Ukraine

[french frank]

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?

[Serial_Apologist]

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.

[Frances_iom]

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.

[Joseph K]

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.

[Frances_iom]

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.

[french frank]

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?

[Joseph K]

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.”

https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-us-must-join-global-call-for-negotiations-as-russia-escalates-actions/?fbclid=IwAR1AcnTig5VnMISfO9GcQD1y-MfElJetyW6Sdco4DXMH8j5oLjLxbySbaes

[french frank]

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???

[Joseph K]

<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?

[french frank]

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.

[richardfinegold]

<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?

[Joseph K]

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?

[Joseph K]

Well, you're posing questions rather than stating facts, making suggestions as to what might be.

Rhetorical questions.

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.

[Bryn]

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.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1237300.The_Shock_Doctrine

or if in a hurry:

https://www.shortform.com/blog/russia-shock-therapy/

[Maclintick]

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.

https://www.codepink.org/un_general_assembly_calling_for_a_negotiated_peace_in_ukraine