Russia as a Lehman/LTCM Moment today.

[Charlottesquare]

Meanwhile IEA members are releasing 60m barrels of oil from strategic supplies, equivalent to about 12 days of Russian liquid exports and 4% of stockpiles

The Ministers resolved today that energy supply should not be used as a means of political coercion nor as a threat to national and international security.

If Russia supplies Europe with 3mio bpd crude, it appears that total IEA reserves are equivalent to 500 days of total stoppage. Which is quite a lot or not much, depending how one looks at it.
China would presumably continue to purchase... could Russia sustain 500 days with a 60% hole in its oil revenue....

V8

Depends how much it is has in the foreign exchange piggy banks at the outset.

[88V8]

I am sure he currently has large sums of overseas currencies so procurement issues may not bite for quite a while

I was surprised to learn that the Central Bank's reserves were largely held overseas. Is this a universal practice?
It surely leaves one very exposed.

V8

[compscidude]

Itsallaguess,

I find one of the best ways to deal with online trolling is to just call it out for what it is so that everyone can see.

For years, you have occasionally posted off-topic comments on the threads I make here, with claims about me, and you continue today in dragging up unrelated ancient threads which derail this thread's topic of discussion.

It's important to note that I have never done anything similar to you or to your various threads on your own topics throughout the board. Why would I?

Your posts in this manner have been reported and taken down by admins before, yet you still continue to do it.

It is absurd for you to go back to 2016 to find a random unrelated post you find objectionable, add various layers of your 'interpretation' and then try to derail a topical thread about the impact about Russian sanctions on shares in February 2022 into being 'a discussion about compscidude in 2016'.

Perhaps though, in these times of high housing costs, I should be glad for the opportunity to live rent-free in your head for most of a decade?

I've posted on investing discussion boards in various other countries that I've lived in over the years, and you just never see long-term spiteful/petty behaviour in online investment forums anywhere else, the way we see it in Britain. There's also something really vile and dirty in British culture about people either cheering on harassment of others from the sidelines too - or passively tolerating it without saying a word.

------

Anyway, this is offtopic, but to counter obvious disinformation you have posted about me & the market inappropriately on this thread:

Here's one of my favourites from back in 2016 - December 15th 2016 -

On 15th December 2016, I personally felt the market was toppy & dangerous.

On March 16th 2020, it reached 4898 and remained available to purchase under 5000 for 2 weeks. In inflation adjusted terms, 4898 is even lower still.

Every £7010 you had invested in the FTSE100 on 15th Dec 2016 turned into £4400 of spending power in 2020.

(plus a few dividends, minus a little bank interest).

It is baffling that you talk as though none of this actually happened. Or that you try to 'interpret it' when the facts are obvious and clear.

Anyone who had £7010 invested in the FTSE100 on 15th December 2016, had less than £5000 of total spending power remaining over 4 years later, with dividends included. And that's that.

I said it was dangerous, that there was a chance of substantial drop in the market, and yes, it was dangerous, yes there was a substantial drop in the market to far, far below the level at which I warned.

In fairness - this was not the case everywhere. A few markets surged onwards to valuation levels only seen once before in all of history (the SP500, specifically). And in fairness, the UK market did continue on a little bit higher still before the big catastrophic crash arrived.

Many other markets besides the UK were much lower in 2020 than in December 2016. EUE.MI, for example, the index of 50 biggest European companies, was substantially lower by March 2020 than it was in December 2016.

The fact the danger subsequently increased further before the mousetrap snapped down doesn't mean the danger wasn't there at all. Just ask any mice that got caught in it, and needed to access their wealth in 2020 during a global economic crisis.

And where are we today? The FTSE closed at 7330 yesterday (or around 6200 in inflation adjusted terms). It's over 5 years later and we're still around or well below the level of December 2016 (depending on how you look at it).

The danger already present by late 2016, was proven painfully and incontrovertibly in March 2020. To deny it is to deny the existence of reality.

Who cares though? This is not the thread to (again) drag up unrelated posts from December 2016.

---------

The topic of this thread is the potential impact of the Ukraine-Russia conflict on market and shares as a moment of market discontinuity.

For the second time in 2 days: let's keep subsequent posts in this thread strictly to the thread topic. Start other threads as you like, to discuss other topics or people.


--------

comp

Sources:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetar ... calculator

https://uk.investing.com/indices/uk-100-historical-data

[compscidude]

Returning to "Russia as a Lehman/LTCM Moment" - Glencore, Total and Exxon:

https://www.ft.com/content/76db0e18-7c7 ... dcfca18f34

"ExxonMobil to exit Russia operations as it condemns Ukraine invasion"

"ExxonMobil said on Tuesday it will exit a major oil and gas project and cease investing in Russia"

"Earlier on Tuesday, French oil major TotalEnergies and Switzerland-based miner and commodity trader Glencore said they were reviewing their businesses in the country."

"Glencore owns a 0.5 per cent stake in Rosneft, plus a 25 per cent in Russneft, a smaller Russian oil producer, which it is poised to sell. It also has a 10.5 per cent stake in EN+, the metals group that in turn has a controlling interest in aluminium producer Rusal."

[TUK020]

One other possibility that doesn't seem to have had much airing:

Russia has now shifted to targeting basic infrastructure in Ukraine.
Ukraine could arguably now get away with (in world public opinion terms) triggering saboteur action against key Russia oil installations/terminals/pipelines which I am assuming would be vulnerable to such action.

[Itsallaguess]

On 15th December 2016, I personally felt the market was toppy & dangerous.

On March 16th 2020, it reached 4898 and remained available to purchase under 5000 for 2 weeks. In inflation adjusted terms, 4898 is even lower still.

Every £7010 you had invested in the FTSE100 on 15th Dec 2016 turned into £4400 of spending power in 2020.

Thanks Comps - those are interesting figures.

The problem with them though, is that in December 2016, it was actually the UK markets that you were telling people you'd recommend as a safer haven, rather than the US markets that you'd declared were dangerously high and that people should move out from -

So I am ringing my 'danger' bell.

....

I am simply talking about the present danger of suffering from an almighty, investment-career-destroying crash, a risk which is higher than it has been since the year 2000, according to the Shiller PER understanding of overvaluation.

We are already looking now at an overvaluation of the US market which is worse than 2007. Do you remember 2007-2008?

Between 1920 and 1930 a lot of people made money. Then, they lost it, and it took twenty years to recover.

.....

If I was someone that was 100% committed to staying in the market no matter what, I would probably switch any US holdings I have into UK holdings, as the UK market seems less overvalued, given the weak pound and lack of historical records being set.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1631

In fact it was both the opportunity cost of someone following your advice to move out of US markets, where they continued to move onwards ever upwards from that 2016 point, along with the subsequent dislocated drop in UK markets from that same December 2016 date, that was the basis of my follow-up post in November 2020, which contained clear chart information showing those market movements happening from that date and onwards -

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1470&start=40#p353949

As I say in the above 2020 post -

So we can clearly see that anyone following that idea to switch out of US markets and into UK markets in December 2016 would not only have lost the chance to make DOW gains of 43% over that period (which includes the impact of a global pandemic, let's not forget...), but would also have suffered from a terrible compounding loss of 15.5% by moving over to the UK market at that time...

The charts and facts in my post above should accurately reflect what happened from 2016 to 2020, but thanks for also confirming with more up-to-date FTSE figures what a disastrous move from US equities and into UK equities would have been, for anyone willing to have acted on such a process at that time.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Arborbridge]

On 15th December 2016, I personally felt the market was toppy & dangerous.

On March 16th 2020, it reached 4898 and remained available to purchase under 5000 for 2 weeks. In inflation adjusted terms, 4898 is even lower still.

Every £7010 you had invested in the FTSE100 on 15th Dec 2016 turned into £4400 of spending power in 2020.

Thanks Comps - those are interesting figures.

The problem with them though, is that in December 2016, it was actually the UK markets that you were telling people you'd recommend as a safer haven, rather than the US markets that you'd declared were dangerously high and that people should move out from -

So I am ringing my 'danger' bell.

....

I am simply talking about the present danger of suffering from an almighty, investment-career-destroying crash, a risk which is higher than it has been since the year 2000, according to the Shiller PER understanding of overvaluation.

We are already looking now at an overvaluation of the US market which is worse than 2007. Do you remember 2007-2008?

Between 1920 and 1930 a lot of people made money. Then, they lost it, and it took twenty years to recover.

.....

If I was someone that was 100% committed to staying in the market no matter what, I would probably switch any US holdings I have into UK holdings, as the UK market seems less overvalued, given the weak pound and lack of historical records being set.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1631

In fact it was both the opportunity cost of someone following your advice to move out of US markets, where they continued to move onwards ever upwards from that 2016 point, along with the subsequent dislocated drop in UK markets from that same December 2016 date, that was the basis of my follow-up post in November 2020, which contained clear chart information showing those market movements happening from that date and onwards -

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1470&start=40#p353949

As I say in the above 2020 post -

So we can clearly see that anyone following that idea to switch out of US markets and into UK markets in December 2016 would not only have lost the chance to make DOW gains of 43% over that period (which includes the impact of a global pandemic, let's not forget...), but would also have suffered from a terrible compounding loss of 15.5% by moving over to the UK market at that time...

The charts and facts in my post above should accurately reflect what happened from 2016 to 2020, but thanks for also confirming with more up-to-date FTSE figures what a disastrous move from US equities and into UK equities would have been, for anyone willing to have acted on such a process at that time.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Welcome back. We've missed your good sense and knowledge.

Arb.

[88V8]

One other possibility that doesn't seem to have had much airing:
Ukraine could arguably now get away with (in world public opinion terms) triggering saboteur action against key Russia oil installations/terminals/pipelines ...

Perhaps, but that might interrupt the supply to Europe, and Europe is not ready.

A largely unremarked side-effect of the sudden indignation about Russia/oil is countries turning back to coal.
A classic example of the urgent - Ukraine - displacing the important - climate change.

Otoh, there are rumours that Germany may not go ahead with its assinine policy of shutting its nukes, which would be climate-positive.

V8

[compscidude]

Itsallaguess, and to a lesser degree Arborbridge (who I note has already had 3 posts deleted on this thread already yet is continuing to post comments that have literally nothing to do with the topic).

As you know, the thread and topic you keep using to derail this Russia-Ukraine thread with (and many other threads likewise over the years) is a banned thread. It's from over 5 years ago.

Discussion on that topic was banned by moderators because the thread/topic was being used by certain people as a platform for attacking other people personally rather than discussing finance topics.

You know it's banned.

You had all your previous attempts to resurrect that banned thread in past years deleted and yet you still keep doing it.

You know what you're posting has absolutely nothing to do with this thread topic (Russia/Ukraine).

The Russia-Ukraine war has clearly literally nothing to do with 'how compscidude felt, personally, about the market on 15 December 2016'.

You are habitually ruining threads I post up, over a period of years, regardless of topic, by purposefully derailing them. You've been doing it for the last 5 years and getting your posts deleted over and over again for it. It's a sign of weak moderation that you keep doing it and getting away with it.

--- about what you wrote ---

I'll admit I didn't bother to revisit the banned thread in detail to re-examine what was posted there before writing my reply, because I honestly don't care.

I just want to talk about Russia-Ukraine on this Russia-Ukraine thread.

I've written probably somewhere north of 20000 posts on various forums, finance and otherwise, in the last 10 years and if some of my views turned out to be wrong sometimes, that's OK. Happy to be wrong either because of believing wrong ideas or by believing right ideas that didn't turn out to be helpfully predictive over some timeframes. If I dodge a danger that turned out not to exist... that's fine. I don't care. I slept well.

It's OK to be wrong sometimes. I'm wrong often. For every 100 ideas I post I'd bet at least 25 of them are flat out wrong and for every prediction I make, at least 45% are wrong. Maybe even more. I don't care. That's life.

The fact you keep going back again and again over a period of years to a single thread in 2016 to find one thing I've posted somewhere that you felt was wrong, is perhaps a sign that I'm not actually posting as many stupid things as you seem to think I am.

As for what 'wrong' means? If I say 'there's a danger here' and the threatened danger never shows up, am I wrong? If I say 'don't leave the wires bare on that plug, it could catch fire', but it only catches fire once, 4 years later, am I wrong? Perhaps you might say yes, and I will say no. That's fine. I don't care.

I'm happy to concede the US stockmarket went well up considerably subsequent to me posting it. I don't care. I'm not a financial advisor and my opinions aren't formal financial advice to anyone, nor have I ever said anywhere that they were. We are all responsible for our own investment decisions here and how they impact ourselves, that's the nature of a discussion forum.

I believe you have always promoted 'long term buy and hold, don't time (or price) the market', so you would have to accept that no one with that viewpoint would have profited from the high prices later by trading out of the SP500. Because it went back down again, catastrophically, right at the moment when someone was mostly likely to need to cash in their savings - because of a rapidly emerging economic crisis in 2020.

The price of the SP500 in 2020 - even after 5 years of economic growth, reinvested earnings, zero rates maintained far past the point of economic recovery, and inflation - was still below the price of the SP500 in December 2016 (2272 12/2016 then vs 2191 in 03/2020). I don't know why you talk as though this didn't happen. We all know that it did. It was also much lower in real inflation-corrected terms, even with dividends included.

So it turns out the conclusion as to whether 15th Dec 2016 was a time of danger or opportunity really depends on the endpoint you compare it to. For most endpoints in the last 5 years, it was a time of opportunity to invest in 2016. I was wrong about that. Happy to admit it. For some endpoints it was certainly not a time of opportunity. For those (fewer) endpoints I was right. That's fine. I don't care.

As for whether the US or UK was a better pick in a more general sense. It's open to debate. The US is presently in a valuation bubble that is unsurpassed in all of history except on one brief period in 200 years. If you pick an absurd, off the charts everything bubble as your reference point for deciding between good or bad ideas, you're going to get strange results. That's OK though. You can do that if you want. You can feel that I'm an idiot for not doing it. No problem. I don't care.

===

It's not OK to be a troll and screw up other people's threads on various unrelated topics for years and years by trying to re-awaken threads you've have posts deleted and threads banned for already. Your behaviour over a period of years stifles discussions and goes against everything I ever believed about Foolish behaviour from the old days of TMF.

As I've said repeatedly, the Russia-Ukraine war and implications for the market & stocks is the topic for this thread. That's what it's for.


====

[Itsallaguess]

--- about what you wrote ---

What I wrote was in direct response to you telling us that Warren Buffett has newspaper front pages on the walls of his office, showing unexpected market events and crashes.

I've provided evidence to justify the poster on my wall that reminds me, every day - 'Don't get spooked out by Comps - market related opportunity cost is very expensive over the long term'

I stand by that evidence, and you'll find that the moderators are happy that where posters are seen to be making predictions about events or markets, that their track-record in doing so is open for debate so long as that debate is done in a polite manner, and that's exactly what I've done with my contributions here.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[tjh290633]

Moderator Message:
If you two or three do not stop this endless bickering, let alone discussing the pros and cons of moderation, I shall delete this entire thread.

TJH

[Walkeia]

Hi all,

After the appalling events of the past couple of weeks I believe there was a significant change in the outlook for the Russian invasion of Ukraine today. The Kremlin this morning issued a 3 point statement which needed to be addressed to end hostilities ahead of talks this afternoon.

1. Ukraine de-militarises
2. Ukraine changes its constitution to not join any international block (basically EU or NATO).
3. Ukraine recognises Crimea as Russia and the independence of Donbas and Luhansk.

The difference between recent statements from Russia:

1. No mention of regime change
2. No mention of de-Nazification

Looking at the points in turn. 1. De-militarisation - just isn't going to happen not after Putin marched 190k troops into Ukraine. At best Ukraine could be a heavily militarised neutral country for defence only. However, this could be traded for point 3. Ukraine gives up claim to Crimea and recognises the Eastern regions. This will be a tough ask for Ukrainians to accept but more a part recognition of reality since 2014 given the annexation and the separatist movement. So this leaves 2 - no joining of Nato or the EU - Ukraine will not be joining NATO for the foreseeable future, I personally think ever. It will be in NATO's members minds if Ukraine had been a member now we could very well be in a much bigger conflict. Therefore this item could be split, no Nato (military bloc) but leave open the door to EU membership many many years down the line (which is an economic and not a military bloc). The above paragraph is my thinking aloud - but the main difference I see is that I would think/hope there is now room for diplomats on both sides to get to work on trying to figure something to stop this. Unlike was the case when the initial talks happened and the Russian demands were unrealistic from the outset.

What also made me interested was the timing of this adjustment of demands - it followed a weekend of heavy losses for the Russian airforce and vehicles in Ukraine (source is the twitter feeds I follow which I try and find unbiased ones but who knows) and the full sanctions hitting home - Rouble down 50%, CB asset freeze is a massive hit. I acknowledge - this wouldn't feel right or fair given Putin created this mess and should be punished but I would argue de-escalation from here is what is needed and difficult choices will have to made to achieve this. A big barrier would be why would Ukraine accept this after fighting so hard and so valiantly ... my response would be the West - which I believe when a deal is on the table which is palatable will place immense pressure to accept.

Consequently, after a year of paying down leverage outside of a Lloyds investment in July for income - I made an investment today into global equities and plan to restart my monthly purchases. I don't think the recent weakness was caused solely by Ukraine-Russia and think the economic shock to consumers coming via energy and higher interest rates to combat the stagflation created by the supply issues from the Pandemic and now Russia-Ukraine could well tip us into recession. I am invested in global indices for the very long term; have no leverage, an finally an indicator I like (CNN Greed indicator) is very low. Therefore I plan to dollar cost average over the coming year.

https://money.cnn.com/data/fear-and-greed/

Walkeia

[odysseus2000]

Hi all,

After the appalling events of the past couple of weeks I believe there was a significant change in the outlook for the Russian invasion of Ukraine today. The Kremlin this morning issued a 3 point statement which needed to be addressed to end hostilities ahead of talks this afternoon.

1. Ukraine de-militarises
2. Ukraine changes its constitution to not join any international block (basically EU or NATO).
3. Ukraine recognises Crimea as Russia and the independence of Donbas and Luhansk.

The difference between recent statements from Russia:

1. No mention of regime change
2. No mention of de-Nazification

Looking at the points in turn. 1. De-militarisation - just isn't going to happen not after Putin marched 190k troops into Ukraine. At best Ukraine could be a heavily militarised neutral country for defence only. However, this could be traded for point 3. Ukraine gives up claim to Crimea and recognises the Eastern regions. This will be a tough ask for Ukrainians to accept but more a part recognition of reality since 2014 given the annexation and the separatist movement. So this leaves 2 - no joining of Nato or the EU - Ukraine will not be joining NATO for the foreseeable future, I personally think ever. It will be in NATO's members minds if Ukraine had been a member now we could very well be in a much bigger conflict. Therefore this item could be split, no Nato (military bloc) but leave open the door to EU membership many many years down the line (which is an economic and not a military bloc). The above paragraph is my thinking aloud - but the main difference I see is that I would think/hope there is now room for diplomats on both sides to get to work on trying to figure something to stop this. Unlike was the case when the initial talks happened and the Russian demands were unrealistic from the outset.

What also made me interested was the timing of this adjustment of demands - it followed a weekend of heavy losses for the Russian airforce and vehicles in Ukraine (source is the twitter feeds I follow which I try and find unbiased ones but who knows) and the full sanctions hitting home - Rouble down 50%, CB asset freeze is a massive hit. I acknowledge - this wouldn't feel right or fair given Putin created this mess and should be punished but I would argue de-escalation from here is what is needed and difficult choices will have to made to achieve this. A big barrier would be why would Ukraine accept this after fighting so hard and so valiantly ... my response would be the West - which I believe when a deal is on the table which is palatable will place immense pressure to accept.

Consequently, after a year of paying down leverage outside of a Lloyds investment in July for income - I made an investment today into global equities and plan to restart my monthly purchases. I don't think the recent weakness was caused solely by Ukraine-Russia and think the economic shock to consumers coming via energy and higher interest rates to combat the stagflation created by the supply issues from the Pandemic and now Russia-Ukraine could well tip us into recession. I am invested in global indices for the very long term; have no leverage, an finally an indicator I like (CNN Greed indicator) is very low. Therefore I plan to dollar cost average over the coming year.

https://money.cnn.com/data/fear-and-greed/

Walkeia

What Ukraine is now being offered has been on the table for ages, but Ukraine leaders seem to have a dream that they are Western European and don't live next to a super power.

It would be nice if this was acceptable and the killing stopped, but I doubt Ukraine will accept anything other than being unconditionally defeated with their young people dead and maimed and their country broken.

Currently I am split between thinking we are in a 2001 market that has a long way to fall on the one hand and on the other that the global trends in new technologies are so strong that we won't fall as in 2001.

The big issue that is currently tipping me towards a 2001 market is the rise in the price of everything. If this does not abate and reverse consumers will have less to spend and that will negate the wave of new tech developments.

Banks are a big tell here. If inflation rips and folk can not service their debt we can slide in to a 2008 financial crisis with bank getting in trouble and potentially failing. If central banks pour in cash they risk more severe inflation, if they raise rates they risk mortgages being unserviceable. German banks have negative rates now so there is plenty of incentive to get deposits out of them and meanwhile what counter party risk is their with Russian banks.

It is often good to buy when there is blood on the streets and no greed, its just a question of whether we are close to that point or far from it. I don't know.

Regards,

[TUK020]

Hi all,

After the appalling events of the past couple of weeks I believe there was a significant change in the outlook for the Russian invasion of Ukraine today. The Kremlin this morning issued a 3 point statement which needed to be addressed to end hostilities ahead of talks this afternoon.

1. Ukraine de-militarises
2. Ukraine changes its constitution to not join any international block (basically EU or NATO).
3. Ukraine recognises Crimea as Russia and the independence of Donbas and Luhansk.

The difference between recent statements from Russia:

1. No mention of regime change
2. No mention of de-Nazification

Looking at the points in turn. 1. De-militarisation - just isn't going to happen not after Putin marched 190k troops into Ukraine. At best Ukraine could be a heavily militarised neutral country for defence only. However, this could be traded for point 3. Ukraine gives up claim to Crimea and recognises the Eastern regions. This will be a tough ask for Ukrainians to accept but more a part recognition of reality since 2014 given the annexation and the separatist movement. So this leaves 2 - no joining of Nato or the EU - Ukraine will not be joining NATO for the foreseeable future, I personally think ever. It will be in NATO's members minds if Ukraine had been a member now we could very well be in a much bigger conflict. Therefore this item could be split, no Nato (military bloc) but leave open the door to EU membership many many years down the line (which is an economic and not a military bloc). The above paragraph is my thinking aloud - but the main difference I see is that I would think/hope there is now room for diplomats on both sides to get to work on trying to figure something to stop this. Unlike was the case when the initial talks happened and the Russian demands were unrealistic from the outset.

What also made me interested was the timing of this adjustment of demands - it followed a weekend of heavy losses for the Russian airforce and vehicles in Ukraine (source is the twitter feeds I follow which I try and find unbiased ones but who knows) and the full sanctions hitting home - Rouble down 50%, CB asset freeze is a massive hit. I acknowledge - this wouldn't feel right or fair given Putin created this mess and should be punished but I would argue de-escalation from here is what is needed and difficult choices will have to made to achieve this. A big barrier would be why would Ukraine accept this after fighting so hard and so valiantly ... my response would be the West - which I believe when a deal is on the table which is palatable will place immense pressure to accept.

Consequently, after a year of paying down leverage outside of a Lloyds investment in July for income - I made an investment today into global equities and plan to restart my monthly purchases. I don't think the recent weakness was caused solely by Ukraine-Russia and think the economic shock to consumers coming via energy and higher interest rates to combat the stagflation created by the supply issues from the Pandemic and now Russia-Ukraine could well tip us into recession. I am invested in global indices for the very long term; have no leverage, an finally an indicator I like (CNN Greed indicator) is very low. Therefore I plan to dollar cost average over the coming year.

https://money.cnn.com/data/fear-and-greed/

Walkeia

Thank you for your thoughtful input rescuing this thread.

You are right that the change in demands puts this into 'negotiable' territory.
I don't think that Ukraine will accept 'never' for NATO after what they have been through. But a 'defensive weapons only' arrangement east of Kyiv is the sort of detail that could be arrived at.
Any arrangement would need to explicitly deal with Russian forex reserves, and some level of reparations/funding for fixing basic infrastructure. The funding could come from the west - cheaper than escalation, avoids the cost of coping with refugees on a larger scale.

This does seem to move this into the world of 'possible', but the danger here is assuming that Putin is rational, in the sense that he gives a fig for the same things we do.