Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 208

On September 08 2022 05:51 raynpelikoneet wrote:

I am sorry it's too much to read.

On September 08 2022 02:01 raynpelikoneet wrote:

0% afaik until nov-dec sadly.

On September 08 2022 18:06 Harris1st wrote:


Correct me if I am wrong ( I did just skim and scan for 5min) but the paper Artesimo linked basically says: nuclear energy is really fucking expensive and absolutely not the future and building new nuclear plants right now is a really stupid idea. Solar and wind is a lot cheaper both in building and maintenance and that's without the cost of nuclear waste and risk management.

Let's hope this changes soonTM with fusion reactors

Unlike electricity, natural gas can be stored . That's why austerity and diversification measures should start immediately, not just next winter. Every kWh of natural gas that we save this March eases the supply situation in the current year and possibly also until March next year.

Every kilowatt hour of electricity from another source reduces gas consumption by almost two kilowatt hours, because gas power plants have an average efficiency of around 50 percent.

Extending the lifetime of coal and nuclear power plants by a few years (two to five) seems sensible. This in no way calls into question the fundamental phase-out of nuclear power and coal.

It's not primarily about maintaining generation capacity, but above all about replacing natural gas at every point in the system and whenever possible - that's why these power plants have to run.

The challenges here are great, especially with regard to nuclear power , for reasons of safety-related permits and fuel availability.

On September 08 2022 03:41 Artesimo wrote:



Since I don't want to derail the thread: its complicated. Here is some stuff to read up on, enjoy : D
www.worldnuclearreport.org (I recommend reading the whole thing, but if you can't be bothered, chapter 'TECHNOLOGY COSTS' page 292 and onwards.

www.sciencedirect.com

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss any of this.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will bar entry on their external borders for all Russian nationals with a short-stay Schengen visa. The restriction will come into effect in Estonia on 19 September. It will also enter into force in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland no later than that date.

“Together with Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, we decided to introduce common restrictions on tourism for Russian nationals to protect public order and security,” Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said. “Russia has brought war to Europe and is using all tools to undermine our societies. As the border states of the EU, we must keep Europe safe. Currently it is not possible to ensure that the Russian citizens entering the EU through Estonia do not pose a security threat. A regional agreement has been reached and now we will continue working towards a tourism restriction on Russian citizens in the entire European Union.”

“Travel to the European Union is a privilege, not a human right. As the people of Ukraine are being tortured, murdered and terrorised, the citizens of the aggressor state should not be able to enjoy the benefits of the free world. We will no longer allow Russian tourists to cross our border, visiting family living in Estonia will remain among exceptions,” Kallas said. This was also underlined in the joint statement of the prime ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland today.

Minister of the Interior Lauri Läänemets said we have already imposed a sanction on Russian nationals holding a Schengen visa issued by Estonia but this does not prevent Russian citizens with Schengen visas issued by other states from travelling here or using Estonia for transit. “In view of the EU sanction banning air traffic, Estonia’s eastern border is becoming a transit hub. Whereas in February 10 477 Russian citizens crossed Estonia’s eastern border, this number has increased to more than 26 500 in July and in the summer months, more than 1000 people per day crossed the border on average. In addition to its own internal security, Estonia, an external border state, is responsible for the entire Schengen area and the mass travel of Russian nationals entails an increased security threat in current circumstances. Every country has the right to close its borders for security considerations and temporarily restrict border crossings, and for ensuring security in the region and the Schengen area more broadly, together with the other Baltic States and Poland we will restrict the transit of Russian tourists,” the minister said. Läänemets said that from a moral perspective, it was important to continue looking for a solution on the EU level but at the moment, it was necessary to quickly introduce additional measures to mitigate the threats that tourism transit entails for the internal security and public order of the region.

Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu said that work on a EU-wide solution would continue. “Until we have come to an agreement on EU level on restricting entry for Russian nationals into the European Union, we are imposing these restrictions regionally. This is our legitimate response to the mass movement of Russian tourists through our countries to the rest of Europe.” Minister Reinsalu added that continuing with sanctions against Russia was crucial for putting relentless pressure on Russia, and from Estonia’s foreign policy perspective, it is a values-based and existential issue.

The restriction does not apply to all Russian citizens. Crossing the state border will continue to be possible for Russian nationals visiting family members or co-parents of minor children living in the Schengen area on a valid legal basis. Exemptions will continue to apply to diplomats; Russian nationals with a short-stay visa and registered employment in Estonia or with a student visitor visa, as well as for people directly employed in the international transport of goods and passengers. Exceptional entry is also allowed on humanitarian grounds and for dissidents. Transit without delay is also allowed to people who need to travel through Estonia to reach their country of residence. Exemptions will also apply when crossing Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish borders.

As of Monday, Russian nationals have 49 804 valid visas issued by Estonia, 47 998 of which are short-stay visas and 1805 are long-stay visas. The purpose of travel is tourism in 19 285 cases and in 20 389 cases it is visiting family and friends. Other countries issue more than three million Schengen visas a year, valid for up to five years and allowing multiple entry to the Schengen area. According to estimates, at least 10 million Russian citizens hold a valid short-stay Schengen visa.

The government’s decision invalidates the current restriction on entry or the so-called Russian and Belarusian sanction regulation; new restrictions are introduced according to the State Borders Act. The Government Communication Unit will publish the order and the explanatory memorandum on this website, where you can find additional information and answers to frequently asked questions.

The joint statement of the prime ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Source

The Pentagon has sent Ukraine its most accurate artillery shell, the GPS-guided Excalibur, according to budget documents that confirm the previously unannounced addition to the arsenal assembled to combat the Russian invasion.

A plan to replenish the US stock of Excaliburs acknowledges for the first time that the Pentagon has been supplying Ukrainian forces with the shell. Officials have sidestepped questions about the Excalibur despite reports that planning was underway to provide it and then that it was already in use in Ukraine.

A satellite-guided weapon that can hit within seven feet (two meters) of its target, the Excalibur was first used in Iraq in 2007 in the high-profile killing of al-Qaeda leader Abu Jurah and associates.

The Defense Department will spend $92 million in congressionally approved supplemental funds “for procurement of replacement M982 Excalibur munitions transferred to Ukraine in support of the international effort to counter Russian aggression,” according to a budget document last month that wasn’t previously disclosed.

Used in 155mm howitzers -- the Army’s workhorse field artillery -- the projectile was co-developed by Raytheon Missiles and Defense and BAE Systems Bofor. The precision-guided Excalibur lets battlefield commanders zero in on targets more precisely. It has a range of 25 miles (40.5 kilometers), according to the documents.

The Excalibur is listed in documents spelling out how the Pentagon is spending some of the $20.1 billion in the “Additional Ukraine Supplemental” signed by President Joe Biden in May. The Excalibur rounds were taken from Army stocks as part of 19 “Presidential Drawdown Authority” moves valued at $8 billion. So far, the Pentagon has detailed restocking purchases totaling about $7 billion in seven installments through last month.

“The $92 million addition to Excalibur more than doubles the program’s budget, adding about 900 projectiles in fiscal 2022,” up from $56.7 million that Congress approved this fiscal year, according to Mark Cancian, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies who’s monitoring Ukraine-related spending. The $56.7 million is to purchase 374 of the sophisticated, GPS-jam-proof rounds, according to Army budget documents.

“This also confirms what had long been suspected, that the United States is providing this advanced weapon to Ukraine,” Cancian said. Each round currently cost from $98,700 to $106,400 in fiscal 2021 and 2022 dollars depending on the quantities purchased, according to Army budget documents.

On September 08 2022 22:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ukraine has quietly been getting Excalibur artillery shells. But still no Tanks, which makes no sense when one thinks about it.



Source

On September 08 2022 21:34 Sbrubbles wrote:


Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading the foreword and googling World Nuclear Industry Status Report, it's seems to me this is a report done by anti-nuclear activists, not exactly what I would consider an unbiased and impartial account.

I don't have the technical knowledge nor the time necessary to read 400 pages, but I also wouldn't trust the source enough to take its conclusions at face value.

On September 08 2022 23:33 0x64 wrote:
The reason tanks were not given was that Russia had big air superiority, and may have it again quickly. Tanks are very expensive and works in special cases. Now we are getting close to such a case where Air superiority is clearly contested and tanks are needed to break the line. But there is no hurry also to do so.

Budget should be focused on high mobility and high impact. Tanks fall in the middle of both category.

On September 08 2022 23:33 0x64 wrote:


The reason tanks were not given was that Russia had big air superiority, and may have it again quickly. Tanks are very expensive and works in special cases. Now we are getting close to such a case where Air superiority is clearly contested and tanks are needed to break the line. But there is no hurry also to do so.

Budget should be focused on high mobility and high impact. Tanks fall in the middle of both category.

On September 09 2022 01:26 Ghanburighan wrote:


This might end up not being confirmed, but one of the rumours going around says that the Kharkiv offensive which might have pushed the front line a good 50km in a few days started from a limited tank push of about one battalion. This is what tanks are good for, high mobility punches into weak lines. Poorly equipped units like DPR and Rosgvardia cannot deal with them. If the tanks were Leopards and not T-72s, they'd save casualties on the UA side. To each on their own conscience whether those lives are worth the additional cost.

On September 09 2022 02:15 Simberto wrote:
I think the core problem with Leopards is that UA military is not trained to use them, and don't have the logistics in place for them.

You can basically just dump T-72 on them, and they can use the immediately, because all of the support for them is already in place. Getting them ready to use Leopards would take longer. I still think that they should get them (if they want them).