A couple of questions that puzzle me.

If we push for all electric vehicles, as mentioned in prior postings, along with the means for most everyone to charge them, at home or wherever, then....

1. How will all the additional electricity needed be generated?

2. Especially with growing numbers of data centers requiring buttloads of electricity?

3. What would the backup plan be should all or part of the electrical grids blackout?

4. What would the fallout be, and how significant would it be, without a backup plan?

5. Can we afford the risk?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 10:22 am: Edit

Michael

Easy answer is a combination

40% from Renewable (Solar, Wind, Biothermal, Hydro,Tidal)
Up to 25% from Natural Gas
55%+ from Nuclear

(Yes, thats 120%, but the extra 20% covers when renewable does not produce OR Fossil/Nuclear is off line for maintenace).

Tidal is actually the most predictabe (unless the Moon changes orbit) 'permanent' renewable - as Hydro altough nearly instant and predictable - needs to be re-charged so to speak....

(One use of surplus Solar/Wind energy is to pump water back up the mountain side - if you had enough money, land and elevation changes - you could make renewable power for all your needs.... no nation has all three - Norway gets closeist probably!!).

For the average person, Nuclear is the really tough decision I think - do you want a tiny tiny tiny risk of something really horribly going major wrong - or a modest risk with modest issues with other power sources?

I think most people are happy with it though.


That covers 1 to 4.

Point 5 has poltiical issues - (Is Global Warming Real, do we want to buy Oil from Nasty Nations, will Aliens get blinded by Solar Arrays etc - but the easy answer is 'no', we can't afford some of the risks if we don't do something sooner, rather than later).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 11:08 am: Edit

Hydro is best but there aren’t very many places to build it that aren’t built yet. Tidal is the next thing there but expensive to install and there’s not a lot of super great places to build it.

Wind and solar are expensive, uneconomical without taxpayer subsidies, don’t last more than 40 years without full replacement, and are very unreliable. You would need 100% non-wind/solar to utilize it. Which would be fine, but you have to pay for both systems.

Nuclear is politically difficult.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 11:37 am: Edit

SVC

I agree - and wierdly, Tidal seems to create other issues - there was going to be a huge Tidal Project called Swansea/Cardiff Bay - which stalled due to financial and ecological issues.

I think Solar and Wind can work - even without subsiddies - the issues are always

1) Not in my back yard
2) Capacity will always be lacking**
3) Replacement costs

** - I don't know if any large capacity projects say in Austalia can get enough land and enough sun - and with Batteries to store surplus energy - they might be able to produce enough for everyone in Australia??

(Relevant aspect is Austrlia is both frigging huge, a relatively small population AND generally has alot of sunshine!)

I think the answer is to ask people

Are you happy to use Candles and self generated energy?

If not, which Energy Source in your area can we build?

I think alot of peolpe would be happy with Wind Turbines and Nuclear or Solar and Nuclear - and for those living near fault lines, replace Nuclear with Gas .... (noting it is NOT a choice to say 'not here thanks!!!').

Not sure I would get elected on those terms though!!

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Roughly a quarter of the ERCOT grid's production is currently from wind.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Turley talk you tube commentator posted a statistic that I have not been able to verify yet…

The average protester advocating the elimination of I.C.E. Has a greater chance of being attacked by a shark, than he (or she) is of getting shot by an Federal I.C.E. Agent.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Murphy's Law: Russia The Phantom Threat
January 26, 2026: Europeans continue to worry about how they will handle the Russian threat. It seems odd that 700 million Europeans should be asking 327 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians. So far Russia has lost 1.2 million troops in Ukraine and is running out of Russians willing to fight the Ukrainians. Currently Russia is obtaining North Koreas and Cuban troops, plus thousands of foreign military-age men in Russia, to maintain a credible force in Ukraine. Russian forces are not attacking as much as they used to because those attacks are usually pointless against better trained and armed Ukrainians who use lots of drones and defensive tactics optimized to kill or wound as many Russian attackers as possible. Russia is having a hard time maintaining a force in Ukraine that can adequately man the thousand kilometer front line. Russia is no longer a ground threat in Ukraine, but an uninvited guest seeking a reasonable excuse to leave.
The current situation is nothing new. Twelve years ago, Russian threats to use military force against Ukraine were dismissed as bluffing. For over a decade Russia had been struggling to modernize its armed forces, most of which are still equipped with pre-1991 Cold War era weapons and equipment. Despite increasing defense spending by a third since 2008, less than half the troops had modern, post-Cold War. equipment. Moreover, the Russian Army was then smaller than the U.S. Army, a historical first. Worse, a third of the Russian army troops were conscripts, who were on active duty for one year. While the U.S. Army also has a half million reserve troops who are trained and equipped to quickly enter operations, Russia had less than 100,000 similar and less well equipped and trained reserves. Russia also had 200,000 armed men in the Interior Ministry. These were basically paramilitary forces equipped as light infantry. A few were highly trained commandos and riot police, but most were only good for security duties, not heavy combat. A third of the Interior Ministry troops are conscripts.
Russia hoped to buy and distribute sufficient new weapons and equipment so that by 2020 at least 70 percent of its combat troops could have modern equipment. A lot of Russian commanders were not confident that this deadline would be met. These officers noted that since 2008, when the five day Russian invasion of tiny Georgia exposed the equipment and training shortcomings of the army, not a lot of progress had been made to remedy those problems. Russia only had about 100,000 paratroopers, commandos and airborne troops it could really rely on, and these elite forces have to be ready to deal with emergencies across the vastness of Russia. Those hundred thousand troops would be quickly tied down if a similar move were made into Ukraine, which has ten times the population of Georgia and much more capable armed forces. Russia went into Georgia with 20,000 troops, about a third of them pro-Russian irregulars from nearby areas that had grudges with Georgia. That force suffered higher losses and a lot of other unexpected problems. Russian leaders noted the problems and vowed to fix everything. That didn’t happen.
Russia had held training exercises in the last few years before invading Ukraine. The Russian army quickly mobilized over a hundred thousand troops for unannounced maneuvers and inspections of readiness, it later was revealed that while the troops turned out, there were a lot of deficiencies. The Russians put a positive spin on this, and they were correct in assessing these snap exercises were a beginning. But Russia was nowhere near the finish line with this modernization process.
Russia was supposed to have a million troops on active duty but because of a shortage of volunteers and an abundance of draft dodgers it barely had 850,000. Lots of money was spent on developing new missiles, tanks, aircraft and ships but there was still not enough cash to replace the Cold War era vehicles that were still the norm. So, Russia relied on subterfuge and deception in Ukraine. The last thing Russia wanted was a situation where they would have to put a lot of their troops and equipment through their paces. The military wasn’t ready for that sort of thing yet, especially with all those cell phone cameras ready to record any flubs. Finally, there was the past experience with uncooperative Ukrainians. The Ukraine has always been an unwilling part of the Russian empire and rebelled many times before regaining their independence once more in 1991. There were still elderly Russians who remembered the campaign in the Ukraine from 1945 into the 1950s against Ukrainian rebels. The Ukrainians have not forgotten this and promised more of it if Russian troops returned. Even in Ukraine the Russian speaking portion of the population was largely in favor of remaining a part of Ukraine. Same deal in eastern Ukraine which the Soviets sought to Russify with lots of migrants from Russia. Those migrants may still speak Russian but most think of themselves as Ukrainian. Thus, Ukraine was no place for a paper tiger.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Libya: Pakistan Rearms Libya
January 26, 2026: In an unusual multibillion dollar arms deal, Pakistan is providing one of the two factions in the Libyan civil war with substantial arms sales and training support. Pakistan is selling $4.6 billion worth of combat and trainer aircraft to the Libyan National Army/LNA, which is also known as the clan/tribal faction subsidized by Turkey. This includes sixteen JF-17 jet fighter bombers and twelve Super Mushak jet trainers. Also included are training for pilots and aircraft maintainers as well as officers who will plan and control air operations. Deliveries will not be complete until sometime in 2028. Given the general incompetence and corruption of the LNA faction, this sale is most likely being to provide rake-off money to the very corrupt Pakistani military.
The JF-17 is a joint China-Pakistan manufacturing effort. It is a 13.5 ton, single-seat aircraft with a max speed of 1,900 kilometers an hour and a cruise speed of 1,360. Combat range is 900 kilometers on internal fuel and 1,700 kilometers with drop tanks. Ferry range is 3,400 kilometers with drop tanks. Aircraft armament consists of one twin barrel 23mm autocannon. There are eight hard points that can collectively carry 3.4 tons of guided and unguided bombs. The JF-17 can also be equipped with air-to-air and air-to ground missiles, but these are expensive and not suitable for the targets Libyan Air Force encounters. The aircraft sold to Libya will probably be sent by boat and reassembled in Libya.
The LNA Air Force currently has about 15 operational Russian MiG-21, 23 and Su aircraft plus two French Mirage F-1s. There are also about 20 trainer aircraft and about ten helicopters. There are also about 30 Chinese and Russian drones used for reconnaissance and attacks on ground targets.
Libya has been chaotic since dictator Muammar Gaddafi was ousted from office and killed in 2011. This was followed by a persistent ongoing civil war. Eastern Libya is controlled by the Government of National Accord/GNA while western Libya is run by the Libyan National Army or LNA. This was further complicated in 202o when Turkey sent several thousand troops and dozens of drones to protect its illegal offshore natural gas and oil claims granted by the LNA in exchange for protection from its GNA rival. Turkish troops will remain in the country at least until 2026. This continued presence has been a major obstacle to national elections and a peaceful resolution to the twelve-year civil war.
In early 2020, Turkey reinforced the LNA, a UN and Moslem Brotherhood-supported government that failed to gain any national support and even has problems inside Tripoli where rival militias often fight each other. The Turks refuse to send troops to pacify Tripoli and get the militias off the streets. The Turks believe that would lead to endless urban guerrilla war as the militias continued to operate while attacking the Turkish troops seeking to maintain order.
Eastern Libya is more orderly because the last elected Libyan government, called the House of Representatives, is governed under the protection of the GNA run by general Haftar and his sons. The GNA is run like a military organization with discipline and regular supplies, plus medical care for the wounded and proper burial for those killed. It also has significant support from Egypt and some Arab oil states, who oppose Turkish intervention in Libya.
The LNA, confined to Tripoli and Misrata, was slowly being conquered by the GNA when the Turks intervened in 2020. That occurred when the GNA launched an offensive on Tripoli, pushing back the militias fighting for control of neighborhoods in the city. The GNA eventually agreed to a ceasefire and national elections, but the Turkish military and Syrian Arab mercenaries continue to occupy positions in Libya, with no plans for withdrawal. Meanwhile, Egypt is increasingly concerned about the Turkish military presence on its border, a situation unprecedented for centuries.
The LNA is not eager for a free and fair election because most Libyans believe the LNA is affiliated with militias in Tripoli and Misrata to the east. An elected government is expected to impose order on chaotic Tripoli. Turkey and Russia, which have oil development contracts in Libya, both believe an honest government would be bad for their oil and natural gas extraction and export deals.
Libya's economic landscape mirrors its turbulent military situation, characterized by instability and foreign dependencies. The prolonged conflict has severely disrupted the country's economic activities, especially its vital oil industry, which has historically been the backbone of the Libyan economy.
Frequent clashes between rival factions and the control of key oil facilities have led to inconsistent oil production and exportation. Although Libya holds significant oil reserves, the volatility in production has hampered consistent revenue generation. The inability to manage and distribute oil revenues effectively has further exacerbated the economic hardships faced by the Libyan population.
Furthermore, foreign interventions have complicated economic recovery efforts. Countries like Turkey, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates/UAE have vested interests in Libya's resources, influencing economic policies and further entrenching divisions. The ongoing presence of Turkish troops and mercenaries adds a layer of complexity to economic stabilization efforts, with various factions and foreign supporters vying for control over lucrative resources.
Libya's infrastructure has also suffered extensively due to the conflict. Essential services such as healthcare, education, and public utilities are in disarray, contributing to the declining quality of life for many Libyans. The rebuilding of infrastructure will require significant foreign investments and stable local governance, both of which are currently lacking.
The current military and economic situations in Libya are chaotic. No one is prepared to pacify the country for the good of all Libyans. Turkey has sent troops and warships while Russia and the UAE supply weapons and equipment to helpful factions. The rival factions are deadlocked because of Turkish intervention and that means Libya remains divided and chaotic. Libya is a difficult country for firms trying to operate international oil extraction and export operations. To make that work, lots of money is spent on bribes for the various local militias seizing control of oil facilities and not leaving until they are paid. Libya was always a corrupt place, and the deceased dictator Gaddafi kept the country peaceful while slowly improving the economy for most Libyans. Peace in Libya made Gaddafi confident enough to intervene in Chad and contribute to rebel groups in Morocco, South Africa and elsewhere. Gaddafi sought to maintain good relations with the United States, but that became difficult after the terror attacks in the United States during 2001 that left thousands of Americans dead. Gaddafi was not involved but the U.S. was wary of his intentions after 2001.
The Russians are seen as reliable allies of Libya, even though it was Russia which supplied Libya with most of its weapons throughout the Kaddafi era from the 1960s to 2011 and are now delivering fewer, but more modern ones, like Anti-Tank Guided Missiles/ATGMs and portable anti-aircraft missiles to bring down drones. The Turks are seen as a former imperial overlord trying to make a comeback. Their weapons and drones are superior to the Russians’. The Turks also ignore the fact that most Libyans oppose the Islamic conservative militias that the Turks support and see the Turks as more of a threat than the Russians or Arabs who are backing the GNA.
Turkey is threatening war with its neighbor Greece because it demands control of Mediterranean offshore areas which might contain lucrative natural gas deposits. Those had been promised to Greece by Gadaffi’s government and various European treaties, and which the LNA later gave to Turkey in exchange for Turkish intervention to save them from the GNA. Turkey is also at odds with the United States in Syria. All these foreign adventures are an effort to distract Turkish voters from the current economic recession they are suffering from as well as their government's continuing suppression of internal criticism of the government’s corruption.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Tidal has a lot of engineering issues, including how ships get past the dams to enter the ports without ruining the power generation scheme. There is also serious ecological damage when the coastal areas lose access to the open sea.

Wind and Solar are equal to gasoline at $9 a gallon. You either need subsides or you need a captive market that has no choice but to pay the price.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Infantry: Indians in the Russian Army
January 25, 2026: Russia has had increasing problems obtaining soldiers for the Special Operation in Ukraine. Few Russians disagreed with the decision to invade Ukraine. But since Russia itself was not invaded, as it was in 1941 when the Germans sought to conquer Russia, few Russians were willing to join and fight in Ukraine. The government has to pay increasingly large signing bonuses to obtain soldiers to replace the growing losses in Ukraine. By early 2026 1.2 million Russian soldiers had been killed, disabled or were missing in Ukraine. By 2025 few Russians were willing to take the money and fight in Ukraine.
By 2024 Russia began to recruit foreigners. They obtained 14,000 North Korean soldiers, but it wasn’t enough. Cuba allowed Russia to recruit 5,000 men for the Ukraine war. Russian recruiters were sent to many nations, to recruit as many men as they could. In relatively poor nations, the money the Russians were offering was impressive. Signing bonuses of over $20,000, and monthly pay of $2,000 or more were life-changing amounts for unemployed men in Third World countries.
India is a rapidly developing nation but there is still a lot of unemployment. India is the only nation with over 1.25 billion people and Russian recruiters found that even Indian university students in Russia were willing to sign up. Sometimes the Russians speeded up the process by arresting Indians studying or working in Russia. The charges were often bogus or exaggerated. The Russians know that imprisoned foreigners were willing to take the money, join the army and be sent to Ukraine. By 2025 anyone who paid attention to what was going on in Ukraine realized that Russian troops continued to take heavy casualties. Russian recruiters took advantage of that because foreign recruits who died in Ukraine often did not get all the money they were owed (nor did many families of Russian soldiers). Russia promised to send money to dead foreign soldiers’ families but usually did not.
The Indian government never approved of Russia recruiting Indians for the Ukraine war and by late 2025 the Russians were allowing Indians in the Russian army to return to India. India is one of the few allies Russia has and if the Indian government wanted Indian citizens in the Russian army discharged, that’s what happened. No one is sure how many Indians ended up in the Russian army. The best estimate is that over 200 Indians joined and nearly forty were killed or are missing. At least fifty Indians are still unaccounted for.

FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Forces: Operational Level Warfare With China
January 25, 2026: Four years ago the U.S. Department of Defense set out to wargame a hypothetical 2034 war in the Western Pacific. This wargame covered combined arms operations in the Philippines where Chinese forces had invaded and occupied some of the larger islands. Americans and Filipino forces were seeking to defeat the Communist land and air forces. Naval operations were not included. The big surprise was that the American/Filipino forces lost. The Chinese forces were controlled by American personnel with wargaming experience and permission to do whatever they could, within the confines of the rules and procedures agreed on for game play. The officers playing the American side were told to use their own combat experience. That was a problem, because most of the experience these officers had was in dealing with Islamic terrorists in the Middle East and the Taliban irregulars in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army had started retraining command and staff officers to deal with operations against Russian or Chinese forces. This training had, by 2022, not yet transformed the way most command or staff officers operated. The extent of that shortcoming was demonstrated by the poor performance of the U.S. forces in the Philippines wargame. The Chinese side won because the players were told to be creative and they were. The Philippines side was told to use current American doctrine. The outcome of this wargame caused American planners to adopt a more realistic attitude towards wargaming a future Pacific war with the Chinese.
China is also wargaming similar scenarios, but do not publicize the results. What we do know is that seventeen years ago China surprised Western military professionals when Chinese media ran stories, with photos, of Chinese-developed professional wargames in action. The photos and text included enough detail for Western military wargamers to discern what was going on. The wargame shown was the Tactical Command and Control Simulation Training System/TCCST, and it was being used by members of the 6th Armored Division for a training exercise. It was a typical blue versus red where red is the friendlies and blue is the enemy type game, but few in the West expected China to be developing and producing training systems like this on their own. Over the next few years more Chinese wargames vied for media attention, if only because these were now widely used in the Chinese military and there was no point in trying to keep them secret.
The Chinese games looked comparable to training simulations used by U.S. troops, and those of other Western nations. The United States has been the leader in this field, and since the late 1990s professional wargames managed to adapt much of the graphics and realism commercial games, not just military wargames, had developed. It was obvious that the Chinese had adopted much of the technology available in the West and concepts that commercial game companies had created. Since the late 1990s there have been a growing number of commercial wargames available that are useful for training battalion and brigade commanders but designed mainly for a civilian gamer market. Some of these were designed by active duty and retired military personnel, and some are used by professionals, as well as civilians, interested in military affairs. The same thing was happening in China, where computers became enormously popular and increasingly common after 2000. For a while China banned game consoles. If the Chinese wanted wargames they had to be written to run on PCs. The Internet spread even faster than PCs in China and young officers were soon in touch with their civilian peers discussing how to adapt civilian wargames for military use.
During all this China reinvented a lot of wargaming technology, largely because while wargames were an ancient Chinese military planning tool, all that knowledge had been dismissed by the new communist government that took over in the late 1940s. During the Cultural Revolution from the mid-1960s t0 mid-1970s all professional military education was shut down, in part because it was considered counter revolutionary. When China cast aside that revolution in the late 1970s and decided to adopt a market economy while keeping the communist police state, all resources were devoted to economic development, and the military budget was cut. It wasn’t until the early 1990s that military education for officers and planners was resumed and at this point it was realized that the West had done great things with wargaming.
China had revived military staff analysis capabilities in the early 1990s and one of the first things studied was the 1991 Gulf War. The results of that study horrified Chinese military and political leaders. It was now obvious that the West had used modern technology, new training techniques and wargaming to create armed forces of unprecedented capabilities. From this point on China decided to reform their armed forces to be able to do what the Westerners did in 1991. One of the more obvious results of that are Chinese troops wearing combat uniforms similar to those of Western troops and Chinese made weapons that were also similar. What got little attention in Western media was the rapid development of effective wargames. In part this was because the Chinese began with nothing. The communists had eliminated their own wargaming past and the easiest examples of wargames to copy were from the West. The Chinese were helped by the fact that the U.S. Army had abandoned traditional wargames from the late 1940s to the mid-1970s and also had to start from scratch, using commercial wargames which had become a hobby in the late 1950s to revive their professional wargames program. Although the U.S. tried to prevent the Chinese from getting these commercial wargames by declaring them munitions and thus illegal to export to China, there were plenty of other ways for China to send someone into a store and just buy them and get them shipped back to China one way or another.
The officers put in charge of developing Chinese wargames were smart guys with a technology background. They had one major advantage in that traditional Chinese wargames were always heavily influenced by what the senior commanders wanted, not what the situation really was. The new Chinese wargames were developed by officers who were scientists and their games were based on reality. The senior officers respected that as did the senior political leaders. All this was kept secret because the higher level strategic games showed that China was weak and vulnerable. But Chinese leaders used their wargame results to more effectively rebuild Chinese military power. The main reason China has not become a military superpower by now is the long tradition of corruption in the military that continues to resist efforts to eliminate these bad habits.
Westerners were not surprised that the Chinese obtained, and adopted, Western wargames technology, but were unclear about what reality the Chinese were simulating. Put simply, that means how effective were Chinese and Western weapons, equipment and, most importantly, the subordinate leaders whose effectiveness is built into the game, portrayed. Some Western games allow the users to set these qualitative values at different levels. But Westerners knew that in East Asia in general free, let the chips fall where they may, play is not acceptable to most senior military commanders. There's more of a tendency for the generals to want their forces to be portrayed in a positive light. So there were suspicions that the Chinese forces are portrayed, in their wargames, as more powerful than they actually are. This would be consistent with the way large-scale military exercises are organized, where Chinese forces are programmed to win. It was only recently that it became known that the Chinese wargame developers had managed to avoid that trap.
Winning and losing is not the main goal of professional wargames, or military exercises. The Department of Defense has always insisted that wargames are not to be used to validate courses of action or specific tactics and techniques. In other words, testing tactics or fighting to win is not allowed, or at least not encouraged. Despite the generally accepted idea that a wargame is a competitive exercise, this is not the way it works in the Pentagon. The higher level wargames tend to be driven by procedures, not a war of wits on a simulated battlefield. While this sounds absurd, it's a long used practice. There is a purpose to this approach, and that is to make sure the hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of officers involved in planning and carrying out a major operation, know the many procedures required to get such a large organization functioning smoothly. In effect, this kind of wargame is used to see if everyone can follow the same script. Winning or losing is measured by how well everyone communicates and executes administrative drills. Or, as the military puts it, the main objective is to perfect one's Tactical Decision Making Process/TDMP. Thus, much Department of Defense wargaming results in showing our commanders and staffs how to lose neatly, rather than how to scrape and scramble to a victory. Real world battlefields favor the latter; peacetime perfectionists favor the former. Military training for officers concentrates on learning procedures, not investigating different, and perhaps better, tactics.
Thus, it would appear that the Chinese wargames showing up in Chinese media were more about training staff officers to work together effectively. Other screenshots show games similar to Western wargames that operate more at a tactical level. No doubt Chinese troops, and junior officers, like their counterparts in the West, were using commercial wargames that showed what looked like battlefield video. These began showing up in the late 1990s giving the Chinese military plenty of time to incorporate them into official tactical training wargames.
The Chinese now use their wargames in much the same way Western armies do. A lot of wargaming is just to train staffs and commanders to work together while at lower tactical levels officers and troops learn tactics and what to avoid in combat.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Procurement: Components Are The Key
January 24, 2026: In late 2024 China stopped selling drones and drone components to Ukraine. Ukraine’s solution was to ramp up production by its domestic drone manufacturers and obtain more drones and parts from the United States and NATO countries. These drones weren’t as rugged as the Chinese Mavic 3 and 4 models, but they could provide an adequate temporary solution. Eventually China relented and resumed shipments. It was either that or see the non-Chinese drone manufacturers grow even more competitive.
One result of the Ukraine War was the emergence of inexpensive drones as a decisive weapon, as well as a reconnaissance and surveillance system. Drones have been around for decades, but they were complex, expensive, and difficult to operate. That changed in the 1990s when General Atomics introduced its one-ton Predator drone. These were widely used by American and allied forces, along with the larger 4.2-ton Reaper. The second stage of the revolution came in 2016 when the Chinese firm DJI introduced the Mavic quadcopter drone. These were cheap, costing from $300 to thousands of dollars, depending on accessories. By the 2020s, most quadcopter drones cost about $500. More importantly, suppliers provided drone components, so you could build—and often design—your own.
In 2023, a year after Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukrainians were building their own drones, often at home or in scattered workshops. By late 2024, Ukrainians were producing over 150,000 drones a month. Ukraine now aims to produce over 1.5 million drones monthly. By purchasing Chinese and other components in bulk, thousands of Ukrainian men and women are building these drones for the armed forces or for someone they knew in the military. Troops at the front also build and modify drones to fit their immediate situations. For the soldiers, designing better drones is often a matter of life or death.
The Ukrainians have stayed ahead of the Russians in drone technology and production. The Russian government discourages or even outlaws individuals building drones and instead centralizes drone production.
Since Russia invaded in 2022, Ukrainian weapons manufacturers have grown nearly 400 percent. Ukraine produced nearly five million drones in 2025. In 2026 that is expected to be 20 million drones. It’s more than the drones themselves. Ukraine has developed novel ways of using larger drones to attack key Russian industrial targets that are thousands of kilometers from the Ukrainian border. There are also applications of drone technology to ground combat. Ukrainian infantry are increasingly augmented with combat robots to carry out high risk attacks. In more than one instance, defending Russian soldiers surrendered to the robots.
These technologies are also being used in long range missiles, driverless ground vehicles to carry supplies in the combat zone and even bring back wounded soldiers. There will be wider and more effective use of ground combat robots operated by AI/Artificial Intelligence augmented software.
Ukrainian manufacturers also produce artillery, rocket launchers and most other types of weapons and military equipment. For over a century Ukraine has been a major producer of weapons, including aircraft and missiles. When Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, they had nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them. A 1994 agreement between Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States had Ukraine getting rid of its nuclear weapons in return for guarantees from Russia that they would never attack Ukraine and if they did Britain and the Americans were obliged to aid Ukraine in resisting the attack. This experience complicates any future Russian offers to settle the Ukraine war via a treaty. In short, Russia cannot be trusted. Vladimir Putin did not take control of Russia until 1999 and apparently feels he is not responsible for observing the 1994 agreement.
Putin has more serious problems with Ukraine. While Russia is suffering from four years of increasingly stringent economic sanctions, the Ukrainian economy is rapidly growing. Ukrainian production of military equipment is rapidly expanding and attracting investments from NATO countries, especially the United States. Ukraine currently produces over 70 percent of the weapons it uses to fight the Russians. Since these weapons have proven themselves in combat, they are attractive choices for other nations looking for innovative and affordable weapons.
There are more than 500 defense related companies in Ukraine and most are looking for export customers or coproduction deals where other nations produce Ukrainian designed weapons. Ukraine regularly demonstrates that they can rapidly develop, produce and get into combat new systems. Any problems that develop, the Ukrainian manufacturer will quickly fix. Ukraine has become the gold standard for defense production and that has brought in over $100 billion in foreign investment.
By invading Ukraine, Russia has created a neighbor that became militarily and economically stronger and free to trade with NATO nations while Russia is crippled by economic sanctions.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Syria: Syria Rebuilds
January 24, 2026: Syria’s new leader Ahmad al-Sharaa has forced the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces/SDF o ut of the area and is regaining control over the oil fields and natural gas extraction facilities in Deir ez-Zor and Al-Raqqah provinces. These are expected to be back in production by the end of the year. To complete the repairs and upgrades to the oil and gas facilities will require foreign investment. There must be assurances that the country will remain peaceful to keep the foreign investments coming.
Ahmad al-Sharaa is rebuilding the Syrian armed forces. He believes the key factor is obtaining men who are good Moslems, literate, physically fit, and unquestionably loyal to him. Initially that means only Sunni Moslems who had not served in the Assad military were eligible. There were some other restrictions, like not being able to smoke while on duty. Another aspect of recruit training is the weeklong refresher course on Islam. Al-Sharaa believes the religious indoctrination will ensure that all recruits completing basic training will be loyal. Only 600 of the first batch of 1,400 recruits completed the training. The Shia minority, especially the Alawites and the Kurds were not eligible for military service. The Assads, who ruled Syria for over sixty years, were Alawite. The Kurds have their own American-backed army and control about a third of Syria. If al-Sharaa wants to control all of Syria, he will have to make a deal with the Kurds. He has already made peace with the United States and all of Syria’s neighbors, including Israel. Al-Sharaa is creating new armed forces that will hopefully defend Syria and help maintain order within Syria if necessary. With that degree of internal security, foreign investors will return to help rebuild the economy.
Last year Ahmad al-Sharaa became the first Syrian leader to visit America. He met with the U.S. president and discussed the future of Syrian American relations. Sharaa discussed U.S.-Syrian cooperation suppressing ISIS Islamic terrorists. Sharaa seeks to make peace with all his neighbors. Relations with Russia were resumed, along with plans to restore Russian use of bases at Hmeimim and Tartus. Trade agreements with Russia were restored and Russia is resuming previous trade and business relationships and contracts.
Because of damaged power stations, Syria has frequent rolling blackouts. A drought reduced food production and Russia resumed food exports to Syria. Considering Ahmad al-Sharaa’s efforts, the U.S. Britain and most other Western nations removed their designation of Ahmad al-Sharaa as an Islamic terrorist.
Ahmad al-Sahara took control of Syria in late 2024 as the Assad government of Syria was driven into Russian exile by an eleven-day offensive organized by Islamic terrorists belonging to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham/HTS and led by Ahmad al Sharaa. Turkey and Ukrainian special forces helped. This was an unexpected combination that no one inside or outside Syria saw coming.
The Assads had ruled Syria since 1970 and seemed firmly in control until they weren’t. Thirteen years of war were a factor. Heavy losses among Alawite soldiers who were the backbone of the Assad military was another factor. The Alawites realized that the wars were never going to end unless Assad had no troops to do the fighting. HTS/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leaders realized this and expected the Alawite troops to stand aside. They did and HTS had its eleven-day conquest of Syria.
HTS does not control the entire country and neither did the Assads. About 40 percent of Syria is controlled by Kurds, who had American support in an U.S. effort to destroy or greatly diminish Islamic terrorist groups in Syria. There were some American troops working with the Kurds and that helped keep the Assads and HTS out of the Kurdish region.
HTS faced its most difficult task as it sought to establish a new government in Syria. There were still several minorities to deal with, including the Kurds and Alawites. HTS had one chance to approach these many minorities with a peace deal and assurances that minorities and their interests would be part of the new government.
The peace and government reorganization was threatened by some HTS leaders who supported Islamic Sharia government or another kleptocracy like the one that made the Assads rich. When the Assads left Syria, most of their $5 billion dollar fortune was stashed in various foreign bank accounts. The Assads may have to give some of that cash to Russia because the HTS government is offering the Russians renewed access to their Khmeimim air base and Tartus naval base in western Syria. There are still a few Russian soldiers at those bases, mainly to prevent looters from trashing the facilities.
In the end, the most difficult task for HTS was to establish a new government and get the economy going. The United States, Britain and Germany negotiated with HTS to establish diplomatic relations and resume foreign aid deliveries.
HTS has a limited number of trusted Syrian officials and needs a lot more to establish a national government loyal to HTS and somewhat resistant to the Middle Eastern culture of corruption. Each minority in Syria wants a fair allocation of government jobs for its people. That is thousands of jobs to deal with. HTS left many current incumbents in their jobs and hoped these men and women would not become a problem.
HTS leaders had little experience running a national government, but many worked in the HTS government that, for over a decade, ruled most of Idlib Province in northwestern Syria. In Syria as a whole there were many different power structures. For example, in Kurdish Syria there is a Kurdish government but the real power resides with a few Kurdish militia leaders. There are similar situations in other parts of Syria. HTS had to adapt to this rather than trying to eliminate governmental systems that worked for decades. No government was the worst situation and HTS sought to ensure that there was some kind of functioning government throughout Syria. Otherwise HTS was not controlling the country, but pretending to.
FYEO

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Didn't a lot of the wind production go down during the extreme ICE and cold storm in Texas a couple of years ago.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Procurement: Russia Struggles With Oil And Gas Sanctions
January 23, 2026: Russian oil exports account for 30 percent of government income. Western efforts to defeat or degrade these exports have largely failed. There are too many ways for Russia to circumvent the sanctions. Another problem with the sanctions is that India and China account for 90 percent of Russian oil exports. While most of that oil moved via ship, China has a pipeline from Russia for overland delivery of 15 percent of Russian oil. The rest arrives via sea-going tankers.
For years Russia has utilized a fleet of over 500 shadow tankers. These ships, largely operated by private contractors, move the oil to customers who are willing to risk getting caught and censured in order to get cheaper oil. Not a lot of these outlaw tankers are caught. To do so would require a major naval effort and the NATO countries backing the sanctions do not have enough ships or determination to try and shut down the shadow fleet.
Another advantage Russia has is the ability to offer high enough discounts to keep customers buying sanctioned oil. Dealing with the sanctions successfully has cost Russia revenue that went to discounts, bribes and operating expenses of its shadow fleet. In the end, the Russian oil still moves to customers, with Russia losing 10-15 percent of the income it received before the sanctions came along.

FYEO

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Ryan: some ERCOT wind turbines iced up in the 2021 Texas freeze, yes. But the same is true of ERCOT natural gas turbines. The reason for both was the same: lack of weatherization. Wind turbines do fine in the decidedly brisk climate of Norway, because they're properly winterized. Someone in Texas decided to skimp on that, and we saw the results.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 04:10 pm: Edit

California had quite a few wind farms, back a couple decades ago.

IIRC, they were all shut down after a California Condor was found dead in one, the apparent victim of a blade strike.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 04:13 pm: Edit

As I said at the time, it wasn't skimping. Engineers calculate the level of likely issue and ask the bean counters for that much money. A bean counter decided to pay for equipment down to some reasonable low temperature, accepting that it was rarely possible for the temperature to go lower. Skimping would apply to a system not designed to reach a likely temperature, not a system not designed to reach a very unlikely temperature.

If it hits -10F every year and you only pay for -5F, that's skimping. If it gets to -25F every 25th year (maybe) and you only pay for -15F, that's economical design, not skimping. If it has never in all recorded history gone below -30F and you design for -30F (bean counter was in a hilariously good mood) no one can fault you if for the first time ever it reaches -32F.

I don't recall what the actual numbers were but ERCOT was designed to survive 98% of what nature might throw at it; the cost of that last 2% was several times higher than the cost of the previous 3%.

Just making up numbers but consistent with experience.
-10F costs $1 million
-15F costs $6 million
-25F costs $36 million
-35F costs $500 million

You get what you pay for.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 06:22 pm: Edit

I don't believe they were shut down for long, and in fact CA is still pushing for wind power on the near shore ocean.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 06:28 pm: Edit

But down for not long doesn't help when you need the power now to heat your house.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 08:43 pm: Edit

"But down for not long doesn't help when you need the power now to heat your house."

Very true. And again, wind turbines and natural gas turbines both went down. So did a couple of coal-fired generators. And so did one nuclear reactor. And of course amid all of that, transmission lines were down in droves.

Basically, nothing was weatherized to the degree that was necessary to deal with the February 2021 storm. And in February 2022...it happened again, albeit to a lesser degree.

By the time that the ice storm hit at the end of January 2023, generation was in better shape; blackouts were due to transmission line failures, and were far more limited than in 2021.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 08:48 pm: Edit

As a note, regarding prices:

The wind farms in Texas cost roughly $1.2 billion per gigawatt. The on-shore wind farms in Norway, fully weatherized for arctic conditions, are indeed more expensive, in the range of $2.2 billion per gigawatt. Oddly enough, Norway's off-shore wind project (likewise weatherized) is coming in considerably cheaper, at about $900 million per gigawatt.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 09:26 pm: Edit

I suspect different accounting methods and subsidies are skewing the prices. Comparing stats between the US and Europe never really works. The accounting systems are different. I recall that "infant mortality" appears to be much higher in the US than Europe because they don't count infants who die in their first 24 hours. Similar things are done with industrial plants of all types. Nothing dishonest, just different ways counting.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 27, 2026 - 04:53 pm: Edit

This morning, I woke up from a dream. I had been discussing Islamic history with Tim Walz. What a nightmare!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 27, 2026 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Not sure how much history the current governor of Minnesota knows…

His bio lists him as as Social Studies teacher at Mankato High School, and noted he also served the school as a football Coach.

Rumor has it that he also taught driver’s education.

Would not be surprised to learn that the extent of his knowledge of Islamic history is limited to his work with the Somali-American Community in Minnesota.

The good news is, Tim Walz has publicly announced that he will not seek a third term as Governor.

But do not feel sad for him. He has spoken of what his options are for the future. He is trying to decide between running for the U.S. Senate, or a campaign run for the White House.