Ukraine war mega thread

[bsnub]

The root cause of the Ukraine issue is that Putin has annexed territory of a sovereign nation, fomented civil war in what's left and massed hundreds of thousands of troops on its border.

True!

You complete fucking idiot.

Spot on!

[harrybarracuda]

This is a mans thread.

What the fuck are you doing in it then?

[OhOh]

So I say again.

Putin's bluff called. No war. No gas shut off. Next.

Page 2, of the political play book, instigated:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question, Moscow, January 27, 2022

27 January 2022 12:42

"Question:

You have received the Americans’ response to Russia’s security guarantee proposals. What does it say? What is their reaction? Antony Blinken has said that they are against releasing the document publicly. What has Russia decided on this score?
Sergey Lavrov:
I believe that the general public will know the essence of this document soon. As our American colleagues have said, although they would like to keep this document confidential so as to provide space for confidential talks, they have coordinated it with their allies and with Ukraine. Are they sure that it will not be leaked very soon?

As for the essence of the document, the responses offer grounds for serious talks only on matters of secondary importance. There is no positive response to the main issue, which is our clear stand on the continued NATO enlargement towards the east and the deployment of strike weapons that can pose a threat to the territory of the Russian Federation, which we consider unacceptable.

This stand did not appear out of the blue. As you may know, the issue of NATO’s non-enlargement or enlargement, however you put it, has a long history. In the early 1990s, or more precisely in 1990, when Germany was reunified and the issue of European security was raised, they solemnly promised that NATO would not expand even an inch eastward beyond the Oder River. These facts are well known and have been included in many memoirs by British, US and German officials. But now that this issue has become a matter of fierce debates, we have been told that the promises were only verbal. When we mentioned the memoirs, our Western partners responded that they were not serious and that their words were misinterpreted. They chose a rather immature way to explain the reckless expansion of the alliance.

But now that we have cited the promises made not in word but in the form of documents signed by the leaders of all OSCE states, including the US President (the 1999 Istanbul Declaration and the 2010 Astana Declaration), our Western partners have to find a way out of a very serious situation. The point is that both declarations set out the participating states’ commitment to the principle of indivisible security and their pledge to honour it without fail. This principle was formulated very clearly. It includes two interconnected approaches. The first is the freedom of states to choose military alliances. The second is the obligation not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states. In other words, the freedom to choose security arrangements is conditioned by the pledge to respect the security interests of any other OSCE state, including the Russian Federation.

It is indicative that now when we propose coordinating legally binding security guarantees in the Euro-Atlantic region, our Western colleagues respond by urging us to respect the coordinated principles of security guarantees in that region. After saying this, they add that this means that NATO has a right to expand, and nobody can prohibit it from considering any country’s request for joining the alliance. The principle according to which no state may strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states is being deliberately ignored. Our Western partners make no mention of the Istanbul or the Astana declarations during the ongoing discussions on European security. They are keeping away from this matter. We cannot accept this. They explained their failure to honour the non-enlargement promises in the 1990s by the absence of written obligations, but such promises were given in writing later. They have been reaffirmed within the OSCE framework several times, including at the top level. We will now focus on getting clarity regarding this hypocritical position of our Western partners.

During my talks with Antony Blinken in Geneva, I asked him to explain why they regard the obligations made within the OSCE as a menu from which they are free to choose the dishes that taste good to them, and why they are disregarding or talking round their pledge to honour the interests of other countries. Mr Blinken did not reply to my question. He only shrugged his shoulders, and that’s it. I told him, just as I have told our other colleagues, that we would shortly send them an official request for an explanation why they choose only one of their commitments and disregard the other commitments on which its implementation depends. It will be an official request sent to all countries whose leaders signed the Istanbul and Astana declarations. I hope that it will not take them long to explain the Western position.

Other than that, we are analysing the Americans’ response. As Antony Blinken has said, they have coordinated it with Ukraine and with the other Western countries, with US allies. We have also received NATO’s response from Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. We are analysing these two documents as a package, because they have been provided in response to the draft treaty and draft agreement we proposed in December 2021.

After an inter-agency coordination of our conclusions, we will submit them to President Vladimir Putin, who will make a decision on our further actions."


https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1796041/

[OhOh]

Russia’s ‘asymmetrical’ war over Ukraine

January 28, 2022 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

"The formal US response to Russia’s demands for security guarantee was delivered to the foreign ministry in Moscow on Wednesday. Moscow’s worst fears came true: Washington simply ducked without addressing the main Russian concerns — NATO’s expansion, rollback of NATO deployments to pre-1997 level, etc. —and instead offered to discuss confidence-building measures.

Nonetheless, Moscow will only take the dialogue route, as it is in Russian interests not to appear obdurate, although if past experience is any guide, CBMs with US last only until it abandons them.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his annual address to the Russian Parliament last April, had clearly drawn the “red lines” that much as Moscow wants good relations with other countries and “really don’t want to burn bridges… if someone mistakes our good intentions for indifference or weakness and intends to burn down or even blow up these bridges, they should know that Russia’s response will be asymmetrical, swift and harsh.”

Russian officials have since repeatedly underscored, including this week, that there is no compromise possible on any further expansion of NATO or the alliance’s deployments on the borders. In fact, Russia’s “asymmetrical” reaction is already unfolding.

Potentially, there are three key templates in play. The first, of course, is the demand this week by Russia’s Communist Party to accord recognition to the separatist regions in Donbass in eastern Ukraine, which was followed by a call from the ruling party United Russia urging the government to render all military and economic support necessary to those regions to withstand any aggressive moves by Kiev.

The Russian Parliament may well endorse these demands. Now, if Kiev intervenes militarily to stop the emergence of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent entities and threatens the security of the region’s Russian population, that will be casus belli for intervention by Moscow, which will be left with no option but push back the Ukrainian forces and create a buffer anywhere up to the Dnepr river.

A second template that is becoming kinetic is the energy front. The fact of the matter is that Russia’s major energy exporter Gazprom has been pumping gas in accordance with existing contracts with European countries. But the gas flow to Germany through the Yamal pipeline ended on December 21.
Moscow has not made any announcement in this regard and probably expects that it is a matter of time before the German authorities give approval for the newly-built Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which has a massive capacity to supply 55 bcm annually.

The price of Russian gas is very competitive. The average price of Russian gas is around $280 for one thousand cubic metres (whereas, spot market price recently touched $2000.) Thus, the US cannot compete with Russia in the European market and a need arises to evict Russia from its status as the leading supplier.

However, even if the US finds a way to boost LNG deliveries to Europe, energy prices would jump. Equally, other gas exporting countries — Norway, Algeria and Qatar — lack the surplus capacity to cover the shortfall in Russian gas supplies to Europe.

Thus, Nord Stream 2, which Washington wanted to kill in its cradle, has become a test of the EU’s strategic autonomy. Washington thinks that the delay in clearing Nord Stream 2 will put pressure on Moscow to back off in Ukraine since Russia stands to earn more than $15 billion annually out of the pipeline. (Russia invested around $11 billion in the pipeline’s construction.)

Moscow has warned that holding Nord Stream 2 hostage will be “counterproductive.” And it is doubtful that the Kremlin could be browbeaten to give up on its vital security concerns — NATO expansion, etc. — for the sake of salvaging the gas exports to Europe.

Russia has huge currency reserves and can afford take some financial losses. Besides, Russia is shortly signing the deal for the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline to China with a massive capacity of $55 bcm. If push comes shove, Russia will replace the European buyers with Asian customers such as Japan, South Korea and India.

The third template of Russia’s asymmetrical response concerns an altogether intriguing sphere — Ukraine’s internal politics. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky heads an unstable regime with an eroded power base. The ultra-nationalist right-wing elements call the shots in Kiev. As things stand, Zelensky’s prospects of getting a second term in the presidential election in March 2024 do not look good.

If Ukraine suffers a military defeat, Zelensky’s fate is sealed. That said, the virulently anti-Russian extremist paramilitary groups who are present on the contact line with Donbass may consider it expedient to provoke a conflict, egged on by Western intelligence, triggering Moscow’s intervention.
Clearly, annexation of Ukrainian territory or an outright invasion of Ukraine is not in the Russian calculus, but if the security of millions of Russians in the Donbass gets jeopardised, Moscow cannot remain indifferent.

The US knows it, and Zelensky knows it. That’s why Zelensky and his defence minister Oleksiy Reznikov stepped out of line lately and began tamping down tensions, even declaring that Moscow is not contemplating aggression.

Reznikov (who once served in the Soviet army) was quoted saying on December 24 after a meeting with lawmakers in Kiev, “As of today, the Russian army has not formed a strike group that would be able to carry out an invasion. There are no grounds to think that an invasion will happen tomorrow from a military point of view.”

Things came to a head today with the CNN reporting that President Biden had a difficult 80-minute conversation with Zelensky trying to convince him that a Russian invasion was imminent and Moscow intended to remove him from power.
According to CNN, in the “long and frank” conversation, Zelensky disagreed and estimated that the threat from Russia remains “dangerous but ambiguous,” and it is not certain that an attack will take place.

A second CNN analysis today further reported on “New signs of a fracture between the US and Ukraine over the imminence of a possible Russian invasion…Frustration in Kyiv has mounted in recent days over escalating US rhetoric on the crisis.”

What needs to be factored in here is that Zelensky won the election in 2019 with big support from ethnic Russian voters on an electoral platform that sought improvement of relations with Russia and a settlement in Donbass.

Of course, after coming to power, under immense pressure from the rightwing Ukrainian nationalists who commanded street power and manipulation behind the scenes by Western powers, Zelensky changed course and began pursuing anti-Russian policies.
Zelensky realises that he is certain to be the fall guy if the current tense standoff with Russia leads to a war. The tragedy is that he is no longer in control of the contact line with Donbas where US mercenaries are present. His priority will be to see another day and retrieve the lost political ground before the election in 2024.

Moscow has a terrific grasp of the undercurrents of Ukrainian politics. Significantly, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated today through the state media that “The Russian president has said: if Zelensky wants to discuss normalising bilateral relations…, we are ready for this, no problem. Let him come to Moscow, Sochi or St. Petersburg.” "

https://www.indianpunchline.com/russ...-over-ukraine/

[OhOh]

China replies to a suggestion from a NaGastani government spokeswoman.

US itself should put out the fire it set in Ukraine: Global Times editorial


By Global Times Published: Jan 29, 2022 12:31 AM



US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland on Thursday called on Beijing "to use its influence with Moscow" to urge a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis. Nuland also said "if there is a conflict in Ukraine it is not going to be good for China either," as "there will be a significant impact on the global economy" and in the energy sphere. On the same day, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken requested a phone conversation with China's State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, during which the US mainly talked about the Ukraine issue. Blinken underscored the risks posed by "further Russian aggression against Ukraine" and conveyed that "de-escalation and diplomacy are the responsible way forward."

Washington is trying to create such a public opinion impression that the US is working hard to alleviate the crisis. It wants to kick the ball to Russia and China, making them bear the responsibility while shaping the US as a good man. After Washington set a fire in Ukraine, it has pretended to be a victim and imagines China to "persuade" Russia to put it out. It must be pointed out that Washington is blowing smoke to reverse the cause and the effect.

The root cause of the Ukraine issue is that the US has promoted NATO's eastward expansion unrestrainedly, thus pushing Russia into a corner where there is no way to retreat. Washington is the culprit of the crisis. The US now hopes China will "persuade" Russia. In essence it wants China to urge Moscow to make a concession. The perfect plan Washington desires is that Moscow will cooperate unconditionally with the US' geopolitical ambitions. How absurd and ridiculous its logic is!

Washington is the root cause for many major regional crises aside from the Ukraine issue. The Korean Peninsula nuclear crisis, Iran nuclear issue, and the Afghan chaos caused by the US troops' withdrawal last year are the "hornet's nests" stirred up by the US. When the US messes up a region and finds it unable to clean up the situation, it hopes to draw other countries into paying for its mistakes. In recent years, Washington has expected China's participation in the resolution of almost all major international crises. On one hand, it has done its utmost to crack down on China, and on the other, it has had the temerity to seek China's help. This is the case this time. The US is carrying out strategic suppression on China in the Asia-Pacific region as it is doing with Russia while at the same time it hopes China will urge Russia to make a concession. It hopes to take all the benefits while doing bad things.

When handling regional conflicts, the biggest difference between China and the US is that China seeks peaceful solutions but the US seeks chaos. China has never kidnapped the collective interests of the region for its own interests, but instead, has always taken a responsible attitude and looked for a solution based on facts. China has never shied away from making mediation efforts within its capacity. It doesn't choose to act or not act simply because it has a good relationship or a competition with some other country. China has pursued an independent foreign policy and always respects other countries' independence. It makes active efforts to push relevant parties to return to the negotiating table and take care of all parties' security concerns to find the greatest common ground in complicated situations.

From our point of view, to ease tensions in Ukraine, it is the US that has the most room for action. Washington should first stop making provocations in this region, and let Europe solve its own security problems. While rejecting Russia's legitimate concerns on the issue of NATO's eastward expansion, the US continues to step up efforts to create tension - withdrawing US diplomats in Ukraine, and continuing to send weapons to Ukraine. Because Germany refused to be the follower of the US this time, American opinion accused it of being a "traitor" of the West. The US clearly sees itself as the plenipotentiary of Europe.

After the end of WWII, the US and the West have been unrestrainedly emphasizing and expanding so-called collective defense, even at the cost of global strategic stability. However, it turns out that the more they pursue collective defense, the more the safety of members outside the small circles is damaged, and the more they have to strengthen their own security. Consequently, the US and the West have fallen into a curse of "the safer they want to be, the less safe they are," which has caused crises one after another. If Washington's ultra-strategic selfishness remains unrestrained, then even if the Ukraine crisis reaches a soft landing, the next crisis awaits.

To solve the Ukraine crisis, if we are to play a mediating role, we would like to advise Washington that "whoever hung the bell on the tiger's neck must untie it." It should give up the zero-sum game and the Cold War mentality as soon as possible, and use the correct method to put out the fire it set."

US itself should put out the fire it set in Ukraine: Global Times editorial - Global Times

Not I suspect what Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken wanted to hear.

[Backspin]

One of the Duran boys has a good theory. This whole escalation was a ploy by the US to get the new German government to establish a harder line on Russia.

Merkel was far too neuanced on Russia for the Seppos. So they sensed an opportunity with the change in government , to get Germany to be more hawkish. And so far it has failed

[Backspin]

Really, is that the definition of sovereign

What's your point ? Do you think that the US or UK would allow Russia to build a naval base less than 80 miles from the coast of the US or UK ?

Cuba specifically in the US's case ?

[harrybarracuda]

Pages of bollocks and none of it states the obvious solution to the problem: For Putin to pull back his troops and stop being an arsehole.

For some reason the Putin arselickers think posting pages of tripe somehow negates this.

[NamPikToot]

For some reason the Putin arselickers think posting pages of tripe somehow negates this.

Isn't that what spambots do?

I feel for OhOh, he can't keep up with input from the Kremlin

[harrybarracuda]

Isn't that what spambots do?

I feel for OhOh, he can't keep up with input from the Kremlin

Frantically cuts and pastes as fast as his chubby fingers can spin his mouse wheel.

[Backspin]

Pages of bollocks and none of it states the obvious solution to the problem: For Putin to pull back his troops and stop being an arsehole.

For some reason the Putin arselickers think posting pages of tripe somehow negates this.

Yup. If Russia overthrew the Mexican government and then installed an anti US government, then started building naval bases to fit their war ships , the onus would be on the US to stop feeling threatened and to stand down its military on the Mexican border. Yeah. Fucking morons.

[Backspin]

Looks we have 2 threads same subject. So I say again.

Putin's bluff called. No war. No gas shut off. Next.

'Em Russia is trying to get more gas to Germany with Nord Stream 2.

Who said anything about shutting gas off ? (other than the US govt trying to block NS2)

[bsnub]

Yup. If Russia overthrew the Mexican government and then installed an anti US government, then started building naval bases to fit their war ships , the onus would be on the US to stop feeling threatened and to stand down its military on the Mexican border. Yeah. Fucking morons.

You are a fucking idiot. The people of the Ukraine overthrew a tyrant. You are just a fucking sheeple moron spewing lies while choking down Putin's cock.

[Backspin]

You are a fucking idiot. The people of the Ukraine overthrew a tyrant. You are just a fucking sheeple moron spewing lies while choking down Putin's cock.

WTF. Did you actually think Yanukovych was the dictator of Ukraine from 1991 to 2014 or something ? Well you thought wrong. Yanukovych was a politician in Ukraine who won an election in 2010.

Here is the list of Ukraine presidents since 1991. Yanukovych was just coming to the end of his term. Yet here you are saying that there was some dictator ruling Ukraine with an iron fist

[bsnub]

WTF. Did you actually think Yanukovych was the dictator of Ukraine from 1991 to 2014 or something ?

Do legitimate leaders have compounds like this dipshit? It was such a massive display of corruption, it was made into a museum. No wonder the people overthrew him.

[sabang]

Calm down bedwetters- the President of Ukraine has decreed it!

[bsnub]

Calm down bedwetters- the President of Ukraine has decreed it!

Seems to me, the person who isn't calm is the one who is two fisting Putin and Xi micro-penis. It sure isn't calming when you are a grovelling propagandist weasel.

[HuangLao]

Hmmm...
I might ask as to why any of this the U.S.'s business?

[bsnub]

I might ask as to why any of this the U.S.'s business?

If you are confused about that, maybe you need to brush up on the history of the 20th century because it would seem that you missed most of it.

[sabang]

Never mind snubby- everyone knows Zelensky is a comedian.

[sabang]

What real long term benefit does the US see in bullying it's allies? It seems absolutely stupid to me.
And who said the Germans do not have a sense of humour. 5000 helmets.

[HuangLao]

If you are confused about that, maybe you need to brush up on the history of the 20th century because it would seem that you missed most of it.

Obvious that you, and quite a few others, must've missed the real history and extended knowledge.
More amusing, is that your type continue on pretending to know the greater differences between the realities and the fantasies.
Pathetic.

[kingwilly]

neuanced

nuanced, perhaps?

[Backspin]

Of course, the country is nothing more than a gas station. Cut off the spigot and he has serious problems. The US will guarantee that Germany gets gas from the ME.

Oil & Gas Share Of Russia’s GDP Dropped To 15% In 2020 | OilPrice.com




Norway oil and gas production account for 20 percent of its economy. https://www.google.com/search?client...+of+Norway+GDP

[harrybarracuda]

Obvious that you, and quite a few others, must've missed the real history and extended knowledge.
More amusing, is that your type continue on pretending to know the greater differences between the realities and the fantasies.
Pathetic.

Jeff, you are a rather poorly educated slubberdegullion.