The Struggle For Ukraine

[Boethius]

Green=opinion...not fact. 

Dictator noun - a political leader who has complete power over a country


Both Putin and Xi appoint the leaders of regions in their respective countries.  In Russia, those leaders were elected, but the president took that power from the people, and concentrated it in his own hands. 


Putin has jailed or killed opposition party members.  He changed the constitution so that he could hang on to power.  Russian presidential elections were not open and democratic.  Putin and his cabal of former KGB associates have plundered the country's wealth, and created a kleptocracy.


Dissent is met with long jail sentences of death in China.  Xi does not allow opposition.  When the balance of the politburo finds he is no longer useful, he will disappear.  He's not elected by the people.


Based on the above, I think there is a good argument to support the statement they are both dictators.

[Boethius]

Gas war…

check out the tremendous gains that the USA and Canada have made in creating LNG export terminals…

Canada


13 West Coast (British Columbia) Export Terminals
Kitimat LNG
20 Years
10 Mtpa - 1.3 Bcf/d
$15
LNG Canada
40 Years
26 Mtpa – 3.5 Bcf/d
$25-$40
Cedar LNG Project
25 Years
6.4 Mtpa – 0.8 Bcf/d
 
Orca LNG
25 Years
24 Mtpa – 3.2 Bcf/d
 
New Times Energy
25 Years
12 Mtpa – 1.6 Bcf/d
 
Kitsault Energy Project
20 Years
20 Mtpa – 2.7 Bcf/d
 
Stewart LNG Export Project
25 Years
30 Mtpa – 4.0 Bcf/d
 
Triton LNG (On Hold)
25 Years
2.3 Mtpa – 0.3 Bcf/d
 
Woodfibre LNG
25 Years
2.1 Mtpa – 0.3 Bcf/d
$1.6
WesPac LNG Marine Terminal
25 Years
3 Mtpa – 0.6 Bcf/d
 
Discovery LNG
25 Years
20 Mtpa – 2.6 Bcf/d
 
Steelhead LNG: Kwispaa LNG
25 Years
30 Mtpa – 4.3 Bcf/d
$30
Watson Island
 
 
 
5 East Coast Export Terminals
Goldboro LNG
(Nova Scotia)
20 Years
10 Mtpa – 1.4 Bcf/d
$8.3
Bear Head LNG
(Nova Scotia)
25 Years
12 Mtpa – 1.6 Bcf/d
$2-$8
A C LNG
(Nova Scotia)
25 Years
15 Mtpa – 2.1 Bcf/d
$3
Energie Saguenay (Quebec)
25 Years
11 Mtpa – 1.6 Bcf/d
$7
Stolt LNGaz (Quebec)
25 Years
0.5 Mtpa – 0.7 Bcf/d
$0.6
Total 
216 Mtpa – 29 Bcf/d
 

The image below shows USAs equally rising potential to replace European Russian gas imports with American/Canadian LNG!!!

a huge shift in economic power for USA and Canada (and Australia!) and HUGE CATASTROPHIC LOSS to Russia
is this part of what the war is REALLY about for Russia, taking ALL of Ukraine's Black Sea Coast, which would eliminate Ukraine as a destination LNG terminal
and would make life more difficult for Romania and Bulgaria to operate LNG terminals without Russian interference
which would add to shipping insurance costs making it more expensive when competing vis-a-vis GazProm

There's only one LNG terminal, in Saint John NB, and it is for domestic use only.  One is being built in Kitmat, BC, but it's been plagued with protests, violence, and destruction of property.  The Trudeau government put so many obstacles in place, that none of the other projects will ever get off the ground.

[Admin]

1. Despite US arm twisting which has coerced some nations, many non western nations aren't reacting very much.  Nations are mostly acting in self interest.  The Western block, use their influence as a lever for some non western nations, while Russia tries to do the same. 
Apparently Russia has drawn a red line with Ukraine, and from their view that was reason enough to do whatever is necessary to keep the region in their orbit, and out of the Wests orbit.
The US doesn't adhere to a universal moral reason.
It is only the case if the nation to be invaded is a nation that it is in our interests to care about. 
2. Unfortunately for the US, it would be wise for nations to look elsewhere for investment because sanctions are used liberally and 3. sanctions aren't working too well.   If sanctions don't work, then what.....

Fathertime!

1. Use of terms such as "coerced" and "arm-twisting," merely serve to characterize the author's biases.

2. The facts might dispute your claim of "liberal" use of sanctions. In FACT, the US has sanctioned only six (6) countries since 1950. A broader list to include persons sanctioned by the US indicates sanctions implemented to discourage abhorrent actions such as genocide, sex trafficking and undermining a country's sovereignty, among others.

3. If sanctions aren't working too well, why should there be any concern?

[Patagonie]

Was China Betting on Russian Defeat All Along?

http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/was-china-betting-on-russian-defeat-all-along/

I read it, it confirms my feeling. China is playing a better long term game. They are cunning.

[ML]

The number of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine suggests that the poor performance of the Russian military required that high-ranking officers put themselves at risk in an effort to achieve military objectives.[

Presented in chronological order based on reporting.

Name                   Rank                   Date reported
Andrei Sukhovetsky   Major General   3 March 2022[3]
Vitaly Gerasimov   Major General   8 March 2022[4]
Andrey Kolesnikov   Major General   11 March 2022[2]
Oleg Mityaev           Major General   14 March 2022[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_generals_killed_during_the_2022_invasion_of_Ukraine

[fathertime]

1. Use of terms such as "coerced" and "arm-twisting," merely serve to characterize the author's biases.

 

It's accurate.

1. Use of terms such as "coerced" and "arm-twisting," merely serve to characterize the author's biases.

2. The facts might dispute your claim of "liberal" use of sanctions. In FACT, the US has sanctioned only six (6) countries since 1950.
 

Around 30 countries actually....
As of June 2021, countries or regions subject to U.S. sanctions (either unilaterally or in part) include the Balkans, Belarus, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine/Russia, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.1
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-sanctioned-by-the-u.s.---and-why.aspx 

3. If sanctions aren't working too well, why should there be any concern?

If sanctions aren't working too well, a concern is what comes after sanctions mostly don't produce the desired result.  In the case of weaker countries, military action is often on the table. 

Fathertime!   

[Grumpy]

The number of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine suggests that the poor performance of the Russian military required that high-ranking officers put themselves at risk in an effort to achieve military objectives.[

Presented in chronological order based on reporting.

Name                   Rank                   Date reported
Andrei Sukhovetsky   Major General   3 March 2022[3]
Vitaly Gerasimov   Major General   8 March 2022[4]
Andrey Kolesnikov   Major General   11 March 2022[2]
Oleg Mityaev           Major General   14 March 2022[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_generals_killed_during_the_2022_invasion_of_Ukraine

Poor battlefield performance is likely cause of death. No one is safe from Putin.

[Admin]

1. It's accurate.

2. Around 30 countries actually....
As of June 2021, countries or regions subject to U.S. sanctions (either unilaterally or in part) include the Balkans, Belarus, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine/Russia, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.1
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-sanctioned-by-the-u.s.---and-why.aspx 
3. If sanctions aren't working too well, a concern is what comes after sanctions mostly don't produce the desired result.  In the case of weaker countries, military action is often on the table. 

Fathertime!

1. I agree, my statement is accurate and your biases are on display.

2. Your cite conflates all sanctions and fails to clearly distinguish the FACT that countries are sanctioned separately from people. That is why the media made such a huge deal about the US choice to sanction Putin personally. However, even your poorly researched cite DOES show that Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba (the same six I referenced earlier) are the only countries sanctioned since 1950.


3. You would have the reader believe that US applies sanctions "liberally," but the FACTS show a quite measured and reasonable application of sanctions. You would have the reader believe that sanctions aren't effective and/or that the US "often" resorts to military intervention. Prove it. The facts do not support your claim.

[Grumpy]

For those who are wondering about the letters (zwasticas) on Russian equipment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_(military_symbol)

[Bee Farmer]

The number of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine suggests that the poor performance of the Russian military required that high-ranking officers put themselves at risk in an effort to achieve military objectives.[

Presented in chronological order based on reporting.

Name                   Rank                   Date reported
Andrei Sukhovetsky   Major General   3 March 2022[3]
Vitaly Gerasimov   Major General   8 March 2022[4]
Andrey Kolesnikov   Major General   11 March 2022[2]
Oleg Mityaev           Major General   14 March 2022[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_generals_killed_during_the_2022_invasion_of_Ukraine

How many generals does (did) Russia have?

Ukraine says Russia had 20 generals in the invasion of Ukraine.

Supposedly, Russia has about 55% of its forces in Ukraine.  If the officer corps is equally represented, that would mean Russia had about 36 generals.

It is reported that Putin fired 8 of the generals for poor performance in Ukraine.  4 more have been killed.

That's (theoretically) a loss of 30% of his available generals.

Acceptable losses are usually considered 33%.  More than 33% losses, and a military unit is not considered combat effective.

Hmm.  Is Putin asking China to supply generals?  lol
Supposedly, Kadyrov is in Ukraine.  Did he come to fill a shortage of generals?

[Admin]

How many generals does (did) Russia have?

Ukraine says Russia had 20 generals in the invasion of Ukraine.

Supposedly, Russia has about 55% of its forces in Ukraine.  If the officer corps is equally represented, that would mean Russia had about 36 generals.

It is reported that Putin fired 8 of the generals for poor performance in Ukraine.  4 more have been killed.

That's (theoretically) a loss of 30% of his available generals.

Acceptable losses are usually considered 33%.  More than 33% losses, and a military unit is not considered combat effective.

Hmm.  Is Putin asking China to supply generals?  lol
Supposedly, Kadyrov is in Ukraine.  Did he come to fill a shortage of generals?

Kadyrov holds the rank of Major General in the Russian Armed Forces.

[fathertime]

1. I agree, my statement is accurate and your biases are on display.

No.  Your statement is virtually meaningless in the conversation.  The US does in fact twist arms and coerce nations to tag along with or suffer consequences. 

2. Your cite conflates all sanctions and fails to clearly distinguish the FACT that countries are sanctioned separately from people. That is why the media made such a huge deal about the US choice to sanction Putin personally. However, even your poorly researched cite DOES show that Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba (the same six I referenced earlier) are the only countries sanctioned since 1950.

I looked back at the original post you referenced.  I stated sanctions...YOU added Countries.   I can stand by my original statement, sanctions are used often.  By YOUR standard a country such as Venezuela hasn't been impacted by sanctions when clearly it has.   Currently 30 countries and or it's people are hit with some form of US sanctions.  That is a lot.  Some probably justifiable, many aren't.   

3. You would have the reader believe that US applies sanctions "liberally," but the FACTS show a quite measured and reasonable application of sanctions. You would have the reader believe that sanctions aren't effective and/or that the US "often" resorts to military intervention. Prove it. The facts do not support your claim.

I had to run a dreaded google search.   This is the type of lists they all show.   The US has dropped bombs all these countries since WWII.   You may consider this not much military intervention, but I'd say you are wrong on that one.  The US military is active around the globe.   100's of bases across all the continents aren't all there just for the fun of it. 


Afghanistan 1998, 2001-
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Cambodia 1969-70
China 1945-46
Congo 1964
Cuba 1959-1961
El Salvador 1980s
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958   Laos 1964-73
Grenada 1983
Iraq 1991-2000s, 2015-
Iran 1987
Korea 1950-53
Kuwait 1991
Lebanon 1983, 1984
Libya 1986, 2011-
Nicaragua 1980s
Pakistan 2003, 2006-   Palestine 2010
Panama 1989
Peru 1965
Somalia 1993, 2007-08, 2010-
Sudan 1998
Syria 2014-
Vietnam 1961-73
Yemen 2002, 2009-
Yugoslavia 1999


Fathertime! 

[Admin]

No.  Your statement is virtually meaningless in the conversation. 1. The US does in fact twist arms and coerce nations to tag along with or suffer consequences.
I looked back at the original post you referenced. 2. I stated sanctions...YOU added Countries.   I can stand by my original statement, sanctions are used often. 3. By YOUR standard ...... 4. a country such as Venezuela hasn't been impacted by sanctions when clearly it has.   Currently 30 countries and or it's people are hit with some form of US sanctions.  That is a lot.  Some probably justifiable, many aren't.   
I had to run a dreaded google search.   This is the type of lists they all show.  5. The US has dropped bombs all these countries since WWII. You may consider this not much military intervention, but I'd say you are wrong on that one.  The US military is active around the globe.   100's of bases across all the continents aren't all there just for the fun of it.    


Afghanistan 1998, 2001-
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Cambodia 1969-70
China 1945-46
Congo 1964
Cuba 1959-1961
El Salvador 1980s
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958   Laos 1964-73
Grenada 1983
Iraq 1991-2000s, 2015-
Iran 1987
Korea 1950-53
Kuwait 1991
Lebanon 1983, 1984
Libya 1986, 2011-
Nicaragua 1980s
Pakistan 2003, 2006-   Palestine 2010
Panama 1989
Peru 1965
Somalia 1993, 2007-08, 2010-
Sudan 1998
Syria 2014-
Vietnam 1961-73
Yemen 2002, 2009-
Yugoslavia 1999


Fathertime!

1. Clear statement of bias, unsubstantiated by facts, and undergirding all else in your claim.


2. The clarification of sanctions against countries vs sanctions against persons is necessary, for numerous reasons. The fact remains only six (6) countries have been sanctioned since 1950. That is very far from "liberal" use of sanctioning power.


3. It is not MY standard. It's simply a fact.


4. Among the persons sanctioned in Venezuela are Nicolas Maduro and Antonio Jose Benavides. Both are sanctioned by other countries including those in Latin America. It follows that sanctions against the President and Armed Forces Commander, in addition to many others, will have an effect on the country. The situation in Venezuela is extensive and not topical to this site or topic.


5. Bloviated distraction. Your earlier claim is that a progression from sanctions to military intervention is the norm. That is simply NOT true.

[rwd123]

I read it, it confirms my feeling. China is playing a better long term game. They are cunning.

IIRC Alexander Lebed was cautious against closer ties with China but few Russian politicians since have aired concerns. China will definitely obtain leverage from this.

A bigger issue for the Russian government is the loss of life. Demographics are such that if they lose a significant number of soldiers it will dent their population growth. The replacement rate is nothing like it was post-WW2. Good for young foreign men though (including Chinese)!

[Boethius]

This was an interesting read.

http://mwi.usma.edu/a-ukrainian-insurgency-will-be-long-and-bloody/

[Patagonie]

This was an interesting read.

http://mwi.usma.edu/a-ukrainian-insurgency-will-be-long-and-bloody/

Yep but it goes wrong totally.
 
"Thomas B. Pepinsky is the Walter F. LaFeber professor of government and public policy at Cornell University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Depar tment of Defense."

He betters to sow carots. 

[Trenchcoat]

How many generals does (did) Russia have?

Ukraine says Russia had 20 generals in the invasion of Ukraine.

Supposedly, Russia has about 55% of its forces in Ukraine.  If the officer corps is equally represented, that would mean Russia had about 36 generals.

It is reported that Putin fired 8 of the generals for poor performance in Ukraine.  4 more have been killed.

That's (theoretically) a loss of 30% of his available generals.

Acceptable losses are usually considered 33%.  More than 33% losses, and a military unit is not considered combat effective.

Hmm.  Is Putin asking China to supply generals?  lol
Supposedly, Kadyrov is in Ukraine.  Did he come to fill a shortage of generals?

My guess is that they can always either pull more Generals from elsewhere or promote others to the position of General. A lot of the invasion plan has likely already been decided and it's not going smoothly. However, Russia has still been making inroads into Ukraine they have Ukraine's largest nuclear power plant, they have many of Ukraine major cities surrounded and seem to be moving slowly into Ukraine. Not exactly Blitzkrieg but remember WWII went on for years and we're only about 20 days into the invasion here. I think Russia has suffered unexpected shortcomings. Their tanks and planes could be more easily neutralised than thought so it mostly just leaves their missile launcher vehicles as their main useful bit of kit. So laying seige and pounding the hell out of cities while the city runs out of food, water and electricity becomes the strategy.

Zelensky reckons they are close to a deal with Russia in peace negotiations. I am not so sure, probably just Putin play a game as he tends to do. The value of the ruble had gone up perhaps on that expectation so possibly Putin is holding out the hope for short term economic improvement. All the while Putin is making some small gains on the ground I don't think he will agree to peace.

Putin of course has Chemical and Hyperthermal weapons at his disposal. He hasn't used them yet and remains uncertain whether he will go to those lengths, let's of course hope not.

[fathertime]

1. Clear statement of bias, unsubstantiated by facts, and undergirding all else in your claim.

It doesn't matter if there is bias or not.  The fact does remain that the US is willing to coerce nations into coming along with it's policy.   You can deny it all you want but it won't change what is actually the case.    In the most recent times the policy of twisting arms isn't as effective as it once was. 

2. The clarification of sanctions against countries vs sanctions against persons is necessary, for numerous reasons. The fact remains only six (6) countries have been sanctioned since 1950. That is very far from "liberal" use of sanctioning power.

To you it is important if sanctions are against a country or individuals in that country.  I don't know that it is that important.  If a country were to sanction the top 10 wealthiest or influential people in the US that would be hundreds of billions of dollars under threat.     At the moment around 30 countries are impacted by US sanctions.  That is liberal use of sanctions. 

5. Bloviated distraction. Your earlier claim is that a progression from sanctions to military intervention is the norm. That is simply NOT true.

The US has intervened militarily around the globe.
The US has sanctions on countries, and influential persons in countries around the globe. 
Militarism has been a big part of our policy.  There is a reason our military budget dwarfs the rest of world by far.

Fathertime! 

[Chelseaboy]

Seems the battle for Mariupol isn't going well for the Russian invaders.


According to the Regional Governor cowardly Russian troops have had to take 400 patients and Staff hostage and are holding them in the intensive care Hospital basement.


No wonder Putin is having to lower his demands with his shambolic military having to resort to such tactics...if true.

[Admin]

1. It doesn't matter if there is bias or not.  The fact does remain that the US is willing to coerce nations into coming along with it's policy.   You can deny it all you want but it won't change what is actually the case.    In the most recent times the policy of twisting arms isn't as effective as it once was. 
2. To you it is important if sanctions are against a country or individuals in that country.  I don't know that it is that important.  If a country were to sanction the top 10 wealthiest or influential people in the US that would be hundreds of billions of dollars under threat.     At the moment around 30 countries are impacted by US sanctions.  That is liberal use of sanctions. 
The US has intervened militarily around the globe.
The US has sanctions on countries, and influential persons in countries around the globe. 
3. Militarism has been a big part of our policy.  There is a reason our military budget dwarfs the rest of world by far.

Fathertime!

1. Of course it matters. Your anti-US trope is well-documented in previous posts. Any time you use a term/phrase such as "coerce" or "arm-twisting," the fact that the author has a clear anti-US bias is most definitely relevant. Reference my earlier post re Critical Thinking.

2. Of course it's important. The fact that only 6 countries having been sanctioned in more than 70 years is relevant to your accusation of "liberal" use of US sanctions. Notably you focus on alleged "liberal" use of sanctions, i.e. quantity, vice whether the sanctions have inherent merit. You earlier stated "Some probably justifiable, many aren't." That takes us back to your clear bias in #1.


3. It's a damn good thing the US has a strong military. The current debacle in Ukraine is only the latest justification for continued strength.

Finally, your purported nexus from sanctions to military interventions is not supported by FACTS.

The entire anti-US trope is finished on RWD. This site will not be used for that purpose. Expect posts containing that message to be removed.

[Chelseaboy]

Well done Dan.


Those posters who use the unwarranted Russian invasion of Ukraine,in which civilians,including women and children,are being killed or made homeless, as an excuse to try and spin it into the wests fault,whilst not even questioning Putin,  are quite frankly nauseating.

[John Gaunt]

Well done Dan.


Those posters who use the unwarranted Russian invasion of Ukraine,in which civilians,including women and children,are being killed or made homeless, as an excuse to try and spin it into the wests fault,whilst not even questioning Putin,  are quite frankly nauseating.

I agree.

The other place is disgusting in the way it has become a mouthpiece for pro Putin propagandists and anti west diatribe.

[John Gaunt]

My guess is that they can always either pull more Generals from elsewhere or promote others to the position of General. A lot of the invasion plan has likely already been decided and it's not going smoothly. However, Russia has still been making inroads into Ukraine they have Ukraine's largest nuclear power plant, they have many of Ukraine major cities surrounded and seem to be moving slowly into Ukraine. Not exactly Blitzkrieg but remember WWII went on for years and we're only about 20 days into the invasion here. I think Russia has suffered unexpected shortcomings. Their tanks and planes could be more easily neutralised than thought so it mostly just leaves their missile launcher vehicles as their main useful bit of kit. So laying seige and pounding the hell out of cities while the city runs out of food, water and electricity becomes the strategy.

Zelensky reckons they are close to a deal with Russia in peace negotiations. I am not so sure, probably just Putin play a game as he tends to do. The value of the ruble had gone up perhaps on that expectation so possibly Putin is holding out the hope for short term economic improvement. All the while Putin is making some small gains on the ground I don't think he will agree to peace.

Putin of course has Chemical and Hyperthermal weapons at his disposal. He hasn't used them yet and remains uncertain whether he will go to those lengths, let's of course hope not.

Putins war reserves must be getting depleted rapidly given how many areas he’s pounding.

He won’t be able to replenish his munitions as quick as they’re being fired so he must have had a timeline in mind at the commencement of his special military operation invasion.
Of course we know that’s gone by the wayside so small wonder he is negotiating for the best result possible while he still can play the better hand.

I’m still waiting for an explanation of what a hyperthermal weapon is.

[Chelseaboy]

I agree.

The other place is disgusting in the way it has become a mouthpiece for pro Putin propagandists and anti west diatribe.

Yes it is.


Posting on there is akin to trying to hold back the rabid zombiefied pro-Putin horde...with personal insults hurled at anyone who dares to question Putin .


Strange that the vast majority,as on here, choose to live in the west rather than living their dream in Russia eh ?

[Bee Farmer]

My guess is that they can always either pull more Generals from elsewhere or promote others to the position of General.

No, you can't always pull generals out of thin air.  There is a set number of generals that exist.  It takes many years of experience to train and develop a general.

Yes, you can take a private and promote him to General, but that doesn't make him a general.  They are just a private in a general's uniform.  Giving someone a promotion does not give them knowledge, skills, and experience.  A promotion is supposed to be evidence of the skills, knowledge, and experience they have.

Promoting an incompetent or under-trained officer to be a General is asking for trouble.  They will get the men under them slaughtered.