Ukraine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • french frank
    Administrator/Moderator
    • Feb 2007
    • 30254

    Originally posted by richardfinegold View Post
    If Russia wanted to turn off the gas, what an odd way to do it
    They can deny they're responsible. Russian Ambassador Kelin was assuring us some weeks ago that 'Russia is a reliable supplier of gas.' But what can they do if saboteurs (probably Ukrainians!!) blow up the pipelines?
    It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

    Comment

    • Serial_Apologist
      Full Member
      • Dec 2010
      • 37616

      This means NATO will now have to patrol the still important adjacent pipeline from Norway to Germany. It will be very difficult for anyone involved in a skirmish to admit responsibility for vandalising in this way.

      Comment

      • Frances_iom
        Full Member
        • Mar 2007
        • 2411

        Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
        This means NATO will now have to patrol the still important adjacent pipeline from Norway to Germany. It will be very difficult for anyone involved in a skirmish to admit responsibility for vandalising in this way.
        Today's comments assume Russia is using its now near worthless assets as demonstrations of what it could do to other underwater links (pipelines + cables). Meanwhile in the R4 serialisation at 1.45pm on rare earth elements it pointed out that besides being a major agricultural producer Ukraine would appear to have very significant deposits of the essential rare earth metals needed for any European company to escape China's dominance of this market - maybe economics rather than just nationalism is the driver behind Putin's war.

        Comment

        • Joseph K
          Banned
          • Oct 2017
          • 7765

          Originally posted by Frances_iom View Post
          maybe economics rather than just nationalism is the driver behind Putin's war.
          I proposed this quite a while back on this thread - #847 to be exact.

          Comment

          • Frances_iom
            Full Member
            • Mar 2007
            • 2411

            Originally posted by Joseph K View Post
            I proposed this quite a while back on this thread - #847 to be exact.
            your note was re gas under Black sea (no ref given) presumably desired to help maintain Russian dominance altho Norway is a major supplier - the rare earths are somewhat different as much of the push to renewables depends heavily on these and is an area where China dominates - Russia would need large quantities itself as well as depriving Europe of easy access.

            Comment

            • french frank
              Administrator/Moderator
              • Feb 2007
              • 30254

              Originally posted by Joseph K View Post
              I proposed this quite a while back on this thread - #847 to be exact.
              You mentioned that gas reserves under the Black Sea could have ended the West's dependency on Russian gas. If that is Putin's aim, it would still be an aggressive act towards the west. Why would the west suddenly stop buying Russia's gas unless Russia was acting in a hostile way?
              It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

              Comment

              • Joseph K
                Banned
                • Oct 2017
                • 7765

                Originally posted by french frank View Post
                Why would the west suddenly stop buying Russia's gas unless Russia was acting in a hostile way?
                Because the West - or the USA at least - is itself hostile to Russia and might take the opportunity to weaken Russia by curtailing its reliance on Russian gas?

                Chomsky:

                “Most of the world, including a large majority of Germans and much of the rest of Europe, is calling for negotiations now, while the U.S. insists that priority must be to severely weaken Russia, hence no negotiations.”

                Comment

                • french frank
                  Administrator/Moderator
                  • Feb 2007
                  • 30254

                  Originally posted by Joseph K View Post
                  Because the West - or the USA at least - is itself hostile to Russia and might take the opportunity to weaken Russia by curtailing its reliance on Russian gas?
                  <groan> But why is the west hostile to Russia???
                  It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                  Comment

                  • Joseph K
                    Banned
                    • Oct 2017
                    • 7765

                    Originally posted by french frank View Post
                    <groan> But why is the west hostile to Russia???
                    One reason might be that it's convenient for arms manufacturers? I mean, when since WW2 hasn't the USA been at war of some kind?

                    Comment

                    • french frank
                      Administrator/Moderator
                      • Feb 2007
                      • 30254

                      Originally posted by Joseph K View Post
                      One reason might be that it's convenient for arms manufacturers? I mean, when since WW2 hasn't the USA been at war of some kind?
                      Well, you're posing questions rather than stating facts, making suggestions as to what might be. During the Gorbachev era the tensions between Russia and the west were relaxed, because Russia showed no signs of aggression. There were discussions with Nato - which is not by definition anti-Russia. It's an alliance of democracies against aggressive powers which attack another nation, especially a smaller, weaker one. Gorbachev recognised that democracy was an option for Russia and Russians. All in my opinion, of course.
                      It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                      Comment

                      • richardfinegold
                        Full Member
                        • Sep 2012
                        • 7657

                        Originally posted by french frank View Post
                        <groan> But why is the west hostile to Russia???
                        What are we supposed to be, ecstatic about a country that kills its political opposition and attacks civilians of neighboring countries? Why does this even have to be pointed out?

                        Comment

                        • Joseph K
                          Banned
                          • Oct 2017
                          • 7765

                          Originally posted by richardfinegold View Post
                          What are we supposed to be, ecstatic about a country that kills its political opposition and attacks civilians of neighboring countries? Why does this even have to be pointed out?
                          'You' or rather the USA is friends with Saudi Arabia?

                          Comment

                          • Joseph K
                            Banned
                            • Oct 2017
                            • 7765

                            Originally posted by french frank View Post
                            Well, you're posing questions rather than stating facts, making suggestions as to what might be.
                            Rhetorical questions.

                            Originally posted by french frank View Post
                            During the Gorbachev era the tensions between Russia and the west were relaxed, because Russia showed no signs of aggression. There were discussions with Nato - which is not by definition anti-Russia. It's an alliance of democracies against aggressive powers which attack another nation, especially a smaller, weaker one. Gorbachev recognised that democracy was an option for Russia and Russians. All in my opinion, of course.
                            Yes, I wonder who has the monopoly on aggression. (That's another rhetorical question BTW). From what I recall Gorbachev wanted a social-democratic Scandinavian-type of system in place. Sadly the US et al. had other ideas and preferred to implement some form of Disaster Capitalism (see Naomi Klein's excellent chapter on this from her book on that topic) and we end up where we are now.

                            Comment

                            • Bryn
                              Banned
                              • Mar 2007
                              • 24688

                              Originally posted by Joseph K View Post
                              Rhetorical questions.



                              Yes, I wonder who has the monopoly on aggression. (That's another rhetorical question BTW). From what I recall Gorbachev wanted a social-democratic Scandinavian-type of system in place. Sadly the US et al. had other ideas and preferred to implement some form of Disaster Capitalism (see Naomi Klein's excellent chapter on this from her book on that topic) and we end up where we are now.


                              or if in a hurry:

                              In Russia, economic shock therapy didn’t have the desired results. Learn how shock therapy unfolded in Russia, and what happened after.

                              Comment

                              • Maclintick
                                Full Member
                                • Jan 2012
                                • 1065

                                Originally posted by Joseph K View Post
                                Chomsky:

                                “Most of the world, including a large majority of Germans and much of the rest of Europe, is calling for negotiations now, while the U.S. insists that priority must be to severely weaken Russia, hence no negotiations.”

                                https://truthout.org/articles/chomsk...j5oLjLxbySbaes
                                The situation on Planet Chomsky is rather different from the reality at the UN General Assembly, where, of the 66 countries calling for negotiations, the only European voices belong to The Vatican, San Marino, Malta, and Hungary; the latter prioritising the need for Russia to rein back its current escalation, mobilisation, impending annexation, nuclear blackmail etc. EU leaders realise there's no possibility of negotiation in the present situation.

                                Below are excerpts from some of the speeches given at the UN General Assembly, which took place in New York between September 20 and 26, 2022, calling for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. From all the speeches made at the meeting, we have culled statements by the leaders and representatives of 66 countries who used part of their time to urgently call for peace in Ukraine.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X