Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 15:39:41 GMT
Yes , the ordinary people in that region, close to the border, are 100% for Putin. But in Moscow, the middle classes are much more split - but you won't get many going on the record, they know what the consequences could be.
|
|
|
Post by catfuzz on Feb 23, 2022 17:10:39 GMT
So serious, possibly naive question - is this how WW3 kicks off (that is if hostilities begin in earnest)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 18:15:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Feb 23, 2022 18:19:49 GMT
So serious, possibly naive question - is this how WW3 kicks off (that is if hostilities begin in earnest)? Highly unlikely - Ukraine is not a vital interest for the US nor a member of Nato. It does however potentially indicate a significant reversal for a rules based international system, which may in time help contribute to an international system more prone to war between states that could help precipitate a WW3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 19:09:54 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,203
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Feb 24, 2022 5:34:24 GMT
Looks to be a full scale invasion of the Ukraine. Terrible for the Ukrainian people.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Feb 24, 2022 8:42:15 GMT
Looks to be a full scale invasion of the Ukraine. Terrible for the Ukrainian people. Unfortunately it is looking that way. there was always a distinct possibility that a full scale invasion would occur, and if Putin genuinely thinks this is the time to 'get Ukraine back' he will make the move. My heart goes out to the poor people of Ukraine who have done nothing to deserve this. The international community should never have allowed it to go this far.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,203
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Feb 24, 2022 8:52:36 GMT
He has a point
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 9:00:52 GMT
A defining moment for the world view of western society. Putin rejects it. Made fools of its leaders. Knew they would respond slowly. Knew they could not stop him. The Iron curtain is about to reappear across Europe. Not just slowly but uncoordinated and weak. We obviously don't know if it had been quicker, properly coordinated and stronger whether that would have made any difference (quite probably not), but he likely felt emboldened in the same way Hitler did after Munich1.0 (the recent meeting of Western leaders being a poorly chosen location) We've discussed it at length and I very much hope US/UK/EU/NATO/G7 have discussed it at length and act fast, coordinated and strong. Exactly what we do is complex but it has to be fast, coordinated and strong - otherwise Putin will (rightly) assume we continue to act slowly, uncoordinated and weak, emboldening him further. Sadly, we hear Western leaders will talk later today. Surely they knew what is happening now was a very plausible scenario and hence should have planned their fast, coordinated and strong response in advance. PS It goes without saying that if Putin wins a 'quick' war in Ukraine then he'll free up his forces and be in a very strong 'negotiating' position for Minsk III. Germany only has gas storage for max 2mths, parts of E.Europe likely less. Even into the Summer then due to shutting down nuclear[1] then Germany+ burn a lot of gas for electricity. Putin knows that and obviously the price has risen on today's events (ie Germany+ will be sending him even larger amounts of money to fund his military in the coming weeks and months). [1] I've been banging on about that so see attached. Germany used to produce approx 150TWh from nuclear which dropped to 70TWh in 2021. They just shut 3 more of their remaining 6 and plan to close the remaining ones very soon (ie they'll need to make up the remaining 70TWh from somewhere). They have been building up renewable supply which is great but instead of closing down nuclear they could have made a sizeable reduction in their purchases of Russian gas. But oh no, Russian gas was (past tense now) cheaper and folks don't like nuclear so they kept on buying Russian gas www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2021.png?www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-21/germany-is-closing-half-of-its-reactors-at-worst-possible-time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 9:17:30 GMT
A defining moment for the world view of western society. Putin rejects it. Made fools of its leaders. Knew they would respond slowly. Knew they could not stop him. The Iron curtain is about to reappear across Europe. Not just slowly but uncoordinated and weak. We obviously don't know if it had been quicker, properly coordinated and stronger whether that would have made any difference (quite probably not), but he likely felt emboldened in the same way Hitler did after Munich1.0 (the recent meeting of Western leaders being a poorly chosen location) We've discussed it at length and I very much hope US/UK/EU/NATO/G7 have discussed it at length and act fast, coordinated and strong. Exactly what we do is complex but it has to be fast, coordinated and strong - otherwise Putin will (rightly) assume we continue to act slowly, uncoordinated and weak, emboldening him further. Sadly, we hear Western leaders will talk later today. Surely they knew what is happening now was a very plausible scenario and hence should have planned their fast, coordinated and strong response in advance. PS It goes without saying that if Putin wins a 'quick' war in Ukraine then he'll free up his forces and be in a very strong 'negotiating' position for Minsk III. Germany only has gas storage for max 2mths, parts of E.Europe likely less. Even into the Summer then due to shutting down nuclear[1] then Germany+ burn a lot of gas for electricity. Putin knows that and obviously the price has risen on today's events (ie Germany+ will be sending him even larger amounts of money to fund his military in the coming weeks and months). [1] I've been banging on about that so see attached. Germany used to produce approx 150TWh from nuclear which dropped to 70TWh in 2021. They just shut 3 more of their remaining 6 and plan to close the remaining ones very soon (ie they'll need to make up the remaining 70TWh from somewhere). They have been building up renewable supply which is great but instead of closing down nuclear they could have made a sizeable reduction in their purchases of Russian gas. But oh no, Russian gas was (past tense now) cheaper and folks don't like nuclear so they kept on buying Russian gas www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2021.png?www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-21/germany-is-closing-half-of-its-reactors-at-worst-possible-timeThe knee jerk response to Fukushima in Germany was misguided. And now-as you say-a massive hole in Energy Security.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Feb 24, 2022 9:26:38 GMT
It's always about the money. Go after Putin's billionaire supporters and make them poor. Of course, the question then is have they removed their assets from our banks etc? It's as if someone warned them and gave them time.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Feb 24, 2022 9:31:41 GMT
Also, seems Starmer was right and the sanctions needed to be a lot harder on Russia as a warning. He's attacked Ukraine anyway so full sanctions should've been used. Being weak on sanctions has told Putin were not going to touch him or his mates. Show him we are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 9:40:17 GMT
The knee jerk response to Fukushima in Germany was misguided. And now-as you say-a massive hole in Energy Security. I'd agree but would highlight the dates By the end of 2022, Germany will have achieved its goal of completely phasing out nuclear power, set by Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 30, 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster
Crimea was 2014 (when they'd reduced nuclear from 150TWh to 100TWh) so that should surely have caused a 'review'? Even more was the decision by the new coalition to shut down 3 more in Dec'21 (after they halted authorisation for NS2) and state the remaining 3 would close this year (ie the final 70TWh reduction could and should have been paused) There is a case for not building new nuclear plants (especially using 'old' designs) but to shut down plants that were already built and hence had a very low operating cost and no new embedded carbon emissions was stark raving bonkers. Even if Putin hadn't done what is he now doing then Germany is still burning a load of coal for electricity and could+should have eliminated coal before closing down nuclear. Given the recently closed plants have only recently been closed then it should be possible to get them going again (with a small delay). If part of the new coordinated sanctions is to stop buying gas (and oil and coal) from Russia then Germany can quickly find 70TWh (and see other posts for how they might be able to find the rest and what that would mean to LNG prices) For E.Europe it's a more tricky but electricity is an interconnected market. PS As per previous posts the UK can 'go first' on banning imports of Russian gas (oil+coal) but it would be much better if it is a fast and coordinated response from all 'democracies' (or at least US/UK/EU) as hitting Putin in €€billions of money being sent to Russia each month is going to do a lot more 'damage' than locking the door after the horse has bolted sanctions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 9:46:10 GMT
It's always about the money. Go after Putin's billionaire supporters and make them poor. Of course, the question then is have they removed their assets from our banks etc? It's as if someone warned them and gave them time. Well it was Macron who thought he could get a diplomatic solution and it was Putin who strung him along for the time he needed to tell his cronies to get their money out of Western banks (and wait for the Olympics to finish). It's not just money that is a 'moveable' asset. Putin got his $100million super yacht out of Germany weeks ago. Maybe SPD's Scholz(ky) let him know and begged Putin not to jack up gas prices?
Putin's superyacht abruptly left Germany amid sanction warnings over Russia-Ukraine tensionswww.businessinsider.com/putin-yacht-graceful-left-germany-amid-sanction-threats-report-2022-2?
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 24, 2022 12:43:25 GMT
The knee jerk response to Fukushima in Germany was misguided. And now-as you say-a massive hole in Energy Security. I'd agree but would highlight the dates By the end of 2022, Germany will have achieved its goal of completely phasing out nuclear power, set by Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 30, 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster
PS As per previous posts the UK can 'go first' on banning imports of Russian gas (oil+coal) but it would be much better if it is a fast and coordinated response from all 'democracies' (or at least US/UK/EU) as hitting Putin in €€billions of money being sent to Russia each month is going to do a lot more 'damage' than locking the door after the horse has bolted sanctions I rather suspect that Annalena Baerbock, the German Foreign Minister is a 'watermelon'; Green on the outside but Red on the inside and this is why the new Scholz administration has been unable to do anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 13:04:26 GMT
I rather suspect that Annalena Baerbock, the German Foreign Minister is a 'watermelon'; Green on the outside but Red on the inside and this is why the new Scholz administration has been unable to do anything. I certainly fail to understand why a 'Green' would want to shut down existing nuclear power stations while their country still burns coal and other fossil fuels for electricity production. By 'Red' are you being specific to Germany and the colour of SPD and their links to Russia? Miliband was pro nuclear. Less sure about current LAB policy as that is all still 'vague'. There is a reasonable discussion (on the Issue Specific thread) to be had about building new nuclear plants (especially if it uses 'old' tech) and we just have one 'problem' with building new-old nuclear (Hinkley Point C) where as France has bigger problems replacing parts of its old fleet (that is seeing a lot less electricity being produced into the interconnected grid than was 'expected') Back to Germany and maybe even the Issue Specifics of 'Electoral Reform' then IMO the 'Traffic Light' coalition is going to struggle with these kinds of 'events' but Germany is not my polity so I'll leave it there.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,993
|
Post by Danny on Feb 24, 2022 13:17:56 GMT
Seems to be a lot of doom mongers predicting WW3. I still dont see anything inconsistent with Russia running a repeat of its annexation of the crimea. Essentially bloodles because the locals on the whole approved.
Why would Russia want to invade and occupy any parts of Ukraine where the locals mostly oppose them, so it would become another afghanistanian endless drain on the military occupation force?
There is an easy win for Russia in taking those areas which want to be Russian and nothing else. Putin ends up a hero for a bloodles easy win. Russia benefits from high fuel sales and suffers minimally from sanctions. The west claims they forced him not to take the rest, which he never intended to anyway.
Boris Johnson gets to plan some new parties at Downing street under the new covid rules (ie none), and ceases to have to answer questions about the previus ones. Big win for him. Owes one to Putin.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Feb 24, 2022 15:08:29 GMT
Its very difficult at such time to stay emotionally detached from what is happening - and I do not think its is an exaggeration to say that we are witnessing a significant historical change in the nature of the international system and world politics. Every time I hear the sirens on the TV it makes me want to cry.
Stepping back, I would assume the gamble Putin is making rests on an assumption that Western resolve in weak. I do not think it is a co-incidence that this has happened within months of the debacle in Afghanistan. Putin probably sees parallels between the collapse of Soviet power after its defeat in Afghanistan and the current state of Western power and resolve. The extent to which the West will take any prolonged pain in support of the Ukrainian cause is questionable. As the opinion polls show public willingness to militarily support Ukraine or intervene directly is not strong in the West. Putin has probably calculated that longer term he will be able to exploit gaps in the West approach and that the West will eventually accept what has happened.
How effective any resistance would be to a Russian occupation or puppet regime supported by Russian troops (the latter the most likely model) again is debatable. Putin is probably banking on the fact that a large Russian speaking minority of the population will either be supportive or easily reconciled to Russia rule in whatever form it take. That assumption and his view that he can control any anti-war sentiment at home may prove to be his Achilles heel.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,203
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Feb 24, 2022 15:38:26 GMT
@danny 'Putin ends up a hero for a bloodles easy win.'
It has already not been bloodless, people have died, are dying and will continue to die
|
|
|
Post by lens on Feb 24, 2022 17:08:47 GMT
There is a case for not building new nuclear plants (especially using 'old' designs) but to shut down plants that were already built and hence had a very low operating cost and no new embedded carbon emissions was stark raving bonkers. Even if Putin hadn't done what is he now doing then Germany is still burning a load of coal for electricity and could+should have eliminated coal before closing down nuclear. Most sensible comment I've ever read here, I think! I can see why there may be a feeling in favour of moving away from nuclear power - but it should have been done whilst building up renewables, and certainly not whilst still burning a lot of coal! That's the environmental side - on the political side, then becoming dependent on Russian gas as the alternative really was a disaster waiting to happen. Talking about and imposing sanctions may be one thing against a relatively small country, but difficult to see it working against Russia. Interesting timing regarding waiting until just after the Winter Olympics had finished. (I doubt the paralympics will get much coverage now.) Also worth reading up on the history of Ukraine if anyone hasn't already done so. Like so many countries in eastern Europe it's borders have been very fluid over the last few centuries, so none of this should really surprise anyone too much.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Feb 24, 2022 17:38:02 GMT
From the Times a couple weeks back…
“Veterans of Kyiv rue the day they gave up their nuclear arsenal”
“Having handed over or destroyed its missiles as part of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by the UK, US, and Russia — a deal supposed to guarantee Ukraine’s territorial integrity and safety from attack — the country’s nuclear disarmament was once heralded as the beacon of hope for future reductions of stockpiles across the world.”
“Today, with more than 130,000 Russian troops gathered along Ukraine’s borders, bereft of deterrent and facing possible invasion from a nuclear power, that hope is dead.
“The lesson of Budapest is clear to us all,” said General Filatov, 72, who until the memorandum was signed controlled 86 missile silos and more than 700 of the 1,700 nuclear warheads that remained in Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union. “Don’t disarm!”
“The Budapest memorandum is now referred to by all sides in the gathering conflict. Signed in Hungary on December 5, 1994, the signatories guaranteed that in return for Ukraine removing its nuclear weapons, Ukraine’s security would be safeguarded from either nuclear attack or territorial violation.
Yet the deal, described as a “weak tea” accord by diplomats, contained no enforcement measures and never became a recognised international treaty backed by western military commitment.”
…
“Ukraine would still have Crimea and the Donbas if we had held on to our rockets,” said a former colonel and launch operator…”
…
”“Iran and North Korea will look at Ukraine, and see another example in which commitments attached to giving up nuclear weapons were not fulfilled,” said David Albright, the physicist and nuclear proliferation expert who founded the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.
”Those thinking of acquiring nuclear weapons will be even keener to have them if their neighbours already do so. The Ukraine crisis makes it unclear if giving up nuclear weapons is in your country’s interests, and it increases the motivation of other countries to get hold of nuclear weapons.” thinking of acquiring nuclear weapons will be even keener to have them if their neighbours already do so. The Ukraine crisis makes it unclear if giving up nuclear weapons is in your country’s interests, and it increases the motivation of other countries to get hold of nuclear weapons.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 17:47:36 GMT
Reposting on the Issue Specific thread as a lot of links to sources that some folks might find useful to check in the future without trawling through the comments on the main thread: Germany had a lot of arguments about NS2 with the EU, but one thing that seems to be underplayed in the reporting: it was an anti-Ukrainian project of from the very beginning as the main pipeline to Europe went through Ukraine (Brotherhood Pipeline). I don't know about 'underplayed in reporting' but I'll repost the map of European pipelines that I posted on the Issue Specific thread: www.researchgate.net/figure/Colour-online-European-gas-pipeline-network-We-show-the-transmission-network-blue_fig1_26720900NS2 would have be a bold line direct from Russia to Germany and then into the interconnected network C-E Europe has various options for gas Pipelines 1/ Direct from Russia 2/ From Russia passing through other countries 3/ Direct from the Norwegian N.Sea or from Norway 4/ From Africa 5/ From UK As a 'purely commercial project' (according to Merkel) then #1 was supposed to produce the 'cheapest' gas as it cut out the middleman (#2) or didn't need to compete with those buying from 'non-Russian' sources (#3-5) and see where likes of Poland have been building pipelines and securing contracts** For #5 then folks will need the additional map of LNG terminals***. One modest silver lining from the Ukraine crisis will be that UK gives new licences to gasfields in the UK bit of the N.Sea and everyone is likely to speed up building more LNG infrastructure. UK built a massive LNG capacity that can comfortably meet all of our needs (and help our 'friends' in Europe via existing pipelines if they need it - again, already covered on the Issue Specific thread) but importing LNG puts UK in competition with rWorld (notably Japan and China). The only other additional point (already covered on the Issue Specific threads) is the lack of N.America pipelines and export infrastructure (some modest expansion but a lot of rejected projects and 'dither and delay') which has resulted in European (and Asian) gas prices exploding whilst in N.Amercia the price has not risen by much (as they are 'self-sufficient' and what they can export onto the global market is limited by the existing infrastructure) www.statista.com/statistics/673333/monthly-prices-for-natural-gas-in-the-united-states-and-europe/For a more complex map then www.gie.eu/publications/maps/gie-lng-map/** www.reuters.com/article/norway-poland-gas-idUSL5N22K6B0and www.upstreamonline.com/production/poland-expands-offshore-presence-in-norwegian-north-sea/2-1-1073754*** www.researchgate.net/figure/Existing-and-planned-LNG-terminals-in-Europe-GIIGNL-2016-GLE-2015_fig3_328783783PS Apologies by (re)posting some many sources as I know a lot of folks can't be bothered with that but none of this is 'new' stuff. These issues have been known for years/decades. I'm not keen on UK's past decisions to import LNG rather than increase N.Sea production (which will eventually run out but should 'bridge' us for long enough). Those decisions were partly 'commercial' and partly due to the absurd 'green lobby' who seem to prefer importing LNG (which is obviously less Green due the need for liquefaction and storage, ocean transportation via tankers, and storage and regasification at the receiving end). PPS The link for EU storage levels (overall and by country, with historical data and graph functions) agsi.gie.eu/#/
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 24, 2022 18:30:51 GMT
From the Times a couple weeks back… “Veterans of Kyiv rue the day they gave up their nuclear arsenal”
”Those thinking of acquiring nuclear weapons will be even keener to have them if their neighbours already do so. The Ukraine crisis makes it unclear if giving up nuclear weapons is in your country’s interests, and it increases the motivation of other countries to get hold of nuclear weapons.” thinking of acquiring nuclear weapons will be even keener to have them if their neighbours already do so. The Ukraine crisis makes it unclear if giving up nuclear weapons is in your country’s interests, and it increases the motivation of other countries to get hold of nuclear weapons.”
Only too true, and why I expect Iran will now rush to finish their development of nuclear weapons; as Iraq, Libya and now Ukraine have shown, a country that gives up a nuclear weapon capability is vulnerable to attack. No chance of nuclear disarmament for at least another generation now I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 18:46:31 GMT
From the Times a couple weeks back… “Veterans of Kyiv rue the day they gave up their nuclear arsenal”
”Those thinking of acquiring nuclear weapons will be even keener to have them if their neighbours already do so. The Ukraine crisis makes it unclear if giving up nuclear weapons is in your country’s interests, and it increases the motivation of other countries to get hold of nuclear weapons.” thinking of acquiring nuclear weapons will be even keener to have them if their neighbours already do so. The Ukraine crisis makes it unclear if giving up nuclear weapons is in your country’s interests, and it increases the motivation of other countries to get hold of nuclear weapons.”
Only too true, and why I expect Iran will now rush to finish their development of nuclear weapons; as Iraq, Libya and now Ukraine have shown, a country that gives up a nuclear weapon capability is vulnerable to attack. No chance of nuclear disarmament for at least another generation now I think. I don't think the US and Israel will allow that to happen leftie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 18:54:43 GMT
I'm very fearful about what will happen to Kiev. It will be the 'jewel in the crown' for Putin and he won't give it up once he get his mitts on it.
But I also don't think he'll be able to capture the western part of Ukraine - - the terrain is difficult and the people there (the so-called 'nazis') are tough. From there they'll be able to hit back at Kiev, especially if supplied with the right hardware by the west. I can see Kiev ending up being totally blitzed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 22:05:30 GMT
Out all afternoon-just catching up.
Watched Biden-two things caught my eye:-
* In answer to Q-is India on board?-he said they hadnt discussed it with them yet. This is supposed to be a co-ordinated package. India + Turkey ??-weak links ?
* In answer to Q -why not SWIFT yet-he said "Europe isn't ready for that" .
Adam Parsons, the Sky News Brussels chap said a majority of EU members agreed on SWIFT inclusion-but it is problematic for the "larger ones". Parsons said -it just depends "how much pain you are willing to take for Ukraine".
Reminded me that USA wasn't willing to take ANY more pain for Afghan girls and women-just when they were winning.
Biden said rather testily to one question about why sanctions hadn't "stopped" Putin , that they werent supposed to-they were to punish Russia for what he has done.
I think Putin can take a lot of punished Russians provided he can arrest Zelensky & replace him with a stooge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 22:11:00 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 22:19:33 GMT
"German media have cited estimates that between 200,000 and one million people may flee to the EU from Ukraine."
CBC
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 24, 2022 22:22:40 GMT
colin - R4 PM tonight had an interview with a Conservative MP whose name I can't recall. She spunded knowledgable and impressive, and was commenting on the UK sanctions just announced. Her view was that going for the Swift system was not necessary if you attacked Russian banks hard, and she didn't appear to consider the omission of Swift sanctions as an issue. She seemed to suhhest that we were simply doing the same thing in another way, and one likely to be harder for Russia. Whether accurate or not I can't say as I don't have the knowledge to comment, but I thought it was notable that a Conservative was saying this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2022 22:25:36 GMT
"n Moscow, Russia, February 7, 2022. Thibault Camus/Pool via REUTERS/
MOSCOW, Feb 24 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone to French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday and gave him an "exhaustive" explanation of the reasons for Russia's actions in Ukraine, the Kremlin said."
|
|