Jump to content

How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?


Probus

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

I will say for the record that I am all for renewables, but they have their own hurdles. One of the biggest being that no one source is going to work everywhere

This ... doesnt make a lot of sense. I mean, it's true, but only in a trivial sense. Why is a single source important at all, let alone being the /first/ thing you bring up? Given the plethora of proven, safe, and economical renewable generation sources available ... I'm truly at a loss as to what point you think you're making.

So you can't use solar in BC. Fine - use wind or tidal or geothermal or hydro. You cant use solar or hydro in Samoa - that's fine, use wind or tidal. Etc. The "lack" of a single solution is a strength, not a weakness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JonS said:

This ... doesnt make a lot of sense. I mean, it's true, but only in a trivial sense. Why is a single source important at all, let alone being the /first/ thing you bring up? Given the plethora of proven, safe, and economical renewable generation sources available ... I'm truly at a loss as to what point you think you're making.

So you can't use solar in BC. Fine - use wind or tidal or geothermal or hydro. You cant use solar or hydro in Samoa - that's fine, use wind or tidal. Etc. The "lack" of a single solution is a strength, not a weakness.

well said, JonS.  Multi solution approach is the way to go.

Actually here in Oregon solar works really well for ~1/2 the year, pumping surplus current back into the grid.  Of course, the SW US is flipping insane not requiring solar on all new construction.  The load on the grid is enormous and would be zero w solar on the rooftops.  I'm currently putting together the info to officially get on my local solar installer's wait list (~6 months).  And best of all it pays for itself, literally, even here.

I think folks get caught into an all or nothing thing on energy.  First is was "renewables don't work".  Then its "renewables can't do everything".  As if it's some kind of all or nothing game.  If renewables cut fossil fuels by 50 or 60% that would be insanely good -- ask all the folks breathing coal exhaust in china whether that would be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JonS said:

This ... doesnt make a lot of sense. I mean, it's true, but only in a trivial sense. Why is a single source important at all, let alone being the /first/ thing you bring up? Given the plethora of proven, safe, and economical renewable generation sources available ... I'm truly at a loss as to what point you think you're making.

So you can't use solar in BC. Fine - use wind or tidal or geothermal or hydro. You cant use solar or hydro in Samoa - that's fine, use wind or tidal. Etc. The "lack" of a single solution is a strength, not a weakness.

I agree that there is no need to find a single option, so yes...good point. I was typing fast while trying to do two things at once and probably worded things poorly. What I was getting at is that renewables in general are often intermittent and can have a very large land use footprint and some of them are more economically competitive than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, dan/california said:

And let's face it, I think anything short of selling Ukraine cruise missiles as they cross the Polish/Ukrainian border, in the air, for a dollar each is a half measure. I mean they have the right to blow up specified coordinates of their own country, don't they?

Evil genius!  I like it!!!!!!

🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

well said, JonS.  Multi solution approach is the way to go.

Actually here in Oregon solar works really well for ~1/2 the year, pumping surplus current back into the grid.  Of course, the SW US is flipping insane not requiring solar on all new construction.  The load on the grid is enormous and would be zero w solar on the rooftops.  I'm currently putting together the info to officially get on my local solar installer's wait list (~6 months).  And best of all it pays for itself, literally, even here.

I think folks get caught into an all or nothing thing on energy.  First is was "renewables don't work".  Then its "renewables can't do everything".  As if it's some kind of all or nothing game.  If renewables cut fossil fuels by 50 or 60% that would be insanely good -- ask all the folks breathing coal exhaust in china whether that would be good.

Exactly. Even here in BC solar can certainly play a big role on a small scale in summer, it's just not a large-scale, year-round option here.

Any improvement is, by definition, better than the status quo. LNG is definitely not a sustainable long-term endpoint, but I think there's a good case to be made that it's been a short term net positive in places where it replaced coal. Like you, I use to be opposed to (or at least highly apprehensive about) nuclear power, but am now convinced that some of the newer technologies are at least worth considering (and have trouble considering replacing existing plants with LNG a net positive). No one option is going to meet everyone's needs all of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

 

"Russia isn't magic" is my new mantra.

What tha WHA?  I guess the "Russia's just been toying with Ukraine so far, but now it's going to show its true fury!" crowd just won't cease embarrassing itself.  The only "grim fact" about this is that some information sources don't vet their contributors very well.

I'd read the (probable) drivel on the frenchpress.thedispatch.com, but I'm not signing up.  If I want a laugh there's no subscription required over at YouTube.

The people that keep insisting that Russia can fight a long war like the Soviets could are akin to people thinking that if someone takes a picture of them they'll be able to see it in a couple of days when they are back with the prints from the photo processor.  Because that's the way it has always been!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

article in NY times on state of the war had this excerpt.

 

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia appointed a new commander, Gen. Aleksandr V. Dvornikov, in April in what was widely viewed as an acknowledgment that the initial Russian war plan was failing.

Soon after his arrival, General Dvornikov tried to get disjointed air and land units to coordinate their attacks, American officials said. But he has not been seen in the past two weeks, leading some officials to speculate as to whether he remains in charge of the war effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sburke said:

article in NY times on state of the war had this excerpt.

 

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia appointed a new commander, Gen. Aleksandr V. Dvornikov, in April in what was widely viewed as an acknowledgment that the initial Russian war plan was failing.

Soon after his arrival, General Dvornikov tried to get disjointed air and land units to coordinate their attacks, American officials said. But he has not been seen in the past two weeks, leading some officials to speculate as to whether he remains in charge of the war effort.

Someone Tweeted about this the other day and even put forward the possible replacement.  It was speculation based on something verifiable which got that person thinking that Dvornikov was out of the picture.  No chance of me finding the Tweet again.  Damn, now I wish I had gone through and posted it here (I thought it was too RUMINT at the time).

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fenris said:

I was pointed to this little bit of news yesterday.

Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia ditches referendum on joining Russia

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220530-georgia-s-breakaway-region-of-south-ossetia-ditches-referendum-on-joining-russia

 

 

Interesting, though I don't know what to make of it.  It's not unheard of that Russia's chosen "republic" leaders hold out as some part of negotiations, but this sounds like it's more complex than that.  One to watch, for sure.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting, though I don't know what to make of it.  It's not unheard of that Russia's chosen "republic" leaders hold out as some part of negotiations, but this sounds like it's more complex than that.  One to watch, for sure.

Steve

maybe the conscription in Luhansk and Donetsk made them reconsider.  Hey let's join and become cannon fodder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is from a few weeks ago but is still a good read.  It's from one of the US special forces guys in Ukraine trying to help with basic training needs of the TD soldiers.  Nothing really new, though still worth reading:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-special-ops-vet-training-ukrainians-explains-success-against-russia-2022-5

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sburke said:

maybe the conscription in Luhansk and Donetsk made them reconsider.  Hey let's join and become cannon fodder!

Works quite the opposite. Officially being part of Russia would provide protection against the sort of mobilization experienced in L/DPR.

This move appears to have been more particular to the politics of S. Ossetia:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, sburke said:

maybe the conscription in Luhansk and Donetsk made them reconsider.  Hey let's join and become cannon fodder!

We talked quite a bit ~300 pages ago about various parts of the Russian periphery remembering how much they don't like being Russian as the Russian Army just destroys itself in Ukraine.  This might, emphasize might, be an early warning of that breaking out. 

 

Edit, AKD typed faster, and with better info too. And yes the LPR/DPR have something worse than the worst of both worlds. 

Edited by dan/california
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple anecdotal tidbits showing the sort of "gimmicks" Russia is using to stay in the fight.  This sort of behavior is not likely to produce good quality replacements or the numbers of cannon fodder Russian tactics require, but it is likely to get the general population's ire up to some extent.

1.  Kadyrov helping his bud Putin out by "press ganging" his people into fighting in Ukraine:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-accused-of-kidnapping-chechens-to-fight-war-in-ukraine?via=rss&source=articles_fancylink

2.  Rosgvardiya from Krasnodar refuse to return to Ukraine:

https://news.yahoo.com/national-guard-russia-soldiers-krasnodar-130303068.html

3.  Not directly related, but Russian courts ruled that 115 cases of Rosgvardiya were correctly terminated from service for refusing to fight in Ukraine.  This means they don't :

https://news.yahoo.com/more-100-members-putins-private-074238068.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an example of why I am so enamored with the ISW updates.  This top summary from May 31 very nicely summarizes and characterizes things we've been talking about here for months:

https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment%2C May 31.pdf

Boiled down even more...

Russia is focusing on securing propaganda victories while Ukraine is looking at what makes military sense to take/hold.  Fighting a conventional war for propaganda goals is not very smart, but taking advantage of an enemy that makes such mistakes is.

This just makes the Chicken Little Tweets in the previous page look all the more silly.  It's akin to two chess players where the black side says "ah-ha!  I took all your pawns and some rooks!" and a commentator saying "well, it looks like the white player is done for", then two turns later the white player says "check mate".  Doesn't matter how many pieces one side takes if the other side takes the important ones first.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is an example of why I am so enamored with the ISW updates.  This top summary from May 31 very nicely summarizes and characterizes things we've been talking about here for months:

https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment%2C May 31.pdf

Boiled down even more...

Russia is focusing on securing propaganda victories while Ukraine is looking at what makes military sense to take/hold.  Fighting a conventional war for propaganda goals is not very smart, but taking advantage of an enemy that makes such mistakes is.

This just makes the Chicken Little Tweets in the previous page look all the more silly.  It's akin to two chess players where the black side says "ah-ha!  I took all your pawns and some rooks!" and a commentator saying "well, it looks like the white player is done for", then two turns later the white player says "check mate".  Doesn't matter how many pieces one side takes if the other side takes the important ones first.

Steve

This is a nice chess puzzle that illustrates it.

https://www.chess.com/daily-chess-puzzle/2022-05-29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even one of the larger oil producing provinces in Canada (Saskatchewan) is discussing modular nuclear reactors. I need to understand the differences between these and old style reactors but am really hoping that the recent announcements in fusion will be viable in 20 years. Now that would be a game changer.

Not to become too political but the last US administration had me seriously thinking 'if only China was democratic, I would way sooner have them for a neighbour and ally'. I don't think Americans realized just how much good will they lost in the last administration.  If this was a reaction by one of America's strongest allies, I do not see how the last govt could have pulled off such a strong coalition supporting Ukraine (assuming they even wanted to)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...