Where the heck is everybody?

Anything worth sharing with us but not gaming related goes in here.

Moderators: The Heralds, The Loremasters

Message
Author
User avatar
Loflar
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse

Re: Where the heck is everybody?

#121 Post by Loflar »

Teledor wrote: The current Syrian regime has included minorities within the government not as tolerance but as means to an end to maintain power and control. I guess including groups to keep yourself in power could be seen as tolerance - but I think the current situation on the ground and in their past proves the current Syrian regime isn't really interested in tolerance, they're interested only in preserving their power and any means is justified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
"...country's then-president, Hafez al-Assad, besieged the town of Hama for 27 days in order to quell an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood against al-Assad's government. The massacre, carried out by the Syrian Army supposedly under commanding General Rifaat al-Assad, President Assad's younger brother, effectively ended the campaign begun in 1976 by Sunni Muslim groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, against the government."
Sorry, but besieging a city to quell an uprising going for six years is not really a proof of religious intolerance. Reading a link about the uprising provides information that the uprising started because Syrian government banned Muslim Brotherhood. From context it seems that reasons for it were political, not religious. Yes, it was not democratic. Yes, massacre is a crime. But it still does not disprove secularity and religious tolerance.
Teledor wrote: The Russo-Japanese war was no where near the scale or mobilization of WWI. It was largely viewed as a localized conflict. Did it have elements of WWI? Yes. Also, the Europeans were largely shocked by Russia's defeat. To say that a small, localized conflict over a colony should adequately prepare countries for an all out war of attrition is stretching it a bit too far.
My point was, that there was enough material for military analysts to see what is coming. Trenches, machine guns, etc.
Teledor wrote: Anyways, I guess I don't really see what the point of your argument was? That the US can't beat the Russians by themselves? If that was your point, then I would say you're probably right. It would likely be a stalemate, or the advantage given to the aggressor. I don't think it would ever happen, a mono y mono style conflict between just Russia and the US, so this is all completely hypothetical.
The point of my argument was that currently Russia wields the biggest stick in Europe, and angering it is not wise. Asking USA for help is not useful, because:
- they are now "pivoting to Pacific" for their own reasons, they would have to reverse the process to get to Europe now in sufficient numbers
- if they are not present now, in case of swift Russian attack, their help would not come in time
- if they decide to move in, Russia might come faster
- if a conflict starts, they would have to commit their full power against an army stronger then anything they fought recently

So the solution is not a confrontation, but a lot of diplomacy. And I don't mean sanctions, because sanctions don't ease tension, they escalate it. And meanwhile, we should rebuild our armies, but not by buying a lot of new gadgets, but by changing their structure after Swiss pattern.
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg9ismp.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/p4ipaw.gif[/img]
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: Where the heck is everybody?

#122 Post by Prince of Spires »

Loflar wrote: The point of my argument was that currently Russia wields the biggest stick in Europe, and angering it is not wise. Asking USA for help is not useful, because:
- they are now "pivoting to Pacific" for their own reasons, they would have to reverse the process to get to Europe now in sufficient numbers
- if they are not present now, in case of swift Russian attack, their help would not come in time
- if they decide to move in, Russia might come faster
- if a conflict starts, they would have to commit their full power against an army stronger then anything they fought recently

So the solution is not a confrontation, but a lot of diplomacy. And I don't mean sanctions, because sanctions don't ease tension, they escalate it. And meanwhile, we should rebuild our armies, but not by buying a lot of new gadgets, but by changing their structure after Swiss pattern.
I think you're overestimating the strength of the russian army and underestimating that of some of the european powers. The fact alone the there are two nuclear powers in there counts for a fair bit.

Also, there is a lot of land between the russian border and the atlantic ocean (where russia would be aiming for if they chose an armed conflict). Russia would suffer from the same problem other nations had in reverse when they invaded Russia in the past. Namely that of supply.

Lastly, all out armed conflict between Russia and the EU is not something that the US can or would ignore. Ending up with a Europe controlled by Russia would have serious implications for the US, already from a trade point of view.

Their pivot to the pacific is not even necessarily a bad thing if such a conflict would occur. Russia after all borders on the pacific as well. Can Russia realy risk the possibility of a war on two fronts? History tends to show that such a thing is usually a bad idea.

I agree that diplomacy should always be the first solution. But what do you do when the other party does not want to talk? Then you are left with only 3 options
- do nothing
- sanctions
- armed conflict.

Option 1 and 3 are not an option. Armed conflict should always be avoided whenever possible. And doing nothing simply means that in the near future the same thing will simply happen again with some other piece of land. This only leaves sanctions. And the current ones are actually very mild.

As a side note, I just read an article on an IMF report that calculated that the whole conflict has cost Russia $150 Billion in economic growth already. And in the end, that can be just as deciding a factor as any sanctions, diplomacy or threats. Russia needs economic growth and foreign investments. And if, as a company you are faced with a country that might just confiscate all your assets in the short term and be closed to trading for you, then you will probably just move to the next country. And no investments = no growth. No growth = unemployment and poverty. And that is definitely not a path Poetin will want to take. Or as the campaign strategist of Bill Clinton put it "It's the economy, stupid"

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
User avatar
Loflar
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse

Re: Where the heck is everybody?

#123 Post by Loflar »

rdghuizing wrote: I think you're overestimating the strength of the russian army and underestimating that of some of the european powers. The fact alone the there are two nuclear powers in there counts for a fair bit.
I am also considering extreme scenario. If you were in Putin's place, would you want to conquer Europe? Because I would not. What is the gain? I can imagine attack on South-Eastern Ukraine, because there is industry, iron and coal. And access to Crimea. And more or less friendly population for support. With somewhat smaller probability, I can imagine attack on Baltic countries, primarily Estonia, to secure access to Baltic Sea. But taking all the Ukraine and have to solve its economic problems? Why? Let the EU do it, if it is so eager. Going further west is, exactly as you say, too difficult. (Of course, if we had armies capable of defending their territory, instead of just raiding exotic destinations, the situation would be much clearer.)

However, an all out drive to the west might be something to do if Russia sees no other way out. I have read articles comparing situation in Russia to situation in Germany after WWI: when it lost the war (cold war in this case), the victorious side decided to show no mercy and take everything. (It is not important if it is objectively true, important is Russian perspective.) And so Russians saw their unbreakable Union break apart and slowly, despite all western promises, join their arch-enemy - NATO. Under their glorified (by West) democratic president, their economy went to hell (I have even read that impact of Yeltsin's government was worse then impact of WWII) and industry became property of organized crime. When Putin came, he managed to reinstate law & order and began to pursue independent, pro-Russian politics. No wonder he is popular, whether we call him dictator or not. In case of Germany, the next step was going to secure some "lebensraum". I hope that Russia does not feel a need to do it, but if we make it feel unsecure, who knows?
Their pivot to the pacific is not even necessarily a bad thing if such a conflict would occur. Russia after all borders on the pacific as well. Can Russia realy risk the possibility of a war on two fronts? History tends to show that such a thing is usually a bad idea.
Can USA attack Russia from waters controlled by China? We are talking about WWIII here.
I agree that diplomacy should always be the first solution. But what do you do when the other party does not want to talk? Then you are left with only 3 options
- do nothing
- sanctions
- armed conflict.

Option 1 and 3 are not an option. Armed conflict should always be avoided whenever possible. And doing nothing simply means that in the near future the same thing will simply happen again with some other piece of land. This only leaves sanctions. And the current ones are actually very mild.
Fortunately, the other party is willing to talk. It just did not want to talk to current Ukrainian government, which I fully understand.
Now, there is a meeting of Russia, EU, USA and Ukraine planned. I don't think that it is because of sanctions, because on Russian side, they were considered a joke. IMHO it is Russian plan (take Crimea, frighten them, ignore threats, and when they finally get the idea to negotiate, show your goodwill by accepting).

And, current sanctions are so mild, because we cannot afford any other. EU needs Russia more then Russia needs EU, and Putin knows it.
I think that EU politicians should spend more time reading Sun-Tzu.
As a side note, I just read an article on an IMF report that calculated that the whole conflict has cost Russia $150 Billion in economic growth already. And in the end, that can be just as deciding a factor as any sanctions, diplomacy or threats. Russia needs economic growth and foreign investments. And if, as a company you are faced with a country that might just confiscate all your assets in the short term and be closed to trading for you, then you will probably just move to the next country. And no investments = no growth. No growth = unemployment and poverty. And that is definitely not a path Poetin will want to take. Or as the campaign strategist of Bill Clinton put it "It's the economy, stupid"
On the other hand, did IMF count loses to Russian economy, if it lost its naval base in Sevastopol? It is not only about military force projections to Mediterranean, it is also business. And regarding the foreign investments, have you read this?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d774238-b506 ... z2ySkccIZw
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg9ismp.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/p4ipaw.gif[/img]
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: Where the heck is everybody?

#124 Post by Prince of Spires »

Loflar wrote: Fortunately, the other party is willing to talk. It just did not want to talk to current Ukrainian government, which I fully understand.
Now, there is a meeting of Russia, EU, USA and Ukraine planned. I don't think that it is because of sanctions, because on Russian side, they were considered a joke. IMHO it is Russian plan (take Crimea, frighten them, ignore threats, and when they finally get the idea to negotiate, show your goodwill by accepting).

And, current sanctions are so mild, because we cannot afford any other. EU needs Russia more then Russia needs EU, and Putin knows it.
I think that EU politicians should spend more time reading Sun-Tzu.
Not true actually. Especially on the longer term. Once Russia runs out of money for some reason or other, it is in serious trouble. I don't think the citizens will want to experience the hyperinflation of the 90's again any time soon. Putin needs EU money (from whatever he sells them) at least as bad as the other way round.

As for the reason behind the mild sanctions, that's easy. No-one wanted to feel the pain of the sanctions. And all EU countries deal with russia on a different basis. Gas? That the netherlands and Germany. Cars? France. That sort of thing. So with strickter sanctions, one EU country would always have been hit harder then another. And for that country that was not acceptable at that time.

Diplomacy was never an option for Russia. When you refuse to talk to the government of a country and just move troops onto their land and annex part of their territory then you are not conducting any diplomacy. You're simply conducting an act of war. And if the country had been almost any other that would have been the result, as well as tougher actions. Only the size of russia prevented a complete escalation of the conflict.
Loflar wrote: On the other hand, did IMF count loses to Russian economy, if it lost its naval base in Sevastopol? It is not only about military force projections to Mediterranean, it is also business. And regarding the foreign investments, have you read this?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d774238-b506 ... z2ySkccIZw
Because losing the base was ever actually an option? If it was business, then it was a very bad business decision.

The IMF did count the total inflow and outflow of money into the russian economy. Yes, there are still new investments going into Russia. Of course, some companies will always see an opportunity and consider it worth the risk. But that does not change the fact that the total outflow of capital was bigger then the inflow. And that the outflow of capital was largely caused by russia taking crimea.

Also, economy wise, it can get much worse for Russia. Escalation of the conflict (in whatever way), will result in a dropping rouble. Which means that anything that is remotely related to imports will skyrocket in price. Oil, food etc. After all, why sell domestically when you can get 2, 3, 4 times as much for the same product as you can abroad. Not a good idea. And then there is all the russian assets stored abroad. And the threat of companies loosing properties they have inside russia.

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
Teledor
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Where the heck is everybody?

#125 Post by Teledor »

Loflar wrote:
Teledor wrote: The point of my argument was that currently Russia wields the biggest stick in Europe, and angering it is not wise. Asking USA for help is not useful, because:
- they are now "pivoting to Pacific" for their own reasons, they would have to reverse the process to get to Europe now in sufficient numbers
- if they are not present now, in case of swift Russian attack, their help would not come in time
- if they decide to move in, Russia might come faster
- if a conflict starts, they would have to commit their full power against an army stronger then anything they fought recently

So the solution is not a confrontation, but a lot of diplomacy. And I don't mean sanctions, because sanctions don't ease tension, they escalate it. And meanwhile, we should rebuild our armies, but not by buying a lot of new gadgets, but by changing their structure after Swiss pattern.
You forget that "the pivot" is more of a orientation and not a physical move towards the Pacific theater. It's more of an emphasizing our role with allies there and attempting to keep China's territorial claims, some legitimate some ridiculous, from boiling over into an armed conflict. The American military can move substantial assets relatively quickly to wherever they need to be sent as long as friendly countries are standing - Germany, France, the UK, Poland, etc.

That being said, the USA cannot shift enough assets to fight a theoretical Russian invasion alone. Hopefully that's when the USA's NATO allies would get off their asses and do something. Remember too, Russia vs. the USA and NATO would be a pretty lopsided battle in terms of numbers. But that's all depending on the European NATO members to actually get the military some use.

I do hope that the Europeans take their self defense a bit more seriously in terms of active military size and spending. Rebuilding their militaries to be able to deal with Russia with less dependence on the USA would greatly enhance security and make Putin/Russia think twice about invading NATO countries.

Economy wise - Russia is still thoroughly dependent on Oil and Gas exports for a large portion of their GDP. I think the last I saw it was something in terms of 1/3 of their economy (probably wrong at this point). Any squeeze of European supplies really only hurts themselves more. In a move to make Europe rethink their positions, maybe a short term gas cut would cause some concern. But the Russians by doing so may motivate the USA to make their natural gas available for export which it currently is not. I know there has been small scale preparations for such a move but exports on a large scale could be ready in a few years based on what I've read. Now it might be a problem in the meantime, but if Europe weans itself off Russian gas, then what will Putin do?

Personally I don't think Russia/Putin are thinking medium or long term with their current aggressiveness. Russia did very little to bring the structural changes necessary to diversify their economy during the boom years of the 2000s, and could soon be finding their oil and gas exports to be decreasing.
User avatar
Loflar
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse

Re: Where the heck is everybody?

#126 Post by Loflar »

rdghuizing wrote: Not true actually. Especially on the longer term. Once Russia runs out of money for some reason or other, it is in serious trouble. I don't think the citizens will want to experience the hyperinflation of the 90's again any time soon. Putin needs EU money (from whatever he sells them) at least as bad as the other way round.
EU money can be replaced with Chinese money.
rdghuizing wrote: Diplomacy was never an option for Russia. When you refuse to talk to the government of a country and just move troops onto their land and annex part of their territory then you are not conducting any diplomacy. You're simply conducting an act of war. And if the country had been almost any other that would have been the result, as well as tougher actions. Only the size of russia prevented a complete escalation of the conflict.
I understand your view, but as I wrote earlier, there is also a Russian view - Russia moved its troops onto land of independent republic of Crimea because it was asked to do so by its parliament. Whether this view is legitimate depends on whether a part of country can declare independence against will of central government, especially government with no legitimity from elections.

And I agree that in most other cases, the international response would be much stricter. But the factor in play is not only size of Russia, but also its permanent membership in UN Security council and its veto power.
Loflar wrote: On the other hand, did IMF count loses to Russian economy, if it lost its naval base in Sevastopol? It is not only about military force projections to Mediterranean, it is also business. And regarding the foreign investments, have you read this?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d774238-b506 ... z2ySkccIZw
Because losing the base was ever actually an option? If it was business, then it was a very bad business decision.
By business I meant importance of the harbour for commercial ships. Its hard to say whether losing the base was an option, but I can easily imagine that from Russian point of view, it was possible outcome with disastrous (for Russia) results.
Teledor wrote: In a move to make Europe rethink their positions, maybe a short term gas cut would cause some concern. But the Russians by doing so may motivate the USA to make their natural gas available for export which it currently is not. I know there has been small scale preparations for such a move but exports on a large scale could be ready in a few years based on what I've read.
USA has no gas to export. I watch the oil & gas situation a bit, and with all the hype about shale gas (which was mostly aimed at attracting investors anyway), USA is now importing about 11% of its consumption. US shale gas production is expected to peak in about 2016 on a value not much higher then the current one. Read for example this: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/En ... rgy-weapon
Now it might be a problem in the meantime, but if Europe weans itself off Russian gas, then what will Putin do?
Sell it to China.
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg9ismp.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/p4ipaw.gif[/img]
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel
User avatar
Ruerl Khan
High Executioner
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:43 pm
Location: Århus, Denmark.

Re: Where the heck is everybody?

#127 Post by Ruerl Khan »

Loflar wrote:
rdghuizing wrote: Not true actually. Especially on the longer term. Once Russia runs out of money for some reason or other, it is in serious trouble. I don't think the citizens will want to experience the hyperinflation of the 90's again any time soon. Putin needs EU money (from whatever he sells them) at least as bad as the other way round.
EU money can be replaced with Chinese money.
Ah, but the chinese economy is something of a bubble according to at least one economist i've spoken to, now I do not have the numbers myself and haven't done the research, but this is roughly what I was told:
- The coastal areas of China and border areas suffers from an experience of workforce drain due to the low wages there and easy access to other areas with higher payment.
- China being competetive is in a large part due to very low wages, a drain on the skilled workforce is a drain on the economy.
- Ten years ago we saw many companies move their buisness to China, but these days many are moving their buisness out.
- If you look at the infrastructure then there is a lot of waste and plenty of corruption.

And as an anectdote (cannot be used as evidence) then the friend of mine who was to China as a part of his medecine study who looked at the inside of their hospitals noted that they had zero initiative themselves, there was never any action unless there was a superior who gave the order, regardless of how easy and simple things would be to fix if you just did it, and regardless of the negative implications it would have if it was not just done.

Furthermore, the China has an interest in putting sanctions against Russia after what happened, i'll deal with that in a moment.
Loflar wrote:
rdghuizing wrote: Diplomacy was never an option for Russia. When you refuse to talk to the government of a country and just move troops onto their land and annex part of their territory then you are not conducting any diplomacy. You're simply conducting an act of war. And if the country had been almost any other that would have been the result, as well as tougher actions. Only the size of russia prevented a complete escalation of the conflict.
I understand your view, but as I wrote earlier, there is also a Russian view - Russia moved its troops onto land of independent republic of Crimea because it was asked to do so by its parliament. Whether this view is legitimate depends on whether a part of country can declare independence against will of central government, especially government with no legitimity from elections.

And I agree that in most other cases, the international response would be much stricter. But the factor in play is not only size of Russia, but also its permanent membership in UN Security council and its veto power.
I put an emphasis on one of the biggest issues in the above, at least from one of the other greater powers of the world, namely that of China, its a pathwork of small nationalities and as such you can be quite sure that its against its interests to allow small local groups to decleare independence and this is not something its ever to accept internationally, if it accepts it well, then look at the regions inside china who has a different mindset than that of the Chinese? Tibet is only the best known example.
Loflar wrote:By business I meant importance of the harbour for commercial ships. Its hard to say whether losing the base was an option, but I can easily imagine that from Russian point of view, it was possible outcome with disastrous (for Russia) results.
I doubt Ukraine ever wanted to deny Russia that, that would have been frankly stupid. Mind you, in politics plenty of stupid things happens, but the entire reason for this conflict is at the bottom of it, an economic issue. Ukraine wanted to move closer to the EU and that denied the Ukraine-Russian trade, its about money at the heart of it.

What Russia did was an attempt to bully in order to get economy, it failed and I do not think that Russia has gained from this conflict, quite the contrary. Well, unless you believe Fox News of course.
Loflar wrote:
Teledor wrote: In a move to make Europe rethink their positions, maybe a short term gas cut would cause some concern. But the Russians by doing so may motivate the USA to make their natural gas available for export which it currently is not. I know there has been small scale preparations for such a move but exports on a large scale could be ready in a few years based on what I've read.
USA has no gas to export. I watch the oil & gas situation a bit, and with all the hype about shale gas (which was mostly aimed at attracting investors anyway), USA is now importing about 11% of its consumption. US shale gas production is expected to peak in about 2016 on a value not much higher then the current one. Read for example this: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/En ... rgy-weapon
Lofflar: Your not responding to what it said by Teledor ;) - he said that there is no export avaliable currently and that it could be ready in a few years, so your both in agreement there. And in 2016 is in a "few years" so to say.
Loflar wrote:
Now it might be a problem in the meantime, but if Europe weans itself off Russian gas, then what will Putin do?
Sell it to China.
Who are not that interested in aiding the Russians, for the reasons stated above.
I love pushing around my small delicatedly painted dolls together with the rest of you.
Facade19
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: In the city of pigs

Re: Where the heck is everybody?

#128 Post by Facade19 »

http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-china-see ... al-1571217

Ruerl, that deal is as good as done.
User avatar
Loflar
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse

Re: Where the heck is everybody?

#129 Post by Loflar »

Ruerl Khan wrote: Ah, but the chinese economy is something of a bubble according to at least one economist i've spoken to, now I do not have the numbers myself and haven't done the research, but this is roughly what I was told:
- The coastal areas of China and border areas suffers from an experience of workforce drain due to the low wages there and easy access to other areas with higher payment.
- China being competetive is in a large part due to very low wages, a drain on the skilled workforce is a drain on the economy.
- Ten years ago we saw many companies move their buisness to China, but these days many are moving their buisness out.
- If you look at the infrastructure then there is a lot of waste and plenty of corruption.
I agree with that, but economy runs on energy. So the Russian gas would boost Chinese production which (under competent government) might be used raise the wages. About two years ago I have read that China is slowly switching from export driven economy to supplying its internal demand. (And that it will not be easy task with guaranteed success.) Which means that external competitiveness might not be such a problem. Of course, that does not mean that China will succeed. On the other hand, EU has serious problems of its own. It is hard to say which choice is more risky.
Loflar wrote: Whether this view is legitimate depends on whether a part of country can declare independence against will of central government, especially government with no legitimity from elections.
I put an emphasis on one of the biggest issues in the above, at least from one of the other greater powers of the world, namely that of China, its a pathwork of small nationalities and as such you can be quite sure that its against its interests to allow small local groups to decleare independence and this is not something its ever to accept internationally, if it accepts it well, then look at the regions inside china who has a different mindset than that of the Chinese? Tibet is only the best known example.
Yes, and that is IMHO the reason why China abstained at Security Council voting.
Loflar wrote:By business I meant importance of the harbour for commercial ships. Its hard to say whether losing the base was an option, but I can easily imagine that from Russian point of view, it was possible outcome with disastrous (for Russia) results.
I doubt Ukraine ever wanted to deny Russia that, that would have been frankly stupid.
The problem is that behaviour of the new Ukraine government sometimes is pretty stupid. Whether they like it or not, Russia is a neighbour and has to be taken into account. They could have started by declaration of willingness to keep all international relations unchanged until elections and of tolerance to all Ukrainian citizens. Instead, they canceled status of Russian as a administrative language and allied with people shouting that Ukraine is for Ukrainians. (You know, in Czech Republic, people who shout that Czech Republic belongs to Czechs are considered neonazi, because it carries a message, that minorities have no right to citizenship.) Further, these people worship Ukrainaian nazionalist Bandera, who is in Russia considered Nazi ally and war criminal. In light of this and western attempts to make Ukraine member of NATO, the danger was there.
Mind you, in politics plenty of stupid things happens, but the entire reason for this conflict is at the bottom of it, an economic issue. Ukraine wanted to move closer to the EU and that denied the Ukraine-Russian trade, its about money at the heart of it.

What Russia did was an attempt to bully in order to get economy, it failed and I do not think that Russia has gained from this conflict, quite the contrary. Well, unless you believe Fox News of course.
I don't think that it is just economy. Losing Sevastopol might mean reverting to times before Catherine the Great, considerably diminishing Russian influence in the world. For Russians, there is huge symbolic value.

Also, your sentence that "Ukraine wanted to move closer to the EU and that denied the Ukraine-Russian trade, its about money at the heart of it." is somewhat misleading. If Ukraine wanted to move closer to EU, its last democratically elected president and parliament would be pro-EU. However, the president was pro-Russian and it was parliament, who decided to prefer Russian offer. If you look at voting patterns ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Ukraine ), you will see that Ukraine is split. So IMHO it would be more precise to say that pro-EU faction in Ukraine currently has the upper hand. Also, moving closer to EU did not have to deny Ukraine-Russian trade. Yanukovych wanted Ukraine to be neutral space between EU and Russia, but EU refused that. But yes, it is about money. EU did not want to share Ukraine with Russia, so Russia took the part it considered most important.
Loflar wrote:
Teledor wrote: In a move to make Europe rethink their positions, maybe a short term gas cut would cause some concern. But the Russians by doing so may motivate the USA to make their natural gas available for export which it currently is not. I know there has been small scale preparations for such a move but exports on a large scale could be ready in a few years based on what I've read.
USA has no gas to export. I watch the oil & gas situation a bit, and with all the hype about shale gas (which was mostly aimed at attracting investors anyway), USA is now importing about 11% of its consumption. US shale gas production is expected to peak in about 2016 on a value not much higher then the current one. Read for example this: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/En ... rgy-weapon
Loflar: Your not responding to what it said by Teledor ;) - he said that there is no export avaliable currently and that it could be ready in a few years, so your both in agreement there. And in 2016 is in a "few years" so to say.
He said that there are no export capabilities, i.e. LNG terminals. Actually, there is one under construction and others are planned. I have responded that there is nothing to export and probably never will be.
Loflar wrote:
Now it might be a problem in the meantime, but if Europe weans itself off Russian gas, then what will Putin do?
Sell it to China.
Who are not that interested in aiding the Russians, for the reasons stated above.
Well, but they are interested in aiding themselves. Fossil fuels are not just a comodity. It is lifeblood of current economy. Gas means heating, electricity production and fertilizers. And Russia is so convenient source, just behind the border. Of course, not the only one, so it will be hard business. But it is still an option.

BTW, did you notice recent Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia, to ensure them that USA is their friend? Not a word about human rights. Now, Iran and Russia are human rights paradises compared to Saudi Arabia, but they are scolded for human right abuses while Saudi Arabia not. Why? Because Saudi Arabia sells USA oil, and when it comes to oil, a lot can be overlooked. So if China really needs the gas, it might decide to overlook the implied threat to its territorial integrity.
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg9ismp.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/p4ipaw.gif[/img]
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel
Post Reply