Yandex data center in Finland loses power due to contract termination
datacenterdynamics.com
datacenterdynamics.com
Finnish source: https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000008786328.html
I think the only matter here related to the war could be that electricity sales companies might be reluctant to sell a contract to them, due to PR reasons. But I bet one of them will, and they will get their power back.
>"Hänen mukaansa aiemmin sähköä myi Yandexille Nivos Energia, mutta sopimus päättyi jo vuodenvaihteessa. Tilalle tuli uusi sähkönmyyjä, joka on nyt lopettanut sähkönmyynnin."
https://www.saurenergy.com/solar-energy-news/russian-yandex-...
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/yandex-signs-5-ye...
EG, if it is an NDA, it often talks about the NDA being void, if compelled to testify etc etc
Most supply contracts should have the same concept. That is, "this contract isn't enforcable, if a party is legally compelled to do thing $x".
Not necessary, as actual engineers and electricians working for such companies could also refuse to make that connection. Also it's likely that sanctions will be more severe soon as Russian troops will do more crimes.
It seems very unlikely that they could launch another front against Finland and achieve anything, even shelling a city.
As Ukrainians push more resources towards the east Russia's problem might be that such artillery isn't quite mobile, there's no run-and-gun capability there, while weapons capable of taking them out are man-portable.
Despite that, I don't see a happy ending for the Ukrainians here. As much as Russia has already lost, they can't accept defeat in this without the power structure suffering what might be a deadly blow.
123m spire ect ect
(be sad)
As per site guidelines
As long as there's no sanctions against Yandex itself, then there's no legal reason to prevent that from happening either.
The only example I can think of where companies make potentially negative contract negotiations public is when cable companies enter into pissing matches with content providers (i.e. call your local NBC station now and tell them you want to keep their channel on DirecTV!)
"The reasons for the disconnection are not clear, as Yandex is not currently on sanctions lists, but its news and blogging services, as well as a senior executive, have been criticized for spreading Russian propaganda"
> Yandex's data center in Finland has been cut off the electricity grid as a response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
It is still kinda misleading.
I wonder if Yandex eventually will be forced to completely move inside Russia. It seems that their Russian operations are main revenue source and they probably would not be able to leave Russia. And with current events unfolding, wall between Russia and Europe will probably only rise.
As of the end of 2018 most of the company’s staff has been located in Russia.
This of course changed as devs were given a choice: either relocate (with company’s support) until the end of March, or leave the company.
Jebrains started on the remnants of russian Borland branch. Founders worked for TogetherSoft (which was accuired by Borland) from Russia till 1999 when they moved to Prague where in 2000 they started Jebrains. But till the very recently most of the development was conducted in Russia.
Taking that aside, I wouldn't say that Yandex is incorporated in Netherlands for tax reasons anyway. (It actually pays most of its tax in Russia anyway).
It was created for legal reasons though. AFAIK its ownership structure (with 2 classes of shares, with different voting rights) was illegal in Russia at the time Yandex went public.
Holy crap
You have: 40 MWh
You want: tonoil
* 3.4393809
/ 0.29075
You have: 1 tonoil
You want: barreloil
* 6.8419323
/ 0.14615754
You have: 6.84 barrel
You want: liter
* 1087.4731
/ 0.00091956298
So, roughly 1,100 litres of oil per 40 MWh(thermal).The generator is likely ~30% efficient at converting heat to eletricity, so bump that up to 3,700 litres/hour.
Even allowing for other inefficiencies, 12,000 litre/hr seems high to me. Though as a practical measure it may be correct. It's within a factor of 4 of the actual demand though.
(Calculations using GNU units.)
12k liters per hour for the datacenter sounds about right, after accounting for diesel engine efficiency.
[1] https://www.sustainabilityexchange.ac.uk/files/cambridge_reg...
You have: 40 MW/30% / (10722.2 W*hr/L)
You want: L/hr
40 MW/30% / (10722.2 W*hr/L) = 12435.259 L/hr literoil = 1 barreloil * liter/barrel
And the calculation gives me ...10.69 kWh/LThe barreloil value is for crude, diesel may have a slightly higher net energy density. But we're good to 3 sig figs.
I could have bypassed the tonoil step and calculated thermal energy in barreloil directly though saving another conversion.
Otherwise I'd have to remember energy density/L of diesel fuel.
I've added the definitions for litre, pound, and kg oil and can now run:
$ units --terse '40 MWh/30%' literoil
12470.969
The fun part though, at least for me, is showing how to do conversions with GNU units, and the equivalences which become apparent doing so. You have: 1 diesel
You want: Wh/L
1 diesel = 10103.465 Wh/L
Slightly different value than in Wikipedia, but close enough.TIL, there are!
Thanks.
(For the curious, the definitions file is ~7500 lines, there's a lot in there. GNU version. For those on MacOS, the stock BSD units offers far less.)
Corrected:
You have: 40 MWh
You want: tonoil
* 3.4393809
/ 0.29075
You have: 3.439 tonoil
You want: barreloil
* 23.529405
/ 0.042500012
You have: 23.529 barrel
You want: liter
* 3740.8121
/ 0.00026732164
You have: 3740/30%
You want:
Definition: 12466.667
Or a bit above 12,000 litres. Article was correct.(It's not going to be diesel, it's mostly a mix of coal and natgas depending on where it happens, but that gives you an idea of the size)
So bitcoin is equivalent to 425 Emma Mærsks going full bore continually.
That'd be 6.3 million TEU - which interesting means that for those big ships, a liter of fuel moves one TEU for one hour.
That's a great little number, and actually feels very efficient!
Trains come in third, but they use more fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship#/media/File:Norsepo...
Those humans would also only use 1/6th as much energy (when assuming around 9.2m Calorie per liter of diesel). So the energy used by that engine could also "run" a million humans. Whatever that ship is carrying, it might be more energy efficient to let people carry it...
Burning through four liters of diesel a second/a bathtub a minute is insane.
I'm a bit tired, but I hope I got that math about right.
Also note that bitcoin miners that have a choice of where to locate choose regions where electricity is cheap, such as those serviced by hydro plants..."most" is a slight stretch, "about half" would probably be more correct - but yeah, it's not good.
I've also heard machine learning training is done in places with cheap energy because the training isn't usually latency-sensitive (querying the trained model might be). Not all AI magic is equally useful, but translation engines are the example I heard of and that's definitely helping me a ton (works better than google translate) as a foreigner in Germany.
How many VMs does an average business actually require, assuming the software wasn't written like total ass?
Carbon output of a diesel generator is horrific compared to just about any form of large scale energy production.
If people were ready to pay some upfront costs, it would be possible to lower long-term costs, but that's CAPEX vs OPEX decision that is not in the hands of the software developers.
Basic profiling can often find bottlenecks that are easy to fix, usually just a result of a simple oversight.
No one is asking for every piece of software to be rewritten in Assembly whilst taking advantage of every possible algorithmic improvement.
But it requires already scarce developers to spend even more time on one task. Those same developers which aready have two missed deadlines in their task queue. What should be done is always nice, but typically doesn't match reality.
Grain seems like a rather inefficient way to generate power. Do they mean the waste straw left behind after harvest!
Surely they knew that, as a Russian company, if their government ever becomes aggressive, they'll also be targeted by sanctions.
(Also Russia is also a very risky business environment, so hedging...)
(Also^2 Yandex is not under sanctions, the current outage doesn't seem to be about sanctions according to the news)
While this didn't work out for the Russian relationship, it wasn't a totally stupid plan.
The idea that interdependence leads to less wars is very old one. I was reading The Guns of August which tells about beginning of first World War, it refers to book released in 1910 called "the Great Illusion" [1]. I have not read it, but the book became best seller just before first World War, I'll quote from Wikipedia here:
> In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous." For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long...
> According to Angell, the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another"...
Economics matter, but if the leadership isn't made of business caring people, or is isolated like it now looks like, then interdependence isn't happening regardless of business ties between companies.
It doesn't work if the other party is just one person (or few people) in power for over twenty years, and all open society institutions in that other country have been systematically suppressed.
What's a chance that the same person is capable and willing to represent all possible economic and society interests?
> The Great Illusion
Publication date: 1909; 1933. Interesting. The idea stood the test of time.
Yet, I voted (abroad) in the last elections just fine? You do have to register early nowadays, whereas it used to be trivial to cast a vote previously, but I'm genuinely unsure what you base a claim such as "we practically lost our right to vote" on. In addition, several democratic countries disallow voting for expatriates (e.g. Ireland de jure / Israel de facto).
> This allowed Orban to get authoritian power that is now undefeatable.
At no point during the last few decades have elections been swayed by votes cast outside of Hungary.
That’s fine, and I agree it’s an issue, but maybe tone it down a bit for next time. I’m used to this tone from Hungarians both online and in real life, but I’d rather not allow such false impressions to seep into the wider discourse.
There’s enough “Poles and Hungarians bad” narratives going around without us having to add fuel to the fire.
I mean, you did vote in Orbán, a demonstrably terrible human being, for many years running. It’s hardly a better look for the citizens of Hungary if that wasn’t due to disenfranchisement.
My prediction is that the ,,voted'' PM of Hungary will be the same in 4 years. If you are right, it will probably change.
> If you are right, it will probably change.
I literally never made that argument.
Those preceded the EU, but were already intended to end up in tighter and tighter integration.
Relationships go both ways, and so far it looks like neither side has a reason to sever them quickly, despite the war (Russia wants the money, democratic governments want to be elected next time). Severing is very gradual allowing for gradual adjustment on both sides. No huge shock. No huge deterrent.
And I don't get the purpose of the interdependency in case of direct attack either, with the attacker being the supplier. Attacking country cutting you off from significant portion of fossil fuels before the attack, will not make your defense any easier.
> Besides NATO
NATO is not secretly running Europe. It is alliance European countries openly begged, pressured and asked to get in.
> US dont go into outrage threatening local admins
You should read a bit about how ambassador Richard Grenell behaved himself in Germany. The day after he arrived, he demanded that all German companies doing business in Iran wind down their operations. And the thing is, everyone knew that that demand was backed up by real power, because the US can and does go after European companies that do business in Iran. Grenell seemed to think he was some sort of proconsul, rather than an ambassador to a friendly nation.
Russia's influence consists mainly of its gas and oil deliveries, and the fact that various European companies have invested in Russia. It has comparatively little soft power. Outside of Hungary, Serbia and a few other small European countries, the media, politics and public opinion are fairly strongly anti-Russian.
Just to give you a flavor of how much soft power the US has, the largest private news media empire in Germany, the Axel Springer group (they own the largest tabloid and one of the largest newspapers), was literally funded by the CIA during the Cold War, and still officially lists support for the United States as one of its guiding editorial principles. Meanwhile, Russia's attempts to build up pro-Russian media have gone nowhere. You can't even access RT in a lot of Europe: its YouTube channel is blocked, and DNS servers don't even return results when you query RT.
"You dont understand you are just believing the MSM NATO globalist propaganda; Putin isnt a mad man and there there is no way he will invade the Ukraine, the troops are just doing exercises on the border."
When we talk about people who actively tried to sway public opinion or actively tried to influence politics, the expectations are different.
Often utterly false. Long history of involvement in Middle East and Indochina affairs for example looks like those figureheads have cotton candy in for a brain.
On the whole the EU project, and the approach of tight economic ties across the continent has been a huge success.
Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. Before the EU and the drive to economic integration, Europe had been in a state of almost perpetual war between the different states. Even today the economic integration has made war between most European states unthinkable. Nobody is worried about the U.K. declaring war on France or vice-versa, something that almost habitual before the 21st century.
Russia is the anomaly here, the one case where economic integration didn’t prevent war. But just because the approach isn’t 100% effective, doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
You forgot the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s.
Yeah, except for the wars in:
- Cyprus
- Yugoslavia
- Georgia
- Moldova
"Before we had war, but now we don't, must be EU"
And your own evidence: "Nobody is worried about the U.K. declaring war on France"
.... contradicts your point - the UK was not part of the EEC/EU for most of it's existence, so did the EU/EEC 'stop wars'?
Seems like 'UK and France' learned to get along without 'deep economic integration'.
And Switzerland? They've never been to war - and they have the least amount of 'economic integration.
Neither Finland.
South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Canada, US, Mexico have not fought wars against each other either.
"But just because the approach isn’t 100% effective, doesn’t mean it’s worthless."
More likely the 'approach' is not hugely relevant.
Not for lack of trying. The U.K. very much wanted to be part of the EU/EEC almost from inception. Going to war with a union you want join isn’t generally seen as a good way prove the advantages of your joining the union.
Additionally the U.K. and France did build extremely close economic ties during and after WW2. Much easier to trade with your neighbour than random countries on the other side of the planet.
Switzerland and Finland are both part the European Economic Area, the treaty the provides the underpinnings of free trade in Europe. All joined the EEA because it was clear that building wealth and prosperity through economic integration was a smarter approach than trying to invade your neighbours.
> South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Canada, US, Mexico have not fought wars against each other either.
Many of these counties are separated by significant physical distance, making war unlikely and difficult, or simply don’t have resources worth stealing via war. What to be gained by invading Singapore or Japan? They have no natural resources worth talking about, and country under force foreign rule tends to be an unproductive one.
Canada and US almost went to war several times before WW2. Primary preventers of those wars were either colonial rulers not wanting to get into a shooting war with another colonial country, or the simple fact that both countries had plenty of natural resources already, so bother with the expense and difficulty of invading a neighbour for resources you can dig up in your own back yard?
At the end of the day, there’s only a handful of reasons that make warfare worthwhile. Primarily the reason is access to naturals resources you don’t have within your own territory. But why bother invading if you can just trade instead? Much cheaper and easier, hence economic integration becomes an obvious path forward. Once you’re integrated, why would risk easy cheap access to resources by invading? You pour huge amounts of money, time and people in to a war, and gain what? Slightly cheaper access to resources, but if you consider the cost of war, it’s obvious that just trading for resources is cheaper, faster and easier.
Germany also has a huge population, especially by European standards, even if somewhat less huge than Russia’s. Both Germany and Russia are outliers, being in some ways far from the European average. What makes Russia much more distinctive, is in how many different ways it is an outlier - arguably in a fair few more ways than contemporary Germany is, which makes it a much bigger outlier overall.
> They have nuclear weapons for sure, but I wouldn’t like to speculate about their maintenance and availability.
For a decent-sized nation state, nuclear weapons aren’t actually that hard to manufacture and maintain and deliver, especially if they aim at basic functionality and aren’t trying to be on the cutting edge. The biggest obstacles for most such countries are (1) the rest of the world will try to stop them through sanctions, clandestine operations, even military action; (2) if you don’t have domestic uranium deposits, it is very hard to buy uranium for military use, all major sellers will insist you promise to use it for civilian purposes only and submit to regular inspections to prove that. As an accepted nuclear weapons state, Russia doesn’t have to worry about (1); Russia also has substantial uranium reserves and is one of the world’s leading uranium exporters, so it doesn’t have to worry about (2) either. So I think Russia’s nuclear arsenal is likely to be reliable and usable.
> Russia claims to have a huge stockpile, but their PIB is at the level of Spain (that has like 40% of russia's population).
I was confused by this–what is PIB? Then I realised you are probably a French-speaker, and PIB means produit intérieur brut, which is the French equivalent to what we call in English, GDP.
They can easily fix that by annexing former SSSR territories (about 230 million)
We’ve definitively put the final nail in the coffin on this one. Russia is a nuclear power. But it’s no longer a great power, let alone a superpower.
Maybe notions of owning all of Europe ceased with Napoleon, but France trying to extend its borders Eastwards was happening right until the EU took shape.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_crisis
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism
Same could be said for Germany and West expansions. Thankfully a thing of the past right now.
1) Massive Natural Resources (carbon fuels) which mean they don't have to do anything productive and can make huge money.
2) Totalitarian with Kleptocracy. The population accepts it over anything else, Putin keeps all competitors at bay. This means a single cabal can make big decisions.
3) Cultural Chauvinism. 30% are 'totally cool' with wiping out their neighbours in the vein of some cooked up rubbish. Even when they know it's 'cooked up'. I think they are definitely product I don't think they see themselves as 'ubermench' I think it's a kind of 'superiority from an inferiority' complex. They also lack empathy compared to most other places, not on an individual level, but on a cultural level. There are no leaders who speak of hope, togetherness, prosperity - those are viewed as 'weak'. (Paradoxically their 'strong' people are just incompetent killers).
So with Money, Control, and Cultural Chauvinism - you have potentiality for big things. Like war.
'Security Council' is not that important.
Nukes are actually not important - but they do provide an 'umbrella' of cover, in that, NATO would already be in Ukraine otherwise. So they can be decisive.
Their 'former empire' is not relevant other than in the jingoistic psyche of Putin and some of the plebes.
A very common thing for humans to have. US, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan, China – to list just a few countries which have a lengthy history of it, there are many more–and some will question whether some of the countries I have listed have really moved beyond it. (I'll even say my own country, Australia, has a decent amount of it – even if the form it takes looks rather different from that of some other countries.)
> 'Security Council' is not that important.
> Nukes are actually not important
> Their 'former empire' is not relevant
I think all these things tie into national attitudes and culture. Many Russians remember when their country was one of the most powerful countries in the world (at the height of the Cold War, arguably second only to the United States, and the Soviets even managed to beat the Americans at some things); even for those too young to remember it, it was a large chunk of the life of their parents/grandparents. The degree to which their country has fallen is rather obvious to all, and things like the permanent UN Security Council membership and the nuclear arsenal serve as enduring reminders of that past "glory". Many Russians have no interest in going back to the "glory" days, but a substantial chunk of the population do, and there are many more who may be susceptible to propaganda promoting the idea – and that makes them open to supporting, or at least not overtly opposing, government policies aimed at doing that. By contrast, there are many other countries who either have never had that kind of history, or else for which the days of "imperial glory" are much more distant, well beyond the memory of the living–and citizens of those other countries are far less likely to acquiesce in imperial designs, especially when those designs start to impose costs on everyday life.
The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere.
Americans can get 'nationalist' but they are absolutely not like that, beyond a smaller group, Americans are by default positive and gregarious.
I believe Russia's dark past, their permanent oppression, total lack of hope for something to change makes them amenable to this. Basically, institutionalized cynicism.
I believe that even Putin himself, former counter espionage is the most cynical it gets, like Machiavellian without recognizing that 'hope and prosperity' are actually legitimate things. He sees everything as a cynical game of power. The Americans 'can't possibly be acting in good faith' because 'there is no such thing as good faith' - but even worse - not even knowing what 'good faith' is because he's never been exposed to it. 'People who smile are fools, unserious, they can't be competent!' etc. not able to just recognize a basic common joy.
The contrast between attitudes and motivations by Ukrainians these days is just unbelievable, which is interesting because despite historical similarities, it's almost as if 'modern Ukrainian identity' is formed out of the hope that arises when coming out of that rubble. Even regular Ukrainians, farmers seem to be on a different wavelength.
That signals that they too miss a pretty basic level of empathy.
The number of countries ravaged/destroyed by americans and their decisions is countless.
Sure, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell#/media/File:Colin...
The 2003 invasion of Iraq? Quite popular in the US at first (opinion polls at the time of the invasion showed over 70% support); people who opposed it were frequently belittled, shunned, harassed, boycotted (remember the controversy over the Dixie Chicks?). The reasons for the war were essentially invented – weapons of mass destruction which could never be found, attempts to link the Iraqi government to the 9/11 terrorist attacks despite the fact that there was no evidence the Iraqi government had any involvement. Many thousands died in the initial invasion, and hundreds of thousands in the ensuing war which the invasion began – all due to a war based on lies. Sure, Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but the world is full of evil men who do evil things – many of which the US is happy to call its friends (such as the Saudi regime) – but was removing that man from power worth all the ensuing death and destruction and chaos, especially when so many other equally evil regimes were left in place? Most of the worst things he'd done (such as genocidal massacres of ethnic minorities) were in the past, and more limited international interventions (such as the no-fly zones) appeared to be succeeding at preventing further such atrocities.
I'm not saying what Putin is doing to Ukraine is the same thing as what the US did to Iraq – Volodymyr Zelenskyy is no Saddam Hussein, and certainly not the Adolf Hitler which Russian propaganda presents him as being – only that Russians are not quite as different from Americans (among others) as you are suggesting they are.
> Americans can get 'nationalist' but they are absolutely not like that, beyond a smaller group, Americans are by default positive and gregarious.
Americans killed millions, and displaced tens of millions [0] in a "crusade on terror" the consequences of which lasting to this day, for a whole bunch of invented reasons [1] [2] [3].
And that was after the largest protest movement, in human history, literally begged them not to do it [4].
Which is quite a stark contrast to the Russia Ukraine situation; That has been a situation for by now nearly a decade, with Russia being very vocal about its own interests and where it draws the line in term of NATO expansion.
All of that was ignored, for years, as Russia's interests were not deemed important, or even worth considering from a Western, and particularly US perspective, that only considered one thing; Steady NATO expansion, steady encroachment on Russia [5].
After literally decades of this [6] the bear is now in the corner, and it's very predictably leashing out, yet most of the West still keeps acting like the bear is irrational for acting like that. Particularly as the West rather wants to peddle the narrative of the expansionist bear who is soon to roll into Berlin, to justify all that NATO expansion..
[0] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_li...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein%27s_alleged_shr...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot...
[5] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464...
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-...
I once heard this stressed very strongly, from a historical, cultural, and political perspective.
Russia is not European.
If one considers the mindset which allowed this war to happen, and the politics, the fascism, this seems quite true.
The EU doesn't have the monopoly on being European or European values.
Which means the majority of Europe/Asia distinctions are drawn around economic, cultural and particularly political borders, none of which are natural but to a degree rather arbitrarily defined by humans depending on their particular agenda.
In that context "othering", up to a scale of denying whole nation states their geographical location and cultural influences, has never lead to better and more peaceful relations, quite the opposite.
It seems like this was a common idea globally in the past sixty years but I don't think I've actually seen it work out anywhere.
Where Yandex mis-calculated is that Russia (the country) is not a hegemonic power like the US is (militarily, economically and culturally) and as such it doesn't have the same influencing power.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant when talking about US's hegemonic power.
> Whereas western EU countries have more leverage over Russian companies without fearing much retaliation.
Some parts of the Russian political elites really believed (maybe they still do) that Europe's industrial heartland (or what's left of it, anyways) depended on cheap Russian energy. That was of course correct, Germany's industry greatly depends on access to cheap Russian energy. Where the Russians mis-calculated here was in thinking that the Europeans (meaning mostly the Germans) would relinquish their industrial advantage at the behest of the US (and partly the UK, even though is debatable how much of a geo-strategic role the UK still plays on the continent). As the German chancellor said a couple of days ago the upcoming total embargo on Russian energy will have economic consequences (there were talks of a 3-5% hit on the economy), imo this is a very risky play in the middle- to long-term, you don't want a united Germany hit by des-industrialisation in the middle of Europe.
Later edit: This recent editorial from FT's Martin Wolf is pure propaganda, it puts the onus 100% on the Germans and asks them to economically suck it up for the benefit of Europe and of "democracy" (apparently whenever the US gets involved in a war is always for protecting "democracy").
> A brutal conflict has come to Europe of a kind not seen since the second world war, and even where some of its worst atrocities occurred. For Germany in particular, it is a moment of challenge and opportunity. The challenge is to defend Europe’s liberal civilisation. The opportunity is for historic redemption. Russia must not prevail. This is what matters most. There will indeed be pain. But it must be borne for a far greater cause.
Again, it is my belief that this won't hold in the middle- to long-term, the current US leaders are playing with fire, an united Germany strategically allied with Russia in 10-15 years' time would be the end of many things on this continent, first of all of "democracy".
Why doesn't that make sense? The US did start several wars (plus a wrongfully deposed government or two) in the Persian Gulf for exactly that reason (that was until their shale gas revolution took off in the late '00s). Plus, a des-industrialised Germany (which is what this war will most probably mean for them) means a poorer Germany, means a more politically restless Germany, hence a higher risk of them getting rid of "principles" (or morals, as Martin Wolf pontificates about) and start looking at the bigger picture, at what's good for Germany and for the Germans.
Again, not sure how looking at this chart [1] from that same FT piece can make the Americans believe that the Europeans (or, more precisely, the Germans) can suck it up for the foreseeable future, all in the name of "democracy". This is a de-facto lighter version of the Morgenthau plan.
During the Soviet era, South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast within the Georgian SSR. After Georgia declared independence from the USSR, South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia. They fought a war that ended in a stalemate, and Russia has essentially guaranteed South Ossetia's independence since.
Because today too, Russia claims that there is a “de facto” independent country in western Ukraine they are “helping”. Pretext for war, just as the South Ossetia pretext.
Import bit is: the West never reacted to Russian aggressions in any meaningful way.
Same how the west also didn't care, that after WW2, the USSR occupied all of Eastern Europe, or that before that, Hitler occupied Austria and Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.
Seems like there's a historically repeating pattern here where the amount of warmongering and territorial occupation you can get away with is directly proportional to to your military force and inversely proportional to the willingness of other states to go to war with you as the occupier. Just like how the US and its coalition got away scot free after bombing the shit out of Vietnam, the middle east and destabilizing North Africa. All we could do is "condemn it" and take in refugees.
I would also add economic power and ability to inflict painful sanctions to the equation. But were you really expecting anything else? This is how it always worked and the only thing that prevents hot global scale conflicts now I think is the threat of MAD.
Companies usually don't plan for unprecedented actions.
Using an analogy, you don't see people rushing to live nearby a nuclear powerplant, do you? Even if the plant didnt have any accident before; the mere presence of it changes the risk.
Who's gonna sanction the US?
It wouldn't happen over trivial matters, but for an incident where the international community near universally disapproves of a US action China might want to show strength by imposing sanctions.
Nobody expected sanctions that cut Russia off from the world to an extent comparable only to North Korea. It's just something that people didn't imagine could happen to modern economies. People said cutting Russia off from SWIFT was absolutely unreasonable, impossible, and nobody would seriously consider it. Heads of state said they'd never do it despite the circumstances. Then they flipped and approved of it.
It's easy to look back and say "lol it's obvious" since it's in the news everyday and we're densensitized to it by now. But it was really a mindblowing series of events.
I think that one reason why it flopped that quickly is that Russia was creating precedents of what it is going to do around for years. So it became impossible to ignore.
Taking a whole country at once in mainland Europe and having its economy completely isolated within a span of weeks was about as predictable as a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Nobody was prepared, and no preparation would've been sufficient no matter what.
This is just not true tho. Had Ukraine was not prepared, they would fold the way Russia expected them to. Instead, Ukraine did quite a lot of army reforms, lobbied to get guns long before war. They did not expected Russians to attack right now, because Russia seemed unprepared ... which they was. But they were not ruling out eventual attempt to takeover.
It is also not true that no-one anticipated. There were people both right before and longer before talking about eventuality - including Biden and American secret services. There were some people who did not cared about topic. There were many people who either knee jerkedly refused the eventuality, without looking at what is going on in Russia. Then there were people who rejected to possibility for political or financial reasons.
But, the notion that no-one was predicting it is simply untrue.
https://www.ft.com/content/5eda71fc-d678-41cd-ac5a-d7f324e19...
I also think this has always really been about the eastern Ukrainian region. The stuff about taking western Ukraine has been a strategic ruse and/or secondary aim.
There was a previous "bulling", that escalated later, as it always do. Both countries were in a war for Crimea since 2014, but I agree with your idea that it was unlikely.
What is really scary is that it takes so few people to put by now four countries in war (five if we count Georgia) in the middle or Europe, and trigger the events that drag the rest by inertia. Zillions of working hours to avoid exactly this, and it only takes one old man with obvious principles of dementia that denies all every single time like a child. This and less than 1000 helpers against 500 millions of people is all that we need to return to 1940.
That's false.
> It went from nothing to suddenly surrounding the country in weeks.
It started in 2014. Or maybe even earlier. That's not weeks. That's 8 years.
You know I haven't seen a single DPRK product in my life? Not one. Not even a book. Not even a propaganda poster, not a whole lot of those in the Americas. Yeah online I've seen them but that's not the same thing.
What happened to (and with) Russia is a tragedy. Really, a nation and people with so much potential. Hardworking and capable of great sacrifice. They hold vast territories with unparalleled abundance of resources. Imagine how much of a force of good they could be. Actually, forget that. They didn’t even need to be good, just create an environment where everyone can strive instead of the few. Imagine how powerful they could be if only they didn’t turn into a petty kleptocracy.
Don't say you're being charitable when you're being cruel.
But Russia's only export of value is gas.
Get China and India to go all-in on renewables, while getting a soft agreement with them that future gas purchases from Russia will cost them in other ways, and the question is who would want to join Russia's parallel system?
Didn't say my suggestion is easy or likely or without risk. It would take some really careful diplomacy.
but it is feasible.
Now lets look at the USA. Could be Oil/Gas independent, but current government makes that difficult. Dependent on Russia and China for many commodities and rare earth metals. Manafucturing sector has been exported to China over the past 20 years, meaning that many goods are not even made in the USA anymore. Huge shortage of semiconductors - which are used in every electronic product these days including cars. The USA must start the move of Manafucturing many more products again locally. They will cost more... but if it doesn't do this it will likely be in a very bad position if China tries to take over Taiwan.
In summary global supply chains must be re-adjusted, which will take years. Whether this helps prevent further war... or adjustments are because of war will depend on how things are handled by United States politicians and business leaders. At this stage I suspect it will likely be because of war for the US/West and China will have been planing for this eventuality.
China is already putting together a plan for when they are sanctioned by the US and West.
We should be preparing.
It's easy to forget that for several years, Putin was actually a halfway-decent steward of the Russian economy. That's what makes this whole thing so weird... he could have gone down in history as one of Russia's more respected leaders. All he had to do was not rock the boat. Instead, he literally sank it.
Putin simply had no reason -- certainly no reason that Yandex management could anticipate -- to tank his country's reputation along with his own. I feel incredibly bad for anyone who was trying to play by the rules and run a legitimate business in Russia. (Whether that describes Yandex, of course, is an entirely different point of debate.)
Though Yandex has to follow government regulations (especially in its media department), a lot of which are obviously biased.
2. I read it differently. The screws are tightened and company will be under control of board if Volozh dies, 2 of 12 board members are government-appointed. So I agree that government is trying to control Yandex tightly. It hasn't happened yet.
3. As far as I can see - Yandex does not support the war. And no russian commercial company can be openly against the war without effectively stopping the opperations immediately. Living under insane dictator is hard, but I don't think it is reponsible behaviour to turn shareholders investments into nil, leaving 20k people without job and millions of people without services (the last part is the least important because there are other local substitutes for most Yandex services). Genuine western companies can be openly against the war, because neither sufficient part of their income comes from Russia, nor most of their production/workforce is in Russia.
About your small things:
1. What kind of news can be aggregated from other sources is regulated by law. I mentioned that in my firs comment. There are _no_ non-pro-government news sources left in Russia. The ones that were still operating a short while ago regularly recieved strikes from regulators. You could make a point that it would have been better if Yandex just closed its news service entirely; and I would agree with you. I bet Yandex is thinking the same right now, but it is hard to make this decision when things were slowly regressing for 10 years and the tipping point was reached and news became toxic.
2. Right, because making statements to Putin makes such a great difference?
P.S. It is quite clear that in the recent years Yandex was trying to migrate from Russia as soon as possible to be less dependent on the whims of the regime. They did find the niches where they could be successful outside of Russia (at the very least - delivery, taxi and ride-heiling, cloud) but didn't have time to execute the plan.
> Taxes, land ownership, banking, bankruptcy etc. The economic block in the government remains very professional and impartial even now.
Russia has one of highest inequalities and quite poor population. It is also heavily corrupt. The macroeconomics works, but lower levels don't.
> The only thing Russia really needed to become a normal state was to reform judicial branch, police and security services.
That is kind of problem, given that Putin is former KGB agent, surrounded himself by alike people, became president duet to former KBG agents cooperating on gaining power ... Also, used both judicial branch and police against political opponents including journalists from day 1. They are corrupt basically as a matter of policy.
Putin did reformed judicial branch, police and security services. Just not the way we would like.
But Putin has always been the man he is now – the war in Chechnya began in 1999.
This is a very generic and abstract statement. If you think that the growth could happen without economic reforms that took place in early 2000s, please explain how exactly could that happen in the aftermath of second Chechen War and economic crisis of 1998.
What you saw in early 2000s in Russia was mostly caused by reforms in 1990s, but times were already turning to worse.
Also, afaik, journalists writing against Putin were attacked (arrests, taking over of business) right as he got into power. The changes leading to contemporary ideology, effective rehabilitation of Stalin, the state murders were happening right away.
The events around Russia apartment building, the ones suspect of being done by FSB and Chechnya war were in 1999.
>The large ones were not independent in anything but the name long before being taken over by state.
Let's take a few concrete examples of really big companies: VKontakte, Wildberries and Magnit. How exactly Putin and his gang exercised the control over them before acquisition (Wildberries still belongs to the founder)?
Professional, yes.
Impartial, no. Complicit is the word.
Finland was always intended to be the weak member of EU when it comes to dealing with RU. There was the historical evidence of Finlandizierung to support this belief. Somehow Putin managed the impossible and united people from extreme right to far left in supporting Finland to join the NATO.
Very recently Finland (actually private company Fennovoima) cancelled the joint Fennovoima & Rosatom project to build a new nuclear power plant in Finland. This decision to cut Rosatom off the project was on a much larger economical scale and was widely greeted with welcome.
Russia 1 state TV has gone beserk recently, it's as bad as you could possibly imagine.
Nobody expected Putin to go this far.
Why wouldn't this just be using the electricity freed up by not powering the data center? Thermodynamically, the data center is just a resistive load, so assuming the electrical distribution system can handle the load, it should be a drop-in replacement.
If their European counterpart isn't profitable or their tax evasion setup routes all funds through Russia then they may have trouble paying, but I think it's more likely that the political situation of the war itself is to blame.
The ban on paying in ruble is also a political decision, pretty much the whole Western response to Russian military action in Ukraine has been solely political to a hypocritical degree.
I don't remember the world banning the US dollar as a valid payment option over the invasion of Iraq, even tho that would also have been a very apt response to what happened back then [0].
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeur...
It's sad that the same politicians that se being spied on by the CIA refuse to move towards more independence from the American sphere of influence. Luckily, the USA is great at electing complete baboons into office, helping the rest of the world find reasons to seek independence and sever close ties in critical areas.
I don't remember the US preemptively threatening to nuke the world should anyone interfere in Iraq.
So, did he got sanctions lifted? If yes, what was the point? It is not a musical chairs game, it is a bloody war.
No, and nothing in the article suggested they had been.
He remains sanctioned, and can’t work at Yandex.
District heating with such (relatively) low temperatures is no problem, the energy to pump is much less than the energy to heat. My house is heated from nuclear waste heat pumped more around 10 kilometers.
My apartment and office (like much of Copenhagen) are heated through incinerated waste.
From what I hear, it’s usually pretty expensive compared to ground/air-to-water heat pumps (1 SEK vs 0.4 SEK per kWh of heat)
And what if the housing gets too hot? Does industry stop because of overheating during hot months?
> it’s usually pretty expensive
So why do people heat that way? Is it legislated into existence? Why? To reduce global warming?
You keep working and dump the excess heat to the air.
I'm not sure of the historical costs, but benefits are reducing dependencies on particular energy sources, reducing global warming, and heat pumps not being invented yet (long ago).
There is legislation along the lines of houses built here must be connected, just like they must also be connected to the sewage system.
(Disclaimer: I work for a company involved in this)
Either Putin is a democratically elected leader, or he is a dictator. If he's a dictator why does it make sense to punish normal everyday Russians? Oligarchs and henchmen I can understand, but a cat? or a singer? Or Dostoevsky?
This kind of reaction in the west is really something else. The rest of the world just wants NATO and Russia to get along but instead there is a proxy war and the Ukranian people are suffering most of all. It was obvious to expect this sort of thing from Putin, which is why it's even more surprising that there has been such an obsession with poking the bear. What did western leaders think will happen? And was it really worth so many millions of Ukranians having their lives ruined? And for what? NATO membership? They just wanted to go about their lives. The absolute neocon brazenness of the USA where folks like John McCain was addressing crowds of protesters in Maidan saying that the USA supports their political cause, and then a civil war broke out that has now lasted 8-10 years and now most of those same people are likely homeless. The foreign policy of the west is just dumbfounding, truly. So many parts of the world and so many people have had their lives ruined because of it.
Just like we should not persecute every Russian, we should not take away Ukrainians' law to defend themselves. I come from a country that spend a better part of last 250 years under occupation and, frankly, lots of people would rather die fighting than go through that again. Especially, given that Russia is not a free country even for their own citizens - let alone conquered nation.
Of course the West isn't without fault here: it made the mistake of ignoring previous cases of Russian aggression, but it appears it's being finally fixed now.
But people always say that. Every single time.
The rest of this post operates under the premise that Ukrainians wanting to be a part of the EU/NATO was manipulated by the West. Even if that were the case, the invasion and the ongoing war crimes are committed by Russia.
Russia is in a war with Ukraine and it’s getting punished by… the US. Well, technically US allies are also involved but with different degrees of enthusiasm.
This one seems much more arbitrary. The idea that the US is getting involved because of the war crimes doesn’t hold water either, because the US is also supporting perpetrators of war crimes in other conflicts.
The more likely explanation is that the US wants to hurt Russia and NATO & co are tagging along. Anything which hurts Russia is fair game, including hurting citizens, companies, etc. Because that sounds a bit nasty, it’s better to express it as punishment for supporting Putin.
The US is contrary to what you’ve said essential to this conflict. Without the US, Ukraine would already have a new pro-Russia president and the EU would have folded like a wet towel.
Finally, “everyone” is not really everyone: it’s the US and allies. Countries that are bordering Russia like China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan or Belarus don’t necessarily share those interests or have opposite interests.
Yes, it is true that without US Ukraine maybe wouldn’t be able to defend. We know what would happen: mass genocide. Russians already demonstrated that in Bucha, Mariupol and others.
As for “everyone”: no, I mean literally everyone. Kazakhstan is leaving Russian “economic union”. China declines to buy from Russia, because that market is worthless and the risk doesn’t justify the price drop for Russian resources.
Anyway your key point was that they’re the victors when they’re clearly not. Even if Russia completely pulled out tomorrow they’d have suffered incredible losses.
As for losses - in war the victor always suffers some losses. The point is: Ukraine will survive this, Russia probably won’t.
Europe was out in front of everyone issuing sanctions before the US was able to come up with anything. All of Europe was singing the same tune of it's own accord. Watch Prime Minister's Questions (UK) and you'll see all the houses are united in a way I've never seen before. They're all trying to one up each another in proposing sanctions against Russia and the oligarchs. Trying to pawn this off as something the U.S. has somehow architected the almost unprecedented unity you're seeing across Europe beggars belief. It was Putin (not the U.S.) who talked the Fins and Swedes into applying to NATO. Putin is also the reason why Europe is arrayed against him in so many areas. Sadly, the Russian people are suffering for Putin's colossal blunder.
The US was preparing sanctions around the use of the USD and SWIFT and around Nordstream 2 (despite what Germany might have wanted) in December 2021. And it’s the US which have set a goal beyond helping Ukraine of “weakening Russia”. I.e. more sanctions, more weapons, less possibility for negotiation.
The sanctions game certainly has a life of its own now, especially as Russia’s military stumbled, but I don’t believe it would have reached this intensity without motivation from the US. And who knows what diplomacy could have achieved if given a chance instead of continuous escalation.
Russia had a golden opportunity to stop the invasion before it began when Zelensky indicated that he was willing to forgo NATO membership and keep Ukraine neutral. That was really the only window, which Putin decided to ignore and invade. Almost from the moment the bombs started dropping on Kyiv and elsewhere, the window had closed. Europe has been driving the diplomatic, sanctions, and military aid the entire time, and the U.S. has been following their lead. Putin invaded Ukraine and made Europeans and Scandinavian countries question their economic and national security with his aims of reconstituting the Warsaw Pact. Putin bet big, doubled down, and it blew up in his face for once. The U.S. has been trying to convince Europe to ditch Nordstream 2 for years spanning multiple Presidents and gained absolutely zero traction. I don't see how this supposedly moved the needle in any appreciable way.
The seeds of today’s conflict had been planted one by one in the past 22 years and even beyond. What started as a an ambitious goal of an undivided Europe from Vancouver to Vladivostok ended because of inertia, decisions with unforseen consequencss and a level of mistrust into stark divisions between Russia on one side and the EU and US on the other.
This was not inevitable and indeed not the intention. 2011-2012 and the Western support for anti-government and anti-Putin protests in Russia marked a sharp deterioration of relations and the 2014 Maidan uprising, annexation of Crimea and Donbass war cemented the course we see today.
That the president of Ukraine indicated his willingness to forego NATO membership did nothing to change the above. Ukraine was training with NATO, receiving support and fighting an indirect war with Russia, so it seems unlikely that the words of the president were given much weight in Russia.
Edit: changed unnecessary wording
And for better or worse he is the president elect (as much as that may be worth in Russia) and is a very powerful person.
As an aside, I wonder how many coups were proponents of such measures already involved in. Every hobby revolutionary has a plan until they get shot in the face.
As an aside, that Tyson remark is overused I think.
What? €2175 per liter of diesel? Am I missing something?
/edit: nvm I misinterpreted decimal point as a thousands seperator.
I find long versus short scale for numbers like billion vs milliard a lot more confusing. I also would have a hard time adjusting to the lakh/crore system used elsewhere in the world. The decimal separator, though? That's just applying reason. Fuel prices may be high right now but they definitely haven't increased a thousandfold.