Sanctions on Russia

I’d honestly be shocked if Russia didn't respond by just cutting off the gas entirely, because let's face it, that’s pretty much the only real lever they have left to pull, unless they decide to go down the nuclear route. The folks over in Europe have actually been pretty clever and found ways to block their oil exports almost everywhere, leaving them with nothing but those pipelines heading toward China. And you know it won't be long before the Americans step in and make their own move on that situation too.
https://twitter.com/RobinBrooksIIF/s...4wKWwq9vA&s=19

brightheron64 said:This doesn't actually have much to do with Ukraine. The real driver here is Russia. The West has finally realized they need to stop Russia and bring them to their knees, because they don't see them as a civilized nation you can actually achieve anything with through diplomacy...

Without even realizing it, you're actually hitting on the truth here.

It’s just that this entire narrative started much earlier than you might think. Just as a side note, have you ever heard anything about the US Army in Alaska?

If you set aside those four specific war years between '41 and '45, the Russians have been a massive thorn in the side of the West since the Bolshevik Revolution. It's similar to how Napoleon was a constant headache for the European empires—you only have to look at how many wars and battles Napoleon initiated compared to how many monarchies he disrupted...

In the end, they eventually found a way to outmaneuver Napoleon. As for when they'll manage that with the Russians, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see...

Beyond just capital controls, that rock-solid currency is basically a byproduct of a massive trade surplus—mostly because sanctions have choked off imports. Basically, money is flooding into Russia’s accounts, but they’ve got nowhere to spend it.

It also explains why Russia was fine with cutting off gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland. A dip in exports helps push through the devaluation they seem to be aiming for.

A stronger ruble makes imports cheaper. Now, Russia is just looking for workarounds to dodge those sanctions by importing goods through Kazakhstan (Associated Press).

They dropped interest rates to 14%, which gives you a pretty clear hint at what kind of exchange rate they're targeting. A stronger ruble should help cool down inflation—which the Russian central bank expects to hit somewhere between 18% and 23% this year.

On top of all that, energy exports from Russia jumped by 80% in the first quarter compared to last year.

brightheron64 said:Without even realizing it, you're actually hitting on the truth here.

It’s just that this entire narrative started much earlier than you might think. Just as a side note, have you ever heard anything about the US Army in Alaska?

If you set aside those four specific war years between '41 and '45, the Russians have been a massive thorn in the side of the West since the Bolshevik Revolution. It's similar to how Napoleon was a constant headache for the European empires—you only have to look at how many wars and battles Napoleon initiated compared to how many monarchies he disrupted...

In the end, they eventually found a way to outmaneuver Napoleon. As for when they'll manage that with the Russians, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see...

You're trolling poorly again. To be clear, providing lukewarm support to the royalists—his own allies—during the Russian Civil War isn't quite the same thing as launching a full-scale invasion, and if you wanted to, you could find plenty of instances where Americans chose to act as a "thorn in someone's side" through diplomacy rather than force (whereas for direct military intervention, you can barely find one example here).

If it weren't for the USA, there would be far fewer Russians left today. But I suppose that doesn't fit neatly into your preferred political playbook, does it?

analogbear5 said:Beyond just capital controls, that rock-solid currency is basically a byproduct of a massive trade surplus—mostly because sanctions have choked off imports. Basically, money is flooding into Russia’s accounts, but they’ve got nowhere to spend it.

It also explains why Russia was fine with cutting off gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland. A dip in exports helps push through the devaluation they seem to be aiming for.

A stronger ruble makes imports cheaper. Now, Russia is just looking for workarounds to dodge those sanctions by importing goods through Kazakhstan (Associated Press).

They dropped interest rates to 14%, which gives you a pretty clear hint at what kind of exchange rate they're targeting. A stronger ruble should help cool down inflation—which the Russian central bank expects to hit somewhere between 18% and 23% this year.

On top of all that, energy exports from Russia jumped by 80% in the first quarter compared to last year.

Well, sounds like great news then. We could just hand out the cash to everyone and live happily ever after.
At the end of the day, these sanctions might actually end up helping Russians—it’s just the West that’s going to take the hit.

casualtiger2 said:Well, sounds like great news then. We could just hand out the cash to everyone and live happily ever after.
At the end of the day, these sanctions might actually end up helping Russians—it’s just the West that’s going to take the hit.

Yeah, and that's a one-way ticket to hyperinflation.

These sanctions are basically just a bullet to the knee for the European Union, but honestly, that’s pretty expected when you consider the folks sitting in Brussels have some serious "special needs" going on. Even the way Ursula reacted was just pure comedy after Putin cut off the gas to Poland and Bulgaria; she actually looked personally offended, which was wild to watch.😂

Nancy Howard4 said:These sanctions are basically just a bullet to the knee for the European Union, but honestly, that’s pretty expected when you consider the folks sitting in Brussels have some serious "special needs" going on. Even the way Ursula reacted was just pure comedy after Putin cut off the gas to Poland and Bulgaria; she actually looked personally offended, which was wild to watch.😂

A shot to the head for Russia, and a shot to the knee for themselves. As long as they don't mix them up.😁

Lisa Jackson7 said:The Gaidar reformers definitely expected Help, if we're talking about Russia... 1991 and 1992 were the make-or-break years, maybe even just that window right after the USSR collapsed through mid-'92.
The Bush administration basically did nothing, what with elections, economic recovery, and all that other stuff.
I didn't know about the Japan thing—what exactly was the threat there?

Regarding Russia wanting in on NATO, they could have leaned hard into "Partnership for Peace" or some kind of associate status in the EU, but that ship sailed.

On the flip side, who was the West actually supposed to help?
Who was running the show, and how much instability were we dealing with?

There's always room for improvement, but...
Sometimes you don't even have a real choice to make.

Like I said—first you had the Gaidar reformers, then the Apple party led by Yavlenski.
You couldn't get a 100% guarantee, obviously, but in the early '90s, the West—specifically the Americans—had massive leverage. That famous Sachov plan should have looked different, focusing way more on building actual political and economic institutions.

Once you miss those windows for making the right moves to steer Russia toward democracy, it's game over. But the big shots in the West didn't really care... just like so many times before, they just went looking for a quick fix to get the job done.
Any resemblance to the Weimar Republic and Hitler isn't just a coincidence.

They simply weren't interested in hosting an economic miracle here.

Lisa Jackson7 said:The Gaidar reformers definitely expected Help, if we're talking about Russia... 1991 and 1992 were the make-or-break years, maybe even just that window right after the USSR collapsed through mid-'92.
The Bush administration basically did nothing, what with elections, economic recovery, and all that other stuff.
I didn't know about the Japan thing—what exactly was the threat there?

Regarding Russia wanting in on NATO, they could have leaned hard into "Partnership for Peace" or some kind of associate status in the EU, but that ship sailed.

On the flip side, who was the West actually supposed to help?
Who was running the show, and how much instability were we dealing with?

There's always room for improvement, but...
Sometimes you don't even have a real choice to make.

Like I said—first you had the Gaidar reformers, then the Apple party led by Yavlenski.
You couldn't get a 100% guarantee, obviously, but in the early '90s, the West—specifically the Americans—had massive leverage. That famous Sachov plan should have looked different, focusing way more on building actual political and economic institutions.

Once you miss those windows for making the right moves to steer Russia toward democracy, it's game over. But the big shots in the West didn't really care... just like so many times before, they just went looking for a quick fix to get the job done.
Any resemblance to the Weimar Republic and Hitler isn't just a coincidence.

I'm in agreement with that.

Lisa Jackson7 said:The Gaidar reformers definitely expected Help, if we're talking about Russia... 1991 and 1992 were the make-or-break years, maybe even just that window right after the USSR collapsed through mid-'92.
The Bush administration basically did nothing, what with elections, economic recovery, and all that other stuff.
I didn't know about the Japan thing—what exactly was the threat there?

Regarding Russia wanting in on NATO, they could have leaned hard into "Partnership for Peace" or some kind of associate status in the EU, but that ship sailed.

On the flip side, who was the West actually supposed to help?
Who was running the show, and how much instability were we dealing with?

There's always room for improvement, but...
Sometimes you don't even have a real choice to make.

Like I said—first you had the Gaidar reformers, then the Apple party led by Yavlenski.
You couldn't get a 100% guarantee, obviously, but in the early '90s, the West—specifically the Americans—had massive leverage. That famous Sachov plan should have looked different, focusing way more on building actual political and economic institutions.

Once you miss those windows for making the right moves to steer Russia toward democracy, it's game over. But the big shots in the West didn't really care... just like so many times before, they just went looking for a quick fix to get the job done.
Any resemblance to the Weimar Republic and Hitler isn't just a coincidence.

It’s true—the parallels between Putin and Hitler are multifaceted.

Rachel Richardson said:They simply weren't interested in hosting an economic miracle here.

I'm in agreement with that.

It’s true—the parallels between Putin and Hitler are multifaceted.

So what does that actually say about the moral compass of US leaders?

If they’re playing this "zero sum game" geopolitical chess too, then all that talk about "defending democratic values" is just pure smoke and mirrors for the public.

From their point of view, a dictator they can somewhat pull the strings on is way better than a Russia heading toward democracy and prosperity—because you can't have a competitor like that.

True—there are tons of parallels between Putin and Hitler...

But honestly, the bigger comparison is between the Weimar Republic and 90s Russia—specifically how the winning powers in the West treated the losers in both scenarios.

Lisa Jackson7, no offense intended, but I think you might be leaning a bit too heavily into confirmation bias.

Try taking a page out of my book and staying open to fresh perspectives and dissenting views. On that note, I just learned today how the villainous West essentially handpicked Hitler and Putin to take the reins. 😉

slyfox43 said:Lisa Jackson7, no offense intended, but I think you might be leaning a bit too heavily into confirmation bias.

Try taking a page out of my book and staying open to fresh perspectives and dissenting views. On that note, I just learned today how the villainous West essentially handpicked Hitler and Putin to take the reins. 😉

The whole idea of "choosing" someone in politics is messy—it could mean anything from a subtle nudge to, say, giving Yeltsin a phone call and telling him to nominate Putin as his successor.

Besides, calling Yeltsin a democrat is a stretch at best. Not after that constitutional crisis back in '93, and definitely not after those "fair" elections in '96 where he probably swiped the win right from the Communist candidate, Zyuganov.
He had the oligarchs backing him, and even his buddy Bill Clinton gave him a hand. 😉

Does everything I just said mean I'm rooting for Zyuganov?
Not even close. I’m just suggesting—since you claim to be so "open-minded"—that you go read some of Anders Aslund's stuff on Russia in the 90s. It's hard to call him a "Putin lover."

So, looking at the big picture here—is Russia even remotely ready for democracy? Like, do they actually *want* it? There are plenty of nations out there that aren't prepared for it, nor do they particularly care for it. China is pretty much the same story (and believe me, I know enough about that firsthand).

Lisa Jackson7 said:So what does that actually say about the moral compass of US leaders?

If they’re playing this "zero sum game" geopolitical chess too, then all that talk about "defending democratic values" is just pure smoke and mirrors for the public.

From their point of view, a dictator they can somewhat pull the strings on is way better than a Russia heading toward democracy and prosperity—because you can't have a competitor like that.

True—there are tons of parallels between Putin and Hitler...

But honestly, the bigger comparison is between the Weimar Republic and 90s Russia—specifically how the winning powers in the West treated the losers in both scenarios.

The US has its own calculations to make—the West is certainly no saint—but nobody forced Hitler or Putin to invade neighboring nations...

Lisa Jackson7 said:So what does that actually say about the moral compass of US leaders?

If they’re playing this "zero sum game" geopolitical chess too, then all that talk about "defending democratic values" is just pure smoke and mirrors for the public.

From their point of view, a dictator they can somewhat pull the strings on is way better than a Russia heading toward democracy and prosperity—because you can't have a competitor like that.

True—there are tons of parallels between Putin and Hitler...

But honestly, the bigger comparison is between the Weimar Republic and 90s Russia—specifically how the winning powers in the West treated the losers in both scenarios.

Exactly right.
It’s also worth noting that if Ukraine had been brought into NATO around 2000, we might not be facing this war today.
Or consider what happened when they didn't hand over their nuclear weapons.

Grace Phillips25 said:So, looking at the big picture here—is Russia even remotely ready for democracy? Like, do they actually *want* it? There are plenty of nations out there that aren't prepared for it, nor do they particularly care for it. China is pretty much the same story (and believe me, I know enough about that firsthand).

Realistically, no.

That is precisely why the sanctions can be so severe.
Are they intended to trigger internal change?

Grace Phillips25 said:So, looking at the big picture here—is Russia even remotely ready for democracy? Like, do they actually *want* it? There are plenty of nations out there that aren't prepared for it, nor do they particularly care for it. China is pretty much the same story (and believe me, I know enough about that firsthand).

There’s no way to know for sure ahead of time—if you ask me, the real question is whether there's even any genuine international interest in promoting democracy through peaceful means, rather than the mess we saw in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Obviously, any response to those kinds of pushes has to come from a critical mass of motivated groups within the target country itself.

The fact is, when it came to building up democratic institutions and a solid civic political culture in the defeated Axis powers after World War II, having the winning anti-fascist coalition holding all the power levers definitely helped things along.

Is that an absolute prerequisite for success? Who knows—I hope it isn't and that there are other ways to make it work.
And is having a competing superpower around—like the USSR back then—a necessity? Again, I have no clue.

It’s not my place to claim that setting up even somewhat democratic or liberal regimes in Russia or China is easy—honestly, looking at their history, it might not even be possible anytime soon... the whole timeline proves it.

All I know is that it's worth a shot.
The payoff would be finally moving away from the constant threat of war.

Lisa Jackson7 said:There’s no way to know for sure ahead of time—if you ask me, the real question is whether there's even any genuine international interest in promoting democracy through peaceful means, rather than the mess we saw in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Obviously, any response to those kinds of pushes has to come from a critical mass of motivated groups within the target country itself.

The fact is, when it came to building up democratic institutions and a solid civic political culture in the defeated Axis powers after World War II, having the winning anti-fascist coalition holding all the power levers definitely helped things along.

Is that an absolute prerequisite for success? Who knows—I hope it isn't and that there are other ways to make it work.
And is having a competing superpower around—like the USSR back then—a necessity? Again, I have no clue.

It’s not my place to claim that setting up even somewhat democratic or liberal regimes in Russia or China is easy—honestly, looking at their history, it might not even be possible anytime soon... the whole timeline proves it.

All I know is that it's worth a shot.
The payoff would be finally moving away from the constant threat of war.

Russia tried the whole democracy thing. Doesn't look like it stuck. China hasn't even bothered to try yet. But those are traditionalist societies—especially over in Asia—where that cult of personality around a leader still carries a ton of weight.

Having spent a good chunk of my life in Asia, including China, I’ve noticed that people there don't really have this burning desire or even a basic need for the kind of democracy we're used to in the West. Though, funny enough, once they move to the West, they start acting all "when in Rome and all that."

If you ask me, this one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to spreading democracy just doesn't work for a lot of cultures, especially out East.

P.S. Lisa Jackson7, we go way back—just so you know, I'm basically a clone of Intermezzo (lost my password for that old handle and I'm too lazy to bother resetting it).

Honestly, after everything we've seen lately, the whole "promoting democracy" thing feels like a total bust. The entire Western playbook—where the strategy was basically just dumping money into these places and opening up their markets, thinking it would magically trigger a shift toward a democratic way of life—has completely flopped. It didn't work. All it really did was line the pockets of China and Russia, but it sure as hell didn't turn them into "normal" countries. If anything, they’re exactly the same as before, just way more powerful than they used to be.

"Quote:"

Rachel Richardson said:The US has its own calculations to make—the West is certainly no saint—but nobody forced Hitler or Putin to invade neighboring nations...

Exactly right.
It’s also worth noting that if Ukraine had been brought into NATO around 2000, we might not be facing this war today.
Or consider what happened when they didn't hand over their nuclear weapons.

Realistically, no.

That is precisely why the sanctions can be so severe.
Are they intended to trigger internal change?

Look, I’m not interested in playing judge or jury here—I just want the damn problem solved. Even Germany wasn't exactly left to its own devices after World War II, since, you know, "who actually forced Hitler to invade his neighbors?"
Look, Germans weren't exactly everyone's favorite back then—just like they aren't today—but that's really the heart of the issue. What kind of world order are we actually looking for? Seriously.

Some people are out here praying for a Cold War reboot—they actually want to go back to playing games with Putin and China like we're still in that "golden age" of globalization... honestly? I’m just over here hoping for some actual prosperity and a world that isn't run by autocrats.
Sounds like a damn fairy tale—but long-term? Not a chance. Look, if we don't build a world like that—seriously—Western political systems won't even stand a chance at surviving.... there isn't even a wall high enough to keep them out.

"Quote:"

Spot on. Everything said here is 100% facts. Some people actually claim that if the US had just let Ukraine into NATO back around 2000, we wouldn't be dealing with this whole mess today. Or what—she shouldn't have handed over her nukes?

Even if we avoided the War entirely—which wouldn't be enough, by the way—Ukraine still needs a path toward integrating into Europe through some kind of "light EU" setup. And honestly? Russia should probably follow suit at its own pace.

"Quote"

That's exactly why the sanctions have to be this brutal—no question about it. Are they actually trying to trigger change from within? — seriously, what a joke.

It’s hard to stay the same—really tough—when things start getting unstable and we're looking at a potential coup or whatever... you gotta throw in a "carrot" too... just be careful and make sure there are clear terms in place.

Grace Phillips25 said:Russia tried the whole democracy thing. Doesn't look like it stuck. China hasn't even bothered to try yet. But those are traditionalist societies—especially over in Asia—where that cult of personality around a leader still carries a ton of weight.

Having spent a good chunk of my life in Asia, including China, I’ve noticed that people there don't really have this burning desire or even a basic need for the kind of democracy we're used to in the West. Though, funny enough, once they move to the West, they start acting all "when in Rome and all that."

If you ask me, this one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to spreading democracy just doesn't work for a lot of cultures, especially out East.

P.S. Lisa Jackson7, we go way back—just so you know, I'm basically a clone of Intermezzo (lost my password for that old handle and I'm too lazy to bother resetting it).

It failed because nobody actually helped the "good guys" (not that I could have helped 😁) in any real or efficient way.
Western interests were mostly focused on building up capitalism there—even if it was just cronyism—so democracy ended up being nothing more than some extra little accessory offered through various NGOs. If it sticks, fine; if not, whatever...

There are plenty of reasons for that, including the uncomfortable possibility that democracy isn't even "in" anymore within the neoliberal West itself—no matter how much they preach it abroad (it's gotten pretty stagnant right here at home, too).

Anyway, you probably know the situation in China better than I do, but following the logic—they want the Western standard—as they're forced to expand their internal market, a growing middle class will eventually start questioning the "leading role of the Party," much like what happened in Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan.

P.S. Lisa Jackson7, we go way back—I'm basically an Intermezzo clone (lost my password for that old handle and can't be bothered to reset it).

🙂

I was wondering where you vanished to... anyway, glad you're back.

Lisa Jackson7 said:It failed because nobody actually helped the "good guys" (not that I could have helped 😁) in any real or efficient way.
Western interests were mostly focused on building up capitalism there—even if it was just cronyism—so democracy ended up being nothing more than some extra little accessory offered through various NGOs. If it sticks, fine; if not, whatever...

There are plenty of reasons for that, including the uncomfortable possibility that democracy isn't even "in" anymore within the neoliberal West itself—no matter how much they preach it abroad (it's gotten pretty stagnant right here at home, too).

Anyway, you probably know the situation in China better than I do, but following the logic—they want the Western standard—as they're forced to expand their internal market, a growing middle class will eventually start questioning the "leading role of the Party," much like what happened in Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan.

P.S. Lisa Jackson7, we go way back—I'm basically an Intermezzo clone (lost my password for that old handle and can't be bothered to reset it).

🙂

I was wondering where you vanished to... anyway, glad you're back.

But what if it didn't work because there just wasn't any fertile ground for it (democracy in Russia) to begin with???

That seems way more likely to me. Which is why I think sanctions might just end up being totally useless. It really comes down to a different national mindset. They’d rather eat the land, celebrate the land, and expand the land—or at least they *think* they're expanding it...

🙂

I had gone completely cold turkey on this forum. Total burnout, I guess. I actually asked to be stripped of my mod duties and requested a long-term ban. But since COVID grounded all the planes and I managed to switch jobs to something with less stress and more chaos—plus WFH now—I figured I might as well come back and mess around with you guys in the "old" homeland again! 😁 So, here goes nothing until the next ban! 😬 Greetings from Miami.