Canada did WHAT ? (Page 2/3)
maryjane JAN 22, 04:18 PM
I haven't given any importance whatsoever to an 1820s policy in relation to today's world.



There has been a US civil war, numerous south and central American civil wars and revolutions, 2 world wars, multiple smaller wars, and HUGE technical and social advances and changes since James Monroe was president.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-22-2022).]

Max The Chainsaw JAN 22, 04:47 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


The columnist likened that towards Russia's antagonism towards the NATO presence and possible expansion of NATO adjacent to Russia's borders--Ukraine being the case in point. A "what holds for the goose holds for the gander" kind of argument.




I see an issue with Russia's claim they do not want NATO so close to their border. If they take Ukraine, wouldn't that move their border closer to NATO, the one thing they do not want?
maryjane JAN 22, 05:33 PM
Russia with it's Kaliningrad oblast and NATO aligned countries of Lativa, Estonia, and Turkey already share borders or seaways.
May be a case of "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer' but I don't think that is what is at work here...

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-22-2022).]

sourmash JAN 22, 07:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by Max The Chainsaw:


I see an issue with Russia's claim they do not want NATO so close to their border. If they take Ukraine, wouldn't that move their border closer to NATO, the one thing they do not want?



Exactly. It's just another way you know the US led media line is bullchit. Russia didn't want to take Ukraine
Rickady88GT JAN 22, 08:58 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:


Exactly. It's just another way you know the US led media line is bullchit. Russia didn't want to take Ukraine



Sure, I am sure Putin doesn't care about expanding his Country for free, without repercussions. Makes total sense
randye JAN 22, 10:19 PM

quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:


Sure, I am sure Putin doesn't care about expanding his Country for free, without repercussions. Makes total sense



Russia isn't interested in "expanding it's country for free".

Russia has only ONE primary strategic concern in the Crimea:

https://www.defencetalk.com...rever-admiral-33735/

Russia has maintained a naval base there since the early 1800s and it is the home of the Russian "Black Sea Fleet", their southernmost "warm water" naval base and their primary naval access to the Mediterranean.

Opening the Nordstream pipeline into Germany would have effectively nullified the agreement that the Russians and Ukranians had for maintaining the Russian "lease" of Sevastapol until 2042

The specter of Ukraine joining NATO, real or not, would have also put Sevastopol in question / jeopardy as it is highly unlikely that NATO would condone a Russian naval base IN an allied country, and NATO membership would have potentially given Ukraine sufficient political and military clout to evict the Russians .

Back in 2014 the Ukrainian navy component of the old Russian "Black Sea Fleet" was "voluntarily evicted" from Sevastopol and moved to port in Odessa.

https://www.rt.com/news/ukr...eave-sevastopol-476/
https://www.rt.com/news/sev...eave-servicemen-796/

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-22-2022).]

sourmash JAN 22, 10:22 PM
Proof being that he won't recognize the 2 break away regions for the past 7-8 years. They're majority Russian and asking that Russia recognize them as separate from Ukraine and to come under Russian protection.
maryjane JAN 22, 11:46 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:


Russia isn't interested in "expanding it's country for free".

Russia has only ONE primary strategic concern in the Crimea:

https://www.defencetalk.com...rever-admiral-33735/

Russia has maintained a naval base there since the early 1800s and it is the home of the Russian "Black Sea Fleet", their southernmost "warm water" naval base and their primary naval access to the Mediterranean.

Opening the Nordstream pipeline into Germany would have effectively nullified the agreement that the Russians and Ukranians had for maintaining the Russian "lease" of Sevastapol until 2042

The specter of Ukraine joining NATO, real or not, would have also put Sevastopol in question / jeopardy as it is highly unlikely that NATO would condone a Russian naval base IN an allied country, and NATO membership would have potentially given Ukraine sufficient political and military clout to evict the Russians .

Back in 2014 the Ukrainian navy component of the old Russian "Black Sea Fleet" was "voluntarily evicted" from Sevastopol and moved to port in Odessa.

https://www.rt.com/news/ukr...eave-sevastopol-476/
https://www.rt.com/news/sev...eave-servicemen-796/



Why would the permitting of Nordstream2 terminate the Sevastapol lease?
The only lease terms involved in the 2010 negotiations were that Russia would drop the price of natural gas sold to Ukraine (that comes in via a pipeline overland) by 30% in exchange for extending the agreement to 2042 with an option to extend another 5 years into 2049.


randye JAN 23, 12:37 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

Why would the permitting of Nordstream2 terminate the Sevastapol lease?
The only lease terms involved in the 2010 negotiations were that Russia would drop the price of natural gas sold to Ukraine (that comes in via a pipeline overland) by 30% in exchange for extending the agreement to 2042 with an option to extend another 5 years into 2049.




Because unless I am mistaken the other, and larger, part of that agreement nets Ukraine the equivalent of billions of dollars annually in pipeline transfer fees for the gas that crosses their country into eastern Europe. Opening the Nordstream pipeline effectively slashes that income because the Russians will pay zero transfer fees on Nordstream and their comparatively costly gas transfer across Ukraine will come to a crawl if not cease altogether. Unless the Ukrainians are complete morons, and I'm sure they aren't, there are most likely minimums built into that agreement.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-23-2022).]

maryjane JAN 23, 06:21 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:


Because unless I am mistaken the other, and larger, part of that agreement nets Ukraine the equivalent of billions of dollars annually in pipeline transfer fees for the gas that crosses their country into eastern Europe. Opening the Nordstream pipeline effectively slashes that income because the Russians will pay zero transfer fees on Nordstream and their comparatively costly gas transfer across Ukraine will come to a crawl if not cease altogether. Unless the Ukrainians are complete morons, and I'm sure they aren't, there are most likely minimums built into that agreement.


I don't think the zero fee thing is going to be correct. There is already a Nordstream1 pipeline to Germany. Nordstream2 runs parallel to Nordstream1 and both terminate at the same point in NW Germany.
The pipelines that run thru Ukraine, also supply gas (and some crude) to other nations besides Ukraine. Poland, Muldova, Czech Republic, Austria,
Hungary, Slovakia, and tapping off that same supply, lateral lines run from some of those countries to Romania, Slovena, Crotia, Bosnia/Herz, and part of Italy gets gas from Russia from the thru Ukraine lines too. That line won't get shut down even when (if) NS2 goes on line.