| 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. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On September 03 2022 07:42 Liquid`Drone wrote: The main we can do is give Ukraine enough advanced weaponry for them to defeat the invasion and send home enough dead Russians. Well i definitely agree with this. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18202 Posts
On September 03 2022 07:42 Liquid`Drone wrote: Tbh, the only thing I'm sure has any effect on support for the war is how the war is going. Economic sanctions can be justified if they reduce russias capacity for war - but I don't think they work from a 'let's cause a revolt in Russia'- perspective. Taking oligarch property is fine - they were essentially high level criminals in the first place, but I don't think it has seemed to make much of a dent in how the war is going. The main we can do is give Ukraine enough advanced weaponry for them to defeat the invasion and send home enough dead Russians. Insofar as I understood things, the sanctions significantly hamper Russia's ability to manufacture or buy replacement parts for a lot of the material that is being rapidly used up in the war. Obviously they have reserves, and are ramping up their own production of parts, but the first will run out before the second is ready if the war keeps going the way it is. So in that sense, the sanctions are absolutely helping. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28736 Posts
On September 03 2022 07:59 Acrofales wrote: Insofar as I understood things, the sanctions significantly hamper Russia's ability to manufacture or buy replacement parts for a lot of the material that is being rapidly used up in the war. Obviously they have reserves, and are ramping up their own production of parts, but the first will run out before the second is ready if the war keeps going the way it is. So in that sense, the sanctions are absolutely helping. Yeah, so I'm on board with the sanctions - but not from a 'make the average Russian experience more hardship so they will revolt' - type of reasoning. Likewise, I can support the 'ban Russian visas' from a security point of view - but not under the reasoning that it'll cause an internal revolt or drum up Russian opposition against the invasion in any significant way, it doesn't make sense to me that it would and I haven't seen any data indicating that it does. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany567 Posts
On September 03 2022 07:14 raynpelikoneet wrote: I am curious how would you then reduce the support of war in Russia? Aside from cultural exhange, no idea. But not increasing it is good enough for me, if the alternative doesn't give much in return. I am not in favour of isolation, as unless you have a clear out and it goes on for long enough, it can lead to rifts that are very hard to overcome. It is much easier to hate people you never had any contact with - I had a post a few pages back in which I linked a paper that is freely available and takes a look at russian tourism. It also features a very balanced overview on further scientific works. Its the first of the 2 links. A visa ban is fine for security concerns, though a lot of the issues raised could probably be addressed with less harsh measures. Things like sanction are worth the animosity it can create towards the west, because they have a serious impact on russias ability to wage this war. My point in the post was not about it being a good or a bad idea though. I wanted to shut down what I presumed was either a jab at earlier claims of russians being mostly apolitical, or someone actually missing the fact that apolitical would still be better than supportive. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On September 03 2022 05:39 Oukka wrote: Finland's military spending should have some asterisks on it for the next few (or 10 or 20) years, there are some very large one-off equipment purchases happening right now. Mainly the f-35 fighters and some new ships. Also on the the regular there should be an asterisk for the army being conscription based, so regular expenditure is likely (a lot) lower than it would be for maintaining a standing army with similar capabilities. Why are those asterisks? The f-15 purchases are one time? And do you mean to say that a conscription based army is actually worth more than equal expenditure standing armies? So you consider the second asterisk positive? | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria836 Posts
On September 03 2022 07:14 JimmiC wrote: If you believe that Russia is the victim you were already on Putins side to begin with. This is about the people that know that it Russia that started the war, they are not happy about it but not that mad because there lives did not change. I'm not quite sure you understand how it is in Russia. You need to watch more interviews because this is simply not true. This is about the people that know that it Russia that started the war, they are not happy about it but not that mad because there lives did not change. No, there are several ways they usually express their unhappiness based on what I've seen so far: 1. Some say they are apolitical or don't want to discuss politics. Note: I don't think they are, I see this as "silent opposition". Sometimes expressions speak more than words. 2. Some say they don't like special operation. 3. Some go as far as to call this a war (already unlawful to do so there) and express their disappointment with government openly. I'm not sure how you imply that I think Russia is the victim. There is no 1 type of people for such statement to be valid. See, it depends on individual's character and how they treat risk (of potential imprisonment). While you may treat this as "they're not mad", I'd say they're just afraid. Could they do more? Probably but such Russians need to come up with a smart way to do it so they don't end up in jail, like Nemtsov or like Navalny. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5747 Posts
On September 03 2022 07:14 raynpelikoneet wrote: I am curious how would you then reduce the support of war in Russia? Obviously, by doing what we have been doing for the past 30 years, by playing nice with Russia. ;-) | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6262 Posts
On September 03 2022 02:46 Ghanburighan wrote: Surprising everybody (/s), RU suspends Nord stream as autumn rolls around. This is why EU's proactive gas policy was crucial, we have good stocks to last with minor cuts and new supply coming online soon. I don't understand their strategy. This would've had most effect last winter. Instead they reduce gas supply over the summer in steps giving the market and Europe time to adjust. It's still very disruptive but not nearly as bad as it would've been if they had stopped it all at once. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On September 02 2022 23:20 xsnac wrote: Hello from Romania. I don't understand what you mean by "failure as a leader". The entire USSR was a big failure by the time he became its leader (cernobyl indicent and their failed go to moon space program only to name a few). Moreover, I don't think there is a eastern and a western point of view. To have the greatest genetician/botnist in the entire freaking world imprisoned and have him die of starvation is only one of what the great USSR was capable of. This is not west point of view. It is the sane vs insane. Yuri Kondratyuk - probably most visionary aerospace engineer (gulag) Nikolai Vavilov - best botanist in the modern age. (death by starvation) Lev Landau - Nobel Prize winning physicist. (gulag) here, only a few names, the list can go on until the end of the world. I also think if you have a closed economy controlled tightly by the state, and want to transition to free market, it will come with some painful moments, change is difficult. That I am pretty sure nobody in the world can mitigate. I am wondering what you base your claims on? Imagine having a failed state and blame it on the leader that wanted to fix this illusory wishful thinking perfect state that never existed. p.s. you knew when stalin took the best farmers in the empire and forcefuly moved them in factories? you know what happened? Around 8 milion people died of starvation because only retards remained in agriculture and the cream of the crop were moved from houses into small 2 bedroom apartments and forced to work in factories. oh the great great country you were russian empire I do not mean that the system of the Soviet Union was right. The fact that it was rotten to the core and collapsed speaks volumes about that. Gorbachev knew that. He tried and failed to fix it. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On September 02 2022 23:41 Silvanel wrote: Gorbachev can be viewed as a bad leader because he wanted to save the Soviet Union and failed at that. On the other hand, he presided over the dissolution of USSR which went relatively peaceful. Had someone different be in his position, Eastern Europe might have ended ten times worse than the Balkans. He wasn't a murderous thug (as some previous Soviet leaders) and kept thugs away from power. Thanks to that it all ended rather well. Of course, for Russians giving up land without a fight amounts to treason, so they view him as traitor. The only positive thing that could be said is that as the empire crumbled around him, he did not choose to kill another million people in an attempt to prop it up. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany567 Posts
On September 03 2022 16:54 RvB wrote: I don't understand their strategy. This would've had most effect last winter. Instead they reduce gas supply over the summer in steps giving the market and Europe time to adjust. It's still very disruptive but not nearly as bad as it would've been if they had stopped it all at once. This might relating to the fact that energy prices have suddenly been going down again and an attempt at pumping it back up. It is also important to note, that just like with the turbine, officially it is not as a punitive measure. They claim it is because another set of repairs that is needed, shifting the blame towards sanctions by claiming they can't get the parts they need because of them. My guess is it is targeted at the general population as there have been protests in multiple countries regarding energy prices. This allows them to turn the gas back on anytime without losing face and at the same time, would allow the EU to give in in some way without having to given in to russia in public. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22070 Posts
On September 03 2022 16:54 RvB wrote: I imagine money is why. Russia earned a lot of money selling a trickle of gas. Money they probably need(ed) with all the sanctions and their foreign reserves frozen.I don't understand their strategy. This would've had most effect last winter. Instead they reduce gas supply over the summer in steps giving the market and Europe time to adjust. It's still very disruptive but not nearly as bad as it would've been if they had stopped it all at once. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5747 Posts
On September 03 2022 16:54 RvB wrote: I don't understand their strategy. This would've had most effect last winter. Instead they reduce gas supply over the summer in steps giving the market and Europe time to adjust. It's still very disruptive but not nearly as bad as it would've been if they had stopped it all at once. They thought Kyiv would fall in a matter of days and the EU would go back to more or less business as usual pretty quickly. Stopping gas delivery would've been seen as the nuclear option at that time. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria836 Posts
On September 03 2022 16:54 RvB wrote: I don't understand their strategy. This would've had most effect last winter. Instead they reduce gas supply over the summer in steps giving the market and Europe time to adjust. It's still very disruptive but not nearly as bad as it would've been if they had stopped it all at once. It's not all good news. Bulgaria (lowest among three), Austria and Romania are not at 80% yet. Also, are these gas adjustments/contracts enough to replace Russia fully? Or, is it just partially? Last I heard about this topic is that it would take 2 years to replace Russian gas completely. Quoting this for lol factor but it sums up how Russia has weaponised gas. I still remember around 2009-2010 when there were several weeks without gas due to their dispute with Ukraine back then. Edit: I managed to find gas storage by country so here it goes: France - 92% Germany - 85% Italy - 83% Netherlands - 78% Austria - 67% Belgium - 89% Bulgaria - 62% Croatia - 78% Czech Republic - 82% Denmark - 94% Hungary - 64% Latvia - 50% Poland - 99% (probably 100% now?) Portugal - 100% Romania - 74% Slovakia - 78% Spain - 85% Source: https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/EUROPE-GAS/zdvxozxzopx/ | ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
On September 03 2022 13:04 Ghanburighan wrote: Why are those asterisks? The f-15 purchases are one time? And do you mean to say that a conscription based army is actually worth more than equal expenditure standing armies? So you consider the second asterisk positive? F-35s were 10bn+€ in total when euro was in a lot more favourable place against USD. Even when the cost is spread across multiple years that is some very extraordinary spending in the context of the Finnish armed forces. It's purely coincidental that the spending bump due that happens to coincide with us joining NATO or the Russian attack. And yes, I would argue that conscription based armed forces are likely more capable than a similarly funded standing force. Being able to utilise significant amounts of free labour allows for scaling in a way that isn't at all possible with contracted soldiers. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Edit: Another Russian base has reportedly been struck in Kherson. | ||
KwarK
United States43527 Posts
So when you say winter storage is full you are not saying you have enough for winter, you are saying you have enough for the marginal extra consumption above what the pipeline is expected to provide. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria836 Posts
Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of Russia’s Chechen region, said on Telegram on September 3 that he deserves to take an “indefinite and long” break from his post, sparking speculation about whether he was seriously considering stepping down or seeking some favor from the Kremlin. Kadyrov, 45, has ruled Chechnya with an iron fist since 2007 and is the longest-serving leader of a Russian region. “I realized that I have been sitting in my position for a long time,” he said in a video statement peppered with laughs. “I think my time has come [to leave power]." It is unclear what Kadyrov, who is one the most powerful figures in Russia, would do next if he were to step down. Kadyrov has close relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, meeting with the Kremlin leader regularly. The two last met on August 5 in Sochi. Kadyrov has made similar comments in the past, only to remain in his post, raising questions about whether his unexpected announcement was a ploy. “I'm skeptical. He has said things like this in the past," said Ivan Klyszcz, a Caucasus expert and doctoral candidate at the Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies in Estonia. "These typically arrive when he wants to get something out of Putin, at the very least a public expression of support.” ... Source: https://www.rferl.org/a/chechnya-kadyrov-indefinite-break-speculation/32017103.html | ||
|
0x64
Finland4601 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 mouzHeroMarine StarCraft: Brood War 632IndyStarCraft  246UpATreeSC 145MindelVK  68Livibee  66JuggernautJason63 ForJumy  12Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games gofns8762 Grubby4203 FrodaN1592 Beastyqt903 ceh9501 DeMusliM283 Harstem181 ArmadaUGS135 QueenE131 ToD75 Mew2King64 |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
herO vs Solar
TriGGeR vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Korean StarCraft League
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
