7 ms·

>All that for Ukraine? What is so valuable there to him, I really still don’t get it. I think Russia agreed with China to pull this wild experiment off with in

>All that for Ukraine? What is so valuable there to him, I really still don’t get it. I think Russia agreed with China to pull this wild experiment off with invading Ukraine in order to see how far US and its allies are willing to go to sanction Russia and to see if two of them(Russia and China) can survive and prevail together. This mentality "me against the world" is extremely irrational from diplomatic and economic point of view but it can work out because Russian and Chinese economy can complement, synergize and eventually survive and live together. Russia has 6,400 nuclear warheads—the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world so no way anybody can compete with them militarily. Also they have $600bn+ in national reserves in USD, gold and other assets so this vast amount of sanctions won't hurt them at least not in the short term. Btw Taiwan could be next.

not2b 5y ago
China is backing away from this. In the Security Council they didn't vote with Russia to veto the condemnation of the invasion. They abstained.
- mrkramer 5y ago
  You really trust CCP? Russia and China have common enemy. US. No one else really matters to them because US is the only "West" superpower excluding India which is economically lagging quit a bit behind US and their competitor China.
  - not2b 5y ago
    This has nothing to do with trust; China would back Russia if it were in their interest, but it looks like they are hanging back, probably because it looks like it is blowing up in Russia's face.
  - tarsinge 5y ago
    That rhetoric makes me uneasy. Isn’t the US an enemy of China the choice of the US? My understanding is that until Trump overnight declaration of economic war and Biden continuing it China was maybe not an ally but a strong economic partner. Don’t tell me being authoritarian automatically makes it an enemy otherwise so would be Saudi Arabia with the Yemen situation being worse than anything in China.
lstodd 5y ago
You're overthinking this. It's irrational. As simple as that - just irrational.
- mrkramer 5y ago
  Nazi Germany against the world was irrational but still Hitler did it. Now imagine Hitler having 6,400 nuclear warheads like Russia has them today. What would and who would stop Hitler? I think Russian government took a wild gamble taking in consideration their military supremacy and their ability to survive alone with the help of "friendly" China.
  - lstodd 5y ago
    Nah, that's bullshit, sorry. They hoped that UA will collapse inside 48 hours, but this didn't happen. Not to say there aint no 6400 warheads. They, you know, require maintenance. 640 100kt range maybe.
- BbzzbB 5y ago
  Is there any reason to think he's a geopolitical idiot? I wouldn't exactly go praise his actions at a dinner with political donors (cough cough), but his history doesn't strike me as one from someone who doesn't know how to play politics and power. Is there precedent for stupid actions? Obviously looking at it from the lens of a dictator's self-interest, not my Westerner's ideals of morality. I can see this being a self-destructive mistake from an otherwise intelligent autocrat. Could also be the descent of his sanity but I'd like to know why that'd be believable, and hopefully that isn't the case as it'd make him that much more dangerous with regards to the likelihood of.. well, flipping the table.
  - lstodd 5y ago
    Nemtzov said in 2014, literally, "Putin is deranged and you should know that". This is why he was killed in 2015, mostly. Because even then that was the truth. All those discussions about morals, mistakes and the descent of sanity are beside the point.
dillondoyle 5y ago
Won't the bulk, or minimally a good chunk, of those non-rubble reserves be blocked now? From the below on response was "$130 bln is gold, kept in Russia. $60 bln is renminbi, kept in China. All the rest - in G-7 countries" Seems fluid and not totally clear the details yet. But from the below FT reporter. article is slightly vague since sanction rules are still being written. But on Twitter they wrote clearer that those assets will not be accessible. --- A US official declined to say if the US would sanction the central bank by adding it the Treasury’s “Specially Designated Nationals” list, which Fishman described as “the single most impactful sanction that you could apply to Russia, and you could do it with a stroke of the pen.” “It would render a sizeable chunk of their foreign exchange reserves unusable overnight,” Fishman said. "The move would ban US entities from dealing with the central bank, which would mean that everyone would be “skittish about moving any assets on behalf of the Russian central bank”, he said. https://www.ft.com/content/073a37d5-4daf-49ed-b5bc-a4682ef1aa88 https://www.ft.com/content/073a37d5-4daf-49ed-b5bc-a4682ef1a... https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1497705581817253889 https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1497705581817253889
sharken 5y ago
Very soon I'll expect to see China put to the test, are they siding with Ukraine or not. That means cutting off Russia from CIPS, the Chinese payment system akin to SWIFT. Failure to do so will make China an accomplice and could thus face sanctions as well. So the pressure is mounting on China to declare who they support. Being neutral is not an option here.
- ck2 5y ago
  Who the heck is going to be able to stop China? No-one will be able to cut them off even if they side with Russia openly. China sells $2.5 TRILLION per year to other countries, half trillion to USA USA would collapse if China stopped selling here.
  - gls2ro 5y ago
    The play between the West and China is not so direct it is more played indirectly. So US/EU will not ask/impose China something nor China will support Rusia against US/EU directly. Everything will happen indirectly and none of these two sides will risk the chance of a direct question where the answear could be NO thus making them act directly => collapsing global economy. So if China wants to support Occident they will do it indirect and the same will go for US/EU: they will not ask China directly to ban Russia but more suggest that China should not be very active to support Russia.
    - sharken 5y ago
      Well put, it's all about making China see how serious the situation is. And this description is closer to how things work in reality. It's probably not the best way to treat China like Belarus, a middle ground is better for all.

not2b 5y ago

China is backing away from this. In the Security Council they didn't vote with Russia to veto the condemnation of the invasion. They abstained.

mrkramer 5y ago
You really trust CCP? Russia and China have common enemy. US. No one else really matters to them because US is the only "West" superpower excluding India which is economically lagging quit a bit behind US and their competitor China.
- not2b 5y ago
  This has nothing to do with trust; China would back Russia if it were in their interest, but it looks like they are hanging back, probably because it looks like it is blowing up in Russia's face.
- tarsinge 5y ago
  That rhetoric makes me uneasy. Isn’t the US an enemy of China the choice of the US? My understanding is that until Trump overnight declaration of economic war and Biden continuing it China was maybe not an ally but a strong economic partner. Don’t tell me being authoritarian automatically makes it an enemy otherwise so would be Saudi Arabia with the Yemen situation being worse than anything in China.

lstodd 5y ago

You're overthinking this. It's irrational. As simple as that - just irrational.

mrkramer 5y ago
Nazi Germany against the world was irrational but still Hitler did it. Now imagine Hitler having 6,400 nuclear warheads like Russia has them today. What would and who would stop Hitler? I think Russian government took a wild gamble taking in consideration their military supremacy and their ability to survive alone with the help of "friendly" China.
- lstodd 5y ago
  Nah, that's bullshit, sorry. They hoped that UA will collapse inside 48 hours, but this didn't happen. Not to say there aint no 6400 warheads. They, you know, require maintenance. 640 100kt range maybe.
BbzzbB 5y ago
Is there any reason to think he's a geopolitical idiot? I wouldn't exactly go praise his actions at a dinner with political donors (cough cough), but his history doesn't strike me as one from someone who doesn't know how to play politics and power. Is there precedent for stupid actions? Obviously looking at it from the lens of a dictator's self-interest, not my Westerner's ideals of morality. I can see this being a self-destructive mistake from an otherwise intelligent autocrat. Could also be the descent of his sanity but I'd like to know why that'd be believable, and hopefully that isn't the case as it'd make him that much more dangerous with regards to the likelihood of.. well, flipping the table.
- lstodd 5y ago
  Nemtzov said in 2014, literally, "Putin is deranged and you should know that". This is why he was killed in 2015, mostly. Because even then that was the truth. All those discussions about morals, mistakes and the descent of sanity are beside the point.

dillondoyle 5y ago

Won't the bulk, or minimally a good chunk, of those non-rubble reserves be blocked now? From the below on response was "$130 bln is gold, kept in Russia. $60 bln is renminbi, kept in China. All the rest - in G-7 countries" Seems fluid and not totally clear the details yet. But from the below FT reporter. article is slightly vague since sanction rules are still being written. But on Twitter they wrote clearer that those assets will not be accessible. --- A US official declined to say if the US would sanction the central bank by adding it the Treasury’s “Specially Designated Nationals” list, which Fishman described as “the single most impactful sanction that you could apply to Russia, and you could do it with a stroke of the pen.” “It would render a sizeable chunk of their foreign exchange reserves unusable overnight,” Fishman said. "The move would ban US entities from dealing with the central bank, which would mean that everyone would be “skittish about moving any assets on behalf of the Russian central bank”, he said. https://www.ft.com/content/073a37d5-4daf-49ed-b5bc-a4682ef1aa88 https://www.ft.com/content/073a37d5-4daf-49ed-b5bc-a4682ef1a... https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1497705581817253889 https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1497705581817253889

sharken 5y ago

Very soon I'll expect to see China put to the test, are they siding with Ukraine or not. That means cutting off Russia from CIPS, the Chinese payment system akin to SWIFT. Failure to do so will make China an accomplice and could thus face sanctions as well. So the pressure is mounting on China to declare who they support. Being neutral is not an option here.

ck2 5y ago
Who the heck is going to be able to stop China? No-one will be able to cut them off even if they side with Russia openly. China sells $2.5 TRILLION per year to other countries, half trillion to USA USA would collapse if China stopped selling here.
- gls2ro 5y ago
  The play between the West and China is not so direct it is more played indirectly. So US/EU will not ask/impose China something nor China will support Rusia against US/EU directly. Everything will happen indirectly and none of these two sides will risk the chance of a direct question where the answear could be NO thus making them act directly => collapsing global economy. So if China wants to support Occident they will do it indirect and the same will go for US/EU: they will not ask China directly to ban Russia but more suggest that China should not be very active to support Russia.
  - sharken 5y ago
    Well put, it's all about making China see how serious the situation is. And this description is closer to how things work in reality. It's probably not the best way to treat China like Belarus, a middle ground is better for all.