Finally Western armor pushed all the way to Moscow

Spot the Leopard 2 in there

This is where futurism and realpolitik collide. Will the world wean itself off fossil fuels, or will it devolve into a slapfest as countries rush to secure dwindling resources? It might be cynical, but we're guaranteed to have resources become more scarce before we reach a post-scarcity society, and whether that reaches a breaking point like a next world war, is an open question. Russia has clear strategic interests in securing those resources. Even if Putin didn't anticipate them being necessary in the future, its still a rational calculation if you think the world could go either way: If technology outpaces our needs and we reach a utopian future, then the rising tide will lift every country whether they squabbled for resources or not. In the case where the countries who don't have the resources starve and collapse, it matters who holds the farmlands.

Putin hasn't hid his ambition, he transparently said he wants to take all the lands east of the Dnipro, all the claimed and former territory of the DPR / LPR / Crimea. Besides the part he doesn't say out loud, about maybe taking Odessa. Well, that swathe of the east is the richest farmlands and the gas basin, and all those sparsely populated and indefensible farmlands don't serve a Russian strategic purpose as a buffer for the new DPR. He wants to turn their wheat into sesame buns at vkusno i tochka

Of course the world will not reach a futuristic post-scarcity state within the next few decades, most definitely not during our lifetime. But the decreasing demand for fossils among the industrialized world (not just the West, keep in mind that China is moving in this direction too) will at least compensate for the increasing demand from emerging and developing countries like India, so I don't see an extreme scarcity-scenario akin to "peak oil" play out anytime soon. And in the old equilibrium, Russia already owned more oil and gas than it could use. As long as no extreme-scarcity scenario comes to pass, hoarding even more of those resources doesn't come with tangible benefit to Russia.

Regarding the farmlands: The US and also the EU are net exporters of grain and largely autarkic with regard to their food supply. And their fundamental demographics point toward a stagnating or declining population, so as long as they eventually come to their senses and stop mass immigration from the global south at some point, they are at no risk of starving. It will allow Russia to provide their Chinese allies/masters with additional food production, but it doesn't give them a real geostrategic advantage.

Also note that the whole "who holds the farmlands"-argument is moot in a "starve and collapse"-scenario. The only reason Russia might be able to grind out a partial win in Ukraine is because the West completely half-assed its support... more like "quarter-assed". If Europe's population was at risk of literally starving, NATO would be willing to wage an all-out war - and in an all-out war, Russia stands no chance. Such a scenario (which I, again, consider highly unrealistic) would also flip the nuclear deterrence psychology. If Russia can cope fine without the Ukrainian farmlands while Europe would literally starve, it would all of a sudden be the Russians who'd have to ask themselves if they are really willing to risk mutual nuclear destruction.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 29 2024 01:08pm

The straws have been clutched. Day 798 of the totally not a war, kind of a war, ok we are a full war economy and still not getting it done operation.

The Dragon in the Sea is an interesting novel.

Once peak oil hits in 15-20 years, were either going to see a massive switch to nuclear energy or the mass poverty as you said.

Russia has no shortage of land but natural resources buried in the middle of nowhere Siberian tundra are worth a lot less compared to prime farmlands or gas fields spitting distance from Mariupol, Berdyansk or the deep water ports of Crimea. People that think oil, gas, metals, grain consumption is going to fall off a cliff in the future aren't thinking nor are very good at just picking up on signals. Future will most likely have a blend of renewables and hydro carbons and anyone that honestly thinks hydrocarbons usage will stop in the next 50 years is a fucking idiot.

Look at Toyota as a bellwether. This is arguably the most successful and well recognized global car maker. Some pretty smart people built, ran and are running this company. Instead of jumping onto the EV craze like all the other legacy makers, they were one of the few to stick to their guns and go the hybrid route. All these other companies dumped billions into R&D and in the short-medium term it's obvious Toyota made the right call.

Fact of the matter is our electrical grids are so far behind and so much metal like copper would be needed to support wholescale electrification that there's really no alternative to hydrocarbons for awhile.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 29 2024 07:45pm

Peak Oil has consistently been looming "15-20 years in the future" for the past 50 years.


Just to clarify my previous posts: I largely agree with you here; I do not predict demand for fossils to fall off a cliff anytime soon, or that 90% electrification will be reached anytime soon (100% electrification is a pipe dream anyway). My point is just that thanks to the electrification efforts in the industrialized world, the demand for fossils will not go up precipitously either and "peak oil"- or Mad Max-like scenarios are unrealistic.

Regarding the location thing: yes, accessible resources in the Donbass would be convenient, particularly if Russia could sell them to its nearby European customers - but they alienated their European customers and can't expect to ever go back to the previous market share in Europe. And if they have to sell most of their gas to China in the future, gas fields in Siberia might actually make more sense than gas fields under the Black Sea, 6000km away.

It's very difficult to see oil demand not picking up when we have billions of people around the globe inching closer and closer to western living standards. That want a car or some other motorized mode of transport, that want better and more variety in their food (which means, again more energy demand). The thing is, as the lower-mid classes of China, India and the billions of other outside of western world are lifted from poverty, they are going to be leaning on what's out there that's reliable and affordable (the gas combustion engine) for awhile before electrical grids can actually support wholesale electrification and you can have hundreds of million of EVs being all charged at the same time without crashing power grids.

I think it's fine if the Euros don't want it. The point is, they need easy ways to transport natural resources, and waterways are by far the best currently. It's difficult to move oil or gas by pipeline from middle of nowhere, requires fair amount of infrastructure. A lot of their infrastructure was pointed west towards Europe, and when they had to transition east, they couldn't just magically build hundreds of miles of pipelines spanning all across Russia and reverse flows. It's a lot easier when you can just bring it to port and ship it off.

I think you're overestimating the amount of people from the third world who will be lifted to a "Western lifestyle" in the coming decades. A lot of them will, don't get me wrong, but not multiple billions. Not every place will undergo rapid industrialization and wealth gains like China did during the 90s and 00s.

Also, off-grid technology is better suited to these places anyway. Even today, a ton of poor and/or remote folks in third world countries are buying solar panels for their houses/shacks because it provides them with electricity to charge their phones, radios or run their stoves without relying on an electricity grid, which might be unavailable or unaffordable. Likewise, large parts of Africa as well as the lower classes in Asia and Latin America skipped over desktop pcs and landline internet and went straight to smartphones and mobile internet.



The sea route from the Black Sea ports all the way to China is super long though. Kinda funny how a huge talking point in this thread, roughly 12 to 18 months ago, was that shunning cheap Russian pipeline gas was oh-so-foolish by the Europeans because relying on American LNG supplies which need to be shipped across the Atlantic would be oh-so-expensive - yet now, shipping gas through the Black Sea, the Bosporus, the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Indian Ocean, the Straight of Malakka and the South China Sea is sold as a big strategic gain for China and Russia.

Relying on this route for a sizable chunk of their natural gas supplies would also create a big geostrategic achilles heel for China since Turkey/NATO control the Bosporus and could shut it down in case of a big conflict between the two blocs. Or look at the current issues with the Houthis shelling ships on the Suez Canal route. If Russia and China want to expand their gas trade, it still seems smarter to develop gas fields in Siberia and build pipelines to China from there. Causes staggering upfront costs, yes, but will be much cheaper to operate in the long run and is far more robust to geopolitical conflict.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 30 2024 08:13am

The difference now is that India and China are going to be first-world countries (at least the biggest cities).

And both seem to be able to secure reserves.