"Russia is preparing to INVADE Ukraine by the end of January" Topic

I trust nobody. Especially the appointed gang. Of the rest, I trust half. Maybe.

I agree totally … and many shouldn't have those appointed jobs anyway. For a variety of reasons …

The Ukraine itself is divided, between pro Russian and anti Russian.

Yes, some may not see that. The Ukrainian forces are fighting a large "separatist" pro-Russian movement. One Ret Army COL said, something in the vein of. If anything, Putin may cross the border there and do a limited advance. To claim he is protecting "ethnic" & pro-Russians. Sound familiar ?

Pretty sure Putin knows history. The current lot of US negotiators, may think they know history, but are skewed by their naive etc., bias, etc. E.g. they were surprised the Taliban were not keeping women in gov't positions. They must live in the world of unicorns & rainbows.

IIRC, they also sent a letter/email recently to the Russians. So that should fix everything …

So once again sheep vs an apex predator, which is a big, mean hungry bear. 🐻

Sorry Tortorella, but I'm afraid it is more like wishful thinking.
Let's start with the basics – these tankers are sailing, right? It takes them several days to get from where they are to de-liquifying plants in European ports. 5 days from Qatar to Europe with 50 km/h. You need lots and lots of them to create a steady flow. If smth happens in Suez again it will be weeks.
Tankers are not a solution to European gas supplies, and most of the potential suppliers have long standing contracts with other buyers (that EC was so against while dealing with Gazprom)
"Qatar currently produces 77m tonnes a year (Mtpa) of LNG, but has contracted around 97Mtpa to buyers in Asia, Europe, Kuwait and major energy companies which can choose where they send each cargo. The US has also committed its 80m tonnes of LNG production to buyers in Asia, Europe and so-called "portfolio players".
link
and link
Russia decided to keep one LNG tanker near Kaliningrad, where there's also a filled gas storage – in case Lithuania cuts the pipeline.
Now check the size of Kaliningrad and Europe.

You don't understand that you can't get any leverage on Putin through oligarchs – each one of them can be sent to prison tomorrow for the things they were doing in 90s. They are rich as long as they are not meddling with politics, Khodorkovsky has bought half of the parliament deputies before he was put behind bars, nobody is willing to follow him.
At mid-worst scenario you'll have a very cold Europe, close ties between Russia and China and return to Cold War times in a North Korea-like scenario. May be Putin will be kind enough to let some of oligarchs out of the country to their mansions in London or NY if they behave. We might not be so lucky.

I think Europe is about at 30 per cent renewable energy, not enough yet. But Russia is a petrostate, maybe energy war is the best way to oppose them, along with going after their oligarchs' money.

I think "Europe" is being stupid about renewables which have already proven an expensive failure. If European nations want to cut Putin's oil & gas hold over them, they need to go nuclear. Stop with the renewable fetish and get real. Go nuke, new gen nuke power is safe and cleaner over all than renewables -- and works 25x7x365 in all weather. Then you can implement your zero-carbon electric car economy and what not and tell Putin to drink his oil.

Just saw ADM[Ret.]Kirby briefed, on FOX, IIRC, elements of the 82d ABN, 101 Air Asslt, and 4ID would be forces deployed if ordered. To somewhere in Eastern Europe.

So we shall see … but I don't think this will happen. AFAIK all part of the geopolitical game of "Chess" … or Checkers … depending … 🤩

"I think "Europe" is being stupid about renewables which have already proven an expensive failure. If European nations want to cut Putin's oil & gas hold over them, they need to go nuclear."
How are renewable energies a failure? Oil is limited and is tainting our athmosphere. The EU just redefined nuclear energy as "green", much to the dismay of Germany, but renewable is the way to go.

How are renewable energies a failure? Oil is limited and is tainting our athmosphere. The EU just redefined nuclear energy as "green", much to the dismay of Germany, but renewable is the way to go.

1. Oil is not limited, we have proven known reserves for generations, and research has shown that oil is actually created by deep geologic processes and eventually refills underground resources. Long term we'll transition past oil to something else, put it's a great portable efficient energy source now. Btw, most powerplants use natural gas which largely produces water vapor when it burns. Can't get much cleaner than that!

2. Renewables -- and lets be clear that term really just means wind and solar, are expensive, inefficient and inconsistent. Solar doesn't work at night, on cloudy days, or when it's raining or when it's snowing -- or when there's snow coating the solar panels. Wind doesn't work when there's no wind, or if it gets too windy, or if it gets too cold and icy. And when it's too cold a wind turbine requires an electric heater getting electricity that's not "renewable" to keep the motor and lubricants from freezing up. That's why energy costs in Europe are much higher than in the US, for instance.

3. Wind and Solar are not green friendly. They have a more limited lifecycle compared to a power plant before they become e-waste. They also consume enormous amounts of resources. It takes some 240 tons of CO2 to manufacture a single commercial wind turbine, for example – thousands of tons of iron ore, coal, coke, cement, ets. Solar requires rare earth minerals, which are largely dug up and refined by China under horrible environmental conditions, resulting in the horrors of the "death lake" of Baogang and the "cancer villages" around it:

link

link

So Green ain't clean!

3. It's all tradeoffs. For all the fears of Chernobyl (a poorly maintained 1st gen soviet nuclear plant operating past its lifecycle) or Fukishima (largely survived 3 8.0-9.0 earthquakes and multiple tidal waves with leajage and no core meltdown), nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest reliable energy source available to us. If not for misplaced hollywood and Green Peace-stoked fear, we'd already be in an electric car clean energy economy with little need for oil except for producing plastics and such.

And you could tell oil Oligarchs to drink their oil for all you care.

Solar panels consume silver. I have read that it is salvageable. What happens if the price of silver goes up high enough to make it profitable for theft? I have always wondered about this. I know what happened when copper became profitable enough to make it theft worthy. I remember the catalytic converter thefts when they had platinum in them. Fields of solar panels make an easy target for thieves. I have to believe this is possible.

If solar and wind could replace all other forms of power … why haven't they ? The tech is just not there … yet …

quick question
understand the ground is good for tanks at moment due to freezing conditions ,not being familiar with the territory the spring thaw is due soon i hear (boggy ground) ,how bad could it become for tanks travelling through that area.in other words what is the latest date a possible invasion could happen due to above?

Hmm I thought the Germans got bogged down to fall rains turning things into a quagmire. Not sure what the Ukraine is like in the spring. Also don't know how well roads have improved. But I heard it has been a mild winter this year and that could lead to mud in spring. Might slow things down some, but unless really bad, I doubt much.

for the problems that renewable energy shares, at the moment, check Paul Roberts's book, The End of Oil
link

Can we assume Mr. Robert's buys into global warming and that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels?

Will China Take Sides In A Russia-Ukraine War?

link

Social Media Is A Goldmine Of Information On Russia's Military Mobilization

link

Russian Military Bases Near Ukraine

link

link

Armand

Russia trusting the Chinese, is like the fable of the frog and the scorpion. Russia is not the scorpion.

ground is good for tanks

In Ukraine yes, now the ground is frozen. Come spring it may become very muddy. But Ukraine has a decent road net. Plus not all of the terrain will become mud. So yes frozen ground is good. But unless the Ukraine turns into a Market-Garden scenario with a very limited passable road net, the offensive will continue regardless. You just have to adjust to the changing weather conditions. Napoleon and the Germans couldn't for a number of reasons. But this is the 21st Century.

I spent 22 months in the ROK, rice paddies everywhere. With 2 Winters followed by 2 Springs, plus Monsoons in the Summers. I was with one of the M113 Mech Bns in the 2ID. There was one other Mech Bn in the 2ID. Plus 2 M60A1 MBT Bns. The 4 other Bns in the 2ID were Infantry. Terrain is neutral … if you know how to use it to your advantage, adapt, etc.

Ukraine is the Russian's backyard. They know how to operate in that terrain & weather.

Oil makes a few people rich. We have been taken to the cleaners by oil companies for generations Trillions and trillions in profits. We have been made deliberately dependent on it. That's why we have highways instead of adequate public transport.

It drives our foreign policy. Ukraine is substantially energy rich, like the Middle East. Energy is the backbone of the Russian economy. Surely that is in the back of the minds of all the players here.

Renewables will develop the tech, but it is a tough fight against oil. They will not give up while it's so easy to squeeze us. Oil may not be tapped out yet, but it may get more expensive to extract.no one knows if the so called renewable oil the earth creates is commercially feasible, or a whole lot else about it yet. I don't imagine the earth is rushing to make more of it.

Solar doesn't work at night and I don't buy heating oil everyday, I use storage. Oil has to be extracted, processed, stored, transported, delivered. It has its own problems.

@35thOVI
I am 55 years old, and I can see that something has changed since when I was a kid. The weather is different, there are many more heat waves, there is much more torrent rain. Even the oil companies knew that the climate will change as early as in the eighties. You are from Ohio afaIr, don´t know how the weather is there, but I thought that the number of hurricanes and their severity increased in the USA. I told my young firstborn that there are no hurricanes in Germany. Nowaddays this is no longer true.
I am at a loss why a scientific truth is so highly in doubt.

Oil makes a few people rich. We have been taken to the cleaners by oil companies for generations Trillions and trillions in profits. We have been made deliberately dependent on it. That's why we have highways instead of adequate public transport.

A lot to unpack here. First, we weren't made "deliberately dependent on it," we became dependent because it was a fantastic replacement for Coal, which had in turn replaced Wood as an energy source. Portable, high energy per pound, oil and oil-based products revolutionized the world from transportation, to manufacturing, from how we heat and light our homes to the clothes we wear and the products we use, and the medicines we use.

Is it the end of the line? Nope. But rather than put real research $$$ into the next better thing we have hundreds of billions wasted on premature dead-end deployments of energy tech that is inefficient, unreliable and expensive.

Can we do better? Yes, but only if we stop letting reactionary Luddites control our energy policies and abandon the "magic bullet" approach of "renewables." Energy should be All of the Above, not One Size Fits All. Are you in area with lots of rivers and lakes? Deploy hydropower. DO you live in the desert? Go solar. And deploy next gen nuclear instead of continuing to fear it. Then you can tell OPEC and Putin to drink their oil for all you care.

Dogtail: Politics, money work against it.

I often wonder about the armies of the future. Robotics, all climate adapted, may dominate. Change the dependence on oil and you change everything about warfare.
.
Sci fi gaming come true. We see a lot of new energy and weaponry in development. Not all of it works out as planned. But I think it is a mistake to undervalue the power of change.

The air war in WW1 was unimaginable for the great majority of people 20 years earlier.

Hardly anyone could imagine responding with nuclear weapons right after Pearl Harbor.

It is amazing the challenges science and tech can resolve in relatively short periods.

But in the right now, the tanks still roll.

SB your last paragraph is so true. Diversified energy means survival in the long run, as well as economic and military strength.
I was thinking of the collusion with auto and oil involved in government highway development in the early 1950s, birth of the interstates. Or do I have this wrong? Was there also a military reason for connecting the country with super highways? Can't recall.

Both the auto industry and the military are taking major steps toward electric power. They must believe the challenges can be solved fairly soon. My conversion to belief in electric came from driving a Tesla. Serious power. If they can figure out how to recharge a high capacity battery as easy as you fill a car with gas….I would not bet against this.

You are from Ohio

I live in NE Ohio, too. I am 65 … it is cold as Hell here ! Reminds me of the type of snowfall we had when I was very young.

Sci fi gaming come true.

That is all I play, even though, I generally played historical. Pretty much all eras. But WWII seemed to be the most games we played. I still study history as well.

I had to sort of "update" the rules to include drones, etc. As tech gets better, I may have to update the rules again … and again ? Already have robots in the rules/game … what is sci-fi without 'bots ?!?

When the Wright Bros flew, until we had jets then landed on the Moon. Was how many years ? 70-80 years ?

And tech moves much faster now … So we will have to wait & see.

I was thinking of the collusion with auto and oil involved in government highway development in the early 1950s, birth of the interstates. Or do I have this wrong? Was there also a military reason for connecting the country with super highways? Can't recall.

It was primarily a military reason. WW2 had exposed the limits of rail infrastructure, so Truman and then Eisenhower planned and built the interstate national highway system to allow for more flexible logistics and troop shipments that didn't rely on rail. As a side bonus it enabled a massive boom in interstate commerce and travel, led to the rise of the tourism industry, led to the creation of more National and State parks as destinations and allowed people to drive where they wanted to go, when they wanted to go.

It's also funny if you can find old newspaper headlines from the early 1900s and so on, where you see the automobile being touted as a liberating new technology that serves the public health. We worry about exhaust emissions, they worried about horse emissions! Before the widespread adoption of the automobile, New York City produced 2500 tons of horse manure every day -- not to mention thousands of gallons of horse pee, and the public health issues related to that. Oh, and several hundred dead horses a day.

So people naturally adopted what worked better. As we should enable the next new, cleaner more effective innovations to do the same. And back more on topic -- my home State of California has been going green for decades in a big way. And the result is that the State now imports almost 60% of its oil and natural gas (when it has large energy reserves and before this push only imported 5% of its energy needs), had been closing nuclear and hydro plants to "go renewable" -- leading to high energy prices and rolling brownouts. It refuses to upgrade its grid or allow people to go "off grid" easily with local power production, which is the single major cause of wildfires during summer months.

So who is empowered by reliance on imported energy? Oil oligarchs and petrodespots.

@dogtail

Do I believe in man produced global warming? I will say, I am not convinced. But, unlike many who buy into global warming as indisputable "science", I keep myself open into being convinced.

I do not try to ban those who oppose the "science" of man made global warming from Facebook, Twitter, Spotify and other sites. I do not try to get them fired from their jobs, or boycott their products. As I have seen those who believe in the "science" of man made global warming have. I have heard as many scientists oppose the concept of man made global warming, as those who espouse it. But for some reason, those who oppose it are ridiculed and then disappear from the mainstream media.

"Science" is always questionable. Most of science believed the world was flat. They believed that bleeding was good for the ill. You could use Mercury to cure illnesses. Science told us that masks stopped the spread of Covid. Now we know that the cloth masks are at best, only 10% useful. That the vaccine would stop us from catching Covid and from spreading it. Now we know that at best, it only keeps us from potentially, only dire results. Science said the virus came from a wet market. Now we can say with 99% assurity, that it came from the Wuhan lab. The only question is, if by accident, or intentionally. But people who did not espouse the original views, were persecuted and banned. FYI I am fully vaccinated, but do not believe others should be forced to be.

The earth has had cycles of extreme cold and heat, throughout history. Why should now be somehow different? I am sure those who experienced those changes tried to find some reasons to rationalize those changes as well.

I think today's generations have way too much free time on their hands. They have time to consider their own mortality, so now they try to manufacture things to worry and panic about. I also believe, that is why drug use is so prevalent. Past generations did not have that free time. They worked from dawn till dusk, 6 days or more a weak. Survival was their concern.

I wonder if the Ukrainians are worried about global warming today, or who is, or is not wearing a mask, or is vaccinated? Wonder the same about the Russian soldiers on the front lines? I doubt it, I think they now have more immediate things affecting their potential mortality.

We are all going to die, it is just a matter of when and how.

Science is on-going, learning more everyday, adapting and changing accordingly. I think our fear of the unknown prompts us to blame science when it's conclusions don't work out. It is always questioning, it is committed to the truth unless it is weaponized or politicized. But learning never stops, and takes a lot of trial and error.

There is probably no way to get access to the data we need to determine the origin of Covid. Because only the Chinese control it. It is not impossible that it was a lab leak, but the consensus is that it was not, lab leaks are rare and animal crossovers are the main source for these types of viruses. We can't get lab data and we can't get animal data unless the Chinese allow it. So there will never be certainty.

I think I would still be wearing an n-95 mask in Ukraine, to avoid the flu and colds as well as Covid in winter, but I would postpone my climate change thinking while I was waiting to jump up at 4am to the sound of earth shaking explosions and the rumble of armor.

Tort, we can agree to disagree on the origin of Covid. But that is how it should be. Give and take back and forth. We may not agree, but as long as both sides are open to opinions, discourse is best.

It is only when one side or the other tries to stifle that discourse, that divisions begin.
🙂

Agreed, 35th!

" there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. (pp. 21–22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."

It is not 50/50 between scientist. And the question is not if it is made by men, it is about what to change to make climate change less terrible for the next generations.
I have kids. We all die. It matters what we leave behind.

Dogtail. Is there climate change? As I stated before, yes, throughout the existence of mankind there has been and will be climate change. We know, if science can be depended on, that the earth has been hotter before.

The question with the current science is, is the contribution of man anything more then a gnat on the back of a dinosaur? There are many who believe it is. There are many who believe it is not.

There are a large group of scientists who work from a theory, that mankind is inherently bad for the environment. They base their science and theories starting with that as their premise.

If you believe it is man contributed to, I will say also, that even if the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, Northern, Central and Southern Europe stopped all airborne pollution today, unless you can stop the worse, China, Russia and India, you accomplished pretty much nothing. So I believe that even if the scientist are correct, we're pretty much screwed.

There are some stupid bleepholes that claim that is irresponible to get kids cause the (western) lifestyle is bad for Mother Earth. I recommand suicide for those people.
But it is self destructive for a society if scientifically based facts are seen as useful as mere opinions.

The increase in temperature is much faster than during normal change of climate, other people can explain that much better than I. And we might not be able to stop the rise above 1,5 degrees or 2". But doing nothing because China is still building coal power plants is, again, self-destructive.

Obviously we disagree, but that is fine. That is as it should be. It is only when the attempts of one group or another, try to stifle the discussions of those disagreements, that issues begin.

Besides, we are off subject of the Ukraine now.

No we are not: because of climate change Russia can invade Ukraine the whole year around.
Just kiddin…

"Well if God wanted man to fly, we'd have wings !" … no wait … never mind … 😣🤯…

Will The Russian Speaking Ukrainian City Of Kharkiv Fight Against A Russian Invasion?

link

link

Armand

I'm still saying Putin won't invade … but we'll have to wait and see.

I'm still saying Putin won't invade … but we'll have to wait and see.

I don't think Putin will invade Ukraine proper but will cement his hold on the Donbas region under the guise of "stability" and so on. There is a tremendous influence campaign aimed at Zelensky -- getting rid of him is Putin's chief goal, replacing him with a more pro-Russian or at least a weaker leader.

Actually…Zelensky has inprisoned all potential pro-Russian candidates, but he could not sent to jail his opponent, Poroshenko, who he is more anti-Russian and pro-war than current president. The polls also started showing that Zelensky's party is losing to Poroshenko's.
So while it will be good for Russia to have a less hostile president, we'll more likely receive pro-US Poroshenko, it is very easy to see that his ccampaign is supported by very influential circles in the West.

Can we rename the thread, btw? Put next month, or may be January 2030?

but will cement his hold on the Donbas region under the guise of "stability" and so on.

Yes, that may be the most likely outcome over total invasion. But I'm not sure that will happen either ?

I see your point Barin … but yes it's 02/03/2022 and no invasion …

But in the USA it is Ground Hog Day! 🦔

Did Putin see his shadow? 6 more weeks of potential invasion. 🙂

That's Classified … 😎

But with all his forces there and near Belarus. worldatlas.com/maps/belarus He has options.

Just saw Pentagon Briefing on FOX. From ADM Kirby(Ret), a Brigade Combat Team[about 3000 troops]from the 82d ABN is going to head to Poland. 18th ABN Corps HQ is sending elements to Germany.

Pieces are moving on chess board.

BTW an ABN Bde Cbt Tm would probably be organized something like this :

Bde Cbt Tm HQ

3 Parachute Infantry Bns

1-2 FA Plts

1-2 CE Plts

1-2 Styker Plts

1-2 Lift and or Gunships Helicopter Det(s).

1 Plt of Stinger ADA Tms

Small CBT SPT Det.

Small MI Det.

But this is just my "SWAG" based on my past experiences, etc., from back in the '80s …

Isn't Putin putting his troops in Belarus? Isn't their capital only 8.5 hours from Warsaw? Don't they share a boarder?

12 Cav to Romania. What is this unit capacity Legion?

I should say, please tell us more about it. Must be mechanized and can get around.

In this press release on you tube you can find some answers (from the beginning up to the 2nd minute): YouTube link
A squadron of 1000 soldiers operating Striker vehicles from the 2nd Cavalry (now based in Germany) will arrive in Romania (to station temporarily), it is a very fast response force.

Thanks for this, Kirby says French troops are heading there as well.

Isn't Putin putting his troops in Belarus? Isn't their capital only 8.5 hours from Warsaw? Don't they share a boarder?

Check the map I posted before ? worldatlas.com/maps/belarus

What is this unit capacity

Yes as Valderian pointed out the 12th CAV is a Stryker unit. The Stryker is an 8 wheeled LAV[Light Armored Vehicle]. With various weapons mounted on the Stryker chassis. Including mortars, TOW AT Missiles, etc. The 12th CAV is primarily an Armored CAV unit with 3 Stryker CAV Troops[Companies] with 15 Strykers per CAV Troop in the Squadron[Battlion]. The Squadron HQ has 6 Strykers + supporting arms, etc. Everything is vehicle mounted. So they are very mobile.

link

Kirby says French troops are heading there as well.

Hope it is the FFL! Or possibly Paras or Armored CAV. Both which the FFL has as well.

Legion thanks. I thought so.

👍👍

Sorry it 2 Cav, typo. Thank Legion as well!

Don't panic: why Ukraine doesn't like western talk of imminent attack
link

And it is on Guardian, and they're as anti-Russian as a newspaper can be. Even they see that the West is solving its own problems hyping the threat, that even Ukraine doesn't see as real.

Barin1 nice article. Yes agenda, agenda, agenda. All the leaders can and probably are, using this to draw attention and coverage of their other disasters. Ours has way more than his share. I know Boris has his share of domestic issues. We know Putin does as well. "What can we do to focus attention elsewhere? I know! Let's start another cold war.".