Trouble in Ukraine

[MillCreek]

Russia is stealing Chernomornaftogaz. Er, I mean, Crimea is nationalizing Chernomornaftogaz and giving it to Gazprom in a gesture of solidarity. And Russia is jacking up the price of gas to make Ukraine pay for its own invasion.

http://www.lufkin.ru/en/news/ukraine-loses-gas-discount-%E2%80%93-putin%E2%80%99s-spokesman
http://www.lufkin.ru/en/news/ukraine-pay-agreed-price-russian-gas-minister

Crap.  If only we could have figured out how to do this with Iran, maybe we would have made some money on the deal.

[Tallpine]

Crap.  If only we could have figured out how to do this with Iran, maybe we would have made some money on the deal.

USSA can't seem to figure out how to do this empire thing correctly 

[MillCreek]

USSA can't seem to figure out how to do this empire thing correctly 

The British knew how to do this: oppress the wogs, extract the natural resources, sell them finished goods, install a workable legal, educational and governmental infrastructure, and all in time for tea and finger sandwiches with a whiskey nightcap.  Jolly good, I say.

[Balog]

The British knew how to do this: oppress the wogs, extract the natural resources, sell them finished goods, install a workable legal, educational and governmental infrastructure, and all in time for tea and finger sandwiches with a whiskey nightcap.  Jolly good, I say.

I'd say the locals were far better off during the time they were supposedly being "oppressed" by the Brits.

[Scout26]

WWI, probably not. WWII, yea.

Japan attacked us, and would have continued its expansionist policies to threaten our direct interests.
Letting Germany or the Soviet Union enslave all of Europe would NOT have been good for our national security, economic concerns and other interests.

It also gave us a jump start on military technology that was crucial during the Cold War. Would you really have wanted us facing the Soviets with a tech deficiency of a decade plus?

Emphasis mine.   They might have been pushed into doing it by a Soviet mole in FDR's White House, specifically Henry Dexter White, as directed by NKVD/KGB agents did the bidding of Stalin to secure his eastern flank.   Remember the Japanese referred to Siberia as "The Northern Resource Area"  Just like Indonesia et al, was referred to as "The Southern Resource Area".   And the Japanese were still smarting from Khalkhyn Gol, and   

Operation Snow, by John Koster.  Interesting read. 

[Balog]

I just wish we had nuked the crap out of the Russians as well as the Japanese. So many millions of people who died in slavery because of Yalta. 

[Boomhauer]

I just wish we had nuked the crap out of the Russians as well as the Japanese. So many millions of people who died in slavery because of Yalta. 

The dirty secret of WWII is that we didn't go to war to save anybody, as many think. We didn't give a damn about the Jews, the Chinese, or the various other people that were being killed or enslaved or overrun by the Axis nations and we let many, many fall under the Iron Curtain. We also turned a blind eye to and/or helped cover up atrocities committed by the Russians.

[RevDisk]

The dirty secret of WWII is that we didn't go to war to save anybody, as many think. We didn't give a damn about the Jews, the Chinese, or the various other people that were being killed or enslaved or overrun by the Axis nations and we let many, many fall under the Iron Curtain. We also turned a blind eye to and/or helped cover up atrocities committed by the Russians.

This. Wars tend to be about economic interests. Oh, sometimes you just have to go with public opinion. But usually it's about economics.

[Balog]

The dirty secret of WWII is that we didn't go to war to save anybody, as many think. We didn't give a damn about the Jews, the Chinese, or the various other people that were being killed or enslaved or overrun by the Axis nations and we let many, many fall under the Iron Curtain. We also turned a blind eye to and/or helped cover up atrocities committed by the Russians.

Yeah I know, because FDR was a filthy goddamn commie himself.

[seeker_two]

This. Wars tend to be about economic interests. Oh, sometimes you just have to go with public opinion. But usually it's about economics.

Balderdash! Next thing you'll have us believe is that the American Civil War was about encroaching Federal powers over the states and regulation of commerce in the South instead of freeing the slaves....

[RevDisk]

Balderdash! Next thing you'll have us believe is that the American Civil War was about encroaching Federal powers over the states and regulation of commerce in the South instead of freeing the slaves....

It was both. I know it's fashionable to claim the Civil War was over states rights instead of slavery, but a basic look at the CSA constitution shows otherwise. It was basically a direct copy that allowed slavery. IMHO, the South was building a new aristocracy. Not built directly on slavery, but it sure as hell played a part. Destroying that aristocracy was worth every penny, every scorched state and every life lost. Both that aristocracy and slavery were core parts of the Southern economy.

[Jamisjockey]

It was both. I know it's fashionable to claim the Civil War was over states rights instead of slavery, but a basic look at the CSA constitution shows otherwise. It was basically a direct copy that allowed slavery. IMHO, the South was building a new aristocracy. Not built directly on slavery, but it sure as hell played a part. Destroying that aristocracy was worth every penny, every scorched state and every life lost. Both that aristocracy and slavery were core parts of the Southern economy.

Which is really what it boiled down to.  Without the South, the North lost it's economic engine.

[RevDisk]

Which is really what it boiled down to.  Without the South, the North lost it's economic engine.

Wait, wut? South was primarily agriculture. Worse, they relied on three cash crops: cotton, tobacco, and sugar. 84% of their population was directly tied to agriculture. Admittedly, they did have 70% of total US exports, but it was a much more fragile hold than they imagined. Worse yet, they stopped shipping to Europe to try to "force" them to recognize the South, shooting themselves economically in the foot. They tied their money to cotton, and when Britain started getting their cotton from Egypt and India... It was all over, their currency was junk. Combined with a blockade of international trade and industrial products from the North, it was amazing they lasted as long as they did. Their transportation networks were crap. Their government often financed themselves by grabbing what they wanted, giving the owner a worthless certificate, and not paying. Combined with poor regulation on their banks, speculation went nuts.

The largest strategic asset that the CSA ever possessed was the incompetence of Northern commanding generals. It has exactly one strategic resource, cotton. Wasn't enough to save their wretched hides. If you only have one staple resource, your economic engine is very fragile regardless of size. Competition, changing demand or technology can crush it overnight.

Which segways neatly... Gas is Russia's hold on Europe. If we can circumvent that hold, we can greatly diminish Putin's foreign power without a single bullet being fired.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Admittedly, they did have 70% of total US exports,

yea  admittedly


Worse yet, they stopped shipping to Europe to try to "force" them to recognize the South,


 In May 1861 the Union naval blockade shut down almost all port activity except for blockade runners. International and coastal traffic fell 90 percent or more.

[Tallpine]

Roll, Alabama, Roll!   

[Jamisjockey]

Wait, wut? South was primarily agriculture. Worse, they relied on three cash crops: cotton, tobacco, and sugar. 84% of their population was directly tied to agriculture. Admittedly, they did have 70% of total US exports, but it was a much more fragile hold than they imagined. Worse yet, they stopped shipping to Europe to try to "force" them to recognize the South, shooting themselves economically in the foot. They tied their money to cotton, and when Britain started getting their cotton from Egypt and India... It was all over, their currency was junk. Combined with a blockade of international trade and industrial products from the North, it was amazing they lasted as long as they did. Their transportation networks were crap. Their government often financed themselves by grabbing what they wanted, giving the owner a worthless certificate, and not paying. Combined with poor regulation on their banks, speculation went nuts.

The largest strategic asset that the CSA ever possessed was the incompetence of Northern commanding generals. It has exactly one strategic resource, cotton. Wasn't enough to save their wretched hides. If you only have one staple resource, your economic engine is very fragile regardless of size. Competition, changing demand or technology can crush it overnight.

Which segways neatly... Gas is Russia's hold on Europe. If we can circumvent that hold, we can greatly diminish Putin's foreign power without a single bullet being fired.

The whole thing was fragile at the time. 
The south needed slaves to hold it together. The north needed the south to hold it together.

[tokugawa]

Rev, your comment on the southern aristocracy hit me- I think we are seeing a new aristocracy arise- seems like many of our top political offices now are becoming almost hereditary. Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, and a host of senators...
 it is an incestuous stew.

[agricola]

The British knew how to do this: oppress the wogs, extract the natural resources, sell them finished goods, install a workable legal, educational and governmental infrastructure, and all in time for tea and finger sandwiches with a whiskey nightcap.  Jolly good, I say.

Not really.  Our Empire ran on trade, naval and technological superiority, ball games and rationalizing local power structures (especially in India) - the "oppressing the wogs" only happened afterwards when several generations came into being who didnt have to exert effort in terms of doing anything, assumed they were in charge because they were upper class and white (probably in that order), and enacted nonsensical legislation based on that belief that antagonized nearly everyone who wasnt them. 

[Tallpine]

Not really.  Our Empire ran on trade, naval and technological superiority, ball games and rationalizing local power structures (especially in India) - the "oppressing the wogs" only happened afterwards when several generations came into being who didnt have to exert effort in terms of doing anything, assumed they were in charge because they were upper class and white (probably in that order), and enacted nonsensical legislation based on that belief that antagonized nearly everyone who wasnt them. 

You guys made a fortune off of your empire and we are being impoverished by ours 

[White Horseradish]

We also turned a blind eye to and/or helped cover up atrocities committed by the Russians.

Don't forget "directly assisted in some". Linz, for instance.

Gas is Russia's hold on Europe. If we can circumvent that hold, we can greatly diminish Putin's foreign power without a single bullet being fired.

The worst hit to Mr. Pu would be a drop in oil prices.

[Scout26]

Nice to see that for once, it was not I that re-started the Civil War.   

[Tallpine]

Nice to see that for once, it was not I that re-started the Civil War.   

It was hardly civil 

[RevDisk]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/russia-partly-withdraws-from-ukraine-border-2014331143547644198.html

Russia is pulling off some forces from Ukraine's borders. Not from Crimea, however.

[AJ Dual]

WAG on my part, but I don't think Russia has the depth of manpower or logistics or the money to do more than maintain their hold on the Crimea.

And the threats, overt or implied to Poland, Finland, and the Baltics are paper tigers. There's economic reasons for the Crimea with the gas and the ports, and the bases as we've gone over, but the whole thing is also a show to shore up Putin at home. It was also part of the larger pattern of the persecution of gays, and the Sochi Olympics.

His version of what the Iranian revolutionary .gov is doing there with the nuclear program and constant low-level proxy warfare with the U.S. Britain, and Israel/Saudi Arabia to maintain control internally through external crisis.

Will it be enough?

Any robber barons or oligarchs over there who might decide Putin's not their boy anymore?

[Balog]

WAG on my part, but I don't think Russia has the depth of manpower or logistics or the money to do more than maintain their hold on the Crimea.

And the threats, overt or implied to Poland, Finland, and the Baltics are paper tigers. There's economic reasons for the Crimea with the gas and the ports, and the bases as we've gone over, but the whole thing is also a show to shore up Putin at home. It was also part of the larger pattern of the persecution of gays, and the Sochi Olympics.

His version of what the Iranian revolutionary .gov is doing there with the nuclear program and constant low-level proxy warfare with the U.S. Britain, and Israel/Saudi Arabia to maintain control internally through external crisis.

Will it be enough?

Any robber barons or oligarchs over there who might decide Putin's not their boy anymore?