Russian invasion of Ukraine

[mathematics]

28 minutes ago, MazzyStar said:

Possibly the worst twitter bio I’ve ever seen.

Exactly. Abbreviating mathematics to math. is unforgivable.

[Cosmic Joe]

1 hour ago, MazzyStar said:

Possibly the worst twitter bio I’ve ever seen.

The Polish citizen bit is the only acceptable part

[tongue_tied_danny]

26 minutes ago, Cosmic Joe said:

The Polish citizen bit is the only acceptable part

What have you got against residents of Japan?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MazzyStar said:

Possibly the worst twitter bio I’ve ever seen.

It was his ideology being enforced on Russia that turned it into a fossil fuel oligarchy and created the conditions for the subsequent militarism.

[Cosmic Joe]

40 minutes ago, tongue_tied_danny said:

What have you got against residents of Japan?

I knew someone would ask that. 

Nothing. 

[MazzyStar]

59 minutes ago, tongue_tied_danny said:

What have you got against residents of Japan?

White guys like him that live in Japan are weirdos. What does he like so much about Japan? The fact it’s an ethnostate? 

[Silvio Tattiescone]

1 hour ago, FreedomFarter said:

It was his ideology being enforced on Russia that turned it into a fossil fuel oligarchy and created the conditions for the subsequent militarism.

Aye, cos Russia DEFINITELY wasn't militaristic before that.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Newbornbairn said:

Aye, cos Russia DEFINITELY wasn't militaristic before that.

Following the fall of the USSR, the liberisation of Russia was dominated by the privatisation of industries previously under state control. Oligarchs who were either well connected in the former USSR or exceedingly capable of navigating the newly liberalised economy consolidated major sectors of the economy, notably fossil fuels, into their very few hands. Thanks to that concentrated economic power, they were able to have a high degree of influence on politics, carrying Putin and his support for their endeavours into the highest office. From there, Putin could carry national economic policy in a few key directions specifically to enrich his buddies while they both kept one another on a tight leash. This is an unstable economic system especially given how central a few non-renewable resources are to the whole operation.

Unlike the nations to its west, post-USSR Russia didn't benefit from a Marshall Plan that would've bolstered its capitalist economy within a strong network of cooperation with global hegemon USA. Russia's privatisation and primitive accumulation came with all the pitfalls and punishments of neoliberalism unadulterated. It created punishing austerity for the general population but lucrative profits for a few at the top (the oligarchs). This allowed for and promoted a single figurehead with visions of expansion at its helm (Putin).because when domestic crises begin in a capitalist society they'll often turn towards nationalism and look at outward expansion for solutions.

While all this was happening, Ukraine was modernising its agriculture and energy sources, cutting off Russian gas slowly, taking its role as a channel for Russian gas to the rest of Europe slowly off the table and proving the value of its fertile black soil, a huge source of profit. These were trends that Russian oligarchs had kept an eye on for a long time. Their profits were increasingly threatened the further away from them that Ukraine got, which is why they were always courting Ukrainian politicians. Putin's irredentism aligned with the oligarchs' desire to secure their markets so they decided together to launch their imperialist war.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

One interpretation anyway. Another is that Russia hasn't fundamentally changed since Tsarist days. "Private" ownership is at the gift of whoever is at the top and can be handed out or taken back at will. Look at how many Western companies found that out the hard way -

Quote

Foreign investment in Russia has never been easy. For example, in 2003, BP and a consortium of Russian oligarchs formed the joint venture TNK-BP, which became one of the largest oil producers in Russia. However, disputes ensued over the venture’s leadership, operations and international expansion.

The situation became so fraught that Bob Dudley, then the head of TNK-BP and later BP’s chief executive officer, was forced to flee from Russia in 2008. To resolve the disputes, BP sold its 50% equity in TNK-BP to Rosneft in 2013 for $12.5 billion in cash and a nearly 20% share in Rosneft.

Shell got involved in the early 1990s in the Sakhalin-2 project to develop natural gas reserves in Russia’s Far East, and built Russia’s first liquefied natural gas facility there. As the project neared completion in 2006, at a cost of more than $20 billion, Shell and its Japanese partners were forced to sell a 50% share to Russia’s state-owned natural gas giant, Gazprom, for $7.45 billion because Putin’s government was unhappy with the easy terms previously offered by the Yeltsin administration.

During crises like these, Western energy companies weighed the potential gains and costs of operating in Russia and concluded that staying in was worth it

https://theconversation.com/shell-bp-and-exxonmobil-have-done-business-in-russia-for-decades-heres-why-theyre-leaving-now-178269

 

Western companies saw Russia as a honey-pot but Russia fleeced them, neo-liberalism was the bait Russia dangled to get Western investment into a collapsed Soviet system.

 

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Newbornbairn said:

One interpretation anyway. Another is that Russia hasn't fundamentally changed since Tsarist days. "Private" ownership is at the gift of whoever is at the top and can be handed out or taken back at will. Look at how many Western companies found that out the hard way -

https://theconversation.com/shell-bp-and-exxonmobil-have-done-business-in-russia-for-decades-heres-why-theyre-leaving-now-178269

 

Western companies saw Russia as a honey-pot but Russia fleeced them, neo-liberalism was the bait Russia dangled to get Western investment into a collapsed Soviet system.

 

 

That article deals only with the Putin era. Neoliberal shock therapy was applied to Russia before Putin, beginning in 1991. Its architects were the triumvirate of Boris Yeltsin, American advisors and the IMF. Jeffrey Sachs, the most influential of the US advisors, wrote at the time that the creation of an oligarchy was an acceptable result of the economic reforms. Democracy was crushed as early as 1993 when Yeltsin ordered the military to literally shell parliament with tanks because it was blocking the reforms. 

Its fair to say that Putin's Russia has never been neoliberal, as that article shows. However, the creation of both the oligarchy and the autocratic governance were results of the early 90s neoliberal shock therapy.

Edited April 23, 2023 by FreedomFarter

[Silvio Tattiescone]

That's a particular interpretation.

 

Quote

One of the most well-known oligarchies is Russia, which historians say has been ruled by one authoritative oligarchy or another since at least the 1400s. The dissolution of the Soviet Union from roughly 1988-1991 was a particular flashpoint for oligarchy, because it enabled a small group of wealthy individuals (mostly bankers) to gain controlling interest of many of the country's most valuable resources and utilities (such as oil fields). This resulted in a situation in which politicians ruled the country, but the oligarchs ruled the politicians.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/oligarchy-countries

 

Russia was an oligarchy waiting to happen. The Soviet Union falling apart in the 90s meant the people wanting to buy what the oligarchs were selling were in the West. If the Soviets had lasted 30 years more, I think they would have been dealing with China (another country ripe for takeover by oligarchs if the Communist Party loses its grip).  It's not the West's fault Russia is corrupt, the corruption was always there. 

[ICTChris]

Some talk this morning that Ukraine has established a bridge head over the Dnipro and taken positions on the other bank - from what I've read this isn't particularly relevant.  The area that's being discussed is not suitable for a large force crossing, it's not got any paved roads, the Ukrainian forces there are likely special forces carrying out reconnaissance or raiding.

In other news, the US Secretary of Defense has confirmed that Ukraine has nine new armoured brigades, 230 tanks, 1500+ armoured vehicles and Abrams tanks to help with the fight in the upcoming months.  A Ukrainian brigade has between 2-4000 troops in it.

[Guest]

https://www.ft.com/content/c1f06f80-7165-4f07-9fbb-04e225d7d7d9

Quote

Ukraine’s state energy company has held talks with ExxonMobil, Halliburton and Chevron about projects in the war-torn country as Kyiv looks to lure back foreign investment into its energy sector.

The negotiations with big US fossil fuel players are part of a strategic push to increase natural gas production that Ukrainian officials believe could help replace Russian supply to Europe in the years ahead, and come after months of Russian bombardment of Ukraine’s energy network.

US fossil fuel giants moving in on Ukraine. 

 

Quote

“It’s a lot. And in order to achieve it we might need serious service expansion and technological drivers that Halliburton is capable to provide,” said Chernyshov. “We want them to expand [their presence] dramatically. We want them there seriously — boots on the ground.”

The oilfield services group was among the first international companies to enter Iraq after the US invasion in 2003. It has a small presence in Ukraine.

This follows an established pattern, as the writer notes. Disaster capitalism. I like the use of the phrase "boots on the ground", as if Halliburton are a part of the war effort and not just there to plunder Ukraine's wealth.

[Moomintroll]

Absolutely no doubt though, that the virgin will blame the West or fat nurses.

[LongTimeLurker]

Mildly significant if accurate because it would mean the Ukrainians control both ends of the not as intact as it used to be Antonivka bridge over the Dniepr.

 

[TxRover]

6 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Some talk this morning that Ukraine has established a bridge head over the Dnipro and taken positions on the other bank - from what I've read this isn't particularly relevant.  The area that's being discussed is not suitable for a large force crossing, it's not got any paved roads, the Ukrainian forces there are likely special forces carrying out reconnaissance or raiding.

In other news, the US Secretary of Defense has confirmed that Ukraine has nine new armoured brigades, 230 tanks, 1500+ armoured vehicles and Abrams tanks to help with the fight in the upcoming months.  A Ukrainian brigade has between 2-4000 troops in it.

Actually, assuming this is the mooted Dachy incursion, the E97 is certainly a valid paved road and useful target. The development of a breakout is constrained by surrounding marshes, but it’s certainly not something the Russians can ignore.

[Sergeant Wilson]

6 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Actually, assuming this is the mooted Dachy incursion, the E97 is certainly a valid paved road and useful target. The development of a breakout is constrained by surrounding marshes, but it’s certainly not something the Russians can ignore.

Seriously, how do you know this kind of stuff?

[Cosmic Joe]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Seriously, how do you know this kind of stuff?

I'm kind of guessing he took his civil service stuff a bit more seriously than us*.

 

*In my case, turned up without fail to give out dole money to unemployed folk in the mid 1980s in Fife. I hardly ever let anyone down. 

 

 

[TxRover]

6 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Seriously, how do you know this kind of stuff?

Well, if you look at the location they show the “attack”, and notice a major highway next to the location, you might look further. Looking at that major highway, you see it comes off the bridge and moves through some marshes before joining another semi-major roadway (P57) which loops around to the southwest while the E97 heads into Crimea. Now, since Crimea is a major Russian “goal”, they can’t ignore any threat to it…and if the Ukrainians drive down the E97 toward Crimea, it would isolate any a Russian forces to the west of that roadway. All that makes it pretty important to keep the Ukrainians north of the marshes.

Warfare is, as you should know, all about supplies. Controlling them, blocking them, capturing them and destroying them.

Edited to add this from the Institute for the Study of War 22 April Update:

“Russian milbloggers have provided enough geolocated footage and textual reports to confirm that Ukrainian forces have established positions in east (left) bank Kherson Oblast as of April 22 though not at what scale or with what intentions. Geolocated footage published by a Russian milblogger on April 22 shows that Ukrainian forces have established positions on the Dnipro River bank north of Oleshky (7km southwest of Kherson City) and advanced up to the northern outskirts of the settlement on the E97 highway, as well as west of Dachi (10km south of Kherson City).[1] This footage also indicates that Russian forces may not control islands in the Kinka and Chaika rivers less than half a kilometer north of the geolocated Ukrainian positions near the Antonivsky Bridge. Russian milbloggers claimed on April 20 and 22 that Ukrainian forces have maintained positions in east bank Kherson Oblast for weeks, established stable supply lines to these positions, and regularly conduct sorties in the area—all indicating a lack of Russian control over the area.[2] Another milblogger’s battle map claimed that Russian forces do not control some Dnipro River delta islands southwest of Kherson City as of April 22, suggesting possible Ukrainian advances on these islands.[3] Some milbloggers complained that the slow rate of Russian artillery fire due to the over-centralization of the Russian military command allowed Ukrainian forces to land on the east bank.[4] Russian forces may be prioritizing maintaining defenses in urban areas such as Oleshky and Nova Kakhovka, leaving the islands in the Dnipro River delta unmanned. The extent and intent of these Ukrainian positions remain unclear, as does Ukraine’s ability and willingness to maintain sustained positions in this area. ISW is recoding territory on the east bank of the Dnipro River to Ukrainian-held only now because this is the first time ISW has observed reliable geolocated imagery of Ukrainian positions on the east bank along with multi-sourced Russian reports of an enduring Ukrainian presence there.”

Edited April 24, 2023 by TxRover

[TxRover]

Latest ISW assessment suggests a reason for Ukraine’s push down the E97. It’s reported that conscripts from this years Spring callup are already appearing in defensive positions in Crimea, likely to allow diversion of more seasoned troops to the Eastern Ukraine offensive. However, this would mean that a Ukrainian breakout to the south/southeast from Duchi down the E97 would threaten Crimea, and it’s raw conscript defenders.

It is also reported that Putin is now refusing to accept advisors suggestions to move to a more defensive posture, a lot like old Adolf.