Yeah, I’m rather to eastern-european for a amarican. And there’s more guesswork in the article than there is any relation to logic. Guy states defense gives massive advantage, points out what decides of battlefields, and then glides over the issue of how that will favor Ukraine, particularly in winter, and trips out about what might have happened during some talks, but really he has nothing to back it up either way. Same as for the threefold increase in production. Or how Putin would go about mobilizing this massive population, even if he bothered to check the demography stats of it’s age, or considered why they seem to be very afraid to do so.
I’d be quite interested in a well researched article on Russian chances of winning, but this is some conservative rag bullshit.
You could watch some Perun videos on the subject. But THE question seems to be what victory looks like. Russia never was explicit on their objectives and what they would call a win.
Even if Ukraine would receive less help, Russia is not going to steamroll a country filled with people that know that losing to Russia means they will be starved, beaten and murdered.
I hope we don’t have to find out, but ita going to be a long and bloody road regardless of outcome.
Not surprising. I do wonder how this will play out now. Brazil isn’t at all happy to potentially have a war right on their doorstep and Uncle Sam certainly doesn’t want Venezuela to grow.
sorry, world. the u.s. needs it to be able to kill anyone in the middle east because of 'defense'. the insanely, vastly oversized arsenal isnt enough, we need this base more than its tiny ass home country.
Located in the Indian Ocean, 310 miles south of The Maldives, the Chagos Islands are home to the Diego Garcia military base, which is leased by the UK to the United States and has been used for American bombing missions in the Middle East. The archipelago is known in the UK as the British Indian Ocean Territory.
A diplomatic cable from 2009 published by WikiLeaks quotes Colin Roberts saying “We do not regret the removal of the population” and explains the plan to declare it a marine reserve (which they subsequently did) so that “former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands”.
The electrical network connecting all your federated renewable infrastructures is managed by one entity already, isn’t it? That’s the same kind of risk you describe.
I get why people don’t like nuclear power and there are many valid arguments against it but yours is not
The overall grid is managed by governments cross countries in Europe. The production is not. While the producers do have an obligation to provide enough electricity at all times, the consumer is free to purchase the electricity from any distributor they want. This creates a free market for pricing while keeping the production regulated. For a small country like Sweden, producing everything in nuclear would destroy the market mechanism on pricing, leaving then with a monopoly.
The risks towards energy production are stuff like war, natural disasters and terror. All of which have been relevant within the last ten years somewhere in the world and increasingly so. The only way to maintain a functional distribution of electricity in these situations is to have the production de-centralised.
I’m all for wind/solar expansion, but we shouldn’t underplay the challenges of keeping grid stability with pure renewables with the technology we have available today. As it stands, I think it would be great and borderline necessary to also expand nuclear power production alongside renewables for now.
For a small country like Sweden, producing everything in nuclear would destroy the market mechanism on pricing, leaving then with a monopoly.
Nobody except for maybe our far right party SD is calling for this, and the odds of us going this far backwards is close to zero. The amount of nuclear production needed to render all other means of production up here obsolete and uncompetitive is insane.
I don’t have anything particular against nuclear as a source of energy. I just don’t think it can done fast enough and in an economically feasible way. Even if they do make more nuclear plants, they are going to need something else in the meantime before the new plants can be ready if the forecasted increase is to be trusted.
I cannot comprehend how someone would think a dezentralized power network can be anything but a disaster waiting to happen. I would reckon even the crypto fanbois would figure out how bad an idea that would be.
And mind you, the type of power doesn’t matter in that case. If your network isn’t centralized (enough), you’re fucked.
Most renewables can’t produce energy at a large scale on demand. Nuclear is the king of that domain. I don’t see the issue with plugging nuclear to that federated network in order to meet demand when the renewables can’t
I agree. Sweden already has 6 nuclear plants providing 30% of the energy. Hydro power is 50% Together this is more than enough to meet baseload demand.
My experience of mercenaries is that they are not too picky about whose money they take.
Who's going to pay them to kill Putin? Most likely not the EU, nor China, but maybe maybe maybe the US. However that wouldn't go over well with their war industry as a longer war in Ukraine means more money. It would have to be some private billionaire who's hurt so much by the war that he (and maybe his friends) decide that Putin is costing them more money than it would cost to dispose of him.
Yeah, the oligarchs. It’s quite likely that top people at Wagner are/were rubbing shoulders with some of the Russia’s rich so there may be more for the mercs in it than just the money.
Who’s going to pay them to kill Putin? Most likely not the EU, nor China, but maybe maybe maybe the US. However that wouldn’t go over well with their war industry as a longer war in Ukraine means more money. It would have to be some private billionaire who’s hurt so much by the war that he (and maybe his friends) decide that Putin is costing them more money than it would cost to dispose of him.
Exactly. This is pure speculation on the part of the author, and not backed up by anything.
Noone in the West wants Putin dead because his replacement will be even more hardcore. Every potential replacement candidate, people with real power, are bigger hawks than Putin. We might see Russia do a full conversion to war economy or some nukes flying.
I’m not saying in actual use it’s reliable, but then again that’s true of every country’s ICBC interception capabilities. Missile guidance tech is one of the things the USA has an edge in.
In my country the headline would go something like: Another sucessful attack by Ukraine. Multiple drones were shot down. Putin is furious. UKRAINI SLAVA!!!
My nearest hospital announced recently that two people had been admitted for COVID treatment. I guess it has been awhile since anyone needed in patient care that didn’t have comorbidities.
i don;t like conscription into the military but i’ve always felt some sort of manatory non-military civil or social service or peace corps participation would do a lot for encouraging civic participation in exchange for some sort of universal educational system or some form of reimbursement for secondary education.
In this day and age it feels like a McDonald’s worker could ai copilot a drone better than the folks over in Israel, so no I totally disagree with conscription without certain safeguards in place to prevent genocide or other dumbfuckery.
telegraph.co.uk
Top