Op UNIFIER - CAF and the Ukraine Crisis

[Edward Campbell]

I am afraid we are about to reap what we sowed about 30 years ago.

It really doesn't matter, at all, not even in the slightest, what the US leadership said circa 1990, nor does it matter what they now say was really meant, what the Russians heard, what most of the world heard, was that the Warsaw Pact would be dissolved, the former Soviet client states would be free, they could, likely would, join the European Union, BUT they would NOT join NATO, they would remain neutral and would be a buffer between the US led NATO alliance and the new Russian federation.

That didn't happen; they were invited into NATO. Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." The Russians now say that they have verified American actions and the US-led West cannot be trusted.

That's problem 1: the Russians actually have an internally consistent "case" which makes very good sense in Russia, to Russians.

Problem 2 is that a large minority of Americans and, indeed, a lot of Europeans do not believe that Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia actually belong in NATO and are "allies" in the same way that Canada, Iceland, the Baltic States or even Turkey "belong" in the alliance.

But, see, also, this, in Foreign Affairs: "The Kremlin is keeping the world guessing about its intentions and pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity. This makes it difficult for the United States and Europe to know how to respond, inhibiting Western action. The Biden administration could follow suit, preparing a range of options with its European allies—including ramping up trade and financial sanctions and enhancing military cooperation with Ukraine—but doing so out of the public eye, ensuring that the Kremlin is uncertain about what Washington’s response might be in the event of a military escalation. Previous U.S. administrations have telegraphed their Ukraine policy. Back in 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama explained to The Atlantic why the United States had not responded more assertively to the Russian annexation of Crimea two years earlier. He said that Ukraine was more important to Russia than it was to the United States, that Washington had no treaty obligation toward Kyiv, and that Ukraine was Russia’s neighbor but was far from the United States. These realities invariably limited the options available to Washington. The Kremlin assumes that this remains the U.S. view and that the use of Russian military force would not be met with concomitant Western force."

Maybe it is time for some US "strategic ambiguity:" warn the Russians that military aggressions will be met with massive, absolutely overwhelming counterforce but, at the same time, offer to renegotiate the entire shape of Europe ... including he dissolution of NATO, itself.

 

[Altair]

I am afraid we are about to reap what we sowed about 30 years ago.

It really doesn't matter, at all, not even in the slightest, what the US leadership said circa 1990, nor does it matter what they now say was really meant, what the Russians heard, what most of the world heard, was that the Warsaw Pact would be dissolved, the former Soviet client states would be free, they could, likely would, join the European Union, BUT they would NOT join NATO, they would remain neutral and would be a buffer between the US led NATO alliance and the new Russian federation.

That didn't happen; they were invited into NATO. Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." The Russians now say that they have verified American actions and the US-led West cannot be trusted.

That's problem 1: the Russians actually have an internally consistent "case" which makes very good sense in Russia, to Russians.

Problem 2 is that a large minority of Americans and, indeed, a lot of Europeans do not believe that Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia actually belong in NATO and are "allies" in the same way that Canada, Iceland, the Baltic States or even Turkey "belong" in the alliance.

But, see, also, this, in Foreign Affairs: "The Kremlin is keeping the world guessing about its intentions and pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity. This makes it difficult for the United States and Europe to know how to respond, inhibiting Western action. The Biden administration could follow suit, preparing a range of options with its European allies—including ramping up trade and financial sanctions and enhancing military cooperation with Ukraine—but doing so out of the public eye, ensuring that the Kremlin is uncertain about what Washington’s response might be in the event of a military escalation. Previous U.S. administrations have telegraphed their Ukraine policy. Back in 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama explained to The Atlantic why the United States had not responded more assertively to the Russian annexation of Crimea two years earlier. He said that Ukraine was more important to Russia than it was to the United States, that Washington had no treaty obligation toward Kyiv, and that Ukraine was Russia’s neighbor but was far from the United States. These realities invariably limited the options available to Washington. The Kremlin assumes that this remains the U.S. view and that the use of Russian military force would not be met with concomitant Western force."

Maybe it is time for some US "strategic ambiguity:" warn the Russians that military aggressions will be met with massive, absolutely overwhelming counterforce but, at the same time, offer to renegotiate the entire shape of Europe ... including he dissolution of NATO, itself.

That's a bluff with nothing to back it up.

The Russians know what will happen if they invade. Sanctions and harsh words, that's it, that's all.

 

[Czech_pivo]

That's a bluff with nothing to back it up.

The Russians know what will happen if they invade. Sanctions and harsh words, that's it, that's all.

If what you say is correct, we sit on our hands and Poland is held back from moving into eastern Galicia, then what we should consider is giving the Ukrainians pretty much every single weapon they ask for - openly give it to them - for if the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their independence, they should make it so hard for the Russians to digest them that they choke on them and the Russian mother's protest to such a degree that it forces a regime change in Russia.

As fallout from the above - the EU (and Canada) will be hit be a Ukrainian migrant influx that will make the earlier issues hitting Germany et al look like a rehearsal. For us, with the largest number of Ukrainians outside of the Ukraine, it safe to say that we'll take in 100k easily.

 

[Altair]

If what you say is correct, we sit on our hands and Poland is held back from moving into eastern Galicia, then what we should consider is giving the Ukrainians pretty much every single weapon they ask for - openly give it to them - for if the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their independence, they should make it so hard for the Russians to digest them that they choke on them and the Russian mother's protest to such a degree that it forces a regime change in Russia.

I agree, anti tank, anti air, give them everything. They wont win, but they can definitely make it hurt.

As fallout from the above - the EU (and Canada) will be hit be a Ukrainian migrant influx that will make the earlier issues hitting Germany et al look like a rehearsal. For us, with the largest number of Ukrainians outside of the Ukraine, it safe to say that we'll take in 100k easily.

The Deputy PM would probably angle for this. We are looking to bring in 400k immigrants this year, I think taking in 100k Ukrainians would fit into that plan.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I agree, anti tank, anti air, give them everything. They wont win, but they can definitely make it hurt.

The Deputy PM would probably angle for this. We are looking to bring in 400k immigrants this year, I think taking in 100k Ukrainians would fit into that plan.

The more I think about it, the more I think that 100k would just be in the opening number, I'd expect it to be much, much higher in the end, 200-250k over 1-3yrs.

And we'd be on the Russians persona non-grata list for certain because of this as we'd be seen as harbouring the next Stepan Bandera.....

 

[Altair]

The more I think about it, the more I think that 100k would just be in the opening number, I'd expect it to be much, much higher in the end, 200-250k over 1-3yrs.

And we'd be on the Russians persona non-grata list for certain because of this as we'd be seen as harbouring the next Stepan Bandera.....

Russia and Canada have no natural trade options. They export oil and gas, we export oil and gas, they export grains, we export grains. Don't see how they can hurt us.

Other than the LSVW diesel filter, which is oddly built in Russia.

 

[brihard]

Russia and Canada have no natural trade options. They export oil and gas, we export oil and gas, they export grains, we export grains. Don't see how they can hurt us.

Other than the LSVW diesel filter, which is oddly built in Russia.

Is THAT why it screams like a dying rat?

 

[Altair]

Is THAT why it screams like a dying rat?

I assumed it was to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies like the old German stuka.

 

[daftandbarmy]

policy of strategic ambiguity. This makes it difficult for the United States and Europe to know how to respond, inhibiting Western action.

So what you're saying is that it will be a bit like dating in Grade 11, but on a global scale?

OMFG no....

 

[MilEME09]

Of we were smart, we would get liquid LNG shipments going to Europe to offset Russian gas. Hard for Europe to sanction Russia when it has the gas. We love not developing our resources, especially at the strategic level, so that will never happen.

 

[Good2Golf]

Of we were smart, we would get liquid LNG shipments going to Europe to offset Russian gas. Hard for Europe to sanction Russia when it has the gas. We love not developing our resources, especially at the strategic level, so that will never happen.

That's way too strategic for 99.9999999999934% of Canadians to consider. Now if Canadian LNG were described as being gender-free and inclusive of all heating clients, perhaps it might get somewhere.

 

[suffolkowner]

Of we were smart, we would get liquid LNG shipments going to Europe to offset Russian gas. Hard for Europe to sanction Russia when it has the gas. We love not developing our resources, especially at the strategic level, so that will never happen.

The failure of Canada to get LNG to market over the last 40 years or so can not be minimized, both for the economic and tax benefits to Canada and the security benefits as well. Shameful planning and leadership

 

[daftandbarmy]

The failure of Canada to get LNG to market over the last 40 years or so can not be minimized, both for the economic and tax benefits to Canada and the security benefits as well. Shameful planning and leadership

We're not alone:

“We must not discount conventional energy sources which are going to stay with us for a while yet,” said Alexander Novak, Deputy Prime Minister and former Energy Minister of Russia, at an international economic forum in St. Petersburg, Russia, on June 4.

Most of the world's proposed LNG projects unlikely to be built as investors fall out of love with natural gas​

LNG projects with double the capacity of current production levels are being planned across the world, but most will fall by the wayside, according to the International Gas Union.

There are currently 892.4 million tonnes per annum of “aspirational” liquefaction capacity in the pre-final investment decision stage, the IGU estimates, compared to the current capacity of 452.9 MTPA.

“However, a large portion of the pre-FID projects are likely not to progress. Given the weak economic landscape in 2020, developers have pushed back on capital-intensive pre-FID liquefaction projects and reinstated their strategies,” the IGU said in its latest report on the global LNG industry. “This puts small-scale LNG in the spotlight as it remains a growing segment within the wider LNG sector with significant potential.”

The new report comes as the role of natural gas in energy transition hangs in the balance. In May, The European Commission said that the European Union’s landmark rules to classify green investments may need to accommodate natural gas, as Brussels weighs a politically fraught decision on how to treat the fossil fuel.

In April, the commission published its “sustainable finance taxonomy,” a list of economic activities that can be marketed as green investments that is central to the E.U. plan to steer private capital into activities that will help meet climate targets.

While rules for some sectors, including transport and industry, have been agreed, Brussels delayed a decision on whether power plants fuelled by natural gas will be labelled as green, after months of lobbying from industry and E.U. governments.

“Advocates for the inclusion of gas in the taxonomy are petitioning to increase this emission threshold and highlight the important role that gas can play in supporting renewables intermittency, its lower carbon footprint than coal, and its potential in building hydrogen demand,” wrote Kate O’Sullivan, an analyst with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. “Meanwhile critics argue that low carbon alternatives already exist and inclusion of gas could lead to greenwashing.”

Major gas producers such as Russia and Qatar are also pushing for natural gas to have a place in the energy transition to renewable energy.

“We must not discount conventional energy sources which are going to stay with us for a while yet,” said Alexander Novak, Deputy Prime Minister and former Energy Minister of Russia, at an international economic forum in St. Petersburg, Russia, on June 4.

The uncertainty around LNG projects comes as trade volumes for the liquefied gas rose to a record last year led by Asia, though growth was marginal as demand was slammed by coronavirus-induced restrictions, according to the IGU.

Overall, LNG trade increased to 356.1 million tonnes last year, up by 1.4 million tonnes or about 0.4 per cent from 2019, mostly driven by increased exports from the United States and Australia.

This was smaller than the growth of 40.9 million tonnes, or 11.5%, in 2019, the IGU said. But, LNG was one of the few commodities that had an increase in trade in 2020, it said.

“LNG trade in 2020 was heavily impacted by COVID-19, as markets, cities and producers across the globe wrestled with lockdowns and a multitude of other disruptions,” said the IGU, which comprises more than 160 members and advocates the use of gas.

Most of the world's proposed LNG projects unlikely to be built as investors fall out of love with natural gas

A quarter of them are located in Canada

financialpost.com

 

[suffolkowner]

U.S. Military Steps Up Planning For Evacuation Operation In Ukraine As Crisis Deepens: Report (Updated)

News of more active contingency planning with regards to Ukraine came ahead of a meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin today.

www.thedrive.com

So instead of doing something that might influence the situation positively like increase the quantity and speed of weapons systems delivery. Or even move some of the 55,000 personnel stationed in the UK, Italy, or Germany in to support Ukraine. Biden's big move is to pre plan the evacuation of US personnel in Ukraine. Altair may have the right of it as it looks like Biden at least has no idea how to play the game. How on earth do you think planning your evacuation is supposed to deter Russian aggression. Many people have claimed Putin to be some kind of strategic genius but I think its more that the US has been lead by 3 consecutive Presidents that are strategic idiots with a lack of moral authority on the side. Of course the Europeans haven't been any better

 

[Czech_pivo]

U.S. Military Steps Up Planning For Evacuation Operation In Ukraine As Crisis Deepens: Report (Updated)

News of more active contingency planning with regards to Ukraine came ahead of a meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin today.

www.thedrive.com

So instead of doing something that might influence the situation positively like increase the quantity and speed of weapons systems delivery. Or even move some of the 55,000 personnel stationed in the UK, Italy, or Germany in to support Ukraine. Biden's big move is to pre plan the evacuation of US personnel in Ukraine. Altair may have the right of it as it looks like Biden at least has no idea how to play the game. How on earth do you think planning your evacuation is supposed to deter Russian aggression. Many people have claimed Putin to be some kind of strategic genius but I think its more that the US has been lead by 3 consecutive Presidents that are strategic idiots with a lack of moral authority on the side. Of course the Europeans haven't been any better

We are about to watch a new Munich Agreement go down it seems.

There are none of the ‘greatest generation’ left in politics to stand up and do what needs to be done.

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”​

We are in the ‘good times create weak men’ phase of Western hegemony it seems.

 

[Altair]

U.S. Military Steps Up Planning For Evacuation Operation In Ukraine As Crisis Deepens: Report (Updated)

News of more active contingency planning with regards to Ukraine came ahead of a meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin today.

www.thedrive.com

So instead of doing something that might influence the situation positively like increase the quantity and speed of weapons systems delivery. Or even move some of the 55,000 personnel stationed in the UK, Italy, or Germany in to support Ukraine. Biden's big move is to pre plan the evacuation of US personnel in Ukraine. Altair may have the right of it as it looks like Biden at least has no idea how to play the game. How on earth do you think planning your evacuation is supposed to deter Russian aggression. Many people have claimed Putin to be some kind of strategic genius but I think its more that the US has been lead by 3 consecutive Presidents that are strategic idiots with a lack of moral authority on the side. Of course the Europeans haven't been any better

The American public is getting what they want.

They want out of conflicts. They want to get tough on China, thus the pivot, but not to the point of conflict, which is why China is feeling emboldened.

It leaves any president in a bit of a tough position, for as much as they may want to do more they are aware of the political reality back home.

And as goes America , so goes NATO. NATO has never learned how to function without the USA. Hell, Western powers were running out of ammunition bombing Libya. So if the Americans are out, so is everyone else.

Ukraine is well and truly on its own. Their best hope is back channel diplomacy bears fruit.

 

[suffolkowner]

Ukraine would not be in such a questionable spot if they had spent the last 7 years or so and created a viable airforce. The whole things crazy really. European NATO outnumbers Russia 4:1 in pretty much everything. There is no reason to be so timid, just put an end to this farce, otherwise there's no reason to spend any money on the respective militaries at all its just wasted. China has to be sitting back and looking at this and thinking if a punk Putin in a backwoods shithole like Russia can pull off a bluff like this then there is no one stopping us from anything we want

 

[Altair]

Ukraine would not be in such a questionable spot if they had spent the last 7 years or so and created a viable airforce. The whole things crazy really. European NATO outnumbers Russia 4:1 in pretty much everything. There is no reason to be so timid, just put an end to this farce, otherwise there's no reason to spend any money on the respective militaries at all its just wasted. China has to be sitting back and looking at this and thinking if a punk Putin in a backwoods shithole like Russia can pull off a bluff like this then there is no one stopping us from anything we want

Ever hear it's not the size of the dog in a fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog?

The USA could crush Russia, Europe could crush Russia, but if neither has the will to fight Russia, then Russia wins.

And you're right, China is taking notes.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Nominal GDP isn't a particularly useful comparison when looking at the relative economic strength of Russia in comparison to others.

PPP is more useful because it takes in to account differences in cost of living and currency valuations.

By PPP, Russia is 6th in the World, on par with Germany and Japan, well ahead of the rest of Europe.

As for actually ability to fight a war, Russia is far better equipped for that. It has plenty of actual heavy industry still and plenty of natural resources

The Europeans, with the exception of France, Poland and the UK, all have boutique paper Militaries. They would, like us, be woefully unprepared for a war in Russia and would need to hope that Uncle Sam would come to the rescue.

 

[MilEME09]

Nominal GDP isn't a particularly useful comparison when looking at the relative economic strength of Russia in comparison to others.

PPP is more useful because it takes in to account differences in cost of living and currency valuations.

By PPP, Russia is 6th in the World, on par with Germany and Japan, well ahead of the rest of Europe.

As for actually ability to fight a war, Russia is far better equipped for that. It has plenty of actual heavy industry still and plenty of natural resources

The Europeans, with the exception of France, Poland and the UK, all have boutique paper Militaries. They would, like us, be woefully unprepared for a war in Russia and would need to hope that Uncle Sam would come to the rescue.

At this point, I think most of Europe has forgotten how to fight a near peer war