US imposes sanctions as Russia invades Ukraine The US government has imposed further sanctions on Russia after the Kremlin sent tanks into Ukraine’s breakaway regions today. Uncle Sam also left the door open to block chip exports to Russia. Russia moved in ostensibly on a peace-keeping mission to protect Donetsk and Luhansk, two separatist territories in eastern Ukraine …
Putin still needs to feed his armed forces, but I expect that the Russians have made significant preparations for the foreseeable sanctions 'the West' could impose, and for how long. Remember that if Russia does invade the rest of Ukraine, they will have access to their resources too.
One of the most chilling accounts of WW2 I read was in 'Camus at Combat'*, the articles written by Albert Camus for the resistance newspaper 'Combat'. After the German retreat and defeat, Camus travelled through France to Germany and saw how France had been stripped of everything of value that could be moved by the German forces. Be in no doubt, Putin doesn't just want Ukraine to stop it being part of the West, he wants its resources too.
* Princeton University Press ISBN 0-691-12004-8 (English translation) Well worth reading if you get the chance.
The border between Russia and Ukraine is artificial, its not like a sea, desert or mountain range, so the resources on one side of the border are the same on the other. Russia has far too much land and resources for its population already, it doesn't need more.
During WW2 the Axis invaded Russia, occupying the entire area of Ukraine and Belarus and large areas of Russia proper. This didn't stop the Russian war effort.
Exactly! Russia has the same resources so why would they want a couple millions on angry, armed rebels to make their life miserable ? I'm not convinced Russia has completely forgotten the Afghanistan lesson.
Everybody has ideas about the how, when and why the invasion will take place but so far I haven't heard a single opinion on what would Russia do after the invasion. Fight a long, bloody guerrilla war? Retreat and admit all was for nothing? Sign a non-aggression pact with Ukraine? Set-up a futile puppet regime? Can anyone share with us some wisdom?
On the Western side the plan is clear to me. Continue to irritate Russia as much as possible and force increase spending on arms and military equipment in Europe. It's a good opportunity to sell outdated military equipment to Eastern-European countries now that they're terrified of the perspective of a war. And if the war ignites, the US will get the bonus of a considerably weakened Europe that will need the generous help of the Americans to rebuild.
so far I haven't heard a single opinion on what would Russia do after the invasion.
it's for the water to Crimea: Ukraine cut off the water supply, and they need it back. All Russia wants is access to that large river and turn on the water supply to Crimea again.
This won't be any bloody war, at least not from Russian side.
Now, the USA, of course, will use this provoked war to do some other mischief, and it's that part that you should be worried about.
See Bloomberg :
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-19/russia-vs-ukraine-crimea-s-water-crisis-is-an-impossible-problem-for-putin
Crimea’s Water Crisis Is an Impossible Problem for Putin
The Russian-occupied peninsula is thirsty, with reservoirs running low
The problem is apparently not "impossible ", it's the real reason for the attack. What did the Ukranians expect ?
@Roland6
"Just because Putin isn't calling it a war doesn't mean it isn't a war!"
Isnt he calling it a special mission to route out nazi's? I still cant believe thats the best his scriptwriters could come up with for a full on offensive. May he get his ass kicked hard for all the lives this has and will cost
Just because Putin isn't calling it a war doesn't mean it isn't a war !
does that apply to the war that Saudi Arabia is waging in Yemen against the rebel terrorists ? Or Israel regularly bombing its neighbors ?
Face-it : it all began with the US-UK invasion/destruction of Iraq in 2003, by abusing the UN in front of the entire world. And the world didn't forget. Frankly, the crocodile tears are ridiculous.
"Israel is regularly bombed by the rightful landowners"
Really? Apart from quietly twisting what I wrote, do you really have such a poor knowledge of recent history? So, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc etc are "the rightful landowners", are they? Funny how the land Israel "stole" (according to you) was from countries that invaded them in the first place (eg Golan Heights). Palestinian arabs also launched attacks from within.
Since the palestinians have decided to elect a governing group whose stated objective is the obliteration of Israel (much like Iran) they have encouraged relentless attacks on Israel. Israeli responses are (usually) targetted against Hamas missile launch sites, for example - I notice you dont ask why those launchers are sited in urban areas, or near schools or hospitals.
I'm not supporting the constant landgrabbing on the West Bank, but I find this blinkered attitude very annoying.
I didn't twist anything, I corrected your incorrect statement.
Doesn't alter the fact that within living history[0], people from Europe decided what to do with land that didn't belong to them, and in fact had belonged to a completely different group of people for a couple thousand years. The people living there for many hundreds of generations had no say in the matter whatsoever, and were unceremoniously shoved aside in order for Europe to sweep an embarrassing refugee problem under the rug. Is it any wonder that the rightful landowners are a trifle pissed off? What the fuck do you think they should do? Shut up and take it? Perhaps you feel the same about the Ukraine?
Put yourself in the rightful landowner's shoes ... Wouldn't YOU be more than slightly miffed if your home was suddenly ripped away from you without so much of a by-your-leave?
[0] Rapidly fading, but close enough.
The last time they just starved millions to death in the Ukraine, stole all the grain an animals and left the people nothing to live off or to replenish what they took. Ukraine has not forgotten or forgiven. Today its still piss poor but still better off than Russia (just!)
I can see you follow ex-president Medvedev on twitter? So what do you think about the replies, about, essentially, short pain, long gain for Europe, re. de-coupling from Russian coal and gas supplies? I'm sure Putin saw it coming and decided to help nudge Europe away from Russian energy sources with his short, victorious war ;)
He's just trying to see what is natural resources chips are worth at the geopolitical pokertable, before the switch to renewables in the EU, makes them worthless. The freezing of North-Stream 2 (NS2) by the Germans, must be a real kick in his borscht, one he didn't expect so soon. He reasoned that with that, he could moderate a German response. NS2 is important for him, because NS 1 runs thru Ukraine, and he really needs those euro's to keep his criminal pyramid scheme up and running, or else the oliarchs might get really unhappy. And even though he's no democratic leader, he's not an omnipotent dictator like Kim-Jong-Un either, so he does have to show some succes from time to time.
Germany's problem is it's become dependent on it's greens to form government. So it drank the kool aid and replaced it's nuclear generation with lignite coal and 'renewables'. Then decarbonisation policies have increased demand for electricity.
NS2's fun because it started out with German support. After all, Germany wants to be the energy hub of Europe, and collect transit fees. That's kinda on hold now, and as a result, Germany's gas storage is steadily emptying.
It's also interesting that both Merkel and Mathias.Warning, Nord Stream AG's CEO were both former Stasi officers. But such is politics.
UK should do well out of this, given we're not really reliant on Russian gas. We'd be even less reliant, if we developed our own natural resources. Obviously there's pressure from the 'renewables' lobby, Greens and gas producers not to that. Instead, we're warned to bend over and brace for further price increases.
But while that's bad for energy users, it's great for producers & suppliers. So once the UK had British Gas and the CEGB. Thanks to privatisation and policy, that spawned BG Plc, Transco, National Grid etc that control UK energy costs, and generate massive profits as a result of dire energy policies. And supporting them are the useful idiots that run stories every time energy costs rise.
And the UK government is complicit, possibly because it suits 'Net Zero', or just because we raise more duties and tax revenues. But that's also a media thing. Inflation is spiralling, and it's easy to blame that on 'global' energy prices. And those are a myth. The current, spot price of gas is largely irrelevant, unless you're trying to buy now, on the spot market. And if you're relying on that, you probably deserve to go bust.
But such is politics. If you're importing gas, the cost is what you paid. Which is great news for the spawn of BG, especially if you have long-term contracts at much less than the current spot price. The UK's had a steady stream of LNG tankers from the US lately, and it would be fun to see what those actually cost.
>UK should do well out of this, given we're not really reliant on Russian gas. We'd be even less reliant, if we developed our own natural resources.
The UK would be marginally less reliant, my back-of-of-the-envelope calculations (done a couple of years back when fracking was a thing) indicated the total UK frack'able gas reserves were only sufficient to 100% supply the UK for circa 18 months.
So regardless of what we do develop, most of the UK energy is going to be from foreign resources.
Depends I guess.
UK gas demand will probably continue to rise, ie to support 'renewables' policies. So then it'd be how much economic impact there'd be from every load of LNG imported. And how much benefit there'd be from domestic production. Which might also include export potential.
But Greens say no! Cuadrilla seems to think there's potential, and it's their investor's money they'd be risking.
This is why we play nice with the folks in Qatar... we want their gas, just like we want the sweet crude from Saudi and the air base access in Dubai.
If we didn't, BAE would've had several deals killed, Mr Beneficent-Dictator-from-Dubai would've had his ass kicked out of the UK for the bullshit he's pulled with his daughters and his wife, and the Saudis would've also seen some sanctions over the Khashoggi affair in Turkey.
But, we play nice because we want the things they have.
The initial decision to phase out nuclear power was taken at the start of the millennium. And, if anything wasn't rational, it was rolling that back and letting the power companies draw up new contracts with left them with fewer liabilities and a higher payoff when the inevitable shutdown came.
Putin has been playing with the gas tap all winter, but, while reserves are low, winter is coming to an end and new sources of supply such as US LNG are becoming available. This makes it largely a matter of price, which the West as a whole can easily afford. This suggests that Vlad's timing was poor.
Russia can try selling gas to China, but China will dictate the price. China might like annoying the US but it certainly doesn't want an aggressive and impulsive Russia.
Shutting the Russian government off from the bond markets is going to cause a lot of problems as is moving all those trained troops from the Caucuses and central Asia. Even Afghanistan could become Russia's problem again at the Taliban look for sources of income and power.
@Charlie Clark
"Afghanistan was incompetence after incompetence but it was Trump who essentially set the timetable for the withdrawal."
Thats not quite right. Trump set a time to withdraw but Biden took over (promising withdrawal too) and pushed the date back by months. I find it hard to imagine Trump would have allowed such a screwup in leaving. Biden made the promise through lack of reasons for voters to elect him.
I find it hard to imagine Trump would have allowed such a screwup in leaving.
Which part of his 4 years of government didn't resemble a screwup? In particular, his relationship with the military was fraught because of his failure to appreciate that details matter in military planning.
In the end, it didn't really matter because the fundamental mistake was assuming the Afghan military just needed proper training and equipment. There's at least one lesson there.
@Charlie Clark
"Which part of his 4 years of government didn't resemble a screwup?"
Harder to do it the other way. He was impulsive (twitter) and protectionist trade policies. But go on what did?
"In particular, his relationship with the military was fraught because of his failure to appreciate that details matter in military planning."
The occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq proving your point? Because thats a lot of time for planning and was severe screwups. Tell me more.
"In the end, it didn't really matter because the fundamental mistake was assuming the Afghan military just needed proper training and equipment."
And at no point was that Trump. He didnt make promises of the Afgan army holding out that was Biden. Trump was putting an end to the never ending occupation started under Bush. He seemed to view it as a waste of life and money, and the result after departure seems to prove that.
"because the word Trump is in the comment?".
What have you expected codejunky, both Trump and Putin stink, how surprising is that.
Also remember that Trump once hinted at Estonia being such a small country it could as well belong to Russia.
I very much doubt Trump would do much anything for Ukraine if in charge now.
@Lars
"What have you expected codejunky, both Trump and Putin stink, how surprising is that."
I dont dispute that, I just dont stop at just those two. Yet the fact stands that Trump didnt set the timetable to withdraw because when Biden took over he moved the date further back which I would assume is for time to prepare (which would be sensible for a new president).
"Also remember that Trump once hinted at Estonia being such a small country it could as well belong to Russia."
I didnt know about that. Have you got a link? I know he upset an ambassador from Estonia because he was vocal about his disapproval for the US funding the security of Europe (while the continent took advantage).
"I very much doubt Trump would do much anything for Ukraine if in charge now."
This is a tough one isnt it. Under Obama Crimea was taken and under Biden Ukraine is under attack but nothing under Trump. May be luck, may be a strong leader isnt someone you want to mess with. While a guy who pulls back his red lines and a corpse who leaves americans and military gear behind and calls it a good job may seem more of a push over.
" may be a strong leader isnt someone you want to mess with."
Sorry, you think Trump is a "strong leader"? Exanples of his "strength" please?
(mocking disabled reported on national television doesnt count, by the way. Nor does fomenting civil unrest, nor does calling literal nazis "fine people")
@Mooseman
"Sorry, you think Trump is a "strong leader"? Exanples of his "strength" please?"
Took on not only the Democratic party but also the Republican party to become president (as an outsider too!). On being elected he managed to make bedwetters cry loud and publicly except Hillary who had to hide for a sulk for a while. Put an end to the constant wars such as the war on ISIS and set an exit date from Afghanistan. Made NATO members in Europe cry for not pulling their weight and applied sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
It is kinda hard to see how strong a leader he would be in dealing with Russia invading Ukraine as it didnt happen under his watch. Only under the 2 presidents either side of his presidency.
"Nor does fomenting civil unrest"
It wasnt Trump nor republicans supporting BLM and Antifa riots.
"nor does calling literal nazis "fine people""
Wow, do people still believe that propaganda? Bet you believe the Steele report too
This post has been deleted by its author
"Wow, do people still believe that propaganda? "
"Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest — “
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. "
You seem to think trump is some kind of tough guy and made people "cry". Well, if being a bully is what you like in a national leader then OK. Childish, but OK. Its utter bollocks of course but you seem to have fallen for the rubbish he spouted;
"I didn’t know David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts. And the facts, as they started coming out, were very well stated. In fact, everybody said, ‘His statement was beautiful. If he would have made it sooner, that would have been good.’ I couldn’t have made it sooner because I didn’t know all of the facts. Frankly, people still don’t know all of the facts."
June 26 — At a rally in Ohio, his first since leaving office, Trump boasts that Biden can’t stop the process he started to remove troops from Afghanistan, and acknowledges the Afghan government won’t last once U.S. troops leave.
“I started the process,” Trump says. “All the troops are coming back home. They [the Biden administration] couldn’t stop the process. 21 years is enough. Don’t we think? 21 years. They couldn’t stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process when other things… It’s a shame."
This is the guy you think made a difference to the world? The same man who released 5000 senior taliban prisoners in Afghanistan? Trump who reduced US troop numbers to 2500 despite escalating attacks by the Taliban who, he assured us, had promised not to attack. Trump who committed to removing all US units by May (which was delayed until August under Biden, as the reduced numbers made it impossible to make any meaningful difference) ?
I have no idea what you are on but it should be illegal.
@Mooseman
"but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides"
And you have issue with that statement? At what point does that say that nazi's are fine people? You also seem to have seriously cut down that quote You quote the reporter but you dont actually quote what Trump said, only an extremely selective snippet which doesnt reflect what he actually said. Have a read- https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/
"You seem to think trump is some kind of tough guy and made people "cry"."
Nope. I know he made some fools cry, including some in the UK that I knew. One fun example- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs
"Well, if being a bully is what you like in a national leader then OK. Childish, but OK."
So your dont like Bidens presidency then? Biden has bullied states and workers out of jobs if they wont obey the great leader. Even saying he didnt think his executive orders were constitutional and of course having them struck down after a court looked at them. The authoritarian hitler dictator that some people feared from Trump didnt happen at all and yet they then demanded that when covid hit. Sorry if his mean tweets upset you?!?
"At a rally in Ohio, his first since leaving office, Trump boasts that Biden can’t stop the process he started to remove troops from Afghanistan, and acknowledges the Afghan government won’t last once U.S. troops leave."
Thats pretty impressive dont you think? Think about it, after 21 years of occupation Trump knows the imposed 'peace' cannot stand and yet Biden thought the Afghan government and army could hold off the Taliban. All the American blood and treasure spent over the decades of occupation cannot fix the country and it will revert to form once they leave. How was Biden so delusional then about it? Why did Trump know and yet Biden was so clueless?
"The same man who released 5000 senior taliban prisoners in Afghanistan?"
Who took over Afghanistan once the US left? And as you already mentioned and I quoted above, Trump knew. Since the Taliban would be taking over the country and those prisoners would be free anyway is it not better to try and start working with the new leadership. Especially when negotiating leaving the country.
"Trump who reduced US troop numbers to 2500 despite escalating attacks by the Taliban who, he assured us, had promised not to attack. Trump who committed to removing all US units by May (which was delayed until August under Biden, as the reduced numbers made it impossible to make any meaningful difference) ?"
Eh? Your last pile of bull struggles with what came before. It wasnt reduced numbers made it impossible to make a difference so they left, the point was to leave the country! Biden even campaigned on it because it was what people wanted and Trump wanted to do it. The reduced numbers was getting the US out of a conflict it was stuck in and achieving nothing. And after extending the deadline Biden still screwed it up seriously.
@jake
"I've noticed that the people who think trump is a strong leader are people who think that bluster, bullshit and bullying are fine leadership qualities."
Unfortunately some idiots here lump me in with such claims. Unfortunately 'orange man bad' syndrome doesnt allow for separating the good from the bad.
Russia has sold a lot of gas to China. But there are two problems. Firstly, as you say, the Chinese know when they're holding the aces, and have not paid top dollar. So they've done a couple of big deals, but when you factor in building the pipelines, it's not a huge amount of cash - and nowhere near replaces the money from selling to Europe.
The second problem is worse. Most of the gas fields they're selling to China, are different to the ones they're shipping to Europe. So they're actually having to invest in two almost completely separate bits of infrastructure. Short of blowing even more money on building interconnectors across Russia between their gas fields, at yet more vast expense, gas they don't sell to Europe just sits in the ground with all the drilling gear doing bugger all. It would be a much longer process to switch that kit to the fields supplying China, or to build pipes to do the same. And if they did, that leaves them dependent on China, rather than Europe. I reckon that they'll get a lot less change out of trying to negotiate with the Chinese government.
"Even Afghanistan could become Russia's problem again at the Taliban look for sources of income and power."
No, that won't happen. When it was the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, it worked because they shared a border (and even then the Soviets had to start it). The Taliban may want to make trouble to the north and even earn the wrath of some countries, but the countries in the way aren't Russia. While some of them are friendly with Russia, they're not going to get automatic Russian protection. And that's if the Taliban is stupid enough to launch an all-out war against those countries, which they probably won't try because, though those countries are small, they have militaries and people who have faced the Taliban's ethnic policies and will be more open to their use.
I'm not making predictions, but I think it would be naive to assume that the status quo in central Asia and the "Stans" as Russia turns it eyes westwards. Many of the seasoned troops due to be engaged in Ukraine are from that area and we've already seen Russia intervene in Kasaschstan.
I don't think we can rule anything out.
The Finnish greens have traditionally been open to fission reactors, though their fervour seems to be dimming.
Really, until we've solved the problems of nuclear waste, fission isn't an option: it's a differently deferred problem, that's all.
But this isn't all about gas. It's about depending on relatively cheap source of energy without controlling their production.
"The Finnish greens have traditionally been open to fission reactors, though their fervour seems to be dimming."
Not that sure about that. Finland, among several other countries, want nuclear to be classified as green, I don't know how that has or has not progressed.
Greens I know prefer nuclear over coal or oil, you don't have to be stupid to be green.
I prefer clean air and water too for several reasons, but there is no way to run an industry here up in the north just on green so I have nothing against nuclear and Finland will become second probably only to France in percentage of nuclear power used, around 30%.
Why would anybody want to burn coal and oil, a waste of a good product, when there is a better choice.
It's true that in the frozen North there aren't many options for power. But that doesn't make nuclear any "greener" than other sources of power. It remains very expensive and the waste problem is as unsolved as that of burning fossil fuel. For decades it has been promised that the next generation will be cheaper and cleaner. That might happen but that won't solve the problem of all the mess produced over the last 60 yeards.
In most places, wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear, which is why they're displacing it for baseload production. What's missing is effective storage (neither hydro nor batteries are really suitable) for surges in demand.
The fight over labels shows just how many vested interests are chasing the subsidies.
@Charlie Clark
"In most places, wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear,"
There are studies claiming nuclear is cheaper in the long run. A modern plant is expected to run for at least 60 years. The oldest in Finland is +40 years old, if upgraded several times.
Nuclear is green when it comes to air pollution and global warming. And that is green enough for me.
And for the waste I would claim "Onkalo" is good for a long time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpiK3W-g_0&t=232s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60514228
I expect to double my downvote quota with this post, but the above demonstrates how unsafe nuclear power is in the hands of someone like Putin.
No doubt many here will think I've been duped into being taken in by Western Propaganda for believing the story about sheep farming in Wales (for example).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372
But which would you prefer to believe: propaganda that errs on the side of caution, or that which encourages "la, la, la, i can't hear you"?
Your upvotes/downvotes will arguably act as a barometer for sentiment as expressed by a technically enlightened community. Vote Now!
@Ken Moorhouse
You seem to assume Putin grabs a power plant because it's nuclear.
And quite frankly I am more disturbed about the "la la la" in regard to global warming.
Besides more people die due to air pollution than to anything nuclear.
You'll find that Germany, just like the UK with Windscale, has had its nuclear... mishaps. Jülich is one of those places where there is plenty of nuclear cleanup still going on. And the Germans are to a degree NIMBYs, and they learned quickly from the CND and were not afraid to march and show it.
Given that lignite resources are still plentiful, they'll continue to milk *that* resource for a while longer if they can, at least that stuff they can bury, probably process to a degree (the CO2 anyway), but nuclear waste? God no.
I heard someone on Radio 4 on the PM program talking about the UK sanctions. They said we should have targeted 50 of the Oligarchs that hold Putin’s money for him. Putin has apparently stolen a lot from Russia and most is hidden with his friends. The Panama Papers leak listed some of these people and the revelations were so troubling that State media did a program claiming it was all a CIA plot.
If we stopped cut off the flow of Russian dodgy money into the City of London it would help. If we froze money held in UK assets by those Oligarchs we’d be making far more of an impact.
It is relatively easy to sanction Russian banks and the obvious Oligarchs, but they will have known all about the possibility years ago, probably since 2014 when Crimea kicked off, and now have it all hidden away. What you would have to do now, is go after the many billions processed by the City of London laundromat. A few years ago there was a bill proposed to enable far reaching investigation of the suspect transactions going through UK financial systems. But it got quashed by the Tory government. Not for me to say, but I guess that detailed investigation into suspect transactions would have a number of bums sat around the cabinet table squirming.
What made me laugh was somebody saying that Swiss banking secrecy had ended. I said in response that if they believed that I had a lovely palace quite near the St James Park I’d like to sell them. For example the revelations coming out of Credit Suisse this week have demonstrated that quite adequately. London as you say also needs to take a long hard look at the issue of dodgy money. The problem is that when they’ve tried to do something in the past it’s been met with howls of protest from the City. Yes there will be some pain from this in the financial centre of London, but nothing compared to that in Ukraine where lives are being threatened. My friend who used to work for an Estate Agent told me that the days of suitcases of cash are no longer welcome at reputable agents. Also said that this isn’t an urban myth, rather worryingly it did happen. It also wouldn’t hurt if we cleaned up our overseas territories too.
Despite having known my financial advisor for over 10 years he still insists on seeing my up to date Know Your Client info.
Whilst I sympathise, these oligarchs can hire fancy and effective lawyers and would tie things up in court for years 'proving' that their funds were nothing to do with Putin. (All the while contributing to the UK's democracy by supporting good causes like, ohh, the Conservative party, perhaps?)
If you had 'real' money, your advisors would be far more likely to show 'flexibility' with their kyc / due dilligence. As clearly demonstrated by latest Credit Suisse oh-no-not-again spillage (and it's not the first case of Credit Suisse that see no evil, hear no evil).
If you had 'real' money, your advisors would be far more likely to show 'flexibility' with their kyc / due dilligence. As clearly demonstrated by latest Credit Suisse oh-no-not-again spillage (and it's not the first case of Credit Suisse that see no evil, hear no evil).
I think the main difference is that my FA is UK based and not Swiss. Therefore he’s potentially going to get it if he doesn’t follow the rules, whereas in Switzerland………
In Switzerland, if he's Swiss, he would also be bollocked because if there's a financial law that is broken, it's a *huge* no-no (culturally). But, that's why Swiss bankers never asked questions... If they didn't know, it meant they hadn't broken any laws, and thus, were not liable.
Of course, the US lawsuits against various banks and the threats of repercussions have changed this. If you want to stash funny money, you don't do it in Switzerland anymore. You *could* use Liechtenstein (just down the road), but chances are, you'd use Cyprus or one of the Channel Islands...
You'll find that the Cities of London and Westminster are arguably the biggest funny money laundrette in Europe, if not on the planet. Cyprus? Please. Switzerland? Please! London? Abso-bloody-lutely!
The Credit Suisse thing definitely shows that there are still some dodgy/less-than-rosy folks working there despite Switzerland sharing data with other countries.
As for our own Overseas Territories, quite right. I saw a nice documentary on the Caymans the other week, which showed that the Caymans are still beholden to Downing Street, despite all protestations to the contrary from Westminster. The Caymans have a governor. The government there is effectively paid a stipend from here. The tax-free status of the Islands might sound nice, but it isn't when you can't get decent healthcare (the US military provides some at US premium prices), pay over the odds for your food (all shipped in from the UK and the US), and don't earn all that much (the money that flows through the Caymans doesn't stay there).
And who came up with the tax-free status of the Caymans? Westminster, of course. The Islands are effectively a big fat 'bonded' harbour (or free port, or 'financial centre'). The people there are not particularly enamoured by it, but they can't do anything because it makes the world go round.
He's just trying to see what is natural resources chips are worth at the geopolitical pokertable, before the switch to renewables in the EU, makes them worthless.
There is no way the remaining fossil fuels will ever become worthless , no matter how many renewables appear.
You'll find that synthesis is cheaper than expected. Ask SASOL in South Africa... they turned the Fischer-Tropsch process into an art form during the Apartheid era. But of course, when the sanctions ended, South Africa got access to the cheap crude from the Middle East and thus, the coal they mine now doesn't get bought by SASOL anymore, but is burned for electricity or is exported to China.
Yup. ’Renewables' need gas due to their intermittentcy. No wind, or gusting wind? Just spin up gas turbines to stop the power grid collapsing. And costs of doing that are passed to consumers, not the creators of that problem. So as and example, we were forced to pay around £3b in 'balancing' costs last year due to 'renewables' inability to provide reliable power.
And of course the 'renewables' lobby has a solution. Just add batteries! Of course that just adds more costs, but also potential profits from using them to stabilise the grid. But such is politics. Solution is pretty simple. UK has energy auctions. Just make those firm, in say, 500MW or 1GW increments. Then make bidders responsible for any shortfall. No wind? No problem. Where's my 1GW?
The 'renewables' blob hates that idea because it would shift responsibility for delivering reliable power to them, and less scope to socialise those costs. Meanwhile, countries like Russia watch, and laugh. The West is going to sanction Russia so it can't make EVs. Ohnoes! But that rather assumes Russia would want to. I'm sure there's some logic, somewhere, in assuming a cold climate, oil producing nation would want EVs instead of diesels.
But that's sanctions for you. Russia might just decide to sanction raw material exports, and carry on investing in it's own economy. Chips banned? Time to start building fab plants I guess.
"There is no way the remaining fossil fuels will ever become worthless".
That is very true, you can make hydrogen for instance and it's needed in agriculture too.
"Methods of hydrogen production
There are four main sources for the commercial production of hydrogen: natural gas, oil, coal, and electrolysis; which account for 48%, 30%, 18% and 4% of the world's hydrogen production respectively.[6] Fossil fuels are the dominant source of industrial hydrogen.[7] Carbon dioxide can be separated from natural gas with a 70–85% efficiency for hydrogen production and from other hydrocarbons to varying degrees of efficiency.[8] Specifically, bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of methane or natural gas.".
uncle sjohie,
Just to be a pedant...
Nordstream 1 and 2 are both gas pipelines across the Baltic from Russia to Germany. The point about NS 2 was that NS 1 doesn't have the capacity for all the gas Russia supplies to Western Europe. Most of it, but not all. The rest is shipped through the old pipelines that go through Ukraine and Poland and supply lots of Eastern Europe.
So the reason that this was a strategic betrayal of its allies by the German government is that once built this meant that Germany could still get all the gas it needed from Russia, even if Russia stopped shipping to Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
The second reason is that it was a betrayal of a supposedly joint foreign policy objective to support Ukraine. Ukraine's government makes a nice chunk of its tax revenues from transit fees for all the gas going through its pipelines, and we've been loaning and giving Ukraine cash to support them for the last few years, and so what the rest of Europe didn't want is to have Russia be able to cut off that supply of income at will - by just diverting supplies to NS2.
It's actually a bit more complex, because the old Yamal pipeline takes its gas from some different fields to Nordstream 2 - so there might even be some truth in Russia's claims earlier this year that it was struggling to keep supplies up from the older fields and needed to shift demand to the other pipelines. That will I believe be true in future, but is probably a lie this year.
But Europe had already been hostage to Russian gas diplomacy for over a decade now. When Ukraine wouldn't grant Russia a new lease on the Sevastapol naval bases 15 years ago, Russia cut off gas supplies in the middle of winter. Because that pipelines also supplies Eastern Europe, they were also hit, and so the EU started building gas interconnectors, so supply could be moved from Germany to Poland. At that point Russia were charging Poland 40% more than they were charging Germany for gas, and Ukraine over 100% more. That should have been the wake up call everyone needed to realise that Russian gas supplies can't be trusted, but although the EU did make considerable strides to build a more robust internal transfer network, and investigated Gazprom for abuse of monopoly (they were found guilty but not punished about 5 years ago) - it wasn't enough. And Germany still chose to build Nordstream 2 and also close those nuclear power stations.
In terms of doing a good job, the EU and the rest of the members probably gets a 6.5/10 for making the best of a bad job, despite German betrayal, by building a bunch of interconnectors. Losing points for not being tough enough on either Germany or Gazprom. And Germany gets a 1/10 for being totally selfish, but also at the same time totally short-sightedly stupid.
Apologies for the anti-German rant. It should really be Merkel (and mostly that fucking toady Schröder) that get the blame. And to be fair to the current German government they've been given the hospital pass and I think taken the right decision - despite a lot of predictions that they wouldn't.
I recall the Ukraine mess with Sevastopol, and how Russia played their gas cards. You will find though that NS1 at least was meant to avoid Western Europe as a whole finding itself at the short straw end, not just Germany. It was a smart thing to connect the pipeline, but now, it's going to find itself possibly turned off too... who knows.
Either way, it's a mess, and I hope the resolution comes quickly... otherwise those LNG tankers will be queuing up in the Channel like they did around Egypt during the Evergreen Suez debacle...
Neither NordStream 1 nor 2 cross Ukraine territory. Both pipelines are in the Baltic. The only difference is where they start in Russia. The sad thing is that Merkel's predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, who approved the NordStream 1 pipeline, did the utterly unthinkable and joined NordStream as their chairman of the board after his stint as leader of Germany, a thing the Germans are not best pleased by (does that ring a bell? Nick Clegg, anyone).
Either way, Germany has made it very clear that if nor approving NordStream 2 for Ukraine's sake means that they'll have to try and find other gas supplies, they will, because for them, Ukraine is more important than cheap gas coming down the Baltic.
But yeah, as you say, Diktator Putin may have possibly miscalculated there, but that remains to be seen.
NS1 does not run through Ukraine. It's the 1st Russia to Germany pipeline under the Baltic. The Yamal pipeline runs through Belarus to Poland. (which currently is turned off as a snub to Poland closing its airspace to Belarus flights). putin is pissed he has to pay Ukraine fees to pump gas to Poland.
NS1 was the biggest mistake Europe and America made (no doubt taken by those open to greasy handshakes in back offices). As it undermined the Main Ukraine interconnector lines and gave putin the green light for further actions leading upto today.
"We did. There's not enough left now. That's why we're importing it."
Not even close. The whole green crap movement in the UK was reliant on fracking which would have kept the price down and could easily make 30yrs of independence. However mud hutters want monuments to sky gods and no electricity to be produced so we are still stuck with the global market and sky god monuments.
@Prst. V.Jeltz
"Im sorry your scornful metaphoring lost me there ...
What monuments?"
Gonna take the really long shot that you dont know what I am talking about but wind farms which dont work and solar in a country where it doesnt make sense to deploy it. The politest term I have heard to accurately describe them is unreliables which of course requires actual power generation to be built as well, often gas (easy to ramp up and down).
You know the monuments, the ones we were told would make energy cheaper because the wind is always blowing somewhere and will provide so much free energy. Hence why energy bills are 25% green crap and we rely so much on gas which is increasingly expensive. The only counter to that was fracking which is also banned because mud hutters dont like it.
Cuadrilla pulled it's fracking operations; for amongst other reasons that the output of those test sites were not nearly as good as the estimates out there. The public discontent, while annoying for them, would not be a blocker to operations unless they weren't allowed to build the test sites. Which, of course, they did.
If "good" sites for fracking are actually bad, the scope for a bunch of "bad" sites to produce low cost energy are equally low.
The breakup of the CEGB and decision to piss away North Sea Gas for 30 years made the country rich. Today, we're a net importer of energy again, we don't have any particularly good options to get back out of the dependency on gas; so GDP is haemorraged offshore on fuelling our energy habit.
I remind people that the CEGB plans of the mid 80's were to build multiple reactors to the Sizewell B design, back them up with pumped storage; windmills and a bit of coal and gas. With Privatisation, we got JUST Sizewell B; and a bunch of gas turbines. Now we've lost the skills to build nukes and can only do so at hugely inflated cost. We have a bunch of old and (relatively) inefficient gas turbines, and a stackful of windmills.
The only practical way out of this mess in the short term is to build more windmills and a lot of small scale storage systems to make them work; while gearing up maybe a few more nukes in the medium term. And praying that the Fusion demos go somewhere for the longer run. Building more gas is of course possible to cover demand, but the price tag to load the turbine up is only going one direction; thus making the problem worse.
There is another option, which is called doing without. See the late 70's for what doing without did to electoral politics and the economic disasters that entailed.
Cutting usage is by far the most effective way to reduce pressure on supply, and prices. Funnily enough, Insulate Britain has been saying the same thing for some time. (And pissed a lot of people off in the process).
Look at what generated our power in the last year on Gridwatch. (it's the graph called "Yearly Nuclear/Coal/CCGT/Wind; which is on the bottom row of the second column of graphs.
As you no doubt know, we have 25GW worth of wind turbines. As one can see, from April-September they generate under 5GW for about 90% of the time and perhaps 10GW for September-March. In the last week, despite a gales that compare to the infamous 1987 storm wind turbines topped out producing ~14GW; just over half of their theoretical output.
Demand is between 30-40GW depending on if it's day or night, so during a once in 30 years gale we can generate under half of the nightime requirement from wind turbines.
At the moment 25GW worth of wind turbines cost us ~$12 billion a year in subsidy payments to make it seemingly financially viable. Even if we quadrupled the existing level of wind turbines we'd only have enough power to keep the lights on for about a third of the year without relying upon gas as the mainstay of our power generation policy.
And this energy policy would require yearly subsidy payments for not producing electricity at higher than the defence budget, and approaching the level of interest payments to the national debt. One can't avoid looking at that and concluding that wind turbines are the problem, not a solution to the problem. Incidentally; doing away with gas for home heating and cooking and switching to electric vehicles would at least quadruple the current energy requirements: wind turbines cannot provide this and a back of the envelope set of estimates as to the cost of energy storage shows it's absurd even to contemplate: it's at least a thousand times too expensive to deploy at the required scale.
And at a cost of ~£40 billion a year in subsidy payments for wind turbines if we quadrupled the number of installations? That's £200 billion over 5 years. The 3.2GW nuclear reactor EDF is building is going to cost ~£20 billion and will produce that power for 60 years, with the cost of the decommissioning coming out of the running costs. Therefore building ten of those plants which would generate something like 105% of our total gas generation would enable immediately and completely shutting every coal and gas plant. Wind turbines are only going to close the remaining coal plants and replace that capacity with more gas turbines.
Sorry; wind turbines are the problem, not a cost effective solution to the problem.
@AC
"Sorry; wind turbines are the problem, not a cost effective solution to the problem."
Sorry to you too, but I don't think we can afford to look at only "cost effective" any more.
As for Denmark they get 33% from renewable energy and 14 from natural gas, 2019 numbers.
You find each EU country separately for solid fossil fuels, petroleum products, natural gas, nuclear energy and renewable energy.
Sweden was in 2019 to 41% renewable and then there is of course France with 41% nuclear.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-2a.html
Let's talk about what "not a cost effective solution" means. In order to make wind turbines work as the sole source of power generation you'd have to build on the order of twenty five times the number of wind turbines that we have at the moment if you want the lights on in summer when as you can see from the Gridwatch chart the wind doesn't blow that much.
The total cost of the yearly subsidies scaled up from what we are spending at the moment would exceed the cost of the current entire health budget, plus the entire education budget, plus the entire defence budget, plus some additional loose change. Therefore, you'd either need to halve government spending on other things, or increase either direct or indirect taxation by about the same ratio.
Any rational person cannot come to any other conclusion than "it can't work" without wilful ignorance as to the likely social cost of increasing peoples tax bills by 50%. Even those costs would actually be an outright failure; people would still be heating and cooking with gas, as well as driving petrol or diesel cars because the cost of electricity would be so absurdly high in summer as to effectively prohibit moving away from fossil fuels (ie gas cookers, gas central heating and petrol and diesel cars) in favour of electric alternatives.
That is what the somewhat understated "it's not cost effective" means; It would be absurdly expensive while failing to achieve the desired objectives. (and yes, you can do battery storage; at a cost of roughly a hundred billion quid per for storing 24 gigawatt hours, ie, 1GW output for 24 hours. If you arbitrarily divide the real world figures by a factor of a hundred, it's still to expensive to deploy on the sort of scale required.)
Do the math yourself and try and come to any other alternative. Wind turbines do not work, and trying to ignore the "it's too expensive" thing is rather bad politics; you'll wind up pushing people into voting for a populist who promises to bin all of your energy policies in favour of reducing energy costs by going back to gas, and reinstating north sea gas/fracking to get said gas cheaply.
Do you want to hear chants of "Make Great Britain Great Again" and "Axe the tax on the poor to create the Rich!"? If not, then why support policies that are pretty inevitably going to end up there, with people pushed into handing such a putative politician a majority of the vote on a platter?
I'd also note that your figures look are a bit iffy; Gridwatch has a French version that make one doubt that Nuclear is anything but the majority baseload for French electricity.
£ per GWh; Wind, even for it's "low load factor" is the cheapest available in the UK - and was before the hydrocarbon price spiked courtesy of Vladimir.
Gas is only going one direction, and nuke is pricey per GWh; BUT the latter is generally very reliable and consistent which does have advantages for some baseload.
I will say for the 9 millionth time that Storage is the BIG enabler for green. Decent storage means you can maximise the effective output of your windmills; which are already the cheapest form of generation. The financial markets are such that those that "can" don't want to do storage by and large, because it reduces opportunities to profiteer off price spikes.
If you want cheap power the real answer is Coal; which is "bad" for various reasons. To hell with the future of the planet.
We could have chosen to reinvest the profits of burning coal and gas into better systems. Now we have a turd scraping by on what we can find (windmills), the money has left the building, and raising new capital means more interest for billpayers to cover.
So, also for the 9 millionth time, a modicum of central planning with long term objectives (low and behold, what the CEGB had) was, and is a good idea. Not the Thatcherite free-for-all race to the bottom we have.
Maybe when systems do start failing people might finally pay attention to the shit they have voted for for 40 years.
Cuadrilla pulled it's fracking operations; for amongst other reasons that the output of those test sites were not nearly as good as the estimates out there.
So why has the Cuadrilla boss just published an open letter to UK Gov pointing out that if even 10% of the fracking output were available, we would be self-sufficient in gas for years?
Fracking was stopped because it allegedly caused "earthquakes", none of which exceeded "Weak - felt by a few people indoors", and most of which were in the range of "Not felt - detected by seismic instruments only" and "Very weak - felt by very few people" range, i.e. less than the vibration of a bus going over a speed hump in the street outside. It's pure green scaremongering.
If it’s not dangerous then why do you get burning tap water near fracking? Coincidence?
https://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking
>So why has the Cuadrilla boss just published an open letter to UK Gov pointing out that if even 10% of the fracking output were available, we would be self-sufficient in gas for years?
He has spent a lot of investors money with no real return.
He also knows that it doesn't really matter that his reserve and output claims are fake, what's more important is getting the media soundbite and dim witted people recite the fake news as if it were fact.
He just needs the two wells he has just closed to go into production and they will generate sufficient revenues to repay investors and make him a very rich man, nothing else really matters.
Having moved from a Cute but Ancient stone cottage to a Generic but OhSoPractical new-build I'm with insulation ALL the way. I can heat this house with my gaming PC but the cottage needed oil, coal, logs and a lot of effort to just keep it tolerable in winter.
I'm not going back. The GorBlimey moment for me was being upset by the condensation on the windows of my new house, until I realised it was on the _outside_ of the double glazing. Game changed!
The US has already applied a technological stranglehold on Russian companies in the form of a ban on the export of composite wings and engines for a new design of Russian jet liner. At the time the Russians were being good global citizens, buying their equipment from overseas when it made economic sense. Our trade embargo did slow them down but it didn't stop them; they just had to bring all that development in-house which they eventually did.
Its quite likely that any semiconductors they need can be bought from China. All that the new restrictions will do is further enhance Russia's balance of payments surplus and prevent us from sending work to them. We don't have a physical choke point in their production process any more -- we can inconvenience, interfere but we can't stop them (they would have already figured this out).
So we should do nothing and just look and say, oh that's not nice, please Putin at least stop there and don't be noughty.
I think you are an idiot unable to understand how much we can do just through international banking and trade practices.
The problem is not that we lack weapons, it's just about do we want to use them.
Right now it's fairly obvious that Britain, sorry Boris, is all about nothing but words.
@Doctor Syntax
"Unfortunately he's been able to fool enough of the people enough of the time."
I am not sure he has. He became PM as one of the very few willing to actually get on with brexit. Beyond that I am not sure there is anything keeping him there, he just doesnt have an opposition party to challenge anything. Right now the lib dems (apparently still exist) are being railed over the post office scandal and labour was so badly damaged by the communist takeover that its had no chance to become any form of opposition.
Not only are we short of a party on the right but there isnt a challenge for the left anymore either.
>communist takeove...
You must be talking about Corbyn. My late mother, an authentic communist, had choice words about North London Lefties (her brother-in-law was one). But it just shows how susceptible the UK public is to a good Red Scare.
People of a certain age may recall Harold Wilson, the Labour PM in the 1960s. This was back when there was an honest to goodness communist menace and he was not in the slightest bit communist. That didn't stop him being attacked as one, there was even some rumors of an attempted coup. Still, I doubt if the children of the Thatcher Revolution have any knowledge of the 'time before', back when you could actually live on a wage and stuff like that.
@martinusher
"You must be talking about Corbyn."
Yup and McDonnell. McDonnell not helping the image with his little red book and posing in front of images of marx, stalin, mao, etc. Also putting the ex communist party member as Corbyns communication chief didnt look good either. And both being open about their socialist/marxist views as well as being supporters of such regimes (Venezuela) etc.
"Still, I doubt if the children of the Thatcher Revolution have any knowledge of the 'time before', back when you could actually live on a wage and stuff like that."
Was that when there were all those strikes and 3 day weeks because of how bad things were? Oh it sounds wonderful (not)
So we should do nothing and just look and say, oh that's not nice, please Putin at least stop there and don't be noughty.
The problem here is that the WRONG things are likely to be done. This is typical of governments.
In My Bombastic Opinion, the carrot and stick approach, from a position of ACTUAL power, would be the most effective. Right now (with things as they are) this would be WAY less effective than it would have been 3 years ago...
Sun Tzu _did_ talk about this kind of thing in his book...
"Putin would never have risked this move while Trump was in the White House."
OK. You owe me a new keyboard, I haven't laughed so much for weeks. Trump? Trumpo would have gone golfing or blamed AOC or Hilary's emails.
What we do know about Trump is that he loves a dictator, he thinks Putin is a genius.
>I think you are an idiot unable to understand how much we can do just through international banking and trade practices.
These, like any soft power, have to be used judiciously. We in the US have been guilty of their rather indiscriminate use in recent years which has blunted their effects. A good example is the tariffs and sanctions against China. All that's done is slow their growth slightly while its had a measurable effect on inflation in the US (not to mention a sharp increase in the balance of trade deficit). Russia's economy has had sanctions for some time so they just pivoted to Asia -- Russia is primarily an Asian country, after all -- so I expect that all that will happen is that they'll lose relatively few exports and Europeans will have to put up with sky high energy prices. (They're paying through the nose already because Russia might be fulfilling its contractual obligations but its not participating in the spot market despite it being highly lucrative).
You may not have noticed this but we in the US already have restrictions about export of capital to countries like China -- put simply, we can't invest in what are quite attractive investment options. Neither Russia nor China is starved of investment capital; they've got plenty, they don't need us and they certainly don't need the kind of financial fun 'n games that passes for creative activity in the City (unless they're an olgarch that needs to launder their ill gotten gains, of course).
>Its quite likely that any semiconductors they need can be bought from China.
It also occurred to me that an unintentional consequence of this will be to give China a market for the output from the fab's they are busy building.
I think with Financial crash, Brexit, CoViD et al. we (in the UK) are starting to appreciate just how interconnected and dependent on each other our world has become, in just a few decades.
What surprised me was the intelligence that suggested that Putin has deployed circa 100,000 troops - 90% of his armed forces around Ukraine, perhaps the door is open to China deciding to resolve issues it has over historic Chinese lands that were ceased by the USSR...
hold on - we are talking Ukraine and Russia - umm Ukrainian banking is massively more corrupt that Rusian...
We really should stay out of it - but we cant.
We need Ukranian titanium, corn, wheat and their women (the same as Germany in 1919 and 1940)
We need Russian gas (and we really do) for basically all European production. Gas was the green hope when we dismantled most of the Coal plants & Germany dismantled its Nuclear.
While a big song and dance has been made about germany and Nordstream II, we havent heard much about the EU willingly turning off or refusing Nordstream I - or the other pipelines and LNG supplied.
a full 40% of ALL the EUs energy comes from natural gas from Russia.
At the end of the day - what are we gonna do?
Sit quiet and take a whuppin is what.
A pox on both their houses.
"We really should stay out of it - but we cant."
This exactly. We don't want a stupid war, we don't need a stupid war, I kinda wish they'd all piss off and accept that the bit on the map marked Россия is Russia, and the bit marked Україна is Ukraine and they can peacefully argue about the Crimea for another sixty eight years...
It spent the last 400 years part of russia and was only really recreated again under Kruschev
You obviously don't know any Ukrainians. Like much of the former Russian empire, Ukraine, which has a longer tradition of statehood than Russia, with the Kiever Rus actually giving Russia its name, was subjected to various bouts of russification with Tsars banning the use of the language and Lenin stamping on the newly independent Ukraine in 1918.
But Putin has made it clear he won't stop at Ukraine. So, at some point, as the song goes, then they came for me.
no, I am not Ukrainian, but have studied Black Sea culture for some time and travelled round the Western shore a bit
Funfact 1 - the name Rus originates from viking traders on the russian rivers for the slave trade to the East. Dang all to do with ukranian (slavs) and pechenegs who were mostly the victims of the trade. The original Rus were based around Novagrod in the North....
The state you refer to lenin stomping on was a splinter of the Bolshevik revolution that really lasted only for 4 years, and was acknowledged by no one. It was called 'ukrainian soviet socialist republic' and only existed because Germany tried to secure grain supplies in WW1 and cut the northern half of russia out of the deal (russia having had its arse handed to it earlier).... it lasted from December 1917-May 1922 as an arm of the Russian Soviet - indeed it sent representatives to the russian Soviet at the time - as every provence did...
Fun fact 2 : Over 1/3rd of the west of the country was annexed from Poland (by russia) and given to ukraine in 1938 with a second chunk from Czechoslovakia in 1946
- do they want it back? who would the 'they' actually be? Ukraine/Poland/Slovakia/Czech - or the russians who took it in the first place?
Funfact3: All those being nice talking points that have suddenly surfaced on Russian media. After Putin made his historically ignorant speech about how Ukraine doesn't really exist and never really has.
Clearly borders have moved a hell of a lot over the years and so Ukraine hasn't always been a state. But Kievan Rus was older than Novgorod - and in fact was Novgorod's overlord at first. I admit it's 25 years since I studied Russian history, plus Ukraine's history is insanely complex. But large chunks of modern Ukraine were part of Kievan Rus for hundreds of years, until the Mongols turned up. After that there was no united state and bits were owned by everybody in the area, and some from quite far away (like Genoa). It wasn't until the 19th Century that most of modern Ukraine was part of the Russian empire. So even with all that complex history I think Ukraine has been an independent state (for a rather loose value of the word state) than it's been part of Russia or the Soviet Union. It also owned some bits of Russia during some of that time - which certainly links the cultures more than if not. But surely if we're going for full on revision of borders, why can't Lithuania own Ukraine again? Or perhaps a Polish Lithuanian commonwealth?
The point about Ukrainian statehood is that Ukrainians chose it to be so. They had a referendum on independence in 1991. Which won with a massive overall majority. Crimeans also voted in that referendum, and though they only just voted for leaving the Soviet Union as part of Ukraine, they did so.
I know all about the borders being redrawn during and after the second world war. None of it can be considered fun. However, acknowledging the the borders has become a tenet for European peace. By going against this, Putin has effectively declared war on Europe, though some might not have noticed yet.
Unfortunately, it's probably only a matter of time before there is escalation beyond Ukraine's borders.
Oh please.....
That is nonsense - It doesnt mention the fact that the Mongols flattend all of russia and Poland (and anywhere else they felt like).
Kiev was sacked & burned many times -
It was first destroyed in 1150ish by the poles/lithuanians
The main Monghul army and then The golden horde (a splinter of the mongol empire) had Kiev as a stop off on their jaunts for almost 250 years. It was grassland for most of that time. There simply was no russia or ukraine (or poland, lithuania Iran Iraq or anywhere else east of the Danube)
Then Kiev was (almost) totally destroyed repeatedly - the 1240 sack left <3000 people in the city.
The city of Kiev wasnt ukraine at that time anyway and the territory was shared with the poles and the pechenegs - it was a single city state and not a country and not the point.
Ukraine only first existed as a country in 1991. In its older history it was a provence. A big one, granted, but a provence. If you are Ukrainian, you will know that the name means 'Parcel of land' or 'borderland' in old slav- lterally.
"Ukraine only first existed as a country in 1991"
Sorry, but I dont see what you are arguing for - the length of time a country is an independent state is irrelevant, surely? Unless you are actually being a Putin apologist ( and you seem to be supporting his rants) the question of Ukraine's existence in the past is pointless. It exists NOW, as a sovereign state. If you go back far enough, especuially in Eastern Europe, every country has been pretty much part of another country at some point, or were simply never countries at all. Does this give anyone the right to invade them and bomb their cities?
Even at the height of the cold war, Gas from the Soviet Union was a major import into Western Europe. People don't like to think of the trade agreements that lead to perestroika and warming of relations.
The only exit plan as far as I can tell at this stage is for Russia to take offence to it's own leadership and choose a different direction. The stranglehold on state media and internet make that difficult, at best.
But revolutions have been organised by Modem before, in the Soviet Union, and they could happen again.
Putting Russia into a state where it's economy is ruined will, eventually lead to it's own people turning on it's own government... OR galvanise them into thinking we really are the enemy.
What a fricking mess. Remind me again what we have to do to accelerate the development of Fusion power and an exit from wars fought over energy.
He doesn't care about sanctions that hurt the Russian economy, since he's prepared for it for years and saved up a bunch of money intended to wait out sanctions for years if necessary. He doesn't care about sanctions that hurt Russian citizens - he doesn't need their support because he has the election won before the first vote is cast. Even if Russians starved by the thousands he'd blame it all on the NATO coalition and probably see his popularity increase! The true power behind the throne is the oligarchs and criminals who are rich enough to buy high end properties in places like London and NYC.
Seize those assets, ban those people and their entire families from international travel to every country the UN can get to sign on and that will quickly apply the necessary pressure to Putin. There's nothing rich people like less than having their toys taken away from them, or having to spend winters in Russia with their whiny entitled Instagram generation jet setter children who beg them to call uncle Vlad and make this all away so they can party in Ibiza or Vegas.
Putin can successfully fight off a few of them, but not all of them. So the sanctions need to hit every Russian citizen who holds substantial assets in the west, not try to cherry pick only those who are most in cahoots with Putin.
Putin isn't popular. Only his stance against the US enjoys popular support. Here is a poem , very roughly translated by myself, that is on the .NET. The names are all of Russian bigwigs. If the Bigwigs buy yachts and football teams, then the money isn't buying weapons.
I saw today a ghastly dream
It showed me things so brightly
Zhirik's son , a soldier brave
His daughter tends the wounded
At the front lead the charge
Both daughters of our Putin
with rifles cocked they shout out loud
"for motherland and Daddy"
On the left, a tank burns out
Medvedev's son is in it
Shoigu's daughter braves the flames
And pulls him out in minutes
Zyuganov's son, his grandsons too
And Matvienko's offspring
all as one , one for all
fight the cursed NATO.
In the ranks, Kovalchuk's sons
Rotenburg's right beside them
Whilst Miller breaks the NATO line
Gazprom once more will triumph !
well, according to the US, Biden, Blinken, etc, those sanctions, and the UK ones, are exactly meant to target Russian oligarchs (and, presumably, sanctions for Putin are held off for a 'proper' escalation). Of course, oligarchs will not go hungry, but they will find their life awkward, on a daily basis, when they're unable to fly for shopping to Berlin and send their kids to a French or British private school, and then US uni, and when some of them start losing their UK passports. They can still fly to Maldives, for now at least, and do shopping in China or Dubai, but the world is going to get rather less 'open' for them, despite their wealth.
That said, I heard some opinion, that the horse (or Putin) has already bolted, and while squeezing the oligarchs might have had a sobering effect on Russia's actions 20 years ago, Putin has already got them under control, and gave them the choice, to stick with him, and pay, every now and then, a 'tax' on Russia's anti-Western stand, OR ELSE, and the 'or else' is quite clear from examples of a few oligarchs, who chose to defy him.
Nevertheless, there are signals that some top people in Russia are not happy with Putin's moves (it's worth watching, on youtube, both his rambling speech, and the meeting with his top people before his speech, which is a public display of their misery and humiliation for ever available to replay). It might turn up that, one day, the world finds out that the Russia's ruler had a 'sudden heart attack overnight' (as it happens in Russia), and the dearest leader is no more.
As to current sanctions, Russian 'experts' on economy suggest the current wave is not dramatic, not catastrophic, but there is this... hesitation in their voices about what might / will come next. And yesterday, I heard explicitely mentioned at Psaki's conference, that cutting off swift access is also on the table (hard to say whether it's a threat, a promise, or just a bluff). Also, she mentioned (or was it Blinken?) that what's happened in this tranche of sanctions, against 3 banks with asset freeze of approx. 70 bn usd, can happen to the banks holding assets, I think a figured mentioned was, around 700 bn usd. Apparently Russia's assets at the moment are around 800 + bn. Not all held or linked to western financial system, but if it's an all out 'sanctions war', they will find it extremely difficult to operate in the world, given how connected the world is nowadays. They will survive, they have survived worse in history, but are they the same Russians now who were prepared to suffer in the past?
Sure it is widely believed he has billions - maybe hundreds of billions - in assets all over the world under various identities. But other than making himself feel like a big man, what would he lose if all of it could somehow be identified and confiscated? He's still got more wealth safely stored away in Russia than he could spend in a dozen lifetimes, and I'm sure can get billions more from his cronies or the Russian treasury itself any time he wants. Seizing his foreign holdings wouldn't affect him any more than taking away all of Bill Gates' Microsoft stock would affect his daily life.
The sanctions have to target his power base, not his ego. So you go after all the oligarchs and Russian mobsters, and their families. Seize ALL their assets overseas. Block them and their families from traveling to any country taking part in the sanctions.
Remember all the hand wringing about Obama "paying" Iran billions of dollars, that was actually unfreezing Iranian assets that had been seized in 1979? The oligarchs would have to look at a similar near 40 year long seizure as being a potential outcome of Putin's actions, and consider whether having him in charge is still to their benefit. If only a few oligarchs go against him Putin can make them disappear. If all the oligarchs and the mafia goes against him, they can make Putin disappear and he knows it.
Unfortunately the UK is not on board with this as they fear London losing its place as one of the major centers of worldwide money laundering. They should be seizing all that Russian owned London real estate, but they are looking the other way.
His whole economy is basically the size of Belgium and the Netherlands combined, and largely fueled by prostituting natural resources. If that income dries up, and the EU accounts for ~40% of oil and gas revenues, he's going bankrupt. And the EU can keep up paying for those higher energy prices a lot longer, then he can go without those euro's. And if those oliarchs can't get to their house in London, apartment in New York, or park their yacht in Monaco, he'll be getting som pretty tough phonecalls.
And while he is no democratic leader, he's far from omnipotence like Kim-Il-Sung is, he does have to show his countrymen some kind of progress, and he can't hide the fact that a lot of sons and fathers won't be coming home, if serious fighting starts.
Putin doesn't want serious fighting. He's invading Ukraine because they are talking about joining NATO, and probably will in the next two years. NATO is a defensive alliance. If you declare war on one member, you end up fighting the entire lot, and whilst our militaries haven't been well funded for quite a long time to generate massive forces individually, collectively everybody has an awful lot of very good equipment. Far far far more than he has; he's got tons of moderately good equipment.
A couple of weeks ago I observed that the situation is thus:-
Russia: @Ukraine. Stop the process of joining a military alliance we're scared to fight or we'll invade!
Ukraine: You've succeeded in making us determined to join quickly?
So before Ukraine joins NATO he's going to try and slice as much of it off as he can take. His army (albeit in plain clothes) already controlled the bits that he's just rolled his uniformed army into. If he takes anymore then the prodigious quantity of anti tank weapons that have just been donated to the Ukrainian army by the US & UK are going to leave a painfully high death toll and I think he knows that. Is that going to be enough to stop him? We're about to find out.
"Yes you can tell because we have Ministry of Defence and a Dept of Defense - that's why we never start any wars"
NATO does not start wars. Neither does it dictate what member states do with their own military. Unless you can give examples of when NATO as a whole invaded somewhere I suggest you are either woefully uninformed or an apologist for Russia.
with no carrot, the stick can only go so far...
Yes, let's beat the donkey that has gotten used to a regular beating, and MAKE him do what we want!!!
(I think it has reached the point of no longer working)
You could also say that If you take away all of a child's toys, the kid won't respond well to his parents saying "If you do [not] XXX we'll take your toys away". And daily spankings take their effectiveness away as well.
(I'm comparing Putin to a small child and a JACKASS in case nobody figured it out)
while it's true that all of Europe needs Russian gas, your quoted cost of 'hundreds of thousands of lives' is nonsense. European countries _can_ afford less comfort / more cost of energy, at least for some time, while at the same time they / we will be forced to switch to alternative sources that much faster, and it's a one-way road. Arguably, the Russians would hope that the trojan horse of democracy is going to force the 'rusophobic' governments out, and russia-loving governments in and gas flows back, and so does cash, but I don't see this happening, unless you have, I don't know, extra-long, extra-cold winter, after winter, etc., the opposite seems to be the case.
Europe should impose sanctions, because, unlike the Russians, generally, Europeans, can learn from their previous mistakes. Looking away, repeatedly, when Russia was taking a piss in the past, got Europe nowhere closer to 'safety', and I'm not talking only about pre-war appeasement directed at Hitler, there's been plenty of appeasement and appealing to Russia's sense of reason and business, which has got Europe and the US nowhere (numerous reset buttons, etc.). On top of which, there's a theory that, as Russians negotiate from a position of force, and if you appear weak, they push on and on, when you appear to show your muscle, they _might_ take notice and re-assess their own strength more... realistically. That said, it's a dangerous game of chicken.
If Putin was smarter about threatening Germany's natural gas supplies he would have had things where they are now in November. They will need less gas going forward, and there is plenty of time for the US to ramp up CNG deliveries before next winter. They've already been diverting some CNG tankers from other places like South America to send them to Europe, by next fall they could all go there.
The US has more than enough slack natural gas capacity to cover what is currently being delivered from Russia. The ability to supply Germany and other EU countries currently depending on Russia is limited only the number of CNG tankers and European ports with pipelines that go to the necessary locations.
well if _CERTAIN POLITICIANS_ were not trying to STOP oil drilling and fracking and coal mining in the USA, the USA (as proved ~2 years ago) could EASILY supply UK and EU with all of the fossil fuels you need, in a nice stable way. Just sayin'.
The reason the US is producing less oil and gas today than it was two years ago has nothing to do with Biden. When the pandemic started oil and gas prices went sharply lower, and even went negative for a time. Many wells were shut in as they would lose too much money continuing to operate them.
Some have been restarted, but not all as a $70 oil price is basically break even for the higher cost wells. The moratorium on new leases does not affect the ability of producers to re-open previously shut wells. The return to higher oil and gas prices in the past six months or so will, which is why the rig count has been increasing. The war induced spike in prices will likely result in the rest of the wells being opened this year, so US production will likely return to its pre-pandemic levels.
But by all means, continue attributing everything you think is "good" to your orange snowflake, and everything you think is "bad" to Biden. Biden isn't perfect but you can't blame him for the oil price any more than you can blame Trump for the economy cratering when the pandemic hit.
Oh and BTW if you are interested in facts (which you probably aren't, as a disciple of the puffed up fool) coal production actually went DOWN under Trump, despite all his bluster about saving that dying industry. But I'm sure Fox News will show you stats about how it goes down under Biden and conveniently leave out how it also went down under Trump, because they never let facts get in the way of viewer outrage.
Right, China's domestic chip production is still a joke, and they would surely milk their superiority over Russia for all it's worth. The Russian economy is roughly of Belgium and the Netherlands combined, and Xi Jinping is as, or maybe even more, ruthless as Putin. Cuddling up to them would make them the Belarus of China, a vazal with hardly anything to bring tot the table.
about becoming the Belarus of China, you are not wrong...
But China would simply do their "4th shift" illegal cloning and stolen technology thing, and sell a bunch of that to Russia (as well as the usual 'for china only' market). And they've been alleged to have stolen cutting edge tech (like for 5G) from U.S. companies and universities in the past. It makes this particular threat (sanctioning all chip exports to Russia that have U.S. tech in them, for example) a speed bump, not a road block.
(NOTE - back in the noughties I worked for a company that had stuff made in China and saw a photo at a meeting of a component that was illegally cloned in China. it was obviously an illegal clone, most likely made from an X ray of the original, having fuzzy edges on the embedded copper component. The funny thing is that it was an antenna, and it was cleverly designed so that the company logo in the copper affected its impedance, and the logo, albeit a bit fuzzy, was there in the illegal clone, too. Talk about evidence of hands in the cookie jar...)
I used to buy ADSL cards from a company in Australia that had them made in China. A competitor then came onto the market, and if you scarped the painted label off the PCB the Australian company’s logo was underneath.
China will sell anything that Russia wants / needs, regardless of where the technology came from.
Putin's rise from authoritarian yearning for the glory years of the Soviet union to full on threat to world peace surely cannot be a surprise when one looks at Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, as well as his goons going out to poison critics while on a brief holiday to Salisbury to see the cathedral. The west didn't do enough about him, and now we're sitting on the precipice of WW3. The warning bells should have been ringing the moment Putin served two presidential terms, then did a stint as PM while having a lackey hold the president's job. It was clear this was a guy who had set himself up as dictator for life, irrespective of whatever the constitution might say.
You could see from the ghoulish public performance with his lackeys being called up one by one to endorse his attack on Ukraine that they are terrified of him, and of what he is likely to unleash. It's clear that there are a lot of people around him who were doing very well, and this war serves no purpose for them. Ditto the russian billionaires around the world who will now find their activities curtailed and some of their money frozen.
Rather than all out war, the focus needs to be on doing what Putin has done to the west back to them - weaponizing a portion of the population with anger and distrust, filling their minds with conspiracy theories and turning them against their own countries. And making sure those around him start to consider whether their fear of him, when they surely outnumber him, is worse than their fear of what he might lead them into if they let him get away with this attack.
"Would Black-Holing their internet not achieve something?"
Annoyance, but probably not more than that. If we dropped all the packets coming from Russian cables to countries in Europe or North America, they'd have lots of outages. There would still be active cables going through Asia, and they could use those for the bandwidth they need. Important companies and people would have internet through those. Cybercriminals operating for the Russian government would have proxy access through them as well, and nongovernment actors would probably be able to buy that access. The public would have any remaining bandwidth they had and might suffer as they failed to access services operated internationally. Meanwhile, the government-approved services that have servers in Russia would continue to work just fine, driving more people to those.
We generally don't want to hurt the Russian public any more than necessary. Partially, that's because they didn't choose Putin so they're not at fault. Partially, it's because, if they replace him, we'd like them not to hate us. Mostly, it's because Putin doesn't care when they suffer, so it won't help make him stop.
re. Russian people, sadly:
(CNN) — As the world waits to see if Russia will invade Ukraine, an exclusive new poll of both countries for CNN finds that twice as many Russians believe it would be right for Moscow to use military force to prevent Kyiv from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as say it would be wrong.
One out of every two Russians (50%) says it would be right, while only a quarter (25%) say it would be wrong. The other quarter (25%) are unsure, according to the survey.
- obviously, the results vary according to demographics, oldies, like me, believe the shit their state media spouts, but apparently, quite a percentage of younger population believes it too.
(...)
“Inside Russia the West is presented as a villain that is abusing Ukraine to undermine Russia’s greatness. In the event of Russian military aggression, Russia will be portrayed as fighting the US and NATO forces, and not killing its Slavic brothers,” Lutsevych said.
- the whole text is long, but interesting, many additional, relevant views on USSR, etc, etc.
edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html
A gentle reminder to China that support for Russia at the moment means that they support other nations "recognising Independent States", is something which could lead to the West unanimously recognising a "breakaway" independent state by the name of Taiwan.
I suspect that China might decide Russia's Actions are not so great after all, with that little bit of info in hand...
The west have had many decades to recognise Taiwan, during which China has been getting stronger. We didn't do it then, we won't do it now.
Likewise for all our posturing, in Europe we're still hugely dependent on Russian Gas - as someone pointed out above, Nordstream One is still running. It will be a cold day in... well, pretty much everywhere when that's cut off.
Here in the UK, the largest donors to the Tory party are Russian which means any sanctions we propose will be immediately bogged down in distinguishing "good russian money" from "bad russian money". I expect "good" in this context will not have its traditional moral element.
Bottom line is the west is dependent on Russian gas and Chinese goods. We will talk a good game, but nothing more.
It's worth remembering that the One China policy was one originally agreed to by *both* the ROC and the PRC, since both considered the other to be the illegitimate one.
So Taiwan staying in that not-fully-independent limbo was also their own wish.
Times have changed, though.
Here in the UK, the largest donors to the Tory party are Russian which means any sanctions we propose will be immediately bogged down in distinguishing "good russian money" from "bad russian money"
I predict that a hefty donation to the Tory party will be the major qualifying factor as to whether ones money is regarded as good or bad.
Taiwan?
According to the UK media our fearless world-class Royal Navy recently sailed through the South China Seas, perhaps given all the Hong Kong residents now holding GB passports, we should be looking to use Putin's rationale to protect British Hong Kong citizens...
I have been pondering what I could do as an individual / small business owner and one idea I had was what if we all started to firewall off our systems from Russia? Yes, I know they have lots of subnets, etc, but as a concept, if we all did it, would it send a message to the average Russian that we don’t like what their Government is doing? Would this get the message across that this isn’t just some corrupt / biased / imperialist western government thing, but us, the workers, also feel this way?
I'm a Progressive Liberal, but my problem with the Left is that they are wimps. They are naive. Leaders who walk into other countries don't play by the same rules as we do. (see Japan's invasion of China and Germany's invasion and further invasion of Czechoslovakia.) They don't play by any rules. It's time to declare that we're executing ALL the "tranches" of sanctions (including "SWIFT" and any other possible financial cutoffs) that there are, and maybe some that there aren't.
It's time for us to declare several of the "republics" in the Russian Federation to be "independent states" and send peace keeping forces THERE. And we need to declare that we intend to enforce the sanctions in the harshest possible manner, including NOT waiting for international courts or the UN or trade groups to decide that some company or country has violated the "rules," as they most certainly will. All finance from the West should be cut off NOW, and all "suspected" Russian assets need to be seized. We know what has been laundered, even if we can't prove it. It will be painful for us now, but a lot less painful than failing to stop Japan and Germany was.
Russia's GDP is about the same size as Brazil and has FEWER people than Brazil. Russia is nothing more that a third-world country with nuclear weapons. And like most third-world countries, Russia has a dangerous narcissist in charge. We need to make Putin's enablers feel more pain than they fear he can inflict on them.
In any case, we need to do these things NOW. And not be like the frog in a pot of water on the stove not realizing that the water is moving to the boiling point.
The republics in the Federation are independent states. And they are not asking to be invaded.
That Russia can unilaterally recognise disputed territories as independent is because of a precedent set by NATO.
It's true that those who invade other countries are not playing by any rules, the invasions in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria were illegal by international law; but fortunately NATO's leaders don't recognise the authority of the ICC, and have permanent veto powers on UN sanctions.
In a letter in 1779, General George Washington referred to the "black gentry" as those who put their own profits and riches ahead of their country. They would carry out acts that hurt their country and their countrymen if they benefited. We still have those types today in the US and across the Western world who need to be targeted in any of the "sanctions" that are imposed by us or any country against Russia. The Russian government is engaged in a criminal land grab. As Margaret Thatcher said in 1990 to Geo. Bush, Sr., we can't go "wobbly" on this thing. We need to impose ALL the sanctions available NOW, and enforce them ruthlessly. against both Russia and the "black gentry."
...and probably NOT a good one, however :-
When it comes to sanctions, and if Mr. Putin does actually play the 'Turn off the Gas' card, there is of course something we have that he wants/needs - our friend the Internet.
Russia participates in this, consumes it and depends on this just as much as the rest of us these days, If the wider community decides to cease or severely throttle connectivity to the Russian 'Tier 1' carriers and remove or reduce the flow of info to/from Russia then that would make it really awkward for the Russian state to function. Same goes for the other telecoms services Russia enjoys due to the participation of the rest of the world.
Upsides:Pressure on the Russian state to actually behave like a state not the bully they currently appear[*1] to be. A reduction in the amount of disinformation coming from Russia's interested parties. A reduction in the state-sponsored cyber-crimes and other cyber-annoyances that allegedly originate from there.
Downsides:Sets a very dangerous (?) precedent. Very hard to know where to draw the lines. Affects the Russian general population through no fault of their own. Would cause Jon Postel and the other founding fathers to spin in the grave.
Much has been said in the past about Russia 'building it's own Internet' (I'll let you Google that subject). The people at the other end of the fibre from Russia can turn that into a degraded Internet, or even 'Russian Intranet only' if they want. Given the media controls in place in Russia, Mr. Putin will at least understand that. I'm surprised no-one else has thought of this before, or is the idea of weaponising Internet availability too large an elephant for the room?
Last I heard, lack of sufficient Internet connectivity doesn't come under the 'Weapon Of Mass Destruction' umbrella so we should be fairly safe. It's even a cheap form of pressure, needing mobilisation of only a few keystrokes in the right places..
Lastly, the older I get the more I wish people and nations would just learn to play nicely without big sticks. Sadly, I don't see that happening any time soon due to the human condition. Sometimes I think people must have removed the word Altruism from the dictionary!
Mine's the armoured one with the pockets full of FAL/SLR mags..
[*1] I am not Russian and not really up to speed on their history, so I don't understand their point of view or motivation.
> We have yet to hear the opinions of Trumpski [ ... ]
We no longer have to wait to hear from Trumpski. He spaketh thusly:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/23/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-joe-biden/index.html
It took only 24 hours for Donald Trump to hail Russian President Vladimir Putin's dismembering of independent, democratic, sovereign Ukraine as an act of "genius."
It is quite clear that he is talking about the move Putin played as genius, he is not saying it is the right thing.
Once again the left media try to spin DT as an idiot they are still smarting over the defeat of their choice last time round.
If they continue to just denigrate DT he will be elected again because you keep alienating his core support.
USA beware.
If Ukraine had kept the missiles at the breakup of the USSR they would not be threatened now.
Putin has to be boxed in now, use the same technique as used on N Korea and Iran
No use of the dollar or euro or pound
Stop imports of food from any country that has ties to the USA EU or UK
At that point Putin would be worried about an uprising and he can turn his attention back to suppressing his own people like all good dictators do
Apologies if I wasn't clear I fully agree with you.
There has been a lot of nonsense about SWIFT on the TV, such as it would be technically difficult to remove Russia. I worked there, it's not difficult at all, simple sysadmin.
The real difficulty is Russia has developed it's own financial messaging system and 37 European banks are connected to it. So, SWIFT should disconnect Russia and disconnect any entity that uses the Russian system.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
