Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Doesn't UK support to Ukraine come from other budgets? Not the defence budget, but Special Reserves or International disaster or whatever? (Again, I don't know, but I'm not sure that looking at the defence budget and whether it's increased a bit or not actually tells us what we might think it does. What's inflation at. What are wage increases at? Would that say why equipment costs have gone up more than soldier's wages?

edit, sorry quoted the wrong post of yours.

I’m trying not to become a defence nerd! 

I’m sure you’ll be right and there’s been spending from all manner of budgets and not just straight MoD donations. But those anti tank things must have come from the MoD and must need replacing, no way have they come from the NHS or the Arts Council. I think recently they’ve changed the overseas aid budget to make that easier to direct at politically advantageous projects? Don’t know, that could be wrong.

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

40 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m not sure it shows what you appear to be saying it shows?

It fits my claim we’re spending more on equipment and less on personnel (I used the word boots). It says personnel costs down 3%, equipment costs up 12% used to be 6th biggest spending department, now its the 5th. Overall spending up 8.9% when other departments are being told there’s no money.

Personnel costs are down.  That's been the trend for years.  Better equipment with fewer people. 

But the graph is really simple.  When adjusted for inflation the latest spend available isn't anything special.  There was a peak in the early 80s when we had to replace the equipment and ammunition expended in the Falklands.  

I am not defending this government, their policies or their spending. 

In my opinion our folly was paying for 2 aircraft carriers.  We need 2 carriers like a fish needs a bicycle. 

[chrisp65]

7 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Personnel costs are down.  That's been the trend for years.  Better equipment with fewer people. 

But the graph is really simple.  When adjusted for inflation the latest spend available isn't anything special.  There was a peak in the early 80s when we had to replace the equipment and ammunition expended in the Falklands.  

I am not defending this government, their policies or their spending. 

In my opinion our folly was paying for 2 aircraft carriers.  We need 2 carriers like a fish needs a bicycle. 

You say the spend isn’t anything special, it’s 50% higher than the EU average. Its on an upward tick towards comparison with Cold War and Gulf war peaks.

But again your first line is kinda my point from the beginning, less boots but higher spend means they’re buying more kit, which suits the companies with acronyms to sell.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m not sure it shows what you appear to be saying it shows?

It fits my claim we’re spending more on equipment and less on personnel (I used the word boots). It says personnel costs down 3%, equipment costs up 12% used to be 6th biggest spending department, now its the 5th. Overall spending up 8.9% when other departments are being told there’s no money.

But your argument was that there’s a massive gain for the big mean defence lobbyists due to Ukraine, when the trend is far from it. We’ve donated some NLAWs, other countries have bought NLAWs off of us. It’s not really a big buck item. We’ve donated some old howitzers and some newer afvs. The tanks aren’t there yet.

Oil and gas are raking it in due to helping out in a situation where a dictator has tried to use said resource as a blackmail-chip. They’ve asked to be taxed more. It’s not like shell or bp made this war happen.

It’s just a very naive argument that the West is to blame for anything that is going on in Ukraine, it’s a drum that the stop the war cretins have been banging for a year now. No one takes it seriously.

Compared to what we spent in Afghanistan in any year we were there we’re not even close last year when it comes to Ukraine.

What’s the alternative to a meagre investment in Ukraine’s fight for freedom? A few billion extra for the NHS while Ukraine ceases to exist? What if the US took that stance with us in WW2?

Edited February 14, 2023 by magnkarl

[chrisp65]

24 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

But your argument was that there’s a massive gain for the big mean defence lobbyists due to Ukraine, when the trend is far from it. We’ve donated some NLAWs, other countries have bought NLAWs off of us. It’s not really a big buck item. We’ve donated some old howitzers and some newer afvs. The tanks aren’t there yet.

Oil and gas are raking it in due to helping out in a situation where a dictator has tried to use said resource as a blackmail-chip. They’ve asked to be taxed more. It’s not like shell or bp made this war happen.

It’s just a very naive argument that the West is to blame for anything that is going on in Ukraine, it’s a drum that the stop the war cretins have been banging for a year now. No one takes it seriously.

Compared to what we spent in Afghanistan in any year we were there we’re not even close last year when it comes to Ukraine.

What’s the alternative to a meagre investment in Ukraine’s fight for freedom? A few billion extra for the NHS while Ukraine ceases to exist? What if the US took that stance with us in WW2?

You consistently read words that aren’t there which causes you to infer meaning that isn’t there.

[LondonLax]

The high price of fossil fuels should help with the transition away from them in the West. Biden has offered the carrot with his subsidies package and Russia are the stick with the result on oil/gas prices. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by LondonLax

[magnkarl]

9 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

You consistently read words that aren’t there which causes you to infer meaning that isn’t there.

I consistently read articles, viewpoints and hints that this war is somehow the West's fault, and that we're prolonging it to make a buck because we're evil empire-seeking globalists. If that wasn't the intent of your post, which railed against the usual things that the same people rail against, then I apologise. The data isn't there to support the usual 'big defence lobby' argument that the usual suspects have put out since the start of this, and frankly it's a very naive stance to take when someone is committing genocide 3 hours East of us. Do you not think it'll cost us more than the little we've given so far in trying to home 30 million Ukrainians if Putin is allowed to do as he pleases in Ukraine and the West has to carry all of the refugees from there?

By chance, what was the motivation for your argument about costs and certain industries (like defense) then, if I may ask?

[blandy]

10 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

You say the spend isn’t anything special, it’s 50% higher than the EU average. Its on an upward tick towards comparison with Cold War and Gulf war peaks.

But again your first line is kinda my point from the beginning, less boots but higher spend means they’re buying more kit, which suits the companies with acronyms to sell.

Uk defence spending is at the minimum level NATO members are supposed to do, at 2% of GDP. Some EU NATO members fail to meet their NATO membership commitments. That’s not a sign of the Ukraine war being much to the liking and advantage of defence lobbyists. I really think using last year’s defence budget to extrapolate anything about Russia’s invasion and who might be quietly comfortable with it is a red herring.

If in future years we see massive increases in military budget spending (which we won’t do) then there could be an argument made as to who has benefited. More likely IMO is that priorities will be adjusted and the budget for defence will be spent differently but not change much in real terms.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

On 13/02/2023 at 19:43, blandy said:

It's doing better than ours! They're selling (at a discounted price, but still selling a load of it) oil and gas to India, China and so on. they're running a big deficit (so are many nations). Their GDP is predicted to change by between something like -1.5% (according to Russian economists) or grow by 1.5% (IMF prediction). It's not really tanked, because of the non-western nations carrying on trade, or filling the void (see India, China) and even the West continuing trade in some stuff. I mean it's not doing well, and sanctions and the costs of war are clearly taking a toll, but it's not terminal or anything.

I disagree,  I believe Russia's economy is almost dead.

• The below numbers are Russia own published numbers they prepared so I suspect the yare made to look a bit better than they actually are.
• The *585 for Jan-23 is the most interesting,  in February it will be around 50% less (At a guess I would say 220-270 max if they can get it out to customers) as this does not take into account of the Feb 5 sanctions on processed oil / gas products (EU used to buy 50% of their output,  this is now a hard 0%.
• The + 32% was because of the high process in Jan 22,  that is all gone for them now.
• At no point since Dec 5th have Russia sold any oil above the $60 mark,  none.
• The reduction in VAT will get worse as the inflation and drop in wages starts to hurt normal Russians.
• They can't go to any of the big companies anymore as they have already done a profit grab from them (Gazprom etc).  They will now get money from SME's,  basically just steal it if a company makes too much.
• They might need to bail out some banks soon enough as well so need some money for that I suspect.
• Feb-23 will be a lot worse than the Jan23 I know this for sure.  If the below was a balance sheet for a company it would be closed IMO.
• State procurements 1305 vs 249 YoY,    

A few more months like this is just not possible.

(In Rubles)

*Sorry, forgot something,   the numbers on the right are the Forecasts/ budgets for 20223 total I believe.

State procurements,  they have blown 26% of their yearly budget in one month for example.

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Amsterdam_Neil_D

[magnkarl]

27 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

I disagree,  I believe Russia's economy is almost dead.

• The below numbers are Russia own published numbers they prepared so I suspect the yare made to look a bit better than they actually are.
• The *585 for Jan-23 is the most interesting,  in February it will be around 50% less (At a guess I would say 220-270 max if they can get it out to customers) as this does not take into account of the Feb 5 sanctions on processed oil / gas products (EU used to buy 50% of their output,  this is now a hard 0%.
• The + 32% was because of the high process in Jan 22,  that is all gone for them now.
• At no point since Dec 5th have Russia sold any oil above the $60 mark,  none.
• The reduction in VAT will get worse as the inflation and drop in wages starts to hurt normal Russians.
• They can't go to any of the big companies anymore as they have already done a profit grab from them (Gazprom etc).  They will now get money from SME's,  basically just steal it if a company makes too much.
• They might need to bail out some banks soon enough as well so need some money for that I suspect.
• Feb-23 will be a lot worse than the Jan23 I know this for sure.  If the below was a balance sheet for a company it would be closed IMO.
• State procurements 1305 vs 249 YoY,    

A few more months like this is just not possible.

(In Rubles)

Agreed, but as with Nazi-Germany there is a window where a country can achieve moderate battlefield aims even if their economy is close to faltering. That window is likely from now on until about May, when Russia's debt defaults again and energy markets around the world require zero to no gas for heating.

Russian MOD has budgeted with around 134.000 dead or mortally wounded soldiers in 2023, which will be an extreme post in any budget. The economy (with a similar size to Spain's) won't be able to handle a war of this magnitude for much longer. They could cut the soldier pay or payment to dead soldier's families, but that'd likely end in the military revolting. Putin has essentially put himself into check mate, no way out, no way forward, and the West is still just in first gear. We've given Ukraine old equipment, short range versions of our gmlrs and old tanks from the 70's plus some modern afv's\apc's and few modern artillery systems, and it's been enough to essentially grind down the world's second military.

Edited February 15, 2023 by magnkarl

[sidcow]

They've also suffered a massive brain and brawn drain with tens of thousands of fighting age young males fleeing the country. That's going to hurt them short but especially long term too. 

I suspect many won't return as well once they've established a new life somewhere else where secret police aren't watching their every move and their life isn't dominated by offering bribes all the time. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

That's going to hurt them short but especially long term too. 

The demographics for Russia are amazing.  Compared to women there are hardly any men above the age of 70 in Russia.  No males get to 95 at all for example.  None.

Ultimately this is what will finish them hopefully as this is unstoppable and baked in.

 

 

[bickster]

55 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

No males get to 95 at all for example.  None.

They get traded in for Ladas with no ABS

[villa89]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

and it's been enough to essentially grind down the world's second military.

I'd say China was the world's second biggest military power before this war in Ukraine started but it's a moot point.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

But those anti tank things must have come from the MoD and must need replacing, no way have they come from the NHS or the Arts Council.

Just going back to my initial thought about budgets and why I posted it. It's this: I was thinking "OK, so we send anti-tank thingies to Ukraine, but we also send ambulances, medical stuff, food, clothing, all kinds. So (I don't know) how it's accounted for - does the bandages and drugs and and whatnot come from the NHS budget? Seems unlikely, so if that's right, then why would the anti-tank thingies come from the MoD Defence budget?". Now obviously it's funded from somewhere, so perhaps it's a "special reserves" type of expenditure? That thought was prompted by reading the link you posted that talked about MoD annual budget last year and saying it had leap-frogged HMRC - because the HMRC budget fell hugely, due to the ending of special measures taken to support SMEs etc during Covid - so it was (for HMRC) a one off year, the year before the figures you pointed at.

Another thing is that someone (maybe you) mentioned defence lobbyists, and I said "they can't be doing that well because long term defence budgets have fallen a long way over the last decades" - so it was my fault that Defence budgets got raised, perhaps, but I was trying to make a point about lobbying not being as effective as people might think. Where my argument lacks is that in the current situation, if as I suspect, the budget for helping Ukraine isn't coming from the MoD pot, but from elsewhere, we simply don't know how much defence companies are benefitting from that supplying of kit. And we don't know, at the surface level which ones are. Again, if all the Javelins and Manpads are (as is likely) taken from the Army's stocks and shipped over, until they are replaced in Army stocks, then no-one (apart from Ukraine) has benefitted. Same with giving them old tanks or whatever - if it's just a case of essentially getting rid of old stock that we were never going to use and were paying to store in a warehouse somewhere, then there's no gain for the arms industry. The flip side is that we might decide to spend loads more money on new or replacement weapons and systems and so, obviously the Arms industries will benefit from that extra business, because of the threat posed by Russia (and China and Iran and ...).

Like you, if I was a betting man... But equally knowing the Tories and knowing the financial situation in the Country, I suspect that any increase (especially given the effects of inflation on costs) will be minimal if that, in real terms. And then you're into "well, OK, it might have fallen in real terms, but other budgets have fallen by more and if it wasn't for the lobbyists Defence would have fallen further..." kind of territory. Which would kind of ignore all the Pharma lobbying and so on, but anyway.

Or to sum up, we don't know which budget(s) the aid to Ukraine is coming from, we don't yet know if Defence companies are going to be raking in huge profits from it, or if they will continue to have a "difficult market" in the UK.

It's complicated.

[blandy]

12 hours ago, magnkarl said:

our argument was that there’s a massive gain for the big mean defence lobbyists due to Ukraine, when the trend is far from it.

Just on this, I did a yahoogle

One example

Quote

Financial performance measures derived from IFRS

• Revenue increased by 4.3% to £9.7bn.
• Operating profit decreased by 21.1% to £1,028m.

Now, as we've said, it's complicated - Covid costs and all the rest of it. Inflation, too. But that's the UK's biggest defence company, and their profits went down by a lot last year. So another reason to maybe question this point about Defence lobbying wanting to sustain the conflict and the use of a single years (incomplete) figures to support much of an argument at all.

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's complicated.

A proper work day so not much time to do lengthy response, but I am reading!

Yes, it’s complicated and yes I think we’ve both agreed its very unlikely to be a pure exercise in pushing money and kit from MoD, it’ll be far more nuanced than that. I’d expect an awful lot of stuff is ‘on loan’ so not showing up in figures. We still have the ‘x’ kit, it’s just sat in Kiev instead of Basingstoke.

But as was mentioned by someone in NATO a day or two back, they are using ammunition faster than we are producing it. So we do have factories churning out ‘stuff’. How much of ours will be replaced, don’t know, but the machine is awake and churning out bullets. They ain’t being supplied at a loss to those private companies.

 

[Anthony]

Another side effect of sending all this kit to Ukraine, possibly negligible in financial terms, in addition to what Blandy said, that we don't have to pay to store/maintain this stuff any more, is when it comes to new kit there is no debate to be had about whether we upgrade existing stuff, or get ourselves brand new models. In any organisation there are huge debates, projections, cost benefit analysis rounds on whether we make do or invest in new stuff. We now don't have that issue, as all the old stock has been used. There will still be the debate about whether to procure upgraded models v new models, but again, we don't have to worry about compatibility with older kit, as the older stuff has been used up in Ukraine.

[bickster]

 

[sidcow]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

Just going back to my initial thought about budgets and why I posted it. It's this: I was thinking "OK, so we send anti-tank thingies to Ukraine, but we also send ambulances, medical stuff, food, clothing, all kinds. So (I don't know) how it's accounted for - does the bandages and drugs and and whatnot come from the NHS budget? Seems unlikely, so if that's right, then why would the anti-tank thingies come from the MoD Defence budget?". Now obviously it's funded from somewhere, so perhaps it's a "special reserves" type of expenditure? That thought was prompted by reading the link you posted that talked about MoD annual budget last year and saying it had leap-frogged HMRC - because the HMRC budget fell hugely, due to the ending of special measures taken to support SMEs etc during Covid - so it was (for HMRC) a one off year, the year before the figures you pointed at.

Another thing is that someone (maybe you) mentioned defence lobbyists, and I said "they can't be doing that well because long term defence budgets have fallen a long way over the last decades" - so it was my fault that Defence budgets got raised, perhaps, but I was trying to make a point about lobbying not being as effective as people might think. Where my argument lacks is that in the current situation, if as I suspect, the budget for helping Ukraine isn't coming from the MoD pot, but from elsewhere, we simply don't know how much defence companies are benefitting from that supplying of kit. And we don't know, at the surface level which ones are. Again, if all the Javelins and Manpads are (as is likely) taken from the Army's stocks and shipped over, until they are replaced in Army stocks, then no-one (apart from Ukraine) has benefitted. Same with giving them old tanks or whatever - if it's just a case of essentially getting rid of old stock that we were never going to use and were paying to store in a warehouse somewhere, then there's no gain for the arms industry. The flip side is that we might decide to spend loads more money on new or replacement weapons and systems and so, obviously the Arms industries will benefit from that extra business, because of the threat posed by Russia (and China and Iran and ...).

Like you, if I was a betting man... But equally knowing the Tories and knowing the financial situation in the Country, I suspect that any increase (especially given the effects of inflation on costs) will be minimal if that, in real terms. And then you're into "well, OK, it might have fallen in real terms, but other budgets have fallen by more and if it wasn't for the lobbyists Defence would have fallen further..." kind of territory. Which would kind of ignore all the Pharma lobbying and so on, but anyway.

Or to sum up, we don't know which budget(s) the aid to Ukraine is coming from, we don't yet know if Defence companies are going to be raking in huge profits from it, or if they will continue to have a "difficult market" in the UK.

It's complicated.

I wouldn't be at all suprised if we convert a few more Challenger 2's into Challenger 3's than was originally planned, but that's not a super huge ticket project anyway in the scheme of things. 

I suspect additional manpower ends up eating as much extra budget as the capital investment. 30 extra tank conversions may take a couple extra million quid but then you need to presumably maintain 30 extra tank crews for the lifetime of the tank. 

It's a known fact that we haven't got for example enough sailors to man existing Navy Ships let alone any extra ships we might decide to invest in. 

The savaging of personnel numbers has been a real big part of the cuts in recent years.  

Edited February 15, 2023 by sidcow