Russia-Ukrainian War

[ValueArb]

3 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

Zelenskys former ex-spokesperson - seen on Ukrainian TV during the war - a true insider - laying out the history and situation in realistic terms.

 

Worth a look

 

 

Paraphrasing some points - 

 

 - "Russia does not feel secure - it began the war because of NATO expansion....and we in Europe/Ukraine can laugh at that....but they REALLY feel this way"

 

 - Donbas is lost - but we in Ukrane shouldn't be focused on it - Donbas was never really part of Ukraine - it's like Northern Ireland in the UK.... a place that was neither truly Ukranian nor truly Russian...but is now Russian.

 

- he was part of Istanbul peace talks - deal on the table then was advantogous for Ukraine - but deal collapsed (he doesn't know why)

 

Like all PR flacks sounds like he's full of it. The war began because of Russian expansionism, NATO only really became an issue after the invasion to attempt to give Putin a justification. 

 

I won't argue whether Donbas is lost, its definitely a very tough nut to crack, a lot tougher than Crimea. But for a place that is not truly Ukrainian its pretty amazing how hard Kharkiv fought against the Russians, and its right next door to Donbas with a huge percentage of Russian speakers.

 

And if he thinks the Istanbul deal on the table was advantageous for Ukraine I don't know what to say. It would have basically turned over 100% of Ukraine to Russia over time.

[changegonnacome]

1 minute ago, ValueArb said:

Like all PR flacks sounds like he's full of it. The war began because of Russian expansionism, NATO only really became an issue after the invasion to attempt to give Putin a justification. 

 

I report, you decide - given I put up the vid like 10 minutes ago and you responded 3 minutes later - I'm glad to see you've watched it, taught about and then marintated on it for a while  

 

Guess he's just a guy that was part of Zelensky government, partook in the Istanbul peace talks and is now part of a group of political voices in Ukraine outlining a path forward by reflecting on the conflicts origins.....as you know @ValueArb the Russian expansionism argument carries no weight with me.....and remains, in my opinion, the exact narrative that a nations ruling classes via media creates to engender support for the resources that are to be dedicated to the fighting to come.

 

Its much harder to a fund war - with something approximating the following........"we in the West made a miscalculation in our zeal to expand liberal democracy via NATO expansion in Ukraine....we were ignorant to Russian red lines and their own internal security concerns and now Ukraine find itself between a rock and a hard place cause we led them down the primrose path.....so we're gonna have to spend $100bn+++ to try save some face and play the good guys."

 

Better to run with the Putin imperial madman narrative....it most definitely requires less intellectual overhead thats for sure....any alternative framework for thinking about the war is just way to complicated.....better to have theory of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians.....than the way the real world is......in which most countries/nations are simultaneously 

[changegonnacome]

26 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

NATO only really became an issue after the invasion to attempt to give Putin a justification. 

 

William J. Burns,U.S. Ambassador to Russia, 2008 - Cable back to Washington D.C.

 

"Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/23/ukraine-taiwan-red-lines/

 

William J. Burns,U.S. Ambassador to Russia, 2008 Message to Condoleezza Rice:

 

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” 

Found in:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/561709/the-back-channel-by-william-j-burns/

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by changegonnacome

[ValueArb]

27 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I report, you decide - given I put up the vid like 10 minutes ago and you responded 3 minutes later - I'm glad to see you've watched it, taught about and then marintated on it for a while  

 

Guess he's just a guy that was part of Zelensky government, partook in the Istanbul peace talks and is now part of a group of political voices in Ukraine outlining a path forward by reflecting on the conflicts origins.....as you know @ValueArb the Russian expansionism argument carries no weight with me.....and remains, in my opinion, the exact narrative that a nations ruling classes via media creates to engender support for the resources that are to be dedicated to the fighting to come.

 

Its much harder to a fund war - with something approximating the following........"we in the West made a miscalculation in our zeal to expand liberal democracy via NATO expansion in Ukraine....we were ignorant to Russian red lines and their own internal security concerns and now Ukraine find itself between a rock and a hard place cause we led them down the primrose path.....so we're gonna have to spend $100bn+++ to try save some face and play the good guys."

 

Better to run with the Putin imperial madman narrative....it most definitely requires less intellectual overhead thats for sure....any alternative framework for thinking about the war is just way to complicated.....better to have theory of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians.....than the way the real world is......in which most countries/nations are simultaneously 

 

I've peaced out as soon as he claimed russia has a legitimate security concern over NATO, and that they need a new alliance in Europe for collective defense just like NATO.  

 

I've also read enough detailed summaries of the Istanbul peace talks from participants I need to watch a 58 minute video for his dubious opinions? Clearly Putin isn't an honest negotiator, he's shown this over and over again that any agreement he signs is pure toilet paper. Anyone who thinks just giving him part of Ukraine to "end" the war won't end with him taking all of Ukraine is making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Opening a bottle of champagne over that? Delusional.

 

And I've never called Putin a madman. He was just following Dictator plan A, appease the population with an "easily winnable" war that will increase the territory and resources under his control. Just turned out not to be winnable. Very clearly he's trying to restore the Russian Empire just like the Tsars and just like Stalin and Lenin did with the USSR. It would maximize his power and his legacy.

 

And it has nothing to do with NATO. Again there is a history of Putin saying he didn't care if Ukraine joined NATO, that he'd even consider Russian joining before 2008. Then he decided he wanted Ukraine and it suddenly changed. And NATO is a defensive alliance, its charter clearly doesn't allow it to be invoked to invade anyone, so the only risk to Russia from NATO has been from its own expansionist tendencies. Its a laughable "red line" akin to saying if you try to put sprinklers in that building we are going to burn it down. 

 

And again why should we give a shit about what the elite in this toilet bowl of a third world country think?

[changegonnacome]

4 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

why should we give a shit about what the elite in this toilet bowl of a third world country think?

 

Serious question - with this viewpoint - why @ValueArb with all due respect even bother commenting or engaging in a thread which is fundamentally at its core a kind of international relations/security themed discussion...where what Russia thinks and by extension does is kind of foundational to the kicking around the subject?

[Gregmal]

53 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I report, you decide - given I put up the vid like 10 minutes ago and you responded 3 minutes later - I'm glad to see you've watched it, taught about and then marintated on it for a while  

 

Guess he's just a guy that was part of Zelensky government, partook in the Istanbul peace talks and is now part of a group of political voices in Ukraine outlining a path forward by reflecting on the conflicts origins.....as you know @ValueArb the Russian expansionism argument carries no weight with me.....and remains, in my opinion, the exact narrative that a nations ruling classes via media creates to engender support for the resources that are to be dedicated to the fighting to come.

 

Its much harder to a fund war - with something approximating the following........"we in the West made a miscalculation in our zeal to expand liberal democracy via NATO expansion in Ukraine....we were ignorant to Russian red lines and their own internal security concerns and now Ukraine find itself between a rock and a hard place cause we led them down the primrose path.....so we're gonna have to spend $100bn+++ to try save some face and play the good guys."

 

Better to run with the Putin imperial madman narrative....it most definitely requires less intellectual overhead thats for sure....any alternative framework for thinking about the war is just way to complicated.....better to have theory of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians.....than the way the real world is......in which most countries/nations are simultaneously 

I laughed at this but it’s true. I don’t even bother to read the Russia/China/Middle East stuff anymore because I can easily guess what the stupid Western narrative slant will be. It’s a waste of time. I’m not sure they taught the Cuban Missile Crisis in history either. Must have been replaced with gender studies.

[ValueArb]

57 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Serious question - with this viewpoint - why @ValueArb with all due respect even bother commenting or engaging in a thread which is fundamentally at its core a kind of international relations/security themed discussion...where what Russia thinks and by extension does is kind of foundational to the kicking around the subject?

Seriously, Russias GDP is smaller than Italys. Far smaller at this point, probably not even top 20 anymore. Is basically a larger version of North Korea. How much should we care about what Kim Jong Il thinks?

 

And know your history, Russian governments have always been horrifically backwards and oppressive. They treat their own people as disposable serfs. So again why should we accept any of their wrong headed opinions? Putin is going to claim whatever he needs to get whatever he wants, our job is to say no to him, force him to behave himself and ensure he doesn't invade other countries. We’ve been doing it for almost 80 years and now is not the time to stop.

[Dinar]

@ValueArb, you need to care about what North Korea thinks because it has nukes and can wipe out South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and parts of the US.  Looking at Russia through a GDP prism is a mistake.  If Russia stops trading with the rest of the world, what will happen to oil, gas, uranium, titanium and other commodities?  When Russia is 30% of the titanium supply for aircraft, that surely matters.  

[Xerxes]

3 hours ago, Gregmal said:

 I’m not sure they taught the Cuban Missile Crisis in history either. Must have been replaced with gender studies.

ask Chris about Cuban missile crisis

 

 

[ValueArb]

14 hours ago, Dinar said:

@ValueArb, you need to care about what North Korea thinks because it has nukes and can wipe out South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and parts of the US.  Looking at Russia through a GDP prism is a mistake.  If Russia stops trading with the rest of the world, what will happen to oil, gas, uranium, titanium and other commodities?  When Russia is 30% of the titanium supply for aircraft, that surely matters.  

 

Since North Korea has nukes, and feels it's the rightful ruler of South Korea, we should accept its opinion and let Kim Jong Il have it? Since Russia has nukes, and feels Ukraine should be part of it's sovereign territory, we should let Putin have it?

 

If we don't think the price of freedom is worth paying a bit more for titanium, oil and gas, what is it worth? Trade with Russia means a whole lot more to Russia than it does to the rest of the world. It has to export to survive, so its a strawman to say if we don't give them Ukraine (and then Georgia, and Belorussia, etc, etc) they'll stop exporting, that would be Putin's suicide.

[Dinar]

49 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

 

Since North Korea has nukes, and feels it's the rightful ruler of South Korea, we should accept its opinion and let Kim Jong Il have it? Since Russia has nukes, and feels Ukraine should be part of it's sovereign territory, we should let Putin have it?

 

If we don't think the price of freedom is worth paying a bit more for titanium, oil and gas, what is it worth? Trade with Russia means a whole lot more to Russia than it does to the rest of the world. It has to export to survive, so its a strawman to say if we don't give them Ukraine (and then Georgia, and Belorussia, etc, etc) they'll stop exporting, that would be Putin's suicide.

You hear but you do not listen.  Nowhere did I say that we should do what Putin or Kim want us to do.  You said it does not matter what Russia wants because it is a tiny % of the world's GDP, I stated why % of the world's GDP is the wrong metric to use.   Muslims have killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, what % of world's GDP was Afghanistan at that point?  Yet it mattered because Muslims based in Afghanistan hatched a plot that killed 3,000 Americans.  

[ValueArb]

18 minutes ago, Dinar said:

You hear but you do not listen.  Nowhere did I say that we should do what Putin or Kim want us to do.  You said it does not matter what Russia wants because it is a tiny % of the world's GDP, I stated why % of the world's GDP is the wrong metric to use.   Muslims have killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, what % of world's GDP was Afghanistan at that point?  Yet it mattered because Muslims based in Afghanistan hatched a plot that killed 3,000 Americans.  

 

So you are saying we should have pulled out of the middle east when Osama Bin Laden made his first threats?

 

My point on Russia is they are trapped, and we should not let them out of the trap. The fact they have a tiny GDP is important because it means that replacing the military equipment they are losing (esp. the most advanced) will take them years, if not decades. The only option we should give them is total withdrawal from Crimea and Donbas. 

[Dinar]

Just now, ValueArb said:

 

So you are saying we should have pulled out of the middle east when Osama Bin Laden made his first threats?

 

My point on Russia is they are trapped, and we should not let them out of the trap. The fact they have a tiny GDP is important because it means that replacing the military equipment they are losing (esp. the most advanced) will take them years, if not decades. The only option we should give them is total withdrawal from Crimea and Donbas. 

All I am saying is that the importance of the country is not measured by its GDP.  I am NOT saying that we should what a KGB operative or a terrorist or a dictator wants us to do.  

[John Hjorth]

For the purpose of perspective : Worldometers - GDP by country :

 

[John Hjorth]

37 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

... My point on Russia is they are trapped, and we should not let them out of the trap. The fact they have a tiny GDP is important because it means that replacing the military equipment they are losing (esp. the most advanced) will take them years, if not decades. ...

 

Reuters [27 November 2023] : Putin approves big military spending hikes for Russia's budget.

 

Quote

MOSCOW, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his official approval to a significant increase in military spending that will see around 30% of fiscal expenditure directed towards the armed forces in 2024 as he signed draft budget plans into law on Monday.

 

Moscow is diverting ever more resources towards prosecuting its war in Ukraine. Spending on defence and security combined is set to reach around 40% of all budget expenditure next year.

 

Spending on defence is set to increase by almost 70% in 2024 from 2023.

 

Russia has an ambitious 2024 revenue target of 35.1 trillion roubles ($391.2 billion) next year, a 22.3% planned increase year-on-year, based on assumptions of high oil prices. Analysts say the government may be forced to hike business taxes if those assumptions should prove optimistic.

 

The budget plans had already been approved by lawmakers in both houses of parliament, the State Duma and Federation Council.

 

So a budget shock, and balance based on expections of continued high oil prices. [Not mentioned, but plan B : To tax the hell out of the businesses owned by the oligarchs ! [because there are no money other places] ... wonderful - just wonderfull!]]

Edited January 17 by John Hjorth

[changegonnacome]

19 minutes ago, Dinar said:

Muslims have killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, what % of world's GDP was Afghanistan at that point?  Yet it mattered because Muslims based in Afghanistan hatched a plot that killed 3,000 Americans.

 

Exactly right @Dinar excellent post - foreign policy & security, like investing, is never really a quantitative game (GDP/no. of nukes/population)....there is no wisdom or edge in just the numbers...everybody has the numbers....its a qualitative exercise of threat assessment and preemptive strategy planning based on risk/reward considerations for each action....keeping on eye on the tails always!...trying to assess the best path forward as a sovereign in a sea of other sovereigns & non-state actors...reacting and acting......it's a deep deep challenge....its a nonlinear dynamic system.....in some ways worse than trying to predict the weather a month in the future. Human beings are unpredictable creatures.

 

Its system where exactly like you said - you can myopically focus on the Chinese or the Russian threat......but find out later that a small group of religious zealots in shawls in the caves of Afghanistan actually posed a far greater threat to American lives.

 

So when I see somebody say - why should we care what XYZ group thinks they're a bunch of third worlders....I would say to them that the CIA/NSA & 3000 Americans learned the foolishness of that approach post-9/11. Thankfully the 9/11 commision addressed those types of failings heads on.

 

As regards Ukraine-Russia to bring things back on topic - I clearly consider the situation in Ukraine to be an example where due to liberal democratic idealism & blatant disregard for Russia security concerns....we in the West badly miscalculated the risk/reward of the approach we were taking there....the West but mainly the USA/Germany & France myopically slept walked Ukraine and itself into a conflict that may not have ever needed to happen.......an alternative reality existed that required perhaps only minor concessions to Russian security concerns in the region while still optimizing for Ukraine's own sovereignty and democratic aspirations.....we in the West would be $122bn richer as a result.....and perhaps as many as 500,000 dead and injured in Ukraine & Russia would be better off too. Sweating the details matters in international relations & security.

 

That's all i've ever really tried to convey in this thread - a sense that the history of the conflict is much more complex and nuanced than a CNN/Fox/NYT byline that reads "Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine -  a Putin plot to recreate the USSR?" 

[ValueArb]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Reuters [27 November 2023] : Putin approves big military spending hikes for Russia's budget.

 

 

So a budget shock, and balance based on expections of continued high oil prices. [Not mentioned, but plan B : To tax the hell out of the businesses owned by the oligarchs ! [because there are no money other places] ... wonderful - just wonderfull!]]

 

You can't spend what you don't have and you can't build what you can't make. Where are they going to get all the washing machines they need to strip for military CPUs?

 

Secondly, how long can Russia devote such a huge amount of their GDP to military spending without shrinking the economy and triggering internal unrest?

[John Hjorth]

42 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

 

You can't spend what you don't have and you can't build what you can't make. Where are they going to get all the washing machines they need to strip for military CPUs?

 

Secondly, how long can Russia devote such a huge amount of their GDP to military spending without shrinking the economy and triggering internal unrest?

 

Denmark, Sunday : "Connected, commited, for the Kingdom of Denmark!",

Russia, Sunday :"Connected, commited, for Putin!".

 

The man does not give a damn about the people of Russia, his people.

[VersaillesinNY]

 

[cubsfan]

^^^ Nice video. Howard frames it well. In regards to the US involvement - it's simple - seal the southern border & the military aid package to Ukraine will happen.  Both need to happen.

 

 

[Gamecock-YT]

noted eastern european expert Howard Buffett

[Xerxes]

Much like investment track record which is meaningless over a year or two, and that it needs to be shown consistent on a very long term, I would say when it comes to geopolitics, right/wrong compass and morality as expressed by individuals also needs to be consistent over the long term. 
 

It cannot be that sometimes, it is very black-and-white Tolkienish talking up the moral compass angle, and sometimes it is realpolitik donning the Kissingerian hat and sometimes it is just total ignore because we cannot be bothered, because it is not exciting enough or the victims look different. 

Then again we are all imperfect humans. So we cannot expect to have perfect points of views. 

 

 

[ValueArb]

Quote

Russia’s Cash Inflow Plummeted During Second Year of War

• 2023 current account surplus down from previous year’s record
• Bank of Russia has forecast end-of-year balance of $75 billion

By Bloomberg News

January 19, 2024 at 7:31 AM MST

 

Russia’s current account surplus slumped in 2023, the first full year under sweeping sanctions imposed by the US and its allies over the invasion of Ukraine that have curbed the country’s export revenues. 

 

The current account balance — the difference between cash flowing into the country and outflows — amounted to just $50.2 billion last year, dropping from a record $238 billion at the end of 2022, according to preliminary central bank data published on Friday. The decrease was even more than officials expected, and brought the annual surplus to its lowest level since the pandemic that started in 2020. 

 

Exports dropped by $169 billion to $423 billion, which is “mainly due to less favorable prices for key Russian export goods,” the Bank of Russia said in its statement. At the same time, imports recovered to $304 billion. 

The central bank may revise its current account estimates as additional data becomes available after a delay. Data for October and November was revised on Friday, while data for the July-October period was revised last month. 

Russia’s revenues from energy exports plummeted after an oil price cap imposed by the Group of Seven nations in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine took full effect last year. Gas flows to Europe have been capped all year. 

The average price of Urals, Russia’s main crude-export blend, dropped more than 17% last year to $62.99 a barrel, according to the Finance Ministry. That’s still above the $60-a-barrel cap, but the current discounts are significantly above the historic average of some $2-to-$3 a barrel. The gap reached nearly $14 a barrel in December, according to the data. 

 

Proceeds from oil and gas are still a key source of funding for the war, accounting for almost a third of total budget revenue. 

 

Read more: Russia Fiscal Gap Widens Amid Slump in Oil and Gas Revenues

The current account surplus shrank to less than $1 billion in December from $4.7 billion in November, the central bank said. According to its data, the surplus amounted to $10.7 billion in the fourth quarter, down by about a third from the previous period and falling short of the expectations of economists surveyed by Bloomberg. 

 

The Bank of Russia forecast that the balance may slightly increase to $75 billion this year, assuming that average global crude prices remain at current levels.

 

[Libs]

So there's been talk of Russia taking on NATO, which on the surface sounds preposterous, just given the overwhelming power of NATO forces relative to Russia. But what if, instead of taking on all of NATO, they nibbled at the corners, so to speak, in a such a way that the NATO members say to themselves: "I'm not risking our soldiers / WW3 breaking out by fighting for X."

 

In other words, the plan is to destroy NATO by exposing it as toothless. Then, over time, Russia starts to take the smaller / weaker countries.

 

This guy explains it. The example he gives is a remote outpost in Finland with little strategic value to anyone. Technically, it's a violation of Article 5 if Russia takes a small slice. Will that be worth a full-scale war with a nuclear power?

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29 by Libs
mispelling

[cubsfan]

13 minutes ago, Libs said:

So there's been talk of Russia taking on NATO, which on the surface sounds preposterous, just given the overwhelming power of NATO forces relative to Russia. But what if, instead of taking on all of NATO, they nibbled at the corners, so to speak, in a such a way that the NATO members say to themselves: "I'm not risking our soldiers / WW3 breaking out by fighting for X."

 

In other words, the plan is to destroy NATO by exposing it as toothless. Then, over time, Russia starts to take the smaller / weaker countries.

 

This guy explains it. The example he gives is a remote outpost in Finland with little strategic value to anyone. Technically, it's a violation of Article 5 if Russia takes a small slice. Will that be worth a full-scale war with a nuclear power?

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

 

 

I think European leaders are starting to freak. The war is not going well , and Europe is faced with the prospect of sending more arms and possibly men if Russia is to be contained.