Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 12:29:45 GMT
US (Biden) is playing a dangerous game with UK+France, etc playing 'second fiddle'. If Putin does nothing next week then he looks weak. If Putin does something then will Biden respond? How will he respond and if not a full NATO response then it seems very likely UK would be part of a new 'coalition of the willing' and Boris+Truss will hope to 'spearhead' that  NATO is still very much a US+ group and Biden has shown he no interest in a 'forever' war and nor should UK (IMO). When Biden gets 'bored' and it becomes a political desire[1] to leave Ukraine then it's going to be like Afghanistan all over again (but with a much shorter time-frame). NB I should add that in the short-term Boris might quite like a 'hot' war as CON MPs are not going to hold a leadership challenge when there is a major crisis. In his madness, Boris is only interested in his own survival and that is very, very, worrying (IMO). He is surviving day-day and week-week, if the Ukraine crisis escalates or at least stays 'warm' past the Met report/fines then Mad King Boris (MKB) will be happy about that.  [1] Polling of US public opinion from YG America, very split opinions but the last finding is IMO the most relevant (and accurate). Although I'm not sure what either side would call a 'win' then plurality of US folks expect neither side would win. today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/01/24/nearly-half-americans-expect-russia-invade-ukraine |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 12:42:55 GMT
@tw Latest Times report saying that UK is pulling its troops out of Ukraine. Is that a provocation or an invitation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 13:28:04 GMT
@tw Latest Times report saying that UK is pulling its troops out of Ukraine. Is that a provocation or an invitation? You refer to: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britons-told-to-get-out-of-ukraine-qml6zrsmdWhich would suggest British troops, albeit in a specific and limited capacity, were/are certainly there[1]. My point was what were/are they doing there in the first place as by sending troops into Ukraine we were being 'provocative' (timing and sequencing of past/present/future events is important) As to your question and the present tense then by now pulling our troops out (when IMO they should never have been there) then that is going to look like an 'invitation' (as it shows we were 'bluffing' - something Putin quite possibly expected but can now see for himself). [1] see: 'personnel sent to train Ukrainians to use British anti-tank missiles would leave over the course of this weekend' which from Putin's perspective would have looked like 'provocative' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 13:37:04 GMT
1. What's clear is that USA/Nato/EU etc are not going to defend Ukraine militarily and 2. doubtful the EU will stop taking their gas and oil, so all this saber rattling over the last few days is rather pointless. 1. Is that clear? I don't think so 2. Agree your other points. Energy security (and food, steel, etc) should IMO be important - especially when a 'home' country is reliant on any foreign countries that are far from being 'allies'. IIRC then you lean 'Green' so would you go so far as to say UK should give new licenses to O&G companies in the N.Sea to ensure UK can become closer to being self-reliant on energy? Germany is not our polity but, in your opinion, should Germany restart the nuclear power stations that they shut down before they had reached their end of life? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 14:24:08 GMT
I think Putin's territorial objectives in Ukraine have been over-stated in some places. He'll be aiming for annexation of the contiguous block of regions bordering the Black Sea and the eastern border, which are predominantly Russian-speaking: Dnipropetrovsk Oblast — 72% Donetsk Oblast — 93% Luhansk Oblast — 89% Zaporizhia Oblast — 81% Odessa Oblast — 85% Kharkiv Oblast — 74% Mykolaiv Oblast — 66% Source - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language_in_Ukraine#:~:text=Russian%20is%20the%20most%20common,the%20country's%20only%20state%20language. If he could get those he would consider his historical destiny fulfilled, be a hero at home and could focus on just defending those gains. But perhaps a more likely outcome, depending on how strong the resistance is, is that he'd just get Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhia - more or less the current rebel-controlled area. That would leave him exposed at home though - not a clear victory to make the subsequent pain seem worthwhile. Interesting. I doubt you need too much insight into Putin's strategy, to imagine him taking Odessa & Mikolaiv. But nothing to do with native Russians-Ukraine is then landlocked. Putin watches its economy and government slowly collapse. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Feb 12, 2022 14:35:57 GMT
1. Is that clear? I don't think so Well I don't see the war of words leading to any other conclusion: www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/12/ukraine-blinken-warns-russia“If President (Vladimir) Putin decides to take military action, we will swiftly impose severe economic sanctions in coordination with allies and partners around the globe,” Blinken said. “We will bolster Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, we will reinforce our allies on the eastern flank of Nato.” The "bolster Ukraine's ability to defend itself" seems exceptionally light from the sort of language of "not a threat, not a promise, that's just how it's going to be". I'm not going to involve myself in war gaming but my base assumption is that if Russia wants to take some or all of Ukraine they can whether or not Ukraine has help from America in terms of "bolstering" their ability to defend themselves. "bolstering" in Afghanistan didn't make any difference in the end. That the Americans don't want to directly get involved is clear to me from those statements. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 15:55:07 GMT
I think Putin's territorial objectives in Ukraine have been over-stated in some places. He'll be aiming for annexation of the contiguous block of regions bordering the Black Sea and the eastern border, which are predominantly Russian-speaking: Interesting. I doubt you need too much insight into Putin's strategy, to imagine him taking Odessa & Mikolaiv. But nothing to do with native Russians-Ukraine is then landlocked. Putin watches its economy and government slowly collapse. Agreed that Odessa is a hugely important port for Ukraine's trade. However I think its historical significance is even more important to Putin - it's a symbol of the the Russian Empire's power. If he gets that far, there's zero chance that the US will allow the rest of Ukraine to collapse either militarily of economically - they will arm it to the teeth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 16:01:36 GMT
1. Is that clear? I don't think so “If President (Vladimir) Putin decides to take military action, we will swiftly impose severe economic sanctions in coordination with allies and partners around the globe,” Blinken said. “We will bolster Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, we will reinforce our allies on the eastern flank of Nato.” I could quibble what 'defend Ukraine militarily' means (eg the British troops currently in Ukraine but supposedly leaving this weekend), however, I won't disagree that Biden+Blinken have already told Putin what limited action they (and likely by implication NATO, EU, etc) would take to initial and geographically limited military action from Putin. Nothing is certain IMO but my main concern would be '2nd round' if/when Putin perhaps retaliates to sanctions by turning off the gas[1] and/or taking a larger slice of Ukraine[2] or intervening in some other way (cyber attacks, incursions into other territories, etc). Let's hope we don't get to find out. PS I won't push you to answer the 2nd question. [1] He has a puppet in Belarus and who knows but maybe Nord Stream1 pipeline (or the sections leading up to it) 'coincidentally' develop some kind of 'technical' fault or something. US is self sufficient in nat.gas, Europe has made itself reliant on Russian gas and Putin knows that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–Ukraine_gas_disputes[2] see johntel 's reply to colin . I wouldn't say 'zero chance' but the two of you perhaps have very opposite views on what is clear and/or certain WRT to the future. |
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Feb 12, 2022 17:30:09 GMT
@tw Latest Times report saying that UK is pulling its troops out of Ukraine. Is that a provocation or an invitation? Its irrelevant. Putin has shown his contempt for the UK in many ways so you cant believe that UK troops being there makes any difference at all.
I dont see how Putin can pull back now without him gaining something, and I dont see the US giving in on the "joining NATO freedom". My bet is that the ethnic Russians in parts of Ukraine will sharply increase fighting against the Ukraine govt, maybe with some provocative attack, and Putin will march in to rescue them. We need to bear in mind that as an ex Russian colony, there are lots of people in the Ukraine who might like to be back in mother Russia. The Ukraine is not a united country and Putin has a legitimate interest in Russian citizens abroad.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Feb 12, 2022 17:47:17 GMT
@tw
Sorry I skipped over your second question as I saw you largely in general agreement with what I was saying. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on Germany and what keeps the lights on or indeed the UK. I don't think we should be allowing further oil and gas and should be ramping up renewables, insulation, energy storage and so on in order to be largely self sufficient in energy rather than kicking the can down the road and trashing the environment in the process. We'd become a mini Putin if just because we had it we exploit the economic advantage. Maybe the UK contribution will be insufficient in a world situation and I feel the global warming issue is already lost to some degree, but we have to do our bit and set an example. Also seems to me that with limited fossil fuels remaining we'll have to face this cost eventually and the only advantage for delaying would be better technologies arriving.
I'm totally not any sort of expert on what is and what isn't possible in what sort of timescale so can only speak in broad terms. Easy wins are reducing our energy dependency- insulation and home improvements should be put on a war footing. Medium term I think public transport (powered by renewables) should be made the norm with a 90% plus coverage that replicates London where the only reason to own a car is because of trips outside of London. Remote areas where public transport is prohibitively expensive can have their own systems be it private ownership, subsidised taxis or car rental.
Production of renewables and energy storage needs to happen quicker but I'm not qualified in the least to say how quickly it can be done but fretting about what we can afford is a very short term attitude.
The main thrust of my original post though was about short termism by nearly all politicians, whether that be caused by needing to get elected or other reasons. We wouldn't be facing this current situation if decisions had been made 10 or 20 years earlier. That's why I mentioned food security as currently it's not an issue but in the future I think it will become one, so while I'm not suggesting we are at 100% on this we need the ability to be be 100% should the need arise.
Sorry I'm being so general on the points I'm making- it's the job of experts to work out what to do and I just have a general philosophy. Strikes me that, for all it's faults, China is about the only nation on earth that thinks ahead, even if in this process they're not too worried about the damage they do in other parts of the world (Africa perhaps).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 20:19:35 GMT
Interesting. I doubt you need too much insight into Putin's strategy, to imagine him taking Odessa & Mikolaiv. But nothing to do with native Russians-Ukraine is then landlocked. Putin watches its economy and government slowly collapse. Agreed that Odessa is a hugely important port for Ukraine's trade. However I think its historical significance is even more important to Putin - it's a symbol of the the Russian Empire's power. If he gets that far, there's zero chance that the US will allow the rest of Ukraine to collapse either militarily of economically - they will arm it to the teeth. That's the 64 thousand dollar question. There was that faux pas by Biden about minor incursions-implyimng a level of acceptable invasion ! And the US Security spokesman at yesterday's Press Conference made it clear there will be no Kabul style evacuation of US Nationals. MOD spokesman today told Brits to leave "now by any means". My impression is that UKraine will be on its own militarily. EU has no capability , and no policy on defence of Ukraine. But they will have a big role in the new sanctions which seem to have been agreed ( what about that pipeline though ?) I think US/UK role will be NATO support to ensure Putin makes no attempt to cross an EU border-but not in Ukraine. I wouldn't want to be an ordinary Ukrainian right now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 22:24:00 GMT
colin The US has made the threat that if the invasion goes ahead there will be no Nordstream. I'm sure they are serious about that and have the power to stop it, though it would cause huge ructions in the established order. Biden couldn't go back on the threat due to the political fallout at home. And that's just a little incursion - if Putin pushes on into Ukraine I'm sure there's a line drawn somewhere that will provoke a military response from the US. The problem is that they would have to move very fast which means a very drastic response. It's not only Ukrainians that need to be worried, we all should be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 9:44:52 GMT
colin if Putin pushes on into Ukraine I'm sure there's a line drawn somewhere that will provoke a military response from the US. I'm not convinced. I think Wallace's remarks about Munich are right. Macron is eager to emasculate Ukraine to appease Putin -and Germany is compromised. Actually the US & UK have already abandoned Ukraine-we were guarantors -with Russia-of its "security" under the Budapest Memorandum. Russia reneged in Crimea and Donbass-and we did nothing about it then. What has changed ? The frightening thing to me is the strategic thinking and patience deployed by Putin-getting all his pieces slowly in place-including the Gas pipeline and its German stooges.ST reports a second German at the centre of Putin's pipeline strategy- "Matthias Warnig, then the managing director of the Nord Stream gas pipeline project.The corpulent, silver-haired Warnig is a former spy in East Germany’s Stasi secret police, whose easy charm and habit of secrecy endeared him to Putin when they met decades ago and who has ended up becoming, along with Schröder, one of the most powerful players in the Russian leader’s global political games. Between them the three men have used a pair of lucrative gas pipelines to drive a wedge through the West." I doubt sanctions will stop him absorbing Ukraine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 9:58:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Feb 13, 2022 11:09:22 GMT
Hi colin I think Wallace's remarks about Munich are right. Macron is eager to emasculate Ukraine to appease Putin -and Germany is compromised.Well that would depend on what Putin actually wants and if in the as yet undisclosed conversations, that will be going on, other powers are willing to make concessions to Russia's demands. However, with the Ukraine the West has made it clear they will not go to war unless Russia attacks a Nato member, that was not the case at Munich where prior to the agreement there was a formal commitment in place to come to the aid of Czechoslovakia. Ukraine has no such guarantee in place. So the West has already made a massive 'concession' in that regards allowing Moscow more room for manoeuvre.
From the US perspective arguably the UK is compromised as well - with our economic challenges and the links between the Tory party and Russia is the UK government really going to aggressively go after Russian interest in London? From Moscow's perspective there are potentially plenty of cracks to exploit.
As many have noted, Putin has invested a lot in this already and will want a return, and it would be very wrong to view Russia's military as a 'paper tiger'. If Putin thinks the West lacks resolve, is divided and any sanctions can be ridden out recent behaviour by the West can only help to further those assumptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 13:52:45 GMT
colin The US has made the threat that if the invasion goes ahead there will be no Nordstream. It is for the German regulator (Bundesnetzagentur) and EC to decide on NordStream2, not US[1]. Some of the issues are administrative/compliance (eg setting up a German subsidiary) but clearly the decision is political and both aspects of the approval process have been suspended. www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/012122-no-new-status-in-nord-stream-2-certification-process-german-regulatorwww.reuters.com/business/energy/eus-dombrovskis-says-nord-stream-2-is-pause-compliance-is-reviewed-2022-01-31/[1] Biden can obviously use diplomatic pressure to help/hinder the decision and I expect Putin is aware that he can use the 'politics' of the Nordstream2 decision to create division within NATO nations and EU nations. It would take many years, huge €€ cost and a lot of cooperation with other countries for C-E Europe to wean itself off Russian gas supplies (ie import LNG from N.America (complicated by pipeline issues there) or Middle East (eg Qatar where we get a lot of our gas); along with turning back on German nuclear (and speeding up the delays in France); rapidly speeding up renewables and other sources of energy; some demand reduction ('Insulate Europe') AND going back to more coal - it would need to be 'all of the above' or take much, much longer). Putin will know that! He is in no rush, he can play the same game next Winter (possibly after a larger slice of Ukraine this Winter?) As mentioned before, US is now self reliant on gas (N.America is a net exporter) www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/imports-and-exports.php |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 14:00:27 GMT
Wallace also said -"“It may be that he (Putin) just switches off his tanks and we all go home". Did Wallace mean switching off the 'gas' tanks (that feed the pipelines)? A lot of homes in C-E Europe would then become 'frozen assets'. Physiological needs are the first priority in Maslow's hierarchy of needs - something Putin probably understands better than 'Western' politicians. If the West freezes his assets then 'back at cha' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 14:16:54 GMT
Hi colin I think Wallace's remarks about Munich are right. Macron is eager to emasculate Ukraine to appease Putin -and Germany is compromised. A)Well that would depend on what Putin actually wants
B) Ukraine has no such guarantee in place.
C) arguably the UK is compromised as well - with our economic challenges and the links between the Tory party and Russia is the UK government really going to aggressively go after Russian interest in London?
D) If Putin thinks the West lacks resolve, is divided and any sanctions can be ridden out recent behaviour by the West can only help to further those assumptions.
Thanks. Wallace referred to a "‘Whiff of Munich’" in a ST article. This was a metaphorical reference, not a literal one I think. He is a chap who wears his heart on his sleeve-he was reduced to tears when talking about those we abandoned in Kabul & Afghanistan. He has had hours of talks with senior Kremlin figures, including General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the general staff and was reflecting what he encountered across the table there. I like that he tells it how it is. In ST he writes :- "I think what I can guarantee the president in Russia is that if he were to invade the Ukraine, two things would happen that he doesn’t want to happen. One is he would see an increase of Nato forces on his borders, because countries such as the Baltic states and neighbouring countries would be much more fearful of the instability that has happened.“The second thing is, I guarantee that across 30 [Nato] allies it would trigger more defence spending and therefore a more capable adversary or defender from Russia. And if you are thinking about your strategic interests as Russia, you surely don’t really want that.” re@A) We know what Putin wants -the Minsk Accords implemented to suit him-giving Moscow a say in the governance of Ukraine. In his talk with Macron he said of Ukraine "“Like it or not, you’ll have to tolerate it, my beauty.”-a not very pleasant reference to being raped , dredged from Russian folklore apparently. France was a signatory to Minsk and Macron sees it as the route to a solution. Ukraine is not so sure :- www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/can-ukraine-and-russia-be-persuaded-to-abide-by-minsk-accordsPerhaps this is what Wallace had in mind ? B) It does actually-or did. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances But Russia breached it in 2014. Wallace says in his article "“The western response was particularly muted, which is why he doesn’t seem to think there were many consequences the first time around.". Which is true. C) I agree. If the sanctions being waved around by UK don't include action on this front, then they will have a "whiff" of Chamberlain's bit of paper. D) I don't think there is any doubt that he thinks that. He has every reason to do so.He will exploit every difference of opinion in the west-and is doing so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 14:36:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 14:49:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Feb 13, 2022 15:29:23 GMT
Hi colin I don't really want to get into a ding dong with you on this but a couple of your points need answering:
On A - We know what Putin wants - no we really don't actaully, and thats the real problem. I personally may think Putin is looking to go a lot further than the implementation of Minsk Accords, whether it would diffuse the current crisis and satisfy Putin a this stage is highly debatable. On B It does actually-or did. - no it didn't as those agreements contained no obligation on others in any way to intervene militarily if sovereignty was threatened- the strongest element of it was that signatories would seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". France had in 1924 actually entered into a formal military alliance with the Czechs, which is fundamentally different type of guarantee of singatories to recognising/committing to the sovereignty of a another state, and Nato members are obligated to come to the support of other members of the alliance if they are attacked etc. Such guarantees from Western powers have never been in place for Ukraine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 16:10:16 GMT
Hi colin I don't really want to get into a ding dong with you on this but a couple of your points need answering:
On A - We know what Putin wants - no we really don't actaully, and thats the real problem. I personally may think Putin is looking to go a lot further than the implementation of Minsk Accords, whether it would diffuse the current crisis and satisfy Putin a this stage is highly debatable. On B It does actually-or did. - no it didn't as those agreements contained no obligation on others in any way to intervene militarily if sovereignty was threatened- the strongest element of it was that signatories would seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". France had in 1924 actually entered into a formal military alliance with the Czechs, which is fundamentally different type of guarantee of singatories to recognising/committing to the sovereignty of a another state, and Nato members are obligated to come to the support of other members of the alliance if they are attacked etc. Such guarantees from Western powers have never been in place for Ukraine.
A-I am basing my thoughts on the reports from the Macron-Putin Meeting. Putin, as I said, explicitly ( and some would say offensively) stated that Ukraine would have to accept his interpretation of Minsk. That interpretation, as the G article I showed you indicated, would give Putin considerable political influence in Ukraine. Job done-no NATO membership would be allowed. If you foresee , however, objectives beyond retaining Ukraine in Russias's sphere of influence, I can only say I haven't read about them. Clearly any attack on a NATO member has military consequences. B-I quote from the WIKI on Budapest :- "After the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, Canada,[7] France, Germany, Italy, Japan,[8] the UK[9] and US[10][11] stated that Russian involvement was a breach of its Budapest Memorandum obligations to Ukraine which had been transmitted to the United Nations under the signature of Sergey Lavrov and others,[12] and in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. On 4 March 2014, the Russian president Vladimir Putin replied to a question on the violation of the Budapest Memorandum, describing the current Ukrainian situation as a revolution: "a new state arises, but with this state and in respect to this state, we have not signed any obligatory documents." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 16:21:15 GMT
I commend a long ST article on the history of Putin's strategy to make Western Europe reliant on Russian Gas , whilst keeping Ukraine out of the pipeline. Two Germans are key facilitators. Russia also supplies 40% of the world's palladium ( catalytic converters) ; and 30 % of its titanium. Of course if he stops supplying any of this , his economy suffers. An economy growing at less than 1% pa I was interested to read of another area of vulnerability to him-on the sanctions front. Russian entities owe EU Banks $60bn-4X what they owe to US banks. No wonder EU wasn't keen to shut Russia out of SWIFT Latest reports indicate that sanctions dont worry them too much  www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-ukraine-sanctions-does-not-give-st-ambassador-1678762 |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 13, 2022 18:00:01 GMT
Lots of RoC handwringing about Ukraine and how we solve a proble like Putin.
As far as I can tell, in all the sniping at German ideas of bringing Russia into a greater economic dependence on Europe as a way to increase westerb leverage, no one seems to have stated the obvious: it's the city of London and the Conservative governments very slack rules on money laundering and corruption that creates the greatest enabling environment for Putin's ambitions.
The US has identified the UK financial regulation regime as a major problem in the wests ability to apply pressure, and the Johnson administrations reliance on money from magnates with close ties to the Kremlin causes deep concern in Washington.
But if it makes you all feel better, just ignore this and carry on pretending that Germany is the problem here.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 13, 2022 18:10:54 GMT
shevii (and others) Stop and have a wee think about what everyone is saying about energy. There are good reasons to divest ourselves of reliance on fossil fuel, as well s reducing our reliance on Russian fossil fuels. But the fact that we are a very large customer of Putin's also has it's upsides. It's our pressure point on him, as much as it is his on us. He gets one shot at turning off the taps, and then Russia is bankrupt as we rush for the alternatives. But granting access to Russian state enterprises and high net wealth individuals to London's finance markets is a one way win for Putin. Cut him off from that and we've got some real clout. Strange, how the British press forgets to mention London's role in financing Putin's games, and the Conservatives reliance on Russian money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 18:16:52 GMT
I commend a long ST article on the history of Putin's strategy to make Western Europe reliant on Russian Gas , whilst keeping Ukraine out of the pipeline. Two Germans are key facilitators. This piece:Fully agree the piece you mention is well worth a read (which has the share token so others should be able to open it) www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d20e92be-8c12-11ec-b5fe-7fe087ff87b5?shareToken=6a236f9e4fa490c82256250198c3c476Whilst it was stating the obvious and I'm no fan of Trump then I'll clip out a few bits from the article: In 2018 President Trump told Angela Merkel, who took over as German chancellor from Schroeder in 2005: “Angela, you got to stop buying gas from Putin.”
“If you want us to protect you from the beast, why are you feeding it?”
However, folks assumed Trump was the 'bad guy' as the next bit points out: 'Trump wanted Merkel to buy more expensive American liquid gas — “freedom gas”, his government called it. This left Germans wondering whether America was motivated by fears of strengthening Russia’s hand or commercial profit'
They also mentioned one of the bonkers comments I've repeatedly made: Merkel began accelerating Germany’s phasing-out of nuclear power(as that has made them even more reliant on Russian gas and meant they've been burning more coal[1]) We've been discussing these issues for some time and would certainly share this opinion (in the past tense): What bafflesd many onlookers is why Germany remains so attached to a project that critics say will allow the Kremlin leader to put his boot on Europe’s windpipe whenever he wants. (as we're now seeing and will almost certainly continue to see for several years) However, we can't change the past and that is why I was hoping that they would approve NordStream2 and give Putin a 'win'. They should have then done what they failed to do for years-decades and start weaning themselves off Russian gas. UK doesn't import much gas direct from Russia but our own negligence over 'Energy Security' means we are now an energy importer in a regional (Norway) and global (LNG) market Putin is going to win the 'short-term' one way or the other and the stakes are now a lot higher (so giving him the 'easy' win now seems very unlikely). US can apply sanctions with very little impact to themselves. EUrope is then going to be bent over and take the punishment for it's (mostly German) past mistakes. How much fight they put up and whether Putin goes hard+fast or softer+slow is IMO about the only 'unknown'. How much time Biden+US invest in it is TBC as well and I'm not keen on UK getting roped in (willingly) given the recent history of US getting bored with foreign, forever, wars (although I expect some of their lobbying companies will be happy to see arms sales increase and gas prices rise) [1] www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/23/germany-coal-climate-cop26/see: ' In contrast to the government’s plans, coal power consumption increased markedly, with both hard coal and lignite use up by about 18 percent'www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-energy-consumption-rising-renewables-share-falling-2021 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 18:33:24 GMT
FT piece worth a read (on this thread and I'll also post it on the Energy thread) (Without new licenses[1]): UK’s reliance on gas imports to increase to 70% by 2030www.ft.com/content/f10b57f7-818a-4d3a-be7c-ad65fd3f87d3[1] That will reduce the reliance a bit and various other ways we can reduce our reliance (substitute supply and demand side) but a lot of that change will take time (eg new new nuclear) and in the mean time then electricity demand will go up (eg more EVs) so we'll need to burn more gas for that. Obviously we urgently need to put UK onto a better path but a lot of UK and EUrope's reliance on gas is 'baked in' by negligence in the past. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 18:49:02 GMT
Russian entities owe EU Banks $60bn-4X what they owe to US banks. I'm not sure of the exact number but if (probably when) new sanctions are applied then: - UK will freeze Russian assets in UK - Russia will freeze payments on Russian loans to EU I think zee Germans call that ' Schadenfreude'  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 18:55:19 GMT
Russian entities owe EU Banks $60bn-4X what they owe to US banks. I'm not sure of the exact number but if (probably when) new sanctions are applied then: - UK will freeze Russian assets in UK - Russia will freeze payments on Russian loans to EU I think zee Germans call that ' Schadenfreude'  Did you see their Swedish Ambassador's view of Western sanctions ? www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-ukraine-sanctions-does-not-give-st-ambassador-1678762More seriously-one wonders if anything troubles him at all about our response. He seems obsessed with NATO presence and absolutely resolute in saying Ukraine is Russia's to do with as he wishes-"you have to take it my beauty"-what an extraordinary thing to say ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 19:09:57 GMT
But the fact that we are a very large customer of Putin's also has it's upsides. It's our pressure point on him, Come off it Alec. This whole crisis is about one man's obsession to turn back the clock and restore the Soviet Union. He doesn't give a sh*t about our gas imports. |
|
