4 ms·

The US will do nothing except threaten more sanctions.

by encryptluks2 6y ago

jonnybgood 6y ago
What else can the US realistically do about this situation?
- ainiriand 6y ago
  It is not that they can, it is that the US used the freedom pretext to start wars all around. What about Russia?
  - 0dayz 6y ago
    Ah, yes let's bring freedom to a nuclear power, with no consequences for the us or the world. Regardless if your post is serious or not, this post is the dumbest "dare" to Americans I ever seen.
    - ainiriand 6y ago
      Yeah Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria are all much better now that there's "freedom".
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  They could take out Putin if they wanted to and spread some rumor that it was a Russian dissident.
  - jonnybgood 6y ago
    That is absolutely not realistic.
    - encryptluks2 6y ago
      Why not?
      - pjc50 6y ago
        Man has quite a lot of security against on-the-ground "deniable" attacks. Then you have the question of whether the surviving second in command decides to just eat the loss and surrender his country to the United States without firing a shot, or .. fire a shot. The bare minimum is probably the televised execution of all US embassy staff in Russia; the maximum retaliation is, of course, nuclear war.
        encryptluks2 6y ago
        We're already at war with Russia, it is just a cold war involving cyberattacks and attacks on the US election system. With Russia moving troops to the border of Ukraine they are going to keep testing the US until we are forced to act. Better be on the preemptive.
        mekkkkkk 6y ago
        > until we are forced to act Are you suggesting that the Kremlin wants to escalate into full scale war with the US?
        encryptluks2 6y ago
        I think they will work to destroy the US from within as much as possible until it is entirely possible for them to destabilize the US to the point that they spark a civil war. This last election was just a preview in my opinion.
        lostmsu 6y ago
        Give US people some credit. I believe the White House event cleared minds of many right-wingers in regards to election rigging.
  - bloak 6y ago
    Taking out the Archduke Franz Ferdinand went well, didn't it? That wasn't even done by another major power, I think. (I'm no good at history.) Presumably there's a reason why major countries don't usually murder the heads of state of other major countries. I imagine it has something to do the military having standing orders to retaliate in such cases.
- js8 6y ago
  I was born in socialist Czechoslovakia. Everybody hated Russians (they had an army stationed there), and everybody loved Americans. (This "everybody" excludes about 20% of the population that are authoritarian conservatives, who exist in similar numbers everywhere.) So what did the Americans do? In my opinion: It wasn't military invasion, it wasn't sanctions, it was they have built a better, more free, system (at least that's how it was largely perceived), and opened their doors for people who wanted to emigrate and live there. Often these were intellectuals, who then "spread the word" about how it works in the U.S. back to the land they were born. I think with America coming to neoliberalism in the 1980s, this approach was lost. (Freedom turned into an ideology, and that neutered the pragmatic consideration of different human values.) But in some places, it never really existed, in Latin America, or Middle East, Americans often supported dictatorships. So here you have it, this is what you can realistically do. Build a better system, create an example, let people (from Russia or elsewhere) come and see why it is really better.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Absolutely this. The US could accelerate Russia’s brain drain [1] using robust visa quotas and fast track immigration programs. This would be far more devastating for the future of Russia than any military action or sanctions. Very similar to what Great Britain is doing with Hong Kong. [2] [1] https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200402141401228 https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=202004021... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-security-britain-china-idUSKBN29Y0Q1 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-security-britain...
    - js8 6y ago
      I think you totally misunderstood my proposal and twisted it into chauvinism. I don't want to destroy them, I want to (indirectly) help them. Failed states, especially those with nuclear weapons, are far more dangerous.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        I believe "Russia the government" is beyond redemption, but "Russia the people" aren’t, therefore the only path to success is helping Russian citizens emigrate to a country with better prospects for their future. This is help for the people, even if it shifts geopolitical power long term. The idea that Russians will take better systems back to a brutal regime and instill democracy or other improvements seems unlikely considering those who are in power. Russia will fail eventually (as the USSR did before it), its only a matter of when.
ainiriand 6y ago
It is interesting to see how the war with Syria started as a means to remove Al-Assad from power because of his veiled dictatorship and somehow there is people like Putin sitting in his throne for 2 decades and nothing happens.
- loopz 6y ago
  Look what happened in Syria, Libya, Yemen..
Iv 6y ago
Targeted sanctions work. Removing sanctions was the main goal of Russian "lobbying" (let's call it that way) of the Trump administration. Personally annoying leaders and oligarchs by preventing them to move around, if only to bring their kids to Disneyland, is not flashy but is convincing Putin's inner circle that he is turning Russia into a third world country. Hit at the wallet. Especially at the personal one.
- 3v1n0 6y ago
  Problem with sanctions is that most likely they only affect normal people who is not then able to rebel against their leaders. See Cuba or Venezuela, they live on sanctions for decades but show the oligarchs can live well on them, the people is struggling and has not any possibility to fight against their regimes
  - Iv 6y ago
    targeted sanctions. "Here is a list of 20 oligarchs who can't travel to US and EU anymore and can't transfer funds there." There may be a few false positives but that's much better than blanket embargo on a whole population. And when you find a business front of one of these, you have a legal reason to destroy millions from their wealth. Angry oligarchs are probable more scary to Putin than protests in the streets of Moscow.
CrazyCatDog 6y ago
That’s right, if you want the job done, you have got to call the United Nations—then and only then—might they write and send a stern, toothless letter.
- kenneth 6y ago
  Russia has a veto voice in the security council. Not really much the UN can do here. The way the UN is set up is entirely broken and there's very little the organization can do against authoritarianism.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Russia has a veto voice in the security council. Not really much the UN can do here. That seems like the kind of problem the UN would have run into and found a solution for within about the first 5 years it existed, instead of leaving it inaddressed for three-quarters of a century. Oh, that’s because it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assem...

The US will do nothing except threaten more sanctions.

jonnybgood 6y ago

What else can the US realistically do about this situation?

ainiriand 6y ago
It is not that they can, it is that the US used the freedom pretext to start wars all around. What about Russia?
- 0dayz 6y ago
  Ah, yes let's bring freedom to a nuclear power, with no consequences for the us or the world. Regardless if your post is serious or not, this post is the dumbest "dare" to Americans I ever seen.
  - ainiriand 6y ago
    Yeah Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria are all much better now that there's "freedom".
encryptluks2 6y ago
They could take out Putin if they wanted to and spread some rumor that it was a Russian dissident.
- jonnybgood 6y ago
  That is absolutely not realistic.
  - encryptluks2 6y ago
    Why not?
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Man has quite a lot of security against on-the-ground "deniable" attacks. Then you have the question of whether the surviving second in command decides to just eat the loss and surrender his country to the United States without firing a shot, or .. fire a shot. The bare minimum is probably the televised execution of all US embassy staff in Russia; the maximum retaliation is, of course, nuclear war.
      - encryptluks2 6y ago
        We're already at war with Russia, it is just a cold war involving cyberattacks and attacks on the US election system. With Russia moving troops to the border of Ukraine they are going to keep testing the US until we are forced to act. Better be on the preemptive.
        mekkkkkk 6y ago
        > until we are forced to act Are you suggesting that the Kremlin wants to escalate into full scale war with the US?
        encryptluks2 6y ago
        I think they will work to destroy the US from within as much as possible until it is entirely possible for them to destabilize the US to the point that they spark a civil war. This last election was just a preview in my opinion.
        lostmsu 6y ago
        Give US people some credit. I believe the White House event cleared minds of many right-wingers in regards to election rigging.
- bloak 6y ago
  Taking out the Archduke Franz Ferdinand went well, didn't it? That wasn't even done by another major power, I think. (I'm no good at history.) Presumably there's a reason why major countries don't usually murder the heads of state of other major countries. I imagine it has something to do the military having standing orders to retaliate in such cases.
js8 6y ago
I was born in socialist Czechoslovakia. Everybody hated Russians (they had an army stationed there), and everybody loved Americans. (This "everybody" excludes about 20% of the population that are authoritarian conservatives, who exist in similar numbers everywhere.) So what did the Americans do? In my opinion: It wasn't military invasion, it wasn't sanctions, it was they have built a better, more free, system (at least that's how it was largely perceived), and opened their doors for people who wanted to emigrate and live there. Often these were intellectuals, who then "spread the word" about how it works in the U.S. back to the land they were born. I think with America coming to neoliberalism in the 1980s, this approach was lost. (Freedom turned into an ideology, and that neutered the pragmatic consideration of different human values.) But in some places, it never really existed, in Latin America, or Middle East, Americans often supported dictatorships. So here you have it, this is what you can realistically do. Build a better system, create an example, let people (from Russia or elsewhere) come and see why it is really better.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Absolutely this. The US could accelerate Russia’s brain drain [1] using robust visa quotas and fast track immigration programs. This would be far more devastating for the future of Russia than any military action or sanctions. Very similar to what Great Britain is doing with Hong Kong. [2] [1] https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200402141401228 https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=202004021... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-security-britain-china-idUSKBN29Y0Q1 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-security-britain...
  - js8 6y ago
    I think you totally misunderstood my proposal and twisted it into chauvinism. I don't want to destroy them, I want to (indirectly) help them. Failed states, especially those with nuclear weapons, are far more dangerous.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      I believe "Russia the government" is beyond redemption, but "Russia the people" aren’t, therefore the only path to success is helping Russian citizens emigrate to a country with better prospects for their future. This is help for the people, even if it shifts geopolitical power long term. The idea that Russians will take better systems back to a brutal regime and instill democracy or other improvements seems unlikely considering those who are in power. Russia will fail eventually (as the USSR did before it), its only a matter of when.

ainiriand 6y ago

It is interesting to see how the war with Syria started as a means to remove Al-Assad from power because of his veiled dictatorship and somehow there is people like Putin sitting in his throne for 2 decades and nothing happens.

loopz 6y ago
Look what happened in Syria, Libya, Yemen..

Iv 6y ago

Targeted sanctions work. Removing sanctions was the main goal of Russian "lobbying" (let's call it that way) of the Trump administration. Personally annoying leaders and oligarchs by preventing them to move around, if only to bring their kids to Disneyland, is not flashy but is convincing Putin's inner circle that he is turning Russia into a third world country. Hit at the wallet. Especially at the personal one.

3v1n0 6y ago
Problem with sanctions is that most likely they only affect normal people who is not then able to rebel against their leaders. See Cuba or Venezuela, they live on sanctions for decades but show the oligarchs can live well on them, the people is struggling and has not any possibility to fight against their regimes
- Iv 6y ago
  targeted sanctions. "Here is a list of 20 oligarchs who can't travel to US and EU anymore and can't transfer funds there." There may be a few false positives but that's much better than blanket embargo on a whole population. And when you find a business front of one of these, you have a legal reason to destroy millions from their wealth. Angry oligarchs are probable more scary to Putin than protests in the streets of Moscow.

CrazyCatDog 6y ago

That’s right, if you want the job done, you have got to call the United Nations—then and only then—might they write and send a stern, toothless letter.

kenneth 6y ago
Russia has a veto voice in the security council. Not really much the UN can do here. The way the UN is set up is entirely broken and there's very little the organization can do against authoritarianism.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Russia has a veto voice in the security council. Not really much the UN can do here. That seems like the kind of problem the UN would have run into and found a solution for within about the first 5 years it existed, instead of leaving it inaddressed for three-quarters of a century. Oh, that’s because it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assem...