Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

fash · 30-05-2022 5:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119135905#Comment_119135905

Reported by lots of sources actually. See e.g. here in interview with Arestovych:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/u9l5pj/arestovych_the_russian_military_called_kyiv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x

Also here is one (of many) articles on the Russian police force wandering around Kyiv on day #1 of the invasion:

https://thedebrief.org/know-no-mercy-the-russian-cops-who-tried-to-storm-kyiv-by-themselves/

And here is an early thread with links to Russian language articles & with photos:

https://twitter.com/CITeam_en/status/1497573785414901760?s=20&t=ewKGOOLKhuZS1pL8gc5PGQ

bobowen · 30-05-2022 5:49pm

All I get is one Reddit thread with no link. If there are multiple sources I'd be grateful for a help in finding one.

Dohnjoe · 30-05-2022 6:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136050#Comment_119136050

Good read, thanks. Riot police being sent in for the obvious, and then ending up on the front line. Again shows the absolute disarray and chaos in Russian ranks in those opening days.

josip · 30-05-2022 6:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136220#Comment_119136220

Impossible to have anything except chaos when your troops have been fed a pack of lies in the weeks leading up to the invasion.

bobowen · 30-05-2022 6:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136050#Comment_119136050

Thanks for that.

Pussyhands · 30-05-2022 8:02pm

Didn't hear this weasel tell Germany to give up it's gas.

Orban is putting his citizens first, something Micheal wouldn't know about.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0530/1301915-ukraine-russia/

amandstu · 30-05-2022 8:17pm

He's a weasel?Does that make you a skunk?

Ukraine is in the first line against Russian expansionist agression.

It is in Ireland's self interest to support it.

timmyntc · 31-05-2022 10:17am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136734#Comment_119136734

And how does forcing global oil prices higher on the market help against Russian expansionist aggression?

To date we've seen record revenues recorded by RU for wheat, oil and gas this year due to the higher prices, in spite of sanctions. Other OPEC members are not increasing production so that they benefit from increased prices, and those who dont want to pay higher prices then buy from Russia.

Europe loses, everybody else wins. (including Russia). Gas would be a different story due to its reliance on pipeline infrastructure, but EU have shown no willingness to cut off Russian gas (thanks Germany)

amandstu · 31-05-2022 11:27am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119138492#Comment_119138492

I don't know how the positives balance out the negative.

Sure we have to be smart and that is what policy makers ' jobs involve.

We also have to be united and provide the Ukranians the means to defend their territory.

If that requires also starving Russia of the funds to wage its war then that front needs to be fought(quite apart from the moral complicity we share in putting money in the agressor's hands)

As I say ,I don't have the smarts to say when a particular policy might be counter effective or ,on balance not but our policy makers have to explain this as best they can ,both to themselves and to the public

timmyntc · 31-05-2022 11:35am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119138867#Comment_119138867

If that requires also starving Russia of the funds to wage its war then that front needs to be fought(quite apart from the moral complicity we share in putting money in the agressor's hands)

But thats the point - an EU only oil embargo does not deprive Russia of funds. It actually pushes up oil prices worldwide, and Russia will benefit from more money in oil sales from outside EU.

Total oil demand worldwide has not changed, we are just changing suppliers. Unless OPEC decide to increase production, Russia will not lose money as China, India etc will buy even more oil. And other countries usually reliant on Gulf states for oil may change to buying from Russia, as due to EU countries switching from Russia to gulf states, supply will be constrained from them.

fly_agaric · 31-05-2022 11:39am

Whatever about the short-term effects of price rises + damage to EU economies, and whatever about the greed and/or cynicism (or hostility and rhetorical support for Putin in some cases) from some non Western countries, it's plain the EU just can't be relying on Russia any more for things as critical as energy.

They've invaded one country unprovoked, evidence suggests they are getting up to a bit of genocide there too (not to mention brutality of how they are waging this war). There's a number of Eastern EU members long in their cross hairs, who could have been next on Putin's hit list had this all gone as planned for Russia + Ukraine was now dealt with.

The EU would want its head checked if it were trying to carry on with normal trade relations with Russia, holding their noses and buying their energy and other critical resources come what may.

pixelburp · 31-05-2022 11:43am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119138912#Comment_119138912

Exactly. Whatever the geopolitical net effects, the EU needs to decouple itself from dependency on a belligerent state for its energy. Russia is not our ally, and as you say has clealr hostile intent towards its western neighbours. Had Russia taken over Ukraine that would have led to another huge swathe of food supply falling into russian hands - further strangling EU resources and empowering Putin. It's madness to let things continue.

Podge_irl · 31-05-2022 12:26pm

Russia have not, as things stand, replaced all their European sales to other destinations. While India don't appear to care at all and are purchasing plenty, China is not yet showing significantly increased demand for Russian oil despite the discounts it is trading at.

Nonetheless, there is no public appetite to engage in any kind of trading with Russia and the oil embargo is as much about future energy security as anything else.

saabsaab · 31-05-2022 6:23pm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-oil-insight-idUSKCN1S61YM

I have heard people say that Russian oil is low quality.

McGiver · 01-06-2022 8:30am

Here's what Ukrainians think about the usefulness of "negotiation" or ceding territory (insane proposal!) or even a ceasefire with the Russians

“The war will not stop (after concessions). It will just be put on pause for some time,” Mr Podolyak, Ukraine’s lead negotiator, told Reuters in an interview in the heavily guarded presidential office. “They’ll start a new offensive, even more bloody and large-scale.”

The Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Slovaks and Czechs are all in line. No negotiation. Defeat Russia, then talk.

I met some Finns and Lithuanians in Poland last week and the Russia/Ukraine topic came up - full agreement between us on "bollox to negotiation".

McGiver · 01-06-2022 8:40am

So Gazprom has cut off gas supplies to the Netherlands. Refused to pay in currency stained in blood called "rouble".

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-halts-gas-supply-to-the-netherlands/

That is Bulgaria, Poland, Finland and Netherlands so far.

Now, the Danes have balls and go for it intentionally, will cut it off themselves 👍🏻

In the meantime, Germany, Italy and Austria continue to hide and probably agreed to pay in roubles which means they directly support the Russian war effort. Utterly despicable and cowardly.

Germany has lost its reputation and any sort of leadership in the EU. It won't have much voice or friends in the EU for years to come.

Thankfully, von Der Leyen Commission has been very decent in terms policy packages and sanctions. Unfortunately, it's the Council who make it or break it and with people like Orbán, Scholz, Draghi and Nehammer it's going to be difficult to agree on fastest possible Russian hydrocarbon phase out in the EU.

pixelburp · 01-06-2022 8:40am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119142831#Comment_119142831

I've long sensed that the only true way to end this has been to give Russia a bloody enough nose - through loss of troops, equipment or resources; heck even territory it Ukraine regained Crimea - that it slunk back behind its borders and thought about what it did. The tricky part will be what Ukraine allows them to take to save grace cos with such a genocidal narrative back home, I can't see Putin being satisfied with nothing gained.

Obviously nobody's marching to Moscow, and we know what Putin wants in all this: control of Ukraine and it's resources such as its massive share of food crops, but the Nordics know full well how you deal with a belligerent Russia. Punch them then in the face. Well, unless you're Charles XII of Sweden (IIRC?), then one does invade Russia I guess lol.

Nody · 01-06-2022 8:53am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119142854#Comment_119142854

Sweden has invaded Russia before that by rowing up the rivers into Russia but to be fair to Russia they also burned down parts of what's today Stockholm a few centuries later. There's actually some very interesting books on the Poltava battlefield as with survivors reports etc. for those inclined that way as well and how the Kosacs supporting them were thrown under the bus (similar to how the Kurds were dumped after fighting ISIS in this day and age, never trust the power you're fighting for...).

To return to the question at hand though; I've stated before and I stand by it that Ukraine is not getting Crimea back. That naval base is far to important for Russia to give up and that's really a red line kind of thing for Russia where they would throw the kitchen sink at to keep. Anything beyond that is on the table but my best bet would be the "original" borders before the war with Donbass etc. still being "independent" and most people there (that remain) are likely to be offered to be relocated to Russia. Russia has already offered passports etc. to Ukrainians and with the ruins left behind I think many will end up taking them up on that offer. That area then becomes an DMZ in practice for Russia to be used as buffer against NATO aggressions with some people staying there out of principle (while the younger once will have left not to return). It will return to an unstable peace (I expect the low level aggression will continue via militias etc.) and Putin can declare he has defanged Nazi Ukraine and ensured they can't be a threat any more while protecting the people of Donbass etc.

In practice they will of course have stolen a lot of factory and other equipment etc. in a wider area (ala WW2) that's shipped back as already seen which buys off the army to agree the cease fire even after the atrocious losses. Putin gets his victory to parade as an excuse, Ukraine gets a stop to the war and the lore of the Ukrainian defence David vs. Goliath spirit and ability added to the folk lore while EU/USA etc. happily pumps in hundreds of billions to rebuild Ukraine via companies in their countries (ala Afghanistan).

bobowen · 01-06-2022 9:57am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119142831#Comment_119142831

The NY Times & Biden have stopped talking about defeating Russia. That's a massive change in the dynamic of the conflict. They have now accepted that the conflict will end through diplomacy and is only providing weapons to Ukraine in order to obtain the highest leverage possible at the negotiating table. Nether side can "win" this war.

Russia will not be able to occupy West and Central Ukraine or enforce regime change on a hostile population. They don't have the resources or the will.

Ukraine will not be able to push Russia back to their borders. They are at this stage severely depleted of top quality infantry. The infantry that were trained for years by the americans were in Mariupol and on the defence line in the Donbass and the vast bulk of these have now been captured or killed or are being completely surrounded in the main cauldron in Lughansk. The reason why Lyman and other towns fell so quickly is down to the inexperience and unwillingness of the less experienced infantry to die as cannon fodder. And rightly so. Enough fine young Ukrainian men with families have died because of the lies peddled in the last few weeks that they are winning this war. They aren't and if you really care about these people you will stop advocating for them to go to certain death for an unrealisable goal that you yourself would not die for.

Negotiations are the only way to stop this.

johnnyskeleton · 01-06-2022 9:58am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119142852#Comment_119142852

I don't think it's correct to say that Germany has lost its reputation. It has always tried to promote peace by economic means, has always had a strong relationship with Russia (more complicated during the Cold War, but the legacy of the former DDR hasn't gone away) and, much like every country that isn't Ukraine itself, wants to help as much as it can while not harming its own interests. I don't see anything different with other countries.

The UK is often held up (or more accurately hold themselves up) as a beacon of what rich European countries should do to help Ukraine. They are very vocal about cutting off Russian oil and gas. But, unlike Germany etc, they don't really buy any Russian oil or gas, so its easy for them. They have an absolute fortune of Russian corrupt money in London. They imposed token and unavoidable sanctions on certain persons, but they did so in a very lazy way that allowed work arounds etc. They are now increasing the financial sanctions, but they are not being pressured to impose an outright and comprehensive ban on Russian money coming into and out of London.

TLDR - it is easier for Germany to impose financial sanctions and harder to cut off oil and gas. It is easier for the UK to refuse the oil and gas, but harder to impose meaningful financial sanctions. I would personally argue that the financial sanctions are way more damaging to Russian than even oil and gas sanctions, but it doesn't really matter. The point being that this line that Germany isn't doing enough is really just the UK's way of distracting from the fact that they themselves could also do more, and framing the debate in terms of oil and gas is the easiest way for them to change the debate.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119142893#Comment_119142893

I wonder, now that Crimea is a federal subject of Russia, would any incursion into the peninsula result in Russia either declaring war and mobilising? Or worse, could that be the red line threat that justifies (in Russia's mind) the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons?

The only immediate end to the war that I can see in the short to medium term is a series of cease fires (and breaches of those ceasefires ala Minsk II)

Nody · 01-06-2022 11:04am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119143153#Comment_119143153

I think the nuclear angle is interesting to explore; this is my arm chair general view and I want to make it clear it contains a lot of assumptions etc.

I'm assuming Russia (note Russia, not Putin) don't want to start WW3 over Ukraine as the war is currently not on Russian soil
I'm assuming Russia wants to use Crimea in the future, hence no nuclear strikes on Crimea itself or in the general area that would render it useless to them as a base

As a starting point this then leaves a problem with going nuclear over Crimea. First of all Ukraine is unlikely to have massive troop / armor / equipment depos to target for nuclear strikes because that's now how they fight. Russia don't want to drop nukes to close to their base because of radiation, dust etc. would risk to spill over and they would be bombing "their friends" lands to do that. Hence I don't think nuclear strikes from a tactical point of view would be viable to defend Crimea to take out troops etc. to stop the assault.

This moves us then to option 2, strategic nuking. This would be a threat of "If you don't pull back we'll nuke Kiev" kind of approach. The problem here is Kiev has a lot of non Ukrainains in it and it becomes hard to justify internally in Russia "We nuked Kiev because they took Crimea" esp. as if that's the case why not simply use "normal" ballistic missiles instead? And if they took it anyway do you really want to nuke Kiev and make yourself even more of a paria internationally? It's great to have Syria's president say your great but you need the likes of China and India to actually buy your stuff in relevant quantities and if you nuke another country as revenge that is likely to cause strains on your relationships (as they are both nuclear powers themselves and don't want other countries to get ideas).

Going on then is option 3, the scorched land approach. I know I said in the beginning that they would not want to nuke "friends" but I could see that being taken as an approach if they get really desperate. Literally make the area around Crim radio active by creating a buffert zone on Ukraine's side. The problem is that this would cause great risk for negative reactions as well as cause problems for the base long term for dubious value. Hence I think this is unlikely approach and it would rather be a case of sending in troops you don't really want to send there due to other regions not being stable with a metric ton of shells to achieve the same thing with conventional artillery instead.

Hence I see a nuke for Crimea rather as a last "F- you" if they had to pull out to prevent equipment and base use to fall in enemy hands rather than as something they would do proactively. That could be done with conventional explosives as well given enough time and hence would only really be required in some kind of surprise take over by Ukraine that would have left the base and equipment intact.

bobowen · 01-06-2022 11:36am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119143423#Comment_119143423

Slow down there Dr Strangelove. There has been no such thing as "Strategic" nuclear attacks since Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the onset of the nuclear arms race during the cold war.

First of all the radiation would affect parts of Russia as much as Ukraine. Second Nuclear weapons were never suppossed to be deployed. They merely act as insurance against such an attack from other superpowers. All nuclear defence systems are programmed to go straight to Defcon 1 at the first launch resulting in mutual destruction for all participants. There is no time to assess the success of just one strike and then decide what to do. This is why NATO are so reluctant to go all in to help Ukraine. The whole reason for the non proliferation treaties that Trump pulled out of was to stop wasting money on systems that hopefully will never have to be deployed.

beggars_bush · 01-06-2022 11:39am

Russia will not give up any of the territorial gains made.

They are there to stay

Nody · 01-06-2022 11:57am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119143598#Comment_119143598

I'd suggest you read up on the Russian nuclear doctrine a bit more there sport.

The military doctrine published in 2000 expanded the circumstances in which Russia might use nuclear weapons, including in response to attacks using weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies, as well as in response to “large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation.”

In mid-2009, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, hinted that Russia would have the option to launch a “preemptive nuclear strike” against an aggressor “using conventional weapons in an all-out, regional, or even local war.”

In Early June 2020, Russia released a new document, titled “On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” that outlined the threats and circumstances that could lead to Russia’s use of nuclear weapons.36 This document specifically notes that Russia “considers nuclear weapons exclusively as a means of deterrence.” It states that Russia’s nuclear deterrence policy “is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” It emphasizes that Russia maintains forces that could “inflict guaranteed unacceptable damage on a potential adversary ... in any circumstances”.

The document lists a number of threats that Russia might face and circumstances under which it might consider the use of nuclear weapons. It indicates that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons when it has received “reliable data on a launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territory of the Russian Federation and/or its allies” and in response to the “use of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction by an adversary against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” It could also respond with nuclear weapons following an “attack by adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions” and “aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.".

That's from page 7 & 8 on the current Russian nuclear doctrine quoted above and if you want to talk strategic (intercontinental) vs. tactical have a look at page 20 and 21 (Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons) for the nuclear options for close to mid range use of nuclear delivery system, ergo strategic vs. tactical use of nuclear weapons. I did not go into the question of delivery above but I'd not expect Russia to fire intercontinental MIRV missiles exactly for the reason you state; sending in a nuclear warhead with an Iskander missile from Belarus into Kiev however would not trigger any such warning systems pro actively (it would very likely trigger a Defcon 2 after the nuke goes off as that would register world wide but I doubt Defcon 1 and that's assuming Russia did not inform US of it's intentions in advance for dual purpose of letting them leak it as well as avoid retaliation).

josip · 01-06-2022 12:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119143149#Comment_119143149

The quisling approach won't work with Russia. They don't respect agreements and are a belligerent neighbour. They need to be beaten.

saabsaab · 01-06-2022 12:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119143770#Comment_119143770

You shouldn't negotiate with a bear when your head is in its mouth!

Field east · 01-06-2022 12:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119143620#Comment_119143620

You left out the word ‘easily between the words ‘up’ and ‘any’. Have the Ru not been pushed back in lands gained in parts of the country that it had won/ occupied ?

BluePlanet · 01-06-2022 12:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119139115#Comment_119139115

Not true.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-20/china-boosts-energy-imports-from-russia-despite-impact-of-covid

China kept buying more energy from Russia, with purchases of oil, gas and coal jumping 75% in April to over $6 billion, even as domestic demand slowed due to a resurgent virus and the US and Europe moved away from purchases.

Imports of Russian liquefied natural gas surged 80% from a year earlier to 463,000 tons, according to Chinese customs data on Friday.

Dohnjoe · 01-06-2022 1:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119144051#Comment_119144051

I think that poster is correct. They mentioned Russian oil, which according to your article China has only increased by 4% on last year.

For Russia gas to China, LNG imports from Russia actually fell compared to last year. As for Russian pipeline gas to China, indeed that seems to have increased, around 60% in the first 4 months, but it's hard to tell how much that is related to the conflict given that China's pandemic consumption was lower than normal years.

Last month a 500mm energy deal fell through with Russia, China cited sanctions.

Despite all that, it's obvious that Russia will seek to sell more energy to China, and at such low asking prices it seems China will indeed be increasing consumption from Russia. Although it's very doubtful that will match the reduction in European consumption for Russia for a long time if at all. Keep in mind that last year, China's gas imports from Russia were roughly equal to Poland's. Germany alone was over 4 times that.

China is also reliant on a pipeline scheduled for 2025 to greatly increase volumes, and even when complete, and at max capacity, it will be only a quarter the size of pre-war European gas usage.

BluePlanet · 01-06-2022 1:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119144352#Comment_119144352

With the price of oil raising so much they can sell less volume and still come away with more money.

Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

Comments