https://erdgasspeicher.de/en/gas-storage/gas-storage-capacities/
You are welcome.
You posted the following with no citation. I posted a link with additional information to put it in context. I’m sorry if this makes you feel “targeted”.
Apparently Germany has 23 BCM of gas storage capacity. In 2021, they used 90.5 BCM. So they have storage for close to 25% of normal yearly use. With conservation efforts, some other imports likely still an option, I think they can do it okay.
Unfortunately DW.com did not state the capacity which 90% refers to. So useless.
Nor, what rate that might be consumed.
And I added more information. Sorry you felt “targeted”.
I’m remembering the opening scenes for Enemy at the Gates where only half of the soldiers are being thrown into the defense of Stalingrad with a rifle. The rest are given five cartridges and told to take a rifle from the fallen.
Which was inaccurate - by Stalingrad, the Soviets had more than enough rifles and ammunition. A year earlier, during Barbarossa, that scene would have been authentic. People forget that Barbarossa was twice the debacle as the fall of France, and the Soviets only survived because they had more land to retreat to, and because they had the weather on their side…
Except these are Ukraine’s own cities with their own people. They want to reclaim them and liberate the citizens, not destroy everything. I do wonder though if there might be some attempts at some special operations targeting Russian stooge governers or voting centres.
Vladimir Putin has announced partial mobilization.
Also has said that he is ready to use nuclear weapons and any other type of WMD if the territorial integrity of Russia is threatened, and that “this is not a bluff”.
My take: when somebody tells you that they are not bluffing, they are indeed bluffing.
The German goose was cooked long before the winter really set in and the first winter was disastrous for the Soviets with their ill advised Vyzma offensives.
300,000 new call ups will occur due to Putins new decrees.
From what I have been reading, the main advantage would not be more frontline soldiers, at least not directly, but the ability to use them for rear duties, freeing up more troops for the front.
Why are there combat troops serving in rear duties now?
They have 200,000 troops across a front which is hundred of km long and the whole battle space is something like 200,000 sq km.
Plus a lot of the rear areas are pretty restive.
Putin says that they have lost 6000 men since the war started.
Presuming that’s true, that would mean (assuming a ratio of 10 WIA to every KIA) a total of 60,000 total casualties in 28 weeks of fighting.
Or over 2000 casualties a week.
The US suffered about a 1000 casualties in a week during the second Battle of Fallujah in 2004 and that was considered unsustainable long term by Abizad and Sanchez.
Returning for a moment to the subject of infrastructure attacks. One does not destroy property one will soon own. If the Russians really thought they would soon take a town they would not destroy the infrastructure.
Others in this thread have already discussed the impracticality of Russia deploying all the newly mobilized personnel, so I don’t think its use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine can be ruled out. What’s still uncertain is how Ukraine’s allies would respond in the event of such an attack—it could be that they and not Putin are the ones who are bluffing.
One possible scenario is as follows: Using the pretext of attacks against its newly annexed territory, Russia launches a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Ukraine’s allies bombastically denounce this action but decide it’s not in their interests to get drawn into a nuclear war, and so commit only to step up existing means of support rather than significantly change the very nature of that support (say, by giving Ukraine nuclear weapons, or by deploying their own militaries in Ukraine, or even by attacking Russia itself with conventional or nuclear weapons). Ukraine recognizes that its situation is ultimately hopeless and surrenders (as Japan did in World War II), or else they continue fighting but are eventually defeated by Russia, possibly after suffering further nuclear attacks.
It doesn’t seem that Russia cares if what they own is rubble and corpses. They want to destroy Ukraine. I read some essay which posited that the atrocities and pointless destruction was motivated by vengeance, not by any political aim at all. They hate Ukraine for not welcoming them as fellow Russians. They see Ukraine as traitorous. They are not re-annexing, they are punishing. Or trying to.
At this point in the scenario, Ukraine’s allies have already been “drawn into a nuclear war”. Any response other than retaliation in kind is tantamount to surrender, as you have now legitimized the use of a nuclear first strike as a means of winning wars of conquest.
Oh FFS.
Attacking infrastructure is something the USAF does on day one of a war. And that’s everyone’s doctrine including the Russians.
They seem to have started going after power stations. And recently some railyards. Since most of Ukraines strategic movement is done through electrified rail, that makes sense.
The worry throughout has been they might do Grozny II , which they haven’t thus far.
Sorry if already posted.