RUSSIA VS. THE E.U.

Well Russia and the EU are at odds (still).

Russia now has cut (indefinitely) the Nord Stream 1 gas line, looks like the EU may want to buy up all the fur coats they can get to keep warm and open up all their coal fired power plants to produce electricity.

Will joe crow 2.0 send our natural gas to the EU and make us pay/suffer even more under his Nazi dictatorship:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/russias-gazprom-indefinitely-shuts-gas-flow-europe

rick1 wrote:Well Russia and the EU are at odds (still).
Russia now has cut (indefinitely) the Nord Stream 1 gas line, looks like the EU may want to buy up all the fur coats they can get to keep warm and open up all their coal fired power plants to produce electricity.
Will joe crow 2.0 send our natural gas to the EU and make us pay/suffer even more under his Nazi dictatorship:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/russias-gazprom-indefinitely-shuts-gas-flow-europe

Of course, he will. And to a degree, I agree with him. This is war, and I would rather it be fought over there, than here. Whether we fight by sending some gas (it won't be enough) or by sending guns and ammo to Ukraine, I would prefer to expend our money and materials over there, than allow Ukraine and Europe to fall, which would provide all of the resources of Ukraine to Russia.

Bad enough, we let China have Afghanistan, and all of their mineral deposits.

I agree with ya to the extent that any war be fought over there and not here.

Top Generals are concerned that our munitions are getting uncomfortably low:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-has-given-so-much-weaponry-to-ukraine-that-defense-officials-say-one-of-its-munitions-stockpiles-is-getting-uncomfortably-low-report/ar-AA11eIUk

Our national emergency oil reserve is at its lowest point in decades and getting lower, but yet we're sending oil to China:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/crude-in-us-emergency-reserve-falls-to-lowest-since-dec-1984/ar-AA11eGru?fromMaestro=true

AND, we haven't even touched the food/water crisis here in the U.S.

Time for other countries to cough up more and the U.S. to start taking care of their own citizens.

rick1 wrote:I agree with ya to the extent that any war be fought over there and not here.
Top Generals are concerned that our munitions are getting uncomfortably low:
Our national emergency oil reserve is at its lowest point in decades and getting lower, but yet we're sending oil to China:
AND, we haven't even touched the food/water crisis here in the U.S.

Time for other countries to cough up more and the U.S. to start taking care of their own citizens.

Our getting low on ammo, oil, food and water have almost nothing to do with our support of other nations. Frankly, had Trump remained in office, we could have supported all of these mission, without making a dent in our reserves. Biden shutting down our ability to maintain our supply lines is the problem.

Letting a little leak out of the tank isn't a problem, until someone shuts off the flow into the tank.

(Not to mention, we wouldn't have to worry about Russia, had Biden not mucked up the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and Russia couldn't have held out this long, except that we were funding both sides of the Ukraine war, at least until Gasprom shut the pipeline a couple days ago.)

I agree with ya whole heartedly on everything you said TRex, except for the first sentence.

Munitions and oil is everything in a conflict, whether it's a conflict on our land or a proxy war in Ukraine or the upcoming conflict in Taiwan.

And when you come in 2nd place, that's the first last place and that's where we'll be if we run too low on munitions and oil.

rick1 wrote:I agree with ya whole heartedly on everything you said TRex, except for the first sentence.
Munitions and oil is everything in a conflict, whether it's a conflict on our land or a proxy war in Ukraine or the upcoming conflict in Taiwan.
And when you come in 2nd place, that's the first last place and that's where we'll be if we run too low on munitions and oil.

I don't think I was clear. My point was that we aren't short on ammo because we sent some to Ukraine (that little skirmish shouldn't diminish our supply THAT much, anyway), we are short on ammo, because we didn't replenish our supplies as we shipped them out.

Everything about this conflict and a lot of other stuff is due to a malignant management mentality.

And I think I will leave that to the reader's imagination.
(Although I think I have been clear enough, in other threads.)

OK, now that you explained it a little more for me to understand, I get where you're coming from.

Russia says the western countries will freeze this winter if a price cap is put on oil:

https://fortune.com/2022/09/07/vladimir-putin-russia-warning-energy-price-caps-g7-countries/

rick1 wrote:Russia says the western countries will freeze this winter if a price cap is put on oil:

https://fortune.com/2022/09/07/vladimir-putin-russia-warning-energy-price-caps-g7-countries/

He is right. In fact, just what has been done already, may lead to some people freezing, or some houses so cold the pipes burst.

Ukraine has Russia's back against the wall. What will Putin do, will he use nukes or not.

I believe, for him to keep face with his people, he will more likely then not use some type of nuke.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/putin-warns-west-threat-resort-nuclear-weapons-not-bluff

rick1 wrote:Ukraine has Russia's back against the wall. What will Putin do, will he use nukes or not.

I believe, for him to keep face with his people, he will more likely then not use some type of nuke.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/putin-warns-west-threat-resort-nuclear-weapons-not-bluff

I'm thinking he will bomb a nuclear power plant and blame it on the other side. I'm pretty sure all he is waiting on is cold weather, either way I just don't see him hanging his head and walking away. He has to much pride for that.

I have noticed a lot of his important friends have been having accidents or that's the rumor..

Dave58 wrote:

rick1 wrote:Ukraine has Russia's back against the wall. What will Putin do, will he use nukes or not.
I believe, for him to keep face with his people, he will more likely then not use some type of nuke.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/putin-warns-west-threat-resort-nuclear-weapons-not-bluff

I'm thinking he will bomb a nuclear power plant and blame it on the other side. I'm pretty sure all he is waiting on is cold weather, either way I just don't see him hanging his head and walking away. He has to much pride for that.
I have noticed a lot of his important friends have been having accidents or that's the rumor..

Based on the article linked, above, and "friends having accidents" Putin will, soon, be in a position with no fresh troops, and no friends.

Whether he detonates a "tactical" nuke, or breaches the nuclear power plant, the damage will be confined to an area a few hundred miles around, but the panic will be worldwide.

Former top NATO General, "the west must be prepared for war with Russia,"

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/richard-shirreff-nato-west/2022/09/22/id/1088599/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM379212_09222022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0105028b48qy

rick1 wrote:Former top NATO General, "the west must be prepared for war with Russia,"

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/richard-shirreff-nato-west/2022/09/22/id/1088599/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM379212_09222022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0105028b48qy

From the linked article:

"The end stage, for as far as this war is concerned, must be victory for Ukraine and defeat for Russia. That is going to require the West and NATO to double down on the military support.

"The way to manage the risks is not to be faced down by them but be prepared to face up to them. That means being prepared for the worst case, which is war with Russia. Clearly the West isn't going to attack Russian sovereign territory. It's up to the Ukrainians to fight the war they want to fight with Russia. But we in the west, we in NATO must ramp up our capability and be prepared for the worst case."

I agree. The only way to avoid war is to be completely ready for it.
The fastest way to end up in a war, is to show weakness.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1574745422354325505?s=20&t=Wi0SPdrzZClXnnnc19udlw

This will cause problems here this winter

Dave58 wrote:https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1574745422354325505?s=20&t=Wi0SPdrzZClXnnnc19udlw

This will cause problems here this winter

I don't know why it would cause problems, here.
The gas leak shown is somewhere North of Germany.

Our failure to build infrastructure limits, not only the amount of gas we have available to us, but the amount we can ship to them. Shipping gas to them raises our prices by a few percent. Their lack of gas will more than double (probably more than quadruple) the price, over there.

TRex2 wrote:

Dave58 wrote:https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1574745422354325505?s=20&t=Wi0SPdrzZClXnnnc19udlw

This will cause problems here this winter

I don't know why it would cause problems, here.
The gas leak shown is somewhere North of Germany.

Our failure to build infrastructure limits, not only the amount of gas we have available to us, but the amount we can ship to them. Shipping gas to them raises our prices by a few percent. Their lack of gas will more than double (probably more than quadruple) the price, over there.

What we send to them will this winter will cause the price to raise here

Dave58 wrote:

TRex2 wrote:

Dave58 wrote:https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1574745422354325505?s=20&t=Wi0SPdrzZClXnnnc19udlw

This will cause problems here this winter

I don't know why it would cause problems, here.
The gas leak shown is somewhere North of Germany.

Our failure to build infrastructure limits, not only the amount of gas we have available to us, but the amount we can ship to them. Shipping gas to them raises our prices by a few percent. Their lack of gas will more than double (probably more than quadruple) the price, over there.

What we send to them will this winter will cause the price to raise here

Certainly, it will, but not as much as some people think it will.

What I didn't know, when I wrote that, yesterday, is that we were the ones to blow up the pipeline. Tucker Carlson made a good case, last night, that we were the ones who blew it up.

The nature of Cold War being what it is, we will never know for certain, but I think it is evident enough to call it. And evident enough that Putin will probably retaliate, in kind.

That might get rough, this winter.

I heard Biden's comment about taking care of the pipe line. There is no doubt that who ever is running the show ( My guess is WEF ) is not going to back off until a lot of people die

Dave58 wrote:I heard Biden's comment about taking care of the pipe line. There is no doubt that who ever is running the show ( My guess is WEF ) is not going to back off until a lot of people die

Well, I am fairly certain the Chain of Command goes from Susan Rice (acting as Chief Operations Officer) to Barrack Obama ( as Chairman). From there, I can't tell. Maybe to the WEF, as you guessed, or maybe to the CCP, which is what I would guess.

Very interesting new weapon that Russia has, it's called the poseidon torpedo.

The article is from May 2022:

https://www.disclose.tv/russias-poseidon-torpedoes-for-nuclear-tsunamis/

rick1 wrote:Very interesting new weapon that Russia has, it's called the poseidon torpedo.
The article is from May 2022:
https://www.disclose.tv/russias-poseidon-torpedoes-for-nuclear-tsunamis/

Yeah, I have seen this, before.
You have found the German and Russian versions of Washington Post.
Less reliable than the National Enquirer.
There are a few things that are not likely to be true.

Yes, it can probably go a long way, and run fast, but the propulsion spec's given don't seem plausible. I would suggest half of that speed, and half of that distance.

Yes, a nuclear explosion will create a tsunami, but it won't be 500 meters high, nor will it be radioactive, except in the immediate vicinity of the detonation. At 5 miles, it will be a small, non radioactive tsunami. To destroy and Aircraft Carrier it would have to detonate within 1000 meters of the ship. Basically, if they ran it into a Carrier Battle Group, they would destroy several ships, but not all of them.

Just found this

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11274515/Russian-nuclear-military-train-seen-possible-warning-West.html

Dave58 wrote:Just found this

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11274515/Russian-nuclear-military-train-seen-possible-warning-West.html

Start digging (deep) your bunkers, WW-3 on its way.

Sooner or later Russia or NATO is going to do something ignorant. I believe both sides has tunnel vision now and they are not going to change course until somebody says " O shit what have we done"..

Everyday that goes by without a nuke/EMP is a plus for folks like us..

Keep doing the things time is very short.......

A nuclear sub from Russia is missing:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-nuclear-submarine-armed-doomsday-weapon-disappears-arctic-harbor-report

A top-of-the-line Russian nuclear-powered submarine has gone missing from its harbor in the Arctic along with its rumored "doomsday weapon," according to multiple reports.

NATO has reportedly warned members that Russia's Belgorod submarine no longer appeared to be operating out of its White Sea base, where it has been active since July.

ReadyMom wrote:A nuclear sub from Russia is missing:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-nuclear-submarine-armed-doomsday-weapon-disappears-arctic-harbor-report

A top-of-the-line Russian nuclear-powered submarine has gone missing from its harbor in the Arctic along with its rumored "doomsday weapon," according to multiple reports.

NATO has reportedly warned members that Russia's Belgorod submarine no longer appeared to be operating out of its White Sea base, where it has been active since July.

The question, though, is: is it stalking off of one of our coasts, or has it joined the Kirsk?

Ukraine is going dark and without heat, winter is setting in and Russia is escalating its strikes on the power grid:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-ukraine-war/2022/10/22/id/1092965/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM391497_10222022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010102d4giyv

rick1 wrote:Ukraine is going dark and without heat, winter is setting in and Russia is escalating its strikes on the power grid:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-ukraine-war/2022/10/22/id/1092965/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM391497_10222022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010102d4giyv

Scorched Earth Warfare?

Russia is using Irainian Drones because it is running out of missiles.
They are also having some trouble gaining enough recruits and conscripts to mount the offensive we expect to happen this winter.

TRex2 wrote:

rick1 wrote:Ukraine is going dark and without heat, winter is setting in and Russia is escalating its strikes on the power grid:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-ukraine-war/2022/10/22/id/1092965/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM391497_10222022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010102d4giyv

Scorched Earth Warfare?

Russia is using Irainian Drones because it is running out of missiles.
They are also having some trouble gaining enough recruits and conscripts to mount the offensive we expect to happen this winter.

They don't need Russian troops, Iranian troops are on the ground.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/20/iranian-troops-are-ground-ukraine-helping-russia-d/

1 step closer, tic-toc:

https://www.newsmax.com/globaltalk/tactical-nuclear-weapons/2022/10/29/id/1093989/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM394261_10292022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010104e59307

rick1 wrote:1 step closer, tic-toc:

https://www.newsmax.com/globaltalk/tactical-nuclear-weapons/2022/10/29/id/1093989/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM394261_10292022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010104e59307

The temperature is raising:

https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/russia-british-navy/2022/10/29/id/1093990/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM393500_10292022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010104zv1vqo

If Russia can get Europe to back down and let them gain control of the Dunbass region, they will control Europe forever.

(Well, for the few years remaining on my calendar, anyway.)

Oops...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1697080/russia-poland-missle-dead-NATO-state-Ukraine-war-pictures-world-war-3

OOPS  

I'm ready to hunker in my bunker

rick1 wrote:OOPS  

I'm ready to hunker in my bunker

rick1 wrote:OOPS  

I'm ready to hunker in my bunker

Oh well, I'm out of my bunker. This may have been a Ukraine air defense missile:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-ukraine-war/2022/11/16/id/1096616/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM400845_11162022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0105028bctu5

rick1 wrote:

rick1 wrote:OOPS  

I'm ready to hunker in my bunker

Oh well, I'm out of my bunker. This may have been a Ukraine air defense missile:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-ukraine-war/2022/11/16/id/1096616/?ns_mail_uid=ed113837-94a1-4b8d-8fab-a7f206fd5031&ns_mail_job=DM400845_11162022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0105028bctu5

I decided, years ago, not to hide in my bunker, until I see the incoming missiles.

That said, I think my future travels will be restricted to where I can return, home, with whatever gas is in my tank at any instant in time it becomes necessary to return to home.

Sounds like desperation may be setting in

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/german-politicians-and-military-chiefs-suggest-return-of-conscription

Dave58 wrote:Sounds like desperation may be setting in

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/german-politicians-and-military-chiefs-suggest-return-of-conscription

Desperation, yes, but not military desperation.

My best guess:
They are about 20 years ahead of us, as a nation in collapse. Their people no longer have any interest in any civic duties. Not much interest in work, among the young, either. A population that is in a collective funk.

Russia now moving nukes to Belarus, Ukraine and western EU may be in more trouble then they think:

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/russia-tactical-nuclear-weapons-belarus-98171526

rick1 wrote:Russia now moving nukes to Belarus, Ukraine and western EU may be in more trouble then they think:

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/russia-tactical-nuclear-weapons-belarus-98171526

Well, according to the article, he hasn't got them there, yet.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement that he intends to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus appears to be another attempt to raise the stakes in the conflict in Ukraine.

Does look like they are on their way.

This is why The Left has installed their own dictator in the Belarus government, and prevented the election of any other leader. (The only one who has run against him is in prison. Imprisoned one day after announcing he intended to run against their dictator.)

As I was reading up on Belarus, I found it interesting: everything that the propaganda channels have been falsely accusing Prez Z of, they have actually been doing.

Like they took a page out of the American Left's playbook.

TRex2 wrote:

rick1 wrote:Very interesting new weapon that Russia has, it's called the poseidon torpedo.
The article is from May 2022:
https://www.disclose.tv/russias-poseidon-torpedoes-for-nuclear-tsunamis/

Yeah, I have seen this, before.
You have found the German and Russian versions of Washington Post.
Less reliable than the National Enquirer.
There are a few things that are not likely to be true.

Yes, it can probably go a long way, and run fast, but the propulsion spec's given don't seem plausible. I would suggest half of that speed, and half of that distance.

Yes, a nuclear explosion will create a tsunami, but it won't be 500 meters high, nor will it be radioactive, except in the immediate vicinity of the detonation. At 5 miles, it will be a small, non radioactive tsunami. To destroy and Aircraft Carrier it would have to detonate within 1000 meters of the ship. Basically, if they ran it into a Carrier Battle Group, they would destroy several ships, but not all of them.

Now N.Korea is saying they have one of them there tsunami generatin' torpedoes.
https://www.38north.org/2023/04/north-koreas-new-unmanned-underwater-nuclear-attack-craft-red-october-or-white-elephant/
Intel assessment is unimpressive, and mostly agrees with what I said.

Based on what has been gleaned so far about the Haeil, it would still be substantially inferior to North Korea’s nuclear-armed ballistic and cruise missiles in terms of time-to-target, accuracy and lethality. Its range limits it to coastal targets in South Korea and southeast Japan. Although this means it would not be subject to allied air and missile defenses, it would still be vulnerable to engagement by anti-submarine warfare (ASW) assets. North Korea claimed this weapon could attack “naval striker groups,” but it is too slow to pose a viable threat to ships that are underway and thus probably limited to attacking ports and known anchorages.

Conventional drive, for underwater vessels, face serious limitations.

Pyongyang has not described the Haeil’s propulsion type, but it almost certainly relies on batteries. The North claimed a 600-km range and 41.5-hour endurance (thus, a 7.8-knot average cruising speed) for the March 25-27 Haeil test.

N.Korea is boasting a "solid propellant" drive, but any non battery, non nuclear, "propellent" would cause the device to leave a trail of bubbles. A nuclear drive would leave a heat trail.

The Institute for Science and International Security has assessed that warhead as “feasible for North Korea’s experience and number of underground tests” and its yield “is likely in the range of 10 kilotons” (kt). Contrary to Pyongyang’s claims, a warhead of this yield detonated underwater (or even a very much larger one) would not produce a “tsunami.” Instead, a 10-kt warhead would throw up and irradiate a column of as much as one million tons of water that would fall out over an area of several miles—severely contaminating ships and land areas within that zone.

Very annoying.
The device, even with these limitations, would still be strategically important:

Pyongyang might also see the Haeil as a “dead hand” option, ensuring some sort of nuclear retaliation in the event that a) an allied disarming strike against its missile force was somehow successful, or b) North Korea had lost, or was doomed to lose, a conventional war or had suffered nuclear devastation.

I do not agree with everything the so called "experts" have said about this torpedo, but most of it seems reasonable.