Sanctions are not just failing to end the war in Ukraine or weaken the Kremlin’s warfighting currency, they’ve also backfired, inadvertently strengthening Moscow’s hardline position, undermining the utility of alternative strategies, and shoring up the Kremlin against future international coercion.
pull down to refresh
related posts
119 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 4 Nov
Yes, the sanctions have not worked
The NATO alliance is a naval power not a continental power.
Russia is an Asian continental power which can ship internally, not affected by oceans.
Now considering those facts, how would the west ever be able to stop intracontinental trade?
Can’t effectively be done, can it?
They can just go around the sanctions, witness BRICS and other organizations.
reply
53 sats \ 19 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Nov
Days before Russia invaded they signed a comprehensive mutual support pact with China.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/russia-and-china-unveil-a-pact-against-america-and-the-west
Since the invasion China has bought Russias oil and gas, at a discounted price and rapidly increasing volumes..
Putin is begging China to quickly complete a second pipeline which will further the volume that can be pumped into China.
Russia has only been able to continue to operate as a functional sustainable economy because of Chinas willingness to ignore the sanctions and provide both a market for Russias oil and gas exports and to supply Russia with manufactured goods...and USD access via Hong Kong.
Russia has become dependent upon China.
Russia is now subservient to China and acting as one of its proxies - attacking the west.
Trump plans to reward this Chinese backed Russian aggression.
Chinas advance against the west will not end there.
reply
5 sats \ 18 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 4 Nov
Why should China, India and other Stans cooperate with sanctions from US?
They are all connected by land, where our navies cannot go.
They can make pipes without our interference.
TDS much?
reply
7 sats \ 17 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Nov
Because US still holds the military and monetary hegemony- although China has been in a position to ignore that since they provided Iran with trade and monetary access after US sanctions more than a decade ago.
Today China can do as it pleases as USA dare not exclude China from its SWIFT network as to do so would do huge damage to US economy.
India is being drawn into orbit with the new Chinese empire via Russia...which is now already dependent upon Chinese trade and payments systems.
As more nations see they can gain near complete trade and monetary alternative via China the power of the US and its monetary hegemony will swiftly decline.
Within perhaps 4 years China could reverse engineer the entire system and leave US broke and defeated...not a missile fired from China- they have already won the trade war....now the war for control over international protocols and institutions has begun.
reply
25 sats \ 16 replies \ @xz 4 Nov
You get the feeling the current US admin is literally ineffective in any of its goals. If there are any coherent strategies in place beyond countering military strategy (badly) and fumbling opportunities to walk back mistakes and form ties, there doesn't seem much evidence of them.
I honestly believe that the best thing for the US would be a new administration.
Obviously, that would also be the best wake up call to the so-called united 'west'.
reply
14 sats \ 6 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 4 Nov
On the other hand, perhaps they are being totally effective on their goals. You are assuming their goals are somewhat in line with the good of the nation. Is that truly the case?
It looks to me like THEY are trying to suck the husk of this nation dry of every last drop of blood and treasure. Then THEY can abandon the rest of the people to whatever fate we have. You can see it in the corruption and the crony capitalism (which is not capitalism, but something else), all around us. There is nothing but lies.
Now, to change that will take a swerving away from the system and people milking it for all it is worth. Can we do it? Will we be let to do it? We will have to see.
reply
20 sats \ 5 replies \ @xz 4 Nov
I wasn't assuming this entirely, but you are right. I'm assuming that there's a case for self-preservation of humanity. I'd be very wrong in my assumption if there's all kinds of high level agreements to steer this thing into some covert global paradigm.
Beyond some further milking. What possible end-goal could be reached for the non-US aligned global cabal? I find it hard to believe the factions of global politics have cooperation beyond statist subservience, old money and multinational corporate interest.
But good point.
reply
7 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 4 Nov
THEY want what THEY want and to hell with what anybody else wants. For instance, Be-ill Gates has openly said he wants to reduce the population (although he is careful never to say how much). Other ones of THEM, want to enslave the world for their cause, whatever that may be.
I think the cabal is not aligned with anyone but THEMSELVES. Are THEY special bloodlines or families? I don’t know but the evidence shows it is someone controlling THEIR minions.
You can say I am paranoid, however, I see evidence everywhere.
reply
20 sats \ 3 replies \ @xz 4 Nov
The world has gone pretty retarded since the millenum.
Gates, whatever his scholastic claims and riches, like most businesspeople-cum-media-celebrities, is flawed from every possible viewpoint. Uninspiring, insipid, waffer of a humanoid. The high priest of 80s corporate R&D theft. Media perpetuates their nonsensical ramblings. If I was an American voter (and we should preface that voting is what it is) I'd vote for the person that talks as much sense, coherently. With the candidates, it seems that's an easy observation to make.
I wonder whether before paranoia was commonly diagnosed/observed, it was just though of as an enquiring mind. Just my 2sats.
view replies
8 sats \ 8 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Nov
Last time Trump left traditional allies feeling abandoned- he pulled out of the transpacific free trade agreement and seemed to show favour to Putin and North Korea more than the EU or other allies. He appears to admire autocrats and despots.
The west was not united by him- it was left divided and confused.
Trump appears to be conceding the US is in decline- and abandoning the wider alliance that has backed US hegemony- maybe that's the right tactic but again I have my doubts.
Many traditional partners have stronger trade ties and reliance upon China then the US and while they would be reluctant to come under Chinese dominion like Russia has they might increasingly turn their backs on the US.
Without a united west, Chinas rise to global hegemony is much easier.
reply
20 sats \ 5 replies \ @xz 4 Nov
To your last point, for sure, 's hard to to argue a counterbalance wouldn't be helpful.
I think the other point you made is largely correct. Maybe an inconvenirnt truth that in today's world, nations/economic and political regions are very much allies through convenience and what that brings.
The part about Trump. Well, I think there's a lot of flowery language around about how he seems. I'm not sure I can buy that. Practicality and realism are the only ways to go, when there's a trust issue with international 'rules'. Every player skirts these rules economically.
I feel agrements like the TTP are adverserial. Equally, even if built out of a practical solution to the current balance of power, the SCO is also. To act in the way that nations that are less aligned on the spectrum of power must, India or Vietnam, for example, benefits them, by carefully navigating the orbit, as someone above decribed it.
When the gloves come off, allies are allies of convenience for the most part.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 4 Nov
All of these state-to-state agreements are only to the deterrent of the individuals wanting to trade.
Why not let individuals and individual companies trade as they wish without interference.
Then there would be no need for treaty talks or agreements between states.
There would be no adversarial relationships, at all, only cooperation and fruly free trade.
Could the CCP do that?
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Nov
Americas power and wealth is in large part derived from the rules based international institutional order and protocols that America itself dominates- IMF-World Bank-SWIFT-petrodollar.
That international order is the framework that 'allies' have accepted and worked within.
However that framework is showing signs of breaking down- and Trump is seen as accelerating that process and increasing US isolation.
For example my nation of origin - New Zealand was the first OECD five eyes nation to enter into an FTA with China in the early 2000s- that led to an explosion in trade between NZ and China- both nations have what the other wants and China perhaps saw NZ as an easy place to start understanding the western alliances internal systems - there is now substantial Chinese influence and investment in NZ.
USA which NZ has been subservient to monetarily and militarily since 1945 has never had a FTA with the US and trade with the US is not growing and is much less than we now have with China.
China has won the trade war- it produces the manufactured goods all nations want and need at the best price and pays the best price for commodities.
US dominance now relies upon legacy dominance of protocols and institutions.
China is building its alternative institutions and protocols (Chinas already operational CBDC EYuan almost certain to be the base protocol for the BRICS Pay) and now demonstrating it can provide near complete alternative to US/West for nations like Russia and Iran and all other non traditional allies of the west.
Trumps approach of imposing tariffs might work in the short term but the near universal control it once enjoyed is slipping away and the trend is toward China taking the lead.
It is hard to see how he could reverse the structural loss of competitive advantage in productivity that has already occurred. Maybe Elon Musks DOGE can at least try?
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @xz 4 Nov
I'm pretty sure you are right about who is winning the trade war, and that it's mostly bluster in terms of pre-election rants.
From my own perspective, having endured life in both a once-upon -a-time democracy, and spending a chunk of it in a non -democracy where you are not even offered a vote or the right to criticism, I feel I can see where this all goes.
Basically, as you say, 'western' reliance is a legacy hegemony with the linch-pin being SWIFT and that's not going to have much effect going forward. But, I suppose that's where a change in leadership might be able to come to terms with the world's manufacturing base undercutting every other nation, try to mitigate through self-reliance by re-examining supplychain vulnerability, some of that really should be achievable, much of it depends on energy security, where we are now.
I agree tarrifs from one economy alone is not going to do much but it's probably an effective message to send in an economic war, if emulated (expanded further). If other nations wanted to regain some competitive part of global trade, say India, it would be beneficial not just to the US.
Would you rather sit back and aquiesce to policy that benefits a political class. A future with less sovereignty for the individual and communities. Homogenization of a nations ideas, slavery for the masses, riches for the few.
Elon Musk is irrelevant but also harmless.. we don't need Brits running over to Kamala and her corrupt lackies, asking to shut him down.
view replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 4 Nov
Perhaps China will have troubles when investors pull out of China for other climes.
India, VietNam and a host of other countries may be future destinations for investments. China still has problems with ownership and private property.
reply on another page
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 4 Nov
Surely, just what the WEF, communists and China are looking for!!
Perhaps Trump is NOT conceding anything. Perhaps he sees foreign entanglements for just what they are.
The US does not need to back wars or sent troops anywhere, even less, have bases in every country on Earth. Let people choose their own destiny and work towards it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Nov
Without its global power projection the US loses its 'petrodollar' monetary hegemony.
Without that, the US is swiftly insolvent.
Trump knows this, as do Putin and his master Xi.
This is what the proxy wars in Ukraine and Middle East are about- challenging the US and its ability to project and preserve its global dominance.
BRICS Pay, being fronted by Putin is Chinas CBDC EYuan protocol displacing the USD.
https://www.brics-pay.com/
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 4 Nov
It hurt them initially when they were scrambling to figure things out.
But now it is helping them more than hurting.
It is hurting everyone else except them.
"But contend they at least offer an inexpensive and low-risk way to slow Russian advances and take a public stand against the invasion."
Im not saying that the USA should get boots on the ground, but this low risk way isnt working well.
It is more like a symbolic gesture.
reply