Russia - General Discussion.

ngatimozart said:
No it is going to pick up the 12 Russian UN diplomats that been persona non grata'd by the US because of allegations of them undertaking activities that were not consistent with their role as diplomats.
Click to expand...

In the past every Soviet diplomatic mission was a cover for an intelligence mission. There was no separation between intelligence work and diplomacy. They were two sides of the same coin. I wouldn't be surprised if this is still the case and many people listed as diplomats are actually intelligence officers.
 
Feanor said:
In the past every Soviet diplomatic mission was a cover for an intelligence mission. There was no separation between intelligence work and diplomacy. They were two sides of the same coin. I wouldn't be surprised if this is still the case and many people listed as diplomats are actually intelligence officers.
Click to expand...
Oh yep definitely and I suspect one of two things:
1. Somebody was slack in their tradecraft and were pinged by the FBI enabling them to roll up the contacts, plus the team in the Embassy. Or,
2. It's a purely political action by the US government and they "volunteered" 12 Russian diplomats to be returned home forthwith in order to express their displeasure.
 
Ananda said:
Trading strategy is just an other way saying that they will trade if it is making better margin. The oil and gas price is shoot up due to embargo. That's why I said, how long the West can hold them selves from not getting Russia resources. In the end, margin talks.
Click to expand...

LONDON, March 5 (Reuters) - Oil major Royal Dutch Shell (SHEL.L) will put profits from any Russian oil it purchases into a fund that will go towards humanitarian aid to Ukraine, the company said on Saturday.

Shell had on Friday bought a cargo of Russian crude oil at a record low discount, the first such trade since Russia invaded Ukraine last week.
Click to expand...
Shell to put profits from Russian oil trade into Ukraine aid fund | Reuters

Not sure if they will have much profit margin left if they put the profits from the purchase into a humanitarian fund for Ukraine...
 

Not yet two weeks, the grumbling in West Public on the effect of Western sanctions to Russia, begin to be seen. Whether this will developed on something larger, remain to be seen. However public opinion is fleeting thing, as in the end Public wants to see how all of this affecting their pockets.

www.wsj.com

Germany Says It Won't Stop Buying Russian Energy Despite Moscow’s War in Ukraine

Germany will continue to buy natural gas, oil and coal from Russia despite Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, the government in Berlin said Monday. Germany and Europe are too dependent on Russian energy imports for power, heating and industrial production to be able to cut trade links wit
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

Germany already said they will continue buying Russian Gas.

Vivendi said:
Not sure if they will have much profit margin left if they put the profits from the purchase into a humanitarian fund for Ukraine...
Click to expand...

This is PR effort by Shell. However one thing for us in the market to see, Shell still opening back door for potential supply from Russia.

Both of the article on Shell and Germany shown there will still be potential limit to get Western unified front with Russia. This is when Biden administrations try to galvanise Western embargoes to Russian Oil and Gas.

www.euronews.com

Orban lets NATO troops into Hungary but bans weapons passage to Kyiv

Hungary's foreign minister Péter Szijjártó had previously told Euronews that Budapest would not accept additional NATO troops on its soil.
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com

Well Orban will always be wild card on Nato. However this shown complex situation in Euro zone on what to do with Russia. Especially if things get protrected.

Thomas Friedman in New York Times put article that basically ask Xi Jinping to push Putin. However China also already stated any settlement on this conflict will also have to adress Russia security issue.

Personally I do see it is unreasonable for West to expect China pushing Russia on Settlement if West also not pushing Ukraine for setlement on Russian security concern. Compromise means both side taking step backs. Yes Russia will be hardest hit by this economic wars with West, but so does West.
 
Ananda said:
Well Orban will always be wild card on Nato. However this shown complex situation in Euro zone on what to do with Russia. Especially if things get protrected.

Thomas Friedman in New York Times put article that basically ask Xi Jinping to push Putin. However China also already stated any settlement on this conflict will also have to adress Russia security issue.

Personally I do see it is unreasonable for West to expect China pushing Russia on Settlement if West also not pushing Ukraine for setlement on Russian security concern. Compromise means both side taking step backs. Yes Russia will be hardest hit by this economic wars with West, but so does West.
Click to expand...
What security issues? First you say Oban is a "wild card on NATO". There are also other "wild cards." Turkey. Or Germany.

Then you talk about "Russia security issue". These two are connected. You do know that NATO is an organization based on consensus? That NATO cannot attack Russia unless Orban, Erdogan, and Scholz say so? In addition to the governments of the Baltics, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, etc. etc. Especially given the Russian nuclear weapons, NATO is never ever going to launch any kind of aggressive action against Russia.

Or do you believe that Ukraine is a threat to Russia? Do you believe the lie from Russia that Ukraine are secretly building nuclear weapons (which, by the way is inconsistent with Ukraine becoming NATO member -- oops, Putin did not consider that did he).

The only country in Europe that is increasing the threat level in Europe, is Russia. European NATO countries had been reducing their defense spending until 2008 (Georgia) and 2014 (Ukraine). Now they increase defense spending again, and again it is due to Russian aggression, not the other way around.

The US does not want any conflict with Russia, they want to focus on China. It's Russia and Putin that is forcing the hands of the US and Europe.

Given what we know, NATO should not consider "Russian concerns". Why? NATO countries should consider the Russian armed forces and in particular the Russian nuclear weapons. Apart from that, Russia (or Putin at least) has declared war, he has also declared his aim: to rebuild the Russian empire. I see no reason why Europe should accept that just for some flimsy excuse of "security concern" from Russia.
 
Vivendi said:
do you believe that Ukraine is a threat to Russia? Do you believe the lie from Russia that Ukraine are secretly building nuclear weapons (which, by the way is inconsistent with Ukraine becoming NATO member -- oops, Putin did not consider that did he).
Click to expand...

Why do you mean that I believe ? Better watch out before accusing someone. Doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what Russian Believe.

You want to make compromise then it's what to do. You want to continue the war drag on, then don't make compromise.

You say it's Russian lie, well the Russian don't think that. You are from West, off course you will say NATO is like saint, but not for the Russian.

If you want to fight a war with Russia go ahead, I just watch you guys destroying each other.

Let's see how the majority of West going to do After this. Continue to escalation or compromise.
 
Ananda said:
If you want to fight a war with Russia go ahead, I just watch you guys destroying each other.
Click to expand...

The problem is a nuke exchange will not only devastate Europe [there will be no safe places and it won't matter who was right or wrong] but would also be felt round the world. All it takes is a slight miscalculation.

WW1 and WW2 essentially started of as ''European or Western civil wars''. Let's hope we don't see another major war originating in Europe.
 
Last edited:
STURM said:
problem is a nuke exchange will not only devastate Europe [there will be no safe places and it won't matter who was right or wrong] but would also be felt round the world. All it takes is a slight miscalculation.
Click to expand...

Well that's happen if all parties do not want to compromise. The War going to be protracted, Ukrainian and Russian blood will only get more to spilled, but mostly it will be more Ukrainian blood.

By that time more miscalculation will happen. However don't expect it will be stop, unless compromise want to be achieve.
 
Ananda said:
. However don't expect it will be stop, unless compromise want to be achieve.
Click to expand...

Well, the common narrative held by some is that it's only Russia which has to compromise and not the West because the West hasn't done anything wrong. I've long been harping on the need for compromises to be made by both sides but this doesn't fit in the narrative held by some.
 
I come from Financial market, which even from Western Market practisioners has no illusion this will hurt both West and Russia. Yes Russia will be hurt more, but so does West.

The problem is some Politicians even portion of the public in the West think they can sustain that. However the market people even in the West are not so sure. The problem is, this happen after 2 years of Covid. If it is happening in more normal time, perhaps the West (especially Euro Zone) can have more resiliance to hold it.

Public opinion is again fleeting thing. Russian Putin will not care much of Russian public opinion as much as Euro Zone politicians. So compromise need to be build soon, or everything will be ruled by emotions. That's where miscalculation happen.
 
STURM said:
Well, the common narrative held by some is that it's only Russia which has to compromise and not the West because the West hasn't done anything wrong. I've long been harping on the need for compromises to be made by both sides but this doesn't fit in the narrative held by some.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but realistically, what can western countries give in this case? Tell Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, etc. to disarm? Allow Russia to turn Ukraine into a puppet state led by a Russian-appointed dictator?

The problem here is that Russia is making demands that are so extreme that they're not possible to even start negotiating about, & by starting a war, Russia has proved that its demands are utterly unacceptable. You can't agree to leave your doors unlocked because the man who's smashing them down demands it. You need stronger doors.
 
Ananda said:
I come from Financial market, which even from Western Market practisioners has no illusion this will hurt both West and Russia. Yes Russia will be hurt more, but so does West.

The problem is some Politicians even portion of the public in the West think they can sustain that. However the market people even in the West are not so sure. The problem is, this happen after 2 years of Covid. If it is happening in more normal time, perhaps the West (especially Euro Zone) can have more resiliance to hold it.

Public opinion is again fleeting thing. Russian Putin will not care much of Russian public opinion as much as Euro Zone politicians. So compromise need to be build soon, or everything will be ruled by emotions. That's where miscalculation happen.
Click to expand...

The soaring energy prices really hurts

www.bbc.com

Cost of living: Warning UK faces biggest income squeeze in nearly 50 years

The war in Ukraine will lead to an even tighter squeeze on living standards this spring, a think tank says.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

I don't think the West can bear with this high oil price for much longer. If the price remains above $125/barrel for too long，it will cause economic recession.

The US Fed is caught between a rock and a hard place. If they don't raise interest rate enough，the current high inflation will be out of control（high oil price is a major factor） . If they raise interest rate too much，the asset price and financial market will be crashed，thus causing recession.
 
Last edited:
I guess the only positive about $125-150 per barrel oil is a huge incentive to accelerate the transition off fossil fuels. Probably minimal chance of most nations meeting GHG emissions with oil under $100 a barrel.
 
The West (at least USA) thought about reducing usage of Russian oil and gas long before. I think that the political environment now is nearly perfect to do so. They have time to deal with it before any protests start. And while the war is going on it is easy to handle these protests.
 
denix56 said:
The West (at least USA) thought about reducing usage of Russian oil and gas long before. I think that the political environment now is nearly perfect to do so. They have time to deal with it before any protests start. And while the war is going on it is easy to handle these protests.
Click to expand...
America isn’t really ready for $5-7 per gallon gas considering the number of big thirsty V-8 SUVs and pickups. Really have to wonder about the US pleasure boat industry. Three or four gas guzzling 400 hp outboards on a 40 foot boat instead of much more fuel efficient diesel stern drives. Could be significant political blowback. Cheap gas or standing against the BS in Ukraine, time will tell I guess.
 
seaspear said:
A consideration also is shale oil production that is showing signs of increased production,this article suggests due to the war
www.reuters.com

U.S. shale oil forecasts keep rising as smaller producers lead the way

Publicly traded U.S. shale firms are not budging on production restraint vows as oil markets surge amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, leaving smaller producers to lead output gains during the highest prices in seven years.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...
You can bet some of the cancelled oil sands projects in Alberta will get rebooted.
 
swerve said:
Yeah, but realistically, what can western countries give in this case? Tell Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, etc. to disarm? Allow Russia to turn Ukraine into a puppet state led by a Russian-appointed dictator?

The problem here is that Russia is making demands that are so extreme that they're not possible to even start negotiating about, & by starting a war, Russia has proved that its demands are utterly unacceptable. You can't agree to leave your doors unlocked because the man who's smashing them down demands it. You need stronger doors.
Click to expand...

I think that a return to the CFE treaty with the new realities (Eastern Europe is in NATO) resuming Open Skies with Russia being allowed to fly over the US and not just Europe, requiring Ukraine to implement a Minsk 3.0 as written on the threat of complete witholding of westen aid, a guaranteed neutral status for Ukraine and Georgia, international observers as a condition of any autonomous elections in the LDNR, and a new IRBM ban treaty would work. It wouldn't require disarming the Baltics or Poland, and could come with a clause that automatically triggers consequences if Russia intervenes in Ukraine militarily. The biggest stumbling blocks would be Crimea and the LDNR. I think there the best way forward would be to even federalize Ukraine completely, but no autonomous People's Militias, and two state languages for the country, and a recognition of Russian Crimea. It would be the selling point to have Russia essentially pull the plug on the rebels. With a fully federalized and neutral Ukraine, this could be sold. This would be a bitter pill for Ukraine's ruling elites, but given the scope and scale of the issues at hand, they're the last people I'm worried about.

EDIT: I think the west needs to come up with a diplomatic solution to this other then "Russia you better stop". That one obviously doesn't work. Something needs to be given, more then assurances. And a new framework needs to be created. Russia has put their ideas/desires on the table, and they don't look good. There needs to be a counter-proposal that isn't simply "we can talk about weapons control, but you can bugger off on the rest".
 
Feanor said:
I think that a return to the CFE treaty with the new realities (Eastern Europe is in NATO) resuming Open Skies with Russia being allowed to fly over the US and not just Europe, requiring Ukraine to implement a Minsk 3.0 as written on the threat of complete witholding of westen aid, a guaranteed neutral status for Ukraine and Georgia, international observers as a condition of any autonomous elections in the LDNR, and a new IRBM ban treaty would work. It wouldn't require disarming the Baltics or Poland, and could come with a clause that automatically triggers consequences if Russia intervenes in Ukraine militarily. The biggest stumbling blocks would be Crimea and the LDNR. I think there the best way forward would be to even federalize Ukraine completely, but no autonomous People's Militias, and two state languages for the country, and a recognition of Russian Crimea. It would be the selling point to have Russia essentially pull the plug on the rebels. With a fully federalized and neutral Ukraine, this could be sold. This would be a bitter pill for Ukraine's ruling elites, but given the scope and scale of the issues at hand, they're the last people I'm worried about.

EDIT: I think the west needs to come up with a diplomatic solution to this other then "Russia you better stop". That one obviously doesn't work. Something needs to be given, more then assurances. And a new framework needs to be created. Russia has put their ideas/desires on the table, and they don't look good. There needs to be a counter-proposal that isn't simply "we can talk about weapons control, but you can bugger off on the rest".
Click to expand...
How does one do diplomacy with Russia after Mr Putin has been so duplicitous and deceitful? Trust is the currency of diplomacy. Mr Putin destroyed that totally soon as he invaded. His action echoes those of Hitler and that is remembered in the West.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top