Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
As already posted multiple times, it is largely irrelevant in the current situation. Only a small part of the gas imports is used to generate electricity, and vice versa only a small part of German electricity needs is covered by gas power plants.
However a crucial point is that gas turbines can very quickly react to changing demand and are therefore needed to stabilize the grid (which has become even more important due to the large amount of renewable energy that tends to fluctuate). Therefore it is technically impossible to replace all the gas power plants with nuclear power plants as was suggested - those are just far too slow to react. They might help a bit, but everyone suggesting shutting down gas for nuclear simply doesn't understand how an electrical grid works.
That is nuts.
As predicted. Putin will eventually run out of troops/ammo/and morale to keep this thing going. At that point the Ukrainians will start pushing forward, which is when things could get very dangerous as a cornered Putin with WMDs will know he can't afford to be perceived as a loser in Ukraine.
Wasn’t really what I was driving at but thanks for the info.
Re renewables and the push for renewables. For a random example Germany is the 2nd biggest installer domestically of heat pumps in Europe (Sweden No1) and that market ballooned this year up 30% vs gas which only rose 6%. Obviously Germany has many more people than Sweden but how have they let themselves become so gas reliant?
Sorry for the delay in replying this.
My impression (mainly from Greek news sources and TV) is that both Germany and Netherlands have about the same response to Ukraine so far. No real differences between the two. For example, about heavy weapons deliveries, which is the main issue during the past 3 months, everything I have heard on TV says that Dutch and Germany are practically aligned. And both of them are very slow, especially compared to US. Here is an example from a Greek newspaper, perhaps you can read it through Google translate.
https://www.tovima.gr/2022/06/29/wo...i-ollandia-stelnoun-nea-partida-vareon-oplon/
Is this the wrong impression? What are the main differences? Since you are Dutch you are definitely more informed than me about this. (However, what is "different" for you, may look the same for a Greek person. For example, are Californians and Arizonans different? Depends whom you ask. )
And here is another, early example (Feb 24th):
https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-scholz-opposes-inclusion-of-swift-in-russia-sanctions/
--- Scholz's rejection comes after Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba publicly urged the EU in a tweet to ban Russia from SWIFT, adding that those who had doubts about such a move would have "blood of innocent Ukrainian men, women and children" on their hands.
--- Arriving at the summit, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte admitted that a ban on SWIFT was "sensitive" for some EU countries "because it would also have an enormous impact on ourselves."
==============
Which was very different from the US-UK position:
---- U.S. President Joe Biden also indicated Thursday that the EU had reservations about including the payments system within joint Western sanctions.
---- U.K Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants Russia to be blocked from SWIFT and raised the issue in a call with G7 leaders Thursday, a British government insider said.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-scholz-opposes-inclusion-of-swift-in-russia-sanctions/
--- Scholz's rejection comes after Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba publicly urged the EU in a tweet to ban Russia from SWIFT, adding that those who had doubts about such a move would have "blood of innocent Ukrainian men, women and children" on their hands.
--- Arriving at the summit, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte admitted that a ban on SWIFT was "sensitive" for some EU countries "because it would also have an enormous impact on ourselves."
==============
Which was very different from the US-UK position:
---- U.S. President Joe Biden also indicated Thursday that the EU had reservations about including the payments system within joint Western sanctions.
---- U.K Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants Russia to be blocked from SWIFT and raised the issue in a call with G7 leaders Thursday, a British government insider said.
But can you provide a link?
On the subject of Germany, here is a thread about what Scholz said (up to May 18). It would be interesting if someone compiled a more detailed chronology of German positions.
And here is an interesting article in Politico (June 13). I don't know if any other leader of a major Western powers has been trying so hard to avoid making any decisions!
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-lost-in-communication-over-war-in-ukraine/
Some analysts said that Scholz did not want to provide heavy weapons to Ukraine because he did not want to escalate the western involvement and risk a nuclear war. Scholz was reasonable, or even wise, to be careful. But now Germany is providing PzH 2000 to Ukraine. No more fears of escalation? What has changed in the past two months?
Perhaps all this talk of "NATO escalation" was always meaningless? Perhaps the best policy today is to provide Ukraine with the best possible weapons (including a modern air force) as soon as possible?
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-war-artillery-big-german-gun-russia/31952218.html
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-lost-in-communication-over-war-in-ukraine/
Some analysts said that Scholz did not want to provide heavy weapons to Ukraine because he did not want to escalate the western involvement and risk a nuclear war. Scholz was reasonable, or even wise, to be careful. But now Germany is providing PzH 2000 to Ukraine. No more fears of escalation? What has changed in the past two months?
Perhaps all this talk of "NATO escalation" was always meaningless? Perhaps the best policy today is to provide Ukraine with the best possible weapons (including a modern air force) as soon as possible?
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-war-artillery-big-german-gun-russia/31952218.html
Not sunny or windy enough, apparently, to provide enough power.
About heavy weapons, another thread from last April, when it seemed that Germany does not want to provide any heavy weapons.
1) At the end of February Germany's defense industry sends Scholz a long list of all available weapons.
2) Scholz doesn't share the list with Ukraine.
3) Scholz says that there are no more weapons left in Germany to give to Ukraine.
4) Germany's defense industry leakes the list to Ukraine's ambassador.
5) Scholz says that the weapons on the list don't work.
6) The defense industry denies this and leakes the list to the press.
7) Scholz states Ukrainians can't master the weapons in the available time.
8) German defense experts tell the German press that Ukrainians can master the weapons in 2-3 weeks.
9) Scholz says the weapons are needed by NATO and NATO must approve their transfer.
10) NATO officials and German generals deny this.
11) Scholz says no other NATO/EU ally is delivering heavy weapons to Ukraine.
12) The US, UK, Australia, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Romania, Netherlands, etc. publish the lists of heavy weapon they deliver to Ukraine.
13) Under pressure Scholz announces €2 billion for Ukraine's military.
14) German parliamentarians find out that it's really just €1 billion, which won't be available for another 2-3 months, and then Scholz can veto or delay indefinitely every item Ukraine wants to buy.
15) The US, France, Poland, Romania, Japan, the UK and Italy, plus the heads of EU and NATO spend an afternoon trying to talk sense into Scholz.
16) Scholz makes a statement and says Ukraine can have the €1 billion now and order whatever it wants from the list.
17) Ukraine's ambassador says that Scholz removed all the items Ukraine actually wants from the list before giving it to Ukraine and what remains on the list is just a fraction of the €1 billion.
18) Scholz claims that there is no ammunition anymore for the Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles.
19) Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, the US, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Egypt respectively France are saying the produce these ammo types.
20) Scholz says countries delivering armored vehicles to Ukraine will be attacked by russia with nuclear weapons.
21) The US, UK, Australia, France, Poland, Spain, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Czechia, Netherlands, Denmark all report they were not hit by nuclear weapons.
1) At the end of February Germany's defense industry sends Scholz a long list of all available weapons.
2) Scholz doesn't share the list with Ukraine.
3) Scholz says that there are no more weapons left in Germany to give to Ukraine.
4) Germany's defense industry leakes the list to Ukraine's ambassador.
5) Scholz says that the weapons on the list don't work.
6) The defense industry denies this and leakes the list to the press.
7) Scholz states Ukrainians can't master the weapons in the available time.
8) German defense experts tell the German press that Ukrainians can master the weapons in 2-3 weeks.
9) Scholz says the weapons are needed by NATO and NATO must approve their transfer.
10) NATO officials and German generals deny this.
11) Scholz says no other NATO/EU ally is delivering heavy weapons to Ukraine.
12) The US, UK, Australia, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Romania, Netherlands, etc. publish the lists of heavy weapon they deliver to Ukraine.
13) Under pressure Scholz announces €2 billion for Ukraine's military.
14) German parliamentarians find out that it's really just €1 billion, which won't be available for another 2-3 months, and then Scholz can veto or delay indefinitely every item Ukraine wants to buy.
15) The US, France, Poland, Romania, Japan, the UK and Italy, plus the heads of EU and NATO spend an afternoon trying to talk sense into Scholz.
16) Scholz makes a statement and says Ukraine can have the €1 billion now and order whatever it wants from the list.
17) Ukraine's ambassador says that Scholz removed all the items Ukraine actually wants from the list before giving it to Ukraine and what remains on the list is just a fraction of the €1 billion.
18) Scholz claims that there is no ammunition anymore for the Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles.
19) Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, the US, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Egypt respectively France are saying the produce these ammo types.
20) Scholz says countries delivering armored vehicles to Ukraine will be attacked by russia with nuclear weapons.
21) The US, UK, Australia, France, Poland, Spain, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Czechia, Netherlands, Denmark all report they were not hit by nuclear weapons.
Great news, would be a great time for some seperatists in Russia to start making noise.
I know it's not pleasant to think about, but considering how hysterical Russia/Putin is about this war, it seems pretty likely to me that Russia will declare mobilization and a wide-ranging draft at some point, if needed.
Putin needs the people on board, he'll likely need Russian forces to be losing ground for weeks before the people will accept mobilization. But the good news is that NATO will have to increase their effort as well.
Send more please!
Reports that Russia has just hit the Odessa port with missiles. Didn't even take them 24h to break the grain export deal.
No way will they do this. They might operate in a different reality in the Kremlin but they haven’t completely lost their minds. What would declaring war and widespread mobilisation achieve, apart from turning more Russians against Putin and the war?
A draft will strip the economy of its most productive members (20-45yo males) and further hurt the Russian economy. It will increase the brain drain 10-fold as people will flee the country to avoid the draft. Instead they will swell the ranks of the army with untrained, ill-equipped and ill-disciplined foot soldiers. They will not even have enough officers to command them. They will then start throwing those into the fight, USSR-style, and suffering huge losses for paltry results. Morale will plummet, desertions and self-sabotage will go through the roof. Russian society will no longer be insulated from the effects of the war.
And for what? Will they suddenly magic more artillery pieces, more shells, more cruise missiles, more warplanes, more warships, more radars, more air defences and more drones out of thin air? No. Will they bridge the increasing technological gap as Ukraine is getting armed with more modern western weapons? Also no.
Widespread mobilisation would be an act of self-harm for Russia and Putin. Which is why they haven’t done it.
You're acting as if the war makes good sense. Russia's supposed objectives are to secure the 9 corridors that have allowed invading armies to enter Russia some 50 times in their history, with their population set to plummet they won't have the manpower to do this in 30 years, it's their last change, as I've mentioned before, not really dying to explain the whole thing again but here's a video, at 1:45 he gets into his Russia theory, and since he's just about the only guy who predicted the Russian invasion, I think he's onto something.
Last edited:
No, I’m not. I’m acting on the assumption that we can both tell the difference between an act of self harm with absolutely no potential upsides and a dangerous gamble on a war that could have upsides (if for example Kyiv had fallen in the siege of March). The Russians obviously badly miscalculated on the war, both overestimating their army and underestimating Ukrainian and western resolve. But there is no calculation under which a general mobilisation suits the regime now. If you think there is, let me hear the rational arguments for it.
Just because he guessed right on a 50-50 (war vs no war) doesn’t mean he’s in the mind of the Russian leadership. For example the controlling of invasion corridors you mentioned, is the most horseshit reasoning I’ve ever heard in my life.
Idgaf if Russia got invaded 50, 500, or 5 trillion times in its history through those corridors. No one invades the country with the largest nuclear stockpile. The nuclear era made other historic patterns, in this particular matter, obsolete and irrelevant. It’s as simple as that. If that’s the basis of his reasoning, then it’s a good thing that you’re not wasting your time trying to explain it further and I’m not wasting my time watching that video.
And then Orban himself.
Winter will be interesting...
The state withdrawing citizenship is very iffy.
How does it actually work anyways, if you only have one citizenship?
Following on from the UK government to be fair. No wonder they like Boris so much.
Legally it doesn't. It is only lawful if the person has another possible citizenship to claim.
Smells like a Russian puppet.
Thermite raining down over Russian occupied Donetsk city right now. This is really weird, either Ukraine are shooting thermite mlrs salvos over it's own city or it is some kind of desperate false flag operation from Russia.
I agree on the principle. But billionaire Kolomoisky is not your average citizen, he doesn’t risk becoming stateless. He has citizenship in Israel and in Cyprus. The latter making him also an EU citizen…
Is sdp in Germany infiltrated by Russians or what, their last chancellor seemed iffy on this issue as well, Going straight to Gazprom after his tenure ended does his reputation no favors either.
Certainly an interesting career path he chose, was always one of my favorites.
Certainly an interesting career path he chose, was always one of my favorites.
That's true, but if they can do it to him, they (or someone else in the future) can do it to other people who don't deserve it as much.
Don’t want to give Chomsky and Brand oxygen, but someone needs to book the old man an appointment at Dignitas. An absolute nutter.
That makes as much sense as saying that if Ukraine can put someone on trial legitimately, find them guilty, and send then to jail, then they could also do it to someone who doesn’t deserve it – and therefore shouldn’t do it at all?