He is loathed, not as Trump is, however substantially though like Trump he was part of the UK's TV furniture, he with comedy politics and news shows and such. He understands media. His declared strategy in the early 2000s running for mayor was to have so many gaffes, the press had too rich a diet and nothing would stick. I literally saw the living muppet cycling his bike several times and never though to push him off back then, he was just Boris. I've also been at two parties where he dropped in. I'd have dropped him off a balcony had I suspected the future. Blonde ambition eh?
Frog, it's Kyiv. "Keeyiv". Russians pronounce it Kiev - "Keeyev". As for France - that is the first round of elections. No one will get 50% so it goes to runoff. But yes, for the runoff the polls look head to head. Unfortunately Le Pen is more pro-Putin. Although who knows, maybe the naked aggression and the atrocities will change her mind.
I stand fully erect and chastened before you. I had to learn city names in my small schoolhouse in Maine and missed that one. Actually, just when I got the Kiev name nailed down, the preferred way of spelling it changed and I can never remember what it is. And then I have to deal with the fact that Odessa has two s's in the Russian spelling translations but one in Ukrainian. What to do?
Assessment: reconstitution won’t be effective; Russia will continue to sustain heavy losses for little gain… ASSESSMENT, APRIL 9 Apr 9, 2022 - Press ISW Download the PDF Frederick W. Kagan, George Barros, Kateryna Stepanenko, and Karolina Hird April 9, 4:30 pm ET Special Edition: Russian Military Capabilities Assessments The Russian military is attempting to generate sufficient combat power to seize and hold the portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that it does not currently control after it completes the seizure of Mariupol. There are good reasons to question the Russian armed forces’ ability to do so and their ability to use regenerated combat power effectively despite a reported simplification of the Russian command structure. This update, which we offer on a day without significant military operations on which to report, attempts to explain and unpack some of the complexities involved in making these assessments. We discuss below some instances in which American and other officials have presented information in ways that may inadvertently exaggerate Russian combat capability. We do not in any way mean to suggest that such exaggeration is intentional. Presenting an accurate picture of a military’s combat power is inherently difficult. Doing so from classified assessments in an unclassified environment is especially so. We respect the efforts and integrity of US and allied officials trying to help the general public understand this conflict and offer the comments below in hopes of helping them in that task. We assess that the Russian military will struggle to amass a large and combat-capable force of mechanized units to operate in Donbas within the next few months. Russia will likely continue to throw badly damaged and partially reconstituted units piecemeal into offensive operations that make limited gains at great cost.[1] The Russians likely will make gains nevertheless and may either trap or wear down Ukrainian forces enough to secure much of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, but it is at least equally likely that these Russian offensives will culminate before reaching their objectives, as similar Russian operations have done. The US Department of Defense (DoD) reported on April 8 that the Russian armed forces have lost 15-20 percent of the “combat power” they had arrayed against Ukraine before the invasion.[2] This statement is somewhat (unintentionally) misleading because it uses the phrase “combat power” loosely. The US DoD statements about Russian “combat power” appear to refer to the percentage of troops mobilized for the invasion that are still in principle available for fighting—that is, that are still alive, not badly injured, and with their units. But “combat power” means much more than that. US Army doctrine defines combat power as “the total means of destructive, constructive, and information capabilities that a military unit or formation can apply at a given time.”[3] It identifies eight elements of combat power: “leadership, information, command and control, movement and maneuver, intelligence, fires, sustainment, and protection.”[4] This doctrinal definition obviously encompasses much more than the total number of troops physically present with units and is one of the keys to understanding why Russian forces have performed so poorly in this war despite their large numerical advantage. It is also the key to understanding the evolving next phase of the war. US DoD statements that Russia retains 80-85 percent of its original mobilized combat power unintentionally exaggerate the Russian military’s current capabilities to fight. Such statements taken in isolation are inherently ambiguous, for one thing. They could mean that 80-85 percent of the Russian units originally mobilized to fight in Ukraine remain intact and ready for action while 15-20 percent have been destroyed. Were that the case, Russia would have tremendous remaining combat power to hurl against Ukraine. Or, they could mean that all the Russian units mobilized to invade Ukraine have each suffered 15-20 percent casualties, which would point to a greatly decreased Russian offensive capacity, as such casualty levels severely degrade the effectiveness of most military units. The reality, as DoD briefers and other evidence make clear, is more complicated, and paints a grim picture for Russian commanders contemplating renewing major offensive operations. The dozens of Russian battalion tactical groups (BTGs) that retreated from around Kyiv likely possess combat power that is a fraction of what the numbers of units or total numbers of personnel with those units would suggest. Russian units that have fought in Ukraine have taken fearful damage.[5] As the US DoD official noted on April 8, “We've seen indications of some units that are literally, for all intents and purposes, eradicated. There's just nothing left of the BTG except a handful of troops, and maybe a small number of vehicles, and they're going to have to be reconstituted or reapplied to others. We've seen others that are, you know, down 30 percent manpower.”[6] Units with such levels of losses are combat ineffective—they have essentially zero combat power. A combination of anecdotal evidence and generalized statements such as these from US and other NATO defense officials indicates that most of the Russian forces withdrawn from the immediate environs of Kyiv likely fall into the category of units that will remain combat ineffective until they have been reconstituted. Reconstituting these units to restore any notable fraction of their nominal power would take months. The Russian military would have to incorporate new soldiers bringing the units back up toward full strength and then allow those soldiers time to integrate into the units. It would also have to allow those units to conduct some unit training, because a unit is more than the sum of individual soldiers and vehicles. The combat power of a unit results in no small part from its ability to operate as a coherent whole rather than a group of individuals. It takes time even for well-trained professional soldiers to learn how to fight together, and Russian soldiers are far from well-trained. The unit would also have to replace lost and damaged vehicles and repair those that are reparable. The unit’s personnel would need time to regain their morale and will to fight, both badly damaged by the humiliation of defeat and the stress and emotional damage of the losses they suffered. These processes take a long time. They cannot be accomplished in a few weeks, let alone the few days the Russian command appears willing to grant. Russian forces withdrawn from around Kyiv and going back to fight in Donbas in the next few weeks, therefore, will not have been reconstituted. At best, they will have been patched up and filled out not with fresh soldiers but with soldiers drawn from other battered and demoralized units. A battalion’s worth of such troops will not have a battalion’s worth of combat power. The Russian armed forces likely have few or no full-strength units in reserve to deploy to fight in Ukraine because of a flawed mobilization scheme that cannot be fixed in the course of a short war. The Russians did not deploy full regiments and brigades to invade Ukraine—with few exceptions as we have previously noted. They instead drew individual battalions from many different regiments and brigades across their entire force. We have identified elements of almost every single brigade or regiment in the Russian Army, Airborne Troops, and Naval Infantry involved in fighting in Ukraine already. The decision to form composite organizations drawn from individual battalions thrown together into ad hoc formations degraded the performance of those units, as we have discussed in earlier reports.[7]It has also committed the Russian military to replicating that mistake for the duration of this conflict, because there are likely few or no intact regiments or brigades remaining in the Russian Army, Airborne Forces, or Naval Infantry. The Russians have no choice but to continue throwing individual battalions together into ad hoc formations until they have rebuilt entire regiments and brigades, a process that will likely take years. Reports of Russian efforts to mobilize new conscripts for current operations are also somewhat (unintentionally) misleading. Russia is well into its annual spring conscription phase that normally pulls around 130,000 young men into training for their one year of compulsory military service.[8] The Russian military has also launched several other efforts to recruit new contract (professional) soldiers and to expand its reserve pool, as we have reported elsewhere.[9] The US DoD official speaking on April 8 noted that the Russians appear to be trying to draw 60,000 reservists back to the force.[10] The official noted, “it remains to be seen how successful they'll be on this and where those reinforcements would go, how much training they would get.” This caveat is very important. Russia has likely already exhausted the pool of reservists whose initial conscript service and youth render them most likely to be effective in combat, as we have previously reported. The new batch of reservists are older, meaning that they are further away from their experience with military units and that their military skills and habits are likely seriously degraded.[11] The Russians should in principle take many weeks or months to retrain these reservists before integrating them back into combat units to fight. If they do not do so, then these reservists will likely add relatively little effective combat power to the units they join. The conscripts currently undergoing basic training are even further away from offering any significant boost in effective available combat power.[12] Rushing them to front-line units within the next few months will make them simply cannon fodder. The Russians cannot expect to benefit from the roughly 200,000 conscripts and reservists they are currently mobilizing until late summer or fall at the earliest. If they send those people to fight sooner than that, they will suffer disproportionate casualties while adding little to the effective strength of any units they join. The Ukrainian government and military appear to share the general assessment offered above. Oleksiy Arestovich, chief advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, claimed on April 9 that the Ukrainian military has destroyed 20 BTGs and rendered 40 more combat ineffective.[13] We cannot track individual BTG effectiveness that precisely, but this estimate that approximately one-third of the 180 BTGs Russia has available in and around Ukraine are combat ineffective is consistent with what we have observed. Ukrainian officials also report that Russian recruitment and mobilization efforts are going poorly. Arestovich noted that Russian attempts to recruit young men into contract service are “going badly too.”[14] Ukrainian military intelligence reported on April 9 that it has data showing very little interest among Russians in voluntarily joining the Russian military. Fewer than one percent of citizens in Ekaterininburg, Russia, were even willing to discuss signing up.[15] The sample size is small (397 candidates), but the picture is consistent with previous reporting. The Russian effort to attract young men into professional reserves (the BARS program) had already been failing even before the war began, as we have previously reported. Morale is a key element of combat power, and consistent reports indicate that the morale even of elite Russian units remains very low. A Russian Telegram channel reporting on Pskov, the home of the elite 76th Guards Airborne Division, noted on April 7 that a growing number of paratroopers are refusing to fight.[16] It claimed that many paratroopers have submitted resignation papers, which commanders are refusing to accept. Some soldiers’ families have reportedly appealed to Russian courts to force the Russian military to accept the resignations. The channel claimed on April 6 that 60 paratroopers had refused to fight and were dismissed.[17] The head of the Russian human rights organization Agora reported on April 8 that members of Russia’s National Guard (Rosgvardia) have refused to go to Ukraine or, having gone and come out, are refusing orders to return to the fight.[18] Ukrainian military intelligence (GUR) additionally claimed on April 9 that Russian soldiers have been injuring themselves to avoid having to return to combat.[19] The GUR reported on a transcript of a call it claims to have intercepted from a Russian officer to his wife complaining of lack of food, predicting that the war will not go well, and expressing the hope that he will live to draw his pension.[20] The GUR also reported that an elite Russian SPETSNAZ unit that had fought in Syria refused to continue fighting in Mariupol after suffering 30 casualties between April 2 and April 4.[21] We have previously reported other instances of Russian soldiers and units refusing orders to fight or return to Ukraine after being pulled back.[22] Most of these reports are anecdotal and unconfirmed, but the picture they paint is coherent and accords with the observable performance of the Russian military in Ukraine to date. The Russians technically have enough healthy soldiers with weapons to pose a significant threat to eastern Ukraine, and they may wear down the Ukrainian defenders by sheer weight of numbers, although likely at a hideous cost. But all indications are that the effective combat power of Russian reinforcements that might go to eastern Ukraine will be a small fraction of what the number of soldiers and units would indicate, and the outcome of the fight is therefore far from clear. It is important to avoid allowing the shorthand DoD briefers and others understandably use to describe available Russian forces to lead to exaggerated estimates of the actual military capabilities of Russian forces. The Russians are apparently attempting to resolve one of the problems from which their initial invasion suffered by making Southern Military District Commander General Alexander Dvornikov the single overall commander of operations in Ukraine.[23]At least two and possibly three officers had previously commanded separate axes, with Dvornikov responsible for the south and east while Western Military District Commander General Alexander Zhuravlyov commanded the north. Eastern Military District Commander Colonel General Alexander Chaiko may have commanded the troops drawn from his military district who attacked down the west bank of the Dnipro River, although we have no confirmation of that hypothesis. The lack of a single overall commander clearly hindered the cooperation of Russian forces operating along various invasion axes. The designation of Dvornikov as the overall commander makes sense now given that the announced Russian main efforts are almost all in his area of responsibility. This simplification of the Russian command structure may not resolve all of Russia’s command problems, however. Most of the reinforcements flowing into the Donbas region are drawn from other military districts, for one thing.[24] The active Russian offensive drive from Izyum to the southeast relies on the concentration of Russian forces around Kharkiv that draws in turn on the logistics hub of Belgorod in Russia—both in areas nominally under Zhuravlyov’s control. Russian forces will likely continue to struggle to establish coherent and efficient command and control arrangements for the foreseeable future. Russian forces continued offensive operations in Mariupol, along the Izyum-Slovyansk axis, and around Rubizhne and Popasna in the last 24 hours but made few gains. Key Takeaways Russia is unlikely to be able to mass combat power for the fight in eastern Ukraine proportionate to the number of troops and battalion tactical groups it sends there. The Russian military continues to suffer from devastating morale, recruitment, and retention problems that seriously undermine its ability to fight effectively. The outcome of forthcoming Russian operations in eastern Ukraine remains very much in question. We do not report in detail on Russian war crimes because those activities are well-covered in Western media and do not directly affect the military operations we are assessing and forecasting. We will continue to evaluate and report on the effects of these criminal activities on the Ukrainian military and population and specifically on combat in Ukrainian urban areas. We utterly condemn these Russian violations of the laws of armed conflict, Geneva Conventions, and humanity even though we do not describe them in these reports. ISW has updated its assessment of the four primary efforts Russian forces are engaged in at this time: Main effort—Eastern Ukraine (comprised of two subordinate supporting efforts); Supporting effort 1—Kharkiv and Izyum; Supporting effort 2—Southern axis; Supporting effort 3—Sumy and northeastern Ukraine. Main effort—Eastern Ukraine Subordinate main effort—Mariupol (Russian objective: Capture Mariupol and reduce the Ukrainian defenders) Russian forces continued offensive operations to complete the seizure of Mariupol in the last 24 hours but appear to have made few gains.[25] Subordinate main effort—Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts (Russian objective: Capture the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, the claimed territory of Russia’s proxies in Donbas) Russian forces concentrated on attacking Rubizhne, Popasna, and Severodonetsk in the past 24 hours, although they did not make significant territorial gains.[26] Elements of the 423rd Motorized Rifle Regiment and 13th Tank Regiment, both of the 4th Guards Tank Division of the 1st Guards Tank Army (Western Military District) were reportedly observed near Severodonetsk.[27] Supporting Effort #1—Kharkiv and Izyum: (Russian objective: Advance southeast to support Russian operations in Luhansk Oblast, and fix Ukrainian forces around Kharkiv in place) Russian forces continued to mass around Kharkiv likely in preparation to support the offensive southeast of Izyum toward Slovyansk.[28] The Ukrainian General Staff reported on April 9 that two Russian BTGs deployed from Belgorod to the Kharkiv Shevchenkivskiy area on April 8 and that the Russians used electronic warfare measures to disrupt cellular service in order to conceal their movements.[29] Russian forces conducted a limited attack near Izyum on April 8 but made little progress, according to the Ukrainian General Staff.[30] Supporting Effort #2—Southern axis: (Objective: Defend Kherson against Ukrainian counterattacks) There was no significant activity reported on this axis in the past 24 hours. Supporting Effort #3—Sumy and Northeastern Ukraine: (Russian objective: Withdraw combat power in good order for redeployment to eastern Ukraine) There was no significant activity reported on this axis in the past 24 hours. Immediate items to watch Russian forces will renew offensive operations in the coming days southeast from Izyum, possibly diverting first to the southwest to avoid Ukrainian defensive positions, in an effort to reach and seize Slovyansk. Russian forces will continue efforts to complete the seizure of the remaining areas of Mariupol city that Ukrainian forces hold. Russian forces may conduct attacks to seize Rubizhne, Popasna, and Severodonetsk in the coming days, although they may wait for reinforcements and for Russian troops to complete the encirclement of this area along the Izyum-Slovyansk-Debaltseve road.
I only use FB for a few hospice charity groups and such but accidently landed on this post looking for something related to Venezuela. In it is laid out the case against sanctions based on the fact the Venezuela imports its oil from Russia so its just moving the cheque around.. My brain hurts knowing these people exist, not just on ET. WORSE, all the people who loved and agreed with him..
There is more than a bit of lobbying going on with the release of this report from The Institute for the Study of War. Not sayin' that's a bad thing. The big honchos over at the Institute are General David Patraeus, General Jack Keane, and General Keith Kellogg. They have all been making the rounds on cable over the last month arguing their position and their frustration that they believe that Camp Biden is/are just managing the Ukraine situation enough to get Ukraine to settle and not to help them to actually win. Certainly that has been the case. But there are cracks in the position in the last few days. Mostly due to some shaming from Zelensky, and the ugliness of recent attacks. Let the viewers decide.
The assessments have been pretty good coming from ISoW, and especially the situational maps they have built. There’s another guy who has also built up great maps and situational analysis on a weekly basis. Both are must reads if you want to stay up on the Ukrainian conflict, IMO. As to the supply strategy from the US, in particular. I tend to agree that we have been supporting the Ukrainians with weaponry to make the fight “fair” instead of giving the Ukrainians weaponry that would overwhelmingly defeat the Russian forces. There is the caveat though that we are not acting as a single stream either. For example, the Slovakians recently gave an s-300 missile system to Ukraine and we backfilled the Slovakians with a Patriot system. The Brits have also been supplying the Ukrainians quite well. And to be honest I’m pleasantly surprised with the British commitment and the resolve of the Poles and Baltic states. I think there is an alliance there that could very well be stabilizing for Eastern Europe if they can get it right. Now what I will say is that as this war moves east, that territory is not as accommodating to javelins and n-laws as the northwest parts. It’s a lot of open terrain out there and the Russians will have improved visibility. With that said, I have noticed we have adjusted our supply efforts. We see the Brits supply missiles for sea defense and the loitering munitions. And I think we are adjusting well. I guess what Paetreus et al might be looking for is tanks, planes and I suppose cruise missiles, maybe even a no-fly zone? That’s some escalatory stuff and I’d like to see what they would say would be the Russian answer if we started supporting like that. This is not a one way street. The Russians now look like they are preparing their population for some heavy losses and sacrifices. Anyway, it’s a lot. What I will say is don’t think the Ukrainians don’t have advantages. They own the night and have access to western intelligence and military consultation. And I’d be pretty confident that the weapons we are supplying are tied to a larger operational strategy. I don’t know either way, I think this will have to be “settled” instead of won outright from almost any angle.
Behind the Wagner Group, the Russian mercenary band in Ukraine By Miriam Berger April 10, 2022 https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...ercenary-band-in-ukraine-20220410-p5aceh.html Mercenaries working for a Kremlin-linked network of private security contractors have taken up arms in Ukraine on Russia’s behalf, US and British officials say. The network, known as the Wagner Group, first worked in Ukraine in 2014 during Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. Since then, its fighters have turned up on battlefields from Syria to Mali. In Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, about 1000 Wagner mercenaries are concentrated in the country’s east, where Pentagon officials say Russia has refocused its war effort after failing to capture the capital, Kyiv. Germany’s foreign intelligence services claimed this week to have intercepted communication that could link Wagner to the indiscriminate killings of Ukrainian civilians. The Russians viewed the use of the Wagner Group in Syria as a successful part of that campaign. Russian officials have denied links to the Wagner Group, whose true ownership and funding sources remain unclear. But experts say that it has deep ties to the Kremlin, serving as a tactical tool for Moscow in hot spots where Russia has political and financial interests. What is the Wagner Group? It is not a publicly listed private security company but a network of organisations providing fighters for hire. Experts say that it employs an estimated 5000 fighters. Its ranks were mainly made up of Russians with military experience, said Samuel Ramani, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, although in recent years, Wagner has also recruited from elsewhere, including Syria. According to research by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, Wagner Group is suspected or proved to have operated in about 30 countries and has two training camps in Russia. It is ostensibly private but, according to CSIS, “its management and operations are deeply intertwined with the Russian military and intelligence community”. Wagner has been linked by Western intelligence agencies and news reports to Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin, an ally of President Vladimir Putin’s who was indicted by US special counsel Robert Mueller for allegedly interfering in the 2016 US presidential election and who analysts say could be a middleman for Kremlin financing of the group. Also unclear is who leads Wagner. According to US and European officials, Wagner is led by Dmitry Utkin, a former head of Russia’s foreign military intelligence agency. Washington and Brussels have imposed sanctions on individuals, including Utkin, who they say are affiliated with Wagner. The United Nations has accused the group of committing offences that possibly constitute war crimes. The firm “has recruited, trained and sent private military operatives to conflict zones around the world to fuel violence, loot natural resources and intimidate civilians in violation of international law, including international human rights law”, according to a European Union statement in December revealing new sanctions against the Wagner Group as part of an effort to deter Putin from invading Ukraine. One of Wagner’s key functions, according to the Soufan Centre, a nonprofit think tank based in New York City, is that it provides Russia with “a thin veneer of plausible deniability as it engages in the pursuit of finance, influence, and vigilantism not in keeping with international norms”. What is the Wagner Group doing in Ukraine? In 2014, the Wagner Group helped train, organise and arm the Russian-backed militias fighting for control of Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region. Wagner operatives also participated in the fighting and in intelligence gathering, according to CSIS, and were reportedly part of Russia’s seizure and illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region. Now, US officials say they are back. In January, amid Russian threats of war, Wagner reportedly began moving some of its operatives from the Central African Republic to eastern Ukraine, said Ramani. Pentagon press secretary John Kirby told reporters in March that the organisation had about 1000 fighters in the Donbas. “They have used Wagner contractors in the Donbas over the last eight years,” said Kirby. “So this is an area where the Wagner group is experienced.” Exactly how many Wagner mercenaries are in Ukraine and where they are coming from remains unknown. Although there were “indications” that Wagner had been recruiting from places including Libya and Syria, Kirby said he did not know how many such recruits were operating in Ukraine. The New York Times reported in March that Syrian President Bashar Assad sent hundreds of Syrian fighters to join Russian forces in Ukraine and that Syrian recruiters were drawing up lists of interested potential recruits. German intelligence officials claim to have intercepted communication between Russian forces that indicate Wagner fighters may have been involved in the indiscriminate killings of civilians in parts of Ukraine occupied by Russian forces. Where else does the group operate? In the past eight years, Wagner forces have been reported in Syria, Libya, Sudan, Mali, the Central African Republic, Madagascar, Mozambique and Venezuela, according to CSIS. Often, they are employed as security for Russian assets or the host governments; other times, they have been engaged on battlefields. Soon after Wagner Group first popped up in Ukraine, mercenaries tied to the group were reported in Syria, where in 2015 Putin intervened on the side of Assad in the country’s civil war. In Syria, the paramilitary group provided security to Russian and Syrian military facilities and participated in some fighting, such as Assad’s campaign to recapture the city of Palmyra. Wagner forces there also were part of the deadliest U.S.-Russian confrontation since the Cold War in 2018, when U.S. troops and their allies near Syria’s Deir al-Zour responded to an attack by fighters loyal to Assad with a counterattack that killed about 100 people - Russian mercenaries among them. In oil-rich Libya, Wagner operatives have been fighting on the side of the renegade Libyan commander Khalifa Hifter in his battle to oust the U.N.-backed government, set up in 2015 to end the country’s civil war. As with the Syrian war, the fighting in Libya has become a front for regional proxy battles - and the presence of Wagner fighters has signalled that Russia is seeking a stronger hand in the Middle East and North Africa. Wagner and Russia also are expanding their political and financial reach in Africa. So far, the paramilitary group has been in 18 African countries, a number comprising more than half of the nations in which it has worked, according to CSIS. “Wagner comes in, further destabilises the country, ravages the mineral resources and makes as much money as they can before they choose to leave,” U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Milton Sands, the head of Special Operations Command Africa, told The Washington Post in early March. “The country is left poorer, weaker and less secure. Every time.” In recent months in Mali, whose relations with the West are a low point, Wagner mercenaries have guarded the presidential palace and helped track extremists. In the Central African Republic, Wagner has been helping to prop up the country’s embattled government - and in exchange, a company linked to Prigozhin has been awarded licenses to mine gold and diamonds. Because of the organisation’s opacity, Western sanctions against individuals associated with it may have only a minimum impact, Ramani said. Contrary to the intent behind sanctions, Moscow also could grow more reliant on Wagner’s profits as Russia’s assets depreciate, he said. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.