Interesting read on the state of Russia's finances going into 2023: https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/89009

Tl;Dr?

my impression is: that the west has imposed sanctions on russia (this is not news) and that they are slowly having an affect (also, not news).

thats an impartial view by the way.

In terms of sanctions ~ "The objective of the sanctioning country are to impose significant costs to the target country to coerce a change in policy or attain a specific action from the target government."

In relation to same, there is no way that Russia will change its policy or current actions, based on sanctions. Therefore sanctions will not work and are not doing and can not do what, officially, sanctions are meant to encourage. Instead what is likely to occur is that Russia will rally around its state in protest against sanctions. A case of Russia vs the big bad west. In this regard if sanctions are meant to change Russia's mind it would behove the US to throw an Olive branch towards unaligned nations (and aligned nations) in order to bring them into the western "camp" and its probably not sound advise to bar Russia from the Olympic's. The strategy instead should be to differentiate Putin and his allies from the common Russian people. Ultimately better propaganda is needed in order to show common Russian people that the West is not evil and that Putin invaded Ukraine on a false narrative. The war should not be with Russia it should be with Putin. Ditto for Osama Bin Laden.

Another concerning notion is, if the US believes that Ukraine is just the first move from Putin, what is being done to prevent or deter potential aggression by Russia elsewhere in the region. With this in mind the US, one would expect, has already notified Russia of its red lines in the region (for those countries not in Nato of course) and should intensify its military presense in the region.

This post is Pro US, obviously.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 21 2023 04:56am

I think the following two sections are the most interesting:





The tldr is that the sanctions will not put a quick stop to the war, but that Russia will sustain huge economic damage, no matter if they end up winning or losing the actual war.

The article also mentions an aspect that a lot of folks, myself included, kept hammering throughout the past year: the high uncertainty sent energy prices soaring last year, which blunted the short-term impact of the sanctions on Russia's finances - but that this price surge was not sustainable; that oil and gas prices would inevitably come down to manageable levels again. Like I said time and time again: the impact of the economic war between Russia and the West is felt on different timescales: the loss of Russian supplies had the largest effect on Western economies in the short-run while the sanctions against Russia will only unleash their full potential in the medium-term.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 21 2023 04:52am

For sanctions to have any hope of "working" properly the US would need to encourage India, China and Co. to desist from being alternate customers. and by "working" I mean wreck the Russian economy, not change Russia's mind (as changing Russia's mind is highly unlikely to happen).

Sanctions are meant to increase the cost on a person or nation of doing bad things. However if the actions being carried out by Russia today are perceived as an existential crisis (which it is according to Putin) then he has nothing to lose, ergo will not change his mind, ergo sanctions will make life very difficult but not deter or change course of the conflict.

It would be far better to repeatedly reiterate the notion that there is no intentions to attack Russia, and try to get broader agreement (notably from China) on the position of Russia, and potentially seek to work with Russia on other matters. If that involves concessions (or "appeasement" as some ppl call compromise), so be it, ultimately the fate of Ukraine as a sovereign state is being gambled and it would be nice if some people remembered this (West, Ukraine). If only one side is happy then it will lead to further conflict and escalation therefore at a certain point compromise is required in order for a balanced settlement to be arrived at.

Accepted that this wont occur in 2023

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 21 2023 05:09am

Compromise and appeasement are not the same thing, they are not interchangeable concepts.
Very important

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 21 2023 06:23am

From a neutral standpoint: you cant cherry pick from the two when it suits you, and I would argue anyone can interchange these words (as they have in this thread, on numerous times). Here are some examples:

From a Pro Russian standpoint: Russian appeasement of Nato over the last 20 years could be argued was an effort to prevent a future war.
From a Pro Russian standpoint: Russia compromised with Nato over the last 20 years as it did not want a war.

From a Pro US standpoint: The US has appeased Russia in this war by not giving Ukraine long range weapons or declaring it would send troops if Russia invaded so as to prevent a direct war between the West and Russia.
From a Pro US standpoint: The US has compromised with Russia in this war by not giving Ukraine long range weapons or sending Nato Troops so as to prevent a direct war between the West and Russia.

i.e. interchangeable. I dont mind if you want to flog a dead horse and stand by your position but to my mind you are not correct on this point sir.

also I see Topsha has been banned. The self proclaimed "academic" who was A Multi, A Liar and a Zealous Ultra Nationalist Russian. He also could not read, or chose not to read (I mean he called me Polish when its clear from post #3 - which I had referred to him, that I stated I was irish). He promoted violence and genocide and was incapable or unwilling to comprehend simple simple right from wrong behaviour. Very poor IQ to be banned within 24 hours.

Hopefully the next time we get a multi like this he will abide by this sites rules. Its ok to have a different view, but try to articulate it civilly.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 21 2023 06:42am

Using those concepts interchangeably is erroneous.

"The difference between appeasement and compromise is that appeasement is when you give someone whatever they ask for in order to avoid conflict, where as compromise reaches a middle ground between the two parties wishes."

You appear to be referring to a compromise or negotiated settlement where Russia would retain occupied territories.
Appeasement in this instance might have been Ukraine accepting Russias demands in order to avoid the invasion occurring.

Considering the conflict has already occurred, any compromise that involves Russia holding onto territories can't really be considered appeasement.

Yep, high oil and gas price in second half of 2022 will not apply in 2023, massive investments in military is also hidding it, and others factors like... the cheats on GDP deflator...
Sanctions are working and can even be improved, people should understand that their effect is slow but very "deep", along with the techological regression.
https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/automotive-sales-in-russia-by-month

see my bold, red, response.

however, if you want me to respond to your last comment, i will now:

"Considering the conflict has already occurred, any compromise that involves Russia holding onto territories can't really be considered appeasement. " <- why not ? that would be appeasement!

please bear in mind I am debating semantic's here.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 21 2023 07:02am