Ukraine Part 2: Playing chicken with Kiev

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, DMC said:

I've never said this.  Threatening to impose sanctions in the event Russia invades and then not imposing those sanctions until they actually invade is not "letting the invasion happen," in spite of what you may think.

Yes you have. Your position has been 100% reactionary, which means you're fine with an invasion and the approach that we'll figure it out after the fact. Just own it. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes you have. Your position has been 100% reactionary, which means you're fine with an invasion and the approach that we'll figure it out after the fact. Just own it. 

No, I will not own your preposterous attempt to cast anyone that doesn't agree with your brainless arguments as weak.  But great job acting like a fear-mongering Bush-era Republican!

[Zorral]

"Q. & A.
What Makes Putin Fear Ukraine?
The Kyiv-based journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk says that the country’s embrace of democracy and anti-corruption efforts makes it a threat to the Russian leader."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/what-makes-putin-fear-ukraine

Quote

 

Are there other aspects of the status quo right now that you think are not being discussed enough in the West?

It sounds complicated, but we need to think about the international security architecture, where things still are stuck where they were twenty or thirty years ago. Just look at the way that nato is designed, and how it is misused by Russia to threaten Ukraine. So the way things are now, either the West does not support Ukraine and betrays it and agrees on something with Russia, or there is a full-scale war.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, I will not own your preposterous attempt to cast anyone that doesn't agree with your brainless arguments as weak.  But great job acting like a fear-mongering Bush-era Republican!

Lol, okay. 

Once again, you criticize other people's positions while refusing to fully articulate your own, though you leave a somewhat obvious glimpse as to what you'd actually do which is wait, do nothing and hope for the best before having to figure out your strategy. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Once again, you criticize other people's positions while refusing to fully articulate your own, though you leave a somewhat obvious glimpse as to what you'd actually do which is wait, do nothing and hope for the best before actually having to figure out your actual strategy. 

I don't know how many times I've said Biden is doing pretty much precisely what he should be doing, and that this is the proper realpolitik strategy, but it's been a lot.  I said it to you awhile ago, I said it Kal and larry, said it to Wert a few hours ago.  But sure, act like I haven't and then proceed to totally mischaracterize that position in your endless attempt to appear as the toughest dudebro.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don't know how many times I've said Biden is doing pretty much precisely what he should be doing, and that this is the proper realpolitik strategy, but it's been a lot.  I said it to you awhile ago, I said it Kal and larry, said it to Wert a few hours ago.  But sure, act like I haven't and then proceed to totally mischaracterize that position in your endless attempt to appear as the toughest dudebro.

Your position has been to in effect do nothing and wait and see, just like Biden, as I've pointed out several times now. That's failed to change the situation in any way so far. So then what? That's what I'm asking, because these deterrent strategies are not working unless you think Putin is just going wo walk everything back without an obvious reason to do so.

This isn't about some lame tough guy BS, it's about actually doing something that will matter and so far we can't say with a straight face that we're doing anything other than complaining. Just ask yourself if Biden has done anything to make Putin actually consider backing off. The answer is clearly no, but sure, continue to follow course with that.

[Clueless Northman]

18 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't know about that.  Zelensky was clearly ringing the fire alarm a couple months ago far more than Ukraine has at any time since 2014.  Him wanting others, particularly the US, to dial down the rhetoric right now does seem to be simply for the reason he cited - not to create panic.  Anyway, that's not an indicator he or his administration is in favor of concessions.

Ukraine's economy has been terrible for some time but it's completely tanking right now due to this crisis.

If Biden was basically telling Zelensky "If we and you don't act now, you will get invaded next month", I wonder what he's thinking; he's basically doing Putin's work by hyping the military threat. This might even be seen as a hint to Zelensky that either he fights and asks for some Western help, or he has to make a deal with Putin. Without the West making such a fuss, one can only wonder if Putin would be able to hope or expect any meaningful concession. Not saying that ignoring entirely what was happening would've made him give up, there's always a risk he would've actually acted because of the lack of reaction.

 

4 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

 though Russia is a lot better at both absorbing the cost of civilian casualties through uncaring and brutality and is more willing to use brutality and fear to keep people in line.

Sure, but it's not a totalitarian regime anymore, and even then the Afghan debacle was so deadly that they had to stop because people were really upset. Russia can absorb a lot of hurt for genuine self-defense. Occupying Ukraine wouldn't be that, and it'd be harder to sell it to Russian people. Rushing to Kiiv, settling some scores and getting out after a couple of weeks, with 2.000 casualties tops, might be acceptable, maybe; but taking casualties every day, for months, just to occupy the place wouldn't go well.

[DireWolfSpirit]

One thing Biden has managed to do so far.

He has managed to avoid triple-ing fuel costs, crashing the markets and starting a worldwide recession.

Knee jerk sanctions could have debilitating blowback and Russian retaliation unless they are used in a thread the needle manner.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-crisis-severe-sanctions-trigger-crippling-moscow-respon-rcna13691

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Your position has been to in effect do nothing and wait and see, just like Biden, as I've pointed out several times now. That's failed to change the situation in any way so far. So then what? That's what I'm asking, because these deterrent strategies are not working unless you think Putin is just going wo walk everything back without an obvious reason to do so.

Please stop acting like Biden's approach is "doing nothing."  It's not, especially since your proposed difference is basically doing the exact same thing except just imposing the sanctions preemptively a few weeks before they're gonna invade (if they're going to invade).  Which, as I've explained to you repeatedly, is pointless and offers essentially zero tangible benefits while presenting a host of potential strategic downsides.

Biden's options, obviously, are not ideal.  But unless he's willing to threaten ground troops, which I certainly don't think he should, there's not much more he can do.  Obviously, the leaked sanctions plan from yesterday is a disappointment, but (a) I'm literally the one who brought it up and that it was disappointing and (b) it seems clear to me this is, unfortunately, the best he could get the Europeans to agree to.

11 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

If Biden was basically telling Zelensky "If we and you don't act now, you will get invaded next month", I wonder what he's thinking; he's basically doing Putin's work by hyping the military threat. This might even be seen as a hint to Zelensky that either he fights and asks for some Western help, or he has to make a deal with Putin. Without the West making such a fuss, one can only wonder if Putin would be able to hope or expect any meaningful concession.

Based on the reporting a lot of the internal disagreement between the two seemed to be based on the word "imminent" which..doesn't sound like a big disagreement.  I don't know, it's hard to get into the blackbox of Biden and Zelensky's private interactions to discern much of anything at this point IMO.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Just read another article about the looming consequences in this showdown.

I mentioned the likely energy supply disruption but that is far from the only supply chain problem posed, Ukraine is one of the Worlds greatest grain suppliers as well-

"The country is one of the world's four major grain exporters -- it is expected to account for around a sixth of the world's corn imports in the next five years, according to projections by the International Grains Council -- so a direct hit to its production and output could impact the supply of certain foodstuffs."

Good times.

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

what you'd actually do which is wait

Which is exactly what Ukraine itself says to do, because at this point there is nothing particularly anybody, INCLUDING THE UKRAINIANS can do.  As described by the UKRAINE journalist, who lives there, and isn't a particular fan of the Ukraine's current government, all that can be done, this government is working at, which includes real world considerations of how to keep communications among the government, the people, official and personal, commerce, etc. going in case Putin imposes a massive denial of service condition -- things like that.

 

1 minute ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The country is one of the world's four major grain exporters

As it has been even for pre-Alexander Greece.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Couldn't we just bait Putin and his army into the Chernobyl dead zone and then keep the Bastards trapped in there?

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

But Americans are very fatigued with foreign wars,

This notion gets brought up a lot but the evidence is scant of it being true.

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes you have. Your position has been 100% reactionary, which means you're fine with an invasion and the approach that we'll figure it out after the fact. Just own it. 

"Unless you agree with my plan which will in no way actually stop an invasion, and has a high risk of making several other things worse, you're actually fine with the invasion" isn't quite the slam dunk you seem to think it is. I repeat, if you think this invasion needs to be stopped then advocating sending in troops because that's the only concrete thing that can be done to protect Ukraine.

It's even the thing that could actually be done preemptively and might prevent a war! It's very high risk, so it would be a gamble, but it's the option that actually carries a chance of working. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, karaddin said:

I disagree, I think being locked into the US perspective blinds you to the range of international opinion and there's plenty of room between "in the tank for Russia/China" and "backing the US no matter what".

I do think there can be a spectrum between being firmly on the side of either Russia or nato(which includes way more than just the US) on a given conflict.

But many people are inclined to lean one way or the other given their typical relations with each entity. If a person’s from Taiwan or another country outside of Nato that relies heavily on it for protection they’re more likely to see Nato as having acted in the right regardless of when they implement sanctions.

If a person is from a country members where they’re suffering constant drone strike or sanctions from the US they’re more likely to say NATO is acting unreasonable.

9 hours ago, karaddin said:

To be specific about what i consider to be one of the big dangers of that approach - it's what Kal has already mentioned multiple times. Bush hurt the international view of the US, but Trump tore it to shreds. Any agreement or treaty with the US is only good for the time until the next Presidential election and then your stance could be turned on its head, and even as a nation that's not only a staunch ally but dependent to the point you could argue we function as a vassal state I don't feel that even Aus could trust future behaviour.

To be clear a lot of him backsliding in agreements came from Trump engaging in a isolationist foreign policy.

Take example his constant bemoaning of NATO as having taken more than it’s given to the US.

Many people in the world outside the US, or West see a strong US presence as integral to their safety.

[Gorn]

4 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Ukraine's economy has been terrible for some time but it's completely tanking right now due to this crisis.

This is a major underreported aspect of it, yes. I'm guessing a lot of deals have been cancelled or put on indefinite hold, and a lot of companies have been looking up the "force majeure" section in their contracts.

Putin can ruin Ukraine's economy merely by keeping up the "will he or won't he" status quo for awhile.

[Iskaral Pust]

Unrelated to any invasion threat, Ukraine faces the loss of natural gas gas transit fees once the Nordstream 2 pipeline gets final approval.  That’s $3bn annually, or 2% of GDP.  Not crippling to their economy but unhelpful and that expectation is already weighing on their economic situation.

IMO it’s completely legitimate for Russia to build their pipeline to circumvent Ukraine and not have their major export at risk of any trade tension with Ukraine.  Ukraine has been petitioning EU countries to block Nordstream 2 so they won’t lose those transit fees.

The bigger issue with Nordstream 2 is that Germany was over-hasty in shutting down their nuclear power and increasing their dependence on Russian gas supplies.  That’s why Germany has been silent about Russia threatening a war — they’re in Putin’s pocket now.

[Clueless Northman]

 

 

12 hours ago, Gorn said:

This is a major underreported aspect of it, yes. I'm guessing a lot of deals have been cancelled or put on indefinite hold, and a lot of companies have been looking up the "force majeure" section in their contracts.

Putin can ruin Ukraine's economy merely by keeping up the "will he or won't he" status quo for awhile.

I heard that there are plenty of Ukrainians who are frantically trying to find temporary or long-term work in EU/West or even just getting their 6-months vacation visa, so that they won't be on the ground a month from now, if shit hits the fan. That's anecdote as far as I can see. Still, the country has experienced a big brain drain in the last 30 years - demographically, it's way worse than what Russia went through, which was bad already. This crisis has to be solved in a satisfying way, and Ukraine really needs stability for the next years if the economy is to improve.

 

15 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

"The country is one of the world's four major grain exporters -- it is expected to account for around a sixth of the world's corn imports in the next five years, according to projections by the International Grains Council -- so a direct hit to its production and output could impact the supply of certain foodstuffs."

Russia being the first - as surprising it sounds to anyone who still has in mind how fucked up grain production was in USSR. Depending on the kind of sanctions put upon Russia, this might add to grain export disruption (or downright fields destruction) due to a possible war in Ukraine. Cutting Moscow from SWIFT might hurt a lot more countries than just Russia. Thankfully, US, Canada, France and Australia are next in line when it comes to wheat exports, though that won't compensate the losses.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Cutting Moscow from SWIFT might hurt a lot more countries than just Russia.

It's been widely reported that cutting them off from SWIFT is off the table regarding the sanctions package Biden and the EU are working on.  However, the US Senate appears close to a bipartisan deal on a sanctions bill, and targeting SWIFT may still remain a part of it:

Quote

Menendez’s bill would target Russian officials and financial institutions if Biden determines Russia has invaded or had a significant “escalation of hostilities” against Ukraine. The bill also authorizes sanctions on companies in Russia that offer secure messaging systems including SWIFT, the international system by which banks communicate, and includes additional security assistance and provisions to help Ukraine push back against Russian disinformation. 

But Menendez and Risch have been leading a bipartisan group of senators to negotiate changes to the bill to come up with a bipartisan compromise that gets the 10 GOP votes needed to break a filibuster. 

 

[kiko]

One question: why is cutting them off from SWIFT is considered the nuclear option? Obviously it would be very bad if they were cut off from international money transfer. But my understanding is that parallel structures are already in place and all we are looking at is a major inconvenience when the transfers have to go through another hop in some bank on the virtual border. Bad, but not nuclear. What am I missing here? Shouldn't it be accompanied by a ban on transfers going from one system to the other?