Poo tin... Put@in...

First.Aspect

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

Understood, but it's what the Ukranians keep asking for. I assume they have some reason.

Perhaps they're worried about what might come next..?

Ukraine also asks for Europe to stop importing Russian gas as it benefits Russia to the tune of over 250m dollars a day.
Europe has put that in the "Too Difficult" tray.

They literally can't, without shutting down peoples heating plus a large amount of electricity production, not to mention industrial manufacture (refining, glass etc).

The situation Germany has got itself into in particular is breathtaking. I mean 70% from one source? Dual sourcing of things for contingency is business 101 level stuff and they haven't done that.

surrey_commuter

ddraver said:

Understood, but it's what the Ukranians keep asking for. I assume they have some reason.

Perhaps they're worried about what might come next..?

It is intriguing why they keep asking and it may be for many reasons
Grandstanding
Keep hopes high among pop
USA asked them to so they can say no but gives Putin something to think about

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

Understood, but it's what the Ukranians keep asking for. I assume they have some reason.

Perhaps they're worried about what might come next..?

Ukraine also asks for Europe to stop importing Russian gas as it benefits Russia to the tune of over 250m dollars a day.
Europe has put that in the "Too Difficult" tray.

NATO needs to examine its own interest first and it may well be that not getting into a war with Russia is a preferable option

Totally agree that Nato needs to avoid entering into military combat with Russia. That is why a no fly zone is not an option and as stated earlier, would bring limited benefit.

ballysmate

First.Aspect said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

Understood, but it's what the Ukranians keep asking for. I assume they have some reason.

Perhaps they're worried about what might come next..?

Ukraine also asks for Europe to stop importing Russian gas as it benefits Russia to the tune of over 250m dollars a day.
Europe has put that in the "Too Difficult" tray.

They literally can't, without shutting down peoples heating plus a large amount of electricity production, not to mention industrial manufacture (refining, glass etc).

The situation Germany has got itself into in particular is breathtaking. I mean 70% from one source? Dual sourcing of things for contingency is business 101 level stuff and they haven't done that.

Especially as Trump of all people warned them of the danger and applied sanctions to Nord 2.
Sleepy Joe comes into office and sanctions lifted and all systems go again within days.
As you say, breathtaking.


Edit

Putin may test the west's resolve by turning off the supply himself.

MattFalle

ballysmate said:

First.Aspect said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

Understood, but it's what the Ukranians keep asking for. I assume they have some reason.

Perhaps they're worried about what might come next..?

Ukraine also asks for Europe to stop importing Russian gas as it benefits Russia to the tune of over 250m dollars a day.
Europe has put that in the "Too Difficult" tray.

They literally can't, without shutting down peoples heating plus a large amount of electricity production, not to mention industrial manufacture (refining, glass etc).

The situation Germany has got itself into in particular is breathtaking. I mean 70% from one source? Dual sourcing of things for contingency is business 101 level stuff and they haven't done that.

Especially as Trump of all people warned them of the danger and applied sanctions to Nord 2.
Sleepy Joe comes into office and sanctions lifted and all systems go again within days.
As you say, breathtaking.

"Sleepy Joe"?

don't be a bell, Bally, you know better than that.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

Understood, but it's what the Ukranians keep asking for. I assume they have some reason.

Perhaps they're worried about what might come next..?

Ukraine also asks for Europe to stop importing Russian gas as it benefits Russia to the tune of over 250m dollars a day.
Europe has put that in the "Too Difficult" tray.

They literally can't, without shutting down peoples heating plus a large amount of electricity production, not to mention industrial manufacture (refining, glass etc).

The situation Germany has got itself into in particular is breathtaking. I mean 70% from one source? Dual sourcing of things for contingency is business 101 level stuff and they haven't done that.

It's tricky to have a dual source pipeline. They could have ensured they have sufficient LNG facilities though.

First.Aspect

ballysmate said:

First.Aspect said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

Understood, but it's what the Ukranians keep asking for. I assume they have some reason.

Perhaps they're worried about what might come next..?

Ukraine also asks for Europe to stop importing Russian gas as it benefits Russia to the tune of over 250m dollars a day.
Europe has put that in the "Too Difficult" tray.

They literally can't, without shutting down peoples heating plus a large amount of electricity production, not to mention industrial manufacture (refining, glass etc).

The situation Germany has got itself into in particular is breathtaking. I mean 70% from one source? Dual sourcing of things for contingency is business 101 level stuff and they haven't done that.

Especially as Trump of all people warned them of the danger and applied sanctions to Nord 2.
Sleepy Joe comes into office and sanctions lifted and all systems go again within days.
As you say, breathtaking.


Edit

Putin may test the west's resolve by turning off the supply himself.

Possibly. Slight issue there is where to put all the gas.

Point of order - Trump's main motivation was to sell American gas. I don't think he was really thinking further than that.

ballysmate

First.Aspect said:

ballysmate said:

First.Aspect said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

Understood, but it's what the Ukranians keep asking for. I assume they have some reason.

Perhaps they're worried about what might come next..?

Ukraine also asks for Europe to stop importing Russian gas as it benefits Russia to the tune of over 250m dollars a day.
Europe has put that in the "Too Difficult" tray.

They literally can't, without shutting down peoples heating plus a large amount of electricity production, not to mention industrial manufacture (refining, glass etc).

The situation Germany has got itself into in particular is breathtaking. I mean 70% from one source? Dual sourcing of things for contingency is business 101 level stuff and they haven't done that.

Especially as Trump of all people warned them of the danger and applied sanctions to Nord 2.
Sleepy Joe comes into office and sanctions lifted and all systems go again within days.
As you say, breathtaking.


Edit

Putin may test the west's resolve by turning off the supply himself.

Possibly. Slight issue there is where to put all the gas.

Point of order - Trump's main motivation was to sell American gas. I don't think he was really thinking further than that.

Doesn't make his point any less valid though does it, as you yourself pointed out.

First.Aspect

ballysmate said:

First.Aspect said:

ballysmate said:

First.Aspect said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

Understood, but it's what the Ukranians keep asking for. I assume they have some reason.

Perhaps they're worried about what might come next..?

Ukraine also asks for Europe to stop importing Russian gas as it benefits Russia to the tune of over 250m dollars a day.
Europe has put that in the "Too Difficult" tray.

They literally can't, without shutting down peoples heating plus a large amount of electricity production, not to mention industrial manufacture (refining, glass etc).

The situation Germany has got itself into in particular is breathtaking. I mean 70% from one source? Dual sourcing of things for contingency is business 101 level stuff and they haven't done that.

Especially as Trump of all people warned them of the danger and applied sanctions to Nord 2.
Sleepy Joe comes into office and sanctions lifted and all systems go again within days.
As you say, breathtaking.


Edit

Putin may test the west's resolve by turning off the supply himself.

Possibly. Slight issue there is where to put all the gas.

Point of order - Trump's main motivation was to sell American gas. I don't think he was really thinking further than that.

Doesn't make his point any less valid though does it, as you yourself pointed out.

Indeed. Still, will all be sorted in 8 years. 8-/

I'm with you that Russia might slow production and supply. Don't know how long this takes, but although it's not instantaneous I would guess it can be done before next winter.

Plan B seems to be the pipeline from Norway to Austria.

morstar

briantrumpet said:

MattFalle said:

surrey_commuter said:

thegreatdivide said:

First.Aspect said:

thegreatdivide said:

First.Aspect said:

john80 said:

I often think those in Scotland that argue they don't need a Nuclear deterrent or a decent Army are really just trying to save a few bob whilst thinking the English will come to their defence if anything happened. For sure its a strategy but if they can't agree fundamental things like this with the UK then good luck to them and this is me saying this as a Scot.

Hopefully geopolitical upheaval will not increase popularity of the yes muppets.

It's the basing of the weapons in Scotland that's not liked. It's a fair point.

It is a debate, but not relevant here. I was just saying I would hope that in tines of uncertainty, the status quo would be maintained.

Now does not appear to be a good time to be a small non-nato and non-EU northern European county with some remote territorial waters and islands. Particularly if you don't budget for a navy or Air force.

There's been a lot of military infrastructure investment in Scotland lately. RAF Lossiemouth is a HUGE base now - one of the biggest in the UK. Leuchars, which is just down the road from me is now a major Army base after the RAF moved to Lossie, but all the RAF infrastructure is in place and the runway is used almost daily by NATO aircraft. I strongly suspect it'll be fully reactivated into some kind of Joint Force thing when military spending is ramped up due to this war. The SNP will have to grudgingly accept it - even though it'll be a big boost to local economy.

If they wanted to boost the local economy they should get Trump to turn it into a golf course as there is nowhere to play round there.

maybe not.


https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-scottish-golf-resorts-lose-nearly-9-million-2021-12?amp

It's not impossible that they always were there not to turn a profit, but for other financial reasons (as well as bolstering Trump's ego).

I am intrigued at the idea of trusting Trump organisation accounts.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I thought Ukraine was being fairly effective at enforcing a no fly zone.

They're not that able to give air support to their own troops in the east and south apparently.

As I heard someone point out the other day, a no fly zone would apply to the Ukrainians as well as the Russians so they would no longer be able to use their aircraft to target the artillery that is the biggest problem for their cities (and where Russia apparently has a lot of kit).

loltoride

First.Aspect said:

Does Ukraine just want to draw NATO in initially, so they end up with help on the ground later?

It certainly seems that way.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I thought Ukraine was being fairly effective at enforcing a no fly zone.

They're not that able to give air support to their own troops in the east and south apparently.

As I heard someone point out the other day, a no fly zone would apply to the Ukrainians as well as the Russians so they would no longer be able to use their aircraft to target the artillery that is the biggest problem for their cities (and where Russia apparently has a lot of kit).

Doubt Nato would be shooting down the rather effective Nato produced Turkish drones, tbh.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I thought Ukraine was being fairly effective at enforcing a no fly zone.

They're not that able to give air support to their own troops in the east and south apparently.

As I heard someone point out the other day, a no fly zone would apply to the Ukrainians as well as the Russians so they would no longer be able to use their aircraft to target the artillery that is the biggest problem for their cities (and where Russia apparently has a lot of kit).

Doubt Nato would be shooting down the rather effective Nato produced Turkish drones, tbh.

why?

rick_chasey

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLy7Bw5V/?k=1

rick_chasey

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I thought Ukraine was being fairly effective at enforcing a no fly zone.

They're not that able to give air support to their own troops in the east and south apparently.

As I heard someone point out the other day, a no fly zone would apply to the Ukrainians as well as the Russians so they would no longer be able to use their aircraft to target the artillery that is the biggest problem for their cities (and where Russia apparently has a lot of kit).

Doubt Nato would be shooting down the rather effective Nato produced Turkish drones, tbh.

why?

Nato shooting down donated nato weapons seems a bit odd

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I thought Ukraine was being fairly effective at enforcing a no fly zone.

They're not that able to give air support to their own troops in the east and south apparently.

As I heard someone point out the other day, a no fly zone would apply to the Ukrainians as well as the Russians so they would no longer be able to use their aircraft to target the artillery that is the biggest problem for their cities (and where Russia apparently has a lot of kit).

Doubt Nato would be shooting down the rather effective Nato produced Turkish drones, tbh.

why?

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I thought Ukraine was being fairly effective at enforcing a no fly zone.

They're not that able to give air support to their own troops in the east and south apparently.

As I heard someone point out the other day, a no fly zone would apply to the Ukrainians as well as the Russians so they would no longer be able to use their aircraft to target the artillery that is the biggest problem for their cities (and where Russia apparently has a lot of kit).

Doubt Nato would be shooting down the rather effective Nato produced Turkish drones, tbh.

why?

Nato shooting down donated nato weapons seems a bit odd

Ukraine aren't a NATO country, they aren't NATO weapons and NATO are there to enforce a no fly zone between two non NATO countries.

rick_chasey

Turkey are hardly gonna shoot down the drones they just donated?

masjer

Sainsbury's have renamed their chicken kiev, chicken kyiv. Things are gonna be alright.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Turkey are hardly gonna shoot down the drones they just donated?

No fly zone either means they aren't deployed or they are shot down. See above.

They aren't Turkish drones, any more than the Ukranian MIGs are Russian planes.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

Turkey are hardly gonna shoot down the drones they just donated?

yes, they will have to there is a no fly zone.

its why its called a no fly zone.

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1501594641501724675?s=21

First.Aspect

Who is he?

rick_chasey

Economist Defence Editor.

Thus far his analysis has been bang on, both before and during.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Economist Defence Editor.

Thus far his analysis has been bang on, both before and during.

According to Google, a battalion is ~400 men, so ~2500 in total? MF can probably confirm.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Economist Defence Editor.

Thus far his analysis has been bang on, both before and during.

According to Google, a battalion is ~400 men, so ~2500 in total? MF can probably confirm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion_tactical_group#:~:text=A battalion tactical group (Russian,a high level of readiness.

blazing_saddles

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Economist Defence Editor.

Thus far his analysis has been bang on, both before and during.

According to Google, a battalion is ~400 men, so ~2500 in total? MF can probably confirm.

Since he specifically states they are tactical battalions.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a39193732/russian-battalion-tactical-groups-explained/

Follow the link there and we get:

The battalion tactical group [batalonnaya takticheskaya gruppa] is a temporary formation for solving certain operational tasks. The BTG is a reinforced battalion that has all the necessary reinforcements. Each BTG consists of 700-800 people, and some - of 900. Each brigade and regiment, as a rule, includes two such battalion groups. The battalion tactical group is a temporary unit. It is created for combat. The BTG is created around a motorized rifle or tank battalion by subordinating to it artillery, anti-aircraft, engineering and other special units necessary to carry out the assigned combat mission. It includes a motorized infantry company(s), 2-4 tanks, units with ATGMs, mortars, reconnaissance, engineering and rear groups. It can be covered by fire support helicopters, divisional artillery and a platoon of anti-aircraft guns.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-btg.htm

So, significantly more bodies than I initially thought.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

A Tweet

I'm skeptical of all news.
Both sides use propaganda and it would be naive to believe otherwise.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I thought Ukraine was being fairly effective at enforcing a no fly zone.

They're not that able to give air support to their own troops in the east and south apparently.

As I heard someone point out the other day, a no fly zone would apply to the Ukrainians as well as the Russians so they would no longer be able to use their aircraft to target the artillery that is the biggest problem for their cities (and where Russia apparently has a lot of kit).

Doubt Nato would be shooting down the rather effective Nato produced Turkish drones, tbh.

But a no fly zone would have to be enforced against both sides surely otherwise it would stop being a no fly zone and effectively be NATO air forces joining the fight on the side of Ukraine which would be another step up again.

blazing_saddles

However, another recent analysis looks at their crucial logistical support. In other words, that huge Russian convoy and the like.

https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/

I will paraphrase.

Russia’s truck logistic support, which would be crucial in an invasion of Eastern Europe, is limited by the number of trucks and range of operations. It is possible to calculate how far trucks can operate using simple beer math. Assuming the existing road network can support 45 mph speeds, a single truck can make three trips a day at up to a 45-mile range.
Increase the distance to 90 miles, and the truck can make two trips daily. At 180 miles, the same truck is down to one trip a day.
The Russian army does not have enough trucks to meet its logistic requirement more than 90 miles beyond supply dumps. To reach a 180-mile range, the Russian army would have to double truck allocation to 400 trucks for each of the material-technical support brigades.

Sustaining Logistics Is the Hard Part.