Europe at War

[BasilValentine]

It is a direct threat to Russia.

Todd's tell. ^ ^ ^ No answer, repeat BS.

[JBS]

It is a direct threat to Russia.

Only if Russia thinks invading other countries is necessary for its own survival.

[Karl Henning]

Todd's tell. ^ ^ ^ No answer, repeat BS.

Performative.

[Todd]

Only if Russia thinks invading other countries is necessary for its own survival.

Ukraine is not a random country.  The security implications of Ukraine for Russia are clear. 

[Todd]

Biden vows consequences for Saudi Arabia after OPEC+ decision

Emperor Biden is displeased, so he is expanding the economic war.  Alas, his options are limited.  Easing sanctions on Venezuela has been telegraphed, and of course its oil is not a perfect substitute for Saudi oil.  Lifting sanctions on Iran is a no-go and a no-no in the short term.  The SPR is limited, and already there are warnings about how much has already been released to the market.  Some sectors of the US oil industry can ramp up production quickly, but not enough, especially if the Saudis decide to retaliate by cutting production more.  This is a dilly of a pickle.  I look forward to seeing what Blinken and Sullivan Biden comes up with.

[Que]

Ukraine is not a random country.  The security implications of Ukraine for Russia are clear.

Ukraine is going to invade Russia?  NATO is going to invade Russia? 

This is not about security, this is about geopolitical power.

[Todd]

This is not about security, this is about geopolitical power.

Security and geopolitical power are inextricably linked. 

[amw]

Only if Russia thinks invading other countries is necessary for its own survival.

The idea that NATO is a defensive alliance rather than an offensive one would likely not be agreed with by the people of, e.g., Serbia, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Mali, Burkina Faso, Armenia, Iran, Cuba etc.

The only purpose of NATO has been to enable offensive wars, military coups, and economic chaos. This is not to say that the Russian government does not engage in its own offensive wars and military coups and sowing of economic chaos of course. But the Russian people in general have an accurate impression of what having NATO members on their borders means; the Baltic states were already considered enough of a threat in that respect.

(The current actions of the US federal reserve, offloading a potential domestic economic crisis onto countries within the US's sphere of influence, suggest that the people of Western Europe and other NATO countries should have an equally negative view of the alliance, but the US has worked very hard to ensure most people in the West are not capable of drawing these connections.)

[Todd]

The only purpose of NATO has been to enable offensive wars, military coups, and economic chaos.

I will disagree here because the continuation of and expansion of NATO also offers a perpetual reason to funnel trillions of dollars to the defense industry. 

That NATO has an offensive purpose well outside its original remit was clearly demonstrated this past summer when it officially designated China a threat.  Its "global partners" - including Mongolia, Japan, Columbia, and others - indicate that NATO, controlled by the US, has aggressive global ambitions.  NATO itself states that "many of the challenges the Alliance faces are global and no longer bound by geography." 

(The current actions of the US federal reserve, offloading a potential domestic economic crisis onto countries within the US's sphere of influence, suggest that the people of Western Europe and other NATO countries should have an equally negative view of the alliance, but the US has worked very hard to ensure most people in the West are not capable of drawing these connections.)

I will disagree here in that the ability of the US to export inflation - which is a given in monetary economics texts, classes, articles, and policy making circles around the world - is rooted in the status of the US dollar as the primary reserve currency.  Prior to the dollar becoming the dominant currency - either after WWI or WWII, depending on which analytical approach you use - the US had to suffer through and adapt to currency shocks.  US policy makers knew precisely what they were doing when they shitcanned Lord Keynes' suggestion to rely on a supranational basket of currencies rather than the dollar after WWII.  That was a good choice, the only choice for Americans.  Leaders in other countries occasionally squawk about US power - as when the French whined/whine (rightly!) about privilège exorbitant - but they are too feeble to do anything about it, just as they are too feeble and too dependent on the US for security to do anything about NATO.  I mean, sure, the Euro was supposed to be able to rival the dollar, and all that, but it was the ECB that has gone hat in hand begging to the Fed, not vice versa, and it is the ECB (and other monetarily "sovereign" countries) that must more or less work in lockstep with Fed policies - as evidenced by global central bank rate hikes.  The central banks don't have to raise rates; they can watch their currencies collapse completely.  It's good to be King Dollar.  One day that will end.  Just not this decade.  Or next.

[drogulus]

   

(The current actions of the US federal reserve, offloading a potential domestic economic crisis onto countries within the US's sphere of influence, suggest that the people of Western Europe and other NATO countries should have an equally negative view of the alliance, but the US has worked very hard to ensure most people in the West are not capable of drawing these connections.)

     I agree that if the Europeans stopped taking stupid pills they could double their defense budgets and tell the US to shove it. I blame cheeseburgers and Hollywood.

[Karl Henning]

   
     I agree that if the Europeans stopped taking stupid pills they could double their defense budgets and tell the US to shove it. I blame cheeseburgers and Hollywood.

Darn those Whoppers with cheese, anyhow!

[Todd]

'Russian army would be annihilated in case of nuclear attack on Ukraine': Josep Borrell

It's really rather humorous when EU leaders talk tough. 

[Madiel]

Ukraine is not a random country.  The security implications of Ukraine for Russia are clear.

Putin and his ilk don't even agree that Ukraine is a country, never mind a random one.

And you yourself have posted an article that follows that line, denying that Ukraine is a real country.

There were already NATO countries bordering Russia. The notion that this has anything to do with Russia disliking NATO on its doorstep is bullshit. This has to do with Russian leaders viewing Ukraine (and Belarus for that matter) as part of Russian territory.

[Karl Henning]

Id est, territorial aggression.

[drogulus]

     Russia is offering to evacuate residents from Kherson. For some residents this will be good news.

[Que]

     Russia is offering to evacuate residents from Kherson. For some residents this will be good news.

And top brass of the Russian army and intelligence are moving their families awsy from the Crimea...

The Russian defence lines around Kherson are crumbling. This is where Putin sent (wasted) some of his best troops...

It seems that the Russians expect an direct attack on the city, but I cannot see why the Ukrainians would do that. They will encircle and bide their time.

[LKB]

Perhaps the Ukrainians arranged for the Russians to " intercept " local communications referring to a direct assault, resulting in a panicky and wasteful reaction...

Or, perhaps the Ukrainians have decided that the Russian forces will crumble under any sort of determined assault, and since the direct option yields better optics, that it in fact what they'll do.

It's always nice to have the momentum, giving you a wider range of options.

[drogulus]

     The Uke government is telling citizens to seek safety in the Kherson area even if it means going to Russian occupied territory. The Russian occupiers may have in mind evacuating collaborators.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

     The Uke government is telling citizens to seek safety in the Kherson area even if it means going to Russian occupied territory. The Russian occupiers may have in mind evacuating collaborators.

Interesting!

PD

[amw]

The Russian defence lines around Kherson are crumbling. This is where Putin sent (wasted) some of his best troops...

It seems that the Russians expect an direct attack on the city, but I cannot see why the Ukrainians would do that. They will encircle and bide their time.

I'd expect two simultaneous Ukrainian offensives—one besieging the city from the Snihurivka/Dudchany direction, the other pushing towards Enerhodar and Melitopol from the Zaporizhzhia direction. This would lead to an effective large-scale encirclement and Ukrainian troops seem to have enough of a numerical advantage to pull it off.

(Russia hasn't tried to evacuate the latter cities though, so who knows.)