Sanctions on Russia

The true cost of doing business with blackmailers and genocidal maniacs is finally coming due. People love to offload their debts onto others or push them onto future generations; in economic terms, we call those "externalities"—you foot the bill while I enjoy the perks.

But, being a true Putin supporter, you seem perfectly fine with paying an even steeper price down the road, much like how you undoubtedly fought against paying anything less than this current amount in the past.

When you have "concerned friends" like these, who could possibly need a sworn enemy?

darkdriver said:Look, I’m honestly too exhausted to dive deep into this myself—and you clearly know your stuff when it comes to all those numbers and volumes—so I figured I'd just ask you.
The Russians, though—they're basically built to live large. Like, their whole history is just one long stretch of decadence and over-the-top extravagance, so I mean, losing that lifestyle is probably gonna hit them pretty hard.
I guess those 153 UN member states will surely step up and send them some humanitarian aid, maybe just some loaves of bread and salted fish, just so they don't, you know, actually starve.
But honestly? I'm more worried about what's happening in Europe. Since I'm such a total Putinophile—I mean, I really enjoy all the perks that come with it—I still find myself questioning things. And from what I can see, things aren't exactly looking great for our own domestic industries right now.
Glory to Sanctions
Lp

Yeah, I have to point that out too... that tired old argument that sanctions won't do a damn thing to Russia is such a naive fairy tale. People love to claim Russians can survive on nothing but bread and water, but it's nonsense.
Is there anything new to say? It's getting incredibly stale.

Best,

Bryan Booth82 said:Yeah, I have to point that out too... that tired old argument that sanctions won't do a damn thing to Russia is such a naive fairy tale. People love to claim Russians can survive on nothing but bread and water, but it's nonsense.
Is there anything new to say? It's getting incredibly stale.

Best,

Man, all I’ve got is that whole argument about how the US might end up becoming a Chinese factory, but that feels pretty dated now, right?
Or maybe I'm wrong?

Edit
I honestly don't get how you guys can claim that Russia—minus Moscow and Petersburg (so like, 14 or 15 million people out of 140 million total)—is some kind of desolate wasteland where everyone lives in shacks without indoor plumbing, running water, washing machines, Nutella🤣 or any other modern comforts (which, let's face it, is mostly just what you guys and the news outlets describe when talking about Russia and Russians) and then expect those people to feel the sting of shortages when they basically have nothing to begin with.
I mean, you guys really need to get your stories straight about what Russia actually is and who Americans—well, who Russians—actually are first.

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/939aa32b...s-default.html

Russia heads towards default as payment deadline looms

They’re basically staring down the barrel of a 'technical' bankruptcy pretty soon.

Some people just can't stomach the idea that their hyper-masculine hero, Putin, isn't the grand strategist they imagined him to be. So, they cling to any half-baked theory that keeps his "mastermind" status intact.

Why the need for an idol like that? I guess when you feel like nobody in the West has any backbone, it’s easier to take comfort in someone from the East who does.

darkdriver said:Basically, all their exits are completely sealed off. 🤣
Out of 193 doors (all those UN members), about 40 of them have basically slammed the windows and doors shut on them.
Some weird math happening there, where apparently 40 is somehow more than 153... I guess? 😁

Edit

Just saw that The New York Times—aka Yahoo—is reporting that Ukrainians are pulling back from Donetsk and that the EU is bracing for a brutal winter.
All I can say is... honestly, screw their Putinophile nonsense.
Sanction glory!

Is this part of that same brilliant analysis claiming India has more purchasing power than the USA, or whatever that was?

Listen, kid, I was just trying to provide some colorful CONTEXT regarding the sufficiency of what my colleague so triumphantly claimed—that things are actually better in Russia now than they were before the sanctions hit.

You don't have to take every single word literally, though I suspect that might be asking a bit much for some people.

But fine, if you're asking, I'd love an explanation of EXACTLY what Russia can substitute from those 153 countries that these 40 have specifically restricted.

hollowdriver13 said:So, are we saying there wasn't actually a massive buildup, just plans for one?
The narrative coming from the Russian side was that Ukraine had already assembled about 120k soldiers there, and yet they never actually launched a strike against the Russian positions in the RAO regions. Plus, all that troop movement near the Belarusian border surely could have helped the folks in Donbas, but hey, they never actually showed any real proof of this supposed buildup.

Back at the start of autumn, everyone—including the International Energy Agency—was begging Russia to ramp up gas supplies because levels were hitting historic lows.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-before-winter

So, the idea that Russia wasn't using oil and gas as a weapon just doesn't hold water. With their invasion of Ukraine, it’s pretty obvious why they did it: they were trying to squeeze Europe (even if people thought back then it was just pressure to get Nord Stream 2 approved, which clearly wasn't the end game—that would've just been the icing on the cake).

Kazes, I get that Germany wanting to nationalize the pipeline isn't ideal, but how is that law passed through the Duma okay? If some multinational corporation decides to pull out of Russia, the state can just automatically seize all that company's assets on Russian soil. Could you explain how that aligns with international standards? What's really the difference between that and what Germany is currently considering?

https://rtvi.com/news/gosduma-prinya...hnyh-kompanij/

How so? What do you mean by that?

Ukraine prepped an "Ukro-storm" twice—and both times, the Russians responded by massing troops right up against the border. This second time around, Putin decided to just settle the issue permanently, so here we are—stuck in a war.

Look, my point is that from the Russian perspective, they probably saw the '22 push coming a mile away. Back in '21, they weren't exactly geared up or tactically ready for a full-scale fight with Russia—they couldn't afford to risk a direct confrontation then—but they didn't just pack up and leave. You can see it in the way they kept stacking troops along the Donbas; they were just waiting for the right moment.

wiredseal7 said:How so? What do you mean by that?

Ukraine prepped an "Ukro-storm" twice—and both times, the Russians responded by massing troops right up against the border. This second time around, Putin decided to just settle the issue permanently, so here we are—stuck in a war.

Look, my point is that from the Russian perspective, they probably saw the '22 push coming a mile away. Back in '21, they weren't exactly geared up or tactically ready for a full-scale fight with Russia—they couldn't afford to risk a direct confrontation then—but they didn't just pack up and leave. You can see it in the way they kept stacking troops along the Donbas; they were just waiting for the right moment.

I mean, what does Russia have to do with Ukraine's internal business? Honestly, none of that is their concern, and those White House Nazis shouldn't be messing with anything inside Ukraine.

Based on his post, it seems he’s implying that Ukraine had stockpiled massive amounts of weaponry and was just waiting for the right moment to launch a storm.
But honestly, before this invasion even started, they barely had anything to defend themselves with. It’s only now that the heavy procurement has actually kicked in. Once they finally build up enough strength for a counteroffensive, then we'll start hearing all the complaints about how "evil" Ukrainians are for simply trying to reclaim their own territory.

wiredseal7 said:How so? What do you mean by that?

Ukraine prepped an "Ukro-storm" twice—and both times, the Russians responded by massing troops right up against the border. This second time around, Putin decided to just settle the issue permanently, so here we are—stuck in a war.

Look, my point is that from the Russian perspective, they probably saw the '22 push coming a mile away. Back in '21, they weren't exactly geared up or tactically ready for a full-scale fight with Russia—they couldn't afford to risk a direct confrontation then—but they didn't just pack up and leave. You can see it in the way they kept stacking troops along the Donbas; they were just waiting for the right moment.

Is there any actual proof of this buildup?
Since 2014, Ukraine has kept a massive chunk of its active military stationed there because they were basically trading artillery blows with separatist groups in those regions.
And I'm not just talking about the endless word vomit coming from Zakharov or Peskov, like, "trust us, guys, they're definitely building up troops," "really, believe us..."....

And what exact "problem" were they trying to solve? 🤔

Demilitarization? Denazification? Or just stopping NATO from moving into Russia's "soft underbelly"?
And how exactly do those points impact the situation in the Donbas? Honestly, those seem like just a handful of the "reasons" given for the invasion. Let's not forget the whole thing about stopping some ethnic virus from developing in US biolabs only to be spread by pigeons... or maybe the invasion was all about supposedly preventing Ukraine from getting nuclear weapons... they've thrown so many excuses at the wall it's hard to keep track. But seriously, please explain to me which one of these reasons actually affects the Donbas, where the situation hasn't really changed for nearly a decade....

wiredseal7 said:How so? What do you mean by that?

Ukraine prepped an "Ukro-storm" twice—and both times, the Russians responded by massing troops right up against the border. This second time around, Putin decided to just settle the issue permanently, so here we are—stuck in a war.

Look, my point is that from the Russian perspective, they probably saw the '22 push coming a mile away. Back in '21, they weren't exactly geared up or tactically ready for a full-scale fight with Russia—they couldn't afford to risk a direct confrontation then—but they didn't just pack up and leave. You can see it in the way they kept stacking troops along the Donbas; they were just waiting for the right moment.

The evidence regarding the buildup of the Ukrainian military and their preparations for a military liberation is found right in Lavrov's own words. This man has never been known to lie, so why should we doubt him now? He stated just the other day that they haven't attacked anyone. Surely that should be enough for you.

hollowdriver13 said:Is there any actual proof of this buildup?
Since 2014, Ukraine has kept a massive chunk of its active military stationed there because they were basically trading artillery blows with separatist groups in those regions.
And I'm not just talking about the endless word vomit coming from Zakharov or Peskov, like, "trust us, guys, they're definitely building up troops," "really, believe us..."....

And what exact "problem" were they trying to solve? 🤔

Demilitarization? Denazification? Or just stopping NATO from moving into Russia's "soft underbelly"?
And how exactly do those points impact the situation in the Donbas? Honestly, those seem like just a handful of the "reasons" given for the invasion. Let's not forget the whole thing about stopping some ethnic virus from developing in US biolabs only to be spread by pigeons... or maybe the invasion was all about supposedly preventing Ukraine from getting nuclear weapons... they've thrown so many excuses at the wall it's hard to keep track. But seriously, please explain to me which one of these reasons actually affects the Donbas, where the situation hasn't really changed for nearly a decade....

Absolutely nothing. Even just two months ago, you had OSCE observers patrolling both sides of the line of contact—including representatives from Russia—and there wasn't a single report about any kind of Ukrainian troop concentration or planned attack.

Either wiredseal7 is making stuff up or they're just peddling Russian propaganda. https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports

Donna Harris11 said:https://finance.yahoo.com/m/939aa32b...s-default.html

Russia heads towards default as payment deadline looms

They’re basically staring down the barrel of a 'technical' bankruptcy pretty soon.

A Russian default doesn't help anyone. Besides—debts can still be paid off in rubles. Sure, the exchange rate would have to look way different than whatever the Federal Reserve is quoting, but it’s doable. They've been playing that game since April anyway.

analogbear5 said:A Russian default doesn't help anyone. Besides—debts can still be paid off in rubles. Sure, the exchange rate would have to look way different than whatever the Federal Reserve is quoting, but it’s doable. They've been playing that game since April anyway.

🤔
Man, weren't they acting all tough saying they'd pay it all back in rubles back in April? Then they blinked and started paying out in dollars just to dodge a total default. Wasn't there that US waiver for the sovereign debt payments in USD that expired on May 25th and hasn't been renewed yet?

That waiver was specifically for Russian accounts over here in the States. In the end, the debt got settled through a Russian bank that isn't even under sanctions.

Anthony Hill5 said:The evidence regarding the buildup of the Ukrainian military and their preparations for a military liberation is found right in Lavrov's own words. This man has never been known to lie, so why should we doubt him now? He stated just the other day that they haven't attacked anyone. Surely that should be enough for you.

https://twitter.com/5thSu/status/136...bS9XAgjLvdNZHQ

Videos like this were popping up right around that time—long before the Russian side started releasing their own footage.
And the intensity of the conflict from the Ukrainian side spiked during that exact month, all well before "Putin" decided to act.

Of course, the Western media just glossed over it—even Wikipedia, which is supposedly "neutral," though that really depends on who's editing the page.🙂

Anyway (and circling back to sanctions since we're in the OT thread), I’m reading that Canada pushed through a law to seize Russian assets.
Small issue, though—that’s actually illegal under international law:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c19...tion-1.6478115

wiredseal7 said:https://twitter.com/5thSu/status/136...bS9XAgjLvdNZHQ

Videos like this were popping up right around that time—long before the Russian side started releasing their own footage.
And the intensity of the conflict from the Ukrainian side spiked during that exact month, all well before "Putin" decided to act.

Of course, the Western media just glossed over it—even Wikipedia, which is supposedly "neutral," though that really depends on who's editing the page.🙂

Anyway (and circling back to sanctions since we're in the OT thread), I’m reading that Canada pushed through a law to seize Russian assets.
Small issue, though—that’s actually illegal under international law:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c19...tion-1.6478115

I mean, at the end of the day, this is still just an internal Ukrainian matter. It’s not really something that Putin and his SS officers over at the White House need to be weighing in on, I guess.

wiredseal7 said:https://twitter.com/5thSu/status/136...bS9XAgjLvdNZHQ

Videos like this were popping up right around that time—long before the Russian side started releasing their own footage.
And the intensity of the conflict from the Ukrainian side spiked during that exact month, all well before "Putin" decided to act.

Of course, the Western media just glossed over it—even Wikipedia, which is supposedly "neutral," though that really depends on who's editing the page.🙂

Anyway (and circling back to sanctions since we're in the OT thread), I’m reading that Canada pushed through a law to seize Russian assets.
Small issue, though—that’s actually illegal under international law:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c19...tion-1.6478115

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is totally illegal. I mean, play stupid games, win stupid prizes, right?

When you draft legislation with enough cunning, nothing is technically illegal. It isn’t "confiscation"—it's merely "temporary management." Think about it. That is what constitutes state sovereignty. It is the exact same logic Russia used when they decided to stop paying those leasing companies for their aircraft. And what can the West actually do about it right now? Very little. But this will come back to haunt them later, once someone eventually tries to secure credit, a lease, or any other financial arrangement again. They might face the seizure of a few small planes here and there, perhaps. Similarly, investors from Russia will think twice before putting capital into Canada in the future. Every one of these decisions carries long-term consequences that eventually come due—usually at the expense of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the original cause.

Nancy Gomez26 said:When you draft legislation with enough cunning, nothing is technically illegal. It isn’t "confiscation"—it's merely "temporary management." Think about it. That is what constitutes state sovereignty. It is the exact same logic Russia used when they decided to stop paying those leasing companies for their aircraft. And what can the West actually do about it right now? Very little. But this will come back to haunt them later, once someone eventually tries to secure credit, a lease, or any other financial arrangement again. They might face the seizure of a few small planes here and there, perhaps. Similarly, investors from Russia will think twice before putting capital into Canada in the future. Every one of these decisions carries long-term consequences that eventually come due—usually at the expense of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the original cause.

True. I guess the Russians call this a special operation just so they don't technically break any non-aggression pacts, since they claim they aren't actually at war. So, maybe we should just cynically call it a "special economic operation" and call it a day.

wiredseal7 said:https://twitter.com/5thSu/status/136...bS9XAgjLvdNZHQ

Videos like this were popping up right around that time—long before the Russian side started releasing their own footage.
And the intensity of the conflict from the Ukrainian side spiked during that exact month, all well before "Putin" decided to act.

Of course, the Western media just glossed over it—even Wikipedia, which is supposedly "neutral," though that really depends on who's editing the page.🙂

Anyway (and circling back to sanctions since we're in the OT thread), I’m reading that Canada pushed through a law to seize Russian assets.
Small issue, though—that’s actually illegal under international law:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c19...tion-1.6478115

Not only was this footage originally circulated by a notorious Russian Twitter bot, but the clip itself dates all the way back to 2021—so exactly what kind of misinformation are we expected to swallow here? Why should anyone find fault with the Ukrainians repositioning their own military assets within their own sovereign borders? Is it not the fundamental right of any nation to maneuver its forces as it sees fit to defend its territory? I fail to see where the grievance lies in such an internal strategic adjustment.

If my memory serves me correctly, Lavrov, Zakharov, and Shoigu were all making a tremendous amount of noise about the supposed buildup of troops along the Ukrainian border right before the invasion began, and you, quite predictably, were more than happy to parrot their every word.

And since we need to circle back to the topic of sanctions—given that we are currently in Overtime—I have been reading reports that Canada has successfully pushed through legislation aimed at confiscating Russian assets.
We have a bit of a dilemma here, don't we? It appears we are facing a situation that stands in direct violation of international law.
The recent developments regarding the political landscape in Washington, D.C., raise profound questions about the stability of our democratic institutions, do they not? One must wonder if we are witnessing a fundamental shift in how power is wielded within the halls of Congress, or if this is merely another symptom of the deepening partisan divide that continues to paralyze our legislative process. Is it possible that the very mechanisms designed to ensure accountability are being systematically undermined by those who prioritize political expediency over the public interest? It seems increasingly difficult to maintain any semblance of optimism when the discourse remains so vitriolic and the policy decisions so shortsighted. We find ourselves at a crossroads where the integrity of our governance is being tested in ways we have seldom seen in modern history, leaving one to ponder: can the system truly self-correct, or are we drifting toward an era of permanent instability?

Why exactly have the Russian legalists felt entitled to seize Ukrainian assets across Crimea, the Donbas, Kherson, and various other occupied territories? Is there any semblance of international law left to respect when they carry out such blatant confiscations?