Russia claims it will begin to pull some troops back but training exercises will continue. We will have to see if they actually do start to pull any back.
Russia claims it will begin to pull some troops back but training exercises will continue. We will have to see if they actually do start to pull any back.
France definitely got the memo on Russian gas dependency:
Wouldn't be a bad thing at all if Russia considered freaking everyone out to be a victory and went home...
GameboyRMH said:Anyone else thinking about how differently this could've gone if the world was a bit more fossil-fuel-free?
If Russia invades, one side effect will be global gas prices that will make the peaks of the 2nd Iraq war look like a memorial weekend price bump, a pretty serious downside to letting Russia get themselves into a Ukrainian quagmire.
The main reason that Europe can't economically put the screws to Russia is that Germany decided that nuclear power was scary (while France right next door has been casually powering their country with it for decades) and replaced it with fossil power, in the process making themselves dependent on Russian natural gas, and Russia has been using it to twist their arm ever since. Germany should've been putting military-level expenditure into switching over to renewables since the first time that happened. Russia would not even flirt with invading Ukraine if they didn't have Germany by the short hairs, and by extension a lot of leverage over the EU.
Edit: Just saw this in my news feed, as if on cue: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/opinions/putin-russia-gas-europe-climate-connolly/index.html
The 2nd Iraq war was in 2003, the big oil spike that helped tank the economy along with the banks and housing was 07-08, so I don't get the reference on that one.
Everything else in your post I mostly agree with.
US RC-135V Rivet Joint (callsign Jake12) has been over Ukraine for the last several hours. I expect this is the US trying to figure out if the Russians are in fact shifting forces around. I've seen conflicting reports of artillery being moved into firing positions, as well as some forces being withdrawn. The Rivet Joint sortie will provide good information on the reality on the ground.
93EXCivic said:Russia claims it will begin to pull some troops back but training exercises will continue. We will have to see if they actually do start to pull any back.
I wonder how much it has been costing Russia to keep forces deployed? I think one difference between Putin and the west is that Putin doesn't seem to mind causing damage to Russia as long as it causes more damage to his opponents. Seems to have a very zero-sum or negative-sum worldview compared to a lot of the west.
In reply to eastsideTim :
I'd argue the prolonged deployment is actually helping Putin politically at home. As to cost, well, it's not as if Russia doesn't carry out military exercises anyway. Sure, it's big and it's been going on for a while, but aside from the initial positional movements everything's been pretty static, so no huge POL or ammunition consumption. Soldiers are going to get paid no matter what. Now, if Russia goes into Ukraine, that's a whole different story, but I don't think this is especially costly when considered alongside the diplomatic opportunities it creates.
I didn't know and maybe others don't either...
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104608/rc-135vw-rivet-joint/
A late commentary I heard today on a BBC World broadcast cast this in a different light for me.
As the Minsk accord has not really had an effect regarding a cease fire or conclusion his annexation efforts of eastern Ukraine. It's worth considering that Putin may consider this brinksmanship to be a win if it gets him the official ownership of the occupied eastern regions and warm water port. If he defers his attack and wins an end to his many year long defense of the disputed region it would be a huge win. In addition to closing his successful effort to take foreign land he would get a good guy for having taken part in diplomacy and not embroiled himself in the full on invasion.
I get the feeling he is playing strong man chess while the rest play checkers.
z31maniac said:The 2nd Iraq war was in 2003, the big oil spike that helped tank the economy along with the banks and housing was 07-08, so I don't get the reference on that one.
It started in 2003, but the US only officially withdrew in 2011 and the fighting only stopped in 2017, which correlates with an era of increased gas prices. The 2nd Iraq war and its aftermath was probably the most influential and certainly the most well-known factor in gas prices breaching $2.50/gal in the US from the mid-2000s to mid/late-2010s:
In reply to GameboyRMH :
So in essence Americans have some of the cheapest fuel cost on the planet and some of the loudest whining about what they do pay?
If you lived outside of the US and heard the complaints about fuel cost in the USA, you would think people were having to sell their daughters to fill their trucks with gas. As I found out in my Ford thread, it ain't so, fuel cost is not an actual issue in the USA.
In reply to NOHOME :
Entitled people gravitate to pickups for whatever reason.
Not saying that having a pickup makes you entitled. The Venn diagram is not just a circle. But gravitation.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
that's not been my experience. Most entitled people I see gravitate to european SUV's. Most people I see with trucks actually use them. Maybe thats the difference between rural and urban life. I see farmers with trucks using them.
So apparently Russia's statement that they would withdraw troops was a fakeout:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/politics/us-russia-ukraine-thursday/index.html
Think of it from the Russian point of view: why would Putin pull back troops without having gotten something for his trouble? As I've noted before, he can hold in position indefinitely; the ramping up of preparations necessary for a move could easily be turning up the pressure to get a deal out of somebody.
Zelensky said today that he still wants to pursue NATO membership, which means that any deal Putin gets is not going to be directly with Ukraine. Zelensky may be under significant domestic pressure himself, and unable to negotiate a deal with Putin that would also allow him (Zelensky) to stay in power. The US and EU are being distinctly uncreative in their approach to this, which is probably a disappointment to Putin, but encouraging Ukraine to take a hard line. It may also lead to a point where Putin feels like he has no option left but to invade. Wars have often started even when none of the parties really wanted it, but couldn't find a mutually acceptable diplomatic solution.
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
I honestly can't blame Russia. Think if the shoe were on the other foot and Russia was supporting Mexico and trying to entice them to joining a modern-day USSR(or Axis or whatever). The US wouldn't stand for a forward position of a foreign power(s) looking to place medium range ballistic missiles virtually on our border. We would be doing the same thing with a threat like that on our doorstep.
More importantly, I honestly don't think there is a thing the US could do if Russia does decide to invade Ukraine. Anything we tried in that area of the world would immediately be doomed to defeat. We couldn't even make any progress against sheep herders in Afghanistan...and Russia actually has a modern military with modern weaponry. The fact is that projecting any real amount of power halfway across the world is very difficult. The only reason Normandy in WWII was even feasible is because we had all of the UK as a FOB and only had to cross the channel, so any real amount of force able to mobilized would have to come from NATO, not from the US, and most of NATO relies on the US for military support. Sure, we could move a bunch of infantry to various bases in the region and use those for staging...but its a lot more difficult to quickly deploy any real amount of equipment. Russia on the other hand does not have that problem since they are on their own borders. Sure, it could be done with years to build up hardware...but the situation doesn't have enough time to be able to match what Russia can bring to bear within months.
In the end Putin can't afford to lose Ukraine to NATO...and if he did, then it would be the cold war all over again. All of a sudden Cuba might see a sudden influx of Russian influence as a countermeasure.
I think you are bit off on the "entice them" implication. From what I know, the US or NATO are not enticing Ukraine.
Ukraine (as with other countries in the area) have been wanting to join NATO because of their fear of Russia annexing them (which is kind of the entire point of NATO), which I think we can say now is not an unrealistic fear! The response from NATO has basically been "not in your current state" because of some serious corruption / organizational issues that still persist in Ukraine. Saying NATO is a "threat" to Russia is of course, very Russian thinking. The entire purpose of the organization is to defend against Russia. Heck, a Russian invasion of a NATO nation is likely the only thing that would get NATO to agree on anything anyway (they can be pretty dysfunctional and Russia HAS to know this)!
I will say though. I have heard some say we should hit Russia with harsh sanctions before any invasion to avert it. This can be very dangerous as it can actually encourage an invasion based on "nothing to loose now". This can be somewhat related to the WWII US / Japan situation. The thing that pushed Japan into finally attacking the US (mostly), was the US oil sanctions for Japans actions in South East Asia. Again, NOT implying this is the potential start of WWIII.
Some current notes:
- Russia (ahem, "someone") has been executing numerous cyber attacks on Ukraine.
- It appears that the Russian "withdrawal" is primarily from Belarus, which is likely because Belarus wants nothing to do with the conflict. But those troops did serve as a very effective threat to Kiev and a distractions and splitting of defenses / forces.
- Ukrainian separatists (... Russians in a different uniform?): have recently been shelling Ukranian forces.
- Ukrainian elites have been fleeing the country in their private jets, taking their wealth with them. This of course can have an eventual economic effect on Ukraine, especially if they don't come back. It "may" be helpful in the internal overthrow efforts by Russian intelligence?
- Russian media is still very much throwing up the "American provocative hysteria of invasion" narrative, as well as still making sure to point out the Nazi sympathizers in the Ukraine (see previous post for more perspective on this)
So...... we are basically still where we have been for a long while now. Russia has now lost the excuse of "planned exercises" now, as absurd as that was (really?! 6 months setting up an exercise!?!). And we continue with the "nothing happening over here" sort of Russia responses. So, what are all those forces doing on the boarder then?????
I think this whole situation does point out that certain nations (e.g. Russia, Iran, China....) have a perspective on international relations that basically says "if you believe our BS, that's on you, not us". They have no issue at all of telling you exactly what you want to hear (or agreeing to things) with absolutely no intention of ever following through with it. It's clear some (nations / leaders) understand this, and some do not.
Honestly, allowing that Russian skater to stay in the Olympics in exchange for Russia not invading Ukraine seems like a pretty good deal to me.
EricM said:Honestly, allowing that Russian skater to stay in the Olympics in exchange for Russia not invading Ukraine seems like a pretty good deal to me.
And when the Olympics are over...?
I dont know that that's what's holding him back.
In case anyone was interested in the post about the Rivet Joints. Based on the flight track (they are primarilly side scanning), it appears they are watching the Russia positions / movements in Belarus. There is another Rivet Joint to the direct west just across the boarder in Poland which appears to be scanning Belarus from the West.
EricM said:Honestly, allowing that Russian skater to stay in the Olympics in exchange for Russia not invading Ukraine seems like a pretty good deal to me.
She fell several times and ended up in 4th place. Not a good deal at all.
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
aircooled said:I think you are bit off on the "entice them" implication. From what I know, the US or NATO are not enticing Ukraine.
Ukraine (as with other countries in the area) have been wanting to join NATO because of their fear of Russia annexing them (which is kind of the entire point of NATO), which I think we can say now is not an unrealistic fear! The response from NATO has basically been "not in your current state" because of some serious corruption / organizational issues that still persist in Ukraine. Saying NATO is a "threat" to Russia is of course, very Russian thinking. The entire purpose of the organization is to defend against Russia. Heck, a Russian invasion of a NATO nation is likely the only thing that would get NATO to agree on anything anyway (they can be pretty dysfunctional and Russia HAS to know this)!
I will say though. I have heard some say we should hit Russia with harsh sanctions before any invasion to avert it. This can be very dangerous as it can actually encourage an invasion based on "nothing to loose now". This can be somewhat related to the WWII US / Japan situation. The thing that pushed Japan into finally attacking the US (mostly), was the US oil sanctions for Japans actions in South East Asia. Again, NOT implying this is the potential start of WWIII.
Some current notes:
- Russia (ahem, "someone") has been executing numerous cyber attacks on Ukraine.
- It appears that the Russian "withdrawal" is primarily from Belarus, which is likely because Belarus wants nothing to do with the conflict. But those troops did serve as a very effective threat to Kiev and a distractions and splitting of defenses / forces.
- Ukrainian separatists (... Russians in a different uniform?): have recently been shelling Ukranian forces.
- Ukrainian elites have been fleeing the country in their private jets, taking their wealth with them. This of course can have an eventual economic effect on Ukraine, especially if they don't come back. It "may" be helpful in the internal overthrow efforts by Russian intelligence?
- Russian media is still very much throwing up the "American provocative hysteria of invasion" narrative, as well as still making sure to point out the Nazi sympathizers in the Ukraine (see previous post for more perspective on this)
So...... we are basically still where we have been for a long while now. Russia has now lost the excuse of "planned exercises" now, as absurd as that was (really?! 6 months setting up an exercise!?!). And we continue with the "nothing happening over here" sort of Russia responses. So, what are all those forces doing on the boarder then?????
I think this whole situation does point out that certain nations (e.g. Russia, Iran, China....) have a perspective on international relations that basically says "if you believe our BS, that's on you, not us". They have no issue at all of telling you exactly what you want to hear (or agreeing to things) with absolutely no intention of ever following through with it. It's clear some (nations / leaders) understand this, and some do not.
You are looking at this through the lens of NATO. Historically Ukraine has been part of Russia(or closely allied with them). The fact that whatever group is in power in Ukraine wishes to retain the power they have gained over the last few decades doesn't change the fact that Russia sees Ukraine as a buffer to a NATO that has been expanding eastward over the last few decades. What do you expect Russia to do when medium range ballistics missiles are being set up in these NATO countries. Sure, ostensibly these missile shields are "defense" from Russian missiles...but all it takes is a change of policy for that defense to become an offense. Russia is definitely feeling threatened as evidenced by Russian demands that Ukraine be banned from joining NATO in return for de-escalation. This is an obvious diplomatic(as much as Russia is ever diplomatic) attempt to keep Ukraine as a buffer zone. Crimea in 2014 was another tactical move by Russia to retain control of a strategic port on the black sea. Remember, this is all in Russia's back yard, unlike the US, Russia is surrounded by countries controlled by a variety of foreign powers...and those on their borders at risk of becoming NATO members are their biggest security threat. The US would do the same to retain buffer zones if we had any significant threats in this hemisphere. The only reason we are acting like we wouldn't do the same thing is because we are not in the same position.
Answer this question if you think this is purely aggresion. What would the US do if Mexico was wanting to join BRICs(if BRICs actually had a military aspect instead of just economy ) and BRICs wanted to install medium range ballistics missiles in their member countries? Do you not think we would do whatever was needed to keep Mexico as a buffer zone? In the end I doubt Russia would annex all of Ukraine even if they invaded since that would defeat the whole purpose of a buffer. The goal for them is to retain the staus quo.
In reply to Wicked93gs :
I never understand this argument: Russia must invade Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion. First of all, when they invade they put NATO on their doorstep. What then? Tell Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania they must leave NATO because they are uncomfortably close to Russia? and second, if that was the only goal they would not have taken parts of Ukraine already that are not close to NATO countries instead of nibbling away at economically strategic bits on the East side.
I mean Putin has now added that he requires that nato and is bases be removed from former eastern bloc countries. Moving goalposts from a tyrant isn't a good thing.
I think it's equal parts Putin making sure everyone at home knows that the lifetime dictator still has balls, and deep suspicion and lack of understanding about just how low the appetite is for war in the rest of the developed world.
Remember that an experienced diplomat does not go into negotiations without having something to negotiate away. In other words, Putin's proposals are in all likelihood a starting point for negotiations, not a realistic set of expectations. The problem with this approach is when the other parties decide not to play along, refusing all of the proposals right off the bat, rather than working toward a mutually acceptable middle ground. This is one of the reasons why the US, the leaders of which tend to have very idealistic world views regardless of political persuasion, has traditionally not been very good at international diplomacy.
You'll need to log in to post.
