One thing I don’t understand.
Russia is funding this war through its sales of Gas, Oil & Coal.
Many states in Europe are totally dependant on this fuel, and a transition way from it will take time.
But there is a great swell of public support in the European people for Ukraine, and the public want to help (as seen by large public donations and protests), but they don’t really know what to do.
So what if our European governments collectively asked everyone to try to turn their gas heating so that they use it for 2 hours less per day than they would have previously used it for? It’s a simply step but one with immediate effect.
The countries who get their fuel directly from Russia immediately reduce the amount of gas coming through the pipeline. Those countries not getting their gas from Russia now have an excess which can be shared with those countries supplied by Russia, reducing the demand through the Russian pipeline further.
So why haven’t our governments collectively asked the public to “Turn off your gas for 2 hours extra per day”? Every time we use some gas, we are funding the war in Ukraine. People in Ukraine are literally paying with their lives for our homes being warm.
dublinpilot wrote:
It’s a simply step but one with immediate effect.
Although I do see the point, it’s not directly that easy. First, there are huge storage tanks which in this season of the year need to be replenished. This will happen independently from usage of gas, so it’s not on a day-to-day basis, but of course would have effects in some weeks. Second, there are long-term contracts with Russia and the gas has to be taken anyway. O.k. one could say stop paying the bill and discuss later when the war has stopped. But in any case, it’s not directly as easy as you propose.
But in any case, lowering usage of gas and oil is crucial and important not only for not funding Russia, but also for our climate.
Ultimately, the war in Ukraine needs no direct funding whatsoever. Weapons are used which are available anyhow, soldiers are “used” which are there anyhow. Russia is not dependent from money income to fund all this. Question is, how long it will take Russia to recover financially from this later.
UdoR wrote:
O.k. one could say stop paying the bill and discuss later when the war has stopped. But in any case, it’s not directly as easy as you propose.
Actually that is what was behind the removal from the SWIFT system. To stop Germany in particular paying the gas bills.
UdoR wrote:
Ultimately, the war in Ukraine needs no direct funding whatsoever.
Uh, no, I think you are mistaken there. The war costs millions per hour. Russia would not be the first war participant to simply run bankrupt on it. In fact, that is pretty much what brought down the USSR.
dublinpilot wrote:
o try to turn their gas heating so that they use it for 2 hours less per day
In the UK the people are going to have to do that anyway given the vast majority of UK citizens cannot afford the already planned price rise.
Graham wrote:
Indeed. ‘Demilitarise’ is just shorthand for “hand it over and I will militarise it instead”.
Exactly. And then the Baltic states are next. If we don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, we might as well hand Europe over to Russia.
What I’ve been wondering (and I know others have commented here as well) is why this 40-mile convoy isn’t being attacked. They are totally out in the open and should be a sitting target. Very strange.
given the vast majority of UK citizens cannot afford the already planned price rise
Nonsense. Some will find it hard, sure.
172driver wrote:
They are totally out in the open and should be a sitting target. Very strange.
Not only that, but if you target your attacks at key choke-points on the route you can basically prevent any of it from moving without having to destroy any great percentage of it.
It’s rather like the British XXX Corps armoured column trying to get to Arnhem during Market Garden, although of course by that stage the Germans had no meaningful air power to attack it with. What they did manage to do was disrupt it with flanking attacks at certain points and basically block the road with wreckage.
Maybe they think it is too blatant for a US black operation, or maybe there is not enough cloud cover, maybe they are waiting for the front of the column to engage such that there’s nowhere to hide once an air attack comes, or something else. Who knows.
Also there are huge numbers of man-portable anti-armour weapons going into Ukraine. If they can get them to where they’re needed and if they’re used in a coordinated attack on that column, it could cause the Russians serious problems.
From the air or the land, an attack on the column needs to come before it can get out of line-astern formation and surround Kyiv.
172driver wrote:
Exactly. And then the Baltic states are next. If we don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, we might as well hand Europe over to Russia.
I’d been skeptical as to whether he’d attack a NATO country, but now I’m not so sure – if he gets Ukraine.
What’s to stop him using the same rhetoric? “These are not real countries, we are liberating them from fascist crooks, do not interfere with my special operation otherwise devastating consequences, look at my nuclear weapons….” It’s not much of a stretch to add “they are not really proper NATO members” to the stuff he spouts.
If they roll into the Baltics on that premise, again threatening nuclear weapons, will western leaders actually engage and destroy his forces? I’m less convinced than I was.
Graham wrote:
Exactly. And then the Baltic states are next. If we don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, we might as well hand Europe over to Russia.I’d been skeptical as to whether he’d attack a NATO country, but now I’m not so sure – if he gets Ukraine.
What’s to stop him using the same rhetoric? …
I don’t know, it is quite obvious he does not have the military power for expanding beyond Ukraine (even that is apparently a problem), rhetoric is not enough.
Moldova, yes. Baltic states (ignoring NATO), yes. Anything beyond that (Poland, Romania) – surely not, especially taking into account NATO. Germany? What are you smoking? I want that stuff. He will not even have the manpower to hold Ukraine anyway.
I find it deeply disturbing that instead of taking Putin at his word (“We consider keeping Ukraine out of NATO crucial for out security and will go to war over this.”) repeated with increasing urgency over many years, the west preferred to continue with its eastward push. What is the worst that can happen, right? The Russians were forced to swallow previous NATO expansions, surely will do so again. History is on our side. Boiling the frog slowly but surely …. until the frog had had enough of it.
I am pretty certain that if Ukrainians were given a choice between war and an explicitly neutral state, they would have chosen peace. Instead, they were led to believe they can have it both (peace and NATO), even though they were never really strategically important for the west. They should have learned a bit from Georgians and Kurds … but at the end did not have much say in the events anyway, all the talks were between Russia and the west.
But surely we have to stand by our liberal principles. Ukraine is a sovereign country, such demands by Putin are totally unacceptable! We will fight for them! (Just between you and me, we won’t need to fight, he is bluffing and scared of our sanctions anyway.)
Oh shit, he wasn’t bluffing. Uff, sorry, we won’t fight. Ukraine, you fight! We will cheer for you! Bad, bad imperialistic Putin, its all solely his fault, total madman he is, starting the worst war in Europe since WW2. Yugoslavia: hmmm, are you sure? (Although I fear Yugoslavia will be eclipsed – see below.)
I have no love lost for Putin, but rational and analytical thinking has totally gone out of window in this hysteria.
At the end, what is the endgame?
Listening to all the hardline talking, the west is hell-bent on not giving Putin a way out, basically hoping he will be humiliated in Ukraine and toppled from within Russia.
What this means for Ukraine? Well, more, heavier, and much deadlier fighting … thinking that Putin will just return home with ‘Damn, that Ukraine proved to be more difficult than I thought’ is just wishful dreaming.
The prospect of cornered Putin and humiliated and economically broken Russia with all its nuclear weapons is scary as hell.
Still, the same voices are telling: He is bluffing. Well, he has proven to be unpredictable and now his back is much closer to the wall than before.
I lived through the tail end of the cold war, I am more scared now than I was then.
But @esteban, your entire statement is based on accepting the premise that Putin, and Russia, have a right to influence what happens in other countries beyond their borders.
The west is not ‘pushing eastward’. NATO is a defensive alliance, with nations free to join or leave as they wish. Joining NATO does not mean a country declares itself an enemy of Russia. Russia itself could apply to join NATO if it wished.
You cannot compare NATO with either the Soviet empire or Putin’s emerging sphere of influence which are based on conquest and subjugation. If you think he only wanted a ‘neutral’ Ukraine then that’s very naive. He wants an eastern Europe that isn’t free, so he can subjugate it.
Of course I agree with you that Russian military capabilities are being exposed as almost laughably weak. Western opinion of their capabilities has no doubt been massively over-inflated for decades. The problem is Putin only has to hint about nuclear weapons and he is allowed to invade whoever he wants. We can’t go on like this, running scared every time he says that word. Some day we’re going to have to call his bluff and just throw him out of wherever he’s invading.
It might be an option to declare a no-fly zone beginning a few days in the future. The delay gives you a chance to gauge his reaction. One could also play him at his own game, stating that if he escalates by using tactical nuclear weapons in theatre then NATO will obliterate Moscow. The dynamic might change when he finds himself on the other end of an outrageous threat.
