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

[Gator]

Jone posted a WSJ article about what would Reagan do in Ukraine.  The conclusion is that Reagan would be disappointed that America is not taking the lead.  That set me back because this is mainly Europe's issue, their backyard, their gas, and their future trade partner.   

So how did we get where the US is not showing more leadership and deferring to Europe?   For an answer,  please watch this recent short video of Hillary Clinton explaining her accomplishments as Secretary of State.  She struggles yet summarizes by saying how the Obama administration has restored American leadership.  What?

She mentions Ukraine at the 1:30 mark. 





I just hope that Europe shows the fortitude of a Reagan. 

[Belvis]

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

Not much facts were presented in reality so I'll try to fill a gap on Gazprom.
Gazprom employs a pricing model,  so-called Holland or Groningen model which had appeared back in the 1970s, when the Netherlands started to export gas from the Groningen deposit. The model was based on tying the gas prices to the cost of its replacement, i.e., the cost of an alternative for the customer type of energy. For Ukraine the model uses oil product composition, 50% of fuel oil plus 50% of diesel fuel. Contracted volume and risk insurance are both included in the price tag.
Gasprom correlates its prices  with the time lag from 6 to 9 months in relation to oil spot market.

The contract price is commercial classified information, except Ukraine where the gas price became a political factor. Russian newspaper Izvestiya collected info on topic from undisclosed sources for 2012. The following map shows Gazprom charge in EU countries, in US$ per 1000 cubic meters (the number in purse icon)  :



Highest price, 564.3 $, in Macedonia, the next one is Poland, 525,5$.
Current price tag for Ukraine is 485 $.

[Gator]

Thanks Belvis, as usual, very informative.  Such a pricing system is used in many businesses:  what are the seller's costs, what would a customer have to pay to obtain the product/service from the lowest-priced alternative provider, and find some price level between these two numbers that keeps the customer happy and using. 

[BillyB]

ANDREWFI, you still living in Estonia or in touch with friends there? What is the general mood of of the Baltic nations towards Russia due to recent events?

I think we are better off letting countries sort out their issues the best they can, and deal with who is left standing. 

China has a lot of territorial disputes with just about every Asian nation surrounding them. If they, not international court, get to decide who owns the land, they will win every dispute.

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.

I know America does what in their best interest and saving lives is not our only interest or even main interest. We will go to war in Libya because there's big oil there. Same problems in Syria but not worth our time since they don't have much to offer back to us if we engage in business with them.


There's nothing wrong with taking care of personal interests. If I see family and friends being assaulted, I would not stand idle and let them sort it all out. I will take action. On the other hand, I would not provide a homeless man with the same level of protection since he doesn't have a relationship with me and has little to offer in return.

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.

Game Over. You win GQ. I learned a long time ago I can't reason with people who think our government was responsible for 9/11 and the Tsarnaev brothers are being framed by our government for the Boston Bombings.

[GQBlues]

Not much facts were presented in reality so I'll try to fill a gap on Gazprom....

Good information! Just as BC's post.

...Game Over. You win GQ. I learned a long time ago I can't reason with people who think our government was responsible for 9/11 and the Tsarnaev brothers are being framed by our government for the Boston Bombings.

Ditch, deflection and run! Pronto!

[fathertime]

 



China has a lot of territorial disputes with just about every Asian nation surrounding them. If they, not international court, get to decide who owns the land, they will win every dispute.




I know America does what in their best interest and saving lives is not our only interest or even main interest. We will go to war in Libya because there's big oil there. Same problems in Syria but not worth our time since they don't have much to offer back to us if we engage in business with them.


There's nothing wrong with taking care of personal interests. If I see family and friends being assaulted, I would not stand idle and let them sort it all out. I will take action. On the other hand, I would not provide a homeless man with the same level of protection since he doesn't have a relationship with me and has little to offer in return.



 

Hey billyb, I agree with what you have said for the most part…if what you are saying is true, then we (the US) shouldn’t be going around a stating how we are trying to help when in reality he we are merely doing what is in our interests.  Oftentimes we aren't actually helping at all..we are actually creating situations which may be in our interests….but not in all the dead people’s that we were ‘helping’… If we are just doing things in our self-interest we shouldn't prance Kerry out there and act like we are the world’s moral authority…
I think we would do just fine if we gave up the post of ‘world policeman’  when actually we are behaving like world mercenaries….I believe we would be better served to build up our own country from within.  The world is a tough place..always will be...we aren't changing much anyway.  Sure if there is a hurricane or a natural disaster, we should go in and help if we can...but all this other meddling like in Cuba is an outrage.


Fathertime!   

[jone]

Not much facts were presented in reality so I'll try to fill a gap on Gazprom.
Gazprom employs a pricing model,  so-called Holland or Groningen model which had appeared back in the 1970s, when the Netherlands started to export gas from the Groningen deposit. The model was based on tying the gas prices to the cost of its replacement, i.e., the cost of an alternative for the customer type of energy. For Ukraine the model uses oil product composition, 50% of fuel oil plus 50% of diesel fuel. Contracted volume and risk insurance are both included in the price tag.
Gasprom correlates its prices  with the time lag from 6 to 9 months in relation to oil spot market.

The contract price is commercial classified information, except Ukraine where the gas price became a political factor. Russian newspaper Izvestiya collected info on topic from undisclosed sources for 2012. The following map shows Gazprom charge in EU countries, in US$ per 1000 cubic meters (the number in purse icon)  :



Highest price, 564.3 $, in Macedonia, the next one is Poland, 525,5$.
Current price tag for Ukraine is 485 $.

Of course, part of the pricing model is the cost to ship the gas to the location.  But, since most of the natural gas going to those locations is going through the Ukrainian pipeline, once again, you have to tell the complete story.  The cost to get the gas through Ukraine, when it is the sourcing country, is (and should be) reduced as there are no transit fees. 

So, what would be a fair transit fee to use the pipeline through Ukraine to these other areas?  Skew the model a bit?  Just curious.

All of these models were part of an elaborate negotiation that was completed with the leasing of the Bases in Crimea through 2042.    Now, according to the Ukrainians, Russia wants to charge top dollar for gas that it is not paying a transit fee to distribute.  Of course, Ukraine doesn't recognize the annexation of Crimea in the first place, so any distribution of gas under the new model is also subject to review.

Talk about BC's closed model.  Here it is!  But Russia will certainly put out it's 'adjusted' Gazprom map showing the world how fair they are.  When everyone in Ukraine knows exactly what Russia is doing.

[SANDRO43]

Hey billyb, I agree with what you have said for the most part…if what you are saying is true, then we (the US) shouldn’t be going around a stating how we are trying to help when in reality he we are merely doing what is in our interests.  Oftentimes we aren't actually helping at all..we are actually creating situations which may be in our interests….

Which is what history has shown umpteenth times for thousands of years .

I cannot remember ONE instance - please correct me if my memory is at fault - where a nation has intervened aggressively abroad for UN-interested motives, despite any more or less plausible excuses to the contrary .

[BillyB]

Highest price, 564.3 $, in Macedonia, the next one is Poland, 525,5$.
Current price tag for Ukraine is 485 $.

According to the article in the link below Fathertime provided earlier, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said Russia is raising the price by $100 to $485 for every 1,000 cubic meters of gas. That means Ukraine will pay the highest price and it's price could be double of what they're paying now.


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


Some people say Ukraine never paid it's bills. Is it the fault of Ukrainian citizens? Russia was in control of Ukraine not too long ago. Putin's puppet, Yanukovych was in power and if Putin told him pay now, Ukraine would be paying now one way or another such as coming out of the billions of dollars Yanukovych stole or was paid by Russia as bribes. Russia may have seen advantages of keeping Ukraine in debt to them.


This is not the first time Putin lost his investments to the West. During the second Gulf War, America went in and changed leadership in Iraq. Russia violated UN resolutions after the first Gulf War by doing business with Saddam Insane. Saddam owed Russia billions at the time he was removed.

we (the US) shouldn’t be going around a stating how we are trying to help when in reality he we are merely doing what is in our interests.

We the people sometimes need to hear a different answer in order to do the right thing. During WWI and WWII we came to Europe's rescue. Our biggest interest in Europe is business opportunities. I don't think our presidents at the time could sell the idea on sending American troops to protect business interests alone. Saving lives sounds like a better answer but it's not a lie either. Although our government protects our interests, Americans are compassionate. When we see people dying, we have an increase in volunteers signing up for the military.


There were a time America increased its borders with money, force, and theft. We were no different than other nations, kingdoms and empires with ambitions to grow. We had slavery and severe discrimination. We had some very corrupt presidents too. America grew up. Today we are a much different nation. We have all this power and don't seek to extend our borders. Instead we use our might to protect other people's borders and enforce international laws. I don't think there was ever a case like this in history. America is not perfect but this may be as good as it gets.

I cannot remember ONE instance - please correct me if my memory is at fault - where a nation has intervened aggressively abroad for UN-interested motives, despite any more or less plausible excuses to the contrary .

It's hard to get the UN to agree on anything aggressive. Everybody has a friend they want to protect and will vote against or veto any action against them and their buddies.

[GQBlues]

...I cannot remember ONE instance - please correct me if my memory is at fault - where a nation has intervened aggressively abroad for UN-interested motives, despite any more or less plausible excuses to the contrary .

....It's hard to get the UN to agree on anything aggressive. Everybody has a friend they want to protect and will vote against or veto any action against them and their buddies.

LOL.

 

[fathertime]

Which is what history has shown umpteenth times for thousands of years .

I cannot remember ONE instance - please correct me if my memory is at fault - where a nation has intervened aggressively abroad for UN-interested motives, despite any more or less plausible excuses to the contrary .

Hey Sandro,
I can't think of any instances either.

 


We the people sometimes need to hear a different answer in order to do the right thing. During WWI and WWII we came to Europe's rescue. Our biggest interest in Europe is business opportunities. I don't think our presidents at the time could sell the idea on sending American troops to protect business interests alone. Saving lives sounds like a better answer but it's not a lie either. Although our government protects our interests, Americans are compassionate. When we see people dying, we have an increase in volunteers signing up for the military.

Hey Billyb, I don't really think that is the case...I for one would might be more supportive if I knew THE REAL REASON why we were entering some of these conflicts and interventions...then again I might not be...it would just depend...One thing is for  certain when I feel I'm being lied to, I will show no support...I think as a country a lot of Americans feel the same way.  Be truthful about why we should get involved, and don't fill us up with bull...since we don't get the truth, to hell with our 'representatives' desires. 


 
Fathertime! 

[Belvis]

According to the article in the link below Fathertime provided earlier, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said Russia is raising the price by $100 to $485 for every 1,000 cubic meters of gas. That means Ukraine will pay the highest price and it's price could be double of what they're paying now.

In short :



More detailed commentary:

Ukraine received a $100 discount for gas under the 2010 agreement in exchange for  the  Russia's Black Sea Fleet stationed in Ukraine.

In December 2013, Ukraine received another politically motivated gas discount, effectively cutting the price to $268 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. The last discount was made to support Yanukovich in power. An extract from the agreement:

A contract amendment was agreed between Gazprom and Naftogaz  on Dec 18, 2013 and was effective as of Jan 1, 2014. The purpose of the deal was to ease the financial pressure on Ukraine and allow it to continue to buy gas and fulfill its contractual obligations towards Gazprom.
According to this amendment, Gazprom and Naftogaz are to sign quarterly agreements (by the 10th of each quarter) confirming the $268 price for Ukraine. 
In exchange for this discounted price, the amendment requires Natftogaz to make full and timely monthly payments for gas supply. Should it fails to do so, the price of gas would then return to the 2009 pricing formula.

After the coup Russia canceled the December gas discount, raising the price to $385.50.  Naftogaz just has failed to pay in term and broke the agreement from December 2013.

Then Russia has terminated the agreement on the basing of the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, and correspondently  has  retracted a related discount on export duties on gas increasing the price to standard commercial level of $485.50.

[stilllooking]

We the people sometimes need to hear a different answer in order to do the right thing. During WWI and WWII we came to Europe's rescue. Our biggest interest in Europe is business opportunities. I don't think our presidents at the time could sell the idea on sending American troops to protect business interests alone. Saving lives sounds like a better answer but it's not a lie either. Although our government protects our interests, Americans are compassionate. When we see people dying, we have an increase in volunteers signing up for the military.

Not entirely sure on that one. If I remember correctly the US supported the Allies (Europe, Russia, China) during WWII but, they did not enter the fray until after Pearl Harbour. Would they have entered the war if Japan had not attacked the US? A deal was made between the Allies to first try to defeat the Germans/Italians, in Europe and to then try to defeat the Japanese. The movies may show otherwise but there were significant troops from the European allies involved in the Asian-Pacific theatre and it was clear during the early 40's that the allies could not go for victory on two fronts in one go.

Re WWI, they did not join until Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare and basically told the mexicans to join them and attack the US, and even then the US waited until merchant ships started being sunk by the german submarines aqgain.

In neither case was the US in a big hurry to join the fray until long after the shooting had started, and not until acts of war had been committed against the US specifically. In WWI they were not even officially members of the Allies.

Of course, Hollywood paints a slightly different picture at times....

[fathertime]

In short :



More detailed commentary:

Ukraine received a $100 discount for gas under the 2010 agreement in exchange for  the  Russia's Black Sea Fleet stationed in Ukraine.

In December 2013, Ukraine received another politically motivated gas discount, effectively cutting the price to $268 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. The last discount was made to support Yanukovich in power. An extract from the agreement:
After the coup Russia canceled the December gas discount, raising the price to $385.50.  Naftogaz just has failed to pay in term and broke the agreement from December 2013.

Then Russia has terminated the agreement on the basing of the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, and correspondently  has  retracted a related discount on export duties on gas increasing the price to standard commercial level of $485.50.

Thanks Belvis, your input has been very informative.


I read this morning that the acting leader of Ukraine complaining that it is unfair that Russia raise the prices from the rock bottom price they were charging before.  He said it would not be accepted.  Well what does he plan to do then?  I would think he can accept it or go find gas somewhere else. 


It seems to me that the new price of $485 is in line with what other nations are being charged...the $268 figure was incredibly low...
The fact remains that Russia has the resource (and the power) and can charge whatever they can get.  I would think that once Ukraine and the US decide to move on and tone down the empty rhetoric, the Russians would work out a price that was mutually beneficial. As it stands, Russia probably doesn't want to cut Ukraine a break at this time.   


[size=78%]http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26902522[/size]


Fathertime!   

[jone]

It is not empty rhetoric when you control Russia's pipeline to all of their other customers.  Once again, you fail to see the dynamic.

[fathertime]

It is not empty rhetoric when you control Russia's pipeline to all of their other customers.  Once again, you fail to see the dynamic.

I have to disagree again, if you are implying that gas will be cut off to Europe. You are failing to understand the dynamic.  Ukraine leadership has already stated that they will not be attempting to cut off the gas.  The rhetoric is empty, there is nothing very important Ukraine can or will do.  They can pay the price for gas that Russia asks, or they can get their gas elsewhere...perhaps they can attempt to work in concert with Russia as well.     

Fathertime! 

[Faux Pas]

I have to disagree again, if you are implying that gas will be cut off to Europe. You are failing to understand the dynamic.  Ukraine leadership has already stated that they will not be attempting to cut off the gas. The rhetoric is empty, there is nothing very important Ukraine can or will do.  They can pay the price for gas that Russia asks, or they can get their gas elsewhere...perhaps they can attempt to work in concert with Russia as well.     

Fathertime! 

That's correct. They can pay RU's price or get it elsewhere.

Do you really expect the leadership to say they will interrupt RU's pipeline? Obviously, agreements between the two countries are not worth the paper they are written on. There are thousands of miles of Russian pipelines in Ukraine. You do the math

[fathertime]

That's correct. They can pay RU's price or get it elsewhere.

Do you really expect the leadership to say they will interrupt RU's pipeline? Obviously, agreements between the two countries are not worth the paper they are written on. There are thousands of miles of Russian pipelines in Ukraine. You do the math

I don’t think they will say it or do it...but hey they could try but the consequences seem like they would be pretty bad from every direction….In addition I’ve read that Russia does have other pipelines they use such as the Nord Sea Pipeline and Pipes through Belarus and Poland. From what I’m gathering, Russia holds most of the important cards and remains in position to dictate terms regarding the price of their gas.  Ukraine would be better served at this point to move on, go west if they like, forget about Crimea.  They still have a large country.  If they can figure out how to create a fair governing body, they might do pretty good down the line.

Fathertime!     

[jone]

If FT writes in bold and italics - it gives more weight to his words!   

FT, I thought you weren't responding to me, because I don't treat you well enough?

Are your really so naive as to think that the dynamic is not in play when you control the pipeline that Russia needs for the rest of Europe?  Do you really not understand what is ongoing here?  Why do you think all of those tanks and helicopters are on the border?  It ain't because the Russians want to sing Slava Ukrainia in Kyiv.  It is because the entire Russian economy depends on that one pipeline to deliver LGN to Europe.

Kyiv shuts off the gas flowing - Russia invades.  It is that simple.  Only it is not.  What do you expect the Ukrainian government to say?   The price of Gas in Ukraine is only one factor in play here.  The other factors are of greater importance because they control much of the energy used by Europe and much of the economy for Russia. 

I don't believe that the policies have been determined for either country yet.  Ukraine is waiting for the elections to determine what its policy will be.  And Russia is waiting for the anticipated outcome to determine whether it invades.

[fathertime]

If FT writes in bold and italics - it gives more weight to his words!   

FT, I thought you weren't responding to me, because I don't treat you well enough?

Are your really so naive as to think that the dynamic is not in play when you control the pipeline that Russia needs for the rest of Europe?  Do you really not understand what is ongoing here?  Why do you think all of those tanks and helicopters are on the border?  It ain't because the Russians want to sing Slava Ukrainia in Kyiv.  It is because the entire Russian economy depends on that one pipeline to deliver LGN to Europe.

Kyiv shuts off the gas flowing - Russia invades.  It is that simple.  Only it is not.  What do you expect the Ukrainian government to say?   The price of Gas in Ukraine is only one factor in play here.  The other factors are of greater importance because they control much of the energy used by Europe and much of the economy for Russia. 

I don't believe that the policies have been determined for either country yet.  Ukraine is waiting for the elections to determine what its policy will be.  And Russia is waiting for the anticipated outcome to determine whether it invades.

I judge your misbehavior post by post.  I didn’t see any reason not to respond.  I see you like my font, since you are so interested, I’m using a different program and this is the default option.  Thanks for noticing and giving more ‘weight to my words’….

Earlier you were convinced the troops were invading Ukraine, now you agree they are there for other reasons…that is progress….I’m glad Belvis came on board and clarified some of your earlier misstatements.  It appears to me that Russia has other options to deliver its gas.  Russia is in the driver’s seat.  They hold the vital national resource. Ukraine will pay much more if they import from the USA or anywhere else.   Eventually Ukraine will accept that they lost Crimea and it will be business as usual.  As a matter of fact it could turn into a Win-win as Ukraine was already in turmoil and now they have a chance to change that. 

Fathertime! 

[jone]

Your assertions that the bulk of the gas could go through a different pipeline is mistaken.

As stated in previous posts, there is a Southern Pipeline that could handle the bulk of the transfer.  But, as I opined earlier, since that pipeline is not producing, my conjecture is that it is not ready yet.  The bulk of the transfer to Europe goes from Russia through Ukraine to Europe.

As for your win/win strategy, I could care less whether Crimea goes back to Ukraine.  Currently the country is very angry towards Russia.  I don't see that changing much.  It is never a 'win' for a country when they are invaded and part of their territory is taken from them.  What planet are you on?

As for Russia, they received as someone recently said, a piece of bad fruit that they swiped from the neighbor's tree.  Not a bad analogy.  It is a pyrrhic victory.  One that is sentimental to the Soviets Russians but will cost Russia so much as to be devastating to their future.   Perhaps even a better analogy would be a guy who goes out and sleeps with a woman, not his wife.  He gains a great new lover, but lovers tend to diminish in time.  To get her he sacrificed his family.   Remember my words two years from now. 

Such is your win/win.

[jone]

This is an interesting read:

http://www.kommersant.com/p804680/Oil_Sector/

I always felt that a breakaway Ukraine could nationalize the pipeline going through its territory if it had the leadership to do what Russia did to Exxon and Shell.

[fathertime]

Your assertions that the bulk of the gas could go through a different pipeline is mistaken.

 

I noticed you added in ‘the bulk of’…I didn’t assert that, but you just did. I did read that the Ukrainian pipeline carries roughly 40% of Europe's gas.

..

As for your win/win strategy, I could care less whether Crimea goes back to Ukraine.  Currently the country is very angry towards Russia.  I don't see that changing much.  It is never a 'win' for a country when they are invaded and part of their territory is taken from them.  What planet are you on?
 

I disagree, that losing part of a country is ALWAYS a negative.  The positives in the long run may well be worth the loss.  I’m here on earth, are you  in space, (space cadet perhaps).

As for Russia, they received as someone recently said, a piece of bad fruit that they swiped from the neighbor's tree.  Not a bad analogy.  It is a pyrrhic victory.  One that is sentimental to the Soviets Russians but will cost Russia so much as to be devastating to their future.   Perhaps even a better analogy would be a guy who goes out and sleeps with a woman, not his wife.  He gains a great new lover, but lovers tend to diminish in time.  To get her he sacrificed his family.   Remember my words two years from now. 

Such is your win/win.

I don’t foresee many real consequences for Russia down the road…just a little bluster here and there…If their position is strengthened that is a good thing for the people of the USA and the world. BTW it is not a win/win ‘strategy’ It is a win/win situation.  Although saying that is unpopular here, I think down the road a few years it will be the prevailing opinion..we shall see…but I definitely don’t buy all the rotten fruit analogies as it pertains to this situation. Russia took a vital port area for them in a somewhat ambiguous situation where they could make a justification that washes well enough. They likely would have been shut out down the line so it was the right move for them to make.     

Fathertime! 

[jone]

I noticed you added in ‘the bulk of’…I didn’t assert that, but you just did. I did read that the Ukrainian pipeline carries roughly 40% of Europe's gas.

I disagree, that losing part of a country is ALWAYS a negative.  The positives in the long run may well be worth the loss.  I’m here on earth, are you  in space, (space cadet perhaps).

I don’t foresee many real consequences for Russia down the road…just a little bluster here and there…If their position is strengthened that is a good thing for the people of the USA and the world. BTW it is not a win/win ‘strategy’ It is a win/win situation.  Although saying that is unpopular here, I think down the road a few years it will be the prevailing opinion..we shall see…but I definitely don’t buy all the rotten fruit analogies as it pertains to this situation. Russia took a vital port area for them in a somewhat ambiguous situation where they could make a justification that washes well enough. They likely would have been shut out down the line so it was the right move for them to make.     

Fathertime! 

Unless I'm mistaken, you previously have stated that your profession is doctor.  So let me give this in terms of a medical analogy.

You are a physician and tell a patient he has gangrene.  Your solution is to cut off a portion of his leg to save his body.  You call this situation a win for him.  A win for him would have been never to have gotten gangrene to begin with.

Sorry, FT.  Ain't no one here buying that losing Krim is a win for Ukraine.  Just ask your average Ukrainian who used to vacation in Yalta.  Or for that matter, how many of the people on this forum would now choose to spend their vacation time in Yalta or Krim?  Belvis, perhaps?

You see things through rose colored glasses.  But your pocket book isn't impacted, like say, Mr. and Mrs. Calmissile who own an apartment that (used to) receive(s) rent in Krim.  While I'm sure that the majority of Krim residents are currently happy that they belong to Russia now, it was an emotional and shotgun affair and those usually turn out to be short lived weddings.  And you think that the paradigm hasn't changed permanently as to how Russia is perceived in the world? 

Angela Merkel is meeting with her cabinet this week to begin an alternative energy strategy.  Germany is Russia's largest purchaser of natural gas.  Things are changing in the world.  And not in Russia's favor.  No matter how much RT says they are.

Osettia was off the grid and everyone felt Saakashvili was somewhat pulling the Bear's stubby tail.  But Krim is a totally different story.  And the world is not digesting this story well.

[fathertime]

Unless I'm mistaken, you previously have stated that your profession is doctor.  So let me give this in terms of a medical analogy.

You are a physician and tell a patient he has gangrene.  Your solution is to cut off a portion of his leg to save his body.  You call this situation a win for him.  A win for him would have been never to have gotten gangrene to begin with.

Sorry, FT.  Ain't no one here buying that losing Krim is a win for Ukraine.  Just ask your average Ukrainian who used to vacation in Yalta.  Or for that matter, how many of the people on this forum would now choose to spend their vacation time in Yalta or Krim?  Belvis, perhaps?

You see things through rose colored glasses.  But your pocket book isn't impacted, like say, Mr. and Mrs. Calmissile who own an apartment that (used to) receive(s) rent in Krim.  While I'm sure that the majority of Krim residents are currently happy that they belong to Russia now, it was an emotional and shotgun affair and those usually turn out to be short lived weddings.  And you think that the paradigm hasn't changed permanently as to how Russia is perceived in the world? 

Angela Merkel is meeting with her cabinet this week to begin an alternative energy strategy.  Germany is Russia's largest purchaser of natural gas.  Things are changing in the world.  And not in Russia's favor.  No matter how much RT says they are.

Osettia was off the grid and everyone felt Saakashvili was somewhat pulling the Bear's stubby tail.  But Krim is a totally different story.  And the world is not digesting this story well.

I know for a fact that I’ve never stated I was a physician on this forum or in chat or PM.so that is just silliness and not relevant….my opinions come from being a member here..that is all.

I realize that few people here are buying that this is a win/win long term…that is fine.  Regardless, my opinion is that it will be…in a few years…I think eventually Ukraine will accept (as best they can) what has happened and move on…I realize that some people are going to be damaged by what has happened…the world is a rough place and sometimes these things do happen…all things considered for such a move very little loss of life occurred…

Actually, I think the world IS digesting this Krim situation just fine…I don't see a worldwide outrage about it…channels like CNN are even somewhat perplexed about what to make of what has happened…this was never going to be a large scale invasion…a specific region for a specific reason…made sense to me…and believe it or not I’m pro-American…and I see this as a positive for us as well as Ukraine and Russia.

Fathertime!