Don't be so quick to think that. There is a LOT to consider at this point in economic history. Just a few things come to mind:
Russia already had its collapse and economic remoulding. They have some close (and growing) ties with China, including building a huge pipeline capacity to them AND of recent have allegedly reached a large oil/gas agreement to trade between the two via rubles/yuan instead of the US Dollar. Announcement is expected in May when Putin visits China. That is another large nail in the US Petrodollar status.
Russia has also been building stronger ties with India. Between China and India, I think you have a huge potential for trade. Overlay that with the issue that these are three of the largest gold holding governments. By creating gold backed currencies (in even a modest way) you could put another nail in the US coffin as this likely would trigger the massive inflation that at some point will hit the US due to money velocity kicking in.
And should Putin say to the EU, "I no longer take US Dollars for our gas, but your Euros are welcome" how would Europe react? First off, they would save a ton of money just in exchange rates alone. The Euro would rise giving them another cost savings on the gas imports. If energy prices drop, EVERYTHING drops in price from the ripple effect. One would think that Russia would be looked upon much more favourably due to this.
Think about it....
Iraq wanted to trade oil via the Euro, the US invaded.
Libya wanted to trade oil via gold and/or the Euro, the US attacked.
Don't think they will do that this time to Russia, for many reasons, so it is left to economics. But the US absolutely must have their Petrodollar continue otherwise they are hooped. Heck, they will be hooped sooner or later, this would just make it sooner.
Don't forget about Britain too. They are so screwed up in derivative hell that the next financial sneeze, if not bailed out by taxpayers worldwide, will likely take the whole system down. And I am not sure there is enough money in the world to cover the derivative liabilities.
This has been brewing for a long time.
The CIA invited Jim Rickards, author of "Currency Wars" to participate in a simulation based on an East (China, etc) versus the West using economic warfare.
Jim came home to his wife that night and when asked how it went, replied he had good news and bad news. Good news was he won, bad news was he played on the Chinese side.
The US and the West have a lot more to lose economically than the Russians. And it very well may be easier to make that happen.
Thanked as this made me realize how much of my Econ degree I've forgotten.
If there was ever a window to attack, I think today is it.
GLONASS, the Russian version of GPS is down as of last night.
Apparently the Ephemeris data (The data that contains the positional information for the physical satellites) that is currently loaded in the satellites is tagged as illegal and is rendering positioning based on GLONASS impossible at the moment.
It remains unclear exactly why or how the Gadhafi regime went from “a model” and an “important ally” to the next target for regime change in a period of just a few years. But after claims of “genocide” as the justification for NATO intervention were disputed by experts, several other theories have been floated.
Oil, of course, has been mentioned frequently — Libya is Africa‘s largest oil producer. But one possible reason in particular for Gadhafi’s fall from grace has gained significant traction among analysts and segments of the non-Western media: central banking and the global monetary system.
According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.
From within that article:
Still think it is a stretch? How about that the Libyan rebels set up a Central Bank within weeks. Libya had a central bank, yet it was one of the only fully state owned ones in the world. No "Banksters" involved. No interest bearing fiat currency where you had to borrow a nations money into existence. Gadhafi wanted to take it a step further, and the US wouldn't stand for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
However the biggest common sense argument is that a crippled US economy will not benefit the Russians. I'm on board that the US is in trouble, and it's slowy becoming a house of cards, though much slower than conspiracy theorists argue.
However, it's not a zero sum game. A US economic collapse will trigger a world collapse including Russia. China and India cannot support the world or even make Russia profitable without the US.
I would argue that the current Keynesian based experiment is likely coming to its expected and ugly end. The West will be in dire trouble, but the East will actually have an opportunity to shift focus and start being a consumer of the goods it is now producing and exporting to the West. Those empty cities in China were built for a reason, and that reason was to prepare for a shift in prosperity.
And it is already happening... China isn't expanding their US Treasury holdings, in fact they appear to have plateaued with them.
And just to clarify, I don't think that India, China and Russia have to "support the world" at all. In fact, this could be a redemption for them for living in a substandard fashion in comparison to the West for the last century.
China has taken over the manufacturing sector to a very large extent. Congrats world! You have handed them the keys to producing wealth.
They don't need the West. They have been selling us goods in return for I.O.U.s that are increasingly looking like they are worthless. What the heck do you expect them to do? Give us more stuff for more worthless promises?
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
The GLONASS fiasco shows the one overarching reason why the West is in no real danger of losing economic and military supremacy any time soon: scientific and technological progress and competence is still largely centred in North America and Europe, and as long as China and Russia have authoritarian governments, that will not change.
NATO's ability - if they had the will - to intervene in Crimea is not coupled with an equal ability of the Russians to intervene in Western Europe or North America. The Chinese are also a purely local power. Further, the G7 still account for over 60% of the world's wealth. Predictions that the Chinese economy will be larger than the American, in a few years, always neglect to mention that China has 4 times the population, so will still be 1/4 as productive per capita even when that happens. Which, by the way, is how Russia is currently situated with Canada: about 10% more GDP with well over 4 times the population.
All in all, the decline of the West is seriously exaggerated. It's far easier to grow your economy quickly when you are starting from a low point, but not nearly as easy to sustain that growth once you've become prosperous. We should be encouraging everyone to become as rich as we are, anyway, out of common humanity if not also our own self-interest: if China and India were as innovative and prosperous as the West, everyone would benefit immensely.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Ukraine's ousted president, Viktor Yanukovych, said he was "wrong" to invite Russian troops into Crimea, and vowed to try to persuade Russia to return the Black Sea peninsula. In his first interview since fleeing to Russia in February, he said he hopes to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin to return the region he annexed in March.
Sorry Viktor, but the monkey's paw does not allow for mulligans.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I would just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone not to engage in debate with people who use sources like "1worldcurrency", RT, or ZeroHedge. No one wins in that scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
The front line T-90 is probably better then anything that is in the Europe theatre right now. The upgraded T-72's are a match.
I've disagreed with a lot of your Clancy-esque analysis, but this in particular is just completely wrong. Also, a T90 is an upgraded T72.
Last edited by NuclearPizzaMan; 04-02-2014 at 01:53 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to NuclearPizzaMan For This Useful Post:
I've disagreed with a lot of your Clancy-esque analysis, but this in particular is just completely wrong. Also, a T90 is an upgraded T72.
Yup upgraded in speed, fire control systems armament, drivability and armor and protective systems and operational range, operational range, completely different engine and drive train, But other then that they're exactly the same.
In terms of comparison to something like the Leopard 2, the Russian T-90 is slightly slower, but has a heavier main gun with a light range advantage. Armor wise they're fairly equivalent. The Russians have the nifty main gun anti tank rocket system
If its front line to front line in terms of machinery there isn't some mythical advantage to the NATO tanks in theatre.
And if my theory was Tom Clanceyesque, I'd have Nato wiping the map with the Russians.
But I do like the at least 50% snark in your post.
I think that's awesome.
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 04-02-2014 at 02:12 PM.
The front line T-90 is probably better then anything that is in the Europe theatre right now. The upgraded T-72's are a match.
The clear superior main battle tank is the M1A1 that the Yanks use and those aren't in Europe in significant numbers. The Russians have a significant advantage in Arty and in short call aircraft and heavy bombers.
AFAIK Leopard 2's are very much in the same class as M1A1's so if as you say, M1A1's are "the clear superior main battle tank" then German Leopard 2's are at least as good as T-90's. And Poland is replacing T-72's with Leopard 2's... to me this says that an upgraded T-72 is inferior to a Leopard 2.
But then it goes back to adequately trained tank crews... and to numbers. How many T-90's and upgraded T-72's are there? With a GDP less than 1/6th that of the EU, does Russia really have a technological and numerically superior armed forces? I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I think you've oversimplified on the second part of the post. He's getting away with it because he believes and he's right that he will be given what he wants in the end.
Yes, he believes he'll get what he wants, but how is that different than a three year old throwing a temper tantrum? IMO you're giving Putin far too much credit for being a chess-master when he's more like a simple thug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
And nobody wins a trade war, the U.S. economy is still fragile as are the European nations, a full on trade war will probably send every country in the world into a financial abyss.
But nobody wins a war either. I think you're overstating the effect of a trade war on the global economy, and at the same time understating the effect of a real war on the global economy.
The US economy is slowly recovering, Europe may finally be on the right track, but the Russian economy is trending into recession and they essentially have one export and one customer. Putin can hurt the west economically, but only by destroying his own economy.
The GLONASS fiasco shows the one overarching reason why the West is in no real danger of losing economic and military supremacy any time soon: scientific and technological progress and competence is still largely centred in North America and Europe, and as long as China and Russia have authoritarian governments, that will not change.
Right, because GPS isn't vulnerable to jamming or destruction.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful
Right, because GPS isn't vulnerable to jamming or destruction.
Do you understand the difference between "randomly broke down because it's crap" and "disabled by enemy action"?
Nobody is clamouring to use Russian "high tech" for anything, except I guess maybe some of the world's most advanced botnets being used by the world's most discerning criminals.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
I would just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone not to engage in debate with people who use sources like "1worldcurrency", RT, or ZeroHedge. No one wins in that scenario.
I didn't link the 1worldcurrency article, it was secondary info within the article. But others referenced were looking at the likes of Reuters via ZeroHedge.
RT is referencing actual events in relation to Gahdafi's intentions and are of public record.
WTF is your problem? Waiting for MSNBC or CBC to enlighten you? Or it to appear on the Daily Show? Colbert Report?
Grow up. Those were some examples of sources, there are many others and I am sure you will find this type of information located within sources you might deem more to your highnesses liking.
AFAIK Leopard 2's are very much in the same class as M1A1's so if as you say, M1A1's are "the clear superior main battle tank" then German Leopard 2's are at least as good as T-90's. And Poland is replacing T-72's with Leopard 2's... to me this says that an upgraded T-72 is inferior to a Leopard 2.
Poland is also a NATO nation and probably received some pretty favorable terms. I like the Leopard 2, I'm not fond of a lot of features of the T-90 including the Russian reliance on their auto loader system, and their fuel system placements on their tanks which is just silly. But the T-90 might share the same basic frame as the T72, but it is not really a T-72 at all anymore. Especially with its optics improvements and some other things. I also have to admit that I'm a fan of the main gun on the T-90 and the idea of firing a guided anti tank rocket through it to me is a pretty brilliant idea. The guided antitank rocket is a pretty deadly counter to the advanced reactive armor on most main battle tanks.
The T-90 also took a generational step forward in terms of their defensive technology.
One of the biggest problems with the T72's and the big advantage of the Leopard 2 and M1A1 is that the Russian tanks had a lot of trouble accurately firing on the move. But it sounds like they've solved that issue and its been successfully tested in battle conditions as they've adopted a gas stabilization system for their main gun to give it the same kind of floating stabilization as the NATO tanks
The battle between the Leopard and the T90 tank comes down to the battle of range against Maneuvering capability, right now the T90 has a longer effective range
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plett25
But then it goes back to adequately trained tank crews... and to numbers. How many T-90's and upgraded T-72's are there? With a GDP less than 1/6th that of the EU, does Russia really have a technological and numerically superior armed forces? I doubt it.
Maybe, in terms of the sides currently in Europe, the Russians would probably have more battle hardened armor operators as they were used in Georgia, I would also argue that just based on shear manpower that the Russians would just plain have more tank troopers available. I really don't doubt that the Russians have a numerical advantage. What the composition is I'm not even sure, but they have far more tubed artillery and I would argue more tanks (I have my doubts on the BBC story as it doesn't make sense), on the balance I would argue that Nato has a sharp advantage in terms of helicopter gun ships and in terms of air to ground attack aircraft. Russia has a distinct advantage in stand off heavy bombers.
the problem for Nato right now is that they don't have the correlation of forces to be successful in an offensive manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plett25
Yes, he believes he'll get what he wants, but how is that different than a three year old throwing a temper tantrum? IMO you're giving Putin far too much credit for being a chess-master when he's more like a simple thug.
Maybe, but right now he is holding the upper hand on this situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plett25
But nobody wins a war either. I think you're overstating the effect of a trade war on the global economy, and at the same time understating the effect of a real war on the global economy.
Yes it would be foolish to say otherwise, but either which way whether its a trade or real world neither side would come through unscathed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plett25
The US economy is slowly recovering, Europe may finally be on the right track, but the Russian economy is trending into recession and they essentially have one export and one customer. Putin can hurt the west economically, but only by destroying his own economy.
America always seems to have more to lose economically in a recession because their economy is far more complex and multifaceted. I think its overly optimistic to say that any harm to the American or European economy won't send either over the cliffs edge.
But admittedly I am certainly not an economist.
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful
Doesn't make a difference. You can't claim western military supremacy if Russia can disable it.
What are you on about? Seriously, if you have a point, maybe try making it using more than 2 sentences. Does your internet provider charge you by the electron?
First of all, I doubt very much that Russia has the ability to "disable" the GPS system. What do they have, secret laser satellites in orbit just waiting for the go-word from Putin? Secondly, even given this hypothetical ability, there is still a difference in quality and reliability between "our stuff breaks on its own" and "someone sabotaged our stuff", and claiming there isn't such a difference by fiat is not actually an argument, it's an assertion. Thirdly, western military supremacy doesn't just rely on superior GPS - which, by the way, was an EXAMPLE, not some kind of keystone upon which an entire argument is founded - but on superior materials, resources, training, software, hardware, design, and military theory, not to mention better infrastructure with which to project power, far superior financial underpinnings, and a plethora of allies and clients that the Russians simply do not possess anymore since the Soviet collapse..
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Still think it is a stretch? How about that the Libyan rebels set up a Central Bank within weeks. Libya had a central bank, yet it was one of the only fully state owned ones in the world. No "Banksters" involved. No interest bearing fiat currency where you had to borrow a nations money into existence. Gadhafi wanted to take it a step further, and the US wouldn't stand for that.
I would argue that the current Keynesian based experiment is likely coming to its expected and ugly end. The West will be in dire trouble, but the East will actually have an opportunity to shift focus and start being a consumer of the goods it is now producing and exporting to the West. Those empty cities in China were built for a reason, and that reason was to prepare for a shift in prosperity.
And it is already happening... China isn't expanding their US Treasury holdings, in fact they appear to have plateaued with them.
And just to clarify, I don't think that India, China and Russia have to "support the world" at all. In fact, this could be a redemption for them for living in a substandard fashion in comparison to the West for the last century.
China has taken over the manufacturing sector to a very large extent. Congrats world! You have handed them the keys to producing wealth.
They don't need the West. They have been selling us goods in return for I.O.U.s that are increasingly looking like they are worthless. What the heck do you expect them to do? Give us more stuff for more worthless promises?
They do need the West. Of course they do. In the 21st century all our ripples are tied together. And when you upset the biggest economy, it hurts everyone.
I'm not saying it isn't a shift of focus and power. I'm not saying there aren't new kids on the bloc and a new superpower. I'm not saying the modern US didn't screw the pooch.
I am saying the conspiracies you are looking for are a bit of a stretch. Those nations, even if they are overtaking the US (which hasn't quite happened yet) cannot afford to see it become unprofitable. Not yet.
This isn't Game of Thrones. No one twisting a knife. These are small nuanced moves, no grand conspiracy.
And as far as Libya, while important to the States, is not the oil or banking paradise you think it is. It barely registers. Fifth in oil. Fine. Still about 7% of the world. And this is at a time when technology is finding more oil at the time.
If there is a conspiracy it's simply that people in power are helping their buddies stay rich. It goes no further than that.
Pro-Russian protestors seized the municipal legislature and declared Donetsk a republic today and are planning to have a Russian unification referendum before May 11th.
And some pretty strong comments from the Czech president.
Quote:
The crisis has heightened nervousness in many other eastern European states, with Czech President Milos Zeman saying Nato should deploy troops in Ukraine if Russia invades.
"If Russia decides to extend its territorial expansion to eastern Ukraine, the fun is over," he told Czech public radio on Sunday.
In another development on Monday, Nato said it was limiting Russian diplomats' access to its headquarters in Brussels.
It comes days after Nato foreign ministers agreed to suspend all practical co-operation with Moscow over its annexation of Crimea.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 04-07-2014 at 12:30 PM.
I would just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone not to engage in debate with people who use sources like "1worldcurrency", RT, or ZeroHedge. No one wins in that scenario.
"1worldcurrency" is tinfoil hat territory, I'll give you that, but what is your criticism of Zero Hedge? I find them to have very well informed financial news- much more intelligent than most mainstream sources.
Pro-Russian protestors seized the municipal legislature and declared Donetsk a republic today and are planning to have a Russian unification referendum before May 11th.
Russian Spetnatz troops have been on the ground for a while there aiding local Russian Nationalists and stirring them up.
Putin is almost hoping that the Ukraine sends in their security troops to put this rebellion down, that's all the justification that he's going to need to "Send in troops to protect Russians".
The next big bite is about to happen, I thought he would have waited for a while for things to cool down, maybe play nice paddy cake with NATO.
