Sanctions on Russia

Joshua Myers432 said:It might actually make sense if these sanctions weren't essentially us shooting ourselves in the foot. And we're doing it quite efficiently, too.

Besides, Ukraine doesn't need help projected a century into the future; they need it right now. Because by year 100, we'll just be celebrating the 99th anniversary of Russian occupation.

It’s just your classic move from the bureaucrats in D.C.—lazy, entitled types who pretend to be busy while having no clue what they're actually doing. Honestly, the only thing more pathetic than those incompetent officials is the army of internet trolls and armchair experts defending their every blunder.

Exactly. Not just one, but a whole crowd of experts have said sanctions against Russia are pointless. Yesterday, I’m listening to our dictatorial TV news claiming the US Congress approved $10 billion in aid. Europe? Maybe $12–13 billion total. If those sanctions on Russia hadn't been slapped on, Europe would be looking at direct profits of $150–200 billion. If they had invested a quarter of that into heavy weaponry, they’d be talking about peace on their own terms, with Ukraine dictating the conditions instead of Russia.
At the NATO summit yesterday, there was all this talk about how much of a coward Joe Biden is, yet zero mention of the human trafficking happening between Turkey on one side and Finland and Sweden on the other. They act like they'll just coordinate deliveries according to European Union laws. As if the US Congress doesn't also need to ratify an accession treaty. Pathetic allies.☕

swiftjackal11 said:We help by not being like you. You care more about how much cash stays in your pocket than the suffering of Ukrainians, all because they refuse to give up who they are.

Some people are just waiting for Banožić. By the way, regarding the guy with the swastika avatar: about ten years ago, I messed around with a Rommel avatar on a different account. Got banned immediately for promoting Nazism.☕

Bryan Booth82 said:That is a remarkably narrow-minded perspective, implying that condemning Russian aggression somehow automatically necessitates putting on a uniform.
Fascinating.🤔

By that logic, wouldn't the "negatives" also include everyone who sided with the Americans during our own Civil War?🤔
If that isn't the case, I fail to see why Ukrainians feeling sympathy for the American Civil War would be seen as a negative, while we view our own Civil War as positive.🤔

The logic is simple: either both conflicts are inherently negative, or they are both inherently positive.

Honestly, trying to dismiss someone's perception using a tired, hackneyed cliché about the "Netflix generation" is just incredibly cheap, don't you think?
Furthermore, I am genuinely curious: what exactly makes you think you can judge whether someone has had military training just based on how they write online?
They used to say the exact same thing about the mustachioed officers back in the US Army.😁

Best regards,

In reality, at the start of the American Civil War, we possessed a much lower level of recognized state sovereignty than what Ukraine enjoys today. In fact, we had less than Ukraine did then, or even back during the days of the USSR. The way we managed to fight for our independence despite all the hardships—starting from a significantly weaker position—is precisely how Ukraine must struggle for its own now.

Joshua Myers432 said:Look, Christian Torres3 can go first. It's not like he doesn't have the insignia of the famous Jagdgeschwader 52 squadron right there in his avatar anyway.

Of course this slander isn't going to be penalized.

Nancy Gomez26 said:In reality, at the start of the American Civil War, we possessed a much lower level of recognized state sovereignty than what Ukraine enjoys today. In fact, we had less than Ukraine did then, or even back during the days of the USSR. The way we managed to fight for our independence despite all the hardships—starting from a significantly weaker position—is precisely how Ukraine must struggle for its own now.

Well, they are fighting. It's not like NATO sent over a single soldier to step in and stop WW3, but they are definitely helping out with equipment. I don't really see the issue with providing support. Even if it's just moral support from everyday people... and well, I won't get into the weeds about how that gear money comes straight from taxpayers.

Bryan Booth82 said:Abigail, let me tell you something: selfishness, in any conceivable sense of the word, is never a virtue...

lp

I don't think opportunism counts as some kind of "noble human quality" either.

But if we're being honest, it's easily the most common trait out there, and arguably the most effective way to actually make it through life—unlike that "noble" quality known as idealism,
which usually just lands people straight at the gates of St. Peter.☕

urbanotter said:I don't think opportunism counts as some kind of "noble human quality" either.

But if we're being honest, it's easily the most common trait out there, and arguably the most effective way to actually make it through life—unlike that "noble" quality known as idealism,
which usually just lands people straight at the gates of St. Peter.☕

Oh, you are absolutely spot on there. Personally, I stick to pragmatism. Honestly, if you want to avoid getting caught in the crossfire, it’s actually quite productive to throw your support behind those who are actively fighting against evil, wouldn't you agree?
We shouldn't confuse that with opportunism, because true opportunists are the ones who bend themselves to fit the evil.
Furthermore, idealism doesn't have to mean being so blinded by visions that we simply refuse to accept when evil wins.
And so on, and so forth...
Best,

Melissa Rivera5 said:Well, they are fighting. It's not like NATO sent over a single soldier to step in and stop WW3, but they are definitely helping out with equipment. I don't really see the issue with providing support. Even if it's just moral support from everyday people... and well, I won't get into the weeds about how that gear money comes straight from taxpayers.

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't an issue. My only hope is that they actually make efficient use of every piece of equipment they currently have, as well as everything arriving from abroad.

Bryan Booth82 said:Oh, you are absolutely spot on there. Personally, I stick to pragmatism. Honestly, if you want to avoid getting caught in the crossfire, it’s actually quite productive to throw your support behind those who are actively fighting against evil, wouldn't you agree?
We shouldn't confuse that with opportunism, because true opportunists are the ones who bend themselves to fit the evil.
Furthermore, idealism doesn't have to mean being so blinded by visions that we simply refuse to accept when evil wins.
And so on, and so forth...
Best,

The real challenge here is just identifying who the true egoists and the villains actually are in this whole scenario.

Once that's settled, everything else should fall perfectly into place.

Some people argue that we need to wait a hundred years to see the actual impact of sanctions, while others might take a century just to figure out who the bad guys are because they've been blinded by some shiny trinkets. They convince themselves they are being "pragmatic" and more sophisticated than those who refuse to trade away their principles for mere glitter.

So, whether it takes a seventh, eighth, or ninth round of sanctions, once we look back a hundred years from now to see how effective they were, we'll finally know who was actually trading wisely.

But, if I'm being honest, I have a gut feeling we won't have to wait a hundred years; we'll probably see the real impact of these sanctions within a few months.

urbanotter said:The real challenge here is just identifying who the true egoists and the villains actually are in this whole scenario.

Once that's settled, everything else should fall perfectly into place.

Some people argue that we need to wait a hundred years to see the actual impact of sanctions, while others might take a century just to figure out who the bad guys are because they've been blinded by some shiny trinkets. They convince themselves they are being "pragmatic" and more sophisticated than those who refuse to trade away their principles for mere glitter.

So, whether it takes a seventh, eighth, or ninth round of sanctions, once we look back a hundred years from now to see how effective they were, we'll finally know who was actually trading wisely.

But, if I'm being honest, I have a gut feeling we won't have to wait a hundred years; we'll probably see the real impact of these sanctions within a few months.

And I guess in your eyes, everyone and everything is evil except for Putin, who started the whole invasion?😵 😵

urbanotter said:The real challenge here is just identifying who the true egoists and the villains actually are in this whole scenario.

Once that's settled, everything else should fall perfectly into place.

Some people argue that we need to wait a hundred years to see the actual impact of sanctions, while others might take a century just to figure out who the bad guys are because they've been blinded by some shiny trinkets. They convince themselves they are being "pragmatic" and more sophisticated than those who refuse to trade away their principles for mere glitter.

So, whether it takes a seventh, eighth, or ninth round of sanctions, once we look back a hundred years from now to see how effective they were, we'll finally know who was actually trading wisely.

But, if I'm being honest, I have a gut feeling we won't have to wait a hundred years; we'll probably see the real impact of these sanctions within a few months.

There are plenty of them out there—people who would argue about whether the Earth is a flat disc. Now, having a weird theory isn't inherently a crime... until you start inventing lies and denying blatant facts to back it up.

Evil is invading other nations, bombing cities, leveling towns, and, of course, murdering innocent people.
If someone needs a hundred years to wrap their head around that reality, then they have much bigger problems than politics.

Best regards,

Actually, this invasion is purely pragmatic; ideology plays no role in why those Russian grandmothers, driven by a sort of mindless zeal, send their youth to die for the sake of some "Russian world" mythos.

Bryan Booth82 said:There are plenty of them out there—people who would argue about whether the Earth is a flat disc. Now, having a weird theory isn't inherently a crime... until you start inventing lies and denying blatant facts to back it up.

Evil is invading other nations, bombing cities, leveling towns, and, of course, murdering innocent people.
If someone needs a hundred years to wrap their head around that reality, then they have much bigger problems than politics.

Best regards,

I’m well aware that there are quite a few folks who still believe the Earth is a flat disc.

I completely agree that attacking other countries is an evil act, and honestly, you shouldn't need a hundred years to realize that.
If you just look back at the last century—though looking back several hundred years would be better—you can see how clearly this pattern repeats itself.

When you study the history of the last hundred years, or even the last few centuries, you begin to recognize a very specific, recurring pattern where sanctions are merely one part of the playbook.

It starts with defiance, moves into persuasion and economic sanctions, involves building up massive military forces, and culminates in the actual deployment of that army.
The terrifying part is that we are facing a much tougher nut to crack this time around. If we move toward that final step in the established pattern, we could find ourselves staring down the barrel of World War III, at which point it won't matter anymore whether the sanctions or the ultimate military strike actually achieved their intended goals or not.

urbanotter said:I’m well aware that there are quite a few folks who still believe the Earth is a flat disc.

I completely agree that attacking other countries is an evil act, and honestly, you shouldn't need a hundred years to realize that.
If you just look back at the last century—though looking back several hundred years would be better—you can see how clearly this pattern repeats itself.

When you study the history of the last hundred years, or even the last few centuries, you begin to recognize a very specific, recurring pattern where sanctions are merely one part of the playbook.

It starts with defiance, moves into persuasion and economic sanctions, involves building up massive military forces, and culminates in the actual deployment of that army.
The terrifying part is that we are facing a much tougher nut to crack this time around. If we move toward that final step in the established pattern, we could find ourselves staring down the barrel of World War III, at which point it won't matter anymore whether the sanctions or the ultimate military strike actually achieved their intended goals or not.

True, but let's be realistic: there isn't really a choice in the matter. You can't just say, "Hey, let's skip the sanctions this time." They are as inevitable as the sunrise following the night.

People will debate how effective sanctions actually are and whether they go far enough for as long as they live. But make no mistake: they are hitting the target. Right now, the only question is how precise that hit actually is.
Best regards,

Bryan Booth82 said:True, but let's be realistic: there isn't really a choice in the matter. You can't just say, "Hey, let's skip the sanctions this time." They are as inevitable as the sunrise following the night.

People will debate how effective sanctions actually are and whether they go far enough for as long as they live. But make no mistake: they are hitting the target. Right now, the only question is how precise that hit actually is.
Best regards,

To my mind, these measures are just another step in a well-worn playbook we've seen played out many times before.

A lot of people who have watched these situations unfold believe that the current sanctions aren't yielding the desired results, and it's becoming increasingly obvious that we are just watching the next phase of this predictable pattern being prepared.

slyfox43 said:Actually, this invasion is purely pragmatic; ideology plays no role in why those Russian grandmothers, driven by a sort of mindless zeal, send their youth to die for the sake of some "Russian world" mythos.

I honestly think you picked the wrong synonym there, and if you really wanted to capture what you meant, "Burlaks" would probably be a much more accurate way to put it.

I can't think of a single mother out there who is truly "motivated" to send her sons straight into a meat grinder.

https://en.rbth.com/lifestyle/91023-...abuska-fenomen

Saying "no Burlaks" might actually be the better way to describe the sentiment you're trying to convey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlaks_on_the_Volga

urbanotter said:To my mind, these measures are just another step in a well-worn playbook we've seen played out many times before.

A lot of people who have watched these situations unfold believe that the current sanctions aren't yielding the desired results, and it's becoming increasingly obvious that we are just watching the next phase of this predictable pattern being prepared.

Let’s be real: sanctions work. No serious person could argue that being hit by them is some kind of win for the target.
The real debate, if you want to get into the weeds, is how much collateral damage they inflict on the ones imposing them.
As a general rule, you have a coalition of groups or nations aiming these measures at a single individual or entity, and usually, the ones with the most leverage are the ones pulling the strings.
Consequently, if these sanctions end up hurting the countries that implemented them, that burden gets spread out among the many. But the target? They can hardly "spread out" the damage they're taking. They bear the brunt of it alone.

Honestly, I’m convinced that sanctions are merely the opening move... in fact, I’d go as far as to say the second step should have already been taken by now.
Best,

So, what kind of step are we actually talking about here? What else can they possibly pile onto Russia?
There are still plenty of types of sanctions that haven't even been touched yet...

dustyowl29 said:So, what kind of step are we actually talking about here? What else can they possibly pile onto Russia?
There are still plenty of types of sanctions that haven't even been touched yet...

The kind of "step" that bullies understand best.
Best,

Bryan Booth82 said:The kind of "step" that bullies understand best.
Best,

It seems like because they finally "get" that tactic, NATO members are ramping up their defense spending; NATO is planning to have 300,000 troops on standby, while the US is actively deploying new personnel to Europe..
That’s just how it goes when sanctions fail to hit the mark; instead of getting the intended result, they end up swinging back like a boomerang, often hurting the ones who imposed them even more than the targets themselves.😉

I can't really make sense of that one—looks like you might have missed the actual post content. Drop the text you want me to rework and I'll get on it. kaže:
That’s how it goes when sanctions don't actually deliver—instead, they just end up looping back like a boomerang. The one forcing it on everyone hurts way more than the ones stuck receiving it..😉

That’s just not true. If you've actually done some digging into how the Russian economy is holding up outside of the energy sector, feel free to drop the details here.

So, let's break it down—how much does a strong dollar actually mess with export revenue, and what’s the fallout for everyone except the big oil and gas players?