Ukraine Conflict - Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war

[Gfted1]

Those external missile tubes are just begging to explode.

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Houthis better not get a hold of these drones.

I wonder how low CIWS can slew?

[Mamoulian War]

@Lexx is this legit?
 

https://theins.press/en/politics/268805

 

Article about Another european Far-Right political party cuddling with Russia, showing once again, that it’s the Russia, who is the biggest sponsor of Neo-Nazism in the world

[Malcador]

They've shot up these drones, well or other ones in the past. Not sure if they did it with their CIWS or some dude with a Pecheneg though.  I don't believe the system on this corvette can depress that much.

[Zoraptor]

Wasn't CIWS if it's the video I'm thinking of, as that ship didn't have one. Pecheneg or even a RPK. Seems a bit funny, but during the Falklands British sailors regularly tried to shoot down Argentine A4s with bog standard assault rifles (!) when Sea Sparrow failed.

Phalanx being able to depress further was one of the (few) changes actually made due to the infamous Millennium Challenge, iirc. Same depression as the equivalent Russian system though. Not really hitting the target that is the issue so much as detecting it, since you don't need to take meatbags into account you can design sea drones to be only marginally buoyant and sealed thus extremely low profile, and you can pack a lot more explosive in or give it a lot larger engines than one that has to carry people.

Ironically, the Russian are still up on Tarantul class corvettes as they captured 4 of them from Ukraine.

Edited February 1 by Zoraptor

[Lexx]

1 hour ago, Mamoulian War said:

@Lexx is this legit?
 

https://theins.press/en/politics/268805

 

Article about Another european Far-Right political party cuddling with Russia, showing once again, that it’s the Russia, who is the biggest sponsor of Neo-Nazism in the world

Dunno how legit, but wouldn't surprise me in the least. Generally all the right wingers here are pro-russia for some weird reason. It's also been known for a while that far-right parties were indirectly paid by russia. There's also reports of various politicians traveling to russia from time to time. So yeah... Guess they all love russian money.

[Gfted1]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

Ironically, the Russian are still up on Tarantul class corvettes as they captured 4 of them from Ukraine.

Well, three...Ominous Russian Anti-Ship Missile Drill Sinks Ex-Ukrainian Corvette (twz.com) Coming full circle, it was Ivanovets that sank it.

[Mamoulian War]

Looks like US found a workaround for GOP blocking UA aid

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/30/joe-biden-is-arming-greece-so-greece-can-arm-ukraine-and-pro-russia-republicans-cant-stop-him/

[Mamoulian War]

Russian T-90 pilot, who launched missiles at civilian targets in Ukraine has been shot in Engels, Russia.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/3/7440244/

[Malcador]

Ukraine hitting refineries well enough this week as well.  Good thing they are evil oil refineries But another sign how big a role UAVs are playing

[Mamoulian War]

 

[ralfy]

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-ammunition-stoltenberg-ukraine-bullets-1863220

[Lexx]

Jesus Christ, those incompetent monkeys.

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Jesus Christ, those incompetent monkeys.

No  its not that bad as  the  Newsweek article suggests,  this is an updated article 1 week  after  the  Newsweek one 

https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-declares-victory-in-million-artillery-round-mission/#:~:text=The EU executive's de facto,has hit the magic number

"The EU executive's de facto defense commissioner, Thierry Breton, pledged last year to get a million rounds of ammunition ready for supply to Ukraine by the close of March 2024, and while actual deliveries to Kyiv are way below that figure, he now says that manufacturing capacity has hit the magic number.

"We are already at this level today, in other words — we are two months ahead of schedule in our capacity to produce more ammunition in Europe, of course for Ukraine but also for our own security," Breton said Wednesday on the sidelines of a defense ministers' meeting in Brussels.

[Malcador]

 

[Zoraptor]

Can't believe Zelensky of all people would spread pro Russian rumours like that.

Abrams supposedly (and even from some of the pro UA mappers etc, too belatedly) seen around Avdivka- which is finally starting to look really terminal for the Ukrainians since the Russians are in the last line of houses before open ground near the Coke Plant. Once those are taken they'll have clear line of sight on Ukrainian supply lines and only be ~4km from their southern pincer.

Edited February 5 by Zoraptor

[ralfy]

Keep in mind that the U.S. and the West are reliant on China and others, not only for ammo but even for various needs, like fossil fuels and minerals.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/16/us-military-china-minerals-supply-chain/

https://www.voanews.com/a/putin-profits-off-us-and-european-reliance-on-russian-nuclear-fuel-/7220368.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-natural-gas-european-union-dependence-ukraine-war/32754244.html

It's only later that they called for bans, but with a lot of concern because their manufacturing base is not prepared to go on a war footing, and they lack oil and minerals to maintain middle class lifestyles. (There's one report which even shows that the U.S. is wholly unprepared against China because its industrial base is shot.)

Meanwhile, many don't want to serve in the military, if not unfit to serve:

https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/01/conscription-is-seeing-a-revival-across-europe-is-that-a-good-thing

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/09/28/new-pentagon-study-shows-77-of-young-americans-are-ineligible-military-service.html

One expert even pointed out that most U.S. youth are not even fit for many careers, and the main reasons involve drugs, alcoholism, criminal records, unwanted pregnancies, poor physical or mental health, obesity, and low test scores.

Lastly, there has been growing distrust of the West by the Global South, as seen in moves away from the petrodollar and increasing bilateral trade, and what appears to be the emergence of a multipolar global economy.

 

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, ralfy said:

 

Lastly, there has been growing distrust of the West by the Global South, as seen in moves away from the petrodollar and increasing bilateral trade, and what appears to be the emergence of a multipolar global economy.

 

 

You mean  like BRICS, I have heard about it? Its all about creating a more equitable and fairer  world and giving the Global South a seat  at  the table.  And its  deeply influenced  by China and Russia  and these are  examples of countries that have always cared about global inequality, because they not Western countries,  so it has to  succeed and then the likes  of Saudi Arabia should also be  joining BRICS. Another fine example of country where  human rights and a  multipolar  world  matters  

 

[Malcador]

14 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Can't believe Zelensky of all people would spread pro Russian rumours like that.

Abrams supposedly (and even from some of the pro UA mappers etc, too belatedly) seen around Avdivka- which is finally starting to look really terminal for the Ukrainians since the Russians are in the last line of houses before open ground near the Coke Plant. Once those are taken they'll have clear line of sight on Ukrainian supply lines and only be ~4km from their southern pincer.

Was surprised to find out that it might not be Butusov or Roepcke freaking out over nothing.

[Zoraptor]

It still took a decent amount of time for Bakhmut to go from a similar position, and Sverodonetsk. Should be faster for Avdivka given it's a lot flatter which will make an ad hoc supply line more difficult, but 'should be' doesn't always become 'was'.

As with both of those a militarily justifiable decision to hold initially is in very real danger of turning into an unjustifiable mess due to political considerations.

[ralfy]

On 2/5/2024 at 1:08 PM, BruceVC said:

You mean  like BRICS, I have heard about it? Its all about creating a more equitable and fairer  world and giving the Global South a seat  at  the table.  And its  deeply influenced  by China and Russia  and these are  examples of countries that have always cared about global inequality, because they not Western countries,  so it has to  succeed and then the likes  of Saudi Arabia should also be  joining BRICS. Another fine example of country where  human rights and a  multipolar  world  matters  

 

BRICS refers to Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It started as BRIC, a term coined by an economist and used by Goldman Sachs over twenty years ago to refer to countries that would become the economic powers of the future. Later, South Africa was included, and other terms were coined to refer to various configurations, like CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.), EAGLES (Emerging and Growing-Leading Economies), MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey), and Next Eleven (Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.). They are mostly part of the Global South, which is all countries except those in North America, Europe, and Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Global South, which includes Ukraine, is growing considerably and will soon take over the global economy because it has large numbers of young people who are eager workers and consumers:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

A recent example is VIP, or Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, which have some of the highest economic growth rates and will eventually become among the premier investment sites even for the aging populations of the Global North.

The main leader is China, which has been experiencing unprecedented growth, i.e., an average growth rate of 7 pct per annum for more than 40 years, and within two decades lifted over 800 million of its people out of poverty. The main tactics employed by these countries is the East Asian Miracle, which was started by Japan and consists of combinations of coordination between public and private sectors, export orientation, heavy infrastructure development needed for manufacturing, mechanized agriculture, and mining, and essentially authoritarian forms of government, and is based on, interestingly enough, nineteenth-century Prussian state policies and three centuries of European mercantilism.

BRICS has lately become an organization and now includes Saudi Arabia, which has been trading with Russia and China without using the dollar.

The result is a growing multipolar global economy, with lots of bilateral trade and economic blocs outside the influence of the U.S. dollar, G-7, and even the IMF and WB. Many of them grew faster because they refused to give in to policies like IMF-WB structural adjustment, which would have forced them to open up their markets to exploitation by the West.

This increasing prosperity by most countries is a major threat to the U.S., which relies heavily on the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency (which is why, for example, it made deals with Saudi Arabia and OPEC to price oil in dollars and to invest profits in Wall Street in exchange for military support). The only way for that reserve currency to be maintained is for most of these countries to be economically weak and thus rely on the U.S. for help.

 

 

 

 

 

[BruceVC]

20 minutes ago, ralfy said:

BRICS refers to Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It started as BRIC, a term coined by an economist and used by Goldman Sachs over twenty years ago to refer to countries that would become the economic powers of the future. Later, South Africa was included, and other terms were coined to refer to various configurations, like CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.), EAGLES (Emerging and Growing-Leading Economies), MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey), and Next Eleven (Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.). They are mostly part of the Global South, which is all countries except those in North America, Europe, and Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Global South, which includes Ukraine, is growing considerably and will soon take over the global economy because it has large numbers of young people who are eager workers and consumers:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

A recent example is VIP, or Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, which have some of the highest economic growth rates and will eventually become among the premier investment sites even for the aging populations of the Global North.

The main leader is China, which has been experiencing unprecedented growth, i.e., an average growth rate of 7 pct per annum for more than 40 years, and within two decades lifted over 800 million of its people out of poverty. The main tactics employed by these countries is the East Asian Miracle, which was started by Japan and consists of combinations of coordination between public and private sectors, export orientation, heavy infrastructure development needed for manufacturing, mechanized agriculture, and mining, and essentially authoritarian forms of government, and is based on, interestingly enough, nineteenth-century Prussian state policies and three centuries of European mercantilism.

BRICS has lately become an organization and now includes Saudi Arabia, which has been trading with Russia and China without using the dollar.The result is a growing multipolar global economy, with lots of bilateral trade and economic blocs outside the influence of the U.S. dollar, G-7, and even the IMF and WB. Many of them grew faster because they refused to give in to policies like IMF-WB structural adjustment, which would have forced them to open up their markets to exploitation by the West.

This increasing prosperity by most countries is a major threat to the U.S., which relies heavily o

n the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency (which is why, for example, it made deals with Saudi Arabia and OPEC to price oil in dollars and to invest profits in Wall Street in exchange for military support). The only way for that reserve currency to be maintained is for most of these countries to be economically weak and thus rely on the U.S. for help.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I  know all  about BRICS,  I live in  a BRICS country 

What are the specific   economic benefits for being part  of BRICS?  What  trade  deals does  BRICS provide that only BRICS members get access  to ? You can trade  with any BRICS country and it doesnt matter  if  you part of BRICS or not part of BRICS because normal  WTO trade rules is used 

For example AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act  )  is a specific trade deal between certain African countries and the US but it has real  trade  benefits  that help  African countries because  they get reduced  tariffs  to  sell there exported  goods  in the US

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/african-growth-and-opportunity-act-agoa

What  are similar economic benefits  for  joining BRICS,  I am not  looking for  broad generalisations or rhetoric like " The result is a growing multipolar global economy, with lots of bilateral trade and economic blocs outside the influence of the U.S." 

What does  that even mean , any country can trade with any  country in the world .  The US doesnt control that but whats more  relevant to this debate is I am  looking for  specific trade deals  like AGOA that apply to BRICS members.  You can find me any unique benefit that applies  to BRICS members and I will read  them

For BRICS  to become a meaningful and beneficial economic union it has to have some  sort of common institutions like a  Central Bank which controls monetary policy for BRICS like the  EU and the ECB, BRICS doesnt have a shared  currency and it has countries that have very different types of governments so the  legality of economic policies  cant be enforced within  BRICS  like how the EU successfully functions around internal EU trade on things like tariffs for EU members 

But the point is just  post some  links about   what  specific economic  agreements   you get from joining BRICS and  these are  benefits that if you not a BRICS  member you cant get 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mamoulian War]

Bruce, that’s to much to ask from a person, who joined these forums, purely to show everyone, how “west is wrong and will be economically crushed soon ”

Especially, when these somehow completely disregard the fact, that China and India is for decades in a state of cold war, which in some cases even includes banning each others companies from doing business in their countries  And that India is making Russia economy bleed, as Russia must currently trade gas and oil with them in Rupees, and subsequently requires them to invest these rupees back in India, as Rupees are non-convertible

What a case example how business partners should treat each other when trying to outperform and crush their competitors

[BruceVC]

29 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Bruce, that’s to much to ask from a person, who joined these forums, purely to show everyone, how “west is wrong and will be economically crushed soon ”

Especially, when these somehow completely disregard the fact, that China and India is for decades in a state of cold war, which in some cases even includes banning each others companies from doing business in their countries  And that India is making Russia economy bleed, as Russia must currently trade gas and oil with them in Rupees, and subsequently requires them to invest these rupees back in India, as Rupees are non-convertible

What a case example how business partners should treat each other when trying to outperform and crush their competitors

I like  to give people the benefit   of doubt and hope they do understand there own argument, what  he is talking about is the normal BRICS narrative   and anti-Western rhetoric and I have heard it all before on Codex  and I  have  had several debates on this same topic but I still am  interested  in the questions I asked 

 And there  are  several common points  that always get raised  around the BRICS  narrative  and this gets  repeated   in SA  by BRICS activists and one of them is where people confuse  GDP  and   GDP  PPP where BRICS is  ahead in GDP  PPP  but not  GDP compared to the G7

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-comparing-the-gdp-of-brics-and-the-g7-countries/

But that debate is a distraction because both GDP  measurements for BRICS  or the G7 is not because of specific or  unique trade deals  within BRICS, its normal trade and economic activity that would exist  even if BRICS didnt  exist 

So the data is correct but not the reason for the  data.  Which is why I always ask the same question "  what is the real  economic benefit  for  being part of BRICS" , what is the BRICS equivalence to the EU single market  or AGOA for Africa?

Because then  you can say " these are the specific economic benefits  to join BRICS "  but if there  arent any substantive benefits  then it will  continue to be a talk-shop 

 

[Zoraptor]

Tucker Carlson to interview Vladimir Putin.

Successfully resisted crossposting to the Funny thread for now.

[ralfy]

22 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Oh I  know all  about BRICS,  I live in  a BRICS country 

What are the specific   economic benefits for being part  of BRICS?  What  trade  deals does  BRICS provide that only BRICS members get access  to ? You can trade  with any BRICS country and it doesnt matter  if  you part of BRICS or not part of BRICS because normal  WTO trade rules is used 

For example AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act  )  is a specific trade deal between certain African countries and the US but it has real  trade  benefits  that help  African countries because  they get reduced  tariffs  to  sell there exported  goods  in the US

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/african-growth-and-opportunity-act-agoa

What  are similar economic benefits  for  joining BRICS,  I am not  looking for  broad generalisations or rhetoric like " The result is a growing multipolar global economy, with lots of bilateral trade and economic blocs outside the influence of the U.S." 

What does  that even mean , any country can trade with any  country in the world .  The US doesnt control that but whats more  relevant to this debate is I am  looking for  specific trade deals  like AGOA that apply to BRICS members.  You can find me any unique benefit that applies  to BRICS members and I will read  them

For BRICS  to become a meaningful and beneficial economic union it has to have some  sort of common institutions like a  Central Bank which controls monetary policy for BRICS like the  EU and the ECB, BRICS doesnt have a shared  currency and it has countries that have very different types of governments so the  legality of economic policies  cant be enforced within  BRICS  like how the EU successfully functions around internal EU trade on things like tariffs for EU members 

But the point is just  post some  links about   what  specific economic  agreements   you get from joining BRICS and  these are  benefits that if you not a BRICS  member you cant get

 

 

There are no benefits in joining BRICS. Instead, there are benefits in employing economic policies that characterize BRICS and emerging markets of the Global South, which are variations of the East Asian Miracle that was first started by Japan, then promoted by South Korea and Taiwan, and later Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and others, and finally China and Vietnam. That is, infrastructure development needed for mechanized agriculture, mining, and/or manufacturing, heavy coordination between private and public sectors and led by a government that promotes variations of nationalist economics, protection of key industries that have no competition (like utilities) and that have the possibility of impressive development and growth, and export orientation to make industrial sectors grow.

What about the U.S.? As the Council of Foreign Relations:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/dollar-worlds-reserve-currency

and even Stoltenberg of NATO:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_222258.htm

implicitly reveal is that the power of the U.S. and that unipolar global economy lies in the use of the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency. For that to be maintained, many countries have to be economically weak and thus dependent on the U.S. The U.S. ensures this through a combination of neoliberalism, such as structural adjustment policies via the IMF-WB that encourage client nations to promote free markets, and the military industrial complex, or collusion between rich-controlled industries and the military (with Congress) to use arms sales, military deals, etc., to ensure "freedom and democracy" for recipient countries, or neoconservatism.

These go against the so-called model mentioned earlier, which is said to be a combination of 19th-century Prussian state policies and European mercantilism.

Such a model leads to a multipolar economy where various currencies are used, if not something like variations of special drawing rights, so that no single country can dominate it by being able to have a global reserve currency. Besides, the latter leads to a Triffin dilemma, where one's exports become too expensive for many and importing becomes cheaper, leading eventually to trade deficits and the need to borrow continuously to meet increasing spending.

That's what happened to the U.S., as it began to experience trade deficits starting in the mid-1970s and was able to compensate for that and increased spending by financial deregulation starting in the early 1980s, which in turn lead to increasing debt.