Russia - USA Relations

GarryB wrote:Russia should not have to give up anything for sanctions to be dropped.

The EU by taking Russia to the WTO over sanctions prove they are illegal....

Well what Russia should do is call their trade polices "counter sanctions" Then take the US and EU to WTO in a counter complaint.

One needs to be a pragmatist in negotiations. The US side will need to show gains and a win. If you can't deliver them a win then don't expect concessions. All these can be framed in a vision for mutual security for both sides. The Russian concessions may only need to be tiny or given with no plans to implement them. But on paper they will have to exist for a deal to happen.

Why should Russia remove missiles from its own territory? That´s like demanding the americans give up their ABM systems and air bases in Alaska.

A long view from the US on what the US can do against Russia

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/08/us/politics/us-sanctions-russia-ukraine.html

With regards to the NYTimes article:

Russia can purchase all the consumer products they need from China. They are made there anyway.

Russia already introduced the Mir card system and their own inter bank payment processing system. There is a direct connection channel to China's own payment system as well. Russia has enabled interoperation of their payment system with the ones of Turkey and Iran.

If the US thinks Stinger shoulder launched missiles would be of much use I think they are mistaken. They were a major issue for Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan and as a result the Soviets and later the Russians increased the amount of counter measures on helicopters. More modern helicopters like the Mi-28 were specifically designed to be resistant to such weapons. The Mi-28 both hides its own IR signature and has extra impact resistance on the chassis and blades. Against high flying aircraft the Stinger would be useless. Their high altitude strikes would also be a lot more accurate thanks to modern sensors than the strikes in Afghanistan.

The Javelin missiles would be useless against long range fires with artillery, rockets, or air strikes.

Where there could be more impact would be restrictions on Russian purchases of industrial equipment. But China is facing the same issues and would likely be a source for much alternative equipment. Any sanctions would also boost Russo-Chinese industrial equipment production. Russia is already replacing power generation gas turbines, China is a major manufacturer of hydropower turbines, as is Russia. China is a leading manufacturer of industrial robots, and construction machinery of all types, from tunnel boring machines, to heavy digging equipment. Russia is a major producer of farming equipment and trucks.

Europe has already scored an own goal with their sanctions on Belarus and their delays in certification of the NordStream 2 gas pipeline. They cut their own access to Belarus potash supplies and they massively increased natural gas prices which caused their nitrogen fertilizer plants to shut down. Expect a poor harvest this year or highly increased food prices. As if the inflation from Western money printing wasn't bad enough.

lancelot wrote:With regards to the NYTimes article:

Russia can purchase all the consumer products they need from China. They are made there anyway.

Russia already introduced the Mir card system and their own inter bank payment processing system. There is a direct connection channel to China's own payment system as well. Russia has enabled interoperation of their payment system with the ones of Turkey and Iran.

.....................

Where there could be more impact would be restrictions on Russian purchases of industrial equipment. But China is facing the same issues and would likely be a source for much alternative equipment. Any sanctions would also boost Russo-Chinese industrial equipment production. Russia is already replacing power generation gas turbines, China is a major manufacturer of hydropower turbines, as is Russia. China is a leading manufacturer of industrial robots, and construction machinery of all types, from tunnel boring machines, to heavy digging equipment.

Definitely a two edged sword, but the back edge affects mainly US vassals not the US itself.

A sting is the 'contains any US IP' part. That might have an impact on Chinese products but yet again this would be another major boost to import substitution in both Russia and China.

If Russia hit back it has 3 clear opportunities, crude and refined products, titanium sub assemblies and RD-nnn rocket motors. To avoid gifting the US import substitution motivation I would suggest only the first makes sense. No need to shot oneself in the foot like the Americans. The resulting impact on already high (nearly doubled in a year) US petrol/diesel would have serious consequences in an economy about to suffer major logistical and inflation problems.

Russia can close its enormous airspace to all US flight operators. This would have limited impact on their civilian operations but would harm their military interests. The most damage would be closing its airspace to all European flight operators with travels to Asia. It would be even better if Russia closed off significant portions of the Arctic to air and ship travel or put a steep toll on it.

Like I said they could cut enriched uranium exports which make like 25% of US enriched uranium. Like you said they can cut oil & gas exports to the US.
Russia has also refrained from enacting tariffs preferring to put bans into place. I think they should work on tariffs instead for certain products. They could put a tariff on titanium and aluminium supplies to the US for example. Russia can claim the US is damaging its civilian airline manufacture industry with sanctions on composite materials for example and say it is compensation for that. This is permitted under WTO rules I think. The EU and US keep doing it to each other all the time.

The rocket motor ban would have limited impact I think. The US has existing engine stock and Lockheed Martin is designing the Vulcan rocket as a replacement. SpaceX is the major commercial launch provider now and the NRO spy satellites are launched usually on the Delta IV. The only thing which I think could be impacted would be launches of the X-37. Something which would have a major, major impact, would be leaving the ISS altogether. AFAIK the station can only be reboosted from the Russian segment. Russia should also go along and detach their modules like they talked about doing I think. It would likely end the manned space program for a decade. But you know what? The US also did that in the 1970s and it made little difference.

Another thing. Russia is like #4 as a provider nation in terms of merchant ship crews. They could ban the use of Russian sailors for travels involving US ports for example.

Foreign Ministry: dialogue with the US on security may be limited to one meeting

Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov: dialogue with the United States on security may be limited to one meeting

MOSCOW, January 9-RIA Novosti. Moscow does not rule out that the dialogue with the United States inThe agreement on security guarantees may be limited to one meeting, the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation told RIA Novosti.Sergey Ryabkov.
"I can't rule out anything, this is quite a possible scenario, and the Americans, especially their support group represented by other NATO countries, should have no illusions about this," Ryabkov said, answering the question whether negotiations on security guarantees can be limited to one meeting if the United States does not show interest in readiness to discuss Moscow's concerns.
Russia and the United States will hold consultations in Geneva on January 9-10 on Moscow's proposals for security guarantees, which will be followed by a meeting in Geneva.A meeting will be held in BrusselsThe NATO-Russia Council, and inVienna-consultations at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe platformEurope.

https://ria.ru/20220109/vstrecha-1767034099.html

Banning russian sailors from entering ships would increase the prices for goods at a time when inflation is already in two-digit territory.

Hole wrote:Why should Russia remove missiles from its own territory? That´s like demanding the americans give up their ABM systems and air bases in Alaska.

Why should the USA remove missiles from countries where it has permission to station them?

mnztr wrote:

Hole wrote:Why should Russia remove missiles from its own territory? That´s like demanding the americans give up their ABM systems and air bases in Alaska.

Why should the USA remove missiles from countries where it has permission to station them?

Clearly NATzO bitches whinge and moan when Russians deploy military assets on their own territory. So if these
bitches want "fairness" they should stop being bloody hypocrites.

mnztr wrote:

Hole wrote:Why should Russia remove missiles from its own territory? That´s like demanding the americans give up their ABM systems and air bases in Alaska.

Why should the USA remove missiles from countries where it has permission to station them?

Because they pose an direct millitary threat to Russia.
Remember the cuban missile crisis where the U.S did not like it either there where nukes in their back yard?.

And the americans got an operational VLS missile base in Romania sitting on russia's border.
There is another U.S VLS missile site planned in Poland.

These VLS systems use these standardized launch tubes.
They can be rather quickly changed out by an nuclear tipped Tomahawk missile for example.

https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/aegis-ashore/



The U.S can keep their weapons at russia's border, but the U.S should not be suprised of their SOSUS network detects loitering Poseidon's near their coastal cities.
Of course, this means escalation. but when you are with your back against the wall and your adversary is standing at your border building missile sites. you can not sit on your hands.

It is my humble opinion anyway.

Russia watches with a close eye. Those sites are simple targets and would be first hit, including whatever other assets in those respective countries.

Currently, being subsonic, they are of no real threat. But once the US does get them to hypersonic, then it becomes a threat.

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Hole wrote:Why should Russia remove missiles from its own territory? That´s like demanding the americans give up their ABM systems and air bases in Alaska.

Why should the USA remove missiles from countries where it has permission to station them?

Clearly NATzO bitches whinge and moan when Russians deploy military assets on their own territory.   So if these
bitches want "fairness" they should stop being bloody hypocrites.

Well Russia is saying the missiles are too close (they are right) its not good for anyone. But Russia has no allies today where it can put missiles equally close to the USA. So with that fact, what are your options? When you negotiate you need to be pragmatic. The USA has zero pragmatism, Russia has some. Those are the realities. The only goal is to improve security. Not correct all the wrongs of the last 3 decades. Lets face it, the collapse of the Soviet Union was largely the fault of the Soviet Union. Now what?

One good option would be for Russia to threathen to leave the NPT treaty and Strategic arms limitation treaty. They could do what the US does. Station Russian Nuclear weapons in Iran, Syria and other allys under Russian control, that can be mounted on deleivery systems of their allys in times of threat. This would be a pretty HUGE one, and would blow US foreign policy to smithereens. Supplying longer range missiles to allys would also completely implode US gunboat diplomacy and defang the USN. Plus Russia gets to test all its new weapons.

So round one of the talks - USA - NO TO EVERYTHING!! Russia Really? Are you sure?

USA YES EFF U !!! Russia okee dokee.

USA and if you attack Ukraine here is the list of sanctions so we are clear.

Russia - OK we have no idea how to respond to this (total lie lol) We will consult with Moscow and see if there is anything we wish to table (total lie).

So on to the debrief

Russia - a complete waste of time, not sure if we will come tomorrow (another lie)
Not sure if there is a way forward. (BS)

Everything that happened on day 1 is 100% predicted. What the US has no way to predict is what Russia will respond with.

Russia will likely table a list of potential responses to the US such as -

Elimiation of overrflights of Russia by any nation that deploys troops in countries that border Russia.
Elimination of any planes carrying US troops or US military equipment, overflying Russian territory. All airlines will have to certify this. Random flights may be diverted for inspection by Russian customs. (heavy fines and seizure of goods and detention of US military personnel)
Leaving the NPT and MCTR.
No overflights of US govt employees or NATO personell without Russian govt permit. (simple portal application $20 fee)
Reduction of Russian crude exports driving up oil prices (refined products will be permitted)
Elimination of gas transit through ukraine completely if they join NATO and annexation of eastern Ukraine. Elimination of access to the Black Sea for Ukraine unless they provdie water to Crimea.

Russia can play hardball.

Russia is establishing a pretext for future action against NATzO. It offered a rational peace plan, but NATzO bitches
thought they were masters of the universe and it went from there.

The Russian government is under no illusions about NATzO taking the rational path and dialing down its aggression.
Anyone who thinks that NATzO is not all about the extermination of Russia is out of touch. This organization never
had any other purpose. You don't promote stability by moving bases and missile installations closer and closer to the
borders of your "enemy".

NATzO is part of the 1000 year pattern of the collective west against Russia. We had the unity of the crusades, then
the unity of Napoleon and the unity of Hitler. People forget that Hitler was very popular. He had lots of loyal support
throughout the west including in Canada and the USA. The underlying pathology is that the west is deranged by
hate for the Russian "barbarians" who refuse to submit. All that lebensraum in the east and the entitled centers of
civilization are denied access. The poor dears.

Press conference by Russians and online talk by US both at 17.30 Swiss time.

Jennifer Hansler
@jmhansler
·
1h
JUST IN: Talks between US and Russian officials in Geneva concluded at 4:32pm local time, according to a State Department spokesperson. They lasted roughly 7.5 hours, not accounting for a break for lunch.

It is certain that nothing will come of these talks in Geneva.

Give me a break ! The Americans KNOW that there are a zillion ways Russia can respond . It has the resources and technology . If stationing American Nukes , gives them  a head start , for a first pre-emptive strike , so what ! They can not hit all Russian nuke sites . The Russians have these atomic powered cruise missiles . They can put them on a dead man's trigger . If nukes go off , they fly and fly and fly . No stopping them ! A hundred different ways to overcome this problem . From stationing subs on rotation near coast of America . Or ships discharging nuke canisters on dead man trigger , near American coast . To satellite in GEO carrying nukes to suitcase nukes . To deap sea nukes causing Tsunami . It is one way  for the military brass to justify their existence , by milking the American tax payer ! Agree about Russian Nukes in Iran ! Good idea . A nuclear umbrella . And if the world goes nuclear ? And everyone has nukes . Then paradise ! Peace at last .