[vishnurp99]

Originally Posted by goacom

The US has to be glad that Putin was a fool to do what he did and give the US exactly what it wanted.

Well - First it depends on the motivations of Putin and how close Ukraine was to acquiring Nuclear weapons. You should read the earlier posts to understand the real motivations of Russia. If you review the context (as shared by senior retired Indian generals and diplomats), which is incidentally missing completely from western mainstream media, you will understand why this was just a matter of time for Putin/Russia and also a fundamental core interest for Russia. This was called out by Kay-Achim Schönbach ( German Naval Chief) when he came to India. He predicted that there will be war in the future because of the American/western approach. He incidentally lost his job because he spoke the truth.Russia calculated that this is the best time to get into the war. It's too early to say if Russia will win or USA will. This is a hybrid war between Russia & the states. One thing is certain - Europe at large and Ukraine will primarily suffer because of the conflict. Once the fog settles, the smarter ones among the Europeans and maybe some Ukranians will realize this.

Originally Posted by goacom

Finally, what happens to India? It will be obvious to India's leadership and security establishment that Russia will not longer be able to meet its military contracts with India - even if it wants to. Secondly, Russia will become increasing reliant of China for its industrial needs. Russia will for all practical purposes become a puppet state of China. This means that Russia will be hard pressed to provide political and military support to India against China. India has already been slowly moving towards the west for its military equipment (Rafale, engines for the LCA, P-8 Orions, C-17s etc). With this, India will have no choice but to further cement is relationship with the west and specially the US. The US for its part understands India's predicament and will not push India to a corner on the Russia issue. It is playing the long game with India, because it wants India in its fight against China. India may abstain in votes against Russia, but it is obvious that India's long term trajectory is with the US and its allies.

India needs both Russia & US to be strong over the next 10-20 years. We need US for it's commercial possibilities in terms of the software business, consumer technology, defense fighters etc. We need Russia for it's leadership in missile and anti-missile technologies, commodities, Agricultural goods like Fertilizers etc.
Let's not forget that China has a lot of influence on the USA. They have a 550 B $ trade with USA which is 5 times what we have with them. USA & China will compete but it is unlikely that USA will go the whole hog for India. USA would like to leverage India against China but not vice versa. So India cannot let Russia down. India will also like to have cordial relationships with China so that so that India doesn't fight USA's war with China in Asia. We don't want to make the same mistake that Ukraine did.

I know that some of us including yours truly had a misplaced belief in some of the western media sources. I leave you with a video on Zelensky - the hero of the free world. This came out on France24 in October last year. This essentially talks about the corrupt assets that were attributed to Zelensky as a part of the Pandora paper revelation. Obviously not a whiff of this in the media now. This war didn't start on Feb 24 even though nobody wants to say it fearing the American sanctions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0JUpCrdG88

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/w...al-crimea.html
https://www.ft.com/content/5eda71fc-...a-d7f324e19441

Excerpts in case you don't have NYT or FT subscription. :
Moscow’s struggle to supply Crimea’s 2.4m residents with fresh water has become a flashpoint in an undeclared war, seven years after Russian troops seized Crimea from Ukraine. An even longer conflict between Kyiv and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine has claimed more than 14,000 lives.

But when Russia seized Crimea in 2014, a senior aide in the Ukrainian president’s office, Andriy Senchenko, organized the damming of the canal as a way to strike back.

He is convinced that blocking the canal was the right decision because it imposed costs on Moscow, much as military resistance would have.

“In order to cause as much damage to the Russian Federation as was caused by seven years of blocking the canal, tens of thousands would need to have died at the front,” Mr. Senchenko said.

Looks like tens of thousands of the Ukranians just died because of that. Finally we are going in circles because of lot of this has already been covered earlier.

[gauravdgr8]

Originally Posted by goacom

Russia really has no chance in this battle.

It is inevitable that it is Europe that will cut off Russian oil and gas rather than the other way around, so in the long run it is Russia that will (is) going to get screwed. Europe imports about 170 BCM (billion cubic meters) of Russian gas annually. 60BCM of that is already being replaced by US and Qatari LNG. 10-20BCM can be saved via energy efficiency improvements. 10-20BCM will be replaced with gas imports from Norway and North Africa. This are actions that can be taken now - 60% of Russian gas exports eliminated right of the bat!

Finally, what happens to India? It will be obvious to India's leadership and security establishment that Russia will not longer be able to meet its military contracts with India - even if it wants to. Secondly, Russia will become increasing reliant of China for its industrial needs. Russia will for all practical purposes become a puppet state of China. This means that Russia will be hard pressed to provide political and military support to India against China. India has already been slowly moving towards the west for its military equipment (Rafale, engines for the LCA, P-8 Orions, C-17s etc). With this, India will have no choice but to further cement is relationship with the west and specially the US. The US for its part understands India's predicament and will not push India to a corner on the Russia issue. It is playing the long game with India, because it wants India in its fight against China. India may abstain in votes against Russia, but it is obvious that India's long term trajectory is with the US and its allies.

On the contrary Europe and US both imported higher quantity of NG and Crude from Russia in March.

What US has been doing off late is giving China a free hand against India, so that India ups it's military spend. The only aim of US is to make the world fight and keep its arms lobby rolling. Aptly clear in the last 20 years.

What US did in Afghanistan, it is no more a trusted ally and the world knows that. Primarily the reason Macron and Scholz are still talking to Putin and the Saudis didn't answer Bidens call.

Biden only wanted his interests safe in Ukraine and kept on pushing Russia until this.

[NH08]

Originally Posted by bhppower

All there superior weapons, missiles, planes seems to be just talk and not showing much of a result.

Yup. Russian missiles are useless, just talk and no show.

By the way, more than 4 million Ukrainian people have fled Ukraine and more than 6 million have been internally displaced. That is roughly 25% of entire Ukraine's population. All these people were not afraid of missiles as these were useless and left their home for some picnic in Poland, Hungary, Romania etc. Pictures showing devastation in Ukrainian cities are fake, just Russian propaganda.

Originally Posted by bhppower

... or we are too naive to understand the tactics

Sure we are.

[Poitive]

Posts about implied Russian failure prompted some thoughts, which I share below with fellow mates.

Something worth pondering over:
a) What should the benchmark for success or failure?
b) On what basis and who should form that benchmark?
c) What could Russia's purpose be to attack Ukraine?

It appears that our benchmarks are influenced by how the US has conducted it's wars, and also by how the media talks about it. When Russia started it's march, media suggested a walkover! I imagine the setting of such benchmarks to be a part of perception-warfare.

On Russia's goals:
There is much speculation - initially from occupying Ukraine, to puppet government, to reviving the former Soviet Union (seriously?!!), to now denting the dominance of the US$; some even talked of a "megalomaniac madman" fulfilling his fantasies.

The only very broad thing one can be reasonably sure is that Russia would be that Russia's future would be better with the war, as compared to the how it was expected without the war.

Even if Russia ends up being worse than it was before the war, it could still be a purposeful war as seen from the Russian perspective. Why? We don't know how bad it might have been without the war. The Russian command and control structure might have had credible reasons to believe that over a period of time, Russia was headed towards a very rough time. Militarily or otherwise.

Some scenarios/threats one might consider:
(they may or may not be or seem likely)
.

• Ukraine eventually has overt US/West/NATO weapons pointed at Russia. A major pressure point. A threat too.
  .
• Unrest is festered in Crimea. Difficult for Russia to control. Over 2-3 decades, Russia loses control. (Ukraine, and especially Georgia are interesting case studies for this; Kazakhstan an upcoming one.)
  .
• A change of expectations of the Russian population from it's leadership could be influenced by social media, NGOs, mainstream media, cultural exchange programs etc.
  
  This, in turn makes it ripe for 'revolutions' - we've seen some in the recent past. The outcome 'incidentally' tends to favour the US.
  .
• Besides Ukraine, other pressure points too would be built. With more pressure points against the Russian leadership, it becomes difficult to counter the above gradual changes induced by the US into Russia. Again, weapons of the West/US in Ukraine is a huge pressure point; but not the only one.
  .
• It might only be a matter of time for a more West/US-compliant leader to have a shot at highly-influential/top post in Russia. (IMO this is a lot lesser far fetched than many I supoose would imagine, and would be a goal of the US, as I indicated in an older post - the US is good at playing the long game.)
  .
• With a more west/US-compliant leader at the helm, it could simply mean the West using Russian resources for their advantage - a gentle Neo Colonialism of sorts.
  .
• It could also mean the west being in a situation of being able to totally mess up Russia and it's power and defences if the need arises - internally.

Simply, without this war, Russia could well have ended up down a path of it being totally blunted and a semi-colony over the next few decades (half a century?).

It still might, regardless of which way this war goes. The result of the war might influence the probability and duration for such to happen.

Further:

Based on the above, the important goal one can reasonably expect is for Russia to majorly diminish Ukraine's chances of having West's weapons on it's soil. Chances are that they will achieve this.

All other gains, be it Black Sea access, Crimea access, favourable government, buffer (Eastern) Ukraine, currency etc. can be seen as additional gains if the additional costs justify.

[goacom]

Originally Posted by deetee

There in the second line itself lies the difference. If you look beyond the obvious, you can see that Russia has not so much to loose if trade freezes or its currency looses value. Where as if the same thing to happen to US, the very fundamentals you spoke about will be shaken to core.

A couple of posts ago, in a video shared by a member, an old Ukrainian woman says that they have been living in cold , cooking on the streets and sleeping in adverse conditions; and she asks if any typical European can endure similar conditions. There in lies the difference. Russia / Ukraine / India - typically any of the eastern countries which are still not so rich can take a beating and survive even if economy goes for a toss. The same can't be said for US/UK/Rich EU countries. They can't afford another war coming to their doors.

So, if the war prolongs, it is the west that is going to shiver not the east.

And somewhere in middle you state this:
Good to see that you understood it is the US and Ukraine leadership responsible for these casualties .

Quite the contrary, the single product economy of Russia is the one that is going to be severely damaged. They just have to target that one product. It will not be an instant impact and Europe continues to import it (while hypocritically) asking India to stop! But there is clear plan for Europe to cut most Russian energy in a year and all in 2 years. China does not have enough import capacity to take Russia's surplus. In the mean time, Russia will continue to bleed in Ukraine. Russia will dare not attack any NATO country. Its military is too weak to even handle Ukraine. Its only option then would be nuclear war, which would be nuts even for Russia. For Russia, the collapse will be slow, but its economy will be destroyed. Of course, its people may rise up and revolt.

As far as the societies of the rich countries being weak, you obviously have a misundertanding of that too. The US in particular has a very dynamic, aggressive and competitive society. It has more guns and weapons than it has people! If the US ever gets wiped out, it will be at the hands of its own population.

[Aloneatma]

Petro Dollar.

If anything can bring USA down from its pedestal, it's the petrodollar. If Russia and China start dealing in Ruble and/or Yuan it will threaten the US presence as a superpower. The petrodollar is kryptonite for the US. US knows it and so do Russia, China and India.

[goacom]

Originally Posted by gauravdgr8

On the contrary Europe and US both imported higher quantity of NG and Crude from Russia in March.

What US has been doing off late is giving China a free hand against India, so that India ups it's military spend. The only aim of US is to make the world fight and keep its arms lobby rolling. Aptly clear in the last 20 years.

What US did in Afghanistan, it is no more a trusted ally and the world knows that. Primarily the reason Macron and Scholz are still talking to Putin and the Saudis didn't answer Bidens call.

Biden only wanted his interests safe in Ukraine and kept on pushing Russia until this.

The import fluctuations are normal. Europe was importing less NG for the months of December to February. Furthermore, Europe has enough reserves for the rest of winter. They are actually building their reserves for next winter. They have 6 months to prepare for next winter. This is all part of the preparation, so yes, this could entail importing Russian oil in preparation for the possibility of total war in the future.

There is no doubt that the US exit from Afghanistan was a shamble. However, Afghanistan was in the periphery of US interests. Al Qaieda was long since gone and Afghanistan had no economic or cultural connection to the US. In contrast, the US has maintained a significant presence in Europe for over 75 years.

As far as the US pushing Russia to invade, well, whose decision was it in the end to do the attack? While questioning America's power, you are also giving it too much credit for its ability to manipulate Russia!

Finally India will have to make a choice on how to deal with China. The fact is India's special relationship with Russia is over. Russia sells the same weapons to China. Russia is a transactional partner. Furthermore, it is going to be doubtful if Russia will even be able to meet its export commitments moving forward. On a military to military or people to people level, there is already much more coordination between the US and India. The US supplies India with significant intelligence information on China's border movements. The US and India have had many joint land, sea and air exercises. The LCA and the planned MMRCA will use US engines. Then there is the fact that there are some 2 million Indian diaspora who live in the US and are part of the process that is gradually changing American society and government so that it is more in tune with India and Asia in general.

Originally Posted by NH08

Yup. Russian missiles are useless, just talk and no show.

By the way, more than 4 million Ukrainian people have fled Ukraine and more than 6 million have been internally displaced. That is roughly 25% of entire Ukraine's population. All these people were not afraid of missiles as these were useless and left their home for some picnic in Poland, Hungary, Romania etc. Pictures showing devastation in Ukrainian cities are fake, just Russian propaganda.

Sure we are.

It is easy to destroy civilian areas. What is clear is that Russia has been unable to subjugate the Ukranian military despite vastly outnumbering them and having far more advanced weapons. The Germans defeated the French and British in 1940 despite the Germans being outnumbered and outgunned. They made up for it with better tactics, communications and coordination. The same seems to be true (so far at least) in the current situation. The US has just announced that it will start supplying Ukraine with heavy artillery, tanks and other longer range standoff weapons. Ukraine may still lose the war, but for Russia, it is going to be meat grinder that is going to suck their resources. In a year, Europe will be able to cut off as much as 75% of Russian gas. This will be another death blow to the Russian economy. Russia today is like Germany in 1944 -fighting battles on multiple fronts against powers that are much larger that it militarily and economically.

Originally Posted by Aloneatma

Petro Dollar.

If anything can bring USA down from its pedestal, it's the petrodollar. If Russia and China start dealing in Ruble and/or Yuan it will threaten the US presence as a superpower. The petrodollar is kryptonite for the US. US knows it and so do Russia, China and India.

LOL, I'm not too sure what you mean by that. The Rouble and the Yuan are not fully convertible and are not accepted much outside their respective countries. Take China. Its GDP is around 20% of the world economy. In contrast, the Yuan constitutes less than 2% of world reserves. Does anyone here think that, say, India will use the Yuan? LOL. Local trade between say Russia and China could be in their local currencies (effectively barter trade), but I suggest one look at the volume of trade between these two countries. It is puny. So yeah, they can dream about displacing the dollar, but is not going to happen anytime soon. In the end, the value of a currency is rooted in the economic, social, cultural and political system of the said country. Russia is a minor player in these respects. Conversely while China is an economic giant, it has little or no influence in social, cultural and the political spheres. Does anyone say in India believe what the Chinese Communist party says or how it sets the value of its currency? Would you be willing to covert all your money to Yuan?

Mod Note : Please use the EDIT or QUOTE+ (multi-quote) button instead of typing one post after another on the SAME THREAD!

To know how to multi-quote, click here.

We advise you to read the Forum Rules before proceeding any further.

[Aloneatma]

Simple. Russia will sell its gas and petroleum to China or India but not in dollars. It will either be in rupees or the yuan. That's a trend USA doesn't want to see gain any traction. Other countries will follow suit, which doesn't augur too well for the US.

[iTNerd]

Originally Posted by Poitive

The only very broad thing one can be reasonably sure is that Russia would be that Russia's future would be better with the war, as compared to the how it was expected without the war.

That's Putin perspective and hence the invasion. And to deceive his countrymen into a war that neither they understand or want is another matter. No sane person will say this war will bring fortune for Russia when young Russians are being killed and maimed in thousands, and sanctions crippling normal life for ordinary citizens. Please enlighten, how can disconnecting Russia from the rest of the world be better for its future?

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by iTNerd

That's Putin perspective and hence the invasion. And to deceive his countrymen into a war that neither they understand or want is another matter.

Mate, It is the perspective of the decision makers which counts. Even in what are called free, fair and functioning democracies, the mandate to take such decisions is with the ones at the helm - each matter is not put to a vote/referendum. Very/most often people don't understand and may often not want them. Eg. decisions about the economy. That is the very nature of government.

Leaders often want decisions to be popular for other reasons (votes, avoiding unrest etc). Popular and good decisions don't always go hand in hand. Taking only popular decisions is often the cause of much medium and long term misery.

No sane person will say this war will bring fortune for Russia when young Russians are being killed and maimed in thousands, and sanctions crippling normal life for ordinary citizens.

This point has been addressed in the said post. Again touched upon below. Also matter of short term vs medium/long term.

Please enlighten, how can disconnecting Russia from the rest of the world be better for its future?

No reason to see disconnection as the purpose of the war. It might be one of the many effects of the war.

To figure out the worthiness of a war/conflict, one needs to have a wholesome view of the present and projected future, and with learnings from the past. Future projections are usually fairly complex matters based on reactions, counter-reactions and more (game theory, as mentioned in some of my earlier posts on the thread). While we all (including you and me) might have opinions, they are based on very little information and expertise as compared to the decision making influences and structures of countries. In comparison we mainly have conjecture to dabble around with. For whatever little the opinion/thoughts might be worth, have shared some scenarios of concern in my previous post. Please check them.

As before, the worthiness of the war would depend on the comparison of projected future of the situation with and without the war (and the costs one is willing to pay). Not a comparison of before and after war.

~~~~~

Putting it differently: War is a means to influence the future, and it usually comes with severe costs. The cost-benifit analysis of which is a subjective matter, and one which needs much expertise and immense knowledge, information and data - something most (almost all?) of us don't have, to have firm opinions.

~~~~~

Edit: poor language on my part in the previous post. Corrected to:
"The only very broad thing one can be reasonably sure is that Russia would want that Russia's future would be better with the war, as compared to the how it was expected without the war."
(part in bold changed)

[lifeinpune]

Hunter Biden Laptop enters the Congressional Record.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/01/new-yo...WkhNQTl3RWlhYQ

https://youtu.be/wsCKJHa7b6g

Note that most of the US MSM had called this a Russian Fabrication in the beginning. This was suppressed before the US presidential elections. Had this happened before the elections Biden wouldn’t have been president.

[SnS_12]

Thoughts on this? Zelensky is really behaving like a comedian and most importantly a puppet of USA. USA uses Ukraine to fight Russia there so that they don’t have to fight them on their land















https://invesbrain.com/german-retail...-50-on-monday/

[Poitive]

Link to the thread of the tweets above, in case anyone wants to read further:
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/statu...93825583038469

Link to the above WP article (paywall)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/vladimi...it-11648826461

—————



The above thread also has an interesting article by the same author (dated 28th March). Link:
https://mate.substack.com/p/urging-r...n-russia-biden

Did he read Team-Bhp on 27th?
(Please take this in lighter vein)

Originally Posted by Poitive

Some thoughts:
Is the US outsmarting Russia by drawing them into a resource-draining conflict, is a question worth pondering over. At least in direct war costs (money and human), the US spend is small; Russia's is huge; Ukraine of course; Europe too. Could this be the build-up to a Post-Putin Russia in the making? To have a US favouring 'leader' in the most potent military adversary of the US, as and when Putin is out of the game.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Afghanistan really had no chance in this battle.

First some fundamentals: Afghanistan's GDP is 20Billion. The US alone is 20T. Its European allies are another 20T. Then there is Japan, Korea, S.E. Asia, Australia and Canada which come to another 10T. These countries constitute more than half the world GDP.

The end of the war after 20 years:

Attachment 2291234

You can also replace Afghanistan with Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela....

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Afghanistan was the defending party and that too in their home turf where NATO had to fight a war thousands of miles from their shores, same with the other countries in the list (except Latin America). Let’s not forget the continuous aid providing by the treacherous Pakistanis to the Taliban.

In this case, Ukraine was invaded and the Russians who are the aggressors, are in Ukraine’s home turf which is supported not by Pakistan but by the richest and most developed countries in the world. Ukraine is a neighbouring country but the Russians already have as much attrition in 4 weeks as NATO had in 10 years in Afghanistan (this is going by Russia’s claim, not Ukraine’s or the west’s).

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

You are comparing apples and oranges.

........ the Russians already have as much attrition in 4 weeks as NATO had in 10 years in Afghanistan (this is going by Russia’s claim, not Ukraine’s or the west’s).

Interesting the losses between the most powerful and richest military in the world vs rag-tag Taliban armed with Ak-47s is being compared with Russia fighting the largest professional military in Europe backed by NATO.