Comment by djao | Hacker News Reader

Comment by djao | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

To the contrary, Russia does need Crimea, although military naval ports is not the main reason why. Crimean waters contain huge natural gas and oil deposits. If Ukraine were left to develop Crimea unhindered, it would overturn Russia's gas monopoly in Europe, which is practically their only source of cash. The same motive lies behind Russia's interference in Eastern Ukraine -- therein lies the rest of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources.

Russia does not actually need to extract oil and gas from Crimea, although it would be a nice bonus for them if they could. The main imperative is to prevent Ukraine from having it.

Once Russia captured Crimea, the "land corridor" to Crimea became a necessary next domino. Crimea's only source of fresh water is overland via Ukraine. Obviously the first thing Ukraine did when Russia annexed Crimea was turn off the taps. (Would you keep sending freshwater into enemy territory?) In order to maintain power in Crimea in the long run, it is necessary for Russia to invade enough of Ukraine to take over the freshwater canals that supply Crimea.

Not sure what to make of an analysis that amounts to: "To the contrary, Russia does need the Crimea, because natural gas reverses. Although it actually does not need to extract them, it would just be a nice bonus of they could." In any case we're talking about an augmentation of some 180 bcm in the offshore regions of the Crimea it is claiming, on top of Russia's proven reserves of some 40000-50000 depending on whom you ask.

So no, Russia doesn't need the Crimea's resources either. It is however definitely very hurtful to Ukraine to not have access to those resources -- which speaks more to the true intent behind the annexation move.

It is necessary for Russia to invade ...

It isn't necessary for Russia to do anything at this point -- other than pick up its toys and go home.

Gas isn't easily shippable like oil. Most of Russia's gas is in Siberia, inaccessible for purposes of shipping to Europe. Ukraine holds the only other gas reserves in Europe other than Russia. Gas supply is inelastic, meaning that even minor competition can lead to a big drop in prices. So yes, Russia "needs" to keep Ukraine out of the European gas market.

Yes, there's an incremental point to be made about the location of the gas reserves.

But to get to the real point here - why do you keep defending the actions of a blatant 19th century-style imperialist bully, as if it's some kind of calm, rational actor?

That's just, you know, doing what it needs to do?

Is invading a country to maintain a gas monopoly not bullying? It seems far-fetched that this is their entire reason, though.

You are wrong. I am not defending Russia's actions. I am explaining Russia's actions. Big difference.

Putin is a greedy son of a bitch. This is not a defense. It is an explanation.

Then you could perhaps be more precise in your choice of actors here:

In particular -- Russia most certainly does not "need" to dominate its neighbors. It's just what the current regime feels it needs to do to maintain its chances of survival.

Big difference, as you say.

You're deeply misreading the English language. When I say "I need my phone" I am obviously not claiming that my phone is necessary for basic survival. There are different levels of need, and there exists a level where Russia (believes it) needs Crimea.

Disagree fundamentally with the idea that countries hold "beliefs" about anything.

Political figures and other individuals with their hands at the levers of power, on the other hand, do.

You're nitpicking the words. It's common to refer to the government of a country by the name of the country when talking about government actions.

Yeah, but they're doing it a lot, and in a way that's just -- weird. And seems designed to evoke empathy.

Specifically when they keep saying "Russia needs [to do various awful things]" when referring to the desires of the current regime.

In the case of the United States, it's not appropriate to equate the country with the current regime, since the party in power (Democrat / Republican) changes every few years, and although you may disagree, I do not view the two parties as equivalent or as forming one party.

In the case of Russia, it is completely appropriate to refer to the regime by country name, since Putin has been in power forever.

Anyway, this is a useless tangent. It should by now be clear to you and anyone else reading what I mean, even if it was not initially clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com