Sanctions on Russia

Fun fact, after the USSR collapsed, there was never actually any official ruling stating that Russia automatically took over its seat on the Security Council. It really comes down to one big question—is Russia just the legal successor to the USSR, or did the whole thing just break apart?

I mean, if the USSR truly dissolved, then maybe the West could just make kicking Russia out of the Security Council one of their conditions for lifting sanctions.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Fun fact, after the USSR collapsed, there was never actually any official ruling stating that Russia automatically took over its seat on the Security Council. It really comes down to one big question—is Russia just the legal successor to the USSR, or did the whole thing just break apart?

I mean, if the USSR truly dissolved, then maybe the West could just make kicking Russia out of the Security Council one of their conditions for lifting sanctions.

I'm right there with you on that point, honestly... I mean, why wouldn't they? It feels like the only real metric used was whoever happened to be holding the nuclear football at the time...

brightheron64 said:I'm right there with you on that point, honestly... I mean, why wouldn't they? It feels like the only real metric used was whoever happened to be holding the nuclear football at the time...

So why not just throw Pakistan into the mix?

Or India, which honestly has an economy that rivals Russia's superpower status anyway.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Fun fact, after the USSR collapsed, there was never actually any official ruling stating that Russia automatically took over its seat on the Security Council. It really comes down to one big question—is Russia just the legal successor to the USSR, or did the whole thing just break apart?

I mean, if the USSR truly dissolved, then maybe the West could just make kicking Russia out of the Security Council one of their conditions for lifting sanctions.

I don't think that would be a wise move. If we went that route, the Council would lose much of its reason for being.

A much more interesting question is whether we should be bringing new countries into the fold instead.

bluemason3 said:I don't think that would be a wise move. If we went that route, the Council would lose much of its reason for being.

A much more interesting question is whether we should be bringing new countries into the fold instead.

There’s absolutely no room for despotic or aggressive nations in the USA.
I'd much rather see a place like Japan or India take over Russia's seat instead.

The US is here to prevent nuclear war; being part of this alliance is pointless if you don't have a nuclear deterrent.

Nobody is actually worried about conventional warfare anymore. People just lack the patience and the will for it.
If Russia didn't possess the bomb, they would never have invaded Ukraine. There wouldn't be a chance.

India needs to join the fold. Russia has to stay in the equation—Putin is essentially a budding Hitler—but damn it, he has the nukes, and he's the dictator of a nation that won't or can't remove him. You don't really have a choice but to deal with him.

Kyle Nelson2 said:There’s absolutely no room for despotic or aggressive nations in the USA.
I'd much rather see a place like Japan or India take over Russia's seat instead.

The purpose of VS isn't to act as a lobbyist clique or just a military alliance. Its real goal is to lower the odds of a nuclear exchange—basically preventing WW3. It was designed specifically so that competitors have to sit at the same table and keep each other in check.

Kicking out one of the two biggest nuclear powers makes the whole idea of the USA pointless. It’s not meant to be a platform for sanctions and pressure campaigns. The USSR was part of it, Stalin was a founder, and China is a dictatorship too.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Fun fact, after the USSR collapsed, there was never actually any official ruling stating that Russia automatically took over its seat on the Security Council. It really comes down to one big question—is Russia just the legal successor to the USSR, or did the whole thing just break apart?

I mean, if the USSR truly dissolved, then maybe the West could just make kicking Russia out of the Security Council one of their conditions for lifting sanctions.

But weren't Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia already individual members of the United Nations back before 1991, alongside the Soviet Union?

silverotter72 said:No, actually, everything is just fine—"Russia will endure, but the European Union won't." 🤣
It’s honestly quite sad that there are actual human beings out there who genuinely believe that.

Of course the European Union and the West aren't going to hold out! That was exactly the point of the message Putin sent to his neighbors: don't you dare try to place restrictions on a powerful, unstoppable Russia just because they claim to be "peaceful" and have no bad intentions.

I have to admit, I am absolutely floored by how much trouble Russia is already in... and we're only eight days into this war.

Just imagine where things will be in two months.
Best,

It honestly feels like the ripple effects of Germany’s decision to hand over their energy security and independence to Russia—whether they did that on purpose or just by being incredibly careless, I'll let you folks decide—are finally starting to wash over all of Europe too.
Fuel prices are already climbing, and I saw that TTF just took a massive jump from 150 up to 190 today. This whole spike in energy costs is just going to feed right into higher inflation, which means the Fed is eventually going to be forced to hike interest rates, which ultimately leads us down the path toward an economic slowdown or, given how things are looking right now, even a full-blown recession.

silverotter72 said:It seems they’ve lost that initial momentum they had during those first couple of days; they just can't seem to manage a decent downward pull anymore:

It looks like they gave up on defending the 100:1 level and shifted their line to 110:1, but even then, they can't hold it for more than an hour before everything starts sliding right back toward the 114-115 range.

What kind of impact does having a closed-off Russian stock market actually have on their economy?

casualtiger2 said:What kind of impact does having a closed-off Russian stock market actually have on their economy?

Honestly, it’s nothing more than a pathetic attempt to mask a complete and utter systemic collapse.

If you ask me, that very move holds a massive part of the answer right there in plain sight.

Best,

Bryan Booth82 said:Honestly, it’s nothing more than a pathetic attempt to mask a complete and utter systemic collapse.

If you ask me, that very move holds a massive part of the answer right there in plain sight.

Best,

I get that, but what actually happens if they just... don't open it?

Brace yourselves for a rough patch and a recession in Europe.

It’s going to come at a massive cost, of course. But what choice do we really have? Isn't it about time we finally started thinking long-term?

casualtiger2 said:I get that, but what actually happens if they just... don't open it?

Well, you're looking at a total freeze on funding for publicly traded companies. Less capital flowing into those firms means less R&D, stunted growth, and a general dip in economic momentum—basically, everything slows down.
In isolation, I suppose it isn't some apocalyptic, end-of-the-world scenario, but it certainly drags down economic activity, which, when you factor in everything else going on, will likely compound the overall instability.

It looks like Microsoft is following Oracle's lead and pulling out of Russia too

https://www.reuters.com/business/mic...ia-2022-03-04/

Sean Watson3 said:Brace yourselves for a rough patch and a recession in Europe.

It’s going to come at a massive cost, of course. But what choice do we really have? Isn't it about time we finally started thinking long-term?

Exactly. Will this hit the European Union too? Yes. Without a shadow of a doubt. Will it hit them as hard as it hits Russia? Not even close. Will they bounce back much sooner than Russia? Almost certainly. And will all of this actually be better for the European Union in the long run, because from here on out, the focus shifts toward producing energy, resources, and goods locally? Yeah, I think so. In the long term, it should reduce their dependence on the rest of the world. It won't drop to zero—that's definitely not happening—but it shouldn't reach the point where a single small entity like Russia (if you look at their GDP compared to the entire European Union) can just pull the strings and blackmail them.

Plus, down the road, when the European Union decides to apply some economic pressure, people will realize they actually mean business.

silverotter72 said:It seems they’ve lost that initial momentum they had during those first couple of days; they just can't seem to manage a decent downward pull anymore:

Hmm, let me think about that...

The Euro only dropped about 1.5% against the Dollar or the Yankee today.

Meanwhile, the Ruble tanked by 3% against the Dollar.

Honestly, things aren't looking too great for the EU either..

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status...NDAYqeVUH8bJfw

*RUSSIA SUGGESTS FERTILIZER PRODUCERS STOP EXPORTING: IFX
*RUSSIAN MINISTRY BLAMES LOGISTICS FOR FERTILIZER SHORTAGES: IFX

Russian counter-sanctions—calling them "logistics issues"—is just code. This is going to hit agriculture hard, and then we get to deal with all those nasty cascading effects.

By the way, China was busy hoarding massive amounts of grain from France and Ukraine back in December—they smelled the trouble coming.

I also see Walmart is shutting down locations in Russia—looks like the mobs rushed in to grab whatever was left.