Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ukrainian Conflict 2014 - ? (Take II)

  • 29-01-2014 5:07pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭


    This post has been deleted.


«13456

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Phoenix wrote: »
    So says Leonid Kravchuk,Ukraine's first post-independence president.
    covered here
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25939737
    I have been spekaing to friends living in Kiev since the first clashes and some of the stuff that has been allegedly carried out by the state services against the protesters has been abhorrent to say the least...
    I hope this doesnt end up as another Yugoslavia

    Dont know a whole lot about ukraine would it be divided along religous and ethnic lines like yugoslavia


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    jimboblep wrote: »
    Dont know a whole lot about ukraine would it be divided along religous and ethnic lines like yugoslavia

    Generally along ethnic lines.

    North-West, Ukranian, nationalist, Pro-European
    South-East, Russian, imperialist, Pro-Russian

    There have, however, been protests in the South-East/Russian stronghold.

    Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    And political divisions - voting maps since independence: Jdaiqwp.png

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,549 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Ok, the last thread on this topic went badly off the rails towards the end.

    The big problem so far has been that the debate ceases to be about a free exchange of opinions or factual debate, and has turned into a cycle of people repeating that the other person's view was invalid.

    If responding to another poster, think about this before you post - does my response advance the broader topic or the narrow issue at hand, or is my post simply expressing disagreement or dislike of another person's view?

    If the former, post away. If the latter, please refrain from posting.

    If you believe someone has a bias or preference for one source of news, think it but don't say it.

    If someone's view is demonstrably wrong, then show it, don't just say it.

    EDIT: My plan to copy over recent talking points from the other thread isn't going to work, so I'm going to keep the above posts as general background and anyone who wants to start an on topic discussion can do so now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    The Swiss banking authority is co operating with the Ukrainian government over frozern assets belonging to viktor yanukovic held in Swiss accounts totalling around €170 million .
    the authorities are also investigating a huge money laundering operation involving yanukovic his son and 30 of his entourage.
    Ukraines government believe $37 billion in loans given to Ukraine disappeared in 3 years during yanukovics reign and another $70 billion left the country .

    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/yanukovych-regime_swiss-move-on-ukraine-frozen-funds-claim/41378902

    So if I'm correct nearly $100 billion + vanished with viktor yanukovic and his entourage before being whisked off to Moscow for his own protection.

    That figure is absolutely staggering if true


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Gatling wrote: »
    The Swiss banking authority is co operating with the Ukrainian government over frozern assets belonging to viktor yanukovic held in Swiss accounts totalling around €170 million .
    the authorities are also investigating a huge money laundering operation involving yanukovic his son and 30 of his entourage.
    Ukraines government believe $37 billion in loans given to Ukraine disappeared in 3 years during yanukovics reign and another $70 billion left the country .

    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/yanukovych-regime_swiss-move-on-ukraine-frozen-funds-claim/41378902

    So if I'm correct nearly $100 billion + vanished with viktor yanukovic and his entourage before being whisked off to Moscow for his own protection.

    That figure is absolutely staggering if true

    It is a little ironic that the Swiss have decided to investigate these goings on considering they are and have been a model of tax secrecy though in recent times they have somewhat changed their tune. you could always rely on the Swiss to obfuscate and obstruct this time around and in a couple of other instances outside influences may well have "forced" their hand. wherever that money went its going to be hard to track and pin down. When yanukovic was in power Ukraine was akin to a neofeudal system you could make an argument Russia is sort of on that buzz too. and in some instances now Ukraine has gone toward its own form of outright feudalism . Chocolate barons in control and his mates administering power in various regions .the place is an all round joke. will probably be hard to nail down exactly how much money left the country the Ukrainians are claiming its the amount you allude too whether they can prove that or not is another matter entirely. the web is quite deep.
    Work by the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Centre and other investigative journalists has revealed that Mr Yanukovych’s former private residence, known as Mezhyhirya, was bought some years ago without any competitive tendering process, then immediately re-sold to a Ukrainian company called Tantalit. This firm is owned by an Austrian company, which in turn is 35% owned by a British shell company, Blythe (Europe) Ltd, and 65% owned by an Austrian bank. Blythe, which is owned by an impenetrable Liechtenstein trust, is also understood to be the owner or part-owner of the former president’s hunting lodge and the firm that owns the presidential planes and helicopters.

    Tantalit is believed to have been sold last September to Sergey Kluyev, a MP from Mr Yanukovych’s party. The director of one of Tantalit’s corporate shareholders is a lawyer who is known to have worked for the former president and his family. The sole director of Blythe, an Austrian called Reinhard Proksch, told the Reuters news agency “I am not a crook” and said he was co-operating with international authorities. He had previously claimed the firm had no links to Mr Yanukovych. In a press conference last week, held in Russia, Mr Yanukovych said he owns 2.7 hectares of land and the main building at Mezhyhirya, which he bought for $3m. He said the rest of the land on the estate does not belong to him or his family.

    Some of the assets suspected of having been stolen are thought to be in Alpine havens. (Austria, in particular, seems to have become a popular way-station for Ukrainian assets.) Others were apparently diverted to, or at least passed through, limited-liability partnerships (LLPs) incorporated in Britain. These, in turn, were held by corporate partners in small offshore secrecy jurisdictions. One LLP, which is suspected of having been used in a $150m gas-rig fraud, was owned by two British Virgin Islands (BVI) entities; control subsequently switched to a pair of firms in Belize. Ownership of another partnership, which was allegedly part of a conspiracy to corner the market in Ukrainian wheat, was moved from the BVI to the Seychelles. Corporate secrecy is strong in the BVI but more water-tight in Belize and the Seychelles. LLPs are popular with money-launderers because they are opaque and—whether by design or accident—can easily slip under the radar of tax authorities.
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/03/ukraine-s-stolen-assets

    a very rational, well thought out, piece has appeared in the Ukrainian state news agency...
    An article in Ukraine's national news agency claims that the United States is ready to start a new world war.


    According to Ukraine's state news agency Ukrinform, the US House of Representatives vote on sending lethal aid to Ukraine means that the United States is ready to begin a "fourth World War:"

    "We will get Javelins and other killer hardware. We will be taught by the best American instructors and there will be NATO ships in the Black Sea. But that's not all. Sooner or later a regular American force will appear on Ukrainian territory and it will fight regular Russian forces."

    Citing Samuel Huntington's book, "The Clash of Civilizations," the national news agency article said that the tensions between Russia and Ukraine are civilizational because the Kiev-based Ukrainian Orthodox Church supported the Kiev protests which led to the 2014 coup, as well as the idea of a war against Russia.

    According to the publication, American "hawks" also want a war against Russia, although they apparently increasingly fight from distant command centers.
    "But they will teach us many things. And we will be able to have a large-scale war," the publication added.
    The publication hopes that a full-scale war will begin after Barack Obama leaves the White House and is replaced by a "decisive Republican."

    http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150415/1020937007.html?

    US paratroopers have have arrived in Ukraine to compliment the British. Canadians will be on the way shortly to send a "message".
    U.S. paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine for Operation Fearless Guardian, a six-month effort to train Ukraine’s newly established national guard force.

    The first troops from the 173rd Airborne Brigade arrived Friday in western Ukraine, delivering military cargo after completing a 1,100-mile convoy from their home station in Vicenza, Italy, the Army said.
    http://www.stripes.com/news/us-paratroops-convoy-to-western-ukraine-for-training-mission-1.339858
    Russia is calling Canada's decision to send 200 military trainers to Ukraine "counterproductive and deplorable."

    The Russian Embassy in Ottawa said in a statement Wednesday that Canada's actions are helping to assist a military build-up.

    Canada announced Tuesday 200 trainers will be posted in western Ukraine, joining U.S. and British soldiers early this summer.

    The will last until March 31, 2017. Britain is sending up to 75 military trainers. The U-S has committed 800 troops to train three battalions in western Ukraine.

    The move comes after a request from the government of Ukraine.

    Canadian Defense Minister Jason Kenney said the deployment of trainers sends Russian President Vladimir Putin a message of resolution and deterrence. Kenney emphasized the troops are far from the conflict zone.

    http://www.startribune.com/world/299875741.html?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    WakeUp wrote: »
    It is a little ironic that the Swiss have decided to investigate these goings on considering they are and have been a model of tax secrecy though in recent times they have somewhat changed their tune. you could always rely on the Swiss to obfuscate and obstruct this time around and in a couple of other instances outside influences may well have "forced" their hand. wherever that money went its going to be hard to track and pin down. When yanukovic was in power Ukraine was akin to a neofeudal system you could make an argument Russia is sort of on that buzz too. and in some instances now Ukraine has gone toward its own form of outright feudalism . Chocolate barons in control and his mates administering power in various regions .the place is an all round joke. will probably be hard to nail down exactly how much money left the country the Ukrainians are claiming its the amount you allude too whether they can prove that or not is another matter entirely. the web is quite deep.


    http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/03/ukraine-s-stolen-assets

    a very rational, well thought out, piece has appeared in the Ukrainian state news agency...



    http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150415/1020937007.html?

    US paratroopers have have arrived in Ukraine to compliment the British. Canadians will be on the way shortly to send a "message".


    http://www.stripes.com/news/us-paratroops-convoy-to-western-ukraine-for-training-mission-1.339858



    http://www.startribune.com/world/299875741.html?

    The US troops have been planned since early February it's not exactly a suprise at this stage the same with Canadian and British troops all planned and announced early in the year .
    Wonder what would happen if 20,000 US ,Canadian, British and Baltic state military volunteers appeared in Ukraine would the various Russian ambassadors be jumping up and down too.
    But ask how yanukovic got so wealthy on an average industrial wage .
    €100 +billion in a few short years is crazy to disappear out of any economy


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    WakeUp wrote: »

    a very rational, well thought out, piece has appeared in the Ukrainian state news agency...

    http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150415/1020937007.html?

    Any chance you can link to the original article. I have looked at the Ukrinform site myself and there is no sign of any such article. I hope your not taking Sputniknews word for it given it is a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. And we do know how they like to bend the truth especially as they do not do what the majority of news sites do which is connect to the source information.
    Sputnik is an international multimedia news service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russia on 9 December 2013.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_%28news_agency%29

    As for countries sending in assistance to allow the Ukraine defend themselves it's about time and I am delighted that some of the International community are starting to provide real help.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Gatling wrote: »
    The US troops have been planned since early February it's not exactly a suprise at this stage the same with Canadian and British troops all planned and announced early in the year .
    Wonder what would happen if 20,000 US ,Canadian, British and Baltic state military volunteers appeared in Ukraine would the various Russian ambassadors be jumping up and down too.
    But ask how yanukovic got so wealthy on an average industrial wage .
    €100 +billion in a few short years is crazy to disappear out of any economy

    Well if you mean 20,000 US, Canadian, British and Baltic military troops suddenly appearing in Ukraine I would think they wouldnt even get that far. and if they did the Russians would view it as a direct threat to their existence then vapourise them. I dont think it would even get that far it would be a crazy course of action. Vlad would maybe send Barry a selfie of his finger and the button with a short message saying if you send your troops to Ukraine the button gets it. something like that. As for Yanukovic and his crew looting money Im sure he did how much and where it is thats a question I dont know the answer too.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Any chance you can link to the original article. I have looked at the Ukrinform site myself and there is no sign of any such article. I hope your not taking Sputniknews word for it given it is a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. And we do know how they like to bend the truth especially as they do not do what the majority of news sites do which is connect to the source information.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_%28news_agency%29

    As for countries sending in assistance to allow the Ukraine defend themselves it's about time and I am delighted that some of the International community are starting to provide real help.

    Nope I did have a look for it and like you I couldnt find it if I do come across it I will post it if you do please do likewise. I have to be honest and admit I didnt know sputnik was a Russian government outlet so perhaps a pinch of salt with that article I posted fair enough. Kremlin outlets have their use though. Any state news agency bends the truth if and when it suits that isnt just a Russian thing. Ukraine defending themselves. they are dumb enough to go on the offensive. training them is just the beginning and then if arms are supplied and they go on the rampage. they will be committing national suicide the Russians wont have that and they will roll in. be careful what you wish for.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Nope I did have a look for it and like you I couldnt find it if I do come across it I will post it if you do please do likewise. I have to be honest and admit I didnt know sputnik was a Russian government outlet so perhaps a pinch of salt with that article I posted fair enough. Kremlin outlets have their use though. Any state news agency bends the truth if and when it suits that isnt just a Russian thing.


    I have a feeling we won't come across it.

    I find it surprising that you didn't realise that Sputniknews was an official site given the slant and wording on the majority of articles on the site. Only Pravda has more obvious slanted and even crazy point of view. The Russian news agencies not only bend the truth they have been proven to make it up with regard to the conflict that Russia has started in the Ukraine about vapourware atrocities carried out by Ukrainian forces.

    Personally I have a rule about not quoting Russian State funded or Ukrainian official sites if possible as backup for anything I post about this conflict.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Ukraine defending themselves. they are dumb enough to go on the offensive. training them is just the beginning and then if arms are supplied and they go on the rampage. they will be committing national suicide the Russians wont have that and they will roll in. be careful what you wish for.

    Again they are being given training and weapons to defend themselves which they are perfectly entitled to do in their own sovereign territory. Personally I agree 100% with Edward Lucas's assessment of the whole situation.
    Hybrid warfare ultimately works against countries that are weak and unwilling to defend themselves; the Baltic states do have the will and it works as the first and most important line of defense, senior editor of the newsweekly The Economist Edward Lucas said ahead of his appearance at the Lennart Meri Conference in Tallinn later this month.

    «We have seen that Russia is capable of doing things that, ten years ago, people would have discounted. So we are dealing with a different sort of Russia now, a Russia that has the means to do unpleasant things to its neighbors,» Lucas told BNS in an interview and added that this is, however, not inevitable. «Each of the Baltic states has its own opportunity to, first of all, prevent this from happening, and, if it does start, resist it very strongly. Ultimately, hybrid warfare works against countries that are weak and do not have the will to defend themselves. The Baltic states do have the will to defend themselves so this is your first and most important line of defense,» he said.

    The elements of Russian psychological warfare such as organizing snap exercises and making threats are fundamentally hollow as well, Lucas said and remarked that Russia is a two trillion dollar economy, whereas the NATO member states constitute a forty trillion dollar economy and the defense budget of the United States is nearly half the GDP of Russia. «This is not like the old Cold War, when the Soviet Union was a real rival to the West. Russia is just too weak to pose a challenge to the West. Russia can only win if the West's willpower is weak,» he said. «If somebody is trying to make you scared, it's always a good idea to not be scared.»

    http://news.postimees.ee/3157969/edward-lucas-hybrid-warfare-works-against-countries-that-are-weak


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    gandalf wrote: »
    I have a feeling we won't come across it.

    I find it surprising that you didn't realise that Sputniknews was an official site given the slant and wording on the majority of articles on the site. Only Pravda has more obvious slanted and even crazy point of view. The Russian news agencies not only bend the truth they have been proven to make it up with regard to the conflict that Russia has started in the Ukraine about vapourware atrocities carried out by Ukrainian forces.

    Personally I have a rule about not quoting Russian State funded or Ukrainian official sites if possible as backup for anything I post about this conflict.


    Again they are being given training and weapons to defend themselves which they are perfectly entitled to do in their own sovereign territory. Personally I agree 100% with Edward Lucas's assessment of the whole situation.



    http://news.postimees.ee/3157969/edward-lucas-hybrid-warfare-works-against-countries-that-are-weak

    Im full of surprises. I genuinely didnt know it was a Kremlin sponsored outlet I knew it was Russian alright just not that. whether you believe me or not is up to you with all due respect I dont care. in the interest of fairness the Ukrainians have made things up too that works both ways. not defending Russia just sayin. the first casualty of war is the truth and this applies to all concerned. that lucas article you posted doesnt go into much detail and its highly slanted in one direction. he also states that "Russia is no position to challenge the west" by this does he mean the US? Russia may not be in a position to "challenge" the west ( US ) though they are certainly capable of standing their ground and causing problems if they believe their interests are threatened or at stake. Georgia, Syria and Ukraine being three examples. I also dont believe Putin or Russia wants to attempt to take or do anything in the baltic states or any other Nato member to me thats just nonsense again something Lucas alludes too and I dont take that seriously thats just my opinion. he also talks about "dealing with a different sort of Russia". damn right they are the US/Nato are getting involved in a conflict that is of no concern to them on Russias border.

    See heres the thing about training and giving weapons to the Ukrainians who are both unhinged and inept. the army is being trained to fight who exactly? the rebels? it isnt going to work only make the situation worse. Putin has two red lines in Ukraine - no Nato membership and the pro Russian rebels in the east will not be crushed even it means Russia becoming overtly and fully involved this has been stated. if it looks like happening Russian tanks will roll in. there is no military solution to this. many of the people in the east dont want anything to do with Kiev. Kiev has been killing its "own" people in the east. should they not have the right to "defend" themselves too?,, July is when EU sanctions are due to expire. when that happens we have a choice. escalate the sanctions at the behest of the Americans or do our own thing. if the EU decides to follow the Americans and escalate I would posit that Putin will cut off all ties to the west be they practical or diplomatic and mobilise his army fully and prepare his population for all out war. when the anglo American Canadian axis finish training the Ukrainian military and right wing sector will they give the green light for an offensive in the east? will the Russians roll in and vapourise them? will the Americans stand by and watch.? just some of the question that should and need asking.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Im full of surprises. I genuinely didnt know it was a Kremlin sponsored outlet I knew it was Russian alright just not that. whether you believe me or not is up to you with all due respect I dont care. in the interest of fairness the Ukrainians have made things up too that works both ways. not defending Russia just sayin. the first casualty of war is the truth and this applies to all concerned.

    Absolutely. Again the only reason I say it is that the majority of your interactions and sources to back them up are from what I would classify as good sources.

    I certainly wouldn't use Ukrainian or Ukrainian Government sites as sources either. The country is at war therefore they are going to be spinning their news for the benefit of their population and with public opinion in the rest of the world in mind.

    Just one look at the Sputniknews site and you can see that it is pushing a very definite agenda and some of the stories are fairly crazy, although Pravda's English site takes the biscuit for that. I look at it on occasion if I need a good laugh.
    that lucas article you posted doesnt go into much detail and its highly slanted in one direction. he also states that "Russia is no position to challenge the west" by this does he mean the US?

    I thought he was quite clear. He was talking from an economic standpoint and meant the US and Europe.
    Russia may not be in a position to "challenge" the west ( US ) though they are certainly capable of standing their ground and causing problems if they believe their interests are threatened or at stake.

    I don't think people have issues with countries standing their ground as you state. However standing their ground would typically mean defending their own sovereign territory. Quite clearly they have gone well beyond this with their actions in the Ukraine. They have violated a neighbouring countries borders and territory.
    Georgia, Syria and Ukraine being three examples.

    Two are examples of Russia invading territory that wasn't theirs and the other is them protecting one of their largest purchasers of weapons.
    I also dont believe Putin or Russia wants to attempt to take or do anything in the baltic states or any other Nato member to me thats just nonsense again something Lucas alludes too and I dont take that seriously thats just my opinion.

    But you have to concede that he has a point in his opening statement. 10 years ago, hell 5 years ago I would never have seen a situation where Russia would have carried out the illegal actions it has in the Ukraine over the last year and a half. With that in mind it is perfectly feasible that we should consider that the Baltic States are in danger. Logically you are correct it shouldn't even be considered but logically I would have never considered that Russia would go back in time and adopt a stance of hybrid warfare to destablise and occupy parts of neighbouring countries, yet here we are with precisely that situation.
    he also talks about "dealing with a different sort of Russia". damn right they are the US/Nato are getting involved in a conflict that is of no concern to them on Russias border.

    I think he is refering to the fact that the Russians have done a "crazy ivan" and seem to be reverting to a foreign policy akin to the Soviet times.
    See heres the thing about training and giving weapons to the Ukrainians who are both unhinged and inept. the army is being trained to fight who exactly? the rebels? it isnt going to work only make the situation worse.

    Again I disagree with you and I think the Ukrainians are allowed to seek help to bolster their army from wherever they want without being dictated to by a country that has violated their borders.

    You call the Ukrainians "unhinged and inept" I would say they are under pressure, under resourced and up against a far better armed, better resourced, better trained and in some case professional military from a much larger regional power.
    Putin has two red lines in Ukraine - no Nato membership and the pro Russian rebels in the east will not be crushed even it means Russia becoming overtly and fully involved this has been stated. if it looks like happening Russian tanks will roll in. there is no military solution to this. many of the people in the east dont want anything to do with Kiev.

    But the Ukrainians ultimately should be allow make decisions on what organisations they can and can't join. Russia in its aggressive actions would by my reckoning be the biggest cheerleader to encourage the Ukraine to join Nato.

    The "leaders" who started to say they didn't want anything to do with Kiev forcefully all originated from Russia?
    Kiev has been killing its "own" people in the east. should they not have the right to "defend" themselves too?,,

    So are you saying that a country just lies down and lets an externally supported force take over vast tracts of that country without attempting to defend the integrity of that country then?
    July is when EU sanctions are due to expire. when that happens we have a choice. escalate the sanctions at the behest of the Americans or do our own thing.

    Again as a European I believe it is in our interest to send a very clear message to Moscow that Sudetenland type aggression has no place in the 21st century the same way it shouldn't have had in the 20th and I certainly believe we should be ramping up sanctions and not relaxing them against a Rogue Regional Power.
    if the EU decides to follow the Americans and escalate I would posit that Putin will cut off all ties to the west be they practical or diplomatic and mobilise his army fully and prepare his population for all out war.

    Again I don't believe that will happen.
    when the anglo American Canadian axis finish training the Ukrainian military and right wing sector will they give the green light for an offensive in the east?

    Again you are ignoring the fact that the assistance is defensive. I also see you are lumping the whole Ukrainian military in with a minority who are from the right sector. Nice use of the word "axis" btw, very subtle but imho there is only one country that has the potential to launch a "Operation Himmler II" and that is Russia. At least if the Ukrainians have a bolstered military it may leash the Russians when they consider the cost could be higher than they calculated.
    will the Russians roll in and vapourise them? will the Americans stand by and watch.? just some of the question that should and need asking.

    If the Russians use Nuclear Weapons then they will be green lighting the use of them against Russia.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    gandalf wrote: »
    If the Russians use Nuclear Weapons then they will be green lighting the use of them against Russia.


    Y'see; here's the thing that every novorussia "supporter" seems to forget when they chime in with how Russia has nukes. And it's a very important factor to consider:

    It is impossible to distinguish between a rocket launch, and an ICBM launch unless notified before-hand (hence why all the space agencies broadcast it well, well, well in advance). If one ICBM launches; they all launch. And by that I mean all. Everywhere.

    So, Russia would destroy itself for what? Hitting a target inside a neighbour that they have already effectively stolen land from? Not exactly playing for all the marbles, is it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    gandalf wrote: »
    Absolutely. Again the only reason I say it is that the majority of your interactions and sources to back them up are from what I would classify as good sources.

    the majority of my interactions you wouldnt classify as good sources, huh? what do you mean by that, if I press you on it do you think you can back it up....
    gandalf wrote: »
    I certainly wouldn't use Ukrainian or Ukrainian Government sites as sources either. The country is at war therefore they are going to be spinning their news for the benefit of their population and with public opinion in the rest of the world in mind.

    agreed. just like the Russians the Ukrainians are spinning and telling lies when it suits.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Just one look at the Sputniknews site and you can see that it is pushing a very definite agenda and some of the stories are fairly crazy, although Pravda's English site takes the biscuit for that. I look at it on occasion if I need a good laugh.

    twice now ive admitted I wasnt aware it was Russian government controlled after holding my hand up to the article I linked and saying fair enough pinch of salt perhaps. Ive linked to that site maybe a handful of times. are you going to keep bringing it up or do you think there is something to be gained by continuing to hark on about it.
    gandalf wrote: »
    I thought he was quite clear. He was talking from an economic standpoint and meant the US and Europe.

    but you werent clear were you you just said you agreed with him. he touched on a number of things. elaborate on the economic standpoint then, how its relevant and to what exactly, in your opinion...
    gandalf wrote: »
    I don't think people have issues with countries standing their ground as you state. However standing their ground would typically mean defending their own sovereign territory. Quite clear
    have gone well beyond this with their actions in the Ukraine. They have violated a neighbouring countries borders and territory.

    do you agree that the conflict in Ukraine is a civil war? do the people in the east have the right to defend "their territory" assuming they dont want anything to do with Kiev?..
    gandalf wrote: »
    But you have to concede that he has a point in his opening statement. 10 years ago, hell 5 years ago I would never have seen a situation where Russia would have carried out the illegal actions it has in the Ukraine over the last year and a half. With that in mind it is perfectly feasible that we should consider that the Baltic States are in danger. Logically you are correct it shouldn't even be considered but logically I would have never considered that Russia would go back in time and adopt a stance of hybrid warfare to destablise and occupy parts of neighbouring countries, yet here we are with precisely that situation.

    I disagree. it isnt perfectly feasible that Russia might turn its attention to a Nato country or that the baltic states are in "danger". thats ludicrous. manufactured hysteria from across the atlantic sort of like the Putin is hitler psychosis that was doing the rounds not so long ago. Ukraine isnt and never will be a member of Nato its a different situation. attacking a Nato country would result in a nuclear war. and nobody wins in a nuclear war.
    gandalf wrote: »
    I think he is refering to the fact that the Russians have done a "crazy ivan" and seem to be reverting to a foreign policy akin to the Soviet times.

    and what do you think or do you just agree with him?...
    gandalf wrote: »
    Again I disagree with you and I think the Ukrainians are allowed to seek help to bolster their army from wherever they want without being dictated to by a country that has violated their borders.

    where did I say the Ukrainians arent "allowed" seek help. show me where I said that. youre disagreeing with me over something I didnt state. by all means arm Ukraine and encourage them to go on the rampage against the rebels in the east. if national suicide is the plan thats the way to go about it. only a federal type structure will work. if they choose the war option. its game over for them and perhaps beyond.
    gandalf wrote: »
    You call the Ukrainians "unhinged and inept" I would say they are under pressure, under resourced and up against a far better armed, better resourced, better trained and in some case professional military from a much larger regional power.

    yep unhinged, inept, compromised, hot headed, simpleton real world novices who have made bad decision after bad decision. that said your comments about resources and their foe are true. I still think they are a bunch of phucktards. just my opinion. whats yulia lets nuke Russia up to these days I wonder.
    gandalf wrote: »
    But the Ukrainians ultimately should be allow make decisions on what organisations they can and can't join. Russia in its aggressive actions would by my reckoning be the biggest cheerleader to encourage the Ukraine to join Nato.

    I agree. and I dont have a problem with that. but you see the Russians do and thats the problem. that would be the "reality" you talk about quite a lot. Germany and France will always block Ukrainian Nato membership. its cool they got that in hand.
    gandalf wrote: »
    The "leaders" who started to say they didn't want anything to do with Kiev forcefully all originated from Russia?

    what about the ordinary people in the east do they get a say?...
    gandalf wrote: »
    So are you saying that a country just lies down and lets an externally supported force take over vast tracts of that country without attempting to defend the integrity of that country then?

    Im saying from a Ukrainian point of view there is no military solution...what are you saying?....
    gandalf wrote: »
    Again as a European I believe it is in our interest to send a very clear message to Moscow that Sudetenland type aggression has no place in the 21st century the same way it shouldn't have had in the 20th and I certainly believe we should be ramping up sanctions and not relaxing them against a Rogue Regional Power.

    you say again a lot as if youre constantly repeating yourself. ramping up sanctions how?? sanctions are a defacto declaration of war and you want to what ramp them up? how so...

    gandalf wrote: »
    Again I don't believe that will happen.

    thats nice.

    gandalf wrote: »
    you are ignoring the fact that the assistance is defensive. I also see you are lumping the whole Ukrainian military in with a minority who are from the right sector. Nice use of the word "axis" btw, very subtle but imho there is only one country that has the potential to launch a "Operation AgainHimmler II" and that is Russia. At least if the Ukrainians have a bolstered military it may leash the Russians when they consider the cost could be higher than they calculated.

    it doesnt matter if you believe the weapons are "defensive". I believe the Ukrainians are dumb enough to go on the rampage thats the problem I have with arming them. the right sector activities are now being coordinated with the Ukrainian military. or are you choosing to willfully ignore as it suits your agenda. nice use of the word axis??. why thank you;)
    gandalf wrote: »
    If the Russians use Nuclear Weapons then they will be green lighting the use of them against Russia.

    and its light out for one and all isnt it. but it could never happen right.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Lemming wrote: »
    Y'see; here's the thing that every novorussia "supporter" seems to forget when they chime in with how Russia has nukes. And it's a very important factor to consider:

    It is impossible to distinguish between a rocket launch, and an ICBM launch unless notified before-hand (hence why all the space agencies broadcast it well, well, well in advance). If one ICBM launches; they all launch. And by that I mean all. Everywhere.

    So, Russia would destroy itself for what? Hitting a target inside a neighbour that they have already effectively stolen land from? Not exactly playing for all the marbles, is it?

    :rolleyes::D;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    WakeUp wrote: »
    the majority of my interactions you wouldnt classify as good sources, huh? what do you mean by that, if I press you on it do you think you can back it up....

    I was saying that normally you're interactions are coherent and if you use links to back up what you say then the majority are from recognised sources which is why I found it strange you used Sputniknews. I was being nice!!!

    I'll get back to you on the rest later when I have a few minutes to spare.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    gandalf wrote: »
    I was saying that normally you're interactions are coherent and if you use links to back up what you say then the majority are from recognised sources which is why I found it strange you used Sputniknews. I was being nice!!!

    I'll get back to you on the rest later when I have a few minutes to spare.

    my apologies Gandalf you are correct that was my bad not yours. not sure what happened there :confused: apologies again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    new thread, old troll


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    There is no civil war in Ukraine and I'd guess there isnt a majority who want away from Kiev .



    The facts .

    Russian gangster so called president goes against the populations wishes to be European and free instead he decided were Russian and staying that way.
    In between he's stolen billions upon billions from the Ukrainian people again my guess syphoned off to mother Russia .

    There was never any unrest in Ukraine to give history to a civil war .
    unless you consider how a minority section of the population maintained the majority to constantly stay in power .but we all know why
    The people in eastern Ukraine aren't doing a lot of fighting we know it's mainly Russian forces and heavy equipment doing most of the fighting and taking land illegally.
    But here we are the Ukrainians are idiots Ukrainians are all neo nazi's .
    America is bad America caused all of this .
    Anglo American Canadian war mongers it's all the same around and around posts that got the last thread locked .

    Russia invaded Ukraine plain and simple not the EU not Nato and certainly not Canada and the UK .

    But why let facts get in the way


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Icepick wrote: »
    new thread, old troll

    welcome back;) build a bridge will you :D
    Gatling wrote: »
    There is no civil war in Ukraine and I'd guess there isnt a majority who want away from Kiev .

    The facts .

    Russian gangster so called president goes against the populations wishes to be European and free instead he decided were Russian and staying that way.
    In between he's stolen billions upon billions from the Ukrainian people again my guess syphoned off to mother Russia .

    There was never any unrest in Ukraine to give history to a civil war .
    unless you consider how a minority section of the population maintained the majority to constantly stay in power .but we all know why
    The people in eastern Ukraine aren't doing a lot of fighting we know it's mainly Russian forces and heavy equipment doing most of the fighting and taking land illegally.
    But here we are the Ukrainians are idiots Ukrainians are all neo nazi's .
    America is bad America caused all of this .
    Anglo American Canadian war mongers it's all the same around and around posts that got the last thread locked .

    Russia invaded Ukraine plain and simple not the EU not Nato and certainly not Canada and the UK .

    But why let facts get in the way

    there was plenty of unrest . according to the red cross unless they changed their assessment it is a civil war. who said the EU NATO Canada or the UK invaded Ukraine where are you getting that from. if it isnt a civil war then what is it then. the leadership in Kiev in my opinion are idiots thats my opinion nothing personal so it really shouldnt bother you so much that I think that. and they propelled one of the leaders of the far right to an advisory roll of the Ukrainian military and right sector operations will now be coordinated together with the military. this was announced and broadcast by the Ukrainians themselves their ministry of defence. there is only one solution to this and that is some sort of federal structure being put in place its the only option there is no military answer from a Kiev point of view. the fact they dont seem to realise this or are ignoring it or arent making moves to try and bring this about which will in turn ensure or at least give a chance to the country remaining "united" is just another indication to me that they are, well , idiots. some sort of diplomatic way out of this needs to be found and it needs to be found soon. this article was published March 31st.
    Ukraine's Bloody Civil War: No End in Sight

    After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk ceasefire is rapidly unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning in the city’s Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.

    The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city’s centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.

    The mood among many in Donetsk—noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya—indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev’s chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the “Anti-Terrorist Operation.” Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.

    .........................

    Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin—thereby forcing him to back down.

    This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area’s noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded—via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties—to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass—despite repeated protestations from Kiev’s representatives in Washington—is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also—given that each side has enormously powerful supporters—poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukraines-bloody-civil-war-no-end-sight-12509


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    Nice to see the Americans leading the way, as always when there is trouble in Europe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    WakeUp wrote: »
    but you werent clear were you you just said you agreed with him. he touched on a number of things. elaborate on the economic standpoint then, how its relevant and to what exactly, in your opinion...

    I think you are aware that I have always maintained that this crisis is going to be solved by economic means and not military. What he means is that Russia economically is a minnow compared to the combined economic power of the US and the EU.

    Put simply Russia needs us more than we need them economically.
    do you agree that the conflict in Ukraine is a civil war? do the people in the east have the right to defend "their territory" assuming they dont want anything to do with Kiev?..

    No I don't. It is hybrid warfare carried out by Russia to destablise a neighbouring country for their own internal reasons, ie they do not want the Ukraine getting involved with the EU.
    I disagree. it isnt perfectly feasible that Russia might turn its attention to a Nato country or that the baltic states are in "danger". thats ludicrous. manufactured hysteria from across the atlantic sort of like the Putin is hitler psychosis that was doing the rounds not so long ago. Ukraine isnt and never will be a member of Nato its a different situation. attacking a Nato country would result in a nuclear war. and nobody wins in a nuclear war.

    Again before the interference in the Ukraine by Russia I would have said the same thing but yet here we are. That is not manufactured in Washington, that recipe was concocted in the Kremlin. Again my opinion is quite clear if you let a bully get away with the kind of actions that the Russians have sponsored and perpetrated against the Ukraine then they will be emboldened and it is quite possible that they will overstep the mark.
    and what do you think or do you just agree with him?...

    Absolutely imho Russia have regressed politically, economically, socially and morally under Putin's regime.
    where did I say the Ukrainians arent "allowed" seek help. show me where I said that. youre disagreeing with me over something I didnt state. by all means arm Ukraine and encourage them to go on the rampage against the rebels in the east. if national suicide is the plan thats the way to go about it. only a federal type structure will work. if they choose the war option. its game over for them and perhaps beyond.

    Well the impression you give is Russia can dictate with who and what the Ukraine can choose to join and associate with. If that is not the case then I apologise.

    It is you belief that the Ukrainians would go on the offensive, I don't believe that myself and unless the US are providing them with specific heavy offensive weaponry they would be crazy to do so.
    yep unhinged, inept, compromised, hot headed, simpleton real world novices who have made bad decision after bad decision. that said your comments about resources and their foe are true. I still think they are a bunch of phucktards. just my opinion. whats yulia lets nuke Russia up to these days I wonder.

    Now look at some of the trash in the Russian parliament and then look for quotes where sitting Russian MP's, Russian commentators with close links to the Kremlin have all come out with statements about Nuclear Armageddon.

    I would also counter that the government in Russia are deluded and have seriously miscalculated their tactics with the Ukraine and have placed their economy in serious danger of default with their actions. They certainly have made the lives of a large number of ordinary Russians far more miserable with their misadventures in Novarussia.
    I agree. and I dont have a problem with that. but you see the Russians do and thats the problem. that would be the "reality" you talk about quite a lot. Germany and France will always block Ukrainian Nato membership. its cool they got that in hand.

    Again you are effectively giving Russia a veto on what happens in a different country. Sorry I thought the Soviet Union was defunct.
    what about the ordinary people in the east do they get a say?...

    Of course they can have a say, once the foreign backed militia have left Ukrainian soil.
    Im saying from a Ukrainian point of view there is no military solution...what are you saying?....

    I agree with you. Give the Ukraines weapons to stop the "Rebels" encroaching further into their territory and continue the pressure on the Russians with sanctions.
    you say again a lot as if youre constantly repeating yourself. ramping up sanctions how?? sanctions are a defacto declaration of war and you want to what ramp them up? how so...

    Financially drop the Russian banks from the Swift bank clearance system would be a good start.

    it doesnt matter if you believe the weapons are "defensive". I believe the Ukrainians are dumb enough to go on the rampage thats the problem I have with arming them. the right sector activities are now being coordinated with the Ukrainian military. or are you choosing to willfully ignore as it suits your agenda. nice use of the word axis??. why thank you;)

    According to the wikipedia (sorry don't have time to search elsewhere) the Ukrainian armed forces have a standing number of 250,800 troops, Right Sector have a membership of 10,000 people, they have 1 member out of 450 in the Ukrainian parliament. They say they have 5,000 members who can fight. If they even provide that number you are talking about less than 2% of the Ukrainian armed forces made up of this inflated number of Right Sector bogeymen, just over 0.2% makes up their presence in the Parliament . Lets be honest the so called far right problem in the Ukraine is political vapour ware thought up by Moscow.

    Russia has a far bigger problem with far right groups, especially as some are actively supported by the Kremlin.
    and its light out for one and all isnt it. but it could never happen right.

    Forgive me if I am misrepresenting you but I have a feeling that because Russia have Nukes you think that the rule of International law shouldn't or doesn't apply to them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    gandalf wrote: »
    Again my opinion is quite clear if you let a bully get away with the kind of actions that the Russians have sponsored and perpetrated against the Ukraine then they will be emboldened and it is quite possible that they will overstep the mark.

    I've said it before elsewhere, so I'll point it out here now. The current novorussia misadventure into the Ukraine IS the result of the international community not having stood up to the Russians in Georgia.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    WakeUp wrote: »
    :rolleyes::D;)

    Mod:

    Smilie type posts are frowned on in the main politics board threads. The politics cafe is there to facilitate a more relaxed posting style if needs be.

    Icepick wrote: »
    new thread, old troll

    Enough of this thank you, the thread is getting on relatively civilly and remarks like that do nobody any favours. Just friendly advice to avoid me issuing cards or bans!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Well if you mean 20,000 US, Canadian, British and Baltic military troops suddenly appearing in Ukraine I would think they wouldnt even get that far. and if they did the Russians would view it as a direct threat to their existence then vapourise them. I dont think it would even get that far it would be a crazy course of action. . As for Yanukovic and his crew looting money Im sure he did how much and where it is thats a question I dont know the answer too.

    Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine, fighting with pro-Russian factions is fine. Western volunteers operating in Ukraine, fighting with pro-Ukrainian factions is illegitimate and grounds to "vaporize" (I assume that's the word you meant to use) them?
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Vlad would maybe send Barry a selfie of his finger and the button with a short message saying if you send your troops to Ukraine the button gets it. something like that

    Russia stated Danish warships would be nuclear targets. The Danish still bought them :/

    And yes, that's exactly what the Russians want. Threatening nuclear war against 500 million people on their doorstep and 350 million to their east. If a single nuke hit French forces, for example, the French would level civilians (that's why the Soviet plan was to nuke Venice or the Low Countries rather than direct strikes on the UK or France should war have broken out).

    What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Ukraine defending themselves. they are dumb enough to go on the offensive. training them is just the beginning and then if arms are supplied and they go on the rampage. they will be committing national suicide the Russians wont have that and they will roll in. be careful what you wish for.

    "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

    Nobody, not even the Ukrainians, seriously think they're going to take back Crimea anyway. However, Donetsk and Luhansk are both within Ukrainian sovereign territory. They can, and should, be given the weapons to fight an aggressive war to secure their control over those regions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Icepick wrote: »
    Nice to see the Americans leading the way, as always when there is trouble in Europe.

    To be fair, the last time the Americans kept their noses out of Europe's foreign policies, we kinda started two wars that killed a total of 55-150 million people around the world :/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    If this is breaking any topic rules, apologies. Our posts were deleted before I could actually tackle your "Russia is a energy power" before. Hopefully the mods don't delete this post, since it tackles Russia's actual position in this conflict and dictates how soon it could end.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    but you werent clear were you you just said you agreed with him. he touched on a number of things. elaborate on the economic standpoint then, how its relevant and to what exactly, in your opinion...

    If I recall, you said something about Russia's (incl. pro-Russian factions) uranium resources being 40% of the world's market, and that Russia dominates the resource stockpiles. This is, unfortunately, untrue. They have have provided 40% of the US' uranium, but not the worlds. In fact, Australia dominates the markets with around 30% of the uranium reserves. Canada is third (and actually has larger market share and production than Russia) at 9% of the world reserves. Russia and Kazakhstan, the two main pro-Russian groups, don't even meet the same quantity of reserves as Australia.

    Granted, Russia and Canada have vast areas of unexplored space which could hold uranium deposits of profitable value, but we can't make any estimate as to how much there could be. Even so, it is unlikely to put Russia in first place with an overwhelming market share.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    do you agree that the conflict in Ukraine is a civil war? do the people in the east have the right to defend "their territory" assuming they dont want anything to do with Kiev?..

    Two armed groups with differing political goals within one state. That's civil war, no? They do have a right to defend their territory. Through political means, not armed insurgency. It would be like Donegal starting a military campaign against Dublin because they want to be part of the UK. Do you think we'd just sit on our hands and let them?

    Donetsk and Luhansk are part of the Ukrainian State. They seemed perfectly fine when it was a pro-Russian majority in power. Now it is pro-European, and they refuse to engage in democracy.

    Undermining the existence of the Ukrainian Government is, quite essentially, treason.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    I disagree. it isnt perfectly feasible that Russia might turn its attention to a Nato country or that the baltic states are in "danger". thats ludicrous. manufactured hysteria from across the atlantic sort of like the Putin is hitler psychosis that was doing the rounds not so long ago. Ukraine isnt and never will be a member of Nato its a different situation. attacking a Nato country would result in a nuclear war. and nobody wins in a nuclear war.

    If I recall correctly, there was a leaked Kremlin document stating that Russia could do in the eastern Baltics what they have done in Ukraine (viz: - arm ethnic Russian groups to fight the Governments). I can't find a link to it, unfortunately.

    It is feasible that Russia may strike the Baltics. Rather unlikely, but entirely possible. Think about it, MAD only occurs when both sides are willing to use nuclear retaliation. However, if the Russians declare that any other country fights against them, they will use nuclear retaliation, do you think NATO will get involved in the Baltics? Unless the Russians actually do fire a nuclear weapon, it should largely remain conventional, I would presume. Russia also has the "stop at the border or we will use a nuke" card, which I don't think NATO would push.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    where did I say the Ukrainians arent "allowed" seek help. show me where I said that. youre disagreeing with me over something I didnt state. by all means arm Ukraine and encourage them to go on the rampage against the rebels in the east. if national suicide is the plan thats the way to go about it. only a federal type structure will work. if they choose the war option. its game over for them and perhaps beyond.

    You are quite clearly against the West arming Ukraine. You keep saying it's national suicide, implying that Russia will come stomping in to cut their heads off an in overt war.

    Russia crushed the Chechen separatists incredibly brutally (Grozny), and told the world to keep their noses out of it. How then can the Russians tell the Ukrainians to keep their noses out of eastern Ukraine against separatists?
    WakeUp wrote: »
    yep unhinged, inept, compromised, hot headed, simpleton real world novices who have made bad decision after bad decision. that said your comments about resources and their foe are true. I still think they are a bunch of phucktards. just my opinion. whats yulia lets nuke Russia up to these days I wonder.

    Bad decision? The Russians charge you exorbitant fees on your gas. The Russians cut your economy to shreds through barriers to trade. The Russians cut your gas off in winter. The pro-Russian President who allowed this to happen has stolen €100bn from your economy over the years. The Russians annex part of your country and then arm another part to fight you when you get rid of that President. The Russians threaten overt war if you join the EU or NATO.

    Yeah, the Ukrainians are unhinged and hot headed simpletons. The Ukrainians are the ones at fault here for making "bad decisions". The Ukrainians are the ones at fault for wanting to be something other than starved out puppets.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    I agree. and I dont have a problem with that. but you see the Russians do and thats the problem. that would be the "reality" you talk about quite a lot. Germany and France will always block Ukrainian Nato membership. its cool they got that in hand.

    But you don't agree, you're defending Russia's actions. To say "I agree" while siding with the people stopping them is absolutely and unequivocally disingenuous.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    what about the ordinary people in the east do they get a say?...

    No. When it's at the barrel of a gun and you shoot down civilian airlines, you don't get a say. If they wanted to settle the matter peacefully, they'd do so at the negotiating table.

    Hell, if the Russians really cared about "ethnic Russians" they'd invade Ukraine, the Baltics, Finland, Belarus and do what they did in Crimea. Declare "this is ours and anyone who says otherwise gets nuked".

    This isn't some humanitarian effort on the part of Russia. It is them starting a conflict to grind the Ukrainian economy into dust, so Ukraine will have no option other than to lie down and let the Bear have its way.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    Im saying from a Ukrainian point of view there is no military solution...what are you saying?....

    Of course there is. Drive up the cost of war for the opposing side. War only continues so long as the cost of continuing is less than the cost of surrendering. Ukraine, given the proper training and equipment, could begin a meatgrinder with the Russians.

    The Ukrainian economy might be shuddering, but the Russians are in a death-grip thanks to oil prices and the EU/US sanctions.

    So long as those sanctions stay up, and the Ukrainians keep applying pressure, the Russians will have to crack. It's only a matter of finding the breaking point.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    you say again a lot as if youre constantly repeating yourself. ramping up sanctions how?? sanctions are a defacto declaration of war and you want to what ramp them up? how so...

    Sanctions are not a declaration of war. If they were then Russia's sanction on Ukrainian dairy product would've been given more media time.

    It's easy. We pay a little more for our gas and get it from the Middle East, or Canada (the EU has nine months supply of gas, the UK/Ireland/Norway wouldn't even feel the pinch since we don't buy Russian oil/gas). I do believe we're actually working on a pipeline at the moment, as well.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    it doesnt matter if you believe the weapons are "defensive". I believe the Ukrainians are dumb enough to go on the rampage thats the problem I have with arming them. the right sector activities are now being coordinated with the Ukrainian military. or are you choosing to willfully ignore as it suits your agenda. nice use of the word axis??. why thank you;)

    Of course it does. Giving them weapons isn't going to make their army capable of invading Russia, but it will make it possible for them to crush the rebel groups. The same ones who hide among civilians, and the same ones who shot down Dutch civilians.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    gandalf wrote: »
    I think you are aware that I have always maintained that this crisis is going to be solved by economic means and not military. What he means is that Russia economically is a minnow compared to the combined economic power of the US and the EU.

    Put simply Russia needs us more than we need them economically.

    yeah but how is it going to be solved by economic means what is the goal?? to return Crimea and uproot the rebels from the Donbass region and east?.. neither of those things are going to happen. whether I agree with that or not. The Russians will not return Crimea and the rebels want nothing to do with Kiev. and if looks likely that the rebels will be routed Russia will roll in enforce. the only solution I can see to this that will leave Ukraine "intact" is some sort of federal structure.
    EU dependent on Russian gas for 'foreseeable future', warns IEA

    The European Union will remain dependent on Russian pipeline gas imports for the “foreseeable future”, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned.

    As domestic fossil fuel production continues to decline fast, especially in Denmark and the Netherlands, gas imports are expected to increase between 2020 and 2030, according to the IEA’s 2014 review of EU energy policy.

    Liquefied natural gas imports to the EU, vital to diversify supply, hit a record low in 2014, half of 2010 levels. Supplies are being re-exported to Asia, leaving the EU with about 70% of spare capacity, the IEA said. US LNG supplies for the medium term had already been sold to Asian markets, which had pushed up import prices.

    Unconventional gas, such as shale, could bolster energy security but faced strong political resistance from some member states.

    “The EU is set to be dependent on Russian gas for some time and that’s the reality,” the IEA’s executive director Maria van der Hoeven told the European Commission in Brussels today (1 December).

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/eu-dependent-russian-gas-foreseeable-future-warns-iea-310469
    gandalf wrote: »
    No I don't. It is hybrid warfare carried out by Russia to destablise a neighbouring country for their own internal reasons, ie they do not want the Ukraine getting involved with the EU.

    but its widely accepted is it not that it is indeed a civil war? or is that incorrect.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Again before the interference in the Ukraine by Russia I would have said the same thing but yet here we are. That is not manufactured in Washington, that recipe was concocted in the Kremlin. Again my opinion is quite clear if you let a bully get away with the kind of actions that the Russians have sponsored and perpetrated against the Ukraine then they will be emboldened and it is quite possible that they will overstep the mark.

    overstep the mark how?...
    gandalf wrote: »
    Well the impression you give is Russia can dictate with who and what the Ukraine can choose to join and associate with. If that is not the case then I apologise.

    clearly its the Russians that are giving this impression and carrying it out. not me. Im just calling it as I see it.
    gandalf wrote: »
    It is you belief that the Ukrainians would go on the offensive, I don't believe that myself and unless the US are providing them with specific heavy offensive weaponry they would be crazy to do so.

    without Crimea and the Donbass region Ukraine isnt up to much. so if they arent prepared to talk and put some sort of federal structure into place then they must have an alternative plan. I believe they are stupid enough to go on the offensive and sooner or later I think they will. and it isnt going to end well for them.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Now look at some of the trash in the Russian parliament and then look for quotes where sitting Russian MP's, Russian commentators with close links to the Kremlin have all come out with statements about Nuclear Armageddon.

    yep they have and they arent diking around they are serious.
    gandalf wrote: »
    I would also counter that the government in Russia are deluded and have seriously miscalculated their tactics with the Ukraine and have placed their economy in serious danger of default with their actions. They certainly have made the lives of a large number of ordinary Russians far more miserable with their misadventures in Novarussia.

    I would disagree. I dont think they are deluded.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Again you are effectively giving Russia a veto on what happens in a different country. Sorry I thought the Soviet Union was defunct.

    Im not giving Russia a veto on anything. I dont have a problem with Ukraine wanting to gravitate to the west Nato whatever. but you see the Russians have a problem with that. not me.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Of course they can have a say, once the foreign backed militia have left Ukrainian soil.

    the militia isnt going to leave. the cold hard reality of the situation Im afraid.
    gandalf wrote: »
    I agree with you. Give the Ukraines weapons to stop the "Rebels" encroaching further into their territory and continue the pressure on the Russians with sanctions.

    sanctions will not make the Russians back down they are in too deep now. Arm Ukraine and they will go on the offensive. like I said before becareful what you wish for.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Financially drop the Russian banks from the Swift bank clearance system would be a good start.

    thats about the worst thing to do. this happens. its war.
    gandalf wrote: »
    According to the wikipedia (sorry don't have time to search elsewhere) the Ukrainian armed forces have a standing number of 250,800 troops, Right Sector have a membership of 10,000 people, they have 1 member out of 450 in the Ukrainian parliament. They say they have 5,000 members who can fight. If they even provide that number you are talking about less than 2% of the Ukrainian armed forces made up of this inflated number of Right Sector bogeymen, just over 0.2% makes up their presence in the Parliament . Lets be honest the so called far right problem in the Ukraine is political vapour ware thought up by Moscow.

    Russia has a far bigger problem with far right groups, especially as some are actively supported by the Kremlin.

    clearly there is a far right sector in Ukraine and its active.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Forgive me if I am misrepresenting you but I have a feeling that because Russia have Nukes you think that the rule of International law shouldn't or doesn't apply to them.

    International law whilst I agree it should be respected the big boys ( nuclear powers) pick and choose when and if to do so. not sure where you getting me not feeling it should apply to them from Ive never stated as much. I would prefer if the Russians pulled out Ukraine was allowed do what they want and everyone lives happily ever after. unfortunately this isnt going to happen and it isnt the reality of the situation. Ukraines only hope of staying together is some sort of federal structure being put in place. thats it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine, fighting with pro-Russian factions is fine. Western volunteers operating in Ukraine, fighting with pro-Ukrainian factions is illegitimate and grounds to "vaporize" (I assume that's the word you meant to use) them?

    and where did I say this was illegitimate? I was talking to somebody else not you read back and youll see the question that was put to me. If by western volunteers you mean troops as I pointed out already think it was to Gatling yep Russia would light them up as soon as they touched down on Ukrainian soil. and thats if they even got that far. this is just my opinion of course.
    Russia stated Danish warships would be nuclear targets. The Danish still bought them :/

    And yes, that's exactly what the Russians want. Threatening nuclear war against 500 million people on their doorstep and 350 million to their east. If a single nuke hit French forces, for example, the French would level civilians (that's why the Soviet plan was to nuke Venice or the Low Countries rather than direct strikes on the UK or France should war have broken out).

    What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:

    Russia threatened Denmark with nuclear weapons if the country signed up to the nato defence shield. Nato is directed toward Russia if Denmark wants to play with the big boys then they need to accept the potential consequences. not saying its right. just how it is.
    Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence shield

    Russia has threatened to target Denmark’s warships with nuclear weapons if the Scandinavian nation becomes a member of Nato’s missile defence shield.

    In comments which have been met with anger in Copenhagen, the Russian ambassador to Denmark said a move towards better integration with the Western alliance would make it a “threat to Russia”, and that it would have to accept the consequences.

    Mikhail Vanin told the told Jyllands-Posten newspaper: “I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences if Denmark joins the US-led missile defence shield. If that happens, Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-denmark-with-nuclear-weapons-if-it-tries-to-join-nato-defence-shield-10125529.html
    "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

    Nobody, not even the Ukrainians, seriously think they're going to take back Crimea anyway. However, Donetsk and Luhansk are both within Ukrainian sovereign territory. They can, and should, be given the weapons to fight an aggressive war to secure their control over those regions.

    I disagree no they shouldnt. the Germans and French are of the same opinion, thankfully.
    If this is breaking any topic rules, apologies. Our posts were deleted before I could actually tackle your "Russia is a energy power" before. Hopefully the mods don't delete this post, since it tackles Russia's actual position in this conflict and dictates how soon it could end.

    If I recall, you said something about Russia's (incl. pro-Russian factions) uranium resources being 40% of the world's market, and that Russia dominates the resource stockpiles. This is, unfortunately, untrue. They have have provided 40% of the US' uranium, but not the worlds. In fact, Australia dominates the markets with around 30% of the uranium reserves. Canada is third (and actually has larger market share and production than Russia) at 9% of the world reserves. Russia and Kazakhstan, the two main pro-Russian groups, don't even meet the same quantity of reserves as Australia.

    Granted, Russia and Canada have vast areas of unexplored space which could hold uranium deposits of profitable value, but we can't make any estimate as to how much there could be. Even so, it is unlikely to put Russia in first place with an overwhelming market share.

    Ok you are getting yourself mixed up here and youve "recalled" incorrectly. what I said was Russia controls 40% of the worlds enrichment capacity do you know what youre talking about. Im not sure you do.
    Who Is Dominating the Uranium Market?

    This is one part of Vladimir Putin’s plan to dominate the world energy markets. In my book, The Colder War, I call it the “Putinization” of uranium. And he has nicely positioned his country to pull it off.

    In January 2014, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russian energy giant Rosatom, was bursting with enthusiasm when he predicted that Russia’s recent annual production rate of 6.5 million pounds of uranium would triple in 2015.
    Rosatom puts Russia’s uranium reserves in the ground at 1.2 billion pounds of yellowcake, which would be the second largest in the world; the company is quite capable of mining 40 million pounds per year by 2020. Add in Russia’s foreign projects in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Mongolia, and annual production in 2020 jumps to more than 63 million pounds. Include all of Russia’s sphere of influence, and annual production easily could amount to more than 140 million pounds six years from now.
    No other country has a uranium mining plan nearly this ambitious. By 2020, Russia itself could be producing a third of all yellowcake. With just its close ally Kazakhstan chipping in another 25%, Russia would have effective control of more than half of world supply.

    That’s clout. But it doesn’t end there.
    Globally, there are a fair number of facilities for fabricating fuel rods. Not so with conversion plants (uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride) or enrichment plants (isolating the U-235). And the world leader in conversion and enrichment is… yes, Russia.

    All told, Russia has one-third of all uranium conversion capacity. The United States is in second place with 18%. And Russia’s share is projected to rise, assuming Rosatom proceeds with a new conversion plant planned for 2015. Similarly, Russia owns 40% of the world’s enrichment capacity. Planned expansion of the existing facilities will push that share close to 50%.

    http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/stocks/energy/who-is-dominating-the-uranium-market
    Two armed groups with differing political goals within one state. That's civil war, no? They do have a right to defend their territory. Through political means, not armed insurgency. It would be like Donegal starting a military campaign against Dublin because they want to be part of the UK. Do you think we'd just sit on our hands and let them?

    so only side in a civil war has the right to fight and defend themselves. fair enough
    Donetsk and Luhansk are part of the Ukrainian State. They seemed perfectly fine when it was a pro-Russian majority in power. Now it is pro-European, and they refuse to engage in democracy.

    Undermining the existence of the Ukrainian Government is, quite essentially, treason.

    yep it is treason. but the rebels are there too stay. just how it is.
    If I recall correctly, there was a leaked Kremlin document stating that Russia could do in the eastern Baltics what they have done in Ukraine (viz: - arm ethnic Russian groups to fight the Governments). I can't find a link to it, unfortunately.

    your previous recollection was incorrect and wrong. so forgive me if I view this other above statement of yours with some scepticisim. though Im willing to take that back if you can come up with that link. link please....
    It is feasible that Russia may strike the Baltics. Rather unlikely, but entirely possible. Think about it, MAD only occurs when both sides are willing to use nuclear retaliation. However, if the Russians declare that any other country fights against them, they will use nuclear retaliation, do you think NATO will get involved in the Baltics? Unless the Russians actually do fire a nuclear weapon, it should largely remain conventional, I would presume. Russia also has the "stop at the border or we will use a nuke" card, which I don't think NATO would push.

    it isnt feasible that Russia would strike a Nato country thats ridiculous and would result in a nuclear war. lets just dispel this myth that any confrontation with Russia would remain conventional. it wouldnt. first engagement would be "conventional" soon followed by the use of theater ballistic missiles and after that the ICBMS start flying.
    You are quite clearly against the West arming Ukraine. You keep saying it's national suicide, implying that Russia will come stomping in to cut their heads off an in overt war.

    yep I am. and so are the Germans and French. Russia will not let the rebels fall if it looks like happening or lots of Russian start getting dead at the hands of western supplied weapons they will roll in and all the way to Kiev.
    Russia crushed the Chechen separatists incredibly brutally (Grozny), and told the world to keep their noses out of it. How then can the Russians tell the Ukrainians to keep their noses out of eastern Ukraine against separatists?

    why are you asking me that?..
    Bad decision? The Russians charge you exorbitant fees on your gas. The Russians cut your economy to shreds through barriers to trade. The Russians cut your gas off in winter. The pro-Russian President who allowed this to happen has stolen €100bn from your economy over the years. The Russians annex part of your country and then arm another part to fight you when you get rid of that President. The Russians threaten overt war if you join the EU or NATO.

    Yeah, the Ukrainians are unhinged and hot headed simpletons. The Ukrainians are the ones at fault here for making "bad decisions". The Ukrainians are the ones at fault for wanting to be something other than starved out puppets.

    yes bad decisions. one after the other after the other.
    But you don't agree, you're defending Russia's actions. To say "I agree" while siding with the people stopping them is absolutely and unequivocally disingenuous.

    In your opinion. my opinion however would be different..
    No. When it's at the barrel of a gun and you shoot down civilian airlines, you don't get a say. If they wanted to settle the matter peacefully, they'd do so at the negotiating table.

    who doesnt get a say what are you getting at here....
    Hell, if the Russians really cared about "ethnic Russians" they'd invade Ukraine, the Baltics, Finland, Belarus and do what they did in Crimea. Declare "this is ours and anyone who says otherwise gets nuked".

    I dont believe they care to much about ethnic Russians either this is a cover for what they are doing. that much is obvious.
    This isn't some humanitarian effort on the part of Russia. It is them starting a conflict to grind the Ukrainian economy into dust, so Ukraine will have no option other than to lie down and let the Bear have its way.

    and Ive never stated as much. not sure why you are saying that to me.
    Of course there is. Drive up the cost of war for the opposing side. War only continues so long as the cost of continuing is less than the cost of surrendering. Ukraine, given the proper training and equipment, could begin a meatgrinder with the Russians.

    no there isnt. there is no military solution to this, clearly,
    The Ukrainian economy might be shuddering, but the Russians are in a death-grip thanks to oil prices and the EU/US sanctions.

    shuddering? :D lol you dont say. death grip thats interesting.
    So long as those sanctions stay up, and the Ukrainians keep applying pressure, the Russians will have to crack. It's only a matter of finding the breaking point.

    so you want to break Russia. and you think the Russians are just going to be ok with this happening.
    Sanctions are not a declaration of war. If they were then Russia's sanction on Ukrainian dairy product would've been given more media time.

    yes they are.
    It's easy. We pay a little more for our gas and get it from the Middle East, or Canada (the EU has nine months supply of gas, the UK/Ireland/Norway wouldn't even feel the pinch since we don't buy Russian oil/gas). I do believe we're actually working on a pipeline at the moment, as well.

    judging by the above. you havent a clue what youre talking about.
    Of course it does. Giving them weapons isn't going to make their army capable of invading Russia, but it will make it possible for them to crush the rebel groups. The same ones who hide among civilians, and the same ones who shot down Dutch civilians.

    and thats exactly why those simpletons in Kiev can not be given weapons:rolleyes: thankfully the Germans and French will push back against this and have their heads screwed on and realise it will only make a bad siution a million times worse.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    WakeUp wrote: »
    and where did I say this was illegitimate? I was talking to somebody else not you read back and youll see the question that was put to me. If by western volunteers you mean troops as I pointed out already think it was to Gatling yep Russia would light them up as soon as they touched down on Ukrainian soil. and thats if they even got that far. this is just my opinion of course.

    If Western "volunteers" with Western weapons come flooding Ukraine, you really think the Russians are going to "light them up" and that'd be the end of it? Forgive me if I'm sceptical about Russia's soldiering abilities compared to Western ones, considering their last major engagements (Chechnya, Dagestan and Georgia) were all colossal feck ups.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Russia threatened Denmark with nuclear weapons if the country signed up to the nato defence shield. Nato is directed toward Russia if Denmark wants to play with the big boys then they need to accept the potential consequences. not saying its right. just how it is.

    That in no way detracts from my point. They said they'd nuke Danish warships, the pretext is irrelevant. It was Russia trying to scare the Danes into doing what they want.

    Of course NATO is directed at Russia. Russia was the de facto leader of the Soviet Union, the people NATO was designed to counter.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    I disagree no they shouldnt. the Germans and French are of the same opinion, thankfully.

    Why do you disagree with arming them? It's hardly the inevitable casualties, since the longer this war drags on, the higher the body count will be.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Ok you are getting yourself mixed up here and youve "recalled" incorrectly. what I said was Russia controls 40% of the worlds enrichment capacity do you know what youre talking about. Im not sure you do.

    I had thought you were talking about production and reserves, an unfortunate mix up.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    so only side in a civil war has the right to fight and defend themselves. fair enough

    Of course not. But you're implying Russia giving weapons to the rebels is fine, but us giving the Ukrainians weapons is a grave mistake. Ukraine's armouries and small-arms are poor quality.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    your previous recollection was incorrect and wrong. so forgive me if I view this other above statement of yours with some scepticisim. though Im willing to take that back if you can come up with that link. link please....

    I can't find the article I read, but here's one from the UK and one from Sweden which both allude to Russia attempting to employ the same tactics they used in Ukraine. To stoke the ethnic Russians up.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    it isnt feasible that Russia would strike a Nato country thats ridiculous and would result in a nuclear war. lets just dispel this myth that any confrontation with Russia would remain conventional. it wouldnt. first engagement would be "conventional" soon followed by the use of theater ballistic missiles and after that the ICBMS start flying.

    I know exactly how nuclear strategy works. I know exactly how nuclear deterrence and MAD works. And MAD only works if both sides know it's suicide. However, if both sides understand that, and one side uses a single nuke, it might not incur a direct response from the other party for fear of MAD. It's like calling a bluff in poker.

    Like I said, it is unlikely, but it is entirely possible that Russia could attack the Baltics.

    I've also not said it would remain conventional. I told you that the Russian strategy relies upon the use of tactical nukes, and why they had planned to target the Low Countries and Venice with them while rushing the Fulda Gap, because they knew France has a "soft-to-hard" stance (namely, if Russia targeted their military or civilian infrastructure, France would target civilian populated areas).
    WakeUp wrote: »
    yep I am. and so are the Germans and French. Russia will not let the rebels fall if it looks like happening or lots of Russian start getting dead at the hands of western supplied weapons they will roll in and all the way to Kiev.

    Yeah, Russia "rolling into Kiev" is going to work out perfectly fine for them. Especially when Poland and the Baltics surround Kaliningrad and could cut off any access to the Russian mainland. And when Poland sits right at the door to Ukraine, and would probably funnel thousands of weapons across the border.

    If there's one thing you're underestimating here, it's that the Polish aren't as timid as the French or Germans, and the Polish know that the longer the Russians and Ukrainians are fighting, the better it is for them.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    why are you asking me that?..

    You keep saying that arming Ukraine to tackle the rebels is game over for them, and that it's a bad decision to make. How can you not support Ukraine's right to exercise its control over its territory, against a party who did the exact same thing in Chechnya?
    WakeUp wrote: »
    yes bad decisions. one after the other after the other.

    Yeah, much better to remain a vassal with the Russian boot on your neck.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    who doesnt get a say what are you getting at here...

    The "people in the east", the Kremlin-backed rebel groups. They don't get a say in separatism when they're firing at Ukrainian forces, not after they shot down a civilian airliner, bragged about it, realized they fecked up and removed the post before laying the blame on the Ukrainians.

    They don't get a say. If they wanted a say, they'd do it democratically. They'd have the world backing them if they did, and Russia would have an actual reason to position troops there.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    I dont believe they care to much about ethnic Russians either this is a cover for what they are doing. that much is obvious.

    I agree and so does Stratfor.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    and Ive never stated as much. not sure why you are saying that to me.

    Because that is the usual go-to argument for pro-Russian people.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    no there isnt. there is no military solution to this, clearly

    There has never been a solely military solution to anything, that point is redundant. However, the military must be used to crush the rebel groups, in conjunction with economic and political measures, both of which are being exercised by the West.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    death grip thats interesting.

    [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)Countries by GDP[/url]

    Compare the World Bank (2013) with IMF 2014. Russia's economy contracted by around $150bn, or if you want to compare it to the CIA's factbook, it contracted by around $40bn.

    Even with the rouble crashing and people investing in consumer goods creating a flurry of economic activity, the Russian economy still fell in size.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    so you want to break Russia. and you think the Russians are just going to be ok with this happening.

    What are they going to do, invade? Cut off our gas?

    Europe has nine months of gas and oil stockpiled for emergencies. Ireland, the UK and Norway get our oil from non-Russian sources. We'll ride it out.

    The country most affected would be Germany, and if the Germans need something, by god they'll throw everything they have into acquiring it. Canadian oil-rich sands (which was cleared to sell in Europe, I think,), US oil-rich sands, the planned Middle Eastern pipeline. Hell, the US alone was the third largest producer of oil in 2008 when oil was going high (at nearly 9 million barrels a day, with a capacity to refine around 18 million barrels a day).

    If it's an emergency, you can bet your bottom dollar, the US and Canada will find it profitable to ship massive quantities to Europe.

    Like I said, the price of importing oil and gas would go up.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    yes they are.

    So, we're at war with Russia? Strange, I don't see any Russian troops outside my window.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    judging by the above. you havent a clue what youre talking about.

    So, the EU doesn't tell countries to store nine months worth of gas? One
    WakeUp wrote: »
    and thats exactly why those simpletons in Kiev can not be given weapons:rolleyes: thankfully the Germans and French will push back against this and have their heads screwed on and realise it will only make a bad siution a million times worse.

    What's your answer to the bad situation, let the Russians continue their advance? The Russians aren't going to stop with just Donetsk or Luhansk, they're going to keep pushing until they reach the Dnieper.

    And do you think Poland will care about Germany or France's "push back" and not sell the Ukrainians small arms? Poland learned not to trust the French and Germans before, they are committed to driving up the cost of that war for the Russians.

    Hell, it was even the Polish who were pushing for an integrated European energy market and it has started to gain traction in the last few months.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Wakeup I'm not going to quote and counter your whole post as that is getting very messy.

    Imho and the opinion of a number of others is that this is not a civil war situation. It is a manufactured war produced by the Kremlin and seeded at leadership level by their men. It is a true Hybrid warfare scenario.

    For any legitimate political solution the militias that are backed, armed, bolstered by official Russian forces need to be withdrawn from the territories of the Ukraine they have occupied. After a period of normalisation then the various political options like federalisation can then be discussed and put to a vote. Obviously the Crimea is gone, I do agree that the Russians will not move out of there with the naval base they have present, however they will have to pay massive reparations to the Ukrainians for this concession and guarantee the integrity of the rest of the Ukraine.

    Economically Russia needs to be selling it's gas to Europe. It cannot afford not to. If it does decide to go down the crazy route of turning off the pipes most of the main European economies have enough reserves to last them nine months. Also the Middle Eastern Suppliers and the US would jump at the opportunity to displace the Russians and take a slice of that market. The cost will go up but it will be worth it to dilute or remove the reliance of power from a unstable country.

    Back to the far right question. I have shown with figures that the problem is a minor one in comparison to the hyped propaganda being pushed by Kremlin backed media outlets. I think you will have to concede that this problem is present in a number of countries in Europe and the numbers involved are replicated in those countries and far from having a higher proportion of a far right problem the Ukrainians have numbers that are the norm. Again I would counter that I see Russia having a far worse problem with the far right and the policies and propaganda emanating from the Russian Government are definitely creating a atmosphere that aids its growth.

    My opinion is that as Europeans we cannot let gun barrel diplomacy like this happen again in Europe no matter what weapons the aggressor has. If Russia uses Nukes, it will be turned to dust, that is not a threat that is a fact, if it was inverted and a European country or the US used nukes against them it will be the same outcome. We let a country get away with Gun Barrel diplomacy 76 years ago and millions lost their lives as results. As a continent we have to learn the lessons from history, aggressive nations need to be confronted. Russia is no longer an Empire, the Soviet Union is dead and buried. It cannot be phoenixed from the ashes no matter how hard Putins tries or wills it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    If Western "volunteers" with Western weapons come flooding Ukraine, you really think the Russians are going to "light them up" and that'd be the end of it? Forgive me if I'm sceptical about Russia's soldiering abilities compared to Western ones, considering their last major engagements (Chechnya, Dagestan and Georgia) were all colossal feck ups.

    Who would these western “volunteers” be you speak of people like you?.. When are you heading off to fight the Russians and the rebels so? Or do you expect other people to go fight and die yet you appear to be of the opinion that there is a military solution to this and thats the road to go down. When are you heading off to fight. Who are these volunteers you speak of or are you talking about actual troops. Also are you saying the Russians arent capable and wouldnt be motivated to fight on their border..what are you saying actually...what do you know about Russian soldiers and their capabilities why dont you elaborate on that a little please.....
    That in no way detracts from my point. They said they'd nuke Danish warships, the pretext is irrelevant. It was Russia trying to scare the Danes into doing what they want.

    the pretext is entirely relevant.
    Of course NATO is directed at Russia. Russia was the de facto leader of the Soviet Union, the people NATO was designed to counter.

    are you seriously comparing Russia to the soviet Union?...
    Why do you disagree with arming them? It's hardly the inevitable casualties, since the longer this war drags on, the higher the body count will be.

    So by arming them then what this will lead to a reduction in the death and misery? Do you really believe some of the stuff you come out with. Arming them will make a bad situation worse and will lead to more misery death and chaos for all involved.
    I had thought you were talking about production and reserves, an unfortunate mix up.

    You appear to be getting mixed up quite a bit. how can you confuse production and reserves with enrichment capacity. And even that aside the Russians are in a position currently or will be fairly soon to dominate the uranium market. You stated you didnt get a chance “to tackle me” over my statement that Russia was a globla energy superpower. see thats funny. I mean if you think that Russia isnt a global energy power there isnt much point really debating energy geopolitics with you as you havent a clue. Im not sure there is anyways as I dont think you are knowledgeable as you think you are or are attempting to show. You also stated China gets most of its oil from Turkmenistan. That was incorrect aswell where you got that from Ive no idea. Then you come out with this...
    It's easy. We pay a little more for our gas and get it from the Middle East, or Canada (the EU has nine months supply of gas, the UK/Ireland/Norway wouldn't even feel the pinch since we don't buy Russian oil/gas). I do believe we're actually working on a pipeline at the moment, as well.

    It isnt easy far from it actually. The reality of the situation is that a portion of the EU will be reliant on Russian energy for the forseebale future. Thats how it is. we just pay a little more for our gas and get it from the middle east.?? do we now. really. or Canada. Hmmm. the logic behind your claim about Canada is strange to say the least. Considering Canada will not be in a position to export LNG for maybe another seven years. And they would also need to build export terminals. Then you have to factor in the economics of getting the LNG to Europe market prices will dictate that Canada send it elsewhere. And even if it did get here it would in all likelyhood be less than 1% of what we need. Canadian energy reaching the EU and playing a significant role in our energy requirements isnt going to happen its a myth similar to the US shale gas fairy tale that was trotted out not so long ago. Which pipeline would this be?...
    EU dependent on Russian gas for 'foreseeable future', warns IEA

    The European Union will remain dependent on Russian pipeline gas imports for the “foreseeable future”, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned.

    As domestic fossil fuel production continues to decline fast, especially in Denmark and the Netherlands, gas imports are expected to increase between 2020 and 2030, according to the IEA’s 2014 review of EU energy policy.

    Liquefied natural gas imports to the EU, vital to diversify supply, hit a record low in 2014, half of 2010 levels. Supplies are being re-exported to Asia, leaving the EU with about 70% of spare capacity, the IEA said. US LNG supplies for the medium term had already been sold to Asian markets, which had pushed up import prices.

    Unconventional gas, such as shale, could bolster energy security but faced strong political resistance from some member states.

    The EU is set to be dependent on Russian gas for some time and that’s the reality,” the IEA’s executive director Maria van der Hoeven told the European Commission in Brussels today (1 December).
    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/eu-dependent-russian-gas-foreseeable-future-warns-iea-310469
    Of course not. But you're implying Russia giving weapons to the rebels is fine, but us giving the Ukrainians weapons is a grave mistake. Ukraine's armouries and small-arms are poor quality.

    where have I implied Russia giving weapons is “fine”...show me that please....
    I can't find the article I read, but here's one from the UK and one from Sweden which both allude to Russia attempting to employ the same tactics they used in Ukraine. To stoke the ethnic Russians up.

    The press tv article pretty much says “the British said this” and the second link is to a study. Neither are this Kremlin document you alluded too.
    I know exactly how nuclear strategy works. I know exactly how nuclear deterrence and MAD works. And MAD only works if both sides know it's suicide. However, if both sides understand that, and one side uses a single nuke, it might not incur a direct response from the other party for fear of MAD. It's like calling a bluff in poker.

    Like I said, it is unlikely, but it is entirely possible that Russia could attack the Baltics.

    I've also not said it would remain conventional. I told you that the Russian strategy relies upon the use of tactical nukes, and why they had planned to target the Low Countries and Venice with them while rushing the Fulda Gap, because they knew France has a "soft-to-hard" stance (namely, if Russia targeted their military or civilian infrastructure, France would target civilian populated areas).

    Do you now. so one side nukes the other and the other side wont reply. Because what a bluff..just like poker?..
    Yeah, Russia "rolling into Kiev" is going to work out perfectly fine for them. Especially when Poland and the Baltics surround Kaliningrad and could cut off any access to the Russian mainland. And when Poland sits right at the door to Ukraine, and would probably funnel thousands of weapons across the border.

    If there's one thing you're underestimating here, it's that the Polish aren't as timid as the French or Germans, and the Polish know that the longer the Russians and Ukrainians are fighting, the better it is for them.

    Why would Poland do that?....so what youre saying here is that if Russia rolls outright into Ukraine Nato will get involved? is that what you are stating...
    You keep saying that arming Ukraine to tackle the rebels is game over for them, and that it's a bad decision to make. How can you not support Ukraine's right to exercise its control over its territory, against a party who did the exact same thing in Chechnya?

    They can do what they like. But I dont believe the west should arm them just like the Germans and French dont believe they should be armed. nothing to do with us.
    Yeah, much better to remain a vassal with the Russian boot on your neck.

    from what I can see that boot is still firmly in place infact its now worse than it was.
    The "people in the east", the Kremlin-backed rebel groups. They don't get a say in separatism when they're firing at Ukrainian forces, not after they shot down a civilian airliner, bragged about it, realized they fecked up and removed the post before laying the blame on the Ukrainians.

    They don't get a say. If they wanted a say, they'd do it democratically. They'd have the world backing them if they did, and Russia would have an actual reason to position troops there.

    So the people in the east dont get a say. As per your previous comment arm kiev so they can “crush the rebels”. Is that your strategy and plan?...
    I agree and so does Stratfor.

    thats nice.
    Because that is the usual go-to argument for pro-Russian people.

    And your point is what exactly....
    There has never been a solely military solution to anything, that point is redundant. However, the military must be used to crush the rebel groups, in conjunction with economic and political measures, both of which are being exercised by the West.

    So youre calling for war. when you heading off to fight?...
    [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)Countries by GDP[/url]

    Compare the World Bank (2013) with IMF 2014. Russia's economy contracted by around $150bn, or if you want to compare it to the CIA's factbook, it contracted by around $40bn.

    Even with the rouble crashing and people investing in consumer goods creating a flurry of economic activity, the Russian economy still fell in size.

    That still doesnt explain your “death grip” comment...you were saying...
    What are they going to do, invade? Cut off our gas?

    Europe has nine months of gas and oil stockpiled for emergencies. Ireland, the UK and Norway get our oil from non-Russian sources. We'll ride it out.

    The country most affected would be Germany, and if the Germans need something, by god they'll throw everything they have into acquiring it. Canadian oil-rich sands (which was cleared to sell in Europe, I think,), US oil-rich sands, the planned Middle Eastern pipeline. Hell, the US alone was the third largest producer of oil in 2008 when oil was going high (at nearly 9 million barrels a day, with a capacity to refine around 18 million barrels a day).

    If it's an emergency, you can bet your bottom dollar, the US and Canada will find it profitable to ship massive quantities to Europe.

    Like I said, the price of importing oil and gas would go up.

    Ride what out exactly and so what if Europe has nine months stockpiled thats beside the point. Germany would be largely affected. Apart from getting that right overall you dont know what youre talking about that much is obvious to me. I dont think theres much point in me addressing the above. Canada and the US swooping in to save the day is just a myth. a fairytale.
    So, we're at war with Russia? Strange, I don't see any Russian troops outside my window.

    When you sanction or embargo a country what do you think it is? For the craic or something.....
    So, the EU doesn't tell countries to store nine months worth of gas? One

    because nine months storage is the answer to EU energy supplies and dependency on certain suppliers. right so:rolleyes:
    What's your answer to the bad situation, let the Russians continue their advance? The Russians aren't going to stop with just Donetsk or Luhansk, they're going to keep pushing until they reach the Dnieper.

    And do you think Poland will care about Germany or France's "push back" and not sell the Ukrainians small arms? Poland learned not to trust the French and Germans before, they are committed to driving up the cost of that war for the Russians.

    Hell, it was even the Polish who were pushing for an integrated European energy market and it has started to gain traction in the last few months.

    Whats your answer...moar war? there is no military solution to this some sort of federal structure is the only solution that will leave Ukraine intact.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    gandalf wrote: »
    Wakeup I'm not going to quote and counter your whole post as that is getting very messy.

    Imho and the opinion of a number of others is that this is not a civil war situation. It is a manufactured war produced by the Kremlin and seeded at leadership level by their men. It is a true Hybrid warfare scenario.

    For any legitimate political solution the militias that are backed, armed, bolstered by official Russian forces need to be withdrawn from the territories of the Ukraine they have occupied. After a period of normalisation then the various political options like federalisation can then be discussed and put to a vote. Obviously the Crimea is gone, I do agree that the Russians will not move out of there with the naval base they have present, however they will have to pay massive reparations to the Ukrainians for this concession and guarantee the integrity of the rest of the Ukraine.

    Economically Russia needs to be selling it's gas to Europe. It cannot afford not to. If it does decide to go down the crazy route of turning off the pipes most of the main European economies have enough reserves to last them nine months. Also the Middle Eastern Suppliers and the US would jump at the opportunity to displace the Russians and take a slice of that market. The cost will go up but it will be worth it to dilute or remove the reliance of power from a unstable country.

    Back to the far right question. I have shown with figures that the problem is a minor one in comparison to the hyped propaganda being pushed by Kremlin backed media outlets. I think you will have to concede that this problem is present in a number of countries in Europe and the numbers involved are replicated in those countries and far from having a higher proportion of a far right problem the Ukrainians have numbers that are the norm. Again I would counter that I see Russia having a far worse problem with the far right and the policies and propaganda emanating from the Russian Government are definitely creating a atmosphere that aids its growth.

    My opinion is that as Europeans we cannot let gun barrel diplomacy like this happen again in Europe no matter what weapons the aggressor has. If Russia uses Nukes, it will be turned to dust, that is not a threat that is a fact, if it was inverted and a European country or the US used nukes against them it will be the same outcome. We let a country get away with Gun Barrel diplomacy 76 years ago and millions lost their lives as results. As a continent we have to learn the lessons from history, aggressive nations need to be confronted. Russia is no longer an Empire, the Soviet Union is dead and buried. It cannot be phoenixed from the ashes no matter how hard Putins tries or wills it.

    will reply to this later on in detail when I get a chance.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    So theory so far is only Russian troops are allowed to fight Ukrainians in Ukraine.
    So if a few thousand well trained and well equipped wink wink nudge nudge volunteers from Poland ,Georgia Latvia ,Lithuania, British, American, Canadian ,all without unit markings or flags of course appeared over night of course
    Along with modern heavy weapons and equipment .
    Vladimir Putin would get all upset and what exactly.
    He's not going to launch a nuke that's a fact .
    Remember there are NO Russian forces in Ukraine, wink wink ..
    The so called Russians should be given choice stay in Ukraine and face precision strikes against there vehicles and heavy equipment including artillery and other's.
    Or return to Russia.
    And have an ISAF force secure the border
    All while ramping up sanctions against Moscow include blocking them access to the swift banking systems.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    gandalf wrote: »
    Wakeup I'm not going to quote and counter your whole post as that is getting very messy.

    Imho and the opinion of a number of others is that this is not a civil war situation. It is a manufactured war produced by the Kremlin and seeded at leadership level by their men. It is a true Hybrid warfare scenario.

    For any legitimate political solution the militias that are backed, armed, bolstered by official Russian forces need to be withdrawn from the territories of the Ukraine they have occupied. After a period of normalisation then the various political options like federalisation can then be discussed and put to a vote. Obviously the Crimea is gone, I do agree that the Russians will not move out of there with the naval base they have present, however they will have to pay massive reparations to the Ukrainians for this concession and guarantee the integrity of the rest of the Ukraine.

    Economically Russia needs to be selling it's gas to Europe. It cannot afford not to. If it does decide to go down the crazy route of turning off the pipes most of the main European economies have enough reserves to last them nine months. Also the Middle Eastern Suppliers and the US would jump at the opportunity to displace the Russians and take a slice of that market. The cost will go up but it will be worth it to dilute or remove the reliance of power from a unstable country.

    Back to the far right question. I have shown with figures that the problem is a minor one in comparison to the hyped propaganda being pushed by Kremlin backed media outlets. I think you will have to concede that this problem is present in a number of countries in Europe and the numbers involved are replicated in those countries and far from having a higher proportion of a far right problem the Ukrainians have numbers that are the norm. Again I would counter that I see Russia having a far worse problem with the far right and the policies and propaganda emanating from the Russian Government are definitely creating a atmosphere that aids its growth.

    My opinion is that as Europeans we cannot let gun barrel diplomacy like this happen again in Europe no matter what weapons the aggressor has. If Russia uses Nukes, it will be turned to dust, that is not a threat that is a fact, if it was inverted and a European country or the US used nukes against them it will be the same outcome. We let a country get away with Gun Barrel diplomacy 76 years ago and millions lost their lives as results. As a continent we have to learn the lessons from history, aggressive nations need to be confronted. Russia is no longer an Empire, the Soviet Union is dead and buried. It cannot be phoenixed from the ashes no matter how hard Putins tries or wills it.

    yeah fair enough Gandalf. I think weve covered most of this already in numerous conversations we have had on the other thread and some on this. I think you know my position at this stage now with regard to the points you have made above. on the far right fair enough they are everywhere not just Ukraine though they are active there aswell and have been and from what Ive read about them they are not a pleasant bunch.I was going to respond in detail though not really sure there is much merit in me doing so with your post as weve covered it all more or less and Ill just be repeating things unless you want me too? if you want me to go into detail I will no problem. if not all good. sure you can let me know what you think.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Who would these western “volunteers” be you speak of people like you?.. When are you heading off to fight the Russians and the rebels so? Or do you expect other people to go fight and die yet you appear to be of the opinion that there is a military solution to this and thats the road to go down. When are you heading off to fight. Who are these volunteers you speak of or are you talking about actual troops. Also are you saying the Russians arent capable and wouldnt be motivated to fight on their border..what are you saying actually...what do you know about Russian soldiers and their capabilities why dont you elaborate on that a little please.....

    *sigh*

    The point goes whoosh over your head.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    are you seriously comparing Russia to the soviet Union?...

    Let's take a look at it then. NATO was designed to stare down the USSR. Russia was the de facto power in the USSR. The former USSR nations in Europe rushed to join NATO as soon as they could. Russia has become increasingly belligerent against NATO, and believes NATO is coming to get them. Russia has all the nuclear weapons the former USSR possessed.

    Gee, I wonder why people would equate Russia with the USSR.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    So by arming them then what this will lead to a reduction in the death and misery? Do you really believe some of the stuff you come out with. Arming them will make a bad situation worse and will lead to more misery death and chaos for all involved.

    No, but the longer a conflict drags out, the bloodier it will be. It's more humane for a short, bloodier conflict than a long, slow-boiling one where both sides can take time to catch their breath and rearm. Here's an article that explains what I mean
    WakeUp wrote: »
    You appear to be getting mixed up quite a bit. how can you confuse production and reserves with enrichment capacity. And even that aside the Russians are in a position currently or will be fairly soon to dominate the uranium market. You stated you didnt get a chance “to tackle me” over my statement that Russia was a globla energy superpower. see thats funny. I mean if you think that Russia isnt a global energy power there isnt much point really debating energy geopolitics with you as you havent a clue. Im not sure there is anyways as I dont think you are knowledgeable as you think you are or are attempting to show. You also stated China gets most of its oil from Turkmenistan. That was incorrect aswell where you got that from Ive no idea. Then you come out with this...

    Our posts were deleted, and before they were, we were talking about uranium production capacity and uranium reserves, when you posted a diagram. It's hardly inconceivable that I missed you using the word "enrichment" rather than "production" or "reserves".

    To say my points on geopolitics are invalid, when you think Poland isn't willing to stand up to Russia in Ukraine is absolutely farcical.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    It isnt easy far from it actually. The reality of the situation is that a portion of the EU will be reliant on Russian energy for the forseebale future. Thats how it is. we just pay a little more for our gas and get it from the middle east.?? do we now. really. or Canada. Hmmm. the logic behind your claim about Canada is strange to say the least. Considering Canada will not be in a position to export LNG for maybe another seven years. And they would also need to build export terminals. Then you have to factor in the economics of getting the LNG to Europe market prices will dictate that Canada send it elsewhere. And even if it did get here it would in all likelyhood be less than 1% of what we need. Canadian energy reaching the EU and playing a significant role in our energy requirements isnt going to happen its a myth similar to the US shale gas fairy tale that was trotted out not so long ago. Which pipeline would this be?...

    If the gas was turned off, do you think it wouldn't be an emergency and we wouldn't throw everything we have into stabilizing? Canada and the US produce around 100 million tonnes of iron a year. Western metallurgy is much higher than the world average. Ukraine produced 80 million tonnes, Turkey produce 4.5 million tonnes, Norway 700,000, Germany 400,000 and so on. If it was a real emergency, we'd rush everything we had into securing our lifelines.

    Yes, we're dependent on it for the foreseeable future, because nobody foresees Russia turning off the gas yet.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    where have I implied Russia giving weapons is “fine”...show me that please....

    Your numerous comments about Russia "lighting up" any volunteers who would side with Ukraine, your complete opposition to the West giving Ukraine weapons to level the playing field.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    The press tv article pretty much says “the British said this” and the second link is to a study. Neither are this Kremlin document you alluded too.

    So, if the British say something, it should be dismissed? If the Swedish say something, it should be dismissed? You were citing Sputnik News, and now you discredit the British?
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Do you now. so one side nukes the other and the other side wont reply. Because what a bluff..just like poker?..

    Do you think people in London or New York want to get vaporized for people in Talinn or Riga? Like I said, if Russia calls it and uses their suitcase nukes, the West might not respond for fear of nuclear holocaust.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Why would Poland do that?....so what youre saying here is that if Russia rolls outright into Ukraine Nato will get involved? is that what you are stating...

    Yeah, why would Poland, the people who were raped for decades, had families eradicated, who were shipped to Siberia and left to rot... Why on earth would they be afraid of Russia?

    If you know anything about Polish history, Poland has always feared Russia. Even when they were allies, the Polish kept one eye on the Russians and slept with swords under their beds.

    If you think Poland isn't supplying small arms to the Ukrainians, you are sadly mistaken. The only reason they haven't sold them tanks over the counter (the Polish are reserving the right to sell weapons) is because the US isn't willing to do it as well.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    They can do what they like. But I dont believe the west should arm them just like the Germans and French dont believe they should be armed. nothing to do with us.

    Of course it has something to do with us. These people were enticed by the EU by the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement into ousting Yanukovych. It is our problem, whether you like it or not.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    from what I can see that boot is still firmly in place infact its now worse than it was.

    Yeah, and the Russians are being strung up by their own boot laces in the meantime.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    So the people in the east dont get a say. As per your previous comment arm kiev so they can “crush the rebels”. Is that your strategy and plan?...

    Not when they hold arms, and shoot down civilians, they don't. Drop the weapons, let the UN oversee a referendum to joining Russia. Either they vote to join Russia, or they don't.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    And your point is what exactly....
    You asked me why I said that, and I explained it to you. Are you being wilfully dense?

    WakeUp wrote: »
    So youre calling for war. when you heading off to fight?...

    You've been the one arguing that it is a civil war. Let the Ukrainians fight on the ground, let the EU exercise its economic might into strangling the Russians to the table.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    That still doesnt explain your “death grip” comment...you were saying...

    Yeah, a 5% contraction in their economy (a larger contraction than their economic growths) isn't at all a death grip. EU sanctions and oil prices didn't just chokeslam the Russian economy.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Ride what out exactly and so what if Europe has nine months stockpiled thats beside the point. Germany would be largely affected. Apart from getting that right overall you dont know what youre talking about that much is obvious to me. I dont think theres much point in me addressing the above. Canada and the US swooping in to save the day is just a myth. a fairytale.

    Russia needs to sell gas to Europe in order to even its books. It's all about who is going to crack first. The EU, who has 9 months stored, or the Russians who rely on Europe's €90bn market? Russia turning off the gas is bad for them.

    Yeah, since when has the US ever utilized its vast industrial might to its advantage? Surely not in world war 1, or world war two, or the construction of the Panama Canal, or the rebuilding of Italy and West Germany, surely not the lend-lease of materials to Allied Powers in ww2.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    When you sanction or embargo a country what do you think it is? For the craic or something.....

    Here, I'm going to link you a wikipedia article that you should read. [url=
    WakeUp wrote: »
    ]Declaration of war[/url]. You should pay attention to the first paragraph. Here's another one State of War.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    because nine months storage is the answer to EU energy supplies and dependency on certain suppliers. right so:rolleyes:

    Foreseeable. The likelihood of Russia turning the gas off is low. If the EU needed to, it would build, and build and build. The last time Germany exercised its full industrial might, it knocked France out in less than six weeks.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Whats your answer...moar war? there is no military solution to this some sort of federal structure is the only solution that will leave Ukraine intact.

    No, my solution is to give the Ukrainians weapons. My solution is to continue exerting our economic pressure on the Russian Federation. My solution is to grab the Bear by its scruff and pummel it into the ground until it lets go of Ukraine.

    Russia is willing to dig in and pay a high price for Ukraine. The higher the price they pay, the better our position will be as a second party.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    *sigh*

    The point goes whoosh over your head.

    Did it now. and what exactly was your point again?,,,,
    Let's take a look at it then. NATO was designed to stare down the USSR. Russia was the de facto power in the USSR. The former USSR nations in Europe rushed to join NATO as soon as they could. Russia has become increasingly belligerent against NATO, and believes NATO is coming to get them. Russia has all the nuclear weapons the former USSR possessed.

    Gee, I wonder why people would equate Russia with the USSR.

    So you are comparing Russia to the Soviet Union. Because why...NATO, you are aware that a number of former Soviet Union members are now eh Nato members because you pointed out. thats hint number one. Russia is not the Soviet Union to even attempt a comparison is silly attempting a comparison, because Nato, is just bizzare. Not much else needs saying there.
    No, but the longer a conflict drags out, the bloodier it will be. It's more humane for a short, bloodier conflict than a long, slow-boiling one where both sides can take time to catch their breath and rearm. Here's an article that explains what I mean

    Youre calling for moar war and destruction because its humane? You cant be serious. I dont want your articles “ with heres an article that explains what I mean” i.e telling me to go read something. that isnt proper debate you sure youre in the right forum. Why dont you explain what you mean. People being killed in war is humane because why? Please continue...
    Our posts were deleted, and before they were, we were talking about uranium production capacity and uranium reserves, when you posted a diagram. It's hardly inconceivable that I missed you using the word "enrichment" rather than "production" or "reserves".

    To say my points on geopolitics are invalid, when you think Poland isn't willing to stand up to Russia in Ukraine is absolutely farcical.

    farcial. youre some cookie. Your points on energy geopolitics are not only invalid and incorrect they are downright barmy and not to be taken seriously. Our posts were not deleted they are still on the other thread that was locked. You are of the opinion or sry you wanted to “tackle me” about my statement that Russia is an energy superpower. Only somebody who hasnt an iota about what they are talking about would remotely dispute Russias status.

    Your claims and counter claims about uranium and Russian capabilities were wrong. You stated China gets most of its oil from Turkmenistan. Thats wrong too. where you got that from baffles me. You stated “its easy” for Europe to remove itself from its current dependence on Russian energy. Thats wrong too. I posted a link and paragraph twice to you and another poster with the EU admitting as much. Its the reality of the situation. You stated we can just “pay a little more and get it from the middle east” and sure it will be grand. Thats wrong too. you stated something similiar about Canada. Thats wrong too as its physically impossible. And even if it wasnt physically impossible to believe Canada is the answer to EU energy supplies is a flight of fancy on a level that is beyond amusing. But you “believe” “we” are working on a pipeline. All in all you have not got a god damn clue what you are talking about. Not one. stick around though.
    If the gas was turned off, do you think it wouldn't be an emergency and we wouldn't throw everything we have into stabilizing? Canada and the US produce around 100 million tonnes of iron a year. Western metallurgy is much higher than the world average. Ukraine produced 80 million tonnes, Turkey produce 4.5 million tonnes, Norway 700,000, Germany 400,000 and so on. If it was a real emergency, we'd rush everything we had into securing our lifelines.

    Yes, we're dependent on it for the foreseeable future, because nobody foresees Russia turning off the gas yet.

    what in the name of sweet jaysus are you talking about here. what has iron and western metallurgy got to do with EU energy supplies. Did you just pull those figures and state such a thing for the sake of it. and youre still harking on about Canada and the States. Not a clue do you have.
    Your numerous comments about Russia "lighting up" any volunteers who would side with Ukraine, your complete opposition to the West giving Ukraine weapons to level the playing field.

    Yeah but where have I implied this is fine? The above and you havent shown that.....your logic and knowledge in lots of things is flawed to say the least. Judging by some of the thanks your posts are getting you arent alone there.
    So, if the British say something, it should be dismissed? If the Swedish say something, it should be dismissed? You were citing Sputnik News, and now you discredit the British?

    You said Kremlin document this is what you said. Link please?
    Do you think people in London or New York want to get vaporized for people in Talinn or Riga? Like I said, if Russia calls it and uses their suitcase nukes, the West might not respond for fear of nuclear holocaust.

    Ok one side can nuke the other and the other wouldnt respond. Right so.
    Yeah, why would Poland, the people who were raped for decades, had families eradicated, who were shipped to Siberia and left to rot... Why on earth would they be afraid of Russia?

    If you know anything about Polish history, Poland has always feared Russia. Even when they were allies, the Polish kept one eye on the Russians and slept with swords under their beds.

    If you think Poland isn't supplying small arms to the Ukrainians, you are sadly mistaken. The only reason they haven't sold them tanks over the counter (the Polish are reserving the right to sell weapons) is because the US isn't willing to do it as well.

    are you saying Nato will get involved yes or no?...
    Of course it has something to do with us. These people were enticed by the EU by the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement into ousting Yanukovych. It is our problem, whether you like it or not.

    No the civil war in Ukraine doesnt have anything to do with us. It isnt our problem and if you really feel its your problem what are you doing here why dont you head over there and fight. Instead of calling for war from the comfort of your computer.
    Yeah, and the Russians are being strung up by their own boot laces in the meantime.

    Are they now. you sure about that. but then again youre calling for war you must see such things a lot.
    Not when they hold arms, and shoot down civilians, they don't. Drop the weapons, let the UN oversee a referendum to joining Russia. Either they vote to join Russia, or they don't.

    but the rebels are there to stay they arent going anywhere. You want to crush them right. When you heading over to fight. What size are your boots.
    You asked me why I said that, and I explained it to you. Are you being wilfully dense?

    so now Im dense. After you swooping into the other previous thread and telling me you had “slapped” me down . then alluding to me being both an idiot and stupid. Who dafuq do you think you are lol what did you explain....
    You've been the one arguing that it is a civil war. Let the Ukrainians fight on the ground, let the EU exercise its economic might into strangling the Russians to the table.

    So moar war. you do like war dont you. from the comfort of your computer.
    Yeah, a 5% contraction in their economy (a larger contraction than their economic growths) isn't at all a death grip. EU sanctions and oil prices didn't just chokeslam the Russian economy.

    a 5% contraction this your death grip is it. That doesnt explain anything either. You said death grip details and projections please with your opinion added as to why this is going to happens and how.
    Russia needs to sell gas to Europe in order to even its books. It's all about who is going to crack first. The EU, who has 9 months stored, or the Russians who rely on Europe's €90bn market? Russia turning off the gas is bad for them.

    Yeah, since when has the US ever utilized its vast industrial might to its advantage? Surely not in world war 1, or world war two, or the construction of the Panama Canal, or the rebuilding of Italy and West Germany, surely not the lend-lease of materials to Allied Powers in ww2.

    you keep on about nine months storage as if this is some sort of solution advantage what are you on about. Youre not making sense here. the Panama canal? the rebuilding of Italy? Huh?
    Here, I'm going to link you a wikipedia article that you should read. [url=
    WakeUp wrote: »
    ]Declaration of war[/url]. You should pay attention to the first paragraph. Here's another one State of War.


    I dont want your links with a “here im going to link you” type nonsense. This is how you debate and argue your point is it. Why dont you summise those links in your own words instead of telling me to go read something. are you serious.
    Foreseeable. The likelihood of Russia turning the gas off is low. If the EU needed to, it would build, and build and build. The last time Germany exercised its full industrial might, it knocked France out in less than six weeks.

    It would build build build what? What are you talking about?
    No, my solution is to give the Ukrainians weapons. My solution is to continue exerting our economic pressure on the Russian Federation. My solution is to grab the Bear by its scruff and pummel it into the ground until it lets go of Ukraine.

    Your solution is moar war and misery and death and destruction. from the comfort of your computer.
    Russia is willing to dig in and pay a high price for Ukraine. The higher the price they pay, the better our position will be as a second party.

    the higher the price they pay the better our position as a "second" party will be. I really cant wait to hear your "logic" behind that statement..do please elaborate for me...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    gandalf wrote: »
    Wakeup I'm not going to quote and counter your whole post as that is getting very messy.

    I did reply to this post asking you did you want me to leave it not sure you seen my reply or not or if you did and ignored but all good I shall adress your post. In fairness Gandalf it was yourself who decided to break down my paragraphs into sentences and respond in that way. See post 12 and 13 on this thread. I dont think its getting messy not sure where you are getting that from or why you have decided it so but sure how and ever thats up to you. If you dont want to repsond in detail to particular sentences/points then dont.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Imho and the opinion of a number of others is that this is not a civil war situation. It is a manufactured war produced by the Kremlin and seeded at leadership level by their men. It is a true Hybrid warfare scenario.

    That would be your opinion of which you are entitled mine and a number of others as you have pointed out above, would be different.
    gandalf wrote: »
    For any legitimate political solution the militias that are backed, armed, bolstered by official Russian forces need to be withdrawn from the territories of the Ukraine they have occupied.

    That isnt going to happen and I think you know that. knowing this then the question needs to be asked what is your solution? They arent going to do what you have outlined above. Knowing this what do you suggest?...
    gandalf wrote: »
    After a period of normalisation then the various political options like federalisation can then be discussed and put to a vote. Obviously the Crimea is gone, I do agree that the Russians will not move out of there with the naval base they have present, however they will have to pay massive reparations to the Ukrainians for this concession and guarantee the integrity of the rest of the Ukraine.

    I would agree and advocate that Russia should pay in either money or resources for the annexation of Crimea and I think they should do that. but the federalisation structure which I agree with again and something Ive been calling for is not going to happen minus the rebels in the east/Donabass region. They are not going anywhere unless they are forcefully removed. Ive of the opinion that to believe otherwise is detached from reality , what has happened, what has been stated, and what is and will be taking place on the ground.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Economically Russia needs to be selling it's gas to Europe. It cannot afford not to. If it does decide to go down the crazy route of turning off the pipes most of the main European economies have enough reserves to last them nine months. Also the Middle Eastern Suppliers and the US would jump at the opportunity to displace the Russians and take a slice of that market. The cost will go up but it will be worth it to dilute or remove the reliance of power from a unstable country.

    Economically Europe needs Russia too the will cost will go up? thats the least of our issues. Again with this nine months stuff. Nine months is nothing in the grand scheme of things it just isnt. You suggest that its a “crazy” route/possibility that Russia might turn off the tap. Yet on the other hand you believe it rational and appropriate course of action to kick them out of the international monetary system via swift. That doesnt add up. The middle east and certainly the US are not in a position to just displace the Russians. did you read the link and paragraph I posted for you? Where the EU admit as reality that we will be dependent on Russian energy for the forseeable future? Or are you just choosing to ignore it. The US being in a position to supply Europe with our energy in the short to medium term is 100% complete and utter horsesh1te. A fairytale.
    gandalf wrote: »
    Back to the far right question. I have shown with figures that the problem is a minor one in comparison to the hyped propaganda being pushed by Kremlin backed media outlets. I think you will have to concede that this problem is present in a number of countries in Europe and the numbers involved are replicated in those countries and far from having a higher proportion of a far right problem the Ukrainians have numbers that are the norm. Again I would counter that I see Russia having a far worse problem with the far right and the policies and propaganda emanating from the Russian Government are definitely creating a atmosphere that aids its growth.

    I did concede that the far right are active in other places and not just Ukraine. but lets be straight about something they are certainly active and fighting in this war. thousands of them. This has been documented and not only that as per a statement from the Ukrainian ministry of defence their actions are now being corordinated and carried out with the Ukrainian army.
    gandalf wrote: »
    My opinion is that as Europeans we cannot let gun barrel diplomacy like this happen again in Europe no matter what weapons the aggressor has. If Russia uses Nukes, it will be turned to dust, that is not a threat that is a fact, if it was inverted and a European country or the US used nukes against them it will be the same outcome. We let a country get away with Gun Barrel diplomacy 76 years ago and millions lost their lives as results. As a continent we have to learn the lessons from history, aggressive nations need to be confronted. Russia is no longer an Empire, the Soviet Union is dead and buried. It cannot be phoenixed from the ashes no matter how hard Putins tries or wills it.

    This is assuming that longterm the Russians have plans to roll into Europe or take on Nato or attack a Nato country. Again what are you basing this on? Im of the opinion Ukraine is a pawn in a much bigger game hence why the Americans are involved. and that isnt taking away from what the Russians have done. But theres a bigger game being played out here and unfortunately for Ukraine they are stuck in the middle of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    WakeUp wrote: »
    So you are comparing Russia to the Soviet Union. Because why...NATO, you are aware that a number of former Soviet Union members are now eh Nato members because you pointed out. thats hint number one. Russia is not the Soviet Union to even attempt a comparison is silly attempting a comparison, because Nato, is just bizzare. Not much else needs saying there.

    Because Russia has all the characteristics and nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union. Because the Kremlin ruled the USSR, it rules Russia today. Because their tactics and their policies have not changed.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Youre calling for moar war and destruction because its humane? You cant be serious. I dont want your articles “ with heres an article that explains what I mean” i.e telling me to go read something. that isnt proper debate you sure youre in the right forum. Why dont you explain what you mean. People being killed in war is humane because why? Please continue...

    I link stuff to read, and you think it isn't relevant because it contradicts your opinion? Why do you even bother wanting to have a debate if you just stick your fingers in your ears? I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post.

    Have a good day.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Because Russia has all the characteristics and nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union. Because the Kremlin ruled the USSR, it rules Russia today. Because their tactics and their policies have not changed.

    Russia is the Soviet Union because it has nuclear weapons and all the "characteristics" of the former. this is why in your opinion Russia is the soviet union. youre having a laugh right. pulling the auld leg arent you.
    I link stuff to read, and you think it isn't relevant because it contradicts your opinion? Why do you even bother wanting to have a debate if you just stick your fingers in your ears?

    you link stuff to read. well isnt that just phucking delightful. but you see linking "stuff to read" and telling me to ya know go read it is not a proper way to either argue/put forward your point or debate your point. and thats on the assumption you even have a point to begin with thats relevant. by not reading your "stuff" and youre descriptive then follow up surely you mean Im closing my eyes as opposed to sticking my fingers in my ears unless you think I read with my ears.
    I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post . Have a good day.

    wait a second, not so fast where are you going. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points Ive raised in relation to your posts. theres lots of things Im interested in hearing about. Im taking the dag out for a stroll as its such a delightful evening out but shall log back in later. Im particularly keen to hear how you believe state and think that moar war death and destruction is somehow "humane". you can start with that please. you were saying....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    WakeUp I responded to all those points already. You already know my position. We fundamentally disagree on most of them. I'm not going over everything in detail again.

    Why do I think Russia are a danger to stability and peace in the region because they have invaded their neighbours and used Hybrid warfare tactics in a number of countries. It is logical to assume left to their devices they will try this tactic again especially if they only suffer minor reparations as a consequence. It is prudent to make the cost of using these tactics on a sovereign nation as high as possible to ensure this Rogue regime do not attempt them again.

    I agree with you the far right fighting with the Ukrainian armed forces do number in the thousands (Right Sector have stated this themselves). However on examination they make up 2% of the standing force of the Ukrainian armed forces. The representation in the Ukrainian Parlimanent is an even more pathetic number that is a fraction of a percent. You are over stating their importance as the standard Kremlin apologists are and doing so you are doing yourself a disservice because I can see where you are coming from with the exception of this point. (Inversely we have the leader of Russia Putin as a patron of a Far Right bikers club, I don't see you or others getting into a lather over that. You and others seem to be suffering from selective Nazi blindness.)

    The leaders of the so-called rebels are all seeded from Moscow. For any agreement to work they need to be removed and the armed forces under them need to be stood down and those who are not from the Ukraine need to leave. How that is achieved needs to be negotiated.

    If Russia turns off the gas to Europe it will be hastening its demise. Europe can survive on reserves I doubt the Russians can survive without that revenue stream over any sustained period. Also if there truly is a co-ordinated attempt to "hurt" Russia from the US Industrial Military complex then I am sure they will find a way to get the supplies to Europe to press home the advantage if Russia decides to blow its own legs off to spite Europe. One thing is for sure it is going to be interesting now the EU are going after Gazprom for abusing its position in the European Gas market. They lose this and it could cost them very dearly indeed.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2015/04/20/eus-antitrust-charge-against-gazprom-another-putin-disaster/

    I think no one will argue that Putins failed adventure in the Ukraine has cost Russia a lot already but if the Russians do not amend and reverse their ways then I hope Europe keeps the strength to push home the message to this regime. You act like a Rogue nation in Europe then the EU and other European nations will shun you as one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    gandalf wrote: »
    I agree with you the far right fighting with the Ukrainian armed forces do number in the thousands (Right Sector have stated this themselves). However on examination they make up 2% of the standing force of the Ukrainian armed forces. The representation in the Ukrainian Parlimanent is an even more pathetic number that is a fraction of a percent. You are over stating their importance as the standard Kremlin apologists are and doing so you are doing yourself a disservice because I can see where you are coming from with the exception of this point. (Inversely we have the leader of Russia Putin as a patron of a Far Right bikers club, I don't see you or others getting into a lather over that. You and others seem to be suffering from selective Nazi blindness.)

    It isnt being overstated and the reason its an issue for me anyways is because the EU/West/Americans are backing/supporting them/In their corner call it whatever. All nazis are scumbags and Ive never denied the Russian nazi element but “we” arent backing the Russian nazi element. The Ukrainian side however. Nothing to do with selective nazi blindness. Are western forces training these nazis I wonder. And if they are I wonder how they feel about that. considering far right operations are now being coordinated outright with the Ukrainian army and a high level far right head is now “advising the army”. Really though this shouldnt surpirse me what with western trained/backed/whatever jihadis sry moderate rebels in the middle east. Lots of things seem back to front these days.
    gandalf wrote: »
    If Russia turns off the gas to Europe it will be hastening its demise. Europe can survive on reserves I doubt the Russians can survive without that revenue stream over any sustained period. Also if there truly is a co-ordinated attempt to "hurt" Russia from the US Industrial Military complex then I am sure they will find a way to get the supplies to Europe to press home the advantage if Russia decides to blow its own legs off to spite Europe. One thing is for sure it is going to be interesting now the EU are going after Gazprom for abusing its position in the European Gas market. They lose this and it could cost them very dearly indeed.

    But how long can Europe survive without Russian energy nine months is nothing and thats without factoring in usage/how cold the entailing Winter might be. If the Americans/EU decide to kick the Russians out of the international monetary system then the Russians turning off our gas becomes a distinct possibility. And say they are booted out of the swift system how do they propse we pay the moneis owed for our energy magic beans or something .the EU have stated we are and will be dependent on Russian energy for the forseeable future. Thats the reality. If they could realistically source it elsewhere they would do so. This isnt something you just can click your fingers with or decide ok so we can get our energy elsewhere it doesnt work like that. that article from Forbes whilst his figure are all well and good and ill go into them with you if you want he along with anyone else from what I can see hasnt suggested nor put forward a realistic workable plan to source our energy in the short-medium term from somewhere else. Russians could do with our cash but we need their energy. Going after Gazprom that could backfire on us. South stream went to Turkey because of third party ownership issues aswell as some other things. Europe going after Gazprom yep that could hurt them financially but it could also hurt us. Especially when you consider the current state of affairs. And just on the Americans being able to displace the Russians and supplying our gas...
    US Gas Will Never Replace Russian Gas For Europe


    Charif Souki, Cheniere’s chief executive, said that the idea of his company’s exports alone liberating Europe from Russia’s Gazprom was “nonsense” and that only six to eight of 20-plus proposed rival export projects were “real”.

    The east-west stand-off over Ukraine has sparked a political debate over whether the US should loosen its energy export restrictions so Europeans can buy liquefied natural gas, or LNG, from America’s shale energy boom.

    Asked if Cheniere’s terminal could rescue eastern European countries from their dependence on Russia, Mr Souki said: “It’s flattering to be talked about like this, but it’s all nonsense. It’s so much nonsense that I can’t believe anybody really believes it.”

    Recent entreaties by various US politicians to help wean Europe off of Russian gas are simply preposterous. The numbers don't add up, and they never will.

    Let's begin with the facts:


    If the US wants Europe entirely off of Russian natural gas (NG), it will have to immediately replace 5.7 trillion cubic feet per year, or 15 billion cubic feet per day.

    The entire set of US shale gas plays, which consist of 8 major plays and a slew of minor ones, cumulatively provide the US with 27 billion cubic feet per day. That is, just over half of the entire current US shale gas play would have to be dedicated to the European cause of eliminating Russian natural gas dependency.

    And even with the shale plays, in April 2014 the US remains a net gas importer. In 2013, the most recent full year of data, the US had to import 1.3 trillion cubic feet to satisfy domestic consumption.

    More pointedly, 2013 was a pretty cold winter, the kind that comes along every so often, and the US barely made it through that period without running dangerously low on NG as it was.

    To make it through the heavy demands of winter natural gas must be stockpiled in advance. As a result, the gas storage report always shows seasonal builds and draw downs of natural gas:

    In all my years of watching the energy statistics I've never seen NG storage get this low. Look how far below the average 5 year range it got...all the way down to just 800 billion cubic feet in storage.

    And this was with the "shale gas miracle" chugging along merrily in the background.

    If the US had magically managed to have the appropriate liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals all built and had wanted to completely supply Europe with US gas to replace Russian gas, it could have only done so for 53 days (800 bcf/15 bcf/day) before the US would have completely run out of its gas in storage.

    Of course, this could never be done. If NG ever gets too low in storage, you run the risk of having the pressure drop in all the associated pipelines and delivery systems to such a low level that things have to be shut down. Pilot lights go out, system pressures falter in some areas before others, turbines can't be run, and industrial processes terminate.

    If you thought the winter of 2013 was hard, imagine it with the added specter of having to re-light every residential pilot light in a region. There are not enough service people to do that.

    And well before a crisis moment like that arrives, a form of utility triage would be implemented; Step 1 of which would be shutting off exports of LNG to Europe and any other ex-US destinations.

    What then would Europe do? Freeze and suffer through its own chain of shortage-related failures because the US could not actually supply what was needed?

    What would quickly happen is that Europe would return to Russia for at least part of its gas needs. So all that the US could ever do, realistic or not, is supplant some of Russia's role as NG supplier to Europe.

    Rising US Production

    At this point, some might say that the ability of the US to export natural gas will rise because US domestic production is rising. While true, two things weigh on this view to render it moot.

    The first is that European domestic gas production is falling. Norwegian production is going down, and North Africa remains a mess that cannot be counted upon to reliably increase its production over its consumption over any time frame you care to choose. So rising US production will be countered by rising US demand and falling European production, both of which will erode the apparent 'surplus' in the US that so many are (innumerately) counting on.

    The second is because liquefying natural gas is enormously energy-intensive and expensive. To ship vast quantities of natural gas across the Atlantic, we'd need to liquefy it first. Fully 25% of the energy embodied in natural gas (NG) is wasted during the process of turning it into a liquid (LNG). That energy is simply gone: those expended BTUs cannot ever be used for anything else.

    So when it's noted that Russia supplies 5.7 trillion cubic feet, that's of ordinary gas in its rightful gaseous form (NG).

    The equivalent in US gas would be (5.7/0.75) = 7.6 trillion cubic feet (of NG) to account for the energy loss in the liquefying process (to make LNG).

    In short, LNG is just an energetically stupid thing to do. It is wasteful.

    Economically Unworkable

    The final nail in the "US will supply Europe's gas" coffin is simple economics.

    US LNG could be produced and shipped for about $9 per thousand cubic feet. Russia produces theirs for $.50 for the same amount and can sell it for a price well below $9 for as long as they wish.

    People investing in an LNG terminal are tying up billions and billions in the project. They cannot invest in such a project because Europe might need gas for the next 2 or even 20 months because of temporary hostilities with Russia. They need 20 years of expected profitable sales to justify the expense.

    Who thinks that the West is in any position to place a 20+ year permanent ban on Russian energy exports to Europe? Anybody?

    A sanctions regime is the only thing that would make LNG from the US to Europe an economically workable proposition.

    The truth is, there are a great many voices asking for LNG to be exported from the US but the real reason has nothing to do with Russia or Europe. The real reason is that the domestic NG industry would love to get much higher prices for their product than they are currently getting and LNG terminals is one way to help level the price playing field between the US and the rest of the world.

    Europe won't get its independence from Russia, but US consumers will pay more.

    Conclusion

    There's nothing sensible about the recent attempts to link US LNG exports to freeing Europe from its dependence on Russian NG.

    The numbers just don't work.

    Worst of all, those proposing such schemes seem delightfully unaware that even the robust quantities of NG that the US seems to have are also finite, and that you get to use the embodied energy exactly once. But that's it.

    Use that energy to liquefy the NG in LNG and you cannot then use that energy to make fertilizer, or erect a new electrical pylon, or build out a next generation mass transit system, or rebuild depleted soils.

    By this viewpoint, calls to turn our domestic NG into LNG are ignorant at best; a crime against future generations at worst. Perhaps they're both.

    But have no fear, Europe is not staffed by ignorant dummies and they will not risk their present and future prosperity by cutting off Russian imports of NG simply to appease US policy hawks or help the sitting president achieve some sort of political victory back home.

    So it's highly unlikely that Europe will be clamoring for US LNG to the point that it would agree to a 20-year ban on Russian NG exports. Given this, it's doubtful that the Ukrainian situation will translate into any significant actions on the US LNG front.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-20/us-gas-will-never-replace-russian-gas-europe

    that last part in bold is an important part a big part of the reason why the Germans and French are proceeding with caution and attempting to find a diplomatic way out of this. we need Russian energy. thats how it is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Again not going to pick into it but you are suffering from Nazi blindness. Russia and Putin unleashed ultra nationalist into the Ukraine. You do remember Igor Strelkov the man who was the leader of the "Rebels" from day one? He is a Russian Ultra Nationalist whose goal is the restoration of a bastardised hybrid of the USSR and Imperial Russia.

    The far right you talk about are still Ukrainians. I again have shown they only make up a fraction of their forces yet you are blowing their involvement out of all proportion. You do ignore the "Lebensraum" operations of the New Russian Reich though. TBH only one Regime is behaving like the reincarnation of the Nazi's and it is not the Ukrainian government. It is Putins Russia.

    Again Europe will experience pain when it weans itself off dependence on Russian Gas but given the noises coming from within Russia of Gazprom and Rosneft asking the Government for funds to keep their companies alive it is obvious that Russia is in no position to carry out a prolonged shut-down of resources to Europe or any market.

    BTW I wouldn't use Zerohedge as a prime source either, it's a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and used by kranks all over the world.

    This paper would have more gravitas and it does say we are dependent on Russian Gas and that it would cost a lot to to find alternatives. If that is what it takes to cease pandering to a dictator with Ultra Nationalistic tendencies then so be it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    gandalf wrote: »
    Again not going to pick into it but you are suffering from Nazi blindness. Russia and Putin unleashed ultra nationalist into the Ukraine. You do remember Igor Strelkov the man who was the leader of the "Rebels" from day one? He is a Russian Ultra Nationalist whose goal is the restoration of a bastardised hybrid of the USSR and Imperial Russia.

    The far right you talk about are still Ukrainians. I again have shown they only make up a fraction of their forces yet you are blowing their involvement out of all proportion. You do ignore the "Lebensraum" operations of the New Russian Reich though. TBH only one Regime is behaving like the reincarnation of the Nazi's and it is not the Ukrainian government. It is Putins Russia.

    Again Europe will experience pain when it weans itself off dependence on Russian Gas but given the noises coming from within Russia of Gazprom and Rosneft asking the Government for funds to keep their companies alive it is obvious that Russia is in no position to carry out a prolonged shut-down of resources to Europe or any market.

    BTW I wouldn't use Zerohedge as a prime source either, it's a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and used by kranks all over the world.

    This paper would have more gravitas and it does say we are dependent on Russian Gas and that it would cost a lot to to find alternatives. If that is what it takes to cease pandering to a dictator with Ultra Nationalistic tendencies then so be it.

    Im not ignoring Russian nazis which Ive stated and at this stage you are picking on it a bit but fair enough. but "we" arent backing Russian nazis are we no "we" are backing the Ukrainian nazis. this would appear to be ok with you even if you claim to not "like" the idea. thats akin to turning a blind eye no? because it suits. as for your comments about zerohedge thats your opinion and up to you. a lot of very bright people post there its like any online forum you get all sorts dont you. I will have a look at that oxford paper and though the fact we are dependent on Russian energy without a viable alternative that makes sense for now, I dont need to read that article to know that. its been and is the case and will be for the forseeable future. why dont you address the points in the zerohedge article as opposed to attacking the source considering we were talking about the US and their claimed/trumpeted ability to meet our needs. I mean the myth about the US being in a position to supplement Russian gas supplies to Europe has always been a bullsh1t fairytale put out there for other reasons than the ones believed yet it still gets held up and trumpeted as some sort of answer and viable solution. that zerohedge article destroys that myth with facts and reality. As for Europe weaning itself off Russian gas. many a moon will rise and fall before that fully comes to fruition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    WakeUp wrote: »
    wait a second, not so fast where are you going. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points Ive raised in relation to your posts. theres lots of things Im interested in hearing about. Im taking the dag out for a stroll as its such a delightful evening out but shall log back in later. Im particularly keen to hear how you believe state and think that moar war death and destruction is somehow "humane". you can start with that please. you were saying....

    There's no point in me summarizing the article when the answer is already in the article. You post links to back up your claims, I do the same and you ignore them. That's what we call cognitive dissonance, and it is a logical fallacy. That's why I'm not going to bother addressing any of your other points.
    gandalf wrote: »
    thing is for sure it is going to be interesting now the EU are going after Gazprom for abusing its position in the European Gas market. They lose this and it could cost them very dearly indeed.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2015/04/20/eus-antitrust-charge-against-gazprom-another-putin-disaster/

    Nice link, it'd be a shame if someone... refused to read it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Im not ignoring Russian nazis which Ive stated and at this stage you are picking on it a bit but fair enough. but "we" arent backing Russian nazis are we no "we" are backing the Ukrainian nazis. this would appear to be ok with you even if you claim to not "like" the idea. thats akin to turning a blind eye no? because it suits. as for your comments about zerohedge thats your opinion and up to you. a lot of very bright people post there its like any online forum you get all sorts dont you. I will have a look at that oxford paper and though the fact we are dependent on Russian energy without a viable alternative that makes sense for now, I dont need to read that article to know that. its been and is the case and will be for the forseeable future. why dont you address the points in the zerohedge article as opposed to attacking the source considering we were talking about the US and their claimed/trumpeted ability to meet our needs. I mean the myth about the US being in a position to supplement Russian gas supplies to Europe has always been a bullsh1t fairytale put out there for other reasons than the ones believed yet it still gets held up and trumpeted as some sort of answer and viable solution. that zerohedge article destroys that myth with facts and reality. As for Europe weaning itself off Russian gas. many a moon will rise and fall before that fully comes to fruition.

    No, you're right. We're not backing Russian Nazis. The Russians are doing that. You're wrong, we're not backing Ukrainian Nazis, because we're not giving them arms.

    The US could produce some 9 million barrels of oil a day (compared to Russia's 10 million a day, which doesn't all go to Europe). If the EU really needed that oil, do you think we'd just say "oh there's an ocean in the way, I guess we're not getting it" or do you think we'd use the reserves we have to build a large enough infrastructure to get that oil over here?

    The article you linked? Yeah, I'm not going to read it because I don't want to, so whatever is in it doesn't matter. That's your angle, right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    There's no point in me summarizing the article when the answer is already in the article. You post links to back up your claims, I do the same and you ignore them. That's what we call cognitive dissonance, and it is a logical fallacy. That's why I'm not going to bother addressing any of your other points.[/i].

    are you sure thats the reason you arent going to bother addressing my other points.? people being killed in war, death murder misery and destruction, men women children and animals being blown up, killed, mutilated and many another really horrific things, this in your opinion is somehow "humane"...explain that to me....you were saying....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    WakeUp wrote: »
    are you sure thats the reason you arent going to bother addressing my other points.? people being killed in war, death murder misery and destruction, men women children and animals being blown up, killed, mutilated and many another really horrific things, this in your opinion is somehow "humane"...explain that to me....you were saying....

    Since you refuse to (or can't) read I'll give you a simple question:

    Which is worse, losing 100,000 people over ten months, or 10,000 people in one month?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    No, you're right. We're not backing Russian Nazis. The Russians are doing that. You're wrong, we're not backing Ukrainian Nazis, because we're not giving them arms.

    The US could produce some 9 million barrels of oil a day (compared to Russia's 10 million a day, which doesn't all go to Europe). If the EU really needed that oil, do you think we'd just say "oh there's an ocean in the way, I guess we're not getting it" or do you think we'd use the reserves we have to build a large enough infrastructure to get that oil over here?

    The article you linked? Yeah, I'm not going to read it because I don't want to, so whatever is in it doesn't matter. That's your angle, right?

    that post wasnt addressed to you so whether you read that link or not I dont care. as for your comments about US oil :rolleyes: you havent a clue youve shown that yet here you go again. like I said Id appreciate it you replied to my posts in reply to yours....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Since you refuse to (or can't) read I'll give you a simple question:

    Which is worse, losing 100,000 people over ten months, or 10,000 people in one month?

    explain how war death misery and chaos is "humane"...how is it humane?...


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement