Posts by bluemason3

Kyle Nelson2 said:Fun fact, after the USSR collapsed, there was never actually any official ruling stating that Russia automatically took over its seat on the Security Council. It really comes down to one big question—is Russia just the legal successor to the USSR, or did the whole thing just break apart?

I mean, if the USSR truly dissolved, then maybe the West could just make kicking Russia out of the Security Council one of their conditions for lifting sanctions.

I don't think that would be a wise move. If we went that route, the Council would lose much of its reason for being.

A much more interesting question is whether we should be bringing new countries into the fold instead.

Melissa Ward said:Actually, I think it's more like this: they're fighting because they made the choice to align with the European Union instead of staying under that old "Soviet Union" shadow. Only time will tell if that was actually worth the price tag.

If you look at history from the start of the last century through to how Putin acts today—targeting those he can bully while avoiding those who joined NATO in time—it’s pretty clear. There really isn't a worse fate than being a Russian satellite.

jadetinker85 said:Yeah... zero effort being put into lowering the tension.

There isn't much room for diplomacy right now when neither side seems interested in meeting halfway.

Putin is playing hardball; his demands are basically asking for total surrender, and he’s sending a low-level deputy to negotiate instead of anyone with real weight.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainians haven't been broken enough to accept losing territory.

Both sides still think they can gain leverage on the ground to improve their bargaining chips—the Russians through conquest, and the Ukrainians by draining Russian momentum, resources, and motivation via increased international support.

Until someone hits a wall—whether it's the situation on the battlefield or things falling apart internally in Russia—I don't see any chance of resolving this through talks after everything that's happened.

Sanctions have never actually managed to seal anyone off completely. Sure, Russia can trade gas, lean on cryptocurrency, or run some minor workarounds with countries that haven't joined the fray—but none of that wipes out the impact. On a scale of one to ten, those tactics might nudge the damage down from a ten to a seven or an eight, but they won't bring it back to a one.

Both Iran and North Korea use all sorts of clever mechanisms to dodge sanctions, yet they’re still feeling the sting just as hard.

Arthur Watson4 said:There's one more thing I’ve been trying to explain to my isolationist friends for years regarding the scale of the Russian economy—there is no such thing as a self-sufficient nation in the modern age without looking like you're stuck in the 19th century.

Look, I get it. It’s easy to sit in a bar and talk about how we should just cut everyone off and be totally independent, but that's just not a reality when you're among the top 180 economies in the world.

The only people who are truly self-sufficient are those guys on the Sentinel attacking newcomers with spears.

But honestly, even they aren't. One of the most obvious differences between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals is that we see archaeological evidence of trade with the former, but not the latter.

Specialization and exchange are just objectively more efficient than trying to manufacture everything within your own borders. That was true back when high tech meant a stone hammer and a clay pot, and it's certainly true now that we all rely on smartphones and laptops made of components from dozens of different countries.

Richard Cooper3 said:What are they going to get back? Something that wasn't even theirs to begin with—Khrushchev gave them Crimea by decree back in '54 just to make administration easier. And they were gifted New Russia by Lenin exactly 100 years ago. Then Maidan happened just 8 years ago. You see, the Kremlin loves symbolism.
Ukrainians have known since 2014 that Crimea is gone for good—they should probably thank Victoria Nuland for that.
Those gas fields near Crimea? I doubt they could ever replace Russian reserves. Gas is just one small link in the whole UK/US vs. Russia conflict. In this scenario, the EU is basically like Paraguay, Botswana, or Laos. ☕
Arming Ukraine? I mean, all those anti-aircraft systems might not even matter if Russia manages to trap them in pockets before they even arrive. I guess you have to wonder how they'll actually get the gear delivered. And honestly, I don't really get why these European countries were so quiet when there was still a chance to prevent this whole mess. It’s like they were just sleeping through everything and suddenly woke up once the Russian invasion actually started.
Then again, people are probably going to blame Moscow for what comes next, because this isn't going to go on forever.

I?
Borders have always been fluid. Depending on which era you decide to focus on, you could frame Russia as either a tiny, insignificant state or a massive empire spanning half a continent. Honestly, that logic applies to pretty much any country out there.

The whole concept of "historical rights" is legally hollow. It doesn't serve as a foundation for anything, let alone the bedrock of the international order, which relies on the inviolability of borders in their current state. If anyone should be held accountable for shaking that up, it’s the U.S.—they were the first to really challenge that status quo with Mexico, creating a pretty awkward precedent for everyone else.

Look, regardless of how people try to spin it or who they blame, Ukraine's borders were internationally recognized by the UN. That includes recognition from Russia, if I recall correctly.

At that point, any loss of her territory isn't about justice—it's just an act of aggression. And unlike what happened in Mexico, the international community hasn't really bought into it.

----------

It’s nowhere near the scale of the Russian reserves, but by European standards, it’s massive. This could potentially fuel Europe for several decades—just enough to bridge the gap while we transition toward renewables.

On the other hand, the European Union gas market is a massive deal for Vladimir Putin—not just for the cash flow, but because it gives him serious leverage to squeeze them.

-----------------------

The Afghans really gave Americans a run for their money using nothing but AKs, homemade explosives, and whatever small arms they could get their hands on.

The Ukrainians will likely end up better armed, and they have the numbers on their side. Meanwhile, Russia simply doesn't have the economic staying power to fund an endless war against the United States. It’s worth remembering that even when they were at the height of their global power, they still got pushed out by the Afghans. That drain was a major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union, much like how Russia today lacks the resources for a prolonged conflict. A bottomless money pit like this, paired with heavy sanctions, could easily become the catalyst for the current Russian government's downfall.

Compared to Afghanistan, Ukraine has a lot more uneven terrain to work with. If Russia tries to take the whole country, they’re going to be getting hit by guerrilla tactics indefinitely from the western regions—areas that aren't just flat plains, but are also much more nationalistic. On the other hand, if Russia decides to call it quits and just focuses on holding onto the coast, Crimea, and specific provinces to destabilize whatever's left, who knows where that leads. If Ukrainians stay motivated and the West keeps the supplies flowing, they might still be able to bleed Russia dry. Then again, Russia could always force them into a ceasefire within those established borders.
We'll see.

--------------

If we don't get those sanctions tightened up, Russia is going to turn into North Korea within a few years. They’ll just be some economically irrelevant nuisance sitting on a pile of nukes. All the major trade and logistics flows will eventually just reroute around them anyway, making it completely pointless to bother picking a fight.

This whole "problem" is built on that tired, self-serving myth about how much influence Russia actually wields—it’s a lot higher than their actual capacity suggests. If Russia were truly that significant, they wouldn't be sitting under all these sanctions right now; we simply wouldn't allow it. It's the same logic as the US: we aren't going to let anyone slap sanctions on the United States, no matter what they try to pull.

hollowdriver13 said:What’s really frustrating is that there isn't any obvious figurehead you can point to and say, "Okay, this is the guy who needs to step up and take over," who actually has the power to make it happen.

Right now, listening to Medvedev and Lavrov is like watching two offended divas throwing tantrums; they're just spouting nonsense at this point.

Well, when an autocrat has been in charge for decades and has tightened his grip on every single lever of the system, getting real change from within becomes nearly impossible.

Your only real options are street protests or a political opposition, both of which risk spiraling into a new era of chaos. Americans remember how messy things got during the Yeltsin years, so people end up clinging to Putin’s "strongman" approach just to avoid that instability.

On the flip side, if we had two generations of capable democratic leaders—since Yeltsin certainly wasn't one—things might actually change. Maybe.

Either way, finding a way out of this dead end looks difficult. International diplomacy is going to have to work overtime to find a solution where everyone involved can save enough face to actually sign off on it. I wouldn't exactly bet the house on Putin being willing to play ball.

I wonder if oligarchs can actually turn on Putin without just replacing him with an equally terrible clone.

They aren't exactly independent actors. Whether you're looking at the old Yeltsin crowd or the new Putin loyalists, most of that wealth is tied directly to state connections. Some analysts even go as far as suggesting these oligarchs are basically just Putin’s accountants.

And if that's really how deep the connection goes, you have to ask if they could ever actually change the system without taking themselves down with it.

Carl Lee27 said:Word on the street is the Ukrainians might have actually managed to capture an M270 MLRS unit.
I’m dropping this here in the arms and equipment thread because, honestly, seeing how much gear the Russian military is now funneling into Ukraine is getting pretty wild.

Oryx@oryxspioenkop The Ukrainian Army just captured a Russian M270 MLRS. 💥

https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/st...97710429425672

It’s a cool clip, but it’s small potatoes. If this turns into a long-term conflict, everything hinges on how well the West can maintain the supply chain. If the Russians cut them off, the Ukrainians will run dry fast. If they don't, the opposite might happen eventually, just over a longer timeline. 🤷

The reason nobody attacks them directly is because they have nukes. But let’s be clear: nuclear weapons are a tool for deterrence through mutually assured destruction, not a way to project power when you're fighting a war outside your own borders.

If someone starts threatening the first aggressive use of a nuke, they’re opening a Pandora's box. The other side isn't just going to back down easily.

There are a lot of variables at play here.

When we talk about spheres of influence, we're talking about strength—something that looks pretty questionable regarding Russia, especially on the economic front. Honestly, the US having significant influence in our backyard near Italy is probably a good thing for us. 😁

All this talk about NATO promises is just naive propaganda. It's completely irrelevant whether some American politician from three generations ago made a vague promise to someone, somewhere. It doesn't matter.

Whether you call it hypocrisy or not, the difference between what's happening in the Middle East and what's happening here is that this is in our own neighborhood. Europe sees a direct threat to its stability, and there's a long history of aggressive Russian politics involved. Even the USA isn't the deciding factor here. What really changed compared to previous Russian military moves is how unexpectedly unified Europe became. They're facing a serious threat on their own soil, and I doubt Putin helped by making those imperialist, Soviet-nostalgic comments. The USA isn't doing anything fundamentally different than before; it was Europe that stepped up, which in turn allowed the USA to push for stronger sanctions.

The USA hasn't fought wars on its own borders in a long time. Certainly not in Canada, and definitely not in Mexico in modern times, even if there have been some low-key activities there.
The US prefers using the carrot, while Russia prefers the stick. You can't really be surprised that nobody wants to be in that dictator's "sphere of influence."

As for neutrality and NATO, that's just propaganda fodder, not Russia's only motivation.
The gas fields around Crimea, which could allow Ukraine to break the Russian monopoly on the European market, are a much bigger issue than NATO—especially since Russia destabilized the region in 2014, making NATO entry impossible anyway.

That whole mantra about the Finnish model exists because it sounds better for propaganda to say "we're afraid of NATO" rather than admitting "we want to strip someone of their resources and, ideally, their independence, sovereignty, and even their identity." A neutral Ukraine just isn't possible; Russia won't let them dictate a policy that could wreck its own economic and strategic interests. Ukraine will either be occupied, partially occupied, a pseudo-independent satellite, or militarily strong enough to compete with Russia—which is easiest to achieve through NATO.

The problem for Ukraine is that it might be too late now to get Crimea back, but they should have raced to join NATO, just like the smart folks in the Baltic states did as soon as they gained independence.
There's simply no other way to protect their interests.

And as for the current situation? I have no clue. I'm stuck in the middle.

The real question is how objective Stern actually is. He built much of his career working closely with Russia, so you have to wonder if emotion or vested interests are clouding his judgment.

In my opinion, Russia is displaying that classic "fallen empire" syndrome—the same psychological hang-up the British used to deal with. It’s like an aging athlete who refuses to admit they’ve been passed by the clock, even when everyone else can see it clearly.

Aside from its nuclear arsenal, Russia isn't a major global player anymore. They try to gain leverage by acting more aggressive and inflating their importance, much like a small, loud dog barking at a much larger one. But if the bigger player decides to call their bluff and push back, the little guy doesn't stand a chance.

A lot of modern Russian power is just pure bluffing and aggression used to mask economic and military weaknesses. Because of that, they can only win if the West stays divided or too afraid to take risks. That gives a dictator a natural edge over democracies. However, if those two factors disappear, Putin loses that advantage. Given how badly he’s losing the propaganda and diplomatic war right now, a Russian escalation conflict against the West would be suicidal.

I honestly think Putin played with fire for way too long, and now the whole thing is finally blowing up in his face.

Matthew Rodriguez9 said:Well, I guess that’s just what the future looks like for the whole European market.

Maybe in the short term. Long term? Gas from Russia will probably start flowing again if it ever actually stops. It's not like Russia has some incredibly diversified economy where they can afford to lose their biggest customer.

The only real shot the Russians have is finding a way to destabilize a divided Europe from the inside again, which is what they've always done. It's not impossible, since this kind of momentum doesn't usually last forever.

Given how things are set up right now, it’s really just a matter of time before Russia has to swallow its pride—whether that’s with Vladimir Putin at the helm or someone else.

Carl Lee27 said:The thing is, Russia won't be able to just reroute gas from the American market over to China anytime soon, unless we're talking about maybe some small portion through Yamal LNG.
See, the gas headed toward America comes from totally different fields than the stuff going to China. For the American market, they're pulling from fields up in the northern Urals and western Siberia, whereas the supply for China comes from eastern Siberia. There isn't actually a connection between the pipeline network serving America and the one heading to China. And honestly, there won't be one for at least a few more years until they finally finish up Power of Siberia 2.
https://i.ibb.co/1LfhLv1/Russia2.jpg

And yeah, look—the very fact that these two networks will inevitably be linked means it's just a matter of time before Russia starts hiking up gas prices for the American market, regardless of whether sanctions are in place or not. Once they're connected, Americans will basically be stuck competing directly with the Chinese through Gazprom. It doesn't really matter to America whether they're fighting Asia for LNG today or if they'll be battling Asia for Siberian gas tomorrow; the competition is coming either way.

That was exactly my point—that this is a bad indicator for Russia, which is why I specifically pointed out the silver lining regarding those negative rates in Germany.

I totally misread that 😳

Carl Lee27 said:1) Check out the yield on the 10-year German government bond. After a tiny little spike upward, we’re right back into negative territory at -0.01%. It’s honestly wild when you think about it—investors are actually paying Germany just for the privilege of holding onto their debt!
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany...ent-bond-yield

2) Then you look at the 10-year Russian government bond yield, which is sitting at 12% right now. Just compare that to what's happening in Germany and tell me: who does the market think is actually going to come out on top in all this chaos?
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/...ent-bond-yield

Bond yields usually climb when the price of those bonds drops, so this isn't exactly good news for the Russian economy.

You could just as easily argue the Russian economy is doing great because they hiked interest rates, but the truth is rates went up because the value of their money is cratering.

Look, I’m telling you, people throw around talk of slapping sanctions on the central bank like it's some kind of joke. It's basically just mindless chatter at this point. 😳

casualtiger2 said:Switzerland has officially adopted all the sanctions agreed upon by the European Union.

Now Switzerland is freezing Russian accounts too.

I’m probably not smart enough to weigh in on Switzerland or the impact of CB Russia sanctions.🤔

In the short term, specifically this last part, it could be a real headache for Russia and offer some decent help in the current situation.

But it could also mess up relations down the road, calling Switzerland's neutrality into question and potentially hurting its core economic sectors. By making CBs feel less "untouchable," it might just push other countries to diversify away from Western financial markets, which would make any future sanctions much less effective against them.🤔

Just my two cents, though. Do we have any actual macroeconomists on here? 😁

Anthony Hill5 said:It is the central bank's assets held abroad that have been frozen, not those within Russia. This morning, the Central Bank burned through 7 billion dollars just to stabilize the Ruble. One has to wonder: how much longer can they sustain this before they completely exhaust the reserves they actually hold in Russia?

Nobody actually has a bunker filled with stacks of cash. My best guess is gold reserves, though even those don't necessarily have to be physically located in the country that technically owns them.

Generally speaking, most other reserves are parked "somewhere" in foreign nations (think government bonds, accounts in foreign banks, or even the holdings of other central banks), except that Russia has spent the last few years trying pretty hard to cut its ties to Western financial systems. Because of that, a good chunk of it is likely out of reach of any sanctions.

I suspect the West might have had control over maybe 50% of the Russian reserves until recently, though there are rumors they pulled some of that money out right before the invasion started.

It’s also a massive question mark how China will handle trade with Russia while these sanctions are in play. They seem to be playing both sides right now, and honestly, it looks like they aren't entirely sure what their own move should be.

Betty Murphy3 said:Let him go, honestly. As if things haven't been brutal enough already? Putin will eventually have to capitulate—he simply cannot win a war against 35 million Ukrainians. Once they do, the Russians will have to return everything. It would be better for them if the Ukrainians don't launch their own massive offensive once they recover, because they'll sweep through everything. This is the momentum Ukraine is building—not in some distant future, but right now. If they hold the line today, it sets the stage for clearing out every last insurgent from their territory. So, let the Kremlin hardliners keep shouting about how easy it is to push a button. It doesn't matter; he’s already politically dead in all of Europe, save for the Russophiles.

I don't see how Ukrainians could militarily retake those pro-Russian provinces. That's a much bigger mountain to climb than just pulling Russian troops into an urban fight.

Unless economic and political pressure becomes so overwhelming that it forces a change before I can even finish my sentence, I fear those breakaway regions might just get further entrenched during future peace talks. That would be the most optimistic version of a Ukrainian victory; anything else is likely worse.

Something like that would only happen if Putin falls and we see massive internal shifts within Russia. Expecting Ukraine to pull off a "Storm" militarily feels like a stretch to me.

Justin Rogers5 said:Not one woman—regardless of her height—has ever sparked an epic conflict, yet these absolute clowns have been making a mess of things for hundreds of years.☕I suppose size actually does matter in this case.☕

Between Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and the Israeli Prime Minister, we’ve had plenty of female leaders in the modern era. If you look back through history, there are enough examples to go around. They haven't led nearly as many wars, mostly just because they haven't been in power as long, but honestly, most of the claims about that are just baseless myths.

Laura Scott7 said:Look, it’s pretty simple if you actually bother to look at the big picture: Russia is just looking out for its own backyard, especially after being backed into a corner by NATO constantly pushing its borders right up against Ukraine. Putin laid out the terms clearly—he wanted a guarantee that Ukraine wouldn't be joining NATO, plain and simple. But instead of taking that seriously, these folks got way too cocky, acting like Russia was some minor player in the Middle East that they could just push around. Now, they’re trying to flip the script and spin this whole thing to make it look like Russia just attacked Ukraine out of nowhere without any provocation. Give me a break... what a joke. And don't even get me started on those EU sanctions; as if they’ll actually do anything when half the stuff they produce is already being bought up by India and China anyway. But hey, the absolute best part of this circus? The USA won't even stop importing oil because heaven forbid they actually try to do something to keep energy prices from skyrocketing, right? Total joke.

He used terms like "demilitarization" and "denazification."

The real issue with NATO was settled back in 2014, since they won't accept any countries that don't allow full control over their territory (like Crimea and the provinces).

However, Putin isn't about to tolerate a non-pro-Russian government in what he considers his "independent" "historical provinces." Every single time an anti-Russian administration pops up there, Russia reacts.
Comparing NATO's reasoning here to the "denazification" of that "drug addict" who has a Jewish history tied to the Holocaust is pretty much on point.
empty talk.