NationStates

United Marxist Nations wrote:In a more serious follow-up to my previous post; what exactly do the supporters of sanctions hope they will achieve? I mean, if the goal is to remove Putin from power, Putin's opposition isn't pro-West either.

This has not much to do with santions. Russian economy is to depended on oil instead of diversicate its economy.

But i guess this is also a good opportunity for Russia to go back into tge planned economy.

Pantokrators wrote:

Arkolon wrote:Russia relies heavily on petrol exports. The US is expanding its fracking operations, and now pumps out 9.1 million barrels of petrol a day. Saudi Arabia pumps out only a little more, and it is the global market leader. Saudi Arabia is reasonably upset because all of this petrol means it has to cut prices to stay competitive: it having great influence in OPEC helps in this regard. Thus Saudi Arabia slashed prices trying to run the Americans out of business, and the Americans are still pumping all they can just to stay competitive and to challenge the Saudis. It's a very interesting modern phenomenon, and it's giving all of us really cheap petrol.

Caught in the crossfire is Russia, whose currency has become worthless as a result of worthless exports. The US sanctions did minimal damage in this regard.

So that explains a lot. Thanks for the info. And feacking is I suppose pulling oil from the particular stones/shells?

If this would have happened and without the mess in Ukraine than it was good for Putin to annex Crimea afterall. Now he will blame the whole world and have even more support from the Russians.

I guess this will alfo have good affect in the Ukrainian economy. Ukraine will now pay less money for oil and trade more with Europe. Right?

Fracking basically involved pumping chemicals and water into shale formations to break them up and release natural gas (as a very crude understanding of it).

Hard to say, but support can often wither when everyone is heavily affected.

I guess, but Ukraine's economy is in such a bad state right now that I doubt much difference will be made.

Pantokrators wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:In a more serious follow-up to my previous post; what exactly do the supporters of sanctions hope they will achieve? I mean, if the goal is to remove Putin from power, Putin's opposition isn't pro-West either.

This has not much to do with santions. Russian economy is to depended on oil instead of diversicate its economy.

But i guess this is also a good opportunity for Russia to go back into tge planned economy.

You're damn right it is.

#November2017

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Laerod wrote:Russia is arguably the only nation and certainly the only European nation that has acted in this matter in the past few decades. To call it the reality of international relations and the natural order of how nations operate is to lie.

The United States continues to illegally operate Guantanamo Naval Base despite being in violation of the lease since the Cold War, so it is not the only nation to do so.

Untrue.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Pantokrators wrote:This has not much to do with santions. Russian economy is to depended on oil instead of diversicate its economy.

But i guess this is also a good opportunity for Russia to go back into tge planned economy.

You're damn right it is.

#November2017

And then second half of the Cold War, really kicks into full swing. Fun times for all.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:I'm curious if Crimea was worth the cost.

Sevastopol Naval Base is very important for Russia, both strategically and symbolically; Russia did not think it would be acceptable to lose it, and the highest members of the provisional government in Kyiv had openly stated for a long time that they intended to not renew the lease. Russia felt that, if it didn't act decisively against this, then its international reputation would be crushed.

Either way their reputation would have suffered, I'd argue it's suffered more with the path they've chosen than it might have if an alternate path was taken.

Second Blazing wrote:

Fortschritte wrote:
And, why do you believe in something so irrational?

It wouldn't be that surprising really. A total collapse of the Russian economy is a desirable outcome, at least from an American foreign policy stand point. It weakens Russia to the point where they may being willing to end their support for Syria and abandon their claims to the Crimea. I honestly hope we are behind this. Although that raises more questions about why we've been paying 3.50-4.00+ a gallon for this long if we can control the price of oil like this.

So do I.

Second Blazing wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:You're damn right it is.

#November2017

And then second half of the Cold War, really kicks into full swing. Fun times for all.

Cold War = Warm Welcome

Laerod wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:The United States continues to illegally operate Guantanamo Naval Base despite being in violation of the lease since the Cold War, so it is not the only nation to do so.

Untrue.

The lease agreement for Guantanamo Bay was executed in two parts; the first,[1] consisting of a statement of the intent to lease property in Cuba for a Naval Station, with the US to be given complete jurisdiction within the leased area, was signed in February with the following provisions:

>a promise to lease, for the time required, an area to be determined, at Guantanamo Bay, with Cuba to acquire and include any privately held interior lots, and two parcels of land and adjacent waters in Bahia Honda;
>the right to use the areas as naval stations, and for no other purpose, with a non-exclusive easement to adjacent waters;
>complete jurisdiction to belong to the US, while it "recognizes the continuance of ultimate sovereignty"[a] of Cuba.

The second document,[2] which was signed five months later in July 1903, contains the specification of the land to be leased and the responsibilities of the two parties

>the annual lease payment of USD$2,000 in U.S. gold coin, as long as the US occupies and uses the areas
>US to build and maintain fences
>only for use as a Naval and coaling station
>mutual right of extradition
>a duty-free zone, but not a port of entry for weapons or other goods into Cuba proper
>Cuban shipping to have the right of access to the Bay
>ratification to be within seven months.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%8 ... can_Treaty

The underlined are American violations of the lease.

Unless oil prices somehow recover, or Putin decides to play nice over Ukraine, I cannot foresee any way out of this current economic crisis, although I am no economist or international politics theorist.

Interest rates are already sky high at 17%, and domestic economic tools at their disposal are limited. The Russian central bank can only intervene so much, and it alone cannot support a currency that the rest of the world seems to be bailing on.

As others have noted, it is the poor and vulnerable who will pay the price most, and I don't know how long the average middle class pro-Putin voter will put up with an increasingly worsening economy before they start to turn on their President and stop buying "the West is out to get me" line he's spouting.

I doubt his ego is flexible enough to rein in the Ukraine separatists or his own forces on the ground in Ukraine. I can't see Putin letting go of Ukraine because for now it's an international distraction to remind the folks at home that he's powerful, and protecting Russia's sphere of influence. Russia's sphere of influence should be Russia, and that's it. There will not be a new Soviet Union.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Laerod wrote:Untrue.

The lease agreement for Guantanamo Bay was executed in two parts; the first,[1] consisting of a statement of the intent to lease property in Cuba for a Naval Station, with the US to be given complete jurisdiction within the leased area, was signed in February with the following provisions:

>a promise to lease, for the time required, an area to be determined, at Guantanamo Bay, with Cuba to acquire and include any privately held interior lots, and two parcels of land and adjacent waters in Bahia Honda;
>the right to use the areas as naval stations, and for no other purpose, with a non-exclusive easement to adjacent waters;
>complete jurisdiction to belong to the US, while it "recognizes the continuance of ultimate sovereignty"[a] of Cuba.

The second document,[2] which was signed five months later in July 1903, contains the specification of the land to be leased and the responsibilities of the two parties

>the annual lease payment of USD$2,000 in U.S. gold coin, as long as the US occupies and uses the areas
>US to build and maintain fences
>only for use as a Naval and coaling station
>mutual right of extradition
>a duty-free zone, but not a port of entry for weapons or other goods into Cuba proper
>Cuban shipping to have the right of access to the Bay
>ratification to be within seven months.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%8 ... can_Treaty

The underlined are American violations of the lease.

We still pay them, Castro just puts the checks in a drawer. He cashed the first check, ratifying the treaty.

And also, we do use it as a naval base.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%8 ... can_Treaty

The underlined are American violations of the lease.

If you were right than Castro would long tome ago kici oit the Americans and stop using the money of the lease.

Second Blazing wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:The lease agreement for Guantanamo Bay was executed in two parts; the first,[1] consisting of a statement of the intent to lease property in Cuba for a Naval Station, with the US to be given complete jurisdiction within the leased area, was signed in February with the following provisions:

>a promise to lease, for the time required, an area to be determined, at Guantanamo Bay, with Cuba to acquire and include any privately held interior lots, and two parcels of land and adjacent waters in Bahia Honda;
>the right to use the areas as naval stations, and for no other purpose, with a non-exclusive easement to adjacent waters;
>complete jurisdiction to belong to the US, while it "recognizes the continuance of ultimate sovereignty"[a] of Cuba.

The second document,[2] which was signed five months later in July 1903, contains the specification of the land to be leased and the responsibilities of the two parties

>the annual lease payment of USD$2,000 in U.S. gold coin, as long as the US occupies and uses the areas
>US to build and maintain fences
>only for use as a Naval and coaling station
>mutual right of extradition
>a duty-free zone, but not a port of entry for weapons or other goods into Cuba proper
>Cuban shipping to have the right of access to the Bay
>ratification to be within seven months.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%8 ... can_Treaty

The underlined are American violations of the lease.

We still pay them, Castro just puts the checks in a drawer. He cashed the first check, ratifying the treaty.

And also, we do use it as a naval base.

1) The check isn't made out to any position of the Cuban Government; it is made out to a non-existent entity.

2) The treaty prohibits any other uses than as a Naval Base or Coaling station; using the facility as a Detention Facility violates the lease.

3) Still leaving the issue of Cuban Sovereignty open.

Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:There is a conspiracy afoot to tank the Russian economy by causing oil prices to plummet. It is a plan concoted in Riyadh though I bet the USA is also involved..

This is probably close to the truth. I don't want to know what the US has sacrificed for this if it is the case...it's probably not worth it.

Calimera II wrote:Little to do with Putin. It has more to do with speculators that want the rubble to collapse.

Also this.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Second Blazing wrote:
We still pay them, Castro just puts the checks in a drawer. He cashed the first check, ratifying the treaty.

And also, we do use it as a naval base.

1) The check isn't made out to any position of the Cuban Government; it is made out to a non-existent entity.

2) The treaty prohibits any other uses than as a Naval Base or Coaling station; using the facility as a Detention Facility violates the lease.

3) Still leaving the issue of Cuban Sovereignty open.

1. Its written out to the old government of Cuba. If the check was made out to Castro, it would be considered legal recognition of an illegal communist dictatorship.

2. Every military base on earth has a brig, the detention center is no different.

3. They cashed the check, meaning the current government ratified the treaty. If

United Marxist Nations wrote:I will be laughing at those hoping for Putin's opposition to gain power if the economic impacts of their sanctions bring my horse in the race to power. I also imagine I would be most jubilant.

Soon.

Well, it'd be the least worrisome of the opposition in Russia. But I don't think that the communists would be any worse than UR is at the moment.

Costa Fierro wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:I will be laughing at those hoping for Putin's opposition to gain power if the economic impacts of their sanctions bring my horse in the race to power. I also imagine I would be most jubilant.

Soon.

Well, it'd be the least worrisome of the opposition in Russia. But I don't think that the communists would be any worse than UR is at the moment.

Not any worse, but definitely not better.

NO! GSU IS GREAT AND STRONK. NO ROUBLE COLLASPE WE POWERHOUSE ECONOMY WE RICH AND UNITED AND STRONK

Greater Soviet Ukraine wrote:NO! GSU IS GREAT AND STRONK. NO ROUBLE COLLASPE WE POWERHOUSE ECONOMY WE RICH AND UNITED AND STRONK

Pretending to do an IC post? Orrr...not quite sure what.

Second Blazing wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:1) The check isn't made out to any position of the Cuban Government; it is made out to a non-existent entity.

2) The treaty prohibits any other uses than as a Naval Base or Coaling station; using the facility as a Detention Facility violates the lease.

3) Still leaving the issue of Cuban Sovereignty open.

1. Its written out to the old government of Cuba. If the check was made out to Castro, it would be considered legal recognition of an illegal communist dictatorship.

2. Every military base on earth has a brig, the detention center is no different.

3. They cashed the check, meaning the current government ratified the treaty. If

1) Which breaks the treaty by not recognizing Cuba's sovereignty.

2) Granted.

3) And, since then, the US has violated Cuba's sovereignty with the Bay of Pigs invasion, nullifying the treaty.

Costa Fierro wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:I will be laughing at those hoping for Putin's opposition to gain power if the economic impacts of their sanctions bring my horse in the race to power. I also imagine I would be most jubilant.

Soon.

Well, it'd be the least worrisome of the opposition in Russia. But I don't think that the communists would be any worse than UR is at the moment.

Hey, I'm all for them; I was just pointing out that any part of the Russian opposition is unfriendly toward the West.

Second Blazing wrote:Not any worse, but definitely not better.

Russia will never be completely happy with whatever the West does, so we just have to learn to listen and when to tell them to mind their own damn business.

But considering the communists appear to be wanting to move away from a resource based economy and a lot are actually more interested in following the economic model of Deng Xiaoping, who as we all know is credited with the opening of China and sowing the seeds for massive economic growth we see today.

IMO Russia's in for another collapse/rebirth cycle in the next 10 years, unless Putin stops acting like a crazy person.

George Friedman predicted that Russia would collapse again in his book "The Next 100 Years".