Sanctions on Russia

Paul Sanders5 said:I wonder if the European Union actually realized how the rest of the world saw that reaction. It’s probably going to turn into a whole lot of begging for help pretty soon...

The European Union's economy is already bigger than half of the African or South American Third World combined...

The whole idea that we should stop trading with them just to show some kind of anti-imperialist solidarity is honestly hilarious...

wiredseal7 said:Not even remotely... they make whatever they want from consumer electronics (for themselves and everyone else), plus they’ve got a massive market—roughly the same scale as the US or the European Union.

I didn't even say they lack a market! I just meant their internal market and domestic demand aren't nearly enough to reach what they actually WANT.

China isn't Russia, and their end goal isn't just mindless destruction or apathy. They want to build aircraft carriers, launch space drones, stuff like that. And to do that, they need to be the big player in world trade. Like, globally dominant, multi-polar, whatever. Splitting the world up into different spheres of influence under Chinese control would really shrink their market and mess with the level of growth they WANT.

Global peace is actually in China's best interest, I guess. This whole escapade with Putin is definitely going to cost them. It’s like they haven't even finished learning the lesson from COVID, and now they're already failing the next exam. They'll probably have to take a retake on this one too.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Facts... the second wave of globalization is dead and buried. We're heading straight back to bloc politics—the USA leading one side, China leading the other... and Russia will probably just tag along with China.

Honestly, having some variety in the world isn't a bad thing; it prevents everything from becoming one giant empire where everyone is exactly the same. As long as we keep competing, trading, and communicating—without resorting to war—it works.

It really looks like the next major era will be defined by two heavyweights: the West (the USA, Europe, and their allies) versus the East (now led by China and their partners). Russia should have stayed on our side; it would have been much better for both us and the Russians. This whole Russian mess seems like a psychotic reaction to realizing they aren't one of the top two bosses anymore, and they've proven they can't even manage the building.

Though I suspect the Russians won't be back with us anytime soon 🙂; it's going to take them a long time to shake off the Putinists and all that nonsense to reach a level that aligns with democratic principles.

Thomas Walker84 said:Honestly, having some variety in the world isn't a bad thing; it prevents everything from becoming one giant empire where everyone is exactly the same. As long as we keep competing, trading, and communicating—without resorting to war—it works.

It really looks like the next major era will be defined by two heavyweights: the West (the USA, Europe, and their allies) versus the East (now led by China and their partners). Russia should have stayed on our side; it would have been much better for both us and the Russians. This whole Russian mess seems like a psychotic reaction to realizing they aren't one of the top two bosses anymore, and they've proven they can't even manage the building.

Though I suspect the Russians won't be back with us anytime soon 🙂; it's going to take them a long time to shake off the Putinists and all that nonsense to reach a level that aligns with democratic principles.

There are different ways to define "world variety"... some people think it includes "a little bit of warfare that won't cause too much damage" just to keep the military-industrial complexes of different blocs fueled up.

I'm not a fan of that kind of variety, and whether Russia comes back or if Ukraine even returns to the fold doesn't depend solely on them.
Look at the example: until now, Russian oligarchs were allowed to "sit on two chairs"—they played nice with Putin so they could do business in Russia, and then used offshore accounts and Western investments to make up for the lack of property rights, which the West was totally cool with.

The whole point of sanctions should be to force guys like Abramovich or Deripaska to finally pick a side and push back against Putin's inner circle, which just isn't easy anymore. This would have been so much simpler 20-30 years ago, before some young, ambitious KGB agent could even dream of getting into power.

As for the European Union, they really need to start moving toward building their own security system and military independence, working alongside Americans instead of being completely dependent on them.

dk1 said:And when exactly was this recognition given?

Also, did UNPROFOR arrive by force—or did they have the full blessing of the American government?

I was actually referring to your post about the singing in '91 and when those units arrived—which just isn't accurate. They didn't show up until a full year after the timeline you're describing... I'm not going to drag this out further; it's too complex a subject for such a superficial debate, especially given your approach. I suppose your version is based on what your family remembers, since you weren't even born yet. It's fine, but it's beside the point.

Sent from my M2007J17G using Reddit

William Cooper11 said:Obviously, Poland or Finland can't take the same stance on Russia that a country like Brazil can.
The Western sanctions against Russia are enough to cripple them, at least partially. If I had to choose between living in poverty until Ukraine is free from the Russian threat and the Russians stop spreading death in Ukraine, or keeping the lifestyle I'm used to, I'd pick the former. To me, that's the humane choice—the minimum sacrifice required to see the occupiers defeated.

It's your right to choose poverty. But since the topic was about sanctions on all countries outside the Western circle, does that mean you support sanctioning everyone else too? Essentially, should they all live in poverty as well?

nina kent said:And what's the problem there?
If I understand you correctly, "advocating for freedom and democracy" means I have to agree with your views and not criticize or object to your stance.🕺

No, you don't understand me at all, even though the sentence was quite simple.

Quora:

By the way, yes, you are called Putinophiles and Russophiles because that's what you are. Why is that an insult? If your stance is "Okay, Putin attacked, buuuuuuut... he was provoked," then you are justifying him and therefore you are a Putinophile.🤷 Calling someone "stupid and narrow-minded" is actually rare. In reality, Russophiles are much worse at judging or being vulgar when they realize their usual fake arguments aren't working anymore.

Except, unlike the quoted post, you couldn't provide even a couple of examples! That's the whole basis of a real debate on a forum.

Quora:

"Mercenaries"? No. Not many people think you're mercenaries; more like "useful idiots." That isn't an insult—it's a political term for people who think they're doing good while actually acting against their own interests, out of naivety or even good intentions.

I see from your other posts that you find insulting others perfectly acceptable, so drawing conclusions from what I just wrote is easy.

Lisa Jackson7 said:There are different ways to define "world variety"... some people think it includes "a little bit of warfare that won't cause too much damage" just to keep the military-industrial complexes of different blocs fueled up.

I'm not a fan of that kind of variety, and whether Russia comes back or if Ukraine even returns to the fold doesn't depend solely on them.
Look at the example: until now, Russian oligarchs were allowed to "sit on two chairs"—they played nice with Putin so they could do business in Russia, and then used offshore accounts and Western investments to make up for the lack of property rights, which the West was totally cool with.

The whole point of sanctions should be to force guys like Abramovich or Deripaska to finally pick a side and push back against Putin's inner circle, which just isn't easy anymore. This would have been so much simpler 20-30 years ago, before some young, ambitious KGB agent could even dream of getting into power.

As for the European Union, they really need to start moving toward building their own security system and military independence, working alongside Americans instead of being completely dependent on them.

By doing this, you’re essentially calling for direct interference in Russia's domestic affairs. It’s the exact same thing the Russians have been throwing in our faces since 2012, back when Western nations were openly backing and funding opposition movements. I remember seeing those protests on the news; it felt just as messy then as it does now.
Of course, a handful of people shouldn't be able to pull the strings in any election. It leads to one simple conclusion: state-sponsored theft of private property. I remember reading about how they practiced this exact same thing in Germany eighty years ago. Pure robbery.
That cash injection helps for now, sure. But long-term? Any serious investor is going to take a hard look at this. After that whole circus with Abramovich and Chelsea, Newcastle announced they aren't even looking to spend anything this transfer window. It’s all just noise. They've become the wealthiest club on the planet, yet I doubt the Saudi sheikhs intended to keep them sitting in the middle of the pack.
Then there’s the fact that after the sanctions hit Russia, Saudi Arabia started talking to China about settling oil trades in yuan. We all know exactly where that leads long-term. It’s easy to play games while the printing presses are still running to bail us out, but what happens when they finally run dry?

anamoonaj said:If we’re going to compare the war in America to the one in Ukraine, we have to emphasize that in the American case, the aggressors didn't even have a theoretical chance of victory at any point. The Mexicans never even dreamed of turning America into a Mexican province or annexing it to Mexico. If they had a plan, it was merely to seize a portion of American territory, kill and expel all Americans, and establish some sort of "state" entity.

But for that "plan," simple mathematics would have been a massive hurdle from the start; you can't pull that off unless you forcibly compel the majority population to accept it.

Unlike the Mexicans, the Russians actually had a plan that theoretically made more sense. The objective was to occupy all of Ukraine, install a pro-Russian government, and thus maintain control over the entire country.

To their misfortune, that plan—aside from being unrealistic—collapsed by the third day of the invasion; what we see now is simply the refusal to acknowledge defeat.
They might theoretically manage to seize half of Ukraine, but basic math is against them. They cannot, and will never be able to, control or hold even the ground they occupied prior to this aggression.
Lp

You are mistaken if you think they aren't capable—if they were to take Ukraine (which won't happen), they would absolutely devastate the local population. The methods used by the Putin regime within Russia are so autocratic and rigorous that I believe they are entirely capable of doing the same in Ukraine (which, in their worldview, is a "non-existent state"). Setting aside war crimes for a moment, just look at how they treat the population in occupied territories; they ship people all across Russia, often very far from Ukraine. Do you honestly think those people—under this regime—will ever be given the chance to return to Ukraine if they want to? Their methods can be incredibly harsh and persuasive, and they can go to extreme lengths to achieve their goals. In such a scenario, Ukrainians would have no choice left but to fight or relocate to some happier part of the planet, far away from these hordes.

Noah Martin2 said:I was actually referring to your post about the singing in '91 and when those units arrived—which just isn't accurate. They didn't show up until a full year after the timeline you're describing... I'm not going to drag this out further; it's too complex a subject for such a superficial debate, especially given your approach. I suppose your version is based on what your family remembers, since you weren't even born yet. It's fine, but it's beside the point.

Sent from my M2007J17G using Reddit

Well, I never actually claimed that the UN peacekeepers arrived in '91.

If the Americans had already secured victory back in '91, then why on earth would the UN troops need to be deployed just a few months later?

Lisa Jackson7 said:There are different ways to define "world variety"... some people think it includes "a little bit of warfare that won't cause too much damage" just to keep the military-industrial complexes of different blocs fueled up.

I'm not a fan of that kind of variety, and whether Russia comes back or if Ukraine even returns to the fold doesn't depend solely on them.
Look at the example: until now, Russian oligarchs were allowed to "sit on two chairs"—they played nice with Putin so they could do business in Russia, and then used offshore accounts and Western investments to make up for the lack of property rights, which the West was totally cool with.

The whole point of sanctions should be to force guys like Abramovich or Deripaska to finally pick a side and push back against Putin's inner circle, which just isn't easy anymore. This would have been so much simpler 20-30 years ago, before some young, ambitious KGB agent could even dream of getting into power.

As for the European Union, they really need to start moving toward building their own security system and military independence, working alongside Americans instead of being completely dependent on them.

That bold group is nothing more than an extension of the White House. Anyone who had doubts was likely fully disillusioned when every single one of them rushed back to Russia once the war began and the sanctions hit. You simply cannot operate at that level there unless you cooperate with the authorities, who then provide you with protection (mostly from themselves). At the end of the day, everything serves politics. It is much like how a single BlackRock (NYSE: BLK) fund operates according to specific instructions and rules whenever they are required to, naturally accompanied by certain special privileges.
That crowd will never betray their primary sponsors, because they only exist because of them. Perhaps they might find a loophole, a crack in the rules of the game, or some compromise where everyone ends up satisfied.

Americans are already feeling the squeeze of poverty. It’s hitting people all across the US, plus folks in places like Romania and Bulgaria too. If these sanctions keep getting extended, we’re looking at a total collapse into misery—literally starvation territory.
Even the wealthier nations—Germany is struggling big time with the drop in living standards, and France isn't far behind. Even here in the States, people are losing their minds because gas prices have spiked by 50% in just the last three months.
Long-term? This whole situation is completely unsustainable.
We're talking economic contraction, skyrocketing unemployment, and prices that just won't stop climbing. Eventually, politicians will be forced to back down just to avoid social unrest and total chaos—not to mention trying to save their own skins for the next election cycle.

Look, I respect every nation's right to sovereignty, but let’s be real: if it wasn't for help from the West, Ukraine would have been halfway conquered by now. Everyone is getting exhausted by this—Americans, Russians, and the rest of the world dealing with the fallout.
I’m expecting negotiations to start soon, along with some easing of those sanctions. We need oil back under $100 and gas prices returning to something resembling normalcy.
Europe simply isn't ready to live without Russia yet. That’s something they should have been planning for since 2015—not suddenly trying to scramble now, and certainly not at the cost of wrecking their own economies.

dustyowl29 said:Americans are already feeling the squeeze of poverty. It’s hitting people all across the US, plus folks in places like Romania and Bulgaria too. If these sanctions keep getting extended, we’re looking at a total collapse into misery—literally starvation territory.
Even the wealthier nations—Germany is struggling big time with the drop in living standards, and France isn't far behind. Even here in the States, people are losing their minds because gas prices have spiked by 50% in just the last three months.
Long-term? This whole situation is completely unsustainable.
We're talking economic contraction, skyrocketing unemployment, and prices that just won't stop climbing. Eventually, politicians will be forced to back down just to avoid social unrest and total chaos—not to mention trying to save their own skins for the next election cycle.

Look, I respect every nation's right to sovereignty, but let’s be real: if it wasn't for help from the West, Ukraine would have been halfway conquered by now. Everyone is getting exhausted by this—Americans, Russians, and the rest of the world dealing with the fallout.
I’m expecting negotiations to start soon, along with some easing of those sanctions. We need oil back under $100 and gas prices returning to something resembling normalcy.
Europe simply isn't ready to live without Russia yet. That’s something they should have been planning for since 2015—not suddenly trying to scramble now, and certainly not at the cost of wrecking their own economies.

Anyone dependent on a Russian Federation led by Putin has already lost. It is better to sever that dependency immediately rather than wait. Later will only be much worse. No matter how flawed the West may be or how hard they are hit by this situation, they still maintain a far higher standard of living than the rest of the world. Energy prices can only go up from here because, frankly, there are no viable alternatives yet. My belief is that the world today is actually enduring the consequences of its own irrational economic and monetary policies from the last 20-30 years far more than the impact of sanctioning Russia. It is simply easier for everyone to blame the war than to take responsibility for their past behavior.

You hit the nail on the head by leading with Putin—but let's be real, even he isn't immortal. The assumption here is pretty straightforward: once he's out of the picture, those Russian oligarchs will be itching to get back to their lavish lifestyles, while the younger generation will be chasing after all the latest Western trends. Nobody actually wants to slide back into the 1980s, living through an era where people were basically wiping themselves with old copies of The Truth.
So, I’m looking at more than just Western prosperity; I'm looking at the fate of the Russian people, who have spent forever living under some kind of boot. They’ve had enough. Either everyone starts fleeing en masse, or Russia has to pivot its policy a bit. It doesn't need to be a total overhaul, but this radical approach? It just isn't sustainable long-term.

dustyowl29 said:You hit the nail on the head by leading with Putin—but let's be real, even he isn't immortal. The assumption here is pretty straightforward: once he's out of the picture, those Russian oligarchs will be itching to get back to their lavish lifestyles, while the younger generation will be chasing after all the latest Western trends. Nobody actually wants to slide back into the 1980s, living through an era where people were basically wiping themselves with old copies of The Truth.
So, I’m looking at more than just Western prosperity; I'm looking at the fate of the Russian people, who have spent forever living under some kind of boot. They’ve had enough. Either everyone starts fleeing en masse, or Russia has to pivot its policy a bit. It doesn't need to be a total overhaul, but this radical approach? It just isn't sustainable long-term.

Why do you think Americans—well, the Russians—are "done with the boot"?

I honestly don't think the current president would lose even if we had fair elections right now.

The current president didn't actually win a legitimate election.
It’s like saying a pig gave birth to a calf—it just doesn't happen.

Putin is a dictator. And honestly? There are way too many young Americans who have no interest in spending their entire lives stuck in isolation from the rest of the world.

Putinism will eventually vanish from Russia, much like the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Communist Party of China in China.
Before Putin passes away, he will handpick a successor who will likely rule for another 20 to 30 years.
Those in Russia who view the West favorably have already fled the country. What remains is a hardline faction that makes up about 95% of the population.
If the Russian people truly disapproved of Putin, we would see millions of them flooding the streets and public squares.
Instead, we saw a few thousand people protest during the first few days of the war, and then everything went quiet.

Richard Wilson4 said:Why do you think Americans—well, the Russians—are "done with the boot"?

I honestly don't think the current president would lose even if we had fair elections right now.

A fair election requires more than just a ballot box. It demands an honest political arena where everyone has equal access to media outlets that aren't just mouthpieces for the administration. There are countless prerequisites required to create an environment where even a semblance of fairness can exist. Perfection is a myth, and there is always room for improvement, but the current state of the Russian Federation is drifting further and further away from any standard of democratic integrity.

George Robinson43 said:Putinism will eventually vanish from Russia, much like the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Communist Party of China in China.
Before Putin passes away, he will handpick a successor who will likely rule for another 20 to 30 years.
Those in Russia who view the West favorably have already fled the country. What remains is a hardline faction that makes up about 95% of the population.
If the Russian people truly disapproved of Putin, we would see millions of them flooding the streets and public squares.
Instead, we saw a few thousand people protest during the first few days of the war, and then everything went quiet.

The ones who weren't aligned with this regime fled—provided they had the financial means to afford an escape. Most of those left behind simply couldn't leave, even if they desperately wanted to. This aggressive faction fueled by state propaganda exists, certainly, but they represent far fewer people than it seems; they are simply the loudest. Everyone who opposes the war stays wisely silent, knowing their views could easily be used against them.

Nancy Gomez26 said:The ones who weren't aligned with this regime fled—provided they had the financial means to afford an escape. Most of those left behind simply couldn't leave, even if they desperately wanted to. This aggressive faction fueled by state propaganda exists, certainly, but they represent far fewer people than it seems; they are simply the loudest. Everyone who opposes the war stays wisely silent, knowing their views could easily be used against them.

The real issue is that the "wise silence" of the majority doesn't actually change a damn thing.

dustyowl29 said:Americans are already feeling the squeeze of poverty. It’s hitting people all across the US, plus folks in places like Romania and Bulgaria too. If these sanctions keep getting extended, we’re looking at a total collapse into misery—literally starvation territory.
Even the wealthier nations—Germany is struggling big time with the drop in living standards, and France isn't far behind. Even here in the States, people are losing their minds because gas prices have spiked by 50% in just the last three months.
Long-term? This whole situation is completely unsustainable.
We're talking economic contraction, skyrocketing unemployment, and prices that just won't stop climbing. Eventually, politicians will be forced to back down just to avoid social unrest and total chaos—not to mention trying to save their own skins for the next election cycle.

Look, I respect every nation's right to sovereignty, but let’s be real: if it wasn't for help from the West, Ukraine would have been halfway conquered by now. Everyone is getting exhausted by this—Americans, Russians, and the rest of the world dealing with the fallout.
I’m expecting negotiations to start soon, along with some easing of those sanctions. We need oil back under $100 and gas prices returning to something resembling normalcy.
Europe simply isn't ready to live without Russia yet. That’s something they should have been planning for since 2015—not suddenly trying to scramble now, and certainly not at the cost of wrecking their own economies.

Man, I don't even know how to respond to that. I literally just got back from Paris—there were like 70,000 Englishmen at the Champions League final, people were paying over $3,000 black-market for tickets! The city was absolutely packed with tourists. I live in Iceland and nobody's complaining; gas is around $2.20 and people are traveling like crazy. Iceland is chronically short on tourism workers—just the other day the news said we're missing 9,000 people... German cruise ships are rolling in every single day. Even in Dublin, the airport was pure chaos—people waiting three hours, over 1,000 people missing flights. To me, this doesn't sound like a crisis or poverty to me at all.

Amanda Allen4 said:The real issue is that the "wise silence" of the majority doesn't actually change a damn thing.

True enough, but in these circumstances, staying silent is what keeps you out of a cell. Once you're free—then you can actually start planning how to change things. You have even less chance of making an impact when you're trying to lead a revolution from behind bars.