Ukraine

[pecunia]

This video tells of Ukraine's second biggest enemy.  These guys are really good with contracts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4g-M91WGbI

[Sibley]

Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.

I'm watching Winter on Fire, a documentary about the 2013/2014 revolution in Ukraine. Been meaning to at least a month, finally sat down and watched it. Highly recommend it. It's on Netflix, not sure where else. The Ukrainians have guts. They had a march with 1 million people early on - and there's something like 40 million in their entire country. They fought for freedom then, and they won.

[PeteD01]

Fire at a Russian defense building.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/huge-fire-at-top-secret-russian-defence-hq-leaves-one-dead-and-30-wounded/

Is there any significance to this?   Another link

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-massive-fire-at-nii-2-building-of-russian-ministry-of-defence-in-tver-watch-articleshow.html

I would not think the Russians are being coordinated from a building that far away so see little link to the Ukraine war, but Russians do things top down so maybe there is a hidden story here and the fire may not be an accident.

Nah, it´s just fire season over there.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1517538587151159297

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1518413419187257344

[MustacheAndaHalf]

If you mean the current board members of Twitter, if Elon Musk is patient he'll likely win.  The board has less than 0.1% voting power while Mr Musk has somewhere near 10%, or a 100:1 difference.  Eventually they'll see the writing on the wall.

And then Mr Musk wants freedom.  Who has been denied freedom on Twitter?  Maybe one person more famous than anyone else?  That's what I think happens before the 2024 elections - Mr Musk restores Trump on Twitter.  It's also possible Mr Musk has other ideas, or won't pursue ownership of Twitter... but my guess is this coin flip lands on Musk + Trump.

This is a very, very plausible scenario.  Good business sense too . . . the kickbacks to Musk after Trump is re-elected will be significant.

So a guy worth about $250 BILLION is going to spend another $45 BILLION to help get Trump re-elected so he can get government contracts and tax credits worth a few billion dollars that his companies will probably receive regardless of who's in the White House. Is that your argument?

The impetus for Elon Musk buying Twitter was probably the Babylon Bee (a conservative satire publication) getting their Twitter account suspended for calling a man a man. Musk called the CEO of Twitter to confirm that the Babylon Bee's Twitter account was actually suspended shortly before making his large stock purchase. He gave them an hour-long interview a couple of months ago and talked a lot about free speech, so he's clearly a fan. I don't think Trump has anything to do with it.

This is the problem with in-group/out-group thinking.  It makes us attribute to anyone in an 'out-group' from us nefarious motives.  Although I'm not sure that this has to do with the situation in Ukraine...

I don't see evidence in my post of group thinking and nefarious motives.  Donald Trump is banned from Twitter, and I think it's a very small leap to call him the most famous person banned from Twitter.  Then you add in Mr Musk wanting to bring freedom to Twitter - it's a pretty easy connection to make.

Just to add some additional information, Mr Musk strongly protested California's Covid-19 laws.  He was angry enough to move his company headquarters from California to Texas.  To me, this sounds more like a libertarian.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/07/tesla-moves-its-headquarters-from-california-to-texas.html

Another form of mental bias is "all or none" thinking, where you assume if Michael in ABQ's scenario is true, what I said can't happen.  Elon Musk can do more than one thing once he controls Twitter.  I suspect he'll do both, which also fits with his tendancy to be controversial.

I guess I'm only extending the tangent which started as a complaint about the lack of context around news from Ukraine.  Since I don't follow where my post exibits group thinking and nefarious motives, I thought it worth exploring.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Putin has no shame.  He went to Easter church services and was seen repeatedly crossing himself.  As if God is going to bless him, snort.

Then afterwards, I assume it was back to the regularly scheduled carnage.

That also shows the extent to which churches in Russia are bent to Putin's will.  I believe in Poland, it was the church (Catholic?) which organized mass protests against Communist rule.  If there's a popular movement against Putin (which probably wouldn't matter to him), it would likely start there.

By the way, another footnote on Russia's lies about the Moscow: after claiming it was just a fire, they retaliated against the factory that makes Neptune ship destroying missiles.  I see, no missile hit your ship, and then you retaliated against the missle that didn't hit your ship...

[lemanfan]

Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.

How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations?  I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors.  E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.

[PeteD01]

The US objective in Ukraine has been made official and matches the Ukrainian objective:


"... Lloyd J. Austin III, the U.S. secretary of defense, said that there would be a more detailed discussion about what Ukraine would need to prevail against Russia at a meeting in Germany on Tuesday. “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kind things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” he said."

[Sibley]

Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.

How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations?  I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors.  E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.

I've been told that China owns a great deal of US Treasuries directly. But yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be easy. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be right.

[zolotiyeruki]

Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.

How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations?  I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors.  E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.

I've been told that China owns a great deal of US Treasuries directly. But yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be easy. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be right.

The biggest chunk of US debt is intragovernmental, i.e. Social Security loaning money to the rest of the federal government.  Foreign interests come second, with Japan holding about $1.3T and China holding $1.1T.  Source.  Interestingly, the UK, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, and Ireland come next.

[Glenstache]

The US objective in Ukraine has been made official and matches the Ukrainian objective:


"... Lloyd J. Austin III, the U.S. secretary of defense, said that there would be a more detailed discussion about what Ukraine would need to prevail against Russia at a meeting in Germany on Tuesday. “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kind things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” he said."

This quote should make for good Russian propaganda.

(edited to correct a weird autocorrect)

[PeteD01]

The US objective in Ukraine has been made official and matches the Ukrainian objective:


"... Lloyd J. Austin III, the U.S. secretary of defense, said that there would be a more detailed discussion about what Ukraine would need to prevail against Russia at a meeting in Germany on Tuesday. “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kind things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” he said."

This quote should make-or-break good Russian propaganda.

Maybe, but the way I am currently looking at yesterday's events is that the US has stepped forward and essentially said that there are now enough fish in the barrel and that the US does not give a damn about Russia's feelings.

There are two ways how this is important in terms of propaganda.

Firstly, Russian propaganda does its best to frame the war as one caused by NATO's intransigent behavior and has spent years painting NATO as the enemy. By clearly identifying the defeat and elimination of Russia's military capacities for a future war of this scale and this type of conduct as US objectives by the US Secretary of Defense, will require recalibration of Russian propaganda towards the US as the enemy #1 and NATO #2. Not that easy to do, but even if they manage to do that, it still takes NATO somewhat out of the limelight while it reorganizes.

Secondly, there is that issue with Germany. Germany has committed to increase their defense spending massively. The German military is not in good shape right now, but what, paradoxically, will happen is that they will emerge with one of the most advanced and powerful militaries in the world.
For historical reasons, Germany cannot afford to emerge from this war as the nation that brought defeat to Russia. It is also not in the interest of other European nations - notwithstanding the current complaints that Germany is not doing enough. US Secretary of Defense Austin's message preempted the perception that Germany is in some way a major player leading the western involvement in the war against Russia: the outcome of the war in Ukraine is a matter of US interest first.

Well, that´s how I look at it right now but it´s early. Let´s see what happens next.

[LennStar]

Don't worry about Germany getting a good army. The ones most surpised about it would the Germans. We have successfully peaced our forces by dividing money until it disappears, than we invited McKinsey to encircle the last pockets of resistance and burn away any monetary ammunition left.

Putin has no shame.  He went to Easter church services and was seen repeatedly crossing himself.  As if God is going to bless him, snort.

Then afterwards, I assume it was back to the regularly scheduled carnage.

That also shows the extent to which churches in Russia are bent to Putin's will.  I believe in Poland, it was the church (Catholic?) which organized mass protests against Communist rule.  If there's a popular movement against Putin (which probably wouldn't matter to him), it would likely start there.

Ahem... The head of the Russian orthodox church Kiril is an ex-KGB from the same town as Putin - St. Petersburg. Also a billionaire I think (the Kreml photoshopped a 30K watch away from his wrist but forgot the reflection in the polished table. Amateurs!)
He is one of Putins closest lackeys, that's why Putin can play the religious one.

[Sibley]

Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.

How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations?  I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors.  E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.

I've been told that China owns a great deal of US Treasuries directly. But yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be easy. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be right.

The biggest chunk of US debt is intragovernmental, i.e. Social Security loaning money to the rest of the federal government.  Foreign interests come second, with Japan holding about $1.3T and China holding $1.1T.  Source.  Interestingly, the UK, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, and Ireland come next.

I don't think the US is at the highest risk of debt slavery. Who owns, say, Sudan's debt? Or Yemen? Let's go down the list of all the poor, troubled countries. Those are the ones who most need debt cancellation.

[PeteD01]

Don't worry about Germany getting a good army. The ones most surpised about it would the Germans. We have successfully peaced our forces by dividing money until it disappears, than we invited McKinsey to encircle the last pockets of resistance and burn away any monetary ammunition left.

I hear you.
It´s the most amazing thing - Germany has this massive defense industry and yet is brutally incompetent by any measure in actually making use of its own products - even McKinsey agrees.
Blows my mind whenever I think about it.

[PDXTabs]

Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.

How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations?  I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors.  E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.

I've been told that China owns a great deal of US Treasuries directly. But yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be easy. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be right.

The biggest chunk of US debt is intragovernmental, i.e. Social Security loaning money to the rest of the federal government.  Foreign interests come second, with Japan holding about $1.3T and China holding $1.1T.  Source.  Interestingly, the UK, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, and Ireland come next.

Perhaps the largest single holder. According to usaspending.gov most US debt is owned by US investors, followed by the Fed, followed by the Social Security Trust Fund, followed by Japan.
https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/debt/analysis/

[sonofsven]

Don't worry about Germany getting a good army. The ones most surpised about it would the Germans. We have successfully peaced our forces by dividing money until it disappears, than we invited McKinsey to encircle the last pockets of resistance and burn away any monetary ammunition left.

Putin has no shame.  He went to Easter church services and was seen repeatedly crossing himself.  As if God is going to bless him, snort.

Then afterwards, I assume it was back to the regularly scheduled carnage.

That also shows the extent to which churches in Russia are bent to Putin's will.  I believe in Poland, it was the church (Catholic?) which organized mass protests against Communist rule.  If there's a popular movement against Putin (which probably wouldn't matter to him), it would likely start there.

Ahem... The head of the Russian orthodox church Kiril is an ex-KGB from the same town as Putin - St. Petersburg. Also a billionaire I think (the Kreml photoshopped a 30K watch away from his wrist but forgot the reflection in the polished table. Amateurs!)
He is one of Putins closest lackeys, that's why Putin can play the religious one.

They are such criminals, literally.

[partgypsy]

Don't worry about Germany getting a good army. The ones most surpised about it would the Germans. We have successfully peaced our forces by dividing money until it disappears, than we invited McKinsey to encircle the last pockets of resistance and burn away any monetary ammunition left.

Putin has no shame.  He went to Easter church services and was seen repeatedly crossing himself.  As if God is going to bless him, snort.

Then afterwards, I assume it was back to the regularly scheduled carnage.

That also shows the extent to which churches in Russia are bent to Putin's will.  I believe in Poland, it was the church (Catholic?) which organized mass protests against Communist rule.  If there's a popular movement against Putin (which probably wouldn't matter to him), it would likely start there.

Ahem... The head of the Russian orthodox church Kiril is an ex-KGB from the same town as Putin - St. Petersburg. Also a billionaire I think (the Kreml photoshopped a 30K watch away from his wrist but forgot the reflection in the polished table. Amateurs!)
He is one of Putins closest lackeys, that's why Putin can play the religious one.

They are such criminals, literally.

. Yes. If Putin is ever prosecuted, Kiril should be tried as well

[jnw]

Could Poland and Bulgaria very quickly build a couple nuclear power plants for warming homes?  Since Russia cut off their natural gas.

[Moonwaves]

Could Poland and Bulgaria very quickly build a couple nuclear power plants for warming homes?  Since Russia cut off their natural gas.

From what I understand nuclear power plants don't happen quickly. I believe there are already plans in place to get more gas from Norway to Poland and Bulgaria next autumn.
Now, if only Germany would get it's act together so that we could also cut off Russian gas.

[KarefulKactus15]

I'm not sure why they aren't already running the nuclear + hydro.

Am I ignorant of the true environmental impact of nuclear over gas?   

We have an interesting two lake nuclear system near by.  The nuclear plant and the hydro plant work together, during low demand the dam runs in reverse and pumps water to the upper lake using the excess nuclear power.  During high demand the hydro dam is business as usual.

As a side bonus, there is a beach by where the cooling water comes out. It's nice and warm most of the year ....

[lemanfan]

I'm not sure why they aren't already running the nuclear + hydro.

Am I ignorant of the true environmental impact of nuclear over gas?   

In addition to any "real" facts and the weighing between different factors and risks, do remember that northern Europe was hard hit by fallout from Chernobyl, and even before that some countries had a large anti-nuclear fraction of the political spectrum.  The German decisions to shut down nuclear power was taken after the Japanese tsunami and the Fukushima incident back in 2011.  It is therefore to a large degree driven by other factors than a "pure" calculations of risks and rewards - a large portion of fear of the invisible radioactive threat from nuclear power plants.

The "green parties" seem to place closing down of nuclear higher than reducing co2 on their agenda, at least in my country and as far as I can see also in Germany.

The political opinions about this are now changing in many places since they realize that both the Russian threat and the CO2 would make it make more sense to have modern, safe nuclear power plants than to rely on Russian fossil fuels.  A switchover takes time, though.

[lemanfan]

One interesting piece of news now is that a high-ranking Gazprom manager by the name of Igor Volobuyev has left Russia to go fight in the Ukrainian army.  He talks about how Gazprom go around sanctions regarding payments etc and that his conscience couldn't take being part of the Russian side any more.

I haven't yet found a long form article in English about it, but for those who can read it or trust google translate, here a few links to the sources:

https://www.liga.net/politics/interview/ya-uchastvoval-v-voyne-istoriya-vitse-prezidenta-gazprombanka-kotoryy-sbejal-iz-rossii
https://theins.ru/news/250661

I found it in Swedish here (probably paywalled for most of you):

https://www.svd.se/a/eEgP4a/rysk-chef-pa-gazprom-flyr-for-att-strida-i-ukraina

I'm sure longer version will appear in English language media soon too.

[former player]

One interesting piece of news now is that a high-ranking Gazprom manager by the name of Igor Volobuyev has left Russia to go fight in the Ukrainian army.  He talks about how Gazprom go around sanctions regarding payments etc and that his conscience couldn't take being part of the Russian side any more.

I haven't yet found a long form article in English about it, but for those who can read it or trust google translate, here a few links to the sources:

https://www.liga.net/politics/interview/ya-uchastvoval-v-voyne-istoriya-vitse-prezidenta-gazprombanka-kotoryy-sbejal-iz-rossii
https://theins.ru/news/250661

I found it in Swedish here (probably paywalled for most of you):

https://www.svd.se/a/eEgP4a/rysk-chef-pa-gazprom-flyr-for-att-strida-i-ukraina

I'm sure longer version will appear in English language media soon too.

He's probably made the safer choice.

[LennStar]

So many Gazprom people suicided in the last weeks...

I'm not sure why they aren't already running the nuclear + hydro.

Am I ignorant of the true environmental impact of nuclear over gas?   

In addition to any "real" facts and the weighing between different factors and risks, do remember that northern Europe was hard hit by fallout from Chernobyl,

Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.

Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).

Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).

[pecunia]

So many Gazprom people suicided in the last weeks...

I'm not sure why they aren't already running the nuclear + hydro.

Am I ignorant of the true environmental impact of nuclear over gas?   

In addition to any "real" facts and the weighing between different factors and risks, do remember that northern Europe was hard hit by fallout from Chernobyl,

Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.

Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).

Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).

Renewables do not produce a uniform quantity of energy.  Renewables may not work when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.  There is currently no realistic way to store the vast amount of energy needed during these times when Mother Nature doesn't favor the production of energy.

It is hoped that fantastic improvements will be made in batteries.  This is akin to the hope for nuclear fusion.

In the meantime, renewables need to be backed up by a reliable form of power production.

So 30 percent of EU Uranium comes from Russia, so let's see what Mr. Wiki says:

Globally, the distribution of uranium ore deposits is widespread on all continents, with the largest deposits found in Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. To date, high-grade deposits are only found in the Athabasca Basin region of Canada.

The great thing about Uranium fuel is that it is only replaced every 18 months or two years.  This gives you time to find a new source for the fuel.  However, unlike coal or natural gas the fuel must be made into fuel rods and the fuel rods needed for each type of reactor may only be manufactured at specific locations.

The Ukraine war and Chernobyl make me think the Russians are like an evil Santa Claus.  They just never stop giving presents you don't want.  Now they are shutting off the gas.

Nuclear plants in the West were not built like Chernobyl.  It is an Apples to Oranges thing.  I look at Chernobyl a little bit like burning wood in your house without a stove.  The Chernobyl house may have burned down, but should you blame the wood?

[former player]

Hydroelectric and tidal barriers are both renewable sources of energy that can be timed to the need (tidal a bit less so, I grant you).

[MustacheAndaHalf]

If expensive qualifications and requirements could be setup, Thorium reactors could be less toxic and produce 100x less nuclear waste (which also fades faster).  But nuclear reactors aren't something you throw together at the last minute, so it's no help to the EU as Russia blackmails them with turning off oil & LNG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Poland's reaction is diplomatic but telling: EU countries should re-examine their depdence on Russia for energy sources.  Or to shorten that: "Germany, WTF?"

"A majority of Germans is in favour of stopping oil and gas imports from Russia even if an embargo would lead to supply problems in the country. In a survey by public broadcaster ZDF, 55 percent of respondents supported an import ban, while while 39 percent were against."
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/majority-germans-favour-oil-and-gas-embargo-against-russia-survey

Then again, German elections were at the end of 2021, which take pressure off Politicians to act... although this does seem like an issue that's too big to ignore.  If Germany is willing to double it's defense budget over fears of a Russian military, maybe funding the Russian military isn't that strategic.

[maizefolk]

I continue to be really impressed with Poland through all of this. They clearly were prepared for many years for something to go wrong with Russia, including avoiding ever becoming as dependent on Russian gas as countries farther west, and now they're putting that plan into place.

They've done dramatic things in terms of reshaping their society and cities to welcome refugees. About one out of every 12 people in Poland today is a Ukrainian refugee. To hit that same proportion the USA would need to welcome 28 million refugees.

[PDXTabs]

I noticed this today. I know that there has been speculation about Russia's cyber-warfare capabilities.

CNN: Russian hacking in Ukraine has been extensive and intertwined with military operations, Microsoft says

[Sibley]

I continue to be really impressed with Poland through all of this. They clearly were prepared for many years for something to go wrong with Russia, including avoiding ever becoming as dependent on Russian gas as countries farther west, and now they're putting that plan into place.

They've done dramatic things in terms of reshaping their society and cities to welcome refugees. About one out of every 12 people in Poland today is a Ukrainian refugee. To hit that same proportion the USA would need to welcome 28 million refugees.

What I've read says the same thing over and over: the Poles have been there, they know what it's like. It may have been decades ago, but their culture remembers.

I too am impressed with the people of Poland. Not necessarily with their government in other ways, but people are complex. I'm glad to see the good side.

[partgypsy]

Poland lived under Soviet rule. There is no desire or appetite to live under Russian rule. They see in Ukraine the same will for independence. And frankly are inspired by their fighting spirit. Anything that Poland does, in addition to helping Ukraine, is also to give a big middle finger to Putin. That said there is fear of the war expanding. Long term economic, social/crowding concerns. there is going to be yet another generation of people who are displaced, often losing everything, and possibly stuck in some areas that will be permanently occupied with oppressive tactics. I can't really watch the news right now.

[pecunia]

Poland lived under Soviet rule. There is no desire or appetite to live under Russian rule. They see in Ukraine the same will for independence. And frankly are inspired by their fighting spirit. Anything that Poland does, in addition to helping Ukraine, is also to give a big middle finger to Putin. That said there is fear of the war expanding. Long term economic, social/crowding concerns. there is going to be yet another generation of people who are displaced, often losing everything, and possibly stuck in some areas that will be permanently occupied with oppressive tactics. I can't really watch the news right now.

Isn't there a chance that they can chase the Russians back to the borders this time?  They are being supplied a lot of weapons, the people fight well, they say the Russian soldiers don't have a strong will to fight, they are on their home turf, the very survival of the country is at stake, the oppressors do horrible things to their villages, and I really think the Russian government may not be all that stable.  Besides this those sanctions must do some good.  It doesn't seem that they have affected Russian actions much, but it's said they are like an illness that gradually weakens the country they are applied to.

Maybe if some of those Ukrainians came to the US, they could help revive the rust belt.  All those steel mills and such used to have a lot of Polish and Ukrainian workers.  I think smart people with a good work ethic could still make a good life for themselves.

[Michael in ABQ]

Poland lived under Soviet rule. There is no desire or appetite to live under Russian rule. They see in Ukraine the same will for independence. And frankly are inspired by their fighting spirit. Anything that Poland does, in addition to helping Ukraine, is also to give a big middle finger to Putin. That said there is fear of the war expanding. Long term economic, social/crowding concerns. there is going to be yet another generation of people who are displaced, often losing everything, and possibly stuck in some areas that will be permanently occupied with oppressive tactics. I can't really watch the news right now.

Isn't there a chance that they can chase the Russians back to the borders this time?  They are being supplied a lot of weapons, the people fight well, they say the Russian soldiers don't have a strong will to fight, they are on their home turf, the very survival of the country is at stake, the oppressors do horrible things to their villages, and I really think the Russian government may not be all that stable.  Besides this those sanctions must do some good.  It doesn't seem that they have affected Russian actions much, but it's said they are like an illness that gradually weakens the country they are applied to.

Maybe if some of those Ukrainians came to the US, they could help revive the rust belt.  All those steel mills and such used to have a lot of Polish and Ukrainian workers.  I think smart people with a good work ethic could still make a good life for themselves.

Not likely. The Russians can continue to hold the Donbass as they have for the last 8 years. Typical military calculations are you need 3-4x advantage in numbers as the attacker vs. the defender. Ultimately this still achieves some of Putin's goals of controlling Ukraine as a buffer area between NATO and Russia.

As Americans we don't have any collective memory of being invaded except for a handful of isolated attacks (9/11 & Pearl Harbor). Russian meanwhile has been invaded multiple times in the last couple hundred years and has no natural barriers (oceans, mountains, swamps, rivers, etc.) between it and the rest of Europe and Asia. It may seem completely unthinkable that Germany or France would invade Russia again - but things can change quickly. Germany went from a shattered wreck after losing WW1 to conquering Europe just 20 years later. Putin has seen Ukraine as a buffer that would absorb an attack from the west as that is all Russia has ever had for defense - sheer distance (and the winter).

[YttriumNitrate]

Isn't there a chance that they can chase the Russians back to the borders this time?  They are being supplied a lot of weapons, the people fight well, they say the Russian soldiers don't have a strong will to fight, they are on their home turf, the very survival of the country is at stake, the oppressors do horrible things to their villages, and I really think the Russian government may not be all that stable.

If they actually went all the way to the Russian border, would they actually be fighting "on their home turf"? Going all the way to the borders would involve the Ukrainian forces fighting deep into ethnically Russian and Russian speaking areas that would presumably have much closer ties to Russia.

[zolotiyeruki]

The 3-4x multiplier for attackers assumes, I believe, that the quality of forces on both sides is equal.  That's not the case here--Ukrainians have better morale, better training, and better intelligence. I also imagine that all of the new artillery and tanks being delivered, with better fire control, counter-battery fire, precision and/or airburst munitions, will also improve their chances.  Will it be enough?  I don't know.

One of the challenges of a Ukrainian counter-offensive is that their own supply lines get longer and the front will narrow, while the Russians' supply lines will get shorter.  So the further they push the Russians back, the harder it will get.  On the other hand, if they can push in the south far enough to cut off Crimea, and then drive a second salient through to Mariupol, they could create a nasty pocket of isolated Russians.

[Sibley]

Isn't there a chance that they can chase the Russians back to the borders this time?  They are being supplied a lot of weapons, the people fight well, they say the Russian soldiers don't have a strong will to fight, they are on their home turf, the very survival of the country is at stake, the oppressors do horrible things to their villages, and I really think the Russian government may not be all that stable.

If they actually went all the way to the Russian border, would they actually be fighting "on their home turf"? Going all the way to the borders would involve the Ukrainian forces fighting deep into ethnically Russian and Russian speaking areas that would presumably have much closer ties to Russia.

Except those people have had plenty of experience, both direct and indirect, with what it means to be governed by Russia. Don't be so sure that they're still pro-Russia.

[YttriumNitrate]

Except those people have had plenty of experience, both direct and indirect, with what it means to be governed by Russia. Don't be so sure that they're still pro-Russia.

Rather than black and white, there are many messy shades of gray. Some people will be pro-Russian, and some people will be anti-Russian. The higher number of pro-Russian people the less the Ukrainian forces would be fighting "on their home turf." I'm guessing the pro-/anti- ratio is more favorable to Russia in the far eastern parts of Ukraine than Kiev.

[Paper Chaser]

Except those people have had plenty of experience, both direct and indirect, with what it means to be governed by Russia. Don't be so sure that they're still pro-Russia.

Rather than black and white, there are many messy shades of gray. Some people will be pro-Russian, and some people will be anti-Russian. The higher number of pro-Russian people the less the Ukrainian forces would be fighting "on their home turf." I'm guessing the pro-/anti- ratio is more favorable to Russia in the far eastern parts of Ukraine than Kiev.

Many of the cities in that region have now spent a month being blasted by Russian artillery, while the citizens that live there have either fled, died, or sheltered. I'm guessing there's less Pro-Russia sentiment there now than there was 6 weeks ago.

[YttriumNitrate]

Many of the cities in that region have now spent a month being blasted by Russian artillery, while the citizens that live there have either fled, died, or sheltered. I'm guessing there's less Pro-Russia sentiment there now than there was 6 weeks ago.

And many cities have spent the last eight years getting blasted by the Ukrainians.

[pecunia]

Except those people have had plenty of experience, both direct and indirect, with what it means to be governed by Russia. Don't be so sure that they're still pro-Russia.

Rather than black and white, there are many messy shades of gray. Some people will be pro-Russian, and some people will be anti-Russian. The higher number of pro-Russian people the less the Ukrainian forces would be fighting "on their home turf." I'm guessing the pro-/anti- ratio is more favorable to Russia in the far eastern parts of Ukraine than Kiev.

I'm just thinking that just because somebody speaks the same language doesn't necessarily mean I will support them.  If, for example, New Zealand became a rogue military country attacking it's neighbors, I probably wouldn't support them.  I do realize there are more aspects to the shared culture than language, but I just don't think the people of Eastern Ukraine are still necessarily allied with the Russians.

However, if Russians have denied these people free access to the facts as they have their own people and have set up various ways of brainwashing them with extreme propaganda, I may be wrong.  Perhaps, they may have gifted them with free fuel.  I read one article that said they did that in Transnistria.  A strong carrot would be needed to make them fight a war against their own country.

Who supports people that do the genocide thing?

Russia is a huge country.  It is not overpopulated.  I just think if the people in Eastern Ukraine were largely pro Russian, they could move there.  It seems a more logical option than starting a war.  You think, maybe, this war was greatly encouraged by the Russians and less so by "Separatists?"  It sure looks like a pattern.

[Just Joe]

Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.

Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).

Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).

Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority

[pecunia]

Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.

Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).

Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).

Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority

American reactors were originally designed for a 40 year operational life.  Changes can occur to reactor vessels due to radiation.  Everything wears out.  Samples of the metals (coupons) are periodically examined to verify the integrity of the vessel's metal.  Reactors are designed with components checked by artificial aging to assure this 40 year life. 

Some are older than that 40 years now.  When reactors are life extended, thorough analysis and testing is done to ensure components are good for the extra life span.  Sometimes, they are replaced as assurance they will not fail with the added life.

French reactors are built to common designs.  If a problem is indicated in one, all are examined for a common mode issue.  This may entail taking operating units off line.  This is akin to predictive maintenance where problems are solved before they occur.

Here's a news article explaining about bad pipes at several French plants.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/edf-extend-civaux-nuclear-outage-shut-down-reactors-chooz-safety-measures-2021-12-15/

This philosophy differs from the "run to failure" idea used for other industrial activities.

[maizefolk]

Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.

Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).

Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).

Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority

I think the issue isn't that there is anything wrong with a 10 year old reactor, but if the French wanted to build more reactors today the absolute most experienced people they could get for the job are a decade out of practice at building them.

Maintaining institutional capacity and knowledge about major construction projects is a big part of why the US navy builds nuclear aircraft carriers that way it does (on slow and staggered timelines despite being the same overall design). It probably costs a lot more than if we built five or ten at once, and then waited a few decades until the next new design is ready, but doing it this way ensures there will always be some people who have recent hands on experience in the process.

[LennStar]

Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.

Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).

Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).

Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority

I think the issue isn't that there is anything wrong with a 10 year old reactor, but if the French wanted to build more reactors today the absolute most experienced people they could get for the job are a decade out of practice at building them.

That's one thing. But I was mainly pointing out that even Nuclear France isn't building new reactors because they are too expensive.
Nuclear energy has always been massivly subventionized. Now that this has become harder through public pressure (and safety measures means more expenses on top) it's totally unprofitable to build one.
1kWh of atomic power costs 2 times as much as wind and 3 times as much as solar. Wind and solar will still get cheaper. Nuclear only more expensive. You can get a LOT of storage (or reserve power plants e.g. on biofuel) for a few billions saved!

Even if you are of the opinion that there is no risk with nuclear reactors easily destroyed by a single big airplane or cruise missle, or with waste that needs a storage for a million years and still has no place after half a century of searching - even then it's still more expensive. 

[pecunia]

Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.

Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).

Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).

Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority

I think the issue isn't that there is anything wrong with a 10 year old reactor, but if the French wanted to build more reactors today the absolute most experienced people they could get for the job are a decade out of practice at building them.

That's one thing. But I was mainly pointing out that even Nuclear France isn't building new reactors because they are too expensive.
Nuclear energy has always been massivly subventionized. Now that this has become harder through public pressure (and safety measures means more expenses on top) it's totally unprofitable to build one.
1kWh of atomic power costs 2 times as much as wind and 3 times as much as solar. Wind and solar will still get cheaper. Nuclear only more expensive. You can get a LOT of storage (or reserve power plants e.g. on biofuel) for a few billions saved!

Even if you are of the opinion that there is no risk with nuclear reactors easily destroyed by a single big airplane or cruise missle, or with waste that needs a storage for a million years and still has no place after half a century of searching - even then it's still more expensive.

I'd not heard that word subventionized.  I had heard of subsidized.   Good word.

Wind and solar need to be backed up.  When you consider an Earth safe energy backup for wind and solar, the price is much higher.  Pumped hydro, for example , is a major undertaking.

Newer types of nuclear reactors on the drawing boards have waste products that are largely are decayed in 300 years.  There is also less waste.  In fact today's reactors don't put out a huge volume of waste.  Three hundred years is realistic.  Other industrial waste is a forever thing.

I believe you are correct that some of the construction skills of past years are less available today.  However, if new reactors were built, those skills would be developed and the cost would come down.

[Sibley]

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-missile-strikes-kyiv-united-nations-chief-meets-zelenskyy-city-2022-4?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/russia-warns-britain-provoking-ukraine-2022-04-26/

Russia fired missiles at Kyiv while UN officials were there. Russia threatened the UK because of their support of Ukraine. I'm sure there's more. Is Putin TRYING to get Russia flattened? Really. Yes, its bully tactics and whatever you want to call it, but if they actually do manage to pull other countries directly into the war, rather than just supplying Ukraine with weapons, it is not going to end well for Russia.

[Taran Wanderer]

I just read a story about Americans being very concerned about all the fake news floating around about Ukraine, largely spread by Russia.  My reaction was, "What fake news?  I get my most detailed and accurate (sources cited) news and thoughtful commentary on the MMM Ukraine thread."

So thank you all for that.

[PeteD01]

From my armchair, it looks like the Ukrainians are pursuing a "defense in depth" strategy. If that is indeed the case, news of territorial losses in the most severely contested areas by the Ukrainians should be expected in the days or weeks to come:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth#:~:text=Defence%20in%20depth%20

[MustacheAndaHalf]

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-missile-strikes-kyiv-united-nations-chief-meets-zelenskyy-city-2022-4?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/russia-warns-britain-provoking-ukraine-2022-04-26/

Russia fired missiles at Kyiv while UN officials were there. Russia threatened the UK because of their support of Ukraine. I'm sure there's more. Is Putin TRYING to get Russia flattened? Really. Yes, its bully tactics and whatever you want to call it, but if they actually do manage to pull other countries directly into the war, rather than just supplying Ukraine with weapons, it is not going to end well for Russia.

Germany, France, UK, Italy each have larger economies than Russia - but none of them has an active military as large as Russia's.  Actually, they have less military combined than Russia.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

This month, Russia gave up on invading Western Ukraine (for now), and focused on Eastern Ukraine.  As Secretary of State Blinkin put it, Russia failed to take Ukraine.  Russia's narrower focus is partly out of desperation.  I think that's where the bullying is from as well - desperation.  Let's see if Poland takes President Biden's hint, and sends MiG fighter jets to Ukraine.

[zolotiyeruki]

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-missile-strikes-kyiv-united-nations-chief-meets-zelenskyy-city-2022-4?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/russia-warns-britain-provoking-ukraine-2022-04-26/

Russia fired missiles at Kyiv while UN officials were there. Russia threatened the UK because of their support of Ukraine. I'm sure there's more. Is Putin TRYING to get Russia flattened? Really. Yes, its bully tactics and whatever you want to call it, but if they actually do manage to pull other countries directly into the war, rather than just supplying Ukraine with weapons, it is not going to end well for Russia.

Germany, France, UK, Italy each have larger economies than Russia - but none of them has an active military as large as Russia's.  Actually, they have less military combined than Russia.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

This month, Russia gave up on invading Western Ukraine (for now), and focused on Eastern Ukraine.  As Secretary of State Blinkin put it, Russia failed to take Ukraine.  Russia's narrower focus is partly out of desperation.  I think that's where the bullying is from as well - desperation.  Let's see if Poland takes President Biden's hint, and sends MiG fighter jets to Ukraine.

The fighter jet issue has been very much back-and-forth.  Given the fact that both sides have lots of anti-aircraft capabilities, I'm not sure how much Ukraine would benefit from having more jets.

That said, there have been reports that a hundred Polish Soviet-era tanks simply vanished from their warehouses a couple weeks ago...