How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

4 hours ago, keas66 said:

Are you reading the same  "The Economic Consequences of the Peace"  that I am reading ???? Where Does Keynes ever suggest that  the Treaty he was arguing against was not tough enough ???

I think you have seriously misread Keynes work .

It would have been an absurd statement anyhow. Germany was practically gutted at Versailles.

[The_MonkeyKing]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is why I've largely ignored people harping about the amount of money that Europe is still spending on Russian energy sources.  Yes, there's a lot of money still flowing to Moscow in absolute monetary value, but percentage wise Russia is overall net negative with the energy market.  Couple this with the massive declines in the other Russian market sectors and the economy is going down fast.  At the same time it is fighting an expensive war that it's losing.

Not an indicator of good things to come for Russia.

Steve

I agree with the point fast moment energy cut off would hurt EU more than Russia. Energy cut off is still only matter of time. Now we are talking couple of years max.

How much does it matter for the Ukraine war situation on the ground if Russia gets one or two year more of energy money? There is not that much Russia can do with that cash, but for EU 1-2 years of time to adjust vs instant cut off is huge.

[Fernando]

5 hours ago, paxromana said:

Just something to reflect on .... Keynes (yes, that Keynes) made clear in his Economic Consequences of the Peace that the financial sanctions and reparation placed against Germany in 1919 were not tough enough ... and it was that lack of toughness that would (as it did) inevitably lead to further problems down the track.

His base posiution seems to have been that if Germany had been more harshly treated, bankrupted and kept that way in  effect, then it simply would not have been able to cause further problems since it would be unable to build a credible military.

The West as a whole needs to impose sanctions that actually cripple Russia, not the death by 1000 cuts half measures they have applied to date, and they need to enforce them rigidly. They also need to make it plain to third parties who will use this as an opportunity to get sweetheart deals with Russia that that will not be tolerated.

With already crumbling infrastructure how long would Russia be able to be seen as a credible non-nuclear threat if sanctions were serious? And the sanctions should remain in place even after Putin is gone until something like a moderate and rational government is in place ... 25-50-75 years? Won't be short term, I guess.

It seems Keynes said just the opposite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Consequences_of_the_Peace#:~:text=The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) is a book,delegate of the British Treasury.

[FancyCat]

10 hours ago, The_Capt said:

again when we directly supported, and continue to support, the killing of Russians...in large numbers. 

Maybe I’ll be proven wrong later but for all the hope Russians would agitate over the loss of tens of thousands of Russian countrymen, there isn’t much of that occurring, and uh…..not a lot of connecting the dots between how Russia is both winning in Ukraine and yet suffering so many dead in official media. Galeev had stated the deaths of these ethnic minorities don’t affect the stability of the state, but one would think that several months and tens of thousands dead, there would be more agitation or questioning by civilians but my impression is that’s not really happening, so maybe Galeev is right?

[keas66]

4 hours ago, paxromana said:

Perhaps ... "Secondly, the German economy was being so damaged, and the reparations demands were so great, that there was no way Germany could meet the demands"  ... perhaps just extrapolating.

I mean I could  spend the next hour typing out direct quotes from the  Book which indicate you have totally gotten the wrong end of the stick with regards Keynes and this essay . I'll just provide you  the wikipedia summary link instead ....and strongly suggest you try reading the book again .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Consequences_of_the_Peace

 

Keynes was arguing exactly the opposite of what you suggest . The Marshall Plan  was  greatly influenced by Keynes as well .

[kraze]

On 6/28/2022 at 8:58 AM, Grigb said:

They are different. Putin is KGB clan. Navalny unofficial Party clan. It is like Stalin and Khrushchev. Yes, they were both criminal leaders of USSR. But they were very different. 

Both were not different in their imperialistic views. In fact Khruschev almost caused nuclear extinction for the whole human race. So not the best example.

And thus in the current case no matter how different Navalny is in his domestic views - his views on restoring the empire are very much exactly the same and it makes no difference for Ukraine or anyone sharing the border with Russia.

Edited June 29, 2022 by kraze

[Grigb]

Here is interesting article from civilian "Girkin" on failed political goals of Special Operation. Keep in mind this is from RU nationalists' point of view. 

Quote

And one more point, related with almost one hundred percent sure expansion of NATO with two new countries.

If anyone has forgotten, it is worth recalling that the "special operation" was preceded by a formidable ultimatum to NATO to return to the borders of 1997. When NATO gathered thoughts in a heap [finally decided what to say] on the subject of "What is it all about", the answer was very unambiguous: on January 12, 2022, NATO directly refused all the demands put forward (https://tjournal.ru/news/510943-nato-otvetilo-otkazom-na-ultimatum-rossii ), including the main thing — to give written guarantees of returning to the state of 1997. (In parentheses, it should be said that the Kremlin has put forward an impossible ultimatum in principle, since there is no mechanism for rejecting previously made decisions in NATO at all. Here, either the Kremlin deliberately went to the conflict, being aware of the obvious impracticability of the requirements, or simply did not really understand the essence of its requirements)

A little more than a month later, a special operation began, and already at its beginning, Lavrov again returned to the already rejected ultimatum and again demanded the same thing (https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5238507 ). It is difficult to assume any other explanation that the ultimatum and the special operation are directly related to each other and are a pure cause-and-effect relationship. For zombie patriots, they invented a story that the Kremlin, now suddenly felt sorry for the groaning Donbass so it cannot even eat caviar anymore, but the reality is always more cynical than even the most frostbitten [crazy] Russian propagandists.

There is no doubt that in the event of a victory parade on Khreshchatyk [Kiev main street], the Kremlin's demands would be multiplied and expanded. But, as it is known now, luck did not happen with the parade. Rather, on the contrary.

Now NATO is responding to the Kremlin again. Did you want to take us back to 1997? Get 2022. And take two more NATO members with it. It is clear that in such a situation it is already somehow completely indecent [for RU government] to recall the ultimatum, and therefore the arguments and justifications of the special operation have changed dramatically.

In general, this is exactly the same story as with the Syrian war. The formidable demands to Turkey to give permission for four Turkish Stream pipes instead of two, to which the Turks gave their consent, ended in November 2015, when the Turks clearly and unequivocally shot down a Russian plane, and the Kremlin did not dare to escalate. From that moment on, the war lost all meaning and was waged simply because it was easier to fight on than to explain why we are no longer fighting.

In any case, the goals of the special operation have failed, instead of NATO rolling back to the west, it has expanded to the east. In this context, a draw is not something we need to talk about.  And if we also take into account that the Russian army as an instrument of foreign policy is completely blocked on the territory of Ukraine today, and for as long as NATO will require it, then you can no longer look at the score on the scoreboard, and it's so clear who will go for the cup.

Politically RU already lost to NATO. And if you know that RU joke - NATO has not even arrived at the battle yet. 

[Grigb]

 

Quote

Norway refused to let Russian cargo pass to Svalbard
The Norwegian Foreign Ministry did not agree to make an exception to the sanctions for food that was sent to Russian miners in the village of Barentsburg on Svalbard.

It is a small thing but politically is very painful for a Glorious Strategic Genius Putin - How he can protect RU if he cannot protect bunch of RU citizens against heinous limitrophe Norway?  

[paxromana]

46 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

It would have been an absurd statement anyhow. Germany was practically gutted at Versailles.

Actually, I checked, it ws Billy Hughes (Australia punching above its weight again) and he wanted to disembowel not just gut ... and didn't quite get his way!

[FancyCat]

16 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

It would have been an absurd statement anyhow. Germany was practically gutted at Versailles.

Modern historians think the reparations were completely within Germany’s ability to pay them. The burden imposed on Germany was similar to the burden imposed on France following the Franco-Prussian War but the political circumstances did not allow Germany to faithfully pay the reparations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations#Modern

[paxromana]

40 minutes ago, Fernando said:

It seems Keynes said just the opposite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Consequences_of_the_Peace#:~:text=The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) is a book,delegate of the British Treasury.

Yep, sorry - it was Billy Hughes ... I must have read something he said about Keynes. Note: Billy was a treacherous bastard and a class traitor, but he was almost certainly right!

[Grigb]

And drumbeat of Ru civil war has started - Girkin recommends to view interview with well-known RU medical volunteer, who stated: 

Quote

Yury Evich: to win, we will have to restore order in the Russian Federation!

Yuri Evich, a volunteer from Donbass and a specialist in tactical medicine, is in touch with Maxim Kalashnikov. Victory in the war against Bandera will require a huge strain on all national forces.

 

 

[keas66]

Another Book on this topic  by another Great Economist of that Era  is Thorsten Veblen's An Inquiry into the Nature of Peace and the Terms of Its Perpetuation  , 1917 .

Veblen's writing style  is  .... interesting and  unique  but its a fantastic read   as are all his other works .

 

[keas66]

6 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Modern historians think the reparations were completely within Germany’s ability to pay them. The burden imposed on Germany was similar to the burden imposed on France following the Franco-Prussian War but the political circumstances did not allow Germany to faithfully pay the reparations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations#Modern

 Modern Historians have a range of opinions  on the subject ....

[kraze]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:06 AM, Grigb said:

That's not classical RU liberal. It is centrist. Classical RU liberal will not help RU army under any circumstances due to the knowledge about RU army previous crimes. And RU Victory for classical RU liberal is unacceptable. The example is Alexander Nevzorov who BTW got recently UKR citizenship.   

Nevzorov is an imperialist, who 'made' putin by working as his trusted propagandist for more than a decade and also running his elections campaigns from time to time. In fact Nevzorov said he owes putin as much for saving his life in the 90s.

So as a major state propagandist - he's directly responsible for every single russian war since 1991 and in case of Ukraine - directly responsible for all the dehumanization of Ukrainians before 2014, and even after - as he was working on ORT as Ernst's advisor up until at least 2016.

Now he just runs that "good russian" psyop we all know and don't love.

(Also he's a war criminal in Lithuania for that little thing he did in Vilnius in 1991 together with other red army soldiers)

Him getting our citizenship is thus very disgraceful and is the result of that internal struggle where the pro-russian lobby* I mentioned before scored a win. He will certainly lose that citizenship after the war's won.

* In Ukraine we still have a strong corrupt lobby that doesn't want EU/NATO and would instead have close ties with a "reasonable" Russia and they see it as one being run by people like Nevzorov, which is, of course, a huge delusion based on not wanting to change - and such delusions die hard.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, keas66 said:

 Modern Historians have a range of opinions  on the subject ....

Exactly. I use to think the prevailing opinion is that Versailles was too harsh, and reparations too hard, exactly the same as the ones imposed on France in 1871. Germans started it, but getting revenge proved not worth it for the French at the end...

[FancyCat]

38 minutes ago, Huba said:

Exactly. I use to think the prevailing opinion is that Versailles was too harsh, and reparations too hard, exactly the same as the ones imposed on France in 1871. Germans started it, but getting revenge proved not worth it for the French at the end...

Adam Tooze, who wrote The Wages of Destruction, a really insightful book on the Nazi economy, talks about Keyes and his argument for less forceful conditions for Germany following WWI here. As for French “revenge” pff, the war never impacted Germany the way it did France, the Western Front took place on French soil, 10% of France’s mainland territory was occupied, yet that had 14% of its workers, and produced 60 and 40 percent of French steel and coal. The issue of harshness really comes down to the fact Germany never actually felt defeated. Only losers pay, and certainly Germany did not lose WWI in their minds. It was a utter mistake to not occupy Germany. 

Meanwhile, France paid her reparations following the Franco-Prussian War, where Germany demanded payment and promised occupation until payment was done in full. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_indemnity

My earlier link to wiki indicates that the portions required of Germany were similar to those demanded of France in 1871, no wonder France insisted on payment in 1918, 50 years earlier, Germany had insisted and occupied France till the payment was done, and yet as noted in the wiki link above, France paid and still recovered.

[Slaughterhouse-Five]

12 hours ago, The_Capt said:

У него в основном сырьевая промышленность, которую он также, вероятно, взорвал.

I don't want to upset dear mister The_Capt, but overall export are only a moderate part of Russian state revenues. Most are different taxes, export duties and internal mandatory contributions.

[Slaughterhouse-Five]

2 hours ago, kraze said:

And thus in the current case no matter how different Navalny is in his domestic views - his views on restoring the empire are very much exactly the same

Is there any confirmation of this or is it just idle speculation?

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Adam Tooze, who wrote The Wages of Destruction, a really insightful book on the Nazi economy, talks about Keyes and his argument for less forceful conditions for Germany following WWI here. As for French “revenge” pff, the war never impacted Germany the way it did France, the Western Front took place on French soil, 10% of France’s mainland territory was occupied, yet that had 14% of its workers, and produced 60 and 40 percent of French steel and coal. The issue of harshness really comes down to the fact Germany never actually felt defeated. Only losers pay, and certainly Germany did not lose WWI in their minds. It was a utter mistake to not occupy Germany. 

Meanwhile, France paid her reparations following the Franco-Prussian War, where Germany demanded payment and promised occupation until payment was done in full. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_indemnity

My earlier link to wiki indicates that the portions required of Germany were similar to those demanded of France in 1871, no wonder France insisted on payment in 1918, 50 years earlier, Germany had insisted and occupied France till the payment was done, and yet as noted in the wiki link above, France paid and still recovered.

Germany not only had to pay reparations, but also lost all it's colonies, 13 percent of it's territory in Europe and more than 10% of it's population to other countries. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations#Modern

That's practically begging for another world war. That's certainly a lesson that should be kept in mind when dealing with the Russians.

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[poesel]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

The issue of harshness really comes down to the fact Germany never actually felt defeated. Only losers pay, and certainly Germany did not lose WWI in their minds. It was a utter mistake to not occupy Germany. 

This - it was a very big mistake not to march troops through Germany and have a parade in Berlin. That would have shown have shown everyone who had won and who had lost. After the war nationalists came up with the idea of ‘Dolchstoßlegende’ - that the army never lost in the field and were betrayed by the social democrats who signed Versailles. That blemished democracy in the public view right from the beginning.

But back to Russia: there will not be a march of any foreign troops on Moscow because of nukes. That is pretty obvious. With the firm grip of the state on media the public wont accept a Russian loss of the war because nobody will tell them in first place.
So until change comes from within, nothing will change in Russia.
Do the sanctions help with change? Yes. Why? Consider the alternative where there are no sanctions. That will surely not create change.
Can we create ‘directed’ sanctions that will lead to a desired (by the West) effect? I doubt that. Whatever will break that thing will be a random event that nobody thought of. We just need to make sure that there are many of those events until one ‘clicks’.

[chuckdyke]

At 3:31 to kill a man during his ablutions. Mmmm could be a crime against humanity.

 

[kraze]

1 hour ago, Slaughterhouse-Five said:

Is there any confirmation of this or is it just idle speculation?

He said that under his rule Crimea wouldn't be freed of russian occupation and keep being a part of Ukraine, because "it's not a sandwich to be passed back and forth". Like "I'm sorry it has happened, but deal with it". That's enough for me.

https://crimea.suspilne.media/en/news/942

Edited June 29, 2022 by kraze

[Huba]

More M270s pledged by UK and Norway:

My bet is it ends with bare-chested knife fight:

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Huba

[kraze]

On 6/28/2022 at 1:09 PM, Grigb said:

In your imagination, comrade, maybe. But you forgot that I know you all very well. 10 Putin-like dictators will not be able to pull all resources together to threaten anybody. Look at other Soviet republics - as soon as they got free they moved away from your aggressive policy toward Europe, comrade. 

You know perfectly well, comrade, Siberians are really dislike Moscow pulling their resources away. They have no incentive to fight either Ukraine or Europe. Simple separation of RU along Urals will bring peace to both RU and Europe. Because without Siberia, you, comrade will not have resources to threaten anybody. 

And it will help Siberians enormously because Moscow governance is awful for locals.

"Siberians" is also a great example of why Russia is always an empire, either it calls itself a "federation" (with zero actual federal subjects, right) or a "union" (with everybody being "unified" by deadly force). "Siberians" are forcibly russified people deported from Ukraine and Belarus over the past century, with their culture, history and language stripped away. Even worse - they were deported in place of native Asian people previously mass murdered by russians there.

Now Russia does that in reverse - mass murders or mass deports people in Ukraine and puts their soldiers and their families of a completely alien culture to live in there to create this grey, blank-ethnicity mix. Classic imperial stuff.