Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Sky News reports that Britain, at the "Ramstein" format meeting, announced the allocation of a large air defence aid package to Ukraine worth nearly €685 million. British Defence Secretary John Healey said that Kyiv will receive air defence systems, missiles, and automated turrets for shooting down drones.

Ukraine war latest: Zelenskyy addresses diplomats in The Hague - as Kremlin responds to latest peace talks | World News | Sky News

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted

I cannot help but think this war is being drug out for a reason. Ukraine doesn't get everything it needs; weapons are trickled to them at just the perfect rate to keep things in gridlock. Also, nothing is being done to stop other countries from buying Russian oil and gas. China and India are funding this and they seem to have little or no disincentive. Those that are more informed and follow more closely can maybe elaborate on this. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, texashorne said:

Also, nothing is being done to stop other countries from buying Russian oil and gas.

Other than the severe international sanctions…and the political pressure…and the increased inspections by nations looking for (and stoping) shadow fleet tankers..,and the actual sinking of shadow fleet tankers you mean?

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

Other than the severe international sanctions…and the political pressure…and the increased inspections by nations looking for (and stoping) shadow fleet tankers..,and the actual sinking of shadow fleet tankers you mean?

Sanctions on India and China? 

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, texashorne said:

Sanctions on India and China? 

IMG_1192.gif.d3124311014646f0eedf259868eb1c73.gif

No offense, but most who follow this thread have spent years following the war rather closely, and if you have no idea what’s going on, you should go back six months and start binging the thread.     It’s like popping up in the football thread and then asking if people could explain what conferences various teams are in.  

I mean, it is certainly a legitimate non-trollish question, but also sort of a thread derail asking for the most basic information when you have AI on your phone and in five seconds you can have those answers.

Edit: my response sounded far more dick-ish than I intended. My apologies.   This is the answer to my 10 second question to my phone. “Why is nothing being done to stop the sale of oil from Russia to China and India?”

Quote

Sales of Russian oil to China and India continue because both nations prioritize their 

energy security and economic interestsby purchasing heavily discounted crude, and the international community faces challenges in enforcing sanctions that would cause global price spikes and economic disruption. However, Western nations are currently implementing new, more assertive measures to curb this trade. 

Why Sales Continue

Economic Advantage: Russian oil trades at a steep discount to global benchmarks, which provides significant savings for energy-hungry economies like India and China. For India, with its large population and economy sensitive to oil prices, this discount is a strategic imperative.

Sovereign Interests: Both India and China assert their right to make independent trade decisions based on their national interests and resist external pressure on their energy policies.

Avoidance Mechanisms: Russia has developed a large "shadow fleet" of older tankers and alternative insurance mechanisms to bypass Western-controlled shipping and insurance services, making the trade harder to track and sanction effectively.

Geopolitical Complexities: The U.S. and its allies are hesitant to impose full secondary sanctions that would penalize major financial institutions and companies in China and India, fearing a potential global trade war and the disruption of the global oil supply chain, which could lead to significant price spikes. 

Actions Being Taken

Western nations are actively working to disrupt this trade, with new measures announced and implemented in late 2025: 

U.S. Sanctions: In October 2025, the U.S. imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia's two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, and threatened secondary sanctions on foreign entities that continue to do business with them. This has prompted some Indian and Chinese refiners to temporarily pause or recalibrate their purchases.

EU and UK Measures:

The EU and UK have sanctioned specific oil traders and vessels involved in Russia's "shadow fleet" to disrupt the transportation network.

Crucially, new rules taking effect in January 2026 will ban the import of refined products made from any Russian crude, regardless of where they were processed. This is expected to significantly impact major refiners in India and Turkey who export refined products to Europe.

The EU also targeted a Chinese refiner for the first time for importing Russian oil, leveraging access to its valuable market to deter major refiners from future imports.

Tariff Pressure: The U.S. has imposed substantial tariffs on Indian goods as a penalty for its continued oil trade with Russia and President Trump has urged G7 partners to consider tariffs of up to 100% on Chinese and Indian goods in an attempt to pressure them further. 

These ongoing efforts aim to increase the costs and risks for companies dealing with Russian oil, with the goal of ultimately cutting into Moscow's oil revenues

 

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

The negotiations are just a fucking scam by the Russians to play other countries.

G8SZ7dgXcAICXoV?format=png&name=900x900

Good.  Maybe this will be when that fucking guy gets it through his thick FIFA peace prize winning skull that Russia doesn't want to make a deal.  

I doubt it, but still.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_1192.gif.d3124311014646f0eedf259868eb1c73.gif

No offense, but most who follow this thread have spent years following the war rather closely, and if you have no idea what’s going on, you should go back six months and start binging the thread.     It’s like popping up in the football thread and then asking if people could explain what conferences various teams are in.  

I mean, it is certainly a legitimate non-trollish question, but also sort of a thread derail asking for the most basic information when you have AI on your phone and in five seconds you can have those answers.

Edit: my response sounded far more dick-ish than I intended. My apologies.   This is the answer to my 10 second question to my phone. “Why is nothing being done to stop the sale of oil from Russia to China and India?”

 

I fully expected a response like this so no worries (it's surly) And I have followed this thread and have pulled up chatgpt to see what countries are still buying Russian energy. It's still there, notably China and India. I don't think the actions taken against these countries is aggressive enough, and I don't think the aid given to Ukraine by all countries is substantial. I think this war could be over quickly, but the world isn't allowing it to happen for whatever reason. 

Edited by texashorne
Posted
On 12/14/2025 at 4:09 PM, Gatorubet said:

@PTINS - i’d love to hear your thoughts on a subject I know nothing about.   I find it interesting that the city of Angarsk in Siberia - a larger city of 200,000 residents - has been largely without any building heating since December 7.  This includes homes, apartments, hospitals, schools, etc.  When the heat went out, the temperature was -20.     Today on December 14th the heat is still out,

Angarsk had a recent heat wave, so the highs are in the teens and low 20s, while trending colder at the end of the week.  That said, if the temperature remains below zero for a week straight, that city’s residents are living in an icebox.

This news jogged my memory about another fact I read recently, that all of the Ukrainian attacks on the refineries have prevented the refineries from planned outages to transition to winter fuel, fuel that contains the necessary ingredient to prevent fuel freezing and gelling or doing whatever it is fuel does without those ingredients. 

If that inability to refine winterized gas is true and continues into the December and January winter months, what effect will that have on transportation in the country?  IOW, what can you tell my ignorant self about the absence of winterized refined fuel in a country so cold - and the consequences to the countries’s economy and the military operation in Ukraine?

 

These are two similar, but unrelated issues; A power plant going down, and refinery operations.

There was accident at the Angarsk Irkutsk-9 Combine Heat Power Plant, a 540 MW coal fired facility that provides power and heat to both the city (250,000+) and the Rosneft-Angarsk Refinery (200,000 BPD) co-located at the sight. Angarsk is 3,000 miles from Moscow, and ~ 150 miles north of the central Mongolia, in the middle of nowhere, and I mean nowhere. 

The Power Plant has 6 units, (capacity of 330 MW), that were built from 1963-69, and 2 units (capacity 210 MW) that were built in the early '80's. It is possible new natural gas fired boilers were added in the last 5 years, but nothing shows any newer additions.

An accident occurred on December 7 when a boiler unit at the plant failed, and another boiler was reportedly shut down due to a malfunction a day earlier. Boiler accidents in the US are rare. In Russia, ??? depending on 60-70 year old boilers is not a comforting feeling.

"It was reported that all services are on high alert. The emergency regime has been introduced in the Angarsk district in connection with the accident at CHPP-9. Heat supply is limited in 1,546 apartment buildings housing more than 167,000 people and 121 socially significant facilities," the local mayor's office said in a statement."

"On Dec. 1, hundreds of motorists were stranded on a stretch of the Baikal Highway, part of the Trans-Siberian Highway, after three days of severe weather brought temperatures near minus 30 degrees Celsius (minus 22 Fahrenheit), heavy snowfall and strong winds. At its peak, the jam stretched roughly 100 kilometers (62 miles) along the southwestern shore of Lake Baikal (~ 50 miles from Angarsk). Some drivers, including families with children, reported running low on fuel, water and food."

The logistics chain is always critical, and in remote areas, with minimal infrastructure, during extreme weather conditions, good luck with that. I would think any available power is moving towards the west (Moscow), not the east (Siberia). After 3 years of war and reduced energy availability, there are probably many localized areas that are one event away from a similar situation. One thing they have in their favor, they come from heartier stock than the average Austinite person.

The refinery operations is something different.

Refinery turnarounds (long term scheduled maintenance, including shut downs, every 4-6 years) are necessary, but often postponed or delayed for any number of reasons, a war being one of them.  It is not necessary to shut down the refinery to change the qualities of the products produced. US refineries do it twice a year to transition from the winter blends to the summer blends for gasoline and other transportation fuels.

I am not familiar with the different fuel blends for the northern climates. 3 years of attacks on Russian refineries and gas plants, has probably reduced the availability of some of the blending stocks (lighter weight, more volatile) Russia may use in gasoline blending. I know alcohol is an option, but that consumption is prioritized in other areas.

Generally, aviation fuel (Kerosine) is a cleaner, filtered diesel that is better in extreme cold. But Diesel has better lubrication properties, so it is better for engines with more moving parts, like car engines v. jet turbines.  

I would expect the quality control on Russian refined products is poor, especially so for the domestic market. But I'm sure the average Russian has been though similar circumstances before and the black market is able to meet the demand. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, texashorne said:

I fully expected a response like this so no worries (it's surly) And I have followed this thread and have pulled up chatgpt to see what countries are still buying Russian energy. It's still there, notably China and India. I don't think the actions taken against these countries is aggressive enough, and I don't think the aid given to Ukraine by all countries is substantial. I think this war could be over quickly, but the world isn't allowing it to happen for whatever reason. 

The reason is that there hasn't been enough collective pain outside of Ukraine.  The pain is theoretical.  Specifically, with the US, there hasn't been a large scale compelling reason sold to the people of the US as to why we should intervene substantially in this war.  That will not happen in the next three years, given the current admin.  That's just a fact.  And it may be that our people as a whole are too ignorant or plain stupid to get it.  But this isn't a problem unique to our times.

Recall that "America First" was a pre-WWII thing.  People were adamant that Hitler was Europe's problem.  We didn't enter the war in Europe until we were attacked - by the Japanese.  Entering the war in Europe was just a tag on to that because Japan was aligned with Germany and Italy.  This was a recognition by FDR's admin that getting involved in a European war was a politically dicey proposition for him.  The current admin and much of the American electorate stand in the same posture today.  The lessons of 1933-45 have been mostly forgotten, except for followers of history.  Very few who were alive then are left to tell the tale.  While that is sad, it is understandable.  What is crazy to me, is the position the US has gained as a world power since 1945 - that is the world order that was formed as a result of WWII that has allowed us to become the richest, most powerful nation on earth - is being tossed away because a bunch of know-nothings have decided that this whole post 1945 order that we built to benefit ourselves, but also benefits others - benefits those others too much for contemporary tastes.  It's self inflicted empire destruction.  

tl;dr - It isn't happening because history repeats itself, and that includes Americans being insular and unconcerned about what takes place abroad. 

Edited by Chad Fuck
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

The first part I agree with. The second part, I’m not so sure about. There are real dangers and real expenses to being the world’s police force. Yes, we gain a lot of power and influence but is it worth the financial cost and the wrath of the countrymen from the countries that we have to police? We’ve already squandered a lot of the financial success that we gained by rebuilding Japan and Europe, how much more money are we going to have to collect or print to maintain wa world police presence. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
The first part I agree with. The second part, I’m not so sure about. There are real dangers and real expenses to being the world’s police force. Yes, we gain a lot of power and influence but is it worth the financial cost and the wrath of the countrymen from the countries that we have to police? We’ve already squandered a lot of the financial success that we gained by rebuilding Japan and Europe, how much more money are we going to have to collect or print to maintain wa world police presence. 

Where did I suggest we should be the worlds police force?

That’s a whole other discussion.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

The reason is that there hasn't been enough collective pain outside of Ukraine.  The pain is theoretical.  Specifically, with the US, there hasn't been a large scale compelling reason sold to the people of the US as to why we should intervene substantially in this war.  That will not happen in the next three years, given the current admin.  That's just a fact.  And it may be that our people as a whole are too ignorant or plain stupid to get it.  But this isn't a problem unique to our times.

Recall that "America First" was a pre-WWII thing.  People were adamant that Hitler was Europe's problem.  We didn't enter the war in Europe until we were attacked - by the Japanese.  Entering the war in Europe was just a tag on to that because Japan was aligned with Germany and Italy.  This was a recognition by FDR's admin that getting involved in a European war was a politically dicey proposition for him.  The current admin and much of the American electorate stand in the same posture today.  The lessons of 1933-45 have been mostly forgotten, except for followers of history.  Very few who were alive then are left to tell the tale.  While that is sad, it is understandable.  What is crazy to me, is the position the US has gained as a world power since 1945 - that is the world order that was formed as a result of WWII that has allowed us to become the richest, most powerful nation on earth - is being tossed away because a bunch of know-nothings have decided that this whole post 1945 order that we built to benefit ourselves, but also benefits others - benefits those others too much for contemporary tastes.  It's self inflicted empire destruction.  

tl;dr - It isn't happening because history repeats itself, and that includes Americans being insular and unconcerned about what takes place abroad. 

We did run Lend Lease. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


Where did I suggest we should be the worlds police force?

That’s a whole other discussion.


I probably misinterpreted your point a bit. And I agree that acting as the world’s police force is a huge tangent for another thread.

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bevo said:

I probably misinterpreted your point a bit. And I agree that acting as the world’s police force is a huge tangent for another thread.

Yeah, it gets into the whole discussion about the fact that if we don't, China will happily fill that void, and what will be the economic and other repercussions for that.

I'm oversimplifying, but when you look at the British up through the 1940s, and then our filling that void during and after WWII, both the Brits and us were not doing it solely out of some benevolent act of goodness or to prevent future wars (although that was a huge driver obviously for the US after 1945, and we used it to accumulate a lot of forward bases overseas).  However, a huge driver of it was to make sure that the markets and resources in other parts of the world were open to our commercial interests. Even when you factor in the Soviets during the Cold War and discuss the political/ideological implications, at the end of the day, you could argue that having a massive Navy (and Air Force) was driven mostly by financial reasoning.  We could dress it up and say it was Communism vs Democracy or whatever terms you wanted to use, but we knew that where the Soviets exerted their power, that those were markets and resources that American companies would be locked out of.

And arguably that economic access helped pay for our massive military.

The same holds true now, only with the Chinese. In that aspect, Ukraine and our tariff situation are catalysts - where we pull back, China quietly moves in - they've even made overtures to Europe in terms of the economic aspect.

But that's more for a thread on China.  Us pulling back as the arsenal of democracy over the last 4 years is going to be a huge issue going forward - countries will pivot away from us and to Europe and South Korea for their defense needs. Both of those could be threads in the business/finance forum.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Yeah, it gets into the whole discussion about the fact that if we don't, China will happily fill that void, and what will be the economic and other repercussions for that.
I'm oversimplifying, but when you look at the British up through the 1940s, and then our filling that void during and after WWII, both the Brits and us were not doing it solely out of some benevolent act of goodness or to prevent future wars (although that was a huge driver obviously for the US after 1945, and we used it to accumulate a lot of forward bases overseas).  However, a huge driver of it was to make sure that the markets and resources in other parts of the world were open to our commercial interests. Even when you factor in the Soviets during the Cold War and discuss the political/ideological implications, at the end of the day, you could argue that having a massive Navy (and Air Force) was driven mostly by financial reasoning.  We could dress it up and say it was Communism vs Democracy or whatever terms you wanted to use, but we knew that where the Soviets exerted their power, that those were markets and resources that American companies would be locked out of.
And arguably that economic access helped pay for our massive military.
The same holds true now, only with the Chinese. In that aspect, Ukraine and our tariff situation are catalysts - where we pull back, China quietly moves in - they've even made overtures to Europe in terms of the economic aspect.
But that's more for a thread on China.  Ss pulling back as the arsenal of democracy over the last 4 years is going to be a huge issue going forward - countries will pivot away from us and to Europe and South Korea for their defense needs. Both of those could be threads in the business/finance forum.

All of this is what I was talking about.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, it gets into the whole discussion about the fact that if we don't, China will happily fill that void, and what will be the economic and other repercussions for that.

I'm oversimplifying, but when you look at the British up through the 1940s, and then our filling that void during and after WWII, both the Brits and us were not doing it solely out of some benevolent act of goodness or to prevent future wars (although that was a huge driver obviously for the US after 1945, and we used it to accumulate a lot of forward bases overseas).  However, a huge driver of it was to make sure that the markets and resources in other parts of the world were open to our commercial interests. Even when you factor in the Soviets during the Cold War and discuss the political/ideological implications, at the end of the day, you could argue that having a massive Navy (and Air Force) was driven mostly by financial reasoning.  We could dress it up and say it was Communism vs Democracy or whatever terms you wanted to use, but we knew that where the Soviets exerted their power, that those were markets and resources that American companies would be locked out of.

All that keeps them using the USD and buying our Government debt.  Our currency is almost gold standard.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

Germany really ramping things up and clearly understanding what's at stake.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced that Germany will extend the military aid for Ukraine for the year 2026 by an additional €3 billion. This makes an overall support of €11.5 billion, a new record. Joint operations in drone production has been announced, as well. Additionally, Ukraine will be supplied with vast amounts of AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles from German army stocks.

Somebody is not happy.

 

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted

@PTINS another data point and somebody mentioned this in the comments: "Even if they where selling at 70 a barrel it was already a massive deficit budget. They will have to cover most of this with high interest debt raised from Russian banks. Russia debt servicing is going to weigh down future Russian budgets"

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Lavrov: the Americans have told us clearly that those lands where Russians have lived for centuries must become Russian again. He didn’t specify whether that includes Kyiv or Odesa in addition to Donbas and Crimea.

Draw your own conclusions about the value of “platinum standard” security promises.

 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted

https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-16-2025/

 

Toplines

The Council of the European Union confirmed that European countries and the United States will provide “robust” security guarantees to Ukraine as part of the peace deal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.[1]  The Council of the European Union issued a joint statement on December 15 affirming that the United States and European leaders are committed to working together to provide “robust security guarantees” and economic recovery measures for Ukraine in the context of the peace deal. The Council agreed to provide support for the Ukrainian military in peace time; a European-led multinational force composed of forces from the Coalition of the Willing; a US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism; and a legally binding commitment to take military, diplomatic, and economic measures in the event of Russia’s reinvasion. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported on December 16 that US and Ukrainian officials discussed legally-binding security guarantees during the talks.[2] Zelensky noted that Ukrainian and US officials will meet in Miami, Florida, to continue discussions about security guarantees, and a US official noted that US and Ukrainian working groups will likely meet over the weekend (December 20 and 21) “somewhere” in the United States, possibly Miami.[3]

The Kremlin explicitly rejected US and European offers to provide Ukraine with “NATO-like” security guarantees as part of a peace deal and continued to signal its unwillingness to compromise on Russia’s territorial claims to Ukraine’s sovereign territory. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated in an English language TV interview with ABC News on December 15 that Russia “definitely will not at any moment subscribe to, agree to, or even be content with” any NATO troops in Ukraine, even if these forces are part of a security guarantee or are members of the Coalition of the Willing.[4] Ryabkov also reiterated that Russia would not compromise “in any form” on the five Ukrainian regions that Russia illegally annexed — which includes the entirety of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts and Crimea. Ryabkov notably stated that Russia has “five [regions] altogether,” effectively reiterating the Kremlin’s demand that Ukraine give up unoccupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts to Russia, and therefore signaling that Russia remains unlikely to agree to any ceasefire that would freeze the current frontline. Ryabkov reiterated Russia’s theory of victory — which claims that Russia will inevitably win by outlasting Ukrainian resilience and Western support — by stating that the end of Russia’s war in Ukraine depends on when Ukrainian supporters “recognize the inevitable outcome of [Russian] success.” Ryabkov also stated that Russia’s whole “purpose” of war in Ukraine is to have Ukrainians find out that they belong in Russia, effectively restating the Kremlin’s long-term goal of establishing control over Ukraine’s government and its people, not just its land.[5] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov similarly reiterated on December 16 that Russia wants to “end this war” but seeks to achieve its goals, which ISW assesses include decapitating and replacing the Ukrainian government, destroying the Ukrainian military, and undermining Western unity.[6] Peskov also rejected the Ukrainian-proposed and US-supported idea of a Christmas truce.[7] The Kremlin has been effectively rejecting key points of various peace deal proposals, including the original US-proposed 28-point peace deal, such as reliable security guarantees for Ukraine or territorial swaps.[8]

Russia launched an information campaign to frame the European Union and individual European countries as an enemy of the Russian people, comparable to Nazi Germany, in an effort to further militarize Russian society. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed in an interview with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting on December 15 that Europe is waging a war “under a Nazi flag” with Russia through European support for Ukraine.[9] Lavrov claimed that European leadership in Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the Baltic states is reviving “the theory and practice of Nazism.” Lavrov also claimed that Germany is involved in a “resurgence of militarism” and connected modern Finland to Adolf Hitler and the Siege of Leningrad — likely referring to historically and culturally significant events that invoke historical grievances amongst Russians. Lavrov also compared modern European leadership to historical figures such as Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte that represent an existential threat to Russia. Lavrov’s false claims that different European leaders are practicing a nebulously defined “Nazism” are distinct from Russia’s false claims that Ukraine has neo-Nazi leadership, which pertains to Russia’s false claims that Ukraine is engaged in a genocidal campaign against Russian-speaking populations living in the country. Lavrov is leveraging the term “Nazi” to identify modern European countries and their current leadership as enemies of the Russian people and to recall Soviet narratives of patriotism to prepare the Russian population to accept greater levels of sacrifices in the pursuit of the ideological defense of the Russian state for an indeterminate amount of time.

The Kremlin is trying to downplay ongoing Ukrainian counterattacks in Kupyansk as Russian ultranationalist milbloggers continue to acknowledge the severity of the situation for the Russian forces. Ukrainian military sources reported on December 16 that around 200 Russian servicemen remain in Kupyansk and that Russian forces have limited logistics due to successful Ukrainian shaping and interdiction operations.[10] Russian state media has recently vastly platformed statements from Russian military officials and propagandists that downplay the situation in Kupyansk, likely in an effort to uphold a false Russian narrative that Russian forces are imminently collapsing Ukraine’s defense — a narrative aimed at influencing Ukraine and the West to make significant concessions to Russia. Russian state sources, including the Western Grouping of Forces (GoF) and an unnamed source from the Russian Joint GoF, claimed that Russian forces retained control over Kupyansk and accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of falsifying the December 11 video that he took in Kupyansk.[11] Some Russian milbloggers also amplified allegedly geolocated footage that shows two servicemen of the 121st Motorized Rifle Regiment (68th Motorized Rifle Division, 6th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) reportedly walking in southern Kupyansk, using the video to claim that Russian forces still control the settlement.[12] Other Russian milbloggers, however, continued to criticize Russian state media for failing to adequately cover Ukrainian counterattacks in Kupyansk, with one milblogger even pointing out that Russian state media is relying on the Western and Joint GoFs to conceal the battlefield situation in Kupyansk.[13]

The Russian Black Sea Fleet denied the loss of a Russian submarine as the result of a Ukrainian unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) strike against the Novorossiysk Naval Base on the night of December 14 to 15 Russian Black Sea Fleet Spokesperson Captain 1st Rank Alexey Rulev claimed on December 15 that Ukrainian reports of the sinking of a Russian submarine in Novorossiysk are false and that no vessels suffered damages in the strike, and Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD)-run TV network Zvezda published footage on December 16 allegedly showing the undamaged submarine.[14] An open-source intelligence (OSINT) analyst assessed that the Ukrainian UUV detonated 20 meters from the Russian Project 636 Varshavyanka-class (NATO Kilo-class) submarine and noted that the Zvezda-published footage does not show the stern of the submarine, which was closest to the explosion site.[15] Another OSINT analyst noted that satellite imagery taken on December 16 shows that the submarine has not moved since the strike, potentially indicating damage to the submarine.[16] Ukrainian Navy Spokesperson Captain Third Rank Dmytro Pletenchuk reported that the Black Sea Fleet now only fields two submarines capable of carrying Kalibr cruise missiles following the strike.[17] Russian milbloggers noted that Ukraine’s ability to conduct a UUV strike inside the ostensibly secure Novorossiysk Naval Base is a serious security lapse, and reported that Ukrainian forces apparently hacked a surveillance camera at the Novorossiysk Naval Base headquarters to provide footage of the strike.[18] ISW cannot assess whether the Ukrainian UUV strike damaged the submarine from the available open-source information at this time.

Key Takeaways

  1. The Council of the European Union confirmed that European countries and the United States will provide “robust” security guarantees to Ukraine as part of the peace deal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.
  2. The Kremlin explicitly rejected US and European offers to provide Ukraine with “NATO-like” security guarantees as part of a peace deal and continued to signal its unwillingness to compromise on Russia’s territorial claims to Ukraine’s sovereign territory.
  3. Russia launched an information campaign to frame the European Union and individual European countries as an enemy of the Russian people comparable to Nazi Germany in an effort to further militarize Russian society.
  4. The Kremlin is trying to downplay ongoing Ukrainian counterattacks in Kupyansk as Russian ultranationalist milbloggers continue to acknowledge the severity of the situation for the Russian forces.
  5. Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk and marginally advanced near Kupyansk. Russian forces recently advanced in the Dobropillya and Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical areas.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

The reason is that there hasn't been enough collective pain outside of Ukraine.  The pain is theoretical.  Specifically, with the US, there hasn't been a large scale compelling reason sold to the people of the US as to why we should intervene substantially in this war.  That will not happen in the next three years, given the current admin.  That's just a fact.  And it may be that our people as a whole are too ignorant or plain stupid to get it.  But this isn't a problem unique to our times.

Recall that "America First" was a pre-WWII thing.  People were adamant that Hitler was Europe's problem.  We didn't enter the war in Europe until we were attacked - by the Japanese.  Entering the war in Europe was just a tag on to that because Japan was aligned with Germany and Italy.  This was a recognition by FDR's admin that getting involved in a European war was a politically dicey proposition for him.  The current admin and much of the American electorate stand in the same posture today.  The lessons of 1933-45 have been mostly forgotten, except for followers of history.  Very few who were alive then are left to tell the tale.  While that is sad, it is understandable.  What is crazy to me, is the position the US has gained as a world power since 1945 - that is the world order that was formed as a result of WWII that has allowed us to become the richest, most powerful nation on earth - is being tossed away because a bunch of know-nothings have decided that this whole post 1945 order that we built to benefit ourselves, but also benefits others - benefits those others too much for contemporary tastes.  It's self inflicted empire destruction.  

tl;dr - It isn't happening because history repeats itself, and that includes Americans being insular and unconcerned about what takes place abroad. 

Long time lurker infrequent poster here but I’m fully convinced that once the war started and it became clear Russia was in a quagmire that the underlying US policy shifted to keep Russia occupied and to bleed them out slowly. Preventing escalation to even tactical nukes was a secondary motivation, but the benefits of snagging Russia in military and economic death spiral for a half to a full decade here make too much sense. The current admin waffles but I think inside the intelligence communities this still remains the message and causes said waffling in some cases to Ukraine’s favor.

Edited by scramblyn
Posted
28 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

Long time lurker infrequent poster here but I’m fully convinced that once the war started and it became clear Russia was in a quagmire that the underlying US policy shifted to keep Russia occupied and to bleed them out slowly. Preventing escalation to even tactical nukes was a secondary motivation, but the benefits of snagging Russia in military and economic death spiral for a half to a full decade here make too much sense. The current admin waffles but I think inside the intelligence communities this still remains the message and causes said waffling in some cases to Ukraine’s favor.

I agree to a large extent to this premise.  Certainly this was true under the Biden administration.  The bold part is my sincere hope - that there are people who are doing the right thing in between the lines who know that "this too shall pass."  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I agree to a large extent to this premise.  Certainly this was true under the Biden administration.  The bold part is my sincere hope - that there are people who are doing the right thing in between the lines who know that "this too shall pass."  

Which is all to say, Ukraine remains a pawn in its own consistent struggle for autonomy and security. The more things change…. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

Netflix has a solid Cold War documentary called turning point, I’m at the GHWB point, but every episode starts with a 3 min segment of the Ukraine war prior to rolling the intro segment and getting into the episode. It all Cold War proxy fight redux with the geography and people in harms way changing but the same major players. I get Russia has to be stopped to avoid further invasions into former Warsaw Pact and Soviet countries and I am a proponent of quick and swift defeat if possible of the Russians, but it’s just not the motivation. I’m not confident in European policy but I would not be shocked if it was largely aligned with the US wrt to this war, that doesn’t mean they are aligned with the US now on broader regional security issues though bc they clearly are not. 

semi related, I was shocked to see Russia refining capacity only knocked down 6% thus far. Meaningful but is it enough?

all that to say, I’d put the over under on this conflict ending at 2 years from now and I could be convinced it’s longer.

I’m curious what the intelligentsia on this thread thinks.

Edited by scramblyn
Posted
14 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I agree to a large extent to this premise.  Certainly this was true under the Biden administration.  The bold part is my sincere hope - that there are people who are doing the right thing in between the lines who know that "this too shall pass."  

What had to worry US planners is the possibility that by helping to destroy Russia thoroughly, all they would be doing is transferring a large part of Russia’s massive natural resources to China after it seizes large parts of eastern Russia - or at least those parts of Eastern Russia to which China currently has a historical claim. 

it was/is probably a valid concern that if Ukraine succeeded too successfully, Russia would use tactical nukes to counteract that success.    With other countries you could discount that possibility, but Russian leaders are such self-interested lunatics focusing only on their own survival, that the well-being of their citizens - or their country - or their neighbors - or the world - is not one of their considerations in the decision to deploy those weapons

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

I’m not confident in European policy but I would not be shocked if it was largely aligned with the US wrt to this war, that doesn’t mean they are aligned with the US now on broader regional security issues though bc they clearly are not. 

Germany and Poland are really ramping things up in a way that the US is not. Sweden and Finland got off the neutrality fence and did some conference realignment/expansion when they've held out for over 70 years. Various European nations and defense companies are ramping up arms production, upgrading systems, adding systems, etc. I don't think Europe is aligned with the US anymore. Trump sees this as just a real-estate deal, if Ukraine will give up some, Russia will be happy. Europe is taking the stance that it will just buy Putin time to re-arm and try and fill out the ranks.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

semi related, I was shocked to see Russia refining capacity only knocked down 6% thus far. Meaningful but is it enough?

I believe a 6% figure is woefully less than the impaired refining capacity at this point.    I would love to know the date and source of that figure.  I don’t think that a 6% reduction would result in a nationwide fuel crisis so severe that it requires purchasing refined gas from China.   

I would think at least 25% by now, and very likely more. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Ive long thought that Bidens unstated policy was to bleed Russia dry. I feel less confident that what goes on now.  I had hoped that someone could convince trump that his legacy could be to be the president that brought down Russia. Think of all the awards he would receive.  I was stupid to think that.  

The collateral damage is too awful and now I want a just peace.  That's not going to happen anytime soon.

I think about the F Scott Fitzgerald quote often, "there will be a century of middle class love spent here."

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

semi related, I was shocked to see Russia refining capacity only knocked down 6% thus far. Meaningful but is it enough?

all that to say, I’d put the over under on this conflict ending at 2 years from now and I could be convinced it’s longer.

It's a lot more than that, but it's also tough to quantify (paging @PTINS ).  They are refining far less, but they are exporting far less, so they are close to staying even on being able to refine what they need internally.

This is a decent breakdown. 

https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2025/10/russia-refinery-damages?lang=en

Quote

On paper, Russia can refine 327 million tons of oil every year (or 6.5 million barrels per day). And the capacity of the 16 refineries that have been attacked by Ukrainian drones in August and September is 123 million tons a year—or 38 percent of the total. In other words, 38 percent is the upper limit of potential damage.

Quote

For Moscow, the current situation is far more serious than in the spring and summer of 2024 when Ukraine conducted a similar strike campaign. Now, Ukrainian drones can fly further, carry bigger payloads, and attack more frequently. Russia’s Volgograd refinery was hit twice in August and twice in September; the Novokuibyshev refinery has been struck three times (about one every three weeks); and the Ryazan, Saratov, and Salavat refineries have been hit twice each. Previously, Kyiv had only been able to target the Krasnodar and Rostov refineries with such regularity—because they are nearer the Ukraine border, and could be reached by light, low-cost drones.   

Quote

There are three important questions that must be answered when attempting to assess the current level of damage to Russia’s oil refineries: were they working at full capacity before the attacks? Was the damage complete or partial? Has the damage been repaired or is it still hindering throughput?

That was from October, and it's safe to say their capacity has dropped a lot since then, at least temporarily. As things continue, their ability to repair refineries will drop as spare parts become scarce. Plus, when refineries are hit repeatedly, there comes a point where they may have to basically be rebuilt, which takes a long time. And you don't even have to wreck a refinery if the pipelines/pumping stations are wrecked and oil can't be moved (they can't store as much as we do).

Having to export oil and then re-import the refined end-product is also telling.

Ukrainian capacity to hit them hard and hit them deep is only increasing as well, both with drones, but also with their long-range missiles coming online, and Russian air defenses continue to be degraded.

I don't think it was 38% (the article is probably right 38% was the upper range), but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the 20s (only offset because they are exporting less). I don't think 2 years, but I think we will know how things will shake out over the next 6 months, because the tempo is such that Russia refining capacities are going to drop double-digits going forward and as more air defenses are destroyed/exhausted, we will see a lot more targets taken out.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

I think about the F Scott Fitzgerald quote often, "there will be a century of middle class love spent here."

I think of the Hemingway quote, paraphrasing, "it happened slowly, then suddenly."

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

What had to worry US planners is the possibility that by helping to destroy Russia thoroughly, all they would be doing is transferring a large part of Russia’s massive natural resources to China after it seizes large parts of eastern Russia - or at least those parts of Eastern Russia to which China currently has a historical claim. 

it was/is probably a valid concern that if Ukraine succeeded too successfully, Russia would use tactical nukes to counteract that success.    With other countries you could discount that possibility, but Russian leaders are such self-interested lunatics focusing only on their own survival, that the well-being of their citizens - or their country - or their neighbors - or the world - is not one of their considerations in the decision to deploy those weapons

 

Further, one has to think that more pragmatic views have emerged since the great hope that existed in 1991.  That is, that Russia would turn westward and Europe/USA would get those resources if we could just get a semi-functioning democracy going there.  That lasted a hot minute until Russia Russia'd and we got Putin.  Perhaps we have some people at the top who lived through that era and realize we should hope for the best, but expect the worst where Russia is concerned.  

Edited by Chad Fuck
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

Ive long thought that Bidens unstated policy was to bleed Russia dry. I feel less confident that what goes on now.  I had hoped that someone could convince trump that his legacy could be to be the president that brought down Russia. Think of all the awards he would receive.  I was stupid to think that.  

The collateral damage is too awful and now I want a just peace.  That's not going to happen anytime soon.

I think about the F Scott Fitzgerald quote often, "there will be a century of middle class love spent here."

 

0LddL7.gif

Peace now just means fighting Russia again later, with a greater claim to the lands they took by conquest, while simultaneously encouraging bad actors around the world to do the same.  I mean, if US/Europe doesn't stop them in their own back yard, then it's open season everywhere else.

Of course, no peace now just means more death and destruction until some time over the horizon.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Germany and Poland are really ramping things up in a way that the US is not. Sweden and Finland got off the neutrality fence and did some conference realignment/expansion when they've held out for over 70 years. Various European nations and defense companies are ramping up arms production, upgrading systems, adding systems, etc. I don't think Europe is aligned with the US anymore. Trump sees this as just a real-estate deal, if Ukraine will give up some, Russia will be happy. Europe is taking the stance that it will just buy Putin time to re-arm and try and fill out the ranks.

 

I acknowledged that in my post - the US and Europe are not aligned on broader security policy for Europe, I’m not convinced Europe wants a quicker Russian defeat over a longer one.  No mistaking defeating Russia is paramount. But the sooner Russia is defeated the sooner they can start rebuilding. Why would anyone (but the Ukrainians wanting the war to end sooner) want that ?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I believe a 6% figure is woefully less than the impaired refining capacity at this point.    I would love to know the date and source of that figure.  I don’t think that a 6% reduction would result in a nationwide fuel crisis so severe that it requires purchasing refined gas from China.   

I would think at least 25% by now, and very likely more. 

That’s what I thought then read 6% on here a few pages back. 

Posted
Just now, scramblyn said:

I acknowledged that in my post - the US and Europe are not aligned on broader security policy for Europe, I’m not convinced Europe wants a quicker Russian defeat over a longer one.  No mistaking defeating Russia is paramount. But the sooner Russia is defeated the sooner they can start rebuilding. Why would anyone (but the Ukrainians wanting the war to end sooner) want that ?

Our current administration is openly supporting European opposition parties that are pro-Russia. Some have been funded directly by Russia. That would be my main concern on US/European alignment.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Trump sees this as just a real-estate deal, if Ukraine will give up some, Russia will be happy. Europe is taking the stance that it will just buy Putin time to re-arm and try and fill out the ranks.

Trump is wanting to run the Chamberlain playbook, and the rest of Europe remembers how WWII went.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

0LddL7.gif

Peace now just means fighting Russia again later, with a greater claim to the lands they took by conquest, while simultaneously encouraging bad actors around the world to do the same.  I mean, if US/Europe doesn't stop them in their own back yard, then it's open season everywhere else.

Of course, no peace now just means more death and destruction until some time over the horizon.

This is exactly why I don’t see a motivation to end this war. Again, Ukraine as the Borderlands. The sacrificial people for European security, same as it’s always been.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...