Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker/status/1495925054298894341
Wow! True, but WOW!

I wonder, if Biden will backtrack it, though, after the criticism of MSM.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

RUB is now above 79.  Financial markets clearly take the view that escalation has peaked and, while there is a significant chance of a blowup, the trend is toward de-escalation.

Probably, because neither US or EU want to describe it as invasion. Yet, at least.

https://twitter.com/MarquardtA/status/1496077888591994880

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-casts-doubt-biden-summit-with-putin-eyes-new-sanctions-tuesday-official-2022-02-21/

WASHINGTON, Feb 21 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin's decision to send troops he called peacemakers into breakaway regions of Ukraine did not constitute a further invasion that would trigger a broader sanctions package, a Biden administration official told Reuters on Monday, but the White House believes a full invasion could come at any time.

The United States will continue to pursue diplomacy with Russia until "tanks roll," another official told reporters.

But it still unclear, what sanctions they will enforce. It's as well unclear, if Germany killed NS2 for good, or just "indefinitely" as threat. NS2 would be fully operational ~next fall.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

BREAKING: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announces de facto suspension of Nordstream 2 pipeline. Also, it seems like EU is about to impose very tough sanctions, including measures to restrict Russia's access to financial markets and a ban on trading with Russian government bonds.

https://twitter.com/philipoltermann/status/1496078379426136064
https://twitter.com/POLITICOEurope/status/1496079416203657218

In other words, Germany will consider stopping Nord Stream 2 if the USA can come in and subsidize LNG for Germany to match the prices Russian gas would provide.  That would be great for Germany but I do not think the USA midterm voters would approve.  Still, if some weaker version of that takes place the clear winner would be PRC.  The PRC gets a weakening of a manufacturing rival saddled with higher energy costs and the PRC also gets a more desperate Russia that will have to shift their gas east where the PRC can buy at a lower price and further bind Russia to the PRC economy.

Won't Germany just burn more coal?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

RUB is now above 79.  Financial markets clearly take the view that escalation has peaked and, while there is a significant chance of a blowup, the trend is toward de-escalation.

Probably, because neither US or EU want to describe it as invasion. Yet, at least.

Well, Ukraine cannot describe it as an invasion because as per Ukraine Russia already invaded these lands in 2014 so they cannot re-invade the same area. 

It seems we are headed to these breakaway republics being annexed to Russia soon.  It will be a rerun of the 1810 West Florida Republic in slow motion. 

I think this is a mistake on Russia's part as it now limits their strategic space.  Ideally for Russia, they want a pro-Russia (or at least non-anti-Russia) Ukraine.  This move takes that option off the table.  While I do not think Russia will do anything soon this move pretty much locks Russia into the goal of eating up Eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper River in the coming decades and Western Ukraine will be anti-Russia for decades if not centuries.  These moves will be costly and risky for Russia and ensure at best a hostile Western Ukraine on its border.  Putin trades some short-term advtanages for long term costs.  My assessment of Putin as a sound strategist has diminished.

Well, Putin should've never gone beyond bringing home Crimea.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

A surreal questioning with Putin’s press secretary. It’d be a good comedy routine if it wasn’t so serious.

Strategic ambiguity™.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.

It didn't just embolden Russia, it emboldened literally every separatist political movement globally and countries like Russia have continuously rubbed the Kosovo logic in the West's face since.

Anyone that tries to make the "Kosovo was not a precedent" argument, I don't respect that person nor anything else they say: everything is a precedent.

"Annushka has already bought the sunflower oil, and has not only bought it, but has already spilled it."

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Won't Germany just burn more coal?

No. There's a misconception that this issue is about power generation,* but it's actually more about heating and especially domestic heating. So it would mean importing more gas from elsewhere and, over the long-term, moving towards alternative methods of domestic heating. This would have the effect of shrinking the market for Russian gas in Germany - putting that at risk for the sake of post-imperial adventurism is certainly a choice, but we are where we are.

Won't it prolong coal burning? Not only in Germany, but, for example, in Poland. I think, it will and already has.

_{*The nuclear angle is also misunderstood: Germany hasn't spontaneously shut down all its nuclear power stations, it has simply opted not to replace any of its existing ones.}

Same results, so what's the difference?

_{All of its nuclear power stations were (are) fairly old, with the newest - the ones still in operation - opening in 1988-9. In practice a lot of other governments have done the same thing, largely on cost grounds.}

Under-investment. If it was about "on cost grounds", you'd never (ok, not never, but it would take at least a decades more) get a cheap wind power plants in first place.

It was imo a purely political choice based on irrational fear muh NuCLeAR!!!!!111 among parts of the population.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/live-from-ukraine-poland-trip-trade-and-tech-council/

HAPPENING TODAY IN BRUSSELS: EU ambassadors meet at 9:30 a.m. in Brussels today to discuss sanctions. From 10 a.m., EU affairs ministers from around the bloc will meet for the General Affairs Council, where they will continue the discussion. Three diplomats told Playbook the EU is likely to impose limited sanctions — such as listing more individuals and cutting trade with the separatist “republics” — largely a symbolic move given those regions are already sanctioned.

Meanwhile, in Washington: The White House said on Monday that the U.S. plans “to announce new sanctions on Russia tomorrow in response to Moscow’s decisions and actions today. We are coordinating with Allies and partners on that announcement.” A senior U.S. administration official similarly said Washington would sanction the breakaway territories, but not impose sweeping sanctions against Russia yet.

EU and US keep powder dry: Officials said one reason to impose only limited sanctions was to grant Putin a face-saving way to avoid all-out war. Another was to keep the powder dry in case Russia invades more of Ukraine.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

At least, West supports Ukraine with memes

https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKyiv/status/1496115593149358081

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker/status/1495925054298894341
Wow! True, but WOW!

I wonder, if Biden will backtrack it, though, after the criticism of MSM.

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1496131492912713729

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Biden to Address Ukraine Situation from White House (5:01 p.m.)

The U.S. president will address the situation in Ukraine Tuesday at 1 p.m. Washington time, with the U.S. expected to unveil new sanctions targeting Russia.

The president will speak a day after signing an executive order prohibiting U.S. investment, trade, and financing in the separatist-held regions in eastern Ukraine. The financial penalties announced Tuesday are expected to fall short of the sweeping sanctions Biden and other Western leaders have pledged if Russian forces push into Ukrainian territory that was not previously occupied.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/Nordic_News/status/1496152649904930821

Let's burn Earth down to own Russians 

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1496164151009423362
https://twitter.com/OstapYarysh/status/1496163360592871424
Though, he added, that all border disputes should be done by means of "negotiations" between Ukraine and the Republics.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Equity markets and RUB surged after Biden's speech.  I guess the sanctions were less than what was feared by the markets.

I'm putting you on ignore until you shut up about currency speculators' hot takes and go back to posting about what's actually happening in the real world.

He is not [entirely] wrong, though.

Here's take by FT's Moscow bureau chief:

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1496207678334451718
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1496225863318261772

Imo, Germany's NS2 was the hardest (and imo least expected) sanctions so far. But if Russia takes over Ukraine, as Biden keeps insisting, there is no need of Nord Streams...

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1496143838402035712

Good! This and the responses by both the US and EU are much more severe than they were in 2014. Especially how fast both sides have reacted. You just can be glad Biden is the president now, as it would not have been possible with the clown the preceded him.

What's also striking is that China has not voiced the usual support for Russia this time around. At the Munich Security Conference, the Chinese foreign minister even said something like an invasion was a violation of international rule (of course, the Chinese regime has an interest not to set any kind of precedent for separatist movements in Western parts of China).

For those wondering how Trump would have responded to this crisis, here is a window into that alternative universe:

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1496221147729481732

Yes. Trump's right that it wouldn't happen, were he in the WH.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

Telling that Johnson had to invent Abramovich being sanctioned in the HoC yesterday.

Britons don't want to set the precedent by sanctioning bloody money. It's not only Russian oligarchs who keep their bloody money and families in City of London. Honestly, nuking Londongrad would be net positive for the humanity. It would likely stop the War in Yemen, too.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Regarding collusions between German politicians and Russian interests,  I think targeting the German Greens is incredibly dumb and misguided. You don't need too much research to find out that, after exiting chancellorship, Gerhard Schroeder started a succesful career as Gazprom lobbyst

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

If I had to rank the German parties from most pro-Putin/pro-Russian to least pro-Putin/pro-Russian it would probably look like this:

1. AfD
2. Left
3. SPD
4. CDU/CSU
5. Greens
6. FDP

(I decided to place the FDP ahead of the Greens because the former supports giving weapons to Ukraine. Their position on economic sanctions and Nord Stream 2 must be pretty similar though.)

It's based on rhetoric/intentions. If you consider the consequences, then AfD/Left had almost zero influence on Germany's politics. On other hand, Greens, who literally born out of anti-nuxxclear movement, are much more pro-Russian, because they/their movement/Merkel caused Germany's current reliance on the Russian gas in first place.

Putin should love his anti-nuxxlear puppets. I doubt, that without their help Schroder or Merkel would be able to pull through NS1 and NS2.

In a sense, the War in Ukraine is financed by money that Putin got, because Greens killed the nuclear power development in Germany. So it's not Putin who funded Greens, it's Greens who funded Putin.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Regarding collusions between German politicians and Russian interests,  I think targeting the German Greens is incredibly dumb and misguided. You don't need too much research to find out that, after exiting chancellorship, Gerhard Schroeder started a succesful career as Gazprom lobbyst

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

If I had to rank the German parties from most pro-Putin/pro-Russian to least pro-Putin/pro-Russian it would probably look like this:

1. AfD
2. Left
3. SPD
4. CDU/CSU
5. Greens
6. FDP

(I decided to place the FDP ahead of the Greens because the former supports giving weapons to Ukraine. Their position on economic sanctions and Nord Stream 2 must be pretty similar though.)

It's based on rhetoric/intentions. If you consider the consequences, then AfS/Left had almost zero influence on Germany's politics. On other hand, Greens, who literally born out of anti-nuxxclear movement, are much more pro-Russian, because they/their movement/Merkel caused Germany's current reliance on the Russian gas in first place.

Putin should love his anti-nuxxlear puppets. I doubt, that without their help Schroder or Merkel would be able to pull through NS1 and NS2.

In a sense, the War in Ukraine is financed by money that Putin got, because Greens killed the nuclear power development in Germany. So it's not Putin who funded Greeens, and Greens who funded Putin.

So let me get this straight... the Greens' opposition to nuclear power directly caused Germany's reliance on gas, but the Greens' opposition to (Russian) gas had no effect whatsoever on Germany's reliance on gas... because the latter was just "rhetoric", while the former were "actions" (what kind of "actions"? Anti-nuclear protests that happened during the 1980s when Annalena Baerbock was just five years old?). Seems like pretty selective cherry picking to me where you arrange the facts just like you happen to need them, while ignoring any other factors that might have come into play.

I don't know why you bring up Annalena Baerbock, if it's pretty clear (no?) that I was talking about Greens [movement] in long terms. Indeed (as you mention 1980), "Greens" spent decades vigorously opposing nuclear, while their opposition against natural gas is nor vigorous nor so old.

Even now, if SPD would somehow reverse NS2 decision, I think, thr Greens would in the end accept it. Would they accept reversing on nuclear power? Doubt. Because of them, Germany will be heavily depend on gas in at least 10-20 years. More than enough for Putin.

Consequences >>>> intentions.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I didn't say that Greens/whoever are solely responsible. But they imo clearly were more of useful idiots of Putin than Left/AfD, even if the latter clearly have much more pro-Russian views. I don't really understand why it's so controversial to say that rabidly anti-nuclear [parts of] Green parties were net good for Putin and net bad for climate.

Yeah, I do in fact think CDU/SPD or Schroder/Merkel were one of the most "pro-Russian" party/leaders.

Re: my insights. Well, per FT, "even hardened political observers" were surprised as well.
https://www.ft.com/content/60e42ac2-03d8-4faf-ad88-9f92982420f5
Scholz takes heat off Germany with decision to freeze Nord Stream 2 project
Chancellor surprises political observers by suspending approval for contentious gas pipeline

For weeks, German chancellor Olaf Scholz was ridiculed by politicians and journalists around the world for refusing to even name Nord Stream 2, let alone promise to halt it if Russia invaded Ukraine.

On Tuesday he surprised even hardened political observers by freezing the approval process for the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany — part of a broad European response to Moscow’s decision to recognise two breakaway regions of Ukraine as independent republics.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/ASLuhn/status/1496575365137022985

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

It makes zero sense for Vietnam to pick either side. They may as well be Switzerland here.

Speaking about Switzerland:

https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1496559219214069760

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1496578668411428864

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/1496619010842152960
He had a good speech just now. It might be a very sad day today...

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Reminder: in 2002 Putin said regarding Ukraine's Nato membership that "the decision is to be taken by NATO & Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners".

https://twitter.com/AVindman/status/1495423040909365249
https://twitter.com/ValoisDuBins/status/1495583736670613507

It was before US showed in Iraq and Libya that you can sew chaos and deaths to millions, and nobody including people of Finland will care, if you're strong enough,. You set the precedent...

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Reminder: in 2002 Putin said regarding Ukraine's Nato membership that "the decision is to be taken by NATO & Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners".

https://twitter.com/AVindman/status/1495423040909365249
https://twitter.com/ValoisDuBins/status/1495583736670613507

It was before US showed in Iraq and Libya that you can sew chaos and deaths to millions, and nobody including people of Finland will care, if you're strong enough,. You set the precedent...

'The US made a horrific foreign policy decision 20 years ago' isn't a casus belli or a moral justification for starting your own war.

I didn't say any of that. I'm against war. But US gave Putin plausibility/talking points by setting a precedent.