Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Rroff said:
All seems well and good if you look at it superficially as your points are - reality is a bit different when you look at the details such as how soon other energy initiatives can be brought forward, the future reliance on gas and how well the storage can stand up, and how much Russian gas was used, funding the war effort, to stabilise the situation despite bringing other international partners into the mix. And like with the UK it is all well and good in the short term but the longer term problem is far from sorted.

There is very little in the way of a unified Union wide plan to reduce reliance on gas in the long term in a feasible time table.

PS I'm just as critical of the UK in terms of how short sighted the planning is for this.
Click to expand...
you don't seem to have realistic expectations. Europe heavily relied on Russian gas and it is not reasonable to expect that to magically instantaneously be replaced. The price of gas increased due to market conditions, not due to the EU. In the short term there was simply zero choice but to continue the import, while alternative sources were negotiated. The EU did this in record time, and archived their import goals ahead of schedule. The profits from gas purchases were covered by an extensive set of sanctions brought in very rapidly that havea much larger impact than the UK's, even normalising by population

Longer term the EU have brought forward 100% renewable energy plans. Many EU countries will be close to 100% renewable (or nuclear) by 2030-35 such as Portugal,Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, with many others at 75-95% renewable by then. The UK is not commiting to any such aggressive timeline, despite being in a prime location like the other nordic countries . The UK could be a leader in renewable energy exporter, but instead is fighting over fracking rights.

In all of this there are a lot of variables. If the whole EU immediately shut down all gas imports then there would have been the most severe global recession ever seen, and hundreds of millions of people would be in winter without sufficient power, left in the dark and cold. Europe would have been weakened massively with minimal impact on Russia. Paying for Russian gas short term had long term benefits for Europe to stay strong and impact Russia much more severely in the years to come.

The problem we all face now is the west is too scared of nuclear weapons to properly end the war, and Russia still has massive military operational capability and a disregard for Russian lives. Since the west wont end the war, it is entirely up to Russia. They either put their tail between their legs and pull out (but only if their is some gesture from Ukraine to provide Putin with a plausible win), or Russia goes on a war footing and through sheer capacity will eventually win, or Putin is taken out and some other oligarch takes over who doesn't care about Ukraine and pulls out with some pretense of democracy and good will to the west in attempt to reduce sanctions .As it stands, sending arms to Ukraine won't actually make them win outright, it just allows them to survive longer. That is still important, but it is Russia that still has control. Outside the happy headlines, experts are still pessimistic of short term Ukrainian success. The west supplying short range weapons doesn't lead to Ukraine expelling Russia entirely, but does cost Russian lives and resources. Tje end of the war is entirely within Putin's hands, either a conscious decision to cut losses or someone inside taking him out.
 
Looks like Russia is attempting an orderly retreat from Kherson, presumably sacrificing/leaving behind the mobilised troops in the end... though the risk of traps/urban fighting is still there:

www.politico.eu

Russia’s Kherson retreat plan ‘well advanced,’ says Western official

Russian collaborators also say troops are likely to retreat across the Dnipro River, but the Ukrainian military is wary of ‘tricks.’
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu
Kirill Stremousov, the deputy head of Kherson’s Moscow-installed administration, told Russian state television on Thursday that Russian troops could move across the Dnipro in the coming days.

“Most likely, our units, our troops will go to the left bank part of the Kherson region,” he said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin also struck an upbeat note on impending Ukrainian advances.

“On the issue of whether or not the Ukrainians can take the remaining territory on the west side of the Dnieper river in Kherson, I certainly believe that they have the capability to do that,” Austin told a press conference. “Most importantly, the Ukrainians believe they have the capability to do that. We have seen them engage in a very methodical but effective effort to take back their sovereign territory.”

Rumors about a potential Russian withdrawal from Kherson city swirled around Thursday after pictures were posted on social media platforms showing the Russian flag was missing from the main administrative building in the city. However, footage on the Telegram channel showed Russian flags flying from other official buildings.
Click to expand...
 
It's hard to get a read on the Russians ukraine needs to be very careful here

The Russians look like they are retreating but at the same time installing defensive bunkers and sinking boats to prevent water crossings.

Are they planning a last stand? Retreat? Or a trap to flood the city? Or simply a feint to make the Ukrainians overly cautious and cause them to not move in fearing a trap.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
you don't seem to have realistic expectations. Europe heavily relied on Russian gas and it is not reasonable to expect that to magically instantaneously be replaced. The price of gas increased due to market conditions, not due to the EU. In the short term there was simply zero choice but to continue the import, while alternative sources were negotiated. The EU did this in record time, and archived their import goals ahead of schedule. The profits from gas purchases were covered by an extensive set of sanctions brought in very rapidly that havea much larger impact than the UK's, even normalising by population

Longer term the EU have brought forward 100% renewable energy plans. Many EU countries will be close to 100% renewable (or nuclear) by 2030-35 such as Portugal,Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, with many others at 75-95% renewable by then. The UK is not commiting to any such aggressive timeline, despite being in a prime location like the other nordic countries . The UK could be a leader in renewable energy exporter, but instead is fighting over fracking rights.

In all of this there are a lot of variables. If the whole EU immediately shut down all gas imports then there would have been the most severe global recession ever seen, and hundreds of millions of people would be in winter without sufficient power, left in the dark and cold. Europe would have been weakened massively with minimal impact on Russia. Paying for Russian gas short term had long term benefits for Europe to stay strong and impact Russia much more severely in the years to come.

The problem we all face now is the west is too scared of nuclear weapons to properly end the war, and Russia still has massive military operational capability and a disregard for Russian lives. Since the west wont end the war, it is entirely up to Russia. They either put their tail between their legs and pull out (but only if their is some gesture from Ukraine to provide Putin with a plausible win), or Russia goes on a war footing and through sheer capacity will eventually win, or Putin is taken out and some other oligarch takes over who doesn't care about Ukraine and pulls out with some pretense of democracy and good will to the west in attempt to reduce sanctions .As it stands, sending arms to Ukraine won't actually make them win outright, it just allows them to survive longer. That is still important, but it is Russia that still has control. Outside the happy headlines, experts are still pessimistic of short term Ukrainian success. The west supplying short range weapons doesn't lead to Ukraine expelling Russia entirely, but does cost Russian lives and resources. Tje end of the war is entirely within Putin's hands, either a conscious decision to cut losses or someone inside taking him out.
Click to expand...

This is the problem it is all moping about it not being realistic but while trite extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. One of the few things the UK got right about the pandemic response was setting up the committees and taskforces, etc. towards creating a vaccine, which was very costly in the short term but produced a long term result. The resources of the EU (and neighbouring countries including the UK should really be included in that) haven't been mobilised to tackle the problem and alleviate the reliance on gas in a rapid, even if costly up front, fashion - the response has overall been fragmented and lacking any kind of radical action.

Things can happen in a war time scenario at pace people constantly claim unrealistic in peacetime.
 
I think part of the problem stems from the geopolitical headache that a totally destabilised Russia presents with possibly dozens of little statelets and a mess of nuclear proliferation that goes well beyond what occurred with the USSR falling apart (assuming we believe Russia didn't skimp too much on their strategic forces). Unfortunately that is very likely to present itself as avoiding mobilisation of Western industires to the maximum potential they can be by getting in the way of decision making (though it's also helped along with significant don't-rock-the-boat factions across the West for a convenient force to blame for it).
 
StriderX said:
I think part of the problem stems from the geopolitical headache that a totally destabilised Russia presents with possibly dozens of little statelets and a mess of nuclear proliferation that goes well beyond what occurred with the USSR falling apart (assuming we believe Russia didn't skimp too much on their strategic forces). Unfortunately that is very likely to present itself as avoiding mobilisation of Western industires to the maximum potential they can be by getting in the way of decision making (though it's also helped along with significant don't-rock-the-boat factions across the West for a convenient force to blame for it).
Click to expand...

With a fragmented Russia I doubt any of the resulting states would be able to afford to maintain nuclear weapons, even with the arsenal and strategic forces and equipment divided up or trying to pool resources towards that end.

We spend about £3bn a year maintaining our, relatively small, nuclear weapon capability and that benefits from having additional nuclear capabilities which have some overlap (and the US facilities), which fragmented states of Russia wouldn't have.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom