• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine

Tams

Member
Yeah man don't fall for the propaganda, all those "ammo storehouses" were just fireworks depots - typical ukrainian misinfo.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Am I missing a joke or do you really think I don't believe reports that Russian ammunition dumps are going up?

Either way, as true as your example is, it's not what Bernd brought up you're feeding the likes of him with that attitude.
 

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Am I missing a joke or do you really think I don't believe reports that Russian ammunition dumps are going up?

Either way, as true as your example is, it's not what Bernd brought up you're feeding the likes of him with that attitude.

It was tongue in cheek.
 

Russia blames sabotage as blasts rock another military facility in Crimea​


renderTimingPixel.png

cnn.com/2022/0...

The Simpsons GIF by MOODMAN
 

Ironbunny

Member
It started with the "Ghost of Kyiv" and ended with the "million man offensive" which of course never happened. And I totally get it, war propaganda can be a legit way of keeping up morale for a while. But it's not a permanent solution. For example, some Ukrainians in the Ukraine are already sick of the 24/7 "United News" broadcasting on TV and are rightfully looking for other sources.

Those were never an issue in this thread. Ofcourse there will be propaganda and made up stories but that is understandable in a war. Nevertheless those kind of news dont make up this thread. Most of the stuff have been true so some "contrary thinkers" coming into this thread saying their "truths" is rather cringe.
 

akimbo009

Gold Member
Those were never an issue in this thread. Ofcourse there will be propaganda and made up stories but that is understandable in a war. Nevertheless those kind of news dont make up this thread. Most of the stuff have been true so some "contrary thinkers" coming into this thread saying their "truths" is rather cringe.

Can we also agree that from day 1 Russia has been the violators and aggressor so doesn't matter how the narrative unfolds, Russia are animals and there is no "victory" for them - regardless of the outcome. Their outcome has already been written.
 

Gp1

Member
Not only a new ammo terminal, convenently located near a train station, but another airfield was hit hard.



 
Last edited:

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
I do wonder why the Ukrainians are targetting these airports - from all the reports, aviation is playing a very small role in the war mostly to lob unguided munitions.

Being able to hit targets 170km away was thought to be not possible for the Ukrainians so surely with some patience they could hit some highly strategic targets, but now the cat is out of the bag. Are they planning to do something that would be impossible if those airships were operational? And if so, what? I mean playing for air superiority is the american/NATO playbook - but Ukraine doesn't have the extensive air capabilities of NATO. Do they? Is someone loaning them a bunch of air-to-ground toys? Are we going to see A-10s flying over Ukraine?
 

Raphael

Member
I do wonder why the Ukrainians are targetting these airports - from all the reports, aviation is playing a very small role in the war mostly to lob unguided munitions.

Being able to hit targets 170km away was thought to be not possible for the Ukrainians so surely with some patience they could hit some highly strategic targets, but now the cat is out of the bag. Are they planning to do something that would be impossible if those airships were operational? And if so, what? I mean playing for air superiority is the american/NATO playbook - but Ukraine doesn't have the extensive air capabilities of NATO. Do they? Is someone loaning them a bunch of air-to-ground toys? Are we going to see A-10s flying over Ukraine?
Why not target them if its available? Its very costly for russia and difficult to replace quick.
 

Gp1

Member
I do wonder why the Ukrainians are targeting these airports - from all the reports, aviation is playing a very small role in the war mostly to lob unguided munitions.

Fat and juicy multimillion dollar targets of opportunity, denying Russian CAS and deep strike missile capabilities, one hell of a PR victory etc.
And they are not the only targets that the Ukrainians are after. Just today we saw this kind of op. in an Ammo depot, rail lines, tv towers, some small power plants and transmission lines, a helicopter base and this airbase.

Ukraine is definitely ramping up the "behind the enemy lines" kind of operations in general.
 
Last edited:

Tams

Member
Not only a new ammo terminal, convenently located near a train station, but another airfield was hit hard.




Geez, at least in Saky they had earth revetments/blast walls. Those are just lined up.

And I get Russian complacency and arrogance with Saky. You'd think even they would quickly re-evaluate storing aircraft so close together in an area that's been attacked. And it's not like aircraft are hard to move quickly.

Not that I'm complaining. The more destroyed Russian equipment, the better.
 
Last edited:

akimbo009

Gold Member
Geez, at least in Saky they had earth revetments/blast walls. Those are just lined up.

And I get Russian complacency and arrogance with Saky. You'd think even they would quickly re-evaluate storing aircraft so close together in an area that's been attacked. And it's not like aircraft are hard to move quickly.

Not that I'm complaining. The more destroyed Russian equipment, the better.

Maybe they don't want to fight anymore? Sorry boss, no planes, no go?

Still, a hilarious failure by Russia.... Again.
 

MaestroMike

Gold Member


Germany to Keep Last Three Nuclear-Power Plants Running in Policy U-Turn​

Move prompted by the mounting economic war with Russia marks the first departure from a two-decade policy to abandon nuclear energy​

Bojan Pancevski Updated Aug. 16, 2022 12:40 pm ET

BERLIN—Germany plans to postpone the closure of the country’s last three nuclear power plants as it braces for a possible shortage of energy this winter after Russia throttled gas supplies to the country, said German government officials.

The decision has yet to be formally adopted by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s cabinet and would likely require a vote in Parliament. Some details are still under discussion, three senior government officials said. A cabinet decision would also need to wait on the outcome of an assessment of Germany’s energy needs that will be concluded in the coming weeks but which the officials said was a foregone conclusion.

Still, while a formal decision could be weeks off, the government believes two key conditions allowing a temporary extension of the life of the three remaining plants, now expected to close on Dec. 31, have been met: Germany is facing a likely shortage of gas and letting the reactors operate longer poses no safety concern, the officials said.

“The reactors are safe until Dec. 31, and obviously they will remain safe also after Dec. 31,” a senior official said.

The plan underlines how deeply Moscow’s attack on Ukraine has scrambled politics in Europe, and particularly in Germany, which long enjoyed close economic relations with Russia and whose economy had grown highly dependent on Russian natural-gas supplies.

Shortly after the invasion, Mr. Scholz moved to ramp up military spending and deliver arms to Ukraine, breaking with years of pacifism and a legal ban on the delivery of offensive weapons in conflict zones. The nuclear move, while limited and temporary, would break a third long-held taboo in German politics.

Mr. Scholz hinted at the decision last week, saying for the first time that it could make sense to keep Germany’s last three nuclear reactors online.

A spokeswoman for the Economy Ministry, which oversees energy, denied that the government had made a decision on extending the life of the plants, adding that it would depend on the findings of the continuing assessment of Germany’s power needs.

Extending the life of the three plants beyond their current closing date is no panacea for Germany’s looming energy bottleneck this winter. The country is mainly missing natural gas, which is used primarily for heating and manufacturing.

Yet by allowing the plants, which together account for around 6% of the country’s electricity production, to stay online, Berlin would remove the need to replace them with gas- or coal-powered plants, allowing gas to be used in areas where it can’t be replaced by other fuels.

Mothballed coal plants have already been brought back online to prevent energy blackouts after Russia slashed gas supplies in June, a decision that will complicate Berlin’s plans to cut greenhouse-gas emissions and reduce air pollution.

The government has also drafted two executive orders outlining measures to reduce gas and power consumption in the country over the next two years, including by lowering the temperature in public buildings. The country’s energy regulator estimates that gas consumption will need to be cut by 20% if Germany is to avoid a gas shortfall this winter and next.

It is unclear for how long the reactors will continue to operate past the December deadline. The three officials said the extension would only be for a few months. Leading figures in the Free Democratic party, the government’s third coalition partner, have said the plant should run into 2024.

Several officials said that the extension would only affect the three plants that still operate today and that Berlin wasn’t considering reopening plants decommissioned earlier, including three that were shut down last winter.

The nuclear extension is fraught with technical, legal and political hurdles. Laws may need to be amended to allow for the reactors to remain online and obtain fresh fuel rods. Complex certification as well as insurance and nuclear-waste disposal procedures could be required.

It is also politically sensitive. The nuclear phaseout was initiated by the Social Democrats and Greens, the leading parties in the current coalition, and has become part of the parties’ identities, particularly for the Greens, a party that was born out of the antinuclear movement.

Leading Green politicians have already accepted a short extension of the nuclear-power generation. Ludwig Hartmann, the Greens’ parliamentary floor leader in the state of Bavaria, said that the life of reactors could be prolonged for a “few months” if the region faced the risk of power shortages.

The opposition conservatives, the party of former Chancellor Angela Merkel, who greatly accelerated the phasing-out of nuclear energy following the Fukushima disaster in 2011, now also favors extending the plants’ lifespan.

“Not everyone [who keeps using nuclear energy] in the world is stupider than us,” Friedrich Merz, chairman of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, said in a recent radio interview.

While the phaseout has for years enjoyed overwhelming popular support, a recent survey by the Forsa Institut polling group showed three quarters of Germans wanted the planned reactor closures to be postponed. Forsa said it had recorded a gradual shift in public opinion in favor of keeping the plants online since Russia invaded Ukraine in February.

The last three German nuclear power plants are Isar 2 in the southern state of Bavaria, Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Wurttemberg and Emsland in Lower Saxony, which are operated by E.On SE, EnBW AG, and RWE AG respectively.

A spokesman for EnBW said the company would be willing to discuss an extension of the operation of its reactor if the government asked for it. A spokeswoman for Preussen Elektra, the E.On subsidiary that runs its last nuclear plant, refused to comment. RWE didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Germany has been facing pressure from its European allies, including the European Union’s executive body, to extend the operation of its last reactors as part of the bloc’s efforts to manage the looming energy crisis.

The ministry for the economy and the environment, headed by Robert Habeckof the Green Party, commissioned an initial stress-test earlier this year, which found that the nuclear reactors wouldn’t help solve a potential energy crisis.

After Russia slashed gas exports to Germany by 80% last month, Mr. Habeck ordered a second, broader analysis that would take into account a possible shortage of gas this winter.

Some environmental groups have already announced that they would take legal action against a decision to postpone the plant closure.

Write to Bojan Pancevski at bojan.pancevski@wsj.com
 
Last edited:

BadBurger

Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Did something happen within Germany that made them stop installing renewable energy installations? I remember back in the early to mid 2010's Germany was hailed as a world leader in renewable tech and had one of the largest, if not the largest at the time, solar installations deployed.

It's weird that they went from a country that seemed destined to producing all of their energy from renewable sources, to having to hold onto three aged nuclear plants because they became reliant on Russian fossil fuels.
 

Tams

Member
Did something happen within Germany that made them stop installing renewable energy installations? I remember back in the early to mid 2010's Germany was hailed as a world leader in renewable tech and had one of the largest, if not the largest at the time, solar installations deployed.

It's weird that they went from a country that seemed destined to producing all of their energy from renewable sources, to having to hold onto three aged nuclear plants because they became reliant on Russian fossil fuels.
They realised that with current renewable technology, that it is not enough nor reliable enough on its own to power a country or their size with the amount of industry they have. Don't get me wrong, renewables are great, but many grossly oversell them.

That and the gas was cheap. And corruption. And a naïve belief that it would help tame Russia (short memories, you see).
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Did something happen within Germany that made them stop installing renewable energy installations? I remember back in the early to mid 2010's Germany was hailed as a world leader in renewable tech and had one of the largest, if not the largest at the time, solar installations deployed.

It's weird that they went from a country that seemed destined to producing all of their energy from renewable sources, to having to hold onto three aged nuclear plants because they became reliant on Russian fossil fuels.
I dont closely follow all the puts and takes regarding countries messing with their energy sources, but all I know is sometimes you hear about crazy energy price fluctuations, California blackouts and dumb shit.

Countries got to get with the times (assuming they got money to build them) and go nuclear. My electricity and gas bills bills in Toronto have been pretty stable and reliable forever. And for all those places closing down perfectly good nuclear plants, they are nuts.

Ok, there's that 0.1% chance it blows up like Chernobyl or that plant in Japan hit by tidal waves, but it's worth the risk.
 
Last edited:

supernova8

Banned
In hindsight, it's actually surprising Russia didn't invade Ukraine sooner back when Trump was in power (considering how much he seems to admire Putin), because Trump might have been far less willing to rally the NATO countries to provide military aid to Ukraine. Also back then Ukraine's military would have been way less equipped than it is now.

It could be that he took Crimea by force in order to gauge the West's response (which was practically nothing at the time) and then was waiting for what he believed was the "right time" to pounce. If we assume that it was Putin's plan all along to invade Ukraine, then surely Russia should have invaded far earlier because the longer it waited, the better-equipped Ukraine would be.

I don't think it's out of this world to think the invasion plan would have been successful (or at least more successful) had it been carried out a few years earlier.
 
Last edited:

Tams

Member
In hindsight, it's actually surprising Russia didn't invade Ukraine sooner back when Trump was in power (considering how much he seems to admire Putin), because Trump might have been far less willing to rally the NATO countries to provide military aid to Ukraine. Also back then Ukraine's military would have been way less equipped than it is now.

It could be that he took Crimea by force in order to gauge the West's response (which was practically nothing at the time) and then was waiting for what he believed was the "right time" to pounce. If we assume that it was Putin's plan all along to invade Ukraine, then surely Russia should have invaded far earlier because the longer it waited, the better-equipped Ukraine would be.

I don't think it's out of this world to think the invasion plan would have been successful (or at least more successful) had it been carried out a few years earlier.

1. Trump was definitely an asset of Putin. Not a direct one, but played to his tune. Putin likely waited for the election to see how it would pan out. If Trump won, then he'd have had more time and leeway.
2. The withdraw from Afghanistan and the farce it became likely convinced him that NATO and any US-led alliances were weak. Invasions take time to build up for, so September to November (when they really started to build up) really isn't that long.
3. He may have been hoping that covert work in Ukraine would yield better results.
 
Last edited:

LQX

Member
Trump wanted to pull the US from NATO. He would have done nothing to truly admonish Russia or aid Ukraine. We all fucking know it. We are trying to run from US politics in this thread, but we have to come to a reckoning that for the past few years many of our people, some news stations and many officials spent years admiring if not empowering Putin and Russia into thinking they had us in their pockets and we would look the other was as usual.
 

HoodWinked

Gold Member


I remember when this was first being pointed out, there was alot of hem and hawing that the decommissioning process was already happening and that it wouldn't be possible to bring them back to operation. I wonder if they are actually able to keep them operational or this is one of those situations where they say one thing publicly but privately know it wont actually happen.

One good thing is that this ordeal has been pretty good publicity for Nuclear power not just in Germany but I think public sentiment worldwide.
 

Chittagong

Gold Member
In hindsight, it's actually surprising Russia didn't invade Ukraine sooner back when Trump was in power (considering how much he seems to admire Putin), because Trump might have been far less willing to rally the NATO countries to provide military aid to Ukraine. Also back then Ukraine's military would have been way less equipped than it is now.

It could be that he took Crimea by force in order to gauge the West's response (which was practically nothing at the time) and then was waiting for what he believed was the "right time" to pounce. If we assume that it was Putin's plan all along to invade Ukraine, then surely Russia should have invaded far earlier because the longer it waited, the better-equipped Ukraine would be.

I don't think it's out of this world to think the invasion plan would have been successful (or at least more successful) had it been carried out a few years earlier.

I continue to believe that it is pretty plausible that the timing was largely motivated by the calculus they did on the effect of war on commodity prices. Unlike China for example, virtually all Russia’s Top 20 exports are commodities like oil, gas and grain that appreciate quickly with supply shocks.

Russia began the first wave of troop buildup around Ukraine in Q1/2021. To allow for this mobilisation the decision would have been made in Q3-Q4/2020, when the world saw record lows in commodity prices.

8s8gaeK.jpg


This changed the calculation on the cost of war substantially. If the commodities would rebound on back of the shock, the cost of war could be absorbed to an extent. This gave Putin a potentially small window to make the war look financially viable on paper.

Of course we can now also see on the chart that the effect was indeed relatively short lived and oil price is slipping again, which will spell trouble for Russia’s war chest. Maybe Putin was adviced by JP Morgan, while reality suggests Citigroup will be pretty much bang on.

https://fortune.com/2022/07/05/oil-price-jpmorgan-chase-citigroup-predictions-2023/ said:
JP Morgan analysts warn global oil prices could reach a “stratospheric” $380 a barrel if Russia were to retaliate against the sanctions imposed by the G7 countries by cutting its crude oil output.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, Citigroup is signaling crude oil could collapse to $65 a barrel by the end of the year and possibly even slump to $45 by the end of 2023, if a recession brings on a destruction in the demand for energy.
 
Last edited:

Alx

Member
Did something happen within Germany that made them stop installing renewable energy installations? I remember back in the early to mid 2010's Germany was hailed as a world leader in renewable tech and had one of the largest, if not the largest at the time, solar installations deployed.

It's weird that they went from a country that seemed destined to producing all of their energy from renewable sources, to having to hold onto three aged nuclear plants because they became reliant on Russian fossil fuels.
Many renewable energy sources go hand in hand with gas. Because gas plants can be easily turned on and off when needed, they can complement intermittent sources like wind or solar.
 

Xyphie

Member
Did something happen within Germany that made them stop installing renewable energy installations? I remember back in the early to mid 2010's Germany was hailed as a world leader in renewable tech and had one of the largest, if not the largest at the time, solar installations deployed.

It's weird that they went from a country that seemed destined to producing all of their energy from renewable sources, to having to hold onto three aged nuclear plants because they became reliant on Russian fossil fuels.

No, they have huge installed capacities of both solar and wind, >60GW of each and continue to install more each year, but after 20 years of Energiewende it's still only enough for ~30% of their electricity generation on an annual basis because of the intermittency. If you include industrial/heating usage for fossil fuels they will need many, many times that to be independent of gas/coal/oil. And of course, there's the storage problem which needs solving because sometimes things just look like today:

je1v2VR.png
 

winjer

Gold Member
Did something happen within Germany that made them stop installing renewable energy installations? I remember back in the early to mid 2010's Germany was hailed as a world leader in renewable tech and had one of the largest, if not the largest at the time, solar installations deployed.

It's weird that they went from a country that seemed destined to producing all of their energy from renewable sources, to having to hold onto three aged nuclear plants because they became reliant on Russian fossil fuels.

A few years ago, Germany was the world leader in solar panel technology and production.
Then they decided to go into partnerships with China. Now China is the world leader, and Germany´s solar industry is almost dead.
This is just an example of how moronic Germany's energy policy has been in the last couple of decades.
Then there is the dumbest decision if closing nuclear power plants, and replace it with Russian gas and coal.
 

winjer

Gold Member
It really is bizarre how they peddle some sort of alternate reality. Almost like a parallel dimension in which the Russian army was somehow teleported into Ukraine, cannot get out, and is being attacked for no reason.

Mind you, these are Russians in Europe, that have access to all the information. They are not controlled by Kremlin's propaganda.
But they still decide to support the invasion of the Ukraine.
The EU really needs to start sending these bastards back to Russia.
 

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
Mind you, these are Russians in Europe, that have access to all the information. They are not controlled by Kremlin's propaganda.
But they still decide to support the invasion of the Ukraine.
The EU really needs to start sending these bastards back to Russia.

A further tweet says they are at the embassies in Moscow.
 
Top Bottom