Russia - General Discussion.

[Rob c]

One would think Putin would only press the button if Russia is attacked -- and that could well include a conventional attack on Russia by the US or NATO.

This is what the article was suggesting.The point that needs to be kept in mind is that it appears from his (Putins) comments regarding interference by an outside power in this conflict that he may have lowered the threshold that he would use nuclear weapons. He gives the impression that his rules allow for, him alone to be able to invade his next door neighbours and no one else is allowed to stop him and his tone is that he may use nuclear weapons. In other words he wants to make up his own rules, which he expects every one else to follow. With veiled threats of an overreaction (possibly nuclear) if his rules are not complied with.
My personal opinion is that he seems to be becoming more unstable in the last decade. As a person writing in my local paper suggested that maybe we should be calling him Adolf Putin.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

This is what the article was suggesting.The point that needs to be kept in mind is that it appears from his (Putins) comments regarding interference by an outside power in this conflict that he may have lowered the threshold that he would use nuclear weapons. He gives the impression that his rules allow for, him alone to be able to invade his next door neighbours and no one else is allowed to stop him and his tone is that he may use nuclear weapons. In other words he wants to make up his own rules, which he expects every one else to follow. With veiled threats of an overreaction (possibly nuclear) if his rules are not complied with.
My personal opinion is that he seems to be becoming more unstable in the last decade. As a person writing in my local paper suggested that maybe we should be calling him Adolf Putin.

That is a good assessment. The west needs to face the reality that Russia itself and its former and current ambitions are not the only threat, but the instability brought by decades of dictatorship as well.
That means potentially massive investments in providing indirect internet access to Russians, and content in Russian to propagandize the cause.

 

[Feanor]

That is a good assessment. The west needs to face the reality that Russia itself and its former and current ambitions are not the only threat, but the instability brought by decades of dictatorship as well.
That means potentially massive investments in providing indirect internet access to Russians, and content in Russian to propagandize the cause.

There's a generational issue at play. The younger generations live on the internet, but the older ones watch TV. Consequently they're far likelier to swallow the propaganda. There's also a connection between the level of development (economic and social) in a given part of Russia and their susceptibility to government propaganda. It's the age-old story, where you have the nascent middle class, relatively educated and less interested in bread and circuses, there you have people questioning the government, and looking for alternatives. Where you don't, there you have the pro-Putin crowd. In a way, the more economic success Putin had, the more unstable his rule became as that very economic success raised up the social forces that could bring him down.

 

[Ananda]

I put market analytics from Moody's on possible effect to Global Economy due to Ukraine Invasion and wide spread Western sanctions to Russia that follow.

Moody's put two scenario's:
1. Fast conflict with truce and Ukraine basically carved (this is scenario that market analysts put mostly to happen)
2. Lengthy conflict with Russia put new goverment in Kyiv and follow by long insurgencies.

Whatever scenario's taken, the economic downturn result for Russia, Ukraine and Euro zone will be hardest felt. The rest of the world including US will also felt, but they'll recover relatively faster.

EU talk more on how their sactions will aim to hurt Russia economic engine. However it will hurt them also, and EU zone will be at risk more than the rest of the world.

Something that Politicians in the west don't want to talk, but market already predict (as I also mention before). Russia sit in on very large natural resources. The west want to block Russian export, however many other part of the world probably will not doing (China especially, but I expect India also, and so does many non western smaller market). Since there are Russian natural resources that Global economy need.

Euro zone will pay the price more, since they have to sources Russian energy export from other sources with much higher prices. That's why I said before, right now public sentiment in West want to pay the prices by cutting off Russia.

However the question will be for how long can everybody hold ? Russia will still find market for their natural resources, even with Western sanctions. No doubt about that. They will be hurt, but so does Euro zone too.

The conclusion on what market predicted. Don't get any illusion that it will only hurt Russia. In longer run, it will hurt everybody but mostly Euro Zone at risk.

 

[John Fedup]

This article is Fiona Hill’s take on Putin. If it is mostly correct then the world is entering a very troubling period as if climate change wasn’t enough already.

‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes

Putin is trying to take down the entire world order, the veteran Russia watcher said in an interview. But there are ways even ordinary Americans can fight back.

www.politico.com

 

[ngatimozart]

This article is Fiona Hill’s take on Putin. If it is mostly correct then the world is entering a very troubling period as if climate change wasn’t enough already.

I think that she's pretty much on the mark. She's right when she says that many of todays problems in Europe and the Middle East are a result of WW1 are a continuation of that war, in some aspects, except with differing players in differing roles. A very good and interesting read.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think that she's pretty much on the mark. She's right when she says that many of todays problems in Europe and the Middle East are a result of WW1 are a continuation of that war, in some aspects, except with differing players in differing roles. A very good and interesting read.

Honestly I have started to suspect that some of the current troubles and conflict could even be the results of policies and actions initiated as far back as Catherine II or even Peter I.

 

[ngatimozart]

Honestly I have started to suspect that some of the current troubles and conflict could even be the results of policies and actions initiated as far back as Catherine II or even Peter I.

Possibly but in the larger scheme of things I think that WW1 would be the starting point.

 

[Todjaeger]

Possibly but in the larger scheme of things I think that WW1 would be the starting point.

Perhaps, though the more I go digging through the history as well as reading some of the statements and claims being made a recurring thought that Putin might view himself as a later-day reincarnation of Peter I.

When one also considers how those two Russian leaders first founded, then expanded the Russian Empire the notion becomes a little harder to dismiss out of hand. Interesting one observer of Russia and Putin, I forget which one, raised the suggestion that Putin had been spending time during isolation due to the pandemic looking at archives and old maps of the Russian Empire.

 

[ngatimozart]

Perhaps, though the more I go digging through the history as well as reading some of the statements and claims being made a recurring thought that Putin might view himself as a later-day reincarnation of Peter I.

When one also considers how those two Russian leaders first founded, then expanded the Russian Empire the notion becomes a little harder to dismiss out of hand. Interesting one observer of Russia and Putin, I forget which one, raised the suggestion that Putin had been spending time during isolation due to the pandemic looking at archives and old maps of the Russian Empire.

Hmmm Putin thinking of himself as the reincarnation of Peter the Great. Why doesn't that surprise me. After all Putin is from St Petersburg, the city which Peter the Great founded and built. He would've grown up living with that history despite what the CPSU said. I have never been there but the museums and palaces are beautiful. you couldn't live there and not be inspired by the beauty and grandeur. However I certainly don't see Putin as Peter the Great; maybe Ivan the Terrible would be a more apt description or Nicholas II the last Tsar.

 

[At lakes]

However I certainly don't see Putin as Peter the Great; maybe Ivan the Terrible would be a more apt description or Nicholas II the last Tsar.

how about Vlad the impailer

 

[ngatimozart]

how about Vlad the impailer

He was from Transylvania in modern day Romania and some believe the inspiration for the Dracula mythology.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hmmm Putin thinking of himself as the reincarnation of Peter the Great. Why doesn't that surprise me. After all Putin is from St Petersburg, the city which Peter the Great founded and built. He would've grown up living with that history despite what the CPSU said. I have never been there but the museums and palaces are beautiful. you couldn't live there and not be inspired by the beauty and grandeur. However I certainly don't see Putin as Peter the Great; maybe Ivan the Terrible would be a more apt description or Nicholas II the last Tsar.

In some respects he reminds me more of Nicholas I, particularly the reaction of the Russian Emperor to the failed attempt to impose a constitutional monarchy following the exposure some officers had to outside ideas and thinking following their involvement in the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Feanor]

Honestly I have started to suspect that some of the current troubles and conflict could even be the results of policies and actions initiated as far back as Catherine II or even Peter I.

It comes down to the fact that neither Ukraine nor Russia ever cleanly formed as nations. This is why you see pre-capitalist pattern of linguistic and ethnic intermingling where there isn't a clear line you can draw to demarcate where one nation ends and the other begins, making for neat nation-state borders. People in areas around south-western Russia speak a dialect that includes many words unheard of in the rest of Russia. People in eastern Ukraine often speak Surzhik, a language that's a mix of Russian and Ukrainian. It creates a gray area and this is why I repeatedly say that the main way to determine whether someone is Russian or Ukrainian is whether they claim to be Russian or Ukrainian. I'm not Sure Peter I or Catherine II are necessarily responsible here, it's not like they could direct nation-forming processes, especially since they ruled deeply feudal empires. I suppose Peter I could have avoided serfdom in the ugly form that it took, but the consequences of a decision fork of such magnitude require much greater study and discussion.

In some respects he reminds me more of Nicholas I, particularly the reaction of the Russian Emperor to the failed attempt to impose a constitutional monarchy following the exposure some officers had to outside ideas and thinking following their involvement in the Napoleonic Wars.

Nicholas I had to deal with the reality of a century of palace coups and intrigue in which emperors have been killed, including his own grandfather. This strongly influenced him and led him to create the Third Department (predecessor to the Okhranka). I'll have to think about this analogy some before passing judgement. On first glance it doesn't fit, but it's there un-obvious elements to it.

 

[ngatimozart]

A Zbigniew Brzezinski essay from 1992 republished in Foreign Affairs that discusses the approach the US and the west should take with Russia after the USSR and CPSU rule collapse and the Cold War ended. What is excerpted below is the what I believe to be the crux of the matter and the highlighted part is my edit.

"What should now be the West’s central strategic objective toward its former Cold War rival?​

​

The point of departure for a meaningful answer is to recognize that, from a historical point of view, the collapse of the Soviet Union, which endured for some seventy years, is more than overshadowed by the disintegration of the great Russian empire, which lasted for more than three hundred years. This is an event of truly historic magnitude, pregnant with geopolitical uncertainties. It will be many years before the dust finally settles, but it is already clear that the postcommunist transition in the former empire will be more difficult and much more prolonged than the democratic reconstruction of either Germany or Japan after 1945.​

​

The West must support that transition with the same commitment and magnanimity with which America acted after the victory in 1945. That commitment, however, must be guided by a longer-range geopolitical vision that goes beyond the West’s currently one-sided concentration on facilitating Russia’s socioeconomic recovery. While that recovery is desirable, its attainment should be seen as part of a broader effort designed to accomplish two interrelated objectives: the emergence of a truly post-imperial Russia that can assume its proper place in the concert of the world’s leading democratic nations; and the stable consolidation of the newly independent non-Russian states, some of which are only in the early stages of their own nation building, in order to create an enduring geopolitical context that by itself reinforces Russia’s transformation into a post-imperial state. Each of the foregoing is dependent on the other, and hence both must be deliberately sought.​

​

Any Western ambiguity on this matter could prove historically shortsighted. Just as it would have been a historic mistake to settle for less than the liberation of east-central Europe from Moscow’s domination, so now too a recovery program for the Russian economy that does not at the same time seek to transform Russia into a post-imperial state could prove to be ephemeral. Accordingly any Russian efforts to isolate and eventually again to subordinate Ukraine through the maintenance of a Moscow-controlled outpost in Crimea, for example, or to delay the evacuation of Russian troops from the Baltic republics should be unambiguously viewed as obstacles to effective financial and economic assistance.​

​

However it is also essential to provide the Russians with a meaningful alternative to their longstanding imperial status, and that has to be the offer of partnership with the West. The West is correct in stressing that it sees Russia’s eventual destiny as a major player in the European concert of nations and as one of America’s partners in dealing with the world’s wider problems. But to become such a player the transformation of Russia requires—as earlier in the cases of Germany and Japan—the shedding of its imperial aspirations."​

Source: The Cold War and Its Aftermath | Foreign Affairs​

​

Of course the US and the West didn't follow the guidance above and 30 years later we have a Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Unfortunately to many politicians have a short term view and attention span with opportunities like this being missed.

 

[JGCAC]

A lot has been written about how Putin has destroyed all internal opposition to him. But I can't help wondering if an alliance of sorts between the oligarchs, military and people might throw him out eventually. The oligarchs lose too much money, the army becomes sick of the war and the people fed up with falling living standards. Might finally create enough critical mass to successfully depose him. Thoughts?

@ngatimozart that would require Russia rethink its self concept as an independent center of power in a multipolar world. I'm not saying Brzezinski is wrong, but I also think he asks too much of Russian leadership. Changing one's mind, especially on such issues, is the most difficult thing to do.

Additionally, I'm not sure I see a place for Russia in the West. Russia's former competitive advantages have declined, whether it's STEM, R&D, heavy industry, etc. There would be relatively little demand in the West for what Russia used to be good because the market is already divvied up, so to speak. Plus Russia did it's best to destroy the good parts of its Soviet inheritance.

That being said, I do see value in the argument that a peaceful and prosperous Europe requires a peaceful and prosperous Russia. I believe this was the exact argument made with respect to rebuilding Germany in the late 40s. Though I think both Russia and the West haven't completely grasped this.

 

[Vivendi]

A Zbigniew Brzezinski essay from 1992 republished in Foreign Affairs that discusses the approach the US and the west should take with Russia after the USSR and CPSU rule collapse and the Cold War ended. What is excerpted below is the what I believe to be the crux of the matter and the highlighted part is my edit.

"What should now be the West’s central strategic objective toward its former Cold War rival?​

​

The point of departure for a meaningful answer is to recognize that, from a historical point of view, the collapse of the Soviet Union, which endured for some seventy years, is more than overshadowed by the disintegration of the great Russian empire, which lasted for more than three hundred years. This is an event of truly historic magnitude, pregnant with geopolitical uncertainties. It will be many years before the dust finally settles, but it is already clear that the postcommunist transition in the former empire will be more difficult and much more prolonged than the democratic reconstruction of either Germany or Japan after 1945.​

​

The West must support that transition with the same commitment and magnanimity with which America acted after the victory in 1945. That commitment, however, must be guided by a longer-range geopolitical vision that goes beyond the West’s currently one-sided concentration on facilitating Russia’s socioeconomic recovery. While that recovery is desirable, its attainment should be seen as part of a broader effort designed to accomplish two interrelated objectives: the emergence of a truly post-imperial Russia that can assume its proper place in the concert of the world’s leading democratic nations; and the stable consolidation of the newly independent non-Russian states, some of which are only in the early stages of their own nation building, in order to create an enduring geopolitical context that by itself reinforces Russia’s transformation into a post-imperial state. Each of the foregoing is dependent on the other, and hence both must be deliberately sought.​

​

Any Western ambiguity on this matter could prove historically shortsighted. Just as it would have been a historic mistake to settle for less than the liberation of east-central Europe from Moscow’s domination, so now too a recovery program for the Russian economy that does not at the same time seek to transform Russia into a post-imperial state could prove to be ephemeral. Accordingly any Russian efforts to isolate and eventually again to subordinate Ukraine through the maintenance of a Moscow-controlled outpost in Crimea, for example, or to delay the evacuation of Russian troops from the Baltic republics should be unambiguously viewed as obstacles to effective financial and economic assistance.​

​

However it is also essential to provide the Russians with a meaningful alternative to their longstanding imperial status, and that has to be the offer of partnership with the West. The West is correct in stressing that it sees Russia’s eventual destiny as a major player in the European concert of nations and as one of America’s partners in dealing with the world’s wider problems. But to become such a player the transformation of Russia requires—as earlier in the cases of Germany and Japan—the shedding of its imperial aspirations."​

Source: The Cold War and Its Aftermath | Foreign Affairs​

​

Of course the US and the West didn't follow the guidance above and 30 years later we have a Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Unfortunately to many politicians have a short term view and attention span with opportunities like this being missed.

There are many aspects to all of this. Africa has suffered greatly. Kenya offer the following perspective:

Today, across the border of every single African country, live our countrymen with whom we share deep historical, cultural, and linguistic bonds. At independence, had we chosen to pursue states on the basis of ethnic, racial, or religious homogeneity, we would still be waging bloody wars these many decades later.

Instead, we agreed that we would settle for the borders that we inherited, but we would still pursue continental political, economic, and legal integration. Rather than form nations that looked ever backwards into history with a dangerous nostalgia, we chose to look forward to a greatness none of our many nations and peoples had ever known. We chose to follow the rules of the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations charter, not because our borders satisfied us, but because we wanted something greater, forged in peace.

We believe that all states formed from empires that have collapsed or retreated have many peoples in them yearning for integration with peoples in neighboring states. This is normal and understandable. After all, who does not want to be joined to their brethren and to make common purpose with them? However, Kenya rejects such a yearning from being pursued by force. We must complete our recovery from the embers of dead empires in a way that does not plunge us back into new forms of domination and oppression.

We rejected irredentism and expansionism on any basis, including racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural factors. We -- We reject it again today. Kenya registers its strong concern and opposition to the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. We further strongly condemn the trend in the last few decades of powerful states, including members of this Security Council, breaching international law with little regard.

Martin Kimani - UN Security Council Speech on the Situation in Ukraine (transcript-video) (americanrhetoric.com)

 

[John Fedup]

This article suggests some possible options that Putin may select. Based on recent military activity, it seems ramping up the violence is already underway. If this fails, the other options become more likely and if he feels vulnerable perhaps the more extreme options. The private thoughts of the inner circle, very interesting to know.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/03/02/ukraine_what_are_putins_options_now_819558.html

 

[Ananda]

Bitcoin sanctions could be next, but most Russians won't care

Washington takes aim at Russia's access to digital cash as the U.S. and its allies levy heavy punitive measures against Moscow.

www.cnbc.com

This assesment are more balance on what economic sanction can do to Russia. It's more balance then what mainstream non market oriented media in West put. Market people tend to be more realistic to see the situation.

In short targeting bit coin will not effect much, also targeting online digital currency will be much harder to handle. However in last part on the article, even Western official acknowlede if Russia and China build their own financial system, it will be close to nothing West can do.

Unless West want to sanctions those whose trading with Russia outside Western System. That will increase the level of trade war, and destroy current global trade. Even on current economic sanctions with Russia can potentially hit back West hard (especially Euro zone).

All of this will only creating alternatives system on financial transaction outside Western system. There are countries that trading with West and Non West financial market, which going to see that acceptable. They are going to used SWIFT for dealing with West, and whatever come out from China-Russia on dealing with other market.

Globalisation then in true meaning will be divided at least in to two.

Related to Bit Coin:

World's largest cryptocurrency exchange refuses to block Russian users

The world's largest cryptocurrency exchange has said it won't block all Russian accounts despite the request from Ukraine.

www.tweaktown.com

Crytocurrency market begin to say No toward Ukraine or West demand to isolate Russia. Those Internet Geek build cryptocurrency exchange market to avoid being regulated by Politicians.

That's reality of market. Market wants minimum intervention for regulators, let alone politically driven regulations. That's what even Western market practitioner already warn Western politicians, especially on SWIFT.

Abuse the Market with Political driven regulations, Market will find alternatives.

 

[danonz]

Is any one able to shed some light on the increased energy prices that are going to effect Europe, I see reports that gas has reached new highs even though the flow of gas has remained roughly the same Reuters.

How much will it cost the average family in Europe are we talking an extra 100 Euros a month ? and does any one know what he expected prices will be if the flow of gas stops ?