Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ukraine War... How much will S&P drop this week?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Things are going downhill fast. 40 mile long military convoy heading towards Kyiv. I do not think they will be able to hold out very long against such a large assault. Belarus is sending in troops as well. Putin is not going to back down. Ukraine is basically surrounded with the only safe passage on NW border with Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. Russian and separatist rebels have the Moldovan border covered. This will not end well for anybody, but especially grim for Ukrainians. It does not look as if sanctions are going to deter Putin and his desire to take over Ukraine. What can NATO and the EU do to stop him? Time for regime change. Time to back Nalvany and his supporters with covert interventions. Need an uprising within Russia to really stop Putin’s aspirations. Very dangerous for any who oppose him in Russia, but that is what it is going to take without starting WWIII. The World is getting ready to look a lot different geopolitically.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CordMcNally View Post

      I think being a net exporter of oil is a pipe dream. We'd have to increase oil production by like 60-70% which is no easy task. ************************, just a week or two ago this administration was talking about decreasing oil production.

      Don't hold your breath on the Cybertruck.
      We were a net petroleum exporter in 2020 I believe…. Here’s the numbers.

      https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...nd-exports.php

      Looks like we are short on the oil side.

      When that 40 mile long Russian armor convoy reaches Kiev, they are in trouble…. Tonight? Tomorrow? I imagine Russian will find a way to jam those drones before too long also. It’s about to get ugly(er).

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jaqen Haghar MD View Post

        We were a net petroleum exporter in 2020 I believe…. Here’s the numbers.

        https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...nd-exports.php

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jaqen Haghar MD View Post

          We were a net petroleum exporter in 2020 I believe…. Here’s the numbers.

          https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...nd-exports.php

          Looks like we are short on the oil side.
          I wrote net exporter but I was really talking about oil independence in that paragraph which makes it confusing. We were a petroleum net exporter but still an oil net importer for 2020 per your link. Being oil independent isn’t as easy as producing the number of barrels you consume. Different types of crude are better for different products. Some types don’t take as much refining and some take lots of refining. Sometimes it’s cheaper to just import the oil you need instead of having to heavily refine some of the oil you’ve got.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zlandar View Post

            The US has never directly engaged Russian forces in large-scale combat. Both use proxies in prior conflicts.

            If the US did send in boots it would play into Putin's hands. Putin has been claiming NATO's expansion is threatening Russia's security. If Russia managed to capture any US service members they would be paraded in front of cameras with Putin screaming "SEE! IT WAS THE AMERICANS!"

            We need to let the EU take a major role. They have been passive for too long and this is in their backyard. It can't always be the US riding to the rescue.
            Yes, it's odd the Europeans refuse to mention the troop option card. I am not saying the US should. But the game is being played suboptimally, in that the neither player has won but both feel they can get an advantage by playing further rounds.

            At the end of the day, it is an option for the US or the Europeans to send troops, as it is for Putin to withdraw. By saying this was not an option from the start, it may have led Putin to invade. Putin calculated the Western response correctly until the day 2 of the invasion. So if he had been successful in his invasion, perhaps it would have been like Crimea. In Crimea, after Putin took Crimea, he stopped and so did NATO. The game reached a stable equilibrium and no further rounds were played, until recently.

            But as it is, the dynamic is: Putin continues aggression, NATO continues to undermine stability by arming the Ukranians, who cannot win.
            I can't see how the game can become stabilised without either NATO becoming involved or Putin folding, but both say that they won't currently.

            I guess now that Putin has brought in the issue of nukes, it brings to a head: the only parties who can ask him to stop are other nuclear powers: US, France, China, United Kingdom. Short of a Cuba-type standoff/mutually assured destruction stalemate, the other stable states are: implosion of Russia (which may not be a good thing) or Russia takes Ukraine and the West backs down with sanctions. Neither of which seems likely currently.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kamban View Post

              I think Germany and France are smart enough to not get involved directly in a war where their actual security is not at stake. They also know Putin is very unpredictable and if they get into a war with him, there is no way to know if this will be just a conventional warfare.
              I think both sides are acting irrationally.
              Putin is irrational for continuing the invasion for this long. It is destroying the Russian economy but he cannot back out without disgracing himself domestically.

              The Europeans have gone nuclear with their financial sanctions and escalated this in the financial realm in the way that Putin has militarily. Their decision to freeze Russian central bank assets is unprecendents and just incredible. It was not something the Russians had envisaged and they probably see it as theft and an act of war.

              If Putin wins the invasion, he will lose due to economic effects.
              If the Europeans win the financial war, they will lose because Putin will become more desperate and bloodthirsty.

              It's really a bad game that is being played.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bovie View Post

                This would be an unrecoverable error. Worst possible move.

                Your logic is that we should send troops to Ukraine…because we sent troops to Iraq and Vietnam?

                Seriously?
                Not send troops, threaten to send troops (or at least have that as a live option), there is a difference.
                I am not saying the US should send troops, I am saying every engagement is different. The narrative is that the US cannot send troops because of the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Maybe Putin interprets that as, "there will be no NATO involvement without messaging to their population that they may". Anyway, when you say you're not sending troops from the start, that's one deterrent you've removed. Why take that away, when it costs nothing.

                I have no idea whether sending troops would be good or bad. I guess if they are going to send troops, they should send them earlier, but maybe they can resist sending any at all.

                Maybe the optimal game for the US is to provide max support to destabilse the area, watch as Russia levels Ukraine and hope Russia implodes as a result, but not in an excessively unstable way. If that is the case, the US should say from the start they are not sending troops, because mentioning the troop option, the Ukrainians may say that was a promise and we let them down, and so hopefully the US won't get sucked in.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by G View Post
                  I think the peace talks thing is interesting. My mind is too simple to think of anything other than, "Dear, Russia, go back home and pay us for all the damages."

                  In terms of investing: again, is anybody buying Russia? Would it be unpatriotic to do so?

                  https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/mosc...stateside.html
                  The Russian stock exchanges are were closed yesterday and today, and it is unclear when they will reopen, so I'm not sure how you would go about buying Russian stocks. It's going to be interesting to see whether bank runs start in Russia with people withdrawing everything they can from ATM's as was a problem during the Euro crisis.

                  I'm surprised the VIX is only 30, I would have expected 50 with this type of event. Even if Russian stocks bounce, further ruble devaluation may result in losses. I would only invest in Russian stocks when I feel comfortable holding rubles.

                  What knife catching action were you thinking of performing ? Can you describe it in detail?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dont_know_mind View Post

                    Not send troops, threaten to send troops (or at least have that as a live option), there is a difference.
                    I am not saying the US should send troops, I am saying every engagement is different. The narrative is that the US cannot send troops because of the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Maybe Putin interprets that as, "there will be no NATO involvement without messaging to their population that they may". Anyway, when you say you're not sending troops from the start, that's one deterrent you've removed. Why take that away, when it costs nothing.

                    I have no idea whether sending troops would be good or bad. I guess if they are going to send troops, they should send them earlier, but maybe they can resist sending any at all.

                    Maybe the optimal game for the US is to provide max support to destabilse the area, watch as Russia levels Ukraine and hope Russia implodes as a result, but not in an excessively unstable way. If that is the case, the US should say from the start they are not sending troops, because mentioning the troop option, the Ukrainians may say that was a promise and we let them down, and so hopefully the US won't get sucked in.
                    I have found that if you threaten with something and do not come through with it you lose a lot of credibility and will ultimately need to raise the stakes and come through on them before you will be taken seriously again.

                    Now my experience is based on my children but I think the idea that you should not threaten something you do not want to have to do is a good one.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Dont_know_mind View Post

                      I think both sides are acting irrationally.
                      Putin is irrational for continuing the invasion for this long. It is destroying the Russian economy but he cannot back out without disgracing himself domestically.

                      The Europeans have gone nuclear with their financial sanctions and escalated this in the financial realm in the way that Putin has militarily. Their decision to freeze Russian central bank assets is unprecendents and just incredible. It was not something the Russians had envisaged and they probably see it as theft and an act of war.

                      If Putin wins the invasion, he will lose due to economic effects.
                      If the Europeans win the financial war, they will lose because Putin will become more desperate and bloodthirsty.

                      It's really a bad game that is being played.
                      Dominant game is go harder first. This is russian war doctrine. Also ofc MAD doctrine as well.

                      People are crazy to not realize increased risks of tail events being very VERY real, which still doesnt make them a highly likely outcome by a longshot, but odds have dramatically shifted.

                      Been a wild couple years.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by uptoolate View Post
                        Norway sending 2,000 M72 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, reversing a policy against exporting weapons to non-NATO countries that has been in place since the 1950s. And I read that the Netherlands was sending 2,000 Stingers. I'm sure all the NATO pilots are going crazy looking at those satellite photos of the Russian columns backed up all over the Ukrainian highways. Nothing but admiration for the people defending their homeland.
                        I bet the A-10 warthog pilots are salivating at the picture of the column.

                        Comment


                        • Threatening to fight Russia directly in Ukraine is a very bad idea. It can escalate quickly, especially if their leader is irrational. I don't know about the others here, But I don't want to be rained down by Russian ICBM's because we think Ukraine is worth fighting for directly.

                          Secondly their intelligence is not stupid. They have enough intelligence gatherings to know we are exhausted by 20 years of non stop wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with also monetary losses in Syria fighting the proxy war there. We don't have enough troops to fight a prolonged battle with Russia in their backyard and if Putin thinks he might lose, he might very well engage in first strike.

                          Now if this was a NATO country I think we have a clear mandate. Putin is also smart enough to know that and will not invade a NATO nation. Let us see what happens with financial embargo.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kamban View Post
                            Threatening to fight Russia directly in Ukraine is a very bad idea. It can escalate quickly, especially if their leader is irrational. I don't know about the others here, But I don't want to be rained down by Russian ICBM's because we think Ukraine is worth fighting for directly.

                            Secondly their intelligence is not stupid. They have enough intelligence gatherings to know we are exhausted by 20 years of non stop wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with also monetary losses in Syria fighting the proxy war there. We don't have enough troops to fight a prolonged battle with Russia in their backyard and if Putin thinks he might lose, he might very well engage in first strike.

                            Now if this was a NATO country I think we have a clear mandate. Putin is also smart enough to know that and will not invade a NATO nation. Let us see what happens with financial embargo.
                            This statement encompasses why history continues to repeat itself and unless there is a significant evolution to us as a society or species nothing will really change.

                            Kamban this isn't to rag on you, I mean I essentially feel the same way. I'm not Ukrainian and I certainly don't want to lose my family or what I've worked for fighting a war for something/someone that doesn't affect me directly.

                            Sadly this is also what many said as Hitler made his moves and countless other examples in history exist.

                            If today, Putin said, give me Lithuania or I will launch all my nukes and I don't care what happens to Russia what should we do? Do we risk MAD for a tiny NATO country? 99% of me wants to scream no, just let him take it. The last 1%, probably what some of the more philosophical amongst us would ascribe to as that associated with the religious/mythological/self actualized man would stand for his principles and have no fear. Who knows how it ends?

                            Comment


                            • This convoy is becoming a Benny Hill bit. I think it's pretty apparent that the Russian military has been vastly overrated. I'd love to be a fly on the wall listening to Putin talk about this.

                              Comment


                              • When the Americans faced Russian mercs in Syria in 2018, the U.S. absolutely lit the Russians up:
                                https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/13/...enaries-killed

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X