Ukraine

[pecunia]

@Abe, how do you see this war as spreading to Moscow?  Do you believe the Ukrainians will somehow infiltrate?  I can’t see the US getting involved and the Russians themselves seem pretty much propagandized.

While waiting for Abe - I have a friend in personal communication with Ukrianians and also at least one Russian; these are personal contacts. Friend asserts that Ukrainians infiltrating Russia is quite possible because they look alike and in many cases speak the same language. Any territory seized by Russia is at risk to become a viable path of travel and sabotage.

I was just thinking to myself, that what Russia is doing, is a sure fired way to create home grown rebels and terrorists. But If Putin rules by fear, any kind of terrorists attacks by Ukrainians, will just make Putin stronger, because a) he doesn't care if Russians die(a lot of evidence he was behind the apartment bombings pinned on Chechnya), and fear increases nationalism, fear of the Other. So maybe this is all a feature, not a bug?

This nationalism works when you can point to someone different.  It could be the Trump thing where the supporters will point to people who have darker hues of skin and/or do not have English as a first language.  The Muslim thing worked too.  Since people have been ignorant of Islam, it was easy to spread BS.  A clear delineation can be made.  Russia and Ukraine, maybe not so much.  Each of these countries have interbred for generations.  The languages are similar.  Many Ukrainians speak good Russian.  The faith is largely the Orthodox faith.  Putin himself started this BS by basically saying the people were brothers.  I don't think Russians would like Ukrainian terrorists, but I think there would be a great deal of understanding their cause.

[maizefolk]

This nationalism works when you can point to someone different.  It could be the Trump thing where the supporters will point to people who have darker hues of skin and/or do not have English as a first language.  The Muslim thing worked too.  Since people have been ignorant of Islam, it was easy to spread BS.  A clear delineation can be made. 

This starts to get very off topic, but from personal experience living and interacting with a lot of Trump voters, what he tapped into had much less to do with a "other" composed of muslims/hispanics and a lot more to do with an "other" composed to what those folks see as culturally distinct populations of white people (college educated "elites": journalists, other politicians, experts, professors, etc).

I bring this up to illustrate that looking different or speaking another language is not a prerequisite for drumming up hatred and a shared identity defined by other people who are "not like us." Cultural markers work just fine for the same purposes.

[Sibley]

Ok, this is hilariously good timing. Every 2 years NATO has a big war game exercise in Norway. Lots of different countries send people to participate, and it's apparently land, sea and air. It's.....now. March/April 2022. Right next to Russia. Russia is well aware, and apparently was even invited to observe. Planned long before Russia decided to begin their self-destruction by invading Ukraine.

https://www.forsvaret.no/en/exercises-and-operations/exercises/cr22
https://www.the-sun.com/news/4890360/nato-masses-troops-warships-war-games-border/
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192351.htm
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/14/nato-military-exercises-kick-off-in-norway-with-30000-troops

[Just Joe]

I wonder if he has tasters?  If his cook(s) can be bought, that's an easy way to eliminate him.

Yes, he has tasters.

[lemanfan]

Ok, this is hilariously good timing. Every 2 years NATO has a big war game exercise in Norway. Lots of different countries send people to participate, and it's apparently land, sea and air. It's.....now. March/April 2022. Right next to Russia. Russia is well aware, and apparently was even invited to observe. Planned long before Russia decided to begin their self-destruction by invading Ukraine.

https://www.forsvaret.no/en/exercises-and-operations/exercises/cr22
https://www.the-sun.com/news/4890360/nato-masses-troops-warships-war-games-border/
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192351.htm
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/14/nato-military-exercises-kick-off-in-norway-with-30000-troops

This is probably also the reason why the USS Forrest Sherman is currently anchored in Stockholm.   I really appreciate having it here right now, as it according to my more knowledgeable friends is probably more capable of shooting down any Iskander missile from Kaliningrad heading my way than our own Swedish defense systems are.

I thank all american taxpayers for this protection.  Please feel free to park this ship here as long as you want.  :)

[Watchmaker]

Today I've been reading opinions arguing against the West arming Ukraine (or at least highlighting the risks of doing so). I thought I would share these two:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/14/ukraine-weapons-backfire-nato?

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/diplomatic-compromise-ukrainian-neutrality-for-russia-withdrawal-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-03

[scottish]

And now it sounds like Tucker Carlson is a Russian propaganda asset.    Tucker "Commie" Carlson, who would have thought?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/14/kremlin-memos-russian-media-tucker-carlson-fox-news-mother-jones

[zolotiyeruki]

Today I've been reading opinions arguing against the West arming Ukraine (or at least highlighting the risks of doing so). I thought I would share these two:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/14/ukraine-weapons-backfire-nato?

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/diplomatic-compromise-ukrainian-neutrality-for-russia-withdrawal-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-03

I'll save everyone else the time to read it.  Both articles boil down to "If Ukraine surrenders, Russia will destroy less of it, so we should stop arming Ukraine and try to talk Russia into behaving better." and also "resisting Russia in Ukraine may incite Russia to attack other countries."

To which my response is simply this: The articles are a load of hogwash, full of "might"s and "may"s and "could"s and "what if"s, backed up by vapid speculation about Putin's thought process, and wishful thinking about peace in our time.  Seriously, an air strike on a base 30 miles from the Polish border is seen as 'sending a message' because of its proximity to Poland?  Um, how about "because it's a military training base"?  Kharkiv is half that distance from the Russian border, and the Russians have still failed to take it after three weeks.

Whether or when Ukraine surrenders is entirely up to the Ukrainians.  In the meantime, we should give them every resource they require in order to defend and preserve their independence from Russia.  Russia's military is flailing about, mostly ineffectually, all over Ukraine.  Do these authors honestly think Putin would order military strikes on Romania or Poland, or even has the forces to spare?

[OtherJen]

And now it sounds like Tucker Carlson is a Russian propaganda asset.    Tucker "Commie" Carlson, who would have thought?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/14/kremlin-memos-russian-media-tucker-carlson-fox-news-mother-jones

He really does seem like a Russian operative at this point, along with Trump, who was still refusing to condemn Putin's actions as recently as his rally on Saturday.

[FIRE Artist]

There are heroes in Russia risking their personal freedom.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/14/russian-tv-employee-interrupts-news-broadcast-marina-ovsyannikova

[Nate79]

Today I've been reading opinions arguing against the West arming Ukraine (or at least highlighting the risks of doing so). I thought I would share these two:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/14/ukraine-weapons-backfire-nato?

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/diplomatic-compromise-ukrainian-neutrality-for-russia-withdrawal-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-03

I've never seen so much stupidity in 2 articles.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[maizefolk]

I found this to be a fascinating read on a Chinese perspective on the war between Russia and Ukraine:

https://uscnpm.org/2022/03/12/hu-wei-russia-ukraine-war-china-choice/

It's definitely not the only perspective being argued for within China, but I take it as a good sign that a government official felt safe articulating this argument.

[Blender Bender]

A very brave Russian

https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/1503445302119968769?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1503445302119968769%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_

[BicycleB]

I found this to be a fascinating read on a Chinese perspective on the war between Russia and Ukraine:

https://uscnpm.org/2022/03/12/hu-wei-russia-ukraine-war-china-choice/

It's definitely not the only perspective being argued for within China, but I take it as a good sign that a government official felt safe articulating this argument.

Wow.

That guy places a lot more faith in the trustworthiness and competence of USA than most Americans.

(For those not following the link: Chinese scholar seems confident that, after Putin's "irreversible mistake" in Ukraine, the West will consolidate around US leadership. He then concludes that if China doesn't soon publicly and decisively break with Putin, the world will label China as "bad guy" alongside him, with non aligned countries joining the West in a campaign to isolate and oppose Chinese interests over time. So he advocates cutting Putin off within another week or so.)

[BNgarden]

I know nothing about power structures in China, but a lot of people responding to his opinion noted he is "from Shanghai" implying (and stating, IIRC) that Shanghai is more tied to global market and more concerned about economic outcomes than the group in power in Beijing and would be discounted heavily due to this.

[pecunia]

I know nothing about power structures in China, but a lot of people responding to his opinion noted he is "from Shanghai" implying (and stating, IIRC) that Shanghai is more tied to global market and more concerned about economic outcomes than the group in power in Beijing and would be discounted heavily due to this.

What would be in it for China to side with Russia?  Would they get discount oil?  Their military is getting chewed on in Ukraine so they won't be a great ally for a while.  They have their own land disputes with Russia.  They used to be united by ideology, but Russia is a dictatorship and no longer communist.  China is run somewhat like a big business by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party).  Russia is currently a liability.  Supporting them is a risky venture with nebulous returns.

[waltworks]

I know zilch about Chinese internal politics, but the "staying neutral just pisses off everyone on both sides" point is well taken.

-W

[PDXTabs]

I know nothing about power structures in China, but a lot of people responding to his opinion noted he is "from Shanghai" implying (and stating, IIRC) that Shanghai is more tied to global market and more concerned about economic outcomes than the group in power in Beijing and would be discounted heavily due to this.

What would be in it for China to side with Russia?  Would they get discount oil?  Their military is getting chewed on in Ukraine so they won't be a great ally for a while.  They have their own land disputes with Russia.  They used to be united by ideology, but Russia is a dictatorship and no longer communist.  China is run somewhat like a big business by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party).  Russia is currently a liability.  Supporting them is a risky venture with nebulous returns.

It's more complicated than that. The Soviets and the Chinese actually had a big falling out. Recent relations have actually been better. Depending on who you ask Russia is doing it wrong and should be allying themselves with the USA before China is a threat to Russia. But I agree, other than oil I'm not sure what China wants with Russia, especially a strong Russia.

[LennStar]

And oil they get anyway, Putin is not stopping his only income source.

[Travis]

I wonder if he has tasters?  If his cook(s) can be bought, that's an easy way to eliminate him.

Yes, he has tasters.

And used his cooking staff to try to kill Yushchenko at a state dinner.

Today I've been reading opinions arguing against the West arming Ukraine (or at least highlighting the risks of doing so). I thought I would share these two:

One of the chief talking points for Russian sympathizers is to claim "this is all Ukraine's fault for not surrendering." Another popular one is to say this is the US' fault for hinting that Ukraine could join NATO and that required Putin to invade. There's a reason why the Baltic nations all joined NATO. They knew this might happen.

What would be in it for China to side with Russia?  Would they get discount oil?  Their military is getting chewed on in Ukraine so they won't be a great ally for a while.  They have their own land disputes with Russia.  They used to be united by ideology, but Russia is a dictatorship and no longer communist.  China is run somewhat like a big business by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party).  Russia is currently a liability.  Supporting them is a risky venture with nebulous returns.

China backing Russia: could turn Russia into a client state depending on how low Russia sinks and how much China is willing to invest. If the sanctions stick around for a while, Russia will require China going around the technology embargoes for Putin to rebuild the military. Every weapon, aircraft, or tank built since the 1990s and destroyed or lost this month is not getting replaced since they depend on imported electronics. China is North Korea's black marketeering big brother. They could serve that purpose for Russia. Or they could use this situation as leverage for gaining more influence over Central Asia.  I'm not an expert in this area, but I don't see China going out of its way to antagonize the West right now unless they have a lot to gain from it. They could help Russia a little bit, but probably not outright ignoring all the sanctions.

[LennStar]

I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.
And trade is far more profitable with the west, especially after the Russian economy has collapsed, which has a high chance now.

[maizefolk]

I think the fellow from Shanghai does a good job of laying out why China valued the existence of Russa as a major military/political force in the world. But my attempt at a TL;DR version:

China sees itself as a target of "the west" and also in a long term contest for regional and global power and influence. As long as Russia exists as a significant political military actor, "the west's" attention has to be split between Europe and the Asia/Pacific region. When and if Russia collapses, there is nothing standing in front of the long term pivot towards focusing our political, military, and economic power on the Pacific (In the USA we've been talking about doing this since at least Obama).

Even shorter version: China sees value in Russia because Russia keeps America and Europe's attention divided.

[pecunia]

I think the fellow from Shanghai does a good job of laying out why China valued the existence of Russa as a major military/political force in the world. But my attempt at a TL;DR version:

China sees itself as a target of "the west" and also in a long term contest for regional and global power and influence. As long as Russia exists as a significant political military actor, "the west's" attention has to be split between Europe and the Asia/Pacific region. When and if Russia collapses, there is nothing standing in front of the long term pivot towards focusing our political, military, and economic power on the Pacific (In the USA we've been talking about doing this since at least Obama).

Even shorter version: China sees value in Russia because Russia keeps America and Europe's attention divided.

There is value to the world not examining China.  If the world examines China they see they have become more dependent on China and their manufacturing than the world is on Russia and the materials it produces. 

I think there are smart people in the world who after Covid realize that all the eggs should not be put in the Chinese basket.  Perhaps the Russian sanctions have had a similar effect.  Sometimes it is worth not going with the lowest cost provider.  There are intangibles that must be considered.  It is the role of government to guide business to the path of greatest security for the consumer.

[Watchmaker]

I think there are smart people in the world who after Covid realize that all the eggs should not be put in the Chinese basket.  Perhaps the Russian sanctions have had a similar effect.  Sometimes it is worth not going with the lowest cost provider.  There are intangibles that must be considered.  It is the role of government to guide business to the path of greatest security for the consumer.

In my part of the manufacturing world, this conversation had already been going on, but covid had a noticeable impact on how interested people were in having multiple suppliers and shorter supply chains.

Even shorter version: China sees value in Russia because Russia keeps America and Europe's attention divided.

This. I think anything that weakens or distracts the west is seen as a good thing by China. I suspect they'll flirt with supporting Russia enough to keep Russia's hopes up, but not enough to draw sanctions from US/Europe.

One of the chief talking points for Russian sympathizers is to claim "this is all Ukraine's fault for not surrendering." Another popular one is to say this is the US' fault for hinting that Ukraine could join NATO and that required Putin to invade. There's a reason why the Baltic nations all joined NATO. They knew this might happen.

I don't buy the "this is Ukraine/NATO's fault" argument, but I could see how someone with a really strong Cold War lens might say that in a "what did NATO think was going to happen?" way.

I do have some doubts about the morality of the west outsourcing a war with Russia to Ukraine. For me, those doubts are small as long as Ukrainians are successfully fighting back and requesting the assistance we are providing (and more that we aren't willing to provide). If the war goes bad for Ukraine, though, what does the west do? If we're going to not intervene and allow a (doomed, IMO) Russian occupation, then I'm less certain that what we are doing now makes us a good ally.

[PDXTabs]

I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.

China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).

[PeteD01]

A better leader would have known how to read the room and realized exactly how little support he would have for this action.

Precisely.
Putin is a mediocre former KGB colonel lieutenant colonel (edit: Mr Putin did not make colonel in the KGB) and these characters are not known for being particularly smart.
Putin lost control of the narrative even before the invasion started and bet everything on immediate collapse of Ukrainian military capabilities, which was very unlikely to happen.
Now there are reports of Ukrainians taking up arms in support of the Ukrainian military in large numbers - particularly in Kyiv.
It is well known that the Russian military does not do well in city combat (I mean who does, but the Russians may be the worst).
As their initial foray into Kyiv was repelled, a destructive attack on the city with artillery etc. becomes a distinct possibility and that could justifiably be called a genocidal attack.
No one who takes part in or supports such an operation can avoid responsibilty and ultimately accountability for crimes committed - and that is true for the Russian foot soldier all the way up the chain to the leadership and its agents in the west.
There are many people involved in the Russian Ukraine operation who might have to make difficult decisions about further participation in the coming hours and days.

The Russian leadership and military have made their decision and are committing war crimes at increasing pace.
Nice to see that the investigations have already begun.

https://www.justsecurity.org/80679/the-intersection-of-accountability-and-diplomacy-in-addressing-russias-war-in-ukraine/

[GuitarStv]

Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people.  That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney.  By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.

[PDXTabs]

Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people.  That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney.  By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.

That's probably true. Except that if you are one of those war criminals you may never again be allowed in the west.

[GuitarStv]

Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people.  That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney.  By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.

That's probably true. Except that if you are one of those war criminals you may never again be allowed in the west.

Bush and Cheney seem to do fine.

[former player]

Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people.  That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney.  By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.

That's probably true. Except that if you are one of those war criminals you may never again be allowed in the west.

International war crimes tribunals are a back-up to national systems, so only come into play when the State responsible doesn't take its own action against the perpetrators.  In the case of Abu Grahib there were prosecutions of the low-level perpetrators under national law.  There were no prosecutions of higher-ups because of the failure of national law and there were no prosecutions of higher-ups under international law because the USA hasn't accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

[Glenstache]

Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people.  That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney.  By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.

That's probably true. Except that if you are one of those war criminals you may never again be allowed in the west.

International war crimes tribunals are a back-up to national systems, so only come into play when the State responsible doesn't take its own action against the perpetrators.  In the case of Abu Grahib there were prosecutions of the low-level perpetrators under national law.  There were no prosecutions of higher-ups because of the failure of national law and there were no prosecutions of higher-ups under international law because the USA hasn't accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and the various black sites are a stain on the United States. I am ashamed that those things were done in my name as a US citizen.

But, there was at least some war crime pushback on Bush, though it seems to have died down with time and separation:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/feb/06/george-bush-trip-to-switzerland

While we are at it, Curtis LeMay would *absolutely* have been prosecuted as a war criminal for his actions in WWII and Vietnam if he wasn't a general in the US army. Macnamara would probably have gone down with him as complicit at a minimum.

[bacchi]

And now it sounds like Tucker Carlson is a Russian propaganda asset.    Tucker "Commie" Carlson, who would have thought?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/14/kremlin-memos-russian-media-tucker-carlson-fox-news-mother-jones

He really does seem like a Russian operative at this point, along with Trump, who was still refusing to condemn Putin's actions as recently as his rally on Saturday.

A Russian oligarch, Andrey Muraviev, did make large and illegal donations to Trump's PAC.

Muraviev “attempted to influence the 2018 elections by conspiring to push a million dollars of his foreign funds to candidates and campaigns. He attempted to corrupt our political system to advance his business interests,” said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams announcing the indictment.

[Sibley]

Dumb question. There was a meeting of various leaders with Zelensky in Kyiv today. What language did they likely use?

[Blender Bender]

Dumb question. There was a meeting of various leaders with Zelensky in Kyiv today. What language did they likely use?

English.

[BNgarden]

There's some videos circulating: Zelensky is being translated into english on this one.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1503845988431237120

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.

China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).

Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.

[PDXTabs]

I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.

China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).

Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.

Not today, but they keep building natural gas pipelines. Maybe I'm just ignorant but if they can build a natural gas pipeline it seems like they can also build an oil pipeline. Russia also has an extensive rail network AFAIK.

[Glenstache]

I listened to a great interview with Timothy Snyder about Ukraine last night. He's written 6 books on Ukraine, though he is most recently well known as the author of On Tyranny. He provided a really insightful context for Putin's motivations in Ukraine and all the truly wacky shit Putin has been saying about Ukraine being part of Russia, etc. He also put the relationship to Europe in a much richer context as well. I can't recommend it enough.

audio and transcript:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-timothy-snyder.html

[Michael in ABQ]

I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.

China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).

Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.

Not today, but they keep building natural gas pipelines. Maybe I'm just ignorant but if they can build a natural gas pipeline it seems like they can also build an oil pipeline. Russia also has an extensive rail network AFAIK.

They can, but this is a multi-year process. And there's a finite amount of oil/gas that can be pumped through a particular pipeline. Russia and Europe have spent decades building out the infrastructure to get oil and gas from east to west - it can't be changed quickly.

[Nate79]

Good thing NATO isn't getting involved to try and stop this huh? It seems indiscriminate shelling/bombing of civilian shelters is getting worse and worse.


https://mobile.twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1504139039116562434

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[LennStar]

Imagine how bad it would be if NATO started doing that too!

bad joke aside:

I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.

China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).

Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.

Not today, but they keep building natural gas pipelines. Maybe I'm just ignorant but if they can build a natural gas pipeline it seems like they can also build an oil pipeline. Russia also has an extensive rail network AFAIK.

While that is true, and trains are good, building a pipeline takes quite some time. As does building hundreds of train wagons. You need a LOT of them to carry the slick, inflammable black liquid over several thousand kilometers in a meaningful amount, and that also is not cheap. That is why pipelines are used after all.
Also for trains I am sure you would need to build a new track. Even the Chinese need a year or two to build 1000km of track - and that is assuming you don't need any planning.

[sailinlight]

Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.

Not today, but they keep building natural gas pipelines. Maybe I'm just ignorant but if they can build a natural gas pipeline it seems like they can also build an oil pipeline. Russia also has an extensive rail network AFAIK.

They can, but this is a multi-year process. And there's a finite amount of oil/gas that can be pumped through a particular pipeline. Russia and Europe have spent decades building out the infrastructure to get oil and gas from east to west - it can't be changed quickly.

China thinks a lot longer term than The West does.

[rocketpj]

I do have some doubts about the morality of the west outsourcing a war with Russia to Ukraine. For me, those doubts are small as long as Ukrainians are successfully fighting back and requesting the assistance we are providing (and more that we aren't willing to provide). If the war goes bad for Ukraine, though, what does the west do? If we're going to not intervene and allow a (doomed, IMO) Russian occupation, then I'm less certain that what we are doing now makes us a good ally.

The west didn't outsource a war with Russia.  Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine is resisting.  The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.

Nuclear missiles mean that a conflict between NATO and Russia would probably escalate, it would be almost impossible to prevent escalation once one side started losing.  Escalation in a nuclear confrontation means the end of the world, full stop. 

I am rooting for Ukraine 100%, I am donating money to the UNHCR and Red Cross, and I think they are going to win.  I do not and will not ever support NATO getting into a shooting war with a nuclear power because then we all die.

Finally, we in NATO are not allies with Ukraine.  That's the whole point - Russia didn't want them to join NATO.  We have no treaty obligations to Ukraine, which is a good thing because if they were in NATO and Russia invaded it would be WWIII and we all die. 

We do have moral obligations because the invasion is a monstrous act, and we need to help where we can without making things worse.  Escalation to a nuclear conflict is unambiguously worse in every way than the current catastrophe.

[PDXTabs]

The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.

That is an untested hypothesis.

[Tyson]

I feel like the best outcome would be for Ukraine to actually hold off Russia without other nations 'stepping in'.  Here's the thing, if some other nation steps in, I think Putin would blame his failure on that other nation.  But if Ukraine beats him straight up, there's no other mitigating factor for him to lay blame on. 

[Travis]

I feel like the best outcome would be for Ukraine to actually hold off Russia without other nations 'stepping in'.  Here's the thing, if some other nation steps in, I think Putin would blame his failure on that other nation.  But if Ukraine beats him straight up, there's no other mitigating factor for him to lay blame on.

Putin gave a speech yesterday saying the war was going fine, but saying the country needs to  "purge society" of "5th column" and "traitors."  He's beating the usual dictator drums of whatever problem they're having being the fault of insider threats. If we drop bombs without a legally concrete reason, he can easily flip this and say it's all NATO's fault with photographic evidence. He could do this anyways even if he starts the fight with us, but why make it easy on him?

Russia hasn't made any significant battlefield gains in several days, and Ukrainian forces are still picking them apart a platoon or company at a time. We just pledged to send them advanced air defense systems and offensive drones while Putin is scraping the barrel for manpower. He's still stripping Far East Command of vehicles and enlisting Syrian and Georgian "volunteers." Ukrainian Ministry of Defense is alleging that Russia is graduating their officer academy class three months early to send them to the front.

[Tyson]

I feel like the best outcome would be for Ukraine to actually hold off Russia without other nations 'stepping in'.  Here's the thing, if some other nation steps in, I think Putin would blame his failure on that other nation.  But if Ukraine beats him straight up, there's no other mitigating factor for him to lay blame on.

Putin gave a speech yesterday saying the war was going fine, but saying the country needs to  "purge society" of "5th column" and "traitors."  He's beating the usual dictator drums of whatever problem they're having being the fault of insider threats. If we drop bombs without a legally concrete reason, he can easily flip this and say it's all NATO's fault with photographic evidence. He could do this anyways even if he starts the fight with us, but why make it easy on him?

Russia hasn't made any significant battlefield gains in several days, and Ukrainian forces are still picking them apart a platoon or company at a time. We just pledged to send them advanced air defense systems and offensive drones while Putin is scraping the barrel for manpower. He's still stripping Far East Command of vehicles and enlisting Syrian and Georgian "volunteers." Ukrainian Ministry of Defense is alleging that Russia is graduating their officer academy class three months early to send them to the front.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.  It seems like the Ukraine military is actually way more capable than was initially estimated by anyone, and the Russian militry is way worse.  Honestly when I first heard that Russia was going to invade Ukraine I figured they'd have captured the capital within 3 days and have a puppet government installed within 2 weeks.  But that's not what's happening at all.  In the beginning would have given Ukraine zero chance to win.  But now I think they are approaching even odds. 

I mean, how much more humiliating would it be if Ukraine simply beat Russia straight up?  Those would be some sweet, sweet Putin tears.

[rocketpj]

The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.

That is an untested hypothesis.

Shouldn't, because global nuclear war is objectively worse than every other option.

[Watchmaker]

Nuclear missiles mean that a conflict between NATO and Russia would probably escalate, it would be almost impossible to prevent escalation once one side started losing.  Escalation in a nuclear confrontation means the end of the world, full stop. 

I do not and will not ever support NATO getting into a shooting war with a nuclear power because then we all die.

I don't quite understand this reasoning. If Putin is crazy/desperate enough to use nuclear weapons if NATO gets involved in Ukraine, it seems to me he would already be crazy/desperate enough to attack a NATO country. And if he wants to blame NATO for his failures and retaliate, he'll do that no matter what we have or haven't done. Anyway, just funneling in tens of thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles is plenty of justification, if he needed it.

I am rooting for Ukraine 100%, I am donating money to the UNHCR and Red Cross, and I think they are going to win.

I also hope Ukraine wins-- and they are doing better than I thought they could. But the best case outcome for them is probably still a country that's been absolutely devastated, and tens of thousands (or more) civilians dead.

Finally, we in NATO are not allies with Ukraine.  That's the whole point - Russia didn't want them to join NATO.  We have no treaty obligations to Ukraine, which is a good thing because if they were in NATO and Russia invaded it would be WWIII and we all die. 

It's not a treaty relationship, but the kind of material support (and training, and almost certainly intelligence) we are providing clearly makes us an ally in this war.

We do have moral obligations because the invasion is a monstrous act, and we need to help where we can without making things worse.  Escalation to a nuclear conflict is unambiguously worse in every way than the current catastrophe.

This is the point I was trying to make before. I worry that, if Ukraine loses and we let them be occupied, the support we provided will have ended up making things worse for them. As I said, as long as it seems clear that Ukraine wants to keep fighting and wants our support, this is a small concern.

[pecunia]

Now here is where you guys shine, the money thing.

How long can old Putin keep throwing resources at this war?  I realize he isn't motivated by the money thing. His money is locked up in western banks and he isn't going to be able to borrow easily.  Will the money thing get him or is it inconsequential? 

I also have an alternate viewpoint.  People say Ukraine is winning.  I look at battle maps and the cities are surrounded.  It just doesn't look like winning.