• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oystein said:
Why do you make up stuff?
Click to expand...

Okay, checking it it's the other way around. Quite a lot lf wind and (without coal and nuclear anymore) a bit of Russian gas.

But Germany uses gas for more than electricity and 65% of that gas comes from Russia. 40% of gas in EU comes from Russia.
 
Oystein said:
Except that IN FACT natural gas has not increased in the electricity mix. Renewables have to replace reductions in coal, lignite coal and nuclear over the past decade.

So the fact that this is observed reality indicates to me it is possible.

Natural gas is NOT important in Germany for basic electricity supply, and therefore more nuclear would not help in the current situation to decrease dependency on Russian gas.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of more nuclear, it's a question of what happens to the mix when you remove the nuclear that's already there, which is going to happen soon.

You think that it can be replaced by "renewables" (ie, solar and wind). I don't think it can. I think Germany has already picked the low hanging fruit of what renewables will work for, and as more nuclear goes offline, it's going to have to be replaced with either natural gas or more coal.
 
Ryokan said:
Okay, checking it it's the other way around. Quite a lot lf wind and (without coal and nuclear anymore) a bit of Russian gas.

But Germany uses gas for more than electricity and 65% of that gas comes from Russia. 40% of gas in EU comes from Russia.
Click to expand...

That sounds about right.
And more than half the gas is used to heat homes and businesses. Only 14% to produce electricity.

One way for us to boycott Russia a bit would be to lower target temperature by 1 °C in our homes...
 
There aren't enough Russian troops mobilised to take the entire country let alone pacify it.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not a question of more nuclear, it's a question of what happens to the mix when you remove the nuclear that's already there, which is going to happen soon.

You think that it can be replaced by "renewables" (ie, solar and wind). I don't think it can. I think Germany has already picked the low hanging fruit of what renewables will work for, and as more nuclear goes offline, it's going to have to be replaced with either natural gas or more coal.
Click to expand...

Again, this is rather off-topic, as Russian gas mainly heats our homes and business, a use which nuclear energy cannot replace in the short run.

In the long run, we have to replace fossil heating devices and infrastructure. In the long run, a lot will change.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
There aren't enough Russian troops mobilised to take the entire country let alone pacify it.
Click to expand...

The short-term goal then is not so much to occupy and annex the entire Ukraine and govern it, but rather make it weak and dependent. And carve out chunks like Donbass and Odessa. And Transnistria. Neutralize Kyiv.
 
Stellafane said:
Um...that's pretty badass actually.
Click to expand...

What? No it isn't. It's pure cosplay that makes no sense at all. It's not backed by any serious Japanese intent to use force. It's completely laughable and unserious.

Badass would be Japan fielding a mechanized infantry brigade in defense of Kiev and the Ukrainian government, backed by a NATO-secured supply line through Poland. Anything less is a bizarre and clownish display of buffoonery.
 
Meadmaker said:
On a not very significant note:

I'm keeping odd hours these days, so at 3 am I found myself in Planet Fitness watching CNN. It was mid morning, I think 10:00 am in Kyiv.

After about 30 minutes of walking a treadmill and watching the news, which was live with breaking news, wall to wall coverage, something struck me. They only had one reporter go live from Ukraine. They have very little footage. They were very slow getting new out. It was unclear what was happening. There had been some explosions. There was one picture of Russian vehicles crossing from Belarus.

They hardly had anyone on the ground, and they were dealing mostly in rumor and speculation.

CNN's budget ain't what it used to be. I understand that a Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't exactly as big as a US invasion of Iraq, but the coverage was really weak. Even their one guy in Lviv didn't really have any breaking information. He was basically acting like a talking head, but live from Ukraine.

That's a real shame. The absence of live journalism really drove home what was lacking.
Click to expand...

They had pretty good coverage this morning, Central US time. 6 reporters in 6 different Ukranian cities, including live footage of a firefight at an airport, tanks crossing the border, rocket attacks, etc.

I found myself wondering what on earth someone like Fox News would be showing at the hour, but couldn't bring myself to click.

BTW - I was watching from an elliptical machine, so we're kind of in sync there.
 
Best case scenario. Putin is forced to cave in and pull out, as he and his wealthy pals are crippled by sanctions and Ukraine has the best reason to join NATO.
 
The Russian stock market and currency have absolutely tanked by all accounts and there's talk of cutting Russia off from the major currency trading and wire transfer systems which would essentially blockage their economy.
 
Nessie said:
Best case scenario. Putin is forced to cave in and pull out, as he and his wealthy pals are crippled by sanctions and Ukraine has the best reason to join NATO.
Click to expand...

Has Baron Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia told Boris exactly which sanctions will be ‘robust and meaningful’ yet?
 
There may be some cultural/language issue with the nazi label. Rusfians see European nationalists as nazis but Rusfian nationalists as not. It's Europe they hate.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
There aren't enough Russian troops mobilised to take the entire country let alone pacify it.
Click to expand...

Yes - Russia has claimed it won't occupy Ukraine.

However, Russia may not be the one that can make that choice. I recall that Rumsfeld thought that the U.S. would not need to occupy Iraq because Iraq would run its own affairs and be glad of its liberation. I suspect Russia has been infected by a similar strain of over-optimism.

The Russian military can overrun all of Ukraine's conventional military - destroy every tank, every airplane, sink every ship, raze every military base. But if Ukrainian people keep fighting anyway with a modicum of supplies coming in via the land borders), then Russia may have no choice in the matter. They want a weak Ukraine, but what they've got is a hateful and spiteful Ukraine. There may not be enough Ukrainians willing enough to collaborate, not enough to maintain control without Russian occupation forces.

Even if Russia only overruns half the country, the other half may still be hateful and spiteful and utterly unwilling to toe the line.


On another subject - this kills nuclear nonproliferation. Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine gave up their nuclear programs and then suffered invasion. Iran and North Korea kept their nuclear programs and have not suffered the same fate. A whole bunch of nations will now see this as a mandate to get nukes. Nukes = survival.
 
Tero said:
There may be some cultural/language issue with the nazi label. Rusfians see European nationalists as nazis but Rusfian nationalists as not. It's Europe they hate.
Click to expand...

I was just joshing when I (almost) quoted Chamberlain. A bitter josh.

But the parallels are there: Hitler occupied the Rhineland and nobody tried a military response. Then he grabbed a piece of Czechoslovakia and again Britain and France did diddly.

I wonder what the Poles are thinking right now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom