Some updates:
Well, it seems like this is the big offensive we have been waiting for..... hmmm.... It looks like they are attacking across most of the line, and not necessarily doing that well. The only advance I see is right in the middle of the "bulge" which I can only imagine is because it is the least likely area you would think they would advance (rather then cut off the bulge).
So, expect to see some more vids of destroyed Russian vehicles soon...
Russia is committed to avoiding nuclear war, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, after he was quizzed repeatedly about the possible use of atomic weapons in Ukraine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/russia-will-not-use-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine-lavrov-says
One of the reasons for this may be something I noted the other day but did not think of the significance. There was a report of TU-22's flying toward Mariupol a few days ago. This apparently resulted in a rather "spirited" response from NATO. Why? The TU-22 is one of Russia only nuclear capable bombers (and the only one without props!) and with all the Russian posturing about nukes, needless to say, touched a nerve! I suspect the NATO response alarmed the Ruskies a bit and they had the Russian Frankenstein monster make a statement.
What does each symbol signify, a battalion? Can you provide a link to the source data?
No, those are just reports of released information and where they are from. It doesn't show any actual troop information:
https://liveuamap.com/
aircooled said:
I have never been able to entirely understand the pricing of oil because of "shortages", when you can clearly get as much as you want, but when the cut supply, prices go up. Maybe sourcing more expensive sources, but that still really doesn't make sense.
I get your confusion, but that's kind of the same for every commodity- gold, gasoline, or hogs. The price of milk and OJ goes up and down in the grocery store, but there always seems to be milk and OJ, too.
In fairness, I don't think most of the so-called "experts" really understand it all that well, either. In the afore-mentioned Economist magazine I was reading, there were three separate articles, each with a different position on gasoline taxes and carbon credits. And this is a fairly middle-of the road, intellectual magazine. God know what the hacks on Newsweek or cable news think or understand.
volvoclearinghouse said:
aircooled said:
I have never been able to entirely understand the pricing of oil because of "shortages", when you can clearly get as much as you want, but when the cut supply, prices go up. Maybe sourcing more expensive sources, but that still really doesn't make sense.
I get your confusion, but that's kind of the same for every commodity- gold, gasoline, or hogs. The price of milk and OJ goes up and down in the grocery store, but there always seems to be milk and OJ, too.
There are always milk and OJ because it's a (mostly) free market and that's what the laws of supply and demand do. "supply" is not just how many gallons of milk exist, it's how many gallons of milk exist which various parties are willing to sell at various minimum prices. Similarly "demand" is not just how many people want to buy milk, but at what various maximum prices they're willing to buy it. Generally speaking the supply curve is such that the number of people willing to sell goes up as the price goes up, and in the demand curve the number of people willing to buy goes down as the price goes up. The "market price" is simply the price where the number willing to sell equals the number willing to buy. If something happens and milk becomes more scarce the supply shifts, with fewer gallons available at the old market price. This drives the price up, which both increases the number willing to sell as well as decreasing the number willing to buy until you get a new equilibrium. Same thing but opposite in the other direction.
I believe technically you can only have a "shortage" (where there's nothing available to buy) when the price has been artificially fixed below the market price that would be determined by the supply and demand curves. You see this in things like concert tickets which are fixed in number and often sold below the market price (scalpers take advantage of this). Most infamously, you see it when government try to impose price fixing laws.
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Futures trading is a lot more complicated than that, unfortunately, since it gauges EXPECTED demand vs. EXPECTED output, which is where the term "speculators" comes in.
Look at what happened in 2008 with oil prices. They were sky high until late autumn, and then they plummeted. Gas prices went from a normal of $4.50 to a normal of $1.80 in the space of a week or two. It's all due to speculation. Oil prices were high because speculators believed they were going to be higher tomorrow so they bought before it went up which caused it to go up which caused speculators to want to buy more before it went up higher...
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Economists and weathermen (people) are the only professionals allowed to be continuously wrong and yet continue to hold places of high status. 
tester (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Economists and weathermen (people) are the only professionals allowed to be continuously wrong and yet continue to hold places of high status.
The weatherman is the only dude on the news gotta tell you E36 M3 that ain't happened yet.
Cut em some slack.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Futures trading is a lot more complicated than that, unfortunately, since it gauges EXPECTED demand vs. EXPECTED output, which is where the term "speculators" comes in.
Look at what happened in 2008 with oil prices. They were sky high until late autumn, and then they plummeted. Gas prices went from a normal of $4.50 to a normal of $1.80 in the space of a week or two. It's all due to speculation. Oil prices were high because speculators believed they were going to be higher tomorrow so they bought before it went up which caused it to go up which caused speculators to want to buy more before it went up higher...
E36 M3 gets even more complicated and confusing when you deal with stuff with a strongly inelastic demand curve. If gas went from $2 a gallon to $4 a gallon, the demand isn't going to cut in half. It's probably not even going to go down 10 percent. People have made choices, major life choices, based (at some level of consciousness) on how much it costs for them to drive places. If gas hits $8 a gallon people still need to buy a certain amount to get to work. Trucks will still need it to move stuff around.
In the longer run, and we're talking years, society can adjust to fuel prices accordingly. But they change daily, and people have conniptions.
tester (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Economists and weathermen (people) are the only professionals allowed to be continuously wrong and yet continue to hold places of high status.
Much like weathermen, if an economist tells me what's predicted to happen tomorrow, odds are they're probably going to be pretty correct. But if they try to tell me what it's going to do in 10 years, I'm going to give that about 0 credibility.
tuna55
MegaDork
4/20/22 9:28 a.m.
aircooled said:
Some updates:
Well, it seems like this is the big offensive we have been waiting for..... hmmm.... It looks like they are attacking across most of the line, and not necessarily doing that well. The only advance I see is right in the middle of the "bulge" which I can only imagine is because it is the least likely area you would think they would advance (rather then cut off the bulge).
So, expect to see some more vids of destroyed Russian vehicles soon...
Russia is committed to avoiding nuclear war, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, after he was quizzed repeatedly about the possible use of atomic weapons in Ukraine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/russia-will-not-use-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine-lavrov-says
One of the reasons for this may be something I noted the other day but did not think of the significance. There was a report of TU-22's flying toward Mariupol a few days ago. This apparently resulted in a rather "spirited" response from NATO. Why? The TU-22 is one of Russia only nuclear capable bombers (and the only one without props!) and with all the Russian posturing about nukes, needless to say, touched a nerve! I suspect the NATO response alarmed the Ruskies a bit and they had the Russian Frankenstein monster make a statement.
I'd like to read more about this NATO response. Where can I find more?
volvoclearinghouse said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Futures trading is a lot more complicated than that, unfortunately, since it gauges EXPECTED demand vs. EXPECTED output, which is where the term "speculators" comes in.
Look at what happened in 2008 with oil prices. They were sky high until late autumn, and then they plummeted. Gas prices went from a normal of $4.50 to a normal of $1.80 in the space of a week or two. It's all due to speculation. Oil prices were high because speculators believed they were going to be higher tomorrow so they bought before it went up which caused it to go up which caused speculators to want to buy more before it went up higher...
E36 M3 gets even more complicated and confusing when you deal with stuff with a strongly inelastic demand curve. If gas went from $2 a gallon to $4 a gallon, the demand isn't going to cut in half. It's probably not even going to go down 10 percent. People have made choices, major life choices, based (at some level of consciousness) on how much it costs for them to drive places. If gas hits $8 a gallon people still need to buy a certain amount to get to work. Trucks will still need it to move stuff around.
In the longer run, and we're talking years, society can adjust to fuel prices accordingly. But they change daily, and people have conniptions.
Yeah, and unlike milk and OJ, fuel is a much more heavily regulated market which always throws things off a bit.
AClockworkGarage said:
tester (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Economists and weathermen (people) are the only professionals allowed to be continuously wrong and yet continue to hold places of high status.
The weatherman is the only dude on the news gotta tell you E36 M3 that ain't happened yet.
Cut em some slack.
Michael Lewis' Against The Rules podcast was just talking about that. He was comparing weather forecasting from 40 years ago versus now. The quality of forecasts is exponentially better, yet people still love to rag on weathermen. I think it's largely a phenomenon of the blame culture that's so popular now, but he attributes it largely to a misunderstanding of probability and data. If the weatherman says that there's a 60 percent chance of rain today and you cancel your picnic, then it turns out to be a lovely day, there's a tendency to blame the weatherman. But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the original forecast. Also, there's a lot of pressure on the forecaster to be conservative, because if he says that tornados' going to miss your county and it veers over and takes out your home, you're gonna be mighty pissed. So he warns everyone who might be in the path, many of whom end up thinking that the forecaster is clueless.
Even my wife is guilty of this. She complains that a forecast is wrong because she's thinking in yes/no terms rather than probability.
mtn
MegaDork
4/20/22 11:10 a.m.
I'm continually astounded at how accurate weather predictions are, and how you can see their accuracy increase the shorter it is.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:
Michael Lewis' Against The Rules podcast was just talking about that. He was comparing weather forecasting from 40 years ago versus now. The quality of forecasts is exponentially better, yet people still love to rag on weathermen. I think it's largely a phenomenon of the blame culture that's so popular now, but he attributes it largely to a misunderstanding of probability and data. If the weatherman says that there's a 60 percent chance of rain today and you cancel your picnic, then it turns out to be a lovely day, there's a tendency to blame the weatherman. But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the original forecast. Also, there's a lot of pressure on the forecaster to be conservative, because if he says that tornados' going to miss your county and it veers over and takes out your home, you're gonna be mighty pissed. So he warns everyone who might be in the path, many of whom end up thinking that the forecaster is clueless.
Even my wife is guilty of this. She complains that a forecast is wrong because she's thinking in yes/no terms rather than probability.
I think part of it is how they distill the weather for an entire metropolitan area into a single picture and a number when they do the "long range" forecast, which is all most people pay attention to.
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
Which is probably exactly what 90 percent of the viewers want. Unless the forecaster has particularly nice tits, most people are going to lose attention as soon as things get complex.
We're getting pretty far off track, but I don't know why anyone gets their news from the television unless its just something to have on in the background when getting dressed or such. Television is to news what vending machines are to cuisine.
tuna55 said:
I'd like to read more about this NATO response. Where can I find more?
I am not finding anything either. I am getting the info second hand, and the comment was that the news did not pick up on it at all, so it will probably be pretty hard to find.
In reply to aircooled :
I haven't heard a peep on this, but let's ask the obvious question: what response could NATO have, short of flying into the war zone, that would be a clear and direct response to a Tu-22M flying over Russian and Ukrainian airspace? Scramble some fighters? Issue a sternly-worded communique? They certainly aren't going to put anything nuclear on heightened alert. The Tu-22M carries conventional munitions as well, and I did see a report of a "large aerial bomb" being dropped on the steel plant in Mariupol, so that's likely what it was doing. If Russia were to go nuclear - and again, I see this as highly unlikely - that seems like the last place they'd want to put one, given the proximity of their own troops.
aircooled said:
tuna55 said:
I'd like to read more about this NATO response. Where can I find more?
I am not finding anything either. I am getting the info second hand, and the comment was that the news did not pick up on it at all, so it will probably be pretty hard to find.
I saw something online this morning about three B-52s "unexpectedly being detected" around Belarus' airspace but can't find it again.
There were reports that mentioned F35s going off radar and silenced transponders in western Ukraine when the Russians were playing around. NPR mentioned a single F35 and Fox News stated a group of stealth fighters going silent as a deterrence. I have no print to back it up so it's just more swirling swill at this point.
It is entirely possible that both news sources were rehashing the March 4 story of the full stealth F35 in a NATO practice maneuver refilling from a Stratotanker about 100 miles from Belarus.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:
NPR mentioned a single F35 and Fox News stated a group of stealth fighters going silent as a deterrence.
My understanding is that F35's fly in pairs.
One lags behind and uses active radar to get a high resolution image of the theater. It then sends the information through an encrypted data link to a F35 ahead of it that's in stealth mode. The enemy sees the F35 behind due to its radar emissions and gets all excited about shooting at it while being oblivious to the dark F35 that's right on their a$$.
If my understanding is correct, short of mechanical failure / human error F35's don't really fight...a better description is that they decide to blow something away.
In reply to RX Reven' :
OTH missiles are a far cry from a collection of .30s and .50s in the wings!
02Pilot said:
In reply to aircooled :
I haven't heard a peep on this, but let's ask the obvious question: what response could NATO have, short of flying into the war zone, that would be a clear and direct response to a Tu-22M flying over Russian and Ukrainian airspace? Scramble some fighters? Issue a sternly-worded communique?....
Yeah, I would not really expect much of a military equipment response other then maybe an alert. They certainly would not try and do an intercept (they have no idea what they are carrying) other than making sure it stays within Ukraine.
I suspect it's more along the lines of alerting any NBC (nuclear biochemical) assets and whatever preparations would be needed if a fallout cloud started drifting across Ukraine. And yes, I don't think anyone would expect a nuke attack on Mariopul, but dropping one somewhere inland would be more practical... and again, very, very, very unlikely... but you do want to be prepared, even if you think there is almost no way it will happen.
