[HN Gopher] Putin orders Russian peacekeepers to eastern Ukraine...
___________________________________________________________________
Putin orders Russian peacekeepers to eastern Ukraine's two
breakaway regions
Author : karencarits
Score : 152 points
Date : 2022-02-21 21:40 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| dandanua wrote:
| A little bit of context of Putin's rule:
|
| 1999 - Chechen war started.
|
| 2008 - Abkhazia and Ossetia in Georgia.
|
| 2014 - Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
|
| 2022 - Eastern Ukraine finalization.
|
| Also add supporting corrupt and destructive politicians in US and
| EU.
|
| Also add murders of his opponents around the world.
|
| And I'm not even talking about the destruction of civilized human
| laws and relationships in his home country.
| albertnewton wrote:
| nickpp wrote:
| The invasion has begun. And all countries staying and watching
| are accomplice.
| greatgib wrote:
| We should invade Belarus in retribution for Russian acts...
| qq66 wrote:
| LOL at "peacekeepers." He is essentially saying that this is
| Russia now, so that he's only deploying internal security
| personnel.
| thejackgoode wrote:
| - father, where does Russia end?
|
| - there, where they start hitting you, my son
| risyachka wrote:
| I hope there is more than mentioned ban on investments in those
| territories, because no one has been investing there anyway for
| decades.
| danuker wrote:
| Believe it or not, there were McDonalds branches in Crimea.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/mcdonalds-c...
| loceng wrote:
| verdverm wrote:
| This was posted recently on HN, but I'll repost it here. My main
| take away is that these two regions are really more Russian and
| want to be a part of Russia. They were given to Ukraine as part
| of an old agreement internal to the USSR
|
| https://www.gregpalast.com/7-facts-about-ukraine/
| trasz wrote:
| No idea about Lugansk, but in Donetsk they certainly don't: htt
| ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic#Re....
| verdverm wrote:
| I don't really trust Wikipedia much. It has been manipulated
| for a long time and often chooses only sources for the
| narrative of the page author. Polls at this point have
| demonstrated themselves as unreliable and inaccurate.
|
| The link was to offer a different perspective than the one
| prevailing this topic. I don't think it's so simple as Russia
| bad. There are a lot of information wars going on, not
| mention the posturing for constituents with shallow talking
| points.
| billsmithwicks wrote:
| Ding ding, round 1.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| _The habit-forming pain,
|
| Mismanagement and grief:
|
| We must suffer them all again._
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| What is the endgame here for Putin? It seems like for the most
| part that no one is going to do anything to stop him.
| Y-bar wrote:
| He said it himself in his speech: He does not consider Ukraine
| (the whole country) a separate nation, but rather a lost piece
| of Russia which he intends to "reunite" into his nation.
| Animats wrote:
| The endgame is first buffer zones against the West around
| Russia, and if possible, restoration of the pre-USSR Russian
| Empire. That's what Putin says, and it's consistent with his
| actions.
|
| First South Ossetia, then Crimea, then Belarus, now Donetsk.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| I would say Kazakhstan next, but China is heavily entrenched
| there so dunno about it.
| qqtt wrote:
| Russia wants to permanently block Ukraine's entry into NATO. By
| holding on to disputed territories indefinitely, they can make
| that happen. See also: Russia support of Georgia's breakaway
| territories after Georgia was inching closer to NATO
| membership. This is the exact same thing with the exact same
| playbook.
| loceng wrote:
| trasz wrote:
| So, what do the citizens say about it? People who actually live
| there, are there any reliable polls regarding their preferences
| as to which country they prefer?
|
| Edit: No idea about Lugansk, but for Donetsk Wikipedia quotes
| some polls from a couple of years ago, and they seem to
| noticeably favor Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_P
| eople%27s_Republic#Re...).
| skolos wrote:
| I bet the polls will show overwhelming support - after 8 years
| of wall to wall Russian propaganda and extermination of
| opposition most think Putin is their savior from Fascist
| Ukrainians. (Source: I have relatives who still live there)
| stfods wrote:
| Being pro-Ukrainian is super dangerous in separatist-controlled
| regions. Some people has died or has been tortured because of
| this. I think that most of the people from this region that
| openly supported Ukraine are now either in Ukraine or
| jailed/dead.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Only polls with the smoking barrels. Lol, it's so ridiculous
| how actually far western people are from the wild reality of
| Russia. So naive.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| You can see live streams from the cities... They have a lot of
| fireworks going on right now.
| risyachka wrote:
| anticristi wrote:
| import Russia from Ukraine import * regions =
| [ Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk ] while Russia.gas_flows():
| region = regions.pop() russia.annex(region)
| keewee7 wrote:
| As an EU citizen I want an immediate ban on fossil fuel imports
| from Russia.
| anticristi wrote:
| Great idea! Too bad we have this country called Germany that
| depends on it.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| I like having my apartment heated though. Also, I enjoy hot
| showers. And electricity. I live in Berlin so all of that is
| basically at least partially dependent on Russian gas. It's
| winter here; so I'd prefer that not to happen. The EU is not
| prepared for a gas shutdown. Reserves are already low and a gas
| shutdown would be problematic. And it is still winter. Maybe in
| a few years it would be possible for the EU to do this without
| taking a huge hit on its power infrastructure and economy. But
| right now, it simply can't. Russia knows this and is clearly
| not taking this very serious. Mutually assured economic
| destruction is ultimately not going to be a serious option that
| politicians will entertain for very long.
| antisthenes wrote:
| And of course you're willing to compensate every other EU
| citizen for the increase in energy prices out of your personal
| wallet?
| whitepaint wrote:
| As an EU citizen - I am very glad that you hold no power of
| making those kind of decisions.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| As an EU citizen, I can reduce my natural gaz and electric
| consumption, install solar panels and live through minor
| inconveniences to make the world a safer place without Putin.
| kingcharles wrote:
| The problem is that other EU citizens want their lights to come
| on when they press the switch, so Russia has them by the balls.
|
| The other option of course is for the EU to pull a switcheroo
| and invade Russia.
| TapWaterBandit wrote:
| That would be an economic disaster and hurt living standards in
| the EU enormously.
|
| As one example, Germany imports 1/3 of its oil from Russia and
| 1/3 of its natural gas.
|
| https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-
| dependen....
|
| Cutting that supply off would cripple their economy, send
| prices soaring on everything, drive up the price of oil in the
| global market as Germany + other EU nations tried to purchase
| elsewhere which would hurt many poorer nations etc.
|
| Not saying it shouldn't be done, but lets not understate the
| impacts this would have and how incredibly destabilising a
| price rise of that magnitude on top of the Covid problems could
| be to the EU as a whole.
| guilhas wrote:
| Quite interesting chess, Russia playing the USA/UK game. Curious
| to how it works, just recently USA wanted to split Syria but it
| didn't quite work out
|
| Still I don't like countries getting split, seems quite
| unacceptable unless most of the whole population agrees
|
| NATO should just agree to back-off, leave Ukraine neutral as a
| peace buffer. What interest for security there is for NATO to
| still keep expanding? That is what started the tensions in the
| first place
| Caligatio wrote:
| Whose "interest of security" are you referring to? If it's the
| security of Eastern European countries like Georgia and
| Ukraine, it's self-evident that counties would want to join
| NATO. If it's existing NATO members, there may be a general
| interest in expanding to countries who are under threat by the
| country that caused NATO to be formed in the first place.
|
| Blaming this situation on NATO is like shooting someone with a
| gun and then blaming them because they bought a bullet proof
| vest because they were concerned that you would shoot them with
| a gun.
| csee wrote:
| I had hoped it was chess because if so then we aren't dealing
| with an unhinged maniac with his hands on a thousand nukes. But
| this action seems so dislocated from what's in Russia's
| interests that my hopes are looking dashed. Putin can invade
| Ukraine and turn Russia into North Korea. Or he can settle for
| the two regions and further push Ukraine into the hands of
| NATO. Either way, Russia has lost. These are looking like the
| actions of an ideologue, which is a really not good sign.
| rlkjlkjer wrote:
| stfods wrote:
| I've listened to the discussion in Russia's Federation Safety
| Council where Putin, heads of government, parliament, security
| services, army has been discussing recognition of Donetsk &
| Luhansk
|
| There's one important point that has been explicitly mentioned
| (if I'm not mistaken, by Medvedev)
|
| "We got sanctions after operation in Georgia in 2008, but some
| time has passed and they started talking to us and working with
| us again"
|
| Their expectation: an offence against a neighbouring country
| generates not more than some sanctions that would be removed
| soon.
|
| It has worked like this in 2008. Why wouldn't it work now?
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| link?
| jmyeet wrote:
| Putin is in the wrong here but there are no good guys. US
| rhetoric on this has predicted a full-scale invasion that hasn't
| come to fruition multiple times and the media just laps it up.
| It's reminiscent of the WMD justification for invading Iraq. It's
| straight up Manufacturing Consent [1].
|
| However, Putin has a point: extending NATO membership to Ukraine
| is an overtly hostile act by the US and NATO member states. Putin
| no more wants NATO bases in the Ukraine than the US would want
| Chinese or Russian military bases in Canada or Mexico.
|
| But Russia is not and never was going to launch a full-scale
| invasion of Ukraine. It would destroy Russia. Trying to do this
| in Afghanistan, a substantially smaller and less developed
| country, played a significant factor in the collapse of the
| Soviet Union.
|
| Russia wants a buffer between it and NATO and access to the Black
| Sea. That's it.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
| favorited wrote:
| > US rhetoric on this has predicted a full-scale invasion that
| hasn't come to fruition multiple times and the media just laps
| it up.
|
| The invasion is happening right now. The "peacekeepers" are
| Russian troops invading Ukraine, after Putin claimed, "Ukraine
| has never had its own authentic statehood."
| jmyeet wrote:
| I don't think you know what a full scale invasion is.
|
| They've crossed the border into Eastern Ukraine that have
| been in conflict for years between Ukrainian nationals and
| Russian separatists. Like I said, not good. But full-scale
| invasion? Not even close. Not a single shot has been fired
| that we know about. Or have I missed the missile strikes?
| Artillery bombardments of Ukrainian forces? Aerial
| bombardment? Infantry engagements?
|
| Yet US rhetoric on this was basically "Putin is going to
| glass Kiev and murder everybody". When is that happening
| exactly?
| mhoad wrote:
| You understand this thing is literally hours old right?
|
| Do you have any experience with anything military related
| or some reason why you are trying to speak with any level
| of confidence on this?
| mhoad wrote:
| I don't know where to even start with this. They have already
| crossed the border.
|
| Almost every point you have raised here is severely detached
| from reality.
|
| Sometimes it's ok to just say you don't know and move on.
| junon wrote:
| Disappointed in Europe at the moment. Putin knew sanctions would
| be endlessly pushed off as "still trying to achieve diplomacy".
| He called the bluff.
|
| Putin made it 100% clear he does not want Diplomacy. He wants a
| victory by conquest. He wants war. He doesn't care how far he has
| to take things to get it. Anyone who listened to his bizarre rant
| on Ukrainian "history" can see this.
|
| What the hell is NATO waiting for? "Okay, but if you kill another
| thousand civilians, we're REALLY going to start thinking about
| those sanctions!" seems like the defacto mode of thinking right
| now.
|
| 2022 shaping up to be a disaster.
| albertnewton wrote:
| icare_1er wrote:
| NATO has settled military bases in all of Eastern Europe,
| despite promises from the early 90s that no country from the
| USSR-block would join NATO. By gradually pushing its pawns all
| around Russia, NATO (meaning the US) is as much responsible in
| that crap as Putin is. How many Russian bases in the Carribean,
| in Canada, and in the Pacific ?
| [deleted]
| junon wrote:
| NATO is a defensive treaty pact. Putin alone could end this.
| Russia is not being actively threatened. How much did Russia
| pay you to spread this garbage take?
| icare_1er wrote:
| Yes, setting army bases all around a country is defensive
| when it's the US, but it's an aggression if it is any other
| country. o)
| rowanajmarshall wrote:
| Russia is not entitled to a ring of vassal-slave states.
| icare_1er wrote:
| That's because you lack historical culture. You should re-
| read about that lengthy negociations that took place in the
| 90s re. the dismantling of the USSR. It came with a lot of
| conditions, negociated for years, with Kohl and Mitterrand
| playing the middle-men. Conditions that the newly recreated
| eastern countries would stay neutral and not become NATO,
| were very clear, and signed off by Baker on the US side.
| I've given you enough key words for you to go and catch up
| a bit.
| elsurudo wrote:
| With those countries' and populations' permission... I wonder
| why that is?
| InsomniacL wrote:
| For me, I've watched Russian Foreign office officials on UK news
| programs adamantly deny any possibility of Russian troops
| entering Ukraine and even accuse western governments of
| orchestrating the notion to discredit the Russian Government...
|
| I can certainly see who has no credibility now..
| mhoad wrote:
| What an absolute failure of a headline.
| entropyneur wrote:
| Unless I'm missing something, this seems to match the definition
| of invasion given by Biden the other week and should trigger the
| hyped up draconian sanctions.
| newrotik wrote:
| A bit off putting how nonchalantly people are asking for
| economic sanctions on a population of 144 million people that
| are already quite poor.
|
| Not defending Russia here - but let's be more mindful of the
| fact that there are other human beings at the other end of the
| stick.
| skolos wrote:
| Interesting point. How would you resolve this chalantly? 144
| million people who probably will struggle to purchase their
| next iPhone vs 44 million people many of whom might die,
| loose all property and homes. What is a good way to resolve
| this in your opinion?
| anm89 wrote:
| Love the use of "peacekeepers" here. It seems so aggressively
| bullshit here but on the other hand myself and most people
| wouldn't blink if the US did the same thing.
| favorited wrote:
| Nations love pretending these kinds of things. It's like how,
| when the US sent 500 Special Forces troops to South Vietnam in
| 1961, we were only sending "military advisors!" Somehow, the
| number of "advisors" was 11,000 a year later. That's a lot of
| advice.
| thomond wrote:
| The return of the "little green men"?
| chitowneats wrote:
| The comparison isn't far off. The distinction however is that
| Russia is acknowledging that the forces they are sending are
| indeed Russian troops, rather than hiding behind the fiction
| that they are local separatist paramilitary.
|
| Instead they are hiding behind the propagandistic "peacekeeper"
| framing.
| edrxty wrote:
| In all seriousness, it worked last time. What's stopping him
| from trying again?
| choeger wrote:
| It didn't work last time. Last time everyone knew the were
| Russian soldiers or mercenaries. Ukraine didn't oppose them
| because a) they held a key road (a bottleneck, really) into
| Crimea and b) significant parts of the Ukrainian military
| _on_ the peninsula defected to the Russian side. This time,
| there 's no bottleneck and there will probably be no or only
| few defectors. This time, it's going to be a shooting war,
| sadly.
| chitowneats wrote:
| It worked in the sense that Russia secured Crimea without
| serious consequences.
|
| When an authoritarian lies with impunity, that is a triumph
| for the regime, not a defeat.
| edrxty wrote:
| That sounds a lot like it worked last time.... Not saying
| it'll work this time, just pointing out the pikachu factor
| is high here
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| > pikachu factor
|
| Oh, please explain
| mullingitover wrote:
| At least now Russia is dispensing with the fiction that there
| aren't Russian troops in these regions that Russia has been
| annexing for the past seven years.
| thriftwy wrote:
| That's because the Novorossia republics are now recognized as
| sovereign states by Russia.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > now recognized as sovereign states.
|
| By one country: the one invading Ukraine and annexing them.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Zero to One
| Grustaf wrote:
| It does say "recognized as sovereign states _by Russia_ "
| danuker wrote:
| I guess you have to start somewhere. No UN members
| recognize Liberland, and one is greater than zero.
| darkhorn wrote:
| I think all of this started when Ukraine started to use Baykar
| Bayraktar TB2.
| baal80spam wrote:
| I despise this timeline.
| mikaeluman wrote:
| These regions have unilaterally declared their independence since
| the 2014 revolution/coup.
|
| In that sense the only thing that is new is the official Russian
| recognition.
|
| It's a messy situation. According to the census on wiki only 1/3
| are of Russian ethnic background. Does that mean only 1/3
| supported the breakaway from Ukraine?
|
| You can't help but to make comparisons to the Sudeten Germans and
| the like. "Peacekeeping missions".
| risyachka wrote:
| Those regions didn't declare anything in 2014. Just like
| Crimea. They were taken.
|
| Literally the whole world knows that.
| trhway wrote:
| history tends to repeat itself. When Moldavian nationalists
| tried in 1990-1992 to clean the west bank of Dnestr (future
| Transnistria ) from Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian and
| Ukrainian volunteers were fighting there together. The
| Ukrainian forces were mostly from Ukrainian nationalist
| organizations OUN-UPA. These organizations were core to the
| Ukrainian volunteer battalions which tried to pacify the
| Donbass in 2014, and naturally a lot of Russian volunteers
| opposed them (some people who fought each other in 2014 were
| even fighting together in 1992).
| voidsnax wrote:
| That the Russian government is characterizing these personnel as
| "peacekeepers" would be a fair statement, but to regurgitate that
| characterization in reporting on the matter seems rather less
| credible.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| separatists are "fair" peacekeepers?
| barry-cotter wrote:
| Parroting obvious government horseshit with a straight face is
| part of the job of news organizations. They don't call the
| US/UN puppet government in Somalia or Libya puppets either.
| They call them UN approved transitional governments.
| Youden wrote:
| Reuters is a wire service. It sticks to factual, neutral
| reporting without editorialization. Putin and the decree used
| the term "peacekeepers", so that's the term Reuters attributes
| to them.
|
| If you want editorialization, you can use one of the many other
| services that provides it, like the NY Times.
|
| I like Reuters because it reports the facts and leaves you to
| draw your own conclusions about what they mean.
| bruceb wrote:
| It might be less biased than some, but it does have bias.
| akvadrako wrote:
| If only that were true. But if you read Reuters enough you
| see they have a bent. Journalists always have a choice on at
| least which quotes and aspects to include
|
| Though I admit they are rather good at pretending to be
| professional, except their ads.
| codevark wrote:
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| peacekeepers? troops!
| hawk_ wrote:
| What's disappointing is the response of european leaders so far.
| They have prepared a sanctions package against Russia which won't
| include anything in the energy sector! If not energy then what,
| Matryoshka dolls? and we are supposed to take them seriously :-(
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| The US relies heavily on Russian oil [1]. Why the sole focus on
| European imports from Russia?
|
| [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-is-the-u-s-
| still-i...
| finiteseries wrote:
| Europe depends on Russian energy to keep the heat on in
| winter.
|
| US refineries have replaced sanctioned Venezuelan oil with a
| Russian type bumping them up to a very respectable 10% of oil
| imports.
|
| The US is also responsible for its own security, not the
| other way around.
| akmarinov wrote:
| At the same time, the US is energy independent
| https://news.yahoo.com/u-now-energy-
| independent-174226538.ht...
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| Even more shocking then that they are buying massive
| amounts of oil from Russia, thereby filling Putin's
| pockets, no?
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| Presumably when it comes to a global commodity like oil,
| all independence means is "potentially capable of supplying
| enough to meet your own demand".
| relix wrote:
| There needs to be an escalation path. Sanctions should always
| be able to get worse, or else Russia would no longer have
| anything to lose, and Europe won't have anything left to
| threaten with. Once in that situation it would be a recipe for
| a hot war between NATO and Russia.
| hawk_ wrote:
| Isn't saying that energy sector won't be touched a few days
| before Putin's latest declaration showing our hand too much
| though.
| sitkack wrote:
| Don't those natural gas pipelines go through the Ukraine?
| Regardless of how they get destroyed, when they do, Russia
| will have everything it needs to justify a full invasion.
|
| https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/europe-map/
| throwaway3b03 wrote:
| Wasn't that the whole point of NS2, the have a pipeline
| that doesn't go through Ukraine?
| Teever wrote:
| The last decade or so hasn't been enough an escalation path?
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Russia knows exactly how to play this game though, especially
| with the cooperation of China. They know Germans, in
| particular, would rather give up all of Eastern Europe than
| risk harming their own economy.
| sidibe wrote:
| Russia is stuck playing the mid 20th century game
| ghostwriter wrote:
| If you believe that something has changed in the methods
| of global politics since the mid of 20th century, then
| you haven't been curious enough to look at the state of
| the world beyond convenient western news coverage. It's
| still the rule of powerful and able, and it's not the
| power to produce and create, unfortunately.
| redwood wrote:
| The idea of an EU without a mutual defense treaty is so
| absurd
| icare_1er wrote:
| The idea of an EU is absurd.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| For the European continent to keep up with countries like
| the USA and China it makes absolute sense and I don't see
| how anyone could see it any other way other than Russia
| or a similar country that would love to see a weak
| European continent that would be easy pickings.
| danuker wrote:
| The idea of an EU defense treaty is also redundant after
| NATO.
| redwood wrote:
| Not true when two of the three muscular nato powers
| aren't in the EU
| icare_1er wrote:
| The idea of a NATO is redundant after the end of USSR.
| nickpp wrote:
| A defense treaty is never redundant. Case to the point.
| redwood wrote:
| That is quite clearly not true
| blibble wrote:
| there already is one
|
| but Putin would probably be pretty safe to assume that
| the germans wouldn't risk a war for a small part of
| Estonia/Lithuania (and then another small part, and so-
| on)
|
| (and that's why no-one outside of france and germany
| wants the EU army to replace NATO)
| danuker wrote:
| Are you sure? Someone German would have to do the cheap
| labor in that case.
| trasz wrote:
| This time even China isn't on Russia's side, though:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-chinas-warning-
| against-a...
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I think China (with the exception of Taiwan) likes to win
| economically and apply that sort of pressure. They don't
| want an invasion happy country sitting just north of
| them.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| The extraordinary extent to which huge chunks of London and
| the political alt-right across Europe and the USA relies on
| Putin's (and other oligarchs') laundered wealth is really a
| brake on any ambitions that sanctions will work.
|
| You can't stop Putin's illicit private wealth (he's probably
| the richest man in the world) spreading through the West
| because it already did.
|
| There will be no co-ordinated all-party pushback against
| Russia in the USA or the UK, because big chunks of the
| political system of both are aware of the side on which their
| bread has been buttered for some time.
|
| And a lot of alt-right figures who have spent years saying
| that it's a lie that they have Russian support, but at the
| same time that Putin is a strong leader the West can learn
| from, are either going to go silent, obstruct or outright
| attack any sanctions measures.
|
| I don't just mean the obvious people. It's going to be very,
| very illuminating.
|
| And that is before you look at the soft power issue of, well,
| exported power in Europe.
| simonh wrote:
| This is often wildly overblown. Of 700 offshore companies
| found to own UK property, only 5% of them are controlled by
| Russians. Also of 94,000 properties registered as owned by
| foreign companies, only 4 were Russian.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60348046
|
| Bilateral trade is more significant, uk companies own over
| PS23bn in assets in Russia, and total Russian investment in
| UK companies comes to PS11bn, but let's put that in
| context. Russia isn't close to being in the to 10 contries
| that trade and invest in the UK.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| I said "London", not the UK as a whole.
|
| An enormous number of high-value residential properties
| in London lie empty because they exist only as a store of
| wealth for Russian oligarchs.
|
| Something like a fifth or more of the PS4.5bn of illicit
| -- literally unexplained -- wealth stored in residential
| property in London is from Russian oligarchs. It's a huge
| deal because it is targeted influence; big landlords back
| the tories. Any really serious attempt to hit that wealth
| will see pushback in private.
|
| https://bylinetimes.com/2022/02/18/startling-facts-about-
| lon...
|
| https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/oligarchs-and-
| unexplai...
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35757265
|
| This is a surprisingly pernicious influence on our
| politics. The current government have sat on a completed
| report into Russian influence in British politics for
| some time.
| Grustaf wrote:
| Aren't sanctions rather used to punish the people, until
| they rise up against the leader we want to get rid of?
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Yes and no -- current sanctions against Russia are aimed
| at illicit wealth, and they likely still will be.
|
| Western governments will probably try _not_ to use
| sanctions that primarily hurt the Russian people, because
| there is little hope that will work; Putin has spent a
| decade building an explicitly backward-looking, history-
| whitewashing kind of nationalism, and people might tire
| of that, sure, but he 's also been very good at very
| publicly helping his opponents more fully experience the
| view from high windows.
|
| Remember Don Jr's meeting with the Russians that was
| supposedly about adoption? It was actually the Magnitsky
| Act the Russians really wanted to talk about (they want
| it gone). He said as much himself, and it's clear that
| even the people advising the Trump campaign were
| decidedly chilly on the idea of getting rid of it.
|
| Global Magnitsky legislation is why Russia is upping the
| ante. While I'm no scholar of it, I would expect the West
| to start with strengthened Magnitsky-type sanctions that
| prevent oligarchs from getting their money out before
| things go bad.
|
| Because it is the oligarchs who can uproot Putin most
| quickly.
|
| Putin is personally weak and isolated at this point --
| clearly either clinically vulnerable or otherwise
| terrified of catching Covid, and distrustful of everyone
| around him. He's clearly acting more emotionally and less
| rationally.
|
| Sanctions that target -- or isolate -- the wealth of his
| closest circle of oligarchs are more likely to get
| somewhere, because they will gnaw away at his sense of
| invulnerability.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| In the specific case of Russia, and other examples in the
| last several decades, there have been specific attempts
| to direct most of the pain at the rich and powerful
| classes in the target countries. You could argue
| (somewhat cynically but perhaps correctly) that these
| represent the only demographic capable of pushing change.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Put more succinctly than I managed!
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I think we could start now by freezing ALL known russian
| oligarch assets in USA, Europe and friendly countries and
| anywhere else we can persuade countries to do this. They are
| the only ones who can apply pressure to Putin.
| topper-123 wrote:
| Sanctions obviously isn't a viable deterrent against Russia,
| so sanctions at this point is just giving the optics of
| action.
|
| The underlying problem is no doubt the dependency on Russia
| for energy. Europe will have to fix this problem as soon as
| possible.
| albertnewton wrote:
| laurent92 wrote:
| > response of the european leaders so far
|
| Sorry I'm un-knowledgeable, but what do you say to the
| following, well-known argument?
|
| "What would USA say if Russia installed missiles in Cuba? /
| What did Russia say when OTAN envisioned including Ukraine and
| thus installing missiles there? / Therefore, isn't the solution
| to simply abide by the 1991's USA promise of not taking
| foothold in the states bordering Russia?" ? I'm unable to judge
| this idea with my knowledge.
| trasz wrote:
| What if people living there _do_ want USA's (or West in
| general) foothold? Is their opinion less important than some
| politics done over their shoulders?
| Gwypaas wrote:
| The renewable build out is what I would imagine is one of the
| causes of this, besides the geopolitical and keys to
| dictatorship angle.
|
| Within 5 years, 10 years at most, Europe will have transitioned
| far enough to renewables that the energy is a lost cause as
| geopolitical tool. Then Russia truly is screwed.
|
| Some of the former countries in the Soviet bloc which more
| readily faced this issue of Russia trying to extend it's sphere
| of influence to them they already solved it through more costly
| means.
|
| Lithuania and Poland did not build LNG terminals because they
| provide cheap gas, they built them as a costly hedge against
| Russian use of gas supplies for political purpose like seen
| with Ukraine in 2005, 2007 and 2009. Which people seem to have
| forgotten.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%932006_Russia%E2%80...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_ga...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
| qqtt wrote:
| > Then Russia truly is screwed.
|
| Too early to say that so definitively. Russia is banking on a
| close relationship with China in that time frame. Looking
| into the future from here in 2022, that doesn't seem like
| such a bad bet.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| Definitely, the problem is: What does Russia provide for
| China?
|
| For energy, China is also all in on renewables. See this
| chart for what they are committed to building.
|
| https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-
| annua...
|
| What is the status of Russian exports outside of energy?
| thriftwy wrote:
| Imagine China having an army / contractors which can
| actually perform operations and isn't scared of losses.
| kleton wrote:
| China is expanding in every type of energy they can get,
| including renewables. However, tanks and jets run on
| naphtha.
| qqtt wrote:
| China is all in on renewables but they are still building
| new coal plants today. They need all the energy they can
| get to power their economy. Russia can build energy
| pipelines to China at will, and there is plenty of time
| over the next 10 years to wean themselves off Germany and
| Europe's dependence and ramp up China exports.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/12/china
| -co...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_Siberia
|
| Timely joint announcement:
| https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-
| russia-...
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I think Putin knows that he has them and can cause them a lot
| of pain. France has been wise enough to stick with nuclear
| which gives them an edge over other Euro countries.
| twelve40 wrote:
| You keep saying "political tool", "geopolitical tool", but
| the articles you link to don't really support your own point:
|
| > Naftogaz admitted it used some gas intended for other
| European countries for domestic needs
|
| Translation: it was stealing gas that was transported to
| Europe, and they admitted it. Is that "political"? or just
| plain theft maybe?
|
| Second article: > There is no consensus amongst analysts on
| who bore the most responsibility for the crisis
|
| On top of that, the gas pipeline worked without fail for all
| this time, even through the peak of the conflict in
| 2014-2015. Why hasn't been this powerful geopolitical weapon
| invoked then?
| Gwypaas wrote:
| Read the epilogue. During the Crimean annexation there was
| a lot of issues. [1]
|
| Leading to the ultimate cutoff from Russian gas in November
| 2015. Ukraine now buys all gas as reverse flow from
| European Union states, while still of course having Russia
| pay transit fees for gas destined to Europe going through
| the country. [2]
|
| Therefore everyone except Russia is happy, they lost the
| political tool of the gas supply in Ukraine. That is why
| Kyiv is not shut off today.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_g
| as_dis...
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_g
| as_dis...
| redwood wrote:
| Europeans need to proudly wear jackets indoor for a winter to
| really show some consequences
| risyachka wrote:
| US and Britain promised a lot and delivered practically
| nothing.
|
| This one is on them. No one even asked them to fight, but they
| did promise to defend Ukraine in exchange for nukes. So there
| was zero reason not to hit russia with crippling sanctions a
| month ago.
|
| But hey, promises are made only to be broken.
|
| So much for the Budapest Memorandum.
| silvercove wrote:
| nikanj wrote:
| Obviously not, as very successful anti-nuclear campaigning
| means all of EU is dependant on russian fossil fuels
| hawk_ wrote:
| Yep, one after another decision reeks of short termism.
| There's a dictator who believes the world as some zero sum
| system right at our borders and we are burying our heads in
| sand.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| It seems odd that you use the term "short termism" in
| connection with a remark about the anti-nuclear movement,
| one of the major concerns of which has been the the multi-
| thousand year half life of fission waste.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the
| companies that run them can make power more cheaply with wind
| and solar, not because of "anti-nuclear campaigning."
|
| Wind is the cheapest way to make power, with solar being a
| close second.
| Aperocky wrote:
| > Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the
| companies
|
| Except that is demonstrably false:
|
| https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-
| ge...
| xienze wrote:
| But what happens if say, the wind doesn't blow as much as
| expected [0]? Renewables are great but since you can't
| easily bank massive amounts of power for later, you need
| some sort of reliable, consistent energy source that
| continues working when the sun isn't shining or the wind
| isn't blowing. Like gas or nuclear. But with nuclear plants
| falling out of fashion, guess what that leaves you with.
| Renewables are great but you can't just ignore their
| downsides.
|
| 0: https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-
| wind-p...
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| There has definitely been extensive anti nuclear
| campaigning.
|
| Wind and solar are great but they're not dependable.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| They are also way less reliable which is a huge
| disadvantage from the point of view of the state. And we're
| still far from having good energy storage (that is cheap,
| clean, efficient).
| mrtksn wrote:
| Okay, so what happens if the world gets into pre 1990's state?
| Will the internet function as normal? Can US be a refuge for
| banned Russian content and Russia be a refuge for banned Western
| content? For Android it's a bit straightforward but Apparently
| Apple commands ~30% of the Russian smartphone market[0], what
| happens to Russian iPhone users if American companies are
| prohibited from doing business in Russia?
|
| [0] : https://www.statista.com/statistics/262174/market-share-
| held...
| akmarinov wrote:
| Will Russia even be able to get chips needed for pretty much
| everything?
| mrtksn wrote:
| Yeah, why not? Do you expect China, Korea and Taiwan to join
| NATO anytime soon?
|
| Also, during the Soviet times they used to have flourishing
| copycat IC industry.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| What happens to Microsoft if American companies are prohibited
| from doing business in Russia? Maybe Russia will end up with
| their own mobile and desktop OS?
| trasz wrote:
| This would present an interesting problem to Open Source.
| Major projects would probably get forked, but the patches
| would probably keep flowing (being merged) between them
| somehow?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-21 23:02 UTC)