Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

I prefer to judge by real visible actions rather than Trump's mutterings or others' feelings. These sanctions weren't mild, nor did he mind heating up the conflict in Ukraine.

Indeed, some of the toughest sanctions in years have fallen on Russia’s elite under the Trump administration. Sanctions imposed over Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014 have not been lifted, Trump approved the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine — something Barack Obama did not do — and he has ordered missiles fired at Syrian military sites, openly targeting strategic operations and allies of Russia.
Click to expand...


Since 2014, it has grown by an average of 0.3 percent per year, while the global average was 2.3 percent per year. They have slashed foreign credits and foreign direct investment, and may have reduced Russia’s economic growth by 2.5–3 percent a year; that is, about $50 billion per year. The Russian economy is not likely to grow significantly again until the Kremlin has persuaded the West to ease the sanctions.
Click to expand...
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-...rt/the-impact-of-western-sanctions-on-russia/

It is true that as yet there aren't many dead babies and defunct hospitals in Russia like in other sanctioned states, but that is probably because of its higher starting base and its oil reserves and land leading to decent self-reliance.
 
berbatrick said:
I prefer to judge by real visible actions rather than Trump's mutterings or others' feelings. These sanctions weren't mild, nor did he mind heating up the conflict in Ukraine.





https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-...rt/the-impact-of-western-sanctions-on-russia/

It is true that as yet there aren't many dead babies and defunct hospitals in Russia like in other sanctioned states, but that is probably because of its higher starting base and its oil reserves and land leading to decent self-reliance.
Click to expand...

The impact of sanctions that were imposed onto Trump by others are a different topic than Trump's desire to not implement anything. The reason we are looking at Trump's own behavior is because he was President, and his preferred policies were to not take any action against Putin over pretty much anything. He had to literally get pressured, coaxed, and cajoled into any anti-Russia actions his administration eventually undertook. His only intent was to keep good relations with Putin - this was the case before he was President, while he was President, and continues to be the case now.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
The impact of sanctions that were imposed onto Trump by others are a different topic than Trump's desire to not implement anything. The reason we are looking at Trump's own behavior is because he was President, and his preferred policies were to not take any action against Putin over pretty much anything. He had to literally get pressured, coaxed, and cajoled into any anti-Russia actions his administration eventually undertook. His only intent was to keep good relations with Putin - this was the case before he was President, while he was President, and continues to be the case now.
Click to expand...

the discussion was about his hypothetical response to the current situation. it doesn't matter if its internally driven or cajoled, if he was hard on russia then, he (which means, his administration) would (logically) be hard on russia now.
 
berbatrick said:
I prefer to judge by real visible actions rather than Trump's mutterings or others' feelings. These sanctions weren't mild, nor did he mind heating up the conflict in Ukraine.





https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-...rt/the-impact-of-western-sanctions-on-russia/

It is true that as yet there aren't many dead babies and defunct hospitals in Russia like in other sanctioned states, but that is probably because of its higher starting base and its oil reserves and land leading to decent self-reliance.
Click to expand...

I wish more others would do the same.

Suggesting Trump was tough on Russia though... I'm sorry that's more far fetched than even some of my theories.

Putin wants conflict in Ukraine, worse case scenario for him is a stable/happy Ukraine after kicking out their Russian puppet.

He also wants conflict in Syria, the Syrian refugee crisis was so beneficial to right-wing/anti-EU poloticians in Europe, I'd almost be tempted to suggest that was the plan all along.
 
Simbo said:
I wish more others would do the same.

Suggesting Trump was tough on Russia though... I'm sorry that's more far fetched than even some of my theories.

Putin wants conflict in Ukraine, worse case scenario for him is a stable/happy Ukraine after kicking out their Russian puppet.

He also wants conflict in Syria, the Syrian refugee crisis was so beneficial to right-wing/anti-EU poloticians in Europe, I'd almost be tempted to suggest that was the plan all along.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Not only is it far fetched, its literally untrue, and an odd position to take given we all literally just lived through this and have the benefit of 5 years of 24 hour news cycles that covered the story non-stop since the Trump-Putin "bromance" during the 2015/16 campaign, to the Helsinki debacle, through Trump's consistent stonewalling of attempts at sanctioning Putin, to non-stop rejections that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. At no time did Trump express anything but contempt to push back against Putin and any actions his administration undertook were at the behest of Congress, including enough Republicans (like Richard Burr and others) to force Trump to act. The myth that Trump was tough on Russia has always been a right wing talking point, which now appears to have unfortunately been picked up by anti-establishment leftists as well.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Spot on.

Not only is it far fetched, its literally untrue, and an odd position to take given we all literally just lived through this and have the benefit of 5 years of 24 hour news cycles that covered the story non-stop since the Trump-Putin "bromance" during the 2015/16 campaign, to the Helsinki debacle, through Trump's consistent stonewalling of attempts at sanctioning Putin, to non-stop rejections that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. At no time did Trump express anything but contempt to push back against Putin and any actions his administration undertook were at the behest of Congress, including enough Republicans (like Richard Burr and others) to force Trump to act. The myth that Trump was tough on Russia has always been a right wing talking point, which now appears to have unfortunately been picked up by anti-establishment leftists as well.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
Simbo said:
He also wants conflict in Syria, the Syrian refugee crisis was so beneficial to right-wing/anti-EU poloticians in Europe, I'd almost be tempted to suggest that was the plan all along.
Click to expand...
How could the plan all along be for someone else to start a civil war? Putin's plan was... to respond to events that he didn't initiate?

Simbo said:
Putin wants conflict in Ukraine, worse case scenario for him is a stable/happy Ukraine after kicking out their Russian puppet.
Click to expand...
I think best case scenario would be control of Ukraine via Russian proxy. Worst case scenario would be loss of control via Western (mostly US) meddling. Most likely scenario is probably a security deal which addresses the fact that 25% of Ukranians are Russian nationals (dual nationality) and that this is spread from West to East.

Simbo said:
Suggesting Trump was tough on Russia though... I'm sorry that's more far fetched than even some of my theories.
Click to expand...
Have you done, or read, any quantitative analyses of sanctions carried out by EO under Obama/Trump/Biden? There is a clear uptick of sanctions in the Trump administration, which is what people should mean by "Trump" unless you follow politics like you follow soap operas and are invested in characters rather than action and policy.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
How could the plan all along be for someone else to start a civil war? Putin's plan was... to respond to events that he didn't initiate?
Click to expand...

Far-fetched I know, backing Assad to gas and carpet bomb his own people didn't exactly help the issue though.

Mciahel Goodman said:
Have you done, or read, any quantitative analyses of sanctions carried out by EO under Obama/Trump/Biden? There is a clear uptick of sanctions in the Trump administration, which is what people should mean by "Trump" unless you follow politics like you follow soap operas and are invested in characters rather than action and policy.
Click to expand...

I've followed Trump's actions and that of his acolyte's from day 1. Before day 1 infact when it was clear removing sanctions on Russia was #1 priority for his administration, which resulted in his national security advisor being arrested and facing jail time for lies over deals being made with the Russian ambassador, before eventually accepting Trump's pardon. We don't know the full extect of Flynn's crimes as it was mostly redacted but at his first sentencing it was enough for the judge to ask prosecution "why isn't he being tried for treason?".

With everything going on in the world and in the US not even building the wall appeared to be a priority, in the first month it was removing sactions and attacking NATO. What followed was him fighting congress over the implementation of sactions, and for the most part losing. He did however take steps to ensure they were not enforced where he could.

It was a requirement to be pro-russian to work for Trump, I'm not sure we could find many people on his staff who didn't have ties. I'm not sure who the most blatent slap in your face "Make Russia Great Again" appointment was between Manafort, Tillerson, Bannon, Wilbur Ross, etc.
 
Simbo said:
I've followed Trump's actions and that of his acolyte's from day 1. Before day 1 infact when it was clear removing sanctions on Russia was #1 priority for his administration, which resulted in his national security advisor being arrested and facing jail time for lies over deals being made with the Russian ambassador, before eventually accepting Trump's pardon. We don't know the full extect of Flynn's crimes as it was mostly redacted but at his first sentencing it was enough for the judge to ask prosecution "why isn't he being tried for treason?".

With everything going on in the world and in the US not even building the wall appeared to be a priority, in the first month it was removing sactions and attacking NATO. What followed was him fighting congress over the implementation of sactions, and for the most part losing. He did however take steps to ensure they were not enforced where he could.

It was a requirement to be pro-russian to work for Trump, I'm not sure we could find many people on his staff who didn't have ties. I'm not sure who the most blatent slap in your face "Make Russia Great Again" appointment was between Manafort, Tillerson, Bannon, Wilbur Ross, etc.
Click to expand...

It seems simple to me. The US uses its sanctions regime as an economic/propagandistic arm of its military regime. They sanction Russia and China regardless of who is in the White House or who occupies the Kremlin (notable exception may be Yeltsin who seemed happy enough to hand over all of Russia's strategically important assets to NATO).

Yeah, but look at the sanctions, not the small list of people who dominated press coverage. It doesn't matter if Trump himself has Russian tattooed on his back when his regime his sanctioning it. What matters is what is done, not what is said. Sanctions were done.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Have you done, or read, any quantitative analyses of sanctions carried out by EO under Obama/Trump/Biden? There is a clear uptick of sanctions in the Trump administration, which is what people should mean by "Trump" unless you follow politics like you follow soap operas and are invested in characters rather than action and policy.
Click to expand...
The irony of using this line of reasoning to defend Trump :wenger: Ya man made it to a soap opera to obfuscate his actions. His actions were always intended to enrich himself and his cronies and Putin was a side bit in that. What extraordinary sanctions did the Trump administration put on Russia? What that even came close to the tariffs put on the very allies that are now not seen as firm enough allies? Those nations alienated that used to be the first line of defense?
 
Abizzz said:
The irony of using this line of reasoning to defend Trump :wenger: Ya man made it to a soap opera to obfuscate his actions. His actions were always intended to enrich himself and his cronies and Putin was a side bit in that. What extraordinary sanctions did the Trump administration put on Russia? What that even came close to the tariffs put on the very allies that are now not seen as firm enough allies? Those nations alienated that used to be the first line of defense?
Click to expand...
You've misinterpreted my comments. I don't consider sanctioning Russia and China to be a "good" thing, so that Trump's administration sanctioned each heavily is not a "good" thing in my view. Which, if you follow, means that I am not "defending" Trump. You seem to know what you're talking about. What is the differential between sanctions imposed upon Russia and tariffs imposed upon allies?

I advocate looking at things systematically, others advocate "reading" Putin or Trump as if that's what world politics comes down to (to soap opera politics and the characters and roles played).
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
You've misinterpreted my comments. I don't consider sanctioning Russia and China to be a "good" thing, so that Trump's administration sanctioned each heavily is not a "good" thing in my view. Which, if you follow, means that I am not "defending" Trump. You seem to know what you're talking about. What is the differential between sanctions imposed upon Russia and tariffs imposed upon allies?

I advocate looking at things systematically, others advocate "reading" Putin or Trump as if that's what world politics comes down to (to soap opera politics and the characters and roles played).
Click to expand...
Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment.

I think I do understand you reasoning now and share your sceptiscm about the importance of individual characters (Although Trump is a special case for many reasons). In my understanding the difference between (the majority) of the Russian sanctions and the tarrifs slapped on everyone else was that the sanctions were targeted at individuals and very specific sectors, while the tariffs were broad and far reaching.
 
Abizzz said:
Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment.

I think I do understand you reasoning now and share your sceptiscm about the importance of individual characters (Although Trump is a special case for many reasons). In my understanding the difference between (the majority) of the Russian sanctions and the tarrifs slapped on everyone else was that the sanctions were targeted at individuals and very specific sectors, while the tariffs were broad and far reaching.
Click to expand...
No problem.

It's not an easy number to figure out. The twenty most sanctioned countries in the world are all either Russia, China, or something to do with Russia/China on a geopolitical level. Zimbabwe is an outlier on the chart.

By one metric, Russia has been hit by hundreds of billions of dollars worth of sanctions since 2015, mostly coming during Trump's regime. This is calculated by their foreign debt, which has decreased because they are not allowed to use it as a speculative currency. That would be Russia alone. The US annual tariffs are about 300b. So, I'd be useful for a more robust guide, but it's quite possible that sanctions far outweigh tariffs.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
No problem.

It's not an easy number to figure out. The twenty most sanctioned countries in the world are all either Russia, China, or something to do with Russia/China on a geopolitical level. Zimbabwe is an outlier on the chart.

By one metric, Russia has been hit by hundreds of billions of dollars worth of sanctions since 2015, mostly coming during Trump's regime. This is calculated by their foreign debt, which has decreased because they are not allowed to use it as a speculative currency. That would be Russia alone. The US annual tariffs are about 300b. So, I'd be useful for a more robust guide, but it's quite possible that sanctions far outweigh tariffs.
Click to expand...

Sanctions generally don't stop across administrations since they typically involve multiple branches of government to enact. Trump himself, tried his hardest to not sanction the Russians until he was forced by others to do so or else have Congress do it anyway, and in the process make Trump look like a loser. Therefore the statement that the Trump administration sanctioned the Russians more than others glosses over the fact that it was in spite of Trump and not because of him.
 
Why are the Americans informing that Nord stream 2 is going to be stopped while the commercial agreement is between Russia and Germany, who has not said that?
 
Raoul said:
Sanctions generally don't stop across administrations since they typically involve multiple branches of government to enact. Trump himself, tried his hardest to not sanction the Russians until he was forced by others to do so or else have Congress do it anyway, and in the process make Trump look like a loser. Therefore the statement that the Trump administration sanctioned the Russians more than others glosses over the fact that it was in spite of Trump and not because of him.
Click to expand...

I agree with most the above. A lot of administration actions are similar. State planning tends to outweigh the caprices of any given president and when it comes to sanctions what we deal with is the entire state apparatus not just the presidency. Indeed, again that it was in spite of Trump rather than because of him to my mind reinforces my point. Certain state actions should be read systematically instead of in profile (I've been hearing American politicians tell me about standing up to Putin since 2006).
 
All communications other than those between Putin and Biden, and perhaps one or two other heads of state, are completely meaningless at this point. Ultimately, only Putin can make the decision to invade and only Biden, in concert with a couple of the larger NATO heads of state, can marshal the resources to make Putin's cost high enough for him to back down.
 
Foxbatt said:
Why are the Americans informing that Nord stream 2 is going to be stopped while the commercial agreement is between Russia and Germany, who has not said that?
Click to expand...

They've been saying it for about 3/4 years now including constant threats, which is odd from a nation demanding that countries be allowed to make their own decisions without influence.

The US finds it strategically unacceptable that Europe is seeking more gas from Russia and thinks it can bully EU states into doing what it wants. Doesn't sound like Germany or France are paying much attention to them mind.
 
Smores said:
They've been saying it for about 3/4 years now including constant threats, which is odd from a nation demanding that countries be allowed to make their own decisions without influence.

The US finds it strategically unacceptable that Europe is seeking more gas from Russia and thinks it can bully EU states into doing what it wants. Doesn't sound like Germany or France are paying much attention to them mind.
Click to expand...

Except that the US has pretty broad sway over NATO policy, which means Biden can leverage NATO resources as a means to thwart Putin. The EU is irrelevant in all of this since any politically relevant EU member is also a NATO member and US backing is critical in dealing with the Russia issue. This is of course why Putin hates NATO and is looking for any excuse he can to degrade it, because he wants to bully individual EU/NATO states at his own leisure without the constantly looming threat of a US response.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Except that the US has pretty broad sway over NATO policy, which means Biden can leverage NATO resources as a means to thwart Putin. The EU is irrelevant in all of this since any politically relevant EU member is also a NATO member and US backing is critical in dealing with the Russia issue. This is of course why Putin hates NATO and is looking any excuse he can to degrade it, because he wants to bully individual EU/NATO states at his own leisure without the constantly looming threat of a US response.
Click to expand...

Well done on turning a post about the US bullying its allies on their own domestic policy to Russia bullying states, notwithstanding wrapping it up in some glorified fan fiction on the power of US influence. Nord 2 will happen whether the US wants it to or not as proven by everyone ignoring them during it's entire construction.

It certainly won't be the bluster of Biden and Boris that de-escalates the Ukraine issue but as long as the intended domestic audience think it was who cares right.
 
Smores said:
Well done on turning a post about the US bullying its allies on their own domestic policy to Russia bullying states, notwithstanding wrapping it up in some glorified fan fiction on the power of US influence. Nord 2 will happen whether the US wants it to or not as proven by everyone ignoring them during it's entire construction.

It certainly won't be the bluster of Biden and Boris that de-escalates the Ukraine issue but as long as the intended domestic audience think it was who cares right.
Click to expand...

The US are only saying that Nord 2 will be stopped if Russia invades Ukraine. Now there are people in the Western and Eastern parts of NATO that would prefer not to see it go forward under any circumstance but I don't see any action being taken in the event Russia pulls back its forces.

With that said the US are certainly capable of shutting down Nord 2 via sanctions. There's a reason that no one credible has come out to say that the US can't do this.
 
Paxi said:
Click to expand...

I'm not particularly convinced by Putin's rhetoric at any time, although I do recognize that Ukraine is probably a step too far for NATO expansion and might unfortunately have to be left to the whims of Russia while hopefully maintaining some degree of sovereignty.

But that nuclear war line of argumentation just rubs me so wrong that I start feeling like NATO should put it all on the line for Ukraine. He's openly being a nuclear-armed bully, daring anyone to stand-up to him while implicitly assuming that no one will. The only possible response to that is to turn it right back at him: "do you want to go to nuclear war over Ukraine?"
 
MTF said:
I'm not particularly convinced by Putin's rhetoric at any time, although I do recognize that Ukraine is probably a step too far for NATO expansion and might unfortunately have to be left to the whims of Russia while hopefully maintaining some degree of sovereignty.

But that nuclear war line of argumentation just rubs me so wrong that I start feeling like NATO should put it all on the line for Ukraine. He's openly being a nuclear-armed bully, daring anyone to stand-up to him while implicitly assuming that no one will. The only possible response to that is to turn it right back at him: "do you want to go to nuclear war over Ukraine?"
Click to expand...

Ask a maniac whether he wants to go to nuclear war, right
 
sport2793 said:
The US are only saying that Nord 2 will be stopped if Russia invades Ukraine. Now there are people in the Western and Eastern parts of NATO that would prefer not to see it go forward under any circumstance but I don't see any action being taken in the event Russia pulls back its forces.

With that said the US are certainly capable of shutting down Nord 2 via sanctions. There's a reason that no one credible has come out to say that the US can't do this.
Click to expand...

They are now yeah but i was explaining the backdrop of discussions on the issue. They gave up on the idea of stopping it completely (mainly Trump to be fair) when construction was done despite early threats.

Germany are a lot softer on their threats for good reason. Sanctions will no doubt be imposed if Russia invade but stopping it completely won't happen, it's needed.
 
MTF said:
I'm not particularly convinced by Putin's rhetoric at any time, although I do recognize that Ukraine is probably a step too far for NATO expansion and might unfortunately have to be left to the whims of Russia while hopefully maintaining some degree of sovereignty.

But that nuclear war line of argumentation just rubs me so wrong that I start feeling like NATO should put it all on the line for Ukraine. He's openly being a nuclear-armed bully, daring anyone to stand-up to him while implicitly assuming that no one will. The only possible response to that is to turn it right back at him: "do you want to go to nuclear war over Ukraine?"
Click to expand...

Its pretty clear what he's doing. Using his theft of Crimea as an excuse to moan about the possibility that Ukraine may try to take it back if they become a member of NATO, then tacitly dangling his nukes into the equation as if he's prepared to go nuclear over Crimea or Ukraine's sovereign right to enter into agreements with other nations. Nevermind the fact that Crimea is still globally recognized as not part of Russia.
 
Last edited:
Anyone read this? Allegedly, Lavrov tested Truss' knowledge. :lol:

Away from the cameras, Truss allegedly confused the Russian regions of Voronezh and Rostov with Ukrainian territory when Lavrov asked her whether she recognised Russia’s sovereignty over them.

She repeatedly told Lavrov that the UK would never recognise Moscow’s claim, until the British ambassador was forced to step in to correct her, the Russian business daily Kommersant reported.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...pect-ukraine-sovereignty-liz-truss-talks-open
 
I don’t think that either of those tweets indicate a significant change in the situation.
 
GDaly95 said:




Are we sure its still posturing?
Click to expand...


It could very well be true that he's planning on invading (possibly after the Olympics) and the US are deliberately releasing this into the public domain to make Putin look like a tyrant and publicly embarrass him enough to where he may reconsider.

Either case, the likelihood. that he will back down without getting a major concession appears to be dwindling by the hour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.