Sanctions on Russia

It feels like the US is only sanctioning Russia just enough to cause real headaches for the European Union and China, especially if they decide to let something like the coronavirus resurface again.

Andrew Booth29 said:https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...ted)_(%25).png

The trend has been crystal clear for a year now. If you want to know the primary cause of inflation, look at the lockdowns and the various stimulus packages. As for the oil supply? It's tight—to put it mildly. They'll always try to spin the narrative that way.

So, if there's no problem, and we aren't dealing with lockdowns anymore, we should be able to expect food and gas prices to slide back down to where they were before everything went sideways.

For now, I'm just working through the little bit of olive oil, pasta, and rice I have left in my pantry, waiting for things to finally settle down and for prices to drop.☕

urbanotter said:So, if there's no problem, and we aren't dealing with lockdowns anymore, we should be able to expect food and gas prices to slide back down to where they were before everything went sideways.

For now, I'm just working through the little bit of olive oil, pasta, and rice I have left in my pantry, waiting for things to finally settle down and for prices to drop.☕

How much of a reality check would it be if a Russian shell actually missed its target and leveled your house, all while gas prices spiked even higher?

swiftjackal11 said:How much of a reality check would it be if a Russian shell actually missed its target and leveled your house, all while gas prices spiked even higher?

Believe me, it would be absolutely devastating, truly terrifying.

I think I’d do just about anything to make sure that shell never fires, my home stays standing, and my trips to the gas station don't become a financial nightmare.😉

urbanotter said:Believe me, it would be absolutely devastating, truly terrifying.

I think I’d do just about anything to make sure that shell never fires, my home stays standing, and my trips to the gas station don't become a financial nightmare.😉

What would you do if the Italians decided the government in Washington, D.C. was fascist and they needed to step in to protect their minority in California?

Cheers

urbanotter said:Believe me, it would be absolutely devastating, truly terrifying.

I think I’d do just about anything to make sure that shell never fires, my home stays standing, and my trips to the gas station don't become a financial nightmare.😉

You wouldn't do a thing. Putin calls the shots here.

swiftjackal11 said:You wouldn't do a thing. Putin calls the shots here.

In part,
but once those sanctions really start biting, he won't have that kind of control anymore.

Plus, between the health scares and all the rumors of conspiracies circulating in the UK, I don't think he'll be around much longer anyway. 😁

Man, it’s funny how once globalization actually starts moving again, all those anti-globalist types are the first ones whining when prices finally snap back to normal.

mellownomad7 As I was sitting there thinking about it, I couldn't help but reflect on what was actually said:
I’ve often sat back and wondered what would actually happen if things took a turn like that—you know, if the Italians suddenly decided the administration here in Washington, D.C. was acting like a fascist regime and concluded they had a moral obligation to step in and protect their minority communities living out in California. It’s one of those heavy, hypothetical scenarios that stays in the back of your mind because of how much it would shift the entire geopolitical landscape. If an EU power or a major Western ally felt that kind of direct threat to their people within our borders, we wouldn't just be looking at a diplomatic spat or some heated rhetoric on the news; we'd be looking at a fundamental breakdown of international relations. I remember reading about similar tensions in history books where small shifts in perception led to massive escalations, and it makes you realize how fragile that sense of security really is. It’s a sobering thought to imagine the level of tension that would create between us and a key partner.

Hey there, just wanted to reach out and say hello to everyone.

It seems almost impossible to wrap my head around the idea that one NATO member would actually turn its sights on another NATO ally. I mean, when you really sit back and think about the foundation of the entire alliance, the whole point is mutual defense and stability, isn't it? It feels fundamentally wrong to imagine such a scenario playing out.😉

That would present a massive dilemma for the alliance, much like the friction we see when the Greeks and the Turks go at each other's throats.

The way Erdogan keeps ramping up these threats feels like a lot of noise, especially when you compare it to how much more plausible it would be if the Italians were actually trying to use weapons to protect their minority in California. Even though that community is pretty small, Italian is still an official language there and you see those bilingual street signs everywhere. Honestly, someone like Furio has been part of the ruling majority for years now, so any kind of conflict there would really just be a minor hiccup in the grand scheme of things.
We’re seeing something very similar with the signage situation over in Seattle, and honestly, I haven't noticed anyone making much of a fuss about it. It isn't like people are out there threatening to take a hammer to the boards or causing some kind of massive public outcry. It just feels like a quiet transition, much like how things settled down back when my old neighborhood in Chicago went through a similar rebranding phase years ago.

As far as I can tell, those signs should really be bilingual even in places like Stalingrad; after all, Stalingrad isn't exactly California, and you don't have people living there who grew up with that West Coast mindset.

urbanotter said:

mellownomad7 As I was sitting there thinking about it, I couldn't help but reflect on what was actually said:
I’ve often sat back and wondered what would actually happen if things took a turn like that—you know, if the Italians suddenly decided the administration here in Washington, D.C. was acting like a fascist regime and concluded they had a moral obligation to step in and protect their minority communities living out in California. It’s one of those heavy, hypothetical scenarios that stays in the back of your mind because of how much it would shift the entire geopolitical landscape. If an EU power or a major Western ally felt that kind of direct threat to their people within our borders, we wouldn't just be looking at a diplomatic spat or some heated rhetoric on the news; we'd be looking at a fundamental breakdown of international relations. I remember reading about similar tensions in history books where small shifts in perception led to massive escalations, and it makes you realize how fragile that sense of security really is. It’s a sobering thought to imagine the level of tension that would create between us and a key partner.

Hey there, just wanted to reach out and say hello to everyone.

It seems almost impossible to wrap my head around the idea that one NATO member would actually turn its sights on another NATO ally. I mean, when you really sit back and think about the foundation of the entire alliance, the whole point is mutual defense and stability, isn't it? It feels fundamentally wrong to imagine such a scenario playing out.😉

That would present a massive dilemma for the alliance, much like the friction we see when the Greeks and the Turks go at each other's throats.

The way Erdogan keeps ramping up these threats feels like a lot of noise, especially when you compare it to how much more plausible it would be if the Italians were actually trying to use weapons to protect their minority in California. Even though that community is pretty small, Italian is still an official language there and you see those bilingual street signs everywhere. Honestly, someone like Furio has been part of the ruling majority for years now, so any kind of conflict there would really just be a minor hiccup in the grand scheme of things.
We’re seeing something very similar with the signage situation over in Seattle, and honestly, I haven't noticed anyone making much of a fuss about it. It isn't like people are out there threatening to take a hammer to the boards or causing some kind of massive public outcry. It just feels like a quiet transition, much like how things settled down back when my old neighborhood in Chicago went through a similar rebranding phase years ago.

As far as I can tell, those signs should really be bilingual even in places like Stalingrad; after all, Stalingrad isn't exactly California, and you don't have people living there who grew up with that West Coast mindset.

Look, Russia basically runs things in Ukraine anyway. Neither side belongs to any alliance, and honestly, the friction between them is just as bad as the bickering within NATO itself. It’s nothing we haven't seen before.

There’s zero logical way to justify this aggression. There were plenty of ways to handle this more decently without the chaos.

The whole "protecting the Russian minority" thing is a joke. Russia just wants the Donbas as their own economic playground.
They couldn't care less about the actual people.

Later.

Putin’s just gonna keep hitting one country after another until the West finally gets serious about slapping massive sanctions on his energy exports. These half-baked Western "quasi-sanctions" aren't doing squat to slow him down. That's the reality of it.

urbanotter said:

mellownomad7 As I was sitting there thinking about it, I couldn't help but reflect on what was actually said:
I’ve often sat back and wondered what would actually happen if things took a turn like that—you know, if the Italians suddenly decided the administration here in Washington, D.C. was acting like a fascist regime and concluded they had a moral obligation to step in and protect their minority communities living out in California. It’s one of those heavy, hypothetical scenarios that stays in the back of your mind because of how much it would shift the entire geopolitical landscape. If an EU power or a major Western ally felt that kind of direct threat to their people within our borders, we wouldn't just be looking at a diplomatic spat or some heated rhetoric on the news; we'd be looking at a fundamental breakdown of international relations. I remember reading about similar tensions in history books where small shifts in perception led to massive escalations, and it makes you realize how fragile that sense of security really is. It’s a sobering thought to imagine the level of tension that would create between us and a key partner.

Hey there, just wanted to reach out and say hello to everyone.

It seems almost impossible to wrap my head around the idea that one NATO member would actually turn its sights on another NATO ally. I mean, when you really sit back and think about the foundation of the entire alliance, the whole point is mutual defense and stability, isn't it? It feels fundamentally wrong to imagine such a scenario playing out.😉

That would present a massive dilemma for the alliance, much like the friction we see when the Greeks and the Turks go at each other's throats.

The way Erdogan keeps ramping up these threats feels like a lot of noise, especially when you compare it to how much more plausible it would be if the Italians were actually trying to use weapons to protect their minority in California. Even though that community is pretty small, Italian is still an official language there and you see those bilingual street signs everywhere. Honestly, someone like Furio has been part of the ruling majority for years now, so any kind of conflict there would really just be a minor hiccup in the grand scheme of things.
We’re seeing something very similar with the signage situation over in Seattle, and honestly, I haven't noticed anyone making much of a fuss about it. It isn't like people are out there threatening to take a hammer to the boards or causing some kind of massive public outcry. It just feels like a quiet transition, much like how things settled down back when my old neighborhood in Chicago went through a similar rebranding phase years ago.

As far as I can tell, those signs should really be bilingual even in places like Stalingrad; after all, Stalingrad isn't exactly California, and you don't have people living there who grew up with that West Coast mindset.

It’s easy to act like a genius when we're safely tucked inside NATO. But once some other country actually wants that privilege? Man, then we're in deep trouble—our gas prices will skyrocket and everything else will go south because of them...

urbanotter said:Believe me, it would be absolutely devastating, truly terrifying.

I think I’d do just about anything to make sure that shell never fires, my home stays standing, and my trips to the gas station don't become a financial nightmare.😉

Imagine if Russia showed up and demanded the entire Midwest, threatening to start shelling unless we complied.
What would your move be?

George Robinson43 said:Imagine if Russia showed up and demanded the entire Midwest, threatening to start shelling unless we complied.
What would your move be?

Honestly, there is already a thread on this forum dedicated entirely to "what if" scenarios.
You see all these hypothetical questions floating around, ranging from silly things like "what would your aunt's name be if she were a man"
to much heavier debates about what an adopted child should call their parents in same-sex households.

So, just move on.😉

mellownomad7 said:Look, Russia basically runs things in Ukraine anyway. Neither side belongs to any alliance, and honestly, the friction between them is just as bad as the bickering within NATO itself. It’s nothing we haven't seen before.

There’s zero logical way to justify this aggression. There were plenty of ways to handle this more decently without the chaos.

The whole "protecting the Russian minority" thing is a joke. Russia just wants the Donbas as their own economic playground.
They couldn't care less about the actual people.

Later.

What happened at Times Square was purely anti-Russian. I didn't see any Italians out in the squares calling for the slaughter of Americans or anyone else. In the US, we call that a coup d'état and start legal proceedings. Same in Spain. In Ukraine, they call it the democratic will of the people. EDIT: forgot to mention... in Belarus, they call the exact same thing state repression.☕
Of course, after the Warsaw Pact fell, Gorachev was acting like a naive baby. Most Biden supporters claim he didn't ask for, or even receive, any guarantees regarding NATO expansion into former Warsaw Pact countries. Not that anything was ever signed—back then, nuclear powers relied on handshakes and verbal agreements. ☕
My favorite part? Everyone claiming the US and the West aren't responsible for what's happening in Ukraine right now. It was actually the West that allowed oil to hit $120 a barrel back in 2004, providing the massive profits needed to exploit shale oil. That money directly funded both the military and economic recovery of Russia, setting the stage for today. By the way, oil is still sitting around $120. The money keeps moving. Biden supporters are essentially financing the Russian Army. If oil dropped to $60 tomorrow, Russia would be on its knees instantly—militarily and economically—and Ukrainians could liberate their country without any Western military aid at all.☕

rowdyraven112 said:What happened at Times Square was purely anti-Russian. I didn't see any Italians out in the squares calling for the slaughter of Americans or anyone else. In the US, we call that a coup d'état and start legal proceedings. Same in Spain. In Ukraine, they call it the democratic will of the people. EDIT: forgot to mention... in Belarus, they call the exact same thing state repression.☕
Of course, after the Warsaw Pact fell, Gorachev was acting like a naive baby. Most Biden supporters claim he didn't ask for, or even receive, any guarantees regarding NATO expansion into former Warsaw Pact countries. Not that anything was ever signed—back then, nuclear powers relied on handshakes and verbal agreements. ☕
My favorite part? Everyone claiming the US and the West aren't responsible for what's happening in Ukraine right now. It was actually the West that allowed oil to hit $120 a barrel back in 2004, providing the massive profits needed to exploit shale oil. That money directly funded both the military and economic recovery of Russia, setting the stage for today. By the way, oil is still sitting around $120. The money keeps moving. Biden supporters are essentially financing the Russian Army. If oil dropped to $60 tomorrow, Russia would be on its knees instantly—militarily and economically—and Ukrainians could liberate their country without any Western military aid at all.☕

Total nonsense. Even with a strong ruble, Russian oil exports would still be incredibly profitable.

urbanotter said:I don't think Biden spends much time thinking about policy; he's probably too preoccupied with his own health issues.

Look, the idea that prices spike when supply drops is basic economics—even a local farmer at a roadside stand knows that if they only have a few peppers left, it's the perfect time to hike the price.

I don't need to rely on Bloomberg's spin when I can just rely on common sense and actual facts on the ground.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you don't even need to be an expert to see the reality. Just walk into any local grocery store or a big chain like Walmart; if you can remember, the price of a bottle of Crisco was around $3.25/l a few months ago, and today you can't find it for less than $6.00/l.
To anyone who can handle elementary school math, it's obvious that cooking oil prices have jumped by 80%, and over in Germany, they've even hit €5 per liter.👋

Think of it this way: a liter of cooking oil is energetically equivalent to a liter of gasoline at a Shell station. There is no theory where oil for food costs less than fuel for cars—that defies common sense. Of course, edible oil prices have skyrocketed, because every single input in the production chain has become more expensive. This inflationary wave began long before the aggression in Ukraine or the subsequent sanctions. The war and its fallout merely act as an accelerant; the fundamental drivers are economic. For the crowd that has spent years driving policy through quantitative easing (QE), this war is nothing more than a convenient scapegoat.

analogbear5 said:Total nonsense. Even with a strong ruble, Russian oil exports would still be incredibly profitable.

Look at the Russian GDP compared to oil prices. Factor in those quasi-sanctions from 2014. If oil drops below $60 a barrel, they lose the ability to fund this war. Sure, they'd have enough to run the government and maintain basic stability under normal circumstances. But with a war and sanctions hitting them? They wouldn't make it to autumn.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Think of it this way: a liter of cooking oil is energetically equivalent to a liter of gasoline at a Shell station. There is no theory where oil for food costs less than fuel for cars—that defies common sense. Of course, edible oil prices have skyrocketed, because every single input in the production chain has become more expensive. This inflationary wave began long before the aggression in Ukraine or the subsequent sanctions. The war and its fallout merely act as an accelerant; the fundamental drivers are economic. For the crowd that has spent years driving policy through quantitative easing (QE), this war is nothing more than a convenient scapegoat.

I wouldn't bother trying to deconstruct the specific price per gallon of oil, nor would I get bogged down in the extraction costs of crude.

The reality is that prices began spiking based on mere speculation and the political maneuvering surrounding Russian gas and Nord Stream 2, along with

As the possibility of conflict loomed closer, prices started popping up everywhere like mushrooms after a heavy rain.

And it just kept going

On the commodities exchanges, prices are driven by supply and demand expectations, not by a slow climb in production costs.

Unless you're feeling a sudden nostalgic urge for socialism, command economies, or the idea of the government stepping in to dictate prices,

rowdyraven112 said:Look at the Russian GDP compared to oil prices. Factor in those quasi-sanctions from 2014. If oil drops below $60 a barrel, they lose the ability to fund this war. Sure, they'd have enough to run the government and maintain basic stability under normal circumstances. But with a war and sanctions hitting them? They wouldn't make it to autumn.

So how is Russia actually paying for this? What are they doing with all that oil and gas money? It's not like they're building new planes; they're just using what's already there. They're basically burning through their stockpiles.