Russian invasion of Ukraine

[jonnysensible]

It really does depend on what the US does to deter. Just chucking some lads as 'watch tower' observers like in Syria could do it. The last time Russians tried to take a US position 100 wagner boys got turned into red mist and assorted meat.

[Shalcker]

It really does depend on what the US does to deter. Just chucking some lads as 'watch tower' observers like in Syria could do it. The last time Russians tried to take a US position 100 wagner boys got turned into red mist and assorted meat.

US quite clearly said they aren't going to use military in Ukraine so this scenario isn't going to happen either way.

[ati87]

US quite clearly said they aren't going to use military in Ukraine so this scenario isn't going to happen either way.

I'm not sure what was said exactly (the wording used) but this is political talk for "we really don't want to commit to anything unless shit really happens".
You don't promise to go to war and walk back on that promise because that would make you look weak, on the other hand you really don't want to dismiss that option either.

[Shalcker]

I'm not sure what was said exactly (the wording used) but this is political talk for "we really don't want to commit to anything unless shit really happens".
You don't promise to go to war and walk back on that promise because that would make you look weak, on the other hand you really don't want to dismiss that option either.

Biden already said that in case of invasion the only response will be more sanctions and potential troop buildup in Eastern Europe NATO countries, not any kind of military action in Ukraine.

[XDurionX]

...and THERE'S LITTLE GREEN MEN WITH A STEEL CHAIR

[Elenos]

If Putin wanted Ukraine he would have taken it by now, during the Trump presidency was probably the best time. If they had invaded back when Crimea seceded it would would have only taken a couple of weeks for Kiev to fall.

Ah yeah because Trump would have totally let Putin Ukraine without doing anything that Biden is going to do when it does happen. Fun fact: No. Take the Trump = Putin's puppet stuff in the garbage where it belongs.

Now is actually a great time to invade for Putin since the EU really needs Russian gas this winter. If we don't get that gas we risk seeing our gas bills go sky high, no EU politician is insane enough to risk that happening. Putin knows this. That's the main reason I think he feels he can get away with it.

I wonder how the world will look next year. A more dangerous place I think, far more dangerous.

[Easo]

Buildup continues...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...tellite-photos
Interactive comparision photos

Putin has repeated himself that fall of USSR was the greatest tragedy of 20th century and "collapse of the historical Russia". It was also a "great humanitarian tragedy" that countries split off from it.
That USSR was nothing else but Russian Empire in different form should be clear to everyone except commies, but alas...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ia-2021-12-12/

In other news - EU is preparing new sanctions against Russia and have also sanctioned Wagner's (you know, the PMC which supposedly doesn't exist according to Moscow) leadership.

By this logic we always have hundreds of thousands troops "at a few hours drive" from Ukraine.

Because they need it, duh. And because supply disruptions always cause increase in prices.

They are already paying premium over Europe right now.

Gas supplies in the world are finite; Russia is quite big chunk of it.

Your propaganda have been predicting Russian collapse since 1991, yet somehow it keeps trudging on.

No, you don't, because no one keeps hundreds of vehicles out in the open in a fucking winter.

Hey, guess what - once more there is an oversupply. Also, I would like to see the source for that premium.

Dunno, our propaganda did not really care for "Russia's collapse" until it started to behave like a creep at bar. Right now we still don't care outside of some people speculating that the arms race will end the same way as it did before, especially considering that Russia is not USSR.

[Elenos]

Dunno, our propaganda did not really care for "Russia's collapse" until it started to behave like a creep at bar. Right now we still don't care outside of some people speculating that the arms race will end the same way as it did before, especially considering that Russia is not USSR.

Except it's not an arms race for Russia, yet. The arms race is happening with China who are spending hundreds of billions on their military. The USSR was spending something like almost 30% of their GDP on defense before it's collapse...Russia spends 4.3%

[Easo]

Except it's not an arms race for Russia, yet. The arms race is happening with China who are spending hundreds of billions on their military. The USSR was spending something like almost 30% of their GDP on defense before it's collapse...Russia spends 4.3%

Internet says it was rougly twice less than your 30%, depending on the source. Also, as I said - Russia is not USSR, way less resources of every kind. And arms race with China does not exclude arms race with Russia.

[Ulmita]

Internet says it was rougly twice less than your 30%, depending on the source. Also, as I said - Russia is not USSR, way less resources of every kind. And arms race with China does not exclude arms race with Russia.

The problem from what I am understanding, is not Ukraine, rather NATO. Russia warned yesterday, that any further expansion to the east will be met by military force.

I guess this is their red line, and they've made it clear. My guesstimate is that EU countries will hold back NATO/US, at least during the winter. If shit go south, even in the most tiny way possible, energy price will 2x / 3x in no time.

[Machismo]

The problem from what I am understanding, is not Ukraine, rather NATO. Russia warned yesterday, that any further expansion to the east will be met by military force.

I guess this is their red line, and they've made it clear. My guesstimate is that EU countries will hold back NATO/US, at least during the winter. If shit go south, even in the most tiny way possible, energy price will 2x / 3x in no time.

This is like Hitler saying he'd kill more Jews, if foreign powers didn't stop opposing his desire to annex more countries.

[Shalcker]

This is like Hitler saying he'd kill more Jews, if foreign powers didn't stop opposing his desire to annex more countries.

Hitler needed resources from new territories because his country lacked them.

Russia sells resources because EU are the ones lacking them.

The situation is reversed. EU were the ones who wanted expansion into Ukraine and supported coup to achieve it.

Now red line is drawn at "okay, you can keep economic part but not military part".

- - - Updated - - -

No, you don't, because no one keeps hundreds of vehicles out in the open in a fucking winter.

Military does that during training.

It isn't even "largest training ever" either yet (that was 300k troops in 2018 - note no invasion happening back then either).

Hey, guess what - once more there is an oversupply. Also, I would like to see the source for that premium.

There is no oversupply.

https://www.ft.com/content/73c5aeb7-...5-ff44057855cc
The natural gas crunch hitting the UK and Europe is likely to intensify after China ordered state-backed companies to secure energy supplies no matter the cost.
Chinese state media quoted Premier Li Keqiang on Thursday as saying the country will secure its energy and power supplies following a series of blackouts and shortages that have forced a large number of companies to restrict output.
Bloomberg reported later in the day that central government officials had ordered state-owned energy companies to secure supplies for this winter at all costs, saying the instruction had come directly from Han Zheng, the vice-premier who oversees the country’s energy sector and industry.

------
Nikkei: Why is Asia paying five times more than America for natural gas?
U.S. export capacity crunch isolates global markets creating vast differences

It's a phenomena rarely seen in commodity markets. As natural gas prices skyrocket across the world, Europe and Asia are paying up to nearly six times more for natural gas than the U.S., as a lack of American liquefaction capacity fragments global markets.

On Tuesday in New York, front month contracts for Henry Hub gas futures closed above $5.88 per million BTUs, more than doubling in the year to date.

The fuel topped $6.46 on Oct. 6, marking the highest level since 2014. On top of climbing air conditioning demand in the summer, production in some places is still at a standstill due to hurricane damage.

But even though they are higher, U.S. natural gas prices lag sharply behind global bench marks. In Europe, the index price for the fuel soared sixfold over a year to the equivalent of around $170 a barrel when using crude oil terms. Upward pressures include stagnant supplies from Russia that led to a shortage of inventory.

For Asia, liquefied natural gas spot prices are at the equivalent of roughly $200 a barrel, quintuple from a year earlier. Meanwhile, U.S. natural gas wallows at the equivalent of about $35 a barrel.

Forbes
China has become a voracious consumer of global gas supply and much gas that would have gone to Europe has been diverted to the Asian market. The message from the Chinese government has been than gas should be secured at any price to keep China’s industry humming.

This flood of Chinese demand hadn’t been anticipated by world gas traders. They have responded by diverting LNG to Asia — gas that would otherwise have been sold on the sport market in Europe.

Dunno, our propaganda did not really care for "Russia's collapse" until it started to behave like a creep at bar.

Hmmm, maybe you weren't born back then to see it.

[AntiFascistVoter]

It's really about Putin and his dictator snowflake feels....

In 2010, "Russia" attended the NATO summit in Lisbon and called the friendly meeting "historic in terms of its spirit and atmosphere.."

• At the NATO summit in 2010, "Russia" presented a grand proposal for missile defense cooperation, not exactly something you normally do with enemies
• In 2011, "Russia" abstained on UN Security Resolutions 1970 & 1973, authorizing the use of force against Libya by NATO countries. Russia could have vetoed these resolutions and stopped NATO countries, but did not. It was a major cooperative moment between Russia-US-NATO.
• These "cases" of intense cooperation between Russia-US-NATO occurred after NATO expansion. (You cant explain cases of cooperation and confrontation cited the same independent variable).
• In 2014, Russia reverted back to talking about NATO expansion as a threat. For 5 years, 2009-2014, NATO expansion was almost never discussed between US and Russian leaders. (NB, I worked for Obama between 2009-2014 & attended almost all of these mtgs)

So what changed between 2010 and 2014? Did NATO become stronger? No. Did NATO try to bring Ukraine in? No. Was the US more threatening to Russia? No. Rather, things changed inside Russia and Ukraine. In other words, you have to bring domestic politics into the story.

• In 2011, Putin announced he was seeking a 3rd term. In 2011, massive demonstrations erupted inside Russia (and Arab world). In 2013, new massive demonstrations erupted in Ukraine. In 2014, Yanukovich fled Ukraine. In 2014, Putin annexed Crimea & supported separatists.
• These domestic-level variables inside Russia & Ukraine -- not changes in BOP, not NATO policy, not US policy (Obama was president the whole time) drove changes in Russia's threat perception about NATO constructed by Putin. Power matters in IR. Domestic politics matter too.

Dear leader retards the growth of Russia. To the applause of Online Turnip Miners.

[Shalcker]

It's really about Putin and his dictator snowflake feels....

In 2010, "Russia" attended the NATO summit in Lisbon and called the friendly meeting "historic in terms of its spirit and atmosphere.."

• At the NATO summit in 2010, "Russia" presented a grand proposal for missile defense cooperation, not exactly something you normally do with enemies
• In 2011, "Russia" abstained on UN Security Resolutions 1970 & 1973, authorizing the use of force against Libya by NATO countries. Russia could have vetoed these resolutions and stopped NATO countries, but did not. It was a major cooperative moment between Russia-US-NATO.
• These "cases" of intense cooperation between Russia-US-NATO occurred after NATO expansion. (You cant explain cases of cooperation and confrontation cited the same independent variable).
• In 2014, Russia reverted back to talking about NATO expansion as a threat. For 5 years, 2009-2014, NATO expansion was almost never discussed between US and Russian leaders. (NB, I worked for Obama between 2009-2014 & attended almost all of these mtgs)

So what changed between 2010 and 2014?

The problem is - nothing changed in NATO stance toward Russia. Attempts at cooperation had given nothing. Liberalisation and Libyan non-veto under Medvedev made no difference.

And given that overall NATO stance have been consistently "ignore all Russian concerns, reject all attempts of Russian cooperation" (except for transit bases to Afghanistan), it made no sense to keep accommodating NATO wishes.

[Yadryonych]

So what changed between 2010 and 2014?

Attempted coup in Russia in 2011, successful coup in the Ukraine in 2013, coups in the most of MENA countries

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

[*]In 2011, "Russia" abstained on UN Security Resolutions 1970 & 1973, authorizing the use of force against Libya by NATO countries. Russia could have vetoed these resolutions and stopped NATO countries, but did not. It was a major cooperative moment between Russia-US-NATO..

As far as I recall, that one was instantly regretted, and rightfully so, given the gargantuan clusterfuck that arose following that.

[ati87]

The problem is - nothing changed in NATO stance toward Russia. Attempts at cooperation had given nothing. Liberalisation and Libyan non-veto under Medvedev made no difference.

And given that overall NATO stance have been consistently "ignore all Russian concerns, reject all attempts of Russian cooperation" (except for transit bases to Afghanistan), it made no sense to keep accommodating NATO wishes.

what cooperation from Russia?
Also it comes down to Russia just being a horrible and terrible neighbour and just being a bully in general. Which is why so many of Eastern European countries have tried to join the EU and Nato which in turn plays into Russian paranoia about "western expansion".

WHat's happening now is just Putins way of distracting Russian people from his own incompetence and corruption.

- - - Updated - - -

Biden already said that in case of invasion the only response will be more sanctions and potential troop buildup in Eastern Europe NATO countries, not any kind of military action in Ukraine.

Again take that with a grain of salt.
Committing to a militarily action and then changing your mind if more harmful then not pre-committing to military action and then changing your mind.

If Russia invaded Ukraine today the response from the EU, US and Nato would make be much more than just sanctions.

[Shalcker]

Again take that with a grain of salt.
Committing to a militarily action and then changing your mind if more harmful then not pre-committing to military action and then changing your mind.

If Russia invaded Ukraine today the response from the EU, US and Nato would make be much more than just sanctions.

What do you imagine exactly beyond already mentioned "some troops on Eastern flank of NATO"?

Even arms shipment have been held off at the moment.

[Ulmita]

Again take that with a grain of salt.
Committing to a militarily action and then changing your mind if more harmful then not pre-committing to military action and then changing your mind.

If Russia invaded Ukraine today the response from the EU, US and Nato would make be much more than just sanctions.

No "Westerner" would die for Ukraine dude... They will just kick Russia of SWIFT which is the "non-military nuclear" option they that they have.
However, that would signal a new very low in the West - Russia relations, low not even seen during cold war. The only beneficiar from such a scenario would be China and I don't think that anyone from either the West or Russia wants to see that happening.
Lastly, important treaties would be put in risk, such as the NTP.

When you try to understand someone's reactions Ati, try to clear your bias first. Ask your self, how would the US react if Russia started arming a country right on their border (say Canada or Mexico), and installing A/A launchers (capable of firing cruise missiles too) all around the country? I am certain that Putin won't back down from this red line of his (and most propably this is what all leaders would do in his place as well). If NATO or US crosses that line, the chances are to see military conflict, starting with a proxy war with a big chance to escalate to full out war if things go out of hand.

[Shalcker]

Ultimately, nothing will actually happen unless Ukraine attacks Donbass.

Which would be using military option when they already have internationally agreed diplomatic option. It just requires them to acknowledge - and negotiate with - those rebels. Something they hate to do after dehumanizing them for years.

Do people value their "right" to subjugate rebels by force more then European security?