Ukraine 10: Lviv free

[Makk]

The Russian stock market partially reopened yesterday and it actually finished up 4.4%.

There were a number of caveats however. Foreign investors were not allowed to sell, only 15% of the listed companies were trading, short selling has been banned, and the central bank has purchased a lot of shares.

However some companies are genuinely doing well. The chemical firm PhosAgro, which produces fertilisers and phosphates, surged by 26% while oil and gas group Tatneft jumped 20%, and energy giant Gazprom gained 13.4%. Nickel and palladium miner Nornickel rose 10%. All of these benefited from big price rises. The airline Aeroflot sank 16%.

I think MSNBC summed it up best under the cheeky headline "Not Great, Not Terrible" referencing HBO's Chernobyl where they initially thought radiation was only a little bit higher than normal as the real spike actually broke their equipment.

[Werthead]

It's also worth noting that picking a big external threat the whole country - even the goddamn liberals - can unite against is a key part of the Republican playbook, from the Cold War through the War on Terror.

I do think this tangent is bizarre. The US is fully committed to NATO until it's not, and we'll see what happens there.

I do think that Putin is being forced to recalculate based on the strength of the responses to what's happened. He apparently told Biden last year that he believed that NATO was weak and disunified, and Biden has shown that was incorrect. And there is no real way through the logic trap of an attack on a NATO member triggering a response from the rest of the alliance, meaning a conventional war that Russia cannot win and the only escalation out of that position also lead to situations that Russia cannot win either.

On that basis I can see Russia starting shit in Georgia or clamping down harder on shakier client states, and only moving against a NATO member in the event of a full-blown US civil war or catastrophe that physically prevents the US from intervening. Russia has been very patient in the past and we'll see if that continues.

A couple of crazy rumours from early in the invasion that Putin was actually thinking about retiring (!) and wanted bringing Ukraine into the fold to be his legacy, but I think the lack of a clear succession plan and him changing the law so he could rule until the mid-2030s shows that was fanciful, at best.

[Werthead]

Anyway, from the actual front it sounds like Russia and Ukraine have now established prisoner exchange protocols. Two successful prisoner swaps have been carried out (in addition to the swap last weep for the mayor of Melitopol) and the Russians have confirmed that one of their ships was destroyed off Odesa (some of the Russian prisoners were rescued from there by Ukrainian forces) after it was hit by (probably GRAD) fire last week.

UN aid agencies have set up in Ukraine and managed to get some aid into some areas, apparently with Russian cooperation. However, they've been unable to get into Mariupol and Mykolaiv due to heavy fighting in the area.

[Werthead]

Interesting. The Russian judiciary can be corrupt, but it's also enormous, bureaucratic and, in some cases, bizarrely logical. So there's a nontrivial chance they might win this (unless emergency legislation is passed to force them).

 

 

[DMC]

31 minutes ago, Fez said:

In fact, other than Trump, it never really went away; and Republicans those four years mostly pretended that Trump was anti-Russia rather than changing their own positions.

And again, many of them actively opposed Trump on Afghanistan up until he left office.  The notion that Trump transformed the GOP's hawkish tendencies, particularly on Russia, is wholly a myth.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

Unrelated to the 'is US capable of not sucking' this is a great article about experiences in Afghanistan vs Ukraine from a US volunteer fighter there:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/american-volunteer-foreign-fighters-ukraine-russia-war/627604/

Still time to volunteer and ship out!

I wonder if that guy is one of these guys.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

And again, many of them actively opposed Trump on Afghanistan up until he left office.  The notion that Trump transformed the GOP's hawkish tendencies, particularly on Russia, is wholly a myth.

He transformed the voters, and the gop officials have almost no actual power to curb him on foreign decisions or military deployments. The voters don't listen to congress. They listen to Trump and fox News. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

He transformed the voters, and the gop officials have almost no actual power to curb him on foreign decisions or military deployments. The voters don't listen to congress. They listen to Trump and fox News.

If he thinks he's going to transform the voters on Russia, he's going to have a very hard time winning the primary.  Anyway, I've already agreed with you like a week ago that if Trump wins, yes, he's obviously likely relax any buildup against Russia.  My point, as always, is that only happens if Trump wins.

[ThinkerX]

need to make a distinction here.  GOP officials of the elected variety tend to be vehemently anti-Russian. GOP rank and file, especially of the Trump variety - I still see lots of denial or outright support for Russia in the comments sections of various vids and articles. Many seem to think that the Ukrainian invasion would not have happened had Trump been in office. Problem is, at least some of the GOP elected officials will have severe difficulty remaining in power without the support of the 'Trump' crew.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

GOP officials of the elected variety tend to be vehemently anti-Russian. GOP rank and file, especially of the Trump variety - I still see lots of denial or outright support for Russia in the comments sections of various vids and articles.

Republican voters are more likely than Democrats to support doing whatever it takes to help Ukraine - even if it risks direct war between US and Russia (22% to 14%).  Republicans are also more likely to disapprove of NATO's decision NOT to enforce a no-fly zone (38% to 30%).  It is an empirical fact that Republican voters are innately more hawkish, especially against Russia.

[Toth]

22 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

need to make a distinction here.  GOP officials of the elected variety tend to be vehemently anti-Russian. GOP rank and file, especially of the Trump variety - I still see lots of denial or outright support for Russia in the comments sections of various vids and articles. Many seem to think that the Ukrainian invasion would not have happened had Trump been in office. Problem is, at least some of the GOP elected officials will have severe difficulty remaining in power without the support of the 'Trump' crew.

The interesting part is that the "This would not have happened with a strong guy like Trump in office" argument does run counter against the view that these Republicans are supporting Putin. At least this part of the crowd wants an American strongman to do a dick measuring contest with the Russian strongman and delude themselves into thinking that Trump would be such a guy.

[Kalbear]

Its a fact right now, sure! What were Republican views about putin last month? (Hint - Republicans viewed putin more favorably than Biden). These things can change. One thing that has not changed at all, however, is what a fucking coward Trump is and how obsequious he has been toward putin. Combine that with his  dismissal of all alliances and like I said - anyone but Trump is doing heavy lifting. 

It might be you're right, but I don't think it's a good idea to assume this is going to be how it is going forward. Especially given that we haven't had people blaming the sanctions on higher prices and any economic issues that might arise.

 

[Gorn]

Rule #1 of General Chatter: all threads eventually become US Politics threads.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Gorn said:

Rule #1 of General Chatter: all threads eventually become US Politics threads.

Yeah.  We do have a US Politics thread…

[Kalbear]

Also, don't equate how people feel with how important it is to them. Voters might overwhelmingly support punishing Russia and helping nato and being a good ally - but that doesn't mean they're going to care if that is the policy or not, especially if they get something they care about more like being racist.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Republican voters are more likely than Democrats to support doing whatever it takes to help Ukraine - even if it risks direct war between US and Russia (22% to 14%).  Republicans are also more likely to disapprove of NATO's decision NOT to enforce a no-fly zone (38% to 30%).  It is an empirical fact that Republican voters are innately more hawkish, especially against Russia.

Going further, while Trump influences the Republican base, the base also influences Trump.  Trump wanted to tout how great "his" vaccines were, but when he got booed at rallies, he stopped mentioning them.  If Trump were foolish enough to mention how Putin is a tough guy and "we aren't angels either" at a rally these days, he would be booed.  And that is why he will not say those things at his rallies. 

Trump is going to face his pro-Putin attitude in the GOP primary.  I'm sure he'll lie and say he was so tough with Russia, Putin was trembling with fear, etc.  But he probably will need more than that, and I could easily imagine that he jumps fully onto the anti-Russia train.  It's not like he has any principles. 

[Madame deVenoge]

14 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Rule #1 of General Chatter: all threads eventually become US Politics threads.

I was going to say “except for the Dating Thread,” but since my last boyfriend ended up screaming at me about Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, and my feminazi ways, I suppose that goes into the category of “US Politics”.

Spoiler Alert: that was the second and last breakup. And note to self: anyone who has a Fox News coffee mug is going to be undateable, no matter how adorable his cats are.

[Maithanet]

Russian forces east of Kyiv have been pushed way back, possibly 50+km from the capital.  Russian forces west of Kyiv are getting presdure from both the east and west, with some reports that they are at risk of being cut off.

Overall the situation around Kyiv is looking better and better for Ukraine. 

[Werthead]

Some reports that the Russian government has set a deadline of 9 May (the anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany) for the end of the war.

If Russia can't get the treadmill going in the right direction before then, I'll wonder if that would be a push to escalate or a push to accept negotiations?

[Zorral]

Have any of you all read:

Mazower, Mark. (2008). Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe.

https://history.columbia.edu/person/mazower-mark/

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/books/review/Sheehan-t.html

I ask because how these current events happened, it really sounds like it has all been done before, and driven by the same impulses and beliefs, in everything from the need, the right, to own these lands for "Our People and the good of Our Nation", which we're so much superior to, and will do a much better job running that those inferior people living there now, to some bull shyte mystical religion and ethnicity, also superior to those animals like the Polish (Catholics), and by golly, by accomplishing all this, we shall own Europe.

The book also shows how the sheer evil brutality of the nazis, extermination and cruelty for the hell of it, wasn't actually planned from the beginning, but it evolved.  Non-critical worship of the Dear Leader played a big role in that development, because they made it possible.  The most important lesson is that when this extravagance of brutal love of destruction marries with all this, there is never an end to it.  Author mentions Paris thinking after it's fall, surely now they hit the bottom, can't get worse, but they always did.  This stuff feeds on itself.