Invasion of Ukraine

[RainMaker]

It sounds like the Russians are executing civilians as they retreat. Some horrific photos on Telegram. Seems mainly to target male adults, but there are photos of women and children too.

Scores of civilians executed by the Russian military.
Russia literally unfolded a killing spree in its occupied territories in Ukraine.
The year is 2022. pic.twitter.com/Y8zTGSJwfr

— Illia Ponomarenko ���� (@IAPonomarenko) April 2, 2022

[GrantDawg]

There are lots of gruesome photos. The Russians are committing mass murder, and they know they will not pay a price for it.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Page Not Found | Human Rights Watch

[PilotMan]

war sucks....anyone who says otherwise is ignorant. Humans are totally fallible creatures and we do what we do, and history has shown exactly what we do. I think the shocking thing is that in spite of all that knowledge, and all that reflection and all that information, that nothing really ever changes.

[BYU 14]

No it doesn't

https://youtu.be/EM3Y6uw6FtU

[Lathum]

Two Russian soldiers die and 28 are in hospital ‘after being fed poisoned pies’ | Evening Standard

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Two Russian soldiers die and 28 are in hospital ‘after being fed poisoned pies’ | Evening Standard

Unfortunately the Russians will use this story as justification to target civilians.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Unfortunately the Russians will use this story as justification to target civilians.

You are right, but it 100% flips to justify this too, since they have been committing atrocities for at least 3 weeks now.

[JPhillips]

That's some Arya Stark shit.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

war sucks....anyone who says otherwise is ignorant. Humans are totally fallible creatures and we do what we do, and history has shown exactly what we do. I think the shocking thing is that in spite of all that knowledge, and all that reflection and all that information, that nothing really ever changes.

Human nature will always be what it is.

Having said that, we kill far fewer people in war than we used to as a species. Far more than we should, absolutely, but that doesn't mean progress hasn't been made.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Page Not Found | Human Rights Watch

The International Criminal Court is already on it (https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.a...tement-ukraine).

The complicating part could have been that Ukraine has signed but not ratified the UN Treaty, but in 2014 Ukraine has requested and granted jurisdiction to ICC (https://www.icc-cpi.int/ukraine). Russia has also signed, but not ratified, the UN Treaty. I'm not sure what that legally means, but it sounds to me like Russia agrees that war crimes exist, but also has taken the stance that they never will or can be part of or subject to investigation and prosecution.

By the way, despite the public accusations Joe Biden made, the USA have not requested or supported the ICC to start a case. Maybe the USA legally can't, because the USA has the same status as Russia?

[NobodyHere]

The US isn't part of the ICC.

Imagine if we had to go explain some of our drone strikes in Iraq and elsewhere that killed dozens of civilians.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The US isn't part of the ICC.

Imagine if we had to go explain some of our drone strikes in Iraq and elsewhere that killed dozens of civilians.

Heck, the former president pardon a war criminal that murder civilians and children. They made him out as a hero.

[BYU 14]

That's a valid point and shit like that doesn't really put us in a position to play moral police when we basically rewarded several servicemen accuses/convicted of war crimes.

[Solecismic]

One doesn't have to condone the activities of war criminals to be horrified by the stories coming out of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, about 40 days in, the US campaign of sanctioning individuals has finally reached Putin's daughters. Experts indicate the Russian economy may start to show signs of stress when sanctions are extended to second cousins and that great aunt nobody likes.

Europe will have to choose between shutting down its power grid on colder, non-windy days and refusing Russian oil. Not a great position to be in, but there still aren't signs that western leaders are willing to abandon their policies of having Russia and China produce most of the world's reliable energy.

[BYU 14]

I don't think anyone is condoning anything, people with a moral compass should be angered/horrified at all war crimes, as well as anybody that essentially gets away with them.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

One doesn't have to condone the activities of war criminals to be horrified by the stories coming out of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, about 40 days in, the US campaign of sanctioning individuals has finally reached Putin's daughters. Experts indicate the Russian economy may start to show signs of stress when sanctions are extended to second cousins and that great aunt nobody likes.

Europe will have to choose between shutting down its power grid on colder, non-windy days and refusing Russian oil. Not a great position to be in, but there still aren't signs that western leaders are willing to abandon their policies of having Russia and China produce most of the world's reliable energy.

I have a friend who lives in Germany, and there's a real possibility that by the fall they won't have gas to heat their homes with.

[Edward64]

No idea if this is really significant. It seems that US is already able to supply weapons pretty efficiently already. But if it does help, I'm all for it.

In the fight against Putin, Senate unanimously approves measure that once helped beat Hitler - POLITICO

The Senate unanimously passed major legislation late Wednesday to revive a World War II-era program allowing President Joe Biden to more efficiently send weapons and other supplies to Ukraine amid Russia’s bloody invasion.

Senators quickly rallied behind the proposal, known as Lend-Lease, as Ukraine’s military proved it could fend off Russian troops who have been shelling Ukrainian cities and towns since late February. The Lend-Lease program created during World War II was seen as a game-changer in the conflict, as it allowed the U.S. to quickly resupply the Allies without time-consuming procedural hurdles.

Lawmakers are resorting to extraordinary tactics last used during the most significant global conflict of the 20th century — yet another sign that the U.S. and its allies in Europe believe Russia’s invasion presents an existential threat to liberal order.

It’s also an indication that the Western world believes Ukraine can now win the fight against the Russian invaders. Congress recently approved nearly $14 billion of military and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, some of which has already been doled out. On Tuesday, the State Department announced an additional $100 million in funding for Javelin missiles and other materiel, bringing the total security assistance to $1.7 billion since Russia invaded on Feb. 24.

[NobodyHere]

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

No idea if this is really significant. It seems that US is already able to supply weapons pretty efficiently already. But if it does help, I'm all for it.

In the fight against Putin, Senate unanimously approves measure that once helped beat Hitler - POLITICO

I think it is great we are supporting Ukraine, so don't take this the wrong way. Isn't it amazing that the one thing this congress can do on a bipartisan basis is shell out unlimited money to defense contractors?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

... the one thing ... congress can do ... is shell out unlimited money ...

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

[Dawgfan19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Europe will have to choose between shutting down its power grid on colder, non-windy days and refusing Russian oil. Not a great position to be in, but there still aren't signs that western leaders are willing to abandon their policies of having Russia and China produce most of the world's reliable energy.

No arguments from me. But could someone please explain why the Keystone XL Pipeline was shutdown? World power stems not only from military strength but also monetary (follow the money as they say!!!) and probably more importantly energy. But the green new deal bigots seem to ignore that little detail.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Dawgfan19

But the green new deal bigots seem to ignore that little detail.

I do not think this word means what you think it means

[Dawgfan19]

Also, before I am attacked, no one objects to a cleaner environment. But that needs to progress in a logical and valid economic fashion. And that definitely is not occurring in the USA.

Regardless, I am waiting the left-wing lunatics attack.

[Dawgfan19]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I do not think this word means what you think it means

Regardless, that does not explain why our current administration caved on energy issues.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Dawgfan19

But could someone please explain why the Keystone XL Pipeline was shutdown? World power stems not only from military strength but also monetary (follow the money as they say!!!) and probably more importantly energy. But the green new deal bigots seem to ignore that little detail.

Keystone XL would not have made us more energy-independent. Aside from the environmental and safety issues, the oil produced would mostly have been exported. Reports commissioned by both the Obama and Trump administrations concluded US gas prices would not have been reduced by it.

One of the reasons is that, even leaving Keystone XL aside, oil exports from the US have been increasing for decades. Limited refining capacity is a primary reason. Another is variations and fluctuations in what different types of productions different types of oil are used for.

The only logical economic fashion to proceed is, and has been for decades, drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption because the cost of not doing that is far higher than the cost of doing it. Every year that passes without a concerted global effort makes the situation that much worse, as we continue to devastate the world that future generations will live in for the sake of our own present convenience.

[GrantDawg]

Brian is such a radical liberal.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dawgfan19

No arguments from me. But could someone please explain why the Keystone XL Pipeline was shutdown? World power stems not only from military strength but also monetary (follow the money as they say!!!) and probably more importantly energy. But the green new deal bigots seem to ignore that little detail.

It was probably shutdown because there wasn't much benefit for us to allow free passage of Canadian oil to the gulf coast to be shipped out to foreign countries.

As Brian pointed out, we can't do anything with that kind of oil here. What is in it for us?

[flere-imsaho]

Keystone was addressed on pages 1 & 2 of this thread, but I'm certainly not going to stop folks who need to make a point about clean energy bigots. Everyone needs a release, I guess.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dawgfan19

But that needs to progress in a logical and valid economic fashion.

Well, let's hear the details. I'm sure I speak for all of us that we'd welcome a thoughtful argument around energy dependence with facts and details, as opposed to another post stoking the fires of a culture war.

Regardless, I am waiting the left-wing lunatics attack.

Ah, I guess not.

[RainMaker]

And if the goal is having more energy, why would you be opposed to the green new deal which mostly makes us energy independent? Almost like energy independence isn't what dawgfan really wants here.

[Dawgfan19]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Keystone XL would not have made us more energy-independent. Aside from the environmental and safety issues, the oil produced would mostly have been exported. Reports commissioned by both the Obama and Trump administrations concluded US gas prices would not have been reduced by it.

One of the reasons is that, even leaving Keystone XL aside, oil exports from the US have been increasing for decades. Limited refining capacity is a primary reason. Another is variations and fluctuations in what different types of productions different types of oil are used for.

The only logical economic fashion to proceed is, and has been for decades, drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption because the cost of not doing that is far higher than the cost of doing it. Every year that passes without a concerted global effort makes the situation that much worse, as we continue to devastate the world that future generations will live in for the sake of our own present convenience.

You are close, but a couple of points require clarification. As I am sure you aware (being someone who is obviously knowledgeable about the topic), KXL actually does not produce more oil, but facilitates the distribution of oil. And I know the KXL would amount to only a very small percentage of the daily world consumption. However, the issue at hand is that of perception. Showing weakness with energy policies only emboldens thugs like Putin who has lots of oil. This certainly would have been a better “plan” than releasing 1M barrels from petroleum strategic reserve (daily).

The notion that KXL increases the USA carbon footprint is debatable. We all know Keystone was shutdown to score political points. I’m sure if you took a poll here, no one would object to transitioning to clean energy. But that needs to occur with a strategic plan. To do otherwise causes problems in the free market enterprise system and causes potential geopolitical issues.

[RainMaker]

So it's not about energy independence. It's about showing strength. And the way to show strength is to allow a bunch of Canadian oil to pass through our country so that it can be shipped off to India and China.

And to avoid causing problems with the free market enterprise, we need the United States government to seize land from private American citizens at the behest of a Canadian energy company.

[Solecismic]

Why is Keystone XL important? A better way to get Canadian oil to US refineries. Current methods of supplying the refineries are less reliable and less efficient. Without Keystone XL, the crude ends up mostly shipped to China.

If we export refined oil to Europe instead, as well as using it ourselves, there's less need to import from Russia. We don't import a lot from Russia, but the EU is completely dependent. Ideally, we should be encouraging EU countries to start producing again.

Renewable alternatives: Simply not feasible at this point or at any point in the near future.

With solar and wind, you need a backup capacity almost equal to the entire peak need for energy. States, like New York, which are mandating elimination of fossil fuels, have plans in place where as early as 2030, they will require technology that hasn't even been invented at this point (in the New York plans, they have some abbreviation, I forget what, that's just a generic battery-like device, only really big). If magic doesn't happen and this becomes an actual buildable device in just eight years, New York's grid goes down (or they connect to another supply). It's not a matter of money, it's technology.

I think we can agree that it is better to use renewable energy regardless of whether you're merely concerned or whether you're panicked about CO2 in the atmosphere. However, current technology means what we're doing when we take coal and natural gas and oil sources offline is basically outsourcing those functions to Russia and China.

And in Russia's case, this is financing the attack on Ukraine. All the sanctions so far, and, yes, this includes the startling inclusion of Putin's own daughters, amount to a tiny, tiny fraction of the billion Euros every day that European countries pay Russia for fuel. Every bomb that falls on the citizens of Mariupol or Kharkiv might as well have Angela Merkel's or Olaf Scholz's name on it, next to Putin's.

Renewable energy, so far, means you have to import a lot of fossil fuel energy. That's not going to change in the next few decades. The cost estimates for wind farms are staggering, and they don't solve the problem and anyone who says the energy is cheaper is including the massive subsidies involved or the fossil fuels required to build them, as well as the need for backup. Plus no one has figured out how to recycle or maintain turbines. It's basically throwing money away and destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of landscape.

We talk about greens and left wings - I hate labels - but wind power has to be the least environmentally conscious invention since that tank that was repurposed as an SUV in the '90s and suddenly appeared all over the roads. It's expensive, it ruins the environment, the noise makes many people extremely sick, it doesn't last very long, it's impossible to maintain or recycle, it uses large quantities of hard-to-mine metals and you need, with current battery technology, fossil fuel backup for at least 90% of its capacity. The only people who benefit from wind power are the billionaires who own the companies that slap these eyesores together with all our tax money.

If we want to transition properly, and we should, we need to take our time. More research for truly green technologies and keep the current renewables for smaller projects that benefit from being off the grid.

[BishopMVP]

I preferred the original Dawgfan.

[Dawgfan19]

Jim said it much better than I could ever hope to (or have the time to post).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Why is Keystone XL important? A better way to get Canadian oil to US refineries. Current methods of supplying the refineries are less reliable and less efficient. Without Keystone XL, the crude ends up mostly shipped to China.

The whole point of Keystone XL is to move the sour crude that no one here wants and get it to more lucrative markets in China and India. The Gulf allows them to send it through the Panama Canal. There are far more efficient ways for Canada to send oil to Europe. They have an entire coast filled with major ports. It's always been designed as a pipeline to send Canadian oil to Asia.

Also worth noting that this is happening already. Tons of oil goes through the gulf. It's just coming via rail instead of this pipeline. So we know precisely where it is going to end up.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If we export refined oil to Europe instead, as well as using it ourselves, there's less need to import from Russia. We don't import a lot from Russia, but the EU is completely dependent. Ideally, we should be encouraging EU countries to start producing again.

Who is we? The pipeline is for a private Canadian energy company. We have no say in where that oil goes.

[Dawgfan19]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, let's hear the details. I'm sure I speak for all of us that we'd welcome a thoughtful argument around energy dependence with facts and details, as opposed to another post stoking the fires of a culture war.



Ah, I guess not.

Thank you continuing the debate on topic and on point. Sure, I will be happy to forward a 7-point program to unwind the world’s century-plus dependency on fossil fuels. The report will be on your desk first thing in the morning. I’m sure you will agree this is a tall order. Ah, well, perhaps after your last post, you may not agree!!! How ridiculous.

I do know the following:

1. Releasing oil from the reserve is not a plan.

2. Issuing executive orders and government mandates is not a plan.

3. And this initiative was not a plan. How did y’all like your tax dollars at work at Solyndra?

Solyndra - Wikipedia


I also know this is off topic, but given others have taken this liberty, raise your hand if you recall this hot mic clip.

Obama tells Medvedev he will have "more flexibility" after election - YouTube


But as opposed to continuing down the renewable energy rabbit hole, we may be best served getting back on topic. That being poor policy decisions, energy or in other areas, often leads to bad results.

I should have trusted my instincts to not post anything. I plan to quietly bow out and have rational discussions (with both those on the left and right) elsewhere. Because most of this group does not fit that criteria.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dawgfan19

I should have trusted my instincts to not post anything. I plan to quietly bow out and have rational discussions (with both those on the left and right) elsewhere. Because most of this group does not fit that criteria.

Post a bunch of dumb shit you know nothing about and then cry when you get shown you don't know what you're talking about.

[Edward64]

I guess this is a good step. It sends a message and its the right thing to do, but does it really adversely impact Russia that much?

It's obvious the economic sanctions & measures taken so far really hasn't worked (or worked as quickly has hoped). With reports of Russian abandoning Kyiv but reinforcing their positions in the east, there is now blurbs on a long drawn out war/stalemate.

Hoping Ukraine can take the offensive with more allied weapons but thinking it'll be more of a long drawn out world chess championship 14 games and we are like in the 2 or 3 game.

U.S. Senate votes 100-0 to end Russia trade status, enact oil ban - MarketWatch

The U.S. Senate voted unanimously Thursday to suspend normal trade relations with Russia and ban the importation of its oil, ratcheting up the U.S. response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine amid reports of atrocities.

Lawmakers overwhelmingly support the substance of the two bills, but they had languished for weeks in the Senate as lawmakers worked to hammer out the final details. Both bills are expected to gain the House’s support later Thursday before going to President Joe Biden to be signed into law.

Each bill passed the Senate unanimously, 100-0.

Biden has already taken executive action to ban Russian oil, liquefied natural gas and coal to the United States. The legislation puts the effort into law.

[RainMaker]

I am more shocked that something passed 100-0 in the Senate. Don't think I've ever seen that.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Keystone XL would not have made us more energy-independent. Aside from the environmental and safety issues, the oil produced would mostly have been exported. Reports commissioned by both the Obama and Trump administrations concluded US gas prices would not have been reduced by it.

Do you by chance have a link to those reports?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dawgfan19

And I know the KXL would amount to only a very small percentage of the daily world consumption. However, the issue at hand is that of perception.

If it's about perception, then what about the thousands of drilling leases granted to companies that lie dormant? Maybe the Biden Administration should tell them "use it or lose it, we need energy dependence and if you won't use these leases we'll give them to someone else"?

The problem here is not the "clean energy bigots".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

States, like New York, which are mandating elimination of fossil fuels, have plans in place where as early as 2030, they will require technology that hasn't even been invented at this point

That's simply not true. The technology exists, it simply hasn't been scaled yet. It's a challenge, yes, but it's not the same challenging as inventing something whole cloth.

If magic doesn't happen

We talk about greens and left wings - I hate labels

Your recent posts seem to indicate otherwise.

but wind power has to be the least environmentally conscious invention since that tank that was repurposed as an SUV in the '90s and suddenly appeared all over the roads. It's expensive, it ruins the environment, the noise makes many people extremely sick, it doesn't last very long, it's impossible to maintain or recycle, it uses large quantities of hard-to-mine metals and you need, with current battery technology, fossil fuel backup for at least 90% of its capacity. The only people who benefit from wind power are the billionaires who own the companies that slap these eyesores together with all our tax money.

This makes for some pretty unhinged reading. It's hard to read this and feel it's coming from an objective viewpoint.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I am more shocked that something passed 100-0 in the Senate. Don't think I've ever seen that.

That was my reaction, as well.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Post a bunch of dumb shit you know nothing about and then cry when you get shown you don't know what you're talking about.

[Edward64]

I view renewable energy as including electric vehicles.

The transportation sector is the biggest user of oil. I see the EV as significantly helping reduce our reliance on oil (foreign & domestic). They are still in the 1Q but think it'll take another 10-15 years for consumer EVs to dominate. A little longer for trucking.

We just need to "buy" time for now until we get there. The other potential problem is are we trading oil for rare earth elements needed for the batteries but reports I've been reading indicates its doable.

[Austin90]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It sounds like the Russians are executing civilians as they retreat. Some horrific photos on Telegram. Seems mainly to target male adults, but there are photos of women and children too.

Scores of civilians executed by the Russian military.
Russia literally unfolded a killing spree in its occupied territories in Ukraine.
The year is 2022. pic.twitter.com/Y8zTGSJwfr

— Illia Ponomarenko ���� (@IAPonomarenko) April 2, 2022

This really is just sickening. We as a species have failed one another

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Do you by chance have a link to those reports?

I do not. Wouldn't be hard to look up for someone particularly interested in them most likely.

Originally Posted by Dawgfan19

, the issue at hand is that of perception. Showing weakness with energy policies only emboldens thugs like Putin who has lots of oil. This certainly would have been a better “plan” than releasing 1M barrels from petroleum strategic reserve (daily).

I don't think it shows weakness to not engage in manifestly wrong-headed policy. I would argue it shows more weakness to do something unwise just to look like we are doing something.

What I favor, for example, is building nuclear power plants as fast as possible. This is not a permanent solution, it's a stopgap until fusion - which we're creeping towards and investing more and more in, but there are still questions about viability and it's not going to be ready for a while anyway - or some other better alternative is presented. The waste is a real issue - we should be spending as much money as necessary to deal with it, and we basically stopped doing so because of the expense so it's just piling up. Nuclear also scares people, but the problem is it scares them far more than the facts warrant while the consequences of continuously burning more fossil fuels don't scare us enough.

Most of the opposition to nuclear power I would put in the category of 'liberal hysteria'. But I bring this up as an example of a way to approach the energy issue. Of course as I've said before the long-term is going to have to involve a global government and unification of humanity. We have the power to affect the world globally, which means we need global solutions and a governmental structure that reflects that.

Originally Posted by Dawgfan19

The notion that KXL increases the USA carbon footprint is debatable. We all know Keystone was shutdown to score political points.

I don't think it's particularly debatable at all. I mean all subjects are debatable, but there's a clear body of evidence on one side here. I think it's pretty evident Keystone was also revived to score political points as well, but I'm more interested in assessing what we should do than criticizing people for unknowable motivations as to why they advocate one policy or another.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Why is Keystone XL important? A better way to get Canadian oil to US refineries. Current methods of supplying the refineries are less reliable and less efficient. Without Keystone XL, the crude ends up mostly shipped to China.

Would you care to address the refining capacity point? Since we wouldn't be refining it here anyway, this seems to be saying that 'Keystone XL is important to pretend to do something we actually aren't at all going to do'.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If we want to transition properly, and we should, we need to take our time. More research for truly green technologies and keep the current renewables for smaller projects that benefit from being off the grid.

This hasn't been a viable option for at least 30 years, possibly longer. The environmental damage is simply too great. We have to go faster, whatever is required to do that.

I partially agree with you on the current renewables, but I think you overstate the problems with them. Wind, solar, etc. are useful as partial solutions, but they definitely have problems and can't be relied on entirely which is why I advocate nuclear which can do those things. We can get largely off of coal and natural gas if we're willing to make the necessary investment, which means that not doing so is an absolutely abysmal abdication of responsibility.

We do need to keep improving technology, and aggressively implement it as improvements become available. But we are way, way past the point where it's reasonable to just wait for that. We need to be using every possible alternative *now* to limit the damage to the environment future generations will live in.