[RD] War in Ukraine: Other topics

[Kyriakos]

Of course it's a poll, while the 4% was just direct Russian propaganda.

Or the 4% is the same as "Zel was a moderately successful comedian", ie part of very clear signalling that the US government doesn't care about him.

 

[EvaDK]

Apples to... oranges (well it's Trump after all). Being popular is no substitution for elections so there's imo no point in such a comparison. One has democratic legitimacy through a recent election, the other is there after the term expired. A better title might have been "dictator and apparently popular hero".
I would certainly not think it wise to bet that Zel will be reelected. This doesn't have to be his fault - it's difficult to get reelected when the country will have been officially and permanently severed.

The UK generel election in 1940 was postponed because of WW2 raging and South Western England being bombed by the Nazis.

So, would you apply your label of 'dictator and apparently popular hero' to Winston Churchill as well?

 

[Ordnael]

So, man running the country while under military invasion whose constitution forbids elections during wartime is dictator huh?...weird logic

 

[Kyriakos]

The UK generel election in 1940 was postponed because of WW2 raging and South Western England being bombed by the Nazis.

So, would you apply your label of 'dictator and apparently popular hero' to Winston Churchill as well?

I would. And Churchill famously lost the election after the war (despite Britain being on the side of the winners).
The ancient term is tyrant - which simply means that you are in power without legitimacy. It doesn't have to imply you are unpopular or even bad in some way.
By the way, neither am I arguing that Zel should have elections now - or back when his term expired. I am arguing that he has no legitimacy and it couldn't be otherwise. Of course that he is sidelined by the US has very little - or most probably nothing at all - to do with the lack of elections.

So, man running the country while under military invasion whose constitution forbids elections during wartime is dictator huh?...weird logic

It's because I use the term to not imply a value judgement, just state a fact. When you are in power after the term has expired, you aren't there democratically. The reasons Ukraine didn't have elections are obvious and unrelated to the term (at least when I use it).

 

[EvaDK]

I know about the election in 1945. I just wanted to know whether you also consider Winston Churchill a dictator or not. I got my answer.

 

[Kyriakos]

I know about the election in 1945. I just wanted to know whether you also consider Winston Churchill a dictator or not. I got my answer.

Venizelos (important prime minister of Greece, also during the first part of the Greek-Turkish war) was also in war and had to go to elections - he did and lost, which was disastrous. So you don't need to wonder if I am against Zel not having elections; I am not. This doesn't change the fact that he is no longer there democratically.

 

[Ordnael]

Isn't the constitution an important piece of a democracy for setting it's rules, freedoms and boundaries?
Me thinks both technically and morally Zelensky is far from being a dictator...but that's like... just my opinion man.

 

[Ordnael]

Defiant Ukrainian Soldiers Vow To Fight On​

Ukrainian soldiers vow to continue fighting

Ukrainian fighters have few hopes for the Trump peace process, and many say they will not surrender

www.forbes.com

Vasyl Talaylo, 35, can still remember the heady day last August when his unit was among the first Ukrainian troops to cross the Russian border into the Kursk region, spearheading a daring gamble to divert the enemy from the all-but stalemated fighting on Ukraine’s eastern front. An elite company, mostly engineers tasked with electronic warfare—jamming and spoofing Russia’s radio signals to confuse its drones and artillery operators—Talaylo’s unit is often among the first to enter contested territory and the last to leave, an essential shield for the rest of the army.

Seven months later, the excitement of the Kursk incursion has evaporated. The last Ukrainian troops are retreating from the region as I interview Talaylo in a hospital in Kyiv. “Yes,” the wounded fighter recalls, his face twisted with emotion, “it seemed promising then. But we left a lot of young lives on that narrow strip of land. We didn’t achieve much, and we paid a heavy price.”

Talaylo’s wife holds his hand—the arm that isn’t in a sling—as we talk in a nurses’ staging area outside his dingy hospital room. A crude gauze patch covers his left eye; under the sling, a tangle of metal rods holds what’s left of his left hand together. It’s not clear if he will recover use of either hand or eye. A soft-spoken, gentle man in mismatched black sweats, he’s not complaining, just eager to see the kids—a daughter, 10, and a son, 6—he left at home in a village in western Ukraine, where he worked as a driver before enlisting a year ago. But his weeks in the hospital have given him time to reflect on the war and the U.S.-brokered ceasefire taking shape as he lies in bed, and like several soldiers I’ve spoken to in recent weeks, he’s not optimistic.

Many Fighters Expected Trump To Help Ukraine Win The War​

Like many Ukrainians, Talaylo had high hopes for Donald Trump. Tired of Joe Biden’s caution and what Talaylo called his “spoon-feeding”—supplying just enough weapons and ammunition for Ukraine to fight but not defeat Russia—many expected Trump to be more “decisive.” It never occurred to them that his decisions might not go the way they wanted.

For Talaylo, more decisive meant more equipment, some time off, and above all, for his unit, more pickup trucks. “We run through them in just a few weeks,” he explained, “and depend on volunteers to resupply them. We pay for fuel and repairs out of our own pockets. We thought Trump would put an end to that.”

For another fighter I spoke to—a lieutenant colonel in charge of a drone unit on the eastern front—relief meant more weapons and ammunition, particularly artillery shells. A career soldier with a Cossack topknot, he goes by the call sign Khors and, like many Ukrainian servicemen, couldn’t tell me his real name for security reasons. “We’re short of everything,” he explained. “We’re out of almost everything—including men.” And he, too, thought Trump would have answers for his problems. “It sounds crazy now,” Talaylo says, “But we thought it would be like Christmas—everything we wanted and needed. Instead, Trump turned off the lights—no Christmas at all. It’s a bitter disappointment.”

Both the driver and the officer are convinced the enemy is as exhausted as they are, but more extended and taking heavier losses. “Don’t believe their propaganda,” Talaylo says. “We’re fighting with drones. They’re fighting with meat, and they’re running out.” Ukrainian authorities estimate that 897,000 Russians have been killed or wounded since the February 2022 invasion. At the current rate of 1,200 to 1,400 Russian casualties a day, it won’t be long before the toll reaches 1 million, and few Ukrainians believe Putin can afford another mass mobilization—popular opinion would be strongly against.

“Why negotiate now?” asks a third soldier, an intelligence officer code-named Puma, who texts me from the southern front. “If we had enough American support to fight to the end of the year,” Talaylo speculates, “there’s a good chance the enemy would collapse.”

Ukrainians Are Willing To Compromise, But They Have Red Lines​

Ukrainian civilians sometimes see things differently than soldiers—and soldiers aren’t included in survey samples. But several polls conducted in recent weeks help clarify national attitudes. The share of Ukrainians willing to negotiate with the enemy and make sacrifices for peace has grown steadily since 2022, with 81% now willing to look for a “compromise solution” and 83% prepared to accept a ceasefire under the right conditions, according to Rating, a leading research group.

The number willing to cede territory, albeit reluctantly, has also grown, to 39%, according to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology—although 50% still resist the idea. What hasn’t changed according to KIIS: widespread perceptions of the “existential threat“ posed by Russia. A full 80% believe Moscow is prepared to commit “genocide,” destroy the Ukrainian state, or seize all or most Ukrainian territory and “establish a pro-Russian government.” Hence the widespread concern about security guarantees of the kind President Volodymyr Zelensky has been insisting on in conversations with the West.

None of the soldiers I spoke to were hopeful about the likely outcome of the peace process. All three condemned the pressure tactics Trump used in the aftermath of his Oval Office quarrel with Zelensky. “The formula is simple,” Puma explained. “Fewer weapons and less intel mean more losses—torn-off arms, legs, shot lungs, and lost eyes.” All three expressed concern about the direction the talks have taken. “The way things are headed,” Talaylo noted, “it will mean the end of Ukraine. There will be Russian troops on NATO’s border”—the line between Ukraine and Poland—”within the year.”

Still, none of the men expect to stop fighting if Trump tries to impose what they see as an unfair peace. “I will fight as long as it takes,” Khors stated grimly. “Most Ukrainians will continue to fight.” Asked how his unit would pull that off and how long it would remain standing, he reminds me of an exchange described by Herodotus in his account of the Battle of Thermopylae. “Their arrows will fly so thick,” an informant warns the Greeks about their Persian enemies, “they will blot out the sun.” “Okay,” Khors replies, quoting a Spartan hero he identifies as Leonidas. “We’ll fight in the shade.”

Just how long the war could continue in these circumstances remains unclear. It would depend on how much weaponry Western Europe could supply and how fast Ukraine could ramp up its own military industrial base. As is, according to one estimate, by Britain’s Royal United Services Institute, Europe provides 25% of the military hardware in use on the battlefield, while Ukraine produces 55%, including almost all the drones. But some essentials—most importantly, air defenses and strategic intelligence—come exclusively from the U.S.

What is clear: for all three soldiers and many Ukrainian civilians, the goal has shifted. “We wanted victory,” Talaylo notes ruefully, “victory and justice. What Trump is proposing looks like capitulation, and things are much starker. The goal now is surviving.”

 

[Broken_Erika]

Trump administration withdraws from Russian war crime investigations​

The US government has defunded one programme and left another that both document alleged Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

The Trump administration cut funding for Yale University's Humanitarian Research Lab (HRL), which had detailed the mass deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.

It has also withdrawn from a multinational group meant to investigate the leaders responsible for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, including President Vladimir Putin.

These moves come after Trump spoke with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine, breaking with the previous US administration's approach to try and hold Putin responsible for the Russian invasion.

The Humanitarian Research Lab said in a statement that they had been notified "that government funding for their work on the war in Ukraine has been discontinued".

A bipartisan group of 17 members of Congress pushed back on the funding cut for the HRL, saying their work is a "vital resource" in preserving evidence of children abducted from Ukraine.

In a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the lawmakers said the HRL has compiled data on 30,000 children abducted from Ukraine and is "absolutely crucial" to ensuring that they are returned home.

It said these abductions were taking place amid a "concerning reduction in American leadership in countering these crimes".

It added that the HRL's work can be credited with being the basis for the International Criminal Court's indictment of Putin over the abduction of Ukrainian children.

The US State Department responded to the letter saying it has not deleted any of the data collected by the HRL.

On Wednesday, Trump's Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to claims that the US government had cut funding to the HRL, saying the White House had nothing to do with them.

She added that Trump spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky about the abducted children, and promised to "work closely" with both the Russian and Ukrainian sides to ensure those children are returned home.

But the US has also withdrawn from the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA).

In a statement, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation - the ICPA's parent organisation - confirmed to the BBC that it had been informed by US authorities that they were leaving the programme.

The ICPA was created to hold Russian leaders accountable for the "crime of aggression" in Ukraine, according to their website, and to preserve evidence and prepare cases for their trials in the future.

In addition to these, Reuters reported that several US national security agencies have stopped work on a coordinated effort to counter Russian cyberattacks and disinformation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rzygdn8w2o

 

[Senethro]

Venizelos (important prime minister of Greece, also during the first part of the Greek-Turkish war) was also in war and had to go to elections - he did and lost, which was disastrous. So you don't need to wonder if I am against Zel not having elections; I am not. This doesn't change the fact that he is no longer there democratically.

Its less than ideal, but how do you actually hold a functioning poll inside enemy occupied territory?

If elections are a requirement of democracy, and you can't hold a functional poll, then you are choosing between lesser evils. Considering this, its not especially fair to immediately leap to using a non-neutral word like dictator.

 

[Lord Shadow]

This doesn't change the fact that he is no longer there democratically.

This is just legalistic pedantry, no offense. Democracy is more than ticking boxes for the sake of it.

How can you have safe, fair and representative elections when a chunk of the voting base is under enemy occupation, another is being actively bombed by the aggressor, and yet another's displaced by the fighting? Especially when said aggressor, which has no qualm targeting civilian locations, would most likely exploit the situation.

It's just objectively impractical and self-destructive not only for the country, but also the people it's supposed to protect. The result wouldn't be at all democratic, and the whole ordeal would be beneficial purely to the foreign authoritarian hypocrites who laughably pretend to care about freedom and due process. They can stuff their false concerns where the sun don't shine.

PS: The Greek elections in 1920 were conducted in a context where the Greek mainland remained largely secure from direct military threats. The Greco-Turkish conflict primarily took place in Asia Minor, away from the Greek heartland. Not comparable at all to Ukraine's situation.

 

[Ordnael]

Front-line NATO allies say landmines are now fair game in a new warning to Russia​

Front-line NATO allies say landmines are now fair game in a new warning to Russia

The NATO allies pulling out of a treaty banning the use of landmines said it sends the message they'll use whatever they need to defend themselves.

www.businessinsider.com

• Four front-line NATO allies are pulling out of a treaty banning landmines, citing Russian aggression.
• The Ottawa Convention was a post-Cold War effort to prohibit the production and use of anti-personnel mines.
• Landmines have seen widespread and aggressive use in the Ukraine war.

Four NATO members that share a border with Russia and its ally Belarus are backing out of an international treaty and lifting a ban on anti-personnel mines.

The move, they said, is intended to send a message to Russia that they'll use "every necessary measure" to defend themselves.

The defense ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland announced the decision on Tuesday, stating that since the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, or Ottawa Convention, was ratified, the security situation in the region have deteriorated and threats to the countries bordering Russia and Belarus have increased.

"We believe that in the current security environment it is of paramount importance to provide our defense forces with flexibility and freedom of choice of potential use of new weapon systems and solutions" to defend the alliance, the four members said.

The decision, they added, sent a clear warning to Russia. Despite the decision to withdraw, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland said they remained committed to respecting international humanitarian law, including protecting civilians in wartime.
The Ottawa Convention dates back to 1997 and was created to effectively end the production, use, and sale of deadly anti-personnel landmines worldwide, as well as the destruction and removal of any stockpiled ones. As of last fall, it had over 160 parties. The US, Russia, and China are notable non-signatories.

Landmines are relatively cheap, highly effective, and easily concealed weapons that have seen extensive use in the Ukraine war. During Ukraine's largely unsuccessful 2023 counteroffensive, Russia laid widespread swaths of explosives, slowing down Ukraine's advances as they worked to clear them. Russia has also been accused of planting mines near cities and civilian centers, such as leaving booby traps in Kherson when its forces pulled back.

Ukraine has used landmines, too, and the US, under former President Joe Biden, authorized sending the explosives to Ukraine.

Ukraine is now recognized as the most heavily mined country in the world; estimates suggest it will take decades and billions of dollars to neutralize them, assuming they can be completely cleared at all.

The work of clearing landmines is painstaking and dangerous. Ukrainian soldiers have often used atypical approaches to locate and destroy the explosives, such as fiberglass rods, and ropes and hooks. They also use drones and other robotic systems.
Throughout the Ukraine war, NATO countries closest to Russia have bolstered defense investments. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are spending more on defense than the alliance's suggested 2% of GDP. They've also looked at reinstating conscription.

They've also raised concerns that should Russia see its efforts in Ukraine as successful, it will rearm and could invade NATO members on its borders, triggering a war.

NATO allies in Europe are grappling with questions about US involvement and support as the Trump administration steps back from some of the European security commitments that it has previously taken on.

While campaigning for the 2024 election last year, Trump suggested he'd "encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" to NATO allies who aren't hitting the spending target. How that plays out remains to be seen, but Europe is beginning to take a hard look at its own security and defenses, especially the more vulnerable countries near Russia.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Never found any sense on those treaties. Only the most peaceful democratic countries sign them while aggressive, terrorist autocracies more likely to use the referred wespons don't. It is basically about disarming the good guys vs the bad guys. Same for cluster munition, nukes and other mass destruction weapons treaties.

 

[Ordnael]

Ukraine war leads France to restore gunpowder production​

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-leads-france-restore-gunpowder-production-2025-03-21/

BERGERAC, France, March 21 (Reuters) - Automated systems splutter as raw materials are fed into the machines to begin the process of creating highly-explosive pellets ready to be harnessed for use in thousands of French-made artillery shells, most of which will head to Ukraine.
Nestled in the backdrop of the rich medieval history of the southwestern Dordogne region, explosives manufacturer Eurenco is the first company to relocate production of a lost skill back to France and show that Europe can revive its defence industrial sector.
"To see that a country like France dropped its gunpowder production capacities at the start of the 2000s made absolutely no sense," Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu said.
"We were capable of producing the body of the bomb, the modular charge, but not capable of producing the powder needed inside so we were dependent sometimes on Europeans, but other times from outside the European Union."
Backed by the government and with an investment of 100 million euros ($108 million) of which half came from an EU programme to support the bloc's defence industry, the firm put together new infrastructure in less than a year.

It will initially produce some 1,200 tonnes of gunpowder pellets a year, rising to 1,800 tonnes, which would feed into about 100,000 artillery shells, notably the NATO-standard 155mm caliber, used, for example, in the Caesar Howitzer canons.
Russia produces 30 times more, illustrating how much more Europe will need to do.
France has a tradition of producing gunpowder dating back to the 14th Century, and a long history of pride in being self sufficient in arms production.
Eurenco produced gunpowder as far back as World War One. But after the end of the Cold War, weapons production and supply chains were no longer a priority and governments scaled back.

France's focus shifted to more lucrative military hardware, such as Rafale warplanes, leaving smaller, less profitable businesses such as explosive powder production to wither, replaced by imports.
Eurenco, known for the making modular charges which propel artillery shells, abandoned powder production to affiliates in Sweden and Germany in 2007, and France was left entirely reliant on its overseas partners.

NO MORE DEPENDENCE​

War in Ukraine is forcing Europe to reinvent its defence industry, with Moscow viewed as a threat and the United States under President Donald Trump a more unpredictable ally.
For weapons firms, the likelihood is that orders will not abate for many years to come, giving them an opportunity to invest and develop for the long term while offering job opportunities in areas previously abandoned.

Eurenco's project's director Damien Ayesa told Reuters 10% of the production would be domestic with the rest for export, much of that for Ukraine. The systems will run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
But none of this has been easy, and France's war economy is taking longer to get into gear than Russia’s.
Regulations, notably for safety, are strict. There is also the issue of raw materials. Two of the three key elements to produce the pellets are now sourced in France, but a third still needs to be sourced from overseas. Eurenco is studying how to resolve that supply chain issue, Ayesa said.

"Our objective is to be autonomous and sovereign," Ayesa said.

Financial folly or pressure tactic? Trump eyes Ukraine's occupied nuclear plant​

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/financial-folly-or-pressure-tactic-trump-eyes-ukraines-occupied-nuclear-plant-2025-03-20/

KYIV, March 20 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's idea of U.S. interests taking control of Ukraine's biggest nuclear power station has a catch for the man who coined the art of the deal: it would be years before there is even a hope of it making a return on investment.
The vast plant occupied by Russia since the early days of its 2022 invasion is beset with problems. Its six reactors are in cold shutdown, the facility has lost its main supply of cooling water and no one knows the state of its equipment.
When they spoke by phone on Wednesday, Trump suggested to Zelenskiy that the U.S. could help run, and possibly own, Ukraine's nuclear power plants, according to a statement by the U.S. presidential administration.
Speaking later, Zelenskiy said they had only discussed the Zaporizhzhia plant during the call: "The president asked me if there was an understanding that America could restore it, and I told him yes, if we could modernize it, invest money."
Two Ukrainian industry sources said the proposal could be an example of the U.S. testing out various ideas to see what works, as Trump seeks to hammer out a lasting peace deal that would rapidly end the war between Russia and Ukraine.

One of the sources said the idea also applied pressure on Russia by proposing an arrangement in which they would have to hand over the plant. The Americans were inflaming the situation by using the word "ownership", the source said.
Zelenskiy has said it would take two-and-a-half years to restore the plant, the largest such facility in Europe.
A former senior Ukrainian official said "anything is possible with the Americans, but this is something quite unusual."
"The Americans would own it - and on what grounds? It belongs to Ukraine. Okay, let's hand it over to the USA - but on what basis? Will they buy it? Will they take it as a concession? Many questions."

'SUITCASE WITHOUT A HANDLE'​

Oleksandr Kharchenko, a Kyiv-based energy analyst, said the return of the plant to the Ukrainian grid - as Kyiv demands - would be a "game changer" for energy generation not only for Ukraine but also for eastern and central Europe.
The station provided 20% of Ukraine's power output before the war. Ukraine started large-scale electricity exports to the European Union just before the invasion, but stopped when Russia hammered its infrastructure with missiles and drones.
Despite making attempts, Moscow's forces have not been able to connect the facility to the Russian grid and it produces no energy.
Kharchenko said it would take up to one year to restart just a single reactor, and up to four years to get the whole station running because of various problems.
For one, the plant lost access to water from the now-emptied Kakhovka reservoir after the hydroelectric station and dam were blown up
, opens new tab in 2023 ahead of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

The nuclear facility has since been taking water from a cooler pond, but the water level has been decreasing.
Engineers at Ukraine's energy ministry believe the water shortage would mean that only a maximum of two of the plant's six reactors could be turned back on to generate electricity.
What's more, they believe it would take at least a year to restart even those limited operations because the technical condition of the plant is not known.

A staff member at the plant who fled life under occupation and is now living in Kyiv told Reuters that Ukraine had drafted a detailed plan of action for the facility's potential return.
The staff member, who asked not to be named because their relatives were still living under occupation, said it would not be enough for Russia to simply hand over the plant on its own.
The adjacent, Russian-held thermal power plant would also be needed, as would nearby settlements including the city of Enerhodar as well as a route by road to the Ukrainian-controlled city of Zaporizhzhia, the worker said.
Nonetheless, for some people like pensioner Olha Shyshkyna in the Ukrainian-held city of Zaporizhzhia not far away, the return of the plant one day looks likely as it has had no actual use for the Russian side so far.
"For Russia, our nuclear station is like a suitcase without a handle. After all, it is not operational, and now it's just a plaything. To us, it's critically important," she said.

 

[innonimatu]

You know, that shows the opposite of what you probably think it shows. Because, @Ordnael, had it escaped your notice until now that the EU couln't even produce enough of its own explosives? Believe me, that gunpowder" example is only a tiny little detail. The war-cheerers here really don't have the faintest idea of the condition the contries of this Europe are in.

So France could redo a 140 year old technology ("smokeless powder") in one year? How amazing. Hope they have the supply chain for all they needas inputs in that particular industry also fixed. Do they?
Now do hypersonic missiles. And AD that works. Talk to you about that next century perhaps?

 

[EnglishEdward]

There are many other more modern types of explosives than gunpowder..

During WW1 a relationship between producing fertilisers and producing explosives was noted.

The following link

Top Fertilizers Exports by Country 2023

Major fertilizers exporters by country in 2023 including world leading Russia, China, Canada, Morocco & Saudi Arabia

www.worldstopexports.com

Lists fertiliser exporters in 2023

Russia was the largest exporter in 2023.

The second largest exporter in 2023 was their ally China.

I guess they can still increase explosive production by reducing fertiliser exports.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Fertilizers are for fertilizing or for making IEDS and bombs for terrorist (ANFO), they are not to be used as warhead or propellent because would leave a lot of residue in the barrels, form a big fume of orange smoke, has a relatively slow explosive velocity, is chemically unstable and very hygroscopic.

There are infinite kinds of military grade explosives , some use nitrates similar to the ones in the fertilizers but the most used component by a long shot is nitrocelulose which is the main component of the so called 'smokeless gunpowder' and has nothing to do with traditional gunpowder. Nitrocelulose is made from cellulose, nitric and sulfuric acid, and is mostly produced by countries you wouldn't expect here like Colombia, Thailand or India. To make proper military explosives you only have to mix nitrocelulose with a few other common components depending on the chosen recipe. Anyone with a mixer can do it.

France has been too busy building and selling Rafales, Airbuses, submarines and AEGIS-like frigates to become the second weapons exporters in the world after USA and has outsourced some very low tech processes to third countries some in Europe as Germany because scale economies , some outside UE because cheaper workforce.

Conclusion: France should surrendered to Russian donkeys immediately.

 

[Ordnael]

You know, that shows the opposite of what you probably think it shows. Because, @Ordnael, had it escaped your notice until now that the EU couln't even produce enough of its own explosives? Believe me, that gunpowder" example is only a tiny little detail. The war-cheerers here really don't have the faintest idea of the condition the contries of this Europe are in.

So France could redo a 140 year old technology ("smokeless powder") in one year? How amazing. Hope they have the supply chain for all they needas inputs in that particular industry also fixed. Do they?
Now do hypersonic missiles. And AD that works. Talk to you about that next century perhaps?

Yeah, it's bad. We need to rearm as soon as possible. Russia must be deterred from doing to the EU what it has done to Ukraine!

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am not suggesting the military should, like terrorists, use fertilisers in bombs.

My point is that the industrial plant used to make fertilisers can also be used to make explosives.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I am not suggesting the military should, like terrorists, use fertilisers in bombs.

My point is that the industrial plant used to make fertilisers can also be used to make explosives.

Maybe I don't know. I am a chemist, not a chemical engineer. Making nitrocellulose and fertilizers are very different processes in any case, making fertilizer imply natural gas iirc, several ores for phosphorus, potassium and such. Both processes use nitric and sulfuric acid but what doesn't?
Probably some byproducts can be used for explosives among many other things. If they learn something in chemical engineering is to use everything and don't waste anything.