pro-Rus T-80 tank saved by "sunshed" from FPV drone strike, Avdeevka "promka" https://t.me/milinfolive/111492

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

.....Or good old "Buy American Russian". Anyway, good news for Britons as they will not suffer from inflated housing prices in London anymore (or, at leasrt, will not be able to blame it on Russians - as, probably, there is a lot of criminal money coming from other places too).

Good, dont let the fucking door hit you on the way out.

 

[ex2cav]

17 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

BTW. To conclude that economic growth would result from this would turn the laws of the market economy on their head.

Building tanks and missiles does not create added value. It's like the baker buying his own bread and then multiplying that production and buying even more of his own bread. This can not go well. Otherwise, Putin would have to be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Economics.

 

Well, in a sense it does. Bakers, or manufacturers, in the US can report unsold bread which rots as a loss and recover such in tax write-offs. Even a bullet plant will count the value of what is has made if not sold. It would just be listed as an asset. It is the same in the US that keeps arms manufacturers in business. All that foreign aid is really just credit to extended to foreign countries to but American arms (not exclusively I know). One can argue there are secondary industries that keep the bullet, or drone, or tank plant operating. Economic growth can be generated. Of course it can be taken too far, see North Korea.

[ex2cav]

22 hours ago, Josh said:

You miss the differences between knocking over a country that the US can immediately incapacitate vs a peer competitor with nuclear weapons (something the U.S. has never done even when it had a clear advantage-see Soviet Union in the 50s and early 60s). There also is a big difference in current appetite for war versus previous eras. A huge percentage of the US population lived its entire adult life with a pair of open ended wars that seemed to accomplish nothing. Getting into another one would be hard for any administration to survive (Iran I think is safe for the next year at least).

What advantage would there be to war with China? Within two decades their population implodes and their economy likely enters a series of lost decades, assuming something doesn’t trigger that sooner.

I have argued that the "China Threat" to the west is a red herring. It keeps defense expenditures growing, and helps focus anger outward. China supplies too much of America's goods to go to war with except for an extreme rationale. It was decided decades ago to offshore American industry.  You don't go to war with your supplier. 

Though my assumption is America's leadership are rational actors. 

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, ex2cav said:

... Bakers, or manufacturers, in the US ...

In Russia, the state is the majority shareholder in large defense companies. And ROSTEKH (URALVAGONZAVOD is part of it), as the largest company, is even state-owned. State-owned enterprises cannot account for war losses yourself 'as a loss and recover such in tax write-offs'. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostec#Organization
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz-Antey_Corporation#Structure

Edited November 26, 2023 by Stefan Kotsch

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, ex2cav said:

I have argued that the "China Threat" to the west is a red herring

Until February 2022, the same thing was said about Russia.

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Until February 2022, the same thing was said about Russia.

If NATO wanted a problem with Russia, Ukraine was the place to look for it.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 minute ago, glenn239 said:

If NATO wanted a problem with Russia,

NATO wanted a problem with Russia? The Western states preferred to look the other way. Because business with Russia was considered much more important.

But this topic has already been discussed several times? Apparently unsuccessful.

[glenn239]

20 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

BTW. To conclude that economic growth would result from this would turn the laws of the market economy on their head

From what I can see it appears that the Russian economic reorientation away from the G7 has succeeded in a way that was not expected in the West prior to the war.  

Quote

Building tanks and missiles does not create added value. It's like the baker buying his own bread and then multiplying that production and buying even more of his own bread. This can not go well. Otherwise, Putin would have to be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Economics.

It is precisely because Putin held Russian debt in check for decades that Russia is now in a position to spend at a level to fund the war and boost Russian military capabilities even while stimulating the economy in the civilian sector.   Debt to GDP ratios are a vital strategic asset, and for 2023 they are here,

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country

Russia is at 17.8%, in the top ten best ratios in the world, while the US at 128% is listed as the 12th worst in the world

[glenn239]

6 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

NATO wanted a problem with Russia? The Western states preferred to look the other way. Because business with Russia was considered much more important.

But this topic has already been discussed several times? Apparently unsuccessful.

As I just said, if NATO wanted a problem with Russia, Ukraine was the place to find it.   

[glenn239]

20 hours ago, Josh said:

You mentioned using a reusable carrier drone to deliver Lancets; I’m pointing there’s no availability platform that could do that, let alone a survivable platform. Perhaps S70, but it seems unlikely to me that is ever mass produced.

I'm at a loss to imagine why you would suppose that designing and building a drone carrier would pose any sort technical challenge for Russia. For the war in Ukraine, this type of machine is not required because the required ranges for strikes are not long.

I see in the news that the Russians have successfully test launched their nuclear powered cruise missile from an aircraft.  Currently this weapon is purely in the nuclear realm, but you do see how in 10 years the propulsion technology could be adapted as the basis of a future weapon truck that can could deliver stand off drones and missiles anywhere in the world?

Quote

I think China will keep all of its military UAVs and guidance systems to itself.

You suppose alot of things about China that seem more convenient to neocon thinking patterns than appear likely in the world we live in.

Quote

Message me when Russia has an active army that large. It certainly doesn’t currently, despite being in a peer warfare situation.

The  Russians would have to be pretty foolish not to understand that if they are in a war with the United States, that they will have to undertake a full mobilization.

Quote

JASSM-ER is 500nm/1000km. The B-2s would have to be inside engagement ranges, but presumably there would be some complimentary tactical aircraft and UAVs to mitigate the danger.

How many JASSM-ER's does the USAF have?  Your list required about 500 attacks per day, or 15,000 per month.   This article here suggests that the USAF currently has 2,000 of all types of JASSM, and plans for 10,000,

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/jassm/

For other missile types, a closer approach is required.  What do you suppose the attrition rate will be if the 140 US heavy bombers are approaching to within even 100 or 50 miles of the front lines on a daily basis?

Edited November 26, 2023 by glenn239

[Stefan Kotsch]

19 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

20 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

BTW. To conclude that economic growth would result from this would turn the laws of the market economy on their head

From what I can see it appears that the Russian economic reorientation away from the G7 has succeeded in a way that was not expected in the West prior to the war. 

...

It is precisely because Putin held Russian debt in check for decades that Russia is now in a position to spend at a level to fund the war and boost Russian military capabilities even while stimulating the economy in the civilian sector.

I don't see any contradictions.

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

NATO wanted a problem with Russia? The Western states preferred to look the other way. Because business with Russia was considered much more important.
 

      Business with China is even more important, but see all the preparations for war with China....

Meanwhile extrairdinary strong storm expected in Black Sea

 

[sunday]

Speculation, but remarkable

 

[Colin]

5 hours ago, ex2cav said:

I have argued that the "China Threat" to the west is a red herring. It keeps defense expenditures growing, and helps focus anger outward. China supplies too much of America's goods to go to war with except for an extreme rationale. It was decided decades ago to offshore American industry.  You don't go to war with your supplier. 

Though my assumption is America's leadership are rational actors. 

China is very busy corrupting our politicians here in Canada. It is shaping the battlefield, long before the battle is underway.