Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Ethnic cleansing - one of the oldest play's in the Russian playbook:

Ukraine has accused Russia of orchestrating a "mass deportation" of residents in the Kherson region, which is has illegally occupied for months and annexed after a sham referendum in late September....
"Putin's martial law in the annexed regions of Ukraine is preparation for the mass deportation of the Ukrainian population to depressed areas of Russia in order to change the ethnic composition of the occupied territory," Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, said on Wednesday...
Russian authorities said almost 5 million Ukrainian residents have relocated to Russia since the invasion in February.

Ukraine updates: 'Mass deportation' underway in Kherson – DW – 10/20/2022
 
George HW Bush did and put together a proposed package to help out Russia and the former republics after the fall of the USSR. Congress refused to fund it.
Support for EAstern European Democracies act of 1989 (after Poland andn Hungary opened their borders) and the related Freedom Support Act of 1992 after the rest of the Communist Bloc had turned, was passed and fully funded and committed see https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/1641. Executive Summary: Fiscal Year 2010 Report on U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia

and see especially The Former Soviet Union and U.S. Foreign Assistance in 1992: The Role of Congress

“Members of Congress took the lead on this issue by pressuring the Administration to submit a legislative proposal. The House Foreign Affairs Committee even crafted and, on March 24, 1992, introduced its own authorization bill for the region. On April 1, 1992, President Bush announced the Administration's "comprehensive" legislation, the Freedom Support Act. As Congress debated the Administration bill, attention focused on several key issues. Should the United States assist the former Soviet Union, and, if so, how much money should the country provide? How much freedom should the Administration have to carry out an assistance program for the region? What kind of conditions must the new states meet in order to be eligible for assistance? What specific programs should the U.S. support with its funding? As the bill moved through committee and floor debate, Congress molded and transformed the Administration bill in critical ways. Unlike the Administration, Congress established specific levels of funding. It placed some restrictions on Administration flexibility. It recommended criteria that countries should follow to be eligible for assistance and established prohibitions on assistance. Finally, Congress listed a range of programs, some of which were recommended, others clear priorities, for adoption by the Administration. Like most important and controversial legislation, passage of the Freedom Support Act was a process affected by diverse and conflicting interests. The House and Senate took different approaches to the bill. The bipartisan support of congressional leaders was considered crucial to the success of the legislation. Multiple committee jurisdiction was resolved, but not without some friction. Perhaps the most dramatic conflict affecting the legislation was that caused by those who held the bill hostage to the passage of domestic economic legislation. In the end, Congress produced a policy for the United States to follow in its efforts to influence the former Soviet Union. The Freedom Support Act was approved by the Senate on July 2, 1992, by a 76-20 vote. The House approved the bill on August 6, 1992 by a 255-164 vote. The Senate passed the conference report on October 1 and the House followed on October 3. The President signed the Freedom Support Act into law ( P.L. 102-511 ) on October 25.”
 
It is relatively easy to change the gauge of the tracks. The hard part is the expense of replacing/refitting all the locomotives and rolling stock. I'd guess it will be done in a piecemeal fashion, so will take years to complete - if ever.
The track gauge is different. The loading gauge is the same.

I put a link up to this workstream on the Energy News page a week ago. Maybe I'll dig it out. There are two 'corridors' affected. This is part of the regular EU long term infrastructure investment programmes. Much the same is happening with the railtracks between Poland and the Baltics and Finland, plus they get a TGV.
 
Last edited:
“George HW Bush did and put together a proposed package to help out Russia and the former republics after the fall of the USSR. Congress refused to fund it.”

Democratic House and Senate in an era where Democratic Party was typically against any US foreign intervention.
The opposition to those programmes was led more by the right wing than the left wing. Much of the funding was deleted to get the bills through the legislature. Absent strong US involvement the various EU and NATO packages towards Russia fizzled.
 
Last edited:
Support for EAstern European Democracies act of 1989 (after Poland andn Hungary opened their borders) and the related Freedom Support Act of 1992 after the rest of the Communist Bloc had turned, was passed and fully funded and committed see https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/1641. Executive Summary: Fiscal Year 2010 Report on U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia

and see especially The Former Soviet Union and U.S. Foreign Assistance in 1992: The Role of Congress

“Members of Congress took the lead on this issue by pressuring the Administration to submit a legislative proposal. The House Foreign Affairs Committee even crafted and, on March 24, 1992, introduced its own authorization bill for the region. On April 1, 1992, President Bush announced the Administration's "comprehensive" legislation, the Freedom Support Act. As Congress debated the Administration bill, attention focused on several key issues. Should the United States assist the former Soviet Union, and, if so, how much money should the country provide? How much freedom should the Administration have to carry out an assistance program for the region? What kind of conditions must the new states meet in order to be eligible for assistance? What specific programs should the U.S. support with its funding? As the bill moved through committee and floor debate, Congress molded and transformed the Administration bill in critical ways. Unlike the Administration, Congress established specific levels of funding. It placed some restrictions on Administration flexibility. It recommended criteria that countries should follow to be eligible for assistance and established prohibitions on assistance. Finally, Congress listed a range of programs, some of which were recommended, others clear priorities, for adoption by the Administration. Like most important and controversial legislation, passage of the Freedom Support Act was a process affected by diverse and conflicting interests. The House and Senate took different approaches to the bill. The bipartisan support of congressional leaders was considered crucial to the success of the legislation. Multiple committee jurisdiction was resolved, but not without some friction. Perhaps the most dramatic conflict affecting the legislation was that caused by those who held the bill hostage to the passage of domestic economic legislation. In the end, Congress produced a policy for the United States to follow in its efforts to influence the former Soviet Union. The Freedom Support Act was approved by the Senate on July 2, 1992, by a 76-20 vote. The House approved the bill on August 6, 1992 by a 255-164 vote. The Senate passed the conference report on October 1 and the House followed on October 3. The President signed the Freedom Support Act into law ( P.L. 102-511 ) on October 25.”

I thought nothing got passed, but I stand corrected. In any case, it was way too little to make a difference, at least with Russia.
 
OIL TANKERS - SHORTER TERM
Read this carefully. Note the EU oil sanctions ratchet up a notch in December and that is the step that is being discussed here

RAIL UKRAINE - LONGER TERM MOVES
Here are the articles I was thinking about that explains the track gauge (and perhaps also a loading gauge) change proposals for Ukraine - note this would all be EU funded. My understanding is that this is primarily a track gauge issue, but at one point they also mention loading gauge - I think that is an error but I am not sure. There will also be signalling, loco voltage, etc issues as EU progressively harmonises all that as well..



This is an example of some of the experimentation going on - Ukraine to Spain, to Poland, etc with explanations of the issues at present




NOTE aso Russia shipping heavy stuff into Crimea over Kerch rail - there is only one thing they need cement for right now in that area
 
Never understood why/how the UK goes through so many PMs.
Perhaps this crop of PMs have a few too many skeletons in the closet:


 
Perhaps this crop of PMs have a few too many skeletons in the closet:


Russia has and probably still is doing the exact same thing with the American Republican party. Look at how republicans are saying they wont support Ukraine after the election. Maybe Canadian Conservatives as well but I have no proof of that. However Canadian right wing talk shows sound the same and push the same rhetoric as the Repubs.
 
Then an attack on the city to be blamed on Ukraine with for example chemical weapons or even simple artillery would be a horrible result.

Conventional Artillery wouldn't be suitable for Russian objectives in a withdrawal. which is to make the area unoccupiable by Ukraine, and to provide a physical buffer to Crimea. Two obvious moves include:
  1. area denial via persistent chemical weapons (including booby traps), or
  2. 'salting the earth' with a radiological (dirty) weapon
Of these two options, I think Putin would more likely use #1, since radiological weapon effects happen over months, not minutes (an assaut of Crimea could still be conducted, then count the human costs later).

Another option being discussed recently, the flooding of Kherson via breaching the upstream dam, would be a temporary measure in terms of military effect. Repairs could be made rapidly, which would make the area suitable to stage the invasion of Crimea.

Nasty business this war. I hope Ukraine seals off escape routes to the NE along the Azov sea coast before making the final assault on Kherson. Grab the Russians by the belt buckle, and don't give them room to throw haymakers. If the Russians intend to use CBRN weapons, make it expensive, and futile.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be easy to announce an evacuation which would clear out the Russian sympathizers and then get most of the troops out. Then an attack on the city to be blamed on Ukraine [...]
The Mayor of Mykolaiv said the same thing:

I think there is an idea [...] they want to hit the city by themselves and saying that these are Ukrainians who are attacking their cities ...

I still don't believe it but kudos to you for being on the same wavelength as the mayor of Mykolaiv.