I have a lot of personal theories how my country can best cope with future geopolitical adjustments. If I were in charge, the first thing I would do would be to close most foreign military bases. We can have the strongest military in the world and have them largely based in the US. I think the US Navy continues to be a good investment, but I would cut back a small amount on intel and other military branches.
And that won't change any time soon. The Euro is a decent currency but we're too disjoint to back something supposed to be a reserve currency, and China's Yuan is too much controlled by the government (and exchange limited) to be viable.
Russian banks went down en masse, the spread of foreign currencies was larger than the official numbers, and people were queuing outside the banks to withdraw money.
Of course, the Russian narrative is that this will hurt the west more than it will hurt Russia...
The strategy behind the foreign military bases isn't just about having the strongest military in the world. They serve two purposes:
First, we want to preserve the credible threat of boots on the ground anywhere in the world within just a few hours of a conflict beginning. Think edge computing, but for military operations.
Second, we want to reassure our allies that they have more than just our word for it that we'll come to their aid in a crisis. Having US soldiers in your country 24/7 functions as a guarantee that if the country falls to an invader the US will have to respond, because our soldiers were captured or killed.
The concern is that without the bases, a hostile power (like, say, the one TFA is about) could invade an ally (like, say, the Baltic states) with overwhelming force and present NATO with a fait accompli before we have time to react. Pulling away from those bases would be correctly seen by many of our allied states as relaxing our commitment to them.
During petrodollar era, the 1970s and 80s, the dollar was used less than it is today. (Certainly within the USSR and even the Russian SSR.)
We de facto banned Russia from using the dollar in 2022 [1]. That it took Moscow over two years just get down to 50% speaks volumes to the dollar’s strength.
Also, the Dollar and Euro can have effect on the Russian economy and tracked for intelligence only if they are used.
I wonder if this will be considered a great blunder, looking back in few years.
Forcing worlds most energy and minerals rich country doing business with most industry rich country, what could go wrong?
Same way Britain wasn’t shooting itself in the foot blockading Nazi Germany, or the West by refusing to trade with the USSR.
> Forcing worlds most energy and minerals rich country doing business with most industry rich country, what could go wrong?
Post-Soviet Russia as an independent power has been an unmitigated disaster. China is America’s geopolitical rival, but at least it’s rational. Moscow as a Chinese suzerainty is likely a better configuration than it as a sovereign power.
(Also, it’s clear China isn’t willing to let its financial system be sanctioned simply to trade with the likes of Russia.)
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/50d6bcd1-f1f6-41a1-bb26-a54826548...
With less variety, slower and at higher cost [1]. And they’re not getting much of the high-tech kit [2]. (The Germans also had blockade runners. Everyone does. That doesn’t make a blockade less onerous.)
Russian natural gas sales have also cratered; Beijing is leveraging its position as a monopsony to demand price concessions [3].
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/out-stock-assessing-impact-san...
[2] https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-impact-of-s...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-china-gas-pip...
I am questioning the value of having 800 military bases in foreign countries in 2024. What was once a good idea may not be worth the money and resources now. What does the US give up not protecting the rest of the world? I think these topics are worthy of serious dialogue.
All these ideas of some kind of blockchain based common alternative is still just a pipe dream. You can’t base a real currency on crypto. If you think you can you don’t understand what currency actually is (hint: currency has never been a successor to metal/coin based transactions… it’s an abstraction over debt and debt has and will always be the main way value is exchanged. crypto cant replace debt based currency because debt is based on trust in humans, something that trust in an algorithm can’t replace)
Consider one result may be the USD not being used as a reserve currency as widely, or at all.
The number of lives we’d lose in the next world war. The end of Pax Americana won’t be sweet.
That said, I agree there should be more thought as to the marginal benefit of the 800th base.
Stuff getting expensive is no different than the west really. Slightly worse living standards can destroy the western democracies as they shift to extremist politics but has no effect on Russian leadership.
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/money-supply-m0
USA:
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0
Europe:
Sure, if you want a really strong Coast Guard. As soon as you venture out of that little bubble you're going to need ports, air-bases, and other facilities.
China is suffering from a lack of these, they really can't operate anywhere in the world like the US can. The same goes for Russia. In effect, those two are completely boxed in.
By things like US bases all over the world.
You can even argue that historically Britain was disproportionately powerful because of their extensive network of bases and ports. Trade was relatively easy for them, while other European powers never had the same access.
Like it or not, the ability to trade and the strength of your power projection are often deeply inter-linked.
https://www.bestchange.com/sberbank-to-tether-trc20.html
There was drop of like 5-10%, but that's nothing special. You can still go and buy as much USDT as you want for reasonable price. And this is what majority of normal people use to move money out of country.
PS: I am obviously anti-Putin dude, but at this point sanctions make very little difference short term. Giving more weapons to Ukraine is the only way to stop Russia.
They’re fighting like a ragtag African army, not a modern combined-arms one. Their latest air-defence systems which they once peddled for half a billion dollars each are being taken out by old American kit. The front lines barely budged while Ukraine was rationing arms; Russia is quite literally liquidating its economy and demography for Pyrrhic gains. We are watching the voluntary disassembly of a regional power.
> Stuff getting expensive is no different than the west
There is a massive difference between eggs becoming more expensive and not being able to access modern chip fabrication.
> Slightly worse living standards can destroy the western democracies as they shift to extremist politics but has no effect on Russian leadership
This was the Nazis’ hypothesis. In the end, Britain was able to shift to a more-extreme war footing earlier and more forcefully.
Putin has made this claim, but goes out of his way to insulate the Moscow elite from the effects of the war. The history of democracies in war is generally that they’re far more resilient than strongmen.
Or at least that you have no idea how your business makes money or what your users want your code for. Explainable for a new hire, but for a 25-year vet, such a lack of understanding and perspective is really inexcusable.
Correct. Long term, the effects of a materially-high real interest rate, capital controls and the demographic and technological degradation of sanctions and the war directly are starting to show their teeth.
Sanctions won’t stop this war. But they’ll facilitate degrading Russia so it is in no position to launch the next. (Weapons will stop this war.)
Edit: ah, M0 is cash. It is traditional to give cash in red envelopes at Chinese New Year, which could be related. I'm surprised the spikes are so large though.
You're really not looking closely.
In the beginning they were invading with tanks. Now they send Chinese golf carts and mopeds to the front to power the meat grinder.
"Saudi Arabia ends 80-year petrodollar deal with US for multi-currency sales"
https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/saudi-arabia-ends-8...
"No empire lasts forever, no dynasty continues unbroken"
edit:
Since the U.S.'s war on terrorism, the U.S. has said that every trade done in dollars is de facto done on U.S. soil and thus subject to U.S. laws. I'm surprised that more countries have not tried to cut ties with the U.S. dollar.
I share some of your lack of enthusiasm for crypto currencies. Rather, as individual countries trade between themselves it may often be advantageous for them to use their own currencies, especially if they don’t have to hold other countries’ currencies for long periods of time.
Non-US countries pay quite a penalty for holding lots of dollars. I expect every country to do what is in their own best interests, just as I hope my country makes good long term economic and geopolitical decisions.
“Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals talk about logistics,” Robert Barrow, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, echoing Eisenhower, echoing Cæsar.
In all likelihood, the person you’re responding to had no strategic remit.
Everything is made in China, the factories are there even if the west holds rights and patents etc. The west is services heavy but there's little this expertise can do anything about blowing up people and vehicles.
If the enemy knows all your forces have to flow into theater via airlift landing at Krablakistan Air Base in Elbonia, they're going to make war plans involving targeting your transports and pounding the living shit out of Krablakistan Air Base with air strikes and/or ballistic missiles. And beforehand, they'll do their level best to sow discord between your government and the Elbonians to the point they reconsider your access to their base in a crisis.
In September China released a new map using the old Chinese name (Sea Cucumber Bay) rather than the transliterated Vladivostok.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/chinas-standard-map-is-a...
American manufacturing is at an all-time high [1]. Are you conflating manufacturing employment with power?
> if China stops selling tiny electric motors the drone warfare will be lost as the west can't produce this stuff
Uh, I’m fairly deep into drone manufacturing in America. This is multi-level nonsense.
One: you’re confusing quadcopters with military drones, whose motors aren’t tiny and often aren’t motors but turbofans.
Two: we produce lots of electric motors and turbofans. In the case of the former, not at China’s scale, though far more autonomously (and thus easier to scale up if needed). In the case of the latter, far better and similarly quickly after adjusting for effective yield.
forgoing foreign bases and limiting the US military presence to domestic only is such a ludicrous take that I'm willing to bet would have you laughed out of any room discussing defense.
Also because Russia already had $50 billion stuck in Indian Rupee they cannot use. So they now use CNY of course, but even now a lot of exports still gonna be sold for USD.
Huh? In what world?
> the Russian narrative
Dont say such things after saying stuff like you just did above. You people live in such a delusional false reality propagated by your establishment that its worse than 2003. Ukraine is 'winning' despite losing, Russia is sinking despite becoming the 4th largest economy and having major increase in real wages, US economy is 'doing fine' even as the number and size of the sunken US banks eclipse 2008.
See the Zhenbao island dispute, a Chinese land grab with changes up to 2008: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
what damage do you really think this does to "the West"? the lack of access to cheap Russian energy is the only thing I can think of, and that's a dependency better resolved now than punted to the future. had Europe never grown dependent on it, we might have entirely prevented the current situation to transpire
My friend, times change, and we need to re-evaluate the world situation, and what is in our best interests. Someone in this thread mentioned England’s reach of power. I am not an expert on history but I think England did a fairly good job of disengaging from being the world’s hegemony. It seems like we need to calculate our own exit strategy sometime, and hopefully several years from now.
Sixth [1] to 11th [2], on track to being eclipsed by Indonesia and Mexico.
> having major increase in real wages
Real wages are up, yes, but real disposable income is flat [3].
This isn’t uncommon in a war footing [4]. Labour and necessities are diverted to the front, raising prices for both. That squeezes disposable income, which moderates price growth in luxuries. The effect, if you’re measuring with a pre-war basket of goods, is rising real earnings and falling disposable income.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PP... PPP
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/putin-grows-war-econo...
The more restrictive the access agreements are, the less options military planners and operations officers have and the more predictable we are to the enemy, who knows that he only has to defend against the evil Yankees coming from country X, not country Y or Z. And that because Country X is so far away, we need to burn additional logistical assets to support the shooters.
Is USA capable of producing huge number of electric motors? Other "not profitable enough to produce here" stuff?
Remember how the west wasn't able to deliver enough artillery shells simply because it can't produce enough? Now it might be ramping up in the shells department but there's so many things that the west can't make anymore in large quantities.
Old soviet joke:
Dad: Looks like vodka will become more expensive.
Son: Dad, are you going to drink less now?
Dad: No, son, now you are going to eat less.The semiconductor shortage is militarily relevant, as are the increasing delays in repairing damaged refineries and power plants [1].
> current rate Putin can fund war indefenetely
Setting aside demographics, his war engine relies on oil, an increasingly-stranded asset [2]. (Over geopolitical time scales.)
Putin is blowing grandma’s inheritance on fast cars.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-sanctions-ham...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/12/big-oil-given-stark-warning-...
The very real probability of no longer having the strongest military in the world, which is something you express that you are still in favor of.
We already tried the strategy of waiting to intervene until Europe had already been violently consolidated into one enormous and war-obsessed power. Even if you don't care about the lives of people who live outside of the US at all (which, to be clear, I do care about), that mistake cost us alone over 400k lives to fix. And do you really think that if we'd just left Hitler alone he would have been too intimidated to attack us after he'd finished mopping up Europe?
Russia is loaded with natural resources and I expect control of most of them to fall into Chinese hands over the next 20-50 years. Putin may have wanted to reassemble the USSR but in reality he's weakening Russia so much China will eventually control all of it.
North Korea, on the other hand, doesn't have much to offer China.
On the other hand, most of what I know about these regions I know from podcasts so I could be entirely wrong about all of it.
I'm a highly respected computer programmer in my organization, but if I went in to the CEO and tried to advise him that his business strategy was wrong and he needed to do something different, he'd listen to me politely and then explain all the ways in which I misunderstood the situation. And he would be correct.
You can have been a very good computer programmer within the DoD without having absorbed enough understanding of the geopolitical situation to have credible expertise in military strategy.
1) Everyone I personally knew in Russia has left, and every international collaboration in science I have seen seems to have ended.
2) People I know who are full time online teachers report that Chinese have virtually overnight lost their spot as the most numerous students, replaced by hordes of Russians seeking to emigrate.
3) Indisputable military points of clarity from global news are that Russia failed to capture Ukraine's capital after planning and attempting to do so, lost much of its Black Sea fleet, and suffered from a brief internal military uprising.
4) Russia's petro-diplomacy clearly backfired: the entire world has pivoted away from fossil fuels and the IEA just announced peak oil will occur this decade.
I think any summary version of reality that includes Russia 'winning' at this stage is probably more stage-managed than the alternatives. Yes, they can grind people to death more than the Ukraine because of their larger population. No, that doesn't mean they 'win'. Both Russia and Ukraine will suffer long term macro-demographic structural issues from this war, however it ends. The people of Ukraine have greatly suffered. The Chinese will suffer too, because this aids Xi Jinping's narrative of resisting the west during a period in which he is asserting authoritarian nationalism and increasing financial, economic and cultural controls.
Few people are making money. Certainly not Russia.
What semiconductor shortage? Who is affected by them? Russia is buying literally everything through Turkey, Kazakhstan and other ex-USSR countries. US and EU exports to ex-USSR countries are booming.
Of course Russia can't just sneak up some giant oil refinery or LPG equipment, but semiconductors are super easy to smuggle. Even more so since they have unlimited budget.
"Weapons will stop this war"? How? What's the end game? When it started the people believed it would be over in 3 days. Now all of a sudden people believe ukraine can destroy russia? How many more ukranian and russian soldiers must die?
This war will not be stopped by weapons. Just like any other. But if it was, i can't see a defeated russia, but a destroyed world.
Or what is the end-game here with the weapons? What do you think is a feasible outcome here?
Plenty of options. From complete Russian withdrawal (unlikely absent a Russian civil war) to a return to 2015 borders with neutral zones manned with international peacekeepers.
Worst case: keeping the fronts where they are while Putin burns war materiel.
> This war will not be stopped by weapons. Just like any other.
You’re claiming wars have never been stopped by weapons?
I find it interesting, in general, in this thread, that so many people dismiss what on the surface is a contrarian view (i.e., drastically reduce our overseas military presence), without more open debate.
Maybe my idea is wrong, but I feel it is worth a conversation.
Also, western brands are losing markets and brand recognition.
IMHO the sanctions should have been for military equipment/weapons and precision tooling only and enforced religiously.
This.
Plus:
- America gets soft power in return, countries keep American interests in eye too. This requires understanding the concept of win-win versus the you lose-I win mentality.
- Economic contraction. There is not much growth and prosperity in a world of feuding dictatorships. Incentives in those systems are opposite to global well fare.
Which increases cost and lag time. It also means they’re restricted to commodity components; it’s even harder for them to have custom components fabricated.
Blockade runners have always been a thing. The point of the blockade is to increase cost, lag and uncertainty. That’s the difference between blockade/sanctions and siege.
As long as the executive power do not try to subvert the legislative, judicial or, in a more limited way, informative power, we can't call "extremist politics". Which is why i reject the idea that reactionnaries like the RN in France are still fascists as their rethoric against judges and informative power is really tame (they could be lying, making them cryptofascists, but this is subject to personal beliefs and not facts).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Network
[1]"L'Extrême Centre ou le poison français : 1789-2019", Pierre Senna
5 to 10 if the IEA is correct [1].
[1] https://www.axios.com/2024/06/12/oil-peak-demand-iea-project...
Russia believes that war is the best way to get what they want. If the war in Ukraine ends with a Russian victory it won't mean world peace, it will mean we wait a few more years for Russia to build back up before it's on to the next war of aggression.
Where does it end if it doesn't end in Ukraine?
BTW the UK and France resisted that disengagement when they attempted to keep Suez from Egypt in 1956 but that expedition failed, also because the USA didn't like it.
Unfortunately west do nothing to deprive Russia of it's human resources. If only EU and US offered easier path for immigration there would be literally 100,000 of IT personnel who would happily left the country.
Lont-term country is gonna be in terrible conditions, but not because of people leaving.
But this is not work, this is HN. I posted some unpopular views here and most people here disagree with me. I am good with that! It still feels good to express my opinions.
They destroyed their veterans in the opening gambit. Mowing down unequipped numpties at staggering loss ratios isn’t a problem for Kyiv so long as its ammunition supplies are assured.
> Russians have criminal level of tolerance for lost lives
Russia is an empire. Moscow isn’t sending its children to the front, it’s sending Siberians and Chechens.
The mobilisation was politically difficult for Putin and damaging to Russia. There aren’t that many more Putin can pull off while retaining the public’s favour.
You’ve made a series of wrong, uncited claims. This is another one.
> Is USA capable of producing huge number of electric motors?
Siemens is the world’s largest manufacturer of electric motors. They have massive plants in Germany, Ohio and Missouri [1][2]. Toshiba, the second largest, in Houston and Canada [3]. ABB, third largest, with plants across 8 states, directed from Arkansas, as well as in India [4].
China has cheaper labour and laxer environmental laws than America. But we have some of the world’s cheapest and most-abundant energy. Motor manufacturing isn’t dirty or labour intensive. I’m not sure where your obsession with electric motors comes from, because it’s an example of Allied manufacturing vastly outstripping China.
> Remember how the west wasn't able to deliver enough artillery shells simply because it can't produce enough?
Yes, in part because we want to maintain reserves. We matched Ukraine’s military budget to the entirety of Russia’s [5]. As a side project.
[1] https://www.siemens.com/us/en/company/about/siemens-in-the-u...
[2] https://www.siemens.com/us/en/products/drives/electric-motor...
[3] https://www.toshiba.com/tic/inside-toshiba/manufacturing-ser...
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABB_Motors_and_Mechanical
[5] https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/w...
I hope not (!) and don’t think so. We have major natural resources and advantages. I can’t imagine a future where, assuming we mostly withdrew from the world’s stage, that any country would mess with us.
Russia has a moat here, Ukraine and the West can't pull anything of that sort.
Also, the mentality of Russian people or slavs in general is very prone to conspiratorial thinking. They are also very unambitious, only motivated by ideas about glory and don't make long term life plans and assume the role given to them.
Its very weird, the western mindset can't comprehend this. I've been risen in a slavic communist country that used to be aligned with USSR.
To this day I have relatives who are offended by the west despite living in EU, having their life quality depended on the success of EU but root for Russia to win and "show the arrogant west who's the boss". So I don't think that Putin will have human resources problem ever, as long as maintains his image of the tough guy who teaches the west a lesson. Russophilia is also widespread in many countries, even in EU.
America lives of a constant influx of the best global talent and a global market for its products.
I would bet my money that American democracy would not survive when that ecosystem collapses, especially not as the American system has already transitioned into an anocracy according to some. Collapse in itself would create opportunities, but not for a simple programmer as you refer to yourself.
You don't stop a bully by saying "please". They'll take your money and come back for more after.
In this case, Russians are taking your land, men, woman, children, culture and washing machines + the gas found in 2013 nearby crimea and the minerals in the most resource dense land of Ukraine ( lithium, ... ).
Here you go:
https://www.renewablematter.eu/en/ukraine-all-lithium-reserv...
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE90N11X/
If only in 2014 the international response would have been harder ( => provide weapons), Putin wouldn't have escalated 8 years later.
Providing more to Ukraine is long overdue.
> the west only cares about this to weaken russia. Weapons will only cost more lives.
Speak for yourselve. Some of my dearest friends these days are from Ukraine. ( Belgium)
While Europe is providing shelter and a life for 6 million refugees.
If Russia takes Ukraine, Ukrainian industrial base will be used to expand Russian military might and facilitate further wars of aggression and killing of more people.
It is not that different scenario from the one that happened in 1938-9 with Hitler and rump Czechoslovakia. Czech armament industry and Czech weapons were a welcome boost to the capabilities of Nazi Germany.
That's what you get for appeasement. A stronger and bolder enemy.
It's like India going to the moon at cost that would be considered pocket change in the USA.
Ping me when Ukrainian drones are made by US/European parts and not Chinese.
They can, India will happily sell them stuff for rupees, but the problem is that Indian exports mostly don't match Russian import needs.
They can of course invest into India economy to get even more Rupees.
My best answer was to recruit Indian mercenaries for meat attacks. But it is possible that New Delhi would not like that. India doesn't suffer from a lack of young disposable men, but it also cares about its international reputation.
You’ve made a series of wrong, uncited claims. This is another one. (And the last one I’m responding to. You are not arguing in good faith.)
You called out electric motors. By mass and production volume, China is outstripped by Allied production.
> cheap energy is cool but Russia too has cheap energy
Much less than America production-wise. We’re counting volumes and mass, right?
> like India going to the moon at cost that would be considered pocket change in the USA
You really keep picking terrible examples to spitball on.
The SSLV’s launch cost per kg is over 3x Falcon 9’s [1][2]. American access to space is orders of magnitude cheaper and more extensive than India, Russia and China’s combined, despite massively higher labour costs and design requirements.
That said, India actually got to the Moon. Can’t say as much about Russia [3].
[1] https://www.newspace.im/launchers/isro
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competit...
The West is the moat. Ukraine’s war production is almost entirely in the West.
> I have relatives who are offended by the west despite living in EU, having their life quality depended on the success of EU but root for Russia to win and "show the arrogant west who's the boss
Yeah, sort of like the most-fervent proponents of American doomerism frequently being Americans.
Mm hmm [1].
A whole constellation of mostly rich allies and friends, many of which may be forced to join some hostile power, in the same way that Czechoslovakia was forced by Stalin to abandon the Marshall Plan (1946) and later absorbed into the Soviet Bloc outright (1948).
Aren't you happy to have countries like Italy, Germany and Japan as friends? Was it better or cheaper for an average American taxpayer when they were geopolitical adversaries? I doubt that.
That’s my conclusion with the comments here.
What part of it is 'sinking'? It increased its oil exports. It increased its other resource exports. Europe is still buying Russian gas and oil, except through India and its now called 'Indian oil'. It achieved independence in a lot of things that it was buying from the West, mixing it with homegrown products and global south imports. The sanctions HIT EUROPE MORE, with all the European companies losing their market share in Russia and their market share being taken over by Russian companies and Chinese ones.
The references are from REUTERS, none other than one of the Angloamerican establishment mouthpieces that sells every war including how they sold the WMD lies, and some aggregate of Wikipedia articles that are tangential and supposed to be relevant?
Here's what's relevant:
https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/fragile...
> This isn’t uncommon in a war footing [4]. Labour and necessities are diverted to the front, raising prices for both. That squeezes disposable income, which moderates price growth in luxuries. The effect, if you’re measuring with a pre-war basket of goods, is rising real earnings and falling disposable income.
None of that is applicable to the actual reality that Russians themselves report, you are just flat out theorizing what 'should happen' with absolutely no connection to the actual reality.
Everything you say and believe is in line with things like 'ghost of kiev', "ukraine will reach Moscow in a month", "Russia wanted to conquer Ukraine in 3 months but it couldn't", "Chinese economy is set for a hard landing (yet) again" and all that sh*t.
...
Really, you people live in la la land. Your worst enemy is not Russia or China. Its you and your delirious 'I prefer to believe what I like to hear" attitude.
Downvote this post. It will make the reality go away.
Everyone I know in my home country which has absolutely no relation with any of these has also left. The 99.9% of the population have not. Your personal circle and the specific demographics you belong to do not constitute statistics.
> 3) Indisputable military points of clarity from global news are that Russia failed to capture Ukraine's capital after planning and attempting to do so
Angloamerican and satellite media outlets are not 'global', not to mention that all the 'experts' that they rely on are full of sh_t just like how they were back in 2003. Their sole job is to sell this war so that US and satellite taxpayer money can be channeled back to US defense corporations via Ukraine. The result is that Raytheon et al are posting record profits.
> 4) Russia's petro-diplomacy clearly backfired: the entire world
You people say these delirious things. 80% of the world has increased its business relations with Russia instead of decreasing it. India even told a bipartisan British parliamentary delegation to sod off when they went to India to lecture them about how they should cut their relations with Russia. Here's 'the entire world':
https://www.politico.eu/article/west-more-united-also-isolat...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/02/23/world/russia-...
Even NYT admits that the West is isolated and 'the world' is literally with Russia. But you people contradict your own establishment mouthpieces.
Here in Europe we are still buying Russian oil and gas, even more than before, EXCEPT THROUGH INDIA, GABON and other intermediaries. Gabon, a tiny African country, increased its merchant marine to 100 ships in a few months just to sell Russian oil and gas to Europe. Europe's exports to Russia cratered, but its exports to Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and various neighboring countries skyrocketed with the EXACT percentage with which its exports to Russia cratered. Go figure. Everything is the same as before in Europe related to Russia, and yet imports are more expensive because it goes through intermediaries.
> the entire world has pivoted away from fossil fuels
Another self-propagated delirium that is the product of too much Angloamerican media consumption. Hasnt happened.
> I think any summary version of reality that includes Russia 'winning' at this stage
The summary version of the reality in which Russia is winning is this reality.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/opinion/ukraine-military-...
"Ukraine Doesn’t Need All Its Territory to Defeat Putin"
Your establishment has gone from "Ukraine will get to Moscow in 3 months" to "Ukraine doesn't need its territory to win". They are making 'perception management' to manage you people as if you were idiots. And they seem to be succeeding too.
> The Chinese will suffer too, because this aids Xi Jinping's narrative of resisting the west during a period in which he is asserting authoritarian nationalism and increasing financial, economic and cultural controls.
Nobody needs to 'resist' 'the West'. Its bankrupt. Its capitalist class started to eat the societies alive by trying to profit from housing, healthcare, education and even basic foodstuffs as they exhausted the means to exploit other countries. Dollar lost its place as the foreign exchange currency and unused dollars are now flowing back to the US, causing inflation. 99% of Americans are estimated to be going to be never own a house whereas 80% of 30 year olds and 90% of 40 year olds own their houses in China, which they paid with their own money.
'The West' is so in knee-deep sh*t that this is what's happening there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AmerExit/
You people are delusional and speak delirious. This is how it must have been in the late stages of Roman empire as it was nearing its end: Delusion and denial.
What is the endgame here? It's not like we started the war? If anything we, the Europeans naively made ourselves Russia-dependent on energy assuming that having a win-win deal with Russia will eliminate any conflicts.
>Now all of a sudden people believe ukraine can destroy russia?
I don't think that anyone claims that this is the goal of Ukraine or the west. This war ends immediately as soon as Russian troops leave Ukraine. Why should it end with Russian troops taking all Ukraine?
Europe could have cheap energy alternatives if they wanted, but they preferred to rely on cheap Russian natural gas, believing them not to be a rogue state. The attempted invasion of Ukraine has made it obvious this was a terrible miscalculation.
Arguing that Europe should try to restore the status quo ante bellum is not only foolish, senseless, illogical and irrational but dangerous too.
Your profile says you like to argue things that you don't really believe in just to "have a more lively debate". I can only imagine that's what's happening here, because no rational actor would make the sort of concessions to Russia as you argue, particularly after they have proven to be a much, much weaker military power than anticipated.
Check your own biases at the door next time you're looking to engage in intelligent discussion, lest you come across as quibbling in bad faith.
Russia will not stop at Ukraine. Their publicly stated goal just like they're publicly stated goal for invading Ukraine is The first step to militarily controlling that Gap is called the sulwaki gap
I forgot what the name of the person is, but there is a naval war college professor who explained that Russia is a continental empire and it's the key to its defense are control of seven gaps without those Russia considers themselves indefensible.
Ukraine is the necessary defense line. Because the next thing that happens is Russia invades NATO gets its ass kicked conventionally and then there's a nuclear war
Russia is in the early midst of a complete demographic meltdown even before the war.
The invasion Ukraine happened cuz this is the last disposable generation Russia could muster for invasion.
Of course this is just hastening their demographic decline in the next 10 years.
Combine that with the fact that it hastens the adoption of EVs and the moving off of fossil fuels, everything that Russia thinks it's achieving in this war is leading to it's more rapid decline in the next decade.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. The measles of mankind. - Einstein
It seems somehow fitting in today's scenario that Einstein fled Europe for the US, and turned down being PM of Israel with insightful comment.
Chiefly your arguments about abstention from votes are totally logical: the countries who abstained are largely neighbors or economic vassals of China and Russia who do not want to poke the proverbial bear.
Ask the Chinese how their real estate market is going, and it is certain they will tell you it was an effective ponzi scheme which has burst and the government crony real estate firms ate all their savings. That money went overseas. Masking cronyism with a drum of nationalism is populist politics 101.
Russia was a great cultural and economic center at one time, but that time has long passed. Recently, IMHO it has been primarily a proxy, mafiaesque jurisdiction for globalized resource market extraction operations. As I look about my house I notice zero Russian inventions, products, or brands, save some postcards from 1900 and a jar of pickled winter food. I hope everyone on all sides can pass this difficult time and lead peaceful and fulfilling lives without nationalism.
That. Therein lies the problem that destroys the Angloamerican-led world order and the countries that are under its yoke from within: You prefer a certain version of reality that appeals to what you believe and feel. As a result, you literally ignore anything that contradicts those and amplify whatever supports those - which allows your establishment to literally lie to you to get to believe what YOU want to believe. Because, even if they tell the truth, you wont believe it ANYWAY, and you will do it...
> it's a short-term result.
...like this. All the indicators show the contrary of what you currently believe. You even went much further than the majority of the population and actually acknowledged that this may be the case, and the situation may be different than what you believed. BUT, you STILL gravitate back to your preferred reality by rejecting the contradicting indicators, by labeling them 'short term'.
They are not 'short term'. The entire world order changed. NYT admits it, Reuters admits it. But you, the public, WANT the reality to be otherwise. It wont.
https://www.reuters.com/world/brics-poised-invite-new-member...
> The invasion Ukraine happened cuz this is the last disposable generation Russia could muster for invasion.
The invasion of Ukraine happened because it was the last project of Brezinski and his proteges are still running the US foreign policy. He outlined how it should happen, and it was implemented precisely how he planned it before he died.
> Combine that with the fact that it hastens the adoption of EVs and the moving off of fossil fuels
Another delirium, that lives on the lie that the Angloamerican media sold to its public by saying that Russia was "an oil rig posing as a country". Its not.
One lie supporting another, one lie being used to reject the uncomfortable reality when the numbers and actual events contradict it, gravitating back to the PREFERRED, false reality because, well, it makes you people 'feel good'.
I'll leave you to your denial.
That's what you did with "Most of the people I know".
The rest are literal references from actual Angloamerican establishments. You are literally contradicting what NYT, Reuters et al bluntly say. Take it up with them and tell them that they are wrong.
> I myself hold three citizenships and am part slavic, raised irreligious and to hold America in a very dim light.
Doesnt mean anything. You talk like an American nationalist who is devoid of the understanding of the reality outside.
> Nationalism is an infantile disease. The measles of mankind. - Einstein
Another irrelevant phrase, hard to understand what the hell does it have to do with the actual point.
> Chiefly your arguments about abstention from votes are totally logical: the countries who abstained are largely neighbors or economic vassals of China and Russia who do not want to poke the proverbial bear.
Its not about 'votes'. All of those countries increased their TRADE with Russia. Needless to say neither Brazil, nor Chile nor Malaysia nor Indonesia has anything to fear about Russia. The argument is unintelligible.
Its also hypocritical: When US satellites vote how the US wants, its 'democratic', but when other countries vote according to their already declared, clear diplomatic stances, its 'for fear'.
> Ask the Chinese how their real estate market is going
80% of 30 year olds and 90% year of 40 year olds own their houses, and they paid it with their own money. That's how it is going. Its going bad only in the publications of the Economist, WSJ and NYT because they want China to open up its real estate market so that American investment funds can fck the Chinese by buying up entire neighborhoods then jacking up prices to profit - like how they did to Americans:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/homes-for-sale-affordable-housi...
99% of Americans will never buy a house in their lifetime.
This is a great example of how delirious you people became by feeding on the lies and bullsht of your media. The Economist incessantly lies about China, you people eat it line and sinker and blabber about "China's real estate market" even as 99% of you will never buy a house. You get your own real estate market in order first. Sheeshhh...
> As I look about my house I notice zero Russian inventions, products, or brands, save some postcards
Yeah. Your house, in your self-induced ignorance and delirium with all the disconnectedness from the rest of the world, does make a statement about actual countries and geopolitics. Like the 'China real estate market' delirium. The country where 99% of the people will never own a house are yammering about the real estate market of another country and denigrating it. That seals the discussion. Well done.
I will leave you people to dabble in your drivel.
What they want is the gas that was going to be produced in Ukraine in 2013, a year before they invaded. They also took resource rich areas.
The proof for this is easy. Russia clearly stated they have no problem with Finland joining NATO. A border of 1340 km and Finland has one of the strongest army's in Europe.
https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-russia-no-problem-finl...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-can-finlands-armed...
What he originally wanted to keep, is resource dominance over Europe ( eg. Gas) as leverage.
And that's why a half a million Russians are dead.
Or take some guidance at the countries that already suffered Russia as a neighbor in the recent past.
Here's a hint: Ukraine, Romania, Poland, Finland, ...
Here's an example: https://abcnews.go.com/International/helsinkis-underground-c...
Or are you claiming you know better than them?
for what? a smaller deficit? it's unclear whether reducing the size of the defense industry helps the US economy, so maybe you get a smaller deficit but you also raise unemployment by a couple % and lower economic growth by a % or so over the next 25 years
conversely, it's pretty clear this does hurt its current hegemonic position. that's a gamble not many are willing to take so carelessly
I say this as a non-American, by the way
Revenues are down [1].
> Here's what's relevant
You're linking to a paper on bank runs. We had a bunch last year, and another a few months ago.
You didn't notice? That's okay. Most Americans didn't notice either.
(That said, I appreciate your citing a source. You'll note that the authors suggestions were recently implented.)
> None of that is applicable to the actual reality that Russians themselves report
Real disposable income is down. According to Russia.
[1] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Russian-Oil-is-Fu...
With Russia's death rate and invasion speed (or lack thereof) they will also run out of soldiers before Ukraine.
But it will take time...
Nah, before Finland (and Sweden) joined they issued multiple threats.
Here's what they did when they actually joined: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-can-finlands-armed...
( As mentioned before)
Treating anything Russia says as proof of their intentions is pure ignorance given their long track record of empty threats, lies and flip-flopping.
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - Soviets went home, split up a bit
American troops in Vietnam - America went home, had a rethink
Nazi invasion of USSR - nazis went home, were defeated
Following that pattern maybe the Russians go home, Putin replaced?
I think you are getting your information from some weird bubbles or Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone establishment said anything like that. If anything they expected Ukraine to collapse.
That's very clearly not what the article says. Its key themes are that the world is "fragmented" and "ambivalent", and that Western sanctions haven't helped as much as hoped. At no point does it paint a picture of a world that is plainly "with Russia". In fact the article's most telling chart (the one that aligns abstaining UN votes with population) speaks directly against this assertion you're making.
Your establishment has gone from "Ukraine will get to Moscow in 3 months"
This is simply nonsense; absolutely no one has said anything about Ukraine getting to Moscow.
to "Ukraine doesn't need its territory to win"
That's the view of that one opinion piece. It's definitely not the consensus view of the political leadership in countries supporting Ukraine.
You people are delusional and speak delirious.
You are clearly misinformed about a lot of things -- and even when an NYT article is right in front of you, you can't seem to read its main points correctly.
Whether that means you are delusional or speak delirious -- is up to you, man.
I think is a bit unfair. The state is the UK and we cooperate with the US but are not especially told what to do by them. I note with Ukraine the UK were the first to supply anti tank weapons, long range missiles, allow strikes on Russian territory with their weapons and so on and the US tagged along after.
The compounding problem for Russia is that not only is the war killing a million plus people. Probably by the end of it it scared off 5 million other people in emigration and probably 20 million more in the coming years
That's what it says, like how Bloomberg does. Except, NYT cannot tell it as Bloomberg tells it so it must make it so that the establishment that it backs has still some chance. It has not. 80% of the world increased its business with Russia, including even Europe, despite all those sanctions.
> You are clearly misinformed about a lot of things -- and even when an NYT article is right in front of you, you can't seem to read its main points correctly.
Say the people who have been roped into believing all kinds of sh*t ranging from nonexistent WMDs to 'ghost of kiev'. When called out, NYT just admitted that yes, it was a lie, but it was 'good for morale so it was ok'.
You people who subscribe to the Angloamerican Western media have no business talking about being misinformed.
The compounding problem is that the said number which doesn't even make sense, is reported by its enemies, who also sold things like the nonexistent Iraqi WMDs and ghost of kiev. Who also said that Ukraine would be at Moscow's gates in a month. And yet people like you still keep believing their sht. No wonder you people cant get out of the knee-deep sht that you put yourselves into.
You people are delirious. You buy into things because you like what you hear. Then you end tits up, unable to make sense of how you ended up in the sh*t pits that you end up in, and start somewhere to throw the blame at.
But then again, what a convenient situation to end the imperialism that has been propagated by the Angloamerican-dominated West for the last 200 years. There cant be a worse external enemy to your countries than your lying elite and the foolish public who believes in their lies.