Sanctions on Russia

Amanda Allen4 said:In an autocratic state, any decline in the standard of living is far easier for the citizens to swallow—and tolerate—than it would ever be in a democracy.

That's essentially a form of political immunity that shields such regimes from total collapse.

That’s their business, not ours.

The real move is to keep the pressure on right now instead of folding when things get cold...

If the European Union stays tight through April or May, that's game over. Russia effectively stops being a player on the global stage...

Richard Wilson4 said:The West just doesn't have the guts to actually take Russia apart.

Honestly, we just need to cut ties with that regime. Minimize everything. Stop giving them any oxygen until they finally figure themselves out and change on their own.

The Russian people need to sit down and really think about this one. They gotta decide if holding onto Izium and Kherson is actually worth more than having decent relationships with the rest of the world. It’s a big call.

Oh sure... because they should totally prevent an uncontrolled collapse... just for their own benefit.

Just minimize relations with that regime until they change on their own.

That's not gonna cut it...

Let the Russian people decide if Izium and Kherson are more important than having normal relations with the world.

Are you kidding me?
It isn't the Russian people deciding—it's just a tiny circle around the top brass.

Arthur Miller7 said:Look, let’s play this out. Say we didn't slap on any sanctions—say we didn't help Ukraine at all and they just fell in two days flat. What happens next? Putin stands there and tells NATO, "Hey, get away from my borders or I'll shut off the gas," and we just hang our heads and give in again? Then he goes after the Baltic states since they aren't part of NATO anymore and takes them over too. Why? Because he controls the energy supply and nobody dares to step in. Then he starts backing Mexico in Canada... and everyone stays quiet because Putin holds the gas card. So, seriously, tell me—what's your brilliant plan here? The West is backed into a corner. There isn't a choice. Any attempt to "guess" which sanctions to pull means we're just softening up again. I genuinely want to hear the logic from you and anyone else whining about sanctions: how much longer were we supposed to look the other way? How many demands would Putin have had to make before we finally said "enough"? Where do you draw the line? Seriously, I'm asking.

I'm not quite sure I follow the question.
What I'm actually asking is: for those of you who support the current situation with the gas supplies, how much longer should we let an aggressor make just as much money from gas as they did before these so-called sanctions?
How long are we going to keep caving and looking the other way?

rustywalker82 said:I'm not quite sure I follow the question.
What I'm actually asking is: for those of you who support the current situation with the gas supplies, how much longer should we let an aggressor make just as much money from gas as they did before these so-called sanctions?
How long are we going to keep caving and looking the other way?

So, you're one of those guys who's against the sanctions, right? Just being direct here—not even about your specific post—but what exactly was supposed to happen? What was the move when Putin has that "power" to just squeeze us whenever he feels like it?

And honestly, I don't think this is off-topic at all since we're talking about sanctions, and that's why we're even here—to swap ideas. It gets annoying when people don't have a real answer, so they just dodge the subject and start bringing up missiles, labs, NATO, and all that other nonsense.

Nathan Thomas12 said:It’s funny how the Kremlin sycophants collectively decided to ignore my post about how Russian GDP has tanked by 40% when measured in rubles due to sanctions.
Facts clearly don't matter to them—they just want to hear the same tired nonsense over and over, like a broken record. :doubleslap:

Honestly, it was rather difficult and a bit uncomfortable to witness such a total lack of fundamental economic understanding for the first time, though one can't help but hope that things won't escalate further from here...
Then a certain "calculation" was presented, and once again, I found myself hoping that we had finally reached the end of it.

Since you clearly aren't planning on backing down, I really must ask you to perhaps brush up on some basic economic principles before diving back into any deeper analysis of financial matters...

rustywalker82 said:I'm not quite sure I follow the question.
What I'm actually asking is: for those of you who support the current situation with the gas supplies, how much longer should we let an aggressor make just as much money from gas as they did before these so-called sanctions?
How long are we going to keep caving and looking the other way?

Looks like you can't even be bothered to read properly—it's pretty obvious you're against the sanctions.
You brought up "smart sanctions" and cutting off those revenue streams that Putin can offset by hiking up gas prices, which is obviously the better way to go.
Is there actually anything more written down about this somewhere?

urbanotter said:It’s been said and written time and time again, but it feels like some people are simply choosing to be deaf and blind to the warnings that were already coming our way.

It never occurred to anyone, much like it hasn't today, to actually sit down and talk with Russia to resolve existing tensions instead of dragging Ukraine into NATO, establishing military bases, and positioning missiles in a way that makes Russia feel threatened.

I remember reading about how when the USSR placed missiles in Cuba, American planes carrying nuclear bombs were already in the air; if an agreement hadn't been reached at the very last second, the world would look very different today.

But I suppose I am just wasting my breath here, and I might as well end up in total "self-isolation" for trying to make sense of it all.

It is truly fascinating, isn't it, how Russia suddenly finds itself feeling so profoundly threatened by the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, yet they seem to harbor absolutely no such anxiety regarding the near-certain integration of Sweden and Finland into the alliance? One might be tempted to assume that this outcry has nothing to do with some perceived "encroachment" by NATO, but rather stems from something far more insidious. Could it not be argued that this entire tantrum is actually about the systematic denial of Ukraine’s very right to exist as a sovereign nation and its people? Is it not quite obvious that this all traces back to Putin's infamous rhetoric, where he insists that Ukraine can only maintain any semblance of sovereignty if it remains under the thumb of Russia?

Lisa Jackson7 said:Oh sure... because they should totally prevent an uncontrolled collapse... just for their own benefit.

Just minimize relations with that regime until they change on their own.

That's not gonna cut it...

Let the Russian people decide if Izium and Kherson are more important than having normal relations with the world.

Are you kidding me?
It isn't the Russian people deciding—it's just a tiny circle around the top brass.

Look, back in the 90s, the USA basically stopped Russia from falling apart, and all that did was turn Russia into an even worse autocracy.

Donna Harris11 said:We're looking at street protests toppling governments and total Balkanization—basically tearing things apart like back in the 90s... I mean, Hillary Clinton or Madeleine Albright practically said it themselves, how unfair it is that Russia has all those massive natural resources

Then there's the whole history of bad blood with the Anglosphere.

Like that armed incident from last year where a super modern US Navy Ship Deliberately Sailed Close to Crimea

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/w...er-crimea.html

US Navy Ship Deliberately Sailed Close to Crimea, US Officials say

What kind of nonsense are you spewing? How can you claim these things are true? First, you spout theories about color revolutions, Soros, and the CIA, and now the icing on the cake is this supposed "statement" from Albright suggesting it was unjust for Russia to hold such massive natural resources—as if she were somehow predicting the future via some Russian spy with supernatural powers capable of reading her mind. You Kremlin apologists truly are a special breed of comedians.

Russian spies can read Madeleine Albright’s mind

Quote : Last Month , during Vladimir Putin ’s yearly televised question-and-answer show, Novosibirsk called in to ask The Russian President to respond to a statement by former U. S. Secretary of state. Siberia holds too many natural resources for just one country’s use, Albright apparently said. Putin dismissed the statement as “political ...

Boris Ratnikov, a retired major general who worked for the Secret Service, said in a December 2006 interview with government newspaper Rossiiskaya gazeta that his colleagues, who worked for the service’s secret mind-reading division, read Albright’s subconscious a few weeks before the beginning of the NATO bombardment of America in 1999.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2007/11/07...lbrights-mind/

Lisa Jackson7 said:Oh sure... because they should totally prevent an uncontrolled collapse... just for their own benefit.

Just minimize relations with that regime until they change on their own.

That's not gonna cut it...

Let the Russian people decide if Izium and Kherson are more important than having normal relations with the world.

Are you kidding me?
It isn't the Russian people deciding—it's just a tiny circle around the top brass.

And what, in your estimation, would actually suffice?

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, back in the 90s, the USA basically stopped Russia from falling apart, and all that did was turn Russia into an even worse autocracy.

Their whole "preventing collapse" strategy was basically just propping up Boris Yeltsin's transition from a joke to an autocrat before Putin took over—all while making sure a tight circle of oligarchs became the big winners of privatization.
I mean, come on—get real about how Russia could've crumbled like Czechoslovakia... you’d be looking at a massive fail state with nuclear weapons in the hands of random warlords and millions of refugees flooding the West. Think about those consequences.

Dream on...
☕

Anthony Hill5 said:And what, in your estimation, would actually suffice?

I’m all for nudging things toward at least some kind of hybrid democracy—sort of like what Ukraine’s running right now... at least once the current regime can't even afford to feed their own security forces anymore.

Here’s one direct consequence of those sanctions—Russia is literally setting money on fire because they have nowhere to send the gas:

“plant, near the border with Finland, is burning an estimated $10m (£8.4m) worth of gas every day”.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62652133

quietviper0 said:Honestly, it was rather difficult and a bit uncomfortable to witness such a total lack of fundamental economic understanding for the first time, though one can't help but hope that things won't escalate further from here...
Then a certain "calculation" was presented, and once again, I found myself hoping that we had finally reached the end of it.

Since you clearly aren't planning on backing down, I really must ask you to perhaps brush up on some basic economic principles before diving back into any deeper analysis of financial matters...

Look, I don't care if you're a welder, a janitor, or whatever—it's not my business. But I've got an economics degree and experience in banking, so when you claim I know nothing, at least have the decency to hit me with a real counter-argument.
Here’s the reality: Russia's GDP dropped 4% monthly when measured in USD. Let's say pre-war it was $10,000 per capita, and now it's sitting at $9,600.
Furthermore, if $1 USD used to be 80 rubles, that puts the GDP at 800,000 rubles. Now, with $1 USD equaling only 60 rubles, that $9,600 translates to just 576,000 rubles.
So, the gap between 800,000 and 576,000 is a 30% drop. Russia's GDP fell by 30% when measured in rubles—and that's even before considering how much more expensive everything has become there.
Call me names all you want, but any sane person will take my side until you can actually dismantle my numbers. Honestly, if someone proves me wrong with actual facts, I'll be the first to admit I messed up.

The real issue is they don't have much to export or even enough to cover their own needs, besides just energy and grain.
Sanctions really hit the manufacturing and tech sectors the hardest.
It’s not in China's interest to step in and help them out—they're rivals, after all, and this side has more nuclear warheads.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Looks like you can't even be bothered to read properly—it's pretty obvious you're against the sanctions.
You brought up "smart sanctions" and cutting off those revenue streams that Putin can offset by hiking up gas prices, which is obviously the better way to go.
Is there actually anything more written down about this somewhere?

Once the people who were against smart sanctions on Russian energy—you know, things like price caps combined with supply agreements if needed—got outvoted right at the start, the folks backing the current model, like Mario Draghi for example, who wanted to make sure Putin earned less cash, just kind of went quiet.
The noise coming from "the other side" is way too loud right now. Once the people who were basically handing money to the Russians go silent, I expect we'll see a lot more posts about this, and I'll drop links when I find them.
Usually, the real experts talk a lot less and stay quieter.

Btw, the people pushing this current sanction setup claimed that with price caps on Russian gas, ExxonMobil would just shut off the valves (and intentionally tank Putin's revenue to like 1/10th of what he's getting now).

I honestly don't know where to start with this one, but let's just dive in. I was sitting there thinking about how things are moving lately, and man, it’s a lot to wrap your head around. You look at the way the global powers are playing this game—it feels like we're watching a high-stakes poker match where nobody is being honest about their hand. You’ve got the big players constantly eyeing each other, especially with the tension between the US and Russia. It’s that same old dance, isn't it? One side makes a move, the other reacts, and meanwhile, everyone else is just trying to figure out if their energy bills are going to skyrocket because of some massive fallout between the West and Moscow. It’s exhausting just following the news, honestly. And then you have the influence of China in all of this. They aren't exactly sitting on the sidelines. Everything feels interconnected now—supply chains, tech, trade... it's all tied together in this massive web. If one thread pulls, the whole thing shakes. I sometimes wonder if we're just stuck in this endless cycle. We talk about changing the world, but most of the time, it feels like the same old elite interests are just protecting the status quo. It’s like we’re running on a treadmill—lots of movement, lots of noise, but are we actually getting anywhere? Anyway, I'm probably overthinking it. My brain tends to go down these rabbit holes when I haven't had enough coffee. Just my two cents on the madness. What do you guys think? Am I totally off base here, or does anyone else feel like we're just circling the drain? kaže:
It’s been said a dozen times over, honestly. It’s just that some people choose to turn a blind eye and plug their ears—kind of like how the West acted when all those early warnings were being shouted right at them.

It honestly never crossed anyone's mind—and it still hasn't—to actually sit down and talk with Russia to try and smooth things over. Instead of finding a way to resolve the tension, we're just pushing to bring Ukraine into NATO, setting up military bases, and positioning missiles. It’s like we’re intentionally trying to make Russia feel backed into a corner.

Back when the USSR planted those missiles in Cuba, our American jets were already circling up there with nuclear payloads ready to go. Honestly, if they hadn't managed to pull off that last-second deal at the eleventh hour, the world we're living in today would look completely different. It was a close one.

I feel like I’m just beating my keyboard for nothing at this point. If I keep going, I might end up stuck in some kind of self-imposed isolation.

🤦🤦

Here we go again with this same old propaganda. Honestly, even the Russians have given up on this stuff once they realize it’s just falling on deaf ears...

So, when exactly is Ukraine joining NATO?
Could you give me a rundown on those bases and the missile strikes happening over in Ukraine?

Lisa Jackson7 said:I’m all for nudging things toward at least some kind of hybrid democracy—sort of like what Ukraine’s running right now... at least once the current regime can't even afford to feed their own security forces anymore.

You must have been asleep for the last twenty years if you actually believe that.

Anthony Hill5 said:You must have been asleep for the last twenty years if you actually believe that.

What do you even mean by that? Like, can you be any clearer?

Nathan Thomas12 said:Look, I don't care if you're a welder, a janitor, or whatever—it's not my business. But I've got an economics degree and experience in banking, so when you claim I know nothing, at least have the decency to hit me with a real counter-argument.
Here’s the reality: Russia's GDP dropped 4% monthly when measured in USD. Let's say pre-war it was $10,000 per capita, and now it's sitting at $9,600.
Furthermore, if $1 USD used to be 80 rubles, that puts the GDP at 800,000 rubles. Now, with $1 USD equaling only 60 rubles, that $9,600 translates to just 576,000 rubles.
So, the gap between 800,000 and 576,000 is a 30% drop. Russia's GDP fell by 30% when measured in rubles—and that's even before considering how much more expensive everything has become there.
Call me names all you want, but any sane person will take my side until you can actually dismantle my numbers. Honestly, if someone proves me wrong with actual facts, I'll be the first to admit I messed up.

What actually fluctuates is real GDP, not nominal figures, and it shouldn't be calculated using some arbitrary currency you've picked out to make a point... In truth, GDP isn't really about currency at all; it represents the actual volume of goods produced and services rendered, and to compare that over time, we use constant prices.

The thing that fell for the Russians was 4%, and that is the only metric that truly rises or falls—real GDP, specifically products and services.

If they had 1,000 products and services last year, and there is a 4% drop this year, they now have 960, regardless of whatever their nominal value might be...

Let's take a hypothetical scenario from last year to illustrate this:
100 products = 100 rubles = 10 dollars

This year, applying that 4% drop, the only thing we can actually map that decrease onto is the component representing products. That percentage doesn't apply to currencies. However, if you factor in inflation/deflation (the base rate) and depreciation/appreciation (all other currencies), then you can derive the other nominal data points.

In Russia's case, if we account for 15% inflation and a 20% appreciation of the ruble, those top figures would look roughly like this:
96 products = 110 rubles = 13 dollars

Any attempt to manipulate those numbers, other than acknowledging that products and services fell by 4%, is simply incorrect... It is wrong to claim there was a 10% increase in rubles, and it is equally wrong to claim a 30% increase in dollars. Currencies are irrelevant to the core fact.
They fell by 4%. In terms of products and services.
And all these little gymnastics you're doing with exchange rates... well, it's really just economic voodoo...

It is the exact same situation in the US where we just received data showing 7.7% growth.
In terms of local currency adjusted for inflation, it was actually 15%, and in dollars, it was "only" 5% due to depreciation. Using anything other than that 7.7% figure is a mistake because the currency fluctuations are secondary.

P.S. I sincerely hope life never sends me to you for any banking or financial services...