Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 5

[TheJimi]

BikeBikeBIke said:

TheJimi said:

Right thing to do, aye but also largely a box-ticking exercise. Pretty much meaningless.

The value is explained here:

https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/03/how-iccs...

That piece refers to the ICC warrant for Putin himself (and Maria Lvova-Belova) not Shoigi & Gerasimov, which is what we were discussing above, and what I responded to.

I stand by my opinion that while I think it's good that they've done it, I also think the warrant for Shoigi & Gerasinov is pointless.

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 26th June 21:56

[sisu]

isaldiri said:

Aren't you slightly conflating different things?

The above per your post are the new EU sanctions regarding EU entities access to the russian central bank's SPFS system plus some stuff targeting LNG facilities. The earlier post had referenced Bank of China (a private company) stopping yuan related transactions and the possible impact of that.

European sanctions cover different aspects, the LNG and the American ones focus on banking, closing the loopholes of just paying money thru a Hong Kong Bank account, to a Kyrgyzstan company that ships it to Russia.

I haven't had enough time to go thru it completely and look at how it effects companies or sectors. But this makes things very poisonous overall. Yes they could do more and they will, but this hit at the moment is heavy as they have no reserves.

[RabidGranny]

sisu said:

isaldiri said:

Aren't you slightly conflating different things?

The above per your post are the new EU sanctions regarding EU entities access to the russian central bank's SPFS system plus some stuff targeting LNG facilities. The earlier post had referenced Bank of China (a private company) stopping yuan related transactions and the possible impact of that.

European sanctions cover different aspects, the LNG and the American ones focus on banking, closing the loopholes of just paying money thru a Hong Kong Bank account, to a Kyrgyzstan company that ships it to Russia.

I haven't had enough time to go thru it completely and look at how it effects companies or sectors. But this makes things very poisonous overall. Yes they could do more and they will, but this hit at the moment is heavy as they have no reserves.

sisu speaks the truth. as a swiss working in a town outside zh which is synonymous with global LNG trading , the latest tranche of sanctions have hit hard it appears

[vaud]

RabidGranny said:

sisu speaks the truth. as a swiss working in a town outside zh which is synonymous with global LNG trading , the latest tranche of sanctions have hit hard it appears

Zug?

[RabidGranny]

vaud said:

RabidGranny said:

sisu speaks the truth. as a swiss working in a town outside zh which is synonymous with global LNG trading , the latest tranche of sanctions have hit hard it appears

Zug?

the very one.

[Iamnotkloot]

I do not endorse this view, but I see no problem debating it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/27/nigel-...

My biggest query over this strategy (a negotiated settlement with Crimea being Russian) is, do we really believe Russia would stick to any agreement made?

[paua]

Iamnotkloot said:

I do not endorse this view, but I see no problem debating it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/27/nigel-...

My biggest query over this strategy (a negotiated settlement with Crimea being Russian) is, do we really believe Russia would stick to any agreement made?

in the simplest terms - NO.

[spookly]

Iamnotkloot said:

I do not endorse this view, but I see no problem debating it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/27/nigel-...

My biggest query over this strategy (a negotiated settlement with Crimea being Russian) is, do we really believe Russia would stick to any agreement made?

Ok, I'll debate.

Farage is talking absolute bks.
NATO expansion has nothing to do with western aggression, and everything to do with ex-soviet countries wanting to distance themselves from russia. Why wouldn't they? They suffered decades of abuse and isolation by their russian overlords, and are now at threat of invasion as Putin seeks to enlarge his empire and bring back the good old days.

NATO hasn't gone out to recruit countries, these countries want to join NATO to avoid the same fate as the countries russia has already invaded and stolen lands from. They also want a piece of the prosperity and improved lifestyle that aligning themselves with Europe brings. Look at the increase in standards of living in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia.... now compare to Belarus. Which would you choose?

If russia was fearful that NATO (a defensive alliance) would attack russia, then why has russia withdrawn most of it's troop from the Finnish border regions?

Farage is an odious cretin, and has chimed in simply to try and win some political points. He seems to care about nothing other than himself, his wallet, and not having to live near anyone who looks foreign.

Putin tried a big gamble. It hasn't paid off. He hasn't lost yet, but the longer this continues without him securing much larger swathes of Ukraine, the more likely that they lose completely, or that Putin can't sell it as a win. If they lose Crimea, it'll be impossible to sell as a win.

[AlexIT]

Iamnotkloot said:

do we really believe Russia would stick to any agreement made?

No.

And that's the problem. This war may end in several ways, but none of them will mean it won't start again in a near or far future: as long as there is no really deep change inside russia, both from a political as well as a cultural point of view, the eastern flank will always be at risk.

For now -and for the foreseeable future- the old latin say Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you want peace, be prepared for war) remains the only logical measure we can take to keep Europe secure. We made the mistake of thinking that the world would become peaceful, but the reality is that a single individual, in the wrong place can shatter everything.

[768]

spookly said:

NATO expansion has nothing to do with western aggression, and everything to do with ex-soviet countries wanting to distance themselves from russia. Why wouldn't they? They suffered decades of abuse and isolation by their russian overlords, and are now at threat of invasion as Putin seeks to enlarge his empire and bring back the good old days.

Of course. But the end result is still NATO's border moving east and the Russian view of that is the same regardless of the motivation. (Not that it justifies Putin's actions, it doesn't).

[guyvert1]

spookly said:

Iamnotkloot said:

I do not endorse this view, but I see no problem debating it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/27/nigel-...

My biggest query over this strategy (a negotiated settlement with Crimea being Russian) is, do we really believe Russia would stick to any agreement made?

Ok, I'll debate.

Farage is talking absolute bks.
NATO expansion has nothing to do with western aggression, and everything to do with ex-soviet countries wanting to distance themselves from russia. Why wouldn't they? They suffered decades of abuse and isolation by their russian overlords, and are now at threat of invasion as Putin seeks to enlarge his empire and bring back the good old days.

NATO hasn't gone out to recruit countries, these countries want to join NATO to avoid the same fate as the countries russia has already invaded and stolen lands from. They also want a piece of the prosperity and improved lifestyle that aligning themselves with Europe brings. Look at the increase in standards of living in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia.... now compare to Belarus. Which would you choose?

If russia was fearful that NATO (a defensive alliance) would attack russia, then why has russia withdrawn most of it's troop from the Finnish border regions?

Farage is an odious cretin, and has chimed in simply to try and win some political points. He seems to care about nothing other than himself, his wallet, and not having to live near anyone who looks foreign.

Putin tried a big gamble. It hasn't paid off. He hasn't lost yet, but the longer this continues without him securing much larger swathes of Ukraine, the more likely that they lose completely, or that Putin can't sell it as a win. If they lose Crimea, it'll be impossible to sell as a win.

This x1000, sick of all the BS soundbites that the media then puts front and center.

[pingu393]

768 said:

spookly said:

NATO expansion has nothing to do with western aggression, and everything to do with ex-soviet countries wanting to distance themselves from russia. Why wouldn't they? They suffered decades of abuse and isolation by their russian overlords, and are now at threat of invasion as Putin seeks to enlarge his empire and bring back the good old days.

Of course. But the end result is still NATO's border moving east and the Russian view of that is the same regardless of the motivation. (Not that it justifies Putin's actions, it doesn't).

Russia could move it's influence west using honey, but it decides to always use vinegar. Nobody would join NATO unless they felt threatened.

Guess which country is the root cause of NATO's "expansion", Mr Putin? Did your mummy not tell you to play nice, or you won't have any friends?

[warp9]

US Navy nuclear ballistic missile submarine surfaces off Norway in unusual flex

[AmyRichardson]

pingu393 said:

Russia could move it's influence west using honey, but it decides to always use vinegar. Nobody would join NATO unless they felt threatened.

Guess which country is the root cause of NATO's "expansion", Mr Putin? Did your mummy not tell you to play nice, or you won't have any friends?

In a very immediate sense NATO's Eastern Flank did cause *this* conflict.

Neo-Soviet ambition exists regardless of NATO and in the absence of NATO it would have found more outlets, presumably reducing the Eastern Flank to varying stages of Belarusian benightenness. But because of NATO those nations are democratic, prosperous and institutionally robust. In the absence of these outlets neo-Soviet ambition can only be realised through Georgian/Moldovan scraps and... Ukraine.

Most of us guessed that Putin would be patient, awaiting another round of internal Ukrainian tensions to nibble at the East and to push "their guys" in wider Ukrainian politics. Even contrarian shills like Meershiemer guessed at a "machinate and opportune" strategy, and guessed it would be successful. Maybe Putin knew something we didn't, maybe he was less pessimistic about Ukraine than most of the west was, and thought it wasn't for turning.

Edited by AmyRichardson on Thursday 27th June 13:02

[pingu393]

AmyRichardson said:

pingu393 said:

Russia could move it's influence west using honey, but it decides to always use vinegar. Nobody would join NATO unless they felt threatened.

Guess which country is the root cause of NATO's "expansion", Mr Putin? Did your mummy not tell you to play nice, or you won't have any friends?

In a very immediate sense NATO's Eastern Flank did cause *this* conflict.

Neo-Soviet ambition exists regardless of NATO and in the absence of NATO it would have found more outlets, presumably reducing the Eastern Flank to varying stages of Belarusian benightenness. But because of NATO those nations are democratic, prosperous and institutionally robust. In the absence of these outlets neo-Soviet ambition can only be realised through Georgian/Moldovan scraps and... Ukraine.

I conclude from the above, that you believe NATO are to blame, because they didn't allow Ukraine to join.

I wonder if this is what Putin means when he blames NATO?

An interesting argument, and one that I could be persuaded by.

[EddieSteadyGo]

This is curious....

A Russian government minister has just arrived in New York to participate in a U.N. summit of "police chiefs". Except the government minister is also under US sanctions. That doesn't prevent him from travelling to the US but, considering everything which is going on, it seems strange he would want to travel to New York to participate in some innocuous UN meeting....

https://kyivindependent.com/russian-interior-minis...

[TGCOTF-dewey]

warp9 said:

US Navy nuclear ballistic missile submarine surfaces off Norway in unusual flex

I'd be surprised if that's an SSBN. I suspect it's one of the boats converted to SSGN role.

Odd decision if it is.

[eharding]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

warp9 said:

US Navy nuclear ballistic missile submarine surfaces off Norway in unusual flex

I'd be surprised if that's an SSBN. I suspect it's one of the boats converted to SSGN role.

Odd decision if it is.

Named in the article as USS Tennessee (SSBN 734)

[AlexIT]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

warp9 said:

US Navy nuclear ballistic missile submarine surfaces off Norway in unusual flex

I'd be surprised if that's an SSBN. I suspect it's one of the boats converted to SSGN role.

Odd decision if it is.

It's said to be USSBN Tennessee

EDIT: Forgot link: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-nuclear-submari...

[catso]

AmyRichardson said:

Maybe Putin knew something we didn't, maybe he was less pessimistic about Ukraine than most of the west was, and thought it wasn't for turning.

Maybe he's just a ...