How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Carolus]

27 minutes ago, Joe982 said:

I hope you are right but from where exactly?

 

1) Basically every industrial country has far more energy generation capacity than it needs to ensure continuous production - even if several plants need to be taken off the grid for maintenance or simply damage repairs. 

2) Outside of the planned over-capacity, older power plants are not immediately demolished when a newer one is finished. They remain for years as a "strategic reserve". And due to improved technology energy companies are almost always building something newer and more efficient somewhere, so there is a continuous rotation from older to newer.

3) Special government programs like in Germany, where renewables are being pushed, means that a lot of conventional power plants have been taken off the grid, but are not destroyed. Germany gets between 30% and 40% of its daily energy from renewables (and growing), and has roughly the same capacity, mostly in coal plants, dormant and ready to be fired up. 

Ukraine's economy before the war used 125 TWh per year, which has dropped significantly due to the war to something below 100 TWh.

Germany alone has likely 200 TWh of unused capacity next to the 500 to 600 TWh it currently needs per year.

Edited April 15 by Carolus
typos

[cesmonkey]

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Holien said:

While the messenger is important I think it is as much how that message is transmitted to those who fall for this.

There are certain TV channels that are as important to this undermining of trust and spread out right lies. Without this support Trump wouldn't get any traction.

Absolutely.  Nearly all of Trump's positions on issues are opportunistic rather than anything else.  Senior and mid level people that worked for him when he was President have made that point clear after the fact, as if it wasn't obvious while it was playing out.  Which means if Trump is saying something it is a pretty safe bet he's not the source, just the pitchman.

With that in mind, my comment was more about the Russian money that has been pumped into the US hard right's information network.  Trump is merely the figurehead using all of it for his own ends.  Unfortunately, he's got the rank and file Republicans hoodwinked almost as much as the wingnuts.  That's not good for Ukraine, nor anybody else.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

 

This might all be true, however it's not the full picture.  I read a couple of articles last night that had Iran and military experts agreeing that Iran's attack was deliberately uncreative.  It was designed to send a message, not cause real damage.  The case made for this rings true for me after having watched what Russia's been doing to Ukraine for the last 2 years.  All the tricks of flight paths, mixes of different systems, timing, etc. we've seen Russia do were absent from Iran's attack.  They basically just lobbed them.

The point is that not only does Ukraine have a massive size and resource disadvantage against Russian attacks, but it also defending against an enemy that is trying hard for maximum damage.

Steve

[Holien]

A question for our American friends and any who might understand the DC politics... You know who I am looking at...

We are getting more and more evidence that the Biden team are really asking Ukraine to stop with the Russian refinery attacks?

Why?

 

Russian Oil is not making up much of the market, it has an effect in cutting Russian spending so why?

My poor old brain can only think of the following.

It could be they don't want to give folk the idea of how easy it is to do. But that genie is out already. The box is open... Lamp rubbed et al...

It could be that they know Israel is not going to act in a restrained proportionate manner with Iran and the whole world supply is likely to be disrupted.

If Iran decides to go full in the oil refineries in the area could be taken down very quickly with Iranian backed drones...

Any ideas on a postcard to the usual forum...

[Beleg85]

Heard about this tactics before, but don't recall the clips from it:

This war provides never-ending stream of challanges as how to siumlate it for potentiall future Combat Mission games.

[Battlefront.com]

OpEd piece on fraud, waste, and ineffectiveness of major weapons systems.  There's nothing new in terms of being critical of how taxpayer money is spent and who benefits from bad decisions (i.e. not the taxpayer), but there is one element in there that ties in with discussions over the weekend:

https://thehill.com/opinion/4594190-throwing-more-tax-dollars-at-the-pentagon-wont-make-us-safer/

Specifically, the author points out that about 1/2 of the Pentagon's budget goes towards weapons procurement.  I can't verify that number, but it doesn't sound wrong to me.  Given that the evolving battlefield is making many of these expensive programs pointless, that theoretically frees up a lot of financing for evolving capabilities.  Which was the point I raised about the RUSI report recently linked to.  Cutting even one or two dead end, expensive capabilities is more than enough to fund a better alternative with resources to spare.

Steve

[FancyCat]

Interesting intersection.

Quote

There is a growing understanding among American evangelical Christians that Russia is purposefully erasing evangelical communities in Ukraine to bolster its own Orthodox Church.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/baptists-pastors-speaker/2024/04/11/id/1160578/

Ukraine has the second largest Baptist community in Europe. Many Baptist churches have been destroyed, including all those in Mariupol, and others have been turned into military bases by the Russian occupation forces.

https://baptistnews.com/article/baptists-and-other-religious-minorities-already-facing-severe-persecution-in-russian-occupied-portions-of-ukraine/

 

[danfrodo]

40 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Interesting intersection.

 

We'll take all the help we can get in pressuring this pile of filth to do the right thing.  Hopefully this becomes a cause celeb amongst evangelicals.  

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Interesting intersection.

 

I just noticed whose account this is.  I haven't seen anything from Simon in awhile!  Total hero of the 2014/2015 timeframe.

I checked out his feed and found this interesting note posted a couple of days ago:

Steve

[cesmonkey]

For those interested in the politics of the U.S. House:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cq-budget-johnsons-conundrum/id1050795708?i=1000652525485

CQ Budget: Johnson's conundrum
CQ Roll Call Policy and Politics
News

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., faces pressure from all sides after promising to take up an aid bill for Israel this week that may or may not include money for Ukraine. CQ Roll Call's David Lerman and Peter Cohn assess the embattled speaker's options on a national security supplemental spending package.

 

[poesel]

Russian milblogger Romanov confirms that the AFU expanded the bridgehead in Krynky 500 meter to the west. While this information is not that new, Romanov reveals Russians just left this position without a fight. He also claims Russians made a small advance in the center of Krynky.

 

So Krynky still exists, and the Russians have voluntarily retreated (a bit). Did they finally understand the futility of their actions, or is there another reason?

 

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, Holien said:

A question for our American friends and any who might understand the DC politics... You know who I am looking at...

 

We are getting more and more evidence that the Biden team are really asking Ukraine to stop with the Russian refinery attacks?

 

Why?

 

 

Russian Oil is not making up much of the market, it has an effect in cutting Russian spending so why?

My poor old brain can only think of the following.

It could be they don't want to give folk the idea of how easy it is to do. But that genie is out already. The box is open... Lamp rubbed et al...

It could be that they know Israel is not going to act in a restrained proportionate manner with Iran and the whole world supply is likely to be disrupted.

If Iran decides to go full in the oil refineries in the area could be taken down very quickly with Iranian backed drones...

Any ideas on a postcard to the usual forum...

I'll take a stab at it.

The Republicans have a tradition of whipping people up into a frenzy over gas prices.  It's one of the most basic expenses people have to endure on a daily basis, especially in Red States that disproportionally rely on less efficient vehicles (by choice or out of necessity).  Any time gas prices go up Republicans blame the Democrats for it.  Even if Republicans control government, it is somehow always their fault.  Very convenient, isn't it?

A couple of weeks ago the right wing talking points included Biden being responsible for higher gas prices because it's arming Ukraine to destroy Russian oil facilities.  It doesn't matter that NONE of this is true (not even a tiny bit), it's part of the Republican narrative that a) quality of life in the US is similar to Haiti, b) Joe Biden's failed policies are to blame, and c) it's only going to get worse if Dems keep the White House.

The above is not speculative and is routine for an election year.  What is also routine is the sitting President trying to avoid having gas prices spike during the election cycle.

Therefore, my guess is that Biden is trying to head off any sort of possibility that Ukraine's strikes might have a ripple effect that may drive up gas prices or be used as a false narrative as to why gas prices are whatever they are.

Slightly less cynical is that countries which rely on Russian oil, in particular India, may be putting pressure on the Biden Admin to reign in Ukraine or face some sort of foreign policy consequences.

All pure speculation on my part, so not worth more than 2 cents!

Steve

[billbindc]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This might all be true, however it's not the full picture.  I read a couple of articles last night that had Iran and military experts agreeing that Iran's attack was deliberately uncreative.  It was designed to send a message, not cause real damage.  The case made for this rings true for me after having watched what Russia's been doing to Ukraine for the last 2 years.  All the tricks of flight paths, mixes of different systems, timing, etc. we've seen Russia do were absent from Iran's attack.  They basically just lobbed them.

The point is that not only does Ukraine have a massive size and resource disadvantage against Russian attacks, but it also defending against an enemy that is trying hard for maximum damage.

Steve

I’ve been reading those folks pushing the idea that Iran intentionally flubbed the attack on Israel with some…restrained amusement. Us old folks remember how analysis of the USSR routinely made the same threat-inflating mistake as analysts responded, consciously or not, to pressures that essentially drove them to see every flaw, error or omission as yet another devious maneuver by those mustachio twisting apparatchiks in Moscow to lower our guard. 

The reality is that yes, Iran didn’t throw the kitchen sink at Israel but at the same time, the idea was for Iran to establish a higher level of deterrence against Israeli strikes directly on Iranian territory, assets and personnel. To do that, Iran need to actually show the ability to do significant damage in ways that Israel cannot address. What happened instead? Iran managed to unite Israel’s neighbors around it (despite, Bibi and Gaza!) to such a degree that they are bragging quietly how many Iranian munitions they shot down (including by the pilot/princess of Jordan) and celebrating (not very quietly) how well they can and will cooperate against Iran. 

Deterrence is information without the cure. If Iran had managed to get through and wallop a couple of Israel airfields and hit a scattering of other bases, that would not have set off a conflagration and would have delivered a solid deterrence message. It would have been “We send 300 and hit 20% of the time. Imagine if we send 3000?”. Now, Israel and the rest of the region can imagine it and has reason to think they can handle it (if, again more to Iran’s strategic detriment, they keep the US onside and willing to lend support).

Deterrence isn’t achieved by demonstrating what you can’t do. 

[Eddy]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Slightly less cynical is that countries which rely on Russian oil, in particular India, may be putting pressure on the Biden Admin to reign in Ukraine or face some sort of foreign policy consequences.

This is the bit I really don't understand. The Ukrainians are targeting refineries, which produce petrol/gas, kerosine, heavy fuels etc. The global oil price is for crude oil, not refined products, and it is global crude oil price that determines how expensive locally refined petrochemical products are, whether that be in the US, Europe, India or anywhere. The Ukrainians have not attacked crude oil production or distribution AFAIK, Hence I can't see how attacking refineries could push up crude oil prices. The present oil price rise is due to Opec+ cutting production and concerns over the Middle East. 

If you blow up a steel plant it does not push up the price of iron ore. 

It could well be I'm missing something. I'm happy to be educated because I just can't follow the logic, 

 

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I’ve been reading those folks pushing the idea that Iran intentionally flubbed the attack on Israel with some…restrained amusement. Us old folks remember how analysis of the USSR routinely made the same threat-inflating mistake as analysts responded, consciously or not, to pressures that essentially drove them to see every flaw, error or omission as yet another devious maneuver by those mustachio twisting apparatchiks in Moscow to lower our guard. 

The reality is that yes, Iran didn’t throw the kitchen sink at Israel but at the same time, the idea was for Iran to establish a higher level of deterrence against Israeli strikes directly on Iranian territory, assets and personnel. To do that, Iran need to actually show the ability to do significant damage in ways that Israel cannot address. What happened instead? Iran managed to unite Israel’s neighbors around it (despite, Bibi and Gaza!) to such a degree that they are bragging quietly how many Iranian munitions they shot down (including by the pilot/princess of Jordan) and celebrating (not very quietly) how well they can and will cooperate against Iran. 

Deterrence is information without the cure. If Iran had managed to get through and wallop a couple of Israel airfields and hit a scattering of other bases, that would not have set off a conflagration and would have delivered a solid deterrence message. It would have been “We send 300 and hit 20% of the time. Imagine if we send 3000?”. Now, Israel and the rest of the region can imagine it and has reason to think they can handle it (if, again more to Iran’s strategic detriment, they keep the US onside and willing to lend support).

Deterrence isn’t achieved by demonstrating what you can’t do. 

Yes, familiar with people in the West coming up with excuses for poor performance.  We saw all kinds of that at the beginning of this war (cough... Kofman... cough).  So yes, we have either a completely incompetent attack or one that was deliberately restrained.  Either of those, however, were really dumb in terms of overall impact.  For sure Israel got a lot more support on its side after this attack.  Whatever domestic need Iran had to strike out should have been done with that in mind.

Anyway, this is off topic and will likely spiral downhill fast so I'm going to redirect us to keeping it on topic.

Russia has shown how to stress out an enemy's air defenses.  Lots of different approach angles by a wide variety of strike vehicles all timed to obligate the defenses to act in predictable ways.  And even then that largely hasn't worked because Ukraine's air defenses were good enough until recently.  If Iran intended to have an effective attack they should maybe phone up Moscow and ask them for advice before launching their next attack.

Steve

[Holien]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has shown how to stress out an enemy's air defenses.  Lots of different approach angles by a wide variety of strike vehicles all timed to obligate the defenses to act in predictable ways.  And even then that largely hasn't worked because Ukraine's air defenses were good enough until recently.

Some folk are saying the attacks are getting through because of declining AD ammo - not sure if this is the case?

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Eddy said:

This is the bit I really don't understand. The Ukrainians are targeting refineries, which produce petrol/gas, kerosine, heavy fuels etc. The global oil price is for crude oil, not refined products, and it is global crude oil price that determines how expensive locally refined petrochemical products are, whether that be in the US, Europe, India or anywhere. The Ukrainians have not attacked crude oil production or distribution AFAIK, Hence I can't see how attacking refineries could push up crude oil prices. The present oil price rise is due to Opec+ cutting production and concerns over the Middle East. 

If you blow up a steel plant it does not push up the price of iron ore. 

It could well be I'm missing something. I'm happy to be educated because I just can't follow the logic, 

 

Try explaining the complexity of global petroleum markets to Joe Sixpack and see how that goes for you.  I've tried and I can tell you their eyes glaze over as soon as you say "but that's not how it works" after they say that the President of the United States determines how much we pay at the pump for gas.

Like I said, I'm merely speculating.  Someone has to be putting pressure on the US government about Russia's infrastructure destruction.  It could be simply rich people not happy with their portfolios getting hammered.  I really don't know, but I'm sure there's a reason for the US to be applying pressure.  And I doubt it is the tired "be careful of WW3" nonsense.

Steve

[Baneman]

55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

...

The above is not speculative and is routine for an election year.  What is also routine is the sitting President trying to avoid having gas prices spike during the election cycle.

Therefore, my guess is that Biden is trying to head off any sort of possibility that Ukraine's strikes might have a ripple effect that may drive up gas prices or be used as a false narrative as to why gas prices are whatever they are.

But still, even if the Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries was having an effect on gas prices, stopping them won't have any effect because the Russians can just as easily themselves halt production when the time is right if they want to effect rising gas prices during an election.

The logic of these narratives doesn't hold up.

[Battlefront.com]

39 minutes ago, Holien said:

Some folk are saying the attacks are getting through because of declining AD ammo - not sure if this is the case?

Some of it MUST be because of decreased AD capacity.  As was noted a bunch of posts ago, Ukraine has reportedly lost some parts of 2x Patriot batteries.  That's a significant decrease from what their max was (IIRC it was 5).

Steve

[Eddy]

19 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Russians can just as easily themselves halt production when the time is right if they want to effect rising gas prices during an election.

I had a thought over the weekend - so could Ukraine. Let's just say, hypothetically, the next US President was not supportive of Ukraine. Ukraine could attack Russian crude oil production and distribution, purely for self-defence reasons obvs, which would push up petrol/gas prices in the short/medium term, and thus affecting the popularity of said President, just in time for the mid-terms. 

Admittedly, I am way out of my lane here, but it was an interesting thought experiment. Obviously, no one would ever be that calculating and devious and such a plan could horribly, horribly belly up.

[danfrodo]

Some good vids here today.  RU allegedly gearing up for big push in May/June.  Gonna be hard to stop w/o adequate artillery supplies -- FU Mike Johnson.  

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/4/15/2235347/-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Ukraine-says-Russia-s-summer-offensive-is-coming?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

 

[Offshoot]

A couple of videos of drone teams, one using the Baba Yaga and another in Kherson. They show the communication between recon drone and attack drone teams.

 

 

Ukrainians training soldiers on semi-automatic shotguns as a counter to drones - Ukrainian military practices to counter drones with guns

Edited April 15 by Offshoot

[kimbosbread]

What’s with the reports of the Krynky bridgehead being expanded? That seems like a bright spot of good news.

[cesmonkey]

 

Edited April 16 by cesmonkey