4 دی 1401
25 دسامبر 2022
لینک برخی منابع مورد استفاده
His statements echo comments made by Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak on the price-capping issue earlier this week. Novak said that Moscow wouldn’t sell crude to countries that impose a price cap, and may respond to the measure by reducing oil production by 500,000-700,000 barrels a day in early 2023.
Of course, there are also the sanctions against Russia, which many expect will hurt the country’s oil production, and that may well happen, but it has not happened yet. In fact, the oil sanctions—in the form of a price cap on maritime exports and an embargo on exports to the EU—have had no effect on oil flows out of Russia. For now.
To complicate things further, the EU wants to remain flexible to change the cap at its discretion.
“The price cap is not set in stone – it “is fixed for now but adjustable over time,” the EU said last week.
If this sounds like a recipe for complete disaster, it is.
There are many goals of this price cap, some stated, some implied, my comments are in italics afterwards.
- Limit Russia’s oil revenue enough to bleed out their budget. Not likely as the discount to Brent will rise and fall with futures. Russia’s cost of production is the lowest in the world with the highest spare capacity to bring online or take offline.
- Spur other OPEC+ members to pump beyond their quotas and break the cartel. Again, not likely, as the only ones who have spare capacity are also under heavy sanctions, Venezuela, Iran, etc. To crib from Planet of the Apes, “OPEC together strong.”
- Make the Saudis an offer they can’t refuse, to lead OPEC without Russia. This has fully failed as KSA has just signed a Strategic Partnership with China during Xi’s first visit to a foreign power since COVID faster than you can say, “multi-polar world.”
- Bring the price of oil down to allow “Biden” to refill the SPR at a big discount. Only so long as they can manipulate futures prices down and keep demand off the market.
- Cause further chaos in oil shipping to freeze investment capital in an industry trillions behind the curve in exploration because of ESG and “US/EU policy” This is what the real goal is. It’s why I think Liz Truss was taken out as UK Prime Minister and why Germany happily went along with the Nordstream bombing and closing off the Druzbha Pipeline.
- Force Putin to sell Europe oil below market prices to fund the upcoming war effort against Russia, now clearly on the table for 2023. They want you to believe oil flows to Europe have already cratered, while bookings (as Sputnik pointed out) for Sovcomflot’s tanker fleet are up. The only numbers that matter are Russia’s exports, not whether oil flows through western tracking data.
For India, the reorientation of Russian economic diplomacy toward the Asian region presents huge business opportunities. Who would have thought nine months ago that Russia was going to be the largest supplier of oil to India, leapfrogging Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the US? According to Reuters, India purchased about 40% of all export volumes of Russian Urals grade oil transported by sea in November, when European countries accounted for 25%, Turkey 15% and China 5%.
The figures speak for themselves: in November, while Russia supplied 909,000.4 barrels of crude oil to India per day, the corresponding figures were for Iraq (861,000.4), Saudi Arabia (570,000.9), and the US (405,000.5) Suffice it to say that when Modi upfront listed energy as his talking point with Putin, it reconfirms that India is giving a wide berth to the G7’s hare-brained scheme to impose a price cap on Russian oil exports.
The British Ministry of Defence predicts a quiet winter is likely ahead for Ukraine. On its Twitter account, the agency revealed on December 12 that Russia would likely not make further moves in the coming months. And while the objective remains to overtake Donetsk Oblast, an attempt to do so probably won’t occur soon.
The UK Ministry of Defense noted in a December 13 tweet that Putin canceled his annual end-of-the-year press conference. The entity suggested that could have been because there may be a significant “anti-war feeling” in the motherland.
Vladimir Putin has created renewed concern around his allegedly deteriorating health after the Russian leader abruptly pulled out of an annual ice hockey game this week, RadarOnline.com has learned.
“The fall from the stairs last week, which resulted in a bruised tailbone, did not go unnoticed and caused new problems not directly related to the bruise,” the source added regarding the fall in which Putin “involuntarily defecated” himself as a result of the “cancer affecting his stomach and bowels.”
“It seems to me we are on the edge,” warns General Zaluzhny. More big attacks could completely disable the grid. “That is when soldiers’ wives and children start freezing,” he says. “What kind of mood will the fighters be in? Without water, light and heat, can we talk about preparing reserves to keep fighting?"
“Russian mobilisation has worked,” says General Zaluzhny. “A tsar tells them to go to war, and they go to war.” General Syrsky agrees: “The enemy shouldn’t be discounted. They are not weak…and they have very great potential in terms of manpower.” He gives the example of how Russian recruits, equipped only with small arms, successfully slowed down Ukrainian attacks in Kreminna and Svatove in Luhansk province—though the autumn mud helped. Mobilisation has also allowed Russia to rotate its forces on and off the front lines more frequently, he says, allowing them to rest and recuperate. “In this regard, they have an advantage.”
Zaluzhny, referring to the Soviet decision to move the defence industry east, beyond the range of Nazi bombers. “They are 100% being prepared.” A major Russian attack could come “in February, at best in March and at worst at the end of January”, he says. And it could come anywhere, he warns: in Donbas, where Mr Putin is eager to capture the remainder of Donetsk province; in the south, towards the city of Dnipro; even towards Kyiv itself.
Ukraine has enough men under arms—more than 700,000 in uniform, in one form or another, of whom more than 200,000 are trained for combat. But materiel is in short supply. Ammunition is crucial, says General Syrsky. “Artillery plays a decisive role in this war,” he notes. “Therefore, everything really depends on the amount of supplies, and this determines the success of the battle in many cases.” General Zaluzhny, who is raising a new army corps, reels off a wishlist. “I know that I can beat this enemy,” he says. “But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs [infantry fighting vehicles], 500 Howitzers.” The incremental arsenal he is seeking is bigger than the total armoured forces of most European armies.
On December 6th America’s Congress agreed in principle to let the Pentagon buy 864,000 rounds of 155mm artillery shells, more than 12,000 GPS-guided Excalibur shells and 106,000 GPS-guided GMLRS rockets for HIMARS—theoretically enough to sustain Ukraine’s most intense rate of fire for five months non-stop. But this will be produced over a number of years, not in time for a spring offensive.
Russia has similar problems. It will run out of “fully serviceable” munitions early next year, says an American official, forcing it to use badly maintained stocks and suppliers like North Korea. Its shell shortages are “critical”, said Admiral Tony Radakin, Britain’s defence chief, on September 14th.
In private, however, Ukrainian and Western officials admit there may be other outcomes. “We can and should take a lot more territory,” General Zaluzhny insists. But he obliquely acknowledges the possibility that Russian advances might prove stronger than expected, or Ukrainian ones weaker, by saying, “It is not yet time to appeal to Ukrainian soldiers in the way that Mannerheim appealed to Finnish soldiers.” He is referring to a speech which Finland’s top general delivered to troops in 1940 after a harsh peace deal which ceded land to the Soviet Union.
To put this in perspective, according to Wikipedia, the German Army has 266 tanks, about 650 IFVs and about 350 artillery systems. The British Army has 227 tanks, about 700 IFVs and about 230 artillery systems. A year ago, Ukraine was estimated to have had 2400 tanks, thousands of IFVs and 2000 artillery systems. What happened to them? And all the other weapons Ukraine has received? One may see Zaluzhny’s request as being in the form of “if… then”. Well, the first condition won’t be met – he is essentially asking for half of what the the UK and Germany have between them (plus all their guns) – and therefore the second can’t be. Is this his way of admitting that Russia has nearly finished “the destruction of his forces”? (Calling for stronger penalties against deserters doesn’t give a confident ring either, does it?)
The primary purpose of war is the destruction of the enemy’s ability to resist. That is a long process – weapons and ammunition destroyed, supply routes blocked, war production stopped, political will broken. And it’s a bloody process – the enemy’s soldiers must be killed or maimed. Clausewitz –
- Continue attrition and watch Ukraine and NATO demilitarize themselves. With forces in place, trained and equipped, take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself. (Sun Tzu “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting“.) This is the easiest option but, because it is the slowest, it carries the risk of a desperate USA/NATO doing something irretrievably stupid.
- “Big arrows”. All or some of these. Deep penetrations to cut off the remaining Ukrainian forces in the east and move to total victory. Or powerful raids into the Ukrainian rear to destroy and disrupt. (John Helmer explains the purpose here.) Or a drive to Trans Dnestr leaving Rump Ukraine landlocked. Any “big arrow” have the advantage of destroying the Ukraine-is-winning fantasy.
- Block the border with Poland and the supply of NATO weaponry and wait for the the whole thing to collapse.
- If the Ukrainian collapse at Bakhmut is big enough, just move to the desired end-state borders.
“Anyone who underestimates Russia is heading for defeat”. The Russian force mobilisation was a success; there is no problem with Russian morale; and Russia is preparing a huge winter offensive that will start soon. Russia has huge reserve forces (of up to 1.2 million men); whereas Ukraine now has 200,000 who are militarily trained for conflict. The ‘writing is on the wall’, in other words. Ukraine cannot win.
The FT’s ‘Big Read’, by contrast, is a venting of deep western anger at those Russian ‘reformist’ siloviki technocrats who, instead of breaking with Putin over the SMO, instead shamefully enabled the Russian economy to survive western sanctions. The message uttered – through clenched teeth – is that Russia’s economy has successfully survived western sanctions. (How Putin’s technocrats saved the economy to fight a war they opposed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuDFbS6mD6U Scott Ritter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBUIpjd6UjA Douglas Mcgregor
If the United States loses an air craft carrier, building a replacement will take years and cost billions of dollars ($12.41 billion for the latest Ford class). The same principle applies to the most “modern” combat jet, the F-35:
With an estimated lifetime cost of $1.6 trillion, the F-35 Lightning II, conceived as a versatile, super stealthy next-generation fighter plane, is the most expensive weapon system ever built. When the program began way back in 1992, the F-35 was supposed to be an affordable one-size-fits-all solution for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. It took until this February for the Air Force to publicly admit that the F-16 replacement failed the affordability test. (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/air-force-admits-f-35-fighter-jet-costs-too-much-ncna1259781)
So what? The Lancet costs thousands to make while one M777 costs $3.738 million. Compare these two weapon systems below. If the Lancet costs $100,000 to produce, that means 38 Lancets can be built for the price of just one M777 howitzer. Each of those Lancets can destroy one M777.
The Russians also have an economic and tactical edge when it comes to the modern battle tank. Compare the newest Russian tank with the latest edition of the U.S. M1-Abrams. The Russian tank weighs 22 tons less than its U.S. counterpart. That makes it more maneuverable and more fuel efficient. It only requires a crew of three because it comes with an automatic loader for shells. The M1-Abrams is still doing it old school, i.e. one crew member has to load the gun.
The United States Navy currently has 296 in “battle-force ships in inventory” but only 251 active ships in commission (The number of ships active in commission includes those that are commissioned but not battle-ready, such as the USS Constitution; and excludes most combat logistics and fleet support ships.)
According to data compiled and updated by the Navy, here is the current total of battle-force ships as of June 23, 2021.
Aircraft Carriers: 11
Surface Combatants: 115
Amphibious Warfare Ships: 31
Mine Warfare Ships: 8
Combat Logistics Ships: 29
Fleet Support: 33
Auxiliary Support: 1
Combatant Craft: 0
To put this in context — prior to the start of World War II, the United States had 790 active ships. By the end of the war, that number soared to 6084. Today’s fleet is half-the size of the U.S. fleet at the dawn of World War II. The U.S. Navy is now a carrier centered force, as I have discussed in previous posts. Its ability to project force has diminished over the last ten years as Russia and China have developed effective hypersonic missiles that can defeat the current air and missile defense systems in place ostensibly to protect the Carrier task forces from attack.
The critical difference between now and December 7, 1941 is the dramatic decline in the U.S. industrial base. After Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States built and deployed 5,294 ships–e.g., aircraft carriers, battleships and destroyers–in three years. Think about that. The United States was producing on average 147 ships a month. Today, it takes 5 to 7 years to build and deploy an aircraft carrier. In the event of a war with Russia and/or China, the United States can no longer churn out the volume of naval craft it did in World War II. Just because the ships are loaded up with more advanced technology does not automatically translate into greater combat effectiveness and longevity.
Comparing fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2021, the average mission capable rate for the selected aircraft has fallen for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, to varying degrees. The average mission capable rate for the selected Army aircraft has risen.
For fiscal year 2021, GAO found that only two of the 49 aircraft examined met the service-established mission capable goal. More specifically, for fiscal year 2021, 30 aircraft were more than 10 percentage points below the mission capable goal in fiscal year 2021; and 17 aircraft were 10 percentage points or less below the mission capable goal in fiscal year 2021.
https://youtu.be/mFFdlXXb7ls About Patriots
One Moscow source: “I cannot see Russians risking massive armoured movements or repeating their March manoeuvres. I believe the General Staff will wage the electricity war and put pressure on Kiev and on Europe while continuing a slow, inch-by-inch movement in Donbass. General Patience is more important than General Winter. Those two are on a par with General Iskander taking out electric substations and transport corridors. Putin will only come under pressure if he puts himself under pressure to take territory and takes thousands of casualties in the process. He does not want this. The General Staff does not want this. They have made this explicitly clear. So they have come up with new forms of warfare. Just how new these are hasn’t dawned yet in Kiev or Washington or Brussels.”
The EU voted on December 15th to grant Bosnia-Herzegovina candidate status, paving the way for it to gain European Union membership.
Russia’s war on Ukraine and its energy warfare with Europe at large changes things. Now it’s a geopolitical necessity to bring the Balkans into the fold. Instead of punishing Bosnia for its divisions, Brussels is now inclined to embrace the country before Russia and China start using these vulnerable states as puppets in wider geopolitical games.
Russian President Vladimir Putin admitted in Bishkek that Russia might consider "embracing" US security practices, including disarming strike tactics. "The United States has a theory of preemptive strike - first," the president told reporters on Friday. "Second: they are developing a disarming strike system. What is it? This is a strike with modern high-tech means, which should be delivered to control points, to deprive the enemy of these control systems and so on". At the same time, the head of state recalled that we are talking, in particular, about cruise missiles, including ground-based ones, which Moscow once abandoned. "We abandoned them, cut them, and the Americans were smarter at that time," he continued. "But now we have them. And they are more modern and even more efficient," Putin said. In addition, the president pointed out, "it was supposed to deliver a preventive disarming strike with the help of hypersonic systems." "But so far they are not in the States, but we have them," he added. “If we are talking about this disarming strike, then maybe we should think about adopting the achievements of our American partners, their ideas for ensuring our own security?” Putin noted. “We are just thinking about it. when they talked about it aloud in previous times and years."
During a Russian Defense Ministry meeting on Wednesday, Shoigu proposed a number of measures to strengthen the security of the Russian Federation, including creating a special grouping of troops on the country’s northwestern border and expanding Russia’s armed forces to amount to 1.5 million servicemen in total, with some 695,000 of them being contract soldiers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1e_VG9NM4 Removing Liz Truss, Drug finding