tuna55 said:Russia has lots of things which are supposed to do lots of things...
That's one of the funniest things I've read all week.
In other news, our missionaries have finally gotten us a safe address to ship a package of medical supplies to. Israeli-style bandages, CAT tourniquets (yes, I know the T is for tourniquet), and other medical stuff. I do not look forward to the postage...but oh well.
Sorry for the tangent, but I don't think this was the result of disrupting the EU's natural gas supplies that Putin was aiming for. Europe now has so much natural gas that prices just dipped below zero
Not off tangent at all.
I'm not happy about export of natural gas, but the EU having a surplus is a good thing. It means we'll likely see a dip in prices here in the US as upstream suppliers try to find someone to buy their surplus.
Pretty ironic when Putin's goal was to freeze Europe out when October temps in Europe have been averaging ~75 degrees F.
Thanks (?) climate change!(??)
jmabarone said:"Very old tank it's actually...crap"
Which is actually untrue. The T-62 doesn't use the auto loading system of the newer t72/82 so when hit doesn't pop the top because all the munitions went up too.
pheller said:Not off tangent at all.
I'm not happy about export of natural gas, but the EU having a surplus is a good thing. It means we'll likely see a dip in prices here in the US as upstream suppliers try to find someone to buy their surplus.
I'm not sure where this information is coming from. Natural gas prices are a good 50% higher than they were during December & January of last year.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas
And there appears to be a very low supply of diesel fuel (and home heating oil) in Europe and the U.S.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Repsol-Parts-Of-Europe-Are-Running-Out-Of-Diesel.html
And heating oil prices are at an all time high.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/heating-oil
I have neighbors who got quoted $6.25 a gallon. I told them to buy electric space heaters.
Video released from today's attack on Sevastopol. It shows a naval drone targeting the Black Sea Fleet's Admiral Makarov Project 11356 frigate, which Russian sources said was damaged (it replaced the Moskva as the Black Sea Fleet's flagship)
Russia accused British specialists and claimed civilian vessels were involved in attack against Sevastopol
Moscow called the UN Security Council to convene after suspending its participation in the grain agreement
AFP from a Turkish security source: Ankara has not officially been informed of Russia's withdrawal from the grain export agreement
https://nypost.com/2022/10/29/russia-blames-ukraine-and-britain-for-drone-attack-in-crimea/
This is an interesting interview transcript. Graham Allison, probably the leading expert on the Cuban Missile Crisis, was interviewed by Fyodor Lukyanov, a Moscow-based journalist. The interview was broadcast in Russian last week. It's a broad exploration with a historical bent to it, but useful in shaping understanding of the overall situation and potential consequences.
An assessment that is not really surprising:
Russian President Vladimir Putin will most likely try to continue conventional military operations in Ukraine to hold currently occupied territories, gain new ground, and set conditions for the collapse of Western support for Ukraine that he likely expects to occur this winter. Putin has likely not abandoned hopes of achieving his maximalist aims in Ukraine through conventional military means, which he is pursuing in parallel with efforts to break Ukraine’s will to fight and the West’s will to continue supporting Kyiv.[1] Putin is unlikely to escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons barring the sudden collapse of the Russian military permitting Ukrainian forces to make uncontrolled advances throughout the theater.[2] Such a situation is possible but unlikely. Putin is extraordinarily unlikely to seek direct military conflict with NATO. Putin is very likely to continue to hint at the possibility of Russian tactical nuclear use and attacks on NATO, however, as parts of his effort to break Western will to continue supporting Ukraine.
Putin’s efforts to break Europe’s will by withholding Russian energy supplies over the winter offers yet another timeline that coheres well with the others. The theory underlying this Russian effort would be that freezing European populations will put such pressure on their governments that European states will begin to accept Putin’s demands to stop providing weapons and other forms of support to Ukraine, at least, and possibly to lift various sanctions on Russia as well. This theory will not really be falsifiable until well into 2023, however. European governments have ostentatiously prepared their populations for a difficult winter, stocked up as best they can on energy supplies, and set conditions to reduce energy usage even at significant economic cost. These actions signal that European leaders are ready for the kinds of pressures they are likely to encounter early in the cold season. Putin can hope that they will not be able to withstand those pressures all through the winter, but the validity of that hope will not be clear until the coldest weather has had a chance to build them. This timeline thus also coincides with the likely availability of the next wave of Russian forces in spring 2023—Putin will have been able to observe the effect of winter on European will and choose whether to commit his conscripts or pursue some other course of action.
These timelines are likely more significant in shaping Putin’s thoughts and decisions than in shaping effects on the ground. Roughly one-third of the mobilized reservists have already arrived in Ukraine, according to Putin, and they have made relatively little difference on the battlefield.[11] The UK Ministry of Defense noted that they are reinforcing combat units that were in some cases effectively destroyed—reduced to 10 percent of their normal complements.[12] The arrival of hastily mobilized and untrained reservists into such units will not render them combat effective. The deployment of raw conscripts after four or six months of training in 2023 will likely have similarly nugatory effects on the battlefield. But Putin does not appear to recognize these facts and seems rather to expect the reserves called up at such surprising cost to make a real difference.
In reply to aircooled :
So this winter will be really interesting. Can the EU live without russian gas- if they can, there won't be a real end to EU support. That, and looking at many of the resources being channeled over there- they are older pieces that are not really vital, or even that expensive to give away. Like those 60's era (but updated) anti-aircraft missiles. Or other things that are being taken out of long term storage.
The other part- what does putin get if he wins?
I really see the EU shifting faster away from HC based energy- which is something they've talked about before. So in the long term, the idea of reducing the fees to his gas sales will be pretty hollow.
Second- some of the population shift data shows that Ukraine is far worse off than russia, as they've had more than a million people flee due to the war. If vlad wins, there's no way they are ever coming back. Add in the +500k of his own young that are fleeing- who can't come back else risking being shot for desertion- the future is really bleak for a combined russia/ukraine country. It will be a huge chunk of land with hardly anyone living there.
But none of this matters to vlad. Not sure what does anymore.
In reply to alfadriver :
If he wins, he gets natural gas fields and a huge chunk of farmland. And a bunch of paranoid neighbors who will be arming up to prevent being next (except maybe Hungary). He'll have to hope his economy holds together long enough to reap any gains when sanctions fatigue finally settles in or China decides to blatantly ignore them.
But, yeah, the era of (most) EU countries willingly depending on Russia for energy is over.
I guess missiles are easier to deploy than trained soldiers.. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-completes-partial-mobilisation-defence-ministry-2022-10-31/
In reply to 06HHR (Forum Supporter) :
At the rate they are lobbing them, I guess Putin finally realized no one is going to invade Russia, so they can burn through their whole inventory.
A couple other things I picked up:
The Russians are clearly running low on missiles, thus the purchasing of Iranian missiles. It also means they are pulling out older, less accurate missiles from their inventory.
It also results in something that was confusing to me. I was reading about missile strikes by S300's and was confused that this was some sort of ballistic missile system that shared the same name as their popular SAM system. Well.... the Russians have a LOT of S300 missiles (they tend to have a big focus on an air defense since NATO / US have a big focus on air power) and apparently, they have retrofitted some of the missiles with GPS guidance to use for land attack.
eastsideTim said:In reply to alfadriver :
If he wins, he gets natural gas fields and a huge chunk of farmland. And a bunch of paranoid neighbors who will be arming up to prevent being next (except maybe Hungary). He'll have to hope his economy holds together long enough to reap any gains when sanctions fatigue finally settles in or China decides to blatantly ignore them.
But, yeah, the era of (most) EU countries willingly depending on Russia for energy is over.
The grain may be sold- as it sounds like russian grain is part of the whole grain deal so that the world can be fed.
But the gas? Maybe a few years, but after that....
And even then- the amount of workers that can man both will be very reduced. For sure, this war is dooming at least russia into just an agrarian and possibly gas economy since nobody else will be left. If they "win"- that extends into Ukraine.
For the sake of feeding the world- it's a shame that it's difficult to grow massive amounts of grain in other parts of the world.
I am just an amateur war expert, but just in case, just how would the US and NATO establish a no fly zone over Ukraine and the Black Sea, just for arguments sake? I know that many of you don't want to talk about what ifs, but What If? I mean, we did do just that over Bosnia.
02Pilot said:This is an interesting interview transcript. Graham Allison, probably the leading expert on the Cuban Missile Crisis, was interviewed by Fyodor Lukyanov, a Moscow-based journalist. The interview was broadcast in Russian last week. It's a broad exploration with a historical bent to it, but useful in shaping understanding of the overall situation and potential consequences.
China, evidently upset that we are sending 6 B-52Hs with potentially 20 AGM-158B JASSM-ER stealth nuke cruise missiles each said:
"Asked about U.S. nuclear bombers being positioned in Australia, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said defense and security cooperation between countries should “not target any third parties or harm the interests of third parties.”
“The relevant U.S. behaviors have increased regional tensions, seriously undermined regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region,” Zhao told reporters at a regular briefing in Beijing."
Maybe they shouldn't threaten to conquer other 3rd party people.
AP-Yahoo.com: China slams reported plan for US B-52 bombers in Australia
VolvoHeretic said:I am just an amateur war expert, but just in case, just how would the US and NATO establish a no fly zone over Ukraine and the Black Sea, just for arguments sake? I know that many of you don't want to talk about what ifs, but What If? I mean, we did do just that over Bosnia.
I'm hardly an expert of any kind, but I think in principle it's pretty simple. You base a bunch of fighters and radar aircraft nearby (carriers, friendly/allied air bases, etc), fly combat patrols, and shoot down anyone who violates it. I imagine that was probably easier in Bosnia because it was closer to countries that are more closely allied with the US.
The big difference with Bosnia is that AFAIK we wouldn't have to shoot down any aircraft belonging to a country armed with nukes.
stroker said:02Pilot said:This is an interesting interview transcript. Graham Allison, probably the leading expert on the Cuban Missile Crisis, was interviewed by Fyodor Lukyanov, a Moscow-based journalist. The interview was broadcast in Russian last week. It's a broad exploration with a historical bent to it, but useful in shaping understanding of the overall situation and potential consequences.
Weird. It doesn't seem to work from the direct link I posted, but it does if you click in from this page. Sorry about that - not sure what changed.
You'll need to log in to post.