phillyirish
................
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 884
What does Russia say when NATO tells them they can't invade the Ukraine?
Boo hoo, Crimea River.
Boo hoo, Crimea River.
Last edited:
Ukraine
- Thread starter IrishLax
- Start date
chicago51
Well-known member
- Messages
- 3,658
- Reaction score
- 387
What separates the US right now is that we are the only country that can really move an army and make a trans ocean invasion. Plus we got more quadruple the amount of aircraft carriers (10 in service if I recall with 2 in reserve and 2 more under construction) as any other country (nobody as more than 2 in service I believe) .
Though I agree with the post. Russia is dangerous.
Grahambo
Varsity Club Member
- Messages
- 4,259
- Reaction score
- 2,606
I believe it was alluded to earlier in the thread but according to Matthew Kaminski of the Wall Street Journal, Putin's real goal is Eastern Ukraine.
He also alludes to the pro-Russian protestors having been bussed over from Russia. His 'evidence':
He ends his article stating:
As for US intervention, not gonna happen. The best they can do is put pressure on some sanctions such as economic.
He also alludes to the pro-Russian protestors having been bussed over from Russia. His 'evidence':
He ends his article stating:
As for US intervention, not gonna happen. The best they can do is put pressure on some sanctions such as economic.
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
Can you be more specific about the bolded?
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
Tell that to the 40 percent in Crimea that isn't russian
Redbar
Well-known member
- Messages
- 3,531
- Reaction score
- 806
Some very good comments IMO on the situation in the Ukraine, also some very shallow ones. I have always viewed politics as a drama, but leading or ruling a nation more of a science. I have enjoyed reading George Friedman who is a geopoliticist and founder of the Stratfor Global Intelligence Group. He has written several books and has offered analysis for many government and policy groups. In his book, "The Next Hundred Years" Friedman talks about the reemergence of Russia and also speaks a little about his method, some of which is applicable here. Friedman asserts in his book that certain geopolitical facts will never change. Nations need security, and those nations who can fend for themselves will attempt to defend that security. Some nations will fail and be dissolved into larger, more powerful neighbors, others will flex new muscles and create new (or in some cases very old) spheres of influence. He says:
The Russians can’t avoid trying to reassert power, and the United States can’t avoid trying to resist. But in the end Russia can’t win. Its deep internal problems, massively declining population, and poor infrastructure ultimately make Russia’s long- term survival prospects bleak. And the second cold war, less frightening and much less global than the first, will end as the first did, with the collapse of Russia."
Clearly we see that happening here.
As to the sanity or nature of Putin, or the weakness and stupidity of Obama, Friedman says this about all leaders:
"Geopolitics and economics both assume that the players are rational, at least in the sense of knowing their own short- term self- interest. As rational actors, reality provides them with limited choices. It is assumed that, on the whole, people and nations will pursue their self- interest, if not flawlessly, then at least not randomly. Think of a chess game. On the surface, it appears that each player has twenty potential opening moves. In fact, there are many fewer because most of these moves are so bad that they quickly lead to defeat. The better you are at chess, the more clearly you see your options, and the fewer moves there actually are available. The better the player, the more predictable the moves. The grandmaster plays with absolute predictable precision—until that one brilliant, unexpected stroke.
Nations behave the same way. The millions or hundreds of millions of people who make up a nation are constrained by reality. They generate leaders who would not become leaders if they were irrational. Climbing to the top of millions of people is not something fools often do. Leaders understand their menu of next moves and execute them, if not flawlessly, then at
least pretty well. An occasional master will come along with a stunningly unexpected and successful move, but for the most part, the act of governance is simply executing the necessary and logical next step. When politicians run a country’s foreign policy, they operate the same way. If a leader dies and is replaced, another emerges and more likely than not continues
what the first one was doing. I am not arguing that political leaders are geniuses, scholars, or even gentlemen and ladies. Simply, political leaders know how to be leaders or they wouldn’t have emerged as such. It is the delight of all societies to belittle their political leaders, and leaders surely do make mistakes. But the mistakes they make, when carefully examined, are rarely stupid. More likely, mistakes are forced on them by circumstance. We would all like to believe that we— or our favorite candidate—would never have acted so stupidly. It is rarely true. Geopolitics therefore does not take the individual leader very seriously, any more than economics takes the individual businessman too seriously. Both are players who know how to manage a process but are not free to break the very rigid rules of their professions. Politicians are therefore rarely free actors. Their actions are determined by circumstances, and public policy is a response to reality. Within narrow margins, political decisions can matter. But the most brilliant leader of Iceland will never turn it into a world power, while the stupidest leader of Rome at its height could not undermine Rome’s fundamental power. Geopolitics is not about the right and wrong of things, it is not about the virtues or vices of politicians, and it is not about foreign policy debates. Geopolitics is about broad impersonal forces that constrain nations and human beings and compel them to act in certain ways.
In the end the Russians will fail for the same reasons they failed the first time, declining population, poor infrastructure, they do not have natural waterways that can cheaply and effectively move resources, supplies and troops around a sprawling "empire' and they are basically a land locked nation. We should not let our egos be such that we take every self interested move by every nation as an attack on our authority, dominance, or sovereignty. John McCain and others will try to get us to focus on the short sighted goals of politicians and political cycles, hopefully we will monitor this situation (and others) closely, intelligently, and with complete disregard for those who have some political hay to make or those whose egos would have them destroy this country over some perceived slight.
The Russians can’t avoid trying to reassert power, and the United States can’t avoid trying to resist. But in the end Russia can’t win. Its deep internal problems, massively declining population, and poor infrastructure ultimately make Russia’s long- term survival prospects bleak. And the second cold war, less frightening and much less global than the first, will end as the first did, with the collapse of Russia."
Clearly we see that happening here.
As to the sanity or nature of Putin, or the weakness and stupidity of Obama, Friedman says this about all leaders:
"Geopolitics and economics both assume that the players are rational, at least in the sense of knowing their own short- term self- interest. As rational actors, reality provides them with limited choices. It is assumed that, on the whole, people and nations will pursue their self- interest, if not flawlessly, then at least not randomly. Think of a chess game. On the surface, it appears that each player has twenty potential opening moves. In fact, there are many fewer because most of these moves are so bad that they quickly lead to defeat. The better you are at chess, the more clearly you see your options, and the fewer moves there actually are available. The better the player, the more predictable the moves. The grandmaster plays with absolute predictable precision—until that one brilliant, unexpected stroke.
Nations behave the same way. The millions or hundreds of millions of people who make up a nation are constrained by reality. They generate leaders who would not become leaders if they were irrational. Climbing to the top of millions of people is not something fools often do. Leaders understand their menu of next moves and execute them, if not flawlessly, then at
least pretty well. An occasional master will come along with a stunningly unexpected and successful move, but for the most part, the act of governance is simply executing the necessary and logical next step. When politicians run a country’s foreign policy, they operate the same way. If a leader dies and is replaced, another emerges and more likely than not continues
what the first one was doing. I am not arguing that political leaders are geniuses, scholars, or even gentlemen and ladies. Simply, political leaders know how to be leaders or they wouldn’t have emerged as such. It is the delight of all societies to belittle their political leaders, and leaders surely do make mistakes. But the mistakes they make, when carefully examined, are rarely stupid. More likely, mistakes are forced on them by circumstance. We would all like to believe that we— or our favorite candidate—would never have acted so stupidly. It is rarely true. Geopolitics therefore does not take the individual leader very seriously, any more than economics takes the individual businessman too seriously. Both are players who know how to manage a process but are not free to break the very rigid rules of their professions. Politicians are therefore rarely free actors. Their actions are determined by circumstances, and public policy is a response to reality. Within narrow margins, political decisions can matter. But the most brilliant leader of Iceland will never turn it into a world power, while the stupidest leader of Rome at its height could not undermine Rome’s fundamental power. Geopolitics is not about the right and wrong of things, it is not about the virtues or vices of politicians, and it is not about foreign policy debates. Geopolitics is about broad impersonal forces that constrain nations and human beings and compel them to act in certain ways.
In the end the Russians will fail for the same reasons they failed the first time, declining population, poor infrastructure, they do not have natural waterways that can cheaply and effectively move resources, supplies and troops around a sprawling "empire' and they are basically a land locked nation. We should not let our egos be such that we take every self interested move by every nation as an attack on our authority, dominance, or sovereignty. John McCain and others will try to get us to focus on the short sighted goals of politicians and political cycles, hopefully we will monitor this situation (and others) closely, intelligently, and with complete disregard for those who have some political hay to make or those whose egos would have them destroy this country over some perceived slight.
Last edited:
BobD
Can't get no satisfaction
- Messages
- 7,918
- Reaction score
- 1,034
Time for the NSA, CIA, FBI and the Treasury Dept. to earn their keep. Put a choke hold on as much shady Russian money in the US as possible and get our allies to do the same around the world. We can't do to much to persuade Putin right now, but his mafia buddies can and will if we do it right and make it hurt. It won't completely resolve this issue, but it will get them to the bargaining table fast and fairly peacefully.
PerthDomer
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,326
- Reaction score
- 483
BBC News - Russian rouble hits new low against the dollar and euro Can Putin actually afford open war? I think if he tries to push past Crimea this thing could turn into Afganistan part 2 for them.
For now tightening the financial noose on Russia is a good move.
For now tightening the financial noose on Russia is a good move.
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:433272" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b>The Daily Show</b> <br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>
GoldenToTheGrave
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 772
Putin has demonstrated clearly over the years that he will assert control--economically, politically, and militarily--over the former Soviet Union countries. Between this, the invasion of Georgia, and the lesser reported cyber wars on some of the Baltic countries, he's proven it. He'll ultimately get away with it because to the US and European countries (A) aren't willing to send their troops to die fighting a war with a country with a real military, (B) are dependent on Russian natural gas (for Europe), and (C) when it comes down to it, our long term relations with Russia are more important than whatever may happen to the Ukrainians.
I personally don't believe that the Russians will send troops into Kiev and topple the new regime--that level of bloodshed would have too large of consequences IMO. But they have troops in the areas strategically important to them and appear to have no intention of removing them. The Ukrainians don't have the ability to kick them out, and NATO certainly won't go to war with Russia over it. European economies would grind to a halt if Russia turned the gas pipelines off.
I personally don't believe that the Russians will send troops into Kiev and topple the new regime--that level of bloodshed would have too large of consequences IMO. But they have troops in the areas strategically important to them and appear to have no intention of removing them. The Ukrainians don't have the ability to kick them out, and NATO certainly won't go to war with Russia over it. European economies would grind to a halt if Russia turned the gas pipelines off.
gkIrish
Greek God
- Messages
- 13,184
- Reaction score
- 1,004
tussin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,153
- Reaction score
- 1,982
I pretty much agree with your conclusions regarding the Ukrainian conflict, but I wouldn't compare this to what happened in Georgia.
It's easy for the Western world to include the Georgia conflict as evidence for the popular narative that Putin is a mad man, but in reality Russia's actions were a response to Georgian attacks on Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers. People seem to forget what happened when Islamic terrorists attacked US civilians... Oh yeah, we invaded and bombed the shit out of two countries.
One other thing I would note is that the US could easily compete with Russia in the natural gas space in terms of price (even considering transportation, storage costs, etc.). The US is the largest producer of nat gas and the only thing holding them back is LNG export restrictions.
Last edited:
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
Georgia started that war.
Iraq circa1991?
Nobody has shown they could stand much of a chance against the US leviathan force for decades. That would pretty be true again in a war with Russia, nuclear weapons aside. NATO would wipe the floor with them, in my opinion.
I largely agree but Russia also depends in selling them gas, and I would think the US would mobilize and send Europe the needed natural gas. It would be painful though.
woolybug25
#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
- Messages
- 17,677
- Reaction score
- 3,018
Two things.
1) From what I have read, Russia provides them roughly 30% of their natural gas. Certainly doesn't seem like a significant amount, but I wouldn't know.
2) I believe that Russia subsidizes their natural gas prices to the Ukraine. So not only would their rate be less than what we could provide domestically for natural gas. But we would have significant costs on transporting it to the Ukraine. Would we really even be the providing country if Russia cut them off?
tussin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,153
- Reaction score
- 1,982
The US couldn't compete with Russia given the 50% discount the are currently receiving (which is unsustainable long term). However, there is growing sentiment that providing to the Ukraine would be beneficial long term to the US if it meant developing a foothold to the rest of the EU (assuming a pro-EU Ukrainian government of course). There is also the opinion that some EU countries would pay a premium for US gas if it meant long-term energy security.
Emcee77
latress on the men-jay
- Messages
- 7,295
- Reaction score
- 555
Yeah, as I see it this is our major leverage ... there's so much dirty Russian money in the West.
ulukinatme
Carr for QB 2025!
- Messages
- 31,509
- Reaction score
- 17,369
While Russia getting away from the dollar as their reserve currency is unlikely to happen, and it certainly wouldn't cause America to crash, there has been a growing concern this could happen anyway in other countries. It's been said that China is pushing to move away from the dollar themselves, and Russia has been in talks with them. If Russia were to join with them that would be a growing influence in the east that could spread.
The nice thing about being the world's reserve currency is the fact we're able to just print more money to cover our debts. Unfortunately, we've been abusing that privilege for years, even when our economy has been in rough patches. No other country can just print more money to pay off their debts like we can. However, with the economic rise in China, it's harder to say "The almighty dollar" when China is poised to become the most powerful country economically by 2016. Within 20-30 years there are predictions that China could grow to be several times more powerful than the US economically.
So, while some people may laugh now at Russia's threat to drop the dollar as a reserve, theres already a movement for that to occur. China already has deals with Japan and other countries to trade using their own currencies rather than using the dollar.
tussin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,153
- Reaction score
- 1,982
Depends on how you look at it. China's GDP/capita is only ~$6800, which is embarrassingly low for a modern economy. It really is a country of the haves and have-nots with basically half of their population living in poverty in the countryside.
IrishinTN
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,895
- Reaction score
- 340
They are obviously not in an economic situation to drop the dollar as reserve currency today, but they are already laying the groundwork for doing so in the next 10 years. But...that depends on the volatility of the Chinese economy as well. They have their own economic issues including falsely propping up their own currency and a possible banking bubble collapse that could leave them in far worse shape than we are within the next year.
BobD
Can't get no satisfaction
- Messages
- 7,918
- Reaction score
- 1,034
This is what makes Russia and any other country with nukes so damned dangerous.......it's their only chance.
NDBoiler
The Rep Machine
- Messages
- 4,455
- Reaction score
- 1,826
tko
I am Legend
- Messages
- 8,516
- Reaction score
- 1,710
IrishinTN
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,895
- Reaction score
- 340
Aw man...she stole my stuff!
chicago51
Well-known member
- Messages
- 3,658
- Reaction score
- 387
Not saying your point won't happen but it is very possibly the Chinese economy crashes before 2016. There some big reasons to be concerned about China's economy.
I read recently China is likey on the verge of a major housing bubble burst. They are a rapidly urbanizing country but the rate of construction is far outpacing urbanization at a rate that is unsustainable. The articles I read almost painted a picture of these newly built cities with no people living in them. We had a simular housing bubble in the US that occurred in 1925 preceding the big crash of 1929 when some of this was going in the US and that was nowhere near the rate at which China is doing this.
Second point on China is that since they are still a government centrally planned economy they are completely ignoring suppy and demand laws. First off they depend so much on exports I believe it was like 33% of their economy. However when the economies of the US and other western nations slowed down after 2008 financial crisis consumer spending dropped. China though did not slow down and they kept making stuff like things haven't changed. The Chinese government basically has kept up this huge production surplus even though the west aint buying like they used to. Nobody is sure how long they can keep this going but the consesus seems to be that if spending in the west doesn't really pick up beyond what economist are forcasting this is another bubble that will burst in the near future.
By the way for anyone interested in a zombie apocalypse potential doomsday scenario with all this is: 1) That if the problems in EU get worse (with so many countries in the EU basically indebted to Germany and being forced into harsh economic agreements) and the EU collapses. Which is why if I am Ukraine I may not want to align with Russia but I don't want all in the EU either. 2) The China's bubbles I mention burst. Those two things combined will send the global economy into a tailspin including the United States.
If it gets bad enough it can bring down the global financial derivatives bubble going on all around the globe. To give any idea of how crazy the derivatives market is: The value of every share in the stock market is in the neighborhood of $15 trillion. The annual GDP of the US is about $15-16 trillion. The annual GDP of the world is in the neighborhood of $60 trillion. The global derivatives market is estimated to be $1.2 quadrillion or $1200 trillion. If that goes down it is going be 1929 esque if not worse.
Last edited:
ulukinatme
Carr for QB 2025!
- Messages
- 31,509
- Reaction score
- 17,369
Well said, Chicago. I hope China ends up crashing, it would be beautiful. Maybe it would force the US and the rest of the west to quit buying so much of their junk. I'd like to see us start manufacturing more and creating jobs here, leaving China in the dust.
woolybug25
#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
- Messages
- 17,677
- Reaction score
- 3,018
