jabberwalkie09 said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I don't want to sound hyperbolic but I believe what we are seeing is the beginning of a new Iron Curtain.
Not in a market sense. They still need trade. Doubt Putin is going to go down the widespread famine route like Stalin was.
Unfortunately, Putin is taking the position of its much better to negotiate when you have the power. Putin is demonstrating that he's okay with exerting force, even if it's over time, as a means to an end. He's got Europe by the balls and he knows it. There's enough countries, some developing, in the world that would still buy their energy in the event that Europe goes cold Turkey. It won't be as profitable though.
I don't think Putin particularly cares about the average Russian, but I also think that Ukraine's agricultural sector would be a nice feather in his cap. That's why all this talk about tactical/strategic weapons against Ukraine didn't really mesh for me. If Putin goes for it all, he's going to keep as much of the country as usable as possible.
They had the breadbasket of Ukraine when Stalin still oversaw mass famines. It is the outside trade that makes Russian function (to the degree that it does) now.
Sometimes the stars align in history. Some for the good and some for the bad. Reagan and Gorbachev. Clinton and Yeltsin. Even Nixon and Breznev to a lesser degree managed to wind up well or just averted a crisis.
Post WWII, Truman and then Eisenhower knew Stalin. Krushchev was a wild card. Eisenhower blinked in 1956-57. Then JFK was elected Nikita saw an opening with a weak newbie President. He was emboldened and hence the Cuban Missile Crisis. But both Truman and Eisenhower were still alive and available for consultation.
Whereas Eisenhower had blinked over nuclear threats, Truman dropped two. It was not a coincidence that Nikita was booted less than two tears after the missile crisis.
