Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

afadeev

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
1,648
Protests, arrests and mass delays at boarder crossings.
Mobilization centers are going up in flames:

Protests are particularly heated in Dagestan:

Video from Dagestan protests and arrests:


If we wanted to sap support for Putin's regime within Russia, and encourage Russians to overthrow him, could we have done any better?
 
Last edited:

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
4,450
In the spirit of be careful what you wish for, Putin granted Snowden Russian citizenship. Making him eligible for the draft:


View attachment 539243
Putin's too smart* to send Snowden to the front. If he's captured, he either goes back to the US to stand trial (most likely) or he gets traded for some large number of Ukrainian POWs. Neither one of those is a good result.

* I was sure of that 8 months ago. After the way the war has gone, maybe I have some doubts...
 

PhilC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
195
Reaction score
311
Location
Wales
Putin's too smart* to send Snowden to the front. If he's captured, he either goes back to the US to stand trial (most likely) or he gets traded for some large number of Ukrainian POWs. Neither one of those is a good result.

* I was sure of that 8 months ago. After the way the war has gone, maybe I have some doubts...
I guess that Russia has got all the intel they’re ever going to get from Snowden. From now on he’s got no intrinsic value, so why not sent him to the front? He’s not likely to desert.
 

WoShuGui

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
506
Reaction score
64
This article suggests the mobilization aims to replenish meat shields that are needed to maintain combat effectiveness of the Russian BTG. This is in addition to pulling in qualified reservists to backfill core skills (caveat emptor on the source).

It is a cynical way to look at the Kremlin strategy, but given how Putin is attempting to deflect blame for “wrongful mobilization“ on the bureaucracy as a means of quelling public anger while the recruitment centers are rapidly scraping up warm bodies, it makes a lot of sense. I suppose the encouraging part is that the Russian citizenry seems to see right through what is really happening.

 
Last edited:

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
4,450
This article suggests the mobilization aims to replenish meat shields that are needed to maintain combat effectiveness of the Russian BTG. This is in addition to pulling in qualified reservists to backfill core skills (caveat emptor on the source).

It is a cynical way to look at the Kremlin strategy, but given how Putin is attempting to deflect blame for “wrongful mobilization“ on the bureaucracy as a means of quelling public anger while the recruitment centers are rapidly scraping up warm bodies, it makes a lot of sense. I suppose the encouraging part is that the Russian citizenry seems to see right through what is really happening.

The level of training given to the new draftees is in some dispute. Many sources put it at two weeks (!). Some have reported a couple of days (!!). A few are saying a day or less (!!!). With that level of training, they won't be good for anything but being meat shields. Even for a returning reservist, I would think that a competent army would be looking at a bare minimum of one or two months of training for basic skills. And that's assuming that the reservists got some real training in the first place, which may not be a good assumption.
 

heada

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
5,453
Reaction score
2,835
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
I was wondering when the pipelines would become a target. I thought they'd be turned off long before now.

CNBC: Nord Stream pipelines hit by suspicious leaks in possible sabotage; Russia says it has 'a right' to use nuclear weapons.

The Guardian: Fears of sabotage as gas pours into Baltic from Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines.
 

Dotini

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
849
Location
Seattle, Washington
I was wondering when the pipelines would become a target. I thought they'd be turned off long before now.

CNBC: Nord Stream pipelines hit by suspicious leaks in possible sabotage; Russia says it has 'a right' to use nuclear weapons.

The Guardian: Fears of sabotage as gas pours into Baltic from Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines.
This is somewhat ominous news. Assuming no other undersea pipelines are to be targeted, these explosions at a minimum insure many months if not years before normal low cost nat gas supplies to Germany and the EU can be resumed. I didn't think the Russias would do it, but they seem to have turned their backs on any form of returning to the status quo ante anytime soon. So it's to be open war - economic, energy and now sabotage. What next?
 

modeltrains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,764
Reaction score
608
That report sounds like the Polish government isn't shedding many tears about Nord Stream pipeline,
"
Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki called the events “an act of sabotage,” while Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she could not rule it out after three leaks were detected over the past day on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which are filled with gas but not delivering the fuel to Europe. An energy standoff over Russia’s war in Ukraine halted flows on Nord Stream 1 and prevented them from ever starting in the parallel Nord Stream 2.

Frederiksen, Morawiecki and Polish President Andrzej Duda symbolically opened a valve of a yellow pipe belonging to the Baltic Pipe, a new system that will bring Norway’s gas across Denmark and the Baltic Sea to Poland.

“The era of Russian domination in the gas sphere is coming to an end,” Morawiecki declared. “An era that was marked by blackmail, threats and extortion.”
"
 

modeltrains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,764
Reaction score
608
From back in March but perhaps of interest,
"
Yet, in the meantime produce is a supply and demand business and if produce destined for Moscow won’t be going there — because of restrictions, because there are no boats, because Russian credit is shaky — those items will seek to find other markets. This will lead to price declines and other issues.

How this will all play out is unclear and the war overlays on top of already dynamic changes in the role of Chile and Peru in the Latin American export scene.

We asked Pundit Investigator and Special Projects Editor Mira Slott to find out more:
"

and,

"
Turkey's fresh fruit and vegetable prices decreased by 50% in the domestic market as exports to Russia and Ukraine, which are among Turkey's top export markets, stopped due to war.

As of Feb. 24, when Russia launched a military operation against Ukraine, export trucks were waiting on the roads for security reasons and many products, especially tomatoes, peppers, eggplant and zucchini, remained unsold. As such, the manufacturers offered their products to the domestic market, and the excess supply was reflected in the prices which fell.

Prices of products such as tomatoes and zucchini, which are among the top fresh vegetable exports of Turkey, have halved after the Russia-Ukraine war. Cucumbers and eggplant, two products with the highest price increase in recent weeks, saw a decrease of more than 50%.
"

also,

"
Guess from where the U.N. World Food Programme sourced more than half of its supplies for the hungry across the globe in 2021? Yes, Ukraine.
"


I guess a question is, what are September's resultant effects from that back in March? 🤔
 

PhilC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
195
Reaction score
311
Location
Wales
I keep asking myself the question ‘who benefits from the sabotage of Nordstream 1?’.
European countries with some dependence on Russian gas don’t benefit. It kills off any opportunity for getting gas from Russia with a difficult winter approaching.
Russia loses whatever residual leverage it has over those European countries. As winter starts to bite some of those countries may be required to do a deal with Russia, and Russia would not be able to take advantage of that situation if the pipeline is unusable.
It could be a calculated act by Russia: damage the pipe so the west can be blamed, but ensure that the damage could be repaired before the winter.
Its all very unclear.
 

Dotini

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
849
Location
Seattle, Washington
I keep asking myself the question ‘who benefits from the sabotage of Nordstream 1?’.
European countries with some dependence on Russian gas don’t benefit. It kills off any opportunity for getting gas from Russia with a difficult winter approaching.
Russia loses whatever residual leverage it has over those European countries. As winter starts to bite some of those countries may be required to do a deal with Russia, and Russia would not be able to take advantage of that situation if the pipeline is unusable.
It could be a calculated act by Russia: damage the pipe so the west can be blamed, but ensure that the damage could be repaired before the winter.
Its all very unclear.
I've seen speculation it was the US that sabotaged the pipelines, the purpose being to permanently force Europe to wean itself from Russian gas, something Europe should have done years ago. Sure, it will take a few more years to get all the LNG handling facilities in place. But as you've previously noted, Europeans are well used to privation and suffering, so will handle the difficulties in stride.
 

PhilC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
195
Reaction score
311
Location
Wales
I've seen speculation it was the US that sabotaged the pipelines, the purpose being to permanently force Europe to wean itself from Russian gas, something Europe should have done years ago. Sure, it will take a few more years to get all the LNG handling facilities in place. But as you've previously noted, Europeans are well used to privation and suffering, so will handle the difficulties in stride.
LNG will have some part in the mix, and the UK is well equipped for that. Others in Europe are less able to handle LNG. We have oli and gas reserves in the North Sea which UK and Norway have been exploiting for decades. It's good to see the Norway-Denmark-Poland pipeline coming on line as this will help.

For your info we're not 'used to privation and suffering' but we're 'resilient'. I chose my words carefully. This is Western Europe, not the third world.
 

afadeev

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
1,648
I've seen speculation it was the US that sabotaged the pipelines, the purpose being to permanently force Europe to wean itself from Russian gas, something Europe should have done years ago. Sure, it will take a few more years to get all the LNG handling facilities in place. But as you've previously noted, Europeans are well used to privation and suffering, so will handle the difficulties in stride.
You "see" and share a lot of anti-American propaganda. All the time.
Mind citing your sources?
 

PhilC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
195
Reaction score
311
Location
Wales
Wion and other Indian sources. They are maybe more neutral than the actual participants in the conflict when it comes to unbiased reporting.
Sources I've found to be generally reliable and neutral are Sky News, Reuters and our own BBC. They have people on the ground in all the key countries.
 

Dotini

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
849
Location
Seattle, Washington
I keep asking myself the question ‘who benefits from the sabotage of Nordstream 1?’.
European countries with some dependence on Russian gas don’t benefit. It kills off any opportunity for getting gas from Russia with a difficult winter approaching.
Russia loses whatever residual leverage it has over those European countries. As winter starts to bite some of those countries may be required to do a deal with Russia, and Russia would not be able to take advantage of that situation if the pipeline is unusable.
It could be a calculated act by Russia: damage the pipe so the west can be blamed, but ensure that the damage could be repaired before the winter.
Its all very unclear.
I keep thinking about who benefits from this sabotage. Certainly not Europeans. And not Russians, as you point out, they lose negotiating leverage. It is my understanding that it will be at least a year and likely more before repairs could be made. So that leaves the US as the major beneficiary. It makes great sense economically, as the US will be able to supply LNG to make up for the loss of Russian gas to Europe, and this is already in the works.
 

heada

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
5,453
Reaction score
2,835
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
I keep thinking about who benefits from this sabotage. Certainly not Europeans. And not Russians, as you point out, they lose negotiating leverage. It is my understanding that it will be at least a year and likely more before repairs could be made. So that leaves the US as the major beneficiary. It makes great sense economically, as the US will be able to supply LNG to make up for the loss of Russian gas to Europe, and this is already in the works.
I don't think the US would benefit economically. The EU demand could not be supplied even at 5% from the US via LNG ships. A pipeline would be needed and it doesn't exist from North America to Europe. I personally think Russia would benefit. They know the pipeline wont carry gas anytime soon and so it is pretty much dead. It's value now is as a threat to the pipeline that just went active as it's replacement. A message of "your new pipeline isn't safe so you'd better get in line" kind of thing.
 

Peartree

Cyborg Rocketeer
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
6,593
Reaction score
2,300
Location
Alliance, Ohio
When considering "Who would benefit by damaging Russia's pipeline?" the question itself, as worded, seems to limit the answers to nation states. It is possible that no one benefits but that the damage was done by nations, or by persons who simply hate Russia or have reason to want to "punish" Russia or bring harm to that nation. That list would be longer because the question being asked isn't "Who benefits?" It's "Who loses?" As long as Russia (or Putin) loses, that's enough.

Asking the question in that way, one might wonder if Ukraine might want to harm Russia, or Poland, or disgruntled Russians trying to destabilize Putin, or Chechyns, or Belarusians, or any number of partisan groups that have an axe to grind with Russia generally or Putin specifically.
 

heada

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
5,453
Reaction score
2,835
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
When considering "Who would benefit by damaging Russia's pipeline?" the question itself, as worded, seems to limit the answers to nation states. It is possible that no one benefits but that the damage was done by nations, or by persons who simply hate Russia or have reason to want to "punish" Russia or bring harm to that nation. That list would be longer because the question being asked isn't "Who benefits?" It's "Who loses?" As long as Russia (or Putin) loses, that's enough.

Asking the question in that way, one might wonder if Ukraine might want to harm Russia, or Poland, or disgruntled Russians trying to destabilize Putin, or Chechyns, or Belarusians, or any number of partisan groups that have an axe to grind with Russia generally or Putin specifically.
Besides who would benefit, you have to ask who is able to do it? Where it was damaged, it was ~500meters below sea level and it was damaged with the equivalent of more than 200 pounds of TNT at each of the 3 locations. That would limit the actors to nation-states or large corporations that have the required knowledge and experience (Oil & Gas companies)

So limit by actors able to do it and who would benefit, the list becomes very small very quickly.
 
Top