Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

I still wonder why Kiev wants to hold on to those Eastern oblasts. What is there that is worth the money spent on the recent military action? Is it the manufacturing plants?

It's probably the loss of face that looms largest, in a leader's mind at least. I have no doubt many of the supportive governments that are advising Ukraine's government are likewise more concerned about territorial integrity and borderlines than any people that might be hurt. Whatever economic interest there might be in these region's industries it's trumped by concerns over power.

I'm betting the people that live there on the other hand are far more interested in peace and that if left to themselves would achieve it a lot sooner. Leaving the people to themselves would probably terrify and unify all the leaders involved in this stupid conflict faster than anything.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 993
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was watching this mornings coverage on the conflict. A UN spokesman stated that both sides are targeting civilians - which is against the "rules".

What rules?

What is the difference between civilians and rebels?

A person with a gun can be a nationalist, government supporter, rebel, insurgent or hunter - it depends what he is shooting at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably the loss of face that looms largest, in a leader's mind at least. I have no doubt many of the supportive governments that are advising Ukraine's government are likewise more concerned about territorial integrity and borderlines than any people that might be hurt. Whatever economic interest there might be in these region's industries it's trumped by concerns over power.

So you're thinking any nation which refuses to simply surender ground to a fascist invader is merely interested in power?

So If the Russians were to invade BC on behalf of 'downtrodden Russians' we should simply pull back and surrender the land?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder why Kiev wants to hold on to those Eastern oblasts. What is there that is worth the money spent on the recent military action? Is it the manufacturing plants?

Consensus in Ukraine (and among normal people in Russia) is that fighting back is the only way to stop Putin's invasion.

This problem was considered before fighting on the Ukraine mainland started. The Donbass (that area) is economical liability, not a benefit (Russia doesn't want it either).

But surrender it to Putin solves no problems. Putin will continue to spread his cancer into Ukraine.

This has happened in history before:

Churchill: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." 1938, after Prime Minister Chamberlain signed an agreement with Hitler.

Ukraine chose that Finland did in 1940. However, Ukrainian conditions now are much, much worse than those of Finland then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder why Kiev wants to hold on to those Eastern oblasts. What is there that is worth the money spent on the recent military action? Is it the manufacturing plants?

The last set of elections indicated that the vast majority supported the pro-Russian government at the time. If indeed, this area is militarily brought back to Kiev control, the constant anti-Kiev agitation would draw even more resources from Kiev and continuing aid from Russia.

My perception is that the majority people in this area, from a variety of reasons from language to economy, would prefer alignment to Russia rather than the West. I have seen no objective or neutral information to change that perception.

It would be very informative to find some objective and/or neutrally motivated method of getting the actual views of the majority in each of those oblasts.

The East contains the majority of Ukraines' coal (Donets Basin) as well as a considerable amount of one of Ukraines two major oil & gas fields, the dnieper-donetsk gas field. The east is further heavily industrialized, mainly with steel and other metallurgical industries. The Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts accounted for around 25% of the total foreign currency receipts of Ukraine (http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/boris-danik-ukraines-war-of-independence-351112.html , http://mondediplo.com/2014/04/03ukraine). A huge percentage of the industrial production in the east (mainly production of coal/iron/steel and derivative products) is exported to western Russian manufacturing, for example Rostov-on-don is a center of helicopter and farm equipment manufacturing.

Ukraine was the #14 producer of coal in the world in 2012, #29 in Natural gas and #51 in oil production. (http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=up). Gas and oil production was expected to increase with exploitation of previously untouched shale reserves, " The former Soviet republic has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet (1.2 trillion cubic metres), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, behind France and Norway." In 2013 Ukraine signed contracts with shell and chevron for the development of shale gas, "Shell will develop the Yuzivska area, in eastern Donetsk and Kharkiv regions, while Chevron will explore the Olesska area in the western region of Lviv." ((http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/ukraine-gas-shale-idUSL5E8GGAJY20120516))

So while its true that these regions are not exactly swimming in riches (GDP per capita of around 4-5k nominal usd, probably decently higher (PPP)GDP but I am too lazy to look into this), they posses some strategically important resources and industries, of which Russia, the West, and of course Ukrainians themselves desire control over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GDP_per_capita

Now I'm not sure that strategic economic thinking is solely behind this, although I believe they clearly represent a major influence. The post feb coup government already lost Crimea, the loss of further territories to 'Russia' is probably not acceptable politically, especially due to Ukraine's posturing of the rebels as Russian invaders. Accepting federalization or outright independence would go directly counter to their nationalistic Ukranian ideology. It's also possible either Ukraine under-estimated the Russian insurgents, and the lengths Russia would back them, or they over-estimated the amount of support they would get from the West/EU, and expected a easy victory.

Of course with the complexity and global reach of this conflict it's possible this analysis misses the mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The post above is not a lie. It's a shear propaganda.

Donetsk and especially Lugansk are depression regions. There is no industrial amount of neither oil or gas. Coal is highly subsidized, not economically viable.

Yes, the region provided some flow of hard currency into Ukraine, but mostly due to actually dumping practices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus in Ukraine (and among normal people in Russia) is that fighting back is the only way to stop Putin's invasion.

This problem was considered before fighting on the Ukraine mainland started. The Donbass (that area) is economical liability, not a benefit (Russia doesn't want it either).

But surrender it to Putin solves no problems. Putin will continue to spread his cancer into Ukraine.

This has happened in history before:

Churchill: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." 1938, after Prime Minister Chamberlain signed an agreement with Hitler.

Ukraine chose that Finland did in 1940. However, Ukrainian conditions now are much, much worse than those of Finland then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Churchill: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." 1938, after Prime Minister Chamberlain signed an agreement with Hitler.

We chose dishonor years ago - back when Bush and Blair fell in love with Putin. Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

The post above is not a lie. It's a shear propaganda.

Donetsk and especially Lugansk are depression regions. There is no industrial amount of neither oil or gas. Coal is highly subsidized, not economically viable.

Yes, the region provided some flow of hard currency into Ukraine, but mostly due to actually dumping practices.

Shear propaganda? As opposed to some sort of Axial or Torsional propaganda? You bring nothing to the discussion outside of aggressive bluster.

Here s a US geological survey report about the 'non-existent' Dnieper-donets gas fields.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/

some money-quotes

"The Dnieper-Donets basin is almost entirely in Ukraine, and it is the principal producer of hydrocarbons in that country. A small southeastern part of the basin is in Russia. The basin is bounded by the Voronezh high of the Russian craton to the northeast and by the Ukrainian shield to the southwest."

"A single total petroleum system encompassing the entire sedimentary succession is identified in the Dnieper-Donets basin. Discovered reserves of the system are 1.6 billion barrels of oil and 59 trillion cubic feet of gas."

"the basin is ranked 36th among 102 world provinces that were designated for appraisal of undiscovered oil and gas resources by the US geological survey"

The fact that coal is subsidized has nothing to do with its strategic importance as an energy resource, and its strategic importance in regards to things such as steel production. In fact its completely irrelevant to everything I wrote.

I hope your apology for calling me a poster of propaganda will be forthcoming?

Edited by Solidarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Solidarity,

Not a single barrel of oil has been extracted in that area. Your figures are estimates. Test drilling for fracking gas has to be started yet. Economics of this "eventual" gas recovery is not clear.

"the basin is ranked 36th among 102 world provinces that were designated for appraisal of undiscovered oil and gas resources by the US geological survey" - how big is the value of something undiscovered?

The Dnieper-Donets basin is much larger than the fighting area. There is no industrial gas development in the fighting area. Total discovered reserves of natural gas in both Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts (rebels occupy approx. one half of them) are less than 1% of those of Ukraine. It's peanuts.

http://www.photoukraine.com/russian/articles?id=111

"Abstract

The Dnieper-Donets basin is almost entirely in Ukraine, and it is the principal producer of hydrocarbons in that country. "

The last statement is ridiculously wrong. It might be so for gas in 1960s, but not now. Never has been for oil.

Subsidizing coal has nothing to do to "strategic" steel production or energy source. It's a social issue. It's big money sucker for Ukraine. Ukraine does not need that coal. Russia has closed its coal mines in neighboring Rostov region. Buying coal from Australia would make Ukrainian steel more competitive. Coil is in little use for energy generation in Donbass. This fact disproves your claim of significant economical importance of the area occupied by rebels and Russian army.

The only big role that the conflict area plays for Ukraine is salt and rich soil.

If you prefer me to change my definition of your post from "propaganda" to "uneducated and wishful interpretation of a second hand information", I can agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solidarity,

Not a single barrel of oil has been extracted in that area. Your figures are estimates. Test drilling for fracking gas has to be started yet. Economics of this "eventual" gas recovery is not clear.

"the basin is ranked 36th among 102 world provinces that were designated for appraisal of undiscovered oil and gas resources by the US geological survey" - how big is the value of something undiscovered?

The Dnieper-Donets basin is much larger than the fighting area. There is no industrial gas development in the fighting area. Total discovered reserves of natural gas in both Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts (rebels occupy approx. one half of them) are less than 1% of those of Ukraine. It's peanuts.

http://www.photoukraine.com/russian/articles?id=111

"Abstract

The Dnieper-Donets basin is almost entirely in Ukraine, and it is the principal producer of hydrocarbons in that country. "

The last statement is ridiculously wrong. It might be so for gas in 1960s, but not now. Never has been for oil.

Subsidizing coal has nothing to do to "strategic" steel production or energy source. It's a social issue. It's big money sucker for Ukraine. Ukraine does not need that coal. Russia has closed its coal mines in neighboring Rostov region. Buying coal from Australia would make Ukrainian steel more competitive. Coil is in little use for energy generation in Donbass. This fact disproves your claim of significant economical importance of the area occupied by rebels and Russian army.

The only big role that the conflict area plays for Ukraine is salt and rich soil.

If you prefer me to change my definition of your post from "propaganda" to "uneducated and wishful interpretation of a second hand information", I can agree.

Considering the government only signed the first agreements for exploration and development of shale resources in late 2013, I don't think its exactly surprising that in the midst of a coup and a civil war in the region they haven't begun building expensive shale gas extraction infrastructure. It isn't exactly a good business decision to invest in infrastructure in a war zone. With that said I am glad you were able to change your position from 'the fields are non-existant' to 'the economics of the eventual recovery of resources are not clear' so quickly (It only took 1 post, you didn't even bother to defend your original position!).

The statement that the fields are not valuable because they are 'undiscovered' seems to show you don't have the strongest grasp of English language nuance. Perhaps Ukrainian, and not English is your first language? The whole point of the US geological survey was to determine the amounts of resources in the provinces studied.

"This report was prepared as part of the World Energy Project of the U.S. Geological Survey . In the project, the world was divided into 8 regions and 937 geologic provinces. The provinces were ranked according to the discovered oil and gas volumes within each (U.S. Geological Survey World Energy Assessment Team, 2000). Subsequently , 76 “priority” provinces (exclusive of the U.S. and chosen for their high rank) and 26 “boutique” provinces (exclusive of the U.S. and chosen for their anticipated petroleum richness or special regional eco­nomic importance) were selected for appraisal of oil and gas resources. The petroleum geology of these priority and boutique provinces is described in this series of reports. The purpose of the World Energy Project is to aid in assess­ing the quantities of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids that have a potential to be added to reserves during the next 30 years. These estimated resources are in undiscovered fields whose sizes exceed the stated minimum-field-size cutoff value for an assess­ment unit (variable, but at least 1 million barrels of oil equivalent), or they are reserve growth of fields already discovered."

Sure the Dnieper-donets field extends all the way to the Belorussian border, in fact if you read my post it delineated the field. However the field also extends into both Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts. There are some maps in the USGS report (http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/b2201-e.pdf page 6) as well as here (http://images.energy365dino.co.uk/standard/122034_60646e59c9cd4f95898c.jpg) which show shale resources in Lugansk Oblast, as well as in the upper half of Donetsk oblast.

The experts disagree with your opinion that donbass coal and the manufactured products it supports are not a strategic resource

"Even if parts of the industry are dependent on subsidies, the eastern Ukrainian export products represent an important source of income for the government in Kyiv. This is all the more important as Ukraine is virtually bankrupt - and therefore increasingly dependent on international donors. "If separatist movements succeed, Kyiv would completely collapse in the risk assessment of the money markets because the country would lose so many resources," Ukraine expert Ewald Böhlke said (http://www.dw.de/the-significance-of-the-donbas/a-17567049). Maybe you can find an expert from photoukraine.com who disagrees.

If you want to be taken seriously on this topic you might want to try and find a better source, as yours is laughable. The site appears to have a total of 3 facebook likes, 36 google +1's, and no link with any official body whatsoever. For all I know you made this site yourself.

http://www.photoukraine.com/

Owner Name Andrey Ivchenko Email bd7f80a4463645a.png@novadesign.kiev.ua Address Prospekt Lesnoy, 5, kv. 128

Kiev 02166, UKRAINE

I didn't ever plan on making some big argument about the strategic value of eastern resources, because as I stated before I believe there are a confluence of reasons why the UKR central government seems to be willing to throw the country down the toilet to retain control over the eastern oblasts. However when I see your extreme misrepresentations and outright lies I can't help myself. 'Salt and soil' :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some maps in the USGS report (http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/b2201-e.pdf page 6) as well as here (http://images.energy365dino.co.uk/standard/122034_60646e59c9cd4f95898c.jpg) which show shale resources in Lugansk Oblast, as well as in the upper half of Donetsk oblast.

These are all bla-bla- bla. The report is just interpretation of exclusively Ukrainian research data, collected before year 2000. Shale gas deposits in Donbass are still "estimates."

If you want to be taken seriously, please show real oil and gas wells, derricks etc., in that area. Give numbers of output, production. Compare to entire Ukraine.

Can I receive a numerical confirmation of "your" statement that Donbass is a principal producer of oil and gas in Ukraine?

The experts disagree with your opinion that donbass coal and the manufactured products it supports are not a strategic resource

You are twistiing my point. Coal can be a strategic resourse, but in the particular Ukrainian situation, it would be much more economical to leave it under the ground and buy, say, Australian coal. Ditto with all other Donbass heavy industry, which is obsolete.

The site appears to have a total of 3 facebook likes, 36 google +1's, and no link with any official body whatsoever. For all I know you made this site yourself.

http://www.photoukraine.com/

Owner Name Andrey Ivchenko Email bd7f80a4463645a.png@novadesign.kiev.ua Address Prospekt Lesnoy, 5, kv. 128

Kiev 02166, UKRAINE

Well-well, a classical "if you don't like the message, attack the messenger" propaganda trick. The web page is a concise collection of statistical data and textbook data. All in one place. Do you have problems with the data? Or you will argue that they are invented by Andrey Ivchenko?

I didn't ever plan on making some big argument about the strategic value of eastern resources, because as I stated before I believe there are a confluence of reasons why the UKR central government seems to be willing to throw the country down the toilet to retain control over the eastern oblasts.

This is OK now.

The main reason Ukrainian government is fighting is the will of Ukrainian people to resist an invasion of Russia. Chances are Ukraine will lose the war. Everybody understands that if Putin decides, Russian tanks will roll in the streets of Kiev within hours. Situation is very bad for Ukraine now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still like to see some impartial data that indicates that the majority of those people in the East want to stay with Ukraine or want autonomy or want to be associated with Russia. At this point in time there are many subjective claims on the issue but are based on personal affiliation.

As to Kiev, I feel that Russia has no intentions or claims on Kiev. I still refer to the map of results of the previous elections and the major language spoken in the different areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are all bla-bla- bla. The report is just interpretation of exclusively Ukrainian research data, collected before year 2000. Shale gas deposits in Donbass are still "estimates."

If you want to be taken seriously, please show real oil and gas wells, derricks etc., in that area. Give numbers of output, production. Compare to entire Ukraine.

Can I receive a numerical confirmation of "your" statement that Donbass is a principal producer of oil and gas in Ukraine?

You are twistiing my point. Coal can be a strategic resourse, but in the particular Ukrainian situation, it would be much more economical to leave it under the ground and buy, say, Australian coal. Ditto with all other Donbass heavy industry, which is obsolete.

Well-well, a classical "if you don't like the message, attack the messenger" propaganda trick. The web page is a concise collection of statistical data and textbook data. All in one place. Do you have problems with the data? Or you will argue that they are invented by Andrey Ivchenko?

This is OK now.

The main reason Ukrainian government is fighting is the will of Ukrainian people to resist an invasion of Russia. Chances are Ukraine will lose the war. Everybody understands that if Putin decides, Russian tanks will roll in the streets of Kiev within hours. Situation is very bad for Ukraine now.

Never claimed 'donbass' was the principal producer of oil and gas. Run the USGS statement through the English to Ukrainian translator a few more times and maybe you will get the actual meaning.

Profitability and strategic value are simply not the same thing. Even if you think that coal is irrelevant due to the economics (its not), the industry of the region comes up with 25% of foreign currency receipts. Glad to see that once again you were able to change your position from 'no industry exists in donbass, all they give is salt and soil' to now simply 'donbass industry is obsolete' so quickly.

If you don't want me to attack your source, link to the scientific reports themselves, or some journal or respected news media where the articles exist. Don't link me to some sort of photo blogging site based in Kiev.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the east of Ukraine has much more to offer Putin than just some disjointed sense of entitlement since some Russians live there? Not surprised, Putin is another Hitler and there is little to stop him. Obama? An empty suit who is way out of his depth, and the world knows it. This is going to get ugly. Does anyone know if Ukraine still has nukes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the east of Ukraine has much more to offer Putin than just some disjointed sense of entitlement since some Russians live there? Not surprised, Putin is another Hitler and there is little to stop him. Obama? An empty suit who is way out of his depth, and the world knows it. This is going to get ugly. Does anyone know if Ukraine still has nukes?

No . They signed a treaty with Russia and the USA a few years back(not sure of the date but Yeltsin was President then) and with that treaty Russia promised not to invade and the USA promised to protect Ukraine. Canada endorsed this treaty.

Yes Obama is an empty suit and then looking to Ottawa we have Harper that is also talking a lot and doing nothing which includes sanctions against high profile Russians who have millions invested right here in Canada and who have made donations to the conservative party .

As for gas in Ukraine check out Regal Petroleum from the UK. who built 2 rigs and were drilling in the Donetsk Basin and the rigs were going 12,000+ feet .I drilled on rig 1 for a time and was over there in 2006 to look at the feasibility of drilling there. As I said before my wife is from Ukraine and our daughter and grand children are still there trying to immigrate here which is proving to be another conservative issue of talking lots and doing nothing

Russia is not an advanced country unless you are in the Moscow area , they have no road system in the country as we have and the rail system is archaic at best and most people are well trained from the communist days so Putin filled in quite well with that model of government.

They invaded Georgia the same way . So the question is should we as Canadians care what Russia does ? Well lets look at past world history which tends to repeat itself. They took Crimea and are pushing into Eastern Ukraine , Invaded Georgia and took parts of that country so will they stop in Eastern Ukraine ? The answer lies in Putins own words for those who have cared to read or have payed attention the past 12 years.

Also the arctic oil and gas issue is dead ahead so we are giving Russia the go ahead to move on in as strong language is not going to stop them .

Be prepared to have them at our door step drilling and believe me when I say they are not the best with what they do but I am sure when an incident happens they will say it was not them or that they are sorry and keep going....sucks to be us , but our hired hands in Ottawa will issue a strong warning and we will cheer and say boy they told them as we pay for the cleanup and then live in the mess they made.

Point is that when you make a choice be prepared to live with ALL the consequences and right now by playing the big dog with nothing but words is not the way to go and sitting on both sides will not go well for us in later years....just something to think about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I detest the Russian aggression I shed no tears for Ukraine either. Some of my ancestors had the pleasure of living there. Thank G-d they got here before it was too late. That whole part of the world is a loony bin second only to the Arab Levant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more to do with the current pipelines through Ukraine than what resources Ukraine is speculated to have. Similar to what we saw in Afghanistan. Pipelines. The gas is all coming from Russia, and I don't think they'd be to heartbroken if they needed to turn the taps off to Europe. BRICS comes into play here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the Ukraine is considered by Putin to belong to Russia. All you have to do is read his speeches and presentations to his RUSSIAN audiences.

Likewise he has said the same not just about Estonia but all of the Baltic nations.

Putin Is Hitler with Stalin mixed in one. His vision of restoring the Soviet Empire is from Stalin, His playbook on playing to his people as having been humiliated and needing to recapture their pride and all kinds of land, is pure Hitler.

History repeats itself along with Obama playing the role of Chamberlain.

Obama's weakness has all but assured Putin not stop until he's taken back all of the Ukraine, Kazakhistan,the Baltic States, and all the other former Socialist Republics.

The only thing Putin understands is counter-force to his force. This is a KGB Colonel taught to kill with his hands.

He is just a thug playing on his ego and role of restorer of the great Soviet Empire which is in fact a recycling of the old Russian chauvinism.

Call him Hitler, Stalin or Czar Vlad the Impaler, they all suit him.

NATO blinked when he invaded Ukraine and pissed their pants and did nothing. Ukraine is all on its own. Its been abandon by NATO and hey how about that UN. Now there is an effective world body. Russia invades a sovereign nation, no problem. Israel defends itself against terrorists, oh hell no they are going to investigate that. ISIS slaughter non Muslims. No Problem. Syria engage in genocide of its own people. No problem. Russia invade the Ukraine and should down international airplanes.No problem. After all its not Israel.

Such two faced b.s.

The only way to stop Putin is with military force and Europe right now is paralyzed with fear. Unless Germany, France, Britain, openly state they will use force, nothing will happen. Obama's head is parked up his buttox hiding from the world. Harper can blow all the hot air he wants getting his Ukrainian vote (although I do not doubt his sincerity) in Canada with his tough talk, but his government slashed the budget of the military lower than any Libeal government at barely1% of the country's gnp so we are in no position other than to send a handful of men and aging F18's which are no match for the Soviet Air Force.

The West allowed itself to grow fat and weak mistakenly believing Russia was now peaceful. Romney was right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...