Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I agree with you, however the likes of AfD will milk this to no end.
Was the Nordstream pipeline ever likely to be used again?
Didn't western countries already decide to stop using it?
Didn't western countries already decide to stop using it?
Sure. But they would try to milk a stone if they could get anything out of it. The rise of the AfD itself is one of the reasons these projects should have never been started. The more dependent we became on Russia, the more influence they gained on our political landscape. The AfD is funded in big parts by Russia. So the more ties we cut with Russia, the better.
We really need to fight Russian influence in Germany. Otherwise we’ll end up like a Russian satellite state like Austria.
I cant fecking stand the sight of Russell Brand and his Rocky Dennis bone structure.
At that time Germany had decided to not open NS2 by simply refusing to give the operating license, which was an ingenious way to find a low-profile solution. Technically it was a kind of "well I assure you it is right at the top of my desk" that I guess everyone has heard some time in his life when dealing with bureaucracy.
Russia had stopped delivery through NS1 in response to sanctions but was open to sending gas through NS2 (that was more or less contractual nitpicking why they offered it this way).
So at the time the explosions happened no gas was flowing through the pipelines but effectively both Germany and Russia could have unilaterally decided to open either NS1 or NS2 again if you take both sides by their words at that time.
Considering Germany's slow start to support Ukraine in the war it is no wonder that Ukraine didn't trust this. Especially considering that the only real purpose of NS always has been to become independent of Ukrainian trouble, it took a lot of leverage away from Ukraine.
Thanks for the info, personally I think it was unlikely that Germany would have decided to reopen either of the pipelines any time soon, given the feelings towards Russia. It'll be interesting what happens in the future in the event of a regime change in Russia if they finally discover demoracy over there and elect a sensible government.
Technically than we would need to transfer Russian gas through the still existing pipelines through Ukraine. And I would suggest to Ukraine to demand really low transit fees for that...
You were on the " it was the Russian's who else" all the way. Specially with the superproof a newspaper (that said might be the US first, might be the ukrainians after) said could be the russians
But now that it seems that there is more and more evidence that it was the ukrainians, there is no definitive answer? Don't get me wrong, I fully agree on this last sentence. We will probably never know. But I got quite a flak for this
I'm sorry you received flak back then. Its entirely plausible the Ukrainians, in their zeal to do something, may have considered this. Although it would take a fair bit of evidence to prove it, which may never emerge in the public.
Is in no interest to anyone that is known. And I am sure all nations (US, Germany, Russia and Ukraine) knows. But disclosing it could not be on the best of their interest. Specially if it was Ukraine or US (IMO very very unlikely) as would mean and ally attacking a german previously key infrastructure
While, as I already said , I don't think it's the US behind it, they don't really consider Germany a genuine ally the way they do with UK or Australia for example. For example, as it was revealed during the Snowden leaks, not only did they eavesdrop on Merkel, but also placed some dormant malwares in key infrastructure systems. "Just in case". Same with Japan, btw
I'd love to know how he drifted towards right wing politics given he was quite different a decade ago. But that's for the Brand thread.
Quite the brand shift, you say
Germany is an ally of the US, he is not as a close ally compared with who you named? of course, as everybody has friends and best friends. And US spying on Germany is a poor point. US had been spying (and all the countries if they could/can) all his allies and enemies alike forever. If not take AG crypto owned by CIA with the collaboration funnily enough of west Germany (not bad for a the stronger part of the country of a none ally)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ity/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/
This are 60ish countries of the 120 countries that bought the system that were spied and at the same time, they heard all the conversations that these countries had with others that they didn't have it.
A pivot that should've been blunted.
I wasn't making a point , merely a comment. As I said, I agree with you that it wasn't the US behind the sabotage.Germany is an ally of the US, he is not as a close ally compared with who you named? of course, as everybody has friends and best friends. And US spying on Germany is a poor point. US had been spying (and all the countries if they could/can) all his allies and enemies alike forever. If not take AG crypto owned by CIA with the collaboration funnily enough of west Germany (not bad for a the stronger part of the country of a none ally)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ity/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/
This are 60ish countries of the 120 countries that bought the system that were spied and at the same time, they heard all the conversations that these countries had with others that they didn't have it.
Also while the spying can be brushed aside as "everyone does it" and "it happened by accident" type of scenarios, deliberatrly placing software backdoors on critical systems ready to go live after spending years dormant, is a bit like...you know placing a bomb on on a gas pipeline. In fact , it's exactly like that because the CIA already did it. In the 80s they sabotaged a Soviet pipeline by placing virus in computer systems that the Soviets bought circumventing embargo on such exports at the time.
Well, you would understand that with enemies...with allies is very shitty to be honest. And is not comparable. Spying results is not shared to the public so the public can't raise eyebrows. Putting a bomb to a infrastructure that delivers cheap gas to an entire nation (and rest of europe) will ask for an investigation to find the culprit. . But yeah, I am splitting hairs
On your comment, I disagree that they are not allies. They are part of the OTAN, they share intel, they have similar western values, geopolitical orientation and a massive trade relationship. But obviously, the anglosphere (US, IRE, UK, AUS, NZ, CAN) are tighter allies for obvious, cultural, language, family connections and historical reasons
This I agree, also I didn't say they are not allies. But more like, inat what was "better than the alternarive" fashion, since the beginning of the cold war. Anyway, we derailed the incessant stream of tweets enough already.
Does this count as war crimes also? To be honest is shitty that they do that to civilians...and a hospital
I don't think so, hospitals should have backup power. Attacking the hospital or possibly even cutting off its water or something might be a war crime, power not so much.
It should have, but it might not have, and it is well reported that Russia has trouble with refined oil products supply in the regions close to the border due to the strain on the logistics capacities. Their backup power could easily run out of fuel.
The power grid definitely is civilian infrastructure but that didn't stop anybody from attacking it (the Serbian and Iraqi power grids were also bombed into oblivion when the US and their allies attacked).
So a strike on a power grid can be considered a war crime but no state has the moral high ground on this and can't rightfully complain about it.
I think it's fair game if you're the one who has been attacked and they've bombed your grid to shit for years. Don't invade someone if you're an oil rich nation that can't get diesel to a hospital in your own country.
Where do you draw the line? Is it fair game to torture, rape and mutilate imprisoned Russians, just because they started it? At some point there must be a line drawn.
It might not be this I agree, but it has to exist
Also, why waste resources like drones on Russian grid infrastructure?
There has to be a line, but there also have to be consequences.
Because enough of it makes life miserable for Russians. Power black outs can often fry people's computers and the work on it. Im certainly not a fan of it affecting hospitals, but i am fan of the underdog who's defending themselves against a full scale invasion not playing by the rules the whatever community wants them to. Attacking electricity grid's is not quite the same as launching missiles or drones at shopping malls or orphanages.
Power blackouts are not going to do anything to the morale of rural Russia. They are used to the misery. In fact most of them wouldn't assume it was due to enemy action.
In big cities of course it will be different.
In big cities of course it will be different.
Yeah you're probably right on that point.
Civilians dont have to pay for it. And is a war crime. Period
When UK and US started the war in Iraq, and afghanistan did their populations deserved being attacked if they had that capability? Would you deserve that one of your family members died in the hospital ba a black out while in surgery?
Its one of the moral of dilemmas of war isnt it? Sanctions costs lives too. It hits the poorest and the sick the most. Tanking a country's economy that way has a cost on human lives as well but its not considered a war crime.
The sanctions tries to affect the least the survivability of the less fortunate. That is why there are plenty of exceptions for food and medicines. Then it might be secondary effects of the economy that trickles down and affects them. Attacking a civilian infrastructure is atacking directly civilian survivability hoping that it trickles up with its unrest
The first is attacking russia war capability and try that the civilian colateral damage is at minimum. The second is using civilian pain to rattle russia and petty revenge bc putin cant care less, while this resources could be used for war targets
Or you know, causing large costs and disruption to the Russian economy by destroying expensive grid equipment they may not find straightforward to replace. Russian civilians might die indirectly in a hypothetical scenario where the backup generators of an OPEC nation can't be fuelled, but that would fully be their own government's fault.
Again, indirect consequences vs direct attack with the aim to hurt civilians