Russian missiles pounded energy infrastructure across Ukraine again on Wednesday, leaving most Ukrainians without power, according to the country’s Energy Ministry.
“Today’s missile attack led to a temporary blackout of all nuclear, most thermal, and hydroelectric power plants. Power transmission facilities were also hit,” the Ukrainian Energy Ministry said, according to Interfax Ukraine.
The ministry said that as a result, the “vast majority” of electricity consumers in Ukraine are facing outages and emergency blackouts. It said that work was being done to repair the blackouts but said that it will take time.
Moldova also experienced blackouts as a result of the strikes, as much of its energy infrastructure is connected with Ukraine’s. “We have massive power outages across the country,” said Moldova’s Infrastructure Minister Andrei Spinu, according to The Associated Press.
Last week, Ukraine’s prime minister said Russian missile strikes across Ukraine disabled nearly half of the country’s energy infrastructure, and Kyiv reportedly told its Western backers that it might not be able to recover from more Russian strikes on the power grid.
Russia had previously avoided the large-scale targeting of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure but began employing the tactic in October after the truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge, which connects Crimea to the Russian mainland.
The Russian attacks have left Ukrainian civilians in a desperate situation as they cannot power or heat their homes as winter is approaching and temperatures continue to drop. The head of YASNO, a private energy provider in Ukraine, said that Ukrainians will most likely have to live with blackouts until the end of March.
All around the world, countless analysts and observers have understood for months that Ukraine would be facing this or something similarly awful if a settlement adequately addressing Russia’s security requirements wasn’t reached. Did the US-NATO geniuses who have been discouraging (or prohibiting!) negotiations not understand this? Or did they just not care? Or both?
It’s been pretty obvious from February 24 on that either “the west” or “Russia” will end up rebuilding Ukraine.
The most likely scenario, in my view, is that “the west” will end up rebuilding Ukraine after the Russians withdraw and there’s a reasonably stable ceasefire in place.
There are three scenarios under which “Russia” ends up rebuilding it:
1) They conquer and hold it;
2) They get beat so badly that they can be extorted for reparations as part of the settlement;
3) The post-ceasefire era includes a Ukrainian turn toward Russian patronage similar to the pre-2014 era.
If there was a betting market on this, I’d buy shares of “the west rebuilds it after the Russian withdrawal ceasefire.” And I might hedge that with a few shares of the third variant of “Russia rebuilds it.”
Russian withdrawal? You keep suggesting that you think that’s likely, Thomas. If you mean a major, large-scale withdrawal from much of the territory Russia currently holds, I think that’s very unlikely.
I don’t think it at all likely that either Russia or the West will be responsible for rebuilding more than a portion of Ukraine in the wake of this mess, because I think it’s unlikely that either will be in control of more than part of that whatever-it-is that has never been a unified nation and probably never could be.
The chances of Russia being willing to give up Crimea, the Donbas republics or (at least) the portions of the other two oblasts that are integral to the land bridge seem quite minimal. And I don’t think Kiev and the West can force that outcome. They can try, of course, but doing so could easily trigger carnage in Europe that would make what we’ve seen so far look like warmup skirmishing.
Ukraine west of the Dnieper? I dunno. Despite what some of my friends seem to think, Shoigu and Surovikin aren’t sending me daily briefings or copies of their strategic plans. Certainly a very large segment of the Russian public would like to see Nikolaev and Odessa back in the fold, but it would be a huge step beyond what has happened so far. It wouldn’t be possible with the limited forces originally committed, which has been extremely strained already. With the addition of 200K-300K mobilized reserves? Maybe, but still a big, big step.
I think Ukraine is most likely to end up partitioned, with the two real parties to this conflict carrying the burdens of rebuilding their respective pieces. More of your tax money and mine.
“Russian withdrawal? You keep suggesting that you think that’s likely, Thomas.”
To clarify, the “withdrawal” I refer to would leave the LPR and DPR, as well as possibly a land corridor connecting them to Crimea along the Azov coast in Zaporizhzia, in Russian hands. I’m talking about “withdrawal” from the rest of Ukraine.
I don’t consider that unlikely.
In fact, barring some major and very unlikely change in the fundamentals of force composition — such as “the west” completely abandoning Ukraine, or “Russia” going to full mobilization — I consider it both inevitable and likely to have happened no later than the first anniversary of the invasion, and quite possibly by (Orthodox) Christmas.
At this point, “the west” is unlikely to completely abandon Ukraine because the costs of supporting Ukraine, while considerable, are apparently not terrible enough to have resulted in “existentially threatening” (to the involved regimes) unrest.
And “Russia” is unlikely to fully mobilize because even a small “partial mobilization” yielded likely disconcerting information about prospective “existentially threatening” (to the regime) domestic unrest if it goes all the way.
The Ukrainian forces are going to advance as far as they can, and the Russian presence is going to contract as much as it has to. The balance point between those two imperatives seems likely to correspond to the general contours of LPR/DPR. I won’t be surprised if there’s some last-minute scrapping for control of the land corridor aspect, which the Russian forces may or may not be able to hold.
I am aware of no evidence suggesting any such thing. On the contrary, it appears to me that the protests and resistance to partial mobilization have been on a scale that might be expected in almost any society.
I am aware of no evidence suggesting any such thing. On the contrary, it appears to me that the protests and resistance to partial mobilization have been on a scale that might be expected in almost any society.
To clarify, the “withdrawal” I refer to would leave the LPR and DPR, as well as possibly a land corridor connecting them to Crimea along the Azov coast in Zaporizhzia, in Russian hands. I’m talking about “withdrawal” from the rest of Ukraine.
You do realize, don’t you, that what you describe (LPR and DPR, land corridor to Crimea) along with Crimea itself, is pretty much all that Russia has taken, in terms of territory? If Russia is not going to “withdraw” from those place, it is not going to withdraw at all. Unless it takes even more territory, which you seem to think is not going to happen.
Your “clarification” is anything but!
Since February, the Russian forces haven’t “taken” Crimea, the LPR, or DPR. They’ve been working on “securing” LPR and DPR, which have been de facto independent of Ukraine and de facto part of Russia, but under constant attack by Ukraine, for eight years.
What the Russian forces have “taken” — and are now in the process of “withdrawing from” — are e.g. parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzia oblasts.
Other than possibly a land corridor connecting LPR/DPR to Crimea, the most the Russian regime is going to get out of this war is a cessation of Ukrainian attempts to re-take LPR/DPR, which are now de jure part of Russia rather than merely being Russia proxy war pawns.
That’s a fundamentally-flawed characterization of the Donbas republics. Their 2014 protests and rebellion against the post-coup assaults by the Kiev regime were clearly of their peoples’ own volition, as is also true of the declarations of independence.
“Their 2014 protests and rebellion against the post-coup assaults by the Kiev regime were clearly of their peoples’ own volition”
Well, they were clearly of SOME of their peoples’ own volition. It’s not obvious that the secessions have ever enjoyed anything close to unanimous support. And oddly, they seem to have been able to find even enough willing and able Ukrainians to fill top government posts. The DPR’s deputy prime minister and minister of defence were both born in Moscow.
And how is it that a secession means the seceding parties aren’t proxy war pawns?
Of course support wasn’t unanimous, and how close to unanimity it was can’t be determined with certainty. It is quite certain, though, that secession was supported by large majorities. Frankly, it’s silly and pointless to argue about that
I assume you meant they have not been able.
C’mon man. You know very well that a strong majority of the people of the Donbas are ethnically and linguistically Russian and consider themselves culturally Russian. It’s perfectly natural that Russia-born citizens hold public office.
Ilhan Omar was born in Somalia. Do you think she serves in the Congress of the United States because the people of Minneapolis have has a hard time finding native-born Americans willing to serve?
“And how is it that a secession means the seceding parties aren’t proxy war pawns?”
Straw man. “A” secession means nothing of the kind, of course, and I neither said nor implied that it does.
“C’mon man. You know very well that a strong majority of the people of the Donbas are ethnically and linguistically Russian and consider themselves culturally Russian. ”
I’ve seen various statistical claims on that characterization, ranging from large minority to small majority to large minority. And considering one’s self “culturally Russian” doesn’t automatically map to a desire to be ruled from Moscow any more than considering one’s self racially white automatically maps to Ku Klux Klan membership.
As for strawmen, you’re the one who brought up the secession as a counter to the claim that the Russian regime used the LPR/DPR regimes as proxy war pawns for eight years.
the secession ≠ a secession
Do you really need some useless analysis from some propagandist to point out obvious genetic fact? Before the imperial occupation all Ukrainians identified closely with Russia because Ukraine is Russia.
The political segregation, imperial propaganda and brainwashing, murder of journalists and political activists have taken it’s toll but Ukraine will never be imperial vassal state. Many have tried before to occupy Ukraine and all failed. Rus don’t give up their lands.
“Ukraine will never be imperial vassal state.”
You just claimed it IS an imperial (Russian) vassal state.
Ukraine is Russia. Anglo-American propaganda have been maintaining that narrative for almost 100 years.
You are missing the point. Again, what you are saying is that Russia will probably hold on to the LPR (which it currently controls almost all of) and the DPR (which it currently controls most of), Crimea, and the land bridge connecting Crimea to the LPR and DPR (which land bridge, by the way, is comprised of parts of the K and Z oblasts). Regardless of when each one was “taken” or what their status was pre Feb 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_annexation_of_Donetsk,_Kherson,_Luhansk_and_Zaporizhzhia_oblasts#/media/File:Ukraine_disputed_regions.svg
If Russia succeeds in conquering, they will leave Ukraine in ruins. Just like they did to Eastern Europe at the end of WW2.
Edit: Disqus keeps breaking this post. In order, the photos are Mariupol, Dresden, Hiroshima and Fallujah.
Yes, Ukraine is very much in danger of being left in ruins. Some of it is already wrecked. The wrecking will continue as long as the war does. That’s what happens in wars.
If you don’t like that, and you shouldn’t like it, you should be working to encourage the only action that can possibly limit the suffering and destruction taking place in Ukraine: Negotiation
Mariupol
Dresden
Hiroshima
Fallujah
More likely the West will tire of their demanding petulant Ukrainian child. The weapon and cash gravy train will stop. Sure, Ukraine can and will go massively into debt but with what collateral?
No, it will not.
“More likely” seems to mean “unlike ever before in history.”
The west’s demanding petulant Israeli child is still on the teat nearly 75 years after its birth. What makes you think a year is going to be the extent of the Ukraine mammary activity?
South Vietnam? Afghanistan?
It’s not as if the West has never abandoned its puppet regimes in the past. Also, Israel never faced a foe like Russia. And Israel itself is and was a more robust nation state than the Kiev-based regime is.
“The west” spent about 30 years on Vietnam and 20 years on Afghanistan before giving up.
And at the moment, Ukraine for “the west” is a lot more like Vietnam between 1954-65 or Afghanistan 1979-89 than like Vietnam 1965-72, or Afghanistan 2001-2021. It’s mostly gear for proxies, not boots on the ground (yet).
Ukraine is the kind of thing “the west” can do for a long time.
But the bill is a lot higher. Directly in terms of money and material. And indirectly as the sanctions against Russia are costing the West, too. And the risk of WWIII is a lot higher too, as the war in the Ukraine is one that the Russians can’t afford to lose, unlike the war in Vietnam (or the one in Afghanistan). I’m also not so sure that the PTB in the West can keep up the full throated, completely full of crap, propaganda snow job over their populace that is required for the war in the Ukraine. The “splendid little” proxy wars in Vietnam pre ’65 and Afghanistan in the Seventies and Eighties were done on the cheap. The one in Vietnam was done on the QT as well. Counterinsurgency (S VN) and insurgency (Afgh) wars are much cheaper in every way than is a conventional war against Russia right on its borders. And in neither other case was the strategically important part of the US empire, namely, Europe, involved. The US could more or less fight its little colonial wars with only minor, or symbolic, support (or none at all) from NATO, and no impact on its European allies.
I don’t think the West has ever done “a thing” like the Ukraine before. Not since WWII or, perhaps, Korea.
Love that description of IsraHell Thomas 😄
Russia will only rebuild the areas they may keep. West will build the rest but the West will also turn Ukraine into a real military might that Russia will never ever dare to invade again.
That seems likely, but it’s not certain. Ukraine turned west (due to significant meddling that “coup” is not an unreasonable descriptor for) circa 2014.
There’s no guarantee it won’t turn east again at some point, in the same way.
I tend to agree with you Thomas, after ZelBoy has exposed himself as the type of “ leader” he is…
Ukraine would suffer from a replay of 2014 were it to turn east. I would put it in the category of elephants learning to use their ears to fly.
Regarding #2, you obviously have not been watching Douglas MacGregor’s recent YouTube videos. It’s the Ukrainians who are on the ropes, despite their valor and tenacity.
“If you disagree with me, you obviously haven’t watched the videos I’ve watched” isn’t very good reasoning.
So far as I can tell, neither side is “on the ropes,” or likely to be.
Come on, Tom, you’re being disingenuous.
My usual visceral reaction to Macgregor is embarrassment on his behalf, until I realize that he’s probably just exploiting the “pick a niche and tell them what they want to hear” market for talking heads rather than actually being as goddamn dumb as his statements would indicate if one took them at face value.
https://youtu.be/DE__asBx8xk
The Russians have shown absolutely no interest in conquering Ukraine. Your viewpoint is based on nothing but western propaganda.
Why do you fantasize that I believe the Russians have shown an interest in conquering Ukraine?
“1) They conquer and hold it;”
This is not a statement even of any likely projected reality apart from western propaganda. It’s not a possibility in any real world. If you don’t believe it could be true, why make it part of the list?
By the way, I don’t fantasize about Ukraine or this discussion. Your three bullet points are all pure fantasy.
I listed the three conditions under which Russia would build Ukraine.
And then I dismissed both “Russia conquers Ukraine” and “Russia loses so badly it can only get a ceasefire if it pays reparations.”
And I have routinely and without deviation dismissed the first one since early in the war.
My first reason for dismissing it was because I didn’t believe conquering Ukraine was Putin’s objective. At the time of the supposedly “stalled offensive” outside Kyiv, my publicly expressed opinion was that that whole move was a strategic feint to tie Ukrainian troops down in the west while the Russians worked on their real objectives in Donetsk/Luhansk.
Later it also became obvious that the Russian forces weren’t up to conquering Ukraine even if that was the objective.
I’ve also dismissed the idea that the Ukrainian forces are going to dislodge the Russian forces from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, etc. and hold a victory parade in Red Square with Putin’s head on a pike.
I deal in realism.
My apologies for misreading your intent with the post I responded to.
Highly unlikely. First, the so-called ‘west’ doesn’t rebuild anything. In 8 years of occupation, the imperials only invested into military infrastructure and Russians wiped out pretty much all of it in few months. That speaks volumes of conventional military capabilities of imperial forces.
Chance of Russia withdrawing is zero. This is all or nothing and you know what ‘nothing’ means. And reparations? Really? lol
On the other hand, think of how much lower the Ukrainians’ carbon emissions will now be this winter. Greta will be most pleased!
That’s dark … like Ukraine.
oof
The goal of US/UK oligarchy was to destroy the economic cooperation between Russia and EU. They don’t care about Ukrainians. A lot of European businesses are already relocated from Europe to US. They don’t talk much about that, but this recent European investment into US economy is hundreds of billions and unlike the speculative capital, this investment is in the real industry. The further escalation will make US only stronger and EU weaker and more dependent upon US. That is exactly what they wanted. So, American investment into Ukraine was very much profitable. EU is the main loser.
Any benefit for the US economy is likely to be short-lived. European governments will fall if they persist in subjecting their populations to impossibly-high prices for US energy imports — so they won’t. And the European manufacturers that move to the US are substantially dependent on their European markets for revenue, and those markets are being squeezed in ways that will limit purchasing power significantly.
Quite likely result of this is a breakup of the European Union, which will produce other unintended consequences.
NATO first, IMHO. And you’re right; the EU is almost certainly going to suffer (further) serious damage. I don’t know how quickly either of those entities may collapse, but they are dependent on coordinated cooperation that probably can’t survive a mess like this one. Unless, of course, powerful member states rebel soon.
You need to drop NATO/US out of your narrative. Ukranians are the ones fighting Russia off. They will determine when they had enough.
Lie. And everyone here knows it. Not sure what you think you are accomplishing, with your obviously dishonest trolling.
What jokes you tell. You should visit sites where the participants get all their facts from CNN.
Bear, how about politicalwire.com? 😉
Wow!! I just read an article there and read the comments. Every one of them sounded like they were cloned from one Don Julio.
😂 Wars, I HEAR YA! I go there once in a while for chuckles and occasionally leave a comment just to piss ‘em off 😁
” Russia’s security requirements” More commonly knows as Russia reasons for aggression. Russia has the third largest military in world and they think that little Ukraine is a threat!! What a bunch of clowns. Little wonder why the USSR fell apart and Warsaw pack countries rushed to join NATO.
Yes, Kenneth. Let’s stipulate for the moment that the invasion of Ukraine is “aggression.”
You’re absolutely correct: The reason for the invasion is that Russian leaders decided that it was necessary for Russian national security, because the US-NATO has stubbornly refused to address the issue in any way they found acceptable, and has continued its relentless campaign to surround, provoke, threaten and weaken their nation.
Very good. You’re figuring it out.
The thing transcends by a far sight “rebuilding Ukraine”. Ukraine is just a theatre, a battleground. Russia shall have defeated NATO, much as the USA in ’46 had defeated the AXIS, and from thence will begin The Russian Century … and the long looked for defeat of Western capitalism/scientism and its squalid post-modern culture … and the prospect of rebuilding … hope in civilization.
Lies and distortions in the service of lies accomplish little beyond reaffirming the US government’s Big Lies.
Not sure why the pro Ukies continue to post this kind of nonsense. Everyone here knows the full story behind the alleged Russian “aggression.” And the threat that a NATO-ized Ukraine posed to Russia. Merely repeating the full of crap, Western MSM approved, Kiev Neo Nazi regime/NATO propaganda version of what happened, as if it were a fact, doesn’t convince anyone here. And contributes nothing to the conversation. It is annoying, if that is the goal.
You are trolling. And you are the clown. Please stop. Or go away.
Useful pawns. The psychopaths in charge don’t care.
A dangerous game Russia is playing. If Russia keep attacking civilians, the West will response with stronger measures. Each escalation point increases the chance of a bigger war.
Oh, what “stronger measures” do you anticipate, Kenneth?
Ever more shrill propaganda from western media, amounting to nothing but reassurance that we’re good and they’re bad.
Attacks on the electrical grid, which is dual use (military and civilian), are not attacks “on civilians.”
In a world only lite by fire life was “nasty brutish and short” to quote Thomas Hobbes’ (1651).
As the wheel turns Ukraine is a world only lite by fire.
Maybe this can at least bring some sense to the people in charge to START TALKING instead of dragging out an absolutely unnecessary bloodbath.
Donbass lived like this 8 winters and no one cared.
At least, Russia is not bombing the residential areas.
Ukrainians targeted the civilians in Donbass all those years and The West encouraged this.
Zelensky/Biden defenders have to go out of their way to ignore this part of the recent history of the area. What it portrays to me is the deep, built-in hatred of Russia and Russians here in the west.
For all their sophisticated manipulations of modern science, Americans are as ignorant and biased a lot as the rest of the human race, not to mention their adherence to the meme of the White Man’s burden.
Maybe we should have told Ukraine and Ukraine told Russia, they would never become a NATO nation, and would declare neutrality. Simple dimple.
Is attack on civllian infrastructure a war crime? What is a war crime and by what internationly recignized laws is it defined? International laws are collection if separate bodiies of treaties, of which one is UN Charter and anny UN conventions, etc. But the most important are — precedents, For better or worse, precedents will be used if for no reason — for not conceding weakness. US set all precedents in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and Libya. And before in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. The first thing that goes in any action is infrastructure. Not just dual use , but civilian, as are irrigation systems, farmland, granaries, pharmaceutical facilities,
Russia has a clear strategy of not attacking dual use infrastructure first. First targets are military, and related infrastructure. Once pipeline was destroyed and them Kirch bridge — dual use infrastructure is now taget. Urban infrastructure including cell towers are still not fully targeted. Escallation is still under way. Russia has no need to hurry. It has superior capabiltues,
And it can afford to wait and see the outcome of pressure. It appears that it wants to achieve additional territorial gains in areas of Russian populated regions through negotiations.
Attacks on infrastructure important to an adversary’s ability to wage war are usually legitimate military targets,
From the United States Defense Department Law of War Manual ¶ 5.6.8.5
If you search the comments fro mt he past few days, you should find philadelphialawyer’s citations to the relevant treaties.
https://russian.rt.com/ussr/news/1077911-ukraina-russkii-oblast
RIA Novosti: Ukraine mobilizes people in Russian-speaking regions
It took some time for Zelenky to grab ethnic Russians off the street so they can kill Russian service members.
I don’t know how credulous this story is.
Amerikkka will fight Russia to the last frozen Ukrainian. I pity those folks, having to exist as they do for ZelBoy’s ego.
Coup, anyone?
Someone call Victoria and let her know she needs to bake some more brownies.
The most sorrowful event in recent history for American leadership was the end of the cold war.