News Forum - UKRAINE UPDATES: Ultimatums ‘not feasible’; Russian offensive stalls; Putin’s ‘back is against the wall’

[Alavan]

1 hour ago, Tim_Melb said:

The climate change thing is completely irrelevant! It's about replacing the gas that Europe needs to get through winter. If they want to put financial pressure on Russia they must stop buying gas from Russia. None of the sources you list can supply increased capacity they are already at maximum production except Iran how will not be supporting NATO in this conflict situation. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Climate change FFS are you even aware what the subject of this thread is about? 

I am aware, you obviously not.

Also gas from the US could be imported to Western Europe.

There were several conferences to lower the exhaust of gasses like CO. Hence the target of using less petrol and methane. Also in the not so far future only electric cars (must still be seen how they will get enough electricity).

And yes, gas contracts are longterm contracts. My country doesn’t use Russian gas, only import from Holland, Norway, North Sea and Qatar. 35-30 years ago we also imported from Arzew (Algeria). I even sailed as supercargo (inspector) on such an LNG-carrier.

The port where I worked imported by pipeline from Norway, and imported (and exported) from the UK through the Bacsea pipeline. LNG-carriers come more than once a week from Qatar, and we export that gas also to other EU-countries.

For the moment also ice-strenghtened LNG - carriers come there from Yamal (Northern Siberia) and the LNG is transshipped on normal LNG-carriers with destination Asia. They sail from Yamal along the Siberian coast around Norway and so to Western Europe. In winter, the passage through the Bering Strait is not possible.

[oldschooler]

37 minutes ago, Freeduhdumb said:

You clearly don't have enough of a grasp on the historical and current events. People who are ignorant to the facts of the situation don't ask questions like this... let me suggest you need to do some serious research into the matter. I can't spoon feed you the answers. Seriously, I am not being condescending with this comment. You are a smart guy... I know you can find the Truth. Good Luck. 

People talking dismissively and vaguely about “ truth” in this manner are usually irrational conspiracy theorists about as far removed from reality & truth as it’s possible to get. Unable, for political or rebellious  reasons, to methodically gather & process salient facts and when pressed using non- credible sources. Nothing seen from his other Putin Tyrant supporting posts has rational value.Conclusion: not worth engaging with. 

[oldschooler]

10 minutes ago, Alavan said:

I am aware, you obviously not.

Also gas from the US could be imported to Western Europe.

There were several conferences to lower the exhaust of gasses like CO. Hence the target of using less petrol and methane. Also in the not so far future only electric cars (must still be seen how they will get enough electricity).

And yes, gas contracts are longterm contracts. My country doesn’t use Russian gas, only import from Holland, Norway, North Sea and Qatar. 35-30 years ago we also imported from Arzew (Algeria). I even sailed as supercargo (inspector) on such an LNG-carrier.

The port where I worked imported by pipeline from Norway, and imported (and exported) from the UK through the Bacsea pipeline. LNG-carriers come more than once a week from Qatar, and we export that gas also to other EU-countries.

For the moment also ice-strenghtened LNG - carriers come there from Yamal (Northern Siberia) and the LNG is transshipped on normal LNG-carriers with destination Asia. They sail from Yamal along the Siberian coast around Norway and so to Western Europe. In winter, the passage through the Bering Strait is not possible.

Massively Off Topic. Start New Thread. This one is Ukraine Updates.

[Freeduhdumb]

19 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

People talking dismissively and vaguely about “ truth” in this manner are usually irrational conspiracy theorists about as far removed from reality & truth as it’s possible to get. Unable, for political or rebellious  reasons, to methodically gather & process salient facts and when pressed using non- credible sources. Nothing seen from his other Putin Tyrant supporting posts has rational value.Conclusion: not worth engaging with. 

You're complete dismissal of all of my rational, methodical, salient facts is duly noted.. and is typical of your responses. You're clearly not worth engagin in. Get a grip dude. 

[Stardust]

1 hour ago, AlexPTY said:

Just to add some gasoline.... is West getting fed-up with this bullshit already. Denmark will kick refugees back to Ukraine, cause 25% left the country. who will work when all this over?

And this has exactly what to do with Denmark/Europe to do your link where exactly the opposite happen what you are guessing?!

[Guest1]

4 hours ago, Politenessman said:

Russian ABMs are great for Moscow (assuming they work a lot better than every other bit of Russian kit we've seen so far) but they don't have enough of them and they don't protect a large area nor do they protect against stealth bombers or cruise missiles.

Ever heart about ABM-treaty? There you find the reason why  Russia had/has them  ONLY around Moscow and why the US only had them, for some month or such, around Grand Forks, North Dakota.

Or I give you a hint: If one of these Nuke Nations would have stationed enough of them, to overcome the threat of dying second, the balance of Power, the system of deterrence would have stopped working! With one result, in the 70's: BOOM!

And to the second part of your paragraph: NEITHER have the US! Or GB or France or China, Pakistan, India. Oh, wait, India may have it?

Also it is questionable, if these ABN are really effective enough, against missiles with multiple warheads.

Perhaps that is/was the reason, the US is /was working on more local anti missile weapons which needed to shut down the ABM-treaty in 2002?

[EdwardV]

4 hours ago, Tim_Melb said:

Come off it NATO and the US have been antagonising Putin and Russia for 30 years, constantly encouraging the old iron curtain countries to break the agreements signed when the wall came down and getting them one by one to join NATO telling the Ukrainian government it was possible for them to join NATO in break of all the past agreements that said they can't was a step too far, NATO are every bit as responsible for this war as Putin. FFS the CIA were warning against this shit storm 10 years ago it's a matter of public record that encouraging the Ukraine to follow the course that lead to this was crossing several red lines for Russia and would lead to this exact situation. But they just continued down this road and now they are saying its all Putins fault its complete bullshit. Going to war is always wrong so Putin is wrong but NATO are just as complicit in this situation as Russia and that is a FACT! 

Besides the fact there was no agreement that NATO wouldn't expand eastward and you know it. Just verbal commitments made by people who didn't have the authority to do so (James Baker comes to mind). Has NATO and the US been antagonizing Russia for 30 years? Of course and the same in return from Russia if not more. The US doesn't have missiles aimed at Russia anymore, the opposite can't be said can it? When you have had nuclear missiles aimed at you for some 50 years, it's kinda hard to turn off the "lets screw with them" attitude. 

Does the US and NATO have some level of culpability for the current crisis? I would certainly agree to that. However at the same time, the idea Russia gets to invade another country isn't a valid option. The problem with running down the "NATO/US is at fault" rabbit hole is you must first grant Russia the power to write the security policy for several nations that make up a larger population than their own. That was never going to happen, so no it's not really NATO and the US fault. This conflict isn't about Ukraine, it started years ago in Georgia and ends on the eastern banks of the Vistula River. The only problem is Russia waited too long to start it, and now doesn't have the capacity to finish it.  

[Politenessman]

13 hours ago, Guest1 said:

Ever heart about ABM-treaty? There you find the reason why  Russia had/has them  ONLY around Moscow and why the US only had them, for some month or such, around Grand Forks, North Dakota.

Or I give you a hint: If one of these Nuke Nations would have stationed enough of them, to overcome the threat of dying second, the balance of Power, the system of deterrence would have stopped working! With one result, in the 70's: BOOM!

And to the second part of your paragraph: NEITHER have the US! Or GB or France or China, Pakistan, India. Oh, wait, India may have it?

Also it is questionable, if these ABN are really effective enough, against missiles with multiple warheads.

Perhaps that is/was the reason, the US is /was working on more local anti missile weapons which needed to shut down the ABM-treaty in 2002?

This is mostly a stream of dribble, try being concise and making a point.

[Politenessman]

16 hours ago, Tim_Melb said:

Come off it NATO and the US have been antagonising Putin and Russia for 30 years, constantly encouraging the old iron curtain countries to break the agreements signed when the wall came down and getting them one by one to join NATO telling the Ukrainian government it was possible for them to join NATO in break of all the past agreements that said they can't was a step too far, NATO are every bit as responsible for this war as Putin. FFS the CIA were warning against this shit storm 10 years ago it's a matter of public record that encouraging the Ukraine to follow the course that lead to this was crossing several red lines for Russia and would lead to this exact situation. But they just continued down this road and now they are saying its all Putins fault its complete bullshit. Going to war is always wrong so Putin is wrong but NATO are just as complicit in this situation as Russia and that is a FACT! 

You do realise that sovereign nations have a right to change alliances and agreements don't you? for example, Australia was at war with Japan in the 40s and now is part of the Quad alliance with Japan.

Russia was allied with Germany in a pact to carve up Poland and then at war with Germany in the same time period.

(I could keep going with examples).

Putin chose a war because he doesn't like the choices that other countries have made (might be some room there to ask why these countries want to all join NATO) - would you say that China annexing Siberia would be fine if they decided they didn't like Russian policy in the Ukraine?

Generally speaking, when you have to declare that your opinion is FACT! we both know it isn't.

[vlad]

Oh dear The Russian Troop ship " Orsk " Attacked by Ukranian troops and set ablaze in port.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10646879/Ukraine-war-Huge-Russian-ship-destroyed-Kyivs-navy.html

[Vigo]

On 3/22/2022 at 10:03 PM, Rookiescot said:

Renault kept paying its employees because its the right thing to do.

Renault can pull out of Russia tomorrow because France and the EU will pick up the bill.

Renault was obliged by local law to keep paying the workers, not because it was "right thing to do". 

Where do you think France  and EU (BTW, France is part of EU) will get money to compensate Renault?  Money comes from taxpayers and there is just so much that they can be asked to keep paying. The tax burden of Europe rests on the shoulders of about 25% of the population. There is a finite pool of  money to pay for every  bailout and social subsidy. The Eu and japan do mot have 1 billion euro lying around for this.

[Rookiescot]

20 hours ago, Vigo said:

Renault was obliged by local law to keep paying the workers, not because it was "right thing to do". 

Where do you think France  and EU (BTW, France is part of EU) will get money to compensate Renault?  Money comes from taxpayers and there is just so much that they can be asked to keep paying. The tax burden of Europe rests on the shoulders of about 25% of the population. There is a finite pool of  money to pay for every  bailout and social subsidy. The Eu and japan do mot have 1 billion euro lying around for this.

The EU has a central bank. Getting money is never an issue.

I am unaware of what the "local" laws are regarding paying workers in a factory that is closed. However it would appear that other companies which have already left Russia do not seem to be burdened by such rules.