Within next decade there are currently two places in the world that can drag us into nuclear conflict between superpowers - one is possible invasion of Taiwan by China (with full control of South China Sea as first step) and second is possible invasion of Baltic states by Russia (with invasion of Ukraine being first step and testing Western response).
I was wondering what investment implication might have such potential conflicts? Should I start buying food cans and ammo or maybe physical gold? I doubt Bitcoin or stocks will be of any use in such scenarioâŠ
I donât see it. They are members of NATO and while the living together of the ethnic Balts and the sizable Russian minorities isnât without friction, differences of opinion and conflict, itâs not really a serious conflict. I also think thereâs less a lack of (and increasi waning) support of ethnic Russians in these countries to return to Russia, for economic reasons and civil liberties due to EU membership.
Eastern Ukraine, yes, I could see such support, such as on Crimea, but the Baltics, no. And I donât think Putin would be foolish enough to risk such conflict on NATO territory.
Well, no at the moment, but after USA and allies get engaged in the Pacific, then who will stop him from taking over Baltics? Russia and China can make tactical anti-NATO pact and open two fronts. In fact, Sweden, Poland, Romania and Turkey are all building up arms now to prepare for such situation. Not to mention Ukraine which already is at war with Russia. Whether we like it or not, we are now in cold war that is getting hotter and hotter every day.
Itâs relatively easy to seize and annex a country with support of the majority of its population. Itâs not in the absence of such support.
The red line that canât be crossed is NATO (and maybe vice versa). Putin knows this and just made corresponding demands that NATO doesnât expand eastwards. And so does the west, with its relatively indifferent stance and non-opposition (militarily) to the annexation of Crimea.
Yes, but all Baltic countries have significant Russian-speaking minorities. There are 1M Russians there, and in the Soviet times there were 2M. In Lithuania 12% of the population are Russians, Latvia - 25% (including half of the population of the Riga), and Estonia - 25% (including 40% population of Tallinn). They donât need to take over the whole Baltic states, but annex just the +50% Russian-speaking cities.
Similarly as they did in Georgia in 2008, and as they do now in Ukraine (and they do de facto in Belarus but with political means). They already tested this strategy and it works.
Itâs not as simple as them being ethnic Russians. Theyâve now seen for (a few) decades how EU membership provides prosperity better than being and living on the fringe a large Russian empire:
Well, they might like the Western prosperity (similarly in Kalinigrad Oblast people are much more pro-West than in âmainlandâ), but does it mean they would oppose (military or otherwise) the Russian occupation? Especially when Putin will promise them an âindependentâ republic (tied geopolitically and economically with Russia like Lugansk, Donetsk, Abkhazia and South Ossetia)?
Of course it wasnât a serious referendum. I think @San_Francisco meant that there was no military opposition to annexation. That might be true - even Tatars, who hate Russians, werenât fighting.
I think the anti-Russian forces in Crimea (Ukrainians and Tatars) are too small and too disorganized to really fight back. Rest of the population is either pro-Russian or nationally ambiguous (or they are âpro-Sovietâ as once an old man told me in Yalta when I was there on vacation). So there was no enough political will to stop Russia there. In Donbas and Lugansk itâs completely different story because pro-Russian forces are minority. Thatâs why up to this day 15k people died in the war in Eastern Ukraine.
Occupation of the whole Ukraine would be 1000 times more bloody than the current war in the East. I think itâs unlikely to happen on full scale. I think itâs much more likely that new pro-Russian minorities ârepublicsâ will pop up in the future - Odessa Peopleâs Republic, and rest of the âNovorossiyaâ.
Itâs unlikely that Ukraine will join now NATO because nobody in the West wants to go for nuclear war with Russia over ethnically mixed territories in Eastern Ukraine. Interestingly, the aggressive moves of Russia (war in Georgia in 2008) started just few months after Bush pushed hard Germans and French to let Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. He though that Russia will be too scared of US to react - he was wrong.
According to the article below it is a negotiation tactic for Russia to put pressure to shape the political agreement in Eastern Ukraine in their favour
As far as I recall Europe continues to be reliant on gas pipelines from Russia
"âŠ
What is Russia trying to achieve?
⊠Russia really wants something and is underpinning this demands with military might," he told Euronews. Moscow ⊠wants to have the Minsk agreement implemented on its own terms.
[The Minsk agreement] stipulated that Ukraine would regain full control of its border with Russia in the rebel-held territories only after the election of local leaders and legislatures.
Kyiv recently introduced plans to adopt a law on transitional administration, promising to transition towards new authorities after elections under Ukrainian law.
âMoscow dislikes the contents of the draft legislation because they do not effectively allow it to retain the republics it set up in eastern Ukraine,â
âŠ"
Crimea has been 90% Russian-speaking way before referendum and annexation.
Some maybe, many not, probably. I donât think that Russian occupation would be very welcome - or that Russia would be able to improve economic conditions and infrastructure as in Crimea or Eastern Ukraine.
I think Putin, Russia and ethnic Russians have - though maybe somewhat begrudgingly and not ostensibly - accepted the status of the Baltic states as members of NATO and the EU. And vice versa, EU and âthe Westâ has accepted the status of Kaliningrad as Russian, the annexation of Crimea. And I eventually it may not much different for Eastern Ukraine.
Even though Crimea could be a blueprint of sorts for Eastern Ukraine, it isnât a blueprint for the Baltics.
Yep. And the crazy move to phase out nuclear power while electrifying more sectors like transportation and heating. Hopefully this yearâs energy bills will shake some peopleâs beliefs on nuclear energy.
Georgia was blueprint for Crimea, then Crimea was blueprint for eastern Ukraine, in the future eastern Ukraine will become a blueprint for southern Ukraine, and if we will see China-US/NATO war over Taiwan, I think all these exercises will become a blueprint to whatever Russians will want to take (including parts of Baltic states).
PS. Interestingly, Putin took this idea for creating âindependentâ republics from US - after they created Kosovo. That had triggered Putin a lot at the time due to traditional Serbian-Russian connections and he was promising the US similar âindependentâ secessions.
Sure, Crimea is a special case. It was annexed by Russia in 1783 and until Stalinâs era it was mostly inhabited by Tatars. It was transferred to Ukraine Soviet Republic in 1954 - but it didnât make any difference because in Soviet Union everything was controlled by Moscow anyway. It was just a propaganda move of Khrushchev, who was ethnically Ukrainian. So, without this silly soviet transfers, by law it would have remain Russian territory after Soviet Union collapsed. Most of the population there is pro-Russian (except Tatars who live there and the ones who were expelled by Stalin).
Of course, it backfired, and they pay the price. I used to spend vacations there when I was a student in Warsaw. It was a lovely place visited by Ukrainians, Russians, Poles and other neighbors - now they are sliding into shithole.
Developed an attitude of fatalism may be a more appropriate description.
We agree to disagree.
Blueprint or not, there are limits in practicality. Of willingness to engage and what is militarily feasible and what you can get away with - in those regions, as well as domestically and internationally.
Whether you like or approve of Putin and his politics or not, he is probably be (IMO) the single most experienced, intelligent and strategically-versed leader of any major military power in the world. I think he knows pretty well with what and how much he can get away with:
Russia already has enough regions where theyâve been facing - over prolonged periods - separatists, terrorists and guerrilla warfare. I donât think we will open another such theatre in the west.
The annexation of Crimea was, by and large, well-orchestrated and, in terms of administering the region, providing basic services (such as electricity or water, even in the face of Ukraine cutting supply routes and severing infrastructure) went pretty smoothly
âŠand so did the narrative in the eyes of the Russian public. It brought home a region that wanted to be part of Russia, with most Russian-speaking people that wanted to be Russian. Along with positive images of improving their living conditions.
The Baltics on the other hand, as part of NATO and EU territory? Too big of a stretch.
I think that Putin is clever enough to know that he isnât able to afford and get away with invading or annexing them in any way similar to Ukraine - a country that isnât part of a major bloc and internally very much torn on the issue whether it should be.
I also believe that Putin and Russia are mainly focusing on the Russian - or russophone - sphere of influence (that, yes, probably includes regions such as Transnistria and other parts of the Baltics and Ukraine) but not beyond that.
Whereas China is basically vying for world domination: to become a dominant power in the world. The Chinese have been steadily increasing their economic power, diplomatic influence and military footprint in the South China Sea.
They are working on becoming so powerful that they can get away with anything, with regards to Taiwan. A country (the ROC) that is already virtually isolated and diplomatically unrecognised on the world stage.
I believe that, if anything, the spark that sets off a third world war will be occuring in Asia. But Iâm not sure if itâs going to be Taiwan or if that will trigger a world war. I think it will be annexed/integrated into the PRC by the mid of the century - with stern public and diplomatic condemnations by many other powers in the world - but not much military intervention.
Durch das Lesen und die Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestÀtigst du, dass du den auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ dargestellten Haftungsausschluss gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist.
