Energy problems in Ukraine and Europe take center stage

The US and NATO have been promising to expand NATO to include Ukraine at least since 2008. Russia has regarded such a NATO expansion to its border as an existential threat since 1990. Why did the Ukraine War happen now in 2022 a mere six months after the disastrous end of the Afghanistan War?

This war, like all wars, enrich the rich, impoverish the impoverished; kill the poor, empower the rich.

Avenger,no American dying in Afghanistan is a success, Ukraine never was a serious candidate for NATO, Ukrainain capture a village outside of Russian occupation is a success of what proportion

Putin decided invasion of Uklane seeing U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan - U.S. is no more plalying the role of the world policeman and as a result of too early announcement by Bide that U.S. would not send U.S. Forces to Uklaine.

The so-called sanctions are really starting to bite now.... UK energy bills up by 80%, European industry in a panic, local governments setting up "warm banks" ready for people who cannot afford to heat their homes come winter.

And in Russia... McDonald's has changed its name... lol

The Avenger

This war, like all wars, enrich the rich, impoverish the impoverished; kill the poor, empower the rich.

I'm pretty sure that Putin wasn't thing about enriching the rich when he invaded. He was thinking of an expansion of Russia.

Preempting/preventing Ukraine to be part of nato is the right call for Russia. If this happened when Ukraine is already a member then not just arms but nato troops will be flooding Ukraine right now

Only if Russia invaded. This is circular reasoning, i.e. logical fallacy.

Preempting/preventing Ukraine to be part of nato is the right call for Russia. If this happened when Ukraine is already a member then not just arms but nato troops will be flooding Ukraine right now

ian

Preempting/preventing Ukraine to be part of nato is the right call for Russia.

Sure, if you think imperialism is a good thing.

Nope it's not.

Your reasoning that Russia invading can be the only reason for the conflict is a clear fallacy even for idiots

Sure, if you think imperialism is a good thing.

It's good if done by the US and allies

ian

Nope it's not.

Your reasoning that Russia invading can be the only reason for the conflict is a clear fallacy even for idiots

Actually, no. If Russia didn't invade, then there would be no conflict. That's logically sound, even for idiots.

Now, you can argue why Russia invaded.

It's now clear that NATO had nothing to do with it, rather Putin wanting to expand Russia to wind back the clock to Soviet times.

ian

Sure, if you think imperialism is a good thing.

It's good if done by the US and allies

Interesting position.

You people are so sure of Putin's motivations, best to contemplate on your learders' motivations as well.

Good day

Interesting position

Not mine, just stating most posters' position

Also yours most probably

Actually, no. If Russia didn't invade, then there would be no conflict. That's logically sound, even for idiots.

Now, you can argue why Russia invaded.

The only reason there can be a conflict is if Russia invaded.

Sure

ian

You people are so sure of Putin's motivations, best to contemplate on your learders' motivations as well.

Good day

It makes me wonder why you are sure of Putin's motivations. Mine are backed with evidence.

Also yours most probably

Not at all. I'm against the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

I'm not sure I've seen a western power annex a sovereign country for a while though.

Energy problems plagued Ukraine and Europe as much of the Russian-occupied region that's home to a largely crippled nuclear power plant

the easy answer to to supply Ukraine with more powerful weapons to target the NPPs two faults. The diesel generators and the external power supply.

ian, NATO is a defensive alliance. There wouldn't be NATO troops to fight in Ukraine unless Russia invades. Hence, circular reasoning..

Your reasoning that Russia invading can be the only reason for the conflict is a clear fallacy even for idiots

Your reasoning that Russia invading can be the only reason for the conflict is a clear fallacy even for idiots

So the Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't the only reason for....the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

I'm not sure I've seen a western power annex a sovereign country for a while though

US recognition of Israel's illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights.

US recognition of Israel's illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights.

Yes, Trump doing that was stupid. But even so, there is a huge difference between recognizing an illegal annexation that occurred more than half a century ago on the one hand, and actively invading a neighboring country right now for the purpose of annexing their territory.

Since Ukraine began its counteroffensive last week, the amount of news coming out of Ukraine has slowed to a trickle.

In every war, leaders of the warring nations have close connections, common interests, and many reasons for creating a long war.

M3M3M3

I'm not sure I've seen a western power annex a sovereign country for a while though

US recognition of Israel's illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights.

Kinda clutching at straws with that example.

Better start cutting down those trees before it gets any colder.

this conflict will never happen if UA have followed steps of Minsk agreemnts.

You're not supposed to talk about the Minsk Agreements.

And the 1994 agreement that Russia, America, and the UK would protect Ukraine if it gave up its atomic weapons.

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

"The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation was an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. "

"By January 2015, the Minsk Protocol ceasefire had completely collapsed.

Following the separatist victory at Donetsk International Airport in defiance of the Protocol, DPR spokesman Eduard Basurin said that "the Minsk Memorandum will not be considered in the form it was adopted".

Later in the day, DPR leader Alexander Zakharchenko said that the DPR "will not make any attempts at ceasefire talks anymore", and that his forces were going to "attack right up to the borders of Donetsk region".

@rainyday

But even so, there is a huge difference between recognizing an illegal annexation that occurred more than half a century ago on the one hand, and actively invading a neighboring country right now for the purpose of annexing their territory.

What's the difference, besides the passage of time? The 2019 recognition was a fresh violation of Syria's territorial integrity by the United States. The fact that they used a pen rather than a gun doesn't make it legal, or less illegal. If Russia just needs to wait half a century before formally annexing more of Ukraine, I'm sure they'll be happy to wait.

In the end, every major country is prepared to bend or break the rules when their interests are threatened. The only difference is that some countries do a much better job than others at hiding this truth. Ukraine is a critical interest for Russia, and Israel is an equally critical interest for the United States.

Yes, Trump doing that was stupid.

The current president has affirmed his commitment to the policy.

Eastman

this conflict will never happen if UA have followed steps of Minsk agreemnts.

Nope. Not even close. This is Putin wanting to annex Ukraine to be part of Russia, or at best have a puppet government in Ukraine (like Belarus).

Energy problems in Ukraine and Europe take center stage

Europe needs to draw a line in the sand---and not back off like Obama did.

M3M3M3Today  10:26 am JST

US recognition of Israel's illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights.

The US knows how to support a friend; besides, who would have sympathy for a country that has waged war against Israel 3 times?

Regardless, Israel took that land in a defensive war--totally legal.

M3M3M3

The 2019 recognition was a fresh violation of Syria's territorial integrity by the United States.

Was it an invasion by the US? No. End of story.

This appalling conflict in Ukraine has descended into a war of attrition.

The targeting of civilian casualties a war crime.

Putin has the European energy sector and thus economies in a strangle hold that threatens to decimate the region. Inflation now close to bringing the most venerable to levels of poverty unseen since the great depression.

The harsh reality is appeasement has failed as much as sanctions.

Putin regime has to be confronted, as much as Nazi Germany, and the third reich.

Sooner rather than later.

What's the difference, besides the passage of time?

Well, lets look at what the US and Russia have done in that example.

Russia: Unleashed a massive war of aggression on its neighbor that has created about 10 million refugees, killed god only knows how many innocent civilians, seriously raised the threat of nuclear war, caused havoc to the global economy, energy and food markets which is probably going to inflict massive pain on the developed world in the coming years. All in order to annex territory that it has no right to.

US: Recognized Israeli control of territory that it seized in 1967. The US recognition causes zero casualties, zero refugees, etc.

I'm not defending the US action here, but its ridiculous to suggest there is no difference between the two other than the passage of time.

The 2019 recognition was a fresh violation of Syria's territorial integrity by the United States. The fact that they used a pen rather than a gun doesn't make it legal, or less illegal. 

Yup, totally agreed, the US recognition was illegal. But your argument is akin to comparing the act of a mass murderer who is murdering people right now to that of a guy driving his car with an expired license and saying "Hey, those two guys are both doing something illegal therefore they are exactly the same."

All because you want to defend the mass murderer for some reason.

 If Russia just needs to wait half a century before formally annexing more of Ukraine, I'm sure they'll be happy to wait.

This is clearly not true.

In the end, every major country is prepared to bend or break the rules when their interests are threatened. 

A fascist dictator launching the biggest land war in Europe since WW2 is not just "bending" the rules.

Ukraine is a critical interest for Russia, and Israel is an equally critical interest for the United States.

And neither Ukraine nor Syria should be willing to accept that because bigger more powerful countries view them as "critical interests" that they should therefore just let those countries run roughshod over them.

The current president has affirmed his commitment to the policy.

Its hard to un-ring a bell once your idiot predecessor has tied your country's hands to it. This was Trump's action, if you want to condemn it then you should condemn the author of the act.

@2020hindsights

Was it an invasion by the US? No. End of story.

They didn't invade the Golan Heights in 2019, but they did illegally invade other parts of Syria in 2015 and currently occupy about a third of the country in blatant violation of international law. Even the neocons at the CATO institute can't defend it:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-americas-illegal-occupation-syria-now#

Regardless, Israel took that land in a defensive war--totally legal.

This isn't true, Israel attacked its nieghbors in the 1967 war in which it seized the Golan Heights, not the other way around.

And even if it was fighting a defensive war (like in 1973 when the roles were reversed) that does not give it a right to annex territory from its opponent. International law is crystal clear on this point: the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights was absolutely illegal.

The flawed protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group (Minsk Agreement) collapsed before the ink had dried.

In many respects this fragrant act of appeasement created the very conflict we are witnessing today.

M3M3M3

Was it an invasion by the US? No. End of story.

They didn't invade the Golan Heights in 2019, but they did illegally invade other parts of Syria in 2015 and currently occupy about a third of the country in blatant violation of international law.

Yes, but it isn't an annexation of Syria. End of story.

Putin has the European energy sector and thus economies in a strangle hold that threatens to decimate the region.

I think this is way over-stating Putin's power.

He now has very little leverage left over Europe. By shutting down Nordstream 1 he's basically played the last big card he was holding in his energy deck against Europe. And while this is causing obvious problems to European energy at the moment, its something they are already getting past and they are already re-aligning their economies to be free of Russian energy.

Once he cut that off, he immediately lost the ability to threaten to do so.

The harsh reality is appeasement has failed as much as sanctions.

Appeasement was trendy before he invaded Ukraine, and remains so among some politicians, but I haven't actually seen much of it from actual Western governments since February.

Putin regime has to be confronted, as much as Nazi Germany, and the third reich.

What would this confrontation consist of? Nazi Germany didn't have thousands of nuclear weapons at its disposal.

The most hideous criminal act of gullibility came with The Minsk-2 agreement!

The Minsk Conundrum: Western Policy and Russia’s War in Eastern Ukraine

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement

The Minsk agreements rest on two irreconcilable interpretations of Ukraine’s sovereignty: is Ukraine sovereign, as Ukrainians insist, or should its sovereignty be limited, as Russia demands? Instead of trying to resolve an unresolvable contradiction, Western policymakers should acknowledge the starkness of the Minsk conundrum.

Merkel and Macron, walked headless into Putin's trap.

rainyday, i don't process your wisdom, may I suggest willingness to recognise there is still wiggle room for some form of diplomatic settlement. I am not being sarcastic.

Electricity price statistics

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics

These were published Friday, gas spot whole sale prices opened today averaging a 46% surge.

Germany 65B in energy cost relief to cap prices won't be enough.

I understand fully your point on nuclear confrontation, it is a risk with Putin's threats of Armageddon.

The question still remains confrontation is upon us.

@rainyday

Yup, totally agreed, the US recognition was illegal. But your argument is akin to comparing the act of a mass murderer who is murdering people right now to that of a guy driving his car with an expired license and saying "Hey, those two guys are both doing something illegal therefore they are exactly the same."

I appreciate that, but here's the problem; Your morality and historical perspective isn't necessarily shared by everyone around the world. What you call mass murder, others might call liberation or justice. Who are you to decide that they are wrong and you are right?

The compromise we reached in 1945 was that every nation (regardless of their moral, religious, cultural or historic differences) agrees to abide by international law and the UN Charter. Unfortunately, this commitment has completely broken down in recent decades due to events such as the illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999, the illegal war in Iraq in 2003, drone strikes throughout the 2000s, Israeli and US actions in Syria and Iran, etc. The West has consistently ignored the Charter to aggressively pursue its own geopolitical interests, but now that Russia has decided to join them, the West suddenly wants strict enforcement of the rules they refuse to follow. Either we hold everyone to account, or there are no rules. Personally, I think the system is so irreparably broken that we just have to wait for a new international settlement to emerge.

That the latest development in a saga in which Gazprom has advanced technical problems as the reason for reducing gas flows through Nord Stream 1 — explanations that German officials have rejected

Yes, there are some technical problems with turbines in North stream 1

Germans can't resolve them and... talking about political reasons.

If turbines are OK and documents for them are OK, nobody can contradict

Only one of six reactors at the Zaporizhzhia facility was connected to the electricity grid, and Russia’s main pipeline carrying natural gas to Germany remained shut down.

Didn't Trump warn countries like Germany about reliance in Russian oil?

rainydayToday  12:11 pm JST

Regardless, Israel took that land in a defensive war--totally legal.

This isn't true, Israel attacked its nieghbors in the 1967 war in which it seized the Golan Heights, not the other way around.

It is true. Egypt made a defense agreement with Jordan right before the attack, closed the Straits of Tiran; moved its troops on the Israeli border.

This is the justification.

Just like if somebody raises their fist to punch you in the head, but you are faster and hit them first. Justified, legal self-defense.

this conflict will never happen if UA have followed steps of Minsk agreemnts.

UA gov largely ignored it and have provoked Russia since

Yes - Ukraine had a very good chance to keep territorial integrity without any violence.

The answer was - Minsk agreement.

Minsk-1 Minsk -2

But they just mocking all this time.

So, here's a result

his conflict will never happen if UA have followed steps of Minsk agreemnts.

UA gov largely ignored it and have provoked Russia since

Yes - Ukraine had a very good chance to keep territorial integrity without any violence.

The answer was - Minsk agreement.

Minsk-1 Minsk -2

Bunk.

Moscow created conflict where there was none because it did not like the people of Ukraine throwing it's poodle out, so they started a rebellion.

Moscow gutted the Minsk agreement so that it could have a BS excuse to launch an expansionist war.

And LONG before there was Minsk, there was the Budapest Memorandum. It guaranteed that Russia guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up it's nukes.

Donbas is Ukraine.

So Ukraine kept its end of the deal. Russia broke its word.

How very Russian of Putie.

It is true. Egypt made a defense agreement with Jordan right before the attack, closed the Straits of Tiran; moved its troops on the Israeli border.

Yes, right before the attack. The Israeli attack. Sorry but if you are the one starting the war, its not a defensive war, even if the other side did stuff you didn't like leading up to it.

This is the justification.

This isn't a justification for annexation. Even if we accept your argument that it was a defensive war by Israel, it does not provide Israel with a legal justification for the annexation of Syrian territory. International law is extremely clear on this point.

Just like if somebody raises their fist to punch you in the head, but you are faster and hit them first. Justified, legal self-defense.

This is also irrelevant to the question of whether the annexation of the Golan Heights is legal. In that analogy, again even accepting your argument that it was a defensive war, the equivalent analogy would be Syria raising its fist to punch Israel, then Israel being faster and hitting Syria first, and then Israel stealing Syria's wallet while it was flat on the ground from the punch. The law might allow Israel the punch as a reasonable use of force to defend itself, but it doesn't allow the stealing of the wallet after the fact.

Not mine, just stating most posters' position

No, not by a long shot. Most people recognize mini-me's war of aggression for what it is: An attempt to reconstitute the USSR under Russian domination and the first step in the attempted dissolution of NATO.

Mini-me thought it would be a walk in the park. He thought Ukraine would fold and the West wouldn't do anything about it.

He was wrong on both counts because nobody wants what he does. Western support of Ukraine is popular domestically in the NATO countries and their own populations recognize what so many putie fan-bois here miss: He is a wannabe Stalin. He doesn't keep his word. He cannot be trusted. The West supports Ukraine now, or it fights him in the Baltics or around Moldova in the South in a few years.