Choosing not to back someone into a corner is not the equivalent of rendering them untouchable. Why do you think it is?PeroK said:If Putin and the other Russians know they are untouchable then how do you stop them?
That sounds good, but what does it mean? Intensify the sanctions? Declare and enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine? Carry out airstrikes on Russian troops? Or, just up the rhetoric?PeroK said:In my view, we ought to make a stand now.
And I thought Xe is only produced (also burned) during neutron flux in an active core and some time after stopping of neutron flux/chain reaction.Astronuc said:it is possible that soldiers digging trenches may have inhaled some Xe from the disturbed soil.
Not only Poland, other EU members as well, but either way this will be a costly choice.PeroK said:that Poland plans to stop using Russian oil and gas by the end of this year
And we in the Baltics are talking about de-Putinization of Kremlin meanwhile.PeroK said:There is also a news item about the Russian parliament discussing the denazification of Poland, Kazakhstan, Moldova and other Baltic states.
Not sure about Defcon, but NATO has increased troops around all of NATO border including Baltic as well as Poland. When the war started I saw many times columns of tanks and vehicles heading from harbor to local bases. I still hope NATO will speed up and finally give us those SAM's etc equipment that we frankly should have had a long time ago. This war has opened some eyes truth be told...pinball1970 said:Poland? Does the west build up troops on all these boarders? Are we on Defcon 3 right now?
Well I'm afraid no one has that amount of certainty that you are looking for at the moment, probably not even Pentagon. On the other hand Putin and his team are using a lot of bluffing as is common for them.anorlunda said:Where end-of-the-world scenarios are at play, I want a lot more certainty than that.
I agree, especially compared how no one did anything back in 2014, this was the wake up call that came too late.geordief said:The West (as opposed to Ukraine) has done as well -much better in fact -than could have been expected in the daunting circumstances.
Exactlygeordief said:hardly anyone imagined they might actually perform as well and heroically as they seem to have.
I agree, failing Ukraine will be a major setback for him either way. The question is as to how much he will be able to grab before this has to end due to lack of resources or other reasons, and will he be able to keep it.geordief said:Russia no longer appears to be in a position to intimidate those countries who are in Nato and ,in my view it is rather the Putin regime that has reason to be fearful of the consequences of a failed foreign adventure.
I too think Ukraine played a crucial role in not just stopping Russia and giving the west time to come up with long overdue decisions but also possibly preventing a further escalation and possibly WW3, because it seems to me that Russia planned a quick overtake of Ukraine, and then possibly if not NATO they would have tried to take Moldova and Transnistria. Such scenario would make avoiding war with Russia much harder.geordief said:But for the resistance of Ukraine I think we would be closer to that scenario as Putin would have been emboldened to continue his adventure into other Nato countries where he could pursue similar tactics to those which almost succeeded in Ukraine.
It's not quite the same, no. But, these are all imprecise terms in any case.Ophiolite said:Choosing not to back someone into a corner is not the equivalent of rendering them untouchable. Why do you think it is?
I made it clear: embargo on all trade with Russia. See post #1692.Ophiolite said:That sounds good, but what does it mean? Intensify the sanctions? Declare and enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine? Carry out airstrikes on Russian troops? Or, just up the rhetoric?
PeroK said:Possibly a no-fly zone. Not air-strikes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ly-zone-and-could-one-be-imposed-over-ukraineOffice_Shredder said:A no fly zone is impossible without carrying out air strikes on Russia's anti air defenses.
Including strikes surface to air missile launchers and air defense radars inside of Russia and where collateral damage to civilians is inevitable.Office_Shredder said:A no fly zone is impossible without carrying out air strikes on Russia's anti air defenses.
France and Germany are refusing to pay in Rubles.PeroK said:It wasn't my intention to get into a debate about no-fly zones.
It seems like the EU has an ultimatum from Russia to start paying for oil and gas in roubles - and this will apply to payments due this month. This is the critical thing IMO. Do France, Germany and the others do what Russia demands or not? It's definitely a choice of two evils, IMO, but I know what I personally consider the greater evil.
There were some evasive stuff around this from every side: as far as I understood, the 'solution' is to pay in EUR to a special account in a Russian bank, and the conversion is kind of done there.PeroK said:Do France, Germany and the others do what Russia demands or not?
How do you know that?Rive said:But the payment will go through.
I can't access thatRive said:Despite all the verbal sabre rattling this is a business both side wants to continue.
Found a link for the workaround
Xe (i.e., isotopes of Xe) is a fission product (which decays to Cs) and a decay product of another fission product (I). During fission, two atoms are produced, one has atomic number Z and the other 92-Z. The first has atomic mass A, and the other atomic mass 234-A, or 233-A, based on an excited nucleus from n + 235U => 236U, and the 234 assumes 2 neutrons released, while 233 assumes 3 neutrons released. Complicating the picture is fast fission of 238U, which shifts the A-distributions up by 1 or 2 units for each f.p., as well as thermal fission of 236Np, 238Np, 239Pu and 241Pu, and fast fission of other transuranics.artis said:And I thought Xe is only produced (also burned) during neutron flux in an active core and some time after stopping of neutron flux/chain reaction.
There were several things that struck me in this article. One is that Germany gets 55% of its natural gas imports from Russia. Where was even the most basic contingency planning? I'm not the most politically knowledgeable person, but even I've been calling Putin "the first great dictator of the 21st Century" for the past decade. How did Germany end up almost totally dependent on the great dictator for their energy supplies? How does that happen? Did the security services not know what he was like? Did the German government ignore them? It puts Merkel in an entirely new light!pinball1970 said:France and Germany are refusing to pay in Rubles.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/germany-braces-for-an-end-to-reliance-on-russian-gas
It would have been better to have made a stand after Crimea.PeroK said:In my view, we ought to make a stand now.
I made that clear above. I'm talking about trade with Russia.Vanadium 50 said:It would have been better to have made a stand after Crimea.
But what is "making a stand"? Are you prepared to use strategic nuclear weapons? Tactical nuclear weapons? First use? Retaliation?
Obviously.PeroK said:There were several things that struck me in this article. One is that Germany gets 55% of its natural gas imports from Russia. Where was even the most basic contingency planning? I'm not the most politically knowledgeable person, ...
Everybody can tell, afterward. Even the Ukrainians couldn't believe it.PeroK said:... but even I've been calling Putin "the first great dictator of the 21st Century" for the past decade.
Ever heard anything about price building, risk assessments of decisions, or fracking? Anything? Oil sands, maybe?PeroK said:How did Germany end up almost totally dependent on the great dictator for their energy supplies?
Putin was definitely more popular here than Trump has been on every single level, but especially trust. Whom would you buy from in such a case? (keyword: trade war)PeroK said:How does that happen?
see abovePeroK said:Did the security services not know what he was like? Did the German government ignore them? It puts Merkel in an entirely new light!
It's barely credible!
Thanks for the primer. I see now that Germany has nothing to regret.fresh_42 said:Obviously.
Everybody can tell, afterward. Even the Ukrainians couldn't believe it.
Ever heard anything about price building, risk assessments of decisions, or fracking? Anything? Oil sands, maybe?
Putin was definitely more popular here than Trump has been on every single level, but especially trust. Whom would you buy from in such a case?
see above
Er - about how many fuel dumps have you blown up here - bud ? Not to mention (endless list) !russ_watters said:Russian officials have accused Ukraine of attacking a fuel depot inside Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/01/europe/russia-ukraine-belgorod-fire-intl/index.html
Ukrainian officials responded: "Yeah, that was us, bud." /s
This looks promising, but then again it's dangerous. If Russians lose within Ukraine it's one thing, if they start losing on their own territory , with Putin it might just escalate.russ_watters said:Russian officials have accused Ukraine of attacking a fuel depot inside Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/01/europe/russia-ukraine-belgorod-fire-intl/index.html
Ukrainian officials responded: "Yeah, that was us, bud." /s
In the era of Gorbachev, Reagan, Yeltsin, the Bushes etc we did not have lunatics threatening the use of nukes. Very regrettably the last few years have seen extremely ill-considered reversals of the tacitly accepted view (between sane super-powers) that any such escalation can and will result in MAD (mutually assured destruction). One way or another that dynamic has to be restored.artis said:This looks promising, but then again it's dangerous. If Russians lose within Ukraine it's one thing, if they start losing on their own territory , with Putin it might just escalate.
I totally understand the Ukrainians and from the playbook of justice they have every right given what has been done to them, but with events like these unfolding I start to reconsider my stance on the impossibility of a nuke being used, even if it's a tactical at first.
Definitely not a scenario I look forward to given my proximity to the conflict.
PeroK said:How did Germany end up almost totally dependent on the great dictator for their energy supplies?
@fresh_42 : Wasn't Germany's decision to leave nuclear power also a contributing factor, or do I remember incorrectly?fresh_42 said:Ever heard anything about price building, risk assessments of decisions, or fracking? Anything? Oil sands, maybe?
Yes it was. Renewables can only go so far, and the Green movement (distinct from the party) felt that buying gas from dictators was better than nuclear power, And there you go.DennisN said:Wasn't Germany's decision to leave nuclear power also a contributing factor
Sure. But the question was: where to get natural gas from?DennisN said:@fresh_42 : Wasn't Germany's decision to leave nuclear power also a contributing factor, or do I remember incorrectly?
I don't know about your country. But we have a free market here in Germany. The gas business is a private business. For example, Gazprom owns a significant share of our gas storage capacities. Politics has normally not much to say when it comes to economic decisions, and any interferences are not really appreciated.caz said:So it wasn’t a lack of knowledge? It sounds like in six months, Germany will be refilling Putin’s coffers.
The question is why get 55% of your gas from one country? It's a national security issue, surely? How could anyone doing contingency planning for the German government fail to consider the case that Russia becomes unstable? Or, is in open conflict with the EU.fresh_42 said:Thus, I cannot see any bad decisions made by Merkel. These know-it-all who are now commenting, should make their homework. It is primarily an economic decision. And in this respect, Russia would still be the choice number one. To change this is an economically bad decision that has its price. A price we weren't willing to pay until this year.
Off topic, but how much less nat gas from Russia or anywhere else, if the operating nuclear units had been retained? That seems like it would have been the "economical" choice number one.fresh_42 said:And in this respect, Russia would still be the choice number one. To change this is an economically bad decision that has its price. A price we weren't willing to pay until this year.
Because of a kind of optimism. Never change a winning team. And a former chancellor is on the Gazprom board ...PeroK said:The question is why get 55% of your gas from one country?
That's not the point. It is a matter of fact that any American president can obviously determine whom to sell something or not. Ask the Cubans. It is also a matter of fact that Trump threatened to invoke customs on German cars. Funnily, even on those that were built in the US (BMW). This has nothing to do with NATO, only with good merchants. Putin has proven to be one, the others have proven to be none.PeroK said:It's a national security issue, surely? How could anyone doing contingency planning for the German government fail to consider the case that Russia becomes unstable? Or, is in open conflict with the EU.
Whatever the previous US president said about NATO is nothing compared to what Putin says.
I compare providers.PeroK said:If a US president changed the constitution to be effectively president for life and started assassinating his political opponents, then you could compare the US with Russia. But, until then, there is no comparison.
You are right. My apologies, but I find your unwillingness to acknowledge any mistakes on Germany’s part troubling.fresh_42 said:C'mon. Do you really want to follow this stupid path?
The mistake was the lack of diversification, or the wish to see its necessity. And this necessity changed dramatically in February, not earlier.caz said:You are right. My apologies, but I find your unwillingness to acknowledge any mistakes on Germany’s part troubling.
fresh_42 said:Putin was definitely more popular here than Trump has been on every single level, but especially trust. Whom would you buy from in such a case?
Those two statements are contradictory.fresh_42 said:Politics has normally not much to say when it comes to economic decisions, and any interferences are not really appreciated.
How does the Russian invasion of Ukraine adversely impact Germany?fresh_42 said:The mistake was the lack of diversification, or the wish to see its necessity. And this necessity changed dramatically in February, not earlier.
Besides the shift in our energy supply, i.e. that we have to build an LNG terminal? Mainly that we have 25,000 new children in school.caz said:How does the Russian invasion of Ukraine adversely impact Germany?
No, they are not! Private businessmen buy whom they can trust. You can trust Russia in economical terms, whether you like that fact or not. But you can never know when an American president decides to impact free trade.anorlunda said:Those two statements are contradictory.
Those sound like economic impacts. Given that Russian gas is now discounted, isn’t it in Germany’s economic interests to start Nord Stream 2 to give it monopsonistic power over Russia.fresh_42 said:Besides the shift in our energy supply, i.e. that we have to build an LNG terminal? Mainly that we have 25,000 new children in school.
Sure, but at the moment this would not be politically realizable. We joined the international sanctions, so usual business has no choice.caz said:Those sound like economic reasons. Given that Russian gas is now discounted, isn’t it in Germany’s economic interests to start Nord Stream 2 to give it monopsonistic power over Russia.
But why has Germany joined international sanctions? It negatively impacts Germany’s economy?fresh_42 said:Sure, but at the moment this would not be politically realizable. We joined the international sanctions, so usual business has no choice.
Good question. I guess the alternative would have been even more damaging.caz said:But why has Germany joined international sanctions? It negatively impacts Germany’s economy?
If Russian had been as successful with this operation as it was in 2014, do you believe that it should be business as usual between Russia and Germany?fresh_42 said:Good question. I guess the alternative would have been even more damaging.
No, of course not. I firmly believe that even the annexation of Crimea could and should have been solved with a simple contract for the Russian marine base. I mean, the UK kept HK for nearly a hundred years or so by legal means. I even think, that Ukrainian membership in NATO wouldn't have been any threat to Russia, although this may be borderline.caz said:If Russian had been as successful with this operation as it was in 2014, do you believe that it should be business as usual between Russia and Germany?
