Ukranian Conflict

[MaineJay]

Let's not let this discussion get too heated. I'd hate to shut down any discussion, but one of the reasons for starting this forum was to avoid talk outside of weather.

   We are all going to interpret and assess things differently, usually no one is totally right, nor totally wrong, just don't want animosity to brew between members.

[1816]

Just now, MaineJay said:

Let's not let this discussion get too heated. I'd hate to shut down any discussion, but one of the reasons for starting this forum was to avoid talk outside of weather.

   We are all going to interpret and assess things differently, usually no one is totally right, not totally wrong, just don't want animosity to be between members.

Agree but seems pretty civil so far. Nice to be able to discuss in here in my opinion. If people can avoid getting personal no reason we can't have opposing viewpoints.  

[Psu1313]

1 minute ago, MaineJay said:

Let's not let this discussion get too heated. I'd hate to shut down any discussion, but one of the reasons for starting this forum was to avoid talk outside of weather.

   We are all going to interpret and assess things differently, usually no one is totally right, nor totally wrong, just don't want animosity to brew between members.

1816, HV, just confirming with you guys, but I don't think this is getting heated at all. If so, let me know and I'm happy to adjust comments where necessary. 

[HVSNOWSTORM]

1 minute ago, Psu1313 said:

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Look at Cuba. We're not crazy enough to start a World War. Now, a proxy war is not out of the question with arming a bunch of separatists that would be pro-US, but to say that the US would try to take over Mexico and would bomb their sovereign territory in your scenario is not plausible. 

Ukraine could have screamed neutrality from the rooftops, and Putin would still have eventually bore down on them. He wants Ukraine to be pro-Russia, period. 

Of course he wants them pro Russia because they will either be pro Russia or pro west (US). You guys keep speaking in absolutes about war you have no idea, that the US wouldn't bomb military bases in Mexico is Russia put military assets there, of course it would be highly likely. Again not just bobming randomly. But you'd be basically just telling Russia, go ahead take America. Totally crazy.

I understand everyone just wants to be totally anti Russia anti Putin and it's hard to look at both sides and objectively because thats the good guy thing to do but these are the realitys. 

[1816]

Just now, Psu1313 said:

1816, HV, just confirming with you guys, but I don't think this is getting heated at all. If so, let me know and I'm happy to adjust comments where necessary. 

Agreed. Jay is probably wary because of what happened over there. I think differing opinions can be presented without getting personal. If it does I also think they can shut down the individual(s) that go there and let the rest of the grownups talk. 

[HVSNOWSTORM]

We all good @MaineJay  , @Psu1313 and i will just have to disagree on a few things, but we are all good here. I think we both made our points anyways at this juncture, to lay out all viewpoints.

[Psu1313]

2 minutes ago, HVSNOWSTORM said:

Of course he wants them pro Russia because they will either be pro Russia or pro west (US). You guys keep speaking in absolutes about war you have no idea, that the US wouldn't bomb military bases in Mexico is Russia put military assets there, of course it would be highly likely. Again not just bobming randomly. But you'd be basically just telling Russia, go ahead take America. Totally crazy.

I understand everyone just wants to be totally anti Russia anti Putin and it's hard to look at both sides and objectively because thats the good guy thing to do but these are the realitys. 

Where I disagree is the having assets in the location part. Just because they put troops in a country does not mean we are saying, "go ahead and take the southern US."  Would their be a buildup on the border? Absolutely. Would the US bomb those locations, absolutely not. Again, it's not about good or evil, but rather the desire of a country to set their own path. 

[HVSNOWSTORM]

Anyways, @Uscg Ast said that the US was considering a cyber attack on Russia for there grid? Do you mean power grid? What's that mean, IMO, that would be a dramatic escalation to this whole thing. I was honestly one who was thinking this isnt going to be a huge huge deal. I figured it would be a dectnt conflict but avoid world war but if the US does that or if Putin interprets some type of support for Ukraine as involvement or interference in the war, that would be a major escalation.

Anyone have any more information on that cyber attack consideration by the US that @Uscg Ast was referring to?

[1816]

3 minutes ago, Psu1313 said:

Again, it's not about good or evil, but rather the desire of a country to set their own path. 

This is the key to the whole thing. The folks presenting an alternate viewpoint from putins perspective keep leaving this out. If Mexico somehow desires to join the Russian federation and passed it through their congress or whatever with popular support then the US would have to swallow that. 

You're comparing that to Ukraine where they have made clear what they want with a democratically elected government and you can clearly see where the people stand on the whole thing. They don't want Russia. Do we not intervene now when the wishes of a democratically elected sovereign people are ignored and their country laid to waste? Fine we will just wait until it's a country we aren't willing to see that happen to. Doesn't do anyone any good to procrastinate this though. Except maybe putin. 

[1816]

5 minutes ago, HVSNOWSTORM said:

Anyways, @Uscg Ast said that the US was considering a cyber attack on Russia for there grid? Do you mean power grid? What's that mean, IMO, that would be a dramatic escalation to this whole thing. I was honestly one who was thinking this isnt going to be a huge huge deal. I figured it would be a dectnt conflict but avoid world war but if the US does that or if Putin interprets some type of support for Ukraine as involvement or interference in the war, that would be a major escalation.

Anyone have any more information on that cyber attack consideration by the US that @Uscg Ast was referring to?

Putin definitely threatened to take actions against anyone helping Ukraine. They are getting amazing Intel support and weapons from multiple western nations including us. So cyberwarfare would be a likely way for them to go. Let's hope their cyber attacks are as well prepared as their invasion. Maybe we get some extra pop-ups or something. 

[HVSNOWSTORM]

5 minutes ago, Psu1313 said:

Where I disagree is the having assets in the location part. Just because they put troops in a country does not mean we are saying, "go ahead and take the southern US."  Would their be a buildup on the border? Absolutely. Would the US bomb those locations, absolutely not. Again, it's not about good or evil, but rather the desire of a country to set their own path. 

I understand you may see it that way but the US military would not, there is not any doubt about it. And would no question lead to a conflict, the US would never allow that, again unless there was incompetent leadership, or compromised leadership. It would be the biggest threat to the US mainland in history.

Anyways let's just leave it at that, the only reason that was even brought up was to explain Putins fear of having US troops and assets on/bordering his border, which everyone should understand now, whether or not you want to accept it is up to you, but Putin has said that is a red line and clearly he acted on that as he said he would.  So IMO that part is proven and facts based on his words and actions.

[HVSNOWSTORM]

2 minutes ago, 1816 said:

Putin definitely threatened to take actions against anyone helping Ukraine. They are getting amazing Intel support and weapons from multiple western nations including us. So cyberwarfare would be a likely way for them to go. Let's hope their cyber attacks are as well prepared as their invasion. Maybe we get some extra pop-ups or something. 

That would be a huge escalation if the US is involved in any sort cyber attack on any decent scale against Russia.

[Psu1313]

7 minutes ago, HVSNOWSTORM said:

That would be a huge escalation if the US is involved in any sort cyber attack on any decent scale against Russia.

This is going to sound definitive when it isn't meant to be so try to see it through that lens. The US cannot launch a cyberattack on Russia unless one is directly launched on the US by Russia, and only as a counter. To do so preemptively would be a horrific idea. 

As you know "we could," but this is more about the, I hope our leaders aren't thinking in that direction. 

What's more interesting to me is that Russia sent aircraft into Sweden's airspace (no one can tell me this is by accident). Putin had Sweden and Finland on the sidelines until he started to threaten them. I don't understand his thinking here. 

[1816]

1 minute ago, Psu1313 said:

This is going to sound definitive when it isn't meant to be so try to see it through that lens. The US cannot launch a cyberattack on Russia unless one is directly launched on the US by Russia, and only as a counter. To do so preemptively would be a horrific idea. 

As you know "we could," but this is more about the, I hope our leaders aren't thinking in that direction. 

What's more interesting to me is that Russia sent aircraft into Sweden's airspace (no one can tell me this is by accident). Putin had Sweden and Finland on the sidelines until he started to threaten them. I don't understand his thinking here. 

[Tater]

This is a long post based more on philosophy than actual current events, so I'm putting most of it in spoilers.

Rights

Spoiler

The concept of rights is a fascinating thing. It has not existed in any meaningful way for most of human history. Our current understanding of rights mostly stems from English common law, and as such most of the concept of rights exists in areas dominated by British influence. There is no question in my mind that our concept and application of rights has been a major contributor to the prosperity of the British colonies. Those that have embraced the concept the most have thrived the most (see the US as example #1). Those that have rejected the concept have struggled (see India). Of course, there are likely exceptions (China being an interesting example, though I have no idea whether or not they are an exception, as the study of China is exceedingly complex). 

It is amazing how far the founders of the US took the concept of rights. Nowhere else have such rights been so codified into the supreme law of the land. While the US has had many advantages that have contributed to its rise, I think the acceptance of rights has played a leading role (if not the leading role) in that success. However, rights only work as long as all sides support such rights. The government has the primary job of enforcing these rights, despite the idea that these rights are not granted by government. As the government has grown more powerful, these rights have suffered. As disagreements rise about interpretations of certain rights, the government can use that to their advantage to whittle away at the supposedly inalienable rights. It is easy to find endless examples of the government trampling over nearly right outlined in the bill of rights. Some folks have the resources and knowledge to fight back, but many do not. Here in the "land of the free," we've seen a slow but relentless evaporation of our so-called "rights" over the years.

Rights are meaningless if you do not have resources to defend them when disagreements rise, which leads to my next topic.

Might Makes Right

Spoiler

The above statement is anathema to those who support the concept of rights. But reality doesn't care about your feelings. All throughout recorded human history, the weak have been subservient to the strong in one form or another. Kingdoms have risen and fallen, with endless battles and larger wars being the main constant throughout history. Indeed, most of history, even in the Bible, is the story of one group fighting another. The times of relative peace have only existed inasmuch as the great power at the time was able to enforce such peace, whether we're talking about Pax Romana that occurred two thousand years ago that was enforced by the sprawling Roman military or the present day peace enforced by the US military.

It is blatantly unfair to suggest that nations don't have sovereignty, but of course life isn't fair. Whether we're talking about the ancient Medo-Persians, the Grecians, the Mongols, the Romans, the Vikings, various groups in the North and South Americas, or the more modern Germans, Russians, Chinese, or Americans, the fact is that large powers have always exerted massive power over their spheres of influence. To deny that such things can and will happen is to deny all of human history and the essence of human nature.

To expand on the above, though you likely know what I'm thinking, we may dislike that Russia has invaded Ukraine to assert their dominance, but it's happening anyway. It makes zero difference whether it is justifiable; it's happening, and we need to accept that before looking at potential solutions. Russia is fully committed to making this happen. The Rubicon has been crossed, and there is no going back.

Replacing Putin

Spoiler

It pains me to see the number of people who think that replacing Putin is the answer to so many of our problems. Why would anyone think that getting rid of the current leader will result in him being replaced with a "better" one? The US has helped in toppling many governments, and how often has it led to a beneficial outcome? Let's not forget that the US played a significant role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we quickly installed a puppet government after the collapse. The abject failure of that government brought us Putin.

It's quite possible that we could get a leader that's friendlier to the West if Putin left the scene, but it's dangerous to assume that would be the case. Stephen Cohen was warning years ago that Putin's advisors were telling him to stop trying to negotiate with the West, as the West wasn't interested and never honored their agreements anyway. Contrary to the narrative pushed by the media, Putin is not acting alone. He is doing what is politically expedient for him, and many of the important people support him. (Whether or not the majority of Russians support him is just as irrelevant as whether most of China supports their government, most of North Korea supports their government, or most of the US supports their government.)

And if you think Putin's advisors were lying about the West's promises, let me remind you of a quote from Red Cloud, a chief of the Oglala Sioux:

"They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept but one; they promised to take our land, and they took it."

Going Nuclear

Spoiler

Humanity has survived an endless train of tyrants, dictators, invasions, famines, wars, and the like. However, never before in known history has the world had world leaders with the ability to destroy most of humanity with the push of a button. We can deal with crazy leaders, as the world has had many. But we have no idea what will happen in a full-scale nuclear war. We know at a bare minimum that it will be catastrophic and millions will die within minutes and billions will die of secondary effects, primarily starvation. I think it's reasonable to do "unreasonable" things to avoid this as long as possible.

Let's assume for now that we successfully launch a successful first strike and eliminate enough of Russia's nuclear fleet to ensure we win the resulting war (which is an outrageously optimistic assumption). The results will still spell death and starvation for many. Furthermore, and more importantly, both nuclear weapons and human nature will still exist. While peace may reign for a time, eventually another world power will rise and this will go down all over again. "Striking the bully" may kick the can down the road a bit, but it doesn't fix anything. And this is a best-case (ie extremely unlikely) scenario. The good guys don't always win, and in geopolitics, I'm unconvinced there are any good guys.

I'm hoping this historical context adds context to my previous posts and sheds some light on the current situation. However, we're armchair observers with little say in what happens (unless one or more of you knows more than you're letting on), so this is largely academic and irrelevant. Furthermore, the following quote is as true as ever:

Quote

What we learn from history is that no one learns from history.

 

[1816]

13 minutes ago, Tater said:

This is a long post based more on philosophy than actual current events, so I'm putting most of it in spoilers.

Rights

  Hide contents

The concept of rights is a fascinating thing. It has not existed in any meaningful way for most of human history. Our current understanding of rights mostly stems from English common law, and as such most of the concept of rights exists in areas dominated by British influence. There is no question in my mind that our concept and application of rights has been a major contributor to the prosperity of the British colonies. Those that have embraced the concept the most have thrived the most (see the US as example #1). Those that have rejected the concept have struggled (see India). Of course, there are likely exceptions (China being an interesting example, though I have no idea whether or not they are an exception, as the study of China is exceedingly complex). 

It is amazing how far the founders of the US took the concept of rights. Nowhere else have such rights been so codified into the supreme law of the land. While the US has had many advantages that have contributed to its rise, I think the acceptance of rights has played a leading role (if not the leading role) in that success. However, rights only work as long as all sides support such rights. The government has the primary job of enforcing these rights, despite the idea that these rights are not granted by government. As the government has grown more powerful, these rights have suffered. As disagreements rise about interpretations of certain rights, the government can use that to their advantage to whittle away at the supposedly inalienable rights. It is easy to find endless examples of the government trampling over nearly right outlined in the bill of rights. Some folks have the resources and knowledge to fight back, but many do not. Here in the "land of the free," we've seen a slow but relentless evaporation of our so-called "rights" over the years.

Rights are meaningless if you do not have resources to defend them when disagreements rise, which leads to my next topic.

Might Makes Right

  Hide contents

The above statement is anathema to those who support the concept of rights. But reality doesn't care about your feelings. All throughout recorded human history, the weak have been subservient to the strong in one form or another. Kingdoms have risen and fallen, with endless battles and larger wars being the main constant throughout history. Indeed, most of history, even in the Bible, is the story of one group fighting another. The times of relative peace have only existed inasmuch as the great power at the time was able to enforce such peace, whether we're talking about Pax Romana that occurred two thousand years ago that was enforced by the sprawling Roman military or the present day peace enforced by the US military.

It is blatantly unfair to suggest that nations don't have sovereignty, but of course life isn't fair. Whether we're talking about the ancient Medo-Persians, the Grecians, the Mongols, the Romans, the Vikings, various groups in the North and South Americas, or the more modern Germans, Russians, Chinese, or Americans, the fact is that large powers have always exerted massive power over their spheres of influence. To deny that such things can and will happen is to deny all of human history and the essence of human nature.

To expand on the above, though you likely know what I'm thinking, we may dislike that Russia has invaded Ukraine to assert their dominance, but it's happening anyway. It makes zero difference whether it is justifiable; it's happening, and we need to accept that before looking at potential solutions. Russia is fully committed to making this happen. The Rubicon has been crossed, and there is no going back.

Replacing Putin

  Hide contents

It pains me to see the number of people who think that replacing Putin is the answer to so many of our problems. Why would anyone think that getting rid of the current leader will result in him being replaced with a "better" one? The US has helped in toppling many governments, and how often has it led to a beneficial outcome? Let's not forget that the US played a significant role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we quickly installed a puppet government after the collapse. The abject failure of that government brought us Putin.

It's quite possible that we could get a leader that's friendlier to the West if Putin left the scene, but it's dangerous to assume that would be the case. Stephen Cohen was warning years ago that Putin's advisors were telling him to stop trying to negotiate with the West, as the West wasn't interested and never honored their agreements anyway. Contrary to the narrative pushed by the media, Putin is not acting alone. He is doing what is politically expedient for him, and many of the important people support him. (Whether or not the majority of Russians support him is just as irrelevant as whether most of China supports their government, most of North Korea supports their government, or most of the US supports their government.)

And if you think Putin's advisors were lying about the West's promises, let me remind you of a quote from Red Cloud, a chief of the Oglala Sioux:

"They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept but one; they promised to take our land, and they took it."

Going Nuclear

  Hide contents

Humanity has survived an endless train of tyrants, dictators, invasions, famines, wars, and the like. However, never before in known history has the world had world leaders with the ability to destroy most of humanity with the push of a button. We can deal with crazy leaders, as the world has had many. But we have no idea what will happen in a full-scale nuclear war. We know at a bare minimum that it will be catastrophic and millions will die within minutes and billions will die of secondary effects, primarily starvation. I think it's reasonable to do "unreasonable" things to avoid this as long as possible.

Let's assume for now that we successfully launch a successful first strike and eliminate enough of Russia's nuclear fleet to ensure we win the resulting war (which is an outrageously optimistic assumption). The results will still spell death and starvation for many. Furthermore, and more importantly, both nuclear weapons and human nature will still exist. While peace may reign for a time, eventually another world power will rise and this will go down all over again. "Striking the bully" may kick the can down the road a bit, but it doesn't fix anything. And this is a best-case (ie extremely unlikely) scenario. The good guys don't always win, and in geopolitics, I'm unconvinced there are any good guys.

I'm hoping this historical context adds context to my previous posts and sheds some light on the current situation. However, we're armchair observers with little say in what happens (unless one or more of you knows more than you're letting on), so this is largely academic and irrelevant. Furthermore, the following quote is as true as ever:

 

You make some good points Tater. 

I don't want my family to starve or die of nuclear cancer just as much as the next person. But I'm going to opt for fighting the bully instead of giving him the lunch money 100 times out of 100. Being afraid and passive while atrocities are committed on a large scale to an innocent populace is no way to live. Especially when there is no reason to believe that doing so will have lead to an end of the atrocities.  

Edited March 3, 2022 by 1816

[1816]

Now the Russians are shelling the largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine. It's on fire. How much more of this do we need to see to confirm what we already know. Whoever is giving the orders is fucking nuts and the people executing them are fucking incompetent. Let's hope we somehow avoid a nuclear disaster there. ITS RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA. COME ON RUSSIANS GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER. 

[Tater]

2 hours ago, 1816 said:

Now the Russians are shelling the largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine. It's on fire. How much more of this do we need to see to confirm what we already know. Whoever is giving the orders is fucking nuts and the people executing them are fucking incompetent. Let's hope we somehow avoid a nuclear disaster there. ITS RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA. COME ON RUSSIANS GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER. 

This is war. War is hell.

First rule of interpreting a war report: the first three reports are always wrong. Second rule: details, details,  details. What was said, what was not said, and what doesn't make sense.

Think carefully about this. The Russians are trying to conquer territory. They have troops and equipment well inside the fallout zone of this reactor. Do you really think they would seriously deliberately attempt to put their own military in danger?

Of course they want to take control of the nuclear reactor. This is critical infrastructure. And of course the Ukrainians will be defending it. The Russians may not have the well-oiled military machine the US has, but they aren't all complete fools either. No doubt they sent a higher tier group to secure this critical asset, and they had careful instructions on how to go about doing this. If Russia wanted to just blow it up, they'd have done so from a safe distance with all equipment and personnel far removed from the area.

Russia knows what kind of PR disaster it would be to blow up a nuclear plant. Furthermore the nuclear fallout would be just as bad for Russia as the PR fallout. Accidents happen in war, but so much of the story the way you framed it make no sense.

Of course I can make this post with the benefit of additional time passing and additional details having come out that show that this was a much smaller deal than initially reported, but red flags went up the instant I read your post. I hadn't seen this on the news anywhere yet, but I instantly had a lot of questions and went digging. Even now, I'm sure I don't have all the details.

There are lies and propaganda everywhere in the media (I don't frequent much in the way of news sites other than a few finance sites because it's been all propaganda for years). Don't trust anything you read, and especially not initial reports, and doubly not initial reports from a war zone with details that make no sense whatsover. I appreciate the news you posted, as I hadn't seen it yet, but I suggest you take things with a bigger grain of salt. I will even welcome you to the club of the Extreme Cynics. 😜

[FortySixAnd32]

On 3/3/2022 at 9:44 AM, Psu1313 said:

Let me first start by saying I appreciate the debate. It's nice to have a respectable conversation these days without it devolving into name calling or insinuations. 

Here is where I have to disagree and it all is based in putting missiles in Ukraine. NATO did not put nuclear weapons or a military base in the Baltics (though yes, NATO can use existing bases). You're right about being much easier to attack from a close in location, but that would be glossing over the fact that many NATO countries had been reducing military levels prior to this event. Russia knows that NATO does not want to fight, but Putin wants to have carte blanche on controlling the states around him. If the Kremlin were to be welcoming to the world, the Russian people would benefit. Putin knows that a thriving Democracy on his doorstep is bad for autocracy when A) Russia's economy is weak, and B) Putin's popularity has been waning over the years. The biggest threat to Russia is culture and finance, and that is what crumbled the Soviet Union. Putin did not want a repeat, but he may have just set himself up for one. 

Let's also look at what would happen if Mexico were to become friends with Russia and host troops. The US may provide some bluster, but in no way would the US attack Mexico and push for regime change. The US did not attack Cuba and it would be no different now. There's a gulf between not being happy and attacking a country to install a puppet. 

Let me first start by saying I appreciate the debate. It's nice to have a respectable conversation these days without it devolving into name calling or insinuations. 

This!!! 1000%

[FortySixAnd32]

13 hours ago, Tater said:

This is war. War is hell.

First rule of interpreting a war report: the first three reports are always wrong. Second rule: details, details,  details. What was said, what was not said, and what doesn't make sense.

Think carefully about this. The Russians are trying to conquer territory. They have troops and equipment well inside the fallout zone of this reactor. Do you really think they would seriously deliberately attempt to put their own military in danger?

Of course they want to take control of the nuclear reactor. This is critical infrastructure. And of course the Ukrainians will be defending it. The Russians may not have the well-oiled military machine the US has, but they aren't all complete fools either. No doubt they sent a higher tier group to secure this critical asset, and they had careful instructions on how to go about doing this. If Russia wanted to just blow it up, they'd have done so from a safe distance with all equipment and personnel far removed from the area.

Russia knows what kind of PR disaster it would be to blow up a nuclear plant. Furthermore the nuclear fallout would be just as bad for Russia as the PR fallout. Accidents happen in war, but so much of the story the way you framed it make no sense.

Of course I can make this post with the benefit of additional time passing and additional details having come out that show that this was a much smaller deal than initially reported, but red flags went up the instant I read your post. I hadn't seen this on the news anywhere yet, but I instantly had a lot of questions and went digging. Even now, I'm sure I don't have all the details.

There are lies and propaganda everywhere in the media (I don't frequent much in the way of news sites other than a few finance sites because it's been all propaganda for years). Don't trust anything you read, and especially not initial reports, and doubly not initial reports from a war zone with details that make no sense whatsover. I appreciate the news you posted, as I hadn't seen it yet, but I suggest you take things with a bigger grain of salt. I will even welcome you to the club of the Extreme Cynics. 😜

Unfortunately I think we are seeing the phase where both sides are undermining and sending accusatory information to the media. In the age of wanting to be "First to report at 5", the media is inept and derelict in their duty to trust, but verify before sending the information to the masses. There is also the aspect of misinformation that is being used to distract and deflect from the actual events taking place in real time. Social Media is a bane and a curse, but it can also be used for good. I understand the age of misinformation but I also believe certain agendas and directives are being placated and silenced. I simply can't think of another invasion/insurgency from past wars to compare this too. I think we are witnessing a new type of proxy war and I also believe Putin is trying to remain relevant while also trying to cement his place in the worlds' history books....I truly hope this can be resolved fairly soon, but I don't have hope for that at this time...Great conversation y'all....I appreciate everyone's views....

[Tater]

Quote

We are on the cusp of a significant mass starvation event of our own making. Soon, tens of millions of the world’s most impoverished people will die from an inability to feed themselves, while many of those comfortably getting by now – especially in the Western World – are in for a shock.

So said Doomberg "way back" in October of 2021. Why would they make such an extreme statement?

Energy

Spoiler

Remember this?

That was the fateful day when folks were paying people to take their contracts for 1000 barrels of oil. I'm not going to go into in the complexities of why that happened, but this occurred against the backdrop of the Covid lockdowns coupled with Saudi Arabia and Russia flooding the market to really crash the price of oil and drive US shale out of business (or at least knock some sense into them). A whole lot of oil and gas companies "got religion" in a hurry. The US shale sector has been a money losing operation for most of its existence. They were extremely slow to add production back after this. 

Adding to this, the "green" or ESG movement has limited funding options for the oil and gas sector and turned some of the funding they do have into alternative energy sources as well as carbon capture research. Add trade wars, broken supply chains, and a new administration signaling strongly to the oil and gas sector that the US is not open for business, and you can see how prices of oil jumped massively since then.

As Saudi Arabia and Russia flooded the market, they essentially pulled forward production. Now that production is no longer available, and they haven't made the investments to bring new production online (and investments they make now will take awhile to add supply) as oil was cheap when these investments needed to be made. Much has been made of OPEC+ not accelerating their production increases, but the fact is that most of them cannot meet the current "slow" targets they have now. Demand is running ahead of supply with few signs of stopping.

Natural gas production is a similar story, as gas and crude production have similar profiles. However, the demand market is different. Here, the "green" movement has played an even bigger role (along with that little nuclear incident in Fukushima, Japan). Wind and solar production are intermittent and require backup energy sources (which are typically natural gas or coal). Hydro is much better, until you have drought conditions and must slow the amount of water going through your turbines. In 2021, there was less wind and more clouds coupled with significant droughts in some regions. This led to substantially increased usage of natural gas. When the Fukushima incident happened, nuclear reactors around the world were taken offline, reactor licenses stopped being renewed, and new reactors were not built. This also increased the demand for natural gas. When you have less supply and more demand, you get price increases. When the demand is essential to human life (and political chances), you get massive increases in price. Prices got so high that coal plants were brought back online. Coal prices hit records as power companies looked for cheaper alternatives to gas. Gas prices in Europe got so high that ships from the US gulf coast that were halfway to Asia (already through the Panama Canal) turned around and went to Europe (even though gas prices were historically high in Asia also). Europe and Asia suffered blackouts. Industries went offline. This was a SHTF moment, and it was nothing compared to what is coming.

A side note, but still important, is that US shale produces a light oil. This light oil has less of the heavy distillates like diesel. Noticed lately how diesel prices have been running ahead of gas prices despite lower refining costs? Classic supply and demand. Our economy depends on diesel. Diesel runs our agricultural and industrial machinery. Practically everything in the country moves on diesel powered trucks or locomotives. As we use less middle eastern oil and get much less from places like Venezuela, expect diesel price increases to accelerate.

Fertilizer

Spoiler

Natural gas is a primary feedstock for nitrogen-based fertilizers. The US was in a vulnerable fertilizer situation (not quite a shortage) thanks to the trade war. The major freeze in Texas in early 2021 also took a lot of fertilizer production offline temporarily. The natural gas price spikes in Europe and Asia took a lot of fertilizer production offline in later 2021 as they could no longer afford to turn a profit as their costs doubled (or more) basically overnight. This led to experts such as Doomberg predicting fertilizer shortages and thus food shortages.

Match Meets Powder Keg

Spoiler

If Doomberg (and others) were predicting mass starvation four or five months ago, we certainly didn't need things to get worse. But now we have a "little" war going on with Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus as major players. Why is that important? Russia and Belarus control a massive portion of the world's fertilizer supply, and of course there is a reason that Ukraine is called the "breadbasket of Europe."

Finding good data on Russia's contribution to the world fertilizer market is difficult, but at the very least it's massive. No one else exports so much of so many portions of the fertilizer spectrum. Here's one chart I found that shows some of this (though I'm not exactly sure what the percentages are based on).

Multiple sources show that Russia and Belarus combine for at least 40% of the global potash supply, and even more in ammonium nitrate. There is absolutely no question that this war just wrecked the entire world fertilizer market. Much of this fertilizer goes to Europe and Brazil which are responsible for feeding a significant portion of the world's population. And yesterday Russia announced that they are stopping the export of fertilizer (it wasn't clear to me whether or not this was a blanket ban or partial or just a recommendation, but at the very least they just threw a whole toolbox in the works, not just a wrench).

Russia and Ukraine combine for 25%+ of the world wheat supply. There are a lot of memes on the internet about large bills or wheelbarrows of cash needed to buy a loaf of bread. These memes are very quickly going to no longer be so humorous.

What Does Inflation Look Like

Spoiler

 

Note that the unfolding disaster was in motion before the Ukraine war, and this is making it much worse. You are about to see energy cost spikes like few remember, and shortage-driven food price spikes that have never occurred wide-scale since the industrial revolution. Fortunately for us, North America is blessed with tremendous natural resources to deal with this. While we are still going to see significant pain, it will be muted compared to what the rest of the world sees. We are wealthy and can (mostly) afford food costs going up by a factor of five. Many in the world cannot. Furthermore, there will not be enough food to go around regardless of price. So then what?

Desperate times result in desperate people. There is no man so dangerous as one with nothing left to lose. If you think the world is in chaos now, wait until billions are facing starvation. This is not an exaggeration. Energy costs are spiking, fertilizer costs are spiking, supply chains are broken, and wars are breaking out. Many of these things will be resolved, but that takes time, time that the food supply does not have. If the Ukraine "problem" is solved today, the broken market won't fix themselves instantly, and I don't see Ukraine getting better any time soon as Russia doubles down and the West keeps funneling weapons in to prolong the misery.

I wish I had good answers for you about how to prepare for this, but I don't know how you prepare for a nearly worldwide famine, inflation, and global market re-organization. The good news is that humans have proven remarkably resilient against impossible odds, so there is hope that humanity comes together to fix this in ways that cannot yet be seen. For now though, that's hopium. I hope that my analysis is dead wrong, but the experts I've been following for the last year have been painting an increasingly bleak picture. The pieces are slowly (or maybe not-so-slowly) coming together for real chaos. I wish for the best, but it's getting ugly out there, and "out there" gets closer every day.

 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Tater

[Psu1313]

A few pieces. Tater stated "war is hell" and he and Tecumseh Sherman are correct. I watched some CNN and Fox News coverage over the last few days and the problem is that they're viewing this through a western lens, and by that I mean, the US and the west sort of handcuff our military. Americans expect quick wins and losses and civilians to be okay in the midst of rockets, bombs, missiles, gunfire, etc... and that our military will go above and beyond to ensure their safety. Over the years, the US military has done a pretty good job working within these parameters, with the occasional mistakes which are going to happen in any conflict. 

Putin, on the other hand, does not care. War is about domination. You choke the enemy until they give up and beat them through physical and mental aggression. Soldiers from Russia will not face any tribunals or scrutiny for their actions when they return home, well unless they lose. Therefore, even if civilians are not direct targets, there is going to be less care taken to protect them by Russia than by Western countries. 

So what happens from here? Eventually Russia will surround Kyiv, unless something happens in negotiations, most likely through China telling Russia to cool it. China has everything to gain here by acting as a negotiator and enhancing their infrastructure goals in Ukraine in helping them rebuild. The longer this goes, the higher the likelihood this gets into Kyiv becomes higher and higher and this conflict gets REALLY, REALLY ugly. I'll also state that I'm a bit nervous about Poland. 

Also, the longer this goes, the worse it gets for everyone. Putin has to know this and there are hints that he'll declare martial law soon enough. This, combined with the new law against the press being pushed, would effectively almost end dissent in Russia, and if not, would basically give the Politsiya a license to act with impunity. I'm very concerned this will impact American citizens in Russia and that only became more apparent with the detaining of Brittney Griner. 

 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Psu1313

[1816]

8 minutes ago, Psu1313 said:

A few pieces. Tater stated "war is hell" and he and Tecumseh Sherman are correct. I watched some CNN and Fox News coverage over the last few days and the problem is that they're viewing this through a western lens, and by that I mean, the US and the west sort of handcuff our military. Americans expect quick wins and losses and civilians to be okay in the midst of rockets, bombs, missiles, gunfire, etc... and that our military will go above and beyond to ensure their safety. Over the years, the US military has done a pretty good job working within these parameters, with the occasional mistakes which are going to happen in any conflict. 

Putin, on the other hand, does not care. War is about domination. You choke the enemy until they give up and beat them through physical and mental aggression. Soldiers from Russia will not face any tribunals or scrutiny for their actions when they return home, well unless they lose. Therefore, even if civilians are not direct targets, there is going to be less care taken to protect them by Russia than by Western countries. 

So what happens from here? Eventually Russia will surround Kyiv, unless something happens in negotiations, most likely through China telling Russia to cool it. China has everything to gain here by acting as a negotiator and enhancing their infrastructure goals in Ukraine in helping them rebuild. The longer this goes, the higher the likelihood this gets into Kyiv becomes higher and higher and this conflict gets REALLY, REALLY ugly. I'll also state that I'm a bit nervous about Poland. 

Also, the longer this goes, the worse it gets for everyone. Putin has to know this and there are hints that he'll declare martial law soon enough. This, combined with the new law against the press being pushed, would effectively almost end dissent in Russia, and if not, would basically give the Politsiya a license to act with impunity. I'm very concerned this will impact American citizens in Russia and that only became more apparent with the detaining of Brittney Griner. 

 

I've seen it before time and time again though and I'm sure its gotten worse with this younger entitled generation. Americans travel overseas and forget the bill of rights ends at the shoreline of the USA. A whole lot of the people who bash the USA and decry us for being so evil would benefit from an extended stay in another country. Usually changes their perspective on how bad the USA is. 

[BuckeyeGal]

Impressed with the civil way you are all handling this debate. I think it's important to state that everyone speaking here seems to be concerned for their families, their friends, and their country.. and recognizing that, even when there are disagreements, is vital. I appreciate @Uscg Ast starting this topic for the sake of being informed (even though we, as an Admin team, were concerned about it erupting). I just wanted to express my gratitude that it hasn't blown up! 

[FortySixAnd32]

Thoughts?