The Russian economy, according to multiple news outlets, is near breaking point with the combination of the costs of the war and the existing sanctions starting to really bite. They need to be maintained, and if secondary tariffs against nations that have not imposed sanctions gets them onboard so that markets for Russian exports shrink further then that's only going to help. It should be noted that that will include a significant number of European nations, who are still dependent upon Russian gas even after three years of trying to change to other energy sources - the volume of gas purchased by European countries has reduced by only a few %, with European nations paying Russia more for gas than the support given to Ukraine.
Though, the Russian leadership will probably continue to produce munitions and draft larger portions of the workforce into the military despite the pain the Russian people experience from that, irrespective of sanctions.
I think more tariffs against Russia should be tried.
This does seem to be an instance where Trump's hammer may actually make contact with a nail rather than just making holes in the wall and smashing up the furniture.
Given that Trump is both very lazy and very stupid this was the likeliest outcome by a prohibitive margin. For those that believed Trump about this, if you're surprised by this after ten years of watching this guy, that's on you.
In this Podcast, Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart interview Sir Alex Younger, former head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (aka MI6).
As you might expect, it is a fascinating discussion across the board. The story of how Alex told his mother he was a spy is brilliant!
Relevant to our purposes here is his analysis of Ukraine:
The Time Stamp for the free version (in the link) is 37:35- 46:37. Sir Alex was asked about the prospects for Ukraine if the USA withdraws its support completely.
In short he says
1. This is quite a likely scenario - likely enough that Europe should be planning on the basis that this is what Trump is going to do
2. Russia cannot conquer Ukraine
3. Ukraine cannot without US support push Russia back
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
5. Without US support, the front line would not hold but Russia won't be able to complete its takeover of Ukraine - Russia will make gains but won't be able to consolidate them and
6. Russsia's expeditionary capability is decimated. It will be at least 5 years before they can directly attack anyone else.
7. Europe needs to stand up.
Now, this tallies with a lot of what I've said before, hence I may be guilty of confirmational bias. However, there is particular reasons which I explained as to why I see it this way. Here is someone with incredible insight to the geopolitics who's view of Russia is clear eyed but also it is clear that Russia has and is strategically failing.
The big wild card in these types of analysis is the question of how long Russia can keep up the current level of attrition, at least as far as equipment goes. Russia has re-tooled its economy for greater military production, but it's still falling short as shown by the fact that it needs to import artillery shells from North Korea and attack drones from Iran. The real unknown is when will the Soviet-era stockpiles run out? This is a hugely speculative question (and obviously the Russian government does not want to comment) but most experts expect that the last of the usable Soviet-era heavy equipment will be taken out of mothballs and deployed sometime this year or in early 2026. What happens to Russia's ability to make advances when the last of the Red Army tanks hit the front line, start suffering attrition, and can no longer be replaced in kind is unknown.
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
Their sea drones appear to be quite interesting. The Ukrainians have outfitted their sea drones to take down Russian aircraft. Story here.. What will they think of next?
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
Their sea drones appear to be quite interesting. The Ukrainians have outfitted their sea drones to take down Russian aircraft. Story here.. What will they think of next?
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
Their sea drones appear to be quite interesting. The Ukrainians have outfitted their sea drones to take down Russian aircraft. Story here.. What will they think of next?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
It's not just technological innovation, it's also doctrine. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have re-organized themselves since the beginning of the war and made Unmanned Systems Forces (a.k.a. drones) their own branch of the military. As far as I know they are the first large military to re-organize themselves this way.
And speaking of Ukrainian drone forces, there have apparently been some big happenings along those lines yesterday. Ukraine managed to simultaneously bomb four Russian military air bases, some of them very far from Ukraine. You can read the details here, though this is a developing story so initial reports will likely be wrong in some manner.
The operation seems to have involved driving trucks towing trailers with short-range drones in secret compartments which could then be launched when close enough to a Russian air base. Statements by the Ukrainians indicate that about forty large bombers were destroyed. These are not just the planes that are loaded with cruise missiles to murder Ukrainians in hospitals and apartment buildings, they're also the planes that can be loaded with nuclear weapons as part of Russia's overall strategic deterrence. Since Russia largely lacks the capability to manufacture these planes any more this seems fairly significant.
And speaking of Ukrainian drone forces, there have apparently been some big happenings along those lines yesterday. Ukraine managed to simultaneously bomb four Russian military air bases, some of them very far from Ukraine. You can read the details here, though this is a developing story so initial reports will likely be wrong in some manner.
The operation seems to have involved driving trucks towing trailers with short-range drones in secret compartments which could then be launched when close enough to a Russian air base. Statements by the Ukrainians indicate that about forty large bombers were destroyed. These are not just the planes that are loaded with cruise missiles to murder Ukrainians in hospitals and apartment buildings, they're also the planes that can be loaded with nuclear weapons as part of Russia's overall strategic deterrence. Since Russia largely lacks the capability to manufacture these planes any more this seems fairly significant.
It is surprising Ukraine was able to get the trailers across the border. Was there some collusion among the border guards? How could they have penetrated so far without being stopped? This could be the story of the year.
As you say, these are not just light, medium range bombers. These were part of the Russian Nuclear Security Forces. It is a significant degradation. i
Will it bring Russia to the table? Ukraine is sending a peace delegation to Istanbul. The ball is in Putin's court.
Will it bring Russia to the table? They are at the table and planned to be prior to this.
Do you mean will it make Russia capitulate? My money is on "no".
8 Tupolevs hit, 2 permanently disabled, it's a shock to the Russians for sure but it's more likely to make them madder. And more likely to improve their border security, IMO.
TU-120s and 160s are rolling off the line, so there's that as well. Put in an order for a few more 160s.
Will it bring Russia to the table? They are at the table and planned to be prior to this.
Is Russia "at the table" in any meaningful sense of the term? They claim to have prepared a cease fire memorandum for the current round of talks, but no one else has seen it. No the Ukrainians, not the Turks, and not the Americans. I'd say the real question is whether this motivates Russia to actually engage in good faith negotiation. Probably not, but that's a different question than just being "at the table", something Russia has theoretically been since 2022.
8 Tupolevs hit, 2 permanently disabled, it's a shock to the Russians for sure but it's more likely to make them madder. And more likely to improve their border security, IMO.
TU-120s and 160s are rolling off the line, so there's that as well. Put in an order for a few more 160s.
They're rolling off the line very slowly. At the current rate of production 8 Tupolovs (assuming this number is accurate, which it very well may not be) represents about three or four decades of production. It's not at all clear that Russia currently has the capacity to speed this process up.
They're rolling off the line very slowly. At the current rate of production 8 Tupolovs (assuming this number is accurate, which it very well may not be) represents about three or four decades of production. It's not at all clear that Russia currently has the capacity to speed this process up.
Well, you know what they say about necessity. We will see what happens next. I'm hoping it's not some kind of escalation. If the Russians find out this was planned and carried out by western powers, there may be literal hell to pay.
The TU-120 is a proposed aircraft design, nuclear powered and not even at a prototype stage. The Ukrainian reports don't mention hitting any of these.
The TU-160 is the last of the Soviet strategic bombers, much of the small Russian fleet of these was given to Russia by Ukraine. Production resumed on an updated version a few years ago, at present it appears only 2 of the planned 10 aircraft have been delivered.
The TU-22 (listed by Ukraine as among the aircraft damaged) ceased production in 1993, and Russia has less than 60 of these aircraft (with, even before this strike, less than half of those serviceable). The TU-95 also ceased production in 1993, with similar numbers in operation, but the aircraft is considered much more reliable than the TU-22. Both these aircraft types are known to have been used in bombing civilian areas in Ukraine (as well as Syria).
The TU-22, 95 and 160 aircraft have been maintained, and in most cases upgraded, but are effectively no long manufactured. Russia military strategy has been focussed on development and production of smaller aircraft, fighters and fighter bombers, rather than the strategic bombers capable of delivering large numbers if dumb bombs and nuclear weapons.
The aircraft destroyed in this strike are effectively irreplaceable, those damaged may not be repaired for many years. Whether this has any significant impact on the war, given that the strategic bombing of Mariupol was the only time the unique capabilities of these strategic bombers was utilised and it seems unlikely that this sort of bombing will be repeated, is a decent question - my expectation is that it won't, given the vastly increased use of drones and glide bombs, these type of aircraft are effectively obsolete (given that virtually no aircraft of this type have been built, by anyone, for decades suggests that I'm not alone in considering them obsolete). As a PR coup and morale boost, this attack was superb. I doubt it will change Russian government attitudes, but it may make western nations increase their support for Ukraine - a message to Trump that support for Ukraine isn't "backing a loser".
Whether this has any significant impact on the war, given that the strategic bombing of Mariupol was the only time the unique capabilities of these strategic bombers was utilised and it seems unlikely that this sort of bombing will be repeated, is a decent question - my expectation is that it won't, given the vastly increased use of drones and glide bombs, these type of aircraft are effectively obsolete (given that virtually no aircraft of this type have been built, by anyone, for decades suggests that I'm not alone in considering them obsolete).
I think the words "unique" and "strategic" are doing a lot of work in that assessment. While the unique strategic capabilities of these bombers has been infrequently used in the current conflict these planes have often been used for other things. Most notably launching cruise missiles into Ukraine. This is, of course, something that can be (and has been) accomplished by other platforms, but the sheer carrying capacity of strategic bombers far outstrips other airborne delivery systems. It's not a game-changer but I'd expect some battlefield consequences, both from the lost planes themselves and because Russia is likely going to be more cautious in its use of its remaining strategic bombers going forward.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20x7z36d56o
I think more tariffs against Russia should be tried.
Though, the Russian leadership will probably continue to produce munitions and draft larger portions of the workforce into the military despite the pain the Russian people experience from that, irrespective of sanctions.
This does seem to be an instance where Trump's hammer may actually make contact with a nail rather than just making holes in the wall and smashing up the furniture.
Indeed. Here's a historical refresher on what was promised. [ content warning: Donald Trump ]
Here's where we are now. [ content warning: Marco Rubio ]
Given that Trump is both very lazy and very stupid this was the likeliest outcome by a prohibitive margin. For those that believed Trump about this, if you're surprised by this after ten years of watching this guy, that's on you.
In this Podcast, Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart interview Sir Alex Younger, former head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (aka MI6).
As you might expect, it is a fascinating discussion across the board. The story of how Alex told his mother he was a spy is brilliant!
Relevant to our purposes here is his analysis of Ukraine:
The Time Stamp for the free version (in the link) is 37:35- 46:37. Sir Alex was asked about the prospects for Ukraine if the USA withdraws its support completely.
In short he says
1. This is quite a likely scenario - likely enough that Europe should be planning on the basis that this is what Trump is going to do
2. Russia cannot conquer Ukraine
3. Ukraine cannot without US support push Russia back
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
5. Without US support, the front line would not hold but Russia won't be able to complete its takeover of Ukraine - Russia will make gains but won't be able to consolidate them and
6. Russsia's expeditionary capability is decimated. It will be at least 5 years before they can directly attack anyone else.
7. Europe needs to stand up.
Now, this tallies with a lot of what I've said before, hence I may be guilty of confirmational bias. However, there is particular reasons which I explained as to why I see it this way. Here is someone with incredible insight to the geopolitics who's view of Russia is clear eyed but also it is clear that Russia has and is strategically failing.
AFZ
Their sea drones appear to be quite interesting. The Ukrainians have outfitted their sea drones to take down Russian aircraft. Story here.. What will they think of next?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
It's not just technological innovation, it's also doctrine. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have re-organized themselves since the beginning of the war and made Unmanned Systems Forces (a.k.a. drones) their own branch of the military. As far as I know they are the first large military to re-organize themselves this way.
The operation seems to have involved driving trucks towing trailers with short-range drones in secret compartments which could then be launched when close enough to a Russian air base. Statements by the Ukrainians indicate that about forty large bombers were destroyed. These are not just the planes that are loaded with cruise missiles to murder Ukrainians in hospitals and apartment buildings, they're also the planes that can be loaded with nuclear weapons as part of Russia's overall strategic deterrence. Since Russia largely lacks the capability to manufacture these planes any more this seems fairly significant.
It is surprising Ukraine was able to get the trailers across the border. Was there some collusion among the border guards? How could they have penetrated so far without being stopped? This could be the story of the year.
As you say, these are not just light, medium range bombers. These were part of the Russian Nuclear Security Forces. It is a significant degradation. i
Will it bring Russia to the table? Ukraine is sending a peace delegation to Istanbul. The ball is in Putin's court.
Do you mean will it make Russia capitulate? My money is on "no".
8 Tupolevs hit, 2 permanently disabled, it's a shock to the Russians for sure but it's more likely to make them madder. And more likely to improve their border security, IMO.
TU-120s and 160s are rolling off the line, so there's that as well. Put in an order for a few more 160s.
AFF
Is Russia "at the table" in any meaningful sense of the term? They claim to have prepared a cease fire memorandum for the current round of talks, but no one else has seen it. No the Ukrainians, not the Turks, and not the Americans. I'd say the real question is whether this motivates Russia to actually engage in good faith negotiation. Probably not, but that's a different question than just being "at the table", something Russia has theoretically been since 2022.
They're rolling off the line very slowly. At the current rate of production 8 Tupolovs (assuming this number is accurate, which it very well may not be) represents about three or four decades of production. It's not at all clear that Russia currently has the capacity to speed this process up.
Well, you know what they say about necessity. We will see what happens next. I'm hoping it's not some kind of escalation. If the Russians find out this was planned and carried out by western powers, there may be literal hell to pay.
AFF
The TU-160 is the last of the Soviet strategic bombers, much of the small Russian fleet of these was given to Russia by Ukraine. Production resumed on an updated version a few years ago, at present it appears only 2 of the planned 10 aircraft have been delivered.
The TU-22 (listed by Ukraine as among the aircraft damaged) ceased production in 1993, and Russia has less than 60 of these aircraft (with, even before this strike, less than half of those serviceable). The TU-95 also ceased production in 1993, with similar numbers in operation, but the aircraft is considered much more reliable than the TU-22. Both these aircraft types are known to have been used in bombing civilian areas in Ukraine (as well as Syria).
The TU-22, 95 and 160 aircraft have been maintained, and in most cases upgraded, but are effectively no long manufactured. Russia military strategy has been focussed on development and production of smaller aircraft, fighters and fighter bombers, rather than the strategic bombers capable of delivering large numbers if dumb bombs and nuclear weapons.
The aircraft destroyed in this strike are effectively irreplaceable, those damaged may not be repaired for many years. Whether this has any significant impact on the war, given that the strategic bombing of Mariupol was the only time the unique capabilities of these strategic bombers was utilised and it seems unlikely that this sort of bombing will be repeated, is a decent question - my expectation is that it won't, given the vastly increased use of drones and glide bombs, these type of aircraft are effectively obsolete (given that virtually no aircraft of this type have been built, by anyone, for decades suggests that I'm not alone in considering them obsolete). As a PR coup and morale boost, this attack was superb. I doubt it will change Russian government attitudes, but it may make western nations increase their support for Ukraine - a message to Trump that support for Ukraine isn't "backing a loser".
I think the words "unique" and "strategic" are doing a lot of work in that assessment. While the unique strategic capabilities of these bombers has been infrequently used in the current conflict these planes have often been used for other things. Most notably launching cruise missiles into Ukraine. This is, of course, something that can be (and has been) accomplished by other platforms, but the sheer carrying capacity of strategic bombers far outstrips other airborne delivery systems. It's not a game-changer but I'd expect some battlefield consequences, both from the lost planes themselves and because Russia is likely going to be more cautious in its use of its remaining strategic bombers going forward.