Russia's top bank quits Europe due to sanctions(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Russia's top bank quits Europe due to sanctions
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/russias-sberbank-leave-european-market-face-cash-outflows-2022-03-02/
205 comments
Sanctions have never worked against Russia and they're now in a better position to resist them than ever before. So in the spirit of pure conjecture, some of my own: likely outcome is a reworking of the global economy. There will be the NATO bloc and the China-Russia bloc. It isn't impossible that there will be targetted trade deals between the two superblocs in 5-10 years. On a tech related note any country not making plans to repatriate all critical internet infrastructure ala China is basically trolling themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw peering agreements between China and Russia, sort of an expansion of the great firewall, especially if sanctions persist. As for clean technology.. lol. In my opinion the US and Canada are not serious about it. Germany has been making the wrong moves when it comes to renewables, and they're the largest EU economy.. So the chance of this affecting that seems small, but who knows. The energy crisis that is coming soon to the EU may change that.
I think there will be a new Cold War, this time Russia/China vs the West. This may not be a bad outcome. I think it will be good for the average citizen of developed countries in a lot of countries if globalization gets slowed a little. We traded cheap crap for a big increase in job insecurity and rising inequality.
> I think there will be a new Cold War, this time Russia/China vs the West. This may not be a bad outcome. I think it will be good for the average citizen of developed countries in a lot of countries if globalization gets slowed a little. We traded cheap crap for a big increase in job insecurity and rising inequality.
I agree. Globalization has had a lot of economic and social negatives (e.g. selling your fishing rod to buy a fish), and it's delusional at this point to think it will do anything to address the deep political differences and fundamental rivalries that exist between the blocs.
There's probably a lesson somewhere in this about keeping economists on tighter leashes.
I agree. Globalization has had a lot of economic and social negatives (e.g. selling your fishing rod to buy a fish), and it's delusional at this point to think it will do anything to address the deep political differences and fundamental rivalries that exist between the blocs.
There's probably a lesson somewhere in this about keeping economists on tighter leashes.
Globalization is as inevitable as time - it is the direction of civilization.
Every day the world gets smaller, and the actions of each of us affect an ever increasing number of people as our connectedness increases.
The project of the new millennium and its generations will be to deal with this in a humane manner.
Every day the world gets smaller, and the actions of each of us affect an ever increasing number of people as our connectedness increases.
The project of the new millennium and its generations will be to deal with this in a humane manner.
All of these questions are what global policy analysts and advisors debate for years and write entire books about. There is really nothing people can write in this thread which would even start to make sense of all this.
global policy analysts and advisors are the ones who influenced the policies that led to the current state of things. in comparison to that, wild conjecture on hacker news is pretty much gold imo
It's not about cutting citizens off from the world. It's about minimizing financial capabilities of an aggressor. So, even when they are not disposed, they can do less harm.
Eg. Their technological advancement will be crippled for decades to come, because they will still want to maintain their existing fleet.
Even now, Russia sells their tech advancement in military tech to others ( eg. India) and doesn't use it much for themselves because of cost. Even while they are investing 6% of their GDP into military.
That 6% in military that they invest now, will become much less in absolute value in the future. So it will be easier to outcompete them with a 1% investment of richer economies and concentrate on things besides military.
Just my 2 cents.
Eg. Their technological advancement will be crippled for decades to come, because they will still want to maintain their existing fleet.
Even now, Russia sells their tech advancement in military tech to others ( eg. India) and doesn't use it much for themselves because of cost. Even while they are investing 6% of their GDP into military.
That 6% in military that they invest now, will become much less in absolute value in the future. So it will be easier to outcompete them with a 1% investment of richer economies and concentrate on things besides military.
Just my 2 cents.
This is why China and India need to get on board with sanctions. We know what's coming should Russia continue with this attack, let alone escalation... the Russian oil and gas spigot gets turned off. At a certain point, anyone still buying from them, is aiding their war effort.
To get India onboard, you need to export weapons to them and compete with Russia.
China has it's own goal with this, they won't get onboard.
China has it's own goal with this, they won't get onboard.
If the sanctions work it's the end of Putin (both literally and figuratively).
Personally, I think every country is looking at how much it relies on other countries to get by. Europe is too reliant on Russia for gas, and most of the world is too reliant on China for pretty much everything except food. I don't see this lasting another 10 years.
Personally, I think every country is looking at how much it relies on other countries to get by. Europe is too reliant on Russia for gas, and most of the world is too reliant on China for pretty much everything except food. I don't see this lasting another 10 years.
If this all ends well then it could be a case study in promoting economic investment / economic warfare with adversaries.
The idea is that they get dependent on that foreign investment and the threat of it being taken away and are much more amenable than an adversary that is completely disconnected economically and has nothing to lose.
The idea is that they get dependent on that foreign investment and the threat of it being taken away and are much more amenable than an adversary that is completely disconnected economically and has nothing to lose.
Hopefully with Russian citizens (peacefully) ousting Putin.
What probably do you assign to that? I assign non-trivial probability to “ousting” but practically 0% chance of “peacefully” - more like “go out with a bang”.
Given that their only source of info is state media, I don't think it is realistic to expect uprising
Why do you think their only source of info is state media? Do you think Russians don't have internet, social networks, group chats?
All in all, on average, primary source of info. Afaik, a lot of works goes into controlling which parts of internet are well accessible and which are not. The social networks and group chats are amplifier of what you see elsewhere. They don't bring new information from outside into debate. They are also reflection of what you consider appropriate or safe to share. And with new criminalization of "disinformation about war", it will be less.
And right now, as far as Russian official version is, afaik, Ukranians are nazi child killers and Russia is there to denazify and protect regions of it.
Moreover, ousting Putin requires more then unhappy disagreeing populace. It requires either super weak regime or internal coup of powerful players. Regime is not weak currently.
And right now, as far as Russian official version is, afaik, Ukranians are nazi child killers and Russia is there to denazify and protect regions of it.
Moreover, ousting Putin requires more then unhappy disagreeing populace. It requires either super weak regime or internal coup of powerful players. Regime is not weak currently.
People still remember Chechnya and Afghanistan, so I think they expect to have to use unofficial sources for certain kinds of information, like getting information about their dead or missing relatives. I guess we'll see what happens when the coffins start coming back.
Putin's regime wouldn't be the first to fall over a failed war.
Putin's regime wouldn't be the first to fall over a failed war.
In the USA, there is nothing stopping you from going to learn all the pro-Trump, anti-vax, anti-mask propaganda you want, yet millions of people do not.
What makes you think it's any easier for someone to leave their filter bubble in Russia, where the consequences aren't just losing your job and social ingroup, but also being kidnapped, tortured, and being found dead in a ditch five years from now?
What makes you think it's any easier for someone to leave their filter bubble in Russia, where the consequences aren't just losing your job and social ingroup, but also being kidnapped, tortured, and being found dead in a ditch five years from now?
Some must see planes turning around, body bags coming home, ships not leaving port, the stock market staying closed for three days straight, friends withdrawing cash, family at sanctioned companies afraid of losing their jobs, etc. and know that something is up.
I don’t think everyone is brainwashed by state media, some just ignore it or tolerate it to stay out of trouble.
I don’t think a civil uprising is likely though due to Russia’s police, military, legal system and covert ops that are willing to dramatically intimidate or eliminate political threats.
Any uprising is going to come from generals sick of bombing civilians or oligarchs sick of losing money IMO.
I don’t think everyone is brainwashed by state media, some just ignore it or tolerate it to stay out of trouble.
I don’t think a civil uprising is likely though due to Russia’s police, military, legal system and covert ops that are willing to dramatically intimidate or eliminate political threats.
Any uprising is going to come from generals sick of bombing civilians or oligarchs sick of losing money IMO.
Did they have truthful media in 1917?
Like, who exactly?
If you mean Russia, they had years of internal violence behind them. They had well established revolutionary movements and terror groups acting inside on top of it even before WWI. And the regime was weak and forced to do concessions already in run up to WWI and even weaker by end of it. They were doing reforms, too little too late, but they were doing them because internal pressure was strong for years.
That revolution did not came out of nowhere. Plus, the population was literally hungry and desperate to large extend. And plus, it was followed by major civil war of like 5 sides competing for power.
If you mean Russia, they had years of internal violence behind them. They had well established revolutionary movements and terror groups acting inside on top of it even before WWI. And the regime was weak and forced to do concessions already in run up to WWI and even weaker by end of it. They were doing reforms, too little too late, but they were doing them because internal pressure was strong for years.
That revolution did not came out of nowhere. Plus, the population was literally hungry and desperate to large extend. And plus, it was followed by major civil war of like 5 sides competing for power.
Utter speculation on my part, but I see this as both a weakness and a strength for Putin. On one hand, as long as the government and whoever controls what goes out on state media are on his side it helps Putin. If, however, that control breaks down and the people in those positions lose confidence in Putin than the leverage reverses and they can easily use their media in the opposite direction.
The best case is if the current inner circle "convince" him to step down. A new regime could come to some compromise and blame the fiasco on Putin drinking too much vodka. Popular uprisings against Putin would be a bloodbath and could turn into a civil war.
Everyone knows Putin is a teetotaler.
How would they do that peacefully? Surely whether or not it would be peaceful would be up to Putin.
Or not peacefully. Who cares, he is an insane dictator who caused thousands of deaths.
pssssst nuclear weapons
I am not so sure if the average Russian citizen thinks Putin is that bad. From the outside it looks like life has massively improved during Putin’s reign. We shouldn’t forget how things were in Russia before Putin.
Maybe the Ukrainian situation is the turning point. If the sanctions cause pain in Russia people’s view of Putin may change.
Maybe the Ukrainian situation is the turning point. If the sanctions cause pain in Russia people’s view of Putin may change.
There's an opinion that Russian conservative people like Strelkov[0] are more radical than Putin. And they feel that Putin should done these things at 2014, for 2022 it's already a little bit late. If Putin cannot achieve his goal, these neo-imperialist people will overthrow him and continue this war.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin
Dreamland. Putin is a deranged murderer and he has so far good support (or they are just scared shitless) in duma and enforcement. Right now they're putting protesters in jail because there are relatively few. If protesters follow former US ambassador's Michael McFaul's advise (I think dumb one) and show up in hundreds of thousands the shooting will start and it might provoke him to press that red button.
The only hope I really have that the close circle and the enforcement part would render Putin out of the picture. But for that they have to have a way out. As it stands now they're all booked for ICC and have no reason to do anything like that.
The only hope I really have that the close circle and the enforcement part would render Putin out of the picture. But for that they have to have a way out. As it stands now they're all booked for ICC and have no reason to do anything like that.
Putin is a corrupt murderer but I've seen very little to suggest that he's deranged or otherwise insane. And depending on how firm the west is about sticking to sanctions (i.e. will Europe quietly roll them back after gas prices spike?) his choice to invade Ukraine may even be a smart move for him from a geopolitical perspective.
Europe isn't going to roll back anything, they can move to US, Mexico, Venezuela, Middle East gas sources although it will be painful. They are not going to enrich the guy who is trying to reconquer Europe. Germany will start spending a bunch more on their military now as well as Russia is a traditional enemy.
The west has area areas when it comes to the U.N. Charter, but Putin has gone way over the line to exactly why the U.N. founded to prevent. The west will stick to the multilateral system until nukes drop, and will sooner close the Russian oil and gas spigot entirely than abandon it.
Cutting off 50% of the flow by my reading translates into around $150 per barrel oil which is in the realm of $7/gallon gas at the pump. Europeans pay on average $7-8/gallon for a long time. Cutting it off entirely? Someone else will have a better idea if that could be in the range of $10/gallon or $20. Of course it will cause problems. Folks might decide in a couple years they like cheap gas more, and then end up in another world war with even higher prices anyway just because they have no imagination about what a completely stupid move this was from a geopolitical perspective.
Cutting off 50% of the flow by my reading translates into around $150 per barrel oil which is in the realm of $7/gallon gas at the pump. Europeans pay on average $7-8/gallon for a long time. Cutting it off entirely? Someone else will have a better idea if that could be in the range of $10/gallon or $20. Of course it will cause problems. Folks might decide in a couple years they like cheap gas more, and then end up in another world war with even higher prices anyway just because they have no imagination about what a completely stupid move this was from a geopolitical perspective.
Actually EU and US is still traded with Russia
This is an important point, we have not cut off Russia completely because Europe is heavily dependent on it's oil and gas. What we have done is shut down almost everything except that critical oil and gas (and probably wheat).
Since 2014 Europe has invested a fair bit in diversifying it's potential energy sources by building gas shipping terminals and increasing integration between national pipeline infrastructure, and this will need to be put into overdrive.
Since 2014 Europe has invested a fair bit in diversifying it's potential energy sources by building gas shipping terminals and increasing integration between national pipeline infrastructure, and this will need to be put into overdrive.
Word is a lot of folks in Europe are happy that Biden has stepped up to bring things together but don't think the same would happen if Trump was still around. So, they're planning on ensuring they can move forward if the US's leadership weakens in another couple years.
There's somebody who perceives Biden as a strong leader?? In the US, divided as it is, polling would suggest that even his supporters don't feel that way.
I didn't say they or I thought he was a strong leader. But in relation to the invasion, Biden seems to have put in the work working with NATO and allied leaders to ensure the sanctions could be enacted swiftly and broadly and has publicly and privately expressed strong support for NATO. This contrasts with his predecessor who openly discussed his desire to withdraw at different points in time. European diplomats have apparently expressed that they wouldn't expect any support from Trump if he were in power now.
Optimally Putin is deposed in some fashion or another by one or all of the high powered individuals in Russia because he is killing everything they worked their lives to build up. Worst case nuclear war and it doesn't matter any more.
>So, and I realize all answers will be pure conjecture, what happens if the sanctions work? What's the end game? Can the proverbial tiger be put back in the cage?
Literally everyone in the world is hoping the sanctions work. If it does, it tells the world even a nuclear power can't attack sovereign nations and get away with it. If it doesn't... then humanity is not post-war and we're about to get into a nuclear world war.
>Russia has invaded Ukraine and Europe has responded in a unified manor. China gave muted support, but largely stayed out of it (at least vocally - but still traded with them).
No they didn't. China picked up the phone with Putin on day 1 and said peace talks immediately and made comment they respect Ukraines sovereignty as well as the security needs for all involved. China appears to have been sideswipped and used as as shield by putin.
>China is, of course, watching very closely, as they have their own expansionist interests.
This is seeming more and more like Russian propaganda. China has 75 years of foreign policy showing no expansion. They have all the factories and a gigantic standing army. They could expand and take quite alot. Yet they dont because they know war isn't the way. Invest the war money back in yourself and grow taller.
>How does/can Russia get out of this and save face?
Every good negotiator makes it possible for their opponent to save face. Russia has a huge and simple one they provided themselves. "Nazi government was toppled, we are guaranteeing the new republics. White Peace out." Though to get sanctions lifted im sure there will be reparations to be paid.
>Where will this go with social/cyber warfare - it has to ramp-up dramatically, no? Now that western Europe has increased its military spending, what does that mean for the "World Police" American stance that has been so prevalent since the late 40's?
Everyone is making this about the USA... the Russian propaganda was running all these 'USA imperialism' which hey... they have to get in line... the commonwealth is up first... but the USA didn't do anything. Didnt get involved other than showing unity with the EU. Russia probably predicted the USA would act. In fact, it looks like an awful lot of effort is being done to curb the ongoing russian propaganda internally for most countries.
> Does this, in fact push forward clean technology, or will it hinder it as now America and Canada sit in a prime spot to export fuel and make record profits for decades - environment be damned?
Usa and Canada are leading the way with clean tech in many ways. We have 10,000 trees per person. Canadian solar is top notch. Our automotive industry has pivoted in an instant to manufacturing EVs. Coal plants are gone or going? The only thing I think Canada is missing out on is nuclear fusion.
The world needs oil still. Oil rich countries are switching over. Lets not exclude awesome scandanavian countries. This hasn't been some sort of Canadian conspiracy to convince Russia to attack a sovereign neighbour. This is Canada being a good ally and offering conflict-free oil.
Literally everyone in the world is hoping the sanctions work. If it does, it tells the world even a nuclear power can't attack sovereign nations and get away with it. If it doesn't... then humanity is not post-war and we're about to get into a nuclear world war.
>Russia has invaded Ukraine and Europe has responded in a unified manor. China gave muted support, but largely stayed out of it (at least vocally - but still traded with them).
No they didn't. China picked up the phone with Putin on day 1 and said peace talks immediately and made comment they respect Ukraines sovereignty as well as the security needs for all involved. China appears to have been sideswipped and used as as shield by putin.
>China is, of course, watching very closely, as they have their own expansionist interests.
This is seeming more and more like Russian propaganda. China has 75 years of foreign policy showing no expansion. They have all the factories and a gigantic standing army. They could expand and take quite alot. Yet they dont because they know war isn't the way. Invest the war money back in yourself and grow taller.
>How does/can Russia get out of this and save face?
Every good negotiator makes it possible for their opponent to save face. Russia has a huge and simple one they provided themselves. "Nazi government was toppled, we are guaranteeing the new republics. White Peace out." Though to get sanctions lifted im sure there will be reparations to be paid.
>Where will this go with social/cyber warfare - it has to ramp-up dramatically, no? Now that western Europe has increased its military spending, what does that mean for the "World Police" American stance that has been so prevalent since the late 40's?
Everyone is making this about the USA... the Russian propaganda was running all these 'USA imperialism' which hey... they have to get in line... the commonwealth is up first... but the USA didn't do anything. Didnt get involved other than showing unity with the EU. Russia probably predicted the USA would act. In fact, it looks like an awful lot of effort is being done to curb the ongoing russian propaganda internally for most countries.
> Does this, in fact push forward clean technology, or will it hinder it as now America and Canada sit in a prime spot to export fuel and make record profits for decades - environment be damned?
Usa and Canada are leading the way with clean tech in many ways. We have 10,000 trees per person. Canadian solar is top notch. Our automotive industry has pivoted in an instant to manufacturing EVs. Coal plants are gone or going? The only thing I think Canada is missing out on is nuclear fusion.
The world needs oil still. Oil rich countries are switching over. Lets not exclude awesome scandanavian countries. This hasn't been some sort of Canadian conspiracy to convince Russia to attack a sovereign neighbour. This is Canada being a good ally and offering conflict-free oil.
> China has 75 years of foreign policy showing no expansion.
Err..you might want to check your history there a bit more stringently. And say hello to the invasion and annexation of Tibet. The Sino-India War. The several Sino-Vietnam Wars.
(Vietnamese were probably the most battle-hardened folks in the 1950-1990's era - a half-dozen big foreign powers came for them and they sent every single one packing - though they did loose some territory permanently to China)
Err..you might want to check your history there a bit more stringently. And say hello to the invasion and annexation of Tibet. The Sino-India War. The several Sino-Vietnam Wars.
(Vietnamese were probably the most battle-hardened folks in the 1950-1990's era - a half-dozen big foreign powers came for them and they sent every single one packing - though they did loose some territory permanently to China)
>Err..you might want to check your history there a bit more stringently. And say hello to Tibet.
Annexation of Tibet: 23 May 1951
Damn it, you're right... that was 71 years ago.
Have anything more recent? Other than the obvious moves against India. Russia, Pakistan, and China sure are eyeing up India.
Annexation of Tibet: 23 May 1951
Damn it, you're right... that was 71 years ago.
Have anything more recent? Other than the obvious moves against India. Russia, Pakistan, and China sure are eyeing up India.
The occupation and militarisation of 80-90% of the South China Sea islands which are formally claimed by other nations. Including the Spratly Islands. The Chinese regularly threaten any military vessels that pass through here. Look up videos on youtube on the radio conversations.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3126656/sou...
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ed8539753d69434596cc239...
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3126656/sou...
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ed8539753d69434596cc239...
Ok but it's not some vast annexation over a sovereign nation.
Canada and the USA has an awful lot of these kinds of conflicts. Worse when indigenous rights start to get involved.
Vietnam and China go way back for conflicts.
Our fear here is China invading sovereign neighbours like south korea, japan, australia, and the usa.
Is china planning to do that?
Canada and the USA has an awful lot of these kinds of conflicts. Worse when indigenous rights start to get involved.
Vietnam and China go way back for conflicts.
Our fear here is China invading sovereign neighbours like south korea, japan, australia, and the usa.
Is china planning to do that?
[deleted]
No one is going to invade India unless they want to welcome nuclear annihilation and face 1.5 billion angry Indians.
India & China both have a formal "No First Use" position that has been repeatedly reaffirmed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
A grab of a portion of east Indian states via conventional warfare, followed by cease-fire and negotiations is very much in the ambit of China's strategy. Modi is attempting to prevent this by scaling up military infrastructure on the eastern front, but its still way-way behind what China already has in place. (by orders of magnitude)
https://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/2021/oct/... https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-weapons-deploy...
A grab of a portion of east Indian states via conventional warfare, followed by cease-fire and negotiations is very much in the ambit of China's strategy. Modi is attempting to prevent this by scaling up military infrastructure on the eastern front, but its still way-way behind what China already has in place. (by orders of magnitude)
https://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/2021/oct/... https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-weapons-deploy...
> China has 75 years of foreign policy showing no expansion
How could you type this with a straight face?
How could you type this with a straight face?
> Canadian solar is top notch
Can you give examples, because from my limited view all Canada has in terms of renewables is hyrdo.
All of our automotive industry is owned by foreign manufacturers and relationships with Detroit are strained [1]. Plants have been shut down [2]. Canada has only just started to adopt EV, Europe is way ahead [3]. I will concede that both Europe and Canada aim to phase out IC engines by 2035.
In my opinion the stupid investment in that pipeline the government bought from the Americans after they backed out was a huge mis-step. That money could have been spent investing in solar.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/car-plants-bridge-1.6346556 [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/gm-closing-oshawa-fac... [3] https://www.canadianmetalworking.com/canadianmetalworking/ar...
Can you give examples, because from my limited view all Canada has in terms of renewables is hyrdo.
All of our automotive industry is owned by foreign manufacturers and relationships with Detroit are strained [1]. Plants have been shut down [2]. Canada has only just started to adopt EV, Europe is way ahead [3]. I will concede that both Europe and Canada aim to phase out IC engines by 2035.
In my opinion the stupid investment in that pipeline the government bought from the Americans after they backed out was a huge mis-step. That money could have been spent investing in solar.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/car-plants-bridge-1.6346556 [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/gm-closing-oshawa-fac... [3] https://www.canadianmetalworking.com/canadianmetalworking/ar...
>Can you give examples, because from my limited view all Canada has in terms of renewables is hyrdo.
For example, https://www.canadiansolar.com/ Windmills and solar farms are everywhere.
That I suppose is another huge problem in canada, we have a severe lack of grid scale energy storage. Be it pumped hydro or whatever.
In fact, one of the big problems in our grid is how many greenhouses have switched to led and sodium lighting. TONS more energy is being consumed. Also a huge problem for astronomers.
>All of our automotive industry is owned by foreign manufacturers and relationships with Detroit are strained [1]. Plants have been shut down [2]. Canada has only just started to adopt EV, Europe is way ahead [3]. I will concede that both Europe and Canada aim to phase out IC engines by 2035.
That would be somewhat old news. Most of those plants have either plans to reopen or have reopened. Not to mentioned several new plants being built in ontario.
No doubt many places in Europe are way ahead and not to mention the USA is kicking our butt as well.
>In my opinion the stupid investment in that pipeline the government bought from the Americans after they backed out was a huge mis-step. That money could have been spent investing in solar.
Hindsight 20/20. Unless I can borrow your Tardis, I can't go change it.
For example, https://www.canadiansolar.com/ Windmills and solar farms are everywhere.
That I suppose is another huge problem in canada, we have a severe lack of grid scale energy storage. Be it pumped hydro or whatever.
In fact, one of the big problems in our grid is how many greenhouses have switched to led and sodium lighting. TONS more energy is being consumed. Also a huge problem for astronomers.
>All of our automotive industry is owned by foreign manufacturers and relationships with Detroit are strained [1]. Plants have been shut down [2]. Canada has only just started to adopt EV, Europe is way ahead [3]. I will concede that both Europe and Canada aim to phase out IC engines by 2035.
That would be somewhat old news. Most of those plants have either plans to reopen or have reopened. Not to mentioned several new plants being built in ontario.
No doubt many places in Europe are way ahead and not to mention the USA is kicking our butt as well.
>In my opinion the stupid investment in that pipeline the government bought from the Americans after they backed out was a huge mis-step. That money could have been spent investing in solar.
Hindsight 20/20. Unless I can borrow your Tardis, I can't go change it.
I count 3 or 4 Canadian Solar projects. Most of the projects they are involved with are in other countries: https://www.canadiansolar.com/successful-projects/
As for hindsight, governments are supposed to have foresight in how they manage the country. The myopic vision is what I object to.
As for hindsight, governments are supposed to have foresight in how they manage the country. The myopic vision is what I object to.
People forget the trump white house tried to disuade Ukraine from joining the EU
>People forget the trump white house tried to disuade Ukraine from joining the EU
I liked Trump in many ways but...
The day of the invasion... everything the democrats ever said were proven true. Trump was clearly starting shit with China because he's team Putin. Made the USA fear China and China became defensive and threatened by the USA. Meanwhile it was all just a play by Russia.
I liked Trump in many ways but...
The day of the invasion... everything the democrats ever said were proven true. Trump was clearly starting shit with China because he's team Putin. Made the USA fear China and China became defensive and threatened by the USA. Meanwhile it was all just a play by Russia.
Trump is in Putin's hip pocket, there is more going on there than just "admiration". Putin has something on Trump that would ruin even him in the eyes of the worshipful Trump-thralls.
> China picked up the phone with Putin on day 1 and said peace talks immediately and made comment they respect Ukraines sovereignty as well as the security needs for all involved. China appears to have been sideswipped and used as as shield by putin.
This is just public display. Actions matter: will they continue buying Russian gas and oil?
This is just public display. Actions matter: will they continue buying Russian gas and oil?
>This is just public display. Actions matter: will they continue buying Russian gas and oil?
Russia's diplomacy was pure lies. Maybe it's true of China? If actions matter: what has china done wrong exactly? Have they invaded anyone yet?
Continuing to trade with a trade partner isn't an indictment.
Russia's diplomacy was pure lies. Maybe it's true of China? If actions matter: what has china done wrong exactly? Have they invaded anyone yet?
Continuing to trade with a trade partner isn't an indictment.
The problem with this type of sanctions is that they are only going to work once, no country on the periphery of "polite society" is going to put their faith on any of these institutions going forward. The strength of these types of global payments systems is that they are global and neutral. If they stop being neutral soon enough they will stop being global.
I think all those countries "on the periphery of polite society" should be capable of asking themselves: "Will we ever invade another sovereign country completely unprovoked with the goal of annexing them?"
If the answer is "no", they have nothing to worry about. Russia has already shown that anything less than this results in little more than a slap on the wrist.
If the answer is "yes", or even "maybe", then yeah, they're going to have to stay out of international institutions. As it should be.
If the answer is "no", they have nothing to worry about. Russia has already shown that anything less than this results in little more than a slap on the wrist.
If the answer is "yes", or even "maybe", then yeah, they're going to have to stay out of international institutions. As it should be.
I dont even think that is the issue. These did not happened merely because invasion, it is not like it would be first invasion happening since WWII. I think that these happen, because Russia is seen as threat to Europe and America. Had this been about who rules Ukraine in the abstract, there would be much much weaker response. The worry is that easy conquest of Ukraine would be followed by similar contest to former USSR states in NATO, then to satelite countries and then maybe Easter Germany and so on.
At some point response would be forced anyway.
At some point response would be forced anyway.
>""Will we ever invade another sovereign country"
Saudis have a perfect answer to that
Saudis have a perfect answer to that
Punching a Nazi seemed like a nice policy. It was a popular meme of 2017 [1] . Of course, then the definition of Nazi was widened to include many people who where unliked (on the periphery of polite society) such as Jewish conservative commentators [2] and even Ukraine with a Jewish president [3] . If it was clear that the only time neutral banks will deplatform you was if they "ever invade another sovereign country completely unprovoked with the goal of annexing them" then that may be fine. However, if the principle is to be neutral until someone does whatever polite society has deemed unacceptable, it is riskier for those countries to use.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01...
[2] https://www.thewrap.com/vox-media-co-founder-ben-shapiro-is-...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083677765/putin-denazify-ukr...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01...
[2] https://www.thewrap.com/vox-media-co-founder-ben-shapiro-is-...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083677765/putin-denazify-ukr...
> Of course, then the definition of Nazi was widened to include many people who where unliked
> However, if the principle is to be neutral until someone does whatever polite society has deemed unacceptable
Why talk in hypotheticals? We have SWIFT for almost 50 years now and Bretton Woods system since late 40's. That is a long enough time to judge their track record. How many countries were banned because their behavior was deemed unacceptable? Wikipedia says only Iran and now Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#Use_in_sanctions
> However, if the principle is to be neutral until someone does whatever polite society has deemed unacceptable
Why talk in hypotheticals? We have SWIFT for almost 50 years now and Bretton Woods system since late 40's. That is a long enough time to judge their track record. How many countries were banned because their behavior was deemed unacceptable? Wikipedia says only Iran and now Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#Use_in_sanctions
Creating a parallel financial system will take decades if it's even feasible at all. The entire global economy relies on the US/UK/EU based financial system and has evolved around it for over 75 years. It's not something that can be simply torn out and have a drop in replacement like a software system.
Any alternative system would likely be based in China and that would mean that currencies would be backed by China's debt. China would need to take on debt levels that would leave China in an impossible situation. It would mean crushing levels of taxation that would drain China's wealth to the benefit of nations like Russia. There would be a major imbalance in payments. Russia and other nations would make net gains and China would have net losses. Even seizing assets in these nations China would need to sell the assets internationally using the same US/UK/EU system that provides the liquidity and access to markets.
It would require China to become even more reliant on business with Western nations to fund this system making the whole thing illogical and circular in structure. If the Western nations pulled out of Chinese manufacturing it would mean the US/UK/EU could collapse the whole parallel system over time and make it insolvent.
Any alternative system would likely be based in China and that would mean that currencies would be backed by China's debt. China would need to take on debt levels that would leave China in an impossible situation. It would mean crushing levels of taxation that would drain China's wealth to the benefit of nations like Russia. There would be a major imbalance in payments. Russia and other nations would make net gains and China would have net losses. Even seizing assets in these nations China would need to sell the assets internationally using the same US/UK/EU system that provides the liquidity and access to markets.
It would require China to become even more reliant on business with Western nations to fund this system making the whole thing illogical and circular in structure. If the Western nations pulled out of Chinese manufacturing it would mean the US/UK/EU could collapse the whole parallel system over time and make it insolvent.
Can you explain why “owning” the financial system is such a burden? US/UK/EU do not seem to suffer for it.
Testing my (US-centric) understanding here. But I'll argue that the US does suffer for global dollar dominance in that there is necessarily a US trade deficit whose primary results are the exporting of US manufacturing overseas and the creation of the productivity-wage gap that started in the 1970s.
Being the main reserve currency (global reserves are ~60% USD, ~30% Euro and 9% GBP/JPY/CAD) also means local financial crises lead to dollar buying which then affects the price of USD and thus US imports and exports. This is in part why the US has had a policy of discouraging the USD's status as the sole reserve currency - global reserves used to be 80% or more USD.
Interesting! Would it be fair to say that on one hand the US is incentivized to have the US dollar maintain its role as the main reserve currency because it enables access to lower lending rates, but on the other hand too much dollar dominance exposes the US to greater risk?
No, the US gets low rates because of the stability and strength of its economy i.e. both reserve currency use and low interest rates are effects, not causes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/01/07/the-d...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/01/07/the-d...
[deleted]
This may be a useful link: https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/56856
tl;dr: If you want to "own" the financial system, you need to be willing to be an importer of last resort, follow the rule of law, have deep financial markets, a freely exchangable currency, and freely tradeable debt. You also have to be willing to accept either rising debt or unemployment.
These can cause pain to countries who have them. Here's a quote from the piece:
"The one thing both sides agreed on, however, was that the US enjoyed an advantage because of the reserve currency status of the US dollar, with some people even assuming that the US was somehow repressing the ability of Europe, China and Japan to gain the advantage for themselves. No matter how many times the US engaged in policies that tried to shift the benefits to those countries, or these countries engaged in policies that prevented them from receiving the benefits, it was somehow clear to both sides that reserve currency status is a wonderful thing that everyone wants but only the US is allowed to have." (Emphasis mine.)
tl;dr: If you want to "own" the financial system, you need to be willing to be an importer of last resort, follow the rule of law, have deep financial markets, a freely exchangable currency, and freely tradeable debt. You also have to be willing to accept either rising debt or unemployment.
These can cause pain to countries who have them. Here's a quote from the piece:
"The one thing both sides agreed on, however, was that the US enjoyed an advantage because of the reserve currency status of the US dollar, with some people even assuming that the US was somehow repressing the ability of Europe, China and Japan to gain the advantage for themselves. No matter how many times the US engaged in policies that tried to shift the benefits to those countries, or these countries engaged in policies that prevented them from receiving the benefits, it was somehow clear to both sides that reserve currency status is a wonderful thing that everyone wants but only the US is allowed to have." (Emphasis mine.)
The status of the USD has also been called the "exorbitant privilege" in part because times of crisis lead to a strong USD and hurts US companies - even when the crisis is entirely unrelated to the US. US policy for well over a decade now has been to encourage other reserve currencies to reduce this exposure.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/01/07/the-d...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/01/07/the-d...
It looks like China has a working alternative since 2015 [1], not sure regarding your other questions if it's in their interests to expand it or not.
[1] https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3168684/w...
[1] https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3168684/w...
But when China trades with Russia, they often trade in Euro or Dollar..
Would you trust the yen? Or the ruble?
Would you trust the yen? Or the ruble?
The IMF trusts the yuan enough to hold reserves of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights).
I wouldn't equate IMF currency holdings with some sort of endorsement as to how that currency is managed. https://www.reuters.com/article/venezuela-imf-reserves-idUSL...
Nowhere in that article it indicates IMF is holding Venezuelan currency.
When someone links an article in support of their argument you're not meant to read it, silly goose.
[deleted]
If they buy from Russia / China they will and do.
As recent as a month ago, they made a deal on gas settled in euro.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-russia-...
Doesn't that say something about them not trusting each others currency?
Would you trust the yuan? Chinese people can't exchange to other currencies freely, or transfer money abroad. It's effectively held up by a captive audience (subjugated people).
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-russia-...
Doesn't that say something about them not trusting each others currency?
Would you trust the yuan? Chinese people can't exchange to other currencies freely, or transfer money abroad. It's effectively held up by a captive audience (subjugated people).
From what I know they trade in multiple currencies including yuan.
I think this is FUD. The world has lived without reserved currency controlled by a single country before and it will do it again.
At a time with far less globalization. The world will live, sure, but it would definitely be a major change if the movement of goods around the world also necessitated arbitrage due to currency fluctuations in whatever local currency was being used to negotiate its passage at each stage.
Has it? It’s pretty much been a gold-backed currency making gold the defacto reserve currency. Curious whether the USD has been the only fiat reserve currency.
Global currency reserves are currently ~60% USD, ~30% EUR and 9% GBP/JPY/CAD, USD use as a reserve currency has been trending down for decades now. As for previous reserves I would guess before the Euro the German Deutschmark and French Franc would both have been used for reserves instead.
Yes it has. Gold was not controlled by a single country.
> The problem with this type of sanctions is that they are only going to work once, no country on the periphery of "polite society" is going to put their faith on any of these institutions going forward. The strength of these types of global payments systems is that they are global and neutral. If they stop being neutral soon enough they will stop being global.
The problem with your type of thinking is that it can lead someone to sit on its tools until they're rusty and useless, out of fear of "using them up."
It's probably an inevitability that these "global payment systems" stop being global, because globalization never brought the political unity it promised. Countries will inevitably recognize the vulnerabilities created by dependence on rival's systems, and if they're big enough, they'll eventually build alternatives to solve that.
Honestly, I think the main problem with sanctions is they let political leaders delude themselves into thinking they're doing something to solve a problem, when they really aren't. Sanctions aren't going to get Putin to leave Ukraine: that's an immediate military problem that requires an immediate military solution. There's a small chance they'll destabilize the Russian regime over the long term, but I think the more likely outcome is they'll push Russia deeper into Chinese orbit, solidifying an alliance of rivals. Just look what happened to Belarus very recently.
The problem with your type of thinking is that it can lead someone to sit on its tools until they're rusty and useless, out of fear of "using them up."
It's probably an inevitability that these "global payment systems" stop being global, because globalization never brought the political unity it promised. Countries will inevitably recognize the vulnerabilities created by dependence on rival's systems, and if they're big enough, they'll eventually build alternatives to solve that.
Honestly, I think the main problem with sanctions is they let political leaders delude themselves into thinking they're doing something to solve a problem, when they really aren't. Sanctions aren't going to get Putin to leave Ukraine: that's an immediate military problem that requires an immediate military solution. There's a small chance they'll destabilize the Russian regime over the long term, but I think the more likely outcome is they'll push Russia deeper into Chinese orbit, solidifying an alliance of rivals. Just look what happened to Belarus very recently.
I don't necessarily think this is true. There are a ton of disadvantages to closing yourself off to the world, and unless you're planning an invasion it doesn't make sense to pay that cost.
I'm not saying countries will leave SWIFT in mass, but they will prioritize joining and developing alternatives. There's a lot of hunger to absorb natural resources and fertilizers [1] [2] from Russia and Belarus, so countries will find a way to do it, and once it's in place it will be user for other transactions and be a permanent alternative.
[1] https://blog.nationalbulkbag.com/produce-packaging/how-is-th...
[2] https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/agricultu...
[1] https://blog.nationalbulkbag.com/produce-packaging/how-is-th...
[2] https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/agricultu...
The actual mechanism (SWIFT) used to enforce the sanctions does not really matter. The damage comes from being cut off from western markets and capital. If alternatives are adopted then countries wishing to impose sanctions could simply prohibit their institutions from using the system.
As other people were writing here: it does not matter the name of the system they cut off Russia or any other aggressor. Russia and Belarus can develop their own SWIFT like system. What it matters is EU/USA saying to their economies: do not trade* with Russia. The name of the system where this is implemented is irrelevant!
Negotiations are won by those with the least to lose. Russia's economy is predominately oil and gas based, which the world is rapidly transitioning away from, so their remaining economic activity requires the rest of the world more than the rest of the world requires Russia.
>Negotiations are won by those with the least to lose.
Not in this (or many) cases. If you're implying Russia has the least to lose and will somehow win some banking negotiation, they will simply get cut out of markets.
"Least to lose" winning only happens if the "least to lose" party also has more negotiating power. The Russian economy, as markets pretty clearly show, has lost.
Not in this (or many) cases. If you're implying Russia has the least to lose and will somehow win some banking negotiation, they will simply get cut out of markets.
"Least to lose" winning only happens if the "least to lose" party also has more negotiating power. The Russian economy, as markets pretty clearly show, has lost.
I was implying that Russia had the most to lose (with an export economy heavily weighted to a single sector), and as you mention, they lost.
Maybe in a few decades. But for today, we still need it to make tiny booms in little metal boxes to move big boxes with rubber tubes.
The more painful it is in the short term, the faster we get to an oil free (realistically, a greatly reduced oil future) future. No one is getting off of cheap oil. It should be as painful as possible to use petroleum.
Society doesn't work like that especially when you're talking about a commodity (energy) that fairly directly affects the quality of life of everyone on the planet.
Make it too painful and you'll get a "people who want an oil free future" free future. History is littered with stories of autocrats who tried to push society too far forward too fast. Society is an amorphous blob that simply responds to inputs. It doesn't care that you have good intentions.
Hand waving about a sticks based policy makes for a great circle jerk but in the real world you need carrots, political will, consensus, etc. to go with the sticks or you are doomed to failure.
Make it too painful and you'll get a "people who want an oil free future" free future. History is littered with stories of autocrats who tried to push society too far forward too fast. Society is an amorphous blob that simply responds to inputs. It doesn't care that you have good intentions.
Hand waving about a sticks based policy makes for a great circle jerk but in the real world you need carrots, political will, consensus, etc. to go with the sticks or you are doomed to failure.
Don’t forget about plastic!
I would like you to do a thought exercise about how many petroleum-based products you use and how your life would be affected if the supply of oil was severely limited or the price went up even more than it already has since 2020.
Having kids who I am borrowing the planet from, I am happy to change my life or pay more to reduce my petroleum consumption as close to zero as possible. Oil can go to $200/barrel, even more. Does it suck the entire species has been borrowing on energy credit for the last 120 years? Absolutely. Junkie has to kick a habit eventually if they want to survive, and we as a species are a junkie addicted to cheap fossil fuels, and withdrawal is going to be admittedly painful.
Business as usual is just not an option, and the cost of everything will rise as energy deleveraging occurs and the true costs are paid. And so, again, I support whatever mechanisms have second order effects of destroying demand for fossil fuels.
Business as usual is just not an option, and the cost of everything will rise as energy deleveraging occurs and the true costs are paid. And so, again, I support whatever mechanisms have second order effects of destroying demand for fossil fuels.
I unfortunately fear the next generation will pay the price in the form of a fucked climate and high energy prices.
Anyone buying most anything from Belarus or Russia is funding Russia's war effort.
Saudi Arabia refusing to release more oil into global supply keeps prices high and indirectly results in Russia profiting more from each petrol sale.
Europeans buying energy from Russia are helping Russia pay to bomb Ukrainians.
It doesn't matter what is intended. The effect is it helps Russia fund this and future operations.
Saudi Arabia refusing to release more oil into global supply keeps prices high and indirectly results in Russia profiting more from each petrol sale.
Europeans buying energy from Russia are helping Russia pay to bomb Ukrainians.
It doesn't matter what is intended. The effect is it helps Russia fund this and future operations.
Lets not forget about the fed that is printing trillions that are being used to bid up oil prices. It is easy to blame saudis here but in this case the fed is doing more damage.
Is there any oil-exporting country that’s not invading another country? Maybe Norway, and Venezuela (which is also sanctioned by the West)?
oil prices rising so fast here is partly caused by self-sanctioning of western buyers - there are no bids for russian oil. they can't sell even at a discount. this is a SHTF situation around the world.
Countries aren't going to leave swift because I bet 99% of them don't have any aims to be doing invasions anytime soon.
> The strength of these types of global payments systems is that they are global and neutral.
If you think Russia, China and Belarus are going to be neutral, then you are being a bit naive. The West may not be neutral but it is rules based, so you know what you are getting before you start working with it. Russia, China and Belarus are not rules based and they will retaliate against you for a whole list of things that are not written down anywhere.
If you think Russia, China and Belarus are going to be neutral, then you are being a bit naive. The West may not be neutral but it is rules based, so you know what you are getting before you start working with it. Russia, China and Belarus are not rules based and they will retaliate against you for a whole list of things that are not written down anywhere.
Isn’t it what one would want anyway?
I think that most countries on the periphery of “polite society” as you put it - are not there by choice and would like to join the club and enjoy the benefits (example Ukraine) as soon as possible.
And the global actors of disorder and chaos do whatever it is they do with predictable consequences to their own prosperity.
I think that most countries on the periphery of “polite society” as you put it - are not there by choice and would like to join the club and enjoy the benefits (example Ukraine) as soon as possible.
And the global actors of disorder and chaos do whatever it is they do with predictable consequences to their own prosperity.
Conversely, the reason "we" want these to be global is so they can be used to apply such pressure. If they remained "neutral" no matter what, they are weak and pointless.
> The strength of these types of global payments systems is that they are global and neutral. If they stop being neutral soon enough they will stop being global.
Being global is far more important than being neutral, and countries will gladly sacrifice the latter if that is the cost to get the former.
Any meaningful global payments system requires access to the U.S. as European financial markets, either because of direct dealing with banks situated in these countries, or because of indirect dealings (virtually any other bank needs to deal with major U.S. or European banks eventually, and one can impose restrictions on the latter).
As a simple example: U.S. regulators can easily force the hands of major European banks, because every one of those banks needs access to the U.S. financial market, if only so their clients can deal there.
Want to buy Apple, Google, or Microsoft stock? Then neutrality is not an option.
Being global is far more important than being neutral, and countries will gladly sacrifice the latter if that is the cost to get the former.
Any meaningful global payments system requires access to the U.S. as European financial markets, either because of direct dealing with banks situated in these countries, or because of indirect dealings (virtually any other bank needs to deal with major U.S. or European banks eventually, and one can impose restrictions on the latter).
As a simple example: U.S. regulators can easily force the hands of major European banks, because every one of those banks needs access to the U.S. financial market, if only so their clients can deal there.
Want to buy Apple, Google, or Microsoft stock? Then neutrality is not an option.
If that was the case then Russia would already be fully self sufficient by now since the first western sanctions on them showed up almost a decade ago. And the concept of modern economic sanctions has existed and has been implemented routinely since well before that. So why is every country still on board with the current system?
The truth is that the global economy is simply too interconnected for a single country (or even group of countries) to break away and do their own thing. Trade is good. Unprovoked wars are bad. This is something literally the entire planet agrees on.
The truth is that the global economy is simply too interconnected for a single country (or even group of countries) to break away and do their own thing. Trade is good. Unprovoked wars are bad. This is something literally the entire planet agrees on.
They only need to work once. Then the deterrent value is clear.
It's frankly the closest thing to a nuclear scenario you could get - in fact it's worse from the perspective that you enemies continue to live on while you wither. "At least" in a nuclear scenario both sides die.
Global systems don't need everyone to participate; they just need the key players to participate. It's really a special club, and if you're not allowed in the club then you'll probably never be able to climb to that level from outside.
It's frankly the closest thing to a nuclear scenario you could get - in fact it's worse from the perspective that you enemies continue to live on while you wither. "At least" in a nuclear scenario both sides die.
Global systems don't need everyone to participate; they just need the key players to participate. It's really a special club, and if you're not allowed in the club then you'll probably never be able to climb to that level from outside.
There is no free pass for money in wartime. That's one of the first things that gets curbed. Even the Russians do this, they just restricted the amount of money you can take out of Russia.
I think the message was received. Will take a few years, but I bet we see other channels being conceived. Swift has to comply, because they get threatened with sanctions themselves. But countries outside the western sphere of influence very likely noticed the problem.
I think it will be a good indicator of which countries are secretly harboring imperialist ideas.
Or any country/individual that (checks notes) supports free press (e.g. WikiLeaks - remember, it was banned by Visa)
Or any country seeking to displace the US dollar as the global reserve currency, this’ll be the perfect wedge to do so.
I expect the federal reserve won’t be able to print trillions of dollars with ease anymore once USD loses its global reserve status.
I expect the federal reserve won’t be able to print trillions of dollars with ease anymore once USD loses its global reserve status.
Let's see. The current BRICS group of countries (I don't think you can call them a "coalition" and I feel India is a bit ashamed to be there with Russia now, but they depend on Russian shipments of weapons) can set up any payment system they want to exchange products between themselves. However, setting up such a system takes time and expertise, and as it would work between just these countries, its usefulness would be very limited - for now, the only beneficent would be Russia. But in any case, they would need to agree on a currency, and for sure it wouldn't be the RUB. Using yuans would make things for China quite complicated. And the current situation makes it crystal clear starting a war with another country may put your country in a deplorable position almost immediately. That's a good thing.
Prediction: they all are.
So you’re saying that Russia has the choice to invade a sovereign nation but the coalition of banks have no right to kick out the aggressor nation?
If I punch you in the nose, I don’t care what institution you represent. You won’t remain “neutral” for long.
If I punch you in the nose, I don’t care what institution you represent. You won’t remain “neutral” for long.
[deleted]
This was echoed in a recent interview with Ken Griffin [1]. Even for Democrats such as myself, when Griffin speaks, people listen.
[1] - https://youtu.be/AyEORjgaaNc
[1] - https://youtu.be/AyEORjgaaNc
Good. That is the idea.
tyrants and warlords can no longer expect to use western (financial) infrastructure once they start shelling civilians... OK?
they can always trace in some kind of mathematically-supported ledger, which is neutral, but also globally transparent
Not really, there is a reason we have a Geneva convention and treaties. They aren't really that hard to follow. Don't vacuum bomb, gas, and invade your neighbors and you're basically going to be okay. Look at China, currently committing a genocide on the Uighurs and nothing is happening to them. You have to be a gigantic dick (read Putin) to get kicked out of the financial institutions.
If they stop being neutral soon enough they will stop being global.
Right, but then situations emerge when it is no longer possible to be neutral.
Right, but then situations emerge when it is no longer possible to be neutral.
Now it appears the only Russian bank left operating in the EU is, predictably, Gazprombank which as the name suggests is owned by Gazprom, the Russian corporation the EU purchases energy supplies from. With Sberbank abandoning activities in the EU, now I believe there's no more room for maneuver for further similar sanctions. In theory they could block Gazprombank too, although it is an extreme measure that would result in immediate retaliation from the Russian govt (which controls Gazprom) in the form of no more or further overpriced supplies.
Here are some numbers just to give an idea of how much this situation affects our heating/energy bills here in the EU: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas
Then there's wheat (read: food), of which Ukraine is one of the biggest producers and top exporters to the EU: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/wheat
Here are some numbers just to give an idea of how much this situation affects our heating/energy bills here in the EU: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas
Then there's wheat (read: food), of which Ukraine is one of the biggest producers and top exporters to the EU: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/wheat
> Then there's wheat (read: food), of which Ukraine is one of the biggest producers and top exporters to the EU
I guess the farms aren’t in cities but is it realistic that Ukraine will be in any shape to export much wheat this year at this point.
I guess the farms aren’t in cities but is it realistic that Ukraine will be in any shape to export much wheat this year at this point.
The ground hasn't even thawed yet - there's still time for the battle lines to solidify and the farmers to go on farming and planting.
Had this happened during harvest time likely large amounts of wheat would have been lost.
Had this happened during harvest time likely large amounts of wheat would have been lost.
Looking beyond the EU:
"China leapfrogged Russia to become Ukraine's biggest single trading partner in 2019, with overall trade totalling $18.98 billion last year, a nearly 80% jump from 2013, according to data from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. [...] China became the largest importer of Ukrainian barley in the 2020-21 marketing year. About 30% of China's corn imports last year, more than 8 million tonnes, came from Ukraine, Chinese customs data showed."
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chinas...
If the war starts impacting the price of staples in China, that's going to strain Russia's relations with its only significant remaining ally.
"China leapfrogged Russia to become Ukraine's biggest single trading partner in 2019, with overall trade totalling $18.98 billion last year, a nearly 80% jump from 2013, according to data from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. [...] China became the largest importer of Ukrainian barley in the 2020-21 marketing year. About 30% of China's corn imports last year, more than 8 million tonnes, came from Ukraine, Chinese customs data showed."
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chinas...
If the war starts impacting the price of staples in China, that's going to strain Russia's relations with its only significant remaining ally.
> The bank said it was no longer able to supply liquidity to European subsidiaries following an order from Russia's central bank, which is seeking to preserve foreign currency. But it said capital and assets were sufficient to pay all depositors.
I wonder if customers of their European subsidiaries are protected by an EU-equivalent of FDIC, guaranteeing their deposits? (I accidentally wrote "despots", haha..)
EDIT: I suppose it's the European Banking Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Banking_union
I wonder if customers of their European subsidiaries are protected by an EU-equivalent of FDIC, guaranteeing their deposits? (I accidentally wrote "despots", haha..)
EDIT: I suppose it's the European Banking Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Banking_union
Typically if the bank operated with a license from the local CB (as they should) the accounts will be insured up to 100K or thereabouts.
That's correct. Sberbank Europe is registered as an Austrian bank, so the Austrian equivalent of the FDIC has to cover deposits of up to 100K per client.
Here is the exact insurance scheme for Austria:
https://www.fma.gv.at/en/bank-accounts/deposit-protection/
https://www.fma.gv.at/en/bank-accounts/deposit-protection/
It's kind of like quitting after you've been fired? No?
That's backwards: They got ordered out.
> The exit does not affect Sberbank's business in Switzerland
Let's hope that changes. This is one the Swiss won't be able to sit out.
> The exit does not affect Sberbank's business in Switzerland
Let's hope that changes. This is one the Swiss won't be able to sit out.
They've been independent forever I don't understand why they need to take a side on this one.
We all know dirty money go there eventually
We all know dirty money go there eventually
[deleted]
Dreadful bank, a default one for russian pensions and salaries (for state-owned organisations). Almost a monopoly. But will cause lots struggle for people abroads...
i really dont understand this economic suicide while burning a country
Arguably, a large motivation for this war isn't about economics. The Russian government seems to have determined that the economic pain and pariah status is worth it if autocracy makes gains against democracy, the Western alliance is destabilized (that may have backfired), and the Soviet sphere of influence is restored. However deplorable, the invasion has historical motivations.
what does historical motivations mean? nationalist maybe, although ultimately even that aims at economic growth.
> what does historical motivations mean?
Being known and remembered as the person/people who changed the course of history or shifted the global narrative in one way or another. That's a pretty powerful motivation, that drives a lot of people who have tremendous power, not just the Russian president.
Being known and remembered as the person/people who changed the course of history or shifted the global narrative in one way or another. That's a pretty powerful motivation, that drives a lot of people who have tremendous power, not just the Russian president.
Interesting. Though, after the 20th century i m not sure which person/people would believe there is anything left to try. the USSR had a teleology, communism. Putin's russia dream is a vengeful restoration of nationalist glory. the russian society is poor though, dispersed in a huge country, not motivated, not a "fascio", not very united, it s hard to imagine them rallying behind putin to conquer the world like hitler did. He does command a very very large army, but disconnected from people.
> Though, after the 20th century i m not sure which person/people would believe there is anything left to try.
The same things can be tried again. There's no rule against historical motivations repeating themselves. Imperialism and colonialism have re-emerged many times under different names and implementation details.
I agree that ordinary Russians may not back his motivation, but ordinary Russians like you said are relatively poorer than their neighbors to the west, and whatever standard of living they have is provided in good part by the Russian oil and gas industry (10% of GDP and 50% of exports [1]), which is controlled by the Russian government.
So while they may not have much a stake in their President's ambitions, they don't have many alternatives either.
1. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Gas-S...
The same things can be tried again. There's no rule against historical motivations repeating themselves. Imperialism and colonialism have re-emerged many times under different names and implementation details.
I agree that ordinary Russians may not back his motivation, but ordinary Russians like you said are relatively poorer than their neighbors to the west, and whatever standard of living they have is provided in good part by the Russian oil and gas industry (10% of GDP and 50% of exports [1]), which is controlled by the Russian government.
So while they may not have much a stake in their President's ambitions, they don't have many alternatives either.
1. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Gas-S...
There are a lot of noises. But probably not really felt in Russia for every day lives. At least for food and staple goods, the prices are not changed from what I can gather.
Given time though, not sure. Especially China / India.
Given time though, not sure. Especially China / India.
It's a very simple formula. You do a stupid, egregious and immoral thing and we shut down your entire economy. Any questions?
Forgive me this one, but .... bye b!tches!
It seems clear Putin didn't think the West would "go there" re SWIFT. As most of us are learning about this all in real time, it's really quite remarkable from the perspective that yes, the West is militarizing banking and sanctions in a new way. Putin had become a master of manipulating with armed conflict, and now the West has changed the rules. This is economic war. What are the acceptable or "allowed" reactions to an opponent on the recieving end? This is all new territory we're in here.
IMO, what the West has done is shown an incredible display of power, killing multiple birds with one stone:
1.) Attempt to prevent Russia from accessing new found gas/oil reserves. [3]
2.) Continue to press Russia into a corner as the West continues to expand its influence. [1]
3.) Show and tell China the consequences of economic sanctions and economic war, and our willingness and ability to do so. [speculation]
For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault. This has been covered in depth by John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" after the Orange Revolution and Russia capturing of Crimea [1]. And there is also some rational speculation here regarding the discovery of natural resources. [3]
What the US (which has major influence over Europe/NATO, so it's not clear how much of a choice Europe had here)[2] has essentially done is shown the world that we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The new tools of war are economic control, and we're the heaviest guerilla in the room [4].
What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no [1]. Forcing Russia to invade Ukraine is brilliant because Putin is evil in the West's eyes, but it was 100% necessary for Putin to invade because having that much of his boarder exposed to NATO is an incredibly vulnerable position to be in, and he made that clear to us years ago [1]. Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. [5][6]. So Putin is forced to play the worst hand, invading his sibling country (which makes him appear more evil), spend billions of dollars to do so, and lose many of his economic connections to the world. I think the West's goal here is to deliver the final blow to Putin and topple his regime, even if it requires killing innocent people along the way.
Other notes:
Russia's economy is strongly linked to natural gas and oil, and earlier this century a huge deposit of both was found in Ukraine and in their economic coastal zone/area. [3]
Mearsheimer notably distinguishes the West and East's methods of international politics into "21st century 'walk in and do whatever we please'" and "19th century 'balance of power politics'". The US is such a powerful country that it wont face any negative repercussions for interfering with the world order nor invading smaller countries.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
[2] The US contributes over 10x the funds of the 2nd largest contributor (Germany) to NATO, and represents about 70% of the total pot. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE . Note, this video is a bit too pro-western to be fair/balanced. It does not consider the possibility that the US wants to get into Ukraine for oil/gas.
[4] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
</armchair>
Edit: Wow, people are flagging my sourced backed, neutral view comment? Can someone at HN please unflag the comment? @dang
1.) Attempt to prevent Russia from accessing new found gas/oil reserves. [3]
2.) Continue to press Russia into a corner as the West continues to expand its influence. [1]
3.) Show and tell China the consequences of economic sanctions and economic war, and our willingness and ability to do so. [speculation]
For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault. This has been covered in depth by John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" after the Orange Revolution and Russia capturing of Crimea [1]. And there is also some rational speculation here regarding the discovery of natural resources. [3]
What the US (which has major influence over Europe/NATO, so it's not clear how much of a choice Europe had here)[2] has essentially done is shown the world that we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The new tools of war are economic control, and we're the heaviest guerilla in the room [4].
What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no [1]. Forcing Russia to invade Ukraine is brilliant because Putin is evil in the West's eyes, but it was 100% necessary for Putin to invade because having that much of his boarder exposed to NATO is an incredibly vulnerable position to be in, and he made that clear to us years ago [1]. Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. [5][6]. So Putin is forced to play the worst hand, invading his sibling country (which makes him appear more evil), spend billions of dollars to do so, and lose many of his economic connections to the world. I think the West's goal here is to deliver the final blow to Putin and topple his regime, even if it requires killing innocent people along the way.
Other notes:
Russia's economy is strongly linked to natural gas and oil, and earlier this century a huge deposit of both was found in Ukraine and in their economic coastal zone/area. [3]
Mearsheimer notably distinguishes the West and East's methods of international politics into "21st century 'walk in and do whatever we please'" and "19th century 'balance of power politics'". The US is such a powerful country that it wont face any negative repercussions for interfering with the world order nor invading smaller countries.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
[2] The US contributes over 10x the funds of the 2nd largest contributor (Germany) to NATO, and represents about 70% of the total pot. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE . Note, this video is a bit too pro-western to be fair/balanced. It does not consider the possibility that the US wants to get into Ukraine for oil/gas.
[4] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
</armchair>
Edit: Wow, people are flagging my sourced backed, neutral view comment? Can someone at HN please unflag the comment? @dang
At some point, Russian paranoia is the root cause here and not the west further pushing east. If France, Germany and the UK can all get along after the 20th century wars, then there is no reason for Russia to be so paranoid about their 'flank'. Especially as the nature of warfare has changed to a due to technology since then.
It's like if I get suckerpunched by someone on a subway, because his great-granddaddy was once mugged on the subway 60 years ago. It explains it, but it doesn't excuse it.
It's like if I get suckerpunched by someone on a subway, because his great-granddaddy was once mugged on the subway 60 years ago. It explains it, but it doesn't excuse it.
> Russian paranoia is the root cause here
I don't think that's true; I think the paranoid-sounding (as to their assessment of factual threats) excuses that nevertheless fit the style of things that are viewed as acceptable justifications for war in the West are for consumption by the international community and, particularly, Russian apologists in the West; I think the reclaiming historical territory and past glory, national glory, and creation of a grand ethno-national state angle is a lot more the motivation than paranoia. The extent to which the war announcement speech emphasized grievances at past betrayal of the Russian patrimony by its past (mostly Soviet) custodians compared to the way excuses are presented in messages more aimed at the international community I think speaks volumes here.
I don't think that's true; I think the paranoid-sounding (as to their assessment of factual threats) excuses that nevertheless fit the style of things that are viewed as acceptable justifications for war in the West are for consumption by the international community and, particularly, Russian apologists in the West; I think the reclaiming historical territory and past glory, national glory, and creation of a grand ethno-national state angle is a lot more the motivation than paranoia. The extent to which the war announcement speech emphasized grievances at past betrayal of the Russian patrimony by its past (mostly Soviet) custodians compared to the way excuses are presented in messages more aimed at the international community I think speaks volumes here.
This is downvoted, but I fully agree with this. As hard as difficult it is to imagine for some Americans, it is more then just plausible for Russia to seek "reclaiming historical territory and past glory, national glory, and creation of a grand ethno-national state angle". Neither Russia nor the rest of Eastern Europe are purely reactive to what USA does. People in those countries have own history, own myths and own motivations.
It is even openly in Putins own propaganda.
It is even openly in Putins own propaganda.
>> there is no reason for Russia to be so paranoid about their 'flank'
The US doesn't allow Russian influence anywhere in their entire western hemisphere. Are we just paranoid too? China is the same.
Superpowers WILL ALWAYS defend their borders. To the end if necessary, when their very existence is at stake.
The US doesn't allow Russian influence anywhere in their entire western hemisphere. Are we just paranoid too? China is the same.
Superpowers WILL ALWAYS defend their borders. To the end if necessary, when their very existence is at stake.
> The US doesn't allow Russian influence anywhere in their entire western hemisphere
Yes, it does.
It opposes it, sure, but it hasn't launched a full-on invasion of any of the states that are Russian-influenced in the Western hemisphere.
Yes, it does.
It opposes it, sure, but it hasn't launched a full-on invasion of any of the states that are Russian-influenced in the Western hemisphere.
Well, the US tried to invade Cuba in the Bay of Pigs out of concerns about Russian influence and military buildup close to the US mainland.
> Well, the US tried to invade Cuba in the Bay of Pigs
Well, it gave some Cuban exiles a ride to the Bay of Pigs and then cut them off without promised support.
Well, it gave some Cuban exiles a ride to the Bay of Pigs and then cut them off without promised support.
Nonetheless, the intent was a violent US-sponsored regime change in response to a close proximity Russian influence and military deployment in a foreign country.
But Ukraine is Bay of Pigs x1000000, just to clarify. They’re not equivalent on any scale.
But Ukraine is Bay of Pigs x1000000, just to clarify. They’re not equivalent on any scale.
The defenses go _inside_ your borders
Aren't Russia and Venezuela pretty closely allied?
The relationship of France, Germany and UK to the US is not the same as Russia or China to the US.
Of course not. Because Russia is too paranoid, and too authoritarian (which is my point).
I think the point is that France, Germany and the UK (and all of Europe) used to engage in wars of conquest constantly throughout history.
After WWII the victors decided that needed to stop and they decided to trust each other and get along.
For some countries, peace is more important than trying to redraw borders through force.
After WWII the victors decided that needed to stop and they decided to trust each other and get along.
For some countries, peace is more important than trying to redraw borders through force.
West is not pushing further east. Countries further east are seeking protection from Russia.
Why should Russia approve my country membership in EU or NATO? The only reason is if Russia has some claims on my country territory that wants to use in future.
But I want to hear a good reason why Russia should have the right to object. I am so happy that my country Romania managed to enter in NATO just to be safe from the Russia threat but unfortunately our brothers in Moldova are still in danger.
But I want to hear a good reason why Russia should have the right to object. I am so happy that my country Romania managed to enter in NATO just to be safe from the Russia threat but unfortunately our brothers in Moldova are still in danger.
Even Mearsheimer admits that Russia is invading Ukraine and not the Baltics because the Baltics are in NATO.
I’m sorry but no one forced Russia to invade. If Russia just left the east of Ukraine alone. Didn’t recruit the people there for “training”. Didn’t make fake videos of journalists being attacked or videos of Russians under attack using audio from 10+ years ago forgetting to remove the exif data. Then both Russia and Ukraine would be totally fine. But there’s an invasion and you’re all “it’s the us false always the us fault”
You're missing the point which is not justifying the invasion, but suggesting that the US deliberately favored it because it happened to know Putin's sensibilities and how would he react to things.
Which, I can add, would be not tremendously different from past US actions (e.g. killing of Salvador Allende which ultimately meant thousands of Chilean victims).
Which, I can add, would be not tremendously different from past US actions (e.g. killing of Salvador Allende which ultimately meant thousands of Chilean victims).
Honestly, this sounds more like disbelieve that non Americans can do major movements that are not centered around America and still affect it a lot.
The US causing Russia to invade Ukraine is very much like a woman wearing scant clothing forcing someone to cat call her or worse.
That is an insane take. lol
That is an insane take. lol
> The US causing Russia to invade Ukraine is very much like a woman wearing scant clothing forcing someone to cat call her or worse.
It's honestly more like saying it forced someone to rape her sister.
It's honestly more like saying it forced someone to rape her sister.
Yeah, I was trying to avoid the word rape so dang didn't come after me, but you're exactly right.
>Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?"
No, it is not. Putin is responsible for what is happening right now. Putin and his enablers. Nobody forced Putin to invade. It was pretty clear that invading was actually a bad move (compared to the alternative of not invading), so it was a largely emotional decision on Putin's part. Or it was a very calculating one, but one made in a bubble of unreality and disconnection due to his unique position as a hated tyrant.
No, it is not. Putin is responsible for what is happening right now. Putin and his enablers. Nobody forced Putin to invade. It was pretty clear that invading was actually a bad move (compared to the alternative of not invading), so it was a largely emotional decision on Putin's part. Or it was a very calculating one, but one made in a bubble of unreality and disconnection due to his unique position as a hated tyrant.
"What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. "
Putin's government legalize spousal abuse.[1] It's hard to get more evil than that. Any government that managed to achieve a degree of stability could have had as much success as Putin's, he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success. Nevermind that many Russians still live in poverty and corruption and crime are still endemic so it's not like he's actually solved the problem. Putin's success has been mostly a propaganda victory where instead of of a strong economy and the rule of law, he's promised Russians a sense of recovered strength and importance on the world stage. That's not to be commended but many Westerners seem to have fallen for Putin's nonsense hook, line, and sinker.
"Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no "
Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence. It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened. Like leaving a battered spouse in the hands of an abuser so that he doesn't feel like his patrimony is threatened. Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire.
"Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. "
The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis and the Monroe doctrine opposed European colonialism and did not prohibit Latin American countries from voluntarily entering agreements with European powers.
[1] https://cepa.org/russias-domestic-violence-epidemic/
Putin's government legalize spousal abuse.[1] It's hard to get more evil than that. Any government that managed to achieve a degree of stability could have had as much success as Putin's, he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success. Nevermind that many Russians still live in poverty and corruption and crime are still endemic so it's not like he's actually solved the problem. Putin's success has been mostly a propaganda victory where instead of of a strong economy and the rule of law, he's promised Russians a sense of recovered strength and importance on the world stage. That's not to be commended but many Westerners seem to have fallen for Putin's nonsense hook, line, and sinker.
"Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no "
Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence. It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened. Like leaving a battered spouse in the hands of an abuser so that he doesn't feel like his patrimony is threatened. Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire.
"Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. "
The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis and the Monroe doctrine opposed European colonialism and did not prohibit Latin American countries from voluntarily entering agreements with European powers.
[1] https://cepa.org/russias-domestic-violence-epidemic/
Appreciate the counterpoints.
It's incredibly disappointing to me that the parent comment - a unique and dissenting viewpoint on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, is flagged and we can no longer see it. Can we get a moderator in here to fix this?
It's incredibly disappointing to me that the parent comment - a unique and dissenting viewpoint on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, is flagged and we can no longer see it. Can we get a moderator in here to fix this?
I couldn't find a HN rule against reposting flagged comments, so here it is (with my edit after being flagged). I want to reiterate my point of view is entirely neutral and fact based (from what I've read so far about the conflict).
IMO, what the West has done is shown an incredible display of power, killing multiple birds with one stone:
1.) Attempt to prevent Russia from accessing new found gas/oil reserves. [3]
2.) Continue to press Russia into a corner as the West continues to expand its influence. [1]
3.) Show and tell China the consequences of economic sanctions and economic war, and our willingness and ability to do so. [speculation]
For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault. This has been covered in depth by John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" after the Orange Revolution and Russia capturing of Crimea [1]. And there is also some rational speculation here regarding the discovery of natural resources. [3]
What the US (which has major influence over Europe/NATO, so it's not clear how much of a choice Europe had here)[2] has essentially done is shown the world that we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The new tools of war are economic control, and we're the heaviest guerilla in the room [4].
What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no [1]. Forcing Russia to invade Ukraine is brilliant because Putin is evil in the West's eyes, but it was 100% necessary for Putin to invade because having that much of his boarder exposed to NATO is an incredibly vulnerable position to be in, and he made that clear to us years ago [1]. Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. [5][6]. So Putin is forced to play the worst hand, invading his sibling country (which makes him appear more evil), spend billions of dollars to do so, and lose many of his economic connections to the world. I think the West's goal here is to deliver the final blow to Putin and topple his regime, even if it requires killing innocent people along the way.
Other notes:
Russia's economy is strongly linked to natural gas and oil, and earlier this century a huge deposit of both was found in Ukraine and in their economic coastal zone/area. [3]
Mearsheimer notably distinguishes the West and East's methods of international politics into "21st century 'walk in and do whatever we please'" and "19th century 'balance of power politics'". The US is such a powerful country that it wont face any negative repercussions for interfering with the world order nor invading smaller countries.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
[2] The US contributes over 10x the funds of the 2nd largest contributor (Germany) to NATO, and represents about 70% of the total pot. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE . Note, this video is a bit too pro-western to be fair/balanced. It does not consider the possibility that the US wants to get into Ukraine for oil/gas.
[4] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
</armchair>
Edit: Wow, people are flagging my sourced backed, neutral view comment? Can someone at HN please unflag the comment? @dang
IMO, what the West has done is shown an incredible display of power, killing multiple birds with one stone:
1.) Attempt to prevent Russia from accessing new found gas/oil reserves. [3]
2.) Continue to press Russia into a corner as the West continues to expand its influence. [1]
3.) Show and tell China the consequences of economic sanctions and economic war, and our willingness and ability to do so. [speculation]
For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault. This has been covered in depth by John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" after the Orange Revolution and Russia capturing of Crimea [1]. And there is also some rational speculation here regarding the discovery of natural resources. [3]
What the US (which has major influence over Europe/NATO, so it's not clear how much of a choice Europe had here)[2] has essentially done is shown the world that we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The new tools of war are economic control, and we're the heaviest guerilla in the room [4].
What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no [1]. Forcing Russia to invade Ukraine is brilliant because Putin is evil in the West's eyes, but it was 100% necessary for Putin to invade because having that much of his boarder exposed to NATO is an incredibly vulnerable position to be in, and he made that clear to us years ago [1]. Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. [5][6]. So Putin is forced to play the worst hand, invading his sibling country (which makes him appear more evil), spend billions of dollars to do so, and lose many of his economic connections to the world. I think the West's goal here is to deliver the final blow to Putin and topple his regime, even if it requires killing innocent people along the way.
Other notes:
Russia's economy is strongly linked to natural gas and oil, and earlier this century a huge deposit of both was found in Ukraine and in their economic coastal zone/area. [3]
Mearsheimer notably distinguishes the West and East's methods of international politics into "21st century 'walk in and do whatever we please'" and "19th century 'balance of power politics'". The US is such a powerful country that it wont face any negative repercussions for interfering with the world order nor invading smaller countries.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
[2] The US contributes over 10x the funds of the 2nd largest contributor (Germany) to NATO, and represents about 70% of the total pot. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE . Note, this video is a bit too pro-western to be fair/balanced. It does not consider the possibility that the US wants to get into Ukraine for oil/gas.
[4] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
</armchair>
Edit: Wow, people are flagging my sourced backed, neutral view comment? Can someone at HN please unflag the comment? @dang
You must see global leaders as a weighted average of their policies, and then place them on a spectrum. As an example, Hitler is more evil than Putin; enough so that there's a large, visible gap between the two.
>he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success.
You'll need a source for that one. But here's why I think you're wrong [1]. Note that Putin came to power in 1999/2000 as an authoritarian leader. This means he's making more policy decisions for Russia than the US President does for the US. On an economic level, Putin has done a great job. You can see each dip correlates with each time the US interfered in their backyard. [1] What the US does not want is a strong Russia.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-cap...
> Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence
I'm not a Putin apologist (I changed Russia to Putin because he's a dictator). All I do is try to look at the situation rationally. Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Ukraine is also an interesting country because the eastern half predominantly speak Russian.
> It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened
Those countries were introduced much closer to after the fall of the USSR, and they are tiny. So Russia let it go.
>Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire.
How would you feel if Russia constructed a bunch of missile silos pointed at us (USA) in Mexico, Cuba, and Canada?
>The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
We did, even though they were not our soldiers. And we would have put our own troops on their soil if the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated.
>he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success.
You'll need a source for that one. But here's why I think you're wrong [1]. Note that Putin came to power in 1999/2000 as an authoritarian leader. This means he's making more policy decisions for Russia than the US President does for the US. On an economic level, Putin has done a great job. You can see each dip correlates with each time the US interfered in their backyard. [1] What the US does not want is a strong Russia.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-cap...
> Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence
I'm not a Putin apologist (I changed Russia to Putin because he's a dictator). All I do is try to look at the situation rationally. Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Ukraine is also an interesting country because the eastern half predominantly speak Russian.
> It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened
Those countries were introduced much closer to after the fall of the USSR, and they are tiny. So Russia let it go.
>Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire.
How would you feel if Russia constructed a bunch of missile silos pointed at us (USA) in Mexico, Cuba, and Canada?
>The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
We did, even though they were not our soldiers. And we would have put our own troops on their soil if the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated.
Russia could make peace with NATO at any time. They can withdraw from disputed territories and commit to a reduction in armaments. We don't need to have missiles pointed at each other. Europe and the US would be more than happy to have Russia as a peaceful trade partner.
> Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads.
I think you’re falling for for Russian propaganda here. While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members.[1]
Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO.[2] In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019[3]. A change made after 5 years of war in Donbas with Russian support, as well as the annexation of Crimera.
What did happen in 2014 was the Maidan revolution[4] as well the signing of the EU-Ukraine association agreement.[5]
I’d argue, what Putin if afraid of is not NATO at his borders (though it plays well with some of his audience), but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. And to be clear, Ukraine today (even before the invasion) is far away from all 4. But it’d be a formidable threat to Putin’s autocratic and kleptocratic government.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html 2: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html 3: https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shc... 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity 5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukrai...
I think you’re falling for for Russian propaganda here. While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members.[1]
Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO.[2] In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019[3]. A change made after 5 years of war in Donbas with Russian support, as well as the annexation of Crimera.
What did happen in 2014 was the Maidan revolution[4] as well the signing of the EU-Ukraine association agreement.[5]
I’d argue, what Putin if afraid of is not NATO at his borders (though it plays well with some of his audience), but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. And to be clear, Ukraine today (even before the invasion) is far away from all 4. But it’d be a formidable threat to Putin’s autocratic and kleptocratic government.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html 2: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html 3: https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shc... 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity 5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukrai...
I'm curious, do you think John Mearsheimer is spewing Russian Propaganda? [1] He's been studying international politics for over 50 years. I'm asking because I want to know if my sources are provably biased.
>While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members
I don't think that counters anything I said. US is pushing for Ukrainian/Georgian membership, as you say. When that was put on the table, both countries began working towards achieving that membership. Considering US funds 70% of NATO, it's not implausible to think that the US will have their way in the long run. (Rational speculation)
>Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO. > In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019
Which president? The one that was elected after the coup? Or the previous one who was pro-Russia? Mearsheimer discusses that history in his lecture I linked in my main comment. I haven't read into this but it seems likely that total national policy shifts take time. You're talking about one month to 5 years after the revolution. You have to remember half the country is either Russian descent or speaks Russian. It seems like a necessary guarantee to maintain peace with Russia.
> but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member.
Russia does not want that either. Over the last decade or two, Russia has been building new gas pipelines that circumvent Ukraine for this very reason. Ukraine collects a tax on all the gas that passes through their boarders. Also notable is the recent oil/natural gas reserves discovered in their territory.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
>While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members
I don't think that counters anything I said. US is pushing for Ukrainian/Georgian membership, as you say. When that was put on the table, both countries began working towards achieving that membership. Considering US funds 70% of NATO, it's not implausible to think that the US will have their way in the long run. (Rational speculation)
>Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO. > In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019
Which president? The one that was elected after the coup? Or the previous one who was pro-Russia? Mearsheimer discusses that history in his lecture I linked in my main comment. I haven't read into this but it seems likely that total national policy shifts take time. You're talking about one month to 5 years after the revolution. You have to remember half the country is either Russian descent or speaks Russian. It seems like a necessary guarantee to maintain peace with Russia.
> but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member.
Russia does not want that either. Over the last decade or two, Russia has been building new gas pipelines that circumvent Ukraine for this very reason. Ukraine collects a tax on all the gas that passes through their boarders. Also notable is the recent oil/natural gas reserves discovered in their territory.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
I watched the Mearsheimer lecture. The first point is that he gave it in 2015, so it's pretty old. Second point is that his main idea about Putin's motives are largely falsified by the recent invasion. Mearsheimer says that Putin doesn't want to annex Ukraine, then Putin invades and from his rhetoric it's clear he plans to annex it. So Mearsheimer is probably wrong.
Also, his explanation of the divisions in Ukraine are out of date. Look at the map of the most recent elections. It doesn't follow the usual east-west divide the Mearsheimer suggested. The current government is genuinely popular amongst a wide swath of the population. That was a pro-EU candidate.
Another issue with Mearsheimer's analysis is that Putin's policies in the Donbas doesn't align with the idea that Putin wants a neutral Ukraine (or just wants to "reck" it.) His demands were that Ukraine give the rebel areas autonomy which would give him direct influence in Ukrainian politics.
But all of that is sort of irrelevant because the only reason to discuss Mearsheimer's theory now is to give Russia cover for its current invasion. An invasion which clearly had different motives based on Putin's own justifications ("de-nazification" among others). And, of course, none of this great power politics discussion takes into account what the Ukrainians themselves want. It's not the US's right to tell Ukraine to be a neutral border state and they can't make them a neutral border state if they want. Ukraine has a long history of being a border state--the word "Ukraine" literally means borderland--but that history is one of repeated subjugation by more powerful neighbors. The idea that Russia has more right to security than Ukraine is wild to me and the idea that we even can make Ukraine act according to Mearsheimer's neat little scheme is wrong.
Also, his explanation of the divisions in Ukraine are out of date. Look at the map of the most recent elections. It doesn't follow the usual east-west divide the Mearsheimer suggested. The current government is genuinely popular amongst a wide swath of the population. That was a pro-EU candidate.
Another issue with Mearsheimer's analysis is that Putin's policies in the Donbas doesn't align with the idea that Putin wants a neutral Ukraine (or just wants to "reck" it.) His demands were that Ukraine give the rebel areas autonomy which would give him direct influence in Ukrainian politics.
But all of that is sort of irrelevant because the only reason to discuss Mearsheimer's theory now is to give Russia cover for its current invasion. An invasion which clearly had different motives based on Putin's own justifications ("de-nazification" among others). And, of course, none of this great power politics discussion takes into account what the Ukrainians themselves want. It's not the US's right to tell Ukraine to be a neutral border state and they can't make them a neutral border state if they want. Ukraine has a long history of being a border state--the word "Ukraine" literally means borderland--but that history is one of repeated subjugation by more powerful neighbors. The idea that Russia has more right to security than Ukraine is wild to me and the idea that we even can make Ukraine act according to Mearsheimer's neat little scheme is wrong.
I agree the situation has changed. I think it’s fair to say his summary of the situation was correct in 2015+, and that the underlying facts and desires of all countries involved have not notably changed in 8 years, other than Russia invading (as I guessed earlier, they are forced to play the worst hand).
I’m not sure the most recent election map is important. The competition was an independent, and the current president passed a bill that removed minority rights in 2014 to limit Russian influence.
Regarding Donbas, I have no comment because I think the order of events is very important there but I’m not an expert.
As for your last paragraph, you’ve lost me. Mearsheimers video is not a conspiracy to explain away current events. You realize Putin is capable of saying one thing and doing another? Or making up an irrelevant excuse to appease his citizens?
I don’t think you understand that empires don’t care about other countries’ rights when they feel threatened. It is the US and Russias right to determine the fate of Ukraine because they have the power and motivation to make that decision, despite it not being the moral or fair. The world isn’t a fair place.
I’m not sure the most recent election map is important. The competition was an independent, and the current president passed a bill that removed minority rights in 2014 to limit Russian influence.
Regarding Donbas, I have no comment because I think the order of events is very important there but I’m not an expert.
As for your last paragraph, you’ve lost me. Mearsheimers video is not a conspiracy to explain away current events. You realize Putin is capable of saying one thing and doing another? Or making up an irrelevant excuse to appease his citizens?
I don’t think you understand that empires don’t care about other countries’ rights when they feel threatened. It is the US and Russias right to determine the fate of Ukraine because they have the power and motivation to make that decision, despite it not being the moral or fair. The world isn’t a fair place.
a couple counterpoints
> For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault
i don't see it being anyone's fault put Putin's
> we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb
i don't see the war being won or at least not in the literal sense. The Ukrainian people have put up stiff resistance but all the articles i've read from military experts all end with the same sobering realization, the Russian army is just too big and too equipped to be defeated by Ukraine.
> I think the West's goal here is to deliver the final blow to Putin and topple his regime, even if it requires killing innocent people along the way.
I hope not, because an existential threat to Putin and his regime is, well, an existential threat and will be dealt with in an existential way. You can read between the lines.
> For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault
i don't see it being anyone's fault put Putin's
> we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb
i don't see the war being won or at least not in the literal sense. The Ukrainian people have put up stiff resistance but all the articles i've read from military experts all end with the same sobering realization, the Russian army is just too big and too equipped to be defeated by Ukraine.
> I think the West's goal here is to deliver the final blow to Putin and topple his regime, even if it requires killing innocent people along the way.
I hope not, because an existential threat to Putin and his regime is, well, an existential threat and will be dealt with in an existential way. You can read between the lines.
Mearsheimer is now part of Putin's propaganda. It really doesnt explain much unless someone is looking for easy cop-outs. The insanity of what we are living should not be explained away like that
Emotions are running high at the moment, and people have forgotten how the US has acted previously. I'm wary of the endgame here. Everyone except the West's billionaires could be the losers in this.
That explanation is pure victim blaming, nobody is forcing Putin to invade Ukraine.
> the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault.
This is transparently false, on its face. Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked. They're bombing Kiev and other major cities and civilian areas indiscriminately with cluster munitions.
Putin is trying to recreate a Russian empire. Russia's claims of needing to defend itself are just the lies that they feed the public to manufacture consent.
This is transparently false, on its face. Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked. They're bombing Kiev and other major cities and civilian areas indiscriminately with cluster munitions.
Putin is trying to recreate a Russian empire. Russia's claims of needing to defend itself are just the lies that they feed the public to manufacture consent.
Russia has invaded Ukraine and Europe has responded in a unified manor. China gave muted support, but largely stayed out of it (at least vocally - but still traded with them). China is, of course, watching very closely, as they have their own expansionist interests. How does/can Russia get out of this and save face? Where will this go with social/cyber warfare - it has to ramp-up dramatically, no? Now that western Europe has increased its military spending, what does that mean for the "World Police" American stance that has been so prevalent since the late 40's? Does this, in fact push forward clean technology, or will it hinder it as now America and Canada sit in a prime spot to export fuel and make record profits for decades - environment be damned?
I know, a lot of questions and I apologize =) Some I have my own "answers" to, but, like I said, all conjecture.