News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[Danger]

Why is it that only Neocons would enjoy a change of leadership in Russia?

It isn't. I'm diametrically opposed to those freaks, and I want to see the Putin fried in his own fat.

 

[mheslep]

67,9 rubles for dollar, the today's record was somewhere around 78 or or 79. Anyway, whichever way you count it under such heavy swings ruble is worth less than 50% of its value a year ago.

Russian central bank raised today interest rates from 10,5% to 17% to boost ruble, it worked for a few hours.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rouble-strengthens-after-russian-central-bank-hikes-rates-2014- http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30492518

Yes the Ruble dropped to 59 before the bank kicked in. Imagine waking up one morning and finding nearly every import doubled in price, every car, every smart phone.
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=RUB&view=1D

 

[Czcibor]

What with sanctions and the halving in the price of oil, Russia's economy is reeling under a double-whammy. There was talk this morning on CNBC, the financial channel, of the potential for change in the leadership of Russia. Neocons have dreamed of this moment for years. Perhaps now really is the time to cinch the noose tight, and work openly to consummate a regime change there? Perhaps the incoming Congress will answer the siren call to arms? What could possibly go wrong?

I thought that Americans would not fully appreciate that (esepecially neocons who tend not to be geography savy ;) ) - on the list of people that would appreciate it the most - Ukrainians, Balts, whole Eastern and Central Europe.

Ruble for 68 dollars, it seems that Russian central bank is spending serious of money to defend its currency, the exact amount is not known.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2bb9549e-85bc-11e4-b11b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3M3bApYlg

 

[Czcibor]

Yes the Ruble dropped to 59 before the bank kicked in. Imagine waking up one morning and finding nearly every import doubled in price, every car, every smart phone.
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=RUB&view=1D

A bit different situation:
-Some companies don't adjust prices on time, so part of the stuff is priced in historical price of purchase + margin.
-People try to protect their savings, so buy durable stuff
-Some companies because of that are cleaned of goods.

Sorry, no luxury cars or iphones right now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/w...le-swoons-russians-desperately-shop.html?_r=0

Their inflation is officially somewhere around 10%, while the price of imported stuff should have doubled. For me as an economist, that is a very interesting lag.

Some Russian companies already implemented good old solution "Conventional Currency Unit". You pay in rubles, but the price don't have to be adjusted often because is expressed in dollars, just the up to date exchange rate is necessary.

 

[nikkkom]

What with sanctions and the halving in the price of oil, Russia's economy is reeling under a double-whammy. There was talk this morning on CNBC, the financial channel, of the potential for change in the leadership of Russia. Neocons have dreamed of this moment for years. Perhaps now really is the time to cinch the noose tight, and work openly to consummate a regime change there?

This can be dangerous, since Russian leadership has entered a loop of producing outlandish propaganda, and then believing it themselves. They *do* believe that "the evil Amerika is trying to destroy us". No need to scare them further, they do have that red button.

Second, it is not at all clear than merely changing the regime will be an improvement. Current bout of Russian imperialism has strong roots in ordinary Russians' culture and prevailing political mood. If we want Russia to stop wanting to be an empire and stop wanting to antagonistically compete with the West instead of cooperating with it, we need to change *that*, not merely replace Putin and his gang. There are *even more imperialistic factions* in Russian politics than he is.

Keeping Russia just poor enough so that it can't attack neighbors may be a good policy.

 

[voko]

Keeping Russia just poor enough so that it can't attack neighbors may be a good policy.

Splendid. You want to prevent Russian "imperialism" by giving the Russians every reason to embrace it.

 

[Borg]

Splendid. You want to prevent Russian "imperialism" by giving the Russians every reason to embrace it.

What's the difference? Haven't they been embracing it before they had a reason anyway?

 

[voko]

What's the difference? Haven't they been embracing it before they had a reason anyway?

Oh, you mean now they have a reason? So "the evil Amerika is trying to destroy us" is not "outlandish propaganda"?

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, you mean now they have a reason? So "the evil Amerika is trying to destroy us" is not "outlandish propaganda"?

No, you misunderstood: that was a hypothetical. *IF* we adopt a policy of holding them back just for the sake of holding them back, it wold start to create a real basis. We're not hateful like that though and as long as Putin is acting imperialistic, that hypothetical is moot anyway; there is a clear aggressor here.

 

[Borg]

No, you misunderstood: that was a hypothetical. *IF* we adopt a policy of holding them back just for the sake of holding them back, it wold start to create a real basis. We're not hateful like that though and as long as Putin is acting imperialistic, that hypothetical is moot anyway; there is a clear aggressor here.

Exactly. My point was that Putin is already being imperialistic regardless of any real or perceived actions on the part of the U.S.

I think that a lot of people in the U.S. really embraced Russia and had a lot of hope for cooperation after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Now many in Russia seem to want to return to the isolationism and distrust of the past. That's pretty sad in my opinion.

 

[voko]

No, you misunderstood: that was a hypothetical.

Respectfully, that was not said by you, so I would like the author of that phrase to explain what was meant.

*IF* we adopt a policy of holding them back just for the sake of holding them back

"IF"? The Ukrainian Freedom Support Act of 2014", passed by the Senate a few days ago, defines a policy, "to[/PLAIN] deter the Government of the Russian Federation from
further destabilizing and invading Ukraine and other independent countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia". How is that different from the proposal in #725, which said "so that [Russia] can't attack neighbors"? And how is a policy "https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2828/text" different from "Keeping Russia just poor enough"?

 

[voko]

Exactly. My point was that Putin is already being imperialistic regardless of any real or perceived actions on the part of the U.S.

It may be what you meant, but you said "before they a had a reason". Which implies there is a reason now. Which, given what I wrote in the previous message, may very well be the case.

Regardless, I believe that you are mistaken in judging that it is Putin, and not the Russians, who is being "imperialistic", whatever that means. Putin is hugely popular in Russia and as far as I can see his current policies are fully supported.

I think that a lot of people in the U.S. really embraced Russia and had a lot of hope for cooperation after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Now many in Russia seem to want to return to the isolationism and distrust of the past. That's pretty sad in my opinion.

I am of the opinion that many Russians would see this very differently. It was Russian soldiers who all marched away from Europe when the Iron Curtain fell. American soldiers are still there. And Nato has moved eastward, despite promises that it would not.

 

[Borg]

It may be what you meant, but you said "before they a had a reason". Which implies there is a reason now. Which, given what I wrote in the previous message, may very well be the case.

Regardless, I believe that you are mistaken in judging that it is Putin, and not the Russians, who is being "imperialistic", whatever that means. Putin is hugely popular in Russia and as far as I can see his current policies are fully supported.

Again, it doesn't matter whether Russia has a reason or not. Russia's actions in Ukraine occurred before the reasons mentioned by you and vikkkom. So, as I said before - What's the difference?

I am well aware of how popular Putin is in Russia. I am also aware through my many associations in the U.S. Russian community how unpopular he is with people who aren't under the sphere of his media control.

I am of the opinion that many Russians would see this very differently. It was Russian soldiers who all marched away from Europe when the Iron Curtain fell. American soldiers are still there. And Nato has moved eastward, despite promises that it would not.

Your own link states that there is some disagrement as to what was promised but I'll concede that Russia probably feels deceived. In any case, there is a huge difference between being invited into a country and marching in. Isn't it possible that countries started inviting NATO when they thought that Russia was becoming aggressive toward its neighbors? Russia's actions in Ukraine will just push them further toward the West.

 

[mheslep]

Putin is hugely popular in Russia and as far as I can see his current policies are fully supported.

There is in nation states a reality of what the policies are, and then there is what the State's propaganda arm says they are. In free, pluralistic societies the press and the democratic turn over of power keep the effect of propaganda to a minimum. In Russia however, state power does not turn over at the top and people in institutions like the press that attempt to cut through the propaganda often end up dead.

August 20, 1934

 

[mheslep]

I am also aware through my many associations in the U.S. Russian community how unpopular he is with people who aren't under the sphere of his media control.

Precisely.

 

[voko]

So, as I said before - What's the difference?

This is a question you should address to nikkkom, and, probably, to US policy makers. It was not I who suggested a policy which defeats its own purpose.

I am also aware through my many associations in the U.S. Russian community how unpopular he is with people who aren't under the sphere of his media control.

Oh, you mean there are first-class Russians, and second-class Russians, and the second-class Russians matter very little?

Russia's actions in Ukraine will just push them further toward the West.

Please do not mix these two issues. This little branch of discussion is about the developments since the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was your statement that the people in the US embraced Russia, yet Russia is somehow distrustful and isolationistic (and imperialistic at the same time, what a nice combo). What was Russia's aggression toward its neighbours prior to 1997, when three countries, east of the then-current Nato block, were invited to join Nato?

 

[Borg]

This is a question you should address to nikkkom, and, probably, to US policy makers. It was not I who suggested a policy which defeats its own purpose.

What's the difference was in reply to your post.

Oh, you mean there are first-class Russians, and second-class Russians, and the second-class Russians matter very little?

How did you come up with that from my post?

Please do not mix these two issues. This little branch of discussion is about the developments since the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was your statement that the people in the US embraced Russia, yet Russia is somehow distrustful and isolationistic (and imperialistic at the same time, what a nice combo). What was Russia's aggression toward its neighbours prior to 1997, when three countries, east of then-current Nato black, were invited to join Nato?

OK, they were invited prior to 97. This doesn't really change my statement that Russia's current actions in Ukraine will push countries further toward the West.

 

[Danger]

three countries, east of the then-current Nato block, were invited to join Nato

Is it really possible that you don't understand the difference between being invited and being invaded?

 

[voko]

What's the difference was in reply to your post.

This is why I said it should be addressed elsewhere.

How did you come up with that from my post?

Because, you see, there are millions of Russians supporting Putin, and a handful who have told you they do not. Just mentioning the second group means it is at least as important as the other one, which implies what I wrote.

OK, they were invited but nothing came of it.

You mean they didn't join Nato a couple of years later?

 

[voko]

Is it really possible that you don't understand the difference between being invited and being invaded?

No. And you could ask a less trivial question.

 

[Danger]

No. And you could ask a less trivial question.

Trivial? You have been saying that NATO inviting nations to join them if they want to is the same as Russia sending heavily armed soldiers into the Ukraine in order to make it part of their country by force against the rightful government. Explain how they're identical.

 

[voko]

Trivial? You have been saying that NATO inviting nations to join them if they want to is the same as Russia sending heavily armed soldiers into the Ukraine in order to make it part of their country by force against the rightful government. Explain how they're identical.

I never said that.

 

[Danger]

I never said that.

Oh yeah? Then what was this supposed to mean?

It was your statement that the people in the US embraced Russia, yet Russia is somehow distrustful and isolationistic (and imperialistic at the same time, what a nice combo). What was Russia's aggression toward its neighbours prior to 1997, when three countries, east of the then-current Nato block, were invited to join Nato?

 

[Borg]

Because, you see, there are millions of Russians supporting Putin, and a handful who have told you they do not. Just mentioning the second group means it is at least as important as the other one, which implies what I wrote.

I disagree with your logic.

 

[voko]

Then what was this supposed to mean?

Quite obviously, nothing about invasions.

 

[mheslep]

NATO is a dangerous, imperial organization that has a long and recent history of attacking its neighbors. Examples include: the NATO invasion of Finland in the Winter War of 1939. Oh wait, never mind. The NATO invasion and annexation of Poland in September 1939. Oh wait, never mind. The NATO invasion and occupation of the the Baltic States in 1940. Oh wait, never mind.

Let us forget the long ago and focus on the modern. After all, it is not as if former Cold War officials are in charge any more, and the days of ehttp://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=354772 are long gone. In the first European war of the 21st century, NATO invaded Georgia in August 2008 and currently remains in occupation by force of the formerly Georgian S. Ossetia region. Oh wait, never mind. NATO annexed The Crimea by force this year ... I'm so confused.

 

[Danger]

Quite obviously, nothing about invasions.

If you call that "obvious", you need a serious refresher course in logic. It obviously is about invasions because that is the subject that you were responding to.

 

[voko]

It obviously is about invasions because that is the subject that you were responding to.

That is false. Please stop making things up.

 

[Danger]

That is false. Please stop making things up.

Wrong on both counts; you just can't seem to keep track of what's going on.

 

[nikkkom]

> Keeping Russia just poor enough so that it can't attack neighbors may be a good policy.

Splendid. You want to prevent Russian "imperialism" by giving the Russians every reason to embrace it.

I do not want to prevent Russian imperialism. You can't prevent something which already exists, and Russian imperialism definitely exists and flourishes already. If you can't watch Russian domestic news, you probably just don't fully realize how far it progressed. It's bordering on the insanity.

I want Russians to stop being antagonistic towards the West. It's bad for everybody, Russians including. Since Russia is no longer ruled by communists, there are no irreconcilable ideological reasons to wage a war (cold, proxy, or hot one) against each other.

Sadly, it is now impossible to achieve such change in Russia by political dialogue, since Putin created a powerful propaganda apparatus, so ordinary Russians don't even get to hear alternative points of view.

So, other approaches have to be used. There are many. Such as "1945 solution". We did manage to fix a somewhat similar situation (Germany not wanting to be part of the West, and instead trying to antagonistically compete with it) by "simply" defeating the opponent militarily and forcing them to change.

I don't want to use that method in current situation, for several obvious reasons. I'm sure you also don't want that.

So, what else can we do? Well, we can stop trading with Russia. It is entirely legal. It is non-violent. It can easily be calibrated (stick and carrot).

Apparently, you disagree. If yes, what would you do?