4 ms·

So you can't put boots on the ground because that starts World War Three. That leaves you with sanctions. The problem with sanctions is they're a form of collet

by jmyeet 5y ago

So you can't put boots on the ground because that starts World War Three. That leaves you with sanctions. The problem with sanctions is they're a form of colletive punishment and they disproportionately affect poor people. As evidence of this, Russian banks are running out of foreign currency reserves and bank accounts and Putin has signed executive orders to force all payments to be converted into rubles (80% of them at least) and rubles have a massive inflation problem so people who have deliberately held USD are going to get hosed. But what else do you do? Particularly against a powerful country that can produce its own food and energy. The effects are going to be predictably limited. Any sanctions are going to be a profit incentive for someone else to circumvent them. We've seen this time and time again with oil embargoes in the Middle East, layers of Hong Kong companies to bypass North Korea sanctions [1] and so on. It's clear at this point that China has decided to stay neutral, so much so that a story came out yesterday where the Chinese asked the Russians to delay the invasion until after the Olympics [2]. Other countries will serve their primary interests and weaken any sanctions, such as the UK bowing to banks to quietly give a 30 day exclusion to Russian banks [3]. So the rich and powerful will be squeezed temporarily but will manage to bypass a lot of restrictions through intermediaries that may well include China and other regimes, all while things are probably going to get real bad for normal Russians who don't agree with the invasion and can't do anything about it either. I would at least consider it a positive if the developed world started clamping down on oligarchs hiding money in luxury real estate. All of this is known and predictably ineffective, which is why it was so important to at least try and avoid this situation diplomatically. It's now so much more difficult now that Putin has royally screwed up and completely miscalculated with an unthinkable, unjustifiable and unwinnable invasion. But this will end diplomatically regardless at some point because the alternative is nuclear war. It's just that Ukraine is going to get wrecked in the meantime. The US would never accept a hostile military in its backyard. It almost provoked nuclear war in Cuba 60 years ago in exactly that situation. This idea that Russia should just accept a hostile military alliance (from their perspective) on their doorstep is completely inconsistent and insane. And before anyone brings up self-determination, let me ask where that principle is when it comes to Palestine. [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-hong-kong-makes-evading-north-korea-sanctions-easier-1521228390 https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-hong-kong-makes-evading-nor... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/us/politics/russia-ukraine-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/us/politics/russia-ukrain... [3]: https://inews.co.uk/news/government-accused-of-absurd-sanctions-loophole-after-giving-russian-bank-customers-30-days-to-wind-down-assets-1490017 https://inews.co.uk/news/government-accused-of-absurd-sancti...

dukeofdoom 5y ago
> unwinnable invasion. About half of Ukraine is more Russian ethnically and supported Russia friendly candidates in previous elections. A win for Putin would not necessarily mean attacking and taking all of Ukraine. He can win by taking back the ethnically Russian parts. And he's not likely face an insurrection in those regions.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  You're talking like this is a week ago and these options are still available to him. Putin chose to go for Kyiv and has probably alienated large parts of Russian-speaking Ukraine at this point with indiscriminate bombing (see Kharkiv).
01100011 5y ago
If you ask me, the whole "military on their doorstep" argument is a canard. Putin is paranoid but he's not an idiot. This war is about resources plain and simple. Russia is a petro state and Ukrainian oil and gas deposits were setting them up to free Europe from dependence on Russian oil and gas. Russia saw that as a mortal threat to their economy and relevance. Russia has plenty of nukes. The idea that NATO is going to launch a land invasion is flat out goofy. The idea that having Ukraine join NATO opens the door to nukes on Russia's doorstep is also silly given the number of nuclear equipped submarines in NATO. Yet again, it's just a war for oil. China is more or less silent because they're hoping to be the purchasers of that oil. China has been having energy shortages and needs the natural gas to replace dirty coal. Don't forget wheat and fertilizer. Between Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine you have like 25% of global wheat and a significant portion of fertilizer production.
- jmyeet 5y ago
  > If you ask me, the whole "military on their doorstep" argument is a canard. The US does. It's been a foundation of US foreign policy for 200 years [1]. The US went right to brink of triggering a nuclear war over a breach of this in Cuba. So why are we surprised Russia doesn't believe this? > Putin is paranoid but he's not an idiot. Prior to a week ago I thought so too but it's difficult to see a scenario where Putin "wins" here. > This war is about resources plain and simple. This is a contributing factor, for sure. Russia pays Ukraine billions for the the rights to pipe natural gas over their land. But this was a "solved" problem in the sense that Russia has been busy building pipelines through Belarus and the Baltic to avoid this that were on track to cut Ukraine out of these fees by 2024 or so. That leaves the issue of oil and gas deposits that have been found in Ukraine. The first is in the Black Sea and these are within the territorial waters of Crimea. Crimea is essentially a "solved" problem after the annexation in 2014. That leaves two regions that have (IIRC) shale deposits. The first is in the West of the country. It seems like that would be difficult for Russia to control as it would require occupying the whole country. The other is in the Donbas and is covered by the "republics" of DPR/LPR. So if Russia had launched a limited invasion to carve out the Donbas they may have gotten away with that (IMHO). Like there'd be a period of sanctions and blowback but they could've "won" eventually (IMHO). But this? This is just unwinnable and completely unjustifiable. > The idea that NATO is going to launch a land invasion is flat out goofy. You're viewing this through the lens that US and NATO are benign, maybe even that NATO is a defensive alliance (which it isn't). Even if it is truly defensive, there's very little that separates a defensive military alliance and an offensive one, particularly when that alliance has strategic nuclear weapons. Remember that all the ploys that Putin has done like justifying military action in Georgia on protecting Russians can be turned around on Russia. Imagine a Ukraine in NATO that decides they need to protect persecuted Ukrainians in Belarus and carve off a piece. Whose to say that Ukraine emboldened by NATO membership doesn't take military action to reclaim Crimea? Again, this is from the Russian perspective. You might say that's crazy and it may well be but not if you're Russia. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

by jmyeet 5y ago

dukeofdoom 5y ago

> unwinnable invasion. About half of Ukraine is more Russian ethnically and supported Russia friendly candidates in previous elections. A win for Putin would not necessarily mean attacking and taking all of Ukraine. He can win by taking back the ethnically Russian parts. And he's not likely face an insurrection in those regions.

AlexandrB 5y ago
You're talking like this is a week ago and these options are still available to him. Putin chose to go for Kyiv and has probably alienated large parts of Russian-speaking Ukraine at this point with indiscriminate bombing (see Kharkiv).

01100011 5y ago

If you ask me, the whole "military on their doorstep" argument is a canard. Putin is paranoid but he's not an idiot. This war is about resources plain and simple. Russia is a petro state and Ukrainian oil and gas deposits were setting them up to free Europe from dependence on Russian oil and gas. Russia saw that as a mortal threat to their economy and relevance. Russia has plenty of nukes. The idea that NATO is going to launch a land invasion is flat out goofy. The idea that having Ukraine join NATO opens the door to nukes on Russia's doorstep is also silly given the number of nuclear equipped submarines in NATO. Yet again, it's just a war for oil. China is more or less silent because they're hoping to be the purchasers of that oil. China has been having energy shortages and needs the natural gas to replace dirty coal. Don't forget wheat and fertilizer. Between Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine you have like 25% of global wheat and a significant portion of fertilizer production.

jmyeet 5y ago
> If you ask me, the whole "military on their doorstep" argument is a canard. The US does. It's been a foundation of US foreign policy for 200 years [1]. The US went right to brink of triggering a nuclear war over a breach of this in Cuba. So why are we surprised Russia doesn't believe this? > Putin is paranoid but he's not an idiot. Prior to a week ago I thought so too but it's difficult to see a scenario where Putin "wins" here. > This war is about resources plain and simple. This is a contributing factor, for sure. Russia pays Ukraine billions for the the rights to pipe natural gas over their land. But this was a "solved" problem in the sense that Russia has been busy building pipelines through Belarus and the Baltic to avoid this that were on track to cut Ukraine out of these fees by 2024 or so. That leaves the issue of oil and gas deposits that have been found in Ukraine. The first is in the Black Sea and these are within the territorial waters of Crimea. Crimea is essentially a "solved" problem after the annexation in 2014. That leaves two regions that have (IIRC) shale deposits. The first is in the West of the country. It seems like that would be difficult for Russia to control as it would require occupying the whole country. The other is in the Donbas and is covered by the "republics" of DPR/LPR. So if Russia had launched a limited invasion to carve out the Donbas they may have gotten away with that (IMHO). Like there'd be a period of sanctions and blowback but they could've "won" eventually (IMHO). But this? This is just unwinnable and completely unjustifiable. > The idea that NATO is going to launch a land invasion is flat out goofy. You're viewing this through the lens that US and NATO are benign, maybe even that NATO is a defensive alliance (which it isn't). Even if it is truly defensive, there's very little that separates a defensive military alliance and an offensive one, particularly when that alliance has strategic nuclear weapons. Remember that all the ploys that Putin has done like justifying military action in Georgia on protecting Russians can be turned around on Russia. Imagine a Ukraine in NATO that decides they need to protect persecuted Ukrainians in Belarus and carve off a piece. Whose to say that Ukraine emboldened by NATO membership doesn't take military action to reclaim Crimea? Again, this is from the Russian perspective. You might say that's crazy and it may well be but not if you're Russia. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine