History in the Making: Russian Invasion

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Flynlow (FS) :

"Good discussion a few posts back about political goals and objectives vs. moral ones.  I wish we prioritized the moral goals more often.  What Russia is doing is wrong, plain and simple.  So let's keep things simple, and stop them.  Yes, it will take some sacrifice on the western world's part to do so, but at least we'll be on the right side of history.  Maybe society can start to move forward again if we start doing what's right instead of what's politically expedient."

OK, so, do we use that standard every time, going forward?  Morally, I can understand the desire to do something- the news and social media is supplying a steady trickle of reports, pictures, and videos of the violence over there, which primes us to support a military action.  But news and social media should not drive foreign policy.  We've been bogged down for decades in foreign conflicts which resulted in loss of US life, expenditure of taxpayer money, and questionable tangible benefit to the US and/or the world. 

That's actually a very good point. I'm becoming to see there's credence to the idea, that a NATO intervention (sorely in Ukraine) now could arguably be the best for everyone (since it would stop Russia, possibly improve NATO standing further, end as much civilian suffering, ect) but it would ALSO be a massive rallying cry against "The West" within China and Russia; with their internet and media controlled from within all their fears and propaganda hopes are actualized. It strikes me as one of those moments of Foreign Policy, where what seems to be the ugly, uncaring thing to do RIGHT NOW is in fact, long-term the best course of action for all because it keeps literal and figurative walls from going up.

As for the coming peace talks, I'm not very hopeful sadly just because of resource distribution and the aforementioned need for Putin to secure some kind of "win". Crimea has oil and natural gas, and both sides understand perfectly well that such a region will be needed in the coming decades for obvious reasons- and even with a ceasefire, like hell the Russians are going to follow it as shown by literally the past several years of constant spying, attempts at placing figureheads, paying off street thugs to murder state workers, ect. Hell, even the claims that Russia has already used Chemical weapons on Ukrainians has credence because they did that in the UK back in 2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/13/putin-has-already-deployed-a-chemical-weapon-in-salisbury

So like others, my hope is the peace talks move into public displays of "Here is where you killed civilians, here are soldiers of yours who are eyewitnesses and bring proof of warcrimes, here's a list we can nail you for, oh look NATO peacekeepers are going into Ukraine now to expedite their entry into the EU and for humanitarian aid. Leave the nation or you're a smear, no we aren't setting up long-range missile defense" but that is all wishful thinking on my part.

(On the topic of resources and geopolitics:) Because $$$

Just like anything else, it's always a net benefit to source your products places where those products are cheaper. Unless you become reliant on those sources, of course.

While the USA could certainly provide its own oil, it would cost dramatically more for refined products. We'd all be paying $10 a gallon or more probably. 

Currently we source a little over 50% of our oil from Canada. But Canada doesn't refine much. They send us oil cheap which makes up for the increased cost of refining here in the USA. Canada capacity: 3.8 million barrels per day - USA capacity: 17 million barrels per day (as of 2019).

Trouble is, its the refining thats expensive, so we offset the cost of refined products (like gasoline) by importing from cheaper sources (Columbia, Russia, Mexico). We either need cheap oil, or we need cheap refined products. If everything was done in the USA, it'd be real expensive. 

From what I understand, Venezuela could have both really cheap oil and really cheap refining capacity, but it can't get its ship together. 

Anyways, the USA also produces some products that other country's refineries cannot, and we charge good money for them, hence why we export as much oil based stuff as we import. 

stroker said:

Man, I don't see many ways of this ending without Ukraine getting screwed over something fierce.  Like they're going to trust Russia to not try it again in the future?  There's no way they're going to get the Crimea, etc. back.  They simply won't be able to afford a defense adequate to prevent Vlad from doing it again later...  We haven't talked much of what a solution/cease fire/peace agreement would look like...

Except Ukraine has pretty much single-handedly devastated the feared Russian Paratroopers, has secured and captured billions in Russian military/oligarch equipment and capital, has killed tens of thousands of conscripts, and morale is still holding. I won't doubt that on the world stage they could have lots of problems- namely Putin trying to eek out a "win" if his cabal doesn't decide having him out of power is better than the risks of him staying- but we are literally seeing a nation have to commandeer passenger busses and dump trucks just to try to ferry troops and supplies to the front.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

We borrow from our (me) kids and their (hopeful) future wealth, not from China.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

93EXCivic said:

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

We aren't even using that standard now. Look at the collective shrug to we are giving to the Yemen civil war or the coup in Myanmar.

The Saudi Arabia - Yemen conflict has been ongoing for 7 years now, now on its 3rd US president.  The US has supplied arms and the like, basically yet another proxy war, but the war itself doesn't get much airplay.   The Saudis have been accused of committing war crimes in Yemen, which doesn't look good on the US, considering they've been funding them. 

Of course, this begs the question, why are we interested in purchasing oil from a country accused of committing war crimes, to avoid purchasing oil from a country accused of committing war crimes?

Most Saudi oil is actually going to Europe, so why are we supporting a country accused of committing war crimes in order to keep them selling oil to European Countries to avoid allowing European countries to buy oil from another country accused to committing war crimes? We could just go home and get all our oil from Canada and West Texas, promote the use of EVs to make up the difference, and let the Western European Countries support Saudi Arabia and NATO and fight Putin and remember that all of this crap is going on in an entirely  different continent and not in our backyard.

Wow. This does get complicated.

Ahem, Halliburton is the simple answer. 

https://www.halliburton.com/en/about-us/press-release/halliburton-opens-first-oilfield-speciality-chemical-manufacturing-facility-saudi-arabia

pheller said:

(On the topic of resources and geopolitics:) Because $$$

Just like anything else, it's always a net benefit to source your products places where those products are cheaper. Unless you become reliant on those sources, of course.

While the USA could certainly provide its own oil, it would cost dramatically more for refined products. We'd all be paying $10 a gallon or more probably. 

Currently we source a little over 50% of our oil from Canada. But Canada doesn't refine much. They send us oil cheap which makes up for the increased cost of refining here in the USA. Canada capacity: 3.8 million barrels per day - USA capacity: 17 million barrels per day (as of 2019).

Trouble is, its the refining thats expensive, so we offset the cost of refined products (like gasoline) by importing from cheaper sources (Columbia, Russia, Mexico). We either need cheap oil, or we need cheap refined products. If everything was done in the USA, it'd be real expensive. 

From what I understand, Venezuela could have both really cheap oil and really cheap refining capacity, but it can't get its ship together. 

Anyways, the USA also produces some products that other country's refineries cannot, and we charge good money for them, hence why we export as much oil based stuff as we import. 

 

 

Getting it from Mexico and Columbia and even from Venezuela is still kind of getting it from our backyard as opposed to from Saudi Arabia.

Isn't there offshore oil near Cuba?

stroker said:

Man, I don't see many ways of this ending without Ukraine getting screwed over something fierce.  Like they're going to trust Russia to not try it again in the future?  There's no way they're going to get the Crimea, etc. back.  They simply won't be able to afford a defense adequate to prevent Vlad from doing it again later...  We haven't talked much of what a solution/cease fire/peace agreement would look like...

I think that putin is going to demand he gets to keep everything he is controlling now, all of the Ukraine's land bordering Russia along with the land bridge to Crimea (all of the so called Russian speaking areas). I just hope that when this is all done and over, Europe doesn't forget that Russia is a mortal threat and falls right back into it's old pattern of supporting Russia with oil and gas purchases, and doesn't build up their militaries.

stroker said:

Man, I don't see many ways of this ending without Ukraine getting screwed over something fierce.  Like they're going to trust Russia to not try it again in the future?  There's no way they're going to get the Crimea, etc. back.  They simply won't be able to afford a defense adequate to prevent Vlad from doing it again later...  We haven't talked much of what a solution/cease fire/peace agreement would look like...

I am not so sure Ukraine will get completely screwed over. They have done a number on Russian armed forces. The Russian economy is destroyed. I don't know this is something Putin will want to try again. I mean the military losses that Putin is seeing in just the weeks since this started is already well above what he saw in the Second Chechen War, Russo-Georgian war or the 2014 Ukrainian invasion (possibly combined).

I am pretty sure it will include an agreement by Ukraine not to join NATO (they have already said they are open to that). I am guessing it will include an agreement to not develop offensive weapons or host to offensive weapons from the west (cruise or ballastic missiles, ect). I'd also assume some sort of agreement to roll back at least some of the sanctions will need to be included.

I don't know how they work out the issue of Donbas and Crimea. Maybe some level of semi-autonomy for Donbas while still remaining part of Ukraine and Crimea becomes part of Russia? A vote watched by outside observes for both regions on their autonomy? Ukraine has made it pretty clear they will not give up land.

I once saw two maps that showed where all the heavy crude basins were and where all the light crude basins were. 

From my knowledge, our light crude resources are not as plentiful nor as cheap as our heavy crude resources. Therefore, we turn our light crude into higher-priced products, and export or refine our heavy crude into products that other nations cannot produce domestically. 

Without naming names, remember when Putin and Trump got together in Helsinki, Finland and decided to end the INF nuclear treaty eliminating short range nuclear missiles with nobody present except their translators (are those two guys even still alive)? After this mess with Ukraine is cleared up, and Sweden and Finland join NATO, I suspect that we will see the return of those nukes because the cold war never ended with the collapse of the USSR, it just took a breather. Maybe in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? Finland?

VolvoHeretic said:

Without naming names, remember when Putin and Trump got together in Helsinki, Finland and decided to end the INF nuclear treaty eliminating short range nuclear missiles with nobody present except their translators (are those two guys even still alive)? After this mess with Ukraine is cleared up, and Sweden and Finland join NATO, I suspect that we will see the return of those nukes because the cold war never ended with the collapse of the USSR, it just took a breather. Maybe in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? Finland?

After the Ukraine shakes out, Putin will look around at the other countries nearby and find guns pointing back at him from every direction. Scandanavian countries joining NATO. Even Western Europe taking their defense more seriously. All the blood and the destruction has horrified the whole region. Things will never be the same.

I don't think Putin can accept/sell less than status quo ante bellum (2022, not prior) as an acceptable settlement. That would mean Donbas/Luhansk and Crimea remain under Russian control. Ukraine out of NATO and no offensive weapons for sure. The real problem is what Ukraine will settle for. It is easy to envision a scenario where Russia and NATO/EU get on the same page regarding conditions for a cease-fire, but Ukraine refuses. Now what? Does the US strong-arm Ukraine to accept, or let them go on fighting? If the latter, how does Russia react? Does the international narrative shift to Ukraine prolonging the war with NATO support?

In reply to 02Pilot :

Yeah, I think Ukraine has no incentive to accept any terms that weaken it to the point where it can't womp the Russians if they try it again.  It'd be suicide to trust Putin not to attack again as soon as he thinks he can gain more ground.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Without naming names, remember when Putin and Trump got together in Helsinki, Finland and decided to end the INF nuclear treaty eliminating short range nuclear missiles with nobody present except their translators (are those two guys even still alive)? After this mess with Ukraine is cleared up, and Sweden and Finland join NATO, I suspect that we will see the return of those nukes because the cold war never ended with the collapse of the USSR, it just took a breather. Maybe in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? Finland?
 

Putin violated the treaty years before Trump took office, and was called out on it by Obama but no action was taken. Trump demanded Putin return to compliance, Putin refused, so Trump cancelled the treaty. A one sided treaty isn't really a treaty anymore. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Thanks for the clarification.

Putin will be dead soon, so most of the conjecture on what he might do in the future is pretty useless

I really hate to see the Ukrainians give them anything, but realistically the breakaway regions and Crimea are already pretty well controlled and manipulated by Russia.  I am not sure Ukraine would even really want them anymore (more trouble than it's worth).

Russia seems to be indicating this is enough, even though it is pretty much exactly what he had before he attacked (taking the unlikely admission into NATO any time soon that was true before the invasion).

The real hard pill to swallow is:  OK, you have what you had.  What about the 1000's of people you murdered? Do you suspect the Ukrainians will just let that slide?

As mentioned previously, Ukraine can agree to whatever Russia wants and it's not like they should feel overly obliged to honor them.  They certainly should not trust Russia to honor theirs (or even the West at this point).

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

... A one sided treaty isn't really a treaty anymore. 

It also did not apply to China, so it was entirely worthless.  Yet another agreement Russia did not honor.

In reply to aircooled :

The problem with that is only part of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions where actually controlled by the separatist (aka Russian puppets) but they claim the whole region.

Hmmm, that is certainly a point of contention then.   I would certainly hope they would not give them more then they had controlled.  No reason to really.

In reply to aircooled :

If the Ukrainians can get terms they think are sustainable (i.e., they can maintain a viable, autonomous defensive scheme) they should have no problem ignoring the casualties and material loss. Not that they will be forgotten, but if they feel they can protect themselves effectively (and they've done a pretty good job of doing so this time around in less than optimal conditions) and rebuild, they will go forward with a sense of security they haven't had in some time. I strongly suspect that if a settlement is reached that preserves an independent Ukraine in any form, that it will be rebuilt with seized Russian assets directed there from the West. Short-term, they can count on Western support. Medium-term and beyond, they will know that they are potentially on their own.

I could see that working.  Don't tell them about using the seized assets of course.

Considering  such things, the West and the US should very much stay out any negotiated agreement / treaty. One wonders if Russia will try to drag them in (I would suspect they would).  

Also of note, apparently the negotiations from today resulted in nothing.

In reply to aircooled :

My understanding is it is a break until tomorrow due to the need to discuss items with other groups not involved in the call. At least that is what I read

In reply to aircooled :

Any agreement will have to include some form of monitoring, at least until Russian forces withdraw to agreed lines. Think independent, multilateral, probably a combination of non-aligned and aligned-but-distant countries (all of whom would also benefit from being well-paid for their services): something like Philippines, South Africa, Brazil, etc. Could also include non-NATO US allies like South Korea, and states that have refused to condemn Russia, such as India. Probably under UN auspices, but not necessarily (Russia may object). US and NATO certain to be non-starters from Russia's point of view, just as Belarus (and likely China) would be from the West's.

I don't think there's a reason Russia would want the US or NATO as a party to any agreement, except to acknowledge the exclusion of Ukraine from the latter. Ukraine would probably love to have Western signatories, but there's little incentive for the West to formally sign on. As I noted earlier, there's very real possibility that US, EU, and Ukrainian positions diverge once the drafting process begins, and none of them want to be hooked into what they see as a flawed treaty with unwanted obligations, especially potentially dangerous ones.

tuna55 said:

Duke said:

tuna55 said:

stroker said:

93EXCivic said:

Why are we talking about nukes? As far as I can tell, there is no threat of that actually happening at this time.

A guy who was desperate enough to start this might plausibly be desperate enough to not want to lose.  Or to put it in other words, he might be willing to "destroy the village in order to save it..."

That's what I see as well.

I don't see that happening.  Putin is aggressive but he's not outright insane, even in his current state.  He's been grabbing his crotch for sure, but he knows that pushing The Button is at least political suicide if not actual, physical suicide.

 

I see a small tactical nuke being used. Here's why: It's not Hiroshima, and something small would fracture NATO into two camps: retaliate or nah. It upps the ante just amount.

Hiroshima had a yield of 15ktons. Russia's smallest tactical nuke warhead has a 22kton yield, and most of them are much more (by comparison, a strategic nuke has a yield of 500-1000ktons.

So modern tactical nukes are actually more powerful than Hiroshima. Even the "small" ones

trigun7469 said:

In reply to Beer Baron :. Other then some Russian and maybe Iran or China, nobody is buying the Russian invasion excuse.

China is very calculating. They're not "buying" anything Russia says - they know just as well as we do. China's lack of "action" is not due to ignorance or actually believing what Putin is saying. They simply see an economic benefit to themselves as the end goal, and realize they don't have much of a card to play anyhow.

This fallacy that China and Russia are allies, or even friends, is a dangerous road for the West to take. China is distasteful for its own reason (not the least of which is its own push for east Asian hegemony), but China isn't going to get involved in Russia any more than it gets involved in India-Pakistan disputes, or Yemen-Saudi disputes, or Syria-Israel disputes, or US-Venezuela disputes. China will *never* intervene in a conflict between two foreign countries unless it has a compelling interest to do so. No such interest exists in this case. It will stay out of things enough to prevent the West from sanctioning it, and it will dip its toes in enough to get some cheap oil. It won't openly oppose Russia but also won't openly support Russia. 

What Iran says or does is irrelevant. Iran's only sphere of influence is in its immediate general vicinity....Iraq, the Gulf, Syria, and the levant. Iran has no stake or voice in what happens in Ukraine. But Iran are crafty geopolitical players, they know Putin is full of E36 M3 as well. I mean, EVERYONE knows he's full of E36 M3. Some countries just won't say it out loud because it's not in their national interst to do so (and/or because they do the same things with their own populaces).