Russia - General Discussion.

[swerve]

If you have physical possession of a nuclear warhead & the necessary engineering skills, it should be possible to remove the control circuitry & fit your own, with whatever launch codes you want.

Think of it like a car key. If you have the car, a properly equipped workshop & the right skills, you can remove the locks & fit other locks. You can then drive the car.

It's not a trivial thing, but given the resources of a modern industrial state it is far from being an insuperable problem.

 

[Ananda]

Whatever West talk about oligarchs corruption in Russia, think it more on Ukraine. Besides even before the war, even before 2014 Ukraine was already in much worse condition economically then Russia. Will US and West going to let that kind of country control ex Soviet nukes?

Giving up Soviet nukes by Ukraine is not just what Russia wants, but also US and collective West. Giving Ukraine nukes back will not going to fly in Moscow only, but also in Washington and Brussels.

 

[Feanor]

If you have physical possession of a nuclear warhead & the necessary engineering skills, it should be possible to remove the control circuitry & fit your own, with whatever launch codes you want.

Think of it like a car key. If you have the car, a properly equipped workshop & the right skills, you can remove the locks & fit other locks. You can then drive the car.

It's not a trivial thing, but given the resources of a modern industrial state it is far from being an insuperable problem.

The Soviet Union didn't fall in a day, and state institutions didn't all switch over simply and painlessly. There is some mystery about what would have happened had Ukraine actively attempted to seize the nukes on its soil, but I suspect it would not have gone well regardless. The US and NATO weren't interested in seeing a giant nuclear arsenal fragment. There would have been a massive increase in the risk of nuclear technology getting out and it could offer a very bad example to Belarus and Kazakhstan. Additionally maintaining a credible nuclear triad is beyond just maintaining a stockpile of tactical warheads. And of course the question remains - what do you nuke? Russia? You might not like the response. Your own soil on the battle field? You'd be poisoning your own territory assuming you win. And again you might not like Russia's response. Nukes have a mythological status in discussion but they're really just a weapon. A very destructive one, and one with serious side-effects.

 

[swerve]

Entirely true, as far as I know.

I was merely addressing the claim that Ukraine would be unable to use any nuclear weapons it got hold of because of a lack of launch codes.

 

[ngatimozart]

Here’s an article suggesting fighter jets for Ukraine in exchange for peace talks along with territorial concessions to the Russians. Likely a non starter IMO and hardly a guarantee Russia won’t start things again once they rebuild their military. Replace the fighters with nuclear weapons and maybe Ukraine would consider giving up Crimea. Ukraine should never have given up the Soviet nukes they had.

A controversial idea: Jets for Ukraine in exchange for treaty talks with Moscow - Breaking Defense

Giving excess fighter jets to Ukraine now will help ensure its safety in the future - but the NATO nations should have strings attached, write Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake.

breakingdefense.com

Ukraine won't accept anything less than total Russian withdrawl from all Ukrainian territory to its 2013 borders, which I totally agree with. Anything less will not be acceptable to the population. If Russia were to retain hold of parts of Ukrainian territory, it would just encourage it to try again sooner rather thanlater. Russia has to be dealt a military defeat and forced to withdraw from all of Ukrainian territory that, whilst it won't stop Russian future attempts, will significantly delay a future Russian attempt. Putin's Russia has to be treated like a cancerous growth.

Russia still has its imperial ambitions and that was present when Yeltsin took full control in 1991. He and Gorbochev didn't want Ukrainian independence and tried to prevent it. They regarded Ukraine as Russian, period. No ifs, buts, and maybes. It was Kravchuk, the first Leader of newly independent Ukraine who out smarted them. He had vacillitated quite a bit before coming down on the side of Ukrainian independence, because he saw control from Moscow under Yeltsin as just changing from one master for another USSR to Russian. He also had the people behind him. He was a political operator and had done well in the CPSU / USSR governance structure climbing to be the Speaker of the Ukrainian Peoples Assembly.

 

[koxinga]

Ukraine won't accept anything less than total Russian withdrawl from all Ukrainian territory to its 2013 borders, which I totally agree with. Anything less will not be acceptable to the population. If Russia were to retain hold of parts of Ukrainian territory, it would just encourage it to try again sooner rather thanlater. Russia has to be dealt a military defeat and forced to withdraw from all of Ukrainian territory that, whilst it won't stop Russian future attempts, will significantly delay a future Russian attempt. Putin's Russia has to be treated like a cancerous growth.

Opinion | Time for the West to rethink goal of total defeat for Russia in Ukraine

The West would get more support for its cause in Ukraine if it was seen to be pushing for either a peace proposal or a fair compromise on Ukraine.

www.scmp.com

I've met Prof Kishore before in various public forums here in Asia. His views (along with a handful of academics) run the usual Western skeptic areas. There are of course, more balanced views (Collin Koh @ RSIS)

I put this here not implying I support his views (I have problems with some of his statements, and factual inaccuracies) but to highlight that these views are prevalent, not merely on the internet but the professional, academic and government circuits.

 

[jref]

A POV from recent Munich Security Conference from Stephen M. Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

The Conversation About Ukraine Is Cracking Apart

What government officials are saying in public, and private, is fascinating—and full of contradictions.

foreignpolicy.com

It might be behind a paywall (depending on your available quota of free articles on FP), so a short summary:
The author attended the Munich Security Conference for the first time and reported that the war in Ukraine was the dominant topic of conversation. There were two major dividing lines in the collective conversation. Firstly, the vast differences in perceptions, narratives, and preferred responses between the trans-Atlantic community and key members of the global south, who do not view the conflict in Ukraine in the same apocalyptic terms that most officials in the West do. Secondly, there was a gulf between the optimism top officials expressed in public and the more pessimistic assessments heard in private. People outside the West view the rules-based order and Western insistence that states not violate international law as rank hypocrisy. They were resentful of Western attempts to claim the moral high ground on this issue. Furthermore, key states in the global south do not share the Western belief that the future of the 21st century is going to be determined by the outcome of the war, and they are angry watching European states welcome Ukrainian refugees with open arms, given their prior hostility to refugees fleeing equally horrific situations in Syria or Afghanistan. The global south’s measured stance does not mean it is “pro-Russian,” but rather, those states are merely as self-interested as other countries. The gap between the West and the so-called rest is not likely to go away.

 

[Karl Franz]

So major news regarding north stream pipelines.

Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say

Apparently the Us officials are now saying that "pro-Ukrainian group" caused the explosion that rendered the pipelines inoperable. I don't know what they mean by "pro-Ukrainian group" as I think most here would agree that a non state actor doesn't have the capabilities to carry this out. As such this is either a cover story to hide Seymour Hersh's article and deflect blame, or this is a state funded (and I don't mean Ukrainian state), trained, equipped, and organised "pro-Ukrainian group" that was either instructed or at the very least allowed to do this.

This sheds some light as to near zero diplomatic attempts to solve this conflict, that I expected to see way earlier into the war, as Russians obviously knew this, at least they knew they didn't do it. In my opinion after the destruction of the pipelines there is very little chance for diplomacy, even in the case the two sides get close to an acceptable agreement, as there is no trust left on either side to carry it out.

 

[John Fedup]

Endless speculation I guess. Certainly a state actor could have covertly provided technical and financial support to a private contractor.

 

[Ananda]

It is still speculation, but being put by a liberal mainstream media that usually support Democrat (thus Biden administration). They will not going to put if this is still baseless speculation. They know this can harm continues support from Biden administration stances toward Ukraine. This can create more fuel on some in GOP that continues question Biden unquestionably support with Kyiv administration.

What's if it's true, before US pundits (especially in Liberal media camp) call NATO article 5 if the attack done by Russian. As the locations in the area of NATO members and one NATO candidate member. If this is has some grounds, will NATO going to cover this ? Let it died down?

For other non collective west, this just increase the opinions on the War as 'west' security matter, and not Global security matter as West try to push towards non collective wests.

 

[koxinga]

In this climate, it is impossible to get an objective truth since it will be used by either sides as ammunition to attack the other.

That said, I've always consider the Russian possibility as low. It is ultimately their own infrastructure and they can turn off the gas if the intent was to punish Europe. Even if it was direct, deliberate attempt or a false flag operation by the Russians to smear their enemies, taking out 3 out of 4 lines is excessive. The puzzlement and lack of immediate condemnation of the West suggest they were caught by surprise as well, which makes the point of a false flag operation moot.

As for this current assertion, until I see something more concrete, it is speculative.

 

[ngatimozart]

So major news regarding north stream pipelines.

Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say

Apparently the Us officials are now saying that "pro-Ukrainian group" caused the explosion that rendered the pipelines inoperable. I don't know what they mean by "pro-Ukrainian group" as I think most here would agree that a non state actor doesn't have the capabilities to carry this out. As such this is either a cover story to hide Seymour Hersh's article and deflect blame, or this is a state funded (and I don't mean Ukrainian state), trained, equipped, and organised "pro-Ukrainian group" that was either instructed or at the very least allowed to do this.

This sheds some light as to near zero diplomatic attempts to solve this conflict, that I expected to see way earlier into the war, as Russians obviously knew this, at least they knew they didn't do it. In my opinion after the destruction of the pipelines there is very little chance for diplomacy, even in the case the two sides get close to an acceptable agreement, as there is no trust left on either side to carry it out.

Speculation and could be misinformation planted as a propaganda / false flag operation. Unidentified sources is always a great cover. Also the US intelligence services are well known for being unacquainted with the "truth".

 

[John Fedup]

Ukraine wants US cluster bombs. Obviously controversial but if they want the bomblets for drone use then why not just disassemble the cluster bombs and ship the bomblets?

Ukraine Wants U.S. Cluster Bombs But Not For What You Think

Ukraine is asking the U.S. for Mk 20 Rockeye cluster bombs to dissect and use its submunitions for a unique purpose.

www.thedrive.com

 

[swerve]

That said, I've always consider the Russian possibility as low. It is ultimately their own infrastructure and they can turn off the gas if the intent was to punish Europe.

Except that the owner's HQ is in Switzerland & it's 49% owned by firms in the countries buying the gas, who put up much of the cost of building it.

 

[Karl Franz]

Although the monetary aspect of the projects is not insignificant, as it amounts to something around 20 billions, of which significant percentage was paid by Europeans, I don't think this is a major concern for the Russians. Even if they paid the whole 20 billion it would not be major problem for a country with foreign reserves in excess of 600 billion (pre-war). However diplomatic/political capital would be, as Russians have no doubt accepted many concessions such as EU's third energy packet and spent lots of resources swaying politicians/governments in Europe (Gerhard Schröder comes to mind).

Irrespective of whether the articles coming out in Western press (there's several of them now) have evidence sufficient for a courtroom, they are certainly changing the narrative and creating quite a problem especially for the Germans who will have a hard time justifying continuous support at this level to its public.

At the end of the day Russians are never going to believe this was not organized/authorized by Washington and as such will present a major problem in any diplomatic effort and will prolong this war, which is the most important and at the same time gravest consequence of the whole affair.

 

[koxinga]

Except that the owner's HQ is in Switzerland & it's 49% owned by firms in the countries buying the gas, who put up much of the cost of building it.

It is still factual correct to say that it is "their (Russian) own infrastructure" if they have a 51% stake via Gazprom.

It is the precise definition of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face if the Russians were responsible.

Gazprom international projects North 1 LLC holds a 51 percent stake in the pipeline project. Leading German energy companies Wintershall Dea AG and PEGI/E.ON hold 15.5 percent each, and the Dutch natural gas infrastructure company N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, along with the leading French energy provider ENGIE, each hold a 9 percent stake

Who We Are - Nord Stream AG

Nord Stream is a natural gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea. The pipeline is a key factor in securing energy security in Europe.

www.nord-stream.com

 

[Vivendi]

It is still factual correct to say that it is "their (Russian) own infrastructure" if they have a 51% stake via Gazprom.

It is the precise definition of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face if the Russians were responsible.

Who We Are - Nord Stream AG

Nord Stream is a natural gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea. The pipeline is a key factor in securing energy security in Europe.

www.nord-stream.com

Russia had stopped all gas export some time before the explosions happened. German companies were in the process of suing Gazprom for breach of contract, to the tune of billions of Euro. The sabotage means that Gazprom cannot be sued anymore, since they can claim Force Majeure.

FSB blew up several apartment buildings in Moscow killing a large number of people to justify military action in Chechenia. Vladimir Putin & 1999 Russian Apartment-House Bombings -- Was Putin Responsible?

Perhaps Russia did not blow up the NS pipelines, but I would definitely not exclude the possibility at this point in time.

 

[seaspear]

Going off the grid slightly but Russia has very ambitious plans for the Artic in in its territories ,these may be stymied with sanctions and oil companies withdrawing from Russia
Moscow Outlines $231Bln Plan for Arctic Oil Development - The Moscow Times
Even Canada may benefit from oil drilling
What Russia's $300B investment in Arctic oil and gas means for Canada | CBC News
It is interesting to speculate on the type of enviromental impact statement that was done
Mega oil project in Russia's far north threatens Arctic indigenous communities (climatechangenews.com)

 

[swerve]

It is still factual correct to say that it is "their (Russian) own infrastructure" if they have a 51% stake via Gazprom.

A controlling interest, not fully theirs. Incorporated in Switzerland to give the minority shareholders the protection of Swiss law, I'm sure, i.e. to stop Gazprom using its majority interest to do what it likes, contrary to their interests.

It is the precise definition of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face if the Russians were responsible.

But the whole Russian operation in Ukraine is pretty much a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face by Russia. The calculation could have been that it'd hurt the Russian state (not Gazprom, or the Russian people, or even the economy) less than it'd hurt Russia's enemies.

 

[seaspear]

Recently Russia added the World Wildlife Fund to its list of individuals and organisations required to identify as foreign agents a question may be that are other organisations under the U.N umbrella that Russia is a signatory to, like UNICEF also likely to also be asked to register as such ,this article from last year may meet Russia's criteria for such a ruling on this body
Statement by UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell on children in Ukraine