Ukraine

[ralfy]

How Russia Won the Sanctions War With the West

It is now abundantly clear that Russia has defeated the Western sanctions regime that was intended to cripple its economy and force its withdrawal from Ukraine.

www.newsweek.com

NATO chief admits new bullets won't arrive in Ukraine for years

It could take up to 36 months for the ammunition from a new NATO deal to become available.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Silvanus]

How Russia Won the Sanctions War With the West

It is now abundantly clear that Russia has defeated the Western sanctions regime that was intended to cripple its economy and force its withdrawal from Ukraine.

www.newsweek.com

Russia's gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the third quarter was confirmed on Wednesday at 5.5% compared with the same period last year, when it shrunk 3.5%, the state statistics service Rosstat said.
Russia's economy is on course to recover this year from a 2.1% drop in GDP in 2022, as the West imposed sweeping sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
In January-September, GDP grew 3% Rosstat said. In the first quarter of this year, GDP decreased 1.8% and grew 4.9% in the second.

Ah, so sanctions led to a significant shrink throughout 2022 and Q1 2023. This growth in Q2-Q3 2023 represents a partial recovery, rather than the unmitigated failure of sanctions altogether as the authors suggest.

Overall significant revenue has been lost, as the Russian Finance Minister has confirmed. The partial recovery has been driven in large part by selling at a deep discount, meaning regardless of market, they'd have made a lot more money from the same amount of oil if sanctions hadn't been in place. And if other countries wean themselves off a reliance on imported fossil fuels, that's all for the good anyway.

Gfoeller and Rundell are both long-term US State Dept. operatives, whose primary interest is presumably US wealth and power. They don't want the US involved in financially costly considerations (like assisting other countries against invasion) without direct financial benefit. To that end they've been penning fawning (and sometimes outright misleading) articles about Russia and Ukraine for many months, including back when sanctions were biting a lot deeper.

 

[Satinavian]

Slovakia seems to have switched its mind about Ukraine again. Quite surprising, honestly.

 

[Ag3ma]

Slovakia seems to have switched its mind about Ukraine again. Quite surprising, honestly.

Possibly not surprising.

I don't think they care one way or the other. They're populist nationalists, and all they really care about is what they need to say to win power, and then what they can leverage for their own benefit. Fico has sounded tough on Ukraine for votes and image, and then gone to Ukraine to wrest a load of benefits for Slovakia so suddenly switches to positivity.

This is similar what Orban does. He's all but a dictator. This gets him in hot water with the EU/NATO, so they take action against him, and then he crudely threatens to block their activity until they give him something. Actually, I'm at the point where I think Hungary should be forcibly ejected from the EU and possibly NATO. Hand it a clear message: you've got one year to sort your shit out or you're gone.

 

[Ag3ma]

The EU could have easily done either a no-fly-zone or just straight up booted Russia out of Crimea, and Ukraine. It's as easy as me getting bored with my Skyrim mod-list in an hour. Just don't invade Russia properly so that China can't have Eastern Siberia. But they didn't, and now Putin has combat experience, and has killed hundreds of thousands of European Ukrainians while the rest of Europe looks on. And no I am not Trump I would defend both Ukraine and Tawian where in 2012 Obama stated that needed 70% of the US Navy to counter China, China has only gotten stronger in the naval domain and uses welded landing ships in its civilian ships which will one hundred percent be used to transport armor vehicles to the South of Taiwan. I bet the US would need 70% of its Navy, at least 70-80% of its Air Force, all of the Marine Corps, and a sizeable number of the US Army. Which leaves little room for Europe.

The USA would not need to deploy much to Europe. Europe can handle Russia if it needs to. The issue is that neither the USA nor Europe want direct confrontation with Russia. The USA does not want Europe to directly oppose Russia. Even if Europe provides the fist, Russia would still view the USA as the brain and if it escalated to nuclear, Russia is not going to spare the USA.

Where you are most right about Europe is that it urgently needs to upgrade its military capabilities. Not because of Russia precisely, but because the USA is increasingly looking like an unreliable ally. In one year, there is good chance that the president of the USA will be Donald J. Trump.

"I don't give a shit about NATO"
"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you"
By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO,"

It's not just Trump. Behind Trump is a whole machine of conservative think tanks advocating similar ideas. And with Trump are a huge tranche of Republican voters who will just support whatever he says. His cabinet will be filled with cronies - he learnt the lesson last time about having people with different ideas (Mattis, Bolton, Barr, and many others). I don't doubt that Congress might have very different ideas about the disposability of NATO, but even if it prevents a total withdrawal, the president has the ability to withhold action in all sorts of critical ways and do massive damage.

Specifically with regard to Ukraine, Trump's sympathies are abundantly clear, and they lie with Russia and Putin. It is unlikely he could fully sell out Ukraine to Russia, but he can certainly abandon it. This means that the EU needs to have a plan ready as soon as January 2024 to support Ukraine on its own, because if it's Trump, all bets are off that the USA is going to provide any support at all.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

This means that the EU needs to have a plan ready as soon as January 2024 to support Ukraine on its own, because if it's Trump, all bets are off that the USA is going to provide any support at all.

If it's Trump, I'd expect immediate and substantial sales of war materiel to Russia, as well as switching sanctions from Russia to the Ukraine. He'll likely couch it in "anti-Nazi operations" terms just like a certain forum member here, but it wouldn't surprise me terribly if he just openly declared "America only does business with winners, and winners don't get their countries invaded".

 

[Hades]

Imagine getting away with murdering nearly 300 people but then going to jail anyway because the dictator for who you committed those murders considers you annoying.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/25/europe/igor-girkin-russia-trial-verdict-intl/index.html

If it's Trump, I'd expect immediate and substantial sales of war materiel to Russia, as well as switching sanctions from Russia to the Ukraine. He'll likely couch it in "anti-Nazi operations" terms just like a certain forum member here, but it wouldn't surprise me terribly if he just openly declared "America only does business with winners, and winners don't get their countries invaded".

Should get kinda amusing when his base hears words about anti Nazi operations
''Wait wut....but we LIKE nazi's! Donald no! Don't stop the aid if they're Nazi's!''

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

The USA would not need to deploy much to Europe. Europe can handle Russia if it needs to. The issue is that neither the USA nor Europe want direct confrontation with Russia. The USA does not want Europe to directly oppose Russia. Even if Europe provides the fist, Russia would still view the USA as the brain and if it escalated to nuclear, Russia is not going to spare the USA.

Where you are most right about Europe is that it urgently needs to upgrade its military capabilities. Not because of Russia precisely, but because the USA is increasingly looking like an unreliable ally. In one year, there is good chance that the president of the USA will be Donald J. Trump.



It's not just Trump. Behind Trump is a whole machine of conservative think tanks advocating similar ideas. And with Trump are a huge tranche of Republican voters who will just support whatever he says. His cabinet will be filled with cronies - he learnt the lesson last time about having people with different ideas (Mattis, Bolton, Barr, and many others). I don't doubt that Congress might have very different ideas about the disposability of NATO, but even if it prevents a total withdrawal, the president has the ability to withhold action in all sorts of critical ways and do massive damage.

Specifically with regard to Ukraine, Trump's sympathies are abundantly clear, and they lie with Russia and Putin. It is unlikely he could fully sell out Ukraine to Russia, but he can certainly abandon it. This means that the EU needs to have a plan ready as soon as January 2024 to support Ukraine on its own, because if it's Trump, all bets are off that the USA is going to provide any support at all.

So wait, now he’s not going to jail? Because that seems to be all I’ve heard online lately is the inevitability of it. And we’re in the 11th hour now. Funny though, even if he didn’t, at this point I think even most repubs could acknowledge he’d poison the well. He’s like the kid from Peanuts with the dirt cloud around him.

In any case, grab the popcorn and prepare for a media circus.

 

[Ag3ma]

So wait, now he’s not going to jail? Because that seems to be all I’ve heard online lately is the inevitability of it. And we’re in the 11th hour now. Funny though, even if he didn’t, at this point I think even most repubs could acknowledge he’d poison the well. He’s like the kid from Peanuts with the dirt cloud around him.

There's a pretty good chance he won't go to jail, no. Not by the election, anyway.

He has three major ongoing criminal cases - a federal one (Jack Smith prosecuting, electoral interference), one in Georgia (Fani Willis, racketeering) and a significantly less important one in Florida (possession of confidential documents). I say significantly less important, because although awful, it has far less risk of damage to his electoral prospects.

The Jack Smith trial is scheduled for 4th March, but is currently paused and seriously likely to be delayed by Trump claiming immunity, which needs to wind its way through appeals. Fair chance with the vast amount of chaff Trump's lawyers will throw at delaying it, and the trial itself (which also the Trump team will also try to slow as much as possible) it will not conclude before the election.

The Fani Willis-led case was hoped for August by the prosecution, but already thought likely to slip to 2025. Plus (and omg seriously???) Willis has had an affair with a lawyer on her team. What the fuck is it with high profile prosecutors in the USA, can't they be more... 'boring'? From what I've read, it's unlikely that there's been significant wrongdoing. But it's created an angle for Trump supporters to discredit Willis, create delays and distractions, and puts her and the prosecution in a bad light.

The confidential documents case is being handled by a judge who is a Trump appointee, Aileen Cannon, who already attempted to hand him an outrageous and it turns out very poorly reasoned favourable judgement for him in the lead-up. Does not bode well. Trial date not arranged, but Cannon has already announced it may be set back.

* * *

I think a lot of anti-Trumpers are just hoping that Trump is going to fall foul of one of these and it will magically save the USA from a shitshow. I think there's just a huge problem getting a conviction due to the psychological pressure on jurors of having to convict an ex-president (never mind if he's also a presidental candidate, president-elect or even as may be the current president). The magnitude of accepting that their nation's president was a crook. To be someone who sent down a president. To potentially derail an election. The threats they might receive. I think it is a lot easier for them to just say to themselves no harm done really and shy away from such a horrendously difficult option.

 

[ralfy]

Ah, so sanctions led to a significant shrink throughout 2022 and Q1 2023. This growth in Q2-Q3 2023 represents a partial recovery, rather than the unmitigated failure of sanctions altogether as the authors suggest.

Overall significant revenue has been lost, as the Russian Finance Minister has confirmed. The partial recovery has been driven in large part by selling at a deep discount, meaning regardless of market, they'd have made a lot more money from the same amount of oil if sanctions hadn't been in place. And if other countries wean themselves off a reliance on imported fossil fuels, that's all for the good anyway.

Gfoeller and Rundell are both long-term US State Dept. operatives, whose primary interest is presumably US wealth and power. They don't want the US involved in financially costly considerations (like assisting other countries against invasion) without direct financial benefit. To that end they've been penning fawning (and sometimes outright misleading) articles about Russia and Ukraine for many months, including back when sanctions were biting a lot deeper.

Read the rest of the article. And don't forget the other one.

 

[Silvanus]

Read the rest of the article. And don't forget the other one.

I did. Doesn't really affect anything I said.

 

[ralfy]

I did. Doesn't really affect anything I said.

You didn't because the rest of the article gives more points than the "significant shrink".

 

[Ag3ma]

You didn't because the rest of the article gives more points than the "significant shrink".

To say Russia has "won" the sanctions war is loaded, though. It assumes that sanction must serve the purpose of breaking Russia. But this isn't necessarily true: they can just serve the purpose of significantly inconveniencing it, especially in the area of military equipment.

Every time Russia wants imported, sanctioned materials, they have to create illegal routes or additional middlemen to acquire goods, but that means the costs go up - it also increases the likelihood of shortages in their imports. Similar for many exports. Russia cannot strike bargains as effectively as it could for its exports, because it needs the buyer more than the reverse, so the deal will favour the non-Russian partner. As the article states, it has had to offer India and China discounts: it is costing Russia.

The article implies Western leaders were idiots for not realising Russia could circumvent some sanctions. What's far more likely is that the West knew perfectly well Russia would find ways to, and just decided it was worth it. Partly to make Russia pay that extra cost, but also the PR. The authors call it "virtue signalling" for rhetoric, but their argument is completely facile. You try explaining to your citizens that you are resisting Russian aggression whilst at the same time selling it anything it needs to destroy your ally. Few things could make you look more like, and actually be, the biggest fucking fool on the planet.

 

[ralfy]

To say Russia has "won" the sanctions war is loaded, though. It assumes that sanction must serve the purpose of breaking Russia. But this isn't necessarily true: they can just serve the purpose of significantly inconveniencing it, especially in the area of military equipment.

Every time Russia wants imported, sanctioned materials, they have to create illegal routes or additional middlemen to acquire goods, but that means the costs go up - it also increases the likelihood of shortages in their imports. Similar for many exports. Russia cannot strike bargains as effectively as it could for its exports, because it needs the buyer more than the reverse, so the deal will favour the non-Russian partner. As the article states, it has had to offer India and China discounts: it is costing Russia.

The article implies Western leaders were idiots for not realising Russia could circumvent some sanctions. What's far more likely is that the West knew perfectly well Russia would find ways to, and just decided it was worth it. Partly to make Russia pay that extra cost, but also the PR. The authors call it "virtue signalling" for rhetoric, but their argument is completely facile. You try explaining to your citizens that you are resisting Russian aggression whilst at the same time selling it anything it needs to destroy your ally. Few things could make you look more like, and actually be, the biggest fucking fool on the planet.

There's no other purpose but to break Russia. The problem is that the Global South and BRICS have been working with Russia, with G-7 and EU dependent on the same Global South and BRICS for various resources, from components needed for ammo to uranium to fossil fuels.

Western leaders were idiots from the beginning, as they were used by the rich to manipulate countries like Ukraine and even Russia, plus more from the same Global South:

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO YEMEN – Zoltán Grossman

And then they "virtue signal" for rhetoric, claiming that they're special (U.S. exceptionalism), that they're fighting for freedom and democracy for the people of the world (neoconservatism), and that all countries must have economic freedom (neoliberalism), when in reality they serve the 10 pct of Americans that own 70 pct of the country's wealth, and need "forever wars" funded by the same rich and used to project power through the military industrial complex while feeding citizens with endless entertainment that promote the same ideologies.

That's the irony of the last two sentences of your post: you got the process of how it works but unwittingly selected the wrong side.

 

[Thaluikhain]

and need "forever wars" funded by the same rich and used to project power through the military industrial complex while feeding citizens with endless entertainment that promote the same ideologies.

Surely not "forever wars", plural. Well, maybe to have a back-up in case peace suddenly breaks out. But there's always Israel, which gets loads of military spending, and random Middle East or African countries that apparently will be improved by spontaneous airstrikes.

 

[Silvanus]

There's no other purpose but to break Russia.

How odd and coincidental, then, that such sanctions came in 2014 and 2022 following Russia unilaterally invading its neighbour. You know, rather than apropos of nothing.

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO YEMEN – Zoltán Grossman

I think this might be the third or fourth time you've posted the same link, which has already been discussed. So I had a quick look for Zoltan Grossman's commentary on this war itself;

His vision is clearly of a renewed Russian Empire[...

Putin’s ultimate goal is to carve off a distinct Russian-speaking region from Ukraine. Because he would rather bite off a large chunk of Ukraine rather than swallow it whole, the partition of Ukraine is very much on the table.

Russian-speakers (both ethnic Ukrainians and Russians) have not at all welcomed Putin’s invasion.

a sustained Ukrainian enemy is exactly what Putin wants and needs [...] Like many western leaders, Putin’s main goal is to stay in power, especially in the face of economic crises at home, and a good way to always is stoke fear and xenophobia abroad.

Huh! I had wondered why you posted stuff from Grossman that didn't directly deal with the topic, but rather talked more generally about Western issues. Now I can see why!

[...]they serve the 10 pct of Americans that own 70 pct of the country's wealth, and need "forever wars" funded by the same rich and used to project power through the military industrial complex while feeding citizens with endless entertainment that promote the same ideologies.

It's amazing how you offer this description for the US, seemingly unaware of how it also perfectly describes the Russian situation you're defending. Well, not quite... because its even more stark in Russia.

In the US, 10% horde over 70% of the wealth, as you say. In Russia, 10% horde over 85%. Ukraine, in the meantime, had one of the better Gini Coefficients in the world. So don't pretend you give a shit about wealth disparity, as you cheer for one of the most unequal countries in the world to invade and dismantle one of the less unequal ones.

And as for "forever wars"? Recall that the Donbas insurgency would have ended in less than a year, in 2014, if not for Russia endlessly pumping weaponry (alongside disguised Russian soldiers) into the region. It is Russia that dragged that conflict on for 8 years, long before western arms were arriving in the region. There's your "forever war", serving the needs of the christofascist corporatists that run one of the most unequal societies on the planet.

 

[Ag3ma]

And then they "virtue signal" for rhetoric, claiming that they're special (U.S. exceptionalism), that they're fighting for freedom and democracy for the people of the world (neoconservatism), and that all countries must have economic freedom (neoliberalism), when in reality they serve the 10 pct of Americans that own 70 pct of the country's wealth, and need "forever wars" funded by the same rich and used to project power through the military industrial complex while feeding citizens with endless entertainment that promote the same ideologies.

That's the irony of the last two sentences of your post: you got the process of how it works but unwittingly selected the wrong side.

Most people on this forum don't live in some delusion that our liberal, capitalist democracies are particularly peaceful or moral countries on the international stage (although, on balance, they tend to treat their own citizens a damn sight better than most others).

But war is the result of competitiveness between nations, and has relatively little to do with intranational wealth inequality. For some of the business elites in the modern USA (bearing in mind a lot of the corporate elites do not like or benefit from war), countries since the dawn of time have had equivalent forces in society who have seen war as a way to advance their interests. And, contextually, there's a lot of evidence to suggest the postwar world, dominated by liberal, capitalist democracies, has been uncommonly peaceful.

For the USA to dismantle its military industrial complex and mind its own business would merely have the impact of removing the USA from wars, not stopping wars. Into that power vacuum other countries such as China and Russia would rush, and they would introduce their own wars and injustices in place of the USA. If the objective is to stop war across the globe, defanging the USA is not the answer, nor is merely reducing the power of the 1% in capitalist countries.

 

[ralfy]

How odd and coincidental, then, that such sanctions came in 2014 and 2022 following Russia unilaterally invading its neighbour. You know, rather than apropos of nothing.



I think this might be the third or fourth time you've posted the same link, which has already been discussed. So I had a quick look for Zoltan Grossman's commentary on this war itself;









Huh! I had wondered why you posted stuff from Grossman that didn't directly deal with the topic, but rather talked more generally about Western issues. Now I can see why!



It's amazing how you offer this description for the US, seemingly unaware of how it also perfectly describes the Russian situation you're defending. Well, not quite... because its even more stark in Russia.

In the US, 10% horde over 70% of the wealth, as you say. In Russia, 10% horde over 85%. Ukraine, in the meantime, had one of the better Gini Coefficients in the world. So don't pretend you give a shit about wealth disparity, as you cheer for one of the most unequal countries in the world to invade and dismantle one of the less unequal ones.

And as for "forever wars"? Recall that the Donbas insurgency would have ended in less than a year, in 2014, if not for Russia endlessly pumping weaponry (alongside disguised Russian soldiers) into the region. It is Russia that dragged that conflict on for 8 years, long before western arms were arriving in the region. There's your "forever war", serving the needs of the christofascist corporatists that run one of the most unequal societies on the planet.

Right, as if nothing happened before 2014:

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine

The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the

www.counterpunch.org

or even right after:


I was not defending Russia but equating Russia with the U.S., and you just unwittingly supported my argument.

Given that, I'll just keep reminding you of what you continue to ignore, which is that the same military industrial complex and Wall Street that's using Israel is also using Ukraine:

Zelensky selling Ukraine to Wall Street & corporations

In the Ukrainian president's words, Ukraine is effectively "open for business," enabling multinational corporations to flock into the country and do what they do best: exploit Ukrainian resources, and pay low wages.

english.almayadeen.net

For Western Weapons, the Ukraine War Is a Beta Test (Published 2022)

Though the battle for Ukraine remains largely a grinding artillery war, new advances in technology and training there are being closely monitored for the ways they are starting to shape combat.

www.nytimes.com

As proof of that in light of forever wars:

Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

Compared to the U.S., Russia is an amateur.

 

[ralfy]

Most people on this forum don't live in some delusion that our liberal, capitalist democracies are particularly peaceful or moral countries on the international stage (although, on balance, they tend to treat their own citizens a damn sight better than most others).

But war is the result of competitiveness between nations, and has relatively little to do with intranational wealth inequality. For some of the business elites in the modern USA (bearing in mind a lot of the corporate elites do not like or benefit from war), countries since the dawn of time have had equivalent forces in society who have seen war as a way to advance their interests. And, contextually, there's a lot of evidence to suggest the postwar world, dominated by liberal, capitalist democracies, has been uncommonly peaceful.

For the USA to dismantle its military industrial complex and mind its own business would merely have the impact of removing the USA from wars, not stopping wars. Into that power vacuum other countries such as China and Russia would rush, and they would introduce their own wars and injustices in place of the USA. If the objective is to stop war across the globe, defanging the USA is not the answer, nor is merely reducing the power of the 1% in capitalist countries.

Meanwhile, the same keep calling their countries "liberal, capitalist democracies".

 

[Silvanus]

Right, as if nothing happened before 2014

If you're making any comparison between this and the extensive sanctions introduced following Russian invasion/annexation, you're onto a loser. You said the only purpose of sanctions was to "break Russia". It's entirely relevant to point out they were taken in direct response to Russian invasion.

or even right after:

Yes, that was sort of my point: that these actions tend to be taken after Russia invaded and annexed a huge chunk of Ukraine in 2014, and began funding a proxy insurgency also in 2014.

I was not defending Russia but equating Russia with the U.S., and you just unwittingly supported my argument.

That's not what you're doing, though. You're excusing and justifying Russian invasion, and parroting their war propaganda. There's nothing "unwitting" about pointing out how you're treating the two very, very differently.

Given that, I'll just keep reminding you of what you continue to ignore, which is that the same military industrial complex and Wall Street that's using Israel is also using Ukraine [...]

Compared to the U.S., Russia is an amateur.

Not in Ukraine, it isn't: Russia has the longest history of aggression in Ukraine by a gigantic margin. It is Russia that is the sole foreign country to have military bases in Ukraine prior to 2014. It is Russia that flooded Ukraine with Russian weaponry and funded insurgents, alongside disguised Russian troops, for 8 years. It is Russia that has attempted to dominate and browbeat Ukraine since the days of Empire, which it now wishes to resurrect. Russia has been brutalising Ukraine for longer than the United States has existed-- tankies tend to forget, but Russia was a European colonial Empire alongside the worst of them, and its current government intends to continue and restore that ignominious, racist dominance of its neighbours and subjects.