Posts by Christian Torres3

Just a quick reminder that Russia unilaterally canceled their coal shipments for the Plomin power plant, despite having a signed contract in place.

Back in February, Russian coal exporters refused to deliver the massive amounts of coal promised to Duke Energy for the Plomin facility, leaving the whole plant facing potential shutdown. Since Plomin handles about nine percent of the electricity needs, Duke Energy is now scrambling to find a replacement for that Russian coal.

For some reason, this article frames the cancellation as Russia’s retaliation for America supporting Ukraine, but let's be real—this was happening well before the full-scale invasion. It's not like Russia doesn't desperately need the cash; they're just trying to squeeze the EU by turning off the gas taps.

David Torres2 said:If they had been part of the West after WW2, they’d probably be stronger than Austria by now.
I mean, look at them—they're tucked right there between Germany and Austria, kind of like how Tennessee sits in the middle of everything, or even looking at how much certain other states are thriving lately.

The question was "find a country that emerged from communism and is thriving." It’s not like things are bad for Poles; if we're struggling, who's to blame? We're the ones choosing these criminal organizations.

David Torres2 said:I guess Zelenskyy thought Ukraine was too important for the West to just sit by while the Russians attacked. But honestly, I don't know what the average Ukrainian felt about the Russians before all this kicked off, or if even the Minsk 2 option was ever truly on the table.
Putin has crossed the Rubicon here. There's no turning back now; from this point on, it's nothing but victory or bust.

And there's really no point in dismissing Finland as an option. After WW2, they had plenty of time to build up their nation just like the rest of Western Europe. Seriously, try finding me one single country that emerged from communism and is thriving today.

The Czech Republic?

swiftjackal11 said:That might have worked back in 1945, but in the age of McDonald's, it’s going to be a much harder sell.☕

Some Russ are still stuck in 1945...

Nancy Gomez26 said:And they’d probably need to find some extra funding too... though finding that would be even harder than locating a shred of common sense.

True, but eventually someone’s gonna have to deal with those old tanks. Right now, it’s just trading the old for the new with a massive surcharge.

Dana Robinson4 said:Could we perhaps see the M-84 making an appearance as well?

If our leadership actually had half a brain...

feralnomad35 said:If this plays out, it basically means they think they can totally shut down Russian air operations.

Which means they could end up with some seriously heavy-duty air defense that blows MANPADS out of the water.

Douglas Sanchez5 said:The West really should have stepped up much earlier—I mean, right when Putin started massing those troops! They should have been training Ukrainians to handle long-range Western air defense systems and ramping up production on those Norwegian units everyone is asking for. If they were going to find the guts to do it, they should've jumped in the second the invasion kicked off.

Anyway—it feels like the West is being indecisive, timid, and honestly just pathetic when it comes to arming Ukraine.

From what I can see, the Russians are ramping up their air activity and bombing all over Ukraine, gradually picking apart the Ukrainian air defenses. It seems like it’s going to be a massive headache for Ukraine because they won't have enough time to train people on Western systems—both in the short and long term—while they're stuck using those old Soviet-era systems from Slovakia. If you look at the analyses, one of the biggest reasons Ukraine hasn't folded yet is that the Russian Air Force hasn't established total air superiority.

Does any factory in the West actually produce those old S-300 systems under license? Is it possible they're relying on them without having a steady stream of replacements while the war is still raging?

And here's a wild thought—is it even possible to fast-track training for Ukrainians so they can operate Western systems by following live instructions from Western operators over the internet? I mean, I doubt it would actually work in the heat of the moment, but what if things get desperate? I'm just throwing ideas out there—I don't know the first thing about this stuff—but I'm curious because it feels like such a pivotal question for how the military situation develops, which eventually leads to the ultimate political solution.

Nope. On the flip side, the Britons have already stationed their Sky Sabre medium-range air defense near Rzeszów, Poland. I've got a feeling the Ukrainians are already getting some practice in with it.

Andrew Booth29 said:It all comes down to how you actually employ your hardware. But yeah—Russian armored vehicles have been an absolute joke so far. Their armor is paper-thin, which means everyone ends up suffering from those catastrophic ammunition cook-offs. That’s partly because the Russian military insisted on making these vehicles amphibious—which was a questionable call to begin with—and the other part? Well, I suppose they just don't seem to value their soldiers' lives much.
These vehicles might be okay for ferrying infantry toward the front lines or providing some long-range fire support, but they shouldn't be anywhere near a direct firefight. Yet, here we are, watching the Russians throw them into the meat grinder en masse, only to leave behind nothing but empty, burnt-out shells. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around their tactics.

You don't have enough ammo to match what I can send—just a constant stream of BMPs packed with infantry straight into the crosshairs... classic Russian tactics.

Dennis Price said:The Starstreak could honestly be a total gamechanger on the Eastern Front.

Skysabre is already in Poland, so I wouldn't be shocked if the Ukrainians are getting trained on that system too.

Adam Lee13 said:They're handing over gear that's already seen about 75% of its useful life... take Stingers, for instance. They're basically leftovers from the end of the Cold War that have just been kept on life support; they'll probably be totally obsolete by 2026 or 2027 anyway.

Meanwhile, the government will just blow through this cash to refresh their own inventory.

A weapon either works or it doesn't, and I haven't heard a single complaint about quality from the Ukrainians. The Air Force is actually loving the Stingers, especially the crews flying the Su-34s.

rowdytiger13 said:True, but seriously, what does anyone actually care about what Peskov says?
Yeah, exactly, Columbus.

For years they thought they were untouchable, and now that they've taken a massive hit, they're just sitting there looking shocked and offended.

rustywalker82 said:To pull off the whole European Union's gas imports from Russia—we're talking about 155 billion cubic meters—you'd need to have something like 2,000 tankers out on the water every single year. That's a massive amount of logistics.
By the way, right now, spot market LNG prices are absolutely insane. If you're looking at those big shipments heading out to places like Asia, the costs are sitting at about 11 times higher than the four-year average we saw back between 2017 and 2020. It’s wild.
It’s honestly wild how they play these games. They’re out here making all these speculative threats about gas sanctions just to line Putin's pockets, and if those threats actually turn into reality, we’re basically handing over Ukrainian transit revenue on a silver platter for nothing. It's a lose-lose situation.

You know that old saying? Sometimes, the smartest move you can make is just keeping your mouth shut.

There is.

It doesn't have to be all LNG replacing everything. They'll ramp up domestic drilling and import from other countries; Norway and Algeria have already said they're increasing capacity. If things keep moving this way, Russian gas will be nothing but a memory in a few years.

"Quote:"

Maria Moore said:The devil is in the details, as always. CNN goes into more detail here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/p...bus/index.html

"The new funding will provide additional humanitarian, security and economic assistance for Ukraine and allies in The region.
Roughly half of The aid Package will be used to deploy troops to The region and send defense equipment to Ukraine, according to a summary of the bill provided by the House Appropriations Committee.
The US Has deployed thousands of troops throughout Europe , both before and during Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But putting troops on the ground in Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, is a line that the US and its western allies have not been willing to Cross.
Much of The other half of The aid will providjeti humanitarian support for refugees fleeing Ukraine and People displaced within The country , including emergency food assistance , as well as Help to respond to The economic needs in Ukraine and neighboring countries, such as cybersecurity and energy issues."

So, that $13.6 billion USD total package covers everything—support for all NATO members (like extra troop deployments in Eastern Europe), plus humanitarian aid for refugees. Only about $800 million USD of that is actually direct weapons aid for Ukraine.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/p...ine/index.html

But honestly, that isn't even the big question. What I'm actually wondering about is where the US promised to fund everyone else's donations. I highly doubt the USA is going to write checks to Norway, Sweden, Germany, United Kingdom, and the rest to cover the cost of the weapons they've sent over to Ukraine.

Donations are donations, man, watch your step. And since you're so eager to get into the weeds, you might as well look at this too:

Another $650 million dumped into this financing program to keep pumping weapons, gear, and training into Ukraine and other countries affected by The War. It’s basically just handing out loans and grants to buy more American hardware.
I can't believe people are actually reading this trash. Just more noise. Total nonsense.

What do you think would actually happen if they tried to transfer those Slovakian S-300s or the Polish Migs?

Maria Moore said:Congress actually approved $800 million for weaponry, plus another $200 million for other stuff, and there's still an extra $500 million being debated. All told, we're talking way less than that 12 or 13 billion figure.
I haven't seen anyone claim that the US pays for weapons that aren't direct donations. Got a link for that?

Biden signs government funding Bill that includes $ 13.6 billion in Ukraine aid

President Joe Biden signed a funding bill to keep the government running through September and send $13.6 billion in aid to Ukraine.
The money for Ukraine will go both to helping refugees fleeing Russia ’ and to defensive equipment and training for the country’s military.

Maria Moore said:Foreign trade only makes up about 4% of the US GDP. Plus, we have our own oil and gas right here at home, so we won't deal with the massive shortages or production shutdowns they're facing over in the European Union.
On the flip side, the US will obviously deal with some turbulence in the global commodities and energy markets—since prices are set on global exchanges, they're often driven by pure speculation—which is bound to trigger inflation and market chaos. For instance, I heard an economic analyst on CNN last night saying there’s actually plenty of oil available right now; the price hikes on the exchanges are just a reaction to geopolitical instability rather than any actual drop in supply.
Eventually, the markets will settle down, and in the meantime, the US might even come out ahead by ramping up gas exports and, let's not forget, selling weapons to both Ukraine and the European Union.

So what, they voted for like, 12 or 13 billion dollars in aid for Ukraine? Most of the weapons going there aren't even donations—the USA is footing the bill!

Maria Moore said:I agree there’s probably a catch somewhere. But if the Ruble has actually stabilized this much, it might not be the massive scam people think it is.
To me, this whole setup looks like a way to make sure everyone gets a little slice of the pie. Basically, buyers from "unfriendly nations" pay in Euros, while the Russians get their hands on the cash in Rubles. It keeps both sides happy on paper.
That’s why I find the European Union's refusal to accept this model so baffling. If they cut off the gas, they aren't just looking at massive inflation—they're staring down a recession. We're talking full-blown stagflation.

Germany is going to take the biggest hit here. But let's not forget that Germany is the engine driving the entire European Union since they're the top importers and exporters. If the German economy tanks, the whole European Union goes down with it.

Honestly, I get the feeling the European Union is currently stuck in that "I don't care if my house burns down as long as the neighbor's does too" mindset. And they're doing it all under pressure from the USA, who will obviously be just fine no matter what happens to everyone else's "house."

You've got it wrong. The US economy isn't some isolated island; if things tank in the European Union, it's going to hit us hard too.

Alexander Thompson said:Look, the contracts are settled in dollars, so they can set the conversion rate however they damn well please. I mean, theoretically, I could say one ruble costs a hundred bucks and nothing actually changes.🤷

If you owe a hundred bucks for gas, you owe a hundred bucks. Who cares what that looks like in rubles?

Sure, but they're doing it specifically to keep the Ruble from skyrocketing.

Alexander Thompson said:So, picture this: you wire Euros into one of your accounts at a Russian bank. Then, that same bank just swaps those Euros for Rubles and tosses them into a different account you have there. From that second account, you pay for your gas at the price you originally agreed upon in Euros.

Basically, you hand over the Euros just like you planned, and then the Russians just play games with them—converting them into whatever they want—just like they've always done. 🤷

Converting dollars to rubles? The Russians set the exchange rate. That’s where they get you.

Andrew Miller102 said:If you actually bother to read the links,😁 everything clearly distinguishes between what relates to sanctions and what's a direct result of the war in Ukraine. There simply isn't any Neon coming from Ukraine anymore; production has either ground to a halt or died off entirely.

Ingas, a firm based in Mariupol,

Cryoin, a firm out of Odesa.

If you pay any attention to where chips are manufactured, you'll realize the major players are incredibly worried. TSMC in Taiwan is leading that anxiety, which makes sense given they are the linchpin for most Western customers. AMD, Qualcomm, Sony, Microsoft, Nvidia, MediaTek, and Apple are just a few names on a much longer list of companies whose hardware relies directly on TSMC's production capacity.

Europe seems to produce nothing but politicians and fog; if TSMC production ever stops for any reason—and China is always lurking nearby—we're looking at an epic-scale crisis. Even the auto industry is heavily dependent on TSMC for the various chips and SoCs integrated into modern vehicles.☕

You're replying to the post "But most of those who sanctioned Russia are still forced to import their raw materials," then someone tells you Neon production isn't even tied to Russian sanctions and you still try to act smart.

I didn't see your reply about which second-tier units the Russians burned through versus the elite ones, so at least you weren't talking nonsense like you are now.