6 ms·

The solution is to project strength and hit them where they don't expect. You are dealing with a thug, not a cost/benefit accountant, as Obama seemed to mistake

The solution is to project strength and hit them where they don't expect. You are dealing with a thug, not a cost/benefit accountant, as Obama seemed to mistakenly believe. As long as they do things and we respond, nothing good will happen. They have already calculated the response and found it acceptable. Instead of this, go to the mattresses. Oh, your bridge has suddenly exploded? Shame.

petre 2y ago
"We" already screwed their pipeline, what's left? Provide Ukraine with the means to blow up the Kerch bridge maybe? They're the ones that could legitimately do that sort of escalation.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > what's left? The other pipelines. Their shadow oil fleet. There are lots of options. But to my knowledge, only the British, French and Americans are capable of the long-range clandestine operations.
  - petre 2y ago
    Their shadow oil fleet is operated by third parties and shell companies. We are dealing with a mafia state here. https://windward.ai/knowledge-base/illuminating-russias-shadow-fleet/ https://windward.ai/knowledge-base/illuminating-russias-shad...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Their shadow oil fleet is operated by third parties and shell companies Would be a shame if they started having engine troubles in the middle of the ocean.
      - libertine 2y ago
        The "problem" of Western countries is that the political sphere operates under different moral compasses: like taking down a shadow fleet tanker would be a natural disaster... taking down many would mean many disasters. The real question is, should security and defense concerns be placed on hold? If our basic freedoms and rights are being attacked, how big of a deal would be a shadow fleet tanker catastrophe?
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Those ships are going to be transiting somewhere unloaded. That is when you engage them.
        DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        That would be in the busiest shipping ports, channels, and anchorages in the entire world. Aka the most bananas place to interdict.
        mlyle 2y ago
        If something bad happened to a mostly empty Russian shadow tanker in the Gulf of Finland, that impact is going to be mostly confined to Russia. i.e. past the major Finnish and Estonian ports. As long as we're all playing silly only-kinda-deniable games, that's an option on the table.
        geniusplanmate 2y ago
        That's not where that shadow fleet is operating. The gas sold by Russia to France, Germany, etc. is transported using normal vessels, AFAIK.
        mlyle 2y ago
        https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ Plenty of targets in the Gulf of Finland.
      - paganel 2y ago
        [flagged]
        favorited 2y ago
        That might carry more weight if Russia hadn't started an expansionist war to reclaim former imperial territory.
      - geniusplanmate 2y ago
        1. They already do, because those are old, garbage ships 2. It's not exactly in the interests of NATO to have those ships start spilling tons of oil in the North Atlantic The problem of that "shadow fleet" is precisely that those are old, uninsured vessels that cause environmental risks.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > not exactly in the interests of NATO to have those ships start spilling tons of oil in the North Atlantic Since when did engine troubles cause an oil spill?
        onionisafruit 2y ago
        Ever blown a head gasket?
        gnabgib 2y ago
        Bit of a personal question
        dgfitz 2y ago
        Oh, its not. Why do you think that?
        aziaziazi 2y ago
        In case of an engine failure, it’s way more easier to tug the boat empty than full.
        instig007 2y ago
        since the times ocean waves decided to wreck ships that can't turn and navigate in storms without their prime mover.
    - baq 2y ago
      yeah just count the cases of unprovoked attacks on gazprom-related people by open windows.
    - consumer451 2y ago
      They are planning on this: > Parliament calls for an EU crackdown on Russia’s ’shadow fleet’ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IPR25341/parliament-calls-for-an-eu-crackdown-on-russia-s-shadow-fleet https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IP...
    - wbl 2y ago
      They sink just the same.
- chii 2y ago
  > "We" already screwed their pipeline unfortunately, "we" didnt have to pay a sacrifice to the economy for it, because germany paid it. The US is too afraid of nukes, and won't escalate. The russians rightly predicted this.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - petre 2y ago
    Germany was told to stop buying Russian gas financing the Russian war machine by the previous Trump administration. They were told to pledge 2% of their GDP for defense, contributing more to NATO. They didn't listen. This is what happened: Ukraine got invaded, the pipeline was blown up to ensure compliance, their defense spending reachd 2% this year, more two years too late in a worse economic climate. Next year, the next Trump administration is going to demand more, because 2% is already insufficient. https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-hit-nato-budget-goal-for-1st-time-since-cold-war/a-68254361 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-hit-nato-budget-goal-for-1s...
    - throwaway290 2y ago
      Don't forget how Germany's exports of chips and machinery to places like Kyrgyzstan skyrocketed since the invasion. > Exports of motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts to Kyrgyzstan grew particularly strongly in the first quarter, soaring more than 4,000% from a very small base to over 84 million euros... That came after a six-fold rise in German exports to Kyrgyzstan last year following Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. https://www.reuters.com/world/german-exports-russias-neighbours-fuel-sanctions-evasion-fears-2023-05-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/german-exports-russias-neighbo... I know people in Kyrgyzstan, trust me they did not suddenly become industrialized when Russia invaded Anecdotally, as a Russian, some of my craziest interactions with foreigners who support the thugs in Russian gov, blame US/NATO for Russian aggression and totally buy the propaganda were with Germans. (Not a proper data point, just venting frustration, Germany get your act together...)
      - 2y ago
- ponector 2y ago
  >> what's left? Cut trade? But everyone likes Russian dirty money too much
- markvdb 2y ago
  NATO filter blockade on Öresund?
HumblyTossed 2y ago
"We" won't respond because "we" just elected a Russian asset and he is going to install more in his cabinet.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  It's already been settled that the trump dossier from 2016 was a work of fiction. Why did Putin take crimea under Obama's watch, parts of Ukraine under Biden's watch, but then not make any huge moves like those while his "asset" was in the white house?
  - dxdenton 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - inpdx 2y ago
      If you believe otherwise...you aggressively haven't been paying attention for the last 8 years.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Because he needed all that time (2014-2022) to build up his forces and cash reserves. Also, he needed a green light. Which was provided in the form of the chaotic Afghanistan pullout in 2021. Not that he was counting on it -- but once it went through, it seems very likely that tipped the scales in his mind in favor of deciding to actually go through with the full-scale invasion in 2022.
    - burningChrome 2y ago
      Its also been widely reported that when Trump first met Putin he said if he invaded Ukraine, he would turn Moscow and several other cities into a parking lot. Trump in several interviews has said he warned Putin not to do it, that he would pay a very, very heavy cost and he would see to it that he would. This is all Trump had to do. He was able to leverage the media's reporting on him that he was reckless, dangerous and prone to rash behavior and they were convinced he was going to start WWIII with? Yeap, you guessed it, the Russians. Putin believed what the media were reporting because Trump himself had verbally warned him. He didn't need forces and cash. He did what OP recommended, he threatened Putin with force and Putin complied and just waited out Trump. It was a gift that Biden was elected in 2020 and if you go through the news reports, literally months after Biden was elected, Russia started massing troops on the border and readying their troops to invade. Its a strange coincidence that they didn't invade in the four years Trump was in office. He leaves and less than a year later, Russia is preparing to invade? C'mon man. Your timeline is completely wrong. - Biden's inauguration took place on January 2021. - The Russians were amassing troops by December of 2021 (less than a year after he took office). - The Afghan pullout wasn't until the Summer of 2021 - The Russian officially invaded in February of 2022 The green light wasn't needing forces and cash built up, it was Trump leaving office. The Afghan pullout had no effect on when they were going to invade since they were already massing troops and air support to the border regions where they finally launched their invasion from. Its not like the Russians decided to invade during the Afghan disaster as you insinuated, the invasion plans were already established by then. Again, the tipping point was Trump leaving office.
stoperaticless 2y ago
> You are dealing with a thug, not a cost/benefit accountant Spot on.

petre 2y ago

"We" already screwed their pipeline, what's left? Provide Ukraine with the means to blow up the Kerch bridge maybe? They're the ones that could legitimately do that sort of escalation.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> what's left? The other pipelines. Their shadow oil fleet. There are lots of options. But to my knowledge, only the British, French and Americans are capable of the long-range clandestine operations.
- petre 2y ago
  Their shadow oil fleet is operated by third parties and shell companies. We are dealing with a mafia state here. https://windward.ai/knowledge-base/illuminating-russias-shadow-fleet/ https://windward.ai/knowledge-base/illuminating-russias-shad...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Their shadow oil fleet is operated by third parties and shell companies Would be a shame if they started having engine troubles in the middle of the ocean.
    - libertine 2y ago
      The "problem" of Western countries is that the political sphere operates under different moral compasses: like taking down a shadow fleet tanker would be a natural disaster... taking down many would mean many disasters. The real question is, should security and defense concerns be placed on hold? If our basic freedoms and rights are being attacked, how big of a deal would be a shadow fleet tanker catastrophe?
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Those ships are going to be transiting somewhere unloaded. That is when you engage them.
        DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        That would be in the busiest shipping ports, channels, and anchorages in the entire world. Aka the most bananas place to interdict.
        mlyle 2y ago
        If something bad happened to a mostly empty Russian shadow tanker in the Gulf of Finland, that impact is going to be mostly confined to Russia. i.e. past the major Finnish and Estonian ports. As long as we're all playing silly only-kinda-deniable games, that's an option on the table.
        geniusplanmate 2y ago
        That's not where that shadow fleet is operating. The gas sold by Russia to France, Germany, etc. is transported using normal vessels, AFAIK.
        mlyle 2y ago
        https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/30/7477500/ Plenty of targets in the Gulf of Finland.
    - paganel 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - favorited 2y ago
        That might carry more weight if Russia hadn't started an expansionist war to reclaim former imperial territory.
    - geniusplanmate 2y ago
      1. They already do, because those are old, garbage ships 2. It's not exactly in the interests of NATO to have those ships start spilling tons of oil in the North Atlantic The problem of that "shadow fleet" is precisely that those are old, uninsured vessels that cause environmental risks.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > not exactly in the interests of NATO to have those ships start spilling tons of oil in the North Atlantic Since when did engine troubles cause an oil spill?
        onionisafruit 2y ago
        Ever blown a head gasket?
        gnabgib 2y ago
        Bit of a personal question
        dgfitz 2y ago
        Oh, its not. Why do you think that?
        aziaziazi 2y ago
        In case of an engine failure, it’s way more easier to tug the boat empty than full.
        instig007 2y ago
        since the times ocean waves decided to wreck ships that can't turn and navigate in storms without their prime mover.
  - baq 2y ago
    yeah just count the cases of unprovoked attacks on gazprom-related people by open windows.
  - consumer451 2y ago
    They are planning on this: > Parliament calls for an EU crackdown on Russia’s ’shadow fleet’ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IPR25341/parliament-calls-for-an-eu-crackdown-on-russia-s-shadow-fleet https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IP...
  - wbl 2y ago
    They sink just the same.
chii 2y ago
> "We" already screwed their pipeline unfortunately, "we" didnt have to pay a sacrifice to the economy for it, because germany paid it. The US is too afraid of nukes, and won't escalate. The russians rightly predicted this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- petre 2y ago
  Germany was told to stop buying Russian gas financing the Russian war machine by the previous Trump administration. They were told to pledge 2% of their GDP for defense, contributing more to NATO. They didn't listen. This is what happened: Ukraine got invaded, the pipeline was blown up to ensure compliance, their defense spending reachd 2% this year, more two years too late in a worse economic climate. Next year, the next Trump administration is going to demand more, because 2% is already insufficient. https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-hit-nato-budget-goal-for-1st-time-since-cold-war/a-68254361 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-hit-nato-budget-goal-for-1s...
  - throwaway290 2y ago
    Don't forget how Germany's exports of chips and machinery to places like Kyrgyzstan skyrocketed since the invasion. > Exports of motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts to Kyrgyzstan grew particularly strongly in the first quarter, soaring more than 4,000% from a very small base to over 84 million euros... That came after a six-fold rise in German exports to Kyrgyzstan last year following Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. https://www.reuters.com/world/german-exports-russias-neighbours-fuel-sanctions-evasion-fears-2023-05-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/german-exports-russias-neighbo... I know people in Kyrgyzstan, trust me they did not suddenly become industrialized when Russia invaded Anecdotally, as a Russian, some of my craziest interactions with foreigners who support the thugs in Russian gov, blame US/NATO for Russian aggression and totally buy the propaganda were with Germans. (Not a proper data point, just venting frustration, Germany get your act together...)
    - 2y ago
ponector 2y ago
>> what's left? Cut trade? But everyone likes Russian dirty money too much
markvdb 2y ago
NATO filter blockade on Öresund?

HumblyTossed 2y ago

"We" won't respond because "we" just elected a Russian asset and he is going to install more in his cabinet.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
It's already been settled that the trump dossier from 2016 was a work of fiction. Why did Putin take crimea under Obama's watch, parts of Ukraine under Biden's watch, but then not make any huge moves like those while his "asset" was in the white house?
- dxdenton 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - inpdx 2y ago
    If you believe otherwise...you aggressively haven't been paying attention for the last 8 years.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Because he needed all that time (2014-2022) to build up his forces and cash reserves. Also, he needed a green light. Which was provided in the form of the chaotic Afghanistan pullout in 2021. Not that he was counting on it -- but once it went through, it seems very likely that tipped the scales in his mind in favor of deciding to actually go through with the full-scale invasion in 2022.
  - burningChrome 2y ago
    Its also been widely reported that when Trump first met Putin he said if he invaded Ukraine, he would turn Moscow and several other cities into a parking lot. Trump in several interviews has said he warned Putin not to do it, that he would pay a very, very heavy cost and he would see to it that he would. This is all Trump had to do. He was able to leverage the media's reporting on him that he was reckless, dangerous and prone to rash behavior and they were convinced he was going to start WWIII with? Yeap, you guessed it, the Russians. Putin believed what the media were reporting because Trump himself had verbally warned him. He didn't need forces and cash. He did what OP recommended, he threatened Putin with force and Putin complied and just waited out Trump. It was a gift that Biden was elected in 2020 and if you go through the news reports, literally months after Biden was elected, Russia started massing troops on the border and readying their troops to invade. Its a strange coincidence that they didn't invade in the four years Trump was in office. He leaves and less than a year later, Russia is preparing to invade? C'mon man. Your timeline is completely wrong. - Biden's inauguration took place on January 2021. - The Russians were amassing troops by December of 2021 (less than a year after he took office). - The Afghan pullout wasn't until the Summer of 2021 - The Russian officially invaded in February of 2022 The green light wasn't needing forces and cash built up, it was Trump leaving office. The Afghan pullout had no effect on when they were going to invade since they were already massing troops and air support to the border regions where they finally launched their invasion from. Its not like the Russians decided to invade during the Afghan disaster as you insinuated, the invasion plans were already established by then. Again, the tipping point was Trump leaving office.

stoperaticless 2y ago

> You are dealing with a thug, not a cost/benefit accountant Spot on.