41 sats \ 6 replies \ @SimpleStacker 11 Oct \ parent \ on: EU and UK's High-Stakes Gambit: Banking on Ukraine's Victory econ
I understand where you're coming from.
But what would you define as success in Ukraine? What is "the West"'s strategic goal?
Is it to let Ukraine retake all the land that it's already lost? Because that seems far fetched unless western countries are willing to commit their own troops on the ground.
Is it to wait for regime change in Russia? I wouldn't hold my breath.
Is it to wear down Russia and hope that they expend more resources than we do? If so, I'd hardly call that "winning" for Ukraine. Sounds like we're just using Ukraine to take our punches for us. And if that's indeed the strategic objective, then I can understand why no one will say it out loud.
Or, is it that there's no objective, and that this doesn't matter as long as military contractors and suppliers keep getting paid?
Ukraine is the sacrificial punching bag
reply
Success would be Putin and his invasion being firmly and unequivocally repelled.
If it is not- if there is gain, rather than loss for Putin and his Chinese sponsor, then the invasions and incursions will not cease.
China with Iran, Russia and N.Korea are testing the resolve and unity of the west and if the west does not show firm resolve they will not stop at Ukraine.
reply
Nonsense. They want to stop the war next to their border. A demilitarised ukraine without laws against everything russian.
Ukraine will be the bufferzone and the trade with europe will end.
Russia does not need europe. But europe needs russia.
Buying fracking gas from US is a financial and economical desaster and it is only one of many.
The world is big and europe is only a very small part of it without any resources but with a lot of social problems.
reply
Putin could not have invaded Ukraine without Chinas support.
Russias GDP is 1/10 of Chinas and without China buying his oil and gas and supplying manufactured goods Putin is finished.
Putin is a despot - Europe does not need him.
Putin is begging China to hurry up and build the second oil pipeline to China- China is in no hurry as Russia is now their property anyway.
reply
So russia is chinese property because china is buying oil from russia?
The US is buying everything from china, so what does it mean?
Does china own US?
reply
China owns Russia because without China both buying its oil and gas and supplying it with manufactured goods Russia would be unable to wage war or even function on more than a subsistence level.
The US is reliant to some degree on China- if trade between China and US ceased then both would lose, a lot, but US would lose more- so many US businesses and even basic consumer supply chains are dependent upon Chinese manufacturing.
China is still dependent upon the international framework of banking and trade protocols that US controls but China has been building its alternative framework and it is on that framework that it and Russia, Iran and N.Korea, and others, are now already operating.
Already the US cannot declare war on China because if it did most large US corporates would collapse as a result of the Trading with the Enemy Act...and even without it they would suffer massive supply chain disruption and massive inflation in costs.
China has won the trade war already - the war for control of global resources, monetary hegemony and institutional control of protocols and international law has begun.
reply