Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[anonymous-user]

BikeBikeBIke said:

It's going to be fine.

Unless we want the lights out in Europe there will be some sanctions leakage. The situation is still bleak for Russia. In the long term Russia have given Europe a strong reason to move our business elsewhere to a large extent and Putin knows that.

I wouldn't call paying for their vast majority of export income leakage.

[J4CKO]

deadtom said:

sisu said:

Russia drained its National wealth fund by 2.047 trillion in April leaving 11,005 trillion rubles (around 155 billion US$) in the tank.

They'd be foolish to leave it there; turns out those things aren't very safe just now.

"The turret may go down as well as up and you may not get back the money you invested."

[Jhonno]

jsf said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

It's going to be fine.

Unless we want the lights out in Europe there will be some sanctions leakage. The situation is still bleak for Russia. In the long term Russia have given Europe a strong reason to move our business elsewhere to a large extent and Putin knows that.

I wouldn't call paying for their vast majority of export income leakage.

Nope. As it stands we would have been better off just as was. As would the general public. Unless the EU turns the gas off it is just funding the way from both sides out of our pockets.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Jhonno said:

Nope. As it stands we would have been better off just as was. As would the general public. Unless the EU turns the gas off it is just funding the way from both sides out of our pockets.

We would obvs, sanctions hit both sides.

...but Russia are hurting. Hopefully more than us.

[king arthur]

Another Russian chemical plant on fire
https://twitter.com/DemeryUK/status/15265306377751...

They are becoming like our recycling plants, always catching fire somehow.

[vonuber]

jsf said:

I wouldn't call paying for their vast majority of export income leakage.

So what's the alternative? Turn off the power for a large part of Europe over night? What effect do you think that would have?

[EddieSteadyGo]

BikeBikeBIke said:

..
Unless we want the lights out in Europe there will be some sanctions leakage. The situation is still bleak for Russia. In the long term Russia have given Europe a strong reason to move our business elsewhere to a large extent and Putin knows that.

It isn't leakage if it is the intent of the policy.

Macron and Sholtz are already hinting Ukraine should give up terrority in order to give Putin an 'off-ramp'. And that is after only a few weeks. What do we think their attitude will be like next winter? They will be *desperate* to normalise relations with Russia at the first opportunity.

Plus in the meantime, Russia will continue their efforts to expand pipeline capacity to China, to minimise the risk of any excessive EU leverage.

[stongle]

jsf said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

It's going to be fine.

Unless we want the lights out in Europe there will be some sanctions leakage. The situation is still bleak for Russia. In the long term Russia have given Europe a strong reason to move our business elsewhere to a large extent and Putin knows that.

I wouldn't call paying for their vast majority of export income leakage.

The 2nd statement is also incorrect. The minute military aggression stops, the EU will be back on the pipe. They can kick everything, they cannot afford to switch off the pipes. This is what Putin know's. The only possible route out, is to unfund the Greta initiative. That is the main motivation behind France and Germany's position; the longer this runs the greater the long term economic scarring. The ECB has already admitted they need the book of spells to fix the inflationary environment. Doesn't matter is transitory; but when the fixes land the fiscal effect in highly indebted states will be like a bomb going off. We have the same problem as Bailey indicated yesterday, but we have much lower substance dependency and less structural rigidity. We can pivot quicker, because we aren't as industrially integrated and efficient as Germany. Or put another way, subsequent UK govts mishandling of the UK economy; made us less efficient (macro) but ultimately better able to respond in a crisis.

[MesoForm]

sisu said:

Russia drained its National wealth fund by 2.047 trillion in April leaving 11,005 trillion rubles (around 155 billion US$) in the tank. This is according to the Russian Central Bank.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is "11,005 trillion" "just over eleven trillion" or "11 thousand trillion"? ie has they used about 20% of the national wealth fund or 0.02%.
Getting confused by 2.047 having a . and 11,005 having a ,!

[stongle]

MesoForm said:

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is "11,005 trillion" "just over eleven trillion" or "11 thousand trillion"? ie has they used about 20% of the national wealth fund or 0.02%.
Getting confused by 2.047 having a . and 11,005 having a ,!

Its $155billion in value now. They were, 15th largest globally at beginning of the year, now slipping down the table.

They wouldn't make the top 100 global funds (including corporates), but here's a list for colour:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/276617/soverei...

[Jhonno]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Jhonno said:

Nope. As it stands we would have been better off just as was. As would the general public. Unless the EU turns the gas off it is just funding the way from both sides out of our pockets.

We would obvs, sanctions hit both sides.

...but Russia are hurting. Hopefully more than us.

Not currently if those numbers are right!

[CrutyRammers]

More guided artillery, one assumes. Quite the shockwave. Can't imagine it's much fun knowing that this could happen to you anywhere, with zero warning.
Which is all to the good...breaking their morale would be the cheapest end.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1526311544765...

[isaldiri]

stongle said:

It's not a surprise though. The pay in $/EURO and have Gazprombank convert it, was a wheeze already in play. Obviously, doing it this way is legal, but hardly in the spirit of the efforts to strangle Putin's finances.

Weirdly (actually it's not weird - we have better rules), it's debatable whether you could do that here. It could still be made illegal in the UK if you know you are acting in an unethical fashion.

Oh cmon. 'spirit of the efforts' is mostly a nonsense and you know it.

Sanctions explicitly did not include a blanket ban on buying energy supplies from russia because everyone involved in applying said sanctions has very clearly stated that they wanted to be sure the sanctions would not end up hurting themselves more than necessary. One of the US treasury mooks even explicitly stated that wrt to sanctions to russian individuals earlier in the year.

Heck even the US and UK with far lower dependency levels on russian oil and gas haven't exactly stopped buying (lots of pledging to stop in future to be fair but... nice words and all and different actions) the relatively low amounts of hydrocarbons that we buy from russia either since the Ukraine war so expecting the EU countries who do depend to a far larger degree to do so is a bit peculiar.

[PRTVR]

CrutyRammers said:

More guided artillery, one assumes. Quite the shockwave. Can't imagine it's much fun knowing that this could happen to you anywhere, with zero warning.
Which is all to the good...breaking their morale would be the cheapest end.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1526311544765...

I like the comment, that sure wasn't an ice cream van they hit.
Could not be very pleasant inside that shock wave........

Edit due to spelling....

Edited by PRTVR on Tuesday 17th May 17:17

[vonuber]

Another good video from Perun:

[Dog Star]

“Kremlin says G7 using Russia's reserves for Ukraine would be 'outright theft'” - Reuters

Er…. So nothing like stealing a couple of hundred airliners and your rabble “army” helping itself to anything from earbuds to combine harvesters and punting them back to Russia then?

FUUUUUUUUUCK OFFFFFF!

[EddieSteadyGo]

Dog Star said:

“Kremlin says G7 using Russia's reserves for Ukraine would be 'outright theft'” - Reuters

....

I mentioned it a few days ago, but I do wonder if these reserves might hold the key to leveraging Russia into changing its negotiating position. For example, the US could declare that 1% of the held reserves would be transferred to Ukraine each day the war was ongoing, and it could include metrics which accelerated the rate of transfer depending upon lack of progress or what it might term "lack of goodwill". Alternatively, any transfer of funds could be paused if, for example, a ceasefire were to be agreed, or terrority vacated.

If done properly, it could create the kind of leverage which Putin might appreciate.

[eharding]

EddieSteadyGo said:

I mentioned it a few days ago, but I do wonder if these reserves might hold the key to leveraging Russia into changing its negotiating position. For example, the US could declare that 1% of the held reserves would be transferred to Ukraine each day the war was ongoing, and it could include metrics which accelerated the rate of transfer depending upon lack of progress or what it might term "lack of goodwill". Alternatively, any transfer of funds could be paused if, for example, a ceasefire were to be agreed, or terrority vacated.

If done properly, it could create the kind of leverage which Putin might appreciate.

I like this idea. One of the rules could be another 1% deducted and sent to Ukraine for each time any Kremlin official mentions the word "nuclear" in a public statement, and double bubble at weekends.

[stongle]

isaldiri said:

Oh cmon. 'spirit of the efforts' is mostly a nonsense and you know it.

Sanctions explicitly did not include a blanket ban on buying energy supplies from russia because everyone involved in applying said sanctions has very clearly stated that they wanted to be sure the sanctions would not end up hurting themselves more than necessary. One of the US treasury mooks even explicitly stated that wrt to sanctions to russian individuals earlier in the year.

Heck even the US and UK with far lower dependency levels on russian oil and gas haven't exactly stopped buying (lots of pledging to stop in future to be fair but... nice words and all and different actions) the relatively low amounts of hydrocarbons that we buy from russia either since the Ukraine war so expecting the EU countries who do depend to a far larger degree to do so is a bit peculiar.

I did say, there was no ban on buying it. Just lots of noise on paying for it (or how too).......

I also explained the differences in the UK position Vs. the EU's (and some of that isn't exactly great judgement on our behalf!).

We all know they (& we) aren't coming off the black stuff and gas anywhere near the fanciful dates being banded about. And that remains a risk to the efforts to limit Putin's war chest. Given all the other stuff economies are dealing with, some "might" be nearing political breaking points. Of the top of my head:

Covid Supply Change Impacts
Covid Debt Balloon
Pre-Existing Debt Balloon
Greta tax (not that I'm overtly against that)
Inflation
Anaemic Growth
Brexit (us anyway)

Now we have a European war to chuck in the mix, adding plenty of inflation juice.

And all that, isn't really the scary thing (nor is it Putin making nuke threats). For 15 plus years the West has relied on Central Banks to do expansive Monetary Policy to dig themselves out of holes. Now (actually for 5 years plus), they are saying - "cupboards bare mate, politicians; over to you". You can't honestly think letting politicians solve all this is a good idea?

[EddieSteadyGo]

eharding said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

I mentioned it a few days ago, but I do wonder if these reserves might hold the key to leveraging Russia into changing its negotiating position. For example, the US could declare that 1% of the held reserves would be transferred to Ukraine each day the war was ongoing, and it could include metrics which accelerated the rate of transfer depending upon lack of progress or what it might term "lack of goodwill". Alternatively, any transfer of funds could be paused if, for example, a ceasefire were to be agreed, or terrority vacated.

If done properly, it could create the kind of leverage which Putin might appreciate.

I like this idea. One of the rules could be another 1% deducted and sent to Ukraine for each time any Kremlin official mentions the word "nuclear" in a public statement, and double bubble at weekends.

At present, they think they are going to get that money back once the war ends. I don't think they believe the threats to transfer it or retain it.

So once 15% or so had been transferred, I think it would become a very hot issue in Russia political circles. And the good thing would be, even if they stopped the war at that point, they still wouldn't get the 15% back. Cooperating would just prevent them losing any more. Once it got to 30% I think it would feel painful. Putin would like the cold, hard logic