Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[fkizz]

Despite of political changes in Russia (external only), the mentality of the authorities has not changed at all for many dacades.

But with less politbureou and more centralized cult of personality.

[Cyclops]

A western attack on Russia would take the form of corporate infiltration. The (no doubt sensationalised) narrative around Hunter Biden is based on the reality that when a country comes into the US sphere of influence a bunch of suits arrive and meddle in the local politics. At best its Marshall Plan/ANZUS stuff, enlightened self interest, but theres also the Banana Republic model, which i think Russia and Ukraine would be more likely to experience.

I knew the son of a Russian expats in London in the 1990s, he was a broker essentially scooping up former Soviet concerns and stripping them out of IP and other assets.

If Ukraine can be a sentinel state they might get less Hunter Bidens and more concrete support. In a way the failed Russian invasion has set up an opportunity.

[Kyriakos]

It is (one of the reasons) why Russia very systematically threw out western companies/influence from their country; to avoid this type of colonization.

[Ludicus]

The war, the “west”, the US and the European strategic autonomy.

Europe accuses US of profiting from war - POLITICO.eu

Diplomacy Watch: Divisions flare in the West as winter looms

…According to an analysis by the Economist, a 10 percent increase in energy costs leads to a 0.6 percent jump in deaths in Europe. “Hence the energy crunch this year could cause over 100,000 extra deaths of elderly people across Europe,” the Economist writes.
This is no doubt part of why officials from the European Union have started to lash out at the United States in recent weeks.
As Politico notes, EU leaders believe that Washington is profiting from the war while shouldering relatively little of its ill effects.
“The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the U.S. because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons,” said one European leader who spoke with Politico, adding that “America needs to realize that public opinion [on the war] is shifting in many EU countries.

Beyond the cameras, Macron-Biden meeting tougher than it

The United States is now engaged in an effort — which will doubtless be continued under any future Republican administration – to replace the globalization of the past two generations with a new world of economic blocs, in which the Western bloc will be dominated by America and will be directed to holding down or even (in the case of Russia and Iran) seeking to destroy the economies of rival states.
For this strategy to succeed, it is essential that the EU be willing to follow America’s lead. This is a colossal ideological leap for the EU.

More importantly, leading European states (Germany in particular) are simply far more dependent both on international energy supplies and reasonably free global trade than is the United States.

In fact, I'm convinced that it will not be possible for much longer to disguise the growing dissatisfaction. And there are multiple reasons for this, even historical ones.
There is one lesson from history that Europeans should keep in mind. The European wars of the 20th century were good for the US and bad for Europe's influence in the world. In the WW1 geographical distance allowed the US to shield itself from the conflict and maintain a lucrative supply business with the allies. Their later participation at a late stage of the conflict (1917) after the Europe had exhausted much of their human and material resources – gave President Wilson an opportunity to reorganize Europe under his influence and to create the so-called liberal international order. The only reason this did not happen then was that the Republican Party refused Wilson the ratification of the treaty that would allow him to become part of the League of Nations.

What happened in World War II was even more obvious. The war was extraordinarily beneficial to the US economy and to its political and military power. They became indispensable suppliers and creditors to the allies, they intervened in the conflict far from their territory, and their human and military losses were far less than those of the two main belligerents in Europe: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

War has returned to Europe in early 2022 and reminds us of some of the intra-European conflicts of the last century. If this promise is kept, the future integration of Ukraine into the EU will entail a huge political/economic/and financial effort, but Europeans do not have the corresponding influence on political and military events, which weakens them.To sum up, that power belongs exclusively to the US.

It must be said that to speak of the "West" as if it were a unified political entity is a mistake. Expecting the US to pursue European interests is an illusion fueled by the use of the term "West”, or “we the west". In 2021, the US withdrew from Afghanistan without prior coordination with allies, and later that year, the AUKUS agreement ignored French and EU interests. The US Inflation Reduction Act (August), if left unchanged, is a potential blow to the European economy and industry, combined with high energy costs, four times higher than in the US.

Let’s also keep in mind that in the 1990s, Clinton pushed the EU to open its market further to the world, in the name of free trade and globalization. Now Europeans are being told that free trade is no longer the gospel they follow. (See In Washington, 'Free Trade' Is No Longer Gospel )

Bidden is a protectionist, as was Trump, metamorphosing the slogan "American First" into "Made in America". It’s the same, with a different name. Now, this selfish economic unilateralism is causing upheaval and unease in the EU (see above Europe accuses US of profiting from war - POLITICO.eu )

The important conclusion to draw is that European strategic autonomy is an empty slogan.
---

Edit- the title says it all: NYT, WSJ Look to Hawks for Ukraine Expertise - FAIR

---
From now on, it will be more difficult for Biden to negotiate aid to Ukraine. Poll finds Republican support for US aiding Ukraine's war is declining

…the share of Americans who believe the US should support Ukraine for “as long as it takes” dropped 10 percentage points since the summer, the poll also found.
About half, 48%, now say the US should support Ukraine “for as long as it takes, even if American households have to pay higher gas and food prices as a consequence,” while a similar 47% say the US should “urge Ukraine to settle for peace as soon as possible so that the costs aren’t so great for American households, even if that means Ukraine will lose some territory.”

US support for Ukraine sputtering as conflict drags on, poll ...

The share of Americans who believe the US should support Ukraine for “as long as it takes” dropped 10 percentage points since the summer, the poll also found.
Americans' perception of who is winning the conflict appears to be split, with 46 per cent of people believing the conflict is at a stalemate.
Twenty-six per cent believe Russia has the advantage, while another 26 per cent believe Ukraine has the upper hand.

Americans are pragmatists, and in the event of a standoff, the tendency will be to favor a negotiated solution.Then there is the issue of weaponry, which seems to worry Republicans. According to what I heard today on CNN, the US produces about 16,000 artillery shells per month. The Ukraine, in one day alone, spends about 6,000. How accurate this information is I don't know, but it is stated here that, Ukraine has an insatiable need for ammunition, but the US doesn't have an endless supply.

[PointOfViewGun]

Does Russia have an endless supply of shells?

[Sar1n]

Does Russia have an endless supply of shells?

Some people still think that Russia has industrial capability equal to Warsaw Pact at full strength and inherited all its military stockpile.

IN truth, all you need is to follow the money to see that it's consuming old stocks at such rapid rate that it's unlikely to last until summer. All you need is to compare the military budget to cost of materiel expended each day to see that, once you account for expenses in other sections of military, over 90% of materiel comes from stocks that have been barely replenished and gradually sold away by corrupt employees for the last thirty years.

[Septentrionalis]

It is (one of the reasons) why Russia very systematically threw out western companies/influence from their country; to avoid this type of colonization.

Like this?

Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to stem the flow of Western businesses fleeing the country over his decision to wage war on Ukraine.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/01/investing/russia-economy-capital-controls/index.html

[PointOfViewGun]

Some people still think that Russia has industrial capability equal to Warsaw Pact at full strength and inherited all its military stockpile.

IN truth, all you need is to follow the money to see that it's consuming old stocks at such rapid rate that it's unlikely to last until summer. All you need is to compare the military budget to cost of materiel expended each day to see that, once you account for expenses in other sections of military, over 90% of materiel comes from stocks that have been barely replenished and gradually sold away by corrupt employees for the last thirty years.

This all means that Russia's conflict with Ukraine is draining Russian military capability. Russia is killing its capability to fight the next war. The funny part is that Ludicus' own article talks about how Russia is burning away shells at a very high rate. Yet, we see no concern for Russia in his post but a lot of of boasting of imminent Ukrainian fire power collapse...

[conon394]

Beyond the cameras, Macron-Biden meeting tougher than it

Funny link again only the US has a agency and its malevolent and undercutting Europe intentinaly how do find so many.
Couple hight note from this one

"Resentment of America is alsogrowing at the fact that due to domestic fracking, U.S. gas pricesare a fraction of European ones”

That is funny. We resent you because we chose dependence on foreign production because we thought fracking was icky and did not push it here in Europe. And now its unfair that (the US) you put up with the environmental costs of production and have cheap gas. That only suppose to happen in the hinterlands of Russia to people we don't care about for our cheap gas. Cry me a river Ludicus.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...37-021-00003-5

"Due to public pressure, France issued a ban on hydraulic fracturingin 2011. They followed up on this ban in 2017, when the Frenchparliament passed legislation that banned all exploration andproduction of oil and natural gas within mainland France and alloverseas territories until 2040 [2]. Under the new law, France willnot allow new licenses or renew existing permits that allow frackingor the extraction of fossil fuels [40]. After a long period ofdeliberation, Germany followed suit."


Read forward for even in Eastern Europe the comparative failure of development.

"The United States is now engaged in an effort — which will doubtless be continued under any future Republican administration – to replace the globalization of the past two generations with a new world of economic blocs"

Ahh China's belt and road policy, currency manipulation demands for IP sharing or just theft, non transparent markets nope nothing to see here. But I get China does not have agency and more than Russia just the US.

“Inflation Reduction Act” whichprovides large tax credits for American (but only American) producersof electric cars and alternative energy. The EU has labeled thisunfair discrimination"

OK so I charge all European states with national health care with the same. Its deeply unfair to production in the US that Ford or IBM or Apple has to pay worker health care while European firms in Europe free ride on subsidized health care for their workers.

In fact, I'm convinced that it will not be possible for much longer to disguise the growing dissatisfaction. And there are multiple reasons for this, even historical ones.


There is one lesson from history that Europeans should keep in mind. The European wars of the 20th century were good for the US and bad for Europe's influence in the world. In the WW1 geographical distance allowed the US to shield itself from the conflict and maintain a lucrative supply business with the allies. Their later participation at a late stage of the conflict (1917) after the Europe had exhausted much of their human and material resources – gave President Wilson an opportunity to reorganize Europe under his influence and to create the so-called liberal international order. The only reason this did not happen then was that the Republican Party refused Wilson the ratification of the treaty that would allow him to become part of the League of Nations.

What happened in World War II was even more obvious. The war was extraordinarily beneficial to the US economy and to its political and military power. They became indispensable suppliers and creditors to the allies, they intervened in the conflict far from their territory, and their human and military losses were far less than those of the two main belligerents in Europe: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

War has returned to Europe in early 2022 and reminds us of some of the intra-European conflicts of the last century. If this promise is kept, the future integration of Ukraine into the EU will entail a huge political/economic/and financial effort, but Europeans do not have the corresponding influence on political and military events, which weakens them.To sum up, that power belongs exclusively to the US.

Tying not to be insulting but you really need to crawl out of your paranoid rabbit hole. What are you even trying to say here.

"In 2021, the US withdrew from Afghanistan without prior coordination with allies, and later that year, the AUKUS agreement ignored French and EU interests."

Err Trump signed the agreement quite a bit before the withdrawal it was hardly a surprise. The French were delivering and overprice and late dude - that gets defense contracts aborted.

"The US Inflation Reduction Act (August), if left unchanged, is a potential blow to the European economy and industry, combined with high energy costs, four times higher than in the US."

How?

[conon394]

This all means that Russia's conflict with Ukraine is draining Russian military capability. Russia is killing its capability to fight the next war. The funny part is that Ludicus' own article talks about how Russia is burning away shells at a very high rate. Yet, we see no concern for Russia in his post but a lot of of boasting of imminent Ukrainian fire power collapse...

In the long run also the Pentagon seems to be finally taking stock piles and production seriously. Be interesting to see what comes out of the talk of joint production with Taiwan and some of the big ammo purchases from the ROK.

[Sar1n]

This all means that Russia's conflict with Ukraine is draining Russian military capability. Russia is killing its capability to fight the next war. The funny part is that Ludicus' own article talks about how Russia is burning away shells at a very high rate. Yet, we see no concern for Russia in his post but a lot of of boasting of imminent Ukrainian fire power collapse...

Which is hilarious, because in a long war, what will matter most is industrial and financial power to keep the conflict going, and NATO and its allies dwarf Russia in this on massive scale. Look at military budgets. Russia had about 60 bn USD defense budget in 2021. US...over 700 bn. European part of NATO....over 300 bn. And even the close allies of NATO are dwarfing Russia, with South Korea and Japan spending over 50 bn each and Australia coming close to that number.

Come to think of it, using specifically artillery shells is massively misleading. USA military isn't big on the traditional, saturation fire artillery, it prefers precision strikes from large caliber rocket artillery and aircraft. Consequently, it has about 3000 towed and self-propelled pieces in service or storage. Compare it to Russia, which was supposed to have well over 10000 such pieces in service or storage (how many are actually working now, that entirely different can of worms). Subsequently, its own shell production is low. But within NATO and its allies, there are other countries producing artillery shells. As it happens, South Korea is one of largest artillery producers and users worldwide, and US have been buying their shells for Ukraine. The 155mm shells are NATO standard, and the donated NATO standard weaponry is still minority among Ukrainian forces, although it made significant impact (one article I read recently cited Ukrainian crews about effectiveness of M777....seems like it need 6 times fewer shells to hit the target compared to its Soviet equivalent D-20). Most of the Ukrainian arsenal is still old Warsaw Pact stuff. But conveniently, armories in eastern Europe, which are capable of producing such ammo, have been ramping up production and expanding.

[Ukiah]

European countries are feeling the need to rearm or replace old weapons.

[Cyclops]

...and Australia coming close to that number...

Thx great post.

A couple of observations.

First up sone poster cracked jokes about WH40k Russian force profiles, but it looks like its less of a joke and more of a sad reality.

The figure for Australian spending is oddly distributed. We have a decent airforce and navy profiled to support the US, and special forces who get trundled out as moral support for US police actions. Bexause of unions and pork barrelling the rate of return for naval spending is poor: also we're paying off the French for breaking the contract subs we ordered, which were bizarre bespoke items to start with inorder to satisfy nukephobic voters and some pretty crummy shipyards.Thats a coupla billion flushed.

Often we line up and buy [the current thing], weve bought 72 F35s.

AFAIK theres little other corruption or pilfering so the US gets some functionality from our spend, but were not sending 10 divisions. If you need 10 divisions call the Poles maybe...how many do they have?

[Ludicus]

What are you even trying to say here... "In 2021, the US withdrew from Afghanistan without prior coordination with allies, and later that year, the AUKUS agreement ignored French and EU interests."

It means that the rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan already during Biden's administration was not a joint decision of the allies, but a unilateral American decision. It means that in any coalition of forces, it is always the most powerful ally (whoever it is) that decides what is done - and when it is done.

The AUKUS?Testing the limits of international society?

The way Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States went about establishing AUKUS not only undermined key relationships with EU allies, but also put the rules-based international order under stress.
...it undermines mutual trust when it deliberately ignores the promises it has made to other countries. Trust is fragile and, as this article has shown, it is ‘hard to rebuild once it is lost’

"The US Inflation Reduction Act (August), if left unchanged, is a potential blow to the European economy and industry, combined with high energy costs, four times higher than in the US."
How?

How? read the full speech.
Ursula von der Leyen, Speech by the President: College of Europe in Bruges

…yes, the EU will respond in an adequate and well calibrated manner to the IRA.

The EU doesn't know what it is getting into because it starts from a position of weakness. Successive sanctions packages against Russia are one thing, it's another thing to get into a trade war with the US.
“EU should not bite off more than it can chew when it comes to the dispute.”, warns Jacob Kirkegaard “the dumbest thing we can do, is to start a trade war because we're in a weak position. That's simply a reality.

You have been warned, EU.

How Biden's …Could Spur a Trade War With Europe - NYTimes

“There’s potential for this to escalate into a larger conflict,” Niclas Poitiers, a research fellow specializing in international trade at Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank.

--

Meanwhile, Ukraine requests access to US stockpile of cluster bombs, Biden administration weighs Ukrainian requests

The US is not a signatory to the 2010 ban. After all, it seems that everyone uses cluster bombs when they feel it is “necessary”. NATO, Russia and Ukraine against civilian populations (Back in 2914, Ukraine crisis: Army accused of using cluster bombs – BBC)

The Ukrainians think that with cluster bombs they will win the war quickly, and an Operations expert at RAND has already declared his support: “Ukraine are facing an "enemy force that seems to have gone onto some kind of operational defensive. If they are in dug-in positions and… you are able to find those positions through aerial observation of whatever type, then cluster munitions, I think, would be much more effective." Why would Ukraine use cluster munitions to attack Russian

--
Edit,
I find it completely unrealistic to expect Ukraine to win the war. This process will inevitably have to end in a negotiated peace, with compromises on both sides, and the sooner the better. It is not desirable for this war to continue until NATO troops are directly involved in this conflict, which could lead to a nuclear conflict, or until Ukraine is destroyed, turned into an uneviable state. Nor can a coup d'état be expected to happen in Russia that would change the course of events. Whatever the Russian leader, Putin or anyone else, will never accept a Russian defeat. The United States knows it well, but it’s trying to push the weakening of Russian military power to the limit, in my opinion mainly for geostrategic reasons, but this is a game that could end badly for all of us.

Again, the opinion poll from the Chicago Council of Global Affairs shows the Chicago Council on Global Affairs opinion poll shows how American citizens are divided (and the Republican support is also declining)

About half, 48%, now say the US should support Ukraine “for as long as it takes, even if American households have to pay higher gas and food prices as a consequence,” while a similar 47% say the US should “urge Ukraine to settle for peace as soon as possible so that the costs aren’t so great for American households, even if that means Ukraine will lose some territory.

[mishkin]

I am preparing a movement in Spain to launch a lightning attack and take over Portugal because it is a country full of fascists. Then we will negotiate because Portugal cannot win the war and the Spanish we will keep everything north of Lisbon.

[Kyriakos]

Like this?



https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/01/investing/russia-economy-capital-controls/index.html

I was alluding to ngo's and buying local strategically important companies; not much point in kicking mcdonalds and the like out

[conon394]

It means that the rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan already during Biden's administration was not a joint decision of the allies, but a unilateral American decision. It means that in any coalition of forces, it is always the most powerful ally (whoever it is) that decides what is done - and when it is done.

It was a decision of the Trump administration. Please be exact. And Biden risked a fair amount just dragging out the time as he did. At least blame the correct administration if you don't like the policy.

You dodged answering the energy whine

How? read the full speech.
Ursula von der Leyen, Speech by the President: College of Europe in Bruges

Again so I counter charge EU countries national health care plans are an obvious subsidy to European industry and unfair...

"State aid is a tried and tested tool here in Europe to incentivise business activities for the public interest. Last summer, for instance, we approved EUR 5.4 billion in state aid for the hydrogen value chain, under one of our IPCEIs. These public investments will benefit 35 companies from 15 Member States, from Portugal to Denmark, from Finland to Italy."

Ahh so now we are just down to pot calling kettle black? Hmm we are the who subsidize are industry no fair Biden you can't.

Meanwhile, Ukraine requests access to US stockpile of cluster bombs, Biden administration weighs Ukrainian requests

The US is not a signatory to the 2010 ban. After all, it seems that everyone uses cluster bombs when they feel it is “necessary”. NATO, Russia and Ukraine against civilian populations (Back in 2914, Ukraine crisis: Army accused of using cluster bombs – BBC)

The Ukrainians think that with cluster bombs they will win the war quickly, and an Operations expert at RAND has already declared his support: “Ukraine are facing an "enemy force that seems to have gone onto some kind of operational defensive. If they are in dug-in positions and… you are able to find those positions through aerial observation of whatever type, then cluster munitions, I think, would be much more effective." Why would Ukraine use cluster munitions to attack Russian

So far seems like an option that is rather more being considered as a emergency option if other munitions deliveries start become difficult and supply/production issues are not solved sooner rather than later.

I find it completely unrealistic to expect Ukraine to win the war. This process will inevitably have to end in a negotiated peace, with compromises on both sides

You noticed Putin offering compromise positions do tell?


on you last reference to link please or I missed it earlier. In any I really doubt most Americans can actually elaborate all the reasons for higher prices now. And b the poll question seems to imply supporting Ukraine is the only one. How many Americans can recall it was way higher in 2008 and there was no war in Ukraine. Or that from 2006 to 2014 OIl was reliably over $100 and mostly well over $110 to over $150. Short term memory problems I guess.

[Cyclops]

It was a decision of the Trump administration. Please be exact. And Biden risked a fair amount just dragging out the time as he did. At least blame the correct administration if you don't like the policy.

Just to nitpick, the US usually maintains a consistent foreign policy across party lines (so Reagan and Clinton both were happy to send out little expeditions to sensitive places) and massive lurches like Bush II's Grand Theft Autofuel are the exception. Its a nice deflection to say "iT wAs ThE oThEr GuYs" but my feeling is withdrawal from Afghanistan was necessary in 2003, and the next two administrations kicked the can down the road until Trump was either oblivious or bloody minded enough to carry it, and Biden put it to bed.

That's not to support the point you're countering: Afghanistan was a US revenge strike that mission crept. It was always the US call to stay or go.

US tampering with Russia's terror attack on Ukraine is clearly a different beast. Russia isn't the cultural and geographic fact here, Ukraine is. As an invader Russia is no more than a post Soviet weapons stockpile that can be diminished in a cost effective way which benefits Europeans (except Soviet and Nazi wetdreamers).

More broadly the US only gets traction from its most committed allies for its silliest adventures. In Iraq only 4 showed up (Pol UK Aus and can't remember, I just remember "they forgot Poland") vs Afghanistan where the whole crew came to play. Ukraine is closer to Afghanistan levels of support. Most importantly Germany was not in Iraq and its pretty firmly there for Ukraine. Even Finland has picked a side, there isn't a viable alternative anymore: as mentioned earlier this isn't just a result of the Ukraine terror attack, its been building for some time. Putin has run Russia into the ground and it can only survive by attacking its neighbours.

You noticed Putin offering compromise positions do tell?....

As usual straight to the jugular.

Any reasonable discussion starts with Russia behind the 2014 lines: Russia's partisans want civilised behaviour to commence only after the decapitation strike failed. Demanding reasonable behaviour from other interested parties right after you've taken a crap on international law is classic salami tactics, although usually the criminal terrorist brigand scum succeed in their theft first.

Monkey Putin hasn't even grasped the banan and he's demanding help. Naughty monkey, no banan!

Any defence of Russian crimes at this stage is a joke, so here's a joke for Putin's defenders...

[conon394]

Just to nitpick, the US usually maintains a consistent foreign policy across party lines (so Reagan and Clinton both were happy to send out little expeditions to sensitive places) and massive lurches like Bush II's Grand Theft Autofuel are the exception. Its a nice deflection to say "iT wAs ThE oThEr GuYs" but my feeling is withdrawal from Afghanistan was necessary in 2003, and the next two administrations kicked the can down the road until Trump was either oblivious or bloody minded enough to carry it, and Biden put it to bed.

"Bush II's Grand Theft Autofuel" Nice one...

Yes am playing the other guy here a bit. But really I do see the situation under Biden as pretty cut and dry and should have been a surprise to none. Obviously I really blame Bush Jr for the epic Iraq distraction and so blindly walking into nation building that nobody in his admin had any really interest in. Obama about as much. Wacking OBL and the big solid super firm proof the Pakistan was playing its own game in A-stan and that it would always be a safe haven and resource point for the Taliban and friends should been enough to walk. Trump I dunno what if anything was thinking but he basically sold out the Afgan Gov to prioritize the US separate deal and I suppose in cruel and canny way punted just one more time till after the election where its either not his problem or manageable in term 2. But I guess what I'm getting at is that I can see any US ally being surprised Biden left and being like oh we assumed back out and piss of the Taliban and start the shooting again and reinforce for force protection... Also in way Biden kinda had to stick to the deal. Had he not after Trump ended the Nuclear deal with Iran sans backing from the larger group of nations he would have really eroded US credibility.

More broadly the US only gets traction from its most committed allies for its silliest adventures. In Iraq only 4 showed up (Pol UK Aus and can't remember, I just remember "they forgot Poland")

Yes but its kind of too bad they were carried along. had two of the 4 not joined or had really strong reservations it might really have set back the Bush Admin's efforts to get congress on board. I new doubters at the time who were not convinced by say Cheney (didn't trust him) or Bush semi articulate Texan thing - but where Blair is convincing its got to be true.

------

Any reasonable discussion starts with Russia behind the 2014 lines

Which is not on offer as far as I know. Nor have I seen even a hint of ceasefire after Russia pulls back to just pre invasion lines.

[Kyriakos]

Why find it reasonable for Russia to give up even Crimea? They sort of clearly won the 2014 war.
A compromise would be to give up the rest, but get de jure recognition for Crimea.
Personally I doubt it will happen (doesn't have a limit, from neither side the function isn't even definable at status of Crimea)