Ukraine Today

[Anthropoid]

Good heavens I have been proven *wrong* 

I guess those sanctions are effectively working then?

Trueten? Weaver? Bluehawk? Any of you whose homes are a bit closer to the action than me or Mage? What do you say? Have the vaunted sanctions done you would have wished the U.S. (or the West) would have done a year ago? Or for that matter, have they done what they were "supposed" to do?

Correct me if my memory is flawed here, but a year ago, there was just the first glimmers of war in Donetsk, right? Crimea had only just been annexed? Contrast that with the situation now for us if you would, just so Mage can understand what his favorite President's policies have helped Ukraine to achieve over the last year, will you?

Here is one rather anticlimactic view of the matter: Sanctions Cost Russia 1.2% GDP – Study by FBK. However, one caveat of note in the article . . .

Comparing the cost of sanctions for the Russian economy in 2014 and during the year since they were imposed (0.2% GDP and 1.2% GDP, respectively) we should admit that the cost of the sanctions increases along with the deterioration of the economy in Russia, points out Igor Nikolaev. The mounting affects of the sanctions are due to the fact that the longer the period of their use the more the amount of external corporate debt that should be paid, so the greater the impact of the lack of leverage.

So while the number might get bigger over time, if I understand the point being made in that previous quote, the actual truth is, the longer the sanctions are in place, the less real effect they will have to actually force any decision makers in Russia to change their behavior. Not that changing Russian behavior was what the sanctions were ever really about. Making a dramatic appearance to be doing "something," is more likely what they amounted to from the start.

Here is another interesting one from a serior fellow at the Brookings Institute, Clifford Gaddy: One year of western sanctions against Russia: We still live in different worlds

The United States and the European Union have now both announced that they are extending the economic sanctions they first imposed against Russia in March 2014 for its actions in Ukraine. One year on, the West thus remains committed to a policy which has failed so far and which has no chance of succeeding in the future. The sanctions policy was destined to fail because it was based on false assumptions about how most Russians think—in particular, how they think about security.

We and the Russians are fundamentally at odds on what sanctions are all about. The current official Western view is that sanctions are a way to punish Russia for violating the rules of the international order and to thereby correct its behavior in the future. The Russians believe the sanctions are designed to weaken Russia and reduce its ability to defend itself. These diverging views are only the tip of the iceberg of mutual misunderstanding between Russia and the West, misunderstanding that is rooted in our fundamentally different views of how nations can best ensure their security in today’s world. Angela Merkel famously said that Vladimir Putin “lives in another world.” The meaning was that he has a completely different frame of reference, and as a result, that he does not views events and actions the same way that we in the West do. What Merkel said of Putin applies to the majority of Russians. This is certainly true as regards concepts of global and national security. The West and Russia are worlds apart on what constitutes a security threat, on Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and on what sanctions represent.

Our Western view is that security in an interconnected world has to be based on cooperation, dialogue, and trust. It can only be guaranteed by everyone adhering to a rules-based system. Russia rejects that idea of security. It believes that the only real guarantee of its own security and sovereignty is its independent ability to defend itself. No multinational or supranational organization can guarantee that.

We disagree completely about what led to the current standoff in Ukraine. In Putin’s world, he acted to defend Russia by neutralizing an imminent security risk. Russia, he believes, is under assault by the West. Russia could not allow Ukraine, with which it is so deeply integrated economically, to be brought fully into the sphere of influence of its enemy. Ukraine would be in a position to be persuaded—or compelled—to act against Russia, and Russia would have no way to counter that pressure. For us, by stark contrast, Russia’s violation of the rules threatens our entire system and therefore the security (and prosperity and freedom) of all.

Western leaders explain that sanctions are intended “to change Putin’s calculus.” This assumes that there are some gains he would be willing to forego in return for easing the pain of current or future sanctions. Yet when we apply this cost-benefit model—which is one adopted from the realm of the economics of crime and law enforcement—we fundamentally misunderstand what is at stake for Russia. Ukraine is not loot from a robbery, whose value Russia weighs against the cost of seizing it. In its own view, Russia acted in Ukraine to defend against an existential threat.

By applying sanctions, we think we are pressuring Russia to shift its behavior towards a more acceptable form. Russians see us as forcing them to choose: either accept a political and military situation that will threaten the survival of their nation or be subject to a constantly intensified campaign of economic warfare. For Russia, this is not a choice. It is defeat in either case.

We are therefore caught in a trap, one of our own making. We adopted a policy that could never work as it was intended, namely, as a way to force Russia to change its behavior and obey the rules of our order. Russia will never respect those rules as long as it remains convinced that our order prohibits Russia from guaranteeing its own security. Sanctions can therefore not solve our “Russia problem.” Russia will act as it has in Ukraine, and worse, as long as it feels insecure and still remains capable of defending against threats.

If “winning” in this conflict for us means that we force Russia to acknowledge that our version of international security prevails over its version of security, there is only one way we can win. Russia must collapse completely. There are, of course, those in the West who think Russia is headed for collapse internally, perhaps sooner rather than later, and that sanctions will hasten the day. This is a very dangerous bet. Because if we merely put Russia at risk of collapse, it will feel compelled to act preemptively. As long as Russia has retaliatory capability (across the full range of its arsenal from nuclear and other military weapons to its energy and cyber weapons), it will use them all before capitulating. If our strategy is to force Russia to renounce all goals of independently guaranteeing its own security and sovereignty, then we have to be prepared to fight to the end. We have to have a plan of how to neutralize all of Russia’s weapons, or be prepared to survive them.

If this is not where we want to go, what are our options? A nonmilitary outcome can only be achieved by resolving our basic clash over notions of security. Putin is interested in security. So are we. We have fundamentally different notions. Ultimately, reconciling these differences has to be the real subject of negotiation between us.

In short, sanctions were fighting words. Once the West realizes that the choice is to deliver the coup-de-grace (with all the risks inherent) else to sit back and wait for Russia to preempt it's own collapse, the sanctions will be replaced with dividends.

 

[Weaver]

I agree that sanctions are not THE solution.
But I disagree that they are pointless.

 

[Mage246]

Typical Anthropoid, avoiding any discussion of the points at hand in order to grandstand about things that have no impact. notice how at no point did he seek to address my comments.

 

[Frankish Sinatra]

Russia must collapse completely

That sounds nice and all, but its not really enough to just **** up a country and call it a day. War hawks seem to forget that replacing a regime takes more time and often more money than destroying one. America in particular has demonstrated that it is unwilling to commit to cleaning up after it's self with the half-assed governments in Iraq and Afghanistan along with the new found anarchy of Libya. I dread to think of the consequences of a similar situation emerging in Russia.

 

[Trueten]

Don't worry. China will pick up and 'save' the most important parts.

 

[Bluehawk]

That might not be a bad thing.

隐藏

 

[Anthropoid]

Typical Anthropoid, avoiding any discussion of the points at hand in order to grandstand about things that have no impact. notice how at no point did he seek to address my comments.

Well me being a "Nazi" and all (your words, not mein!) I wouldn't want to antagonize you by directly contradicting anything you have to say.

 

[Mage246]

You sad, pathetic little man. You called yourself a Nazi. I simply recognized you as such.

 

[Austupaio]

Oh my god, he's still going on about that Nazi thing.

Was your grandpa killed in Germany or something? I'm just surprised at how slighted you are by what Mage had to say there. I mean he's genuinely insulted you in many ways, but that wasn't really one of them.

 

[TheVideoGameInn]

Well, I honestly think both the USSR Russia and the US have just become too big. If they were split into several countries (combining the states with similar ideals and values) it could work much better as they'd have less power and influence.

Both countries are glasses of water filled to the brim, ready to overflow.

 

[Austupaio]

I'm not sure less American influence would strictly be positive. Yes, I know, not everyone appreciates the World PoliceTM nor are they always a positive influence. However, I think that there are cases where the U.S's ability to project power, actually a rather unique ability today, is a net positive. I think most people in the RoK would agree.

Ignoring that though, yes, the U.S's size is still a problem in managing it. Even California itself is too large to be effectively managed by the state government, evidenced by the horrible treatment of this drought over last the two decades and that the state is considering breaking up into anywhere from 3 to 6 new states.

I imagine Russia would have deeper issues with that prospect though, as I do not believe all of Russia is nearly as self-sufficient as most U.S. states are.

 

[TheVideoGameInn]

Russia is a horrific nation at this point anyway. If the statistics aren't fake, then I think most of the inhabitants aren't exactly sane or nice people either, supporting the invasion of Ukraine and all that.

I think countries, especially in Western Europe, where the fight is basically constantly right vs left wing, could maybe be divided into two countries each: one which is a coalition of left-wing parties, the other led by a coalition of right-wing parties.

 

[Austupaio]

They're not all insane or... uh... the opposite of nice, they're just victims of the propaganda machine or apathetic. Don't hate the people, hate the system.

I have no idea about your second concept, I'll let someone else comment on that.

 

[TheVideoGameInn]

Don't know where you live, but in the UK and France it's pretty much a biggest **** contest between two parties, one left wing one right wing, who both do absolutely nothing that they'd announced they'do do to desperately try and get elected.

And then, when they do get elected, the members of the other parties just boycott every decision or law they try and instore and you have five years of absolutely nothing. United-Statesians suffer this as well though. Seriously, is there a decision Obama actually managed to pass with little opposition?

In Russia, it's probably true they are victims of propaganda.  But we have a 1984 situation here. Deep in their hearts I'm sure they know that the government is wrong and should be overthrown. Look at China, look at North Korea. I don't like the word (see the catastrophies in Libya and every middle eastern country ever) but there should maybe be some intervention in those three countries to try and dismantle said governments.

And sanctions won't do much.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

But we have a 1984 situation here.

 

[Austupaio]

Don't know where you live, but in the UK and France it's pretty much a biggest **** contest between two parties, one left wing one right wing, who both do absolutely nothing that they'd announced they'do do to desperately try and get elected. And then, when they do get elected, the members of the other parties just boycott every decision or law they try and instore and you have five years of absolutely nothing.

Uh, I'm American, I'm pretty familiar with bi-partisan politics.

In Russia, it's probably true they are victims of propaganda.  But we have a 1984 situation here. Deep in their hearts I'm sure they know that the government is wrong and should be overthrown.

I'm sure they do, but they probably know even better than westerners do how impossible that would be. Russia has a strong nationalist core in its population that would oppose revolt, they have a very strong military and police force that would oppose revolt. It's not a revolution I would want to be part of, because it would probably be the bloodiest revolution in history. Probably best to see what will happen once Putin dies.

Look at China, look at North Korea. I don't like the word (see the catastrophies in Libya and every middle eastern country ever) but there should maybe be some intervention in those three countries to try and dismantle said governments.

Well, as for Libya and North Korea, sure maybe they should be... but you were talking about taking away nation's ability to project power. Who on this planet could hope to accomplish that sort of mission except for the United States? Even for the U.S, it would be massively difficult.

As for dismantling the Chinese government... I don't even know how to respond. That's not a thing that can happen under any circumstances. Nor do I even necessarily believe it should, China is improving.

 

[TheVideoGameInn]

It is, but ignoring basic human rights. Don't you find it disturbing half the things in your house could have been made by a chinese slave who's not (or barely) paid?

As to bloody revolution, I don't see Russia improving. Which means either revolution or war with another country (probably not nuclear at first). With rigged elections, they're not changing politically on their own any time soon.

 

[Austupaio]

Maybe 10 years ago, but I don't believe there's much in the way of Chinese workers being unpaid today. They are abused and poor, but they are paid.

As for it bothering me, well, no, I need these things and there's not much I can do about it. The cow that made my dinner tonight was abused too, but I still need to eat it and there is little I can do to change its conditions.

 

[TheVideoGameInn]

And a defeatist attitude will leave people in poverty, countries at war and corrupt men in power.

 

[Austupaio]

I could have a super up-and-at-em attitude and it wouldn't change anything either. I'm not a politician, I do not have the ability to influence politicians, nor do I have any desire to become a terrorist. Attitude and words do not incite change, action does. That's my main problem with Facebook activists, they talk a lot about change, but they have little to do with it.