Sanctions on Russia

Jesse Hughes6 said:Economic genius Mirko E. Zlikovski—the legend himself, striking again.

If he could just manage to master basic reading comprehension, this whole situation would be slightly less of a comedy routine.

As it stands, it's just pathetic.

I suppose it depends on your perspective; at the end of the day, some people will be freezing while others are raking in the cash.

And when that happens, I don't think anyone is going to find it particularly 😉funny.😉

Besides, there are plenty of people like Zlikovski out there—it feels like an entire choir of them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=russia...client=gws-wiz

gentlestag15 said:We were talking about foreign debt, yet you drop a link where you're bundling in domestic debt too.

Anyway, American foreign exchange reserves per capita were actually stronger before the war started.
Plus, I fully expect them to be more than double what Russia has left soon, since Russian reserves are melting away like snow in the sun. (The real question is whether they ever get back those $300 billion that were frozen, or if that money just goes straight toward rebuilding Ukraine.)
Within a year, once Europe stops importing energy from Russia entirely, things over there are going to collapse. They were selling 90% of their gas to Europe and 10% to the rest of the world, plus a huge chunk of oil. They basically lived off those sales—Russian state revenue was 60% fueled by energy exports.
Everything is going exactly according to plan in Putinland.😵

Exactly.
Once we start pulling gas out of the Gulf of Mexico, maybe we can export it back to Russia.

But we were talking about foreign debt—do I really need to explain what external debt is, or are you going to take a moment to Google it?

How Russia is actually making up for all the stuff they can't import because of sanctions: Just making it themselves

Bryan Booth82 said:I’ve been digging through this for quite some time now, desperately searching for even a shred of evidence or a logical explanation to support the claim that sanctions are actually hurting the West more than they are hitting Russia, but I haven't come across a single argument that makes any sense at all.

It honestly feels like Russian propaganda hasn't quite polished this particular narrative yet—I suppose it's designed for people who don't ask many questions.

Can anyone actually walk me through the logic here? How on earth are these... if I recall correctly... six different rounds of sanctions supposed to be damaging the West instead of Russia?

Respectfully submitted,
Best regards,

Mainstream Western media basically does the heavy lifting for Russian propaganda by cherry-picking data released exclusively by Moscow. You can only reach that conclusion if you rely solely on their numbers.

urbanotter said:Exactly.
Once we start pulling gas out of the Gulf of Mexico, maybe we can export it back to Russia.

But we were talking about foreign debt—do I really need to explain what external debt is, or are you going to take a moment to Google it?

Fine, man. Explain it then. What is it, and what does it actually do to the economy?

analogbear5 said:Mainstream Western media basically does the heavy lifting for Russian propaganda by cherry-picking data released exclusively by Moscow. You can only reach that conclusion if you rely solely on their numbers.

Sure, but when they mindlessly broadcast that propaganda as fact, nobody bothers to call them out on it.
Basic logic dictates that the Russian market—and let's be real, the actual purchasing power of the Russian people—isn't even a factor that should be hitting the West, given that American companies aren't even selling products there anymore.

For God's sake, Russian propaganda tries to paint Russia and its market as if it were a version of Germany with a billion people and massive spending power. It's a total fantasy. 🤦
Best,

Bryan Booth82 said:Sure, but when they mindlessly broadcast that propaganda as fact, nobody bothers to call them out on it.
Basic logic dictates that the Russian market—and let's be real, the actual purchasing power of the Russian people—isn't even a factor that should be hitting the West, given that American companies aren't even selling products there anymore.

For God's sake, Russian propaganda tries to paint Russia and its market as if it were a version of Germany with a billion people and massive spending power. It's a total fantasy. 🤦
Best,

Exactly. The West can function without Russia, but Russia definitely can't function without the West. It’s just that cognitive dissonance usually wins out over actual logic.

urbanotter said:Exactly.
Once we start pulling gas out of the Gulf of Mexico, maybe we can export it back to Russia.

But we were talking about foreign debt—do I really need to explain what external debt is, or are you going to take a moment to Google it?

I’ve heard there are significant gas deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean too. They won't get the drilling started this year, but by next year? Well, that changes everything...

urbanotter said:When you're looking at a budget, the most critical factor isn't just how much you have, but the balance between revenue coming in and expenses going out.😉

A budget doesn't necessarily need to be massive if the income is consistently outpacing the spending; you could manage a smaller fund for years and still see the balance grow or stay steady.

Russia earns significantly more from its oil and gas exports than it is currently spending on the war in Ukraine.

Russia is basically running their entire operation off energy sales—I mean, let’s be honest, it’s pretty much the only thing they have left that actually matters. It’s funding absolutely everything over there, from the war in Ukraine and all their imports to pensions, salaries, and even basic road repairs. And despite what some people here keep parroting like a bunch of mindless parrots, those sanctions are actually working, which is actually making their reliance on energy sales even more extreme. Last year, those sales accounted for about 40% of their federal budget, but now? They've already climbed up to 60%. It's wild when you really look at the numbers.

Bryan Booth82 said:I’ve been digging through this for quite some time now, desperately searching for even a shred of evidence or a logical explanation to support the claim that sanctions are actually hurting the West more than they are hitting Russia, but I haven't come across a single argument that makes any sense at all.

It honestly feels like Russian propaganda hasn't quite polished this particular narrative yet—I suppose it's designed for people who don't ask many questions.

Can anyone actually walk me through the logic here? How on earth are these... if I recall correctly... six different rounds of sanctions supposed to be damaging the West instead of Russia?

Respectfully submitted,
Best regards,

Breaking news from today:
Dow Chemical in Indianapolis isn't going to restart fertilizer production...
You have to explain what that means for fall planting, and eventually for food supply and prices too...

It's unbelievable how people can be so blind when they have perfectly good eyes...

slysurfer14 said:Breaking news from today:
Dow Chemical in Indianapolis isn't going to restart fertilizer production...
You have to explain what that means for fall planting, and eventually for food supply and prices too...

It's unbelievable how people can be so blind when they have perfectly good eyes...

Regarding the planting season, this could be significant, or it could be noise. Mineral fertilizers are global commodities; they move through international trade routes, meaning they can be sourced from other suppliers regardless of local shutdowns. On the other hand, if a major player like Dow Chemical is struggling to get lines running, we might see similar systemic failures among other manufacturers across the European Union. Then there is the matter of internal stability; even when gas supplies were consistent, this facility faced its own set of hurdles beyond just fuel availability. Generally speaking, when fully operational, Dow Chemical is one of the largest industrial gas consumers in the US. During peak demand periods—those bitter mid-winter stretches—they often throttle or halt production entirely just to ensure the grid remains stable for everyone else.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Regarding the planting season, this could be significant, or it could be noise. Mineral fertilizers are global commodities; they move through international trade routes, meaning they can be sourced from other suppliers regardless of local shutdowns. On the other hand, if a major player like Dow Chemical is struggling to get lines running, we might see similar systemic failures among other manufacturers across the European Union. Then there is the matter of internal stability; even when gas supplies were consistent, this facility faced its own set of hurdles beyond just fuel availability. Generally speaking, when fully operational, Dow Chemical is one of the largest industrial gas consumers in the US. During peak demand periods—those bitter mid-winter stretches—they often throttle or halt production entirely just to ensure the grid remains stable for everyone else.

Honestly, it might be better to just shut Dow Chemical down entirely.

At least we know that's an option.😉

p.s.

We know they'll bring it in eventually.

Maybe even some Russian stuff.

https://www.agroklub.com/poljoprivre...gnojiva/76451/

Nancy Gomez26 said:Regarding the planting season, this could be significant, or it could be noise. Mineral fertilizers are global commodities; they move through international trade routes, meaning they can be sourced from other suppliers regardless of local shutdowns. On the other hand, if a major player like Dow Chemical is struggling to get lines running, we might see similar systemic failures among other manufacturers across the European Union. Then there is the matter of internal stability; even when gas supplies were consistent, this facility faced its own set of hurdles beyond just fuel availability. Generally speaking, when fully operational, Dow Chemical is one of the largest industrial gas consumers in the US. During peak demand periods—those bitter mid-winter stretches—they often throttle or halt production entirely just to ensure the grid remains stable for everyone else.

That’s why they pump out fertilizer in the summer. If they can't use the gas this year, they won't make a single gram... You think there's no big deal? Like, "Oh, we'll just buy it somewhere else for ten times the price"? Well, now prices have already jumped at least three times over...
So, how much do you think food prices are gonna spike because of this?.....

Carl Lee27 said:Russia is basically running their entire operation off energy sales—I mean, let’s be honest, it’s pretty much the only thing they have left that actually matters. It’s funding absolutely everything over there, from the war in Ukraine and all their imports to pensions, salaries, and even basic road repairs. And despite what some people here keep parroting like a bunch of mindless parrots, those sanctions are actually working, which is actually making their reliance on energy sales even more extreme. Last year, those sales accounted for about 40% of their federal budget, but now? They've already climbed up to 60%. It's wild when you really look at the numbers.

Sanctions definitely work, though I can't help but feel it would be quite beneficial if we had some applied to us too.

We've been struggling for years trying to get more American-made products onto our local store shelves, yet it seems like they managed to solve that particular issue in Russia in just a few months.

silentnomad7 said:I’ve heard there are significant gas deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean too. They won't get the drilling started this year, but by next year? Well, that changes everything...

That sounds great,
if it means starting next year we'll be relying on Turkish gas, especially since Erdogan is such a close ally. 😁

Nancy Gomez26 said:Regarding the planting season, this could be significant, or it could be noise. Mineral fertilizers are global commodities; they move through international trade routes, meaning they can be sourced from other suppliers regardless of local shutdowns. On the other hand, if a major player like Dow Chemical is struggling to get lines running, we might see similar systemic failures among other manufacturers across the European Union. Then there is the matter of internal stability; even when gas supplies were consistent, this facility faced its own set of hurdles beyond just fuel availability. Generally speaking, when fully operational, Dow Chemical is one of the largest industrial gas consumers in the US. During peak demand periods—those bitter mid-winter stretches—they often throttle or halt production entirely just to ensure the grid remains stable for everyone else.

Fair point. We’re basically a bloated, aging nation anyway. The younger generation will slim down while the old guard just fades away. Consider this both sanctions and reform wrapped into one. Congrats!

slysurfer14 said:Breaking news from today:
Dow Chemical in Indianapolis isn't going to restart fertilizer production...
You have to explain what that means for fall planting, and eventually for food supply and prices too...

It's unbelievable how people can be so blind when they have perfectly good eyes...

Go ahead then—explain it, if you actually can.
To start us off, could you pinpoint which specific sanction, or perhaps which group of sanctions, is supposedly responsible for halting production in Indianapolis?

Walk me through how the decision to keep production offline in Indianapolis is somehow part of the "damage" being done to the West by the imposition of sanctions.

I see these kinds of logically bankrupt arguments all the time, yet they're always presented without a shred of actual explanation.
Best,

Bryan Booth82 said:Go ahead then—explain it, if you actually can.
To start us off, could you pinpoint which specific sanction, or perhaps which group of sanctions, is supposedly responsible for halting production in Indianapolis?

Walk me through how the decision to keep production offline in Indianapolis is somehow part of the "damage" being done to the West by the imposition of sanctions.

I see these kinds of logically bankrupt arguments all the time, yet they're always presented without a shred of actual explanation.
Best,

And I could draw you a map, but you'll probably just figure it out when you see the prices at the checkout line in a few months....

slysurfer14 said:And I could draw you a map, but you'll probably just figure it out when you see the prices at the checkout line in a few months....

Now we’re paying top dollar for gas$6.00 when it used to hit $7 a gallon.
So what?
Are we supposed to back aggression just to keep fuel prices low?
Is that the point of your endless doom&gloom posts?

The situation remains stagnant. A predictable pattern of inertia. We watch the gears grind, yet nothing moves forward. It is much like watching a stalled engine in a Detroit factory—plenty of noise, plenty of smoke, but zero momentum. One begins to wonder if anyone is actually at the wheel, or if we are all just passengers in a vehicle with no destination. kaže:
It would be better to simply shut down ExxonMobil.

That much is already clear.😉

Postscript.

It’s coming. We all know it.

Perhaps even Russian.

The global fertilizer market is currently a volatile mess, much like a high-stakes poker game where the rules change mid-hand. We are seeing massive shifts in supply chains that have left many producers feeling incredibly exposed. It’s one thing to plan a season based on predictable costs, but quite another when geopolitical instability turns the entire landscape upside down. Take the current situation with gas prices and nitrogen production. It’s a domino effect. When energy costs spike, the cost of producing ammonia skyrockets, which immediately hits the farmer's bottom line. We saw this play out during recent supply disruptions, and frankly, it felt less like a temporary hiccup and more like a fundamental breakdown of the old stability we once took for granted. Then there is the issue of logistics and trade barriers. With various international tensions and shifting trade policies, getting essential nutrients from point A to point B has become an expensive headache. It isn't just about having the product; it's about whether it can actually reach the field without being swallowed by rising freight costs or blocked by sudden regulatory shifts. We are essentially watching a collision between old-school agricultural planning and a new, much more chaotic reality. For those on the ground, the margin for error has shrunk to almost nothing. You can't just rely on last year's playbook anymore; the math simply doesn't add up the same way it used to.

Decisions regarding such matters rest solely with the plant owners. As a consumer, I couldn't care less about the origin of my fertilizer. My preference would be to source it from an ExxonMobil facility, provided the price point and quality align with my requirements. However, if ExxonMobil doesn't have it in stock, I'll simply look elsewhere. I am under no obligation to maintain any sort of loyalty to them.
Just as a side note—back when we couldn't freely trade within the single market—fertilizer from an ExxonMobil plant was always more expensive for domestic consumers than it was for farmers in neighboring countries. It was a strange reality where retail prices (pre-tax) for that same fertilizer were actually lower in places like Canada or Canada than they were right here at home through the wholesaler. Once the unified market finally kicked in, the prices "leveled out." But there was a peculiar irony during those earlier years: even when that fertilizer was cheaper in Canada, it couldn't be imported back into the States to take advantage of the price gap. The reason? Customs duties. Since the product wasn't classified under the specific trade agreements of the time, even though it was produced locally, it hit those tariff walls. In the end, it just made everything more expensive for us.