Trump administration still not enforcing Russia sanctions

[Cthulhu 2020]

You still got to deal with him, and you still need to cooperate with him in many things.

Cock blocking Trump has been working well. Why cooperate with him when we can just do things that make him rage on twitter?

[Warning]

So? There aren't many countries in the world not affected by results of US blood-thirstiness; plenty aren't affected by Russian, however.

It is irrelevant. You seem to think it is funny, but in truth it is just sad.

You still got to deal with him, and you still need to cooperate with him in many things.

You've got a sense of melancholy about you these days Shalcker. Do take care not to strain yourself at the farm ;p. If you're feeling out of it come visit western europe for a few days, we don't like your corrupt government but you're still quite welcome. I know this might come across like a jab but it's not meant like that.

[Shalcker]

Cock blocking Trump has been working well. Why cooperate with him when we can just do things that make him rage on twitter?

How does Trump raging on Twitter makes anything better really? Who made that worthy goal instead of actual activism?

All the problems that existed before Trump (including those that got him elected) are still there, and moralizing "how Trump is horrible" and provoking him to tweet isn't going to solve them.

Just like moralizing "how Putin is horrible" isn't going to solve all the problems Russia faces (nor problem people outside have with Russia in general). Just saying "there is corruption in government!" isn't going to solve corruption either. Openness isn't solution when everyone is already aware of what you're trying to bring to light, but feel powerless to stop anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

I dunno if he has ever denied it. He thinks it is all good as long as it benefits the regime.

As long as it benefits country, not regime.

[Warning]

How does Trump raging on Twitter makes anything better really? Who made that worthy goal instead of actual activism?

All the problems that existed before Trump (including those that got him elected) are still there, and moralizing "how Trump is horrible" and provoking him to tweet isn't going to solve them.

Just like moralizing "how Putin is horrible" isn't going to solve all the problems Russia faces (nor problem people outside have with Russia in general). Just saying "there is corruption in government!" isn't going to solve corruption either. Openness isn't solution when everyone is already aware of what you're trying to bring to light, but feel powerless to stop anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as it benefits country, not regime.

I'm definitely sympathetic when you say resisting a dictator can be terribly hard, and that a single person can feel powerless to do so. But your comments about repeatedly uttering these criticisms of Putin and Trump or anyone in power, are not entirely correct. There IS value in repeatedly opposing narratives and pointing out corruption, because the perception that one has power alone is enough to grant power. More people viewing Putin as a corrupt piece of shit weakens his ability to act both internationally and nationally. You don't have to believe me when I say this, but I guarantee you that all dictators like hm do: otherwise they wouldn't be putting out propaganda to make them look great and strong or trying to suppress critics at home and abroad.

They look untouchable, until they're not.

[Shalcker]

I'm definitely sympathetic when you say resisting a dictator can be terribly hard, and that a single person can feel powerless to do so. But your comments about repeatedly uttering these criticisms of Putin and Trump or anyone in power, are not entirely correct. There IS value in repeatedly opposing narratives and pointing out corruption, because the perception that one has power alone is enough to grant power.

Undermining power doesn't necessarily leads to empowering society; it just as often (or perhaps even more often) leads to disintegration.

You can not just criticize existing approaches, got to have some of your own that are seen as better. You need to create better view of society shared by others, and then carve path of transition. Preferably gradual, non-violent transition, using existing structures without dismantling them.

But you aren't going to like non-Putin result either. Because that is going to be return to new-era Communists, not your democratic and free speech utopia.

More people viewing Putin as a corrupt piece of shit weakens his ability to act both internationally and nationally.

It's not one-way street. Putin also can and does react to it and negates those views one way or another - by subterfuge, by force, or by actual better proposals then those offered by his opponents (and he does make a lot more sense internationally then US "regime change").

You don't have to believe me when I say this, but I guarantee you that all dictators like hm do: otherwise they wouldn't be putting out propaganda to make them look great and strong or trying to suppress critics at home and abroad.

No dictatorship is "pure" nowdays.
People who think that "leader should look great and strong" exist everywhere, and every country tries to cater to it.
Trying to suppress critics at home and abroad is also common - hell, Putin acts as "critic abroad" to US, and US certainly tries to suppress him spreading his opinion using RT.

They look untouchable, until they're not.

That moment isn't now.

[DisposableHero]

As long as it benefits country, not regime.

When the dust settles on Trump-Russia and the balance of those actions comes due, you will likely find that very very few of Putin's actions have benefited Russia and its people in the long run.

[Shalcker]

When the dust settles on Trump-Russia and the balance of those actions comes due, you will likely find that very very few of Putin's actions have benefited Russia and its people in the long run.

In the long run US is irrelevant and China is all that matters... and China is right on our border.

Aligning with failing empire that spent years and billions of dollars limiting Russian influence (5 billion on Ukraine alone) and expanding NATO to Russian borders wasn't going to work either way.

That conflict forced him to make tough decisions and break some exploitative EU and US links and diversify into China is already net positive. He did try to weasel out of it, but given no other choice he did what was right.

[GennGreymane]

I was told a long time ago by familiar faces, worn out faces, that the sanctions were a joke and would never impact Russia

[Shalcker]

I was told a long time ago by familiar faces, worn out faces, that the sanctions were a joke and would never impact Russia

Noone said sanctions will have no impact; only that they'll certainly fail to obtain their stated goals.

Which is still true to this day.

[GennGreymane]

Noone said sanctions will have no impact; only that they'll certainly fail to obtain their stated goals.

Which is still true to this day.

Odd
I remember being told different by a very familiar face.

[Shalcker]

Odd
I remember being told different by a very familiar face.

I actually checked a few months ago and nope, things i said in Autumn 2014 went pretty much exactly as predicted - economic drop in 2015-2016, small growth in 2017, no (Western-positive) political changes resulting from sanctions.

[GennGreymane]

I actually checked a few months ago and nope, things i said in Autumn 2014 went pretty much exactly as predicted - economic drop in 2015-2016, small growth in 2017, no (Western-positive) political changes resulting from sanctions.

Who said months?

[Cthulhu 2020]

How does Trump raging on Twitter makes anything better really? Who made that worthy goal instead of actual activism?

All the problems that existed before Trump (including those that got him elected) are still there, and moralizing "how Trump is horrible" and provoking him to tweet isn't going to solve them.

Just like moralizing "how Putin is horrible" isn't going to solve all the problems Russia faces (nor problem people outside have with Russia in general). Just saying "there is corruption in government!" isn't going to solve corruption either. Openness isn't solution when everyone is already aware of what you're trying to bring to light, but feel powerless to stop anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as it benefits country, not regime.

As much as Trump raging on twitter is not ideal, the answer to this is simple. Trying to work with him seems to be akin to working with a 5 year old. A bigoted, racist, greedy 5 year old. So basically, his twitter tantrums (which lower his approval rating even among his base, which makes them a good thing for next election) are far preferable to "working with" Trump, considering his idea of everyone working with him is him getting his way and nobody else getting anything they want.

[Shalcker]

Who said months?

I checked my messages from 2014 this year. In response to similar claim. Sorry, but it went pretty much exactly as predicted in Autumn 2014 (when oil drop was obvious).

Lighter predictions were warranted before that.

And there were no sanctions before 2014.

[GennGreymane]

I checked my messages from 2014 this year. In response to similar claim. Sorry, but it went pretty much exactly as predicted in Autumn 2014 (when oil drop was obvious).

Lighter predictions were warranted before that.

And there were no sanctions before 2014.

Uh huh
Sure thing. Not talking about this year. Its funny you know exactly what im talking about though

[Warning]

You can not just criticize existing approaches, got to have some of your own that are seen as better. You need to create better view of society shared by others, and then carve path of transition. Preferably gradual, non-violent transition, using existing structures without dismantling them.

But you aren't going to like non-Putin result either. Because that is going to be return to new-era Communists, not your democratic and free speech utopia.

Here lies the issue, I think the cynically stated "democratic and free speech utopia" is indeed a preferable alternative. Your adamant denial that a brighter future than Putin's Russia or some decay into anarchy is a possibility for Russia is unnecessarily pessimistic. It's also something I see more often, like a cultural phenomenon that probably has its roots in the general disillusion that followed the end of the Soviet Union combined with some solid pieces of state propaganda aimed at maintaining the status quo. Tell me why Russia couldn't do better? Are its' people so different from their western European neighbors? I have not seen it. Russians I've met in real life seemed rather logical and down to earth.

[Shalcker]

Here lies the issue, I think the cynically stated "democratic and free speech utopia" is indeed a preferable alternative.

It isn't, actually - not without plenty of caveats and requisite society building. Every country is in different circumstances with different "memes" floating through public consciousness. It is certainly not going to happen by declaration - or by people who proclaim "Yeah, free speech is great!" while in the same breath saying "Yeah, totally support jailing those nationalists/jihadis for their extremist literature!"

Not for extremist acts, literature alone - our "human right defenders" were ones who proposed Article 282, persecution for broad "incitement of hatred"...

Your adamant denial that a brighter future than Putin's Russia or some decay into anarchy is a possibility for Russia is unnecessarily pessimistic. It's also something I see more often, like a cultural phenomenon that probably has its roots in the general disillusion that followed the end of the Soviet Union combined with some solid pieces of state propaganda aimed at maintaining the status quo. Tell me why Russia couldn't do better? Are its' people so different from their western European neighbors? I have not seen it. Russians I've met in real life seemed rather logical and down to earth.

But future by Communist proposals can be better alternative.

It can be seen as more just then repeat of Western 1% system, and set up possibility of finally breaking down oligarchical control (source of plenty of corruption hindering other social aspects).

Why try to do better then West at Democracy (where West has plenty of advantages to beat down any possible contenders) when we can do better at socially-oriented society under new Communist control instead? Got to have priorities straight - country for people, not for oligarchs.

Any liberal/free speech alternative is going to protect oligarchs instead, supporting extreme inequality - just like Putin does now.

[Warning]

It isn't, actually - not without plenty of caveats and requisite society building. Every country is in different circumstances with different "memes" floating through public consciousness. It is certainly not going to happen by declaration - or by people who proclaim "Yeah, free speech is great!" while in the same breath saying "Yeah, totally support jailing those nationalists/jihadis for their extremist literature!"

Not for extremist acts, literature alone - our "human right defenders" were ones who proposed Article 282, persecution for broad "incitement of hatred"...

But future by Communist proposals can be better alternative.

It can be seen as more just then repeat of Western 1% system, and set up possibility of finally breaking down oligarchical control (source of plenty of corruption hindering other social aspects).

Why try to do better then West at Democracy (where West has plenty of advantages to beat down any possible contenders) when we can do better at socially-oriented society under new Communist control instead? Got to have priorities straight - country for people, not for oligarchs.

Any liberal/free speech alternative is going to protect oligarchs instead, supporting extreme inequality - just like Putin does now.

By all means then comrade make it so, I am all too happy to see that you managed to spend at least part of your writing vigor in this post sketching out a hopeful future for Russia, rather than only trying to talk down on western systems.

One small criticism though, I don't believe all western democracies are anywhere near as homogenous as you make them seem, nor are they in competition of being "the best at democracy". German democracy is different from French democracy, Dutch democracy and Greek democracy. All of them are also quite different from American democracy, though of course at some level they are also the same. They all work well enough for their respective peoples, and where they don't changes are made. I would expect the same to apply should a true Russian democracy be formed.

[Breccia]

An article you may have missed: Mnuchin is actively against sanctions, claiming, basically, Russia is too big to fail.

The U.S. Treasury Department said in a report submitted to Congress this week that expanding sanctions on Russia to include new sovereign debt would have “negative spillover effects” on global financial markets and businesses.

Given Russia’s large economy and deep connections to world markets, widening debt-related sanctions could hurt “both the Russian Federation and U.S. investors and businesses,” said the report, submitted to Congress on Monday and obtained by Reuters on Friday.

Russian government bonds, known as OFZs, rallied on the news of Treasury’s position. Investors in OFZ bonds, popular for their lucrative yields, have been on alert about new sanctions recently and have bought Russian debt for fear of losing access to it in the future.

Given Russia’s large economy and deep connections to world markets, widening debt-related sanctions could hurt “both the Russian Federation and U.S. investors and businesses,” said the report, submitted to Congress on Monday and obtained by Reuters on Friday.

Russian government bonds, known as OFZs, rallied on the news of Treasury’s position. Investors in OFZ bonds, popular for their lucrative yields, have been on alert about new sanctions recently and have bought Russian debt for fear of losing access to it in the future.

While Treasury’s memo does not make any recommendation for or against future sanctions, the congressionally mandated report repeatedly cites the risk that expanded measures could harm U.S. investors.

The memo, which was first reported by Bloomberg, said that strengthening sanctions on sovereign debt could put downward pressure on Russian economic growth, increase the strain on the banking sector and “lead to Russian retaliation against U.S. interests” and could affect the “competitiveness of large U.S. asset managers.”

The United States imposed sanctions on Russia to punish Moscow over its 2014 annexation of Crimea. The sanctions targeted some of the most important sectors of the Russian economy by limiting U.S. financing available to some of Russia’s most powerful energy enterprises and banks.

For example, last year Washington toughened restrictions on energy giants like Gazprom and Lukoil, prohibiting U.S. banks from issuing them new debt with longer than 60-day maturity.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told lawmakers at a hearing on Tuesday that new sanctions would eventually be imposed on Russia in response to Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election.

A Treasury spokesman said in an emailed reply to questions that while expanding the debt sanctions even more would hurt Russia, it could also “hinder U.S. business in both the financial sector and real economy and potentially disrupt global markets.”

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday published a list of 210 Russians, including 96 so-called oligarchs worth $1 billion or more, as required under a sanctions law passed by Congress.

It did not, however, immediately impose any new penalties on them, drawing criticism from senior Democrats in Congress, who accused Trump of being soft on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Red text for most important word in the article.

That boldfaced is just a reminder: Trump came up with that list months after the due date, and also, it was basically copied from Forbes.

So there you have it. We can't sanction Russia, because it might hurt people trying to invest in Russia. Which, silly me, I thought was kind of implied when Russia was being singled out as a hostile power.

[Edge-]

Negative spillover effect on "global financial markets"? I thought we didn't care about "global X" anymore and it was "American first!" now. Is Mnuchin secretly a (((globalist))) cuck? Has he successfully cucked Trump and turned him into a (((globalist))) to while they were at Davos?

Inquiring minds must know!