Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

gandalf

mmmcake wrote: »

Has the USA not destabilised many countries, why are those actions acceptable?

That is a separate issue. You seem to be arguing that because one player has done something wrong another player automatically gets a pass to do what they want.

If you want to see my attitude to the US & UK instigation of the second Iraq war do a search using the terms "Iraq" and my nickname "gandalf" you will find that I was equally as scating of their illegal actions.

Please stop trying to deflect from the issue in hand with this separate issue. If it is something you would like to discuss it would probably be prudent to start up a new thread.

The land corridor to Crimea is nonsense, if Mariupol falls into the separatists hands it is still over 200 km to the nearest land bridge to Crimea.
Why are posters going on about the Mariupol land bridge, its does not exist.
Do they just repeat what they read on the internet and not check any facts?

Who says they plan to stop at Mariupol though. Also it gives them access to a major port and denies its use to the Ukrainian Government.

BoJack Horseman

mmmcake wrote: »

If Germany can't afford to raise defence spending what hope is there for the rest of the EU members who are worse financial condition.

Germany can afford it.
It just doesn't want to.
Its not politically a popular thing to do in most of Europe.

gandalf

mmmcake wrote: »

I see Germany has told NATO it will not be raising its defence budget. Either it dont think Russia is a threat or it don't have the money.
If Germany can't afford to raise defence spending what hope is there for the rest of the EU members who are worse financial condition.

I doubt that Germany cannot afford it they just do not want to devote monies to defense that should not be necessary.

The real question here is why is Russia pissing away all the good will and progress of the years since the collapse of the Iron Curtain in this way. What does Putin hope to achieve? NATO is a fact of life now and given his recent actions it is more relevant now than it was 12 months ago. By his actions he has prolonged the life of an organisation that up until twelve months ago was struggling to find its direction and relevance in the modern age. Now its like a Dinosaur reborn.

The sanctions are a non runner, they will announce them but not implement them, be dead in the water before the week is out.
Remember Czech republic and Slovakia has stated they will veto any new sanctions.

That remains to be seen. I believe the current raft of sanctions were agreed in principle on Friday with all European nations having until 1300 CET to object to them. It would appear that no one objected.

mmmcake

gandalf wrote: »

.

Who says they plan to stop at Mariupol though. Also it gives them access to a major port and denies its use to the Ukrainian Government.

So do you accept the Mariupol land bridge is propaganda nonsense?

But they may have plans to push beyond Mariupol. Where are you getting this info from are you making this stuff up as you go along or is there any facts to back up what you post.

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

The sanctions are having negative consequences for Europe as it is I dont think there is much likely about it they are. the numbers say so. my argument is we should not potentially cut off our nose to spite our face. without Russian energy Europe is in trouble, thats an understatement. a more accurate description would be to say we are phucked.

I'm not sure why your every argument in this discussion is completely one-sided. You seem to believe that Russia can survive anything whatsoever that the world can throw at it in terms of economic sanctions without batting an eyelid, while the EU will implode immediately without Russian gas.

I'm not sure why you place so much faith in the Russian economy, tbh. That aside, your argument still boils down to a belief that we should allow Russia to do whatever the hell it wants, because apparently that wouldn't have any negative consequences whatsoever.

if you truly believe the Russians are going to attack a Nato country you really shouldnt be here talking to me you should be preparing yourself for thermonuclear war.

I don't believe that Russia will attack a NATO country, because they are seeing at least some negative consequences of their actions towards a non-NATO country, which might give them some pause. If we were to follow your course of action - to allow Russia to annex neighbouring countries without so much as a raised eyebrow - what reason are we giving them to believe that we'll defend EU or NATO members?

For that matter, why would we defend (say) Estonia, if we're to follow your line of reasoning? Such a defence would have negative consequences for Europe, therefore - by your argument as repeatedly set out here - we should just let them have it. Hell, maybe we should offer to let them take it in return for cheaper gas.

I dont believe the Russians are suicidal. they had what they perceive as their interests be it their naval base and gas incomes from their pipelines and what they perceive as Nato/EU pushing right up to their border. whether you or I agree or like it or approve of it doesnt really matter.

By which argument, if I see someone mugging a little old lady in the street, I should ignore it - he wants her money, and whether I like it or approve of it doesn't really matter.

Russia already has extensive borders with NATO and the EU. It might not like that, but that doesn't give them the right to annex neighbouring states - and selling us gas doesn't give them the right to do it consequence-free.

Im not sure how you are figuring that im saying its ok for Russia to move on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Mongolia..how do you figure that actually Im just curious?

Well, why not? If it's OK to take Ukraine, why not a few more neighbours? What's so special about Ukraine that you consider it expendable, but not Belarus?

the cold hard reality of the situation is we need Russia more than we need Ukraine.

But we need Belarus more than we need Russia?

there is no military or sanction solution to this situation.

Apparently, the only solution to the problem is to pretend like hell it isn't happening and hope that Russia doesn't interpret such an obvious display of moral cowardice as carte blanche to continue to annex neighbouring states.

Yeah, that makes way more sense.

oscarBravo

mmmcake wrote: »

So do you accept the Mariupol land bridge is propaganda nonsense?

But they may have plans to push beyond Mariupol. Where are you getting this info from are you making this stuff up as you go along or is there any facts to back up what you post.

Why would they stop at Mariupol?

gandalf

mmmcake wrote: »

So do you accept the Mariupol land bridge is propaganda nonsense?

Not at all, it makes sense logically and strategically. Why open up this front unless there is an objective and this the most likely objective.

But they may have plans to push beyond Mariupol. Where are you getting this info from are you making this stuff up as you go along or is there any facts to back up what you post.

Sorry I don't have access to the Russian Armies battle plans but again looking at the situation logically and strategically that would make the most sense.

Gatling

There is a map posted god knows how many pages back .
If you look at the map you can see how strategic eastern Ukraine is to russia because if you look from eastern Ukraine you then have access to Moldova .Latvia .Estonia .

And with the current rhetoric it's hard to believe russia will stop in eastern Ukraine

mmmcake

gandalf wrote: »

Not at all, it makes sense logically and strategically. Why open up this front unless there is an objective and this the most likely objective.
.

Why do you continue with the fallacy of a Mauripol land bridge to the Crimea, look at google earth, at least 200 km form Mauripol to any land bridge to crimea.

oscarBravo

mmmcake wrote: »

Why do you continue with the fallacy of a Mauripol land bridge to the Crimea, look at google earth, at least 200 km form Mauripol to any land bridge to crimea.

Why would they stop at Mariupol?

BoJack Horseman

mmmcake wrote: »

Why do you continue with the fallacy of a Mauripol land bridge to the Crimea, look at google earth, at least 200 km form Mauripol to any land bridge to crimea.

Every landbridge starts with a single city conquered.

Stranger thinks have happened.
Who among us would say 12 months ago that Russia would have invaded & conquered part of a neighbour for the 2nd time in a decade.

mmmcake

I don't think posters understand what a land bridge is.
Look at a map of the area. See Mauripol and Crimea,note the distance one would have to travel west along the coast, over 200 km to get to a point where there is a connection between the main land and Crimea, this strip of land that connects the main land to Crimea is what is called a land bridge.
If we where to give it a name i suppose it would be the Heniches'k land bridge, hope that clears up things for the geography challenged posters.

oscarBravo

mmmcake wrote: »

I don't think posters understand what a land bridge is.
Look at a map of the area. See Mauripol and Crimea,note the distance one would have to travel west along the coast, over 200 km to get to a point where there is a connection between the main land and Crimea, this strip of land that connects the main land to Crimea is what is called a land bridge.
If we where to give it a name i suppose it would be the Heniches'k land bridge, hope that clears up things for the geography challenged posters.

Pedantry. There's no overland connection between Russia and Crimea now. Taking Mariupol would be the first step in establishing such an overland connection.

Which I'm pretty sure you already knew, which makes me wonder why you're arguing over terminology instead of actually discussing the topic.

mmmcake

What you call Pedantry, i would counter with,its the truth back up with fact.
Im not arguing over terminology, Mauripol is no where near the Crimea, the facts are a "second" front was opened up by the rebels in the Mauripol area, to call it a land bridge to Crimea at this stage is a bit presumptuous. Still got to go over 200 km west and past through more towns on the way down the coast to a land bridge, at best its sensationalism to call it the Mauripol land bridge.

Give it some perspective, Dublin City to Galway City is 185 km, so it Russia bombed Dublin tomorrow would the papers call it a attack on the Galway front

BoJack Horseman

mmmcake wrote: »

What you call Pedantry, i would counter with,its the truth back up with fact.

It isn't a land bridge.... It could be the start of one.

the facts are a "second" front was opened up by the rebels in the Mauripol area,

Is it fact?
An area up to now was completely without rebel activity or presence suddenly coming under attack from armour & artillery.

Unless these "rebels" grow from the earth remarkably well equipped.... and attacked from the east/southeast (further away still from rebel territory) I'm gonna say this Mariupol front was the work of our friends in Moscow.

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It isn't a land bridge.... It could be the start of one.



Is it fact?
An area up to now was completely without rebel activity or presence suddenly coming under attack from armour & artillery.

Unless these "rebels" grow from the earth remarkably well equipped.... and attacked from the east/southeast (further away still from rebel territory) I'm gonna say this Mariupol front was the work of our friends in Moscow.

Don't be ridiculous, there's no evidence of Russian involvement in the conflict. It's all NATO/ the US's fault, clearly these are CIA plants instigating the fighting in order to allow the US to stick it to Russia.

aloyisious

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous, there's no evidence of Russian involvement in the conflict. It's all NATO/ the US's fault, clearly these are CIA plants instigating the fighting in order to allow the US to stick it to Russia.

As Bishop Brennan said: now that's sarcasm!

Gatling

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous, there's no evidence of Russian involvement in the conflict. It's all NATO/ the US's fault, clearly these are CIA plants instigating the fighting in order to allow the US to stick it to Russia.

Shhhhhhhhhh






(it's a secret)

Gatling

On a serious note you take mauripol your then on the road to Moldova quite literally via odessa

Icepick

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous, there's no evidence of Russian involvement in the conflict. It's all NATO/ the US's fault, clearly these are CIA plants instigating the fighting in order to allow the US to stick it to Russia.

But how do water meters fit in all of this?

Icepick

How long will big business tolerate Putin's Stalinist aspirations?
Gazprom's natural gas production fell 19.6 percent last month compared with the same period last year

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure why your every argument in this discussion is completely one-sided. You seem to believe that Russia can survive anything whatsoever that the world can throw at it in terms of economic sanctions without batting an eyelid, while the EU will implode immediately without Russian gas.

so I dont agree with what the Russians did with regard to Crimea which Ive stated since this started. but it doesnt matter what I think its done. who is the world your eyes?.. the west?.. there are more countries in the world than what we know as the West. is China a country?.. or the BRIC nations countries?..or do they not count. and nowhere not even once have I said that Russia can absorb the sanctions without even batting an eyelid. sanctions are a two way street both sides are and will suffer. without Russian gas flowing into Europe the continent in trouble. Russia can absorb sanctions will suffer but survive. and if you dont believe Europe would suffer through any prolonged shortage of supply I would say you are mistaken. and Id like you to show me an alternative please that makes sense and is plausible.

I'm not sure why you place so much faith in the Russian economy, tbh. That aside, your argument still boils down to a belief that we should allow Russia to do whatever the hell it wants, because apparently that wouldn't have any negative consequences whatsoever. I don't believe that Russia will attack a NATO country, because they are seeing at least some negative consequences of their actions towards a non-NATO country, which might give them some pause. If we were to follow your course of action - to allow Russia to annex neighbouring countries without so much as a raised eyebrow - what reason are we giving them to believe that we'll defend EU or NATO members?

clearly Russia should not be allowed do what the hell it wants Ive never once said that. why dont you explain the workings of the Russian economy to me?..how is becoming involved in Ukraine - a non EU and Nato member country - showing them that Nato would defend them? Ukraine isnt a member of either the EU or Nato. its not up to either to defend them.

For that matter, why would we defend (say) Estonia, if we're to follow your line of reasoning? Such a defence would have negative consequences for Europe, therefore - by your argument as repeatedly set out here - we should just let them have it. Hell, maybe we should offer to let them take it in return for cheaper gas. By which argument, if I see someone mugging a little old lady in the street, I should ignore it - he wants her money, and whether I like it or approve of it doesn't really matter.

your old lady analogy doesnt work. are the Russians involved militarily in Estonia. yes or no will suffice.

Russia already has extensive borders with NATO and the EU. It might not like that, but that doesn't give them the right to annex neighbouring states - and selling us gas doesn't give them the right to do it consequence-free. Well, why not? If it's OK to take Ukraine, why not a few more neighbours? What's so special about Ukraine that you consider it expendable, but not Belarus? But we need Belarus more than we need Russia?

Why is it up to the EU and Nato to hand out consequences on behalf on a non EU/Nato member country...why?...no one has the right to annex their neighbours territory I never said they did. why dont you tell me whats so special about Ukraine?... considering the EU/Nato who have nothing to do with the place have us at loggerhead with nuclear armed Russia. your Belarus analogy that doesnt work either.

Apparently, the only solution to the problem is to pretend like hell it isn't happening and hope that Russia doesn't interpret such an obvious display of moral cowardice as carte blanche to continue to annex neighbouring states.

Yeah, that makes way more sense.

Apparently according to who? who said anything about pretending?..who...

WakeUp

Icepick wrote: »

But how do water meters fit in all of this?

Gatling wrote: »

There is a map posted god knows how many pages back .
If you look at the map you can see how strategic eastern Ukraine is to russia because if you look from eastern Ukraine you then have access to Moldova .Latvia .Estonia .

And with the current rhetoric it's hard to believe russia will stop in eastern Ukraine

WakeUp

So Europe appears to have a "plan" now, its playing with fire but a plan nonetheless. these current sanctions appear to be focusing on the crude oil exports of the Russian energy companies leaving gas out of it. for now. this is a gamble of monumental proportions because once this starts Europe can not control where it ends. even if they think they can. Europe seems to believe we can outlast the Russians till European/Nato objectives are achieved. to say thats a risky plan is an understatement. but this appears to be the play..and plans always go according to plan.

Here Is Why Europe Just Launched The "Nuclear Option" Against Russia

Europe's leaders, we assume under pressure from Washington, appear to be making a big weather-related bet with their taxpayers' lives this winter. As they unleash funding sanctions on Russia's big energy producers, Europe has pumped a record volume of natural gas into underground inventories in an effort to 'outlast' Russia and mitigate any Napoleonic "Winter War" scenario. The plan appears to be to starve Russian energy firms of cashflow - as flows to Europe are already plunging - and remove their funding ability, potentially forcing severe hardship on Russia's key economic drivers.

As Bloomberg reports,

Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas shipments via Ukraine is declining after the region pumped a record volume of the fuel into underground inventories, minimizing the risk of shortages during the coming winter.



The blue line above shows average daily flows at Velke Kapusany on the Slovakian-Ukrainian border, the biggest single entry point for Russian gas into the European Union, last month fell to a record, according to data from Slovak grid operator Eustream AS going back to 2011. The red histogram shows the 28-nation bloc has pumped a record volume of gas into storage, according to Gas Infrastructure Europe, a lobby group in Brussels.

Natural gas flows from Russia to the EU haven’t been affected in the current crisis. Storage sites in Slovakia, which had to seek emergency imports after its supplies were cut in 2009, were 92 percent full on Sept. 4, according to Gas Infrastructure Europe.
*****
So Europe is stocking-up - which makes perfect sense - just in case Russia pulls the plug... but has now taken the situation to "11" on the Spinal Tap amplifier of escalating tensions by planning sanctions on Russia's energy providers.

The plan appears clear:

stock-up now (to survive the winter)...

starve Russian firms of cashflow (thanks to stockpiles)...

cut off their funding source (sanctions)...

force Putin's economy into a tailspin...

Putin folds and it all ends happily ever after
* * *

There appears to be 3 problems with this plan...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-08/here-why-europe-just-launched-nuclear-option-against-russia?

AbusesToilets

What strategy would you pursue, seeing how vehemently you oppose any action against Russia.

WakeUp

how do you know I oppose any action against Russia? you assume that you dont know that. lots of posters on this thread are very good at making assumptions on my behalf and I cant see how, unless a crystal ball or maybe some tea leaves are being consulted. or maybe it was a dream. sanctioning Russian energy companies the very companies we rely on to keep things ticking over and people warm that isnt a strategy as far as Im concerned. its a reckless dangerous stupid thing to even contemplate let alone put into motion. yet here we are. there is no military or sanction solution to what is happening in Ukraine. unless you believe the Russian are going to be bullied into submission..do you?...because I dont.

AbusesToilets

WakeUp wrote: »

how do you know I oppose any action against Russia? you assume that you dont know that. lots of posters on this thread are very good at making assumptions on my behalf and I cant see how, unless a crystal ball or maybe some tea leaves are being consulted. or maybe it was a dream. sanctioning Russian energy companies the very companies we rely on to keep things ticking over and people warm that isnt a strategy as far as Im concerned. its a reckless dangerous stupid thing to even contemplate let alone put into motion. yet here we are. there is no military or sanction solution to what is happening in Ukraine. unless you believe the Russian are going to be bullied into submission..do you?...because I dont.

Please, your history is a litany of posts decrying the West for opposing Russia's actions. If anything, pushing for sanctions is a far more measured response, as opposed to pursing direct military intervention. Considering the circumstances surrounding the MH-17 incident, I'd say the EU has been pretty reserved in it's response.

WakeUp

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Please, your history is a litany of posts decrying the West for opposing Russia's actions. If anything, pushing for sanctions is a far more measured response, as opposed to pursing direct military intervention. Considering the circumstances surrounding the MH-17 incident, I'd say the EU has been pretty reserved in it's response.

pointing out the sheer absurd stupidity of some of these sanctions is decrying the west. really. perhaps in your head it is but not in mine. stupidity is stupidity whomever responsible for it. sanctions are not going to work. so how are they measured. and once again, ive actually lost count of the amount times Ive pointed this out, but Ukraine has nothing to do with either the EU or Nato. so what are you even talking about a military response for. and lets say the Russians did shoot that plane down what do you think the EU should do about it. go to war with Russia over it?..sanction their energy companies and shoot ourselves in the foot? are these good ideas to you...

AbusesToilets

Wars have been declared for less. Sanctions are a very effective tool for punishing misdeeds, just ask Iran.

BlaasForRafa

WakeUp wrote: »

pointing out the sheer absurd stupidity of some of these sanctions is decrying the west. really. perhaps in your head it is but not in mine. stupidity is stupidity whomever responsible for it. sanctions are not going to work. so how are they measured. and once again, ive actually lost count of the amount times Ive pointed this out, but Ukraine has nothing to do with either the EU or Nato. so what are you even talking about a military response for. and lets say the Russians did shoot that plane down what do you think the EU should do about it. go to war with Russia over it?..sanction their energy companies and shoot ourselves in the foot? are these good ideas to you...

"Peace in our time" eh?