Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

And:

Biden keeps ignoring Europe. It’s time EU leaders got the message
Former United States President Donald Trump was a useful bogeyman for Europe. His successor, Joe Biden, is proving much trickier — a friend who says all the right things but leaves you in the lurch when it counts.

From Washington’s surprise withdrawal from Afghanistan to the transatlantic blowup over submarine sales to Australia (AUKUS) and, now, a growing spat over the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which offers tax incentives and subsidies to green U.S. businesses, the Biden administration has, time and again, caught Europe off guard.

At each new perceived slight, the Europeans express shock, frustration and dismay: How could Washington fail to consult its allies, or at the very least inform them of its plans? Meanwhile, the American response is always some variant of: Terribly sorry, we didn’t even think of that.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

And, there you have it:

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

And, since all of you have been good boys/girls, here is a bonus:

Ukraine’s Victories May Become a Problem for the US
Ukraine has notched another big victory in its war against Russian aggression: the liberation of the Kherson without a grueling urban battle. Yet that triumph was met with mixed messages from US President Joe Biden’s administration on a very sensitive subject: whether the Ukrainians should begin peace negotiations with Russia.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, argued that the Kyiv government should seek a settlement before the conflict becomes a stalemate like World War I. Other US officials pushed back, saying that Washington would never force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to negotiate or make concessions. “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” Biden pledged.

It was a rare display of rhetorical messiness by a relatively disciplined administration, which reflects real uncertainty about four critical questions — not least of which is whether a long war strengthens or weakens the US.

For months, Russian forces had been exposed in Kherson, with 20,000 troops holding a vulnerable beachhead on the right bank of the Dnipro River, near where it flows into the Black Sea. The Ukrainians pounced, using US-supplied High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and other weapons to isolate those forces, and then grinding them down with a methodical offensive. The Russians couldn’t sustain their position forever; they withdrew in early November rather than have the isolated, ill-supplied units captured or destroyed.

It was just one in a series of Ukrainian victories since early September, including the liberation of large swaths of territory around Kharkiv in the northeast and the severing of the Karch Bridge from Russia to Crimea. But if the Biden administration seems suddenly conflicted about the course of the war, that’s because several key challenges are looming.

First, is Ukraine headed for further gains or a grinding deadlock? On the one hand, the liberation of Kherson has brought Ukrainian forces within HIMARS range of Russia’s remaining supply lines into Crimea, while troops freed up by this victory can prepare for new offensives elsewhere.


On the other hand, Ukraine’s battle-bruised army may need a rest. It may also face stiffer resistance as Russian forces increase their numbers thanks to an influx of conscripts; shorten their supply lines; prepare trenches and other layered defenses; and dig in for the cold weather ahead. To be fair, the Ukrainians have surprised skeptics before. But given that they have now squeezed Russia out of its most vulnerable positions, the next steps could be harder.

Second, how likely is escalation? Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons to hold five regions he has illegally annexed since 2014. Ukraine has walked right over those red lines in eastern Ukraine and Kherson. Yet Crimea is more central to Putin’s narrative of Russian resurrection; its loss could undermine his political prestige more seriously than any prior reversal. So recent events haven’t fully quieted those within the administration who think an imperfect peace may be preferable to even a slight risk of catastrophe.

Third, will the pro-Ukraine coalition hold together? The European allies have mostly been solid; Ukrainian victories have likely ensured international support through the winter. Candid observers, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, acknowledge that Putin has shown no interest in compromise.

Yet Biden’s team still aims to avoid a scenario in which Ukraine is seen to be blocking diplomacy as Europe — deprived of Russian energy supplies — suffers an economically punishing winter. The White House may also be concerned about what a Republican-led House of Representatives will mean for America’s position on Ukraine aid come next year.

This is presumably why the administration urged Zelenskiy to retreat from his earlier statement that Ukraine would only negotiate with the next leader of Russia, which had effectively made regime change in Moscow a Western war aim. If Ukraine wants the support necessary to win the war, it must show that it is open to negotiating an end to it.

Finally, does a protracted conflict help or hurt the US? If this war has imposed terrible costs on Ukraine, it has been a strategic windfall for Washington. Russia’s military is being reduced to rubble. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is expanding and strengthening its defenses. China is facing greater resistance in the Western Pacific, as Japan, Taiwan and Australia hasten their military preparations. European nations that now see the downsides of dependence on one coercive autocracy are reconsidering their ties with another: Beijing. Amid Putin’s serial struggles in Ukraine, assertive authoritarianism no longer looks like the wave of the future.

Yet key officials wonder whether the US has already reaped all the advantages the Ukraine war has to offer. As time passes, the cost may get higher — in distraction from other regions, in scarce munitions consumed, in vulnerability to crises that break out elsewhere.

There are countervailing considerations: A long war that exposes how pitifully inadequate the US defense industrial base has become could force the nation to get serious about rearmament. Still, if the situation in the Taiwan Strait is deteriorating as rapidly as American officials say, then the premium on ending the Ukraine conflict relatively soon may get higher.

Of all the debates and dilemmas lurking behind the recent talk about negotiations, perhaps the most pressing is the fear that Washington just doesn’t have all the time in the world.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by Rakesh »

Exclusive: India asked by sanctions-hit Russia for parts for key sectors
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/ind ... 022-11-29/
29 Nov 2022
IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9305
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by IndraD »

Image
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by bala »

India's finished steel imports from Russia hit 4-year high in April-October

https://infra.economictimes.indiatimes. ... r/95853667
India's finished steel imports from Russia during April-October rose to their highest in at least four years. Russia's steel exports to India reached 149,000 tonnes in the first seven months of the current fiscal year that began in April. Indian steelmakers have so far imported record 5-6 million tonnes of Russian coking coal in 2022/23.
// India is importing Russian crude oil, fertilizer and now steel and coking coal. The trade deficit is high compared to the exports to Russia. So naturally Russia wants finished goods, based on raw material exports, from India. This must be causing all kinds of takleef in Western quarters. Tis time for Indian industry to take advantage of this fortuitous circumstances. Brands like Tata, Mahindra can drive into Russian market unhindered.
Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by Y. Kanan »

Rakesh wrote:Exclusive: India asked by sanctions-hit Russia for parts for key sectors
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/ind ... 022-11-29/
29 Nov 2022
Looks like an opportunity for Tata, Mahindra, etc. I hope we go all in, and if the US sanctions us, well then we'll know where we actually stand with them going forward. If the US publicly balks, we can always publicly explain that decades of US state-sponsored terrorism carries a price. Tens of thousands of our people have died at the hands of terrorists supported by the US State Department; America has a LOT of Indian blood on its hands. Given that history, they need to play nice with us, and excuse our violating their sanctions. Or just drop the pretense and acknowledge that the US is our enemy.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

If you have 75 minutes:

(very interesting Q/A. John M thinks if Russia uses nukes - only in UKR - that this war will come to an end)

IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9305
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by IndraD »

Ukrainian Starlink users are demanding answers from CEO Elon Musk over a proposed price hike to their satellite internet https://www.rt.com/news/567396-ukrainia ... cost-musk/


according to several tweets posted on Tuesday. Dimko Zhluktenko, the founder of an NGO devoted to supplying the military with Starlink dishes, condemned the $10 price increase described in screenshots circulating on social media as “not cool,” but promised to “find the cost-effective solution.”

Users reported receiving emails from Starlink informing them their monthly service charge would increase from $65 to $75, while the cost of the satellite dish is set to go up from $500 to $700. The new fees are set to take effect on December 29, but “if you do not wish to continue your service, you can cancel at any time,” the message explains.


Another Ukrainian Twitter user, Roman Kyryliuk, demanded to know “what reasons impacted” the price increase, reminding Musk that “the financial situation is not good here.”
Starlink users in Ukraine receive a modest discount compared to their stateside peers, and many of the systems used by the military are paid for by the US government, NATO, NGOs, and other sponsors of Kiev’s war effort. Monthly subscription costs in Ukraine were slashed in August from $100 to $60, though under the new pricing regime, the dishes cost slightly less for American users ($599).

While Musk’s finances are something of a black box due to the privately-held nature of his companies, the world’s richest man complained several months ago that he was having trouble carrying the cost of keeping the Ukrainian military online, calling for the Pentagon to pay its fair share of the costs for the high-tech internet service.

Earlier this month, some 1,300 Starlink terminals in Ukraine allegedly went dark due to overdue bills, according to CNN. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, aware of the looming problem of making ends meet, had asked its UK counterparts for $3.25 million to bridge the gap, but was reportedly turned down.

While Ukrainian users and their supporters clamored for answers from Musk on Tuesday, the newly-minted Twitter owner appeared to be preoccupied trading barbs with Apple and the Western media establishment. On Monday, he revealed that not only had Apple “threatened to withhold Twitter from its App Store,” but that the tech behemoth “won’t tell us why.”
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

The Perpetually Irrational Ukraine Debate
The war continues to be discussed in ways that are self-serving—and self-defeating.
By Stephen M. Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University. Twitter: @stephenwalt
NOVEMBER 29, 2022, 6:20 AM

Because war is uncertain and reliable information is sparse, no one knows how the war in Ukraine will play out. Nor can any of us be completely certain what the optimal course of action is. We all have our own theories, hunches, beliefs, and hopes, but nobody’s crystal ball is 100 percent reliable in the middle of a war.

You might think that this situation would encourage observers to approach the whole issue with a certain humility and give alternative perspectives a fair hearing even when they disagree with one’s own. Instead, debates about responsibility for the war and the proper course of action to follow have been unusually nasty and intolerant, even by modern standards of social media vituperation. I’ve been trying to figure out why this is the case.

What I find especially striking is how liberal interventionists, unrepentant neoconservatives, and a handful of progressives who are all-in for Ukraine seem to have no doubts whatsoever about the origins of the conflict or the proper course of action to follow today. For them, Russian President Vladimir Putin is solely and totally responsible for the war, and the only mistakes others may have made in the past was to be too nice to Russia and too willing to buy its oil and gas. The only outcome they are willing to entertain is a complete Ukrainian victory, ideally accompanied by regime change in Moscow, the imposition of reparations to finance Ukrainian reconstruction, and war crimes trials for Putin and his associates. Convinced that anything less than this happy result will reward aggression, undermine deterrence, and place the current world order in jeopardy, their mantra is: “Whatever it takes for as long as it takes.”

This same group has also been extraordinarily critical of those who believe responsibility for the war is not confined to Russia’s president and who think these war aims might be desirable in the abstract but are unlikely to be achieved at an acceptable cost and risk. If you have the temerity to suggest that NATO enlargement (and the policies related to it) helped pave the road to war, if you believe the most likely outcome is a negotiated settlement and that getting there sooner rather than later would be desirable, and if you favor supporting Ukraine but think this goal should be weighed against other interests, you’re almost certain to be denounced as a pro-Putin stooge, an appeaser, an isolationist, or worse. Case in point: When a handful of progressive congressional representatives released a rather tepid statement calling for greater reliance on diplomacy a few weeks ago, it was buried under a hailstorm of criticism and quickly disavowed by its own sponsors.

Wartime is precisely when one should think most dispassionately and carefully about one’s own interests and strategies. Unfortunately, keeping a cool head is especially hard to do when the bullets are flying, innocent people are suffering, and rallying public support takes priority. A narrowing of debate is typical of most wars—at least for a long time—with governments encouraging patriotic groupthink and marginalizing dissident views. And the war in Ukraine has been no exception thus far.

One reason public discourse is so heated is moral outrage, and I have a degree of sympathy for this position. What Russia is doing to Ukraine is horrific, and it’s easy to understand why people are angry, eager to support Kyiv any way they can, happy to condemn Russia’s leaders for their crimes, and willing to inflict some sort of punishment on the perpetrators. It’s emotionally gratifying to side with an underdog, especially when the other side is inflicting great harm on innocent people. Under the circumstances, I can also understand why some people are quick to see anyone with a different view as being insufficiently committed to a righteous cause and to conclude that they must somehow sympathize with the enemy. In the present political climate, if someone is not all-in for Ukraine, then they must be siding with Putin.

Moral outrage is not a policy, however, and anger at Putin and Russia does not tell us what approach is best for Ukraine or the world. It’s possible that the hawks are right and that giving Ukraine whatever it thinks it needs to achieve victory is the best course of action. But this approach is hardly guaranteed to succeed; it might just prolong the war to no good purpose, increase Ukrainian suffering, and eventually lead Russia to escalate or even use a nuclear weapon. None of us can be 100 percent certain that the policies we favor will turn out as we expect and hope.

Nor does outrage at Russia’s present conduct justify viewing those who warned that Western policy was making a future conflict more likely as being on Moscow’s side. To explain why something bad happened is not to justify or defend it, and calling for diplomacy (while highlighting the obstacles such an effort would face) does not entail lack of concern for Ukraine itself. Different people can be equally committed to helping Ukraine yet favor sharply differing ways to achieve that end.

Debates on Ukraine have also been distorted by a desire to deflect responsibility. The United States’ foreign-policy establishment doesn’t like admitting it’s made mistakes, and pinning all the blame for the war on Putin is a “get out of jail free” card that absolves proponents of NATO enlargement of any role in this tragic turn of events. Putin clearly bears enormous personal responsibility for this illegal and destructive war, but if prior Western actions made his decision more likely, then Western policymakers are not blameless. To assert otherwise is to reject both history and common sense (i.e., that no major power would be indifferent to a powerful alliance moving steadily closer to its borders) as well as the mountain of evidence over many years showing that Russian elites (and not just Putin) were deeply troubled by what NATO and the European Union were doing and they were actively looking for ways to stop it.

Proponents of enlargement now insist Putin and his associates were never worried about NATO enlargement and that their many protests about this policy were just a giant smokescreen concealing long-standing imperialist ambitions. In this view, what Putin and his allies really feared was the spread of democracy and freedom, and restoring the old Soviet empire was their true objective from their first day in power. But as journalist Branko Marcetic has shown, these lines of defense do not fit the facts. Moreover, NATO enlargement and the spread of liberal values weren’t separate and distinct concerns. From the Russian perspective, NATO enlargement, the 2014 EU accession agreement with Ukraine, and Western support for pro-democracy color revolutions were part of a seamless and increasingly worrisome package.

Western officials may have genuinely believed these actions posed no threat to Russia and might even benefit Russia over the longer term; the problem was that Russia’s leaders didn’t see it that way. Yet U.S. and Western policymakers naively assumed that Putin wouldn’t react even as the status quo kept shifting in ways that he and his advisors found alarming. The world thought democratic countries were benignly expanding the rules-based order and creating a vast zone of peace, but the result was just the opposite. Putin should be condemned for being paranoid, overconfident, and heartless, but Western policymakers should be faulted for being arrogant, naive, and cavalier.

Third, the war has been a disaster for Ukrainians, but supporters of U.S. liberal hegemony—especially the more hawkish elements of the foreign-policy “Blob”—have gotten some of their mojo back. If Western support enables Ukraine to defeat an invading army and humiliate a dangerous dictator, then the failures of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and the Balkans can be swept into the memory hole and the campaign to expand the U.S-led liberal order will get a new lease on life. No wonder the Blob is so eager to put Ukraine in the victory column.

This same desire to put past failures in the rearview mirror dovetails perfectly with the ongoing effort to marginalize advocates of foreign-policy restraint. Although restrainers remain a tiny minority within Washington, they had been gaining some degree of traction before the war broke out. Given the foreign-policy failures of the past 30 years and the incoherent chaos of the Trump era, this development is hardly surprising. Although prominent restrainers have repeatedly criticized Russia’s actions and endorsed Western support for Ukraine since the war began, they have also warned of the risks of escalation, emphasized the need for more flexible diplomacy, and reminded people that incautious efforts to spread liberal ideals helped cause this tragedy. For die-hard proponents of liberal hegemony, however, such views are anathema and must be discredited, and the active use of U.S. power on a global scale must be rehabilitated and redeemed.

Compared to the suffering of Ukrainians (and millions of other people around the world), of course, quarrels among foreign-policy cognoscenti are not that important. Who cares if hard-liners in the United States engage in hyperbolic attacks on those with whom they disagree or if the targets of their ire fire back in their turn? The participants in these exchanges all lead enviably comfortable lives, and one’s egos can surely tolerate a certain amount of abuse. Does any of this inside-baseball stuff really matter?

It does because the Biden administration could find itself in an awkward position in the months or years ahead. On the one hand, it is publicly committed to winning the war and hopes U.S. soldiers aren’t involved in combat, but the entire national security establishment is helping Ukraine in lots of ways. On the other hand, the administration also seems mindful of the risks of escalation, does not want to get into a shooting war with Russia, and some U.S. officials apparently believe that a total Ukrainian victory is unlikely and that eventually there will have to be a deal.

Here’s the rub: What if the war does end in a messy and disappointing compromise instead of the happy Hollywood ending most of the world would like to see? Despite the welcome progress Ukraine has made in recent months, such an unsatisfying outcome may still be the most likely result. If Russia still controls substantial amounts of Ukrainian territory a year from now, Ukraine has suffered additional damage in the interim, Putin still rules in Moscow despite the harm his war has done to Russia, and the United States’ European allies have had to absorb another influx of refugees and endure difficult Ukraine-related economic hardships, then it will be increasingly difficult for the Biden administration to spin this war as a success story. The finger-pointing, blame-casting, and blame-avoidance will then make today’s rancorous debate seem mild by comparison.

Unfortunately, these are the sort of political circumstances that lead presidents to keep distant wars going. Even if there’s no plausible path to victory, the desire to avoid being accused of not having done enough tempts them to escalate in some way or kick the can down the road. (In case you’ve forgotten, that’s pretty much how the United States ended up in Afghanistan for nearly two decades.) U.S. President Joe Biden and his team haven’t given themselves a lot of wiggle room, and their freedom of action is further reduced when any hint of less-than-total support for Kyiv generates a firestorm of hawkish denunciations. If the world is forced to choose the lesser evil from a set of bad choices, a more civil and less accusatory discourse would make it easier for policymakers to consider a wider range of alternatives as well as make it more likely that Ukraine and the coalition that is presently supporting it make the right call.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

Washington’s Carthaginian Peace Collides With Reality
The Biden administration refuses to tell the American people the truth: Ukraine is not winning and will not win this war.
The national political and military leaders who committed America to wars of choice in Vietnam, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, did so as a rule because they were convinced the fighting would be short and decisive. American presidents, presidential advisors, and senior military leaders never stopped to consider that national strategy, if it exists at all, consists of avoiding conflict unless the nation is attacked and compelled to fight.

The latest victim of this mentality is Ukraine. In the absence of a critical root-and-branch analysis of Russia’s national power and strategic interests, American senior military leaders and their political bosses viewed Russia through a narrowly focused lens that magnified U.S. and Ukrainian strengths but ignored Russia’s strategic advantages—geographic depth, almost limitless natural resources, high social cohesion, and the military-industrial capacity to rapidly scale up its military power.

...........
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

Elensky asking for US $1 trillion to host the 2030 World Fair in Odessa:

Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by Cyrano »

Expect Pakis to do the same now.
IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9305
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by IndraD »

Weapons From Russia-Ukraine War Now ending up in terrorist's hands in Africa
“Regrettably, the situation in the Sahel and the raging war in Ukraine serve as major sources of weapons and fighters that bolster the ranks of the terrorists in Lake Chad Region. A substantial proportion of the arms and ammunitions procured to execute the war in Libya, continues to find its way to the Lake Chad Region and other parts of the Sahel. Weapons being used for the war in Ukraine and Russia are equally beginning to filter to the region.
https://saharareporters.com/2022/11/30/ ... sts-buhari
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

The oil price cap, from G-7, kick-in on Monday at $60 a barrel.

To be reviewed every two months.

:rotfl:


On a serious note someone should tell Japan (and Australia) that they have stepped out-of-bounds.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

Look who is in Ukraine, apparently stayed there overnight, setting a new trend:

Putin insincere about peace talks, takes war to new level of 'barbarism' - a top U.S. diplomat
...........................

U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland met President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and other senior Ukrainian officials in Kyiv to show support at a time when Russia is trying to destroy the country’s energy infrastructure.

“Diplomacy is obviously everyone’s objective but you have to have a willing partner,” she told reporters. “And it’s very clear, whether it’s the energy attacks, whether it’s the rhetoric out of the Kremlin and the general attitude, that Putin is not sincere or ready for that.”

................
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

Have you been summoned to the army? Nothing unusual. Mass mobilizations to the army began. THAT'S what you need to know

A Polish newspaper reporting. Translated:
The Polish Army sends reservists summons for military exercises. 200,000 are to be called up this year. people. They have 14 days to pack up and check in at the military unit. Compulsory military exercises require unpaid leave, for which they are entitled to a small cash equivalent, so they think how to avoid being drafted into the army.
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1638
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by nandakumar »

NRao wrote:Look who is in Ukraine, apparently stayed there overnight, setting a new trend:

Putin insincere about peace talks, takes war to new level of 'barbarism' - a top U.S. diplomat
...........................

U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland met President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and other senior Ukrainian officials in Kyiv to show support at a time when Russia is trying to destroy the country’s energy infrastructure.

“Diplomacy is obviously everyone’s objective but you have to have a willing partner,” she told reporters. “And it’s very clear, whether it’s the energy attacks, whether it’s the rhetoric out of the Kremlin and the general attitude, that Putin is not sincere or ready for that.”

................
Surprising that Victoria Neuland is still only Under Secretary of State. I mean, in the US books, it's Ukraine policy is an outstanding success and she was the architect at the operations level. Where is the reward for merit? Evidently US too, is under the grip of Brahminical Patriarchy. Needs to be smashed.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12060
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by Vayutuvan »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland
Early life and education
Nuland was born in 1961 to Sherwin B. Nuland, a surgeon born to Ukrainian Jewish immigrants,[7] and a Christian British native mother, Rhona McKhann, née Goulston.[8] She graduated from Choate Rosemary Hall in 1979.[9] She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Brown University in 1983, where she studied Russian literature, political science, and history.[10]
and her husband
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan
... is an American neoconservative[1] scholar, critic of U.S. foreign policy, and a leading advocate of liberal interventionism.[2]
During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kagan left the Republican Party due to the party's nomination of Donald Trump and endorsed the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, for president.
Husband and wife playing both sides. Probably very embedded into all the three-letter orgs of the US.

Also consider the following. Similarities to late Secy. Albright are eery
Personal life and education[edit]
Kagan was born in Athens, Greece. His father, historian Donald Kagan, the Sterling Professor of Classics and History Emeritus at Yale University and a specialist in the history of the Peloponnesian War, was of Lithuanian Jewish descent
The following is another pointer to their Europhilia - basically both husband and wife are atlantsists in the mold of Albright.
In 2003, Kagan's book Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, published on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, created something of a sensation through its assertions that Europeans tended to favor peaceful resolutions of international disputes while the United States takes a more "Hobbesian" view in which some kinds of disagreement can only be settled by force, or, as he put it: "Americans are from Mars and Europe is from Venus." A New York Times book reviewer, Ivo H. Daalder wrote ...
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 07 Dec 2022 06:32, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

^^^^^

I think pretty much all of these type of guys in the US have ancestory in the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine or East Germany. IMO, thus their undistelled hatred for "Russia".

Kissinger (East Germany - by that I mean "close to the current Polish border), Kagan (Baltic), Krystol (Baltic), Brezenski - the mastermind of these game (Poland).

Out of Brezinski's Trilateral Commision comes Clintons, Blinken, Sulivan, Biden, to a lesser extent Obama, Bolton, and many, many more.

Trilateral Commission envisions the world like a chess board with Germany incharge of EU and Euro-Asia, and Japan incharge of Asia (yes, including India). There has always been a bunch of happy Japanse working very hard to ensure their suprimacy in Asia. And, Indians are happily dancing to that tune. Current set of Japanses:

Akihiko Tanaka Asia Pacific Chairman
Jin Roy Ryu Asia Pacific Deputy Chairman
Yasuchika Hasegawa Asia Pacific Honorary Chairman
Hideko Katsumata Asia Pacific Director

Japan, like Australia, is not a friend of India.

Take that for what it is worth.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

Germany and Norway want NATO to protect subsea infrastructure after Nord Stream attacks

Yes. Tha same NATO members that blew up NS 1/2 need to help with prevention of other underwater disasters.
dnivas
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 05:54

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by dnivas »

At least we sent dossiers after 26/11. These pathetic NATO / EU countries have turned out to be the worst cowards. I have lost complete respect for them.
A few days ago was chatting with some friends of friends [mid 20's to mid 30's]. somehow with a sombre tone one Viet-american stated talking abt the horrific losses that Ukrainians are facing and how Putin is a evil monster for attacking the civil infrastructure of Ukraine during winter.

Everyone had their sombre face on and started nodding like little robots.

I had to step in and start rattling the number of deaths caused by US in Vietnam, Korea, Syria, Iraq [1&2], Afghanistan, Libya. I then asked me how many Ukrainian civilians have been killed so far. They had no answer. Then I asked how many days did it take for the US to destroy Iraqi civilian infrastructure or the civilian infrastructure and they had no answer.

Immediately when I told them the body count for the spread of democracy has been in the tens of millions, you could see the shame and guilt on their face. the dude had to change the topic. The whole western world seems to be convulsing in NATO/CIA propaganda.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12060
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by Vayutuvan »

NRao wrote:^^^^^

I think pretty much all of these type of guys in the US have ancestory in the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine or East Germany. IMO, thus their undistelled hatred for "Russia".
Take that for what it is worth.
Thanks for expanding. Cold warriors are still embedded in duplicity. As long as they have some power to sway the culinary insti., NSA etc, Russia can never develop further.

If The Ukraine gambit doesn't succeed, they probably have plans B, C, and so on.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by eklavya »

NRao wrote:
Japan, like Australia, is not a friend of India.

Take that for what it is worth.
India, Japan and Australia are fellow democracies with significant capabilities and with a common interest in resisting CPC/PLA imperialism.

Russia is a friend of India but it’s rising dependence on China is very suboptimal for Indian interests.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12060
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by Vayutuvan »

Australia is democracy but Eurocentric. WASPy.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by RoyG »

Important to keep in mind that a China without colonial baggage is India's interest and not a fractured China. India at the end of the day does better as a third pole. The western alliance will train it's guns on us and we will fold much quicker if it was a straight match.

Russia and India are aligned when it comes to this initiative. Both want things to simmer between US and China because it weakens both in the process. Russia benefits because it will elevates their position within the SCO and makes China more reliant on it. They also get more wiggle room on their western border. For India, it means that China continues to hemorrhage foreign investment and it migrates to it's shores. They also begin the process of surrendering to our demands otherwise they risk another hostile and foreign backed power on their border.
titash
BRFite
Posts: 606
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by titash »

India will prosper best in a world wherein the other major powers are weakened but not fractured. Basically {Russia, EU, Anglo USA/UK/AUS/CAN/NZ, China, India} as 5 separate poles where the power differential between poles is not overwhelming

Having multiple competing entities means that no single entity is in the spotlight, and getting the Soros/Nuland treatment
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by eklavya »

RoyG wrote:Important to keep in mind that a China without colonial baggage is India's interest and not a fractured China.
Beg to differ. An independent Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan are very much in India’s interest. India borders Tibet, not China. Indian Army should be at the border between Tibet and China (to protect both Tibet and India).
ernest
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 15:35

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by ernest »

eklavya wrote:
RoyG wrote:Important to keep in mind that a China without colonial baggage is India's interest and not a fractured China.
Beg to differ. An independent Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan are very much in India’s interest. India borders Tibet, not China. Indian Army should be at the border between Tibet and China (to protect both Tibet and India).
Well said. The relaxation in defense headache itself will help us grow better and focus on endgame on western borders.

India has not been the leading superpower in centuries, and we have now settled with "one of the poles in a multi-polar world" target". We have to plan for scenarios where we are the leading power. Without that mindset, we'll always punch below our weight, even struggling to become one of the poles. Granted that it is tougher to become the sole superpower in the emergent world order, but if we bargain for less, we'll settle for lesser.

Further, a fractured China will lose its bargaining power and economies of scale, making India even more favorable for businesses due to stability, scale, and young population.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

titash wrote:India will prosper best in a world wherein the other major powers are weakened but not fractured. Basically {Russia, EU, Anglo USA/UK/AUS/CAN/NZ, China, India} as 5 separate poles where the power differential between poles is not overwhelming

Having multiple competing entities means that no single entity is in the spotlight, and getting the Soros/Nuland treatment
Bolded+underined part: I more than agree (I had said both the US and Chinese militaries need to be weakened by 25%).

India is incapable of 'maidan me utarke' ladna. @Rakesh said something in the Vikrant thread that deflated me: (IIRC) that an IN Admiral stated that in the SCS the dice are loaded against India so IN will try and dominate only the IOR. What kind of a pole would even think that? Poles are global, not IOR bound
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

eklavya wrote:
NRao wrote:
Japan, like Australia, is not a friend of India.

Take that for what it is worth.
India, Japan and Australia are fellow democracies with significant capabilities and with a common interest in resisting CPC/PLA imperialism.

Russia is a friend of India but it’s rising dependence on China is very suboptimal for Indian interests.
You need to read and quote in context. That post and therefore your quote was in relation to the "Trilateral Commission". That is a totally different dimension, where they do not care about the normal dimension. Brezenski/Kissenger never cared about "democracy" - to them it was always about the world is a chess board and the US being the only authority. Victoria Nuland is cut from the same cloth. She will never back down - her solution: print more $$ and send more arms.

Your response is correct but in the normal dimension.

There is yet another dimension: the World Economic Forum (WEF). Its leader Klaus Schwab gave the concluding comments at the G-20: NO multipolar world, he said. Because it fragments the world/society. He wants to be a leader of the new world in which everything is one: currency, nations, No religion, ......., reduced population to 2 billion, no traditional farming. vegetarian diets, etc. Just track Norway and Canada which are implementing his thinking
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

eklavya wrote:
NRao wrote:
Japan, like Australia, is not a friend of India.

Take that for what it is worth.
India, Japan and Australia are fellow democracies with significant capabilities and with a common interest in resisting CPC/PLA imperialism.

Russia is a friend of India but it’s rising dependence on China is very suboptimal for Indian interests.
Japan and Australia (along with the entire EU, Canada, and the US) were AND are colonial nations.

They, in some way/form, control the rest of the world - today.

"Democracy", "secularism", "Semitic", "pagan", and "kefir" are meant for others to follow, so they can control/manage "others".
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by eklavya »

^^^
Russia invaded Ukraine (a sovereign independent democratic nation), not Japan or Australia. China is a menace to all its neighbours, not Japan or Australia. China proliferated nuclear weapons to Pakistan, not Japan or Australia. India has common interests with Japan and Australia in countering China’s aggressive behaviour. And Russia is unfortunately falling rapidly into the Chinese orbit.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

Xi in Saudi Arabia.

Taking bets on if a new reserve currency will be floated.
vimal
BRFite
Posts: 1902
Joined: 27 Jul 2017 10:32

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by vimal »

NRao wrote:Xi in Saudi Arabia.

Taking bets on if a new reserve currency will be floated.
Something is cooking and if things keep heading this way US will have lost a massive sphere of influence.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by NRao »

An hour long. 7 days old vid.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by V_Raman »

India is the only country that has owned democracy and turning it against the colonial masters. We are more than capable of dealing with China - regardless of Russia is in its orbit or not. one huge sticking point for India is the diaspora in those colonial countries. It is a double edged sword.
Haresh
BRFite
Posts: 1491
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by Haresh »

2019 RAND Paper Warned US of Failure During Ukraine Conflict

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqVPM0KSUpo&t=5s
CalvinH
BRFite
Posts: 1098
Joined: 15 Jul 2007 04:14

Re: Russian-Ukranian War: Geopolitical Fallout

Post by CalvinH »

vimal wrote:
NRao wrote:Xi in Saudi Arabia.

Taking bets on if a new reserve currency will be floated.
Something is cooking and if things keep heading this way US will have lost a massive sphere of influence.
A picture of long line of shiny black Toyota pickups full of people wearing black (or Grey or Green) clothes and brandishing weapons and black flags with something Islamic written on it somewhere in deserts of Iraq will show up and the king will go crawling back to US
Post Reply