Russia Invades Ukraine

[Jiggafini19Deux]

Rumors of Putin having terminal cancer are ramping up again.

 

[sixstar]

Putin thinks he's being clever, but everyone sees right through this one.

Putin's unilateral ceasefire "intended to damage Ukraine's reputation," says think tank ISW​

This is the geopolitical war version of faking a defensive injury when the offense is driving.

 

[GoIrish41]

Rumors of Putin having terminal cancer are ramping up again.

In Russia they treat that with an open window on the 16th floor. 🤞

 

[Irish#1]

In Russia they treat that with an open window on the 16th floor. 🤞

Rumors of Putin having terminal cancer are ramping up again.

You hate to wish ill upon pretty much everyone, but I'll gladly make an exception here.

 

[PerthDomer]

You hate to wish ill upon pretty much everyone, but I'll gladly make an exception here.

The issue is anyone waiting in the wings is likely as bad or worse than Putin. The whole system is rotten.

The only upside is if the elite fractures and you get a civil war situation that disrupts the functioning of their military in Ukraine. But then you have to contend with all the WMD they have and the unsavory characters they're willing to work with to stay in/gain power.

 

[sixstar]

Exactly. NK didn't get any less crazy when junior took over.

 

[PerthDomer]

Exactly. NK didn't get any less crazy when junior took over.

If you look back at WW1 even, the 1st gov that took over from the Tsars kept fighting. Dissatisfaction with further losses led in part to the Bolshevik revolution.

The other interesting thing is they ran a record budget deficit thanks to increased war spending despite increased commodity revenues. They had to auction off some high interest bonds/burn through reserves to pay for the military costs (and cut infrastructure spending).

The price on Urals crude has catered to the upper 30's per barrel, barely above break even. (Oil has dropped, but the delta between the global and Russian price has changed even more) They're not selling a ton of natural gas due to their embargo of Europe. And their defense spending is set to surge. How do they pay for everything? The terms on future bonds are going to get crazy onerous. They could cut social services/push domestic inflation up, but that'll piss the population off. They're going to have a lot of difficult decisions to make unless the global commodity market improves.

Additionally the mild winter has Europe's economic situation looking far better than it did even a month ago. Their resolve isn't going to crack as soon as Russia hoped it would.

 

[Irish#1]

The issue is anyone waiting in the wings is likely as bad or worse than Putin. The whole system is rotten.

The only upside is if the elite fractures and you get a civil war situation that disrupts the functioning of their military in Ukraine. But then you have to contend with all the WMD they have and the unsavory characters they're willing to work with to stay in/gain power.

Could be, but I'd be willing to see. You have to think that anyone that would take over could see how bad things are going and realize the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

[Irish#1]

If you look back at WW1 even, the 1st gov that took over from the Tsars kept fighting. Dissatisfaction with further losses led in part to the Bolshevik revolution.

The other interesting thing is they ran a record budget deficit thanks to increased war spending despite increased commodity revenues. They had to auction off some high interest bonds/burn through reserves to pay for the military costs (and cut infrastructure spending).

The price on Urals crude has catered to the upper 30's per barrel, barely above break even. (Oil has dropped, but the delta between the global and Russian price has changed even more) They're not selling a ton of natural gas due to their embargo of Europe. And their defense spending is set to surge. How do they pay for everything? The terms on future bonds are going to get crazy onerous. They could cut social services/push domestic inflation up, but that'll piss the population off. They're going to have a lot of difficult decisions to make unless the global commodity market improves.

Additionally the mild winter has Europe's economic situation looking far better than it did even a month ago. Their resolve isn't going to crack as soon as Russia hoped it would.

Weather has screwed up more than a few wars for some.

 

[PerthDomer]

Could be, but I'd be willing to see. You have to think that anyone that would take over could see how bad things are going and realize the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

The way Putin has maneuvered, he's more worried about the far right than the anti war types. If he looks weak he could get deposed. The next guy has to look strong and try to do something he can sell back home.

The worry has always been Russia does something desperate (WMD, strike NATO) and really screws up. I'd put the odds of that as low, but higher if say the head of Wagner takes over.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Rumors of Putin having terminal cancer are ramping up again.

I’ve heard cancer or Parkinson’s. Either way, he seems to be taking a lit of prednisone. Dude is puffy as hell.

 

[Valpodoc85]

Don't bank on it. Putin plays the disinformation game. He wants people to underestimate him

 

[PerthDomer]

A country must focus on its priorities. Simple as that. The R/U conflict might not be a top priority for every nation that has more pressing national security issues. The US doesn't have to worry about offensive military attacks on our immediate borders; Israel does.



Ever play poker? Do you say everything that you think, or do you hold important information close to your chest? You are projecting that an external response is necessary to establish a belief. Did Israel broadcast its involvement with Stuxnet?



I'm not talking about the 80s; I'm talking about today.
And it's not pennies on the dollar. The US spent as much on Ukraine this year as they did on average per year in Afghanistan.




Sure, but everything costs something. The question isn't whether a weakened Russia is good. It is. The question is how much does it cost, and is that cost worth it. Your stance is that no cost is too high. I disagree.

Russia Ukraine is actually pretty core to our national priorities. There are 3 reasons.

1. Russia itself. Their strategy has been to increase chaos/disorder globally. They're not strong enough to be like the US or China and try to lead the global system, so instead they destabilize it. It's good for domestic politics and drives commodity prices up which helps their economy. If they lose, their ability to aid rogue states declines.

2. Europe/NATO

We're committed as a treaty partner to NATO. If Russia attacked say the Baltic we could tear the treaty up, but then who would trust the US? Our alliances would disintegrate and we'd be weakened. Our supply chains rely on Europe and our ability to pressure China economically relies on Europe/Japan/South Korea/ Taiwan playing ball.

If Ukraine wins it'll be a decade before Russia could gear up and be ready for another war. If China makes a move on Taiwan it'd be a great time for Russia to move on Europe. If this ends and Ukraine integrates into NATO, Europe will be much more able to defend itself (as they already are with the Nordic countries joining)

3. China. I think we can all agree great power conflict with China is our #1 concern right now. Helping Ukraine/rallying Europe helps in a few respects.

1. Russia is probably China's #1 ally from a direct military perspective. Any military calculus they make now has to factor China as having a much weaker partner. This decreases the risk they'll make a move in the short term.

2. Countering China requires countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam as having help if China strikes. Backing Ukraine signals to them they benefit from siding with us, or at least hedging their bets

3. We need to gear up our defense industrial complex. In a war with China we'd need to rapidly increase our production of weapons. This has exposed limits in our systems and given contractors new orders. All the money we're "giving Ukraine" is ultimately paying our defense industry to replace old/new systems we're sending to Ukraine or NATO allies (who are increasing defense spending/buying from us). It also increases orders from the US as nonaligned countries are worried about the reliability of Russian systems.

4. Keeping our scientific edge against China can't just be a made in the US policy. We have global supply chains that we need to leverage. An easy recent example is the Chip rule that gutten Chinese industry. We got cooperation not only from the chip manufacturing/supply chain countries in Asia (SK, Japan, Taiwan) but also the only company that makes the machines that make the machines that make Chips... The Netherlands. That's right, a choke point to the whole chip industry sits in Europe. And our performance vis a vis NATO/Ukraine makes them happy to play ball.

This whole thing shows the bad actors that moving against a sovereign state has costs and makes Europe/non China Asia more likely to play ball with us. It's a relatively cheap foreign policy coup and we'd be wise to lean into it. Doing so will reduce the chance China launches an adventure into Taiwan or beats us on critical technology (which makes an adventurous move more likely).

 

[sixstar]

Russia Ukraine is actually pretty core to our national priorities. There are 3 reasons.

1. Russia itself. Their strategy has been to increase chaos/disorder globally. They're not strong enough to be like the US or China and try to lead the global system, so instead they destabilize it. It's good for domestic politics and drives commodity prices up which helps their economy. If they lose, their ability to aid rogue states declines.

Russia's strategy is regional, not global. Their priority is to reestablish the USSR.
Russia is the boogeyman that US uses to justify increased DIB spending.

2. Europe/NATO

We're committed as a treaty partner to NATO. If Russia attacked say the Baltic we could tear the treaty up, but then who would trust the US?
Our alliances would disintegrate and we'd be weakened. Our supply chains rely on Europe and our ability to pressure China economically relies on Europe/Japan/South Korea/ Taiwan playing ball.

In February 2018, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated: "We don't see any threat [from Russia] against any NATO ally and therefore, I'm always careful speculating too much about hypothetical situations."

3. China. I think we can all agree great power conflict with China is our #1 concern right now. Helping Ukraine/rallying Europe helps in a few respects.

1. Russia is probably China's #1 ally from a direct military perspective. Any military calculus they make now has to factor China as having a much weaker partner. This decreases the risk they'll make a move in the short term.

Yes, China is priority #1, fully agree.

But, China isn't going to offensively kinetically attack the US. They are kinetically defensive and digitally offensive. That's their strategy. China is focused on expanding border protection into INDOPAC.

Having Russia as an ally doesn't make them any more of a threat to an offensive attack against the US.

Contrary to media, none of the big 3 want to initiate an attack.

2. Countering China requires countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam as having help if China strikes. Backing Ukraine signals to them they benefit from siding with us, or at least hedging their bets

No, because US relations with Ukraine prior to the U/R war was very different than they are with Japan, SK, and Taiwan. Further, US interests are much greater in INDOPAC since it would be our vector of an offensive attack against China.

3. We need to gear up our defense industrial complex.

It's already over-bloated, over-funded, and a cesspool of FWA. Signed, someone that knows this market very well.

In a war with China we'd need to rapidly increase our production of weapons.

Then why are we expending weapons? That's counter to your assertion. Because we have no intent on going to war with China in the near future, so all of this China/Russia partnership concern is theoretical, as evidenced by our actions.

This has exposed limits in our systems and given contractors new orders. All the money we're "giving Ukraine" is ultimately paying our defense industry to replace old/new systems we're sending to Ukraine or NATO allies (who are increasing defense spending/buying from us).

Replacing new systems falls under R&D. Post the DoD R&D budget over the past 5 years. Let's trendline to see if the money is going to Acquisition or R&D.

It also increases orders from the US as nonaligned countries are worried about the reliability of Russian systems.

Not sure what you mean.

4. Keeping our scientific edge against China can't just be a made in the US policy. We have global supply chains that we need to leverage. An easy recent example is the Chip rule that gutten Chinese industry. We got cooperation not only from the chip manufacturing/supply chain countries in Asia (SK, Japan, Taiwan) but also the only company that makes the machines that make the machines that make Chips... The Netherlands. That's right, a choke point to the whole chip industry sits in Europe. And our performance vis a vis NATO/Ukraine makes them happy to play ball.

Agree with all except the last sentence.

This whole thing shows the bad actors that moving against a sovereign state has costs and makes Europe/non China Asia more likely to play ball with us. It's a relatively cheap foreign policy coup and we'd be wise to lean into it.

You must quantify costs if you assert that it's relatively cheap. Thus far, we are spending at a rate equivalent to our Afghanistan expenditures. When is the cutoff, and when does it no longer qualify as cheap?

Doing so will reduce the chance China launches an adventure into Taiwan or beats us on critical technology (which makes an adventurous move more likely).

China beats us in critical tech via cyber attacks and digital theft. They lack the ability to keep pace organically otherwise.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Russia's strategy is regional, not global. Their priority is to reestablish the USSR.
Russia is the boogeyman that US uses to justify increased DIB spending.

DOJ you have a source on this assertion?

In February 2018, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated: "We don't see any threat [from Russia] against any NATO ally and therefore, I'm always careful speculating too much about hypothetical situations."



Yes, China is priority #1, fully agree.

But, China isn't going to offensively kinetically attack the US. They are kinetically defensive and digitally offensive. That's their strategy. China is focused on expanding border protection into INDOPAC.

Having Russia as an ally doesn't make them any more of a threat to an offensive attack against the US.

Contrary to media, none of the big 3 want to initiate an attack.



No, because US relations with Ukraine prior to the U/R war was very different than they are with Japan, SK, and Taiwan. Further, US interests are much greater in INDOPAC since it would be our vector of an offensive attack against China.



It's already over-bloated, over-funded, and a cesspool of FWA. Signed, someone that knows this market very well.



Then why are we expending weapons? That's counter to your assertion. Because we have no intent on going to war with China in the near future, so all of this China/Russia partnership concern is theoretical, as evidenced by our actions.



Replacing new systems falls under R&D. Post the DoD R&D budget over the past 5 years. Let's trendline to see if the money is going to Acquisition or R&D.



Not sure what you mean.



Agree with all except the last sentence.



You must quantify costs if you assert that it's relatively cheap. Thus far, we are spending at a rate equivalent to our Afghanistan expenditures. When is the cutoff, and when does it no longer qualify as cheap?



China beats us in critical tech via cyber attacks and digital theft. They lack the ability to keep pace organically otherwise.

Russia's strategy is regional, not global. Their priority is to reestablish the USSR.
Russia is the boogeyman that US uses to justify increased DIB spending.



In February 2018, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated: "We don't see any threat [from Russia] against any NATO ally and therefore, I'm always careful speculating too much about hypothetical situations."



Yes, China is priority #1, fully agree.

But, China isn't going to offensively kinetically attack the US. They are kinetically defensive and digitally offensive. That's their strategy. China is focused on expanding border protection into INDOPAC.

Having Russia as an ally doesn't make them any more of a threat to an offensive attack against the US.

Contrary to media, none of the big 3 want to initiate an attack.



No, because US relations with Ukraine prior to the U/R war was very different than they are with Japan, SK, and Taiwan. Further, US interests are much greater in INDOPAC since it would be our vector of an offensive attack against China.



It's already over-bloated, over-funded, and a cesspool of FWA. Signed, someone that knows this market very well.



Then why are we expending weapons? That's counter to your assertion. Because we have no intent on going to war with China in the near future, so all of this China/Russia partnership concern is theoretical, as evidenced by our actions.



Replacing new systems falls under R&D. Post the DoD R&D budget over the past 5 years. Let's trendline to see if the money is going to Acquisition or R&D.



Not sure what you mean.



Agree with all except the last sentence.



You must quantify costs if you assert that it's relatively cheap. Thus far, we are spending at a rate equivalent to our Afghanistan expenditures. When is the cutoff, and when does it no longer qualify as cheap?



China beats us in critical tech via cyber attacks and digital theft. They lack the ability to keep pace organically otherwise.

There is too much to unpack but in general you are pretty much wrong on Russia. Their strategy is very much global and they are still our biggest political, military, and nuclear adversary. Their goal is to have a sphere of influence where the US does not.

The pro US isolationists want the US to mind its own business and stop spending money on things like Ukraine but this is exactly what Russia wants. They want the US to not be involved so that they can do what they want.

People talk about how Obama didn’t do enough in Syria? Guess what Russia jumped in and now has driven a wedge btw US and Israel. Trump gave Putin exactly what he wanted with pulling out of several treaties and almost pulled the US completely out NATO. How bad did Russia want that? Very bad. That would have killed NATO. Gotta ask why Trump would do that and why Americans supported that.

Global Russia

Vladimir Putin has launched a sustained campaign to restore Russia’s global influence. Learn more at Carnegie’s The Return of Global Russia.

carnegieendowment.org

Chinas economy is unsustainable and their military is no where near our capabilities except in pure manpower. The Us would never get into a ground war in China and they would never challenge us anywhere else in the world.

 

[sixstar]

There is too much to unpack but in general you are pretty much wrong on Russia. Their strategy is very much global and they are still our biggest political, military, and nuclear adversary. Their goal is to have a sphere of influence where the US does not.

Without going into details, agree to strongly disagree.

Chinas economy is unsustainable and their military is no where near our capabilities except in pure manpower.

Also agree to disagree.

The Us would never get into a ground war in China and they would never challenge us anywhere else in the world.

China is digitally attacking US daily. China won't instigate a physical fight. They don't have to.

 

[PerthDomer]

Russia's strategy is regional, not global. Their priority is to reestablish the USSR.
Russia is the boogeyman that US uses to justify increased DIB spending.



In February 2018, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated: "We don't see any threat [from Russia] against any NATO ally and therefore, I'm always careful speculating too much about hypothetical situations."



Yes, China is priority #1, fully agree.

But, China isn't going to offensively kinetically attack the US. They are kinetically defensive and digitally offensive. That's their strategy. China is focused on expanding border protection into INDOPAC.

Having Russia as an ally doesn't make them any more of a threat to an offensive attack against the US.

Contrary to media, none of the big 3 want to initiate an attack.



No, because US relations with Ukraine prior to the U/R war was very different than they are with Japan, SK, and Taiwan. Further, US interests are much greater in INDOPAC since it would be our vector of an offensive attack against China.



It's already over-bloated, over-funded, and a cesspool of FWA. Signed, someone that knows this market very well.



Then why are we expending weapons? That's counter to your assertion. Because we have no intent on going to war with China in the near future, so all of this China/Russia partnership concern is theoretical, as evidenced by our actions.



Replacing new systems falls under R&D. Post the DoD R&D budget over the past 5 years. Let's trendline to see if the money is going to Acquisition or R&D.



Not sure what you mean.



Agree with all except the last sentence.



You must quantify costs if you assert that it's relatively cheap. Thus far, we are spending at a rate equivalent to our Afghanistan expenditures. When is the cutoff, and when does it no longer qualify as cheap?



China beats us in critical tech via cyber attacks and digital theft. They lack the ability to keep pace organically otherwise.

Russia aspires to be some blend of the old imperial Russia and the USSR. Both were world powers. Russia currently has mercenaries in numerous African countries and Syria. They currently help fund/arm Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. They have imperial ambitions, though their industrial base is weak. Maintaining Assad, proxy wars with Turkey in the Caucasus, Africa , etc.

If they rolled over Ukraine easily, guess who else has large Russian minorities? All of the Baltic states, and most Eastern European members of NATO. Putin's justifications for moving on Ukraine sound a lot like Hitler's for the Anschluss or taking the Sudetenland. Guys like that don't stop until they meet resistance.

In terms of overall balance with China They won't surpass us militarily or economically/technologically in the short run. However, if they take Taiwan and we don't help they will have a strong hold on chip tech/supply chains. If we look weak/pushed over, South Korea and Japan will be forced to bow to them. Of China can leverage those two they'll have carte Blanche in making us do what they want. Imperial powers like that tend to want more once they get it. A China dominating that whole region will want a bite at the Western Hemisphere.

The reward we got for spending money In Afganistan was breeding more terrorists. We never pacified the whole country, and were staring down having to surge/rescue their government again. In Ukraine we gain quite a bit strategically in the money we're spending.

 

[GoIrish41]

Russia aspires to be some blend of the old imperial Russia and the USSR. Both were world powers. Russia currently has mercenaries in numerous African countries and Syria. They currently help fund/arm Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. They have imperial ambitions, though their industrial base is weak. Maintaining Assad, proxy wars with Turkey in the Caucasus, Africa , etc.

If they rolled over Ukraine easily, guess who else has large Russian minorities? All of the Baltic states, and most Eastern European members of NATO. Putin's justifications for moving on Ukraine sound a lot like Hitler's for the Anschluss or taking the Sudetenland. Guys like that don't stop until they meet resistance.

In terms of overall balance with China They won't surpass us militarily or economically/technologically in the short run. However, if they take Taiwan and we don't help they will have a strong hold on chip tech/supply chains. If we look weak/pushed over, South Korea and Japan will be forced to bow to them. Of China can leverage those two they'll have carte Blanche in making us do what they want. Imperial powers like that tend to want more once they get it. A China dominating that whole region will want a bite at the Western Hemisphere.

The reward we got for spending money In Afganistan was breeding more terrorists. We never pacified the whole country, and were staring down having to surge/rescue their government again. In Ukraine we gain quite a bit strategically in the money we're spending.

Great analysis.

 

[PerthDomer]

Talk is cheap. I never understand why people give two shits what some politician says. If you want to take it to Russia - unleash the American energy sector to crater global oil/gas prices. Put sanctions on the Russian produced fertilizers that were proven to be dumped in the US harming our domestic producers for years but decided not to do anything because now prices are higher and that might hurt the politically powerful farmers (who are making record profits). Wage economic war instead of laundering money through the Ukraine for the "big guy".

Crimea river.

In the short term we deprived Russia of high tech imports needed to fuel their war machine. We've actually tried to keep commodities/fertilizer flowing to avoid mass famine/the global South taking Russia's side.

We're now moving like an anaconda on their exports. Urals crude is selling at under 40 dollars a barrel. Marginally above their break even point. The beauty of that is if they try to shut more than a million barrels a day off their oil infrastructure will catastrophically fail (burst pipes). They've also lost NG exports to Europe and have marginal ability to export LNG. The US has already surpassed Russia as a NG and oil exporter to Europe.

Short of a massive subsidy program we can't really flood the market with oil. The oil we can tap at the margin via fracking is expensive to access (at least compared to the Saudis/Russians). On top of that OPEC wants the price of oil stabilized and can cut back a few million barrels of oil a day without sweating it. We have on the other hand really ramped up EV production as well as tightened fuel standards which drives oil demand down.

If Russia keeps this going, their labor force is shrinking, their war expenses are growing, and their tax revenue is plummeting. They're already cutting infrastructure spending. Without western help, their extractive industries will go to seed. We've done this in a methodical way so as 1) not to piss the 3rd world off/drive refugee crises outside of Ukraine 2) notsuddenly spook Putin. 3) Keep the cautious European states in the fold

If the Russians insist on fighting this into next Winter we'll have totally defanged our number 2 rival. We'll have convinced the Europeans to rearm and have added Finland/Sweden to NATO. If that costs 3 years of the Afgan war that might be our most efficient defense spending ever.

I'd expect some US funding for Ukranian reconstruction, but the EU will probably spend more on the civilian side. We'll also probably use all the Russian Foreign Exchange reserves we seized. Assuming there are tight controls/verifications on corruption it'll likely have Ukraine on Poland's economic path. Hard to see the negatives here.

 

[Valpodoc85]

Another consideration: Russia has the largest, cheapest capable workforce around. Much cheaper than China. The west has eyed business opportunities in Russia for years but has held off because of corruption. If (and it's a big if) Russia had a moderate Eurofrendly government that prioritized corruption the west would pivot from China.

 

[Armyirish47]

Another consideration: Russia has the largest, cheapest capable workforce around. Much cheaper than China. The west has eyed business opportunities in Russia for years but has held off because of corruption. If (and it's a big if) Russia had a moderate Eurofrendly government that prioritized corruption the west would pivot from China.

They were facing a demographic crisis already and have thrown lighter fluid on it for a year, I'm not sure how that workforce becomes usable anytime soon.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

They were facing a demographic crisis already and have thrown lighter fluid on it for a year, I'm not sure how that workforce becomes usable anytime soon.

They conscripted 300000 ethnic minorities for the Ukraine war. They will sacrifice non Russians via military and keep the Rus’ alive to work. Their workforce is fine.

 

[Armyirish47]

They conscripted 300000 ethnic minorities for the Ukraine war. They will sacrifice non Russians via military and keep the Rus’ alive to work. Their workforce is fine.

They don't have enough Russians already, their workforce is screwed and they know it.

 

[PerthDomer]

They conscripted 300000 ethnic minorities for the Ukraine war. They will sacrifice non Russians via military and keep the Rus’ alive to work. Their workforce is fine.

They've tapped the ethnic minorities. Theyre sending a lot of native Russians to the front now. Regardless, their workforce isn't good in the way a lot of Southeast Asian countries are. Those were motivated and educated people willing to work for peanuts. That's not Russia.

Their infrastructure is crap, as is their educational system out of St. Petersburg/Moscow. They also suffer from the resource curse. They export so much oil/NG that their exchange rate is expensive. That makes export oriented industry hard to launch.

In addition, to pay for the war and maintain support They've done two things. One is cut long term infrastructure and the other is to ramp up pension payments. They're also selling more debt at high interest rates. If they want to integrate with the west they'll have to honor those debts and pay reparations.

They've also lost 1 million plus middle/upper class people who fled due to risk of conscription. Those people won't come back, so They've lost much of whatever entrepreneurial vitality they did have.

 

[irishff1014]

We have sent enough money over there now we could have bought the damn place. I am over it.

 

[RDU Irish]

In the short term we deprived Russia of high tech imports needed to fuel their war machine. We've actually tried to keep commodities/fertilizer flowing to avoid mass famine/the global South taking Russia's side.

We're now moving like an anaconda on their exports. Urals crude is selling at under 40 dollars a barrel. Marginally above their break even point. The beauty of that is if they try to shut more than a million barrels a day off their oil infrastructure will catastrophically fail (burst pipes). They've also lost NG exports to Europe and have marginal ability to export LNG. The US has already surpassed Russia as a NG and oil exporter to Europe.

Short of a massive subsidy program we can't really flood the market with oil. The oil we can tap at the margin via fracking is expensive to access (at least compared to the Saudis/Russians). On top of that OPEC wants the price of oil stabilized and can cut back a few million barrels of oil a day without sweating it. We have on the other hand really ramped up EV production as well as tightened fuel standards which drives oil demand down.

If Russia keeps this going, their labor force is shrinking, their war expenses are growing, and their tax revenue is plummeting. They're already cutting infrastructure spending. Without western help, their extractive industries will go to seed. We've done this in a methodical way so as 1) not to piss the 3rd world off/drive refugee crises outside of Ukraine 2) notsuddenly spook Putin. 3) Keep the cautious European states in the fold

If the Russians insist on fighting this into next Winter we'll have totally defanged our number 2 rival. We'll have convinced the Europeans to rearm and have added Finland/Sweden to NATO. If that costs 3 years of the Afgan war that might be our most efficient defense spending ever.

I'd expect some US funding for Ukranian reconstruction, but the EU will probably spend more on the civilian side. We'll also probably use all the Russian Foreign Exchange reserves we seized. Assuming there are tight controls/verifications on corruption it'll likely have Ukraine on Poland's economic path. Hard to see the negatives here.

You make a lot of great points however your take on energy is a head scratcher for an apparently well read person. Keystone is not an isolated incident of government energy obstruction - we don't have the infrastructure so many projects are stranded. Takes pipelines to move that stuff, particularly nat gas out of fracking fields. It isn't exactly a secret or controversial.

Consumption being down is much more to do with rising prices and a pandemic as it is EVs that make up a whopping 1% of total cars on the road and generally replace more efficient sedans. Meanwhile diesel stays expensive as it's demand is less elastic. Drops in gasoline and jet fuel screw up the refinery calculus as they need to make tradeoffs to produce higher relative amounts of diesel. Pandemic was an unprecedented shock to the production/refining/distribution system for oil and related products. Refiner margins are at record highs and showing no signs of pulling back as nobody in their right mind would even try to build a new refinery in this regulatory environment.

The world is more stable when dictators and despots aren't flush with excess oil revenue. As you indicate - sanctions on Russian oil and gas are effective. Why not have permanent, market based sanctions like we did for so long when oil was under $50/barrel? Why not devote ourselves to supplying Europe if we are a true ally? It is a matter of national security that has the added benefit of massive economic stimulus.

 

[calvegas04]

I wish we would just give them the long range missiles for them to reach russian bases.

 

[Valpodoc85]

This is a high risk/reward game. Crush Russia with war/sanctions too much and China will move in (like Burma or so many African states)

 

[INLaw]

This is a high risk/reward game. Crush Russia with war/sanctions too much and China will move in (like Burma or so many African states)

One enemy is better than two

 

[SeekNDestroy]

This is a high risk/reward game. Crush Russia with war/sanctions too much and China will move in (like Burma or so many African states)

Crush them both!!!!! Roarrrrrrrrrrrrrr