Not only that they are likely helping any friendlies (Iran) with nuclear aspirations.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
Much like a crook washing cash though, gotta wonder how much Russian oil is being cleansed for sale to the market.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
No laundering required. India, Turkey and China are avid customers. But the lion's share of the infrastructure is Westward and those SE customers are not willing to pay anywhere near the rates Russia was collecting from W. Europe
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
That is the hope, which was quite a few steps below the current conflict. Russia/Ukraine is a HOT/PROXY war by nature, leaning toward MAD/VLAD.
India is refining Russian oil and exporting the products.
A joke I saw posted elsewhere that sums up how the Poles feel about the Russians:
Old Polish joke... Polish guy finds a genie in a bottle, gets three wishes.
First wish: "I wish for a Mongolian horde to attack Poland, pillaging and killing everything in their way, then return home". Genie is a bit surprised, but that's what happens - they reach Poland's border and loot and kill their way through the countryside.
Second wish: "I wish for a Mongolian horde to attack Poland, pillaging and killing everything in their way, then return home". Genie is again incredulous, but that's what happens - this time they loot and kill their way through the towns on the border.
Third wish: "I wish for a Mongolian horde to attack Poland, pillaging and killing everything in their way, then return home". Genie can't believe what he's hearing, but that's what happens - this time even a few cities are razed.
The genie finally asks the Pole "Alright, fine, you got your wishes. Just... for my own curiosity, tell me why you wanted the horde to attack Poland three times?"
"Because they'll have had to go through Russia six times."
Last edited:
petit_bateau
Active Member
Oddly enough this may serve the wider-Western-alliance's strategic interests. I say may, because it does rather depend on how things pan out. This is especilly so in the nuclear arms arena.
Currently these various nuclear weapons treaties are mostly (though not entirely) USA-Russia/USSR in nature. As such China is a free actor. That was not so important back when China's quantity of nuclear weapons was minimal, and their delivery systems extremely limited. However China has made significant qualitative technical progress on delivery systems, and also on quantity. Thus there is an evolving situation where USA (and the other Asian powers in the Western colective) is becoming increasingly at risk. And China has - of course - thus far found it to be in its own best interests to not sign up to any of these treaties whilst knowing that the USA is limited by them.
If Russia discards all the arms control treaties then this may ultimately lead to a situation where China discovers that it is best to sign on to new treaties that are more multilateral in nature. Even if they were just USA-China-rump.Russia (whatever rump.Russia is at that point) then it would be a good start. Concievably UK and France might also be willing to sign up as they have important economic reasons not to wish for a revived nuclear arms race (see aka "entente
Somehow I don't think the other various declared and undeclared and near-breakout nuclear states would wish to sign on in that brave new world. That is a step too far.
There are also some conventional forces limitations treaties that may be worth re-examining aftr this particular conflict.
Nuclear Arms Control Treaties
This section contains summaries of all the major arms-control treaties including: Limited Test Ban Treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I (Interim Agreement), Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Threshold Test Ban Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty...
www.atomicarchive.com
Last edited:
Oddly enough this may serve the wider-Western-alliance's strategic interests. I say may, because it does rather depend on how things pan out. This is especilly so in the nuclear arms arena.
Currently these various nuclear weapons treaties are mostly (though not entirely) USA-Russia/USSR in nature. As such China is a free actor. That was not so important back when China's quantity of nuclear weapons was minimal, and their delivery systems extremely limited. However China has made significant qualitative technical progress on delivery systems, and also on quantity. Thus there is an evolving situation where USA (and the other Asian powers in the Western colective) is becoming increasingly at risk. And China has - of course - thus far found it to be in its own best interests to not sign up to any of these treaties whilst knowing that the USA is limited by them.
If Russia discards all the arms control treaties then this may ultimately lead to a situation where China discovers that it is best to sign on to new treaties that are more multilateral in nature. Even if they were just USA-China-rump.Russia (whatever rump.Russia is at that point) then it would be a good start. Concievably UK and France might also be willing to sign up as they have important economic reasons not to wish for a revived nuclear arms race (see aka "ententecordialefrugale").
Somehow I don't think the other various declared and undeclared and near-breakout nuclear states would wish to sign on in that brave new world. That is a step too far.
There are also some conventional forces limitations treaties that may be worth re-examining aftr this particular conflict.
Nuclear Arms Control Treaties
This section contains summaries of all the major arms-control treaties including: Limited Test Ban Treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I (Interim Agreement), Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Threshold Test Ban Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty...
Cast it as the "adults table" of nuclear nations. I think China would sign on if they felt they were being treated as a respectable and responsible nuclear power rather than a weak state with a handful of weapons, which they were when they joined the nuclear club.
There is a scenario where Russia breaks up and the rump Russian state is left with no nuclear weapons, or a very small arsenal and no way to maintain it. Most of Russia's depots and plants that work on nuclear weapons are a fair ways from Moscow and would likely end up in other countries. That is another world headache with a bunch of new countries sitting on large stockpiles or weapons. It would be strong encouragement for western countries to get involved in ensuring these new countries are not going to go rogue and they won't give up their weapons for a toothless treaty like Ukraine and other ex-Soviet Republics did.
If Russia ends up in a post nation civil war, some of those weapons could end up being used too. Even if a new rogue nation doesn't have the codes to activate the weapons they suddenly inherited, there are many ways they could use the material in them to make dirty bombs.
The path to a post Russian empire world is not completely safe for any of us. But long term it gives us the best hope for a lasting peace, at least from that part of the world. China is another problem, but one at a time...
petit_bateau
Active Member
I don't think it ever was quite as simplistic as the West or the Soviets trying to treat the Chinese as a weak state. Back then - as now - there are simple asymmetric realities (geographical situations along borders; technology quality; weapons quantities; etc) that made trying to get a 3-power solution impossible, whereas as 2-power solution was just about achievable, and indeed ultimately achieved albeit with great difficulty. And that suite of treaties was stable-ish at least for about 60 years (1963-2023). Just as in physics solving a 3-body problem, it was pretty much always too difficult to solve for also UK + FR in the mix and CN to give a 5-body problem. Especially when, as you progressively reduce the numbers of warheads, then the UK + FR stocks become relatively more important (and the CN ones).
Maybe the next round of treaties will be more successful in their negotiation. It is going to be even more difficult though as it will have to take into account ABM defences that are now both technologically and economically viable; and the presence of rogue 3rd party nuke states (NORKS, soon Iran, always Israel) with ICBM ranges (the latest NORK launch on a lofted trajectory demonstrated full world coverage). And you can bet the NORK target set includes Beijing just as much as points to the east. The Chinese have a lot to chew over in trying to think this stuff through.
Nuclear Arms Control Treaties
This section contains summaries of all the major arms-control treaties including: Limited Test Ban Treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I (Interim Agreement), Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Threshold Test Ban Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty...
www.atomicarchive.com
petit_bateau
Active Member
Good hit rate
Pretty interesting ammunition pictures.
=======
My concern has always been that at some point Russia would try to declare peace and lock in its territorial/etc gains and leave a frozen conflict simmering ready for the next round. We must prevent that happening. (That would also be one of the better outcomes from a Chinese perspective, unfortunately). Today's UNGA vote is important. This must only end with Russia completely out.
Pretty interesting ammunition pictures.
=======
My concern has always been that at some point Russia would try to declare peace and lock in its territorial/etc gains and leave a frozen conflict simmering ready for the next round. We must prevent that happening. (That would also be one of the better outcomes from a Chinese perspective, unfortunately). Today's UNGA vote is important. This must only end with Russia completely out.
Just a bit of wd40 and some steel wool and that ammo will be good as new 
.
Like the avatar
. Like the avatar
petit_bateau
Active Member
I figured a boy can have some funJust a bit of wd40 and some steel wool and that ammo will be good as new
Like the avatar
and anyway I needed to be able to put an ident on some of my graphs/etc so that people could attribute them to me.====
More seriously this graphic out of Reuters today shows how good a job Europe has done in shutting out Russian gas. I think the residual amount is the take by Hungary, Serbia, and Transnistria; perhaps also some into Italy and Austria though I am less sure about those. In any case it is now down to negligible quantities of gas from the point of view of Russian exports westwards. I've not seen an equally good graphic on coal and oil and products (diesel, ammonia, fertilisers) but it is much the same story albeit with various time-shifts.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/5IDI3GRCFBNV7IOU5DDKPAFH3Q.jpg)
Analysis: Healthy gas storage warms Europe, but not enough
As Europe emerges from a mild winter with gas storage close to record levels, it must brace for another costly race to replenish its reserves on the international market.
www.reuters.com
Anecdote: I live in France. I've reduced my gas consumption by 2/3 (can't get rid off my gas heater yet due to HOA issues in the building).I figured a boy can have some fun
====
More seriously this graphic out of Reuters today shows how good a job Europe has done in shutting out Russian gas. I think the residual amount is the take by Hungary, Serbia, and Transnistria; perhaps also some into Italy and Austria though I am less sure about those. In any case it is now down to negligible quantities of gas from the point of view of Russian exports westwards. I've not seen an equally good graphic on coal and oil and products (diesel, ammonia, fertilisers) but it is much the same story albeit with various time-shifts.
View attachment 910404
Analysis: Healthy gas storage warms Europe, but not enough
As Europe emerges from a mild winter with gas storage close to record levels, it must brace for another costly race to replenish its reserves on the international market.
Average temperature is 14°C in the living room (where my desk is) and 11.5°C in the bedroom. Measured by ARANET4 Home. It's quite cold but I can bear with it surprisingly well. I do have trouble re-acclimating myself when working/sleeping elsewhere though.
@petit_bateau You should watermark the work from your battery analysis. It was well done, OEMs would have bought that.
petit_bateau
Active Member
That battery analysis is not over, it is just beginning. However I probably will watermark more stuff from now on. Mind you I'm not sure that the people who most need my insights either know how to find me, or are receptive to what I can contribute.
====
This analysis of a small tactical action in Vodayne is interesting, most especially for what it says about air activity levels. It also well illustrates that UKR are being parsimonious with their loss-rate (good) and hopefully when the newly refitted/retrained forces come through will be well placed. Before anyone gets too ra-ra, note that RU has since taken Vodayne,
May the farce be with you: the assault on Vodyane village »
On the 15 January Russian backed separatist militia assaulted the village of Vodyane. It all went wrong. How, and why?
wavellroom.com
See Avdivka front map in this to situate things, and subsequent movement
Invasion Day 364 – Summary
The summary of the situation of Russian re-invasion to Ukraine covering the last 48 hours, as of 20th February 2023 – 22:00 (Kyiv time). includes the area of between Oskil and Aydar river Ukrainian…
militaryland.net
I don't think it ever was quite as simplistic as the West or the Soviets trying to treat the Chinese as a weak state. Back then - as now - there are simple asymmetric realities (geographical situations along borders; technology quality; weapons quantities; etc) that made trying to get a 3-power solution impossible, whereas as 2-power solution was just about achievable, and indeed ultimately achieved albeit with great difficulty. And that suite of treaties was stable-ish at least for about 60 years (1963-2023). Just as in physics solving a 3-body problem, it was pretty much always too difficult to solve for also UK + FR in the mix and CN to give a 5-body problem. Especially when, as you progressively reduce the numbers of warheads, then the UK + FR stocks become relatively more important (and the CN ones).
Maybe the next round of treaties will be more successful in their negotiation. It is going to be even more difficult though as it will have to take into account ABM defences that are now both technologically and economically viable; and the presence of rogue 3rd party nuke states (NORKS, soon Iran, always Israel) with ICBM ranges (the latest NORK launch on a lofted trajectory demonstrated full world coverage). And you can bet the NORK target set includes Beijing just as much as points to the east. The Chinese have a lot to chew over in trying to think this stuff through.
Nuclear Arms Control Treaties
This section contains summaries of all the major arms-control treaties including: Limited Test Ban Treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I (Interim Agreement), Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Threshold Test Ban Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty...
This day in age it might be pretty difficult to negotiate a nuclear arms treaty with more than two people, but historically the world did negotiate a many way naval treaty in the early 1920s with the US, Japan, and the UK as the major parties with France and Italy as less significant parties. It did cool down what was about to become a major naval arms race. Japan cheated a lot, but they ended up building a lot of ships with good offensive capabilities, but they skimped on armor to save tonnage in the treaty and it did make those ships easier to sink when they faced the USN.
USN treaty cruisers were also very compromised designs that didn't stand up very well to combat. Almost all the US treaty heavy cruisers were sunk or very badly damaged in the first year of the war. The only ones that weren't were in the Atlantic.
In any case, it did sort of work. A lot of battleships and battle cruisers that were under construction in the early 20s were either scrapped in the shipyards or converted to something else. The first large carriers in the USN were laid down as battle cruisers. The Akagi and Kaga in the IJN started out as battleships.
There are new states working on nuclear weapons now, and there is the potential that new states created out of Russia would end up inheriting large arsenals. There was a push for many decades to keep the nuclear club as small as possible, but that cat has escaped the bag. Maybe we need a coalition of nuclear armed states who agree to police the other states with nuclear weapons. Inviting China into that club would help give it legitimacy. China has sway in some places where the US, UK, and France don't.
Among the charter items should be, a responsible nuclear state never threatens to use their weapons offensively, only for defensive purposes. And if a rogue actor uses nuclear weapons, all the members band together to stop them, ending their regime if necessary.
Just spitballing some ideas. I think it's time to rethink nuclear arms control measures. In the beginning there were two major nuclear players with two who had a reasonable use doctrine and could be trusted to follow it. Then other players got into the game. India and Pakistan pretty much only have one target for their weapons. And China has had a clear defensive stance with their weapons for most of the time they've had them. But there are new players in the game, or coming online soon.
BTW I read a few years ago that Japan had all the components for several warheads assembled and on the shelf ready to put together if tensions escalated. They won't admit they have such a program, but they are technologically capable of doing it and it is not unreasonable considering they have a crazy aggressive neighbor and a moderately aggressive neighbor with nuclear weapons. If they didn't have such a program, I would also not be surprised if they started one around 2018 or so. Their reliable defense partner across the Pacific got pretty squirrelly.
All signs point to the Russians really being low on ammunition. The stories that they are attempting an offensive in many areas would be the time to trot out any hoarded ammunition, but instead units are getting useless junk from the back wall of the ammunition bunker that has probably been there since the 50s.
The signs are there that they have completely burned through their Soviet stockpile and the only good ammunition they can get to the front line is newly manufactured stuff. And there is nowhere near enough of that to meet demand. This is what "out" of ammunition looks like.
They are almost certainly trying to do their best to expand production, but they have a lot of hurdles. Thanks to the sanctions they have limited currency to trade for supplies and China is about the only partner who is willing and able to supply much. China probably is supplying them with the raw ingredients to make ammunition. The Russian chemical industry has a weak foundation and expanding it would have to happen before they can expand ammunition production.
Just like battery production is the bottleneck in EV production, chemical production is the first bottleneck in ammunition production. Chemical plants take time to build and get operational. The US built a large one in Wisconsin, I think starting in 1939, but it wasn't up to full capacity until 1944. Ammunition plants also are more complex than just a factory building. You can't just take an idle car plant and turn it into an ammunition factory. There have to be safeguards (even if you don't care about worker safety) to ensure you don't lose the entire factory if there is one accident.
It will take Russia years to significantly expand ammunition production. After the USSR fell apart, they tore down a number of ammunition plants and others ended up in other countries. Russia has a fairly good ammunition production capacity today compared to even big players like the United States, but it's only producing about 1/10 the artillery ammunition they need to make any progress on the battlefield.
Other limiting factors are their vehicle and weapon production capacity. This war is burning through their vehicle stocks at a rapid rate and the capacity of their factories is only a tiny fraction of the loss rate. With their heavy use of artillery last spring and early summer, they probably burned out a lot of barrels, but their gun barrel production is poor. Both in quantity and quality. With a very large stockpile of guns in storage, they didn't feel a burning need to build a lot more. They built a few new designs, but the bulk of their guns are ex-Soviet. The disappearance of SP guns replaced with towed artillery is a sign that they have hit their storage facilities very hard to keep the guns firing.
At some point they are going to start having a shortage of guns too. Though the ammunition shortage is lengthening the life of their guns.
They might, but I doubt Ukraine will pay any attention to that. Most western leaders have said all along that it's up to Ukraine when they want to stop fighting, as long as they don't cross into Russia.
The political situation at home in Russia is getting unstable. Some of the news commentators on Russia are now asking the question "what if we lose?" It's getting harder and harder to hide the fact that Russia is doing very poorly.
Ukraine might get most of their territory back before something happens to Russia, but I think this war ends when something happens within Russia and they just aren't able to continue fighting. In 1917 first the troops in the field rebelled, but it quickly got back to Russia and the country had to sue for peace to get their army disengaged from foreign enemies to concentrate on domestic ones.
The US PBS network has a news magazine program called Frontline. They have started releasing the unedited interviews they have done on a number of programs about Putin on YouTube. I've watched a few of them in the last week or so. Each person has a bit of a different perspective on Russia and Putin, but they are all substantive interviews. Somebody posted one of these interviews with Timothy Snyder a few days ago. That was one of the best ones. He's an expert on eastern European history and a Yale professor.
petit_bateau
Active Member
Maybe.
The post WW1 naval treaties were a mixed bag. Whilst they kept the surface vessel build rates just-about-manageable they also created a lot of problems, most especially in the submarine arena. The people that negotiated the treaties were very aware of this issue, but ultimately couldn't get a practicable solution that could be depended on. And it was the submarines that almost won the Atlantic for the Germans/etc in both WW1 and WW2; and did lose the Japanese the Pacific in WW2. The issue with submarines (at the time) is the sheer affordability of them, or the ROI in economic speak. These days much the same situation exists with nuclear weapons - they are very affordable by comparison to other defence weapons. So provided that a state has the motivation and the technological capacity it is relatively simple these days to "get the bomb".
So, maybe.
(With respect to USN heavy cruisers in Atlantic/Med, they greatly benefitted from the RN having previously removed the German/Italian (and French) surface threat which greatly simplified things. That cost the RN the Glorious, and the Hood in exchange, amongst many other things. Leaving only the submarine and air threats which were of course still very considerable.).
Yes .... there are a couple of other nations nearby that have similarly said they don't have any .......
This is to be hoped, and the evidence does seem to support the hypothesis.
Let us hope so.
Being practical about things, this is one area where we can all help, by explaining to Western audiences that Russian 'peace' offers are best ignored (and why) and that only Ukraine should lead on this issue.
The naval battles in the Atlantic and around Europe were a completely different dynamic than in the Pacific. The USN also had different commitments to each theater. Initially the plan was to split the navy pretty much 50/50 between the Pacific and Atlantic, but after Pearl Harbor most of the remaining battleships afloat were transferred to the Pacific and over the next year most of the rest of the warships larger than a destroyer were transferred leaving only a token force of larger ships. Eventually the large ship contingent grew back in size to support amphibious landings, but by early 1943 the only carrier left in the Atlantic was the Ranger, which was not really suitable for combat. I believe the USS Augusta remained in the Atlantic for most of the war, but the needs of the Pacific drew a lot of forces that way.
Except for supporting amphibious landings, there was little need for larger ships by the time the US got into the war. The main threat was submarines and that required lots of ships of destroyer or smaller. In a submarine war larger ships are just targets. Except for the escort carriers which were fitted out for ASW duty. Once there were enough CVEs for escort duty with some left over to form hunter killer groups the days of the German sub threat were limited, or at least on a sharp decline in fortunes.
The Pacific needed everything the USN had. It is probably the purest naval war in history. Definitely the biggest.
I don't think Israel has ever admitted to having them and there are rumors they teamed up with South Africa to develop them.
If Russia is pressing ahead trying to go on the offensive with this poor level of supply, that's strong evidence the politicians are driving the show and there is little regard to what the military people think. Basically the war is being run by rank amateurs who have no clue what they're doing. That's good for Ukraine.
Yes, I fully agree. Fortunately most of the leaders in the west understand this. From what I've seen on the Frontline interviews from people who were in the Obama administration Biden saw through Putin and tried to get tougher with him when Putin started his charm offensives.
BitJam
Active Member
This is a nice short summary of how the war has affected world energy.
My take is that Putin may have inadvertently done more to help stop global warming then Elon Musk (depending on the time scale).
Russia's Ukraine War Shakes Up the Energy World, But Not How Moscow Wants
My take is that Putin may have inadvertently done more to help stop global warming then Elon Musk (depending on the time scale).
petit_bateau
Active Member
UK currently ruling out Typhoon in the short term, but open to backfilling into (say) Poland etc, or possibly sending other UK aircraft (my guess more old helos if we can figure that out),
Britain will not send Typhoon jets to Ukraine in the short term, the defence secretary has said, .....“We’re not going to send our own Typhoon jets in the short term to Ukraine.” .... Wallace said, however, that if other countries with Soviet-origin aircraft wanted to supply Ukraine instead, the UK would be willing to help provide air cover for that country to make up for the loss of jets...... The Ministry of Defence has also begun training Ukrainian pilots on their fighter jets,
www.theguardian.com
=======
And on the related arms control issues, this time cruise missiles rather than ballistics :
North Korea test-fired four strategic cruise missiles ......... the [nuclear capable] Hwasal-2 missiles .... hit a preset target after ..... “2,000km-long [1,243-mile]
www.theguardian.com
Britain will not send Typhoon jets to Ukraine in the short term, the defence secretary has said, .....“We’re not going to send our own Typhoon jets in the short term to Ukraine.” .... Wallace said, however, that if other countries with Soviet-origin aircraft wanted to supply Ukraine instead, the UK would be willing to help provide air cover for that country to make up for the loss of jets...... The Ministry of Defence has also begun training Ukrainian pilots on their fighter jets,
Ben Wallace rules out sending British Typhoon jets to Ukraine in short term
Defence secretary says fighter jets too complex for Ukrainian pilots to fly and would require UK support ground
www.theguardian.com
=======
And on the related arms control issues, this time cruise missiles rather than ballistics :
North Korea test-fired four strategic cruise missiles ......... the [nuclear capable] Hwasal-2 missiles .... hit a preset target after ..... “2,000km-long [1,243-mile]
North Korea test-fires four missiles to show ability to launch nuclear attack
Strategic cruise missiles hit a target after travelling 2,000km, says state media, to demonstrate ‘war posture’ of nuclear force
www.theguardian.com
voyager
Active Member
China may deliver drones to Russia. Verification needed of course.
We will just have to wait and see for the 1st Chinese built drone that's shot down.
If this is true, trade relations will suffer.
We will just have to wait and see for the 1st Chinese built drone that's shot down.
If this is true, trade relations will suffer.
Similar threads
