|
Post by gainsborough on Mar 31, 2022 11:58:29 GMT -8
There's currently a lot of news indicating that Putin was mis-led by his advisors, and that he didn't understand the debacle that would ensue if he invaded Ukraine. For us in the USA and western Europe, it's impossible to see the war as anything but a disaster - a calamity for the Ukrainian people, a burden on western Europe, and a huge & humiliating loss for Russia and her people, etc. Every expert on TV and on the internet sees the invasion as a terrible mis-calculation, and as a blunder of historic proportions (not a blunderbuss - that was the guy that owned the Lakers!). But Brett Stephens recently wrote an article for The New York Times that puts a different spin on things. I often disagree with Stephens and I do not hold him in high regard. But he's not a complete fool, and I occasionally read his pieces. A few days he ago he wrote something unusual: he concluded that Putin had a different objective all along. Here's an excerpt: "Suppose for a moment that Putin never intended to conquer all of Ukraine: that, from the beginning, his real targets were the energy riches of Ukraine’s east, which contain Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas (after Norway’s). Combine that with Russia’s previous territorial seizures in Crimea (which has huge offshore energy fields) and the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk (which contain part of an enormous shale-gas field), as well as Putin’s bid to control most or all of Ukraine’s coastline, and the shape of Putin’s ambitions become clear. He’s less interested in reuniting the Russian-speaking world than he is in securing Russia’s energy dominance. “Under the guise of an invasion, Putin is executing an enormous heist,” said Canadian energy expert David Knight Legg. As for what’s left of a mostly landlocked Ukraine, it will likely become a welfare case for the West, which will help pick up the tab for resettling Ukraine’s refugees to new homes outside of Russian control. In time, a Viktor Orban-like figure could take Ukraine’s presidency, imitating the strongman-style of politics that Putin prefers in his neighbors. If this analysis is right, then Putin doesn’t seem like the miscalculating loser his critics make him out to be." The notion that Putin wanted the Donbass region plus a land-bridge to Crimea is not new. And many people speculate that sacrificing those territories to Russia might be a reasonable price to end the war. What's new to me are the claims that the area is so resource-rich. If those claims are correct, it changes my calculation about the situation. And if Brett Stephens is correct, a peace treaty that allows Putin to acquire those territories would make Russia extremely wealthy and would turn Ukraine into a welfare case. Perhaps Putin's original objective was to re-establish something like the old USSR. He will now see that's impossible. But if Brett Stephens is correct, the fallback option may be rich prize indeed (whereas the invasion itself was a war crime, in deed). If you'd like to begin grinding your teeth at night, here's the link to the article (it may be behind a paywall): www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ukraine-war-putin.html
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Mar 31, 2022 13:43:16 GMT -8
That's an interesting thesis. By carving out the natural gas fields of eastern Ukraine, Putin doesn't need to drill, baby drill. He can set that land aside for future exploration.
I have some questions. One is, have enough test holes been drilled into the natural gas bearing formations to substantiate the estimates of what's down there? How deep underground are these gas bearing formations? Would fracking be required to open enough holes in the natural gas bearing formations to justify spending the money to drill? Finally, does Russia have the technical capabilities to exploit these formations.
The presence of these natural gas formations makes Zelenski's job a whole lot harder. Trading territory for peace has immediate and long-term consequences. NATO and their partners need to draw a line and the sand and hold it. The Ukraine must get the military hardware and technology to continue to punish the Russian intruders, including hardware that can strike the Russians in the eastern region. And anyone caught selling sensitive technology to the Russians should be exposed, arrested and prosecuted as a traitor.
And don't forget that President Xi is watching. No doubt he'd like to gain control of TSCM, which would not be good for us or most of the rest of the world.
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on Mar 31, 2022 17:06:01 GMT -8
I'm not sure I buy that for several reasons. If that was Putin's goal he could have taken those areas without destroying most of Ukraine and in the process paying a very heavy price. He's embarrassed himself and Russia, exiled himself from any future world leadership or influence, and cost his friends and country countless billions in sanctions not to mention totally wrecking the Russian economy which puts him at risk. In addition to all of that Putin has put Russia in a position where no democratic countries even want to buy their energy.
Also I do not believe Zelensky will ever agree to give him all the territory including ports that he wants. If he had just taken those areas he would have been at war for decades to hold them. As it is unless he withdraws he may be at war for decades anyway.
Idea just seems like a real stretch to me.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Apr 1, 2022 10:48:41 GMT -8
I'm not sure I buy that for several reasons. If that was Putin's goal he could have taken those areas without destroying most of Ukraine and in the process paying a very heavy price. He's embarrassed himself and Russia, exiled himself from any future world leadership or influence, and cost his friends and country countless billions in sanctions not to mention totally wrecking the Russian economy which puts him at risk. In addition to all of that Putin has put Russia in a position where no democratic countries even want to buy their energy. Also I do not believe Zelensky will ever agree to give him all the territory including ports that he wants. If he had just taken those areas he would have been at war for decades to hold them. As it is unless he withdraws he may be at war for decades anyway. Idea just seems like a real stretch to me. I agree with Ben. He got away with a limited take-over once before. Why take the risk? Of course, he may not have thought it was a risk. Based on the obscure philosopher he likes to quote, it seems like Putin really believes that restoring Greater Russia is his legacy. I think he really wants to restore Russia to it's former glory. He sees himself as Tsar Vladimir.
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on Apr 1, 2022 11:28:00 GMT -8
Based on the obscure philosopher he likes to quote, it seems like Putin really believes that restoring Greater Russia is his legacy. I think he really wants to restore Russia to it's former glory. He sees himself as Tsar Vladimir.
I think that's right. He and trump have a lot in common in the malignant narcissist department. And they both constantly lie except Putin's is calculated and trump's is pathological. But he definitely wants to go down in history as the father of the new USSR.
|
|
|
Post by gainsborough on Apr 1, 2022 13:34:16 GMT -8
My grandfather came from Russia. He spoke Russian and was steeped in Russian culture. He would have laughed If anyone told him he was Ukrainian. Although he was born and grew up in eastern Ukraine, he never spoke Ukrainian, and he considered himself Russian.
- Even after Ukraine gained independence, I suspect that many people in that area - perhaps most of them - still identified as “Russian.”
- I suspect the Ukraine government had a history of ignoring the cultural affiliations of the Russian-speaking people in that area. For example, I think only Russian was spoken in schools and in government, etc.
That said, I have no illusion that Vladimir Putin cares a whit about those people. He has been attempting to re-establish a version of the former USSR. Over the last fourteen years he successfully snatched a piece of Georgia (2008), and then he took Crimea (2014). Leveraging the historical cultural affiliations with Russia, he has attempted to justify the invasion of Ukraine.
There’s nothing new there. What surprised me about the Brett Stephens piece were his claims about the wealth of natural resources in that region, and his conclusion that the invasion is nothing more than a land grab for money.
Are those claims about the natural resources true? Can anyone confirm or refute them?
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Apr 1, 2022 14:40:15 GMT -8
This guy makes the case that just taking the Donbas at this point is an unacceptable option for Putin, for two reasons. - The people of the region mostly don't want to be part of Russia and will be virtually impossible to govern with a VERY heavy hand.
- At this point, Putin has set expectations much higher, and the hardliners in Russia will never accept a consolation prize. It is very dangerous for Putin to accept anything except regime change in Ukraine.
Nothing except a Russian puppet state is an acceptable outcome and that seems very unlikely. Putin has painted himself into a corner. He might knock down the whole house to get out of the corner. It's a bit long, but an interesting read
|
|
|
Post by gainsborough on Apr 1, 2022 15:27:26 GMT -8
Thanks, that was a good article.
I'd still like an answer to my question about that region: is it incredibly rich in gas & oil resources, or not?
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Apr 1, 2022 16:15:45 GMT -8
Thanks, that was a good article. I'd still like an answer to my question about that region: is it incredibly rich in gas & oil resources, or not? You didn't look at the Encyclopedia of Ukraine? The Donbas is rich in hard coal (particularly anthracites), rock salt, lignite, marl, limestone, clays and other building materials, mercury, and various ores. The Donbas has one of the largest coal deposits in the world. The proved reserves of class A, B, and C coal were 55.6 billion t in 1977, or 20 percent of the total USSR reserves. The Ukrainian Donbas contained close to 48.1 billion t. In 2000, proved reserves were raised to 57.5 billion t and probable reserves for additional 18.3 billion t. Methane gas reserves associated with the coal deposits were estimated to exceed 2.5 trillion cubic meters. Hard-coal deposits reach depths of 1,800 m. Almost 330 coal seams have been discovered, most of them 0.3–0.45 m, but some up to 1.5 m thick. Only the 210 top and middle seams, which lie up to 1,500 m beneath the surface, are thick enough to be worked economically, and only 65 seams are being mined today. The number of commercially exploited seams is declining in the east and north. In the Old Donbas coal is extracted to a depth of 1,000–1,300 m, and plans were made to dig shafts to a depth of 1,500 m. Mining conditions are complex: 95 percent of the mines have challenges with methane gas; 70 percent are prone to coal dust explosions; 45 percent have hazardous gas dynamics; and 30 percent are prone to spontaneous combustion of coal. Various kinds of coal are found in the Donbas. In the central and southwest districts coking coal, which is the best fuel for metallurgy, occurs. It accounts for 26.5 percent of the coal deposits in the Ukrainian Donbas and 10 percent of the coal in the Russian part. In the northwestern part lies a belt of subbituminous, long-burning coal, which comprises 38 percent of the coal deposits and is used mainly in the chemical industry and partly for coking and fuel. Anthracites (30 percent of the deposits) are found in the central, eastern, and southeastern regions. They are used mostly as high-quality, energy-producing fuel, not for coking. The heating value of long-burning coal is 5,600–7,850 kcal/kg, and of anthracite, 7,600–8,800 kcal/kg. Donbas coal generally has a high ash (up to 30 percent) and sulfur (1.5–3.5 percent) content, which interferes with coking. The thinness of many seams makes them unexploitable. Of the other useful minerals, the huge deposits of rock salt in the northwestern Donbas in the Bakhmutka River valley (Bakhmut with proved reserves of 5.4 billion t [see Bakhmut rock salt deposits] and Sloviansk with reserves of 3.5 billion) and the Kalmiius River and Torets River valleys are of the greatest value. Near Mykytivka are deposits of quicksilver ore-cinnabar (see Mykytivka mercury deposit), which are largely exhausted now. Mercury and antimony ores have been discovered more recently in the vicinity of Sloviansk and Druzhkivka. Various ores such as zinc and lead, with an admixture of copper, silver, and gold, are found near Sloviansk, Bakhmut, and in the region of Naholnyi Ridge but have not yet been exploited. Rare earth elements are found in the south (Pokrovka–Kyriivka, Petrovo–Hnutove). From the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th the small deposits of poor iron ores (brown ores and siderites) were worked in the northwestern Donbas and near Bakhmut. In the northwestern Donbas near Sloviansk lignite was discovered, and in the north natural gas is found at Lobachivka and Kondrashivka deposits. Both resources remain unexploited.
Building materials are common throughout the Donbas: limestone, dolomite, gypsum, refractory clays, marl, quartz sands, sandstones (particularly gray and black for paving streets), quartzites, chalk, slates, and pottery clay. Some of these are also used in the metallurgical industry. Limestones are used in the chemical industry and metallurgical industry; the main deposits are at Olenivka (Dokuchaievsk) (see Olenivka flux limestone deposit) and Karakuba (Rozdolne). Large marl deposits at Amvrosiivka and in the southern Donbas and smaller deposits along the Luhanka River are the basis of the cement industry. Rich deposits of refractory clays are located in the central Donbas, Chasiv Yar being the best-known deposit. Gypsum is found alongside rock salt in the Bakhmutka River valley, chalk along the Donets River, colored clays in Sloviansk raion, ocher deposits near Izium, kaolin near Volnovakha in the southwest, and quarried stone in Bakhmut.
|
|
|
Post by less1brain on Apr 1, 2022 16:30:28 GMT -8
I've corrected this.
The Black Sea area controlled by Russia is estimated to contain about 1.34 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Prior to the recent invasion, Ukraine still controlled about 660 billion cubic meters in the Black Sea and other countries about 960 bcm. These are estimates. Russia has not moved to develop the resources under their control for almost 8 years now and the military turmoil since 2014 is the main obstacle to development.
The Donbass region contains the vast bulk of Ukraine's known gas supply (89% of Ukraine's identified supply), but not much oil (just less than 8%).
As of 2021, Ukraine's known supply of natural gas was 23.7 bcm (so, Crimea and the Black Sea constitute a vast increase in this area).
Stephens' article strikes me as preposterous and disingenuous (rather than naive). Clearly, Russia's oligarchs benefit economically from Russia controlling the Black Sea, the Crimea and the Donbass. But Russia would not have directed such vast military assets towards Kiev, Kharkiv and other points in-between and to the West of Kiev if it didn't intend to take over the entire country.
They might now be moving towards a lesser agenda that will shake out as control of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk and a land bridge via the ruins of Mariupol. They are clearly shifting substantial assets to the Donbass region and I imagine that the Battle of Mariupol will grind to a very bloody end over the next few weeks.
By turning the city to rubble, Russia has blocked the passage of its tanks and APCs and created fortified defensive positions for Ukrainian forces that seem quite fanatical. Now, the Russians will have to go street by street, building by building, room by room, in close quarter fighting to take the city without the benefit of the protection of air power or armor.
I can't imagine that scenario was carefully planned out ahead of time.
|
|
|
Post by less1brain on Apr 2, 2022 11:42:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Apr 2, 2022 15:21:01 GMT -8
Great article! Thanks for posting it. On the BruinZone Open Forum Dr.J wrote that the Biden Administration gave Ukraine an advance head's up about Russian intentions. "Specifically, the CIA warned that Russia planned to seize Hostomel with airborne attack and airlift troops to take Kyiv. The elite troops Putin sent were badly mauled and the attempt to decapitate Ukraine’s govt. failed." Putin has stepped on a big pile of fresh bear dung, which will stick to his boots and stink more and more as time passes. Bright young people, with IT skills, are fleeing Russia, which will create a brain drain. I can't imagine that 135,000 young Russian men are eager to join up and be cannon fodder and the morale some of those already in the Ukraine is pretty low. I think Putin's problems will only multiply. I hope this ends very badly for him.
|
|