Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Russian Sanctions

cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 12:59:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I actively participate in public forum debate, and I'm not a huge fan of the latest topic.
It is: On balance, economic sanctions are reducing the threat Russia poses to western interests. I'd love to see what everyone thinks of the topic.

I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with pro arguments, and it'd be nice to engage in a discussion with some people on this website on strategies they'd use while arguing this topic. I'll try respond to every comment :)
cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 1:06:32 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The name of this thread is kinda bad, I should have said sanctions placed on Russia or something like that.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 1:53:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 12:59:08 AM, cocaine wrote:
I actively participate in public forum debate, and I'm not a huge fan of the latest topic.
It is: On balance, economic sanctions are reducing the threat Russia poses to western interests. I'd love to see what everyone thinks of the topic.

I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with pro arguments, and it'd be nice to engage in a discussion with some people on this website on strategies they'd use while arguing this topic. I'll try respond to every comment :)

The sanctions are in place to pressure Russia into giving up its stolen territory in Ukraine. If taken to an extreme level the sanctions could make Russian losses from continuing their occupation of Crimea (and thus causing the sanctions to continue) outweigh what they'd gain, thus leaving them with no logical reason to continue.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:01:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 1:57:52 AM, YYW wrote:
*must resist temptation to troll*

oh please do :)
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:01:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The key word here is indeed 'western interests'~~which is precisely why these sanctions are in place.

In theory, one would perhaps assume that these sanctions *do* reduce the threat that Russia poses to western interests, but the reality is that they simply do not~~in fact, invariably no *real* reduction has been made and Russia has and will continue to act out of self-interest, which undeniably, is exactly what the west does. The difference it makes to Putin and his acquaintances (the ones that have been sanctioned) is non-existent.

However, this isn't to say that Russian people themselves aren't suffering as a result of a poor economical year~~which is largely attributed to the sanctions and subsequent low oil prices. However, that is something that has absolutely no bearing on the threat itself and what Vladimir Putin decides to do. It's the Russian people themselves that are hurt the most.

Those in Moscow and all over the country (I have friends from Saratov, Perm, etc.) have all felt it.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:03:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 1:57:52 AM, YYW wrote:
*must resist temptation to troll*

and while you're at it, join hangouts ya fooooool. I'm gonna go grab some beer real quick, but will be back in about 10 min. I bettah see you there suckah, so we can discuss that article you sent me in a PM.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:03:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:01:36 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 1/4/2016 1:57:52 AM, YYW wrote:
*must resist temptation to troll*

oh please do :)

I think it might be more fun to troll the stupid people who try to say intelligent things...

Although I really am kind of in a trolling mood.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:04:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:03:16 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 1/4/2016 1:57:52 AM, YYW wrote:
*must resist temptation to troll*

and while you're at it, join hangouts ya fooooool. I'm gonna go grab some beer real quick, but will be back in about 10 min. I bettah see you there suckah, so we can discuss that article you sent me in a PM.

Maybe... it might happen, but if I join, it will be in an hour or so.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:06:19 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:01:42 AM, Emilrose wrote:
The key word here is indeed 'western interests'~~which is precisely why these sanctions are in place.

In theory, one would perhaps assume that these sanctions *do* reduce the threat that Russia poses to western interests, but the reality is that they simply do not~~in fact, invariably no *real* reduction has been made and Russia has and will continue to act out of self-interest, which undeniably, is exactly what the west does. The difference it makes to Putin and his acquaintances (the ones that have been sanctioned) is non-existent.

However, this isn't to say that Russian people themselves aren't suffering as a result of a poor economical year~~which is largely attributed to the sanctions and subsequent low oil prices. However, that is something that has absolutely no bearing on the threat itself and what Vladimir Putin decides to do. It's the Russian people themselves that are hurt the most.

Those in Moscow and all over the country (I have friends from Saratov, Perm, etc.) have all felt it.

*she said, never even articulating any threat that Russia poses to western interests, without defining what western interests are, all while assuming that Russia does pose a threat, while never even providing a warrant for her claims in any respect*
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:14:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 1:53:04 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/4/2016 12:59:08 AM, cocaine wrote:
I actively participate in public forum debate, and I'm not a huge fan of the latest topic.
It is: On balance, economic sanctions are reducing the threat Russia poses to western interests. I'd love to see what everyone thinks of the topic.

I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with pro arguments, and it'd be nice to engage in a discussion with some people on this website on strategies they'd use while arguing this topic. I'll try respond to every comment :)

The sanctions are in place to pressure Russia into giving up its stolen territory in Ukraine.

Wrong.

If taken to an extreme level the sanctions could make Russian losses from continuing their occupation of Crimea (and thus causing the sanctions to continue) outweigh what they'd gain, thus leaving them with no logical reason to continue.

Wrong.
Tsar of DDO
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:28:29 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:23:17 AM, YYW wrote:
But yeah... it is really taking everything in me to not troll this.

i can see that lol
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:29:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:28:29 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 1/4/2016 2:23:17 AM, YYW wrote:
But yeah... it is really taking everything in me to not troll this.

i can see that lol

It's a struggle...
Tsar of DDO
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:40:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
@YYW,

Actually, they haven't inquired as to any of those things. This thread is basically asking if 'the threat' from Russia towards western interests is reduced; not what the threat is, what western interests are, and *if* Russia does indeed pose (any) threat. It's acting on the premise that those things are already established. Therefore, it would unnecessary to address those points and go into any additional detail.

And what claims need a 'warrant' exactly?
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:15:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:40:41 AM, Emilrose wrote:
@YYW,

Actually, they haven't inquired as to any of those things. This thread is basically asking if 'the threat' from Russia

Yeah, you have to actually talk about what that threat is before you can determine what, if any, impact sanctions are having on it.

towards western interests is reduced;

Again, it would be absurd to just arbitrarily talk about vague, general notions of "threat." What is the threat? Without telling me that, you can't even begin to talk about what impact sanctions are having on whatever threat Russia poses.

not what the threat is, what western interests are, and *if* Russia does indeed pose (any) threat. It's acting on the premise that those things are already established.

Wrong.

Therefore, it would unnecessary to address those points and go into any additional detail.

That is just wrong. The nature of the threat is going to define the scope of what effects you're going to look for to determine sanctions' efficacy; it's going to be the foundation of any intelligible argument you could make on this issue.

And what claims need a 'warrant' exactly?

Every single claim you made.
Tsar of DDO
cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:26:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 1:53:04 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/4/2016 12:59:08 AM, cocaine wrote:
I actively participate in public forum debate, and I'm not a huge fan of the latest topic.
It is: On balance, economic sanctions are reducing the threat Russia poses to western interests. I'd love to see what everyone thinks of the topic.

I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with pro arguments, and it'd be nice to engage in a discussion with some people on this website on strategies they'd use while arguing this topic. I'll try respond to every comment :)

The sanctions are in place to pressure Russia into giving up its stolen territory in Ukraine. If taken to an extreme level the sanctions could make Russian losses from continuing their occupation of Crimea (and thus causing the sanctions to continue) outweigh what they'd gain, thus leaving them with no logical reason to continue.

From my research, I don't really feel like the sanctions are charged with eliminiting Russia's agenda as a whole. The sanctions are simply there to constrain Russia for the time being. In Spring 2014 when the sanctions were first instituted, russia had annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine (you mention this) and the instituted sanctions supposedly stopped Russia from more of Ukraine and neighboring countries.

Even if Russia still wants to do such, they don't have the means to because they have to focus on the internal turmoil caused by the sanctions (ex: they took 20 billion or so away from their savings fund).
cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:37:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:01:42 AM, Emilrose wrote:
The key word here is indeed 'western interests'~~which is precisely why these sanctions are in place.

What do you feel western interests are exactly?


In theory, one would perhaps assume that these sanctions *do* reduce the threat that Russia poses to western interests, but the reality is that they simply do not~~in fact, invariably no *real* reduction has been made and Russia has and will continue to act out of self-interest, which undeniably, is exactly what the west does. The difference it makes to Putin and his acquaintances (the ones that have been sanctioned) is non-existent.

Well yes, Putin will still act out of self interest for sure. However, sanctions cause him to be slightly constrained in what he can do. If sanctions wreak havoc on the Russian economy, Putin can no longer feasibly work on trying to annex more of Ukraine. The source I've been looking at is from Stanislav Secrieru, (Senior Research Fellow. PRISM and PhD) and he basically argues that the entire reason that the United States and the EU didn't have to intervene militarily was because of the sanctions. In spring of 2014, money was allocated away from Russia's projects charged with trying to take more of Ukraine, trying to advance their political agenda, ect and is allocated towards fixing the economy. Russia couldn't take more of Ukraine and couldn't harm the neighboring countries either so the western powers had no reason to intervene.

I would argue that this certianly fulfills western interests if we consider the threat that the Russian nuclear arsenal could pose to western powers. If the west uses military intervention, they are more at risk.


However, this isn't to say that Russian people themselves aren't suffering as a result of a poor economical year~~which is largely attributed to the sanctions and subsequent low oil prices. However, that is something that has absolutely no bearing on the threat itself and what Vladimir Putin decides to do. It's the Russian people themselves that are hurt the most.

Those in Moscow and all over the country (I have friends from Saratov, Perm, etc.) have all felt it.

Despite my arguments, above I tend to agree with you. Putin's favorability ratings are exceedingly high (80%) because the sanctions, imposed by the west, hurt the common man. It unites the country against the US and EU, which is inarguably against western interest.
cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:40:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:40:41 AM, Emilrose wrote:
@YYW,

Actually, they haven't inquired as to any of those things. This thread is basically asking if 'the threat' from Russia towards western interests is reduced; not what the threat is, what western interests are, and *if* Russia does indeed pose (any) threat. It's acting on the premise that those things are already established. Therefore, it would unnecessary to address those points and go into any additional detail.

And what claims need a 'warrant' exactly?

I mean, in order to argue whether or not the sanctions are reducing a threat posed to western interests you kind of have to know what the interests of the west are.

I think the interests of the west are pretty obvious - they want Russia to be more compliant, stop interfering with the soveringty of Ukraine, and ideall the west doesn't want to get into military combat. Still, it's important to establish interests before talking about how and why sanctions affect the accomplishment of US and EU goals.
cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:41:47 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:14:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2016 1:53:04 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/4/2016 12:59:08 AM, cocaine wrote:
I actively participate in public forum debate, and I'm not a huge fan of the latest topic.
It is: On balance, economic sanctions are reducing the threat Russia poses to western interests. I'd love to see what everyone thinks of the topic.

I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with pro arguments, and it'd be nice to engage in a discussion with some people on this website on strategies they'd use while arguing this topic. I'll try respond to every comment :)

The sanctions are in place to pressure Russia into giving up its stolen territory in Ukraine.

Wrong.

If taken to an extreme level the sanctions could make Russian losses from continuing their occupation of Crimea (and thus causing the sanctions to continue) outweigh what they'd gain, thus leaving them with no logical reason to continue.

Wrong.

Why is vox_veritas so wrong?
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:42:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 3:40:56 AM, cocaine wrote:
At 1/4/2016 2:40:41 AM, Emilrose wrote:
@YYW,

Actually, they haven't inquired as to any of those things. This thread is basically asking if 'the threat' from Russia towards western interests is reduced; not what the threat is, what western interests are, and *if* Russia does indeed pose (any) threat. It's acting on the premise that those things are already established. Therefore, it would unnecessary to address those points and go into any additional detail.

And what claims need a 'warrant' exactly?

I mean, in order to argue whether or not the sanctions are reducing a threat posed to western interests you kind of have to know what the interests of the west are.

I think the interests of the west are pretty obvious - they want Russia to be more compliant, stop interfering with the soveringty of Ukraine, and ideall the west doesn't want to get into military combat. Still, it's important to establish interests before talking about how and why sanctions affect the accomplishment of US and EU goals.

Smart kid.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:44:25 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 3:41:47 AM, cocaine wrote:
At 1/4/2016 2:14:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2016 1:53:04 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/4/2016 12:59:08 AM, cocaine wrote:
I actively participate in public forum debate, and I'm not a huge fan of the latest topic.
It is: On balance, economic sanctions are reducing the threat Russia poses to western interests. I'd love to see what everyone thinks of the topic.

I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with pro arguments, and it'd be nice to engage in a discussion with some people on this website on strategies they'd use while arguing this topic. I'll try respond to every comment :)

The sanctions are in place to pressure Russia into giving up its stolen territory in Ukraine.

Wrong.

If taken to an extreme level the sanctions could make Russian losses from continuing their occupation of Crimea (and thus causing the sanctions to continue) outweigh what they'd gain, thus leaving them with no logical reason to continue.

Wrong.

Why is vox_veritas so wrong?

If the objective was to force Russia to return Crimea, then the West would have invaded Crimea. The whole point of sanctions is to say "you can do this, but it will come at a very high price." to Russia. It also says "a tiny peninsula isn't worth starting WWIII over."

The sanctions are to punish Russia without risking a world war, but everyone knows Ukraine is never getting Crimea back.
Tsar of DDO
cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:49:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 3:44:25 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2016 3:41:47 AM, cocaine wrote:
At 1/4/2016 2:14:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2016 1:53:04 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/4/2016 12:59:08 AM, cocaine wrote:
I actively participate in public forum debate, and I'm not a huge fan of the latest topic.
It is: On balance, economic sanctions are reducing the threat Russia poses to western interests. I'd love to see what everyone thinks of the topic.

I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with pro arguments, and it'd be nice to engage in a discussion with some people on this website on strategies they'd use while arguing this topic. I'll try respond to every comment :)

The sanctions are in place to pressure Russia into giving up its stolen territory in Ukraine.

Wrong.

If taken to an extreme level the sanctions could make Russian losses from continuing their occupation of Crimea (and thus causing the sanctions to continue) outweigh what they'd gain, thus leaving them with no logical reason to continue.

Wrong.

Why is vox_veritas so wrong?

If the objective was to force Russia to return Crimea, then the West would have invaded Crimea. The whole point of sanctions is to say "you can do this, but it will come at a very high price." to Russia. It also says "a tiny peninsula isn't worth starting WWIII over."

The sanctions are to punish Russia without risking a world war, but everyone knows Ukraine is never getting Crimea back.

agreed
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 4:33:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 3:15:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2016 2:40:41 AM, Emilrose wrote:
@YYW,

Actually, they haven't inquired as to any of those things. This thread is basically asking if 'the threat' from Russia

Yeah, you have to actually talk about what that threat is before you can determine what, if any, impact sanctions are having on it.

Well, it's already outlined that the 'threat' is towards *western interests*~~Western interests would be invariably no aggression from Russia, continued support of Western allies, preservation of western benefits, etc.~~which are not Russian interests as such.

towards western interests is reduced;

Again, it would be absurd to just arbitrarily talk about vague, general notions of "threat." What is the threat? Without telling me that, you can't even begin to talk about what impact sanctions are having on whatever threat Russia poses.

Perhaps that would apply if this was in a debate-setting, but it's not. I posted an informal answer to a relatively informal question, and my intention is not (and technically should be not) to give every single person that enters this thread an in-depth assessment of the political context between Russia and the West. Rather, I have focused exclusively on what the OP states.

not what the threat is, what western interests are, and *if* Russia does indeed pose (any) threat. It's acting on the premise that those things are already established.

Wrong.

How so?

Therefore, it would unnecessary to address those points and go into any additional detail.

That is just wrong. The nature of the threat is going to define the scope of what effects you're going to look for to determine sanctions' efficacy; it's going to be the foundation of any intelligible argument you could make on this issue.


Not necessarily, and again: they are not asking what the threat is (to western interests), but if sanctions are successful in reducing that threat. Once again if it was being asked *if* there was indeed a 'threat' and what it was, I would have addressed those questions too. But it's essentially being assumed that there already is~~not by me, but by the user who is responsible for creating this thread. As can be seen, they are participating in another forum which has more or less established that Russian/western interests differ and are thus not compatible with one another, and are therefore discussing the effectiveness of sanctions put forward by the West and how much they minimise Russia's 'threat' towards Western interests.

And what claims need a 'warrant' exactly?

Every single claim you made.

You should be more specific, the primary claims I made were 1.) that the sanctions have limited if any affect on the decisions of the Russian government itself and 2.) that in despite of that, it doesn't necessarily prevent the general Russian population from being impacted. The latter in particular should be pretty obvious if you're aware of the present economical situation in Russia, and the decline in oil prices; which I believe, *has* been reported on by Western media.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 4:37:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 3:40:56 AM, cocaine wrote:
At 1/4/2016 2:40:41 AM, Emilrose wrote:
@YYW,

Actually, they haven't inquired as to any of those things. This thread is basically asking if 'the threat' from Russia towards western interests is reduced; not what the threat is, what western interests are, and *if* Russia does indeed pose (any) threat. It's acting on the premise that those things are already established. Therefore, it would unnecessary to address those points and go into any additional detail.

And what claims need a 'warrant' exactly?

I mean, in order to argue whether or not the sanctions are reducing a threat posed to western interests you kind of have to know what the interests of the west are.

In that case, you should have actually asked that.

I think the interests of the west are pretty obvious - they want Russia to be more compliant, stop interfering with the soveringty of Ukraine, and ideall the west doesn't want to get into military combat. Still, it's important to establish interests before talking about how and why sanctions affect the accomplishment of US and EU goals.

It's correct about the compliance from Russia~~that's a primary interest of the West's. I will reiterate however that you absolutely did *not* ask what the threat is, and what Western interests are.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 4:57:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 3:37:36 AM, cocaine wrote:
At 1/4/2016 2:01:42 AM, Emilrose wrote:
The key word here is indeed 'western interests'~~which is precisely why these sanctions are in place.

What do you feel western interests are exactly?


In theory, one would perhaps assume that these sanctions *do* reduce the threat that Russia poses to western interests, but the reality is that they simply do not~~in fact, invariably no *real* reduction has been made and Russia has and will continue to act out of self-interest, which undeniably, is exactly what the west does. The difference it makes to Putin and his acquaintances (the ones that have been sanctioned) is non-existent.

Well yes, Putin will still act out of self interest for sure. However, sanctions cause him to be slightly constrained in what he can do. If sanctions wreak havoc on the Russian economy, Putin can no longer feasibly work on trying to annex more of Ukraine. The source I've been looking at is from Stanislav Secrieru, (Senior Research Fellow. PRISM and PhD) and he basically argues that the entire reason that the United States and the EU didn't have to intervene militarily was because of the sanctions. In spring of 2014, money was allocated away from Russia's projects charged with trying to take more of Ukraine, trying to advance their political agenda, ect and is allocated towards fixing the economy. Russia couldn't take more of Ukraine and couldn't harm the neighboring countries either so the western powers had no reason to intervene.

The major problem with this is that you've assumed that Putin had/has plans to occupy the rest of the Ukraine~~which is there is no evidence to really support. The historical and political context of the Crimea is slightly different to that of the Ukraine as a whole, and a lot of ethnic Russians there have an invested interest in being a part of Russia. The Ukrainian government is certainly not without its issues and (despite Western underplaying of this), and that's one reason why many there believe they will likely better off under (mostly) Russian control. I'd point out that the Ukraine still has the North of Arabat and Syvash.

I would argue that this certianly fulfills western interests if we consider the threat that the Russian nuclear arsenal could pose to western powers. If the west uses military intervention, they are more at risk.

Personally I don't think there's any legitimate threat of Russia ever doing anything with its nuclear arsenal. There may exist different agendas, but it certainly doesn't enhance Russia's interests to nuke or indeed take *any* military action against the West.


However, this isn't to say that Russian people themselves aren't suffering as a result of a poor economical year~~which is largely attributed to the sanctions and subsequent low oil prices. However, that is something that has absolutely no bearing on the threat itself and what Vladimir Putin decides to do. It's the Russian people themselves that are hurt the most.

Those in Moscow and all over the country (I have friends from Saratov, Perm, etc.) have all felt it.

Despite my arguments, above I tend to agree with you. Putin's favorability ratings are exceedingly high (80%) because the sanctions, imposed by the west, hurt the common man. It unites the country against the US and EU, which is inarguably against western interest.

Yes, there's plenty of Russians that do blame the U.S and E.U, but at the same time there's also quite a few that are against Putin. There's two in particular that I know that dislike him for prioritising international interests over national ones~~and for basically ignoring domestic problems and Russian people themselves.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:58:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 4:37:48 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/4/2016 3:40:56 AM, cocaine wrote:
At 1/4/2016 2:40:41 AM, Emilrose wrote:
@YYW,

Actually, they haven't inquired as to any of those things. This thread is basically asking if 'the threat' from Russia towards western interests is reduced; not what the threat is, what western interests are, and *if* Russia does indeed pose (any) threat. It's acting on the premise that those things are already established. Therefore, it would unnecessary to address those points and go into any additional detail.

And what claims need a 'warrant' exactly?

I mean, in order to argue whether or not the sanctions are reducing a threat posed to western interests you kind of have to know what the interests of the west are.

In that case, you should have actually asked that.

I think the interests of the west are pretty obvious - they want Russia to be more compliant, stop interfering with the soveringty of Ukraine, and ideall the west doesn't want to get into military combat. Still, it's important to establish interests before talking about how and why sanctions affect the accomplishment of US and EU goals.

It's correct about the compliance from Russia~~that's a primary interest of the West's. I will reiterate however that you absolutely did *not* ask what the threat is, and what Western interests are.

I think we agree on what the basic interests of the west are, so it doesn't even matter. I didn't directly ask what interests and threats were, however adiquately arguing for or against the topic I provided obviously necessitates knowledge pertaining to both.
cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 7:11:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 4:57:11 PM, Emilrose wrote:


The major problem with this is that you've assumed that Putin had/has plans to occupy the rest of the Ukraine~~which is there is no evidence to really support. The historical and political context of the Crimea is slightly different to that of the Ukraine as a whole, and a lot of ethnic Russians there have an invested interest in being a part of Russia. The Ukrainian government is certainly not without its issues and (despite Western underplaying of this), and that's one reason why many there believe they will likely better off under (mostly) Russian control. I'd point out that the Ukraine still has the North of Arabat and Syvash.

Upon fairly brief research, I'd say Ukraine is quite divided on the issue. The part of Ukraine closer to Russia speaks the language and tends to maintain more compliant, however the western area has more ties to the EU.. its a country divided.

What exactly do you feel Russia wants?


Personally I don't think there's any legitimate threat of Russia ever doing anything with its nuclear arsenal. There may exist different agendas, but it certainly doesn't enhance Russia's interests to nuke or indeed take *any* military action against the West.


It kind of hinges on what Russia's interests are. If Russia is interested in taking more of Ukraine or taking some surrounding countries, then the west will naturally intervene militarily as they would have had to during the Spring of 2014 when Putin was expected to try more aggressively to accumulate land. That's obviously a risky move considering the resources possessed by Russia.

However if you are correct, and Russia didn't plan to do anything more than annex Crimea, then perhaps sanctions are unnecessary when it comes to protecting the peace (a western interest).



Despite my arguments, above I tend to agree with you. Putin's favorability ratings are exceedingly high (80%) because the sanctions, imposed by the west, hurt the common man. It unites the country against the US and EU, which is unarguably against western interest.

Yes, there's plenty of Russians that do blame the U.S and E.U, but at the same time there's also quite a few that are against Putin. There's two in particular that I know that dislike him for prioritising international interests over national ones~~and for basically ignoring domestic problems and Russian people themselves.

So I guess, in that way, truly the Russian populous is the only group that suffers from the sanctions. Although, Putin has been allocating money towards helping the economy (though it probably isn't enough to do much).
cocaine
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 7:12:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 6:31:17 PM, YYW wrote:
Emilrose, wold you like for me to explain to you why you are wrong?

I'd like you to exaplain why she is wrong lol