|
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. |
On March 07 2023 17:45 plasmidghost wrote:
To add onto the mention of Russian equipment running out, it was reported yesterday by the UK Ministry of Defence that Russia's resorted to using T-62 tanks first introduced 60 years ago and BTR-50 APCs first introduced 70 years ago. I'm also seeing speculation that mobilized soldiers are being given guns from the 1940s, but I can't find any confirmation of that
Don't know about mobiks but Ukrainians use pre ww2 machine guns in some areas, supposedly because their water cooling allows constant fire while newer guns start overheating after a while. Maybe Russians are using those ancient but situationally effective guns too.
|
On March 07 2023 09:23 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 06:29 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2023 05:55 Manit0u wrote:
China definitely won't help Russia. Even though some Russians are literally begging for a Chinese equivalent of Lend-Lease Act I think it's outside of the realm of possibility at the moment. China has enough problems as is and is facing some major crisis after crisis, if they'd get hit with sanctions it'd be over for them (although as history shows the CCP doesn't really have a problem with 60 million of its citizens dying of starvation). I think it all depends on how high and how firm China's aspirations are. I think that if Russia ends up reduced to an annoyance more like North Korea, China will never have a path towards being a world leader. They will cap out at being an equal, if even that. Chinese culture may not allow for the Chinese government to allow for that. Their only path to being a world leader is through Russia. Xi aspires to be the leader of the world one day. It is his conviction that China will inevitably replace the US as the master of the world order. To that end, Russia is simply a pawn - a friendly vote in the UN Security Council, a cheap source of energy, a provider of military technology, and a way to waste the West’s attention and resources. I think China wouldn’t be too sad if the war continued for another ten years. Xi knows he can’t defeat the rest of the world at once. His plan is to isolate America while Europe and the other US allies stay neutral.
I don't think this makes sense. In my opinion, China has interest in stronger Russia unless they completely abandon all hope of influence over Taiwan and their nearby region. As they're currently witnessing, Russia has no chance against united Europe and US. China would be in the same shoes if alone.
Edit:
Someone was saying a few pages back that sanctions didn't do much. Well, they're starting to bite hard now...
Russia's budget deficit jumped in the first two months of the year as Vladimir Putin suffered a slump in oil and gas takings amid sanctions triggered by his war in Ukraine.
The Kremlin's shortfall reached 2.58trn roubles (£29bn) in January and February, with spending 51.5pc higher in the first two months of 2023 at 5.74trn roubles (£64bn), the Finance Ministry said today.
While it did not break out the monthly totals, spending in February appeared to fall from January's 3.12trn rubles (£35bn).
Russia's economy proved unexpectedly resilient in the face of Western sanctions last year, but it looks to be facing a squeeze as more government spending is directed towards the military.
Price caps are also impacting Russia's crucial energy export earnings. Oil and gas revenues were 46.4pc lower at 947bn roubles (£10.5bn) from January to February than in the same period last year.
Overall budget revenues for the month were down 24.8pc.
Moscow relies on income from oil and gas - last year around 11.6trn roubles (£130bn) - to fund its budget spending. It has been forced to start selling international reserves to cover a deficit stretched by the cost of the Ukraine conflict.
Cuts in Russian supplies of gas to Europe after its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 worsened a surge in prices in Europe and Britain, feeding high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis.
However, prices have cooled in recent weeks back to pre-war levels, although they are about double the long-term average.
Europe and Britain have been trying to diversify sources of gas supply, buying more from the US, as well as shift towards other sources of energy.
Britain has always been far less dependent on Russian gas than Europe, but the two markets are connected via pipelines and prices are similar.
Link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/06/ftse-100-markets-live-news-bp-green-transitional-energy-fossil/
|
On March 07 2023 19:01 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 09:23 gobbledydook wrote:On March 07 2023 06:29 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2023 05:55 Manit0u wrote:
China definitely won't help Russia. Even though some Russians are literally begging for a Chinese equivalent of Lend-Lease Act I think it's outside of the realm of possibility at the moment. China has enough problems as is and is facing some major crisis after crisis, if they'd get hit with sanctions it'd be over for them (although as history shows the CCP doesn't really have a problem with 60 million of its citizens dying of starvation). I think it all depends on how high and how firm China's aspirations are. I think that if Russia ends up reduced to an annoyance more like North Korea, China will never have a path towards being a world leader. They will cap out at being an equal, if even that. Chinese culture may not allow for the Chinese government to allow for that. Their only path to being a world leader is through Russia. Xi aspires to be the leader of the world one day. It is his conviction that China will inevitably replace the US as the master of the world order. To that end, Russia is simply a pawn - a friendly vote in the UN Security Council, a cheap source of energy, a provider of military technology, and a way to waste the West’s attention and resources. I think China wouldn’t be too sad if the war continued for another ten years. Xi knows he can’t defeat the rest of the world at once. His plan is to isolate America while Europe and the other US allies stay neutral. I don't think this makes sense. In my opinion, China has interest in stronger Russia unless they completely abandon all hope of influence over Taiwan and their nearby region. As they're currently witnessing, Russia has no chance against united Europe and US. China would be in the same shoes if alone. Edit: Someone was saying a few pages back that sanctions didn't do much. Well, they're starting to bite hard now... Show nested quote +
Russia's budget deficit jumped in the first two months of the year as Vladimir Putin suffered a slump in oil and gas takings amid sanctions triggered by his war in Ukraine.
The Kremlin's shortfall reached 2.58trn roubles (£29bn) in January and February, with spending 51.5pc higher in the first two months of 2023 at 5.74trn roubles (£64bn), the Finance Ministry said today.
While it did not break out the monthly totals, spending in February appeared to fall from January's 3.12trn rubles (£35bn).
Russia's economy proved unexpectedly resilient in the face of Western sanctions last year, but it looks to be facing a squeeze as more government spending is directed towards the military.
Price caps are also impacting Russia's crucial energy export earnings. Oil and gas revenues were 46.4pc lower at 947bn roubles (£10.5bn) from January to February than in the same period last year.
Overall budget revenues for the month were down 24.8pc.
Moscow relies on income from oil and gas - last year around 11.6trn roubles (£130bn) - to fund its budget spending. It has been forced to start selling international reserves to cover a deficit stretched by the cost of the Ukraine conflict.
Cuts in Russian supplies of gas to Europe after its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 worsened a surge in prices in Europe and Britain, feeding high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis.
However, prices have cooled in recent weeks back to pre-war levels, although they are about double the long-term average.
Europe and Britain have been trying to diversify sources of gas supply, buying more from the US, as well as shift towards other sources of energy.
Britain has always been far less dependent on Russian gas than Europe, but the two markets are connected via pipelines and prices are similar.
Link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/06/ftse-100-markets-live-news-bp-green-transitional-energy-fossil/
I think the situations are very different. China invading Taiwan is more akin to Russia flattening Chechnia. Sure, Chechnia was never recognized as an independent country by anybody, but it's far away from Western allies. Taiwan is geographically similar: it's an island, which makes attacking far harder, but even so, it's 100km away from the Chinese mainland, whereas any US intervention is going to have to come within range of Chinese land-based long-range artillery. Japan and SK are very far away, and any help other than launching missiles would, once again, involve crossing Chinese-controlled waters. European help of any importance is a non-starter in the pacific ocean. The reason China hasn't already annexed Taiwan is because of political and economic repercussions, not military (beyond that Taiwan's own military is not anything to scoff at and will be able to inflict signifcant losses on China). China, unlike Russia, is not paranoid about having NATO on their doorstep. They are worried about economic repercussions of isolationism.
I really fail to understand why you'd say China needs Russia for control over their direct neighbors. Russia crumbling probably gives China carte blanche to exert full control over all the Stans, probably all the way to Iran. Even with Russia still holding strong in the region, they are making headway with their Belt and Road project. If Russia collapses, China is the Stans only realistic economic lifeline. They don't have to invade. They can make them client states.
|
On March 07 2023 18:58 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 17:45 plasmidghost wrote:To add onto the mention of Russian equipment running out, it was reported yesterday by the UK Ministry of Defence that Russia's resorted to using T-62 tanks first introduced 60 years ago and BTR-50 APCs first introduced 70 years ago. I'm also seeing speculation that mobilized soldiers are being given guns from the 1940s, but I can't find any confirmation of that https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1632632159201533955 Don't know about mobiks but Ukrainians use pre ww2 machine guns in some areas, supposedly because their water cooling allows constant fire while newer guns start overheating after a while. Maybe Russians are using those ancient but situationally effective guns too.
I hear that the German MG-42 is still an excellent machinegun.
|
On March 07 2023 19:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 19:01 SC-Shield wrote:On March 07 2023 09:23 gobbledydook wrote:On March 07 2023 06:29 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2023 05:55 Manit0u wrote:
China definitely won't help Russia. Even though some Russians are literally begging for a Chinese equivalent of Lend-Lease Act I think it's outside of the realm of possibility at the moment. China has enough problems as is and is facing some major crisis after crisis, if they'd get hit with sanctions it'd be over for them (although as history shows the CCP doesn't really have a problem with 60 million of its citizens dying of starvation). I think it all depends on how high and how firm China's aspirations are. I think that if Russia ends up reduced to an annoyance more like North Korea, China will never have a path towards being a world leader. They will cap out at being an equal, if even that. Chinese culture may not allow for the Chinese government to allow for that. Their only path to being a world leader is through Russia. Xi aspires to be the leader of the world one day. It is his conviction that China will inevitably replace the US as the master of the world order. To that end, Russia is simply a pawn - a friendly vote in the UN Security Council, a cheap source of energy, a provider of military technology, and a way to waste the West’s attention and resources. I think China wouldn’t be too sad if the war continued for another ten years. Xi knows he can’t defeat the rest of the world at once. His plan is to isolate America while Europe and the other US allies stay neutral. I don't think this makes sense. In my opinion, China has interest in stronger Russia unless they completely abandon all hope of influence over Taiwan and their nearby region. As they're currently witnessing, Russia has no chance against united Europe and US. China would be in the same shoes if alone. Edit: Someone was saying a few pages back that sanctions didn't do much. Well, they're starting to bite hard now...
Russia's budget deficit jumped in the first two months of the year as Vladimir Putin suffered a slump in oil and gas takings amid sanctions triggered by his war in Ukraine.
The Kremlin's shortfall reached 2.58trn roubles (£29bn) in January and February, with spending 51.5pc higher in the first two months of 2023 at 5.74trn roubles (£64bn), the Finance Ministry said today.
While it did not break out the monthly totals, spending in February appeared to fall from January's 3.12trn rubles (£35bn).
Russia's economy proved unexpectedly resilient in the face of Western sanctions last year, but it looks to be facing a squeeze as more government spending is directed towards the military.
Price caps are also impacting Russia's crucial energy export earnings. Oil and gas revenues were 46.4pc lower at 947bn roubles (£10.5bn) from January to February than in the same period last year.
Overall budget revenues for the month were down 24.8pc.
Moscow relies on income from oil and gas - last year around 11.6trn roubles (£130bn) - to fund its budget spending. It has been forced to start selling international reserves to cover a deficit stretched by the cost of the Ukraine conflict.
Cuts in Russian supplies of gas to Europe after its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 worsened a surge in prices in Europe and Britain, feeding high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis.
However, prices have cooled in recent weeks back to pre-war levels, although they are about double the long-term average.
Europe and Britain have been trying to diversify sources of gas supply, buying more from the US, as well as shift towards other sources of energy.
Britain has always been far less dependent on Russian gas than Europe, but the two markets are connected via pipelines and prices are similar.
Link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/06/ftse-100-markets-live-news-bp-green-transitional-energy-fossil/ I think the situations are very different. China invading Taiwan is more akin to Russia flattening Chechnia. Sure, Chechnia was never recognized as an independent country by anybody, but it's far away from Western allies. Taiwan is geographically similar: it's an island, which makes attacking far harder, but even so, it's 100km away from the Chinese mainland, whereas any US intervention is going to have to come within range of Chinese land-based long-range artillery. Japan and SK are very far away, and any help other than launching missiles would, once again, involve crossing Chinese-controlled waters. European help of any importance is a non-starter in the pacific ocean. The reason China hasn't already annexed Taiwan is because of political and economic repercussions, not military (beyond that Taiwan's own military is not anything to scoff at and will be able to inflict signifcant losses on China). China, unlike Russia, is not paranoid about having NATO on their doorstep. They are worried about economic repercussions of isolationism. I really fail to understand why you'd say China needs Russia for control over their direct neighbors. Russia crumbling probably gives China carte blanche to exert full control over all the Stans, probably all the way to Iran. Even with Russia still holding strong in the region, they are making headway with their Belt and Road project. If Russia collapses, China is the Stans only realistic economic lifeline. They don't have to invade. They can make them client states.
I don't know what you mean by "Stan" but my point is that China cannot take on neither US nor NATO alone. China's military budget is lower and Chinese military is not battle trained like the one of US. I really don't think China has a chance against united Europe and US, so this is why I say it needs allies like Russia. Russia gets weaker day by day in Ukraine, so it's most likely not in China's interest. Remember the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Why otherwise is China reportedly considering sending lethal aid to Russia?
|
Russian Federation617 Posts
On March 07 2023 21:56 SC-Shield wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "Stan" but my point is that China cannot take on neither US nor NATO alone.
Central Asia. Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Afganistan etc.
|
On March 07 2023 21:20 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 18:58 Sent. wrote:On March 07 2023 17:45 plasmidghost wrote:To add onto the mention of Russian equipment running out, it was reported yesterday by the UK Ministry of Defence that Russia's resorted to using T-62 tanks first introduced 60 years ago and BTR-50 APCs first introduced 70 years ago. I'm also seeing speculation that mobilized soldiers are being given guns from the 1940s, but I can't find any confirmation of that https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1632632159201533955 Don't know about mobiks but Ukrainians use pre ww2 machine guns in some areas, supposedly because their water cooling allows constant fire while newer guns start overheating after a while. Maybe Russians are using those ancient but situationally effective guns too. I hear that the German MG-42 is still an excellent machinegun.
We still use the MG3, (MG-42 but in 7.62 NATO) actively in Norway. It is, indeed, an excellent machinegun. It's not hyper modern by any means, but it does it's one job to perfection: Putting a lot of bullets downrange, very very fast
Tho we are replacing it with Minimi mk3 this year
|
On March 07 2023 21:56 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 19:25 Acrofales wrote:On March 07 2023 19:01 SC-Shield wrote:On March 07 2023 09:23 gobbledydook wrote:On March 07 2023 06:29 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2023 05:55 Manit0u wrote:
China definitely won't help Russia. Even though some Russians are literally begging for a Chinese equivalent of Lend-Lease Act I think it's outside of the realm of possibility at the moment. China has enough problems as is and is facing some major crisis after crisis, if they'd get hit with sanctions it'd be over for them (although as history shows the CCP doesn't really have a problem with 60 million of its citizens dying of starvation). I think it all depends on how high and how firm China's aspirations are. I think that if Russia ends up reduced to an annoyance more like North Korea, China will never have a path towards being a world leader. They will cap out at being an equal, if even that. Chinese culture may not allow for the Chinese government to allow for that. Their only path to being a world leader is through Russia. Xi aspires to be the leader of the world one day. It is his conviction that China will inevitably replace the US as the master of the world order. To that end, Russia is simply a pawn - a friendly vote in the UN Security Council, a cheap source of energy, a provider of military technology, and a way to waste the West’s attention and resources. I think China wouldn’t be too sad if the war continued for another ten years. Xi knows he can’t defeat the rest of the world at once. His plan is to isolate America while Europe and the other US allies stay neutral. I don't think this makes sense. In my opinion, China has interest in stronger Russia unless they completely abandon all hope of influence over Taiwan and their nearby region. As they're currently witnessing, Russia has no chance against united Europe and US. China would be in the same shoes if alone. Edit: Someone was saying a few pages back that sanctions didn't do much. Well, they're starting to bite hard now...
Russia's budget deficit jumped in the first two months of the year as Vladimir Putin suffered a slump in oil and gas takings amid sanctions triggered by his war in Ukraine.
The Kremlin's shortfall reached 2.58trn roubles (£29bn) in January and February, with spending 51.5pc higher in the first two months of 2023 at 5.74trn roubles (£64bn), the Finance Ministry said today.
While it did not break out the monthly totals, spending in February appeared to fall from January's 3.12trn rubles (£35bn).
Russia's economy proved unexpectedly resilient in the face of Western sanctions last year, but it looks to be facing a squeeze as more government spending is directed towards the military.
Price caps are also impacting Russia's crucial energy export earnings. Oil and gas revenues were 46.4pc lower at 947bn roubles (£10.5bn) from January to February than in the same period last year.
Overall budget revenues for the month were down 24.8pc.
Moscow relies on income from oil and gas - last year around 11.6trn roubles (£130bn) - to fund its budget spending. It has been forced to start selling international reserves to cover a deficit stretched by the cost of the Ukraine conflict.
Cuts in Russian supplies of gas to Europe after its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 worsened a surge in prices in Europe and Britain, feeding high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis.
However, prices have cooled in recent weeks back to pre-war levels, although they are about double the long-term average.
Europe and Britain have been trying to diversify sources of gas supply, buying more from the US, as well as shift towards other sources of energy.
Britain has always been far less dependent on Russian gas than Europe, but the two markets are connected via pipelines and prices are similar.
Link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/06/ftse-100-markets-live-news-bp-green-transitional-energy-fossil/ I think the situations are very different. China invading Taiwan is more akin to Russia flattening Chechnia. Sure, Chechnia was never recognized as an independent country by anybody, but it's far away from Western allies. Taiwan is geographically similar: it's an island, which makes attacking far harder, but even so, it's 100km away from the Chinese mainland, whereas any US intervention is going to have to come within range of Chinese land-based long-range artillery. Japan and SK are very far away, and any help other than launching missiles would, once again, involve crossing Chinese-controlled waters. European help of any importance is a non-starter in the pacific ocean. The reason China hasn't already annexed Taiwan is because of political and economic repercussions, not military (beyond that Taiwan's own military is not anything to scoff at and will be able to inflict signifcant losses on China). China, unlike Russia, is not paranoid about having NATO on their doorstep. They are worried about economic repercussions of isolationism. I really fail to understand why you'd say China needs Russia for control over their direct neighbors. Russia crumbling probably gives China carte blanche to exert full control over all the Stans, probably all the way to Iran. Even with Russia still holding strong in the region, they are making headway with their Belt and Road project. If Russia collapses, China is the Stans only realistic economic lifeline. They don't have to invade. They can make them client states. I don't know what you mean by "Stan" but my point is that China cannot take on neither US nor NATO alone. China's military budget is lower and Chinese military is not battle trained like the one of US. I really don't think China has a chance against united Europe and US, so this is why I say it needs allies like Russia. Russia gets weaker day by day in Ukraine, so it's most likely not in China's interest. Remember the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Why otherwise is China reportedly considering sending lethal aid to Russia?
China doesn't need to have a military budget comparable to the US. The US is projecting military power around the world. China is projecting military power around the Yellow, East China and South China Seas, across the Himalayas and along the Russian border. It's very local compared to needing to maintain a Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Ocean fleet, army bases throughout most of Africa, South America, Europe, the Middle East and East Asia. It's a fallacy in the same way projecting Russian dominance in Ukraine based on their military budget. A lot of that is wrapped up in forces that do not and cannot fight in Ukraine (e.g. the Baltic Fleet, their nuclear force, their troops in Syria, Chechnya, Abkhazia, etc. or for that matter, most of their air force).
|
There's been an update on the Nord Stream explosions. The New York Times and Zeit are both reporting that it may have been a pro-Ukrainian group that conducted the operation, but do not specify who specifically
|
If true, a non-state affiliated group had access to hundreds of kilograms of explosives (fit for underwater demolition no less) and professionally forged documents.
The 'no evidence Zelensky was implicated' line is not selling the story either.
|
United States43444 Posts
It literally says “may” and yet you quote it as “was”.
|
I said it back then, I say it now. It makes to little sense. Ukraine has everything to lose if it would be discovered they blew up the pipe line and very little to gain. The pipeline being there or not would change nothing about the progress of the war.
|
On March 08 2023 03:50 KwarK wrote:
It literally says “may” and yet you quote it as “was”.
My bad
|
BBC is reporting that Russians have lost 30k men in Bakhmut so far. That's a pretty costly endavour...
|
On March 08 2023 03:59 Gorsameth wrote:
I said it back then, I say it now. It makes to little sense. Ukraine has everything to lose if it would be discovered they blew up the pipe line and very little to gain. The pipeline being there or not would change nothing about the progress of the war.
Not only that. There is a pipeline (pipelines?) in Ukraine, which export gas from Russia, afaik. It would've been a far easier target and wouldn't draw any suspicion in an active warzone.
|
On March 08 2023 03:59 Gorsameth wrote:
I said it back then, I say it now. It makes to little sense. Ukraine has everything to lose if it would be discovered they blew up the pipe line and very little to gain. The pipeline being there or not would change nothing about the progress of the war.
I think it begs the question: What motivation would the US have to go out of their way to implicate pro-Ukrainian forces in the bombing of NS (and undermine the notion it was Russia) through the NYT unprovoked?
|
On March 08 2023 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2023 03:59 Gorsameth wrote:
I said it back then, I say it now. It makes to little sense. Ukraine has everything to lose if it would be discovered they blew up the pipe line and very little to gain. The pipeline being there or not would change nothing about the progress of the war. I think it begs the question: What motivation would the US have to go out of their way to implicate pro-Ukrainian forces in the bombing of NS2 (and undermine the notion it was Russia) through the NYT unprovoked? Oh that is an easy one. Every single Republican with access to intelligence data, however incomplete, that gets 'donations' from someone connected to Russia.
And skimming over the article all I see about 'it might be Ukraine' is the statement Officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two That is about as thin of a connection as you could possibly come up with.
|
On March 08 2023 03:59 Gorsameth wrote:
I said it back then, I say it now. It makes to little sense. Ukraine has everything to lose if it would be discovered they blew up the pipe line and very little to gain. The pipeline being there or not would change nothing about the progress of the war.
I think it definetely changed something, at least in breaking a bridge. 3 out of 4 pipelines are gone for good, as are the careers of plenty politicians who lobbied for and supported the project. It was a prestige object for many of them and a symbol for fruitful cooperation with Russia. For whom it was most fruitful begs the question...
Hard to imagine it being a more or less "private" endeavour, some form of government involvement must have been there. I think the US and Ukraine have obviously gained the most out of the event, but in any case no hard feelings here, i'm glad it's gone.
|
On March 08 2023 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2023 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 08 2023 03:59 Gorsameth wrote:
I said it back then, I say it now. It makes to little sense. Ukraine has everything to lose if it would be discovered they blew up the pipe line and very little to gain. The pipeline being there or not would change nothing about the progress of the war. I think it begs the question: What motivation would the US have to go out of their way to implicate pro-Ukrainian forces in the bombing of NS2 (and undermine the notion it was Russia) through the NYT unprovoked? Oh that is an easy one. Every single Republican with access to intelligence data, however incomplete, that gets 'donations' from someone connected to Russia. + Show Spoiler +And skimming over the article all I see about 'it might be Ukraine' is the statement Officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two That is about as thin of a connection as you could possibly come up with.
I suppose it then begs the question why, if only based on Republicans bought off by people with "connections" to Russia, would the NYT print it with the headline "Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say" knowing "Any suggestion of Ukrainian involvement, whether direct or indirect, could upset the delicate relationship between Ukraine and Germany, souring support among a German public that has swallowed high energy prices in the name of solidarity."
At best that would strike me as grossly irresponsible reporting. Otherwise it seems to sit on a spectrum of malice.
|
On March 08 2023 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2023 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 08 2023 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 08 2023 03:59 Gorsameth wrote:
I said it back then, I say it now. It makes to little sense. Ukraine has everything to lose if it would be discovered they blew up the pipe line and very little to gain. The pipeline being there or not would change nothing about the progress of the war. I think it begs the question: What motivation would the US have to go out of their way to implicate pro-Ukrainian forces in the bombing of NS2 (and undermine the notion it was Russia) through the NYT unprovoked? Oh that is an easy one. Every single Republican with access to intelligence data, however incomplete, that gets 'donations' from someone connected to Russia. + Show Spoiler +And skimming over the article all I see about 'it might be Ukraine' is the statement Officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two That is about as thin of a connection as you could possibly come up with. I suppose it then begs the question why, if only based on Republicans bought off by people with "connections" to Russia, would the NYT print it with the headline "Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say" knowing "Any suggestion of Ukrainian involvement, whether direct or indirect, could upset the delicate relationship between Ukraine and Germany, souring support among a German public that has swallowed high energy prices in the name of solidarity." At best that would strike me as grossly irresponsible reporting. Otherwise it seems to sit on a spectrum of malice. Because its a title more likely to get clicks compared to "Officials believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
