Good chance of it.
War would end in a week or two, of Russia withdrew oil from Europe. Even JP Morgan has admitted as much. None of this makes any sense to intelligent folks.
Putin need not launch a nuke, nor does there NEED to be a military escalation to end this. . . unless all the global oligarchs really ARE conspiring on this, and the whole war is orchestrated to begin with. In which case, every last one of them, all the world's leaders and CEO's need to be hung or executed.
JPMorgan Sees ‘Stratospheric’ $380 Oil on Worst-Case Russian Cut
(Bloomberg) -- Global oil prices could reach a “stratospheric” $380 a barrel if US and European penalties prompt Russia to inflict retaliatory crude-output cuts, JPMorgan Chase & Co. analysts warned.Most Read from BloombergBezos Slams Biden Over Call for Lowering of Gas PricesUS Court Ruling May...
finance.yahoo.com
The Kremlin’s Hesitancy and Prevarication Is a Road to War
www.paulcraigroberts.org
". . . Europe has made it publicly clear that it intends to be 100% independent of Russian oil and gas within 3 years, and in the meantime intends to cap the price of Russian oil at half its current price. So why is the Kremlin continuing to supply Europe with energy, without which European industry simply must close down, when Europe intends to punish Russia by spurning her energy while cutting its price? Has it not yet occurred to the Kremlin that it is the energy that the Kremlin is supplying to Europe that is making it possible for Europe to flood Ukraine with weapons? The Kremlin’s policy seems designed to demoralize Russia’s armed forces.
Why hasn’t the Kremlin terminated all energy flows to Europe? Why does the Kremlin sell the West the energy with which to carry on its war with Russia? JPMorganChase says if Russia cut its oil exports by five million barrels, the oil price would rise to $380 per barrel. JP Morgan sounds alarm over oil price prospects
Why doesn’t Russia do it? Europe would immediately and totally collapse. The conflict in Ukraine would instantly end. The Kremlin could tell the Europeans that energy would reappear when Europe exits NATO. As I have previously written, the Kremlin holds all the cards but is not competent to play them.
What explains this stupidity? Russian soldiers are dying and the Kremlin is supplying the enemy with energy. I believe that the problem is that the Kremlin has a mystical belief in legalism. The Kremlin, playing goody two shoes, is trying to impress the West by showing how Russia, unlike the West, respects contracts and agreements with her enemies even when she is at war with them. It is extraordinary that the Kremlin thinks this makes any impression on the West other than a demonstration of Russian stupidity and weakness.
Consider Lithuania’s blockade of Kaliningrad, a part of Russia separated from the main geographical part of Russia. Russia complained but has done nothing. The governor of Kaliningrad said that Moscow could collapse the Lithuanian economy by counter sanctions on goods coming in and out of Baltic states. “Russia could make half of the Lithuanian economy disappear,” he said. Instead, the Kremlin emanates more confusion and hesitancy which invites more provocations.
The Kremlin back-peddles so much that the West simply does not take Russia seriously. How many times have we heard Foreign Minister Lavrov and other high ranking members of the Russian government, including Putin, say that the West is seeking to destroy Russia, that Russia will never again trust the West, that the West keeps no agreements that it makes with Russia? So why is Kremlin spokesman Peskov publicly moaning that western leaders are not interested in achieving peace in Ukraine through dialogue and negotiations. West bars Kiev from thinking about peace – Kremlin Does the Kremlin really want another worthless Minsk Agreement, another agreement not to move NATO to Russia’s border? Has the Kremlin already abandoned the reason it sent military forces into Donbass–to deNazify, demilitarize, and neutralize Ukraine? Is what Russia was going to do by force now to be negotiated?
Maybe the Western whore media is correct. Ukraine is winning.
My patriotic readers are probably wondering why I am chastising the Kremlin for setting Russia up for defeat, not of course in Donbass but on the wider scene. Whose side is Roberts on? I am on the side of avoiding a wider war that will end in nuclear war. Both Washington and the Kremlin are making mistakes that will result in nuclear war. Washington pushed by neoconservative ideology is intent on hegemony and in pursuit of hegemony crosses Russian red lines. By not enforcing her red lines, Russia encourages more provocations. In effect, as I have explained, Russia’s tolerance of provocations results in more provocations. Washington no longer believes that there are any Russian red lines. This is a mistaken belief, but it is an operative one, and it is the Kremlin’s fault. . . ."
