7 ms·

> "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 a

by 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?
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries? A large number. But then again not nearly as many as the Ottoman Empire, which enslaved 10 million Europeans and brutally occupied a large chunk of Europe. Yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-Turkish sentiment or anti-islamic sentiment in order to build military bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Greece, which were all under occupation for centuries. And then we have Germany, with its own history of killing and brutality that makes its neighbors -- Poland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, etc -- weary of German influence and yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-German sentiment in these nations for its own power politics. We could go on, with rivalries between different nations and ethnic groups throughout the region and hurt feelings of past oppression. So yes, the anti-Russian sentiment is real and has a real basis in history, but encouraging and benefiting from these historical animosities is still considered a hostile act.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        What are the odds that Turkey invades Bulgaria tomorrow? What are the odds that Germany invades France tomorrow? What are the odds that Russia invades Ukraine tomorrow? That's why people are concerned about Russia. It's not historical animosity. It's current behavior.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        All of the above are zero
        5y ago
  - 988747 5y ago
    Countries join NATO of their own free will, mostly because they are afraid of Russia. So the reason why Russian sphere of influence shrinks is because Russia acts like an asshole. Russia is not entitled to any "sphere of influence" outside its own borders. Personally I would gladly cut Russia out from the rest of the world with 2000 feet tall wall made of ice, so that Russian zombies can't get out.
    - avmich 5y ago
      It's not entitled, but Russian government sees how it works in practice with others, and wants the same non-entitlement. It's complicated. Russian government is the enemy number one to Russian people, as it's common for autocracies.
      - agent008t 5y ago
        At the same time, as perhaps is the case in China, a significant part of the Russian population is afraid that without the autocracy, there will be disorder that will be worse than the autocracy, as various factions fight for power. They have numerous examples from recent history - including Ukraine. Yes, Russia was instrumental in making sure there was disorder in Ukraine, but who is to say that another power will not do the same thing to Russia should the people get rid of their autocracy? As I understand, the same sentiment is fairly popular in China, too.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    Those countries are not Russias to play with as Putin pleases and, if they can be encouraged to join NATO and the west, that is because of the way they were treated by Russia. If Russia didn't want them to be part of NATO they shouldn't have abused them. Russia is burthurt on this, that cannot and should not be the concern of the rest of us.
  - timeon 5y ago
    > it's also unfair to call them aggressors for the couple of times they've resisted this continual inward push from NATO. My country was occupied by USSR (aggressors). Now is free and it is not their business anymore. Complayning about that is bullying.
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.

by rdtsc 5y ago

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?
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries? A large number. But then again not nearly as many as the Ottoman Empire, which enslaved 10 million Europeans and brutally occupied a large chunk of Europe. Yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-Turkish sentiment or anti-islamic sentiment in order to build military bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Greece, which were all under occupation for centuries. And then we have Germany, with its own history of killing and brutality that makes its neighbors -- Poland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, etc -- weary of German influence and yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-German sentiment in these nations for its own power politics. We could go on, with rivalries between different nations and ethnic groups throughout the region and hurt feelings of past oppression. So yes, the anti-Russian sentiment is real and has a real basis in history, but encouraging and benefiting from these historical animosities is still considered a hostile act.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      What are the odds that Turkey invades Bulgaria tomorrow? What are the odds that Germany invades France tomorrow? What are the odds that Russia invades Ukraine tomorrow? That's why people are concerned about Russia. It's not historical animosity. It's current behavior.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        All of the above are zero
        5y ago
- 988747 5y ago
  Countries join NATO of their own free will, mostly because they are afraid of Russia. So the reason why Russian sphere of influence shrinks is because Russia acts like an asshole. Russia is not entitled to any "sphere of influence" outside its own borders. Personally I would gladly cut Russia out from the rest of the world with 2000 feet tall wall made of ice, so that Russian zombies can't get out.
  - avmich 5y ago
    It's not entitled, but Russian government sees how it works in practice with others, and wants the same non-entitlement. It's complicated. Russian government is the enemy number one to Russian people, as it's common for autocracies.
    - agent008t 5y ago
      At the same time, as perhaps is the case in China, a significant part of the Russian population is afraid that without the autocracy, there will be disorder that will be worse than the autocracy, as various factions fight for power. They have numerous examples from recent history - including Ukraine. Yes, Russia was instrumental in making sure there was disorder in Ukraine, but who is to say that another power will not do the same thing to Russia should the people get rid of their autocracy? As I understand, the same sentiment is fairly popular in China, too.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  Those countries are not Russias to play with as Putin pleases and, if they can be encouraged to join NATO and the west, that is because of the way they were treated by Russia. If Russia didn't want them to be part of NATO they shouldn't have abused them. Russia is burthurt on this, that cannot and should not be the concern of the rest of us.
- timeon 5y ago
  > it's also unfair to call them aggressors for the couple of times they've resisted this continual inward push from NATO. My country was occupied by USSR (aggressors). Now is free and it is not their business anymore. Complayning about that is bullying.

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.