4 ms·

Most certainly. This will end Russia's ability to continue to grow in any way.

it_does_follow 5y ago
Not if Russia takes Ukraine and controls the majority of wheat following into EU. Near term impacts of climate change will very likely leads to crop failures in many of the EU's largest producing regions. When you don't have enough food to feed your people, politics and economic sanctions become extremely flexible. When resources run low controlling food and oil will be a very big deal.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mlindner 5y ago
  This is delusional.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    Yeah, I've already had my fill of hot takes from uninformed people on the internet, and this war isn't even 24 hours old. Links to actual expert analyses, on the other hand, would be much appreciated.
  - it_does_follow 5y ago
    Curious what's delusional about this? Russian and Ukraine combined account for 29% of global wheat exports, much of that to the EU. Near term climate change will most certainly lead to massive crop failures, particularly in currently bountiful parts of the EU. Countries like the UK (I know not EU) already cannot feed their people without imports, something like 50% of the UKs food supply is imported. It is nearly certain that within a few decades, perhaps even sooner, we will be at a point where there is not enough food. We've already see notable crop failures in the EU. Most of us have grown up in a time of plenty, but that time is running short. All of this is fairly well established, so is my "delusion" in that Putin is aware of this and acting on it?
    - MrMan 5y ago
      I agree with this assessment, and predicted this to be the year when consolidation around resources begins.
    - volkl48 5y ago
      One obvious answer is that the US massively overproduces food on a scale that's hard to fathom, which is part of why we make extremely inefficient biofuels (corn ethanol) out of a big chunk of it and use it for inefficient meat production. After some conversion through various bad units of measure (bushels->pounds->calories), and assuming ~2250 calories a day average), it looks to me like current US corn production could feed somewhere around 1.6 billion people their entire yearly caloric needs, if it was actually directed entirely at feeding people as efficiently as possible. And that is rather obviously not the only crop or source of food originating in the US. Math sources: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-12-2022.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-12-2022.php - corn output. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-corn-the-worlds-most-important-food-crop/2015/07/12/78d86530-25a8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-... - bushel/pound/calorie conversion ------ In short, I don't think it's very realistic to think that Europe is going to face a literal inability to get enough food even if the entirety of Ukraine never grew another plant again.
    - smoe 5y ago
      Most of the Russian and Ukraine wheat exports don't go to the EU but Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and regions there around. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/17/infographic-russia-ukraine-and-the-global-wheat-supply-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/17/infographic-russia-... France exports 15,228,664 tonnes of wheat, not far behind the Ukraine with 17,314,278. Other significant wheat producers in the EU include Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland and Lithuania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wheat_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wheat_exp... What climate change would let crops fail in all corners of the EU, but not Ukraine and Russia?
buran77 5y ago
I'm reasonably convinced that the only reason for anyone relevant to float around the idea of a NATO-Ukraine relationship was to drag an already economically fragile Russia into a conflict that they may "win" but at a high cost for Russia and for Ukraine. I say "win" because Russia will poison Ukraine for NATO, making it less (or not at all) desirable for NATO but will pay a heavy price. Overall that's a win for NATO as many (most?) members can breathe a lot easier around a weakened Russia.
- mlindner 5y ago
  Ukraine had been interested in joining NATO and the EU for 10 years now. The west has used this conflict very well but that is not the reason for the conflict. The reason for the conflict is entirely in Putin's head.
  - buran77 5y ago
    > Ukraine had been interested in joining NATO and the EU for 10 years now When Ukraine was flirting with the idea of a relationship with the EU in 2013-2014 the Crimean invasion happened. It was absolutely predictable even at that time and in fact many EU officials I have spoken to (including high ranking ones) agreed as much since back then. The signs of a regime which doesn't stand any proximity of a threat to their rule was obvious. > The reason for the conflict is entirely in Putin's head I have never been in Putin's head, nor met or talked to him. But to my pride I do forget more history every day than most people will learn in their lifetime and can't think of similar example of a superpower happily accepting adversaries at their border. In recent history look no further than when the US ordered a naval blockade on Cuba after Cuba's request for Russian missiles to be placed on the island to defend in the event of another US invasion attempt. Putin is literally taking a page from that book. I don't need to be in Putin's head because he's not some brilliant tactician doing something unheard of, he's just playing an old song to a new audience. If it's the first time you hear it you just have to pay more attention to what came before today.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      > But to my pride I do forget more history every day than most people will learn in their lifetime and can't think of similar example of a superpower happily accepting adversaries at their border. Not to burst your bubble, but the USSR accepted Turkey with nukes on their border, and before them, Japan. China accepts being essentially surrounded by hostile powers, many of whom are part of NATO.

Not if Russia takes Ukraine and controls the majority of wheat following into EU. Near term impacts of climate change will very likely leads to crop failures in many of the EU's largest producing regions. When you don't have enough food to feed your people, politics and economic sanctions become extremely flexible. When resources run low controlling food and oil will be a very big deal.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mlindner 5y ago
This is delusional.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  Yeah, I've already had my fill of hot takes from uninformed people on the internet, and this war isn't even 24 hours old. Links to actual expert analyses, on the other hand, would be much appreciated.
- it_does_follow 5y ago
  Curious what's delusional about this? Russian and Ukraine combined account for 29% of global wheat exports, much of that to the EU. Near term climate change will most certainly lead to massive crop failures, particularly in currently bountiful parts of the EU. Countries like the UK (I know not EU) already cannot feed their people without imports, something like 50% of the UKs food supply is imported. It is nearly certain that within a few decades, perhaps even sooner, we will be at a point where there is not enough food. We've already see notable crop failures in the EU. Most of us have grown up in a time of plenty, but that time is running short. All of this is fairly well established, so is my "delusion" in that Putin is aware of this and acting on it?
  - MrMan 5y ago
    I agree with this assessment, and predicted this to be the year when consolidation around resources begins.
  - volkl48 5y ago
    One obvious answer is that the US massively overproduces food on a scale that's hard to fathom, which is part of why we make extremely inefficient biofuels (corn ethanol) out of a big chunk of it and use it for inefficient meat production. After some conversion through various bad units of measure (bushels->pounds->calories), and assuming ~2250 calories a day average), it looks to me like current US corn production could feed somewhere around 1.6 billion people their entire yearly caloric needs, if it was actually directed entirely at feeding people as efficiently as possible. And that is rather obviously not the only crop or source of food originating in the US. Math sources: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-12-2022.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-12-2022.php - corn output. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-corn-the-worlds-most-important-food-crop/2015/07/12/78d86530-25a8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-... - bushel/pound/calorie conversion ------ In short, I don't think it's very realistic to think that Europe is going to face a literal inability to get enough food even if the entirety of Ukraine never grew another plant again.
  - smoe 5y ago
    Most of the Russian and Ukraine wheat exports don't go to the EU but Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and regions there around. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/17/infographic-russia-ukraine-and-the-global-wheat-supply-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/17/infographic-russia-... France exports 15,228,664 tonnes of wheat, not far behind the Ukraine with 17,314,278. Other significant wheat producers in the EU include Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland and Lithuania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wheat_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wheat_exp... What climate change would let crops fail in all corners of the EU, but not Ukraine and Russia?

buran77 5y ago

I'm reasonably convinced that the only reason for anyone relevant to float around the idea of a NATO-Ukraine relationship was to drag an already economically fragile Russia into a conflict that they may "win" but at a high cost for Russia and for Ukraine. I say "win" because Russia will poison Ukraine for NATO, making it less (or not at all) desirable for NATO but will pay a heavy price. Overall that's a win for NATO as many (most?) members can breathe a lot easier around a weakened Russia.

mlindner 5y ago
Ukraine had been interested in joining NATO and the EU for 10 years now. The west has used this conflict very well but that is not the reason for the conflict. The reason for the conflict is entirely in Putin's head.
- buran77 5y ago
  > Ukraine had been interested in joining NATO and the EU for 10 years now When Ukraine was flirting with the idea of a relationship with the EU in 2013-2014 the Crimean invasion happened. It was absolutely predictable even at that time and in fact many EU officials I have spoken to (including high ranking ones) agreed as much since back then. The signs of a regime which doesn't stand any proximity of a threat to their rule was obvious. > The reason for the conflict is entirely in Putin's head I have never been in Putin's head, nor met or talked to him. But to my pride I do forget more history every day than most people will learn in their lifetime and can't think of similar example of a superpower happily accepting adversaries at their border. In recent history look no further than when the US ordered a naval blockade on Cuba after Cuba's request for Russian missiles to be placed on the island to defend in the event of another US invasion attempt. Putin is literally taking a page from that book. I don't need to be in Putin's head because he's not some brilliant tactician doing something unheard of, he's just playing an old song to a new audience. If it's the first time you hear it you just have to pay more attention to what came before today.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    > But to my pride I do forget more history every day than most people will learn in their lifetime and can't think of similar example of a superpower happily accepting adversaries at their border. Not to burst your bubble, but the USSR accepted Turkey with nukes on their border, and before them, Japan. China accepts being essentially surrounded by hostile powers, many of whom are part of NATO.