Sanctioning russia has cost EU countries €30bn

[pateuvasiliu]

I assume this is sarcasm.

It's not. How did it?

[Deleted]

It's not. How did it?

terror attacks, islamic state, fugees, distrust in the state (lying to go to war in the UK), distrust in media (WMDs), mass spying...i mean shall i keep going or?


The political priority in Russia should be to reverse the privitisation that led to the rise of Putin and the Oligarchs.

[Deleted]

Depends on the leadership. If the Russians manage to replace their shit-leaders who are you to say there can never be a productive relationship? I never said that it is not looking bleak now...quite the contrary, as a matter of fact.

For Skroe it doesn't.
As far as the US is concerned, Russia is the last contender (lets not get into whether or not that's accurate) that's irrespective of leadership.
In fact the US would be worse of if Russia was a 'perfect' democracy, because then the EU would tell the US to go fuck itself, and Russia would be in a much better position (the irony of all the putinistas is of course that the door to good EU relations was wide open in 2000, it's Putin that's closed it).

- - - Updated - - -

USA didn't invade any country next to the EU.

There aren't US troops in Afghanistan right now?

- - - Updated - - -

USA didn't invade any country next to the EU.

Also, they haven't left Germany yet...

[Tackhisis]

Russia invaded part of Ukraine in 2014.

Which part of Ukraine?

[Deleted]

Seeing the posts here arguing against the sanctions it seems that the sanctions are felt by Russia.
If it really costs €30bn it's worth it, but based on the problems with doing business in Russia (due to corruption) I'm not certain that the numbers are correct.

It's also debatable whether or not it's actually meaningful because while Russia is a "democracy" those sanctions do not in fact meaningfully impact the ruling elite (naturally just hurting Russians have an effect on the capabilities of the Russian state), what would work (this is of course also being done) is wide ranging asset seizures, freezes and other sanctions to their money - but those sanctions are harder to get through in the EU because some - Cough UK cough, like it's money laundering housing market.

- - - Updated - - -

Which part of Ukraine?

The part it annexed from the Ottoman Empire in 1783.

[Player Twelve]

For Skroe it doesn't.
As far as the US is concerned, Russia is the last contender (lets not get into whether or not that's accurate) that's irrespective of leadership.
In fact the US would be worse of if Russia was a 'perfect' democracy, because then the EU would tell the US to go fuck itself, and Russia would be in a much better position (the irony of all the putinistas is of course that the door to good EU relations was wide open in 2000, it's Putin that's closed it).

- - - Updated - - -



There aren't US troops in Afghanistan right now?

- - - Updated - - -



Also, they haven't left Germany yet...

Afghanistan isn't next to EU.

[AkundaMrdal]

Problem is these sanctions hurts mostly Eastern countries which are already poor. Greece is one of the most affected and it doesn't help them with their economic situation. EU is flexing muscles and Eastern countries are paying a toll.

[Deleted]

Afghanistan isn't next to EU.

it counted as 'EU' when the soviets got blamed for invading them.

[Skroe]

For Skroe it doesn't.
As far as the US is concerned, Russia is the last contender (lets not get into whether or not that's accurate) that's irrespective of leadership.
In fact the US would be worse of if Russia was a 'perfect' democracy, because then the EU would tell the US to go fuck itself, and Russia would be in a much better position (the irony of all the putinistas is of course that the door to good EU relations was wide open in 2000, it's Putin that's closed it).

- - - Updated - - -

Correct, I have no interest in any kind of production relationship with Russia ever again. The US tried that. It didn't work out. We would be fools to try it again.

Russia must be kept on its knees.

There aren't US troops in Afghanistan right now?

The US invaded Afghanistan as part of our UN-sanctioned retaliation for 9/11. Process matters.

Also, they haven't left Germany yet...

At the invitation of the German government. Also it's worth noting that their being there is a consequence of Germany losing the largest war in human history, a war it started. And the fact that Germany is a major industrial power and not an agrarian society is due in no small part because the victors of this war that Germany started were far more merciful than Germans were to their neighbors. US presence there should be a monument to not pick fights with greater powers. Germany did with the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States. And it lost everything.

Russia picked a fight with the United States and European Union, whose combined GDP is 34 times that of Russia, and whose combined population is 7 times that of Russia. Russia too, is losing everything.

- - - Updated - - -

Ever? What about if younger Russians get tired of being a pariah nation and throw off Putin and co., then institute a true democracy in Russia? Still no peace?

Oh that old chestnut. You want to go down that road again? Like really? So what? We can experience crushing disappointment and betrayal again when 30 years out these young Russians start to experience hardship and pain pain comes that comes with essential reforms that they so desperately need, again turn to the Autocrat du jour? Like they have repeatedly in the last 150 years?

Russia is conceptually an existential threat to the West. It is an artificial Empire with artificial borders sandwiched between natural territorial boundaries. It's expansion and growth of power has come exclusively to the detriment of its neighbors, neighbors who happen to be our allies and vital partners now. Russia has played a zero sum game with the US for a century. It's past time we do the same and drop any pretense of mutual cooperation. Either with thrive, or they do.

So no. Russians should not get another chance. We should keep them poor and keep them weak and undermine their security on an ongoing basis. The people on their immediate border and "near abroad", what Russia sees as its rightful domain - the European Union, our Arab allies, or Asian allies - are more valuable to us than 140 million people who have been untrustworthy disappointments for generations. We should not expect that to change in the future. Fundamentally, something must change with Russian culture and the very fabric of Russian society, for it to ever be worthy of our friendship or trust ever again.

Absent that would be absolutely out of our minds to one day get suckered by yet another generation of Russians saying the right things. "Trust but verify" is dead.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on the leadership. If the Russians manage to replace their shit-leaders who are you to say there can never be a productive relationship? I never said that it is not looking bleak now...quite the contrary, as a matter of fact.

I am genuinly curious, if you even oppose my statement that it would be preferable to have a Russia we could talk with, then what is your desired fate of Russia and its citizens? Would you see them gone? Impoverished? Divided? As a chinese puppet state? In perpetual decline (seems like current route)?

I might be strange, but I dont consider Russians inherently evil, inferior or doomed to fail. Certainly, there are other, uhm clans, upon this Earth whose ideas of society fit aforementioned adjectives better.

My preferred outcome for Russia is a Yugoslavia-style break-up and a 40% reduction of standard of living. This is not an irrational thought. Let me explain.

Why does the United States and Russia have 1550 nuclear weapons (and thousands more in storage) and the UK have about 160, China around 200 and France around 200? Why doesn't China have around 1500? The answer is the United States and Soviet Union (which built most of those weapons Russia inherited) had enormous populations and resources to draw from to sustain an enormous nuclear apparatus. The UK and France never did. China, which until recently was poor, never did, and now rich, are not terribly interested in taking upon a new major source of defense spending.

Nuclear Arsenals are in other words, tremendously expensive to own on a continuous basis. Russia is only able to afford it's arsenal, a fraction of the USSR's size, because cuts under START I, SORT and NewSTART have allowed it to downscale its arsenal to a point it is commensurate with its taxbase to pay for it (and it's still barely affordable for them). In a perfect world, Russia would like to see even deeper cuts with the US, to maintain strategic parity but not spend as much money every year to maintain it.


Russia's nuclear arsenal is the only existential threat to the United States there is. The Chinese and North Korean arsenals are not large enough or advanced enough to remotely threaten, or even seriously damage the United States (China has enough modern warheads to destroy about two or three major cities... the US has many more than that). If the US wants to protect itself for good, it must disarm Russia.

And the best way to do that is to make them poorer and poorer. Russia's population of 140 million people and oil revenues support Russia's 1550 + reserve arsenal. Now consider if Russia were partitioned to smaller countries, the largest being around 30 or 40 million people, with a far smaller tax base and far smaller oil revenues. Could it support 1500 warheads? Of course not. It would be forced to engage in significant cuts or give up its arsenal. We experienced just this when Soviet successor states like Ukraine and Kazakhstan transferred the arsenal they found themselves holding to Russia after 1992.

The US can sustain its far more economical arsenal indefinitely due to our stable financial outlook and immense wealth. A balkanized Russia would have to demobilize enormous parts of its arsenal, exactly as it did last time, because it could to afford to keep the industrial base of the arsenal in business (something it already can barely afford). And the successor states will be unwilling and financially unable to set up their own. Maybe one country keeps a rump arsenal of 100-200 weapons? In which case the threat to the US is no-longer existential and numerically would be extraordinarily vulnerable to US first strike or interception. MAD, already teetering because Russia has under-invested compared to the United States, would be dead for good.

That is how you disarm Russia and beat them once and for all. Not through some kind of ridiculous invasion. But through economics. That is what I would like to see.

As for the effects of this on every day Russians, I don't care. Russia's attack on the US in 2016 was an attack on our families, our people, our very being. Everything that happens next is fully deserved. They attack our families, we attack theirs.

If Russia wants to avoid this, they can unilaterally disarm and Vladmir Putin can surrender himself to the international community for prosecution, which of course, are ridiculous demands to make of Russia that they could never actually do. But that's what a way out looks like as far as I'm concerned. Fact is, Russia in the 19th century, 20th century and 21st century have been three hugely different variations on the same theme riven by civil war and totalitarianism, while the United States has been on one, consistent developmental direction. There is no reason to think the "next Russia" won't be equally as different. We should make sure it works for us. If it works for Russians isn't really relevant anymore.

Russia should have known better than to pick a fight with a greater power.

[pateuvasiliu]

terror attacks, islamic state, fugees, distrust in the state (lying to go to war in the UK), distrust in media (WMDs), mass spying...i mean shall i keep going or?

None of those are a direct threat to Europe. ISIS will never be a threat. Refugees are Europe's own fault and I'm still wondering why the fuck we agreed to it.

Spies, WMDs, distrust would've happened without the Iraq invasion too.

- - - Updated - - -

There aren't US troops in Afghanistan right now?

- - - Updated - - -



Also, they haven't left Germany yet...

Why would they? US and the EU are military allies in NATO.

[Skandulous]

i see Baba yaga has been under Skroes bed again

[Pengekaer]

Russia picked a fight with the United States and European Union, whose combined GDP is 34 times that of Russia, and whose combined population is 7 times that of Russia. Russia too, is losing everything.

Cant argue with that.

My preferred outcome for Russia is a Yugoslavia-style break-up and a 40% reduction of standard of living. This is not an irrational thought. Let me explain.

Why does the United States and Russia have 1550 nuclear weapons (and thousands more in storage) and the UK have about 160, China around 200 and France around 200? Why doesn't China have around 1500? The answer is the United States and Soviet Union (which built most of those weapons Russia inherited) had enormous populations and resources to draw from to sustain an enormous nuclear apparatus.

I can follow your logic, don't get me wrong; I don't disagree that Russia's collosal nuclear arsenal is a liability. The Kreml is alarmingly aggressive with the deployment of their nuclear-missiles (and like to vaunt it). But a much poorer or fracturing Russia.. would that be any safer with regards to the nukes? If Russia fractures, who knows what backwater places Russian scientists could go to to find "paid work". If I am not mistaken, this did to some degree happen subsequently to the fall of the Soviet Union. A recent example is the Ukranian missile parts sold off to North Korea. If Russia "turns Ukraine" as I hear you calling for, who's to say what could happen in this scenario? Could Russian missile parts, scientists etc. reach places "it arguably shouldn't?" I am thinking China, India and Iran in particular could get some "new juices".

China, which until recently was poor, never did, and now rich, are not terribly interested in taking upon a new major source of defense spending.

I am curious, what if this changes?

And the best way to do that is to make them poorer and poorer. Russia's population of 140 million people and oil revenues support Russia's 1550 + reserve arsenal. Now consider if Russia were partitioned to smaller countries, the largest being around 30 or 40 million people, with a far smaller tax base and far smaller oil revenues. Could it support 1500 warheads? Of course not.

No, but again, in that case, what would happen to the missiles, the bombs and most importantly, the know-how?

As for the effects of this on every day Russians, I don't care. Russia's attack on the US in 2016 was an attack on our families, our people, our very being. Everything that happens next is fully deserved. They attack our families, we attack theirs.

I honestly doubt the average Joe in Russia even knew of this attack before it was conducted. But you have a point, a high amount of Russians would probably think of it as a victory, of sorts.

That said, I must also point out that Google to some degree aided. I guess money comes first, justice second. ;-) (Don't get me wrong; treason like that pisses me off) . They took the money, they hosted and shared Russian made propaganda and now they try to make it look like as if they're sorry about it.
I know how it must feel. I've seen treason to the Danes happen in my own country many a time, and I am not getting less pissy about it. I've seen a reporter being arrested for wearing a Free Tibet banner when the chinese president came by a few years back... talk about working for a foreign power. :/

If it works for Russians isn't really relevant anymore.

Russia should have known better than to pick a fight with a greater power.

I can see your logic. It's just that I think exactly the same of the Gulf States and Turkey, and they have done no less than Russia to spread their venomous influence in, at least, my homeland.
I think we are at a disagreement inasmuch as to what is the greatest threat to the west. I rank Russia highly on this scale (make no mistake), but also as an entity that might reform at some point. Islam is beyound any such redemption, particularly the form it has in the Gulf States and Turkey and the billions of dollars of funds that flow from there into the worst salafist places in Europe and other parts of the world, is what I consider the greatest threat. Not due to ability (Russia is more capable) but due to money, numbers, immigration into Europe.

[Player Twelve]

it counted as 'EU' when the soviets got blamed for invading them.

Maybe by illiterate people.



Pretty damned far away from EU.

[Warning]

I can follow your logic, don't get me wrong; I don't disagree that Russia's collosal nuclear arsenal is a liability. The Kreml is alarmingly aggressive with the deployment of their nuclear-missiles (and like to vaunt it). But a much poorer or fracturing Russia.. would that be any safer with regards to the nukes?

Agree with this point, I definitely do not like the idea of multiple newly created poor and unstable regimes still ingrained with a culture of corruption getting their hands on any significant number of nukes. I am more scared of 1500 nukes spread over 15 different countries than held by a single country with a long history of dealing with red lines and MAD. I understand the argument of being able to shoot down lesser amounts of missiles but these things could end up anywhere. 9/11 changed the world but a nuke going off would be on an entirely different level.

[Pengekaer]

The great thing about reality is that you can work on more than one issue at a time.

Y'h I know rite? The European sovereign states should gear up against Russia, but simultaenously act up to the Gulf States while going all in on nuclear fission energy, like France. A much higher degree of independency inbound.

[Deleted]

The US invaded Afghanistan as part of our UN-sanctioned retaliation for 9/11. Process matters.

Sure it does, still the US has a tendency to invade places.

My preferred outcome for Russia is a Yugoslavia-style break-up and a 40% reduction of standard of living. This is not an irrational thought. Let me explain.

No it's an irrational thought, For three reasons, one, while there are sectarian and ethnic division of Russia, the majority is still ethnic Russians, and more importantly, the important parts are all ethnic Russians, so balkanization won't achieve what you want anyway.
Two, a nuclear power state going kaput would be beyond scary.
Three, and this is the most important reason, the EU will not let it happen - It currently has to run several of the broken Balkan states as de facto protectorates, it won't want to have to include Russia in this mess.

As for the effects of this on every day Russians, I don't care. Russia's attack on the US in 2016 was an attack on our families, our people, our very being. Everything that happens next is fully deserved. They attack our families, we attack theirs.

Influencing elections is an attack?
that's beyond the fucking pale man.

If Russia wants to avoid this, they can unilaterally disarm and Vladmir Putin can surrender himself to the international community for prosecution,

Sorry what crime has Putin committed?
and can we charge the entire US state department with that in such cases?

[Tijuana]

http://www.wifo.ac.at/jart/prj3/wifo...etail-view=yes

New survey from WIFO shows that EUs economic sanctions against Russia has backfired and cost european countries billions in euros due to losing income from exports.

It also shows that EU countries have had a hard time to find other buyers for the merchandise being exported, particularly during the first year of sanctions.

Thoughts on this?

They knew going in it would be harmful to them as well. It's called having morals. The fact that it harmed them makes them more noble, not less.

[Zaydin]

I can't say I blame Europe as a whole for being wary of Russia. After all, Russians oppressed half of Europe for nearly half a century with the intention of using Eastern Europe as meat shields to protect 'Mother Russia' in the event of war.

[Kreo]

I'd say take one extra step, bankrupt yourselves, Europe, so you can't trade with Russia at all.
Northern America is proud of you! Keep up the good work! Don't back down!