Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Hope you are feeling OK.

Sorry: remiss of me not to thank you for enquiring.

Not as bad as many have been: it’s mostly like having a bad head cold. That might be because the double vaccination + booster is working. (And why haven’t we had a fourth round here?)

More annoying is that ‘er indoors was supposed to away for a week, and I was going to have time to sort out the log cabin, and hijack the kitchen table as a nice flat surface for assembling ply baseboards with Resin W, a few pins here and there, and weights while the glue sets. Not happening now!

 

Plus, we have decided for various reasons to move, so the log cabin is now a considerable asset to the property: because I did the assembly myself, we saved quite a bit on the cost so it has probably added more than we spent on it, so it’s an I’ll wind, etc.

 

NHS contacted me about being part of the antiviral trials, but that would involve a 20 mile trek each way to Blackburn, given me the opportunity to be a spreader.

 

Thanks again for asking, Kevin.

[rocor]

13 minutes ago, Regularity said:

 

Not as bad as many have been: it’s mostly like having a bad head cold. That might be because the double vaccination + booster is working. (And why haven’t we had a fourth round here?)

 

 

The last report that I could find regarding getting the next Covid jab, was back in March, where the aged 75's and older were being invited to have their spring boosters.

 

This is the latest government information that I could find published online regarding the vaccination rate in England.

 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/COVID-19-daily-announced-vaccinations-4-June-2022.xlsx

 

 

[Caley Jim]

5 hours ago, 32475 said:

 

Should we use a pencil, quill pen, biro, felt pen, permanent marker?............. 

 

Before any of that they will have to carry out a full written risk assessment around picking up the writing instrument in the first place! 😁 

 

Jim 

[Caley Jim]

3 hours ago, rocor said:

 

The last report that I could find regarding getting the next Covid jab, was back in March, where the aged 75's and older were being invited to have their spring boosters.

 

I had my 4th dose at the end of May, being (just) in that age bracket. 

 

Jim 

[alastairq]

7 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Then we are all going to die, and very horribly. That's a nice thought for lunch. Still, it give us all the chance to plan for a slightly less painful exit before the sirens start.

Isn't that a threat a lot of us have lived under for 70 or more years already?

[alastairq]

8 hours ago, Edwardian said:

One military analyst in the West reckoned 110+ such systems would allow Putin to be defeated. The US and UK between them are sending just 7

 There is a logistical problem with sending the numbers required.

Namely, they aren't exactly 'available.'

Raytheon [the manufacturer of ammunition, etc] are suffering from an inability to meet the sudden increase in demand. 

They cannot make enough projectiles to meet the 'new needs'...

Besides which, the more competent projectiles are actually hugely expensive. So would not /should not be used willy-nilly.

 

This fella is worth a watch [his channel, really] as an insight into modern military thinking. He also relies upon the 'comments below' to add info or correct what he has said.[sorting the wheat from the chaff is useful too]

 

He tries to take a wider view...

[Schooner]

Whilst Task and Purpose is good, I've followed him for a while, Perun has been the surprise win of Youtube commentary for me. Insightful, nuanced, confident within the bounds of his professional expertise, cautious and clear when his commentary exceeds it. Eg, of relevance to Mr Parker's misguided (IMO) comments earlier:

 

 

or touching on some of the more common but less helpful media tropes:

 

 

to highlighting areas of vital importance to UA, but under reported in UK/EU conversation:

 

 

Balance without false equivalence, seasoned with some of that judicious levity of which Parishioners are fond. Worth a watch/listen.

[Regularity]

Not bad, and interesting detail, but in outline there’s not in there that hasn’t been discussed.

Also, he has fallen into the trap of applying “Western” thinking to Putin, and indeed some others generally. 
Putin sees Ukrainian independence as an aberration, and to Putin, Ukraine’s western border is the Russian Western border. So any direct military action by NATO will be seen as a violation of the integrity of Russia’s borders, and by extension, an existential threat to Russia. This is the fourth condition for nuclear response. It is also why NATO hasn’t engaged in direct military action - and President Zelensky will be very aware of this. But NATO is doing almost everything short of that - and President Zelensky will be very aware of that, too. But I don’t think Putin wants to die and take millions of his fellow Russians with him, and has already developed plans: no going into NATO, and just keep the possibility of a nuclear attack in the back of everyone’s mind so that NATO stays out of Ukraine, too. He can more or less do as he pleases in this scenario, but probably wasn’t expecting his own forces to perform so badly and the UA so well.

 

The others? Well, if you are a religious fanatic who thinks that you are holy and everyone else isn’t, and that when you die you will go to heaven and have all your carnal needs tended to, whilst everyone else will go to hell, then mutually assured destruction won’t bother you - it will be an incentive. 

But back to Messrs Parker and Macron. I understand the sentiment, and from a Western European (and former colonies with the same ethos) perspective, this is praiseworthy indeed and to quote WSC, “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.” (Although he didn’t say that about the 1938 Munich treaty, did he?) The point is, Putin is not bound by such conventions, and will see France’s statements as a weakness in the NATO position, and will seek to exploit it every way he can. Unless the “West” keeps a solid and united front, then independent major players like China and India will remain neutral, and smaller nations may relax their own stances. Yes, we need to have channels of communication open, but that exists:

Stop fighting and say you want to talk, Mr. Putin, and the world will listen.
Doesn’t need France trying to position itself as the nation of diplomacy. In any case, Polish was the language of diplomacy in Europe well before - and a lot longer than - French, and Poland is doing a cracking job of helping its neighbour.

[Edwardian]

Quite right, Simon.

 

Some social media I have seen has been nauseous with pampered westerners wringing their hands and calling for peace, as if peace per se is any kind of answer to anything.

 

These Useful Idiots sincerely believe something quite dangerous; peace is an end in itself.

 

Well, no, it isn't. Peace at any cost, peace that is merely an advantageous pause for your enemy. peace with an oppressor's boot on the neck of some or all of your people; peace that weakens freedom, democracy and the rule of law internationally, peace that perpetuates an authoritarian regime and brings more nations and people under its shadow, peace that gives licence to the aggression of rogue states, peace that holds the world to ransom etc etc. Is that what we want? 

 

Such peace is at best illusory, at worst a poor alternative to continuing conflict.  Such a peace is the only peace obtainable from a Putin as you rightly describe him. Like HItler, Putin is someone with whom people think they can reach a reasonable deal. That is delusional.

 

Ukraine needs to be supported sufficiently to allow it to achieve a decisive result on the battlefield before it will be possible to start negotiating any peace worth having.  It really is that simple.

 

Ukraine understands this. Eastern Europe and Scandinavia understand this. Even Boris Johnson appears to understand this (or at least the needful thing chimes with his Churchill complex; a handy coincidence). 

 

Such peace requires great sacrifice, great risk. But we outside Ukraine should not, for a moment, hesitate to embrace our slight share in that risk and sacrifice. It is quite literally the least we can do to secure not only Ukraine's liberation but  the safety and freedom of all of us via a peace worth having.

 

Neither Germany's self-created dependence on Russia hydrocarbons nor Macron's vanity diplomacy can be allowed to give Putin an 'off-ramp' to a peace that will, both in the short and the long terms, prove far more dangerous and dark than fighting Russia to a permanent stand-still in Ukraine.   

[Nearholmer]

Does strike me though that

 

 a) un diplomatic language doesn’t help, and/or is pointless in this context, and by that I mean both bellicose language about “defeat”, and constant trumpeting about what support we might be providing to Ukraine; and,

 

b) there does need to be an obviously open channel for the moment, if ever it comes, when Russia is ready to talk in a meaningful way,

 

I particularly don’t get why “the west” is forever shouting about what gear and other support it is providing, because that simply draws fire back along the logistics paths. Now, presumably the Russians have blasted good intelligence arrangements, so will know a great deal about what is being provided without us boasting about it, but the boasting itself must become super-irksome and invite more trouble. Maybe I’m way off beam, but I would have thought that quietly, stealthily supporting (which I’m sure that in ‘technical’ matters we are as well) would be of more help, although clearly it would be rubbish as a domestic political tool for western leaders.

 

Whatever we say about all that stuff, by god are the Ukrainian people paying an awful, awful price for making Russia pay an awful price. It makes me shake my head in disbelief any time I think about what they are going through.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Nearholmer

[alastairq]

It isn't about intimidating the Russians.

It's about showing us, the folk-on-the- street, that our Governments are actively and positively supporting the efforts of the Ukrainians.

 

If the west's governments simply did things on the QT, there would be uproar in the media, and amongst the general public, about what our Country is actually doing to help.

 

Personally I think the other real villains of the piece  [aside from Russia] are the Saudis.

SA could do so much to alleviate our own, personal [financial] pain [fuel] yet they choose not to...

But, I suppose, they are only taking a lead from our own society's preferences.....IE, putting money first, before anything else.

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Whatever we say about all that stuff, by god are the Ukrainian people paying an awful, awful price for making Russia pay an awful price.

 Not suggesting appeasement should have been the righteous path to follow?

 

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I think you make some important points.

 

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Does strike me though that

 

 a) un diplomatic language doesn’t help, and/or is pointless in this context, and by that I mean both bellicose language about “defeat”, and constant trumpeting about what support we might be providing to Ukraine; and,

 

Indeed. I do think Russia needs to be defeated in the limited sense of its armies in Ukraine need to be defeated and expelled from Ukraine, including the Crimea.  Anything further is neither likely nor desirable, which leads to your second point below.

 

So, while I do not think we should necessarily be shy about stating that objective openly - Ukraine needs us to make clear and public its support for that aim and Russia needs to understand that - I have decried the bellicose rhetoric that our Buffoonish Pseudo-Churchill and our Outraged Cheese Lady have espoused. 

 

Quiet measured resolve is what we should convey. 

 

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

b) there does need to be an obviously open channel for the moment, if ever it comes, when Russia is ready to talk in a meaningful way,

 

Yes, there should be an open door and Macron is not wrong in what he says; humiliating Russia is not the road to any, let alone a lasting, peace. 

 

What is suspicious is his motive, what is unhelpful is his timing. It tempts one to recall MacMillan's famous conclusion. 

 

The Ukrainians don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to lob missiles over the border into Russia. Indeed, there is sound military justification in terms of the interdiction of Russian supply routes to the border. But that would escalate too far, in the West's calculation, so Ukraine will not be given the means to do so.

 

Likewise the Ukrainians naturally want post war reparations from Russia and effective war crime trials.

 

I predict that, in the event of a military victory liberating Ukraine, Ukraine will not achieve either of those aims, there will be neither a Versailles nor a Nuremberg.

 

This is for at least two good reasons.

 

First, no one will be in a position to impose such harsh terms.  We may see Putin removed, as his fate is probably ultimately tied up with the outcome of the war in Ukraine, but we will not see the collapse of the entire Russian military, or of the Russian government, or of the Russian Federation.

 

Second, the West would not want to. Anything that might fill the vacuum left by the disintegration or emasculation of the Russian Federation would probably be worse and even less predictable.  What the West, the World, needs is Russia to survive but without a total bellend in charge. 

 

We need Russia to be brought back into the fold, not left in the cold to indulge in vengeful resentment, and we want its economy to function, so we probably will want to start buying its gas, even if we are by then better able to live without it. 

 

My point is that we don't get to make those wise choices unless and until we've given Ukraine whatever it needs to defeat the invader. Yes, we should avoid inflammatory bellicosity, yes, we should avoid the mistakes of Yalta in demanding something akin to unconditional surrender, but, no, we shouldn't for a second imply anything other than that we are in this until Russia either leaves all of Ukraine voluntarily or is driven out at bayonet-point. 

 

Macron, therefore, should put a sock in it and stop sounding like a useful idiot. And Scholz should listen even more to his public and, frankly, grow a pair.

 

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I particularly don’t get why “the west” is forever shouting about what gear and other support it is providing, because that simply draws fire back along the logistics paths. Now, presumably the Russians have blasted good intelligence arrangements, so will know a great deal about what is being provided without us boasting about it, but the boasting itself must become super-irksome and invite more trouble. Maybe I’m way off beam, but I would have thought that quietly, stealthily supporting (which I’m sure that in ‘technical’ matters we are as well) would be of more help, although clearly it would be rubbish as a domestic political tool for western leaders.

 

Yes.  I want to know, or at least be able to find out, what we are sending so that I can form a view on whether my country is doing enough.  I also want support to be a public message to the Kremlin.

 

However, there comes a point, which I think the more populist inclined politicians have exceeded, of making too much self-congratulatory publicity that, I agree, is only counter-productive because it forces the Kremlin to make counter-threats and boasts about its capacity to retaliate and one always fears that at some pint the publicity war induces the Kremlin to make good on some of its posturing.    

 

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Whatever we say about all that stuff, by god are the Ukrainian people paying an awful, awful price for making Russia pay an awful price. It makes me shake my head in disbelief any time I think about what they are going through.

 

 

 

The will of the Ukrainian people is astonishing. I hope we never have to face the decision to sacrifice so much.  I hope that we could if we were ever in a similar position.

 

This war is in the West's interest, as Putin is part of an assault on democracy. tolerance, liberal progressive values and rule of law. By fighting this war Putin has lost China as his active facilitator, but only by losing his war will his threat be contained or removed.

 

Ultimately we have to respect Ukraine's decision concerning the price it is prepared to pay for freedom. Our support should be without limit up to that point. 

 

Make no mistake, however, that they are fighting for our interests as much as their own. So long as they are prepared to do that, we should be prepared to help them win.

   

 

 

[Hroth]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Whatever we say about all that stuff, by god are the Ukrainian people paying an awful, awful price for making Russia pay an awful price. It makes me shake my head in disbelief any time I think about what they are going through.

 

I think that when the Russians (Putin in the main) found that in this case the Ukraine wasn't going to roll over and play dead as they appeared to do during the initial incursions of the false flag "militias" a couple of years ago, and in the Crimea, then they decided to be utterly bloody and kill as many Ukranians, military and civil as they could, whilst literally reducing infrastructure to rubble. The lack of Western reaction towards their warmongering in the east and Crimea probably encouraged them too.

 

I would suggest that the Western response has taken them aback, but hand wringing by certain European governments isn't helping Ukraine.

 

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

It isn't about intimidating the Russians.

It's about showing us, the folk-on-the- street, that our Governments are actively and positively supporting the efforts of the Ukrainians.

 

I agree.  What I am glad to see is that the tabloid press have got bored with The War and isn't harping on about it so much.

 

@Edwardian Good points, well made.  The key is always to leave a rat a means of escape, otherwise he'll panic and go for you.

 

 

 

[rocor]

53 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

We may see Putin removed, as his fate is probably ultimately tied up with the outcome of the war in Ukraine, but we will not see the collapse of the entire Russian military, or of the Russian government, or of the Russian Federation.

 

Second, the West would not want to. Anything that might fill the vacuum left by the disintegration or emasculation of the Russian Federation would probably be worse and even less predictable.  What the West, the World, needs is Russia to survive but without a total bellend in charge. 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't agree that there should be any effort expended by the west to hold the Russian Federation together, quite the opposite. With 83 federal subjects, of which 21 are republics (Russia claims 22, but they include Crimea), there is plenty of scope to induce fractures within the Federation. Russia, fighting many internal conflicts at the same time, could be regarded as having a certain karmic justice.

[Edwardian]

13 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

I don't agree that there should be any effort expended by the west to hold the Russian Federation together, quite the opposite. With 83 federal subjects, of which 21 are republics (Russia claims 22, but they include Crimea), there is plenty of scope to induce fractures within the Federation. Russia, fighting many internal conflicts at the same time, could be regarded as having a certain karmic justice.

 

I sympathise, and quite see the ethical case, or the attraction of an emasculated Russia. and why the Ukrainians would want justice for their losses, but my thoughts were based on what I think we can reasonably expect Western governments to want.

[Nearholmer]

A chaotic implosion of the Russian Federation would be hugely dangerous, both for its inhabitants, and for its neighbours, extending that term to mean anyone who relies on it for resources, and anyone in strike range, so a huge neighbourhood.

 

Part of the reason for the current mess is that the USSR fell apart chaotically, creating spaces for all sorts of evils to flourish. Have a look at how life expectancy for those in Russia fell during that period to get some idea of what life was like on the inside, and ponder other places in the world where power vacuums arise.

 

So, I’m with what I think Edwardian is saying: everyone, inside and out, needs the countries that form that federation to function effectively, either collectively or individually.

 

And no Alistair, I was not advocating appeasement, I fully get why this has to be made as costly as possible for Russia., but I’m still staggered by what the Ukrainian people are suffering. 

 

The supply line thing is a real peculiarity of this war. I’m no military bod, but I do have a fair grasp of supply chains, logistics, and utilities, and I know full well that the quickest way to cripple anything, be it opposing army, country, or whatever, is to break its supply lines as far back as possible, and deprive it of energy supply, so that it is ‘unnatural’ to show restraint in those matters during a war.

[Schooner]

14 hours ago, Regularity said:

Not bad, and interesting detail, but in outline there’s not in there that hasn’t been discussed.

Also, he has fallen into the trap of applying “Western” thinking to Putin, and indeed some others generally. 

 

Agreed with all. Just an example of a Useful YouTuber, a limited field.

 

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Ultimately we have to respect Ukraine's decision concerning the price it is prepared to pay for freedom. Our support should be without limit up to that point. 

 

Make no mistake, however, that they are fighting for our interests as much as their own. So long as they are prepared to do that, we should be prepared to help them win.

 

This.

 

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

The key is always to leave a rat a means of escape, otherwise he'll panic and go for you.

 

But not this.

 

Oft used analogy but inaccurate and unhelpful, I think. Neither the RuAF nor its genocidal cusshead leader require a means of escape. They require the incentive to Foxtrot Oscar out of a neighbouring sovereign state and return to a position, and posture, in accordance with international law.

 

1 hour ago, rocor said:

Russia, fighting many internal conflicts at the same time, could be regarded as having a certain karmic justice.

 

It could, but is this even required/does it matter? By most metrics - economic, military, diplomatic, demographic - they're pretty thoroughly "emasculated" already, without any external assistance.

 

Progress past Russia's pitiable current position must be based on the success of its constituents, independent or federated, rather than collapse and retribution. How to best bring that about...well, let Ukraine get her borders back, then perhaps we can worry about that happens beyond them.

[Regularity]

When he was a toddler, I could always get my son to do what was requested when he didn’t want to, simply by providing him with an alternative but less desirable option, and letting him choose. 
 

It strikes me that Petulant Putin needs a similar situation, and the “West” needs to come up with a way for Putin to claim some form of “victory” at home, which won’t make anyone else - particularly Ukraine.

 

Not an easy solution, but made harder by Macron and Scholz playing to some part of their domestic audience. 

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

A chaotic implosion of the Russian Federation would be hugely dangerous, both for its inhabitants, and for its neighbours, extending that term to mean anyone who relies on it for resources, and anyone in strike range, so a huge neighbourhood.

 

Part of the reason for the current mess is that the USSR fell apart chaotically, creating spaces for all sorts of evils to flourish. Have a look at how life expectancy for those in Russia fell during that period to get some idea of what life was like on the inside, and ponder other places in the world where power vacuums arise.

 

So, I’m with what I think Edwardian is saying: everyone, inside and out, needs the countries that form that federation to function effectively, either collectively or individually.

 

And no Alistair, I was not advocating appeasement, I fully get why this has to be made as costly as possible for Russia., but I’m still staggered by what the Ukrainian people are suffering. 

 

Yes, I could have put it better, but essentially although I can see why Ukraine would want an emasculated Russia paying reparations, I don't think this is a realistic outcome and one reason for this is that, as you say, it is in no one's interest to have a destabilised or collapsed Russian Federation, a dangerous outcome even without the possibility of loose nukes going astray; as I think I said, anything that might attempt to fill the resultant vacuum is likely to be worse.

 

Essentially, what Ukraine wants as a minimum - the invader out of all its territories and future security - is what we want because what we should want is a Russia without Putin that recognises the need to play nicely in the world.  Such a Russia cannot come to be without regime change, regime change has to be effected by Russians themselves and regime change within Russia will not come about unless Russia loses the war to which Putin has effectively tied his fate, and that war is not lost until Ukraine has decisively defeated Russian forces and driven them, or obliged them to withdraw, from Ukraine.  Ukraine will not achieve this unless we continue to back it to the hilt with everything it says it needs.

 

This is why I say that Macron, in attempting to prove his prowess, may have suffered premature negotiation. Not what we need, especially when the German Chancellor needs stiffening.

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

The supply line thing is a real peculiarity of this war. I’m no military bod, but I do have a fair grasp of supply chains, logistics, and utilities, and I know full well that the quickest way to cripple anything, be it opposing army, country, or whatever, is to break its supply lines as far back as possible, and deprive it of energy supply, so that it is ‘unnatural’ to show restraint in those matters during a war.

 

Biden may well be drawing the line too tightly here.

 

Ultimately the Russians can launch cruise missiles from thousands of miles away and I don't think Ukraine can realistically expect to target their silos, but there could be plenty of legitimate military targets from supply convoys to air bases, rail hubs, troop assembly areas, armaments factories that Ukraine might interdict within Russia that would materially degrade Russia's war-fighting capability.  If Ukraine could, thus, cut-off any given defences at the knees, we might see an end to Russian attacks. Again, I tend to favour letting Ukraine make its own decisions and for us to support them unless they go beyond what could be justified in the circumstances.. 

 

[alastairq]

Going back to the 1970's, the USSR's main source of income...and therefore, the greatest boost to its economy, was its oil, and gas reserves.

 

Germany didn't help this situation by wholeheartedly getting into bed with Russian gas, at a cheap rate. Also, with the  Warsaw pact countries, there was also a ready market. Russia was coining it in [although probably not to the extent Saudi Arabia was?  Russian oil & gas was sold at a cut price]

At any time subsequently, if the USSR felt it's share of the oil/gas market was being placed under threat, it took arbitrary military action.

The Russian idea of 'negotiation' to protect its interests in this area was to take over, effectively, in order to 'exert' influence. Protecting its oil markets.

On the collapse of the Soviet Union, a lot of those reserves of oil & gas suddenly became the 'property' of the smaller, breakaway countries...[such as Azerbaijan, or may of the other 'stans..]

Not only were  Russia's oil markets suddenly threatened, so were the supply lines it used to access those markets.  Mainly [in fact all?} the supply lines to western Europe...[Germany in particular], whose economies grew at an enormous rate, founded in part on that cheap and ready supply of Russian oil/gas.

Whereven oil reserves, or oil & gas supply lines, were seen to be taken from Moscow's control, Russia took military action to regain control. Or exerted unreasonable influence to get its way.

Hence, the 'invasion' of georgia[ to control that part of the Azerbaijan pipeline that ran through it, thereby controlling Azerbaijan's ability to supply oil...

Hence why Russia vetoed [on spurious eco grounds] when Azerbaijan tried to build a pipeline directly to Turkey across the Caspian sea....to once more, bypass Russia's influence.

Moscow saw, yet again, it's economy [and therefore, its ability to spend] being threatened.

So, either by direct military action, or rigging the various governments in order to get Moscow-friendly folk in power, many countries of the old USSR were clawed back under Moscow's control....to protect its main source of income, its oil & gas market.

 

Then we saw the Crimea situation....again, Moscow protecting its economy.....by restricting where those other countries' resources could be brought to market easily. Also, Russia found itself very short of ice-free ports...access to a sea for trade purposes.

Next, global oil companies found considerable reserves of gas [and oil] in the eastern part of Ukraine...., with some also along the northern Black Sea area...

If this source was developed, it would prove a considerable threat to Moscow's own oil & gas market [Western Europe, once more], therefore, a threat to the well being of Russia's economy...tied as it is intrinsically to the sale of its gas & oil

 

So Moscow sought to find excuses for invading Ukraine [after Ukraine got rid of its pro-Moscow Government]...Moscow really only wants to deprive Ukraine of those oil reserves.

By hook or by crook.

 

Russia isn't interested in taking over Eastern Ukraine [Donbas area] as a 'going concern'...

Thus we see Russia's policy of blasting everything and anything to oblivion. Russia doesn't care..as long as what will be a useless desert , and its huge oil & gas reserves, are under Moscow's control. 

Moscow probably doesn't even care if it cannot develop those reserves......As long as no-one else in the area does. [Ukraine, for example]

 

All this waffle about being afraid of NATO, and wanting 'buffer zones' between NATO and Russia, are, to my mind, smoke & mirrors.

As I see it, it's all about gas, and Russia trying to protect its  economy from being eroded.

All its other 'invasions' have been likewise.

 

Russia's big problem is, the oil/gas market will decline as the years pass....global warming issues will see to that.

Russia wants to be as big a player on the world stage as it thought it was when it was the USSR....Oil & gas, at cheap rates, saw to that. Everyone wanted cheap oil & gas.....

 

Of course, what Russia [and the USSR, earlier] lacked  was a proper pipeline delivery system across to China and the major Asian countries [like India, etc]

 

Of course, Russia's various military and political interventions have thus far gone almost unnoticed by the world at large.

Russia also has considerable 'experience' of simply laying waste to cities and countryside, to achieve political ends, with Syria.

I notice the USA has reinstated its military presence in northern Syria [which might upset Turkey, who want the Kurds wiped off the face of the planet]

 

 I also notice how Israel has suddenly started to 'shake the tree' in Syria, challenging Russia's presence there.... Perhaps threatening Russia from a global point of view?

War is a horrible thing....yet we have been at war, in one way or another, world-wide for decades...

I guess everything has become just too intolerable to the comfortable 'west?'

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by alastairq

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I think you are largely right about oil, and to mention Syria, but Ukraine has a stack of other natural resources, not least first-class agricultural land, so in terms or general resource-grabbing and from a Russian perspective it is (a) worth having for yourself, and (b) worth depriving your rivals of, looked at through that distorted lens it’s a potential “win-win”.

 

”Interdict”? Is that soldier talk for “blow to pieces”? I guess the question is the source of weaponry to achieve strikes in the rear of the Russian lines. I can see the wider escalatory danger if any such weapons have been freshly delivered from a western factory. If it is a case of weaponry that has for some time been in the possession of Ukraine, to me it’s simpler: a cost/benefit analysis that considers retaliatory strikes only on Ukraine. The Russians clearly have the capability to strike back with great precision, by which I mean both precisely chosen targets and accurate targeting.

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

Going back to the 1970's, the USSR's main source of income...and therefore, the greatest boost to its economy, was its oil, and gas reserves.

 

This is a key point and, perhaps, the decisive factor in Putin's policy.

 

Ukraine sits astride one of the major Russian pipelines, which the Ukraine could use if it exploited its own reserves.

 

As I understand it, these reserves are in Carpathia/west Gallicia, where oil was exploited from the mid-Nineteenth Century, the Black Sea either side of the Crimean Peninsular, and in the Donbas.

 

If you look at the territory Russia has retained, and its stated wishe to take the whole Black Sea coast and link up with Transnistria, and to take the Donbas, this emasculates Ukraine and cuts off its grain exports, but it also controls all Ukraine's untapped oil and gas reserves.

 

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

Germany didn't help this situation by wholeheartedly getting into bed with Russian gas, at a cheap rate. Also, with the  Warsaw pact countries, there was also a ready market. Russia was coining it in [although probably not to the extent Saudi Arabia was?  Russian oil & gas was sold at a cut price]

At any time subsequently, if the USSR felt it's share of the oil/gas market was being placed under threat, it took arbitrary military action.

The Russian idea of 'negotiation' to protect its interests in this area was to take over, effectively, in order to 'exert' influence. Protecting its oil markets.

On the collapse of the Soviet Union, a lot of those reserves of oil & gas suddenly became the 'property' of the smaller, breakaway countries...[such as Azerbaijan, or may of the other 'stans..]

 

When Russia's oil or gas prices go up, it feels able to strike. After the boom in the late '70s, it invaded Afghanistan. The more revenue, the more it can afford ill-advised wars!

 

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

Not only were  Russia's oil markets suddenly threatened, so were the supply lines it used to access those markets.  Mainly [in fact all?} the supply lines to western Europe...[Germany in particular], whose economies grew at an enormous rate, founded in part on that cheap and ready supply of Russian oil/gas.

Whereven oil reserves, or oil & gas supply lines, were seen to be taken from Moscow's control, Russia took military action to regain control. Or exerted unreasonable influence to get its way.

Hence, the 'invasion' of georgia[ to control that part of the Azerbaijan pipeline that ran through it, thereby controlling Azerbaijan's ability to supply oil...

Hence why Russia vetoed [on spurious eco grounds] when Azerbaijan tried to build a pipeline directly to Turkey across the Caspian sea....to once more, bypass Russia's influence.

Moscow saw, yet again, it's economy [and therefore, its ability to spend] being threatened.

 

Good point. Georgia was about oil, really. And Russia has assumed the right to veto a further pipeline under the Black Sea.

 

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

So, either by direct military action, or rigging the various governments in order to get Moscow-friendly folk in power, many countries of the old USSR were clawed back under Moscow's control....to protect its main source of income, its oil & gas market.

 

Yes, and Ukraine threatens this; it has the untapped reserves and the pipeline to Europe.

 

Between Norway and Ukraine, I reckon Europe could get by without Russia until such time as it has sufficient green energy.  It helps that German has belated arrested its nuclear power station closures.

 

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

Then we saw the Crimea situation....again, Moscow protecting its economy.....by restricting where those other countries' resources could be brought to market easily. Also, Russia found itself very short of ice-free ports...access to a sea for trade purposes.

Next, global oil companies found considerable reserves of gas [and oil] in the eastern part of Ukraine...., with some also along the northern Black Sea area...

If this source was developed, it would prove a considerable threat to Moscow's own oil & gas market [Western Europe, once more], therefore, a threat to the well being of Russia's economy...tied as it is intrinsically to the sale of its gas & oil

 

Yep

 

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

So Moscow sought to find excuses for invading Ukraine [after Ukraine got rid of its pro-Moscow Government]...Moscow really only wants to deprive Ukraine of those oil reserves.

By hook or by crook.

 

Yep

 

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

Russia isn't interested in taking over Eastern Ukraine [Donbas area] as a 'going concern'...

Thus we see Russia's policy of blasting everything and anything to oblivion. Russia doesn't care..as long as what will be a useless desert , and its huge oil & gas reserves, are under Moscow's control. 

Moscow probably doesn't even care if it cannot develop those reserves......As long as no-one else in the area does. [Ukraine, for example]

 

All this waffle about being afraid of NATO, and wanting 'buffer zones' between NATO and Russia, are, to my mind, smoke & mirrors.

As I see it, it's all about gas, and Russia trying to protect its  economy from being eroded.

All its other 'invasions' have been likewise.

 

Russia's big problem is, the oil/gas market will decline as the years pass....global warming issues will see to that.

Russia wants to be as big a player on the world stage as it thought it was when it was the USSR....Oil & gas, at cheap rates, saw to that. Everyone wanted cheap oil & gas.....

 

Yep

 

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

Of course, what Russia [and the USSR, earlier] lacked  was a proper pipeline delivery system across to China and the major Asian countries [like India, etc]

 

Pipelines east would cost a fortune, all the current ones head west. China would have Russia by the short and curlies on price. 

 

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

Of course, Russia's various military and political interventions have thus far gone almost unnoticed by the world at large.

Russia also has considerable 'experience' of simply laying waste to cities and countryside, to achieve political ends, with Syria.

I notice the USA has reinstated its military presence in northern Syria [which might upset Turkey, who want the Kurds wiped off the face of the planet]

 

 I also notice how Israel has suddenly started to 'shake the tree' in Syria, challenging Russia's presence there.... Perhaps threatening Russia from a global point of view?

War is a horrible thing....yet we have been at war, in one way or another, world-wide for decades...

I guess everything has become just too intolerable to the comfortable 'west?'

 

 

 

 

Indeed.

 

Interestingly Ukraine has apparently asked Israel for its 'iron dome' air defence system

 

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, I think you are largely right about oil, and to mention Syria, but Ukraine has a stack of other natural resources, not least first-class agricultural land, so in terms or general resource-grabbing and from a Russian perspective it is (a) worth having for yourself, and (b) worth depriving your rivals of, looked at through that distorted lens it’s a potential “win-win”.

 

”Interdict”? Is that soldier talk for “blow to pieces”? I guess the question is the source of weaponry to achieve strikes in the rear of the Russian lines. I can see the wider escalatory danger if any such weapons have been freshly delivered from a western factory. If it is a case of weaponry that has for some time been in the possession of Ukraine, to me it’s simpler: a cost/benefit analysis that considers retaliatory strikes only on Ukraine. The Russians clearly have the capability to strike back with great precision, by which I mean both precisely chosen targets and accurate targeting.

 

 

Military jargon. I'll let Wiki give you the definition:

 

Interdiction is a military term for the act of delaying, disrupting, or destroying enemy forces or supplies en route to the battle area. A distinction is often made between strategic and tactical interdiction.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Edwardian
spelling

[burgundy]

Just as a reminder, this is the memorial wall in Kiyv as it looked in August 2018, to commemorate those who had already died as a consequence of the invasion of Crimea and the Donbas. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[Edwardian]

"Blackpool, Birmingham or somewhere God awful".

 

So said a government minister (and MP for Derbyshire).

 

And you wonder why, in the North, we suspect the political class at Westminster really isn't that interested in us?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

"Blackpool, Birmingham or somewhere God awful".

 

So said a government minister (and MP for Derbyshire).

 

I suspected those were the only places in "the North" she'd heard of, having been obliged to go to party conferences there. 

 

However, on looking her up, I find she was born in Norwich, which is north of Birmingham, though I don;t think anyone with a sound grasp of geography would describe either as being in "the North". Educated and first held political office in Wandsworth. She escaped from that (I won't go any further in my description of metropolitan boroughs) and her subsequent political carrer has been in south Derbyshire. She first stood for parliament for Coventry South (a reasonably safe Labour seat) but won South Derbyshire in 2010. That's hardly a Tory shire seat - her daughter failed to win the council ward of Swadlincote, a former mining town. So we must suppose she knows whereof she speaks and that remark represents her informed opinion, not mere ignorant prejudice. [Thank you, Wikipedia contributors.]

 

South Derbyshire isn't "the North" - it's East Midlands.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Compound2632