Political Posts

[SharperDingaan]

Russian crude is about to be 're-branded', as a 'blended' OPEC crude of 51% 'Other'/49% Russian ???. The Russian crude bought at a deep discount, 'blended' at various storage facilities, and the 'blend' sold at a discount to offset the recent SPR releases around the world? https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-business-europe-religion-9b10ce4f2cfe5bdeed5658fe45373e54

 

SD

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

Russian crude is about to be 're-branded', as a 'blended' OPEC crude of 51% 'Other'/49% Russian ???. The Russian crude bought at a deep discount, 'blended' at various storage facilities, and the 'blend' sold at a discount to offset the recent SPR releases around the world? https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-business-europe-religion-9b10ce4f2cfe5bdeed5658fe45373e54

 

SD

Thats the thing that many people don’t get. Europe and the US banning Russian crude won’t prevent the Russian from selling selling it. If Europeans  and the US don’t buy it, somebody else will (China. India) at a discount  instead of buying crude from OPEC and others. Europe now will buy from OPEC instead of Russia, but it’s essentially a ring around Rosie.

 

It still might have an impact, because the Russian crude will sell at a discount. We can tell the effectively of the embargo by the amount of discount the Russian gas relative to comparable qualities.

 

A NG boycott would be more effective , because the NG will be stranded, until Russia an redirect it ( China, LNG facilities) which will require a long time (years), discounts as well compared to what they are getting from Europe and tons of investment (money that Russia doesn’t have) These are all things that are not in Russia favor.

 

But first Europe needs to set up alternative supplies which requires some time as well. You really want to ruin the opponents economy, not your own with any sanction, otherwise it’s just self flagellation and doesn’t do us much good.

[SharperDingaan]

Russia also has the issue of getting paid for their crude....

In theory, the west pays OPEC USD for the 'blend', and OPEC passes the USD through to Russia. In practice, Russian tankers cannot use western port facilities, and Russia cannot receive USD on new crude purchases. However, there are no restrictions on loans , at an interest rate commensurate with both the smell and the risk. 

 

The west simply sets up a USD payable, secured against frozen Russian funds. Thereafter, OPEC is simply paid for each delivery of 'blend', with a portion of this USD payable, and OPEC/China relends USD to Russia at a premium rate  Blended only 'on paper', the physical Russian portion is simply re-sold directly to China/India - where there are no off-loading/port restrictions.

 

OPEC facilitates the trade by buying the Russian crude at a steep discount, charging a steep 'handling' fee for the 'processing', a steep spread on the loans, and keeps 2-3 months of float. The west facilitates the trade by netting against the frozen funds (free crude oil), earning interest on the frozen funds, and essentially never releasing them. Free oil continues to flow until the frozen assets are exhausted, bribes continue to get paid, Russia avoids a sovereign default, and everyone is happy.

 

There are very few ways Russia can access large quantities of USD. One is this way, the other is the Chinese agreeing to swap crude oil Yuan proceeds against their US USD reserves. Both ways are very expensive, and yet here Russia is trying to cut a deal? An indication as to just how desperate the Russia Central Bank actually is ????

 

The LNG/NG issue will largely resolve itself over the summer, and Russian gas demand will be reduced in stages designed to inflict as much financial damage on Russia as possible. The longer the war drags on, the worse it gets

 

Capitalism at work!

We live in interesting times,

 

SD

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by SharperDingaan

[Xerxes]

some speculation from Ukrainian media that :

 

“Moskva could have been carrying two nuclear warheads designed to be fitted to its P-1000 'carrier killer' missiles”. … when it sank 

[Spekulatius]

There is almost no chance that Finland is not joining NATO. We know that the dumbest thing a country could do with waver back and forth between joining and not, as it risk getting the Ukraine treatment. jt looks like Sweden is going to join too. I thought they are less likely to join because they don’t share a border with Russia, but they have been getting in ruffles with the Russia before in the Baltic see. That would be a milestone because Sweden has been neutral for a long time predating WW1.

 

The nuclear threat around the baltics is nonsense too, because Russia has nukes installed in the isolated Kaliningrad enclave.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/russia-threatens-new-nuclear-deployments-if-sweden-finland-join-nato.html

 

I remain to believe that NATO expansion wasn’t the issue, the issues was that NATO never took Ukraine in after they tried to join 2008 and wavered backhand forth on this issue.

[shhughes1116]

For those that are militarily inclined, it looks like the Ukrainians are going to turn Izyum into the “Fourth Battle of Krakiv”.  
 

Just like in the Third Battle or Krakiv, the Russians have left their supply lines unprotected and overextended, this time with a mass of BTGs in near/around Izyum. And their Western flank is very exposed. If the Ukrainians are successful in the same manner as Manstein was in 1943, the Russian flank in Donbas will be blown wide-open.

 

Rule #1 of Encirclement Club: when trying to encircle your enemy, don’t create a new salient with your forces that is exposed to encirclement by the very enemy you are trying to encircle.    

[Xerxes]

The enemy gets a vote too

 

Russia may use their low-yield tactical nuke against the regular Ukrainain military forces in the West of Donbas region, as they (Russian) regoup their own force. Clearly all indication is that (from what we see in the Media) that they are preparing for an offensive in the eastern side of the country, what if this just one big trap to bring in as many Ukrianian military forces as they can and then ...

 

Sadly, as Ukraine keeps scoring against Russia, we are dangerously getting close to the level where Russia may decide to use tactical nuke (tabooed be damned), as its military doctrine allows it to use as a first-use on battlefield

 

PS: lastly reading some of the commentaries by Zelensky in the days and week, I think it is clear that he finally understands that the West will fight the Russians to the last Ukrainians. So he says atleast give us all the weapons that we need if we are the one doing the fighting and dying 

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by Xerxes

[no_free_lunch]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

The enemy gets a vote too

 

Russia may use their low-yield tactical nuke against the regular Ukrainain military forces in the West of Donbas region, as they (Russian) regoup their own force. Clearly all indication is that (from what we see in the Media) that they are preparing for an offensive in the eastern side of the country, what if this just one big trap to bring in as many Ukrianian military forces as they can and then ...

 

Sadly, as Ukraine keeps scoring against Russia, we are dangerously getting close to the level where Russia may decide to use tactical nuke (tabooed be damned), as its military doctrine allows it to use as a first-use on battlefield

 

PS: lastly reading some of the commentaries by Zelensky in the days and week, I think it is clear that he finally understands that the West will fight the Russians to the last Ukrainians. So he says atleast give us all the weapons that we need if we are the one doing the fighting and dying 

 

It's plausible of course but I don't see it.

 

Putin , believe it or not, is still trying to maintain good guy status to his followers.  It would destroy the narrative that he is saving Ukraine from itself. 

 

If it was done I assume Ukraine would destroy the NG pipelines for starters.  It could draw the US into retaliation.  I feel Sweden and Finland would have little choice but to join NATO.  

 

In the Pacific it would expedite South Korea and Japan nuclear weapon programs. Not sure Russia cares but China sure would.  As a Russian ally it would put them in a awkward spot at a time they are pursuing economic and political and strategic advantage. I frankly feel it would piss them right off due to the blowback. 

 

I'm sure there is more but I feel it's like shuffling the position of all the pieces in the chessboard at once. All plans and calculations are reset. 

[shhughes1116]

Putin is not going to use a nuclear weapon unless he feels like he is choosing between a war crimes trial at The Hague and Nuclear Annihilation.  And in that case, he is not going to stop at a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

Said another way, Putin can lose the “special military operation” in Ukraine and there is a reasonable chance he can still remain in power.   But if he uses a tactical nuke, then he will be out of power, either because of world wide nuclear annihilation, or because NATO uses conventional weapons to destroy any and all infrastructure in Russia (I.e. ice-free deep water ports, energy infrastructure, transportation infrastructure) that makes it impossible for Russia to continue existing as a country. 

 

 

[Xerxes]

Disagree 

He will have no qualms in using a low yield tactical nuke if when he feels situation warrants it in his war in a non-NATO country. It is no different than a massive bomb compacted in a single delivery mechanism from a military point of view. That being said, there are political consequence as a multi-decade taboo would be broken and a first.
 

but those consequences will not be a NATO direct assault (conventional or nuclear) on Russia. As that is the road to apocalypse. 
 

Even in a theoretical total NATO success and a decapitated nuked Moscow, the “Dead Hand” automated system (read about it) will take take care of the rest of the planet and turn it into a parking lot, on behalf of now dead Putin … and solve our inflation problem while at it.  

jeremi Gratham will also finally be right 

Edited April 18, 2022 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, no_free_lunch said:

It's plausible of course but I don't see it.

 

Putin , believe it or not, is still trying to maintain good guy status to his followers.  It would destroy the narrative that he is saving Ukraine from itself. 

 

If it was done I assume Ukraine would destroy the NG pipelines for starters.  It could draw the US into retaliation.  I feel Sweden and Finland would have little choice but to join NATO.  

 

In the Pacific it would expedite South Korea and Japan nuclear weapon programs. Not sure Russia cares but China sure would.  As a Russian ally it would put them in a awkward spot at a time they are pursuing economic and political and strategic advantage. I frankly feel it would piss them right off due to the blowback. 

 

I'm sure there is more but I feel it's like shuffling the position of all the pieces in the chessboard at once. All plans and calculations are reset. 

I think after the very first week, when the Ukrainian did not “rise” against their own constitution and government, he is no longer interested in anything other than complete eradication of their identity. From his perspective, they said no at his offer to become an imperial vassal. 
 

now with his army pillaging and raping, all the niceties are gone on the ground as well.  I have no doubt the Ukrainian are probably showing Russian little mercy as well (we are well past cute videos of captured Russians calling their mom at the onset of the war)

 

The scars will take 50 years to heal 

 

tactical nukes are nothing other than means to gain (re-gain) upper hand as per Russian military doctrine, while knowing that there political consequences. 
 

[Xerxes]

https://www.military.com/history/russias-dead-hand-soviet-built-nuclear-doomsday-device.html/amp
 

i actually read a whole book on this topic few years ago. The book is also called “Dead Hand”. Basically after the first ICBM takes off the Doomsday Machine will send a non-human signal to the rest of nuclear arsenal ordering them to launch and at that point the whole thing would become unstoppable. 
 

 

“In a crisis that might mean a first strike from the United States, high-ranking government officials or military commanders could activate the Perimeter. Perimeter would guarantee that the Soviet Union (and now, Russia) could respond even if its entire armed forces were wiped out.

Once switched on, the Perimeter system can launch the entire Russian nuclear arsenal in response to a nuclear attack. It was part of the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction, a means of deterring nuclear attacks by ensuring the side who initiated a first strike also would be annihilated.”

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, shhughes1116 said:

Putin is not going to use a nuclear weapon unless he feels like he is choosing between a war crimes trial at The Hague and Nuclear Annihilation.  And in that case, he is not going to stop at a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

Said another way, Putin can lose the “special military operation” in Ukraine and there is a reasonable chance he can still remain in power.   But if he uses a tactical nuke, then he will be out of power, either because of world wide nuclear annihilation, or because NATO uses conventional weapons to destroy any and all infrastructure in Russia (I.e. ice-free deep water ports, energy infrastructure, transportation infrastructure) that makes it impossible for Russia to continue existing as a country. 

 

 

Nukes are useless, except as a deterrent to prevent the opponent from use nukes first. That why I think in the long run, the Ukraine needs nukes, if they remain a neutral state.  A well armed Ukraine with nuclear weapons is the only way to guarantee safety from future russian interventions. The other alternative is that Ukraine either directly joins NATO (which means they get protected by NATO‘s nukes) , or gets contractural guarantees from thr NATO that sort of are the equivalent of  the Ukraine joining NATO.  
 

Neither of these alternatives are to Putins liking of course.

[cubsfan]

The impact for Asia will be that China's neighbors are likely to nuke up as well.

Given the failure of the US to assist Ukraine with arms until it was too late, a lot

of China's neighbors have to be very nervous. In hindsight, Ukraine made a big

mistake by giving up their nukes assuming they would be protected by the West.

Japan, S Korea, Phillipines, Taiwan, Australia can't let their future be subject

to old "promises" of US protection.  You can add Israel and Saudi Arabia to that 

list as well.

 

Very unfortunate - but countries that possess nukes are very unlikely to be invaded.

[boilermaker75]

Yes very unfortunate. At some point even countries that cannot develop their own will probably be able to purchase them.

[SharperDingaan]

Drop any kind of nuke, anywhere, and you set off an unpredictable global chain of events; your odds of surviving it are very slim indeed. Nukes are simply a table stake, used when your current total ante is enough to ruin you - should you lose. Win/lose is irrelevant, the purpose is to intimidate, and make opponents back off. 

 

The reality is that 'spheres of influence' are simply an attempt to halt 'change' at a point favorable to you. However, history has long demonstrated that change is akin to a permanently flowing river; it can be damned up for a time behind the 'powers of the day', and 'controlled' via planned releases - but the damns eventually collapse. Old men, unable to change, striving for the 'old days', taking everyone else with them.

 

Obviously, 'Putin in a box' is the best outcome for everybody; and at this point, it is now more just a matter of time. Something that Putin, as a former KGB spy master, will be well aware of. Hence .... keep scanning that daily copy of Pravda!

 

SD

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

Drop any kind of nuke, anywhere, and you set off an unpredictable global chain of events; your odds of surviving it are very slim indeed. Nukes are simply a table stake, used when your current total ante is enough to ruin you - should you lose. Win/lose is irrelevant, the purpose is to intimidate, and make opponents back off. 

 

The reality is that 'spheres of influence' are simply an attempt to halt 'change' at a point favorable to you. However, history has long demonstrated that change is akin to a permanently flowing river; it can be damned up for a time behind the 'powers of the day', and 'controlled' via planned releases - but the damns eventually collapse. Old men, unable to change, striving for the 'old days', taking everyone else with them.

 

Obviously, 'Putin in a box' is the best outcome for everybody; and at this point, it is now more just a matter of time. Something that Putin, as a former KGB spy master, will be well aware of. Hence .... keep scanning that daily copy of Pravda!

 

SD

@SharperDingaan well said. I just don’t think that “Putin in a box” is likely.

 

Any idea what NATO would do if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine? Biden stated that chemical weapon use would “ get a response “, so nukes for sure would get a response. My own guess is that NATO would get involved and put a lot of “birds in the air” (missiles, planes ) with conventional weapons.

 

Targets would be the Russian Black Sea fleet, any Russian buildup in Ukraine, Crimean military in stations / rocket launch sides. targets within the Donetsk / Luhansk  and perhaps logistics center in Russia used to stage war. Of course the nuclear launch asset would get one too, regardless of where it is located.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Spekulatius

[Viking]

13 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

@SharperDingaan well said. I just don’t think that “Putin in a box” is likely.

 

Any idea what NATO would do if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine? Biden stated that chemical weapon use would “ get a response “, so nukes for sure would get a response. My own guess is that NATO would get involved and put a lot of “birds in the air” (missiles, planes ) with conventional weapons.

 

Targets would be the Russian Black Sea fleet, any Russian buildup in Ukraine, Crimean military in stations / rocket launch sides. targets within the Donetsk / Luhansk  and perhaps logistics center in Russia used to stage war. Of course the nuclear launch asset would get one too, regardless of where it is located.

i think the lack of clarity of how NATO will respond will actually motivate Putin to use this option. Want a quick end to the war? Use a tactical nuclear? Might actually work.

 

Will the use of a tactical nuclear weapon result i NATO actually joining the fight? I doubt it. Is ‘saving’ Ukraine worth risk of nuclear escalation to rest of Europe? Probably not. If this is Putin’s calculus then tactical nukes are likely on the table for Russia.

 

As i have been saying since Russia invaded Ukraine, the key player is China. If they are ok with Russia using a tactical nuke then we likely have our answer. India’s response would also be important.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Viking

[changegonnacome]

On 4/17/2022 at 10:29 AM, Spekulatius said:

I remain to believe that NATO expansion wasn’t the issue, the issues was that NATO never took Ukraine in after they tried to join 2008 and wavered backhand forth on this issue.

 

Completely agree & the people of Georgia would attest to that idea too…….those hollow NATO declarations, post the Budapest summit in 2008, with zero material follow-up setup a chain reaction of events were seeing today.

 

Finland & Sweden should take note…….the period of time between openly aspiring to join NATO and actually joining NATO should be as close to zero as possible.

Edited April 18, 2022 by changegonnacome

[Spekulatius]

8 minutes ago, Viking said:

i think the lack of clarity of how NATO will respond will actually motivate Putin to use this option. Want a quick end to the war? Use a tactical nuclear? Might actually work.

 

Will the use of a tactical nuclear weapon result i NATO actually joining the fight? I doubt it. Is ‘saving’ Ukraine worth risk of nuclear escalation to rest of Europe? Probably not. If this is Putin’s calculus then tactical nukes are likely on the table for Russia.

 

As i have been saying since Russia invaded Ukraine, the key player is China. If they are ok with Russia using a tactical nuke then we likely have our answer. India’s response would also be important.

I don’t think China is really a factor here, They haven’t been doing much to help Putin and I read that trade with Russia is actually down, the reason being that Chinese companies quite correctly asses that the risk to get sanction is much higher than the pot, benefit from trade with the fairly small Russian economy is worth. China may be waiting to get some scraps here and their, but they haven’t done anything to actively help the Russian.

 

It is also noticeable that Belarusian besides allowing to be a staging ground hasn’t helped Russia either, nor did Russias ally Kazakhstan. Russia clearly doesn’t have many friends that it can count on right now.

 

Being somewhat vague on how to respond is the right thing to do to a nuclear strike. I think it is clear that there will be a NATO involvement but it would be a mistake to directly commit to a nuclear counter strike because it isn’t necessary. The NATO has enough conventional firepower to respond to a tactical nuke strike in kind and then some, which again gives Putin the choice to ask for more, doubling down yet again, of finally let it be.

[Xerxes]

24 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

@SharperDingaan well said. I just don’t think that “Putin in a box” is likely.

 

Any idea what NATO would do if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine? Biden stated that chemical weapon use would “ get a response “, so nukes for sure would get a response. My own guess is that NATO would get involved and put a lot of “birds in the air” (missiles, planes ) with conventional weapons.

 

Targets would be the Russian Black Sea fleet, any Russian buildup in Ukraine, Crimean military in stations / rocket launch sides. targets within the Donetsk / Luhansk  and perhaps logistics center in Russia used to stage war. Of course the nuclear launch asset would get one too, regardless of where it is located.

 

 

Spek, you got to be kidding me in thinking that the West will get into a direct shooting war with Russia, if they use tactical nukes. The only thing one can say is that it will be completely different world the day after, even if it is a low-yield Hiroshima like nukes, due to the fact that they are tabooed.

 

 

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

19 minutes ago, Viking said:

i think the lack of clarity of how NATO will respond will actually motivate Putin to use this option. Want a quick end to the war? Use a tactical nuclear? Might actually work.

 

Will the use of a tactical nuclear weapon result i NATO actually joining the fight? I doubt it. Is ‘saving’ Ukraine worth risk of nuclear escalation to rest of Europe? Probably not. If this is Putin’s calculus then tactical nukes are likely on the table for Russia.

 

As i have been saying since Russia invaded Ukraine, the key player is China. If they are ok with Russia using a tactical nuke then we likely have our answer. India’s response would also be important.

 

 

You get 2 out of 3 right.

The first two paragraphs.

 

China cannot understand & control Vlad Putin anymore than we do.

Kremlin will not seek permission from Dehli nor Beijing to address what is considers as its national security. The events in 2022 will make Russia subservient to Beijing over time, but the latter will have no influence today now that the war has been launched.

 

Only one person does. And only that one person knows his red line threshold.

 

[Xerxes]

3 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

Drop any kind of nuke, anywhere, and you set off an unpredictable global chain of events; your odds of surviving it are very slim indeed. Nukes are simply a table stake, used when your current total ante is enough to ruin you - should you lose. Win/lose is irrelevant, the purpose is to intimidate, and make opponents back off. 

 

The reality is that 'spheres of influence' are simply an attempt to halt 'change' at a point favorable to you. However, history has long demonstrated that change is akin to a permanently flowing river; it can be damned up for a time behind the 'powers of the day', and 'controlled' via planned releases - but the damns eventually collapse. Old men, unable to change, striving for the 'old days', taking everyone else with them.

 

Obviously, 'Putin in a box' is the best outcome for everybody; and at this point, it is now more just a matter of time. Something that Putin, as a former KGB spy master, will be well aware of. Hence .... keep scanning that daily copy of Pravda!

 

SD

 

Great post, until the day it isn't and a tactical nuke is indeed dropped ...

 

And disagree with your last paragraph, that was the whole point of this invasion. A RESET. Putin would have been in box 10 years from now, if there was no invasion, with Ukraine propsering while Russia stagnated. Now he is back at it and fully in charge, traitors gone, oligarch with questionable loyality gone, and the world on the edge. Him and his will draw from power from that. If you are anybody in the Russian societ today, you EITHER WITH HIM or are AGAINST RUSSIAN PEOPLE.

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

[no_free_lunch]

I think you are under-estimating the economic side effects Xerxes.  Trade with Europe, including NG, would be completely severed if they went nuclear.  Trade with China and India if they continue to support Russia the same.

 

From a nuclear war perspective, I don't buy it.  Russia is not a death cult.  They are already resorting to conscription and recruitment from other countries and we are only a month into the war.  Clearly there are only so many Russian's willing to die and most have already made the commitment.