Politics

[mark-hunter]

Apparently the US and Russia are considering restarting the Nordstream pipe and the russian foreign minister wants US to apply leverage on Europe to force them to no longer resist buying russian gas. It will be interesting to see what Trump does.

The "leverage" will come from two sides, and the pressure in my opinion will grow. The second leverage is coming from various national opposition parties, asking exactly for that.

War is always a temporary state of affairs. The question is what will be after the war?

Russia covers around 10% of world land territories (which only in terms of averages is 10% of various resources, oil, gas, rare earth minerals, etc), and has the largest access to Arctic resources (with the largest ice breaker fleet, and some infrastructure).

Not to mention ice melting, and slowly but surely opening of Arctic Sea routes (Significance comparable to Suez Canal and Panama canal in world trade affairs)

So, sooner or later, the world will need to open the trade relations with Russia. Those assets cannot be expected to be ignored (embargoed) by global economy for ever.

Interesting part will be change in main stream narrative, when the war settles down, and other interests prevail. President Trump is just trying to speed up the process.
I would say, nord stream has a good chance of reopening. Question is when?
Is it better now to open, or later?

 

[KJE81]

The "leverage" will come from two sides, and the pressure in my opinion will grow. The second leverage is coming from various national opposition parties, asking exactly for that.

War is always a temporary state of affairs. The question is what will be after the war?

Russia covers around 10% of world land territories (which only in terms of averages is 10% of various resources, oil, gas, rare earth minerals, etc), and has the largest access to Arctic resources (with the largest ice breaker fleet, and some infrastructure).

Not to mention ice melting, and slowly but surely opening of Arctic Sea routes (Significance comparable to Suez Canal and Panama canal in world trade affairs)

So, sooner or later, the world will need to open the trade relations with Russia. Those assets cannot be expected to be ignored (embargoed) by global economy for ever.

Interesting part will be change in main stream narrative, when the war settles down, and other interests prevail. President Trump is just trying to speed up the process.
I would say, nord stream has a good chance of reopening. Question is when?
Is it better now to open, or later?

As long as Germany does not want it reopened I guess it will be a lot later, perhaps if in the future the right wing extremists in AfD manages to get their own majority, then it will probably be restarted as soon as possible. To bad for Putin that Orban and Fico rule landlocked countries othervise they would probably be happy to have a pipeline and export the oil they dont use.

 

[mark-hunter]

As long as Germany does not want it reopened I guess it will be a lot later, perhaps if in the future the right wing extremists in AfD manages to get their own majority, then it will probably be restarted as soon as possible.

That is German main geopolitcal issue. It may easily become main political debate, and can cause political polarization of the country. The AFD is not scattered around and lost in grey percentage of votes.
They hold east Germany.

 

[Tanks]

Interesting part will be change in main stream narrative, when the war settles down, and other interests prevail. President Trump is just trying to speed up the process.

I thought Trump was against NATO countries being dependent on Russian oil and gas.

 

[KJE81]

I thought Trump was against NATO countries being dependent on Russian oil and gas.

Me too, but it seems that his rekindled friendship with Putin might has swayed him. That, or it is what seems to be his overwhelming desire to get a peace deal on Ukraine done as fast as possible regardless of its long term geopolitical consequences.

 

[Foxi]

The "leverage" will come from two sides, and the pressure in my opinion will grow. The second leverage is coming from various national opposition parties, asking exactly for that.

War is always a temporary state of affairs. The question is what will be after the war?

Russia covers around 10% of world land territories (which only in terms of averages is 10% of various resources, oil, gas, rare earth minerals, etc), and has the largest access to Arctic resources (with the largest ice breaker fleet, and some infrastructure).

Not to mention ice melting, and slowly but surely opening of Arctic Sea routes (Significance comparable to Suez Canal and Panama canal in world trade affairs)

So, sooner or later, the world will need to open the trade relations with Russia. Those assets cannot be expected to be ignored (embargoed) by global economy for ever.

Interesting part will be change in main stream narrative, when the war settles down, and other interests prevail. President Trump is just trying to speed up the process.
I would say, nord stream has a good chance of reopening. Question is when?
Is it better now to open, or later?

"Russia covers around 10% of world land territories"

The strategic question is also how long China will continue to watch.They have a long breath.
70% of Russia's land area is in Asia.
Siberia, larger than China, larger than the USA, is inhabited by a majority of Asian peoples.
Their sons are being burned to death in the Ukraine and these people have nothing to do with the way of life in Moscow and its politics.
Foxi

 

[mark-hunter]

I thought Trump was against NATO countries being dependent on Russian oil and gas.

Many of similar statements:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/12/politics/us-out-nato-second-trump-term-former-senior-adviser/index.html

Healthy national interests, are basically healthy national economic interests. It will be very hard to keep various national interests alligned with Nato interests: 27 EU countries, landlocked countries, UK, Canada, USA. Do they all have same interests? Ask Germany, or Hungary?
So, we are yet to see how this will be aligned. It was never aligned on a such scale in recorded history.
(or it was when the Russians were actual allies - WW2, and it lasted very short time till end of that war)

One possibility, may be to pass Qatar pipeline via Syria. But there is another set of political and security issues there.

 

[mark-hunter]

The strategic question is also how long China will continue to watch.They have a long breath.
70% of Russia's land area is in Asia.
Siberia, larger than China, larger than the USA, is inhabited by a majority of Asian peoples.
Their sons are being burned to death in the Ukraine and these people have nothing to do with the way of life in Moscow and its politics.

So far, Chinese have not been militarily aggressive in foreign policy.
And there is nuclear deterrent factor, from both sides. Stand off, I would say.

 

[Scott CWO]

I think this theme should extend to those on this thread that question the continuation of support of the war in Ukraine. My opinion on the war has mostly been in agreement with yours. However, my thoughts are changing.

At first and especially after we were all surprised at the resilience of the Ukrainians to fight back, I was fully in support of a victory for Ukraine as defined by kicking Putin and his forces completely out of the country. That seemed to be in the works, but now the war appears to be at a stalemate for the time being and has become a war of attrition. That said, Putin has no problem throwing more of his young men into the meat grinder and I believe has more of them than do Ukraine.

I believe you have said that in order to take ground, while air support is needed, eventually you must take that ground with forces on the ground. It seems that is not possible for Ukraine to do without bringing in foreign troops. If that is the case that almost certainly means NATO troops. Do we really wish to go to war with Russia over this relatively small amount of ground in Ukraine, one of the more corrupt nations on this earth?

Would we be conceding some amount of victory to Putin if he were allowed to maintain control over the eastern part of the country he has now? Perhaps, but at what cost has this come to Putin?

I offer the following:

1. Putin has killed off so many of his people. He is as you've stated, is now fighting with conscripts. His professional soldiers have been greatly wiped out.

2. His modern war systems have been wiped out and he is fighting with out of date obsolete equipment. We've seen where ATVs and even stories of donkeys being used for transportation. His navy has even been affected with so many vessels destroyed by a country that doesn't even have a navy.

3. The war has awakened Europe who now seems poised to increase its own defense spending and as such make NATO even stronger.

4. Speaking of making NATO stronger, now we have Sweden and Finland in the alliance and as you say, puts NATO on Russia's doorstep.

5. All of that said, what threat does Putin now represent to the west? His military is in shambles. Russia's economy has been decimated. This ill advised invasion of Ukraine has only led to a strengthening of NATO. So even if he could rebuild his military back to where it was prior to the war in 10 years (and I question that), who cares? The strength of that military was greatly over estimated as seen by the results in Ukraine. So maybe he could rebuild to a point that Russia is actually a threat again and do that in say 20 years, Putin will be 92 by then. Will he even be still in power much less alive?

6. Who exactly would we be fighting for? My understanding is that the people in the eastern part of Ukraine actually wanted to stay with Russia when the USSR fell. They identify as Russians, not Ukrainians. Is it a good idea to fight for people who really don't want your support in the first place? It doesn't to me, in fact I thought that was one of the lessons we learned from Viet Nam.

My point in this little diatribe of mine and to that portion of your post that I quoted is that reasonable people can look at the facts of the situation and arrive at place that may not agree with your POV. As such I don't think it adds to the conversation that those folks be labeled as Putin apologists or neo-isolationists.

As I've said before, I greatly respect your command of history, your Army service and rank achieved. I look forward to your reply.

Your #6 is incorrect.

Also, no one since Hitler has threatened or wants to invade Russia. It’s paranoia by Putin or he doesn’t want NATO membership for Ukraine and other countries so he can take them. NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

"Russia covers around 10% of world land territories"

The strategic question is also how long China will continue to watch.They have a long breath.
70% of Russia's land area is in Asia.
Siberia, larger than China, larger than the USA, is inhabited by a majority of Asian peoples.
Their sons are being burned to death in the Ukraine and these people have nothing to do with the way of life in Moscow and its politics.
Foxi

Very valid observation!
I am however not certain that the Chinese Communist Party really cares about those ethnic people in Siberia but there is something they certainly do care about...

China and Russia or the Soviet Union have had border battles over the last century.
The saying since before I was a corporal is, "Russia is a Third World Country with nuclear weapons". As we witnessed over the last three years in Ukraine, that saying is pretty much true.

Russia has vast resources in Siberia that KGB Vlad and his oligarchs do not invest their ill-gotten gains to mine or pump to the market. China, if it took possession of that territory wound flood the worldwide markets within a year!

 

[Altitude sickness]

As I thought and posted a few days ago. Trump lost his appeal on deporting gang bangers. (Just bragging how right I was )

It’s going to USSC. The court will most likely rule that these illegals need to be seen by a judge and it be proven in court who they are and what they did. That will most likely be the ruling. The same as during the GWOT. Enemy combatants captured and then brought to US soil.
USSC court ruled once they are here they get due process.


So the Trump team needs to judge shop. And move and house all dirt bags to a friendly circuit before their date in court. Simple work around.

 

[KJE81]

An interesting read about what making a treaty with Russia usually ends up achieving.

Russia Has Violated 190 Agreements, Says Military Analyst Michael Clarke

Military expert Michael Clarke highlights Russia's breach of 190 agreements, including the Minsk agreements crucial for Ukraine post-Crimea invasion.

united24media.com

 

[Fastrig]

As both medical science and climate science are gradually freed from the censorship of the last couple of decades, I suspect we will see an ever increasing flood of peer reviewed evidence that populations truly were being fed a set of "Beliefs" rather than the results of scrupulously researched scientific conclusions. The same process has taken place in the social/cultural environment where nations are awakening to the catastrophic effect of unassimilable ethnic minorities and their impact on public safety and culture.

The recent release of Yale University's peer reviewed analysis of the adverse effects of the Covid vaccines seems to be opening the floodgates of what was essentially forbidden research for the better part of three years.

Peer reviewed research like that below is also beginning to lift the veil on what passes for a pseudo religious scientific climate belief rather than "settled science." Both the commentary and actual paper (link within) are worth reading - particularly by those so unquestionably devoted to their efforts to personally save the planet.

The Climate Scam is Over..

Peer-reviewed AI analysis completely debunks all of the "man-made" claims

www.malone.news

The public reaction to this growing and extremely healthy scientific skepticism of "settled science" will be interesting to observe. As Western societies have become ever more skeptical of the divine, the need for a "Belief" with a capital B has to be vested somewhere.

We see it in much of the discussion in this thread. Climate alarmists speak with a the arrogant certainty of the Roman Church shortly before Martin Luther nailed his theses in 1517. Go back several hundred posts and you will see the same unquestioning "Belief" in masks, vaccines, school closures etc. Others become committed in their "Belief" in a politician or political movement.

Because of such commitment to a "Belief," those who question those beliefs become an enemy imbued with all the evils of Satan. I can point to dozens of posts in this thread as illustrations.

The catch is that this works only so long as the skeptics and non-believers are kept silent. For a couple of decades scientific control was possible in this country thanks to a collective liberal ownership of the sources of information. However, like the scientific and intellectual blossoming of the reformation and enlightenment, that is changing and changing rapidly due to a new era of freedom of thought and expression happening first here in the US, but a movement that will likely spread throughout the West as Europe's ever more repressive efforts to dictate thought inevitably fail - perhaps dramatically.

Best post I have ever read on this forum. Spot on!!! The linked article was very informative, thank you!

 

[Fastrig]

As you say, facts matter - not propaganda spread by Russian state media or its willing accomplices such as Tucker Carlson, Douglas MacGregor, and regrettably J. D. Vance and Steve Witkoff.

Whitkoff, who has no foreign policy experience and seemingly no understanding of the recent history of the region appeared on Tucker Carlson's pod cast five days ago and stated, "the biggest problem in this conflict is the so-called four regions: Donbas, Crimea, Luhansk and two others (couldn't think of those names one presumes)." He claimed that "there were referendums where the vast majority of people indicated that they wanted to be under Russian rule." He saw this as "the key issue in the conflict" and "the first thing that needs to be resolved."

The tiny little issue he did not bring up was that those recent referendums were held at the muzzle of Russian guns after the invasion. Not surprisingly, they reflected the same sort of results one sees in Putin's "elections" in Moscow. These referendums are not considered valid under settled international law. The only free internationally recognized referendums were held in December of 1991 when the referendum asked, "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" Over 84% of eligible voters (31,891,742 people) participated, and an overwhelming 92.3% (28,804,071) voted "Yes," with support spanning all regions, including Crimea and the Donbas. International observers noted that the process adhered to democratic standards, marking it as a genuine expression of the Ukrainian people's will.

I suppose we can choose to ignore the fate of those people under the heel of Russian boots in the occupied regions, but I suggest history will not be flattering in its judgment. Secondly, for all the reasons you listed, Russia is desperate for an end to the fighting. Putin does not dare declare mobilization and is forced to crawl on his knees to North Korea of all places for troop support. His economy is in an ever accelerating collapse. Trump has enormous leverage to apply. He can use against Putin or he can use it against Zelensky and NATO. It truly sickens me that he seems determined to do the latter.

There is a deal to be had where Russia gets part of Donbas and all off Crimea or where it gets everything it now occupies plus all those portions of those five provinces it has failed to take or been driven from. I am very much afraid a settlement will look far more like the latter rather than the former.

I'm honestly not sure what to believe about the Ukraine. I have a Ukrainian neighbor who is from the "western" part of the Ukraine. I've discussed whats going on over there with him on numerous occasions. His stance is the "eastern" Ukrainians are Russians, speak mostly Russian, and when they were in power the country was "pro-Russia". The "western" Ukrainians are Ukrainians, speak Ukrainian, and when they took control, the country became "anti-Russia". He also says the "eastern" Ukrainians have wanted to break away for a long time. His stance is, if they want to be Russians, let them and leave "us Ukrainians" alone. I take everything with a grain of salt, hear the opposite from other sources. What the truth is, I honestly can't say, perhaps its a combination of all these sources, but what I do know is we flat can't afford this war any longer. If the EU wants to fund this war, on their continent and backyard, go for it, but the American taxpayer's pockets need to be left out of it. Russia IS NOT the existential threat they once were, this war has factually proven that. It's time for the US to quit funding Europe's wars, defense, et al, we are going broke doing so.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Just a bit of context. There is no such thing as a perfect war or a perfect peace. You can use that quote if you like. I did steal and modify Ben Franklins quote.

Securing a ceasefire in the Korean War proved challenging, with negotiations spanning two years and facing numerous hurdles, including the prisoner-of-war issue and the desire for a unified Korea.

Here's a more detailed look:

• Prolonged Negotiations:
  Peace talks began in July 1951 and continued intermittently, with a final agreement reached on July 27, 1953, at Panmunjom.
  • Demarcation Line: The communists initially wanted the 38th parallel as the boundary, while the United States insisted on the existing battle line.
    
    
  • Prisoner of War Issue: The UN forces held 171,000 prisoners, with 50,000 unwilling to return to their communist countries, causing a deadlock in negotiations.
    
    
  • Stalin's Death: The death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 helped to spur negotiations, as the new Soviet leadership called for a quick end to hostilities.
• South Korean Opposition:
  South Korean President Syngman Rhee opposed the armistice because it left Korea divided and demanded a military offensive to continue.
  
  
• Armistice Agreement:
  The armistice established the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), a buffer zone between the two sides, but it did not lead to a peace treaty, and the two Koreas remain technically at war.
  
  
• No Peace Treaty:
  Despite the armistice, a formal peace treaty was never signed, meaning the two Koreas are still technically at war.

 

[rigbymauser]

Apparently the US and Russia are considering restarting the Nordstream pipe and the russian foreign minister wants US to apply leverage on Europe to force them to no longer resist buying russian gas. It will be interesting to see what Trump does.

"There is talk about the Nord Streams," Lavrov told Russia’s state-controlled Channel One TV station, according to a readout shared by his ministry Wednesday. "It will probably be interesting if the Americans use their influence on Europe and force it not to refuse Russian gas."

Also I wondering how much leverage he still has over Europe since he has basically allready ruled out US adhering to article 5 in case of a conflict against Russia and also allready started a trade war with europe, what more can he threat to do at this point? Perhaps start to supply Russia with weapons against Ukraine but hopefully that is not on the table.

Russia and US discuss restarting Nord Stream pipelines, Kremlin says

EU countries are against reviving the ruptured gas links, which experts say will also prove legally difficult — even if there’s an American buyout.

www.politico.eu

Maybe the US wants to buy Russian gas?..

 

[Altitude sickness]

I’m guessing the Russian oil would add to the global market and lower everyone’s prices. Trump needs cheap energy prices to help every business and home owner feel the effects. And help the economy.


Until we have another attack on the US homeland. The economy will stay the number one metric on voters minds.

The border is being dealt with. So will no longer be a top voter issue.

 

[deewayne2003]

Apparently the US and Russia are considering restarting the Nordstream pipe and the russian foreign minister wants US to apply leverage on Europe to force them to no longer resist buying russian gas. It will be interesting to see what Trump does.

"There is talk about the Nord Streams," Lavrov told Russia’s state-controlled Channel One TV station, according to a readout shared by his ministry Wednesday. "It will probably be interesting if the Americans use their influence on Europe and force it not to refuse Russian gas."

Also I wondering how much leverage he still has over Europe since he has basically allready ruled out US adhering to article 5 in case of a conflict against Russia and also allready started a trade war with europe, what more can he threat to do at this point? Perhaps start to supply Russia with weapons against Ukraine but hopefully that is not on the table.

Russia and US discuss restarting Nord Stream pipelines, Kremlin says

EU countries are against reviving the ruptured gas links, which experts say will also prove legally difficult — even if there’s an American buyout.

www.politico.eu

Remember back in 2018 when Trump told Germany to NOT rely on Russia for energy and the Germans openly laughed at him......

https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/currencies/trump-lashes-germany-over-gas-pipeline-deal-calls-it-russias-captive-idUSKBN1K10VH/

 

[Red Leg]

I'm honestly not sure what to believe about the Ukraine. I have a Ukrainian neighbor who is from the "western" part of the Ukraine. I've discussed whats going on over there with him on numerous occasions. His stance is the "eastern" Ukrainians are Russians, speak mostly Russian, and when they were in power the country was "pro-Russia". The "western" Ukrainians are Ukrainians, speak Ukrainian, and when they took control, the country became "anti-Russia". He also says the "eastern" Ukrainians have wanted to break away for a long time. His stance is, if they want to be Russians, let them and leave "us Ukrainians" alone. I take everything with a grain of salt, hear the opposite from other sources. What the truth is, I honestly can't say, perhaps its a combination of all these sources, but what I do know is we flat can't afford this war any longer. If the EU wants to fund this war, on their continent and backyard, go for it, but the American taxpayer's pockets need to be left out of it. Russia IS NOT the existential threat they once were, this war has factually proven that. It's time for the US to quit funding Europe's wars, defense, et al, we are going broke doing so.

I do not mean this to sound trite, but if I have the option of believing your neighbor or an internationally monitored referendum in which nearly 85% of the population participated and over 92% voted for independence from Russia, I'll pay a lot more attention to the referendum. Secondly, the provinces of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are in southern Ukraine. Kharkiv Province is in eastern Ukraine, staunchly independent of Russia, and fought a successful guerilla campaign for the first year of the war until the Russians were driven out by the Ukrainian army. The capital, Kyiv, is in Eastern Ukraine and is staunchly Western in outlook.

The Russians are claiming all of Donetsk, Luhansk. Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson provinces. They do not fully occupy any of them.

The largest pro-Russian minorities are in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Much like the exploitation of the Vietcong in South Vietnam, whose sympathizers made up at most 30% of the population, the Russians were able to exploit the pro-Russian minority in Donetsk to destabilize the province setting the conditions for invasion.

Xi and Putin reached an agreement with respect to this invasion because Xi saw the opportunity to recreate a belligerent Russian military state that would threaten Western Europe and US interests thus diverting our ability to focus on the Western Pacific. If Russia emerges from this with a victory, it will have regained the momentum it needs to embark on just such a role as it replaces its battered forces with a truly modernized army. Hence, what happens in Ukraine is a critical US national interest.

That the US can not afford to support Ukraine is the single most nonsensical argument to make about our involvement. Since the beginning of the war, 3 1/2 years ago, we have provided about 165 billion in support, and much of that was simply an accounting drill as we handed over mothballed military equipment and aging munitions stocks. During the same period the US government spent Nineteen point Three Trillion Dollars! What we have provided in support, truly isn't even roundoff money. As a cost of securing a critical national interest, it is a miniscule investment compared to far more expensive and questionable outlays made over the last fifty years.

Yes, we have to start curtailing spending somewhere, but I would suggest starting somewhere other than the contributions necessary to secure our national interests would be a far better place to look.

 

[Red Leg]

Remember back in 2018 when Trump told Germany to NOT rely on Russia for energy and the Germans openly laughed at him......

https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/currencies/trump-lashes-germany-over-gas-pipeline-deal-calls-it-russias-captive-idUSKBN1K10VH/

I hope they'll laugh at him again if he suggests they should resubmit themselves to Russian economic bondage.