Russia - General Discussion.

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
So what your trying to say in a nutshell, is that Russia is Evil and NATO is Holy? No, I don’t agree with you, it takes two to tango. What’s NATO doing at Russia’s door steps?
Defending those countries that are a part of NATO. NATO never invaded RU, nor will it. NATO does not present a threat to RU, only a defensive shield to prevent RU expansion.

Why is NATO building missile defence systems all around Russia?
To defend against RU attacks. Missile defense systems arent attacking RU.

Why does Ukraine have to join NATO at all cost?
If UKR wants to join NATO, who is RU to say they cannot.

You are missing the important context here. These countries that have joined NATO in the last 20 years fucking hate RU for all the bullshit the Soviet Union put them through. None of them trust RU, and for good reason. The bullshit RU has started has been so bad even Sweden and Finland join, which is something I thought I would never see.

I Am of African heritage and I can tell you NATO countries have done worst to us than anything u want to accuse Putin of.. they still doing it as we speak.. Why the double standards??
NATO countries != NATO. NATO is there to defend against RU.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
So tell me, the missile defence systems being built in Poland and Romania, are there to intercept Iranian missiles?? Don’t talk about Putin if your not ready to talk about western bullying? The west knew where to find and sanction Russian money, let them find and return African money in the same vein? You want to blame Putin when the west are masters of carving and breaking up countries.. there were massive celebrations in western capitals when Ghadafi died, now look at Libya.. u must be so happy
You're missing something very, very important, although you keep using the word: missile defence systems. Why do you object to them? And you're also displaying failure to understand how anti-missile missiles work. They can't usually intercept missiles in the middle of their flight. They have to intercept them on the way down. Look at a map. What part of their trajectory would missiles fired from Iran at SE & central Europe be in when they were approaching Romania? The answer is obvious: they'd be at the point where it's possible to intercept them.

BTW, ever heard of whataboutism? It's often a tacit admission of inability answer the points raised by your interlocutor. I see you now say absolutely nothing about Russia, & what I wrote about Putin's behaviour. I will accept that as an admission by you that you can't deny the truth of what I say. Thank you.
 

Atunga

Member
Defending those countries that are a part of NATO. NATO never invaded RU, nor will it. NATO does not present a threat to RU, only a defensive shield to prevent RU expansion.



To defend against RU attacks. Missile defense systems arent attacking RU.



If UKR wants to join NATO, who is RU to say they cannot.

You are missing the important context here. These countries that have joined NATO in the last 20 years fucking hate RU for all the bullshit the Soviet Union put them through. None of them trust RU, and for good reason. The bullshit RU has started has been so bad even Sweden and Finland join, which is something I thought I would never see.



NATO countries != NATO. NATO is there to defend against RU.
Oh yes, NATO wants to expand but does everything to hinder RU expansion, Only NATO countries are allowed to have National interests, Russia dare not protect its national interests. You have just admitted that Nato is designed to curtail RU and u think that this is not a problem for Russia?

If NATO has no intention of attacking Russia one day, why build missile defence system near their country to stop their missiles? What would u do if u were RU then u wake up one morning to the fact that their strategic missiles can hit you and you can’t hit them back??

That’s the problem, who is RU to say they cannot join NATO! Well, people are dying in the thousands, i hope this NATO membership is worth the sacrifice.. I don’t think Ukraine will will ever recover from this, talk less of being a NATO member.

So Nato is capitalising on this hate Eastern Europe has for Russia to weaken Russia? So who hates the Russians more? US, Western Europe or Eastern Europe? Because the whole is looking like there’s some serious old beef to settle
 

Atunga

Member
You're missing something very, very important, although you keep using the word: missile defence systems. Why do you object to them? And you're also displaying failure to understand how anti-missile missiles work. They can't usually intercept missiles in the middle of their flight. They have to intercept them on the way down. Look at a map. What part of their trajectory would missiles fired from Iran at SE & central Europe be in when the were approaching Romania? The answer is obvious: they'd be at the point where it's possible to intercept them.

BTW, ever heard of whataboutism? It's often a tacit admission of inability answer the points raised by your interlocutor. I see you now say absolutely nothing about Russia, & what I wrote about Putin's behaviour. I will accept that as an admission by you that you can't deny the truth of what I say. Thank you.
RU have genuine concerns that these defensive platforms can quickly turn into offensive platforms.

With what’s happening now, it’s very difficult to separate Putin from Russia in the way your trying to do it, most of Russia stand with Putin and want RU to win.. just look at the punishment RU is receiving, the whole country is targeted not just Putin
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
All Russia had to do to avoid coming into conflict with NATO was (1) not promote separatists & Russian nationalists within the borders of NATO members & (2) not try to conquer Ukraine. Why is that hard?

Russia has been stirring up trouble all along NATO's borders. Putin's financed & given other aid to (non-violent - at least so far) Russian separatist groups in Estonia & Latvia, supported (including direct military aid) breakaway organised crime havens in Moldova & Georgia, invaded two neighbours of NATO, seized & annexed to Russia territory of one of those neighbours, carried out blatant criminal activity within NATO countries such as murdering Russian exiles, threatened NATO, individual NATO countries, & friendly neutrals between NATO & Russia and shown that he's utterly untrustworthy, e.g. by breaking treaties Russia made with NATO members. And all of that was before the current wat in Ukraine, which he began with no provocation whatsoever.

Who's the fucking threat? The gangster state headed by Putin, or NATO? What has NATO done to Russia that was in any way comparable with any of that?

Calling NATO a threat to Russia is like calling the police a threat to Sicily. They're a threat only to the Mafia.
Some of your accusations are accurate. Some less so. Georgia descended into a civil war over the attempt by it's own government (Gamsakhurdia anyone?) to commit ethnic cleansing. This was born out of a late-Soviet political conflict over the autonomous status of certain regiosn of the Georgian SSR. Had the Georgian government handled the situation better, things would have hardly gone down that road. And given the refugee situation Russia was facing, and the Pankisi Gorge situation, it's hardly surprising Russia got involved. Nobody wants to have something like 90's Yugoslavia on its borders. Moldova faced an internal political crisis, in the wake of the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Neither of these things were the product of Putin's regime. He inherited these situations. There's room to argue about whether he handled them well or not, but I suggest that the situation with Adzharia proves Saakashvili's complete untrustworthiness, and pretty much closed the door on any possible peaceful reintegration of S. Ossetia or Abkhazia.

On the question of Crimea, this is a region that was administratively reassigned to Ukraine by Soviet authorities, and a region that tried to secede from Ukraine in the 90's, but was prevented from doing so. Ukraine had ~2 decades in which to figure out some path forward for both Crimea specifically and it's large Russian minority in general. Ukraine failed spectacularly in this regard. Amid all the cries "Ukraine is Europe", Ukraine certainly didn't behave like a modern European country (at least not the ones in EU and NATO) towards these segments of its own population. Add to that the devastating corruption, and economic failures of Ukraine as a nation-state, and the stage was set for some sort of crisis.

Last but not least, your accuse Russia of criminal acitivity. Does the US not carry out black ops, and killings of people it wants gone? This might come across as whataboutism, but it isn't. Russia didn't come up with this behavior, or indeed the rest of its current foreign policy, all by itself. Russia looked at the US, and repeatedly argued that US behavior should be bound by rules. US actions against Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, US "democracy promotion", etc. these were all lessons to Russian leadership and Russian elites about how politics are done in this 21st centure, and they took these examples to heart. Invade countries on the flimsiest of pretexts if it suits your political agenda? Clearly Saddam had WMDs and Ukraine had American biolabs. Supporting separatist groups when it suits you? The KLA went from terrorists to freedom fighters very quickly. Again, where do you think Russia learned this behavior?

The post-Cold War geopolitical model was "all animals are equal but some are more equal then others". Russia vehemetly rejected this model, stated so openly, and repeatedly pushed for the US to accept the same set of rules that most of Europe and the rest of the world live by. This of course did not, and could not happen. Russia then took the position that if the US can do this, so can Russia, full stop. This is where we are now.

None of this justifies the current invasion of Ukraine, nor the role Putin and Russia's elites have played in the deterioration of relations between Russia and the collective West. But understanding where this comes from, and why Russia chose to act this way is significant. Simply pretending there is inherent criminality to Puin&Co. is counterproductive, and both ignores and misrepresents significant portions of the context.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
just look at the punishment RU is receiving, the whole country is targeted not just Putin
That's the flaw with Western sanctions; ends up hurting ordinary people but not their rulers. Ordinary people suffer and die while their rulers carry on usual; we saw this in Iraq. We see this in Russia. Ordinary Russians; many of whom are not particularly enamored of Putin; pay the price. Some would say that the rulers are responsible but I would point out that those who placed the sanctions are responsible because they knew fully well whom the sanctions would hurt the most; to them it was politics. Ironically Western sanctions which are intended to also turn ordinary citizens against their rulers have the opposite affects at times.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
To defend against RU attacks. Missile defense systems arent attacking RU.
That's an interesting take on it. NATO has spent years claiming these systems are not meant to defend against Russian attacks. Were they liars? Or are you unaware of the discource and justificaiton surrounding the deployment of these systems?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
That's an interesting take on it. NATO has spent years claiming these systems are not meant to defend against Russian attacks. Were they liars? Or are you unaware of the discource and justificaiton surrounding the deployment of these systems?
These systems could, theoretically anyway, defend against a Russian ballistic missile attack. If it was a fairly small salvo of missiles. Like less than 25. Maybe.

Realistically, and something that Russian leadership should know (whether or not they believe their information is another story) the missile launch sites, including those aboard USN vessels operating in the Med, are intended to protect potential European targets from ballistic missiles which might be launched from parts of N. Africa and/or the Mideast by a variety of state and non-state actors.

After all, any ballistic missiles launched from Russian territory into/over Europe and over/at NATO member-states would pretty much be assumed to be nuclear. Also given the potential MIRV loadouts for Russian ballistic missiles, it might only require a couple of missiles to exceed that max possible number of inbounds which a launch site could intercept. A SS-18 Satan/R-36M ballistic missile can have up to 10 MIRV's and 40 aides/decoys, which even a 24-missile interceptor site would have issues with, since there would be upto 50 inbounds to detect, track and ID. A salvo of three R-36M ballistic missiles with their max MIRV payloads would automatically overwhelm an interceptor site, even if everything with the interceptors worked perfectly.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
These systems could, theoretically anyway, defend against a Russian ballistic missile attack. If it was a fairly small salvo of missiles. Like less than 25. Maybe.

Realistically, and something that Russian leadership should know (whether or not they believe their information is another story) the missile launch sites, including those aboard USN vessels operating in the Med, are intended to protect potential European targets from ballistic missiles which might be launched from parts of N. Africa and/or the Mideast by a variety of state and non-state actors.

After all, any ballistic missiles launched from Russian territory into/over Europe and over/at NATO member-states would pretty much be assumed to be nuclear. Also given the potential MIRV loadouts for Russian ballistic missiles, it might only require a couple of missiles to exceed that max possible number of inbounds which a launch site could intercept. A SS-18 Satan/R-36M ballistic missile can have up to 10 MIRV's and 40 aides/decoys, which even a 24-missile interceptor site would have issues with, since there would be upto 50 inbounds to detect, track and ID. A salvo of three R-36M ballistic missiles with their max MIRV payloads would automatically overwhelm an interceptor site, even if everything with the interceptors worked perfectly.
I'm well aware of the limitations. What I'm getting at is that the position presented above strikes me as disconnected from the reality not only of the missile sites but even the discussion about BMD between Russia and the West.

Personally I've always been of the opinion that Russia's true concern is the potentially of the technology and the security system surrounding it in the future, rather than it's current iteration. For example, a system Russia is a part of and has a sector of responsibility can't be turned against Russia, realistically ever. Hence Russia's suggestion to that extent. But a system that protects European NATO/EU in principle and one Russia isn't a part of, can some day develop into something that can threaten credible MAD.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I'm well aware of the limitations. What I'm getting at is that the position presented above strikes me as disconnected from the reality not only of the missile sites but even the discussion about BMD between Russia and the West.

Personally I've always been of the opinion that Russia's true concern is the potentially of the technology and the security system surrounding it in the future, rather than it's current iteration. For example, a system Russia is a part of and has a sector of responsibility can't be turned against Russia, realistically ever. Hence Russia's suggestion to that extent. But a system that protects European NATO/EU in principle and one Russia isn't a part of, can some day develop into something that can threaten credible MAD.
For technical reasons, I doubt it would be feasible to develop a missile interceptor system capable of credibly threatening MAD.

Again using the R-36M as an example, at max load of ~10 MIRV and 40 decoys/penetration aides, that leaves 50 inbounds for an interceptor system to detect, track, ID and successfully engage. That would require a minimum of 10 missile interceptors IF the following assumptions are made. First, that the sensor and tracking systems being used can actually detect which of the 50 inbounds are the actual MIRV's and not decoys (an assumption I consider extremely unreasonable). Secondly that the interceptors can achieve a 1:1 hit ratio on the inbound MIRV's, (another unreasonable assumption IMO). A 2:1 ratio of launched interceptors to inbounds IMO would be more reasonable and likely, though a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio might be more realistic. Even if a missile interceptor system were as effective to achieve 100% one-shot interception, and 100% accurate detection and target classification, there would still be the 'race' to see which side could reach overmatch first with the ballistic missile having significant advantages vs. the interceptor, since additional MIRV's could likely be fitted to a ballistic missile more easily than it would be for the defending party to build more interceptors than possible MIRV inbounds.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Personally I've always been of the opinion that Russia's true concern is the potentially of the technology and the security system surrounding it in the future, rather than it's current iteration.
Probably the same reason China objected to THAAD in South Korea.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Another analysts on the projection of the economics war (or some in market call it now "the other war") progress. Not much different then what market projection by the begining of this 'trade war'. Eurozone and Russia basically will share similar fates of contractions. However the level of contractions seems differed from early projections.

Russia seems going to have slightly better contractions then projected, while Eurozone move from other hand of projections. Something that definetely not in line with what Western leadership talk on how to 'punish' and bring down Putin capabilities to finance the war.

Whatever the talk, this projections resembles mosr other projections, Eurozone will have high energy prices for some time. However Eurozone energy prices potentialy also higher then the rest of world.

Personaly I believe the 'decoupling' results also means the relatively high energy prices for Eurozone will stay whatever the results on the war in the ground. Simply because Decoupling will make most Russian energy goes to other customers (mostly seems in Asia), while Eurozone will have to find other sources that relatively more expensives from what they used to get from Russia.

It's all part of new market adjustment realities. Something that western politicians can not control fully, no matter how hard they try to control the market. Western Politicians just have to pay the 'jinie' already looses when they begin this trade war path. Best hope they can do is to try their best to minimise their constituence expectations.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
The Russians will sell more to India, China, etc. by undercutting some of their current suppliers. This will leave those other suppliers seeking new outlets for their oil & gas. There's no extra demand overall. Indeed, overall demand has fallen. And Europe hasn't got big discounts from Russia in the past.

Wholesale gas prices in Europe are still very high, but last I heard they were falling.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
There's no extra demand overall. Indeed, overall demand has fallen. And Europe hasn't got big discounts from Russia in the past.
When economy contracted the demand fall. However this doesn't mean the rest of the world will also fall on the same path as Eurozone. China begin to reopen their COVID closure. Asia so far shown more resilience.

The adjustment will happen presumably in 24 as many in market current prediction. By that time, Potential Russian energy get more customers in Asia. While Eurozone have to go to other sources with new fields talk from Africa asside Middle East. Even then it is will be more expensive then Russian. Most will be shipped and not piped.

Thus Eurozone has to adjust with relative pricier energy in future no matter the Ukranian war results. That's part of decoupling, that's seems part of new market adjustment.

It will not be as high as now, but will mostly likely still higher then what they got from Russian.

Add:
The Asian market demand for Russia energy will not only be India and China. I know Indonesia now in serious talk on Russian energy, and so does some other SEA nation. Even rumours on Japan talk on Siberian and Shakalin Gas (although now still rumours around energy traders). That's what energy market adjustment that seems shown will happen. Asian energy demand in the end projected will continue bigger then Euro demand.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Europe and to a lesser extent NA all have populations pushing for alternative energy. Eliminating fossil fuels was going to result in higher energy costs anyway regardless of the Russian boycott. As cost of manufacturing increases in the West making goods less competitive you can bet there there will be a green tariff on imported goods sooner rather than later.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Europe and to a lesser extent NA all have populations pushing for alternative energy. Eliminating fossil fuels was going to result in higher energy costs anyway regardless of the Russian boycott.
Question is whether this war (Both War in the Ground and Economic War) has enough side tracks investment power from Green Energy toward getting more existing hydrocarbon energy.

Money trails talks. It is more powerfull then political talks. This is what even people in energy market still has not got firm projections yet. The politicians can talk this war will create faster green energy switch.

Market then say, where's the money for that fasten green energy investment come ? When money trails now shown more money to fund Ukraine War and paying increasing energy bills.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member

Posted it here rather than the Turkish thread because it concerns Russia. It's basically a piece about how from a geo strategic/political protective Turkey is benefiting from the mess Russia has got itself in. Interestingly Turkey's ties with Armenia has improved and there is mention of Armenia being used as a conduit by Russia to circumvent sanctions.

The return of Crimea to Ukraine, of which it is an inseparable part, is essentially a requirement of international law.” In itself, that striking comment from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, delivered via a video link at the Crimea Platform Summit last month, would not have surprised anyone who follows Turkish-Russian relations closely."

"Moscow has some economic leverage over Yerevan too: Bilateral trade has soared as Armenia has become a backdoor route for Russia to bypass Western sanctions. On Monday, fresh clashes broke out between Azerbaijan and Armenia"

"Ankara’s own sense of vulnerability, combined with a deep-seated distrust of Western allies has made it seek conciliation with its giant imperialist-minded neighbour, instead of a face-off. At the same time, though, Turkey has cultivated alliances with other Black Sea states fearful of Russian revanchism such as Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Romania and Moldova"
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Question is whether this war (Both War in the Ground and Economic War) has enough side tracks investment power from Green Energy toward getting more existing hydrocarbon energy.

Money trails talks. It is more powerfull then political talks. This is what even people in energy market still has not got firm projections yet. The politicians can talk this war will create faster green energy switch.

Market then say, where's the money for that fasten green energy investment come ? When money trails now shown more money to fund Ukraine War and paying increasing energy bills.
I agree the squeeze is on available funding but Europe doesn’t really have many energy options wrt natural gas. Was surprised to learn that solar provided 12% of Europe’s energy this summer (because of the hot dry summer). Coal and nuclear are the options, no idea which would be considered worse in Germany.
 

SolarWind

Active Member
I'm well aware of the limitations. What I'm getting at is that the position presented above strikes me as disconnected from the reality not only of the missile sites but even the discussion about BMD between Russia and the West.

Personally I've always been of the opinion that Russia's true concern is the potentially of the technology and the security system surrounding it in the future, rather than it's current iteration. For example, a system Russia is a part of and has a sector of responsibility can't be turned against Russia, realistically ever. Hence Russia's suggestion to that extent. But a system that protects European NATO/EU in principle and one Russia isn't a part of, can some day develop into something that can threaten credible MAD.
This has always been a morally weak and ethically fallacious argument because it insists on Russia's right to keep the ability to obliterate the world in a nuclear holocaust and sees the possibility of taking away that ability as a threat to Russian national security.

I also do not buy the Pope's argument that Russia was provoked to invade Ukraine. No amount of provocation would justify the evil and atrocities committed against Ukrainians. Evil by any other term is still evil.
 
Top