Panel on Strengthening the Security Resilience of Ukraine: Military, Energy, Cyber
Highlight: Moderator asks, if Ukraine would be able to become a net energy exporter within the next five years to reduce economic dependance - expert follows up with a slide that reads:
Possible additional threats [to Ukraine] in 2022:
Physical attacks
- physical damage to infrastructure - gas pipelines, to force NS2 operation
- electricity network to prevent joining ENTSO-E (European association for the cooperation of transmission system operators (TSOs) for electricity)
Cyber attacks on infrastructure
- gas pipelines to force NS2 operation
- electricity network to prevent joining ENTSO-E
Attacks on coal mines/nuclear plants to create evironmental disasters, risk to people’s health
Informational attacks
- already happening
Economic attacks
- Blockage of coal/gas supply
- Blockage of oil products supply
Followed up by a plea, to the US ministry of energy to help Ukraine with implementing a sustainable energy infrastructure, because
“The US has really, really great energy resilience systems, starting with trainings, communication, and building capacity of different stakeholders. It would be really good, if the US department of energy and the US government, would help the Ukraine ministry of energy and other stakeholders, to build this capacity here in the Ukraine. I believe this is a really great chance to enhance our cooperation, thank you very much.”
What a nice invitation - I might actually vacation there, next summer!
[First problem being Belarus is currently not supplying electricity to the Ukraine, with it being up in the air, if they will reconnect in the near future.] “The second problem is supply of oil products to Ukraine, because Russia and Belarus supply up to 70% of oil products to Ukraine now, and if they stop this supply, well, there will be a possibility to replace this fuel, but the time will matter. So Belarus can play some negative role, even destroying lets say energy security of Ukraine.”
--
Starr Forum (MIT Center for International Studies)
Primarily sees “saber rattling”. Then followed up by a collection of all the US thinktank lead proposals dissected here in the last days. Eurasion economic union, Putin behavioral analysis and character centered motivation finding for the conflict, painting the Ukraine as an economic powerhouse, telling people its Putins fear of people power, pinning it on ego/status, … Everything except for creating a security infrastructure alongside russias borders that would sustain a coming demographic narrowing. First and fourth speakers at least touch upon it. Fourth speaker then also proposes something along those lines, detailed talks about a new security infrastructure as “the best possible solution, and the one thats currently being pursued”. All in all the best panel I’ve screened so far, watching it is recommended.
edit2: Fifth speaker in the Starr Forum Panel goes into the threat from a military troops stationed at the border angle. Currently about 56.000 combat units and support units to fill up the 100.000 reported by other outlets before. Thats about 40% of russias current combat potential, now near the border (120-200 miles from the ukrainian border). About half the number are brigades, that are regularly stationed there. That includes most of the supporting ground troops. (Almost no additional support troops were added.) 15-20 SPTGs have moved primarily into Belarus, equaling 50% of the total eastern groups combat potential, that has now moved near the Ukraine. Positioning would make it possible to occupy the east or the south of Ukraine, or to encircle Kiev, probably not take Kiev “because that’s hard”. A total occupation is unlikely, but there is a possibility to use a limited military victory to attain political goals. Sustained partial occupation also seems unlikely according to the speaker.
edit3: Two new major takeaways. The panel agrees that russia has largely decoupled its ability to take military action from the public sentiment of its people, and also agrees, that the conflict is about larger concessions in the orientation of the security based order of the western alliance. Concessions that would exceed “preventing Ukraine from becoming a member of Nato”, because that wasnt very likely within the next years anyhow, according to the panelists.
17.11.2021: Sky News UK talks to the ukrainian ambassador to the United Kingdom, Vadym Prystaiko:
At 7:30 in:
Vadym Prystaiko: “What I’m here to say [is], that [the] ukranian pipeline could provide [the] european union, all european nations with the gas easily. We have enough capacity. For the russians are doing this -- they [are] just rather weaponizing the gas.”
Sky News: “But you think that this is the play by Russia to get this pipeline approved, and then perhaps they’d back off?”
Vadym Prystaiko: “Obviously they will use this gas, they wont use [the] ukrainian pipeline, which will untie their hands in Ukraine, in the ukraininian campaign, which is yet another risk [for] a real military invasion.”
Skynews: “Are you worried about the german attitude to this, I mean the pipeline, in the main will start supplying germany. We hear that outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel has continuing decent relations with the kremlin and that in actual fact has overridden president Biden in his opposition to North Stream 2?”
Vadym Prystaiko: “I am worrying, because the germans were not understanding, for all these years and years. They tried it [?] before. I remember the predecessor of mother Merkel who promised to help us with that, but then became a deputy chief of gasprom himself. So when we are talking about germans, we have to understand how closely they are connected economically to russians, and how much of their own calculations of whats going on in their neighborhood actually depends on russian gas, or something else from the russian federation.”
28.01.2022: NPR talks to the spokesman for the United States Department of State, Ned Price:
“I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward,” Price told National Public Radio. “I’m not going to get into the specifics. We will work with Germany to ensure it does not move forward.”
1. Did Russia escalate military tensions to get North Stream 2 approved? Answer: [Implied: Yes - Then explicitly:] Well obviously it reduces their involvement in day to day politics in the Ukraine, which is another risk for invasion.
Meaning - russia escalated tensions, to get North Stream 2 approved (wait what?!), so it can decouple from Ukraine economically, which increases the risk of invasion? So this isnt about Russia wanting to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Nato partner, because Ukraine wants Russia involved in their domestic politics, which would prevent them from (most likely - ever) becoming a Nato member state?
2. It’s better for lower military tensions in the Ukraine, to have Russia involved actively in their day to day politics for as long as possible?
It’s better for lower political tensions in the Ukraine, to have Russia involved in their day to day politics for as long as possible?
If Russia invades in the Ukraine, the US will make sure, that North Stream 2 never is opened, so russian gas coming into the EU has to go through the ukrainian pipeline, not reducing throughput - but increasing Ukraines political dependency on Russia? Russias political dependency on Ukraine? Reducing the EUs political dependency on Russia?
I thought Russia escalated the conflict to get Nord Stream 2 approved? *sarcasm*
3. In actual fact, Germany has overridden Bidens concerns (Wait, and Ted Cruz sent the memo?) on North Stream 2 to ensure, that it becomes active.
In actual fact, the United States Department of State has overridden Germanys concerns on North Stream 2 to ensure, that it never becomes active.
Nachtrag: Tatsächlich. Das alles muss wohl so sein, denn die österreichische Qualitätszeitung der Standard findet schon wieder auf wundersame Weise Kommentatoren (vom Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation) die dafür eine ganz einfache Erklärung haben:
Entgegen seinen Reden ficht Putin nicht die Nato-Erweiterung an, sondern das Recht der Ukraine, selbstbestimmt Entscheidungen zu treffen und Bündnisse zu schmieden, die dem Land zu einem Aufschwung verhelfen.
Nachtrag 2: Es wird noch besser - Nachdem die US auf NPR gestern “angekündigt” hat eine Red Line “North Stream 2 kommt nicht, wenn eine Invasion der Ukraine stattfindet” mit den europäischen Partnern “zu verhandeln”, und zwar so - dass man sich sicher sein kann - dass das in der Form kommt und gilt, egal was die Europäer sagen - hat jetzt eine ehemalige Sprecherin des US Außenministeriums angekündigt, dass dies eine gemeinsame Position der US und der EU sei.
(DW: “US and Germany step up pipeline warnings to Russia”)
Euronews hat das aktuell mit “Washington droht Moskau mit dem Ende der Gas-Pipeline” im Ticker. Es gibt bis jetzt noch kein Statement eines Regierungsverantwortlichen in Deutschland, oder auf EU Ebene dazu. DW übernimmt es, ohne Quellen im Europäischen oder Deutschen Raum zu nennen, und schaltet anstatt dessen zu einem Korrespondenten in Kiev, und die tatsächliche Änderung der Position entspricht der Größenordnung von “vor einigen Tagen spricht Biden noch von Unterschieden zwischen einer kleinen und einer größeren Invasion”, und “Deutschlands Position bis dato war, dass es sich bei Nord Stream 2 um ein Wirtschaftsprojekt handle, und es nicht von politischen Sanktionen betroffen sein würde”.
Was hat diese Position geändert? Moralische Argumente? Dürfte die die Europäische Bevölkerung auch mal hören, oder…
Nein? Ok - dann halt nicht. Eine ehemalige Sprecherin des US Außenministeriums reicht ja völlig… (DW dazu: “A clearer picture is emerging.” Deus Ex machina. Niemand wars. Plötzlich wars da. Es gebiert sich sozusagen aus dem Schaume der Brandung selbst.) Nachfragen wie sie denn dazu kommt das anzunehmen von US Reporterkollegen wurden abgeschmettert. Siehe Link.
“Questions remain over how the US could stop it (‘it’ being NS2 in Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nulands statement that “If Russia invades in Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward”, and that being a joint position of the US and the EU) but its the kind of bullish talk one northern european Nato ally thinks is their best bet at stopping an attack.”
What a nice SNAFU… US talked to one northern european nation (wonder which one), then went in front of the press and announced, that this would be “the joint european position”, when it wasn’t. One nation, the EU - what does it matter, right?
Nachtrag 4: Die offizielle Position Deutschlands verbleibt aktuell beim Statement von Baerbock von vor zwei Tagen, dass die Zukunft von Nord Stream 2 ein Teil einer breiten Reihe an Sanktionen auf Russische Aggressionen sein könnte. Siehe: click
Standard mal wieder… Artikel bezahlt mit EU-Fördermitteln, aber in der redaktionellen Verantwortung des Standard (Kategorie: “Ich nehm das Geld schon, sags auch dem Redakteur von wem er bezahlt wird, aber der schreibt dann unbefangen.”).
Eurobarometer: Junge Europäer sehen Klimawandel als wichtigste Herausforderung
[…]
In der Gruppe der 15- bis 24-Jährigen glauben satte 91 Prozent, die Eindämmung des Klimawandels könne zur Verbesserung ihrer Gesundheit ebenso beitragen wie zu ihrem Wohlergehen.
Klimawandel und Gesundheit - bringt die Verbindung zusätzliche Aufmerksamkeit?
Die üblichen Öko-Kampagnen zum Klimaschutz erreichen viele Menschen nicht oder nur wenig. Eine Alternative wäre, andere Aspekte des Klimawandels stärker zu thematisieren, etwa seine Folgen für die menschliche Gesundheit. Diverse Studien deuten darauf hin, dass dies funktionieren könnte
Nicht, dass es relevant, oder ein wesentlicher Aspekt wäre - nein, bitte exakt lesen - Studien dazu, dass es funktionieren könnte. (Andere Argumentationsebene (die persuasive).)
Sorry für den Exkurs, schnell wieder zurück zum Thema. Na wie sollens die 15- bis 24-Jährigen denn wissen, dass das primär Framing ist (in Mitteleuropa, für sie ihre Kinder und ihre Enkel), wenns ihnen selbst die Qualitätsmedien nicht sagen?
Im Artikel zur Eurobarometer Umfrage ist das dann natürlich kein Wort wert, denn da gehts erneut darum Effekte die PR generiert hat, so umzudeuten, alls seien Sie gesellschaftlich allgemein anerkannt und ‘wenns die Jugendlichen meinen - die Zukunft Europas’. Das ist manufacturing consent nach Chomsky (Propaganda Model).
Who said naive? I didn’t say naive. Certainly not as a job prerequisite for a journalist in that position!
Followed up with - oh, and better ask the European Council on Foreign Relations as well. (Running gag on this blog: European CFR - Thats possible?) Also my first instinct, when being on the edge of a war. Ask a thinktank. Preferably the one sponsored by NATO, Mercator and Microsoft (Context). Sh*t it’s Alpbach all over again!
edit2: Vice News of all outlets, has the most level headed approach to reporting here so far? (DW also broadcast street interviews, but cut them together with differing opinion pieces, and didnt actually integrate much of it into an editorial opinion/positon.)
Exkurs2: Huch, der Standard (Artikel von einer Redakteurin inhouse verfasst) wettert gegen öffentliche Meinungsmache (PR) durch private Denkfabriken! (click). Leider nur im Umfeld des Momentum Instituts, und nicht in der Ukraine Causa, wo “die Stimmung auf Social Media in der Ukraine” als Indikator für kommende Aktionen gewertet wird. Nicht die in Russland, wo der Aggressor die eigene Bevölkerung überzeugen müsste, nein - in der Ukraine, wo man mit “das Volk glaubt der eigenen Regierungsspitze nicht mehr, da die US anhaltend ein anderes Szenario malen - und die Sorge in der Bevölkerung zunimmt von ihrer Regierung belogen zu werden” aufmachen kann. Ohne den Kausalzusammenhang herzustellen - da in dem Fall die Leute auf Social Media ja unabhängige Meinungsbildung repräsentieren. Doppelmoral? I wo… Qualitätsjournalismus.
edit3: This (src: The Telegraph) is also not what journalism looks like. Even though I’ll use it to underline my position. Two journalists babbling to themselves on air, learning and making up relationships on the job and on the fly - so to speak, coming to the conclusion, that “the most alarming assessments are coming from those western capitals” [London and Washington]. A hurray for “Podcast-Journalism”, as some people at reputable media outlets would call it.
edit4: The Agenda with Steve Paikin on the topic. (I love the god damn framing of the austrian participant. “Putin” (as in who knows who), wanted to weaken the europeans, by talking to the US directly - and leaving the impression, that europe does not matter in said conflict, thereby seeding division. Meanwhile, José Borrell is on tape begging the US on a video call, that they should also be included in the (by then only) bilateral talks. So the incredibly devious plan of “Putin” becomes - showing reality on the procedural level, ah f*ck it, on the factual level, provoking statements from Josef Joffe, that Europe doenst matter from any security politics angle whatsoever, and that that is selfinflicted. Devious plan. How dare “Putin” to show Europe, how the US would react! José was begging.
Also great argument by her at around 15:30 in, that diplomacy never matters in foreign politics. Which isnt at all contradictory. (If thats true, the europeans position, is how strong exactly? Oh - I’m sorry, I forgot we resort to double standards again…). That person is flipping payed for her analysis. You can make money by contradicting your position within the same 15 minutes, and telling everyone invasion was coming since 2014, the praetorian guards of the Ukraine would be able, willing and ready and… You can get payed for that… You and your entire institute.
edit5: Oh, so sorry - she is actually payed to rally the troops around, that this will become a bipolar world of democrats against communists, and who knows fighting communists better than Nato, so love Nato, fighting will be saving Democracy! If you pay her, and her entire institute, you pay to get an actionable PR message (and the f*cking bravado in her voice), not just expertise. Otherwise you’d be paying for nothing, according to her own argument. Multipolar? Ts. Bipolar, Bipolar! Grab your weapons now! Copy her speech and tell others! Its about the future of the rules based order! (So was TTIP btw.) Austrian Institute for european and security politics. (Google AIES and Alpbach in your spare time, I cant be bothered to post a link.))
edit6: DW finally has an editorial position! The correspondent even reminds the news anker of the background now (What do I care about my chitchat from yesterday? — Konrad Adenauer). I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that its the same talking point of “14.000 people have been killed in the Donbas region since 2014” we see in the pep talk towards military (re-)action, disseminating from Hawks in the current situation. Broadcasting street interviews on the mood (towards war) of the general public goes two ways (isnt irrelevant for germany either), you know. Cant let it happen, that in europe the public sentiment moves towards “give in to some of the demands” (which are always impossible to be met of course, as Nato cant say - that it wont admit Ukraine - when, wait a second, the US did so in informal talks around the end of the soviet union?), that would be bad for our negotiating position. So lets stick to red lining, and then war… Better prepare the public! (Of the Ukraine of course, because for western europe its just ‘tougher sanctions, and higher energy costs’.) Oh, and stick around for todays statement of the ECFR (Thats possible?) as well. They’ve a permanently booked spot in DWs reporting by now.
edit7: The ECFRs position “short and long term decoupling of middle europe from russias energy sector” because… Wait for it… “Russia can only survive this century if it has industrial powerhouse nations like the Ukraine (Wait, what? Want to look into the EU investments post 2014 again? The current IMF reports? Or google Ukraine structural dependencies?) in its fold” so western nations should aim at destroying russia, at the cost of their economic development, as well as not being able to realize the green transition (because thats linked to a heavy increase of natural gas consumption midterm, to fastrack the renewable infrastructure build up). Just as a reminder for everyone - thats the thinktank that is the european council on foreign relations (Thats possible?).
(Russland hat 1,25 Millionen aktive Einheiten, sowie 380.000 Reservisten. Die Ukraine berichtet seit mehr als 10 Tagen von 120.000 Einheiten in Grenznähe, davon ein Drittel bereits längerfristig stationiert. Rand hat in einem wargame scenario vor mehr als zwei Jahren eine Teilinvasion der Ukraine mit 130.000 Soldaten simuliert. Wer Pentagon Sprecher um diesen Punkt (Invasion, oder Teilinvasion?) herumeiern sehen möchte: click Der Talkingpoint des “almost completed build-ups” rührt daher: click Die BBC hat ihn heute übernommen und ausstaffiert: click.)
Zur Erläuterung, im bei Lanz gebrachten Argument geht es darum Russland und Deutschland ökonomisch zu entkoppeln (ECFR Vorschlag), denn dann hätte man eine klare Sicherheitsordnung. Und ein riesiges Konfliktpotential mehr (also, bis Russland dann - nach ECFR Projektionen, ökonomisch das nächste Jahrzehnt nicht mehr überlebt, das ist tatsächlich die projizierte Lösung des Problems in dem Theorem) das dann auf größerer Flamme köchelt. Aber endlich wäre die Nato dann wieder relevanter. Wirtschaftswachstum ist doch eh überbewertet. Die EU könnte ja auch ein Militärbündnis werden, und damit der Nato Konkurrenz machen… Ne, Moment, das geht auch nicht, weil dann wäre die Sicherheitsordnung Europas wieder problematisch. Ich würd sagen, einfach der Wille dazu die Wirtschaftsleistung rückzubauen reicht. Das shale gas aus den USA wird ja sicher bald billiger, wenn es keine Marktkonkurrenz mehr gibt. Kann jemand das Nicken beim Lanz noch ein wenig in der Frequenz steigern? Zu meiner und der kollektiven Beruhigung der Wählerschaft.
Es wäre vielleicht auch noch relevant anzumerken, dass es die “Long Term” Position gibt, dass “Putin” aktuell eine Sicherheitsarchitektur für die Grenzregionen Russlands baut, da aus demographischen Gründen aktuell (und später nicht mehr) die Militärische Kapazität vorhanden ist (dafür, aber nicht für mehr) und es ökonomisch weit weniger rosig aussieht. Denn Alexander Graf Lambsdorff sieht die nicht, und baut stattdessen bei Lanz eine andere. “Das Spalten Europas, das Herausdrängen der atlantischen Allianz aus Europa, das sind die Fragen um die es Putin wirklich geht”. (Während die US ihren Fokus geopolitisch auf den Pazifischen Raum verlagert haben.) Experten für das Volk. Verschwörungstheorien für das Volk. Heute lässt sich das nicht mehr ganz so genau trennen. Die Russen kommen. Beim Lanz.
Finally the necessary information reached the political level. First step defiance. Soon to be followed by anger, recognition, acceptance, … What hits me, deeply - is the obvious nature of the political lie on display here. So you are suckling on the tit of international investment funds (coined ‘intelligent money’) to put in investments, that you and your development banks need to leverage to generate even close to enough interest (sixtysix billion to trillions, and then to the moon!), international investment groups are openly stating that they are waiting for regulation to become law facilitating investment protections, before they’ll consider funneling funds into anything coined sustainable, so currently you are depending on your own public to absorb risk, and act as early stage investors to get the whole thing jumpstarted, which according to our financial institutions they arent doing on a broad enough basis, so now you are creating nudging laws (EU laws targeting ‘financial institutes and investment advice’) and finance PR initiatives, because as states you maneuvered yourself into the position, where actual Moonshot programs (large state investment initiatives), arent realizable anymore. Then you look at the investors who are demanding investment protection, and see private US funds just waiting for the opportunity to buy out developments that achieve market maturity, carrying none of the risk - to be certain, that none of it gets manufactured in Europe, which is about the worst place on earth to mass produce goods at this point in time, so this becomes another play beneficial for a high tech industrial sector, which you then sell to voters as the progress they were aching for. Because as a former SPD minister you suddenly believe in trickle down on the international political stage.
But you will prove the critics wrong, dear Olaf - singlehandedly, with a speech in Davos, by mentioning none of that. Bravo. And thanks to all the mouthpieces, that seeded, “if we arent doing this right now - the US will surpass europe on its trajectory of becoming a first mover”. Oh, I’m trembling, shivering - at this very minute, waiting for anything even close to that to materialize.
Looking forward to watching the speeches of UvdL and the talk on restoring trust in global trade and supply chains. Wait, isnt that against trend? Oh no it isn’t, of course they are the ones first impacted by climate shocks, so now we have to put more money and goodwill towards making globalists more resilient, that by everyones accounts failed at giving a flying H-E-double hockeysticks about what happened to our societies the past years - what joy, that they also are invested heavily in the climate movement. But on a positive note, its really a necessity for the industrial powerhouse, that failed to invest at suggested ECB levels for the past ten years, that is germany…
When does society have enough of those lies? I know that I am tired of hearing them.
“We have a chance of a new renaissance, if we do this responsibly.”
edit: According to the introduction portion of the UvdL talk, there is ‘a new european spirit’ that she managed to create within the past two years. Oh eff me, I’m going to bed for today.
edit2: FRIGGGING UvdL goes on a SALESTOURGRANDIOSO in the video linked above, to talk up the very FRACKING investor guarantees described above. In the most despicable manner imaginable. What a happy coincidence.
Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies um die Nutzungserfahrung für seine Besucher zu verbessern. Bitte informiere dich bei Gelegenheit darüber wie sich Cookies auf deine Privatsphäre im Web auswirken.
