Russia/Ukraine conflict

[petit_bateau]

Macron won by 16 points. Five years ago he beat her by 32 points.


The article: "Germany and Poland are now said to be nearing the end of discussions on a concerted effort to zero out Russian crude oil imports to Germany, with new sources re-routed through German and Polish ports."

The are no "new sources", of course, just existing sources that currently go to other countries. Those importing countries will have no choice but to replace their lost supply with Russian oil.

It's nothing more than a giant shell game.

The only way to deprive Russia of oil export revenue is for the west to reduce consumption by 5m bpd until truly new sources come online.

That's not entirely correct for a few reasons:

1. As price of oil or gas or coal rise then marginal buyers get priced out of the market. For example Gwrman swimming pools get colder or Indian buildings get hotter.

2. There are physical constraints that prevent diversion. The gas ain't going anywhere else but either Europe or staying in the ground in Russia, at least not this decade, due to pipeline constraints. There are similar physical system constraints for LNG, oil, coal.

3. And financial/regulatory constraints also make sanctions more effective. For example no shipping insurance, or impeded banking g system access.

4. And reputational taint is a real thing, even for brokerages like Glencore et al.

5. And to the extent that these diversionary access barriers increase pricesc and/or reduce supply volume they also drive renewable investment. That both helps in and of itself, but also increases stranded capital risk in fossils which in turn inhibits future systemic investment in fossils.

None of these are perfect, but cumulatively they all play a part. So the effect of these efforts is not as bleak as you claim.

 

[ZachF]

Horseshoe theory in action…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519471197053931523

 

[SageBrush]

Horseshoe theory in action…

What is that ?
And why are the welfare liberals against confiscation ?

 

[[email protected]]

Now, for a different (and well written) perspective from Jacques Baud: The Military Situation In The Ukraine – The Postil Magazine

 

[Doggydogworld]

I don't think it works as simple as that however. India is the obvious exception, but from other comments, there are plenty of countries that extra Russian oil can't easily reach at the moment, due to logistics constraints. So in the short term at least, it would directly hurt Russia. Some sources may also be spurred to increase production. It's not exactly a zero sum game.

True. There are a lot of short term disruptions and inefficiencies. Consumers pay more and Russia receives less. Middlemen get fatter and some of the poorest people get squeezed out.

That's not entirely correct for a few reasons:

1. As price of oil or gas or coal rise then marginal buyers get priced out of the market. For example Gwrman swimming pools get colder or Indian buildings get hotter.

But higher price means Russia gets more revenue, even while selling fewer barrels. Oil demand's inelasticity makes price rationing a losing approach. Wartime rationing is the only practical solution.

2. There are physical constraints that prevent diversion. The gas ain't going anywhere else but either Europe or staying in the ground in Russia, at least not this decade, due to pipeline constraints. There are similar physical system constraints for LNG, oil, coal.

The constraints on oil are mostly inconveniences. The constraints on gas are very real, but cut both ways by making it difficult for Europe to get replacement supply.

3. And financial/regulatory constraints also make sanctions more effective. For example no shipping insurance, or impeded banking g system access.

4. And reputational taint is a real thing, even for brokerages like Glencore et al.

Yeah, they have to go through less reputable middlemen who take a bigger cut. This hurts Russia and consumers both.

I'm painting in broad strokes, but the basics are correct. The only way to really hurt Russia is to slash consumption. Bogarting someone else's supply may look like a solution to posturing politicians, but it doesn't deprive Russia of revenue to fund the war. And higher prices only help them fund it.

Ironically, Russia is slashing their consumption of western goods, further improving their trade deficit and strengthening their currency. Meanwhile we consume as much as ever.

 

[Sandor]

Horseshoe theory in action…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519471197053931523

To no ones surprise. The left and right extremes always shake hands behind democracy's back. Look at the failure of the Weimar republic. Sabotaged by communists and national-socialists; Antifa (the OGs) and Freikorps fought in the streets but the democratic government was their ultimate enemy. Ribbentrop-Molotov pact at a higher level in 1939. All the national-socialists in the newly occupied Eastern Block popular republics after the WWII that became communist enforcers under the new soviet imposed communist regimes.

I think there was even a limerick in Romania of late 40s on the lines of: "Captain, don't be sad, the movement moves ahead in the the communist party". It rhymes in Romanian. An interesting book "Kiss the Hand You Cannot Bite" by Edward Behr, explains it pretty plainly. Quoting Wikipedia "Between 1944 and 1947 Romania had a coalition government in which the Communists played a leading, but not yet dominant role. Journalist Edward Behr claimed that in early 1947, a secret agreement was signed by the leaders of the exiled Iron Guard in displaced persons (DP) camps in Germany and Austria and the Romanian Communist Party, under which the all of the Iron Guards in the DP camps except for those accused of the murder of Communists could return home to Romania in exchange for which the former Iron Guards would work as thugs to terrorize the anti-communist opposition as part of the plans for the ultimate Communist take-over of Romania. In the months after the "non-aggression pact" between the Communists and the Legion, thousands of Iron Guards returned to Romania where they played a prominent role working for the Interior Ministry in breaking opposition to the emerging socialist government."

Same in Hungary: former Arrow Cross hit-men became Communist torturers. Same headquarters, same prisons, same torturers. They were called "paprikák" (chili peppers) because they started green but they turned red after the war.

Plenty of low to mid level Ustashas and Chetniks joined Tito's side in the Yugoslavia after war and got back at work as UDBA goons after turning in their former uniform and turning on their former colleagues. Also taking part in the ethnic cleansing of the German minority in Yugoslavia post-WW2.

This was not a one way movement. The biggest poster child of red to green transition was no other than Joseph Goebbels which started "red" by reading Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg and August Bebel before turning "green" in 1926 or so. But he was part of the "Northern Branch" of NSDAP, with a more socialist outlook than the rival Hitler group in Munich ("Southern Branch"). Goebbels was horrified by Hitler's characterization of socialism as "a Jewish creation" and his assertion that a Nazi government would not expropriate private property. Infamously he wrote the "Lenin or Hitler?" speech, in which he asserted that communism or Marxism could not save the German people, but he believed it would cause a "socialist nationalist state" to arise in Russia. Quoting from it: "Capitalism is the immoral distribution of capital. Germany will become free at that moment when the thirty millions on the left and the thirty millions on the right make common cause. Only one movement is capable of doing this: National Socialism, embodied in one Führer – Adolf Hitler." In 1926, Goebbels published a pamphlet titled Nazi-Sozi which attempted to explain how National Socialism differed from Marxism. Because obviously there wasn't that much of a difference even then...

Or Gregor Strasser German (the rival of Adolf Hitler inside the Nazi Party, the leader of the Northern Branch NSDAP) : "We must take from the right nationalism without capitalism and from the left socialism without internationalism."

And in current times look no further than Mikhail Delyagin, Viktor Orbán or Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Full communist to fascist transitions on all of them. And of course Putin - do I need to to elaborate?

So why are we surprised when the modern representatives of the extreme left (Cori Bush, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib) and extreme right (Madison Cawthorn, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, but not Chip Roy, he's the typical mercenary attention seeker) find it easier to collaborate against democracy? Old habits die hard...

 

[RobStark]

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-04-28/house-passes-military-lend-lease-bill-to-speed-ukraine-aid

 

[JRP3]

Horseshoe theory in action…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519471197053931523

Possibly related:

The ACLU’s objections to the bill fueled existing concerns among some members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Foreign Affairs, two of the people said. A companion bill in the Senate faces an uncertain path to passage, as well, despite bipartisan support. Supporters of the legislation say they will try to resolve the ACLU’s concerns in a revised version of the bill.

“This bill was so unconstitutional that it raised the prospect that a sanctioned Russian national could win in an American court, which likely would have struck down both the statute and the sanction as being unconstitutional,”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/04/08/aclu-ukraine-russia-oligarchs/

 

[MC3OZ]

True. There are a lot of short term disruptions and inefficiencies. Consumers pay more and Russia receives less. Middlemen get fatter and some of the poorest people get squeezed out.


But higher price means Russia gets more revenue, even while selling fewer barrels. Oil demand's inelasticity makes price rationing a losing approach. Wartime rationing is the only practical solution.


The constraints on oil are mostly inconveniences. The constraints on gas are very real, but cut both ways by making it difficult for Europe to get replacement supply.


Yeah, they have to go through less reputable middlemen who take a bigger cut. This hurts Russia and consumers both.

I'm painting in broad strokes, but the basics are correct. The only way to really hurt Russia is to slash consumption. Bogarting someone else's supply may look like a solution to posturing politicians, but it doesn't deprive Russia of revenue to fund the war. And higher prices only help them fund it.

Ironically, Russia is slashing their consumption of western goods, further improving their trade deficit and strengthening their currency. Meanwhile we consume as much as ever.

Bottom line, it is necessary to defeat Russia, or more accurately get them to abandon the invasion, and sign a just settlement.

There are 3 parts to that:-

1. Military
2. Economic
3. Diplomatic / Social

The Military part certainly isn't painless for Ukraine, but it is also very painful for Russia.
Economic, again pain on both sides, but multiple countries are sharing some pain, Russia is bearing their side alone.

Russia gets a lot of their income from oil, reducing these oil exports is the top priority.
For gas exports EU countries have to bear some pain, there is no other alternative.

What Russia isn't importing includes:-

• Motor vehicle and aircraft parts.
• Equipment for medicine and dentistry.
• Medical supplies and drugs
• Sugar - (which is used to feed their army)
• Some types of food.
• Computer chips and electronics components.

A lot of what Russia can't import, can't afford to import, or has to import at higher prices, could be used to support/rebuild their army and military equipment.

So the economic sanctions are complementary to the military action, and must be maintained.

Russia insisting gas payments are made in Rubbles isn't being done from a position of strength, their currency is on life support, and everyone knows it.

Sometimes the best way to end a war is to win the war, the best way to end sanctions is force Russia to abandon the invasion. Sometimes doing more earlier results in a faster outcome, sticking to the path results in a faster outcome. Wavering and giving mixed signals, prolongs the war.

Some in the EU needed more time to get things organised, or were reluctant to take on more pain, that is understandable, but most are now on the correct path, and the only viable path.

 

[wdolson]

Macron won by 16 points. Five years ago he beat her by 32 points.

I misremembered, you're right. Macron has not been terribly popular and there was speculation he faced an uphill fight this year. In the end he did win by a bigger margin than predicted.

The article: "Germany and Poland are now said to be nearing the end of discussions on a concerted effort to zero out Russian crude oil imports to Germany, with new sources re-routed through German and Polish ports."

The are no "new sources", of course, just existing sources that currently go to other countries. Those importing countries will have no choice but to replace their lost supply with Russian oil.

It's nothing more than a giant shell game.

The only way to deprive Russia of oil export revenue is for the west to reduce consumption by 5m bpd until truly new sources come online.

@petit_bateau made most of the points I would have. But I want to highlight that Russia can't simply turn their oil supply to a different customer. A country like Saudi Arabia can switch customers on a dime because most of their oil is loaded onto ships and the ships just need to be rediverted to another country.

The entire Russian gas infrastructure is built out to deliver to Europe. The bulk of their oil infrastructure is too. They can't just load more oil onto ships because they don't have the pipeline capacity of port capacity to do it right now. That takes capital investment, external expertise, and time to build.

They are also facing increased sabotage problems. There was a fire at their far eastern oil port near Vladivostok a few days ago. It's uncertain if it was oil facilities or something else, but oil infrastructure is vulnerable to sabotage. Somebody with some rather small explosives and an all terrain bike could break pipelines in remote regions that would be impossible to stop.
Russia is holding up right now, but they have some huge expenses coming up. They need to rebuild their military, and they are facing steep import costs for everything they can import. Investing billions USD into oil infrastructure is going to be difficult, even if they can find foreign expertise willing to take their money.

If Europe quits taking Russian oil, that will leave them cash strapped when they most need it to build new infrastructure. Nobody will lend them money, so they will be stuck. Closing in oil wells also tends to reduce output when the taps are turned back on. How much degradation depends on the Geology. The salt some oil like Saudi Arabia has isn't bad turning the tap on and off, but most other Geologies are sensitive and oil fields that have been shut in sometimes need experts to come in and rehab them to get them going again.

If the Russians need to shut in some production due to Europe not taking their oil anymore, they might have a lot of trouble getting it flowing again when they do get more pipelines built.

Diverting Russian oil is not like diverting ships or trains. They have a lot of fixed infrastructure built for one purpose and if those customers don't want the product anymore, it will become useless.

What is that ?
And why are the welfare liberals against confiscation ?

Half that list are some of the most extreme conservatives in Congress. As @JRP3 pointed out, the ACLU has some legal concerns about the bill. A poorly crafted bill that won't stand a court challenge is worse than a bill with less bite that will.

Bottom line, it is necessary to defeat Russia, or more accurately get them to abandon the invasion, and sign a just settlement.

There are 3 parts to that:-

1. Military
2. Economic
3. Diplomatic / Social

The Military part certainly isn't painless for Ukraine, but it is also very painful for Russia.
Economic again pain of both sides, but multiple countries are sharing some pain Russia is baring their side alone.

Russia gets a lot of their income from oil, reducing these oil exports is the top priority.
For gas exports EU countries have to bare some pain, their is no other alternative.

What Russia isn't importing includes:-

• Motor vehicle and aircraft parts.
• Equipment for medicine and dentistry.
• Medical supplies and drugs
• Sugar - (which is used to feed their army)
• Some types of food.
• Computer chips and electronics components.

A lot of what Russia can't import, can't afford to import, or has to import at higher prices, could be used to support/rebuild their army and military equipment.

So the economics sanctions are complementary to the military action and must be maintained.

Russia insisting gas payments are made in Rubbles isn't being done from a position of strength, their currency is on life support, and everyone knows it.

Sometimes the best way to end a war is to win the war, the best way to end sanctions is force Russia to abandon the invasion. Sometimes doing more earlier results in a faster outcome, sticking to the path results in a faster outcome. Wavering and giving mixed signals, prolongs the war.

Some in the EU needed more time to get things organised, or were reluctant to take on more pain, that is understandable, but most are no one the correct path, and the only viable path.

Sanctions are not a quick fix. Russia is able to adjust around a lot of the problems in the short term.

Russian culture and Putin in particular are very shame focused. More than the west. The US shrugged off Afghanistan and moved on. The US hasn't even done much soul searching about it. The Russians, especially Putin's generation and older, feel a very deep sense of shame about the end of the USSR. This war has been very popular with the older generations because they feel a strong Russia needs all the former Soviet Republics back under the banner of a united Russia.

I doubt Putin will ever agree to a negotiated settlement that gives him less than he demands. The Ukrainians know that while they are taking hits in this war, Russia is bleeding out. If they keep the blood flowing, Russia will get to a point where it won't be able to fight any longer and at that point Ukraine can just take back the territory they lost and wait for Putin to be removed. If rebellion breaks out in Russia and Putin is gone, his replacement might be willing to give Ukraine everything it wants so he can have what's left of the military to try and put down the rebellion.

Right now Putin has target fixation. He is determined to destroy Ukraine on the battlefield even though his army isn't up to it. As a result he is behaving like Hitler did in the last year of the war spinning cunning plans to end the war in his favor that are unrealistic fantasies in the real world. In the meantime his forces get ground down and chewed up leaving him ever weaker.

But he can't ever admit defeat. That is worse than losing 200,000 soldiers and the Russian economy.

 

[SmokyPeat]

It may be wishful thinking, but I don't see Putin using his nuclear weapons. Hitler would absolutely have used them, had they been in his arsenal. Even if that meant mutually assured destruction.

 

[SageBrush]

It may be wishful thinking, but I don't see Putin using his nuclear weapons. Hitler would absolutely have used them, had they been in his arsenal. Even if that meant mutually assured destruction.

My question of the day: will the West respond with a nuclear attack on Russia in response to a 'limited' use of nukes by Russia in Ukraine ? My guess is that a 'limited' nuclear counter-attack by the 'West' is off the table so Putin is playing Russian roulette.

 

[bkp_duke]

My question of the day: will the West respond with a nuclear attack on Russia in response to a 'limited' use of nukes by Russia in Ukraine ? My guess is that a 'limited' nuclear counter-attack by the 'West' is off the table so Putin is playing Russian roulette.

That would set the worst possible kind of precedent, and I don't think it would possibly go unanswered. A limited nuclear attack would have a proportional response, and I'm 100% certain that the US/UK/France and any other western nuclear power have made that crystal clear.

Anyone that is not a novice at chess would see an unanswered "limited" nuclear attack would give North Korea, Iran (nukes are coming here), and even China a reason to use limited nuclear options to further their own agendas.

No, Russia knows without a doubt that a nuclear bomb will beget a nuclear bomb.

 

[SmokyPeat]

My question of the day: will the West respond with a nuclear attack on Russia in response to a 'limited' use of nukes by Russia in Ukraine ? My guess is that a 'limited' nuclear counter-attack by the 'West' is off the table so Putin is playing Russian roulette.

Yes, I don't think we would respond to the 'limited' use of tactical nukes by Russia with a nuclear strike on Russia. I do think that would draw NATO fully into the war, though. Which would likely result in either escalation to full on WW3, or a decapitation of Putin's regime.

 

[MC3OZ]

It may be wishful thinking, but I don't see Putin using his nuclear weapons. Hitler would absolutely have used them, had they been in his arsenal. Even if that meant mutually assured destruction.

IMO the question for the Russian people is do they all want to die to satisfy the ego of one little old man?

Putin himself might not want to press the button, but even if he does, this question comes into play.

Either way, the US seems to think they have sufficient deterrent.

Direct responsibility for the war is Putin and 4-5 others, everyone else can disclaim responsibility to some extent.

Russian people are conditioned to fear Putin, but the fear is enforced via "others", these "others" have to decide if they want to live or die.

My point about sanctions is they might kick in around June/July when Russia starts to run out of military hardware (if the war progresses as I hope and expect).

My then it should be apparent to most that a conventional victory is off the table, then the only choices are revenge and certain death, keep fighting a lost cause, or blaming those responsible, abandoning war, and living in the real world.

Keep fighting a lost cause is likely, even if Ukraine retakes all of its territory. The war might become battles in the border areas.
But the longer it goes on, the more sanctions will bite, and Russian people might start asking the question.

 

[Skipdd]

Horseshoe theory in action…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519471197053931523

This is interesting. I won’t have time to read the following posts in detail til this weekend, but I have to say this brings into relief Elon’s comment about keeping the extremists off of Twitter on both ends of the political spectrum (I am prarphrasing).

 

[petit_bateau]

That would set the worst possible kind of precedent, and I don't think it would possibly go unanswered. A limited nuclear attack would have a proportional response, and I'm 100% certain that the US/UK/France and any other western nuclear power have made that crystal clear.

Anyone that is not a novice at chess would see an unanswered "limited" nuclear attack would give North Korea, Iran (nukes are coming here), and even China a reason to use limited nuclear options to further their own agendas.

No, Russia knows without a doubt that a nuclear bomb will beget a nuclear bomb.

I agree.

That is where the Budaoest Memorandum might come more strongly into view.

It is well known that Western loadouts on SSBN and etc include some low yield devices. For just this sort of "signalling" use, amongst other things.

Whether using a SSBN as a launch platform would be wise is a different matter. In the UK's case it is all that the UK has as all the tactical launchers have gone (I think). But France and USA both have other platforms. And since a 3:1 response won't happen for obvious reasons there would need to be coordination to decide who gives the Western response.

 

[wdolson]

It may be wishful thinking, but I don't see Putin using his nuclear weapons. Hitler would absolutely have used them, had they been in his arsenal. Even if that meant mutually assured destruction.

Fortunately Germany never got that close to getting a nuclear weapon, but the first to make one was the only one with such a weapon so they didn't have to worry about the enemy retaliating in kind. Additionally nobody knew how dangerous nukes were after they were used until after the war.

My question of the day: will the West respond with a nuclear attack on Russia in response to a 'limited' use of nukes by Russia in Ukraine ? My guess is that a 'limited' nuclear counter-attack by the 'West' is off the table so Putin is playing Russian roulette.

A number of NATO countries may have made it clear that they would claim use of a nuke next door to Poland would trigger Article 5 because of the potential for nuclear fallout on NATO territory. And the US may have told Russia that the first thing they would do is impose a no fly zone over Ukraine, Belarus and the border of Ukraine.

Spinning into a full blown nuclear war would be a slippery slope from there.

IMO the question for the Russian people is do they all want to die to satisfy the ego of one little old man?

Putin himself might not want to press the button, but even if he does, this question comes into play.

Either way, the US seems to think they have sufficient deterrent.

Direct responsibility for the war is Putin and 4-5 others, everyone else can disclaim responsibility to some extent.

Russian people are conditioned to fear Putin, but the fear is enforced via "others", these "others" have to decide if they want to live or die.

My point about sanctions is they might kick in around June/July when Russia starts to run out of military hardware (if the war progresses as I hope and expect).

My then it should be apparent to most that a conventional victory is off the table, then the only choices are revenge and certain death, keep fighting a lost cause, or blaming those responsible, abandoning war, and living in the real world.

Keep fighting a lost cause is likely, even if Ukraine retakes all of its territory. The war might become battles in the border areas.
But the longer it goes on, the more sanctions will bite, and Russian people might start asking the question.

The Russian people are being lied to by the state controlled media. Not everyone is convinced, about 20% of the population use a VPN to get news from outside Russia, but 80% only hear what Putin wants them to hear. There are those who are not reading western news who doubt the news like the protagonist in 1984, but they don't know for sure.

The whole Russian system is set up to make people feel helpless and keep them passive. Anyone who shows any signs of initiative are either recruited to join the intelligence services, imprisoned on trumped up charges, or leave the country. Kamil Galeev has talked about this culture. He was recruited by the FSB, but chose to leave.

Propaganda masquerading as news is very powerful. The US has it and even though there is a wide selection of news available, there is a slice of the population who buy the propaganda and think it's real. In a system where there are no other news sources available without doing extra work, the brainwashing is even more widespread.

 

[Tiger]

To no ones surprise. The left and right extremes always shake hands behind democracy's back.

I doubt this is what is happening here, AOC reasons:

Socialist 'Squad' Member Defends Vote To Protect Russian Oligarchs

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) on Thursday defended her opposition to a bill urging President Joe Biden to fund Ukraine with assets seized from Russian oligarchs.

freebeacon.com

seizing their assets "without due process" would violate the Fourth Amendment and set "a risky new precedent."

Not that it really is a precedent as there is already extrajudicial asset-forfeiture in action.

Probably AOC new that the bill is going to pass and simply wanted to protest it and collect some brownie points, same as the rest of the naysayers.

And how is this different from sanctions anyway? It's not like they are now giving the freedom to seize anybody's assets, only "through due process via congress"?

 

[Tiger]

U.S Army Mechanized Infantry Unit that is Claimed to be heading toward the Ukrainian Border in Romania

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519428534036570112