Russia hits West with food import ban in sanctions row

[Freiheit Reich]

Countries need to stop sanctions. They hurt the common people. The leaders are powerful and never get affected by sanctions.

Last I heard, Russia is a democracy. Or at least it claims to be. Which means the people are free to vote Putin out of office anytime. Strictly speaking, this whole thing is the "common people's" fault for voting him into office in the first place.

True, I agree with this point, but it will be a few years until they can reelect a new leader and that leader may also not do what is best for the common people.

Look at how Obama was elected because Bush made Americans hate republicans. He has screwed the American people as well and kept us in Afghanistan (an unpopular war), gave away money to nations that hate us (often unpopular as well), and renewed the Patriot Act.

Tony Blair got the UK involved in the Iraq War (against the wishes of the UK people).

This is proof that leaders often go against the wishes of their people once in power and replacing them is often hopeless as well. The only way to change things is with a revolution which will likely involve a lot of bloodshed and it still might be useless (ex. the Bolshevik Revolution and China-1949 which brought in even worse leaders).

Why can't the leader do what is best for the people because he wants his nation to succeed and his people to have a good quality of life? This would be the best situation.

[Shofercia]

While I understand the 99% faux care suddenly expressed at the poor, poor Russians who will no longer be able to feed themselves that is so "valiantly" expressed in this thread by so many, I would like to remind everyone, (ok, most the neocons and neolibs,) that Russia has nukes should you consider the option of "humanitarian" intervention, because judging by the results in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Ukraine, we're just not that interested in the "promotion" of our "human rights". Granted, I don't live in Russia, but that's the general gist of things that I've been asked to convey. Thank you all for your attention.

For those who actually want to understand why the government did this, read on! You see, in the US/EU, the middle class is shrinking, whereas in Russia the middle class is growing. (I'm talking about percentage wise, not number wise, although in Russia it's both; however, since the population of Earth is going up, percent serve as a better comparison.) You're right that these sanctions won't destroy, or even massively hurt, the US/EU economies. They will, however, discourage other countries from imposing sanctions against Russia and encourage the EU countries to carefully review their policy once the three month term comes up. Additionally, they'll drive the prices up in Europe, thus effectively taking out Ukraine's agricultural sector. Whoops. Poroshenko's "fuck you, now please buy my product" policy once again successfully devastates Ukraine's economy. What a champ! If there was a medal awarded for devastating one's own country, he'd certainly be in the running.

More importantly for Putin, it'll strengthen the agricultural sector in Russia. He knows that he's got at least three months before the sanctions are reviewed. That's just enough time to use this period to relaunch the Stolypin Reforms. If you don't know much about these, take heart, neither does the US government, whereas the Russian analysts employed by the private sector are laughing their asses off, considering that the Stolypin Reforms were highlighted on Russian national television. Maybe the White House should get someone who can actually analyze Russia, instead of spin artists? I mean if you're going under budget, keep the actual analysts in place. Just a thought. Anyways, the Stolypin Reforms were a "moderate success" according to Brittanica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... and-reform

They failed not because of the reforms, but because of Russia's involvement in WWI. That's not going to happen again. Even if Russia invades Ukraine, it'll be a limited war, and a short one at that. It certainly won't be on the level of WWI. What Putin is doing is, to quote Brittanica, trying to create a class of prosperous, conservative, small farmers that would be a stabilizing influence in the countryside. What better way to do it than to increase demand and have the state fund said increase. Another effect of the sanctions is that they've rallied the super rich in Russia behind Putin. Having support of all classes would be the ideal time to launch said reform. And this simple analysis was successfully missed by Warshington, the press, and quite a few people in general who pretend to be Russian analysts, but really aren't.

Putin's effectively using Obama's sanctions to shore up support at home where his support is already over 80%. Obama, how do I say this? "The sanctions have failed, get back to work fixing America, namely illegal immigration and the economy. Oh, and you might want to take a closer look at how the Rust Belt is doing. And that Social Security thingy while you're at it. Thank you!"

Oh, and one more thing. If something is billed as "only a moderate success" by Brittanica, when it's biased against said country, during the volatile 1905-1917 period, imagine, just imagine, what it will become during the period of stability that Russia's currently experiencing.

[California Prime]

Putin can turn this into a pissing contest like he does with everything else to his heart's content, he is still hurting his own country far more than the US or EU

[Shofercia]

Putin can turn this into a pissing contest like he does with everything else to his heart's content, he is still hurting his own country far more than the US or EU

If the Russians are severely hurt by this, we'll see Putin's approval ratings go down quite a bit. So, we'll see what happens. Being a factinista, I'll wait for the facts.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Putin can turn this into a pissing contest like he does with everything else to his heart's content, he is still hurting his own country far more than the US or EU

If the Russians are severely hurt by this, we'll see Putin's approval ratings go down quite a bit. So, we'll see what happens. Being a factinista, I'll wait for the facts.

Pretty sure he meant economically. There's plenty of facts that this whole Ukrainian adventure has really stunted the Russian economy.

[Shofercia]

If the Russians are severely hurt by this, we'll see Putin's approval ratings go down quite a bit. So, we'll see what happens. Being a factinista, I'll wait for the facts.

Pretty sure he meant economically. There's plenty of facts that this whole Ukrainian adventure has really stunted the Russian economy.

In the short term, yes. In the long term, if EU is left to bailout Rump Ukraine... http://ucgsblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/0 ... -not-seen/

On the other hand the EU would be stuck with Rump Ukraine. The tab of incorporation would be at least $110 billion. And Southeast Ukraine would be Russian. How will the citizens of the EU react to that, when austerity is already ensuring massive gains for any anti-austerity parties, even the ones on the extreme right and left of the political spectrum? My guess is that the EU citizens will not react very positively. This comes in addition to the EU being forced to pay for Rump Ukraine’s gas, which Rump Ukraine will siphon from the EU in order to keep their economy semi-functional. This would stick the EU with a tab that few in the EU wanted to pay in the first place, while looking defeated in the eyes of the rest of the World. The failure would be several times more devastating than EULEX.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Pretty sure he meant economically. There's plenty of facts that this whole Ukrainian adventure has really stunted the Russian economy.

In the short term, yes. In the long term, if EU is left to bailout Rump Ukraine... http://ucgsblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/0 ... -not-seen/

On the other hand the EU would be stuck with Rump Ukraine. The tab of incorporation would be at least $110 billion. And Southeast Ukraine would be Russian. How will the citizens of the EU react to that, when austerity is already ensuring massive gains for any anti-austerity parties, even the ones on the extreme right and left of the political spectrum? My guess is that the EU citizens will not react very positively. This comes in addition to the EU being forced to pay for Rump Ukraine’s gas, which Rump Ukraine will siphon from the EU in order to keep their economy semi-functional. This would stick the EU with a tab that few in the EU wanted to pay in the first place, while looking defeated in the eyes of the rest of the World. The failure would be several times more devastating than EULEX.

C'mon Shof, a blog? I expected more from you It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term though, that much is true.

[Shofercia]

In the short term, yes. In the long term, if EU is left to bailout Rump Ukraine... http://ucgsblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/0 ... -not-seen/

C'mon Shof, a blog? I expected more from you It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term though, that much is true.

It's late, I'm lazy, and it's a blog utilizing a scholarly article

[Syike]

There's only one thing to do now,



reinstate the Tsardom and let them expand their borders eastward into Asia to gain access to more warm-water ports (fucking Japanese assholes)

[The Liberated Territories]

[sarcasm]I'm starving.[/sarcasm]

[Sociobiology]

Last I heard, Russia is a democracy. Or at least it claims to be. Which means the people are free to vote Putin out of office anytime. Strictly speaking, this whole thing is the "common people's" fault for voting him into office in the first place.

True, I agree with this point, but it will be a few years until they can reelect a new leader and that leader may also not do what is best for the common people.

Look at how Obama was elected because Bush made Americans hate republicans. He has screwed the American people as well and kept us in Afghanistan (an unpopular war), gave away money to nations that hate us (often unpopular as well), and renewed the Patriot Act.

Tony Blair got the UK involved in the Iraq War (against the wishes of the UK people).

This is proof that leaders often go against the wishes of their people once in power and replacing them is often hopeless as well. The only way to change things is with a revolution which will likely involve a lot of bloodshed and it still might be useless (ex. the Bolshevik Revolution and China-1949 which brought in even worse leaders).

Why can't the leader do what is best for the people because he wants his nation to succeed and his people to have a good quality of life? This would be the best situation.

thats what most leaders try to do, the major problem is lack of knowledge.

[Tahar Joblis]

For those who actually want to understand why the government did this, read on! You see, in the US/EU, the middle class is shrinking, whereas in Russia the middle class is growing. (I'm talking about percentage wise, not number wise, although in Russia it's both; however, since the population of Earth is going up, percent serve as a better comparison.) You're right that these sanctions won't destroy, or even massively hurt, the US/EU economies. They will, however, discourage other countries from imposing sanctions against Russia and encourage the EU countries to carefully review their policy once the three month term comes up. Additionally, they'll drive the prices up in Europe, thus effectively taking out Ukraine's agricultural sector. Whoops. Poroshenko's "fuck you, now please buy my product" policy once again successfully devastates Ukraine's economy. What a champ! If there was a medal awarded for devastating one's own country, he'd certainly be in the running.

The effect of Russia banning food imports from Europe means a quantity of European food will not be exported to Russia. This can either be exported elsewhere or consumed in Europe.

Supply increases in Europe, in other words, relative to demand. Exactly why you expect this to drive the prices up in Europe, I'm not sure.

Take salmon. Salmon will become cheaper in Europe. And, as Allanea pointed out, more expensive in Russia.

Basic market forces at work here: Prices will rise in Russia, and will fall in Europe. They will rise in Russia more than they fall in Europe.

Rising food prices, by the way, tend to contribute to socioeconomic inequality. I'll go with Allanea's prediction that Putin insiders who shuffled investments before this happened will make a mint.

More importantly for Putin, it'll strengthen the agricultural sector in Russia.

Maybe. Right now, California exports more food than Russia does. In the mean time, the increased prices on food will hurt everyone who isn't rich or working in the agricultural sector. (And maybe some who are - especially people whose businesses involved importing food.)

He knows that he's got at least three months before the sanctions are reviewed. That's just enough time to use this period to relaunch the Stolypin Reforms.

I thought the Soviets got rid of the practice of having peasant villages communally strip-farm land when they mechanized agriculture. Has Putin been reintroducing it? Because that's the system Stolypin was getting rid of.

They failed not because of the reforms, but because of Russia's involvement in WWI. That's not going to happen again. Even if Russia invades Ukraine, it'll be a limited war, and a short one at that. It certainly won't be on the level of WWI. What Putin is doing is, to quote Brittanica, trying to create a class of prosperous, conservative, small farmers that would be a stabilizing influence in the countryside. What better way to do it than to increase demand and have the state fund said increase. Another effect of the sanctions is that they've rallied the super rich in Russia behind Putin. Having support of all classes would be the ideal time to launch said reform. And this simple analysis was successfully missed by Warshington, the press, and quite a few people in general who pretend to be Russian analysts, but really aren't.

Only 10% of Russia's population is employed by the agricultural sector. (As opposed to 2% in the United States.) It may be a political interest group, but agricultural workers + super-rich != "all classes."

At the point in time when Stolypin was trying to go to town on the medieval agricultural system in place, over two thirds of the Empire's population worked the soil directly, and roughly half the remainder were also peasants in the village system.

[Nervium]

There's only one thing to do now,



reinstate the Tsardom and let them expand their borders eastward into Asia to gain access to more warm-water ports (fucking Japanese assholes)

Hey let's not.

[Shofercia]

For those who actually want to understand why the government did this, read on! You see, in the US/EU, the middle class is shrinking, whereas in Russia the middle class is growing. (I'm talking about percentage wise, not number wise, although in Russia it's both; however, since the population of Earth is going up, percent serve as a better comparison.) You're right that these sanctions won't destroy, or even massively hurt, the US/EU economies. They will, however, discourage other countries from imposing sanctions against Russia and encourage the EU countries to carefully review their policy once the three month term comes up. Additionally, they'll drive the prices up in Europe, thus effectively taking out Ukraine's agricultural sector. Whoops. Poroshenko's "fuck you, now please buy my product" policy once again successfully devastates Ukraine's economy. What a champ! If there was a medal awarded for devastating one's own country, he'd certainly be in the running.

The effect of Russia banning food imports from Europe means a quantity of European food will not be exported to Russia. This can either be exported elsewhere or consumed in Europe.

Supply increases in Europe, in other words, relative to demand. Exactly why you expect this to drive the prices up in Europe, I'm not sure.

Take salmon. Salmon will become cheaper in Europe. And, as Allanea pointed out, more expensive in Russia.

Basic market forces at work here: Prices will rise in Russia, and will fall in Europe. They will rise in Russia more than they fall in Europe.

Rising food prices, by the way, tend to contribute to socioeconomic inequality. I'll go with Allanea's prediction that Putin insiders who shuffled investments before this happened will make a mint.

I meant to say that the cost of running a food production business in Europe will increase, not that the prices will go up. That was my mistake. The more competition that an industry has, the harder it is to compete in said industry. As a result of Russian sanctions, more goods will have to be sold in Europe, since you cannot magically export all of it. More goods = more competition, if all else is equal.

More importantly for Putin, it'll strengthen the agricultural sector in Russia.

Maybe. Right now, California exports more food than Russia does. In the mean time, the increased prices on food will hurt everyone who isn't rich or working in the agricultural sector. (And maybe some who are - especially people whose businesses involved importing food.)

The government promised to combat the rise in prices and when it comes to Social Rights, the Putin Administration generally has a good track record. Additionally, how's it strengthening the agricultural sector a "maybe"? Government support of industry + market support of industry and you say that "maybe" it'll strengthen said industry? If Ukraine had something like this, you'd be screaming for joy, but since it's Russia all you can muster is a "maybe".

He knows that he's got at least three months before the sanctions are reviewed. That's just enough time to use this period to relaunch the Stolypin Reforms.

I thought the Soviets got rid of the practice of having peasant villages communally strip-farm land when they mechanized agriculture. Has Putin been reintroducing it? Because that's the system Stolypin was getting rid of.

And that's why I cited Britannica instead of Wikipedia. The goal of those specific Stolypin Reforms was to strengthen the agricultural sector through creating a strong, independent agrarian class.

They failed not because of the reforms, but because of Russia's involvement in WWI. That's not going to happen again. Even if Russia invades Ukraine, it'll be a limited war, and a short one at that. It certainly won't be on the level of WWI. What Putin is doing is, to quote Brittanica, trying to create a class of prosperous, conservative, small farmers that would be a stabilizing influence in the countryside. What better way to do it than to increase demand and have the state fund said increase. Another effect of the sanctions is that they've rallied the super rich in Russia behind Putin. Having support of all classes would be the ideal time to launch said reform. And this simple analysis was successfully missed by Warshington, the press, and quite a few people in general who pretend to be Russian analysts, but really aren't.

Only 10% of Russia's population is employed by the agricultural sector. (As opposed to 2% in the United States.) It may be a political interest group, but agricultural workers + super-rich != "all classes."

I wouldn't use the US agricultural figures as a source of reliability when it comes to percentages, since quite a few agricultural workers are illegal immigrants who aren't factored in. I'm not sure why you mentioned the 2%, but big agribusinesses are a drain on the social net in California, and still receive subsidies from Washington. Prosperity for 10 percent is still prosperity, and Putin's Administration currently has the support of all classes, which is exactly what I meant. In case you've been living under a rock:

[Tahar Joblis]

I meant to say that the cost of running a food production business in Europe will increase, not that the prices will go up. That was my mistake. The more competition that an industry has, the harder it is to compete in said industry. As a result of Russian sanctions, more goods will have to be sold in Europe, since you cannot magically export all of it. More goods = more competition, if all else is equal.

The food producers don't make quite as much. On the other hand, people buying food can do so more cheaply. And when food costs rise, so does socioeconomic inequality.

The government promised to combat the rise in prices and when it comes to Social Rights, the Putin Administration generally has a good track record. Additionally, how's it strengthening the agricultural sector a "maybe"? Government support of industry + market support of industry and you say that "maybe" it'll strengthen said industry? If Ukraine had something like this, you'd be screaming for joy, but since it's Russia all you can muster is a "maybe".

... and if this is a temporary measure, then Russian domestic producers who currently struggle to compete with imports will go right back to struggling afterwards. Possibly losing their shirts if they expanded their operations in response. Not to mention that they're still competing with imports from other countries.

If the Ukrainian government decided to block imports from roughly one third of all exporters around the world, including many of its largest trade partners, I would be calling it bad for the Ukrainian economy. What the Ukrainians have asked for is fewer trade barriers, not more.

I've pointed out before that the line of reasoning you defend Putin with is essentially mercantilist.

I thought the Soviets got rid of the practice of having peasant villages communally strip-farm land when they mechanized agriculture. Has Putin been reintroducing it? Because that's the system Stolypin was getting rid of.

And that's why I cited Britannica instead of Wikipedia. The goal of those specific Stolypin Reforms was to strengthen the agricultural sector through creating a strong, independent agrarian class.

Britannica, Wikipedia, doesn't matter. The intention of the Stolypin reforms was to replace the communal peasant village with the individual yeoman farmers.

Yeoman farmers proved more productive than villages communally strip-farming (both in terms of land and labor). The transition from communal strip-farming to yeoman farmers is generally what enabled industrialization - you could now support a larger population, and in particular a larger population doing things other than farmer.

Yeoman farmers were also perceived as less likely to revolt en masse. This is probably accurate; the yeoman farmer's interests are not as tightly tied with his neighbors as that of a village farming communally. This was very important in terms of advancing political stability in Russia at the time, because Russia's population was mostly employed in agricultural work.

The yeoman farmer has since been largely replaced by the commercial farmer. The Stolypin reforms were essentially the same sort of reforms as were implemented elsewhere much earlier. Sweden, for example, decided to do so in 1757; England was already well along doing so on a piecemeal basis at that point (one of the main reasons why England went through an industrial revolution so early).

A set of reforms intended to bring Russia in line with 18th-19th century agricultural practices of more modern parts of Europe are highly unlikely to produce a competitive advantage in the 21st century.

What you're saying is like telling me that Putin will strengthen the textile sector of Russia by employing steam-powered looms. Or strengthen the manufacturing sector of Russia by introducing the assembly line and shift workers. Or strengthen the information sector of Russia by making sure all villages are connected to the telegraph system.

The sociopolitical side of the Stolypin reforms is even less applicable now. Modern farmers using modern machinery are also so productive that they make up a minority of workers in the agricultural sector, and the agricultural sector makes up a small fraction of the labor pool. A modern "new agrarian class" would make up a tiny minority. In Stolypin's day, however, the complete replacement of the medieval peasant farming system would have entailed turning a very large percentage of the Russian population into yeoman farmers - meaning that if yeoman farmers could be a stabilizing force.

I wouldn't use the US agricultural figures as a source of reliability when it comes to percentages, since quite a few agricultural workers are illegal immigrants who aren't factored in. I'm not sure why you mentioned the 2%, but big agribusinesses are a drain on the social net in California, and still receive subsidies from Washington. Prosperity for 10 percent is still prosperity, and Putin's Administration currently has the support of all classes, which is exactly what I meant. In case you've been living under a rock:

As far as illegal immigrants go... The further developed a country's agricultural sector is, generally, the smaller a percentage of the population needs to be involved in actually growing food. Russia today is far more advanced in this regard than Russia of 100 years ago, which is why talking about the Stolypin reforms as if they're something Russia could get something out of implementing now is really weird.

Yes, agribusiness is a strong lobby with lots of money. It is not, however, a large slice of the population. You're talking about enriching the few while impoverishing the many.

[Benuty]

What a bunch of fools, I wonder how many months of western foodstuffs they have left .

[Nazi Flower Power]

This will probably just annoy a lot of people without accomplishing anything useful.

[South Pacific Republic]

Now they want to starve?

[Nervium]

Now they want to starve?

That's a bit over the top, Russia has only banned food from nations that critised it, not the whole world, besides, methinks Russian food production is probably adequate, however, there are some things that will either become scarce (and thus more expensive) or vanish from the markets.

[Central Slavia]

While I understand the 99% faux care suddenly expressed at the poor, poor Russians who will no longer be able to feed themselves that is so "valiantly" expressed in this thread by so many, I would like to remind everyone, (ok, most the neocons and neolibs,) that Russia has nukes should you consider the option of "humanitarian" intervention, because judging by the results in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Ukraine, we're just not that interested in the "promotion" of our "human rights". Granted, I don't live in Russia, but that's the general gist of things that I've been asked to convey. Thank you all for your attention.

For those who actually want to understand why the government did this, read on! You see, in the US/EU, the middle class is shrinking, whereas in Russia the middle class is growing. (I'm talking about percentage wise, not number wise, although in Russia it's both; however, since the population of Earth is going up, percent serve as a better comparison.) You're right that these sanctions won't destroy, or even massively hurt, the US/EU economies. They will, however, discourage other countries from imposing sanctions against Russia and encourage the EU countries to carefully review their policy once the three month term comes up. Additionally, they'll drive the prices up in Europe, thus effectively taking out Ukraine's agricultural sector. Whoops. Poroshenko's "fuck you, now please buy my product" policy once again successfully devastates Ukraine's economy. What a champ! If there was a medal awarded for devastating one's own country, he'd certainly be in the running.

More importantly for Putin, it'll strengthen the agricultural sector in Russia. He knows that he's got at least three months before the sanctions are reviewed. That's just enough time to use this period to relaunch the Stolypin Reforms. If you don't know much about these, take heart, neither does the US government, whereas the Russian analysts employed by the private sector are laughing their asses off, considering that the Stolypin Reforms were highlighted on Russian national television. Maybe the White House should get someone who can actually analyze Russia, instead of spin artists? I mean if you're going under budget, keep the actual analysts in place. Just a thought. Anyways, the Stolypin Reforms were a "moderate success" according to Brittanica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... and-reform

They failed not because of the reforms, but because of Russia's involvement in WWI. That's not going to happen again. Even if Russia invades Ukraine, it'll be a limited war, and a short one at that. It certainly won't be on the level of WWI. What Putin is doing is, to quote Brittanica, trying to create a class of prosperous, conservative, small farmers that would be a stabilizing influence in the countryside. What better way to do it than to increase demand and have the state fund said increase. Another effect of the sanctions is that they've rallied the super rich in Russia behind Putin. Having support of all classes would be the ideal time to launch said reform. And this simple analysis was successfully missed by Warshington, the press, and quite a few people in general who pretend to be Russian analysts, but really aren't.

Putin's effectively using Obama's sanctions to shore up support at home where his support is already over 80%. Obama, how do I say this? "The sanctions have failed, get back to work fixing America, namely illegal immigration and the economy. Oh, and you might want to take a closer look at how the Rust Belt is doing. And that Social Security thingy while you're at it. Thank you!"

Oh, and one more thing. If something is billed as "only a moderate success" by Brittanica, when it's biased against said country, during the volatile 1905-1917 period, imagine, just imagine, what it will become during the period of stability that Russia's currently experiencing.

You are wrong on one count.
This will bring prices *down* due to market oversaturation since a whole fuckton of stuff won't be able to go out of the EU and will have to be sold locally.

Slovakia's agriculture is gonna be fucked... but hey, Carnogursky and the EU screwed us up completely already on this front, so I care less than I ordinarily would.
Go Putin!

[Shofercia]

I meant to say that the cost of running a food production business in Europe will increase, not that the prices will go up. That was my mistake. The more competition that an industry has, the harder it is to compete in said industry. As a result of Russian sanctions, more goods will have to be sold in Europe, since you cannot magically export all of it. More goods = more competition, if all else is equal.

The food producers don't make quite as much. On the other hand, people buying food can do so more cheaply. And when food costs rise, so does socioeconomic inequality.

It's typical for a Ukrainian nationalist to talk about socioeconomic inequality within Russia, they're suddenly showing such great care for the Russian lower and middle classes. Of course they could ask their government to stop bombing stuff around the Russian border, since it's usually the poor in Russia who get hurt, but then the care suddenly vanishes. Thing is, the Russians know this is coming. We're ready for it. It's better to take a hit now, and tell the EU to fuck off with their sectoral sanctions, then to just keep on taking sanction after sanction after sanction. One of the sanctioned banks happens to do quite a bit of development, so sanctioning that hurts the middle class, and our patience is nil. And if the agricultural sector can benefit - all the better! As for this increasing inequality - and? I'd take Putin's inequality over Yeltsin's, Gorbachev's, Brezhen's, Khrushchev's, Stalin's, Lenin's, Csar Nicolas', Csar Alexander's economics any day of the week. The economic conditions under Putin are above expectations for the Russians. Half of his current approval rating, if not more, comes from his management of the economy. We knew it wasn't going to keep on growing and growing and growing without a dip here and there. The Russians are ready. Kiev isn't. Is the EU? We'll find out in three months.

The government promised to combat the rise in prices and when it comes to Social Rights, the Putin Administration generally has a good track record. Additionally, how's it strengthening the agricultural sector a "maybe"? Government support of industry + market support of industry and you say that "maybe" it'll strengthen said industry? If Ukraine had something like this, you'd be screaming for joy, but since it's Russia all you can muster is a "maybe".

... and if this is a temporary measure, then Russian domestic producers who currently struggle to compete with imports will go right back to struggling afterwards. Possibly losing their shirts if they expanded their operations in response. Not to mention that they're still competing with imports from other countries.

If the Ukrainian government decided to block imports from roughly one third of all exporters around the world, including many of its largest trade partners, I would be calling it bad for the Ukrainian economy. What the Ukrainians have asked for is fewer trade barriers, not more.

I've pointed out before that the line of reasoning you defend Putin with is essentially mercantilist.

I'll take mercantilism over whatever snake oil Poproshenko's selling, although I don't see Putin going to Africa and establishing overseas colonies. Thing is, the EU imposed sectoral sanctions. Sure, the EU can pretend otherwise, and call these sanctions the "shiny, happy, sanctions of joy", but the effect is sectoral. Russia's response is also sectoral. Furthermore, I was specifically talking about the agricultural sector.

And that's why I cited Britannica instead of Wikipedia. The goal of those specific Stolypin Reforms was to strengthen the agricultural sector through creating a strong, independent agrarian class.

Britannica, Wikipedia, doesn't matter. The intention of the Stolypin reforms was to replace the communal peasant village with the individual yeoman farmers.

Yeoman farmers proved more productive than villages communally strip-farming (both in terms of land and labor). The transition from communal strip-farming to yeoman farmers is generally what enabled industrialization - you could now support a larger population, and in particular a larger population doing things other than farmer.

Yeoman farmers were also perceived as less likely to revolt en masse. This is probably accurate; the yeoman farmer's interests are not as tightly tied with his neighbors as that of a village farming communally. This was very important in terms of advancing political stability in Russia at the time, because Russia's population was mostly employed in agricultural work.

The yeoman farmer has since been largely replaced by the commercial farmer. The Stolypin reforms were essentially the same sort of reforms as were implemented elsewhere much earlier. Sweden, for example, decided to do so in 1757; England was already well along doing so on a piecemeal basis at that point (one of the main reasons why England went through an industrial revolution so early).

A set of reforms intended to bring Russia in line with 18th-19th century agricultural practices of more modern parts of Europe are highly unlikely to produce a competitive advantage in the 21st century.

What you're saying is like telling me that Putin will strengthen the textile sector of Russia by employing steam-powered looms. Or strengthen the manufacturing sector of Russia by introducing the assembly line and shift workers. Or strengthen the information sector of Russia by making sure all villages are connected to the telegraph system.

The sociopolitical side of the Stolypin reforms is even less applicable now. Modern farmers using modern machinery are also so productive that they make up a minority of workers in the agricultural sector, and the agricultural sector makes up a small fraction of the labor pool. A modern "new agrarian class" would make up a tiny minority. In Stolypin's day, however, the complete replacement of the medieval peasant farming system would have entailed turning a very large percentage of the Russian population into yeoman farmers - meaning that if yeoman farmers could be a stabilizing force.

Is the commercial farmer really that much better? I'm not talking about the yeoman farmer tilling the soil with the cotton gin. I'm talking about a yeoman farmer with modern technology and a small workforce. Most economic sectors work best when you have big companies, medium companies and small companies, all competing with one another. If all you have are a fuckton of "Farmer Johns Incorporated," that's not going to be good for the farming sector, because that will raise the barrier to entry to farmers with more innovative techniques. You need balance, not mass commercialization of everything in sight. In California, we're trying to figure out how to preserve the middle farming class, because if all you have are massive commercialized farms, what's the stop them from forming an oligopoly? It happened in the US with a certain sector, and said sector's lobbying for the Iraq War tipped the scales in favor of disaster.

Furthermore, when I refer to reforms, such as Stolypin's, I'm talking about those reforms being implemented with modern technology. When I say "direct democracy", exit polling through the internet is a given. When I talk about mobility and modern tactics, I'm referring to ifvs and tanks, not elephants and flaming pigs. Thus, when I talk about Stolypin's reforms, I'm not talking about some yeoman out there with the cotton gin; I'm talking about a modern small farm, which has its own small workforce, and operates like a small business.

I wouldn't use the US agricultural figures as a source of reliability when it comes to percentages, since quite a few agricultural workers are illegal immigrants who aren't factored in. I'm not sure why you mentioned the 2%, but big agribusinesses are a drain on the social net in California, and still receive subsidies from Washington. Prosperity for 10 percent is still prosperity, and Putin's Administration currently has the support of all classes, which is exactly what I meant. In case you've been living under a rock:

As far as illegal immigrants go... The further developed a country's agricultural sector is, generally, the smaller a percentage of the population needs to be involved in actually growing food. Russia today is far more advanced in this regard than Russia of 100 years ago, which is why talking about the Stolypin reforms as if they're something Russia could get something out of implementing now is really weird.

Yes, agribusiness is a strong lobby with lots of money. It is not, however, a large slice of the population. You're talking about enriching the few while impoverishing the many.

That's bullshit. If you're operating in the 2-10 percent range, you're usually fine, irrespective of where you end up on that scale, although I wouldn't call 11 percent as superbad either. It gets bad after you hit the 33 percent mark. Anyways: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS

France - 3 percent. Qatar - 1 percent. Oh wow, I guess the French better fear that Qatari farming workforce, they're three times as efficient according to the standard that you just made up. Gaza's is 12 percent, which is substantially less than Ukraine's 17 percent. Then again, maybe Poroshenko's goal is to "catch up" to the Gazan standard. Latvia's 8 percent, Kosovo's 5 percent; is Kosovo that much more awesome than Latvia? I can do this all day, but here's the thing: as long as it's not subsistence farming, the percent of people being employed by the farming industry doesn't matter that much. The goal isn't to be super awesome and employ 2 percent of your people on the farms. The goal is to produce enough to feed your country and make a buck or two, (or a few million/billion,) for exports. And whether it's 2 percent, 4 percent or 8 percent, that doesn't really matter. You're coming up with all of these metrics, but you're missing the point: under the Putin Administration, the economy showed a massive improvement. It's currently stagnating and in 2008 it fell, and it recovered by 2010. The Russians did just fine in 2011 and in 2012 and in 2013.

[Shofercia]

Now they want to starve?

While I understand the 99% faux care suddenly expressed at the poor, poor Russians who will no longer be able to feed themselves that is so "valiantly" expressed in this thread by so many, I would like to remind everyone, (ok, most the neocons and neolibs,) that Russia has nukes should you consider the option of "humanitarian" intervention, because judging by the results in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Ukraine, we're just not that interested in the "promotion" of our "human rights". Granted, I don't live in Russia, but that's the general gist of things that I've been asked to convey. Thank you all for your attention.

For those who actually want to understand why the government did this, read on! You see, in the US/EU, the middle class is shrinking, whereas in Russia the middle class is growing. (I'm talking about percentage wise, not number wise, although in Russia it's both; however, since the population of Earth is going up, percent serve as a better comparison.) You're right that these sanctions won't destroy, or even massively hurt, the US/EU economies. They will, however, discourage other countries from imposing sanctions against Russia and encourage the EU countries to carefully review their policy once the three month term comes up. Additionally, they'll drive the prices up in Europe, thus effectively taking out Ukraine's agricultural sector. Whoops. Poroshenko's "fuck you, now please buy my product" policy once again successfully devastates Ukraine's economy. What a champ! If there was a medal awarded for devastating one's own country, he'd certainly be in the running.

More importantly for Putin, it'll strengthen the agricultural sector in Russia. He knows that he's got at least three months before the sanctions are reviewed. That's just enough time to use this period to relaunch the Stolypin Reforms. If you don't know much about these, take heart, neither does the US government, whereas the Russian analysts employed by the private sector are laughing their asses off, considering that the Stolypin Reforms were highlighted on Russian national television. Maybe the White House should get someone who can actually analyze Russia, instead of spin artists? I mean if you're going under budget, keep the actual analysts in place. Just a thought. Anyways, the Stolypin Reforms were a "moderate success" according to Brittanica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... and-reform

They failed not because of the reforms, but because of Russia's involvement in WWI. That's not going to happen again. Even if Russia invades Ukraine, it'll be a limited war, and a short one at that. It certainly won't be on the level of WWI. What Putin is doing is, to quote Brittanica, trying to create a class of prosperous, conservative, small farmers that would be a stabilizing influence in the countryside. What better way to do it than to increase demand and have the state fund said increase. Another effect of the sanctions is that they've rallied the super rich in Russia behind Putin. Having support of all classes would be the ideal time to launch said reform. And this simple analysis was successfully missed by Warshington, the press, and quite a few people in general who pretend to be Russian analysts, but really aren't.

Putin's effectively using Obama's sanctions to shore up support at home where his support is already over 80%. Obama, how do I say this? "The sanctions have failed, get back to work fixing America, namely illegal immigration and the economy. Oh, and you might want to take a closer look at how the Rust Belt is doing. And that Social Security thingy while you're at it. Thank you!"

Oh, and one more thing. If something is billed as "only a moderate success" by Brittanica, when it's biased against said country, during the volatile 1905-1917 period, imagine, just imagine, what it will become during the period of stability that Russia's currently experiencing.

You are wrong on one count.
This will bring prices *down* due to market oversaturation since a whole fuckton of stuff won't be able to go out of the EU and will have to be sold locally.

Slovakia's agriculture is gonna be fucked... but hey, Carnogursky and the EU screwed us up completely already on this front, so I care less than I ordinarily would.
Go Putin!

True. Besides, I doubt these will last longer than 3 months. I think in 3 months' time the EU will magically discover some atrocities committed by the Poroshenko Administration, and change their direction for several reasons. First, the sanctions hurt the EU much more than the US. Second, there's nothing stopping the US and Russia from dumping Rump Ukraine on the EU; the US already did that with Kosovo during the Clinton Administration, see EULEX, the shining symbol of incompetence. Third, in addition to all of those sanctions, the EU could end up in a trade war with Russia, while implementing austerity, and something tells me that EU voters aren't going to be thrilled about a drop in their living standard to support Ukrainian Oligarch Faction A over Ukrainian Oligarch Faction B. Fourth, the EU will end up being perceived as America's bitches if they keep this up in places like the SCOO (SCO + Observers,) ASEAN, Latin America and some places in Africa. That's not going to be good for the EU's future development. Fifth, nah, I'll mention this one a bit later. Don't want to give everything away

[Napkiraly]

Meh, lower prices for me.

And if the Russians try upping their agricultural industry, I'm sure there are some pests and chemicals we can dump to put a dent in that.

[Blakk Metal]

Meh, lower prices for me.

And if the Russians try upping their agricultural industry, I'm sure there are some pests and chemicals we can dump to put a dent in that.

So this is the soundtrack of World War Three. I was expecting this, but whatever.

[Shofercia]

Meh, lower prices for me.

And if the Russians try upping their agricultural industry, I'm sure there are some pests and chemicals we can dump to put a dent in that.

Don't you think that Russians will respond in kind? I think you know that already, so I'm going to presume that was an attempt at sarcasm by a tired Canuck.