4 ms·

This why I don't understand people who argue we're spending too much on military aid to Ukraine. The sooner Russia loses the sooner Europe can go back to buying

by causi 4y ago

This why I don't understand people who argue we're spending too much on military aid to Ukraine. The sooner Russia loses the sooner Europe can go back to buying energy from them. The paltry few billion we've sent so far is nothing compared to the costs of long-term sanction enforcement. We should be flooding Ukraine with a deluge of money and advanced weapons and vehicles on the financial merits alone.

User23 4y ago
Unless the Russians are bluffing about using their nukes, they literally can’t lose. They can only fail to win. Nuclear war will also cause hyperinflation, although at that point it will probably be academic.
- ido 4y ago
  For Putin's regime, failing to win is basically losing.
  - akmarinov 4y ago
    What’s win though? If his mobilization manages to keep Ukraine forces at bay and he goes through with joining Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhia to Russia - is that the win scenario? He can probably pull that together pretty easily by dumping 1-2 million russians in it. If he stalls things for 2-3 years with the new borders, the West is likely to give up and just have them be another Crimea. NATO certainly won’t send troops in.
    - ido 4y ago
      It's highly suspect if he can mobilise 1-2 millions. The latest mobilisation sought 300k and is already causing civil unrest and hundreds of thousands of people fleeing Russia.
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        Furthermore they can barely equip the current conscripts so unless they are going to use T34s I doubt we will see millions mobilised.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Unless the Russians are bluffing about using their nukes... Of course they're bluffing. They've made these sorts of threats for decades; "if you let Finland join NATO we'll be super mad!" Giving in to nuclear blackmail just gives the bully the go-ahead to do the same thing again.
  - User23 4y ago
    This isn’t a playground we’re talking about. And incidentally it was nuclear blackmail by the USA that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. It has precedent and a successful track record. And Ukraine is a lot closer to Russia than Cuba is to the USA. Ask yourself what’s worse for Putin: using nukes and declaring victory, or an ignominious defeat and spending the rest of his life in whatever circumstances a deposed Russian leader is likely to get. Are you really so certain he won’t send up the balloon?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Grownups learn these dynamics on the playground. > And incidentally it was nuclear blackmail by the USA that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USA wasn't incrementally annexing Russian territory at the time. > Are you really so certain he won’t send up the balloon? Yes. Someone throws him out a window if that order goes out.
mywittyname 4y ago
I'm pretty sure Europe is cut off from Russian energy for years at this point because so much infrastructure has been destroyed (including Nord Stream 1), and if the conflict lasts into the winter, Russian's production capability will be set back by decades as they don't have the means to store the volumes they need to produce in order to keep their equipment from seizing in the cold.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  Russia could produce and burn the stuff to keep the well heads from freezing. Think Saddam Hussein in 1991, but not quite as bad because the Russians wouldn't set the well-head equipment on fire, but burn it a bit away from the well, and in a way they could easily put out. You think they wouldn't?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Nordstream 1 was about 35% of supply. Russia continues to supply gas via other pipelines, including the ones through Ukraine no one's dumb enough to attack thus far (for now: https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-gas-across-ukraine-jeopardized/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-gas-across-ukraine-j...). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Major_russian_gas_pipelines_to_europe.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Major_ru... The Russians can burn gas if their storage fills up.
- ls15 4y ago
  They just burn it off if they cannot sell it, I guess
lm28469 4y ago
> who argue we're spending too much on military aid to Ukraine. The sooner Russia loses the sooner Europe can go back to buying energy from them. The EU already said Russia is game over for commerce in the near future, even if they went back home today we wouldn't trade with them before years Nothing guarantees sending more weapons will make the conflict shorter, it's called escalation, and if Russia plays the same game it came be a very very long game. Everyone knows when a war starts, nobody knows how long it'll last, we might very well be marching towards ww3 and cheering about it
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > The EU already said Russia is game over for commerce in the near future, even if they went back home today we wouldn't trade with them before years Why? A few cold days, a few europeans with pitchforks, a few politicans removed, and trade restarts. That's why the nordstream was destroyed... the only thing standing between freezing germans and cheap gas is (and no "was") a few politicians, and politicians can be replaced one way or another.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    Then it would be the end of the EU, if all we stand for is money and cheap gas let's nuke it all already
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jacooper 4y ago
      I mean its not new, is it? Supporting the occupation in Palestine, turning a blind eye to what Russia did and is doing in Syria, Afghanistan, and many other things. Its nothing new for the EU to ignore human tragedies for economic benefit, and when the push comes to shove, citizens prioritize their country over others, just like how they should.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Proven 4y ago

by causi 4y ago

User23 4y ago

Unless the Russians are bluffing about using their nukes, they literally can’t lose. They can only fail to win. Nuclear war will also cause hyperinflation, although at that point it will probably be academic.

ido 4y ago
For Putin's regime, failing to win is basically losing.
- akmarinov 4y ago
  What’s win though? If his mobilization manages to keep Ukraine forces at bay and he goes through with joining Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhia to Russia - is that the win scenario? He can probably pull that together pretty easily by dumping 1-2 million russians in it. If he stalls things for 2-3 years with the new borders, the West is likely to give up and just have them be another Crimea. NATO certainly won’t send troops in.
  - ido 4y ago
    It's highly suspect if he can mobilise 1-2 millions. The latest mobilisation sought 300k and is already causing civil unrest and hundreds of thousands of people fleeing Russia.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      Furthermore they can barely equip the current conscripts so unless they are going to use T34s I doubt we will see millions mobilised.
ceejayoz 4y ago
> Unless the Russians are bluffing about using their nukes... Of course they're bluffing. They've made these sorts of threats for decades; "if you let Finland join NATO we'll be super mad!" Giving in to nuclear blackmail just gives the bully the go-ahead to do the same thing again.
- User23 4y ago
  This isn’t a playground we’re talking about. And incidentally it was nuclear blackmail by the USA that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. It has precedent and a successful track record. And Ukraine is a lot closer to Russia than Cuba is to the USA. Ask yourself what’s worse for Putin: using nukes and declaring victory, or an ignominious defeat and spending the rest of his life in whatever circumstances a deposed Russian leader is likely to get. Are you really so certain he won’t send up the balloon?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Grownups learn these dynamics on the playground. > And incidentally it was nuclear blackmail by the USA that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USA wasn't incrementally annexing Russian territory at the time. > Are you really so certain he won’t send up the balloon? Yes. Someone throws him out a window if that order goes out.

mywittyname 4y ago

I'm pretty sure Europe is cut off from Russian energy for years at this point because so much infrastructure has been destroyed (including Nord Stream 1), and if the conflict lasts into the winter, Russian's production capability will be set back by decades as they don't have the means to store the volumes they need to produce in order to keep their equipment from seizing in the cold.

cryptonector 4y ago
Russia could produce and burn the stuff to keep the well heads from freezing. Think Saddam Hussein in 1991, but not quite as bad because the Russians wouldn't set the well-head equipment on fire, but burn it a bit away from the well, and in a way they could easily put out. You think they wouldn't?
ceejayoz 4y ago
Nordstream 1 was about 35% of supply. Russia continues to supply gas via other pipelines, including the ones through Ukraine no one's dumb enough to attack thus far (for now: https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-gas-across-ukraine-jeopardized/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-gas-across-ukraine-j...). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Major_russian_gas_pipelines_to_europe.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Major_ru... The Russians can burn gas if their storage fills up.
ls15 4y ago
They just burn it off if they cannot sell it, I guess

lm28469 4y ago

> who argue we're spending too much on military aid to Ukraine. The sooner Russia loses the sooner Europe can go back to buying energy from them. The EU already said Russia is game over for commerce in the near future, even if they went back home today we wouldn't trade with them before years Nothing guarantees sending more weapons will make the conflict shorter, it's called escalation, and if Russia plays the same game it came be a very very long game. Everyone knows when a war starts, nobody knows how long it'll last, we might very well be marching towards ww3 and cheering about it

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> The EU already said Russia is game over for commerce in the near future, even if they went back home today we wouldn't trade with them before years Why? A few cold days, a few europeans with pitchforks, a few politicans removed, and trade restarts. That's why the nordstream was destroyed... the only thing standing between freezing germans and cheap gas is (and no "was") a few politicians, and politicians can be replaced one way or another.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Then it would be the end of the EU, if all we stand for is money and cheap gas let's nuke it all already
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacooper 4y ago
    I mean its not new, is it? Supporting the occupation in Palestine, turning a blind eye to what Russia did and is doing in Syria, Afghanistan, and many other things. Its nothing new for the EU to ignore human tragedies for economic benefit, and when the push comes to shove, citizens prioritize their country over others, just like how they should.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago

Proven 4y ago