MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions Of The Day (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 209, 210, 211 ... 299, 300, 301  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Given the various pressure points Russia holds over Ukraine generally, presumably the planners calculated the Ukrainians wouldn't dare/and or could be negotiated into not damning the river. (By the way, I would have thought that a fairly formidable operation in itself. Stopping up rivers permanently is not something I've heard about before. Anyone?)

Pretty sure Crimea is naturally arid (with the Dnieper entering the Black Sea further west) and water was supplied via a canal (built during the soviet era)... so easily cut off.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If Crimea could support its population via local water sources in the pre-Soviet era, it sounds like my entire thesis might need re-addressing. Thanks a bunch, Chad. And Aeroflot to you too.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am not sure Putin had actually prepared for serious resistance. His public relations is crude and backward looking, offering no future vision other than a deal with Vladimir. It is all now sounding a bit repetitive and desperate. It only goes to show you don't want to censor these guys.

“Once again I speak to the Ukrainian soldiers,” “Do not allow neo-Nazis and Banderites to use your children, your wives and the elderly as a human shield. Take power into your own hands. It seems that it will be easier for us to come to an agreement than with this gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis.”

I can't see any Ukrainian falling for this.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In a nutshell:

Before the 1960s, the large part of the peninsula stretching from the Isthmus of Perekop in the north to Simferopol in the south was completely unsuitable for agriculture. It was an arid steppe with salt marshes. The construction of the North Crimean Canal that brought Dnipro water to the peninsula transformed the land.

A steady water supply allowed to wash down the salt in the ground and saturate the soil with moisture. This process made the land suitable for agriculture allowing the local farmers to grow crops and vegetables on now fertile ground. The disruption of water supply in 2014 had an immediate effect on the agricultural sector. In 2013, the amount of irrigated land suitable for cultivation reached 130 000 hectares. In 2017, it shrunk down to 14 000 hectares

The area under cultivation is now back down to pre-soviet levels.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

An interesting article about the case Russia brought before the European Court of Human Rights:

https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-proceedings-flow-while-water-does-not-russias-claims-concerning-the-north-crimean-canal-in-strasbourg/
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Most valuable, Let me draw your attention to this

The closure of the Canal ... adversely affected the largest producer of titanium dioxide in Europe. At the same time, Russia relocated its military to the Peninsula, sharply increasing the need for water. “Crimea’s dependence on water supply via the North Crimean Canal can be eventually reduced or eliminated by searching for underground water sources, including manmade ones”. However, despite Russia’s attempts to find alternative water sources, the 2020 drought caused it to implement water rationing even in the cold season.

If we return to my 'gaming' notion, it would seem likely that military planners back in 2014 might have decided that the canal being cut off could have been coped with but experience showed it could not.

It needs hardly pointing out that only the Russians would, after breaking in and stealing a TV, have sued the householder for refusing to supply the remote. And only the ineffable 'world community' would rule that according to the Burgled Houses Treaty of 1927, the householder would have to do so.

Incidental humour was introduced by the Russians refusing to pay the water rates and the Ukrainians claiming that's why they cut the water off. Only in the USSR.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

One of the reasons why the Ukraine is so anxious not to be back in the USSR is this:

1. By the 1970's the USSR was dependent on wheat imports from the USA and Canada to meet its needs
2. By the 1980's it could no longer afford to do so
3. By the 1990's the USSR had collapsed and Ukraine had got its independence
4. By the 2020's a quarter of the world's wheat imports were being met by production from the Ukraine and Russia.

And just in case you didn't think this has something to with a command economy, one of the chief reasons why there was a perennial shortage of wheat in the USSR was that bread was so heavily subsidised everyone was buying it to feed the pig (one permitted per every rural household).
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I get that it is frustrating for the Russians to have water shortages in Crimea when there was a simple solution, if only the Ukranians would have allowed it, but the costs of Russia building a desalination plant or two, given their massive cheap energy reserves to power them, are surely not going to warrant the costs of an invasion? You are looking at paying for an occupying force to control a country that is the second largest in Europe, and for every boot on the ground you will need, what, 5 to 10 to support them.....They have already managed to run out of tank fuel on day 2.

I just can't see this being done for economic reasons. Mind you I can't see any logic at all, and that was at least a starting point.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Naturally I thought of this. Now answer this, feller-me-lad. Why haven't stupendously rich, energy awash, places like the Gulf, Australia and California been building salination plants like there's no tomorrow?

NB Russia does not have 'massive cheap energy reserves'. It has massive energy reserves that are worth $100 a barrel. It is a common error to suppose that because you own something it is cheap. You can spend a hundred dollars a barrel of your own money on salination of course. But that's not cheap at any price.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Because there are cheaper alternatives available?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'm sure the same is true for Crimea. It's just they haven't found it yet. Remember

The disruption of water supply in 2014 had an immediate effect on the agricultural sector. In 2013, the amount of irrigated land suitable for cultivation reached 130 000 hectares. In 2017, it shrunk down to 14 000 hectares
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Can't see it. Could easily feed the locals. It just means in this small part of Mother Russia you no longer have a massive agricultural surplus to export. It's the loss of a big surplus from a "small area" isn't it?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'm not talking about the agricultural surplus per se. Only demonstrating that Russia cannot seem to solve Crimean water problems. It may be of course that having a canal for fifty years meant that a) everybody became a water freak and b) all the other sources were allowed to atrophy. It never pays to underestimate Russia's genius for incompetence.

However, I concede that the cure seems out of kilter with the disease. Yet I am loathe to abandon the thesis quite yet. Maybe the operation started as a brief foray north out of Crimea to get possession of the canal but then some bod in the general staff worked out that that would require possession of the drainage divide and that would... You know, mission creep. I'm surprised you didn't think of that.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'm having problems with this 'snap referendum' in Belarus, allowing nukes to trundle in from Russia. First, there's the sheer logistics. Presumably Lukashenko (a Ukrainian name by the way) wouldn't have been asked for his soil to be soiled before about Wednesday or Thursday. How do you conduct a referendum by Saturday/Sunday? I can't get any details about how it was done though Reuters seems to accept it was done

Mon, February 28, 2022, 10:59 AM·PARIS, Feb 28 (Reuters)
The referendum vote in Belarus to ditch its non-nuclear status was a "greatly worrying" move orchestrated by the country's strongman leader Alexander Lukashenko, European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said on Monday. The vote to change the constitution, passed by 65% according to official data, could see nuclear weapons on Belarusian soil for the first time since the country gave them up after the fall of the Soviet Union
.

Secondly, no matter how beloved their strongman is I can't believe that 65% of any country in the world would answer, "Yes please, I want my country to be a nuclear battleground between Russia and NATO." But third, why is Russia even needing to ask? Is its nuclear armoury so pathetic it has to sidle up to the Belarus border to lob the big jobs into a) Ukraine and/or b) Poland and places west? If so, it might not be so bad after all. Be that as it may, I loved this

It comes at a time when Lukashenko has fallen in line behind Russian President Vladimir Putin's military assault on Ukraine after earlier playing an intermediary role between the two neighbours.

"Now look, poppets, I know you've had your differences but you know me, yer old uncle Alex. Why don't you let me play the honest broker. I couldn't be more honest or broker. And don't you Ukrainians get all fussed about any Russkie hardware you might have seen on the telly. As our Tourist Board says, 'We put the games in War Games'. "
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Putin is a difficult position. The Russian army is clearly destroying the Ukrainian militia, but he’s issued an order that no infrastructure should be touched. Notice how there have been no cuts to electricity or gas supplies (or the BBC would have been showing us pictures of freezing old ladies huddled round a brazier).

But how do you enter Kiev if you can’t blow anything up and the neo-Nazi militias (the only ones who can fight) are hiding in apartment blocks?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 209, 210, 211 ... 299, 300, 301  Next

Jump to:  
Page 210 of 301

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group