BREAKING: INVASION HAS BEGUN..... Putin's "3-day war"... NOW... 1 YEAR 338 DAYS ...WAGNER HEAD SAYS GROUP STANDING DOWN AFTER CLAIMS OF DEAL
- Thread starter lightbright
- Start date
I never mentioned anything about toughness on Russia I was talking about playing the long game and being smart, instead of this international PR campaign to show who is going to punish Russia in the most creative way. Do you really believe banning Russian pets from competition, tennis players or Dostoevsky is going to stop Putin? That is exactly what I call virtue signaling. Don't even talk about Europe did they stop buying or kept buying oil? Or maybe buying oil from India which is still coming .....from Russia. Absolutely no clue wtf they doing, this shit is ridiculous and I would even say embarrassingMost of the biggest "sticks" have yet to be applied while the others are escalatory in nature so I'm not really sure what you are hinting at other than that there should have been no response to the invasion. Look at the dates and scope of the sanctions imposed:
Below is a select list of sanctions issued against the Russian government, Russian companies and Russian individuals since the invasion of Ukraine began, with dates and the issuing government. This timeline will be updated as new sanctions are announced.
Gold Market Outlook
The gold sector appears well placed as inflationary pressures and geopolitical tensions support the gold price in the short term; however, pending interest-rate hikes may put downward pressure on prices through to 2026.www.spglobal.com
Also, not really sure how you can say this is driven by "virtue signaling" while simultaneously maintaining that the West has been too tough on Russia. Seems like a very contradictory position...
Now about your escalatory sanctions
US Officials Are Split Over the Next Round of Russia Sanctions
Biden administration officials are divided over how much further the US can push sanctions against Russia without sparking global economic instability and fracturing transatlantic unity.
While President Joe Biden’s team rallied behind behind a sanctions plan it rolled out just after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the debate is more heated now that President Vladimir Putin has shrugged off the early economic penalties and is forging ahead with his war, according to officials familiar with the discussions.
The people, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, said factions have emerged over how hard to push. One group, which includes many officials at the State Department and White House, advocates even stricter measures known as secondary sanctions in response to Russian atrocities, arguing opposition from allies can be overcome.
Another group of officials, many based at Janet Yellen’s Treasury Department, worry about further strains on a global economy already suffering from supply-chain woes, inflation, volatile oil prices and a potential food crisis. Some fret about the looming midterm elections and Democrats’ chances if prices at the pump stay high. They argue for a different, untested approach: a cap on oil prices that would allow countries to buy Russian energy while limiting Moscow’s income.
“We’re now just coming up to the limit of how severely you can impose sanctions against a major economy without it having such bad spillover effects that you are creating a ton of bushfires elsewhere,” said Nicholas Mulder, a Cornell University professor and author of “The Economic Weapon,” a history of sanctions policy.
The challenges have been exacerbated by the departure of Daleep Singh, the deputy national security adviser who was managing the administration’s sanctions rollout, according to one person familiar with the internal dynamics.
Singh had also visited India as part of US efforts to push the government further out of Russia’s orbit. His absence will fan concerns that the US lacks an influential voice to play that role at an even more perilous time.
Last edited:
shit
they got whole bldgs. to scrap
And now dearly beloved.... as we celebrate 100 days of gossip.......... and imaginary deaths...
fake war that isn’t even talked about outside of propaganda pieces. Where is your post on Somalia? Oh yeah, you only care about Nazis, your brethren 
Weak as fucking hell comeback.... that's why you avoid this thread after your monumental fucked up reply that you raced in here to reply with when it was made....... coon...... coon buffoon
.
How does the West control what Wimbledon does regarding Russian players or what an Italian university proposed in March regarding Dostoevsky?
The long game is the West is bankrupting Russia via unprecedented sanctions. Western estimates are that the Russians are spending $900MM per day on the war while others like Ponomarev put the figure much higher. Even if the daily figure is 900MM, the 20B monthly they are making in oil sales is not enough to make the situation sustainable as their economy is smaller than NY, California, and Florida. Not sure how this can be seen as merely a "PR campaign" and then criticized for being too robust in nature.Also, not sure what you mean about Europe. They literally just passed an oil embargo and the EU/NATO are the most united they have been in decades:
Tightening the Squeeze on Russia (Published 2022)
What an embargo means for oil prices, plus a one-issue candidate whose issue is Elon Musk.
I'm also a bit confused by the truncated quotes from that Yahoo news article discussing how the Biden administration and allies are considering the very things you, ostensibly, are worried about. Not sure how you can turn around and criticize them for doing what you advocated for.
Also, not sure why you didn't post the article:
US Officials Are Split Over the Next Round of Russia Sanctions
(Bloomberg) -- Biden administration officials are divided over how much further the US can push sanctions against Russia without sparking global economic instability and fracturing transatlantic unity.Most Read from BloombergElon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla Execs: Return to the Office or Get...
This one from earlier today is even more relevant:
Putin thinks West will blink first in war of attrition, Russian elites say
The Kremlin is seeking to ramp up economic pressure to erode foreign support for Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin is digging in for a long war of attrition over Ukraine and will be relentless in trying to use economic weapons, such as a blockade of Ukrainian grain exports, to whittle away Western support for Kyiv, according to members of Russia’s economic elite.
Had Putin been able to strike quickly and decisively and take Kyiv as planned, I think his calculation about the West would be correct. "08 and '14 Support this. Instead, we are 100 days in and Russia is increasingly isolated economically and geopolitically. Their "stick" in the past was the threat of the second most powerful army in the world. Now that they have been exposed as a paper tiger, messing with the grain and oil supply is all they have left. The good thing is we will know soon who was right and who miscalculated as the current situation is untenable even in the short run.
Well if you paid attention, I posted the link to the original Bloomberg article, maybe you were too busy trying to make a pointHow does the West control what Wimbledon does regarding Russian players or what an Italian university proposed in March regarding Dostoevsky?
Also, not sure what you mean about Europe. They literally just passed an oil embargo and the EU/NATO are the most united they have been in decades:
Tightening the Squeeze on Russia (Published 2022)
What an embargo means for oil prices, plus a one-issue candidate whose issue is Elon Musk.www.nytimes.com
I'm also a bit confused by the truncated quotes from that Yahoo news article discussing how the Biden administration and allies are considering the very things you, ostensibly, are worried about. Not sure how you can turn around and criticize them for doing what you advocated for.
Also, not sure why you didn't post the article:
US Officials Are Split Over the Next Round of Russia Sanctions
(Bloomberg) -- Biden administration officials are divided over how much further the US can push sanctions against Russia without sparking global economic instability and fracturing transatlantic unity.Most Read from BloombergElon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla Execs: Return to the Office or Get...www.yahoo.com
This one from earlier today is even more relevant:
Putin thinks West will blink first in war of attrition, Russian elites say
The Kremlin is seeking to ramp up economic pressure to erode foreign support for Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin is digging in for a long war of attrition over Ukraine and will be relentless in trying to use economic weapons, such as a blockade of Ukrainian grain exports, to whittle away Western support for Kyiv, according to members of Russia’s economic elite.
Had Putin been able to strike quickly and decisively and take Kyiv as planned, I think his calculation about the West would be correct. "08 and '14 Support this. Instead, we are 100 days in and Russia is increasingly isolated economically and geopolitically. Their "stick" in the past was the threat of the second most powerful army in the world. Now that they have been exposed as a paper tiger, messing with the grain and oil supply is all they have left. The good thing is we will know soon who was right and who miscalculated as the current situation is untenable even in the short run.
These cost 87K+ and have a water bottle for a fuel tank and entry level DSLR for optics. I'm sure selling a few of these to the Russian government paid for some nice Turkish Holidays.
When the internals of these were first discovered:
dronexl.co
When the internals of these were first discovered
:
Orlan-10 Drone Features Canon Camera, Duct Tape, Bottle Top
Video shows a Ukrainian soldier taking apart a Russian military drone, called the Orlan-10 that features a Canon camera, duct tape, and a bottle top.
dronexl.co
I assumed you made a mistake as you originally posited that the sanctions were rushed, not well thought out, generally ineffective and driven by a desire to, in your own words, merely virtue signal. However, you then posted an article about the careful deliberations and ongoing debates around those very same sanctions that are unprecedented in their scope and impact. I thought you intended to post from another source that may have been more agreeable with your "interpretation" of the facts at hand. Apologies.
Yes of course the initial sanction were rushed, yet the Bloomberg article is focused on debating for further sanctions which I repeat would be absolutely stupid knowing our current global situation with inflation, food crisis and a pandemic with no end sightI assumed you made a mistake as you originally posited that the sanctions were rushed, not well thought out, generally ineffective and driven by a desire to, in your own words, merely virtue signal. However, you then posted an article about the careful deliberations and ongoing debates around those very same sanctions that are unprecedented in their scope and impact. I thought you intended to post from another source that may have been more agreeable with your "interpretation" of the facts at hand. Apologies.
I think you are missing a lot but we will know soon who is the correct prognosticator. That is the great thing about a current situation...
The EU should forget about sanctions – they’re doing more harm than good
The EU should forget about sanctions – they’re doing more harm than good
Six million households in Britain face the possibility of morning and evening blackouts this winter to maintain sanctions against Russia, as do consumers across Europe. This is despite Europe pouring about $1bn a day into Russia to pay for the gas and oil it continues to consume. This seems crazy. Proposals by the EU to halt the payments are understandably being opposed by countries close to Russia and heavily dependent on its fossil fuels; Germany buys 12% of its oil and 35% of its gas from Russia, figures that are much higher in Hungary.
The EU in Brussels seems not to know what to do. A diplomatic compromise has been raised – exempting sanctions on imports via pipeline, which would spare Hungary and Germany – but no practical plan has been agreed. The real reason is that arguments over the sanctions weapon have been reduced to macho rhetoric. They are supposed to induce a foreign regime to change some unacceptable policy. This rarely if ever happens, and in Russia’s case it has blatantly failed. Apologists now claim that sanctions are merely a deterrent, intended to work in the medium to long term. As war in Ukraine shifts into a different gear, that term could be long indeed.
Sanctions may have harmed Russia’s credit-worthiness, but the 70% surge in world gas prices alone has supercharged its balance of payments. Its current account trade surplus, according to its central bank, is now over three times the pre-invasion level. At the same time, sanctions are clearly hurting countries in western and central Europe who are imposing them.
It is absurd to expect Hungary to starve itself of energy and, as it says, “nuclear bomb” its economy, with no fixed objective or timetable in sight. Sanctions have an awful habit of being hard to dismantle. Worse is to come. Russia’s reaction to sanctions has been to threaten to cut off gas to Europe, further driving up prices to its advantage. It is already blockading the Black Sea ports, from which millions of tons of Ukrainian grain are normally shipped to the outside world. This blockade has seen cereal prices rise 48% on their 2019 base, devastating markets, particularly across Africa. This in turn has increased the value of Russia’s own massive grain exports. Russia has offered to lift the blockade if sanctions are lifted. Whether it means this is moot, but the west cannot be blind to the unintended consequence of its sanctions war.
Nato has been sensibly scrupulous in not escalating the war in Ukraine into a Europe-wide conflict. Sanctions know no such subtlety. Millions of innocent people across Europe and far from its shores will suffer as food and energy prices soar. Supply lines are disrupted. Trade links collapse. The victims are overwhelmingly the poor.
The objective – to compel Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine – has patently not been achieved. Military aid has been far more effective in that respect. But the harm done to the rest of Europe and the outside world is now glaring. The EU should stick to helping Ukraine’s war effort and withdraw economic sanctions against Russia. They are self-defeating and senselessly cruel.
• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
Bro you have to see if Simon Jenkins a quality reporter
Putin wants them to ban his oil and natural gas supplies to the EU to weak them militarily, he is using a Chinese tactic that was used to run off Western Big Tech that was in their country spying. Forcing them to pay in Rubles is classic Chinese tactic, to ban somebody. You don't want to have a reputation that you will cutoff oil shipments to a country at whim. That even in a war where they are supplying weapons to their enemy, you are still giving them oil, it would take nuclear weapons before a ban would take place.
The EU was going to slowly wind down their use of fossil fuels than make moves against Russia from a stronger position, Britain used this tactic with Africa to stop slave trading before they colonized.
Just straight banning Russia from Swift and other shit was a bad move and send a message to other marginal countries. The U.S. should have maintained access but put some requirement that Russia would refuse to comply with. This is why I am switching to a superior team and have renounced my allegiance to the United States,
Last edited:
What team did you switch to?
Man I was about to ask him that also
What happened to all the Ukraine is winning bs. Mainstream media now says Russia controls 20% of the country and killing 100 soldiers per day. The war is basically over, and the Ukraine army is on the verge of breaking.
It’s sad that misinformation on what was going on cost lives, and strengthened Russia. There should be an investigation into how this happened, but there won’t be.
We’re all paying $2 a gallon more in gas, and gave $40B in tax dollars for nothing.
Someone has to pay for this colloidal misjudgment.
It’s sad that misinformation on what was going on cost lives, and strengthened Russia. There should be an investigation into how this happened, but there won’t be.
We’re all paying $2 a gallon more in gas, and gave $40B in tax dollars for nothing.
Someone has to pay for this colloidal misjudgment.
Russia lost a third of it's fighting force in a war that was supposed to be won by them in three days....... you're one incredibly dumb babycoon... it's a sad thing every time you post and show abysmal knowledge level
Wh
The fact of the matter is that whenever you go into war, you have to prepare for unexpected setbacks. Russia faced a setback in the beginning. They adjusted their plans and are now winning handily.
The people who know war knew that there was zero chance for Ukraine to win, but instead of negotiating with Russia months ago, they pretended that Ukraine could win and here we are.
Are you happy with gas prices, or the fucked to stock market?
Who says the war should have been won in 3 days? Is that written in a war book somewhere?Russia lost a third of it's fighting force in a war that was supposed to be won by them in three days....... you're one incredibly dumb babycoon... it's a sad thing every time you post and show abysmal knowledge level
The fact of the matter is that whenever you go into war, you have to prepare for unexpected setbacks. Russia faced a setback in the beginning. They adjusted their plans and are now winning handily.
The people who know war knew that there was zero chance for Ukraine to win, but instead of negotiating with Russia months ago, they pretended that Ukraine could win and here we are.
Are you happy with gas prices, or the fucked to stock market?
So you’re believing Russia now, huh. What else do you believe Russia about. And I’m a “coon” because I refuse to clap at the US giving $40B to Nazi’s.Russia said it you ignorant fuck.... hasta la vista....bye-bye coon....
.
You can’t even think straight anymore. Lol.
The unpalatable truth in Ukraine
06/02/22 12:00 PM ET
At one point in the novel “Sign of the Four,”Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s inimitable detective Sherlock Holmes explains and demonstrates to Dr. Watson his method of observation and deduction. Confronted with an apparently inexplicable circumstance, Dr. Watson is utterly perplexed. He simply cannot understand how the event in question came to pass, given the facts as he understands them and the laws of nature. Slightly irritated at his plodding companion’s bafflement, Holmes once again shares with him the methodological key to solving all such mysteries: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
And the truth is, once we have eliminated all the impossible scenarios, the least improbable outcome of the war in Ukraine is a Russian victory.
Note that I did not say such an outcome would be desirable. Russia’s inevitable victory is anything but. Nor did I say it would be total. The outcome of this war is going to fall far short of the Kremlin’s initial hopes and expectations. Nor, finally, did I say it would be without significant cost. Any conceivable Russian victory now will entail such a loss of blood and treasure that it will have to be judged Pyrrhic at best.
But it will be a victory nonetheless — and we in the West had better come to grips with that hard truth.
Let’s begin by eliminating the impossible.
The first unrealistic endgame is the reduction of Ukraine to a vassal state of the Russian empire. This would entail the kind of operation initially envisioned by the Kremlin: a quick decapitating military strike, the installation of a pro-Moscow regime in Kyiv and either the formal incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian Federation or its informal incorporation into a Russian sphere of influence (like Belarus).
While perhaps the initial objective of Russia’s “special military operation,” this outcome is now obviously an impossibility. Russia did not have the ability to impose this vision in February, and it is decidedly less able to impose it 100 days later. Indeed, even the Russians themselves have conceded as much. Their rhetoric and military operations suggest that even they believe such an outcome to be beyond the realm of the possible.
The second impossible scenario is the total defeat of the Russian military and the restoration of Ukraine to its pre-2014 borders. In this scenario, the Ukrainian military, having blunted the initial Russian offensive, launches a successful counter-offensive that ultimately drives the Russians not only out of the territories they captured in 2022 but out of the Donbas and Crimea as well. The resulting political dispensation would be an independent Ukraine restored to its internationally recognized borders and free to join NATO and/or associate with the European Union (EU) as it saw fit.
While advocated by many within and beyond Ukraine, this outcome is simply impossible. Whatever the shortcomings displayed by Russian forces in the opening phase of the war – when they were first stopped at the gates of Kyiv and then driven from the north of the country altogether – recent battlefield developments suggest that they have found their footing and are not going to be pushed out of the territories taken in 2014.
Indeed, there is no reason to believe that they will even be displaced from much of the territory they have seized along the coast of the Sea of Azov. While there will doubtless be shifts on the battlefield as a result of offensives here and counter-offensives there, the correlation of forces simply do not augur a total victory for Ukraine. So, despite the willful delusions of some and the idealistic hopes others, this outcome is simply impossible.
The third and final impossible scenario is a limited Ukrainian victory that would reverse all or most of the Russian gains since Feb. 24, 2022. In this scenario, while the Donbas and Crimea remain in Russian hands, all the territory captured by Russia since its recent re-invasion would be liberated by Ukrainian forces and restored to Ukrainian control.
While once viewed as a realistic outcome, by now it should be obvious that this is impossible. Just as Ukraine lacks the ability to liberate all its pre-2014 territory, it also lacks the ability to liberate the recently conquered territory in the Donbas or along the Azov coast. Unlike in the north of Ukraine, these territories are central to Russian interests in Ukraine and, as such, Russia simply will not withdraw from them as it withdrew from Kyiv earlier in the war. Nor will Ukrainian forces – themselves, it should be noted, suffering terrible attritionall along the battle front and growing weaker with each passing day – be strong enough to compel them to do so. No, like the previous two scenarios, this one is simply an impossibility.
And that leaves only one other conceivable outcome: a fragmented and partly dismembered Ukraine, neither fully part of the West nor entirely within the Russian sphere of influence. A Ukraine fragmented in that the whole of the Donbas and perhaps other territories will be left beyond Kyiv’s control; partly dismembered in that Crimea will remain part of Russia (at least in Russian eyes); and not fully part of the West in that it will not be free to join NATO or even to have a meaningful partnership with the EU. Simply put, this outcome is not only not impossible, it’s not even improbable.
And when this final scenario comes to pass, who will have won the war in Ukraine?
Well, it won’t be Ukraine. While such an outcome will satisfy the basic existential goals of Kyiv, it will be a far cry from the more maximalist ambitions expressed both before and after Feb. 24. No, when this scenario inevitably comes to pass, it will clearly be a defeat for Kyiv.
Similarly, such an outcome will not satisfy the maximalist ambitions of those in Moscow who thought that their initial thunder run would resolve the Ukraine issue once and for all. But it will satisfy the Kremlin’s most basic and fundamental geopolitical desideratum: a neutralized Ukraine beyond both the geopolitical ambit of NATO and the geoeconomic orbit of the EU. It will also “restore” Crimea to its rightful place in Russia. And finally, it will demonstrate that interfering in Russia’s natural sphere of influence is unwise. In these ways, when the impossible has been eliminated, the resulting outcome will clearly be a victory for Moscow.
All of which suggests that, at the end of the day, it might be necessary to tweak Holmes’s aphorism just a bit. At least when it comes to thinking about the possible outcomes of the war in Ukraine, perhaps it ought to read something more like: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter @aalatham.
did you see the post a couple of days ago in here about the nazis from The US and weapons?