Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Russia kicked out of G-8

YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:42:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:20:40 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm not in the mood for an anti-russia speech, so someone get this started. Any thoughts?

I think it was a fitting response, but not adequate by itself to punish Putin for his aggression in Crimea.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:42:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:42:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:20:40 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm not in the mood for an anti-russia speech, so someone get this started. Any thoughts?

I think it was a fitting response, but not adequate by itself to punish Putin for his aggression in Crimea.

Fortunately, the sanction are handling that. The economic implications have already been severe.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:45:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:42:43 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:42:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:20:40 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm not in the mood for an anti-russia speech, so someone get this started. Any thoughts?

I think it was a fitting response, but not adequate by itself to punish Putin for his aggression in Crimea.

Fortunately, the sanction are handling that. The economic implications have already been severe.

True, but the economic implications aren't necessarily caused by the sanctions. They're just the global market's response to international conflict.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:49:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:45:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:42:43 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:42:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:20:40 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm not in the mood for an anti-russia speech, so someone get this started. Any thoughts?

I think it was a fitting response, but not adequate by itself to punish Putin for his aggression in Crimea.

Fortunately, the sanction are handling that. The economic implications have already been severe.

True, but the economic implications aren't necessarily caused by the sanctions. They're just the global market's response to international conflict.

Hmmm..;...... what do you mean the implications aren't a result of sanctions? As far as I'm aware, Russia is a export based country, relying on petroleum. Without that, they are incredibly weak. Any sanctions directed at the petroleum shipping is deadly, and relied upon by millions.

And the asset freezing is only hurting Russia. Putin's "lackeys" lose all support once their own money is at risk.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:53:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:49:19 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:45:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:42:43 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:42:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:20:40 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm not in the mood for an anti-russia speech, so someone get this started. Any thoughts?

I think it was a fitting response, but not adequate by itself to punish Putin for his aggression in Crimea.

Fortunately, the sanction are handling that. The economic implications have already been severe.

True, but the economic implications aren't necessarily caused by the sanctions. They're just the global market's response to international conflict.

Hmmm..;...... what do you mean the implications aren't a result of sanctions?

The economic implications have more directly been tied to the depletion of the Ruble's value against other world currencies than with the (inauspiciously limited) sanctions Washington and the EU have implemented.

As far as I'm aware, Russia is a export based country, relying on petroleum.

A large part of Russia's economy has to do with oil exports, but Western sanctions haven't yet touched Russia's oil/gas industry directly.

Without that, they are incredibly weak. Any sanctions directed at the petroleum shipping is deadly, and relied upon by millions.

Deadly might be a bit strong, but they would have a more substantial impact, yes.

And the asset freezing is only hurting Russia. Putin's "lackeys" lose all support once their own money is at risk.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 3:41:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Our interests are more than abstract economic numbers or realpolitik.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 3:42:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 3:41:24 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Our interests are more than abstract economic numbers or realpolitik.

Those interests largely do not matter.

Economic numbers and overall prosperity is what affords us our freedom, and the moment we convince ourselves otherwise is the moment we lose both.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 4:29:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The sanctions are a joke. Putin doesn't care, and the US doesn't care about Russia simply annexing Crimea. They care about their allies' perception. Either threaten Iran-level sanctions on Russia and give Ukraine NATO membership in the event of an invasion, or back the fvck down.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 4:34:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

I would say Iran, too. Less attention focused on them, plus the possibility of Putin giving them support, makes the US more pliable.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

Uh, no. China didn't vote in favor of the Russian annexation, and aren't really interested in alienating their biggest commercial partner.

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

It will not lead to meaningful sanctions. Look at Germany's relationship with Russia. Without a united European coalition, the US has no chance of pressuring Russia, least of all over a tiny peninsula that the Ukrainians are mad about.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Well... not yet, at least. >.>
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:10:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 4:34:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

I would say Iran, too. Less attention focused on them, plus the possibility of Putin giving them support, makes the US more pliable.

Iran is part of the Middle East, bro.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

Uh, no. China didn't vote in favor of the Russian annexation, and aren't really interested in alienating their biggest commercial partner.

They will if their biggest commercial partner proves to be a greater military threat...in which case they will side with their traditional military ally. Politics trumps economics every time.

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

It will not lead to meaningful sanctions. Look at Germany's relationship with Russia. Without a united European coalition, the US has no chance of pressuring Russia, least of all over a tiny peninsula that the Ukrainians are mad about.

I largely agree with this assessment.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Well... not yet, at least. >.>
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:08:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 5:10:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:34:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

I would say Iran, too. Less attention focused on them, plus the possibility of Putin giving them support, makes the US more pliable.

Iran is part of the Middle East, bro.

Well, yeah, but geopolitically Iran is very distinct from the oil sheikhdoms.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

Uh, no. China didn't vote in favor of the Russian annexation, and aren't really interested in alienating their biggest commercial partner.

They will if their biggest commercial partner proves to be a greater military threat...in which case they will side with their traditional military ally. Politics trumps economics every time.

For China, economics is politics.

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

It will not lead to meaningful sanctions. Look at Germany's relationship with Russia. Without a united European coalition, the US has no chance of pressuring Russia, least of all over a tiny peninsula that the Ukrainians are mad about.

I largely agree with this assessment.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Well... not yet, at least. >.>
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:33:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:08:39 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/30/2014 5:10:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:34:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

I would say Iran, too. Less attention focused on them, plus the possibility of Putin giving them support, makes the US more pliable.

Iran is part of the Middle East, bro.

Well, yeah, but geopolitically Iran is very distinct from the oil sheikhdoms.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

Uh, no. China didn't vote in favor of the Russian annexation, and aren't really interested in alienating their biggest commercial partner.

They will if their biggest commercial partner proves to be a greater military threat...in which case they will side with their traditional military ally. Politics trumps economics every time.

For China, economics is politics.

This doesn't make any sense. If this was the case, China would not be investing in its military and would not be a nuclear power. Those come before any discussion on economics, and the military has always taken priority in the CCP. Therefore, your statement is simply false.

A possible consequence of aggressive, militant Western action is that it may make China very apprehensive about possible military meddling by the West in the south China sea. This would only strengthen a Sino-Russian alliance and cause China to back Russian action in the Crimea. As it is, the West has taken a hands-off stance.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 11:57:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 3:42:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:41:24 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Our interests are more than abstract economic numbers or realpolitik.

Those interests largely do not matter.

Economic numbers and overall prosperity is what affords us our freedom, and the moment we convince ourselves otherwise is the moment we lose both.

The moment we ignore ethics is the moment we cease to deserve international prestige.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:07:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 11:57:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:42:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:41:24 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Our interests are more than abstract economic numbers or realpolitik.

Those interests largely do not matter.

Economic numbers and overall prosperity is what affords us our freedom, and the moment we convince ourselves otherwise is the moment we lose both.

The moment we ignore ethics is the moment we cease to deserve international prestige.

The moment our interests do not coincide with the interests of others is when we cease to be able to buy international prestige.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:17:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:07:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:57:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:42:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:41:24 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Our interests are more than abstract economic numbers or realpolitik.

Those interests largely do not matter.

Economic numbers and overall prosperity is what affords us our freedom, and the moment we convince ourselves otherwise is the moment we lose both.

The moment we ignore ethics is the moment we cease to deserve international prestige.

The moment our interests do not coincide with the interests of others is when we cease to be able to buy international prestige.

Examples:

1)

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Statue of Liberty


People came to America to pursue the American Dream...the idea being that prosperity awaits...the pursuit of property...for you, I suppose it would be the pursuit of happiness, which would seem more ethically "positive".

2)

Why Henry Ford paid such high wages:
http://www.forbes.com...

Long story short, self interest of the employees coincided with self interest of the capitalist only with high wages.

I had another but I forgot it while looking these two up.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:37:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Wise words, not wishful thinking! And in any case the sanctions against Russia are most likely going to be equally harmful for those imposing sanctions. Russia is an oil rich nation and will remain so. Oil sales, if curtailed to any amount can only hurt European countries that are dependent on Russia. And in the longer term, completely destructive to their economics if they persist because Russia will move it's oil markets elsewhere.

Not even having to mention that if Russia charges market prices to the Ukraine then the Ukraine's economy can't be saved by a big loan from the IMF!

Regardless of US/Nato meddling, the parties involved will find a solution to the imagined problem of the Crimea.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:52:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

1) I agree, it seems China benefits, and the middle east can raise their oil prices. As YYY said though, the only industry has been lightly touched.

2) The alliance is already damaged. China completely denied Russia any support, and even they publicly hinted towards disapproval. Even China respects international law, which is why I no longer bash on them as much. They have certainly been better on certain rights since they transitioned to a free market after Mao's death. Your not even forced to be a part of State run businesses. As for the one party dictatorship, I do oppose.

3) Yes, I sorta agree with this. It will hurt Russia badly, but fortunately America has developed a assurance that the oil will flow. Including are friendship with Al Saud, and Bush declaring 5 major oil producer's MNNA's. As for funding the middle east, at least some liberal Muslim countries will benefit. Dijbouti will make much from petroleum shipping and Qatar will receive more wealth (rich enough scumbags). Anyways, I think Europes money should be directed carefully, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Everytime Al Saud gets more money he issues some liberal reform. I'm not commending the guy, but he does make more progress then most Islamic Fascist leaders.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:55:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 4:29:24 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
The sanctions are a joke. Putin doesn't care, and the US doesn't care about Russia simply annexing Crimea. They care about their allies' perception. Either threaten Iran-level sanctions on Russia and give Ukraine NATO membership in the event of an invasion, or back the fvck down.

Are you kidding. You obviously don't know how fragile Russia's exports are. They are reliant on two things, petroleum and precious metals. Export economies get wrecked when sanctions are placed on them. And Putin's friends have been quite vocal after Obama froze the assets of all of his funders.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:58:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 11:57:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:42:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:41:24 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Our interests are more than abstract economic numbers or realpolitik.

Those interests largely do not matter.

Economic numbers and overall prosperity is what affords us our freedom, and the moment we convince ourselves otherwise is the moment we lose both.

The moment we ignore ethics is the moment we cease to deserve international prestige.

Agreed. Wrcriw cares more about China and the Middle East staying poor then a sovereign state being invaded. I hope China and the Arab world make more money, as it will only serve in human right advancements. Its been historically proven that countries with less poverty slowly gain more rights.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:58:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:52:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

1) I agree, it seems China benefits, and the middle east can raise their oil prices. As YYY said though, the only industry has been lightly touched.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is another oil war. It took years for oil prices to feel the effects of Iraq.

2) The alliance is already damaged. China completely denied Russia any support, and even they publicly hinted towards disapproval. Even China respects international law, which is why I no longer bash on them as much. They have certainly been better on certain rights since they transitioned to a free market after Mao's death. Your not even forced to be a part of State run businesses. As for the one party dictatorship, I do oppose.

They did not hint any disapproval. Cite sources. Everything I've read has shown almost complete (and extremely careful) abstinence of opinion.

The rest of your comment is irrelevant ideological baggage.

3) Yes, I sorta agree with this. It will hurt Russia badly, but fortunately America has developed a assurance that the oil will flow.

What? My point was about impact on European economies. Monty got it right...it will hurt Europe far more than it hurts Russia. Europe cannot afford it, so it's in their interests to not isolate Russia.

Just think about this a bit...For Europe, if not Russia, it's OPEC and the Middle East yes? How are relations with the Middle East and the West...better or worse than they are with Russia?

Including are friendship with Al Saud, and Bush declaring 5 major oil producer's MNNA's. As for funding the middle east, at least some liberal Muslim countries will benefit. Dijbouti will make much from petroleum shipping and Qatar will receive more wealth (rich enough scumbags). Anyways, I think Europes money should be directed carefully, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Everytime Al Saud gets more money he issues some liberal reform. I'm not commending the guy, but he does make more progress then most Islamic Fascist leaders.

Dijbouti and Qatar, lol.

China is fast becoming the main buyer of Iraqi oil. Saudi oil goes to Japan.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:59:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:57:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:42:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:41:24 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

Our interests are more than abstract economic numbers or realpolitik.

Those interests largely do not matter.

Economic numbers and overall prosperity is what affords us our freedom, and the moment we convince ourselves otherwise is the moment we lose both.

The moment we ignore ethics is the moment we cease to deserve international prestige.

Agreed. Wrcriw cares more about China and the Middle East staying poor then a sovereign state being invaded. I hope China and the Arab world make more money, as it will only serve in human right advancements. Its been historically proven that countries with less poverty slowly gain more rights.

You misunderstand. I care about what works. Ideology is a phantom presence compared to the rock-solid foundation of realism.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 1:02:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:57:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:

Agreed. Wrcriw cares more about China and the Middle East staying poor then a sovereign state being invaded.

A challenge for you. Define how sovereignty is established. Put your definition up against the situation in Taiwan.

Sovereignty is determined by real-politik. There is no other determining factor.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 1:15:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:58:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:52:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

1) I agree, it seems China benefits, and the middle east can raise their oil prices. As YYY said though, the only industry has been lightly touched.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is another oil war. It took years for oil prices to feel the effects of Iraq.

This has nothing to do with oil. Neither side benefits in the slightest, besides Arab countries.

2) The alliance is already damaged. China completely denied Russia any support, and even they publicly hinted towards disapproval. Even China respects international law, which is why I no longer bash on them as much. They have certainly been better on certain rights since they transitioned to a free market after Mao's death. Your not even forced to be a part of State run businesses. As for the one party dictatorship, I do oppose.

They did not hint any disapproval. Cite sources. Everything I've read has shown almost complete (and extremely careful) abstinence of opinion.

China completely refused to back Russia up. They abstained from the resolution and denied putting sanctions on the US from Russia's request.

The rest of your comment is irrelevant ideological baggage.

3) Yes, I sorta agree with this. It will hurt Russia badly, but fortunately America has developed a assurance that the oil will flow.

What? My point was about impact on European economies. Monty got it right...it will hurt Europe far more than it hurts Russia. Europe cannot afford it, so it's in their interests to not isolate Russia.

Agreed, but my point is that Russia is left extremely limited in where it can ship petroleum to. The whole world is sanctioning Russia, and it is hurting their economy way more. We already seen the impact of organized economic coalitions.

Just think about this a bit...For Europe, if not Russia, it's OPEC and the Middle East yes? How are relations with the Middle East and the West...better or worse than they are with Russia?

Including are friendship with Al Saud, and Bush declaring 5 major oil producer's MNNA's. As for funding the middle east, at least some liberal Muslim countries will benefit. Dijbouti will make much from petroleum shipping and Qatar will receive more wealth (rich enough scumbags). Anyways, I think Europes money should be directed carefully, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Everytime Al Saud gets more money he issues some liberal reform. I'm not commending the guy, but he does make more progress then most Islamic Fascist leaders.

Dijbouti and Qatar, lol.

Qatar has a HDI of .821, higher then most European and western nations. This is extremely good. As for Dijbouti, they are considered the most liberal nations in the Arab world, due to its free market and democratic institutions.

China is fast becoming the main buyer of Iraqi oil. Saudi oil goes to Japan.


As I said, who cares, their is enough to go around.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 1:21:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 1:02:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:57:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:

Agreed. Wrcriw cares more about China and the Middle East staying poor then a sovereign state being invaded.

A challenge for you. Define how sovereignty is established. Put your definition up against the situation in Taiwan.

: Sovereignty is established when the vast majority of the world recognizes a country and constitution. And I agree, Taiwan has not achieved that sovereign status, probably due to pressure from China. An invasion of Taiwan is wrong for more then one factor, just as the invasion of Ukraine. You can restrict me to base meanings and definitions, but that doesn't make what Russia did any less wrong.

sovereign state
A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area.
Sovereign state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state


Sovereignty is determined by real-politik. There is no other determining factor.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 1:22:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 1:15:17 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:58:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:52:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

1) I agree, it seems China benefits, and the middle east can raise their oil prices. As YYY said though, the only industry has been lightly touched.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is another oil war. It took years for oil prices to feel the effects of Iraq.

This has nothing to do with oil. Neither side benefits in the slightest, besides Arab countries.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Just to be clear, my comment only deals with IF there is a war in the Crimea, and I sincerely doubt there will be. There will be a Russian occupation, possible Western-funded Ukrainian terrorist counter-insurgency, and life moves on.

2) The alliance is already damaged. China completely denied Russia any support, and even they publicly hinted towards disapproval. Even China respects international law, which is why I no longer bash on them as much. They have certainly been better on certain rights since they transitioned to a free market after Mao's death. Your not even forced to be a part of State run businesses. As for the one party dictatorship, I do oppose.

They did not hint any disapproval. Cite sources. Everything I've read has shown almost complete (and extremely careful) abstinence of opinion.

China completely refused to back Russia up. They abstained from the resolution and denied putting sanctions on the US from Russia's request.

No source = I simply do not agree with your assertion, and consider it baseless, unsubstantiated, and more than likely false and completely fabricated.

Here is an example of careful abstention:

"The situation in Ukraine is extremely complex, and what is most urgent is for all sides to remain calm and exercise restraint to avoid an escalation in tensions," China"s foreign ministry on Monday cited Xi as telling Obama.

http://www.theguardian.com...

The rest of your comment is irrelevant ideological baggage.

3) Yes, I sorta agree with this. It will hurt Russia badly, but fortunately America has developed a assurance that the oil will flow.

What? My point was about impact on European economies. Monty got it right...it will hurt Europe far more than it hurts Russia. Europe cannot afford it, so it's in their interests to not isolate Russia.

Agreed, but my point is that Russia is left extremely limited in where it can ship petroleum to. The whole world is sanctioning Russia, and it is hurting their economy way more. We already seen the impact of organized economic coalitions.

The whole world is NOT sanctioning Russia, and that oil will flow to China.

Just think about this a bit...For Europe, if not Russia, it's OPEC and the Middle East yes? How are relations with the Middle East and the West...better or worse than they are with Russia?

Including are friendship with Al Saud, and Bush declaring 5 major oil producer's MNNA's. As for funding the middle east, at least some liberal Muslim countries will benefit. Dijbouti will make much from petroleum shipping and Qatar will receive more wealth (rich enough scumbags). Anyways, I think Europes money should be directed carefully, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Everytime Al Saud gets more money he issues some liberal reform. I'm not commending the guy, but he does make more progress then most Islamic Fascist leaders.

Dijbouti and Qatar, lol.

Qatar has a HDI of .821, higher then most European and western nations. This is extremely good. As for Dijbouti, they are considered the most liberal nations in the Arab world, due to its free market and democratic institutions.

Ideological nonsense. No oil numbers. Their economies are miniscule and insignificant. May as well cite how Singapore can fight China in a grudge match.

China is fast becoming the main buyer of Iraqi oil. Saudi oil goes to Japan.


As I said, who cares, their is enough to go around.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 1:26:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 1:21:20 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:02:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:57:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:

Agreed. Wrcriw cares more about China and the Middle East staying poor then a sovereign state being invaded.

A challenge for you. Define how sovereignty is established. Put your definition up against the situation in Taiwan.

Sovereignty is established when the vast majority of the world recognizes a country and constitution. And I agree, Taiwan has not achieved that sovereign status, probably due to pressure from China. An invasion of Taiwan is wrong for more then one factor, just as the invasion of Ukraine. You can restrict me to base meanings and definitions, but that doesn't make what Russia did any less wrong.

You have just cited realpolitik. Notice how ideology had nothing to do with sovereignty.

Russia is making a realpolitik move in the Ukraine. The results of that move will determine sovereignty...not your sense of legality or international law.

What is right and wrong, without the compass of realpolitik, is totally and utterly baseless, subjective, and meaningless in the realm of international politics.

Right by might is the only determinant. Ukraine is short on both.

sovereign state
A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area.
Sovereign state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state


Sovereignty is determined by real-politik. There is no other determining factor.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 1:29:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 1:22:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:15:17 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:58:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 12:52:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 1:28:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Implications:

1) The winners - The Middle East and China. China gets a more "reliable" source of energy (as Russia becomes more dependent and thus more pliable to Chinese trade/influence). Any disruption in energy markets benefits the existing suppliers, i.e. OPEC and the Middle East in general.

2) Strengthening of the Sino-Russian alliance (dependent upon how much more pressure the West can put on China).

3) Europe pays more for energy. Assuming this leads to sanctions, they pay Islamic countries instead of Russia for their energy. Most Islamic countries have a hard-on for aggressive action against the West's standard-bearer, i.e. the US.

Overall, IMHO isolating Russia is not in the West's interests. It creates more problems.

1) I agree, it seems China benefits, and the middle east can raise their oil prices. As YYY said though, the only industry has been lightly touched.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is another oil war. It took years for oil prices to feel the effects of Iraq.

This has nothing to do with oil. Neither side benefits in the slightest, besides Arab countries.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Just to be clear, my comment only deals with IF there is a war in the Crimea, and I sincerely doubt there will be. There will be a Russian occupation, possible Western-funded Ukrainian terrorist counter-insurgency, and life moves on.

Apologies for the source...I just put up the first one from a google on "crimea oil". Apparently it was not as descriptive as what I've been reading.

Here's the 2nd link from that search, and is much more relevant to the topic:

http://www.theguardian.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?