Ukraine

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

 

I attended a meeting yesterday focused on the one-year anniversary of the invasion. In it, a seasoned analyst spoke who in 2021 had predicted Russia would invade Ukraine months before it happened, when almost everybody else thought it was still a very remote possibility. Yesterday somebody asked him what the biggest risk in markets is at the moment - Fed rate hikes, a global recession, stagflation? His answer: "Markets are massively underestimating the possibility of a ground war in Europe." 

 

 

Considering wars are almost definitively disastrous for markets as a whole, that's fair.

 

Did he offer more specifics on the players in such a war? Probably no because he felt that wasn't his wheelhouse?

Edited 24 February 2023 by leicsmac

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Considering wars are almost definitely disastrous for markets as a whole, that's fair.

 

Did he offer more specifics on the players in such a war?

He didn't go into much detail as the session was winding up, but he basically thinks that a Russia vs US/Europe war, fought in eastern Europe with NATO soldiers in direct combat with Russian soldiers, is much more possible that the markets are currently pricing in. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

He didn't go into much detail as the session was winding up, but he basically thinks that a Russia vs US/Europe war, fought in eastern Europe with NATO soldiers in direct combat with Russian soldiers, is much more possible that the markets are currently pricing in. 

I hope he's wrong then.

 

That kind of war ends with a situation where the market is "one tin of beans costs five bottlecaps, please. And don't forget your dosimeter."

[Zear0]

18 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

 

I attended a meeting yesterday focused on the one-year anniversary of the invasion. In it, a seasoned analyst spoke who in 2021 had predicted Russia would invade Ukraine months before it happened, when almost everybody else thought it was still a very remote possibility. Yesterday somebody asked him what the biggest risk in markets is at the moment - Fed rate hikes, a global recession, stagflation? His answer: "Markets are massively underestimating the possibility of a ground war in Europe." 

 

 

I've got a similar view to be honest.  I think it's human nature to not like to think about bad things happening so we turn a blind eye (ostrich anyone..?).  In the run up to the invasion to Ukraine Putin was literally saying "they're historically Russian", "there's no such thing as Ukrainians" etc.  Even combined with Western intelligence saying "this guy is about to invade, we've got the intel" people still doubted it would happen until tanks rolled over the border.

 

Noting the above, I believe an escalation is highly probable too (unlike the quoted, I'm not a defence analyst, but have some thoughts).  What are the outcomes of the Ukraine war?  Russia conquers Ukraine in the face of Western armament and economic sanctions will surely embolden an ageing autocrat who, based on his recent speeches, is an hate filled man who blames the West for the collapse of the Soviet Union that he is desperate to restore.  The similarities between Putin's ramblings about the West are scarily similar to Hitler's anger at the contraints and signaturies of the Versailles Treaty.  I mention this as success in Ukraine will embolden him, and other leaders in his mould with similarly large military resources, to keep going.   It's impossible to know (only one bloke does) if he'd stop at Ukraine, Moldova, the baltics..., but I don't think he's intimidated by NATO in the slightest. Whilst he's got a puppet in Belarus (and Hungary and Tukey) he won't be scared.  Whilst none of this is a guarentee of future conflict, it surely makes a large conflict more likely if he's successful in Ukraine (which being a cynic I think he will be)?

 

The alternative is if Ukraine succeeds in booting Russia out of Donetsk and Luhansk.  If they achieve this sucess, surely they'll also be emboldened to rattle through Crimea?  Putin's annexation of Crimea was a disgrace, but there was something of an international status quo in the following years.  Whilst the "referenda" in the four-Ukrainian regions were laughable affronts to democracy (and he knows that), I don't think that politically position extends to Crimea.  Vlad, and most of Russia, would see that as an attack on the nation and they'd support a response no different to someone marching into Moscow.  I'll come back to the nuclear points, but I can see that being a catalyst for the unthinkable happening with a tactical strike (or heaven forbit a strategic one) to send them retreating.

 

There is potentially the compromise on Russia keeping Donetsk and Luhansk but that is a reward for agression and will embolden Russia and China (coming to my previous post).  Plus, he controls those regions now, so why would he want to accept peace on those terms?

 

Regarding @leicsmac points on escalation and Taiwan I disagree.  Firstly, the wording Xi uses towards Taiwan is a mirror for Putin's comments on Ukraine "historically it's ours, we're coming for it".  Going back to history, there's a long list of autocrats covering up domestic policy failures with agression which is why I think it's inevitable they're going in.  He might start with a blockade to see what the response is.

The Chinese arn't building these "defensive" islands in the South China Sea or a staggeringly large Navy out of boredom.  It's a 69 year old autocrat desperately looking for Chinese unification before he kicks the bucket or as an ace up his sleeve should domestic unrest rear it's head.  You also note the assumption that Chinese agression against Taiwan would be met by US force, but to be clear that's an assumption.  Domestic US support for providing weapons (described as a rounding error in the DoD budged) to Ukraine is dwindling. What appetite do you think Billy Bob and Hank will have for US forces taking loses against defending Taiwan?  I also note that you often make the assumption that every conflict involving a nuclear power will end in nuclear conflict which is something I don't agree with (and no doubt you hope I'm right ).

To articulate the point, by what measure do we view the current status between NATO and Russia?  Historically, we've been in indirect conflict with Russia through proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, Yemen, Afghanistan (soviet invasion and the civil war), Yugoslavia and Syria (these are my off the head ones)) for basically a century. The point I'm making here, is that we are waging a war against Russia, we're just not using our own troops.  Practically, what's the difference between a Ukrainian soldier pressing the button on an M31 munitioned HIMARS and a US one?  Politically huge, practically it's got the same result.  If I'm attacked by Steve who got weapons from John, I'm bundling them together as the agressors. Ukraine is unique, except maybe the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (someone correct me), where it involved Russia/Western agression primarily with the opposition indirectly supported by the latter making the perception of direct conflict appear closer.

Lastly, whether this is just media speculation or not we'll never know, but it has been reported by US officials that should Russia use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the US/NATO response would be a conventional destruction of their Black Sea fleet.  I think the fear of nuclear escalation would keep it at that level (not great).  MAD is still a viable concept even in a direct war between powers.

 

Appreciate this is the ramblings of a simple man's perception, but I'm just trying to draw the lines to potential outcomes and identify a situation where this doesn't get worse.  I'm struggling on that front to find a happy outcome.  Slight tangent, but It feels a bit like a pre-WW1 position to me.  There are so many powers globally with their own gripes, conflic just seems inevitable.  China/Taiwan, Israel/Palestine, Israel/Iran (the entire Middle-East tbh), US/Russia, US/China, NATO/Russia.  So many conflicts could be set off so readily currently it's scary.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

 

Regarding @leicsmac points on escalation and Taiwan I disagree.  Firstly, the wording Xi uses towards Taiwan is a mirror for Putin's comments on Ukraine "historically it's ours, we're coming for it".  Going back to history, there's a long list of autocrats covering up domestic policy failures with agression which is why I think it's inevitable they're going in.  He might start with a blockade to see what the response is.

The Chinese arn't building these "defensive" islands in the South China Sea or a staggeringly large Navy out of boredom.  It's a 69 year old autocrat desperately looking for Chinese unification before he kicks the bucket or as an ace up his sleeve should domestic unrest rear it's head.  You also note the assumption that Chinese agression against Taiwan would be met by US force, but to be clear that's an assumption.  Domestic US support for providing weapons (described as a rounding error in the DoD budged) to Ukraine is dwindling. What appetite do you think Billy Bob and Hank will have for US forces taking loses against defending Taiwan?  I also note that you often make the assumption that every conflict involving a nuclear power will end in nuclear conflict which is something I don't agree with (and no doubt you hope I'm right ).

To articulate the point, by what measure do we view the current status between NATO and Russia?  Historically, we've been in indirect conflict with Russia through proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, Yemen, Afghanistan (soviet invasion and the civil war), Yugoslavia and Syria (these are my off the head ones)) for basically a century. The point I'm making here, is that we are waging a war against Russia, we're just not using our own troops.  Practically, what's the difference between a Ukrainian soldier pressing the button on an M31 munitioned HIMARS and a US one?  Politically huge, practically it's got the same result.  If I'm attacked by Steve who got weapons from John, I'm bundling them together as the agressors. Ukraine is unique, except maybe the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (someone correct me), where it involved Russia/Western agression primarily with the opposition indirectly supported by the latter making the perception of direct conflict appear closer.

Lastly, whether this is just media speculation or not we'll never know, but it has been reported by US officials that should Russia use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the US/NATO response would be a conventional destruction of their Black Sea fleet.  I think the fear of nuclear escalation would keep it at that level (not great).  MAD is still a viable concept even in a direct war between powers.

 

Appreciate this is the ramblings of a simple man's perception, but I'm just trying to draw the lines to potential outcomes and identify a situation where this doesn't get worse.  I'm struggling on that front to find a happy outcome.  Slight tangent, but It feels a bit like a pre-WW1 position to me.  There are so many powers globally with their own gripes, conflic just seems inevitable.  China/Taiwan, Israel/Palestine, Israel/Iran (the entire Middle-East tbh), US/Russia, US/China, NATO/Russia.  So many conflicts could be set off so readily currently it's scary.

You make good arguments. I just have a comment or two on the bolded.

 

That the US would respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is an assumption, yes (and I tried to qualify as such in the original comments), but I'm inclined to think it's a pretty safe one given the US stance displayed officially and unofficially in the past. Of course, it may be that there isn't the appetite for it and that China may simply be able to call the US's bluff, but it's a pretty high stakes game considering the consequences. Which brings me to....

 

....what possible situation is there where two or all three of the US, China and Russia engage in massive conventional warfare against each other directly that doesn't result in escalation to nuclear warfare? One of the key reasons the Cold War was a series of proxy wars as you say (that clearly continues even today) was precisely because the powers that be knew soldiers of each nation directly facing and fighting against each other on any kind of large scale would only end one way. The US deliberately ignored Russian pilots flying in the Korean War for that reason. I do make the point of nuclear escalation so much because to me there is no other logical outcome to such a conflict as neither side would allow themselves to be subjugated by the other, and over time in a conventional conflict there would be a loser. Of course, I hope you're right, but I'd much rather the situation never arise where the theory need be tested, just in case I am.

 

It's interesting to hear the comment on US policy there and have no reason to doubt it. However, I disagree that it would stop there - Russia would not let the destruction of their fleet stand, there would be a response of some sort that would then escalate. Of course, again, I would hope that I'm wrong - and perhaps such a move might be limited to just that so long as there is no further attack on Russian territory itself. However, having thought about it a bit, I'm not actually sure how much destroying that fleet would help Ukraine or hamper Russia strategically when the first Bomb has already been dropped.

 

You're right in that there seem to be an awful lot of powderkegs around waiting to go up right now, but for me what makes that really scary is that for me if one of them does catch light, it will end with at least one nuclear weapon adding to the fire. So I'd hope you're wrong with the last paragraph, or right with the second.

 

[marbles]

If we join in a ground battle against Russia - it will most definitely culminate in nuclear war.  
Russian military is already depleting itself and its resources.  They would most likely end up getting pounded by NATO forces in very quick order, leaving Putin only one option.

Edited 24 February 2023 by marbles

[yorkie1999]

Fortunately Ukraine isn’t, and probably never will be, part of nato.

[Smudge]

On 24/02/2023 at 09:27, Zear0 said:

I've got a similar view to be honest.  I think it's human nature to not like to think about bad things happening so we turn a blind eye (ostrich anyone..?).  In the run up to the invasion to Ukraine Putin was literally saying "they're historically Russian", "there's no such thing as Ukrainians" etc.  Even combined with Western intelligence saying "this guy is about to invade, we've got the intel" people still doubted it would happen until tanks rolled over the border.

 

Noting the above, I believe an escalation is highly probable too (unlike the quoted, I'm not a defence analyst, but have some thoughts).  What are the outcomes of the Ukraine war?  Russia conquers Ukraine in the face of Western armament and economic sanctions will surely embolden an ageing autocrat who, based on his recent speeches, is an hate filled man who blames the West for the collapse of the Soviet Union that he is desperate to restore.  The similarities between Putin's ramblings about the West are scarily similar to Hitler's anger at the contraints and signaturies of the Versailles Treaty.  I mention this as success in Ukraine will embolden him, and other leaders in his mould with similarly large military resources, to keep going.   It's impossible to know (only one bloke does) if he'd stop at Ukraine, Moldova, the baltics..., but I don't think he's intimidated by NATO in the slightest. Whilst he's got a puppet in Belarus (and Hungary and Tukey) he won't be scared.  Whilst none of this is a guarentee of future conflict, it surely makes a large conflict more likely if he's successful in Ukraine (which being a cynic I think he will be)?

 

The alternative is if Ukraine succeeds in booting Russia out of Donetsk and Luhansk.  If they achieve this sucess, surely they'll also be emboldened to rattle through Crimea?  Putin's annexation of Crimea was a disgrace, but there was something of an international status quo in the following years.  Whilst the "referenda" in the four-Ukrainian regions were laughable affronts to democracy (and he knows that), I don't think that politically position extends to Crimea.  Vlad, and most of Russia, would see that as an attack on the nation and they'd support a response no different to someone marching into Moscow.  I'll come back to the nuclear points, but I can see that being a catalyst for the unthinkable happening with a tactical strike (or heaven forbit a strategic one) to send them retreating.

 

There is potentially the compromise on Russia keeping Donetsk and Luhansk but that is a reward for agression and will embolden Russia and China (coming to my previous post).  Plus, he controls those regions now, so why would he want to accept peace on those terms?

 

Regarding @leicsmac points on escalation and Taiwan I disagree.  Firstly, the wording Xi uses towards Taiwan is a mirror for Putin's comments on Ukraine "historically it's ours, we're coming for it".  Going back to history, there's a long list of autocrats covering up domestic policy failures with agression which is why I think it's inevitable they're going in.  He might start with a blockade to see what the response is.

The Chinese arn't building these "defensive" islands in the South China Sea or a staggeringly large Navy out of boredom.  It's a 69 year old autocrat desperately looking for Chinese unification before he kicks the bucket or as an ace up his sleeve should domestic unrest rear it's head.  You also note the assumption that Chinese agression against Taiwan would be met by US force, but to be clear that's an assumption.  Domestic US support for providing weapons (described as a rounding error in the DoD budged) to Ukraine is dwindling. What appetite do you think Billy Bob and Hank will have for US forces taking loses against defending Taiwan?  I also note that you often make the assumption that every conflict involving a nuclear power will end in nuclear conflict which is something I don't agree with (and no doubt you hope I'm right ).

To articulate the point, by what measure do we view the current status between NATO and Russia?  Historically, we've been in indirect conflict with Russia through proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, Yemen, Afghanistan (soviet invasion and the civil war), Yugoslavia and Syria (these are my off the head ones)) for basically a century. The point I'm making here, is that we are waging a war against Russia, we're just not using our own troops.  Practically, what's the difference between a Ukrainian soldier pressing the button on an M31 munitioned HIMARS and a US one?  Politically huge, practically it's got the same result.  If I'm attacked by Steve who got weapons from John, I'm bundling them together as the agressors. Ukraine is unique, except maybe the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (someone correct me), where it involved Russia/Western agression primarily with the opposition indirectly supported by the latter making the perception of direct conflict appear closer.

Lastly, whether this is just media speculation or not we'll never know, but it has been reported by US officials that should Russia use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the US/NATO response would be a conventional destruction of their Black Sea fleet.  I think the fear of nuclear escalation would keep it at that level (not great).  MAD is still a viable concept even in a direct war between powers.

 

Appreciate this is the ramblings of a simple man's perception, but I'm just trying to draw the lines to potential outcomes and identify a situation where this doesn't get worse.  I'm struggling on that front to find a happy outcome.  Slight tangent, but It feels a bit like a pre-WW1 position to me.  There are so many powers globally with their own gripes, conflic just seems inevitable.  China/Taiwan, Israel/Palestine, Israel/Iran (the entire Middle-East tbh), US/Russia, US/China, NATO/Russia.  So many conflicts could be set off so readily currently it's scary.

That is an illuminating view. Thank you.

[Dr Marco]

Nice one Dockers!

 

 

[MPH]

So I’m reading that power to the massive Nuclear power plant in the Ukraine was interrupted today, risking its structural integrity and potentially risking  something similar to what happened in Fukushima. However, this power plant is much bigger and the effects could be much worse.  I feel like a lot of people are unaware of the damage that could do if it happens.
 

if that power plant blows or leaks, every crop and product in Ukraine would become  unsellable and un useable. It will displace literally MILLIONS of people and ironically,  could render the Donbas region unlivable.

 

There could be a potentially very serious development on the horizon.

 

 

A UN official has told the board of UN’s Nuclear watch dog that this simply can not go on any longer.

 

I am concerned that this could lead for calls for a United Nations peacekeeping force  to be deployed to the area to ensure the safety of the Nuclear power plant.

 

 

You can imagine how well that will go down with Russia.

 

 

Watch this space…

Edited 9 March 2023 by MPH

[fox_up_north]

Maybe they should stop firing fuching rockets at nuclear power plants then? 

[fox_favourite]

2 hours ago, fox_up_north said:

Maybe they should stop firing fuching rockets at nuclear power plants then? 

But, but they are the victims in all this. It’s the collective west causing this. It’s not their fault.

 

Fed up with that narrative. Stop bombing civilians, infrastructure and certainly stay away from nuclear power stations and it’s on the edge of Russian occupied areas. They say they care, but that sort of reckless attack shows the opposite. It’s starting to get all the more worrying

Edited 9 March 2023 by fox_favourite

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, MPH said:

So I’m reading that power to the massive Nuclear power plant in the Ukraine was interrupted today, risking its structural integrity and potentially risking  something similar to what happened in Fukushima. However, this power plant is much bigger and the effects could be much worse.  I feel like a lot of people are unaware of the damage that could do if it happens.
 

if that power plant blows or leaks, every crop and product in Ukraine would become  unsellable and un useable. It will displace literally MILLIONS of people and ironically,  could render the Donbas region unlivable.

 

There could be a potentially very serious development on the horizon.

 

 

A UN official has told the board of UN’s Nuclear watch dog that this simply can not go on any longer.

 

I am concerned that this could lead for calls for a United Nations peacekeeping force  to be deployed to the area to ensure the safety of the Nuclear power plant.

 

 

You can imagine how well that will go down with Russia.

 

 

Watch this space…

I hope this doesn’t bite me on the ass but this has already happened multiple times during the war and has been fixed every time. The power plant cannot blow even if you fired a rocket directly at it, it also won’t leak. There’s a small chance of a meltdown which would do very little damage outside of the area. The UN have been in discussions with Russia and Ukraine about this over months. The chances of another Fukushima let alone Chernobyl are minimal. 

Edited 9 March 2023 by Lionator

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

I hope this doesn’t bite me on the ass but this has already happened multiple times during the war and has been fixed every time. The power plant cannot blow even if you fired a rocket directly at it, it also won’t leak. There’s a small chance of a meltdown which would do very little damage outside of the area. The UN have been in discussions with Russia and Ukraine about this over months. The chances of another Fukushima let alone Chernobyl are minimal. 

 

yes it has happened a few times but the language coming from the UN appears to be getting stronger.  I’d say the one weakness Nuclear power plants have, especially the less modern ones  shall we say, is a loss of power. If the cooling systems fail then you won’t be able to cool the reactors hence the possibility of meltdowns. There’s really only two environments in which you’ll face extensive loss of power-  areas hit by natural disasters and war zones. 
 

 

it’s the biggest nuclear facility in Europe, I believe and whilst the possibility of disaster is remote, it’s not a scenario that should be totally dismissed.

Edited 9 March 2023 by MPH

[Zear0]

Xi Jinping visiting Putin next week and also, allegedly, speaking to Zelenskiy.  Can't help but feel next week will be very important in finding out how this is going to play out this year.  Will Xi actually attempt to de-escalate or will he arm Russia?

[Countryfox]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Xi Jinping visiting Putin next week and also, allegedly, speaking to Zelenskiy.  Can't help but feel next week will be very important in finding out how this is going to play out this year.  Will Xi actually attempt to de-escalate or will he arm Russia?

He's anti west so I can't see him doing us any favours I'm afraid. 

[yorkie1999]

8 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

He's anti west so I can't see him doing us any favours I'm afraid. 

I bet he ain't anti west when we're buying all the goods that are made there with western companies providing employment for millions of his people.

[Dunge]

With Xi, it strikes me that whoever tries to back him into a corner first loses. He doesn’t want to be “alone” against the West. But neither does he want an expansionist Russia that’s finished looking west and is now considering other compass points. I do imagine he genuinely wants the war done one way or another, but is making copious notes about how the West is responding to each event.

[bovril]

When I read Xi on here I automatically expect a discussion on our first 11 to follow

[Alf Bentley]

Some commentator was suggesting that China's interests were best served by a long, inconclusive war between Russia and Ukraine (supplied by the West) without major escalation....as is currently happening.

 

A major escalation (e.g. via China arming Russia) risks Armageddon or direct China-West confrontation, with China still weaker for now. It also risks major damage to the global economy, damaging China badly through lost exports etc.

 

On the other hand, a long inconclusive war depletes both the West and Russia militarily - and economically (money that could've been invested in the Western economy spent on arms for Ukraine). Additionally, China benefits from bargain prices on Russian gas/oil supplies due to the Western embargo on Russia. 

 

According to that analysis, I suppose China would need to be careful not to weaken the West too much economically at this stage, given Chinese economic dependence on Western consumer markets....

 

Maybe unduly cynical, maybe not....

[Trumpet]

I’d imagine China would have some interest in offering Ukraine loans and would like to be involved in a rebuild should the war end. Not sure how possible this would be especially with world politics at play, but there’s money to be made I’m sure.

[Lionator]

There’s multiple reasons why China will not arm Russia. Firstly, China and Ukraine actually have a very good relationship, and the CCP being the CCP will see this as an opportunity to basically rebuild Ukraine, and with Ukraine essentially a failed state they’ll get the cheapest option to do it which will be China. Second, China is not going to destroy 50-60 years of economic growth through trade, to sell weapons to Russia. Russia will be nothing more than a client state to China at the end of the war. It’s simply not feasible. Xi wants this done, and on his terms. He is pretty much the only man who can offer Putin a way out in terms of offering him strategic stability.

 

As a b-side, the growing confrontational rhetoric with China frustrates me. Of course they’re a strategic foe to the west, but unlike Russia, their population are not indoctrinated to hate us. There’s opportunity out there for collaboration and there still always should be imo despite the actions of the CCP. 

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

There’s multiple reasons why China will not arm Russia. Firstly, China and Ukraine actually have a very good relationship, and the CCP being the CCP will see this as an opportunity to basically rebuild Ukraine, and with Ukraine essentially a failed state they’ll get the cheapest option to do it which will be China. Second, China is not going to destroy 50-60 years of economic growth through trade, to sell weapons to Russia. Russia will be nothing more than a client state to China at the end of the war. It’s simply not feasible. Xi wants this done, and on his terms. He is pretty much the only man who can offer Putin a way out in terms of offering him strategic stability.

 

As a b-side, the growing confrontational rhetoric with China frustrates me. Of course they’re a strategic foe to the west, but unlike Russia, their population are not indoctrinated to hate us. There’s opportunity out there for collaboration and there still always should be imo despite the actions of the CCP. 

Good points. Only thing I'd add is that they don't hate us, but they're not too favourable to some of their Asian neighbours (Japan mainly). But it supports your point that we're basically a customer for them and they don't have any specific gripe with Western countries like Russia has. 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Good points. Only thing I'd add is that they don't hate us, but they're not too favourable to some of their Asian neighbours (Japan mainly). But it supports your point that we're basically a customer for them and they don't have any specific gripe with Western countries like Russia has. 

It’s sad but it kinda makes sense why the Chinese may have their backs up towards the Japanese given the past. 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

It’s sad but it kinda makes sense why the Chinese may have their backs up towards the Japanese given the past. 

And in the middle you have the Koreans who were brutalised by both at one time or another.