International Events VIII: Been living under a rock so long

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

The European Parliament uses proportional representation with multi-member seats, so I suspect they were elected third or fourth in their respective areas

And this is going to sound really nitpicky… this person is an MEP and is on the floor of the European Parliament in their official capacity… in jeans?

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I think we need to differentiate between leftist opposition to NATO and US imperialism, and support for Russia -- as well lack of support for Ukraine.

There really isn’t one here. If you are against US and nato imperialism with regards to Ukraine you are implicitly for them to be left without  any meaningful  support from the us and other members of nato. Support they need to keep afloat

Ukraine couldn’t depend only on any individual charity donations. 
 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

When it comes to the US, Zorral is correct that basically no one on the organized left is tacitly supporting Russia and/or casting aspersions on Ukraine the way your Madison Cawthorns on the right are.  Indeed, the only leftist opposition to the administration's response to Ukraine in Congress comes from Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush. 

Both have joined the insane right as the handful of members opposing various anti-Russia measures.  However, their reasoning is based on humanitarian concerns and opposition to broad-based sanctions in general. 

Yeah many of insane would say they’re not pro-Putin, or anti-Ukraine, they’re just concerned that these measures only make the situation worse. 
Booker and Umar’s intentions may be nicer, but the actual consequences for their advocacy would lead to the agenda of the far right being furthered.
 

 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

This viewpoint is, certainly, more prominently represented on the left in Europe.  Take the French election yesterday, where leftist candidate Jean Luc Melenchon has also been virulently anti-NATO.  However, this has not stopped him from condemning Russia:

Yeah it comes out as really cold and callous to defend Russia explicitly and directly for the actions it’s taking.

Its easier to do a “bothsideism” with regards to the situation and pretend those sides are Nato/or simply the US and Russia while framing Ukraine as simpleton duped by the evil western powers.

 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There really isn’t one here. If you are against US and nato imperialism with regards to Ukraine you are implicitly for them to be left without  any meaningful  support from the us and other members of nato. Support they need to keep afloat

Ukraine couldn’t depend only on any individual charity donations. 

This simply isn't true, as demonstrated by the examples I provided and discussed.

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Booker and Umar’s intentions may be nicer, but the actual consequences for their advocacy would lead to the agenda of the far right being furthered.

First of all, 'Booker' hasn't voted against anything, assuming you mean Cory Booker.  Second, no, Omar and Bush's opposition does not advance the agenda of the far right in any way.

[Padraig]

3 hours ago, maarsen said:

Given that the European Parliament has no real power, it tends to attract people who could not get elected to any position where their stance on issues has any real effect.

That's not really true.  Or depends on how you view "real power".  Relative to national parliaments, it has much less power, but it still has certain powers.

I didn't think i'd ever write so much about Irish MEPs but both of these 2 examples were sitting members of the Irish national parliament when they got elected to Europe.  As Malt suggested, proportional representation goes a long way and we use it for all elections.  They got around 11% of the vote in their MEP constituencies.  I will be curious to see will all this attention affect them in the next election.  They certainly weren't elected because of their Russian sympathies and there isn't much in the way of pro-Russian support now.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Second, no, Omar and Bush's opposition does not advance the agenda of the far right in any way.

Right.  Context matters.  It is always appropriate to to raise legitimate humanitarian concerns, assuming your interest is legitimate (and not trying to deflect attention from something else or taking advantage of something).  If that suits some right wing people, c'est la vie.

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And this is going to sound really nitpicky… this person is an MEP and is on the floor of the European Parliament in their official capacity… in jeans?

Hmm.  Is that a left wing too?  I've paid no attention but i'm not at all surprised at the attire.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

This simply isn't true, as demonstrated by the examples I provided and discussed.

Which couple of relatively left-wing congressmen voting against much needed sanctions against Russia to impede their war-efforts against Ukraine.

3 hours ago, DMC said:

First of all, 'Booker' hasn't voted against anything, assuming you mean Cory Booker

Ah yeah my mistake.

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Second, no, Omar and Bush's opposition does not advance the agenda of the far right in any way.

But it does—the best way to get Russia to stop its brutality is to make it literally too poor to engage in it.

That sadly cannot be done without hurting regular innocent people who were just tragically born in or live in Russia

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Which couple of relatively left-wing congressmen voting against much needed sanctions against Russia to impede their war-efforts against Ukraine.

As was discussed earlier, Omar and Bush agree with certain aid for Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, just not what the administration/Congress was proposing.  That's a matter of degrees while you're taking an absolutist position.  I could similarly say Biden is "impeding" the war effort by not doing many things more hawkish voices in both parties want done (e.g. the Poland mig deal, no fly zone, etc.).  

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But it does—the best way to get Russia to stop its brutality is to make it literally too poor to engage in it.

That sadly cannot be done without hurting regular innocent people who were just tragically born in or live in Russia

The best way according to you.  Again, others can legitimately dissent from that position and they don't necessarily deserve to be characterized as impeding the war effort or aiding the enemy.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Which couple of relatively left-wing congressmen voting against much needed sanctions against Russia to impede their war-efforts against Ukraine.

Ah yeah my mistake.

But it does—the best way to get Russia to stop its brutality is to make it literally too poor to engage in it.

That sadly cannot be done without hurting regular innocent people who were just tragically born in or live in Russia

And there is a question as to whether that really works. Iraq suffered under cruel sanctions for about 10 years, yet the regime that was sanctioned remained in place until Bush Jr went and found that pile of WMDs Saddam was hiding. Indeed, impoverishing Russia when it produces a decent amount of food, can build its own weapons and produce its own energy (and has made other countries dependent on its energy supply) may only affect the regular innocent people. And it may help with recruitment into the army if Russia can promise its recruits that their families will be housed and fed while you go fight Putin's war.

Sanctions on Venezuela hasn't made it bow to the US, and neither have decades of sanctions on Cuba. Sanctions are a very long game strategy, and I would be interested to know if they have ever been successfully used to win a shooting war.

It would be one thing if it was a real democracy and the people could vote in a govt that promises to end the war, in a free and fair election, assuming such a regime change would happen even with a free and fair election. Don't people tend to stick with the govt they have in wartime?

You can only really make a country too poor to fight a war if you are able to deny it the resources it needs to be able to keep deploying the hardware and people who are fighting the war. If it can keep making or buying the bullets and the guns, and keep recruiting the soldiers then a country will take a very long time to become too poor to fight a war. In the mean time you are condemning to poverty and misery the people in the country you say you are trying to help.

So far as I can tell, the only way to end a war quickly is with overwhelming military force on one side. The sanctions approach seems to be the slow way to ruin both countries.

[Loge]

The sanctions won't stop this war but they can prevent Putin from starting another. Russia doesn't have much of a semiconductor industry and they can't build one on their own. The sanctions cut them off from the supplies they'd need. Putin can't replace the gear he loses, at least not with modern weapons. Maybe they still can make the T72, but that's about as good as it gets without modern electronics. Actually, it looks like Russia's arms industry has already been crippled by the 2014 sanctions, which is why none of the wonder weapons Putin loves to bragg with has been seen on the battlefield.

[Varysblackfyre321]

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

And there is a question as to whether that really works. Iraq suffered under cruel sanctions for about 10 years, yet the regime that was sanctioned remained in place until Bush Jr went and found that pile of WMDs Saddam was hiding.

I would say the sanctions against Iraq have unfortunately been catastrophized.

And the purpose of sanctions isn’t just to ignite a regime change .

They’re also useful in limiting what a regime could practically do in terms expanding its influence.

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Indeed, impoverishing Russia when it produces a decent amount of food, can build its own weapons and produce its own energy (and has made other countries dependent on its energy supply) may only affect the regular innocent people. A

I say most countries could produce their own food, and build weapons. 
But those cost money. A lot of money.

It costs money to feed, equip, and train soldiers.

It costs a lot of money to build and maintain weapons.

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And it may help with recruitment into the army if Russia can promise its recruits that their families will be housed and fed while you go fight Putin's war.

An Impoverished Russia(well an even more impoverished Russia) would find that harder to do. 

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Sanctions on Venezuela hasn't made it bow to the US, and neither have decades of sanctions on Cuba.

 Yes, the festering dictatorships have unfortunately not been overthrown much to the suffering of their people.

I’ll take an isolated, poor Russia mostly only capable of making its own citizens miserable than open, richer Russia capable of spreading its misery westwards to its neighbors.

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It would be one thing if it was a real democracy and the people could vote in a govt that promises to end the war,

there are financial constraints to even dictators or totalitarian regimes.

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Don't people tend to stick with the govt they have in wartime?

Sure in fact it appears Putin’s approval rating hasn’t significantly dipped.

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You can only really make a country too poor to fight a war if you are able to deny it the resources it needs to be able to keep deploying the hardware and people who are fighting the war.

Hence the sanctions.

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If it can keep making or buying the bullets and the guns, and keep recruiting the soldiers then a country will take a very long time to become too poor to fight a war.

Not necessarily a very long time, Russia is struggling to keep going a month in.

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

In the mean time you are condemning to poverty and misery the people in the country you say you are trying to help.

The conversation can’t just be about the people a repressive regime is hiding behind. The people under threat of being engulfed by the regime need be considered as well.

Also Putin has condemned his people to poverty and misery long before the sanctions and would expand that luxury to the people of Ukraine.

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And there is a question as to whether that really works. Iraq suffered under cruel sanctions for about 10 years, yet the regime that was sanctioned remained in place until Bush Jr went and found that pile of WMDs Saddam was hiding. Indeed, impoverishing Russia when it produces a decent amount of food, can build its own weapons and produce its own energy (and has made other countries dependent on its energy supply) may only affect the regular innocent people. And it may help with recruitment into the army if Russia can promise its recruits that their families will be housed and fed while you go fight Putin's war.

Sanctions on Venezuela hasn't made it bow to the US, and neither have decades of sanctions on Cuba. Sanctions are a very long game strategy, and I would be interested to know if they have ever been successfully used to win a shooting war.

It would be one thing if it was a real democracy and the people could vote in a govt that promises to end the war, in a free and fair election, assuming such a regime change would happen even with a free and fair election. Don't people tend to stick with the govt they have in wartime?

You can only really make a country too poor to fight a war if you are able to deny it the resources it needs to be able to keep deploying the hardware and people who are fighting the war. If it can keep making or buying the bullets and the guns, and keep recruiting the soldiers then a country will take a very long time to become too poor to fight a war. In the mean time you are condemning to poverty and misery the people in the country you say you are trying to help.

So far as I can tell, the only way to end a war quickly is with overwhelming military force on one side. The sanctions approach seems to be the slow way to ruin both countries.

Sanctions hurt the elite who can no longer get the Western luxuries they crave, or enjoy themselves in Western capital cities.  But, that's a relatively minor thing.

Where sanctions do hurt the Russian capacity to wage war is by denying them technology, and the involvement of Western companies in exploiting their natural resources.   The Russians have already demonstrated that their armed forces, and weaponry, are second rate, and their quality will only deteriorate further as sanctions bite.

Economic warfare can in fact be very successful, as both world wars demonstrated. 

[SeanF]

WRT France, perhaps it's a bit tasteless to mention it, but you can get 11-2 on Marine Le Pen with Paddy Power.  Polls show that Macron is leading 51-55% to 45-49%, which makes that bet excellent value.

[Padraig]

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Sanctions on Venezuela hasn't made it bow to the US, and neither have decades of sanctions on Cuba. Sanctions are a very long game strategy, and I would be interested to know if they have ever been successfully used to win a shooting war.

You do need to group sanctions based on purpose.  In Cuba and Venezuela (Belarus and Zimbadwe too) they seemed to be mainly about regime change.  North  Korea and Iran are more focused on removing the threat of nuclear weapons.  (Iran have sanctions for various reasons but the main focus have been on the nuclear based ones).  And then there have been a lot of countries sanctioned because they are a threat to other countries (this would include supporting terrorist activity).  Sudan was in the latter basket and when there was a popular revolution there, removing sanctions was a big focus for them.

While sanctions against Russia may affect ordinary citizens in Russia, they are easier to accept than sanctions against Cuba (say) affecting ordinary citizens.  Mainly because the sanctions against Russia aren't to help Russians.  They are to help Ukrainians.  But the sanctions against Cuba are to "help" Cubans but seem nonsenical, as they just make their lives miserable.  That is where very focused sanctions make more sense, if you must.

Not that any sanctions should be solely focused on affecting ordinary citizens.  J&J got a little bit of attention when it said it would continue to supply medicines and medical devices into Russia as those are excluded from Western sanction.  But really, medicines are obviously not included in sanctions for a reason.

Sanctions will never win a shooting war in themeselves but they can certainly help.  Sanctions against Iran did lead to a deal before Trump messed things up.  Sanctions against hostile countries do seem to reduce their influence.  But sanctions designed to generate regime change are the hardest to achieve since the regime in charge clearly have little reason to engage.

[Conflicting Thought]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/05/famine-afghanistan-joe-biden-reparations

I wonder if sanctions will be applied to the usa for this.

[Conflicting Thought]

19 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But it does—the best way to get Russia to stop its brutality is to make it literally too poor to engage in it.

yeah, wish they could have done that to the usa a long time ago, and we would have avoided so much horror and brutality.

im sure you would be fine with the millions of americans suffering to stop usa brutality.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

A Wild Putin drone appeared.

The Wild Putin drone is mad

It uses Whataboutism.

[Conflicting Thought]

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

A Wild Putin drone appeared.

The Wild Putin drone is mad

It uses Whataboutism.

Nope, i am against putin, i think he is a fascist an a war criminal.

I just think people can be a bit hypocritical (i include myself ) and dont really consider the suffering of the people. 

Do you think the people advocaiting for the danctions and escalation would think the same if those where applied to western nations, or the usa in particular? Or you think that the usa and other western natioms shouldnt be sanctioned for their crimes, their imperialism, etc.?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

What has that to do with what Russia is doing right now? Nothing? Then why bring it up?

[Conflicting Thought]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What has that to do with what Russia is doing right now? Nothing? Then why bring it up?

Because we can talk about things other than what russia is doing right now, topics adjacent to what is happening, etc. 

 

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Or you think that the usa and other western natioms shouldnt be sanctioned for their crimes, their imperialism, etc.?

I believe Russia has applied sanctions against the West, so you can rest easy.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 4/12/2022 at 2:07 PM, Conflicting Thought said:

Do you think the people advocaiting for the danctions

Do you think Ukrainians are cruel for in general being for the sanctioning of Russia?