Jump to content

How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?


Probus

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, acrashb said:

And we were told that these were only suitable as battle taxis, certain death in a modern battlefield during combat.

It appears that, if the enemy's anti-tank capability is seriously degraded, the venerable M113 can still fight :)

That's so wrong on so many levels.  Let's take a high-level look.  Until recently, the US was (for the first time in a long time) energy self-sufficient and had the option to improve energy flows from its friendly, democratic neighbour - Canada.

Now, the US faces shortages that have driven up energy costs, disproportionally impacted the poor; is going to reduce sanctions on a brutal autocracy and strategic competitor - Venezuela - to reduce the cost of energy; has been gravely depleting strategic reserves to reduce the pump cost; is considering blocking off-shore drilling; and so is once again at the mercy of OPEC.

Sounds kind of like - not an exact parallel - Germany, and we all know where that has led.  

Love fossil fuels, hate them, either way they are necessary in the mid term, and no solution that includes confiscation of corporations and/or their assets - that's what nationalization means - to put them in the hands of disinterested government controllers is going to improve things.  If anyone think nationalization works, the most recent blindingly obvious counter-example is ... Venezuela, which is now a living hell.

 

And yet, President Biden just mooted exactly that: https://nationalpost.com/news/biden-nuclear-armageddon-risk-highest-since-62-crisis

I don't know if it's strategic messaging or just a gaffe.

 

Of course .....there are plenty of alternative views as to  who and what is controlling oil production in the US and for what purpose ...

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-reasons-why-the-united-states-cant-drill-its-way-to-energy-independence/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting a little messy  - Elon Musk and his Tweets  and reports of  ongoing Starlink issues at the  edges of the offensive areas

https://www.ft.com/content/9a7b922b-2435-4ac7-acdb-0ec9a6dc8397

I get the feeling they are completely unrelated  ....but if Musk knew about ongoing  SL issues   one really wonders why he felt the need to tweet  about his Peace Solutions for ending the conflict - its does'nt really make for a good look in my opinion .

Edited by keas66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, acrashb said:

And we were told that these were only suitable as battle taxis, certain death in a modern battlefield during combat.

It appears that, if the enemy's anti-tank capability is seriously degraded, the venerable M113 can still fight :)

Yes it looks that much of the frontline is sparsely populated. Much less combat density than in your average combat mission. I also don't see much evidence of Russian using their ATGM and i do not know if this is because of lack of supply or lack of video.

But if enemy primary counter is artillery fire then even light armor will be good.

 

30 minutes ago, acrashb said:

That's so wrong on so many levels.  Let's take a high-level look.  Until recently, the US was (for the first time in a long time) energy self-sufficient and had the option to improve energy flows from its friendly, democratic neighbour - Canada.

Wouldn't U.S. industry need to produce enough for both internal consumption and external consumption becuase of the free market? U.S. field production for June (all types) is 533,000 (in thousands of barrels) but then exports 300,000.  February U.S. exports 50,000 fewer barrels (all types).

I think this show problem possible due to Russian violence in Ukraine as markets become unstable and must cope with high intensity war. Others have said but providing Ukraine with best means to end war seems like best way to return markets to stability. Issue will become worse over winter so it is important that Ukraine has battlefield success to show world.

Edited by Twisk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Nationalization of the American oil industry? Cause that's the only way to compete. End of the day, it's countries that have governments that directly control energy production vs our American industry looking for profits. Or maybe lots of subsidies. Neither is cheap. Also the implication that OPEC needs to bow to the U.S is quite foolish. Many of the OPEC members rely on higher oil pricing to fund their governments, so end of the day, it's just business. Never been fine with the implication that Saudi Arabia needs to bow down to us like a puppet.

image.jpeg.4ba3ff9ff44acab10ae95babc89a937f.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, akd said:

Government is not currently restraining short-term oil production in the U.S.

This is true ... but it's complicated. 

Democratic lawmakers are more concerned about climate change, while Republicans are more concerned about economic growth and increased energy production.

By slowing down permitting for exploration, pipelines, and port facilities, Democrats (vs. what Republicans would do) are discouraging investment in oil production which affects how the oil companies will operate their businesses in order to maximize current profits.  Also discouraging the use of coal and nuclear power, it increases the use of oil and gas for energy production for those areas where clean energy cannot meet the demand.

Limiting pipelines from Canada, also reduces the possibility of replacement for American production, but may be better for the environment.

It all depends upon what you value more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Probus said:

image.jpeg.4ba3ff9ff44acab10ae95babc89a937f.jpeg

In spirit of transparency please let us know whether you or any of your elderly family members are on medicare & social security and whether you'd be cool w us turning off that gigantic pile of evil government-run socialist tyranny.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is US equipment properly, thoroughly metricised yet? I know the military switched to metres years ago for range and movement measurement. Do they weigh things in kilo yet, and will metric spanners and wrenches fit all the bolts and nuts in all the gear a heavy brigade will need?

I work in a plant (in the UK, but it's a US parent, and we make for worldwide markets) assembling building and construction machinery, and our assembly optechs seem to use a bewildering mix of Imperial and metric tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, womble said:

I work in a plant (in the UK, but it's a US parent, and we make for worldwide markets) assembling building and construction machinery, and our assembly optechs seem to use a bewildering mix of Imperial and metric tools.

welcome to my garage with wonderful mix of both.  I really wish we had just stuck it out and went metric.  Drives my wife nuts, she just doesn't get the teaspoon, tablespoon, ounce, cup, quart stuff.  All I know is a bottle of wine is 750 ml.  😝

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, womble said:

Is US equipment properly, thoroughly metricised yet? I know the military switched to metres years ago for range and movement measurement. Do they weigh things in kilo yet, and will metric spanners and wrenches fit all the bolts and nuts in all the gear a heavy brigade will need?

I work in a plant (in the UK, but it's a US parent, and we make for worldwide markets) assembling building and construction machinery, and our assembly optechs seem to use a bewildering mix of Imperial and metric tools.

The short answer is no. This is particularly true of vehicles that have components that are based upon civilian products. So yes there is a wild assortment of tools you'd need to keep everything running if the engine comes from GM but the electronics come from other manufacturers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Probus said:

Ouch! That little grenade really wounded a lot more soldiers than I thought it could.

UKR did a great favor to all of them this way. Maybe as well new russkie tactic to try saving a single wounded and surround him with many guys quite unnecessarily. This way more russkies can go to hospital or leave for home instead of remaining at the frontline at far greater risks. Clever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, womble said:

Anyone know what the Rules of War say about handing off your immense POW problem to friendly, uninvolved neighbours/allies? Could the USA say to UKR "We'll handle those POWs," fly them to the States and intern them til hostilities cease? Saves shipping anything prefabbed very far from its desert holding compounds...

Nope, wouldn’t work. U.S. Congress would just find some reason that they should be released into the general population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

This is true ... but it's complicated. 

Democratic lawmakers are more concerned about climate change, while Republicans are more concerned about economic growth and increased energy production.

By slowing down permitting for exploration, pipelines, and port facilities, Democrats (vs. what Republicans would do) are discouraging investment in oil production which affects how the oil companies will operate their businesses in order to maximize current profits.  Also discouraging the use of coal and nuclear power, it increases the use of oil and gas for energy production for those areas where clean energy cannot meet the demand.

Limiting pipelines from Canada, also reduces the possibility of replacement for American production, but may be better for the environment.

It all depends upon what you value more.

At this point in time, both parties are most concerned about the mid-term elections in November and control of the House of Representatives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If true, this is a big deal. Either Ukrainian SOF teams are stepping it up, or they have nice new domestically produced cruise missile. 150 miles from the nearest Ukrainian territory if I am looking at the right Shaykivka.

 

Edit: I am surprised they weren't keeping those further back, actually.

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

9 minutes ago, dan/california said:

If true, this is a big deal. Either Ukrainian SOF teams are stepping it up, or they have nice new domestically produced cruise missile. 150 miles from the nearest Ukrainian territory if I am looking at the right Shaykivka.

 

Edit: I am surprised they weren't keeping those further back, actually.

very interesting indeed!  Probably not too hard for UKR SOF to drive around in RU posing as some RU personnel given the lack of security we see everywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Russian Soldiers Keep Surrendering for Cash and Socks"

A bit wordy, and wandering in some points, particularly past the first 2/3 (skip to 24:04 if you get bored), but a useful summary of the incentives - some from Ukraine, and many from Russia :) - and mechanisms for RA soldiers to surrender.  There is even a moment dedicated to footwraps ;) 

Many of the included short clips have been seen on this forum before. 

 

 

Edited by acrashb
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...