Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 05-14-2022

A pretty good thread on the failed river crossings and the impact on the RA.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1525252736757153792[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-14-2022

Looks like the tide may be turning.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-launches-counteroffensive-to-disrupt-russian-supply-lines-11652531731?st=pifejv3r7erlkzf&reflink=share_mobilewebshare

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-14-2022

Ukraine claims to have damaged another Russian ship.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-ship-idUSKCN2N00GV

Russia denies this, so it must be true.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-14-2022

(05-14-2022, 08:07 AM)BigJohn043 Wrote:  A pretty good thread on the failed river crossings and the impact on the RA.

https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1525252736757153792

Thanks, I learned a lot from that thread.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-14-2022

(05-14-2022, 07:22 AM)Goose Wrote:  Denmark has controlled access to the Baltic Sea for about 300 years, so I think NATO has had that capability for a while. During the cold war, Denmark could completely shut down access to the Baltic Sea (in or out) with mines in under 20 minutes. They practiced it regularly. This is above and beyond the fixed fortifications and the Danish Navy forces afloat.

Yeah, but it is always better to control both sides of a straight, and now you have Denmark and Sweden.  The Baltic is now a NATO lake.

Quote:For sure, although Sweden will bring some challenges. They have a fairly large military industrial complex that receives lots of direct state support. This will almost certainly continue and be a source of some strife. They also currently operate under a different set of "ITARS" that will require some jawboning to work out.

These days, adding a military industrial base would be a plus, I would think.  Given the speed that a regional war not involving NATO has chewed through NATO materiel, I would think that being able to add another military producer would be a positive, especially if a confrontation with Russia becomes a war of attrition.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-15-2022

(05-14-2022, 11:06 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Yeah, but it is always better to control both sides of a straight, and now you have Denmark and Sweden.  The Baltic is now a NATO lake.

There are three ways into the Baltic from the North Sea. Two of them are Danish on both sides. The third (Øresund Strait) is 4 km wide at Helsingør. Pretty clearly, nobody is going through that way if Denmark doesn't want them to. The main advantage of having Sweden in NATO is that Sweden presumably wouldn't be asserting it's rights of neutral passage. This would be a pain administratively and possibly diplomatically, but not militarily. Still, nice to have.

Quote:These days, adding a military industrial base would be a plus, I would think.  Given the speed that a regional war not involving NATO has chewed through NATO materiel, I would think that being able to add another military producer would be a positive, especially if a confrontation with Russia becomes a war of attrition.



BC

The industrial base can be of advantage in a "long" war, at least in theory. The assumption has been that any war involving article 5 would be a "come as you are war". Even the Ukraine situation is like that. The lead time for Stingers is over a year. The problem with Sweden will be that in the past they have gone their own way. They don't make F-16s, or even Typhoons. They make Gripens. The Swedes also make the Sea Giraffe, which is a competitor with the SPY-1/SPY-6. They are really, really good in this area and have been for years. https://www.wikifox.org/en/wiki/Giraffe_radar The Swedes make some very good, clever equipment that is used by NATO (and even the US) in many cases. https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2019/may/how-saabs-sea-giraffe-amb-was-selected-for-six-classes-of-u.s-ships. They also make some good stuff (not NATO standard) that gets sold to just about everybody. However, having them "inside the tent" can be a problem because many of these innovations are funded by the Swedish government in ways that are anti-competitive even by EU standards. They lose money hand over fist. Lots of the stuff they make wouldn't be made at all except for political choices. See Kockums for a textbook example.

This creates two problems. First, Sweden in many cases can only supply Swedish arms in quantities that work for Sweden and can be subsidized by their government. They can't make other nation's weapons and they generally can't make their own weapons in quantities/cost/schedule acceptable to other nations. They often make weapons specifically targeted to their military situation as they view it. NATO already has similar problems with other nations, particularly with the French. On "big ticket" items, Europe has often formed consortia that mitigate the issue. Sweden in the past has often simply decided to go it alone for their own reasons. European consortia often shed members for the same reasons. The Swedish government and military/industrial complex will need to adapt significantly to a different competitive environment within NATO.

The second problem is that Sweden is used to the idea it can sell to whomever it pleases on whatever terms it chooses. If you are making a "NATO Standard" item, that simply isn't allowed. You can build an "export version" which removes any NATO IP, but this can be a contentious issue at best and infeasible at worst. This is going to cost Sweden money and in some cases may force them to quit "going it alone". Export sales reduce the cost to the Swedish state and is often a practical necessity. If you can't sell it widely, maybe you can't build it. That would be a shame in that it would reduce innovation, but that is an inevitable byproduct of joining NATO.

I am not saying these problems can't be solved. These problems already exist within NATO and get worked out one way or another. However, the Swedes have a long history of doing it "their way" that is going to be hard to overcome. Speaking from experience I can tell you that they can be very hard-headed negotiators regarding military equipment. This is going to be a big issue going forward IMHO.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 05-15-2022

I think this also illustrates the problem with moving critical factories out of the countries within the treaty zone.  You can't suddenly go to war and be totally dependent on counties 1,000 of miles away for your critical chips, rare earth minerals and other items you have to have to make modern war materials.  Even worse when you are dependent on a possible opponent's country for stuff you need.  The amount of basic electronic stuff needed to field today's military must be staggering.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-15-2022

(05-15-2022, 10:58 AM)GK3 Wrote:  I think this also illustrates the problem with moving critical factories out of the countries within the treaty zone.  You can't suddenly go to war and be totally dependent on counties 1,000 of miles away for your critical chips, rare earth minerals and other items you have to have to make modern war materials.  Even worse when you are dependent on a possible opponent's country for stuff you need.  The amount of basic electronic stuff needed to field today's military must be staggering.

+1000. Even getting things from inside the treaty zone can be difficult as the nations involved limit exports to hedge against shortages. Another "hidden" problem is that materials that are not actually part of the final product but that are required to produce it come from outside the West. Sometimes these items are reagents or chemicals, sometimes they are tooling, like electric motors or CNC machines. The tooling is often critical when production needs to be increased rapidly, like in war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 05-15-2022

(05-15-2022, 11:37 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(05-15-2022, 10:58 AM)GK3 Wrote:  I think this also illustrates the problem with moving critical factories out of the countries within the treaty zone.  You can't suddenly go to war and be totally dependent on counties 1,000 of miles away for your critical chips, rare earth minerals and other items you have to have to make modern war materials.  Even worse when you are dependent on a possible opponent's country for stuff you need.  The amount of basic electronic stuff needed to field today's military must be staggering.

+1000. Even getting things from inside the treaty zone can be difficult as the nations involved limit exports to hedge against shortages. Another "hidden" problem is that materials that are not actually part of the final product but that are required to produce it come from outside the West. Sometimes these items are reagents or chemicals, sometimes they are tooling, like electric motors or CNC machines. The tooling is often critical when production needs to be increased rapidly, like in war.

Intel's commitment to bringing chip production back to the USA is important.  The number of new auto plants being built can be converted to other type of vehicle production far faster than building a new factory.  We have been terribly dependent on China for lithium but now seem to getting some significant production here at home, particularly if the last regulatory hurdles for LAC's proposed mine in Nevada.  It takes a lot of time and money to undo past mistakes, or miscalculations.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-15-2022

(05-15-2022, 01:18 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Intel's commitment to bringing chip production back to the USA is important.  The number of new auto plants being built can be converted to other type of vehicle production far faster than building a new factory.  We have been terribly dependent on China for lithium but now seem to getting some significant production here at home, particularly if the last regulatory hurdles for LAC's proposed mine in Nevada.  It takes a lot of time and money to undo past mistakes, or miscalculations.

Unfortunately in many cases time and money does not overcome geology. Lithium is actually pretty easy to come by, no supernova required. Even so, mining is an inherently dirty, messy, and pollution generating activity. Getting new mines opened that can operate profitably isn't easy and is always very price sensitive. A small price movement can open/close lots of mines. So can a change in allowed pollution levels of various sorts. Mining takes a large investment. Nobody wants to do that if next week the EPA may outlaw your process.

Rare earths are exactly that, and while there is a known source in the US (Mountain Pass mine), there are no other proven reserves in the US. Supposedly BHP has some things going in Elko county, but that has been rumored for years. Securing some sources that are reliable will be a trick, as demand is only increasing. Processing these ores is also very ecologically challenging. Australia is our best source going forward in terms of known deposits. Exploitation is not there yet however.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 05-15-2022

(05-15-2022, 01:37 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(05-15-2022, 01:18 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Intel's commitment to bringing chip production back to the USA is important.  The number of new auto plants being built can be converted to other type of vehicle production far faster than building a new factory.  We have been terribly dependent on China for lithium but now seem to getting some significant production here at home, particularly if the last regulatory hurdles for LAC's proposed mine in Nevada.  It takes a lot of time and money to undo past mistakes, or miscalculations.

Unfortunately in many cases time and money does not overcome geology. Lithium is actually pretty easy to come by, no supernova required. Even so, mining is an inherently dirty, messy, and pollution generating activity. Getting new mines opened that can operate profitably isn't easy and is always very price sensitive. A small price movement can open/close lots of mines. So can a change in allowed pollution levels of various sorts. Mining takes a large investment. Nobody wants to do that if next week the EPA may outlaw your process.

Rare earths are exactly that, and while there is a known source in the US (Mountain Pass mine), there are no other proven reserves in the US. Supposedly BHP has some things going in Elko county, but that has been rumored for years. Securing some sources that are reliable will be a trick, as demand is only increasing. Processing these ores is also very ecologically challenging. Australia is our best source going forward in terms of known deposits. Exploitation is not there yet however.

Thacker Pass mine is the largest known Lithium deposit in the USA and as I understand it they hope to start work there before the end of the year.  They also have proven reserves in the so-called Lithium Triangle in South America, mostly along the borders between Argentina and Chile.  There are also reports that the brine below the slowly drying Salton Sea potentially could produce 600,000j tons of Lithium Carbonate per year but that is a ways from happening, if it ever happens.  We are just playing catchup which isn't easy.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-15-2022

Hate to do this, but rare earth metals are not especially rare.

https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/mining/whats-so-rare-about-rare-earth-elements/

The problem is that they are typically not concentrated nor easy to extract, but the “rare” earths are pretty widely distributed in the Earth’s crust.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TreesAndBirds - 05-15-2022

WSJ article below discusses “friend-shoring”. Not being totally self reliant but rather focusing on only being dependent on countries you can trust. There are obviously pros and cons. Trading less with China will raise prices, and even friends will look out for themselves first, but the confluence of covid, Russia/Ukraine, increased Chinese nationalism/authoritarianism (and recollections of the Arab oil embargo from 50 years ago ) all point to the necessity of sacrificing some economic/trade benefits for security. I still believe that trading with adversaries is a positive, in part because you get to know each other better, but we have become too reliant.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nations-aim-to-secure-supply-chains-by-turning-offshoring-into-friend-shoring-11652612580

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-15-2022

(05-15-2022, 03:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Hate to do this, but rare earth metals are not especially rare.

https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/mining/whats-so-rare-about-rare-earth-elements/

The problem is that they are typically not concentrated nor easy to extract, but the “rare” earths are pretty widely distributed in the Earth’s crust.

BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust puts it all out there in numbers. The "rare earths" are indeed "rare" compared to say silicon or even iron. They are not rare compared to say selenium. This makes intuitive sense because elements up through iron are made by "normal" stars. However, given the mass of the earth's crust there is indeed plenty of these less common elements present in it. As your source correctly points out, finding them in commercially useful purity and quantity is the issue. Since purifying these elements is difficult, starting with a relatively high concentration is essential to feasible extraction.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-15-2022

I mean, Nickel is “rare” compared to silicon and iron; that’s not a useful comparison.  Moreover, the amount of material needed is orders of magnitude lower for rare earths.

https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/all-of-the-metals-one-visualization.html

Humanity mines 3 billion tons of iron ore a year.  production of all rare earth metals combined is 220,000 tons 15,000x less than iron.

Rare earth production is highly concentrated in China (85%) which is problematic, and a reason to diversify production.  But it’s not because it is only available in China, but because the Chinese subsidized mining and drove pretty much everyone else out of business.

I think if deep sea mining of poly metallic nodules can be commercialized, it should provide substantial amounts of rare earths, as well as a number of other industrially important metals.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-15-2022

Ukrainian army makes it to the Russian border (I assume north of Kharkiv)

[tweet]https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1525967632524091394?s=21&t=qKNiAUVJxJ4YpXjvAMpbVg[/tweet]

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/thestudyofwar/status/1525994936012783618?s=21&t=qKNiAUVJxJ4YpXjvAMpbVg[/tweet]

This is what happens when the operational objectives exceed the operational capabilities.

That being said, as Russia’s capabilities are a better match for their ambitions, the war may start to grind.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-15-2022

[tweet]https://twitter.com/lostweapons/status/1526019141957693440?s=21&t=qKNiAUVJxJ4YpXjvAMpbVg[/tweet]

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-15-2022

(05-15-2022, 06:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  That being said, as Russia’s capabilities are a better match for their ambitions, the war may start to grind.


BC

Indeed. For some reason, Russia just can't see clearly that they can't accomplish all their goals. I think most of us expected them to first concentrate on the Donbas and then possibly later try to expand their reach if/when that worked out. Instead, they tried to encircle the Ukrainian forces while advancing in the Donbas. They certainly appear to have failed on the former. Now the question is can they even do the latter after the losses created by overreach? Ukraine is also in much better shape militarily than they were a month ago. Russia didn't take the time to refit it's forces before committing them to battle on new fronts but also didn't move fast enough in the Donbas to prevent Ukraine getting stronger (from Western assistance) and having ample time to reposition their forces. Worst of both worlds.

https://english.nv.ua/amp/russian-invasion-of-ukraine-cit-expert-prognosis-ukraine-news-50241987.html has some interesting information. I find the comments about the fact the Russians were trying to re-enact their success of 1943 illuminating. They got roughly handled that time too, and as the author pointed out it was done by an enemy with relatively inaccurate artillery and no spotting drones. Indeed history at least rhymes. The comments about Snake island were also right to the point IMHO.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-15-2022

The difference is that in World War II, Russia was mobilized for total war, plus the Germans were fighting on multiple fronts, and their industrial base was being systematically dismantled. Russia is still pretending that this is a “special military operation”.

Ukraine is fighting for its survival and getting resupplied in real time.  A battle of attrition in 1943 favored the Russians.  Nearly 80 years later, it doesn’t.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-16-2022

(05-15-2022, 10:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  The difference is that in World War II, Russia was mobilized for total war, plus the Germans were fighting on multiple fronts, and their industrial base was being systematically dismantled. Russia is still pretending that this is a “special military operation”.

Ukraine is fighting for its survival and getting resupplied in real time.  A battle of attrition in 1943 favored the Russians.  Nearly 80 years later, it doesn’t.

BC

True. On top of that Ukraine has modern artillery that is much more accurate, somewhat longer range, and much more destructive. Back then even hitting a bridge would require lots more shelling. The longer range means that clearing the opposite bank is much harder as you have to sanitize much further from the bridgehead before you can even put in the bridge. The Russians couldn't/didn't even attempt to do that. Even more advantage to the guys on the Western bank of the river.

However, what I got from the article was that even 80 years ago Russia ran into heavy opposition and failed to cross the river on several attempts. They kept banging away, just like they did this time. They lost a division commander, which back then was a big deal, and the better part of their force. Even when they finally got a bridge across the river it was four months before the Russians were able to launch an effective offensive out of the bridgehead, during which time they also suffered massive losses. They should have known that best case the river crossing wasn't going to be easy and would be very costly. It appears the Russians did anticipate that more than one attempt would be needed, but the force they assembled just wasn't up to it. They should have known.

---