Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
pretty sure thats already been done. we were talking about a very specific article about Canadian immigrants from WW2 regardless. take it up with the globe and mail I guess.
pretty sure thats already been done. we were talking about a very specific article about Canadian immigrants from WW2 regardless. take it up with the globe and mail I guess.
Here .
Seem what you allude it’s just a follow up story that started with Justin Trudeau father from the 1960s up to 1980s…
Glad you keep allegations with alleged nazis dead long ago to try make a useless point about the west being nazis 50s years later .
Keep up the good work we still love you D…
I don't understand this timeline
/
Zelensky says war will 'end sooner' with Trump as president
/
I don't understand this timeline
/
Zelensky says war will 'end sooner' with Trump as president
/
I think he's trying to hold Trump to his public commitment to end the war and indicating that it won't be Ukraine making difficulties, because he knows Putin will make difficulties.
I think he's trying to hold Trump to his public commitment to end the war and indicating that it won't be Ukraine making difficulties, because he knows Putin will make difficulties.
Could be.
I might be well wishing, and I started by thinking Trump would have been terrible for Ukraine (vs Harris), but I get signs that Ukraine might be better off than I thought.
Waltz appointment is awesome for Ukraine for example.
Autumn 2022 was ATH for Ukraine but many people mocked Elon for this post https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255...
Ukraine didn't cash out
Now its time for Elon to laugh https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857811663...
And now Ukraine can only cash out for a way worse price
Time always tells who is the fish and the shark - either in poker, crypto or politics
Autumn 2022 was ATH for Ukraine but many people mocked Elon for this post https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255...
Ukraine didn't cash out
Now its time for Elon to laugh https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857811663...
And now Ukraine can only cash out for a way worse price
Time always tells who is the fish and the shark - either in poker, crypto or politics
When you change the rules of the game , yes that can happen….
From economist Igor Lipsits of Moscow's Higher School of Economics yesterday...
Насчет пропорций - время покажет, но угроза такая реальна: ЦБ РФ уже терял деньги в прошлом, когда вкладывался в юань
***************************
"Резервы РФ и ФНБ сократятся в 2 раза автоматически после вступления Трампа в должность. Никто из экспертов не усмотрел в решении избранного президента США поднять пошлины на китайский импорт на 60% угрозы финансовой стабильности путинского режима. Что будет в этой ситуации с рублем - страшно даже представить! 130-150 руб вполне реальный сценарий.
Дело в том, что для сохранения конкурентоспособности своих товаров в условиях торговой войны с США Китай обычно прибегает к девальвации юаня. В 2018 году, после того как США ввели пошлину на половину всего, что они импортируют из Китая, по ставке 25%, курс юаня упал на 10% по отношению к доллару, что было компенсацией практически "один к одному".
В результате цены на импорт в США, деноминированные в долларах, изменились незначительно, а тарифы мало повлияли на нарушение равновесия в условиях низкой инфляции.
В случае с 60-процентным тарифом на весь импорт из Китая, с учетом тарифов, уже действующих с 2018 года, может потребовать 50-процентного падения курса юаня по отношению к доллару для поддержания стабильных цен на импорт в США.
А теперь давайте вспомним, что резервы РФ и ФНБ состоят из юаня (последние доллары и евро были проданы в декабре 2023г😉 и в небольшой части из золота".
Time will tell regarding the proportions, but the threat is real; Russia’s Central Bank lost money in the past when investing in the yuan.
Russia’s reserves and the sovereign wealth fund will drop by half automatically after Trump takes office. None of the experts saw in the US president-elect’s decision to raise tariffs on Chinese imports by 60% as a threat to the financial stability of Putin’s regime. What will happen to the Ruble in this situation? Frightening to imagine! 130-150 Ruble is a completely real scenario.
The issue is that to preserve the competitiveness of its goods in a trade war with the US, China usually devalues the yuan. In 2018, after the US imposed 25% tariffs on half of everything it imports from China, the yuan rate fell 10% against the dollar, which was practically a “1 to 1” compensation.
As a result, US import prices denominated in dollars have changed insignificantly, and tariffs barely had any effect on the imbalance in conditions of low inflation.
In the event of 60% tariffs on all imports from China—considering the tariffs in effect from 2018—there may be a requirement for a 50% decline in the yuan against the dollar to keep US import prices stable.
Now let’s remember that Russia’s reserves and the Sovereign Wealth Fund consist of yuan (the last dollars and euros were sold in December 2023) and a small portion in gold.
Russia says Ukraine has fired US-supplied long-range missiles into the country, a day after Washington gave its permission for such attacks.
Ukraine used the Army Tactical Missile System (Atacms) in a strike on Russia's Bryansk region this morning, the ministry of defence in Moscow said.
Five missiles were shot down and one damaged, with its fragments causing a fire at a military facility in the region, it said in a statement.
The strike represents the first time the long-range missiles have been used on Russia's internationally-recognised territory and comes shortly after Washington signalled Ukraine had permission to fire the Atacms into Russia.
On Monday Moscow said any such attack would prompt an "appropriate and tangible response".
Putin ordered changes to the nuclear doctrine in the weeks leading up to the US election.
On Tuesday morning Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said the use of western non-nuclear missiles by the Ukrainian armed forces against the Russian Federation under the new doctrine could lead to a nuclear response, urging that the new nuclear doctrine should become the subject of deep analysis abroad.
Peskov said updating the doctrine was needed to bring the document into line with the current political situation. [See 8.54 GMT]
In effect it lowers the threshold for what might merit a nuclear attack from Russia, including factors such as “a critical threat to [the Russian Federation’s] sovereignty, even with conventional weapons”, an attack on Belarus, or “the event of a massive launch of military aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, other aircraft and their crossing the Russian border.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2...
Probably not but ....
💔 This is a family that died as a result of the Russian strike on Glukhov in Sumy Oblast.
Mother Tatyana, sons Nikita and Vasyl. The eldest was 21 years old, the youngest was only 7, he did not live to see his 8th birthday for a few days... Only the father remained alive.
Search and rescue operations have been completed: 12 dead...
#russiaisaterroriststate
I rarely post on international conflicts, mostly because of lack of expertise, but this move seems relatively easy to interpret strategically. Capitulation by Ukraine seems inevitable after Trump takes office. The Biden administration wants to put Ukraine in as good a position as possible to negotiate the terms of the capitulation. And Biden assumes (almost certainly correctly) that Putin will tolerate a fair bit of provocation from an administration that is on its way out.
Is it OK to go back earlier in the thread and troll the absolute morons who said this WASN'T a long term war of attrition and Russia would be 'surrendering shortly'?
And that Ukraine, while 'resisting', isn't- and wasn't- ever actually 'winning'?
What's the official mod policy on going back and pointing out how stupid that viewpoint was to the people who expressed it?
Is it OK to go back earlier in the thread and troll the absolute morons who said this WASN'T a long term war of attrition and Russia would be 'surrendering shortly'?
And that Ukraine, while 'resisting', isn't- and wasn't- ever actually 'winning'?
What's the official mod policy on going back and pointing out how stupid that viewpoint was to the people who expressed it?
Weird, I remember the contrary.
All the people claiming ukraine wouldn't surrender and Russia will throw everything they have at them as long as they can.
Which so far happened.
the old thread got deleted so you cant really find much.
but there have been different viewpoints at different times.
-beginning of the war: everyone thought Russia would crush
-Russia retreats: many (including myself) thought that Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow lol
-front stabilizes: many still think Ukraine will win. some predict Russia will stymie the promised offensive and some think the Western trained and equipped Ukrainians will cut off Crimea and set the stage to win. I wised up by now.
-Ukraine's failed "offensive": only the most diehard supporters felt Ukraine could win after this offensive was stopped with minimal gains.
Is it OK to go back earlier in the thread and troll the absolute morons who said this WASN'T a long term war of attrition and Russia would be 'surrendering shortly'?
And that Ukraine, while 'resisting', isn't- and wasn't- ever actually 'winning'?
What's the official mod policy on going back and pointing out how stupid that viewpoint was to the people who expressed it?
The old thread got canceled when the forum got attacked by spam bots which created a zillion new thread and mods had to hastily delete stuff, and among the deletions the ukraine old thread got axed
the old thread got deleted so you cant really find much.
but there have been different viewpoints at different times.
-beginning of the war: everyone thought Russia would crush
-Russia retreats: many (including myself) thought that Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow lol
-front stabilizes: many still think Ukraine will win. some predict Russia will stymie the promised offensive and some think the Western trained and equipped Ukrainians will cut off Crimea and set the stage to win. I wised
In general, and no matter what your personal preferences are on the topic of this war, we should define the "winning" better a priori otherwise words don't have much meaning.
For me if Putin ends the war with more land than he began with, it's a win for him. It can be an exceptionally expensive win, and the price paid way too high, but still a win for him.
If Ukraine doesn't lose land but doesn't gain anything material it's a draw.
If Ukraine doesn't lose land and it gains something material (american bases in Ukraine or whatever else of that kind) then it's an Ukrainian win.
A total win for Ukraine would be taking back Crimea as well and having american bases and starting NATO access.
A total win for Putin would be gaining land (donbass if not more) AND getting regime change in what's left of Ukraine getting a pro-russia leader installed.
I rarely post on international conflicts, mostly because of lack of expertise, but this move seems relatively easy to interpret strategically. Capitulation by Ukraine seems inevitable after Trump takes office. The Biden administration wants to put Ukraine in as good a position as possible to negotiate the terms of the capitulation. And Biden assumes (almost certainly correctly) that Putin will tolerate a fair bit of provocation from an administration that is on its way out.
The problem with this simple cause and effect analysis is that it doesn't account for unintended consequences, though America does love to play soldiers on other continents.
Things "go wrong" very easily, and when nuclear weapons are involved that's to be avoided:
What's the worst that could happen?
I feel that we're in Cold War II right now. Does seem to be heating up a little though.
The problem with this simple cause and effect analysis is that it doesn't account for unintended consequences, though America does love to play soldiers on other continents.
Things "go wrong" very easily, and when nuclear weapons are involved that's to be avoided:
I wasn't commenting on the wisdom of the strategy. I was just speculating as to what the strategy appeared to be.
