Anthony Faiola writes in the Washington Post that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would cause global disruption of food and fuel supplies.
More than 100,000 Russian troops are massed near Ukraine amid a flurry of diplomatic efforts to defuse the prospect of conflict. Should peace not prevail, western-gazing Ukrainians would pay the highest price. But in a worst-case scenario, the cost of a major Russian invasion of Ukraine — one of the world’s largest grain exporters — could ripple across the globe, driving up already surging food prices and increasing the risk of social unrest well beyond Eastern Europe.
As tensions mount, one focus of economic concern is the global impact of extreme Western sanctions on Russia — a major exporter of agricultural goods, metals and fuel, particularly to Western Europe and China. Should the crisis escalate to the point of triggering staggering sanctions, the blow could spike prices and worsen global supply chain woes by tightening markets for commodities including natural gas and metals such as nickel, copper and platinum used in the manufacturing of everything from cars to spacecrafts.
Yet perhaps just as crucially, a major Russian incursion would also affect the flow of goods from Ukraine, the world’s fourth-largest supplier of wheat and corn. A major disruption of Ukrainian exports — especially in conjunction with any interruption in even larger Russian grain exports — could pile onto a global inflationary cycle that in many countries is already the worst in decades.
Concern is especially focused on fuel and food. Last year, global food prices surged 28.1 percent to their highest level in a decade, according to the United Nation’s food agency. Worries of war have already driven U.S. corn futures to their highest levels since June and sent wheat futures to two-month highs before a recent easing.
Over the past 20 years, bountiful Ukrainian harvests boosted the country’s role as a global breadbasket. Some of its biggest clients are economically battered, war-torn or otherwise fragile states in the Middle East and Africa, including Yemen, Lebanon and Libya, where grain shortages or cost surges could not only deepen misery but churn up unpredictable social consequences.
The world waits to see what Putin wants and commands.
STOP!!! provoking Russia. Stop it. Since the end of WW 2 it has been the US that has caused all kinds of troubles, wars around the globe…NOT RUSSIA!
Thanks, Vlad. Will you be poisoning more of your political rivals?
Also, look up definition of “provoke” in English-Russian dictionaries for more believable trolling. Your propaganda can be much stronger if you invoke your love of peace and concern for the innocent people who would be hurt, rather than posting your fealty to Putin.
Carry on!
^^Also, peskyvera, you sound like an abusive husband saying “I wouldn’t beat you to a pulp if you would stop provoking me”. Not a good look for your propaganda.
Peskyvera,
The US doesn’t have 100,000 troops and tanks on Ukraine’s borders. Putin does.
Those 100,000 troops are in Russia. As in their own country. What about the NATO troops lined up in Ukraine on Russia’s border?
NATO troops have no intention of invading Ukraine. Russian troops are there to capture Ukraine and destroy its sovereignty. Why shouldn’t Ukrainians be governed by those they elected? They didn’t elect Putin.
dienne77,
Are you worried that the NATO troops are going to invade Russia?
I feel quite sure that won’t happen, but if NATO does invade Russia, you can say “I told you so”.
If Putin starts incursions in Ukraine, then we will say to you “I told you so”. Is Putin still in Crimea, do you know?
Thank you for daring to be a sane voice on this blog.
Remind me again, who are the aggressors here? Must be Ukraine for causing all kinds of troubles and wars around the world. Makes sense.
Duane,
I think everyone agrees with you that Putin’s military incursions (“use of ammunition” so to speak) is a nightmare. That’s why there is a lot of effort being made to deal with this diplomatically.
But what do you propose to do about Putin’s military incursions? I assume you agree that anyone saying “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition” to Putin needs to be criticized.
Has Russia invaded the Ukraine?
I think that America’s military incursions have been and continue to be a nightmare. Do you condemn those incursions also?
And no I don’t assume that.
Why are Americans such war-mongers?
I hope you don’t consider the US fighting in WW II to be an “incursion”.
“Why are Americans such war-mongers?” Maybe because too many voters have empowered the right wing Republican party to make this country a place where owning weapons of war is something that is “normal” and even something for the kids to enjoy. Maybe it is because we don’t condemn the voters dedicated to protecting their right to own assault weapons designed to kill huge numbers of people within a few seconds. Maybe it is because those who try to change the narrative embraced by “war-mongers” about the need for mass killing weapons in the name of “defense” are criticized for not being more understanding of those who feel it is their right to be able to
“defend” themselves with assault weapons.
The withdrawal in Afghanistan tells you how much hypocrisy there is in the anti-war movement and why it has been so politically ineffective lately. Where is their political courage? Biden was brave enough to take a huge political hit by going through with a withdrawal that supposedly they wanted until the consequences that always happen and that everyone knew would happen actually happened. I knew that war-mongers would demonize Biden, but I expected the anti-war folks to have his back. Instead there was silence or even worse, some anti-war folks reinforcing the pro-war narrative that there was some ‘better way’ to withdraw that would bring peace and happiness to all. Why do that? We all know there isn’t. It just makes politicians more unwilling to support the anti-war position.
If you have an anti-war position, then be honest about it. Prepare Americans for the fact that sometimes sitting back and letting immoral and powerful leaders wage war against their own people or make incursions and harm other people is a very immoral thing.
Not everyone who uses American military force is a “war-monger”. When it comes to foreign policy, it is often a bad choice versus a worse choice, not a bad choice versus a good choice. I see how you write about education so I have to believe that you understand that about intervention, too. Charles Lindbergh had a simplistic anti-war even in the fall of 1941 when Hitler had already done so much harm. As long as you are up front about what not intervening means, then I respect that.
But I don’t respect hypocrisy. Anti-intervention but also anti-sanctions “that would hurt too many civilians” when you turn a blind eye to them being massacred because you oppose intervention.
I thought Bill Clinton’s White House did a fairly good job when dealing with the mess that happened when the former Yugoslavia split up and the horrors happening in Bosnia and Herzegovinia. It’s always possible to criticize ANY foreign policy move for what it didn’t do, but when that criticism is offered by those who wanted to do nothing, then those people are no more moral than the interventionists.
It is not more moral to sit back and let genocide happen just because when two ethnic groups are fighting, having one ethnic group almost totally annihilated will bring about peace. After all, we all live on ethnically cleaned land. So maybe that makes some anti-war Americans feel that they don’t care if other countries ethnically cleanse their own land, or politically cleanse their land. But it doesn’t make that person any more moral than an interventionist.
I willing to state loud and clear that I would absolutely oppose the US invading Russia. Do you oppose Russia invading Ukraine? If Russia does invade, then what?
If the right wing Republican pro-Nazi party starts acting the way the authoritarian regimes they seem to be modeling themselves after act, and my family gets rounded up for extermination, I sure hope another country is willing to use military might to restore our democracy. Anyone who believes that the Jews should have figured out how to fight their own battles in Germany and other European countries has a POV that, in my opinion isn’t “anti-war” but is just simply “Might Makes Right”.
I am quite anti-war, but willing to acknowledge lots of shades of grey in that position. Because every incursion and intervention and standing back and doing nothing choice has unique costs that need to be considered.
The problem with this and similar arguments is that the US often decides alone where to intervent and how. Hence US interventions are often viewed as “The US considers itself the savior and police of the World; think they know best.” The US considers itself as the modern day crusaders—and they often end up doing as much good as the crusaders did.
Mate,
The US is not planning to invade Ukraine. Nor is NATO. They are trying to persuade Putin not to invade Ukraine.
Diane, I was not replying to the main post but to the post by NYCPSP.
Nevertheless, I think it’s difficult to claim that Putin has more readiness to invade other countries than the US.
Also, people in Europe seem to be less worried about Putin really invading Ukraine than here.
I’m worried about Putin invading Ukraine. I’m not worried about the US invading Ukraine. The Ukrainian people suffered a terrible famine under Soviet control. Millions died. See the movie “Mr. Jones,” about a Welshman who reported about the famine. No one believed him because The NY Times reporter in Moscow, Walter Duranty, had a good relationship with Stalin and wrote only positive stories. Read Robert Conquest’s “Harvest of Shame.”
My understanding is that 7 million Ukrainian starved to death during Stalin. I saw a documentary about this about 10 years ago, so I don’t know the details.
Mate, the details are awful. Stalin ordered troops to seize the grain from Ukrainian farmers, which was sent to Russia. Consequently, Ukrainians experienced a devastating famine in a country that was previously known as the breadbasket of Europe.
Duane,
Why is Putin such a war-monger?
(I wrote a longer reply that didn’t post, but perhaps it will eventually)
Well, actually yes, Duane, Russia has invaded Ukraine, made sections the eastern part of the country a no man’s land and it has actually annexed land. I think they have a word in the show me state for questions like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
This could be an opportunity for the peoples of the world to come together in a new commitment to de-escalation, demilitarization, and internationally verifiable arms control.
I know that I will be laughed at for saying this, but I suspect that Putin views this as a matter of honor. The West promised that it would not expand NATO on Russian borders, and it failed to keep that promise. I say this only because it is important to try to see through the other’s eyes.
That said, another Russian invasion of Ukraine or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be a horror, a bloodbath, and a major crime under international law. And in each case, a single person can stop this from happening. Furthermore, respect for territorial integrity of other states is one of the most fundamental principles in international law. (Yes, I know, the U.S. has violated this principle a number of times, but whataboutism isn’t an argument.) This principle of nonviolation of the territorial integrity of other states can be legally ignored only to stop major crimes, such as genocide, and then only as a limited measure taken upon notification of the UN of the reason, or as an action of the UN to prevent such major crimes. And, invading Ukraine would be terrible for Russia. It would mean further NATO installations and troops in former Eastern bloc countries that are now NATO members and would send a clear message to Europe that it must undo dependence on Russian oil and natural gas. This would be a severe and lasting blow to the Russian economy.
This is good information.
I was reading up on this and it sounds that the people of Ukraine were not interested in being part of NATO until Putin annexed Crimea and made the people of Ukraine concerned about their own sovereignty.
If Putin keeps his troops in Russia – as he is likely to do with NATO troops ready to oppose him – then I guess that’s one form of keeping the peace.
But if NATO were to simply withdraw all its military, why wouldn’t Putin cross the border, and take over, as he did in Crimea?
And then there is the issue of Ukrainian attitudes toward an installed Russian government. There could be sustained asymmetrical warfare there, another disaster for the Ukrainians and for the Russians.
“The West promised that it would not expand NATO on Russian borders, and it failed to keep that promise. I say this only because it is important to try to see through the other’s eyes.”
I agree, Bob. The close proximity of NATO and US weapons and troops are threatening to the Russians. They don’t trust the West, and we cannot blame them for it.
While I lived under Soviet occupied Hungary, all I heard was that the US is a great threat to world peace, and, though we were obviously not fond of the Soviets, we were absolutely sure that the Soviets would never initiate an attack. Now I hear “The Russians are the aggressors and the NATO or the US don’t pose a threat and will never attack”.
The fact is that we cannot be sure one way or another. I don’t trust Putin and I don’t trust the other side’s military and political leaders either. For all these leaders, power and politics are more important than anything else, including human life. As soon as they see fit, they are willing to sacrifice peace and our lives claiming “it’s in our country’s interest”.
Mate, I started college in 1956, soon after the Soviets invaded Hungary. Some Hungarian refugees came to my college. Did you forget about 1956?
Well, Hungary was occupied by the Soviets after WWII. We had Soviet troops present between 1945-1991; it was justified by saying, Hungary fought on the German side during the war. In 1956, Hungary tried to break out, wanted to send the occupying Soviet troops home, but Soviet sympathizers “invited” in the Soviets tanks. Hungary of course begged for help from the West, but didn’t get more than verbal encouragement and lots of prayers.
The Soviets learned the lesson of bad publicity, and to save face, in 1968 they sent Hungarian troops into Czechoslovakia to defeat the revolution there.
What is now called the House of Terror, is just a few blocks from where I used lived in Budapest, and that’s where first the Hungarian Nazis had tortured and executed political prisoners, and, after WWII, the Communist government used it for the same purpose—mostly employing the same guards and other personnel.
So no, I didn’t have illusions about the Soviets. But the present Ukrainian situation is different in my opinion. The Ukraine is a sovereign country now and for the Russians to try to take over the whole country would be a much more foolish act than the stifling of the revolution in Hungary was in 1956. It seems that in Eastern Europe people are not as worried about the Russian troops on the Ukrainian border as here. They say, there are continuous negotiations going on, and people really don’t see the possibility of a military conflict.
But of course, one never knows for sure. As I said, I trust neither side since politicians’ idea of what’s important is very different from mine.
Well said, Mate. Every time the Soviets sent in troops, they claimed they were “invited” in. I hope and pray that diplomacy can end the current situation. I am anti-war.
Máté,
Didn’t the Soviets invade Czechoslovakia in 1968 with 200,000 troops and 5,000 tanks to crush the “Prague Spring”?
True, though it wasn’t just (or perhaps even mostly) Soviet troops, and the Hungarian-Czechoslovakian relations were strained for many years due to the role of the Hungarian troops during the Prague Spring.
I do not think Ukraine is in the same position as Czechoslovakia was at the time and Putin is not Brezhnev.
Mate, you are right Ukraine is in a different position from Czechoslovakia in 1968. Czechoslovakia then was a Soviet satellite, and no western country came to its aid. Today, Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and Russia recognized its sovereignty.
Yale historian Timothy Snyder wrote an essay that appears today in the Washington Post explaining the background:
“On May 27, 1997, Russia signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act. It was acknowledged by all parties at the time that NATO would expand and was open to “all emerging European democracies.” Just four days later, Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine, recognizing its borders. Moscow may disapprove when former Warsaw Pact members or former Soviet republics apply to join NATO, but such desires are not a result of Western iniquity or broken promises. They are a result of Soviet and then Russian behavior. NATO membership was not popular in Ukraine until Russia invaded the country in 2014.”
The UN charter specifically denounces the invasion of sovereign nations.
You do understand that the only ones telling us that Russia is going to invade Ukraine is the U.S. government, right? Russia says its not invading. Ukraine says Russia is not invading. But for some reason we’re supposed to take the word of some anonymous sources quoted by U.S. media that are owned by CIA assets like Jeff Bezos?
Aaron Mate is always your best go to for the truth about foreign policy matters: https://mate.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-crisis-sponsored-by-us?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
If you actually believed that Aaron Mate is a source for truth, then you wouldn’t have posted below that the US policy was about supporting the Nazis in Ukraine.
Do you even believe your own truths? Or is it okay to invoke Ukraine Nazis when Putin wants wreak military force on innocent Ukraine children and their families to prop up a Russian government that is not a democracy and jails people who try to fight for the progressive ideals you profess to support?
Our resident commentator is practically hyperventilating, just itching to find a warped justification to proclaim, “I told you so!” Someone get her a paper bag so she can calm down. Lord knows how aroused she will get when Vlad starts flexing those missiles.
Actually, dienne77 is right.
It is US government and mainstream media disseminating alarmism to extreme just like they did not so long time ago. What does Ukrainian president say about US and European leaders over the threat of war?
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/28/europe/ukraine-russia-zelensky-biden-intl/index.html
Do Ukrainians want the US and NATO to intervene in their own affair that has no connection to ongoing life crisis of Americans? Why should this be the matter of concern to all Americans?
This is not dime-a-dozen partisan talking point from the Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson. It’s really an important question. Mainstream media are ignoring–some of those made a deliberate insinuation.
Instead, they are pushing the government narrative on anti-NATO state(Russia, Syria, etc) as an enemy of democracy. It’s just so mind-boggling to see media pundits and elites calling anyone critical of US support on Ukraine as fascist/pro-Russia propagandist–while they remain silent on war corporations like Lockheed Martin are raking in $$$ capitalizing on war–just like Afghanistan and Iraq War. It only makes a bigoted Tucker Carlson a heroic figure.
Ken,
What is your position? You seem confused about Ukraine — do you know that Ukraine wants the freedom to join NATO and Putin is demanding that Biden tell Ukraine that they don’t have the freedom to decide that for themselves?
Ken says “Instead, they are pushing the government narrative on anti-NATO state(Russia, Syria, etc) as an enemy of democracy.”
Wait, are you really saying that Russia and Syria are “friends” of democracy? Please say you are joking about that.
What IS your position on Ukraine? It is mind-boggling to see self-proclaimed anti-war (except for Putin who is allowed to kill with impunity) posters calling anyone critical of Putin’s anti-democratic incursions into other countries “pro-war/pro-corporate fascists”.
What IS your position on Ukraine? Let Putin treat then like the Taliban treats women because it’s none of our business if people are suffering?
If Biden actually did what the anti-war folks say he should do and stands down while Russia’s military overruns the country and the media shows pictures of the harm that the anti-war folks’ policy desires caused, will you take responsibility?
I don’t see the US trying to invade Russia. We already had Putin invading Crimea and now he has amassed troops on the border of Ukraine.
Again Ken, what should the US do? Nothing?
NYC PSP
Notice we are not talking about public education. This is about US foreign policy. What are you expecting other readers in this conversation? Seeking unspoken, manufactured consent from some or most people around here, and challenging anyone who dissents for mental gymnastic combat? Good luck with that.
To answer your question, I don’t have a specific position on Ukraine. But, I do have a question on the way US government is working on foreign affairs–including Iran, Cuba, Syria, Central/South America, Africa, Middle East and Pacific Ocean.
What Ukrainian President and local citizens are saying about their situation? Why do you think Biden, UK, and other EU leaders voices are more important than theirs?
Feel free to love NATO as long as they continue to make themselves look like a bastion of democracy in an effort to mask their combative attitude to sanction and intimidate any country they don’t like. It is their agonistic approach that created their enemies and escalated hostile tension — not just in Ukraine but elsewhere they seek their interest.
I am getting increasingly disturbed with the admiral role the US is taking now amidst the reality in which their military bases are becoming hotspots of omicron spike outside their mainland— i.e, Japan— and the reality in which a former Chicago crook (Rahm Emmanuel) mayor just set his foot to become a new ‘wajin’ handler to rehab his career. It really makes me sick.
Ken says:
“What Ukrainian President and local citizens are saying about their situation?”
I am happy to stipulate that their desires are important. Are you?
Putin is demanding that Biden tell Ukraine they are forbidden from ever joining NATO. If the Ukraine president and citizens don’t want to be forbidden from entering NATO, then what?
If Ukraine president and citizens are demanding military hardware to fight off an incursion from Putin, what would you like Biden to do?
Ken you say “To answer your question, I don’t have a specific position on Ukraine. But, I do have a question on the way US government is working on foreign affairs.”
This makes no sense. You don’t have a specific position except whatever Biden does will be wrong because it is him and his way of working on foreign affairs is wrong.
I think we can both agree that in the unlikely (for me) scenario that Ukraine wants NATO and Biden to let them deal with Putin themselves and to stay out of it, he should.
But do we both agree that if Ukraine wants help because Putin is still threatening to invade, that Biden has a moral obligation to give it?
Do you think people who are claiming that Putin is doing a good thing invading Ukraine to help save the country from the Nazis in the Ukraine army are right?
There are white supremacists in the US army and I haven’t heard any progressives believing that would justify a mass military campaign targeted against the American people.
The Ukrainian president clearly made his statement about this only in response to the effects of the panic on Ukraine’s economy.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-threatened-invasion-is-already-hitting-the-ukrainian-economy-hard/
No one except, perhaps, you is under any illusions that Russia is doing anything other than staging an imminent invasion.
An invasion that would be a monstrous crime and a profound miscalculation by Putin.
Black Agenda Report is also worth reading: https://mate.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-crisis-sponsored-by-us?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Like!
And here’s who we are supporting in Ukraine: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/german-tv-shows-nazi-symbols-helmets-ukraine-soldiers-n198961
Please come to your senses and stop this insanity.
Have you seen the white supremacist paraphernalia in the REPUBLICAN PARTY?
By your own standards, you need to come to your senses and stop pretending that it’s okay for Putin to kill massive numbers of innocent people in Ukraine because some soldiers with Nazi paraphernalia may also die. It’s abhorrent that you would condone Putin killing babies by pretending that those innocent babies and their families are a small price to pay in the name of fighting Nazis.
Talk about hypocrisy. How about you start caring about the white supremacists in this country because I don’t understand why you focus all of your hate on those who oppose them in this country.
The U.S. is currently attempting to supplant Russia as Europe’s key supplier of natural gas. There’s big money involved in that. As a nuclear superpower, the usual way to suppress war is to walk softly but carry a big stick, to warn our enemies that any attacks will be met with equal or greater force. Invade, you die. Don’t, you prosper. That’s the purpose of having nuclear weapons, I alway thought. The middling, Kissinger-like “solutions”
of verbal warnings and instability-creating economic sanctions only dump fuel on the fire. WWIII looks to loom, and in my opinion, the only way to avert disaster is to stop robbing Russia of resources, sit tight unless an invasion occurs, and use our military big stick if it does.
I don’t know squat about energy production and distribution, but how could the U.S. become the main natural gas supplier to Europe when it has no pipeline to Europe? We have to liquify it and store it and ship it across the Atlantic. That can’t remotely be cost-competitive with direct pipeline sourcing, can it?
Sounds like you support exactly what the US is doing. “sit tight unless an invasion occurs, and use our military big stick if it does.” Although it seems clear that Biden doesn’t want to use US military to defend Ukraine. Biden is calling for much harsher economic sanctions if Putin does invade Ukraine. And Biden has signalled that he might use US military to defend other nearby countries that are already in NATO if Putin starts to act like Hitler and continue his takeover of other countries.
Do you think the US was wrong not to use the military big stick you mentioned when Putin invaded Crimea? Zelenskiy criticized Biden because Biden characterized Putin’s invasion of Crimea as “a minor incursion” and Zelenskiy said “We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations.”
Would you have agreed with Biden that it wasn’t necessary to use a military big stick against Russia when they invaded Crimea? Or do you think the US should have already had military engagement with Russia?
The people of Ukraine were NOT interested in joining NATO until after Putin invaded Crimea. The more Putin threatens Ukraine’s sovereignty, the more the people of Ukraine want to be part of NATO.
But Putin says that the US should use its power and tell Ukraine that they can’t join NATO.
Ironically, this is when the supposed anti-war folks demand that Biden give in to Putin and use their power to forbid the people of Ukraine from deciding their own fate. Here is where the anti-war folks seem to be pro-intervention as long as that intervention serves what Putin is demanding.
England and the United States are not sitting tight. They are coaxing Germany to rearm against Russia and Japan to rearm against China. They are supplying fuel and weapons to countries that surround both countries. They are squeezing the Russian economy. They are gently coaxing their people into believing war is necessary. I do not mean to criticize the president for doing so. I don’t know everything Biden knows. England and the United States were right to go to war with Hitler, but not with Saddam Hussein. Is Putin on the level of Hitler or Hussein? I don’t know. He’s former KGB, and clearly not without psychological affliction. But I fear the hawks of war and the military-industrial complex, honestly I do.
I am unaware of Biden urging the US to go to war. What I have heard is that he has urged Putin not to invade Ukraine and warned of economic sanctions. He does not want to go to war.
Regarding Crimea, I just have to say that the U.S. doesn’t just pop into a war. It takes careful planning by a president over a long course of time. Calling it a minor incursion was red meat for the hawks.
Diane, I see your point, but part of me disagrees. FDR did not urge the U.S. to go to war. He led the U.S. into it, carefully, little by little. I don’t mean to criticize Biden. Good presidents don’t react to events like the rest of us. They orchestrate. I think Ukraine, like nearly every government would, is reacting by telling its people to be calm. Biden is not telling us to be calm. He seems to me to be stoking us. I could be wrong, but that’s how I feel when I hear about recent events. Not calmed.
LCT, I have not heard Bidenstoking war. I have seen intense diplomatic efforts to persuade Putin not to start a war. I have heard Biden warning Putin of severe economic sanctions to dissuade him from starting a war. Biden’s abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan showed he has no appetite for armed combat. It is a mistake to confuse Biden’s efforts to prevent a Russian invasion of Ukraine with an aggressive stance. Biden is doing his best to defuse the crisis, not to enflame it.
No matter what Biden says, it’s the wrong thing. Calling Crimea a “minor incursion” was wrong. Being too bellicose about Putin amassing troops on the Ukraine is wrong. Simply stating the unvarnished truth – that the Russian military force on the Ukraine border is large and strong enough to invade Ukraine is wrong. Not warning the Ukraine people about how strong Russia’s force is would be wrong. It doesn’t matter action Biden takes, it is wrong, and he will be held solely responsible for all bad outcomes in Ukraine and no credit for good outcomes.
It’s just a repeat of Afghanistan. Biden did the right thing and ended that war — safely evacuating more than 120,000 Afghans — and everything Biden did or said was evidence of his failure – evidence of how “weak and ineffectual” he is.
The one thing I know is that the point of this is to weaken Biden and thus sabotage every good thing he wants to do.
Biden should have come out of last August as the most popular president in decades — he had just ended an endless war and had done it with what was probably the most efficient evacuation of 120,000 civilians in history. Had that happened, Biden’s position of strength would have made it near impossible for Manchin and Sinema to oppose a popular president offering a popular Build Back Better bill and Biden would already be pushing new progressive legislation.
The economy is improving at historically fast rates and even better, wages are rising. Time to turn Biden into a failing president again where every success is a massive failure. Who cares about the strong economy and rising wages because “inflation” has become the new measure of “success” where high employment and rising wages no longer matter because of the brand new narrative where presidents are measured entirely on inflation, and thus Biden’s economy is a failure and he is a “weak and ineffectual” president.
Just like the the brand new narrative is that successful withdrawals are entirely measured by whether the withdrawal itself results in the failing policies of 20 years miraculously morphing into peace and happiness for all. Biden’s withdrawal didn’t do that, so it is a failure, proving he is a “weak and ineffectual” president.
I think it is quite likely that some deal is made with Putin where Ukraine keeps some measure of sovereignty and Putin pulls back his military from the border. However, it is possible that a different deal is made where Putin is allowed unwelcome and unfettered influence in Ukraine after his successful invasion. It is also possible that a different deal is made where Putin is allowed unwelcome and unfettered influence in Ukraine in exchange for not invading.
The only sure bet about what happens in Ukraine is that in all 3 of these scenarios and in every other possible scenario, Biden will be exclusively responsible for all bad consequences of every possible scenario and Biden will be given no credit for any good consequences in every possible scenario.
In other words, no matter what happens, Biden will be so weakened that he won’t even be able to get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed because Manchin and Sinema can thwart this “weak and ineffectual” president.
I understand why the right wing pushes these self-serving narratives where a president who has done a pretty credible job his first year is the most incompetent crisis-causing president in history and has single-handedly led to a disastrous economy and single-handedly destroying this country. I just don’t understand how we can’t figure out a way to shut down that false narrative instead of legitimizing and amplifying it.
Dienne, the only one who can stop this insanity is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. If he invades Ukraine, this will be a monstrous and, under international law, LITERALLY criminal act.
Bob, you can’t handle the “truth”.
If Putin invades Ukraine, it will be because Biden did something. Or didn’t do something. Or said something. Or didn’t say something.
Any good outcome, where Putin doesn’t invade, it will be thanks to Putin’s statesmanship and brilliance. But if there are any negative consequences to Putin not invading, that will be caused entirely by Biden.
As a sign of fairness, if Putin doesn’t invade, you must also give credit to the anti-war folks “on both sides of the aisle” who prevented Biden and the evil democrats from forcing Putin to invade Ukraine. It is thanks to them, and the statesmanlike conduct of Putin, that Biden couldn’t create yet another debacle as Biden always does.
Haaa! Yeah, poor Vlad. Completely out of his hands.
A SNIPET FROM VERY GOOD PIECE IN TODAY’S HOUSTON CHRONICLE BUSINESS SECTION. THE HEART OF OIL & GAS COUNTRY
OPEC, which cooperates with Russia to limit oil production, is slow-rolling additional supply. Saudi Arabia and other members are enjoying the higher prices, and until North American producers restart drilling, OPEC is in no danger of losing market share.
U.S. oil companies might complain about President Joe Biden’s climate policies, but the only thing keeping them from drilling is market sentiment. After a decade of losing money on oil companies, investors will not finance new wells until they see guaranteed profits over the next five years.
We have the perfect recipe for a politically-induced energy crisis, which could spin out of control.
If Putin orders troops into Ukraine, he will trigger U.S. and European sanctions against Russian businesses and him personally. If that occurs, he has threatened to retaliate and “rupture” relations, presumably by ending oil and natural gas flows to global markets.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Russian-invasion-could-trigger-8-gas-exposing-16811355.php
A lot of the wild up and down ride in the stock market these days is also due to market manipulation.
$30 Billion extra to the Pentagon this year….that they didn’t even ask for…..planes that cost $100 million on the floor of the South China Sea….Dems and Reps in agreement over Ukraine….does anyone else smell a rat?
This is not an excuse for an invasion that hasn’t even happened yet, but the priorities of the elites that run our country are pretty clear….does anyone else see them?
And we wonder why we can’t have the schools we deserve?
The education budget for NYC alone this school year is $38 billion.
Can districts do a better job using their funding? Absolutely. Class size. And let’s get rid of the year-end test, and free that money up, too. It’s not just money. We need to free our minds, time, and energy.
But, I think you just proved my point. Congress just GAVE away an amount almost equal to NYC’s budget, and more than LA’s. The military-industrial complex is real. And it has a tight grip on our government, and on the fears of the citizenry through the media.
I was a baby for “Don’t Get Fooled Again,” but when have we not been fooled again? Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition by another name.
Can school districts better spend their money? Absolutely. Class size comes to mind. Let’s get rid of the standardized testing, too, and free up that money, time, and energy.
But, you make my point for me. Congress just GAVE to the DOD an amount almost equal to NYC’s budget, and more than LAUSD’s. The military-industrial complex is real. It has a tight grip on our politicians, and the fears of the citizenry, via the media. We need to see with better eyes than that.
I was just a baby for “Don’t Get Fooled Again”, but when have we ever not been fooled again. Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition, indeed.!
Non sequitur ut solet.
For someone who hasn’t followed this particularly closely, can someone please explain what the diplomatic solution to this problem is?
For America to quit being the war-mongering dog of a country that it is. Get the ef out of other countries’ business. . . but then that wouldn’t be good for American business, i.e., the banksters and other rent gathering entities.
Duane,
I don’t understand how someone can be as nuanced as you are on education issues and on issues of gun control but then turn around and lose all ability to see shades of grey on this issue. (It’s possible I am confused about your position on gun control so apologies if you are as as strongly anti-gun as you are anti-war).
You didn’t even offer up a plausible diplomatic solution. America First – sit back and allow someone else to wage war as an observer – is just as much doing the work of billionaires — your position is simply furthering the interests of different pro-authoritarian billionaires.
And unfortunately, the pro-authoritarian billionaires pushing the America First agenda are simply doing so because they support their favorite oligarchs waging war elsewhere. They can sell their military weapons of destruction to their favorite authoritarian oligarchs to use against their own people and to put down any uprisings elsewhere that might allow democracy and progressive ideas to flourish.
My position respects that others in other countries have the right to self-determination without outside interference. Which sky-daddy pronounced that America be the world’s policeman?
Your last paragraph describes what this country has been doing to other countries since the end of WW2.
Duane, let’s assume here that “quitting being a war-mongering dog of a country” and “getting the ef out of other countries’ business” means that the U.S. would just let things play out in Ukraine without any interference. How would things play out in Ukraine without U.S. (or NATO) involvement, in your view?
I don’t know, I’m not a seer. And quite frankly it is not my concern. Does minding one’s own business not make sense in this case?
I dearly wish I had an answer there, Flerp.
It’s a seriously difficult issue because the West remembers Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Crimea in 2014 and wants to ensure against this happening in former Soviet bloc countries now separate sovereign nations (rather than puppet governments) and members of NATO. Russia sees troops and arms on its borders and likens its response to that to the U.S. response to the attempted deployment of missiles in Cuba.
Very different views of the situation, as the comments on this thread illustrate. And near-total mutual distrust.
And, ofc, Putin is clear that he considers, in his own words, the single greatest tragedy of his life to have been the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This feeds Western fear and distrust.
So, this is seemingly intractable. But we must find solutions. The alternative is a horror beyond calculation. The universe is born again in every child. And it is to the children who would inevitably die in this avoidable war that we owe our greatest allegiance. This is what politicians forget when they strut and issue ultimatums.
And ofc Russia said, the people of Crimea, for the most part, WANT to be part of Russia, and do you really think we are going to forgo this essential military and commercial port of Sevastopol to our South? Are you freaking nuts?
Bob,
You really think Putin suddenly got concerned about Ukraine?
Putin knows that NATO has no interest in invading Russia. Putin knows that he could seize Crimea with almost no repercussions.
Putin doesn’t “distrust” NATO at all. Come on, you can’t really believe that. Does anyone believe for one minute that any NATO country wants to invade Russia?
Biden’s state department isn’t figuring out the next move driven by some corporate interests. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, “Let’s provoke a military war with Putin because that will help the military-industrial complex get richer.” That isn’t Biden’s state dept. They are trying to thread a needle – they don’t want a war AND they don’t want Putin to invade Ukraine.
The people who are attacking Biden right now haven’t actually stood up for what they believe. I don’t blame them — who wants to admit that they condone all the death and destruction of Putin sending his troops to take over the Ukraine as long as the US stands down so Putin feels confident and empowered to do whatever he wants to as many people he wants who he thinks threatens his power.
I’ve seen flerp and others ask these folks what would they do, and it’s all vague.
Putin says Biden should make it clear to Ukraine that they can NEVER join NATO.
Does dienne77 want Biden to tell Ukraine they can never join NATO?
Does Ken want Biden to tell Ukraine they can never join NATO?
Does Duane want Biden to tell Ukraine that they can never join NATO?
None of them seemed at all bothered with the Russia invasion of Crimea so presumably they would not be bothered with the Russia invasion of Ukraine. So is there any point where they would be bothered, or should we just stand back and practice the appeasement policies that Charles Lindbergh advocated for in 1941?
Putin has always been concerned about Ukraine.
Let me ask you this, NYCPSP: Why, in your opinion, does Putin want to invade Ukraine? If his concern isn’t having enemy arms and troops on his borders, then what is it? Simply a compulsion to rebuild the empire?
I remember when the revolution took place in Iran, Americans (and a lot of American press and politicians) seemed to think that this was just those crazy fundamentalist fanatics. And they conveniently forgot (or didn’t know) that for a long, long time, there was hardly a family in Iran that hadn’t suffered a disappearance in the middle of the night at the hands of the Shah’s secret police.. Americans never bothered to ask themselves, why would these hundreds of thousands of people be in the streets denouncing “America the Satan”?
It’s a mistake to simply the opponent’s motivations.
Putin wants to restore the USSR, as it was when he was a KGB officer. He is a billionaire. He wants more power.
If he invades Ukraine, this will be a criminal act of monstrous proportions, and a horrific miscalculation for Russia and for him personally.
Estonia has already called for an increase in NATO defenses in the country. An invasion of Ukraine would inevitably result in a massive build-up of NATO forces in these former Soviet satellite states. If rebuilding the empire is his goal, he is profoundly mistaken about an invasion of Ukraine being a step toward achieving that.
One of the lessons that history teaches is that autocrats surround themselves with yes men, start believing their own bs, and make fatal mistakes costly to themselves and to everyone else.
I’m not being hyperbolic. This would be a literally criminal act–a violation of fundamental international law.
From the UN Charter, Articles2(3-4)
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Listening to the Russian foreign minister talk about this situation, I am reminded of an observation made by the linguistic philosopher Paul Grice that a precondition of any possibility of communication is the expectation that the other person is saying what he or she believes to be the truth. Putin, and his mouthpieces, is a liar. His entire career political career, from blowing up apartment buildings in St. Petersburg and blaming this on Chechen rebels to the poisoning of dissidents with nerve gas available only to Russian military and intelligence services and denying involvement with these incidents, has been built on lies. “We have no intention to invade Ukraine,” said Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Rybakov a few days ago. And this is why Russia has deployed along Ukraine’s borders helicopters for evacuating the wounded? A precondition of diplomatic solutions is truthfulness.
Lindbergh was about more than appeasement, btw. The guy was an outright Nazi, like Henry Ford.
And the history of Russia has been that of one invasion after another, for hundreds of years. This fact is deeply ingrained in the Russian psyche. A friend of mine once said to me, do you know why Russian women are so beautiful and intelligent? The Russian men were always off getting killed in war, so there were three women for every man who returned, and only the most beautiful and intelligent got married. It was natural selection.
The entire history of Russia up through WWII can be written entirely as one of invasion after invasion.
Putin has zero reason to fear a NATO invasion.
True.
OK, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but only a bit.
cx: to simplify
Bob,
I absolutely believe that if the US public gathered behind Biden with a huge swell of support for him standing up to Putin, that Putin would stand down. This is about sowing division and possibly getting a huge political gain if his manipulation works on an easily propagandized American public. It worked in 2016. Trump’s election was the bonus. Putin being able to walk right into Ukraine and violently seize power with the American progressive left cheering him on will just be a bonus.
Putin is smart and he doesn’t really want to expend military power to influence Ukraine. He can use his propaganda arm against it. Putin knows Ukraine isn’t going to invade Russia. It’s going to take years – if ever – for Ukraine to even join NATO, and another election might find another Putin-puppet in power in Ukraine and they won’t even join.
Look at what you see on this blog. What is Biden doing wrong that makes these critics so loud and angry at him? They can’t even say what Biden should do! Because no one wants to admit “we don’t care if Russia invades Ukraine and kills thousands or tens of thousands of people as long as Biden tells Putin to go right ahead so Putin won’t be mad at us.”
What do you think Biden should do? Tell Ukraine they are on their own, and by the way they aren’t allowed to join NATO because Putin doesn’t want them to?
Biden’s response has been quite good so far, given the circumstances. Putin and the Republicans and the media are going to turn whatever happens into a huge “crisis for Biden that turned into a disaster.” If you see any way to prevent that from happening, I am curious as to what that might be.
Bob, there is a difference in Putin’s motivations and the Russian people’s. Do you see any evidence that the Russians are clamoring for war with Ukraine?
https://carnegiemoscow.org/commentary/86013
Sorry if I sound like a know-it-all about this. That is certainly not so. I’m totally scratching my head about this business because the downsides for an invasion of Ukraine seem so large, and Putin, whatever one’s opinion of his moral character, is no idiot and no fool. What I’ve read about Russian opinion on this issue is murky and mixed. But again, I suspect that Putin knows Russians a helluvalot better than I, or any of us, do. That said, he wouldn’t be the first leader to misread things.
And the downsides for Russia and for Putin of an invasion of Ukraine sound, from what I’ve read, enormous. First, despite its enormous power, Russia will meet stiff resistance, and this will be costly and, very likely, extremely unpopular. Second, the Russian economy is extremely dependent on sales of oil and natural gas, and such a move would likely lead European states to reduce, dramatically, their dependence on these. Third, even if the invasion were rapidly successful, there would be massive, continued resistance in the form of asymmetrical warfare, guerilla war, continued and prolonged and costly resistance. Another Afghanistan? Fourth, such an invasion would likely result in a massive build-up of troops and arms in former Soviet bloc states now part of NATO. Fifth, the death toll will be staggering on both sides. So, none of this makes sense to me, but perhaps that is my ignorance speaking.
Thank you, Bob, that was a very interesting article and made me think.
One problem with faux democracies like Russia is that it almost doesn’t really matter what the public thinks. It’s not as if Putin would ever have to submit to an actual election with a plausible opponent — Putin would just poison or jail them. He just needs to keep the powerful on his side, through rewards or fear.
“the downsides for an invasion of Ukraine seem so large, and Putin, whatever one’s opinion of his moral character, is no idiot and no fool.”
I agree with you. Putin doesn’t want to occupy Ukraine. Putin wants to undermine western countries and alliances, and, in the US, empower the Republican party that he knows he can easily bend to his will. In the old days, Putin making threats to invade another country would have been a call to rally around the flag. Which would have been fine because Biden – like Clinton and Obama – isn’t really interested in military engagement. I always thought that people pushing the “war-mongering democrats” were grasping at straws and had an extreme double standard where something was characterized as “war-mongering” only if a democrat did it. Did you ever hear dienne77 invoking war mongering when Trump not only escalated the use of drone strikes into the many thousands, but also changed the rules to make it much easier to vastly increase their frequency and also hide the deaths and casualties caused? On the contrary, there was selective amnesia where she minimized the most horrific war-mongering actions by Trump that were far more destructive than anything Obama did, and at the same time she exaggerated actions by Trump that were Putin-friendly as serving “anti-war” interests. The far more frequent actions that democrats took to keep the peace were simply ignored.
I thought Bill Clinton’s handling of the Bosnia crisis was about as decent as could be. At least, I can’t see how doing anything else would have had a better outcome and I can’t see how the US just watching massacres and doing nothing is preferable. Some of those anti-war folks seem to believe that there is no moral obligation to step in to stop the attempt by one ethnic group to totally annihilate another. It’s almost as if they prefer the “peace” of fascism. And yes, fascism can be “peaceful” once all the enemies have been silenced. But what kind of “peace” is it that they are condoning.
That kind of hypocrisy reminds me of those who support charter schools that achieve “calm and peaceful classrooms” by eliminating all students who do not conform to what they want. There is a cost borne by lots of other vulnerable students for that “peace” but the charters want to push the false narrative that it’s ideal. Authoritarianism can be a peaceful government once all non-compliant people are eliminated. It doesn’t make you anti-war just because you are privileged enough to not bear any cost for that “peace”.
I don’t think Putin’s misreading things at all. The criticism of Biden before he has even done anything makes Putin already the winner.
Because no one ever asks the critics what they want Biden to do and if they will accept responsibility for the result of that action. I still have no idea what they want except I am sure of one thing — they want to blame Biden for everything bad that happens and ignore all the positive outcomes. Just like they did in Afghanistan.
What should Biden do? His critics never say. I think their answer is just “something else”. They invoke some vague better plan that I guess must be locked in the same secret vault with the Republicans wonderful health care plan.
You make some good points in this thread, Bob.
Russia has coveted Ukraine for a long time. First Putin took Crimea. Now he’s poised to take the whole country. NATO does not poise a threat to Putin. It will not invade Ukraine. Let the Ukrainian people decide how they want to be governed. Putin called the collapse of the USSR the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the other former Soviet sattelites must be watching with fear.
Putin’s stooge, Trump, tried to pull the same stunt that his boss Vlad did to kickstart his rise to dictatorial control. Google “Umbrella Man.”
Read the treaty the Russians are pushing. https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en I’m sending you another article Facebook would not allow me to post. Twitter does.
>
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing this.
I’m curious as to what no deployment of nuclear weapons outside the territories of the states includes. Does this include such weapons on submarines? How would that be policed? And isn’t this mutually assured destruction the deterrent that has prevented the ultimate catastrophe so far?
Doesn’t the existence of long-range submarine-launched nuclear missiles mean that there would always be a second strike capability from this third leg of the triad? Clearly, I need to read this again, but I am profoundly ignorant with regard to such matters as these.
Putin is pursuing the same policy that Czarist Russia tried: he wants to dominate an area to his south for purposes of trade and security. George Kennan saw Stalin go for the same idea. Whether it in the best interests of the US to intervene in any way is a matter of debate, but no US president has refrained from intervening in world affairs since isolationism kept the US from fighting Hitler until it was almost too late. Since that tome, American internationalism has ruled the day, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
Well from what I am reading here, I guess Putin moved a 100k Russian troops and equipment to the Ukraine border because Russia needed to burn some cash. What other motive could he have . I know his troops needed some Winter training, what better place than the Ukraine border.
I would agree with the premise that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. On the other hand authoritarian demagogues at home or abroad are not my thing.
BTW, I hope all of you pushing this unwinnable nightmare have completed your enlistment papers and you’ve taken your kids and grandkids to enlist. I’d hate to think you all are a bunch of chickenhawks trying to provoke a war that you will have no skin in.
dienne77
Where did anyone say US troops were going into Ukraine. Please document that ! As for sending US troops to Eastern European countries who request them , are they active war zones . Do you suspect any of them would invade mother Russia.
Joel,
Apparently there are something like 150 Florida National Guardsman on the far side of Ukraine (not anywhere near the Russia border). They are there to advise the Ukraine forces – the idea being to train Ukraine to be responsible for its own borders.
I don’t think that the Ukraine president would be happy, but maybe the “anti-war for everyone but Putin” crowd would feel happy if Biden appeased Putin and ordered them out.
Then Biden could appease Putin and tell Ukraine that to demonstrate to the “don’t get in involved in another country’s business” critics he is forbidding Ukraine to be part of NATO forever. Because apparently the definition of “not getting involved in another country’s business” has an asterisk — *unless Putin wants the US to get involved in which case the US must get involved.
I really have no idea what policy these guys actually support, but whatever it is, I wish they would acknowledge that there will absolutely be bad consequences of that anti-war policy, too. It was disappointed to me that the anti-war movement pointedly refused to take any responsibility for the consequences of the policy they supported when the Taliban overran Afghanistan. There is no integrity in scapegoating other people so you can profess to be morally superior when the actions you support have consequences.
dienne77
I didn’t see you rushing into Afghanistan to protect all the women who are now completely at the mercy of the Taliban.
You support war-mongering as long as it is Putin war-mongering. I have yet to hear a single word of criticism against his military build up.
I can’t think of anything more reprehensible than you saying that the US “provoked” Putin. Demonstrating again that you are supportive of war-mongers named Putin.
You are the one who has no skin in the game. On the contrary, your white privilege allows you not to care about the harm that the Republicans do in this country.
Hearing you invoke neo-Nazis in Ukraine to justify Putin’s war-mongering, while you turn a blind eye to the white supremacists in this country and focus your attacks exclusively on the party that opposes white supremacy.
Supporting one war-monger over another doesn’t make you anti-war, dienne77. You just support a different war-monger.
Since we’re worried about the economy: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/28/ukraine-accuses-us-of-hurting-economy-by-stoking-panic-over-war
Thank you for the Al Jazeera link!
“In a statement on Friday, Amnesty International warned that an escalation of the armed conflict in Ukraine will detrimentally impact civilian lives, their livelihoods and infrastructure.
“The threat of the use of military force by Russia is already affecting the human rights of millions of people in Ukraine and beyond,” said Agnes Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.
“The consequences of actual military force are likely to be devastating,” she continued. “Ukraine’s recent history is punctuated by conflicts involving Russian troops in Donbas and the illegal annexation of Crimea. These episodes have torn communities and lives apart, as military forces have trampled on the rights of civilians with impunity; it’s time to break that vicious cycle.”
END of quote from an Al Jazeera article.
dienne77, I am trying to understand why you aren’t criticizing Putin as Amnesty International does.
Is Amnesty International also a tool of the lying west? Is the only person you trust Putin?
dienne77, you haven’t shown any concern for human rights at all — your only concern seems to be that the US not be too mean to Putin.
Russian military forces have trampled the rights of civilians with impunity and yet you haven’t expressed a word of concern.
dienne77, why you are more concerned about Putin’s feelings than what happens to millions of people in Ukraine and beyond?
All this saddens me greatly. I have a deep, abiding love for Russian culture–Russian music, literature, art, folktales and proverbs. Such breathtaking riches! And I was hopeful in the past that we would grow beyond our disastrous mutual distrust and enmity. Like many who comment here, I was furious at Russian support for The Idiot, though I understood why the Russians wouldn’t have wanted to see Hillary Clinton become president. But Trump?!?!?! Trump!?!?!? That was a low blow (and, for the Russians, probably the most successful intelligence operation in the history of the world). I’m not a religious person, but I pray that our leaders find a way through this without wading through blood.
Violent fascists like Putin always twist and distort truth to fit their political goals. The Russian people have been fed an alternate reality where it is NATO who is the potential aggressor threatening innocent Russia’s sovereignty. This agitprop justifies the Ukrainian invasion, recasting it as a mere defensive response. Kind of like saying Democrats rig elections as you pass voter suppression laws and install Trump toadies to overturn the will of the people. Times have changed. It’s not the 60s anymore. Putin is no joke and runs a highly sophisticated global propaganda machine that threatens the existence of democracy around the world. The staid hackneyed “Uncle Sam – big bad war mongerer” trope is simplistic and anachronistic.
100 billion to taliban, russia going to start war with deep state help, skeleton Biden has lied as usual on everything. Worls is so much safer without mean orange man, pathetic liberals.
All hail Glorious Leader Who Shines More Orange Than Does the Sun! And make sure to inject your disinfectant so that you can be ready for the coming battle between The Fatherland and the Demon-Worshipping Socialists who think Grandma should get healthcare!
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/20/viral-image/no-proof-biden-left-taliban-80b-weapons-or-he-want/
Help! The Deep State is hiding under my bed! And CRT isn’t doing its share of the dishes!!! ROFLMAO!!!
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/20/viral-image/no-proof-biden-left-taliban-80b-weapons-or-he-want/
Can we start viewing the issue in terms of National Interest . You can do this on both sides of the coin. However the US has not massed 100-130 k troops on the Russian Border and even those borders are lightly defended by the Ukrainians .
National Interest is defined as the interest of the ruling elites in any Government ,whoever they may be . So instead of the hysterics how about you comprise a list of what it is Putin has to gain by any of his actions . Hint the placement of an insignificant amount of US troops in the expanded NATO countries is a chess move designed to take away one Putin domestic victory.
The best move Biden could make would be Nationalizing the US oil and Gas industry using the defense production act as an excuse to ramp up the supply of Oil and Gas to the Europeans and the US, checkmating Putin on his major export. While crashing the price of oil.
Counterintuitively it is the only way to meet Climate goals. If you need a hint look no further than when Macrone placed a small tax on Gasoline, Yellow jackets was the response. Or the hysteria over the price of Gas in the US today that is lower than in 2008 lower than in 2014 and adjusted for inflation minimally higher than 2018. The Idea of the GND was to make the conversion painless. That will not happen with Wall Street controlling the supply of oil and gas. If we can regulate drug prices and supplies with Patents keeping prices high . We can certainly do the same or more correctly the opposite with energy prices for National Security. Climate being the real threat.
Joel, you are so darned sensible.
Joel,
Europe is not capable of handling any more LNG than it is currently importing, so there is no ramping up. They do not have the port capacity.
You might want to listen to the reporting from The Economist in this podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/money-talks-the-energy-weapon/id420929545?i=1000549094658
Well one of our sources is wrong I suspect it is yours. The issue may be; do we have the liquidification capacity to ship it, not whether the EU as a whole has the capacity to handle it. Amazing things can happen in construction when money is no object. Further we say the EU as if it is one country, it is not and that may be a bigger problem than aggregate capacity.
“On LNG, compared to an import capacity of around 1,900 TWh, the EU only imported 730 TWh in 2021. Hence, Europe’s regasification terminals would be able to handle 1,100 TWh of additional LNG imports into the EU (in reality the number might be a little lower because of technical limitations).
On pipelines, in 2021 the EU had unused import capacities of 200 TWh from Norway, 400 TWh from North Africa and 50 TWh from Azerbaijan, a total of 650 TWh.
Based on 2021 conditions, the EU thus has spare import capacity of 1,800 TWh from alternative suppliers to Russia. This could, theoretically, allow the EU to replace Russian flows entirely (amounting to 1,700 TWh in 2021. ”
https://www.bruegel.org/2022/01/can-europe-survive-painlessly-without-russian-gas/