EPThttps://www.npr.org/2022/07/25/1113369836/the-u-n-brokered-a-deal-but-can-ukraines-grain-shipments-be-exported-safely
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 174
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/25/1113369836/the-u-n-brokered-a-deal-but-can-ukraines-grain-shipments-be-exported-safely | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2593 Posts
On July 26 2022 16:34 Magic Powers wrote: The net gain of protecting Ukraine may have been small prior to the war, but now there's additional gain that wasn't on the table before, because pushing back Russia to its own borders would ensure greater safety for EU members, and greater stability all around. More importantly, it would create a loyal ally in Ukraine, when previously they were rather uninterested in EU membership. Ukrainians now have every reason to want to be part of the EU and NATO. Their disinterest pre-2022 was the main reason why Ukraine didn't apply sooner, but the EU was certainly interested in Ukraine joining. Now both sides are more eager than ever. There are also other neat little changes that could be done with Ukraine being in the EU. Their railroad system (as of many or all other ex-Soviet countries) doesn't fit the EU standard, making transport by land a hassle. There's a project in planning to change the rail gauge. https://en.thepage.ua/economy/ukraines-switch-to-european-railway-gauge This appears to be another element used by Russia against Ukraine in this war, and another of many reasons why Putin doesn't want to surrender. tl;dr Ukraine may not be that important to the EU right now, but it can be made essential in the future, and losing Ukraine to Russia would be especially bad. It's the potential in both directions that matters so much. All of that is true. But it has to, practically speaking, be weighed against the possibility of Russia cutting off gas supplies in the winter and literally freezing millions to death and shutting down all heavy industry. Is the prospect of deterring further bullying of smaller EU states, and of cooperation with Ukraine, worth taking the risk that Russia might actually pull the trigger? Is it likely that if the EU scaled back their support, that Russia would guarantee gas supplies? These are all legitimate questions that need to be debated, not merely hand-waved away as 'Russian propaganda'. You might counter that Russia can't afford to cut off gas supplies for it would bankrupt their war effort, but it is not a certainty. People routinely buy insurance to protect against the worst outcomes. Should the EU buy insurance using part of Ukrainian sovereignty? The question sounds unethical of course, but war doesn't care about ethics, and such questions do have to be considered. Of course, Russian propagandists will no doubt also be raising such issues, with the hidden agenda of pushing for an outcome favourable to Russia. But that doesn't mean they don't have a point. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 26 2022 19:31 gobbledydook wrote: All of that is true. But it has to, practically speaking, be weighed against the possibility of Russia cutting off gas supplies in the winter and literally freezing millions to death and shutting down all heavy industry. Is the prospect of deterring further bullying of smaller EU states, and of cooperation with Ukraine, worth taking the risk that Russia might actually pull the trigger? Is it likely that if the EU scaled back their support, that Russia would guarantee gas supplies? These are all legitimate questions that need to be debated, not merely hand-waved away as 'Russian propaganda'. You might counter that Russia can't afford to cut off gas supplies for it would bankrupt their war effort, but it is not a certainty. People routinely buy insurance to protect against the worst outcomes. Should the EU buy insurance using part of Ukrainian sovereignty? The question sounds unethical of course, but war doesn't care about ethics, and such questions do have to be considered. Of course, Russian propagandists will no doubt also be raising such issues, with the hidden agenda of pushing for an outcome favourable to Russia. But that doesn't mean they don't have a point. No, it doesn't need to get debated. RU cannot afford to turn off gas to the big countries in the EU because it will destroy their entire economy nearly instantly. Why would EU let RU continue to destabilize their economy and politics if they can gain their objectives via the relatively cheap price of supporting UA (letting the US do the heavy lifting for them). RU threatens to go over the brink on everything, but when you push back they'll throw in the towel just like with FI and SE joining NATO. So, just listen to the experts who have done the calculations both economically and though intelligence, and don't fear every threat coming from RU. Most of it is bluster. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On July 26 2022 19:31 gobbledydook wrote: All of that is true. But it has to, practically speaking, be weighed against the possibility of Russia cutting off gas supplies in the winter and literally freezing millions to death and shutting down all heavy industry. Is the prospect of deterring further bullying of smaller EU states, and of cooperation with Ukraine, worth taking the risk that Russia might actually pull the trigger? Is it likely that if the EU scaled back their support, that Russia would guarantee gas supplies? These are all legitimate questions that need to be debated, not merely hand-waved away as 'Russian propaganda'. You might counter that Russia can't afford to cut off gas supplies for it would bankrupt their war effort, but it is not a certainty. People routinely buy insurance to protect against the worst outcomes. Should the EU buy insurance using part of Ukrainian sovereignty? The question sounds unethical of course, but war doesn't care about ethics, and such questions do have to be considered. Of course, Russian propagandists will no doubt also be raising such issues, with the hidden agenda of pushing for an outcome favourable to Russia. But that doesn't mean they don't have a point. I'm more than ready to put on more layers and use more blankets and less gas for one winter if it means bankrupting Russia. I remember when I wrapped my feet in plastic bags to keep them warm. Ukrainians are losing sleep, limbs, lives, family, friends, houses, pets, mental health, money, careers, etc. etc. I can manage a colder than usual winter. It's not hard. I only need my government to walk this road together with me, then I'll be fine. I don't have the greatest trust in it, but enough to feel ok. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Russia will react very negatively if Finland stops or restricts the issuing of tourist visas to Russian citizens, according to Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov. The spokesman made the comments during a virtual press conference on Tuesday, according to Russian news outlet Interfax(siirryt toiseen palveluun). "Russia would, of course, react very negatively to this," he said, noting that he understood that Finland had not yet introduced restrictions on Russian tourists, adding that he hoped that situation would continue. "All such actions against Russian citizens would require countermeasures and a response — this should be understandable and expected," Peskov said. Peskov's statements followed news of growing support in Finland to ban issuing new tourist visas for Russian citizens due to the country's attack on Ukraine. A survey by news outlet STT published on Monday found strong support among Finland's largest parliamentary delegations for shutting down tourist visas for Russians. On Tuesday, Acting Prime Minister Aki Lindén (SDP) said that he was in favour of tightening visa for Russian tourists. "Personally, I am of the opinion that it needs to be stricter. There is evidence for that," he told Yle, adding that the foreign ministry was prepared to address the issue. However no decisions about the issue are expected to be made this week, as most of the government's ministers are on summer vacation. Lindén noted that Finland would be able to independently decide about the visa issue without permission from the EU. Helsingin Sanomat was the first Finnish news outlet to report on Peskov's comments. Source | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
We need to make sure that refugees who flee Russia will be able to enter the west. But tourists, no. Business, no. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
On July 27 2022 00:36 Ghanburighan wrote: This is just a follow-up by the EU, but it's telling that the EU is responding to RU threats with unity and is planning to voluntarily cut dependence on RU gas to levels which should be making Putin uncomfortable. https://twitter.com/PamelaFalk/status/1551946683583500290 I have absolutely no idea how anyone could come to the conclusion, that his response shows any sort of European unity. It is just another nothing burger of indecisiveness and budging to certain special snowflakes in the EU. There is absolutely no force in this declaration, the signees agreed that everyone will voluntarily try on their own to cut its gas consumption by 15%. Neither the goal nor any measurements are binding. That's like the alcohol induced New Year's promise of people to finally do more sports, eat healthily and be nicer in the coming year. Oh, and just in case it wasn't clear enough that those measures are only for those, who would try to do it anyway, they even added a paragraph about nations being exempt under special circumstances, where you can rest assured that everyone will apply this rule to themselves. So yes, this is a fancy deal of promises, where half the signees had their own interest to do it anyway regardless of the others and it was worded in a way that the other half of the signees doesn't have to do anything, as long as they make a pinky promise that they either tried or give a one-page explanation letter why they were not even in the position to try. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 27 2022 04:24 Simberto wrote: I think we need to be careful here. We need to make sure that refugees who flee Russia will be able to enter the west. But tourists, no. Business, no. Yeah, exactly right. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation605 Posts
Interesting research conducted by Royal United Services Institute, especially regarding artillery and electronic warfare on both sides. I want to quote one paragraph that is contradicting the previous widespread info on the matter: Briefings by the Pentagon have reported that a large number of Russian cruise missiles fail to either find their targets or malfunction and crash in flight. As far as Ukrainian military scientists can determine, this is actually quite rare. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
If it is destroyed then 15k Russian troops will be trapped with no supply route. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5419 Posts
On July 27 2022 07:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If it is destroyed then 15k Russian troops will be trapped with no supply route. I hope the Ukrainians kill all of them. I've read what they've been up to in Kherson and it's shocking even for Russia... | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8001 Posts
On July 27 2022 07:59 maybenexttime wrote: I hope the Ukrainians kill all of them. I've read what they've been up to in Kherson and it's shocking even for Russia... Source? I haven't been following | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Perhaps the recent Human Rights Watch report www.hrw.org detailing torture, unlawful detentions and more. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4691 Posts
On July 27 2022 07:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Better view of the strike on Antonovski bridge, total 8 strikes apparently. The bridge was in need of repair before all this, will need to be repaired asap after said strikes in the same place. Can't imagine Tanks etc. being able to cross without failure. If it is destroyed then 15k Russian troops will be trapped with no supply route. https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1552051818229800960 Isn't there also a rail bridge (with car section) on northern outskirts of Chersoń? Or was it also taken down? There is also a dam about 120km north with road on top of it (and UA for sure is not going to strike that dam). Let's wait and see what the damage is in daylight. Edit: https://liveuamap.com/pics/2022/07/27/22471110_0.jpg Looks like part of it might have collapsed. But hard to say for sure, might be layer of ash. Edit2: A video. Looks like its no useable, but not collapsed also. Video: https://www.facebook.com/BADEMBASSY/videos/1403543790113844/ | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13735 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5775 Posts
On July 27 2022 19:11 Sermokala wrote: There has to be a 90% or more chance that Russia will cut off gas during the winter and imagine that they will be able to dictate terms to eu in order to save their citizens from freezing to death. I dunno, few things can galvanize popular opinion against a foreign nation more than a direct bullying attempt like that. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21340 Posts
| ||
| ||
