New Russia Sanctions Coming... in an Iran Sanctions bill!

[Shalcker]

Also I think the US is not going need too much muscle to get Europe to sign on to sanctions. (In fact, muscle may be a deterrent.) Russia's attempts to divide Europe are increasingly clear. Some of the incoming governments had just had to overcome Russian-supported opponents that they are not likely to forget. Even more important is that Russian influence itself has increasingly become an issue in those elections which may be taken to mean those governments are on an anti-Russia mandate now.

Or it might mean that there are huge rifts in society not being mended that are being exploited by Russian influence...

And pushing those rifts apart even more by cracking down on "Russian influence" will actually increase rather then decrease Russian influence.

[Deleted]

Also I think the US is not going need too much muscle to get Europe to sign on to sanctions. (In fact, muscle may be a deterrent.) Russia's attempts to divide Europe are increasingly clear. Some of the incoming governments had just had to overcome Russian-supported opponents that they are not likely to forget. Even more important is that Russian influence itself has increasingly become an issue in those elections which may be taken to mean those governments are on an anti-Russia mandate now.

The problem is that the EU's goals regarding Russia are not entirely the same as the US's.
If the US could break Russia, it probably should, if the EU could break Russia, it probably wouldn't.
It actually has to live with Russia and by breaking it, they would have to buy it, and they are not that keen on another Balkans on steroids.

[Flarelaine]

Or it might mean that there are huge rifts in society not being mended that are being exploited by Russian influence...

And pushing those rifts apart even more by cracking down on "Russian influence" will actually increase rather then decrease Russian influence.

You are correct, there are rifts being exploited. And I agree, cracking down is not necessarily the best way to mend them.

But none of that is reason enough to tolerate further interference.

[Skroe]

Or it might mean that there are huge rifts in society not being mended that are being exploited by Russian influence...

And pushing those rifts apart even more by cracking down on "Russian influence" will actually increase rather then decrease Russian influence.

Russia is already facing depreciating returns on its electioneering mischief. Never forget Putin's old KGB bosses' assessment of him: he's something of a bumbler that mistakes luck for skill, which makes him reckless.

Regardless of Trump-Russia, if there is even a hint of Russian interference in 2018 or 2020, god knows what we'd do to you in order to ruin your lives. I think once the US got started it would find it very hard to stop.

I'm honestly not sure how Russia ever comes out on top of this little game they're playing. Americans are so worked up in a tizzy over Russia that if the bombs stated falling tomorrow, it would be among the least controversial things Trump could do. The next US president is going to have to be ferociously anti-Russia.

Russia gained wide lattitude against a US that didn't take it seriously and mostly just sanctioned and ignored it. What in the blue hell is it supposed to do against a US that's awoken and actively trying to smash it?

Putin's end-game just makes no sense. There is nothing of permanence in the making here. NATO isnt going anywhere. The US isnt going anywhere. There certainly wont be a US-Russian partnership. So like what's the damn point? To get us to find ways to try and kill you people (in a manner of speaking) when before we weren't?

[Deleted]

And here ladies and gentlemen, is an example of someone who does not know the relative military might of the two countries in question.

It's more than obvious that you don't. You should not be posting in this thread.

[Flarelaine]

The problem is that the EU's goals regarding Russia are not entirely the same as the US's.
If the US could break Russia, it probably should, if the EU could break Russia, it probably wouldn't.
It actually has to live with Russia and by breaking it, they would have to buy it, and they are not that keen on another Balkans on steroids.

I concur, but something still needs to be done about Putin wanting the empire back.

[Shalcker]

Russia is already facing depreciating returns on its electioneering mischief. Never forget Putin's old KGB bosses' assessment of him: he's something of a bumbler that mistakes luck for skill, which makes him reckless.

Luck is just acting at right place at right time. Putin certainly doesn't have enough foresight to get there on his own, but once put there by stupidity of other actors he is pretty effective.

Mostly because somehow West feels it just has to downplay Russian capabilities and then acts surprised when those capabilities are actually used...

Regardless of Trump-Russia, if there is even a hint of Russian interference in 2018 or 2020, god knows what we'd do to you in order to ruin your lives. I think once the US got started it would find it very hard to stop.

I would be about 90% certain it's "another round of virtue-signalling sanctions", each less effective then previous one.

I'm honestly not sure how Russia ever comes out on top of this little game they're playing. Americans are so worked up in a tizzy over Russia that if the bombs stated falling tomorrow, it would be among the least controversial things Trump could do. The next US president is going to have to be ferociously anti-Russia.

Bombs falling on US? I would imagine US citizens would object to it quite a bit.

Russia gained wide lattitude against a US that didn't take it seriously and mostly just sanctioned and ignored it. What in the blue hell is it supposed to do against a US that's awoken and actively trying to smash it?

Why, this thing is well-researched, it is called Mutually Assured Destruction.

Still a thing.

Putin's end-game just makes no sense. There is nothing of permanence in the making here. NATO isnt going anywhere. The US isnt going anywhere. There certainly wont be a US-Russian partnership. So like what's the damn point? To get us to find ways to try and kill you people (in a manner of speaking) when before we weren't?

Your ability to do this is seriously overblown.

[Deleted]

Putin's end-game just makes no sense. There is nothing of permanence in the making here. NATO isnt going anywhere. The US isnt going anywhere. There certainly wont be a US-Russian partnership. So like what's the damn point? To get us to find ways to try and kill you people (in a manner of speaking) when before we weren't?

This is really the problem, Putin doesn't have an endgame. (he is also a touch paranoid and stuck in the past).
Because what is in the long term strategic interest of the Russian federation, is almost diametrically incompatible with the long term strategic interest of its Ruling elite.
Russia can be a global superpower of at least comparable strength to the US, (or could at least) Or, it can be a piggy bank for its elite.
Can't be both.

remember, Russia Didn't go batshit crazy over Ukraine joining NATO.
It went batshit crazy over the EU association deal.
The first, is arguably a strategic imperative for the Russian federation, the latter is not.
It is however a big problem for the oligarchic elites, and the threat to their corrupt cleptocratic administration.

Also in regards to luck, while the Crimean adventure can be classified as a success, (Pyrrhic or not) - the benefit of hindsight (and foresight) makes it abundantly clear there were easier and cheaper ways of maintaining the status quo, so id say it's a fair assessment it was a reckless overreaction.

- - - Updated - - -

I concur, but something still needs to be done about Putin wanting the empire back.

He doesn't really wan't the empire back (or well, he know's its impossible).
He would like the west to stop its grandstanding with principles in regards to the international liberal world order, and dial back that a touch - here is a good read.

[Shalcker]

This is really the problem, Putin doesn't have an endgame. (he is also a touch paranoid and stuck in the past).
Because what is in the long term strategic interest of the Russian federation, is almost diametrically incompatible with the long term strategic interest of its Ruling elite.
Russia can be a global superpower of at least comparable strength to the US, (or could at least) Or, it can be a piggy bank for its elite.
Can't be both.

Ofc Putin has "endgame" - his Custom's Union. It is slowly absorbing different countries, eventually it might even get Turkey and Iran.

He has no interest in "being global superpower" since price tag on that is high and profit isn't worth the effort (given that other superpower will furiously fight anyone threatening their turf).

remember, Russia Didn't go batshit crazy over Ukraine joining NATO.
It went batshit crazy over the EU association deal.
The first, is arguably a strategic imperative for the Russian federation, the latter is not.
It is however a big problem for the oligarchic elites, and the threat to their corrupt cleptocratic administration.

It is actually threat to that "endgame", not his "cleptocratic administration".
Yanukovich went with Custom's Union rather then EU association and got overthrown for that - despite being given better deal from economic standpoint. Putin expected EU to keep fight confined to economy sphere where he had better leverage, and they instead escalated it into "regime change".
Losing 40 million strong market was pretty hard blow to Putin's plans, so obviously he had to escalate in turn.

Also in regards to luck, while the Crimean adventure can be classified as a success, (Pyrrhic or not) - the benefit of hindsight (and foresight) makes it abundantly clear there were easier and cheaper ways of maintaining the status quo, so id say it's a fair assessment it was a reckless overreaction.

Which ways exactly do you have in mind that would be cheaper?

[Flarelaine]

He doesn't really wan't the empire back (or well, he know's its impossible).
He would like the west to stop its grandstanding with principles in regards to the international liberal world order, and dial back that a touch - here is a good read.

Good reading, but does not refute what I had in mind - Putin wanting a buffer zone of satellite states. Admittedly, my mention of empire could have been understood as direct annexations but even I do not think he should think he could get away with that.

[Deleted]

Ofc Putin has "endgame" - his Custom's Union.

yes "His" endgame, a carbon copy of the EU, Just a slight problem, you might be able to spot it.

He has no interest in "being global superpower" since price tag on that is high and profit isn't worth the effort (given that other superpower will furiously fight anyone threatening their turf).

Putin's plan is for the Eurasian Union to grow into a "powerful, supra-national union" of sovereign states like the European Union, uniting economies, legal systems, customs services, and military capabilities to form a bridge between Europe and Asia and rival the EU, the US, China, and India.

It is actually threat to that "endgame", not his "cleptocratic administration".

Yeah but the problem is that the endgame in question only exists because, it is compatible with his cleptocratic administration.
If the Russian federation had a real democratic administration (with what that entails, law and order, anti-corruption...), it would not be an EEU member, because it could be a member of the EU instead.
That's the thing, Russia and Putin understands blocks are good and powerful, It's just that if it weren't for Putin, Russia could be in a bigger and better block, instead of the corrupt Energy Exporters Union.
There is more to the story, but the big problem Russia has is its poor economy, which it has because a lack of rule of law and corruption, dealing with those two things however, is impossible with the kleptocracy depending on those things for its continued survival.

Yanukovich went with Custom's Union rather then EU association and got overthrown for that - despite being given better deal from economic standpoint. Putin expected EU to keep fight confined to economy sphere where he had better leverage, and they instead escalated it into "regime change".

Yeah, but for them (the demonstrators) it wasn't an economic question, for them it was a choice between the west, and the former soviet union.

Which ways exactly do you have in mind that would be cheaper?

Well the Dutch voted against the treaty in question.
There Putin could have managed to achieve the same thing, with no sanctions, no dead Russians, and a whole lot cheaper.

[Shalcker]

If the Russian federation had a real democratic administration (with what that entails, law and order, anti-corruption...), it would not be an EEU member, because it could be a member of the EU instead.

It wouldn't. It would have quite a bit of influence and different positions to German/French axis, and it wouldn't really work as "junior member" given overall size and population.

And EU can barely handle minor disagreements with Poland or Hungary...

Also, this argument is hilarious when you invite Ukraine which has corruption and "non-existent rule of law" turned up to eleven compared to Russia...

That's the thing, Russia and Putin understands blocks are good and powerful, It's just that if it weren't for Putin, Russia could be in a bigger and better block, instead of the corrupt Energy Exporters Union.

Except he was making every move needed to join EU. It wasn't because of Putin at all - in fact he was one of the most pro-EU/Western guy there.

But EU refused to talk where it actually mattered, and hindered multiple Russian advances into EU markets - including disrupting agreements signed before their anti-Russian laws went into force, like with "Third Energy Package". Or in case of Ukraine EU refused to have tripartite talks to resolve differences and get some assurances Russia needed to protect Russian market in case of Ukrainian Association Agreement going into force.

Noone was going to get into EU at any cost. EU is only attractive target if it's profitable and Russia will not have to surrender too much. And as you see with Brexit winning, it isn't unique position really.

There is more to the story, but the big problem Russia has is its poor economy, which it has because a lack of rule of law and corruption, dealing with those two things however, is impossible with the kleptocracy depending on those things for its continued survival.

If "rule of Law" appeared and corruption disappeared the very next day, challenges to Russian economy wouldn't change one bit. You're seriously overstating their impact. "Kleptocracy" have been curtailed quite a bit in last few years too.

Yeah, but for them (the demonstrators) it wasn't an economic question, for them it was a choice between the west, and the former soviet union.

Which is false narrative. Corruption and human rights only got worse in Ukraine after revolution; you didn't see people being shot in broad daylight or blown up quite as often before it too...

Well the Dutch voted against the treaty in question.

And then their parliament ratified it anyway, ignoring referendum results...

There Putin could have managed to achieve the same thing, with no sanctions, no dead Russians, and a whole lot cheaper.

No, sorry.

In fact Ukraine is still not "lost" as far as Russia is concerned, and time is on Putin's side as far as their eventual "return" goes - just like it happened after their previous "Orange Revolution".

Only this time Ukraine will have no leverage at all having lost their gas transit status and Crimea.

And sanctions actually provided political will to finally pursue diversification and support of local industries rather then simply go with "we'll sell EU oil and gas and buy everything needed from them"; something that is going to be quite beneficial to Russian economy medium-term.

[schwarzkopf]

Stupid. The USA is a functional state

LOL. I made no comment about the functionality of the USA, I was indeed making a comment about the lack of functionality of capitalism.

However, given you brought it up .... the US federal government hasn't functioned in almost 8 years, it is mere years away from failing itself to the same extent or worse than Greece has.

[Mittens]

LOL. I made no comment about the functionality of the USA, I was indeed making a comment about the lack of functionality of capitalism.

However, given you brought it up .... the US federal government hasn't functioned in almost 8 years, it is mere years away from failing itself to the same extent or worse than Greece has.

Saying that the USA is the the capitalist equivalent of socialism in Venezuela is the stupid part of your argument.

Also:

However, given you brought it up .... the US federal government hasn't functioned in almost 8 years, it is mere years away from failing itself to the same extent or worse than Greece has.

You are going to have to prove this, since that is a massive [citation required] statement.

[Shaderas]

Because he's a pure american product. Retarded, brainwashed, without any critical thinking. I bet he sometimes go to bed thinking "Why do most of the world hate us", "Why are we the most hated country in the world ?" without having the slightest clue about why or maybe thinking it's just jealousy.

No, actually he's very intelligent... which is potentially more dangerous. If you wanted to make a more accurate statement, you could call him misguided, if you disagree with him.

I don't agree with everything Skroe says 100%, but he does raise some interesting points. Also, I don't think he cares if the world hates us with regards to what he is proposing to do to Russia.

[Skroe]

This is really the problem, Putin doesn't have an endgame. (he is also a touch paranoid and stuck in the past).
Because what is in the long term strategic interest of the Russian federation, is almost diametrically incompatible with the long term strategic interest of its Ruling elite.
Russia can be a global superpower of at least comparable strength to the US, (or could at least) Or, it can be a piggy bank for its elite.
Can't be both.

remember, Russia Didn't go batshit crazy over Ukraine joining NATO.
It went batshit crazy over the EU association deal.
The first, is arguably a strategic imperative for the Russian federation, the latter is not.
It is however a big problem for the oligarchic elites, and the threat to their corrupt cleptocratic administration.

Also in regards to luck, while the Crimean adventure can be classified as a success, (Pyrrhic or not) - the benefit of hindsight (and foresight) makes it abundantly clear there were easier and cheaper ways of maintaining the status quo, so id say it's a fair assessment it was a reckless overreaction.

Yep pretty spot on (although Russia could never be a global superpower this day in age if it tried... not populous and rich enough).

I think the most important point in your post, that deserves to be repeated, is that Putin regards the greatest threat to his regime as the EU. Ukraine / Crimea started, as Ukraine and the EU started getting uncomfortably close for Russia, after a decade of the EU moving Eastward. Talk about NATO is at best, secondary because what happens to Ukraine as a part of the EU matters oh so much more than what happens to Ukraine as a part of NATO.

The Russians spent plenty of time obscuring that because railing about NATO makes them assume their traditional approach that dates to the cold war, where Russians are just fellow Europeans trying to kick a nosy, aggressive power from across the Atlantic back there so Europeans can deal with their problems as Europeans (read: under Russian thralldom). But America was only ever a bit-player in terms of geopolitical threat to Russia nowdays, compared to what a EU in the image of Merkel, would be.

This is also why Russia is completely screwed, as you illustrated, because even if it ran the board and pulled a number of other countries into it's customs union, it would still be a fraction the size and power and wealth of the EU, and still sandwiched between China and the EU in Eurasia, with America everywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

No, actually he's very intelligent... which is potentially more dangerous. If you wanted to make a more accurate statement, you could call him misguided, if you disagree with him.

I don't agree with everything Skroe says 100%, but he does raise some interesting points. Also, I don't think he cares if the world hates us with regards to what he is proposing to do to Russia.

My psychology in this regard is pretty straightforward.

Do right by the United States (which emphatically does NOT mean do what we said all the time), and we should treat you well.

Be a friend to the United States, and we should be a friend back to you tenfold.

Hurt the United States, and we should take everything you hold dear from you, and then proceed to break every bone in your body as you watch helplessly as we do it.

Reality of course, has brought upon quite a different approach.
-America has treated plenty of countries that treated it decently with needless and counter-productive contempt
-The US has been an utterly shit ally at various points over the past 20 years. Yeah sure we spend 3.5% of GDP on defense... but we also periodically give our friends 1% of the respect they're entitled to.
-The United States has turned the other cheek so many times it's created mythologies as to why it is turning the other cheek.


Call it the Skroe corollary to the Big Stick policy: "Talk softly and carry a big stick, with barbed nails in it". I do think, at one level, the "Unipolar moment" and the War on Terror have overexposed America in a sense. Part of it was also because of Obama's overzealous infatuation with transparency. There is far less strategic ambiguity in what America will or will not do in response to things. Russia interfered in 2016 because they were confident little of consequence would come of it.

Trump aside, I've long felt we need to return to that ambiguity is essential to perpetuating American power.

Going after Russia is a golden opportunity to do that. Make America a little feared again. If we go after Russia with nearly every non-military means at our disposal, it'll send a message loud and clear to our adversaries around the world: none of you are safe.

[Tijuana]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ns-iran-239268

That Congress wants to impose new sanctions is not a surprise. But how they're doing it... as an ammendment to the Iran sanctions bill, is so hysterically cunning, I'm genuinely impressed.

The Senate is basically saying "We dare you, Trump... we double dare you, to veto these Iran sanctions".



General reminder that Russia is our enemy and that regardless of what happens with Trump or Flynn or whoever else, we have to find new and creative ways of making them pay for what they did, for years and years to come.

No peace, no friendship with Russia.

What makes you think that would impact Trump, in any way? Why would he care if Russia gets sanctions, exactly?

- - - Updated - - -

LOL. I made no comment about the functionality of the USA, I was indeed making a comment about the lack of functionality of capitalism.

However, given you brought it up .... the US federal government hasn't functioned in almost 8 years, it is mere years away from failing itself to the same extent or worse than Greece has.

What does that even mean? Are you saying the IRS isn't on the job? Are you saying the parks department has not opened the parks this year? Are you saying the FBI is not investigating anything? WTF does this statement even mean???

[Deleted]

Canada and Russia should swap places. That way America and Russia can bash each others skulls in all they want in North America, separated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans.
And Europe would have eternal peace at last, with only Canada as their big eastern neighbor.

[Skroe]

Luck is just acting at right place at right time. Putin certainly doesn't have enough foresight to get there on his own, but once put there by stupidity of other actors he is pretty effective.

Russia's strategic position today as deeply eroded since 2007, all because of what Putin has done. This is EXACTLY what his KGB superiors were talking about. He got lucky, at certain discerete events that played into his plan for his regime. But taking a step back, Russian national security, economic security and political security was in a far more secure place a decade ago than today. That is what mistaking "luck for skill" looks like.

Mostly because somehow West feels it just has to downplay Russian capabilities and then acts surprised when those capabilities are actually used...

No. Russian capabilities are by in large, exactly the worthless trash we discuss them as.

Putin exploited the key strategic weakness of the American people and American political class: the delusion that everybody in the world wants to live like Americans do, and everybody thinks like Americans do, so serious countries (like Russia) would never do the kind of things that would put that kind of life at risk.

During the Cold War, Americans took the USSR deadly seriously, probably because the generation of Americans that predominantly fought the Cold War spent their youth in the Great Depression and then fighting in World War II.

The American public today today have never taken China's threat seriously despite over a decade and a half of very clear warnings about where that is going. It's never taken Russia's threat seriously enough to do anything about it (until now of course), despite a decade of very clear warnings about where relations were heading.

The fear of the "incompatible with the lives we live" islamic terrorism has crowded out taking seriously threats from countries that in many was, look a great deal more like us in how they live their lives than ISIS does.

Putin correctly diagnosed Americans: we got so much to lose that we're self deluding about the fragility of our dominion because protecting it could mean great suffering... or hell just puncturing our image of ourselves. I'm refering to something specific here: I read an article a few years back about how the political elite in America today regard nuclear weapons compared to 40 years. 40 years ago it was "we need them to defend Western liberalism". Today? It's basically embarassment that we have them and such things exist in the world. Because it undercuts a rationalist worldview that everybody - the American, the Russian, the Chinese, the North Korea - have a list of wants and can reach mutally satisfactory out comes.

In other words zero-sum geopolitics is the American people and political class' gigantic blindspot. Putin has been operating, for years, on a zero-sum agenda while we have intentionally tried to avoid even recognizing that that is a legitimate approach. That is why he's been "successful".

But what happens when America starts playing that game? That's why I said Putin's endgame makes no sense. It only works so long as the US between now and infinity, doesn't change it's approach to try and actively screw Russia.

I would be about 90% certain it's "another round of virtue-signalling sanctions", each less effective then previous one.

Wrong. European Sanctions have hit the broader Russian economy. US Sanctions have hit his ruling regime's inner circle hard, because they stash their money in London and New York City.

You know who doesn't regard it as virtue signalling? Putin's crony's.

Bombs falling on US? I would imagine US citizens would object to it quite a bit.

I was referring to Russia and it was a figure of speech.

Why, this thing is well-researched, it is called Mutually Assured Destruction.

The Only MAD Russia has is with nuclear weapons, under certain scenarios. And who is talking about a nuclear war with Russia? I'm thinking salami tactics.

Your ability to do this is seriously overblown.

You know, I love this line. I really do.

After Vietnam, the Soviets thought the same thing. Then the Gulf War happened and laid bare how far behind the Soviet Empire was compared to the West. The Soviet Union was gone inside of a year (for other reasons of course).

After the Somalia, Al Qaeda and Islamic Terrorists across the world thought the same... that the "US wouldn't do shit" in response to attacks. They got the War in Afghanistan for their trouble, and followed shortly after by the Iraq War (which had nothing to do with terrorism but was a major US deployment). It turned out that, yes, the US would do quite a bit.

After chasing the ghost of Osama bin Laden for a decade and our inability to get him becoming an object of mockery for America, what happened? The US deployed two stealth helicopters that weren't supposed to exist yet to drop a SEAL team to kill him in the dead of night, in the middle of Pakistan, down the street from a Pakistani military base, without Pakistani approval. Suddenly the story of Obama bin Laden went from punchline about the limits of American power to a timeless tale about the patient persistence of American wrath.

Your line here has lead countless enemies of America to their death. Enemies who historically has under-estimated America's reach because they think they are safe.

Russia will pay so dearly for 2016. In a time and place of America's choosing. The political class despises Russia. The military is reflexively anti-Russian. The Intelligence community despises Russia. And most of all, the American people are overwhelmingly anti-Russian.

Tell me, how does this end well for you?

[Deleted]

Russia will pay so dearly for 2016. In a time and place of America's choosing.

Shouldn't America pay dearly for 1953, in a time and place of Iran's choosing? Or any of the other countrys regimes they ilegally overthrew? Such hypocricy, you can't even take your own medicine.