Ukraine under energetic siege

Russia cut the gas to Ukraine,Hungary did the same, the Donbas, region the source of Ukranian coal is in the hands of separatists (Russians), today a railroad in Odessa is blown up, maybe to cut of the port from the rest of the country.

The goal is clear: deprive Ukraine population from electricity and energy in the middle of the winter, destroy the economy, maybe people will rise against Poroshenko, and make the situation unstable at least. In this situation what are Ukraine options?
Ukraine consumed 70,246 millions metric tonnes of coal in 2008, At a price of 70$/metric tonne it will need 4,9 billion dollars for coal only.
Let's suppose that Odessa port will be cut off, and Ukraine cannot use it for imports, then the next step is to transport it by rail.
But Ukraine is using the rail broad gauge of 1,524 m while Romania,Poland,Slovakia and Hungary have standard gauge of 1,435 m.
So the wagons must change their wheels when they cross the border, this slowing down the transport.
If you look on this map you will see that Ukraine has very thin connections with countries from its west.
Should Ukraine change it's rail tracks? No, because its broad gauge allows bigger wagons and heavier loads can be transported. Even Austrians wanted to build a  broad gauge line between Kosice and Viena.
An interesting article which describes the rationale of choosing the rail gauge.

Poland with its production of 217,7 million metric tonnes can be a source of coal, if the Ukraine and Poland rail systems are connected.And this can be done: the Lublin basin is 200km west from Ukranian border. At a cost of 2 million $/km, it will cost 400 millions this means 8% of the value of the coal that can be exported in year in Ukraine (4,9 billions).

Inca o perdea de fum

Cand era arestat Popoviciu si presa vuia, a fost arestat Becali si toata presa s-a repezit ca o turma de caini flamanzi asupra lui Becali uitand de legaturile lui popoviciu cu Basescu.
Cand in Gandul se demasca mecanismul spagii in Romania apare Turcescu pe sticla si spune ca e ofiter acoperit, lucru pe care il banuiam, nu putem sa nu ne intrebam daca nu este iar o diversiune.
Baiguiala religioasa a lui Turcescu, nu clarifica nimic. Nu clarifica de ce s-a lasat recrutat.
Vechii securisti se scuzau ca au aparat tara cand ii hartuaiu pe cei de la Europa Libera.
Ce scuza are Turcescu ca a fost lider de opinie cu epoleti?

Oricum se apropie ceva nasol pentru cei de la putere, de vreme ce se arunca tot felul de fumigene cu tot felul de agenti acoperiti.

Book review: Why nations fail

I read a interesting book "Why nations fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.
This book should be on the reading list of Putin, but I doubt that he will use it for the benefit of his country. More likely he will use it to undermine other countries.
The book notice that since end of modern age the same countries from the West are leading in terms of economy, education and welfare.The only countries outside Europe and North America which share the same prosperity are the one who have the same inclusive political and economical institutions as in the West: Japan,South Korea, Australia,New Zeeland.
The book argues that the difference between prosper and poor nations is due to the difference between inclusive and extractive institutions.
For example West Germany was more prosperous because had inclusive institutions: parliament elected, by all citizens, freedom to travel, freedom to own propriety, freedom to speak freely and to be informed. In short more people were accepted into political and economic systems and the benefits were widely distributed.
East Germany on the other side had extractive institutions, the benefits of political power were shared only within communist party. Private propriety was not existing.
Same country same culture, different institutions,different results.
In inclusive institutions you have rights by birth, in extractive institutions you have granted some privileges.
The book says that in order to achieve a inclusive society, you should have a centralized state, you can't have inclusive solutions in Somalia or Congo were it is anarchy.
But if the centralized state is ruled by an absolutist ruler and not by law, with time the elite will try to concentrate all the economic power in their hand, and exclude others from the benefits, and innovation brought by outsiders will not have an impact in economy. So the second condition is that the government should not have a complete control over the population.
Russia is a classical example of extractive state, till XIX century it exploited its serfs, and since 1917 it exploited its peasants and workers. The rule of law was not present during the tsarist regime, was not present during communism and it is not present today.
In my opinion an inclusive society exist in a security sweet spot. The government has enough power to protect you from thieves, but the law and institutions can uphold you propriety rights against the government so you are not afraid that government will confiscate propriety and close your business.
If a country changes it's government from anarchy to centralisation, it will have a an economic growth regardless of institutions, because a lot of money used for protection or saved for rainy days will be spent or invested. All communist states had a period of growth after the war, because it was a demand for goods that compensate for the low quality, but when the economic power was in a grip of a elite, who was busy to exploit it, things got worse. No one had an incentive to work, everybody tried to climb the hierarchical ladder to improve his revenues.
Finally the extractive institutions will impoverish the country ruin the infrastructure and the army, the country will descend into chaos or it will be conquered.

Fighting Russia from your armchair 2: More useful idiots

I read in satirical newspaper Catavencii a an article by Doru Bucsu, in which condemns the aggressive attitude of president Basescu toward Russia, and says that it is our fault that we don't have better diplomatic relations with Russia and deeper economic ties.
Seen what is happening with Russia ban on European agricultural products, I am glad that we don't have big exports in Russia. In fact we shouldn't have deeper economic ties with countries were the will of the rulers is stronger than the law and your products can be banned at wish.
Regarding diplomatic relationships, how can he have good relations with a neighbour that threatens us with nuclear bombing in case we want to protect our country and allies from ballistic missiles?
How shall we deal with a character as Dimitri Rogozin who threaten that he will come back in Romania at a board of Tupolev bombardier?
This opinion that the we, the weaker country we are guilty for the actual situation, (or how I read on a comment: "... the small countries are guilty for starting war")  is the syndrome of blame the victim, in which the victims are responsible for crimes. So the Egyptians are guilty that they rose against a corrupt regime and they troubled the Middle East, and Ukranians that they have done the same and troubled Europe.
A good article regarding the blame victim fallacy is here.

Regarding victims if you are cornered by a bully, the worst thing it to be submissive, because you encourage him to come close to attack you, and by retreating you lose you opportunities to attack. If the bully sees that you are ready for fight, he will stay out of range of your kick for example,
In a fight first it is mental fight then a physical fight. If you lose the mental fight, you will lose it for sure the physical one.
So if we want to win the next war with Russia we must prepare mentally for the battle.

Another article in category useful idiots working for Russia, made me think about different views of the conflict from US and from rest of the world.
America thinks that it is so powerful that it can do whatever it wants, but the down side is that the critics of US are blaming it for everything wrong on the world, and Russians take advantage of that.

First of all US cannot do whatever it wants, see Ukraine case, so it cannot be blamed for everything that is happening. It can be blamed that is not pursuing strategic long terms goals, but concedes at the interests of corporations (see Latin America), or simply withdrawing from a situation without solving it (see Afghan withdrawal, abandonment hmong tribes in Laos, abandonment of democracy movement in Egypt)
The US cannot be blamed that in the Iraq chaos Shia and Sunni wanted to settle some scores.
The current situation is caused by the fact that Iraq society as most of the arab societies is composed of tribes that compete for resources. Once the oil resources were freed from Sadam grip the fought has started.
The US didn't need bombs in market squares. Those who put bombs are responsible.
The Sadam Hussein state was falling, sooner or late and the violence would burst, but US wanted to control things in Middle East, to grab the Iraq oil and to control the oil bought by China (the same is doing Russia with the gas and Crimea).
So they precipitate the things but the tensions were there ready to sprung.
They over estimated the support of Iraqis for Americans, and they underestimated the influence of tribal organisations.
The Iraqis were disappointed because they expected to be freed by americans in first Gulf War, but Bush senior kept his promise to Gorbatschev the president of Soviet Union that he will not occupy Iraq.
(You can blame now US that they keep their promise.)
This disinterest in Iraqis fate and this lack for forward thinking led to the second war and the current situation in which US is shy to respect its written commitment to the Ukrainian integrity.

One thing we must learn from these events (Ukraine and Middle East):

Bears are more powerful than bees, they like honey, this means that the bees should have been gone.
But the small creatures can chase a bigger predator with their small sting if they are work as a swarm.

US went to Iraq and it was stung, now it is Russia's turn to be stung in Ukraine.

How to fight Russia from your armchair

Russia has 4 weapons to use in it's aggression:
1.propaganda
2.money
3.politicians
4.armed forced
Being on the armchair you cannot fight Russian's huge army. So let's go to the next topic: 
Politicians:
Either they are paid as Gerhard Schroeder, or they are fooled as Sarkozy, these politicians sacrifice long term interest of the Europe and even their countries for their narrow interests, blocking a common position against Russia.
Other type of politicians who are making the Moscow's game without any gain, are separatist politicians.
The one who demand independence of Scotland,of Catalunia, of Transylvania.
Now it is no longer the case of ethnic persecution in UE, and I don't know how it will help the local economy the independence of Scotland for example, but the Scottish independence will split Great Britain, who is an enemy of Putin, and a friend of Russian oligarchs.
So if you want to stop Russia vote against the politicians and against Scottish independence.

Money:
The easiest form of economic warfare is boycott,Russia knows it because it is using it against Europe.
Unfortunatly Russia sells only gas,oil and minerals.
So don't supply your car from companies who trade Russian oil and reduce your gas consumption.

If you reduce  room temperature with 1 C degree, if you have a room of 3 by 4 meters with height of 2.5  , you will save 30m³*1.293kg/m^3*1.005kJ/kg.K*1K=39 kJ (3.507e-5 MBTU)

It is not much multiply this figure with population of Europe of 500000000 this will mean 17535 MBTU with a market value of over 66 million dollars.

Just save energy, good for you, good for mother nature, bad for comrade Putin.

Propaganda:

Russians had always a good propaganda machine, but propaganda can be annihilated with small doses of truth.

So be informed and inform others. Read history books about Soviet Union and Tzarist Russia.

Kremlin pays agents of influence to post comments on important sites, confront them if they are spreading lies.

Interesting that many organisations, sites and persons who accused US about human rights violation, and aggression are turning a blind eye to what is happening now in Ukraine.

The soviets have always underlined the faults in the western state to gain the support of disillusioned idealists some of them become spies or deserters to Russia, and many more become agents of influence, supporting dissolution of NATO, the only alliance that put a break on Russia's expansionism.

So let's give up to the idealism: everybody spies, we cannot let the intelligence gathering only to the Russians and Chinese, because it is a dirty business.

It is more important what can a state do with all this information.

If you criticize you government in the West, maybe you don't get its attention but in Russia you can receive a bullet in the head as Anna Politovka or being poisoned with polonium like Litvinenko.