Russia-Ukrainian War

[Luke]

IMO the US operates fully in its own interests (contrary to european countries but they dont see that), which by now are not realizable and will lead only to further escalation because Russia would rather blow up than be defeated. They also have little to lose with how much they are pushed into a corner anyway. It is time to call it off and sit down with Putin to discuss forced peace (as much as this goes against the will of the Ukrainians). 

 

Much better would be of course, total withdrawal by Putin, some sort of autonomous region in the east and a neutral position with a new government. But I think that deal was realistic 10 years ago, but not anymore 

[John Hjorth]

6 minutes ago, Luke said:

 

Russia has expanded its wealth of natural resources by more than 10%, and there is a lot of value in the eastern region, so I don't think "nothing" was gained here. But as you already said in previous posts, it was not smart at all from Ukraine to lean towards either side and could have existed perfectly fine if it would have run a more "swiss" position with a government that operates more strategically. I agree basically with everything you said in previous post though. Ukraine got into things way bigger than them, and the government didn't think about its position and the willingness of Russia to solidify itself there. Very tragic. 

 

I'm speechless reading this here on CoBF from, what at least is the best of my understanding, a young German citizen. Oh, well.

[Luke]

7 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

I'm speechless reading this here on CoBF from, what at least is the best of my understanding, a young German citizen. Oh, well.

John, please, my statement was without moral judgment. I was simply speaking from the Russian side of view. The land they gained is not "nothing". There are trillions worth of minerals and other natural ressources that are valuable. So the war, as much people it cost, gained them a lot of ressources. Yes, brutal, but thats obvious. I am not in this thread to sob or virtue signal, just simply discussing reality and whats happening behind the scenes. 

[Luke]

I don't have to explain, with every statement one makes in this war, that it's a brutal, tragic, vicious, and unnecessary war that I wouldn't wish for any country in this world without having a moral police stepping by. But that is also part of this conflict; you can't discuss anything without someone playing the moral police and it prevents to discuss the fundamentals and seeking a resolution.   

[Luke]

From an investment perspective: I think the board can change fast, elections in the US could turn in favor for trump, EU elections and german elections could bring a conservative government that seeks diplomatic resolution. By 2026 russian direct trade could be open again, maybe even the stock market too. Not saying the probability is that high BUT its also not as unlikely IMO. 

[cubsfan]

34 minutes ago, Luke said:

I don't have to explain, with every statement one makes in this war, that it's a brutal, tragic, vicious, and unnecessary war that I wouldn't wish for any country in this world without having a moral police stepping by. But that is also part of this conflict; you can't discuss anything without someone playing the moral police and it prevents to discuss the fundamentals and seeking a resolution.   

 

Few of us want Russia to win this war, certainly not me. The question now, is how many lives are to be lost in what clearly looks like a stalemate - and a war that Ukraine can not win. And whose lives will be lost - more Ukrainians? Europeans? American?

 

When you fast forward to that question - I come to the conclusion that you settle with Russia.

 

This whole thing could have been avoided if the Europeans and the US had deterred Russia back in 2013. Obama essentially gave Putin the green light for playing nice and not causing him re-election trouble in 2012. Barrack kept his promise to Putin - eased back on missile defense in progress. The Europeans were asleep at the wheel - and Putin took his opportunity.

 

Now the US and Europe are tryin to clean up a mess that could have been easily avoided.

[John Hjorth]

29 minutes ago, Luke said:

John, please, my statement was without moral judgment. I was simply speaking from the Russian side of view. The land they gained is not "nothing". There are trillions worth of minerals and other natural ressources that are valuable. So the war, as much people it cost, gained them a lot of ressources. Yes, brutal, but thats obvious. I am not in this thread to sob or virtue signal, just simply discussing reality and whats happening behind the scenes. 

 

27 minutes ago, Luke said:

I don't have to explain, with every statement one makes in this war, that it's a brutal, tragic, vicious, and unnecessary war that I wouldn't wish for any country in this world without having a moral police stepping by. But that is also part of this conflict; you can't discuss anything without someone playing the moral police and it prevents to discuss the fundamentals and seeking a resolution.   

 

22 minutes ago, Luke said:

From an investment perspective: I think the board can change fast, elections in the US could turn in favor for trump, EU elections and german elections could bring a conservative government that seeks diplomatic resolution. By 2026 russian direct trade could be open again, maybe even the stock market too. Not saying the probability is that high BUT its also not as unlikely IMO. 

 

Sure, @Luke ,

 

You are entitled to whatever stance you may have. My postulate is your stance is naive with regard to the defence of democratic values in Europe. Up yours with all your charts. To me, you haven't understood one whit of what's at stake here for Europe, based on probabilities of futher Russian imperialist agressions within Europe going forward. You seem to be totally indifferent to such matters.

 

And here I stop, for good.

[Luke]

 

53 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

When you fast forward to that question - I come to the conclusion that you settle with Russia.

What is the realistic alternative? The war has its origins, and the West/Ukraine went too far. It doesn't mean Russia can simply do this, but they are doing it, and you have to acknowledge reality. I am simply pointing out an acceptable way out that was already there two years ago, and now there are hundreds of thousands of dead men, and you want to continue throwing weapons at this? 

53 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

This whole thing could have been avoided if the Europeans and the US had deterred Russia back in 2013. Obama essentially gave Putin the green light for playing nice and not causing him re-election trouble in 2012.

What does the US have to do with any of this? One reason for this war is that the US is encroaching on every country globally, trying to grab influence and build military bases everywhere, including Ukraine. 

53 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

Barrack kept his promise to Putin - eased back on missile defense in progress. The Europeans were asleep at the wheel - and Putin took his opportunity.

That is not the story at all, sorry. 

 

[Luke]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

Sure, @Luke ,

 

You are entitled to whatever stance you may have. My postulate is your stance is naive with regard to the defence of democratic values in Europe.

And that's why I would never vote for you because eventually, you would send young western european guys to a war that they have nothing to do with. Do real sensible politics and not a virtue show biz that eventually leads to a full escalation, including NATO. That's what you want, right? Because its "good" vs "evil", right? RIGHT? 

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

Up yours with all your charts. To me, you haven't understood one whit of what's at stake here for Europe, based on probabilities of futher Russian imperialist agressions within Europe going forward. You seem to be totally indifferent to such matters.

Look at the NATO budget, look at NATO's technological advancement, look at our manpower. You are delusional if you believe Putin plans to conquer Nato countries or go further into Europe. 

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

And here I stop, for good.

Good, because you are providing 0 value to the discussion with your statements. 

Edited September 25 by Luke

[Luke]

It's simple: 

 

One side is morally bloated and blind on one eye. They want to seek "justice" and fight "evil," and that justifies why the EU/US, etc, should send trillions of dollars, incl. their men, to fight against evil Russia because apparently they want to take over the whole of Europe, leaving out any history and origin of the discussion. They are for way more weapon delivery and ultimately a total war against Russia until they crumble and the government is taken over and replaced with a pro-western leader.  

 

The other side sees that there is an origin of this conflict, that we have a responsibility to resolve the initial conflict diplomatically, and that we have to stop sending more and more weapons. They see that we have to include Russia and Putin in the discussion, take them seriously, reinitiate communications and mutual respect and work towards an acceptable deal for both sides wich includes new elections in Ukraine, no nato joining etc, autonomous regions in the east etc. This would be best for humanity, would stop the dying, would lead to peace in europe and slowly ukraine can rebuild itself and emerge neutral, autonomous and safe. 

 

Then the first group says "but putin etc" we cant let him win" "he is evil" so the weapons continue and the war continues and the escalation continues towards a potential nuclear disaster all for really, nothing but lofty moral statements, meanwhile hundred thousand men dead.

 

So the outcome by group one is a total war with then 5m men dead, and a totally destroyed ukraine. And the second outcome of group two is immediate stopping of dying, peace developments, ukraine not bombed anymore, emerging prosperity etc.

 

You tell me whats smarter. 

 

 

Edited September 25 by Luke

[Luke]

And another result also emerges of this discussion: No matter how much you talk about this with someone from group one, they will never change their mind because its not about doing real sensible things but its about lofty things, "being right", "doing good", "being virtuous". So there is really no point in changing their mind because they psychologically need to believe and act out story one, one is eventually wasting ones time and one can only agree to disagree. 

[RichardGibbons]

2 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

I'm speechless reading this here on CoBF from, what at least is the best of my understanding, a young German citizen. Oh, well.

 

I don't think you should be surprised at this, John.  Luke's been one of the most consistent people on the forum.

 

I don't think I've ever seen him move even a step away from his core position that large authoritarian regimes that crush their own citizens are completely good, and democracies and free markets are completely bad.  It's very clear that if Russia invades Germany, his position will be that it's both a good thing and that Germany deserves it.

[Xerxes]

Hopefully some humour to help break tension in this thread. 
 

 

[Parsad]

4 hours ago, Luke said:

It's simple: 

 

One side is morally bloated and blind on one eye. They want to seek "justice" and fight "evil," and that justifies why the EU/US, etc, should send trillions of dollars, incl. their men, to fight against evil Russia because apparently they want to take over the whole of Europe, leaving out any history and origin of the discussion. They are for way more weapon delivery and ultimately a total war against Russia until they crumble and the government is taken over and replaced with a pro-western leader.  

 

The other side sees that there is an origin of this conflict, that we have a responsibility to resolve the initial conflict diplomatically, and that we have to stop sending more and more weapons. They see that we have to include Russia and Putin in the discussion, take them seriously, reinitiate communications and mutual respect and work towards an acceptable deal for both sides wich includes new elections in Ukraine, no nato joining etc, autonomous regions in the east etc. This would be best for humanity, would stop the dying, would lead to peace in europe and slowly ukraine can rebuild itself and emerge neutral, autonomous and safe. 

 

Then the first group says "but putin etc" we cant let him win" "he is evil" so the weapons continue and the war continues and the escalation continues towards a potential nuclear disaster all for really, nothing but lofty moral statements, meanwhile hundred thousand men dead.

 

So the outcome by group one is a total war with then 5m men dead, and a totally destroyed ukraine. And the second outcome of group two is immediate stopping of dying, peace developments, ukraine not bombed anymore, emerging prosperity etc.

 

You tell me whats smarter. 

 

 

 

Are you saying that Europe, Canada and the U.S. should have simply negotiated with Germany and Japan?

 

I understand you want to have a discussion with no moral context, only based on fact, history and economic objectives, but that isn't reality.  

 

Russia could have pursued a diplomatic solution to accessing the resources in Ukraine...like a partnership agreement or licensing rights.  Wouldn't that have prevented a war or tens of thousands of deaths?

 

So why didn't Putin choose that solution?  Why invade another sovereign nation?

 

The other side of this discussion isn't interested in virtue signaling either, but they aren't naive enough to believe that aggression is simply a precursor to diplomacy.  It should be the other way around!

 

Cheers!

[Spekulatius]

If only ignoring problems (moving on) would solve them. Doesn’t work in engineering that’s for sure. Ignoring a problem has never worked for me there and likely grows into a larger problem.

 I guess I should have studied sociology and politics instead. So simple.

 

Also, Russia will run out of sons too. Demographics are terrible and not in Russias favor. Russia can’t keep this up forever. They recruit 30,000 mean/ month for the war. Thats gives you an idea about the consumption rate this war has for the Russians.

 

Also, the Rubel is back to trash levels of about 93 Rubel for he $ on grey market. Roughly 2 x Pre war. that means imports cost 2x too. The price economic data on the surface does not look to bad with ~3% GDP growth but that’s because the Russian economy has to switch to a war economy, this growth does not go into consumer goods and services.

 

Interest rates were raised to 18%.

 

An interesting  stat from another war - German production of goods was rising until 1944 - with pretty much everything going into war efforts directly and indirectly. In 1944 much of Germany was already destroyed and the war was lost. I am just putting this out there k because some people claim the the economic data proves that Russia is doing well economically.

[UK]

4 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Ignoring a problem has never worked for me there and likely grows into a larger problem.

 

It could work this way: ,The soldier-turned US President Dwight Eisenhower once said that when he couldn’t solve problems, he made them bigger, so he could':)

 

Edited September 26 by UK

[John Hjorth]

On 9/25/2024 at 11:36 PM, Parsad said:

 

Are you saying that Europe, Canada and the U.S. should have simply negotiated with Germany and Japan?

 

I understand you want to have a discussion with no moral context, only based on fact, history and economic objectives, but that isn't reality.  

 

Russia could have pursued a diplomatic solution to accessing the resources in Ukraine...like a partnership agreement or licensing rights.  Wouldn't that have prevented a war or tens of thousands of deaths?

 

So why didn't Putin choose that solution?  Why invade another sovereign nation?

 

The other side of this discussion isn't interested in virtue signaling either, but they aren't naive enough to believe that aggression is simply a precursor to diplomacy.  It should be the other way around!

 

Cheers!

 

Good questions, Sanjeev [ @Parsad ],

 

I have spent a good deal of today to find some answers to some this, - to understand how the man is thinking and try to understand his world view. I recalled hearing a bite of interview some time ago with Samuel Rachlin, a Danish journalist and author of several books about Russia and Putin, here considerered an expert in Russian relations and affairs. Mr. Rachlin was born in Sibiria and lived there in the first nine years of his life, while his parents were deporteret thereto for 14 years, after which the family ended up in Denmark.

 

I found it on a streaming service called 'TV2 Play' provided by the Danish TV channel TV2, the streaming service avaiable to me, all services from TV2 are included in the TV package in my household. Mr. Rachlin mentions specifically a speech held by Vladimir Putin at MSC [Munich Security Conference], in 2007, where he is totally candid towards the participants about his intentions : The objective being a new world order. Actually stunned by hearing this I started to seach for that speech, and found :

 

Wikipedia : 2007 Munich speech of Vladimir Putin.

 

Link to the speech : kremlin.ru : President of Russia : Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy [February 10th 2007, Munich].

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Speech also attached here.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Let me just say that I today personally have been hit by a very frustrating feeling of being naive - very naive - earlier - before February 24^th 2022.

Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy - President of Russia 20070210 - 20240926.pdf

Edited September 27 by John Hjorth

[CGJB]

 

[John Hjorth]

Wikipedia : List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War.

 

Total commitment USD 380 B, of which USD 118 B in direct military aid. Add to that [by deducting it] the self-determined 'collateral' of USD 280 B in frozen [seized] Russian central bank assets and you get a total different overall picture. [X is what it is : X].

 

But yeah, freedom isen't always free, and should never be considered a given. Here in tiny Denmark, the military spending is also under a material ramp-up, but with no consequences in the form tax raises in the state budget because of healthy public finances, but I would accept even material tax raises with a shrug, if this was needed, as a citizen to contribute to make this situation come to an end.

[Parsad]

5 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Wikipedia : List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War.

 

Total commitment USD 380 B, of which USD 118 B in direct military aid. Add to that [by deducting it] the self-determined 'collateral' of USD 280 B in frozen [seized] Russian central bank assets and you get a total different overall picture. [X is what it is : X].

 

But yeah, freedom isen't always free, and should never be considered a given. Here in tiny Denmark, the military spending is also under a material ramp-up, but with no consequences in the form tax raises in the state budget because of healthy public finances, but I would accept even material tax raises with a shrug, if this was needed, as a citizen to contribute to make this situation come to an end.

 

+1!  I think most people knew that this would be a stalemate with Russia coming out the moderate winner at the end after a peace settlement is negotiated.  But it also set the floor for everyone else (China, Iran, North Korea) that any aggression is going to cost you financially and in terms of lives lost.  A sad fact, but a fact nonetheless...thus why the West could not just sit by and watch it happen.  As you said...freedom is never free!  Cheers!

[boilermaker75]

14 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Wikipedia : List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War.

 

Total commitment USD 380 B, of which USD 118 B in direct military aid. Add to that [by deducting it] the self-determined 'collateral' of USD 280 B in frozen [seized] Russian central bank assets and you get a total different overall picture. [X is what it is : X].

 

But yeah, freedom isen't always free, and should never be considered a given. Here in tiny Denmark, the military spending is also under a material ramp-up, but with no consequences in the form tax raises in the state budget because of healthy public finances, but I would accept even material tax raises with a shrug, if this was needed, as a citizen to contribute to make this situation come to an end.

 

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it,” Thomas Paine.

[John Hjorth]

Today, I've spent some time on trying to educate myself on what what was going on in Ukraine in 2014. Simply because my own memory about it is pretty much 'blank' - just not just say totally empty. To the best of my recollection it was as close to a 'non-event' as it could be, here. [Here understood as : 'This is about an Ukrainian pensinsula, - is that important?']

 

Later all the political counter measures with economic sanctions started, based what was going on in UN, related to it.

 

Alone reading : Wikipedia : Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation one get the feeling of a period saturated with locally violent [strong] oppositely directed and conflicting currents in a chaotic situation by all means already in  place. Now add to that a historic backdrop that has been exactly the same stuff.

 

Absolute frustrating to read about.

 

I'm in no way sure I would have sensed Putin true intentions, if I had followed how the situation evolved over time back then in 2014 , which I diden't.

[John Hjorth]

14 minutes ago, boilermaker75 said:

 

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it,” Thomas Paine.

 

Thank you, Mike [ @boilermaker75 ] 

[Xerxes]

12 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

+But it also set the floor for everyone else (China, Iran, North Korea) that any aggression is going to cost you financially and in terms of lives lost.  

You have rightly tabulated a list of the bad actors. Right out of the media. But what about Western bad actors and Western sponsored bad actors ? How do you dissuaded and set the floor for the idiots and dummies in Washington and London etc. 
 

Saudi Arabia launched a war against Yemen in 2015, not too dissimilar all than the circumstances of Russia’ war in Ukraine. 
 

The Arabian peninsula is considered its backyard. House of Saud sets the discount rate in the Arabian peninsula. Not Qatar, Yemen, Oman and/or UAE.  And it didn’t like a “loose” Qatar and Yemen. It couldn’t bomb Qatar, given the “hedge” that Doha built with Turkey and U.S. but no such luck with Yemen. They got sent to oblivion. 

 

The U.S. Government seemed to be ok with it in 2015. Supported it, helped Saudi planes refuels to bomb school, weddings, the occasional Houthi etc. and whatever else House of Saud felt like doing.

 

If bombing a school is an act of terrorism, what that makes the Western government supporting it ? No need to guess => it is called state sponsoring terrorism. 
 

What is Yemen today: a broken state with vultures taking a piece of it. And a reliable low-cost proxy (acquired at no cost) for Iranian malign influence. 
 

What about the American Caesar wannabe:  Warlord Hilary Clinton. 
 

She said: “we came, we saw, we conquered … “. talking about Libya. 
 

10 years later after the War Lord Clinton plagiarized Julius Caesar, everyone forget they left a mess and a civil war in Libya. Oh well. At least she got to act like Caesar. 
 

Today, even as we are discussing this, there is a civil war in Sudan. With UAE largely behind it. And of course who are main Western state backing UAE.  
 

https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI?feature=shared

 

In summary, if a psychopath gets elected to office and/is part of liberal democracy, their foreign adventures seem like all forgotten. 
 

Is anybody counting the cost of Libya in the past 10 years ? How about Sudan

 

———////———-

General comment:  I really think Western commentators in the two geopolitical threads should really get off their high horses. 
 

Stick to the economics, politics and cost-benefit analysis. Leave the good guy bad guy stuff for Bill Ackman to talk to on Twitter. 

Edited September 27 by Xerxes

[John Hjorth]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

You have rightly tabulated a list of the bad actors. Right out of the media. But what about Western bad actors and Western sponsored bad actors ? How do you dissuaded and set the floor for the idiots and dummies in Washington and London etc. 
 

Saudi Arabia launched a war against Yemen in 2015, not too dissimilar all than the circumstances of Russia’ war in Ukraine. 
 

The Arabian peninsula is considered its backyard. House of Saud sets the discount rate in the Arabian peninsula. Not Qatar, Yemen, Oman and/or UAE.  And it didn’t like a “loose” Qatar and Yemen. It couldn’t bomb Qatar, given the “hedge” that Doha built with Turkey and U.S. but no such luck with Yemen. They got sent to oblivion. 

 

The U.S. Government seemed to be ok with it in 2015. Supported it, helped Saudi planes refuels to bomb school, weddings, the occasional Houthi etc. and whatever else House of Saud felt like doing.

 

If bombing a school is an act of terrorism, what that makes the Western government supporting it ? No need to guess => it is called state sponsoring terrorism. 
 

What is Yemen today: a broken state with vultures taking a piece of it. And a reliable low-cost proxy (acquired at no cost) for Iranian malign influence. 
 

What about the American Caesar wannabe:  Warlord Hilary Clinton. 
 

She said: “we came, we saw, we conquered … “. talking about Libya. 
 

10 years later after the War Lord Clinton plagiarized Julius Caesar, everyone forget they left a mess and a civil war in Libya. Oh well. At least she got to act like Caesar. 
 

Today, even as we are discussing this, there is a civil war in Sudan. With UAE largely behind it. And of course who are main Western state backing UAE.  
 

https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI?feature=shared

 

In summary, if a psychopath gets elected to office and/is part of liberal democracy, their foreign adventures seem like all forgotten. 
 

Is anybody counting the cost of Libya in the past 10 years ? How about Sudan

 

———////———-

General comment:  I really think Western commentators in the two geopolitical threads should really get off their high horses. 
 

Stick to the economics, politics and cost-benefit analysis. Leave the good guy bad guy stuff for Bill Ackman to talk to on Twitter. 

 

 

How is it, that I - some place in my mind - knew, that exactly this - a post something similar to the above quoted - would appear - in this topic - by exactly now by @Xerxes ?  

 

[And that is actually here meant as a compliment!]

 

To me, the above is Pasghetti argumentation. Let me just say, that Pasghetty argumentation was defined many years ago, when my daugther found out, she coulden't always respond to my questions about my questions and proposals about what to eat for diner today with : 'Beef, Sauce Bearnaise and potatoes!'.

 

So @Xerxes, where to start to read to get some kind of understanding of what's going on? - Everything seems intertwined historically, to a point that is beyond the point of no return, historically?

Edited September 27 by John Hjorth