Author Topic: Russia/US-- Europe  (Read 197518 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Oil Weapon Against Moscow
« Reply #1050 on: March 26, 2024, 05:49:49 PM »
The Oil Weapon Against Moscow
In 1986 the U.S. and Saudi Arabia raised production. That move contributed to the Soviet collapse.
By Andriy Yermak
March 26, 2024 4:09 pm ET



Russia’s economy depends on the country’s natural resources, as it did in the Soviet era. Its growth depends on the price of oil—which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet empire and will determine Vladimir Putin’s current bid to restore the regime. It is oil that can thwart the Russian dictator’s revanchist ambitions.

In 1984, 613 million tons of oil were extracted in the Soviet Union—3 million tons less than in 1983 and well below that year’s target of 624 million tons. The Soviets sustained enormous financial losses because of the shortfall, exposing the vulnerability of the economy, which was depleting old oil deposits. To increase production, the U.S.S.R. needed Western technology. It also needed Western money, which it funneled into its military-industrial complex to threaten the West. When Mr. Putin turned energy into a geopolitical weapon, he was using an old Soviet playbook.

Then, the West saw an opportunity to erode Moscow’s finances by lowering oil prices and increasing output—as it should today. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia developed a plan to lower the price of oil. A reduction of $10 a barrel would mean a $10 billion loss for the Soviets over a year. Saudi Arabia, the most influential player in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, bucked OPEC’s consensus and increased production. The U.S. also stepped up production—and imposed an embargo on technology exports to the U.S.S.R. Oil prices plummeted even more than expected—to $12 a barrel. The colossal losses, combined with massive military spending, undermined the Soviet economy.

What happened later is well known: The U.S.S.R. collapsed in 1991. The world’s largest nuclear arsenal couldn’t save it.

But history shows that when Russia is flush with oil money, it tries to reassert its global dominance. Russia’s growth under Mr. Putin is thanks to soaring oil prices. In 2011-14, oil and gas revenue in Russia exceeded 50% of federal revenue. In recent years, oil and gas have accounted for up to 60% of Russia’s total goods exports and 40% of federal revenue.

Billions of dollars in oil and gas profits fuel the Kremlin’s imperialism and revanchism. The West must ratchet up sanctions to make Russia’s oil trade less profitable, while also increasing Saudi and U.S. oil output. The West should also cut off Russia’s access to technologies, including by imposing sanctions on intermediaries. Lowering oil’s price to $30 a barrel would help. But without new supply sources, price caps won’t work. Ukraine and the world need Saudi Arabia and the U.S. to take the lead. As in the 1980s, increasing production will tame both Moscow and Tehran, which is the key to peace in Europe and the Middle East.

I co-chair an international working group on sanctions with Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia. According to estimates by our group, restrictions on Russian oil, including the European Union embargo and Group of Seven price cap, have cost Moscow $113 billion in export revenue since the invasion. Russia still allocated $102 billion for military spending in 2023, keeping the war machine well-funded and giving Mr. Putin scant incentive to negotiate. For Ukraine to prevail, oil prices must come down significantly.

The Kremlin is incapable of engaging in equal dialogue—it only pretends to do so. From 2014 to 2022, Ukraine conducted some 200 rounds of negotiations with Russia, seeking a peaceful resolution to Moscow’s attempted annexation of Crimea and temporary occupation of parts of Eastern Ukraine. Every time, Russia violated any arrangements. As long as Moscow refuses to recognize Ukraine’s international sovereignty, efforts at peace are futile.

Mr. Putin’s Russia, fueled by oil revenue, has no incentive to pursue peace, but instead aims to restore the U.S.S.R. and its sphere of influence. Mr. Putin isn’t bound by ideological principles other than a lust for power and will support extremists around the world to promote chaos. Pursuing this malign agenda requires oil revenue.

To save the world from another century of turmoil, the West must replicate the successful example from the 1980s. Once again, it can outmaneuver Moscow and Tehran and reclaim the initiative.

Mr. Yermak is head of the Office of the president of Ukraine

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
GPF: NATO weighs future Uke support
« Reply #1051 on: April 10, 2024, 01:54:43 PM »
April 8, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

NATO Weighs Its Future Ukraine Support
The alliance isn’t ready to back down.
By: Antonia Colibasanu

NATO marked its 75th anniversary last week. The moment was naturally accompanied by talk about the future of the Ukraine war and the alliance’s support for Kyiv. On Wednesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg proposed creating a 100 billion-euro ($108 billion) fund to provide military support to Ukraine over the next five years, a move that would mark a significant milestone in the alliance’s backing for the country.

The idea was met with mixed reactions. Until recently, voluntary Western support for Ukraine has been coordinated through the Ramstein group (formally the Ukraine Defense Contact Group), a U.S.-led coalition of 56 countries, including all 32 NATO members. While NATO allies are expected to discuss the proposal at their gathering in July, European members seem set to approve it to send a message about their continued support for Kyiv.

Many of the details are up for debate, but Stoltenberg’s plan envisages a fund comprising contributions from NATO members with the aim of providing financial assistance to Ukraine over the next five years. The money would supplement U.S. support for Ukraine, while Congress holds up a key $60 billion aid package. For Europe, the main reason for the plan is that they worry that if Donald Trump wins the presidency in November, the position of European countries within NATO could be compromised. Indeed, Trump’s appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February – where he spoke of his desire for retribution against people, countries and organizations he believes mistreated him – seems to have compelled European governments to push for more action on Ukraine, as European NATO members are near the top of Trump’s list of adversaries.

At the same time, domestic politics in the leading European countries, most notably Germany and France, have also played a role. In Germany, some 82 percent of respondents in a recent poll said they believe NATO is important to securing peace in Europe, while only around 10 percent consider it is unnecessary. Even among supporters of populist parties that have been critical of NATO, such as Alternative for Germany and the newly founded Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, only a minority are in favor of dissolving the alliance. In addition, seven out of 10 Germans believe the danger to European peace and security is serious or very serious, up significantly from five years ago. The result of this rising unease appears to be increased support for NATO, which has backed Germany’s plan to rapidly build up its military. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Chancellor Olaf Scholz established a special budget worth 100 billion euros to modernize the Bundeswehr. The majority of the money is tied up in orders for expensive military equipment. Furthermore, according to recent surveys, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is by far the most popular politician in Germany.

The situation in France is somewhat different. The leadership’s concern for Ukraine seems to outweigh that of the French public, which is more concerned with the country’s socio-economic problems. According to surveys, French business activity decreased for the 11th consecutive month in March, as demand for French goods and services weakened and employment fell. Moreover, Paris is trying to reassure financial markets after official numbers released last month revealed that the public deficit for 2023 exceeded government targets. With France already seeing high interest rates and Europe’s highest ratio of taxes to gross domestic product, the administration is considering reducing social benefits and local government budgets, a politically sensitive move in a country that values its social safety net.

Thus, it seems that French President Emmanuel Macron may have been trying to distract public attention by asking for more help for Ukraine, even calling recently for troops on the ground. France’s fiscal realities may hinder Macron’s call for further joint borrowing to fund European security programs, but his ambitions to lead Europe in a time of war remain. After all, unlike Germany, France has long had a formidable military and doesn’t need to rebuild it. Paris’ focus, therefore, is on public perceptions as it tries to assert itself as an important player in Ukraine – which will be key to boosting its posture in Europe and within NATO. France also recognizes the possibility that the U.S. may soon expect Europe to assume more of the burden for Ukraine (especially if Trump becomes president), which would require a transfer of responsibility from the U.S. to its European partners.

NATO’s potential future focus on burden shifting, rather than burden sharing, is also why France has tried to underline its efforts to help Kyiv. According to the French Ministry of Defense, the value of French military equipment delivered to Kyiv by the end of 2023 was 2.6 billion euros. Paris contributed a further 1.2 billion euros to the European Peace Facility, bringing its total spending on Ukraine to 3.8 billion euros.

The U.S.’ contributions still eclipse France’s, however. According to the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. has spent the equivalent of 69.1 billion euros in financing and equipment for Ukraine, 18 times more than Paris. However, according to estimates from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, EU institutions combined provided the most military, humanitarian and financial help to Ukraine, followed by individual states like the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and Denmark. These figures show that Europe is already in a good position to boost its share of the burden.

Government Support to Ukraine

(click to enlarge)

Russia, meanwhile, will certainly exploit these measures in upcoming election campaigns in Western countries, painting the West as the aggressor and the main obstacle to a settlement to the conflict. All of this will be carefully considered as NATO gets closer to the July summit.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
GPF: Russia--Moldova
« Reply #1052 on: April 22, 2024, 11:06:05 AM »


Moldovan politics. Anti-EU opposition parties in Moldova announced on Sunday that they are forming a new coalition to run in upcoming elections. The announcement of the Victory alliance, headed by fugitive businessman Ilan Shor, was made in Moscow. The pro-Russia leader of the semi-autonomous Gagauzia region, Evgenia Gutsul, is also joining the coalition and attended the ceremony.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
FO: Poland ready to accept nukes
« Reply #1053 on: April 22, 2024, 11:27:22 AM »
(5) POLAND ‘READY TO HOST NATO NUKES’: Polish President Andrzej Duda said that Poland is ready to host NATO nuclear weapons in response to Russia’s deployment of nuclear weapons to Belarus.
“If our allies decide to deploy nuclear arms on our territory as part of nuclear sharing to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank, we are ready to do so,” Duda said.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk seemed surprised by the statement.
Why It Matters: The statement drew a harsh response from Russia, with foreign minister Sergei Lavrov again warning that Russia and NATO are “teetering dangerously” on nuclear war. These statements are not uncommon, but nuclear reposturing in light of a new weapons package to Ukraine is a dangerous development. – M.S.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
British PM Rishi Sunak
« Reply #1057 on: April 28, 2024, 05:21:56 AM »
Britain Does Its Part in Ukraine and on Defense Spending
Our military budget will reach 2.5% of GDP by 2030. European allies need to step up as well.
By Rishi Sunak
April 26, 2024 4:01 pm ET



To China's frustration, the Aukus partnership between the U.S., U.K. and Australia to deliver Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines is gaining ground, despite funding challenges to the U.S. submarine industrial base. Images: U.S. Navy/Zuma Press/AP Composite: Mark Kelly
Britons understand and appreciate the vital role the U.S. plays in the world. We are proud to be Washington’s closest ally and welcome the supplemental support for Ukraine that Congress passed and President Biden signed Wednesday.

This funding will make a huge difference in the fight against tyranny in Europe. We welcome the administration’s leadership, which advances not only our interests but also those of the U.S.

China and Iran are closely watching what happens in Ukraine. A victory for authoritarianism and aggression would make us all less secure. For those who recognize the need for Europe to do more for its own security, America’s aid package is an inspiration and an incentive to do so.

The U.K. has acted. This week I announced a major and immediate increase in Britain’s support for Ukraine and in our defense spending, which will reach 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2030. We understand that being an ally means matching words with actions.

That is why the U.K. fought against fascism and communism, and alongside the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is why we both stood firmly with Ukraine and most recently joined in the defense of international shipping from Houthi attacks. It is why we helped protect Israel from Iran’s missiles and drones. When the going gets tough, we are a steadfast partner: a fellow permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, always by America’s side.

Since Russia’s invasion, the U.K. has been at the forefront of the coalition supporting Ukraine. We were proud to have been the first European country to mobilize lethal aid, from tanks to long-range weapons.

We know that being an ally also requires burden-sharing and investment. At the 2014 North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in the U.K., we agreed that each member state was to contribute 2% of its GDP toward defense. We spearheaded that effort because we worried that since the end of the Cold War, Europeans nations had been cutting defense budgets and relying only on NATO for their security. This wasn’t sustainable—and the U.S. and the U.K. are winning the argument for changing course. In 2014, only four NATO members spent 2% on defense. Today, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg puts the figure at 18.

Since 2020 the U.K. has increased defense spending steadily, and as chancellor I granted the largest single increase in spending since the end of the Cold War. As Winston Churchill understood, failing to rearm only emboldens your adversaries. And as Ronald Reagan demonstrated, boosting defense spending is the best way to deter enemies and ensure our values prevail.

The U.K.’s increased investment has allowed us to commit to new capabilities such as the alliance among Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. Aukus will contribute to security in areas such as the Indo-Pacific—one of America’s top priorities. The U.K. also is putting more funding into our nuclear deterrent, which forms part of NATO’s nuclear umbrella, and the stockpiles vital to war readiness on the Continent and in Ukraine.

During a visit to Poland and Germany this week, I agreed to enhance our defense-spending commitments with the biggest single investment for a generation.

We will provide more for Ukraine—with a package that brings total U.K. military support to nearly $15 billion. Overall European support is now $180 billion. The U.K. was the first country to make a long-term security guarantee with Ukraine, which I signed on my visit to Kyiv in January. We will now commit to sustain our support for Ukraine at least at the same levels until the end of the decade.

We are also increasing overall defense spending. Our new baseline is 2.5% of GDP, effective immediately. This will mean an additional $93.6 billion for defense over the next six years.

As I told Mr. Stoltenberg this week, I hope this will become the new baseline for all allies. America should be assured that more European countries are stepping up. Our friends and neighbors are listening to our argument that we can’t expect America to pay any price and bear any burden if we on this side of the Atlantic aren’t prepared to invest in our own security.

Among America’s allies, including the whole of the rest of the Group of Seven, the U.K. is the biggest spender on defense by a significant margin. This is bolstered by our close intelligence cooperation and military interoperability. Above all, however, what distinguishes our partnership is our shared willingness to act.

The challenges to global security are growing. Members of an axis of authoritarian states—Russia, Iran, North Korea and China—are determined to challenge the post-Cold War order that has provided unprecedented prosperity. We must act to deter our enemies, defend our values and secure our interests. Our decision to increase our defense budget proves that—as it always has—the U.K. stands ready to play its role.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19530
    • View Profile
Russian Studies, Prof Lawrence Freedman, Stanford
« Reply #1058 on: April 28, 2024, 03:52:04 PM »
https://samf.substack.com/p/escalation-red-lines-risk-and-the

Read in entirety.  Not fair to excerpt, but here is a current observation:

"Even if Trump wins the presidential election in November, that does not guarantee Putin a satisfactory outcome. Trump will want to push his peace plan but, from what has been reported, Putin will find the details as unacceptable as will Zelenskyy. Having publicly boasted for the past six months that Russia had seized the initiative in the war, Putin must now contemplate the possibility that it might yet again swing towards Ukraine."

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19836
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #1059 on: April 28, 2024, 04:25:25 PM »
Asked how, Trump said he would meet both Zelensky and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, telling Collins, “They both have weaknesses and they both have strengths and within 24 hours that war will be settled, that war will be over.”

wow in 24 hrs!

he would be the greatest negotiator ever, by a lot!

I am a definite skeptic:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=song%20promises%20promises%20videos&FORM=VIRE0&mid=B7064ADDBB5DBDE3170AB7064ADDBB5DBDE3170A&view=detail&ru=%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dsong%20promises%20promises

Hopefully though, we will have the chance to see what Trumpster can do.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #1060 on: April 28, 2024, 05:38:33 PM »
We had the absence of conflict with Russia due to his craftiness and look what Baraq 3.0/Biden have done with  that.

He never dissed Putin personally-- not an accident!  If he has an honorable off ramp for Putin he might well be tempted.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19530
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #1061 on: April 28, 2024, 07:26:38 PM »
"If he has an honorable off ramp for Putin he might well be tempted."

  Yes, this.  He already won what he wanted.  Now all these lives and deaths are about ego.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19836
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #1062 on: April 29, 2024, 05:50:42 AM »
Well, if Trump gets in then perhaps this could happen.
I am thinking he would have to threaten Russia in some way
and also threaten to cease support to Ukraine if they don't deal.

I am certainly good with such a deal.
Not worth Donbass (mostly Russian speaking people I read anyway) or the small land around it, if you ask me.

To me this is the BEST option anyway.
Question is will Putin agree?
Will Zelensky agree?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #1063 on: April 30, 2024, 02:30:35 PM »


https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nato-russia-spending-membership-eab4a10a?mod=hp_lead_pos9

Maps and graphics too
==================

NATO Prepares to Face Russia—and Problems of Its Own
By Daniel MichaelsFollow
April 30, 2024 12:01 am ET


ADAZI MILITARY BASE, Latvia—NATO troops from 14 nations amassed last month in a wooded area here to take part in the alliance’s biggest military exercise since the Cold War. Once again, the focus was Russia.

The drill began in the early morning darkness with a warning: Enemy forces had crossed Latvia’s border with Russia and were closing on the capital. Communicating in various languages over different kinds of radios, the troops raced to push the mock invaders toward wetlands that would bog down their tanks.

“What’s most important is to demonstrate readiness to act quickly and deploy to defend Latvian and NATO borders,” said Latvian Army Col. Oskars Kudlis, who was commanding a brigade of heavy armored vehicles from a position in the forest. The response required troops from as far away as Canada and Albania to work out kinks in communications, absorb one another’s battlefield practices and coordinate disparate weapons systems.

Ever since Moscow seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has had its eye on Europe’s border with Russia. This year’s exercise, called Steadfast Defender 2024, aims to send a message to Moscow: The alliance stands ready to defend its members—especially those near Russia’s border, including Latvia.

After the Cold War, differences in language, communications systems and weaponry within NATO mattered little because its troops rarely fought shoulder-to-shoulder. Instead, many rotated through short-term deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, planned long in advance. Equipment needs were clear and each ally handled its own provisioning.

Now, preparing for coalition warfare is once again NATO’s priority, and troops have to know how to work together on the battlefield. “The integration of all the countries is a challenge,” said Canadian Army Lt. Col. Jonathan Cox, who helped lead Exercise Crystal Arrow, the Latvian portion of the NATO maneuvers, which include air, land and sea drills across the alliance.

NATO, which marked its 75th anniversary on April 4, is getting stronger in some ways. Finland and Sweden have joined after decades of shunning membership. NATO’s European members are spending more on defense than they have since the Cold War. This year, for the first time in decades, the European members, on an aggregate basis, will meet their financial commitment to the alliance, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said recently.

But the alliance is plagued by other disputes. Leaders disagree on whether Ukraine and other aspiring members should be allowed to join. The contest to succeed Stoltenberg later this year has sparked acrimony between longtime members and newer ones from the former Eastern bloc.

And many NATO countries, including six of its 12 founding members, remain far from hitting the military budgeting levels they pledged to achieve a decade ago. That low spending has made them the target of attacks from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, sparking doubts about the alliance’s future if he wins in November.


Throughout history, many military alliances—including those that defeated Napoleon and won World War II—involved allied armies operating separately under common command. NATO’s objective is to prepare allies to fight side-by-side.

This year’s exercises, the largest since 1988, are being staged over four months through May, at locations stretching from the Arctic Circle to the Black Sea. They involve roughly 90,000 troops, 1,100 combat vehicles, 80 aircraft and 50 naval vessels.

The operation in Latvia was one of several staged near Europe’s border with Russia. In 2016, after Moscow had seized the Crimean Peninsula and helped foment rebellion in Ukraine’s east, NATO members agreed to rotate troops constantly through its vulnerable eastern members, specifying which member nation would take the lead in defending each country.

The U.S. took the lead in Poland, Germany did so with Lithuania, the U.K. with Estonia and Canada with Latvia. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, NATO beefed up its forces in those countries and added partnerships in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

Border force
The defense of each NATO state along the alliance's eastern border is led by one member nation, with others supporting it.

Host countries

Other NATO members

FINLAND

NORWAY

Lead nation: United Kingdom

SWEDEN

Supporting nations: France, Iceland

ESTONIA

RUSSIA

Canada

LATVIA

Albania, Czech Republic, Iceland,

Italy, Montenegro, North Macedonia,

Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain

Germany

LITHUANIA

Belgium, Czech Republic, Luxembourg,

Netherlands, Norway, U.S.

Baltic Sea

BELARUS

U.S.

Croatia, Romania,

United Kingdom

POLAND

UKRAINE

GERMANY

CZECH REP.

Czech Republic

SLOVAKIA

MOL.

Germany, Slovenia

AUSTRIA

France

HUNGARY

Hungary

Belgium, Luxembourg,

North Macedonia,

Poland, Portugal, U.S.

ROMANIA

Croatia, Italy, Turkey, U.S.

CROATIA

ITALY

SERBIA

Black Sea

Italy

BULGARIA

Albania, Greece, Montenegro,

North Macedonia, Turkey, U.S.

TURKEY

GREECE

Source: NATO
The partnerships have interwoven allies more closely than at any time since the Cold War, when the U.S., Britain and France kept troops permanently stationed in West Germany.

The Latvian exercise, staged near the capital, Riga, was one of NATO’s most international this year. Eleven member nations that already had troops deployed in Latvia, including Canada, were joined by forces from the U.S., Iceland, and Latvia’s neighbor, Estonia.

Canadian forces stationed in Latvia constitute Ottawa’s largest current overseas troop deployment. For many of those Canadians, defending against Russia is personal because they previously were stationed at a base in western Ukraine, training local forces in the years before Russia’s 2022 invasion. Two years ago, Moscow hit that base with missiles, destroying the barracks where Canadians had lived.


Canadian Army Lt. Col. Dan Richel, deputy commander of the Latvian operation led by Col. Kudlis, was posted with his family from Quebec to Latvia last August to help expand Canada’s presence. Most of his colleagues in the local headquarters are Latvian. He has started to learn the language, though most routine business is conducted in English, he said.


Latvian Army Col. Oskars Kudlis commended a brigade of heavy armored vehicles. PHOTO: DANIEL MICHAELS/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
NATO countries agreed in 2014 that by this year each would spend at least 2% of gross domestic product on defense.

Latvia, which was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1940 and didn’t win independence until 1991, will spend 2.4% of its GDP on defense this year, part of a plan to hit 3% in 2027. Canada allocates about 1.3% of its GDP to its military and has no plan to hit 2%.

NATO’s Stoltenberg and U.S. NATO Ambassador Julianne Smith chastised Canada this year for being among the only alliance countries not seeking to achieve the agreed target.


If Canada fails to meet its commitments, “how does that reflect on the coherence of the alliance?” said retired Vice Admiral Mark Norman, a former head of Canada’s navy who recently visited NATO headquarters in Brussels. Canada would probably increase defense spending only under duress “because the threat perception is just not there,” Norman said of the prevailing opinion inside Canada.

One of the alliance’s most fundamental divisions is a disparity in how member countries view threats. NATO lists terrorism and Russia as its main threats. Many officials in Turkey and other member nations along the Mediterranean Sea are more worried about regional conflicts, illegal migration and terrorism than about Russia.

Almost one-third of Latvia’s population of about 1.9 million people is Russian, a legacy of Soviet times. Tensions are high inside the country and along its borders with Russia and Belarus, an authoritarian state under Moscow’s sway.


Troops from 14 nations took part in Crystal Arrow. PHOTO: SGT. ERIKS KUKUTIS/LATVIAN ARMY
NATO planners consider an outright Russian invasion of a neighboring member country unlikely in the near future, though recently some military officials in NATO countries said Moscow could be strong enough to attack in a few years. Over the shorter term, they worry that Moscow might spark conflict in nearby countries by agitating local Russians and using tensions as pretext to intercede, as the Kremlin did in eastern Ukraine a decade ago.

Latvia joined NATO in 2004, 13 years after it gained independence from the Soviet Union. Since then, the alliance’s requirements and standards have compelled Latvia’s armed forces to modernize. Western military vehicles have replaced old Soviet models.

During the Crystal Arrow exercise, a battalion led by Latvian Army Lieut. Col. Gaidis Landratovs operated alongside U.S. troops. They played forces invading from the fictional nation of Occacus, identified with red Xs on their equipment. NATO avoids using names of real adversaries in training.

Canadian Lt. Col. Cox, temporarily stationed in Latvia to oversee NATO’s international battle group there, was commander of the defending forces, which included troops from 11 nations. When the mock invasion began, his forces moved and took defensive positions, awaiting word on their attackers.

Soldiers speaking different languages struggled to communicate. English and French are NATO’s official languages, but fluency varies.

Another problem, said Cox, was “radios that sometimes work together and most of the time don’t. But there’s always comms problems, no matter what happens.”


Operations succeed because of simple plans and integration, he said. “Every country has their own way of doing it, but the intent and the effect was the same across the battle group,” he said.

Uniformity has long been a challenge for NATO. In Crystal Arrow, allies deployed Canadian LAV-6 armored vehicles, American, German and Polish tanks, and Latvia’s British-made CVR-T reconnaissance vehicles. Each requires different spare parts and maintenance.

Standardizing big gear is daunting because producing it is a lucrative business that few countries want to surrender. The U.S. has about three-dozen main military systems such as planes, ships and tanks. In Europe, where most countries protect their national arms producers and often compete for export orders, alliance members use 172 models, according to NATO’s most senior military official, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer.


Smaller equipment can be problematic, too. Planners have struggled for years to ensure that secure field radios from various countries are compatible, a challenge deepened by the need for digital encryption and measures to counter electronic warfare.

After the Cold War, such technical differences mattered little because NATO troops from different countries rarely fought alongside one another. Now, they need to be able to share equipment and know that one army’s cannons can fire another’s shells.

Alliance planners have set equipment norms and worked to ensure that gear operates interchangeably. But even for one of NATO’s most basic standards, 155-millimeter artillery shells, members produce 14 different models, Bauer said. Some shells can’t go into other launchers, while some may fit but not link to targeting software.

Many of the nearly 200 different weapons systems provided to Ukraine have come from NATO nations. The hodgepodge has created a maintenance nightmare for Ukraine, which has had to scrounged to obtain spare parts for many.

U.S. Army Capt. Malcolm Edgar, who commands Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles in Lithuania, said finding ways around differences is one benefit of multicountry exercises like Crystal Arrow.

“We’re not just saying we can do this together,” but showing it’s possible, said Edgar. “It’s all about getting the sets and reps in.”


This year’s NATO exercises, including the one in Latvia, involve roughly 90,000 troops, 1,100 combat vehicles, 80 aircraft and 50 naval vessels. PHOTO: SGT. GATIS INDREVICS/LATVIAN ARMY
Write to Daniel Michaels at Dan.Michaels@wsj.com


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1704
    • View Profile
Alternative currency efforts
« Reply #1065 on: June 08, 2024, 05:01:34 AM »
I have said before there is no BRICS currency in the offing. Here for the first time, I hear of Putin speaking about a "system" thats under development. What seems to be happening is that trade between nations is in their local currencies and any balance is being settled in gold. They might also develop a SWIFT alternative.

https://x.com/i/status/1799076853300511093
« Last Edit: June 08, 2024, 06:04:08 AM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
WSJ
« Reply #1067 on: June 13, 2024, 04:42:07 PM »
NATO Gets Serious in the Face of Russia’s Threats
Members are working to develop regional plans and standardize procurement across the alliance.
By Daniel Silverberg and Elena McGovern
June 13, 2024 5:05 pm ET


Russia is menacing Europe, not only with its war against Ukraine but through its proposal to redraw maritime borders in the Baltic Sea. But recent developments within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization provide reason for optimism. Its partners are beginning to coordinate on overall defense strategy and weapons procurement, representing a major shift in how NATO operates. This new framework will benefit the alliance long-term.

The effort, known as the Concept for Deterrence and Defense of the Euro-Atlantic, will create a unified campaign plan, as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has put it, to “defend every inch of alliance territory.” It will also change how the U.S. defense industry sells platforms and services to NATO. Defense manufacturers and investors should pay attention.

The initiative emerged in 2020 against a backdrop of historically fractured military planning within the alliance. Most allied nations since NATO’s founding have pursued defense procurement individually, with limited regard for how certain weapons or systems would contribute to the overall NATO mission. As a result, NATO-member militaries are severely lacking in interoperability.

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 underscored the challenge this has created. While alliance members have the will to defend NATO territory, the relatively decentralized nature of procurement has meant that on some occasions European weapons platforms and munitions sent to Ukraine have been incompatible with other NATO member munitions. Allied manufacturers produce at least 14 different types of 155mm artillery systems, for instance, creating coordination challenges.

This situation is changing for the better. Building on the framework created in 2020, NATO leaders at the Vilnius Summit in Lithuania last summer laid out specific regional-defense plans that would cover the entire alliance territory. In military parlance, these regional plans serve as umbrellas over “subordinate strategic plans,” which detail common defense objectives across air, land, maritime, space, cyber and special operations. These plans specify what each NATO partner must do in the event of crisis across multiple regions and in specific domains.

The U.S. Mission to NATO wrote in an Instagram post last fall that these regional plans represent “an unprecedented level of military planning, particularly given the pace and scope of modern military operations.” If executed well, they will ensure the right players have the right capabilities and strategies to defend NATO territory.

A key challenge will be making sure NATO partners pursue the necessary training and procurement to execute their plans—no small feat given that members use different standards and plans to procure weapons. Ideally, each country would align its procurement with the military requirements derived from these broader regional plans. Challenges in Ukraine have also demonstrated that supply chains will need to be ready to deliver arms to NATO members quickly, while weapons manufacturers should be given incentives to standardize key components such as munitions so that members’ national defense systems are compatible with each other, allowing allies to fight a war together.

The Defense Production Action Plan, which alliance leaders agreed on at the 2023 Vilnius Summit, is intended to do exactly this—and that is welcome news. Member countries met at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year to discuss how to create common manufacturing capabilities. It’s good to see NATO countries coordinating more closely on what they’re buying rather than going it alone. This will require greater industry coordination with NATO, including through the NATO Industrial Advisory Group and the Defense Industrial Production Board.

The move to standardize weapons production isn’t merely bureaucratic hype; it has immediate battlefield implications for Ukraine. Germany currently can’t procure 155mm shells for Ukrainian artillery if those platforms don’t correspond. Other countries can’t provide key air-defense components or precision missiles if there’s no uniformity in procurement. A standardized procurement process would change that.

While there’s been much gloom surrounding NATO and Ukraine in recent years, these new developments in strategy and procurement should spark hope. On the eve of the alliance’s 75th-anniversary summit next month, NATO looks stronger, more unified and better prepared. That’s worth celebrating.

Mr. Silverberg and Ms. McGovern are co-heads of Capstone’s national-security team.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
Zeihan: Big Picture of Russia-US
« Reply #1068 on: June 17, 2024, 01:37:24 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
WSJ: A dangerous French election
« Reply #1069 on: June 29, 2024, 07:51:00 AM »
Many years ago I remember being surprised that the French Communist Party regularly received well over 20% of the vote.

In a more recent election, LePen took out a mega-loan from Russia.

==================

A Dangerous French Election
Victory by extremists of either left or right would pose peril to the Western alliance.
By Jillian Kay Melchior
June 28, 2024 5:59 pm ET



France votes for a new National Assembly on June 30 and July 7, and the far right and the left are both outperforming President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist coalition. If either extreme prevails, France could become a less reliable ally at a perilous moment for Europe and the world.

Marine Le Pen’s far-right Rassemblement National has harbored friendly ties with Russia, but it ostensibly moderated that stance in 2022. Following Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the RN knew “that a pro-Russian sentiment is not shared by their voters,” says Guillaume Ancel, a former military officer who has written several books about French defense and foreign policy. “But I’m completely sure they never changed their mind. They just changed their words.”

The RN’s critics point to the party’s record since February 2022. Ms. Le Pen condemned Russian military aggression in Ukraine but last year opposed sanctions on Russian energy as “ill-considered.” In March the RN abstained from voting for a France-Ukraine security agreement that pledged more military aid, as well as French support for Ukrainian accession to the European Union, closer ties between Kyiv and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a “pathway to a future” for Ukraine in the alliance.

RN President Jordan Bardella, who could become prime minister, says he supports Ukraine. But he opposes sending long-range missiles or other weapons that could strike Russian territory. The RN says it wants to pursue peace, but it “puts the onus on Ukraine,” says Rym Momtaz, a Paris-based fellow for the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British think tank.

An RN defense policy paper published in 2022 remained on the party’s website until a few weeks ago. It called for an “alliance” with Russia on “European security which cannot exist without it,” and on counterterrorism. “The United States does not always behave like an ally of France,” the paper read. “This American attitude must be taken into account to completely modify the bilateral relationship.” RN defenders point out that the paper was published before the 2022 invasion—but that was after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, annexed Crimea in 2014, and began chipping away at Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region that same year.

During the 2022 elections, a €9 million loan to RN made by the Moscow-based First Czech Russian Bank in 2014 became a political liability for Ms. Le Pen. She said in 2014 that she took the loan after unsuccessfully trying to borrow from French banks. The loan contract listed a repayment date of Sept. 23, 2019, but after that date came and went, observers questioned whether it was truly a loan or a donation. RN repaid the loan last year. Ms. Le Pen has said she “signed a loan with a bank, not with Vladimir Putin” and that no foreign power had sought effort to influence her.

Critics of RN say the party has failed to purge its pro-Russia members. RN member Thierry Mariani, a member of the European Parliament, is a co-chairman of the Franco-Russian Dialogue Group, an advocacy group that seeks to “strengthen cooperation between the two countries.” The French publication Mediapart has identified at least four current RN candidates—Hélène Laporte, Virginie Joron, Julie Lechanteux and Jean-Lin Lacapelle—who observed Russia’s sham election in 2020 and commented favorably on it. The presence of these elements within a governing RN might make Europe and the U.S. wary of sharing sensitive intelligence with France.

News reports two years ago aired similar concerns that the far right’s rise in Italy could benefit Russia at the expense of the West. But before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and before Giorgia Meloni became Italy’s prime minister, Ms. Meloni said, that “Europe and the United States are the two pillars of the West” and explained that “the strategic autonomy of Europe” should “not be interpreted as friction with the U.S.”

RN’s Russia policy also worries French supporters of Israel in light of the Kremlin’s military ties with Iran. Historically, the RN has struggled with antisemitism, but it wants “to be perceived as siding with Israel,” says Yonathan Arfi, head of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France. Yet “on this issue like any other one they try not to be too specific.”

The leftists united under the Nouveau Front Populaire are generally stronger on Ukraine but much weaker on the Middle East. The coalition wants the Muslim vote, and the left’s platform includes calls for the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state and an arms embargo and sanctions on Israel.

This weekend begins two rounds of balloting, with Sunday’s vote winnowing contenders from many parties. Candidates who pass the vote threshold advance to the next round the following Sunday, usually a two- or three-person contest.

With French voters preoccupied by domestic problems, foreign policy isn’t this election’s crucial issue. But as global threats proliferate, a weakened France would be a loss for Europe and the world.

Ms. Melchior is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.




ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1704
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #1073 on: July 07, 2024, 07:20:59 AM »
Putin and Modi meet next week after 3 years

Important note, Russian perspective.


https://substack.com/home/post/p-146358799

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
GPF: China army in Belarus
« Reply #1074 on: July 08, 2024, 08:49:42 AM »


A first for Beijing. China and Belarus began joint military exercises near the Polish and Ukrainian borders. The drills are being conducted near the western Belarusian city of Brest and focus on hostage rescue and anti-terrorist operations, according to China’s Defense Ministry. They’re the first exercises involving Chinese military personnel on Belarusian territory, and they coincide with the NATO summit in Washington set to begin on Tuesday.

Xi and Orban. Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed the need for a political settlement to the Ukraine war during a meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Beijing on Monday. According to Chinese state media, Xi urged the international community to support the resumption of direct dialogue between the warring sides.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1704
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: July 08, 2024, 05:49:31 PM by ya »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19836
    • View Profile
US intelligence - Russian trying to influence election
« Reply #1076 on: July 10, 2024, 06:59:03 AM »
to get Trump elected.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/evidence-suggests-russia-targeting-us-elections-yes-rcna140737

There was a day I would without hesitation believe this but now I don't know who to believe.
I don't trust our intelligence who has been working to get Joe  re elected.

They lied to us, they still lie to us, so what am I supposed to believe.
This could be true it might not.
Funny we never see intelligence tell us about China or anyone trying to get Biden elected.

Perhaps it is true since Biden keeps giving Ukraine billions and Trump makes the preposterous claim that he will end war in 24 hrs, so perhaps Putin would prefer Trump .

But the eternal implication is Trump loves and supports Putin our enemy
while the allies dislike Trump.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
WT: Poland takes hard line
« Reply #1077 on: July 10, 2024, 07:11:32 AM »
Respect for his clarity:

============================
Repudiates calls to cede territory for peace with Russia

BY BEN WOLFGANG AND GUY TAYLOR THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The president of Poland on Tuesday sharply rejected the notion of any ceasefi re deal that would require Ukraine to cede territory to Moscow — drawing a clear line in the sand while China, fellow NATO ally Hungary and some leading American politicians are amplifying calls for a rapid negotiated end to the conflict.

Polish President Andrzej Duda, whose nation is the most powerful NATO member state bordering Ukraine, stood firm on the issue in a wide-ranging exclusive interview with The Washington Times as a summit of NATO leaders got underway in Washington.

Russia controls and has annexed an estimated 20% of Ukraine’s territory in the east and south more than two years after its invasion in February 2022.

Ukraine should be “admitted as soon as possible” to the trans-Atlantic alliance, Mr. Duda said.

He warned that the threat from Russian President Vladimir Putin “is at least as dangerous as Soviet Russia” at the height of the Cold War. “There is even a question that Putin’s Russia might be more brutal and more determined than Soviet Russia was back then,” the Polish president said.

A passionate Mr. Duda said Poland, given its proximity to the conflict, knows better than virtually any other European country about the repercussions if

Duda

Exclusive

Russia is allowed to permanently keep Crimea, a piece of the Donetsk region or any other part of sovereign Ukrainian territory.

“If there is anyone who wants to give to Russia a piece of Ukrainian land and they are not Ukrainian, then let them give a piece of their land to Russia because it is easy to give away a piece of somebody else’s land,” he said. “I would like this war to end as soon as possible. However, it cannot end, it must not end in the victory of Russia because if it happened that way, we will have another war soon because Russia will attack again.

“In a nutshell, Russian imperialism has to be reprimanded. It has to be punished in Ukraine,” Mr. Duda said. “So, this is the only way in which this war can come to an end if the world wants to have peace and calm. If not, we are going to have another war again soon.”

Mr. Duda, who spoke with The Times inside the Polish Embassy in Washington, fiercely defended Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO and said he was prepared to go further than other alliance states in pushing for a full, formal invitation to the alliance. Other NATO leaders, including President Biden, have offered a “bridge” to eventual Ukrainian membership but have been reluctant to establish a concrete timetable.

Mr. Duda acknowledged that “Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO” until its conflict with Russia has ended.

The Polish president, 52, also defended the conservative politics of his Law and Justice party, which have put Warsaw at odds with other European Union leaders in Brussels. Since coming to power in 2015, he has been widely regarded as the face of a conservative generational shift in Poland. He is the country’s sixth democratically elected president since the 1989 fall of Soviet communism and Soviet control over Warsaw.

Although Poland has emerged as a leader of Western resolve and strength in the face of Russia’s war in Ukraine, its divisive internal politics and, at times, tense relations with the EU have been on display. Left-leaning critics say the socially conservative Law and Justice party is xenophobic, anti-women, anti-gay and authoritarian. They say the party pushed through undemocratic judicial reforms in 2019 that violated EU standards and democratic practice.

Mr. Duda told The Times that the Law and Justice party’s political program “is based, to a large extent, on what I would call traditional values.” “I feel that this is the Republican program in the deepest sense of the word,” he said. “Maybe this will make it easier for an American audience to understand.”

Polish conservatives “believe that we are adhering to the values on which the European Union is based …,” he said, “values that were at the foundation of the success enjoyed by the EU at its strongest when it was the union of free nations and equal states.”

“If the EU becomes a concert of powers,” he said, “it will become weaker.”

The Polish president rebutted the narrative that the U.S. commitment to NATO is faltering. Critics fear such a trend would rapidly accelerate if Republican candidate Donald Trump returns to the White House.

Mr. Duda said the U.S. remains the indispensable cog of the alliance, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary.

“To me, it is most important that this anniversary NATO summit is taking place in Washington because this demonstrates who the most important entity is,” he said. “The one who is the strongest hosts the anniversary summit. … Nobody protested against that in NATO.”

Mr. Duda suggested that Mr. Trump’s hardball rhetoric on NATO member defense spending has strengthened the alliance.

Poland has responded to the Ukraine-Russia war by dramatically beefing up its military. Warsaw spends more than 4% of its gross domestic product on defense, a greater per capita ratio than any other NATO nation, including the United States.

Mr. Duda said Poland was among just five NATO member states meeting the alliance’s goal of spending 2% of GDP on defense when he came to power. “Today, we have 23 such states within NATO,” he said.

He expressed gratitude that President Biden has kept a promise to deploy American troops to Poland.

“We do appreciate it and are very grateful … and we deeply believe in our alliance and our friendship with Americans,” Mr. Duda said. “I had good cooperation with President Barack Obama, also with President Donald Trump in his first term, and I have got very good cooperation with President Joe Biden right now.”

Mr. Duda was most passionate when asked about Russia’s grave threats and the prospect of ceding pieces of Ukrainian territory to Moscow as part of a broader deal to end the war, now in its third year.

He said Mr. Putin’s “reborn Russian imperialism” invites comparisons to Soviet-era aggression when Poland was caught on the Soviet side of the Cold War global divide.

“Soviet Russia was baring its teeth, but it did not dare attack openly any Western country,” he said. “But now we have a situation in which Putin’s Russia has attacked in a very brutal, aggressive and full-scale way an independent, sovereign state of Ukraine.”

“In the times of the Cold War, Russia was deploying nuclear weapons in its sphere of influence, including Poland and also in East Germany,” Mr. Duda said.

“In the same way today, Russia is speaking about deploying nuclear weapons to Belarus, and it is building up its military potential in Kaliningrad oblast,” he said, referring to the small Russian- controlled enclave between Lithuania and Poland and across from Sweden on the Baltic Sea.

For Poland, that necessitates even deeper security cooperation with Ukraine.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Warsaw on Monday to discuss expanding Western military support for Kyiv ahead of the NATO summit. Mr. Zelenskyy said he sees an opportunity for partner nations to use their air defense systems to take down Russian missiles fired into Ukraine.

Other regional stakeholders appear to be pushing an alternative agenda to end the fighting as soon as possible, and the prospect of Ukrainian territorial concessions has appeared to gain steam.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban recently traveled to Kyiv, Moscow and Beijing to publicly call for an end to the war. In the U.S., Mr. Trump has vowed to end the conflict quickly if elected president, and some figures in his national security orbit have suggested that Ukrainian land concessions may need to be part of a cease-fire deal.

Ukraine’s eventual accession to NATO could also be discussed during peace negotiations. A promise to keep Ukraine out of the alliance is viewed as a major olive branch to persuade Mr. Putin to embrace a cease-fire.

Mr. Duda rejected such conditions and said Ukraine doesn’t need a “bridge” to eventual membership. It needs a formal invitation now, he said, arguing that Poland’s front-row seat to the war gives a special insight into the crisis.

“And that is why I’m saying Ukraine should be admitted as soon as possible to NATO as a fully fledged member,” he said. “I believe that Ukraine should be formally invited to become a member of NATO.”


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
George Friedman: US strategy in Europe
« Reply #1079 on: July 22, 2024, 08:12:56 AM »
   
US Strategy in Europe
By: George Friedman
One of the most important outcomes of the U.S. presidential race may be how it affects the United States' relationship with Europe. Donald Trump has clearly stated that he wants Europe to pay more of the cost of NATO – a perennial point of contention between the U.S. and the alliance. Either way, the crux of the issue is the strategic relationship between the United States and Europe.

The U.S. has gone to war – or near to war – three times with European powers that had sought to take control of the Continent. The first occurred in 1917, when the United States deployed forces to France to fight Germany. The intervention was ostensibly triggered by German submarines that had sunk British and French ships before turning on U.S. vessels en route to Europe. But it was more fundamentally driven by the fact that U.S. trade with Europe had continued profitably through the first phase of World War I; the German attempt to attack shipping was an attempt to cut the supply line between Britain and the United States. German forces were being weakened on land, so Berlin hoped that intercepting ships from the U.S. would hurt the British war effort and, in turn, relieve its troops.

For Washington, it was more than a matter of losing vessels. The U.S. and Europe formed the economic heart of the world. Whereas the French and the British were fighting for their lives, the Americans were fighting to preserve the economic relationship that was the backbone of the U.S. economy.

This defined the U.S. strategy. The United States was safe from land invasion – neither Canada nor Mexico was a threat – so the only possible avenue for invasion was the sea. So in addition to the threat to its trade, the U.S. was concerned that another power would take control of the Atlantic and stage an amphibious assault. Washington’s strategy was to break Germany's land power and prevent its navy from securing the Atlantic. This could be achieved only through an alliance with Western Europe on land and sea because their defeat would leave the U.S. vulnerable to Germany.

The U.S. would intervene in Europe a second time in World War II, which left the United States in virtually the same position. Washington was compelled to defend the Atlantic and prevent the fall of Western Europe. More specifically, the U.S. feared that Germany would invade and occupy Britain and take control of its massive naval fleet. This was a mortal threat to U.S. trade and national security. Thus it pursued the same strategy it did in WWI, providing massive naval aid to London to keep the Germans from gaining control of the Atlantic.

The key difference, of course, is that the U.S. also faced Japan in the Pacific Ocean. For Washington, a simultaneous threat from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was the worst-case scenario. The Pacific War was a naval war.

The third intervention took place during the Cold War, with the U.S. maintaining lines across the Atlantic to supply Western Europe and NATO forces engaged with the Soviet Union. Only this time both sides held nuclear weapons, so any hot war would be an air-land war. American defense of the sea was fought from the land and air but was still, in principle, a naval war.

The larger point is that these wars were fought in the context of an alliance, and that U.S. strategy has been largely unchanged for over a century. In accordance with that strategy, Washington expects to fight a naval war and supply U.S. forces, while buttressing its assets with an alliance drawn from land forces on the key land battlefields.

In this sense, NATO as an organization is not necessary for a U.S. war in Europe. But the troops it could supply would sure be welcome. And it must be remembered that the U.S. still needs trade – and trade with Europe is most important. Keeping naval lines open was the key to U.S. wars in the 20th century. This remains the case now and will continue to do so in the future.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
FO
« Reply #1080 on: July 24, 2024, 03:32:39 PM »
(6) U.K. TOP GENERAL: WE HAVE THREE YEARS TO PREPARE FOR WAR: The U.K.’s Chief of General Staff, General Sir Roland Walker, told the Land Warfare Conference in London that they had just three years to prepare for modern warfare.
The General intends to boost land power capabilities through AI integration, multi-warhead missiles, drones, and additional standoff capabilities.
General Walker warned that Russia would seek ‘some form of retribution’ against the U.K.’s material involvement in the Ukraine conflict.
Why It Matters: This is one of the shortest timelines we have seen yet from Europeans. They’ve steadily walked back from ten years, to five years, to three years. Three years from now also coincides with the end of the Davidson Window in 2027. – J.V.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
GPF: I can't quite you babe
« Reply #1081 on: July 26, 2024, 08:35:58 AM »
July 26, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

The Paradox of Russian Gas Sanctions
Moscow and Brussels overestimated their ability to quit each other.
By: Ekaterina Zolotova

More than two years after the introduction of sanctions meant to curb Russia’s hydrocarbons revenue, Europe is still buying significant amounts of Russian natural gas. In fact, the volume of Russian supplies increased this year, reaching 14.6 billion cubic meters from January to June. In May alone, the European Union upped its gas purchases from Russia by 39 percent (year over year). Clearly, sanctions have failed to completely squeeze Russian resources out of the European market and reduce the dependence of a number of European economies on Russian supplies. Energy thus remains a bargaining chip between Moscow and the West and could be used as a tool for dialogue.

Gas Dependency

Russia has been a key supplier of energy to Europe. Europe needs energy, and Russia needs revenue, and this arrangement spawned the construction of a network of pipelines that made them all but inseparable partners. But after the invasion of Ukraine, Western countries could not allow the Kremlin to continue receiving money that could be used for military purposes, so the energy sector was the first to be hit.

If the hit to the oil market was predictable – sanctions, price ceilings and EU green energy initiatives dramatically reduced the amount of oil Europe bought from Russia – the gas market was different. Before the war, Europe received 40 percent of its natural gas supplies from Russia. It planned to completely abandon Russian gas by 2027, and it has taken the first steps toward that end: After the Yamal-Europe pipeline stopped transporting and the Nord Stream exploded, Russia’s share of Europe's gas imports fell to 15 percent as Norway and the U.S. jumped to the top of its supplier list. Yet natural gas is a unique commodity that never really fell under sanctions. Only the latest package of sanctions against Russia imposed restrictions on the import of Russian gas, and it consisted only of a ban on the transit of Russian LNG through the ports and terminals of EU member states to third countries – not a ban on supplies to the EU itself. So though Russian gas is diminished in the European market, it is still a source of income for Moscow. This contravenes the entire point of sanctions.



(click to enlarge)

The paradox is best explained by the fact that both Moscow and Brussels overestimated their ability to quit each other. For Russia, it was a matter of geography and logistics. Moscow believed that if Europe refused Russian gas at all, it would refuse it only until the first winter, when leaders in Brussels would then come shivering to the negotiating table. After all, building new pipelines and establishing new routes is complicated and expensive. Unlike oil, which can be rerouted through tankers to third countries or mixed with other grades, gas trade requires special transportation methods and infrastructure – namely, the pipelines that have enabled Russia to reach such a high share of the European market.

In simple terms, Moscow did not believe Europe could replace its gas, and certainly not via the same pipelines. Nor did the Kremlin believe Europe could offset its losses with liquefied natural gas since creating the infrastructure to receive LNG requires a ton of technology, investment and time. Last, Moscow did not believe that the countries that could in theory replace its gas – Norway, Algeria and Qatar, for example – would be able to do so quickly enough to make a difference in the war effort. Moscow chose to wait the EU out.

This was, of course, a miscalculation. Europe survived its first winter, and then the second. Contrary to Russian expectations, Norway was able to increase gas production and exports to Europe, while U.S. LNG became increasingly attractive to European buyers despite price fluctuations. It wasn’t a permanent fix, but it was enough to allow Europe to stabilize the situation and reduce the influence Russia wields through its energy exports.

It turns out it was impossible for Russia to create additional pressure in Europe as its market share declined. Threatening to completely cut off supplies was also not an option. The nonfulfillment of contracts would jeopardize subsequent contracts that Russia still expected to conclude. Moreover, Russia was not ready to abandon the European market because it did not have enough of a safety net in new sales elsewhere. Supplying the same volumes of gas to China turned out to be difficult – China was in no hurry to invest in new pipelines – and Moscow still needed money to finance social programs and military operations and support Gazprom, which led to the subsequent execution of contracts through Ukraine and the Turkish Stream pipeline without the ability to influence the West.

Europe made its own mistakes. Brussels overestimated European countries’ ability to find alternate sources of affordable gas and expand the production of renewable energy. Both are especially critical in electricity generation, with about 20 percent of Europe’s electricity production coming from burning natural gas and 40 percent from renewables. Theoretically, record-high LNG prices in the immediate aftermath of Moscow’s invasion should have encouraged EU governments to invest more in renewables, but several obstacles have delayed the transition. One obstacle is China’s increasing dominance in renewables, paired with European anxiety about becoming more dependent on goods from Beijing at the expense of European industry. For example, more than 80 percent of solar panels installed in Europe are made in China, where their production costs half as much as it does in Europe. Eager to protect its remaining capacity, the European Commission started inquiring into potentially distortive Chinese subsidies for wind turbine manufacturers in April, and in May it dropped an investigation into a couple of Chinese firms, including a subsidiary of the world’s biggest manufacturer of solar panels, after they withdrew their bids to build a solar park in Romania. Dubbed de-risking, this approach is likely to lead Europe to pay much more and wait much longer to achieve its renewable energy goals.

Moscow’s New Strategy

At this point, the energy war between Brussels and the Kremlin is deadlocked; the former cannot refuse energy supplies, and the latter cannot stop supplying them. But rather than keep waiting in hopes that Europe will crack, Moscow appears to be moving in a more offensive direction. From North Africa to Central Asia, Russia is attempting to gain leverage over major gas-producing countries that could replace it on the European market.

One such country is Libya, where Russia’s approach leans heavily on its provision of soldiers and arms to support the eastern faction in that country’s civil war. In Algeria, the Russians are pursuing stronger economic relations. Both countries are prime targets for European outreach, and in fact, Italy already plans to develop two gas fields off the coast of Libya and build a pipeline from Algeria. In the South Caucasus, the Kremlin’s rapprochement with Azerbaijan – at the expense of good relations with Armenia – is already bearing fruit. For example, Azerbaijan has firmly maintained that it will not invest significant sums to increase its gas production or double its capacity to supply Europe via the Southern Gas Corridor unless the EU puts its money where its mouth is. Failure to expand this route complicates European gas purchases not only from Azerbaijan but also from countries farther east, such as Turkmenistan. Baku also said recently that the EU and Ukraine had asked its government to broker an extension of the Russia-Ukraine gas transit agreement, which expires at the end of the year.



(click to enlarge)

After initial successes, Europe’s campaign to sever its energy links with Russia appears to have hit a standstill. Options for filling gas pipelines with non-Russian gas are few and far between. LNG supplies fluctuate and require new infrastructure. And many European governments are wary of trading dependence on Russian fossil fuels for dependence on Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. The year-end deadline to extend the Ukraine gas transit deal is also working to Russia’s advantage. It could even serve as a first step toward further diplomacy between the two sides.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19530
    • View Profile
Re: Some deep fundamental contradictions here
« Reply #1083 on: July 29, 2024, 07:30:04 AM »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/europeans-should-come-to-their-senses-before-its-too-late-hungary%E2%80%99s-orban-warns-of-eus-demise/vi-BB1qJhwt?ocid=msedgntp&t=217

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/poland-offers-orban-to-withdraw-from-eu-and-nato-and-form-alliance-with-putin/ar-BB1qMycF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=9e104cc3a4bf4ac6b76e5a8841f69ea0&ei=15

For some reason I thought they were saying Viktor Orban wants Hungary to leave NATO and join Putin.  But for Poland to make that suggestion seems to me part of a healthy debate.  We apparently need to clarify who is the enemy here?

There has been healthy debate over mistakes made by NATO and by Obama etc. over the years but to me there is no question who is the aggressor in this arena, who poses the threat, who invaded and who has taken territory from sovereign neighbors and that is Putin.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
George Friedman
« Reply #1084 on: August 20, 2024, 09:49:46 AM »


August 20, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Update on the War in Ukraine
By: George Friedman
Two and a half years ago, Russia invaded Ukraine, a former part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. The reason for the invasion was geostrategic: Moscow justifiably feared that a hostile power could invade it from the west through Ukraine and up from the south. Such was the case for invasions by Napoleon and Hitler. Without strategic depth, Russia has no buffers.

For Russia, that no one was currently planning such an invasion meant little. Geopolitics demands preparing to defend against an enemy before the enemy plans to attack. Moscow was, after all, painfully aware that pro-West forces supported an uprising that unseated a pro-Russia president several years earlier. The West’s support was based on the fear that Russia would invade Ukraine and, in time, the rest of Europe. Neither side’s fears were irrational.

The assumption of many was that Russia would rapidly crush the Ukrainian army and that a quick assault would close the door on U.S. intervention and supplies. If the logic was correct, the execution was not. The first foray into Ukraine consisted of tanks on multiple fronts, a show of force meant to sow panic among the public. This, too, was a mistake. Early photos were filled with unmoving tanks in a 40-kilometer (25-mile) column on the road from the north heading toward Kyiv. Apparently, Russia had not prepared enough storage or delivery of supplies for the tanks. Ukraine’s method of attack, meanwhile, kept the column from moving as it destroyed tanks at each end, blocking the Russian ability to move its main thrust. In short, the tank columns moved in, got bogged down and were stopped not far inside Ukraine's borders. The sight of immobile armor defined the war. Here was a powerful but flawed army that Ukraine could exploit. It gave Ukraine and the U.S. confidence to face the Russians.

Added to this were several intelligence failures. Moscow did not expect Washington to intervene. But Washington was schooled in many wars. It would not send troops, but it would send the kind of equipment needed to block Russia sufficiently, if not definitively. Moscow also overestimated Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and natural gas. It assumed incorrectly that Europe, especially Germany, would refuse to cooperate with NATO. Instead, Europe has tried – fairly successfully – to find other vendors and prioritized the transition to green energy. Finally, Moscow misread Ukraine's strategy. The Ukrainian army did not mass its troops to try to break the Russian formations; it divided its forces into small, nimble units empowered to strike where the opportunity arose, making concentrated attacks more difficult for Russia.

Critically, a decision was made near the start of the war to deploy the Wagner Group, a private Russian mercenary outfit. Not only was Wagner relied on more heavily than contractors usually are for conventional battle, but it was put on more or less equal footing with conventional Russian forces. This created tensions with the Russian military command over vital issues like ammunition distribution. President Vladimir Putin appeared to side with Wagner more than his official military command and wanted to use Wagner as a reliable force. However, that drama played out with an attempted insurrection by Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, who was pardoned but later died in a plane crash. Naturally, the episode weakened the military command’s confidence.

The point of this recap is to remind us that Russia made a series of mistakes throughout the war that pertain to the events of the past couple of weeks. From the jump, Moscow prioritized the capture of cities over the destruction of enemy forces. The former is much more difficult and resource-heavy than the latter. This goes some way to explain, however imperfectly, Ukraine's startling invasion of Russia. Having failed to take the whole of Ukraine, Russia must now change its strategy or risk even more failure. So far, the decisions made have rendered success impossible.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
Pro-Putin movements spread across Europe: Why is this happening?
« Reply #1085 on: September 07, 2024, 08:56:59 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pro-putin-movements-spread-across-europe-why-is-this-happening/ar-AA1q6Iw0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=3b385279123c49a2b0b51f9c99cff8e1&ei=15

What is particularly concerning is that both sides oppose support for Ukraine and align more closely with the Kremlin's view of Russian aggression against Ukraine. They place most of the blame on the West, claiming it "provoked Russia." These views and their electoral success are not unique to the former East Germany.

How To Borrow From Your Home Without Touching Your Mortgage
LendingTree
How To Borrow From Your Home Without Touching Your Mortgage
Ad
Other countries in Central and Eastern Europe that were under Soviet control until 1989 have experienced a rise in similar sentiments, especially EU and NATO members Slovakia and Hungary, according to Stefan Wolf, a professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham, in an analysis for Global Policy journal.

The same applies to some former Soviet states, such as Azerbaijan and Georgia. Representing a strange mix of fear, resentment, and nostalgia, this does not signal a covert restoration of the Soviet bloc but points to an ideological consolidation in at least part of the region.
In Hungary, this pro-Russian stance is primarily associated with the country’s populist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. In power since 2010, Orbán has distanced himself and his country from the liberal-democratic ideals he championed in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

This led to the European Commission and Parliament condemning Orbán for undermining democracy and the rule of law. The European Court of Justice fined Hungary 200 million euros ($212 million) for deliberately violating EU asylum rules.

None of this prevented Orbán from securing a fourth consecutive victory in the national elections of 2022, although his alliance fell below 50% in the European Parliament elections in June. Despite winning less than half of the votes in European elections for the first time in two decades, Orbán has doubled down on his pro-Putin stance.

He was the first prime minister of any EU or NATO member state to shake hands with Putin. In October 2023 in Beijing, he repeated the same gesture from Moscow just days after Hungary assumed the rotating EU presidency in July 2024.


Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban rattled EU and NATO allies by flying to Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir P © null His Slovak counterpart, Robert Fico, reclaimed the premiership of his country in October 2023, also on a pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian platform.

Unlike Orbán, Fico is a left-wing populist and moderated his stance on Ukraine after visiting Kyiv in January 2024. Nevertheless, the broader pro-Russian sentiment among the electorate was evident in the presidential elections in April 2024.

Outside of NATO and the EU, other leaders have also aligned themselves with Putin. One example is Azerbaijan’s long-standing ruler, Ilham Aliyev, who visited Moscow in April 2024 and welcomed Putin to Baku in August.

Since the start of the war against Ukraine in February 2022, Azerbaijan has been crucial for Russia, providing access to key trade corridors to bypass Western sanctions. One of these is the North-South International Transport Corridor, linking Russia through Azerbaijan to Iran.

Azerbaijan also officially applied to join the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) a day after Putin’s visit in August. It also applied for observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization at the end of July, bringing Azerbaijan a step closer to full membership in the China-led bloc.

Then there is Georgia – once a beacon of democratic renewal in the post-Soviet space, now gradually slipping into pro-Russian autocracy. Tbilisi and Moscow have steadily restored ties under the ruling Georgian Dream party, which has governed the country for more than a decade, despite the Russo-Georgian war of 2008.

Rhetorically, the Georgian government remains committed to EU membership. A European Council decision in December 2023 granted Georgia candidate status. Yet, relations with the EU have deteriorated significantly since the spring, when the government in Tbilisi pushed through a law on so-called foreign agents, despite protests from the public and the EU.

The law serves as a potentially useful tool for Georgia’s government to limit the work of pro-European civil society organizations and is modeled after recently expanded Russian legislation.

Authoritarian Imprint
The fact that, after more than two and a half years of brutal war, Russia, as the aggressor nation, enjoys a kind of revival of sympathies is understandably worrying for Ukraine and its Western partners.

The growing authoritarian shift in Eastern Germany, Slovakia, and Hungary, as well as in Azerbaijan and Georgia, did not begin with the war in Ukraine, but has undoubtedly accelerated as a result. The political leaders driving this shift are capitalizing on and carefully channeling various public sentiments.

One is the long-standing fear of being dragged into war with Russia; another is resentment toward a self-serving political establishment that mismanaged the aftermath of COVID-19 and the cost-of-living crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine.

There is also, at least for some, a degree of nostalgia for an imagined past of the Soviet bloc and the order imposed at that time by strong and fundamentally socially conservative leaders, compared to the liberal “chaos” that has followed.

Last year’s presidential election in the Czech Republic and parliamentary elections in Poland show that the kind of democratic backsliding seen elsewhere in the former Soviet bloc can be halted and reversed. Similarly, Armenia’s decision to withdraw from the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization – a mini-successor to the post-Soviet Warsaw Pact – indicates that geopolitical alignments are not set in stone.

All these changes are signs of a turbulent European and global security order. When and how the war in Ukraine ends will determine what kind of new order is likely to emerge. However, the simultaneous rise of right- and left-wing populism, older and newer autocracies, and their ideological alignment with the Kremlin calls for extreme caution. A reconstitution of a new liberal order is far from certain – regardless of who, if anyone, wins in Ukraine.

The Post Pro-Putin movements spread across Europe: Why is this happening? appeared first on Financial World

Related: Lavrov: Turkey's BRICS intentions serious – NATO membership not a barrier

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19530
    • View Profile
Russian war economy
« Reply #1086 on: September 13, 2024, 06:21:44 AM »
Interesting because a lot of earlier reports indicted Russia's war in Ukraine and resulting sanctions were not hurting its economy. 20% inflation, shortage of goods and workers says otherwise.

(Doug)  It's time to end this war.

Financial Times today:   (ft.com)
The Russian central bank raised its key interest rate by 1 percentage point to 19 per cent earlier today, citing high inflation and strong domestic demand. This is close to the all-time high of 20 per cent that was reached immediately after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The move is the second consecutive rate rise following a period from late 2023 to the end of July 2024 when it was held at 16 per cent. According to the CBR’s statement, annual inflation in Russia stands at 9 per cent, exceeding its previous forecast. The economy is starting to slow, but domestic demand still significantly exceeds supply and the labour market remains tight, the CBR said. (Source: ft.com)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2024, 07:08:47 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19836
    • View Profile
Harris foreign DNC policy
« Reply #1087 on: September 13, 2024, 06:39:33 AM »
funny Harris (czarist) explained we needed to pull out of Afghanistan to save money yet has no problem pouring endless military supplies and money into Ukraine.

admonishes Trump for wanting to negotiate with Putin while at same time wants to cease war in Middle East by negotiating with Hamas.

can anyone explain the twisted inconsistent logic of all this?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19530
    • View Profile
Re: Harris foreign DNC policy
« Reply #1088 on: September 13, 2024, 07:02:10 AM »
funny Harris (czarist) explained we needed to pull out of Afghanistan to save money yet has no problem pouring endless military supplies and money into Ukraine.

admonishes Trump for wanting to negotiate with Putin while at same time wants to cease war in Middle East by negotiating with Hamas.

can anyone explain the twisted inconsistent logic of all this?

'Twisted Inconsistent Logic' is a more accurate campaign slogan than 'A New Way Forward' but it didn't poll as well.

She supports Ukraine war because Joe did, I guess. There are good reasons to support Ukraine and there are great risks.  Second level thinking isn't her thing.

She opposes Israel's efforts to defend itself while saying she supports Israel's right to defend itself because she needs to play both sides on the most divisive question in her party.  What she said in the debate came directly from what she said in her nominating speech.  Play both sides with a carefully prepared, say nothing, script.  Just like the better off now non-answer, "well when I was a little girl..."

She explained the conflicting logic the best she could.  Her "core values haven't changed".  She has none.  Taking power is her mission, whatever it takes.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2024, 07:07:23 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
FO: Romania calls for NATO wide response; increasing ammo magazine
« Reply #1089 on: September 23, 2024, 10:34:17 AM »


Romania’s Defense Minister Angel Tîlvăr is calling for a NATO-wide response to Russian drone and missile incursions “in NATO airspace in Poland, Romania, and Latvia.” The Romanian Supreme Council of National Defense also announced it is increasing ammunition acquisition in response to the incursions.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
Thinking in bets
« Reply #1091 on: September 27, 2024, 02:29:28 PM »
FO

Lieutenant General Alexander Sollfrank, head of NATO’s logistics command said that NATO is planning routes to remove large numbers of injured NATO troops in the event of a war with Russia. Sollfrank expects to build a “military medical Schengen” to bypass member state laws about narcotic and painkiller transport. (A prepared NATO is likely to be overconfident that they can prevail in a war with Russia, meaning they are also likely to continue crossing red lines. – J.V.)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
WW3 in the balance?
« Reply #1092 on: September 27, 2024, 02:40:43 PM »
Second post of today.  Read it, the one immediately prior to it, and this one as a trilogy:

https://www.arktosjournal.com/p/liberation-of-the-kursk-region-or

BTW, the piece is written by a man that some call "Putin's brain"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
FO
« Reply #1094 on: October 01, 2024, 04:45:01 PM »
Mark Rutte officially took the NATO Secretary-General’s office today and laid out several objectives for his tenure. He intends to increase NATO-Indo-Pacific cooperation, expand NATO’s capabilities and manpower, and get all NATO members above the 2% minimum. Rutte supports Ukrainian strikes into Russia and claims there is no imminent threat of Russian nuclear weapon use despite the doctrine update.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Russian media that “We must prepare for a long-term confrontation with [the United States]. We are ready for this in every sense,” and “We are sending all the warning signals to our opponent so that it does not underestimate our determination.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
Our German allies in the war with Russia at work
« Reply #1095 on: October 07, 2024, 09:00:15 AM »
GPF:

By: Geopolitical Futures

Kazakh doubts. Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said construction and operation of a future nuclear power plant in the country should be entrusted to an international consortium. The comment, which he made on Sunday as voters approved plans to build the country’s first nuclear plant, suggests he prefers not to work on the project solely with Russia, which has repeatedly indicated its interest in building the plant. Relatedly, Moscow accused Germany’s Siemens of failing to deliver equipment it was contracted to supply for Turkey’s Akkuyu nuclear plant, which Russia’s Rosatom is currently building. Russia’s deputy prime minister said alternative parts had to be purchased from “friendly” countries.

===========

BTW, didn't Germany shut down its nuke plants?

But if Kommiela gets elected, no nuclear power for us , , , the Big Green Bucks for her Windy Sunny donors.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19530
    • View Profile
Re: Our German allies in the war with Russia at work
« Reply #1096 on: October 07, 2024, 10:01:17 AM »
"BTW, didn't Germany shut down its nuke plants?"

  - Yes, out of fear of a Pacific tsunami (or something).  The meltdown in Japan occurred because the diesel generators failed.  Combustion can't breathe underwater.  All that was needed to prevent that was waterproof shelter for the diesel generators and air intakes and exhaust that reach up above the lever of the water.  It's not rocket science.

The elevated plains of Bavaria are nearly 2000 ft above sea level and 400 miles from from the Baltic sea.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
GPF: Russia's Shadow Fleet
« Reply #1097 on: October 19, 2024, 07:26:45 AM »
October 18, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

The Rise of Russia's Shadow Fleet
By early 2024, Russia had acquired more than 600 old tankers to circumvent sanctions.
By: Geopolitical Futures

Russia's Crude Loophole | The Rise of the Shadow Fleet

(click to enlarge)

For decades, Russian exports centered on raw materials, primarily oil and gas, with the European Union as the key buyer. Oil revenues directly funded Moscow's budget, making the halting of exports a potential pressure point on the Kremlin. The West attempted to exploit this after Russia's invasion of Ukraine by imposing a price cap (above which Western insurers were banned from providing their services) and an embargo on Russian oil, all aimed at cutting off funds for Russia's military.

However, ongoing demand for Russian oil and Moscow's ability to maintain supply pushed part of the business into the shadows. Europe's reliance on Russian energy, particularly gas, meant an immediate halt to the relationship was unfeasible, and Russia wasn't willing to sacrifice revenue or market share. This led to the rise of a "shadow fleet" to keep oil flowing. By early 2024, Russia had acquired more than 600 old tankers to continue these operations. Market dynamics in the region have been slow to change, but the shadow fleet remains vulnerable to further sanctions, especially by the U.S.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72561
    • View Profile
GPF: Moldovan crossroads-- Russia or EU?
« Reply #1098 on: October 23, 2024, 08:47:29 AM »


October 22, 2024
View On Website

Moldova at the crossroads: European Union or Russia?
By: New Strategy Center

Presidential elections and the referendum in support of Moldova's EU membership

First round results

On October 20, the Republic of Moldova held the first round of the presidential elections, alongside a referendum aimed at amending the Constitution, a move intending to underscore the country's irreversible commitment to joining the European Union. Preliminary data provided by the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) indicate a voter turnout of 51.68% for the presidential elections, surpassing participation rates from the first rounds of the 2016 (49.19%) and 2020 (48.54%) presidential elections. There was also a notable increase in turnout among Moldovan citizens abroad, with 240,548 voters casting their ballots, nearing the record set in the second round of the 2020 presidential elections, when 263,177 people voted.

After the polls closed in the Republic of Moldova, a euphoric atmosphere settled in Chisinau, fueled by the high voter turnout and its alignment with pre-election polls. These polls had outlined a favorable scenario in which Maia Sandu had a chance of winning, albeit narrowly, in the first round of the presidential elections. However, once the vote counting began, the results defied general expectations. According to preliminary data from the CEC, with 100% of the polling stations processed, Maia Sandu, the incumbent pro-Western president, secured 42.45% of the votes, followed by Alexandr Stoianoglo, the candidate supported by the Socialist Party of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM), with 25.98%. In third place was Renato Usatii, leader of Our Party, with 13.79%, followed by Irina Vlah, the former Bascan (governor) of Gagauzia, with 5.38%, and Victoria Furtuna, who received 4.45%. All these candidates contested Maia Sandu's policies and were either supported by pro-Russian parties or had a pro-Russia stance during the electoral campaign. Consequently, a second round of the presidential elections will take place on November 3, where Maia Sandu will face Alexandr Stoianoglo.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1704
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #1099 on: October 24, 2024, 04:47:08 AM »
We probably need a BRICS thread.

In the meantime..