Russia - General Discussion.

[Vivendi]

Except it was hardly a first step for Putin. When Putin came to power he was trying to build bridges with the west on some sort of terms of acceptance and equality. He had G.W. look into his eyes, and he even talked about Russia potentially joining NATO. He wanted a single economic space from Lissabon to Vladivostok, a joint BMD which included Russia, against rogue state threats, and wanted to have the west respect a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe the same way that France got one in Africa. You can trace the slow disillusionment with the West over the years through public statements and policy decisions. As late as 2011 Russia let through the Security Council resolution to dismember Libya ("no fly zone") and joined in sanctions againts Iran. Yet the considerations Russia got in exchage were modest, and meanwhile the US continued to push political influence and military cooperation programs closer and closer to Russia while simultaneously excluding Russia from the BMD program.

There is a pattern here of Russia wanting to be integrated into a joint security architecture with the west, and of this falling through. I agree that some of Russia's desires were the problem, but they weren't the only problem. I see a tendency in this conversation to project backwards and equivocate Russia and Putin today with Russia and Putin in say 2004. This is fundamentally false. Russia and Putin have both changed a lot in the past two decades. And this change was at least partialy in response to their relations with the west.

You are right that Putin considered to join NATO. He was told that Russia had to go through the same application procedure as other countries (e.g. Poland, Bulgaria, etc.). Perhaps Putin expected NATO to break their own rules and admit Russia anyway, but when he realized that Russia had to meet the NATO requirements, he realized it was not going to happen. Not because NATO refused to let Russia start the process to become a member, but because they refused to break/change their own rules.

What I find very interesting, is that there was one option available to Russia: to start reforms to meet NATO requirements... for some reason this option seems to never be mentioned when this topic is discussed in Russia...

I fully support NATOs position: NATO must keep their requirements for admission. This was also the reason why Ukraine could not become NATO member already, they did not meet the requirements.

NATO did offer collaboration instead of a full NATO membership, and Russia seemed to accept this, at least for some time.

Edit: This article articulates very well what I think about what has happened, and Putins role in it:

A decade ago, Putin had a very good hand to play. NATO was sagging under the weight of the war in Afghanistan and an unwise intervention in Libya. U.S. leaders grumbled about European free-riding, and European leaders questioned Washington’s commitment to the common defense. Any efforts to buck these trends and rally the old alliance were constrained by European reticence to spend more on defense and a toxic dependence on Russian oil and gas. Meanwhile, the Russian economy had recovered from the 2008 recession and was healthy enough to support a long-term military modernization program. Russia was getting stronger as its traditional adversaries were coming apart.

The stage was set for Putin. He blew it.

Putin’s Folly: A Case Study of an Inept Strategist - War on the Rocks

 

[Vivendi]

I see many on Twitter is re-tweeting this one: Michael Elgort on Twitter: "twitter link" / Twitter

I don't speaks Russian so I cannot vouch for the correctness of the translation, but other that speak Russian indicate it's a quite good one. I encourage you to watch it -- in particular those who want to make sure that you get the viewpoint from "both sides" and not just "Western propaganda".

Putin is definitely a man of peace, and is always sticking to facts.

The term "purification" has a special connotation in Russia and Europe after WW2.

 

[Ananda]

Putin is definitely a man of peace, and is always sticking to facts

Not much different then typical Trump's speach and yet around half of US vote for him in 2016 and 2020, and potentially in 2024. Perhaps Trump can be right, that if he's still President, Putin will not invade Ukraine.

Most of those who try to see both sides has no illusion on whose Putin is. However also see that West not an angel too, or Ukraine is an ideal democratic place. Funny though some of those in West that critical to Ukraine democracy, now call Ukraine beacon on democracy.

 

[Vivendi]

Not much different then typical Trump's speach and yet around half of US vote for him in 2016 and 2020, and potentially in 2024. Perhaps Trump can be right, that if he's still President, Putin will not invade Ukraine.

Most of those who try to see both sides has no illusion on whose Putin is. However also see that West not an angel too, or Ukraine is an ideal democratic place. Funny though some of those in West that critical to Ukraine democracy, now call Ukraine beacon on democracy.

In my opinion it reflects extremely poorly on those who try to use Trump to justify how other politicians act. I will not say anything more about Trump in this discussion.

Also I have never claimed that Ukraine is an "ideal democratic place" or "beacon on democracy". However, lack of democracy in Ukraine does not justify Russia's actions in any way. Also, I wonder if you assign a lot of ideas and opinions to me that I simply don't have.

 

[Ananda]

Why you say that I accuse you on any Ideas ? You are the one who before accuse me on Russian ideas as mine. So chill out

 

[Rock the kasbah]

Vivendi and Ananda
This thread has been been going on for quite a while
We have seen the build up of forces and the undeniable invasion of a sovereign country.
Politics and chess games bedamded
No more
In the immortal words
The war is here
I don't need a ride
I need ammunition

 

[Ananda]

This thread has been been going on for quite a while
We have seen the build up of forces and the undeniable invasion of a sovereign country.

That's why I said in other threads, it is back to both of them to make compromise. If not then the war will go on until one of them totally beaten or draging others in to the War.

For me, it's pointless to point fingers. In the end it is Ukrainian and Russian blood in the ground, the compromise must reach by both of them only. Outsiders should only mediate (like what Turkey and Israel doing).

 

[John Fedup]

Both parties in this $hitshow are wrong but one party is wrong to a much greater extent. Hopefully it can be ended soon. However, sanctions must remain.

 

[JulioCompactus]

Whatever floats your boat.

Anyway Zelensky has capitulated to one of Russias demands. Ukraine will not join Nato. If he'd just come out with this statement a few months ago this mess probably wouldn't have happened.

Volodymyr Zelensky Says Ukraine Won't Join NATO

The Ukrainian president said last week that he had "cooled down" on the idea of membership of the alliance, which he wants to set up a no-fly zone.

www.newsweek.com

nonsense of course as under the joining criteria for NATO Ukraine was not eligible and this was widely understood by all parties. This is really about Russia stopping Ukraine joining the EU NATO is a putin smokescreen.

 

[swerve]

That's why I said in other threads, it is back to both of them to make compromise. If not then the war will go on until one of them totally beaten or draging others in to the War.

For me, it's pointless to point fingers. In the end it is Ukrainian and Russian blood in the ground, the compromise must reach by both of them only. Outsiders should only mediate (like what Turkey and Israel doing).

"Give me your house & all your money"
"Where would I live? How would I survive?"
"You're completely unreasonable! I'll compromise, though: you can keep the half of your house I've not already taken possession of, & 10% of your money"
"But you've knocked down that half of my house"
"See? I was right! You're unwilling to compromise. Totally unreasonable!"

 

[Ananda]

"But you've knocked down that half of my house"
"See? I was right! You're unwilling to compromise. Totally unreasonable!"

Well if the 'owner' of the house want to compromise with his 'neigbour' on the 'land' dispute, it is his 'right' to do it.

If he can get 'guarantee' from the his neighbour that the case can be closed. Perhaps he will do it. The question then will be on how to enforce each other 'guarantee'. That"s the devil in details.

Outsiders can tell him he's a fool to compromise. However it is his and the neigbour chooice. Afterall it is their blood that spill.

 

[Feanor]

"Give me your house & all your money"
"Where would I live? How would I survive?"
"You're completely unreasonable! I'll compromise, though: you can keep the half of your house I've not already taken possession of, & 10% of your money"
"But you've knocked down that half of my house"
"See? I was right! You're unwilling to compromise. Totally unreasonable!"

I don't think this analogy is accurate. At no point did Russia demand Ukraine hand over their entire territory and all their money. To be clear, Russia has effectively subsidized Ukraine through discount gas prices for many years. Ukraine has also profited from transit arrangements that they made extremely precarious by siphoning gas out of pipelines. Things didn't get to the knocking down of houses until much later. And to make it more complex, Ukraine did a pretty good job of letting it's "house" go to hell through neglect. So our house here is one with an easement that you need to do your business with other neighbors, a house that's rather decrepit, and whose "heads of household" routinely do a political 180 (Kravchuk-Kuchma-Yuschenko-Yanukovich)on their willingness to have good relations with you. To top it off the "family" who live there are your relatively close cousins, including some of your own siblings, and you all use to live in one large multi-family estate, until they split off and took your siblings along whether they wanted to or not, along with their portion of the old family estate. I can keep stretching this analogy if you want, but I think you get my drift.

Both parties in this $hitshow are wrong but one party is wrong to a much greater extent. Hopefully it can be ended soon. However, sanctions must remain.

This is accurate. And how wrong each party is has changed multiple times over the past ~19 years.

nonsense of course as under the joining criteria for NATO Ukraine was not eligible and this was widely understood by all parties. This is really about Russia stopping Ukraine joining the EU NATO is a putin smokescreen.

I suspect EU membership was also a concern, but the bigger concern seems to be the penetration of US, Canadian, and UK military involvement with Ukraine. Of course that involvement was a reaction to the events of '14-'15, which itself was a reaction to the Euromaidan and the crackdown on the anti-Maidan, etc. I don't think EU membership was the only, or even the main concern. I think it was one of a series.

 

[Rob c]

Whatever floats your boat.

Anyway Zelensky has capitulated to one of Russias demands. Ukraine will not join Nato. If he'd just come out with this statement a few months ago this mess probably wouldn't have happened.

Volodymyr Zelensky Says Ukraine Won't Join NATO

The Ukrainian president said last week that he had "cooled down" on the idea of membership of the alliance, which he wants to set up a no-fly zone.

www.newsweek.com

This is over simplification, the NATO question like Putin's de-Nazification claims (when the current Russian state looks increasingly facist ) are all a smoke screen to cover his real intentions. However having publicly pronounced on these and other factors and not getting the quick victory I think he was expecting, he is now publicly tied to them in any negotiations, This does not mean that what goes on behind closed doors and is not to be released to the public, will be in any formal part of any agreement. For example as we learnt later there was JFK's agreement to remove missiles from Turkey during the Cuban missile crisis.

 

[Pentaprism]

You are right that Putin considered to join NATO. He was told that Russia had to go through the same application procedure as other countries (e.g. Poland, Bulgaria, etc.). Perhaps Putin expected NATO to break their own rules and admit Russia anyway, but when he realized that Russia had to meet the NATO requirements, he realized it was not going to happen. Not because NATO refused to let Russia start the process to become a member, but because they refused to break/change their own rules.

What I find very interesting, is that there was one option available to Russia: to start reforms to meet NATO requirements... for some reason this option seems to never be mentioned when this topic is discussed in Russia...

I fully support NATOs position: NATO must keep their requirements for admission. This was also the reason why Ukraine could not become NATO member already, they did not meet the requirements.

NATO did offer collaboration instead of a full NATO membership, and Russia seemed to accept this, at least for some time.

Edit: This article articulates very well what I think about what has happened, and Putins role in it:

Putin’s Folly: A Case Study of an Inept Strategist - War on the Rocks

The article is interesting but I don’t agree the annexation of Crimea was needless. Once Russia’s Puppet in Ukraine (Yanukovyvh) was replaced with America’s (Turchynov then Poroshenko) Russia had a serious problem, their main Navy base was located in a Country controlled by their main adversary. They deemed this situation untenable and I believe if the roles were reversed the US would also find it untenable.

I thought the “Little Green Men” operation was brilliant from a Military standpoint, to gain that much territory with so little bloodshed was remarkable. In stark contrast to the current invasion which is an unmitigated disaster.

 

[denix56]

The article is interesting but I don’t agree the annexation of Crimea was needless. Once Russia’s Puppet in Ukraine (Yanukovyvh) was replaced with America’s (Turchynov then Poroshenko) Russia had a serious problem, their main Navy base was located in a Country controlled by their main adversary. They deemed this situation untenable and I believe if the roles were reversed the US would also find it untenable.

I thought the “Little Green Men” operation was brilliant from a Military standpoint, to gain that much territory with so little bloodshed was remarkable. In stark contrast to the current invasion which is an unmitigated disaster.

It might be the same kind of stuff that happened before and during WWII. Germany saw USSR after Finland, but they didn't expected that USSR will defend desperately, logistics issues, and the deep cooperation with West.
Here Russia saw Crimea probably as how it will happen in Ukraine (people welcome Russians). However it could not go more wrong.

 

[Ananda]

This video (from Turkish media) shown how changing Russian Hydrocarbon is not as easy that some Politicians talk in Media. Biden has difficulty to ask Saudi and OPEC to increase the production. This media talk about frosty relationship between Saudi Crown Prince with Biden. However I'm not want to talk about the political issue, but more on market calculation:

1. Increasing the production is costly and during volatile market like this, producers want to see more where the price in medium and longer term will stabilise. The prediction calculation which will 'commercially wise' determine their action. This then can be why most producers still not planning to increase the production. If that easy, why don't Biden ask North American producers to pump out more production. Pressing OPEC in my suspicion is because the North American producers also still wait the market movement, to make similar calculation.

2. Hydrocarbon market was depressed for quite long time. Some of the producers even shut some facilities when price getting below USD $40-$50. This volatile market can be the window period for them to recoup the loss from that period.

3. What if Russia then cut the market price on their products to gain new market (as Western market is clossing down on them). They have done it recently with India. This potentially can disrupt the market if they are doing with more other Non Western market.

4. Russia is big Hydrocarbon exporter. OPEC say there's no way any other producers can replace that 7 million barrel per day (on oil only not counting Gas) in Global market. Thus if West close the tab on Russia hydrocarbon (related to point#3), Russia can also find other market, cause the Global demand is not changing much for some time. The effect on Russia moving other non Western market is also need to be calculated by the producers.

5. Russia not Iran and Venezuela. Most of their production infrastructure can be source domestically. So the embargo will not going to be impacted like Venezuela or Iran, that facing deteroriation on production due to difficulty maintaining them. So Russia longer term prospect on declining productivity due to production infrastructure like Venezuela and Iran, less likely to happen. Thus for medium-longer term, other producers increasing production capacity can be risk on over supply the market.

This is why the market predict, the longer the war, the longer also the trade war, and the longer period for market adjustment. Most market analyst also not seeing other non Russian big producers will increase their product substantially.

In other word; prepared with market volatility on commodities for some time, until market make their own adjustment. Problem is, this happen after two year of Covid.

Add:
If thinking even US will embargoes those who buy Russian energy, take a look again case of India. US knows they need India for China containtment. India clearly say they are not going to pull the plug with Russia.

I can tell that many Non Western market watching India on how they are managing trade transaction with Russia in the face of US and Western sanctions. Cheaper Russian energy is intriguing. Again everyone (especialy in Asia) just begin to climb back after Covid recession. They don't want to get in to another recession, due to energy and comodities.

West does not want Russian stuff, well many of them will say, we'll take it. They will not going to replace Western market size, but those market are growing. Also they are going to take substantialy longer time on transitioning in to Green Energy, then West. Means they can be growing market for Russia for some time in future.

 

[Todjaeger]

This video (from Turkish media) shown how changing Russian Hydrocarbon is not as easy that some Politicians talk in Media. Biden has difficulty to ask Saudi and OPEC to increase the production. This media talk about frosty relationship between Saudi Crown Prince with Biden. However I'm not want to talk about the political issue, but more on market calculation:

1. Increasing the production is costly and during volatile market like this, producers want to see more where the price in medium and longer term will stabilise. The prediction calculation which will 'commercially wise' determine their action. This then can be why most producers still not planning to increase the production. If that easy, why don't Biden ask North American producers to pump out more production. Pressing OPEC in my suspicion is because the North American producers also still wait the market movement, to make similar calculation.

2. Hydrocarbon market was depressed for quite long time. Some of the producers even shut some facilities when price getting below USD $40-$50. This volatile market can be the window period for them to recoup the loss from that period.

Not to take the discussion further OT (albeit the energy market, both current and futures, does make for some fascinating consideration) but I did want to emphasize something which relates to points #1 and #2.

In recent US political "news" various reporters have asked pointed questions, and talking heads have asserted, that the current US gov't should issue more/expanded drilling permits as a way to ease the recent spike in fuel prices. In my area, the cost jumped roughly USD$1/gal. in a month, or a 35% price increase. The administration's response was to point out that there are currently ~9k permits which have been granted, but not yet exercised or used. In other words, US-based energy companies already have plenty of opportunities to expand or increase their domestic production, but have not yet decided to do so. IMO this is most likely because the companies have not yet determined that expanding production, with the associated costs involved, would be profitable.

 

[swerve]

The article is interesting but I don’t agree the annexation of Crimea was needless. Once Russia’s Puppet in Ukraine (Yanukovyvh) was replaced with America’s (Turchynov then Poroshenko) Russia had a serious problem, their main Navy base was located in a Country controlled by their main adversary.

Sevastopol is not Russia's main naval base. The Black Sea Fleet is far smaller than the Northern Fleet, for very good geopolitical reasons, & I think also smaller than the Pacific Fleet. The Black Sea Fleet's only outlet is through the Turkish straits. I've seen them. They're very, very easy to close.

And Ukraine is not Russia's main adversary, & carrots rather than sticks could have made it positively friendly. A bit late for that now, though.

 

[denix56]

Belgium delays nuclear energy exit 10 years due to Ukraine war - Digital Journal

Belgium on Friday delayed by a decade a plan to scrap nuclear energy in 2025, spooked by the huge rise in energy prices due to the Russian invasion of

www.digitaljournal.com

The smaller European countries as well as Asian ones decide to push forward nuclear energy.
Their example might convince other parties to take a look at nuclear power to reduce dependence on oil and gas.
China and India are also going to increase the number of power plants drastically in the following years.

All of it (with Chinese emission reduction goal) cannot convince me that they really need in the long term Russian oil and gas. It seems more like a bonus to other resources in that region as well as the countermeasure to the West and influential nuclear-capable teammate both in West and Asia.
Additionally, China is the main e-car producer and will focus on covering all of the segments (that is why they are so interested in Tesla technologies). They advertise them a lot and it will not make sense to easy the life for regular cars with the cheap patrol.

In the current situation China will probably intervene if the USA will not propose something valuable enough that will be more interesting than Russia as a powerful teammate.

It might happen, that at the time when Russia finds someone interested in the oil and gas in big quantities and the respective “Asia streams” will be built (it could easily be 5+ years with all the talks, previous contracts and bureaucracy) the prices will be not enough to sustain Russian economy at the desired level.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I don't think this analogy is accurate. At no point did Russia demand Ukraine hand over their entire territory and all their money. To be clear, Russia has effectively subsidized Ukraine through discount gas prices for many years. Ukraine has also profited from transit arrangements that they made extremely precarious by siphoning gas out of pipelines. Things didn't get to the knocking down of houses until much later. And to make it more complex, Ukraine did a pretty good job of letting it's "house" go to hell through neglect. So our house here is one with an easement that you need to do your business with other neighbors, a house that's rather decrepit, and whose "heads of household" routinely do a political 180 (Kravchuk-Kuchma-Yuschenko-Yanukovich)on their willingness to have good relations with you. To top it off the "family" who live there are your relatively close cousins, including some of your own siblings, and you all use to live in one large multi-family estate, until they split off and took your siblings along whether they wanted to or not, along with their portion of the old family estate. I can keep stretching this analogy if you want, but I think you get my drift.



This is accurate. And how wrong each party is has changed multiple times over the past ~19 years.



I suspect EU membership was also a concern, but the bigger concern seems to be the penetration of US, Canadian, and UK military involvement with Ukraine. Of course that involvement was a reaction to the events of '14-'15, which itself was a reaction to the Euromaidan and the crackdown on the anti-Maidan, etc. I don't think EU membership was the only, or even the main concern. I think it was one of a series.

A home invasion where the invader continues to act aggressively to the homeowner and demands the right to keep control of a portion of it, /pro Russian splinter states.

And for the homeowner to disarm while he's being still attacked. And wants assurances from the owner he's not going to take security measures to protect his home in future./Nato. Seems perfectly reasonable.