FancyCat

The lines that go thru Poland and Ukraine remain, and still flow with gas mind you. How so?

There are multiple lines from Russia to Europe, aside from using Nord Stream to skip paying transit fees to Poland or Ukraine, the Nord Stream is designed to allow the gas to flow to Western Europe without pesky interference from Ukraine or Poland. Like a situation where Ukraine is being invaded and Europe refuses to assist, destroying the pipeline might be quite fair. But Ukraine is holding out, Europe supports it, Russia is paying the transit fees, so all is well. Except this dispute threatens it. Who is the one causing issues? Maybe Ukraine, but considering Russia’s entire messaging has been a freezing Europe forced to beg Russia for gas and to stop supporting Ukraine….I really don’t think it’s not Russia. You mean Russia? The U.S gets way more punishment in rising fuel costs worldwide fueling inflation than any benefit to increasing dependence on U.S LNG. No, I don’t think you understand, Norwegian LNG is a significant source of supply to the rest of Europe, it is entirely offshore. I’m assuming it is all in use. Russia blowing up one of those lines might be considered too much a escalation for NATO to ignore. Better to blow NS 1 and NS 2 and make clear if Russia wants Europe to freeze, it can do so by destroying the Norwegian pipelines. If Europe folds in the future, the pipelines thru Ukraine and Poland remain to supply Europe.

Could be factions of the Russian government infighting. Both NS1 and NS2 were offline so no damage was done to current gas imports. Today, Gazprom threatened to stop paying Ukraine for transit of gas. What capability does Ukraine have to take out a pipeline? Also, what reason to damage relations with the EU? If they want to keep lobbying for money and guns, all Ukraine needs to do is send Klitschko. seems far more evident this is a threat towards the actual functioning, with gas flowing for use pipelines like the Norwegian pipes. Blow the pipelines that aren’t being used, to send a message that Russia has the ability to destroy European energy and to persuade Europe to abandon Ukraine.

Was it Kamil where I saw this? Or elsewhere? Or both? Oh well. It’s been suggested while Putin is great at hybrid conflict, he is not a military man. Some emphasis on how Ukraine was seen, FSB kept the lead over Ukraine and other former Soviet republics instead of the GRU and SVR. The early reports that the FSB leadership was cleared out after their failure in Ukraine looks to be false. Decent chance Putin has not undertaken the reform needed to improve the intel on Ukraine.

The rise in energy costs and associated inflation affects the U.S more than any revenue from more expensive exports of gas would cover. As for the video of Nuland, in 2021, the U.S would actually withdraw sanctions and let the pipeline go forward, we know now following the invasion, that the U.S, being aware of the potential invasion, and lining up a united front, asked Germany to let the pipeline go on the chopping block, which Germany agreed in the event of war, believing Russia was bluffing, and seeing the opportunity to finally get the pipeline underway. in hindsight, it was one of the most beneficial foreign policy decisions by the Biden administration, ensuring a united NATO alliance, allowing France and Germany to seek out negotiations, and when Russia invaded, ensured sanctions would be very tough.

rumors so who knows, Biden and NATO intelligence will know more, but I was hoping Ukraine could have the chance to retake more territory before Putin places nukes actually on the table. Insisting on seizing gains made this year, is a much more difficult place for the West to accept than Russia retaining Crimea and the pre-invasion borders of the puppet republics.

IFV, I was only talking about tanks. yes, no need to continue the discussion further.

You asserted that it was unfair for Germany to get the blunt of the blame on arming Ukraine with a Western MBT, I have pointed out to you that it is well deserved. It is the best option for Ukraine, it is one of the most plentiful tanks in Europe, has a deep maintenance tail throughout NATO, uses less fuel and more range than the only other available western MBT the M1, and as a result of being the designer of the Leopard, Germany’s government can veto or allow the provision of the Leopard by any European state to Ukraine. Sorry, but those are the facts. Germany made a really good tank, in service with many European countries, nearly cornering the market as a result, and now blocks the Leopard from going to Ukraine for some reason that I find extremely unreasonable, that the German public itself finds unreasonable. I am unsure how I am being unfair to Germany when it looks pretty clear they deserve the scorn. And yes, I’m referring to the German government.

Sweden which uses the Leopard 2 based design for the Strv 122? Of which also, there are only 42 in service?

Oh ya, how dare the U.S poke the scary Russian bear so it tries to kill Ukraine. Thanks for ignoring Russian agency, Putin going on multiple genocidal rants about Ukraine, and Ukraine trying to chart a course where it does not become a puppet state of Russia. BLID reported that German military industry was ready to export to Ukraine. I already pointed out to you that pretending like Germany only controls the export of only her tanks is false, she controls the export of nearly every European state, the export of the only tank considered within widespread usage in NATO. Germany’s opposition literally blocks the only realistic option for Ukraine.

Germany has export control on Leopards so…..we have the British Challenger, French Leclerc, and American M1, that’s it for Western MBTs. Both the Challenger and Leclerc have probably less than 200 in active service with no European state other than the original makers using them. In comparison, Greece has 500 Leopard 1s, a ring exchange for Leopard 2s would actually be applauded. Leopard 2, if you recall the proposal by Huba, a scheme where every European state gives a few tanks would amount to a lot, enough for a unit in Ukraine. M1, again, relies on American logistical prowess to operate, the Leopard is the only suitable tank, and the only widely used European tank, and we have rumors of Germany denying the export of the Leopard to Ukraine by other countries. Germany acting like it is going alone, makes no sense cause literally no European state can give a Leopard tank to Ukraine without German approval.

So aside from threatening the remaining pipelines and other underwater infrastructure, and warning Germany from increasing aid to Ukraine, I want to point out the most serious problem if Russia is behind this is this is quite close to a act of war. If Russia tries to do it again, and NATO identifies the action, does NATO start what could potentially be a war? Or does it let Russia destroy European energy? The answer is obvious, NATO needs to stop the attack and then, I assume not retaliate, just sink the offending vessel. Then, dare Russia to declare war or back down. Dangerous times. Something else to note, that he does this now, it’s a signal to the West, let him have what he occupies now forever or he will escalate. And obviously, that is unacceptable for both Ukraine and the West.

Messages can have multiple meanings, the fact that only one NS2 pipeline remains with both NS1 gone, when NS2 was was shut down as punishment for the invasion of Ukraine, well.....

My anger is only with Scholz and those he represents in the cautious camp. I have posted very approving words regarding for example, the Greens political party in Germany, and noted the German public is behind sending tanks to Ukraine. But there is a lot of smoke around German refusal to ship aid to Ukraine, that cannot be explained by the many excuses given by Germany (or i suppose to be accurate, SPD and Scholz) so far. Worried about WW2 and its legacy does not mesh with high German public approval for tanks to Ukraine. Escalation, does not mesh with Russian actions on NATO's fronts. unified response, does not mesh with the words of the U.S Embassy in Berlin. The Dingo mrap, the tweet notes the turnaround in the decision to send them, occurred in a week. As we all know, the Dingo is just a oversized armored car, hardly any logistical issues that could be explained for IFV or MBT shipments. But Germany first refused, stating the inane excuse that it needed to defend the Eastern flank with mraps o.O. I think everyone in this forum can understand why that does not smell right. The German admiral, you can see in the tweet him stating what he said. Chancellor Schröder worked for Russian oil giant Gazprom in several high profile roles. Butschi did not go into detail about what is rumors so I cannot respond otherwise but we have clear indications Germany is dragging its feet on Ukraine despite even majority domestic approval for otherwise, yet they persist in being slow and indecisive, earning it weakening reputation in Europe. I want a strong Germany to defend Europe, but at this point, it would be silly to not ask if Germany is just afraid of its own shadow, or hedging its bets? perfect timing too, the pipelines getting cut, Putin's mafia state is making it clear that if Germany tries to assist Ukraine or raise its assistance, there will be no more NS1 or NS2, now does Germany fold, or does Germany do what's right? Or does Germany keep saying things like "Russia is engaged in a imperialist war" and being shocked at Ukrainian civilians being killed, and then stubbornly denying Ukraine what it needs to liberate her people?

The Dingo fiasco - U.S Embassy Berlin quote tweeting a BILD article where Scholz denies tanks to Ukraine, calling for all aid possible to Ukraine be given, and is up to the individual country to decide. - Inspector General of the German Navy - remarking directly with Indian counterparts. No Marders to Ukraine - This was in April, even with logistical and training issues, surely after months, Ukraine would be able to field a force if Germany had the guts to start then. - If Germany is making such grand statements like this: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2022/09/16/germany-must-shake-off-its-habit-of-finding-excuses-for-inaction/ Maybe its time we ask Germany to either get its head together or question Germany why despite sounding so in sync on its position in Europe, why it is acting like a sheep in regards to Ukraine. Do you need receipts on former Chancellor Schröder? Do you need receipts on Russia erasing Ukrainian contribution to Soviet victory? - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/we-had-to-do-this-berlin-museum-to-drop-russian-from-name https://www.dw.com/en/on-victory-day-past-and-present-collide-in-berlin/a-61737696

Not really. The main reason for badgering Germany is the fact that the U.S would need to transport M1s likely from the U.S, logistical requirements for the M1 are much higher than the Leopard, only the U.S uses it so any maintenance facilities in Europe are wholly a U.S supported operation. In contrast, Leopard 1 and 2, from wiki, current NATO operators are: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, Italy. So any maintenance in Europe needed after combat use in Ukraine, NATO can rely on a wide assortment of personnel and facilities for repair. Leopard has better range for less fuel, essential for a country with not wholly secure fuel facilities and logistics. For Germany to hide behind the fact that no other country is sending Ukraine a MBT when the Leopard 2 is basically the best tank for Ukraine to use, is a crap excuse and the only tank in plentiful stock. Does the U.S need to send a token unit of M1s so Germany's feelings are mollified? Can Ukraine return the M1s after Germany stops being scared? Ridiculous.

Something to point out, the West/NATO must appear united, and we know pre-invasion, the U.S and Germany had reached a agreement on Nord Stream 2 being shut down in the event of invasion IF Germany and France were allowed to operate diplomatically to try and defuse the conflict. We have rumors that the main reason why no IFVs or MBTs is due to German reluctance, and therefore in order not pierce the alliance unity, all countries adopt the same stance. As already stated, its rumored that several European countries have indicated willingness to give the Leopard to Ukraine, but Germany is shooting down the export. We have rumors abounding from the German military industrial sector of a ability to fulfill contracts, but the government is slow walking or ignoring their offers. The way Scholz and the German Government has been acting, in completely contradicting circumstances, one week saying no armored cars, the next week saying yes after public pressure is too high to ignore, gives very little credibility to Germany's excuses. Something else to point, Germany exports military hardware to many countries with less than acceptable human rights policies, but for Ukraine, drags its feet like it is in quicksand. The fact that the Dingo, a MRAP caused so much anguish for Germany, even as Ukraine finds more and more war crimes and endures the loss of its personnel in offensives, is just unacceptable. Germany is also acting like smug ****s, when they haven't done anything worth talking about, nothing unique, and tried to assert they needed the Dingo to defend Poland and the Baltics, considering their stance on Ukraine, that must get Poland and the Baltics seething. Also, handing over Marders to Greece so it can give BMP-1s to Ukraine, is just insulting. Absolutely insulting. Does not matter if logistically hard for Ukraine, it looks really bad for Germany to hand over Marders that are better to a non-combatant so they can offload their junk to Ukraine. Germany has no problem selling military hardware generally. I will bring up the fact that the Inspector General (Secretary of the navy?) had to resign in January of this year due to saying that Putin needed respect, Russia and Germany should be cooperating against China, and that Crimea was gone from Ukraine. Very little for any of the states between Germany and Russia to feel pleased about, considering the carving of Poland and the Baltics in WW2 and prior. Does not seem like a lot of studying was done by the German government towards how the Baltics, Poland and Ukraine might feel about deals between Germany and Russia now eh? Not a lot of consideration for how they feel and the wounds inflicted on them by Germany historically hmm? On one hand, saying the Soviet Union's successor is Russia, and therefore is a former rival to Germany is right, but Ukraine was also part of the Soviet Union, and enjoyed German tanks rolling over the same hills and plains Ukraine is attempting to liberate from Russia, yet instead of a pledge to do right for Ukraine, we get this bull**** of a Marder being exchanged to Greece. On that note, so much money into Germany by Russia, a lot of politicians, including a former Chancellor owned by that money. It really comes down to the fact that Germany has a lot of incentive to not supply Ukraine, and a lot of factors that influence it to not do so, which would be less of a issue had Germany been revving to support Ukraine like Poland or the UK, or even the quieter U.S. but alas, none to be seen, so yes, Germany is gonna get slammed for being useless. I mean look at these quotes from a NYT article on a interview he did two days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world/europe/olaf-scholz-germany-ukraine-war.html How the **** can Ukraine not scream at Germany rightly when it Scholz says this? How can the Baltics, Poland, Finland or any other country in the target lens of a Russia intent on genocide and destruction be fine with that statement?!? I think we can all agree by now that the risk of NATO vs Russia is very low, (again, air defense batteries defending Moscow and the St. Petersburg region have been moved to Ukraine, and the Western Military District, supposed to fight NATO has been similarly drained of resources and personnel as well) and the fact that Ukraine unable to make offensive moves without NATO support is just doomed to have its people genocided on occupied land is just astoundingly insulting. "Russia can't win"?!?! Makes Macron look like a ****ing Ukrainian nationalist in comparison. Germany does not get to hide behind WW2 and act like it is killing Russia by sending tanks to Ukraine. Actually, Germany is letting Ukrainians die so they don't hurt Russian feelings. Just complete erasure of Ukraine and Ukrainians in enduring Nazi crimes and marching to Berlin and achieving Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. Why Russia has attempted for so long and hard to gloss over Soviet contributions by Ukraine over WW2 victory, is to diminish Ukraine in the eyes of Germany, so long wedded to atoning for their sins. Except the German public wants tanks sent! It is clearly not a unpopular move, which just leads us to the more cynical explanations.

Kraze, forgive me if you explained already, how are we supposed to take apart Russia or control their government when they have nukes?

So how is the weather in Ukraine? Have the rains begun? If so then how do you expect Ukraine to advance or is it that bad until Winter? Or past winter?

its a river of ammo.

They are literally sending the men of the occupied regions of Ukraine to their deaths. Apparently, they are probably recently mobilized from Russia or some contract personnel. Which sadly does not make it more likely that the conscripted men of occupied Ukraine won't get the same or worse treatment. On that note, Russian media control is heavy in the DPR and LNR, if the idea behind a easier peace is to let them persist and show Ukraine off as a lure to encourage integration, isn't the solution merely to turn to Russia and close off the view to Ukraine? And even if Russia cannot fund the DPR and LNR or Crimea, what prevents them from merely just existing and closed off? And what about the pro-Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars who have assisted Ukraine, who remained loyal to Ukraine, in the hopes of ensuring liberation? It's only been 8 years. Arguing that Ukraine may decide give up the occupied Donbas to not lose thousands of men in favor of a easier peace would be a worthwhile argument if the West didn't have the tools to ensure that Ukraine could conquer the territory without losing personnel. Just give them F-16s, give them the bombs needed to destroy emplacements, the stand off weapons like ATACMS to damage the separatists without risking ZSU personnel. ....humbug, what kinda of people are we, acting like Ukraine is gonna have to do a long attritional war when the West built their military around ending the potential for attritional wars, give Ukraine everything it needs and it will end the conflict without sacrificing thousands of men. There isn't any reason for the West to urge Ukraine to not retake all her lands except for fear of Russia.

Some problems will never be solved.

Like I said, there is no way to actually overthrow the Russian government, and even if you did so, at some point, that Russia may be likely to reinitialize its empire building so any idea along the lines of assisting the Russian government will eventually hit the roadblock of sacrificing a smaller state along Russia's border to appease internal Russian tensions, the same concept as how Chechnya, Georgia got attacked by Russia. The best idea is just accept that Russia will exist, will come back, and ensure Ukraine and other border states are in the best position to oppose Russia. Again, the best way of doing that is ensuring the borders of Russia have no pesky annoying puppet states Like Luhansk or Donetsk that claim their de facto provincial borders that need "Russian liberation" and it is certainly cheaper than trying to invade/occupy/control Russia. Literally no point in trying to make a agreement with the Russian government, who will betray it, or force the West to betray those states who go to the West for assistance.

You cannot "manage" a nuclear state. Influence it sure, maybe leverage internal tensions to be a kingmaker, but at the end of the day, if they get out of your control, there is nothing you can do to get it back due to the nuclear control, and I think Ukraine understands that better than anyone, which is why undoubtedly, despite NATO and EU membership, Ukraine will retain faith in their armaments rather than completely in alliances. Since Russia is eternal, we might as well go for total victory in Ukraine, since it will be impossible to ensure Russia does not come back. "natural state" imo, if there is a lesson to take from the experiences in the Middle East, nation building is impossible. Nation changing is near impossible. Nation changing a nuclear power is also impossible. The contrast that lots of people who advocate nation building miss is the two shining examples of it being successful, Japan and Germany both were nations, and therefore we were not "nation building" but revitalizing. A ignorance of Ukraine is probably contributing to the idea that Western aid to Ukraine is "nation building", no Ukraine has its own nation and society and structure that we are merely revitalizing and assisting. Big differences.