Jump to content

Russian aggression - what to do?

malumbu

By malumbu
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is certainly an international show of support.

> T May has done well on that front. It won't make

> an once of difference to Putin of course.



Sky News keep saying how pleased Theresa May should feel. I'm not sure about pleased - reminds me to much of Tony when we're moving towards Cold War II.


Back Putin in to a corner but make sure that you leave that little "Exit with Face" door open - or he will come out fighting.

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

Shutting of the gas is an oft-touted possible move by Putin, but a very risky one. Not only is energy one of Russia?s few sources of income (at a time when they are financially not as solid as they would like) but it would be seen as a major escalation.


Let?s not forget that it is generally agreed by all concerned world governments that closing the Straits of Hormuz would be considered tantamount to an act of war, such is international dependence on Middle East oil (though Arica might care less these days). For Putin to turn the gas off might not be quite so incendiary, but it?s not far off.


Not saying he wouldn?t do it, but if he does that?ll really worry me. It?s starting to have a whiff of brinkmanship about it.

TE44

TE44

Posted
Posted

Shouldn't we have waited on the OPCWs report,

it seems regardless of reports, the damage has been

done. A link to the considerations on whether the OPCW could investigate. The first mention of a chemical attack should have opened the door to an outside independant investigation.


https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2018/03/26/the-reasonable-citizen-sergei-skripal/

robbin

robbin

Posted
Posted

I think you underestimate Putin - he's far more sophisticated than you give him credit for. He doesn't just come out fighting because that's a hard-wired response (or because he has a tough guy image) and he won't necessarily up the ante (he would only do this if he thinks there is a benefit to doing so and cutting off one of your major long term revenue streams doesn't sound too beneficial). He is just as likely, having tested the water and (possibly surprisingly) found it to be rather icy cold, to limit any response to a measured tit for tat and hope the matter blows over.


I suspect he was not banking on the sort of combined response that has taken place. If Russia and Putin were responsible for the nerve agent attack, he is most likely to have viewed it as a test to see whether they could cause some instability between the allies at a time when the UK and EU are splitting and there is a minority government and Trump in the WH. Now he has his pretty clear answer, there's nothing in it for him to escalate against so many different countries more powerful than his own. What would be the point in that? He's just won his election.


Leaders with a tough guy image who are also clever operators don't pick pointless fights they may lose (or be perceived to have lost). To remain the tough leader you have to pick your fights carefully. Putin does that - he knew he could batter the opposition in Syria and he knew he could take Crimea and his proxies could take the far east of Ukraine, but he equally saw that he should then stop, as a fight for the rest of Ukraine, although one he could win, would come at a major price.

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think you underestimate Putin - he's far more

> sophisticated than you give him credit for.


I don?t underestimate Putin. As my earlier comments show I?m well aware of Russian skill in deceiving others about their true aims. The ones I don?t trust are - ironically - the Western governments, because they are the ones more likely to push Russia into a corner.


He

> doesn't just come out fighting because that's a

> hard-wired response (or because he has a tough guy

> image) and he won't necessarily up the ante (he

> would only do this if he thinks there is a benefit

> to doing so and cutting off one of your major long

> term revenue streams doesn't sound too

> beneficial).


I agree with all of that, but we shouldn?t forget that Putin is aiming to build Russia back to superpower status.



He is just as likely, having tested

> the water and (possibly surprisingly) found it to

> be rather icy cold, to limit any response to a

> measured tit for tat and hope the matter blows

> over.

>


Until the next time. His long term goals are rather worrying, given that the West seems intent on resisting him.



> I suspect he was not banking on the sort of

> combined response that has taken place. If Russia

> and Putin were responsible for the nerve agent

> attack, he is most likely to have viewed it as a

> test to see whether they could cause some

> instability between the allies at a time when the

> UK and EU are splitting and there is a minority

> government and Trump in the WH. Now he has his

> pretty clear answer, there's nothing in it for him

> to escalate against so many different countries

> more powerful than his own. What would be the

> point in that? He's just won his election.

>


Again, yes, I think this is all likely to be what happened - he thrives on staying ?on the pffensove?, and as you say probably wasn?t expecting this much cohesion in the response.



> Leaders with a tough guy image who are also clever

> operators don't pick pointless fights they may

> lose (or be perceived to have lost). To remain

> the tough leader you have to pick your fights

> carefully. Putin does that - he knew he could

> batter the opposition in Syria and he knew he

> could take Crimea and his proxies could take the

> far east of Ukraine, but he equally saw that he

> should then stop, as a fight for the rest of

> Ukraine, although one he could win, would come at

> a major price.


I think that ?major price? is a massive understatement. I don?t think he ever intended to take the whole of Ukraine?s; he wants a physical buffer between Russia and NATO, the idea that he would ever tolerate Ukraine joining NATO is laughable. If he had gone on to annex the whole place it would?ve made Afghanistan look like a tea party.


What concerns me with Russia - and I have long believed it was just a mater of time before we found ourselves dealing with a resurgent Russia intent on being taken seriously - is hard w much bluff and brinkmanship they will play. China takes the long view, Putin appears less patient. Then again, game theory tells us that this is exactly how he will behave, as he does his level best to control the confrontations without allowing it to spill over into conflict. I remember the Cold War, it scares the crap out of me, so yes I guess I?m pretty unhappy at what goes on these days.



ETA - this response isn?t as clear as it sounded in my head. Essentially I take Putin very seriously, I think he has a long term plan and his actions often make me think of Bismarck, and they way he manipulated and controlled events. I don?t think he wants a war, and I know that the preferred Russian method is to keep your opponent off-balance and defensive, guessing at your next move and he can do all that using hybrid, cyber and media activities these days. However, I don?t trust many in the West. Russia wants to be respected and taken seriously; they hate the memory of the 90?s, it was worse for them than Communism, in almost every way. Putin has given them back a lot that they feel ?makes them Russian?, and they have long memories. We in the West need to remember that we a dealing with a different culture, and our recent adventures have fallen foul because we filed to appreciate the importance of that.

robbin

robbin

Posted
Posted

JL I think it was clear enough. I agree all of that - particularly about the long term plan - Putin may not even have an end goal (apart from general destabilisation) but he acts with the long term in mind. He also has flexibility - he can act way faster than most other world leaders if he needs to - he doesn't have to jump through hoops or worry about carrying things through votes in Parliament as some would!


I'm sure you're correct that Putin wants a buffer from NATO - I think (having discussed this a fair bit on visits to Russia/Ukraine) that in the West we often fail to understand the genuine depth of concern and mistrust caused by foreign forces being on their border - after all they were occupied at huge cost in WWII in a way we never were and that has never been forgotten.


I wasn't suggesting Putin was ever considering taking all of Ukraine - quite the contrary - he needed to secure the Black Sea naval port at Sevastopol in Crimea - just as a couple of years ago he needed to secure his only Mediterranean naval port at Tartus in Syria. His forces/proxy forces then seized and held the richest part of Ukraine in terms of natural resources - the east also had the benefit of close proximity to Russia. Ukraine also doesn't have the extreme mountainous terrain that Afghanistan has in order to assist with an insurgency - mostly just endless miles of plains (the Great European Plain) or steppe.


Cleverly, what Putin also appreciated was that in the eastern part of Ukraine there was a fair proportion of the population that would consider themselves far more closely aligned to Russia (most of the population being Russian speakers - not Ukrainian). That made the area a far safer bet in terms of holding the land after it had been seized.

robbin

robbin

Posted
Posted

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Article here

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43421431 with

> details of gas supply to UK .


Interesting. I knew we hardly used any gas from Russia, but I hadn't realised it was quite as low as 1% of our total gas imports.

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> intexasatthe moment Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Article here

> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43421431

> with

> > details of gas supply to UK .

>

> Interesting. I knew we hardly used any gas from

> Russia, but I hadn't realised it was quite as low

> as 1% of our total gas imports.


British Gas (who are just one provider) have a different diagram. Europeaan pipelines aren't under our control - so if Russia reduces gas maybe there'll be less for all


https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source/our-world-of-energy/energys-grand-journey/where-does-uk-gas-come-from

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> British Gas (who are just one provider) have a

> different diagram. Europeaan pipelines aren't

> under our control - so if Russia reduces gas maybe

> there'll be less for all


Interesting, so if Russia were to turn off the tap we could potentially lose around 15% of supply. Given that in the cold snap we were warned we were coming close to running out of gas, that's a pretty significant proportion. As our home-produced supplies are only going to diminish over time, it's hard to think of a better argument for expanding renewables development.

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted

Lots of good points above.


Russia has a small economy, that is her biggest problem really. And I agree that Putin has to be mindful of that. Any kind of extensive war would bankrupt her pretty quickly, as would extreme sanctions or as you all point out, tampering with one of her best revenue streams. So I don't think anything as far as war would suit her.


My feeling is that all of this (and that includes all of the other things underhand that Russia and Putin have done) is that Russia likes to push at the boundaries, and be a nuisance. It's flexing muscles, and keeping dissidents afraid, to consolidate power. Russia has always played this game.


I do though agree with the point made that perhpas Putin has sought to test the Western alliance. There is only one reason why Russia would have wanted Trump in the Whitehouse, or the UK out of the EU. He probably will have been surprised by the united show from not only Europe, but America too, with these diplomatic expulsions. All of those nations involved understand perfectly the bigger picture here, that the West can not afford to give Putin even one example of disunity when it comes to matters of security.

robbin

robbin

Posted
Posted

RH - Not sure where you work out the 15% from. The BG website is confusing and uses different (less precise breakdowns). 'Europe' in the BG site includes Norway - which is where the vast majority of our gas comes from. Norway's pipelines do not (cannot) carry Russian gas, so it is inapposite to apply the figures for European pipelines from the BG website.


For what it is worth, the BBC say this:


There are no pipelines that allow Russian gas to flow to the UK from Norway (the biggest source of imports).


But it's impossible to establish the source of gas flows from continental Europe coming to the UK through pipelines.


The government estimated in 2016 that Russian gas via this route would make up around 1% of the UK's gas imports.


A spokeswoman for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) told BBC News that the UK "benefits from highly diverse and flexible sources of gas supply. We estimate less than 1% of our gas comes from Russia and are in no way reliant on it".


Whether 1% or 15% (but clearly it is nearer to the 1%) it doesn't seem at all likely that Russia will punch itself in the face by turning off its largest (or close to largest) revenue stream over something like this. It is trying to get stronger not weaker. Even a genuine possibility that cutting off supplies might happen could be damaging to Russia in the medium to long term because Germany and others will see it as a strategic threat and start sourcing energy in different forms and from different suppliers.

malumbu

malumbu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It's supply and demand. If Russia turns the screw then the price goes up. That said they'd be cutting off an important source of revenue. Unless we have a long hard winter, when storage is depleted, plus loss of North Sea production due to poor weather, and say technical issues, UK is very resilient. Big mistakes made late Thatcher and successive governments on energy policy, but that is another issue.
uncleglen

uncleglen

Posted
Posted

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not going to trust British Gas figures but I

> agree it's very doubtful Putin would do this.

>

> He has his own (sad) problem at the moment with

> the fire in Kemerovo.

>

> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/world/europe/ru

> ssia-kemerovo-fire.html


I doubt if he sees it as HIS problem- if he did it wouldn't have happened in the first place, health and safety etc would have been in place. People live in terrible conditions in some places in Russia ...and if he is prepared to endanger the lives of innocent Brits in Salisbury then it is obvious he does not give a stuff

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...