Russia hits West with food import ban in sanctions row

[Luziyca]

I think Russia would do a better job if they just cut gas to the EU in retaliation for the sanctions.

[Napkiraly]

I think Russia would do a better job if they just cut gas to the EU in retaliation for the sanctions.

Which would do them an incredible amount of harm, considering how much the Russian economy relies on the gas and oil industry. Plus, it'd just encourage the EU to further alternative energy development and buying gas from elsewhere.

[Allanea]

I think Russia would do a better job if they just cut gas to the EU in retaliation for the sanctions.

Which would do them an incredible amount of harm, considering how much the Russian economy relies on the gas and oil industry. Plus, it'd just encourage the EU to further alternative energy development and buying gas from elsewhere.

What percentage of the Russian economy do exports to Europe constitute?

[Napkiraly]

Which would do them an incredible amount of harm, considering how much the Russian economy relies on the gas and oil industry. Plus, it'd just encourage the EU to further alternative energy development and buying gas from elsewhere.

What percentage of the Russian economy do exports to Europe constitute?

79% of its oil exports and 76% of its natural gas exports are to Europe. 51.8% of all its exports went to the EU. The rest of Europe was 10.9%.

[Allanea]

That's not what I asked, though.

[Napkiraly]

~28% of Russian GDP is through exports of goods and services from the last measure I can get. With 51.8% of all exports going to the EU that'd be 14.504% of the Russian GDP. According to PFC Energy, oil and natural gas exports made up 70% of all exports and 52% of federal budget revenues.

[AiliailiA]

My source (based on World Bank 2012) shows about half of Russia's gas exports going to Europe.

Russia gas exports:
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/explore/tree ... 2711/2012/

(That site was rather slow for me, probably my awful copper link, but since others on phones may have the same problem I'll put screenshots for each link as well.)

About 3/4, only if we're counting Ukraine as part of the EU. That's ... a bit premature.

I think the dependence of Europe on Russian gas is overstated. And Russia is more vulnerable in turn to sactions on their OIL. World prices would go up (Russia being the single biggest oil exporter) but they don't have alternatives to the pipelines into Europe. The pipeline to China can't carry all that, so they'd have to ship oil by rail or by tankers in the Arctic, neither of which is practical in the winter.

The critical point here is that Russia's oil exports are far more than their gas exports. Six times more in export revenue. Even their exports of refined fuel are more than their exports of gas:

Russia refined exports:
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/explore/tree ... 2710/2012/
Russia crude exports:
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/explore/tree ... 2709/2012/

Russia refined exports:

Russia crude exports:

From the first link above, you can see Italy was Russia's biggest European customer in 2012. Let's look at that from Italy's side:

Italy gas imports:
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/explore/tree ... 2711/2012/

A quarter comes from Russia. Without it prices would go up until comsumption came down to match. It would be painful but endurable.

The situation is worse in Eastern Europe.

Czech Rep gas imports:
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/explore/tree ... 2711/2012/

More than half their imports come from Russia. But the gross amount is far less than Italy's and if the big countries of Western Europe help them out, that too is endurable. Perhaps gas could be pumped East along the same pipes that now carry it West.

This is all rather speculative on my part. I just found this stuff, and thought it might be useful to distinguish between OIL and GAS because they're not interchangeable. Gas is an attractive option with pipelines but much more expensive if it has to be liquified and shipped in batches. So yes, Russia has some leverage. But gas usage is more responsive to price than oil usage, and it's partly substitutable with electicity (so the price of that goes up too, but it spreads the burden). But with oil, shipping by sea is very viable, and Europe has that access to every major producer who isn't Russia, while Russia would have a lot of trouble getting it to market against European sanctions. Through Turkey perhaps, but they'd need to offer a big carrot.

If it went like that, Europe would probably suffer recessions in the more exposed countries and many neutral countries would be pissed that the EU action raised world oil prices. But Russia would be FUCKED. That positive trade balance is pretty much the only good thing about their economy.

[AiliailiA]

I forgot to post my opinion on Russia's import bans.

I think they're silly. Obviously Russia as whole won't starve. Prices will be higher and there will be less fresh imported food (airfreight from South America costs more than refigerated rail or truck from Europe) but this will mostly affect the urban middle class who consume such luxuries. Probably not a good idea of Putin to be pissing those people off: their influence is ever increasing as Russia becomes more economically stratified.

Brazilian beef is fine. New Zealand cheese is fine. The point isn't whether US beef is better, or French cheese is better. The US and European brands are status symbols for the young middle class (and it's been a while since the end of 'communism' so I guess some middle aged middle class too).

This kind of sanction is a preliminary stage of the sanctions Western nations apply to misbehaving banana republics. Cut out their luxury imports that go only to the elite. It's like something Europe would do to Russia to punish it. So that's why it's silly: the Russian government did it to itself.

Russia does have a great balance of trade. All those cheap primary resources. But its import portfolio is broad and includes many things they can't make themselves, like industrial machinery, computers, and pharmaceuticals. An end game where they refuse to sell anything to the US or Europe and those refuse to sell anything to Russia would be much worse for Russia than for Europe.

Putin just had to do something to stand by his claim that a civilian airliner being shot down with weapons he gave to insurgents in another country is actually Ukraine's fault. Not Russia's fault, no, not even a little bit. To just accept an EU sanction without doing anything back would be to admit fault. Politicians anywhere are loathe to do that. If they can pull it off, they will always appeal to the vanity and injured pride of the citizens who elected them, even if billions of foreigners say they're full of shit.

The only anodyne to that is a politically literate and responsible electorate, who resist the flattery of nationalism and recognize that their own interests are not well served by their government acting like a dick on the world stage. Russia doesn't have that electorate yet. But who am I to criticize ...

[Roski]

How are the Germans, Poles, and Balts faring with the sanctions?

Poland, to put it mildy, "is not amused" with how the EU is managing damage-control of Russian sacntions. In his interview to Latvian Radio-station Baltcom Deputy Chief of Polish Sejm's Comission on the International Affairs Thaddaeus Ivinskiy said, that Poland was unprepared to Russian sanctions. According to him, Poland is the worlds leading producer of apples, cabbages and paprika, and neither current Polish government, nor Brussel have taken steps to hekp Pokish farmers and peasants. There is already damage done to Polish economy, he continues, and government would be forced to just give away apples to shcools and pensioners for free.

Poland was readying tanks to invade Ukraine to push back the russians.
Poland isn't happy because they aren't allowed to kill any Russians.

[Roski]

I think Russia would do a better job if they just cut gas to the EU in retaliation for the sanctions.

And effectively wipe out Russia's economy in the meantime.

[Allanea]

I think Russia would do a better job if they just cut gas to the EU in retaliation for the sanctions.

And effectively wipe out Russia's economy in the meantime.

Obviously losing 7% of GDP is not good for the economy by any measure but it's not the same as a wipeout.

[Roski]

And effectively wipe out Russia's economy in the meantime.

Obviously losing 7% of GDP is not good for the economy by any measure but it's not the same as a wipeout.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307555&start=525#p21388549

Or the majority of it. O well.

[Allanea]

That post does not say that the majority of Russia's economy consists of EU gas exports.

[Lyttenburg]

Poland was readying tanks to invade Ukraine to push back the russians.
Poland isn't happy because they aren't allowed to kill any Russians.

Noooo, they were just posturing and dickwawing - you know, that things that a lot of Russophobes here on NSG accuses Russia of.

And they won't attack without NATO's greenlighting the whole affair.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Poland, to put it mildy, "is not amused" with how the EU is managing damage-control of Russian sacntions. In his interview to Latvian Radio-station Baltcom Deputy Chief of Polish Sejm's Comission on the International Affairs Thaddaeus Ivinskiy said, that Poland was unprepared to Russian sanctions. According to him, Poland is the worlds leading producer of apples, cabbages and paprika, and neither current Polish government, nor Brussel have taken steps to hekp Pokish farmers and peasants. There is already damage done to Polish economy, he continues, and government would be forced to just give away apples to shcools and pensioners for free.

Poland was readying tanks to invade Ukraine to push back the russians.
Poland isn't happy because they aren't allowed to kill any Russians.

I'm just waiting to see the winged hussars destroy T72's

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I forgot to post my opinion on Russia's import bans.

I think they're silly. Obviously Russia as whole won't starve. Prices will be higher and there will be less fresh imported food (airfreight from South America costs more than refigerated rail or truck from Europe) but this will mostly affect the urban middle class who consume such luxuries. Probably not a good idea of Putin to be pissing those people off: their influence is ever increasing as Russia becomes more economically stratified.

Brazilian beef is fine. New Zealand cheese is fine. The point isn't whether US beef is better, or French cheese is better. The US and European brands are status symbols for the young middle class (and it's been a while since the end of 'communism' so I guess some middle aged middle class too).

This kind of sanction is a preliminary stage of the sanctions Western nations apply to misbehaving banana republics. Cut out their luxury imports that go only to the elite. It's like something Europe would do to Russia to punish it. So that's why it's silly: the Russian government did it to itself.

Russia does have a great balance of trade. All those cheap primary resources. But its import portfolio is broad and includes many things they can't make themselves, like industrial machinery, computers, and pharmaceuticals. An end game where they refuse to sell anything to the US or Europe and those refuse to sell anything to Russia would be much worse for Russia than for Europe.

Putin just had to do something to stand by his claim that a civilian airliner being shot down with weapons he gave to insurgents in another country is actually Ukraine's fault. Not Russia's fault, no, not even a little bit. To just accept an EU sanction without doing anything back would be to admit fault. Politicians anywhere are loathe to do that. If they can pull it off, they will always appeal to the vanity and injured pride of the citizens who elected them, even if billions of foreigners say they're full of shit.

The only anodyne to that is a politically literate and responsible electorate, who resist the flattery of nationalism and recognize that their own interests are not well served by their government acting like a dick on the world stage. Russia doesn't have that electorate yet. But who am I to criticize ...

Leaving aside arguments about Russia's economy being unable to produce industrial goods, despite being well into the top 10 for manufacturing production by value in the world, Russia is a major provider of a lot of those primary resources...the reason they're cheap.

#2 in the world for aluminium production, #4 for gold and silver, #5 for iron, #2 for magnesium, #5 for steel, #2 for titanium, #4 for fluorite, #2 for silicon...of course, China blows everybody else away in most of those categories, but taking Russia out of the market would see a global increase in the price of those resources.

As to agricultural products, Russia is #1 in production for the world's rye, buckwheat, oats, rye, sugar beets. They're also high up in the production of apples, onions, potatoes, tomatoes and sunflower seeds.

Would cutting all that off destroy the world economy and lead to mass starvation across the globe? Probably not.

But I don't think China's going to take an altruistic approach when people have to come to them for their aluminium and wheat.

[Napkiraly]

Poland was readying tanks to invade Ukraine to push back the russians.
Poland isn't happy because they aren't allowed to kill any Russians.

I'm just waiting to see the winged hussars destroy T72's

Polan stronk!

[Antarticaria]

I'm just waiting to see the winged hussars destroy T72's

Polan stronk!

Many Stronks!

[Veroxia]

Poland was readying tanks to invade Ukraine to push back the russians.
Poland isn't happy because they aren't allowed to kill any Russians.

I'm just waiting to see the winged hussars destroy T72's

Same.

[Shofercia]

Good one! You're the first "American Socialist" I know that thinks that giving away land on the basis of ethnicity, against the people's consent is awesome

I don't. Next strawman positon?

Really? So you've never said that USSR's government's actions that handed Novorossiya to Ukraine on an ethnic basis were good?

the first who'd prefer the American taxpayers to fund one Ukrainian Oligarch faction against another

If there's a clear reason to, yes. From each according to ability, to each according to need.

Clearly Poroshenko needs the money more than the Americans not getting water in Detroit...

and in some cases even their own people

Ambiguous referent.

If you chop up posts midsentence than everything can become ambiguous. Keep it up and I'll start doing that to your posts.

while Detroit cannot even get water for some of their residents, the borders are a mess, Obamacare/healthcare is the symbol of incompetence and inefficiency, (also thanks to Republicans,) etc. But sure, you can be an "American Socialist" and I'll be Donald Trump.

Hello, Mr. Trump. I invite you to take note of the fact that I am the vice-delegate of The Proletariat Coalition here on NS, one of the oldest and most prominent (and for many years the largest) leftist regions; and that I routinely endorse socialized health care, child care, and expanding the welfare system to fill in all the giant holes in the US social safety net.

Just not for those who are being shelled by Poroshenko's Government.

The Rogue State of Tahar Joblis is a gargantuan, environmentally stunning nation, ruled by a complex mess of committees with a fair hand, and notable for its punitive income tax rates. The compassionate, intelligent population of 25.141 billion Tahar Joblisians hold their civil and political rights very dear, although the wealthy and those in business tend to be viewed with suspicion.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent, liberal government stops and the rest of society begins, but it concentrates mainly on Social Welfare, although Education and the Environment are on the agenda. It meets every day to discuss matters of state in the capital city of Taharasopolissa. The average income tax rate is 83%, and even higher for the wealthy. The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising ten-year-olds selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out.

The government seizes private property for the 'good of the people', scenic mountain valleys are flooded with water as damming projects get underway, people are now classified as male, female, or genderqueer, and nude art is becoming wildly popular. Crime is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare. Tahar Joblis's national animal is the giant pacific octopus, which frolics freely in the nation's sparkling oceans, and its currency is the emuri.

Good, you quoted your nation. My nation also kicks ass:

The Constitutional Monarchy of Shofercia is a gargantuan, cultured nation, ruled by Ilya Murometz with an even hand, and renowned for its anti-smoking policies. The compassionate, hard-working population of 14.033 billion Shofercians have some civil rights, but not too many, enjoy the freedom to spend their money however they like, to a point, and take part in free and open elections, although not too often.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it is mainly concerned with Education, although the Environment and Healthcare are on the agenda. It meets every day to discuss matters of state in the capital city of Invention. Citizens pay a flat income tax of 92%. A substantial private sector is dominated by the Tourism industry.

Loans are available for students from poor families, skateparks can be found in every city, religious education is a new government priority, and consumption of cat memes has skyrocketed. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare. Shofercia's national animal is the [eagle] which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the gold standard.

I don't support a tax rate of 92%. 25% is about as high as I'd go, unless we're talking about extracting natural resources, or similar activities that are tied to the country's land and are heavily commercialized. Nor do I support a "flat tax", since that usually becomes regressive.

"American socialist" has not meant "reflexively defending the CCCP" since it became public knowledge how fond Stalin was of killing large numbers of his own people. And it has at no point meant "endorse Putin's kleptocrats' and ogilarchs' attempts to make sure other former Soviet states stay mired in corruption."

Poroshenko funded Yushenko, the only incumbent president of Ukraine to finish with single digits, like Yeltsin did in Russia. He also served as Yanukovich's minister of finance. He played a part in Pinchuk's embezzling of $920 million from Ukraine's economy. He recent passed a law that would choke off foreign investment in Ukraine, in favor of war and bombs over a democratic referendum in the DonBass Republic. If that's what you call "fighting corruption", my only question is "where can I get more Putin?"

You do realize that can have both, a rising middle class and rising food prices, right? The latter does tend to impede the former, but it doesn't mean that it would prevent the former from growth.

Can, yes. But inequality is a major problem in Russia already.

Do I really need to do this? Ok, here goes. Let's say that a person needs 100 squares of a proverbial pie to thrive and at least 50 squares to survive. Thus a village of 1,000 would need 100k squares. Now let's say that there's a manor near said village, with 25 people, which gets 50% of whatever the village gets. Under a ruler, let's call him Boris the Drunkard, only 50k squares of pie are produced, and 25k of those end up in the village. The village is fucked. Now, let's say that a new ruler comes in, let's call him Vladimir, he who's utterly hated by Western Media. Under that ruler, eventually, 1 mil squares of the proverbial pie are produced. The village gets 500k, uses 100k that it needs, and keeps 400k. However the manor needs only 25k, (it's my hypo, my numbers,) so the manor has 475k left over. Under Boris, there was equality, in that neither the manor nor the village had much left. Under Vladimir there's greater inequality, 19,000 vs 400, but everyone has quite a bit, because there's more overall proverbial pie.

Under the Putin Administration, the Russian economy thrived, and enough of the economic benefits went to the middle class to cause a demographic boom. This is clearly listed in numbers, facts, data, etc.

Hmm, I wonder, if the SpetzNaz killed one Ukrainian Oligarch, would you also be so quaint?

By accident with a mortar shell that might have been fired by someone else, while thousands of Russians died in a much more deliberate fashion in Russia as a result of Ukrainian meddling in Russian internal affairs? I would be "so quaint" as to think it was not particularly important.

Russians have died in this conflict in not inconsiderable numbers, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 99.8-99.9% of the Russian nationals who have died in this conflict came over the Russian border and took up arms before getting shot, which undermines the ability of Russia to use those deaths as a convincing casus belli.

Except I'm not using those deaths as a casus belli, no need to work overtime on shifting goal posts Tahar Joblis. If, during the Bay of Pigs, a stray Cuban mortar shell landed in Florida and killed an American general, what do you think the American response would be?

The problem with your historical comparisons is that like Ukrainian Nationalists, you tend to completely ignore substantial differences. The reasons for those numbers were the purges/GULAG/collectivization

The poor training of Russian tank crews had a little to do with purges.

That, right there, tells me that you're totally ignorant of history, because the people who initially oversaw the training of Russian tank drivers, those like Tukhachevsky, were purged. If they weren't purged, their classes on tank driving would've continued to be taught. The Purge caused the Red Army to shift in tactics from the counteroffensive that was so successful during the Battle of Kursk to the blunt attacks that failed in the early stages of the Winter War.

none of which occurred under Putin. Sure Putin went after Khodorkovsky, after the latter tried to steal from the Russian government, specifically Putin's faction. But quite a few others are still in place. Abramovich, who launched quality reforms in Kamchatka when Putin came to power, reforms that stabilized the region, is still there, and will be there for quite a while. Kudrin is kept on in an advisory capacity. I could easily drop more names of quality economists, but I made my point. You will, of course, continue to fearmonger.

I'm not "fearmongering." I am pointing out what any honest expert is likely to point out: That this move, in economic terms, hurts Russia more than it hurts the EU and US. A handful of profiteers in Russia will benefit; Turkey, China, and Latin America may also benefit; but Russia as a whole is harmed by this measure.

Really? So saying that, and watch, I'm going to quote you without chopping the post off midsentence, saying that "Putin can win politically (in terms of domestic policy) while losing horribly economically. Case in point: The Kim dynasty still has a solid grip on North Korea," is not fearmongering? You could've said "like the USSR used to be", (granted, it'd still be wrong,) but you deliberately chose North Korea.

More fearmongering. I'd like a legitimate source for the 10:1 figure, since, knowing you, it just looks like a number you pulled out of your ass, solely to bring in North Korea.

Did you read the links on salmon?

• Price change in Russia: Observed +100% (already!).
• Price change in EU: Projected -10% to -12%.
• Prince change in US: Projected negligible change.

Did you look at the percentages of imports/exports affected? Russia makes up 3% of the global import market. EU / US / etc make up over 30% of the global export market. Russia is going to be typically affected about 10x as strongly as the EU and US by any policy change impacting EU / US / Canadian / Australian exports to Russia.

I was unaware that salmon is vital to one's survival. Or were you referring solely to luxury goods at the 10:1 economic casualties?

Obama has chosen to use EU's funds to fight Russia. The EU is forced to fight Obama's Financial War against Russia over which Oligarchs get to rule Ukraine.

Not particularly. The EU is not subservient to the US, and has their own interests in the pile. They have chosen to follow Obama's lead. They bear a larger cost from trade relations with Russia worsening; they also stand to change relations with the Ukraine much more significantly.

They were called the Euromaidan protests for a reason. This kerfluffle started with Russia's jealous-bear routine trying to prevent the Ukraine from getting closer to the EU. Obama pitched in as a nosy interventionist on the side of the EU because the US is good friends with the EU - not to mention key NATO members Poland and Turkey having strong interests in the alignment of Ukrainian interests with the EU as opposed to Russia. The Baltic states have also been quite legitimately concerned.

I don't know if you remember, but Poland has been a whole lot more militant about this and took a lead role in demanding that NATO step up and do something about Russia's actions. This is not simply about Obama and Putin.

Oh please, Poland's always been militant towards Russia. While Poles and Russians might get along, our governments haven't, and likely won't in the foreseeable future. The protests were also against Oligarchs, but Kiev forgot that when they imposed Kolomoisky and Taruta, imposed, not elected, over East Ukraine. That, of course, is also part of the "jealous bear routine" in your mind. Turkey's not in the EU, and Turkey's not sanctioning Russia: http://online.wsj.com/articles/turkey-t ... 1408117218.

ISTANBUL—Turkey is preparing to ramp up food exports to Russia, hoping to benefit from Moscow's ban on Western produce amid the conflict in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision last week to block certain food imports from the European Union and the U.S. is a potential boon for Turkey just as Islamist insurgents in Iraq choke off trade to important markets for Turkish goods. Exporting food to Russia could also help make up for slowly recovering demand from the EU, Turkey's biggest market. Shipping more fruit, vegetables and dairy products would also aid Turkey in plugging an annual trade deficit of about $20 billion with Russia.

The Baltic Governments continue to fearmonger, because that's the only way that the idiots in Estonia and Latvia can stay in power. Under any fair election, where the people are fully informed, they'd get their butts kicked by Saavisaar's and Usakovs' parties like there's no tomorrow. That's been the case since the end of the 1990s, but fearmongering continues. Ironically, the biggest protector of the Baltics is the EU-Russian trade. But you're right, this is more than just about Obama and Putin, this is about Russia not giving America the ability to say "bawww, you allegedly help people we no like, we sanction you!" Hmm, should Russia have sanctioned the US over Iraq? Over Libya? Over Syria?

And it also provides more jobs to more people who aren't illegal immigrants working in piss poor conditions for extremely low wages. You do know that illegals cost Californians $1.5 billion in healthcare alone, right?

As strange as it may seem, illegal immigrants on the whole tend to pay more in taxes than they consume in government services. You might want to read this for a basic summary.

Some of the important features are that illegals are disproportionately unlikely to file for a tax refund, and disproportionately unlikely to seek government services, which means that the cost / benefit ratio to the state is surprisingly good considering their low income. Of course, the downside of that analysis having been done is that now, the government bean-counters are aware that amnesty may have a negative impact on the budget deficit, which is unfortunate, but illegal immigrants really don't hurt the American economy per se.

Which state do you live in? No, scratch that, let me be more blunt: do you live in a border state? That's California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Live in any of them? I didn't trust Wikidorkia, so I went ahead and actually checked how the sources got their numbers. Illegal immigrants in schools? They take the average cost per student and multiple by the estimated number of illegal immigrants. The estimates range from $957 million to $1.68 billion, largely because FAIR estimates 225k illegals, whereas the comptroller estimates 135k illegals. That's a HUGE difference. Furthermore, the report assumes that the average cost per student would be enough for an illegal immigrant, which is bullshit, because the average Texan habla Ingles, and it's easier to teach a school in English to someone who habla Ingles than to someone who doesn't. This basic common sense is lacking from the comptroller's report. Next up, same report, medical expenses. The report shows that medical expenses increased from 2000 to 2005 more than doubled. What's the current figure? We don't know.

Additionally, one could question whether or not illegals brought more or less into the economy if their employers paid their fair share. That's not happening. The employers reap the benefits of cheap illegal labor, and dump the healthcare costs on the unsuspecting American public. That's equivalent of a polluter getting benefits from polluting the river, while everyone else has to pay for the clean up, since we all use water. On top of that, the estimates are off by billions of dollars. To quote Wikidorkia: Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 30 percent and 50 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.

Fuck that's inaccurate. According to the Washington Times, there are 20 million illegal immigrants: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... er-patrol/

30 to 50 percent, that's what, an inaccuracy of 4 million? Presuming that each one of them makes at least $8,000 a year, (that's $5 an hour,) that's a number that's off by $3.2 billion. But hey, when you're defending the Poroshenko Administration, what's a few billion, right?

Putin is in the habit of promoting competition, he just wants to regulate it, because Russia had unregulated competition in the 1990s, and that failed. Miserably. Utterly. Totally. Completely. It was truly devastating. And again, by aiding the farming class, he's growing the farming sector in Russia.

Regulation is what the EU does. You can see what that means: Health, safety, and labor standards that are enforced across the board without special consideration.

For Putin, "regulation" means something that gives you an excuse to move on people who do something politically inconvenient, like banning imports of Moldovan wine, Ukrainian chocolates, etc, which were clearly political sanctions implemented with a thin excuse of "health" grounds.

I was talking about promoting healthy competition amongst Russian industries, not foreign twats. I'm not a fan of Moldova's wine being banned, but if some are going to be as hostile to Russia as Poroshenko, someone who's constantly funding anti-Russian movements, then is it really a shock that Putin fucked one of his industries? "Bawww, Putin won't let me make a profit in Russia, one that I can use to weaken Russia, oh life, you are so unfair to me!" - the idiot that's also known as the current, "el presidente," of some of Ukraine. Yes, that was a reference to Tropico.

Russia has political stability. There's no need for another massive politically stabilizing class.

Which, again, is why talking about the benefits of implementing the Stolypin reforms now is nonsensical. TBH, there's not even a good reason to think that the current agricultural sector sees less of an interest in stability than a reorganized agricultural.

I was talking about applying the concept to the economics of today. Having a stable agrarian class is going to benefit Russia.

I'm not. I'm a Keynesian. We know that economy is cyclical. It's what you do during the boom cycle that counts, and Putin used the boom cycles to improve Russia's demographics. That's a plus for him, irrespective of how much you despise him.

What you do during the bust part of the cycle is quite important. See, for example, FDR's massive infrastructure investments.

I'm not saying that Putin is an idiot. I am saying that this specific policy decision is harmful to Russia; and is more harmful to Russia than it is to the US and EU. And the US and EU understand that quite well.

The truth of the matter is that Putin belligerently attacking the EU / US / AUS / CAN economically, he's raising the hackles of the ordinary citizens of the West as much as he is rallying domestic support around the flag.

Putin is counterattacking. The first to impose de facto sectoral sanctions were those countries. If the US/EU can impose sectoral sanctions over Russia allegedly funding groups that they don't like, Russia should fight, economically, against that. Russia didn't like that US supported/supports certain groups in Syria and Libya. Should Russia sanction the US on the issue of Space Cooperation without any prior economic provocation?

That's not really the question.

It is the question.

Not really. The really question is below.

The question is how much bullshit will the EU working class tolerate to keep paying for Poproshenko's Clique to remain in power in Ukraine.

If Poroshenko loses support among Ukrainians, he will be out on his ear in the next election. If Poroshenko's party loses support among Ukrainians, they will get thrashed in the parliamentary elections immediately. And those will probably be upcoming quite soon.

What the EU's working class (and US working class) will tolerate are measures to keep Ukrainian politics free and democratic.

Oh, that actually depends on who runs. See, if you actually lived in America, you'd know the perils of the two party system. Sometimes you have a Bush-Kerry election, where both candidates are shitheads. Sometimes you have a McCain-Obama election, where you can either vote for McCain to destroy the US, or endorse Obama and suck it up. Out of the past three presidential elections, 2004, 2008 and 2012, only the one in 2012 had both parties producing decent candidates. Romney's mistake was that he failed to go into his policies and facts, but he was bearable. Let's take a look at the recent election, shall we:

Poroshenko
Timoshenko - she was pretty much bonkers by this time, so we can list her in the crazy category.
Dobkin - wanted to move capital from Kiev to Kharkov, so unelectable in Western Ukraine
Hrystenko - former Yushenko program writer, loves the single digits, even more inept than Poroshenko
Yarosh - outright Neo-Nazi

If the list of candidates is just as bad, fuck, doesn't even matter if you vote or not. It's why the further east you go, the lower the turnout gets. Out of Ukraine's registered voters, he didn't even get a third. The candidate of the Internet Party of Ukraine was excluded over a technicality. Other parties are broken up along the East-West axis. The only movement that had a chance to break that cycle, was excluded. Over a technically. You can call it freedom; I call it what it is: total and utter bullshit.

[Tahar Joblis]

Really? So you've never said that USSR's government's actions that handed Novorossiya to Ukraine on an ethnic basis were good?

The USSR was a single country. Arguably most Ukrainians, like most Russians, were not in favor of the Bolsheviks assuming control at all. As I pointed out before, the predecessors to the Ukrainian SSR included almost exactly the territory of modern-day Ukraine (a little more, actually).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_ ... s_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_State

The immediate predecessors to the Ukrainian SSR included Crimea, and also some significant portions of territory that are now Russian. The USSR took that territory away from the Ukraine and gave it to the Russian SSR, and then put Crimea back with its "natural" geographic administrative unit after Stalin finished relocating Crimean Tatars and stamping out that generation of Ukrainian nationalists.

The degree of Russification of eastern Ukraine we see at present, as a historical reality (much like the degree of Russification we see in Crimea), comes out of Stalin-era policies that were very rough on Ukrainians. The inclusion of "Novorossiya" in the Ukrainian SSR was more defensible than the exclusion of Crimea, and for that matter was more merited than the inclusion of Kaliningrad, Chechnya, etc as parts of the Russian SSR.

The collection of governorates with majority-Ukrainian ethnicity belonged together more than the Russian SSR belonged together, in other words... and the decisions of Soviet leaders on how to organize the governorates of Imperial Russia into a smaller number of SSRs are a moot point, what with every one of those former governorates having voted overwhelmingly in 1991 to become part of an independent Ukrainian state rather than remain part of a Russian-dominated USSR.

If you chop up posts midsentence

... then I will be able to point out all of your errors in detail. Your post is mostly crap rhetoric.

Just not for those who are being shelled by Poroshenko's Government.

Those who are being shelled by Poroshenko's government deserve a social safety net. They are not, however, entitled to invade the Ukraine with materiel given to them by the Russian government and to make life worse for Ukrainians so that Putin can try to control Ukrainian foreign policy.

I don't support a tax rate of 92%. 25% is about as high as I'd go, unless we're talking about extracting natural resources, or similar activities that are tied to the country's land and are heavily commercialized. Nor do I support a "flat tax", since that usually becomes regressive.

Which means that you probably weren't answering issues very consistently with your own political beliefs, because whether your tax rate is flat or progressive is tied to issues.

I don't really care about gaming my nation's statistics; I just answer the issues how I want to, and the result is that my nation's description provides a reasonable, if somewhat caricaturized, snapshot of my political beliefs.

Poroshenko funded Yushenko, the only incumbent president of Ukraine to finish with single digits, like Yeltsin did in Russia. He also served as Yanukovich's minister of finance. He played a part in Pinchuk's embezzling of $920 million from Ukraine's economy. He recent passed a law that would choke off foreign investment in Ukraine, in favor of war and bombs over a democratic referendum in the DonBass Republic. If that's what you call "fighting corruption", my only question is "where can I get more Putin?"

The accusations you get all excited about are exciting indeed, but you have three problems.

First, the US's spending against Yanukovich has not been particularly aimed at putting Poroshenko into power.
Second, the magnitude of corruption is very different when we're comparing the Russian-aligned parties and the EU-aligned parties.
Third, aligning with the EU has a demonstrated negative effect on corruption over time as opposed to aligning with Russia. (Compare Poland and Belarus.)

Do I really need to do this? Ok, here goes. Let's say that a person needs 100 squares of a proverbial pie to thrive and at least 50 squares to survive. Thus a village of 1,000 would need 100k squares. Now let's say that there's a manor near said village, with 25 people, which gets 50% of whatever the village gets. Under a ruler, let's call him Boris the Drunkard, only 50k squares of pie are produced, and 25k of those end up in the village. The village is fucked. Now, let's say that a new ruler comes in, let's call him Vladimir, he who's utterly hated by Western Media. Under that ruler, eventually, 1 mil squares of the proverbial pie are produced. The village gets 500k, uses 100k that it needs, and keeps 400k. However the manor needs only 25k, (it's my hypo, my numbers,) so the manor has 475k left over. Under Boris, there was equality, in that neither the manor nor the village had much left. Under Vladimir there's greater inequality, 19,000 vs 400, but everyone has quite a bit, because there's more overall proverbial pie.

And guess what? In the US, there's more pie and it's more equitably distributed. Which is catastrophically sad, because the US doesn't have a very equitable distribution of wealth, as you've proudly announced over and over again. Same story with most countries in the EU, actually. Russia's income per capita is behind Poland's.

Except I'm not using those deaths as a casus belli, no need to work overtime on shifting goal posts Tahar Joblis. If, during the Bay of Pigs, a stray Cuban mortar shell landed in Florida and killed an American general, what do you think the American response would be?

Loud.

And the situation still would not at all resemble what's going on right now. As I pointed out, it's not even a sure thing that the single Russian civilian death on the Russian side of the border was fired by Ukrainians.

That, right there, tells me that you're totally ignorant of history, because the people who initially oversaw the training of Russian tank drivers, those like Tukhachevsky, were purged. If they weren't purged, their classes on tank driving would've continued to be taught.

I think you may be misunderstanding my English. When I say it had a little to do with the purges, I am dryly expressing the fact that the purges were, in fact, related to the lack of training. Had the purges not happened, the Russians would have probably still taken disproportionately larger losses than the Germans, but not by nearly so dramatic of a magnitude.

Really? So saying that, and watch, I'm going to quote you without chopping the post off midsentence, saying that "Putin can win politically (in terms of domestic policy) while losing horribly economically. Case in point: The Kim dynasty still has a solid grip on North Korea," is not fearmongering? You could've said "like the USSR used to be", (granted, it'd still be wrong,) but you deliberately chose North Korea.

You can argue quite a bit about the actuality and perception of economic growth and prosperity in the USSR.

The Kim dynasty, however, is a very clear example of economic catastrophe not needing to lead to loss of domestic political power.

I was unaware that salmon is vital to one's survival. Or were you referring solely to luxury goods at the 10:1 economic casualties?

Salmon is an example. It is subject to the same market forces as everything else that is imported to Russia - apples, fish, cheese, all of it.

Russians are not likely to starve consequent to this policy. This policy will, however, hurt the Russian economy much more than it hurts the EU economy, exactly for the reasons I outlined. It is negative for both parties (as any kind of warfare is), but in this economic war, Putin is causing more damage to Russia than the EU.

The Baltic Governments continue to fearmonger, because that's the only way that the idiots in Estonia and Latvia can stay in power.

Estonia and Latvia have a higher GDP per capita, lower corruption indices, a higher HDI, et cetera. Life in the Baltic states is very good compared to life in other former Soviet republics, including Russia.

Which state do you live in?

California. And I rub elbows with economists living here in California on a very regular basis.

No, scratch that, let me be more blunt: do you live in a border state? That's California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Live in any of them? I didn't trust Wikidorkia, so I went ahead and actually checked how the sources got their numbers. Illegal immigrants in schools? They take the average cost per student and multiple by the estimated number of illegal immigrants. The estimates range from $957 million to $1.68 billion, largely because FAIR estimates 225k illegals, whereas the comptroller estimates 135k illegals. That's a HUGE difference. Furthermore, the report assumes that the average cost per student would be enough for an illegal immigrant, which is bullshit, because the average Texan habla Ingles, and it's easier to teach a school in English to someone who habla Ingles than to someone who doesn't. This basic common sense is lacking from the comptroller's report. Next up, same report, medical expenses. The report shows that medical expenses increased from 2000 to 2005 more than doubled. What's the current figure? We don't know.

All of which are not that dramatic compared to the basic balance... which is tied similarly to statistical estimates of how many illegal immigrants there are. Illegals pay sales tax on purchases. They are surprisingly likely to pay income taxes, and disproportionately unlikely to file for a refund. They are disproportionately unlikely to file for welfare benefits, because they don't want to draw official attention to themselves.

Legal poor people are more expensive than illegal poor people. Basic fact, and it derives from the exploited position illegal immigrants are in.

30 to 50 percent, that's what, an inaccuracy of 4 million? Presuming that each one of them makes at least $8,000 a year, (that's $5 an hour,) that's a number that's off by $3.2 billion

The fact that there's a large margin of error on the figures doesn't mean they aren't figures as good as you're likely to find. Bottom line: The bullshit that Republicans spout about illegal immigrants leaching government money from the public is essentially recycled from the rhetoric aimed at urban black poor and at poor people in general, and even less easily defended.

I was talking about promoting healthy competition amongst Russian industries

And closing down anyone who looks like they might be a political dissident is not "promoting health competition." It is, in fact, an anti-competitive practice.

, not foreign twats. I'm not a fan of Moldova's wine being banned, but if some are going to be as hostile to Russia as Poroshenko, someone who's constantly funding anti-Russian movements, then is it really a shock that Putin fucked one of his industries? "Bawww, Putin won't let me make a profit in Russia, one that I can use to weaken Russia, oh life, you are so unfair to me!" - the idiot that's also known as the current, "el presidente," of some of Ukraine. Yes, that was a reference to Tropico.

See, now you're defending Putin using regulation as a method of rent-seeking instead of using regulation for the public good.

In a corrupt society, regulation is primarily used to extract concessions. Economists call this "rent-seeking" behavior. We're talking about soliciting bribes, and on the level of Putin, soliciting political favors. This is not "healthy competition." It is a burden on society.

In a non-corrupt society, regulation is primarily used to insure that products do not pose a hazard to the public. Instead of paying money on bribes, companies pay money to improve the safety of their products. Sometimes a regulatory regime is enforced honestly but poorly designed, but that's very different from rent-seeking behavior.

I was talking about applying the concept to the economics of today. Having a stable agrarian class is going to benefit Russia.

And weighing yourself before you have breakfast will make you sound skinnier.

Putin is counterattacking.

By shooting himself in the foot.

The first to impose de facto sectoral sanctions were those countries. If the US/EU can impose sectoral sanctions over Russia allegedly funding groups that they don't like, Russia should fight, economically, against that. Russia didn't like that US supported/supports certain groups in Syria and Libya. Should Russia sanction the US on the issue of Space Cooperation without any prior economic provocation?

You are saying that because Russia attacked the Ukraine, and the EU responded economically, Russia should expand hostilities further.

Oh, that actually depends on who runs. See, if you actually lived in America

Funnily, I live in America. Funnily, I also know America much better than you do.

, you'd know the perils of the two party system. Sometimes you have a Bush-Kerry election, where both candidates are shitheads. Sometimes you have a McCain-Obama election, where you can either vote for McCain to destroy the US, or endorse Obama and suck it up. Out of the past three presidential elections, 2004, 2008 and 2012, only the one in 2012 had both parties producing decent candidates. Romney's mistake was that he failed to go into his policies and facts, but he was bearable.

A two party system has problems. A one party system has even more problems.

Let's take a look at the recent election, shall we:

Poroshenko
Timoshenko - she was pretty much bonkers by this time, so we can list her in the crazy category.
Dobkin - wanted to move capital from Kiev to Kharkov, so unelectable in Western Ukraine
Hrystenko - former Yushenko program writer, loves the single digits, even more inept than Poroshenko
Yarosh - outright Neo-Nazi

If the list of candidates is just as bad, fuck, doesn't even matter if you vote or not. It's why the further east you go, the lower the turnout gets.

Turnout was in general fairly not all that much different from 2010... with the exception of areas where Russian-organized, Russian-funded, and, as it turns out, largely imported-directly-from-Russia separatists were keeping people from the polls.

[Tahar Joblis]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sn ... 8843.story

Two things to note in that article:

1. Several McDonald'ses closed "for health reasons," including the famous one in Pushkin Square.
2. Putin quietly eased back on the sanctions.

[Trygg]

Putin won't be able to keep up with US and EU sanctions. He'll commit economic suicide in the process.

[Calimera II]

They say trade has doubled between Argentina and Russia.
Read this - http://telesurtv.net/english/news/Argen ... -0055.html

This on Brazil and Russia wanting to double current trade to $10 Billion.
Read this - http://www.eleconomistaamerica.com/poli ... jSPoEi25h1

Argentinia and Putin are meeting eachother more. So I guess both are becoming more and more important economic and political partners too.

Both governments also agreed on a economic deal.

[Gravlen]

Food prices are on the rise, despite assurances from the Kremlin that they wouldn't.

Local officials said pork was up by six percent in Moscow supermarkets since the self-imposed food sanctions took effect on August 7. Fish, milk and cheese prices have also risen.

Elsewhere even bigger jumps have been recorded, with chicken pieces reportedly costing 60 percent more on the island of Sakhalin.

http://www.euronews.com/2014/08/21/food-prices-rise-in-russia-because-of-food-import-ban/

Two weeks after their introduction, Russia's bans on Western food imports have sent prices skyrocketing in some far-flung corners of the country as prices began to rise across the board, raising fears that Russia's poorest citizens will pay for the Kremlin's reprisal to Western sanctions.

Some also worry about a destabilizing spike in headline inflation, hardly good news for an economy already in the throes of a sharp economic slowdown. Breaking typical season trends, inflation rose 0.1 percent in the week ending Aug. 18 after two weeks of no inflation at all, pushing up the yearly rate to 7.5 percent, according to data from Rosstat — far overshooting the Central Bank's target.

Certain regions have seen staggering price increases: The cost of chicken legs soared 60 percent in the Sakhalin islands of Russia's Far East, while meat prices in the nearby Primorye region climbed 26 percent and prices on some types of fish rose by 40 percent, newspaper Kommersant reported this week.

But Russia-wide price rises are much milder than in the Far East. The cost of chicken has risen 2.1 percent since the beginning of August, while pork rose by 0.8 percent, frozen fish by 0.5 percent, cheese by 0.2 percent and apples by 0.2 percent, according to Rosstat.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/art_n_ideas/article/inflation-races-as-russias-food-bans-push-up-prices/505638.html

The Russian trade and industry minister said the increase in prices were normal, and that prices had been lowered in some regions.
http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/746296

As usual, it's some businessmen with Kremlin connections who're profiting the most.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-s-import-ban-a-window-of-opportunity-for-food-tycoons/505644.html