Sanctions on Russia

Dana Robinson4 said:Does that mean there aren't any real deterrents against a bomb from Egypt, Venezuela, or the Congo?

Of course there is, 🙂

Look, people can spin this however they want, but honestly? It would be infinitely better if nuclear weapons—assuming they even exist—were held exclusively by Western democracies and nobody else...

I am being dead serious here. In my book, the threat level of a French nuke is basically zero, whereas the danger from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and the rest is massive in comparison. We're talking about a completely different psychological makeup and set of values.

We can go back and forth until we're blue in the face about whether this view is "pro-Western," "racist," or whatever label someone wants to slap on it, but the bottom line is simple: the world is way safer with those nukes in the hands of the regimes I mentioned than with them in the hands of any Western nation. Period. End of story.

Dana Robinson4 said:Does that mean there aren't any real deterrents against a bomb from Egypt, Venezuela, or the Congo?

Well, I guess the only real obstacles left are political and economic ones. But honestly, if you ask me, I really believe we’re going to see more and more smaller nations deciding to pull out of the non-proliferation treaties just to start working on their own little atomic projects.

International law has always felt like a bit of a joke to me, if I'm being honest. I truly think the only way to actually protect yourself—whether you're dealing with massive, ruthless superpowers or just small, stubborn nations—is to have your own bomb.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, I guess the only real obstacles left are political and economic ones. But honestly, if you ask me, I really believe we’re going to see more and more smaller nations deciding to pull out of the non-proliferation treaties just to start working on their own little atomic projects.

International law has always felt like a bit of a joke to me, if I'm being honest. I truly think the only way to actually protect yourself—whether you're dealing with massive, ruthless superpowers or just small, stubborn nations—is to have your own bomb.

And who exactly is going to let those smaller countries pull that off?

Look, if we're talking about countries with actual standards—you know, places like Austria or Finland—they wouldn't even dream of developing an A-bomb. They aren't interested. Now, if you're talking about theocratic regimes or dictatorships, 99% of them don't even have the capacity to pull it off. And even if they did get close? People would step in to stop them by any means necessary... and frankly, they'd be totally justified in doing so. Take Iran, for example; they're a huge, powerhouse nation, yet they still haven't pulled it off despite throwing insane amounts of money at it. Smaller countries wouldn't stand a chance.
North Korea is one of those weird outliers for a bunch of reasons (assuming they even have a functional A-bomb... though they clearly need it just to deal with their neighbors a few miles away).

So, what you're saying is pretty much pure fiction... and honestly, thank God it is.

Brenda Murphy3 said:And who exactly is going to let those smaller countries pull that off?

Look, if we're talking about countries with actual standards—you know, places like Austria or Finland—they wouldn't even dream of developing an A-bomb. They aren't interested. Now, if you're talking about theocratic regimes or dictatorships, 99% of them don't even have the capacity to pull it off. And even if they did get close? People would step in to stop them by any means necessary... and frankly, they'd be totally justified in doing so. Take Iran, for example; they're a huge, powerhouse nation, yet they still haven't pulled it off despite throwing insane amounts of money at it. Smaller countries wouldn't stand a chance.
North Korea is one of those weird outliers for a bunch of reasons (assuming they even have a functional A-bomb... though they clearly need it just to deal with their neighbors a few miles away).

So, what you're saying is pretty much pure fiction... and honestly, thank God it is.

But why on earth wouldn't Finland want to, or be able to, or even be allowed to have nuclear weapons? And who exactly gets to decide which rules or criteria would prohibit them from doing so?

I mean, wouldn't it be better for them to just have a bomb and remain neutral rather than joining NATO? 😉

Kenneth Cruz67 said:But why on earth wouldn't Finland want to, or be able to, or even be allowed to have nuclear weapons? And who exactly gets to decide which rules or criteria would prohibit them from doing so?

I mean, wouldn't it be better for them to just have a bomb and remain neutral rather than joining NATO? 😉

Look, if Finland and the Americans there were thinking along the lines of "hey, let's get an A-bomb," they wouldn't be Finland anymore—they'd basically be some backward wasteland. That whole cultural makeup is a huge deal in certain circles.

If you don't get why a totally normal country wouldn't want to dump massive resources into something like an A-bomb, then you probably don't understand those countries at all. Something like that would only ever happen in some seriously extreme, once-in-a-lifetime nightmare scenarios.

Countries like Finland aren't even part of this equation, and honestly, talking about it is just crazy. Now, certain Islamic theocracies, political autocracies, or dictatorships? Those *are* a problem. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to have them... even if we had to take them out preemptively... because that's a much smaller, more acceptable price to pay than letting those kinds of regimes become a threat to the entire world later on.

It would be absolutely ideal if nuclear weapons were stored under the direct supervision of the UN—somewhere strictly under UN control—and if we established a clear international mandate allowing any nation facing an invasion the right to "borrow" a few.😁😁

Best regards,

The nations most likely to launch an attack can simply exercise their veto power to block any action.

Perfect.

slyfox43 said:The nations most likely to launch an attack can simply exercise their veto power to block any action.

Perfect.

Everything is up for negotiation, right? Let's say we scrap the veto entirely, but instead, we implement actual oversight and control.
They should only be allowed to borrow funds for defensive purposes. After that, it’s entirely up to you whether you want to launch an invasion to seize territory, or if you'd rather pretend you're "spreading democracy," "protecting human rights," or pushing some religious agenda.
LP

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.

And how exactly do you imagine such a feat is possible? Do you truly believe the world's dictators will graciously host democracy workshops, only to step down once the citizenry has been educated enough to demand elections and strip them of their power?

Of course, the response to such incentives must originate from a sufficiently large and motivated critical mass of interest groups within the target nation itself.

Have you not already witnessed the catastrophic endgame when a critical mass attempts to demand change, as was the case in Syria?

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.

Many Russians will undoubtedly have nothing but vitriol to offer when it comes to Gaidar.

During Gaidar's era, Russia was a profoundly unstable and chaotic nation, plagued by two attempted coups. Was it the responsibility of the USA to establish the legal and judicial frameworks necessary to transition Russia into a democratic, capitalist society, rather than leaving that task to the Russians themselves? The USA provided what assistance it could given the circumstances, or do some truly believe the USA should have appointed a bankruptcy trustee and turned Russia into a mere protectorate?

Regarding Russia's desire to join NATO, there could have been a genuine push toward a robust "Peacekeeping" initiative or some form of associate membership within the European Union, yet that opportunity was squandered.

That was never a serious proposition to begin with. The first major friction point between the USA and Russia emerged during the conflict in America.

As I have already noted, we had Gaidar’s reformers, followed by the Apple party led by Javlinski.

While absolute guarantees were impossible, during the early nineties, the West—and the Americans in particular—possessed immense leverage; the well-known Sachsov plan ought to have taken a different path, placing a much heavier emphasis on the construction of solid political and economic institutions.

The Apple party only formed after Gaidar’s administration, and they never even came close to securing 10% of the vote in any election. Furthermore, that party was plagued by internal power struggles and infighting, much like the entirety of Russia during that turbulent period.

Bryan Booth82 said:It would be absolutely ideal if nuclear weapons were stored under the direct supervision of the UN—somewhere strictly under UN control—and if we established a clear international mandate allowing any nation facing an invasion the right to "borrow" a few.😁😁

Best regards,

Man, talk about a wildly naive suggestion!

Grace Phillips25 said:Man, talk about a wildly naive suggestion!

I completely agree with you—as it stands, it really is... but then again, evolution is a miracle, isn't it?
LP

Bryan Booth82 said:I completely agree with you—as it stands, it really is... but then again, evolution is a miracle, isn't it?
LP

Honestly, even though we're living in the 21st century, I feel like people still overhype the whole "evolution" thing! 😁

Just look at how much Russian rural society has actually evolved. It feels like they haven't moved an inch since the 1800s, at best. (Though, let's be real, you see similar vibes out in the sticks in places like Arkansas, Missouri, or Oklahoma too...)

Grace Phillips25 said:Honestly, even though we're living in the 21st century, I feel like people still overhype the whole "evolution" thing! 😁

Just look at how much Russian rural society has actually evolved. It feels like they haven't moved an inch since the 1800s, at best. (Though, let's be real, you see similar vibes out in the sticks in places like Arkansas, Missouri, or Oklahoma too...)

Evolution is a slow process—painfully slow—and some move faster than others.
Then again, if you look back over a 500-year window, even the Russians have made massive strides.
Evolution is a marathon, not a sprint... either you adapt and reach the finish line, or you face extinction.
LP

analogbear5 said:I'm pretty sure you guys know private messaging exists. Get a room. 😉

Alright, fair enough, but we were actually staying on topic. Still, I get it...

We’ve got a bit more of a laid-back vibe here—still touching on Ukraine, sure, but there's plenty of room for some decent chitchat...

Bryan Booth82 said:Evolution is a slow process—painfully slow—and some move faster than others.
Then again, if you look back over a 500-year window, even the Russians have made massive strides.
Evolution is a marathon, not a sprint... either you adapt and reach the finish line, or you face extinction.
LP

It’s slow, yeah, but before that, it’s an incredibly uneven process. It really makes you wonder how far that process has actually gone, even among those who are supposedly most "evolved." Russia is actually a perfect case study here. Muscovites, as a group, cover a huge spectrum. A large chunk of them—the Muscovites specifically—are ideologically rural, rooted in Orthodoxy, which isn't inherently bad, but it does make them incredibly easy to manipulate.

Though, let's be real, the West hasn't exactly pulled miles ahead either. We're pretty easy to pull strings on too. But, if we're talking about being even a tiny bit ahead of the Russians on average? Yeah, we are.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Of course there is, 🙂

Look, people can spin this however they want, but honestly? It would be infinitely better if nuclear weapons—assuming they even exist—were held exclusively by Western democracies and nobody else...

I am being dead serious here. In my book, the threat level of a French nuke is basically zero, whereas the danger from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and the rest is massive in comparison. We're talking about a completely different psychological makeup and set of values.

We can go back and forth until we're blue in the face about whether this view is "pro-Western," "racist," or whatever label someone wants to slap on it, but the bottom line is simple: the world is way safer with those nukes in the hands of the regimes I mentioned than with them in the hands of any Western nation. Period. End of story.

Let's look at some actual examples:
The Koreans have had theirs for a while now, and nothing happened.
And did the Iranians enable Saddam's chemical program, only to have him turn it back on them?
My mistake. That was the WESTERN DEMOCRACIES, the USA and Germany! They were just trying to help their best buddy Saddam out with good intentions.

Dana Robinson4 said:What do you think would happen to those weapons in a scenario where a mob forcibly removes a democratically elected president?

Nothing would happen.

That’s like suggesting people were playing around with Chernobyl back when they overthrew Yanukovych...

analogbear5 said:So the West is to blame because they didn't just swoop into Russia back in the 90s and
...colonize the place to fit their own image—reforming the military and turning every single inefficient, money-losing state entity into a streamlined, competent business
...clearing out all the redundant KGB types from every factory and collective farm overnight while retraining them all
...teaching the brand-new entrepreneurs that they actually had competition now and that they had to deal with real risks for once
...and if they kept churning out junk, they’d actually go bankrupt
...teaching bureaucrats—who previously treated accounting like an art form for hiding losses and faking growth—that they now had to cut costs to boost productivity without firing the massive surplus of workers who were only there to keep unemployment numbers low
...handling privatization perfectly by selling off state assets to the most honest and capable people rather than the slickest crooks

And all this while living in a democracy where the legislative and executive branches flip-flop, making deep, unpopular economic reforms nearly impossible. Once the transition got painful—which was inevitable—the Communist Party held sway over the Duma and, by extension, the Federal Reserve. They kept pushing socialist policies and sabotaging the core parts of "shock therapy" by insisting on fixing everything by printing more and more money—even while dealing with the hyperinflation of 1992! (Note: during that hyperinflationary mess, Russia was basically liquidating its weapons and ammo to anyone with a pulse).

How do you pivot an economy and a political system that's hardwired for Cold War realities and slash defense spending that was hitting 15% of the budget?
...where do those workers go?
...how do you take that specialized experience and move it into the civilian sector?
...how do you replace the lost post-Soviet markets that those massive, clunky industrial giants relied on?
...and how do you do any of that without causing mass unemployment and impoverishing the older, unskilled, and retired population?
...how do you build a functional, sustainable healthcare and social safety net overnight? Up until then, housing, health, and pensions were all tied to the companies themselves.
...who picks up those bills without going broke or leaving retirees completely destitute? How?

And how do you take a military force that’s busy growing potatoes just to feed a bloated army and maintain crumbling infrastructure—a force that's politically and militarily incompatible with the West—and somehow fold them into NATO?

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Here is what lies beneath the surface...

Russia and the IMF, Anders Aslund, January 18, 2000, Testimony

...on the topic of "How did it all start and why?"

The Italians have seized a luxury yacht valued at $700 million.

While they haven't explicitly declared it belongs to Putin, if you read the fine print provided by the finance ministry, the implication is unmistakable.

The Italian finance ministry announced that an investigation Had established that The ship ’

The ship’s captain, Guy Bennett-Pearce, told The New York Times recently that its owner was not on the sanctions list, but also denied to have seen or met Mr. Putin on the yacht.

And yet, isn't it curious that a former Scheherazade Crew member told The New York Times that He Had never heard of mr. Khudainatov and confirmed that Crew members always believed and discussed The real owner

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/w...?smid=url-copy

The US hasn't made up its mind yet on whether they'll push for an exemption from the oil embargo. Honestly, it’s not surprising one bit.

You really just have to look back at all those debates regarding offshore oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Back then, a bunch of self-proclaimed geniuses spent all their time throwing insults at anyone who actually supported those kinds of investments (and let’s be real, those "experts" ended up being proven right). Even the Russian ambassador weighed in, getting quoted by everyone while he argued that we shouldn't even bother drilling just for a few extra drops of oil and gas. 🤣