War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Elzaar

. . . You realize you are in an argument that will just go round and round with no resolution, right?

As they typically do And your point?


But seriously, we've had a good discussion. Good points have been made by different people and everyone has learned something. The point of these discussions is not necessarily to change anyone's minds -- it's fine that people have different opinions. It's to test your own views and listen to what other people have to say. It's fun and useful, and that's why we do it.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by Elzaar

For the endless arguments over Ukraine-Russia-US ... Could you start a separate thread to argue your take on Geo-Politics?

I was more curious about the same thing the OP was asking: Will Ukraine situation make the Med unsafe for travel? Does anyone recall any specific issues in 2014? I don't.

I doubt a military conflict would have a direct effect on yachting in the med apart from increased navy presence in the eastern med,and the possibility of nuclear fallout should things go horribly wrong.

However the potential for a mass refugee problem will cause potential issues as groups of displaced people reestablish themselves in the west,as happened post 91 with the fall of the USSR.

Biggest problem will be a mass influx to europe of refugees should russia invade,potentially 5-10 million plus,of that there will be a large neo-nazi contingent and criminal element fleeing russian retribution should the russians try to take the whole country.

[boatman61]

Well one thing is for sure.. the US has finally got Nordstream 2 blocked, possibly permanently if war breaks out.
Something its been trying to do since it started construction.
It would not surprise me if this debacle has had a lot to do with helping Putin take his resulting actions.
Good for US energy exports but bad for Europe because energy will go through the roof..
But that's not Americas problem.. exports up, much needed money coming in, prospect of war is over 4000 miles away.. the sun is shining again.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well one thing is for sure.. the US has finally got Nordstream 2 blocked, possibly permanently if war breaks out.
Something its been trying to do since it started construction.
It would not surprise me if this debacle has had a lot to do with helping Putin take his resulting actions.
Good for US energy exports but bad for Europe because energy will go through the roof..
But that's not Americas problem.. exports up, much needed money coming in, prospect of war is over 4000 miles away.. the sun is shining again.

Problem is there are neither the ships,nor the shoreside facilities to carry and/ or offload significant amounts of imported LNG coming by sea.

https://gcaptain.com/qatar-says-almo...ies-to-europe/

By Maha El Dahan and Andrew Mills

DOHA, Feb 22 (Reuters) – Neither Qatar nor any other single country has the capacity to replace Russian gas supplies to Europe with liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the event of disruption due to a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Qatar’s energy minister said on Tuesday.

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine escalated on Tuesday after Moscow ordered troops into two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine.

The United States and its European allies are set to announce fresh sanctions against Russia after President Vladimir Putin formally recognised the independence of the two regions in eastern Ukraine. The sanctions could affect the Russian flow of gas into Europe.

“Russia (provides) I think 30-40% of the supply to Europe. There is no single country that can replace that kind of volume, there isn’t the capacity to do that from LNG,” minister Saad al-Kaabi told reporters at a gas conference in Doha.

“Most of the LNG are tied to long-term contracts and destinations that are very clear. So, to replace that sum of volume that quickly is almost impossible,” he said.

Qatar, one of the world’s top LNG producers, has recently been approached by the United States to reroute gas supplies to Europe in case Russia attacks Ukraine and the United States imposes sanctions on Moscow.

It has most of its volumes locked up under long-term contracts mostly to Asian buyers but also sends cargoes to Europe.

Kaabi said that for Qatar the amount of divertable contracts that can be shipped to Europe is only 10-15%.

“It’s not that something is not contracted, the question is, is it divertible or not? And the majority is tied up to long term contracts. The divertible volume is probably 10-15%,” he said.

Europe’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals have limited available capacity to absorb extra supply from the United States or other major producers in the event gas from Russia is disrupted if it invades Ukraine.

(Reporting by Maha El Dahan and Andrew Mills in Doha, writing by Marwa Rashad in London, Editing by Nina Chestney and Chizu Nomiyama)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2022.

[boatman61]

True enough, but that's why Germany is going to build an LNG port on the Elbe.
Foreign policy is decided in board rooms and stock exchanges unfortunately and not by fairness and the good of humanity.
http://www.rt.com/business/424876-ru...-lng-failure/]
Nordstream 2 would have hurt Ukraine's economy which relies a lot on pipe line fees from Russia and they have actively opposed it along with America.
Create the need for the ports and they WILL be built..
Reminds me of GW1 when Kuwait was egged on to exorbitantly increase it pipeline feed prices from Iraq.. Saddam then tried to get them to sell him a deserted island in the Gulf that he could build a pipeline too thus creating his own deep water port (none on Iraqi mainland).. Kuwait refused basically holding Iraq to ransom.. Saddam kicked off.
Remember, history is written by the victor so what one reads on Wiki may not be accurate in every respect.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There are plenty of people in the West who would gladly stand by and watch Ukraine be destroyed, so that Russian can be demonized and isolated in a final way. They will be urging Ukraine to stand on principle! Whilst standing at a safe distance of course, with nothing to lose from the ensuring destruction. But this is not the result that those of use who actually do care about Ukraine, desire.

I don't think that's a fair assessment, but who is in charge of protecting Ukraine from the Russians? They aren't a member of NATO, and Russia has nuclear weapons. So we all knew that NATO wasn't going to send troops there. This is also why they AREN'T a member of NATO. The odds of this happening were high regardless of any agreements.


The sanctions the west are proposing aren't painless for the west. But they're the correct response here.

I'm surprised Kissinger advised recognizing Crimea. I hadn't heard that, and it's a change from his earlier position. Russia already has Crimea, whether the West recognizes it or not. The west recognizing it isn't likely, and never was. The Trump administration recognizing it was a definite possibility, but not because Trump wanted to save Ukraine. Trump recognizing Russia possession of Crimea would have likely been the end of his Presidency. I expect Putin would have enjoyed that. I'd have been quite surprised if European countries had agreed to it.

The Ukraine recognizing Crimea as Russian is a pretty big ask (meaning impossible), especially after watching Russia gobble up two additional territories, which will receive the same ask eventually.

The problem is this. If you recognize that, what stops countries from just annexing areas of other countries where they have an interest and the power to do it? Isn't that back to 18th and 19th century thinking? Then you're back to individual countries forming alliances to protect themselves. Putin's long game is to eliminate the UN, or to prove that they can't work. Then he can do whatever he wants. You're right. On principle, that can't happen.

Demanding that the Ukraine not use western weapons, though? Don't you find that ridiculous? Why not demand that they import a certain product from Russia? How about if they just pay tribute?

The fact is that Russia isn't getting any of those concessions, and he doesn't expect to. Even if he did, he'd invade anyway.

This is just a pretext to invade.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Elzaar

For the endless arguments over Ukraine-Russia-US ... Could you start a separate thread to argue your take on Geo-Politics?

I was more curious about the same thing the OP was asking: Will Ukraine situation make the Med unsafe for travel? Does anyone recall any specific issues in 2014? I don't.

I'm pretty sure the universal answer is that the Med is fine, though fuel prices will likely be high.

[hpeer]

China has lots of “development” projects, UN vote buying.

They also have “leased” huge tracts of land.

Not defending USA, but noting in reality might makes right for all parties.

Love and war.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Demanding that the Ukraine not use western weapons, though? Don't you find that ridiculous? Why not demand that they import a certain product from Russia? How about if they just pay tribute?

The fact is that Russia isn't getting any of those concessions, and he doesn't expect to. Even if he did, he'd invade anyway.

This is just a pretext to invade.

Considering that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in wartime.. and the US and Israel are the only countries to have used uranium enriched weapons on the battlefield I can quite understand Putin's reluctance for US weapons to be deployed in Ukraine..
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...eliminary_Note

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Considering that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in wartime.. and the US and Israel are the only countries to have used uranium enriched weapons on the battlefield I can quite understand Putin's reluctance for US weapons to be deployed in Ukraine..
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...eliminary_Note

Nobody is talking about putting nukes in Ukraine. The U.S. and Russia talked Ukraine OUT of their nukes, and promised to respect Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange.

So invading them doesn't set a great example for other countries we'd like to convince. Would Russia be taking territory, or calling Ukraine a "non-state" if they still had nukes?

Russia here is talking about conventional weapons. I believe Russia is mad that the U.S. is sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, which greatly raises the stakes on armed invasion. But they're also mad that Ukraine has ANY relationship with the west, or that the Ukraine can make provisions for her own security.

[Island Time O25]

Here is the question of the day relating to the sentiment expressed by some in this thread that US lost the moral high ground, etc.

Does a corrupt cop still have the right or duty to arrest a suspected murderer? Or the fact that he is corrupt totally negates his duty?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Nobody is talking about putting nukes in Ukraine. The U.S. and Russia talked Ukraine OUT of their nukes, and promised to respect Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange.

So invading them doesn't set a great example for other countries we'd like to convince. Would Russia be taking territory, or calling Ukraine a "non-state" if they still had nukes?

Russia here is talking about conventional weapons. I believe Russia is mad that the U.S. is sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, which greatly raises the stakes on armed invasion. But they're also mad that Ukraine has ANY relationship with the west, or that the Ukraine can make provisions for her own security.

I believe the US considers these weapons conventional..
Uranium metal has a high density and is pyrophoric, burning at very high temperatures upon impact with a hard target. This makes it valuable for penetration of armour. It was originally developed for this and showed its value against battlefield tanks in the first Gulf War and later in the Balkans. More recently, there have been suggestions (based on research on weapons patents) that uranium is being used to increase the penetration and incendiary effects of certain bunker busting bombs and Cruise missiles.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Considering that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in wartime.. and the US and Israel are the only countries to have used uranium enriched weapons on the battlefield I can quite understand Putin's reluctance for US weapons to be deployed in Ukraine..
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...eliminary_Note

1) Depleted Uranium ammo is not enriched. It is depleted. It is the part left over when you enrich natural uranium for use in reactors or bombs.

2) The US doesn't export DU ammo. Not to anyone anywhere. All US weapon systems can use either conventional metal or DU ammo. Exports (and US troops in training) use conventional rounds. DU ammunition (among other things) ensures that if a US Abrams tank someday has to fight a former ally with an Abrams tank we still have an advantage.

Trying to find justification for the naked annexing of neighboring countries is foolish. Putin can be reluctant all he wants it isn't a justification for an invasion.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Considering that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in wartime.. and the US and Israel are the only countries to have used uranium enriched weapons on the battlefield I can quite understand Putin's reluctance for US weapons to be deployed in Ukraine..

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...eliminary_Note

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Statistical

1) Depleted Uranium ammo is not enriched. It is depleted. It is the part left over when you enrich natural uranium for use in reactors or bombs.

2) The US doesn't export DU ammo. Not to anyone anywhere. All US weapon systems can use either conventional metal or DU ammo. Exports (and US troops in training) use conventional rounds.

Trying to find justification for the naked annexing of neighboring countries is foolish. Putin can be reluctant all he wants it isn't a justification for an invasion.

I was not trying to justify his annexing, I was talking about his proposed deal on the table..
But even depleted uranium has lasting consequence..
https://www.theguardian.com/theguard...ardianweekly11
Enough already trying to spin..