Ukraine

[skuthorp]

G'day heimalga, I wondered how you were faring.
Take notice of our local bot. Any concessions now would just make matters worse of course, and as for brokered peace deals, Vladimir P would never have been interested then because he was going to win, and now it means he is not. Not a tenable position for his own safety at this stage as you, and our bot well know.

[skuthorp]

"in all likelihood"

pffft……...

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I think the application to join NATO is just a statement that Ukraine has given up all hope of peace with Russia, now.

And a statement that Ukraine will defeat Russia.

Its worth noting that the biggest supplier of heavy weapons -tanks, APVs IFVs artillery of all sorts - to Ukraine is … ​Russia

[Osborne Russell]

how bout the tiki torch right, osborne.

Attachment 120391

They're proud to be freaks.

Knee-jerk leftists claim to speak for humanity if not for life on earth.

[johnw]

Three quick points: 1. stop with the straw men, and putting words on our keyboards. NOBODY wrote the US should or can stop the war immediately.

2. Your prognostication sounds just like the Neo-cons in 2002/3. You prolly drank that Kool-aid back then too.

3. You seem unaware that the US/UK in all likelihood blocked a UKR/Russia peace deal back in April. per Jeff Sachs

Y'all people are rewriting history . .

The war would likely have been ended in March 2022, when the governments of Ukraine and Russia exchanged a draft peace agreement based on Ukrainian neutrality. Behind the scenes, the US and UK pushed Zelensky to reject any agreement with Putin and to fight on.

No, you are not saying the US should stop the war immediately. You are arguing that it should already have stopped the war.

Interesting that you would mention Sachs, since you have mainly relied on an article in Responsible Statecraft written by Connor Echols, if memory serves.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/20...al-in-ukraine/

I followed up on his sources. Pravda, a Russian propaganda organ, really did say that the US and the UK sabotaged the peace talks, and he dishonestly implied that Fiona Hill's Foreign Affairs article said the same. I have repeatedly demonstrated that Hill's article does not make this claim, but you continue to cling to it, knowing that Echols' only source was Russian propaganda.

Once again, here's what Hill actually wrote:

Despite calls by some for a negotiated settlement that would involve Ukrainian territorial concessions, Putin seems uninterested in a compromise that would leave Ukraine as a sovereign, independent state—whatever its borders. According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his country’s state media, this compromise is no longer an option. Even giving Russia all of the Donbas is not enough. “Now the geography is different,” Lavrov asserted, in describing Russia’s short-term military aims. “It’s also Kherson and the Zaporizhzhya regions and a number of other territories.” The goal is not negotiation, but Ukrainian capitulation.

Now you've shifted your ground, and are relying on Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't see your link to him, so I googled the text, hoping to learn what his source was.

https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-...ypd6rjgfesszm4

He cites no source, just makes a bald assertion. At least this means that his source cannot be traced back to Russian propaganda.

[johnw]

I think that the 'likelihood' that the US/UK blocked a UKR/Russia peace deal back in April needs well considered elaboration.

It seems to be more an article of faith.

[StevenBauer]

The Russian Consulate in New York City this morning:

7239D585-D7B8-42F9-B20E-B8B4D9C2DF61.jpg

[Osborne Russell]

That is, Sachs is being played?

A wanna be playa gettin played? What's the likelihood?

In their 2020 book Hidden Hand, Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg comment on one of Sachs' articles in which he accuses the U.S. government of maligning Huawei under hypocritical pretenses. Hamilton and Ohlberg write that Sachs' article would be more meaningful and influential if he did not have a close relationship with Huawei, including his previous endorsement of the company's "vision of our shared digital future". The authors also allege that Sachs has ties to a number of Chinese state bodies and the private energy corporation CEFC China Energy for which he has spoken.

During a January 2021 interview, despite the interviewer's repeated prompting, Sachs evaded questions about China's repression of Uyghur people and resorted to whataboutism by alluding to "huge human rights abuses committed by the U.S." Subsequently, 19 advocacy and rights groups jointly wrote a letter to Columbia University questioning Sachs' comments. The letter's signatories wrote that Sachs took the same stance as China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a digression to the history of U.S. rights violations as a way to avoid discussions of China's mistreatment of Uyghurs. The rights groups went on to say that Sachs "betrayed his institution's mission" by trivializing the perspective of those who were oppressed by the Chinese government. Stephan Richter, editor-in-chief at The Globalist, and J.D. Bindenagel, a former U.S. Ambassador, wrote that Sachs is "actively agitating(!) for a classic Communist propaganda ploy".

-- wikipedia

So now he's pimpin for Putin? To remedy "huge human rights abuses committed by the U.S" ?

[L.W. Baxter]

They're proud to be freaks.

Knee-jerk leftists claim to speak for humanity if not for life on earth.

ok, but you didn't answer the question. are these adzwipes also "substantially discredited"?

AC9AFBD1-C2A3-4794-8DF9-06CD82B9365D.jpg

[sandtown]

If he were to comment on Ukraine/Russia/UK/USA/NATO I would listen, but weigh other possibilities as being equally or more likely.

I consider that a fair observation . . .

But note that previously some few of us have posted a number of credible cites about the events of April.

I am not goint to keep on doing that , , .

[Nicholas Carey]

Interesting.

If it was pipeline pigs dropping satchel charges, that kind of reduces the suspect pool considerable.

[Edited to note: visual observation should show whether or not the blasts originated inside the pipe or outside: if the explosive was inside the pipe, the pipe wall should be stove outward.

https://apple.news/AJP5kZ8R_SWO4bjMwSVAvOg

Size of Nord Stream blasts equal to large amount of explosive, UN told

Experts suggest maintenance robots may have planted bombs, as concern grows over methane buildup

Denmark and Sweden have said leaks from the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea were caused by blasts equivalent to the power of “several hundred kilograms of explosive”.
The conclusions were made in a joint report by Denmark and Sweden which was delivered to the United Nations. The UN environment programme said on Friday the ruptures are likely to have led to the biggest single release of climate-damaging methane ever recorded.

German authorities have also said they believe that highly explosive detonations were responsible for the sabotage attacks on the two pipelines. The EU, Nato and the governments of Poland, Sweden and Denmark have all said they believe the leaks were caused deliberately.

Data analysis has revealed huge clouds of methane gas are hovering over the leaks, from natural gas that has been pouring into the Baltic Sea from both pipelines since Monday, the ICOS, a greenhouse gas observation system operating across Europe, reported.

The pipes, built to transport gas from Russia to Germany, and only one of which was ever activated but both of which were full of gas, are said to be unusable due to the damage caused by the ruptures.

Intelligence sources quoted in the news magazine Spiegel believe the pipelines were hit in four places by explosions using 500kg of TNT, the equivalent to the explosive power of a heavy aircraft bomb. German investigators have undertaken seismic readings to calculate the power of the blasts.

The first signs of explosions were registered on Monday morning by a Danish earthquake station after suspicious activity in the waters of the Baltic Sea. A monitoring station on the Danish island of Bornholm measured severe tremors.

A representative of the Swedish coastguard told AFP: “There are two leaks on Swedish territory and two on the Danish side.”
It remains a mystery as to how the explosives reached the pipeline. According to initial reports, the explosions happened at depths of between 70 and 90 metres.

There has been speculation that mini submarines might have been used to deliver the explosives. However, the amount of explosives that would have been necessary to cause such large blasts make this theory increasingly unlikely.

Instead, experts are suggesting that maintenance robots operating within the pipeline structure may have planted the bombs during repair works.

If this theory proves to be right, the sophisticated nature of the attack as well as the power of the blast would add weight to suspicions that the attacks were carried out by a state power, with fingers pointed at Russia. Moscow has repeatedly underlined its capability to disrupt Europe’s energy infrastructure.

On Friday, Vladimir Putin blamed the US and its allies for blowing up the pipelines, raising the temperature in the crisis. Offering no evidence for his claim, the Russian president said in a speech to mark the annexation of four Ukrainian regions: “The sanctions were not enough for the Anglo-Saxons: they moved on to sabotage. It is hard to believe but it is a fact that they organised the blasts on the Nord Stream international gas pipelines.”

The methane clouds are being monitored closely. The ICOS, which is analysing the air quality, has shown footage of a huge gas cloud hovering above the Baltic Sea and moving across Europe.
Methane measuring stations in Sweden, Norway and Finland had indicated sharp rises in methane in recent days. Observation satellites are believed to have failed to record the emissions due to cloudy weather, the ICOS said.

It said the emissions were equivalent to an entire year’s methane output for a city “the size of Paris or a country like Denmark”.
“This is really bad, most likely the largest emission event ever detected,” Manfredi Caltagirone, acting head of UNEP’s International Methane Emissions Observator told Reuters. “This is not helpful in a moment when we absolutely need to reduce emissions.”

Prof Stephen Platt, from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, said: “We assume the wind on the leak area blew the methane emissions north until the Finnish archipelago, then bent towards Sweden and Norway.”

Germany’s federal environment agency has estimated that emissions equivalent to 7.5m tons of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere. That equates to about 1% of Germany’s entire annual emissions. Gregor Rehder, of the Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research in the northern town of Warnemünde, told Spiegel: “That is quite a considerable amount of greenhouse gas that has been released.”

Methane is one of the strongest greenhouse gases, warming the atmosphere about 30 times more than carbon dioxide over a period of 100 years. The timing and scale of the leak should be viewed with even more alarm owing to the immediate necessity to slow down climate change, the ICOS said.

German investigators told media that divers or remote-controlled robots may be able to visit the site of the leaks as early as this weekend.

[birlinn]

^^ yep.

[dutchpp]

The latest speculation on the Nord stream attacks is that the Russian sail training vessel Sedov was sailing at the exact location of the pipelines and the explosions and sailed in the area with it's AIS switched off during some time 2 days before the explosions. Was she providing cover for a submarine or is the Sedov the terrorist ship?
Sedov plaatje.jpg
The Sedov.
And a map of the plotted locations.
Sedov posities.jpg
The source is the Dutch newspaper NRC
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/09/30...tream-a4143743
( which is probably behind a paywall )

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

There’s no reason for a sail training ship in European waters to turn her AIS off!

[epoxyboy]

So, you spew a bunch of stuff at me, then announce the conversation over? That's lame. You can't explain why, in what you term an 'information vacuum,' you know of motives and stated goals that don't appear in the public record.

I think it's just as well you stop trying to justify this contradiction.

You do realise that when I say "hypothetical", I'm referring to something made up, a pretend "what if" scenario? Because that is critical to understanding why this is going so badly wrong.
Unless of course you're just winding me up.


I'll try one last time.
I stated exactly which two pieces of information an information vacuum pertains to - specifically and only, who blew up nord stream and how. This is real, it has actually happened, but we don't know who or how - the information vacuum. Hopefully we can agree on that?


I also stated very clearly that "motive and stated goals" were in-part hypothetical (they're made up, pretend, but they have to be at least slightly plausible).
They are a way of test driving the hypothetical scenario "Might the US have been involved, and if so, why"?

As a hypothetical exercise, it goes like this:
Did Biden say he would stop NS2? Yes. This is real, he actually said that. He didn't say how.

Could Biden go a bit further than just sanctioning NS2? Yes, if he chose to. Unlikely, but not impossible, the means exist.

We have to try and answer why on earth would he do that, or the exercise fails right there. At this point, we're flying kites, trying ideas out, seeing if they fly. It's ALL hypothetical, made up from here, but if an answer isnt at least vaguely plausible it doesn't fly.
I used:
Does Germany need vast amounts of LNG? Yes.
Are there hundreds of billions of dollars at stake? Yes
Are both NS pipelines out of commission? Yes
Does the US produce LNG, and might it benefit from the situation? Yes, and maybe.

Have we satisfied the whiff of plausibility test for this hypothetical, made up, pretend answer? On the surface at least, yes.
Are we still on the same page? You understand clearly all of that ^ is nothing more than a mental exercise?

And that trying to say an information vacuum applies to that stuff ^ (our hypothetically possible goal and motive), would be a nonsense. We asked a hypothetical question, and provided a possible answer using information that is available.
Yes? Hopefully.



But you're persisting with:
You can't explain why, in what you term an 'information vacuum,' you know of motives and stated goals that don't appear in the public record.

Well no .
That would be because hypothetical (made up, what-if, pretend) stuff I post on WBF is not a matter of public record. The stated goal was a hypothetical extension of what Biden did say, and the hypothetical motive was answered with information that is all common knowledge - as listed a couple of paragraphs above.
There is no information vacuum around these hypothetical points, there is no contradiction, there is no mysterious information that only I know - if that's what you're implying . I'm at a complete loss as to why you keep banging this drum.

Your continued failure to acknowledge the distinction between the real (nord stream was damaged by an unknown party), and the hypothetical (might the US have been involved, and why?) is where your perceived contradiction comes from.
Either I've been spectacularly bad at explaining this, God knows I've had several attempts, or...you tell me.
Continuing with that level of disconnect seems fruitless though, that's why I said I'm done with it.
I can't explain it any more simply than I already have.



Pete

[ERGR]

ISW has an article on Putin's nuclear threats:
Special Report: Assessing Putin’s Implicit Nuclear Threats After Annexation | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org)

The conclusion, with which I agree, is:

The more confident Putin is that nuclear use will not achieve decisive effects but will draw direct Western conventional military intervention in the conflict, the less likely he is to conduct a nuclear attack.

The peacenicks, trolls and apologists who spread doubt regarding the Western response are dangerous to us all. By saying what Putin wants to hear they might convince Putin that the West will yield if nukes are used. That won't be the case.
/Erik

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

ISW has an article on Putin's nuclear threats:
Special Report: Assessing Putin’s Implicit Nuclear Threats After Annexation | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org)

The conclusion, with which I agree, is:

The peacenicks, trolls and apologists who spread doubt regarding the Western response are dangerous to us all. By saying what Putin wants to hear they might convince Putin that the West will yield if nukes are used. That won't be the case.
/Erik

Thanks for the link; I’ve read the article and I also agree.

[bluedog225]

This was particularly hard to read. From today:

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wo...s-a-slaughter/

[dutchpp]

^the harsh reality of war.

[ERGR]

Post #5253 maps with other info on the Lyman encirclement. Here's an account by Tom Cooper:
Ukraine War, 30 September 2022: Lyman Pocket | by Tom Cooper | Oct, 2022 | Medium
/Erik

[bluedog225]

I feel like we missed an opportunity this summer to reduce/eliminate payments to the russian regime for energy. To finish this sooner. What we find acceptable and unacceptable seems wrong.

The destruction of the russian pipelines puts the focus on shipping.

[ERGR]

The flow of money into Russia is of minor importance as long as we block them from buying anything useful for the war effort. European industry weakened from energy shortage is a far greater problem for Ukraine.
/Erik

[George Jung]

I feel like we missed an opportunity this summer to reduce/eliminate payments to the russian regime for energy. To finish this sooner. What we find acceptable and unacceptable seems wrong.

The destruction of the russian pipelines puts the focus on shipping.

Hindsight is generally more accurate, and useless. 'what to do, and at what cost?'

[Osborne Russell]

ok, but you didn't answer the question. are these adzwipes also "substantially discredited"?

I thought it was a joke. These guys had no credit to be dissed. Reds generally, supporters and enablers of Trump, were they further discredited? I guess. But it's different because for the most part they're only following where Trump leads. Many of them I bet still couldn't find Ukraine on the map. So whatever there is about Russia to bring further discredit, it's doesn't bring much compared to the totality of MAGA.

Whereas the Wounded Knee faction of the left (Putin was provoked by the US) has a theory of history and is making a factual case. Trying, anyway.

[Osborne Russell]

The conclusion, with which I agree, is:

The more confident Putin is that nuclear use will not achieve decisive effects but will draw direct Western conventional military intervention in the conflict, the less likely he is to conduct a nuclear attack.

Yeah. Especially the "not achieve decisive effects". A small nuke on a civilian target? Is going to terrify the Ukrainians into surrender? They don't seem like that kind of people. Terrify the West into surrender? Be serious.

When it comes to conventional forces, they can enter Ukraine and Russia, up from both sides of the Black Sea, and up the Caspian sea, right? Not just through Poland or the Baltic states. If Putin nukes them or even lobs some conventional ordinance at them, it's war. Iran would not be happy to to irradiated, we can assume. And, maybe, through the Stans, who suddenly decide, the time has come to get out from under Putin.

The peacenicks, trolls and apologists who spread doubt regarding the Western response are dangerous to us all. By saying what Putin wants to hear they might convince Putin that the West will yield if nukes are used. That won't be the case. /Erik

Bears repeating.

[bluedog225]

6734013[/URL]]The flow of money into Russia is of minor importance as long as we block them from buying anything useful for the war effort. European industry weakened from energy shortage is a far greater problem for Ukraine.
/Erik

That’s nice thing to believe.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Perun’s lecture for today covers Russia’s mobilisation. As usual, it is an hour long and comprehensive:

https://youtu.be/6hXnQNU8ANo

[birlinn]

Putin must be throwing a wobbly.
More defenestrated generals?

[Edward Pearson]

From Lyman, the station up the road Svatove then accross by road, to the line at Starobilsk. Take those two rail stations and Russia can't supply Luhansk region from Begorod. Gives Ukraine military control of the Luhansk oblast.

This triangle of land is the battle for Luhansk it seems.

[johnw]

You do realise that when I say "hypothetical", I'm referring to something made up, a pretend "what if" scenario? Because that is critical to understanding why this is going so badly wrong.
Unless of course you're just winding me up.


I'll try one last time.
I stated exactly which two pieces of information an information vacuum pertains to - specifically and only, who blew up nord stream and how. This is real, it has actually happened, but we don't know who or how - the information vacuum. Hopefully we can agree on that?


I also stated very clearly that "motive and stated goals" were in-part hypothetical (they're made up, pretend, but they have to be at least slightly plausible).
They are a way of test driving the hypothetical scenario "Might the US have been involved, and if so, why"?

As a hypothetical exercise, it goes like this:
Did Biden say he would stop NS2? Yes. This is real, he actually said that. He didn't say how.

Could Biden go a bit further than just sanctioning NS2? Yes, if he chose to. Unlikely, but not impossible, the means exist.

We have to try and answer why on earth would he do that, or the exercise fails right there. At this point, we're flying kites, trying ideas out, seeing if they fly. It's ALL hypothetical, made up from here, but if an answer isnt at least vaguely plausible it doesn't fly.
I used:
Does Germany need vast amounts of LNG? Yes.
Are there hundreds of billions of dollars at stake? Yes
Are both NS pipelines out of commission? Yes
Does the US produce LNG, and might it benefit from the situation? Yes, and maybe.

Have we satisfied the whiff of plausibility test for this hypothetical, made up, pretend answer? On the surface at least, yes.
Are we still on the same page? You understand clearly all of that ^ is nothing more than a mental exercise?

And that trying to say an information vacuum applies to that stuff ^ (our hypothetically possible goal and motive), would be a nonsense. We asked a hypothetical question, and provided a possible answer using information that is available.
Yes? Hopefully.



But you're persisting with:
You can't explain why, in what you term an 'information vacuum,' you know of motives and stated goals that don't appear in the public record.

Well no .
That would be because hypothetical (made up, what-if, pretend) stuff I post on WBF is not a matter of public record. The stated goal was a hypothetical extension of what Biden did say, and the hypothetical motive was answered with information that is all common knowledge - as listed a couple of paragraphs above.
There is no information vacuum around these hypothetical points, there is no contradiction, there is no mysterious information that only I know - if that's what you're implying . I'm at a complete loss as to why you keep banging this drum.

Your continued failure to acknowledge the distinction between the real (nord stream was damaged by an unknown party), and the hypothetical (might the US have been involved, and why?) is where your perceived contradiction comes from.
Either I've been spectacularly bad at explaining this, God knows I've had several attempts, or...you tell me.
Continuing with that level of disconnect seems fruitless though, that's why I said I'm done with it.
I can't explain it any more simply than I already have.



Pete

Well, thanks for condescending to continue the conversation, I guess. Really, all you had to say was this:

You can't explain why, in what you term an 'information vacuum,' you know of motives and stated goals that don't appear in the public record.

Well no .
That would be because hypothetical (made up, what-if, pretend) stuff I post on WBF...

I think we can both agree that the motive and stated goal that you claimed to know are, as you say, 'made up, pretend stuff,' which is fine. This is the distinction I've been making all along. Your original post seemed to assert that these were things we knew for sure. If that was not your point, you certainly could have cleared this up sooner.

We are all free to speculate as to who did this and how it happened, I just think that we need to make a distinction between what we actually know and what is speculation. It is certainly legitimate to speculate that the Biden administration might have motives and goals not publicly announced, while it is not legitimate to simply announce that they have the motives and goals you speculate they might have and expect that to be accepted as proven fact.

[johnw]

I consider that a fair observation . . .

But note that previously some few of us have posted a number of credible cites about the events of April.

I am not goint to keep on doing that , , .

Given how the credibility of those cites has turned out, I don't blame you. Honestly, I'm sure the war will end with a diplomatic settlement, but that's not helped by Russia annexing parts of Ukraine that they appear to be losing in battle.

What could Russia do that would make Ukraine eager to come to the table? Surely, they have some agency in this matter.

[AndyG]

Putin's done for.

"Does he know it yet?", is the real question.

Andy

[epoxyboy]

Well, thanks for condescending to continue the conversation, I guess. Really, all you had to say was this:




I think we can both agree that the motive and stated goal that you claimed to know are, as you say, 'made up, pretend stuff,' which is fine. This is the distinction I've been making all along. Your original post seemed to assert that these were things we knew for sure. If that was not your point, you certainly could have cleared this up sooner.
8
We are all free to speculate as to who did this and how it happened, I just think that we need to make a distinction between what we actually know and what is speculation. It is certainly legitimate to speculate that the Biden administration might have motives and goals not publicly announced, while it is not legitimate to simply announce that they have the motives and goals you speculate they might have and expect that to be accepted as proven fact.

Wow, that's a reply Sky Blue would be proud of .

I've been very clear right from the beginning this was all speculative .

In fact I called you out several times on your repeated attempts to paint what I had written as being factual, pointed each time that it was speculative, and finally expressed my frustration with you doing this in pretty blunt terms
I believe you accused me of spewing stuff at you, at that point .

But finally the message has sunk in. Hallelujah!!!

You have a nice day.


Pete

[johnw]

Wow, that's a reply Sky Blue would be proud of .

I've been very clear right from the beginning this was all speculative .

In fact I called you out several times on your repeated attempts to paint what I had written as being factual, pointed each time that it was speculative, and finally expressed my frustration with you doing this in pretty blunt terms
I believe you accused me of spewing stuff at you, at that point .

But finally the message has sunk in. Hallelujah!!!

You have a nice day.


Pete

Nah, I debated Sky Blue, he would have been quoting Mobius Mobug or someone equally obscure.

I'm painfully aware that I'm an imperfect human being and capable of making mistakes, so I went though our conversation to date to see if I've been missing something all along. Here's the post that got us going:

Originally Posted by epoxyboy
"Discredited" on no basis other than people here not wanting to believe it. Means, motive, and stated goal. Tick, tick, tick.

Pete

You said that on the 28th, and it looked to me like an unambiguous statement of fact. It wasn't until yesterday that you finally said something about hypotheticals. I'm not a mind reader, I was responding to what you had actually said. You claim claim to have been clear from the start that your statement was speculative, but you wrote it as if it were definitive. Perhaps if you devoted more effort to saying what you mean and less to attempting to demean the people you're talking to, you would have more pleasant conversations.

[johnw]

Putin's done for.

"Does he know it yet?", is the real question.

Andy

Admitting it is a threat to his survival.