Ukraine and Russia: Answering common questions and issues

[WhatsGoingOn2022]

Hi, I am starting this thread due to the amount of misinformation and speculation I have seen on the boards around what is happening with Russia's war on Ukraine.

While I am by no means a leading specialist, I have a master's degree focusing on the defence and economics aspect of international relations, I work today in politics and have a lot of links in the area. Anything I can't answer I can at least point you to the people who can-- I naturally follow this incredibly closely.

I thought it might be helpful if myself and others with specific knowledge in this area could help to answer any questions you have, on anything from the war, to sanctions, to Russia's actions, to the fallout.

Thank you OP. I am immensely grateful for this thread to you, and @Aristalese. I have also been interested to read others’ views. I am sure I am one of thousands reading this here.

[quote letmesleep123]@whatsgoingon2022

I won't attempt to dig out my original post, but I believe I said smth along the lines of " he's been rumored to have left Kyiv". Not sure what you expected me to provide in support of these rumors. GPS coordinates? I don't have direct access to Zelensky, just like you don't have access to Putin. Yet, it does not stop you from speculating what his thoughts and motifs are.

Anyway, this tone of conversation is not enjoyable for either party or the readers. I am not a professional politician and never posted from the angle of "let me tell you the truth on what's going on".

There are better ways of disagreeing than accusing someone of deliberate Kremlin propaganda.

For what it's worth, I do believe your intentions are to educate, and i admire you for how passionate you are about your views. I don't agree with you dismissing any other view that doesn't match yours though. And neither do I agree that highlighting issues within Ukraine automatically equates to being pro Kremlin.

At this point I will excuse myself. Coming to a forum like this, for many, is an attempt to find a platform when they are not feeling heard in real life. It is not meant to make you lose sleep.[/quote]
Letmesleep123 said:

"Not sure what you expected me to provide in support of these rumors. GPS coordinates? I don't have direct access to Zelensky, just like you don't have access to Putin. Yet, it does not stop you from speculating what his thoughts and motifs are."

With all due respect, a rule of debate is that the ability to present evidence is crucial to the furtherance of debate.

Anyone can make claims or repeat unverified rumours, but does it add anything to a debate?

The answer is no.

“How can you prove it, Artemon? Because you asserted it without cause, therefore also it may be denied without cause.”

That's the principle of the logical razor.

Moscow controls Sputnik News and they have spread the rumour Zelensky fled Ukraine for Poland. A Russian politician has also spread the rumour in the Duma, so this is very much a Russian originated rumours for Russian propaganda purposes aimed at undermining the current Ukrainian Government.

A Ukrainian Opposition politician, Ilay Riva has also been spreading Kremlin originated rumours about Zelensky's whereabouts.

In response, Zelensky released video of himself in his office in Kyiv.

Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Irina Venediktova asserts a file has been sent to the Ukrainian Court with a view to prosecution of Ilay Riv.

Riva stands accused of "'inviting' the Russian aggressors our house, you did everything to change the borders of our state, you did everything to make sure millions of people spend the night in bomb shelters....I listed the facts. I have every right to do so as the Ukrainian prosecutor. As Attorney General, I exercise my right to transfer you to the status of suspect."

In other words, Ilay Riva is accused of conspiring with Putin's Russia to destabilise and sabotage the Ukrainian State and, therefore, the Ukrainian people.

It'll come as no surprise to anyone that Ilay Riva:

1. is a long time Zelensky critic.

2. left Ukraine in January 2022 almost a month BEFORE Russia invaded.

3. demands Ukraine doesn't join NATO.

In short, Ilay Riva has very much the SAME political view as.....Putin's Russia. Ergo, Riva is spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda.

It's perfectly reasonable and logical to demonstrate how certain rumours originated within Putin's Russia and to highlight how its Russian State propaganda via Sputnik and RT.

Thus, the rumours is legitimately severely undermined.

It's better for anyone to not repeat rumours in debates. One cannot expect no-one to not point out that rumour is pro-Russian.

One more thing - there is more than enough evidence for us to assert what Putin's views are given his many public statements, including his 2021 essay on the issue. A lot of it can be seen through Russian State controlled Sputnik and RT.

That's called supporting evidence.

Unfortunately, you have nothing in support of what you assert.

@letmesleep123

I stayed away for a couple of days because posts on this thread were really getting to me. I saw my name mentioned or implied a few dozen times, questioning my motifs and accusing me of spreading Russian propaganda...

All I can say to this is that it's a great shame that it feels like you cannot voice your opinion without getting attacked. I posted links to various sources. My view is my view and I won't apologise for it, just like the OP and a few other posters freely post their interpretation of current and past events.

Our world views are based on where we grew up and what is surrounding us. Some of us believe that $5bln given to Ukraine through unofficial US funds has no influence on Ukraine's political views and some will see it as an attempt to manipulate.

Some will continue to highlight the cruelty of the Russian army, completely ignoring Azov's atrocities and will downplay the influence it has across Ukraine.

Some will only want to view Putin as mad / ill / power hungry and that is entirely their right. To me, Zelensky is a US puppet, and so is a huge proportion of the Ukrainian government, funded by the $5bln above. They wouldn't dare go against the grain (what happened to one of the Ukrainian negotiators who was shot by the Ukrainian National Guards after returning from the Ukraine/Russia negotiations?).

My view is heavily influenced by growing up and having family in the East of Ukraine, where 75% of the population is Russian speaking, and the genocide we suffered in the last 8 years. For 8 years Ukraine has violently oppressed 3mln of its citizens, so forgive me if I struggle to paint Ukraine as heroes.

I struggle to paint Russia as heroes too. Any country leader that makes a choice to sacrifice lives of civilians and soldiers deserves to go down for war crimes. And in this I include Putin, Zelensky and a long list of politicians from around the world.

I am a strong believer that ultimately any conflict is a failure of diplomacy on both sides. In this case, more than two sides.

I hope Ukraine finds peace soon and whoever leads it through the next few years, protects the interests of the citizens in the West and East of the country in equal measures.

Letmesleep123 said:

All I can say to this is that it's a great shame that it feels like you cannot voice your opinion without getting attacked. I posted links to various sources.

On the contrary, you distorted what the link on NATO actually says about Ukrainian membership of the alliance.

You also, unfortunately, linked to a YouTube video upload where the uploader claimed US Assistant Secretary at the time Victoria Nuland "admitted US subversion in Ukraine". That was also a distortion of the actual available information as Nuland was NOT admitting anything like that.

The two above examples were challenged robustly and supporting evidence was provided against those specific assertions made by yourself.

There is nothing wrong with robust debate, especially one where evidence can be used to highlight disinformation.

An interesting article from Sky News explaining three options Putin has for ending the war in Ukraine.

news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-putin-pursuing-anaconda-plan-with-force-what-are-his-options-for-ending-the-conflict-12560079

Note: to the best of my knowledge Sky News is not a pro Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece but again I am happy to be corrected on this.

My own analysis of the three options and the impact upon NATO is as follows:

1. Negotiate a peace - given progress to date this doesn't seem likely. To ask Ukraine to cede territory after it has been invaded in my opinion is a non starter.
2. Continue the existing military campaign- the current campaign is really not going as well as the Russians has expected, at best for the Russian s is a drawn out conflict. The longer the conflict goes on the greater the risk of accidental or non intentional involvement by NATO.
3. Escalation- in my opinion this is where Putin will go. Any use of chemical weapons in Ukraine would result in tremendous pressure in the West (especially with the media and social media) for NATO to become intentionally involved in a conflict with Russia. This in turn raises the risk of tactical nukes being used.

To dismiss the risk of NATO becoming involved because "well they said they don't want to", ignores how unpredictable wars spread and is naive and reckless at best and down right lethal at worst.

Tbh zelensky need's to stay alive, who cares where he is now? It would be devestating to Ukraine if they lost him. It would be crush morale.
I hope he is doing absolutely all he can to stay alive and remain the beacon of democracy.

Mark rutte has said it will take time to wean off Russian gas.

What if Russia cuts them off?
I know it would be an act of Russian self Sabotage but if they cut the EU off, where would Germany get petrol from?

.

@Tigersonvaseline

Mark rutte has said it will take time to wean off Russian gas.

What if Russia cuts them off?
I know it would be an act of Russian self Sabotage but if they cut the EU off, where would Germany get petrol from?

I presume you mean where will Germany (or for that matter Europe and the UK because the gas networks and markets are interconnected ) get their natural gas from?

The answer is in part they won't (some industries will have to shut down) and in part from some very very expensive LNG from around the world.

To put this into context the current energy price cap is roughly £1250, this will rise to £2k in April, in October a further rise to £3k and based on the market prices seen recently of £8 therm (it was around 50 p a therm three years ago) the price cap Ned to be around £5 to £6k.

Thank you @DownNative for 2 excellent fact checking posts just above.

I would urge anyone reading this thread: if you are interested in alternative 'angles' Russian propaganda is not it. Not only is the propaganda untrue but it is intentionally so.

This will remain a space kept free of pro-Putin lies, which are circulated to cause confusion and doubt.

@Tigersonvaseline

Mark rutte has said it will take time to wean off Russian gas.

What if Russia cuts them off?
I know it would be an act of Russian self Sabotage but if they cut the EU off, where would Germany get petrol from?

Russia is threatening it. For most countries it would be hard but replaceable at great cost. For Germany, to put it the technical way, they would be screwed.

Why? Due to an intentional policy for decades of becoming more and more reliant on Russian energy. This is why many commentators have said Angela Merkel's legacy is now going swiftly down the drain. They have built an economy, defence and foreign policy on the ignorant belief that Russia are a part of the benign world order.

For that reason I tend not to have huge sympathy for the choices the German government face. Although of course it is not fare for the population themselves. But this was a choice the country made.

Basically it was a German foreign and defence policy that says there are no foreign and defence policy, there is only trade.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/merkels-legacy-is-in-ruins-and-a-good-thing-too-g605xzjrr

Regarding the demands of Russia/Putin on the following:
“recognising the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states”?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic

What precisely is Putin asking for here? Is he asking for those states to be part of Russia vs proper recognised countries with recognised neutrality? The trouble seems to be that he is asking for them to be in Russia’s sphere of influence with a puppet government which essentially continues to threaten the remaining part of Ukraine’s borders especially immediate neighbouring states?

Even if the remainder of Ukraine were to have the option of joining NATO and or EU in the future, would both organisations not require those two states in immediate vicinity to either be fully Russian territory or stable, recognised countries, ideally neutral, whatever that really means?

And what do those regions actually want? What about Crimea? Can these regions even be countries of their own?
Apologies in advance for my ignorance…

@Tigersonvaseline

Tbh zelensky need's to stay alive, who cares where he is now? It would be devestating to Ukraine if they lost him. It would be crush morale. I hope he is doing absolutely all he can to stay alive and remain the beacon of democracy.

Hi, on this one it actually is very important: because Kremlin propaganda tries to deligitimise him as a president and leader by claiming he is in hiding. If he was in hiding in west Ukraine (as someone upthread claimed, repeating the Kremlin) then he would have admitted defeat over East Ukraine and would be acting essentially as a Putin-like leader, or like the leader of Belarus.

Zelensky has a 90% approval rating amongst the public in Ukraine. It is thoroughly predictable that these lies will continue because it is in the interest of the Kremlin to have people see Zelensky's actions as somehow comparable to Putin. They want to make a democratically elected president dirtier, make him look like some kind of out of touch authoritarian leader.

And it's absolutely and provably false. Putin made these claims so Zelensky and his men took to Twitter with video to show otherwise. Because these Kremlin lies cannot stand. This is not a case of there being two sides, oh let's hear what they have to say: they know it is untrue. They know it is a bare faced lie. BUT THEY STILL REPEAT IT.

[quote letmesleep123]@whatsgoingon2022

I won't attempt to dig out my original post, but I believe I said smth along the lines of " he's been rumored to have left Kyiv". Not sure what you expected me to provide in support of these rumors. GPS coordinates? I don't have direct access to Zelensky, just like you don't have access to Putin. Yet, it does not stop you from speculating what his thoughts and motifs are.

Anyway, this tone of conversation is not enjoyable for either party or the readers. I am not a professional politician and never posted from the angle of "let me tell you the truth on what's going on".

There are better ways of disagreeing than accusing someone of deliberate Kremlin propaganda.

For what it's worth, I do believe your intentions are to educate, and i admire you for how passionate you are about your views. I don't agree with you dismissing any other view that doesn't match yours though. And neither do I agree that highlighting issues within Ukraine automatically equates to being pro Kremlin.

At this point I will excuse myself. Coming to a forum like this, for many, is an attempt to find a platform when they are not feeling heard in real life. It is not meant to make you lose sleep.[/quote]
Hi, Downnative has kindly responded to this with some fact checking.

As I have repeatedly said to you, providing the viewpoint of Russian-aligned Ukrainians is entirely valid.

HOWEVER when you spout things that you know to be untrue, they will be called out. I'm sorry if that upsets you but I'm not allowing pro-Kremlin misinformation to go unchallenged.

Just seen this thread on the possibility of a compromise from a German foreign policy analyst, which I will throw in there:

twitter.com/ulrichspeck/status/1500936066148319233

"Many people are thinking about potential compromises leading to peace in Ukraine. Yet to understand what's at stake for Putin one must keep in mind that this war didn't start in 2022, it started in 2014. For Putin, destroying Ukraine's independence has become an obsession.

If it were just about Ukraine's status, a compromise would be at least thinkable. If Russia would feel threatened by Ukraine, there could be ways to deal with it.

Many people have picked up the arguments coming from the Kremlin, or think of Putin's war in terms of "realist" political logic. Yet this is misleading.

Putin has often said, and even written, that Ukraine is not a separate nation, and should not exist as a sovereign state. It is this fundamental denial that has led Putin to wage this totally senseless war that he cannot win.

And that leads us to the problem of making peace: either Ukraine has the right to exist as a nation and a sovereign state, or it hasn't. Sovereignty is indivisible. Putin denies it, Ukraine defends it.

How can you make a compromise about the existence of Ukraine as a sovereign state? Impossible. That's why both sides can only fight on until they win.

Normally wars take place between states are about conflicts they have between them. Yet this is a war about the existence of one state, which is denied by the aggressor. That's why the usual concepts of peacemaking finding a compromise do not a apply.

If Ukraine continues to exist as a sovereign state, Putin will have lost. He is not interested in territorial gain as such -- it's rather a burden for him. He is only interested in controlling the entire country. Everything else for him is defeat.

In 2015, Putin has taken territory only as an instrument to further advance his claim to control the country, in the context of Minsk II. It was just his territorial base inside Ukraine, a tool to move ahead with his goal which remained unchanged.''

The here is the alleged table of Russias's losses to date, as always it is a combination of verified through video and reports:

twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1501108672717545475

This may seem stupid, but while I can logically understand that some people don’t want to be Ukrainian, it’s difficult at this point to understand why anyone with access to international news/experiencing the fall out from the conflict would want to be controlled by Putin.

It feels as though he has given up on ‘soft’ power.

Fabulously informative thread, particular thanks to @WhatsGoingOn2022 @Aristalese @DownNative - I'm coming here daily for your insights.

Question: wouldn't cutting off gas to Europe cause Russia more harm than good? As noted below it would accelerate their economic collapse and Europe appears to have enough stockpiles to get through what little is left of winter and into Spring.

Source for this: interview with Vijay Vaitheeswaran, global energy and climate innovation editor at The Economist, link below, interesting read actually:

www.marketplace.org/2022/03/04/what-would-europe-do-if-russia-cuts-off-natural-gas/

He admits next winter would be a problem but what are the chances of Putin and Russia continuing this war until then, with their major source of international currency cut off?

Would you agree Europe should call Putin's bluff (again) and shut off supplies? Assuming Germany can be brought to agree, of course.

Re the gas/ petrol issue I was thinking more logistics and urgency if we do get dragged into war, how will they run their army or NATO?

I agree about Merkel. She should have known better.

@Merrymouse

This may seem stupid, but while I can logically understand that some people don’t want to be Ukrainian, it’s difficult at this point to understand why anyone with access to international news/experiencing the fall out from the conflict would want to be controlled by Putin.

It feels as though he has given up on ‘soft’ power.

On this one: I can't even begin to pretend that I understand 'the other side' on this one. I think it's mix of the billions Russia spends on pumping their propaganda overseas (seriously, in many poorer countries its one of the main sources of news, and specifically targeted to tap into anti-US sentiment), combined with voluntary ignorance about what conditions in Russia are really like, or how Putin behaves overseas.

There is not a whole lot online in terms of commentary on how Russia does this overseas, despite them running their channels worldwide. I would love to see a study of it.

On a personal level, while I can understand rationally the combination of propaganda and ignorance, I can't pretend to actually understand. But if you look at history, Brits defected to Hitler, Brits left to join ISIS.

There is also a subset in British commentary (mainly on the right) who make a living on taking the 'contrarion' position. I don't believe many of them even actually believe what they say. They're the kind of people who come up with bizarre covid conspiracies because it gives them an ego boost. I saw something great on this recently, will have to dig out the source. These are about the only pro-Kremlin commentators you'll find in Britain at the moment.

Then there is a grouping on the left who see the world as US/UK=bad so every other dictator who murders en masse is fine. Again I can't even pretend to understand this. The most prominent example in the UK are Stop the War (ie Corbyn and Abbott). I've also seen some of this within the more extreme IRA elements the last few weeks (note: I know it seems weird to say it like that but the IRA does a range here, and the ones at the furthest extreme are pro-Kremlin). If you look at which European Parliament votes supported Russia in the last two weeks, you can see a list of these parties across Europe. I sincerely hope they are not re-elected and the people who vote for them have had their eyes opened. Many just offer simplistic economic messages and anti-US sentiment, I don't believe their voter base always truly understands their stance.

If you look at which European Parliament votes supported Russia in the last two weeks, you can see a list of these parties across Europe

This is true, including for example the views of Orban's Hungary.

@WhatsGoingOn2022 What would you say about today's press reports that the US is trying to convince Poland to provide the MIG planes (formerly Russian) to Ukraine to assist and promising to replace them with American fighter jets? And then we have Ben Wallace on morning TV coming out to say that's Poland's decision...but of course the UK will stand by a fellow NATO member?

This is where my eye brows start to raise, although I'm not entirely surprised. This smacks of the willingness to put Poland at the forefront of it and take the blame for getting involved if hits the fan on a global scale. It then leaves the door ajar for other NATO countries to sit back instead of supporting. I actually find this rather disingenuous. To be clear, there is no appetite in Polish society for war, we're focussed on helping the people and there really is a lot to do. It would be a travesty if we now did something that could be remotely considered an act of war and destroyed peace of our own and Ukrainian people we've welcomed. I am not in support of this type pressure, but it doesn't surprise me.

@lifesnotaspectatorsport

Fabulously informative thread, particular thanks to *@WhatsGoingOn2022* *@Aristalese* *@DownNative* - I'm coming here daily for your insights.

Question: wouldn't cutting off gas to Europe cause Russia more harm than good? As noted below it would accelerate their economic collapse and Europe appears to have enough stockpiles to get through what little is left of winter and into Spring.

Source for this: interview with Vijay Vaitheeswaran, global energy and climate innovation editor at The Economist, link below, interesting read actually:

www.marketplace.org/2022/03/04/what-would-europe-do-if-russia-cuts-off-natural-gas/

He admits next winter would be a problem but what are the chances of Putin and Russia continuing this war until then, with their major source of international currency cut off?

Would you agree Europe should call Putin's bluff (again) and shut off supplies? Assuming Germany can be brought to agree, of course.

This is one where I'm going to be open in saying that what I am stating now is my OPINION. And it might be controversial.

But, 100%. If I had any say on this I would be urging Europe to cut off the supply. Since this war started, as a security measure any competent government would be running these scenarios and getting in place the best solutions for this. We are sanctioning Russia each day while giving it some £700mn for their energy.

Both in terms of ensuring continuity of supply, in terms of deciding which areas/industries may have to temporarily close, and in terms of putting in place robust protections to stop companies going bust and keep prices affordable for consumers. I cannot pretend to have seen any modelling at all of how this would look. It would be the economic nuclear button, for Germany in particular.

One of the biggest points for doing this sooner rather than later: there is a serious risk of Russia doing this to us when it gets to winter. Which would see civilian deaths in the west, due to lack of heating. So we have our own deadline looming, we need to know we have energy security by then.

On the Germany point: while I have a lot of sympathy for individual citizens I have very little for their government at this point. It was a conscious and stupid policy, it was not like Merkel was unaware of Putin's actions. They will be by far the hardest hit but there is overwhelming support for the government's new hard stance on Russia (link below).

For Germany this obviously drags up a lot of difficult issues, both from the recent past (Merkel's policy here) but also from WWII. I'll make a separate post about that because it is really important and has been a huge 'global, decades of movement' shift in just a week. But to put it at its briefest: German public opinion has shifted to support the notion that their way of acting after WW2 (ie non interventionist, non militarised) is not stopping evil, and that this time they need to intervene on the side of good. But that is a gross oversimplification, I'll look at it in more detail.

www.dw.com/en/germans-approve-of-government-u-turn-on-ukraine/a-61011528

@Aristalese

If you look at which European Parliament votes supported Russia in the last two weeks, you can see a list of these parties across Europe

This is true, including for example the views of Orban's Hungary.

@WhatsGoingOn2022 What would you say about today's press reports that the US is trying to convince Poland to provide the MIG planes (formerly Russian) to Ukraine to assist and promising to replace them with American fighter jets? And then we have Ben Wallace on morning TV coming out to say that's Poland's decision...but of course the UK will stand by a fellow NATO member?

This is where my eye brows start to raise, although I'm not entirely surprised. This smacks of the willingness to put Poland at the forefront of it and take the blame for getting involved if hits the fan on a global scale. It then leaves the door ajar for other NATO countries to sit back instead of supporting. I actually find this rather disingenuous. To be clear, there is no appetite in Polish society for war, we're focussed on helping the people and there really is a lot to do. It would be a travesty if we now did something that could be remotely considered an act of war and destroyed peace of our own and Ukrainian people we've welcomed. I am not in support of this type pressure, but it doesn't surprise me.

Hey!

So I have been following this dispute on twitter for the last week. Basically, every day there are announcements that some combination of Poland, Slovakia and I think Bulgaria will supply fighter planes. Sometimes even that they are crossing the border. Then someone will correct this and say not happening. There are three issues here: logistics, escalation and leaving Poland defenceless.

The reason Poland is so intimately involved in this is because they use the same kind of planes that Ukraine has been trained to fight. In short, by my understanding it is countries in this area who have these planes, anything else would be useless for Ukraine as they would not know how to operate and take care of them. The thing about fighter jets is that they require whole teams of people, they are logistical nightmares.

They're basically the prima donnas of military equipment and sending anyone up in a fighter jet they're not trained in is suicide. So it's either (a) send in NATO pilots, which absolutely cannot and will not happen or (b) send Eastern European fighter jets, which are the same 'Russian' types Ukraine know how to use

So basically: Poland have planes that Ukraine would be able to use without requiring months of further training. And you can't send in a whole load of NATO instructors to Ukraine right now. HOWEVER Poland obviously does not want to be left without planes of their own.

Hence the idea of the formula:
Poland gives planes to Ukraine, Ukraine uses them in war. Meanwhile US delivers planes to Poland, and supports them to become rapidly accustomed to flying/maintaining them.

www.ft.com/content/2f1f0944-ceab-4042-93bd-63c2d863a75f

I have also seen in the last few days that the US is speeding up deliveries of tanks and other weaponry to Poland.

One of the big issues with arming Ukraine is ensuing they are given equipment they know how to use. Hence a lot of countries are sending older soviet models

@lifesnotaspectatorsport

Fabulously informative thread, particular thanks to *@WhatsGoingOn2022* *@Aristalese* *@DownNative* - I'm coming here daily for your insights.

Question: wouldn't cutting off gas to Europe cause Russia more harm than good? As noted below it would accelerate their economic collapse and Europe appears to have enough stockpiles to get through what little is left of winter and into Spring.

Source for this: interview with Vijay Vaitheeswaran, global energy and climate innovation editor at The Economist, link below, interesting read actually:

www.marketplace.org/2022/03/04/what-would-europe-do-if-russia-cuts-off-natural-gas/

He admits next winter would be a problem but what are the chances of Putin and Russia continuing this war until then, with their major source of international currency cut off?

Would you agree Europe should call Putin's bluff (again) and shut off supplies? Assuming Germany can be brought to agree, of course.

Sorry realise I missed out one part of this: wouldn't cutting off energy to Europe cause more harm than good for Russia?

Absolutely. Unless they had an agreement with China or India (and even then I don't think they could absorb this) it would absolutely destroy Russia's economy. It's basically economic brinksmanship. Except everyone behind Germany are just whispering 'go on, do it!'

I'm no expert in negotiation but I think Russia have been mad to threaten this, because now it will be seriously on the table. People will rightfully say, if Russia is going to do this anyway, why not disconnect ourselves when the timing is of our choosing?

PLUS: it drags further attention to this issue. There is a slim but real chance of someone taking a stand on this and taking it into their own hands. The international trade union movement are in many places already refusing to handle Russian energy products. This happening is a possibility, as is something more destructive.

Germany therefore cannot be naive to the fact that they NEED a plan B. Even if they are resisting taking it, they now need one.

I am on board with the MIG training (and they are popular in the region as they're former Soviet design, yes). But it still leaves me with discomfort in more ways than one as to the potential replacement and the interpretation of such a move.

What can other European countries and the US do to temporarily help Germany with gas? Is this realistic that they would share in some way?