As you all probably know, there is brewing crisis in the Ukraine. Discuss.
As you all probably know, there is brewing crisis in the Ukraine. Discuss.
As much I am worried about a war, the idea of it, I doubt that there will be one.
If you want to attack someone, you don't wave your arms and announce your attack - you attack when noone excpects you to.
Putin is clearly trying to obtain something from Biden by forcing the US to negotiate with them. Noone wants a war, and Putin knows this. By facing the US with an ultimatum, Putin is hoping to get the US to possibly lower sanctions in exchange for a backing out of the Ukraine. The Russian economy is doing bad, and there's also the fact that the Kremlin is under scrutiny from the Russian people following the Navalny revelations. This is a good distraction from the corruption, and by getting the US to lift sanctions, it will help the Russian economy as well.
My growing belief is that practical geopolitical considerations take priority over moral questions about the rightness / wrongness of confronting Russia, most of which are academic in my opinion.
For one thing, a permanent NATO presence would force Russia to maintain a large(r) standing army along the Ukrainian border. Russia's economic problems, while somewhat overstated, are not insignificant, and a massive troop deployment could hurt it in the long run. A Russia that's less capable of funding its outlying regions risks secessionist movements. And the secession of eastern Siberia, along with its vast resources, would push that part of Asia into the Chinese sphere of influence. The Caucasus, southern Russia, and central Asia would risk being overrun by Islamist movements. And if not, they would gravitate towards Turkey and China, whether by choice, by compromise, or by threat.
I say that Russia's economic problems are somewhat overstated, and that's because American sanctions have hardened Russia's economy, simultaneously making it more self-sufficient and forcing it to turn to China. As early as the Obama administration, Russia and China have been trading in their own currencies instead of the dollar, bypassing SWIFT. While not yet a major phenomenon, it's a bigger threat to American interests than maintaining Ukrainian neutrality. More sanctions would only accelerate this trend. American sanctions on Iran have had the exact same effect, pushing Iran into closer relations with China.
petrodollar; OPEC exchanges oil in $.
What are the implications of this?
1; Most developed economies need a certain amount of fuel to survive, and accessing a specific type of fuel on a large scale requires buying $ or trading with the US (significant influence on US trade deficits). ).
2; If there is a constant demand for oil in the international markets, there is a constant demand for $ in them, which will determine its price even above the existing foreign exchange supply.
3; If the US has a constant demand for $, they can print banknotes in droves and distribute them to their associates like BlackRock, who in turn can use them to manipulate society, the markets... They can print 40% of the $ generated since the founding of the United States without incurring a crisis of hyperinflation, for example.
4; If the US controls the currency in which the most precious commodity on the planet is traded in right now, they maintain significant economic control over the planet itself.
5; If the United States wants to base its economic and, above all, monetary policy on these facts (which it does), it builds (as it has built) its structure as a nation around the petrodollar, that is, the American social, political and economic structure depends on the West's demand for OPEC oil, the exchange of oil in $ and the hegemonic position of the US in geopolitics. At the same time, the geopolitical and economic weight of the US depends on the influence of the Petrodollar.
6; Any international threat to the petrodollar must be eliminated (Gaddafi proposed trading oil in € or a new pan-African currency, Hussein moved in the same direction).
7; For the petrodollar to remain a stable source of power on the one hand, and a source of demand for $ on the other (and thus allow the US economy and state to persist), control of the European energy market is crucial.
8; Any smaller state that stands between OPEC and the European energy market is a threat to the US that must be addressed (Targeting Al-Assad and the Iranians)
use a translator
9; The main competitor in the European energy market is Russian gas. This means that the US strategy towards Russia must go through raising the price of gas or lowering the price of oil for the Europeans.
10; The German gas pipelines in the Baltic make the Ukrainian gas pipelines unnecessary (which Ukraine itself used as leverage to force Europe to intervene in a possible conflict with Russia) this is a huge Russian advance in the competition for Europe's energy, and gives them free reign over Ukraine (that is, if European states were not US client states).
11; The US will try to do whatever it takes to prevent the use of Baltic gas pipelines
With all these data in mind, I will develop an interpretation of the events in Ukraine.
The US plan is to corner Putin with the prospect of having missiles on Moscow's doorstep, triggering an invasion of Ukraine that will cut off energy supplies to Europe (since the US has managed to put diplomatic pressure on the Germans so that they do not use the Baltic gas pipelines) .
The price of electricity would skyrocket, Europe would be weakened (this is in the US interest) and the Arab sheikhs could monopolize the EU energy market.
The conflict would give the Americans the perfect excuse to impose economic sanctions on Russia that would make its gas expensive enough to make it unprofitable compared to OPEC oil.
The objective? Solidify the geopolitical position of the United States as the global hegemon and ensure its survival as a state.
Why are NATO troops being mobilized and why does the West appear to be preparing for an even bigger conflict?
Because if Russia declares war on Ukraine, it loses, and could even collapse economically, and if Russia does not declare war on Ukraine, it loses most of its geopolitical maneuverability, since NATO missiles could turn the Kremlin into powder in less than 5 minutes.
If Russia ends up declaring war on all of NATO, it may be able to gain control of a part of Europe and the role of a larger regional or global power.
Last edited by RBRS; 02-09-2022 at 09:44 AM.
Me and the boys @FreelancePoliceman, @MrInternet, @ExpBunnyMacroverse, @Eudaimonia @Adam Strange are going to fly out to Ukraine and join the army in the fight against the Russian menace. We'll undoubtedly die rapidly in the conflict but will forever live on as heroes and martyrs in the hearts and memories of the Ukrainian people.
A war between Russia and the US cannot end without nuclear missiles or an intelligent diplomacy, due to extension and demographic distribution, as well as access to weapons. Russia is in the long run impossible to occupy, Iran the same, and the US the same. But that doesn't mean the US or Russia would inmediately drop the nukes, I think there's enough deterrence for both powers to exhaust most military and diplomatic resources before relying on nuclear capabilities.
Furthermore, with China being Russia's main trading partner, the Atlantic bloc's maritime superiority cannot be a definite advantage, Russia gets a large part of its supplies from continental allies.
Russia can, at the beginning of the conflict, concentrate its navy in the Baltic, isolate the Baltic countries through Kaliningrad and Belarus, take them quite easily, sweep the floor with Poland and move toward the gates of Berlin with some speed (And an occupation on the European continent is infinitely easier to maintain).
European countries would have problems to maintain electricity, their armies would be uncoordinated, the communication lines would probably be cut, food supply would be disturbed making essential goods too expensive (Thus creating unrest) and the US army would need quite some time to arrive at full capacity crossing the Atlantic (not counting on a highly probable cuban and venezuelan intervention diverging troops from the continental game), which would give room to Russia to Blitzskrieg through eastern and Central Europe, difficulting NATO's access to Ukraine.
The problem with nukes at the gates of Moscow is that most systems need at least 5 minutes to detect them, and a nuke coming from Ukraine would arrive at the Kremlin in 4 minutes.
Getting to germany, Putin could try to peace out, nullifying sanctions, controlling eastern europe and becoming THE regional hegemon. If the war went on, I would expect a somewhat stable frontline and the eventual use of nuclear capability to end the conflict, which I think no country wants.
The other possibility is that the EU betrayed NATO (Which would be optimal for europeans) and the war was fought on the Pacific. In that Situation, I believe all powers would rely on nukes sooner, as neither could get significant advances into enemy territory. There the naval superiority of the US would prevent Putin from entering the west coast, and the continental trade partners of Russia would prevent the US from draining the kremlin's resources.
So, there's a high risk as well as a high reward, and I think it is the only winning situation for Russia right now...
Last edited by RBRS; 02-09-2022 at 09:44 AM.
Anyway, I see no need to intervene. Putin is doing a great job all by himself of destroying Russia.
The Russian economy is now smaller than the individual economies of South Korea, Canada, Italy, and the state of Texas. Give Putin a few more years and he'll be duking it out with Akron, Ohio.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 02-03-2022 at 02:02 PM.
Last time I checked Ukraine was far away from where I lived and has nothing to do with me. That won't stop politicians in power to use my life and others like me to make a political statement. smh.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Here is the Very Wise NYT Commentator Nicholas Kristof stating that, according to his "calculations", the US invasion of Afghanistan may save up to one million lives, because guns and bombs can save lives like scalpels and IVs can.
I truly wish that every person who advocates for a war could be given a gun and a one-way plane ticket to the country in question. This is actually what would save millions of lives.
No need to provide these guys with a return ticket. The grateful people whom he's saving will gladly buy one for him, once they are free.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 02-03-2022 at 08:51 PM.
E: I didn't see that this was a thread. Yeah, if Russia annexed all of Ukraine I would not care. One kleptocracy swallowing another one which happens to be run by neonazis is the "worst case" scenario here. I really don't want there to be a nuclear holocaust over this shit.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 02-03-2022 at 04:25 PM.
Until people started writing in and saying that their policies were wrong.
Sometimes, all it takes is one person to let people know that there are other options than the ones they've been presented with.
It's historical, ethnical and cultural Russian territory which was illegally and against direct voting of people (referendum of 1991) separated.
Since 2014 the most part of this territory is under half-open USA & Co occupation as the result of military overturn, the part of territory is under civil war and some piece is officially returned to "main Russia".
To explain better what "Ukraine" is. There never was such state as "Ukraine" and never that territory was an independend state. Southern half of it was joined to Russia in 18 century end, which before was under the control by different tatars/turks. While nothern part was goten from Poland, which earlier conqured it after weakening in tatarian war of 13 century.
It uses music of Polish hymn and a flag which was given by Austria to its region with many Russians.
Until 1920s most people in today "ukraine" named themselves as Russians. Then there was done an organisation of pseudonational republics as USSR parts, which practically were not more than Russian regions as were before in Russian Empire.
In 1991 most people of "ukraine" voted to stay as a part of USSR/Russia as a federal part (alike USA has different its states). Then happened illegal overturn and kind of "independent borderland" with pseudo-nationality "borderlanders" appeared.
USA & Co use the situation of opposing on this territory to make a pressure on Russian officials and as part of war against Russians and other competitors.
The dream of USA and Russians seems is similar - to make a war. USA wants to make a harm to Russia. While Russians are not against another open conflict to return the part of their land. The main problem of Russia are liberal-western government (and same its owners as ruling class of traders) which most probably will betray to lead the war badly as did before during Afganistan and Chechnya conflicts or doubtful to start it (as rejected in 2014 when there was legal basis for this). And it's doubtful someone better will take the control as happened in 1917 with communists and then will can to establish better rule. Russians mostly "tolerate" liberal shit which harmfully rules since 1991, as do not know better alternatives (in practical political form, not ideological sense) still and have no wish for another civil war.
I wonder what the US would look like today if the Confederacy of the Southern States had succeeded in seceding?
We wouldn't have Florida, for one thing. Or Texas. Or maybe we would. Once slavery ended because of cheaper oil prices, having an economy based on cotton might not be so great.
Putin knows that Ukraine can't be easily annexed. Not even eastern Ukraine can be annexed easily. He knows that a military confrontation with NATO is out of the question and would go badly for him. The best that he can hope for is a devolved Ukraine with more autonomous regions, regions with their own interests, that can be played off against each other, and some of which would no doubt accept Russian patronage.
Putin's attempt to reestablish Ukrainian neutrality has so far failed. But the bluster of a Russian invasion is already causing foreign investment to leave. A victory for Putin could include Russian businesses getting a bigger share of the Ukrainian pie, Russia getting more influence in Ukrainian affairs as a result, and the Ukrainian politicians who helped 'diffuse' the crisis having to thank Russia for their popularity. There are lots of interesting ways to thank Russia.
Europe should be stocking up its energy reserves without delay, even if there is no war Putin can threaten to cut energy exports.
Supposedly there's a limited timeframe (until the end of February or so) for a Russian invasion by land, because the Russians need the boggy ground to be frozen in order to drive the tanks in. But Putin could just focus on an air war for the most part.
I'm doubtful NATO will use its troops in anger, and yet it is putting forces on the border.
It is difficult to see Putin's comments accusing NATO, Ukraine etc. of provoking war as a means of persuading some countries that a Russian invasion would be justified. So that I guess that is either for domestic consumption to "justify" a war, or is part of some feint to get something from the West.
The USA did not get involved in Russian invasions when Obama was President, and Biden is less willing to go to war than Obama. Putin knows this.
Let's not fight a winter war against Russia.
Hey, just one thing.
(You gotta be dumb to say Europe is not the US backyard, they're negotiating at the expense of our own interests)
Won't this strengthen the Russian-Chinese relations, leading to a much more grim situation in the future? I know for the US it is preferable for the "eurasian bloc" to be more united if that can save their country's monetary system but for Europeans losing a portion of leverage we had with Russia on the energy market is quite bad news.
They wanted to compete for our energy market and so needed to adopt a more diplomatic and peaceful doctrine towards Eastern Europe, now Russia needs to re-configure it's main trading partners and thus will no longer have to keep themselves from a more interventionist and agressive policy. China could, in a certain way, "weaponize" Putin by developing mutually beneficial strategies that could potentially harm the west.
They could start doing their own "Monroe Doctrine" and fund rebels and political extremists, create chaos and wars in the balkans, the middle east or central Asia by prepping up the enemy sides, backing up coups, hack and harm the west's markets (as done with the energy prices some time ago), fund political parties that coincide with their interest, fuel radicals on both sides to destabilize countries, put down west-friendly dictators in the third world and replace them with east-friendly dictators... A sort of cold war.
Also, Russia is tightening relations with South American states like Cuba, Venezuela or Argentina. I know these countries are bankrupt and dirt poor but they could pose a threat to the US and the US's businesses's interests in the region.
That is if things don't escalate further into an all-out conflict, and that conflict seems much worse everyday, as @Subteigh sources, Russia seems more than willing to launch the first nuke, and launch it sooner than I would have expected. A nuclear war probably doesn't mean the end of the world, but it means millions upon millions of corpses and the destruction of our countries, that's for sure.
Last edited by RBRS; 02-09-2022 at 09:53 AM.
There's been cyberattacks in the last couple of hours in the Ukraine.
https://www.defconlevel.com/european...#breaking-newsNetblocks Confirms Loss Of Connectivity To Ukraine's Banks and ATM Services As Well As Ukrainian MOD - Netblocks monitoring service confirms that the Ukrainian ministry of defense website is down, along with Ukraine's State Savings Bank which is impacting ATM and banking services in Ukraine. Suspected ongoing DDOS attack on the servers.
This is what bothers me about predictions of a Russian invasion: NATO isn't a pushover.
Russia may be able to steamroll through Ukraine and then dig in. This isn't impossible — Russia has world-class surface to air missile systems, world-class special forces, hypersonic missiles, and a massive left-over Soviet arsenal (and before someone points out that cold war technology is obsolete, keep in mind that F16's and M1 Abrams tanks — workhorses of the American military and currently in heavy use — are also cold war weapons).
But even if it could launch a successful invasion (presumably install a friendly government in Kiev and dig in permanently), the battlefield won't be confined to Ukraine. NATO navies could still attempt a blockade of Russian ports. Russian flights would be interdicted over European airspace. Russian trade would take an enormous hit from new economic sanctions.
It's more logical to assume that whatever maneuver they plan would proceed slowly and cautiously. For example, they could move forces into Donbass in order to fully secure its independence. A declaration of war over such a small region would be more difficult for NATO to justify. But even in that scenario, NATO could escalate its presence in Ukraine in response — the exact opposite of Putin's goal.
This is a far more insightful analysis of the ideological aspect: https://www.memri.org/reports/russia...ical-dimension
Not that he isn't guilty of various offenses, but Putin has been pretty much straightforward about what he wants geopolitically - he wants to end American hegemony and establish a multipolar world.
I think I tried to read her books before but I thought her writing had a lot of purple prose.
But I'm not convinced Putin is popular in Russia.
Russian disinformation campaign: https://jabberwocking.com/the-view-f...is-a-grim-one/
I didn't know that Tucker was so popular in the Russian media, but I guess the Authoritarian message plays well with certain people.
Fox News must be destroyed.
I just don’t see any profit in such an intervention. Better to just stop sending them stuff we make, and let them enjoy life in the freezing mud.
Why is half the world trying to get into the US and half of Russia is trying to leave Russia?
Vote With Your Feet!