Rat u Ukrajini

Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:istoričari, šta kaže literatura, jesu ovako Crvenoarmejci denacifikovali domaćinstva po Rumuniji, Madjarskoj i Nemačkoj?

Jelo, piće, odeću i sitne dragocenosti da.

i žene, svih 6 tetaka moje žene u berlinu 1945 su denacifikovali onoliko. sve fine babe postale.

mada su nemice, to burundi podržava da se denacifikuje.

Oil prices turned negative on Tuesday after a report that some producers were exploring the idea of suspending Russia's participation in the OPEC+ production deal.

While there was no formal push for Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to pump more oil to make up for any potential Russian shortfall, some Gulf members had begun planning for an output increase sometime in the next few months, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing OPEC delegates.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/oil-prices-rise-after-eu-bans-most-russian-oil-imports-2022-05-31/

https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2022/05/31/tanks-germany-greece-ukraine-deal/

Greece to send older tanks to Ukraine, Germany will replace them, says Scholz
May 31, 2022

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that during his meeting with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis they had agreed that Germany will supply Greece with tanks, so that Greece can send its weapons to Ukraine.

Scholz and Mitsotakis met on the sidelines of the extraordinary EU summit in Brussels on Tuesday.

The unexpected announcement surprised Greeks and short time later, the Greek National Defense Ministry said that Greece will send older German tanks to Ukraine from its own stock, while Germany will immediately replace these with newer ones.

Greece received the BMP-1 type tanks it will send Ukraine in 1994, and will receive Merder-type tanks in their place.

The agreement follows up on recent discussions between the two countries, the Defense Ministry added in its statement.

Germany has arranged a tank swap with Greece, allowing Athens to send Soviet-era tanks to Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said.

It comes after Polish President Andrzej Duda accused Berlin last week of breaking its tank-swap promise with Warsaw: https://t.co/wVFUu7BLqM pic.twitter.com/rtctDAiSUN

— POLITICOEurope (@POLITICOEurope) May 31, 2022

Neki vole da napišu "tenk" za bilo šta što ima neki oklop i gusenice, više neg' 'leba da jedu.

A Ataman neverue da Kirjakos tako lako od Usa do Ger obnavlja naoruzanje.
Onako ce bas dobrovoljno da posalju sratare oklopnjake u Ukr. Zanimljivo je to gurkanje "malih" zemalja da daju doprinos

jel može neko da otvori i kopi/pejstuje ovo

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/us-ukraine-putin-war.html

kondo wrote:jel može neko da otvori i kopi/pejstuje ovo

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/us-ukraine-putin-war.html

In the Paris daily Le Figaro this month, Henri Guaino, a top adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy when he was president of France, warned that Europe’s countries, under the shortsighted leadership of the United States, were “sleepwalking” into war with Russia. Mr. Guaino was borrowing a metaphor that the historian Christopher Clark used to describe the origins of World War I.

Naturally, Mr. Guaino understands that Russia is most directly to blame for the present conflict in Ukraine. It was Russia that massed its troops on the frontier last fall and winter and — having demanded from NATO a number of Ukraine-related security guarantees that NATO rejected — began the shelling and killing on Feb. 24.

But the United States has helped turn this tragic, local and ambiguous conflict into a potential world conflagration. By misunderstanding the war’s logic, Mr. Guaino argues, the West, led by the Biden administration, is giving the conflict a momentum that may be impossible to stop.

He is right.

In 2014 the United States backed an uprising — in its final stages a violent uprising — against the legitimately elected Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych, which was pro-Russian. (The corruption of Mr. Yanukovych’s government has been much adduced by the rebellion’s defenders, but corruption is a perennial Ukrainian problem, even today.) Russia, in turn, annexed Crimea, a historically Russian-speaking part of Ukraine that since the 18th century had been home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

One can argue about Russian claims to Crimea, but Russians take them seriously. Hundreds of thousands of Russian and Soviet fighters died defending the Crimean city of Sevastopol from European forces during two sieges — one during the Crimean War and one during World War II. In recent years, Russian control of Crimea has seemed to provide a stable regional arrangement: Russia’s European neighbors, at least, have let sleeping dogs lie.

But the United States never accepted the arrangement. On Nov. 10, 2021, the United States and Ukraine signed a “charter on strategic partnership” that called for Ukraine to join NATO, condemned “ongoing Russian aggression” and affirmed an “unwavering commitment” to the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.

That charter “convinced Russia that it must attack or be attacked,” Mr. Guaino wrote. “It is the ineluctable process of 1914 in all its terrifying purity.”

This is a faithful account of the war that President Vladimir Putin has claimed to be fighting. “There were constant supplies of the most modern military equipment,” Mr. Putin said at Russia’s annual Victory Parade on May 9, referring to the foreign arming of Ukraine. “The danger was growing every day.”

Whether he was right to worry about Russia’s security depends on one’s perspective. Western news reports tend to belittle him.

The rocky course of the war in Ukraine thus far has vindicated Mr. Putin’s diagnosis, if not his conduct. Though Ukraine’s military industry was important in Soviet times, by 2014 the country barely had a modern military at all. Oligarchs, not the state, armed and funded some of the militias sent to fight Russian-supported separatists in the east. The United States started arming and training Ukraine’s military, hesitantly at first under President Barack Obama. Modern hardware began flowing during the Trump administration, though, and today the country is armed to the teeth.

Since 2018, Ukraine has received U.S.-built Javelin antitank missiles, Czech artillery and Turkish Bayraktar drones and other NATO-interoperable weaponry. The United States and Canada have lately sent up-to-date British-designed M777 howitzers that fire GPS-guided Excalibur shells. President Biden just signed into law a $40 billion military aid package.

In this light, mockery of Russia’s battlefield performance is misplaced. Russia is not being stymied by a plucky agricultural country a third its size; it is holding its own, at least for now, against NATO’s advanced economic, cyber and battlefield weapons.

And this is where Mr. Guaino is correct to accuse the West of sleepwalking. The United States is trying to maintain the fiction that arming one’s allies is not the same thing as participating in combat.

In the information age, this distinction is growing more and more artificial. The United States has provided intelligence used to kill Russian generals. It obtained targeting information that helped to sink the Russian Black Sea missile cruiser the Moskva, an incident in which about 40 seamen were killed.

And the United States may be playing an even more direct role. There are thousands of foreign fighters in Ukraine. One volunteer spoke to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation this month of fighting alongside “friends” who “come from the Marines, from the States.” Just as it is easy to cross the line between being a weapons supplier and being a combatant, it is easy to cross the line from waging a proxy war to waging a secret war.

In a subtler way, a country trying to fight such a war risks being drawn from partial into full involvement by force of moral reasoning. Perhaps American officials justify exporting weaponry the way they justify budgeting it: It is so powerful that it is dissuasive. The money is well spent because it buys peace. Should bigger guns fail to dissuade, however, they lead to bigger wars.

A handful of people died in the Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014. But this time around, matched in weaponry — and even outmatched in some cases — Russia has reverted to a war of bombardment that looks more like World War II.

Even if we don’t accept Mr. Putin’s claim that America’s arming of Ukraine is the reason the war happened in the first place, it is certainly the reason the war has taken the kinetic, explosive, deadly form it has. Our role in this is not passive or incidental. We have given Ukrainians cause to believe they can prevail in a war of escalation.

Thousands of Ukrainians have died who likely would not have if the United States had stood aside. That naturally may create among American policymakers a sense of moral and political obligation — to stay the course, to escalate the conflict, to match any excess.

The United States has shown itself not just liable to escalate but also inclined to. In March, Mr. Biden invoked God before insisting that Mr. Putin “cannot remain in power.” In April, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin explained that the United States seeks to “see Russia weakened.”

Noam Chomsky warned against the paradoxical incentives of such “heroic pronouncements” in an April interview. “It may feel like Winston Churchill impersonations, very exciting,” he said. “But what they translate into is: Destroy Ukraine.”

For similar reasons Mr. Biden’s suggestion that Mr. Putin be tried for war crimes is an act of consummate irresponsibility. The charge is so serious that, once leveled, it discourages restraint; after all, a leader who commits one atrocity is no less a war criminal than one who commits a thousand. The effect, intended or not, is to foreclose any recourse to peace negotiations.

The situation on the battlefield in Ukraine has evolved to an awkward stage. Both Russia and Ukraine have suffered heavy losses. But each has made gains, too. Russia has a land bridge to Crimea and control of some of Ukraine’s most fertile agricultural lands and energy deposits, and in recent days has held the battlefield momentum. Ukraine, after a robust defense of its cities, can expect further NATO support, know-how and weaponry — a powerful incentive not to end the war anytime soon.

But if the war does not end soon, its dangers will increase. “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months,” the former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned last week, “before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome.” Calling for a return to the status quo ante bellum, he added, “Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine but a new war against Russia itself.”

In this, Mr. Kissinger is on the same page as Mr. Guaino. “To make concessions to Russia would be submitting to aggression,” Mr. Guaino warned. “To make none would be submitting to insanity.”

The United States is making no concessions. That would be to lose face. There’s an election coming. So the administration is closing off avenues of negotiation and working to intensify the war. We’re in it to win it. With time, the huge import of deadly weaponry, including that from the newly authorized $40 billion allocation, could take the war to a different level. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine warned in an address to students this month that the bloodiest days of the war were coming.

hvala!

konzul Ukrajine u CG stavio status


Mojim dragim prijateljima da shvatite razmjere katastrofe i ruske nacističke okupacije

isti konzul...

koliko je njemu pala sekira u med. najmanje što može da uradi je da navuče azov majicu....

Moraće da kupi novu, promenili su amblem.

zadužiće novu

Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:

Filipenko wrote:Aman, nema gubitaka. Cak ni knjigovodstvenih. Zapadni recnik je u ovom slucaju neprimenjiv.

Da bre. Jesi prodo? Jesi. Jel si pokrio troskove proizvodnje? Jesi. Dal si prodao manje nego juce i da li po manjoj ceni, pa koga to jos zanima?

Cousin Billy wrote:To je postmoderna, duginovska trgovina. Profit u zapadnom i profit u istočnom smislu sadrže svoje jedinstvene, nepomirljive računovodstvene istine. Zato Zapad ne može da sozerca ruske trgovinske bilanse.

Umesto da se napajate na izvoru mudrosti blagoslovenom prisustvom 1 proroka Jarovita, tj. mene, vi se sprdate sa 1 mnom. Da probam da vam pojasnim.

Budzet Rusije je projektovan na jednu cenu nafte. Lupam sad po teskom secanju, to je oko 65-70 dolara. Indiji se prodaje po 85 dolara. Jeste, ispod "trzisne cene" je, ali 1) to je i dalje iznad projektovane cene i 2) Rusija ionako prodaje resurse ne po trzisnim cenama vec uglavnom po pogodbenim cenama koje dogovori na duzi rok sa partnerima/drugim drzavama. Nafta je trenutno 110-115 dolara. Kao sto rekoh, tu nema gubitaka, cak ni knjigovodstvenih. To sto se ne posluje po principima Vol Strita i ne koriste identicni parametri, jbg.

Filipenko wrote:

Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:
Da bre. Jesi prodo? Jesi. Jel si pokrio troskove proizvodnje? Jesi. Dal si prodao manje nego juce i da li po manjoj ceni, pa koga to jos zanima?

Cousin Billy wrote:To je postmoderna, duginovska trgovina. Profit u zapadnom i profit u istočnom smislu sadrže svoje jedinstvene, nepomirljive računovodstvene istine. Zato Zapad ne može da sozerca ruske trgovinske bilanse.

Umesto da se napajate na izvoru mudrosti blagoslovenom prisustvom 1 proroka Jarovita, tj. mene, vi se sprdate sa 1 mnom. Da probam da vam pojasnim.

Budzet Rusije je projektovan na jednu cenu nafte. Lupam sad po teskom secanju, to je oko 65-70 dolara. Indiji se prodaje po 85 dolara. Jeste, ispod "trzisne cene" je, ali 1) to je i dalje iznad projektovane cene i 2) Rusija ionako prodaje resurse ne po trzisnim cenama vec uglavnom po pogodbenim cenama koje dogovori na duzi rok sa partnerima/drugim drzavama. Nafta je trenutno 110-115 dolara. Kao sto rekoh, tu nema gubitaka, cak ni knjigovodstvenih. To sto se ne posluje po principima Vol Strita i ne koriste identicni parametri, jbg.

Ti si samo ponovio ono što sam ja rekao - koga briga što će sutra da prodaju Indiji po manjoj ceni nego juce EU.

Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:

Filipenko wrote:



Umesto da se napajate na izvoru mudrosti blagoslovenom prisustvom 1 proroka Jarovita, tj. mene, vi se sprdate sa 1 mnom. Da probam da vam pojasnim.

Budzet Rusije je projektovan na jednu cenu nafte. Lupam sad po teskom secanju, to je oko 65-70 dolara. Indiji se prodaje po 85 dolara. Jeste, ispod "trzisne cene" je, ali 1) to je i dalje iznad projektovane cene i 2) Rusija ionako prodaje resurse ne po trzisnim cenama vec uglavnom po pogodbenim cenama koje dogovori na duzi rok sa partnerima/drugim drzavama. Nafta je trenutno 110-115 dolara. Kao sto rekoh, tu nema gubitaka, cak ni knjigovodstvenih. To sto se ne posluje po principima Vol Strita i ne koriste identicni parametri, jbg.

Ti si samo ponovio ono što sam ja rekao - koga briga što će sutra da prodaju Indiji po manjoj ceni nego juce EU.

Njet. Nisu ni prodavali EU juce po toj ceni, nego po raznim ugovornim cenama, zavisno od toga koliko su dobri sa nekim, koje su kolicine, koliko je trajao ugovor...gubici prosto ne postoje. Kao da nadjes novcanik, uzmes 1000 dinara iz njega a neko te proziva da si izgubio 200 dinara jer nisi uzeo i dve stotkice.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russian-Oil-Sells-At-Huge-Discounts.html

Što bi reko Yoyogi, sabrao si babe (Brent je $115 po barelu) i žabe (Urals je $73/barelu) i dobio mušmule.

The price of the key Russian export grade, Urals, averaged $73.24 per barrel between the middle of April and the middle of May, according to data from the Russian Finance Ministry cited by Bloomberg. The price of Urals was nearly 32 percent lower than the average Brent Crudeprompt futures price during the same period, per Bloomberg’s estimates.

ne nego nece da prizna da je trziste energenata dinamicno

kad smo kod dinamičnosti tržišta nafte

https://www.ft.com/content/83fa3e90-e36d-463a-a4db-9ea24f22964f

Italy imports more Russian oil to feed refineries
Refinery in Sicily forced to buy more oil from Russia in unintended consequence of sanctions

20 May 2022

Italy has increased its imports of Russian crude despite EU efforts to end ties to Russian energy in an unintended consequence of western sanctions against the Kremlin.

Russia has exported about 450,000 barrels per day of crude to Italy this month, more than four times as much as in February and the most since 2013, according to Kpler, a commodity data company. As a result, Italy is set to overtake the Netherlands as the EU’s largest import hub for seaborne Russian crude. Two-thirds of those exports are destined for Augusta, a port in Sicily near the Russian-controlled ISAB refinery.

The refinery, which is owned by Moscow-based company Lukoil, used to secure a variety of supplies worldwide thanks to credit lines from European banks. Although Lukoil is not under sanctions, lenders have stopped providing financing after the EU imposed sanctions on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine, forcing the refinery to rely solely on supplies from its parent company, according to government officials, bankers and union leaders with knowledge of the shipments.

“It’s paradoxical, the EU wanted to penalise Russian energy imports but here it’s actually been incentivised by the sanctions,” said Alessandro Tripoli, secretary-general of the FEMCA CISL union for the Syracuse and Ragusa provinces in Sicily.

“Only 30 per cent of ISAB’s crude was Russian before the sanctions, now it’s 100 per cent because Italian banks blocked the refinery’s credit lines so Lukoil has become its only supplier.”

The growing crude shipments to Russian-owned refineries in the EU come as the bloc is working on ways to wean itself off Russian fossil fuels and underline the complexity of implementing an embargo on Russian oil imports, as Brussels has urged.

ISAB processes up to 22 per cent of Italy’s crude and exports to dozens of countries. Founded in 1972, it was acquired in 2008 by Litasco, a Switzerland-based entity controlled by Lukoil.

Russian crude exports have also jumped to the port of Trieste, close to Italy’s north-eastern border with Slovenia. The port is connected via the Transalpine pipeline to two refineries in Germany that are part-owned by Rosneft, another Russian energy company.

The surge in crude shipments comes as Italian prime minister Mario Draghi has made it a priority to reduce the country’s dependence on Russian gas in a big foreign policy shift. He wants the EU to implement an embargo on imports of Russian oil, but Hungary has so far said it will not accept such a ban.

ISAB is one of the local area’s largest employers and workers’ unions and local politicians warn that a Russian oil embargo would cause the immediate shutdown of the refinery and severely damage the local economy. It includes other large petrochemical plants and many smaller companies that are part of their supply chains.

“Should an EU embargo enter into force, they will have no crude oil to refine any more and will be forced to close down,” said Simone Tagliapietra, senior fellow at Bruegel, a think-tank. “In this case, given the effects on energy security and jobs, governments might need to temporarily nationalise these assets.”

Officials in Rome said the government wanted to avoid the refinery’s shutdown in case of an escalation of economic sanctions against Russia and is studying the viable options under domestic and international law. Officials at the Ministry of Economic Development said nationalisation was not at present on the table.

ISAB declined to comment. Lukoil and Rosneft Deutschland did not respond to a comment request.

Most oil enters Europe via the sea on tankers but crude oil supplies also come through the Druzhba pipeline from central Russia to refineries in Belarus, Poland, Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Some Kazakh oil is also exported from Russian ports but Viktor Katona, of Kpler, said these deliveries were routine and steady.

Flows along the Druzhba pipeline to Germany in May to date are below 300,000 b/d, according to data from OilX, an energy analytics group, but seaborne exports to Germany have plummeted to zero, meaning Italy is poised to become the continent’s largest importer of Russian crude.

Del Cap wrote:Možda je lokalac iz LNR, taman da završi opremanje svoje kuće 15km dalje u nekom selu.

Т-80 тенк, руски је. 
То се, за разлику од садржаја картонске кутије, може са сигурношћу препознати.

Овде говоримо колико је вероватно да се нешто десило. Има будала које ће покушати да узму свакакве глупости. А на стотине хиљада колико доле има војске има и пуно будала.

"Hersonska oblast i oslobođene teritorije Luganske i Donjecke Narodne Republike će nesumnjivo ući u sastav Rusije, isto će biti i sa Zaporoškom oblasti, gde bi trebao da bude održan referendum, čim situacija to dozvoli", saopštio je sekretar generalnog saveta "Jedinstvene Rusije" Andrej Turčak.

Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russian-Oil-Sells-At-Huge-Discounts.html

Što bi reko Yoyogi, sabrao si babe (Brent je $115 po barelu) i žabe (Urals je $73/barelu) i dobio mušmule.

The price of the key Russian export grade, Urals, averaged $73.24 per barrel between the middle of April and the middle of May, according to data from the Russian Finance Ministry cited by Bloomberg. The price of Urals was nearly 32 percent lower than the average Brent Crudeprompt futures price during the same period, per Bloomberg’s estimates.

Dobro, i obe stvari su iznad cene projektovanog budzeta. Kako to Rusi "gube"? Vi ovde sada promovisete onu "amerika proleterska bice zemlja engleska" samo u obrnutom smeru, sve cekajuci da se Rusija ekonomski raspadne. I desice se, polako, ali ne jer daju 30% popusta Indiji na ogromnu kolicinu, prodajuci naftu i dalje iznad projektovane cene.

Del Cap wrote:

"Hersonska oblast i oslobođene teritorije Luganske i Donjecke Narodne Republike će nesumnjivo ući u sastav Rusije, isto će biti i sa Zaporoškom oblasti, gde bi trebao da bude održan referendum, čim situacija to dozvoli", saopštio je sekretar generalnog saveta "Jedinstvene Rusije" Andrej Turčak.

Veselje

kondo wrote:hvala!

ovaj nyt fluff piece je napisan da ti je zao rusije suocene sa podivljalim ukrajinskim hi-tec nacistima. mislim budalastina.

Inače, između redova par tekstova ruske štampe kapiram da je mogući zanimljivi datum za "nešto" 11. septembar, druga nedelja u septembru kada se u Rusiji organizuju regionalni i delom gubernatorski izbori a koji je formalno "jedinstveni dan glasanja", pa može biti zgodan i za neku formu glasanja u DNR, LNR i ostalim mogućim narodnim republikama i teritorijalnim sočinjenijima.