Ukraine reacts to fears of Russian invasion as troops build up at the border

[EnterpriseSovereign]

SpaceX admits blocking Ukrainian troops from using satellite technology

By Alex Marquardt and Kristin Fisher, CNN
Published 9:26 AM EST, Thu February 9, 2023

The president of SpaceX revealed the company has taken active steps to prevent Ukrainian forces from using the critical Starlink satellite technology with Ukrainian drones that are a key component of their fight against Russia.

“There are things that we can do to limit their ability to do that,” Gwynne Shotwell told reporters on Wednesday, referencing reports on Starlink and drone use. “There are things that we can do, and have done.”

Starlink was never meant to be used militarily in the way that it has, Shotwell argued, saying the company didn’t foresee how profoundly – and creatively – Ukrainian forces would rely on the technology.

“It was never intended to be weaponized,” Shotwell told an audience at a space conference. “However, Ukrainians have leveraged it in ways that were unintentional and not part of any agreement.”

Shotwell’s admission that SpaceX, which was founded by Elon Musk, has prevented Ukrainian soldiers from fully using the technology confirms the long-standing belief that Musk and the company are uneasy with Ukraine’s military use of Starlink.

Speaking with reporters after, Shotwell argued that Starlink had sent units to Ukraine to “keep the banks going, hospitals, keep families connected.”

“We know the military is using them for comms, and that’s OK,” Shotwell added. “But our intent was never to have them use it for offensive purposes.”

Last October, Musk angered Ukrainians, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, for proposing a peace plan on Twitter that argued Ukraine just give up efforts to reclaim Crimea and cede control of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

That same month, there were reports that the Starlink signal had been restricted and was not available past the front line as Ukrainian troops tried to advance, essentially hamstringing their efforts to retake territory from the Russians. Those reports of the outages fueled accusations that Musk was kowtowing to Russia.

“That has affected every effort of the Ukrainians to push past that front,” a person familiar with the outages told CNN in October. “Starlink is the main way units on the battlefield have to communicate.”

Ukrainian troops have roundly praised Starlink as a game-changing piece of satellite technology that has not only allowed them to maintain communications, but also better target Russian forces with artillery and drones.

After Musk received Ukrainian – and global – praise for quickly delivering Starlink capabilities to Ukraine, CNN obtained exclusive documents showing that SpaceX was trying to get the Pentagon to start paying for thousands of terminals, along with their expensive connectivity, for Ukraine’s military and intelligence services. Thousands of units had also quietly been purchased by third countries for Ukraine.

One senior defense official told CNN that SpaceX had “the gall to look like heroes” while having others pay so much.

Musk responded quickly to CNN’s report, tweeting, “The hell with it…we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free.”

However, SpaceX and the Pentagon had continued discussions about a possible deal for military units, according to people familiar with the conversations. On Wednesday, Shotwell indicated at least part of those conversations had ended.

“I was the one that asked the Pentagon to fund, this was not an Elon thing,” Shotwell said on Wednesday. “We stopped interacting with the Pentagon on the existing capability. They are not paying.”

SpaceX had never envisioned that Starlink would be used in Ukraine the way it has been, Shotwell said, echoing coverage and accounts of Ukrainian troops’ ingenuity on the battlefield.

“Honestly,” she said, “I don’t even think we thought about it. You know, it could be used that way? We didn’t think about it. I didn’t think about it. Our Starlink team may have, I don’t know. But we’ve learned pretty quickly.”

SpaceX has decided to be the kind of ISP that blocks legal activity that they don't like. They have picked their side in this war.

Apparently they're worried that Russia might decide to attack the satellites they're using.

[bilateralrope]

Apparently they're worried that Russia might decide to attack the satellites they're using.

If that's what worries them, why let them be used for military communications ?

Also, lets not forget Musk's "peace plan".

[LadyTevar]

As to the Manpower problem -- what's the chance Wagner/Russia resorts to press-ganging the prisoners who won't sign up? It's a more extreme form of Draft, which Russia will probably have to resort to. Russia should close all borders first or they'll get a repeat of last time; hundreds of young men running away.

You had to jinx it, right?

Latest reports are that prisoners are going to get slammed with "revised sentences", adding 10-20 years to their tab...

Of course, if they sign up, that'll all go away...

Welcome to the Press Gang.
For what it's worth, I'm sorry I was right.

[LadyTevar]

SpaceX has decided to be the kind of ISP that blocks legal activity that they don't like. They have picked their side in this war.

Apparently they're worried that Russia might decide to attack the satellites they're using.

My question is "Does Russia have the ability to shut down the satellites"?

Either way SpaceX has picked a side, and it isn't the right one.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

SpaceX has decided to be the kind of ISP that blocks legal activity that they don't like. They have picked their side in this war.

Apparently they're worried that Russia might decide to attack the satellites they're using.

My question is "Does Russia have the ability to shut down the satellites"?

Either way SpaceX has picked a side, and it isn't the right one.

In theory, they have the ability to shoot down the satellites via the A-235 PL-19 Nudol.

[Lord Revan]

SpaceX has decided to be the kind of ISP that blocks legal activity that they don't like. They have picked their side in this war.

Apparently they're worried that Russia might decide to attack the satellites they're using.

My question is "Does Russia have the ability to shut down the satellites"?

Either way SpaceX has picked a side, and it isn't the right one.

Well I'd say it's a complex question that can be break into 3 questions, "Does Russia theoretically have the ability to shut down the satellites, do they they have that ability in practice and does Space X know this?"

After all if Russia have theoretically have the ability to shut down satellites and Space X thinks they practically have the ability, it's less malicious then if Space X knows Russia doesn't have the ability (either at all or practically) and still is using this excuse.

Either way Space X has revealed their side (they're an Elon Musk founded company so they chose it ages ago).

[Highlord Laan]

Apparently they're worried that Russia might decide to attack the satellites they're using.

My question is "Does Russia have the ability to shut down the satellites"?

Either way SpaceX has picked a side, and it isn't the right one.

In theory, they have the ability to shoot down the satellites via the A-235 PL-19 Nudol.

The moment Putin targets a satellite in operational orbit is the moment the US destroys every ruzzian asset in orbit. In short, it would be a declaration of open war on the entire planet.

I fucking dare the little shit to be that stupid.

[Broomstick]

I'd really rather not. My relatives' tales of the WWII years were scary enough, I don't want to see a global conflict because I'm sure the next one will be full of new horrors and suffering.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Meanwhile SpaceX might as well up sticks and move to Russia, pretty soon that'll be the only place they'll be able to do business once word of this gets out.

[bilateralrope]

Apparently they're worried that Russia might decide to attack the satellites they're using.

My question is "Does Russia have the ability to shut down the satellites"?

Either way SpaceX has picked a side, and it isn't the right one.

In theory, they have the ability to shoot down the satellites via the A-235 PL-19 Nudol.

How quickly can they shoot them down compared to how quickly SpaceX is sending them up ?

[KraytKing]

You haven't missed much analysis, just fat chewing and schadenfreude as the news trickles in.

I think your analysis is too kind to Russia.
The demographics are harsh: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

The median age is 40.3 years. There's a huge squeeze on population numbers between 16 and 40. Compared to the relatively youthful USA, Russia simply has half the number of people of fighting age you'd expect for the population. That small population is also busy supporting and caring for the relatively large elderly population, and the unusually large addict/Ill/not-working population, so you can call up far less of them then you might expect before other problems cascade through the economy.

Well, that's the thing. A quick look at Wikipedia says they have sixty million men and women fit for combat service. I don't know what their position on women serving is off the top of my head, but they're assholes so let's assume it's not progressive. Then assume that they need two thirds of those men to stay behind or the economy folds too fast to maintain a war, and then assume that Wikipedia was off by double. That leaves five million. We could cut that number in half again and go with the highest Russian casualty estimates and it would still be enough to keep the fight going for another four years at the most optimistic loss rates. Enough to outlast Ukraine? Probably not, certainly not in manpower terms. But way, way more grim than most of the news seems to think.

And the attrition is another factor that is not really in Russia's favour. Over the course of the war, we've seen steady downgrading from blitzkrieg elite to boneyard junkers and ww1 attritional tactics. We have not seen that in the Ukrainian forces, who are fighting with steadily better and better equipment. Russia simply cannot match the production and logistics of NATO, especially when all the factories are located outside of Ukraine and cannot be touched by Russia. Long slow warfare does not play into Russia's interests.

They can outproduce NATO in some key areas, though, and just because NATO can produce it doesn't mean it will get sent. For the former, see shell production. Ten times the US number, and the US is leading the pack. Does that mean there is no way Ukrainian allies can keep up the supply? No. There are other producers of shells out there to buy from. South Korea has an incredibly artillery-heavy army. But it does make it harder, and more of a political issue. For the latter, see tank production. NATO has WAY more tanks than they are sending. Russia can beat the rate of "150 MBTs per year" if that's all it pans out to be. I would estimate they can beat it even if you add in the 600 or so old Soviet tanks sent by the ex-Warsaw Pact. Not new tanks, mind you, but modernizing or at least making operational all of the old ones, which are good enough to fight. Point being, they can keep up a long slow war for a long fucking time.

Finally, you said Russia really wants to win. I dispute that. Admittedly, using the same logic that had me confident they wouldn't invade, but surely some of the elite want to maintain their position and have access to reasonably accurate info?
If the Russian population really wanted to win, the army wouldnt be relying on the draft.
For the Ukrainian's, it is an existential war. Like Vietnam, it's not about winning, it's about not wanting to loose harder.

Manifold markets currently has:
War to last more than another year 70%
Russia to still control Crimea at end of year 81%
Kerch Strait bridge destroyed again by may 02 45%
Ukraine to eventually win 70%
Russia federation fragments by 2030 30%

Yeah, no contest there. I didn't mean anything contradictory--only that the Russian strategic planners are likely at least as aware of the situation as we are, and are rapidly making plans to avert their own defeat. If they can see the spreadsheets that say "we run out of manpower HERE" then they're gonna do something about that. They might not win, but they're going to try, actively.

Russia has sold gold from their reserves to balace their budget... First time, ever - while revenue is down 30%, expenses up 60% and productive population (tax and actal work) is running away (0.5 to 1 million estimated) or getting fed into ukraine (130k dead, 400k or so crippled). Not a good outlook for the economy.

Factory building replacment sections for the Kerch bridge got burnt down, so that one will take much longer to be repaired (it was the original builder factory, so most likely all tooling and docu was lost)

Yeah, not looking good for them.

Selling reserves is what reserves are for. It sucks, for sure, but it doesn't mean their economy is collapsing tomorrow. They have a big fucking economy, and they built up a SHIT load of foreign exchange before the war kicked off. They can last a while, multiple years I would expect, on fumes. Their economy will plunge into a dark age afterwards, of course, or maybe in the middle--but even then, they can keep the death going for years longer if they choose.

Kerch bridge details are new to me. A Ukrainian offensive to cut the land connection seems even more likely, if what you say is accurate. Reclaiming Crimea might be possible after all, lol.

Additionally Wagner went back to the prisions and word has come back that only like 15% of the first round survived their tour. Nobody wants to sign up, anymore.

Right now, Russia is doing human wave tactics due to lack of training - even with a few months of training, soldiers can pretty much only be used in an ON/OFF manner - complicated things need way more experience. So they can only tell them to attack or not.
Ukrainians simply shoot as many as possible, and then are commanded to fall back to the next save position, preserving manpower and trading space for it. In the last 6 weeks, russia traded 30k dead (and easily 100k wounded) for a few square miles in advance - if they keep doing that, they will capture the DONBAS (not Ukraine) in about 5 years, losing a couple million men.

Same for the artillery - even russians say that these days, you should always call a russian artillery strike on your own position to get support - if they aim for you, you will be the only one safe in the area. Russian artillery fires because they need to report that they fired a lot of shells, and show levelled cities as "results.
Ukrainian artillery fires and hits their target. So while the russians are still firing 5 times as many shells as the ukrainians, the ukrainians are hitting 5x more targets, with less ammo. And they are continously hitting russian ammo dumps and concentrations, while russians only occasionally hit an unlucky bloke.

Right now, the war of attrittion looks bad for Russia, and will get worse with the next delivery - hat's why they desperately want to start a new operation right now, while the ground is still frozen, even though they are not ready. Because in a few weeks, everything gets bogged down in mud till the end of April, and by then the UA will have most of the equipment delivered to start their offensive.

So right now, russia tries to desperately push while UA is at it's weakest for the near future, Russia still has something left (pulling stuff and manpower together for an offensive is exactly what gets all the HIMARS to your yard), and push for a better position - read: trying to get the frontline to align with some river as a natural protection against being overrun.

Only chance they have - because while (unlike russia, who simple never manages) Ukraine CAN do attacks over a water body, it still means you can hold these frontlines with little effort, freeing up manpower for the areas where the new NATO stuff will have to attack...

Yeah, not much contest. I would only point out, as I basically did above, that if Russia wants to trade three million Russian lives and four more years of fighting for all of Donbass, then they have that ability. It would ruin their country as a functioning state and economy, but that's what everyone said about them invading at all a year ago this time. All bets are off now.

Also, this new mobilization worries me more and more the longer I spend thinking about it.

As to the Manpower problem -- what's the chance Wagner/Russia resorts to press-ganging the prisoners who won't sign up? It's a more extreme form of Draft, which Russia will probably have to resort to. Russia should close all borders first or they'll get a repeat of last time; hundreds of young men running away.

IF Wagner/Russia starts doing that, they'll probably find those prisoners turning their weapons against Wagner the first chance they get.

The prisoners have to know that it's a death sentence now. So, if you have a choice of 'march into the Ukraine to be slaughtered' vs 'you and 20 friends shot the bastard Wagner put in charge of you and desert and probably survive', which are you going to take?

We have some idea of what a draft does to morale. It leads to statistics like 400,000 desertions and 1,000 attempted fraggings in ten-ish years in Vietnam. I don't see much distinction between drafting and press-ganging, just branding, but I expect the results will be much, much worse for the Russians given their reliance on prisoners, not known for their discipline.

Here's my standing on the new army. Back in September, when the mobilization was announced, everyone knew that they were shit. Photos and videos from the training grounds seemed to confirm that the Russians had butchered their training corps to send them to the front. Men were receiving days of training and then shipping off to the front. At the time, everyone waited for the next big Russian or Ukrainian offensive to chew them up. Nothing to worry about, they said. Untrained troops will just get killed or captured if they face serious combat, and then Russia will REALLY be out of manpower.

But then, nobody attacked. Bakhmut and the surrounding villages has been the only active front since mobilization. The ground never froze, and both sides were content to just sit and wait. In that time, the Russian troops trained. Why else would they sit still and wait for more Western support to arrive? They already had the habit of training troops in their BTGs well before the war, and I will facetiously point out that all their drill sergeants are in those same BTGs. Wagner was willing to maintain pressure at Bakhmut using their existing manpower and untrained conscripts, which kept the front from going TOTALLY quiet and everyone wondering what was going on.

We have reason to fear. This winter and spring will be a long one. The Russian is likely worse trained and equipped than he was a year ago, but he has learned what works and what doesn't. There won't be any ridiculous thunder runs to bleed off ridiculous amounts of manpower and equipment while sacrificing strategic initiative. They're going to pull a repeat of the tactics that won them most of the Donbass and are about to secure Bakhmut. Only this time, they have triple the manpower available to ensure they can keep up the offensive pace, and prevent the Ukrainians from pulling any rapid encirclements.

To be clear, I don't think that Russia will win this war. Even with the reinforcements, they are at 50-70% of the Ukrainian frontline manpower. This offensive isn't going to drive to Kyiv, it might not even secure Kramatorsk. But it will be bloody. Both sides are going to lose men and equipment, likely faster than they ever have during the war. Ukraine has the precision artillery to make the Russians hurt, but it's possible that Putin isn't entirely talk and the fighter jets come back out for this one. While air defenses will cost them dearly, planes are still going to be brutally effective at hunting down that precision artillery, and they have the equipment reserves to take losses for a while.

I hope I'm wrong. But I expect that late spring and summer are going to be times of rebuilding, and the next big round of jaw-dropping offensives will depend heavily on the west ponying up with quite a bit more heavy equipment than they are currently providing.

[madd0c0t0r2]

For the Kersch Bridge deck factory thing from LaCroix,

as a bridge engineer, I note that producing a replacement decks at a wartime mobilisation level is pretty trivial. Bridges are hard to build so that they are reliable for decades. Military bridges are hard to design so they are light enough to be portable and adapt to any situation. Neither applies here.

It'll take 14 days for the concrete to harden enough to move it, but you could produce something 'good enough' for a few years using plywood formwork, regular concrete mixers (with a LOT of cement) and temporary winch based pretension anchors socketed into wharehouse foundation with kentledge to hold them down. Hell, you could probably weld up steel truss girders within about 4 days, or just lift a bridge deck that's already in use and the right span (~ 7 days to get lifting equipment to it, and maybe 3 days to transport it to Kersch, unless you sacrifice 1 of the 2 road decks on the bridge and use one to keep replacing the other to keep it partially open).

TLDR: loss of the factory is a minor setback in bridge repair terms.

Repairs to the piers are much harder, but a steel collar or jacket with through bolts can cover a multitude of sins. Carbon fiber wrap is now in mainstream use, but curing the glue in outdoor winter there would be difficult.

[LaCroix]

True. For road bridges.

But the factory was producing parts for the steel bridge the railway is operating on. While the rest of Kerch bridge is usable, for "light trucks", already, the railway bridge (needed to be rated for military load) is still cut, and that factory was producing a replacement for the damaged section.

And since Russia moves their mil logistica 95% by train, it is effectively cut and now will remain until they get somewhere else going on that project.

[madd0c0t0r2]

True. For road bridges.

But the factory was producing parts for the steel bridge the railway is operating on. While the rest of Kerch bridge is usable, for "light trucks", already, the railway bridge (needed to be rated for military load) is still cut, and that factory was producing a replacement for the damaged section.

And since Russia moves their mil logistica 95% by train, it is effectively cut and now will remain until they get somewhere else going on that project.

My understanding was that the railway was operating, and it was one of the two road decks that was cut? The railway was attacked and a train set on fire, but resumed operation within 48 hours?

[LaCroix]

Only one train track is operational, but still restricted to light loads.

In general, it took until late Okober 22 for the damaged road sections to be removed, according to spy satellite pictures.
It is believed that most of the road section was repaired by the end of december 2022.

Works to replace 3 or 4 spans of the rail bridge were underway and were supposed to take till June, then later September 2023, but these dates are now up to speculation, again, since the supposed production site for the spans have gone up in smoke.

[LaCroix]

You may remember that UA mentioned that they knew that the Russian offensive would start on the 10th, in Luhansk/Donetsk.

In a brilliant, Zhukovskian strategic masterstroke, Russia used that leaked intel about their leaked intel, and started their offensive... on the 10th, in Luhansk/Donetsk...

Since the last weeks frantic tries to open a breach, anywhere, and to force the Ukrainians to (over)commit their reserves all failed, they used a brilliant maneuvre, and simply attacked on all fronts, just as they did yesterday.

Pretty much everything ran into a wall, especially in the south, about ten tanks , cleverly advancing slowly in a line formation into a well-known Ukrainian minefield, under Ukranian fire control, were lost.

In the north of Bachmut, Russia managed to storm a forward defense positon on a hill west of Blahodatne, claiming the UA forces ran away as they had no ammo.
This is partially true, as the forces ther had run out of ammo in that target rich environment, and instead of being encircled by the advancing horde, retreated back to the next defense line.

So the Russians advanced into a well-known and mapped position on an isolated hill, and stopped right there - as the 3 biggest surrounding defence lines were on even higher hills, and seperated by a valley between all vectors of further advance. So the russians would have to move down a hill in plain view and fire control of 3 forces, cross a valley and then advance uphill into the next position.
For some reason they stopped their "breakthrough" right there...

While Russia theoretically has 300k troops, about 2-3k tanks and other vehicles, 2k artillery, and a handful hundred air assets (fxed and rotary) available for this operation, they only seem to use about 30-40k right now.

Starting an offensive by only employing 10% of your forces against an entrenched, static frontline seems a bold move, and has me thinking that perhaps this is the operational maximum that Russia can field right now in a single offensive. Since they are still unable to keep their storage facilities of all types closer than 90km from the front not getting hi-marsed, it is very much possible that the need to spread supply out in smaller, less critical dumps and the necessary high number of vehicles and routes to keep supply flowing is putting a cap on their offensive capabilities.

Offensives use a lot of stuff, and using 40k troops with enough ammo and heavy weapon cover vs 300k with a single magazine, each, walking in a long line along the entire front into enemy machine-guns, with an occasional friendly artillery shell flying roughly towards the enemy might be a decision even a russian general can derive the correct answer to.

[LadyTevar]

You may remember that UA mentioned that they knew that the Russian offensive would start on the 10th, in Luhansk/Donetsk.

In a brilliant, Zhukovskian strategic masterstroke, Russia used that leaked intel about their leaked intel, and started their offensive... on the 10th, in Luhansk/Donetsk...

"SHIT THEY KNOW! Ok... we'll just.... do what we were going to do in the first place!"

So the Russians advanced into a well-known and mapped position on an isolated hill, and stopped right there - as the 3 biggest surrounding defence lines were on even higher hills, and seperated by a valley between all vectors of further advance. So the russians would have to move down a hill in plain view and fire control of 3 forces, cross a valley and then advance uphill into the next position.

In the US Civil War, that was called "Picket's Charge", and while they did make the top of the hill (with 50% casualties) they couldn't hold it.

Offensives use a lot of stuff, and using 40k troops with enough ammo and heavy weapon cover vs 300k with a single magazine, each, walking in a long line along the entire front into enemy machine-guns, with an occasional friendly artillery shell flying roughly towards the enemy might be a decision even a russian general can derive the correct answer to.

That doesn't mean they won't try anyway. The Generals don't want to answer to their Boss.

[LaCroix]

That doesn't mean they won't try anyway. The Generals don't want to answer to their Boss.

My argument is that they probably can't, even if they want or get forced to..
Tanks need fuel, trucks need fuel, artillery needs ammo. Ammo needs trucks, trucks need fuel. Amme needs to be brought to the place trucks get the ammo, that needs more trucks, and more fuel.

Yeah, it doesn't mean they can't hand each man 3 clips of ammo, a bottle water and a doghnut, point west and say go - but these men will stop after a few hours of marching, have no shelter, no food resupply, no ammo resupply, nothing to retreat to if they get hit, etc.
The moment these men encounter any kind of resistance, they will turn around and march back to the last known base.
Or surrender.

It is simply impossible to send 300k into a single region, by fiat of available roadspace for supply alone - they would have to split the forces into multiple vectors. But that means they would multiply the whole supply chain, down to the last truck, all he way back to the closest railway junktion.

That would result overloading that junktion in traffic. Which means they need to seperate the attack vectors far enough to not use the same railway station, which also means, far enough to be in a different theater, with a completely differnt Ukrainian battlegroup.

but ok, give them benefit of the doubt and assume they can orgainize that, have the trucks and ressources at hand - sending 300k men forward into the kind of defenses the ukrainians have built is every machinegunner's or artilleryman's wet dream.

Just remember - the current offensive (with the bulk of the ukrainian reserve not even involved yet, just the frontline troops already stationed) with 30-40k men is resulting in about 1k confirmed(aka-can be still identified as a body on footage) dead (not counting the most likely 4k wounded) per DAY on the russian side.

Antietam had about 2k dead and ~8-9k wounded on each side, and is considered a bloodbath. So right now, Russia is having an Antietam (for whatever side you pick) every two days. Keeping 90% back as reserve is the only way they can keep this kind of operation up for more than a week or two before everything shatters as troops simply surrender or refuse to advance. Following orders for an all-out offensive and packing targets more tightly (making everything hitting exponentially more deadly) would make the entire Antietam (4k dead 17k wounded per day) look like a Jamboree.

[LadyTevar]

That doesn't mean they won't try anyway. The Generals don't want to answer to their Boss.

My argument is that they probably can't, even if they want or get forced to..
Tanks need fuel, trucks need fuel, artillery needs ammo. Ammo needs trucks, trucks need fuel. Ammo needs to be brought to the place trucks get the ammo, that needs more trucks, and more fuel.

Ahhh.
While I did get the idea of 'going further would be a killing field not worth the loss of soldiers', I didnt think of the problems with supplies reaching troops.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Certainly forcing the Russians to lengthen their supply lines to keep them out of artillery range only helps Ukraine, increasing the logistical burden the already-overstretched Russian troops are having to deal with.

[bilateralrope]

Offensives use a lot of stuff, and using 40k troops with enough ammo and heavy weapon cover vs 300k with a single magazine, each, walking in a long line along the entire front into enemy machine-guns, with an occasional friendly artillery shell flying roughly towards the enemy might be a decision even a russian general can derive the correct answer to.

That doesn't mean they won't try anyway. The Generals don't want to answer to their Boss.

But those generals also don't want to answer to the soldiers who are being ordered into stupid offensives. As those soldiers still have enough ammo to shoot their commanders.

[Broomstick]

And when they don't have enough ammo they are still capable of beating to death said commanders with the butts of their rifles, or, in one alleged case, shovels.

[Lord Revan]

And when they don't have enough ammo they are still capable of beating to death said commanders with the butts of their rifles, or, in one alleged case, shovels.

Or their fists and feet if it comes down to that there's a lot more enlisted/junior officers then there's unit commanders which is the reason why "just drown them in bodies" tactics aren't that popular.

[LaCroix]

Russia is cutting their oil production by 500000barrels /day... (~30 Million dollars on revenue/day, or 10 billion per year.)

After the price cap and the EU ban on Russian oil imports, the ban on refined petroproducts was introduced. Russia sold about 75% of said product to Europe. Since these things are usually very specific, and pricy, they can't find any customers copatible or willing to pay the premium over simply importing crude. So they will shut down refineries and reduce oil production.

Not only will this send shockwaves down the line via layoffs, lost purchase power and tax revenue, it will most likely have more dire repercussions for the oil felds. Russia has no real storage, and what they have is already maxxed out - since they can't simply burn that kind of volumes, they need to reduce flow from the oil fields. Problem is that once you open up an oil well, you really do not want to mess with the flow it puts out - constricting that flow might cause the oil to find a different route when pressure in the well rises, which can in turn cause the well to go dry.

Since they lost all access to western experts and technology (most of these wells were handled by western companies which have pulled out since the war started), it is very unlikely that they can safely restict flow. Also, some of their wells are located in remote permafrost areas of Siberia - restricting those might cause a complete collapse of the flow, which would mean they pretty much have to redrill these wells in order to take up production, again. I heard numbers of a decade or so when people talk about how long it would take to get the oil fields back up if that should happen. And that means - if western companies get in and start working on it, again. Russia itself might conpletely lack the technology to do so, by now, and would first need to create the capabilities before even starting.

[Adam Reynolds]

What's really crazy about the SpaceX issue is that they have multiple contracts with the US Space Force, putting the lie to the idea that they don't want to militarize space. The fact that they aren't helping Ukraine here sure seems like it will alienate one of their major customers.