Sanctions on Russia

Aaron Thomas3 said:Ukraine is a textbook case of Nazi aggression and the occupation of a sovereign democratic nation.
Europe can't just sit there and do nothing—if they did, they’d be spitting on every single value that made them one of the most advanced and free parts of the world in the first place.
Isn't that just basic logic?

The real issue here—and I say this with all due sarcasm—is that Europe already trampled those supposed values back when they assisted in the coup at the tail end of the Euromaidan in early 2014. (A symptomatic detail, if you can call it that, is how that whole coup became synonymous with that "Fuck EU" sentiment.) It’s actually quite difficult to just "cut ties" as Jeffrey Sachs suggests... especially since he mentions that a major European leader actually complained to him about being treated "like a child."

Grace Phillips25 said:Technically, Sachs is wrong because he didn't start from the Wolfowitz doctrine of the 90s. If the focus back then had been on bringing Yeltsin's Russia closer to NATO—maybe even getting them to join—we wouldn't be in this mess today. The West would have had Russia on its side against their actual biggest rival, China.

Anyway, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. With this username, I'm just here to mess around. This forum isn't worth some Op-Ed style deep dives or wasting precious time on.

Just Sports and Music for me! 😁

Actually, Sachs touches on that exact point—especially in that second link where he dives into the relationship with Gorbachev. Though, if you ask me, he seems a bit naive when it comes to China. Not that he’s being dense—he’s certainly not an idiot—but rather because he has... constraint It’s all just pure idealism.

And regarding that highlighted part—is it really true that nobody in the USA is raising the question? Because, frankly, it’s becoming increasingly suspicious how long this particular strain of US policy has been dragging on. No. It isn’t even the USA that comes out on top—not really, at least not in the first tier of winners—but rather China, who seems to be reaping the lion's share of the benefits without having to fire a single shot or waste a solitary dollar or yuan. Looking at everything since this conflict kicked off, the reality is staring us right in the face!

Noah Sullivan said:Actually, Sachs touches on that exact point—especially in that second link where he dives into the relationship with Gorbachev. Though, if you ask me, he seems a bit naive when it comes to China. Not that he’s being dense—he’s certainly not an idiot—but rather because he has... constraint It’s all just pure idealism.

And regarding that highlighted part—is it really true that nobody in the USA is raising the question? Because, frankly, it’s becoming increasingly suspicious how long this particular strain of US policy has been dragging on. No. It isn’t even the USA that comes out on top—not really, at least not in the first tier of winners—but rather China, who seems to be reaping the lion's share of the benefits without having to fire a single shot or waste a solitary dollar or yuan. Looking at everything since this conflict kicked off, the reality is staring us right in the face!

Thanks for the input, but like I said, I'm done here. Typing away on this subforum isn't going to save a single innocent victim of this conflict or any other war. A few years back, I might have given you a long-winded response, but not anymore.

"Quote:"

hollowdriver13 said:So, when is Russia actually going to deal with Finland?
Or are they just going to keep playing dumb, acting like Finland isn't even a threat despite being in NATO? (In reality, they're terrified of a conventional strike on Finland.)

Are we just going to pretend that Finland joining NATO doesn't put St. Petersburg at risk and threaten 81 miles from the direction of 37 miles, which is basically the only major road connecting Murmansk to the rest of the Russian Federation? Or should we ignore the fact that European militaries have never been this weak, and the US hasn't had such a small footprint in Europe since the end of WW2?
It's funny how Ukraine was somehow the only real threat...🤦

That’s a fair question, but I wouldn't count on it. Given its geography, Finland isn't exactly set up to launch an invasion into Russia.
There are simply too many rivers, lakes, and forests standing in the way of any meaningful breakthrough.
One also has to wonder how any invasion force would even manage to reach Finland. The Baltic isn't a viable route, and any attempt to land in Norway just to march toward Finland would be noticed immediately.

If you look back at the major offensives from about 80 years ago, it’s clear the primary thrust was directed through Ukraine and Belarus.

I see a lot of people here arguing that we should have just let Russia do whatever they wanted in Ukraine, claiming these sanctions are an excessive sacrifice and that the European Union will end up suffering more than Russia itself in the long run.
It seems to me that those folks don't quite grasp that letting Russia off the hook for the sake of short-term economic security would actually land the European Union in a much deeper hole a few years down the line.
As I see it, there are really only two paths forward:
1. Hit them with sanctions and cripple Russia's economy and military power as much as possible. Sure, things might get pretty rough economically for a few years, but eventually, we'd reach a point where the crisis passes, leaving Russia isolated and stripped of its most vital revenue stream—energy exports.
2. Let Russia do whatever they want, which means in a few years the European Union becomes even more dependent on their energy, while Russia grows even stronger after their conquests, inevitably increasing their appetite for more. China is also watching how the West reacts, and if they see us hesitating, they might decide to start chasing their own ambitions too.

So, the choice is basically either enduring a few years of hardship where we all feel the pinch, or being treated with total contempt for a few years before they eventually put a gun to our heads and force us into the trenches.

We should have made it clear to Russia from the start that any kind of warfare in Europe simply won't be tolerated. We let them slip through, and now everyone acts surprised that they started this war. If you let them go, they’re just going to attack again. Whether it’s Poland, Moldova, or somewhere in the Baltics, I couldn't tell you. Personally, I'm convinced that if they manage a quick conquest of Ukraine, they'll pivot toward Moldova quite easily and then move to destabilize the North America. It's pretty obvious that Viktor Orbán is playing their hand, so one can only wonder how that whole scenario ends.

Looking at the long game, the most cost-effective option in every sense is to weaken Russia as much as possible, even if it comes at the cost of an economic collapse. Besides, an economic meltdown was being predicted long before the pandemic, so it’s worth asking if it was all inevitable anyway. The European Union isn't going to starve, and if we can exhaust Russia, we might buy ourselves some peace for the next 30 or 40 years regarding warfare in Europe. Plus, it sends a massive message to China.

[No content provided to rewrite]

bluebison8 said:People who view everything in strictly black and white are the biggest fools of all.

brightheron64 said:Exactly, and it honestly provides me a little bit of comfort knowing that because of this sacrifice, the Saudi royals will finally be able to afford more than just the bare essentials... they might even have enough left over for some butter on their toast next time...

Look, let’s be real: Russian Nazism has to be stopped, period. Even if it means risking a nuclear standoff, we can't just sit on our hands. I don't care what happens to gas prices; that's a secondary concern at this stage. What we really need to deal with is the domestic fifth column right here in the States—the collaborators, the Putinists, and the Nazi sympathizers hiding in plain sight. We should be looking into sending them to re-education camps, maybe striking a deal with China to host them in their labor camps. We coordinate with Beijing, and we ship them off there to learn some discipline.

I was watching CNN yesterday, and this expert was claiming that gas prices aren't actually spiking because of crude oil costs, but because refinery margins for processed products have allegedly shot up tenfold in some cases.

If that’s actually true, it basically means refineries are just war profiteers.

Paul Anderson7 said:I see a lot of people here arguing that we should have just let Russia do whatever they wanted in Ukraine, claiming these sanctions are an excessive sacrifice and that the European Union will end up suffering more than Russia itself in the long run.
It seems to me that those folks don't quite grasp that letting Russia off the hook for the sake of short-term economic security would actually land the European Union in a much deeper hole a few years down the line.
As I see it, there are really only two paths forward:
1. Hit them with sanctions and cripple Russia's economy and military power as much as possible. Sure, things might get pretty rough economically for a few years, but eventually, we'd reach a point where the crisis passes, leaving Russia isolated and stripped of its most vital revenue stream—energy exports.
2. Let Russia do whatever they want, which means in a few years the European Union becomes even more dependent on their energy, while Russia grows even stronger after their conquests, inevitably increasing their appetite for more. China is also watching how the West reacts, and if they see us hesitating, they might decide to start chasing their own ambitions too.

So, the choice is basically either enduring a few years of hardship where we all feel the pinch, or being treated with total contempt for a few years before they eventually put a gun to our heads and force us into the trenches.

We should have made it clear to Russia from the start that any kind of warfare in Europe simply won't be tolerated. We let them slip through, and now everyone acts surprised that they started this war. If you let them go, they’re just going to attack again. Whether it’s Poland, Moldova, or somewhere in the Baltics, I couldn't tell you. Personally, I'm convinced that if they manage a quick conquest of Ukraine, they'll pivot toward Moldova quite easily and then move to destabilize the North America. It's pretty obvious that Viktor Orbán is playing their hand, so one can only wonder how that whole scenario ends.

Looking at the long game, the most cost-effective option in every sense is to weaken Russia as much as possible, even if it comes at the cost of an economic collapse. Besides, an economic meltdown was being predicted long before the pandemic, so it’s worth asking if it was all inevitable anyway. The European Union isn't going to starve, and if we can exhaust Russia, we might buy ourselves some peace for the next 30 or 40 years regarding warfare in Europe. Plus, it sends a massive message to China.

There is a third option: negotiating security guarantees. In fact, Vladimir Putin actually called for those discussions a few months ago, but the West showed little interest.

Regarding the economic collapse: if the supply of grain from Russia and Ukraine dries up and the Arab world runs out of flour, where exactly do you think they will migrate to?
And what happens to Ukraine if Vladimir Putin burns their crops in the summer and shuts off their gas in the winter?

Linda Collins3 said:I was watching CNN yesterday, and this expert was claiming that gas prices aren't actually spiking because of crude oil costs, but because refinery margins for processed products have allegedly shot up tenfold in some cases.

If that’s actually true, it basically means refineries are just war profiteers.

Just look at how many refineries across the US shut down after the pandemic lockdowns hit due to demand cratering—then you'll get it. Right now, total capacity is down, and since oil prices are dipping, everyone wants refining done. It makes them the ultimate bottleneck in the whole chain.

Anthony Taylor3 said:There is a third option: negotiating security guarantees. In fact, Vladimir Putin actually called for those discussions a few months ago, but the West showed little interest.

Regarding the economic collapse: if the supply of grain from Russia and Ukraine dries up and the Arab world runs out of flour, where exactly do you think they will migrate to?
And what happens to Ukraine if Vladimir Putin burns their crops in the summer and shuts off their gas in the winter?

If there's one lesson we've learned, it's that you can't trust Russians. You certainly can't trust Vladimir Putin. There are no such things as security guarantees that Russia will actually honor; they'll promise you the moon while they're busy prepping for the next round of conflict and territorial expansion behind the scenes. The only real security guarantee would be a broke Russia without a modern military. Personally, I wouldn't even sit at a table with them unless they agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal. If they ever get the bright idea to invade a neighbor again, they should have to deal with the fact that they won't have nukes to hide behind.
Russia obviously isn't going to agree to that, so any discussions that leave them with a military capable of attacking someone else are basically pointless. We need to realize who we're dealing with here; it's pretty obvious they've been setting the stage for this for decades, bribing EU politicians to create openings so they can carry out their terror in Ukraine without consequence. The real question is how many more targets they had on their list and how fast they intended to hit them.
We've already seen them calling for NATO members to revert to the status quo of the nineties, so it doesn't take much to figure out how much they want to grab.

Beyond that, you only have to listen to their diplomats and the hacks on their state TV to see how they think. It's hard to reach an agreement with people like that, especially since they clearly have no intention of keeping their word.

As for the grain shortages, it'll be short-lived. Right now, nations around the globe are realizing that Russia isn't a reliable partner and they need to find new suppliers. Sure, certain players in Asia are going to profit from this because they can pick up Russian goods at a discount, which they've always been able to do. But the West and parts of the Arab world will have to hunt for other sources. It’s a headache in the short term, but it's totally doable within two or three years. Despite all the talk about the world starving because "all" the grain comes from Russia and Ukraine, that's just not how it works in reality. Until now, Russian grain was just the cheapest option. If that disappears, someone else will plant the crops, and eventually, the grain and everything made from it will just be more expensive.
But hey, I'd rather pay more for $5.00 bread and a gallon of gas for $6.75 than be sitting in a trench listening to artillery shells landing on my wife and kids.
Things will settle down eventually, and the countries most dependent on Russia will end up footing the biggest bill. Along with the poor, they’re going to get screwed, as usual—but that was already a given long before the pandemic, so nothing really changes for them.

analogbear5 said:Just look at how many refineries across the US shut down after the pandemic lockdowns hit due to demand cratering—then you'll get it. Right now, total capacity is down, and since oil prices are dipping, everyone wants refining done. It makes them the ultimate bottleneck in the whole chain.

What oil price drop?

Linda Collins3 said:What oil price drop?

Look, when oil prices tank, demand for refinery services actually goes up. Is that really that hard to wrap your head around?

analogbear5 said:Look, when oil prices tank, demand for refinery services actually goes up. Is that really that hard to wrap your head around?

Where exactly are you seeing oil prices fall?

Linda Collins3 said:Where exactly are you seeing oil prices fall?

Look, I know the sun rises in the east even if it’s pitch black out here right now and there isn't a trace of it.

analogbear5 said:Look, I know the sun rises in the east even if it’s pitch black out here right now and there isn't a trace of it.

https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/3...oil-prices.jpg

goldenpuma84 said:Actually, this is all getting pretty off-topic.

And that’s just my take on the question.

Bottom line: I try to keep a level playing field for everyone.

Something most people here clearly can't do.

Anyway, we're looking at inflation, recession, layoffs, social unrest, and general misery ahead—the perfect breeding ground for anyone selling cheap fixes.

Once that becomes the new normal, denying reality won't matter anymore.

Go ahead and keep doing what you're doing.

Since that's what you asked for.

Of course, it’s also an opportunity for a comeback. Nothing fertilizes growth quite like a pile of broken illusions...

And you're claiming the Russia-Ukraine war is the root cause of all that? 🥱?

You really are a true Biden supporter. You actually believe he's convincing Americans that Vladimir Putin is the reason for their inflation, even though this inflation in the States has been dragging on for at least 14 months now.

Linda Collins3 said:https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/3...oil-prices.jpg

It's a decent chart illustrating when oil prices actually started their climb. But of course, if Ukraine had just surrendered immediately and the European Union hadn't bothered with sanctions, everything would be coming up roses for our domestic companies.

Michael Ortiz68 said:And you're claiming the Russia-Ukraine war is the root cause of all that? 🥱?

You really are a true Biden supporter. You actually believe he's convincing Americans that Vladimir Putin is the reason for their inflation, even though this inflation in the States has been dragging on for at least 14 months now.

The war in Ukraine is really just the tip of the iceberg compared to what's been unfolding over the last two years.

1. The failed attempts at managing the pandemic spread.

2. The massive spike in shipping costs from China to the US, jumping from around $2,000 to $20,000.

3. The surge in energy prices triggered by the war in Ukraine.

4. The fact that about 30% of the wheat and oilseed supply from Ukraine and Russia is simply unavailable.

5. The rising costs of raw materials.

crimsoncyclist71 said:After everything we've heard from the Russians and Putin himself since the start of this aggressive, unprovoked war, we still have people coming here to explain how Ukraine is to blame because Russia refuses to recognize them as a nation or acknowledge their right to exist.
It's amusing to read how much you embarrass yourselves with the nonsense you spout on this forum. ☕

Only an idiot could possibly argue that wars aren't caused by something. You really need to stop swallowing the propaganda that’s clearly rotting your brain. 👍

urbanotter said:The war in Ukraine is really just the tip of the iceberg compared to what's been unfolding over the last two years.

1. The failed attempts at managing the pandemic spread.

2. The massive spike in shipping costs from China to the US, jumping from around $2,000 to $20,000.

3. The surge in energy prices triggered by the war in Ukraine.

4. The fact that about 30% of the wheat and oilseed supply from Ukraine and Russia is simply unavailable.

5. The rising costs of raw materials.

I'm curious about this one. What caused such a massive ten-fold spike?