The range of possible outcomes of this war isn't binary, it's at least trinary: win for Ukraine (very unlikely at the moment), win for Russia (a bit more likely, but not nearly as likely as the Russia cheerleaders in this thread seem to think) and a stalemate (imho still the most likely outcome).

Russia has taken exactly one major city over the past 18 months - until they actually manage to break through the Ukrainian defenses once again and take another major city[1], I will not buy this notion that Russia is on the cusp of total victory. I've said it before and will happily repeat it: if this war has taught us anything in terms of military strategy, it's just how extremely difficult it is for an attacker to break through fortified positions in the absence of air superiority, with a mostly ground-based offense.




[1] Russia will presumably take Avdiivka at some point in the coming months, but that's a city which has been surrounded by Russian territory on three sides since before the outbreak of this war. Strategically, Avdiivka is an untenable position which Ukraine has only held until now because it allowed them to shell the airport of Donetsk. Defensively, this city is of no value to Ukraine.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 6 2024 05:43pm

Just got done reading your source, and it agrees with basically everything I'm saying. You picked out a line you think agrees with you, but you didn't look at any of the context. It's really obvious you didn't actually read through the source or you would see it isn't making the argument you think it is.

My dawg, you can just google crude oil price charts. It's been bouncing above $80 since before 2008. There was a several year period in the 2010's where it didn't drop below $80.

You're also not including the price to transport, which has dramatically increased as a function of sanctions. Russia has been recomissioning old ships and having greatly increased expense to its maintenence as a result, they've also had to add intermediaries, and a few other things that all add cost.

Also they're trading at a discount to the market rate. They're also experiencing increase cost to drill as a result of expertise leaving the country so your graph from 2016 cost to produce is dramatically out of date.

This shit isn't hard to figure out. It's sad you think anything I'm bringing up is in any way controversial, because I promise you it isn't if you're actually listening to informed sources. You have to find people like Molopox who absolutely torture the data to claim otherwise. Also, Molopox is the dude who claims because McCaine gave a speech in Ukraine in 2014 that means NATO was literally arming insurrectionists for the purpose of overthrowing the government. Not exactly somebody you should be putting your trust in for good analysis.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 6 2024 06:07pm

idk why you wasted time typing all that when in reality the math is so simple that you have to be really challenged to come to the conclusion that they are and have been producing at a loss.

They produce at sub 20, the insurance and transport is also sub 20, even complying with the price cap, they would be ~50% in the green.

Pretty much all understand the basic reality that commodities is their key revenue driver yet you’re really trying to argue that they been selling at a loss. Holy fuck

It has been difficult and you are correct in this statement but unfortunately due to logistics, Russia won this war a long time ago. Ukraine is about to put up the fight of its life don't get me wrong but it simply lacks the support.

Everyday that this war continues, simply becomes the loss of more Ukrainians. You can blame the Ukrainian "leadership" for that but the support and stomach for this war is gone

And even if hypothetically the conventional frontline collapses for Ukraine. What sort of insurgency will Russia be faced with for years and likely decades to come?
For context the Taleban's was estimated to have 100k combatants. Lets assume that is grossly underestimated, so say 200,000 combatants; They sent the soviets packing and also maintained a presence against the US and others for over two decades; With far less tech and capability than Ukraine's armed forces.
Ukraine has an estimated 1 million active personal. With 100k reaching military age per year.

Regardless of the outcome of the conventional war, I cannot foresee eastern Ukraine having any significant "peacetime" in many of our lifetimes.

The Donbass will be insurgent hell for Russia regardless of how the war transpires.

See, you can just read your own link to find that this likely isn't accurate anymore. That data is from around 2016. Their production capabilities are already likely hampered by lack of technological ability due to the leaving of expertise.

I know you won't read further into it though, because you don't really have the fortitute to expose yourself to things that meaningfully challenge your view. You'll cherry pick an individual article that you think supports the view you already wanted to have, and ignore the rest of the article that talks about how the landscape has shifted.

In the scenario where Ukraine crumbles due to waning Western support and Russia ultimately ends up taking all of Ukraine, this is what's gonna happen in Western and Central Ukraine. But I disagree when it comes to the Donbass and Crimea. These two places were decidedly Russia-leaning not too long ago, there should be genuine majority support for being ruled by Russia over there.

Instead of continuously posting your opinions (that are wildly inconsistent with conventional wisdom) we can skip the back and fourths. Show me a reputable source where it clearly shows that their break evens are at 80 or 100+? Show me analysis showing they are operating at a loss.

That is one area I could have been more clear. I didn't intend to say Ural would need to be 80+. I meant that brent crude would need to be 80 with how the current discounted rate is going to come near the break even. Ever since sanctions ural has been trading at a steep discount where it was trading at a premium before. Right now it's around 57 relative to Brent Crude's 78 which is right around what we can expect the break even to be. Around that $60. If Brent falls so will Ural, and if it goes significantly below $80 we can expect that to drive Russian producers possibly into the negative.

TBH I don't think this convo will be productive regardless of what sources I show you. You already drastically misrepresented a source that disagreed with your assessment, and said a few ridiculous things like "they're transporting under $20" when it went as high as $36 just earlier this year and was $20 to India as recently as the beginning of December, said crude has only recently been sustained above $80 a barrel when it's routinely traded above that price since the 2010's..... Just so many bad claims in such a short time.

My point stands regardless of where you look. Oil prices are around break even for Russia, best case scenario they are profitable but not drastically so at current prices when you take into account increased shipping, necessary use of intermediaries, increased cost of using old ships and having to bring new transport online, and increased cost to drill.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 6 2024 08:49pm

So no source?

There’s dozens of articles showing that Russia continues to generate profits off their oil trade (you only generate profit when you’re above break even fyi).

Pointless discussion, you can simply back what you say by facts that would be gleefully reported.