The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Strikes.

After the failure of talks in London where reportedly Ukraine was going to be presented with a deal that involves recognizing Crimea as Russian, Russia carried out the largest Kinzhal strike against Ukraine of this war, using 11 missiles. This was reportedly part of a massive wave of strikes with 71 missiles and 145 Shaheds.


Russia hit a tank repair plant in Zhitomir.


Russian strikes landing in Kiev. Targets include the Antonov plant where allegedly the An-196 UAVs are being built (BDA in last 2 links). Note these links are at least 3 different waves of strikes.


Belaya Tserkov', near Kiev, was also hit.


An explosion took place at the Burevestnik factory in Kiev, but with no evidence of strikes. It might be that the strikes were not caught on footage, it might be an industrial accident, it might be Russian sabotage.


Russian strikes landing in Kharkov. Note these are at least two different waves of strikes. Targets include the Malyshev factory, the Ukrelektromash factory, the AO Effect perfume factory, and the airport. During one of the strike waves we saw something new happen. First off the sound of the engines of the Shaheds is different, suggesting these might be jet engined Shaheds. Second off it appears they grouped up over the city at heights over 2000 m out of most AAA range, and then group-dive targets.


Russian strikes hit Izyum.


Russian strikes landing in Kramatorsk. One of the targets was allegedly a munition dump. There are also rumors floating around that some of the factories in Kramatorsk are doing defense work.


Russian strikes hit Slavyansk. Note these appear to be two separate strikes.


Russian strikes hit Poltava, reportedly bringing down the powergrid. It's possible they were targetting substations.


Russian Shaheds have landed in the Palmash factory in Pavlograd.


Russian strike in Pavlograd hit a Ukrainian medical btln and the chemical plant.


Russian strikes landing in Dnepropetrovsk. Power outages are being reported. Note these are at least two separate strikes, with one taking place during day time.


Russian Shahed strikes in Stepnoe, Zaporozhye, allegedly against a manufacturing facility that made explosives.


One of Russian strikes on Zaporozhye hit a auto-repair facility being allegedly used by the Ukrainian military for vehicle maintenance.


Russia hit a storage facility at the Cherkasy airport. Another day time strike.


Russian strikes in Odessa. Targets include the Unitech factory, Novaya Pochta storage facilities, and the NII Shtorm facility. The factory produced aircraft components, NII Shtorm reportedly did electronic production. These links apparently show 3 different waves of strikes. Some of the Shaheds used over Odessa also have new engine sounds, meaning they also might be the new version. Here we also have reports of different behavior by the Shaheds, they gathered in groups, and allegedly in some cases attacked the Gepard AAAs that engaged them. Note confirmation is lacking.


Russian Gerber decoy but apparently with a camera, targetting a Buk FrankenSAM. This is part of a series of recent strikes where updated versions of Russia's cheap long range drones are being used.


It appears Russian anteannces in drones and gliding bombs have been upgraded to carry 12 elements, to make them more EW-resistant. We've seen 12 and 16 element antennas on drones before, but on gliding bombs this is new. This does make them more expensive.


We have reports of Ukraine losing a Su-27 during one of the recent waves of strikes. The pilot reportedly survived, and details are lacking. Ukraine has previously lost a MiG-29 to a Shahed, due to a close intercept with shrapnel knocking down the jet, and an F-16 likely due to friendly fire.

Ukraine attempted to strike targets in Elabuga, Tatarstan, but it appears all UAVs were intercepted or missed their target. Some of the footage shows Pantsyr SAMs failing to bring down a target. They were trying to hit targets in the industrial part of town. Last 3 links show BDA which involves one hit in an empty yard.


Reportedly a Ukrainian drone element trying to reach Moscow was shot down near Kolomna.


Ukrainian strikes on Donetsk, allegedly in violation of the Easter truce.


Ukrainian strikes landing in Kursk.


Ukrainian drone strike on Russia's 112th Missile Bde base in Shuya, Ivanovo area. Note this is an Iskander unit, and it's unlikely any of the systems were in garrison.


Interesting bits.

During the Easter truce Russian and Ukrainian forces sent teams into no-man's land to collect casualties. Both sides accuse the other of firing on such groups, violating the ceasefire.


An interesting video of a Ukrainian interceptor drone attempting to bring down an Orlan-30, but the drone auto-tracks the interceptor, and apparently dodges it.


A rare sighting of a Ukrainian M-55S. A Russian drone hits it inside a building.


A Ukrainian drone hits either a 2S43 or 2S44, but the extent of the damage is unclear, it may have just burned out the anti-drone cage.


Russian forces with a captured Pbv-302. This is the first one.


Russian forces have apparently received some of the new ZSA-Titan MRAPs. The vehicle was shown at iirc Army-2024.


Russian soldiers installing drone cages on DPRK sourced M1991 MLRS. It's a 240mm system that presumably provides longer range then something like a Grad.


More pack animals being used by Russian forces. Location unclear.


Russia's T-72B3 with Arena-M installed is, instead of being on the front lines, being used to shoot a movie in Mariupol', where it plays the role of a Ukrainian tank. No doubt this is the best use for this scarce asset.


A rare Russian Zoopark-1M counter-battery radar up-armored with improvised materials.


Russian ATS-59G laying down fiber-optic cable in the war zone.


Ukrainian forces with M114A1 US howitzers from WWII, probably supplied by Greece or Portugal. Reportedly they're being operated by Ukraine's 5th Assault Bde.


Also Ukraine's 5th Assault Bde, a PRP-3 artillery recon vehicle converted with the Parus module into a regular IFV.


Ukraine's 10th Mountain Bde with a French MO-120-RT mortar.


Italian 6X6 Puma APC in Ukrainian service.


Ukraine has apparently managed to arrest a ship of the Russian shadow fleet that was transporting grain from Kherson region.


Russia and Ukraine did another POW swap of 246 for 246. They also did a separate swap of 15 heavily wounded Russian POWs for 31 Ukrainian ones. Russia and Ukraine also swapped bodies of fallen. Russia returned 909 Ukrainian dead, Ukraine handed over 41 Russians.


There are reports that Denmark will send personnel to Ukraine to exchange experience in some sort of training mission. It's important to note that Russia isn't shy about targetting western personnel inside Ukraine, so I suspect these soldiers will be targeted.

Interesting picture of the A22 "Foxbat", the retrofitted tourist plane used by the Ukrainians as long range UAV, lying on his back.
We can see a bomb placed under the plane (when it's in the normal position.) while there is plenty of room inside the cockpit. It would make more sens to put it inside for better aerodynamic.
This configuration makes me think that the bomb could be dropped vertically on the target from above. This would, for example, allow it to rip through the roof of a building, or to hit target hidden between two buildings and impossible to reach with the plane falling at an angle. The descend angle could be 45 degrees, maybe 60 degree but not 90 degrees.
After dropping its bomb, the UAV could circle and crash somewhere else.

This would explain why we have seen videos of UAV not exploding. Of course, this is my theory, real failure could also be an explanation. On one of the last video, we see an explosion, then an UAV falling without exploding. Unfortunately I can't find the video again...

_____________

A rare official announcement of a loss of a fighter jet by the Ukrainians:
A Ukrainian Air Force Su-27 fighter jet was lost during a combat mission, with the pilot successfully ejecting.
____________

Sen. John Kennedy said:

America is paying the price for Biden's appeasement

Click to expand...

This is a remarkable statement because Biden was seen as pro-Zelensky, and, until recently, Trump as pro-Putin.
Yet, it's true that Biden was always shy to crosss the red lines laid out by the Russians. And always late when providing new types of weapons, after Europeans already did.

Sen. John Kennedy said:

Putin has reneged on every promise that he has made to President Trump. His latest proposal is, well, nothing. He wants to keep all the [Ukrainian] territory that he's taken.

I think he thinks we're afraid of him. He has jacked around President Trump at every turn.

He has disrespected our president. I don't think it's going to get any better until we make it clear to Mr. Putin that we are willing to turn him and his country into fish food.
We need to get Russia down and choke them. They're not going to come to the table otherwise,

Click to expand...

This is a clear distancing from the initial Trump approach to negociations. Trump seems to slowly change his mind too about Putin.

Sen. John Kennedy said:

I want a settlement in Ukraine. We also have to ask Europe to do better. Europe's got to start paying its own bills

Click to expand...

Fox News
This is apparently within Trump's philosophy. At the same time it's urging Europeans to do even more for Ukraine.
___________

Ananda said:

The Economist said:

AMERICA is withdrawing. The threat from Russia is mounting. Ukraine is on the defensive. Despite pledges of new spending, arms production remains too low for comfort. Fear not, Europeans. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has your back. “It has become clear once again”, Turkey’s president and Europe’s prospective saviour said on April 11th, “that European security is unthinkable without Turkey.”

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

America is definetly not withdrawing. The US hasn't announced or planned to withdraw a single soldier from Eastern Europe. They have around 20K troops based there.
On Ukraine, military supplies have sharply slowed down, but not completely and we don't have clear information about that. I suspect that US deliveries are kept secret to avoid issues when talking with the Russians.

I don't think that Europe "accepts reluctantly" Turkey's participation. Instead, it's welcome and most of the criticism Europeans had toward Erdogan vanished overnight when the full scale invasion of Ukraine started and Turkey was clearly on our side.
__________

PachkaSigaret said:

Seeing a lot of rumblings about a possible Russian Dnieper crossing towards Тягинка. Interesting if true, especially if they've reached the P-47 with the Тягинка river protecting the left flank.

Click to expand...

Yes it's true. Ukrainians have reported these attempts on their official channel. They didn't reach the Right Bank. But they are fighting for the islands in the delta.

I have included this because of earlier discussion on value aid supplied to Ukraine

seaspear said:

An example of weapons decommissioned or awaiting destruction sent to Ukraine ,how should it be valued?https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-canada-aid-package-f16-1.7314594

Committee Report No. 9 - NDDN (44-1) - House of Commons of Canada

Committee Report No. 9 - NDDN (44-1) - House of Commons of Canada

www.ourcommons.ca

Click to expand...

There's been a lot of that. I think the Germans valued the old Soviet MANPADS they gave to Ukraine early on at the cost of repair & delivery, for example, & the UK gave old NLAWs at a very low valuation, because they were nearly time-expired, & refurbishment would cost a large proportion of the price of buying new - which the UK did. But that hasn't been universal.

seaspear said:

I have included this because of earlier discussion on value aid supplied to Ukraine

Click to expand...

Largely Cold War era equipment vs Cold War era equipment. Narratives conflate things quite a bit. With the advent of modern day drones, I'm sure the U.S. has taken a few second looks about keeping a plethora of equipment instead of scrapping/sending away. If it's still combat-effective, it's not junk.

Fredled said:

I would go even further: Russia could have annexed or afiliated Crimea and the Donbas with democratic means... had they been patient and clever enough, with good advertising. They made a referedum which was not recognised while they could have won in a recognised referendum.

Click to expand...

No they couldn't have. There is no scenario where the Ukrainian government would agree to it. It could only be done in either active conflict with the Ukrainian state, or during a moment of profound weakness and disorganization. They moved on Crimea at what was about the only time they could without fighting some sort of war, short and victorious as it could theoretically be.

Yes and no. Yes, because in practice, it will give Ukraine a much needed relief. No, because, it's not really something they give or give back.
Also keep in mind that Ukraine too would give up the only real leverage they have over Russia, in the same way. Russian troops also need a relief. it's not 0%-100%. it's rather 30%-100%.

Click to expand...

Ukraine has the support of almost the entire developed world that has led to a massive pile of sanctions. That is leverage too. In general Ukraine doesn't have the ability to get Russia to give up territory by force of arms at this time. Russia does, just slowly. So, Ukraine has other avenues after a peace gets signed. You yourself referred to them. Russia doesn't. A peace that doesn't legitimize their territorial acquisitions likely shuts the door on getting them recognized barring something else very major changing the situation.

If we are talking about a truce or an agreement not to attack the other anymore and Ukraine is blatantly breaching this agreement, then yes. But it's more complicated than just black or white. If both parties gradually test the other and if the tit for that degenerates, then the fact that a territory under attack was recognised, not only by Ukraine but by the international community as Russian could be a strong argument against Ukraine in the diplomatic war. if it's not recognised, well, it's just Ukraine recovering its sovereignty over its own territory.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you're envisioning a future where Ukraine signs a deal to buy time and reconquer the territory later but with more western support. You presumably assume Russia also wants a resumption of hostilities. I suspect that the side that will test the other and push things in that direction will be Ukraine, since they're already clearly not willing to sign a deal that acknowledges a loss of territory. Which is a great reason for Russia not to accept any treaty that doesn't involve Ukraine formally giving up the territory as lost for good. I think the best way to make the peace last is for Ukraine to officially give up the territory but for a coalition of European countries to make a binding defense treaty with Ukraine that precludes another Russian invasion.

The other thing is the irreversibility of such decision. If they recognise it, it means that they can forget about this terroritory for ever. For ever. If they don't, then there is still a small hope that in 10 or 20 years things will change so much that this land will be back to Ukraine, maybe peacefuly, or that this land will be independant from Russia and independant but friendly to Ukraine if they decide so.

Click to expand...

And there is a desire from parts of the Ukrainian nationalist scene to continue the fight, to sabotage the peace, to refuse orders. We've been here before. It's what sunk Minsk 2, among other things. For a lasting peace without a defeat of Russia, Ukraine needs to de-legitimize any revanchist elements.

Military speaking, I think that they are all evenly almost unrecoverable with the current forces Ukraine has at their disposal now. That Russia would go as far as it takes for any of the oblast.
Mariupol, Zaporyzhia and Kherson are less accessible because of the Surovikin Line as we have witnessed in 2023, but there are more Russian troops in the Donbas.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. Every single one is equally unrecoverable though recovering Zaporozhye is a geographic necessity to recovering Crimea. But equally...

You do realize this is nonsense?

If Ukrainians can break the Surovikin Line it would be very difficult for the Russians to resuply their troops south of Kherson and in Crimea. If Ukrainians see a possibility of this to happen, they will also blow up the Kerch Bridge for good.
By contrast, in the Donbass, resupply can flow uninterrupted by the multiple routes thanks to the absence of natural barrier. It's basically like attacking Kursk.

Click to expand...

There is no Surovikin line. In reality there is a giant sponge, and Russia can extend it all the way to the Black Sea coast. It's not that Ukraine can't theoretically cut the land bridge to Crimea. It's that the model of "just break through the line" is fundamentally wrong.

There is no such a thing as "NATO offensive facilities". If Russians keep quiet, NATO keeps quiet. That's the basis.

Click to expand...

Beyond the scope of this thread, for the purpose of this discussion, since we're talking about a deal with Russia, we will have to recognize that Russia does not agree with your view of the situation. They have a reason for not wanting NATO in Ukraine (whether rational or not), in a way that an EU presence wouldn't set them off.

Putin could prevent it by requiring explicitely that this won't happen. It will depends on the wording, but if we have someting like "not with NATO or with any NATO member", then legally, it's prevented.

Click to expand...

So far this is your view of it. As far as I can tell there is nothing being asked for by Russia that prevents Ukraine from getting binding security guarantees from Europe. It would break your narrative, so you argue that Russia must oppose it.

Yes and no. Ukrainians outside Ukraine are still firmly Ukrainians. Even if they don't want to come back to their country now, they still support it. Many will come back once the war is over. Because people like their country, and also because social aid for the refugees will be cut.

Click to expand...

The longer the war goes the more leave and the more will stay abroad.

They don't have a quick path to victory but they know that things are not going to suddenly unravel in the short distance. As long as they can resist, they will resist.

Click to expand...

The last part is why I wouldn't be surprised to see this war go on for years more. And let's be clear here, this isn't the view of all Ukrainians, but there is a quantity that take exactly that view of it.

I'm sure there are a lot of defence companies that are happy to design and build from lessons learnt from this war ,certainly the military forces that may have to be engaged do not want very old equipment

KipPotapych said:

Europe has the highest energy costs in the world. I mean UK, Germany, Italy, etc, they don’t even come close to the same universe where the rest of the “manufacturing world” is.

Click to expand...

Actually the difference is not as extreme as sometimes made out, as long as you constrain it to prices for industrial customers. While it's significantly more, it's still broadly in a similar ballpark.

In the USA (which definitely isn't the "manufacturing world") industrial electricity prices per kWh were around 8 cents in early 2024. In China at the time it was closer to 9 cents, in India 13 cents, in Brazil 15 cents, in South Korea 17 cents. For comparison in Italy it was about 13 cents, in Germany about 19 cents.

There was a significant spike in European industry electricity prices in mid to late 2022 (for obvious reasons), but by now that's basically been brought back to previous levels through a number of regulatory means - for Germany including a significant tax cut.

BC was at 7.42 CDN and Quebec was 5.33 CDN for industrial customers in 2024. Explains why our aluminium is so competitive but the IOTUS doesn't understand the energy requirements for aluminium production nor the abundance of rivers for hydroelectric in both provinces.

Hi guys, new member here, sorry for coming in late to this 600-page thread but can I ask a question?-
As I understand it, the pro-Russian Crimean and Eastern Ukraine people voted in referendums to ally themselves with Russia, so why are Zelensky and our western media calling the Russian occupation of those areas "illegal"?

Eyeball said:

Hi guys, new member here, sorry for coming in late to this 600-page thread but can I ask a question?-
As I understand it, the pro-Russian Crimean and Eastern Ukraine people voted in referendums to ally themselves with Russia, so why are Zelensky and our western media calling the Russian occupation of those areas "illegal"?

View attachment 52753

Click to expand...

Hi Eyeball. First off, welcome to the forum, consider introducing yourself in the Intros and Off Topic forum;


Second off, please review the forum rules;


Third off, your question implies either a comical amount of naivete, or is an attempt to spin the topic to the point of misinformation. So let's start off with the sequence of events. When it comes to Crimea specifically this argument has some merit, emphasis on some. Legality and legitimacy are different things. However Russia has some legitimacy there, the referendum was conducted by Crimean authorities, and covered the entire population. This is not so for the referendums in Donetsk or Lugansk which were conducted by a dubious rebel leadership in the middle of a conflict, when they controlled less than half of their respective provinces. The referendums Russia conducted in Kherson and Zaporozhye were both rushed, and included only a portion of the region's territories, something that's especially silly in Zaporozhye where the capital of the region, and by far the largest urban area, was not included. In other words, even if we take the referendum results at face value, they certainly weren't conducted in a manner that would lend them legitimacy. They certainly weren't legal. And you're assuming that the results of the referendums can be trusted. Ordinary in principle multi-party peacetime elections in Russia are less than entirely trustworthy. Here we are talking about referendums conducted in an unstable time, that didn't generally provide opportunities for the entire populations to vote, and that produced results so comically lopsided that taking them seriously is just silly.

Fredled said:

As was previously discussed you count cost of material damage without including loss of revenues.

Click to expand...

As was previously discussed in my post (which was a reply to you making the same argument), and if you read that post or the analysis cited you would realize that most of the assessed damage comes from the expected loss of revenue. Note, that I never counted anything. It was Ukrainians that did and published the article you chose to ignore.

Fredled said:

That Putin asked an "energy ceasefire"

Click to expand...

Earlier Tuesday, Putin had agreed to Trump's proposal for a month-long halt to strikes against energy infrastructure in Ukraine

Fredled said:

But we don't have any number on losses or damage assessment from Russian oil enterprises that we are able to check.

Click to expand...

They all publish financial statements (including notes to those statements). In fact, most publish reports in accordance with the Russian accounting rules, as well as the IFRS, so literally two sets of statements. You are welcome to “do your own research”.

Fredled said:

Yes because as long as the territory remains Ukrainian, Ukrainians will have the right to retake it.

Click to expand...

Which is why your terms don’t make any sense to Russia.

Fredled said:

The goal of the peace agreement is that Russia stops attacking Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Whose goals are you referring to? You clearly forget (all the time) that it takes two to tango.

Fredled said:

Trump suggests that the US takes over the Zaporizhia Nuclear Plant, it looks like sharing the pie IMO.

Click to expand...

If the US doesn’t take over the ZNP, which is highly unlikely to happen, Ukraine is just as unlikely to see a watt generated by that plant down the road.

Fredled said:

Yes it can, with few exceptions. Intel can be replaced, albeit not with the same accuracy and timing.

Click to expand...

It can’t be replaced. Even Starlink cannot be replaced, as was outlined here previously.

Fredled said:

Patriots can be replaced.

Click to expand...

They can’t be replaced. Without Patriots Ukraine would likely be unprotected against ballistic missiles, for example (even with Patriots the reported intercepts are very low, as was discussed here before). It was reported (and I think I posted about it here) that Iris-T has problems against these targets. There are also not baseless claims that there is no credible evidence that Iris-T has ever successfully engaged a ballistic missile in Ukraine.


And from the horse’s mouth:

Regarding SAMP/T missiles, we’ve never had enough of them. That’s the issue with these systems. We’re grateful to Italy and France for providing us with what they have in service. These are sophisticated systems – good systems – but they’re not equivalent to the Patriot. They’re effective and can shoot down targets, but not everything the Patriots can intercept.

Fredled said:

The problem is the quantity. But it became a problem with patriot missiles too.

Click to expand...

As was discussed here (by me) about a month ago (a guess on the timeline), the reports indicated that Ukraine ran out of interceptors for the Irises, for example. Hence, less effective and lack of interceptors -> cannot be replaced.

Fredled said:

HIMARS ans ATAMCS can't be replaced, but air born alternative can be used.

Click to expand...

Do they have any? Anything that doesn’t involve the US comes to mind that can be supplied in some meaningful quantities? Note that even ATACMS can be supplied in meaningful quantities.

Fredled said:

Europe is boosting defence spending and production increase is visible. link

Click to expand...

Sure, it is visible. Yet they still cannot supply nearly enough of anything.

Fredled said:

But, as I said, it doesn't mean that it will be enough.

Click to expand...

So, in other words, the American aid cannot be replaced. It’s like you are arguing with yourself here.

Fredled said:

And maybe they would vote again to be part of Russia today. But Russia doesn't want to allow Ukraine to organise a referendum there.

Click to expand...

Ukraine would never organize a referendum there (even if they could) because the results are kind of obvious to anyone who follows. More to the point though, none of it has any relevance anymore.

Here, on the subject (can be filed under humour too):

Fredled said:

I don;t think that the Ukrainian constitution doesn't allow for a referendum.

Click to expand...

You should look into it. It certainly allows for a referendum, but it doesn’t allow for it to ever happen due to the prescribed conditions.

Fredled said:

Ukraine has also the right not to organise a referendum. In this case, Ukraine has the right to retake Crimea by force and not to ask inhabitants their opinion if they deem reasonable that the population won't rise against them.

Click to expand...

China has the right to take Taiwan by force and not ask its inhabitants their opinion. I mean everyone (“that matters”) recognizes Taiwan to be a part of China. Why bother about what people think. Which is why Obama said what he said. Which is why it was not “that big of a deal” for many European countries. And which is why China cannot recognize Crimea anything other than part of Ukraine. Russia still paid a huge price for it, as I showed in the other thread a long time ago now.

Also, think, perhaps, Kosovo when thinking about the “unprecedented”. Americans recognize it, the UN doesn’t, and neither do the Serbs.

Fredled said:

The other reality is that the Russian Navy is unable to sail west of the Crimean peninsula thanks to sea drones.

Click to expand...

Do they need to?

Fredled said:

As long as Ukrainian national water boundaries are maintained, Ukrainians have the right to defend these waters against intruders. If it becomes Russian waters, they lose this right.

Click to expand...

If the war stops due to some agreement, they would lose that right regardless because it would be considered to be a provocation or an act of war and hostilities would potentially resume in short order. Clearly, no?

Fredled said:

I don't think that the peace deal will recognise the Russian occupation of Crimean waters while Russians don't currently control it. It will only recognise land occupation.

Click to expand...

That’s not how it works though. Land comes with the water attached to it. At least as far as this situation is concerned. There is no question about it, in my opinion.

Fredled said:

No because a ceasefire is not a peace deal. Ukraine agrees to a cease fire. Not yet to a peace deal. A ceasefire, in this case, is unconditional.

Click to expand...

Clearly, the point was that Russia will not accept or negotiate what doesn’t make sense to them. Ukriane can agree to whatever it wants. So can Russia. It takes two to tango.

Fredled said:

Both sides stop firing the time they negotiate a peace deal.

Click to expand...

When one side’s keeping the war going is a huge part of its leverage in negotiations, ceasefire is unlikely to happen. Unless, of course, the situation is so bad, that the other side cannot do anything to improve its situation before the hostilities resume if no deal is reached. This isn’t the case here, however; hence, you cannot expect a ceasefire with no conditions.

Seriously, Fred, I really do not get your argument here. What do you expect to happen? Forget Ukraine, fair, just, whatever else. We have been trying to provide this very leverage to Ukraine for years now. It didn’t happen and it won’t happen. The opportunity to get better terms for peace was lost because of, as you call it, miscalculations and uninformed decisions, wishful thinking, call it what you will. Simple logic dictates that your proposal is complete nonsense that Russia will never agree to. If their opinion didn’t matter, we would not be having this discussion, don’t you think? Like you said, the goal of the peace deal is to stop Russia attacking Ukraine. Like I said, it seems like you are arguing with yourself here.

Fredled said:

That's Trump's logic. But it's wrong logic. The US doesn't have to ramp up production to support Taiwan and other countries from China. China is not a direct military threat as Russia is currently in Europe. China hasn't engage its military since the end of the Vietnam War and is unlikely to do so.

Click to expand...

This is not “Trump’s logic”. This has been the logic of every POTUS since at least Obama.

It seems that you have been living in another world for a while. Or, maybe, haven’t followed the events prior to the 2022 invasion (and not exactly thoroughly since either, clearly).

Fredled said:

It's funny that Trump thinks that he has to cut aid to Ukraine because there is more pressing needs in the Indo-Pacific while Australis, NZ, South Korea and Japan are increasing it...

Click to expand...

Are they increasing it? I saw some reports about Japan providing satellite imagery or something (I don’t remember). Nothing else. The latest on the Australian MBTs: they are still in Australia, reportedly permission to export was still not granted by the US, they don’t know if Ukraine wants these tanks to begin with, and it might be inappropriate to ship these tanks during the pease talks to begin with.

Fredled said:

What if Trump orders to bomb Ukrainian positions to pressure Zelensky to accept peace as Clinton did with Milosevič? He would get his peace deal within two days.

Click to expand...

2? He would likely get it when asked if put that way.

Fredled said:

More seriously, Trump will understand that it's not smart to be seen as "unreliable".
If he bans export of american components to Europe (banning only to Ukraine makes no sens), it will be the last nail on the US arm export coffin.

Click to expand...

Export to Europe will not be banned, obviously. That’s crazy talk. Restricting exports to Ukraine makes perfect sense if he believes that that issue has to be resolved because it is not only unimportant, but is also counterproductive to the American goals. I think this is pretty clear.

See the Australian report above as an example (Biden was still in office), permission to strike Russia with Storm Shadows and SCALPs, and so on. This is a very likely possibility if the USA decides to walk, in my opinion. Especially if Trump sees Ukraine and Europe as the ones taking a stand and “ruining his victory lap”.

Fredled said:

I have talked about it already a few weeks or months ago. And yes, it was surprising that Putin was ready to agree that Ukraine joined the EU because the 2013 uprising was precisely about that.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should consider why this is surprising to you.

Fredled said:

Putin is also against any deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine (other than Russian).

Click to expand...

That would, again, be false. He clearly said otherwise.

Fredled said:

European, and preferably US forces should be based in eastern Ukraine to make such defence agreement effective.

Click to expand...

They are backing out of having troops in Western Ukraine. Expecting European troops in Eastern Ukraine is unreasonable. To expect the American troops there is even more so.

Note, that nothing is holding them back from sending troops to the western Ukraine right now because, according to your previous posts, the opinion of Russians doesn’t matter. So what gives?

Fredled said:

or worse, to invade another European country

Click to expand...

Followed by the Russian tanks in Germany, I presume.

You are arguing with yourself again. You stated numerous times that Russian economy is about to collapse, etc.

Fredled said:

then it's better to continue to fight.

Click to expand...

Better for who?

Fredled said:

Ukrainians and European are not going to sign a suicidal agreement.

Click to expand...

I will respond to this with your own next two sentences:

Fredled said:

A peace agreement is only possible now because the Russian advance is very slow. Should it accelerate Russian would absolutely not negotiate.

Click to expand...

Fredled said:

This configuration makes me think that the bomb could be dropped vertically on the target from above.

Click to expand...

Every single picture I saw of these “long-range UAVs” looks exactly like the one you posted, from the time they started using them.

Fredled said:

This is a clear distancing from the initial Trump approach to negociations. Trump seems to slowly change his mind too about Putin.

Click to expand...

You realize that you are quoting someone else, while talking about what Trump thinks, right? Especially when that someone else is a known Trump critic.

Fredled said:

America is definetly not withdrawing. The US hasn't announced or planned to withdraw a single soldier from Eastern Europe.

Click to expand...

But you sure seem to know more than most of everyone else. Either you work for the intel services or should work for one with your inside knowledge.

Fredled said:

I suspect that US deliveries are kept secret to avoid issues when talking with the Russians.

Click to expand...

Nothing that Biden administration didn’t approve is coming in. There is no secret.

kato said:

Actually the difference is not as extreme as sometimes made out, as long as you constrain it to prices for industrial customers. While it's significantly more, it's still broadly in a similar ballpark.

In the USA (which definitely isn't the "manufacturing world") industrial electricity prices per kWh were around 8 cents in early 2024. In China at the time it was closer to 9 cents, in India 13 cents, in Brazil 15 cents, in South Korea 17 cents. For comparison in Italy it was about 13 cents, in Germany about 19 cents.

There was a significant spike in European industry electricity prices in mid to late 2022 (for obvious reasons), but by now that's basically been brought back to previous levels through a number of regulatory means - for Germany including a significant tax cut.

Click to expand...

And I sure appreciate it. However, the reason for the decrease in the price for the European industry is also explained by the reduced demand from the industry itself, which is not expected to recover until at least 2026.


Consider that there is also no excess supply to loser the prices further.

Some data here as well


2023 average prices compared (from a Financial Times article, data from Bloomberg as indiczted):

John Fedup said:

BC was at 7.42 CDN and Quebec was 5.33 CDN for industrial customers in 2024. Explains why our aluminium is so competitive but the IOTUS doesn't understand the energy requirements for aluminium production nor the abundance of rivers for hydroelectric in both provinces.

Click to expand...

QC and BC have the advantage of generating a shit load via hydro though. Alberta pays more than double that of BC and more than triple that of QC. This is provided AB has all the gas they can ever use.

Eyeball said:

Hi guys, new member here, sorry for coming in late to this 600-page thread but can I ask a question?-
As I understand it, the pro-Russian Crimean and Eastern Ukraine people voted in referendums to ally themselves with Russia, so why are Zelensky and our western media calling the Russian occupation of those areas "illegal"?

View attachment 52753

Click to expand...

Canada just (unfortunately) elected another Liberal government. Alberts was always disappointed with the Trudeau government and separatist mood has been increasing for the past few years. It is going to spike even more now. We mostly speak English here. Some individuals in Quebec want to separate from Canada as well. They mostly speak French there (no other place in Canada has as strong of an identity and you could often hear them talking about Canada and Quebec as separate entities; the only place to have their own federal party as well, among other “perks”). I say Great Britain should come and liberate Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and almost the entire British Colombia, lower metropolitan area aside, while France should help out those in Quebec.

Or maybe the US will, as Trump desires. I mean we here speak the same language and all.

Edit: to further expand on this thought though, if any of the provinces decide to run a referendum (which is entirely possible, ie no one is going to stop them) and the arbitrary majority votes for the separation, Carney is not going to declare the results to be illegitimate because the federal government decided it to be so and/or start counterterrorist operation. Go figure.

KipPotapych said:

And I sure appreciate it. However, the reason for the decrease in the price for the European industry is also explained by the reduced demand from the industry itself, which is not expected to recover until at least 2026.

Executive summary – Electricity 2024 – Analysis - IEA

Electricity 2024 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.

www.iea.org

Consider that there is also no excess supply to loser the prices further.

Some data here as well

Prices – Electricity 2025 – Analysis - IEA

Electricity 2025 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.

www.iea.org

2023 average prices compared (from a Financial Times article, data from Bloomberg as indiczted):

View attachment 52763


QC and BC have the advantage of generating a shit load via hydro though. Alberta pays more than double that of BC and more than triple that of QC. This is provided AB has all the gas they can ever use.

Click to expand...

A different scale

Here's how I see the Ukraine/ Russia conflict-
1- Zelensky can't possibly win against the much larger Russian Army, so he's going to run out of troops sooner or later.
2- Therefore if western nations keep pumping weaponry into Ukraine it'll serve no useful purpose except to allow Zel to keep sticking pins in the Russian bear and provoking retaliation.
3- Putin should openly declare to the world that he's content with the territory he now occupies and is willing to agree to a ceasefire.
4- That'll put the onus squarely on Zel to write off the occupied territory and to agree to a ceasefire, or be seen as the aggressor..

Feanor said:

Hi Eyeball. First off, welcome to the forum, consider introducing yourself in the Intros and Off Topic forum............
Second off, please review the forum rules....
Third off, your question implies either a comical amount of naivete, or is an attempt to spin the topic to the point of misinformation.

Click to expand...

1- Hi mate, sorry I can't introduce myself for security/privacy reasons, except to say I'm a military writer and world affairs analyst in my 70's and a trophy-winning wargamer..
2- The only rules I follow are the common sense ones..
3- I never argue in forums, I simply walk out if they don't shape up.

PS- I'm a moderator at another military website, I saw an advert like this one and decided to apply as i seem perfectly suited-

Eyeball said:

Here's how I see the Ukraine/ Russia conflict-
1- Zelensky can't possibly win against the much larger Russian Army, so he's going to run out of troops sooner or later.
2- Therefore if western nations keep pumping weaponry into Ukraine it'll serve no useful purpose except to allow Zel to keep sticking pins in the Russian bear and provoking retaliation.
3- Putin should openly declare to the world that he's content with the territory he now occupies and is willing to agree to a ceasefire.
4- That'll put the onus squarely on Zel to write off the occupied territory and to agree to a ceasefire, or be seen as the aggressor..

Click to expand...

Counter points.
1. There were many historical wars where the smaller country beats the larger one.
2. What retaliation? Against who?
3. Nobody will believe him. Not even Putin himself.
4. Wow, gaslighting. No, in the Russo-Ukrainian War, Russia is the aggressor. You can argue that they had to do the first strike due to this or that reason, but that will not change the fact that Russia is the aggressor. Even if Ukraine refuses a ceasefire or a peace treaty, Russia is still the aggressor.

Are you Russian? Look, I can respect a Russian having a different viewpoint, but the facts were Russia launched the missiles first, Russia flew the attack helis across the border, and Russian troops crossed the border first. That makes Russia the aggressor. Own it.