The Brink of War?

[RonanTheBarbarian]

I'm not Putin, you know...
But as per my opinion: if Ukraine wants to be within EU - great. This isn't Russia's business. But when Gorbachov had talks with EU there were said: Russia agrees with join of two Germanies in exchange of not moving warheads more close to Moscow. Do you remember? USSR/Russia had nuclear warheads in East Germany and had army's bases also. Warheads were removed by USSR, soviet army hasn't bases in East Germany anymore (while US still has), and Germanies are one country since that time.

But since that time NATO bases been moved more close to Moscow: Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. Ballistic rockets are based in Poland now. What next? Should Russia wait till last "security belt" will fail? There is only Ukraine and Belorussia btw NATO and Russia now.

I can understand why Russia has that opinion, from a geopolitical viewpoint.

But the fact is, that NATO membership was exceedingly popular (usually pretty much across the political spectrum) in these countries prior to joining.

Russian seems remarkably unreflective on why the counties that it kept so close to it in a forced alliance from 1945 to 1989 were so quick to abandon it after they got the freedom to follow their own wishes.

The Russian establishment response to this seems to be to mutter about the CIA and propaganda etc..

A bit like the drunk at the bar complaining that his children who have been taken into to foster care dont want to visit him any more because "the social workers turned them against me", rather than beacause they have come to realise that he is an abusive drunk.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Right now Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan sell gas to China. Gas sources on South Ural are almost empty. So Russia has nothing to pump via Ukrainian pipeline. But EU still insist what Russia should pump gas via this pipeline even when main gas sources are located on far North - Yamal and regions around. North stream is twice shorter. EU wants Russian gas to be pumped from North to South and only then to Europe. Are you sure what it is economically correct idea for Russia? I repeat: economically.

EU cries: "keep pumping !!!", because Ukraine will lose about US$ 3 bln yearly on gas transit if Russia will stop to sell gas via that pipeline. Why Russia should care? EU wants Ukraine to be with. Well. If you want Ukraine - feed them yourself then. Your satellite is your care now. Russian care is to sell gas and to have profit, and that includes to cut expenses on gas transit.

Yes of course. Everybody knows that, Russia and Germany want it as well.

Germany, although it is officially a western and NATO ally, always has a certain sense of which it likes to think it can balance a bit between US and Russia.

That is why for the last 20 years or so, Germany has had a very definite policy of wanting to bring in gas straight from Russia via the Baltic Sea in the two Nordstream pipelines (Despite the fact that all US administrations have absolutely hated that idea, as it would make it easier for Russia to mess around with Eastern European and Ukrainian gas supply without adversely affecting customers in Western Europe).

But the problem with that is, that as Germany is in NATO, it can’t be seen to be helping Russia if Russia is being so aggressive in Ukraine. That’s why it has given in to US and NATO pressure and suspended the opening of Nordstream 2.

The Germans are no doubt absolutely mortified that their plan to get a second cheap source of gas has been so messed up, but I am pretty sure that most in Germany lay most of the blame on Putin for this fiasco.

If Putin was as worried about was as focused on the economics of his gas industry as he claims, he would not started the recent aggro, he and he would currently be selling loads of gas to Germany at a high price via the two Nordstream pipelines.

What is actually shows is in fact that with Putin, his geo-strategic foreign policy is more important than the Economics for him.

[Moses]

Yes of course. Everybody knows that, Russia and Germany want it as well.

Germany, although it is officially a western and NATO ally, always has a certain sense of which it likes to think it can balance a bit between US and Russia.

That is why for the last 20 years or so, Germany has had a very definite policy of wanting to bring in gas straight from Russia via the Baltic Sea in the two Nordstream pipelines (Despite the fact that all US administrations have absolutely hated that idea, as it would make it easier for Russia to mess around with Eastern European and Ukrainian gas supply without adversely affecting customers in Western Europe).

But the problem with that is, that as Germany is in NATO, it can’t be seen to be helping Russia if Russia is being so aggressive in Ukraine. That’s why it has given in to US and NATO pressure and suspended the opening of Nordstream 2.

The Germans are no doubt absolutely mortified that their plan to get a second cheap source of gas has been so messed up, but I am pretty sure that most in Germany lay most of the blame on Putin for this fiasco.

If Putin was as worried about was as focused on the economics of his gas industry as he claims, he would not started the recent aggro, he and he would currently be selling loads of gas to Germany at a high price via the two Nordstream pipelines.

What is actually shows is in fact that with Putin, his geo-strategic foreign policy is more important than the Economics for him.

No. North stream started when Ukraine had loyal pro-kremlin govt. So no one your argument is working. Your arguments has no sense. North stream started in project in 1997 when Russia started to pump gas on Yamal - far North of Russia, and name of Russian president was Yeltsin. Late project was warranted by European investors. First gas pumping to Germany has been celebrated in 2011 - 3 years before 2014 when nationalists made seizure of power in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream

The only reason why US hate it - North Stream and Russian gas in general are competitors for US LNG. American liquified gas has no chance to be sold in EU because it is up to 25% more expensive even in comparation with liquified Russian gas from Babetta (Yamal, distance). If we will speak about natural gas in pipelines, American LNG is up to 40% more expensive then. US needs to stop North stream (all pipes - 2 working and 2 what are in certification now) and to make deficit of gas in EU for to start to sell in Europe: look at LNG terminals in France or Italy - they are empty. Even now it is hard for US to sell LNG to EU.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

The Finland Idea:

And as for the suggestion by Moses that Ukraine should be a kind of Finland, personally I think that would be a great idea. Given the inevitable geopolitical fact that Russia is a rather large country, with a tradition, like the US, of throwing its weight around militarily, the idea that Belarus and Ukraine could be a non-aligned buffer zone between NATO and Russia is maybe the best route of a long-term stability in far eastern Europe.

Like Dodger, I would much prefer to talking about how cute and sexy Ukrainian men are, rather than all this geopolitical postings (though I’m not sure if I could be persuaded to start referring to handsome fully grown men as “dolls”... perhaps I was raised on the wrong side of the Atlantic for that…)

However, it would have to be the free choice of the people in Ukraine and Belarus to go down this route, like it is a free choice of people in Finland.

And, not that I’m trying to be snarky, but one cannot avoid the notion that if Russia wanted Ukraine to become “Finlandised”, that invading it in 2014 and stealing a fair portion of its territory probably was not the best way to start convincing Ukraine of the benefits of this policy....

[RonanTheBarbarian]

No. North stream started when Ukraine had loyal pro-kremlin govt. So no one your argument is working. Your arguments has no sense. North stream started in project in 1997 when Russia started to pump gas on Yamal - far North of Russia, and name of Russian president was Yeltsin. Late project was warranted by European investors. First gas pumping has been celebrated in 2011 - 3 years before 2014 when nationalists made seizure of power in Ukraine.

Yes, that is why I said eastern Europe AND Ukraine.

Initially the main worry was that Russian could choke off the gas supply to Poland and Visegrad in revenge for then joining NATO, the concern for Ukraine came later, after the colour revolution brought it more on to the US "side".
But it definitely was a concern for far longer than 2014. I remember reading an article in the "Economist" (I think it was) soon after the German ex-Chancellor Schroeder joined the Board of the firm building the pipeline, talking about how the Russians had been willing to pay Schroeder the big bucks to become their spokesman to the West as they anticipated loads of geopolitical tension between the US and Germany, as the Nordsteam 1 got under way.

[Moses]

And, not that I’m trying to be snarky, but one cannot avoid the notion that if Russia wanted Ukraine to become “Finlandised”, that invading it in 2014 and stealing a fair portion of its territory probably was not the best way to start convincing Ukraine of the benefits of this policy....

Russia took Crimea, what always was Russian as historically as entice. Russia took Crimea after their declaration of independency via referendum and after they declared will to join Russian Federation as Autonomous republic.

These "rebels" and "separatists" at the East of Ukraine are different story. UN Red Cross classifying this tenses as a noninternational military conflict. For sure Russia supports regions where Russians diasporas are represented in millions. Money, weapon, humanitarian goods, military instructors. But for 7 years doesnt exists any proof of regular parts of Russian Army on this territory. International observers are there for many years, every minute this territory is under surveillance from satellites. And... nothing.

Russia for 7 years still not recognize these regions as a countries and every Russian declaration has remarks: they are part of Ukraine. Ukraine just has civil war there.

Russian officials almost every day declare: Russia don't wants to intrude to Ukrainian territory unless Ukrainian army will try to eliminate Russian population in this region. In 2014 Ukraine agreed, signed and ratified Minsk protocol with few steps to normalization. "Rebels" did the same - they agreed to every point in protocol and are waiting for its implementation. No one step is implemented still by Ukraine. Also 7 years.

[Moses]

Yes, that is why I said eastern Europe AND Ukraine.

Initially the main worry was that Russian could choke off the gas supply to Poland and Visegrad in revenge for then joining NATO, the concern for Ukraine came later, after the colour revolution brought it more on to the US "side".

Since 1999 Poland has own gas pipeline with Russia (Yamal-EU), Ukraine has nothing with it. Since 1999 till now Russia never used this pipeline as a argument in political discussion.

Czech Republic (Vyshegrad) receives gas from Germany. Only formerly part of Czechoslovakia - Slovakia receives gas via Ukraine.

For over 50 years that Russia supplies EU with gas, no once this deal was linked to any political conditions. No once.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

The only reason why US hate it - North Stream and Russian gas in general are competitors for US LNG. American liquified gas has no chance to be sold in EU because it is up to 25% more expensive even in comparation with liquified Russian gas from Babetta (Yamal, distance). If we will speak about natural gas in pipelines, American LNG is up to 40% more expensive then. US needs to stop North stream (all pipes - 2 working and 2 what are in certification now) and to make deficit of gas in EU for to start to sell in Europe: look at LNG terminals in France or Italy - they are empty. Even now it is hard for US to sell LNG to EU.

It is not the only reason.

I’m sure it is part of the reason, but you sound like those Brexiters who tended to suppose that the EU side was completely motivated by economic concerns, while they had a higher motives. They saw it as perfectly reasonable for the UK to leave the EU despite the economic damage, but when came when it came to the Brexit negotiations, they thought the European side would come under huge pressure from the Italians “because they want to keep selling us their Prosecco” or the that the German would pressure the negotiators to come to a deal “Because the German car manufacturers will insist on it”.

However, it didn’t happen like that, just as I suspect the US government are far less motivated by worries about selling gas than the general strategic picture.

But it’s a moot point anyway, because despite what Americans wanted, there currently exists two pipelines stretching under the Baltic from Russia to Germany, with Nordstream 2 ready to start pumping the gas. The Europeans are well able to see the advantage of cheap Russian gas. The only thing stopping than taking is because they don’t want to pay the political price (within their own countries) of being seen to support Putin.

The chance to sell gas to Europe at cheaper prices than Americans lies entirely within Putins hands. If he stops “acting the maggot“ as we say in Ireland, he can sell the rest of Europe all the gas he wants.

But Putin (and a lot of his supporters online, I notice) seem to prefer to indulge in complicated notions about then whole crisis being an American plot to force Western Europe to buy the more expensive American LNG, than the truth that his current behaviour Is making it politically impossible for EU countries to buy that sweet, sweet, cheap Russian gas that they so crave.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Moses said, regarding eastern Ukraine,

"For sure Russia supports regions where Russians diasporas are represented in millions. Money, weapon, humanitarian goods, military instructors. But for 7 years doesnt exists any proof of regular parts of Russian Army on this territory."

OK, I will give you that Moses, I am not that expert on the details on the Luhansk and Donetsk situation.

Bit if Russia IS supplying them with "money, weapons, military training, ....and military instructors", you can understand how Ukraine might see it as a difference without much distinction.

I mean, if there was a breakaway movement on Brittany, and Boris Johnson said that the UK government was supplying them with "money, weapons, military training, and military instructors", but (Please note!), no regular UK army soldiers", I would not expect Macron to take it lying down either.

[Moses]

But Putin (and a lot of his supporters online, I notice) seem to prefer to indulge in complicated notions about then whole crisis being an American plot to force Western Europe to buy the more expensive American LNG, than the truth that his current behaviour Is making it politically impossible for EU countries to buy that sweet, sweet, cheap Russian gas that they so crave.

Look at picture. Every day Ukraine cries about hordes of Russian army soldiers who occupies Ukraine. And has no proof. To buy goods from Russia is crime in Ukraine. TO talk real news about Russia is crime in Ukraine. To make TV shows, films, print newspapers in Russian language is crime in Ukraine. Even to teach kids when teacher is Russian speaking is crime.

In Russia we have a lot of Ukrainian goods - they are cheap. E-shops are filled with tens of thousands of positions from Ukraine - Ukraine is one of most corrupted countries in world, so Ukrainian customs will allow to move goods to Russia for small amount of money. Here are no headlines about Ukrainian fails in news.

You know what? Maybe Ukraine thinks what there is war btw Ukraine and Russia, but looks like 7 years ago Russia forgot to came to this war.