sleepyhead
Active Member
Why would you assume Putin would allow UN observers in at all?
Because he is not in charge of Ukraine!
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would you assume Putin would allow UN observers in at all?
Because he is not in charge of Ukraine!
The scenario I thought we were discussing was one where Putin isn’t shooting guns, and the Ukrainians aren’t either. In this scenario Putin tries to get parts of Ukraine to vote for joining Russia through democratic elections.Oh, I'm talking about a hypothetical situation in which Putin is already shooting his guns at Ukrainians, not the current state of affairs.
The scenario I thought we were discussing was one where Putin isn’t shooting guns, and the Ukrainians aren’t either. In this scenario Putin tries to get parts of Ukraine to vote for joining Russia through democratic elections.
- - - Updated - - -
Putin does after all still pretend that Russia is a democracy, even though he and his henchmen, as I understand it, rigged their last election (haven’t read up on the previous ones).
That has never worked for me :wink:.../ I am however praying my defensive trades lose money and this is resolved peacefully. [My grey.]
I don't have any fuzzy feelings toward Putin but as if he wanted to really take Ukraine his best strategy would not be giving the west and Ukraine time to organize anything and tanks would be there already. Longer no shooting obviously better. Suspect he wants nonviolent end or with element of surprise there would already be violenceIf Putin doesn't start shooting at Ukrainians, then there are a vast array of diplomatic options available to restabilize the region, and this crisis is essentially already over. I'm speaking to the subject of the extent of Russian invasion and its effect on the market. I'm currently trading on the possibility that guns will in fact be fired because too often in history when a tyrant feels powerful, righteous and yet threatened, they tend to attack. I am however praying my defensive trades lose money and this is resolved peacefully.
Maybe I’ve missed something, but I haven’t heard that someone has invaded Venezuela. Nor have I heard about any more violence.all of y'all are looking in the wrong direction, what is going on in VZ can have a lot more impact on the US markets than the ukraine situation
I don't have any fuzzy feelings toward Putin but as if he wanted to really take Ukraine his best strategy would not be giving the west and Ukraine time to organize anything and tanks would be there already. Longer no shooting obviously better. Suspect he wants nonviolent end or with element of surprise there would already be violence
Reuters said:Russia's Black Sea Fleet has told Ukrainian forces in Crimea to surrender by 0300 GMT on Tuesday or face a military assault, Interfax news agency quoted a source in the Ukrainian Defence Ministry as saying.
The ultimatum, Interfax said, was issued by Alexander Vitko, the fleet's commander.
The ministry did not immediately confirm the report and there was no immediate comment by the Black Sea Fleet, which has a base in Crimea, where Russian forces are in control.
"If they do not surrender before 5 a.m. tomorrow, a real assault will be started against units and divisions of the armed forces across Crimea," the agency quoted the ministry source as saying.
No ultimatum, says the Russian defence ministry, via Vedemosti.
A snap partial translation:
Russia’s defence ministry has denied information that they have given Ukrainian forces in Crimea an ultimatum.
An official defence ministry called the original agency statement about the ultimatum “complete nonsense”, and said no such ultimatum had been given to the Ukrainian military in Crimea.
Source:
Ukraine crisis: Russia says Nato pressure 'will not help stabilise the situation' – live | World news | theguardian.com
Well as I mentioned I planned to take a protective stake in UVXY. I bought $80, $95 March calls after the open when it dropped. Half around $73 and half at the bottom. The portion is now nicely in green. With the Tesla rally (added some $400 '15 LEAPs when they were around $7 this morning) added to it my portfolio is in fact about 1% up today even though Solar is down.
I did once. It really hurt. Never again. I'm ignorant on stock trading, but I know enough to not touch that stove again.
OK, I realize most of us here are not geo-political analysts, but let's chat about the short- and long-term implications of Putin's actions...
Energy to Eastern Europe?
Implications to the supply and demand for natural gas?
NATO action? (intentionally omitted, anything U.S. political)
None of the above?
Value of electrical infrastructure and transport? (Meaning TSLA, solar, and others not yet identified)
They are perfectly fine if you use them correctly. But you have to remember with a VERY volatile stock like TSLA you would HAVE to put in a wide stop loss. Like on the order of 10% in order to work with an around the weekly fluctuations of the stock. The purpose of it would be to avoid another Q3 situation from hurting so bad. So you would have dumped out at say, 170-165, waited for it to bottom out, and then bought back in. But smart money would have seen that the first fire was going to hurt the stock and either shorted, sold, or just re-inforced your position with more longs as the stock went down. The stop loss is there for people who can't watch the stock every day. Chances are, if you are posting here, you are likely watching the stock every day... so you would be better at timing the swings manually.