Russia - Ukraine

[GO-NAD!]

As talks with Russia stall, NATO chief warns of a new war in Europe | CBC News

Russia claims it has no intention to invade Ukraine, yet insists on maintaining 100,000 troops along the border. They already invaded and annexed Crimea and are materially - and most likely physically - assisting rebel forces within Ukraine. Is the Kremlin so lacking in self-awareness that they don't understand why Ukraine and NATO might perceive the troop build-up as a threat?

Why do former Soviet Bloc countries want to be part of NATO? It's because they all have a well-founded fear of Russia. And, Putin knows damn-well that NATO has no interest in invading Russia. I can only surmise that he wants to maintain his "sphere of influence". Such brinkmanship in the service of personal and national pride is silly and reckless.

 

[Trell]

The Russian list of demands are unacceptable for the most part and in this case I’m pretty happy that USA has a more grounded leadership that avoids the mistakes of the Obama administration: They are upfront that there will be reactions that will hurt.

Thankfully the Trump moron is out of office, but we still have to contend with those left in Congress, that are legion in GOP.

 

[Trell]

There are a number of articles which concerns us in Europe that are directly affected by a malignant neighbor. Here is one of the latest.

NATO, Russia in a standoff after talks in Brussels

Russian officials refuse to commit to withdraw troops from Ukrainian border as West rejects Moscow’s core security demands.

www.politico.eu

 

[GO-NAD!]

There are a number of articles which concerns us in Europe that are directly affected by a malignant neighbor. Here is one of the latest.

NATO, Russia in a standoff after talks in Brussels

Russian officials refuse to commit to withdraw troops from Ukrainian border as West rejects Moscow’s core security demands.

www.politico.eu

I can only guess that Russia's action and rhetoric are to distract her people from domestic issues. I wonder how much it's costing them to maintain all those troops at the Ukraine border. They won't be able to keep them there forever. Eventually, they'll have to return to their bases, or...

 

[Trell]

I can only guess that Russia's action and rhetoric are to distract her people from domestic issues. I wonder how much it's costing them to maintain all those troops at the Ukraine border. They won't be able to keep them there forever. Eventually, they'll have to return to their bases, or...

Yeah, but this could escalate and Russia do have nuclear weapons, and that is a very serious risk.

It’s a deep disappointment that the fall of the Soviet Union did not result in a democratic Russia. I remember the hope so many had at that that time but in the end failed to materialize.

 

[SithZedi]

Thanks for starting up a new and interesting thread!

I had really hoped for a democratic post war Russia too....

With regard to Russia & the Ukraine, what I am having trouble with is this paradox:
If our (NATO's) goal is to weaken Putin or at least put him in a box bit of a box, why did we reverse our policy of sanctions for the Nord2 project? The Nord2 pipeline weakens the Ukraine and allows Putin leverage and control over Europe's energy supply.
Why would most of NATOs European member countries put most of their energy eggs in Putin's basket?
How are these countries going to use their military in case of a conventional war with Russia if Putin shuts down the energy grid?
Is the US going to fight a potential war alone...again?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Thanks for starting up a new and interesting thread!

I had really hoped for a democratic post war Russia too....

With regard to Russia & the Ukraine, what I am having trouble with is this paradox:
If our (NATO's) goal is to weaken Putin or at least put him in a box bit of a box, why did we reverse our policy of sanctions for the Nord2 project? The Nord2 pipeline weakens the Ukraine and allows Putin leverage and control over Europe's energy supply.
Why would most of NATOs European member countries put most of their energy eggs in Putin's basket?
How are these countries going to use their military in case of a conventional war with Russia if Putin shuts down the energy grid?
Is the US going to fight a potential war alone...again?

I don't know that the goal is to weaken Putin - I think it's more an effort to get him to stop meddling in other countries, i.e. stop the state-sponsored cyber-shenanigans, murdering political opponents on western soil, get out of Ukraine, etc.

I imagine that Western European dependence on Russian gas stems from it's close proximity. However, it can really reduce any diplomatic leverage they have. If it comes to a point where Russia places a gas embargo against European NATO countries, it'll be up to Canada and the US to ship gas to them, if we want a unified front.

What war is it that you think the US would face alone? Against Russia? I think a war between NATO and Russia is of very low probability. The ramifications could be horrendous.

 

[Trell]

... I think a war between NATO and Russia is of very low probability. The ramifications could be horrendous.

The risk is a war started accidentally due to high tension and escalation of conflict.

 

[SithZedi]

Agree. When tensions get too high the probability of an accidental conflict increases exponentially.
Weakening Putin and stopping him from meddling are the same thing for practical purposes.
The Europeans energy situation is self inflicted. They have been shutting down their nuclear plants (Germany, etc) to appease the Green movement and have now become dependent on Natural Gas (which emits more carbon dioxide) and Putin.
In a war scenario, logistically speaking, there would be no way we could ship the gas the Europeans needed to both fight and run their economies. Especially if it took place in the winter and we know how much the Russians love to fight in the winter!

 

[Trell]

I don't know how old or educated you are but shutting down nuclear plants is in most part due to the following:

Fukushima nuclear accident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Edit: I should have mentioned the following as well that happened in 1986, and that one was close to home. Nuclear power is controversial, and for very good reasons.

Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SithZedi]

Old enough to remember three mile island and the whole China Syndrome hysteria. Things are never that simple. Shutting down the German plants due to the Fukushima disaster was an over reaction fanned by the Media and elements of the Natural Gas lobby in Germany and Russia. No doubt that the Japanese bureaucracy screwed the pooch running those reactors and building the damn things on one of the largest EQ faults on the planet.
Despite recent problems, the French next door do not seem to have a problem with Nuclear energy as a part of their future.

 

[Trell]

Nuclear energy is dangerous and to just dismiss the dangers as an over reaction fanned by media and the Natural Gas lobby is ignorant.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Nuclear energy is dangerous and to just dismiss the dangers as an over reaction fanned by media and the Natural Gas lobby is ignorant.

I won't argue with you that SOME nuclear station designs are potentially more dangerous than others. We've had more than enough evidence to be at least wary, BUT where nuclear stations are POTENTIALLY dangerous, gas/coal power stations are lethal to earth climate by design in their normal operations.
I'm not saying that there are easy solutions, but I'd rather have more Nuclear SMRs built in my state rather than a new gas power plant

Murphy steps in to halt vote on controversial power plant in Newark

Environmentalists and other advocates have been pushing Gov. Phil Murphy to stop the project

www.nj.com

 

[highfigh]

Yeah, but this could escalate and Russia do have nuclear weapons, and that is a very serious risk.

It’s a deep disappointment that the fall of the Soviet Union did not result in a democratic Russia. I remember the hope so many had at that that time but in the end failed to materialize.

That would have been a huge swing from one end to the other and the opportunists in Russia who benefited from Communism wouldn't want that change because it would have meant that their way of life would be totally altered, for the worse. The vast majority may have wanted it, but many became disillusioned by what they were promised vs what they got.

A friend who ran a computer store came to the US from Ukraine in '79- he had a large customer base of people who emigrated to this area and I had the opportunity to listen to them talk about how it was vs how it is in their home cities. The one common detail- they all came here because they wanted what we had/have. However, they don't like what they see happening in the US and that worries me greatly. Most Americans think they have their finger on the pulse of the country, but they generally bumble their way through life, over-reacting to things they see in the news but one thing that makes us very different from the rest of the World is the fact that we AREN'T very close to the countries that could annihilate us, other than the proximity of Alaska and Russia, but that's not really a problem.

I saw a video of Biden looking very serious, asking someone if they had ever been so afraid of the possibility of nuclear war, in their career(s). I'll continue to look for the video so I can post it, as well as make sure the context can be provided. If he said this recently (and I think he did), I hope he realizes that HIS state department is the agency that can make any gestures by the US to prevent this.

This video caused me to wonder- who's the greatest threat to peace RIGHT NOW- the US, China, Russia or North Korea? Should Iran be thrown in, considering their alliances with Russia, North Korea and China?

 

[Trell]

I won't argue with you that SOME nuclear station designs are potentially more dangerous than others. We've had more than enough evidence to be at least wary, BUT where nuclear stations are POTENTIALLY dangerous, gas/coal power stations are lethal to earth climate by design.
I'm not saying that there are easy solutions, but I'd rather have more Nuclear SMRs built in my state rather than a new gas power plant

Murphy steps in to halt vote on controversial power plant in Newark

Environmentalists and other advocates have been pushing Gov. Phil Murphy to stop the project

www.nj.com

Nuclear accidents happens, and quickly becomes very serious indeed, leaving large swathes of land uninhabitable.

Nuclear power will be needed at least for a transitory phase to other more green energy that we have today while phasing out coal and fossil fuels as much as possible. Today several European countries have much energy from solar and wind power. There are a lot of energy savings projects as well, big as small.

 

[highfigh]

Nuclear energy is dangerous and to just dismiss the dangers as an over reaction fanned by media and the Natural Gas lobby is ignorant.

Nuclear energy for power generation is actually very safe- it's when people don't do their jobs that it becomes dangerous. Nuclear fuel provides the highest energy density of any available fuel. Its long decay rate does make it inherently dangerous, though.

How would you provide energy for countries with large populations? You can't believe that solar is the best method.

 

[Trell]

Nuclear energy for power generation is actually very safe- it's when people don't do their jobs that it becomes dangerous. Nuclear fuel provides the highest energy density of any available fuel. Its long decay rate does make it inherently dangerous, though.

How would you provide energy for countries with large populations? You can't believe that solar is the best method.

Accidents happens, even for nuclear plants, and the consequences can be so awful.

As for power, in general, one should use various sources where solar is one of them. This has to go hand in hand with efficient use of power that we have available, and of course, that depends on where in the world one lives.

 

[SithZedi]

Nuclear energy is dangerous and to just dismiss the dangers as an over reaction fanned by media and the Natural Gas lobby is ignorant.

Nuclear energy is certainly dangerous. What I find interesting is if you ask a Ukrainian he/she might mention something about a place called Chernobyl. (HBO did a great miniseries on it). That accident, again a plant designed and run by bureaucrats and incompetents had much more of an impact in Germany and the region than the events of Fukushima did. Its interesting that the Germans did not shut down their plants right after that. Wonder why? Well one of the reasons could be there was more money to make for the Media and the Gas lobby by pushing hysteria.
I don't know, its an opinion based on some of the facts out there.
You have the right to yours as well. Even if you think that an opinion that opposes your worldview is ignorant.
I'll always fight for that right.

 

[highfigh]

Accidents happens, even for nuclear plants, and the consequences can be so awful.

As for power, in general, one should use various sources where solar is one of them. This has to go hand in hand with efficient use of power that we have available, and of course, that depends on where in the world one lives.

I was referring more to negligence than accidents.

 

[Trell]

I was referring more to negligence than accidents.

Does not matter that much in the end, does it, when it happens?