Ongoing discussion of Ukraine

[kgambit]

 

 

Doing anything with the infrastructure costs is questionable as well. We don't know who is paying them or how much they will be. Plus, if the 'real' cost that Russia is getting gets lowered by their infrastructure costs then, logically, what China 'really' pays has to have their infrastructure costs added. So, a new natural gas distribution network across China, hmm, make it easy and say 50 billion dollars and the 'real' price is... back up to ~$350, again.

 

 

 

How many years have you spent working in oil and gas industry bro?  I'm guessing zero ........ 

 

Infrastructure costs are NOT questionable except in your apologist's view of the deal.  Wake up.  Most of those costs are for developing Russian gas fields - I'll be asterisked if the Chinese are paying THOSE costs.  lol

 

Chinese infrastructure costs are an internal Chinese matter.  None of that cash finds it's way into Russian hands so it doesn't affect the price the Russians get - it does affect what China's actual cost is.

 

Seriously bro where DID you study finances and economics? 

 

Actually 50 billion is a low ball figure according to the Washington Post:

 

The deal will involve developing natural gas fields in Russia and building pipelines from Russia to China. The cost of building the infrastructure alone is expected to top $70 billion, said Mikhail Krutikhin, an energy and oil analyst at RusEnergy, a Moscow think tank.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/china-russia-sign-400-billion-gas-deal/2014/05/21/364e9e74-e0de-11e3-8dcc-d6b7fede081a_story.html

 

And based on this graphic, we're not talking about a lot of pipeline either.  So my educated guess is that the majority of that 70 billion dollar infrastructure cost is going to charged against development. 

 

 

 FFS you didn't even know the actual cost of the deal and now you claim to understand the mechanics of it?  LOL  Yeah try again.

 

PS:  Some of the gas destined for China is likely coming from the joint Gazprom - RDS joint venture on Sakhalin.   

Edited June 14, 2014 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

Oh please. You decided to arbitrarily apply infrastructure costs against only one side, of one deal, to show how poor it was, for that one side, which just happens to be the side you've consistently argued against*. You've got about as much room as I have to throw the 'apologist' tag around unironically.

 

If you're going to do comparisons and you want to do it properly then you have to do it consistently for all sides and all deals to generate that fair comparison, otherwise it's not actually a comparison, it's manipulation to get a desired result. So, not only do you have to apply Chinese infrastructure costs against the price they are paying to get their 'real' cost, you have to apply the initial costs of all their European destination supply infrastructure and gas fields against Russian costings/ the European supply rate as well- after all, the fields and pipelines supplying Europe weren't created decades ago by the natural gas pixies in a fit of philanthropic fervour, they too had to be paid for; and the 'real' cost of gas supplied to Europe or China to Europe or China includes their gas infrastructure every bit as much as Russia's infrastructure is a cost to Russia. Arguing that infrastructure costs must be applied only to the Russians, and only in this single deal, is a comparison designed whether consciously or not to make this deal look worse than it is.

 

There's no need for a doctorate in economics to know that's the case- basic common sense and logic is sufficient.

 

I note that you have no response to the price comparison to Ukraine, or it being a bulk deal, so I guess they are accepted as being valid rebuttal at least. 

 

*Right down to arguing that the Ukrainian Constitution didn't really say what it says when you were arguing that Yanukovich's removal was constitutional.

[kgambit]

Oh please. You decided to arbitrarily apply infrastructure costs against only one side, of one deal, to show how poor it was, for that one side, which just happens to be the side you've consistently argued against*. You've got about as much room as I have to throw the 'apologist' tag around unironically.

 

If you're going to do comparisons and you want to do it properly then you have to do it consistently for all sides and all deals to generate that fair comparison, otherwise it's not actually a comparison, it's manipulation to get a desired result. So, not only do you have to apply Chinese infrastructure costs against the price they are paying to get their 'real' cost, you have to apply the initial costs of all their European destination supply infrastructure and gas fields against Russian costings/ the European supply rate as well- after all, the fields and pipelines supplying Europe weren't created decades ago by the natural gas pixies in a fit of philanthropic fervour, they too had to be paid for; and the 'real' cost of gas supplied to Europe or China to Europe or China includes their gas infrastructure every bit as much as Russia's infrastructure is a cost to Russia. Arguing that infrastructure costs must be applied only to the Russians, and only in this single deal, is a comparison designed whether consciously or not to make this deal look worse than it is.

 

There's no need for a doctorate in economics to know that's the case- basic common sense and logic is sufficient.

 

I note that you have no response to the price comparison to Ukraine, or it being a bulk deal, so I guess they are accepted as being valid rebuttal at least. 

 

*Right down to arguing that the Ukrainian Constitution didn't really say what it says when you were arguing that Yanukovich's removal was constitutional.

 

 

Oh please bro.   If one was going to examine the deal properly you would have gotten the dollar amount right in the first place.  lol 

 

But since you want to get really detailed, delivery tariffs aren't accounted for in my simple comparison because they don't make a huge difference in base pricing.  But  if I omit them you'll cry foul.  For example, Ukraine received from Russia a payment of $1.09 / 1000 cubic meters per 100km for transport of gas thru Ukraine pipelines to the EU.    Applying that tariff to the 1222km Nord Stream pipeline generates ~13$ per kcm or roughly 3.5% of the total average 383$/kcm the EU paid.  The seller is responsible for delivery charges so the tariffs come off the Russian price.  Gazprom recoups ~15% of those costs by virtue of having a 51% share of the 30% held by shareholders (banks hold the other 70%).  The net revenue lost to Russia from tariffs  is reduced from 13$ per kcm to 11$ kcm so the net price paid to the Russians is 372$.

 

What about infrastructure?  Nord Stream cost ~14.8 Euros of which the shareholders paid 30% (Banks financed the other 70%).  Since Gazprom holds a 51% share of the shareholders holdings, that makes the Russian share of infrastructure costs roughly 3 billion $.  The Nord Stream contracts (at least the ones I could track down) call for deliveries to various countries of ~ 18.1 billion cubic meters per year for up to 25 years.   That works out to another 6.6$ per kcm sunk costs.  Subtracting that from the 372$ per kcm we get ~365.5$/kcm as the net Russian gas price.  That's still better than the 350$ the Russians are getting from the Chinese and that's  before adjustment for Russian infrastructure costs in the China deal.

 

Now the Chinese deal works out to ~ 50 to 70 billion $ of sunk costs for 38 bcm per year for 30 years.   Given that those estimates include both pipelines and field development they don't seem unreasonable to me.  That's the equivalent of 2 or 3 Nord Streams plus in field development.  At any rate, the 350$/ kcm that the Chinese are paying actually works out to something closer to 310$ per kcm.  YMMV.    

 

You're welcome to repeat that exercise with another pipeline if you want.  I chose Nord Stream because it was one I was familiar with.  It was a recent build so its costs should be at least reasonably accurate.

 

 

The structure of the Russia- China deal is (a) the Russians sell their gas to the Chinese at a discounted price compared to the EU price and (b) the Russians have to pay for their own infrastructure costs for both additional development costs and pipeline construction to the Chinese border.    I didn't arbitrarily make up those infrastructure costs and including them to figure a net price is fair game.  Multiple industry sources including the Washington Post gave a range of 50 to 70 billion $ for Russian pipeline and redevelopment costs associated with the project.  I simply used the lowest $ figure of that range.    Regardless of whether you believe 50 billion or 70 billion or even something lower, those infrastructure costs are a part of the asterisking deal.   I repeat that imo, the Russians got a bad deal price wise.. Maybe having an alternate outlet for their gas was worth the lost revenue but its not a good deal on price basis only which was my point.    Given that the Chinese deal of 38 bcm/year is a drop in the bucket compared to the EU's 500+ bcm/yr it's hard to figure what real diversification is gained but opening another growing market is valuable.   

 

You are right about the Chinese infrastructure costs.  China certainly has to pay for pipeline costs from the Russian border to their hubs which will raise their costs too.  And I don't care.  Frankly I overlooked their costs because I was looking at this primarily from the standpoint of how badly the Russians got hosed on the price they got.   It's true that China did get a discounted price compared to the EU.  But they are paying a premium compared to other Asian suppliers.  And yes their pipeline costs will make it more expensive.  It's also true that the Chinese don't have to worry about Russian field development sunk costs - they aren't responsible for subsidizing them in the deal.   Again the infrastructure costs for them are only related to pipeline construction.    The Chinese have always shown a tendency to pay above market if necessary to insure energy supplies.  That's why their pricing structure isn't a concern for me.  If you want to claim they got hosed, do some math on their projected costs after adjusting for pipeline builds.  I can't be arsed to bother with it.

 

The other fly in the ointment for the Chinese is how their other suppliers will look at them paying the Russians a higher price for Russian gas than they pay for Asian gas.  But that's a Chinese issue and it's not a Russian concern.   Maybe China was willing to pay a higher price than they could have gotten from Asian suppliers because of the size of the deal and the ability to diversify their deliveries (a lesson the EU should have learned a while ago).  I'm simply not concerned about what the Chinese are paying. 

 

Do you honestly believe that the Chinese agreed to this deal at the 350$/ kcm price without Russia absorbing Russian infrastructure costs when China has the option to obtain gas thru Asian suppliers at lower costs?  Seriously? 

 

The bulk price the Russians gave Ukraine was a bad price deal for the Russians as well: even worse than this one actually. Even if you ignore all infrastructure costs and tariffs in the Chinese deal and just compare the base prices its a bad deal.   If they want to discount their gas, it's their business but that doesn't make it good economics or a good price. 

 

On another note: 

 

It's nice to see that you can't argue a point without trying to deflect the discussion - exactly like Mor says you do.  I'm not sure what the Ukrainian constitution has to do with a discussion of a China-Russia gas deal but thanks for proving his point.    LOL   

Edited June 15, 2014 by kgambit

[Sarex]

It's nice to see that you can't argue a point without trying to deflect the discussion - exactly like Mor says you do.  I'm not sure what the Ukrainian constitution has to do with a discussion of a China-Russia gas deal but thanks for proving his point.    LOL   

 

[kgambit]

Just a bit more on Russian infrastructure costs:

 

There have been several proposed Russia-Chinese gas pipelines.     The Altai pipeline was originally planned to connect to Western Siberia gas supplies.  The Russian segment of Altai is 2,666 kilometres of the total 2800 kilometers. The original cost of 14 billion dollars was based on completion of construction in 2011 so that figure is likely underestimated at current costs.    The Altai pipeline had a proposed capacity of 30 bcm/year so it would need to be upscaled to handle the necessary 38 bcm/yr or a second pipeline would need to be added.  However the Chinese prefer an Eastern Siberian gas supply as they feel they can use other Asian gas supplies to supplement gas needs for the WEP.

 

The second pipeline "the Power of Siberia"  (LOL)  or YKV (Yakutia-Khabarovsk–Vladivostok) measures a total of 3200 kilometers with an additional 800 kilometer spur. The pipeline will be feed from the Chayanda oil and gas field in Yakutia and will also connect to the Sakhalin–Khabarovsk–Vladivostok pipeline.  The proposed pipeline would have a capacity of 61 bcm/year .  The total cost for pipeline, field development infrastructure necessary to meet production/delivery goals and a LNG plant would reach an estimated 35 billion dollars.  The majority of the pipeline would be upgrades and additions to existing Russian pipeline infrastructure.

 

There might be other projects as well.  

[Zoraptor]

El Oh El indeed. Yeah, so I underestimated the value of the deal to Russia by a factor of 2 in a throwaway line on a subject I had no intent to discuss further, big deal since the net result was that the deal was larger than I stated. Indeed, the preponderance of expert opinion is that the deal is pretty fair overall, and in the absence of compelling evidence otherwise that is what I will go with.

 

I regard this as fundamentally peripheral issue to the primary subject anyway, so I'm not going to nitpick. Well, not much. Though I certainly can. If you're going to say that Europe's market is, to quote "500+ bcm/ annum" and then use as your example something which is, to quote "18.1 bcm/ annum" and whose costings do not include any of the field development you were saying was important ("most of those costs are for developing Russian gas fields", to quote) in the costings a post or so ago I most certainly don't think you've scored a home run with your analysis.

[Sarex]

El Oh El indeed. Yeah, so I underestimated the value of the deal to Russia by a factor of 2 in a throwaway line on a subject I had no intent to discuss further, big deal since the net result was that the deal was larger than I stated. Indeed, the preponderance of expert opinion is that the deal is pretty fair overall, and in the absence of compelling evidence otherwise that is what I will go with.

 

I regard this as fundamentally peripheral issue to the primary subject anyway, so I'm not going to nitpick. Well, not much. Though I certainly can. If you're going to say that Europe's market is, to quote "500+ bcm/ annum" and then use as your example something which is, to quote "18.1 bcm/ annum" and whose costings do not include any of the field development you were saying was important ("most of those costs are for developing Russian gas fields", to quote) in the costings a post or so ago I most certainly don't think you've scored a home run with your analysis.

 

Not to mention the biggest benefit of Russia's deal with China was that the Western countries had no leverage against them in regards to their gas exports to the west(which was pretty much the only leverage they had). So even if China got the better end of the deal, Russia still benefited from it immensely.

[obyknven]

Good good.. Military alliance of Russia and China cause so big ****shtorm. Continue please...

 

P.S. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said:

 

"Although Brzezinski and said that Russia may be either a Western ally or vassal of China "- the diplomat said in an interview ZN.UA.
 

This butthurt become official Western politics now.   Our Empire of trolling so succesfull!

[Mor]

 

Let me stop here, the only crock is the straw-men argument you started to make. EU energy security through diversification intended to end its dependence on specific supplier, chief among them is Russia. If not for EU dependence on Russia as supplier, limiting its options in this and previous Russian power moves in the region, Putin wouldn't be so bold to act.

 

And yes energy independence, would be served well by a pipeline into Caspian region, allowing to by pass Russian monopoly, being able to buy gas directly\cheaper from Kazakhstan as well as providing alternatives (right now they are locked in a "union" headed by Russia) and improving relationships with other Central Asian countries, which is basically what China has been doing causing a lot of trouble for Russia.

 

Nope, you have absolutely no logical basis to claim that stopping the south stream improves energy security, none at all. [...]

 

That is yet another crock of **** straw-men argument. No one suggested that "stopping the south stream improves energy security", but that replacing it with similar project such as white stream would advance EU energy security goals further by removing it dependence on specific supplier, notably the Russian monopoly (as well as few other strategic goals)

 

and that was only said in the context of:

 

Anyway, if this become the first step toward EU energy security, as a lesson learned from Russia's action in this crisis, then it would be great. But overall it has little todo with that, it is simply an economic leverage against Russia's continues meddling in Ukraine, as they were warned, and Russia have to suck it up, just as EU had up until now because they both want the gas flowing..

 

 

Since you are the one who brought up 'energy security', in an BS outrage:

 

And that really is... ironic. EU says it wants energy supply security then deliberately sabotages a project that would give them that.

 

In what is obviously to everyone an economic leverage in an ongoing crisis due to Russia's continues unchecked actions. With the only ironic thing is how fast you jumped to deflect with your usual: sanctions on Russia would be either a double edged sword for west or wont have any effect on Russia.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Mor

[Zoraptor]

...

 

But why replace it at all? Why not build both? You haven't come up with a single logical reason why both should not be built, you just, heh, deflect by, hmm, strawmanning it into being a one-or-the-other argument when it clearly isn't. White stream and south stream are/ were projects under concurrent development, after all.

 

That's what you need to explain. And I'm afraid "oh no teh Russians!!!" does not in any way constitute a logical argument.

[obyknven]

The Nazis have no popular support, they only had influence because of the violence of Maidan. That will pass.

 

Last time they polled at single digits am I correct in this ?

 

So why do you keep calling everyone involved in Maidan Nazis, that's just unintelligent. Whatever else you might think of them. 

They are Nazi, trust me. I consume some time for researches of Neo-nazi movements, i notice constantly how Ukrainian government use Nazi terms, symbols, repeat nazi ideological cliche, 14/88, Black sun etc. Most fresh example is speech of Ukrainian prime minister (who IRL has much more power than decorative president now) 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:W7a815ys0XwJ:usa.mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/news/24185-mi-uvichnimo-pamjaty-gerojiv-ochistivshi-nashu-zemlyu-vid-nechistiarsenij-jacenyuk-u-spivchutti-ridnim-i-blizykim-zagiblih-vojiniv-u-lugansyku+&cd=1&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ru

 

Ukraine’s Prime Minister Yatsenyuk: We will commemorate the heroes by cleaning our land from the evil....

“They lost their lives because they defended men and women, children and the elderly who found themselves in a situation facing a threat to be killed by invaders and sponsored by them subhumans. First, we will commemorate the heroes by wiping out those who killed them and then by cleaning our land from the evil”, - he said.

Subhumans or untermensch is clearly Nazi term. Or other minister from same "not-Nazi" ruling party say in speech about ethnic Russians, what they genetical natural born slaves, it's clearly Nazi ideology.

But even more clear is next example - 5 current Ukrainian ministers are members or ex-members of Ukrainian neo-Nazi organisations. And this is very important ministers with real power, they control SBU (Ukrainian analog of CIA), Ukrainian military force.

Kievan junta are Nazi, it's obvious. But many people in EU fear such reality of ressurected Nazism, they lie to yourself and prefer live in imaginary elfland where all people are nice persons, instead of real world. It's just more comfortable for them.

[Mor]

Kerry warns Russia the US will 'raise the costs' as Ukraine crisis intensifies

US Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday warned Russia that the US and its G7 partners would “raise the costs” Moscow could face, unless it curbed weapons flowing into Ukraine and cut ties with pro-Russia separatists.

 

This statement comes after Ukraine rebels shoot down a large military transport plane in eastern Ukraine, reportedly killing 49 people on board, and an earlier statement this week that "a convoy of military vehicles, including three tanks, had been transported from a Russian depot into Ukraine this week. Three T-64 tanks, multiple rocket launchers and other military vehicles crossed from Russia into Ukraine near the town of Snizhne, the state department said, describing the action as unacceptable. The vehicles – apparently out-of-use Russian tanks – appear to have been commandeered by Ukrainian separatist forces".

Edited June 16, 2014 by Mor

[obyknven]

Kerry warns Russia the US will 'raise the costs' as Ukraine crisis intensifies

US Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday warned Russia that the US and its G7 partners would “raise the costs” Moscow could face, unless it curbed weapons flowing into Ukraine and cut ties with pro-Russia separatists.

 

This statement comes after Ukraine rebels shoot down a large military transport plane in eastern Ukraine, reportedly killing 49 people on board, and an earlier statement this week that "a convoy of military vehicles, including three tanks, had been transported from a Russian depot into Ukraine this week. Three T-64 tanks, multiple rocket launchers and other military vehicles crossed from Russia into Ukraine near the town of Snizhne, the state department said, describing the action as unacceptable. The vehicles – apparently out-of-use Russian tanks – appear to have been commandeered by Ukrainian separatist forces".

 

Russia has no T-64 in stock anymore last once were scrapped in 2012. Also russia never operated those T-64 models. US State Department making a fool of themselves yet again.. Or just very bad at propaganda.

 

 

So far The US State Department published a photo of Chechen GRU officer Khamzat Gayrbekov in Georgia 2008, and claimed it was Terek Cossack Alexander Mozhaev in Slaviansk 2014 even though the resemblance was superficial at best. That turned out to be the result of extremely laughable Twitter Photoshop memes. It's mindblowing.

 

They also showed a photo of a group of Cossacks in Slaviansk 2014 and claimed it was a photo from Georgia 2008, in order to compare it to another photo from Slaviansk 2014 and imply that the same people were in "both" places. Seriously.

 

Basically it was a string of outrageously bad and contrived "intel" to be frank, and they mindlessly relayed it (it originated with the proven mythomaniacs in Kiev).

 

Likewise, the US State Department mindlessly relayed the outrageously silly Kiev "theories" about a rebel MANPADS missile that went awry and exploded 18 times in succession in a 300 feet long path, laying waste to a community park in Lugansk and killing about a dozen people, including five women. This even though it was crystal clear that the series of explosions were caused by an Ukrainian Su-25 that launched a volley of S-8KO unguided rockets with the intention of striking the Lugansk City Hall where some of the LPR administrative people were working. Kiev denied it, and that was enough for the US State Department to mindlessly follow suit.

 

This is no different from those proven lies. The tanks are Ukrainian-made, Ukrainian-operated T-64BVs that were captured on June 9th outside Lugansk after an intense clash between rebels and the Ukrainian army, as reported Monday this week. These tanks were reported being refurbished by Kiev at the Lviv Mechanical Maintenance Plant a few weeks ago, and sent to Eastern Ukraine last week. The destroyed BM-21 that the US State Department claims came from Russia was also an Ukrainian-operated ditto that was attacked by a rebel group outside the town of Dobropolye and subsequently put out of action, forcing the Ukrainians to abandon it.

 

This has been going on ever since this whole mess began. Hell, it all began with extremely silly allegations, such as US and Kiev officials claiming that obvious (to anyone who knows a bit about the Kalash) mid-1980's Soviet AK-74s were hypermodern Russian Spetsnaz "AK-100s" (a model that does not even exist, by the way) and so on.

 

Anyway US threats is total joke as we see in Iraq now. Just paper tiger with megalomania, we have no serious reasons to worry what these addicts say about civil war in Ukraine.

 

[Mor]

Though China and Russia can form tactical alliances as counter-balances to the US in East Asia, they are regional adversaries in regards to Central Asia. I'd go as far as to say Russia's re-armament programs are as much about China as they are about NATO.

 

Also if a deal with Iran is reached and sanctions lifted and if the US opts to release their own oil and gas production for export, energy may well become a buyer's market and Putin's energy strategy undone. These eventualities are not necessarily very likely, but that doesn't change the fact that it's within Obama's capabilities and Russia has the most to lose if Putin pushes his luck.

I agree, Russia don't need aggravation in Europe, when competition in Central Asia sphere grows, if Putin Russia push its luck it will over extend ( which is how the excursion into Afghanistan ended ). Which is the point of this economical leverage, to balance out Russia brawl beating Ukraine into submission.

 

Although from EU perspective Iran isn't better then Russia, just another player with regional ambitions, trading one monopoly for another won't help. Btw on topic of pipelines, iirc there were two conflicting projects to the Iran-Europe pipeline. The Azerbaijan-Europe and the Saudi Arabia-Syria-Europe one. The later has been hampered by the Syria civil war in which Iran and Russia are neck deep, while Azerbaijan face the same threat from Iran that Georgia faced from Russia.

[obyknven]

lol mode on

http://youtu.be/GcpsqiqXBcw

lol mode off.

[obyknven]

By reports in East Ukrainian towns "liberated" by punisher's many girls are disappeared  without tracks after house-to-house searches. Looks like good old mass rape (and mass killings, or slavetrade).  Such things is expected,  Ukrainian junta amnestied 15 000 criminals not so long ago, and by same information  these criminals forced to fight in civil war against East Ukrainians - many paramilitary battalions ( they used for  house-to-house searches especially ) are consisted from them.

 

Non-surprisingly such things give to East-Ukrainian selfdefence many recruits, even girls join to  fight  against junta,  is better fate to die in fight than die as helpless victim  of rape/torture, or be sold as slave.  

http://youtu.be/t1VJcGReoi4

 

I predict of escalation of civil war, Kievan actions only make resistance more popular and stronger. Even if by using of superior firepower Kiev defeat East Ukrainians temporally ( in other words they just totally destroy rebelled cities ), in perspective this is cause fall of junta anyway. 

[obyknven]

Ukrainian army bomb Slavjansk by this.

http://instagram.com/p/pZMbx0RWwC/#

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_anti-personnel_round

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/100567

 

The use of artillery flechette rounds in populated areas has recently been criticized largely as a result of the publicity generated by their use by the Israel Defense Forces in the Gaza Strip. [Physicians for Human Rights et al v. Doron Almog et al, Israel Supreme Court, HCJ 8990/02 (2003)] These criticisms focus on the wide area of effect of artillery flechette rounds, and their use in areas with large civilian populations. Detractors argue that the use of such rounds conflicts with the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions protecting non-combatants. [ [http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw010522_2_n.shtml Israel's military debates use of flechette round - Jane's] ] [ [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1121-05.htm Israel Admits It Lied Over Missile Raid on Camp - commondreams.org] 

OSCE as usual say nothing about this. Though this is expected.

 

OSCE Chief visit Ukrainian  refugee camp in Russia (around 15 - 20 thousands Ukrainians  flee from  civil war to Russia) and say Poroshenko is good guy, and Ukrainian army is good guys also,  they save civilians from terrorists. Just watch refugee's reaction to this speech.

http://youtu.be/Aw2lqdV6pMI

Just typical western arse who justify any sh*t if this is  his own sh*t. 

[obyknven]

Batallion "Aidar"  of Nazi guards has ben destroyed. They attack Eastern Ukrainian checkpoint, local militia retreat to wood, naziguards pursuit them and has been ambushed. Naziguards send 2 APC and 2 tanks as help to dying unit, but militia exterminate them also.

http://youtu.be/9j-i2wvwXNA

 

http://youtu.be/efMosh4xCow

8 Naziguards  captured alive.

[Walsingham]

Out of interest, has anyone been at all influenced by this oby stuff? Even slightly. Go on, be honest.

[BruceVC]

Out of interest, has anyone been at all influenced by this oby stuff? Even slightly. Go on, be honest.

 

I generally don't read anything he posts, but sometimes I take a cursory glace over his topics. But no influence whatsoever 

[BruceVC]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html

 

Wow this is interesting, the Russian parliament revoked the right to use troops in Ukraine

 

This is good news and reduces the risk of the conflict spreading

[Gorgon]

Read : Putin doesn't want to get involved further and doesn't want to be seen to back down. 

[BruceVC]

Read : Putin doesn't want to get involved further and doesn't want to be seen to back down. 

 

Gorgon, I said this in the past and all the pro-Putin members on this forum dismissed it but Putin didn't want to escalate the conflict because of the punitive economic steps taken against Russia.

 

Wars are just too expensive to fight for a country like Russia and I don't blame them for backing down. They had the capability to invade Ukraine and I doubt the West would have intervened militarily but the sanctions would have got more extreme

 

Sanctions do work and can be implemented to avoid military conflict

[Zoraptor]

Lol.

 

If Putin wants to invade he'll do it, just as he did in Crimea to an anaemic reponse. He has no need to invade 'Ukraine', now, he'd just recognise Donbass as independent and send 'peacekeepers' at their request. He may wait for the Kurds to declare independence and use western support of that as a precedent, he may not. Either way the approval for invasion of Ukraine is redundant at this point.

[Fighter]

A bigger expense than any half-assed sanctions would be absorbing East Ukraine and it's 14 000 000 people. Trust me the people in Moscow who bother to count are far more afraid of this than of Obama.