Scrutable

lpm wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:52 pm Nato have been unable to confirm, as yet.

Many tweets, only one source - the Azov Battalion. Who are good for shooting Russians, bad for everything else.

The report I saw said that symptoms of nausea had been reported; it occurs to me that burning electrical insulation and tyres produces some pretty unpleasant fumes which could be causing ill effects.

JQH wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 11:36 am

lpm wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:52 pm Nato have been unable to confirm, as yet.

Many tweets, only one source - the Azov Battalion. Who are good for shooting Russians, bad for everything else.

The report I saw said that symptoms of nausea had been reported; it occurs to me that burning electrical insulation and tyres produces some pretty unpleasant fumes which could be causing ill effects.

Part of a long thread on it by someone who has literally written the book on chemical warfare

https://twitter.com/DanKaszeta/status/1 ... MJ9XyBit7A

First things first, we need to look at differential diagnosis. Rather a lot of you are running around saying that you hear zebras, whereas there could be horses, which are more common
9:56 AM · Apr 12, 2022·Twitter Web App

jimbob wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 11:40 am

JQH wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 11:36 am

lpm wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:52 pm Nato have been unable to confirm, as yet.

Many tweets, only one source - the Azov Battalion. Who are good for shooting Russians, bad for everything else.

The report I saw said that symptoms of nausea had been reported; it occurs to me that burning electrical insulation and tyres produces some pretty unpleasant fumes which could be causing ill effects.

Part of a long thread on it by someone who has literally written the book on chemical warfare

https://twitter.com/DanKaszeta/status/1 ... MJ9XyBit7A

First things first, we need to look at differential diagnosis. Rather a lot of you are running around saying that you hear zebras, whereas there could be horses, which are more common
9:56 AM · Apr 12, 2022·Twitter Web App

I very much look forward to the day when I can put Toxic on the bargain thread.

The Dan Kaszeta book not the Britney Spiers hit (banging though it may be)

Stranger Mouse wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 2:29 pm

jimbob wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 11:40 am

JQH wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 11:36 am

The report I saw said that symptoms of nausea had been reported; it occurs to me that burning electrical insulation and tyres produces some pretty unpleasant fumes which could be causing ill effects.

Part of a long thread on it by someone who has literally written the book on chemical warfare

https://twitter.com/DanKaszeta/status/1 ... MJ9XyBit7A

First things first, we need to look at differential diagnosis. Rather a lot of you are running around saying that you hear zebras, whereas there could be horses, which are more common
9:56 AM · Apr 12, 2022·Twitter Web App

I very much look forward to the day when I can put Toxic on the bargain thread.

The Dan Kaszeta book not the Britney Spiers hit (banging though it may be)

It's surprisingly a less-grim read than I had expected

bjn wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 8:53 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 11:36 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 11:21 am

This is a really important point.

Sending military equipment and other strategic stuff like tractors is fine and interesting.

But the West is still funding Russia's crimes against humanity by paying them for oil and gas.

It seems to me that ordinary Ukrainians are expected to make huge sacrifices, but Western governments are really dragging their feet with anything that might inconvenience their own voters.

We know cutting oil and gas imminently is necessary anyway (see yet another alarming IPCC report this week - fossil fuels are killing way more people than Putin), and we also know that we're funding this war and many other atrocities. But the focus of discussion is constantly shifted elsewhere.

Western sanctions should include fossil fuels. No exceptions. Deal with the fallout (no pun intended) as it arises, but sustainably rather than just funding a different psychopath. Hopefully that's a slightly easier sell once spring comes, but at least from here in Portugal it seems tragic that we're all still funding this barbarity because of failures by our own governments.

Germany's refusal to reactivate/prolong the life of existing reactors is particularly indefensible. Though it might take a year or so to get reactors back online, building gas infrastructure to avoid dependance on Russia takes time, too, and unlike that approach, reactivating/maintaining reactors cuts out the carbon cost, and the geopolitical worries that they would just be transferring their dependence to a different tyrannical petrostate.

Most of the gas on Germany is used for industrial process heat or space heating, so even if they used no gas fired electricity generators they’d still need gas to stop people freezing in winter. You can’t flip to heat pumps and electrical process heat in a time scale less than a decade.

Given they are where they are, what would be the best use of resources you propose to spend on getting end of life nukes working again (which will probably take more than a year)? Would you be better off throwing them crash programs for household insulation to drastically reduce the need for that gas in the first place.

Responding again with a link to some actual numbers

Germany uses about a third of its gas for power generation. Their current policy of shutting down functional reactors will increase that demand substantially, making them more dependant on gas from Putin's Russia and other petro-tyrants. If they instead reversed that policy and reactivated reactors, it would generate enough power to effectively eliminate the use of Russian gas imports, and largely eliminate the use of gas for power generation in general, reduce carbon emissions and reduce air pollution, given they are, at present, still intending to burn coal for the rest of the decade. With the reactors already existing and just requiring a little work to get them running again, there is no equivalent investment that could do so much good for weaning Germany off Putin's exports and carbon emissions in such a timescale.

Since the Bucha atrocities were discovered, Germany has sent a billion and a half euros to Putin to pay for gas. Fuel imports are one of the few things preventing the Russian economy - and thus war machine - from collapsing.

The German Green Party is effectively willing to put convenience and anti-nuclear paranoia ahead of opposition to climate change and genocide. I'm often dumbstruck by the sheer selfishness of western political movements across the ideological spectrum. This is one of those occasions.

Looks like they caught Medvedchuk (Putin is godfather to his daughter)

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/statu ... qPHB5FR4_A

EACLucifer wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:52 pm Responding again with a link to some actual numbers

Germany uses about a third of its gas for power generation. Their current policy of shutting down functional reactors will increase that demand substantially, making them more dependant on gas from Putin's Russia and other petro-tyrants. If they instead reversed that policy and reactivated reactors, it would generate enough power to effectively eliminate the use of Russian gas imports, and largely eliminate the use of gas for power generation in general, reduce carbon emissions and reduce air pollution, given they are, at present, still intending to burn coal for the rest of the decade. With the reactors already existing and just requiring a little work to get them running again, there is no equivalent investment that could do so much good for weaning Germany off Putin's exports and carbon emissions in such a timescale.

Since the Bucha atrocities were discovered, Germany has sent a billion and a half euros to Putin to pay for gas. Fuel imports are one of the few things preventing the Russian economy - and thus war machine - from collapsing.

The German Green Party is effectively willing to put convenience and anti-nuclear paranoia ahead of opposition to climate change and genocide. I'm often dumbstruck by the sheer selfishness of western political movements across the ideological spectrum. This is one of those occasions.

But what if Baden-Württemberg or Bavaria get hit by a tsunami?

Stranger Mouse wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:22 pm Looks like they caught Medvedchuk (Putin is godfather to his daughter)

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/statu ... qPHB5FR4_A

I presume those are Ukrainian fatigues given the patch on his left shoulder.

Grumble wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 7:25 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:22 pm Looks like they caught Medvedchuk (Putin is godfather to his daughter)

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/statu ... qPHB5FR4_A

I presume those are Ukrainian fatigues given the patch on his left shoulder.

Yeah. Maybe he decided to swap to the winning side

Grumble wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 7:25 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:22 pm Looks like they caught Medvedchuk (Putin is godfather to his daughter)

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/statu ... qPHB5FR4_A

I presume those are Ukrainian fatigues given the patch on his left shoulder.

Given how ill-fitting they are, I'd say the fatigues might be to give him something clean to wear for the photo

Article on the logistics of support for Ukraine

Will the United States Run Out of Javelins Before Russia Runs Out of Tanks?
https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-unit ... -out-tanks

Though the premise of the question isn’t serious. The US would not transfer all of its missiles as it will assume that a large proportion need to be retained in case there are other needs (eg fighting against China).

German President Steinmier wanted to visit Kyiv, but Zelensky didn’t want to meet him. But an invitation has been sent to Chancellor Scholz (who hasn’t been involved in Nordstream etc).
https://twitter.com/faznet/status/15139 ... brK1xD9r_A

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 5:33 am German President Steinmier wanted to visit Kyiv, but Zelensky didn’t want to meet him. But an invitation has been sent to Chancellor Scholz (who hasn’t been involved in Nordstream etc).
https://twitter.com/faznet/status/15139 ... brK1xD9r_A

The humiliation is what he deserves. But I’m not sure whether it’ll help speed up a supertanker like shift in German policy.

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 5:38 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 5:33 am German President Steinmier wanted to visit Kyiv, but Zelensky didn’t want to meet him. But an invitation has been sent to Chancellor Scholz (who hasn’t been involved in Nordstream etc).
https://twitter.com/faznet/status/15139 ... brK1xD9r_A

The humiliation is what he deserves. But I’m not sure whether it’ll help speed up a supertanker like shift in German policy.

It's hard to say. The last opinion poll I've seen had somewhat more people replying they thought the government's response didn't go far enough than those who thought it was about right, and very few saying it went too far. It's much harder to try and spin a poor response as "we're doing everything possible" if Zelenskyy's response is that they aren't.

It's not so much a message to Steinmeier as it is a message to German politicians in general that Zelenskyy won't help them with domestic approval if they don't do enough to help Ukraine's fight for survival.

Stranger Mouse wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:22 pm Looks like they caught Medvedchuk (Putin is godfather to his daughter)

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/statu ... qPHB5FR4_A

So much for all those "exTrACtEd bY rUSsIAn sPEtzNAz" claims we got from the Kremlin apologists all over social media

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 9:31 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 5:38 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 5:33 am German President Steinmier wanted to visit Kyiv, but Zelensky didn’t want to meet him. But an invitation has been sent to Chancellor Scholz (who hasn’t been involved in Nordstream etc).
https://twitter.com/faznet/status/15139 ... brK1xD9r_A

The humiliation is what he deserves. But I’m not sure whether it’ll help speed up a supertanker like shift in German policy.

It's hard to say. The last opinion poll I've seen had somewhat more people replying they thought the government's response didn't go far enough than those who thought it was about right, and very few saying it went too far. It's much harder to try and spin a poor response as "we're doing everything possible" if Zelenskyy's response is that they aren't.

It's not so much a message to Steinmeier as it is a message to German politicians in general that Zelenskyy won't help them with domestic approval if they don't do enough to help Ukraine's fight for survival.

This is embarrassing for Steinmeier personally, but it does not say much to other German politicians. He's just a ribbon cutter, and isn't even voted for the people, so domestic approval is less of an issue. Snubbing Scholz, or another member of the Government, would be a bigger deal. If there is a message being sent to politicians it's that Zelenskyy wants to speak to those who can actually help him.

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:58 am Article on the logistics of support for Ukraine

Will the United States Run Out of Javelins Before Russia Runs Out of Tanks?
https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-unit ... -out-tanks

Though the premise of the question isn’t serious. The US would not transfer all of its missiles as it will assume that a large proportion need to be retained in case there are other needs (eg fighting against China).

I expect that more Javelins have already been ordered to replenish.

Also, given the US might in the air, artillery, drones etc, not to mention pretty good tanks... I expect Javelins would not be their primary method of destroying enemy armour. And much less so in a war with China over Taiwan which would primarily be naval. So they can still afford to give a bunch away when it comes to man portable missiles.

WFJ wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:00 am

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 9:31 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 5:38 am

The humiliation is what he deserves. But I’m not sure whether it’ll help speed up a supertanker like shift in German policy.

It's hard to say. The last opinion poll I've seen had somewhat more people replying they thought the government's response didn't go far enough than those who thought it was about right, and very few saying it went too far. It's much harder to try and spin a poor response as "we're doing everything possible" if Zelenskyy's response is that they aren't.

It's not so much a message to Steinmeier as it is a message to German politicians in general that Zelenskyy won't help them with domestic approval if they don't do enough to help Ukraine's fight for survival.

This is embarrassing for Steinmeier personally, but it does not say much to other German politicians. He's just a ribbon cutter, and isn't even voted for the people, so domestic approval is less of an issue. Snubbing Scholz, or another member of the Government, would be a bigger deal. If there is a message being sent to politicians it's that Zelenskyy wants to speak to those who can actually help him.

To clarify, I'm not saying Zelenskyy is targeting Steinmeier's domestic approval - I think he's making it clear to Scholz and the rest of his cabinet that endorsement from Zelenskyy shouldn't be taken for granted. An endorsement from Zelenskyy - or alternatively a condemnation - could do quite a lot to shift public opinion one way or another, especially given that more Germans think Germany's government isn't doing enough than think it is/that it is doing too much.

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:58 am Article on the logistics of support for Ukraine

Will the United States Run Out of Javelins Before Russia Runs Out of Tanks?
https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-unit ... -out-tanks

Though the premise of the question isn’t serious. The US would not transfer all of its missiles as it will assume that a large proportion need to be retained in case there are other needs (eg fighting against China).

The US designed those missiles and put them into production to counter the tanks of unfriendly nations - Russia, China and so on. Though sending a Javelin to Ukraine reduces America's supply of them, if it is then used to destroy a Russian tank, it reduces America's need for them in the stockpile.

I’m in Dresden at the moment, where there is a significant number of Ukrainian refugees.

In the Altmarkt today we witnessed a family of, what we assumed from appearances and language, Ukrainian refugees. What looked like a mother, chIld and grandfather.

The mother looked completely lost - 1000 yard stare etc. whilst the grandfather bought the granddaughter a McDonald’s Happy Meal. The granddaughter was overjoyed.

It was both heartbreaking and joyous in equal measure.

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:57 pm

WFJ wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:00 am

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 9:31 am

It's hard to say. The last opinion poll I've seen had somewhat more people replying they thought the government's response didn't go far enough than those who thought it was about right, and very few saying it went too far. It's much harder to try and spin a poor response as "we're doing everything possible" if Zelenskyy's response is that they aren't.

It's not so much a message to Steinmeier as it is a message to German politicians in general that Zelenskyy won't help them with domestic approval if they don't do enough to help Ukraine's fight for survival.

This is embarrassing for Steinmeier personally, but it does not say much to other German politicians. He's just a ribbon cutter, and isn't even voted for the people, so domestic approval is less of an issue. Snubbing Scholz, or another member of the Government, would be a bigger deal. If there is a message being sent to politicians it's that Zelenskyy wants to speak to those who can actually help him.

To clarify, I'm not saying Zelenskyy is targeting Steinmeier's domestic approval - I think he's making it clear to Scholz and the rest of his cabinet that endorsement from Zelenskyy shouldn't be taken for granted. An endorsement from Zelenskyy - or alternatively a condemnation - could do quite a lot to shift public opinion one way or another, especially given that more Germans think Germany's government isn't doing enough than think it is/that it is doing too much.

Scholz wanted most of the overt shows of support for Ukraine to be collective EU efforts, rather than from individual countries. That is why he was previously reluctant to visit, and he certainly was not interested in a Johnson-style PR visit. The feeling in the German press is that Steinmeier's snubbing has made a visit impossible now.

There is public pressure for the Government to do more, although that is more about gas and oil than weapons, but the snubbing of Steinmeier is seen as a personal issue, rather than a message to the German Government.

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:58 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:58 am Article on the logistics of support for Ukraine

Will the United States Run Out of Javelins Before Russia Runs Out of Tanks?
https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-unit ... -out-tanks

Though the premise of the question isn’t serious. The US would not transfer all of its missiles as it will assume that a large proportion need to be retained in case there are other needs (eg fighting against China).

The US designed those missiles and put them into production to counter the tanks of unfriendly nations - Russia, China and so on. Though sending a Javelin to Ukraine reduces America's supply of them, if it is then used to destroy a Russian tank, it reduces America's need for them in the stockpile.

Only if US planners see Russia as being the sole potential adversary. If not then sending missiles to Ukraine is part of a difficult cost/benefit exercise. US planners won't want to use all their stocks in Ukraine if the most important adversary is China.

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 9:22 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:58 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:58 am Article on the logistics of support for Ukraine

Will the United States Run Out of Javelins Before Russia Runs Out of Tanks?
https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-unit ... -out-tanks

Though the premise of the question isn’t serious. The US would not transfer all of its missiles as it will assume that a large proportion need to be retained in case there are other needs (eg fighting against China).

The US designed those missiles and put them into production to counter the tanks of unfriendly nations - Russia, China and so on. Though sending a Javelin to Ukraine reduces America's supply of them, if it is then used to destroy a Russian tank, it reduces America's need for them in the stockpile.

Only if US planners see Russia as being the sole potential adversary. If not then sending missiles to Ukraine is part of a difficult cost/benefit exercise. US planners won't want to use all their stocks in Ukraine if the most important adversary is China.

Agreed, but they also aren't using anything close to all their stocks, just as Britain isn't sending all the NLAWs in the inventory - and in the latter case they are definitely still being produced, I haven't checked re: Javelin.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:36 pm I expect that more Javelins have already been ordered to replenish.

If this is to be believed, https://militarycognizance.com/2022/04/ ... sian-tank/ production is limited to 6,500 per year.

And if this is accurate: https://armourersbench.com/2022/03/13/j ... n-ukraine/ the kill rate is 280 vehicles for 300 fired.

Ukraine has sunk the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet
https://mobile.twitter.com/ralee85/stat ... 7903235074
https://twitter.com/daxe/status/1514387 ... N4GjmFpZPQ