Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
"the dollar as a global reserve currency would take a beating. Which spins back to financial stability of the U.S." and China, correct? And didn't China recently back away from cryptocurrency?Russia's trade advantage is mostly commodities, such as oil, etc. It get's murky as to how that monetary gain is spent, although it is largely suspected as being siphoned off by oligarchs, etc.
China (at ten times the economy of Russia) has a huge trade advantage with the U.S., when we buy stuff with dollars. China uses those dollars to buy up U.S. Bonds, businesses, etc. as well as buy a wide variety of commodities, to feed it's people, manufacture goods, which gets shipped to the U.S. and others. Rinse... repeat. China also is financing projects around the world with those same dollars, gaining an upper hand in relationships that have NOT benefited under the current IMF - World Bank Model. Basically, China has been buying influence with U.S. dollars and Russia failed or didn't attempt this strategy.
It should be pointed out that all the hoopla about recent U.N. votes condemning the Russian invasion... those voting against Russia made up just a bit less that half of the global population. Over half either abstained or voted against the condemnation. A good number of that citizenry despises the west, especially the USA. China would likely lead that pack and any expectation of a turnaround in opinion of the USA... can be considered a waste of time.
Any sanctions of China, would require the EU participation, which will not happen. They won't sanction oil/gas from Russia and the reasons given are the same for any Russia like sanctions on China. Plus in my opinion, the dollar as a global reserve currency would take a beating. Which spins back to financial stability of the U.S.
Just as Europe, in hindsight is questioning their reliance on Russian Energy, the U.S. has similar problems with imports. But hey, we say we would support higher fuel prices to support Ukraine, but the whining and moaning about said prices has nearly overtaken the news cycle. (I swear, if I see one more segment with a newscaster burning up fuel, driving around and taking pictures of those station price signs...!!!)
But I am a person still trying to figure out the reasoning behind the invasion. The USA and the UK were screaming it was imminent and Putin said he wasn't going to do it. Most of Europe believed Putin, so it would have seemed to be a golden opportunity to further weaken the NATO alliance, by simply saying the drills were over and begin moving troops away from the border. The USA and UK would have been made to look foolish, further fracturing any remaining resolve.
I am not convinced this was about NATO, in the beginning. It was however, about Ukraine.
"(I swear, if I see one more segment with a newscaster burning up fuel, driving around and taking pictures of those station price signs...!!!)"

"But I am a person still trying to figure out the reasoning behind the invasion. The USA and the UK were screaming it was imminent and Putin said he wasn't going to do it. Most of Europe believed Putin, so it would have seemed to be a golden opportunity to further weaken the NATO alliance, by simply saying the drills were over and begin moving troops away from the border."
Yes. Shot himself in the foot. It's been assumed by the general public that Putin is a very clever man, but we're learning quickly he's no Xi.
And I'm puzzled by this invasion, too (we're not alone, of course). Might have a lot to do with his most recent visits with Xi, but if it's part of a cooperative strategy, I only have a handful of fairly reasonable guesses, none of which justify the costs.
"I am not convinced this was about NATO, in the beginning. It was however, about Ukraine."
I agree.