Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[8bit]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I'm sure oil was an issue, but if it was mainly about oil they could have bought oil off Saddam. No need to invade.

Oil industry in Iraq was nationalised at the time, no foreign companies were allowed in. Anyway, I didn't mean to derail this thread, sure there's probably one for that already.

[rxe]

vonuber said:

For some reason it seems like the anti-German sentiment is higher than anti-Russian on here.
Especially considering Germany is doing no different to a lot of other countries, and a lot more than say France is, especially given Macron's attempts to sell Ukraine down the river.

Not from me. I wouldn’t care if the Russian nation was obliterated by an asteroid tomorrow. Or they all suffered a painful death from bubonic plague. They’re scum, filth, the lowest of the low. Sure there will be some nice ones, but their army is full of baby-rapists, so they can burn in hell for all I care.

The Germans are way better than that. All they’ve done is outsource fascism. They used to do it themselves, and just like call centres, they’ve found it easier to pay someone else to do it. .

[BikeBikeBIke]

rxe said:

The Germans are way better than that. All they’ve done is outsource fascism. They used to do it themselves, and just like call centres, they’ve found it easier to pay someone else to do it. .

Nonsense.

Putin wants the West to bicker and become disunited. This mentality is part of his plan.

Germany are over committed to Russian energy. In 15 years time they will be significantly less so. There's no tolerable way for them to stop imports overnight and that goes for many European Countries. Maybe none of us will ever get to zero, but even a 50pc reduction will stop us being blackmailed in future.

We are all on the same side and *must* remain so.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 25th May 16:03

[anonymous-user]

8bit said:

fblm said:

8bit said:

You're not wrong on the "wrong score" but the intention was purely about getting control of Iraq's oil, wasn't it?

Spend $1100bn to secure the supply of $40bn/year in oil that the US doesn't even need?

And yet, there they all are - https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-wa...

CNN Article said:

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

"about oil" =/= "purely about getting control of Iraq's oil"
The cost benefit is pretty clear. Wrong thread for this rabbit hole though!

[8bit]

fblm said:

"about oil" =/= "purely about getting control of Iraq's oil"
The cost benefit is pretty clear. Wrong thread for this rabbit hole though!

True, the US maybe hadn't anticipated it costing $1.1 trillion at the outset though. What is it about public sector organisations and project cost estimates...

[Olivera]

https://energybulletin.org/peak-oil-reference/peak...

2003 oil production, in million barrels per day:

United States 5.68
Iraq 1.31
Total, OPEC plus top 30 non-OPEC 72.66

Anyone who thinks Iraq was primarily about oil needs to lay down the crack pipe. The primary motivation was always neoconservative 'regime change' ideology.

[8bit]

Olivera said:

https://energybulletin.org/peak-oil-reference/peak...

2003 oil production, in million barrels per day:

United States 5.68
Iraq 1.31
Total, OPEC plus top 30 non-OPEC 72.66

Anyone who thinks Iraq was primarily about oil needs to lay down the crack pipe. The primary motivation was always neoconservative 'regime change' ideology.

Did you read the article I posted? The Americans openly said as much...

[Olivera]

8bit said:

Did you read the article I posted? The Americans openly said as much...

Yes, but cobbling together a few random quotes, some out of which are out of context, doesn't prove anything. I've looked into Greenspan's quote and it was pumped out to the media in an attempt to boost sales of his memoirs.

The economic case for the Iraq war being about oil, both before and after, has been debunked.

[8bit]

Olivera said:

Yes, but cobbling together a few random quotes, some out of which are out of context, doesn't prove anything. I've looked into Greenspan's quote and it was pumped out to the media in an attempt to boost sales of his memoirs.

The economic case for the Iraq war being about oil, both before and after, has been debunked.

OK - got a link? My (admittedly brief) googling that turned up the article I posted suggested there was a wealth of other articles on the same lines. Genuinely interested.

[off_again]

BikeBikeBIke said:

For those of us who need a lift about the current situation:


https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1529334...

Short but sweet - and sums up the situation quite nicely. The slow progress with high attrition losses the Russians are taking is going to grind them down. Its easy to assume that the Ukrainians arent 'winning' at this point - and the pro-Russian media will be pushing this as much as they possibly can. But the reality is that the Ukrainians dont need to fight for each and every small town. They can make the small gains so painful, expensive and with high loss of life, that its just not a 'win' for the Russians. They become so stretched with limited combat effectiveness, a sweeping counterattack will be massively effective.

Its hard to get accurate figures about the Ukrainian losses, but they are drastically lower than the Russians. The Russians cannot keep this up for months. They are already resorting to re-enlisting 63 year old pilots and considering expanding the army age ranges up to 50. I am not seeing that there is a way out for the Russians at the moment.

[Vasco]

off_again said:

Short but sweet - and sums up the situation quite nicely. The slow progress with high attrition losses the Russians are taking is going to grind them down. Its easy to assume that the Ukrainians arent 'winning' at this point - and the pro-Russian media will be pushing this as much as they possibly can. But the reality is that the Ukrainians dont need to fight for each and every small town. They can make the small gains so painful, expensive and with high loss of life, that its just not a 'win' for the Russians. They become so stretched with limited combat effectiveness, a sweeping counterattack will be massively effective.

Its hard to get accurate figures about the Ukrainian losses, but they are drastically lower than the Russians. The Russians cannot keep this up for months. They are already resorting to re-enlisting 63 year old pilots and considering expanding the army age ranges up to 50. I am not seeing that there is a way out for the Russians at the moment.

Surely, the Russians can continue for ever more if they wish to?. They only have to keep conscripting more and more human flesh to be thrown to Ukrainian attacks - Putin isn't known for being in the least bit concerned by loss of life.

[Wacky Racer]

vonuber said:

For some reason it seems like the anti-German sentiment is higher than anti-Russian on here.

Rather unfair, they gave us maximum points on Eurovision.

[vaud]

Olivera said:

Anyone who thinks Iraq was primarily about oil needs to lay down the crack pipe. The primary motivation was always neoconservative 'regime change' ideology.

Indeed

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

Well worth watching...

[vonuber]

Another interesting video from 1420:

[HM-2]

8bit said:

Olivera said:

Yes, but cobbling together a few random quotes, some out of which are out of context, doesn't prove anything. I've looked into Greenspan's quote and it was pumped out to the media in an attempt to boost sales of his memoirs.

The economic case for the Iraq war being about oil, both before and after, has been debunked.

OK - got a link? My (admittedly brief) googling that turned up the article I posted suggested there was a wealth of other articles on the same lines. Genuinely interested.

It's an opinion piece from an individual whose views on the subject are very overt, as they've been aired in multiple books.

Anyway, have a read of this, this and here. The "war for oil" myth is easily dispelled by two key factors; the fact the US essentially failed to rebuild crippled Iraqi infrastructure (resulting in huge suppression of production for a number of years after the initial invasion), and the realignment of the Iraqi government as a Shi'a Iranian puppet. If you look at the key export markets for Iraqi oil, the US makes the top five but it only represents a very small percentage compared to China (more than 35%) and India (~30%).

This is a good read- https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oil-Wars-Myth-Emily-Meier...

[jtremlett]

vonuber said:

Another interesting video from 1420:

In many ways the most interesting thing is the last part and how many of the interviewees are afraid to say what they think. We are very fortunate that we are free to voice an opinion on pretty much anything.

[Sway]

8bit said:

fblm said:

"about oil" =/= "purely about getting control of Iraq's oil"
The cost benefit is pretty clear. Wrong thread for this rabbit hole though!

True, the US maybe hadn't anticipated it costing $1.1 trillion at the outset though. What is it about public sector organisations and project cost estimates...

Iirc, it wasn't directly about the specific oil - but the challenge to the petrodollar.

[PRTVR]

Vasco said:

Surely, the Russians can continue for ever more if they wish to?. They only have to keep conscripting more and more human flesh to be thrown to Ukrainian attacks - Putin isn't known for being in the least bit concerned by loss of life.

Possibly, but you end up with an army who have no motivation and no wish to die against a highly motivated defender of their homeland armed with modern weapons,
Russia also has a population problem, with an ageing population the last thing they need is mass slaughter of their younger people , who will work the land and run the tractor factory comrade.

[spookly]

PRTVR said:

Vasco said:

Surely, the Russians can continue for ever more if they wish to?. They only have to keep conscripting more and more human flesh to be thrown to Ukrainian attacks - Putin isn't known for being in the least bit concerned by loss of life.

Possibly, but you end up with an army who have no motivation and no wish to die against a highly motivated defender of their homeland armed with modern weapons,
Russia also has a population problem, with an ageing population the last thing they need is mass slaughter of their younger people , who will work the land and run the tractor factory comrade.

The Chinese will, when they take over.

[Vasco]

PRTVR said:

Vasco said:

Surely, the Russians can continue for ever more if they wish to?. They only have to keep conscripting more and more human flesh to be thrown to Ukrainian attacks - Putin isn't known for being in the least bit concerned by loss of life.

Possibly, but you end up with an army who have no motivation and no wish to die against a highly motivated defender of their homeland armed with modern weapons,
Russia also has a population problem, with an ageing population the last thing they need is mass slaughter of their younger people , who will work the land and run the tractor factory comrade.

Not sure there's much motivation amongst the Russian forces to date anyway but, in any event, it's Putin who makes the decisions as to how many more men are sent to the meat grinder - and he doesn't care.