Geopolitical Risk

[Waltzing]

War is already here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu5a0Bl8eY

In the northern baltics they are on high alert...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS2p4e5NP6o

im sure anyone who has lived in europe over the last 60 years knowns the drill...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EANI3XnQqcs

let not forget the budgets will have to go up...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/investing/how-profit-from-new-cold-war/

[LoungeLizard]

Yes war is already here - that's my point. How does more weapons, whether to Israel or the Ukraine - end war? Won't it just ensure the carnage continues?  Shouldn't we be trying to de-escalate through cease-fires and peace talks rather than just flooding those countries with more weapons? What's the end game? Neither side can win in Ukraine, and there sure isn't going to be any winners in Gaza. So, I repeat - what's the end-game here?

[Waltzing]

All emails here ...

https://www.president.gov.ua/en

"Shouldn't we "

Your welcome to try ... good luck.

This may be just the opening event ... the warm up ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

[LoungeLizard]

All emails here ...

https://www.president.gov.ua/en

"Shouldn't we "

Your welcome to try ... good luck.

This may be just the opening event ... the warm up ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

Cynical but unfortunately true. Joe Biden recently said to US Congress, urging them to pass the bill, that the war in Ukraine was good for the American economy. Also cynical but also unfortunately true.

[Waltzing]

Invest in defence .. why stop a perfectly good war ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE03Lqm3nbI

[BlackPeter]

Name a Labour party somewhere in the world that does accounting ... 

They dont teach accounting in hHstory and the Arts ....

great subjects though...cant do without them...

Obviously did not talk to G Soros....

https://www.centarzlata.com/en/george-soros/ 

Actually - if you look just a few decades back - NZ's fourth Labour government (under Lange and Roger Douglas) has not too bad with numbers, haven't they?

I don't think that fiscal prudence has anything to do with left or right wing. Both sides of the political spectrum harbour some people who are responsible with money and others who just burn it.

Their predecessor Muldoon on the other hand would be a good example for a right wing politician who worked hard on stifling the economy and burning money.

[Waltzing]

Off Topic... Roger Douglas - was an accountant by trade ....

and he left the labour party went he realised they did not want to listen to anything he had to say about the governments economic papers..

Lange tried to shut him down and that was RD own words in a recent interview...  RD was going down a much bigger  privatise it model than has ever been attempted here.. He is amazed at how big the govt is today..

[BlackPeter]

Yes war is already here - that's my point. How does more weapons, whether to Israel or the Ukraine - end war? Won't it just ensure the carnage continues?  Shouldn't we be trying to de-escalate through cease-fires and peace talks rather than just flooding those countries with more weapons? What's the end game? Neither side can win in Ukraine, and there sure isn't going to be any winners in Gaza. So, I repeat - what's the end-game here?

War is here. No doubt ... and as usual, there is no easy solution.

However - if I take e.g. the Ukraine where the Russian aggressor happily bombs Ukrainian towns, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure, happily kills Ukrainian civilians, rapes Ukrainian women and happily abducts Ukrainian children in droves. Are you saying that it is better to not support Ukraine and let all these atrocities continue? Are you saying its better to allow Russia to take whatever they want and make it easy for them to pick the next country they want to bully and subjugate?

Than you must say as well that the world should have given Hitler his way - and should have allowed him to kill the Jews and to subjugate the better part of Eastern Europe? Really - why support a war if it might make it more difficult for a bully to take whatever they want?

And of course - America should not have fought back after Pearl Harbour ... hey - better to let the aggressors and bullies do what they are best at?

Is this what you are saying? Better to allow the bullies to take whatever they want?

Or do you say that the world should negotiate with Putin? Well, in this case I have a message for you. The world did and Putin did guarantee that he will protect the Ukrainian borders and political integrity. Just google for "Budapest memorandum" Its just - Putin is a liar and his word is not worth the paper written on it. So - what's the point in wasting time and negotiate with him?

Appeasement did not work with Hitler and resulted in a much longer and more painful war than early resistance against him would have. Why do you suggest the same failed strategy again with Putin?

Crooks like him understand only one language - and this is strength.

[LoungeLizard]

War is here. No doubt ... and as usual, there is no easy solution.

However - if I take e.g. the Ukraine where the Russian aggressor happily bombs Ukrainian towns, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure, happily kills Ukrainian civilians, rapes Ukrainian women and happily abducts Ukrainian children in droves. Are you saying that it is better to not support Ukraine and let all these atrocities continue? Are you saying its better to allow Russia to take whatever they want and make it easy for them to pick the next country they want to bully and subjugate?

Than you must say as well that the world should have given Hitler his way - and should have allowed him to kill the Jews and to subjugate the better part of Eastern Europe? Really - why support a war if it might make it more difficult for a bully to take whatever they want?

And of course - America should not have fought back after Pearl Harbour ... hey - better to let the aggressors and bullies do what they are best at?

Is this what you are saying? Better to allow the bullies to take whatever they want?

Or do you say that the world should negotiate with Putin? Well, in this case I have a message for you. The world did and Putin did guarantee that he will protect the Ukrainian borders and political integrity. Just google for "Budapest memorandum" Its just - Putin is a liar and his word is not worth the paper written on it. So - what's the point in wasting time and negotiate with him?

Appeasement did not work with Hitler and resulted in a much longer and more painful war than early resistance against him would have. Why do you suggest the same failed strategy again with Putin?

Crooks like him understand only one language - and this is strength.

Not what I'm saying at all, BP. What I'm asking - maybe you have the answer - is so we continue to give Ukraine more weapons, then what? Ukraine wins the war? No-one is saying that, not even NATO commanders, because they know that the war cannot, and will not, be "won" militarily. So, at best, more weapons means prolonging a war that each year it continues will leave, potentially 150k dead in total. How long do you want that continue? How long do you think the US is going to bankroll the war? How long before the Ukrainian people themselves - a quarter of them Russian Ukrainians - say they want Zelensky (whose popularity is declining) to negotiate a settlement?
 
The Hitler analogy is erroneous and tiresome. Different era, non-nuclear and completely different context. If you want to use historical wars then update your comparisons. Try Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. They have more relevance because they all show that modern wars will go on ad infinitum until someone finally says, "No more."

So easy, for armchair experts and NATO commanders to say they won't negotiate. They and their families aren't in the firing line. "Forward!" they cry - from the rear.

[BlackPeter]

Not what I'm saying at all, BP. What I'm asking - maybe you have the answer - is so we continue to give Ukraine more weapons, then what? Ukraine wins the war? No-one is saying that, not even NATO commanders, because they know that the war cannot, and will not, be "won" militarily. So, at best, more weapons means prolonging a war that each year it continues will leave, potentially 150k dead in total. How long do you want that continue? How long do you think the US is going to bankroll the war? How long before the Ukrainian people themselves - a quarter of them Russian Ukrainians - say they want Zelensky (whose popularity is declining) to negotiate a settlement?
 
The Hitler analogy is erroneous and tiresome. Different era, non-nuclear and completely different context. If you want to use historical wars then update your comparisons. Try Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. They have more relevance because they all show that modern wars will go on ad infinitum until someone finally says, "No more."

So easy, for armchair experts and NATO commanders to say they won't negotiate. They and their families aren't in the firing line. "Forward," they cry - from the rear.

See - that's where you got it wrong. WW2 is extremely relevant. WW2 was caused by a populist right wing war lord who wanted more land for his people and his race.

Putin wants to restore the old Soviet union in its old glory (well, that's what he said), no matter the cost, and as demonstrated before, negotiations with him are absolutely pointless, because he is breaking previous commitments whenever it pleases him.

I see only two scenarios how this can play out:

1) Putins lackeys and bots in the West manage to weaken the Western resolve (Trump is clearly working on it) and allow Putin to regain Russia's previous empire piece by piece - only attack at one time what he can chew, integrate the new piece into his empire, force new soldiers into his army and then attack the next country. Exactly the same strategy as Hitler did, but probably a bit slower, Hitler just took too much to bite at the same time. Not enough patience was it what killed him.

Obviously - this would encourage other crooks like Xi, to seize the day as well and take Taiwan while nobody is watching and it would encourage other bullies like the dear leader of North Korea and the Ayatollahs of Iran to extend their area of influence as well, given that clearly the West is weak.

This variant will cost millions of lives, at some stage all of our freedoms and it might end up in a nuclear war. Not sure about you, but I don't like this alternative.

2) The West is standing decisively against Putin ... and sending the Russian soldiers back to where they belong - into Russia. This would make the other authoritarian crooks around the globe a bit more careful as well. Unfortunately did Western countries neglect their armies since the breakdown of the Russian empire in 1989, while Russia is currently already full in war economy mode. So, it will cost some money, but the more the West invests now in fighting Putin, the more lives will be saved.

The only worthwhile endgame I would see is Russia's return back to its borders and into a peaceful and rule based community of states. I don't think this will work with a crook and liar like Putin, but for sure there are honest Russians around as well (just not in power), even if Putin tries hard to kill them all off. The Soviet Union crumbled before - so it is possible.

Obviously - this endgame could be achieved through various means, open war (not very desirable), economic sanctions or maybe some other methods to remove the illegal regime controlling currently Russia. It is possible to influence the political game in foreign countries, just look at Putin and Xi who are masters in splitting the political forces in our countries. Whether our secret services have what it takes to do that in Russia as well, I don't know.

The only choice the West has now is either showing strength and stop the monster (and yes, this does mean  risking a war), or alternatively do nothing, strengthen Putin and having a significant conflict against a much stronger Putin later.

Anybody who tries to weaken Ukraine's defences is clearly supporting the big war solution and undermining any international treaty, given that they clearly support Putin breaking his word and attacking any country he wants to subjugate at will. Anybody who tries to undermine Ukraine's defences is saying that its ok to break international treaties and only the law of the jungle should apply.

Not a world I would want to live in. What about you?

[LoungeLizard]

See - that's where you got it wrong. WW2 is extremely relevant. WW2 was caused by a populist right wing war lord who wanted more land for his people and his race.

Putin wants to restore the old Soviet union in its old glory (well, that's what he said), no matter the cost, and as demonstrated before, negotiations with him are absolutely pointless, because he is breaking previous commitments whenever it pleases him.

I see only two scenarios how this can play out:

1) Putins lackeys and bots in the West manage to weaken the Western resolve (Trump is clearly working on it) and allow Putin to regain Russia's previous empire piece by piece - only attack at one time what he can chew, integrate the new piece into his empire, force new soldiers into his army and then attack the next country. Exactly the same strategy as Hitler did, but probably a bit slower, Hitler just took too much to bite at the same time. Not enough patience was it what killed him.

Obviously - this would encourage other crooks like Xi, to seize the day as well and take Taiwan while nobody is watching and it would encourage other bullies like the dear leader of North Korea and the Ayatollahs of Iran to extend their area of influence as well, given that clearly the West is weak.

This variant will cost millions of lives, at some stage all of our freedoms and it might end up in a nuclear war. Not sure about you, but I don't like this alternative.

2) The West is standing decisively against Putin ... and sending the Russian soldiers back to where they belong - into Russia. This would make the other authoritarian crooks around the globe a bit more careful as well. Unfortunately did Western countries neglect their armies since the breakdown of the Russian empire in 1989, while Russia is currently already full in war economy mode. So, it will cost some money, but the more the West invests now in fighting Putin, the more lives will be saved.

The only worthwhile endgame I would see is Russia's return back to its borders and into a peaceful and rule based community of states. I don't think this will work with a crook and liar like Putin, but for sure there are honest Russians around as well (just not in power), even if Putin tries hard to kill them all off. The Soviet Union crumbled before - so it is possible.

Obviously - this endgame could be achieved through various means, open war (not very desirable), economic sanctions or maybe some other methods to remove the illegal regime controlling currently Russia. It is possible to influence the political game in foreign countries, just look at Putin and Xi who are masters in splitting the political forces in our countries. Whether our secret services have what it takes to do that in Russia as well, I don't know.

The only choice the West has now is either showing strength and stop the monster (and yes, this does mean  risking a war), or alternatively do nothing, strengthen Putin and having a significant conflict against a much stronger Putin later.

Anybody who tries to weaken Ukraine's defences is clearly supporting the big war solution and undermining any international treaty, given that they clearly support Putin breaking his word and attacking any country he wants to subjugate at will. Anybody who tries to undermine Ukraine's defences is saying that its ok to break international treaties and only the law of the jungle should apply.

Not a world I would want to live in. What about you?

Where do I start?

Before the Maidan Revolution or coup, depending on how you view it, Putin had expressed no interest in Ukraine. If he had wanted to invade for no reason (ie do a Hitler) he would have done so before then, when Ukraine was militarily weak. The events of February 2014, gave him a reason, changed everything - for the worse. They provided a context for Putin to firstly, go into Crimea to safeguard the Black Sea fleet, support the East (mainly Russian speaking people) in their war against Kiev, and finally to invade. That's the context. Trying to compare that context to that of Hitler and the Nazis to take over the world, is, quite frankly, bonkers.

Your idea of an "endgame" where Ukraine defeats Russia militarily is just completely unrealistic. I haven't even heard NATO commanders say they can win. Even the Ukrainian Commander in chief said as much. A recent pole of Europe showed that the majority of Europeans don't think it's possible either. So, your favoured scenario 2 is not supported even by the protaginists. It's just not going to happen.

Scenario 1, isn't how it's going to go either. There's ridiculous fear mongering that Putin will attack Poland or some other NATO country, despite the fact that would ensure nuclear annihilation for everyone, including Putin.

The world I want to live in is one in which both sides stop using countries like the Ukraine to fight their proxy wars for geo-political gain. The Ukraine should've been left as it was - politically and militarily neutral, on good terms with Russia and with the west. It was doing just fine as it was. The Maidan changed all that - and remember this was elected Government that was removed at the point of a gun. Normally the West would abhor something like that - how on earth did we end up supporting it and unleashing all that followed. The answer - geopolitics. We wanted Ukraine to take sides- ours.

The middle ground to your two scenarios is a negotiated peace settlement, brokered by a UN peace envoy (why haven't they appointed one?) which tries to re-set Ukraine's neutrality ie no NATO membership. That's a big lever to pull and would get Putin at the table - it is after all, why he said he had to act in the first place. The existential threat, as he put it, of US nuclear missiles being placed just a few kilometers from Russia's border. Then they would have to look at some sort of autonomy for Crimea and for theEast. Perhaps a referendum on self determination or Russian/Ukraine rule? It's been done before in peace deals that the West has brokered for other regions.

The reason that there's no peace settlement even being talked about is unusual after 2 years of war. Maybe after 3. Or 5. Or 10. If we know, as we found out in countless other wars that we were involved in, that eventually both sides have to sit down and negotiate, then why not now, and save all those countless lives being lost?

[Waltzing]

Invade poland? nuclear war? There are so many play books being discussed at the moment .. putin no interest in Ukraine before 2014... right ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHtFo3eoFOo

history will record it all...

most historian read between lines .... no quotes are usually required...  oh dear... https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2014/03/i-predicted-russias-invasion-of-ukraine.html

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/07/i-predicted-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/

Sweden ... and the other getting ready.. they arnt waiting for a letter from anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJyPMla95Nk

[LoungeLizard]

Invade poland? nuclear war? There are so many play books being discussed at the moment .. putin no interest in Ukraine before 2014... right ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHtFo3eoFOo

history will record it all...

Waltzing - a 30 minute YouTube video is too long to wade through. If you've got a quote from Putin that supports plans to invade Ukraine before 2014 then post a quote.
Sure, the breakup of the USSR, was in Putins view, a tragedy, but once gone I think he recognised there was no going back. Those former states that joined NATO sure rankled though, and probably set the scene for an enduring Cold War. 

[Azz]

The only choice the West has now is either showing strength and stop the monster (and yes, this does mean  risking a war), or alternatively do nothing, strengthen Putin and having a significant conflict against a much stronger Putin later.

Nato was built to protect democratic Europe from Russian aggression. It's also the most powerful military on Earth. Expelling the invaders from Ukraine requires proper combined-arms offensive ability, which Nato has in spades, but which Ukraine has none of. Think Gulf War 1 as a prime example of removing an invader: overwhelming air superiority to soften then support, massed armor, effective utilization of special forces, lots of troops, most fighting done at night, etc. But the Biden Administration doesn't want Ukraine to win, for some weird reason. These "aid packages" just postpone the inevitable, unfortunately.

It gets even weirder: recently, Secretary of State Blinken said, "Ukraine will become a member of Nato." When exactly will this happen though? Not right now. The war with Russia needs to finish first lol.

And weirder:

"US Slams Strikes on Russia Oil Refineries as Risk to Oil Markets

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned that Ukraine's recent attacks on Russian oil refineries risk impacting global energy markets and urged the country to focus on military targets instead."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-09/us-slams-strikes-on-russia-oil-refineries-as-risk-to-oil-markets

[BlackPeter]

Where do I start?

Before the Maidan Revolution or coup, depending on how you view it, Putin had expressed no interest in Ukraine. If he had wanted to invade for no reason (ie do a Hitler) he would have done so before then, when Ukraine was militarily weak. The events of February 2014, gave him a reason, changed everything - for the worse. They provided a context for Putin to firstly, go into Crimea to safeguard the Black Sea fleet, support the East (mainly Russian speaking people) in their war against Kiev, and finally to invade. That's the context. Trying to compare that context to that of Hitler and the Nazis to take over the world, is, quite frankly, bonkers.

Your idea of an "endgame" where Ukraine defeats Russia militarily is just completely unrealistic. I haven't even heard NATO commanders say they can win. Even the Ukrainian Commander in chief said as much. A recent pole of Europe showed that the majority of Europeans don't think it's possible either. So, your favoured scenario 2 is not supported even by the protaginists. It's just not going to happen.

Scenario 1, isn't how it's going to go either. There's ridiculous fear mongering that Putin will attack Poland or some other NATO country, despite the fact that would ensure nuclear annihilation for everyone, including Putin.

The world I want to live in is one in which both sides stop using countries like the Ukraine to fight their proxy wars for geo-political gain. The Ukraine should've been left as it was - politically and militarily neutral, on good terms with Russia and with the west. It was doing just fine as it was. The Maidan changed all that - and remember this was elected Government that was removed at the point of a gun. Normally the West would abhor something like that - how on earth did we end up supporting it and unleashing all that followed. The answer - geopolitics. We wanted Ukraine to take sides- ours.

The middle ground to your two scenarios is a negotiated peace settlement, brokered by a UN peace envoy (why haven't they appointed one?) which tries to re-set Ukraine's neutrality ie no NATO membership. That's a big lever to pull and would get Putin at the table - it is after all, why he said he had to act in the first place. The existential threat, as he put it, of US nuclear missiles being placed just a few kilometers from Russia's border. Then they would have to look at some sort of autonomy for Crimea and for theEast. Perhaps a referendum on self determination or Russian/Ukraine rule? It's been done before in peace deals that the West has brokered for other regions.

The reason that there's no peace settlement even being talked about is unusual after 2 years of war. Maybe after 3. Or 5. Or 10. If we know, as we found out in countless other wars that we were involved in, that eventually both sides have to sit down and negotiate, then why not now, and save all those countless lives being lost?

Just wondering - what exactly is different between Putins "liberation of Ukraine" and Hitlers "liberation of the German speaking population in Elsass and Lothringen as well as of the German speaking population in Sudetendeutschland? Sure - Hitler was more successful, but otherwise - both events have been based on just a bunch of lies from some racist autocrats and the desire to grab more land from the weaker neighbors.

Look - I realize that you take the historic nonsense you write directly from Putins propaganda machine, but maybe you should at least pretend to know and reflect on historic facts.

There is no evidence at all that Russian speaking population in the East Ukraine had any disadvantages from speaking Russian. Actually - Russian used to be quite widely spoken throughout Ukraine. There is as well no evidence that anybody in the Eastern parts of the Ukraine (but a small number of traitors) wants to join with Russia. First - many of the people living there before the
Russian monsters attacked had to flee from the Russians or the Russians killed them or forced them to relocate into Russia - and second - there was no free election at all in the Eastern part of Ukraine since the Russians attacked.

The only thing we know is that the so called elections in Eastern Ukraine have been neither free (armed criminals recruited into the Russian army forced people to vote the way the regime desired) nor representative. No Russian election under Putin was. Another thing he has in common with Hitler.

So - don't tell us you know what the people in the Eastern parts of the Ukraine want.

Your suggestions related to a peace agreement are ridiculous.

Lets assume that the Mongrel mob is moving into the house next to you. Lets assume that they discover that you have a couple of nice looking girls and maybe a pretty wife, so they come over, rape the girls and the wife and steal your stuff. They kill as well parts of your family and actually threaten to kill you if you don't surrender.

That's what the Russians did in the Ukraine - again and again.

Back to the Mongrel Mob - you know already that they don't keep their promises, because they broke them before. So - would you be happy with them occupying your house, raping your family on an ongoing basis but promising you that you might keep a bed in the sleepout if you shut up in return?

If you are honest - probably not.

So, why are you suggesting this is what Ukraine should do?

Now - has the Ukraine a chance to send the Russian troops back?

Obviously - without support from Nato this is difficult, though I find it amazing how long they managed to stem against a tsunami of Russian criminals and mercenaries. That's the difference to e.g. Afghanistan or Vietnam. The Ukraine is fighting for their own country against a foreign invader. This makes them strong. Putin on the other hand sends mainly criminals and mercenaries. This makes him weak.

Does the NATO support suffice? So far probably not. But the solution is neither to allow the Mongrel Mob to terrorize your family, nor to allow the Russians to terrorize Ukraine.

We have only two options - either we keep our half ars*d support of Ukraine going and move towards a long and painful WW3 (unless Russia crumbles before, but this is a risky game) - or we support Ukraine properly (including stopping the constant Russian terrorist attacks on Ukrainian territory) - and send Putin where he belongs.

On a personal perspective - I find it difficult to understand how anybody could take the side of terrorists, rapists, thieves and child abductors - but hey, if that's where you feel at home?

We heard about some of these Russian troll farms. Just wondering - are you affiliated with them?