Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Eastwood

By Eastwood
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    8637

  • MillerEP

    7302

  • Schulz2.0

    3650

  • InkaUtexas

    3018

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

AUS-97HORN
AUS-97HORN

For the love of Christ woman,  stop posting the same fucking thing every 20 mins just to make your neurotic self feel better.     Bring something useful to the thread other than your inane babbli

closetohumping
closetohumping
InkaUtexas
InkaUtexas

I volunteered today. Log/Admin role to replace people for 30-60 days. The operation is in the west, or should the Orcs win will be pulled back behind the NATO wall. Either way the humanitarian effort

Posted Images

Shady Ray

Shady Ray 1633

Posted
Posted

Wow. Deutsche Welle continuing their change of tone in coverage to actually introduce Finlandization by name into the conversation. They also get into the disconnect with the US.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-us-show-disunity-on-russia-policy-says-expert/a-60698151

 

Quote

Germany and US show 'disunity' on Russia policy, says expert
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's meeting with US President Joe Biden made one thing clear — Berlin and Washington are still not on the same page when it comes to Russia, foreign policy expert Gerhard Mangott told DW.

 

In his recent trip to Washington, Chancellor Olaf Scholz sought to emphasize Germany's commitment as an ally in the growing Ukraine-Russia crisis.


Despite presenting a unified front, their statements also revealed divisions in Berlin and Washington's approach to Russia, Austrian foreign policy expert and University of Innsbruck professor Gerhard Mangott told DW on Tuesday.


Germany, US may disagree on response to Russian invasion


Scholz met with US President Joe Biden at the White House on Monday, in what Mangott described as a bid for the chancellor to show that Germany is a "reliable ally" when dealing with Moscow. Scholz said during the meeting that they will "act together" and "far-reaching" measures against Russia had been agreed upon by allies. Yet, the Austrian expert said there is discord between the two sides, particularly in regards to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and potential sanctions towards Russia.

 

"It was really noticeable that after Biden confirmed that Nord Stream 2 would not go ahead after a Russian incursion in Ukraine, Scholz did not want to state that explicitly as well," Mangott said.


The Austrian expert said it's unclear whether Germany will really be willing to shut down the controversial pipeline project. 
 

"On the other side, Biden has made clear even if the Germans don't do it, we have the means available to stop it and we will stop it," Mangott added.

Mangott said it's noteworthy that Germany and the United States have not clearly stated "what kinds of sanctions will be imposed in the case of the Russian incursion." He said there seems to be "disunity" not only between Germany and the US, but also other NATO allies. 


France's Macron suggests 'Finlandization' of Ukraine


Germany's neighbor, France, may also be willing to differ from common NATO and US positions when it comes to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. French President Emmanuel Macron met with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday in Moscow. Ahead of the talks, Macron suggested the "Finlandization" of Ukraine.

 

"'Finlandization' means that Ukraine will be absolutely free in its domestic politics, but would be limited in its foreign policy options," Mangott explained.


"This refers to the status of Finland during the Cold War, which could preserve its independence and democracy only by clearly stating that it will remain neutral and non-aligned in the conflict between the West and the Soviet Union." By floating this idea, Mangott said, it suggested that Macron may not be "on the same page with the US and other NATO allies on this issue."


Macron also recently told French media that it is "legitimate" for Russia to raise concerns about its security, an idea which has been roundly rejected by the US and NATO.


Macron will meet with Polish leader Andrzej Duda and Chancellor Scholz later on Tuesday. Mangott said that Macron agreed to the meeting to "to take into account Eastern European voices and positions in dealing with Russia" and to not appear too biased towards Moscow.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-us-show-disunity-on-russia-policy-says-expert/a-60698151

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34937

Posted
Posted

Macron continues to take it smoothly from behind. After announcing to the world that he had gotten agreement from Putin that there would be no new exercises or escalation, and that some units in Belarus would return after planned maneuvers, here is what the Kremlin SPOX said:

Quote

 “This is wrong in its essence. Moscow and Paris couldn’t do any deals. It’s simply impossible,” Peskov said, insinuating that it would be pointless to make a deal with France.

Peskov added: “France is a leading country in the EU, France is a member of Nato, but Paris is not the leader there. In this bloc, a very different country is in charge. So what deals can we talk about?”

 

Translation: It’s funny you thought you were important enough to negotiate with, but thanks for flying to Moscow and paying fealty. 
 

Macron also had to trot out and completely walk back what he allegedly (likely) told reporters about Finlandization and Ukraine, which is never a good look.  The complete picture emerging is one of French desperation to sit at the cool kids table and a Germany that is deer in the headlights.

I read an interesting commentary in a Czech outlet that summed up the thinking here about Western European leadership which: that the only thing worse than Americans deciding about European security policy is Europeans deciding about European security policy.  
 

The chancellor came in for his dragging as well:
 

Quote

The expression on Chancellor Olaf Scholz's face in the United States showed that he was scared to engage in great power politics while instead he would prefer devote himself to the level of social security contributions in Lower Pomerania-Mecklenburg.

Ouch. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105580

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Macron continues to take it smoothly from behind. After announcing to the world that he had gotten agreement from Putin that there would be no new exercises or escalation, and that some units in Belarus would return after planned maneuvers, here is what the Kremlin SPOX said:

 

Translation: It’s funny you thought you were important enough to negotiate with, but thanks for flying to Moscow and paying fealty. 
 

Macron also had to trot out and completely walk back what he allegedly (likely) told reporters about Finlandization and Ukraine, which is never a good look.  The complete picture emerging is one of French desperation to sit at the cool kids table and a Germany that is deer in the headlights.

I read an interesting commentary in a Czech outlet that summed up the thinking here about Western European leadership which: that the only thing worse than Americans deciding about European security policy is Europeans deciding about European security policy.  
 

The chancellor came in for his dragging as well:
 

Ouch. 

DAMN.  That's gotta leave a mark.

Also, I think the bolded is painfully true.  The Germans are annoyed that we keep telling them how it's gonna be.  It's a real feeling (interestingly, we have a friend at DW, and he conveyed that take in pretty frank terms).  But the problem is.....they are unwilling/unable to exert real leadership in times of crisis.  So, nut up or shut up, Germany.  And I wouldn't place any high-dollar bets on "nut up."

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6320

Posted
Posted

Great thread.  Finally managed to catch up from last week over the last few days.   My question is this.   So if shutting down NS2 is political suicide within Germany for the reasons discussed in this thread, and US sanctions to effectively shut it down is the "nuclear option" with all sorts of indirect negative ramifications as outlined in this thread, then what exactly is Germany's middle ground proposal to deter a Russian invasion?  Do they have a plan B they are trying to sell to the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hefeweizen

Hefeweizen 5357

Posted
Posted

Deez nuts doesn’t seem like a plan.

 

I think Putin has just about accomplished the splintering of the alliance he wanted without invading.  At this point is there anything to gain for him by actually attacking?  
 

It feels like there has been a clear demonstration that besides the US (and UK) there isn’t a stomach for any kind of fight.  I honestly think all the Eastern Europeans have to be rethinking NATO as some kind of real security blanket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34937

Posted
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Great thread.  Finally managed to catch up from last week over the last few days.   My question is this.   So if shutting down NS2 is political suicide within Germany for the reasons discussed in this thread, and US sanctions to effectively shut it down is the "nuclear option" with all sorts of indirect negative ramifications as outlined in this thread, then what exactly is Germany's middle ground proposal to deter a Russian invasion?  Do they have a plan B they are trying to sell to the US?

The Germans are not known for their nimble and creative diplomacy and that’s been part of the U.S. issue with them. Trying to get to an agreement on what would be acceptable isn’t about finding a way to yes or about them asking “what’s it going to take to get you to leave NS2 alone.” It’s just been good German obstinacy. 
 

Whatever plan B on an alternate acceptable path they had vaporized at the PC in Washington. Biden announced to America and every Republican senator that the damn thing will get killed one way or another. Plan B know is to put their faith in Macron and/or Washington and Putin finding accommodations.  Plan C is deciding whether saving face and reluctantly deciding to kill it themselves is more palatable than blowing up the U.S. relationship AND likely losing the pipeline should Putin invade.  Plan D is a Hail Mary of arguing that whatever Putin does, it isn’t REALLY a further invasion. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34937

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Deez nuts doesn’t seem like a plan.

 

I think Putin has just about accomplished the splintering of the alliance he wanted without invading.  At this point is there anything to gain for him by actually attacking?  
 

It feels like there has been a clear demonstration that besides the US (and UK) there isn’t a stomach for any kind of fight.  I honestly think all the Eastern Europeans have to be rethinking NATO as some kind of real security blanket.

To the contrary, Eastern Europeans are viewing NATO and a strong U.S. as the only viable security architecture in Europe. Their takeaway here is that the weak point in NATO is Germany and France and so they can’t be left in a position to rely on them. Likewise, Sweden and Finland have seen a dramatic spike in support for NATO membership. 
 

Aside from a few odd cases (looking at you Bulgaria and Slovakia), east Europeans don’t buy that NATO is responsible for the crisis and they don’t believe Europe can respond effectively.  The polling data is pretty clear on this. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parliament

Parliament 14375

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

Writing to you bunch of degenerates is a welcome coping mechanism used to distract myself from pointless meetings and those certain teleconferences about mundane shit I don't really care about. So, in fact, it is you who should be thanked...or blamed if I die in an industrial accident because I didn't pay attention to some corporate BS about emergency safety management this morning.

 

Well thank you for using small words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 19249

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

To the contrary, Eastern Europeans are viewing NATO and a strong U.S. as the only viable security architecture in Europe. Their takeaway here is that the weak point in NATO is Germany and France and so they can’t be left in a position to rely on them. Likewise, Sweden and Finland have seen a dramatic spike in support for NATO membership. 
 

Aside from a few odd cases (looking at you Bulgaria and Slovakia), east Europeans don’t buy that NATO is responsible for the crisis and they don’t believe Europe can respond effectively.  The polling data is pretty clear on this. 

This seems likely to be true to me. 
the US, while appearing feckless in this endeavor, in Afghanistan, and possibly toward Taiwan, towers over the rest of Europe. We are the tallest midget, without a doubt imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bevo

Bevo 13637

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Aside from a few odd cases (looking at you Bulgaria and Slovakia), east Europeans don’t buy that NATO is responsible for the crisis and they don’t believe Europe can respond effectively.  The polling data is pretty clear on this. 

This seems likely to be true to me. 
the US, while appearing feckless in this endeavor, in Afghanistan, and possibly toward Taiwan, towers over the rest of Europe. We are the tallest midget, without a doubt imo. 

Brings back some good memories. I was working in Czechoslovakia the year before the breakup and I was told that it would never happen and that it was just a bunch of politicians looking for power. On the way back from eastern Czechoslovakia (Ostrava), I partied with a midget at some bar in Prague. I've never laughed so much in my life as he was trying to get trim. It wouldn't surprise me if he was a celebrity. He would have been great at stand-up.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90056

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

I think Putin has just about accomplished the splintering of the alliance he wanted without invading.  At this point is there anything to gain for him by actually attacking?  

It feels like there has been a clear demonstration that besides the US (and UK) there isn’t a stomach for any kind of fight.  I honestly think all the Eastern Europeans have to be rethinking NATO as some kind of real security blanket.

Eastern Europeans know Putin still wouldn't attack a NATO member.  Germany and France would not tolerate that as well.  The Baltic states would be shitting themselves right now if they weren't NATO members.

Putin has in fact managed to justify the existence of NATO, and from some reports coming out, more than a few in Sweden and Finland are wanting closer ties to NATO.  Finland has had plenty of border issues with Russia over the years as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 26360

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Important to note what those ships were.  They are six landing vessels, along with another attack submarine.  This is the type of asset mix you would expect if the aim is either to launch an amphibious assault or make it look like you are planning to.  Even if not used, they are sort of an amphibious fleet in being that means Ukraine will constantly have to worry about their deployment against Mariupol, elsewhere along the Sea of Azov, or even Odessa. 

Yep. I posted this earlier and they allow for a flexible hit on the coastal areas, or to just support logistics movement of ground forces. They alone (top 1500 troops) are not that much of a threat unloosed they are used as platforms to block any overland routes heading west. The Kilo class sub could fuck up the pitiful Ukrainian navy. It could also be used to track any US/NATO maritime groups in the Med and pose a potential threat. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6320

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The Germans are not known for their nimble and creative diplomacy and that’s been part of the U.S. issue with them. Trying to get to an agreement on what would be acceptable isn’t about finding a way to yes or about them asking “what’s it going to take to get you to leave NS2 alone.” It’s just been good German obstinacy. 
 

Whatever plan B on an alternate acceptable path they had vaporized at the PC in Washington. Biden announced to America and every Republican senator that the damn thing will get killed one way or another. Plan B know is to put their faith in Macron and/or Washington and Putin finding accommodations.  Plan C is deciding whether saving face and reluctantly deciding to kill it themselves is more palatable than blowing up the U.S. relationship AND likely losing the pipeline should Putin invade.  Plan D is a Hail Mary of arguing that whatever Putin does, it isn’t REALLY a further invasion. 

So I'm not going to even pretend I'm in the weeds enough to know the direct strategic cost/benefit analysis Russia is weighing (i.e., if hypothetically US and Europe were publicly neutral, what Putin would gain from a long term war/occupation weighed against the material losses they would suffer).   But the clear indirect benefits are intriguing based on this thread.

First, I think it's safe to say that if Putin attacks, strictly as it relates to the U.S., he further divides this country.  Because no matter what action or inaction the Biden administration takes, the talking heads on the right (and all political opponents) will criticize him incessantly and use it as further proof he's a terrible President.  I mean that's just what our shitty country does (both sides) absent a direct attack like 9/11.

If Putin attacks it bogs Macron's agenda down as referenced on prior page while also putting a L in his column with respect to his attempted diplomacy efforts.  So takes France down a peg.

But most of all it puts the US and Germany in a precarious position as you outlined above.  If Germany kills NS2 (particularly if combined with rolling blackouts) it fuels anti-American sentiment within Germany to new levels and further divides the US and Western Europe.  If the US indirectly kills NS2 via sanctions, it's the same result but worse (from a US perspective) as we've now arguably encroached on Germany's sovereignty with respect to its own domestic issues (as Shady outlined) and have the potential downstream fallout of a larger decoupling from the U.S.-centered financial/ business system throughout Europe.

So given the above (if I have it right) the indirect chaos is a massive W for Putin/Russia.   Sure, it may further isolate Russia from the West but that is probably somewhat baked in no matter how this plays out.  It seems like Russia could instigate a conflict (justifying with whatever they think their best play is from an available propaganda standpoint), let it play out long enough to cause all of the indirect chaos outlined above, and then negotiate peace terms that effectively unwound any impact on NS2.  (As discussed on this thread Germany has consistently been a willing business partner)

I fully appreciate that is all elementary level analysis, and unwinding any impact on NS2 might be more easier said than done, but curious what the experts on this board think.  I'm just trying to get inside Putin's head from a game theory perspective and what he has to gain and lose by an actual invasion.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Deej

Deej 77180

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 2/8/2022 at 11:04 AM, MissingInAction said:

I've got a short friend. I like to put things in his own kitchen out of his reach.

Fuck short people. They always want you to reach something for them, but not once does a tall person ask them to pick something off the floor since they're down there. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29822

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Skipper said:

So I'm not going to even pretend I'm in the weeds enough to know the direct strategic cost/benefit analysis Russia is weighing (i.e., if hypothetically US and Europe were publicly neutral, what Putin would gain from a long term war/occupation weighed against the material losses they would suffer).   But the clear indirect benefits are intriguing based on this thread.

First, I think it's safe to say that if Putin attacks, strictly as it relates to the U.S., he further divides this country.  Because no matter what action or inaction the Biden administration takes, the talking heads on the right (and all political opponents) will criticize him incessantly and use it as further proof he's a terrible President.  I mean that's just what our shitty country does (both sides) absent a direct attack like 9/11.

If Putin attacks it bogs Macron's agenda down as referenced on prior page while also putting a L in his column with respect to his attempted diplomacy efforts.  So takes France down a peg.

But most of all it puts the US and Germany in a precarious position as you outlined above.  If Germany kills NS2 (particularly if combined with rolling blackouts) it fuels anti-American sentiment within Germany to new levels and further divides the US and Western Europe.  If the US indirectly kills NS2 via sanctions, it's the same result but worse (from a US perspective) as we've now arguably encroached on Germany's sovereignty with respect to its own domestic issues (as Shady outlined) and have the potential downstream fallout of a larger decoupling from the U.S.-centered financial/ business system throughout Europe.

So given the above (if I have it right) the indirect chaos is a massive W for Putin/Russia.   Sure, it may further isolate Russia from the West but that is probably somewhat baked in no matter how this plays out.  It seems like Russia could instigate a conflict (justifying with whatever they think their best play is from an available propaganda standpoint), let it play out long enough to cause all of the indirect chaos outlined above, and then negotiate peace terms that effectively unwound any impact on NS2.  (As discussed on this thread Germany has consistently been a willing business partner)

I fully appreciate that is all elementary level analysis, and unwinding any impact on NS2 might be more easier said than done, but curious what the experts on this board think.  I'm just trying to get inside Putin's head from a game theory perspective and what he has to gain and lose by an actual invasion.

 

I think you're on the right track and generally agree with what you've put together so far in terms of playing this out. But we need to give more consideration to the risk side of the equation for Putin, and I believe them to be substantial. Without having the numbers in front of me, I think that O&G exports make up about a third of the Russian economy. Shit, that's probably on par with Houston or Midland/Odessa levels. If Russia gets cut off from the West from that income, the Russian economy goes because they're an absolute one-trick industrial pony. Right now, they're in a codependent relationship with Europe with Russia needing the cash as much as Europe needs the gas. In the recent past, when Russia's economy goes south, so do Putin's public approval levels with subsequent protests in the streets.

I don't think there's anyway that China could fill the demand in the short-term.

When he invaded the Crimea it worked to bring his approval back up due to a rally-around-the-flag effect, because most Russians (I think) really thought that the region was rightfully Russian. I kind of want to say something like 80-90 percent approved. No matter how hard Putin spins it, I'm not so sure the Russian population believes the same as I believe approval for a Ukrainian invasion is below 20 percent. (DISCLAIMER: All of these figures are going off memory from shit I've read online the past month or so). I honestly don't believe the Russian people would get behind this.

So, given the possibility of an unpopular war (and a potentially bloody insurgency) that would absolutely devastate their economy, I think we'd see the likelihood of mass protests back in the streets. And, I think, Putin's current favorable ratings are already pretty down due to their pandemic response.

Yes, I recognize that Russia is not a free country and also that there would be a big crackdown on protestors, but I think that Putin understands the risk that his government could be toppled given his previous reactions to protests in Belarus and more recently Kazakhstan (along with Ukraine back a few years ago). It is absolutely his worst fear, and I think he recognizes that it could spiral. As a KGB agent, he witnessed first-hand how protests can be contagious and how they spread across the Warsaw Pact, causing the dominoes to fall across the eastern part of the continent until it finally reached the Motherland. During those same days, the Chinese government got away with the Tiananmen massacre. 

While Russia isn't quite "Western," they still have their roots in Western Civilization, and I think that Putin recognizes there remains a strong cultural (and growing) streak of independence and self-determination in his country. China's totalitarian regime, on the other hand, can still get away with the kind of murder Putin wouldn't dare to attempt.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...