Escalating European Crisis | Sep. 25th/Oct. 11th | Discussions

[Torch]

Dude, a single hurricane crippled petroleum production in the US resulting in $5/gallon gasoline, lines at gas stations, and closed gas stations. It's not that difficult to interfere with a country's refinery production.

Dude, Russia has a 30% production capacity surplus for gasoline. They have an 11-14% regional shortage. Even Ukraine knows this.

The Ukraine say they will put 1.5 Billion in damages to Russia this year. Russia’s GDP is 2.1 Trillion, conservatively.

My fuzzy math says 7%, oddly Ukraine said 4% of GDP. Neither number collapses an economy.

I want Ukraine to shove a pitchfork up Russia arse and break it off, but hysteria over minor gasoline shortages that do not affect the Military or the Government is not the answer.

Of course I could be wrong. I wanted to just wait and see but I have to answer you and DWS. I hope I’m wrong and the government collapses. Really I do.

 

[Torch]

I did not say that, nor believe that will happen.

Your fighting a non-existent argument. Not arguing that. I do not believe they will collapse.

HOWEVER there is a major gasoline shortage effecting most of Russia right now.

You keep misunderstanding me entirly.......

To say gasoline shortages are not happening or pressure on the Russian people is not happening right now is totally ignoring reality and facts. That is all I am saying.

NOT saying they are going to collapse... NOR never said that ANYWHERE in this thread. Quite the opposite in fact.

How much more clearer can I possibly get! Please go back and actually read my posts. Getting kinda insulted here.

It’s not a matter of clarity. It a matter that you are wrong. IMHO.

Russia has a distribution problem now not a production problem <insert yet> Hopefully we can add that yet to that statement when The Ukraines get Long Range Fires that are not Geo Fenced.

 

[NuclearID]

Neither number collapses an economy

Dude. You are seriously going to give me a stroke.

I am not saying that or arguing a collapse will happen. I know it won't.

Not sure why you keep bringing that up when I am not saying that. In any way shape or form. Nor is my point.......

 

[NuclearID]

It’s not a matter of clarity. It a matter that you are wrong. IMHO.

Nothing to prove me wrong on, there is indeed a gasoline shortage. That is a fact.

I didn't say ANYWHERE regarding a Russian collapse nor that this would cause it. Did not even remotely suggest a collapse would happen.

Not sure how else to make this clearer.

 

[Torch]

This just in:


“Rosneft, Independent Oil and Gas Company (NNK), and the state-owned Promsyrieimport will be able to supply gasoline from Asia, enabling the shipment of approximately 150,000 tons of gasoline per month to central Russia from Siberian oil refineries.“

-Kiev Independent

“Russia is considering importing fuel from China, South Korea*, and Singapore to stabilize its domestic market.” <Belarus as well>

*Thats suprise!

 

[NuclearID]

My one and only concer with a Russian gasoline shortage is Putin escalating things further due to more pressure at home.

I am NOT arguing that it will collapse Russia. Because it will not.

I agree with you @Torch a Russian collapse is not in the tarot cards whatsoever. Russia will not collapse from this.

But Putin escalating things definitely a possibility and my only concern here.

 

[novaB]

@Torch Have you not seen my reports?

Well, I did and wanted to take the opportunity to just say thank you for posting the reports. It's really helpful to stay up-to-date about what happens in the UA/RU-situation and is therefore highly appreciated. Same goes for all others participating in the reports-thread.

 

[Publius]

It’s not hypothetical, it’s happening now.

Weeks of footage from across Russia, long queues and rationing at gas stations.

Regional officials on TV urging calm as stations close when supply runs out.

The Kremlin halted gasoline exports to everyone, officially acknowledging the squeeze.

If you’ve got counter evidence, post it. Otherwise “not going to happen” is just wishful thinking against publicly available facts that I have already posted through the past couple of weeks.

It’s a multi-level issue, yes Ukraine has damaged approximately 38% of Russias storage capacity. They have also damaged some of the pipeline infrastructure but not nearly with same impact. Best reasonable estimate is 20%. Which is good.
They are obviously having refinement issues resulting in lines and price caps.

So they have made an impact but it’s not a debilitating impact yet. Yes DN I know you’re not saying that it is.
20% - 38% ? Either or is moving in the right direction.

Torch could be right that Ukraine as yet doesn’t have the strike capability to really knock Russias oil system of line.

This is why the “I think” Trumps has been his bellicose self over the sending tomahawks to Ukraine.
The reality that they could really destabilize Russias oil economy and economy in general. He’s going to continue to slow walk them for the very reason Torch mentions. In the end Ukraine will get Tomahawks.
Part of this slow walk disarms all of Russian claims of this is a sovereign threat, people get used to the idea.

What Europe should get used to is we might see some conventional ballistic attacks on Europe. But that holds a risk for Russia as well if their attacks are efficiently intercepted by NATO. Back to the paper tiger.

 

[NuclearID]

Well, I did and wanted to take the opportunity to just say thank you for posting the reports. It's really helpful to stay up-to-date about what happens in the UA/RU-situation and is therefore highly appreciated. Same goes for all others participating in the reports-thread.

Thank you kind sir! It is a lot of work. Though I would be lying to you if I didn't say I would not be monitoring world affairs with or without The DWS. So might as well put those efforts to good use right? But thank you, truly appreciate the shout out!

 

[NuclearID]

The reality that they could really destabilize Russias oil economy and economy in general.

Sure. But it won't collapse Russia. See @Torch I agree️ with you!

If anything and my ONLY point this whole day is, Putin could use it as a excuse to escalate further with NATO. I'd say Ukraine, but short of dropping WMDs on Ukraine not much more Putin can do to escalate in Ukraine or do that he already hasn't.

 

[Charmender]

Further escalation against NATO will only lead to further problems at home.
And it would conflict with the interests of china and India
Putin knows this and really has no interest in doing anything more than psyops with operations like flying drones over airfields.
Putin’s goal is to divide the NATO members and the public opinion, not to strengthen it by throwing the crap so high that it hits the fan.

It works much better.

There’s been countless of occasions where escalating against NATO would have resulted in much better outcomes than now.

 

[teekay99]

Warfronts recently posted a video about how Estonia might be Russia's next target. And sooner rather than later. It's an interesting watch, and Simon Whistler argue NATO might not come to their defense. Would the US risk nuclear war over Estonian territory?

 

[Snowfall]

Warfronts recently posted a video about how Estonia might be Russia's next target. And sooner rather than later. It's an interesting watch, and Simon Whistler argue NATO might not come to their defense. Would the US risk nuclear war over Estonian territory?

I watched the whole thing and there’s massive flaws that everyone seems to ignore. First the question isn’t just would the U.S. risk nuclear war over Estonia, it’s also would Moscow risk nuclear war over Estonia. Second all of these videos still chooses to ignore the biggest to change to European security since the end of the Cold War, the introduction of Sweden and Finland to NATO. In the event of even a little green men scenario Finland could very easily close the gulf of Finland to Russian ships effectively blockading St Petersburg while Sweden provides NATO additional air bases to launch resupply efforts and an air campaign through. The calculus has changed, the Suwalki gap is no longer the only easy access into the Baltics for NATO this is why Sweden and Finland are so important. This would be especially true if Russia went for a full scale invasion of the Baltics as a whole, because at that point there’s a thousand mile border to the north that they would either have to devote enormous resources to defend or take the chance NATO wouldn’t launch a counter invasion through the north and flank the invaders in the Baltics.

I understand why NATO is worried about different scenarios but Russia wants to break NATO from the inside, not end up in WW3. Launching a drone and missile attack to destroy Tallinn has zero plausible deniability.

---

CONTINUATION OF THREAD HERE:

Thread 'UA-RU | Oct. 10th—Dec. 31st/2025 | Discussions'

Oct 10, 2025

For quite sometime now I firmly believe Putins only way to truly test NATO is to grab a small border town of just a handful of people of any NATO country. Then call NATO bluff.

Would NATO risk war with Russia over "little green men" seizing a town of zero significance or hardly any human presence?

To answer your question @Snowfall which I know is coming Putin can just as easily back off if NATO does call the bluff since he would use unmarked men/troops just as he did 2014 against Ukraine. He can easily disavow them and pull back.

But id assure you Putin would use unmarked...

• NuclearID
• Replies: 439
• Forum: Europe

•