Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Ludicus]

It seems I'm being naïve. I called Sikorsky a troll but the former Defense Minister of Poland (2005–2007) with a long political career, apparently must know what he is talking about. Or if he doesn't know what he says, he would have to think twice before making false statements.

Biden in Feb 22. Question: “How you would do that exactly since the project and control of the project is within Germanys control?” Biden: “I promise you; we will be able to do it”
Initially I thought that what Biden said was due to his characteristic impulsiveness of speaking without thinking much about what he says, but then again, Vitoria Nuland said the same thing in earlier times,
“I want to be clear with you today: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another Nordstream 2 will not move forward”

But proof is needed. Until then, it’s all just speculation.
--

We should sabotage Russian gas sent elsewhere.

That means war.

EU has been far too passive.

I still don't know if you realize the seriousness of the situation.If Biden confirms that he ordered a terrorist attack against German-owned assets,there will be an extremely serious diplomatic incident,
Europe vows response to suspected abotage of two Russian gas pipelines.

In a statement on behalf of all 27 members, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said “Any deliberate disruption of European energy infrastructure is utterly unacceptable and will be met with a robust and united response.”

[Papay]

Sigh... You didn't read that article yourself, didn't you? The weapons and ammo they're giving to Ukraine are spare units, not their own. None of that supports your idea that they are flooding Ukraine with weapons. There is a reason why you failed to explain to us how what they promised to send differ from what they actually send.

Please send a letter to the NATO secretary who says that NATO countries must raise production to meet the demands of war. You seem to know more than him

[Cyclops]

We should sabotage Russian gas sent elsewhere.

If we cannot buy their gas, no-one else can. Also they need the west for equipment repairs.


EU has been far too passive. Against Putin no laws or morality should apply.

I disagree. Putin is quite capable of wrecking his own ****, and expanded aggression is both morally wrong and politically counterproductive.

I am inclining to the view Putin has destroyed the Nordstream pipeline in a shabby false flag op trying to sow discord within NATO, because thats the instrument designed to restrict Russian aggression. NATO assistance has turned Ukraine from easy meat into a jawbreaker. Putin is far too weak to operate against NATO and needs fifth columnists like Orhan and Schroeder to paralyse European support so his grubby little land/grab brigand attack can get back on the rails.

Sacrificing Gazprom infrastructure to his military goals seems a very desperate act. It alienates the resource billionaires in his country, but means they won't see any short term money whether he stays or goes so maybe it forestalls an imminent coup?

The rushed plebiscites seem short term too, as they seem unlikely to stick (unlike Crimea last time). I feel by invoking this sham again, rather than reinforcing his bogus claim he puts Crimea back in play as a loseable piece.

Most of the world ho-hummed about that last land theft, Crimea seemed almost a natural compromise to make but now he's carving ancestral Ukrainian lands with gay abandon its not about "natural Russian land" or some justifiable strategic defensive position, Brigand Chief Vlad is quite obviously just carving slices as a staging position for his next pillaging attack.

Ukraine should definitely be aiming to retake all stolen land and Putin's recent blunders suggest he sees that as a real possibility. I don't believe for a second the West is running out of aid for Ukraine. They are trialing weapon systems with very little political or manpower exposure. In terms of opportunity cost its a winning equation. In real terms Ukraine may actually make a net gain in future security.

All this is extremely cynical. I doubt the Ukrainian elites are much better than Russia's. They are better though, they haven't bullied and invaded Transistria or Belarus or other neighbours. They have a wannabe Nazi ancillary force, probably as bad as Wagner. No doubt they have their share (many? most?) of corrupt profiteers. I suspect when Ukraine retakes the stolen land there's a real scope for ethnic cleansing such as we enabled in Kosovo where the Serbian minority community were treated abominably. This is ultimately Putin's fault, but it will be partly our shame if we let that happen again.

What a filthy scumbag villain he is. He's taken a **** on eastern Europe again and made everything worse for everyone.

Surely Russia, as a democratic state, has an alternative government to take over when this brigand has proved himself so incompetent? Or is Russia just a Tin-Pot Tyranny, and the succession plan just a bullet? Its a real question. (InB4 muh Jan 6, yes that was a sign US democracy is sick, but the handover happened).

[PointOfViewGun]

Please send a letter to the NATO secretary who says that NATO countries must raise production to meet the demands of war. You seem to know more than him

That still doesn't have to do anything with your statement that they're flooding Ukraine with weapons.

[Coughdrop addict]

I am inclining to the view Putin has destroyed the Nordstream pipeline in a shabby false flag op trying to sow discord within NATO, because thats the instrument designed to restrict Russian aggression.

And evidence is mounting that is exactly what happened.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/polit...ips/index.html

European security officials on Monday and Tuesday observed Russian Navy support ships in the vicinity of leaks in the Nord Stream pipelines likely caused by underwater explosions, according two Western intelligence officials and one other source familiar with the matter.
It’s unclear whether the ships had anything to do with those explosions, these sources and others said – but it’s one of the many factors that investigators will be looking into.
Russian submarines were also observed not far from those areas last week, one of the intelligence officials said.

****

Russia has requested a UN Security Council meeting on the damaged pipeline this week – something the senior US official said is also suspicious. Typically, the official said, Russia isn’t organized enough to move so quickly, suggesting that the maneuver was pre-planned.

Also Russia has pretty much confessed by denying it.

The Kremlin has publicly denied striking the pipelines. A spokesman called the allegation “predictably stupid and absurd.”

Surely Russia, as a democratic state, has an alternative government to take over when this brigand has proved himself so incompetent? Or is Russia just a Tin-Pot Tyranny, and the succession plan just a bullet?

I doubt Putin has made any plans or really cares all that much what happens to Russia after he's gone so long as he's remembered. Like most narcissist he probably can barely conceive of a world without him in it. When he dies it will be a toss up; either one of his lackeys kills all of the others quickly and becomes the new dictator, or it becomes a multi-sided civil war.

[Papay]

That still doesn't have to do anything with your statement that they're flooding Ukraine with weapons.

List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia

Only US has given 22 military aid packages worth of tens of bliions. You can still ignore the facts by claiming "thats not my definition of flooding weapons to Ukraine"

[Papay]

And evidence is mounting that is exactly what happened.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/polit...ips/index.html



Also Russia has pretty much confessed by denying it.







I doubt Putin has made any plans or really cares all that much what happens to Russia after he's gone so long as he's remembered. Like most narcissist he probably can barely conceive of a world without him in it. When he dies it will be a toss up; either one of his lackeys kills all of the others quickly and becomes the new dictator, or it becomes a multi-sided civil war.

you believe this propaganda just like the propaganda that Russians are selling the neuclear plant in zaporizhzhia, they themselves are occupying. Common sense knows who is behind these acts of sabotage

Ο χρήστης Radek Sikorski MEP στο Twitter: "Thank you, USA. https://t.co/nALlYQ1Crb" / Twitter

[Ludicus]

Who benefits most from taking Nordstream pipelines out of business? According to "Asia Times", the Baltic countries, Finland, Ukraine and the US have logical incentives to damage the pipelines, a move with enormous political, strategic and security risks.
Who gains most from Nord Stream sabotage? - Asia Times

The US has long opposed NATO’s (especially Germany’s) dependence on Russian, formerly Soviet, natural gas. The United States, in fact, used export controls to block the original Yamal pipeline in the 1980s, believing the threat of a Russian cutoff would alter Europe’s political decisions.

As recently as 2018, then-president Donald Trump warned the Europeans at the UN General Assembly of the potential for a Russian energy cutoff. There is video of the German delegation to UNGA appearing to mock Mr. Trump. Then came Ukraine and severe cutbacks in the delivery of Russian natural gas to Europe.
Now, as Norway and Poland announce the opening of the Trans Baltic Pipeline, Russia’s Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines have been damaged near the Danish island of Bornholm in the Baltic Sea. Three separate pipeline breaches are apparent, essentially ruling out the possibility of a technical fault.*

While the pipelines are not currently operating, they are kept filled with natural gas under pressure and the gas is bubbling up to the surface. This suggests the damage to both pipelines was significant, although a full assessment remains to be done.
Repairs, it appears, will take some time even if priority is given to the first Nord Stream pipeline, making it unlikely that it can be returned to service before winter, even if there is a change in the political situation.

The first guesses have been that the Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged in an effort to affect Russia’s war in Ukraine. Such an operation would require the ability to locate the pipelines and place explosive charges in three different places. If they were, the questions are who did it and why?
The Nord Stream pipelines are at sea depths ranging from 80 to 110 meters (262 to 360 feet). Frogmen typically operate at 6 meters (20 feet), so submersible vehicles would have been needed to place explosives on the pipeline or otherwise damage it.

The underwater pipes for Nord Stream are made of steel grade DNV grade SAWL 485 (similar to grade X70) for wall thicknesses ranging from 26.8 to 34.4mm and were manufactured by six qualified producers (one in Russia, four in Europe and one in Japan). The pipes are encased in concrete.

Deliberate damage would be no easy matter. Ukraine has already said the sabotage was carried out by the Russians.“The large-scale gas leak is nothing more than a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression toward the EU,” Kiev’s presidential advisor Mikhaylo Podolyak announced on Twitter.

The trouble with that argument is that Russia would lose all its leverage with Europe if it destroyed its own pipelines. Both Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 are owned in a joint project. Gazprom has 51% and four Western partners. PEGI/E.ON (EONGn.DE) and Wintershall Dea (WINT.UL) (BASFn.DE) have 15.5% each, and French Engie (ENGIE.PA) and Dutch Gasunie (GSUNI.UL) 9% each.

Ukraine, itself, could be a candidate in an attempt to damage Russia economically, now and in the future. But if that is the case and Ukraine is discovered as the culprit, its relations with Europe and NATO would be tremendously damaged.

Almost every European country has the technical ability to operate offshore with remotely piloted vehicles and some of them have evolved underwater military services (like the US Navy SEALS), which can attack and destroy underwater targets. But which European country would want to do so?

It would be very risky for any European state to carry out a sabotage operation against the two pipelines. First, just as the Russians need Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 intact for their own reasons, the Europeans need them intact for future gas deliveries. In addition, such a move could be regarded by Russia as an act of war.
However, there are a few possible exceptions. Finland is in a serious dispute with Russia that started with Finland’s decision to join NATO. In May, Russia cut off gas supplies to Finland and earlier Russia halted electricity deliveries.

But it is hard to understand why Finland might consider the Nord Stream pipelines as a target for any retaliation. Finland itself has embargoed Russian coal and oil.

Russia also has a very tense relationship with the Baltic States, and any one of them could carry out sabotage acts against the Nord Stream pipelines. However, the fact that this would deprive Europe of gas deliveries in the near future, supposing an end of sanctions, makes this an unlikely move for any country that depends on NATO for security.

Could the US have sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines to remove President Vladimir Putin’s leverage over Europe this winter?

If there was substantial fear in Washington that Europe might break consensus on sanctioning Russian over the Ukraine war to save itself from an energy crisis this winter, then there could be logic in such a move – but also huge political, strategic and security risks.

The US has become an important energy player sending LNG to Europe in ever-increasing quantities. Europe has been using US-supplied LNG to help fill its storage tanks for the coming winter.

*Update: Four breaches

According to the N.Y.Times,

Poland and Ukraine openly blamed Russia, which pointed a finger at the United States, and both Moscow and Washington issued indignant denials…Several officials in Washington noted that nongovernmental actors could have committed the pipeline sabotage. Others said the two detonations registered by seismometers in the region pointed to explosives placed by a submersible or dropped by aircraft or boat, suggesting a state had been involved.
“It’s hard to assess; does anybody benefit?” Finland’s president, Sauli Niinistö, told the news outlet Helsingin Sanomat. “That is why this is a mystery so far.”

If not the US or Russia, which European states have the capacity to do so, and especially the will to provoke an open war between these two nuclear powers?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Or it was Putin's Russia with a underwater drone.

Russia probably bombed Nord Stream pipeline with underwater drone, says defence source

Russia probably bombed Nord Stream pipeline with underwater drone, says defence source | World | The Times

[PointOfViewGun]

List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia
Only US has given 22 military aid packages worth of tens of bliions. You can still ignore the facts by claiming "thats not my definition of flooding weapons to Ukraine"

And we're back to you checking what percentage of it is actually delivered aid rather than promised aid. You got extra points of deception by not pointing out that those 22 promised military aid packaged spanned over the course of 7 years. By the way, it's not tens of billions of dollars. If you do the math it would hardly pass 10 billions.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Tomorrow 2 pm middle european time Putin will annex the four occupied regions. They are roughly 15 % of the territory of the Ukraine. Yesterday Putin's speaker Peskow has declared the war will at least continue till Russia has conquered the complete Donetsk region.

No ukrainian government could accept this. And the UN can't accept this either if a nation with atomic weapons can get away with onesided annexations.

Even China will not accept this, as it would be a precedent for its minorities (territorial changes because of a onesided referendum).

[conon394]

Tomorrow 2 pm middle european time Putin will annex the four occupied regions. They are roughly 15 % of the territory of the Ukraine. Yesterday Putin's speaker Peskow has declared the war will at least continue till Russia has conquered the complete Donetsk region.

No ukrainian government could accept this. And the UN can't accept this either if a nation with atomic weapons can get away with onesided annexations.

Even China will not accept this, as it would be a precedent for its minorities (territorial changes because of a onesided referendum).

So does this mean Poland and Lithuania can invade the Grodno region of Belarus now to liberate historic regions of the Polish Lithuania commonwealth and save ethnic Poles and Lithuanians from oppression? And Putin would be OK with that?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

No no, that would not be ok, because Poland and Lithuania are vasalls of the US, so literally the US would annex this territory to the US empire and we have heard it 1000 times, only the US are the bad imperialist boy. ^^

[Nebaki]

(territorial changes because of a onesided referendum).

Just taking a note here that our beloved Member "Morticia lunia Bruti" does not agree with onesided claims, referendum aswell treaties. Well isn´t this even against the UN-Charta?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

After reading the UN-Charta i'm quite sure that disputes between states about territories shall be resolved with mutual agreement, not with an invasion and by only one side for valid declared referendum with following annexation.

[conon394]

No no, that would not be ok, because Poland and Lithuania are vasalls of the US, so literally the US would annex this territory to the US empire and we have heard it 1000 times, only the US are the bad imperialist boy. ^^

Right I forgot only the US has agency.

Thing is if the US is such an empire why does my wife at the USDA had to go through so much red tape to partially fund a post doc in Germany and collaborate with a PhD professor in Poland on grain genetics? Its almost like they are separate sovereign countries.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Don't ask me i'm not such a kind of conspiracy theorist with so much fantasy to explain this.

[Ukiah]

[saamohod]

An opinion of a Russian historian Kamil Galeyev:


"I think Kremlin may view nuclear strike on Ukraine (with an American retaliatory strike) as a rational move. It may not make much sense in the context of foreign policy, but it does in the context of domestic policy. Meanwhile foreign policy is just domestic policy by other means.


My argument is based on three premises: 1. Foreign policy serves domestic policy goals 2. Keeping power is *the* top priority of domestic policy 3. Kremlin is looking for a way out of the conflict Launching a nuclear strike and getting a retaliatory one may be seen as a way out.


If Putin is looking for a way out, that probably means he is looking for a way out that would allow him to keep the supreme political power. Which may be incompatible with suffering a humiliating military defeat from a supposedly inferior force. Like Japan in 1905 and Ukraine now.


Many argued that Putin should be allowed to "save face". The thing is: it is nearly impossible for him to save face at this point. Inability to crush Ukraine is already a loss of face, no matter how you frame it. For a simple reason that Ukraine had been considered an inferior.


The very idea that Ukraine can stand its ground against Russia would have been considered totally insane at the start of this year, both in Russia and outside of it. The fact that it does means that Putin has already suffered a major loss of face, and will continue suffering it.


To keep power, you need to save face. And how can you save face? One obvious solution is: try to engage with the U.S. Make a nuclear strike that would inflict an American retaliatory strike. If you and your power survives that, that gonna be total win. Absolute victory.


Russian public opinion considers Ukraine as absolutely inferior. That is why standards for not losing face in this conflict are pretty high. Since Ukraine is so ridiculous, inability to crush it is humiliating, no matter how you frame it. You can't defeat it, you lose your face.


But Russian public opinion does not view the US as inferior, it's the other way around. That is why standards for not losing face in a conflict with the US are so much lower. I would say that inability of the US to crush Russia would be seen as American loss and Putin's win.


Compare two scenarios: 1. Russia engages Ukraine. Then Russia not crushing Ukraine is Ukrainian victory. High bar 2. US engages Russia. Then the US not crushing Russia is Russian victory. (Seemingly) low bar He absolutely may choose 2 as the bar for not losing face is lower.


I would even say that provoking an American retaliatory strike may boost the regime. The US tried to defeat us, used the deadly force, but we still exist - that's the story of honour, heroism and stoicism. For the Putin's target audience I mean. That's a great and powerful myth.


Meanwhile, mobilization may stabilize the regime by simply getting rid of young males that could otherwise create problems. For example, if they were recruited by anti-regime forces, should the supreme power weaken. The less young males in the country, the stronger is Kremlin."

[Lord Thesaurian]

To keep power, you need to save face. And how can you save face? One obvious solution is: try to engage with the U.S. Make a nuclear strike that would inflict an American retaliatory strike. If you and your power survives that, that gonna be total win. Absolute victory.

1. How lol
2. Why would the US nuke Russia unless Russia nukes the US? MAD no longer applies?