Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Ludicus]

Sounds painfully obvious.
----
Diplomacy Watch: Ukrainian officers tied to Nord Stream blasts
The plot thickens as Germany issues its first arrest warrant in the case.

This week a German prosecutor quietly issued an arrest warrant for a man authorities say was part of a small team of private Ukrainian patriots who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines on September 26, 2022. Reporting by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday suggests otherwise: that the saboteurs may have been private actors, some of them professional divers, who carried out the elaborate blasts along the pipelines, but they were assisted by top officers in the Ukrainian military.
The Journal spoke to four senior Ukrainian defense and security officials who either participated in or had direct knowledge of the plot. All of them said the pipelines were a legitimate target in Ukraine’s war of defense against Russia.
The Wall Street Journal called it “one of the most audacious acts of sabotage in modern history, the operation worsened an energy crisis in Europe — an assault on critical infrastructure that could be considered an act of war under international law.” Yet the officers called it a legitimate target in Ukraine’s war of defense against Russia.
But was it? The countries of Denmark, Germany, Finland and Sweden might disagree. The pipelines traverse their economic zones in the Baltic Sea. All are NATO members (Finland and Sweden were officially brought in a year after the blasts), and all had been impacted, as had the European community in general, by the longterm loss of energy supplies due to the attack. The pipelines were majority owned (51 percent) by Russian Gazprom, along with German, Dutch and French stakeholders. EU countries were getting 35% of their natural gas supplies from Nord Stream 1 which was shut down a few months before the blast due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
According to the WSJ, “the German investigation is now focusing on Zaluzhniy and his aides, people familiar with the probe say, although they have no evidence that could be presented in court.”

The Real Story of the Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage - Wall Street Journal.

----
Google translate: Erster Haftbefehl wegen Nord-Stream-Anschlägen

Ralf Stegner (SPD), Geheimdienst-Kontrolleur im Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremium, zeigte sich gegenüber ZDFheute erfreut über den Haftbefehl:
Der GBA ist dran geblieben, während andere Länder die Ermittlungen eingestellt haben. Das zeichnet den deutschen Rechtsstaat aus.
Ralf Stegner, Mitglied im Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremium

They praise themselves; they brag about it: "we are better than the others". But then they say nothing is going to change. They're going to issue arrest warrants for one, two or three guys and that's it.
And if they arrest any of them - which I doubt - they'll certainly sentence the unfortunate terrorist to a prison sentence. The moral of this surreal story: Justice only reaches the people behind crimes when they're not our friends.

[Mithradates]

I never got how that line (Russia will invade the Eu) convinces some people. Is it the same Russia which in two years hasn't won against Ukraine (with Nato backing)? Is Russia suicidal?
Or maybe it's just a line to try to "explain" why Ukraine is (for non-Ukrainians; for Ukrainians it obviously is and should be) so important.
Besides, in a war "with the Eu", nukes would be used, so there isn't a defense against that; Russia would die too, of course. Maybe those people secretly think that the Eu will rather sacrifice the baltic outremer.

Russia will not invade a EU or NATO country because they are being stopped in Ukraine. If they could get away with the Ukrainian invasion, next they would go after Moldova, then Georgia and eventually they would try their luck with the Baltic states. Lets not get there, they will be stopped in Ukraine, and everyone should get the message that land grabbing wars will not happen in Europe anymore.

Oh, and Ukraine is in Europe and the EU has claim on Europe, so Russia can kindly off.

[Kyriakos]

I got news for you, Moldova and Georgia aren't in the Eu either - much like Ukraine. And those baltic microstates (=>I don't mean Poland) are outremer. Eu didn't form in 2004, the organization was there in one form or other since 1957 (or 1952 for the coal and steel union).
As for "Eu has a claim on Europe", Russia is 2/5 of Europe.

[Mithradates]

I got news for you, Moldova and Georgia aren't in the Eu either - much like Ukraine.

All of them wants to join the EU, and all of them will join the EU. Whats your point?

And those baltic microstates (=>I don't mean Poland) are outremer.

I have no idea what you are saying here, or what that word means.

Eu didn't form in 2004, the organization was there in one form or other since 1957 (or 1952 for the coal and steel union).

Yes?

As for "Eu has a claim on Europe", Russia is 2/5 of Europe.

Your point?

[Alastor]

All of them wants to join the EU, and all of them will join the EU. Whats your point?

No, they will not, just like Ukraine will not or the EU is dead. if anything letting the former communist bloc countries join was already a step too far and a mistake that ended up creating this incredibly dysfunctional and highly vulnerable union we have today. I have said many times, the EU needs to grow deeper, not wider. Otherwise it will not last. if the EU wants to grow wider, then maybe it will be time for Benelux/France/Germany to create a different more integrated organization and supplant the EU from within.

[Kyriakos]

The 2004 expansion happened mainly because UK insisted -and they insisted exactly to secure that Eu would never be more than a loose connection of countries (and not a federation etc). Of course a decade and change later, UK left.
The 2004 expansion should never had happened. Almost all of those countries were incompatible with the previous Eu (not all, but almost all) and virtually all of them were in the soviet sphere for decades. Lastly, the expansion set the ground for what we have now, a border of the Eu with Russia - another thing which never should had happened - and the inevitable friction/war.

[Mithradates]

No, they will not, just like Ukraine will not or the EU is dead. if anything letting the former communist bloc countries join was already a step too far and a mistake that ended up creating this incredibly dysfunctional and highly vulnerable union we have today. I have said many times, the EU needs to grow deeper, not wider. Otherwise it will not last. if the EU wants to grow wider, then maybe it will be time for Benelux/France/Germany to create a different more integrated organization and supplant the EU from within.

I agree with that.

The 2004 expansion happened mainly because UK insisted -and they insisted exactly to secure that Eu would never be more than a loose connection of countries (and not a federation etc). Of course a decade and change later, UK left.
The 2004 expansion should never had happened. Almost all of those countries were incompatible with the previous Eu (not all, but almost all) and virtually all of them were in the soviet sphere for decades. Lastly, the expansion set the ground for what we have now, a border of the Eu with Russia - another thing which never should had happened - and the inevitable friction/war.

This again.
The EU country with the longest border with Russia is Finland (1271.8 km), and they joined in 1995.

Every non-EU member European country which borders Russia has already been invaded by Russia, so having non EU member countries next to Russia is what brings, and will always bring war to Europe.

[Kyriakos]

You act like 1995 is the start of the Eu project; they are closer to the 2004 mass expansion due to the region; while the previous expansion was again with a 9 year gap (Portugal/Spain), those had no geopolitical overlap with Russia, unlike the baltic. Besides, at that time they were firmly under finlandization.
It's undeniable that without the mass expansion of 2004, we wouldn't have this situation now. And since I fear (maybe wrongly) that you took offense at what you thought was an insinuation against Hungary, I actually count Hungary (which I had visited long before it joined the Eu) among the very few 2004 members which could have been compatible.

[Loyt]

I think that the only good strategic value of Ukraine's invasion of Kursk is that Russia is unlikely to be able to use complete obliteration tactics there - unlike what it does in Ukraine.

Nah, it's their only working strategy atm, they won't give up their biggest military advantage. From Kremlin its all far away lands, who cares? Technically, almost all already destroyed cities, towns and villages are "russian property" too by their new constitution.

[Kyriakos]

Well they could (as long as the area taken over is little) resettle everyone in Moscow or St Petersburg, somewhere nice with perks - and then level their properties along with the Ukrainian army there.
It is still different than doing it in lands which they control in Ukraine
Very dangerous, of course. Imagine if someone had invaded the US. I am sure we'd hear a lot more talk of nukes etc.

[Loyt]

Well they could (as long as the area taken over is little) resettle everyone in Moscow or St Petersburg, somewhere nice with perks

Good joke! In reality they already moving refugees into Zaporizhzhia oblast. Yes, it is in occupied territory of Ukraine, where war is going on. Who cares about some noname russians and their wellbeing?

It is still different than doing it in lands which they control in Ukraine

What is the difference? Putin promized those refugees about 150 euro compensation, 750 euro if their property got damaged. It's nothing, and i bet where will be a lot of problems to receive even that.
And some civilians just stay no matter what.

[Mithradates]

You act like 1995 is the start of the Eu project; they are closer to the 2004 mass expansion due to the region; while the previous expansion was again with a 9 year gap (Portugal/Spain), those had no geopolitical overlap with Russia, unlike the baltic. Besides, at that time they were firmly under finlandization.
It's undeniable that without the mass expansion of 2004, we wouldn't have this situation now. And since I fear (maybe wrongly) that you took offense at what you thought was an insinuation against Hungary, I actually count Hungary (which I had visited long before it joined the Eu) among the very few 2004 members which could have been compatible.

All these countries were already NATO members when they joined the EU. I assume you think their admission to NATO was another grave mistake?

Well they could (as long as the area taken over is little) resettle everyone in Moscow or St Petersburg, somewhere nice with perks - and then level their properties along with the Ukrainian army there.
It is still different than doing it in lands which they control in Ukraine
Very dangerous, of course. Imagine if someone had invaded the US. I am sure we'd hear a lot more talk of nukes etc.

There are two main kind of Russian propaganda, one for Westerners:
Ukrainians are Nazis, they sell the western weapons on the black market, red line, red line, nukes, ww3, stop supporting Ukraine or we all gonna die because of YOU, the Russian army has so far restrained itself but they will show how powerful they are, red line etc.

And also there is another propaganda for the Russian people:
Everything is going according to the plan, the Special Military Operation is a total success, western weapons are bad and wont help Ukraine, Russia is fighting NATO in Ukraine, if NATO wins every Russian will be killed but Russia is WINNING so dont worry

So, a couple of things, as Loyt said, they are moving the Kursk residents to Zaporizhzhia, Putin would not allow them to move to Moscow. How would it look if 200k refugees would suddenly show up in Moscow? What would happen to the narrative that everything is OK?

The Russian army will not level any settlement, they never did, actually, all those destroyed cities like Mariupol were destroyed by the Azov Nazis.
In a more serious non-propaganda light the Ukrainians could invade Kursk easily because Russias border isnt guarded by contract soldiers, the borders are guarded by 18-19 years old conscripts serving their one year mandatory service and instead of fighting (very wisely) they run away or surrender.
To handle the Kursk situation Russia will have to move troops from the southern front, Russia has no real reserves left, everybody is in Ukraine.

Imagine if someone had invaded the US. I am sure we'd hear a lot more talk of nukes etc.

Like if the US would invade Mexico to change the regime but they would be stuck for two and a half years in Coahuila without any chance to reach Mexico City, then thousand of Mexican soldiers would break into Texas to capture 80+ villages and the US army couldnt kick them out for 13 days, meanwhile a drunk Blinken would start threatening everybody with nukes?
(just to show how embarrassing the Kursk incursion is for Russia)

Lukashenko: Ukraine will applaud Russia’s use of tactical nuclear weapons

"Such escalation on the part of Ukraine is an attempt to push Russia to asymmetric actions. Well, let's say to use nuclear weapons. I know for sure that Ukraine would be very happy if Russia or we used tactical nuclear weapons there. They will applaud it," Aleksandr Lukashenko said. “Then, probably, we would hardly have allies left. In general, there would be no even sympathetic countries left."

If Russia would use any nukes they would instantly lose the support of China.
Also, why would Russia nuke anything? They are WINNING and everything is going according to the plan, remember?

[Kyriakos]

You don't seem to care that the moment nukes are used, we can be near very serious and irreversible change for the worse on a planetary scale; Russia losing China's support would then be the least on your mind.
Was it worth it? For either side? Will Ukraine or Eu baltic countries' worries matter then?
I think that the way things are, it's something which if it happens won't surprise anyone, but still many act like it is literally impossible.

[PointOfViewGun]

I can't with confidence say that Russia would not consider nuking Kyiv and then argue that it simply did what USA did with Japan. The response to that may not be the all out war we think a nuclear war would cause. USA will not launch nukes to Russia if they detect a single missile flying towards Kyiv.

[Loyt]

You don't seem to care that the moment nukes are used, we can be near very serious and irreversible change for the worse on a planetary scale

No, nuclear weapons harm is very exagerrated in public mind. Even all-out exchange is dangerous mostly to target countries. No one will spare rocket for Greece, don't worry.
And in context of Ukraine, threats are about tactical nuclear weaponry. Those are only a little more powerful than aerial bombs dropped by tens and sometimes hundreds in one day in this war.
Of course it will be very bad, if Russia will use it. But it won't even bring a lot of military advantage in modern war. Most effective way to use whose is unironically to teror attack densely populated cities. Planet will be fine anyway.

[Kyriakos]

Glad you feel that way, and thanks for sparing Greece as I don't feel like dying, that's for the noble ones (or maybe just the dumb ones).

[Mithradates]

You don't seem to care that the moment nukes are used, we can be near very serious and irreversible change for the worse on a planetary scale; Russia losing China's support would then be the least on your mind.
Was it worth it? For either side? Will Ukraine or Eu baltic countries' worries matter then?
I think that the way things are, it's something which if it happens won't surprise anyone, but still many act like it is literally impossible.

There are two main kind of Russian propaganda, one for Westerners:
Ukrainians are Nazis, they sell the western weapons on the black market, red line, red line, nukes, ww3, stop supporting Ukraine or we all gonna die because of YOU, the Russian army has so far restrained itself but they will show how powerful they are, red line etc.

It seems to work lol

I can't with confidence say that Russia would not consider nuking Kyiv and then argue that it simply did what USA did with Japan. The response to that may not be the all out war we think a nuclear war would cause. USA will not launch nukes to Russia if they detect a single missile flying towards Kyiv.

There is a difference, after the surrender, Japan still could keep... well, Japan, their Emperor, their language, their culture, the same is not true for Ukraine, if they would surrender they would cease to exist as Ukrainians so even if they get nuked they will not surrender, and Russia knows this.
Doesnt really matter, because in domestic Russian propaganda Ukrainians are fellow "Russians" living under the yoke of the gay Zelensky and his Nazis, it would make no sense to nuke the people you claim to want to liberate.

No, nuclear weapons harm is very exagerrated in public mind. Even all-out exchange is dangerous mostly to target countries. No one will spare rocket for Greece, don't worry.
And in context of Ukraine, threats are about tactical nuclear weaponry. Those are only a little more powerful than aerial bombs dropped by tens and sometimes hundreds in one day in this war.
Of course it will be very bad, if Russia will use it. But it won't even bring a lot of military advantage in modern war. Most effective way to use whose is unironically to teror attack densely populated cities. Planet will be fine anyway.

Also any talk of normalization of the use of tactical nuclear weapons would make China furious, Im pretty sure Xi already made this clear to Putin a long time ago.
(The idea that someone would use tactical nuclear weapons against a Chinese naval and amphibious force massed in the Taiwan Strait in the initial stages of an invasion, what a dream killer.)

[Kyriakos]

The reason Japan capitulated (at least according to a famous member of the scientific community back in the day) was not the nukes themselves but Russia entering the war. Japan knew perfectly well that, unlike the US, Russia would keep anything it occupied and never leave.
Of course all that was at the tail end of a massive world war. If Russia nukes Kiev etc, the result will be very different, but ultimately it will mean that Ukraine doesn't exist any more.

[AqD]

No, they will not, just like Ukraine will not or the EU is dead. if anything letting the former communist bloc countries join was already a step too far and a mistake that ended up creating this incredibly dysfunctional and highly vulnerable union we have today. I have said many times, the EU needs to grow deeper, not wider. Otherwise it will not last. if the EU wants to grow wider, then maybe it will be time for Benelux/France/Germany to create a different more integrated organization and supplant the EU from within.

Regardless, the border of the union does not end anywhere.

Are you familiar with how lawless gangs work? Attacking anyone for wanting to join a gang is the same as attacking the gang itself, a slap on the gang leader's face. It must be punished and made an example of. The crime is not about the attack itself but the reason of the attack. And yes it'd be a fight for survival, because gang is held together by perceived respect and power. Any gang not protecting its members or friends would quickly lose all friends and allies and then disintegrate.

International politics is no different, since there are no real laws and it's up to each group to enforce their perceived rules and maintain control.

[Papay]

Julian Röpcke🇺🇦 on X: "#NewsMap The Russian invasion army captured the Donbas town of Niu-York (formerly 9,000 inhabitants), Russian and Ukrainian sources report accordingly. No visual confirmation yet. https://t.co/3EkavGp6NQ" / X

Meantime in Donbass...