Russia vs Ukraine: Crimean Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Orionblamblam said:
Avimimus said:
On the other hand - claiming that the true Ukraine is Western Ukraine and demanding territorial integrity for the Ukraine - including the Russian regions, while trying to suppress the Russian language... well, it puts people in those regions in a bit of a difficult situation.

It is my understanding that the majority of the Russian-speakers in Ukraine are Stalin-era imports and their descendants. Thus, Ukraine demanding that they learn Ukrainian is no more a difficult situation than France demanding that Algerian immigrants learn French, or Denmark demanding that Egyptian immigrants learn Danish, or Japan demanding that immigrants learn Japanese.

Lots of minorities even in the 19th century:
ethnic_composition_Ukraine_Southern_Russia_1897.jpg


Ethnic nationalism is a dangerous game to play - as is any claim to restoring past ethnic territories.

Consider - A mere 150 years ago large parts of the United States were in Native American hands... - or the history of Spanish speakers in Texas and other parts of the United States...
 
Orionblamblam said:
Sure. It's not 'good vs bad," it's "freakin' incompetent vs bad."

You really do only believe in a black and white world don't you? No shades of grey allowed. ::)
 
Orionblamblam said:
As far as the whole "we should see it from Russias point of view" WRT glomming onto regions populated by ethnic/cultural Russians... I'd be a lot more sanguine if Vlad was more willing to let go of regions *not* overly populated by ethnic/cultural Russians.

So, if Texas wanted to succeed from the Union, you'd be willing to support it? What if that meant the US was going to be cut off completely from all revenue raised in the Gulf of Mexico oil fields? Still willing to support it? There is a reason why the US has never supported the Chechyians. It sets a bad precedence.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Avimimus said:
On the other hand - claiming that the true Ukraine is Western Ukraine and demanding territorial integrity for the Ukraine - including the Russian regions, while trying to suppress the Russian language... well, it puts people in those regions in a bit of a difficult situation.

It is my understanding that the majority of the Russian-speakers in Ukraine are Stalin-era imports and their descendants. Thus, Ukraine demanding that they learn Ukrainian is no more a difficult situation than France demanding that Algerian immigrants learn French, or Denmark demanding that Egyptian immigrants learn Danish, or Japan demanding that immigrants learn Japanese.

You seem to believe that Russian and Ukranian are two completely different languages. They aren't. They are in fact the same language. Ukranian uses slightly different pronunciation and some different words to Russian but it's nearly impossible to tell them apart. They also share a common alphabet. This is more like Canadian versus United States English than anything else. It would be like the rest of the world telling the United States it needs to learn how to spell correctly and stop dropping it's "u" and "e" letters from words.

You also seem to think that Russian is only spoken in the East. It isn't. It's spoken throughout the Ukraine, just as is Ukrainian is spoken in the East, many households are bilingual and there are no major ethnic differences between Russians and Ukranians either. As for most Russian speakers being "recent" immigrants to the Ukraine, that is like suggesting that most citizens of the United States are recent immigrants. Russians have been moving into the Ukraine for the last 200 years, well before Stalin.
 
Kadija_Man said:
You really do only believe in a black and white world don't you? No shades of grey allowed. ::)

...

So, if Texas wanted to succeed from the Union, you'd be willing to support it?

I've got to admit, your ability to draw *precisely* the wrong message is impressive. I give you a third option other than good and bad, and you decree that I can only see two options. I argue against partitioning Ukraine along ethnic lines, and you think that means I'd support Texas seceding. Wow. Just... wow.


To any moderators reading along: Can we PLEASE get an "ignore" function installed so I can start ignoring the idiots?
 
Avimimus said:
Ethnic nationalism is a dangerous game to play - as is any claim to restoring past ethnic territories.

As we've seen in Palestine, the Balkans, Rwanda, Myanmar, etc.

Consider - A mere 150 years ago large parts of the United States were in Native American hands... - or the history of Spanish speakers in Texas and other parts of the United States...

It always pays to remember that to many Americans last week is "ancient history". Whereas to many other societies 200 years ago was "yesterday".
 
Kadija_Man said:
It always pays to remember that to many Americans last week is "ancient history". Whereas to many other societies 200 years ago was "yesterday".

It's not a 100% match (some Americans still get their panties in wad over their ancestors having lost The War Of Southern Aggression), but there is truth in that. And I like the American approach better. Some European tribes are still bickering over nonsensical crap that happened centuries ago. It wasn't that long ago that Irish were killing each other over which particular Jesus Fan Club had the best newsletter. While in the US... who cares? It's ancient history.
 
Orionblamblam said:
It wasn't that long ago that Irish were killing each other over which particular Jesus Fan Club had the best newsletter.

The Irish Troubles were not about Catholicism vs Protestantism which is better? It was about who was controlling Ulster with sole access to all the goodies at that contemporary time. The same goes for any other recent or historical conflict anywhere in the world: America and Europe inclusive.
 
It would be a longer term approach but you could announce it right away. The US could lift its' energy export controls and start shipping excess nat. gas in the form of LNG to Europe and break Moscow's near gas monopoly in Europe and the Ukraine.

Over the longer term you could help places like Poland and the Ukraine frack its shale gas deposits and eventually get close to energy independence. This is what Moscow and Putin fear most IMHO.

I am trying to find an article that talks about Moscow's support of European anti-fracking groups while they frack away in Russia.
 
bobbymike said:
It would be a longer term approach but you could announce it right away. The US could lift its' energy export controls and start shipping excess nat. gas in the form of LNG to Europe and break Moscow's near gas monopoly in Europe and the Ukraine.

Or the US could finally pull its thumb out and get serious about thorium reactors. Crank 'em out like Model T's, and put the kybosh on other energy sources.
 
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
It would be a longer term approach but you could announce it right away. The US could lift its' energy export controls and start shipping excess nat. gas in the form of LNG to Europe and break Moscow's near gas monopoly in Europe and the Ukraine.

Or the US could finally pull its thumb out and get serious about thorium reactors. Crank 'em out like Model T's, and put the kybosh on other energy sources.

Sounds like a great short, mid and long term agenda;

1) Ship LNG ASAP
2) Help countries develop their own nat. gas resources
3) Develop thorium reactors for export
 
4. Chase up that Lockheed high-beta fusion reactor system because fusion's cool.
 
What is really going on here is this:

Apart from the obvious fact that Russia have a major naval base there and they also needs to retain access to the sea from the south what this is all about here is nothing more than an authoritarian regime which is trying to divert attention of its population from its own internal problems by playing the nationalism card and going into a full blown war with a neighbor. Russia is under pressure from both the inside and the outside since a while. Since Putin came into power democratic rights in Russia have been eroded more and more. There have also been a policy of slow encirclement of Russia since several US administrations. They witnessed US and NATO troops just south of one of their (former) borders in Afghanistan, Georgia aligning itself with the West, anti-ballistic missiles which might get stationed in Poland, US bases and troops in former Soviet republics near Afghanistan, etc.

Also, consider that for Russians, their lives lost in WWII are still very fresh in their mind and also the fact that many Ukrainians sided with Nazi Germany in WWII, thus the Russian retoric about 'fascists from the West'.

So to relieve the pressure Putin is doing what others have tried before him: the Argentinian regime going into the Falklands because they though the old British lion no longer had teeth. Thus Argentine mobilized troops and stirred up nationalism over the ownership of the Falkland islands. Then there is the temptation of preying on a country that is weakened by a recent revolution. The Prussians did just that and attacked France just after their revolution (La Guerre des Sans-Culottes). Saddam Hussein also did the same with the Iranians during their revolution (though in their case it turned into a 10 year long nightmare trench war because they met more resistance than expected).

If you take this into perspective, consider that for Russia what is going on in Ukraine is a bit the same as if Texas tried to get independent and wanted to align itself with Russia, China and Venezuela, and with their political help.

So i don`t see anyone in the West who would be willing to go into war over Ukraine, as sad as that can be for the aspirations of Ukrainians. Or maybe they should have retained their stockpile of nuclear weapons and Blackjack bombers after all, then they would have a solid argument to tell the other side to get lost. Still, even if they still had those, it is not hard to imagine that Russia`s reaction would have been even more swift with pre-emptive seizing of those weapons and strategic military airports with special troops even faster than what we are seeing now.

As for sanctions, this will just send Russia into the arms of India, Brazil and maybe even China faster that you think, as someone else said. This in the short term is probably the end of the G-8 and probably G-20 and the beginning of another block including the fastest growing economies of the globe (Russia, China, Brazil, India) against the economies of Europe and the US and a few other countries.

Just my 2 cents. Now i will let armchair generals continue to play Crimean war 2 and reinventing the world with nuclear reactors.

And for those who dream of turning whole countries into seismic zones and sludge wastelands, a far better alternative: wind farms built on the ocean and solar power and wind mills for every family house to make those independent from foreign power sources, and also geothermic power. It sure works for Denmark (off-shore windmills). Another funny fact (depending on how you look at it): Quebec now officially have TOO MUCH energy and we don`t know what to do with it. We may actually have to stop work on several Major dam projects currently underway due to competition from cheap (but highly damagable for the ground water sources and for the soil (earthquake risks) natural gas obtained through fracking in the US. So there is plenty of electricity to sell here. Natural gas may burn more cleanly than coal, but the enormous environmental cost of fracking (with gazillions of litres of toxic chemicals injected into the soil and the ground water), weakening of the geological structure of the soil and toll on the health of people who live near gas wells (sour gas, constant explosions days and night under your property, heavy trucking traffic (and more burning of oil, more global climate warming) and all the sludge ponds... all that adds up for what little quick cash the few crass rich stock holders will make and for what little advantage others will get).

When oil and gas companies start to look at fracking to extract bubbles of gas from rock, you know they are really at the very end of the roll. Next they will turn to what ? Cutting trees to make oil ? Oh, but wait, they already started... (how long does it take for forests to re-grow again ?)
 
Desert Dawn said:
Sanctions ? This will just send Russia into the arms of India, Brazil and maybe even China faster that you think, as someone else said. This in the short term is probably the end of the G-8 and probably G-20 and the beginning of another block including the fastest growing economies of the globe (Russia, China, Brazil, India) against the economies of Europe and the US and a few other countries.

The economic impacts of this crisis are already starting and its very bad news for Russia. They lack the financial resources and the place in the global economy to do anything other than suffer under a western full or partial embargo. Sure they sell a lot of oil and gas but so do a lot of other places and their oil has a much smaller profit margin for them than other suppliers and their gas is mostly locked into export (pipeline infrastructure) to Europe so no customers no dollars. Without modernisation of its industry Russia has little to offer the new economic powers of the world. And the only place to buy this modernisation is in the west. Without this access in the future things will not look good for Russia. There is no way Brazil, India and China are going to choose Russia over the west when it comes to economic policies, trade and finance. The G-20 will survive without Russia as it’s far too important a means to bring the important economies of the world together.
 
Desert Dawn said:
When oil and gas companies start to look at fracking to extract bubbles of gas from rock, you know they are at the very end of the roll. Next they will turn to what ? Cutting trees to make oil ? Oh, but wait, they already started... (how long does it take for forests to re-grow again ?)

150 years ago we used to think the best place to get oil was from the blubber of whales. Predicting the demise of the oil industry has been popular for some time yet it hasn’t happened. Fracking isn’t 1/10th as hard, dangerous or whatever as the hippies would like to believe it is. It certainly isn't as difficult as mining it in the frozen north of Siberia and Alaska. And there are many other ways of acquiring oil that aren't being used because the technology cost isn't economical at the moment. They may not be as simple as sticking a shallow pipe into the ground where it seeps out of the land under natural pressure but there is plenty of energy there for the taking.
 
Desert Dawn said:
And for those who dream of turning whole countries into seismic zones..

Seismic zones? Apart from Lex Luthor, I've not heard of anyone planning on weaponizing earthquakes.

Next they will turn to what ? Cutting trees to make oil ? Oh, but wait, they already started... (how long does it take for forests to re-grow again ?)

Really damn fast, if you aren't stuck on using trees as your feedstock. See: Kudzu. Stuff's great at turning carbon dioxide and water into organic matter ready to be fed into any of a number of "green" fuel synthesizers.

In fact, a combination of thorium reactors on a vast scale and TDP plants could fill all the worlds energy needs. Solar and wind would make nice niche power plants for a few places. As the eastern half of the US has shown this winter, jsut when you need power most is just when you don't need Fenrir swallowing the sun for weeks at a time.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
author=Desert Dawn link=topic=21585.msg214044#msg214044 date=1393831025]



The economic impacts of this crisis are already starting and its very bad news for Russia. They lack the financial resources and the place in the global economy to do anything other than suffer under a western full or partial embargo. Sure they sell a lot of oil and gas but so do a lot of other places and their oil has a much smaller profit margin for them than other suppliers and their gas is mostly locked into export (pipeline infrastructure) to Europe so no customers no dollars. Without modernisation of its industry Russia has little to offer the new economic powers of the world. And the only place to buy this modernisation is in the west. Without this access in the future things will not look good for Russia. There is no way Brazil, India and China are going to choose Russia over the west when it comes to economic policies, trade and finance. The G-20 will survive without Russia as it’s far too important a means to bring the important economies of the world together.




Sanctions never worked very well in general on a country that`s fully intact. They certainly never worked against South Africa, in the contrary, they developed their own arms industry, designed their own ballistic missile, built their own nuclear bombs and turned their coal into oil and fuel for their army. They received plenty of help from many nations who helped them among other things with their arms industry. That did not stop them from having to sue for peace though when they lost militarily to the Soviet bloc countries they were fighting with. And Russia will be nowhere as 'isolated' as the apartheid regime was back then, unless maybe if they commit massive bloodshed. Also being a permanent member of the UN security council as well along with China... We can turn it whichever way we want, it won't work unless every single nation short of say N. Korea, Iran and Venezuela turned against them (or if we had a new Kennedy or a new Ronald Reagan in the picture, but the world is now slightly different than it was during the 1960's and 80's).

As for oil, have you read the news lately ? Canada, the US and Russia plus a few European countries are already drilling or want to drill in the Arctic for oil, and even China is interested and wants to have a say about that region. There is no shortage of oil for Russia there. The Chinese industry needs plenty of it and they are just south of Russia. Whichever way they want to transport it (by boat, pipelines or trains or trucks, they will do what it takes to carry it to them i am sure). And China will buy oil from ANYONE and almost no matter what. Try to find a book called La Chine-Afrique. It is an eye opener. It`s most likely been traduced in English by now. Every single US diplomat who works in Africa have no doubt already read it. The genocide in Darfur was heavily fueled by the Chinese presence in Soudan for exemple and its heavy involved into the oil industry there. It almost cost the Tchadian gov`t its head too (when they helped and refuelled at one of their oil bases a heavy party of anti-Tchadian guerrillas on their way to try to topple that gov't. However, in the end, and with an ongoing genocide in front of them, they eventually had to push their ally the Sudanese president to make a 'peace' deal with Darfur and let them make a referendum. Now that South Soudan is a new country and that the war have re-ignited there via various proxies and milicias, it looks like that peace deal was maybe just dust in the eyes and neither Sudan nor China were ready to let South Sudan get away with the oil... Just an example to show that no matter how messy things can be, anyone who`s got oil to sell will always find a regime which is less demanding than others about its source and the lack of human rights records associated with it in today`s world economy. Sure China would prefer to be energetically independant from Russia (not to end up in a blackmail scenario like Ukraine with the Russian gas before), thus what we are seeing in the Senkakku islands and elsewhere in that region. But some countries that don`t necessarily go along have made deals before (such as the Soviets and Germany in WWII, even though that deal did not last long). I am not keeping my fingers crossed though, this is no longer the Cold War, no matter what some might think and i think that in a few months this will probably already have been forgotten as a 'larger-size Georgia incident'.

As for fracking, the ignorant and those who do not have that in their own backyard can keep on talking, but get back to me and bring me your health record when they will start fracking all over your property and under your feet. When that happens you most likely will find yourself suddenly transformed into a full blown 'hippy' :D (trust me, you will enjoy it, and you will feel better)(for some it is a slow change, for others it is only until they see the truth under their nose that they wake up). Many years ago we had an oil rig right behind our home. That was mere centimeters from our property. Back then they decided not to proceed with exploiting that resource because the price for oil was much lower than today making it impossible to make a profit from it as the reserves were too small. Now they are back and they want to drill everywhere (including inside major towns). Only problem the majority of the population is against them so they are trying every kind of tricks including tribunals to have their way. Also for your info there were 2 oil slicks in the bay in the place where i lived back then. One of which fairly major and caused by a large barge from an oil company filled with oil. Now put pil rigs and start blasting the ground and injecting toxic chemicals all over a region that is one of the most touristic of the province and which also depends on the fishing industry for its livelyhood (remember the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana ? They also want to drill in the sea here) and you have what you call a disaster.

When you weight the cost of healthcare for the population and the oil workers in the affected area (fracking) AFTER the drilling is over and they have pumped everything there was to pump plus the lost revenues from the economies they affected by their operations plus what few billions (not many) they will put in state coffers to cover our growing cost of public health care, they will soon realize that they made a very bad deal. I could go on an on about the oil industry here on how (locally) it eventually turned against the gov't EACH time they invested in that field in the past. Many millions of taxpayers money were lost when, suddenly, when the 'bright idea' of getting rich quick with one of these turned into ' sorry, we are closing and demolishing the whole operation because the cost of the raw materials have gone up a few cents more. These people never learn (and they were economist and ex-economy ministers... it`s always the taxpayers money they burn for these projects that end up in failure (closed down due to an economic downturn or price rise), so they don`t care).
 
Avimimus said:
Ethnic nationalism is a dangerous game to play - as is any claim to restoring past ethnic territories.

oh there another Political hot spot in East Europe with same possibility for War.

Hungary
for moment under a far right, ok let label them what they really are: a Nazi government.
Anti-Semitic is very popular in Hungary for moment and attacks on jews are now happing daily.
the Government of Viktor Orbán make regular statements,
about "injustice that happen to Hungary nation" he means WW1 and WW2 and 1953 Uprise
and that a "Hungary empire" has to be restore for all Hungarians. if necessary by War and ethnic cleansing.

Map were Hungarians live in East Europe.

That would lead to war with Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria and Ukraine.

Let see if the Orbán government use the opportunity and march into west Ukraine to "protect" the Hungarians minority...
 
Desert Dawn said:
Sanctions never worked very well in general on a country that`s fully intact. They certainly never worked against South Africa, in the contrary, they developed their own arms industry, designed their own ballistic missile, built their own nuclear bombs and turned their coal into oil and fuel for their army. They received plenty of help from many nations who helped them among other things with their arms industry. That did not stop them from having to sue for peace though when they lost militarily to the Soviet bloc countries they were fighting with. And Russia will be nowhere as 'isolated' as the apartheid regime was back then, unless maybe if they commit massive bloodshed. Also being a permanent member of the UN security council as well along with China... We can turn it whichever way we want, it won't work unless every single nation short of say N. Korea, Iran and Venezuela turned against them.

You are talking about apples here when we I was talking about oranges. This isn’t going to be a case of a UN arms embargo on Russia. But rather western nations stopping trade with Russia. This is entirely different to the South African example. If western nations stopped trade with South Africa in the 1970s then they would have ended Apartheid in a week.

Desert Dawn said:
As for oil, have you read the news lately ? Canada, the US and Russia plus a few European countries are already drilling or want to drill in the Arctic for oil, and even China is interested and wants to have a say about that region. There is no shortage of oil for Russia there. The Chinese industry needs plenty of it and they are just south of Russia. Whichever way they want to transport it (by boat, pipelines or trains or trucks, they will do what it takes to carry it to them i am sure).

Again you are talking about apples rather than oranges. You can make money drilling oil in the Arctic. But it’s not the same kind of money you can make drilling the same amount of oil in Saudi Arabia or even the Gulfs of Mexico and Guinea. Russia with 150 million people is not going to be able to afford to service their population, modernise their economy and sustain a world power military and political apparatus on just the profits of oil drilling in the Arctic no matter how much they try to pump. Without western trade and investment they won’t have much else other than the primary sector and that won’t give them anywhere near the cash they need. As for exporting gas you can’t move it at the volumes needed for export without pipelines or a massive investment in liquefaction and special built tankers.
 
"When oil and gas companies start to look at fracking to extract bubbles of gas from rock, you know they are at the very end of the roll. "

Well, no. Fracking is old tech, been doing it for years. The difference is that now (to use the golfing analogies beloved of the oilfield) we're fracking in the rough rather than the greens. (that's greens as in golf course rather than...)

My view of the fracking revolution, certainly in the UK is that it won't happen any time soon as we don't have the people to do it. By that I don't mean the tattooed heroes swinging hammers and throwing chains (not allowed in the UK and Norway, by the way) we see on the Discovery Channel, but the geologists and engineers you never see on the telly. Also, the financial benefits that have been seen in the US are because people own the resources under them. In the UK it's owned by HMG, so no real incentive to allow the rig and fracking spread on your manor.

But I digress. We import Russian/Ukrainian oil and gas because it's cheap. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the oil price. If the cheap eastgas is cut off, what will western Europe do next? Sounds like a trans-Atlantic cable to Quebec is a good idea.

Chris
 
Ya, Hi Chris,

I know the technology is not young, it is the horizontal fracking technology which is being used more and more today and which is more recent.
 
Economic analysis by BBC's Linda Yueh.

Posible short term effects:

Gas supplies

The fallout from the political and financial woes would be notable for its trading partners in Europe as well as some European banks.

Also, the country is a transport link between the EU and its largest gas supplier. Even short stoppages in prior winters serve as a reminder that Ukraine has a key pipeline for gas exports from Russia.

The EU obtains the largest proportion (nearly a quarter) of its gas from Russia, the bulk of which is transported via Ukraine, according to Commerzbank. It estimates that if there was a complete stoppage of gas transport from Ukraine, then only half of the volume could be picked up by the Nord Stream that goes through northern Germany. The pipeline through Belarus carries only half of the capacity of that of the Ukraine.

Recall that disputes between Russia and Ukraine over gas prices in 2006 and 2009, both during winter, led to stoppages in exports to Europe, albeit brief ones.

There are many reasons to be concerned about Ukraine and its people, and financial woes may well be just a small part of what is to unfold in the coming days.

Apart from stomping on Ukraine, I believe Putin has shot himself in the foot.

More at the link.
 
Arjen said:
Apart from stomping on Ukraine, I believe Putin has shot himself in the foot.

Russia needs Ukraine to pump approximately half of its gas exports to Europe. But Ukraine needs both Russian gas and the transit fees that come from allowing gas through to Europe. The Russians have also been aggressively developing their LNG infrastructure with the aim of increasing exports- especially to APAC.

It is also worth remembering that a number of Western oil companies (BP, Total and others), which make up large parts of the portfolios of Western pension funds, are heavily invested in Russia.

It's a double edged sword.
 
You are talking about apples here when we I was talking about oranges. This isn’t going to be a case of a UN arms embargo on Russia. But rather western nations stopping trade with Russia. This is entirely different to the South African example. If western nations stopped trade with South Africa in the 1970s then they would have ended Apartheid in a week.



That`s precisely the term IF you are talking about here. With 'What IF' we can put the city of Paris inside a bottle as the proverb says.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Arjen said:
Apart from stomping on Ukraine, I believe Putin has shot himself in the foot.

Russia needs Ukraine to pump approximately half of its gas exports to Europe. But Ukraine needs both Russian gas and the transit fees that come from allowing gas through to Europe. The Russians have also been aggressively developing their LNG infrastructure with the aim of increasing exports- especially to APAC.

It is also worth remembering that a number of Western oil companies (BP, Total and others), which make up large parts of the portfolios of Western pension funds, are heavily invested in Russia.

It's a double edged sword.



Exactly, as well as the historical precedent of the closing of the gas supply to Ukraine in the past regarding their debt to Russia. To be more blunt, Russia is kind of holding the EU and Ukraine at the throat with that gas supply. They will need to diversify their supply sources before they start to impose any kind of serious sanctions on Russia.
 
CJGibson said:
But I digress. We import Russian/Ukrainian oil and gas because it's cheap. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the oil price. If the cheap eastgas is cut off, what will western Europe do next? Sounds like a trans-Atlantic cable to Quebec is a good idea.

Chris


Hi Chris,

A trans-Atlantic cable ? Yes, sure ! You want me to put a word to Pauline about it :) ? She'd be more than happy to do that i`m sure.
 
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
It would be a longer term approach but you could announce it right away. The US could lift its' energy export controls and start shipping excess nat. gas in the form of LNG to Europe and break Moscow's near gas monopoly in Europe and the Ukraine.

Or the US could finally pull its thumb out and get serious about thorium reactors. Crank 'em out like Model T's, and put the kybosh on other energy sources.

Didn't take long, did it? Nuclear power is the answer to everything...again. ::)
 
Orionblamblam said:
Kadija_Man said:
It always pays to remember that to many Americans last week is "ancient history". Whereas to many other societies 200 years ago was "yesterday".

It's not a 100% match (some Americans still get their panties in wad over their ancestors having lost The War Of Southern Aggression), but there is truth in that. And I like the American approach better. Some European tribes are still bickering over nonsensical crap that happened centuries ago.

Yes but what you like isn't important in those places and of course it covers many other places than just Europe. Have a look at the history of Hutu and Tutsi or Muslim versus Animism conflict in Africa for two more recent outbreaks of such "memory".

It wasn't that long ago that Irish were killing each other over which particular Jesus Fan Club had the best newsletter. While in the US... who cares? It's ancient history.

As usual, simplifying the issues. Northern Ireland wasn't about the Reformation/Counter-Reformation, it was about who was going to govern Londonderry. If anything it was much closer to Communists versus Socialists versus Capitalists (yes there were more than two groups involved) and London versus Derry control. ::)
 
CJGibson said:
"When oil and gas companies start to look at fracking to extract bubbles of gas from rock, you know they are at the very end of the roll. "

Well, no. Fracking is old tech, been doing it for years. The difference is that now (to use the golfing analogies beloved of the oilfield) we're fracking in the rough rather than the greens. (that's greens as in golf course rather than...)

My view of the fracking revolution, certainly in the UK is that it won't happen any time soon as we don't have the people to do it. By that I don't mean the tattooed heroes swinging hammers and throwing chains (not allowed in the UK and Norway, by the way) we see on the Discovery Channel, but the geologists and engineers you never see on the telly. Also, the financial benefits that have been seen in the US are because people own the resources under them. In the UK it's owned by HMG, so no real incentive to allow the rig and fracking spread on your manor.

But I digress. We import Russian/Ukrainian oil and gas because it's cheap. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the oil price. If the cheap eastgas is cut off, what will western Europe do next? Sounds like a trans-Atlantic cable to Quebec is a good idea.

Chris

Just as well that the Northern winter is coming to an end. Western Europe will have six months to put it's houses in order before the next big freeze. Whether Vlad and Co. will see sense before then, will be the interesting question. Once winter hits again, it won't be a question of which oil or gas is cheaper but rather which is easily available. No one likes to freeze to death.
 
What will probably become a classic quote from the discussion thread at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100261870/ukraine-is-britain-now-a-bystander-on-the-world-stage/:

Mike Ozanne3 hours ago

There's an Onanist in charge who thinks you can have aircraft carriers without planes and that a sea-faring nation doesn't need maritime patrol aircraft. What the fornicating hades did you think was going to happen.....
 
"I know the technology is not young, it is the horizontal fracking technology which is being used more and more today and which is more recent"

Errr...no. That's been around for ages, I was on a job, (in West Sussex, very civilised) doing it in 1992, and that was a redrill of a horizontal hole that had been fracked from the 80s, so nowt new there at all.

The only new things are the formations - shales rather than the classic reservoirs.

Chris
 
Via MilitaryPhotos.net:
BREAKING NEWS

Russia's Black Sea Fleet has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday to surrender or face an all-out assault, according to Ukrainian defence ministry sources quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. "If by 5am tomorrow morning they do not surrender a real assault will begin on units and sections of the Ukrainian armed forces all over Crimea," defence ministry officials are quoted as saying. So far there is no further confirmation of the ultimatum from other sources.
 
"How Putin carries out power grab"
By Agnia Grigas
updated 7:50 AM EST, Mon March 3, 2014

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/opinion/grigas-putin-compatriot-policy-crimea/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29
 
Desert Dawn said:
This is entirely different to the South African example. If western nations stopped trade with South Africa in the 1970s then they would have ended Apartheid in a week.

No, not really.
 
http://stream.wsj.com/story/deadly-clashes-in-ukraine/SS-2-457850/SS-2-470508/
Baltics Want NATO ‘Safeguard’ if Ukraine Situation Worsens

By Juris Kaža

RIGA, Latvia–Baltic countries are considering calling for a greater North Atlantic Treaty Organization presence in their countries “if the situation gets worse” in the Ukraine, Ojars Kalnins, the chairman of the foreign-affairs committee of the Latvian parliament, said Monday.

Mr. Kalnins said that a worsening of the Ukraine crisis “such as an outright invasion” of areas outside Crimea would present a threat to all of Russia’s neighbors, including the Baltic states–which are members of NATO. Such an expanded conflict should be reason for NATO to “bring extra military support to the Baltic region as a safeguard.”

Atis Lejins, a member of the Latvian parliament’s foreign-affairs committee, said increasing the number of NATO aircraft patrolling Baltic airspace could be one way to beef up NATO’s presence.

Currently a small, rotating contingent of fighter aircraft from NATO countries operates from a base in Lithuania. Mr. Lejins, a former U.S. Marine, said one example of a heightened presence was the U.S. Air Force Aviation Detachment (AV Det) program in Poland, which rotates fighter and transport units to bases in Poland.

Critics of an increased NATO presence say that costs to both Latvia and NATO could be a hurdle to expanding air patrols. Increased air patrols would upgrade the NATO presence in all three countries because aircraft cover the airspace of all three Baltic countries.

Mr. Kalnins spoke after a joint meeting of the Saeima’ s Foreign Affairs and European Affairs committees that condemned Russia’s incursion into Crimea and called for European Union and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observers to be sent to the Ukraine.

He spoke on Monday at the same time as the Lithuanian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and National Security and Defence Committee passed a resolution condemning Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine and the occupation of the territory of Ukraine. The Lithuanian resolution also called on the North Atlantic Council to temporarily redeploy NATO military forces to its “eastern part, including the Baltic states.”

The Lithuanian statement also urged the Lithuanian government to seek a permanent NATO military presence in Lithuania, presumably in addition to the current rotating NATO air patrols.

The Latvian and Lithuanian resolutions came a few days after media reported that Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves had called on the Baltic States to increase their defense spending in light of the recent developments in Ukraine.
 
"Russia's Seizure of Crimea Is Making Former Soviet States Nervous"
The crisis in Ukraine has countries formerly in Russia's orbit fearing Putin's next moves.
Matt Ford Mar 1 2014, 10:40 PM E

Source:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/russias-seizure-of-crimea-is-making-former-soviet-states-nervous/284156/

For the first time since the Soviet Union's collapse more than two decades ago, Russian military forces have moved into an Eastern European country and occupied its territory. Over 15,000 Russian soldiers are now stationed in Ukraine's autonomous republic of Crimea, according to Ukrainian officials (it's not clear how many of them were already in the region before this crisis), in a deployment ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin to protect "Russian citizens and compatriots on Ukrainian territory." No shots have been fired, but Ukraine's acting president, Oleksandr Turchynov, has placed his country's military on its highest alert level to deter "potential aggression," as the United States condemned Russia's "invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory" in violation of international law.

Fifteen independent countries, including Russia, emerged from the Soviet Union's disintegration. Six of them—Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—are in Europe, and all of them have a complicated relationship with modern Russia. Seven other countries once belonged to the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union's military alliance in Eastern Europe. With the Cold War's end, none of them had faced the threat of military intervention by the communist superpower's successor state—until now. (In discussing Europe here, I'm not including Eurasian countries like Georgia, which fought a war with Russia in 2008, or the military support Russia offered Moldova's breakaway Transnistria region in the early 1990s.)

In response to the standoff in Crimea, Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves announced that he would convene the National Defense Council on March 2 to discuss the crisis and called upon the Baltic states to increase their defense spending. "The events in Ukraine show that this struggle is taking place within Europe as well," he said in a speech to the Baltic Defense College last week. "This sends a clear signal to Estonia and the [other] Baltic states: we must invest more in our national defense." Estonia, along with Latvia and Lithuania, joined NATO in 2004.

"The Baltic states have been among the most vocal EU states during this crisis, urging Russia to abandon its military intervention in Ukraine and respect Ukrainian territorial integrity," Erik Brattberg, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told me. "They will watch the events in Ukraine closely to see if the U.S. and NATO will stand up against Russian aggression."

Recent experiences with Russia also fuel Estonia's concerns. The removal of a Soviet-era war statue from the capital city of Tallinn in 2007 led to riots among ethnic Russians (who make up almost a quarter of Estonia's population) and diplomatic outrage from Moscow. Shortly thereafter, a concerted, three-week cyberattack crippled Estonian government agencies, banks, news outlets, and other organizations—a vital blow to what some have called "the most wired country in Europe." Estonian officials blamed the Kremlin for the cyberattacks, a claim Russian officials vociferously denied.

Linas Linkevicius, Lithuania's foreign minister, responded on Saturday by invoking Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, whereby NATO member states consult one another if their territorial integrity or political independence is threatened, for only the fourth time in the alliance's history (Ukraine is not a NATO member).

Lithuania and its Baltic neighbors "are certainly very worried that what is happening to Ukraine today could happen to them tomorrow," Brattberg told me, noting that both Estonia and Latvia have "significant Russian ethnic minorities." Russian President Vladimir Putin asserted on Saturday that Russia retains the right to protect Russian-speaking populations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Both the NATO ambassadors and the NATO-Ukraine Commission will meet tomorrow to plan the alliance's response to the unfolding crisis.

Russia has only one remaining ally in the region: Belarus, often referred to as "the last dictatorship in Europe." Ukraine's northern neighbor has mirrored Russian rhetoric about Ukraine by condemning what it described as "radical and unlawful methods of settling domestic disputes" by pro-European Ukrainians. Alexander Lukashenko, the country's autocratic president for the last two decades, quashed a Belorussian protest movement in 2010, during his rigged presidential election, that was similar to Ukraine's. Lukashenko's ability to influence events in Ukraine is nevertheless "slim," according to Brattberg.

Other European powers see reflections of their own history in the Crimean crisis. Czech President Milos Zeman said Russia's intervention reminded him of the Soviet-led military suppression of Czechoslovakia's Prague Spring in 1968. Poland, a key EU power broker in Eastern Europe, said it stood ready to "facilitate the stabilization of the situation" in Ukraine. Iurie Leanca, Moldova's prime minister, compared Russia's actions this week to its role in the separatist region of Transnistria in his own country. Moscow uses its suzerainty over that thin, heavily industrialized strip of territory on the Moldovan-Ukrainian border, whose 500,000 residents are mostly ethnic Russians, to frustrate Moldovan efforts towards European integration.

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite also openly expressed fears that Russia's actions could ultimately lead to Crimea's annexation. "These signs are extremely worrying. They show a certain preparation and assumptions related to the occupation of [Ukrainian territory]," Grybauskaite told Lithuanian media outlets, calling the Russian deployment of troops in Ukraine "damnable." But not all of Eastern Europe's diplomatic barbs are aimed Moscow. Marko Mihkelson, who chairs the Estonian parliament's foreign policy committee, tweeted on Saturday, "If West does not wake up to Russian aggressive foreign policy, tomorrow will be too late."
 
Remember the looters after Katrina? I predict we'll see Russia and China giving them lessons. Certainly nobody currently in power is willing to do anything about it.
 
Another great quote, from https://twitter.com/pwaldieGLOBE/status/440556860782161920/photo/1:
Deepak‏@deepakslore·48m
Lighter Brigade. Same zip code. “@BlogsofWar: RT @pwaldieGLOBE Commander of #Ukraine base announces won't leave. pic.twitter.com/iYoPc344Ny”
 
"Kerry Warns Putin: ‘All Options Are On The Table’"

by Sam Frizell @Sam_Frizell March 02, 2014

Source:
http://swampland.time.com/2014/03/02/kerry-putin-russia-ukraine-sanctions/

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that “all options are on the table” after the Kremlin directed a military invasion of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, and the major world powers are “going to isolate Russia” in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression in the region.

“This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext,” Kerry said on NBC’s Meet the Press, adding that the United States and Western leaders are prepared to respond with economic sanctions, asset freezes and visa bans on Russia for its actions in Crimea.

Russian troops invaded the peninsula Saturday, capturing the capital and deploying troops across the Ukrainian peninsula, where ethnic Russians represent a majority of civilians.

(PHOTOS: Crisis in Crimea: Unrest in Russian Stronghold)

Western leaders are prepared to isolate Russia if it doesn’t de-escalate tensions, Kerry said. “Russia has major investment and trade needs and desires. I think there’s a unified view by all of the foreign ministers I talked with yesterday, all of the G-8 and more, that they’re simply going to isolate Russia, that they’re not going to engage with Russia in a normal, business as usual manner, that Russia is inviting opprobrium on the international stage.”

“There could even be, ultimately, asset freezes, visa bans. There could be certainly disruption of any of the normal trade routine. There could be business drawback on investment in the country. The ruble is already going down and feeling the impact of this,” Kerry continued.

Congress should begin working on sanctions immediately, the Secretary of State said in a separate interview on ABC’s This Week, as well as on an aid package to Ukraine. “The hope of the U.S. and everybody in the world is not to see this escalate into a military confrontation.”

Kremlin-directed troops surrounded Ukrainian military bases and dug trenches to hold Crimea, even as Ukrainian troops mobilized on directions from Kiev. The situation escalated Sunday, as pro-Russia demonstrations continued in Eastern Ukraine and more Russian troops moved into Crimea.

“Putin is playing chess and I think we are playing marbles, and I don’t think it’s even close,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich) said on Fox News Sunday, criticizing the administration’s tepid response to Russia. “They’ve been running circles around us.”
 
"Kerry Warns Putin: ‘All Options Are On The Table’"

Yeah but we all know the option that will be selected - harsh memo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom