Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

May 29, 2022 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

Ukraine is a millstone around Europe’s neck

"The fallout of the war in Ukraine over Europe is largely seen in terms of the uncertainties over the continent’s heavy dependence on Russian energy and the impact of it on the economies of the 27 EU member countries. Imposing restrictions on Russian oil has proven a much more complicated task than imagined previously.

Countries that are highly dependent on Russian fossil fuels are concerned about the implications of such measures for their own economies. Hungary, for example, is apparently asking for financial support of between $16 billion and $19 billion to move away from Russian energy. It also refuses to discuss the matter at the upcoming Extraordinary European summit on Monday/Tuesday in Brussels. Prime Minister Viktor Orban asked in a letter to the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, that the oil embargo be removed from the topics of discussion at the summit.

Equally, there is much of debris falling on Europe on other fronts. The UN says that as of May 24, 6.6 million refugees have left Ukraine for neighbouring countries. They are entitled to social welfare payments and access to housing, medical treatment and schools. But this coincides with a cost of living crisis in Europe. A confluence of economic shocks continues to threaten the outlook for the EU bloc. The CEOs of several European blue chip companies told CNBC recently that they see a significant recession coming down the pike in Europe.

But what is by far most crucial for Europe is the endgame in Ukraine, which Russia cannot afford to lose. Such wars usually end with a dirty diplomatic settlement. Clearly, the initial blue-and-yellow flag-waving phase of the war is steadily giving way to a sombre mood as the slow, grinding phase of the Russian advance in the Donbass and the stunning success in Mariupol bring in grim realities.

Henry Kissinger has come out in the open at the World Economic Forum at Davos to argue that Europe needs to have its own independent, and clear-headed definition of its strategic goals. In a conversation with WEF founder Klaus Schwab on Monday, Kissinger made three important points. He said, “Parties should be brought to peace talks within the next two months. Ukraine should’ve been a bridge between Europe and Russia, but now, as the relationships are reshaped, we may enter a space where the dividing line is redrawn and Russia is entirely isolated.”

Kissinger estimated that European interests would be best served by a normalisation of relations and increased cooperation right across the European continent, including Russia and Ukraine. This is the first point. Second, Kissinger’s prognosis is that the conflict in Ukraine can permanently restructure the global order. In his words,

“We are facing a situation now where Russia could alienate itself completely from Europe and seek a permanent alliance elsewhere. This may lead to Cold War-like diplomatic distances, which will set us back decades. We should strive for long-term peace.”
A highly nuanced hint here is that both Europe and Russia’s interests vis-a-vis China’s rise are congruent and if the Atlanticist politicians in Brussels and their assorted Russophobic allies in Eastern Europe and their mentors in Washington, DC keep pushing the dated Cold War ideology over the long-term political and economic interests of European citizens, the most likely scenario will be even greater Russian rapprochement with China.

To quote Kissinger, “Looked at from a long-term point of view, Russia has been, for 400 years, an essential part of Europe, and European policy over that period of time has been affected, fundamentally, by its European assessment of the role of Russia. Sometimes in an observing way, but on a number of occasions as the guarantor, or the instrument, by which the European balance could be re-established. Current policy should keep in mind the restoration of this role is important to develop, so that Russia is not driven into a permanent alliance with China. But European relations with it are not the only key element of this…”

What Kissinger didn’t say explicitly is that in such a scenario, the EU is destined to suffer a loss of clout and a subaltern role to Washington’s, with less strategic autonomy than it would and could have enjoyed, had it not subordinated all of its interests to Washington and had instead maintained a more independent and balanced position.

Third, Kissinger argues that realpolitik dictates that the European efforts should concentrate on the resolution of the territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine: “Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante. Pursuing the war beyond that point will not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.” By status quo ante, he was of course referring to Kiev’s acceptance of Crimea, Lugansk, and Donetsk remaining under Russia’s control.

In a very refreshing perspective, Kissinger all but hinted that an EU-Ukraine-Russia axis would be competitive with Beijing and Washington on the global playing field. He visualised that China and United States “in the next years have to come to some definition of how to conduct the long-term relationship of countries, it depends on their strategic capacities, but also on their interpretation of these capacities… The challenge is whether this adversarial aspect can be mitigated and progressively eased by the diplomacy that both sides conduct and it cannot be done unilaterally by one side. So, both sides have to come to the conviction that some easing of the political relationship is essential…”

Given Kissinger’s formidable foreign-policy legacy as a diplomatist and statesman, his remarks are bound to influence the European statesmen about the endgame in Ukraine. The telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Saturday can be seen against the above backdrop.
The conversation took place on the eve of the European summit in Brussels. But Washington has let it be known on Saturday already through a media leak that the Biden Administration is considering the transfer of long-range rocket systems to Ukraine as soon as the coming week. Now, that would be seen as provocation by Russia. All indications are that the Biden administration will not mind a prolonged war in Ukraine and may see advantages in it.

The former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich has warned that Ukraine risks not only losing vast territories in its south and east but also a “complete destruction” of its sovereignty. He said the US never really saw Ukraine as an independent country but as a mere “territory from which a total weakening of Russia should begin.” Indeed, Zelensky himself reminds us increasingly of the Christian legend of the Wandering Jew who, as a consequence of rejecting Jesus, is condemned never to die, but to wander homeless through the world.

About a month ago, in a rare statement, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) accused Washington and Warsaw of plotting to restore Polish control over part of western Ukraine, which Poland had ruled at different times in the past, most recently between the two world wars. The territories include the city of Lviv, which were absorbed into the Soviet Union at the end of World War II.

The SVR said the US was discussing with Poland a plan under which Polish “peacekeeping” forces without a NATO mandate would enter parts of western Ukraine where the chance of a confrontation with Russian forces was low. The SVR’s intelligence scoop presumably triggered an expulsion of 45 Russian diplomats in Poland and a physical attack on the Russian Ambassador at a public function at Warsaw.

Curiously, soon afterward, on May 24, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced “joint customs control” on Ukraine’s border with Poland, which he described as “also the beginning of our integration into the common customs space of the European Union… (and) a truly historic process.” Zelensky said Ukraine-Poland relations are “finally completely free of quarrels and the legacy of old conflicts. I would like the brotherhood between Ukrainians and Poles to last forever… our unity of Ukrainians and Poles is a constant that no one will break.” Two days before that, Polish President Andrzej Duda had visited Kiev.

To be sure, Zelensky and Duda acted with US approval. In effect, Ukraine’s sovereignty over its western regions bordering Poland is eroded. Kiev has also announced plans to grant special legal status to Polish citizens. Plainly put, a de facto “merger” is under way.

A reclamation of lost territories in western Ukraine (estimated to be 178000 sq. kms) would make Poland much larger than Germany — exceeding 500,000 sq. kms as against Germany’s 357, 588 sq. kms. The geopolitical implications are far too profound to be overstated — to name a few, EU’s future, Germany’s rise, Europe’s autonomy, German-Russian relations, Russia’s security."

https://www.indianpunchline.com/ukra...-europes-neck/

Originally Posted by bsnub

It is all total fiction

Thank for your reading the article and your opinion on its content.

Originally Posted by bsnub

a physical attack on the Russian Ambassador at a public function at Warsaw.

Shooting blanks, or drunk again?

A real event of another NaGastan fake video?



"NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories.

NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline ....

NBCUniversal's headquarters in New York City."

The EU Needs More Than $1 Trillion For Plan To Ditch Russian Oil And Gas

By Rystad Energy - May 25, 2022, 5:00 PM CDT

• The EU’s ambitious plan to reduce its dependency on Russian fossil fuels is going to require at least €1 trillion in investment.
• In order to achieve the goals they have set out, the EU will require wartime levels of investment, construction, and production.
• The EU is already working to speed up the permitting process to ensure that new solar and wind projects can be brought online in time.

"The European Union’s REPowerEU seeks to reduce the European Union’s dependency on Russian fossil fuels and accelerate the transition away from carbon-intensive energy sources. The European Commission’s cost estimate, however, may fall short as Rystad Energy analysis suggests the plan will require at least €1 trillion in investment to meet the core objective of increasing renewable generation from 40% to 45% of total energy supply by 2030.

Additional investment will be required to meet targets, including grid and battery storage developments to ensure a stable supply of energy as the whole European power system will need to be restructured. While the plan defines different angles to tackle the current crisis, the most detailed section outlines the roadmap for solar PV. The strategy aims to bring 320 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV online by 2025 and almost 600 GW by 2030, aiming to displace 9 billion cubic meters (Bcm) of gas demand.

Europe currently has around 189 GW of installed solar PV capacity, meaning 131 GW need to be installed by the middle of the decade, or an equivalent of 44 GW per year. This would mean almost doubling the installation rate, which was 24 GW in 2021 and is expected to be 29 GW this year. To reach the targeted 600 GW by 2030, around 56 GW of new solar PV capacity would need to be installed during the following five years.

Assuming an average cost for solar PV of €1.1 million per megawatt (MW) of installed capacity, installing 411 GW between now and 2030 would represent an investment of €452 billion.

Reaching 45% renewable energy supply by 2030 additionally requires significant investments in wind capacity – for which the plan does not have a lot of detail.

Rystad Energy’s estimates suggest another 450-490 GW of wind capacity would need to be installed by 2030 to reach the target of 45% renewable energy supply, requiring an additional €820 billion in investments.

Such a transition will require huge investments but thus far the European Commission has been unclear about the total amounts allocated to achieve its goals. Recent announcements and communications mention that €225 billion is already available in loans and that an additional investment of €300 billion could be needed by 2030. Regardless of the total amount being assigned to new renewable energy developments, the figures seem to fall considerably below the required additional investment needed in power transmission, storage, gas infrastructure, and hydrogen production. Furthermore, such a large demand for new capacity will put additional pressure on the supply chain for solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing and could lead to a further increase in costs for these technologies.

“The ambition of the REPowerEU plan is huge. Power companies and energy markets will be looking for details on investments and infrastructure. While the targets are achievable, it will require wartime-like planning, levels of investment, construction, and production to meet goals by 2030,” says Carlos Torres Diaz, head of power research at Rystad Energy.

Targets breakdown

The EU has identified six key areas to reach REPowerEU targets:

• Smart investment
• Tackle slow and complex permitting for major renewable projects
• Saving energy
  
  • Increase binding energy efficiency targets from 9% to 13%
    
  • Cut gas and oil demand by 5% through behavioral changes
  
  
• Diversifying fossil fuels supplies
  
  • Develop a joint purchasing mechanism to negotiate gas purchases
  • Develop major hydrogen corridors in the Mediterranean and the North Sea
  
  
• Accelerating the rollout of renewable energy
  
  • Increase the target for renewables from 40% to 45% of total energy supply by 2030
  • Double solar PV capacity by 2025 and reach 600 GW of installed capacity by 2030
    
  • Double the rate of heat pump deployment
  • Eliminate red tape for renewable energy project permitting
  • Produce 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen and import an additional 10 million tonnes by 2030
  
  
• Reducing fossil fuel consumption in industry and transport
  
  • Reduce natural gas consumption from the industrial sector by an additional 35 Bcm by 2030 by using renewable hydrogen, biogas, and biomethane
    
  
  

Reducing red tape

REPowerEU acknowledged the need to address the bottlenecks in the permitting process. Currently, a wind energy permit could take up to nine years. To address this issue, the Commission put forward a new legislative proposal on renewables permitting based on three things:

1. It will declare that renewables are presumed to be in “overriding public interest”. That would ensure renewable energy projects are prioritized, especially in the current scenario and until climate neutrality is reached.
   
2. The proposal also urges nations to create so-called, “go-to” areas. These areas are to be set following an environment assessment (declaring that renewables projects are not a direct threat to the environment). Projects in these areas would need to be permitted within one year.
   
3. The Commission also plans to keep existing permitting deadlines (i.e., two years) for the normal new projects and one year for repowered projects.
   

Speeding up the permitting process is crucial for the European Union to be able to meet its ambitious targets.

By Rystad Energy"

The EU Needs More Than $1 Trillion For Plan To Ditch Russian Oil And Gas | OilPrice.com

An expensive exercise, at a time when their financial problems and economies are under more stress. I'm sure the western banks will offer "preferential " loans, to assist them.

Along with of course minimal snow fall during the winter months and sufficient wind and days of sunshine in the summer.

One advantage they will have is plenty of cheap unemployed workers/foreign, Ukraine, African refugees, due to lack of oil, gas and coal, normally imported from Russia and worldwide food shortages.

The EI imposed, energy and fertilizer sanctions will not help.

Old addage
"You are judged by the company you keep"

Shabby Dhabi an erstwhile haven for the scum of the professions Widely oriental rude people and now skulking pals of Putin and their bimbos.

Russian Yachts and Money Are Going Where US Influence Has Waned

American allies in the Middle East have emerged as magnets for Russia’s wealthy.

Bloomberg News1 June 2022, 08:00 GMT+7









Andrey Melnichenko was in a bind. Squeezed by European sanctions targeting Russian billionaires, one of Russia’s richest men needed a safe jurisdiction to protect the businesses he’d built. He found it in the United Arab Emirates.

Moscow-based coal producer SUEK and Zug, Switzerland-based fertilizer firm EuroChem, both founded by Melnichenko, are opening local trading units in the Gulf oil exporter, according to five people with knowledge of the matter. The 50-year-old resigned from the boards of both companies ahead of EU sanctions imposed over his alleged ties to the Kremlin. Swiss authorities said in May they’d unfrozen EuroChem’s accounts after Melnichenko transferred ownership to his wife.
Already spending more time in Dubai, Melnichenko moved his $300 million Motor Yacht A to the city in December, keeping it there through early March, according to Bloomberg tracking data. It was last spotted off the UAE’s Ras Al Khaimah. His other yacht was seized by Italy in March.
Spokespeople for Melnichenko and SUEK, Russia’s biggest thermal coal producer, declined to comment. EuroChem didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Melnichenko spokesman said after the EU sanctions were imposed in March that he had no political affiliations and there was no justification for the measures. A government official told Bloomberg that the UAE takes its role in protecting the integrity of the global financial system seriously and works closely with the private sector to implement targeted financial sanctions and combat evasion in line with its international obligations.



The UAE is one of three Middle Eastern nations that have emerged as magnets for Russia’s wealthy since the Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, frustrating US efforts to muster a unified front against Vladimir Putin. Already popular with Russians seeking warmer climes, Turkey and, to a lesser extent, Israel, have also become go-to destinations.
The newfound willingness of US allies in the Middle East to go their own way follows years of festering resentments compounded by concern over creeping American disengagement. The depth of the fissures was exposed by the invasion of Ukraine, with US allies as far afield as Japan and South Korea joining the campaign against Russia with their own sanctions and asset seizures, but key partners in the Middle East holding back.
“These three countries have historically been important allies to Washington,” said Norman Bailey, former senior director for international economic affairs at the White House’s National Security Council, who studies Russian money in the Middle East. “It shows the US is steadily declining in influence.”
The UAE declined to condemn Russia’s invasion at a UN vote. Along with Israel, it’s been critical of the Biden administration’s effort to restore the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which both countries see as a security threat. Turkey, though a NATO power, is itself the target of US sanctions over its purchase of Russian weapons. While it’s supplied Ukraine with drones, it’s also maintained ties with Putin and sought to play mediator.
The Biden administration has sought to mend ties across the region since the invasion, but, in another sign of waning influence, has failed to persuade Gulf allies to help temper soaring crude prices that are driving inflation higher worldwide. The UAE is part of OPEC, the oil exporters’ cartel that continues to coordinate output with Russia.