Simon Marks ... 'The US no longer has Europe's back' | LBC

I’d rather fight neither, because escalation is inevitable and the consequences unthinkable.

According to a recent Pentagon report, there is an official report called "Overmatch", that left Joe Biden's security advisor pale when he read it.

It documents that in all war games between China and America, America would lose, almost every single time

Here is the NYT article, it's a very interesting read

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/08/opinion/us-china-taiwan-military.html?referrer=grok.com

It is behind a paywall, so just copy and paste the link here and save

https://archive.is/

Well with the leader of the free world more fixated on ballrooms & building an Arc da Washington I'd agree.

But you obviously regard him as being 'functional' as well.

When shit like this goes down, because of a sitting president, then yeah, I tend to side with the guy that is unfairly getting targeted all the time.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-doubted-probable-cause-mar-a-lago-raid-pushed-forward-amid-pressure-from-biden-doj-emails-reveal

Do I think he is functional ...

Where was this question from you, to anyone else on this forum, about Biden.......when Biden was being protected to the extreme.....because his mental faculties were so incredibly fucked up, he eventually had to step down.....

This is ALL about OIL. The Pirates of the Caribbean.

Agree. This is a follow on of 'we'll take Greenland one way or the other,' let alone Canada.

"Where was this question from you, to anyone else on this forum, about Biden"

Who on this board ever described Krusty as anything but an incompetent and doddering old fool?

Bozo is also an incompetent old fool. They're both pathetic human beings completely unfit or unqualified to run a household, let alone a country . . . let alone the most powerful country in the world!

The difference is this . . . and I've said this several times before . . . Bozo is also narcissistic and conceited enough to think he knows better than his experts and his advisors. That's what makes him so much more dangerous than Krusty.

We all know Krusty was nothing more than a figurehead and the USA was run by a committee during his presidency . . . but I would take that before a childish, spoilt, vain, self-serving, egotistical, amoral, pussy-groping, petulant, poorly-educated, materialistic and boastful sociopath making hare-brained decisions of his own and lashing out at anyone with a contrary view.

Putin is trigger-happy with nukes, but if he is not bluffing, .....

He’s bluffing, I’ve said it many times—Putin is dead serious about taking all of Ukraine, he was never interested in a peace agreement, Donnie is like putty in between his fingers and has only himself to blame, he botched the crisis from the start. Putin showed himself to be an excellent poker player, not that he needed to be—Donnie was easy pickings.

He’s bluffing, I’ve said it many times

A bluff that many could call....... but would you be prepared to expect the worst possible outcome

A bluff that many could call......

Not quite, only America can, Putin knows that America is the most powerful military nation in the world.

He wouldn't dare take them on.

Not quite, only America can

I don't fully agree

European NATO members sans Amercia would still be far superior to Russia, especially with Russia already being strained with the Ukraine war, and with Finland and Sweden strengthening their Northern flank.

However, you are right in saying no other single country besides the US and maybe China could take Russia on alone though

I think the EU and the UK could easily take Russia in a conventional war.

We have far more money, and our military capability is increasing rapidly.

We have been learning from Ukraine, who are now the best at modern-day warfare.

Capture Moscow and St Petersburg, and Russia falls.

In World War 2, it was difficult to take Moscow and St Petersburg as Hitler had to go through Ukraine and other Soviet Buffer Zones before getting to Russia. Now we are right at their border.

I would support every EU country having their own nukes. If Russia wants to play poker and bluff, they have to realise that it only has 2 targets. (Moscow and St. Petersburg). We have a stronger hand.

If a country gets hit by a nuke, they need to use its own nuclear deterrent to destroy Moscow and St. Petersburg.

The risk of an unintentional escalation if Europe actually starts fighting on behalf of the Ukraine is the only reason the Ukraine wasn’t supported directly by international forces. Kuwait was in similar circumstances, albeit oil security was an important factor and received immediate, direct support.

What’s the probability Russia would engage in a limited nuclear attack if Moscow was at risk? High I would say. But let’s suppose it’s 5%. Would any sane person assume a 5% risk of the obliteration of mankind to preserve the Donbas for the Ukraine.

This is not a conventional situation, Escalation of the war brings the unthinkable, the future of all your children and generations to follow at risk. It’s not WW2 which is the ‘lesson’ so often mentioned. It’s an entirely new question….what happens if the existence of a major nuclear power is threatened from outside it’s borders..

While the Russia–Ukraine war remains a conventional military conflict centred on Ukraine, Russia has extended hostilities beyond its borders through sustained “hybrid warfare” activities that directly affect NATO and EU member states. NATO and Western governments formally characterise this activity as a grey-zone conflict, rather than a declared war.

Airspace violations

1. Russian drones have entered NATO airspace, most notably in Poland and Romania.
2. Poland triggered NATO Article 4 consultations, signalling a serious and credible security concern.

Critical infrastructure sabotage (suspected)

1. Repeated damage has been reported to undersea cables and energy infrastructure in the Baltic region.
2. NATO launched Operation Baltic Sentry to enhance the protection of subsea assets.
3. While attribution varies by incident, the overall pattern is treated as hostile and strategic.

Cyberattacks

1. State-linked cyber operations have targeted utilities, government systems, and electoral processes across NATO and EU countries.
2. Several of these attacks have been formally attributed to Russia by affected governments.

Sabotage and covert operations

1. Investigations across Europe have linked arson attacks, warehouse fires, logistics disruption, and proxy operations to Russian interests.
2. Western intelligence agencies describe these actions as deliberate destabilisation efforts.

Electronic warfare

1. GPS/GNSS jamming and spoofing have affected aviation and maritime safety, particularly in the Baltic region.

Espionage and disinformation

1. Sustained campaigns aimed at influencing public opinion, undermining trust in democratic institutions, and weakening political cohesion.

Russia has expanded the conflict beyond Ukraine without crossing the legal threshold of declared war, employing hybrid tactics designed to exert pressure, create instability, and test NATO’s response while avoiding the trigger of collective defence mechanisms.

Handing over territory to Putin is appeasing him. Appease him, and he will continue to attack. It does not stop at the Donbass or Ukraine. Putin has been in the media recently, saying he wants to take back all historical Russian lands.

Putin will continue until he is defeated. If European countries get nukes, then all we need to do is give Ukraine many more long-range weapons until Russia concedes defeat.

Ukraine has now developed many long-range weapons, so more money will help them increase the payload.

When Putin starts losing, he will go back to nuclear threats. If European countries have nukes, this will be less effective. Russians from Moscow and St. Petersburg will know that if Putin pulls the trigger, they will be destroyed within 30 minutes by the nuclear deterrent of the country that got hit.

This might be enough for Russians to assassinate Putin, so the world can continue without him.

Russia can only be integrated into the European economy once it gets rid of the ex-KGB mafia it has as a government. The KGB failed at communism, so why are they still involved in the government?

That’s the old tired Cold War logic…allow the Communists to win in Vietnam and the next domino will fall. As it happened Vietnam is doing quite well selling clothing to the West. Putin is going to be in no hurry to attack the next country. If lives of Ukranian boys weren’t at risk I’d say continue the current attritional war, don’t escalate, just bog him down. But that kind of cynicism is unacceptable…Ukraine deserves some kind of normal existence. Or as normal an existence as you can have as Russia’s neighbor.

I agree with your assessment of the hurdle for Russia to join Europe now that it has attacked Ukraine. Russia needs a competent West looking leader. Unfortunately Yeltsin and Gorbachev failed on the leadership front, so Russia turned to Putin.

Chat GPT:

Why oil exports have system-wide economic importance far beyond their direct GDP share.

1. Exports as a Share of Russian GDP

1. Total exports (goods + services) account for ~22% of Russia’s GDP.
2. This means ~78% of GDP is domestically generated, not export-driven.
3. Russia is export-important but not export-dependent in pure GDP accounting terms.

2. The “40% of Direct GDP” Misconception

The belief that oil accounts for ~40% of Russian GDP is incorrect.

That figure usually refers to one of the following instead:

1. ~45–55% of total exports coming from oil & gas
2. ~30–45% of federal government revenue coming from oil & gas (depending on prices)

Correct figures:

1. Oil & gas direct GDP contribution: ~15–20%
2. Oil alone: ~10–12%

3. Russia’s GDP Composition (All GDP, Not Just Exports)

Approximate breakdown:

Key point: Oil & gas are embedded within the industry and indirectly support services and the state.

4. Why Oil Exports Affect the Entire Economy

Although oil’s direct GDP share is limited, oil exports are a structural pillar of the economy due to several transmission mechanisms:

a) Foreign currency & exchange rate

1. Oil exports supply hard currency
2. Loss ? ruble depreciation, inflation, import collapse
3. Hits services, wages, and consumer demand

b) Government finance

1. Oil revenues fund public wages, defence, infrastructure
2. Loss ? spending cuts ? service sector contraction

c) Corporate demand

1. Oil firms are major buyers of legal, IT, engineering, transport, construction services
2. Loss ? capex collapse ? service sector layoffs

d) Financial system stability

1. Oil exports underpin banking liquidity and credit availability
2. Loss ? credit tightening ? SME and service-sector failures

5. Why GDP Statistics Understate Oil’s Importance

1. GDP measures where value is created, not what enables it
2. Many “non-oil” sectors exist because oil revenues sustain:
3. State spending
4. Corporate demand
5. Import capacity
6. Financial stability

Result: Oil’s systemic importance is much larger than its headline GDP share.

6. Counterfactual Impact: No Oil Exports

If Russia lost oil exports entirely:

This aligns with IMF stress scenarios and historical analogues (Iran, Venezuela).

7. Why Russia Has Not Collapsed

Three key buffers:

1. High global energy prices post-2022
2. Export redirection to China/India
3. Capital controls and forced rouble settlement

These reduce efficiency but not dependency.

Bottom Line

1. Oil & gas are not 40% of GDP
2. They are ~15–20% directly, but systemically critical
3. Removing oil exports would cascade across services, finance, government, and living standards
4. Russia’s economy appears diversified on paper, but oil exports remain the load-bearing pillar

Putin's economy is dependent on the sale of oil and gas. Next year could be difficult for him because the oil price is dropping, and is expected to be very low next year.

If green energy were to replace green energy, Russia would be stuffed, permanently. Although that does not appear to be happening anytime soon.

Estimated Global Energy Transition Timeline (2000–2070)

vb

Face up to Putin, maim more boys, lose more territory. come back a year from now with the same non negotiable demands. Great strategy

Already stated it, wars these days in certain countries are no longer the matter of the youth (a scarce commodity) but older men. Very clear in the Ukraine. Dark Africa is the one place that can still afford the old pattern. Other places can no longer.