Biden threatens Putin " If . . . . no longer a Nord Stream 2 . . bring end to it"

[bobo88 + 58]

On 2/18/2022 at 10:53 PM, surrept33 said:

Yes. They can't stop Russia from invading if Putin is crazy enough to do it. But the current strategy, which is to shine transparency on Putin, ruins Russia's pretext and paints them as a pariah state, which may have political and economical consequences in the years to come. This is a dictatorship invading and possibly overthrowing a democratically elected government of 40 million people.

CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan says Biden takes the Russian-Ukraine skirmish personal because he was in charge of Ukraine during the 2014 conflict.

Biden making National Security decisions based on personal emotional issues is VERY DANGERROUS.

BIDEN has demonstrated emotional angry outburst at voters during the campaign and at reporters during his first year as President since his cognitive decline. That's minor compared to non-stop goading and  challenging Putin trying to embarress him.

THIS IS WHY BIDEN HAS  ESCALATED THIS SKIRMISH TO A MAJOR CONFLICT WHERE SUPERPOWERS ARE FLEXING THEIR NUCLEAR MUSCLE.  THIS IS WHY BIDEN NEVER WAS SERIOUS ABOUT A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION. 

The only hope is the powers in the Whitehouse keep Biden away from the negotiations. 

THE BIGGEST ESCALATION THREAT IS CYBER WAR WITH PUTIN.

Biden says no troops .  The real threat is both the U.S and Russia's cyber capabilities.  This is what is backing up Biden's Bravado.   Two can play that game. Mutual destruction not by Nukes but by cyber attacks (with Europe as collateral damage). All while China watches laughing their ass off. 

Many wonder why Scholz and Macron play act with Biden about the strength and unity of NATO.  They understand what Biden could unleash.  

The questions  : CYBER WARFARE

Does Biden unleash the Cyber Force on Russia's infrastructure including shutting down the Russia/German Nordstream 2 pipeline or does he limit this conflict to the proxy war developing in Ukraine. 

The original plan was to let Putin have  "a minor incursion" until Biden blabbed about it.  Hopefully they go back to Plan A.  

Let him have Donna's industrial base and major port. 

Even though the U.S. has initiated cyber attacks against Russia (top secret) in 2018 and 2020, an outwardly major cyber attack by Biden at this time would be considered by some as an Act of War. 

Russia is not without serious cyber capabilities. This could get out of hand.  

Why risk all this just to provide Biden a machismo moment to placate his built-up personal anger toward Putin. 

Ukraine is not a U.S. ally.  They're not worth it. Let Putin have his few ethnic Russian oblasts. 

Don't forget Obama put Biden in charge of Ukraine in 2014.  Crimea was lost and 14000 Ukraines died.  Biden says nobody has the international experience he does.  THANK GOD.

Joe will likely beat his 2014 total 14000 killed from his first go around with Ukraine.  Could be double that this time..  Joe is racking up some impressive numbers .

Ukraine ( - 14 thousand ) vs Hunter ( + $ 3 Million )

Edited February 21, 2022 by bobo88

[nsdp + 449]

On 2/18/2022 at 3:37 AM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

The Su-57? It is doing very well, thank you. The F-22 does not have the range for the mission and is getting phased out by 2030 anyway.

Dunce cap we already have F-22's with more than adequate range based in Europe USAF F-22 RAPTOR DEPLOYMENT TO EUROPE and flying intruder missions into PUT=PUT 'Red Zone. day before yesterday.  We also have B-52's, F-35's F15 Strike Eagle and French a second carrier coming into the Med, a Squadron of 6th fleet destroyers  with Aegis are already in the Black Sea. The DeGaulle is on its way to the Agean. The US already had 80,000 combat members in Europe before this started.   The phase out of the F-22 is sending them to Air Force Reserve squadrons currently flying the F-106 interceptor from 1962.

You need to take this article to your psychiatrist and discuss your delusions.

[nsdp + 449]

9 hours ago, bobo88 said:

CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan says Biden takes the Russian-Ukraine skirmish personal because he was in charge of Ukraine during the 2014 conflict.

Biden making National Security decisions based on personal emotional issues is VERY DANGERROUS.

BIDEN has demonstrated emotional angry outburst at voters during the campaign and at reporters during his first year as President since his cognitive decline. That's minor compared to non-stop goading and  challenging Putin trying to embarress him.

THIS MAY BE WHY BIDEN HAS  ESCALATED THIS SKIRMISH TO A MAJOR CONFLICT WHERE SUPERPOWERS ARE FLEXING THEIR NUCLEAR MUSCLE.  THIS IS WHY BIDEN NEVER WAS SERIOUS ABOUT A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION. 

The only hope is the powers in the Whitehouse keep Biden away from the negotiations. 

THE BIGGEST ESCALATION THREAT IS CYBER WAR WITH PUTIN.

Biden says no troops .  The real threat is both the U.S and Russia's cyber capabilities.  This is what is backing up Biden's Bravado.   Two can play that game. Mutual destruction not by Nukes but by cyber attacks (with Europe as collateral damage). All while China watches laughing their ass off. 

Many wonder why Scholz and Macron play act with Biden about the strength and unity of NATO.  They understand what Biden could unleash.  

The questions  : CYBER WARFARE

Does Biden unleash the Cyber Force on Russia's infrastructure including shutting down the Russia/German Nordstream 2 pipeline or does he limit this conflict to the proxy war developing in Ukraine. 

The original plan was to let Putin have  "a minor incursion" until Biden blabbed about it.  Hopefully they go back to Plan A.  

Let him have Donna's industrial base and major port. 

Even though the U.S. has initiated cyber attacks against Russia (top secret) in 2018 and 2020, an outwardly major cyber attack by Biden at this time would be considered by some as an Act of War. 

Russia is not without serious cyber capabilities. This could get out of hand.  

Why risk all this just to provide Biden a machismo moment to placate his built-up personal anger toward Putin. 

Ukraine is not a U.S. ally.  They're not worth it. Let Putin have his few ethnic Russian oblasts. 

Dont forget Obama put Biden in charge of Ukraine in 2014.  Crimea was lost and 14000 Ukraines died.  Biden says nobody has the international experience he does.  THANK GOD.

Ukraine ( - 14 thousand ) vs Hunter ( + $ 3 Million )

I assume your Amercia First dues are current.  You and Sen  Jesse Unruh who was calling to do nothing 3 hours after the J apanese had bombed  Pearl HaRBOR.. No we have already had the Occupatiion of the Crimea just like the occupation of the Rheinland and the invasion of the Donbass like the occupation of Austria.

We don't want a Munich sell out.  Mr. Chamberlain You going to come back with a scrap of paper saying  "Peace in Our Times. "

Edited February 19, 2022 by nsdp

[nsdp + 449]

11 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Most armour has spall protection/lining and heavy armour like tanks have ERA on the outside that nullifies HESH and even ATGMs to some extent. Ukraine soldiers getting medical care will depend on whether the medical supply imports will be targeted or not. On the other hand, all major countries like India, China, Russia, France have advanced indigenous pharma and healthcare industries and can provide excellent medical care during wartime to their soldiers and civilians. Ukraine's import dependency for medical supplies will be a major problem in providing consistent healthcare during war.

The infantry will not simply barge in without decimating enemy posts and positions first as that will be a suicidal move. In the worst case scenario, Russia will move through rural areas and forest to cut off and surround Ukrainian positions. None of the EU NATO members will be able to survive any war with Russia. At best, they can commit collective suicide and destroy Russia in the process so that USA benefits. In case of USA involvement along with the bunch of EU countries, there is likely to be Chinese involvement in response which will tip the scales back.

  You have no military experience or knowledge and your comments about tanks and HESH prove it. . HESH is an anti infantry weapon that is like having a 1000 darts fired at one at you individually with needles  sticking in you that it takes surgery to remove.  You will have  armor isn't 100% proof against HESH. It comes out of the barrel of an M240 or mortars or field artillery.

[surrept33 + 609]

1500+ ceasefire violations today, a tiny bit higher than the 30 yesterday:

https://twitter.com/conflicts/status/1495117195285782531?s=21

 

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

15 hours ago, bobo88 said:

CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan says Biden takes the Russian-Ukraine skirmish personal because he was in charge of Ukraine during the 2014 conflict.

Biden making National Security decisions based on personal emotional issues is VERY DANGERROUS.

BIDEN has demonstrated emotional angry outburst at voters during the campaign and at reporters during his first year as President since his cognitive decline. That's minor compared to non-stop goading and  challenging Putin trying to embarress him.

THIS MAY BE WHY BIDEN HAS  ESCALATED THIS SKIRMISH TO A MAJOR CONFLICT WHERE SUPERPOWERS ARE FLEXING THEIR NUCLEAR MUSCLE.  THIS IS WHY BIDEN NEVER WAS SERIOUS ABOUT A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION. 

The only hope is the powers in the Whitehouse keep Biden away from the negotiations. 

THE BIGGEST ESCALATION THREAT IS CYBER WAR WITH PUTIN.

Biden says no troops .  The real threat is both the U.S and Russia's cyber capabilities.  This is what is backing up Biden's Bravado.   Two can play that game. Mutual destruction not by Nukes but by cyber attacks (with Europe as collateral damage). All while China watches laughing their ass off. 

Many wonder why Scholz and Macron play act with Biden about the strength and unity of NATO.  They understand what Biden could unleash.  

The questions  : CYBER WARFARE

Does Biden unleash the Cyber Force on Russia's infrastructure including shutting down the Russia/German Nordstream 2 pipeline or does he limit this conflict to the proxy war developing in Ukraine. 

The original plan was to let Putin have  "a minor incursion" until Biden blabbed about it.  Hopefully they go back to Plan A.  

Let him have Donna's industrial base and major port. 

Even though the U.S. has initiated cyber attacks against Russia (top secret) in 2018 and 2020, an outwardly major cyber attack by Biden at this time would be considered by some as an Act of War. 

Russia is not without serious cyber capabilities. This could get out of hand.  

Why risk all this just to provide Biden a machismo moment to placate his built-up personal anger toward Putin. 

Ukraine is not a U.S. ally.  They're not worth it. Let Putin have his few ethnic Russian oblasts. 

Dont forget Obama put Biden in charge of Ukraine in 2014.  Crimea was lost and 14000 Ukraines died.  Biden says nobody has the international experience he does.  THANK GOD.

Ukraine ( - 14 thousand ) vs Hunter ( + $ 3 Million )

"Cyber warfare" is overrated, some spectacular successes against unusually unprepared targets notwithstanding

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

7 hours ago, nsdp said:

Dunce cap we already have F-22's with more than adequate range based in Europe USAF F-22 RAPTOR DEPLOYMENT TO EUROPE and flying intruder missions into PUT=PUT 'Red Zone. day before yesterday.  We also have B-52's, F-35's F15 Strike Eagle and French a second carrier coming into the Med, a Squadron of 6th fleet destroyers  with Aegis are already in the Black Sea. The DeGaulle is on its way to the Agean. The US already had 80,000 combat members in Europe before this started.   The phase out of the F-22 is sending them to Air Force Reserve squadrons currently flying the F-106 interceptor from 1962.

You need to take this article to your psychiatrist and discuss your delusions.

We were talking about an odd Alaska-Yamal bombing raid you invented yourself? The F-22 does not have the range for that. Yes, the B-52s. Of course. Do they also intrude, or more like extrude, do remind me?

Does the French carrier fit under the Bosporus Bridge? Cause yours sure don't. How many destroyers to a squadron? More than two and you are in violation of Montreaux. Anything floating in the Black Sea is insta-sinkable from Crimea, anyway.

 

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

6 hours ago, nsdp said:

  You have no military experience or knowledge and your comments about tanks and HESH prove it. . HESH is an anti infantry weapon that is like having a 1000 darts fired at one at you individually with needles  sticking in you that it takes surgery to remove.  You will have  armor isn't 100% proof against HESH. It comes out of the barrel of an M240 or mortars or field artillery.

Ah! I thought you were speaking of the early era anyi tank shells. I took HESH to be High Explosive Squash Head which is a cheap anti-armour round. 

I never heard of anti-infantry HESH. Can you give me the full form of HESH in this context?

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 2/18/2022 at 11:09 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

He already attacked Ukraine without provocation. You seem to be forgetting Crimea.

Funny attack, when nobody fires a shot and most of your opponents' troops run over to your side. Maybe it is called something else? Or perhaps burning some 46 people alive is provocation enough?

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 2/18/2022 at 11:33 PM, nsdp said:

 You are full of horse s*** and would do Josef Goebbels proud. It doesn't require 100,000 troops on the border to defend it.  Your comment is a flat out lie just like Poland attacked Germany .

 

It does when the other side has as many or even more. Russia is not defending the LDNR / Ukraine demarcation line. (which is officially still all in Ukraine) So far, are the Russian troops on Russian soil.

Why did US require no less than 670,000 troops to attack Iraq?

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 2/18/2022 at 6:20 AM, surrept33 said:

Speaking of the arctic, Russia has been trying to bully Norway recently about the 100 year old Svalbard Treaty. With the Arctic rapidly warming up, the islands are extremely strategic to Russia. Russia seems to be doing a full court press in rearming the arctic; 

China too claimed recently they are an a "near-arctic" country,

Or was it Norway who bullied Russia? The Norwegians are trying to enforce a 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone as their exclusive place for fishing and drilling for oil and gas. EEZ is a provision of 1982 UNCLOS which did not exist 100 years ago when Svalbard Treaty was first signed. The Treaty grants Russia equal access rights for commercial or research purpose. Russia also dislike Norway making the whole place a national park  subject to strictest environmental regs. My take is that Russia is right on the first count (1920 Threaty takes precedence over 1982 boilerplate) and wrong on the second count (Norwegians apply their environmental regs to themselves, too) The place is officially demilitarized, rapid warming up not a fact.

Russian activities over the Arctic surface are of a theoretical interest only, as nobody else can break through whatever ice and participate. Most of the militarization is allegedly on the ocean floor. NATO submersibles try to install hidden sensors and sonars on the ocean floor, Russia tries to move them around or possibly even steal them. Do you reckon there is some kind of Lost&Found they ought to be taken to, instead?

Except for the Chinese, none of the activities is really new. They also built something like six icebreakers and chartered an Arctic corps featuring humongous ushanka hats. Still a no-show, so presumably they are waiting for the USA to respond in kind? Unfortunately, did Trump relocate the icebreaker funds to his Space Marines.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

40 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Funny attack, when nobody fires a shot and most of your opponents' troops run over to your side. Maybe it is called something else? Or perhaps burning some 46 people alive is provocation enough?

There have certainly been shots fired by the Russians at the Ukrainians during this illegal occupation. It is irrelevant that their unprovoked surprise invasion overwhelmed Crimea before Ukraine could raise a defense.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

13 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There have certainly been shots fired by the Russians at the Ukrainians during this illegal occupation. It is irrelevant that their unprovoked surprise invasion overwhelmed Crimea before Ukraine could raise a defense.

No Ukrainians fired at the Russians? No half-breeds among any of these? How do you know so much about Crimea?

There was no "illegal occupation" Because

a) Russian troops were there because they were renting a base from Ukraine. Unlike your bogus base rental of Guantánamo from Cuba, for example, Ukraine had no problem with that until 2014 coup.

b) Before we get into further legalese, the event that happened there first is called unilateral secession, OK? A region declared independence over objections of the host state. You've got a problem with this definition?

c) It was neither unprovoked, nor surprising. Without the Russian troops, loyal Ukrainian troops would arrive from the Wild West, and we would have a situation very similar to what we have in Donbass. Notice the difference? Russia military in Crimea is not imaginary.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

No Ukrainians fired at the Russians? No half-breeds among any of these? How do you know so much about Crimea?

There was no "illegal occupation" Because

a) Russian troops were there because they were renting a base from Ukraine. Unlike your bogus base rental of Guantánamo from Cuba, for example, Ukraine had no problem with that until 2014 coup.

b) Before we get into further legalese, the event that happened there first is called unilateral secession, OK? A region declared independence over objections of the host state. You've got a problem with this definition?

c) It was neither unprovoked, nor surprising. Without the Russian troops, loyal Ukrainian troops would arrive from the Wild West, and we would have a situation very similar to what we have in Donbass. Notice the difference? Russia military in Crimea is not imaginary.

Ukrainians may have fired in self defense after being attacked by the Russians. The Russians then seized their patrol boats.

a) Renting a base does not give a legal right to exert sovereign control over it or the lessor's neighboring property. Doing so is an illegal occupation. What is bogus about our rental of Guantanamo?

b) Unilateral succession is an illegal occupation by definition. 

c) Definitely unprovoked and a surprise. I agree that the Russian military in Crimea is not imaginary. They are truly there manifesting an illegal occupation. 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

23 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ukrainians may have fired in self defense after being attacked by the Russians. The Russians then seized their patrol boats.

a) Renting a base does not give a legal right to exert sovereign control over it or the lessor's neighboring property. Doing so is an illegal occupation. What is bogus about our rental of Guantanamo?

b) Unilateral succession is an illegal occupation by definition. 

c) Definitely unprovoked and a surprise. I agree that the Russian military in Crimea is not imaginary. They are truly there manifesting an illegal occupation. 

I think you might be confusing this with the Kerch Straight incident, which was a couple of years later? In 2014, the Ukrainian Navy folded after the exit from their base was blocked by a strategically placed shipwreck.

a) Russia did not exert any sovereign control. Mostly it simply had the troops standing around looking scary. Call it an overwhelming show of force. The alternative would be an arrival of patriotically minded soccer fans from the mainland and guaranteed riots. See Odessa again.

Your rental of Guantanamo, for the purpose of coal bunkering, was made with 1903 Cuban administration, valid indefinitely for a constant sum of $2200 to be paid in gold. Do you think you could do this much right? Because so far have your payments been in paper checks rendered to a US bank to this princely sum, not in gold. The checks remained uncashed.

b) Since when? According to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo's_declaration_of_independence

are unilateral secessions always legit. (With dissenting opinion from 1/12 judges harking from USA that this is no precedent for anything at all duly noted)

This means that the principle of self-determination won over the principle of integrity of national borders. (Those were proclaimed by the UN Charta without specifying what to do when they happen to conflict) Big deal. Canada may no longer constitutionally preclude the secession of Quebec. UK may no longer preclude the secession of Scotland, etc.

c) Ukraine had no government at the time. The previous one had to flee as the result of a little coup you bankrolled. That was somewhat surprising at first, but not for very long. Certainly illegal. As in violation of Ukrainian constitution in every conceivable way?

Russia military has been in Crimea for the last couple of hundred years and is the largest employer around. Very popular. Think Pearl Harbor and USN, but before. You do know that you had to start with a bit of annexation there, too?

[bobo88 + 58]

On 2/19/2022 at 5:37 PM, nsdp said:

I assume your Amercia First dues are current.  You and Sen  Jesse Unruh who was calling to do nothing 3 hours after the J apanese had bombed  Pearl HaRBOR.. No we have already had the Occupatiion of the Crimea just like the occupation of the Rheinland and the invasion of the Donbass like the occupation of Austria.

We don't want a Munich sell out.  Mr. Chamberlain You going to come back with a scrap of paper saying  "Peace in Our Times. "

nsdp 

You need a geography lesson. In case you don't realize it Pearl Harbor is located in one of the United States.  They attacked us.  I don't know who this senator is but he was obviously wrong.  

UKRAINE IS NOT A NATO MEMBER

Europe (France, Germany, etc) does not care about Ukraine.  They are being forced to go along with Joe .  Heck, Germany won't even send defensive weapons.  Germany only sent 5000 helmets for the 200,000 Ukraine troops. LOL.

Germany signed Obama's "Coalition of the willing" for Syria, then refused to provide troops, supplies or funds. Willing to sign anything but do nothing.  

NATO is worthless. A dinosaur.

The U.S can not mfg anything anymore.  But they love to start a good war.

So Joe can feed his ego and play tough dude he will arm Ukraine and get at least another 14000 Ukrainians killed (Obama put Joe in charge of Ukraine . Joe let 14000 get killed, for what?)

China is watching U.S. , Europe , China , Ukraine to be totally consumed by what should be a little skirmish while they expand their "belt and road" and become THE Super Power.  

Nobody cares about Ukraine except Joe Biden and his political hacks (not security council)  in my opinion. 

Let's see how high Joe's death toll goes up during his second bout.  Sad. 

As Former Sec of Defense Gates said," Joe Video has been wrong on every International policy issue for the last 40 years." Have to add more years to that 40.

Edited February 21, 2022 by bobo88

[bobo88 + 58]

10 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

"Cyber warfare" is overrated, some spectacular successes against unusually unprepared targets notwithstanding

You haven't seen 1/10 of it's capabilities yet.  Watch.

[bobo88 + 58]

1 hour ago, bobo88 said:

You haven't seen 1/10 of it's capabilities yet.  Watch.

Just my opinion but .  .  .  .  . 

The more I think about it seems like this "skirmish" is being run by the CIA for the U.S.   Just like Ukraine retreat ?  

Biden only uses Austin and Miley for creating a "woke" military and teaching CRT.

Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't both Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan done some time in the CIA ?

Just my opinion.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by bobo88

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Some facts

By Ben Aris in Berlin August 9, 2019

Which country is the biggest investor into Russia? It’s Cyprus. At least that is according to the official figures from the Central Bank of Russia (CBR). But of course it isn’t really. Cyprus is a widely used financial vehicle for investing into Russia thanks to its convenient double taxation treaties and, more importantly, the fact that the Russian authorities cannot expropriate assets in Cyprus. But the use of Cyprus, and other financial staging posts such as BVI, Bermuda and even the Netherlands, makes knowing where Russia’s foreign direct investment (FDI) actually comes from very difficult.

That has changed. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has published first-ever estimates of FDIs into the economies based on Ultimate Investing Country in 2017, Ivan Tkachev, economics editor at RBK, recently wrote in a piece in the Riddle entitled “A Quiet Revolution in the Analysis of Foreign Investments.”

Thanks to various quirks in the way Russia calculates its FDI numbers, several sources of FDI get missed out from the official figures. The most glaring omission is the money that foreign companies make in Russia that they reinvest into their production is not counted as FDI, but is actually one of the largest sources of all foreign investment. Little or no new FDI has been arriving in Russia since the start of the sanctions regime in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea, but those foreign investors already in Russia are very happy and reinvesting every kopek they make, CEOs of these firms have told bne IntelliNews in multiple interviews.

But Russia has never been a popular investment destination. Inward FDI to Russia over 2014-2018 averaged 1.3% of GDP, the lowest levels for 20 years when reinvestment is factored in, and even Russians are reluctant to invest in their own country.

As bne IntelliNews reported in a piece last year, “Capital flight figures to make your eyes water”, in the last three decades Russia has only had two years with a net inflow of capital in 2006 and 2007 at the height of the boom years when a surplus of $131bn of capital entered the country. For those two short years domestic investors were optimistic about the country's future and were willing to invest. When the economy collapsed in the wake of the 2008 global crisis that entire amount left again and Russia has been bleeding money ever since as capital has flown.

“Russians’ reluctance to invest at home is visible in the dominant oligarchic business model based on commodity exports rather than on developing supply chains or downstream value-added activities, alongside the preference for extracting company profits in cash. Russian corporates’ dividend yields at 7.9% are 4.6% higher than the MSCI Emerging Markets Index average and among the highest for the corporate sector of a large emerging market economy, according to Bloomberg,” Germany’s Scope Ratings said in a note.

Balmy havens responsible for most FDI

Like most countries, the CBR relies on its balance of payment figures to calculate foreign investment. However, these only capture the last step on the investment journey of cash from the coffers of an investor into Russia, not where the money started its journey.

Thanks to the perennial “Russia risk,” FDI into Russia has always been below par given the size of the population and richness of the resources on offer. However, in the last three decades Russia has accumulated a total FDI stock of just over $407bn as of the end of 2018, according to the CBR.

According to the CBR data two thirds of this investment (68%) comes from offshore havens and 30% alone comes from Cyprus, or $124.6bn.

“It is obvious that those investments – made through transit financial jurisdictions – have been carried out by someone else. Perhaps they may have been made even by Russians themselves, who have long used such schemes of investment through foreign jurisdictions, under foreign law. For them it is often a way to optimise taxes, as well as to protect Russian investments from extortions and raids by security services,” Tkachev said.

Conversely, investment from more obvious partners is very low. The US accounts for a mere $2.6bn and China for $3.1bn of the total stock of FDI, according to the CBR figures, or under 2% of the total each.

UNCTAD research attempts to get a better handle on the origin of investment money and estimates that between 30%-50% of all investment from countries such as Germany and the US also arrives via a transit country and so their official FDI numbers are badly understated.

UNCTAD released its still incomplete data set at the end of 2017, using information supplied by a few participating countries that try to determine the country of origin for inbound FDI.

Identifying where money comes from is becoming increasingly important as governments try to fight money laundering and interest has been heightened by the sanctions showdown, not just with Russia, but the countries of the Middle East and places such as North Korea as well. But government’s biggest motivation of all is simply to stop companies from using international jurisdictions to dodge tax payments in this increasingly globalised world. In Russia, for example, the Kremlin launched the clumsily named de-offshorisation campaign to bring home more tax revenues from assets actually based in Russia but legally domiciled somewhere else.

As the data is incomplete UNCTAD results are actually an analytical estimation, “calculated under a probabilistic model based on Markov chains,” says Tkachev without going into the technical details. However, the resulting distribution of FDI fits with intuition and is clearly a better guess of what the actual geographic distribution of FDI is.

Western countries are the big winners

And some of the results are surprising. The US turns out to be the big winner and the biggest single investor into the Russian economy, which also has political implications in the current environment. According to UNCTAD the US invested $39.1bn into Russia, or 8.9% of the total FDI stock – that is more than 12 times greater than the CBR figures and makes the US a much more important investor than first appears.

The US’ own estimates of American companies' investment into Russia are lower. Cumulative investments of American businesses into Russia amounted to $13.9bn at the end of 2017 (based on the historical cost of the investments made), according to the US Department of Commerce, says Tkachev. But this is three times more than the CBR balance of payment estimates for US investment into Russia.

The real number is almost certainly higher than either of these estimates. Russia has all but given up on maintaining its own domestic automotive production and the sector is dominated by foreign car producers, many of them American. Yet apart from the initial investment most of the subsequent investment is made from retained earnings or local borrowing. As revenues are in rubles it makes sense to reinvest retained earnings and raise funds locally in rubles. That means little of the investment activity by car companies turns up in the FDI figures.

However, the Russian statistical agency Rosstat did have a stab at estimating this kind of foreign investment in 2014, when it submitted an FDI report to the central bank, which switched to the internationally accepted methods at the time, so there are some estimates.

One attempt to take into account this “re-invested FDI” was made by a joint study by the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia and EY in May that estimated US companies had invested a total of $85bn in Russia, or over 20% of the total FDI stock, which makes the US by far the most important foreign investor in Russia.

The second-largest direct investor into Russia, according to UNCTAD, is unsurprisingly Germany with $33.2bn, followed by the UK with $31.3bn, says Tkachev. Together these three countries account for over a quarter of the total FDI stock in Russia, or more than $100bn compared with the official CBR figure of $40bn.

Again, other estimates for German investment into Russia are lower. According to the Deutsche Bundesbank, the stock of investments from Germany into Russia totalled €21.3bn at the end of 2017 ($25.6bn at the then exchange rate), while the Central Bank of Russia’s estimate is $18.1bn.

Germans have always been a fan of Russian investment. This was championed by former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who actively lobbied on behalf of German national champions such as Siemens while in office, before taking a job with Gazprom after his term in office ended.

And they still are. Since 2014 trade between Russia and the European Union has fallen by about a third to circa €268bn in 2018, up slightly from a low of €228bn in 2016, according to Eurostat, while German trade increased by 8.4% in 2018 year on year to €62bn, making it Russia’s second-biggest trade partner after China.

Moreover, German (officially identified) investment into Russia hit its highest level in a decade of €3.3bn in 2018, according to the Russia-German Chamber of Commerce, as cited by the Moscow Times.

However, the nature of this German investment is changing, as at the same time the number of German companies registered in Russia has shrunk from a high of circa 6,000 to around 4,500 now. The barriers to entry have become higher and the operating environment more difficult, which is squeezing out the smaller Mittlestand companies that had expanded to Russia. Increasing size matters when it comes to Russia.

The same is true to a more extreme extent with the UK, which long counted itself the biggest European investor into Russia, but the lion’s share was in the single investment of oil major BP which has major holdings in the Russian oil and gas sector.

The story is similar with France, which has $20bn invested in Russia, according to official figures, but again, a big chunk of that is in the oil and gas sector: the French energy company Total recently acquired a 10% stake in a $21bn gas project in Russia’s Arctic, in addition to its existing 20% stake in a neighbouring $28bn gas project in the region, the Moscow Times reported.

The new kid on the block in Russia’s FDI story is China. Trade turnover with China has soared from around $5bn a year in the early 90s to top $100bn last year and is on track to hit the new target of $200bn by 2024. Good trade relations is the basis of FDI, as typically two countries start trading with each other but at some point they begin to set up production in the host country to reduce costs once there is a decent volume of sales. The rule of thumb is that every $8 increase in trade leads to $1 of FDI, which implies China’s FDI into Russia should be $12.5bn.

In reality the political nature of the Sino-Russian relationship – most of the deals so far have been government-to-government such as the massive investment into the Power of Siberia gas pipeline – distorts the investment relationship between Russia and China. A study by Skolkovo’s Institute for Emerging Markets Research estimates China’s direct investment into Russia at $36bn, Tkachev reports, which is more than would be expected from a purely commercial relationship between the two countries.

“China’s investors are no different from others and they too have been extensively using Cypriot or BVI jurisdictions when structuring their investment projects,” says Tkachev, citing Oleg Remyga, who heads the China section at Skolkovo.

The big losers from UNCTAD calculations are unsurprisingly the offshore havens, although identifying where the money passing through these intermediaries really comes remains at the end of the day largely guesswork.

Offshore havens demoted

The Netherlands is a big Russian investor and since the 2012 Cypriot financial meltdown has become an increasingly popular domicile for Russian offshore companies.

According to UNCTAD, the Netherland’s share of the FDI stock has shrunk from $41bn, or some 10% of the total, to $29bn, or 7%. But the situation is confusing, as both real foreign investment into Russia, such as the Russian-French joint venture of Rostec and Renault, and pure Russian companies, for example Yandex.Taxi, are registered in the Netherlands.

It has always been assumed that a large share of money coming into Russia via these offshore havens is just Russian money “round tripping” – money held offshore to avoid Russian taxes (and appropriation) – but it has never been clear just how much of the cash invested by Cyprus or the Netherlands is actually Russian.

UNCTAD estimates that 6.5%, or $28.9bn, of the money invested from the Netherlands is actually of Russian origin. The same is true of Cyprus, where the majority of the money is clearly round tripping: Russian investment stock into Cyprus is $172bn, according to the CBR, but the stock of Cypriot investment into Russia is $125bn as of January 1, 2019, says Tkachev.

Political impact

A better understanding of the FDI dynamics is important, as it has political consequences. The stereotypical picture of Russia is that it is nothing more than a giant petrol station that produces nothing of value but imports lots of Bentleys and Christian Dior dresses for its oligarchic class.

The demonising of Russia that has dominated international politics for much of the last decade is a result of the calculation that began when Gordon Brown took over as British Prime Minister that being tough on Russia earns political kudos by making you look tough but comes at no cost, as there are few business interests to hurt.

However, if FDI is actually much higher then the calculation changes, as sanctions will boomerang back and hurt your own economy, provoking a domestic lobbying reaction against the sanctions by your own businesses.

This is exactly what happened when the US Treasury Department (USTD) introduced its punitive April 6 round of sanctions last year that specifically targeted oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s Rusal amongst other companies. It led to chaos on the international metals market and threatened to cause hundreds of millions of dollars of loses for leading US investment banks, as in effect their would have to mark their investments into Rusal’s stocks and bonds down to zero overnight. As the significance of the sanctions rapidly became clear the USTD backed off before dropping the sanctions entirely at the start of this year – the first sanctions on Russia to be withdrawn since 2014.

The UNCTAD study only fleshes out the lesson the Rusal sanctions debacle taught: that Russia’s economy is much more deeply integrated into the global economy than the stereotype suggests.

Indeed, the Ministry of Finance seems to have embraced this aspect of integration with a string of record ruble-denominated OFZ treasury bill sales this year. The high-yielding and almost unsinkable OFZ are already widely held by US investors such as pension funds and insurance companies, but the idea seems to be to make them even harder to sanction by casting the net as widely as possible. The more US investors hold OFZ the harder they become to sanction. And indeed, in new sanctions issued this week that targeted Russia’s sovereign debt, only new issues on the primary market were targeted, while OFZs were excluded completely.

For its part Russia has tried to sanction-proof its economy with a series of laws to reduce dependence on the outside in sensitive sectors, but with limited success. The defence sector reported orders to use only Russian made inputs were impossible to implement and Russia remains heavily dependent on imported machinery. Germany’s Siemens, for example, dominates the gas turbine and high speed train business in Russia.

The one place Russia has made a lot of progress towards autarky is in agriculture, where imports have fallen by a third in the last five years. But here too, Russia remains dependent on the outside. Siberia’s famous Camembert business was started with imported moulds from France and the Department of Agriculture recently called for an effort to produce a Russia broiler chicken as currently, poultry farmers remain entirely dependent on imported eggs.

https://www.bne.eu/us-letter-rejects-russia-s-no-nato-enlargement-demand-as-normandy-four-talks-resume-233126/?source=russia

-

Edited February 20, 2022 by Tomasz

[Tomasz + 1,608]

By Theo Normanton in Moscow February 17, 2022

US ownership of Russian equities rose in 2021, in spite of mounting political tensions between the two countries. At end of the year, 58% of the total international holdings in Russian equities belonged to American funds, compared with 53% the previous year and just 41% in 2013.

Meanwhile, the disclosed total value of foreign investment in Russian equities is also increasing. International funds held $86.2bn in Russian equities in 4Q21, up from $65.6bn the previous year, according to data from ThomsonONE. The actual value could be about three times higher according to some estimates.

Foreign investment in Russia is increasingly coming under the spotlight as tensions mount over Ukraine and both sides consider deterrence options. This growing appetite for Russian securities among American investors suggests that the market is more dovish on the threat of conflict than was previously considered.

The data also illustrate the extent to which American and Russian markets are bound up with one another in an interconnected global economy. Potential sanctions would risk creating a so-called “Boomerang Effect”, damaging the interests of foreign investors – including US funds that manage the pensions of average Americans – as well as the Russian economy.

 

Russian equities

Since the marketisation of Russia’s economy in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, the country has been attracting ever greater flows of foreign capital. US money represents the single largest international source of investment for Russia, with American businesses alone responsible for $100bn of investment in the country, according to a survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia (AmCham).

The report by AmCham found that “Official statistics underestimate the actual level of economic relations between Russia and the US”, with the figures obtained by the survey nine times higher than the official value of American investment.

Last year saw a record-high sum of American money in Russian equities, in a sign that the country is now being treated as a serious long-term investment opportunity by foreign investors.

“Two factors coincided to make last year such a successful one,” explained Denis Zabolotnev, head of Russian & CIS Sales Coverage at London-based brokerage Sova Capital. “Firstly, we spent the whole year anticipating the end of lockdowns and the normalisation of the economy, which was positive for commodities and banks. And the second factor was expectations of the reduction of liquidity support from the Fed. As a result, investors focused on value investments – shares which are relatively cheap, and defensive stocks, which are generally bought during late cycles. Russian shares fit perfectly into this trend. They’ve always been quite affordable, and were even more so last year due to the fact that energy prices had already grown and companies showed strong earnings the previous year, so prices were unable to increase as strongly. This stimulated a new inflow of capital.”

Russian financial stocks are among the more popular securities held by American investors. At least 21.8% of equities issued by online financial services group TCS are owned by Americans, who represent the single largest group of investors in the company, according to data from Bloomberg.

Moscow Exchange (MOEX) stock is also in line with this trend, with about 60% of the free float of the company owned by US institutions, according to data on its website.

With even state-owned companies now paying out dividends as high as 10-11%, Russian stocks offer very lucrative yields for those with the nerve to stick it out through the market’s ups and downs.

“It’s very difficult to find blue chips with such competitive dividend yields. These companies are affordable, fast-growing (when you take into account what is going on with energy prices), and pay high dividends. So if we discount the geopolitical risks, it’s a no-brainer: just buy, buy, buy,” said Zabolotnev.

Russia’s booming tech stocks are also a hit with US investors. 28.6% of shares in online retail platform OZON are held by American investors, according to Bloomberg, while telecom stocks like MTS are also a major draw for US money.

Russia’s signature commodity and metallurgy stocks are also seeing rising demand from the US, with 16.4% of equities in Polymetal International held by American investors, compared with just 5% held by Russians, according to figures from Bloomberg. Over a quarter of the reported shares in aluminium giant RUSAL are also held by investors from North America.

These stocks did particularly well towards the end of 2021 during the commodity market rally.

“At the end of the year, it probably came down to inflation”, explained Zabolotnev. “Russian shares are very strongly tied to producers of commodities – gas, oil and metals. So these companies will win from inflation when there’s an increase in energy prices. Russian stocks can act as a sort of hedge.”

Russia also remained a darling for managers of Global Emerging Markets (GEM) funds throughout 2021. Indeed, Russia was the most popular market for such funds in December, boasting the most overweight (OW) investors and the fewest underweight (UW) of any major market. The net figure for OW-UW funds stood at +15 in December, according to research by JP Morgan. And with Russian stocks nearing all-time highs on a 12-month forward dividend yield basis and reporting record price/earnings ratios relative to global equities, there is no prospect of Russia falling off the list of favoured markets any time soon.

 

(In)Direct Investment

The US is not just the largest investor in Russian public equities; it’s also the biggest player in strategic investment. While official figures from the CBR list Cyprus as the greatest source of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Russia, the first ever estimate of Russian FDI based on Ultimate Investing Country (UIC) published by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 2017, revealed that the USA is the single largest investor in the Russian economy.

American direct investment in Russia can come in the form of existing companies expanding into Russia, acquiring international peers, obtaining a 10% or greater stake in a Russian firm, or borrowing money in Russia to expand their own operations.

After a bearish few weeks, the view from the Russian market is now one of tentative optimism. “I think interest will return now,” affirmed Zabolotnev. “The earlier market correction gives long-term investors the opportunity to enter the market at more competitive prices. Of course, people are still being cautious, because it’s not entirely clear how the situation will continue to develop. But some investors are certainly returning: we have seen decent demand from international investors for fintech company Tinkoff, oil company Lukoil and diamond producer Alrosa.”

Diversification, for commodities exporters, is a challenging business. Yet the wide-ranging investment which Russia is continuing to attract from foreign players – including from the US – indicates that it is managing this with no small degree of success.

More importantly, though, it shows that the Russian economy is more integrated with global markets than many in the West might think. And with American investment in Russia showing no signs of slowing, it is perhaps time for both sides to dial down the rhetoric on mutually damaging sanctions and consider how to safeguard their own interests as well as those of the world.

https://www.intellinews.com/american-investment-in-russian-equities-increased-in-2021-235318/?fbclid=IwAR0jFjRR7qLLSPQLJ_UnzOcNWvAOcIBvKjdrsqNfbYxYcoE_w8oMnM4Iz8Q

[nsdp + 449]

What is Puy=put prepared to lose? Kaliningrad  MOSCOW, October 12. /TASS/. Russia may respond to the MOSCOW, October 12. /TASS/. Russia may respond to the deployment of a US armor division in Poland by reinforcing its group of Iskander missile systems in the Kaliningrad Region, the chairman of the State Duma’s defense committee, former Airborne Force commander Vladimir Shamanov said in reply to a question from TASS. by reinforcing its group of Iskander missile systems in the Kaliningrad Region, the chairman of the State Duma’s defense committee, former Airborne Force commander Vladimir Shamanov said in reply to a question from TASS.  US already has 80,000 troops under Nato plus the 82nd and 101st ariborme divisions moved this last week.

Japan  still covets Sakhalin 's oil and gas and Vladivostok is tempting.  How far west did Japan occupy in 1920-1921You prepared to lose all troops deployed to Syria and the Med?

Your the one whose IQ is diminished by lead while reading Pravda.

We know how the obsolete T-72 fares against old M-60a 2's much less M1A2 or 3's.

Th ATACAMs are precision guided (CEP 1-2 m) were as Iskandar has a maximum firing range of 280km and circular error probable (CEP) of 30m to 70m.  That means the war head lands within 30-70km of its target.  The V-2 had more range and better accuracy.

Edited February 20, 2022 by nsdp
remove blank space.

[nsdp + 449]

15 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

We were talking about an odd Alaska-Yamal bombing raid you invented yourself? The F-22 does not have the range for that. Yes, the B-52s. Of course. Do they also intrude, or more like extrude, do remind me?

Does the French carrier fit under the Bosporus Bridge? Cause yours sure don't. How many destroyers to a squadron? More than two and you are in violation of Montreaux. Anything floating in the Black Sea is insta-sinkable from Crimea, anyway.

 

You understand every very little.  My point is 100% of Russian critical infrastructure is   vulnerable to B-52's whereas the US is beyond range of the Russian air farce.  B-52' can strike all of Russia  with HACM or ARRW from outside airspace that Russia can defend. The clean up crew would be B-1 with the ARRW in a rotary launcher in the bomb bay and the B-2 with precision MOAB bombs for your command and control bunkers.  Putin will be dead unless he is hiding in an out house in Siberia.

The F-22 is irrelevant in a strike by B-52.   You have to have brain damage from being exposed to Pravda.

Edited February 20, 2022 by nsdp

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,542]

Since the hyperbole has truly reached Epic levels...it is time for the final solution.

Say Hello To My Little Friend

 

[nsdp + 449]

5 hours ago, bobo88 said:

nsdp 

You need a geography lesson. In case you don't realize it Pearl Harbor is located in one of the United States.  They attacked us.  I don't know who this senator is but he was obviously wrong.  

UKRAINE IS NOT A NATO MEMBER

Europe (France, Germany, etc) does not care about Ukraine.  They are being forced to go along with Joe .  Heck, Germany won't even send defensive weapons.  Germany sent 5000 helmets for the 200,000 Ukraine troops. LOL.

Germany sign Obama's "Coalition of the willing" for Syria, then refused to provide troops, supplies or funds.

The U.S can not mfg anything anymore.  But they love to start a good war.

So Joe can feed his ego and play tough dude he will arm Ukraine and get at least another 14000 Ukrainians killed (Obama put Joe in charge of Ukraine . Joe let 14000 get killed, for what?)

China is watching U.S. , Europe , China , Ukraine to be totally consumed by what should be a little skirmmanufacture ish while they expand their "belt and road" and become THE Super Power.  

Nobody cares about Ukraine except Joe Biden and his political hacks (not security council)  in my opinion. 

Let's see how high Joe's death toll goes up.  Sad. 

'Youre pretty stupid. We don't manufacture cheap goods any more.   Go down to your friendly Ford dealer and take a look at a F-150 pickup. Top selling vehicle in the US for the last 40 years.  Engines are made in Cleveland , Windsor Ont or Monterrey  Mexico.   Only the  bling is made overseas. We aren't even talking about Class 8 heavy trucks.   100% of John Deere tractors are made in the US and same for JI Case. Case's Steygers are built in Canada.  IBM was the first chip manufacturer to 2 nm.

Go take a double dose of Exlax. You will see things more clearly.

[bobo88 + 58]

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

'Youre pretty stupid. We don't manufacture cheap goods any more.   Go down to your friendly Ford dealer and take a look at a F-150 pickup. Top selling vehicle in the US for the last 40 years.  Engines are made in Cleveland , Windsor Ont or Monterrey  Mexico.   Only the  bling is made overseas. We aren't even talking about Class 8 heavy trucks.   100% of John Deere tractors are made in the US and same for JI Case. Case's Steygers are built in Canada.  IBM was the first chip manufacturer to 2 nm.

Go take a double dose of Exlax. You will see things more clearly.

You say, "We don't mfg cheap goods anymore"

We don't manufacture much of anything anymore.

Kind of difficult to export John Deere tractors and heavy duty trucks to U.S. by cargo plane profitably .

I'm talking  .  .  .  .  ah .  .  .  .  everything else. 

.  .  .  .  and most automobiles are mfg in Mexico and German autos parts are mfg in Germany and only "assembled" in the U.S.

Germany sells the parts to U.S. incorporated subsidiary at very high price so as to not show a profit and thus do not pay any U.S. income taxes.

Go down to the U.S. border and watch train load after train load of cars and trucks  heading north.

Are you OK with all that ?

Edited February 21, 2022 by bobo88