6 ms·

Guardian: real sanctions against Russia impossible, thats economic suicide

nojokes 5y ago
Just get these Chamberlains out. If it hurts us, so be it. Time to pay for our stupid mistakes before it is too late. It will hurt more later, I promise.
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
Comes as a shock, it seems that Ukraine has been sold out. Key passage: "As Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, the head of the European Centre for International Political Economy, said, Europe has allowed itself to become more integrated with Russia, while Russia has separated itself from Europe. He said EU countries owned a combined €300bn of Russian assets that would be vulnerable to confiscation if a full-blooded financial war broke out. The UK owns billions more via firms such as BP, which has a near-20% stake in the Russian oil company Rosneft. “Sanctions are one of the few options that European countries have in a conflict situation like this. If you disconnect North Korea or Iran from the international financial system, you do not expose yourself to that much damage.” Speaking on BBC News, he added: “But while I don’t say it is impossible to envisage Russia being barred from the Swift system, it is a nuclear option that means you exterminate yourself along with your enemy.”"
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  None of this is a shock to anyone in power. The cards have been played face up on the table for a long time. NATO has always publicly held that it would not come to Ukraine's defense. Russia has always publicly held that it would invade Ukraine to prevent it joining NATO. Critics have always pointed out Europe's increasing dependence on Russian gas. Hell, even Trump put sanctions on Russian gas firms integrating with Europe, and was loudly condemned by Germany and the EU. I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day, and interesting to read some of the articles in retrospect[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935
  - MichaelMoser123 5y ago
    That would imply that those in power are trying to appease the Russian dictator, extremely sad if true... Also seems that Biden has waved Trumps opposition to that pipeline, prior to that war, which is kind of confusing.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      No, everyone just wanted to have their cake and eat it too. NATO wanted forward airbases and missile sites in Ukraine and the EU also wanted cheap gas. Turns out nobody is surprised that you can't have both
      - MichaelMoser123 5y ago
        " NATO wanted forward airbases and missile sites in Ukraine" The issue of Nato memberships for Ukraine was not on the agenda in recent times, as far as I know. This war could not have happened if Ukraine were part of NATO.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        It has been a major topic of debate an open communication in recent times. I recommend reading through this whole article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations Some highlights: >On 12 June 2020, Ukraine joined NATO's enhanced opportunity partner interoperability program >On 14 September 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO." >On April 10, 2021, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Andrii Taran stated that the top priority of the Ukrainian political leadership is to obtain the Action Plan for Membership (MAP) in the North Atlantic Alliance in 2021. >At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) >On 28 June 2021, Ukraine and NATO forces launched joint naval drills in the Black Sea codenamed Sea Breeze 2021. Russia had condemned the drills, with the Russian Defence Ministry saying it would closely monitor them >On January 11, 2022, it became known that a group of [US] Republican congressmen propose a bill declaring Ukraine a NATO-plus country and initiating a review of the advisability of declaring Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. The authors of the bill argue that recognizing Ukraine as a "NATO+ country" will make it possible to quickly make decisions on the provision and sale of American defense goods and services to Ukraine. >On January 12, 2022, a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council was held in Brussels, where representatives of Russia and 30 member states of the Alliance discussed the requirements of the Russian side to NATO. Jens Stoltenberg [NATO] again stated that the decision on Ukraine's readiness to join NATO can only be made by Ukraine and 30 allies in the Alliance >On January 13, 2022, Russia's permanent representative to the OSCE, Alexander Lukashevich, stated that the Russian Federation would be forced to take measures to "eliminate unacceptable threats to national security" if it did not hear a constructive response to its security proposals within a reasonable time >On January 13, 2022, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at his annual foreign policy press conference that Moscow "has run out of patience" waiting for the West's response to the Kremlin's demands for "security guarantees", and therefore Russia is waiting for a written response within a week. Lavrov said the Kremlin would not wait "indefinitely" for a Western response to Moscow's demands that NATO not expand eastward and deploy troops in Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union. >On January 19, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov made a proposal to the United States to assume legal obligations not to vote for NATO membership of countries whose membership is opposed by the Russian Federation, reducing NATO's non-enlargement requirements. The Kremlin is ready to exchange such an "offer" for the conditions that were put forward earlier - the so-called guarantees of the non-expansion of the Alliance to the east. >On 22 February 2022 Russia recognized the rebel republics of Donbas, sending its army in the region; finally, on 24 February 2022 Russia launches a large-scale invasion of Ukraine.
abnry 5y ago
I mean, I haven't thought this through, but I wish I could take a hit economically if it means Russia gets hurt. Rip the band-aid off.
- NoPie 5y ago
  For many it would mean losing heating and electricity. And while many say they are ready for such hardships, what if one has children or elderly parents they need to take care of? Loss of electricity would also mean public transportation or factories grind to halt. And it doesn't even solve the immediate problem with active battles on the ground. There is only one real immediate solution – which is providing military help to Ukraine.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    No, NATO will never put boots on the ground in Ukraine. That leaves only one immediate solution - Which is Ukraine and Russia come to the table, and Ukraine promises to never join NATO. >In his night speech, Zelenskyy also hinted that he was ready to drop Ukraine’s push for NATO membership and maintain neutral status.[1] >Russia previously said it was open to negotiating with Ukraine, though the potential settlement Russian President Vladimir Putin outlined came with a number of ultimatums attached.[2] >Putin articulated his ultimatums for Kyiv:[3] - Recognize Crimea as Russian - Rejection of NATO accession - No weapons supplies from the West - LNR and DNR gain territory that the regions had pre 2014 https://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-to-surrender-ready-to-discuss-neutrality-says-volodymyr-zelenskyy-after-suffering-losses-on-day-1-of-russian-invasion-10407741.html https://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-to-surrender-ready-t... https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1010654/ukraine-and-russia-are-seeking-a-time-and-place-to-meet-for https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1010654/ukraine-and-... https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1497225449755263009 https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1497225449755263009
    - NoPie 5y ago
      No, it will not work because too many Ukrainians will continue fighting against Russians regardless what Zelensky says right now. He might be even killed by Russians any moment now.
politicalcom 5y ago
blacksqr 5y ago
More can be done than simply confiscating Russian assets -- make it clear that confiscated funds will be devoted wholly to build new infrastructure for bringing energy to Europe from alternative sources (plans for this have already been drawn up, but not funded). Make the confiscated amount grow the longer the invasion goes on. Other measures that could be taken: * Land blockade of Kaliningrad province * Funding and arms to Moldova to pressure Russian troops in the east of that country to get out. * Recognize Southern Kurile Islands as Japanese territory * Funding to Belarussian opposition groups.
- gutitout 5y ago
  I don’t see how sanctions will pay for energy independence in EU. The timing of closing the nuclear plants in Germany played right into Putin’s hand. Money is not the issue. We need time for “alternative” energy to come down in cost.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
frnkng 5y ago
Russia started a war because it has the means to do so. This is not new, Russia has ongoing wars since many years. Ukraine since 2014, troops in Syria, Georgia… Now the scale of the conflicts got larger and Russia attacked a country with >40M inhabitants. Russia will not stop with wars until it looses its means to do so. Russia has a big pile of money they earn by exporting oil and gas to Europe. 50% of their trade volume is directed to Europe. I would bet Russia needs that money to sustain its military spendings. Maybe not in one single year but over a longer period of time, let’s say 10 years. With other words: Europe paid for the war with Ukraine. There may be other countries as well that do not care about human rights but export a lot of goods to Europe or industrial countries in general. Imho the right thing to do would be to implement an automatism that penalties undesired behaviour of trade partners. Not specifically for Russia but for all countries that do not behave well. One easy means to achieve this would be a taxation system based on the compliance with regard to a well defined set of human rights standards. Example: - suppression of the opposition: 10% tax rate on imports from that country. - no free press: another 10% tax rate - full scale war with neighbouring state: 50% tax rate for the next 20 years. As the tax rate is selectively applied, source countries that behave well have an economic benefit compared to countries that don’t behave well. Applied to Russia and the Eu this would have the following consequences: 1. the cost base of exports from Russia to the eu would increase by the given tax rate if they decide ship to the eu. 2. Russia could ship somewhere else. but as their total addressable market shrinks they will earn less even if they ship to china or any other sufficiently large market without such a tax. Thus they have less money to spend for militaria anyway. 3. Energy would be more expensive for Europeans. This will speed up the migration to other sources of energy and reduce the consumption. It will also cause a recession, but so what. It’s only money lost. 4. Other producing countries may invest as well in energy infrastructure as the increased cost base makes investments more lucrative Even if the economic consequences in the short term are dire, in the longer term the market will regulate that very well. Also: going to a bloody war with Russia will for sure be worse that a 2..5year recession. For any industrialised country it would be much worse to loose let’s say 100k productive inhabitants compared with loosing some billions of the local currency.

Just get these Chamberlains out. If it hurts us, so be it. Time to pay for our stupid mistakes before it is too late. It will hurt more later, I promise.

MichaelMoser123 5y ago

Comes as a shock, it seems that Ukraine has been sold out. Key passage: "As Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, the head of the European Centre for International Political Economy, said, Europe has allowed itself to become more integrated with Russia, while Russia has separated itself from Europe. He said EU countries owned a combined €300bn of Russian assets that would be vulnerable to confiscation if a full-blooded financial war broke out. The UK owns billions more via firms such as BP, which has a near-20% stake in the Russian oil company Rosneft. “Sanctions are one of the few options that European countries have in a conflict situation like this. If you disconnect North Korea or Iran from the international financial system, you do not expose yourself to that much damage.” Speaking on BBC News, he added: “But while I don’t say it is impossible to envisage Russia being barred from the Swift system, it is a nuclear option that means you exterminate yourself along with your enemy.”"

s1artibartfast 5y ago
None of this is a shock to anyone in power. The cards have been played face up on the table for a long time. NATO has always publicly held that it would not come to Ukraine's defense. Russia has always publicly held that it would invade Ukraine to prevent it joining NATO. Critics have always pointed out Europe's increasing dependence on Russian gas. Hell, even Trump put sanctions on Russian gas firms integrating with Europe, and was loudly condemned by Germany and the EU. I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day, and interesting to read some of the articles in retrospect[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935
- MichaelMoser123 5y ago
  That would imply that those in power are trying to appease the Russian dictator, extremely sad if true... Also seems that Biden has waved Trumps opposition to that pipeline, prior to that war, which is kind of confusing.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    No, everyone just wanted to have their cake and eat it too. NATO wanted forward airbases and missile sites in Ukraine and the EU also wanted cheap gas. Turns out nobody is surprised that you can't have both
    - MichaelMoser123 5y ago
      " NATO wanted forward airbases and missile sites in Ukraine" The issue of Nato memberships for Ukraine was not on the agenda in recent times, as far as I know. This war could not have happened if Ukraine were part of NATO.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        It has been a major topic of debate an open communication in recent times. I recommend reading through this whole article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations Some highlights: >On 12 June 2020, Ukraine joined NATO's enhanced opportunity partner interoperability program >On 14 September 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO." >On April 10, 2021, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Andrii Taran stated that the top priority of the Ukrainian political leadership is to obtain the Action Plan for Membership (MAP) in the North Atlantic Alliance in 2021. >At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) >On 28 June 2021, Ukraine and NATO forces launched joint naval drills in the Black Sea codenamed Sea Breeze 2021. Russia had condemned the drills, with the Russian Defence Ministry saying it would closely monitor them >On January 11, 2022, it became known that a group of [US] Republican congressmen propose a bill declaring Ukraine a NATO-plus country and initiating a review of the advisability of declaring Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. The authors of the bill argue that recognizing Ukraine as a "NATO+ country" will make it possible to quickly make decisions on the provision and sale of American defense goods and services to Ukraine. >On January 12, 2022, a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council was held in Brussels, where representatives of Russia and 30 member states of the Alliance discussed the requirements of the Russian side to NATO. Jens Stoltenberg [NATO] again stated that the decision on Ukraine's readiness to join NATO can only be made by Ukraine and 30 allies in the Alliance >On January 13, 2022, Russia's permanent representative to the OSCE, Alexander Lukashevich, stated that the Russian Federation would be forced to take measures to "eliminate unacceptable threats to national security" if it did not hear a constructive response to its security proposals within a reasonable time >On January 13, 2022, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at his annual foreign policy press conference that Moscow "has run out of patience" waiting for the West's response to the Kremlin's demands for "security guarantees", and therefore Russia is waiting for a written response within a week. Lavrov said the Kremlin would not wait "indefinitely" for a Western response to Moscow's demands that NATO not expand eastward and deploy troops in Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union. >On January 19, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov made a proposal to the United States to assume legal obligations not to vote for NATO membership of countries whose membership is opposed by the Russian Federation, reducing NATO's non-enlargement requirements. The Kremlin is ready to exchange such an "offer" for the conditions that were put forward earlier - the so-called guarantees of the non-expansion of the Alliance to the east. >On 22 February 2022 Russia recognized the rebel republics of Donbas, sending its army in the region; finally, on 24 February 2022 Russia launches a large-scale invasion of Ukraine.

abnry 5y ago

I mean, I haven't thought this through, but I wish I could take a hit economically if it means Russia gets hurt. Rip the band-aid off.

NoPie 5y ago
For many it would mean losing heating and electricity. And while many say they are ready for such hardships, what if one has children or elderly parents they need to take care of? Loss of electricity would also mean public transportation or factories grind to halt. And it doesn't even solve the immediate problem with active battles on the ground. There is only one real immediate solution – which is providing military help to Ukraine.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  No, NATO will never put boots on the ground in Ukraine. That leaves only one immediate solution - Which is Ukraine and Russia come to the table, and Ukraine promises to never join NATO. >In his night speech, Zelenskyy also hinted that he was ready to drop Ukraine’s push for NATO membership and maintain neutral status.[1] >Russia previously said it was open to negotiating with Ukraine, though the potential settlement Russian President Vladimir Putin outlined came with a number of ultimatums attached.[2] >Putin articulated his ultimatums for Kyiv:[3] - Recognize Crimea as Russian - Rejection of NATO accession - No weapons supplies from the West - LNR and DNR gain territory that the regions had pre 2014 https://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-to-surrender-ready-to-discuss-neutrality-says-volodymyr-zelenskyy-after-suffering-losses-on-day-1-of-russian-invasion-10407741.html https://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-to-surrender-ready-t... https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1010654/ukraine-and-russia-are-seeking-a-time-and-place-to-meet-for https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1010654/ukraine-and-... https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1497225449755263009 https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1497225449755263009
  - NoPie 5y ago
    No, it will not work because too many Ukrainians will continue fighting against Russians regardless what Zelensky says right now. He might be even killed by Russians any moment now.

politicalcom 5y ago

blacksqr 5y ago

More can be done than simply confiscating Russian assets -- make it clear that confiscated funds will be devoted wholly to build new infrastructure for bringing energy to Europe from alternative sources (plans for this have already been drawn up, but not funded). Make the confiscated amount grow the longer the invasion goes on. Other measures that could be taken: * Land blockade of Kaliningrad province * Funding and arms to Moldova to pressure Russian troops in the east of that country to get out. * Recognize Southern Kurile Islands as Japanese territory * Funding to Belarussian opposition groups.

gutitout 5y ago
I don’t see how sanctions will pay for energy independence in EU. The timing of closing the nuclear plants in Germany played right into Putin’s hand. Money is not the issue. We need time for “alternative” energy to come down in cost.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

frnkng 5y ago

Russia started a war because it has the means to do so. This is not new, Russia has ongoing wars since many years. Ukraine since 2014, troops in Syria, Georgia… Now the scale of the conflicts got larger and Russia attacked a country with >40M inhabitants. Russia will not stop with wars until it looses its means to do so. Russia has a big pile of money they earn by exporting oil and gas to Europe. 50% of their trade volume is directed to Europe. I would bet Russia needs that money to sustain its military spendings. Maybe not in one single year but over a longer period of time, let’s say 10 years. With other words: Europe paid for the war with Ukraine. There may be other countries as well that do not care about human rights but export a lot of goods to Europe or industrial countries in general. Imho the right thing to do would be to implement an automatism that penalties undesired behaviour of trade partners. Not specifically for Russia but for all countries that do not behave well. One easy means to achieve this would be a taxation system based on the compliance with regard to a well defined set of human rights standards. Example: - suppression of the opposition: 10% tax rate on imports from that country. - no free press: another 10% tax rate - full scale war with neighbouring state: 50% tax rate for the next 20 years. As the tax rate is selectively applied, source countries that behave well have an economic benefit compared to countries that don’t behave well. Applied to Russia and the Eu this would have the following consequences: 1. the cost base of exports from Russia to the eu would increase by the given tax rate if they decide ship to the eu. 2. Russia could ship somewhere else. but as their total addressable market shrinks they will earn less even if they ship to china or any other sufficiently large market without such a tax. Thus they have less money to spend for militaria anyway. 3. Energy would be more expensive for Europeans. This will speed up the migration to other sources of energy and reduce the consumption. It will also cause a recession, but so what. It’s only money lost. 4. Other producing countries may invest as well in energy infrastructure as the increased cost base makes investments more lucrative Even if the economic consequences in the short term are dire, in the longer term the market will regulate that very well. Also: going to a bloody war with Russia will for sure be worse that a 2..5year recession. For any industrialised country it would be much worse to loose let’s say 100k productive inhabitants compared with loosing some billions of the local currency.