All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

“We have no strategic interest in Ukraine.”—Old Soviet

You cannot be serious with that ridiculous statement.

Putin’s repugnant and calamitous invasion of Ukraine has destabilized most of Europe.

You don’t consider that a “strategic interest” of the United States?



You have lost all credibility here. I guess France, the UK, and United States didn’t have a strategic interest in Sudetenland either.

DocBarrister

What's done is done. The issue now is what comes next. Your 1939 analogy does not apply.
Putin's invasion has unified & strengthened the EU & NATO, not destabilized them.
The pending accession of Finland & Sweden further strengthens NATO's E flank & makes Russian expansion even less likely.
It is increasingly apparent that our EU allies want to conclude this war asap, even if it means Russia retains territory taken in battle.
Wake up & smell the rotting corpses.

[a fan]

I say again -- no oil, no terrorists, no Cold War spread of Communism.
It's not that important to us whether Ukraine is Belarus or Bulgaria. One less broke E EUro country we have to rebuild & rearm.

Yes. But you could say the same about Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the rest. Some guy made up a bunch of theories...and we followed them to their stupid, pointless ends.

We didn't NEED that oil. Our policy wonks said we WANTED that oil. Which ain't the same thing, no matter how hard you wish it to be.

Picture how far ahead our nation would be if our leaders chose nuclear power over shenanigans in the ME. Denser habitation. More mass transit. Accelerated electric car development. We CHOSE another path, and p*ssed away all those lives and dollars because our leaders weren't smart enough to say "why the F are we buying oil from these idiots?"...and instead looked at the army we'd built and said "hey, this looks like a nail....and we have this sweet hammer".....

Basically..the same thing you're making fun of the EU for doing.....having dependence on Russian oil. You get how dumb that is with no trouble, yet you can't square how dumb it was that the US made the exact same mistake with the ME?

We'd love to see the Montreux Convention go away. How do you propose we get around it. How are we going to get US warships into the Black Sea & what do we do then ? Are you willing to risk a naval war with Russia within the confines of the Black Sea. Tell us how that would play out.

You tell me! You're the one who was lecturing me on the critical nature open sea lanes, and that we should fight to keep them open. Suddenly, sea lanes don't matter.

Your solution is: move the goalposts, and change your "strategic interests". Ask: " is it worth going to war over keeping this sea lane open"?

Which is my point. We could have used this kind of thinking AT SOME POINT during the last 50 years, with all our "strategic interests".....which you are telling me were immutable. Yet here in 2022, you've finally learned that nope, strategic interests are just lines on a chalkboard somewhere in the Pentagon. And with one swipe, then can be erased.

[a fan]

What's done is done. The issue now is what comes next. Your 1939 analogy does not apply.
Putin's invasion has unified & strengthened the EU & NATO, not destabilized them.

Let's see what happens when winter arrives before you examine the strength of NATO.

[old salt]

I say again -- no oil, no terrorists, no Cold War spread of Communism.
It's not that important to us whether Ukraine is Belarus or Bulgaria. One less broke E EUro country we have to rebuild & rearm.

Yes. But you could say the same about Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the rest. Some guy made up a bunch of theories...and we followed them to their stupid, pointless ends.So now you're a Cold War denier & think 9-11 was faked.

We didn't NEED that oil. Our policy wonks said we WANTED that oil. Which ain't the same thing, no matter how hard you wish it to be.
James Baker summed it up -- jobs. You didn't wait in the gas lines of the '70's.

Picture how far ahead our nation would be if our leaders chose nuclear power over shenanigans in the ME. Denser habitation. More mass transit. Accelerated electric car development. All in 1990, in a few months, before Iraq invaded Kuwait. The technology was not avail then, or now, & takes decades to implement We CHOSE another path, and p*ssed away all those lives and dollars because our leaders weren't smart enough to say "why the F are we buying oil from these idiots?"...and instead looked at the army we'd built and said "hey, this looks like a nail....and we have this sweet hammer".....

Basically..the same thing you're making fun of the EU for doing.....having dependence on Russian oil. 30 years ago. No longer.You get how dumb that is with no trouble, yet you can't square how dumb it was that the US made the exact same mistake with the ME?
...yes, yes, yes. We're all so much smarter when rewriting history in hindsight.

We'd love to see the Montreux Convention go away. How do you propose we get around it. How are we going to get US warships into the Black Sea & what do we do then ? Are you willing to risk a naval war with Russia within the confines of the Black Sea. Tell us how that would play out.

You tell me! You're the one who was lecturing me on the critical nature open sea lanes, and that we should fight to keep them open. Suddenly, sea lanes don't matter. The presence of USN or NATO warships keeps the sea lanes open. That's our problem in the Black Sea. We can't get in to sweep the mines & escort the cargo ships. How many Russian warships have you seen patrolling the Great Lakes ?

Your solution is: move the goalposts, and change your "strategic interests". Ask: " is it worth going to war over keeping this sea lane open"?
You make no sense. That is not even a possibility under consideration. If we're in a shooting war, the last place we want our warships is bottled up in the Black Sea..

Which is my point. We could have used this kind of thinking AT SOME POINT during the last 50 years, with all our "strategic interests".....which you are telling me were immutable. Yet here in 2022, you've finally learned that nope, strategic interests are just lines on a chalkboard somewhere in the Pentagon. And with one swipe, then can be erased. Do you really not understand why we fought the Cold War ? Do you really discount our strategic interest in keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf ? Do you really not understand why we went after the terrorists who attacked us & our allies ? Those were all strategic interests. Our most pressing strategic interest in this war is bringing it to an end asap & getting the grain & energy flowing again. Let Russia rebuild the territory Putin has clawed back into Mother Russia.

[old salt]

The EU's gas pains.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/e ... tins-game/ {/ paywall}

Europe’s Gas Crunch: Putin’s Game
by ANDREW STUTTAFORD, July 12, 2022

In my recent post about Europe’s gas crunch, I referred to an article by Bloomberg’s (indispensable, yes, I’ll use that adjective again) Javier Blas.
In the course of the article, in which, among other matters, Blas indicated how natural gas prices were now reflecting “extreme danger” for this winter “through 2023 and, increasingly, into 2024.”
In Blas’s view:

The market is right to reprice the gas curve; the only question is why it took so long. There’s further risk ahead: At some point, Moscow will completely turn off the tap, probably just before the winter, to try to bring the German economy to its knees. That’s an outcome the market hasn’t priced yet.

In the most recent Capital Letter I looked at the way that Russia had been restricting the flow of gas to Germany (down at the time of writing the Letter by about 60 percent). This had, I noted, been described by Robert Habeck, the German economy minister, as “economic warfare.” Habeck had stressed that there was nothing irrational about it: “After a 60% reduction, the next one logically follows.”

Looking at where things stood, I argued that it was:
Easy to imagine that Putin will either switch off the flow, or (there are technical reasons why switching it off entirely can cause difficulties) reduce it even more. Russia is, as Münchau [writing in the Spectator] points out, “awash with cash.” Thanks to higher energy prices, its current-account surplus could, he argues, double to some $250–300 billion this year. If the war in Ukraine is still dragging on into the winter months — as seems reasonably likely — it would make sense for Putin to use a brutal energy squeeze to spur the EU to force Ukraine to cut some grubby deal with Moscow. The EU’s determination to wean itself off Russian gas as soon as it can (which, incidentally, is not tomorrow) means that Moscow is running no risk of alienating a client that would otherwise be good for decades. Moreover, bullying the EU to bully Ukraine into some sort of “peace” would generate a political and, given the direct and indirect cost of the war to Moscow, economic return.

Blas looks at the same issue, and, as noted above, believes that Putin will conclude by switching off the tap entirely “probably just before winter”.
Blas’s reasoning is worth looking at in full:

Russia may want to keep some gas flowing to preserve its long-term leverage. From a game-theory point of view, that makes sense. Once Russia stops shipments completely, it can no longer apply pressure. Tactically, Moscow is likely to keep some gas moving, retaining the option of cutting or slowing flows whenever it chooses.

Moreover, Nord Stream 1 is the main route for Russian gas into Europe indexed against the TTF contract [a European benchmark price for natural gas], according to Goldman Sachs. Not reopening the pipeline after the maintenance shutdown will limit the profit that Gazprom, the Russian state-owned gas giant, enjoys from sky-high gas prices.

Russia has clearly written off its gas relationship with Europe. For now, however, the Kremlin will continue to enjoy the best of both worlds: high revenue and compelling leverage. To achieve its objectives, Russia needs to continue selling some gas into Germany, but at reduced rates, as it’s currently doing.

But, as stated above, Blas believes that Putin will ultimately turn off the taps. The beginning of winter seems like a reasonable bet as to when. Europeans are already scrambling to take steps to alleviate the storm to come, steps that are unlikely to be enough to stave off trouble.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Rachel Millard runs some numbers, The background against which she is writing is that on July 11 the Nord Stream 1 pipeline was shut down for annual maintenance. It should reopen on or about July 22 (please note that occasional extensions of the shutdown are not unusual, as those working on maintenance discover something that needs fixing), but will it?
Blas guesses yes (for now), although he doesn’t seem to expect that the flow will resume at anything like normal.

Millard:
The “base assumption” among many analysts is that Nord Stream 1 will start flowing again to at least 40pc after maintenance. Russia needs the revenue, and its gas fields need an outlet. While in the long run Russia wants to pivot sales to China, this will require very large infrastructure development, notes Jacob Mandel, senior associate at Aurora Energy.

That base assumption seems fair enough for now, but for how long? Russia does not need the cash, and the economic return from forcing an early end to the war would, as I mentioned before, be considerable. The idea that it will hold off turning the taps until it has ready to complete the pivot to China strikes me as highly unlikely. This pivot will, as Aurora Energy’s Mandel indicates, take quite some time to complete.
And in the meantime?

Millard:
[E]ven re-starting the pipeline at the lower 40pc rate seen in recent weeks will not be enough. Experts believe storage sites will only be able to get to 70pc full by the end of the year unless the rate is increased. Europe is already buying almost as much as it can from the global market in shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG). Flows from Russia across Turkey and Ukraine have not risen to compensate for the Baltic Sea loss, notes Tom Marzec-Manser, head of gas analytics at ICIS.

Germany is among the most-exposed to gas cut-offs, as it got about half of its supply from Russia in the months before the war. The heavy industry that powers its economy is vulnerable: Chemicals-maker BASF alone accounts for about four percent of annual consumption. . . .

“Should we enter into a gas shortage situation, we would have to decide where, possibly geographically differentiated, the bottleneck exists, and which consumers would therefore need to be curtailed,” the head of Germany’s energy regulator, Klaus Mueller, said on Monday. European laws say that households, hospitals and care homes should be protected in that case.

Other countries are also getting ready. Austria and Denmark are both urging business and households to cut consumption. Finland and the Baltic states will postpone maintenance on gas pipelines, Reuters reported. The Czech Republic will allow coal-fired plants slated for closure to stay open, while Greece is ramping up coal mining. France’s contingency plans could see businesses cut off. “We will determine which companies are of the most strategic importance,” finance minister Bruno Le Maire said last week…

Goldman Sachs predicts a full cut-off of all Russian supplies would trigger a further 65pc hike in energy bills from record highs, bringing them to €500 a month in Europe. A complete halt to Russian gas would push the Euro area into a recession, the bank believes, with growth falling more than 1.25pc in the third quarter in the worst-case scenario.

And any ideas that the effects of such a fall-off in growth could be confined to the economic sphere are, I suspect, wishful thinking.

Under the circumstances, it was interesting to read this (via the Guardian):
Europe is in danger of highly damaging “very, very strong conflict and strife” this winter over high energy prices, and should make a short-term return to fossil fuels to head off the threat of civil unrest, the vice-president of the European Commission has warned.

Quite what all this will do to the willingness of many European countries to stand alongside Ukraine is not hard to guess.

[DocBarrister]

“We have no strategic interest in Ukraine.”—Old Soviet

You cannot be serious with that ridiculous statement.

Putin’s repugnant and calamitous invasion of Ukraine has destabilized most of Europe.

You don’t consider that a “strategic interest” of the United States?



You have lost all credibility here. I guess France, the UK, and United States didn’t have a strategic interest in Sudetenland either.

DocBarrister

What's done is done. The issue now is what comes next. Your 1939 analogy does not apply.
Putin's invasion has unified & strengthened the EU & NATO, not destabilized them.
The pending accession of Finland & Sweden further strengthens NATO's E flank & makes Russian expansion even less likely.
It is increasingly apparent that our EU allies want to conclude this war asap, even if it means Russia retains territory taken in battle.
Wake up & smell the rotting corpses.

Your perspective on Putin’s despicable invasion borders on being delusional.

There are over 5 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe, including over a million in Poland alone.

https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/uk ... restricted

Putin’s catastrophic and criminal war has disrupted oil and gas supplies throughout Europe.

You make the same mistake Putin made before starting his litany of war crimes … underestimating the perseverance of Europe and the United States, and certainly underestimating the resistance of Ukraine.

This is likely going to be a long, brutal war. It is almost certainly going to end with Russia’s strategic defeat and diminishment.

The main question is … how many more people will have to be slaughtered on both sides before Putin’s arrogance and delusions are brought to heel?

Indeed, Putin is looking more like Nicholas I, who died in humiliation and defeat after leading Russia into calamity in Crimea during the 1850s, than Peter the Great, whom Putin aspires to emulate.

I know it’s difficult seeing your idol and hero in Moscow experience humiliation in this war, but that does not mean you should be espousing a delusional view of the current status of the war.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

So now you're a Cold War denier & think 9-11 was faked.

Nope. I'm a smart man like you, who thinks before we send our own people to their death for no reason.

Pop Quiz: we sent our troops to die over "communism", and had a Cold War over it with the Soviets.

How come we didn't have one with China? Take your time, think about it, and then explain why we HAD to go to Vietnam. Or we HAD to arm the future AlQ with Charlie Wilson's stupid game.

James Baker summed it up -- jobs. You didn't wait in the gas lines of the '70's.

Yes. I did. And you're telling me that you aren't smart enough that you can't figure out how to get energy to the US without sending troops to the ME?

I don't believe you.

All in 1990, in a few months, before Iraq invaded Kuwait. The technology was not avail then, or now, & takes decades to implement

Want me to solve your fake problem here, and still get oil from the ME?

Buy oil from Saddam. You remember him, right? You know: the guy Reagan bankrolled and armed? Why wouldn't we simply buy oil from "our guy"? As if all the wankers we get oil from in that region aren't corrupt ***holes, OS.

But setting that aside....you're "plan" from the gas lines until 1990 is to do nothing about US Energy policy. 15 years of doing nothing.

You just explained why our people get sent to places they can't find on a map to die because our leaders can't solve simple problems. And weren't you just mocking Germany for doing this exact thing with Russian energy? And yet here you are, telling me that the Germans have done the right thing. Make up your mind.

..yes, yes, yes. We're all so much smarter when rewriting history in hindsight.

Nope. I'm the guy who wrote history in FORESIGHT, and you know it. Protested the Gulf War. Same with Iraq. Also the minute I was an adult, I got to work designing and operating a sustainable factory.....years before the word "sustainable" was invented. We use less energy, fewer and less materials, and far, far less water....because we've been facing a water crisis, too.

If I can do that? Surely our leaders with their far fancier degrees and far more smarts can figure out the simple, simple problem of getting oil from the ME. We CHOSE not the tackle the problem, and instead, waged war.

You make no sense. That is not even a possibility under consideration. If we're in a shooting war, the last place we want our warships is bottled up in the Black Sea..

I'm making perfect sense. YOU are the one who claimed that for the last 50 years, the US kept sea lanes open. That's not happening right now. So either we have to do something....or you have to recognize that your dictum that we must keep all sea lanes open is merely a suggestion, and act accordingly.

Do you really not understand why we fought the Cold War ?

Oh I do. Pretty clear to me that you don't.

Again, tell me: why didn't we fight a Cold War with China? The Cold War was about Communism, no? So...what gives?

Do you really discount our strategic interest in keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf ?

1000%. Think harder, OS. Want to hear a project my brother did for grad school at Stanford? A city in India couldn't keep up with power demand. They wanted to build more coal plants to "solve" the problem. My brother found out that the light bulbs in India back then were such an inefficient sh*tshow, that they consumed 5x the amount a modern US bulb consumed. Solution? Give away free light bulbs to every property owner for ten years, at 30% of the price of a new coal plant.

Your mind doesn't work like this, and you want to shoot first, and think some other time, when you get around to it. That's not how a wise 1st world country with the best Universities in the world is supposed to behave. We're not supposed to send our people home, wrapped in a flag simply because our leaders aren't in the mood to think through our problems.

Do you really not understand why we went after the terrorists who attacked us & our allies ?

Yup. Because we were stupid enough to send our troops into NutJobIstan, and then act shocked and clutch pearls when they dare to hit us back.

Those were all strategic interests. Our most pressing strategic interest in this war is bringing it to an end asap & getting the grain & energy flowing again.

And what if Russia keeps the ports, and doesn't allow Ukraine to use them? Now what?

[old salt]

So now you're a Cold War denier & think 9-11 was faked.

Nope. I'm a smart man like you, who thinks before we send our own people to their death for no reason.

Pop Quiz: we sent our troops to die over "communism", and had a Cold War over it with the Soviets.

How come we didn't have one with China? Take your time, think about it, and then explain why we HAD to go to Vietnam. Or we HAD to arm the future AlQ with Charlie Wilson's stupid game. Did they teach history in your elite university ? Who do you think we fought in Korea. We fought both Red China & the USSR in Vietnam.

James Baker summed it up -- jobs. You didn't wait in the gas lines of the '70's.

Yes. I did. And you're telling me that you aren't smart enough that you can't figure out how to get energy to the US without sending troops to the ME?

I don't believe you.

All in 1990, in a few months, before Iraq invaded Kuwait. The technology was not avail then, or now, & takes decades to implement

Want me to solve your fake problem here, and still get oil from the ME?

Buy oil from Saddam. You remember him, right? You know: the guy Reagan bankrolled and armed? Why wouldn't we simply buy oil from "our guy"? As if all the wankers we get oil from in that region aren't corrupt ***holes, OS.

But setting that aside....you're "plan" from the gas lines until 1990 is to do nothing about US Energy policy. 15 years of doing nothing.

You just explained why our people get sent to places they can't find on a map to die because our leaders can't solve simple problems. And weren't you just mocking Germany for doing this exact thing with Russian energy? And yet here you are, telling me that the Germans have done the right thing. Make up your mind.

..yes, yes, yes. We're all so much smarter when rewriting history in hindsight.

Nope. I'm the guy who wrote history in FORESIGHT, and you know it. Protested the Gulf War. Same with Iraq. Also the minute I was an adult, I got to work designing and operating a sustainable factory.....years before the word "sustainable" was invented. We use less energy, fewer and less materials, and far, far less water....because we've been facing a water crisis, too.

If I can do that? Surely our leaders with their far fancier degrees and far more smarts can figure out the simple, simple problem of getting oil from the ME. We CHOSE not the tackle the problem, and instead, waged war.

You make no sense. That is not even a possibility under consideration. If we're in a shooting war, the last place we want our warships is bottled up in the Black Sea..

I'm making perfect sense. YOU are the one who claimed that for the last 50 years, the US kept sea lanes open. That's not happening right now. So either we have to do something....or you have to recognize that your dictum that we must keep all sea lanes open is merely a suggestion, and act accordingly. Sheesh. Look at a map. Turkey controls access in/out of the Black Sea, just like the US & Canada control access to the Great Lakes.

Do you really not understand why we fought the Cold War ?

Oh I do. Pretty clear to me that you don't.

Again, tell me: why didn't we fight a Cold War with China? The Cold War was about Communism, no? So...what gives?
We did, in Korea & Vietnam.

Do you really discount our strategic interest in keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf ?

1000%. Think harder, OS. Want to hear a project my brother did for grad school at Stanford? A city in India couldn't keep up with power demand. They wanted to build more coal plants to "solve" the problem. My brother found out that the light bulbs in India back then were such an inefficient sh*tshow, that they consumed 5x the amount a modern US bulb consumed. Solution? Give away free light bulbs to every property owner for ten years, at 30% of the price of a new coal plant.

Your mind doesn't work like this, and you want to shoot first, and think some other time, when you get around to it. That's not how a wise 1st world country with the best Universities in the world is supposed to behave. We're not supposed to send our people home, wrapped in a flag simply because our leaders aren't in the mood to think through our problems.

Do you really not understand why we went after the terrorists who attacked us & our allies ?

Yup. Because we were stupid enough to send our troops into NutJobIstan, and then act shocked and clutch pearls when they dare to hit us back.

Those were all strategic interests. Our most pressing strategic interest in this war is bringing it to an end asap & getting the grain & energy flowing again.

And what if Russia keeps the ports, and doesn't allow Ukraine to use them? Now what?
The Ukrainians still hold Odesa & Mykolaiv, their 2 primary grain exporting ports.

[old salt]

There are over 5 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe, including over a million in Poland alone.
...thus the urgency felt by those EU host nations to end the war asap.

Putin’s catastrophic and criminal war has disrupted oil and gas supplies throughout Europe.
...thus the urgency felt by EU nations to end the war asap.

You make the same mistake Putin made before starting his litany of war crimes … underestimating the perseverance of Europe and the United States, and certainly underestimating the resistance of Ukraine.
Then why aren't the EU members contributing more. You overestimate the perseverance oF EU members. You are not listening to their leaders.

This is likely going to be a long, brutal war. It is almost certainly going to end with Russia’s strategic defeat and diminishment.
You wish.

The main question is … how many more people will have to be slaughtered on both sides before Putin’s arrogance and delusions are brought to heel?
That is obviously a secondary concern for you.

Indeed, Putin is looking more like Nicholas I, who died in humiliation and defeat after leading Russia into calamity in Crimea during the 1850s, than Peter the Great, whom Putin aspires to emulate. Yeah, that's all that matters -- humiliate Putin, no matter the cost.

I know it’s difficult seeing your idol and hero in Moscow experience humiliation in this war, but that does not mean you should be espousing a delusional view of the current status of the war.
When does the rest of the world, including the EU, rally to our side to provide the support necessary to fulfill your fantasy ?

[a fan]

Did they teach history in your elite university ? Who do you think we fought in Korea. We fought both Red China & the USSR in Vietnam.

That's a hot war. What I asked was: why didn't we have a Cold War with China.

You know NATO, right? So how come we didn't do the same thing with a North Pacific Treaty Organization?

It's a serious question.

Sheesh. Look at a map. Turkey controls access in/out of the Black Sea, just like the US & Canada control access to the Great Lakes.

Clearly you're wrong. Can Ukrainian ships leave the Black Sea, or not? Not. And it's LONG before Ukrainian ships get anywhere near Turkey. So clearly Turkey ain't the only crew that controls access.

We did, in Korea & Vietnam.

Again, that was a hot war. Where was the Cold War with China?

Pretty obvious to anyone reading this why you're dodging this obvious question, OS.

The Ukrainians still hold Odesa & Mykolaiv, their 2 primary grain exporting ports. [/color]

Sigh. Even I know where the Ukrainians are, OS. Can ships leave those ports, or not?

So that means that they DON'T hold those ports in terms of actual, real shipping.

You have NO CLUE if Putin will give that up. You are ASSUMING he will do what YOU want him to do.

[old salt]

Did they teach history in your elite university ? Who do you think we fought in Korea. We fought both Red China & the USSR in Vietnam.

That's a hot war. What I asked was: why didn't we have a Cold War with China.

You know NATO, right? So how come we didn't do the same thing with a North Pacific Treaty Organization?

It's a serious question.
You can't separate Korea & Vietnam from the Cold War. They were fostered & supported by BOTH the USSR & Red China to spread Communism. It was still part of the Cold War because it did not devolve into a formal state of war with them.

Sheesh. Look at a map. Turkey controls access in/out of the Black Sea, just like the US & Canada control access to the Great Lakes.

Clearly you're wrong. Can Ukrainian ships leave the Black Sea, or not? Not. And it's LONG before Ukrainian ships get anywhere near Turkey. So clearly Turkey ain't the only crew that controls access. ...I've never denied a Russian blockade. It would take US warships escorting them to break the blockade. The Montreux Convention precludes us getting our warships there.

We did, in Korea & Vietnam.

Again, that was a hot war. Where was the Cold War with China?
Taiwan. Quemoy-Matsu, the Taiwan Straits crises.

Pretty obvious to anyone reading this why you're dodging this obvious question, OS.

The Ukrainians still hold Odesa & Mykolaiv, their 2 primary grain exporting ports. [/color]

Sigh. Even I know where the Ukrainians are, OS. Can ships leave those ports, or not?
US or NATO warships cannot enter the Black Sea to clear the mines & escort the grain vessels.

So that means that they DON'T hold those ports in terms of actual, real shipping.
...the Ukrainian's have mined the area & there's a Russian blockade. They are at war ! We were talking about Ukraine's future if they do not recapture the ports already lost (on the Sea of Azov). They still hold their 2 primary grain exporting ports. You said " And what if Russia keeps the ports, and doesn't allow Ukraine to use them? Now what? " Russia does not hold those ports. If Russia continues to hold the ports they've now captured, Ukraine's grain can still get out, after the mines are cleared & the blockade lifted.

You have NO CLUE if Putin will give that up. You are ASSUMING he will do what YOU want him to do.
That ends with a cease fire. There is no permanent blockade.
You are aware it's a state of war, right ? You expect the US Navy to keep the sea lanes open, through a war zone, when we cannot even get our ships into the Black Sea. You are being unreasonable & argumentative.

[DocBarrister]

There are over 5 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe, including over a million in Poland alone.
...thus the urgency felt by those EU host nations to end the war asap.

Putin’s catastrophic and criminal war has disrupted oil and gas supplies throughout Europe.
...thus the urgency felt by EU nations to end the war asap.

You make the same mistake Putin made before starting his litany of war crimes … underestimating the perseverance of Europe and the United States, and certainly underestimating the resistance of Ukraine.
Then why aren't the EU members contributing more. You overestimate the perseverance oF EU members. You are not listening to their leaders.

This is likely going to be a long, brutal war. It is almost certainly going to end with Russia’s strategic defeat and diminishment.
You wish.

The main question is … how many more people will have to be slaughtered on both sides before Putin’s arrogance and delusions are brought to heel?
That is obviously a secondary concern for you.

Indeed, Putin is looking more like Nicholas I, who died in humiliation and defeat after leading Russia into calamity in Crimea during the 1850s, than Peter the Great, whom Putin aspires to emulate. Yeah, that's all that matters -- humiliate Putin, no matter the cost.

I know it’s difficult seeing your idol and hero in Moscow experience humiliation in this war, but that does not mean you should be espousing a delusional view of the current status of the war.
When does the rest of the world, including the EU, rally to our side to provide the support necessary to fulfill your fantasy ?

European nations have already accommodated and supported over 5 million Ukrainian refugees. That by itself is a greater contribution to Ukraine than all the money and weapons provided by the United States. Your lack of proper perspective is truly disturbing.

Putin and Russia have already suffered a strategic defeat and are diminished in the eyes of the world. NATO has expanded and unified. The reputation of Russia’s conventional military is in tatters and the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet now lies in a watery grave. Putin is now firmly established as a war criminal.

What I don’t quite understand is how you can shamelessly root for Russia and Putin.

Putin and Russia MUST LOSE THIS WAR.

If you don’t understand that, then you do not properly understand the stakes of this war.

DocBarrister

[LaxFan2000]

There are over 5 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe, including over a million in Poland alone.
...thus the urgency felt by those EU host nations to end the war asap.

Putin’s catastrophic and criminal war has disrupted oil and gas supplies throughout Europe.
...thus the urgency felt by EU nations to end the war asap.

You make the same mistake Putin made before starting his litany of war crimes … underestimating the perseverance of Europe and the United States, and certainly underestimating the resistance of Ukraine.
Then why aren't the EU members contributing more. You overestimate the perseverance oF EU members. You are not listening to their leaders.

This is likely going to be a long, brutal war. It is almost certainly going to end with Russia’s strategic defeat and diminishment.
You wish.

The main question is … how many more people will have to be slaughtered on both sides before Putin’s arrogance and delusions are brought to heel?
That is obviously a secondary concern for you.

Indeed, Putin is looking more like Nicholas I, who died in humiliation and defeat after leading Russia into calamity in Crimea during the 1850s, than Peter the Great, whom Putin aspires to emulate. Yeah, that's all that matters -- humiliate Putin, no matter the cost.

I know it’s difficult seeing your idol and hero in Moscow experience humiliation in this war, but that does not mean you should be espousing a delusional view of the current status of the war.
When does the rest of the world, including the EU, rally to our side to provide the support necessary to fulfill your fantasy ?

European nations have already accommodated and supported over 5 million Ukrainian refugees. That by itself is a greater contribution to Ukraine than all the money and weapons provided by the United States. Your lack of proper perspective is truly disturbing.

Putin and Russia have already suffered a strategic defeat and are diminished in the eyes of the world. NATO has expanded and unified. The reputation of Russia’s conventional military is in tatters and the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet now lies in a watery grave. Putin is now firmly established as a war criminal.

What I don’t quite understand is how you can shamelessly root for Russia and Putin.

Putin and Russia MUST LOSE THIS WAR.

If you don’t understand that, then you do not properly understand the stakes of this war.

DocBarrister

Who are you accusing of rooting for Russia and Putin? It doesn't like there's a single person on this site who is rooting for Putin and Russia. Your making a mountain out of a molehill. Seems like you are being hyperbolic for no reason at all. It takes real balls (or stupidity) to accuse someone of openly rooting for Russia. Are you sure this is the hill that you want to die on? I've been on this site for just over a month and it seems that you make these hyperbolic, unjustified claims about fellow posters. And this particular poster has been open about his serving in the military. The way I was raised, that is just something you do not do. It's just no-go, period. I'm beginning to think that you are the one that doesn't understand the stakes of this war. This is a discussion forum, not your own personal echo chamber.

[old salt]

There are over 5 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe, including over a million in Poland alone.
...thus the urgency felt by those EU host nations to end the war asap.

Putin’s catastrophic and criminal war has disrupted oil and gas supplies throughout Europe.
...thus the urgency felt by EU nations to end the war asap.

You make the same mistake Putin made before starting his litany of war crimes … underestimating the perseverance of Europe and the United States, and certainly underestimating the resistance of Ukraine.
Then why aren't the EU members contributing more. You overestimate the perseverance oF EU members. You are not listening to their leaders.

This is likely going to be a long, brutal war. It is almost certainly going to end with Russia’s strategic defeat and diminishment.
You wish.

The main question is … how many more people will have to be slaughtered on both sides before Putin’s arrogance and delusions are brought to heel?
That is obviously a secondary concern for you.

Indeed, Putin is looking more like Nicholas I, who died in humiliation and defeat after leading Russia into calamity in Crimea during the 1850s, than Peter the Great, whom Putin aspires to emulate. Yeah, that's all that matters -- humiliate Putin, no matter the cost.

I know it’s difficult seeing your idol and hero in Moscow experience humiliation in this war, but that does not mean you should be espousing a delusional view of the current status of the war.
When does the rest of the world, including the EU, rally to our side to provide the support necessary to fulfill your fantasy ?

European nations have already accommodated and supported over 5 million Ukrainian refugees. That by itself is a greater contribution to Ukraine than all the money and weapons provided by the United States. Your lack of proper perspective is truly disturbing.

Putin and Russia have already suffered a strategic defeat and are diminished in the eyes of the world. NATO has expanded and unified. The reputation of Russia’s conventional military is in tatters and the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet now lies in a watery grave. Putin is now firmly established as a war criminal.

What I don’t quite understand is how you can shamelessly root for Russia and Putin.

Putin and Russia MUST LOSE THIS WAR.

If you don’t understand that, then you do not properly understand the stakes of this war.

DocBarrister

I'm not rooting for Putin. As you point out -- he's already lost. Ukraine's survival is assured. NATO is united & strengthened.
The territory that Russia has gained is not worth the slaughter necessary to take it back, if that can even be done.
This war needs to be shut down before we are dragged into it. Starving nations need the grain. The EU needs Russian gas & oil. Winter is coming. They are not yet energy independent from Russia.

You revel in the sinking of one Russian warship while all of Ukraine's warships were sunk or surrendered. Their flagship frigate was scuttled & sank pierside when the invasion started. A former Coast Guard cutter we gave them was sunk. Rather than put to sea & head south when we warned them invasion was imminent, like their President, they denied that Russia would invade. That's why they have no warships to challenge Russia's blockade. You mindlessly repeat happy talk propaganda without examining what's really happening.

[DocBarrister]

There are over 5 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe, including over a million in Poland alone.
...thus the urgency felt by those EU host nations to end the war asap.

Putin’s catastrophic and criminal war has disrupted oil and gas supplies throughout Europe.
...thus the urgency felt by EU nations to end the war asap.

You make the same mistake Putin made before starting his litany of war crimes … underestimating the perseverance of Europe and the United States, and certainly underestimating the resistance of Ukraine.
Then why aren't the EU members contributing more. You overestimate the perseverance oF EU members. You are not listening to their leaders.

This is likely going to be a long, brutal war. It is almost certainly going to end with Russia’s strategic defeat and diminishment.
You wish.

The main question is … how many more people will have to be slaughtered on both sides before Putin’s arrogance and delusions are brought to heel?
That is obviously a secondary concern for you.

Indeed, Putin is looking more like Nicholas I, who died in humiliation and defeat after leading Russia into calamity in Crimea during the 1850s, than Peter the Great, whom Putin aspires to emulate. Yeah, that's all that matters -- humiliate Putin, no matter the cost.

I know it’s difficult seeing your idol and hero in Moscow experience humiliation in this war, but that does not mean you should be espousing a delusional view of the current status of the war.
When does the rest of the world, including the EU, rally to our side to provide the support necessary to fulfill your fantasy ?

European nations have already accommodated and supported over 5 million Ukrainian refugees. That by itself is a greater contribution to Ukraine than all the money and weapons provided by the United States. Your lack of proper perspective is truly disturbing.

Putin and Russia have already suffered a strategic defeat and are diminished in the eyes of the world. NATO has expanded and unified. The reputation of Russia’s conventional military is in tatters and the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet now lies in a watery grave. Putin is now firmly established as a war criminal.

What I don’t quite understand is how you can shamelessly root for Russia and Putin.

Putin and Russia MUST LOSE THIS WAR.

If you don’t understand that, then you do not properly understand the stakes of this war.

DocBarrister

I'm not rooting for Putin. As you point out -- he's already lost. Ukraine's survival is assured. NATO is united & strengthened.
The territory that Russia has gained is not worth the slaughter necessary to take it back, if that can even be done.
This war needs to be shut down before we are dragged into it. Starving nations need the grain. The EU needs Russian gas & oil. Winter is coming. They are not yet energy independent from Russia.

You revel in the sinking of one Russian warship while all of Ukraine's warships were sunk or surrendered. Their flagship frigate was scuttled & sank pierside when the invasion started. A former Coast Guard cutter we gave them was sunk. Rather than put to sea & head south when we warned them invasion was imminent, like their President, they denied that Russia would invade. That's why they have no warships to challenge Russia's blockade. You mindlessly repeat happy talk propaganda without examining what's really happening.

You still don’t get it.

There is nothing Ukraine, the EU, or the United States can do right now to stop this war.

That is because Putin will not stop this war. Putin has been engaging in war against Ukraine for nearly a decade. He will not stop until Ukraine surrenders completely to Russia.

Do you understand that?

Putin and Russia MUST LOSE THIS WAR because that is the ONLY WAY THIS WAR CAN END.

Any concession of territory in exchange for “peace” only delays a final push by Putin to take all of Ukraine.

You keep pushing for fantasy resolutions to this war while ignoring the nightmarish truth …

… Putin won’t be stopped until he is forced to stop.

This is going to be a long and brutal war, and that is completely Putin’s fault.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

There are over 5 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe, including over a million in Poland alone.
...thus the urgency felt by those EU host nations to end the war asap.

Putin’s catastrophic and criminal war has disrupted oil and gas supplies throughout Europe.
...thus the urgency felt by EU nations to end the war asap.

You make the same mistake Putin made before starting his litany of war crimes … underestimating the perseverance of Europe and the United States, and certainly underestimating the resistance of Ukraine.
Then why aren't the EU members contributing more. You overestimate the perseverance oF EU members. You are not listening to their leaders.

This is likely going to be a long, brutal war. It is almost certainly going to end with Russia’s strategic defeat and diminishment.
You wish.

The main question is … how many more people will have to be slaughtered on both sides before Putin’s arrogance and delusions are brought to heel?
That is obviously a secondary concern for you.

Indeed, Putin is looking more like Nicholas I, who died in humiliation and defeat after leading Russia into calamity in Crimea during the 1850s, than Peter the Great, whom Putin aspires to emulate. Yeah, that's all that matters -- humiliate Putin, no matter the cost.

I know it’s difficult seeing your idol and hero in Moscow experience humiliation in this war, but that does not mean you should be espousing a delusional view of the current status of the war.
When does the rest of the world, including the EU, rally to our side to provide the support necessary to fulfill your fantasy ?

European nations have already accommodated and supported over 5 million Ukrainian refugees. That by itself is a greater contribution to Ukraine than all the money and weapons provided by the United States. Your lack of proper perspective is truly disturbing.

Putin and Russia have already suffered a strategic defeat and are diminished in the eyes of the world. NATO has expanded and unified. The reputation of Russia’s conventional military is in tatters and the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet now lies in a watery grave. Putin is now firmly established as a war criminal.

What I don’t quite understand is how you can shamelessly root for Russia and Putin.

Putin and Russia MUST LOSE THIS WAR.

If you don’t understand that, then you do not properly understand the stakes of this war.

DocBarrister

I'm not rooting for Putin. As you point out -- he's already lost. Ukraine's survival is assured. NATO is united & strengthened.
The territory that Russia has gained is not worth the slaughter necessary to take it back, if that can even be done.
This war needs to be shut down before we are dragged into it. Starving nations need the grain. The EU needs Russian gas & oil. Winter is coming. They are not yet energy independent from Russia.

You revel in the sinking of one Russian warship while all of Ukraine's warships were sunk or surrendered. Their flagship frigate was scuttled & sank pierside when the invasion started. A former Coast Guard cutter we gave them was sunk. Rather than put to sea & head south when we warned them invasion was imminent, like their President, they denied that Russia would invade. That's why they have no warships to challenge Russia's blockade. You mindlessly repeat happy talk propaganda without examining what's really happening.

You still don’t get it.

There is nothing Ukraine, the EU, or the United States can do right now to stop this war.

That is because Putin will not stop this war. Putin has been engaging in war against Ukraine for nearly a decade. He will not stop until Ukraine surrenders completely to Russia.

Do you understand that?

Putin and Russia MUST LOSE THIS WAR because that is the ONLY WAY THIS WAR CAN END.

Any concession of territory in exchange for “peace” only delays a final push by Putin to take all of Ukraine.

You keep pushing for fantasy resolutions to this war while ignoring the nightmarish truth …

… Putin won’t be stopped until he is forced to stop.

This is going to be a long and brutal war, and that is completely Putin’s fault.

DocBarrister

This is what you still don’t seem to understand, old salt, even after watching nearly a decade of this active war.

The same cannot be said for any theoretical peace deal. The aims of both sides are so fundamentally opposed, so mutually exclusive, that there is no way a compromise position could realistically be found and so the fighting will almost certainly continue.

Most likely, peace talks will only come when one side realises it has lost on the battlefield, or at least can no longer stay the course. At that point, it may be less a negotiated settlement, rather more a conditional surrender.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62159804.amp

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

The United States and its allies need to send dozens more of these advanced artillery systems. They are helping to turn Ukraine into a killing field for invading Russian soldiers.

Speaking from close to the front line in Ukraine's war torn east, Luhansk Governor Serhiy Haidai said the invaders are in "panic mode" as the long-range guided heavy artillery picks off high value targets and degrades Russia's fighting abilities while Ukraine plans counter-attacks.

… The HIMARS have been especially potent. The systems and guided munitions sent to Ukraine have a range of some 50 miles.

Dozens of Russian ammunition and fuel depots have been destroyed in recent weeks. The HIMARS have been credited with several such strikes, including the enormous explosion in Nova Kakhovka in Kherson Oblast this week, Ukrainian officials say.

Multiple Russian commanders are reported to have been killed in HIMARS attacks in the past week, according to the Ukrainians.

… "Ten HIMARS are already making a difference, but we need 100 of them, 10 battalions with 10 HIMARS in each one to be spread across the whole of the front line," he said. "Or at the very least 50 of them."

"Then it doesn't matter who the Russians bring—the Kadyrov [Chechen] troops, the Buryats—they are already in panic mode over these long-range precision weapons, which are pounding their positions."

"There are already reports of mass desertions from different Russian units because this is a real war, it's horrific and no one wants to be sent to their death.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-panic-m ... 4238?amp=1

DocBarrister

[a fan]

You can't separate Korea & Vietnam from the Cold War. They were fostered & supported by BOTH the USSR & Red China to spread Communism. It was still part of the Cold War because it did not devolve into a formal state of war with them.

Sigh. You know why I'm asking this question, OS.

The answer, which you are dodging-----is that we CHOSE to not have a Cold War with China, even though they are Communists.

You keep telling us that we don't have to arm/fund/invade Ukraine. And you're right, of course.

But you REFUSE to understand that his applies to every single war we have fought since WWII. At no point were we, or our treaty bound allies attacked. Not once.

Every war since WWII....every "we should give money and weapons to Saddam and the future AlQ was our CHOICE. You keep selling the notion that we had no choice. No treaty for Vietnam. None for Korea. None for Kuwait.

Just. Like. Ukraine. And yet for Ukraine? You get it. You get that it may not be wise to get involved.

Sorry, but we had a choice in the matter every time.

That's what I'm trying to get across here.....I'll admit I'm doing a poor job.

[a fan]

Putin and Russia MUST LOSE THIS WAR because that is the ONLY WAY THIS WAR CAN END.

We've already seen this movie, Doc. Remember how we "needed" to arm and fund Saddam to keep him from letting Iran do its thing.

How'd that work out?

THAT is why Biden isn't giving Zelensky enough to win the war. Well that, and----what will Putin do if backed into a corner? Who the F knows, but I'm not itching to find out.

Ukraine could wind up being Putin Two, Electric Boogaloo if we're not careful.

[old salt]

You can't separate Korea & Vietnam from the Cold War. They were fostered & supported by BOTH the USSR & Red China to spread Communism. It was still part of the Cold War because it did not devolve into a formal state of war with them.

Sigh. You know why I'm asking this question, OS.

The answer, which you are dodging-----is that we CHOSE to not have a Cold War with China, even though they are Communists.

You keep telling us that we don't have to arm/fund/invade Ukraine. And you're right, of course.

But you REFUSE to understand that his applies to every single war we have fought since WWII. At no point were we, or our treaty bound allies attacked. Not once.

Every war since WWII....every "we should give money and weapons to Saddam and the future AlQ was our CHOICE. You keep selling the notion that we had no choice. No treaty for Vietnam. None for Korea. None for Kuwait.

Just. Like. Ukraine. And yet for Ukraine? You get it. You get that it may not be wise to get involved.

Sorry, but we had a choice in the matter every time.

That's what I'm trying to get across here.....I'll admit I'm doing a poor job.

I never said we had no choice. Afghanistan is the only time we were responding to an attack on us.

While both China & the USSR were both Communist nations, there were significant differences.
It was a diplomatic triumph that we were able to split the two & reach some agreement with China.
We tried with the USSR but they would not deal until Glasnost & Perestroika with Reagan.
Militarily, we were still in a Cold War with both. We very much regarded each other as adversaries.
...obtw -- Saddam used Soviet & French weapons.