Author Topic: Russia/US-- Europe  (Read 192842 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #900 on: June 24, 2023, 08:46:58 AM »
GM :

"Murderous bastard Putin is, he actually appears to love Russia and his people.

Unlike our leaders…"

Well I would say the Wagner coup attempt and possible ensuing chaos and civil war throws ICE COLD water on that illogical (with due respect) statement.

https://inews.co.uk/news/wagner-coup-russia-vladimir-putin-british-army-chief-2434137

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #901 on: June 24, 2023, 09:07:48 AM »
Nothing new in mercenaries switching sides for better pay.



GM :

"Murderous bastard Putin is, he actually appears to love Russia and his people.

Unlike our leaders…"

Well I would say the Wagner coup attempt and possible ensuing chaos and civil war throws ICE COLD water on that illogical (with due respect) statement.

https://inews.co.uk/news/wagner-coup-russia-vladimir-putin-british-army-chief-2434137

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #902 on: June 24, 2023, 11:50:19 AM »
".Nothing new in mercenaries switching sides for better pay."

Thus, Putin is a great man who loves his people ?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #903 on: June 24, 2023, 12:13:45 PM »
".Nothing new in mercenaries switching sides for better pay."

Thus, Putin is a great man who loves his people ?

Putin doesn’t allow rapefugees into Russia or the transing of Russian children. That’s why the GAE wants to destroy him.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #904 on: June 24, 2023, 01:31:23 PM »

"Nothing new in mercenaries switching sides for better pay."

True that!

AND such action here would seem to be quite inconsistent with your insistence on impending Russian victory.

Anyway,

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/stab-in-the-back-putin-vows-to-respond-decisively-to-wagner-armed-rebellion/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=31894012

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #905 on: June 24, 2023, 02:06:31 PM »

"Nothing new in mercenaries switching sides for better pay."

True that!

AND such action here would seem to be quite inconsistent with your insistence on impending Russian victory.

Anyway,

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/stab-in-the-back-putin-vows-to-respond-decisively-to-wagner-armed-rebellion/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=31894012

Actually it’s very consistent with a desperate GAE trying to flip the script from the smell of dead Ukes and burning western wonder weapons.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Simplicius; GPF
« Reply #906 on: June 24, 2023, 05:20:45 PM »
Huh?

Anyway , , ,

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/prigozhins-siege-ends-postmortem?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Also see:
===============

Putin Uses Prigozhin's 'Betrayal' to Strengthen His Grip on Russia
Jun 24, 2023 | 22:35 GMT





Members of Wagner Group on June 24, 2023, sit on a tank in a street in the city of Rostov-on-Don.
Members of Wagner Group on June 24, 2023, sit on a tank in a street in the city of Rostov-on-Don.
(STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images)

The demise of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of Russia's paramilitary Wagner Group, will reduce domestic criticism of the Kremlin's handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, but also open the door to additional internal repressions and personnel changes that could impact Russia's strategy in Ukraine in the long run. On June 24, a convoy of Wagner mercenary forces stopped their so-called march on Moscow roughly 300 kilometers (186 miles) from the Russian capital, after several hours of uncertainty about their ultimate goal. The group had begun its march on the Russia-Ukraine border late on June 23, as Wagner leader Prigozhin said the measure was meant to protest the Kremlin's mishandling of the war. Hours after Prigozhin gave the order for his mercenaries to advance on Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a televised address in which he said that the fighters of the Wagner Group were being "dragged into a criminal adventure" and pushed toward "an armed rebellion." The address did not mention Prigozhin by name, nor did it mention the actual goal of his uprising — namely, the removal of Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov over their months-long feud concerning the lackluster war effort against Ukraine. Instead, Putin praised Wagner's fighters and specifically underlined that he had been in contact with the "front commanders" in Ukraine to reassure the public that the events had not impeded Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine. However, Putin also accused the march's participants of "treason," for which "they would answer before the law," and numerous Russian law enforcement agencies launched multiple criminal cases related to the incident.

On June 23, Prigozhin declared a "march of justice" in support of his claim that Russian army forces lethally shelled a Wagner Group position in Ukraine, which Russia's Defense Ministry dismissed as "fake" and a "provocation." Early on June 24, Prigozhin's forces seized the headquarters of the Southern Military District in Rostov-on-Don, and several columns of Wagner forces began a loosely-organized drive toward Moscow, often having to take indirect routes to avoid roadblocks. Prigozhin eventually ordered the forces headed toward Moscow to stand down after he obtained "security guarantees" for them during negotiations with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. At the time of writing, Wagner fighters had already begun withdrawing from the military headquarters in Rostov, meaning Wagner's occupation will end in the coming hours.
Lukashenko's press service announced that Prigozhin accepted the president's proposal "to stop the Wagner movement in Russia and take further steps to de-escalate tensions" and that Prigozhin later confirmed that Wagner's vehicle columns moving toward Moscow would turn around and leave in the opposite direction. Prigozhin ended his political crusade before any major clashes with Russian forces could take place, which otherwise would have weakened sympathies for Wagner and Prigozhin's negotiating position. Prigozhin likely cut his losses because the disorganized columns of Wagner forces were unlikely to reach Moscow en masse or achieve their goals of removing Gerasimov and Shoigu upon arrival. State actors will reportedly drop charges against Prigozhin, who will relocate to Belarus in the coming days. It is expected that Wagner forces believed to have opened fire on Russian security forces — for example, those that reportedly downed Russian military helicopters — may still serve long prison sentences. However, in order for the Kremlin to avoid right-wing backlash, Wagner forces that did not fire upon Russian authorities will receive amnesty so they can continue fighting in the war against Ukraine.
Prigozhin's removal will result in the dissolution of the Wagner Group and those aligned with it, thereby consolidating the Kremlin's power. Still, the June 23-4 events will make it more difficult for Putin to continue echoing the military leadership's claims that Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine is going according to plan. This will provide Putin with stronger grounds to eventually reshuffle military leaders, possibly including Shoigu and/or Gerasimov, as well as other high-ranking officials responsible for economic mobilization in support of the war effort. (However, these changes may not be immediate, as the Kremlin wants to avoid sending the message that it has capitulated to Prigozhin.) In the past, Putin has been reluctant to remove high-ranking officials, further transition the civilian economy to war production, and increase mobilization measures or preemptive detentions of opponents, as he considers these factors to be unpopular and politically destabilizing. However, against the backdrop of the revolt, he is likely to receive much greater support among the public and elite in applying the aforementioned measures, which would ultimately strengthen Russia's ability to continue waging war in the long term. The Kremlin will likely also use the revolt to further establish its control over information channels in the country by removing the Wagner Group and Prigozhin from power, thereby preventing the far-right community from drifting away from Shoigu and Gerasimov, and by extension, Putin.

The Kremlin will also almost certainly use the incident to step up the repression of liberal Russians. While many of the Russian opposition movement's leaders do not sympathize with Prigozhin, as he is considered a bandit and warmonger who kills in Ukraine while pushing for escalation inside Russia, some enthusiastically shifted their stance to support him during the rebellion in hopes of destabilizing Putin's regime. For example, influential opposition voice and former political prisoner Mikhail Khodorkovsky called for Russians to arm themselves and prepare to support Prigozhin's move on Moscow, though it does not appear such calls achieved any result.
While the short-term impact of these events will have a minimal impact on the Ukraine war, Ukrainian forces could step up attacks and push up the timetable of their counteroffensive to capitalize on the chaos. There were several reports — and accompanying video evidence — that Wagner forces fired on and shot down multiple Russian helicopters that they likely believed would attack them. These and other Russian equipment losses — as well as the significant destruction of road infrastructure inside Russia near the Ukraine border — will hurt Russian forces and logistics, but are ultimately insignificant. Furthermore, the vast majority of Wagner's forces — likely no greater than around 25,000 — had already been taken off the frontlines in Ukraine, meaning the chaos inside Russia likely had little effect on units fighting at the front. Furthermore, the incident will enable Russia to push Wagner,  other private military companies and "volunteer" units to sign contracts with the Defense Ministry in line with Shoigu's earlier order. These contracts will offer unity in military command by preventing private forces from interacting with different generals and carrying out separate logistical practices from regular Russian forces, which bred distrust and animosity on the ground. Still, some reports indicate that Ukrainian forces could be taking advantage of the tense political situation in Russia by moving more of their offensive units toward the front around Bakhmut, the southern Donetsk region and the Zaporizhzia region.

At a meeting with influential ultranationalist bloggers and state media military correspondents on June 14, Putin appeared to tentatively back an order by Shoigu from June 11 for all "volunteer detachments" to sign contracts with the military by July 1.

=====================================

A final possibility is that we have just witnessed a classic Russian “maskirovka,” basically theater to distract from the fighting in Ukraine. Ultimately, no definitive casualties were reported, and a negotiated settlement was reached. It took some wind out of Wagner’s sails, improved Lukashenko’s image and, in the end, demonstrated that Putin remains in control of Russia.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2023, 05:44:00 PM by Crafty_Dog »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Let's break it down
« Reply #908 on: June 25, 2023, 01:33:04 PM »
"Actually it’s very consistent with a desperate GAE trying to flip the script from the smell of dead Ukes and burning western wonder weapons."

The Ukes vaunted "Offensive" is an epic failure. They died without any meaningful gains and lost the allegedly game changing NATO armor in large numbers.

Then, most likely, the US got taken for at least 6 billion by Putin and his team for the fake coup plot.

Aside from that, the war is going great!




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
RANE
« Reply #911 on: June 26, 2023, 07:14:02 AM »
Putin Uses Prigozhin's 'Betrayal' to Strengthen His Grip on Russia
Jun 24, 2023 | 22:35 GMT


The demise of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of Russia's paramilitary Wagner Group, will reduce domestic criticism of the Kremlin's handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, but also open the door to additional internal repressions and personnel changes that could impact Russia's strategy in Ukraine in the long run. On June 24, a convoy of Wagner mercenary forces stopped their so-called march on Moscow roughly 300 kilometers (186 miles) from the Russian capital, after several hours of uncertainty about their ultimate goal. The group had begun its march on the Russia-Ukraine border late on June 23, as Wagner leader Prigozhin said the measure was meant to protest the Kremlin's mishandling of the war. Hours after Prigozhin gave the order for his mercenaries to advance on Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a televised address in which he said that the fighters of the Wagner Group were being "dragged into a criminal adventure" and pushed toward "an armed rebellion." The address did not mention Prigozhin by name, nor did it mention the actual goal of his uprising — namely, the removal of Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov over their months-long feud concerning the lackluster war effort against Ukraine. Instead, Putin praised Wagner's fighters and specifically underlined that he had been in contact with the "front commanders" in Ukraine to reassure the public that the events had not impeded Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine. However, Putin also accused the march's participants of "treason," for which "they would answer before the law," and numerous Russian law enforcement agencies launched multiple criminal cases related to the incident.

On June 23, Prigozhin declared a "march of justice" in support of his claim that Russian army forces lethally shelled a Wagner Group position in Ukraine, which Russia's Defense Ministry dismissed as "fake" and a "provocation." Early on June 24, Prigozhin's forces seized the headquarters of the Southern Military District in Rostov-on-Don, and several columns of Wagner forces began a loosely-organized drive toward Moscow, often having to take indirect routes to avoid roadblocks. Prigozhin eventually ordered the forces headed toward Moscow to stand down after he obtained "security guarantees" for them during negotiations with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. At the time of writing, Wagner fighters had already begun withdrawing from the military headquarters in Rostov, meaning Wagner's occupation will end in the coming hours.
Lukashenko's press service announced that Prigozhin accepted the president's proposal "to stop the Wagner movement in Russia and take further steps to de-escalate tensions" and that Prigozhin later confirmed that Wagner's vehicle columns moving toward Moscow would turn around and leave in the opposite direction. Prigozhin ended his political crusade before any major clashes with Russian forces could take place, which otherwise would have weakened sympathies for Wagner and Prigozhin's negotiating position. Prigozhin likely cut his losses because the disorganized columns of Wagner forces were unlikely to reach Moscow en masse or achieve their goals of removing Gerasimov and Shoigu upon arrival. State actors will reportedly drop charges against Prigozhin, who will relocate to Belarus in the coming days. It is expected that Wagner forces believed to have opened fire on Russian security forces — for example, those that reportedly downed Russian military helicopters — may still serve long prison sentences. However, in order for the Kremlin to avoid right-wing backlash, Wagner forces that did not fire upon Russian authorities will receive amnesty so they can continue fighting in the war against Ukraine.
Prigozhin's removal will result in the dissolution of the Wagner Group and those aligned with it, thereby consolidating the Kremlin's power. Still, the June 23-4 events will make it more difficult for Putin to continue echoing the military leadership's claims that Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine is going according to plan. This will provide Putin with stronger grounds to eventually reshuffle military leaders, possibly including Shoigu and/or Gerasimov, as well as other high-ranking officials responsible for economic mobilization in support of the war effort. (However, these changes may not be immediate, as the Kremlin wants to avoid sending the message that it has capitulated to Prigozhin.) In the past, Putin has been reluctant to remove high-ranking officials, further transition the civilian economy to war production, and increase mobilization measures or preemptive detentions of opponents, as he considers these factors to be unpopular and politically destabilizing. However, against the backdrop of the revolt, he is likely to receive much greater support among the public and elite in applying the aforementioned measures, which would ultimately strengthen Russia's ability to continue waging war in the long term. The Kremlin will likely also use the revolt to further establish its control over information channels in the country by removing the Wagner Group and Prigozhin from power, thereby preventing the far-right community from drifting away from Shoigu and Gerasimov, and by extension, Putin.

The Kremlin will also almost certainly use the incident to step up the repression of liberal Russians. While many of the Russian opposition movement's leaders do not sympathize with Prigozhin, as he is considered a bandit and warmonger who kills in Ukraine while pushing for escalation inside Russia, some enthusiastically shifted their stance to support him during the rebellion in hopes of destabilizing Putin's regime. For example, influential opposition voice and former political prisoner Mikhail Khodorkovsky called for Russians to arm themselves and prepare to support Prigozhin's move on Moscow, though it does not appear such calls achieved any result.
While the short-term impact of these events will have a minimal impact on the Ukraine war, Ukrainian forces could step up attacks and push up the timetable of their counteroffensive to capitalize on the chaos. There were several reports — and accompanying video evidence — that Wagner forces fired on and shot down multiple Russian helicopters that they likely believed would attack them. These and other Russian equipment losses — as well as the significant destruction of road infrastructure inside Russia near the Ukraine border — will hurt Russian forces and logistics, but are ultimately insignificant. Furthermore, the vast majority of Wagner's forces — likely no greater than around 25,000 — had already been taken off the frontlines in Ukraine, meaning the chaos inside Russia likely had little effect on units fighting at the front. Furthermore, the incident will enable Russia to push Wagner,  other private military companies and "volunteer" units to sign contracts with the Defense Ministry in line with Shoigu's earlier order. These contracts will offer unity in military command by preventing private forces from interacting with different generals and carrying out separate logistical practices from regular Russian forces, which bred distrust and animosity on the ground. Still, some reports indicate that Ukrainian forces could be taking advantage of the tense political situation in Russia by moving more of their offensive units toward the front around Bakhmut, the southern Donetsk region and the Zaporizhzia region.

At a meeting with influential ultranationalist bloggers and state media military correspondents on June 14, Putin appeared to tentatively back an order by Shoigu from June 11 for all "volunteer detachments" to sign contracts with the military by July 1.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The famed Uke fighting spirit!
« Reply #912 on: June 26, 2023, 07:20:50 AM »
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/on-the-front-in-ukraine-going-into-battle-in-a-leopard-2-tank-a-9baffb53-1e5b-4a18-8ec5-173d067721af

Going into battle in a tank is frightening, something that Sasha, 55, is quick to admit. "For the enemy, we are always the first target," the tank commander says. Misha, the 25-year-old gunner, says that he has always been lucky so far. "Two of my tanks have been destroyed since the beginning of the war, but I’m still alive." There are even soldiers who try to get out of it, says the 22-year-old loader, who goes by the nom de guerre "Hudzik." Sometimes, he says, soldiers will even invent a problem with their tank.

DER SPIEGEL 25/2023

The article you are reading originally appeared in German in issue 25/2023 (June 17th, 2023) of DER SPIEGEL.

SPIEGEL International
None of the three Ukrainian soldiers hold it against those who refuse to fight. Misha knows that his luck, too, could turn. "If they hit the turret, you’re just a pile of ashes," he says. "It’s better to refuse to go into battle than to chicken out in the middle of the fight," Hudzik says.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Zeihan
« Reply #914 on: June 26, 2023, 01:20:22 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Let's break it down
« Reply #915 on: June 27, 2023, 02:30:49 PM »
"Actually it’s very consistent with a desperate GAE trying to flip the script from the smell of dead Ukes and burning western wonder weapons."

The Ukes vaunted "Offensive" is an epic failure. They died without any meaningful gains and lost the allegedly game changing NATO armor in large numbers.

Then, most likely, the US got taken for at least 6 billion by Putin and his team for the fake coup plot.

Aside from that, the war is going great!

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-official-says-ukraine-has-lost-15-its-bradley-fighting-vehicles


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
RANE: Europe set to withstand further Russian gas disruptionsss
« Reply #917 on: June 29, 2023, 07:33:25 AM »

Europe Is Set to Withstand Further Disruptions to Its Russian Gas Supplies
Jun 28, 2023 | 15:35 GMT





The contract overseeing the supply of Russian gas to Europe via Ukraine is set to expire at the end of next year, but the impact on Europe will likely be mitigated by the Continent's reduced reliance on Russian energy exports and increased access to new global gas supplies. According to Ukrainian energy minister Herman Halushchenko, Russia's state-owned gas giant Gazprom and its Ukrainian counterpart Naftogaz will not renew their transit contract after it expires at the end of 2024. If confirmed, this would result in the interruption of Russian natural gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine starting in 2025. The current contract, which was signed in 2019, includes the possibility of a 10-year extension beyond 2024. But the chances for such an extension are now ''slim,'' according to Galushchenko, who revealed Ukraine is already preparing for a cut-off.

Despite Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russian pipeline gas has continued to flow through the war-torn country (mostly ending up in Austria, Slovakia, Italy and Hungary), although at reduced volumes. About half of Russia's gas exports to Europe now come in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG), with the other half roughly equally split between the TurkStream pipeline and pipelines that cut through Ukraine, which account for almost 5% of Europe's total natural gas imports.

The contract between Gazprom and Naftogaz was brokered in December 2019 with the help of the European Union, Germany and France. The last-minute deal was signed to ensure Russian gas continued to transit through pipelines in Ukraine, in order to avoid a repeat of the 2009 crisis that led to the complete cut-off in supplies to southeastern Europe, which at the time was fully dependent on Russian gas.

If it isn't renewed, the Gazprom-Naftogaz contract will expire on Dec. 31, 2024. But the ongoing war in Ukraine could still halt gas flows before then, whether by causing physical damage to the pipeline structure itself, or by prompting Moscow to deliberately cut-off deliveries.

If the contract expires next year, Gazprom may still technically provide natural gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine under a more flexible system. The Russian firm could, for example, provide gas through capacity booking on a short-term basis (i.e., month-ahead), replicating a model Gazprom used to send gas through the Yamal-Europe pipeline connecting Russia with Poland and Germany before those supplies were interrupted in May 2022. But this appears highly unlikely given the lack of trust and political support from all parties, particularly as negotiations would have to involve both Russia and Ukraine.

Europe's recent efforts to reduce demand, increase supply and stabilize prices will enable the Continent to withstand further eventual reductions in Russian gas. European natural gas and electricity prices spiked in 2022 as Russia slashed natural gas flows to Europe to retaliate against EU sanctions related to the war in Ukraine. The consequent energy crisis triggered rampant inflation and slowed economic growth across Europe. It also caused the Continent's industrial output to drop dramatically as sky-high gas and electricity bills forced manufacturers (particularly in energy-intensive sectors) to scale back their operations. In response, the European Union and national governments enacted price caps and launched financial support programs to both mitigate the impact of higher energy costs on consumers and businesses as well as stabilize and contain wholesale prices. To weather the crisis with fewer Russian supplies, the European Union also imposed energy-saving policies to reduce demand and took action to increase and diversify its energy supplies. Over the past year, the combined impact of these efforts to boost gas storage levels, switch to alternative energy sources, find new suppliers and cut overall gas consumption has significantly reduced Europe's reliance on Russian gas (which now comprises just over 10% of European gas imports, compared with over 45% before the war). It's also eased wholesale gas prices on the Continent (which fell to a two-year low at the beginning of June), in addition to boosting the European Union's gas inventories (which are now nearing full capacity, exceeding the bloc's storage target three months ahead of schedule).

Norway usurped Russia as Europe's largest gas supplier in 2022. Pipeline gas and liquified natural gas (LNG) imports into Europe from Azerbaijan, North Africa, Qatar and the United States have also massively increased in recent months.

Natural gas demand in the European Union fell by an all-time record of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2022, and is expected to be down by about 60 bcm in 2023 compared with the previous five-year average, according to data from the European Commission. This was due to a combination of policy-, market-, and behavioral-driven changes, along with a milder-than-expected 2022-23 winter.
Since hitting an all-time high of above 300 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh) in August 2022, natural gas prices in Europe have continued to decline on the back of falling demand and plentiful alternative supplies. Wholesale natural gas prices on the Continent reached a two-year low of €25/MWh at the start of this month, before increasing slightly in mid-June due to outages and maintenance at gas processing plants in Norway. Gas prices in Europe are now on a downward trend again, though the recent Norway disruptions highlight the potential for further volatility amid tight supply and demand balances.

Natural gas storage facilities in the European Union are now more than 91% full, according to the latest data from Gas Infrastructure Europe, exceeding Brussels' goal of reaching 90% of total capacity by Nov. 1.

If the Gazprom-Naftogaz contract isn't renewed at the end of next year, the consequent interruption of Russian natural gas supplies through Ukraine would increase energy prices across Europe, though nowhere near the levels seen in 2022 — particularly as the current global gas tightness is expected to ease significantly in 2025. The expected expiration of the Russia-Ukraine transit agreement in December 2024 means one of the two last remaining Russian natural gas corridors into Europe will be cut off starting from 2025, leaving the TurkStream pipeline delivering gas to Serbia, Hungary and Bulgaria through Turkey as the only active route. With global gas supplies expected to remain tight through the end of next year, prices across Europe will likely increase as the contract expires, even if only a small percentage of supply is removed (as shown by the recent price jump connected to the outages in Norway). The true extent to which prices increase, however, will depend on the amount of gas European countries manage to store ahead of the 2024-25 winter, as well as the overall macroeconomic situation in Europe. It will also depend on Asia's economic climate at the time, which will determine LNG demand from Europe's Asian competitors on the global market. Still, Europe is unlikely to experience the price shocks seen in 2022 thanks to the countermeasures taken at the height of the energy crisis last year, as well as the Continent's ongoing efforts to reduce demand, control price volatility, expand LNG import capacity, and sign new supply deals with other countries. Moreover, the current tightness in the global LNG market is expected to ease significantly right as the Russia-Ukraine transit contract will likely end, with substantial new supplies from Qatar and the United States set to come online beginning in 2025. This should not only help further stabilize gas prices in Europe, but could even see prices decrease despite the loss of Russian supplies through Ukraine (barring any major events that create supply and/or demand shocks, like incidents affecting Europe's gas infrastructure or a particularly cold winter in Europe or Asia).

If the Gazprom-Naftogaz agreement expires next year, Ukraine would lose out on the related transit fees (which, according to the contract, would have amounted to $7.15 billion over 2020–24, though Kyiv accused Gazprom of never having paid this amount in full throughout the conflict). But the impact on Ukraine's energy security would not be meaningful, as the country does not directly import Russian gas that flows through the pipelines in its territory. Ukraine also now produces nearly enough gas to meet domestic demand, which has dropped significantly since Russia's February 2022 invasion.

While demand reduction will help keep natural gas prices under control in Europe, much of that reduction will continue to come from lower industrial consumption. Especially until new LNG supplies come online in 2025, European producers will face higher energy prices (and, in turn, operating costs) compared with their competitors in Asia and North America — creating knock-on effects that will continue to weaken Europe's industrial production and economic growth over the next two years.

Assuming the Gazprom-Naftogaz contract isn't renewed in December 2024, negotiations to resume flows of Russian gas through Ukraine may even become part of eventual peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow. But those negotiations are unlikely to happen anytime soon, with no near end in sight to the war in Ukraine. Even after the conflict eventually ends, it would still probably take several years to rebuild trust between Kyiv and Moscow, limiting room for cooperation between the two on gas transit for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the expensive measures already taken by European countries to wean themselves off of Russian energy supplies will also reduce their incentive to resume Russian gas flows through Ukraine, even if Moscow is willing to provide European customers at greatly discounted prices. Italy, for instance, has been working to massively increase pipeline imports from North African countries and readjust its own midstream pipeline network to move volumes northward in a bid to become Europe's new gas hub. It will be almost impossible to reverse many of these measures (such as long-term LNG supply deals or the construction of expensive import infrastructure) for several years, while the parallel reduction in natural gas consumption across the Continent (thanks to efforts to accelerate the energy transition away from fossil fuels) will also reduce the need to re-establish politically and strategically problematic energy cooperation with Moscow.

An interruption of gas flows through Ukraine would see Europe import even less Russian gas, further robbing Moscow of its ability to weaponize its energy exports to increase pressure on the West. As the Kremlin looks for new ways to preserve this leverage, Russia may start to directly target Europe's energy infrastructure (or threaten to do so) through conventional or unconventional operations (including physical or cyberattacks).


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #919 on: June 29, 2023, 02:42:02 PM »
That is a really good piece!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
George Friedman: Time for a deal?
« Reply #920 on: June 30, 2023, 06:54:22 AM »
June 30, 2023
Open as PDF

    
Predictions on Russia, Wagner and Ukraine
By: George Friedman
Given circumstances, I decided to combine my ongoing series on forecasting methods with current events in Ukraine. The source book is “Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe,” written in 2013-14 and published in January 2015. It had a major focus on Ukraine and Russia’s future, as well as other countries. I’ve extracted some passages of relevance to the current situation, which I’ll include at the end of this article, but my focus here is the events of the last week.

Many people have seen the confrontation between Wagner Group boss Yevgeny Prigozhin and Russian President Vladimir Putin as a coup attempt. Others have argued that it was a conspiracy designed in some way to increase Russia's warfighting capability. In other words, Prigozhin and Putin were not enemies but allies.

I don’t see that as possible. Prigozhin was a creature of Putin – his caterer, then organizer of a private Russian military company giving Putin a deniable military force that could operate in many countries of interest to Russia. The theory put forward by some was that faking a coup against Putin would create some sort of military advantage. They proposed that by transferring Wagner members to Belarus, they would be in a position to strike Ukraine’s northern flank. This would, however, bring them into intimate contact with massed Ukrainian artillery and potentially action by Poland, which might regard Belarus as an independent state threatening its eastern flank as well as Ukraine. A conspiracy so vast and facing so many risks of failure doesn’t make sense.

An additional problem is that the response inside Russia to this “fake” coup was unpredictable. Morale at all levels of the Russian army might have collapsed, leaving the Wagner Group as Russia’s only functioning army. Putin may have trusted Prigozhin, but Wagner could not wage a war with Ukraine on its own. It was much too small, even if better motivated than the main Russian army.

Finally and most important, coups must move quickly in order to impose a new reality on a nation and break the spirit of potential alternatives that might want to fill the vacuum. Secrecy is essential. Declarations come at the successful end of a coup, not at the beginning as was the case here.

An attempted coup by a friend is common but shocking, and it often breaks the leader. Putin was certainly shocked but not broken.

The reason I have spent this much time on it is to introduce my own theory. I think this was an attempt to overthrow the president. The war is not going well, Prigozhin had been arguing that the army was incompetent and that he was better suited to wage it, and Putin wasn’t buying it. The action was what it appeared to be. It was a coup that failed, as many do.

But one major mystery still lingers. The Wagner Group was the most dangerous threat to Ukrainian forces. It is now dispersed and without leadership, yet Ukraine has not launched a major offensive to take advantage of the situation. The spring offensive continues at the same cautious rate as before. The events of the past week would seem to offer a huge opportunity for Ukraine, even if all the niceties of planning had to be ignored in favor of rapid action. Russia ought to send major reinforcements to Ukraine in short order, and Ukraine should be taking every risk needed to preempt this. There has been enough time to act, as the Wagner troops are awaiting orders. It may be that the Wagner Group is still an actionable force in Ukraine, but moving all of its forces to Belarus would be hard to hide. American intelligence would likely be aware of their location, and the U.S. would not send the Ukrainians into a meat grinder. Yet there has been no leak, no Ukrainian offensive and no news of a major Russian reinforcement, a fact the Kremlin would certainly announce proudly to demonstrate that Russia is still operational.

It is as if the war has been reset at several levels. It is continuing but not anywhere close to the intensity there was before the coup attempt. The Russians seem low key on the war in statements, and Ukraine does as well. The U.S. has talked a lot about the coup attempt but little about the war itself. We seem to have entered a new period in the conflict, with all sides reducing it. Putin needs to regroup, and that will take time. The Ukrainians, for all their bravado, need a settlement. The U.S. has made clear that a settlement is its goal. According to reports, the Wagner Group seems concentrated in Rostov-on-Don and Voronezh, far away from Moscow.

Ukraine is not surging into the gap, and Russia is not surging large forces to replace Wagner. The United States is quiet. So my theory, free and worth every penny, is that the door has opened to a negotiated settlement. Putin is fighting a war he is not going to win – at least not anytime soon. The U.S. has a presidential election coming, and it needs Ukraine not to win but to block Russia. While Ukrainian rage at Russia is real, it cannot resist if the U.S. wants a compromise.

Whatever that compromise is, I think the end game is starting. I could be wrong.

Following are some excerpts from my chapter in “Flashpoints” on predictions for Russia and Ukraine written in 2014:

[Russia’s] strategy has to first focus on Belarus and Ukraine. At the moment Belarus is not a problem. It is weak, has a leader who will bend to the Russians’ will, and needs Russian investment. But even Belarus can’t be taken for granted. Once the current leader, Lukashenko, leaves the scene, no one can predict the political evolution of the country. So the Russians must institutionalize their influence economically and through relations with the Belorussian intelligence services. The Russians must be constantly active in Belarus.

The more immediate problem is Ukraine. It is a story that goes back to a strategic decision made by the United States and the [European] peninsula in the 1990s. There were two strategies they could follow. One was to allow a neutral buffer zone of former Soviet-dominated states to exist. The other was to incorporate as many of these states into NATO and the EU as possible. The Russians were not in a position to block this move east. They thought, or at least claimed to have been promised, that NATO would never advance into the former Soviet Union. When the Baltic states were admitted to NATO, that promise, whether real or not, was broken. NATO had moved more than five hundred miles east, toward Moscow, and it was not one hundred miles from St. Petersburg.

The first duel was over Ukraine, the key region for Russia. It wasn’t only a matter of energy pipelines, but of the long-term physical security of Russia. The Ukrainian border with Russia is over seven hundred miles long. It is five hundred miles from Moscow over flat, open terrain. Odessa and Sevastopol, both in Ukraine, provide Russia with commercial and military access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. If Ukraine were to be integrated into NATO and the European Union, Russia would face a threat not only in the Baltics, but one from Ukraine. Loss of access to Ukrainian territory would be a blow to Russian economic strategy. A Ukrainian alliance with NATO would pose an unmistakable threat to Russian national security. Precisely that threat has resurfaced. The Ukrainian situation simply does not reach closure. Everything settled is reopened. Given its importance to Russia, this makes sense.

...

There is a fragility to Ukraine. In the east the Russian influence is heavy. Polish and Romanian influence dominates in the west, and Ukrainians as a whole are divided politically between those wanting to be part of the EU, those wanting to be close to Russia, and those who want a fully independent Ukraine. This makes the Russians even more uneasy. Divisions such as these make Ukraine fertile ground for manipulation by anyone interested in it. The Russians are very aware of this vulnerability because they themselves have been manipulating Ukraine for a long time. Because of this, the Russians will interpret outside involvement as manipulation, and potentially a threat to their overriding interests in Ukraine.

American and European policy toward the former Soviet Union consisted of trying to turn former Soviet Republics into constitutional democracies, under the prevailing theory that this would stabilize them and integrate them into the Western economic and political system. As a result, both these countries and the United States engaged in the funding of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) they regarded as pro-democracy. The Russians saw funding of these groups as pro-Western and thus hostile to Russian interests. The same thing happened in Ukraine. Americans were oblivious to how Russians saw this interference. The Russians, on the other hand, did not believe the Westerners were that naive.

...

Putin understood that the United States was far more powerful than Russia. He also understood that Washington could, in the long run, influence the European peninsula, particularly the countries in the borderland. But the United States was bogged down in the Middle East. Russia had a window of opportunity not only to reassert its military capability, but to reshape borderlands, particularly Ukraine, into something that would protect Russia.

...

Russia faces no military threat now, but it also knows that military threats emerge suddenly and unexpectedly from the peninsula. Given the uncertain future of Ukraine, that could come quickly.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
WSJ: Russian Nukes to Belarus
« Reply #921 on: June 30, 2023, 08:33:23 AM »
second

Russian Nuclear Weapons for Belarus
Putin extends his control over Minsk by deploying tactical nuclear missiles in the country.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
June 29, 2023 6:39 pm ET


Russia said this spring that it would send tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus, and on Tuesday President Alexander Lukashenko said he has received some of them. This development is another escalation by Vladimir Putin and another indication of Moscow’s takeover of Minsk.


Mr. Putin helped Mr. Lukashenko quell the 2020 protests against the Belarusian government, but at a price for Belarus independence. Military integration is a key component of Russia’s slow-rolling annexation of Belarus.

Mr. Putin has positioned Russian troops in Belarus and used its territory to launch Russian ground forces and missiles to attack Ukraine. Russia has also stationed S-400 surface-to-air and Iskander short-range missile systems there. Belarus’s Defense Ministry said in April that Russia helped train its soldiers on the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and now Mr. Lukashenko says they’re in-country.

Amid last weekend’s chaos in Russia, Mr. Lukashenko positioned himself as a mediator between Mr. Putin and the mercenary warlord-turned-rebel Yevgeny Prigozhin, and the Belarusian no doubt hopes to leverage this role for more influence with the Kremlin. Yet the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons that Mr. Putin will control is another step in the erosion of Belarus’s sovereignty.

Like Ukraine, Belarus gave up its nuclear weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia’s war in Ukraine will discourage other countries from surrendering their nuclear weapons, and now Mr. Putin is proliferating them. The Kremlin knows that its nuclear saber-rattling has had some effect on Western calculations of how much to support Ukraine, and his deployment of nuclear weapons to Belarus is another failure of Western deterrence.

Russia’s nuclear deployment also illustrates what Mr. Putin had in mind for a Kremlin-controlled Ukraine. The West helps its own security when it helps Ukraine defeat Russia.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

« Last Edit: July 01, 2023, 02:41:21 AM by Crafty_Dog »


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1693
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: July 01, 2023, 11:45:16 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #924 on: July 01, 2023, 07:47:27 AM »
Please post that in Geopolitics.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Poland has been making moves
« Reply #925 on: July 06, 2023, 11:53:44 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting Read: Why are we in Ukraine?
« Reply #927 on: July 06, 2023, 03:38:58 PM »
https://harpers.org/archive/2023/06/why-are-we-in-ukraine/

The blame America for Putin's war mantra is quite tiresome to me.  Author acts like all these moves of US/NATO happened in a vacuum

From the article:
"The point here is not to make arguments of moral equivalency."

But that's exactly what he does, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph, IMHO.

A balanced view would include some of the following:

"Alleged Russian political meddling documented in 27 countries since 2004"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/09/07/alleged-russian-political-meddling-documented-27-countries-since-2004/619056001/

(Doug) Poor guy, loves his people, and has no ambitions beyond his own border?  Not according to any objective account.

"Of all the democracies that emerged in the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has suffered the most from Russian interference."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/21/russia-war-ukraine-authoritarianism-domestic-politics/

Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2007 said Russia had slipped into "authoritarianism, corruption, and manufactured belligerence" and was "bully[ing] its neighbors".
https://irp.fas.org/congress/2007_hr/russia.pdf

(Doug) I'm not crazy about defending Clinton, Obama, Biden or Bush, but NATO was not the aggressor; Putin was and still is.

The "not one inch eastward" alleged ad nauseam NATO quote was made in the context of not one inch westward, or any other direction, for Russia.

When did they violate that?  Every damn day.

Number one supplier of arms to Saddam to kill Americans in Gulf War I, Russia.  Proxy war?  Were we shocked?  No.  That's what they do.

Mitt Romney, 2012, number one geopolitical threat in the world?  Russia. Some presciently thought China, but all knew Russia was up there, meddling, expanding, bullying, arming, threatening.  It's what they do.

Neutral Finland and formerly socialist Sweden joining NATO.  Why?  They want war?  Or they see a real Putin Russia threat and want defense?!

I don't remember anyone on our side questioning the need for missile defense sites in East Europe and we were appalled when Obama made a secret deal to cancel them.

Why would they want missile defense?
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/12/08/504737811/russia-seen-moving-new-missiles-to-eastern-europe

Not some hawkish right wing media.  NPR.

Think what you will about the wars in Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Ukraine, the easternmost town in the US is eastport Maine, same as it was in 1798.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastport,_Maine
« Last Edit: July 06, 2023, 05:35:16 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #928 on: July 06, 2023, 05:28:29 PM »
Very well-argued Doug.

A follow up question:

Given what we know now, was our insistence on including Ukraine in that eastern movement a good call?  Could we have kept the status quo of the Trump era?

« Last Edit: July 06, 2023, 05:31:08 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #929 on: July 06, 2023, 06:52:54 PM »
"Given what we know now, was our insistence on including Ukraine in that eastern movement a good call?  Could we have kept the status quo of the Trump era?"

I assume you refer to this:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/joint-statement-on-the-u-s-ukraine-strategic-partnership/

I don't have the answers (and hindsight isn't fair).  Of course there were always costs and risks to standing up to Russia - and risks (often larger) for appeasement.  What was the alternative?  I don't accept that they took Crimea and were already going after the eastern provinces.  That negates the promise of not one inch, but exactly what should we have done, I don't know.

We could have said, you can keep what you've taken already and you can finish taking that which you have started to take by force, and we will disarm and back off, not defend Ukrainian sovereignty in any way, but that is our red line, no more, lol.

What happened, in my view, was not mainly provocation on our part, but that they smelled weakness and pounced.

OTOH, the Biden family was tied up in Ukraine corruption so I have no reason to trust that our leaders did the right thing for the right reasons.
----------
Jumping analogies, I think it's crazy that totalitarian China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council while democratic Taiwan is not accepted as a member.  What's the matter with us?  Yes I want the US to recognize and advocate for Taiwan and at the same time I understand honesty and doing the right thing carries big risks.  A certain amount of caution might be prudent, but letting them take Taiwan is out of the question for me.  If they invade just the (Mandarin speaking?) western provinces, (hypothetical analogy) let it go?  It's their backyard.

BTW, didn't we lose Hong Kong under Trump - distracted by covid?
https://www.hrw.org/feature/2021/06/25/dismantling-free-society/hong-kong-one-year-after-national-security-law

Restraint has it's costs and losses as well.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #930 on: July 06, 2023, 08:09:59 PM »
Now some overreach the other direction:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/05/ukraine-nato-open-letter-00104575

When I saw Alexander Vindman was one of the"experts", it reminds me, no one is an expert on stopping psychopaths with nuclear buttons.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #931 on: July 07, 2023, 06:51:25 AM »
Summarizing my understanding of the chronology- and I might be getting some of this wrong:

Regarding the Donbas area, genuine Russian speaking vs. Uke speaking historical complexities exist.  I have related in this thread previously my Jewish Russian born/Russian speaking now American citizen friend  whose grandparents fled to Russia to escape the Nazis and her take on things.  Whatever the case, the Obama-Biden chapter of America did diddly squat.

2008 (or was it 2014?)- US (Victoria Nuland at State Dept et al) backed the overthrow of the elected (and Russian supported government).  Recording exists of Nuland speaking of this and she has claimed we put $1B into the effort.  Somehow this usually gets left out of the story.

How would we feel if Russia or China did something similar in Mexico?

IN RESPONSE, Putin blew off the Budapest Memorandum of 1993 and took Crimea.  Somehow that this was a response usually gets left out of the story.

Whatever the case, the Obama-Biden chapter of America did diddly squat.  MREs and blankets?!?  Seriously?!?

Putin has always been quite clear that the Ukes joining NATO was a red line for him for reasons rather analogous to our Monroe Doctrine.  How would we feel if Russia or China were working to get Mexico into a military alliance?

Bush 43 was working to bring Georgia into NATO and Putin put an end to that with invasion of the Ossetia region.  It is not like we did not know that the man meant it when he said "red line".  So why persist with Ukraine, of far higher importance to Russia when neutrality was an option-- in effect the status quo of the Trump era? 

For me this is a central question.

Instead, Sec Def Austin and VP Harris in the fall leading up to the invasion (while on Euro soil IIRC) spoke of the Ukes entering NATO.  "No one can tell the Ukes what to do" blah blah.  Hubris!!!  All this after Afghanistan and pulling the US Navy out of the Black Sea.

The policies of the Bush 43-Obama-Biden chapters of America have been an extraordinary blend of weakness, incoherence, bluster, and hubris-- and now, even if we "win" (whatever that looks like) Russia has been driven into China's arms.  This is a great error of deep geopolitical significance IMHO.

The Trump chapter of America had it exactly right.

a) Hard on the NATO Euros to pay their fg share;
b) Hard on Germany over Nord Stream;
c) Strong on America as provider of energy (thus driving down prices for Russia as added benefit);
d) Killed 250 Wagners in Syria and shot 39 cruise missiles up Russian ass in Syria;
e) Trained up the Ukes via SOCEUR and provided stingers and other deadly toys;
e) sweet talk in public with Putin so as to allow him to save face in front of his Russian audience.

In my opinion, all this should have been continued.  Russia would not have invaded and Russia would not now be a junior ally to China, solving much of its food and energy needs.

Having stirred up the shitstorm that he did, Biden was ready to fly Zelensky out when the Russians invaded.  Somehow, this too does not get mentioned. 

My guess is that Z. reminded/blackmailed him into the support that we see.

More shortly.  Electrician is here.




« Last Edit: July 09, 2023, 07:00:13 AM by Crafty_Dog »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #933 on: July 08, 2023, 06:42:54 AM »
Great summary Crafty.  More balance and insight than most takes we read that tell only one side of it.  I have some questions along the lines of which came first the chicken or the egg.

Russia responded to the coup, but wasn't
'the coup', whether Ukrainian alone or American-backed, a response to Russia installing a Russia supporting Ukraine government.  US offers defense help etc, NATO or otherwise, not because billions were burning a hole in our pockets but because Ukraine has been under threat, meddling, attack etc from the start and especially through the Putin years (decades).

I like the long list of what Trump did right.  Even the friendly pubic face to Putin.  We knew what that meant, a part of the negotiations, but had to listen to how the ruthless media opponents framed him a Putin appeaser but he wasn't.  Funny that Putin invaded Ukraine during the administration before and the administration after but not during those four years.  He isn't say, I'll have more flexibility after my reelection, even though all his advisers wrote tell-all books.

On the Putin-motive side of it I stand by my earlier observation.  We pose a threat to his expansion plans, not to his sovereignty or his republic.  It wasn't Trump who called for regime change but don't we openly support, with words, free elections everywhere?  While Putin murders his opposition.  Words to oppose that, free speech 8 time zones away, are off limits?

On the analogy side, Mexico IS invading us and we still aren't invading or installing pro-American government or 'annexing' them.  For whatever happened in the 1960s, we still haven't toppled the Cuban government or annexed them

There's no easy answer or way out of this now.  As stated, build a strong America, strong economy, strong defense, that is our best long term approach, and elect wise leaders we need to be able to trust to handle the risks, tradeoffs, capable of subtlety, action and restraint needed in the current mess.  Not feeble, corrupt or short sighted ones.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2023, 06:45:06 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #934 on: July 08, 2023, 08:10:52 AM »
"(W)asn't 'the coup', whether Ukrainian alone or American-backed, a response to Russia installing a Russia supporting Ukraine government"?

There was an election.  Perfectly reasonable to think that the Russians had their thumb on the scale and yes there was considerable Uke street action/uprising against the Russian backed government.  Indeed before "Fire Hydrant of Freedom" was peeled off from "Dog Brothers Martial Arts" we had this thread:

https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2480.msg78632#msg78632

Note the opening entries.

That acknowledged a brief trip down memory lane will turn up LOTS of examples of American meddling in our backyard in Latin America-- including for "stopping communism" e.g. stopping Russia from making establishing a one-mile runway in Grenada- the length of which was relevant only to heavy military cargo planes.   And what did Reagan do?  He invaded!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #935 on: July 09, 2023, 06:39:10 AM »
"And what did Reagan do?  He invaded!"

Yes.  Nitpicking, the analogy I was looking for was, invaded and annexed.   :wink:

Southernmost point of the 'continental' USA is still Key West, since 1822.

71 Cubans were killed.  Again the chicken egg question on meddling.

I think ccp was there...





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
FP: The Long, Destructive Shadow of Obama’s Russia Doctrine
« Reply #940 on: July 16, 2023, 09:25:41 AM »
Not a fan of FP, but it is seriously focused on geopolitics and so it does have articles I want to see, but at $20 a month count me out.

That said, I do want to see the following very much:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/11/obama-russia-ukraine-war-putin-2014-crimea-georgia-biden/?fbclid=IwAR0r_IGqUNCZHNiTY0OyuK5zdZZ63Xm3aRRREdWO9D0ShyQDH4Fxs1Zo2fY

They do give some freebies to people nibbling, so if any of you here would be willing to nibble with them, get this as a freebie, and post it here I would be grateful.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: FP: The Long, Destructive Shadow of Obama’s Russia Doctrine
« Reply #943 on: July 17, 2023, 03:02:41 PM »
The Long, Destructive Shadow of Obama’s Russia Doctrine
A series of bad decisions during the Obama years prepared the ground for Vladimir Putin’s war.
By Adrian Karatnycky, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and the founder of Myrmidon Group.

JULY 11, 2023, 4:22 AM

In an interview with Times Radio in May, Richard Dearlove, the former head of Britain’s MI6, observed that “the policy that [U.S. President Barack] Obama followed in 2014, when there was this initial Russian invasion … the way that this was handled, with the benefit of hindsight, was probably a mistake.” Dearlove was right, but he missed a salient point: The decisions made in the Obama years aren’t just something to observe through the rearview mirror. Obama’s policies continue to exercise a major influence on the course of the Russia-Ukraine war and have resulted in the unnecessary loss of tens of thousands of civilian and military lives.

Today, Ukraine is in the early stages of what its leaders say is a major counteroffensive to recapture the roughly 20 percent of its territory occupied by Russia. The task of reconquest is far from simple. Not only has Russia’s military spent many months creating strong lines of defense and digging in, but Ukraine is also handicapped by the slow and belated provision of military aid. It still lacks significant air power and long-range missiles, two categories of weapons that would make reconquest less costly.

Ukraine has already endured an eight-year hybrid war that took 14,000 lives before Russia’s massive invasion in 2022 took even more—with tens of thousands and perhaps as many as several hundred thousand people killed on both sides. Russia at one point held as much as 27 percent of Ukrainian territory before its forces collapsed on several fronts. Yet Ukraine still lacks a wide array of necessary weapons to reclaim what Russia still occupies.

In truth, all these predicaments trace back to Obama’s Russia policy. Indeed, it can be argued that Obama’s approach to Russia and Ukraine continues to influence the situation fundamentally and detrimentally on the ground and in the U.S.-led allied response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s all-out war.

Without question, Putin bears full and total responsibility for his war on Ukraine and the suffering and death his forces have inflicted. But his attack on Ukraine in 2014, his growing imperial ambitions, and his subsequent decision to obliterate the Ukrainian state have their roots in the policies and actions of the United States and its allies during the Obama years.

Obama’s Russia policy, including his embrace of the doctrine of Kremlin escalation dominance, has continued to shape U.S. policy during the Trump and Biden administrations.

For most of Putin’s years in power, the United States and the West responded inadequately to Russia’s increasingly aggressive acts, from a series of assassinations in Western countries to the occupation of other countries’ sovereign territories. It began with then U.S.-President George W. Bush’s weak reaction to Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia. When Obama came into office, he compounded Bush’s mistake. Instead of pivoting to punish Russia for its aggression, he tasked his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, with launching a “reset” in relations, wiping the slate clean of Russia’s misdeeds in Georgia. More significantly, Obama scrapped the Bush administration’s plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a decision Putin personally cheered.

Nor did Obama adequately grasp the scale of the looming Russian threat. During the 2012 presidential election campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney declared that Russia “is, without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world’s worst actors. The idea that [Obama] has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed.” In response, Obama mocked his rival: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”


In 2014, after Russia had already annexed Crimea, shot down MH17, and sent Russian troops and security services into combat in Ukraine’s Donbas, Obama staunchly opposed sending arms to Ukraine. He responded to the Russian invasion of Crimea with only minor sanctions targeting Russian individuals, state banks, and a handful of companies. He rejected a leading U.S. role in diplomatic efforts to end Russia’s war, delegating responsibility to France and Germany. While it makes logical sense to expect European countries to take charge of security on their continent, these countries lack the United States’ geopolitical heft, and Putin has never accepted them as peers of or negotiating partners for Russia. What’s more, these two European countries were heavily dependent on trade with Russia and showed little interest in the security of Eastern European countries. Most damaging was Obama’s clear statement that Ukraine was not a U.S. strategic priority.

Speaking with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas, Obama emphasized the limits of his commitment to Ukraine. As Goldberg wrote: “Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.” Goldberg then cited Obama as saying, “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” In other words, a U.S. president all but acknowledged Ukraine as a Russian client state, telegraphing to the leader of an aggressive, revisionist power that the United States would stand down if Russia were to widen its war. Moreover, the doctrine of Russian escalation dominance—that the Kremlin would always be willing to exercise superior power to get its way in Ukraine, whereas the United States would not—became the governing principle of U.S. policy. This principle echoes to this day, holding back U.S. support for Ukraine.

During a recent interview with CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour, Obama doubled down on his weak response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine in 2014. “We challenged Putin with the tools that we had at the time, given where Ukraine was,” Obama claimed. It’s true that in the early days after Russia’s shock invasion, Ukraine’s degraded armed forces were not ready to fight back to reclaim occupied territory. But Obama neglected to mention that within months, Ukraine had significantly rebuilt its armed forces, in large measure aided by the heroism of volunteer fighters who enlisted by the tens of thousands in a vast civic movement to protect their country. And that means that the most important tool Obama had at that time was to give these fighters lethal weapons, which he steadfastly refused to deploy for the rest of his presidency.

An collage illustration shows map segments with member countries — and possible future members — of NATO. Russian President Vladamir Putin is seen in profile with a tear of Ukraine map to signify the effect of the Russian war on the alliance.
An collage illustration shows map segments with member countries — and possible future members — of NATO. Russian President Vladamir Putin is seen in profile with a tear of Ukraine map to signify the effect of the Russian war on the alliance.

NATO’s Next Decade

Turn Ukraine Into a Bristling Porcupine

Criticism of Obama’s stance on Ukraine—or, for that matter, the stances of then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel or then-French President Francois Hollande—is not a matter of hindsight. Distinguished voices in the foreign-policy community and the U.S. Congress, including late Republican presidential candidate John McCain, called for broader sanctions and urged Obama to arm Ukraine from the outset of Russia’s 2014 aggression. Yet despite congressional resolutions calling for such aid, Obama opposed sending Ukraine weapons and invoked the doctrine of Russian escalation dominance. Instead, throughout the Obama years, U.S. aid was limited to hundreds of millions of dollars in non-lethal equipment and military training, the latter largely spent on U.S. personnel.

Obama’s Russia policy, including his embrace of the doctrine of Kremlin escalation dominance, has continued to shape U.S. policy during the Trump and Biden administrations. Although Donald Trump behaved badly toward Ukraine by trying to enlist Kyiv in his efforts to weaken presidential rival Joe Biden, he greenlighted the shipment of Javelin anti-tank weapons in 2017 and 2019. Nonetheless, years of fierce debate merely over sending Javelins stifled discussion of other weapons needed by Ukraine, including air and missile defense, battle tanks, fighter jets, and long-range missiles. These could have made Ukraine more secure before 2022, and some of them are still not in Ukraine’s arsenal today.


To his credit, Biden advocated arming Ukraine with defensive weapons when he was vice president under Obama. But when he became president himself, Biden brought many of the architects of Obama’s timid approach to Russia back into the government. As a result of their influence, from the moment in the fall of 2021 when the U.S. government knew Putin was planning to invade to the start of the invasion on Feb. 24, 2022, the United States lost a crucial window in which to provide Ukraine significant new weapons and the training to use them. Instead of much-needed howitzers, tanks, multiple-launch rocket systems (such as HIMARS), and heavy ordnance, Washington doled out modest assistance enabling not much more than partisan resistance.

Even when the Biden administration became convinced Russia would wage war around October 2021, it still restricted aid to a meager $60 million worth of small arms and ammunition. Only in December 2021 did Biden finally approve a $200 million shipment of shoulder-fired missiles and other lethal and non-lethal aid. The package included 300 Javelin anti-tank missiles that arrived in January, mere weeks before Russian forces began their multifront assault. And still, there were no heavy weapons in sight.

To be sure, the Biden administration and its NATO allies have reassessed—and in some measure departed from—Obama’s idea of Russian escalation dominance. Yet the lingering influence of the doctrine has contributed to the long-standing denial of long-range missiles, and it has delayed the provision of combat aircraft to Ukraine.

Indeed, the doctrine of Russian escalation dominance persists in a more limited form to this day. Biden’s continued invocations of Putin’s potential willingness to use nuclear weapons is proof of its influence, as is the United States’ concern that Ukraine may take the war to Russian territory. There is no question that Washington should not ignore Moscow’s nuclear arsenal. But fear of Russia’s use of tactical nuclear weapons should never paralyze efforts to arm Ukraine adequately. Putin’s use of nuclear weapons is highly unlikely, especially now that Chinese leader Xi Jinping has explicitly warned Putin about using them in Ukraine. Second, it is for Ukrainians to determine for themselves their strategy of war and the risks they are prepared to take. As for Russia’s alleged nuclear escalation dominance, the United States has a familiar doctrine of its own to counter it: nuclear deterrence. If Biden no longer believes mutual deterrence protects us from nuclear escalation, he may as well submit to Putin now, let him restore the Russian Empire, and allow Moscow to project its power into the heart of Europe.

Regrettably, the abiding influence and long afterlife of Obama’s Russia doctrine will soon result in the further unnecessary loss of many thousands of Ukrainian lives. Had Ukraine been systematically armed by the West in the eight years after Russia launched its hybrid war in 2014, it is likely Ukrainians would have better held the line during Russia’s February 2022 invasion. It is even possible Ukraine could have dealt Russia an early decisive blow to its initial advances. Had a well-armed Ukraine fought back with full force, Russia’s massive territorial gains could have been avoided, and we might have been spared such Russian-perpetrated atrocities as Bucha, Irpin, and Mariupol.

It is, of course, possible that no policy could have deterred Putin from taking Ukrainian lives, razing civilian homes, destroying civilian infrastructure, and seizing Ukrainian territory. But Putin’s rising imperial ambitions and the high costs Ukrainians are paying for them are at least in part the fruit of Obama administration policies that continue to exert a powerful influence to this very day.

Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and the founder of Myrmidon Group.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2023, 04:21:51 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Russia/US-- Europe
« Reply #944 on: July 17, 2023, 04:26:48 PM »
Thank you for finding that for us.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
George Friedman: Russia as a Great Power
« Reply #945 on: July 21, 2023, 07:36:59 AM »


July 21, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Poland as a Great Power
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman

In my book “The Next 100 Years,” which was published in 2009, I argued that Poland would become a dominant power in Continental Europe in the coming decades. Several political and military officials seem to be finally coming around to the idea. Most recently, British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace signed a new bilateral 2030 Strategic Partnership with Warsaw. During the signing, Wallace said Poland would soon have the biggest army in Europe and commended its strong support for Ukraine. And though that might be a slight exaggeration, that he said it at all attests to the state of Polish military affairs.

Considering the state of Poland from 1939 to 1991 – that is, from partition through Soviet occupation – my forecast may have seemed untenable at the time. But my reasoning was sound, geopolitically speaking. I believed Russia would put heavy pressure on its western flank to build strategic depth. NATO, which was formed as a mutual defense force to operate as a single force, would not be able to command all of Europe’s forces; it would be able to direct only those who had an interest in deploying troops in the first place. Though several European countries fit that description, the country with the best capability of blocking Russia, and the most vested interest in doing so, was the United States. And if they ever wanted to halt Russian advances, Poland was essential. It has a broad front facing a potential Russian advance, and it would provide for the movement of forces up into the Baltics or south toward Hungary and Romania. Poland is, in other words, the geographical foundation for the defense of Europe.

The possibility of a Russian advance became all the more real after the Ukrainian revolution in 2014 against a pro-Russian president. Moscow saw the uprising as a transformational event that turned an ally into a U.S. satellite, and it began to prepare its military accordingly.

The U.S. understood the long-term possibilities Russia was creating. While much of Eastern Europe wanted to stay out of any Russo-American confrontation, Poland didn’t have that luxury. The mutual threat of Russia was the foundation of the U.S.-Polish relationship, which, along with active allies such as the U.K., was the basis of an anti-Russian strategy. Washington thus began to shape Poland into a self-sufficient military force by providing weapons and training and building the requisite infrastructure to host a major American presence in the event of a war.

The argument I made was that Poland, emotionally recalling Soviet occupation and (correctly) understanding that any war fought would be fought within its border, embraced the idea of creating a self-sufficient force as soon as possible. It was betting that a close relationship with the United States also would give it a dominant role in Eastern Europe. From Obama to Trump to Biden, equipment, intelligence and training flowed to Poland.

The massive flow of weapons and the training of a military force gave the U.S. a secure base from which it can now supply Ukraine. It also gave it a force that is available to move eastward if required. The British secretary of defense should be a competent judge in terms of Poland’s armament and willingness to engage, so the claim that Poland will become the preeminent military force on the European peninsula is, I think, reasonable. It is capable of engaging, and it certainly has a chance to prevail if the war evolves that way.

Military power isn’t the sum total of national power, of course. But I would argue that Poland has become powerful because it is useful to U.S. strategy, the baggage of that dependency notwithstanding. National power depends on an economic foundation that is not only designed to build weapons but to use economics as a defensive and offensive weapon. Until Poland does this, it cannot claim to be a great power. But it should be remembered that the United States recovered from the Great Depression and rebuilt its economy through World War II. A successful war can drain a country and then empower it. The number of businesses setting up shop in Poland suggests that my broader forecast may be correct. But the war has to end favorably, and the Polish economy must be ready to accommodate economic opportunity. If it does and is, Polish power may not dominate Europe, but it will certainly be critical in shaping it.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
FP: Lukashenko won the Putin-Prigozhin fight
« Reply #946 on: July 21, 2023, 05:21:21 PM »
Lukashenko Won the Putin-Prigozhin Fight
The dictator of Belarus recognized the mutiny in Russia as an opportunity to empower himself.
By Anchal Vohra, a columnist at Foreign Policy. FP subscribers can now receive digests of new stories written by this author. Subscribe now | Sign in

JULY 17, 2023, 1:24 PM

There was an atmosphere of nervous excitement in the offices of the Belarusian opposition in Vilnius and Warsaw late June as Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin rebelled against the Kremlin elite and marched on Moscow. It seemed that troubles inside Russia might keep President Vladimir Putin preoccupied and leave his ally in Minsk to fend for himself.

For the first time in three years, since Aleksandr Lukashenko allegedly rigged the elections and forced opposition leaders into exile, there was cautious hope that they may find the chance they were looking for to launch an uprising, depose the autocrat, and usher in democratic governance.

 “We thought that this could develop into the X hour—when the window of opportunity for our victory opens again,” Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the exiled leader of the democratic opposition, wrote to Foreign Policy in an email. Tsikhanouskaya quickly reached out to all pro-democracy Belarusian representatives, including “the Belarusian volunteer units in the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” she said.

“We were feeling so motivated,” added Pavel Latushka, her deputy and former Belarusian minister of culture, from Warsaw. “We convened a meeting of the transitional cabinet on Zoom,” he said over the phone, and pulled out the Peramoga, or Victory Plan—which lays out the steps to overthrow Lukashenko.

“Tens of thousands of activists would go to places they needed to and start their activities,” encouraging hundreds of thousands of others to join en masse, he said, alluding to large-scale protests including sabotage actions.


But the exhilaration was short-lived. Their hopes were quashed, once again, by Lukashenko himself, who mediated between Putin and Prigozhin on June 24 and brought the Russian mutiny to an anticlimactic end. He played statesman, a loyal ally, and in his usual braggadocious manner relayed details of how he advised the Russian president against executing Prigozhin.

“I said to Putin: ‘Yes we could take him out, it wouldn’t be a problem, if it doesn’t work the first time then it would the second,” he bragged to Belarusian security officials while sharing selected chunks of his conversation with the Russian president. “I told him: ‘Don’t do it, because afterwards there will be no negotiations and these guys will be ready to do anything.’”

Lukashenko will perhaps never stop boasting about saving the day for the Kremlin, but Belarusian politicians and analysts believe his intervention was rooted in self-interest. He hoped to further a long-nurtured ambition or at the very least ensure his own survival as Belarus’s president.

Lukashenko understands that instability in Russia would spill over to Belarus and strengthen democratic forces at home threatening his rule. Some say he owes his survival to Putin, who assured him of military reinforcements amid mass protests in 2020 and sent him a billion and a half dollars in a loan to strengthen his position. If and when the democratic forces rise again, Lukashenko knows he has only one ally. But protecting Wagner from Putin’s wrath and allowing it to base in Belarus, analysts said, opened up other opportunities, too, including partnering with Wagner in its resource loot in Africa and using the mercenaries as an extra tier of personal security at home.

“On the day of the mutiny in Russia, he tried to help his senior partner, his boss, to pay him back and show his loyalty,” Pavel Slunkin, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former Belarusian diplomat, told Foreign Policy on a visit to Brussels. Slunkin believes that contrary to Lukashenko’s claims, he was merely Putin’s messenger and not a negotiator on equal footing.

While there are varied interpretations of how big a part Lukashenko actually played in bringing the Russian mutiny to an end, there is a consensus that he was directly involved.

The Perils of Hosting Prigozhin in Belarus

Why welcoming the Wagner Group carries risks for Aleksandr Lukashenko’s rule.

ANALYSIS | KATIA GLOD

Belarusian U.N. Ambassador Valentin Rybakov, a man wearing a dark suit, stands at a podium decorated with the U.N. emblem as he speaks to a crowd. Behind him, three other members sit at a high platform.
Belarusian U.N. Ambassador Valentin Rybakov, a man wearing a dark suit, stands at a podium decorated with the U.N. emblem as he speaks to a crowd. Behind him, three other members sit at a high platform.
Russia’s Support Seals Belarus’s Fate at the U.N.
The race for a seat on the U.N. Security Council turned into a proxy fight between Russia and the world.

REPORT | J. ALEX TARQUINIO
“Putin was about to obliterate Wagner, but several hours later there is an agreement that Prigozhin will go to Belarus, and no one even touches him,” said Yauheni Preiherman, the founder and director of the Minsk Dialogue Council on International Relations. “Lukashenko did exercise his agency.”

Since brokering the deal, Lukashenko’s popularity inside Russia has skyrocketed. According to a poll by Levada Center on July 1, a week after he brokered the deal, Lukashenko was the second most popular politician in Russia, after the Russian president. For a man who wanted the top job in Russia, such high popularity could be a reason for strife with his patron. Yet Lukashenko has played a bold game.

A firm believer in the Soviet Union, Lukashenko rose from humble beginnings—from a deputy chairman of a collective farm to the position of president. In 1999, when he agreed to the treaty to form the Union State of Russia and Belarus, a supranational union, he had hoped he would become the president of the Russian Federation and Belarus. But in the end, former Russian President Boris Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor.

“I have met this guy many times, and I can tell you what he is thinking—he still wants to be the president,” of the Russian Federation and Belarus, Latushka said. “Over the last month, Lukashenko has met many governors of the Russian region,” Latushka claimed. “Now he has created maximum support in Russian society, especially among the elite, and he is sending the message ‘I am your guy,’ he is playing his own game.”

But while Lukashenko wants to lead a combined Russian and Belarusian state, he doesn’t want Putin to merge the two, rendering him jobless. He has been skeptical that Putin might one day unseat him and has at times made overtures toward the West.

Artyom Shraibman, a Belarusian scholar at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, said Russian attacks on Georgia and Crimea unsettled Lukashenko, who feared Belarus could be next. However, during every election, he has turned to Moscow’s assurances to curb dissent and stay in his chair.

“When Russia attacked Georgia in 2008, he started to flirt with the West. Then elections came in 2010, and Lukashenko cracked down on protesters. That froze relations with the West,” Shraibman said. “In 2015, relations with the West started to normalize again, and he started to release political prisoners. That was after Russia annexed Crimea. But then there was another election in 2020 with far greater public mobilization and bigger protests.” Again, Lukashenko cracked down on protesters with Putin’s backing and relations with the West collapsed, Shraibman added.

Putin needs Lukashenko, too. As he invaded Ukraine, he banked on his only ally in the region to station Russian troops and threaten the West that he would move Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus that shares a border with NATO states. But Lukashenko is by far more dependent on Putin’s goodwill, which he may have risked with his recent bluster. At first Putin thanked his Belarusian counterpart, but later seemed to downplay his role by crediting Russian security forces with stopping a “civil war.”

Furthermore, in an insult, even Wagner seems to have rejected Lukashenko’s proposal. A day after he offered refuge to Wagner fighters, he tried to sell the idea to Belarusians, vehemently opposed to hosting the mercenaries, as beneficial to the Belarusian army. “They will tell us about weapons,” he said, “which worked well, and which didn’t. And tactics, how to attack, how to defend.” Belarusian news agency Belta quoted Lukashenko on its Telegram channel confirming Prigozhin’s arrival. “I see that Prigozhin is already flying on this plane. Yes, indeed, he is in Belarus today,” he said.

In an attempt to show his readiness to host Wagner, Lukashenko allowed the independent press to see thousands of tents erected in an unused military base. But two weeks after he brokered the deal they lie vacant, and Wagner fighters, along with their chief, are in Russia trying to strike a deal with the Russian president.

The Kremlin confirmed that more than 30 Wagner commanders met Putin on June 29 and presented their version of what transpired over June 23 and 24. They underscored that they are staunch supporters and soldiers of the head of state and the commander-in-chief” and wish to continue to “fight for their homeland,” in Ukraine. Putin has offered them “options for further employment and further use in combat,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.

As Putin scrambled to contain the rebellion, Lukashenko found a moment to shine and prove his relevance. But the challenge to Putin has also boosted the morale of Belarusian opposition. The mutiny has exposed Putin’s invincibility as “an illusion,” Tsikhanouskaya said. “Lukashenko will not last even a day without Putin.”

“Belarus is boiling, and the only way to keep the lid on is by increasing repression,” she said, adding that there are more than 5,000 political prisoners in Belarus, with only a third officially recognized—including her husband. “But at one point, this won’t work anymore, and the lid will blow off.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Good insight, great wit
« Reply #947 on: July 24, 2023, 06:01:23 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Much depends on the Russia grain deal
« Reply #948 on: July 24, 2023, 11:48:42 AM »
July 24, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Much Hangs in the Balance of the Grain Deal
Russia’s regional influence and monetary policy depend on the outcome.
By: Antonia Colibasanu
On July 21, Russia's central bank increased its key interest rate to 8.5 percent, citing inflationary risks from a tight labor market and strong consumer demand. This marks the first time the bank has lifted rates in over a year, and more may be in the offing. The move comes days after Russia withdrew from the U.N.-brokered Black Sea grain deal because, Moscow claims, it failed to live up to its promises, which included reconnecting a Russian bank to the international SWIFT system, the reopening of an ammonia pipeline and allowing Russian ships to dock in international ports.

The grain deal was established several months into the war in Ukraine to make sure Russia and Ukraine – two of the world’s most important grain producers – could safely bring their products to market and thus help keep global food prices down. The Black Sea is vital in this regard, accounting for roughly 30 percent of global wheat exports and 20 percent of global corn exports. But Russia has begun to lose interest in the agreement. Most of its grain exports are bound for Asia and, increasingly, Latin America, and therefore don’t need to pass through the Black Sea. (The recently inaugurated North-South corridor has become the first step in a global network of ports and routes that enables Russia to bypass the Black Sea entirely.) Meanwhile, Moscow has reason to curb exports. Doing so would protect domestic consumers, correct harvesting imbalances due to environmental factors and relieve pressure on the ruble.

This last point is critical. Propping up the ruble is the reason Russia needs to keep the grain deal going and why connecting the government-controlled agricultural bank Rosselkhozbank to the SWIFT system is the key Russian demand. Increasingly, Russia relies on the Chinese yuan rather than on Western currencies. According to the central bank's latest financial stability review, the share of the yuan in the exchange market rose to roughly 40 percent, and in foreign trade operations reached 25 percent for exports and 31 percent for imports in May 2023. Along with the increase in the share of the yuan, the share of the ruble in foreign trade also continued to grow, reaching 39 percent of exports and more than 30 percent of imports.

This has complicated things with traditional Russian allies. Russia’s prolific use of the yuan, a currency that’s not freely convertible, has essentially made its monetary policy dependent on Beijing while contributing to domestic inflation. Meanwhile, recent news reports suggest a weak ruble has caused problems in Central Asia, where Russia has an imperative to help keep populations safe and stable.

Dynamics of U.S. Dollar/Russian Ruble Exchange Rate
(click to enlarge)

All of this makes Moscow want to control the flow of dollars and euros – both of which are convertible currencies. While there are private Western banks working in Russia, and though there are a few Russian banks that are still connected to SWIFT, they are not controlled by the Russian government. Motivated by profit, these banks will keep the flow coming in and make use of it for their own purposes. Increasing the interest rate is pretty much all Moscow can do to address inflation. Hence why it wants to reconnect its public banks to SWIFT via the grain deal.

However, Moscow could not persuade the West to accept its terms, and it has given the West a three-month ultimatum to do so. To show that it still has some leverage in the talks, Moscow has upped its attacks on the Ukrainian ports of Odesa, Mykolaiv and Chornomorsk. (Most recently, according to the Ukrainian media, the ports of Ismail and Reni, both on the Danube, were also hit - marking a first attack on ports inside the country.) It announced that it would treat all ships going to Ukrainian ports across the Black Sea as carriers of military cargoes, called for new military drills and has declared that it has the right to block the exclusive economic zones of Black Sea region states – even those in NATO.

Black Sea Major Ports
(click to enlarge)

So far, Moscow has blocked the Ukrainian coast and, according to local sources, part of the Bulgarian economic zone – all under the pretext of holding naval exercises. By claiming it suspects all cargo going toward Ukrainian ports of carrying military cargo in support of Kyiv, Russia says it has the right to inspect ships passing through the Black Sea. This is likely why Russia blocked the perimeter within the Bulgarian economic zone: so its warships could stop commercial ships for inspection, considering the perimeter is nearby the Western coast of the Black Sea, where naval commercial traffic is still working from and into the Bosporus. It is unclear what Russia would do should a commercial ship not stop for inspection.

Russian Naval Exercise Perimeters, Jan 1 - Feb 17, 2022
(click to enlarge)

This points to a growing danger to essential Black Sea trade routes, which raises the prospect of global market instability for everything from oil to foodstuffs to fertilizers. Wheat prices have been on an upward trend for nearly a week, and the shipping and insurance industries are trying to remove the uncertainty in the market. The Lloyd's of London insurance market has already placed the Black Sea region on its high-risk list. However, on July 18, Lloyd’s insurer Ascot said the insurance facility is on pause, leaving open the possibility that Russia could re-enter the grain deal. It’s unclear what the insurer thinks after days of heavy attacks on grain facilities in Odesa and the other ports, but it is obvious that war risk premiums are increasing by the day for all shipping corridors in the Black Sea. Russia’s decision has effectively reinstalled the blockade and turned the Black Sea into a heightened-risk war zone.

For Ukraine, this has forced a massive amount of grain to be transported by river, road and rail – all of which are difficult and expensive. Right now, the primary alternative route for the grain corridor from Odesa to the Bosporus is the Romanian port of Constanta, which, like the rest of Romanian infrastructure, has grown only more important since the outset of the war. Ukrainian grains are shipped to the mouth of the Danube and, from Sulina, the load is transported further into Constanta (through the Danube and its channels) and then taken either by sea, rail or road into the market. Despite the fact that Romania modernized its infrastructure over the past year – about 2.5 million metric tons of Ukrainian grain now transit through the country, from 300,000 metric tons in March 2022 – logistical problems abound due to limited shipping and storage capacity.

While limited, Romania could still implement several enhancements to expand the flow from Ukraine and partially compensate for the collapse of the grain deal. At the moment, because of the risk posed by undersea mines and the lack of night signals on Sulina Danube Channel, ships are sailing only during the day. Furthermore, the average weight for vessels passing through Sulina is around 5,600 metric tons. By introducing night sailing, increasing vessel capacity to 15,000 metric tons, increasing use of the railway network and increasing use of the Galati port facilities on the Danube, Romania could handle up to 3.5 million metric tons more of Ukrainian grain on average each month. However, because offload capacity will largely remain the same, the result may only be greater congestion. Furthermore, with the annual crop just entering harvesting season, challenges will increase.

Importantly, Russia has reasons to escalate attacks in southern Ukraine independent of the grain deal. Moscow would prefer to reconnect with SWIFT, of course, but flexing its military muscles at a time of perceived weakness is politically valuable too. It shows the Russian people that the military is still capable despite its setbacks, and it shows the West that there are consequences if Moscow doesn’t get its way.

Black Sea Maritime Traffic, October 2022
(click to enlarge)

For its part, the West doesn’t have many viable responses. Romania and Bulgaria have improved coastal anti-ship missile capabilities, but they are still behind the curve. Delays in U.S. defense deliveries have put more pressure on coastal states in the immediate proximity of Ukraine. Turkey has an advanced naval capability, and in theory it could partner with Romania and Bulgaria (all NATO member states) to provide an armed escort for commercial ships in the Black Sea. Romania and Bulgaria are coordinating on minesweeping along the coastline, and NATO could also provide shore support. However, NATO is a military organization with a political component, much of it driven by the United States. Black Sea countries have advocated that the U.S. adopt a Black Sea strategy in the hope that NATO might follow suit. These kinds of strategies take time to develop.

Black Sea Maritime Traffic, July 2023
(click to enlarge)

Russia will use that time to its advantage. Hitting Black Sea shorelines and Ukrainian port infrastructure serves the long-term strategic goal of Russia: to destroy the most productive sector Ukraine has left, agriculture, which makes up about 40 percent of Ukraine's GDP. There are about 18 million metric tons of grain stored in the Ukrainian silos from last year –more than half of annual production – because it couldn’t get them out. The grain deal helped, of course, as did the creation of new routes through Romania and Poland, but it hasn’t been enough.

The blockade and the Russian attacks on port infrastructure make it unlikely that Ukraine will be able to move its production to the market soon either. The end result that Russia is looking to achieve is that Ukraine doesn’t participate in the international grain market this year or in the foreseeable future. Its inability to move surplus grain to the market has already killed much of the Ukrainian grain business this year.

With no industry to rely on (most was located in eastern areas now occupied by Russia) and no functioning agriculture, there isn’t much of a Ukrainian economy left. Even if the West promises to help Ukraine rebuild it, there is nothing easy in the process of socio-economic reconstruction. For Russia, making things hard in the long term is a safe way to bring Kyiv under its influence. Russia is likely to have problems of its own, so its pressure on Kyiv might be less aggressive than it would like, but its current actions are designed to be able to pressure Kyiv later, even if it loses the kinetic war.