Politics

[Wheels]

Not a good omen when politicians start lying.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had stated earlier in the week, “Deutsche Bank is very profitable, there is no reason for concern,”


Wonder if Scholz has any idea how many Euros in derivatives DB has off the books.

 

[B0MBOY]

You and I are in agreement with respect to China. Let us set that aside.

Russia's power base will be very different if it successfully absorbs Ukraine. And so will our adversaries' appreciation of the US and its allies as a threat to their ambitions. I frankly don't think we have had a more serious challenge to our long term national interests in decades (I include the Middle East). It frustrates me that seems incomprehensible to so many on my side.

The Russian linked churches action was an obvious and necessary response to a specific faction of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine supporting Russian clandestine activity inside the country while it is engaged in an existential conflict. People like Tucker Carlson have exaggerated this to imply that Ukraine is shutting down all churches - which to use one of Tucker's favorite phrases is "a lie." Roughly 65 - 70% of the Ukrainian population is Eastern Orthodox. A much smaller percentage are of the Russian Orthodox sect.

The sanctimony is even more ridiculous if one recalls just a little history. It is perhaps worth remembering that we took far more drastic measures when last involved in existential conflicts. We merely imprisoned whole families in concentration camps and confiscated the businesses and livelihoods of American citizens who happened to be of Japanese ancestry in WWII. In 1939 the American Bund Party held its rally in Madison Square Garden. A little over a year later it was outlawed and its leaders imprisoned. Lincoln closed opposition newspapers and suspended habeaus corpus - locking up perceived enemies for the duration of the war.

View attachment 524779

Nations do what is necessary when fighting to the death against another power. Even our country.

I obviously can't prove it, but I more convinced daily that Trump's position with respect to Ukraine has nothing to do with him being "ant-war" or acting in our national interests and everything to do with his self-indulgent animus for Zelensky. Zelensky had the good sense to not involve himself in American domestic politics, and Trump, in typical childish fashion, finds that unforgivable and far more important than what is best for the country.

What changes about the power base? Pre russian invasion Ukraine gdp was ~5% of Russia’s. What wealth is there to be seized here? What power?

 

[Alistair]

What changes about the power base? Pre russian invasion Ukraine gdp was ~5% of Russia’s. What wealth is there to be seized here? What power?

I dove into that a bit back in post #20031 in this thread.

Not a comprehensive overview of the potential benefits Ukraine would offer Russia and only my opinions, but at least a start to guide your own research.

 

[HookMeUpII]

What changes about the power base? Pre russian invasion Ukraine gdp was ~5% of Russia’s. What wealth is there to be seized here? What power?

a) It would send a message that they can, and will, accomplish what they set out to: Reestablishment of the Soviet Union.
b) It would establish to NATO that not another inch is allowed and they will continue to do this going forward.
c) A huge amount of natural resources.
d) An immediate tactical border against Poland, which is a huge enemy of Russia.
e) A naval tactical advantage with unfettered access to most of the northern coast in the Black Sea.

The motive here is "a". After the Ukraine color revolution in 2014 (I believe), Putin has been waiting for this.

 

[Red Leg]

What changes about the power base? Pre russian invasion Ukraine gdp was ~5% of Russia’s. What wealth is there to be seized here? What power?

It is something about which you really should inform yourself. @Alistair 's post is a good start. And those are simply numbers. The political military momentum Russia would gain from the successful subjugation of Ukraine would be invaluable both to its further ambitions to destabilize NATO, but of even more value to the PRC. At the moment we are containing this threat with a tiny expenditure against our whole budget, much of which is military equipment in kind rather than actual dollars. Russian success would force an enormous refocus of resources and energy toward Europe, complicating our efforts tremendously with regard to China.

 

[Dragan N.]

You and I are in agreement with respect to China. Let us set that aside.

Russia's power base will be very different if it successfully absorbs Ukraine. And so will our adversaries' appreciation of the US and its allies as a threat to their ambitions. I frankly don't think we have had a more serious challenge to our long term national interests in decades (I include the Middle East). It frustrates me that seems incomprehensible to so many on my side.

The Russian linked churches action was an obvious and necessary response to a specific faction of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine supporting Russian clandestine activity inside the country while it is engaged in an existential conflict. People like Tucker Carlson have exaggerated this to imply that Ukraine is shutting down all churches - which to use one of Tucker's favorite phrases is "a lie." Roughly 65 - 70% of the Ukrainian population is Eastern Orthodox. A much smaller percentage are of the Russian Orthodox sect.

The sanctimony is even more ridiculous if one recalls just a little history. It is perhaps worth remembering that we took far more drastic measures when last involved in existential conflicts. We merely imprisoned whole families in concentration camps and confiscated the businesses and livelihoods of American citizens who happened to be of Japanese ancestry in WWII. In 1939 the American Bund Party held its rally in Madison Square Garden. A little over a year later it was outlawed and its leaders imprisoned. Lincoln closed opposition newspapers and suspended habeaus corpus - locking up perceived enemies for the duration of the war.

View attachment 524779

Nations do what is necessary when fighting to the death against another power. Even our country.

I obviously can't prove it, but I more convinced daily that Trump's position with respect to Ukraine has nothing to do with him being "ant-war" or acting in our national interests and everything to do with his self-indulgent animus for Zelensky. Zelensky had the good sense to not involve himself in American domestic politics, and Trump, in typical childish fashion, finds that unforgivable and far more important than what is best for the country.

Russia's power base will be worse of, if they win this conventional war against Ukraine. First of all, Ukraine is a devestated and destroyed country. Of the pre-war population of 40 million something like 12 million have left the country. That number would grow exponentially more if a hypothetical Russian victory was looming. Ukraine's infrastructure is also badly damaged and is in need of extensive repair. Russia would have to pour billions and billions into rebuilding occupied Ukraine. This would be a huge drain on the Russian economy and is money that post war Russian economy could not afford. Not to mention that Russia would also have to fight a massive counter-insurgency in Ukraine as well. Russia's power base would certainly not be expanded if it managed to win this present war against the Ukrainians. If anything I would say Russian resources would be drained even more if they won the conventional war and had to fight a counter-insurgency in Ukraine... America only spent a small portion of the 2.3 trillion in Afghanistan on ousting the Taliban. The bulk of that money was spent,unsuccessfully, on trying to occupy and hold the country. The same principle would apply on a much larger and more costly scale for the Russians in Ukraine.

The biggest threat to American national security are America's policy makers who totally misread the world. Case in point the 5 trillion dollars that was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. 5 trillion dollars later, America is in a worse off position in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan than it was before the wars. The same problem applies to Russia. Russia is a declining major power. The Russian leadership is paranoid about NATO and has been so since the end of the Cold War. The greatest risk that Russia poses is if it is backed into a corner even further. A cornered and paranoid animal is the most dangerous. Even more so when it has nuclear weapons.That is when they would be most likely to commit nuclear suicide. This is the escalation that really scares me and the biggest threat that Russia poses. Russia rebuilding the Soviet Union and returning to its "former glory" is a far off fantasy. Much like Saddam using WMDs against America...

Look at this article:

Ukraine’s Zelensky Is Challenged by Return of Domestic Political Troubles

Ukraine’s president faces government corruption allegations, political competition and questions about Western aid. The politics of the prewar period are returning for the 45-year-old wartime leader.

www.wsj.com

Earlier this year Zelensky "cracked down" on a large scale corruption scandal in the Ukrainian army involving the procurement of food for its armed forces. It seems that the minister of defense was involved in this scandal. Now i find it a bit too convenient that Zelensky "discovered" this scandal and then cracked down on it just as the West was mulling over whether or not to provide tanks to Ukraine. I have a very hard time believing that he was not aware of this for quite a while beforehand...

This severe case of corruption, involving procurement of food for Ukrainian soldiers, happened in the midst of a war that poses an existential crisis to Ukraine. How much worse do you think the corruption will be once the war ends and Ukraine has a large stockpile of Western military tech that is worth a pretty penny on the international black market?

 

[Red Leg]

Russia's power base will be worse of, if they win this conventional war against Ukraine. First of all, Ukraine is a devestated and destroyed country. Of the pre-war population of 40 million something like 12 million have left the country. That number would grow exponentially more if a hypothetical Russian victory was looming. Ukraine's infrastructure is also badly damaged and is in need of extensive repair. Russia would have to pour billions and billions into rebuilding occupied Ukraine. This would be a huge drain on the Russian economy and is money that post war Russian economy could not afford. Not to mention that Russia would also have to fight a massive counter-insurgency in Ukraine as well. Russia's power base would certainly not be expanded if it managed to win this present war against the Ukrainians. If anything I would say Russian resources would be drained even more if they won the conventional war and had to fight a counter-insurgency in Ukraine... America only spent a small portion of the 2.3 trillion in Afghanistan on ousting the Taliban. The bulk of that money was spent,unsuccessfully, on trying to occupy and hold the country. The same principle would apply on a much larger and more costly scale for the Russians in Ukraine.

The biggest threat to American national security are America's policy makers who totally misread the world. Case in point the 5 trillion dollars that was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. 5 trillion dollars later, America is in a worse off position in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan than it was before the wars. The same problem applies to Russia. Russia is a declining major power. The Russian leadership is paranoid about NATO and has been so since the end of the Cold War. The greatest risk that Russia poses is if it is backed into a corner even further. A cornered and paranoid animal is the most dangerous. Even more so when it has nuclear weapons.That is when they would be most likely to commit nuclear suicide. This is the escalation that really scares me and the biggest threat that Russia poses. Russia rebuilding the Soviet Union and returning to its "former glory" is a far off fantasy. Much like Saddam using WMDs against America...

Look at this article:

Ukraine’s Zelensky Is Challenged by Return of Domestic Political Troubles

Ukraine’s president faces government corruption allegations, political competition and questions about Western aid. The politics of the prewar period are returning for the 45-year-old wartime leader.

www.wsj.com

Earlier this year Zelensky "cracked down" on a large scale corruption scandal in the Ukrainian army involving the procurement of food for its armed forces. It seems that the minister of defense was involved in this scandal. Now i find it a bit too convenient that Zelensky "discovered" this scandal and then cracked down on it just as the West was mulling over whether or not to provide tanks to Ukraine. I have a very hard time believing that he was not aware of this for quite a while beforehand...

This severe case of corruption, involving procurement of food for Ukrainian soldiers, happened in the midst of a war that poses an existential crisis to Ukraine. How much worse do you think the corruption will be once the war ends and Ukraine has a large stockpile of Western military tech that is worth a pretty penny on the international black market?

I am sorry, but I can not conceive of any economic or political/military advantage that Russia gains by losing this conflict and enormous ones it gains by winning. That reads like the sort of copium we would read following a Ukrainian collapse. I have serious doubts with respect to the amount of infrastructure repair Russia will shoulder following victory. And if we allow ourselves to let the fear of the "rabid dog" dictate our foreign polity, then our national interests will be subject to Russian blackmail indefinitely. Nuclear weapons have great power but only limited utility in the face of an equally armed and more resolute foe.

Russia has rolled the dice to reverse its status as a "declining power." The West would be collectively insane to do anything to assist that reversal of fortune for the reasons I outlined in numerous posts above.

I would agree that we have wasted enormous resources, human and material, in the Middle East. Though I am not sure I would agree that conditions with respect to Iraq are worse now than before. Southern Watch was a constant bleeding sore as well. I am absolutely convinced we did have to go into Afghanistan to root out Al Qaida. But I will also admit that we should never have decided on war with the Taliban. Even if it meant reentering Afghanistan every few decades, that would have been better than the nation building experiment we attempted in the graveyard of empires.

Convenient or not for your tastes, eventual EU membership is very important to Ukraine. Getting a handle on its culture of corruption is the critical path for that membership. If a few Abrams spur that effort along, all the better. I would simply note other Eastern European nations had their own challenges following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and most have done a remarkable job moving beyond those norms.

 

[JOHN GRENZ]

 

[Wheels]

 

[Wheels]

Give France credit. They know how to throw a revolution!

French pension protests turn to fiery riots, forcing King Charles to scrap first overseas trip

As many as 3.5 million people protested across France on Thursday, with violence forcing the UK’s King Charles III to cancel his first overseas trip.

nypost.com

 

[Wheels]

 

[VertigoBE]

It is something about which you really should inform yourself. @Alistair 's post is a good start. And those are simply numbers. The political military momentum Russia would gain from the successful subjugation of Ukraine would be invaluable both to its further ambitions to destabilize NATO, but of even more value to the PRC. At the moment we are containing this threat with a tiny expenditure against our whole budget, much of which is military equipment in kind rather than actual dollars. Russian success would force an enormous refocus of resources and energy toward Europe, complicating our efforts tremendously with regard to China.

I don’t try to read much more into what Russia’s intentions with the invasion of the Ukraine were, than what they claimed to want:
1. Second warm water port through the Black Sea.
2. Keeping NATO and defensive/offensive missile batteries further from Moscow by having a pro Russian regime in the Ukraine.

It is not for the Ukraine’s commodities, much cheaper to just trade with them.

As far as farther expansion into NATO territory (Poland, Estonia, etc) this does not hold up. They knew full well they cannot take on NATO (=US military). They thought they could take on Ukraine’s military, but were very mistaken instead.

 

[Ray B]

Appears to me that the Communist Party Russia has much in common with the Democrat Party United States in that they both have developed the art of projection to doctorate levels. The Russians are fearful of the Europeans claiming they have a desire to dominate Russia, whereas the opposite seems to be the fact- just as the Democrat party accuses those that don't support the entirety of the Democrat platform, in particular the 74,000,000 that voted for Donald Trump to be seeking to subjugate them whereas recent actions show the Democrats are the ones seeking full dominance.
I wonder if the US had a leader who could convince the Russians that we can get along (sort of like Trump did with North Korea), that an end to the war could be negotiated in short order.

 

[Red Leg]

I actually don’t try to read much more into what Russia’s intentions with the invasion of the Ukraine, than what they claimed to want:
1. Second warm water port through the Black Sea.
2. Keeping NATO and defensive/offensive missile batteries further from Moscow by having a pro Russian regime in the Ukraine.

It is not for the Ukraine’s commodities, much cheaper to just trade with them.

As far as farther expansion into NATO territory (Poland, Estonia, etc) this does not hold up. They knew full well they cannot take on NATO (=US military). They thought they could take on Ukraine’s military, but were very mistaken instead.

Your economic assessment is spot on for a Western European or North American. However, I do not believe they think like that at all. Russia is an 18th century empire, for a time disguised as a proletarian utopia, that thinks in terms of vassal states. It is hardly just my assessment that Ukraine would have been dismembered and everything east of the Dnieper and all of the Black Sea coast would have been incorporated into that empire. A rump state with relatively few of those resources worth trading for would have been left.

I do believe paranoia with respect to NATO membership did play a part in the decision process. Obviously, that strategic goal has somewhat boomeranged with a new Finnish NATO frontier in marching distance of St. Petersburg that is already hosting surveillance assets virtually peering into ports of Russia's Northern Fleet - particularly those submarine bases.

I agree that we would not have seen Russian columns attempting to penetrate the Polish and Romanian borders. But I am equally certain we would have seen destabilization efforts across the Balkans fueled by their success in Ukraine.

 

[Red Leg]

Appears to me that the Communist Party Russia has much in common with the Democrat Party United States in that they both have developed the art of projection to doctorate levels. The Russians are fearful of the Europeans claiming they have a desire to dominate Russia, whereas the opposite seems to be the fact- just as the Democrat party accuses those that don't support the entirety of the Democrat platform, in particular the 74,000,000 that voted for Donald Trump to be seeking to subjugate them whereas recent actions show the Democrats are the ones seeking full dominance.
I wonder if the US had a leader who could convince the Russians that we can get along (sort of like Trump did with North Korea), that an end to the war could be negotiated in short order.

We aren't dealing with communists in Russia. The current government - the way it functions, its relationship to the people, and the greed of the leading "families" - has far more in common with the mafia than some political dogma motivated movement.

 

[WAB]

I don’t try to read much more into what Russia’s intentions with the invasion of the Ukraine were, than what they claimed to want:
1. Second warm water port through the Black Sea.
2. Keeping NATO and defensive/offensive missile batteries further from Moscow by having a pro Russian regime in the Ukraine.

It is not for the Ukraine’s commodities, much cheaper to just trade with them.

As far as farther expansion into NATO territory (Poland, Estonia, etc) this does not hold up. They knew full well they cannot take on NATO (=US military). They thought they could take on Ukraine’s military, but were very mistaken instead.

I don’t think Russia needs people or cities to get strategic advantage from Ukraine. Ukraine provides a buffer for military incursion on Russia and secured access to the Black Sea. What may be just as important is food production capability. I have traveled the length and breadth of Ukraine by rail and car. As an Ag professional, I would guess their pre-conflict productivity at somewhere around 25% of its potential. This is not only of huge interest to Russia, but is even more important to their new friends in China. If you tour the ag systems in Northern China in the area of Harlow, you will quickly realize that the Chinese have the technology and personnel to tap into the Ag potential of Ukraine. They don’t need Ukrainians or any ukranian cities to capture this value if they take over the country.

 

[John Wasmuth]

Time to turn Iran and Syria into one big ass parking lot.

 

[Wheels]

 

[VertigoBE]

I don’t think Russia needs people or cities to get strategic advantage from Ukraine. Ukraine provides a buffer for military incursion on Russia and secured access to the Black Sea. What may be just as important is food production capability. I have traveled the length and breadth of Ukraine by rail and car. As an Ag professional, I would guess their pre-conflict productivity at somewhere around 25% of its potential. This is not only of huge interest to Russia, but is even more important to their new friends in China. If you tour the ag systems in Northern China in the area of Harlow, you will quickly realize that the Chinese have the technology and personnel to tap into the Ag potential of Ukraine. They don’t need Ukrainians or any ukranian cities to capture this value if they take over the country.

I agree that there is great agricultural potential in the Ukraine.

But turning it into a warzone is just not the most efficient way of tapping into that. It would be a much better deal for Russia to sell them the natural gas that allows them to fertilize better the lands and receive crops in exchange. It makes no sense that this would have been the objective of their invasion.

 

[Graham Hunter]

Time to turn Iran and Syria into one big ass parking lot.

And China.