Ukraine

[Travis]

You can have money and guns.  You need people.  Those Ukrainians have been fighting for years.  It is not reported, but they too have had losses.  The lack of fighting men in Ukraine could turn out to be the single point failure.

Ukraine has over 200,000 men turning 18 each year. [1] The point of failure would be the will to use them rather than the quantity.

Seems that they're hesitant to commit their youngest age bracket, probably to ensure they live to repopulate and rebuild the country.

[Telecaster]

That's it exactly.  Ukraine has a terrible demographics problem.   They can't afford to kill off their young people.   

[Radagast]

At the war's pace so far, Russia is at a disadvantage even in a war of population attrition, as I've said a few times now. However it won't really begin to bite them until after they run out of Soviet equipment, though they could always attack until that is gone then turtle up on their gains.

Since Ukraine got permission to shoot into Russia, the attack on Kharkiv will put them in a worse position than if they had attacked somewhere else. Generally Russia has benefited from a minimal, concentrated section of well prepared front line, and been worse with widely flung unprepared sections.

3) I'm still not super sure how I feel about using US weapons to shoot into Russia. I'm not concerned of their empty nuclear threats, I'm concerned about what goes around comes around. Any rando would then be encouraged to give weapons to any other rando to shoot into the US.

You don't need to worry about that. Those randos don't need any encouragement of that sort.

-Iran has been doing this for decades. The Red Sea has been eating missile attacks since October because of Iranian-built missiles being fired by other-than-Iranians.

Checked my map. Yup, "Red Sea" is still 1000's of miles away from "United States." One of the big rules of proxy war has been not shooting or allowing your proxies to shoot directly into the territory of your big enemy. I've stood on the bank of the Yalu River where the US very carefully bombed the bridge connecting China and North Korea, but didn't attack China. The US doesn't even shoot into Iran. I've argued that this isn't a proxy war, but the US has sort of been acting like it was.  For Ukraine and IMO for Europe it isn't, but for the US it kinda is. It would sort of set a new rule that you can give your proxies any weapon and allow them to shoot straight at your main opponent. Which brings up:

"However, what was made public is less important than what was not. According to British intelligence, China agreed to provide Putin with weapons for use against Ukraine."
https://x.com/khodorkovsky_en/status/1795195955098050673

If that was true (I'm not saying it's not, but big and possibly world changing if true and would require a very big and immediate need for big parts of the world to completely change what they've been doing the past 40 years depending on the degree) it would require a complete change in the approach to the conflict. In fact, it would then be a proxy war between NATO and China. Russia would be demoted to the role of Vietnam or Afghanistan and there'd be no need to respect their territory. So this could represent the first official step in the subordination of Russia to "Chinese proxy".

[pecunia]

At the war's pace so far, Russia is at a disadvantage even in a war of population attrition, as I've said a few times now. However it won't really begin to bite them until after they run out of Soviet equipment, though they could always attack until that is gone then turtle up on their gains.

Since Ukraine got permission to shoot into Russia, the attack on Kharkiv will put them in a worse position than if they had attacked somewhere else. Generally Russia has benefited from a minimal, concentrated section of well prepared front line, and been worse with widely flung unprepared sections.

3) I'm still not super sure how I feel about using US weapons to shoot into Russia. I'm not concerned of their empty nuclear threats, I'm concerned about what goes around comes around. Any rando would then be encouraged to give weapons to any other rando to shoot into the US.

You don't need to worry about that. Those randos don't need any encouragement of that sort.

-Iran has been doing this for decades. The Red Sea has been eating missile attacks since October because of Iranian-built missiles being fired by other-than-Iranians.

Checked my map. Yup, "Red Sea" is still 1000's of miles away from "United States." One of the big rules of proxy war has been not shooting or allowing your proxies to shoot directly into the territory of your big enemy. I've stood on the bank of the Yalu River where the US very carefully bombed the bridge connecting China and North Korea, but didn't attack China. The US doesn't even shoot into Iran. I've argued that this isn't a proxy war, but the US has sort of been acting like it was.  For Ukraine and IMO for Europe it isn't, but for the US it kinda is. It would sort of set a new rule that you can give your proxies any weapon and allow them to shoot straight at your main opponent. Which brings up:

"However, what was made public is less important than what was not. According to British intelligence, China agreed to provide Putin with weapons for use against Ukraine."
https://x.com/khodorkovsky_en/status/1795195955098050673

If that was true (I'm not saying it's not, but big and possibly world changing if true and would require a very big and immediate need for big parts of the world to completely change what they've been doing the past 40 years depending on the degree) it would require a complete change in the approach to the conflict. In fact, it would then be a proxy war between NATO and China. Russia would be demoted to the role of Vietnam or Afghanistan and there'd be no need to respect their territory. So this could represent the first official step in the subordination of Russia to "Chinese proxy".

The proxy war thing makes a bit of sense.  It will make even more sense as time goes on.  Russia will need to beg China for more and more.  Maybe Putin has it just a bit right.  He is fighting the "collective West."  Even a busted clock (analog) is right a couple times a day.  Just the same, I don't think the Chinese prompted him to start his incursions into Ukraine, Georgia or Transnistria.  I just hope China doesn't start supplying Putin with soldiers.  I don't think they will.  The have no real dog in this fight.

[zolotiyeruki]

I suspect China is supplying Russia for two reasons:
1) money.  Russia has oil, China needs it.  Russia needs munitions, China has them.  It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.  I don't see China contributing troops, unless it's Uighurs or some other "undesirable" minority.  Russia wouldn't have any issue with that since they've been doing the same thing with their minorities.  Russia's a very racist place.
2) distract from Taiwan.  Like Putin, Xi has an ambitious ego.  China is facing a similar demographic conundrum as Russia and Ukraine, though it is not as severe (yet) and won't hit as soon.  Their birth rate doesn't seem to have recovered much from the impact of COVID, they have (had?) a growing middle class accustomed to the benefits of globalization and wealth, and they have a huge cohort hitting retirement age over the next 10 years.  Like Russia, China has a limited window to make a move.

[ChpBstrd]

I suspect China is supplying Russia for two reasons:
1) money.  Russia has oil, China needs it.  Russia needs munitions, China has them.  It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.  I don't see China contributing troops, unless it's Uighurs or some other "undesirable" minority.  Russia wouldn't have any issue with that since they've been doing the same thing with their minorities.  Russia's a very racist place.
2) distract from Taiwan.  Like Putin, Xi has an ambitious ego.  China is facing a similar demographic conundrum as Russia and Ukraine, though it is not as severe (yet) and won't hit as soon.  Their birth rate doesn't seem to have recovered much from the impact of COVID, they have (had?) a growing middle class accustomed to the benefits of globalization and wealth, and they have a huge cohort hitting retirement age over the next 10 years.  Like Russia, China has a limited window to make a move.

Add to this:
3) China wants to ramp up their military production capacity ahead of a Taiwan invasion, and selling to Russia accomplishes that objective.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The UK defense minister thinks China is sending weapons to Russia.  And China's plan is to be ready within 3.5 years for the possibility of invading Taiwan.

"LONDON, May 22 (Reuters) - British defence minister Grant Shapps accused China on Wednesday of providing or preparing to provide Russia with lethal aid for use by Moscow in its war against Ukraine."
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-defence-minister-says-intelligence-has-evidence-chinese-lethal-aid-russia-2024-05-22/

"They also have said China’s unprecedented military modernization and expansion efforts have been in line with the order to have an invasion plan ready to go by 2027 at the latest."
https://www.voanews.com/a/doubts-cast-china-will-be-ready-to-invade-taiwan-by-2027/7574367.html

[MustacheAndaHalf]

China has an additional economic incentive: its economy.  Slowdowns in every country (except the U.S.) hit China's exports, and its largest real estate companies were unable to pay their debts.  I think China is providing aid to keep them from collapsing, but I could be wrong... suffice to say, China's economy could benefit from additional trade.

I'm not buying the "distraction" argument, though.  Taiwan recently swore in a new President, and China ran drills where they surrounded Taiwan to simulate a blockade.  That's the opposite of drawing attention away from Taiwan.

China may also want to test how its weapons perform against the weapons of NATO members (especially the U.S.).  Russia fighting Ukraine provides them an opportunity to learn, which could also be the reason they want to provide weapons to Russia.

I'm glad Ukraine's allies are allowing some attacks in Russia, and hope they provide permission for Ukraine to attack Russian targets as it sees fit.

[ChpBstrd]

The UK defense minister thinks China is sending weapons to Russia.  And China's plan is to be ready within 3.5 years for the possibility of invading Taiwan.

It does feel like the West is witnessing the rise of a new World War 2 style Axis, with a closely aligned Russia and China working with Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Russian colonies in Africa to overthrow democracies and prepare for an attack on the first ring Pacific islands and Eastern Europe. Meanwhile we can't seem to get our shit together, with dysfunctional politics, massive national debts, and a long-term loss of manufacturing capacity.

If a third world war comes, it would take nothing less than a draft and nationalization of key industries for the imports-based and luxury-based West to succeed. Labor would have to be shifted from retail, restaurants, the auto industry, tourism, luxury goods and services, housing, etc. to work in factories producing drones, missiles, shells, uniforms, ships, gas masks, radiations suits, etc. not to mention the mobilization of millions of soldiers. I wonder how that works when we're so unused to hardship, taking orders, or ignoring the foreign propaganda that appears on our phones.

I'm not buying the "distraction" argument, though.  Taiwan recently swore in a new President, and China ran drills where they surrounded Taiwan to simulate a blockade.  That's the opposite of drawing attention away from Taiwan.

The invasion of a neighboring country involves lining up military assets along the border. This could provide an early warning for the victim country to make preparations, for diplomats to form alliances, and for allies to flood in aid. So the best strategy is to do what Russia did in Ukraine - announce a "drill" that some people will always think is just a drill. The Russian "drill" fooled many political leaders in Ukraine and Europe, and likewise I doubt Taiwanese political leaders were mobilizing the population or digging trenches in response to China's latest drill.

China's various practice runs at invading Taiwan could become the real thing just as easily as they did in Russia. The more drills they run, the less of a response they get from the victim. This is how you launch a surprise attack in the age of satellites.

I wonder if it would make sense to watch for Chinese "drills" and exit stocks or buy puts on stocks around these events. Shifting to treasuries for a week per year might cost a person a half-percent or so per year on average, but then you'd probably not be fully invested on the day World War 3 breaks out. The slow decay of long-duration put options (e.g. expiration date over a year out, held for 2 weeks per year around Chinese drills) might be a reasonable price to pay for the outcome if in fact China will attack Taiwan by 2027.

[rocketpj]

If China invaded Taiwan no investments will be safe as the global economy will come to a crash halt.  If the US and/or Nato respond then we will all die. 

Sigh.

[GuitarStv]

If China invaded Taiwan no investments will be safe as the global economy will come to a crash halt.  If the US and/or Nato respond then we will all die. 

Sigh.

I'd expect a pretty significant global economic crash.  Not convinced of the second part though.  I'm not convinced that China and the US would become involved in a nuclear war though.  China's leaders have been assholes in many ways, but never suicidal - always advancing towards a Chinese goal.

[pecunia]

So, if there is a big war, who will do well?  If there are nukes flying the war will be over quickly.

What if there is a conventional war?

Back in the day, the US was called the arsenal of democracy.  There were vast enterprises rolling out airplanes, tanks and munitions.  Today, I see lots of old buildings in the rust belt.  I guess they now make good homes for birds.

China is called the world's manufacturer.  Look at the glut of electric cars they have recently built. Their people are so good at building, the government sent them abroad to build the Belt and Road initiative.  What if that enormous manufacturing workforce was turned to making more weapons of war?  I think, perhaps, they would respond to the change quite well.

The Ukraine war has shown how difficult it is for Western countries to supply artillery shells to Ukraine.  Aren't these a basic material for war?  Will it be different for other armaments?  How quickly will the built up stash of armaments run out?

It just seems like as time goes on that China can manufacture ever more weapons.  Weapons need not be high tech.  People used spears a thousand years ago with good results.

Russia received some results with it's meat-wave strategy.  The population of China is 10X the population of Russia.  How well would the meat-waves have succeeded with a better armed force 10X the size?

I'm just sayin' the world ought to pull together to stop the bad people from doing what the bad people have always done.

[ChpBstrd]

If China invaded Taiwan no investments will be safe as the global economy will come to a crash halt.  If the US and/or Nato respond then we will all die. 

I'd expect a pretty significant global economic crash.  Not convinced of the second part though.  I'm not convinced that China and the US would become involved in a nuclear war though.  China's leaders have been assholes in many ways, but never suicidal - always advancing towards a Chinese goal.

A nuclear standoff can occur simultaneously with a conventional war. This is why the US didn't use its nukes to win in Korea or Vietnam. It's why Russia didn't use their nukes in Afghanistan or (so far) Ukraine. The decision to escalate to a nuclear war is a different decision than launching a conventional war. Consequences can include incineration of the leaders who order the first strike.

So China could launch a conventional invasion of Taiwan, and the US could mount a conventional defense, and the fighting could go on for years without the US and China or Russia escalating to nuclear weapons. We know they don't want to escalate to nuclear war, and they know we don't want to escalate to nuclear war, and so the contests are fought on conventional terms.

In a sense, this realization is scarier because it makes conventional wars between superpowers more likely. In the 20th century, these were proxy wars. A confrontation over Taiwan would be a direct US-China conflict which could start small and then spiral.

[waltworks]

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries), so there's no need for pearl clutching on that front. Now, we're not set up to produce tons of artillery shells, because we're not set up to fight trench warfare ala WWI, but we would never be involved in a war like that anyway, because we have massive amounts of air power (and the capability to eliminate air defenses) that would render the tactics being used by both sides in Ukraine completely worthless.

There are legitimate concerns about new forms of warfare involving drones, vulnerability of big slow ships to things like hypersonic missiles, and so on, but the US retains a just completely massive ability to wage war against pretty much anyone.

-W

[pecunia]

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries), so there's no need for pearl clutching on that front. Now, we're not set up to produce tons of artillery shells, because we're not set up to fight trench warfare ala WWI, but we would never be involved in a war like that anyway, because we have massive amounts of air power (and the capability to eliminate air defenses) that would render the tactics being used by both sides in Ukraine completely worthless.

There are legitimate concerns about new forms of warfare involving drones, vulnerability of big slow ships to things like hypersonic missiles, and so on, but the US retains a just completely massive ability to wage war against pretty much anyone.

-W

They've said for years that the wars of the "future" won't be fought in the trenches.  they said they will be fought with modern weapons.  So, here's this Ukraine war.  The "future" is now.  Both sides have set up massive trench defenses.

One just doesn't know what the future brings.  One can only try to prepare.

As a kid, they told us the story of the "invincible" Spanish Armada.  It was the great high tech thing of the day.  It didn't do very well.  In these times where technological change is following that exponential curve upwards, those mighty weapons may quickly become junk.

[waltworks]

A land war between two *extremely* poor neighboring countries with shrinking populations and negligible modern/high tech industry is IMO not comparable to a war between two modern powers like the US and China.

If the US decided to enter the Ukraine war in force, it would be over in days. It also very well might go nuclear, of course, but in terms of conventional combat power there is no comparison. Both sides in that conflict are fielding equipment basically comparable to the stuff that the Iraqi army had in the Gulf War. I think everyone remembers how that went.

-W

[Taran Wanderer]

The Ukraine war has also shown the limited strength of Russia’s strategic strike capabilities. While Russia has been able to use long range weapons against civilian infrastructure and in terror-like strikes, persistent use of strategic strikes has been of limited accuracy and unsustained. Unrestricted warfare by the U.S. would look a lot different.

[ChpBstrd]

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries)...

I would exercise caution when extrapolating spending in US dollar terms with military might or effectiveness. China may spend less money but what they get for their money is a military with 53% more service members than the US military, more tanks, artillery, ships, and mobile rocket launchers than the US, and the world's leading hypersonic missile arsenal. Plus there is reason to think their spending is on parity with the US because they can buy a lot more for their money. E.g. The salary the US pays a soldier might pay five or six PLA soldiers, and the same is true for ships, aircraft, armor, artillery, missiles, etc.

The US would not likely win a protracted war with China. Our population is several times smaller, our services-oriented economy is more difficult to put on a war footing than China's manufacturing economy, we would suffer shortages of key products without Chinese manufacturing, our government financing depends on China to recycle its trade surplus into US treasuries, and America's diverse population informed by a free-for-all internet is more difficult to unite than China's homogeneous population informed by whatever gets through the Great Firewall. There is every reason to think China's military will surpass the strength of the U.S's within a few years.

[LennStar]

It's not quite that, but yes. Suffice to say that US military games currently putting the US winning in most but not all fights an case of a Taiwan invasion.

In about 10 years the success rate is reversed.

China outnumbers greatly but the quality - both gear and troops - is a different question. As can be seen in Ukraine.

And back to topic, Russia is close to losing 1000 tanks in this quarter again. And while Ukraine seems to have completely stabilized the Norhtern Charkiv front even before the real first defense line, they are still losing slowly but steadily village after village at the Southern fronts.
I am not sure if it was in front of Bakhmut or Avdijivka, but there the Russian advance came to a (likely temporary) halt.
Russians still firing 5 times more arty and almost exclusive air bombing. The big glide bombs are often the reason why Ukrainians have to leave a position. (leave here often very euphemistic for nobody left to hold)

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Russia drove across Ukraine's border - tanks, trucks, and all manner of land vehicles.  China attempting to invade Taiwan would be far more difficult than Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In World War II, which part of Europe didn't fall?  The United Kingdom - an island.  Germany lost battles in various German cities (including the capital, Berlin) before it surrendered.  Japan surrendered without being invaded - further evidence of the defensive value of islands.

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries), so there's no need for pearl clutching on that front.

They've said for years that the wars of the "future" won't be fought in the trenches.

I predict China and the U.S. will not be fighting trench warfare in the ocean.

[GuitarStv]

Russia drove across Ukraine's border - tanks, trucks, and all manner of land vehicles.  China attempting to invade Taiwan would be far more difficult than Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In World War II, which part of Europe didn't fall?  The United Kingdom - an island.  Germany lost battles in various German cities (including the capital, Berlin) before it surrendered.  Japan surrendered without being invaded - further evidence of the defensive value of islands.

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries), so there's no need for pearl clutching on that front.

They've said for years that the wars of the "future" won't be fought in the trenches.

I predict China and the U.S. will not be fighting trench warfare in the ocean.

Don't discount the horrors of Mariana trench warfare.

[LennStar]

Russia drove across Ukraine's border - tanks, trucks, and all manner of land vehicles.  China attempting to invade Taiwan would be far more difficult than Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In World War II, which part of Europe didn't fall?  The United Kingdom - an island.  Germany lost battles in various German cities (including the capital, Berlin) before it surrendered.  Japan surrendered without being invaded - further evidence of the defensive value of islands.

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries), so there's no need for pearl clutching on that front.

They've said for years that the wars of the "future" won't be fought in the trenches.

I predict China and the U.S. will not be fighting trench warfare in the ocean.

Don't discount the horrors of Mariana trench warfare.

Right! Warfare there creates so much pressure, it can cause a lot of deep trauma!

I think we are in the wrong thread. ;)

So again back to topic: It seems Putin realized that nobody takes his "if you do this I throw atomic bombs" as anything but empty threats anymore (well, except the usual subjects). So today he threatened Germany with a severe damage to relations.
It seems he has forgotten that he tried to freeze us into submission 2 winters ago. I daresay the diplomatic ralations have been very cold ever since.

[Tyson]

Russia drove across Ukraine's border - tanks, trucks, and all manner of land vehicles.  China attempting to invade Taiwan would be far more difficult than Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In World War II, which part of Europe didn't fall?  The United Kingdom - an island.  Germany lost battles in various German cities (including the capital, Berlin) before it surrendered.  Japan surrendered without being invaded - further evidence of the defensive value of islands.

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries), so there's no need for pearl clutching on that front.

They've said for years that the wars of the "future" won't be fought in the trenches.

I predict China and the U.S. will not be fighting trench warfare in the ocean.

Don't discount the horrors of Mariana trench warfare.

Right! Warfare there creates so much pressure, it can cause a lot of deep trauma!

I think we are in the wrong thread. ;)

So again back to topic: It seems Putin realized that nobody takes his "if you do this I throw atomic bombs" as anything but empty threats anymore (well, except the usual subjects). So today he threatened Germany with a severe damage to relations.
It seems he has forgotten that he tried to freeze us into submission 2 winters ago. I daresay the diplomatic ralations have been very cold ever since.

I think one very positive unintended consequence of this whole mess is that the world is pivoting to renewable energy even faster than expected.  After what Russia did to Germany, suddenly energy independence is a lot more urgent for a lot of countries.

[pecunia]

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries)...

I would exercise caution when extrapolating spending in US dollar terms with military might or effectiveness. China may spend less money but what they get for their money is a military with 53% more service members than the US military, more tanks, artillery, ships, and mobile rocket launchers than the US, and the world's leading hypersonic missile arsenal. Plus there is reason to think their spending is on parity with the US because they can buy a lot more for their money. E.g. The salary the US pays a soldier might pay five or six PLA soldiers, and the same is true for ships, aircraft, armor, artillery, missiles, etc.

The US would not likely win a protracted war with China. Our population is several times smaller, our services-oriented economy is more difficult to put on a war footing than China's manufacturing economy, we would suffer shortages of key products without Chinese manufacturing, our government financing depends on China to recycle its trade surplus into US treasuries, and America's diverse population informed by a free-for-all internet is more difficult to unite than China's homogeneous population informed by whatever gets through the Great Firewall. There is every reason to think China's military will surpass the strength of the U.S's within a few years.

China currently has some economic problems which could have a ripple effect upon their military scale up.  Is it long term?  Probably not.

Taiwan is in China's backyard.  Taiwan is 7,000 miles from the US.  There could easily be supply chain issues to US forces.

[pecunia]

Russia drove across Ukraine's border - tanks, trucks, and all manner of land vehicles.  China attempting to invade Taiwan would be far more difficult than Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In World War II, which part of Europe didn't fall?  The United Kingdom - an island.  Germany lost battles in various German cities (including the capital, Berlin) before it surrendered.  Japan surrendered without being invaded - further evidence of the defensive value of islands.

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries), so there's no need for pearl clutching on that front.

They've said for years that the wars of the "future" won't be fought in the trenches.

I predict China and the U.S. will not be fighting trench warfare in the ocean.

Don't discount the horrors of Mariana trench warfare.

Right! Warfare there creates so much pressure, it can cause a lot of deep trauma!

I think we are in the wrong thread. ;)

So again back to topic: It seems Putin realized that nobody takes his "if you do this I throw atomic bombs" as anything but empty threats anymore (well, except the usual subjects). So today he threatened Germany with a severe damage to relations.
It seems he has forgotten that he tried to freeze us into submission 2 winters ago. I daresay the diplomatic ralations have been very cold ever since.

I think one very positive unintended consequence of this whole mess is that the world is pivoting to renewable energy even faster than expected.  After what Russia did to Germany, suddenly energy independence is a lot more urgent for a lot of countries.

The world will be dragged kicking and screaming to nuclear power.  Then, after a bit, the world will say, "This isn't so bad."

[Tyson]

Russia drove across Ukraine's border - tanks, trucks, and all manner of land vehicles.  China attempting to invade Taiwan would be far more difficult than Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In World War II, which part of Europe didn't fall?  The United Kingdom - an island.  Germany lost battles in various German cities (including the capital, Berlin) before it surrendered.  Japan surrendered without being invaded - further evidence of the defensive value of islands.

The US military budget and procurement system absolutely dwarfs that of China (or any other country, or any combination of countries), so there's no need for pearl clutching on that front.

They've said for years that the wars of the "future" won't be fought in the trenches.

I predict China and the U.S. will not be fighting trench warfare in the ocean.

Don't discount the horrors of Mariana trench warfare.

Right! Warfare there creates so much pressure, it can cause a lot of deep trauma!

I think we are in the wrong thread. ;)

So again back to topic: It seems Putin realized that nobody takes his "if you do this I throw atomic bombs" as anything but empty threats anymore (well, except the usual subjects). So today he threatened Germany with a severe damage to relations.
It seems he has forgotten that he tried to freeze us into submission 2 winters ago. I daresay the diplomatic ralations have been very cold ever since.

I think one very positive unintended consequence of this whole mess is that the world is pivoting to renewable energy even faster than expected.  After what Russia did to Germany, suddenly energy independence is a lot more urgent for a lot of countries.

The world will be dragged kicking and screaming to nuclear power.  Then, after a bit, the world will say, "This isn't so bad."

I like nuclear power.  It's safe and clean.  The main issue I see with it is it's very, very expensive.  And, getting more expensive over time.  On the other hand, grid level solar/batteries/wind are the cheapest form of energy, all ready.  And getting cheaper over time.  I don't think nuclear wins, just on economics. 

[ChpBstrd]

I think one very positive unintended consequence of this whole mess is that the world is pivoting to renewable energy even faster than expected.  After what Russia did to Germany, suddenly energy independence is a lot more urgent for a lot of countries.

Except the backward USA, where we put tariffs on Chinese solar panels to support a domestic industry that is negligible and have applied 100% tariffs on Chinese electric cars.

If the U.S. reduced its petroleum consumption - using those Chinese panels to charge the Chinese cars - we'd arguably be in a better position militarily. The domestic economy would not go into recession every time petroleum prices went up (as they do around wars) and domestic supplies could be prioritized for military action.

A smarter move would have been a 100% tariff on trinkets, fast fashion, WalMart stuff, etc. from China and to let the green tech in. But of course that would irritate a lot of politically influential donors from the U.S. petroleum, automotive, and retailing industries. 

[MustacheAndaHalf]

If the U.S. reduced its petroleum consumption - using those Chinese panels to charge the Chinese cars - we'd arguably be in a better position militarily.

The United States is the world's largest crude oil producer.  You're suggesting the U.S. stop depending on itself, and depend entirely on China.  That way, China can cut off America's replacement parts and new energy supplies whenever it likes?  Strikes me as not a good plan, militarily.

"The United States became the world’s top crude oil producer in 2018 and maintained the lead position through 2022."
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/where-our-oil-comes-from.php

[MustacheAndaHalf]

So again back to topic: It seems Putin realized that nobody takes his "if you do this I throw atomic bombs" as anything but empty threats anymore (well, except the usual subjects). So today he threatened Germany with a severe damage to relations.
It seems he has forgotten that he tried to freeze us into submission 2 winters ago. I daresay the diplomatic ralations have been very cold ever since.

The U.S. is still limiting Ukraine's attacks in Russia.  Ukraine only has permission to hit targets in defense of Kharkiv - not in general.

I suspect Putin doesn't know the condition of Russia's nuclear weapons.  They are expensive to maintain, and Russia runs on corruption.  His best use for them is what he's doing now: threatening to use them.  If the West always cowers when nukes are mentioned, Putin will keep threatening to use them.

Are Germans aware of the indirect trade with Russia?  All of the -stan countries near Russia massively increased imports right when Russia got cut off.

[LennStar]

Are Germans aware of the indirect trade with Russia?  All of the -stan countries near Russia massively increased imports right when Russia got cut off.

I think at least inofficially everyone is aware. It's not hard to be curious why X-stan suddenly exports 10 times the wood they have the last years. How much is done officially is a different thing. And it always have to happen on EU level so it's not going fast one way or the other.

[Just Joe]

At least all the imports through the -stans raises Russian prices...

[Travis]

At least all the imports through the -stans raises Russian prices...

This was the immediate effect of most of the sanctions. Russia still figured out how to get a lot of the things it needed, but with additional costs due to longer transportation times and whatever other costs are related to basically smuggling.

So again back to topic: It seems Putin realized that nobody takes his "if you do this I throw atomic bombs" as anything but empty threats anymore (well, except the usual subjects). So today he threatened Germany with a severe damage to relations.
It seems he has forgotten that he tried to freeze us into submission 2 winters ago. I daresay the diplomatic ralations have been very cold ever since.

Putin also kinda lost his patience with European reporters yesterday going off on them about how Russia would never ever I pinky swear attack NATO despite just getting done saying he'd find ways to arm the West's enemies and swearing he'd never attack Ukraine while the tanks were crossing the border.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Finally!  A strike unrelated to Kharkiv (in the north).  You could argue that Crimea (in the south) is Russian-occupied, rather than being Russia.  But any loosening of restrictions is a good sign, in my view.

"Ukraine says it hit Russian air defence systems in occupied Crimea"
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-it-hit-russian-air-defence-systems-occupied-crimea-2024-06-10/

[ChpBstrd]

If the U.S. reduced its petroleum consumption - using those Chinese panels to charge the Chinese cars - we'd arguably be in a better position militarily.

The United States is the world's largest crude oil producer.  You're suggesting the U.S. stop depending on itself, and depend entirely on China.  That way, China can cut off America's replacement parts and new energy supplies whenever it likes?  Strikes me as not a good plan, militarily.

"The United States became the world’s top crude oil producer in 2018 and maintained the lead position through 2022."
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/where-our-oil-comes-from.php

The US has been overproducing petroleum and natural gas due to fracking. Prior to the introduction of this technology, US oil fields were mostly exhausted and we were import-dependent. The oil fields will steadily become exhausted again, declining at some hard-to-predict time in the future. The tech was widely implemented 15-20 years ago to squeeze extra oil and gas out of used-up or uneconomical U.S. oil fields, particularly in Texas.

Military equipment like tanks, ships, and aviation generally require petroleum, so arguably as the US uses up its remaining natural resources to power civilian vehicles, it is becoming less and less able to fight extended wars at some point in the future. Then we're back to being dependent upon foreign oil imports and forced to fight wars to secure foreign supply chains like we were in the 1970s to early 2000s.

An optimist might say a new technology is bound to come along and extend "peak oil" another generation like fracking (and national-debt-financed ethanol subsidies) did, but there is no guarantee such a thing will happen.

So my point is that the U.S. would be wise to delay using up the last of its militarily-important oil reserves if it can avoid doing so. If the U.S. switched a few million vehicles with a 10-year lifespan to run off of solar panels with a 25-year lifespan, that *might* translate into more oil reserves left in the ground by the 2030s and 2040s. It would be wiser to tariff toys, clothing, electronics, steel, basically any other category than renewable energy infrastructure.

China cutting off the supply of replacement parts is less important than having the infrastructure in place. E.g. Old Chinese solar panels could be replaced with new ones from anywhere in a quarter-century if the racks, electrical lines, and business entities are in place. Old Chinese electric vehicles could be replaced with new ones from anywhere if the electrical generation capacity was there. This seems a lot less precarious a situation for the U.S. than eventually hurtling back toward oil importer status after completely exhausting the last of its oil resources.

[Tyson]

If the U.S. reduced its petroleum consumption - using those Chinese panels to charge the Chinese cars - we'd arguably be in a better position militarily.

The United States is the world's largest crude oil producer.  You're suggesting the U.S. stop depending on itself, and depend entirely on China.  That way, China can cut off America's replacement parts and new energy supplies whenever it likes?  Strikes me as not a good plan, militarily.

"The United States became the world’s top crude oil producer in 2018 and maintained the lead position through 2022."
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/where-our-oil-comes-from.php

The US has been overproducing petroleum and natural gas due to fracking. Prior to the introduction of this technology, US oil fields were mostly exhausted and we were import-dependent. The oil fields will steadily become exhausted again, declining at some hard-to-predict time in the future. The tech was widely implemented 15-20 years ago to squeeze extra oil and gas out of used-up or uneconomical U.S. oil fields, particularly in Texas.

Military equipment like tanks, ships, and aviation generally require petroleum, so arguably as the US uses up its remaining natural resources to power civilian vehicles, it is becoming less and less able to fight extended wars at some point in the future. Then we're back to being dependent upon foreign oil imports and forced to fight wars to secure foreign supply chains like we were in the 1970s to early 2000s.

An optimist might say a new technology is bound to come along and extend "peak oil" another generation like fracking (and national-debt-financed ethanol subsidies) did, but there is no guarantee such a thing will happen.

So my point is that the U.S. would be wise to delay using up the last of its militarily-important oil reserves if it can avoid doing so. If the U.S. switched a few million vehicles with a 10-year lifespan to run off of solar panels with a 25-year lifespan, that *might* translate into more oil reserves left in the ground by the 2030s and 2040s. It would be wiser to tariff toys, clothing, electronics, steel, basically any other category than renewable energy infrastructure.

China cutting off the supply of replacement parts is less important than having the infrastructure in place. E.g. Old Chinese solar panels could be replaced with new ones from anywhere in a quarter-century if the racks, electrical lines, and business entities are in place. Old Chinese electric vehicles could be replaced with new ones from anywhere if the electrical generation capacity was there. This seems a lot less precarious a situation for the U.S. than eventually hurtling back toward oil importer status after completely exhausting the last of its oil resources.

It helps that solar and wind are already the cheapest form of energy generation in all history, and is still getting cheaper.  I think the current administration wants to grow some of that manufacturing capability here in the US, hence the tariffs. 

My own feeling is that once you're set up to 100% renewables (and batteries), you are now energy independent, regardless of where the panels, windmills and batteries came from.  One thing I'm hoping is that as the US (and the rest of the world) ween off oil and gas, the US can also begin to disentangle itself from the middle east (and Russia, too).

[ChpBstrd]

If the U.S. reduced its petroleum consumption - using those Chinese panels to charge the Chinese cars - we'd arguably be in a better position militarily.

The United States is the world's largest crude oil producer.  You're suggesting the U.S. stop depending on itself, and depend entirely on China.  That way, China can cut off America's replacement parts and new energy supplies whenever it likes?  Strikes me as not a good plan, militarily.

"The United States became the world’s top crude oil producer in 2018 and maintained the lead position through 2022."
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/where-our-oil-comes-from.php

The US has been overproducing petroleum and natural gas due to fracking. Prior to the introduction of this technology, US oil fields were mostly exhausted and we were import-dependent. The oil fields will steadily become exhausted again, declining at some hard-to-predict time in the future. The tech was widely implemented 15-20 years ago to squeeze extra oil and gas out of used-up or uneconomical U.S. oil fields, particularly in Texas.

Military equipment like tanks, ships, and aviation generally require petroleum, so arguably as the US uses up its remaining natural resources to power civilian vehicles, it is becoming less and less able to fight extended wars at some point in the future. Then we're back to being dependent upon foreign oil imports and forced to fight wars to secure foreign supply chains like we were in the 1970s to early 2000s.

An optimist might say a new technology is bound to come along and extend "peak oil" another generation like fracking (and national-debt-financed ethanol subsidies) did, but there is no guarantee such a thing will happen.

So my point is that the U.S. would be wise to delay using up the last of its militarily-important oil reserves if it can avoid doing so. If the U.S. switched a few million vehicles with a 10-year lifespan to run off of solar panels with a 25-year lifespan, that *might* translate into more oil reserves left in the ground by the 2030s and 2040s. It would be wiser to tariff toys, clothing, electronics, steel, basically any other category than renewable energy infrastructure.

China cutting off the supply of replacement parts is less important than having the infrastructure in place. E.g. Old Chinese solar panels could be replaced with new ones from anywhere in a quarter-century if the racks, electrical lines, and business entities are in place. Old Chinese electric vehicles could be replaced with new ones from anywhere if the electrical generation capacity was there. This seems a lot less precarious a situation for the U.S. than eventually hurtling back toward oil importer status after completely exhausting the last of its oil resources.

It helps that solar and wind are already the cheapest form of energy generation in all history, and is still getting cheaper.  I think the current administration wants to grow some of that manufacturing capability here in the US, hence the tariffs. 

My own feeling is that once you're set up to 100% renewables (and batteries), you are now energy independent, regardless of where the panels, windmills and batteries came from.  One thing I'm hoping is that as the US (and the rest of the world) ween off oil and gas, the US can also begin to disentangle itself from the middle east (and Russia, too).

Yea that's the administration's hope. But I don't see the domestic investment in capacity happening quickly enough. Better to let imported panels and cars flood the market first, transitioning a large portion of the market away from petroleum within a few years, and THEN set up tariffs and let domestic production can cover replacement cars and components. Instead we just got on the 20-40 year transition cycle, which leaves the US vulnerable to oil availability. There's not much domestic industry to "protect", and there won't be in the near future.

[pecunia]

If the U.S. reduced its petroleum consumption - using those Chinese panels to charge the Chinese cars - we'd arguably be in a better position militarily.

The United States is the world's largest crude oil producer.  You're suggesting the U.S. stop depending on itself, and depend entirely on China.  That way, China can cut off America's replacement parts and new energy supplies whenever it likes?  Strikes me as not a good plan, militarily.

"The United States became the world’s top crude oil producer in 2018 and maintained the lead position through 2022."
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/where-our-oil-comes-from.php

The US has been overproducing petroleum and natural gas due to fracking. Prior to the introduction of this technology, US oil fields were mostly exhausted and we were import-dependent. The oil fields will steadily become exhausted again, declining at some hard-to-predict time in the future. The tech was widely implemented 15-20 years ago to squeeze extra oil and gas out of used-up or uneconomical U.S. oil fields, particularly in Texas.

Military equipment like tanks, ships, and aviation generally require petroleum, so arguably as the US uses up its remaining natural resources to power civilian vehicles, it is becoming less and less able to fight extended wars at some point in the future. Then we're back to being dependent upon foreign oil imports and forced to fight wars to secure foreign supply chains like we were in the 1970s to early 2000s.

An optimist might say a new technology is bound to come along and extend "peak oil" another generation like fracking (and national-debt-financed ethanol subsidies) did, but there is no guarantee such a thing will happen.

So my point is that the U.S. would be wise to delay using up the last of its militarily-important oil reserves if it can avoid doing so. If the U.S. switched a few million vehicles with a 10-year lifespan to run off of solar panels with a 25-year lifespan, that *might* translate into more oil reserves left in the ground by the 2030s and 2040s. It would be wiser to tariff toys, clothing, electronics, steel, basically any other category than renewable energy infrastructure.

China cutting off the supply of replacement parts is less important than having the infrastructure in place. E.g. Old Chinese solar panels could be replaced with new ones from anywhere in a quarter-century if the racks, electrical lines, and business entities are in place. Old Chinese electric vehicles could be replaced with new ones from anywhere if the electrical generation capacity was there. This seems a lot less precarious a situation for the U.S. than eventually hurtling back toward oil importer status after completely exhausting the last of its oil resources.

It helps that solar and wind are already the cheapest form of energy generation in all history, and is still getting cheaper.  I think the current administration wants to grow some of that manufacturing capability here in the US, hence the tariffs. 

My own feeling is that once you're set up to 100% renewables (and batteries), you are now energy independent, regardless of where the panels, windmills and batteries came from.  One thing I'm hoping is that as the US (and the rest of the world) ween off oil and gas, the US can also begin to disentangle itself from the middle east (and Russia, too).

Once again there is the worry of all the energy eggs in one basket.  Back in the day, in the last days of Jimmy Carter's presidency the US was dependent of foreign energy.  So now the worry is that solar and wind components are not produced in the US.  In all this time the nuclear plants have been a domestic source of energy developed and built by the US.  This source of energy has quietly produced many gigawatt hours of energy.  Electrification and nuclear power could prolong the life of domestic fossil fuels.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Over the past decades, running out of oil has been predicted repeatedly.  When I hear another prediction of running out of oil, I'm skeptical.  I'm also skeptical protestors even understand what is made of oil and what isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBeOao_h8n8


Most Americans think there will be unexpected problems in an energy transition.  A majority do not want fossil fuels ended without a gradual transition (some want no transition, others want fossil fuels forever).
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/what-americans-think-about-an-energy-transition-from-fossil-fuels-to-renewables/

The energy transition isn't likely to happen any decade soon, and certainly not in time for dealing with threats abroad.  If China follows Russia's lead, the U.S. needs to be prepared with the energy mix it has now.

[dividendman]

The IEA seems to think that we're going to have an OVER supply of oil very soon : https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/global-oil-markets-to-tip-into-surplus-by-end-of-decade-iea-says-c85688fa

[LaineyAZ]

Just read a headline that Ukraine is thinking of, or getting ready to, use prisoners for combat troops. 
Are troop levels that bad already?  Yikes.

[pecunia]

Just read a headline that Ukraine is thinking of, or getting ready to, use prisoners for combat troops. 
Are troop levels that bad already?  Yikes.

Russia has been using prisoners for a long time.  Wagner had a lot of prisoners.  I guess prisoners make better meat waves as they are less missed.

[ChpBstrd]

Just read a headline that Ukraine is thinking of, or getting ready to, use prisoners for combat troops. 
Are troop levels that bad already?  Yikes.

Russia has been using prisoners for a long time.  Wagner had a lot of prisoners.  I guess prisoners make better meat waves as they are less missed.

For Ukraine, this is total war - full mobilization of the economy under martial law - and the consequence of losing is being the victim of genocide. I think they're remiss for not mobilizing prisoners earlier. It does no good to tie up resources in prisons

The same thing happened in WW2 in many countries. The United States did not conscript prisoners, but it did put them to work in prison industries and it did grant parole to prisoners who expressed a desire to join the military. As the article below notes, there are difficulties in distinguishing between voluntary action and coercion when it comes to incarcerated people, parole, and prison labor.
https://daily.jstor.org/how-prisoners-contributed-during-wwii/

[GuitarStv]

Does using prisoners give plausible deniability in war crimes scenarios?

[pecunia]

Does using prisoners give plausible deniability in war crimes scenarios?

I'm not sure a mistake in judgement can be an excuse.  Perhaps one need have morals to start with before there can be any plausible deniability.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-cannibal-soldiers-vladimir-putin/

[LennStar]

Just read a headline that Ukraine is thinking of, or getting ready to, use prisoners for combat troops. 
Are troop levels that bad already?  Yikes.

Ukraine is understably reluctant to extract more people from the workforce. Especially younger people. That is also why the average age of the Ukrainian soldier is something like high 30s.

In this case Ukraine is using volunteering prisoners who have been in prison for "small" non-violent crimes. Russia is using the most violent.

Also the U. prisoners service only ends with the war, not with their sentence. So assuming there wasn't any undue pressure, they really want to fight, and why shouldn't they?

[YttriumNitrate]

In this case Ukraine is using volunteering prisoners who have been in prison for "small" non-violent crimes. Russia is using the most violent.

Ukraine is using murderers, but they draw the line at people who have killed two or more people.

People convicted of two or more premeditated murders, of crimes committed with cruelty, or of murders combined with rape or sexual violence, are barred from signing up.

-- https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/europe/ukraine-prison-soldier-recruitment-intl-cmd/index.html

[LennStar]

In this case Ukraine is using volunteering prisoners who have been in prison for "small" non-violent crimes. Russia is using the most violent.

Ukraine is using murderers, but they draw the line at people who have killed two or more people.

People convicted of two or more premeditated murders, of crimes committed with cruelty, or of murders combined with rape or sexual violence, are barred from signing up.

-- https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/europe/ukraine-prison-soldier-recruitment-intl-cmd/index.html

Okay, then they have widened the scope compared to the "in discussion" law draft I read about a bit ago.
Maybe that's because of the Charkiv attack, which really stretched the troops.

At least on Crimea Ukraine slowly but surely seems to grind them down.

[pecunia]

Are there finally cracks beginning to develop in Russia's inflexible stance?  This is from the Guardian.

Vladimir Putin has demanded that Kyiv cede more land, withdraw troops deeper inside its own country, and drop its Nato bid in order for him to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Putin’s fresh ceasefire demands were issued as envoys from more than 90 countries, including Ukraine, convene in Switzerland this weekend to discuss a western-led peace plan. Russia is not invited to the conference and the president’s remarks on Friday were likely to have been timed as a spoiler to that summit.

Speaking with diplomats at the Russian foreign ministry, Putin publicly updated his terms for ending the war in Ukraine for the first time since he launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022, when he demanded regime change in Kyiv and the country’s “demilitarisation”.

The US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, said Putin was in “no position” to make demands on Ukraine and could end the war he had started “today if he chose to do that.”

The new terms appear to be a nonstarter, as Putin staked out a maximalist position that included claims on land that Russia has “annexed” without holding under its military control. Putin demanded that Ukrainian troops leave the entire regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and that they be declared Russian territory by international agreement, calling the issue “closed” for Russia.

“As soon as Kyiv says it is ready to make this decision, begins the actual pullout of forces from those regions and formally declares the abandonment of its plans to join Nato, we will instantly, that very second, order a ceasefire and begin negotiations,” Putin said.

Putin also demanded that the west drop all financial sanctions against Russia as a precondition to a ceasefire. The US this week expanded sanctions on the Russian banking sector, currency trading on the largest Russian stock exchange, as well as chips and other technology. US Treasury officials said they were targeting the Russian financial infrastructure and access to third markets as Russia completed its “transition to a full war economy”.

The G7, which comprises the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, also agreed this week to use Russian sovereign assets frozen in the west as collateral for a $5bn loan package that would help keep Ukraine’s economy afloat in what had become a war of attrition against its Russian neighbour.

Putin on Friday decried the agreement as an attempt to provide “some kind of legal basis” for what was “theft”.

“Despite all the trickery, this theft will certainly remain a theft,” he told diplomats during the speech. “And it will not go unpunished.”

Ukraine and western countries are highly unlikely to agree to Putin’s terms. Kyiv has demanded that Russian troops leave its territory and that it return control over the 1991 borders, including the Crimean peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014. Ukrainian officials quickly dismissed Putin’s remarks as a “complete sham”.

“Of course, there is no novelty in this, no real peace proposals and no desire to end the war,” wrote Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the Ukrainian presidential administration. “But there is a desire not to pay for this war and to continue it in new formats. It’s all a complete sham. Therefore – once again – get rid of illusions and stop taking seriously the “[Russian proposals]” that are offensive to common sense.”

Vladimir Putin has demanded that Kyiv cede more land, withdraw troops deeper inside its own country, and drop its Nato bid in order for him to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Putin’s fresh ceasefire demands were issued as envoys from more than 90 countries, including Ukraine, convene in Switzerland this weekend to discuss a western-led peace plan. Russia is not invited to the conference and the president’s remarks on Friday were likely to have been timed as a spoiler to that summit.

Speaking with diplomats at the Russian foreign ministry, Putin publicly updated his terms for ending the war in Ukraine for the first time since he launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022, when he demanded regime change in Kyiv and the country’s “demilitarisation”.

The US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, said Putin was in “no position” to make demands on Ukraine and could end the war he had started “today if he chose to do that.”

The new terms appear to be a nonstarter, as Putin staked out a maximalist position that included claims on land that Russia has “annexed” without holding under its military control. Putin demanded that Ukrainian troops leave the entire regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and that they be declared Russian territory by international agreement, calling the issue “closed” for Russia.

“As soon as Kyiv says it is ready to make this decision, begins the actual pullout of forces from those regions and formally declares the abandonment of its plans to join Nato, we will instantly, that very second, order a ceasefire and begin negotiations,” Putin said.

Putin also demanded that the west drop all financial sanctions against Russia as a precondition to a ceasefire. The US this week expanded sanctions on the Russian banking sector, currency trading on the largest Russian stock exchange, as well as chips and other technology. US Treasury officials said they were targeting the Russian financial infrastructure and access to third markets as Russia completed its “transition to a full war economy”.

The G7, which comprises the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, also agreed this week to use Russian sovereign assets frozen in the west as collateral for a $5bn loan package that would help keep Ukraine’s economy afloat in what had become a war of attrition against its Russian neighbour.

Putin on Friday decried the agreement as an attempt to provide “some kind of legal basis” for what was “theft”.

“Despite all the trickery, this theft will certainly remain a theft,” he told diplomats during the speech. “And it will not go unpunished.”

Ukraine and western countries are highly unlikely to agree to Putin’s terms. Kyiv has demanded that Russian troops leave its territory and that it return control over the 1991 borders, including the Crimean peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014. Ukrainian officials quickly dismissed Putin’s remarks as a “complete sham”.

“Of course, there is no novelty in this, no real peace proposals and no desire to end the war,” wrote Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the Ukrainian presidential administration. “But there is a desire not to pay for this war and to continue it in new formats. It’s all a complete sham. Therefore – once again – get rid of illusions and stop taking seriously the “[Russian proposals]” that are offensive to common sense.”

I think the idea of a good part of the entire world holding a peace conference to discuss his invasion and what to do about it simply can't sit well with Putin.  It's a bit amusing.  Putin talks of "theft" when he has tried to seize an entire country.

[LennStar]

It's the typical mafia mind:
I took it from you, so it's mine. If you try to take it back, you are stealing from me.

[Travis]

It's also been Russia's "negotiating" stance since March 2022.

"Just give us everything we want."