What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?

[Gator]

We should not have gotten involved in the Cuban revolution.....

Aren't you a half century late?  Is Cuba our worst example?  What about the native Americans?  Slavery?  Annexation of Mexican territory?  American history has some dark chapters, and Cuba is not the darkest.  If you spent time in Florida and befriended some Cuban-Americans, you will learn about atrocities, property seizures, etc. 

Besides, the Cold War was real.  You need to factor the prevailing ideologies at the time.  Perhaps you would have done the same if you were in charge in the 1950s and 1960s.  As it turned out, all we had to was let communist fervor run its course.  Sometimes it does not collapse.   After visiting Laos and Vietnam 40 years after I was first there, I say the "good guys" won. 

I just read that we are now WARNING Russia not to raise their price of gas to Ukraine...Just who the hell are we to tell Russia what they can and can't charge for THEIR gas?

 

Missed that.  Your source reputable?   

Crimea is a part of Russia now, and our 'representatives' are hypocrites for crying foul...given what we have done.

Maybe we have repented.  Anyway, a foul is still a foul. 

[Gator]

Question again remains economic... who wants to sell gas to UA without guarantees?

I would not sell UA anything without some guarantee.  But that has always been the case when dealing with Russian businesses. 

In the case of gas prices, it could be like a monopoly dealing with a captive customer.  A 485% increase in price is huge.  Is the new price the same that European customers pay Russia?   

[fathertime]

Links please.`

http://news.yahoo.com/us-warns-russia-against-gas-hikes-hurt-ukraine-181319430.html

Aren't you a half century late?  Is Cuba our worst example?  What about the native Americans?  Slavery?  Annexation of Mexican territory?  American history has some dark chapters, and Cuba is not the darkest.  If you spent time in Florida and befriended some Cuban-Americans, you will learn about atrocities, property seizures, etc. 

I don't know if Cuba is our worst example...I just bring it up because of the recent news regarding us once again attempting to foment rebellion in that nation.  We shouldn't be doing that, as it continues to give credence to our world opponents when they say we have interfered elsewhere.  In addition, it is a misuse of our own resources.  I don't want our govt. to focus on fomenting rebellions elsewhere.


Speaking of atrocities, the leader we supported committed so atrocious acts himself, so we are not standing on higher ground on that count either.  We got involved not for the benefit of the people, it was all about finances, as usual.  I think we are better off letting countries sort out their issues the best they can, and deal with who is left standing.  Our 'help' is rarely seen as an act of kindness, although that is the phony way our govt 'representatives' always characterize it.  That line of thinking just doesn't sell like it used to, imo.


Fathertime!

[Muzh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

Mr. Fi!!! Fancy meeting you here. 

[Muzh]

Aren't you a half century late?  Is Cuba our worst example?  What about the native Americans?  Slavery?  Annexation of Mexican territory?  American history has some dark chapters, and Cuba is not the darkest.  If you spent time in Florida and befriended some Cuban-Americans, you will learn about atrocities, property seizures, etc. 

Do they tell you about workers cuting off their fingers and sometimes hands, so they could collect some temporary assistance from the Batista regime? Or how about their thriving sex slave industry?

I don't think they will. These people lived in the wrong side of the tracks.
 
However, they will tell you, as the song says, how they left their private plane and yatch in Havana? Not to metion how many acres each one of them owned in Havana. Yep, according to them Havana had a second floor in order to accomodate all that land.
 
I can tell you from personal experience that many who fled Batista were the most vile scum that ever walk this Earth.

[Faux Pas]

ACTUALLY, we armed Bautista's forces against Castro...Eventually despite our meddling Castro won out anyway...then we started making demands to Castro with the threat of overthrowing him if he did not do as we said....he basically said Eff-U....So now we try to isolate Cuba. 


We should not have gotten involved in the Cuban revolution.....while many are making parallels to Hitler, For me I make the parallel to places like Cuba as it pertains to the fomenting of revolution.. There is NO NEED for us to stick our snout in another country's  business.  I just read that we are now WARNING Russia not to raise their price of gas to Ukraine...Just who the hell are we to tell Russia what they can and can't charge for THEIR gas?  So it is OK for our nation to use financial warfare, but when Russia plays one of their cards we wag our finger and warn them not to...what a joke... I still believe we should tone down our public involvement.  Crimea is a part of Russia now, and our 'representatives' are hypocrites for crying foul...given what we have done.


Fathertime!

C'mon FT, that's pure hyperbole and intellectually dishonest on your part (based on your link)

http://news.yahoo.com/us-warns-russia-against-gas-hikes-hurt-ukraine-181319430.html

 

[fathertime]

C'mon FT, that's pure hyperbole and intellectually dishonest on your part (based on your link)

O come on FP, so we didn't 'wag our finger'...but everything else written was true....We engage in financial warfare which is an effort to bring misery on certain peoples/governments...yet when Russia plays one of their cards (gas prices) we hypocritically jump up and down (hyperbole) and claim how unfair and oppressive it is.  We should be about the last ones to speak out on these sorts of things, given what we have been doing. 


Fathertime!   

[Gator]

However, they will tell you, as the song says, how they left their private plane and yatch in Havana? Not to metion how many acres each one of them owned in Havana. Yep, according to them Havana had a second floor in order to accomodate all that land.

Some of it is true.  As they were indeed the landowners, and had been for longer than America has been a nation.  Sadly,  some of the oldtimers still believe that they will regain ownership someday. 
 
 

I can tell you from personal experience that many who fled Batista were the most vile scum that ever walk this Earth.

Agree, Batista was a very bad man and had his avid supporters and enablers.  Yet many who fled were not.  I play golf with the son of a Jewish Cuban merchant.  Somehow I can not imagine his father as anything other than a man minding his  little business.

I still remember TV news broadcasting many quick executions that took place when Castro took over.  The announcer said this is just as bad as  what Castro replaced.  At the time, American people tended to support Castro.

[GQBlues]

...The thing people overlook is America reacts to bad behavior, not initiate it. Expecting perfection out of humans and America is silly....

Bad behavior? LOL. Not initiate it? Dude, being blind with our country's historical legacy does not bring merit to any of your silly argument. It simply render you clueless. I can cite you multiple historical facts that counter that silly statement above, but lack of knowledge or education is obviously not what ails you.

...Accidents happen...

Accidents?

The Beirut bombing was planned, premeditated and executed by the CIA.
 
Arming the KLA in Kosovo resulting in the Balkans war was strategically conducted and orchestrated by our very own resulting in 4 million displaced Albanians and the bombing of Serbia.

Dropping napalm bombs in an area known to be populated by innocent villagers simply because of *suspicion* a supply route ran right through it, is hardly what can be termed 'accident'. Fast forward: Waziristan, Pakistan.

My Lai.

... America will have a few critics no matter what. Can't please everyone. If countries don't like America's foreign policy, they can do business with someone else....

There you go. You're either with us or against us.

...So far I see many countries asking America for help and to base our troops on their land for security reasons. Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries have our troops there to protect their oil. Who better to trust? Who has a better reputation than America? America can't accommodate everyone though and we have had to turn down some nation's requests. Because America takes action against the thugs of the world, many nations respect us....

Yeah well, unfortunately our country heeds those who we find beneficial to our own interest. When there isn't anything in it for us, we simply kick our feet up and chill.

If you doubt that statement, Google Rwanda Hulu Tutsi massacre Machetes....it happened the same decade we supposedly cared so much about humanity that we just had to bomb Serbia for the cause. Unfortunately for those Rwandans, there simply was nothing in their country's resources for us to waste a dime and a nod.

Then read about the appointment of the Shah of Iran, and why, ultimately, we are at odds with Iran - no strike that; why Iran is at odds with US.

...Our foreign policy is working better than anybody else's and is fine but if we become too passive, that will be the beginning of the end for us. Based on what I see in today's world, I doubt there's anybody out there with the guts to come to our rescue. Enjoy the fact you're currently living in the most powerful nation in the world that's well respected and a good life. Our future generations may not be so lucky.

LOL. Enter: Edward Snowden.

[jone]

O come on FP, so we didn't 'wag our finger'...but everything else written was true....We engage in financial warfare which is an effort to bring misery on certain peoples/governments...yet when Russia plays one of their cards (gas prices) we hypocritically jump up and down (hyperbole) and claim how unfair and oppressive it is.  We should be about the last ones to speak out on these sorts of things, given what we have been doing. 


Fathertime!

You must have read that article differently than I did.  Russia decides that Ukraine should now pay more than market price for gas.  It is their choice.  But the US commented that Ukraine should pay market rate.  If you were sucking up to a country that just had a favorable switch in government, that is exactly what you would say in a similar situation.  Especially if you wanted part of their future trade.

The difference is that the US has the technology and resources to throw their hat in the ring.  Over the next couple of years, I would be surprised if we didn't see an LGN terminal along the Bug river - or fracking in  South Eastern Ukraine. 

That is, of course, assuming that Russia doesn't invade.

[Faux Pas]

O come on FP, so we didn't 'wag our finger'...but everything else written was true....We engage in financial warfare which is an effort to bring misery on certain peoples/governments...yet when Russia plays one of their cards (gas prices) we hypocritically jump up and down (hyperbole) and claim how unfair and oppressive it is.  We should be about the last ones to speak out on these sorts of things, given what we have been doing. 


Fathertime!

Financial warfare? denying a few oligarchs admittance to the U.S. is hardly financial warfare FT. Carney is just mouth piecing Kerry's empty rhetoric which equates to absolutely nothing but hot air. Also, no where even in your link do they "tell Russia what to charge for their gas". Hyperbole on your part. They are "cautioning" Russia not to use the price of gas for political influence in Ukraine. Your statements if true would actually have some merit. But, they are not true. Russia will charge what they wish for their gas regardless of what Carney or Kerry thinks or says about it.

I'm not to thrilled with this administration, either. Nor, this administrations foreign policy nor, the babbling Lerch of a Sec of State but, your statements on this matter is just blatantly false.

[fathertime]

Hey fp,
I think you are incorrect on several items.
1.  I didn't say financial warfare as it pertains to Russia, although we probably are doing just that at a lower level for the moment.
2. The article characterized the action as a warning. You stated it was merely us 'cautioning' Russia.  What's the difference?
3. It appears you believe the USA is not trying to tell Russia what to do.  I believe that is precisely what we are trying to do.  The purpose of the statements is to stop Russia from charging what they want to charge for gas.  If I were deciding what price to charge a nation that was unfriendly the price would be higher.

We do agree about Kerry and Carney.
Fathertime!

[jone]

Financial warfare? denying a few oligarchs admittance to the U.S. is hardly financial warfare FT. Carney is just mouth piecing Kerry's empty rhetoric which equates to absolutely nothing but hot air. Also, no where even in your link do they "tell Russia what to charge for their gas". Hyperbole on your part. They are "cautioning" Russia not to use the price of gas for political influence in Ukraine. Your statements if true would actually have some merit. But, they are not true. Russia will charge what they wish for their gas regardless of what Carney or Kerry thinks or says about it.

I'm not to thrilled with this administration, either. Nor, this administrations foreign policy nor, the babbling Lerch of a Sec of State but, your statements on this matter is just blatantly false.

Personally, I feel he looks more like Herman Munster.

[Faux Pas]

Hey fp,
I think you are incorrect on several items.
1.  I didn't say financial warfare as it pertains to Russia, although we probably are doing just that at a lower level for the moment.
2. The article characterized the action as a warning. You stated it was merely us 'cautioning' Russia.  What's the difference?
3. It appears you believe the USA is not trying to tell Russia what to do.  I believe that is precisely what we are trying to do.  The purpose of the statements is to stop Russia from charging what they want to charge for gas.  If I were deciding what price to charge a nation that was unfriendly the price would be higher.

We do agree about Kerry and Carney.
Fathertime!

FT, the talk of sanctions by the West against Russia was bandied about early by Obama and Europe quickly dismissed.

No significant difference in cautioning and warning but, there is a pretty significant difference in "Trying to tell Russia what to charge for their gas" and "using their gas to influence Ukraine politically".

Ukraine does not "have to" buy the gas. Russia wants to continue to sell them gas as Ukraine is a valued customer. Russia can sell it for anything they wish or what the world market dictates. Russia wasn't ever "doing Ukraine a favor" by selling them cheap gas. Russia has been using Ukraine to deliver much more volumes of gas to Europe, at much higher prices. Russia can only accomplish this with the pipelines through Ukraine to Europe. Your seemingly idea that Russia is doing Ukraine a favor is pretty much BS, yaknow?

Russia can sell their gas for anything they wish or, what a buyer is willing to pay for it. Kerry's rhetoric does nothing to change that nor is he attempting to tell Russia what price  they can or can not sell their own gas. You give the Obama administration much, much too much credit

[Faux Pas]

Personally, I feel he looks more like Herman Munster.

Maybe Lerch and Herman's love child?

[fathertime]

Hey FP,

I don't recall  stating anything about Russia doing Ukraine a favor regarding gas prices.

I think our representatives are trying to call out Russia's decision to raise their gas prices.  I find it hypocritical given the types of financial warfare we have enacted in several regions.  Given that fact we don't need to comment on thos situation as it just puts a spotlight on how two-faced and hypocritical our representatives are.
Fathertime!

[jone]

Father Time,

Get in the ballgame.  Russia had subsidized Ukraine's natural gas prices in exchange for leasing a military base and naval base in Crimea.  Once Russia had invaded, it raised the price of natural gas to be above the price that Western European nations were paying. 

Finally, the bulk of natural gas going to Western Europe flows through a pipeline that traverses Ukraine.  The price of transit was affixed, also, as part of the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and the bases.  Russia is attempting to circumvent the Ukraine pipeline by completing a Southern Route.  This pipeline has yet to see any traffic, gauging speculation that it is not complete. 

So, based on your world wide knowledge and assessments, should Ukraine increase the price of transit to pay for the 1.) The increase in price that Russia is attempting to throw at the Ukrainians and 2.)  The compensation for the bases on land that was forcibly taken from Ukraine by the very soldiers who were based on those military installations.

Now you see why the US would use muted words that would state that market rates should prevail.  Or perhaps you would like the US to say that Russia is trying beat the Sh*t out of Ukraine in every way possible for being a disobedient vassal.     

[fathertime]

Father Time,

Get in the ballgame. 

Jone, although you provide pertinent information, I find your 'tone' to be disrespectful.  IF you would like to get responses to your questions then you can address me without the dismissing preface...otherwise I will simply engage with those who can carry on a conversation respectfully. 

Fathertime!

[jone]

FT

You'll be waiting a long time.  Some of your ideas are out in left field.  If you have problems with a little "Get in the Game" you won't be communicating with many people on here.  To each their own.

I find many of your posts to be uninformed, like the last set.

My goal in posting here was not to await your response, but to give a perspective based on the facts on the ground.   Whether you respond to me or not, is not significant.

[fathertime]

FT



I find many of your posts to be uninformed, like the last set.

My goal in posting here was not to await your response, but to give a perspective based on the facts on the ground.

So what was 'uninformed' about my earlier statement.  At this point I don't agree my statement was uninformed. .I think your assessment of my statement was improperly formulated. In addition one can have all the facts amd yet still draw the wrong conclusions. Case in point is those that insisted Ukraine was sbout to be completely invaded when it was obvious to old uninformed me that it wasn't.
fathertime!

[jone]

My opinion is that the closer we get to the Chocolate King as the next President of Ukraine, the closer we will get to seeing an invasion by Russia. 

I like your opinion better, because given the current status quo, Ukraine could drag itself out of the hole that it is in given five years of uninterrupted peace.   With the demographic changing, absent Crimea, Ukraine becomes a much more pro-West country with new trading partners and a new economy.  So, here's to hoping.

(It will be interesting to see if the West makes a bid to receive some of the military-industrial output from Zap and Dnepro to offset the likely rejection that Ukraine is going to receive from the Soviets Russia.)

[BC]

Think about this..

1. RU raised gas prices for UA which might well be above market rates.
2. UA is not paying their bills. RU now has 2.2 Billion in unpaid bills at risk
3. RU withdrew 'easy' loans.
4. UA is in a world of hurt at the moment financially.
5. The USA starts balking about raising prices, urging EU to step in reverse gas flows in the pipeline and sell cheap gas to UA.
6. IMF is willing to provide loans to replace those that were revoked by RU, but at a huge cost and hardship to UA in the form of reforms.
8. EU stays silent about providing gas to UA.

The big picture?  With all this Putin is simply saying 'You don't like what I did?'  I raised the price enough to get back the money we are owed by UA.. ok fine.. the ball is now squarely in your court... deal with it.'

At this point instead of looking into finding ways UA can pay RU 2.2 Billion and asking RU at the same time to sell at market rates, there is a whole lot of crying wolf with self interest in mind..  Now the US is trying to push both UA and EU to reduce RU gas consumption and what?.. what?...  well.... buy US gas!!!

Basically the US is asking for an embargo..  now is that not using energy as a weapon?  I mean RU just wants to get their bills paid, no more, no less.

http://news.yahoo.com/eu-us-vow-help-wean-ukraine-off-russian-135636962--finance.html

So yes, it's an economic war.... 

In the end, even if the west moves to block out RU as a gas supplier, UA payment problems will only shift on the back of the west and RU has a lot of room to drop prices, raising the cost of all these 'emergency efforts' to save UA...

My goodness... it's about time we all realize we live in a closed environment.. what goes around comes around.

[jone]

Think about this..

1. RU raised gas prices for UA which might well be above market rates.
2. UA is not paying their bills. RU now has 2.2 Billion in unpaid bills at risk
3. RU withdrew 'easy' loans.
4. UA is in a world of hurt at the moment financially.
5. The USA starts balking about raising prices, urging EU to step in reverse gas flows in the pipeline and sell cheap gas to UA.
6. IMF is willing to provide loans to replace those that were revoked by RU, but at a huge cost and hardship to UA in the form of reforms.
8. EU stays silent about providing gas to UA.

The big picture?  With all this Putin is simply saying 'You don't like what I did?'  I raised the price enough to get back the money we are owed by UA.. ok fine.. the ball is now squarely in your court... deal with it.'

At this point instead of looking into finding ways UA can pay RU 2.2 Billion and asking RU at the same time to sell at market rates, there is a whole lot of crying wolf with self interest in mind..  Now the US is trying to push both UA and EU to reduce RU gas consumption and what?.. what?...  well.... buy US gas!!!

Basically the US is asking for an embargo..  now is that not using energy as a weapon?  I mean RU just wants to get their bills paid, no more, no less.

http://news.yahoo.com/eu-us-vow-help-wean-ukraine-off-russian-135636962--finance.html

So yes, it's an economic war.... 

In the end, even if the west moves to block out RU as a gas supplier, UA payment problems will only shift on the back of the west and RU has a lot of room to drop prices, raising the cost of all these 'emergency efforts' to save UA...

My goodness... it's about time we all realize we live in a closed environment.. what goes around comes around.

Where's 7?

Actually I agree with much of what you post, BC.  Again you come across as informed.  Obviously, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is that stinky little fact that the reason Ukraine was receiving the discounted price was because of Crimea. 

Russia has the tendency to forgive itself that small incursion and as to how it impacts the price of gas.  So, yes, Russia is now using the stick and the stick method (as opposed to the carrot and the stick).  On one hand, we invaded you and took away our reason for subsidizing your gas, so on the other hand you have to pay us back the money that you owe us, plus any accrued debt, plus interest.

Your scoffing at everyone in Europe tightening their belts to punish Russia is, of course, spot on.  Ain't gonna happen.   I see a much more protracted response. 

Quite honestly, it all goes back to Russia being reactionary instead of thoughtful when Euromaidan happened.  I would still support the idea that no matter what Russia does, it will find itself in a world of hurt a couple years down the road.  Having played their cards right, they might be controlling the whole shebang right now.  But then there is that pesky little problem coming out that people are discovering that it is likely that the FSB was in the mix shooting people in Kyiv.

[fathertime]

Great post BC, it is completely ridiculous that we would moan about Russia given what we are engaging in and trying to engage in.

Fathertime!

[Gator]

I mean RU just wants to get their bills paid, no more, no less.

Maybe RU should submit its bills to the World Court.  And Ukraine could submit a bill to the World Court for Russia's illegal seizure of property otherwise known as Crimea.  What should Russia pay for Crimea in today's market? 

My goodness... it's about time we all realize we live in a closed environment.. what goes around comes around.

Yes, and it is happening in the immediate short term.  And paths will cross again over the long term, especially given the fact that Russia's pipelines are in Ukraine.