Sanctions on Russia

Christian Torres3 said:Sure, they won't go under, but don't think they'll keep making bank like they used to. Do your homework—look at how much oil, gas, and coal imports from the Russian Federation to the European Union have already dropped, and that trend is only going down. If you think everything is just going to stay status quo, you're dead wrong. If Russia actually wants a seat at the table with Western nations again, they're going to need some massive, fundamental changes.

To start with, we should probably strip them of their right to maintain a military, just like what was done with Germany. It's either that or we cut off all cooperation with them entirely. Though, I suppose getting every single country on board with that would be a nightmare, considering players like China and India are in the mix.

Amy Diaz22 said:Look, there’s no way Russia is just going to collapse. I mean, think about the scale of what they’re pulling in—we're talking $300 billion from oil alone, plus another $150 billion from gas, and maybe $50 billion from food exports. Toss in all their other raw materials like aluminum, gold, copper, and coal, not to mention they have some of the largest reserves of fresh water and massive forest coverage on the planet.
The thing is, these are all commodities. There isn't a "Made in Russia" stamp on a barrel of crude or a shipment of iron ore that stops a buyer in their tracks. You don't have to register a ton of oil like you do a Ford F-150, and you can't exactly ban someone from driving it once they've bought it. With how high oil, gas, and mineral prices are sitting right now, I honestly don't see their GDP dipping below the $1 trillion mark annually.

Just look at the math: even with Iran being under heavy sanctions, their nominal GDP still manages to outpace Turkey's.

First off, nobody is saying they'll "collapse." A country doesn't just "collapse" in the literal sense, but yeah, their standard of living—which isn't exactly high to begin with—is definitely going to tank.

And honestly, a $1 trillion GDP for a country with that many people is a total joke. If anything, the numbers you're throwing out are just proof of how broke Russia actually is. You're talking about a nation sitting on the largest energy wealth on the planet—it's simple math: you dig it up, process it if you have to, and sell it. Yet, despite all that, the citizens' quality of life is absolute garbage. That is the direct result of Putin's inner circle and his little delusions of grandeur. And don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of it all—his kids, his wife, the children of Lavrov and Peskov, and all those other hypocritical scumbags... they all live their best lives and go to school in the West while their own people struggle. It's pure schizophrenia and blatant hypocrisy, mostly directed right at their own people.

Christian Torres3 said:Sure, they won't go under, but don't think they'll keep making bank like they used to. Do your homework—look at how much oil, gas, and coal imports from the Russian Federation to the European Union have already dropped, and that trend is only going down. If you think everything is just going to stay status quo, you're dead wrong. If Russia actually wants a seat at the table with Western nations again, they're going to need some massive, fundamental changes.

The bottom line is this: they can produce goods of that magnitude all on their own, whether it's for their own people or selling to whoever else is out there. Sure, exports will take a hit, but they'll be charging much higher prices to compensate. That's enough to keep them breathing for now; they can figure out their next move later.

restlessmason54 said:Oh, please. You really think those hypocritical Germans didn't just throw billions of dollars down the drain only to end up lighting their own houses on fire out of pure spite? 🍿 🤣

People actually believe the economy is run by some central command center at the CIA.

The Nord Stream 2 project had massive energy giants footing the bill: 50% from ExxonMobil (Russia), with the rest coming from Shell (UK-Netherlands), ExxonMobil (Austria), Engie (France), and Chevron (Germany). Their billions are gone.

Aside from ExxonMobil, these were corporations that definitely knew exactly what kind of risks they were taking.

Amy Diaz22 said:The bottom line is this: they can produce goods of that magnitude all on their own, whether it's for their own people or selling to whoever else is out there. Sure, exports will take a hit, but they'll be charging much higher prices to compensate. That's enough to keep them breathing for now; they can figure out their next move later.

Yeah, provided anyone actually wants to buy that junk. Once the dust settles in Ukraine, I don't see anyone from the Middle East even looking at their weapons or military tech. That's assuming they can even build anything under all these sanctions (they can't even get tanks rolling as we speak). Honestly, they haven't been able to pull off their most advanced systems even before all this mess started.

Anthony Hill5 said:It is precisely that parallel universe I am referring to—that alternate reality where the Ukrainian opposition supposedly committed suicide via sniper fire, a reality where the Azov regiment was bombing civilians in theaters, and yet another reality where Syrians were apparently poisoning themselves with chemical weapons.

Prior to the 2014 annexation of Crimea, there was a popular revolution that ousted a criminal, a villain, and a traitor; this was followed by democratic elections in which that very same criminal could have participated had he not slaughtered hundreds of people before fleeing to Russia. Furthermore, I fail to see how any of that provides a shred of justification for what Putin subsequently did through the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of Donbas.

And what ever happened to that Sevastopol port agreement?

but the EU should have been stronger and forced the Ukrainians to just wrap things up over there.

Now, instead, we are left with this massive slaughter and the devastation of eastern Ukraine. Which, if you ask me, is somehow better.

How fascinating that suddenly, meddling in the internal affairs of other nations becomes justifiable and even desirable, provided it aligns with Putin's interests.

So, according to this logic, the blame for the war lies with Europe for failing to force Ukraine to get its act together, rather than with Putin's imperialistic agenda.

You are truly living in deep denial.

A popular revolution toppling a democratically elected president—who, mind you, had already been ousted once before, quite the persistent guy.
The sniper stories aren't entirely clear-cut, but I bet you'll just wave them away as propaganda, won't you?
That was just your standard American-style regime change.

What happened with the Sevastopol port deal and the lease agreement?

Those brand-new Maidan-style officials immediately started barking about how they were going to tear up that 50-year lease for the Russian Navy in Sevastopol (the one signed under Yanukovych).
That was probably the real trigger for the annexation.

analogbear5 said:The bottom line of the article? Given how things look right now—with a peace treaty still feeling light years away—gold prices probably won't tank. Expect it to just bounce around somewhere between $1,900 and $2,000 an ounce.

Thanks. Haven't opened it yet, but did it drop way more than you guessed? 😛 It actually plummeted over 6% last night following that first default announcement. To save us from a math lesson on my logic, I was bracing for a 25% hit since that’s how much the ruble crashed after the sanctions. Maybe 25% is an exaggeration because gold isn't the only player in the game and anything can happen...

Here’s the new playbook: gold drops, the ruble drops, a new default hits, interest rates spike, the ruble recovers, everything gets reset—but gold holds its ground and climbs with inflation because we aren't on a gold standard anymore.

wiredseal7 said:A popular revolution toppling a democratically elected president—who, mind you, had already been ousted once before, quite the persistent guy.
The sniper stories aren't entirely clear-cut, but I bet you'll just wave them away as propaganda, won't you?
That was just your standard American-style regime change.

What happened with the Sevastopol port deal and the lease agreement?

Those brand-new Maidan-style officials immediately started barking about how they were going to tear up that 50-year lease for the Russian Navy in Sevastopol (the one signed under Yanukovych).
That was probably the real trigger for the annexation.

Ugh, more stinky lies from the Russian propaganda machine. So, here's the scenario: some wannabe dictator makes a campaign promise, suddenly pivots his entire foreign policy, and then—surprise!—gets hit by massive protests involving over half a million people who just don't want to be part of Putin's corrupt oligarch octopus. But sure, of course, they must all be American agents, right? Then he rolls out a bunch of repressive laws and starts cracking down on people. The only catch is that unlike Putin, who slowly grabbed every single lever of power bit by bit, this guy found out the hard way that the military and the FBI won't just follow orders anymore. Once he realized he couldn't crush the protests by force and keep his grip, he had to flee. In the end, Parliament just voted him out.

Timeline:

The question of where Ukraine should lean could have been settled at the ballot box or through a referendum—and honestly, Ukraine went on to hold a series of free elections later on. It's just that Putin can't stand leaving things like that up to chance.

Russian media is suddenly explicit about what Russia is really doing in Ukraine. Citing Vasily Zenkovsky's writings fra 1931, propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov laid it out: "Russia will never Ceda Ukraine to anyone ... IT Has to be part of Russia , even against Ukraine's own will."
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...96832136122381

analogbear5 said:People actually believe the economy is run by some central command center at the CIA.

The Nord Stream 2 project had massive energy giants footing the bill: 50% from ExxonMobil (Russia), with the rest coming from Shell (UK-Netherlands), ExxonMobil (Austria), Engie (France), and Chevron (Germany). Their billions are gone.

Aside from ExxonMobil, these were corporations that definitely knew exactly what kind of risks they were taking.

Nothing about Nord Stream 2 has actually failed. It isn't as if someone physically picked up the pipeline and walked off with it. The gas will eventually flow through those lines with just a slight delay, and by the end of the day, the whole thing will prove to be profitable. Perhaps some investor will swoop in now to scoop up shares from the current owners at a discount. I suspect most of those investors would still be selling their stakes with heavy hearts, simply because the project retains its potential—they just need to wait it out.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Nothing about Nord Stream 2 has actually failed. It isn't as if someone physically picked up the pipeline and walked off with it. The gas will eventually flow through those lines with just a slight delay, and by the end of the day, the whole thing will prove to be profitable. Perhaps some investor will swoop in now to scoop up shares from the current owners at a discount. I suspect most of those investors would still be selling their stakes with heavy hearts, simply because the project retains its potential—they just need to wait it out.

It isn't quite that simple, though.
Nord Stream 2 cost 7.4 Billions of euros... and that massive investment needs to pay itself off as soon as possible... especially since we are talking about private capital here.

If you want to see a return on investment quickly, Nord Stream 2 had to start operating immediately... and let's not forget that Nord Stream 2 has a limited lifespan; it wasn't designed to last forever.

Even during construction, Nord Stream 2 was being slowed down, causing completion to lag by two years.
Right now, there aren't even any clear signs of when operations might actually begin... theoretically, anything can happen. It might never go live, or it could take years to get moving... but for now, we are still stuck in the realm of pure speculation.

What we do know are the facts, and none of them favor Nord Stream 2. Germany has decided to scale back its gas imports from Russia, and because of the war in Ukraine, that shift is going to be drastically and irreversibly accelerated.
Furthermore, there will certainly be a push to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in the future, a transition that is also being fast-tracked due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Even if the gas eventually starts flowing, the "cards" are stacked heavily against it in terms of justifying such a massive financial undertaking—especially when you consider the existence of Nord Stream 1 and the much more politically viable pipeline running through Ukraine.

Plenty of analysts are already agreeing that Nord Stream 2 is a financial disaster (since we now know its primary goal was to replace the Ukrainian pipeline, an objective that was already failing before the war even started). Personally, I wouldn't touch the stock of a company tasked with managing this project; I simply don't see a positive financial future for it.

Best regards,

restlessmason54 said:God, I just love this typical Anglo-fanatic style of personal attacks. It’s such a classic move. 😍

The world isn't nearly as one-dimensional as you think, and honestly, seeing Russia collapse is something you’ll only ever experience in your wildest, most delusional dreams. 🙂

I'll be honest, I totally missed out on watching the old empire centered in Washington, D.C. fall apart, and I definitely didn't get to witness the absolute misery and poverty Americans faced during the nineties. But thank God, we've got a front-row seat for a sequel now, and I have absolutely no intention of missing this one.

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/ban...22-for-roubles

So, looks like Russia just threw out an offer to buy back their own bonds that are due on April 4th. We're talking about a massive $2 billion chunk of debt here. The catch? They’re promising to pay back 100% of the face value, but there's a huge "if" attached—they'll only do it if investors agree to take the payout in rubles and get everything wrapped up by April 3rd.

The Brazilian Foreign Minister just dropped this statement on their Senate website:
Quincey:

Brazil doesn't buy into these unilateral, selective sanctions. Beyond being illegal under international law, they specifically serve the immediate interests of certain nations, like ensuring the European Union stays fueled up with oil and gas. Meanwhile, they target goods essential for survival for much of the global population. There's a massive risk here; the way these sanctions are being rolled out means the mid-term fallout will crush developing nations far harder than it hits Russia, essentially shielding the West from the worst of its own mess.

In short, he sees them as illegal and rigged—designed to minimize damage to the EU and the USA while bullying everyone else.
When you consider that only about 35 out of over 200 countries have actually implemented or backed these sanctions, it’s pretty obvious how the rest of the world feels. We're talking about 80% of the planet here.

https://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias...sabastecimento

This strategy seems entirely counterproductive, as they’ll just end up trying to offload those rubles, and the only entity left willing to touch them is likely the Russian central bank.

So, what’s the endgame here? Do they let the ruble tank just so they can scoop it up for fewer dollars—essentially buying bonds at a discount while the currency itself loses value? Or do they actually buy more rubles? (If they did, why were they using rubles to buy things in the first place?) It feels less like a move and more like pouring water from one empty bucket into another.

steelfox98 said:The Brazilian Foreign Minister just dropped this statement on their Senate website:
Quincey:

Brazil doesn't buy into these unilateral, selective sanctions. Beyond being illegal under international law, they specifically serve the immediate interests of certain nations, like ensuring the European Union stays fueled up with oil and gas. Meanwhile, they target goods essential for survival for much of the global population. There's a massive risk here; the way these sanctions are being rolled out means the mid-term fallout will crush developing nations far harder than it hits Russia, essentially shielding the West from the worst of its own mess.

In short, he sees them as illegal and rigged—designed to minimize damage to the EU and the USA while bullying everyone else.
When you consider that only about 35 out of over 200 countries have actually implemented or backed these sanctions, it’s pretty obvious how the rest of the world feels. We're talking about 80% of the planet here.

https://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias...sabastecimento

If they don't agree, they shouldn't join in.

Unilateral? By what metric are they unilateral? You just said they involve about 35 nations.

Selective? They aren't exactly going to be indiscriminate; the whole point of a sanction is that it targets specific things.

At the end of the day—who cares about fascist Bolsonaro?

steelfox98 said:The Brazilian Foreign Minister just dropped this statement on their Senate website:
Quincey:

Brazil doesn't buy into these unilateral, selective sanctions. Beyond being illegal under international law, they specifically serve the immediate interests of certain nations, like ensuring the European Union stays fueled up with oil and gas. Meanwhile, they target goods essential for survival for much of the global population. There's a massive risk here; the way these sanctions are being rolled out means the mid-term fallout will crush developing nations far harder than it hits Russia, essentially shielding the West from the worst of its own mess.

In short, he sees them as illegal and rigged—designed to minimize damage to the EU and the USA while bullying everyone else.
When you consider that only about 35 out of over 200 countries have actually implemented or backed these sanctions, it’s pretty obvious how the rest of the world feels. We're talking about 80% of the planet here.

https://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias...sabastecimento

It's not Bolsonaro's lapdog barking because of your precious Putin; they're barking to protect themselves and their own regime. Tough times ahead for those wannabe dictators.

Bryan Booth82 said:It isn't quite that simple, though.
Nord Stream 2 cost 7.4 Billions of euros... and that massive investment needs to pay itself off as soon as possible... especially since we are talking about private capital here.

If you want to see a return on investment quickly, Nord Stream 2 had to start operating immediately... and let's not forget that Nord Stream 2 has a limited lifespan; it wasn't designed to last forever.

Even during construction, Nord Stream 2 was being slowed down, causing completion to lag by two years.
Right now, there aren't even any clear signs of when operations might actually begin... theoretically, anything can happen. It might never go live, or it could take years to get moving... but for now, we are still stuck in the realm of pure speculation.

What we do know are the facts, and none of them favor Nord Stream 2. Germany has decided to scale back its gas imports from Russia, and because of the war in Ukraine, that shift is going to be drastically and irreversibly accelerated.
Furthermore, there will certainly be a push to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in the future, a transition that is also being fast-tracked due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Even if the gas eventually starts flowing, the "cards" are stacked heavily against it in terms of justifying such a massive financial undertaking—especially when you consider the existence of Nord Stream 1 and the much more politically viable pipeline running through Ukraine.

Plenty of analysts are already agreeing that Nord Stream 2 is a financial disaster (since we now know its primary goal was to replace the Ukrainian pipeline, an objective that was already failing before the war even started). Personally, I wouldn't touch the stock of a company tasked with managing this project; I simply don't see a positive financial future for it.

Best regards,

Everything you just laid out implies that, for investors, this is precisely the moment to pick up stakes in Nord Stream 2 (assuming, of course, the price is right and fits one's tolerance for the very real risk and uncertainty involved). My view is that gas from the Russian Federation remains—technologically speaking—the most cost-effective energy source for the foreseeable future. Since the only way to deliver it without losing its primary advantage is via pipeline, now is the window to invest. You buy when it's cheap and sell when it's expensive. While many see today's situation as a living hell due to the war, others may see it as a compelling investment opportunity. It simply requires capital, vision, and a certain level of nerve. Who dares, wins.

slyfox43 said:If they don't agree, they shouldn't join in.

Unilateral? By what metric are they unilateral? You just said they involve about 35 nations.

Selective? They aren't exactly going to be indiscriminate; the whole point of a sanction is that it targets specific things.

At the end of the day—who cares about fascist Bolsonaro?

The logic behind sanctions is to inflict more damage on the target than on the entity imposing them. But looking at the big picture, sanctions tend to hurt everyone involved. Generally speaking, these measures only carry weight when implemented by an economically superior power. In this instance, it isn't really about whether 'only' 35 nations are participating; it’s about the actual economic muscle behind those specific countries. Once you weigh their combined financial power, you get a much clearer idea of who is actually pulling the strings and how far their reach extends.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Everything you just laid out implies that, for investors, this is precisely the moment to pick up stakes in Nord Stream 2 (assuming, of course, the price is right and fits one's tolerance for the very real risk and uncertainty involved). My view is that gas from the Russian Federation remains—technologically speaking—the most cost-effective energy source for the foreseeable future. Since the only way to deliver it without losing its primary advantage is via pipeline, now is the window to invest. You buy when it's cheap and sell when it's expensive. While many see today's situation as a living hell due to the war, others may see it as a compelling investment opportunity. It simply requires capital, vision, and a certain level of nerve. Who dares, wins.

If that were always the case, there would be a lot more of them standing among the brave.

Sometimes, however, the lawyers just end up taking a bullet instead.

It isn't entirely out of the question that, perhaps in a few decades, buying gas from the Russian regime might become back on the table for Europe. One of the most frequent—and arguably valid—critiques leveled against Western capitalism is that we tend to prioritize immediate gains while offloading the long-term consequences onto the next generation. It makes one wonder if they have finally opened their eyes to the true cost of "cheap Russian gas."

I don't want to sound like I'm lecturing anyone on heroism, though. There was another user here who used to scoop up various Russian "blue chips" at massive discounts, acting quite grateful toward us "war hawks." I haven't seen him around lately to ask how his portfolio is holding up. I just hope he still has enough left over to pay his internet bill.

hollowdriver13 said:It's not Bolsonaro's lapdog barking because of your precious Putin; they're barking to protect themselves and their own regime. Tough times ahead for those wannabe dictators.

You completely missed the point that 160 other nations are acting and thinking the exact same way. But sure, let's pretend we're incredibly special and that nobody else's opinion matters. The fact that no one outside our little chosen club wants to join us? Pure coincidence, clearly. 🤣