16 ms·

Russia to U.S. -Lift sanctions on space sector or we'll exit space station

36 points by mardiyah 5y ago

rdtsc 5y ago
> "This is in the hands of our American partners," > The United States and other Western countries began imposing sanctions against Russia in the wake of its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Is there any chance they would cede Crimea back at this point? Or, are there other conditions they would have to satisfy for the sanctions to be lifted. Because it seems they can do something too to lift the sanctions. The last time I remember a statement by Rogozyn was when he said the hole in the space station was deliberately drilled from inside [1]. Presumably, blaming American or other astronauts. It seems like he is purposefully trying to provoke a conflict. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45423225.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-enviro...
- randomopining 5y ago
  Russia does everything they can to deflect and gaslight. It's their plan. Make aggressive moves in a sphere, change the facts on the ground or the game that is played, and then retreat into deflecting and gaslighting on the international stage until it becomes too complicated for countries to continue their sanctions or whatever. Their goal is simple, chip away at the spheres surrounding them and carve their own sphere. Classic zero sum.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    Worth noting that, over the last 30 years, their sphere of influence has shrunk inward by a thousand miles, all driven by the US encouraging their neighbors to join the EU or NATO. I'm not saying the USSR was great for eastern europe or anything but it's also unfair to call them aggressors for the couple of times they've resisted this continual inward push from NATO.
    - randomopining 5y ago
      Their sphere of influence shrunk because the USSR lost a lot on split up and became the smaller Russia, their economy was in the doldrums for over a decade, and most of what they had was a corrupt oligarchy centered on natural resources. Why should Western companies not be able to develop the countries bordering Russia if the countries want them to come in? The problem is that when Western companies come in to Ukraine etc with rules and audits etc, it makes it tougher for the corrupt oligarchs with ties to Russia to operate and extract their wealth through corruption. If these countries adopt western norms in elections/governance, and adopt western business practices, it leaves very little room for the old corrupt guard of Russia/Soviet origins to operate and squeezes them out of any piece of the pie. That's why Putin is at odds with it.
      - type0 5y ago
        I think your reasoning is too simplistic, it's about two agreements that are self contradicting. At least for Ukraine - they had an economic alliance with Russia, they wanted to have another economic deal with the EU which in turn would put Russia and the Eastern population at the loss, then the whole shitstorm broke loose. To cite Nuland - "Fuck the EU" - was exactly how the people in Donbass and Crimea felt. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
    - Jonnax 5y ago
      There's a reason these countries leaving their sphere of influence aren't a fan of Russia. Russia did invade Ukraine.
    - Svoka 5y ago
      I think that main reason Russian "sphere of influence" has shrunk is that they literally attacked and annexed parts of neighbours, supporting insurgents with their own military. Hundreds of thousands are dead over last 30 years because of Russian invasions. Millions are dislocated. Be it Chechnya, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc.
    - lykahb 5y ago
      The picture of Russia and NATO pushing against each other on the Eastern Europe is too simple. It denies the sense agency for the countries in the region. The smaller countries have a long history and aspirations for independence. Why do so many countries choose to partner with NATO? I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries?
- mc32 5y ago
  That’s like asking if the US would cede San Diego to a foreign power. They are not going to give up their only deep water port on the Black Sea. It’s paramount to their territorial defense/integrity. We, the US, pretend we don't know this. The Crimea has changed hands over time quite a bit for political reasons and was never really fully Ukrainian but in name. It was Tatar, then others now mostly Russian and some Ukrainian and some others.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    > They are not going to give up their only deep water port on the Black Sea. It’s paramount to their territorial defense/integrity. We, the US, pretend we don't know this. Russia could cede it under the condition that they were allowed continued use of the port.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    It's like asking if the US would give up Havana. Russia once owned the Crimea, but it wasn't theirs to give up when they invaded. That's why it's an invasion instead of territorial defense.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mc32 5y ago
      Huh... except Havana isn’t 60% American...
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        So Mexico should take Los Angeles? It was part of Mexico once, after all... Nope. That rationalization is just a really transparent rationalization of an invasion. Rationalize it all you want, it's a rationalization of something that is unjustifiable.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
- nickik 5y ago
  > Is there any chance they would cede Crimea back at this point? There is a literal 0% chance that Crimea will ever go back to Ukraine unless there is a major collapse of the political power of Russia. It would have to be a collapse worse then the collapse of the Soviet Union with a ruler who was beyond desperate to get Western support. The Western world can sanction Russia (and likely will for the next 50 years) non of that matters to them nearly as much as Crimea. The only reason why it was part of Ukraine in the first place is because of inter-politburo power-struggles that lead Khrushchev to simply assign it to Soviet Republic of Ukraine because that was his power-base. For political reason all the post-Soviet states had to accepted their boarders that they had within the Soviet Union. Sevastopol has been one of the most important power bases of Russian power for hundreds of years, and even while it was officially part of Ukraine, practically it was only just barley so and the easy of witch the Russians took it showed that quite well. For Americans to get some context on that, when the US declare its independence the Russians annexed the Crimea. Ask yourself how much sanctions the US would endure in order to protect Norfolk Virginia and then realize that Sevastopol is basically the one practical harbor, while the US has 100s on multiple coasts. > Rogozyn Rogozyn is targeting a Russian audience, blaming everything on Western conspiracy is basic Russian communication. He is basically fighting to pretend that Russia is relevant in space while the actual institution is being destroyed with corruption. Under him Roscosmos has continued to collapse and the whole industry is continuing to go down the drain.
  - Teever 5y ago
    > For Americans to get some context on that, when the US declare its independence the Russians annexed the Crimea. Ask yourself how much sanctions the US would endure in order to protect Norfolk Virginia and then realize that Sevastopol is basically the one practical harbor, while the US has 100s on multiple coasts. In this hypothetical what made the US give up Norfolk Virginia to Canada? In other words if this port was so important to the USSR why did they give it up to Ukraine, why didn't they take it back from Ukraine when they split up, and why did they wait until 2014 to take it back?
    - icegreentea2 5y ago
- zackees 5y ago
  The west took Ukraine in a coup and the chances the west would give up Ukraine is zero. Likewise Russia at least had the decency to run a referendum in Crimea. What the west needs to understand is that Crimea itself (the people) identify as russia and they have no intention of letting themselves be swallowed up by Western Europe.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  They will not give it up, but neither can the US cancel the sanctions. Both parties must know this, so the sanctions will have to stay until something changes. Or made harsh enough to force Russias hand.
  - rdtsc 5y ago
    > Both parties must know this, so the sanctions will have to stay until something changes. Or made harsh enough to force Russias hand. That's what it seems like. I think the West saw an opportunity to punish Russia fully understanding there is 0 chance of Russians giving up Crimea. They may decide to lift sanctions in response to some other concessions in the future.
    - tomjen3 5y ago
      I think they were added originally so that the west didn't have to do more, or possibly misreading Russia.
mlindner 5y ago
They were already saying they'll leave the space station even before this threat. Changing the demands and adding a condition just means they were never interested in changing their mind.
- throw737858 5y ago
  ISS is old, leaving was economical decision. Russians can get better and cheaper station. Now they are just milking it for political points.
  - mlindner 5y ago
    ISS is old yes. However the Russians currently don't have the funding to get a better and cheaper station. That's just a political ploy. The actuality of what would happen is that any Russian station would get locked up in politics while the Russian space industry stagnates for a decade. Just look at how hard it was for them to get the Nauka module built? That will repeat for any plans for a new station, but in an even more significant way.
    - throw737858 5y ago
      Chinese would be happy to pay for it for sure. Money spend on ISS could be used on new space station or other space programs, for example to gain chip independence. Russia is trying to be more self-sufficient, there is political backing for that. ISS has questionable scientific value, all those vibrations prevent most scientific experiments like crystal growth. And NASA runs it like flying hotel for space tourists and now "disabled astronauts".
  - cyanydeez 5y ago
    russia has no relevant skills for modern space flight. good luck selling that line
    - throw737858 5y ago
      Starship will make whole ISS obsolete. One more reason to leave early and invest into modern research.
dontcare007 5y ago
It's interesting to watch Biden get no flack while capitulating to Russia on their pipeline, kill the Keystone pipeline, and the media still says it was Trump that was in Putin's pocket. Edit s/capitulating/ capitulation
nickik 5y ago
Ok, thanks bye. Have a good time. The US needs to move beyond ISS, embrace the new technology that SpaceX is offering and build a station that is 4x the size while being cheaper to maintain and supply. Drop the ISS by 2024 and reallocate the funding for the new private stations. And Russia can continue to do what they do best, release press statements about the amazing new projects they are planning. All that said, I am against these sanctions.
LatteLazy 5y ago
This seems mis-timed? I though the world was reliant on the Russians to maintain/supply the ISS since 2011 when the shuttle died. That was up until May 2020 when SpaceX began making flights? The time to make demands seems to be when you have leverage, no?

36 points by mardiyah 5y ago

> "This is in the hands of our American partners," > The United States and other Western countries began imposing sanctions against Russia in the wake of its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Is there any chance they would cede Crimea back at this point? Or, are there other conditions they would have to satisfy for the sanctions to be lifted. Because it seems they can do something too to lift the sanctions. The last time I remember a statement by Rogozyn was when he said the hole in the space station was deliberately drilled from inside [1]. Presumably, blaming American or other astronauts. It seems like he is purposefully trying to provoke a conflict. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45423225.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-enviro...

randomopining 5y ago
Russia does everything they can to deflect and gaslight. It's their plan. Make aggressive moves in a sphere, change the facts on the ground or the game that is played, and then retreat into deflecting and gaslighting on the international stage until it becomes too complicated for countries to continue their sanctions or whatever. Their goal is simple, chip away at the spheres surrounding them and carve their own sphere. Classic zero sum.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  Worth noting that, over the last 30 years, their sphere of influence has shrunk inward by a thousand miles, all driven by the US encouraging their neighbors to join the EU or NATO. I'm not saying the USSR was great for eastern europe or anything but it's also unfair to call them aggressors for the couple of times they've resisted this continual inward push from NATO.
  - randomopining 5y ago
    Their sphere of influence shrunk because the USSR lost a lot on split up and became the smaller Russia, their economy was in the doldrums for over a decade, and most of what they had was a corrupt oligarchy centered on natural resources. Why should Western companies not be able to develop the countries bordering Russia if the countries want them to come in? The problem is that when Western companies come in to Ukraine etc with rules and audits etc, it makes it tougher for the corrupt oligarchs with ties to Russia to operate and extract their wealth through corruption. If these countries adopt western norms in elections/governance, and adopt western business practices, it leaves very little room for the old corrupt guard of Russia/Soviet origins to operate and squeezes them out of any piece of the pie. That's why Putin is at odds with it.
    - type0 5y ago
      I think your reasoning is too simplistic, it's about two agreements that are self contradicting. At least for Ukraine - they had an economic alliance with Russia, they wanted to have another economic deal with the EU which in turn would put Russia and the Eastern population at the loss, then the whole shitstorm broke loose. To cite Nuland - "Fuck the EU" - was exactly how the people in Donbass and Crimea felt. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
  - Jonnax 5y ago
    There's a reason these countries leaving their sphere of influence aren't a fan of Russia. Russia did invade Ukraine.
  - Svoka 5y ago
    I think that main reason Russian "sphere of influence" has shrunk is that they literally attacked and annexed parts of neighbours, supporting insurgents with their own military. Hundreds of thousands are dead over last 30 years because of Russian invasions. Millions are dislocated. Be it Chechnya, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc.
  - lykahb 5y ago
    The picture of Russia and NATO pushing against each other on the Eastern Europe is too simple. It denies the sense agency for the countries in the region. The smaller countries have a long history and aspirations for independence. Why do so many countries choose to partner with NATO? I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries?
mc32 5y ago
That’s like asking if the US would cede San Diego to a foreign power. They are not going to give up their only deep water port on the Black Sea. It’s paramount to their territorial defense/integrity. We, the US, pretend we don't know this. The Crimea has changed hands over time quite a bit for political reasons and was never really fully Ukrainian but in name. It was Tatar, then others now mostly Russian and some Ukrainian and some others.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > They are not going to give up their only deep water port on the Black Sea. It’s paramount to their territorial defense/integrity. We, the US, pretend we don't know this. Russia could cede it under the condition that they were allowed continued use of the port.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  It's like asking if the US would give up Havana. Russia once owned the Crimea, but it wasn't theirs to give up when they invaded. That's why it's an invasion instead of territorial defense.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mc32 5y ago
    Huh... except Havana isn’t 60% American...
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      So Mexico should take Los Angeles? It was part of Mexico once, after all... Nope. That rationalization is just a really transparent rationalization of an invasion. Rationalize it all you want, it's a rationalization of something that is unjustifiable.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
nickik 5y ago
> Is there any chance they would cede Crimea back at this point? There is a literal 0% chance that Crimea will ever go back to Ukraine unless there is a major collapse of the political power of Russia. It would have to be a collapse worse then the collapse of the Soviet Union with a ruler who was beyond desperate to get Western support. The Western world can sanction Russia (and likely will for the next 50 years) non of that matters to them nearly as much as Crimea. The only reason why it was part of Ukraine in the first place is because of inter-politburo power-struggles that lead Khrushchev to simply assign it to Soviet Republic of Ukraine because that was his power-base. For political reason all the post-Soviet states had to accepted their boarders that they had within the Soviet Union. Sevastopol has been one of the most important power bases of Russian power for hundreds of years, and even while it was officially part of Ukraine, practically it was only just barley so and the easy of witch the Russians took it showed that quite well. For Americans to get some context on that, when the US declare its independence the Russians annexed the Crimea. Ask yourself how much sanctions the US would endure in order to protect Norfolk Virginia and then realize that Sevastopol is basically the one practical harbor, while the US has 100s on multiple coasts. > Rogozyn Rogozyn is targeting a Russian audience, blaming everything on Western conspiracy is basic Russian communication. He is basically fighting to pretend that Russia is relevant in space while the actual institution is being destroyed with corruption. Under him Roscosmos has continued to collapse and the whole industry is continuing to go down the drain.
- Teever 5y ago
  > For Americans to get some context on that, when the US declare its independence the Russians annexed the Crimea. Ask yourself how much sanctions the US would endure in order to protect Norfolk Virginia and then realize that Sevastopol is basically the one practical harbor, while the US has 100s on multiple coasts. In this hypothetical what made the US give up Norfolk Virginia to Canada? In other words if this port was so important to the USSR why did they give it up to Ukraine, why didn't they take it back from Ukraine when they split up, and why did they wait until 2014 to take it back?
  - icegreentea2 5y ago
zackees 5y ago
The west took Ukraine in a coup and the chances the west would give up Ukraine is zero. Likewise Russia at least had the decency to run a referendum in Crimea. What the west needs to understand is that Crimea itself (the people) identify as russia and they have no intention of letting themselves be swallowed up by Western Europe.
tomjen3 5y ago
They will not give it up, but neither can the US cancel the sanctions. Both parties must know this, so the sanctions will have to stay until something changes. Or made harsh enough to force Russias hand.
- rdtsc 5y ago
  > Both parties must know this, so the sanctions will have to stay until something changes. Or made harsh enough to force Russias hand. That's what it seems like. I think the West saw an opportunity to punish Russia fully understanding there is 0 chance of Russians giving up Crimea. They may decide to lift sanctions in response to some other concessions in the future.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    I think they were added originally so that the west didn't have to do more, or possibly misreading Russia.

mlindner 5y ago

They were already saying they'll leave the space station even before this threat. Changing the demands and adding a condition just means they were never interested in changing their mind.

throw737858 5y ago
ISS is old, leaving was economical decision. Russians can get better and cheaper station. Now they are just milking it for political points.
- mlindner 5y ago
  ISS is old yes. However the Russians currently don't have the funding to get a better and cheaper station. That's just a political ploy. The actuality of what would happen is that any Russian station would get locked up in politics while the Russian space industry stagnates for a decade. Just look at how hard it was for them to get the Nauka module built? That will repeat for any plans for a new station, but in an even more significant way.
  - throw737858 5y ago
    Chinese would be happy to pay for it for sure. Money spend on ISS could be used on new space station or other space programs, for example to gain chip independence. Russia is trying to be more self-sufficient, there is political backing for that. ISS has questionable scientific value, all those vibrations prevent most scientific experiments like crystal growth. And NASA runs it like flying hotel for space tourists and now "disabled astronauts".
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  russia has no relevant skills for modern space flight. good luck selling that line
  - throw737858 5y ago
    Starship will make whole ISS obsolete. One more reason to leave early and invest into modern research.

dontcare007 5y ago

It's interesting to watch Biden get no flack while capitulating to Russia on their pipeline, kill the Keystone pipeline, and the media still says it was Trump that was in Putin's pocket. Edit s/capitulating/ capitulation

nickik 5y ago

Ok, thanks bye. Have a good time. The US needs to move beyond ISS, embrace the new technology that SpaceX is offering and build a station that is 4x the size while being cheaper to maintain and supply. Drop the ISS by 2024 and reallocate the funding for the new private stations. And Russia can continue to do what they do best, release press statements about the amazing new projects they are planning. All that said, I am against these sanctions.

LatteLazy 5y ago

This seems mis-timed? I though the world was reliant on the Russians to maintain/supply the ISS since 2011 when the shuttle died. That was up until May 2020 when SpaceX began making flights? The time to make demands seems to be when you have leverage, no?