Putin Invades Ukraine II

[D1984]

IMHO

This is a US proxy war with Russia. NATO is a group of mutual defense, IE Ukraine becomes a US military base. Hypersonic weapons can already easily reach Russia. The west (the US) does not need the Ukraine as a military base. It's not going to take much to shock the world by Russia shutting off natural gas and oil exports. Any media messaging product or platform that makes this seem simply like a crazy person behaving badly and all of us good hearted people are just so sad at what is happening should be thrown in the trash. "We" are likely the provocateurs.

Also any message that makes it seem like we are the parent and they are the child should also be discarded. If they are mistreated, threatened and disrespected enough, Russia can kill all of us, guaranteed.

This is a perfect time to show them the respect they are deserve. We tell them that Ukraine will not house any western (US) military bases and that Ukraine can exist as a buffer. At this moment it seems like the US is in a position of strength because much of the world is aligning with us, which is a perfect time for peace talks. But none of that matters if we keep disrespectfully poke a powerful bear.

If Russia shuts off natural gas and oil it would hurt them worse than it would hurt the rest of the world. Russian gas typically only makes up around 22, 23 or a bit under 24% of the world's gas production (it varies by year) and around 10% of the world's oil production....BUT....energy makes up around 63 or 64% of Russia's total exports by monetary value. If Vladimir Putin wants to shoot his country's economy in the foot and put them in an even more screwed economic situation than they already are in now, let him.

And how exactly are "we" (the West) the provocateurs? Ukraine/the US/Europe didn't invade Russia; Vladimir Putin sent the Russian military to invade Ukraine. They started it, not us. While I generally don't support the US having so many military bases around the world or in Europe (Europe is perfectly capable of paying for a lot more of its own defense....and the incidents of the past two weeks seem to have finally motivated them to spend more on doing exactly that) the fact of the matter is, Putin doesn't get to dictate to the US, Ukraine, or any other sovereign nation where own their own damn soil they can have military bases if they want them. Saying he does is just saying "give the abusive bully what he wants and he won't hurt you". That doesn't work with abusers and it doesn't work with bullies. Giving in to them only emboldens them to act even worse.

The exact way that we are the provocateurs is that he has been saying for at least eight years that he will not allow the US to its front door with missiles. See "the Cuban Missile Crisis" Bases around the world are how we control the world. Putin does get to dictate this and he is dictating this. Once again refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think it's naive to call him a bully. It's funny I was talking to friend about what happens when emerging market countries do not allow us to exploit their countries through extractive projects and loans. We kill the leader. He pushed back until I let him know his own father (a very powerful man and friend of presidents) caused a coup resulting a terrible long dictatorship, because the democratically elected leader was not good for his corporations interest.

Also, Europe cannot defend itself. They are completely and utterly broke unless they seize everyones assets (negative 100% interest rates).

Biden clearly stated we had no plans to deploy US offensive missiles in Ukraine. See https://tass.com/world/1404025 . Even if we did deploy, say, Aegis or THAAD ABMs to Ukraine those are defensive missiles, not offensive.

With that said, if Putin doesn't want US missiles in Ukraine (or the rest of Eastern Europe) he can and should've come to the table with a good-faith offer to negotiate a revision of the INF treaty (I am aware that the US withdrew from it but it wasn't like Russia was complying with it nor had it been entirely compliant for several years before that). Had Putin approached us with such an offer we should've welcomed the overture and been willing to consider an agreement. All that kind of went out the window when he invaded a peaceful sovereign nation that hadn't attacked Russia first (and while we are at it, if Putin so seriously wanted peace and wanted to avoid war, why didn't he withdraw HIS forces from the Crimea and the two eastern provinces of Ukraine they were--and are--occupying).

If Putin wished to successfully persuade surrounding nations that Russia was no threat (and that therefore they should feel no pressure to consider joining NATO) then invading Ukraine was about the worst way to do it. The invasion sent two crystal clear messages: One, that Russia--at least as it is under Vladimir Putin--invades peaceful countries that haven't attacked it, and two, look at what happens to your country if you AREN'T in NATO (notice he hasn't attacked the Balkans or Poland or any other country under the NATO Article 5 security guarantee).

Vladimir Putin deserves to be called a bully because that's EXACTLY how he's acting (well, like that...or like a criminal ,or a thug, or a domestic abuser). People like that gaslight their victims by saying "see, look what you made me do...if you hadn't taken action X (where whatever action X is is something the bully disapproves of and thinks he has the right to force you not to do) then I wouldn't have had to hit you/beat you up/break your nose/rape you/rob you/etc"....classic "blame the victim" nonsense, in other words.

It seems pretty clear to me that the reason Putin is attacking Ukraine is because he thinks the collapse of the USSR deprived Russia of some of its rightful territories, because he sees Ukraine sees it as part of Russia, as not a legitimate independent country to begin with, and as something that rightfully "belongs" to Russia with all its people being compatriots and citizens of Russia.....whether Ukrainians want to be part of Russia or not; see https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ebruary-22 . This, not "NATO missiles potentially being in Ukraine" is what makes him willing to attack a nation that didn't attack Russia. Maybe if his own nation wasn't such an oligarch-dominated barely 2nd economic power he might have had something to offer to the Ukranians if he had offered a peaceful union between the two countries....especially if sweetened with several hundreds of billions or several trillions (of dollars or Euros, not Rubles) in cold hard cash if Ukraine accepted. As it stands, though, Russia is an "illiberal democracy" with out some of the liberties and many of the features of free and fair elections we take for granted in most of the West, it has an economy heavily dependent on commodity exports and not a whole lot else, it has a PPP GDP per capita of around 58% percent of that of the Eurozone (the non-PPP adjusted numbers, BTW, look even worse for Russia), and its (Putin's government's) own economic long-term planning documents have a goal of real personal per capita incomes being no worse in inflation adjusted terms in 2030 than they are now (see https://carnegiemoscow.org/2021/11/24/c ... -pub-85852 )....in other words, what Putin's Russia is offering is, to paraphrase Ronald Regan: "Ask yourself this question....do you want to be no better off eight years hence than you are now"! If Putin wants Ukraine to be a part of Russia and no longer a sovereign nation, maybe he should actually offer them something in political and economic terms that's worth being a part of....because right now, Ukrainians appear to have taken one look at it and said "thanks, but no thanks".

Oh, and BTW, as of Jan 2022 the Eurozone's government-debt to GDP ratio was around 97.9 or 98 percent. That's actually better than the US's. If they are "completely broke" then I guess that makes us (the US) "even broker than completely broke".

Lots of points there. Need to think about them.

OK, no problem. I will be away from my computer anyway for most of the rest of today.

BTW, in case you think I am some sort of knee-jerk "' 'Murica is always right and every other country should do what we say or get the shit bombed out of them if they don't" warmongering neocon, I assure you I am not. I was against the Iraq War, protested against it, and I still think that if Obama was too chickenshit to have Bush (and a good few members of his cabinet too) prosecuted for war crimes, then he should've at least turned them over to the Hague for prosecution there; what we did in Iraq was about as justifiable (i.e. it wasn't) from an international law non-aggression principle standpoint as what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

[boglerdude]

Why is the Fed rate 0 when inflation is 7%

What outcome does China want from this skirmish

[vnatale]

Vinny, you gotta protect this place! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinnytsia

Thanks! I'm honored to have a city named after me and all the other Vinny's in the world!

[vnatale]

IMHO

This is a US proxy war with Russia. NATO is a group of mutual defense, IE Ukraine becomes a US military base. Hypersonic weapons can already easily reach Russia. The west (the US) does not need the Ukraine as a military base. It's not going to take much to shock the world by Russia shutting off natural gas and oil exports. Any media messaging product or platform that makes this seem simply like a crazy person behaving badly and all of us good hearted people are just so sad at what is happening should be thrown in the trash. "We" are likely the provocateurs.

Also any message that makes it seem like we are the parent and they are the child should also be discarded. If they are mistreated, threatened and disrespected enough, Russia can kill all of us, guaranteed.

This is a perfect time to show them the respect they are deserve. We tell them that Ukraine will not house any western (US) military bases and that Ukraine can exist as a buffer. At this moment it seems like the US is in a position of strength because much of the world is aligning with us, which is a perfect time for peace talks. But none of that matters if we keep disrespectfully poke a powerful bear.

I heard today on C-Span that only 200 to 300 nuclear weapons are necessary to destroy the entire world. There are 13,000 in existence.

[vnatale]

IMHO

This is a US proxy war with Russia. NATO is a group of mutual defense, IE Ukraine becomes a US military base. Hypersonic weapons can already easily reach Russia. The west (the US) does not need the Ukraine as a military base. It's not going to take much to shock the world by Russia shutting off natural gas and oil exports. Any media messaging product or platform that makes this seem simply like a crazy person behaving badly and all of us good hearted people are just so sad at what is happening should be thrown in the trash. "We" are likely the provocateurs.

Also any message that makes it seem like we are the parent and they are the child should also be discarded. If they are mistreated, threatened and disrespected enough, Russia can kill all of us, guaranteed.

This is a perfect time to show them the respect they are deserve. We tell them that Ukraine will not house any western (US) military bases and that Ukraine can exist as a buffer. At this moment it seems like the US is in a position of strength because much of the world is aligning with us, which is a perfect time for peace talks. But none of that matters if we keep disrespectfully poke a powerful bear.

If Russia shuts off natural gas and oil it would hurt them worse than it would hurt the rest of the world. Russian gas typically only makes up around 22, 23 or a bit under 24% of the world's gas production (it varies by year) and around 10% of the world's oil production....BUT....energy makes up around 63 or 64% of Russia's total exports by monetary value. If Vladimir Putin wants to shoot his country's economy in the foot and put them in an even more screwed economic situation than they already are in now, let him.

And how exactly are "we" (the West) the provocateurs? Ukraine/the US/Europe didn't invade Russia; Vladimir Putin sent the Russian military to invade Ukraine. They started it, not us. While I generally don't support the US having so many military bases around the world or in Europe (Europe is perfectly capable of paying for a lot more of its own defense....and the incidents of the past two weeks seem to have finally motivated them to spend more on doing exactly that) the fact of the matter is, Putin doesn't get to dictate to the US, Ukraine, or any other sovereign nation where own their own damn soil they can have military bases if they want them. Saying he does is just saying "give the abusive bully what he wants and he won't hurt you". That doesn't work with abusers and it doesn't work with bullies. Giving in to them only emboldens them to act even worse.

The exact way that we are the provocateurs is that he has been saying for at least eight years that he will not allow the US to its front door with missiles. See "the Cuban Missile Crisis" Bases around the world are how we control the world. Putin does get to dictate this and he is dictating this. Once again refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think it's naive to call him a bully. It's funny I was talking to friend about what happens when emerging market countries do not allow us to exploit their countries through extractive projects and loans. We kill the leader. He pushed back until I let him know his own father (a very powerful man and friend of presidents) caused a coup resulting a terrible long dictatorship, because the democratically elected leader was not good for his corporations interest.

Also, Europe cannot defend itself. They are completely and utterly broke unless they seize everyones assets (negative 100% interest rates).

We also do have our "Monroe Doctrine" (for centuries now) which does not allow any foreign meddling near us.

[vnatale]

Why is the Fed rate 0 when inflation is 7%

What outcome does China want from this skirmish

Didn't the chairman recently say there is going to soon be a 0.25% increase? Once they start they can then be followed with fairly frequent and regular increases. At least that the way I remember it the last time it happened. 2007 or so?

[ppnewbie]

Sorry dropped off the thread here for bit. Life has intervened. I'll jump in with some of my thoughts.

@D1984 Wrote:
Biden clearly stated we had no plans to deploy US offensive missiles in Ukraine. See https://tass.com/world/1404025 . Even if we did deploy, say, Aegis or THAAD ABMs to Ukraine those are defensive missiles, not offensive.

In this case I am thinking Putin is choosing not to trust us.

@D1984 Wrote:
All that kind of went out the window when he invaded a peaceful sovereign nation that hadn't attacked Russia first (and while we are at it, if Putin so seriously wanted peace and wanted to avoid war, why didn't he withdraw HIS forces from the Crimea and the two eastern provinces of Ukraine they were--and are--occupying).

Here my main opinion is that he is not a despot intent on capturing countries but someone who wants a strategic buffer zone between US military and Russia. I could be wrong. But you may have a point on Crimea. Not sure about the back story. But this may lend credence that he is attempting to capture lost Soviet Union territories.

@D1984 Wrote:
If Putin wished to successfully persuade surrounding nations that Russia was no threat (and that therefore they should feel no pressure to consider joining NATO) then invading Ukraine was about the worst way to do it. The invasion sent two crystal clear messages: One, that Russia--at least as it is under Vladimir Putin--invades peaceful countries that haven't attacked it, and two, look at what happens to your country if you AREN'T in NATO (notice he hasn't attacked the Balkans or Poland or any other country under the NATO Article 5 security guarantee).

Maybe you are right here. But you could see it another way that pushing NATO to his borders forced his hand and Zelensky was just a NATO pawn. Zelensky is now backing down as he may be coming to the realization that NATO may not actually have his back because they are currently not interested in WWIII.

@D1984
Vladimir Putin deserves to be called a bully because that's EXACTLY how he's acting (well, like that...or like a criminal ,or a thug, or a domestic abuser). People like that gaslight their victims by saying "see, look what you made me do...if you hadn't taken action X (where whatever action X is is something the bully disapproves of and thinks he has the right to force you not to do) then I wouldn't have had to hit you/beat you up/break your nose/rape you/rob you/etc"....classic "blame the victim" nonsense, in other words.

Maybe. But based on my "internet expertise" Putin has been saying NATO on its borders is a direct threat for many years (last reference I can find is 6 years old).

@D1984
This, not "NATO missiles potentially being in Ukraine" is what makes him willing to attack a nation that didn't attack Russia. Maybe if his own nation wasn't such an oligarch-dominated barely 2nd economic power he might have had something to offer to the Ukranians if he had offered a peaceful union between the two countries

Here we disagree. NATO is a military alliance. It's not an economic alliance. Ukraine can trade with whoever they want (from what I understand). But imagine what would happen if Canada attempted to joined the Warsaw Pact. My guess is exactly the same thing that happened in the Cuban missile crisis. The world may blow up but we cannot allow this direct threat or we are as good as dead anyway.

I think our positions are likely summarized: Russia is acting to proactively protect a direct threat to its borders OR Russia is attempting to reintegrate countries into its Union.

Anyway thanks for the discussion. Still thinking about your points. I need to research Crimea more carefully. It could validate (in my mind at least) more of your points. Also, I think China is going to make out on this like a bandit.

[I Shrugged]

I think they want the buffer. But I also think they completely over-value the importance of it.

[Xan]

I think they want the buffer. But I also think they completely over-value the importance of it.

Don't they already border Turkey, a NATO country?

I think this is more about a glorious reunification with Ukraine as part of what Putin wants to be his grand legacy.

[I Shrugged]

I think they want the buffer. But I also think they completely over-value the importance of it.

Don't they already border Turkey, a NATO country?

I think this is more about a glorious reunification with Ukraine as part of what Putin wants to be his grand legacy.

You might be right. It makes more sense.

[I Shrugged]

Does the US Govt establishment benefit from this war happening? Or not?

[ppnewbie]

Does the US Govt establishment benefit from this war happening? Or not?

If the US appears weak, I think its going to further undermine the dollar reserve status.
If the US goes too far, this could escalate to a bad place fast, which could again undermine the trust in the US as the world power.

Its a tough position.

[I Shrugged]

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the US is behind it. But the way the neocons operate, I bet they are trying to use it.

[vnatale]

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the US is behind it. But the way the neocons operate, I bet they are trying to use it.

Who are the present neocons? I thought that they were predominant during 2001 to 2008? A major force behind what main people have stated was the worst foreign policy decision in our country's history - The Iraq War.

[dualstow]

Wow, the Russians bombed a maternity hospital in Mairupol. As has been mentioned (I think?), defense has the advantage in urban warfare. Putin probably wants to level Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities like he did to Grozhny when he wasn’t making progress with the Chechens.

Wife and i have been watching Travels With My Father, a light show in which young British comedian Jack Whitehall and his (real life) septuagenarian father travel the world as a kind of odd couple. We saw the Ukraine episode last night. Weird timing. It was so cheerful.

[I Shrugged]

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the US is behind it. But the way the neocons operate, I bet they are trying to use it.

Who are the present neocons? I thought that they were predominant during 2001 to 2008? A major force behind what main people have stated was the worst foreign policy decision in our country's history - The Iraq War.

Most of the leaders of both parties, plus virtually all of the State department and military leaders. The movement is not party specific. They supported Hillary. She is a big neocon.

[I Shrugged]

Glenn Greenwald on neocons.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ne ... c-branding

Another quick Google result.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... oligarchs/

The latter contains a Jewish angle that I didn’t take the time to try to understand. Might be anti Israel, not sure. I skimmed the article and saw it was offering an explanation about neocons and the present situation.

Take these as you would any other thing you stumble upon. Although I do like Greenwald generally.

[vnatale]

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the US is behind it. But the way the neocons operate, I bet they are trying to use it.

Who are the present neocons? I thought that they were predominant during 2001 to 2008? A major force behind what main people have stated was the worst foreign policy decision in our country's history - The Iraq War.

Most of the leaders of both parties, plus virtually all of the State department and military leaders. The movement is not party specific. They supported Hillary. She is a big neocon.

From here it seems like they are not too influential at this time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

"2010s and 2020s
By 2010, U.S. forces had switched from combat to a training role in Iraq and they left in 2011.[74] The neocons had little influence in the Obama White House,[75][76] and neo-conservatives have lost much influence in the Republican party since the rise of the Tea Party Movement.

Several neoconservatives played a major role in the Stop Trump movement in 2016, in opposition to the Republican presidential candidacy of Donald Trump, due to his criticism of interventionist foreign policies, as well as their perception of him as an "authoritarian" figure.[77] Since Trump took office, some neoconservatives have joined his administration, such as Elliott Abrams.[78] Neoconservatives have supported the Trump administration's hawkish approach towards Iran[79] and Venezuela,[80] while opposing the administration's withdrawal of troops from Syria[81] and diplomatic outreach to North Korea.[82] Although neoconservatives have served in the Trump administration, they have been observed to have been slowly overtaken by the nascent populist and national conservative movements, and to have struggled to adapt to a changing geopolitical atmosphere.[83][84] The Lincoln Project, a political action committee consisting of current and former Republicans with the purpose of defeating Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election and Republican Senate candidates in the 2020 United States Senate elections, has been described as being primarily made of neoconservative activists seeking to return the Republican party to Bush-era ideology.[85] Although Trump was not reelected and the Republicans failed to retain a majority in the Senate, surprising success in the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections and internal conflicts led to renewed questions about the strength of neoconservatism.[86]"

[dualstow]

Glenn Greenwald on neocons.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ne ... c-branding

Another quick Google result.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... oligarchs/

The latter contains a Jewish angle that I didn’t take the time to try to understand. Might be anti Israel, not sure. I skimmed the article and saw it was offering an explanation about neocons and the present situation.

Take these as you would any other thing you stumble upon. Although I do like Greenwald generally.

Admittedly, there are tons of Jewish neocons — I got schooled on that on this very forum a few years ago. And it seems like most of the Russian oligarchs are.
That said, I “stumbled” upon this. Make of it what you will.

The Occidental Observer is an American far-right online publication that covers politics and society from a white nationalist and antisemitic perspective. Its mission statement is to "present original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West." The publication was founded to promote the perspective of white people as an ethnic group.[1] It is run by the Charles Martel Society.[2][3]
…
… a September 24, 2008 article titled "The Sandra Bernhard Monstrosity"[6] which charged that "hostility to whites and to Christianity is a mainstream Jewish phenomenon", and a September 12, 2008 article titled "The Washington Post's Willing Executioner?"[7] which, according to the ADL, "argued that that Jews want to exterminate American whites."[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_Observer

[dualstow]

Continuing: Kevin McDonald of the Occidental Observer is no dummy. And if you look at the reviews of his scholarly works on how Jews control the world — surprise, he doesn’t only write about Israel or even American neocons — many reviewers insist that he is not antisemitic and that anyone who claims he is has not read his books. Fair enough.

I used to spend way too much time on a science-based forum in the early aughts where a different guy was always putting forth essays about how Jews control Hollywood (who wouldve thought). I’ll leave it to someone else to wade through Kevin McDonald’s works. My broad brush take is that the countries who have expelled their Jews mostly have shit economies and dictators in power, while countries who take/took in Jews are flourishing.

To steer things back on topic. Russia is invading Ukraine and essentially murdering its civilians, who are white Christians. The leader of one of those countries is Jewish and the leader of the other is not. The side notion that Russia is impoverished because there are some very rich Russian Jews with yachts and football clubs is an ancient one, and not something I’m going to explore here, myself. Of course, it could always be done in a forked thread, like the offshoot of the Canadian Trucker Freedom thread, or basically any other problems-with-the-world thread. Free speech and all.

[ppnewbie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZHWtUJXYtY

George Gammon discussing Russia being deswifted.

[Hal]

Documentary Martin Armstrong recommended
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/worl ... e-on-fire/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EbK7z_KiwM

[boglerdude]

Raytheon and Lockheed profit, as always.

Fed can continue to print and blame all the inflation on Putin.

The timing is not an accident, the invasion provided a seamless narrative transition away from covid just as the convoys were ramping up and the two year anniversary of two weeks to flatten the curve approached. There is still work to be done to ensure Fauci et al go unpunished.

Putin, being an old man, might not be aware of the social media mob and their ability to twist a story.

And what does China want out of this?

[barrett]

I think they want the buffer. But I also think they completely over-value the importance of it.

Don't they already border Turkey, a NATO country?

Russian territory comes fairly close to Turkey but there is a Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan strip that means they don't actually share a LAND border with Turkey. Not sure how the territory lines are drawn (ha, ha, good one, barrett!) in the Black Sea but there they effectively do share a border.

I like what Shrugged wrote here. Maybe land buffers are just not as important as they used to be.

[Xan]

I think they want the buffer. But I also think they completely over-value the importance of it.

Don't they already border Turkey, a NATO country?

Russian territory comes fairly close to Turkey but there is a Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan strip that means they don't actually share a LAND border with Turkey. Not sure how the territory lines are drawn (ha, ha, good one, barrett!) in the Black Sea but there they effectively do share a border.

I like what Shrugged wrote here. Maybe land buffers are just not as important as they used to be.

So if he takes over Ukraine and Georgia, THEN he'll share land borders with NATO, and then need to take over places like Turkey and Poland too? Then he'll border Germany, and will need more buffer.

I guess we're safe being on the other side of the ocean.