Yeah from what I know about Russian history, they will always attempt to expand their borders. It's in them, somehow. Probably from eons of there being nothing but empty space around them.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Yeah from what I know about Russian history, they will always attempt to expand their borders. It's in them, somehow. Probably from eons of there being nothing but empty space around them.
Ya I wasn't necessarily saying that your use of him was incorrect, more using it as an opportunity to rant about how ridiculous it is that people in general are influenced by Friedman. He basically has no authority or training on many issues he comments on, he's just a glorified opinion writer that folks in the media elevate to a higher level than warranted. In many respects, I see him as a huge contributor to the false equivalence or "bothsidesism" that runs rampant today in US culture at least.
Pretty sensible assessment of the situation.
I love how the keyword being repeated on this forum (and the mainstream media) changes in every conflict to suit the objective of the US in the conflict. So in Afghanistan and Iraq it was 'terrorism' that was repeated over and over again, but in Libya and Syria since the US was clearly on the side of the terrorists, the keyword suddenly became 'democracy' that was repeated over and over again, and in both cases nobody cared about the words 'international law'. But now it appears that the keyword for this conflict will be... 'international law'.
International law does not exist, for a simple reason, a law needs a force to protect it and apply it, and since the forces are not equal in the world, the 'law' of the world will never be an international one, but rather the law of the biggest force or forces.
In the last 30 years or so you think there was an 'international law' (which you liked) because everything went the way you liked, because the world was unipolar after the fall of the Soviet Union and the US could do everything it wanted, invade, assassinate, sanction, bomb, ... without any real resistance, so everything went smoothly for you.
But not everybody liked it, and in many areas in the world there wasn't a sense of a real 'law' being followed, but rather one major force doing what it likes with the world. And when you ask the same "international law supporters" about their invasions or their support of dictatorships or terrorists they just shrug their shoulders and say "meh, we're the strongest and this is how life goes". So the US has the right to use false-flag tactics to justify the invasion of Iraq, has the right to bomb Libya and topple its government in the name of 'helping the people', has the right to occupy the oil-rich areas in Syria ("to take the oil!"), has the right to unilaterally withdraw from an international deal (like the Iran nuclear deal), and Israel has the right displace Palestinians and occupy their land, or bomb Syria in 'pre-emptive strikes' because it feels endangered by the presence of Iranian forces on their border, and all of that while maintaining and actually strengthening the relations with a government that (literally) butchered a journalist in a foreign consulate (not mentioning their well-known support for terrorism)... International law my a@@. And don't sell me the 'whataboutism' excuse, you can't call a law 'a law' if it's not followed by everybody, that's not whataboutism, that's the essence of any law, ask Australia and Djokovic.
The only difference now is that some nations are tired of this 'US law', and with the emergence of China as a major power they think they have enough resources to withstand the bullying of the US, and defend their nations like the US does. The US, of course doesn't accept that, and want every country in the world to revolve in its orbit, or else, regime change, bombs, invasions, sanctions... So here we are.
Everybody is entitled to look for their own interests, of course, and if you think it's the best interest for you and your country to go into war (economic or military) with Russia or China then best of luck to you, nobody is suggesting you should put your interests behind because of some moral obligations towards the people you screwed in the past or the present, just get down your 'international law' high horse and call the things the way they are.
Since it's not a NATO member involved, I don't think the US, UK, etc. will flex their muscles too much unless Russia initiates cyber attacks. The West knows much of its infrastructure is vulnerable to attacks by Russia, and, at least publicly, NATO's cyber capabilities are mostly unknown. Some cyber attacks and vulnerabilities are sorta one-time use if the victim knows what to patch or respond to.
Realistically, how many years away is the UK and Europe from being energy independent with its own green solutions (or perhaps even nuclear energy)?
I think the key thing would be to make it a concerted effort from several countries at the same time. I'm sure Russia will retaliate harshly against one country, but to fight several tech developed countries at cyber warfare at the same time? That's hard work.
The Germans have committed to closing their nuclear capacity. France is investing in its nuclear capacity (if it didn't, it would lose its permanent seat on the security council). Barring fusion, which is at least a couple decades away from full implementation (I'm certain it will work eventually), the UK/EU being energy independent largely depends upon a public scheme to get them there. A large new deal type investment. You've seen overtures in that direction from both the UK (Johnson) and the EU (its central committee) but it has yet to be fully realised. Maybe fifteen years if they seriously invest as they should.
Increasingly, even Republicans recognise that this is the direction to move in (though they will never frame it as "green", Cawthorn today reanimated Gingrich's Contract with America as the GOP alternative to a new deal which revamps infrastructure and domestic manufacturing).
France gets about 70% of its energy from nuclear so they are more insulated than Germany or Italy. France moved to nuclear after the oil crisis in the 70s so maybe the rest of Europe will learn the lesson on the second go-round. This scenario should spur the EU, particularly, into investing heavily in energy independence.
I think much of Europe has just relied on gas since it's cheaper and is generally the path of least resistance. Far too many European countries are eliminating or have eliminated nuclear energy. Unlike Fukushima and Japan, Germany and most of the rest of Europe isn't vulnerable to earthquakes or tsunamis. And if there are major earthquakes or tsunamis in Europe, nuclear reactors are likely the least of their worries.
https://www.statista.com/chart/26768/dependence-on-russian-gas-by-european-country/
So I assume that thus far, there hasn't actually been any fighting? (Between Ukraine and the Russian army)
Is it possible that Russia will roll into the separatist held areas, surround them, and that will be the end of it?
Is it possible that Russia will roll into the separatist held areas, surround them, and that will be the end of it?
So, short of us striking a new trade deal with either the US or Qatar, the Russians will have us over a barrel for the next 15 years? And even those trade deals are struck, prices will increase because of the greater cost of shipping from half way around the world, I assume.
That's a bit shit.
Not without its own problems. French planners have been grappling with the problem of nuclear waste which still has no good solution. There was a good Financial Times article on the topic a week or so back.
Parts of the EU, maybe, but the UK only receives 5% of its energy from Russian sources. It is trying to circumvent that by buying from America instead. The problem there is that relying on tankers and cross Atlantic energy is inefficient when compared to a European pipeline. The other thing to look at is that the EU also has Russia over a barrel. It's not a one-way relationship. Energy is among Russia's sole contributions (barring agriculture) to the West. It needs to sell it to the EU market and the EU needs, for the moment, to buy it. An alternative Russian pipeline into China (another one) is in the works (and one to India apparently) but that is a long-term project. So whatever the implications of Russia's expansion into the Ukraine, unless it wants self-economic suicide, the EU is really not as fecked as it might look.
Kruscheva made the point that Putin recognised the breakaway states but has not sent in "peacekeeping" forces as of yet. Which she reads as code for keeping diplomatic resolutions on the table (waiting to see the response which came today, probably). If the Russian army does move into these areas in large numbers I do not see Ukranian fighters walking away. That means there will be a flare up on the line of contact which is bad news. When Russian forces mobilize into the separatists regions, the game will have escalated beyond diplomatic control. That could happen any day.
Last edited:
Very unlikely, Putin already stated that Russia recognized DPR and LPR within their original borders when they were part of Ukraine, which means including areas currently under control of Ukrainian government. Probably a period of 'diplomacy' will follow in which Russia will ask Ukraine to retreat from these areas peacefully with the promise that that will be the end of the whole conflict (possibly followed or preceded by the annexation of both), knowing of course that Ukraine will not do that, so a military conflict is likely to follow to regain the remaining parts of DPR and LPR, and when the military conflict starts it's almost certain that Russia will go at least a little further to secure a land bridge to Crimea. The question is then if Putin wants to risk stiffer resistance by going into pro-EU parts of Ukraine, or just stay in the safer areas in East Ukraine.
I see, so despite the 'order being given' to send in these peacekeepers as per the news yesterday, there hasn't actually been any movement yet?
Edit: I think you're right BTW, it almost seems inevitable that Ukraine will see even an incursion into Donbass as trespass and almost immediately engage.
Sure, people in Nevada lose their minds whenever someone mentions Yucca Mountain.
Australia should build a containment facility somewhere in the Outback where there aren't people for 50-100 miles and charge other countries to dispose of their waste there. I believe it's been discussed in the past, but it's remote, barren, and in a safe/trustworthy country. Can't have NIMBYs without people nearby.
But part of the areas that have become independent are still controlled by Ukraine, which will not recognize their independence.
If they want the entire territory of the province they will have to face each other at some point.
Ukraine could back down but the 3 parties would still have territorial demands, and to surround the areas that were already in rebellion I don't think they would need such a large number of troops
Yeah, as far as I can tell, the "order" was made to look like a possible invitation. The breakaway states will have to invite Putin's forces in (which is largely a sham). That hasn't happened yet but seems likely to happen soon.
The second greatest supplier of gas in Europe is Norway, but then they are supplying gas at maximum capacity, so being able to add in is not possible at the moment. LNG supply is limited as well as vessels that can transfer it. Qatar can send some more gas to Europe, but again it's very limited as they are very short on spare supply and most of the supply there is under contract already.
The only short term option is neighboring counties providing "cushion gas", but that might be unlikely as countries might not want to give that unless they are secured themselves.
Basically even if Europe survives this year shortage of gas in case of full sanctions apply it will be at a very high cost for all the population and next year for the whole winter it will be very, very tough. It's not only the gas but also crude oil and hard energy..
absolutely correct
It's a shame really, US actually does have the LNG reserves to cover the EU partners and avoid blowback from Russia but a small issue called the Atlantic Ocean doesn't make it a fully realistic solution. Can Qatari supplies travel through continental pipelines?
Its completely doable but there have to be sufficient degassification and regassification terminals in the US and Europe, as well as the pipeline infrastructure to transport regassified LNG throughout Europe.
Never.
Not in their best interest. And not likely possible.
Not every country is blessed with natural resources.
Even china cant be selr sufficient in everything. The key is to trade amicably, instead of antagonizing and labelling everyone you dont like despotic tyrant, dictator, and instigating tension on every corner.
Russia threw the first punch but all sides has their own contribution to all this
This has been being happened for almost years.
All those supplies are under long contracts currently. EU has to convince countries like Japan to divert their gas to them, which is very low in terms of probability as Japan themselves are low on gas due to the winter season.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-can-divert-up-15-its-gas-exports-2022-02-22/
The UK generates 43% of its electricity from renewable sources and 16.1% from its nuclear capacity. 184.9 TWh out of 312 TWh total came from renewable and nuclear in 2020. In 1990 that was 95.4 out of 377.1 (coal used to account for 229.9 out of 319.7 in 1990 and today accounts for only 5.5 out of 312). So "never" is not right. It will take a few decades, but it is very possible (overall, too, the UK is less dependent on gas now than it was in 2000 and 2010, even though gas still accounts for about a third of all energy production).
I believe Japan is already diverting gas to Europe, as are the Qataris. The US is also now the world's leading exporter of LNG and biggest supplier to Europe. There's still a lot more that can come from the US imo.
Isn't it all counterproductive in the long run though? Most OECD economies (EEA at least) are committed to eliminating gas completely. It will depend on realistic timelines, but LNG from the US can only be a stopgap when the rest of the economy is moving the opposite direction. It's sort of why the timing of Russia's move is most counterproductive (outside of war) because Russia represents the perfect stopgap until the EU is able to move away from gas almost completely by 2050 (some countries much earlier). The costs involved with the shipping will be enormous, too, surely?
The US should be looking into producing more renewable energy itself. At the moment, it produces about 15% of its electricity from renewable sources (China produces 25% from renewable, Germany is at 45% or thereabouts and ditto UK). Has to be the oil/gas lobby in America preventing the logical move to renewable.
Edit: I am speaking purely in terms of electricity production.
Last edited:
Cyber security equipment, electronic warfare systems of NATO countries are superior to that of Russia's. If they are used properly to help Ukraine, it will make the agressor's life much much harder.
All this could have been avoided if the Americans listened to people like George Keenan etc. The man who led the Soviet containment policy.
It's very understandable that countries under the Soviet domination don't want to be under Russian domination either but an alternative method could have been found instead of getting them to join NATO.
The Americans could have offered them a defense pact to defend them if attacked. No positioning of nuclear weapons etc.
It's very understandable that countries under the Soviet domination don't want to be under Russian domination either but an alternative method could have been found instead of getting them to join NATO.
The Americans could have offered them a defense pact to defend them if attacked. No positioning of nuclear weapons etc.
Also why is Russia being sanctioned for recognizing them as independent nations? I mean so long as the UN don't recognize them it's much of a pointless thing anyway.
Yes they could position their military there but then to the rest of the world it's invading Ukrainian territory anyway if they do that.
Yes they could position their military there but then to the rest of the world it's invading Ukrainian territory anyway if they do that.
Obama really did get it right in terms of his understanding of Ukraine's position. As he said, if any public representatives want to advocate for Americans being committed to defending Ukraine, then let them say that in congress. He knew perfectly well that Ukraine matters far more to Russia than it does to the US and the US simply does not have the will to defend Ukraine in a direct confrontation. It will do it by other means (sanctions and diplomacy) but not by risking world war three.
The US is producing more renewable energy, but its a drop in the bucket compared to all the shale that is available. There's a lot of political pressure to use that for the time being.
Spain has the bigger number of LNG regassification plants in europe and the fourth in the world after US, korea and Japan. The storage capacity of these plants could cover 60% of the gas imported from Russia. Also Spain has direct connection with a gaseoduct from Algeria, but they are at capacity because their political instability didn't allow them to increase production and also internal consume increased diminishing their exports
The only problem is France, that had always opposed to a pipeline network crossing the Pyrenees because of energy competition with Spain. if only they could solve this connection (I believe there are only 2 minor connections), the dependancy from Russia would diminish a lot
Yeah, the US is the largest producer of oil (via shale) in the world which makes sense in terms of there being vast political pressure to not abandon a large profit stream.
For me, France is always an important darkhorse in this situation. They can decide a lot of things that will happen in the future( not as much as US or Germany).
Well, they are a big exporter of electricity and their gas needs reduces yearly and is mostly not coming from Russia, so they are pretty much covered. But at the end of the day, Germany is the strong hand in Europe. So they will have the weight on the european decisions. Any decision taken, will not affect France as much as others in the EU, so probably they will leave it to the Germans that they will be fecked if russian exports cease
What about UK? It has plenty of regassification plants itself (fewer than Spain but not substantially so). Would it perhaps be possible to open North Sea pipelines to Europe and replenish its own stocks via LNG through its own regassification plants? I know next to nothing here so maybe this is unfeasible for some number of reasons.