Russia Invasion Spillover

[Joij21]

Ehn, they're a blunt tool. Given that they're going to affect civilian well-being, I can see why some people think they're intended to do so. But, with a wartime economy, 'civilian well-being' isn't really a big factor when it comes to reducing war-making production. If the sanctions reduce Russia's ability to import war-making components, then they'll help slow its ability to be hostile.

As for whether they encourage revolt or doubling-down, that's a question of human nature plus propaganda. Me heaping scorn on a Russia, yelling "why don't you learn!?!" might trigger reactance. But the average Russian must know that the sanctions will only get worse as Russia's government behaves more egregiously. But keep remembering, sanctions rarely work in changing governments.

It's more than that! The West right now still trades with Russia!

So it's all BS. All for show, just to enrich defense corporations, an inside job.

 

[El_Machinae]

Trades what?
It might not all be BS, but more that your model is incorrect.
I do suspect that the United States is profiting mightily from prolonging the war. And not just the defense corporations. Being a general exporter during a rise in prices will be beneficial.

 

[Joij21]

Trades what?

Cobalt, oil, natural gas, and refined rare earth metals being shipped via rail from China.

They are also shipping their oil to India, so people who buy goods from India are indirectly supporting Russia via trade proxy. Same with China, they've been getting some oil from Russia too.

See sanctions in a globalized world are nearly impossible to be effective. It's like a circuit board, blow one fuse and everything flows down another circuit. That or it's a game of endless wack a mole. This is intentional by the way as part of the post WW2 order to prevent escalation among world powers to another world war. Mutual Economic Destruction is a thing since nukes are often not enough for the politicians to keep the peace.

 

[Joij21]

You'd said "the West". If they're trading with India, then they're exchanging with India. If India is making a profit by value-adding before selling to the West, they're still able to squeeze Russia on the price of oil if Russia has fewer customers.

But, the only person who seems to care that Russia is able to trade for civilian goods is you. There will be black-market lines to Russia, obviously, but Russia trading with India is not a bad thing as long as it's not components for their war-machine. Oil in trade for rice and, um, couches neither harms nor helps Russia's war effort. *Except* that they can offer their soldier a higher real salary, but again, war-time economies are much more robust than you seem to think they are.

Dude! Just because it's for civilian goods doesn't mean it can't be used for the war effort!

Civilian trade can be taxed to generate revenues and cash flows whereby the Russian state can continue funding the war. Increased civilian wealth also allows their people to potentially invest in Russian industry and factories which would be used to directly assist the war effort. Civilians can also invest in Russian treasury bonds to directly fund the war effort without taxation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, you're beating a dead horse at this point.
A wartime economy is supported by the labour output. "Taxing revenues" doesn't work like you think it does. The amount of civilian GDP that can be diverted into wartime production is both limited and not really a function of the total current civilian GDP.

 

[red_elk]

West was paying you billions of currency units for your resources and allowing your rulers and superrich to keep their ill gained money in Western banks, hidden from Russian taxation perhaps, and have luxurious properties in their countries. That all those funds were not used for the betterment of Russia and its general population is your own problem, but I would certainly not call that West treating you as enemies.

They were doing it for their own profit, and by the way, mostly continue doing it to this day.

If you think that West treats you like enemies now, how would you think that change happened?

We have always been treated as adversaries at best. The change begun somewhere in 2005-2007 when Russia shifted from "yes, sir" behavior, to mostly independent policies.

 

[pecheneg]

Do I? You seem to broadcast in unison, ticking all the same boxes.

A bunch of people also claim that the Earth revolves around the sun. They're all Discovery zombies, probably.

And it's funny how it always CNN that's being mentioned as a counterargument.

Because CNN was the first 24-hour news channel in the USA, man. At the same time, no one wants to list all the abbreviations of Biden-TV

 

[red_elk]

Why? What are the factors that you think have led to the current state of relations, and how far back are you talking about this enmity?

I've had this conversation on CFC like a dozen times already, it never leads to fruitful discussion.

In short, general enmity exists for centuries. You can read articles in Western newspapers and magazines from 19-th century, the "big bad bear" attitude hasn't changed much since then.
The reasons for this are IMO cultural differences and geopolitical rivalry. Both sides put the blame on each other, I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of replies like "because Russia is evil and hates freedom" in this thread.

In relation to current events, I was talking about hostile actions targeting ordinary Russian people. When people see or feel they are being hated, they'll hate you back. If you believe they'll put the blame on Putin, you are mistaken. Even if they do, it will happen despite western enmity, not because of it.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

opposing Russia is a time-honored tradition on the Right. I find it very hard to believe that the same people who call (or called) people "commies" and whatnot for their lack of patriotism will suddenly take the side of freakin' Moscow...unless it's just to start a ruckus. Or they're libertarians.

 

[AmazonQueen]

opposing Russia is a time-honored tradition on the Right. I find it very hard to believe that the same people who call (or called) people "commies" and whatnot for their lack of patriotism will suddenly take the side of freakin' Moscow...unless it's just to start a ruckus. Or they're libertarians.

Isolationism is also a time-honoured tradition of the US right.

 

[red_elk]

opposing Russia is a time-honored tradition on the Right. I find it very hard to believe that the same people who call (or called) people "commies" and whatnot for their lack of patriotism will suddenly take the side of freakin' Moscow...unless it's just to start a ruckus. Or they're libertarians.

Russians are adversaries. The enemy are the Democrats.

 

[Farm Boy]

They're close, and Moscow is far away, or something to that effect. I'd be amused at how the translations of that play out.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Russians demonizing Ukrainians? Or Westerners demonizing Putin and the Russian army for war crimes against Ukrainian civilians?

 

[Bamspeedy]

opposing Russia is a time-honored tradition on the Right. I find it very hard to believe that the same people who call (or called) people "commies" and whatnot for their lack of patriotism will suddenly take the side of freakin' Moscow...unless it's just to start a ruckus. Or they're libertarians.

According to some of those people there is no bigger commies than the democrats. I had to explain to my dad that SWEDEN of all places is not communist! (he still doesn't believe me).

If it was a republican president sending aid to Ukraine they'd be singing a much different tune.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"Own the libs" is strong among the GOP.

 

[pecheneg]

Personally, I support further escalation by NATO to bring things to a conclusion sooner.

Interesting opinion. Only here 1. Russia has six times more tactical nuclear weapons than the United States, according to the statements of the Americans themselves. The Russians say it's only four. 2. No one will allow Ukrainians to arrange a mass massacre in Donetsk and Crimea. I remind you that you gave them carte blanche - no one doubts that any mountain of corpses will be served as "the Russians killed everyone in Donetsk." Successful escalation means that the Ukrainian army will be driven into the ground with nuclear weapons, no more, no less

How many more people have to die for one man's fantasy?

That is, the preparations for the deployment of medium-range missiles in Europe and the intention to disrupt the Minsk agreements by Ukraine and the West (which everyone has already admitted, from Merkel to Zelensky) are the fantasies of one person? I wonder which one.

 

[Joij21]

Well, you're beating a dead horse at this point.
A wartime economy is supported by the labour output. "Taxing revenues" doesn't work like you think it does. The amount of civilian GDP that can be diverted into wartime production is both limited and not really a function of the total current civilian GDP.

Doesn't labor output require compensation? If one has no adequate labor output one can always purchase from another country such as North Korea or Iran.

Your right maybe there is simply not enough money to tax in Russia's civilian GDP or trade related revenues. I guess Russia will collapse any moment soon. Just any moment, still waiting.

 

[Verbose]

That is, the preparations for the deployment of medium-range missiles in Europe and the intention to disrupt the Minsk agreements by Ukraine and the West (which everyone has already admitted, from Merkel to Zelensky) are the fantasies of one person? I wonder which one.

These are just dark Russian fantasies. You can frighten yourself with them, but you cannot frighten us. None of that is real.

 

[Joij21]

"Own the libs" is strong among the GOP.

Why do you have to stoke so much division man?

 

[Gedemon]

And I support appropriate responding to NATO escalation, according to military doctrine, up to using nuclear weapons if necessary. Guess we are lucky we both are not in charge of our countries.

Interesting opinion. Only here 1. Russia has six times more tactical nuclear weapons than the United States

Nuclear threats can only work when they are believable.