Ukraine and Russia Developments, Thread 3

[pacifism]

Ok guys,

Here's the newest thread where you can discuss the actions of the players embroiled in the 'Ukrainian Issue'.

Please all bear in mind that the ToS and the Debating Forum Rules are in full effect here when you post. In the most basic sense, this means that you are expected to attack posts and not posters, put videos in spoilers, and provide a warning of posts containing violence or gore. Failure in doing any of these things makes them liable for edits, deletions, or infractions by Moderation Staff.

We have made this thread and closed the old one to specifically include the following reminder. Moderation will continue with their stance against certain posts that either disrupt or add nothing to the conversation. This includes, but is not limited to, lacking a point behind your post, continuously demanding sources that have been provided, bringing the conversation back from where it started from in a circle, and regurgitating media updates like a news ticker (opposed to giving some of your own thoughts and content in posts).

Now that you all understand and implicitly agree to follow these rules, post away!


---
For reference, here are links to the original thread and the second one.

[Gertrudius]

Is anyone else struggling to understand the dichotomy inherent in Russian actions in Ukraine? I just don't understand the risk benefit metric Putin and the Russian leadership are using. On the one hand we can look at the seizure of Crimea and the stoking of war in Donbass as being a jump to take advantage of the instability caused by the failure of Russian policy in Kiev, and a scramble to try and salvage something from the situation. However given the position Russia was in, is it not insanely risky to take what was admittedly a policy setback with the result of Maidan, and commit themselves wholeheartedly to a policy that has dramatically alienated Ukraine and it's population for the foreseeable future? Its driven Ukraine to what some would call an irrevocable shift toward the West and EU/NATO. How can that be an acceptable result? Even if things go splendidly for Russia in Donbass, it is still unlikely to bring Russia enough influence in Kiev to prevent a long term slide toward the West. Granted, they may not have been expecting the resolve of the Ukrainian response and the strengthening of the Ukrainian national identity that has supported it, nor maybe the degree of economic pressure the west was willing to go to and the results that would have on the Russian economy, but I'm still not seeing where the upside is. From a foreign policy perspective I can't see what's happening as anything less than a complete waste of resources and a failure in strategic thinking that may well entail traumatic consequences for Russia in the international arena (and perhaps it's economy).

On another note, when taken with it's roles in frozen conflicts on its other borders, a pattern of such action that may represent a purposeful rather than reactionary policy isn't entirely out of the question. But what does that truly achieve? Sure, it gives Russia leverage in those countries, destabilizing them and reducing their ability to act as a threat to Russia and its interests in the short term, but are the long term dividends really that useful? Breeding a ring of discontent and outright hatred from your neighbors seems like a sure way to ensure the long term insecurity of your borders. Taken altogether with whats currently going on, its driven Georgia and Ukraine towards NATO, it has given NATO a European security threat to validate its continued existence, generated alarm from it's neighbors and has already seen a new commitment to military development and spending from some of them. I am completely baffled when I consider the influence that Russia could wield using it's own considerable soft power potential. I believe that Russia has the capacity to positively interact with it's neighbors in a way that could pay dividends far more desirable than the violence, instability, and inanity of current policies.

The only thing that makes Russian actions in Ukraine have some semblance of coherence is when looked at through a domestic lens. Unfortunately most of what I know about Russia's domestic situation is at least a century out of date, so I can't claim to have a firm understanding of what long term benefit might be entailed domestically through Russia's actions, if indeed there are any.

I'm not really looking to debate any of you chaps on the issue, I've been following the vitriolic assaults on intellect throughout these threads since their beginning and I'm not enamored of it. However I am looking to understand where Russia is coming from with it's current strategic thinking and it's long term implications for Russian security. I would really appreciate a reasoned perspective that addresses some of the comprehension problems I'm having, but just keep in mind I may not respond.

[Adar]

Quote just included to show who I am responding to

My guess is that this have turned into a bit of an unexpected escalation for Putin. To summarize the time frame (full post with sources here).

February-March: A well planned and organized seizure of Crimea combined with limited support for local unrest in Donetsk and Luhansk.

April-August: Support with legacy equipment, "cossacks" and volunteers in Donetsk and Luhansk while the seizure of Mariupol failed.

August-Current: As Ukraine looked to secure Donetsk and Luhansk Russia launched it's counter offensive with modern equipment and organized military units.

My guess is that Putin saw the seizure of Crimea as highly important and gambled that there would only be a limited reaction (which turned out to be correct). During this period "local disturbances" in Donetsk, Luhansk and Mariupol was mainly a sideshow to be used as a bargaining chip and to weaken Ukraine.

The situation then escalated in the summer as separatists and insurgents in Donetsk and Luhansk proved to be more successful than anticipated. Given the lackluster response from the UN/West and strong popular support in Russia this created an opportunity for further advancement of Russian interests. The coordinated Ukrainian counter offensive in August however forced Putin to chose between giving up and escalating in which case he chose the later.

Get to choose what? They've always had the ability to choose to stay in Ukraine. Debaltseve was an isolated case where the choice so to speak was between staying Ukrainian government territory vs separatist territory and the rebels accused the government of not telling the people they had the option to go into separatist territory. Per the UN over 800.000 people fled Ukraine into Russia and 460.000 became displaced inside Ukraine, including displaced inside rebel territory.

People rarely try to flee through the frontlines. In Debaltseve they got the opportunity to take the bus either to Russian held territory or Ukrainian territory.

Also your numbers on refugees seem to be off if we trust the UNHCR.

http://www.unhcr.org/54d4a2889.html

Ukraine's Ministry of Social Policy puts the number of registered IDPs countrywide at 980,000 – a figure that is expected to rise as more newly uprooted people are being registered. In addition, some 600,000 Ukrainians have sought asylum or other forms of legal stay in neighbouring countries, particularly the Russian Federation, but also Belarus, Moldova, Poland, Hungary and Romania, since February 2014.
Spokesman Adrian Edwards told journalists in Geneva that UNHCR teams were reporting that heavy fighting in the Donetsk region over the last two weeks has resulted in massive destruction of buildings and infrastructure and in the collapse of basic services.
"Local authorities have begun to evacuate people from conflict areas, but many are still trapped by the fighting, including in basements and buildings under constant bombardment. The evacuations are being organized by the government helped by local volunteers," he said.
More than 2,800 civilians, including about 700 children and 60 people living with disability, have been evacuated from the towns of Debaltseve, Avdiivka and Svitlodar, which have seen fierce combat. Several incidents of shelling of buses carrying the evacuees have been reported.

I would however not be surprised if the number refugees to Russia may be higher if people doesn't report their stay to Russian authorities.

[mrmouth]

I just don't understand the risk benefit metric Putin and the Russian leadership are using.

So many Western intelligence assessments of the Soviet Union leadership came back to respect, or lack thereof, being the key issue. The problem with most every Russian leader is that it becomes personal. Russia has been burdened by a victim complex and its leaders are human beings who buy most deeply into that. Putin is just the latest. When Putin was given the respect he craved by Bush, things were different. The minute the West looked elsewhere, Putin needed to remind people he still existed.

Putin's Russia will never come to grips with what its actual role in the world is. For as much as the media wants to crown him some master of strategy, there really isn't any. He is the face and arm of a conglomeration of former Soviet intelligence, Oligarchs and organized crime that wants to control Russia and only have energy profits to do so, in a fast changing world. His only tangible domestic accomplishment is tax reform and his countries long-term financial assessment is pitiful. The fact he rolled an economic trojan horse into Western European banks has far more to do Western greed than anything else.



The Khrushchev documentary about his road trip in the USA in 1959 is the best example of the unbelievable change that occurred in the mind of a Russian leader when he was given the respect he craved. He took that back to the Soviet Union and planned for what would be a revolution in Soviet/USA relations. He spent on a building spree of golf courses and luxury hotels to impress American leaders when he planned to host them. Unfortunately, the Cold War did not stop and the U2 spy plane was shot down not long after. That killed any goodwill and it helped usher in the very real prospect of nuclear war.

Many believe, even now, that Khrushchev was perfectly capable of starting world annihilation. He was thought to be simple minded to the point he was that dangerous (Indeed the overriding strategic assessment by the West was that making the Soviets think too much at any give point in time could end in disaster). Many of those same people believe that shaking the hands of so many smiling Americans helped in preventing that.

[Sire Brenshar]

So far maybe only one or two posts about Ukraine and many about the US? Great start.

and provide a warning of posts containing violence or gore.

Apologies if this is not the place, but I thought videos and images with violence were prohibited completely? In any case I got an infraction point for that a few months back.

Cant PM unfortunately, otherwise I would.

Is anyone else struggling to understand the dichotomy inherent in Russian actions in Ukraine? I just don't understand the risk benefit metric Putin and the Russian leadership are using. On the one hand we can look at the seizure of Crimea and the stoking of war in Donbass as being a jump to take advantage of the instability caused by the failure of Russian policy in Kiev, and a scramble to try and salvage something from the situation. However given the position Russia was in, is it not insanely risky to take what was admittedly a policy setback with the result of Maidan, and commit themselves wholeheartedly to a policy that has dramatically alienated Ukraine and it's population for the foreseeable future? Its driven Ukraine to what some would call an irrevocable shift toward the West and EU/NATO. How can that be an acceptable result? Even if things go splendidly for Russia in Donbass, it is still unlikely to bring Russia enough influence in Kiev to prevent a long term slide toward the West. Granted, they may not have been expecting the resolve of the Ukrainian response and the strengthening of the Ukrainian national identity that has supported it, nor maybe the degree of economic pressure the west was willing to go to and the results that would have on the Russian economy, but I'm still not seeing where the upside is. From a foreign policy perspective I can't see what's happening as anything less than a complete waste of resources and a failure in strategic thinking that may well entail traumatic consequences for Russia in the international arena (and perhaps it's economy).

On another note, when taken with it's roles in frozen conflicts on its other borders, a pattern of such action that may represent a purposeful rather than reactionary policy isn't entirely out of the question. But what does that truly achieve? Sure, it gives Russia leverage in those countries, destabilizing them and reducing their ability to act as a threat to Russia and its interests in the short term, but are the long term dividends really that useful? Breeding a ring of discontent and outright hatred from your neighbors seems like a sure way to ensure the long term insecurity of your borders. Taken altogether with whats currently going on, its driven Georgia and Ukraine towards NATO, it has given NATO a European security threat to validate its continued existence, generated alarm from it's neighbors and has already seen a new commitment to military development and spending from some of them. I am completely baffled when I consider the influence that Russia could wield using it's own considerable soft power potential. I believe that Russia has the capacity to positively interact with it's neighbors in a way that could pay dividends far more desirable than the violence, instability, and inanity of current policies.

The only thing that makes Russian actions in Ukraine have some semblance of coherence is when looked at through a domestic lens. Unfortunately most of what I know about Russia's domestic situation is at least a century out of date, so I can't claim to have a firm understanding of what long term benefit might be entailed domestically through Russia's actions, if indeed there are any.

I'm not really looking to debate any of you chaps on the issue, I've been following the vitriolic assaults on intellect throughout these threads since their beginning and I'm not enamored of it. However I am looking to understand where Russia is coming from with it's current strategic thinking and it's long term implications for Russian security. I would really appreciate a reasoned perspective that addresses some of the comprehension problems I'm having, but just keep in mind I may not respond.

I will answer in more detail eventually, but for right now keep in mind that there is not always easily understood rationality in state actions. Russian glory and being a great power, is very much a 'goal' of Putin and of ordinary Russias.

Observe for example what Medvedev said in 2008 on the subject of Russian ascension to the EU: '' Great powers to not join [alliances], they create them '' (from the top of my head so maybe not word for word). And if you observe Russian official rhetoric you'll see right away how representative this is of Russian foreign policy thinking. From saying they have a 'special interests zone' ie eastern europe and threatening to go to nuclear war over denial of this zone, to annexation their neighbors its pretty clear they simply do not care to abide by western or international rules and principles, when it is inconvenient to do so.

So in short they demand to be treated as a great power, or even a power on parity with the US, not just as another 'equal state'. Again similarities with fascist Germany Japan and Italy are endless, though it is very much a 'liberal vs conservative/ realist' divide as well.

Another way of viewing this is simply where Putins goal, is to keep Europe divided and Ukraine weak to ensure European dependency in Russian energy resources. In addition to the facade of 'Russian greatness' then, Putin and his allies are simply trying to make a buck (or rather several billion bucks).

Ill point out that Putin did rise to wealth and clout off illegal dealings in st Petersburg after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that saw him stealing millions intended for buying food for starving citizens. If he didn't care then hard to believe he does now.

[Roma_Victrix]

So far maybe only one or two posts about Ukraine and many about the US? Great start.

Sire, are you honestly suggesting that anything in geopolitics is worth talking about unless the US is involved somehow?

Honestly, US or Russian dick-waving aside, this thread should be entirely about Ukraine and its people, particularly the Donetsk and Luhansk revolt. Crimea, as we can see clearly now that the dust has settled, will stay with Russia for the foreseeable future.

[Adar]

Sire, are you honestly suggesting that anything in geopolitics is worth talking about unless the US is involved somehow?

Honestly, US or Russian dick-waving aside, this thread should be entirely about Ukraine and its people, particularly the Donetsk and Luhansk revolt insurgency. Crimea, as we can see clearly now that the dust has settled, will stay with Russia for the foreseeable future.

It's more of an insurgency than a revolt.

Crimea on the other hand was an invasion.

[Sire Brenshar]

All this is happening because US+allies did not take Russia seriously after the 90s collapse.

Nonsense of course. Russia was treated very differently from the rest of ex Soviet and Warsaw pact countries. And what does that even mean 'not taken seriously'? What do you think international relations are??

For better or for worse, Russia DOES have a 'special interests zone'

If its not recognized as being so, then it is meaningless. And who falls under this zone anyways?

much like US throwing a fit when pretty much anything happens in Latin America (Russian warships visiting? OH GOD HEADLINES EVERYWHERE!!)

You do know that 'US' doea not equal 'media', right? One is a state, of which you say had a fit, so can you source that? Like by ''fit'' do you mean the US invaded some country or enacted sanctons against it? Or did it just say it was disappointed in Latin American developments and thats all?

What headlines appear, are irrelevant to the US government as they merely represent what the media thinks to be important events. (Did I really need to explain that?) Do you even live in the US and read American news?

or France continuously intervening in North Africa.

At requests of governments there. Nice false comparison.

[QUOTE=Akrotatos;14423042]US + Europe thought that Russia's collapse meant this 'zone' was now non-existant. /QUOTE]

Really they thought that did they? Funny as Russian policy makers only formulated this idea of a 'special interests zone' well after the Soviet collapse, it wasn't a policy that existed during the cold war (how would it even?)

Hence, the war against Serbia (Russia's traditional ally) the EU and NATO expansion to the east, color revolutions and of course what finally awakened Russian nationalism, the 2008 Georgian war.

Serbia is not Russias 'traditional ally', unless you count once during the 19th to early 20th century. And NATO intervention only occured years after the Balkan conflict began.

Yeah ' awakened ' Russian nationalism. So what was Russia s special interest zone before that? A non nationalist idea? And how would you even guage that

I remember monitoring the events leading to the war and the clear Georgian escalation and then seeing the news "RUSSIA INVADES GEORGIA" and was the first time I realised eaxctly how un-free our media are.

So wait, youre saying Russia didn't invade Georgia, and didn't for the past 20 years and to this day have troops occupying a third of their country?

Im sorry to hear the Greek media is unfree. Anyways in the rest of the west where we do enjoy demonstrably free media we have access to a more clear picture, not skewed by this bizzare pro-Orthodox bias.

I believe that Russian paranoia is not unfounded if you see this series of events. The West was and is out to get them. Not beause the West is evil but because there are geopolitic and economic interests that clash with Russia.

So the west is out to get Russia, by buying Russian gas, investing in Russia, by the withdrawal of US troops (from 200 000 in 1989 to 30 000 today), and by demilitarizing. And Russia by doubling their defense budget, practicing nuclear strikes on Warsaw and Stockholm, and rehearsing invasions of the baltic states, are merely justifiably paranoid. They don't have a dictator who uses the old populist 'they' are out to get us trick either. Fantastic conclusion, very impartial and definitely well founded.

Remember when the west allowed Ukraine to keep nuclear weapons? Divide and conquer huh? Or when they enacted sanctions on Russia for destabilising Georgia and invading it? And remember how they deployed defense systems in former Soviet and WP states?

Sire, are you honestly suggesting that anything in geopolitics is worth talking about unless the US is involved somehow?

Of course not, that doesnt even make sense! Without US there is no 'world relations', or anything worthwhile.

Honestly, US or Russian dick-waving aside, this thread should be entirely about Ukraine and its people, particularly the Donetsk and Luhansk revolt. Crimea, as we can see clearly now that the dust has settled, will stay with Russia for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, every time I visit these forums I think about making a Russian Geopolitics thread, to discuss Russia Eastern Europe in context and all that.

Maybe someday (maybe later today even! Maybe...)

[ShockBlast]

It`s simple, what drives Tzar Vladimir Vladimirovici Putin is sheer Russianess and the fact that the vast proportion of the Russian population is living in the 19th century.

The idea that Ukraine can side with who they want is so foreign to the vast majority of the Russian population.

They also adhere to the belief that the Russian Federation can apply it`s "stronkness" on it`s neighbours to get it`s hands on any area that has a sizeble Russian population.

Putin and the 90% or so of the population that supports him are living in a time bubble and they can`t grasp 21th century diplomacy and concepts like sovereignty and the fact that RF has an economy equal to that of Italy.

As you said, the only way to make heads of tails is to try to put yourself in the shoes of a Russian nationalist that denies Ukraine`s right to exist and everything that goes with it.

Cheers.

[Basil II the B.S]

For anyone hoping of a Russian collapse anytime soon, Goldman Sachs is advising its clients to buy Russian bonds.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...en-t-priced-in

[Adar]

For anyone hoping of a Russian collapse anytime soon, Goldman Sachs is advising its clients to buy Russian bonds.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...en-t-priced-in

So Russia is wasting half it's monetary reserve in a year but you prefer to trust the word of these guys?

Source
Mr. Egol, a Princeton graduate, had risen to prominence inside the bank by creating mortgage-related securities, named Abacus, that were at first intended to protect Goldman from investment losses if the housing market collapsed. As the market soured, Goldman created even more of these securities, enabling it to pocket huge profits.

Goldman’s own clients who bought them, however, were less fortunate.
Pension funds and insurance companies lost billions of dollars on securities that they believed were solid investments, according to former Goldman employees with direct knowledge of the deals who asked not to be identified because they have confidentiality agreements with the firm.
Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc., an investment company whose parent firm was overseen by Lewis A. Sachs, who this year became a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

[Basil II the B.S]

So Russia is wasting half it's monetary reserve in a year but you prefer to trust the word of these guys?

By the same logic we shouldn't believe anything that comes out of the US ever again. Because those actually warning about the housing bubble are less than the number of fingers on your hand, those saying ''everything's fine'' are entire US media/banks/economic apparatus.

[Vanoi]

By the same logic we shouldn't believe anything that comes out of the US ever again. Because those actually warning about the housing bubble are less than the number of fingers on your hand, those saying ''everything's fine'' are entire US media/banks/economic apparatus.

Russia is about to go into a recession. Is America? Which country relies on oil for its general budget? Which country is slapped by sanctions and watched the ruble plunge in value?

Russia isn't going to be doing well anytime soon. Russia is now basing its budget on if oil was at 50$ a barrel even though i think its at 60$ right now. And some think it could still go lower

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102505215

Demand is decreasing and even more countries are flooding the markets with oil and gas includes states like Libya and Iraq who have oil production now somewhat returning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/bu...pply.html?_r=0

The US is running out of storage for its own oil. And production is still increasing even with low oil prices. Not looking good for Russia right now.

[Basil II the B.S]

Russia is about to go into a recession. Is America?

America was deep into it not long ago.

Which country relies on oil for its general budget?

Norway, Saudi Arabia, etc. Which country is in trouble every decade because of financial bubbles popping?

Which country is slapped by sanctions and watched the ruble plunge in value?

Ruble is surging. And speculative attacks didn't work. America is running out of weapons and every time it fails it makes Russia stronger.

Russia isn't going to be doing well anytime soon. Russia is now basing its budget on if oil was at 50$ a barrel even though i think its at 60$ right now. And some think it could still go lower

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102505215

Demand is decreasing and even more countries are flooding the markets with oil and gas includes states like Libya and Iraq who have oil production now somewhat returning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/bu...pply.html?_r=0

The US is running out of storage for its own oil. And production is still increasing even with low oil prices. Not looking good for Russia right now.

Russia is prepared for oil prices as low as 30$. Besides, everyone knows it's Saudi Arabia rigging and it's not going to last. Ironically (part 2), should things escalate militarily the oil price would skyrocket to 200$. And they aren't even playing the hard ball, Putin could easily announce the intention to arm Iran with nukes. That alone would double the oil price.

In the long term, the ones losing are indeed the Americans anyways. Russia is by far the largest hard commodity market and everyone will want to have a piece of that. Now, as long as it was communism vs capitalism, it was an ideological conflict, but Americans have made it personal and it's no surprise that they are now far more hated in Russia than when communism was around. Americans are no longer welcome in Russia and personal enmities of this level take centuries to overcome.
To prevent the inevitable downsizing of America, you've lost access to their resources for good.
Great job nobel peace prize.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

So Russia is wasting half it's monetary reserve in a year but you prefer to trust the word of these guys?

It was not wasted but used to stabilize the state. Actually that's Keynes in perfection. Save money if the economic situation is good and spent it when the situation is bad. Why should i not trust those bonds when i have to compare them with American bonds. Yes America has a strategic reserve, but if i look in to the state depts and the image of Russia is a hundred times better. Actually it is quite smart to invest in Russian bonds right now, because they are cheap now, while there is a high chance that the land will recover. This is not the Jelzin era. Think about it how those huge money reservers were built up. They almost entirely were earned in the Putin era, which is one of the point some people give him credit for because they actually were used for the state and didn't went in to the pockets of Shell, Exxon etc. If Russia doesn't become bankrupt, than those reservers will almost sure increase again, because the low of the oil price is only temporary. The European Oil nations already had their peak in the last decade and GB already has to pay more for oil imports than they ever earned with their exports in the last decades. The fracting which is responsible for a short economic boom in the US is based on leant time. They often sell this oil for less money than they had to spent to earn it and the most companies working with fraking had to take huge loans to even start. The problem is that a fraking oil source generally reaches it's peak after one year already and you can imagine that this "boom" won't last 10 years. The entire fraking system is a huge time bomb ready to explode in a couple of years, while the Russian's as so often have the time on their side. Their income now might be low, but it is a steady one with a huge chance to increase again because they simply have the largest ressources in the world, while the western nation live of leant time.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Yes oil production is increasing but how much will it last? Fraking is not a bout huge fields. The exploitation is much more expansive than the returns and within a decade the entire boom will be over because the lack of ressources. When do they expect to ever get real money out of it? In long term Saudi Arabia and Russia can only win. Not aknowlegding that when we rely on oil, that there are no alternatives than Russia and Saudi Arabia is not aknowledging the truth. Lybia, Venezuela, US, Norway, GB but also Iraq are only minor solution which won't outlast the Russian ressources. The only way Russia can't win this is when somehow western major oil companies get access to russian ressources as they tried in the 90s. If Russia is only strong in this one case in ressisting and defend the access to this ressources there is nothing anyone can do. Then they will always have enough money because there is no way around them as long as there is no major and revolunionary breakthrough wich replaces oil and gas.

[Vanoi]

Yes oil production is increasing but how much will it last? Fraking is not a bout huge fields. The exploitation is much more expansive than the returns and within a decade the entire boom will be over because the lack of ressources.

What year do you think we are in? 2010? Fracking is taking off in the US because its become cheaper. Do you know how much shale oil is supposed to be under the US? The top four biggest shale oil deposits in the world are in the US. Its going to lats a very long time. But along Russia or Saudi Arabia, the US doe snot rely on this resource for its budget.

Do you even realize the US does not even sell oil? Ban on fossil fuel exports.

When do they expect to ever get real money out of it? In long term Saudi Arabia and Russia can only win. Not aknowlegding that when we rely on oil, that there are no alternatives than Russia and Saudi Arabia is not aknowledging the truth. Lybia, Venezuela, US, Norway, GB but also Iraq are only minor solution which won't outlast the Russian ressources. The only way Russia can't win this is when somehow western major oil companies get access to russian ressources as they tried in the 90s.

As i pointed out, you can make money on fracking as its much cheaper to do now. If there was no money to be made in fracking then why is fracking increasingly through out the world? Even Russia is fracking but needs Western technology to make it profitable.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...orld/?page=all

Fracking is no longer a super expensive option.

If Russia is only strong in this one case in ressisting and defend the access to this ressources there is nothing anyone can do. Then they will always have enough money because there is no way around them as long as there is no major and revolunionary breakthrough wich replaces oil and gas.

It doesn't matter if they have oil or gas if its selling at such low prices. Russia cannot, subversive, period. We already see this in Venezuela which relies on oil itself for its budget. Its economy has basically collapsed due to oil prices.

Russia is not invincible. The recession sit going to have will prove this.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

As i pointed out, you can make money on fracking as its much cheaper to do now. If there was no money to be made in fracking then why is fracking increasingly through out the world? Even Russia is fracking but needs Western technology to make it profitable.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...orld/?page=all

Fracking is no longer a super expensive option.

Let me tell you as someone who is holding some stock and has a lot of friends which are really deep in to it. I never wanted to say, sorry if you interpreted it like that, that there is no money to make at all with fraking. There is a lot of money to make with it, but it is not based on real values. The production itself, even if it became much cheaper, is still a loss buiseness especially because of the low prices. The Russian and Saudis can produce the barrel under normal conditions, while the Americans have to put trice or more in to the production and still sell at to the same low prices. Why? Because even without the fact that they don't export it, they have to sell it to market value and the same fact that they buy fewer oil from outside the country does affect the world market.

But now back how they make money out of it, even if the production produces red numbers. That is basic market law. The production itself is mostly under sub companies of the energy giants and alone the media praising ressource independence, the promise that it would someday become profitable etc. is increasing the market value of the mother companies. Companies invest money in to the technique and investors invest money in to the companies based on the promise that one day it will pay out. It classical bet and since enough people buy it, it is profitable. Fact is that a huge number of companies who started the boom are already insolvent or taken over by the giants.

So the entire process becomes profitable today only on paper without real value. This can become another finance bubble about to explode or it could pay of a bit, but it is definitly not the huge thing which was promised. For that there are not enough ressources. It is true that there are thouse for great shelfs, but until they are accable they have no value. Russia has far more fields which might be accable in the future but aren't touched because they aren't profitable yet.

Thouse bubbles always implode when people realise that their profits only exist on paper. My guess is that this will happend in the next ten years and trigger another crisis.

[Papay]

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraines-presi...152152694.html


Ukraines president says that the truce does not work and argues more sanctions against Russia. But what are the options for Kiev? Reclaiming the territory lost is impossible since Russians will interfere openly.

[Roma_Victrix]

I suppose that one should always come prepared in life. In this case one should come prepared with nuclear retaliation.


Putin says Russia was ready for nuclear confrontation over Crimea