Reply With QuoteI would have to guess calling up the reserves is not going to be a popular move.
Yup, that sounds like an admission that the Ukraine counteroffensive is indeed regaining ground. I'd guess he wants to concentrate normal military forces in the general Donbass region to hold it till Ukraine is exhausted while using the reserves to keep control in the areas he'll pull those normal forces from. (Lets him keep his promise of not sending conscripts/students to Ukraine, while freeing up forces that he can send)
As far as I'm aware, the HIMARS the US has sent are only carrying GMLRS rocket pods which only have a range of 92kn and therefor cant strike deep into Russia. There's a version of the pods, the ATACMS, with a range of 300 kms which can, but the US has reportedly been refusing to supply that version to prevent escalation.
I would have to guess calling up the reserves is not going to be a popular move.
Putin complaining about the possibility of the war spilling into his own country and the threat of nukes is peak irony.
It seems like an obvious direction that Putin is going to have some shame election in the UK territories and then declare them part of Russia. From there he can then justify whatever the heck he wants in regards to the fighting as a defensive move. It won't work with the rest of the world, but it might solve his people problem at home if he can change the narrative to the world is attacking Russia directly.
Rubbing alcohol is for wounds on the outside, but drinking alcohol is for wounds on the inside.
Have seen a couple of articles about what is happening now that he said he is calling up 300k new recruits. One said that all one-way airline tickets to countries that allow Russians with no Visa are sold out, and another that showed web searches for ways out of Russia spiked big time. I also saw one today that said China is calling for all parties to meet and work on this diplomatically, but I don't think Putin even knows that word exists.
'This world may be another planet's hell.'{Aldous Huxley}
'After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.'{Aldous Huxley}
Oh, I'm sure he'd like to end the war tomorrow if he could, with all gains retained.
The reserves likely won't see combat unless things go really, really badly. This is more about making sure garrisons are staffed while the normal troops at them are thrown into the war. Doesn't help the people being called up - congrats, Muscovite, you get to man the Vladivostok base - and I get why they're all heading for the door. There's got to be zero trust at this point that he won't throw them into the fray, especially since every time he says something about the war it quickly turns into a lie.
Dead on. It's funny watching them rush the referendums to try and beat the oncoming Ukrainian troops. You wouldn't think it takes that long to run a fake election!Originally Posted by Dale
The UK's defense ministry said that Putin is set to announce the annexation of the occupied regions, using the referendums as justification. He'll likely then start threatening nukes if the West continues to help the Ukraine in any way, since the Ukraine would then be invading Russia from Russia's viewpoint. That's assuming he lives to make these announcements, since he left Moscow after people started flipping out over the conscription issue.
Russian propaganda says its immensely popular, with 95% of people showing up even before getting their notices, and showing a porch with maybe a dozen people on it (albeit with room for more outside the shot). I'm sure we all believe that.
On the other hand there's all the sudden new travel restrictions that would, purely coincidentally I'm sure, make it difficult to run away if you didnt want to be conscripted.
And of course there's the guy who shot his conscription officer, which I assume is a resounding endorsement of the policy. :P
In other exciting news, we have this-
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nord-s...mage-1.6597069
https://news.sky.com/story/kremlin-s...nings-12706208
From this-
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/cam...e-russian-gas/
And with Germany wavering on the gas embargo thing, we can look at this-
FdrjC-_VEAA6mFA.jpg
What’s wrong with what he said? Perhaps you should look up some of the timeline of this and US involvement. Do you not understand the influence the US has on situations like this? And Why? Bush, Obama, Trump (sorta kinda), and now Biden all stood behind the same policy from the inception of Nord Stream 1. This was not a republican/democrat thing. Hell, even congress US issued sanctions over it (it was passed 98-2) in 2017 because Trump was being dumb with it.
edit: this was a large concern as soon as the invasion occurred. There was worry that at some point the pipelines would be attacked. CIA has been warning Germany of this for some time now.
Last edited by Ronin; September 27th, 2022 at 03:15 PM.
Attacked, sure, but by who? Who has the capability and benefits from it? It wouldnt seem to be Russia. What would be the point in cutting off an export route if they might want it in the future? Just continue to "do maintenance" for however long, and hey, you might even be able to squeeze a restricted technology item or two out of it while you're at it. Plus having the Russian-owned pipeline there is an excellent excuse to extend a naval patrol presence along its length "for security" and to quietly deploy acoustic sensors along with the pipe similar to the allied SOSUS line which would make any opposing naval presence in the Baltic Sea area much more risky if things ever went south. Remember that the Baltic States are one of the areas that Russia wants to control to shorten its defensive lines, and gaining more control in the Baltic helps with that. No pipelines, no handy excuse. Doesnt mean it couldnt be Russia who did it, but there doesnt seem to be a benefit to it.
It does benefit the aggressive US policy on Russia/Ukraine to cut down Germany's ability to back off the sanctions regime as they have been making some noises about lately. The CIA warning about it is hardly definitive. Could be a legit warning, could just be them playing fuckfuck games in a similar vein to the FBI shtick of planting a news story then citing that story as cause to investigate something.
How did Trump "sorta-kinda" oppose it? He was smirked at by the Germans for suggesting it would make them reliant on Russia, and people seemed quite happy to smirk along with them.
Signs and indications point to Russia, but you're right it remains to be seen. So we'll see (or perhaps we won't). However, Russia absolutely benefits from doing this. What would be the point of cutting off previous gas/energy? Russia cut gas shipments down nearly 90% from the previous year. Then Germany seizes a Russian-owned oil refinery (Sept 16). There's an entire history here between The US, Russia, Germany, Ukraine, and other countries that I can post about later, but most importantly though in mid May the EU basically planned to end its reliance on Russian oil, gas, and coal by 2027. Russia has insulated itself from this, so why not cut it now? It makes sense. However, we'll see what plays out.
Re: Trump. Tl;dr version is in 2017 the US senate passed sanctions by 98-2 targeting the pipeline because they thought Trump would ease existing sanctions.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...ia-are-likely/ A bunch of European countries criticized this. Trump later approved sanctions for Nord Stream 2 in 2019. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935)
As far as the Trump smirk and suggesting it would make Germany reliant on Russia: I hate to break it to you but that's been common knowledge for a while now. Germany started to shut down their nuclear energy and ended up purchasing it from France. There has warnings about their reliance on Russia for a long, long time. Germany has had a back and forth with Nuclear energy since the 70s (like other countries), but that increased with the accident in Fukushima in 2011. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact...lear-phase-out
Russia would be near the bottom of the list of suspects. It does not make any tactical or economical sense to actually destroy the line. Keeping their side valved off was enough for them.
The USA is prime suspect here since it has more economic value for them to and the environmental impact won't reach them for years, they have the presence in the area to do it unseen and Biden as good as told everyone he was going to do so. As side effect, hundreds of North Europeans will freeze to death the coming winter.
Terry Pratchett: A European says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with me? An American says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with him?
Torcer Arcana: There are times I really love the Dutch.
Zedd: Bran, I think you exhibit moonbat qualities at times
?????????: Never argue with a stupid man, because he will drag you down to his level and beat you because of his experience.
I see plenty of motive for Russia to sabotage the pipe, Creates instability in NATO as heating season starts to come into play. The only way Russia gets the clamps off is making NATO blink, Putler is against the wall here and odds are his longevity in office and survival against ousting by force depends on success with in this winter.
Today we sail
On the Solar Rail
For there's much we just don't know
So farewell with a kiss
Then it's fast for the mist
Till we're sleeping in the cold below
How? The thing was already "down for maintenance" in the first place, hence squeezing a "restricted export" turbine out of Canada to supposedly fix the pipe. How does blowing the pipe do that job better than just having maintenance problems for however long amuses them? The US blowing it forces Europe to stay with the US-desired course, and lets the US make some fun money shipping gas over there at high prices.
This. No matter the outcome, the moment issues are considered resolved, Russia will need money again and thus requires that line to be opened up again immediately. destroying the infra would hurt for over a decade after just to get repairs done. The only party that stands to gain from this is one that can supply an alternative for that long. The USA might try, but their shale gas fields already produce way below initially prospected supply and are also destroying the regional aquifers making the area uninhabitable in the long run.
Terry Pratchett: A European says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with me? An American says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with him?
Torcer Arcana: There are times I really love the Dutch.
Zedd: Bran, I think you exhibit moonbat qualities at times
?????????: Never argue with a stupid man, because he will drag you down to his level and beat you because of his experience.
You are assuming rational actors who are taking into consideration the medium to long-term effects, Branaman.
What happens to your analysis if you don't assume that to be true?
Who fits those criteria (irrationality and short-term outlook) better? US/Biden or Russia/Putin?
The analysis I've read indicates it's about keeping the oligarchs in line. You can't toss them all out windows, but you need them to stop considering the idea of surrendering early. Blow up the pipeline, so there's no quick influx of cash the moment an armistice is signed, and peace isn't as much of a short-term positive. Without short-term thinking to get in the way, the oligarchs start thinking long-term, and a Russia with the Ukraine's assets looks like a good future.
Posting Permissions