|
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 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 NS (and undermine the notion it was Russia) through the NYT unprovoked?
To me this doesn't look like the NYT breaking the story and the German press reacting to it but rather the other way around. The claims are much more specific on Zeit/ARD. They probably contacted the US for comment on what they are about to publish, hence the vaguer NYT piece. Why US officials felt the need to get ahead of this instead of ignoring it like the previous theories I don't know.
|
On March 08 2023 02:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2023 21:56 SC-Shield wrote: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).
That's true but it's also their main weakness.
China has been building up to be able to match the US (navy) in a fight close to home. That means within range of their very capable super long range anti ship missiles and aircraft.
However they have no force projection globally and so the US could blockade most shipping going to China without them being able to stop it. Not sanctions, actual blockade if it came to war. Which would devastate their economy and could quite possibly lead to mass starvation.
Which is why it would not be impossible to have a Taiwan - China war with US ships delivering supplies without problems (you don't touch our ships we won't touch yours).
I think what China really wanted to see was the worlds reaction to Ukraine being annexed (and the psychological impact on Taiwan). And the lesson they probably learned was that war is hard and unpredictable and if you can't end it straight away you might get into big trouble. So it's very likely that they will keep treating Taiwan like the worlds biggest salami.
|
On March 08 2023 06:25 Dan HH 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 NS (and undermine the notion it was Russia) through the NYT unprovoked? To me this doesn't look like the NYT breaking the story and the German press reacting to it but rather the other way around. The claims are much more specific on Zeit/ARD. They probably contacted the US for comment on what they are about to publish, hence the vaguer NYT piece. Why US officials felt the need to get ahead of this instead of ignoring it like the previous theories I don't know.
You're right, though the NYT piece I realize, doesn't seem to reference the research from Zeit/ARD directly at all.
|
United States44302 Posts
I forget the specifics but my recollection is that Russia was contractually obliged to provide a certain amount of gas through Nordstream to Germany with significant financial penalties for failure. This was back when their plan was to freeze Germany into submission and they intentionally failed to provide the gas required, limiting Germany’s ability to fill their storage silos.
Before Germany could enforce the contract the pipeline was sabotaged and Russia claimed force majeure to get out of the penalties. As was pointed out a few posts ago, most Russian gas goes overland to Europe through Ukraine. If Ukrainian saboteurs wanted to cut a pipeline they could do so without getting wet. They don’t cut a pipeline because they value Western European goodwill over denying Russian exports.
At the time of the sabotage the stated Russian plan was to cut off western aid by making the west freeze until they compelled Ukraine to surrender. Everyone knew that was the Russian plan. It wouldn’t make sense for Ukraine to interfere with the gas supply.
Edit: found a source
One may be tempted to ask why would the Russians bother with sabotage and denial? After all, hostility toward Ukraine and Europe is neither novel nor secret. The shutoff of gas from sabotage does not fundamentally change Russia’s stated aims or enacted strategy. The answer lies in the strength of Western financial institutions, Russia’s lack of leverage or soft power, and the devastating impacts sanctions are having against Russia. If Nord Stream is shut down suddenly through “force majeure,” a sudden uncontrollable stop that is the fault of neither party, then Russia can void its obligations toward European stakeholders without legally breaking contracts, thus dodging the many penalties in doing so.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-sabotage-of-the-nord-stream-pipeline-mark-a-point-of-no-return/amp/
|
On March 08 2023 03:30 plasmidghost wrote: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 + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1633128532833599488
I read through the German article and it has no information in it at all except for speculation. The yacht had been rented by a company owned by two people who allegedly are Ukrainian. This is not even confirmed in the article. They also claim that it was a team of six people, but couldn't tell who the people are nor what their nationality is because they have used forged passports.
It's kind of wild to imagine that if you are a Ukrainian nationalist group professionally forging passports, that you would choose to pick Ukrainian passports for it. That makes absolutely zero sense in this context.
Is it just me, or is it really weird to publish this as breaking news, open the article by saying that there has been a breakthrough in the investigation and then close the article by stating that all the agencies investigating it have said that they have no results so far. These statements seem to contradict each other.
They only vaguely mention sources from other countries, but not what kind of sources they are or even from what countries.
Honestly, it's all incredibly vague. They have identified a boat that might have been used. It's allegedly a yacht rented by a business that they assume is owned by Ukrainians. There is not a single factual statement in there except for the raw facts that there has been a sabotage and that the agencies have no results.
And to be clear, plasmidghost, the article also says that it might have been a false flag operation and that it might not have even been Ukrainian nationals at all because all the passports were forged. The investigation of the newspapers found that some people report that some people have claimed that it was a pro-Ukrainian group. That was neither the conclusion of their investigation, nor that of the agencies involved.
Reporting that as breaking news and a breakthrough seems incredibly disingenuous and misleading. As someone witty once said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But they don't even have ordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims.
Until they do, this article goes into the trash bin labelled "Misinformation and speculation".
|
|
|
The Ukrainian POW who was executed on film has been identified by his sister.
|
On March 09 2023 01:42 pmp10 wrote:US intelligence chief just testified before Senate with two interesting points.Apparently they don't expect Russia to be capable of any major territorial gains this year, which would mean no great breakthrough offensives anytime soon. They also seem to think that Putin has settled his strategy on tiering-out the west. I bet these are the Syrian lessons at play. Bold move to try and outlast the western military industrial complex.
I don't see that working out for him.
|
On March 09 2023 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:Bold move to try and outlast the western military industrial complex. I don't see that working out for him.
Yeah... the rest of the world is getting rid of their old stuff and slowly sending newer and newer toys. Russia has run through a lot of their new stuff and is sending older and older equipment.
The disparity in technology level is huge if enough Ukrainians can get trained on modern NATO equipment.
|
United States44302 Posts
On March 09 2023 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:Bold move to try and outlast the western military industrial complex. I don't see that working out for him.
In fairness one of the plans from last year was to defeat Germany with problems that could only be solved with engineering. Defeating the US with problems that can only be solved by making defence contractors rich is on brand.
|
Well... when you know, that the US loves its regular crazy phase, the idea of waiting for the next election results doesn't look that stupid. And since the latest brand of crazy only cares about owning the libs and out of principle doing the opposite of what anyone with more brain cells than an average sandwich suggests, I wouldn't completely rule out success here.
And Europe has still not really picked up its own role independent of the US. France isn't doing anything out of principle, the UK is more occupied with its own voting consequences and Germany has the eternal paranoia of leading and is also mostly battling its own bureaucracy.
|
United States44302 Posts
Putin’s plan for France was for them to not get involved at all. He judged that they would only get involved if they were arrogant due to a misplaced historical sense of their own importance in the world.
Similarly his plan for Britain was that they wouldn’t get involved. He judged that the only potential risk was if the Tories were plagued with domestic scandals and needed to distract the people with foreign policy.
The other former Soviet dominated states were also assumed to want no part of it. He judged that the only risk was if perhaps they had hard feelings over hundreds of years of Russian aggression and wanted to end current Russian expansionism.
|
On March 09 2023 03:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... when you know, that the US loves its regular crazy phase, the idea of waiting for the next election results doesn't look that stupid. And since the latest brand of crazy only cares about owning the libs and out of principle doing the opposite of what anyone with more brain cells than an average sandwich suggests, I wouldn't completely rule out success here.
And Europe has still not really picked up its own role independent of the US. France isn't doing anything out of principle, the UK is more occupied with its own voting consequences and Germany has the eternal paranoia of leading and is also mostly battling its own bureaucracy. Yes the US can go crazy, but I have some faith in the US lobbying system 'convincing' US politicians that supporting Ukraine is in the interest of their re-election fund and personal wallet.
|
S. Korea has approved the transfer of Howitzers to Ukraine via Poland.
South Korea's government approved export licenses for Poland last year to provide Ukraine with Krab howitzers, which are built with South Korean components, a defense acquisition official in Seoul told Reuters on Wednesday.
The comments are the first confirmation that South Korea officially acquiesced to at least indirectly providing weapons components to Ukraine for its war against Russia.
Source
Also Georgia seems to have erupted in riots, and protests over it's Russian friendly government.
|
Similarly his plan for Britain was that they wouldn’t get involved. He judged that the only potential risk was if the Tories were plagued with domestic scandals and needed to distract the people with foreign policy.
I just wanted to say that this really made me laugh. Alas, it seems like the Tories have transitioned from "distract the people with foreign policy" to "blame immigrants for everything"...
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On March 09 2023 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:Bold move to try and outlast the western military industrial complex. I don't see that working out for him.
The plan isn't to outlast Western industry, but Western popular support.
Out of all bad options for Putin this one seems to have best chance to succeed. The US has less than a year before it's consumed by campaigning. Honestly I think Putins best shot is to grind down Russia's and Ukraine's military for a year in senseless battles to make major offensives impossible and hope for the MAGA crowd to make a come back in the US next year.
|
On March 09 2023 20:05 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2023 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 09 2023 01:42 pmp10 wrote:US intelligence chief just testified before Senate with two interesting points.Apparently they don't expect Russia to be capable of any major territorial gains this year, which would mean no great breakthrough offensives anytime soon. They also seem to think that Putin has settled his strategy on tiering-out the west. I bet these are the Syrian lessons at play. Bold move to try and outlast the western military industrial complex. I don't see that working out for him. The plan isn't to outlast Western industry, but Western popular support. Out of all bad options for Putin this one seems to have best chance to succeed. The US has less than a year before it's consumed by campaigning. Honestly I think Putins best shot is to grind down Russia's and Ukraine's military for a year in senseless battles to make major offensives impossible and hope for the MAGA crowd to make a come back in the US next year.
Supporting Ukraine has extremely wide support in the US. Its just that the fringe republicans hate it because they want to suck off putin. But from a general election standpoint, no one is going to run on eliminating aid for ukraine.
|
(And the fringe left wing who somehow consider it doing anti-imperialist work to support Putin)
|
In Germany those lefties are about to split off from their party "Die Linke" forming their own Putin is my buddy party, which should make them completely irrelevant in the next elections. Good riddance. Hopefully the sane parts of the party will survive and regain some votes.
|
On March 10 2023 09:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2023 20:05 zatic wrote:On March 09 2023 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 09 2023 01:42 pmp10 wrote:US intelligence chief just testified before Senate with two interesting points.Apparently they don't expect Russia to be capable of any major territorial gains this year, which would mean no great breakthrough offensives anytime soon. They also seem to think that Putin has settled his strategy on tiering-out the west. I bet these are the Syrian lessons at play. Bold move to try and outlast the western military industrial complex. I don't see that working out for him. The plan isn't to outlast Western industry, but Western popular support. Out of all bad options for Putin this one seems to have best chance to succeed. The US has less than a year before it's consumed by campaigning. Honestly I think Putins best shot is to grind down Russia's and Ukraine's military for a year in senseless battles to make major offensives impossible and hope for the MAGA crowd to make a come back in the US next year. Supporting Ukraine has extremely wide support in the US. Its just that the fringe republicans hate it because they want to suck off putin. But from a general election standpoint, no one is going to run on eliminating aid for ukraine.
Accepting election results also had extremely wide support in the US. Storming the capitol didn't have that much support in the US.
Yet it only needed a few to lead the path for the entire Republican party to follow by association.
Honestly, the Republican party betrayed their own country for less. So the "Stop wasting money on Ukraine and funnel it into the US upper class" idea is way more in character than what we have witnessed the last 7 years, where we were always told that this would never happen, because certainly the money/global politics/morals would prevail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
