[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[portlock seagull]

In all this train crash, I honestly can't remember a single decision by Putin that I thought was the right one.

He's even wheeled out the top Russian lawmaker to give himself credibility:

'Gazprom right to suspend supplies to Bulgaria and Poland - Russia's top lawmaker'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804 8:55

That’s because he’s a evil sociopath that has now joined Hitler, Stalin and co in world history. And may even trump then all. We shall see. Anyway, let’s hope plenty more Russians are killed today. It’s the only way they’ll ‘learn’

 

[Triggaaar]

Briefly, my answers to your points are:

1. When they run out of missiles.

If they run out, they can make more. I understand that due to sanctions they don't currently have the technology to make all types of precision missiles, but they can still make missiles in Russia, so they won't ever have to stop for that reason.

2. I used the scenario of the withdrawal from Kyiv as an answer to your claim that withdrawal must come with a reward. Clearly it doesn't.

You're being silly. We were talking about completely withdrawing from Ukraine (and ending all hostilities). Moving troops around a war zone is obviously not the same thing.

3. One scenario would be - Russia can't afford to wage war any more, because it can't make more tanks and can't pay its troops' wages. This is the beauty of sanctions.

The sanctions are not working as well as you're hoping. I'm not saying they've had no effect on the country as a whole (they have) but they're still getting something like $1 billion per day from oil exports (I think gas is on top of that). China and India are happy to buy it. That's a lot of money and pays for a lot of missiles etc. They don't need to pay the dead soldiers, and they can easily drop the wages of those still living if they need to (with their exports, I doubt they'd need to, but they could) - yes it would harm morale, but many Russian soldiers have to choose between fighting or being shot for desertion. If they don't build more tanks, they can still defend the land they've already taken, and continue firing missiles.

4. They are the same thing. Regime change can come from within Russia. It is a common fallacy to think it must come from outside.

Who's fallacy? No one said it must come from the outside. You said that we mustn't remove sanctions until the people of Russia overthrow Putin, and I said that it's not realistic to expect the people to do that. Anyone questioning the government is put in prison, and they have no freedom of information - they're all told he's great.

 

[Eric the meek]

If they run out, they can make more. I understand that due to sanctions they don't currently have the technology to make all types of precision missiles, but they can still make missiles in Russia, so they won't ever have to stop for that reason.
You're being silly. We were talking about completely withdrawing from Ukraine (and ending all hostilities). Moving troops around a war zone is obviously not the same thing.

The sanctions are not working as well as you're hoping. I'm not saying they've had no effect on the country as a whole (they have) but they're still getting something like $1 billion per day from oil exports (I think gas is on top of that). China and India are happy to buy it. That's a lot of money and pays for a lot of missiles etc. They don't need to pay the dead soldiers, and they can easily drop the wages of those still living if they need to (with their exports, I doubt they'd need to, but they could) - yes it would harm morale, but many Russian soldiers have to choose between fighting or being shot for desertion. If they don't build more tanks, they can still defend the land they've already taken, and continue firing missiles.


Who's fallacy? No one said it must come from the outside. You said that we mustn't remove sanctions until the people of Russia overthrow Putin, and I said that it's not realistic to expect the people to do that. Anyone questioning the government is put in prison, and they have no freedom of information - they're all told he's great.

I thought my answers to your points were quite reasonable and not silly at all. I stand by everything I have written.

Let's move on.

 

[Muhammad - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

Why aren't there more soldiers in the SBS?

Reason 1. no squadie can find the camp and end up trying to report for duty at the caravan park.

Reason 2. Many soldiers can't pass dive training.

Reminds me of the old forces joke:

Stars....
The Navy navigate by them.
The Army camp under them
The RAF rate hotels by them

 

[Triggaaar]

I thought my answers to your points were quite reasonable and not silly at all. I stand by everything I have written.

I only called one of them silly. I said I couldn't see Russia being forced to withdraw (cease all hostilities etc) without some reward for withdrawing (removing some sanctions) and you said they were forced to withdraw from Kiev - that is silly.

Let's move on.

Yep

 

[Triggaaar]

This one's a shocker:

[TWEET]1518980313740980228[/TWEET]

 

[vegster]

Osintdefender reporting on Twitter that there is further escalation in Transnistria, text messages purporting to say that an attack from Ukrainian forces is imminent and also that a group were intercepted trying to gain access to a massive munitions store that resulted in a shootout ....it was pointed out that the Ukrainians could have just blown it all to hell with their artillery as its well within range !

However, expect the false flags to increase until the Russians are " reluctantly " forced to invade the area. This is going to drag Moldova in now.

 

[Eric the meek]

'Energy imports 'weaponised' since invasion'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804 10:13

Earlier, I said that Putin had weaponised fossil fuels. Here we are, and Katya Adler is saying the same thing.
What I find interesting is that Putin has only stopped the gas going to Poland and Bulgaria. Germany, who gets 40% of its gas from Russia, continues to receive it.

Is this a political move, designed to sow division in the EU? Between the richer Germany having gas, and the former Soviet puppet states of Poland and Bulgaria, who have to go without?
Is there method in Putin's madness?

 

[nicko31]

This one's a shocker:

[TWEET]1518980313740980228[/TWEET]

I like the one she just let the camera roll and said almost nothing....

 

[Triggaaar]

I like the one she just let the camera roll and said almost nothing....

That's a fine hole ya diggin' there. Oh, you just gonna keep on goin'. You're gonna need a ladder get out a that.

 

[Triggaaar]

Osintdefender reporting on Twitter that there is further escalation in Transnistria, text messages purporting to say that an attack from Ukrainian forces is imminent

Yeah, 'cos Ukraine aren't busy enough fighting the Russians in Ukraine

 

[Baldseagull]

I thought my answers to your points were quite reasonable and not silly at all. I stand by everything I have written.

Let's move on.

Comparing moving forces out of one area and redeploying them elsewhere was a silly comparison to withdrawal. Even if those troops were just withdrawn and not redeployed, as long as Russia has combatants anywhere in Ukraine, sanctions can't be reduced. The grey area is if Russia just maintains forces behind the pre-invasion lines in the Donbass, that is effectively what was happening before sanctions got really tough. Personally I don't think sanctions will be reduced significantly until there is a signed agreement between Ukraine and Russia over the status of Crimea, and Donetsk and Lubhansk. I think Crimea can be resolved, but there will be many Ukrainian fighters that will not accept any reduction of territory in the Donbass, this is the reason Ukraine was unable to implement the Minsk Agreements that gave some autonomy to Donetsk and Lubhansk, there was a real threat of armed revolution by the Nationalist Militias.

 

[Triggaaar]

'Energy imports 'weaponised' since invasion'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804 10:13

Earlier, I said that Putin had weaponised fossil fuels. Here we are, and Katya Adler is saying the same thing.

When did you say it? Here, when you were quoting the BBC?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804

Russia is now adopting a high risk strategy of weaponising fossil fuels, by halting gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

[Tweet]1519262232030453761[/Tweet]

Something is happening near Odesa or Transnistria.

Or it's a bluff.

[Tweet]1519270499573981184[/Tweet]

 

[GT49er]

[Tweet]1519262232030453761[/Tweet]

Something is happening near Odesa or Transnistria.

Or it's a bluff.

Hope that the weaponry that the west have supplied to Ukraine includes some damn good anti-ship missiles!

 

[Eric the meek]

When did you say it? Here, when you were quoting the BBC?

No, that wasn't a quote from the BBC. I gave a link to the BBC article, because that is where I first read the news.
Katya Adler's piece was after I wrote about Russia 'weaponising fossil fuelds'. I hope this clears it up. I wouldn't want this to drag on.

 

[Triggaaar]

No, that wasn't a quote from the BBC. I gave a link to the BBC article, because that is where I first read the news. Katya Adler's piece was after I wrote about Russia 'weaponising fossil fuelds'.

1) The BBC wrote "Gas being used as a political weapon - Bulgaria" from Bulgaria's energy minister's statement "At the moment, the natural gas is being used more as a political and economic weapon in the current war"

2) From that, you wrote "Russia is now adopting a high risk strategy of weaponising fossil fuels, by halting gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland".

3) Then Katya quoted the European Commission president as saying energy imports and exports have been broadly “weaponised” since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.


And you want to claim credit for coming up with it, and the BBC copying you:
"Earlier, I said that Putin had weaponised fossil fuels. Here we are, and Katya Adler is saying the same thing"

Come on, you saw the second article and thought 'oh, I said that earlier', so you posted here, forgetting that you hadn't really said it earlier, you were simply quoting them earlier.

I hope this clears it up.

No it doesn't.

I wouldn't want this to drag on.

I bet you wouldn't. Just admit your mistake and move on.

 

[pb21]

'Energy imports 'weaponised' since invasion'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804 10:13

Earlier, I said that Putin had weaponised fossil fuels. Here we are, and Katya Adler is saying the same thing.
What I find interesting is that Putin has only stopped the gas going to Poland and Bulgaria. Germany, who gets 40% of its gas from Russia, continues to receive it.

Is this a political move, designed to sow division in the EU? Between the richer Germany having gas, and the former Soviet puppet states of Poland and Bulgaria, who have to go without?
Is there method in Putin's madness?

I don't understand the situation, but I read something that Germany have paid in Euros, but to a special Gazprom bank account type that can exchange to Roubles. Presumably the standard/original payment method of Euros isn't into an account that allows exchange due to sanctions.

Edit: But reading this maybe not...

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/nat...tria-to-pay-in-rubles-for-russian-gas-/35223#

 

[Eric the meek]

1) The BBC wrote "Gas being used as a political weapon - Bulgaria" from Bulgaria's energy minister's statement "At the moment, the natural gas is being used more as a political and economic weapon in the current war"

2) From that, you wrote "Russia is now adopting a high risk strategy of weaponising fossil fuels, by halting gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland".

3) Then Katya quoted the European Commission president as saying energy imports and exports have been broadly “weaponised” since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.


And you want to claim credit for coming up with it, and the BBC copying you:
"Earlier, I said that Putin had weaponised fossil fuels. Here we are, and Katya Adler is saying the same thing"

Come on, you saw the second article and thought 'oh, I said that earlier', so you posted here, forgetting that you hadn't really said it earlier, you were simply quoting them earlier.

No it doesn't.
I bet you wouldn't. Just admit your mistake and move on.

Nope. It didn't happen like that at all.

I did really say it earlier. But so what if I did? Does it really matter?

I used the phrase 'weaponising fossil fuels' as it illustrates the futility of Putin's whole strategy. The article you refer to, which you believe I was quoting from, doesn't even use the words 'weaponise', 'fossil' or 'fuels', for Heaven's sake!

Now, are you prepared to admit your own mistake and move on?

 

[GT49er]

1) The BBC wrote "Gas being used as a political weapon - Bulgaria" from Bulgaria's energy minister's statement "At the moment, the natural gas is being used more as a political and economic weapon in the current war"

2) From that, you wrote "Russia is now adopting a high risk strategy of weaponising fossil fuels, by halting gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland".

3) Then Katya quoted the European Commission president as saying energy imports and exports have been broadly “weaponised” since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.


And you want to claim credit for coming up with it, and the BBC copying you:
"Earlier, I said that Putin had weaponised fossil fuels. Here we are, and Katya Adler is saying the same thing"

Come on, you saw the second article and thought 'oh, I said that earlier', so you posted here, forgetting that you hadn't really said it earlier, you were simply quoting them earlier.

No it doesn't.
I bet you wouldn't. Just admit your mistake and move on.

Nope. It didn't happen like that at all.

I did really say it earlier. But so what if I did? Does it really matter?

I used the phrase 'weaponising fossil fuels' as it illustrates the futility of Putin's whole strategy. The article you refer to, which you believe I was quoting from, doesn't even use the words 'weaponise', 'fossil' or 'fuels', for Heaven's sake!

Now, are you prepared to admit your own mistake and move on?

......... and in more important news, fighting continues and people are being killed in Ukraine.