Ukraine

[J. Barron DeJong]

Hard to understand why the Ruble and Russian bonds are doing ok.. Ruble two year high vs Euro. Central bank cut rates again today.

Article with a possible explanation, arguing that it may be transitory (lost of companies being forced to convert holdings to Rubles):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-default-looms

Have they still avoided defaulting on loans?

edit: looks like they avoided default
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...in-u-s-dollars

But they had to use their dollars reserves, cause they don’t have new dollars coming in, because of sanctions.

[summit]

I also believe that freezing Russia's dollar reserves was a mistake. Every country will look at this and decide not to keep reserves in us and European banks. And this is not good for the dollar as a reserve currency.

Freezing Russia out of swift will force it and other countries(China, India, etc) to setup their own system, weakening swift.

The world will look at such drastic trade actions as only being used as an alternative to direct warfare against a major nuclear power that committed crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The only country on the planet that might be worried about a similar treatment would be China in case they invade Taiwan or an ASEAN nation.

[MultiVerse]

Hard to understand why the Ruble and Russian bonds are doing ok.. Ruble two year high vs Euro. Central bank cut rates again today.

Sanctions first impacted financial markets and now they are impacting the real economy. Russia propping up the ruble comes at the cost of higher interest rates and a shrinking economy :

• The bank initially raised the key rate to 24% (now 14%) to curb inflation
• The rate change worked up to a point but when inventories run out inflation will soar anyway
• Imports collapsed, that's why Russia has a trade surplus. Ruble strength is not macro strength
• The government spent 8 trillion rubles to stimulate the economy, RU Central Bank says spend more and inflation will soar
• 200K jobs are currently at risk in Moscow alone without more stimulus
• Sanctions are disrupting supply chains and impacting the military-industrial complex
• Energy production is beginning to slow
• Russian manufacturing is collapsing
• Sanctions are causing strong market volatility. Capital controls, rate hikes, and investment restrictions have decimated Russian markets
• Many skilled Russians are fleeing the country, taking their talents with them

[Flounder]

Re sanctions

I do believe sanctions do not work.

I do believe you are wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...asion-dissent/

Behind paywall but here is the beginning.

Cracks emerge in Russian elite as tycoons start to bemoan invasion
Oligarchs and financial officials are alarmed over the economic toll it’s taking and feel powerless to influence Putin

By Catherine Belton and Greg Miller
April 29, 2022 at 7:41 a.m. ET
In the two months since Russia invaded Ukraine, the silence — and even acquiescence — of the Russian elite has started to fray.
Even as opinion polls report overwhelming public support for the military campaign, amid pervasive state propaganda and new laws outlawing criticism of the war, cracks are starting to show. The dividing lines among factions of the Russian economic elite are becoming more marked, and some of the tycoons — especially those who made their fortunes before President Vladimir Putin came to power — have begun, tentatively, to speak.
For many, the most immediate focus has been their own woes. Sweeping sanctions imposed by the West have brought down a new iron curtain on the Russian economy, freezing tens of billions of dollars of many of the tycoons’ assets along the way.

“In one day, they destroyed what was built over many years. It’s a catastrophe,” said one businessman who was summoned along with many of the country’s other richest men to meet Putin on the day of the invasion.

In response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the West sanctioned some of his closest advisers. 
The White House further turned the screws on the oligarchs Thursday, announcing a proposal to liquidate their assets and donate the proceeds to Ukraine.
At least four oligarchs who made it big in the more liberal era of Putin’s predecessor, President Boris Yeltsin, have left Russia. At least four senior officials have resigned their posts and departed the country, the highest ranking among them being Anatoly Chubais, the Kremlin special envoy for sustainable development and Yeltsin-era privatization czar.

But those in top positions vital to the continued running of the country remain — some trapped, unable to leave even if they wanted to. Most notably, Russia’s mild-mannered and highly regarded central bank chief, Elvira Nabiullina, tendered her resignation after the imposition of Western sanctions, but Putin refused to let her step down, according to five people familiar with the situation.

[rod9301]

I do believe you are wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...asion-dissent/

Behind paywall but here is the beginning.

Ok

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[XavierD]

Anyone actually tried to buy rubles recently? Posted rate is one thing but if no one is buying or selling them it’s largely moot.

[Mazderati]

Ok

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[Toadman]

Anyone actually tried to buy rubles recently? Posted rate is one thing but if no one is buying or selling them it’s largely moot.

It's like the bullshit forced gov't official exchange rates in the old Eastern Bloc countries back in the day. You were required to exchange X of Western currencies for each day you were in country. Of course you could hardly spend the Eastern Bloc currency at the BS gov't exchange rates. I remember being in East Berlin, and I still have some of their BS monopoly money looking East German DM's. (Even though it was illegal to take any back out of East Germany.) The only thing that was readily available was beer and liquor.

Eventually those propped up rubles will collapse, and when the citizens can't get Western goods and only Russian vodka and other alcohol, Russia will be just another drunken mess.

[LongShortLong]

Thread about Russia's nukes and the amount of maintenance they need to remain functional and almost certainly did not get.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...992131584.html
Telenko suggests we ought to pressure them by suggesting their nukes don't work. The idea being that they know they are corrupt, and would likely believe the corruption has corrupted their nuclear deterrent. If they aren't sure the nukes work, they won't want to use them and demonstrate to the world they have no deterrence.

[jono]

Thread about Russia's nukes and the amount of maintenance they need to remain functional and almost certainly did not get.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...992131584.html
Telenko suggests we ought to pressure them by suggesting their nukes don't work. The idea being that they know they are corrupt, and would likely believe the corruption has corrupted their nuclear deterrent. If they aren't sure the nukes work, they won't want to use them and demonstrate to the world they have no deterrence.

I remember thinking that the downside risk of showing their army to be embarrassingly overmatched by Ukraine must have been a significant consideration prior to the invasion. Certainly appears I was wrong.

If "we" can make a convincing case then that's great, but if the strategy doesn't quite work out their launch scenarios range from dirty bombs to successful reactions.

[John_B]

Thread about Russia's nukes and the amount of maintenance they need to remain functional and almost certainly did not get.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...992131584.html
Telenko suggests we ought to pressure them by suggesting their nukes don't work. The idea being that they know they are corrupt, and would likely believe the corruption has corrupted their nuclear deterrent. If they aren't sure the nukes work, they won't want to use them and demonstrate to the world they have no deterrence.

I'm an amateur political scientist at best but Telenko has had some downright Skip Bayless level hot takes. Ukraine/Russia is highly complex and I keep seeing his name associated with a wide variety of minimal data opinionated tweet threads.

[summit]

That guy is a fucking idiot. That isn't how deterrence works. That's how you pressure Russia into using a nuke.

If I tell Russia:
"I don't believe your threats that you will initiate a nuclear war with NATO because you don't want us to retaliate and wreck your country."
We believe them ultimately rationale and have rightly called their brinskmanship as a bluff.

If I tell my Russia:
"I am not afraid of your threats because I don't believe your nukes work."
My enemy now has an existential threat because I have also said that that I am not deterred. That means I could be willing to attack them in any way I see beneficial up to a nuclear first strike. The only logical course of action for Russia is to restore deterrence and prove me wrong by detonating a nuclear weapon as a show of surety and force... either a demonstration... or an attack on Ukraine. Failure to call our bluff will also result in aggression by others (China would love to have all that empty resource rich land, much more profitable than war over Taiwan).

[jono]

That guy is a fucking idiot. That isn't how deterrence works. That's how you pressure Russia into using a nuke.

If I tell Russia:
"I don't believe your threats that you will initiate a nuclear war with NATO because you don't want us to retaliate and wreck your country."
We believe them ultimately rationale and have rightly called their brinskmanship as a bluff.

If I tell my Russia:
"I am not afraid of your threats because I don't believe your nukes work."
My enemy now has an existential threat because I have also said that that I am not deterred. That means I could be willing to attack them in any way I see beneficial up to a nuclear first strike. The only logical course of action for Russia is to restore deterrence and prove me wrong by detonating a nuclear weapon as a show of surety and force... either a demonstration... or an attack on Ukraine. Failure to call our bluff will also result in aggression by others (China would love to have all that empty resource rich land, much more profitable than war over Taiwan).

Yup. Same as saying we believed they would invade before they did: on the off chance they were bluffing we didn't want some faction in the Kremlin claiming they needed to be more convincing.

ETA: In fairness, I don't think we achieve his goal by publicly claiming we doubt their deterrent, but by convincing them to doubt it. We probably have to keep claiming to accept it as a fact all the while and convince them to doubt by other means. OTOH, he didn't seem to be arguing for that.

[LongShortLong]

That guy is a fucking idiot. That isn't how deterrence works. That's how you pressure Russia into using a nuke.

If I tell Russia:
"I don't believe your threats that you will initiate a nuclear war with NATO because you don't want us to retaliate and wreck your country."
We believe them ultimately rationale and have rightly called their brinskmanship as a bluff.

If I tell my Russia:
"I am not afraid of your threats because I don't believe your nukes work."
My enemy now has an existential threat because I have also said that that I am not deterred. That means I could be willing to attack them in any way I see beneficial up to a nuclear first strike. The only logical course of action for Russia is to restore deterrence and prove me wrong by detonating a nuclear weapon as a show of surety and force... either a demonstration... or an attack on Ukraine. Failure to call our bluff will also result in aggression by others (China would love to have all that empty resource rich land, much more profitable than war over Taiwan).

That's not what he's suggesting. He's suggesting their leadership is vulnerable to the idea that their nukes may not work. And helping them with their fears would weaken them politically. Sort of like the USSR did to the US with the missile gap in the cold war. (or we did to ourselves with Saddam's WMDs). Read the thread then post

[summit]

I read his post. It is a bunch of speculative crap. Pure unsubstantiated speculation.

[jono]

That's not what he's suggesting. He's suggesting their leadership is vulnerable to the idea that their nukes may not work. And helping them with their fears would weaken them politically. Sort of like the USSR did to the US with the missile gap in the cold war. (or we did to ourselves with Saddam's WMDs). Read the thread then post

Fears alone are one thing. But trying to use those fears to weaken them politically creates an incentive for them to try to break out of that by proving their effectiveness. The opposite of the goal.

[LongShortLong]

Fears alone are one thing. But trying to use those fears to weaken them politically creates an incentive for them to try to break out of that by proving their effectiveness. The opposite of the goal.

I won't claim to be the master nuclear strategist, but my take is no one can prove the effectiveness of a nuke without earning the hatred of the entire world. Maybe a country could do it in self-defense, but even then I don't see a nuclear response to a conventional threat gaining much support. There's little to gain and a lot to lose. Whatever country tries it will be left with 200 enemy nations, no trade, and probably a counter-attack - either immediately (possibly nuclear) or ten years down the road.

[SumJongGuy]

I won't claim to be the master nuclear strategist, but my take is no one can prove the effectiveness of a nuke without earning the hatred of the entire world. Maybe a country could do it in self-defense, but even then I don't see a nuclear response to a conventional threat gaining much support. There's little to gain and a lot to lose. Whatever country tries it will be left with 200 enemy nations, no trade, and probably a counter-attack - either immediately (possibly nuclear) or ten years down the road.

What if NATO/US should smuggle a few nukes in to Ukraine to replace the ones they gave up under the promise that Russia would never attack them??

[summit]

I won't claim to be the master nuclear strategist, but my take is no one can prove the effectiveness of a nuke without earning the hatred of the entire world. Maybe a country could do it in self-defense, but even then I don't see a nuclear response to a conventional threat gaining much support. There's little to gain and a lot to lose. Whatever country tries it will be left with 200 enemy nations, no trade, and probably a counter-attack - either immediately (possibly nuclear) or ten years down the road.

The credibility of deterrence is indeed based on demonstrations of technical capability and political will. US and Russia fairly regularly fire off an ICBM or SLBM without nukes to show this. If these repeatedly failed, that would ruin credibility. If a leader were to demonstrate lack of will to retaliate, that would ruin credibility. Nuclear powers used to detonate a nuke now and then to test new ideas as well as to demonstrate readiness, but almost everyone stopped that in the early 90s. Russia has successfully tested several nuclear delivery systems since they have invaded Ukraine to demonstrate capability and will. The US has refrained from missile tests to avoid accidently scaring the Russians.

The strategy the US, UK, and France are pursuing with Russia over their nuclear bluster is one based on that idea you expressed in your post. We keep a deterrent, warn that nuclear aggression is wrong and insane, and point out that we don't believe Russia will do that and don't have any evidence that they will despite their saber rattling. This removes the little credibility that was part of such hollow threats. That is stabilizing.

It has nothing to do with spreading the message that Russia's bombs don't work, which would be destabilizing.

What if NATO/US should smuggle a few nukes in to Ukraine to replace the ones they gave up under the promise that Russia would never attack them??

Did your parents drop you on your head when you were little? Repeatedly? Or do you just choose to not attempt one thought beyond whatever idiotic pops into your head and spews through your keyboard?

You don't think the Russians would wonder where Ukrainian nukes came from? You don't think they'd feel justified in eliminating them? How would Ukraine deliver those nukes anyway? Did you think about how Ukraine is already at the threshold for nuclear use? The existential threat to the existence of Ukraine is already there...

You just don't think before you post. It is your normal.

[subtle plague]

You don't think the Russians would wonder where Ukrainian nukes came from? You don't think they'd feel justified in eliminating them? How would Ukraine deliver those nukes anyway? Did you think about how Ukraine is already at the threshold for nuclear use? The existential threat to the existence of Ukraine is already there...

You just don't think before you post. It is your normal.

What about smuggling in tentacle sex robots? Would that have the desired effect? I mean Germany is very restrictive on exporting those, but maybe it could help?

[LongShortLong]

I don't see anyone smuggling Ukraine a nuke either. That would also be frowned upon. I do see proliferation pressure resulting from Russia's invasion though (and to a lesser degree US moves under Trump to abandon our alliances). Any country needs to look out for itself. Several countries including Russia and the US promised to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up their nukes. Everyone can see that hasn't worked out for Ukraine, with two Russian invasions in the last decade and minimal commitment from their guarantors. Well, I suppose you could claim Russians are honoring their commitment by denazifying Ukraine, but I think few are buying Russia's story.

While a stronger defense commitment to Ukraine and Ukraine "winning" will help to some degree, the proliferation incentive will be strong. Countries will look at the disruption, lives lost, and $100B or so in destruction and weigh that against a domestic nuclear deterrence program. I think many have the technical capacity to successfully build an 80 year old technology, also the 70 year old thermonuclear upgrade.

Alternately, maybe minds become focused on how we can live together peacefully.

[basinbeater]

For a good understanding of deterrence, the three body problem books do an excellent job of demonstrating the effectiveness of it. Good read as well.

[Bunion 2020]

I don't see anyone smuggling Ukraine a nuke either. That would also be frowned upon. I do see proliferation pressure resulting from Russia's invasion though (and to a lesser degree US moves under Trump to abandon our alliances). Any country needs to look out for itself. Several countries including Russia and the US promised to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up their nukes. Everyone can see that hasn't worked out for Ukraine, with two Russian invasions in the last decade and minimal commitment from their guarantors. Well, I suppose you could claim Russians are honoring their commitment by denazifying Ukraine, but I think few are buying Russia's story.

While a stronger defense commitment to Ukraine and Ukraine "winning" will help to some degree, the proliferation incentive will be strong. Countries will look at the disruption, lives lost, and $100B or so in destruction and weigh that against a domestic nuclear deterrence program. I think many have the technical capacity to successfully build an 80 year old technology, also the 70 year old thermonuclear upgrade.

Alternately, maybe minds become focused on how we can live together peacefully.

Excellent post in regards to small nations wanting/needing a couple of Nukes for deterrence.

And if nothing else this entire episode points to how outdated the idea of conventional war has become.

[ötzi]

What about smuggling in tentacle sex robots? Would that have the desired effect? I mean Germany is very restrictive on exporting those, but maybe it could help?

Tough times call for tentacles I always say.

[basinbeater]

Excellent post in regards to small nations wanting/needing a couple of Nukes for deterrence.

And if nothing else this entire episode points to how outdated the idea of conventional war has become.

My problem with more countries having nukes, is a resulting significant increase in the odds that one of the parties will doubt the resolve of the other to use them and end up using them first.